New Horizons

[PlatinumZealot]

It is done.



A new era now begins.

The last frontier awaits.

It has been an epic fourteen year journey in F1, and can you imagine it does not stop here! I remember watching a video of Michael's 91 wins but I never, ever, in my wildest dreams saw Lewis reaching and passing that number.

Whatever Lewis' final number is, only God himself knows.

[Just_a_fan]

You'd have to expect it to be 100+, How far over 100 is going to be down to how long he carries on and how competitive the car is. Given a competitive - even if not title-winning - car, he'll take wins even if not titles. If the W12 and W13 are as good as the W11, then you'd have to think he'll get to 110 wins at least. With well over 100 poles too, of course, perhaps 120?

[NathanOlder]

100 poles should happen this season, other than podiums and points, no one has reached 100 of anything I dont think. so 100 poles is a remarkable feat!

[Just_a_fan]

100 poles should happen this season, other than podiums and points, no one has reached 100 of anything I dont think. so 100 poles is a remarkable feat!

It is a remarkable feat because it requires high level performance for a long period.

Here's a thought, however. There are two drivers with better win percentages, and four drivers with better pole percentages even than Hamilton, with Fangio topping both lists.

Just imagine if Hamilton had match Fangio's percentages (or if Fangio was driving today in place of Lewis). He'd be on 146 poles and 121 wins already!

If you take out Schumacher's Mercedes years with Rosberg, his figures improve massively giving him a slightly better win percentage than Hamilton (36.4% v 35.1%). His poles percentage improves to 27.2% from 22%, but that's still way behind Hamilton's 37%.

You can't compare between eras, of course, but Schumacher and Hamilton overlapped so I think they're fair game. And they're very close currently.

Other than that, Hamilton's performance can't be compared with Senna's or Clark's or Fangio's because the sport was so different in each of those eras. Heck, Fangio swapped teams and cars as often as most people swap clothes, in order to have the best car each year. But people still moan about Hamilton's figures being solely down to the car.

[Big Tea]

100 poles should happen this season, other than podiums and points, no one has reached 100 of anything I dont think. so 100 poles is a remarkable feat!

It is a remarkable feat because it requires high level performance for a long period.

Here's a thought, however. There are two drivers with better win percentages, and four drivers with better pole percentages even than Hamilton, with Fangio topping both lists.

Just imagine if Hamilton had match Fangio's percentages (or if Fangio was driving today in place of Lewis). He'd be on 146 poles and 121 wins already!

If you take out Schumacher's Mercedes years with Rosberg, his figures improve massively giving him a slightly better win percentage than Hamilton (36.4% v 35.1%). His poles percentage improves to 27.2% from 22%, but that's still way behind Hamilton's 37%.

You can't compare between eras, of course, but Schumacher and Hamilton overlapped so I think they're fair game. And they're very close currently.

Other than that, Hamilton's performance can't be compared with Senna's or Clark's or Fangio's because the sport was so different in each of those eras. Heck, Fangio swapped teams and cars as often as most people swap clothes, in order to have the best car each year. But people still moan about Hamilton's figures being solely down to the car.

It is not fair to compare the two as things were so different. For instance, giving up your car for the team boss, or waiting at the last corner to finish in order.

The rules are so different today and aimed at equalising without the team trying their best to be fair. How many of Bottas or Rosbergs wins would have gone to Hamilton back in Fangio's day?

[jjn9128]

It is not fair to compare the two as things were so different. For instance, giving up your car for the team boss, or waiting at the last corner to finish in order.

The rules are so different today and aimed at equalising without the team trying their best to be fair. How many of Bottas or Rosbergs wins would have gone to Hamilton back in Fangio's day?

Cars also used to retire with actual mechanical failures rather than be retired to get a free gearbox change. Seasons used to be 15/16 races long. There used to be competition for wins. Schumacher raced in an era of one shot/aggregate qualifying and qualifying on race fuel. Senna/Prost raced in an era of dropped points - Prost would have been at least a 5x champ if not for that. It's impossible to compare though.

Hamilton's is certainly a feat, but how much of a feat really is up to how one feels about modern F1. As far as I'm concerned since 2017 it's been a forgone conclusion that he'd break these records. For me Prost is the best because of who he won/lost his titles against - Senna/Lauda/Mansell/Piquet would all be in my top 10 drivers of all time (Piquet on the fence) plus Rosberg/Watson/Jones/Villeneuve, whereas Hamilton had a toothless Schumacher, Vettel who's run hot and cold, Massa/Rosberg/Button, Raikkonen who like Vettel is a bit hot/cold.

[PlatinumZealot]

What Hamilton has and this is a big one. In his rookie season, he had beaten the driver who beat a near prime Schumacher.

His contemporaries were just as good as Prost:


Michael Schumacher 7 X WDC
Sebastian Vettel 4x WDC
Fernando Alonso 2 X WDC
Kimi Raikkonen 1 X WDC
Jenson Button 1 x WDC
Nico Rosberg 1 x WDC
Felipe Massa
Rubens Barichello
Mark Webber
Max Verstappen
Charles LeClerc

Just as loaded as Prost.

Ayrton Senna
was not a WDC before Prost faced him - but for being the next big thing in the same team Leiws' Alonso

Niki Lauda
was old and on his way out - analogous to Michael schumacher

keke Rosberg -
Compares to his son Nico

Nelson Piquet
Oncd considered the greatest driver in his time. Multiple world championships... This is Vettel.

Prost also faced the young pretenders..
Michael schumacher
- max Verstappen

Damon Hill
- Valtteri Bottas...

And the list goes on!

Hamilton's field was just as deep as Prosts.

[mertol]

But these other champions weren't in a car that was frozen at the top by rules. The rules were changed specifically to end Schumacher's streak.

[Jolle]

But these other champions weren't in a car that was frozen at the top by rules. The rules were changed specifically to end Schumacher's streak.

You could also say, all these champions (Lauda, Piquet, Senna, Hamilton and Prost) won at very formulas (NA, groundeffect, turbo’s, refuelling, etc etc). Schumacher only managed one (refuelling with short bursts of balls to the wall racing).

[jjn9128]

What Hamilton has and this is a big one. In his rookie season, he had beaten the driver who beat a near prime Schumacher.

One could easily counter that with 1) he didn't beat Alonso but matched him on wins and points (still impressive but didn't beat him), 2) he started his career in the fastest car on the grid which is a luxury very few drivers get, 3) he'd done tens of thousands of miles of testing the year before so knew the car characteristics well, and 4) after "spygate" and it was clear Alonso was out the door so McLaren weren't fully behind Alonso.

Don't get me wrong its impressive he's beating these records but it really needs to be seen in the context of what it is - bulletproof reliability, over-filled calendars, unprecedented team dominance, and no real competition within the team since Rosberg retired.

All I said was for me Prost and Senna had greater competition and adversity (mechanical failures and dropped points etc).

[NathanOlder]

One interesting stat I would love to know is how many wins each (Lewis and Michael) inherited through team mates moving over and unreliability to drivers in front of them. Probably take too long to answer though.

If drivers drove in more unreliable era's, it does mean they can lose wins ect, but also means they can luck in to wins also. Driving in a reliable era like now means the guy in front or right behind you doesn't break down often so you have to make the most of the reliability.

[PlatinumZealot]

What Hamilton has and this is a big one. In his rookie season, he had beaten the driver who beat a near prime Schumacher.

One could easily counter that with 1) he didn't beat Alonso but matched him on wins and points (still impressive but didn't beat him), 2) he started his career in the fastest car on the grid which is a luxury very few drivers get, 3) he'd done tens of thousands of miles of testing the year before so knew the car characteristics well, and 4) after "spygate" and it was clear Alonso was out the door so McLaren weren't fully behind Alonso.

Don't get me wrong its impressive he's beating these records but it really needs to be seen in the context of what it is - bulletproof reliability, over-filled calendars, unprecedented team dominance, and no real competition within the team since Rosberg retired.

All I said was for me Prost and Senna had greater competition and adversity (mechanical failures and dropped points etc).

The tens of thousands of testing miles is a myth and a red herring. Hamilton did three tests in the 2006 McLaren, the only relevant car to the 2007 one.. and it even rained in one of the tests. That should in no way make a rookie as good as 2XWDC don't you think?

[strad]

for me Prost and Senna had greater competition and adversity (mechanical failures and dropped points etc).

Plus 1 PZ. People seem to forget the disparity of number of races and the supreme dependability of modern F1 cars.
Think what Fangio's numbers would be if he had 16 or 18 races a year instead of 8 and if his Maserati never burned up it's valves. Something the Masers were prone to do.
These things are never a fair comparison.
Lewis has done great but in part because of the number of races and his cars dependability.

[NathanOlder]

@jjn9128 and strad. You are quite correct that Lewis has had more races in a season, so then we can look at winning percentages as that evens it out. And in percentages Lewis is ahead of Schumacher, Clark, Senna, Prost, Stewart, Lauda. Only Ascari and Fangio are ahead of Hamilton. Ascari only entered 33 races! Fangio was only 52 races. As for the reliability remarks, that works both ways. Yes Fangio may have broke down more as a percentage compared to Lewis, but so did Fangios rivals, meaning Fangio may have inherited wins more as a percentage than Lewis.

[Just_a_fan]

for me Prost and Senna had greater competition and adversity (mechanical failures and dropped points etc).

Plus 1 PZ. People seem to forget the disparity of number of races and the supreme dependability of modern F1 cars.
Think what Fangio's numbers would be if he had 16 or 18 races a year instead of 8 and if his Maserati never burned up it's valves. Something the Masers were prone to do.
These things are never a fair comparison.
Lewis has done great but in part because of the number of races and his cars dependability.

Which is why one can not compare between eras. Fangio's time was different to Clark's, was different to Stewart's, was different to Lauda's, was different to Senna's/Prost's, was different to Schumacher's.