125 replies to this topic

[OilFour]

J ..o .. e .. p .. i .. e

[Tenmantaylor]

Amazing achievement. All the talk about Lewis emulating and matching Senna in the build up to Singapore then Seb sneaks up and beats Sennas win record with as dominant a performance as Lewis had had all year. We're lucky to see such top performances from these two. Is just a shame we've barely seen them race head to head that much as they've rarely had comparable car preformance.

[DarthWillie]

Amazed how Vettel still has to prove something for some people, and how everytime the goalposts change. First he could only win with Newey cars, now he has won 3 races without Newey cars and other parameters appear. Wins in 3 teams, one a midfield team at best. Perhaps Ferrari should hire Button, because he outperformed Hamilton so if Vettel can beat him al questions should be answered.

[George Costanza]

I am willing to bet he won't come close to Michael Schumacher's win total.  But then again, who could?

[George Costanza]

It makes you wonder how many races Fangio would have won had the war not taken away what would have likely been his prime years.

 

I think he would have been a 7-9 time world champion.

 

He started his career much later than anyone else....

Edited by George Costanza, 22 September 2015 - 00:54.

[George Costanza]

Senna was only just about to embark on the equivalent of Vettel's Red Bull journey with Williams. I would have expected Senna to be way ahead of Damon Hill in 94,95, 96, and Villeneuve in 97. Lewis Hamilton pretty much said the same himself.

 

The real story here is Adrian Newey, isn't it. There are some incredible people and hard teamwork making these drivers into gods.

One will never know how much more Ayrton could have won. But given those Williams cars, (Don't forget, he wanted to go to Ferrari in 96 or 97), he'd likely finish around 65 or 70 wins. Michael, certainly would have 30-35 less wins if Ayrton was racing up to 1998. Who knows.

The whole F1 book would be radically different that is the truth.

Edited by George Costanza, 22 September 2015 - 01:02.

[Volcano70]

What these cars can produce....

[GTA]

Great job Seb. All we heard was Lewisenna, but Vettel has beaten him to 3rd place.Looks like a straight fight from here between Hamilton and Vettel for 2nd place in the wins category.

[sopa]

Congrats to Seb!

 

While it is clear each driver's career trajectory is different and statistics never tell the story of how good each driver exactly is, so I won't go into this debate at all. But it is good to see Vettel has proven this year he is generally a clear top driver. Overall he has had lots of good cars, and - with the exception of 2014 - has delivered all what has been possible to deliver from these cars as well.

 

But as said, now it is Hamilton's turn to have superb cars, and he will pass Vettel in these stats soon enough. And Hamilton has a shot at catching Prost next year.

[Fatgadget]

So much hate in here.

No driver wins consistently without the best car. The negativity towards Seb and Lewis is baffling to me, they both got into those cars by the grace of their talent alone, managed to stay there, see off a number of highly regarded drivers between them and win a shed-load of races... just like every great driver in the history of the sport.

Exactly.
Has anyone ever wondered why Senna offered to drive the then dominant Williams for free?

[sopa]

It is true though that the statistics of modern-era top drivers are inflated, and mid-level driver statistics are deflated. It is related to high reliability rates, but also competition trends - careers are longer, same drivers sit in top cars very long, also there is a clear and often consistent hierarchy among top teams.

 

30 years ago... Senna could retire from half of the races during the season with a blown turbo or ran out of fuel. And drivers like Aguri Suzuki could reach podium. Nowadays - drivers like Hamilton and Vettel wipe out all the victory statistics throughout years, and Hulkenberg could at best reach P4, or Vergne a P6.

 

I have been thinking that had a driver like Vergne been part of the very "inconsistent" late 70s, early 80s era, it is basically sure he would have at least got a podium, if not won a race in the general competition melee. But nowadays... he could stay in F1 for years and get only a P6.

 

I think a remarkable statistic is that a driver like Alonso, who as a driver is rightfully regarded as a class-leading talent along with Hamilton and Vettel, last won a race in spring 2013... Also doesn't look anything is going to change soon on that front either.

 

Vettel though... has as many wins as Rosberg this year! Incredible considering the car performance difference!

Edited by sopa, 22 September 2015 - 11:55.

[P123]

Congrats to him, but equaling it was probably more of a milestone moment, and he's equaled and surpassed many great drivers win stats on the way too (without devoted topics). Prost's tally will be passed soon enough too; by himself and Hamilton.

Vettel though... has as many wins as Rosberg this year! Incredible considering the car performance difference!

True, although Rosberg has Hamilton as a teammate, so his chances are limited when he has the car available to win. The 'performance difference' wasn't there in the races won by SV, quite the opposite on the most recent occasion.

[P123]

I am willing to bet he won't come close to Michael Schumacher's win total.  But then again, who could?

At 20+ races per season all it would take would be a few years of Ferrari dominance and he'd be knocking on the door of Schumacher's victory tally.

[BenettonB192]

The record doesn't take anything away from Senna in my book. To me the nice thing was he did it on a weekend when eyes were on Hamilton to match Senna's record.

I enjoy it while it lasts. It's plausible that Hamilton climbs to third soon enough.

[ensign14]

The other factor that is important is that of danger.  Had Clark not been killed he would surely have won the 1968 title - and may well have won every year until 1973, just based on the Lotus designs for each year as was.  And I doubt they would have gone the over-complex route for 1974.  Then again Moss might have kept Clark back in the first half of the 60s.

 

Fangio's stats are inflated because of Ascari's death - JMF was the better driver but Alberto was good enough to beat him from time to time - and of course Senna would have knocked off a number of Schumacher's wins.  And Stewart might not have retired age 34 had Grand Prix racing been a bit more bulletproof.  Sir Jackie has often exaggerated the number of drivers who were killed while racing, but of the 23 drivers he competed against for his first Grand Prix win, 9 died at the wheel of a racing car.

 

Notwithstanding Bianchi and de Villota, and some others suffering serious injuries that kiboshed their careers, it is much easier for a leading driver to rack up a long career and pile up the stats. 

Edited by ensign14, 22 September 2015 - 13:22.

[George Costanza]

Exactly.
Has anyone ever wondered why Senna offered to drive the then dominant Williams for free?

That's easy.....

 

Imagine Senna and Prost in 1993? Ouch.

[Glengavel]

The other factor that is important is that of danger.  Had Clark not been killed he would surely have won the 1968 title - and may well have won every year until 1973, just based on the Lotus designs for each year as was.  And I doubt they would have gone the over-complex route for 1974.  Then again Moss might have kept Clark back in the first half of the 60s.

 

Agree with Clark in 1968, 1969 the 49 is struggling against Stewart's Matra, 1970 - Clark again in the 72 with Stewart in the doldrums. 1971 would be really thrilling if Lotus concentrates on the 72 instead of faffing about with the turbine car. 1972 - Stewart was out of sorts so Clark again, and 1973 is anyone's game.

Edited by Glengavel, 23 September 2015 - 19:37.

[Watkins74]

Exactly right krea.

 

While taking nothing away from Sebastian's brilliant achievement (I think he's fantastic, actually); it is worth noting that, according to Wiki, Senna started 161 Grand Prix's and retired from 50 of those (fully 31%). Vettel has started 152 and retired 21 times (14%). There's your difference. In fact Senna had already suffered 21 retirements (the same as Seb's entire career) in only his first three seasons. Pretty tough to rack up those race wins when the car is broken by the side of the track a third of the time, huh?  Another way to look at it is to say that Senna]s DNF rate is nearly two-and-a-half times that of Vettel. Really shows the difference in the eras, doesn't it?

 

So, I think if we want to have a balanced analysis, race finishes (rather than race starts) is a better place to look. Sebastian has already seen the checkered flag 20 more times than Ayrton did in his entire career.

 

Congrats to Seb, he is one of the all time greats, no doubt about it. 

 

Isn't it a wash? Drivers won races in that era because cars DNF'ed in front of them.

 

Congratulations Seb.

[Atreiu]

Congrats. Top drivers in the most reliable rockets ever lend themselves to breaking and seting records.

[Dunc]

While I agree times are different and it is difficult to do a straight comparison, it's an impressive number. It shows Vettel as one of the greats

 

 Well said.  The best a driver can be is the best of his era and Vettel is certainly in the running to achieve that.  He may have spent almost all his career in great cars but you don't get to drive those great cars unless you are a great driver.

Edited by Dunc, 23 September 2015 - 20:46.

[Heisenberg]

Senna spent many years without great cars.

Uhm..No, he didn't.

 

But in F1 you need a great car to win titles, sure it doesn't take much away from greats such as Senna, Schumacher, Prost, Fangio etc, but still, can we stop with such non-sense already? I am passionate too when it comes to my favorite drivers, but some of you guys are acting like certain drivers would have won and lapped the rest of the field in cars like the ones from Minardi, Marussia and who knows what else.

 

Bravo to Vettel for being such a complete driver and achieving so much!

Edited by Heisenberg, 23 September 2015 - 21:06.

[Heisenberg]

Anyway, I'm happy Seb got there before Lewis after his "Me and Senna would of been mates." nonsense.

I fully agree, I have nothing against Lewis Hamilton, but I am so sick of these cliche's that either the press or LH himself (OR BOTH actually) keep bringing up and of course, the eternal comparison! It has become so cheesy lately, it's actually cringe-worthy.

[sabjit]

The "Hamilton passes Vettel" thread when that happens will break this forum.

[garoidb]

I fully agree, I have nothing against Lewis Hamilton, but I am so sick of these cliche's that either the press or LH himself (OR BOTH actually) keep bringing up and of course, the eternal comparison! It has become so cheesy lately, it's actually cringe-worthy.

 

Yeah, the general fixation with Senna is over the top. Will there be much of a fuss when one of them surpasses Prost's stats? 

[Spillage]

Agree with Clark in 1968, 1969 the 49 is struggling against Stewart's Matra, 1970 - Clark again in the 72 with Stewart in the doldrums. 1971 would be really thrilling if Lotus concentrates on the 72 instead of faffing about with the turbine car. 1972 - Stewart was out of sorts so Clark again, and 1973 is anyone's game.

All this is dependant on Clark remaining at Lotus for the rest of his career though - I think I've read on these boards about Stewart reckoning Clark was beginning to get 'itchy feet' around the start of the 1968 season. But I agree, he was such a talent it's impossible to believe he wouldn't have won more titles.

 

Niki Lauda's another good example of this. Had he not been injured at the Nurburgring, it's almost certain he would have won the 1976 championship. Then, given that the seeds for his eventual fallout with Ferrari were sowed in the aftermath of that accident, it's quite possible he would have remained at the team longer than he did - perhaps long enough to take the 1979 title. Then, given that he was still good enough to be world champion in 1984, it's quite possible he might have ended up matching Fangio before he retired.

[Craven Morehead]

I fully agree, I have nothing against Lewis Hamilton, but I am so sick of these cliche's that either the press or LH himself (OR BOTH actually) keep bringing up and of course, the eternal comparison! It has become so cheesy lately, it's actually cringe-worthy.

I'd say it's been cringe-worthy right from the get go.