Will Schumacher's Race Win and WDC records be broken?

[Phil]

Can this analysis be done with Hamilton vs Rosberg and Hamilton Vs Bottas over a 4 year period?

Your wish is my command:

2013 Hamilton : 11 vs Rosberg : 8 (58% / 42%)
--- Total avg diff : -0.158
--- Total avg per km : -0.025

2014 Hamilton : 8 vs Rosberg : 10 (44% / 56%)
--- Total avg diff : -0.023
--- Total avg per km : -0.002

2015 Hamilton : 12 vs Rosberg : 6 (67% / 33%)
--- Total avg diff : -0.154
--- Total avg per km : -0.031

2016 Hamilton : 12 vs Rosberg : 7 (63% / 37%)
--- Total avg diff : -0.042
--- Total avg per km : -0.009

--------------------------------------------------------------------

2017 Hamilton : 13 vs Bottas : 6 (68% / 32%)
--- Total avg diff : -0.203
--- Total avg per km : -0.029

2018 Hamilton : 15 vs Bottas : 6 (71% / 29%)
--- Total avg diff : -0.172
--- Total avg per km : -0.032

2019 Hamilton : 14 vs Bottas : 7 (67% / 33%)
--- Total avg diff : -0.122
--- Total avg per km : -0.025

2020 Hamilton : 6 vs Bottas : 2 (75% / 25%) (so far)
--- Total avg diff : -0.302
--- Total avg per km : -0.062

As I said previously, numbers without context and cirumstance. Only comparable sessions to another, so if one driver failed to make it to q3, q2 was used etc. Numbers are what they are.

Interestingly, Bottas is not that bad at 0.030 in Hamiltons favor per km. Rosberg was definitely closer though in 2014 and 2016.

[El Scorchio]

Schumacher was very beatable in 2010-2012. Lewis hasn't been that bad at all. You have to count the whole career in F1, not just pick and choose. In my opinion, Lewis can't be the GOAT until he retires for good as a driver in F1. You have to be judged on his whole career. Schumacher damaged his greatness by coming back. It was his call, he was probably warned against it. Coming back usually damages your legacy.

Tbh, i don't really consider Michael's second career, maybe that's my bias kicking in, and yes, he was beatable. And yes, these goat debates are all relative because we all have different frameworks as what constitutes as the goat.

It's a stupid argument, the GOAT one. Schumacher, as any competitor before or after him, was as good as he needed to be. No point in comparing him to different drivers of different eras. Hamilton is as good as he needs to be in his generation.

I also think that perception is very flawed, because how good one is or is perceived, depends on his relative competition. Hamilton's achievements can only be weighed against his directest competitors. That being Alonso, Kovaleinen, Button, Rosberg and Bottas. While many might argue Bottas isn't the fiercest competitor, there's really no argument that Hamilton within his career as faced very tough competition inside his very own team in Button, Rosberg and Alonso and officially no number 1 contract or benefits.

Schumacher, as great as his records may be, well, I don't really think he had much competition inside his own team nor did he race for a team that regards equality within the team very high. In fact, Michaels period of dominance is very much the defacto benchmark of how a team could have been built around a driver and the trio of Brawn, Todt and Michael. Ferrari, unfortunately for every driver that has driven for them, has shown their willingness to sabotage the 2nd driver for their first far too many times.

Michaels "dominance" that you mention simply shows his performance in his vacuum that the team built for him. Sure, from the competitors that raced him during that time, he was by far the most consistent, in also the most stable environment. I think it's why many still regard the likes of Senna or others to be "greater", except for the numbers.

Then there is also the point that F1 drivers have become way more competitive in recent years than it ever has been. To be frank; when Michael came back after retirement, I don't believe for a second it was "age" playing its part. He was just racing cars of a different era (with different characteristics and very different tires) in a way more competitive field and no longer in a car and team (with unlimited testing) built around his sole needs. Times have changed. To be fair, I don't think he performed bad, certainly his race craft was a sight to behold (not being sarcastic), but him losing out to Rosberg isn't a detriment to his own ability but more complement to Rosbergs. Rosberg was fast.

He beat Hamilton multiple times in qualifying and across an entire season too in numbers (to some degree, Hamilton had a few issues with brakes etc), but to come close to someone who is widely regarded as one of the very best qualifiers is nothing short of astonishing IMO

I agree. It's all far too subjective. The numbers will all be in Hamilton's favour, but as demonstrated on this very thread, it'll never convince those who don't want to be convinced, and there are all sorts of caveats which rightly or wrongly will be thrown about for and against the case- also as demonstrated on this very thread.

Yes he's going to be the most successful driver of all time, and by a distance. Breaking records we all thought would be impossible. You can debate the specific circumastances of his, Schumacher's, Vettel's careers for example to argue for or against what the numbers translate to.

Personally although Schumacher and Hamilton are clearly the most successful drivers of all time by miles, I don't consider either of them the out and out greatest. That's Senna for me, and it's something numbers don't express. I'm sure people also feel similarly about Fangio and Clark, for example. Out of those two, I put Hamilton above Schumacher for various reasons but fully understand and accept other people would go the other way.

[Caesar.]

Schumacher was very beatable in 2010-2012. Lewis hasn't been that bad at all. You have to count the whole career in F1, not just pick and choose. In my opinion, Lewis can't be the GOAT until he retires for good as a driver in F1. You have to be judged on his whole career. Schumacher damaged his greatness by coming back. It was his call, he was probably warned against it. Coming back usually damages your legacy.

Tbh, i don't really consider Michael's second career, maybe that's my bias kicking in, and yes, he was beatable. And yes, these goat debates are all relative because we all have different frameworks as what constitutes as the goat.

It's a stupid argument, the GOAT one. Schumacher, as any competitor before or after him, was as good as he needed to be. No point in comparing him to different drivers of different eras. Hamilton is as good as he needs to be in his generation.

I also think that perception is very flawed, because how good one is or is perceived, depends on his relative competition. Hamilton's achievements can only be weighed against his directest competitors. That being Alonso, Kovaleinen, Button, Rosberg and Bottas. While many might argue Bottas isn't the fiercest competitor, there's really no argument that Hamilton within his career as faced very tough competition inside his very own team in Button, Rosberg and Alonso and officially no number 1 contract or benefits.

Schumacher, as great as his records may be, well, I don't really think he had much competition inside his own team nor did he race for a team that regards equality within the team very high. In fact, Michaels period of dominance is very much the defacto benchmark of how a team could have been built around a driver and the trio of Brawn, Todt and Michael. Ferrari, unfortunately for every driver that has driven for them, has shown their willingness to sabotage the 2nd driver for their first far too many times.

Michaels "dominance" that you mention simply shows his performance in his vacuum that the team built for him. Sure, from the competitors that raced him during that time, he was by far the most consistent, in also the most stable environment. I think it's why many still regard the likes of Senna or others to be "greater", except for the numbers.

Then there is also the point that F1 drivers have become way more competitive in recent years than it ever has been. To be frank; when Michael came back after retirement, I don't believe for a second it was "age" playing its part. He was just racing cars of a different era (with different characteristics and very different tires) in a way more competitive field and no longer in a car and team (with unlimited testing) built around his sole needs. Times have changed. To be fair, I don't think he performed bad, certainly his race craft was a sight to behold (not being sarcastic), but him losing out to Rosberg isn't a detriment to his own ability but more complement to Rosbergs. Rosberg was fast.

He beat Hamilton multiple times in qualifying and across an entire season too in numbers (to some degree, Hamilton had a few issues with brakes etc), but to come close to someone who is widely regarded as one of the very best qualifiers is nothing short of astonishing IMO

Stable environment is easy to say in hindsight. Ferrari hadn't ever been conquered the way Michael took over that team, and he made the move to Ferrari before Ross or Byrne did. In fact, for him to even build the team at Ferrari to that level of stability and smoothness should be a testament to his greatness, not something used against him.

[Moore77]

Look at the mistakes when under pressure.

There were some mistakes in that video, some even under pressure, but there were also a number of mechanical failures (the second crash in that video was a tyre failure, for example), as well as other people hitting him. So an interesting video but a poor example if it was supposed to show lots of pressure-related mistakes.

Not sure anyone has said that Hamilton hasn't had self-induced failures, be they pressure or stupidity, but I'm not aware of him ever deliberately hitting another car or parking his car to prevent others from qualifying. Schumacher, Rosberg and Vettel have all done some/all of those things, however.

Once again, popular opinions are not truth! If you personally WANT TO believe them, I have no problem and that is your choice, which you are entitled to.

[Caesar.]

Personally find it hard to place Senna at the top of the list. While for speed he is the number 1, I think out of all the GOATs, he was the worst in building a season campaign for himself, due to driving on the absolute limit, with every duel being a do or die battle. In contrast, Alain was consistently the best at this department, and was in the championship fight from essentially the start of his career, until his final race.

[Moore77]

Personally find it hard to place Senna at the top of the list. While for speed he is the number 1, I think out of all the GOATs, he was the worst in building a season campaign for himself, due to driving on the absolute limit, with every duel being a do or die battle. In contrast, Alain was consistently the best at this department, and was in the championship fight from essentially the start of his career, until his final race.

There are some brawny drivers, trying to drive the crap out of a car and that was what Senna was. Prost was more intelligent in keeping his machine going without having to explode it. No over the top emotions, just clinical in driving. At the end of the day, he had to cross the line and collect wins and points that gave him titles, whereas Senna screwed a few times with that brawny approach.

Schumacher was somewhere in between the two, while he was arguably faster than Senna. He was the guy who went to a crap of a team and revived it despite being having won back to back WDC, whereas almost every driver wanted to go for race winning cars and simply wanted to drive the best cars available. Senna was desperate to hop on to that all conquering Williams and didn't blink an eye to jump ship that gave him 3 titles. Just 2 bad years and he left. Hamilton wanted to go Red Bull, but couldn't and left McLaren after losing all hopes. Schumacher was the epitome and pioneer of fitness and team building in F1, which every other driver follows now. He brought a lot more as a driver, along with pure speed.

[Phil]

Stable environment is easy to say in hindsight. Ferrari hadn't ever been conquered the way Michael took over that team, and he made the move to Ferrari before Ross or Byrne did. In fact, for him to even build the team at Ferrari to that level of stability and smoothness should be a testament to his greatness, not something used against him.

Absolutely. If there was something I found amazing about Schumacher was that he was that technically minded to have that ability to build a team around him and also how he was involved in the entire testing process etc.

But what worked then, doesn't today. F1 has become too technical and data driven that you practically need super computers and simulators now days to compete on the highest level. The engineers have taken over and the drivers have been reduced to drivers - hence the skillset of Schumacher or that of Niki Lauda is no longer required or even beneficial.

About Senna; He was great no doubt, but I personally believe his legacy is to some degree exaggerated because he died so early. The longer you stay and compete, the more your skills are out there in the open to be scrutinized. It could well have been that had Senna gone on to live and race, that he'd still had fallen behind Michael and the new era of dominance that later came.

I'm also not convinced Senna would have excelled in F1 as it is today. The field is too competitive, the cars too consistent, the sport too data driven. Therefore, different eras for different skill sets. Looking at Russel - he could be the best driver outthere, but no one can see that because he is driving a Williams at the back and his qualifying dominance can only be weighed against the weakness and strengths of his team-mates.

[El Scorchio]

Personally find it hard to place Senna at the top of the list. While for speed he is the number 1, I think out of all the GOATs, he was the worst in building a season campaign for himself, due to driving on the absolute limit, with every duel being a do or die battle. In contrast, Alain was consistently the best at this department, and was in the championship fight from essentially the start of his career, until his final race.

I’ve inadvertently opened another can of worms.... I’ve got my feelings on Prost but let’s definitely not add Senna vs Prost to the mix here!

[Moore77]

Stable environment is easy to say in hindsight. Ferrari hadn't ever been conquered the way Michael took over that team, and he made the move to Ferrari before Ross or Byrne did. In fact, for him to even build the team at Ferrari to that level of stability and smoothness should be a testament to his greatness, not something used against him.

Absolutely. If there was something I found amazing about Schumacher was that he was that technically minded to have that ability to build a team around him and also how he was involved in the entire testing process etc.

But what worked then, doesn't today. F1 has become too technical and data driven that you practically need super computers and simulators now days to compete on the highest level. The engineers have taken over and the drivers have been reduced to drivers - hence the skillset of Schumacher or that of Niki Lauda is no longer required or even beneficial.

About Senna; He was great no doubt, but I personally believe his legacy is to some degree exaggerated because he died so early. The longer you stay and compete, the more your skills are out there in the open to be scrutinized. It could well have been that had Senna gone on to live and race, that he'd still had fallen behind Michael and the new era of dominance that later came.

I'm also not convinced Senna would have excelled in F1 as it is today. The field is too competitive, the cars too consistent, the sport too data driven. Therefore, different eras for different skill sets. Looking at Russel - he could be the best driver outthere, but no one can see that because he is driving a Williams at the back and his qualifying dominance can only be weighed against the weakness and strengths of his team-mates.

Well said Phil. The way the modern F1 has evolved, the extra dimensional skills of a driver have become redundant.

Even in his own time, Senna was made to look like a nobody when Williams brought that revolutionary machine in 1992. Mid to late 80s and early 90s was about more dominant cars that allowed drivers to make winning championships look so easier with such ease. Similar fate came to F1 in 2004 and then in 2011 and 2013. In between, there was good amount of racing between different drivers and cars. But since 2014, we are witnessing a never before seen dominance by, without a doubt, the best engineering team that is simply refusing to budge. The kind of team that has reduced the job of a driver to just being robotic. So I agree that some of those old school drivers couldn't have made a difference today on the grid.

[Caesar.]

Stable environment is easy to say in hindsight. Ferrari hadn't ever been conquered the way Michael took over that team, and he made the move to Ferrari before Ross or Byrne did. In fact, for him to even build the team at Ferrari to that level of stability and smoothness should be a testament to his greatness, not something used against him.

Absolutely. If there was something I found amazing about Schumacher was that he was that technically minded to have that ability to build a team around him and also how he was involved in the entire testing process etc.

But what worked then, doesn't today. F1 has become too technical and data driven that you practically need super computers and simulators now days to compete on the highest level. The engineers have taken over and the drivers have been reduced to drivers - hence the skillset of Schumacher or that of Niki Lauda is no longer required or even beneficial.

About Senna; He was great no doubt, but I personally believe his legacy is to some degree exaggerated because he died so early. The longer you stay and compete, the more your skills are out there in the open to be scrutinized. It could well have been that had Senna gone on to live and race, that he'd still had fallen behind Michael and the new era of dominance that later came.

I'm also not convinced Senna would have excelled in F1 as it is today. The field is too competitive, the cars too consistent, the sport too data driven. Therefore, different eras for different skill sets. Looking at Russel - he could be the best driver outthere, but no one can see that because he is driving a Williams at the back and his qualifying dominance can only be weighed against the weakness and strengths of his team-mates.

Agree with you on all fronts, with the exception of Senna's legacy. He truly was a marvel, and I feel his place in the top 5-10 is deservedly cemented. Senna was outstandingly quick. He was truly unbelievable in pace, but his flaws do remain obvious, and that's the beauty of it.

[Ringleheim]

...

Regarding the actual thread topic: Hamilton will catch--and pass--Schumi this year.

He will tie his 7 championships THIS YEAR and break that record next year, when he is champion in 2021.

After that it is more questionable how long he wants to keep going.

I think he'll be around for the first few years of the new reg cars, and would be the odds-on favorite to win those championships too!

[Just_a_fan]

but I'm not aware of him ever deliberately hitting another car or parking his car to prevent others from qualifying. Schumacher, Rosberg and Vettel have all done some/all of those things, however.

Once again, popular opinions are not truth! If you personally WANT TO believe them, I have no problem and that is your choice, which you are entitled to.

This isn't opinion - it's documented fact.

Schumacher parked his Ferrari at La Rascasse in order to prevent Alonso from taking pole. Schumacher was disqualified from the qualifying session and given a pit lane start.
Rosberg did likewise, again at Monaco, and prevent Hamilton from for pole.
Rosberg deliberately hit Hamilton's rear tyre at Spa causing a puncture. Heck, he even admitted it later on.
Vettel drove in to the side of Hamilton in Baku in a fit of pique.

That's before we get to driving in to the side of both Hill (successfully) and Villeneuve (unsuccessfully) in an attempt to win the title. Of course, the Hill incident was a result of Schumacher falling to the pressure of the situation and going off track to start with. Oh, and Rosberg using engine modes he wasn't supposed to to try to beat Hamilton (still lost but that's because cheating doesn't always win).

This is all known stuff, not "opinion".

[Ringleheim]

but I'm not aware of him ever deliberately hitting another car or parking his car to prevent others from qualifying. Schumacher, Rosberg and Vettel have all done some/all of those things, however.

Once again, popular opinions are not truth! If you personally WANT TO believe them, I have no problem and that is your choice, which you are entitled to.

This isn't opinion - it's documented fact.

Schumacher parked his Ferrari at La Rascasse in order to prevent Alonso from taking pole. Schumacher was disqualified from the qualifying session and given a pit lane start.
Rosberg did likewise, again at Monaco, and prevent Hamilton from for pole.
Rosberg deliberately hit Hamilton's rear tyre at Spa causing a puncture. Heck, he even admitted it later on.
Vettel drove in to the side of Hamilton in Baku in a fit of pique.

That's before we get to driving in to the side of both Hill (successfully) and Villeneuve (unsuccessfully) in an attempt to win the title. Of course, the Hill incident was a result of Schumacher falling to the pressure of the situation and going off track to start with. Oh, and Rosberg using engine modes he wasn't supposed to to try to beat Hamilton (still lost but that's because cheating doesn't always win).

This is all known stuff, not "opinion".
[/quote]

Holy ---, buddy. Let it go. This stuff happened a long time ago, and it's really not that important to the world at large!

Try to relax. You'll live longer.

[Just_a_fan]

Holy ---, buddy. Let it go. This stuff happened a long time ago, and it's really not that important to the world at large!

Try to relax. You'll live longer.

[Moore77]

This isn't opinion - it's documented fact.

Schumacher parked his Ferrari at La Rascasse in order to prevent Alonso from taking pole. Schumacher was disqualified from the qualifying session and given a pit lane start.
Rosberg did likewise, again at Monaco, and prevent Hamilton from for pole.
Rosberg deliberately hit Hamilton's rear tyre at Spa causing a puncture. Heck, he even admitted it later on.
Vettel drove in to the side of Hamilton in Baku in a fit of pique.

That's before we get to driving in to the side of both Hill (successfully) and Villeneuve (unsuccessfully) in an attempt to win the title. Of course, the Hill incident was a result of Schumacher falling to the pressure of the situation and going off track to start with. Oh, and Rosberg using engine modes he wasn't supposed to to try to beat Hamilton (still lost but that's because cheating doesn't always win).

This is all known stuff, not "opinion".

You are twisting so many things here.
Even though Ferrari and Schumacher maintained it was not purposeful, the stewards (obviously not everyone agrees with stewards' decision as I can post things where you would defend Hamilton from stewards' decisions like stewards' behavior with Vettel in Baku) decided to penalize him.
Rosberg at Monaco. Another twist. Neither did FIA Stewards found (I will take stewards side this time) anything, nor did Mercedes.
Rosberg deliberately hit hamilton is your version. Rosberg said, he deserved place as he was alongside and Hamilton did not gave space and hence, he touched. Rosberg said, he often used to back off from such move from Hamilton and that this time he didn't want to, rightfully so.

Known stuff, is not truth.

Niki lauda felt that, it was "stupid" move from Hamilton and blamed him for the collision in Spain 2016, but Stewards did not penalize him for ruining Rosberg's race. May be we can spin it as Hamilton "deliberately" crashed with Rosberg. Right? May be Hamilton is a better actor (close to Hollywood) than most other drivers to get away from deliberate things that he do by putting a good show?

We can go on and on for all the incidents that you would post. There will always be (a minimum of) two sides to story. You can choose one and I will choose another.