New Horizons

[NathanOlder]

I totally agree with the differences between then and now, but to say its a safe sport is a bit much. Only 6yrs ago we lost Jules. Motorsport will never be safe.

[Phil]

Personally, I don't put much weight behind the number of wins or championship of a driver. In my personal humble opinion, Hamilton had already been the best driver of his era when he only had a single WDC to his name. This isn't based on numbers or anything, just watching his astonishing car control, natural talent and his race craft. This of course has improved greatly in his period at Mercedes. I also think what makes Hamilton this good, is because he has gone through having to beat very tough team-mates in a level playing field with no favoritism: Alonso, Button, Rosberg. Alonso for being the versatile and adaptable driver, Button for showing the importance of having a good team around you as well as being consistent and reliable, Rosberg for the incredibly tough and hard working, technically minded, data driven adversary he had been even after losing title after title but never giving up. He's gone through very difficult situations way before he arrived in F1 to the moments of losing a championship in the last race and nearly doing again the year after.

This made and shaped him to the driver he is today. As a Hamilton fan, I never thought he'd even come close to Michaels records, but I am glad that he is the one to beat them.

I really hope he remains in the sport for a little while, as I would love to see him drive against the younger generation in cars that are perhaps more even matched and allow for closer racing. From the next generation, I see both Verstappen and Leclerc as very worthy opponents and I would love to see how they match up in a closer fight.

We will see I guess.

[Just_a_fan]

I totally agree with the differences between then and now, but to say its a safe sport is a bit much. Only 6yrs ago we lost Jules. Motorsport will never be safe.

Compared to years gone by, it's about as safe as it can be. Jules wasn't killed in racing, of course.

[Shrieker]

Something else to take into account; everything in F1 improves over time. The teams, the cars, the budgets, the staff, the equipment, you name it. We have the fastest cars ever now. And as with everything else, the drivers are better too. I have serious doubts anyone from the 50s would be up to speed today in an arbitrary time frame, without having had the luxury of the preparation contemporary drivers have had coming up.

[NathanOlder]

Something else to take into account; everything in F1 improves over time. The teams, the cars, the budgets, the staff, the equipment, you name it. We have the fastest cars ever now. And as with everything else, the drivers are better too. I have serious doubts anyone from the 50s would be up to speed today in an arbitrary time frame, without having had the luxury of the preparation contemporary drivers have had coming up.

Yeah I have to agree. the current drivers as an example Lewis Hamilton, has had around 20yrs in aero formula cars to prepare. Could someone 35yrs old, come from a motorsport equal to speed of F1 in the 50's with no aero? Touring cars maybe?

[nevill3]

I believe the main quality that differentiates the truly great from the merely good is car control and natural talent. I have seen several drivers whose car control and feel are amazing to behold. Max has this natural ability as does Lewis and Fernando Alonso. I would also say Senna and the other greats that have been mentioned had it too. The instinctive responses to subtle changes and an overwhelming desire to win is shared by them all. Kimi should be added to this list as well as Schumacher obviously.

The number of wins and poles are a record for all to see but only the true fans really know who is the best at any one time, at the moment it is Lewis, we all know this and so many people keep affirming this by saying the new young guns are vying for his crown. Max will be remembered as a special talent, even the best of his era in the fullness of time, but each of the different eras has their champion and that is how it will always be. Michael Schumacher will always be remembered as the truly exceptional talent that he was and that is right. As will all the other former champions (except Vettel....only kidding )

[SiLo]

I prefer to use the wet as the great differentiator. It's hard to be fast in the wet every time, and not too many people have stood above the rest in such instances. Hamilton, Schumacher, Senna... who else was incredible in the wet?

I'd throw Max in there for talent, but he hasn't achieved anything yet so I won't include him.

[strad]

PlatinumZealot; I hope I misunderstand. To call guys like Fangio and others that were willing to drive in an era that was not safe stupid is so wrong.
You would have to include all who drove in the 70s 80s and even the 90s.
Are you saying that Stewart and Mansell or Rindt or Peterson et al were stupid?
How would you have the sport , if you call it sport, without all those that drove thru the years?
You have to realize they were brave not stupid. By the same logic you'd have to call Sir Edmund and all who climbed before they made improvements in mountain climbing stupid as well. Are the guys that free climb stupid? I used to free climb and came close to death more than a few times. Was I stupid? I don't think so.
When I drag raced a front engine dragster in the 60's was I stupid? Or just working with what was available at the time.
I have way too much respect for you to call your remarks..... Well lets just say from your history of intelligent posts I would hesitate to disparage you or your remark on this subject so it must suffice to say I think you were way off base calling the sports early hero's stupid.

[PlatinumZealot]

PlatinumZealot; I hope I misunderstand. To call guys like Fangio and others that were willing to drive in an era that was not safe stupid is so wrong.
You would have to include all who drove in the 70s 80s and even the 90s.
Are you saying that Stewart and Mansell or Rindt or Peterson et al were stupid?
How would you have the sport , if you call it sport, without all those that drove thru the years?
You have to realize they were brave not stupid. By the same logic you'd have to call Sir Edmund and all who climbed before they made improvements in mountain climbing stupid as well. Are the guys that free climb stupid? I used to free climb and came close to death more than a few times. Was I stupid? I don't think so.
When I drag raced a front engine dragster in the 60's was I stupid? Or just working with what was available at the time.
I have way too much respect for you to call your remarks..... Well lets just say from your history of intelligent posts I would hesitate to disparage you or your remark on this subject so it must suffice to say I think you were way off base calling the sports early hero's stupid.

With the knowledge I have of safety now I think the activity and wanton disregard for safety was ignorant. I do not have any stance on if the actual drivers were stupid. Maybe they were, maybe they were not. I do not know. I do not understand daredevils anyway. In the large scheme of things a cynic could say they are throwing their lives away. Died having fun? Died entertaining us all?. Died to become the greatest? Let's twist it around... Died serving his country? Died ensuring his children had food to eat? Different tone to the later two.

Did you know that daredevils and violent criminals have something in common? There is a certain part of the brain that is highly active in the majority of persons who do high risk activities. The difference is the violent criminal has no outlet for his desire for risky acts, so he takes up the gun and does crime for his thrills.

Why do thrill seekers decide to act on this desire for high risk acts? Just to feed their desire? Or something else?

They say it is not stupidity if the thrill seeker knows what he is up against and is prepared for the consequences doing it. Going by this reasoning, it could mean that all of today's drivers are prepared for serious injury or even death, in every race they visit. The chances are much smaller, but there is still a chance.

Because of knowledge of safety, if the risks are raised: remove safety barriers, remove the Hans device, remove crash structures, how many of today's driver's will still race? They have the knowledge of safety so I think most of them will refuse to race! If Fangio appeared would he still say yes, lets race!? haha. They might call him stupid, but it could simply be ignorance.

Something clicked in the mind of Sir Jackie Stewart and he decided to stop racing. His teammate died. Maybe Jackie realized he was not ready to die; he had other things he wanted to do in life.

I read that Fangio was a rich man with a big family in Argentina. I wonder if he was prepared to throw it all away. He used to pick the best cars, and he was highly skilled. Maybe that was his method of controlling safety. In that sense he was not stupid.

[strad]

As I said PZ, I respect your opinion and your right to it so I won't argue but I do disagree.
I don't think I'm some adrenalin junky or stupid but I do/did enjoy many pastimes that you would probably frown upon.
To slightly alter a quote from Sir Stirling Moss.... To live without danger is like cooking without salt.
Might be safe but very boring.
That's just me I guess but I don't think I'm alone. And I reassert that we would not have our nice safe F1 of today without those fools.
PAX

[Andres125sx]

IMHO all these records are completely meaningless. With 21 GPs a season obviously the dominant team and driver will achieve a lot more victories than dominating teams from 20 years ago when the season had 16GPs. With 30% more races per season it´s 30% easier to break the record

With previous eras difference is even bigger, for example Fangio titles were achieved with under 10GP per season

[El Scorchio]

IMHO all these records are completely meaningless. With 21 GPs a season obviously the dominant team and driver will achieve a lot more victories than dominating teams from 20 years ago when the season had 16GPs. With 30% more races per season it´s 30% easier to break the record

With previous eras difference is even bigger, for example Fangio titles were achieved with under 10GP per season

By that logic you can 100% kick out all Schumacher’s records as well then seen as they were the equivalent of this at the time. In fact you might as well kick out any and every records set since about the 60s or 70s.

You can kick out anything Vettel did in his Red Bull, you can take away a bunch of wins from every driver in the modern era.

[Zynerji]

IMHO all these records are completely meaningless. With 21 GPs a season obviously the dominant team and driver will achieve a lot more victories than dominating teams from 20 years ago when the season had 16GPs. With 30% more races per season it´s 30% easier to break the record

With previous eras difference is even bigger, for example Fangio titles were achieved with under 10GP per season

By that logic you can 100% kick out all Schumacher’s records as well then seen as they were the equivalent of this at the time. In fact you might as well kick out any and every records set since about the 60s or 70s.

You can kick out anything Vettel did in his Red Bull, you can take away a bunch of wins from every driver in the modern era.

I think you missed the point.

[Just_a_fan]

There is also the point that a season of 20-21 GPs requires twice the effort to do well in than a season of 10 GPs. In a season of 10 GPs, you can actually "get lucky" 2 or 3 times and win the season. In a season of 20 GPs, that's much rarer and you need to be performing at a high level for all of the races. And even then you might not succeed. 2016 - Hamilton won 10 races out of 21 and still came second in the title race to the guy that won 9 races - the guy that won it did actually have a little bit more luck. But no one wins multiple titles based on luck - they win them by turning in large numbers of race wins across a season.

Ultimately, it's the title that matters rather than numbers of race wins. The latter is of interest these days only because Schumacher set the bar so high. The title has twice been won with only a single victory in the season - Hawthorn in 58 and Rosberg in 82. But generally you need to win 1/3 - 1/2 of the races in order to have a chance at the title. And in a season that is 20 or 21 races long, that requires you to win 10 races a year. Ergo, you soon start racking up big numbers of wins in your stats if you're even moderately successful.

[Just_a_fan]

IMHO all these records are completely meaningless. With 21 GPs a season obviously the dominant team and driver will achieve a lot more victories than dominating teams from 20 years ago when the season had 16GPs. With 30% more races per season it´s 30% easier to break the record

With previous eras difference is even bigger, for example Fangio titles were achieved with under 10GP per season

Remember also that not all of the results counted. In Fangio's day, 1951 for example, there were 8 races (including the Indy 500) but only the driver's top 4 results counted for the title. Fangio won 3 races that year and one of those was shared with Fagioli (because you could swap cars back then until 1957).

In 1989, Prost won the title but on 11 of the 16 results counted in the title race.

This discounting of poor results was there to allow for reliability / luck. And it meant that you actually didn't need to win as many races in order to take the title. These days, every single result counts, every point counts. Ergo, the best way to win the title - ultimately, all that matters - is to win as many races as possible.