Only if you look purely at results and ignore the car someone is driving.Damon Hill proved more in 1993 alone than any of the others you've mentioned.
Ranking the F1 champions
#301
Posted 21 November 2016 - 09:21
Advertisement
#302
Posted 21 November 2016 - 09:39
It's difficult to compare them all, too many variables.
Out of the current WDCs in the field, I think it's even harder.
I'd probably go for Alonso first. Dominant Renault but had to battle against an on-form Kimi and MS for at least one year. So, most deserving there for me.
It's a tough one between Hamilton and Vettel. While I rate Hamilton higher than Vettel, I think his last two titles at least were won with a more dominant car than Vettel ever had at Red Bull. That being said, for 3 of the 4 dominant Red Bull years, Seb's machinery was unbeatable too.
Kimi - probably should have had a WDC before 2007, but nevertheless still got the job done on the day. Mid-2000 form was incredible and I'll never forget those days.
Even if he wins the title, I could never place Rosberg alongside any of those guys. He's just not done it for me the last few years.
I'm surprised we just haven't included Max in this discussion anyway. He's obviously going to be a multiple WDC so why not put him in the top 3 now?
#303
Posted 21 November 2016 - 09:49
I'm surprised we just haven't included Max in this discussion anyway. He's obviously going to be a multiple WDC so why not put him in the top 3 now?
Because that would be highly presumptuous. Right now he's done about as much as Jean Alesi in his early days, so lets wait until (or if) he actually becomes world champion before putting him up there with the likes of Fangio, Clark and Senna.
#304
Posted 21 November 2016 - 09:51
I am NOT marking Hill (or any driver) up or down for his pre F1 career or his career after F1.
Only mentioned that he imho was lucky to get in such a car given his track record.
But was Damon really that lucky? He was Williams' test driver for years and the team had him as a known quantity. Getting promoted from test to race seat is not exactly a rare occurrence.
#305
Posted 21 November 2016 - 09:55
For instance the single most undeserved world title in history is Piquet's in 1987. Mansell bitchslapped him all season. Twice as many wins and two of Piquet's three came after Mansell retired while ahead of him. Autocourse's top 10 had Piquet in 5th overall and it's impossible to see how Kekinho would rank any higher as well.
IF(and(and(and("Piquet's"="Rosberg's",1987=2016,"Twice as many"="As many","Mansell"="Hamilton"))),"upcoming post by Ensign14","Justice according British patriotic rules taken place after all)
Henri
Edited by Henri Greuter, 21 November 2016 - 09:56.
#306
Posted 21 November 2016 - 09:55
I'm surprised we just haven't included Max in this discussion anyway. He's obviously going to be a multiple WDC so why not put him in the top 3 now?
Hahaha, GOOD one.
#307
Posted 21 November 2016 - 10:00
I know Stirling was utterly crushed to lose in 1958 as he felt, uncontroversially, that he was rather better than Hawthorn. However it must also be considered that the WDC was not the be all and end all in those days, as the top guys would also compete in countless non WDC races, sportscars etc. I'm not saying it wasn't the biggest prize on offer, simply that it wasn't the only thing that mattered to the extent of today. In later life Moss was very pleased not to have been a 1 time WDC, as it would have meant being remembered for one great season rather than one great career.But that doesn't matter, what matters is the name on the pot! Doesn't it Stirling x
(And yes I know you were trolling me there!)
Edited by E.B., 21 November 2016 - 10:02.
#308
Posted 21 November 2016 - 10:12
Only if you look purely at results and ignore the car someone is driving.
Really?
Who would have automatically done a better job than Damon Hill?
Alesi? Berger? Barrichello? Brundle? Herbert? I'm not sold. No way.
Of that period only Hakkinen can lay any claim to possibly being a better candidate.
Though Mika took his time to calm down and lay out his talent, he wasn't wholly convincing at that point either.
The amount of quality drivers who have failed to really make the most of a top car is lengthy. Yet if you listen to people here, you'd think its a magic carpet ride to swags of wins and championships.
It's ridiculous.
Edited by PlayboyRacer, 21 November 2016 - 10:15.
#309
Posted 21 November 2016 - 10:26
You make it sound like beating Schumacher in those Benettons would have been an easy task, whereas it was the best driver of the time in essentially an equal car, give or take a little.
Its beginning to get hard to work out what your criteria actually are. It seems that you have no problem marking someone like Damon down for his outside of F1 performances, but you won't mark the likes of Surtees or Andretti up for theirs.
That's because there is no criteria. That much was obvious from the start.
Which is a shame....because done properly this could be a really interesting thread. But I think the joy the OP got by placing Villeneuve last overrode any thought given to creating a list with genuine criteria
#310
Posted 21 November 2016 - 10:35
#311
Posted 21 November 2016 - 10:37
Alesi was still seen as hot and he left Ferrari for Benetton. Berger was a proven race winner and in that car I think he could have surely been successful. Barrichello already showed some nice performances, and offcourse Herbert, Brundle, Blundell etc could have all been options, and I get that for a year or 2 a contract can be in the way but not for 3 years.
(The dutchguy in me scream Jos but I doubt both JV in the same team would have gone well)
As I said in the post above, none of those drivers were spectacular talents at that point. Not even consistent. None were worthy of that Williams drive over Damon Hill, a driver who'd done hard yards at Brabham and worked very, very hard as Williams test driver.
Hill then excelled into a very good driver. Well superior to all the above mentioned.... In tough circumstances too it must be said.
Damon is quite underrated, its not fashionable to rate a driver who took the path he did. He had flaws yes, but on his day was brilliant and, his wet weather performances, he had some great ones. Which someone like Mika Hakkinen for instance can't lay claim to.
Which, again....is why if you applied 'proper criteria', you'd probably surprise yourself. Not dramatic changes....but you'd find some interesting results between comparing certain drivers. Particularly drivers from the same era.
As for Jos partnering Jacques at Williams, well firstly I doubt Jos could have paid Sir Frank to have him.....but it would have been good just to see the mess Jacques would have made of him!
Edited by PlayboyRacer, 21 November 2016 - 10:41.
#312
Posted 21 November 2016 - 12:23
Speaking of Hill in 1993, some things had to be put into conext. He led British GP from the start until his engine failed; Prost inherited the lead and won. In the next GP, in Hocknheim, Hill again led from start and retired three laps to go with a puncture. And then he won the next three GPs - Hungaroring, Spa and Monza.
In the end, Prost had 99 points, Hill had 69. But, if he had just a bit more luck, he would also have 20 points more from Silverstone & Germany, while Prost would have 8 less for two 2nds, instead of two wins. And the new situation would be 91:89 in Prost's favour. In wins, there'd be 5 each. And one is a freshly appointed 4-times WDC, while the other is basically a rookie in a first whole season.
And then someone says that he wasn't any good...?
#313
Posted 21 November 2016 - 14:31
#314
Posted 21 November 2016 - 14:38
Again, it's tough here as this is a largely British forum and it can be pro Brit at times, but I like to think we are a fair lot, only a few get caught up in the nonsense tabloid crap that is pedalled to use by the media. And as for Verstappen fans...
Hence most people rating Alonso over Hamilton perhaps, in Spain I bet the vote would be totally one way, and for reasons over and above his racing ability!
Damon is a tough nut. I think he found something in himself a bit like a few have racing against Schumacher. Hakkinen certainly had to dig deep to win and I think Damon did too. The Benetton team were cheating like mad in 94 so he was up against it, and in 95 they used the same engines though the Williams was probably a better car.
To come back from what happened in 1994 to be so close against a team and driver that cheated their way to a title will always be a thing I remember vividly. The look on Damon's face, the fake look of glee on Schumacher's. You can't hide those things.
He was up against Prost and did himself proud, obviously knowing the car and systems helped him enormously as it was all new to Alain, but he was still on the pace.
He was a decent bloke, largely unaffected by the usual F1 nonsense and a very worthy champion. Whether he ranks up there as one of the best is doubtful but of his time he was often faster than one who is regarded as one of the quickest ever.
#315
Posted 21 November 2016 - 15:02
I'm not saying anyone would have "automatically" done a better job than Hill, but I was questioning the assertion that Hill proved more in 1993 than the others ever did. To me, Berger proved more in his original Ferrari years than Hill ever did. I know his stock had fallen since, having spent those McLaren years alongside Senna, but had Senna survived to partner Hill over 1994, I don't think Hill would have come away with such a strong reputation either.Really?
Who would have automatically done a better job than Damon Hill?
Alesi? Berger? Barrichello? Brundle? Herbert? I'm not sold. No way.
Of that period only Hakkinen can lay any claim to possibly being a better candidate.
Though Mika took his time to calm down and lay out his talent, he wasn't wholly convincing at that point either.
The amount of quality drivers who have failed to really make the most of a top car is lengthy. Yet if you listen to people here, you'd think its a magic carpet ride to swags of wins and championships.
It's ridiculous.
Certainly, being in the best car doesn't guarantee you wins and the championship, but the circumstances of having the best car really does matter. For example, being in the best car in the team run by Flavio Briatore and with Schumacher or Alonso as your team-mate is very different to having the best car overall over a run of four years, with five separate team-mates, and a truly dominant car for the final of these four years with a rookie team-mate.
#316
Posted 21 November 2016 - 15:06
Arguably he was lucky to be the test driver in the first place (considering what he'd achieved previously), and he was also the test driver at a time when there was a gap and not an obvious choice to fill it with.But was Damon really that lucky? He was Williams' test driver for years and the team had him as a known quantity. Getting promoted from test to race seat is not exactly a rare occurrence.
Sure, there is the argument that he came good and was ultimately better than his pre-F1 results would lead you to believe, but this just leaves me questioning more the general meritocracy of the sport. If it happened with him, the chances are that there are many other people out there who could also have got the job done but never got the chance. Otherwise it's just a massive coincidence that Williams picked the best driver based on very little to begin with.
#317
Posted 21 November 2016 - 15:08
This is just looking at things from Hill's side though. Prost also had problems that haven't been taken into account. He was actually leading in Germany but got a 10 second stop/go penalty for Brundle spinning across the chicane (Prost then skipped the chicane to avoid a collision). At Spa, he overtook Prost through a better stop, and at Monza, Prost led until his engine went.Speaking of Hill in 1993, some things had to be put into conext. He led British GP from the start until his engine failed; Prost inherited the lead and won. In the next GP, in Hocknheim, Hill again led from start and retired three laps to go with a puncture. And then he won the next three GPs - Hungaroring, Spa and Monza.
In the end, Prost had 99 points, Hill had 69. But, if he had just a bit more luck, he would also have 20 points more from Silverstone & Germany, while Prost would have 8 less for two 2nds, instead of two wins. And the new situation would be 91:89 in Prost's favour. In wins, there'd be 5 each. And one is a freshly appointed 4-times WDC, while the other is basically a rookie in a first whole season.
And then someone says that he wasn't any good...?
I didn't wake up this morning intending to bash Damon Hill by the way, but I think some people take things too far the other way!
#318
Posted 21 November 2016 - 16:08
Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree. It's just that any given driver can only be compared to his own teammate. And Damon Hill had one hell of a teammate in '93, one of the best ever. And he proved himself to be just as capable as Prost, which was no mean feat. In fact, he had one of the best rookie season in modern history, compared only with Villeneuve in '96 and Hamilton in '07. And all of those became World Champions, which shows that it wasn't coincidental.
BTW, that Prost's penalty in Hockenheim was ridiculous. He had nowhere to go but around the chicane - and got penalized for that...
#319
Posted 21 November 2016 - 16:13
It is true that there weren't many drivers better than Hill in the mid-1990s. I do think Alesi's 1995 campaign was better than Hill's, but I am not sure he would have done better in 1996.
Still, it is not the matter of whether a number drivers would have done better than Hill, but that Hill got the opportunity, which others didn't... And Hill did not just get a chance for a single year, but he got 4 years in great cars and racked up 22 wins. Meanwhile number of drivers with comparable talent could dream of that...
Edited by sopa, 21 November 2016 - 16:14.
Advertisement
#320
Posted 21 November 2016 - 16:56
Everyone surely loved Keke's wild and spectacular driving style. Prost was a much faster driver who managed to look much slower.
No arguments about your Prost statement from my side. I agree.
But what I wanted to say was that unlike with, for instance Gilles Villeneuve, with Keke you got equal amount of thrill, but never the bad side of it; crashes.
I can think of many Gilles crashes in just four years of his participation, yet apart from couple of clumsy contacts, Keke was always in control.
A car never looked more on the limit than in Keke's hands , yet it never really got away from him.
Kind of contradictory?
#321
Posted 21 November 2016 - 17:04
Edited by E.B., 21 November 2016 - 17:05.
#322
Posted 21 November 2016 - 17:20
True enough, in fact the only 2 Keke incidents that immediately spring to mind were spins in consecutive races, Mansell's first two wins actually. No doubt there were others I've forgotten but certainly not many.
Long Beach 83 sticks out for me. On that day he had the best car but he was pissed of because of Brazil GP penalty, got too anxious around Tambay and blew a certain win.
#323
Posted 21 November 2016 - 17:38
I hardly said Stirling was not very good, merely that he never won the thing!
As for Villeneuve and Jody, all I recall reading is the team holding out a keep positions board, Gilles said after he knew Jody could have gone quicker as he knew he certainly could, but he stared at the back of that thing all day hoping it would break down!!
As for Imola, the lap times tell the story,k the same board was held out when Gilles was leading and the Renault's had gone, Pironi went in front a few times and the lap times dropped, Gilles went in front and they went up again to save fuel. he was duped pure and simple. There is no getting away from it.
Naieve maybe, but after some of the things he did earlier in the year defending Didier to the press after he had a huge crash in testing this is why he was so annoyed I think. He was a simple man and a man of another time, not the time he was racing in.
You see, I remember Gilles making a mistake under pressure from Pironi who was pushing hard entire race and board being shown when Didier was leading.
I wouldn't call it naivety from Gilles, Didier pretty much stayed on his tail the entire race showing intentions of winning the race.
I always felt both sides had plausible arguments. You can interpret lap times as Gilles in fuel problem, but Didier perhaps saved more beforehand.
Even the rest of the team stayed firmly divided on the issue. The meaning of the board was vague, Didi never signed a number 2 contract, and only pre race agreement was with the Renault boys ( conferm by Arnoux).
Kind of everyday teammate fight blown out of proportions by among others Nigel Roebuck.
l
#324
Posted 21 November 2016 - 18:32
Ensign14:
1966: Brabham: a brilliant mid-season run after the formula changed and only Sir Jack didn’t over-complicate things. One wonders whether the Repco solution was meant to be a barn-burner or whether it was just to keep going while he got something better. But surely this was Surtees’ title without Dragoni being an utter tit.
That may be conventional wisdom, but checking the data I'm not so sure Jack didn't have everyone covered. Ferrari was going through one of their chaotic periods losing Le Mans to Ford and suffering labour disputes. Surtees could match Jack most days on pace, but was the Ferrari reliable enough to make the difference?
At the time of his leaving, Surtees had 9 points. The next French GP Bandini set pole and FL but was not classified. But for the British GP, Ferrari sent no cars because of a metalworkers strike. One wonders what Surtees reaction would have been to this development.
The Dutch GP Bandini qualified 9th. finished 6. Germany he again finished 6. A full press for Monza saw Scarfiotti and Parkes 1 amd 2. Then for the American races they sent only 1 car, Jack having already clinched the title.
Bandini while not in Surtees league was an experienced and quick driver, I think he got most out of the car that was there. For sure Surtees would have had a better chance with Ferrari, but reliability would probably have been his let down. Jack had the absolute package for the transitional year and he would have been very hard to beat. And you cannot win a title by skipping races for whatever reason.
I agree with your other analysis. I think that Farina had the one good year in the dominant car and under achieved after.
Edited by D28, 21 November 2016 - 18:33.
#325
Posted 21 November 2016 - 18:46
... his wet weather performances, he had some great ones. Which someone like Mika Hakkinen for instance can't lay claim to.
Depends on what you define as great but with Schumacher he effectively lapped rest of the field at European GP or was it Luxemburg at Nürnburgring in 00. He would have but he decided not get involved with Irvine and Coulthard fighting for third when he got close to lapping them couple laps from the end.
Edited by Oho, 21 November 2016 - 18:46.
#326
Posted 21 November 2016 - 19:05
He was also unlucky not to win Silverstone 1998. He led for most of it but the safety car took away his lead just after he went through the gravel, presumably damaging his car slightly making it less effective.Depends on what you define as great but with Schumacher he effectively lapped rest of the field at European GP or was it Luxemburg at Nürnburgring in 00. He would have but he decided not get involved with Irvine and Coulthard fighting for third when he got close to lapping them couple laps from the end.
#327
Posted 21 November 2016 - 19:27
OK, I’ve decided to rank the championships in order. And although this is a subjective list, I am, objectively, a genius, so this is an objectively genius list.[7th]2008: Hamilton: another driver winning in a car that was not the best. Hamilton had to take on Ferrari, the FIA and Mosley almost single-handedly as the promising Kovalainen wilted under the pressure. Kova’s performance was where the hamstrung McLaren should have been. Forget Massa’s Brazil heartbreak, he was only in with a sniff because of stewarding disgraces.
While I agree that the Ferrari was better that year and that the FIA's decisions were weird, you are slightly overrating this campaign. 2008 was easily among the championships with the lowest quality of the front runners in the last decade. Massa (urgh) sitting in the quickest car was the reason why Hamilton could win this championship without having the quickest car despite driving an for his standards pretty average season. It was a good campaign however. Often underrated, not by you though
#328
Posted 21 November 2016 - 20:08
Bandini while not in Surtees league was an experienced and quick driver, I think he got most out of the car that was there. For sure Surtees would have had a better chance with Ferrari, but reliability would probably have been his let down.
In the time they were together at Ferrari, and when they were both running at the finish, Bandini did not beat Surtees once. On average Surtees was 2 places ahead. OK, Mexico 1964 would have seen Bandini beat Surtees sans team orders, but once in two and a half years?
#329
Posted 21 November 2016 - 20:32
In the time they were together at Ferrari, and when they were both running at the finish, Bandini did not beat Surtees once. On average Surtees was 2 places ahead. OK, Mexico 1964 would have seen Bandini beat Surtees sans team orders, but once in two and a half years?
Yes that is correct, but the real issue is if Surtees could have won enough to beat Brabham and I don't think he really would have. He would have done better than Bandini, but the difference from 2 6th and 2 podiums? Probably not,
Any thought on how Ferrari could have managed entries for the British GP? Without this I don't see how Surtees had a chance, Also would that not have triggered his quitting anyway? As I said Ferrari was not exactly a well organized and cohesive team that year and this is quite important for a serious challenge.
#330
Posted 21 November 2016 - 20:33
Yes that is correct, but the real issue is if Surtees could have won enough to beat Brabham and I don't think he really would have. He would have done better than Bandini, but the difference from the 2 6th and 2 wins or podiums? Probably not,
Any thought on how Ferrari could have managed entries for the British GP? Without this I don't see how Surtees had a chance, Also would that not have triggered his quitting the team anyway? As I said Ferrari was not exactly a well organized and cohesive team that year and this is quite important for a serious challenge.
Edited by D28, 21 November 2016 - 20:34.
#331
Posted 21 November 2016 - 21:58
True enough, in fact the only 2 Keke incidents that immediately spring to mind were spins in consecutive races, Mansell's first two wins actually. No doubt there were others I've forgotten but certainly not many.
At Brands Hatch he made an astonishing recovery - judging by his pace shown after his spin, he would have easily won that race had it no been for Senna's naughty move that made him spin. And in Kyalami he was sitting comfortably in the lead when he spun on the oil that leaked onto the track from Ghinzani's Toleman. Even Nigel admitted that it was very lucky for him that he had been overtaken by Keke before this incident, because otherwise it would have been him spinning out on that oil puddle. He claimed that he'd just avoided spinning out himself after seeing Keke's unfortunate spin in front of him. Hence Keke pretty much lost two consecutive races because of bad luck with Nigel ending up picking up the pieces in both cases.
1985 was a funny year for Keke as with a bit of better luck and reliability he could have won the WDC. Apart from these two very possible victories, he retired from the lead in Rio, retired in Silverstone whilst running 3rd, was hit by brake problems while running in the lead in Hockenheim forcing him to drop back to third and then eventually out of the race, retired whilst running 2nd in Austria, retired from the lead in Zandvoort, retired from the lead in Monza ... What rotten luck.
So he could easily have ended up with as much as 8 victories, 11 podiums and over 90 points in total. He was simply fantastic that year.
Edited by Dicun, 21 November 2016 - 22:08.
#332
Posted 21 November 2016 - 22:57
Depends on what you define as great but with Schumacher he effectively lapped rest of the field at European GP or was it Luxemburg at Nürnburgring in 00. He would have but he decided not get involved with Irvine and Coulthard fighting for third when he got close to lapping them couple laps from the end.
Comparable to Damon at Japan 94, Brazil 96 or Spa 98? I would really not think so.
For me it has to be an absolute stand out performance.
#333
Posted 21 November 2016 - 23:38
I think so. Japan 1994 was safety car enhanced (Schumacher lost his lead and the ability to pull away further on his lighter fuel load and this is where the race was really won and lost), and at Spa 1998 he was way off the pace of Schumacher, and it would only have been seen as a good drive had Schumacher not retired. Plus Ralf was pretty competitive with him in the later stages and he required team orders to remove the threat.Comparable to Damon at Japan 94, Brazil 96 or Spa 98? I would really not think so.
For me it has to be an absolute stand out performance.
Edit - Plus Japan 1994 was really only seen as excellent because it was generally assumed that Hill was inferior to Schumacher and wouldn't be able to beat him in these conditions. Looked at more objectively, it's a battle he should have been with a good chance of winning being in the Williams. So if we're viewing Hill from the perspective of him being a champion driver, it's nothing more than we should expect. Only if we view it from the 1994 viewpoint of an unproven driver was it worthy of note.
Edited by PlatenGlass, 21 November 2016 - 23:49.
#334
Posted 22 November 2016 - 00:08
Even excluding Spa 98 (your right it was good fortune also) those other 2 examples mentioned exceed anything Hakkinen produced in the wet IMO of course.
Too much hoo ha about 'Williams this, Williams that' though when it comes to Damon...to play down everything he did. I don't find it correct at all.
The Hakkinen example given... if memory serves correct he was outpacing MS (in a better car) until the conditions turned greasy and then Michael outgunned him.
I never found Mika was strong in greasy or trecherous conditions. Whereas I think Damon proved he was more often than not.
#335
Posted 22 November 2016 - 01:41
I think that too often Hill is compared to Senna, and Prost, which may be why people underrate him IMO.
#336
Posted 22 November 2016 - 08:22
2007: Raikkonen: the Ferrari was so much better than the field even Massa was winning regularly. In fact Massa was so competitive with Kimi that it was down to Massa handing him a win that Kimi took the title. I think I’d be embarrassed in those circumstances.
I have no words..
#337
Posted 22 November 2016 - 09:34
The Hakkinen example given... if memory serves correct he was outpacing MS (in a better car) until the conditions turned greasy and then Michael outgunned him.
Your memory does not serve correct in either case, Silverstone was absolutely drenched from the word go and at Nürnburgring rain started less than third into the race and the track remained wet from there on end. Häkkinen was weak in comparison to Schumacher at the onset of rain, but then who wasn't, but in properly wet conditions while still not as good as Schumacher he was quite competent. Actually Häkkinen also did quite well at France in the wet in 1999 as well climbing form 16th or somtehing like that to second in wet despite loosing several spots at one point after safety car restart due to spin at Adelaide hairpin.
#338
Posted 22 November 2016 - 09:56
Yes didn't think I remembered totally accurate. Was the Nurburgring and I only remembered it did start raining after the start. Which, as I said, at that point Schumacher outgunned him. Silverstone? Hakkinen spun off from memory...which kind of proves the point. Went off twice from memory?Your memory does not serve correct in either case, Silverstone was absolutely drenched from the word go and at Nürnburgring rain started less than third into the race and the track remained wet from there on end. Häkkinen was weak in comparison to Schumacher at the onset of rain, but then who wasn't, but in properly wet conditions while still not as good as Schumacher he was quite competent. Actually Häkkinen also did quite well at France in the wet in 1999 as well climbing form 16th or somtehing like that to second in wet despite loosing several spots at one point after safety car restart due to spin at Adelaide hairpin.
He could do quick laps in the wet yes, no doubt. Competent to a degree... However that's a bit far from really strong performances and race wins...
Which to my original point... Damon Hill achieved that in such conditions. Hakkinen didn't. Yes Mika was much weaker than Michael in such conditions, as was everyone, however a couple of drivers were much closer. Hill and Alesi spring to mind.
They showed superiority over Hakkinen in that regard.
Edited by PlayboyRacer, 22 November 2016 - 09:59.
#339
Posted 22 November 2016 - 10:39
There will be many Hakkinen examples too, but the point is that for both drivers having spent time in the best car, I don't think either of them showed themselves to be particularly great in the rain. Good on their day (which most generally good drivers are) but not consistently so.
Advertisement
#340
Posted 22 November 2016 - 12:29
But the fact is they won titles, and that is all that matters.
They won and took advantage of their car, speed and others misfortune.
Just as their rival would have done to them.
I think if you looked at most 1st and second in a title race over the years, you won't find many who were regularly not considered to be first or second fastest driver over the year.
Perhaps when Rosberg won it, he was able to pick up the pieces of Ferrari. Brabham and Renault unreliability, but as I say he put himself there, was by far the best of the rest and fully deserved his title.
There must be other examples.
#341
Posted 22 November 2016 - 12:44
OK, I’ve decided to rank the championships in order. And although this is a subjective list, I am, objectively, a genius, so this is an objectively genius list.
Obviously, yeah.
Hamilton's error-ridden 2008 in the top ten and Button's measured 2009 in the bottom five, because, you know, a Kovalainen on a compromised strategy in every single race was comparatively such a force compared to Barrichello...or both Ascari's seasons in one of the the most dominant cars in WDC history (obviously with the advantage of being Scuderia's first horse, Rudi Fischer in an amateur team's 500 does not reduce its dominance) in the top 4, and Fangio/Mansell/Vettel/Schumacher's championships, where they dominated their teammates in a largely similar fashion, confined to the midpack solely on the criteria of sitting in the dominant car...seems fair.
#342
Posted 22 November 2016 - 12:45
Even someone with no historical knowledge or context must be crazy to believe titles are everything with such a recent example of why this isn't the case.
#343
Posted 22 November 2016 - 12:45
We will politely agree to disagree.
Even excluding Spa 98 (your right it was good fortune also) those other 2 examples mentioned exceed anything Hakkinen produced in the wet IMO of course.
Too much hoo ha about 'Williams this, Williams that' though when it comes to Damon...to play down everything he did. I don't find it correct at all.
The Hakkinen example given... if memory serves correct he was outpacing MS (in a better car) until the conditions turned greasy and then Michael outgunned him.
I never found Mika was strong in greasy or trecherous conditions. Whereas I think Damon proved he was more often than not.
Plus Hill's performance in Brazil 93 in only his 4th GP (where his team mate spun off in the wet) and Donnington 93, where Hill finished ahead of his team mate and was the only driver to finish on the same lap as Senna, weren't bad wet weather drives either. Also Hill in Monaco 96 were he drove away from the field in the wet after Schumacher drove like an amatuer, blew his start and stuck it in the wall on the first lap and Villenueve badly underperfomed. He might not have been Senna or Schumacher in the wet, but Hill was a lot more consistant and solid than the rest in the 90s.
Edit: typo.
Edited by screamingV16, 22 November 2016 - 14:09.
#344
Posted 22 November 2016 - 13:29
Brawn finds a diffuser solution that is outlawed for everyone else.
What the hell am I reading?
#345
Posted 22 November 2016 - 13:57
What the hell am I reading?
Pretty well known that Red Bull et al had diffuser holes that Whiting said were illegal. Brawn (and Toyota/Williams) did very nearly the same thing and Whiting gave the OK. All part of Mosley trying to undermine the grandees.
#346
Posted 22 November 2016 - 14:02
Obviously, yeah.
Hamilton's error-ridden 2008 in the top ten and Button's measured 2009 in the bottom five, because, you know, a Kovalainen on a compromised strategy in every single race was comparatively such a force compared to Barrichello...or both Ascari's seasons in one of the the most dominant cars in WDC history (obviously with the advantage of being Scuderia's first horse, Rudi Fischer in an amateur team's 500 does not reduce its dominance) in the top 4, and Fangio/Mansell/Vettel/Schumacher's championships, where they dominated their teammates in a largely similar fashion, confined to the midpack solely on the criteria of sitting in the dominant car...seems fair.
The point is how impressive was Hamilton in 2008 compared to how impressive was Button in 2009. The 2008 McLaren was nowhere near the Ferrari in terms of outright pace yet Hamilton beat them both. Indeed the McLaren might have been worse than the BMW-Sauber as well.
Button had a rocketship for 75% of the season and only had Barrichello to worry about. His title was not as great an achievement as Hamilton's.
And one big difference between Ascari and Schumacher's Ferrari titles is anyone could buy a 500 and give it a go. Ascari's competition in the same car was therefore potentially the entire Grand Prix world. Schumacher only had a much slower driver who was contractually bound not to beat him. Schumacher winning the title in those circumstances was not as great an achievement.
#347
Posted 22 November 2016 - 14:38
The point is how impressive was Hamilton in 2008 compared to how impressive was Button in 2009. The 2008 McLaren was nowhere near the Ferrari in terms of outright pace yet Hamilton beat them both. Indeed the McLaren might have been worse than the BMW-Sauber as well.
Button had a rocketship for 75% of the season and only had Barrichello to worry about. His title was not as great an achievement as Hamilton's.
And one big difference between Ascari and Schumacher's Ferrari titles is anyone could buy a 500 and give it a go. Ascari's competition in the same car was therefore potentially the entire Grand Prix world. Schumacher only had a much slower driver who was contractually bound not to beat him. Schumacher winning the title in those circumstances was not as great an achievement.
Perhaps the Ferrari indeed was a faster car outright, but it was also driven by Felipe Massa and an unhappy-with-the-car Kimi. Kovalainen being roughly as strong in qualifying as his compatriot in the McLaren suggests that perhaps beating the Ferraris in 2008 was not quite the heroic achievement you represent. Personally I rate Lewis' dominant 2015 performance (and for the record, his rookie year+a few others where he didn't get a title) far above his 2008 campaign.
And yeah, anyone could have bought the 500 and given it a go. But that's coulds and woulds, because what occurred in reality is that nobody competitive did - and don't play me Rosier. Essentially that reduced his competition to Farina and Taruffi (and Hawthorn in '53) - wouldn't consider those two that mighty compared to the Patreses, Barrichellos, or Webbers of the later centuries. Certainly not as mighty compared to the Mosses or Nico Rosbergs.
(just so you don't get me wrong, I really do rate Ascari - it's just that I value the later "walkovers" similarly to Ascari's titles)
#348
Posted 22 November 2016 - 15:03
It has been estblished around 100 times that the McLaren was car off the year both in 2007 and 2008, and that Kimi:s WDC in 2007 was in deed made in an inferior car.
Add to that that the McLaren of 2008, often called McFerrari was a result of cheating inside McLaren the title of 2008 is heavily stained.
#349
Posted 22 November 2016 - 15:15
I don't think it has. There is no consensus on the matter.It has been estblished around 100 times that the McLaren was car off the year both in 2007 and 2008, and that Kimi:s WDC in 2007 was in deed made in an inferior car.
#350
Posted 22 November 2016 - 15:35
Pretty well known that Red Bull et al had diffuser holes that Whiting said were illegal. Brawn (and Toyota/Williams) did very nearly the same thing and Whiting gave the OK. All part of Mosley trying to undermine the grandees.
Could you please provide any reliable sources regarding this?