317 replies to this topic

[MJB5990]

2021 Mercedes

 

Okay, I probably should know better but I'll bite ...

 

Huh?

[PlayboyRacer]

The thing was, in that era ALL of the 'tier two' drivers below Schumacher, Hakkinen and Villeneuve were pretty flawed. So back in 2000/01 I absolutely think it's fair to conclude that Ralf, on a high at Williams, was genuinely best of the rest.

Frentzen was getting on and had reverted to mediocrity after '99
Fisichella couldn't handle any sort of pressure and was inconsistent
Trulli was a good qualifier who really had no racing nous at all
Coulthard lacked those final few tenths
Barrichello was tied to Ferrari and very much #2 there
Button wasn't living up to that promise from 2000 - and even then, he only occasionally outpaced Ralf.

Back then, JPM and Heidfeld were maybe the guys people were looking to from F3000, but of the established young drivers, I'd probably have picked Ralf too. He was great really, '99-01.

Not to be pedantic but Frentzen was strong in 2000 imo. To level 8-8 with Trulli in qualifying I thought was mighty impressive and HHF took two podiums, including holding off a charging Villeneuve at Indianapolis after a great scrap. Frentzen had a strong period from 1998-2000 and imo was in the same group with the likes of DC, Rubens and Ralf Schumacher. It was 2001 when his form starred falling off a cliff.

Regarding the BIB, the same could be levelled against Coulthard. I believe Coulthard lost out in qualifying H2H against every other teammate he had. So by the same token, it's hard to judge Hakkinen's 1 lap pace from 1996-01. At the very least though, Schumacher seemed to be able to pull out the outstanding performances in qualifying when Ferrari/Mclarens were not the top 2 cars (96-97). His record against Irvine in that period is also stronger than Hakkinen's against Coulthard in the same period. This backs up your theory that Schumacher was a superior qualifier when the car was not the quickest.

DC went 8-8 with Damon Hill in 1995 and took 5 poles. Plus he also caused Hakkinen all sorts of problems for periods (such as early '97) so I think he proved himself more in a qualifying sense than Irvine ever did. At least that's how I see it.

DC is another where I think pressure and expectation just threw him off his A game. Because at times he was very good, even for lengthy periods. But much like Frentzen with Villeneuve, the moment the pressure dial went up to 11 and World Championships were the prize (not just punching above your weight) DC just got eaten alive by Hakkinen.

There was of course 1995 where titles were on the line at Williams but DC was basically a rookie, the pressure was all on Hill to take on Schumacher. Whereas going into 1998, DC was considered on equal footing with Mika. The dynamic was different.

[PlayboyRacer]

Not sure why the second Benetton doesn't prove anything. It's not like the team where happy having some mediocre driver in the second seat in inferior machinery. They were highly critical of all their second drivers and constantly replaced them every year in a desperate attempt to find someone who could get close to Schumacher. Was a very similar situation to Verstappen with recent team mates at Red Bull.

Coulthard and Mansell both drove before the 16B came out. Mansell drove the FW16 in France and put it on the front row in his first race. Coulthard was also quite competitive in it pretty much straight away.

Semi-retired might be a slight exaggeration but Mansell was 41 that year and wasn't exactly competitive in IndyCar that season.

The Williams had been upgraded and changed by that stage. It wasn't "officially" the FW16B until I think Germany but it had already been revised, I think that process started at Imola or just after. So yes by the time DC and Mansell jumped into it, the FW16 had already changed.

Mansells lack of competitiveness in CART 1994 was because of Lola dropping the ball. Penskes dominated and Reynard was coming on strong. Yet Nigel took 3 poles and 3 podiums, the lack of sustained results/title challenge was hardly because of him.

[messy]

Not to be pedantic but Frentzen was strong in 2000 imo. To level 8-8 with Trulli in qualifying I thought was mighty impressive and HHF took two podiums, including holding off a charging Villeneuve at Indianapolis after a great scrap. Frentzen had a strong period from 1998-2000 and imo was in the same group with the likes of DC, Rubens and Ralf Schumacher. It was 2001 when his form starred falling off a cliff.
 

 

That's a fair point. I always adored the Jordan EJ10, thought it was a lovely car but the results were nothing compared with '99 despite it still probably being the third quickest car on raw pace. In reality though, I think that was unreliability wasn't it. 2001 started well too. I'd love to listen to the Bring Back V10s ep that goes into why that dropped off a cliff because something clearly happened there. 

[Ben24]

The Williams had been upgraded and changed by that stage. It wasn't "officially" the FW16B until I think Germany but it had already been revised, I think that process started at Imola or just after. So yes by the time DC and Mansell jumped into it, the FW16 had already changed.

Mansells lack of competitiveness in CART 1994 was because of Lola dropping the ball. Penskes dominated and Reynard was coming on strong. Yet Nigel took 3 poles and 3 podiums, the lack of sustained results/title challenge was hardly because of him.

Strange that Hill kept qualifying further away from Schumacher until the French Grand Prix if the car was improving so much. There really wasn't anything to suggest it had improved significantly when Coulthard first started racing it.

 

The chassis might not have been the best but other fairly average drivers to perform just as well in the same equipment. And regardless, he didn't exactly look close to Hill (who was far from amazing himself) at all that season which is the entire point

[George Costanza]

There is also another comparison which highlights the speed of Schumacher.

In 2006, using Q2 times (which were pretty much always the fastest time in quali because the cars didn't have any additional fuel), the difference between MSC and Massa was around 0.55% in favour of MSC (this gap is bigger than any gap between Alonso - Massa and comparable to the gap between Max and his teammates after 2019 to have a benchmark)

In 2007, using Q2 times, the gap between Massa and Kimi was 0.008% in favour of Massa. They were pretty much equal.

It could then be argued that the 2007 Ferrari was an excellent car and should have won the WDC / WCC easily.

Michael was a far better driver than Kimi. Of course.

[7WDC]

Sad that this particular rivalry was cut short. I'm not so sure about that pole position comparison.

 

No one than Schumacher could handle the Benetton as good as him. It suited his style perfectly. Drivers before, after him and his teammates never could handle the Benetton that well. In particular Berger and Alesi attributed to that when they wondered how Schumacher managed to win in 95 with what was essentially the same car.  At first maybe unrelated, while driving for Ferrari, Sauber asked him to try out their car, as the regular Sauber drivers were not impressed with that car. Apparently Schumacher was around a second faster with the same Sauber on a private test at the same day and track. It just demonstrated how quick Schumacher in his earlier years could adapt to any car. Senna had the experience, no doubt, and that might have made all the difference. The Benetton was a tricky beast however. Moreso than the Williams.

 

If we compare the 1993 season (when i think they had comparable cars) i don`t have the accurate numbers but from memory i think that in qualy Schumacher beat Senna more often than not, despite having TC only after Monaco. Can someone confirm this?

But I think that over a 20 race season it would be really close i suspect 11/9 to one or another but probably to Senna.

In case of Schumacher vs Hakkinnen i think Schumacher was faster and more consistently faster. Over a 20 race season i would bet something like 13/7 to Schumacher. If you watch Schumacher qualy laps in Japan from 1994 to 2002, or Sepang in 1998 to 2001, you could see what i am talking about. Sheer talent on the absolute edge, amazing car control with ultimate speed that defies believe.

Just my opinion of course.

[Ben24]

True but Lewis is closest imo

I've always found the notion that Hamilton is the closest driver to Senna in terms of qualifying pace quite strange. For me, the thing that has always separated LH from his contemporaries is his racecraft. To me, especially during his prime years once he had matured, Hamilton was the best because of his ability in wheel to wheel racing, his tyre management, his fuel saving techniques (when that was more important) etc. Hamilton is no doubt a very quick driver and has had quite quick team mates to compete with. Still, he has never been someone to totally blow his team mate away in terms of raw pace. It has almost always been the races that separate him from his team mates (apart from Button, who was outqualified by almost every team mate he had but was exceptional in races). Bottas was never blown away by Hamilton in quali and HK was (fuel adjusted) even closer to LH than Bottas. Then, by pretty much any metric you want, Rosberg was almost a perfect match for Hamilton in qualifying over 4 entire seasons together. So if you rate Hamilton as one of the fastest 2-3 qualifiers of all time, you realistically need to put Rosberg in the top 5 qualifiers of all time (at least in the dry).

 

Schumacher, on the other hand, seems to have a reputation for having amazing racecraft that made up for a slight lack in qualy pace compared to the other all time greats. In reality though, it was never Schumacher's wheel to wheel racing (I'd take prime Hamilton's ability here above Schumacher's any day) or his tyre management or any other particular ability that was exclusive to races that set him apart from other drivers. The thing that always set Schumacher apart from his rivals was always raw pace, especially during qualifying.

[PlayboyRacer]

Rosberg is very underrated, particularly in terms of his raw speed and how consistently he delivered that against Hamilton. But Lewis has been extraordinary at times (not just at Mercedes) in qualifying and not always with the best car (McLaren 2009-2012). His 1 lap ability was special from the beginning.

The brilliance with tyre management and becoming a race trim monster came later.

[Anderis]

I've always found the notion that Hamilton is the closest driver to Senna in terms of qualifying pace quite strange. For me, the thing that has always separated LH from his contemporaries is his racecraft. To me, especially during his prime years once he had matured, Hamilton was the best because of his ability in wheel to wheel racing, his tyre management, his fuel saving techniques (when that was more important) etc.

I think much of that perception is based on his team mate battle with Button, where he had Jenson covered all along in terms of qualifying pace but on a race day it was not always that obvious, though in hindsight it could have had a lot to do with Button being a pretty average qualifier for a WDC.

I think he also beat Alonso in terms of pole positions 5-2 from Canada onwards in 2007 (although those were the days of race fuel in Q3 so it may be sometimes misleading). He really did look like possibly the fastest driver in F1 in terms of qualifying speed during his early days in F1.

 

It wasn't until 2014 when he properly "outracecrafted" a team mate who was a challenge for him in terms of qualifying speed for the first time and I had never seen him as a driver relying on his racecraft prior to that. He was just too quick to make that evident.

[ARTGP]

Wasn't Button closer in the races because at that point, Hamilton had not yet become a great manager of his tires whereas Button was Buzz Lightfoot? I would be curious to see how the older Hamilton would have stacked up in the races to Button because he learned how to be fast without using up the tires. 

Edited by ARTGP, 07 April 2022 - 23:14.

[Astandahl]

Michael was a far better driver than Kimi. Of course.

That wasn't the main narrative at the time. Kimi was considered a mega driver (rightfully so considering his results with McL), while MSC teammates were usually considered mediocre drivers because they were always far from his performance. One of the big talking point was that there were some drivers who could challenge Schumacher with the same equipment, and of course Kimi was one of them.

 

So it's a bit funny that when Kimi arrived in Ferrari and faced Massa he wasn't able to create the same gap that MSC had. Not even close, actually.

At the same time, i doubt that Massa became a much better driver from 2006 to 2007 (after 4 years of F1 already).

[HighwayStar]

The thing was, in that era ALL of the 'tier two' drivers below Schumacher, Hakkinen and Villeneuve were pretty flawed. So back in 2000/01 I absolutely think it's fair to conclude that Ralf, on a high at Williams, was genuinely best of the rest. 

 

Frentzen was getting on and had reverted to mediocrity after '99

Fisichella couldn't handle any sort of pressure and was inconsistent

Trulli was a good qualifier who really had no racing nous at all

Coulthard lacked those final few tenths

Barrichello was tied to Ferrari and very much #2 there

Button wasn't living up to that promise from 2000 - and even then, he only occasionally outpaced Ralf. 

 

Back then, JPM and Heidfeld were maybe the guys people were looking to from F3000, but of the established young drivers, I'd probably have picked Ralf too. He was great really, '99-01.

 

I was thinking about the 2001 season recently and I concluded that there have been very few seasons in the modern era where one driver has been quite so clearly head and shoulders above the rest of the field as Michael Schumacher was that year. It is likely that the Ferrari F2001 was the best car in that year's field, but I'm not convinced it was as dominant as Schumacher's performances and results suggested, and I think it was partly due to fortunate timing, with Schumacher at the peak of his powers against a comparatively weak field.

 

On one hand, 2001 was too early for the new crop of promising younger drivers - impressive though all three were in different ways that season, Montoya took some time to adapt to F1, Raikkonen was very inexperienced, as was Alonso, who in any case did not have the machinery to challenge for points finishes. Also, Jenson Button had enjoyed a fairly promising debut season in 2000 with Williams, but was very disappointing for Benetton in 2001. He was trounced by Fisichella and at several events he was outqualified by Alonso in Minardi! By 2003, the first three were all driving competitive cars, but Schumacher was able to take another title in the genuinely dominant F2002 before the challenge from the new generation arrived.

 

On the other hand, the two elite drivers from the previous few seasons, Mika Hakkinen and Jacques Villeneuve, both seemed to decline somewhat. Hakkinen enjoyed a handful of very impressive races (two fine wins in Britain and the US, and he should have a third in Spain), but he managed just one other podium and was fairly comfortably beaten in the standings by Coulthard. Villeneuve is a more perplexing case - his results seem quite respectable as he got the first two podiums for BAR and 'best of the rest' in the WDC behind the drivers from the top three teams, but his performances began to attract increasing criticism (he wasn't ranked in Autocourse top 10 for 2001, whereas he'd ranked third in 2000), which set the tone for the forgettable remaining seasons of his F1 career.

 

I would also add that Heinz-Harald Frentzen, after a great 1999 and decent 2000, fell off a cliff and was fired by Jordan mid-season, while Rubens Barrichello scored plenty of podium finishes, but ultimately did not win a race in the WCC winning car (although this may indicate that Schumacher made the difference that season). Nick Heidfeld had a good second season for Sauber, but was overshadowed by the less experienced but more spectacular Raikkonen. I would say that Ralf Schumacher and Coulthard enjoyed decent seasons, as to a lesser extent did Trulli and Fisichella who both comfortably beat their team mates, but the limitations of the last three are well known and Ralf did not consistently maintain his strong 1999-2001 form in his later campaigns.

Edited by HighwayStar, 08 April 2022 - 21:09.

[thefinalapex]

This thread been a blast to read, all these great informative responses from all of you, plus most of the comment on the pairings are around the time when i just started following F1.

Thank you.

[Bleu]

I was thinking about the 2001 season recently and I concluded that there have been very few seasons in the modern era where one driver has been quite so clearly head and shoulders above the rest of the field as Michael Schumacher was that year. It is likely that the Ferrari F2001 was the best car in that year's field, but I'm not convinced it was as dominant as Schumacher's performances and results suggested, and I think it was partly due to fortunate timing, with Schumacher at the peak of his powers against a comparatively weak field.

 

On one hand, 2001 was too early for the new crop of promising younger drivers - impressive though all three were in different ways that season, Montoya took some time to adapt to F1, Raikkonen was very inexperienced, as was Alonso, who in any case did not have the machinery to challenge for points finishes. Also, Jenson Button had enjoyed a fairly promising debut season in 2000 with Williams, but was very disappointing for Benetton in 2001. He was trounced by Fisichella and at several events he was outqualified by Alonso in Minardi! By 2003, the first three were all driving competitive cars, but Schumacher was able to take another title in the genuinely dominant F2002 before the challenge from the new generation arrived.

 

On the other hand, the two elite drivers from the previous few seasons, Mika Hakkinen and Jacques Villeneuve, both seemed to decline somewhat. Hakkinen enjoyed a handful of very impressive races (two fine wins in Britain and the US, and he should have a third in Spain), but he managed just one other podium and was fairly comfortably beaten in the standings by Coulthard. Villeneuve is a more perplexing case - his results seem quite respectable as he got the first two podiums for BAR and 'best of the rest' in the WDC behind the drivers from the top three teams, but his performances began to attract increasing criticism (he wasn't ranked in Autocourse top 10 for 2001, whereas he'd ranked third in 2000), which set the tone for the forgettable remaining seasons of his F1 career.

 

I would also add that Heinz-Harald Frentzen, after a great 1999 and decent 2000, fell off a cliff and was fired by Jordan mid-season, while Rubens Barrichello scored plenty of podium finishes, but ultimately did not win a race in the WCC winning car (although this may indicate that Schumacher made the difference that season). Nick Heidfeld had a good second season for Sauber, but was overshadowed by the less experienced but more spectacular Raikkonen. I would say that Ralf Schumacher and Coulthard enjoyed decent seasons, as to a lesser extent did Trulli and Fisichella who both comfortably beat their team mates, but the limitations of the last three are well known and Ralf did not consistently maintain his strong 1999-2001 form in his later campaigns.

 

Talking about 2001, while McLaren and Ferrari were sometimes better than Ferrari, probably with an exception of Imola they weren't at the same time. WIlliams had struggles in places like Hungary, while McLaren had difficult weekends in Nürburgring and Monza, where some front-mid-pack cars gave then trouble. 

[Vesuvius]

That wasn't the main narrative at the time. Kimi was considered a mega driver (rightfully so considering his results with McL), while MSC teammates were usually considered mediocre drivers because they were always far from his performance. One of the big talking point was that there were some drivers who could challenge Schumacher with the same equipment, and of course Kimi was one of them.

So it's a bit funny that when Kimi arrived in Ferrari and faced Massa he wasn't able to create the same gap that MSC had. Not even close, actually.
At the same time, i doubt that Massa became a much better driver from 2006 to 2007 (after 4 years of F1 already).

Kimi like Alonso had difficulties with bridgestone tyres, unlike Hamilton and Massa who where used to them.
Kimi and Ferrari never really worked.

[Ben24]

I think much of that perception is based on his team mate battle with Button, where he had Jenson covered all along in terms of qualifying pace but on a race day it was not always that obvious, though in hindsight it could have had a lot to do with Button being a pretty average qualifier for a WDC.

I think he also beat Alonso in terms of pole positions 5-2 from Canada onwards in 2007 (although those were the days of race fuel in Q3 so it may be sometimes misleading). He really did look like possibly the fastest driver in F1 in terms of qualifying speed during his early days in F1.

 

It wasn't until 2014 when he properly "outracecrafted" a team mate who was a challenge for him in terms of qualifying speed for the first time and I had never seen him as a driver relying on his racecraft prior to that. He was just too quick to make that evident.

Hamilton's racecraft definitely wasn't as polished in his early years as it would later become, but it was already clear from years against Kovalainen that his strength was in the races. HK was actually closer to Hamilton on average than Bottas was over there time together when you adjust for qualifying fuel loads. It was always race pace and overtaking ability that really separated Hamilton from Kovalainen. The only guy Hamilton ever truly dominated was Button, who himself is up there for worst head to head qualifying records of any driver to race so many seasons.

 

Those comparisons might seem slightly harsh because both Hamilton and Button did face quite a few strong team mates in qualifying over their years. I also think HK was massively underrated for his quali pace right throughout his career. But for me, to be the second fastest qualifier of all time you can't have drivers the calibre of Bottas and Kovalainen that close to you and be matched by Rosberg in quali. It doesn't mean that Hamilton isn't an all time great qualifier but to me he's not in the absolute top few drivers of fastest drivers over one lap.

[PlayboyRacer]

Hamilton's racecraft definitely wasn't as polished in his early years as it would later become, but it was already clear from years against Kovalainen that his strength was in the races. HK was actually closer to Hamilton on average than Bottas was over there time together when you adjust for qualifying fuel loads. It was always race pace and overtaking ability that really separated Hamilton from Kovalainen. The only guy Hamilton ever truly dominated was Button, who himself is up there for worst head to head qualifying records of any driver to race so many seasons.

Those comparisons might seem slightly harsh because both Hamilton and Button did face quite a few strong team mates in qualifying over their years. I also think HK was massively underrated for his quali pace right throughout his career. But for me, to be the second fastest qualifier of all time you can't have drivers the calibre of Bottas and Kovalainen that close to you and be matched by Rosberg in quali. It doesn't mean that Hamilton isn't an all time great qualifier but to me he's not in the absolute top few drivers of fastest drivers over one lap.

So who are then? Give us your top 5.

I also think you're really underrating the qualifying ability of Nico Rosberg.