Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
Yet Rosberg dominated him in his later career. We can argue about age, but Schumi was out for only three years: 2007 to 2009. How much could he have really slowed in three years? He was the fittest driver on the grid by a far margin. Look at Kimi. He is over 40 and still has some amount of speed (or not lol)? How many tenths did Schumi lose?! And when we answer that, we cannot ignore that he was making all sorts of silly mistakes, crashing all over the place. Age surely has nothing to do with race craft? Or was it just because he was under the immense pressure from Rosberg he couldn't think straight? Heh... Only way to find out is wait till Hamilton reaches 40. Hamilton is 35 now, will be 37 when the new regulations come out; so three years into the new regulations we should be able to further assess how much age really slowed down Schumi and affected his judgement.
My opinion is that it wasn't just the age that hurt him it was more to do with the hiatus, a combination of these two factors in all likelihood.
Those constant mistakes he made tells me the concentration and focus just wasn't there.
For the first time in 20 years, he had a team mate who wasn't required to roll over for him. Schumacher had to race his team mate. And he wasn't able to do it. It's that simple.
Similarly, Rosberg beat Hamilton fair and square to win the title as he finally overcame Hamilton and if he would have continued beyond 2016, he would have beaten him in all the remaining years too. Hamilton got lucky that, Rosberg retired! We wouldn't be having this discussion if Rosberg would have continued. Period.
Similarly, Rosberg beat Hamilton fair and square to win the title as he finally overcame Hamilton and if he would have continued beyond 2016, he would have beaten him in all the remaining years too. Hamilton got lucky that, Rosberg retired! We wouldn't be having this discussion if Rosberg would have continued. Period.
Similarly, Rosberg beat Hamilton fair and square to win the title as he finally overcame Hamilton and if he would have continued beyond 2016, he would have beaten him in all the remaining years too. Hamilton got lucky that, Rosberg retired! We wouldn't be having this discussion if Rosberg would have continued. Period.
I gave it everything I had, I didn't leave a stone unturned, um and I'm not willing to do that again for next year.
Not willing to do that again, is not equal to I CAN'T DO IT AGAIN! What are you trying to prove? But you agree on Rosberg beating Hamilton fair and square and came out as a better driver in 2016.
The first rule on any forum should be to respect each others (differing opinions). The great thing about this ongoing discussion is that there is no right or wrong.
Every different era, different season, different car, different formula requires a different skill set.
It’s why Schumachers record stand as what they are, because he achieved them in his day and age. Same goes for Fangio, Senna. It’s daft to argue which records are better or more impressive, because they were all achieved under different circumstances that will never be comparable. Nor should they be.
So will Hamiltons. And as much as Hamilton may deserve them, it will always be a result of being in the right package, with the right team.
IMO, Hamilton is not one of the greatest because he has 6 titles and 88 wins. It’s because of the few, but stand out performances that he has portrayed on a regular basis across his career that has the mark of someone incredibly gifted. The qualifying and race performance of a Stiria, Singapore, or the grit to fight for a win and championship in i.e. Monza 2017. Add to that also the performance in less dominant cars or when being the underdog.
Similar to how Verstappen is already impressing now, as have Schumacher and Senna as well.
My 2 cents.
Not for nothing, Rosberg's Championship is the only thing that lends credibility to Hamilton's recent success. Otherwise, he'd just be the guy who's had the best car. — bhall II #Team44 supporter
The first rule on any forum should be to respect each others (differing opinions). The great thing about this ongoing discussion is that there is no right or wrong.
Every different era, different season, different car, different formula requires a different skill set.
It’s why Schumachers record stand as what they are, because he achieved them in his day and age. Same goes for Fangio, Senna. It’s daft to argue which records are better or more impressive, because they were all achieved under different circumstances that will never be comparable. Nor should they be.
So will Hamiltons. And as much as Hamilton may deserve them, it will always be a result of being in the right package, with the right team.
IMO, Hamilton is not one of the greatest because he has 6 titles and 88 wins. It’s because of the few, but stand out performances that he has portrayed on a regular basis across his career that has the mark of someone incredibly gifted. The qualifying and race performance of a Stiria, Singapore, or the grit to fight for a win and championship in i.e. Monza 2017. Add to that also the performance in less dominant cars or when being the underdog.
Similar to how Verstappen is already impressing now, as have Schumacher and Senna as well.
My 2 cents.
A fair post, both Schumacher and Hamilton have had plenty of wow moments to compliment their amazing win tallies.
Hamilton is well on course to break all the records, to have such a driver in by far the best car is it a surprise?
Was about to post the number 2 teammate contributions estimate before thread was closed. Oh well gotta start over.
So MSC had 86% share of the wins versus teammates in his first career. All number 2 teammates.
HAM has a 69% share of wins verus teammates. His are equal status teammates.
We now take away that equality and assign them as number 2's. Number 2 drivers are not allowed to finish in front of the number 1 under normal circumstances. This means we will adjust Hamilton's SHARE of wins upwards to 86% to match Michael's.
This results in (88 + 39) wins x 86% = 109 wins.
So Lewis would have 109! wins at this time.
When I adjust the races per season in Schumchers favour he would have 101wins in sixteen seasons thanks to more races.
And Hamilton would have 109 wins in thirteen and a half seasons! if he had number 2 teammates.
So when things are equalized the numbers are still in Hamilton's favour.
So yes. Hamilton is doing an exceptional job and no doubt by beating the 91 race wins it can be seen as at minimum an equal or greater achievement.
That's a simplification too far. The number 1 driver might inherit most wins from the number 2 driver... but only if they were about to finish 1-2.
So the #1 driver might inherit a lot of wins from #2 in an utterly dominant car and season.
But there will be very few "inheritable" wins if there are 4-5 cars in the mix for wins, where being 1-2 will be a rare occurrence. In those seasons, the #2 might cede the best strategy to #1, or might even assist in slowing down another driver with strategy, but only rarely can he cede a win to #1.
That's a simplification too far. The number 1 driver might inherit most wins from the number 2 driver... but only if they were about to finish 1-2.
So the #1 driver might inherit a lot of wins from #2 in an utterly dominant car and season.
But there will be very few "inheritable" wins if there are 4-5 cars in the mix for wins, where being 1-2 will be a rare occurrence. In those seasons, the #2 might cede the best strategy to #1, or might even assist in slowing down another driver with strategy, but only rarely can he cede a win to #1.
It also does not account for the No2 driver winning due to a DNF of the No1 driver. Had the No 1 driver not DNF would they have won instead.
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.
That's a simplification too far. The number 1 driver might inherit most wins from the number 2 driver... but only if they were about to finish 1-2.
So the #1 driver might inherit a lot of wins from #2 in an utterly dominant car and season.
But there will be very few "inheritable" wins if there are 4-5 cars in the mix for wins, where being 1-2 will be a rare occurrence. In those seasons, the #2 might cede the best strategy to #1, or might even assist in slowing down another driver with strategy, but only rarely can he cede a win to #1.
True but considering Shumacher's winning cars, most of time the gap was there to ensure a 1-2 with his #2.
That's a simplification too far. The number 1 driver might inherit most wins from the number 2 driver... but only if they were about to finish 1-2.
So the #1 driver might inherit a lot of wins from #2 in an utterly dominant car and season.
But there will be very few "inheritable" wins if there are 4-5 cars in the mix for wins, where being 1-2 will be a rare occurrence. In those seasons, the #2 might cede the best strategy to #1, or might even assist in slowing down another driver with strategy, but only rarely can he cede a win to #1.
It also does not account for the No2 driver winning due to a DNF of the No1 driver. Had the No 1 driver not DNF would they have won instead.
One fact about a dominant car is, if No.1 drops the ball, has a problem or has a DNF, the only other guy to take advantage and win, is his team mate! Which is why Hamilton's win percentage is smaller Vs Schumacher where it was not his team that ended up winning always as there was always a McLaren, a Williams or a Renault fighting for wins.
Was about to post the number 2 teammate contributions estimate before thread was closed. Oh well gotta start over.
So MSC had 86% share of the wins versus teammates in his first career. All number 2 teammates.
HAM has a 69% share of wins verus teammates. His are equal status teammates.
We now take away that equality and assign them as number 2's. Number 2 drivers are not allowed to finish in front of the number 1 under normal circumstances. This means we will adjust Hamilton's SHARE of wins upwards to 86% to match Michael's.
This results in (88 + 39) wins x 86% = 109 wins.
So Lewis would have 109! wins at this time.
When I adjust the races per season in Schumchers favour he would have 101wins in sixteen seasons thanks to more races.
And Hamilton would have 109 wins in thirteen and a half seasons! if he had number 2 teammates.
So when things are equalized the numbers are still in Hamilton's favour.
So yes. Hamilton is doing an exceptional job and no doubt by beating the 91 race wins it can be seen as at minimum an equal or greater achievement.
So, if Lewis was as good as Michael he would have already had 109 wins!?
Wow, that's incredible. Thank you for pointing that.
I feel this is becoming a pointless debate. People have shown they have opinions so far ingrained there's zero chance of any objectivity or resolution. When both careers are over, the record books will say what the record books will say, and people can carry on having the same argument into old age but it'll never be resolved. One side will cite numbers or ratios either way but the other will just find a reason to dismiss them all.
The thread has already been shut once this week. I say just let everyone just be free to express their own opinion without trying to trample all over it or 'disprove' it while ramming your own down everyone else's throat.
