476 replies to this topic

[PlayboyRacer]

Even though he drove the second best car, or even third best car like in 96, the leading cars were miles ahead in tems of speed. He was the only one who could take the fight to Mclaren or Williams in the 90s. No one else came close. Nobody was hindering the other Ferrari drivers from showing speed but funny enough they rarely did.
What you seem to see as mantra as him battling against the odds was actually reality.

The Ferrari in 1996 was the equal of the Benetton. Particularly as the season wore on. But yeah Williams that season in a class of their own.

[thefinalapex]

Sure, Michael had some fantastic wins in less competitive machinery...1996 stands out to me...

But for the bulk of his wins....they were not "against all odds"....they were in cars designed bespoke for him against team-mates who were contractually forbidden to beat him.

Hamilton has been up against Alonso, Button, Rosberg and Bottas....and beaten them all. That's three WDC's, one a contender for GOAT himself, and a serial race winner. All "permitted" to beat Hamilton. No safety net. Yet Hamilton has come out on top far more often than not.

Button, Rosberg and bottas are second tier. Button was hardly rated top tier before he got the brawn. He had more then enough trouble to beat barrichello in 07&08. Bottas is just your modern day Mark Webber and Rosberg just lacked that extra special and already had trouble with a past it schumacher from halway 2011. Its like saying that if irvine became champion in 1999 made that schumacher beating him more special?

[MKSixer]

Senna was pretty special over 1 lap. He had his flaws granted but, if you want to talk pure speed, he was something else. I don't think anyone comes close.

Interesting though - if you look at speed in race trim, the gap between he and Prost comes down alot. In fact there was alot of times Prost had better race pace and he always relentlessly racked up consistent race results, even when the car had issues or was just off the pace. Hence why he won the 1986 title in a genuinely outclassed car. How many can truly lay claim to that feat?

I'd almost argue in race trim, particularly in the turbo era, Prost was the better race driver and just as quick.

This is an interesting and very accurate comparison.  My brother was a Prost fan and I was a Senna fan in those days.  Senna would trounce Prost in quali but Prost was always there at the end.  

 

As I have been watching Lewis over the last 1.5+ decades, I see him having evolved from Senna-esque to Prost-esque. I think the first year with the Mercedes which brought him into a team with a car that ate rear tires was instrumental in his development.  Lewis has driven and won in what now...5 or 6 different formulae?  He's never had a team order protecting him over the year from a team mate and he's only lost to a team mate 2x in 13 years.  He's beat 3 WDCs heads up.  How can he not be considered the GOAT?  Did MSC race against any WDCs as teammates?

[1Devil1]

This is an interesting and very accurate comparison.  My brother was a Prost fan and I was a Senna fan in those days.  Senna would trounce Prost in quali but Prost was always there at the end.  

 

As I have been watching Lewis over the last 1.5+ decades, I see him having evolved from Senna-esque to Prost-esque. I think the first year with the Mercedes which brought him into a team with a car that ate rear tires was instrumental in his development.  Lewis has driven and won in what now...5 or 6 different formulae?  He's never had a team order protecting him over the year from a team mate and he's only lost to a team mate 2x in 13 years.  He's beat 3 WDCs heads up.  How can he not be considered the GOAT?  Did MSC race against any WDCs as teammates?

 

Some points are just wrong: 

 

• Lost only against two drivers in 13 seasons - Thats alot if you ask me
• Fairly close against the drivers that were regarded second tier before they were teamup with him (Rosberg and the 'beat' 3 WDC says hello)
• Got preferential treatment (despite all the talk) several times from Mercedes and McLaren. Wingman Bottas is no myth and Rosberg was ordered to let him past in 2013 as well. Kova was filled up with more fuel. He never had a chance many times in his stint with Lewis (not that he would have been near).
• What many Formula?- the shift that Schumacher made was much bigger (grooved tires, TC, no TC, much more downforce later on, manuel shifting etc.) 

Edited by 1Devil1, 20 September 2019 - 13:53.

[PlayboyRacer]

1Devil1 - Michael Schumacher had teammates contracted to be the number 2 driver and his support.

When has Lewis Hamilton had this?

[1Devil1]

1Devil1 - Michael Schumacher had teammates contracted to be the number 2 driver and his support.

When has Lewis Hamilton had this?

 

Had hadn't look up the interview from Eddie Irvine he speaks about that. Nothing was in the contract, it was the trust the team had in Michael. 

[PlayboyRacer]

Had hadn't look up the interview from Eddie Irvine he speaks about that. Nothing was in the contract, it was the trust the team had in Michael.

Lol ok.

[1Devil1]

Lol ok.

 

Mature response. Source for you claim?  

 

Legend of F1, look it up and see what Irvine has to say about his contract. Nothing in there despite following team orders, you will find that clause in every contract I guess.

 

"Michael was the fastest so he got better treatment"

Edited by 1Devil1, 20 September 2019 - 14:13.

[Atreiu]

Driving against Senna exposed some weaknesses in Prost that we might not have seen otherwise. Prost also benefited from the dominance of McLaren in 1988/9. In a worse car, Senna would have often put more cars between them and would probably have beaten Prost by more. Lauda in 1984 and Piquet in 1987 would probably not have beaten their team-mates in a less dominant car either.

Anyway I'm not sure the 80s were as full of talent as some say. There was Senna and then the likes of Prost/Mansell/Piquet probably quite close at their peaks but Prost gets it for his year after year consistency.

But against Schumacher/Alonso/Hamilton/Verstappen, Prost would not have looked like a GOAT.

 

I agree fully with the first part about Senna and Prost, but the last is harder.

 

We can't tell how Prost would have adjusted his driving if he had been in the 90s and 00s with its refueling-sprint racing format and incredibly higher reliability rates. Rarely did we see him just floor it and not care, but there were some instances, like Spa 86 and Suzuka 87. The speed was there, the racecraft as well.

 

Likewise, we don't know how others would have faired if finishing a race was never taken for granted.

[thefinalapex]

Mature response. Source for you claim?

Legend of F1, look it up and see what Irvine has to say about his contract. Nothing in there despite following team orders, you will find that clause in every contract I guess.

"Michael was the fastest so he got better treatment"

Its always the same dribe they bring up with schumacher.. even if you can claim otherwise they wont believe you..

[PlayboyRacer]

Mature response. Source for you claim?

Legend of F1, look it up and see what Irvine has to say about his contract. Nothing in there despite following team orders, you will find that clause in every contract I guess.

"Michael was the fastest so he got better treatment"

Rubens Barrichello has said certain things that contradict that. Perhaps he and Irvine didn't have identical contracts?

Then there is Austria 2002. But let's not get into this. Probably not a good idea.

[1Devil1]

Its always the same dribe they bring up with schumacher.. even if you can claim otherwise they wont believe you..

 

He was the perfect villain (for english media). Irvine even says in that interview that Michael wasn't that political guy, everybody wants to believe, by controlling the team. He just went out, was mighty fast and worked harder than everybody else. Ferrari used a lot of team orders, but people have short memories the same happened last year at Mercedes. Don't know where this is a plus for Lewis.  

[Anuity]

The Ferrari in 1996 was the equal of the Benetton. Particularly as the season wore on. But yeah Williams that season in a class of their own.

 

 

Ferrari was very unreliable and overall I do not think it was really equal of Benetton. Michael made it look equal to Benetton. While Jean and Gerhard very likely made Benetton look quite a bit worse.

Ross Brawn has said that he is sure that with Michael that would be challenging for the title with Benetton in 1996.

[Atreiu]

 

Some points are just wrong: 

 

• (...)
• What many Formula?- the shift that Schumacher made was much bigger (grooved tires, TC, no TC, much more downforce later on, manuel shifting etc.) 

 

 

 

You don't think cars changed enough from 2007 to now?

 

What do cars have now that is similar to when he joined? Not the tyres, or engines, or vast implementation of recovery systems. Refueling was scrapped, cars got a lot larger and more powerful and produce insane ammounts of DF. TC and LC were scrapped, spec ECUs have been implemented. Big fat safe halo is right in front of drivers eyes now.

 

How do you judge these changes against what Schumi went through?

[1Devil1]

You don't think cars changed enough from 2007 to now?

 

What do cars have now that is similar to when he joined? Not the tyres, or engines, or vast implementation of recovery systems. Refueling was scrapped, cars got a lot larger and more powerful and produce insane ammounts of DF. TC and LC were scrapped, spec ECUs have been implemented. Big fat safe halo is right in front of drivers eyes now.

 

How do you judge these changes against what Schumi went through?

 

Of course it's not verifiable. But those cars Schumacher drove at his beginning of his career were simple in aerodynamics, he had to shift manually. There not that many changes that Lewis drove in 5-6 formulas, that would be a change every second year which is nonsense. I can't see that as pro argument against Schumacher.

Edited by 1Devil1, 20 September 2019 - 15:07.

[Mithrandir]

It's not all about numbers.

For me, it's about how difficult/dangerous the car is, the quality of the opposition, the leadership/star quality, sportmanship and life outside of F1.

By this standard, I could never include in any top10 list any driver after 2009 and the ones after 1995 I certainly put lower than the ones that came before.

Also, clever career moves and political connections I don't value that much, if at all.

 

Thus:

 

1. Clark

2. Fangio

3. Moss

4. Steward

5. Lauda

6. Prost

7. Senna

8. Schumacher

9. Piquet

10. Alonso

 

 

 

Edited by Mithrandir, 20 September 2019 - 15:28.

[MKSixer]

 

Mature response. Source for you claim?  

 

Legend of F1, look it up and see what Irvine has to say about his contract. Nothing in there despite following team orders, you will find that clause in every contract I guess.

 

"Michael was the fastest so he got better treatment"

 

If you're ok with this for Michael they why isn't it ok for Lewis?  Asking for a friend.

[1Devil1]

If you're ok with this for Michael they why isn't it ok for Lewis?  Asking for a friend.

 

I am okay with it. But it can't count as pro argument for Lewis as you presented. Hope your friend is satisfied. 

Edited by 1Devil1, 20 September 2019 - 16:07.

[MKSixer]

Of course it's not verifiable. But those cars Schumacher drove at his beginning of his career were simple in aerodynamics, he had to shift manually. There not that many changes that Lewis drove in 5-6 formulas, that would be a change every second year which is nonsense. I can't see that as pro argument against Schumacher.

Lol.  Michael drove the majority of his career in a very stable formula.

 

http://www.formula1-...es_history.html

 

The changes between the time Michael left and returned in 2010 were pretty large and larger yet were the changes in 2014.  Lewis drove through groved tires and back to slicks.  Loss of traction control and a few others.  

 

Remember this as well:  2014,16,16 are a single formula.  2017 and 2018 are a single formula.  2019 and 2020 are a single formula and 2021+ will be yet another.

 

MSC is one of the greats but to cast shadow over Lewis based on your reasoning is simply inaccurate.

[KeithD68]

 

It's not all about numbers.

For me, it's about how difficult/dangerous the car is, the quality of the opposition, the leadership/star quality, sportmanship and life outside of F1.

By this standard, I could never include in any top10 list any driver after 2009 and the ones after 1995 I certainly put lower than the ones that came before.

Also, clever career moves and political connections I don't value that much, if at all.

 

Thus:

 

1. Clark

2. Fangio

3. Moss

4. Steward

5. Lauda

6. Prost

7. Senna

8. Schumacher

9. Piquet

10. Alonso

 

 

 

 

 

Ok but it's not GOAT then is it.

 

I mean, if this was 3019 would you still be saying no drivers after 1995, and ignoring the last 1,024 years?

[Mithrandir]

Ok but it's not GOAT then is it.

 

I mean, if this was 3019 would you still be saying no drivers after 1995, and ignoring the last 1,024 years?

I am including all drivers from all eras, I just don't think the modern era drivers deserve to be in a top10 list.

[Claudius]

The Ferrari in 1996 was the equal of the Benetton. Particularly as the season wore on. But yeah Williams that season in a class of their own.

 

Don't agree with that. Like someone already replied, Benettons main problem that year were the drivers that didn't deliver. 

Ferrari OTOH was falling apart at quite a few races, engine blow up on warm up lap, drive shaft falling from the car during a race. The drivers had to even bend their heads sideways during the straights to not affect the aerodynamics of the car. Haven't seen anything like that since then.

 

IMO the only thing that made that Ferrari look better that year was MS and his driving. 

[1Devil1]

Lol.  Michael drove the majority of his career in a very stable formula.

 

http://www.formula1-...es_history.html

 

The changes between the time Michael left and returned in 2010 were pretty large and larger yet were the changes in 2014.  Lewis drove through groved tires and back to slicks.  Loss of traction control and a few others.  

 

Remember this as well:  2014,16,16 are a single formula.  2017 and 2018 are a single formula.  2019 and 2020 are a single formula and 2021+ will be yet another.

 

MSC is one of the greats but to cast shadow over Lewis based on your reasoning is simply inaccurate.

 

 

Stable formula between 1992-2006? Have a look at those cars. How do you call full electronic cars to banning electronics (1994)? Seasons with different tires manufactures and huge performance swings? Banning traction control, change to grooved tires, change between different tire manufactures (for Schumacher himself). The difference between 2018 and 2019 is there but no reason to call it a new formula, that's laughable. The speed-difference is also huge for Schumacher. He drove those powerhouses at the end of his career compared that to 1992. 

[Marklar]

I am including all drivers from all eras, I just don't think the modern era drivers deserve to be in a top10 list.

Probably somebody from the 50s would say the same about all drivers from the 70s onwards

[MKSixer]

 

Some points are just wrong: 

 

• Lost only against two drivers in 13 seasons - Thats alot if you ask me
• Fairly close against the drivers that were regarded second tier before they were teamup with him (Rosberg and the 'beat' 3 WDC says hello)
• Got preferential treatment (despite all the talk) several times from Mercedes and McLaren. Wingman Bottas is no myth and Rosberg was ordered to let him past in 2013 as well. Kova was filled up with more fuel. He never had a chance many times in his stint with Lewis (not that he would have been near).
• What many Formula?- the shift that Schumacher made was much bigger (grooved tires, TC, no TC, much more downforce later on, manuel shifting etc.) 

 

You really don't want to open this door on the emboldened.  

 

ROS was always fast.  If I remember correctly he got pole position in his opening race or a very early race.  

BOT was highly regarded and pipped to be a future WDC by Niki Lauda and others based on his performance in the Williams. He had excellent results there.  He's being made to look mediocre against HAM but honestly, who wouldn't?

 

Lewis has never been excluded from the championship or crashed out opponents to win.  I met Michael and shook his hand at the factory and one of my daughter's prized possessions is his autograph on a German Grand Prix program.  I hold his performance in high regard.  This exclusion is a black mark that can't be erased.  Lewis has never taken an opponent off the track to win a race.  Paul DiResta said it in FP2 this very morning. "Lewis is a clean driver...hard but fair."  That can't be said for Michael, Nico, Prost, or my idol Senna.  

 

This is why Lewis will always be a cut above them in my opinion.

[MKSixer]

Stable formula between 1992-2006? Have a look at those cars. How do you call full electronic cars to banning electronics (1994)? Seasons with different tires manufactures and huge performance swings? Banning traction control, change to grooved tires, change between different tire manufactures (for Schumacher himself). The difference between 2018 and 2019 is there but no reason to call it a new formula, that's laughable. The speed-difference is also huge for Schumacher. He drove those powerhouses at the end of his career compared that to 1992. 

These are your opinions.  I'm quoting the rules.  It's a new formula.

[Afterburner]

At this point, we're treading into familiar territory. There isn't much point keeping this thread open if we're only going to rehash old arguments, so it's getting closed.