New Horizons

[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.

I think you missed the point.

Don’t think so. He’s saying more opportunity to win races devalues those wins and therefore any records associated with them.

If that’s the case then that has to apply throughout history too. Schumacher at the time had unprecedented car superiority and reliability and many more races than his record setting predecessors- added to the other advantageous factors that have been discussed ad infinitum. Therefore his numbers are not as valid as those of the drivers before him in cars which were not so dominant and didn’t have as many opportunities to win. It follows that it was far easier for Schumacher to break Prost’s record than for Prost to set it. It was far easier for Prost to break Stewart’s record than for Stewart to set it and so on.

It’s just another case, as I said earlier in this thread, of people wanting to add caveats to only Hamilton’s record to downplay the or cheapen the numbers. Of course he’s had a helping hand with having great equipment or good circimstances. That applies to every driver on the top ten wins list.

[Shrieker]

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

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.

[Shrieker]

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

I think this sounds very skewed. It sounds as if the rules were changed midway through the season, and the title was handed to someone else rather than the deserving driver. Reality is, everyone knew the rules before the start of the season and raced accordingly. Best man won.

[Just_a_fan]

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

I think this sounds very skewed. It sounds as if the rules were changed midway through the season, and the title was handed to someone else rather than the deserving driver. Reality is, everyone knew the rules before the start of the season and raced accordingly. Best man won.

It doesn't sound like the rules were changed at all. It was a statement of fact that the rules were that only 11 results counted out of the total of 16 races. It was an example of how rules were different "back in the day". There was absolutely no suggestion that Prost didn't deserve to win. No idea how you managed to come to that conclusion.

Historically, the title was based on fewer than all of the races such as my example of 1989, and my other example of Fangio in the 1950s. If you could discount several results each year, then you didn't need to win as many races each year in order to win the title.

[Shrieker]

Sorry, I thought you meant 1988. Prost certainly didn't fully deserve in '89. He had a lot of help from his countryman Balestre.

[NathanOlder]

Another thing to take in to account, 1951, Fangio's first championship. There were 8 races, 1 of which was the Indy 500 which none of the front runners even entered so it was actually a 7 race championship in reality. In those 7 races, how many other drivers apart from Fangio actually took part in those 7 races ....... 6 drivers! That was it.

Ascari, Farina, Villoresi, Rosier, Chiron, Claes.

Ascari and Farina obviously were very successful , but the other 4 never won a race in their F1 careers.

After this, 1 driver took part in 6 races (Gonzalez)


There may have been far fewer races back in the 50's, but there was also far less competition.

[Shrieker]

Another thing to take in to account, 1951, Fangio's first championship. There were 8 races, 1 of which was the Indy 500 which none of the front runners even entered so it was actually a 7 race championship in reality. In those 7 races, how many other drivers apart from Fangio actually took part in those 7 races ....... 6 drivers! That was it.

Ascari, Farina, Villoresi, Rosier, Chiron, Claes.

Ascari and Farina obviously were very successful , but the other 4 never won a race in their F1 careers.

After this, 1 driver took part in 6 races (Gonzalez)


There may have been far fewer races back in the 50's, but there was also far less competition.

Haven't you heard the news ? Hamilton only has to beat 2 other drivers

[NathanOlder]

Another thing to take in to account, 1951, Fangio's first championship. There were 8 races, 1 of which was the Indy 500 which none of the front runners even entered so it was actually a 7 race championship in reality. In those 7 races, how many other drivers apart from Fangio actually took part in those 7 races ....... 6 drivers! That was it.

Ascari, Farina, Villoresi, Rosier, Chiron, Claes.

Ascari and Farina obviously were very successful , but the other 4 never won a race in their F1 careers.

After this, 1 driver took part in 6 races (Gonzalez)


There may have been far fewer races back in the 50's, but there was also far less competition.

Haven't you heard the news ? Hamilton only has to beat 2 other drivers

Was only a quote from a 20yr old kid

edit. Interestingly, the 2 drivers that Lewis has to beat, have won the same amount of races at this stage of thier career as those 6 drivers that Fangio had to beat in their entire careers.

[strad]

Some interesting points guys.

[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

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.

Exactly, that´s the reason I started my post with IMHO all these records, because I was refering to all of them


And I didn´t even mention FIA influence in these records... Anyone can explain the reason some inventions wich cause huge dominance are instantly banned while others are allowed for several seasons so some teams and drivers are allowed to win several consecutive seasons while others are not?

[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.

Exactly, that´s the reason I started my post with IMHO all these records, because I was refering to all of them


And I didn´t even mention FIA influence in these records... Anyone can explain the reason some inventions wich cause huge dominance are instantly banned while others are allowed for several seasons so some teams and drivers are allowed to win several consecutive seasons while others are not?

Ah ok, if that’s what you meant. It seems like you were indicating it was only Hamilton’s records that were meaningless given you were only comparing them directly to the Schumacher era and therefore his benchmark.

I don’t want to take this thread off topic and go into car development but I think they’ve TRIED to stop Mercedes, however they just keep adapting to any new regs or rule changes better than anyone else.

[Andres125sx]

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.

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.

Agree, but there´s a lot more. Even in the 90s only 6 cars collected points, now they´re 10. But then first collected 10 points while second only 6. Today second gets 72% of the leader points for a 60% back then so being consistent without winning has had differnt rewards during the decades.

Same for winning, from 9 points at the beginning with Fangio to 25 points today, any point comparing total points of different drivers? That´s really my point. I´m not trying to devaluate records,all of them are records so they all did a superb job. I´m only trying to point that in F1 breaking records does not imply they´re the very best ever as the bar has been changing a lot during the decades, from race count to how many points the winner get or how many drivers score points, everything has changed so you can´t compare Fangio numbers with Schumacher or this one with Hamilton. Different eras, different rules, different bar, can´t be compared

[PlatinumZealot]

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

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?

[strad]

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

.
Good point PZ

[Shrieker]

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

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, 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.

With his neck injury and older age, certainly wasn't the old Schumi himself. I don't think anyone expected any title wins from him, so to ask whether his hypothetical wins would've been included in a subjective evaluation isn't the most logical argument to make.