What if Schuemacher hadn't called it a day in 2006

[marmer]

What what the grid look like today.

To start it off Massa would still have been his teammate for 2007.
Alonso was already moving to McLaren before Michael spoke on retiring. So Kimi was also staying at this point but could potentially move to Renault. If he had stayed at McLaren for 2007 he wouldn't have got his title but also as a huge side effect would have delayed Hamilton into f1.
What are people's opinions on what would have happened if he had stayed another year. And won kimis title in 2007 and went out on a win and never came back.

[Jolle]

What what the grid look like today.

To start it off Massa would still have been his teammate for 2007.
Alonso was already moving to McLaren before Michael spoke on retiring. So Kimi was also staying at this point but could potentially move to Renault. If he had stayed at McLaren for 2007 he wouldn't have got his title but also as a huge side effect would have delayed Hamilton into f1.
What are people's opinions on what would have happened if he had stayed another year. And won kimis title in 2007 and went out on a win and never came back.

Well, what I understood that the whole move wasn't instigated by Schumacher calling it a day, but the move from Raikkonen to Ferrari, with Schumacher more or less being forced out. So we still would of had Hamilton/Alonso at McLaren and Schumacher/Raikkonen at Ferrari. There would be a good chance that either Alonso or Hamilton would have been WC with Raikkonen and Schumacher taking points away more from each other then Massa/Raikkonen.

[Manoah2u]

What what the grid look like today.

To start it off Massa would still have been his teammate for 2007.
Alonso was already moving to McLaren before Michael spoke on retiring. So Kimi was also staying at this point but could potentially move to Renault. If he had stayed at McLaren for 2007 he wouldn't have got his title but also as a huge side effect would have delayed Hamilton into f1.
What are people's opinions on what would have happened if he had stayed another year. And won kimis title in 2007 and went out on a win and never came back.

Massa would not have been kept at Ferrari, and replaced by Kimi Raikkonen.
Schumacher left, and because of that, Massa could stay as they couldnt find nor neccesarily need a replacement.

So we would have seen Schumacher - Raikkonen, and there is a strong possibility that Raikkonen still would have managed to bring in the 2007 championship despite Schumacher being there and possibly whom we would have expected it from before. It would start rolling a dice which would claim Schumacher has been bested and passed his his shelf-life.

2008 would have been perhaps even more interesting. I think Schumacher was even in 'aged' version still miles ahead of Massa, so the showdown would have been between Schumacher and Hamilton. Would be interesting to see the same end to the season. It would make Hamilton somewhat the 'new Hakkinen' even though Kimi kinda was just that already.

Would Schumacher have stopped grabbing another title? He might, but then again, why would he have spend another bunch of years to achieve that whilst he already had so much under his belt.

The man, at that point in his life, grew more or less tired of winning and F1.
Schumacher stopped because he had enough of it, and by stopping, new opportunities opened up.

And from there on, it becomes even more interesting.

You could argue that had Schumacher not retired in 2006, (2007), he would likely not have done the MotoGP test, in which he had the accident that broke his neck and damaged an artery which then left him with motoric damage albeit 'minor' and controllable and non-life threatening.

Had he not stopped, he would have continued being simply that same legend, unaltered, only logically demotivated.
Which in itself undoubtedly would have had effects in his results, which then would again drive him to retire. it keeps going round and round.

What we probably would have seen is Schumacher going to Mercedes anyway in 2010, having fully served and naturally ending his Ferrari career. He would have still been less motivated, but without that moto accident in full capacity and thus in better shape. Nevertheless, you could argue he would have ended his f1 career no later than 2013 anyway.

But, the big problem here is, that none of all that fit. Schumacher ending his f1 career in 2006 was the logical and only thing to do. And doing that, brought him lots of openings to try stuff he likes and dreamed of before. Quads, motorbikes, superbikes, skiiing, etc etc.

The sad part is that stopping then lead to him going for that ski trip that day on that location which then saw him get the accident he ended up in. It's a paradox.

In the end though, the way i feel about it all is the following.

I don't think there has been or will there ever be an F1 driver as gifted, as special, and spectacular as Ayrton Senna. I also don't think there has been an F1 driver that has achieved so much, invested so much, focused so much, and so driven as Schumacher has and his legendary records speak for themselves.

But, though we saw Senna in constant competition with other absolutely amazing superdrivers, Schumacher had the television more to himself so to speak, but he never ever let down and we were able to see someone absolutely special do something remarkable.

Senna was and always had been capable of making tears flow, and his memory still does that.
Schumacher has not have that effect, but instead makes place for overwhelming amazement.

But Schumacher was no fool, and made careful decisions, so his decision to stop back then, was the right thing to do.

[f1316]

Given the gap to Massa throughout 2006 - which was something akin to half a second in fuel-corrected quali (and, contrary to some popular opinion, they were not ‘on terms’ by the end - watch the penultimate race in Japan, where Massa got pole, and see how much more fuel Schumi had on board) - and then the relative equality of Massa and Kimi the next year, there’s no doubt in my mind that Michael would have picked up another title in 2007, had he stayed.

Kimi was great on the Michelins, no doubt, but as we’ve seen ever since, far less able to adapt than other top drivers; Michael, on the other hand, was the expert on the Bridgestone (to which all teams had to move in 2007) and would have had a large advantage, coupled with his internal relationship to the team that would also have worked in his favour.

There’s a race in 2006 (I think Italy but don’t quote me) in which Martin Brundle posits over commentary that Schumi should stay for one more year, during which he could do a kind of ‘farewell tour’ and where his expertise on the Bridgestones would have seen him show Kimi the way home. I think that’s very much what would have happened and it would have been a fitting end to his career (as above, I agree he wouldn’t have come back in 2010 if he had gone out in this way).

As it was, I believe Luca di Montezemelo forced his hand - an ungrateful move in my opinion, given everything Schumacher had done and the legacy had built at Ferrari - so I don’t believe the power was completely in Schumacher’s hands.

Still, I actually watched his final victory at China 2006 the other day - a race where Renault threw it away for Alonso but where Michael had absolutely no business being there to pick up the pieces (given the Bridgestone inters) - and I know that he was still operating at an incredibly high level when he retired.

[mertol]

Would have easily won another 2 titles with that Ferrari. It was by far the best car.

[Vasconia]

Would have easily won another 2 titles with that Ferrari. It was by far the best car.

By the end of 2006 it was the fastest car with hot temperatures, that´s all. With rain or cool temperatures the Renault was still superior, if you don´t belive me check out China 2006 and see how Schumacher won that race.

Anyway, I agree that he could have won in 2007 and 2008 because in 2008 Lewis still made many mistakes and in 2007 it was a civil war in McLaren. But at the same time I ask myself that if with Schumi in the field things would have been different. Perhaps McLaren would have choosen Alonso as the undisputed number 1. Who knows.

[Manoah2u]

Well, what might have had more influence in the above situations is how it affected Hamilton 'the driver'.

Massa lost the WDC because Lewis passed a driver in the last corner. I'm confident Schumacher would have had a bigger advantage and thus a bigger points lead. That means that even though Lewis probably has been similarly in competition for the WDC with both Kimi and Michael, that last lap pass would have meant nothing for the end result and he would have not been WDC in 2008. Schumacher would have.

Lewis thus wouldn't have been the 2008 champ, and not have that label on him, which would ever so slightly weaken his position.
I expect Schumacher to have pulled out of F1 for 2009 which might have seen Alonso move towards Ferrari a year early.
Mclaren was much weaker after 2009 and RedBull and BrawnGP were the teams to beat.
Hamilton would have been seen as an agressive rookie taking risks instead of the Champ in a difficult situation (as his regular clashes with Massa resulted in).
Massa's helmet incident would not have happened in 2009 but perhaps would have happened to Alonso or another driver, or not at all and no helmet changes would have happened, perhaps not even a discussion for the Halo, as cockpit protection discussion really happened because of Massa's incident. Which could thus mean we wouldn't have had the Halo even.

Now a question of even bigger interest would be whether Mercedes would have entered F1 in 2010 or not. Schumacher surely would not have made a return on Brawn's advice and possibly lingering desire for another stint. That means Schumacher's influence would not have taken part in the Mercedes team. Who they then would have hired remains a question perhaps Barrichello would have stayed, but the bigger question would be if Mercedes actually went for it as there is a very, very good chance that they only went for the project because of the combination of Brawn and Schumacher.

Would Hamilton have stayed with Mclaren after 2012? He went to Mercedes in 2013 because Schumacher left and Niki Lauda convinced him to join. If the Mercedes team never came about, then there would have not been one to go to in 2013. Would Schumacher never taken a 2010-2013 F1 stint, then somebody else would have filled his seat (bottas?) and would there then be space or need for Hamilton in 2013?

If Mercedes never happened in 2010 as a works team that took over Brawn, then the Mclaren-Mercedes engine deal probably would have still stayed, and we wouldn't have had a dominant AMG Mercedes in 2014, but a dominant Mclaren-Mercedes with Hamilton in 2014 (IF Hammy stayed), right up untill now with Button on his side and we would have seen the title fight between Lewis and Jenson instead of Hamilton-Rosberg.

Also, what would have happened to the Brawn team in 2010? What team would it have become? which drivers?
And i think it's also fair to say Mclaren-Honda would not have happened in that case, and thus no failing Honda engine there, neither would there have been an Mclaren-Alonso combo.
Alonso instead might have terminated his F1 career already, or Returned to Enstone in the form of Lotus instead of Kimi.
Also, Vandoorne probably would have stepped in a competitive Mclaren replacing Button.

[marmer]

Well, what might have had more influence in the above situations is how it affected Hamilton 'the driver'.

Massa lost the WDC because Lewis passed a driver in the last corner. I'm confident Schumacher would have had a bigger advantage and thus a bigger points lead. That means that even though Lewis probably has been similarly in competition for the WDC with both Kimi and Michael, that last lap pass would have meant nothing for the end result and he would have not been WDC in 2008. Schumacher would have.

Lewis thus wouldn't have been the 2008 champ, and not have that label on him, which would ever so slightly weaken his position.
I expect Schumacher to have pulled out of F1 for 2009 which might have seen Alonso move towards Ferrari a year early.
Mclaren was much weaker after 2009 and RedBull and BrawnGP were the teams to beat.
Hamilton would have been seen as an agressive rookie taking risks instead of the Champ in a difficult situation (as his regular clashes with Massa resulted in).
Massa's helmet incident would not have happened in 2009 but perhaps would have happened to Alonso or another driver, or not at all and no helmet changes would have happened, perhaps not even a discussion for the Halo, as cockpit protection discussion really happened because of Massa's incident. Which could thus mean we wouldn't have had the Halo even.

Now a question of even bigger interest would be whether Mercedes would have entered F1 in 2010 or not. Schumacher surely would not have made a return on Brawn's advice and possibly lingering desire for another stint. That means Schumacher's influence would not have taken part in the Mercedes team. Who they then would have hired remains a question perhaps Barrichello would have stayed, but the bigger question would be if Mercedes actually went for it as there is a very, very good chance that they only went for the project because of the combination of Brawn and Schumacher.

Would Hamilton have stayed with Mclaren after 2012? He went to Mercedes in 2013 because Schumacher left and Niki Lauda convinced him to join. If the Mercedes team never came about, then there would have not been one to go to in 2013. Would Schumacher never taken a 2010-2013 F1 stint, then somebody else would have filled his seat (bottas?) and would there then be space or need for Hamilton in 2013?

If Mercedes never happened in 2010 as a works team that took over Brawn, then the Mclaren-Mercedes engine deal probably would have still stayed, and we wouldn't have had a dominant AMG Mercedes in 2014, but a dominant Mclaren-Mercedes with Hamilton in 2014 (IF Hammy stayed), right up untill now with Button on his side and we would have seen the title fight between Lewis and Jenson instead of Hamilton-Rosberg.

Also, what would have happened to the Brawn team in 2010? What team would it have become? which drivers?
And i think it's also fair to say Mclaren-Honda would not have happened in that case, and thus no failing Honda engine there, neither would there have been an Mclaren-Alonso combo.
Alonso instead might have terminated his F1 career already, or Returned to Enstone in the form of Lotus instead of Kimi.
Also, Vandoorne probably would have stepped in a competitive Mclaren replacing Button.

Perhaps vettel would have been the Merc driver moving after 2009 so missing out on his 4 titles and getting them now at Mercedes like Hamilton is now

[bill shoe]

Schumacher (and everyone else at that time) was overestimating Raikkonen's raw pace. Schumacher could have definitely bested him over a season. This superior performance is what generally creates "favored status" within a team, not a team arbitrarily deciding to favor x over y.

[GPR-A duplicate2]

But, though we saw Senna in constant competition with other absolutely amazing superdrivers,

Who did he really beat? The championships that he won, were won in the most dominant cars. His team mates were behind by a country mile in qualifying.
Read this on qualifying comparison. viewtopic.php?f=15&t=25511&p=727654#p727654

He was fast, no denying, but there was no challenge from his team mate. His team mate was just waiting for Senna to make mistake and take advantage. His team mate won in 1989, only because Senna had too many Retirements. Not because there was some kind of genuine fight on track. While it was glorified as a "Battle", that never existed between Senna and Prost, purely based on competitiveness (which did existed for all the wrong reasons). The previous champions were all ALSO RANS in those 4 years while McLaren dominated. Once Williams created a dominant machine, the ALSO RANS became the talk of the town and Senna became an ALSO RAN. What superstars are you talking about?

In 1987, Williams had a dominant car and no one could hold a candle to Nigell. Same was repeated in 1992 and 1993. Even Jenson Button, who was a nobody, became a star in 2009. It shows that, when you are better than your team mate and possess class of the field car, you can be a champion! If Brawn GP would have somehow continued and managed to create same level of dominance for a few more years, Button would have been a LEGEND.

It is not that I don't like Senna, but I just think too much is made of him purely based on emotions. His untimely death, also played its part in making him what he is today.

I like Michael for 96, 97, 98, 99, 2001 more than for 2002, 2003 or 2004. Unlike Senna, Michael did not chase Championship winning cars to win Championships (nothing wrong in that). He took risk, invested peak part of his career to then reap what he sowed. I don't see people giving enough credit for that mammoth effort and make cheap shots of associating him with dominant cars, as if somehow those cars fell from the sky.

I believe, purely based on competitive performances, Hamilton's canvas looks much brighter than those two. Though Rosberg was better than any driver that paired with Senna or Schumacher, he was made to look extremely competitive by the stupid rules of engagement from Mercedes, which neither Senna nor Schumacher have to adhere to. Without those rules, he would have destroyed Rosberg. Austria 2016 is the biggest evidence of my claim. Rosberg's title win in 2016 was so reminiscent of Prost's win in 1989. Winning only because the team mate suffered more misfortune.

Hamilton raced against Fernando, Kimi (at his peak), Button, Vettel and Rosberg (with above caveat) and have put some excellent performances without necessarily having the best equipment.

My personal parameter to like a driver, is the skill to drive in wet and incredibly, Senna, Schumacher and Hamilton all excel in that!

I never dare to talk about any driver who raced before 70s (even in early 70s) as that was not JUST RACING!

Well, nothing to really add to the thread topic!!!

[Manoah2u]

By that margin, who did Lewis beat? Remember Senna arguably beat Prost driving a Mclaren whilst himself in a Toleman in Monaco. The race was prematurely ended only because he would have had him, and imho, i read that as Senna actually winning in the Toleman. That's just to name one. Senna beat other drivers in superior material whilst himself driving lesser material. It's not like all the Lotuses he drove were god-given supermachines, nor were the Mclarens. Take the Williams for that matter too. Senna being vastly better than his teammates doesn't mean his teammates were useless. It only showed just how astonishingly fast Senna really was.
Was there no challenge from a teammate? Well that makes things a bit harder to judge. If Schumacher was a Lamborghini, and a teammate was a volkswagen beetle, then by that margin no, the Volkswagen beetle imposed no challenge to the Lamborghini.
But the fact is, both drove the same superfast material (or not so superfast) but Senna completely destroyed his competition bar a few. Like Prost for example. Like Schumacher for example.

Interesting to use Button as an example. Fact is, Button did became champion and Barrichello did NOT. Also, then Button went to Mclaren which was called career suicide from the haters, but he held a candle against Lewis and actually beated him in the WDC's more than once. He actually was runner up for the WDC when Vettel clinged another one in the super-dominant RedBull.

[marmer]

Barrichello a very overrated driver. Spent years behind Michael not doing much in great Ferraris
Then spent a season getting soundly beaten by button when he had a fair chance as they didn't have a number 1 at the start of the year. I know that changed towards the end of the season but button was miles better and they needed to protect his position as they were struggling by the end. Nobody says button was as good as Michael but he put Barrichello in his pocket all the same only doing better than button in 5 races in 09 and never winning a race with anyone other than a championship winning car

[GPR-A duplicate2]

By that margin, who did Lewis beat? Remember Senna arguably beat Prost driving a Mclaren whilst himself in a Toleman in Monaco. The race was prematurely ended only because he would have had him, and imho, i read that as Senna actually winning in the Toleman. That's just to name one. Senna beat other drivers in superior material whilst himself driving lesser material. It's not like all the Lotuses he drove were god-given supermachines, nor were the Mclarens. Take the Williams for that matter too.

The cars with which he won, definitely were capable cars, otherwise, it would be impossible to win a GP. No one can drive a Sauber of 2017 and beat the Mercedes W08, not even Senna. Up until early 90s, it was not unusual to see a mid-field car win a race. Except for 1987-1993. That was a period where one car simply dominated the season. in 1985, Senna's team mate Ellio de Angelis got one pole and a win. So, that Lotus-Renault was definitely a car that could have won races on it's day.

Senna being vastly better than his teammates doesn't mean his teammates were useless. It only showed just how astonishingly fast Senna really was.

No one can drive a car faster than it can go. That is just science. If we imagine Senna drove to 99% potential of the car, then Prost was driving only 80-85% close to the potential of the car (refer to the link on qualifying analysis). That definitely makes Prost, if not useless, then far inferior.

Interesting to use Button as an example. Fact is, Button did became champion and Barrichello did NOT. Also, then Button went to Mclaren which was called career suicide from the haters, but he held a candle against Lewis and actually beated him in the WDC's more than once. He actually was runner up for the WDC when Vettel clinged another one in the super-dominant RedBull.

Button managed to beat Hamilton in a year, where Hamilton was absolutely pathetic by his own standards. Even then, in 2011, Hamilton had more retirements than Button. THAT WAS THE ONLY YEAR where Button was ahead of Hamilton. Following year, Hamilton had 5 retirements to Button's two, but still ended the year ahead. If not for those retirements and team's faults, Hamilton would have been a champion in 2012. So, Button being ahead of Hamilton in 2011 was more like Rosberg in 2016.

[FrukostScones]

Schueymacher?