New Horizons

[Big Tea]

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.

Had Hamilton stayed at Mclaren and got on a Mercedes powered winning streak, lots of things could have been different. Would Schumacher and Rosberg have got the same results as Hamilton and Rosberg did?

If the Mclaren had been winning, Would Merc even have started their own team and got the staff they needed?
For instance Haug would want people at Mclaren.

[Jolle]

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.

Had Hamilton stayed at Mclaren and got on a Mercedes powered winning streak, lots of things could have been different. Would Schumacher and Rosberg have got the same results as Hamilton and Rosberg did?

If the Mclaren had been winning, Would Merc even have started their own team and got the staff they needed?
For instance Haug would want people at Mclaren.

Then you have to go back to why Daimler sold their McLaren stake... It gave us more then just this... it gave us a MP12C instead of the McLaren SLS. Daimler switched teams not because it was lacking results.

[strad]

I believe you know that reliability was touch and go across the board in the 50s.

[Just_a_fan]

I believe you know that reliability was touch and go across the board in the 50s.

But drivers could swap cars during the race. Fangio took a win because of this (and his team mate retired from racing in disgust at having been asked to get out of the surviving car).

Fangio also moved around to ensure he had the best car, including changing cars mid season from Maserati to Mercedes.

How do you factor that in to a comparison?

[strad]

Fangio took a win because of this (and his team mate retired from racing in disgust at having been asked to get out of the surviving car).

.
To whom do you refer?.. Certainly not Peter Collins or Luigi Musso.

[Just_a_fan]

Fangio took a win because of this (and his team mate retired from racing in disgust at having been asked to get out of the surviving car).

.
To whom do you refer?.. Certainly not Peter Collins or Luigi Musso.

Fagioli in 1951.

[strad]

Ah Yes... Had to go back and look at that.
Fagioli was 53 years old then and while still an able driver he is credited with only 1 win in his career that being the 1951 French GP where Fangio took over his car.
He was quite sick at the time and died a few months later.
I think all could understand his anger but such car swaps were common place (there were 4 driver swaps in this race) and while he may have felt he could have won that race, the Alfa team didn't.
As George Monkhouse said ""it had to be because the Alfa pit realized that Ascari would almost certainly take over Gonzalez's Ferrari when he stopped for fuel"". Which did happen for all the good it did him because by the time he got Froilan's car the brakes were shot.

[El Scorchio]

Ah Yes... Had to go back and look at that.
Fagioli was 53 years old then and while still an able driver he is credited with only 1 win in his career that being the 1951 French GP where Fangio took over his car.
He was quite sick at the time and died a few months later.
I think all could understand his anger but such car swaps were common place (there were 4 driver swaps in this race) and while he may have felt he could have won that race, the Alfa team didn't.
As George Monkhouse said ""it had to be because the Alfa pit realized that Ascari would almost certainly take over Gonzalez's Ferrari when he stopped for fuel"". Which did happen for all the good it did him because by the time he got Froilan's car the brakes were shot.

You've said it yourself- four driver swaps in one race- therefore the serious contenders such as Fangio had 'second lives' to record a win if their car broke down. So clearly that is a factor that has to be taken into account if looking at and comparing records across eras. Yes the modern drivers have some well discussed advantages or things in their favour that drivers of other eras don't, but then you must acknowledge things the other way round too. Clearly being able to jump into your team-mate's car after yours has broken down is something that added to Fangio's record, and is an advantage that no longer exists for the drivers of today.

[Jolle]

Ah Yes... Had to go back and look at that.
Fagioli was 53 years old then and while still an able driver he is credited with only 1 win in his career that being the 1951 French GP where Fangio took over his car.
He was quite sick at the time and died a few months later.
I think all could understand his anger but such car swaps were common place (there were 4 driver swaps in this race) and while he may have felt he could have won that race, the Alfa team didn't.
As George Monkhouse said ""it had to be because the Alfa pit realized that Ascari would almost certainly take over Gonzalez's Ferrari when he stopped for fuel"". Which did happen for all the good it did him because by the time he got Froilan's car the brakes were shot.

You've said it yourself- four driver swaps in one race- therefore the serious contenders such as Fangio had 'second lives' to record a win if their car broke down. So clearly that is a factor that has to be taken into account if looking at and comparing records across eras. Yes the modern drivers have some well discussed advantages or things in their favour that drivers of other eras don't, but then you must acknowledge things the other way round too. Clearly being able to jump into your team-mate's car after yours has broken down is something that added to Fangio's record, and is an advantage that no longer exists for the drivers of today.

Different times... you could also say, among Fangio’s competitors were guys in their fifties so sick they died not much later.

[Just_a_fan]

Ah Yes... Had to go back and look at that.
Fagioli was 53 years old then and while still an able driver he is credited with only 1 win in his career that being the 1951 French GP where Fangio took over his car.
He was quite sick at the time and died a few months later.

He died from injuries received in a crash at Monaco in '52 during practice for a sports car race.

Other than retiring in Monaco in '50, he finished 1st, 2nd or 3rd in every race in his brief GP career. (He entered 6 GP in '50 and 1 in '51 (which he won with Fangio) so not a long GP career).

[strad]

Health problems, including crippling rheumatism, soon began to severely affect Luigi Fagioli's racing ability. At the Coppa Acerbo he needed the aid of a cane just to walk and had no choice but to drop out of the race.

His only post war win from 1950 on was that half win in France.
He did quite well in the pre war era.
He evidently had quite the fiery temper even to the point of physically attacking Caracciola in Tripoli.
I reckon he would have done well in early NASCAR.
PAX

[Andres125sx]

Ah Yes... Had to go back and look at that.
Fagioli was 53 years old then and while still an able driver he is credited with only 1 win in his career that being the 1951 French GP where Fangio took over his car.
He was quite sick at the time and died a few months later.
I think all could understand his anger but such car swaps were common place (there were 4 driver swaps in this race) and while he may have felt he could have won that race, the Alfa team didn't.
As George Monkhouse said ""it had to be because the Alfa pit realized that Ascari would almost certainly take over Gonzalez's Ferrari when he stopped for fuel"". Which did happen for all the good it did him because by the time he got Froilan's car the brakes were shot.

You've said it yourself- four driver swaps in one race- therefore the serious contenders such as Fangio had 'second lives' to record a win if their car broke down. So clearly that is a factor that has to be taken into account if looking at and comparing records across eras. Yes the modern drivers have some well discussed advantages or things in their favour that drivers of other eras don't, but then you must acknowledge things the other way round too. Clearly being able to jump into your team-mate's car after yours has broken down is something that added to Fangio's record, and is an advantage that no longer exists for the drivers of today.

Wich shows how absurd is comparing drivers from different eras. To me the most different factor is risk, in that era deaths were sadly common, and you must add drivers were older and more mature, so the feel of risk should be higher (young people tend to be more brave/unconscious) even if the risk was the same, but the risk was much much higher, not even comparable, both because of cars and tracks and medical attention


It´s comparing apples to oranges

[El Scorchio]

Ah Yes... Had to go back and look at that.
Fagioli was 53 years old then and while still an able driver he is credited with only 1 win in his career that being the 1951 French GP where Fangio took over his car.
He was quite sick at the time and died a few months later.
I think all could understand his anger but such car swaps were common place (there were 4 driver swaps in this race) and while he may have felt he could have won that race, the Alfa team didn't.
As George Monkhouse said ""it had to be because the Alfa pit realized that Ascari would almost certainly take over Gonzalez's Ferrari when he stopped for fuel"". Which did happen for all the good it did him because by the time he got Froilan's car the brakes were shot.

You've said it yourself- four driver swaps in one race- therefore the serious contenders such as Fangio had 'second lives' to record a win if their car broke down. So clearly that is a factor that has to be taken into account if looking at and comparing records across eras. Yes the modern drivers have some well discussed advantages or things in their favour that drivers of other eras don't, but then you must acknowledge things the other way round too. Clearly being able to jump into your team-mate's car after yours has broken down is something that added to Fangio's record, and is an advantage that no longer exists for the drivers of today.

Wich shows how absurd is comparing drivers from different eras. To me the most different factor is risk, in that era deaths were sadly common, and you must add drivers were older and more mature, so the feel of risk should be higher (young people tend to be more brave/unconscious) even if the risk was the same, but the risk was much much higher, not even comparable, both because of cars and tracks and medical attention


It´s comparing apples to oranges

Yup- agree with that.
I think it's enough to be able to acknowledge Hamilton's extraordinary achievements on their own without seeking unfavourable comparison. Just as Fangio's at the time (and other driver's achievements) should stand on their own and be equally acknowledged as remarkable in their era. I don't think one or the other needs to be torn down or compromised for subjectivity. As shown you can go backward and forward ad infinitum with that.

No way will everyone ever agree definitively on 'the best ever', so pursuing the argument 'Hamilton vs ....' is largely fruitless. But we should all be able to admire and respect what he's done in terms of records and the incredible career he's having.

[Just_a_fan]

Comparing back to "the greats" is just a way to try to diminish the present. It's that simple. "He's not as good as X because X raced when things were different".

Any negative comparison between Hamilton and "the greats" from yesteryear must also apply to Schumacher. But somehow it doesn't. Surprise, surprise.

[El Scorchio]

Comparing back to "the greats" is just a way to try to diminish the present. It's that simple. "He's not as good as X because X raced when things were different".

Any negative comparison between Hamilton and "the greats" from yesteryear must also apply to Schumacher. But somehow it doesn't. Surprise, surprise.

My feelings exactly.