21 replies to this topic

[HUY]

Reading about all the rookie records that Hamilton broke I wondered how often in the past a rookie has driven the best car on the grid. As best car I took the one that won the WCC and here are my results:

1959 - Bruce McLaren drives for Cooper for 7 out of 9 races of the WC, he finishes 6th in the WDC.
1970 - Emerson Fittipaldi drives for Lotus for 6 out of 13 races of the WC, he finishes 10th in the WDC.
1994 - David Coulthard drives for Williams for 8 out of 16 races of the WC, he finishes 8th in the WDC.
1996 - Jacques Villeneuve drives for Williams for 16 out of 16 races of the WC, he finishes 2nd in the WDC.

And that's all. Keep in mind the statistics count from 1958 onwards as before that the WCC didn't exist.

Of course we know that McLaren didn't win the WCC this year but that was due to the penalty, they were the fastest car on the grid since they accumulated more points than anyone else.

So it is the second time in F1 history that a rookie is given a full season drive with the fastest team. Both times that driver finished second in the WDC. So Hamilton is in a particularly priviledged position to drive the fastest car from day one which happens extremely rarely in F1.

My conclusion: Lewis is a very fast driver but to be hailed as the greatest talent ever is just empty speculation and attention seeking by F1. The reality is that Lewis was given the fastest and most reliable car on the grid and didn't win the WDC.

[Hacklerf]

Originally posted by HUY

Of course we know that McLaren didn't win the WCC this year but that was due to the penalty, they were the fastest car on the grid since they accumulated more points than anyone else.

Ferrari actually won this yeas WCC with legitimate points over McLaren (even if they had not been DQ)

I would say JV was even more impressive in his first year than Lewis as JV entered a alien formula, where as Lewis has been groomed for this since day 1

[Will]

This is a slightly disingeneous comparison though because Ferrari and McLaren were significantly weaker compared to WCC Williams in 1996 as opposed to the similar competitiveness of Ferrari and McLaren in 2007. Sure they both won 4 races and finished 2nd in the WDC but that's where effective comparison between 1996 and 2007 ends.

[HUY]

Originally posted by Hacklerf
[B]

Ferrari actually won this yeas WCC with legitimate points over McLaren (even if they had not been DQ)

No they didn't, it's McLaren 218 points and Ferrari 204 points.

[Platinum]

Originally posted by HUY


No they didn't, it's McLaren 218 points and Ferrari 204 points.

forgot that mclaren lost their points from hungary.

218-15=203

[Deepak]

Originally posted by HUY


No they didn't, it's McLaren 218 points and Ferrari 204 points.

You are forgetting the 15 points docked in Hungary.

[tidytracks]

You, as most people do, missed off Damon Hill.

Let's be under no pretense that 1992 was his debut season, as two attempted races for the mortally wounded Brabham simply doesn't amount to a debut IMHO.

So:

1993 Damon Hill drives for Williams in 16 out of 16 races of the WC, he finishes 3rd in the WDC

[HUY]

I forgot the 15 points docked but still, they have nothing to do with the competitiveness of their car, it was an internal affair during the qualifying period. I'm not arguing about points here, I picked the WCC winning car because it's the most likely car to be the best overall in a given season. And that car this year was McLaren, some people will argue that was it not for the espionage McLaren wouldn't have the best car, but that's irrelevant to the point, McLaren had the speed and the reliability, it was the best car of this season.

[ensign14]

Originally posted by HUY
And that's all. Keep in mind the statistics count from 1958 onwards as before that the WCC didn't exist.

...

So it is the second time in F1 history that a rookie is given a full season drive with the fastest team.

That's disingenuous for a couple of reasons.

1. Even if there were no WCC before 1958 there would still be a fastest team. In 1954 for example that was Mercedes. And they had rookies Kling and Herrmann.

2. It does not take into account just how good a car was if the "rookie" was not up to it. Lotus won the WDC in 1972. Dave Walker (first full season) scored zero points. Put a Peterson in that car and Lotus were WCC material. Brabham in 1980 was similar, Zunino did eff all with it in his few races.

3. There's a reason why the best teams don't have rookies. They're not good enough. Significant perchance that McLaren went for a rookie.

4. Not many rookies have outpaced a team-mate, let alone the double champ who hustled a 7 time champ into retirement.

As for the Villeneuve comparisons, they've been done to death elsewhere, but Jacques had been driving high-HP 2 hour race single seaters for a few years beforehand.

[ezequiel]

Don't forget Reutemann on pole in his debut with a Brabham. He retired while leading the race with a few metres to finish the race due to lack of fuel (!) That was tremendously impressive.

[ensign14]

You're mixing 1972 and 1974, I'm afraid. He was on pole in '72, but '74 was his heartbreak year, where a cracked airbox caused the engine to be more thirsty than usual IIRC.

[GhostR]

Originally posted by Deepak


You are forgetting the 15 points docked in Hungary.

IIRC McLaren were going to appeal that decision and then withdrew it when it became irrelevant. So we'll never really know. Regardless ... ignoring penalties, McLaren earned the most points. Whether they or Ferrari were the better season-long package is debatable, but I think it's fair to say that the McLaren car was easily capable of taking both titles had the season played out differently (no penalties, no spy controversy, no Alonso friction).

[lustigson]

Originally posted by GhostR
Whether McLaren or Ferrari were the better season-long package is debatable, but I think it's fair to say that the McLaren car was easily capable of taking both titles had the season played out differently (no penalties, no spy controversy, no Alonso friction).

I guess it was, too. The McLaren was simply more reliable in 2007 than the usually-robust Ferrari.

[Norm]

Forgive me if this has been done before. I am sure it has been discussed but maybe not in this manner and I coul dnot find a more suitable thread.

Last night a friend and I were discussing the impressive rookie season of Lewis Hamilton and comparing it to that of Jacques Villeneuve in 1996. Both drivers came into F1 with teams that gave them the best cars on the grid and both had a shot at the title going into the final round.

Here is what we came up with using the 1996 point system. 1996 Point System
1st 10, 2nd 6 , 3rd: 4, 4th 3, 5th 2, 6th 1


Number of GP's

JV: 16
Lewis: 17

Wins
JV: 4
Lewis: 4

2nd
JV: 5
Lewis: 5

3rd
JV: 2
Lewis: 3

4th
JV: 0
Lewis: 1

5th
JV: 0
Lewis: 1

6th
JV: 0
Lewis: 0

7th
JV: 0
Lewis: 1

8th
JV: 1
Lewis: 0

9th
JV: o
Lewis: 1

11th
JV: 1
Lewis 0

DNF's
JV: 3
Lewis: 1

PTS
JV: 78
Lewis: 84

Average points.

JV: 4.875 over 16 races.
Lewis: 4.94 over 17 races.


Take into consideration that Villeneuve gave up 4 points (no fault of his own) to Hill in Australia and the points look like this.

JV: 82
Lewis: 84

Now add an additional race for JV to bring the race total to 17 and the points average for Villeneuve… 82 + 5 (4.875) = 87pts to Lewis' 84.

Reliabliiy

Williams had 7 retirements in 1996 – JV 3* and Hill 4
McLaren had 2 retirements in 2007 - Lewis 1 and Fernando 1

DNF’S

1996 total top ten drivers 58 retirements.
2007 total top ten drivers 23 retirements

*San Marino – Villeneuve Classified 11th. Retired on lap 58 due to suspension after staing 2nd. He is hit during the start.

Brazil - Villeneuve slides into sand while defending against Alesi while in 2nd. Driver error.

Monaco - Villeneuve run into the wall by Badoer as he tries to overtake the slower car after Mira beau - both out while in 4th.

Japan - Villeneuve out - Wheel fell off while in 5th.

China – Hamilton goes off at pit entrance while in 2nd. Driver error.

Individual stats.

JV – Starts 16, Wins 4, Podiums 11, Poles 3, Fastest Laps 6.

Hamilton – Starts 17, Wins 4, Podiums 12, Poles, 6, Fastest Laps 2.

[scheivlak]

It has to be said of course that the 1996 Williams was quite clearly superior to the rest of the field while the 2007 McLaren had one very serious challenger ;)

[Norm]

Originally posted by scheivlak
It has to be said of course that the 1996 Williams was quite clearly superior to the rest of the field while the 2007 McLaren had one very serious challenger ;)

And the MP4-22 also enjoyed much better reliability and the luxury of traction control. Really doesn't matter though. Both cars were the cream of the crop.

[Atreiu]

It doesn't matter the car or exact numbers. Lewis rattled Alonso, who had been soberb (except for a small hicup or two) ever since his spin at Monza 2004. That is already an extraordinary feat.

[former champ]

It is of course the natural comparison but, personally, I would give Hamilton the very slight edge over Villeneuve in their debut seasons. Both were phenomenal though but both years had their differences too. 2 that stand out for me are -

Williams had a distinct advantage compared to anyone else in 1996 while McLaren and Ferrari were both the best cars in 2007.

Hamilton came into the team against no less than Alonso but Fernando had also just joined the team. Villeneuve went to Williams with Damon Hill (himself a top driver and future World Champion) having been there for several season already.

Given all that though, still Hamilton for me. Just. The big test for Lewis will be the 2nd year, particluarly if McLaren produce one of or THE best car. We saw with Villeneuve that when expectation is on you, you have to deliver and mistakes can creep in. Being only in your second season is still pretty raw. Jacques handled it and won the championship in fine style. Let's see what happens with Lewis.

I think he will be a success and could very well be 2007 World Champion. He's a tremendous talent.

[Perigee]

Originally posted by GhostR


IIRC McLaren were going to appeal that decision and then withdrew it when it became irrelevant. So we'll never really know. Regardless ... ignoring penalties, McLaren earned the most points. Whether they or Ferrari were the better season-long package is debatable, but I think it's fair to say that the McLaren car was easily capable of taking both titles had the season played out differently (no penalties, no spy controversy, no Alonso friction).

Then you may as well factor in the points Ferrari potentially lost after McLaren complained about Ferrari's floor, based on information illegally obtained by McLaren.

In my view that would be ridiculous, and you therefore have to respect the points at the end of the season, full-stop, or you start getting into 'what's and 'but's and 'if's for eternity...

Ferrari won the most points in 2007, end of story, unless you want to open the FULL can of worms.

[MichaelPM]

Originally posted by Hacklerf
I would say JV was even more impressive in his first year than Lewis as JV entered a alien formula, where as Lewis has been groomed for this since day 1

GP2 ment Lewis got to race on F1 tracks aswell id assume.

[BMW_F1]

Mario Andretti got pole in Walkins Glen 1968 in his first ever F1 race and his first time at the Glen.

[archstanton]

i like the way some of these posts talk about this is as if there is actually some way of arriving at a meaningful useful comparison (who's better Muhammad Ali or Pele?)...

... but since i'm here, what the hell.

- two years of racing IndyCars, back when that meant something, versus a year in GP2, i'd say some rookies are much less rookie than others.
(to perhaps refute an assertion made above: 3 of the 4 tracks where lewis won were not part of GP2, which must mean something)

- the williams was so dominant, it allowed a team-mate to win, by some margin, his first and only WDC. the mclaren was so not dominant that it failed to allow a 2xWDC to win another championship


just saying like.