The Greatest "Rainmaster"?

[Wynters]

Bit pointless comparing drivers from different eras and teams. Hamilton, Schumacher, Senna... all rainmasters in my opinion as they have regularly shown to be doing things others simply cannot.

Agreed. Even across similar eras there may be significant regulation changes. If, at some point, F1 was to allow Traction control, does that mean that no driver in that era could be considered 'good' in the rain?

“People later said that my win in the wet at Donington in ’93 was my greatest performance. No way! I had traction control OK, I didn’t make any real mistakes, but the car was so much easier to drive. It was a good win, sure, but compared with Estoril ’85 it was nothing, really.”

-Ayrton Senna da Silva

In some ways, Senna was lucky that TC only covered part of his career. And I'm sure there are numerous other examples when regulation obscures the reality.

[Pyrone89]

What these lists finally make clear that even Hamilton needs an absolute top car to consistently win in the wet as can be seen by the years (2008, 2014 onwards).

There's a strong correlation between being in a top 3 WCC team and doing well. But there's also a strong correlation between being a good driver and being in a top 3 WCC team.

The best comparison is probably to look at who else was in one of the leading teams and how well they have consistently done over a sustained period of time. Looking at period when Hamilton wasn't in a dominant car (2007 to 2013), only Vettel had more wet Poles and, during the same period, Hamilton won more wet races than anyone else and nearly half overall* (only one with the fastest car), that seems a pretty good record.

If we compare a different period, say 2016 to the present (where Hamilton has been in generally dominant machinery), there have been six wet qualifyings and seven wet races. Vettel and Verstappen were in 'absolute top cars' (i.e. Top 3 WCC team similar to Hamilton in '07-'13), did they perform as well relatively as he did in '07-'13?

As an aside, 2008 is not the McLaren to pick (it was closer to the Sauber in 3rd than the Ferrari in 1st in the WCC). 2007 was a stronger relative design.

*Subject to ongoing review

The 2008 McLaren was together with the Ferrari the best car. As can be seen from the WDC result. BMW was up there until BMW decided to stop investing else Kubica could have been WDC (was leading the standings) and Hamilton’s career may have been very different (possibly not getting the Mercedes seat as a non-WDC, we will never know).

And in current F1 driver politics it is not ‘best drivers gets best cars’ how many times people keep repeating that.

[Wynters]

The 2008 McLaren was together with the Ferrari the best car. As can be seen from the WDC result. BMW was up there until BMW decided to stop investing else Kubica would have been WDC and Hamilton’s career may have been very different (possibly not getting the Mercedes seat as a non-WDC, we will never know).

That's ridiculously circular logic. Just because a driver won the WDC in a car doesn't mean that's the fastest car. That's why the WCC takes into account the points scored by both drivers.

To extend that logic, every race winner only wins because they have the fastest car. Skill, strategy, etc is irrelevant. Or, to keep it in the WDC-sphere, Verstappen was the leading non-Mercedes driver last year. Seems a poor showing to only manage to win 3 races out of 21 bearing in mind he was in the second fastest car?

To put the 2008 McLaren on the same level as the Ferrari is not supported by any significant data. 8 poles each suggests they might have shared the same one-lap pace (although, refueling era so YMMV) but Ferrari won 1/3 more races and had 13 fastest laps to 3.

The evidence of the performances of the cars as a whole show that the Ferrai out performed the McLaren by a larger margin than the McLaren outperformed the Sauber.

And in current F1 driver politics it is not ‘best drivers gets best cars’ how many times people keep repeating that.
Look at Verstappen, Alonso and Ricciardo, Russell etc.

Verstappen is driving for a team that has never finished outside the top 3 of the WCC since he joined it. Alonso spent plenty of time amongst the top teams. Ricciardo...is he a top driver? Ferrari obviously don't think so, nor do Red Bull. Russell has had one season in F1.

Is the rule 100% true at all times? No. But, if you are a top driver, will you get a seat at the grown up table at some point in your career? Yes. Absolutely.

[Pyrone89]

You are forgetting that Ferrari had Massa (good driver back then, could challenge Hamilton before his accident) and a prime Raikkonen who was reigning WDC. McLaren had Hamilton and..... Kovolainen.

[Big Tea]

Bit pointless comparing drivers from different eras and teams. Hamilton, Schumacher, Senna... all rainmasters in my opinion as they have regularly shown to be doing things others simply cannot.

Agreed. Even across similar eras there may be significant regulation changes. If, at some point, F1 was to allow Traction control, does that mean that no driver in that era could be considered 'good' in the rain?

“People later said that my win in the wet at Donington in ’93 was my greatest performance. No way! I had traction control OK, I didn’t make any real mistakes, but the car was so much easier to drive. It was a good win, sure, but compared with Estoril ’85 it was nothing, really.”

-Ayrton Senna da Silva

In some ways, Senna was lucky that TC only covered part of his career. And I'm sure there are numerous other examples when regulation obscures the reality.

Yeh, to me the ultimate rainmaster was Belloff, but the car, tyres and track were completely different back them. they had at least 1/1000 of a second longer to react and a completely different 'feel' due to the speed even without the car being a different ethos.

We can not compare across years

[Jolle]

The greatest rainmaster... I would say Hamilton. Not only is he over the span of his career won most of the wet races he’s been in, but also without much DNF’s. Of course, a real good rain racer will crash more then someone tiptoeing (racing in the rain means you have to take some risks), but he’s been like a robot compared to others. Senna is epic, together with Verstappen and Schumacher.

Fun fact, half of the drivers that were on the grid last time Hamilton crashed out of a GP, retired since then.

[PlatinumZealot]

You are forgetting that Ferrari had Massa (good driver back then, could challenge Hamilton before his accident) and a prime Raikkonen who was reigning WDC. McLaren had Hamilton and..... Kovolainen.

It is widely accepted that Ferrari was the better cars in 2007 and 2008. When Massa and Raikkonen had Alonso as teammates they were made into number 2 drivers.

[Pyrone89]

The greatest rainmaster... I would say Hamilton. Not only is he over the span of his career won most of the wet races he’s been in, but also without much DNF’s. Of course, a real good rain racer will crash more then someone tiptoeing (racing in the rain means you have to take some risks), but he’s been like a robot compared to others. Senna is epic, together with Verstappen and Schumacher.

Fun fact, half of the drivers that were on the grid last time Hamilton crashed out of a GP, retired since then.

He has had the equipment to avoid risks in the rain and still be fastest. Heavily skews results. That he is a superb wet driver is undeniable based on pre-2014. But post-2014 data points are invalid because of the extreme dominance of Mercedes and lacking abilities in the wet of Rosberg and Bottas.

[ENGINE TUNER]

There are examples of Hamilton not doing well in the wet (he's only been on Pole in 11 of the 28 wet Qualifyings since he started F1, for instance)

Excellent post, have a list perchance?Please share of you do.

It wouldn't surprise me if I've missed at least one...

2007 - Japan (LH)
2008 - Italy (SV)
2009 - Brazil (RB)
2010 - Malaysia (MW), Belgium (MW), Brazil (NH)
2011 - Belgium (SV)
2012 - Britain (FA), Germany (FA)
2013 - Australia (SV), Malaysia (SV), Monaco (NR), Canada (SV), Belgium (LH), Brazil (SV)
2014 - Australia (LH), Malaysia (LH), China (LH), Britain (NR), Belgium (NR)
2015 - Malysia (LH), United States (NR)
2016 - Austira (LH), Hungary (NR)
2017 - Britain (LH), Italy (LH)
2018 - Hungary (LH)
2019 -
2020 - Styria (LH)

I've tried to colour-code them to make it easier to parse. I suspect it might have made it more confusing though (feedback welcome)

What surprised me is how well Rosberg did. Similarly, Webber seems to have been pretty handy until RBR began skewing things towards Vettel (which, considering their trophy haul, looked liked the smart play). Alonso was also surprising, having success in 2012 and not much else. No sign of Button.

Thank you

2015 usgp qually was a farce, there was no reason to cancel Q3, the weather was actually improving and I didn't see any lightning, I was at the track. The point of q2 is merely to advance with the tire you desire to start the race on(discounting weather), not to make the fastest time. Maybe an asterisk for that one

Hungary 2016 was when ALO spun in front of HAM in q3 right? Wow, HAM wet record is even better than I remember.

Japan 18 goes to LH, slightly damp, but enough to catch out some drivers

I see you have Belgium 2008 for LH even though he was wrongly penalized by the stewards, good call, but shouldn't China 2007 go to KR?

[ENGINE TUNER]

Bit pointless comparing drivers from different eras and teams. Hamilton, Schumacher, Senna... all rainmasters in my opinion as they have regularly shown to be doing things others simply cannot.

Agreed. Even across similar eras there may be significant regulation changes. If, at some point, F1 was to allow Traction control, does that mean that no driver in that era could be considered 'good' in the rain?

“People later said that my win in the wet at Donington in ’93 was my greatest performance. No way! I had traction control OK, I didn’t make any real mistakes, but the car was so much easier to drive. It was a good win, sure, but compared with Estoril ’85 it was nothing, really.”

-Ayrton Senna da Silva

In some ways, Senna was lucky that TC only covered part of his career. And I'm sure there are numerous other examples when regulation obscures the reality.

Yeh, to me the ultimate rainmaster was Belloff, but the car, tyres and track were completely different back them. they had at least 1/1000 of a second longer to react and a completely different 'feel' due to the speed even without the car being a different ethos.

We can not compare across years

Bellofs car was ridiculously underweight and later disqualified for the season. Also he had a n/a engine more suited for the conditions and possibly better rain tires from a different company.

[Wynters]

You are forgetting that Ferrari had Massa (good driver back then, could challenge Hamilton before his accident) and a prime Raikkonen who was reigning WDC. McLaren had Hamilton and..... Kovolainen.

You realise the Kovalainen finished 7th that season? In what you claim was the fastest car. Does that mean with two Kovalainens driving, you'd expect the fastest car to finish 4th in the WCC? How does that match with 'having the fastest car renders all achievements meaningless because it's so easy to win all the time'?

Further, as I highlighted in my previous reply, you realise what your logic means for Verstappen last year? He finished ahead of both Ferrari drivers in the WDC, so 'clearly' had a faster car than the Ferrari. But he only managed to win the same number of races, only had two poles to their nine and only 4 fastest laps to their 6 that season. I guess Verstappen isn't very good? Coincidentally, Gasly finished 7th in the WDC last year, driving a Torro Rosso for half the season.

In every metric of car design that have been put forward, the Ferrari shows as being as fast or faster. Why do you ignore all of them?

I'm dumbfounded you are choosing this point to even argue?

[Nimrod]

I'm sure that this has been posted elsewhere, however here's the highlights of Monaco 1984!
For the younger members of this board, who weren't around 36 years ago, please understand that these turbo cars were complete beasts to drive in the dry, let alone the wet. The power delivery from the engines in these cars was all or nothing (like throwing a switch), plus the drivers had to deal with huge turbo lag which necessitated them applying the throttle well before they needed (& expected) the power being delivered. Probably the easiest cars to drive in these conditions were the N/A cars, such as Bellof's Tyrell, due to their linear power delivery. Still, his & Senna's drives were excellent in conditions that aren't even considered nowadays.
The commentary is by Murray Walker & James Hunt & it's well worth listening to Hunts opinions of the drivers.

[Just_a_fan]

Thought I'd try another one, this time rain-impacted races. I'm certain I've missed some so please add any you are aware of (e.g. I'm sure Vettel must've won at least one during his championship years).

2007 - Great Britain (KR), Japan (LH)
2008 - Monaco (LH), Great Britain (LH), Belgium (LH)
2009 - Malaysia (JB), China (SV)
2010 - Belgian (LH), Korea(FA)
2011 - Canada (JB), Germany (LH), Hungary (JB)
2012 - Malaysia (FA), Great Britain (MW), Brazil (JB)
2013 - Malaysia (SV)
2014 - Hungary (DR), Japan (LH)
2015 - Great Britain (LH), United States (LH)
2016 - Monaco (LH), Great Britain (LH), Brazil (LH)
2017 - China (LH), Singapore (LH)
2018 - Germany (LH)
2019 - Germany (MV)

Worth remembering that in 2011 Canada, Button put Hamilton in the wall on the pit straight in an attempt to prevent him over taking on the inside of T1. Button most likely wouldn't have won that one otherwise.

[Jolle]

Thought I'd try another one, this time rain-impacted races. I'm certain I've missed some so please add any you are aware of (e.g. I'm sure Vettel must've won at least one during his championship years).

2007 - Great Britain (KR), Japan (LH)
2008 - Monaco (LH), Great Britain (LH), Belgium (LH)
2009 - Malaysia (JB), China (SV)
2010 - Belgian (LH), Korea(FA)
2011 - Canada (JB), Germany (LH), Hungary (JB)
2012 - Malaysia (FA), Great Britain (MW), Brazil (JB)
2013 - Malaysia (SV)
2014 - Hungary (DR), Japan (LH)
2015 - Great Britain (LH), United States (LH)
2016 - Monaco (LH), Great Britain (LH), Brazil (LH)
2017 - China (LH), Singapore (LH)
2018 - Germany (LH)
2019 - Germany (MV)

Worth remembering that in 2011 Canada, Button put Hamilton in the wall on the pit straight in an attempt to prevent him over taking on the inside of T1. Button most likely wouldn't have won that one otherwise.

Don’t forget “pit start to third” for the 2014 HUG GP.

Impressive list, especially from 2014 onwards. During this period he won around 50% of all the races and 80% of wet ones with 90% podiums and 100% points.

[Just_a_fan]

Don’t forget “pit start to third” for the 2014 HUG GP.

Impressive list, especially from 2014 onwards. During this period he won around 50% of all the races and 80% of wet ones with 90% podiums and 100% points.

Also 2011 Hungary where he beat Button to the pit strategy, took inters - which appeared to be the correct choice - only for the track to noticeably dry in the following lap or two. Button then took his stop for slicks where Hamilton had to pit again for the slicks which of course put him backwards. That was a "luck of the draw" outcome really. The irony of beating Button in wheel to wheel racing meant he ended up with an extra stop.