693 replies to this topic

[Synkro89]

USA 2007 having Alonso hound you most of the race took alot of pressure to handle on young shoulders.

[Atreiu]

I believe Hamilton knows very well that his 7 titels (2020 in the bag) and the majority of his 91 wins are coming from an unprecedented dominance of one team since 2014. That's a fact imho. And it will raise questions about his greatness compared to other champions.

Greatness is like beauty, in the eyes of the beholder. Curiously, the people who raise questions, as if Lewis himself were reaponsible for the circumstances, and spend the most energy arguing over it are the detractors.

[P123]

I don't think you phrased it badly at all. I just think it's worth bearing in mind that Hamilton has probably had better machinery than any other driver in the sport's history.

 

I want to expand a bit on the 2014-2016 dominance to illustrate this point. Below are the races Mercedes lost during this period, and the reasons why:

 

2014

Canadian GP - both Mercedes develop PU issues in the second half of the race when running ina a comfortable 1-2.

Hungarian GP - Rosberg starts on pole but his race is ruined by a safety car and poor pitstop. Hamilton starts from the pitlane and spins on lap 1. He still finished 3rd, just 5 seconds behind the winner.

Belgian GP - the Mercedes collide on the opening lap. Both races ruined.

 

2015

Malaysian GP - Mercedes beaten fair and square. Vettel has a decisive pace advantage in the race.

Hungarian GP - a bit contentious as Vettel led from lap 1 and was ahead of Rosberg throughout. Hamilton's challenge ended by mistake on lap 1, and later a drive-through penalty.

Singapore GP - Mercedes beaten fair and square, Vettel the fastest man all weekend.

 

2016

Spanish GP - Hamilton and Rosberg collide on lap 1. Both retire.

Malaysian GP - Rosberg drops to last on lap 1 after turn 1 contact. Hamilton retires from a comfortable lead with engine failure on lap 40.

 

Apart from the above Mercedes won every race in this period. I think they had the fastest car at an incredible 57 of the 59 races in this period. And it's a similar story this season - so far they've been comfortably fastest at ten of the eleven races. With machinery like this I suspect rather a lot of drivers would rack up an enormous amount of wins. It more than makes up for the comparative number of wins Hamilton has lost by having stronger teammates than Schumacher.

 

I'm not sure it does.  Your post above just shows that Merc won, a lot. When Schumacher had comfortably the best car in his Ferrari stint in 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2004 he won 42 of Ferrari's 49 races.  85%.  So with the same level of teammate for Hamilton- like a Bottas/ Barichello during those three years it would equate to 43 victories, rather than 31.  That's 12 more victories;  equivalent to another full season+ of dominance for the stats table, through having a relatively weaker teammate.  Less time required to throw up those stats totals.  And that also doesn't take into account having Alonso as teammate in 2007, where Hamilton finished second to Alonso's first three times, or the seasons with Button.  As we see with Lewis Vs Bottas, compared with vs Rosberg, teammate strength can swing things a fair bit, and Schumacher enjoys the rub of that over the course of his career.  I don't think your final sentence necessarily stands. 

[sennamaster]

MS was in quite an exclusive club, as he more or less was the only one who was willing to go that far on a consistent basis in different situations (there are 12 years between Adelaide 94 and Monaco 2006 for instance). 

 

I don't think we had a driver after MS who went that far in his 'antics'. 

 

Grosjean, Magnussen, Maldonado  to name a few 

[ARTGP]

Grosjean, Magnussen, Maldonado  to name a few 

 

Two of those 3 lacked car control instinct....Only the third was doing it on purpose 

[sennamaster]

A driver like Alonso, or someone else from that caliber, could've taken 2017 or 2018 in the Ferrari, but still it would've been very, very hard. 

 

I think they both had dominant cars for the same amount of time, more or less, the real question for me is how that came to be.

 

MS joined a midfield team, and it took 4 years to make that team into a winning machine. Not saying he made it happen, but he took a much bigger risk. 

 

HAM joined a winning machine and simply drove away. Yes, I know he joined in 2013, but he singed based on what was promised for 2014 and beyond. Mercedes didn't build that huge advantage in a year. Development was on going long before Hamilton was in the picture. 

 

Was Ferrari ever going to enjoy all those years of domination without MS joining ? Doubt it. 

 

Was Mercedes going to enjoy all these (bar '17 or '18 perhaps) years of domination without Hamilton ? Absolutely. 

 

Yet most experts and drivers ridiculed him for joining 

 

https://www.skysport...o-join-mercedes

[Speedometer]

Interesting stuff. I see the Hamilton supporters haven't responded yet.. maybe thinking up some 'spin'.

 

Personally, I just can't include the hybrid Merc years as how I try to place Hamilton among the great F1 drivers, I judge him on 2007 to 2013 inclusive. 

 

For me, it's actually the opposite--yes he was a top rated driver before 2014, but it's his performances over 2017 and especially 2018 that, from my perspective, cemented his place among the greats. Ferrari had the best car in  2018, yet Hamilton was flawless. His level went up.

[MasterOfCoin]

A driver like Alonso, or someone else from that caliber, could've taken 2017 or 2018 in the Ferrari, but still it would've been very, very hard. 

 

I think they both had dominant cars for the same amount of time, more or less, the real question for me is how that came to be.

 

MS joined a midfield team, and it took 4 years to make that team into a winning machine. Not saying he made it happen, but he took a much bigger risk. 

 

HAM joined a winning machine and simply drove away. Yes, I know he joined in 2013, but he singed based on what was promised for 2014 and beyond. Mercedes didn't build that huge advantage in a year. Development was on going long before Hamilton was in the picture. 

 

Was Ferrari ever going to enjoy all those years of domination without MS joining ? Doubt it. 

 

Was Mercedes going to enjoy all these (bar '17 or '18 perhaps) years of domination without Hamilton ? Absolutely. 

So what do you supposed Michael was promised in 1996 a bag of magic beans......He was sold the same idea as Lewis was, and that was to build a team and win championships.....It's only with hindsight that people assume the 2014 Merc was going to be dominate....

[Dhillon]

2018 Mercedes was not a dominant car! get your blinkers off your talking nonsense

Car capable of 2/3 poles not dominant enough for you ?

[Gary Davies]

An overly statistics based assessment of various drivers' brilliance has never done a lot for me. This is such a complex sport with so many factors influencing the final numbers. 

 

So excuse me, friends, if this observation has appeared in one of the previous 659 posts - I lack the stamina to plough through them all - but when I first seriously followed motor racing as a schoolboy in 1961, there were 8 Grands Prix contributing to the championship. Just about says it all about the relevance of 91 wins.

 

And I say that with no disrespect to either Michael Schumacher, Lewis Hamilton or their respective fans. Excellent drivers, both, and no doubt similarly excellent fans.

[Ultraviolet]

Greatness is like beauty, in the eyes of the beholder. Curiously, the people who raise questions, as if Lewis himself were reaponsible for the circumstances, and spend the most energy arguing over it are the detractors.

They also discount all of Lewis's wins from dominant machinery without applying the same standard to Schumacher and Vettel, whose wins, apparently, were all down to them despite the fact that they had team number 1 status as well as a rocket ship under them for many of their wins.

 

Another point they omit is that Lewis has remained at Mercedes in that fast car for so long BECAUSE he is the best. With their money, they could have any driver they chose. If they thought someone else was better, they would not keep him.

 

Those who keep questioning Lewis's greatness, I am not sure if they genuinely believe it or if they are just trolling. Either is rather sad.

[Ultraviolet]

An overly statistics based assessment of various drivers' brilliance has never done a lot for me. This is such a complex sport with so many factors influencing the final numbers. 

 

So excuse me, friends, if this observation has appeared in one of the previous 659 posts - I lack the stamina to plough through them all - but when I first seriously followed motor racing as a schoolboy in 1961, there were 8 Grands Prix contributing to the championship. Just about says it all about the relevance of 91 wins.

 

And I say that with no disrespect to either Michael Schumacher, Lewis Hamilton or their respective fans. Excellent drivers, both, and no doubt similarly excellent fans.

Very fair point. Not unrelated, I still rate Alonso as the second best driver of the last ten years, even though he doesn't have the stats others have. Like many, I rate Max as the second-best driver today, even though he doesn't have a championship to his name, or even a season when he has been seriously challenging for the title, and has clocked up just nine wins in his five years. As you say, it is to a substantial degree about the quality of the drives, not just the raw numbers.

[Marklar]

Car capable of 2/3 poles not dominant enough for you ?

from everything I heard it's perceived by engineers that the Ferrari drivers left many poles on the table in 2017/18. Imagine Ferrari in 2019 with Kimi instead of Leclerc, that Ferrari would have looked quite a bit less impressive (and Vettel would've looked like he performs miracles)

It's a bit ironic that stuff like this actually works to your advantage. The worse you perform the more the narrative of a weak car can be pushed. Maybe Lewis should have tried this instead of his dramatic team radio messages

Im not even trying. It's too easy....


Top 5:

• Monaco 1997
• Spa 1995
• Nurburgring 1995
• Hungaroring 1998
• Suzuka 2000

vs:

1. 2008 Britain
2. 2018 Italy
3. 2014 Bahrain
4. 2011 China
5. 2019 Monaco

Only Britain 2008 was really an impressive win out of those 5.

looking on the bolded and your list of Schumacher at least you are consistent in rating overhyped wins highly

Edited by Marklar, 15 October 2020 - 07:09.

[Requiem84]

The only point I agree with is that Schumacher had more 'miracle' wins than Hamilton (Barcelona 1996 anyone, or Hungaroring with the 4 (?) pit stops). 

 

Schumacher also had fiercer WDC battles. Hill, Villeneuve, Hakkinen, Kimi, Alonso. 

 

But on the other hand, one of Lewis 2.0 (I see Lewis until 2012 as Lewis 1.0) strong traits is being so good and consistent that he makes things look easy, which allow him to stay out of most complicated on track situations. 

[PayasYouRace]

It was France 2004 that had the four pit stops.

[jazzzz]

Which races would have been lost with two Bottasses?

Any races which Bottas came 3rd.

[Requiem84]

It was France 2004 that had the four pit stops.

 

The 1998 Hungaroring race was the one I referred to, it was indeed 3 stops (and Magny Cours was 4 (but the MC race seemed more 'winnable' than the Hungarian GP).

 

https://www.autospor...rian-gps-ranked

 

5. Schumacher and Ferrari outwit McLaren, 1998

Pole: Mika Hakkinen (McLaren MP4-13)
Winner: Michael Schumacher (Ferrari F300)

The 1998 race is remembered as one of Michael Schumacher's greatest drives. Dynamic Ferrari strategy and qualifying-style laps at a crucial moment were enough to overturn a McLaren 1-2 on the grid.

PLUS: Michael Schumacher's top 10 F1 victories

McLaren played a key role in its downfall. All seemed well in the early stages, with poleman Mika Hakkinen leading from David Coulthard, and even after the first round of pitstops the silver cars led.

But when Schumacher made his second stop on lap 43 of 77 and committed to a three-stop strategy, the race came alive. And McLaren blundered.

The gap to Schumacher was already 11s, despite a brief off by the leader, and Coulthard's chase was hampered by a wrongly pressured rear tyre

Instead of bringing in Hakkinen next time through to ensure he kept his lead, it brought in Coulthard for his second and final stop. He rejoined behind Schumacher, as did Hakkinen when he came in on lap 46. That meant Schumacher led by 5s. He now had 15 laps to build up enough of an advantage to make his third stop.

He started putting in a string of fast laps and McLaren again played into Ferrari's hands. Hakkinen was suffering handling issues on his final set of tyres, but it wasn't until lap 52 that Coulthard was allowed through. The gap to Schumacher was already 11s, despite a brief off by the leader, and Coulthard's chase was hampered by a wrongly pressured rear tyre.

The Ferrari's Goodyears also proved better than the Bridgestones the McLarens were on, allowing Schumacher to continue extending his lead.

"For me it was like a qualifying race," said Schumacher, who made his third and final stop with 15 laps to go. He emerged 5s ahead of Coulthard and took a shock win by 9.4s.

[Marklar]

The only point I agree with is that Schumacher had more 'miracle' wins than Hamilton (Barcelona 1996 anyone, or Hungaroring with the 4 (?) pit stops).

Schumacher also had fiercer WDC battles. Hill, Villeneuve, Hakkinen, Kimi, Alonso.

But on the other hand, one of Lewis 2.0 (I see Lewis until 2012 as Lewis 1.0) strong traits is being so good and consistent that he makes things look easy, which allow him to stay out of most complicated on track situations.

not much of a miracle when Williams decides to go for a dry set-up

France 2004 with the 4 pitstops was more a demonstration of the cars superiority than anything.

When a strategy gamble like Budapest 1998 pays off you always look good.

Those most impressive wins lists are usually a compilation of wins boosted by circumstances than actually being impressive imo (that's why they usually feature many wet weather races), hence why it's a stupid argument in the first place.

Edited by Marklar, 15 October 2020 - 07:26.

[Requiem84]

not much of a miracle when Williams decides to go for a dry set-up

France 2004 with the 4 pitstops was more a demonstration of the cars superiority than anything.

Those most impressive wins lists are usually a compilation of wins boosted by circumstances than actually being impressive imo (that's why they usually feature many wet weather races), hence why it's a stupid argument in the first place.

 

Ah bollocks, I meant the 1994 Spanish GP where Schumacher was stuck in 5th gear for a long period. But I guess you'll find another explanation why that was not impressive ;).

 

I disagree with you regarding most impressive wins being circumstances. There are days when a sportsman does something special. I mean, are we now also saying that Usain Bolt lucked into running 9.58 on the 100 metres? No, it was a special performance. There are special performances in F1 too, but they are harder to spot because we can't fully evaluate all circumstances. 

 

But if you only belittle these type of performances, you are de-construction the beauty of the sport. 

[PlayboyRacer]

not much of a miracle when Williams decides to go for a dry set-up

It's a good point you make. I don't wish to downplay Schumachers sensational win in Barcelona 1996. But I feel it's a touch overhyped at times myself.

It was only a race or two before, Brazil 1996, where in similar conditions Damon Hill absolutely dominated and lapped everyone except for Jean Alesi. Which shows you how much gambling on the right set up, in those conditions, plays a part. And it must be said too that Damon was very elite in wet conditions himself.

[Marklar]

Ah bollocks, I meant the 1994 Spanish GP where Schumacher was stuck in 5th gear for a long period. But I guess you'll find another explanation why that was not impressive ;).

I disagree with you regarding most impressive wins being circumstances. There are days when a sportsman does something special. I mean, are we now also saying that Usain Bolt lucked into running 9.58 on the 100 metres? No, it was a special performance. There are special performances in F1 too, but they are harder to spot because we can't fully evaluate all circumstances.

But if you only belittle these type of performances, you are de-construction the beauty of the sport.

I'm not saying this at all. But certain circumstances can make a performance look better than the same performance in different circumstances. Again, it's no coincidence that rain races are constantly taken as impressive wins: Lewis' Silverstone 2008 is probably not even in my top 10. The main reason why he finished a minute ahead is because they nailed the strategy and because his main contenders spend more time off the track. Yet it's constantly cited as his #1 win.

And you will be able to rationalize many supposed miracle performances in the same way. I'm not saying that the performances werent good or anything, but I think many other great performances are underrated because they didnt had a flattering aspect like rain or a huge strategy gamble on them. And unless you are a extreme fan you will not remember them either, which is why I think this point is very silly.

[Requiem84]

I'm not saying this at all. But certain circumstances can make a performance look better than the same performance in different circumstances. Again, it's no coincidence that rain races are constantly taken as impressive wins: Lewis' Silverstone 2008 is probably not even in my top 10. The main reason why he finished a minute ahead is because they nailed the strategy and because his main contenders spend more time off the track. Yet it's constantly cited as his #1 win.

And you will be able to rationalize many supposed miracle performances in the same way. I'm not saying that the performances werent good or anything, but I think many other great performances are underrated because they didnt had a flattering aspect like rain or a huge strategy gamble on them. And unless you are a extreme fan you will not remember them either, which is why I think this point is very silly.

 

I think Silverstone 2008 was actually a very impressive day.

 

All competitors of Lewis made a lot of mistakes. Does that mean they all had a bad day, or did it mean that the conditions were very difficult and that only one guy had the talent to make the conditions look easy for him? I think it was the latter.

 

I remember the team radio asking Lewis to drive slower to which he responded that he couldn't drive any slower as he was already taking it very easy. He was a big big class above the field that day.

 

And yes, often rain comes in with such races because rain is the differentiator. The impact of the car decreases and the impact of the driver increases, so it makes sense to look at those races for special performances. 

[Marklar]

the only driver who didnt went off the track that day was Nick Heidfeld though IIRC

Edited by Marklar, 15 October 2020 - 07:46.

[Requiem84]

A cult hero in its own right .

[Lerdes]

Okay I agree I got carried away by stating Jenson Button is "a loser." But my grouse with him was when he would always come on the radio when its wet and say its too dangerous to be having a race in such conditions. I guess that is why i have a particular dislike for him.

Please watch Canada 2011 again and again.

[Marklar]

talking about overhyped wins

I'll take my coat.

[Requiem84]

Canada 2011: would Button have won had he not run Hamilton into the wall?

 

I think Lewis would have taken that one ;).

[Marklar]

Canada 2011: would Button have won had he not run Hamilton into the wall?

I think Lewis would have taken that one ;).

probably, he did look quicker.

everyone knew on saturday that McLaren was set up for rain and that if it does rain they'll likely win, they just made it a tiny bit harder for themselves, with both drivers crashing twice and Button picking up a penalty

prime example for a win that only looks on the surface like a exceptional performance...

[shure]

They also discount all of Lewis's wins from dominant machinery without applying the same standard to Schumacher and Vettel, whose wins, apparently, were all down to them despite the fact that they had team number 1 status as well as a rocket ship under them for many of their wins.

 

Another point they omit is that Lewis has remained at Mercedes in that fast car for so long BECAUSE he is the best. With their money, they could have any driver they chose. If they thought someone else was better, they would not keep him.

 

Those who keep questioning Lewis's greatness, I am not sure if they genuinely believe it or if they are just trolling. Either is rather sad.

I think that's grossly unfair.  Few, if any, are questioning whether he's a great driver.  Most of the comments appear to be on where he is relative to Schumacher.  And since that will practically by definition be based on a high degree of subjectivity, I don't know how anyone could conclude it's trolling just because people choose one over the other.

 

I don't agree with your second point, either.  Whether he's the best is not necessarily linked to whether Mercedes keeps him.  After all, they keep Bottas and he's not widely regarded as the second best driver in F1.  They keep him because he delivers, not because nobody else could.  The relationship benefits both parties and works, so why break it up to potentially get someone better if you don't need to?  That's not the same as saying he's not the best or that someone might do a better job, but I don't think you can draw any conclusion on how he ranks compared to other drivers solely on the basis of how long Merc has kept him.

[GoldenColt]

I think putting Spain 1994 on your list of impressive victories for MSC is a bit odd considering that if anything, losing an important gear and still finishing 2nd proves the superiority of the car more than anything else. It wasn't anywhere near as difficult to finish the race without a gear in that particular car as it used a semi-automatic gearbox, unlike the 1991 McLaren Honda with which Senna won the Brazilian Grand Prix facing similar problems for example.

Edited by GoldenColt, 15 October 2020 - 08:10.

[Requiem84]

So what for you made it different then? 

Being stuck in a gear is being stuck in a gear. It does not matter whether it's semi automatic or not? What am I missing. 

[shure]

I think putting Spain 1994 on your list of impressive victories for MSC is a bit odd considering that if anything, losing an important gear and still finishing 2nd proves the superiority of the car more than anything else. It wasn't anywhere near as difficult to finish the race without a gear in that particular car as it used a semi-automatic gearbox, unlike the 1991 McLaren Honda with which Senna won the Brazilian Grand Prix facing similar problems for example.

Losing the gears meant he had to choose completely different racing lines, braking points etc.  he even managed a pit stop without stalling! I think dismissing that as 'the car" is a little narrow-minded and ignores the levels of skill that must have needed.  He also managed to beat his team mate who had access to a full set of gears until his retirement just ten laps from the end, so couldn't have been just the car.  To not only finish a race but finish it in 2nd with only a single gear available to him for much of it was a special performance

[GoldenColt]

So what for you made it different then? 

Being stuck in a gear is being stuck in a gear. It does not matter whether it's semi automatic or not? What am I missing. 

From the race-report on Wikipedia:

 

Unknown to observers, Senna's gearbox was failing, having lost fourth gear and by lap 60 the lead was halved and Mansell had set fastest lap. Yet it was Mansell's gearbox that gave way first, forcing the Williams into a spin and causing him to retire on lap 61. With just a couple of laps left, Senna had also lost fifth and third gears. Having to maintain sixth gear in slow and medium corners meant that several times he nearly stalled. Patrese was catching him rapidly, but with gearbox problems of his own he was unable to pass. Senna won by 2.9 seconds from Patrese. When he crossed the finish line, he started to scream in celebration of achieving his dream of winning at home. The tremendous struggle of trying to keep the car under control, caused him to have muscle cramps and fever. After stopping his car, Senna was almost unable to move on his own. He had to be lifted bodily from the car due to exhaustion and driven to the podium in the medical car.

Now, I don't remember anything similar happening with Michael after that Spanish GP and I doubt that was down to Senna being in worse physical shape.

Edited by GoldenColt, 15 October 2020 - 08:23.

[TheFish]

From the race-report on Wikipedia:

Now, I don't remember anything similar happening with Michael after that Spanish GP and I doubt that was down to Senna being in worse physical shape.

That's probably related to their fitness levels.

[GoldenColt]

That's probably related to their fitness levels.

I don't think Senna in 1991 was struggling with his fitness level, if anything, according to Gerhard Berger's book, Ayrton was the benchmark in that regard.

[Requiem84]

I think you missed the part where Michael set new standards for fitness in F1. 

 

Secondly, I think you don't really understand the technical side. It does not matter whether you have a manual or semi-automatic gearbox when your your stuck in 1 gear. A semi-automatic gearbox still uses a clutch for pulling of during a pitstop (which Schumacher did in 5th gear). So the situation was exactly the same.

 

But only because Senna had if difficult from a physical perspective you think it's more impressive. Right. 

 

I think both drives were impressive and I think it's a little sad to try to belittle Schumacher's special performance. 

[ARTGP]

I came back in here half expecting to find another round of Super Mario Brawl.... But no, there is actually an interesting discussion going on. Am I in the right place?   .

Edited by ARTGP, 15 October 2020 - 08:34.

[GoldenColt]

I think you missed the part where Michael set new standards for fitness in F1.

Any data we can look at to compare Senna's fitness level to Michael's? Because once again, Senna's teammate at that time was blown away by the regime the Brazilian driver was undergoing and the shape he was in, allowing him to win races like Phoenix 1990 by being able to go flat out at any necessary moment, something Berger was never able to do himself.

 

Secondly, I think you don't really understand the technical side. It does not matter whether you have a manual or semi-automatic gearbox when your your stuck in 1 gear. A semi-automatic gearbox still uses a clutch for pulling of during a pitstop (which Schumacher did in 5th gear). So the situation was exactly the same.

I do think that having to switch gears using your entire arm, having to drive one handed through corners etc. requires more physical effort than just shifting a paddle. That you fail to understand that is baffling to me, as is the fact that you claim

 

But only because Senna had if difficult from a physical perspective you think it's more impressive. Right.

as if that conclusion of mine would be a surprise to you. Yes, two drivers face a similar issue, one of them has to put more physical effort in to solve it, leading to exhaustion which the other driver doesn't face as he didn't have to put in as much of a physical effort. Of course that's more impressive.

 

I think both drives were impressive and I think it's a little sad to try to belittle Schumacher's special performance. 

It's not belittling, it's putting their two drives into perspective.
 

Edited by GoldenColt, 15 October 2020 - 08:39.

[P123]

An overly statistics based assessment of various drivers' brilliance has never done a lot for me. This is such a complex sport with so many factors influencing the final numbers. 

 

So excuse me, friends, if this observation has appeared in one of the previous 659 posts - I lack the stamina to plough through them all - but when I first seriously followed motor racing as a schoolboy in 1961, there were 8 Grands Prix contributing to the championship. Just about says it all about the relevance of 91 wins.

 

And I say that with no disrespect to either Michael Schumacher, Lewis Hamilton or their respective fans. Excellent drivers, both, and no doubt similarly excellent fans.

They both race/ raced in an era of superb reliability too.  It is a lofty number, 91 and counting, but wins per starts, nothing too different to Clark, Ascari, and not close to Fangio (although those ratios do give lie to the often heard complaint in here that F1 has 'never been like this').

[Augurk]

Wow. Where has this thread gone off to. You can literally explain every victory or performance away by circumstances, setup and car performance.

I hope you enjoy your sterile sport where the driver can only influence the result by making mistakes.

[Requiem84]

Any data we can look at to compare Senna's fitness level to Michael's? Because once again, Senna's teammate at that time was blown away by the regime the Brazilian driver was undergoing and the shape he was in, allowing him to win races like Phoenix 1990 by being able to go flat out at any necessary moment, something Berger was never able to himself.

 

I do think that having to switch gears using your entire arm, having to drive one handed through corners etc. requires more physical effort than just shifting a paddle. That you fail to understand that is baffling to me, as is the fact that you claim

 

as if that conclusion of mine would be a surprise to you. Yes, two drivers face a similar issue, one of them has to put more physical effort in to solve it, leading to exhaustion which the other driver doesn't face as he didn't have to put in as much of a physical effort. Of course that's more impressive.

 

It's not belittling, it's putting their two drives into perspective.
 

 

Both guys were stuck in one gear, so what shifting did Senna have to do? In fact, being stuck in a gear made life easier for Senna as he didn't have to shift anymore with his entire arm. Am I missing something, or do you not understand the concept of 'being stuck in a gear'?

 

It's widely known that Schumacher raised the benchmark for fitness in F1. Senna raised the fitness bar for his generation (just compare Mansell with Senna), but Schumacher brought it to another level. 

[Lights]

Okay I agree I got carried away by stating Jenson Button is "a loser." But my grouse with him was when he would always come on the radio when its wet and say its too dangerous to be having a race in such conditions. I guess that is why i have a particular dislike for him. 

 

Of Button's 15 victories in F1, 7 were declared wet races. 4 of which he also ran on full wets.

 

But of course, he would always "come on the radio when its wet and say its too dangerous". And then win them, somehow. What a genius he was.

 

Anyway have fun with your dislike of him based on some distorted memories.

[GoldenColt]

Both guys were stuck in one gear, so what shifting did Senna have to do? In fact, being stuck in a gear made life easier for Senna as he didn't have to shift anymore with his entire arm. Am I missing something, or do you not understand the concept of 'being stuck in a gear'?

Senna was stuck in 6th gear for only the last couple of laps (see the quote I put in my comment). However, he had already lost 4th gear earlier, which - to my understanding - means he must have been managing that particular gearbox issue while still shifting through the gears, at least those he still had available.

 

It's widely known that Schumacher raised the benchmark for fitness in F1. Senna raised the fitness bar for his generation (just compare Mansell with Senna), but Schumacher brought it to another level. 

You're repeating yourself, but I was asking for anything beyond conventional wisdom in that regard, which you don't seem to be able to provide.

Edited by GoldenColt, 15 October 2020 - 08:51.

[PayasYouRace]

Safe to say this thread has run its course and the actual Lewis Hamilton achievement has been exhausted.