New Horizons

[Just_a_fan]

I personally like to exclude it because it tarnished his extraordinary record. He didn't have a winning car, and the only two times he ever had a shot at winning a race were China '12 and Monaco same year, one ended with a mechanical, and the other was hampered by a grid penalty sadly.

Should we exclude every driver's seasons with uncompetitive cars or where they had mechanical failures or other issues?

Strangely, all the greats get amazing figures if you do that.

[Shrieker]

Schumacher went, and essentially came back as someone else, and into a different era too. Peace.

[Just_a_fan]

Schumacher went, and essentially came back as someone else, and into a different era too. Peace.

Lauda left, returned and won the title again. Prost left and won the title on his return (albeit only 1 year away). So it's possible.

Schumacher chose to return and I doubt he thought he wouldn't have some success in doing so.

I don't see it as fair to exclude the Mercedes years from his career reckoning just because it drops his percentages. Those years would be counted if he had been successful, wouldn't they?

[NathanOlder]

Schumacher went, and essentially came back as someone else, and into a different era too. Peace.

Lauda left, returned and won the title again. Prost left and won the title on his return (albeit only 1 year away). So it's possible.

Schumacher chose to return and I doubt he thought he wouldn't have some success in doing so.

I don't see it as fair to exclude the Mercedes years from his career reckoning just because it drops his percentages. Those years would be counted if he had been successful, wouldn't they?

Yeah damn right they would. Every single race he entered is used to calculate his percentage. Otherwise I choose to just use Lewis' Hybrid era stats. That way he is way above everyone lol. Its called an F1 career, so you have to look at the whole of it, not pick and choose what you want. In 12 days time, its very likely that Lewis Hamilton will be statistically better than Michael Schumacher as the greatest of all time .

[Andres125sx]

Then you just compare percentages. For example, Hamilton and Schumacher are pretty tight together at the top; with %35 and 36 respectively (Schumacher pre-come back, as should be). Fangio had a crazy high win%, but as the sample size increases (number of races), his % would've gone down a lot as well.

Why do people excludes schumacher's comeback?

If he had won three more championships in that time would they be excluded too?

I personally like to exclude it because it tarnished his extraordinary record. He didn't have a winning car

Good example about how statistics can be manipulated at will

[Fulcrum]

I personally like to exclude it because it tarnished his extraordinary record. He didn't have a winning car, and the only two times he ever had a shot at winning a race were China '12 and Monaco same year, one ended with a mechanical, and the other was hampered by a grid penalty sadly.

Should we exclude every driver's seasons with uncompetitive cars or where they had mechanical failures or other issues?

Strangely, all the greats get amazing figures if you do that.

Yet Hamilton's figures wouldn't change that much, because every year he's been in a race winning car, as defined by the fact his teammate won (apart from 2009), so your point is moot.

[NathanOlder]

I personally like to exclude it because it tarnished his extraordinary record. He didn't have a winning car, and the only two times he ever had a shot at winning a race were China '12 and Monaco same year, one ended with a mechanical, and the other was hampered by a grid penalty sadly.

Should we exclude every driver's seasons with uncompetitive cars or where they had mechanical failures or other issues?

Strangely, all the greats get amazing figures if you do that.

Yet Hamilton's figures wouldn't change that much, because every year he's been in a race winning car, as defined by the fact his teammate won (apart from 2009), so your point is moot.

Well, Schumacher won races for 15yrs of his career. So he was in a race winning car for 15yrs. Lewis hasn't even been in F1 for 15yrs. So lets wait until the end of 2021 before we compare. That makes it fair surely ? I think by then Lewis will have 8 championships and over 100 wins, which would end the argument before it can begin.

Or how about we remove the 2 years that Michael was in a Mercedes that didnt win a race. We can also remove his Jordan race to the list or removed races as that wasn't a race winning car. His 1991 Benetton was a winner in the hands of Piquet so we cant remove them. So his total number of wins would be 91, and his total number of races would be down from 308 to 269. (19 races in 2010, 19 races in 2011 & 1 race in 1991)

So Michael would have a winning percentage of 33.8%
Lewis currently has more wins , in less races 93 in 263 race, so his winning percentage is 35.4%


Is that cleared up now ? Their winning stats in race winning cars is very close, but Lewis is still ahead. Lewis has 6 more races to then have the same amount of races as Michael, if he doesnt win any of them, his percentage will drop to 34.6% which is still higher than Michael.

Michael was driving a race winning car in 91-06 & 2012. (16.3 seasons with the small part of 91)
Lewis has been driving a race winning car 07-20 (13.8 seasons will be 14 seasons when this season finishes)

[Just_a_fan]

I personally like to exclude it because it tarnished his extraordinary record. He didn't have a winning car, and the only two times he ever had a shot at winning a race were China '12 and Monaco same year, one ended with a mechanical, and the other was hampered by a grid penalty sadly.

Should we exclude every driver's seasons with uncompetitive cars or where they had mechanical failures or other issues?

Strangely, all the greats get amazing figures if you do that.

Yet Hamilton's figures wouldn't change that much, because every year he's been in a race winning car, as defined by the fact his teammate won (apart from 2009), so your point is moot.

And Schumacher's Mercedes years were likewise in a winning car, at least for Rosberg in 2012.

The point is that every season raced should be counted because that's the driver's F1 career. You don't pick out the best years and discard the worst just to make the figures look good for your particular driver.

As it stands, Hamilton's figures are extremely good, being in the top handful in all of the big metrics - wins, poles, podiums, etc. so it doesn't matter if it's moot or not. The figures are there for all to see.

[tangodjango]

Schumacher went, and essentially came back as someone else, and into a different era too. Peace.

In your opinion . Peace.

[Fulcrum]

Should we exclude every driver's seasons with uncompetitive cars or where they had mechanical failures or other issues?

Strangely, all the greats get amazing figures if you do that.

Yet Hamilton's figures wouldn't change that much, because every year he's been in a race winning car, as defined by the fact his teammate won (apart from 2009), so your point is moot.

And Schumacher's Mercedes years were likewise in a winning car, at least for Rosberg in 2012.

The point is that every season raced should be counted because that's the driver's F1 career. You don't pick out the best years and discard the worst just to make the figures look good for your particular driver.

As it stands, Hamilton's figures are extremely good, being in the top handful in all of the big metrics - wins, poles, podiums, etc. so it doesn't matter if it's moot or not. The figures are there for all to see.

Two people have commented on my comment, and both missed the point.

Defining competitive by how often the car won races via both teammates, and Hamilton has clearly had the better machinery at his disposal over the balance of his career. As I originally stated, the only year where this has not been the case for Hamilton was in 2009.

I agree with your point on not excluding any years of competition, which further legitimizes my point.

Hamilton's metrics are stand-out, and he is the stand-out driver of his generation without question.

It can simultaneously be true that, of all drivers of his generation, he has had the highest performing car, on average, throughout the duration of his career. To me, this is undeniable. Does it undermine his achievements? No, but it does provide some degree of qualification.

[strad]

Good example about how statistics can be manipulated at will

Right on Andres. Amazing what people can get when they pick and choose.
Lies, Damn lies and Statistics.

[Big Tea]

Good example about how statistics can be manipulated at will

Right on Andres. Amazing what people can get when they pick and choose.
Lies, Damn lies and Statistics.

Just remember, half the population is below average intelligence though

[Just_a_fan]

Defining competitive by how often the car won races via both teammates, and Hamilton has clearly had the better machinery at his disposal over the balance of his career. As I originally stated, the only year where this has not been the case for Hamilton was in 2009.

Yes, he has, but he's also shared that machinery with top drawer drivers more often than not. That has to be accounted for in any reckoning. It's ok having decent machinery but if you have to fight your team mate in most races, your results are worth more than those of a driver who wasn't having to look across the garage when worrying about the opposition.

[TAG]

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.

In those eras other competitor's cars broke down with just as much frequency no? Or was it just Fangio's car that broke?

[TAG]

It can simultaneously be true that, of all drivers of his generation, he has had the highest performing car, on average, throughout the duration of his career. To me, this is undeniable. Does it undermine his achievements? No, but it does provide some degree of qualification.

It is also very quite possible that were it not Hamilton driver those very fast Mercedes cars, Ferrari would have won championships and Mercedes' tally might well be 5 and not 7 titles since joining the sport in 2010. Vettel was 2nd in the championship by a comfortable margin twice.