Vettel's 4 vs Hamilton's 6.

[Moore77]

That's fine you think Schumacher is the greatest. Why do you spend so much energy and effort discrediting Hamilton? Just an idle question. Seems pretty unhealthy to me.

Discrediting? I just state the facts the way I see it.

I think most of Brawns opinions on the 2 places them as equal. The way you talk about Hamilton would give the impression you rate Lewis as a 2nd tier driver. Using Ross as a measure on things, he recently said Lewis deserves all of his titles. But you would probably say he only really deserves 1 or 2. Your opinion is very different to what 99% of the F1 world see.

Why do you overplay the opinions in your favor? Start reading content online with patience that goes against your interest, it gives you another perspective. Right here on this forum, there is an overwhelming split who think Hamilton had to work hard only for 2 (or 3) titles and rest came easy with dominant machines and everyone agrees that, no driver in the history of the sport had such dominant machines for such a long duration of his career. If you want, go ahead and conduct a pole.

[tangodjango]

Jeez why so upset man I simply thought the fastest driver of history would have 'geniused' his way to atleast beating Rosberg (a lucky ordinary champion) at even 50, never mind 40. In any case it's a great pity Aldo Costa doesn't agree with you.

He defeated both Hamilton and grandpa Schumacher but he's lucky and ordinary...

Was sarcasm. Since according to a certain individual everyone except St. Michael is ordinary and average

[tangodjango]

So do you beleive is an F1 driver debuts at age 28 he will be any better than at 18 or 17?

History has shown this does not hold true.

When the driver is ready for F1, he is ready. Doesn't matter the age, we can compare the rookies just the same.

You completely misunderstood my point.

A driver who debuts at the age of 28 is far less likely to improve over the next 5 years than a driver who debuts at the age of 17. That does not mean he’s going to be a better driver, that has nothing to do with it.

I would even argue that the younger rookies have proven to be better than the older rookies.

That’s because drivers who debut tend to be more talented. Drivers who make their debut at the age of 25 are usually nothing special (Vandoorne, Liuzzi).

I’m not arguing about who is better or worse. I’m saying that younger drivers have a greater potential to improve.

At the age of 17, Hamilton finished third in Formula Renault 2.0
At the age of 22, he matched/beat Alonso in his rookie season

Do you think that Hamilton was the same driver he was at 17 and at 22?

And if your answer is no, what the hell makes you think that Verstappen did not grow as a driver and a man from the age of 17 to 22?

I think Verstappen's journey to F1 is quite extraordinary and he is definitely a phenomenal talent. However it was aided immensely by having a father who was an F1 driver, where he is different from the likes of Mick Schumacher and Kevin Magnussen is probably that he would have made it to F1 anyway, a lot like Rosberg. Now is his ultimate level same as that of Hamilton/Alonso ?Almost certainly it is but I dislike the views saying he is the greatest ever since he had a phenomenal carting record. That doesn't always translate to F1 level. Leclerc might have a worse carting record but might or might not even have a smidge more raw speed at the F1 level. What is without doubt is he is definitely among the great talents throughout history like Hamilton/Alonso. Just a very complete and spectacular driver. Infact the only two spectacular and thrilling drivers I have seen since Senna have been Hamilton and Verstappen, sometimes Hakkinen.

[Kingshark]

Formula 1 is full of positive feedback loops. The difference in prize money distribution is absolutely enormous. The best teams also attract the most sponsors. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The biggest teams attract the best engineers, they make the best cars, and continue to dominate the sport.

As it stands right now, the gulf in resources and manpower between Mercedes and Haas is so enormous that it’s completely impossible for Haas to compete with Mercedes regardless of any regulation change. Asking Haas to compete with Mercedes is like asking a group of broke undergraduate physics students to build a spaceship that can compete with NASA. It’s impossible.

What FIA have done for 2021 is not only a regulation change, they are aiming to kill those positive feedback loops. The budget cap immediately stops Mercedes from outspending midfield teams by $250m per year. Likewise, teams who finish lower in the WCC will receive more time to develop their car in the windtunnel.

I believe that these rule changes will be the end of domination spells from one team. Don’t get me wrong, some teams will still build better cars than others, but will one team win every title and 80% of the races over a 7 year period? No, I don’t think we will see that again. It’s not possible to achieve what Mercedes achieved from 2014-2021 without some enormous advantages over most of their competitors.

This is both good and bad news for Hamilton’s legacy. The good news is that his records will never be broken. The bad news is that younger fans who never saw him race will use the unprecedented Mercedes dominance to slander and diminish his accomplishments. The stars of the future (whoever they might be) will be seen as superior because they won on a level playing field.

[NathanOlder]

Discrediting? I just state the facts the way I see it.

I think most of Brawns opinions on the 2 places them as equal. The way you talk about Hamilton would give the impression you rate Lewis as a 2nd tier driver. Using Ross as a measure on things, he recently said Lewis deserves all of his titles. But you would probably say he only really deserves 1 or 2. Your opinion is very different to what 99% of the F1 world see.

Why do you overplay the opinions in your favor? Start reading content online with patience that goes against your interest, it gives you another perspective. Right here on this forum, there is an overwhelming split who think Hamilton had to work hard only for 2 (or 3) titles and rest came easy with dominant machines and everyone agrees that, no driver in the history of the sport had such dominant machines for such a long duration of his career. If you want, go ahead and conduct a pole.

When we look at Lewis 7 titles, I see 2015, 2019 and 2020 being a walk in the park. The other 4 took Lewis to be at his best to get it done. 2008 against a more than equal Ferrari. 2014 against Nico who had better reliability. 2017 and 2018 against Seb with a Ferrari that meant Lewis had to be on it (If Lewis made Sebs mistakes, and Seb drove his best, Seb would have won championships in the Ferrari) 2017 was definitely harder than 2018 so we'll just go for 1 year for arguments sake.

Now look at Michael,

94, Drove amazingly, shame he had to cheat at the end, plus the all the rumours on the car being illegal but we'll give Michael that one. 95 walk in the park.
2000 was harder than it should have been, but he had to drive well to bring it home. 2001, 2002 were easy peasy. 2003 was a great battle with Kimi and Juan. 2004 was a walk in the park.

So looking at that, Michael had to be on top form in 94, 2000 and 2003.
Lewis had to be on top form in 2008, 2014, 2017.

both drivers had to work Extra hard for 3 titles. The rest would be classed as fair simple and straightforward. So again the 2 drivers match up pretty well. As I've said multiple times, the only reason I place Lewis above Michael is because Lewis has done nothing dirty like Michael did. And Michael did it multiple times to prove it was no accident.

[NathanOlder]

I've just been looking at the points over these seasons (all 14 of their title wins)

A simple break down of the points numbers are as followed (the mid way point in the season is half the races, if there is an odd number of races it is the race that takes the season over the half way mark e.g Round 10 of a 19 round season)

Michaels 7 titles with the points to his closest rival. (Rubens doesnt feature because the seasons he was closer to Michael than anyone else he was moved out the way even before the half way point so he wasnt a rival as he wasnt allowed to beat Michael)

Year --- mid point ----- season end
94 -------- +27 ---------- +1
95 -------- +21 ---------- +33
00 -------- +12 ---------- +19
01 -------- +24 ---------- +58
02 -------- +46 ---------- +94
03 -------- +3 ---------- +2
04 -------- +36 ---------- +63


Lewis 7 titles with points to closest rival

08 -------- +0 ------------ +1
14 -------- -14 ---------- +42 (removed 25pts for silly double points)
15 -------- +21 ---------- +59
17 --------- -1 ----------- +46
18 -------- +17 ---------- +88
19 -------- +41 ---------- +87
20 -------- +55 ---------- +124


So on 3 occasions Lewis was not leading the championship at the mid way point.

Now we can look at percentages to give a better picture as the points systems were different for the 2 drivers.
First we can look at the points standings at the mid way and season end with the difference being shown as a percentage with 1 race win being 100%.

Michael

Year --- mid point ----- season end
94 -------- +270% ---------- +10%
95 -------- +210% ---------- +330%
00 -------- +120% ---------- +190%
01 -------- +240% ---------- +580%
02 -------- +460% ---------- +940%
03 -------- +30% ---------- +20%
04 -------- +360% ---------- +630%


Lewis

08 -------- +0% ------------ +4%
14 -------- -56% ---------- +168% (removed 25pts for silly double points)
15 -------- +84% ---------- +236%
17 --------- -4% ----------- +184%
18 -------- +68% ---------- +352%
19 -------- +164% ---------- +348%
20 -------- +220% ---------- +496%

So seeing this, only 2 occasions Lewis has been more than a race win ahead at the half way point, Michael has been more than a race win ahead on 6 occasions and only has it been less than 2 race wins on 2 occasions.

With these numbers , does it not look like Lewis has had to battle harder than Michael to win his 7 championships ?

Edit: just noticed it is the Ham Vettel thread, maybe it should be Ham Schumacher as there is a lot more to compare ?

[Moore77]

As I've said multiple times, the only reason I place Lewis above Michael is because Lewis has done nothing dirty like Michael did. And Michael did it multiple times to prove it was no accident.

I can go over distinguishing every season of Michael, but another time.
Like I always mention, the one important characteristic that puts Michael way on top of any driver, is his ability to build his own success, unlike Hamilton who just drove cars build by others who played critical role in putting that team together.

[NathanOlder]

As I've said multiple times, the only reason I place Lewis above Michael is because Lewis has done nothing dirty like Michael did. And Michael did it multiple times to prove it was no accident.

I can go over distinguishing every season of Michael, but another time.
Like I always mention, the one important characteristic that puts Michael way on top of any driver, is his ability to build his own success, unlike Hamilton who just drove cars build by others who played critical role in putting that team together.

But how can you say he built his success in a way no one else has ever done ? The way you speak of Michael would suggest that Michael was designing the car himself and hiring the staff. Jean Todt hired Michael, not the other way round.

[lh13]

As I've said multiple times, the only reason I place Lewis above Michael is because Lewis has done nothing dirty like Michael did. And Michael did it multiple times to prove it was no accident.

I can go over distinguishing every season of Michael, but another time.
Like I always mention, the one important characteristic that puts Michael way on top of any driver, is his ability to build his own success, unlike Hamilton who just drove cars build by others who played critical role in putting that team together.

But how can you say he built his success in a way no one else has ever done ? The way you speak of Michael would suggest that Michael was designing the car himself and hiring the staff. Jean Todt hired Michael, not the other way round.

Testing day in day out at Ferrari's private track, putting hours and hours of 'extra' work, helping the team in any way he could to achieve what they did, I think that's what Moore77 meant.

With today's technology, drivers don't have to do that much, which shows it was harder back then for the driver than it is now.

[NathanOlder]

I can go over distinguishing every season of Michael, but another time.
Like I always mention, the one important characteristic that puts Michael way on top of any driver, is his ability to build his own success, unlike Hamilton who just drove cars build by others who played critical role in putting that team together.

But how can you say he built his success in a way no one else has ever done ? The way you speak of Michael would suggest that Michael was designing the car himself and hiring the staff. Jean Todt hired Michael, not the other way round.

Testing day in day out at Ferrari's private track, putting hours and hours of 'extra' work, helping the team in any way he could to achieve what they did, I think that's what Moore77 meant.

With today's technology, drivers don't have to do that much, which shows it was harder back then for the driver than it is now.

So the same credit must go to the test drivers, I had a quick look and counted 15 different drivers drove in the Ferrari while Michael was at Ferrari. Also dont forget the biggest rise in form for the Scuderia came when Rubens joined the team.

[Just_a_fan]

I can go over distinguishing every season of Michael, but another time.
Like I always mention, the one important characteristic that puts Michael way on top of any driver, is his ability to build his own success, unlike Hamilton who just drove cars build by others who played critical role in putting that team together.

But how can you say he built his success in a way no one else has ever done ? The way you speak of Michael would suggest that Michael was designing the car himself and hiring the staff. Jean Todt hired Michael, not the other way round.

Testing day in day out at Ferrari's private track, putting hours and hours of 'extra' work, helping the team in any way he could to achieve what they did, I think that's what Moore77 meant.

With today's technology, drivers don't have to do that much, which shows it was harder back then for the driver than it is now.

The private test facilities, the bespoke tyres from Bridgestone (one of the reasons they did so much testing of course), etc., all played a part in their dominant period. They were able to do things that the others just couldn't.

Today, the teams have simulators instead and that testing advantage has gone. So the drivers drive the simulator instead.

The idea that less work is done by the likes of Hamilton is put in perspective by Shovlin:

Shovlin said that Hamilton’s work ethic is an underrated quality and that he has not stopped developing as a driver.

“I think a lot of perhaps his rivals like to think of him as just this person who is fast in the car, but doesn’t put the hours in,” said Shovlin. “He’s one of the hardest-working drivers we’ve ever known.

“The more he can understand about the tyres, about how the car works, about how to use all the available tools, he’s just able to take that and build it into his driving.

“And it’s this relentless way that he looks at every missed opportunity as something that needs fixing before the next race, he goes off and works with Bono [race engineer Peter Bonnington] and Marcus [Dudley, performance engineer], his engineering crew and with the wider team trying to understand any issues.

“It’s just the way he’s constantly building his skill set. And so long into a career, you kind of think drivers will sort of top out this skill set.

“But Lewis keeps finding new and different things to do and how to get the most out of it.”

Also, there are two similarities between Schumacher and Hamilton:

“Michael also had an ability to drive whatever balance was quickest, if it was an understeering car that he needed he’d do it. If he needed to move the work onto the front tyres, he could.

“So, he was very, very adaptable, in his driving style. And those are ostbensibly two characteristics that Lewis very much has.

“A lot of good drivers don’t have a particular style, it’s just whatever’s quick they’ll adapt to do it.”

Shovlin said that Schumacher and Hamilton also had immense mental capacity.

“Michael, it doesn’t matter how many things you told him to do on a lap,” said Shovlin.

“Whether it was moving the brake bias, where to look after tyres, what he needed to do to get them in the right window, he’d be able to sort of put them all together.

“And again, Lewis does it quite quietly often, but you can just keep layering one thing on top of another and he doesn’t forget it. He just does it. And then if you give him more things to do, he adds those on top.

“I think just in terms of the way they are in the car, they’re actually more similar than you might believe. It’s just that out of the car they are two quite different people

Shovlin, unlike anyone on this forum, has worked with both Schumacher and Hamilton. So he's possibly worth listening to.

As an aside, the comment about good drivers being adaptable is interesting in the current era. Max obviously has that ability. Charles has it. Seb appears to have lost some of it. Bottas, like Button, doesn't seem so adaptable. It's all fractions, of course, and they're all driving gods next to the rest of us, but fractions is what F1 works in.

[NathanOlder]

Nice Post

[Moore77]

As I've said multiple times, the only reason I place Lewis above Michael is because Lewis has done nothing dirty like Michael did. And Michael did it multiple times to prove it was no accident.

I can go over distinguishing every season of Michael, but another time.
Like I always mention, the one important characteristic that puts Michael way on top of any driver, is his ability to build his own success, unlike Hamilton who just drove cars build by others who played critical role in putting that team together.

But how can you say he built his success in a way no one else has ever done ? The way you speak of Michael would suggest that Michael was designing the car himself and hiring the staff. Jean Todt hired Michael, not the other way round.

When Todt was about to be fired at the end of 1996, Michael put his foot down to save him. He brought both Brawn and Byrne. I had posted those articles in the other thread about Hamilton beating Michael's records. So yes, that is why I think he architected his own success.

[PlatinumZealot]

So do you beleive is an F1 driver debuts at age 28 he will be any better than at 18 or 17?

History has shown this does not hold true.

When the driver is ready for F1, he is ready. Doesn't matter the age, we can compare the rookies just the same.

You completely misunderstood my point.

A driver who debuts at the age of 28 is far less likely to improve over the next 5 years than a driver who debuts at the age of 17. That does not mean he’s going to be a better driver, that has nothing to do with it.

I would even argue that the younger rookies have proven to be better than the older rookies.

That’s because drivers who debut tend to be more talented. Drivers who make their debut at the age of 25 are usually nothing special (Vandoorne, Liuzzi).

I’m not arguing about who is better or worse. I’m saying that younger drivers have a greater potential to improve.

At the age of 17, Hamilton finished third in Formula Renault 2.0
At the age of 22, he matched/beat Alonso in his rookie season

Do you think that Hamilton was the same driver he was at 17 and at 22?

And if your answer is no, what the hell makes you think that Verstappen did not grow as a driver and a man from the age of 17 to 22?

What does Hamilton being 17 has anything to do with it? We are talking about Formula 1. Not anything before it. Hamilton could have been home playing Nintendo or whatever and not ever turning a wheel of a car before. I compare drivers when they are in F1. All i see is experience in F1 nothing more.

Think of comparing a child prodigy who made it to University at 12 years old. Why would you compare him to another twelve year old in junior highschool? It's nonsense. On the other hand it makes sense to directly compate him to another university freshman. They both had the necessary qualifications and competency to be there, and going forward their development actually cannot be predicted. There is no guarantee the prodigy will be more successful than the student who entered at a normal age

[NathanOlder]

I can go over distinguishing every season of Michael, but another time.
Like I always mention, the one important characteristic that puts Michael way on top of any driver, is his ability to build his own success, unlike Hamilton who just drove cars build by others who played critical role in putting that team together.

But how can you say he built his success in a way no one else has ever done ? The way you speak of Michael would suggest that Michael was designing the car himself and hiring the staff. Jean Todt hired Michael, not the other way round.

When Todt was about to be fired at the end of 1996, Michael put his foot down to save him. He brought both Brawn and Byrne. I had posted those articles in the other thread about Hamilton beating Michael's records. So yes, that is why I think he architected his own success.

Again though, Schumacher didn't sign Brawn. Jean did. Ross says in his autobiography that he was nit happy at benetton as he was promised things from Flavio that never happened, then he met with Jean in Monaco and signed for Ferrari a few months later. Jean built the team, Michael was just a very important part.

How about the current situation at Mercedes. It seems Lewis will sign on now for 2 or 3yrs. Its widely believed that he was only going to stay if Toto stays. So does it mean Lewis built the team? Also Lewis was there before Toto, so maybe Lewis was the architect of all that? Or maybe he was just a very important part like Michael was?