Mercedes's performance consistency

[foxmulder_ms]

59 Wins, 112 Podiums, 69 Poles...wouldn't want him to be more consistent than that would we?

HAM's a tad behind in percentages compared to the other greats, so he has a point in terms of consistency.

Wins %:
Hamilton: 29.35
Schumacher: 29.55
Senna: 25.31
Prost: 25.25
Vettel: 24.08

Poles %:
Hamilton: 34.33
Senna: 40.12
Vettel: 25.00
Schumacher: 22.08
Prost: 16.34

Podiums %:
Hamilton: 55.72
Prost: 52.48
Schumacher: 50.32
Vettel: 50.00
Senna: 49.38

Races finished in points position %:
Hamilton: 82.09
Vettel: 80.21
Schumacher: 71.75

Pole and win in same race:
Hamilton: 38
Schumacher: 40
Vettel: 29
Senna: 29
Prost: 18

Pole, win and fastest lap:
Hamilton: 14
Schumacher: 22
Vettel: 8
Prost: 8
Senna: 7

Grand slam / grand chelem:
Hamilton: 5
Schumacher: 5
Vettel: 4
Senna: 4

Hamilton has also won at every circuit he's raced in F1 except Baku. He's the only driver in history to win at least one race in every season in F1 (so far, obviously).

So your point about him in comparison with the best was? By these figures he's the most consistent of the lot!

Nice post, burn!

=D>

[Restomaniac]

Just the thought of Schumacher, Prost, Lauda, Senna, Hamilton, etc on the same track at the same time makes me happy and sad at the same time.

So many egos and so much self-belief in one place. It would probably cause a black hole to form!

[Restomaniac]

Just to think, someone would have to lose!!!!

Indeed but the racing and the pre/post racing would be glorious.

They would need to be in a car that could overtake obviously.

[TAG]

-wall of stats-



So your point about him in comparison with the best was? By these figures he's the most consistent of the lot!

The point missed by many of the detractors is that he's achieved these stats despite not having a dedicated contracted number two driver, more like Prost and Senna than like Schumaker and Vettel.

[Shrieker]

59 Wins, 112 Podiums, 69 Poles...wouldn't want him to be more consistent than that would we?

HAM's a tad behind in percentages compared to the other greats, so he has a point in terms of consistency.

Wins %:

I was wrong to think that just going from poles. Having competed in more races per season than the older generations, I assumed he would be behind in other stats percentage wise as well. I was plain wrong. It's mind boggling to think that he's done better or very close to all the best. But of course stats tell half the story, and Hamilton did race in cars with vastly superior reliability compared to those of the older generations. I'd like to see a reliability adjusted % list. I bet it would favor Schumacher and Senna by a lot. Still, big honors for him being mentioned in the same breath.

One other thing is, Schumacher's return stint did pull down his ratios massively, as he didn't have a car remotely capable of scoring top 5 finishes regularly; let alone a podium or a win. His original winning ratio is above %36 which is astonishing. I think that would be a better representation of his abilities if we are to just go by the stats. He shouldn't have come back. And Senna's stats would likely have been higher too (considering he would've been in the best car by a mile for years) if he hadn't passed away. I think Hamilton would not be able to beat Senna and/or Schumacher over a season more than one out of three (all other things being equal). I may not have said this if I hadn't seen Schumacher race in '97-'98-'99. I didn't like him, but gotta admit he was spectacular; more so than any driver I've ever seen race.

[Vasconia]

Interesting take there. Tho I should admit failing to get into q3 in Monaco is a bit of a bigger problem than scoring a good grid position and then slightly underperforming in the race, because of the car or not. I would still like to say Lewis failed that quali. No shame in this, these are people after all. Even Schumacher had his mistakes (plenty in fact).

Hamilton even being stellar, has more bad days that drivers like Alonso, Schumacher or Prost who were pretty consistent. Not saying Lewis is not consistent but 2016 showed that he has certain "bad" weekends. Singapur is not his best track and if the Mercedes is clearly behind I don´t see him fighting for the victory. But Lewis is Lewis and I can not be sure of this statement at a 100%. If he is 100% focused everything can happen.

About the rain here.... every year is the same but according to what I know rain does not usually come at this time of the day/night.

59 Wins, 112 Podiums, 69 Poles...wouldn't want him to be more consistent than that would we?

Ahhh man , don´t overreact. I have only said that Lewis has certain bad weekends, slighly more than some hiper consistent drivers. I was NOT implying that he is not consistent, just that a few(very few) drivers are more consistent.

And I stop here because this is not a post about how consistent Hamilton is.

[NathanOlder]

Before jumping back on topic, can i just add those days of mega unreliability , Does that not work both ways? I mean your rivals are also unreliable so you can inherit more wins and podiums. Where as Lewis was up against a very reliable and very dominant Red Bull for 4 years!

Also it would seem in Lewis' Mclaren days he was more unlucky woth car issues than Jenson, and Nico had a more reliable Mercedes than Lewis for sure over 4 years.

Anyway Singapore.......

I think Saturday is so important, and i hope we see Ham Vet front row, and Both Red Bulls on the 2nd row. All seperated by 1 tenth.

[Pramesi]

Also it would seem in Lewis' Mclaren days he was more unlucky woth car issues than Jenson, and Nico had a more reliable Mercedes than Lewis for sure over 4 years.

Actually, when you compare the statistics of mechanical failure/interference:

2013: Lewis 0 vs Nico 3
2014: Lewis 2 vs Nico 3 (Abu Dhabi ERS failure)
2015: Lewis 1 vs Nico 2
2016: Lewis 1 vs Nico 0

It can be concluded that over the 4 years that they were together, Nico had a more unreliable car. In fact, the only time when Nico had a more reliable car was in his championship winning 2016 year.

I'm not trying to take any credit from either Lewis or Nico. If Nico hadn't had his ERS fail in Abu Dhabi, for example, Hamilton probably still would have won the WC.


As for Singapore, it's highly likely that the layout of the track will favour the SF70H over the W08, but you never know what might happen. Looking forward to the battles at the front of the field!

[NathanOlder]

Lewis had failures in qualifying that resulted in him starting from the back, but i guess you wont count that as its not the race.

And off the top off my head, the ERS failure didnt really cost him anything, he finished, and wasnt leading. Lewis in 2013 lost a win at silverstone because of a tyre blow out. Just a quick example of how you manipulated the stats

[Jolle]

Also it would seem in Lewis' Mclaren days he was more unlucky woth car issues than Jenson, and Nico had a more reliable Mercedes than Lewis for sure over 4 years.

Actually, when you compare the statistics of mechanical failure/interference:

2013: Lewis 0 vs Nico 3
2014: Lewis 2 vs Nico 3 (Abu Dhabi ERS failure)
2015: Lewis 1 vs Nico 2
2016: Lewis 1 vs Nico 0

It can be concluded that over the 4 years that they were together, Nico had a more unreliable car. In fact, the only time when Nico had a more reliable car was in his championship winning 2016 year.

I'm not trying to take any credit from either Lewis or Nico. If Nico hadn't had his ERS fail in Abu Dhabi, for example, Hamilton probably still would have won the WC.


As for Singapore, it's highly likely that the layout of the track will favour the SF70H over the W08, but you never know what might happen. Looking forward to the battles at the front of the field!

Not to ignite this whole "lewis vs nico" once again, but in races Lewis was pretty clean with breakdowns, but somehow he get's them on the worst moments or, like in 2014 and 2016, gets a lot of bad luck in QF (exploding brakes, fire, ERS failures, etc etc).

But, it's part of the game. This season as well, reliability might be more imporant then speed at the end. PU's are getting more milages and more likely to fail.... one flimsy loose connector somewhere might decide the WC

[Chene_Mostert]

59 Wins, 112 Podiums, 69 Poles...wouldn't want him to be more consistent than that would we?

HAM's a tad behind in percentages compared to the other greats, so he has a point in terms of consistency.

Wins %:
Hamilton: 29.35
Schumacher: 29.55
Senna: 25.31
Prost: 25.25
Vettel: 24.08

Poles %:
Hamilton: 34.33
Senna: 40.12
Vettel: 25.00
Schumacher: 22.08
Prost: 16.34

Podiums %:
Hamilton: 55.72
Prost: 52.48
Schumacher: 50.32
Vettel: 50.00
Senna: 49.38

Races finished in points position %:
Hamilton: 82.09
Vettel: 80.21
Schumacher: 71.75

Pole and win in same race:
Hamilton: 38
Schumacher: 40
Vettel: 29
Senna: 29
Prost: 18

Pole, win and fastest lap:
Hamilton: 14
Schumacher: 22
Vettel: 8
Prost: 8
Senna: 7

Grand slam / grand chelem:
Hamilton: 5
Schumacher: 5
Vettel: 4
Senna: 4

Hamilton has also won at every circuit he's raced in F1 except Baku. He's the only driver in history to win at least one race in every season in F1 (so far, obviously).

So your point about him in comparison with the best was? By these figures he's the most consistent of the lot!

This should put some of the flattering stats into perspective:

Merc gp win% : 42.3%. 2010 - 2017
Merc go hyb win% : 81.9% 2014 - 2017

Stay tuned for more:

[Pramesi]

Lewis had failures in qualifying that resulted in him starting from the back, but i guess you wont count that as its not the race

And off the top off my head, the ERS failure didnt really cost him anything, he finished, and wasnt leading. Lewis in 2013 lost a win at silverstone because of a tyre blow out. Just a quick example of how you manipulated the stats

It would be great if you can present to us all of these mechanical failures, and also the mechanical failures Nico may have experienced before or during qualifying as well so we can compare the numbers.

I did say that the ERS failure didn't cost Nico anything as Lewis would have won the WC anyway since he was so far in the lead, if you missed that. Even if you count the tyre blowout, it still would be Lewis 5 - Nico 8 mechanical failures in races.

Regardless, according to F1Fanatic (http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2017/01/02/h ... our-years/), Lewis had only twice been impeded by mechanical failure in qualifying, so that still brings the number to Lewis 7 - Nico 8, counting the tyre blowout as well.

And I haven't even counted the number of times Nico was impeded by mechanical failure during qualy.

[Chene_Mostert]

HAM's a tad behind in percentages compared to the other greats, so he has a point in terms of consistency.

Wins %:
Hamilton: 29.35
Schumacher: 29.55
Senna: 25.31
Prost: 25.25
Vettel: 24.08

Poles %:
Hamilton: 34.33
Senna: 40.12
Vettel: 25.00
Schumacher: 22.08
Prost: 16.34

Podiums %:
Hamilton: 55.72
Prost: 52.48
Schumacher: 50.32
Vettel: 50.00
Senna: 49.38

Races finished in points position %:
Hamilton: 82.09
Vettel: 80.21
Schumacher: 71.75

Pole and win in same race:
Hamilton: 38
Schumacher: 40
Vettel: 29
Senna: 29
Prost: 18

Pole, win and fastest lap:
Hamilton: 14
Schumacher: 22
Vettel: 8
Prost: 8
Senna: 7

Grand slam / grand chelem:
Hamilton: 5
Schumacher: 5
Vettel: 4
Senna: 4

Hamilton has also won at every circuit he's raced in F1 except Baku. He's the only driver in history to win at least one race in every season in F1 (so far, obviously).

So your point about him in comparison with the best was? By these figures he's the most consistent of the lot!

- Grabbed a race victory in every season he has been in F1 thus far.
- Grabbed pole position in every season he has been in F1 thus far.

That suggests he has only driven cars capable of achieving pole and victory in every season. Did his teammates do the same during those seasons?

[Chene_Mostert]

-wall of stats-


So your point about him in comparison with the best was? By these figures he's the most consistent of the lot!

The point missed by many of the detractors is that he's achieved these stats despite not having a dedicated contracted number two driver, more like Prost and Senna than like Schumaker and Vettel.

Actually he does, but Nico would have none of it, hence the "friction".

[Steven]

So, this was split off from the Singapore GP thread.
Behave, or else see this topic locked!