2017 Formula 1 Rolex British Grand PrixFormula 1

[TenEightyOne]

So? What about Schumacher? The alledged traction control of the Jordans....

That was allegedly the Benettons which Schumacher moved to after his debut race with Jordan. Eddie Jordan wanted to keep Schumacher for obvious but, as Ron Dennis said to him, welcome to the piranha club.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

So? What about Schumacher? The alledged traction control of the Jordans, the unlimited budgets, custom tyres, unlimited testing and engines, a number two driver that would yield at a flcik of a finger...

This wasn't Jordan it was Benetton you're thinking of

tree'd by @TenEightyOne

 

[Spurgy 777]

I'd say the 2016 Formula 1 World Champion might disagree with that, espcially for 2014

You mean the guy Hamilton fairly easily beat in the 2014 and 2015, and that he beat in most races he finished in 2016 and only lost the championship thanks to an extra retirement? Don't get me wrong, Rosberg is a good driver, but he's not really someone Hamilton should struggle to beat most of the time, and considering that was almost literally his only competition for 3 years, it's not surprising he racked up a load of pole positions.

He started winning pole positions in 2007. In seven of the ten complete seasons where he's won pole positions he hasn't won the WDC. In a partly-different seven of them he wasn't even with the Constructor winning team. It turns out that he's taken 31 of his current 67 poles in the V8 era (a period of utter RBR dominance). In the last three years he's won 2 WDCs of three.

I'd say that approaching the record at this point in his career isn't all down to luck or dominance.

He's also been in a top 2 team for 8 out of his 10 seasons, the other two he was in a top 3 team, he's actually spent more time in a team that's winning the championship than one that's been outside the top 2! It is true that he is one of the best drivers on the grid, but to ignore the fact he's always been in one of the best teams when looking at the statistics is a bit dishonest. In fact, excluding Schumacher, it's probably safe to say no other driver in F1 history has spent as much time in a top 3 team than Hamilton, or at least close to it, although verifying that would take quite a while so can't say for certain, I can't think of any at least.

So? What about Schumacher? The alledged traction control of the Jordans, the unlimited budgets, custom tyres, unlimited testing and engines, a number two driver that would yield at a flcik of a finger...

What about Schumacher? As I mentioned above he's probably one of, if not the only driver who has spent more time than Hamilton in a top 3 team, considering that his pole position record hardly puts him above the rest of the top F1 drivers. Even Schumachers 91 wins is to be somewhat expected from a top driver who has spent 14 seasons in a top 3 team, 7 of which he was in a championship winning team.

You call Rosberg, the only man to beat the 'GOAT' Schumacher 3 years straight in races, qualifying and points and eventually becoming a wdc easy competition? What rock do you live under? I need what you're smoking bro.

Schumacher was far from his best when Rosberg was racing him so it's not exactly surprising he beat him, but as I've said above, I still think Rosberg is a good driver, he's just not someone Hamilton should really struggle to beat most of the time, it's not like he was competing against Alonso or Vettel as a teammate.

Unlike Vettel who only has hasbeens as teammates way past their prime Hamilton has faced 3 World Champions as teammates. Two of those reigning champions and beat them both after their championship season. So in their prime.

True, Vettel's teammates haven't been great, but then for the most part Vettel has been wiping the floor with them as you would expect. And on the flip side the two times Hamilton has had a reigning champion as a teammate he's tied with them and just about beaten them, which is impressive and is one of the reasons he is one of the best drivers on the grid, but again it's nothing that clearly distinguishes him from the other top drivers.

He has pole positions and racewins in every season every season he competed.

During his time at Mclaren the team had 30 pole positions. He got 26 of them while his 3 teammates took a staggering 4 combined. Let that sink in..

He deserved cars like that after struggling to get titles at Mclaren. He should've won in 2007 but we all know what happened in Brazil.. he could've took one in 2012 but Mclaren made short work of that titlebid with their horrible operational skill and reliability.

As I've already said, none of these things really set Hamilton apart from the rest of the top F1 drivers, they all have their own impressive records that make them some of the best drivers in F1 history, but to try and pick them out as evidence that he is the best driver ever just makes you look silly because the same can be done for all the top drivers.[/quote][/quote]

 

[TenEightyOne]

He's also been in a top 2 team for 8 out of his 10 seasons, the other two he was in a top 3 team, he's actually spent more time in a team that's winning the championship than one that's been outside the top 2!

Now that's a disingenuous stat... "top 2" but "not winning" is "losing". The fact remains that he took many poles in years where he or his team didn't win the championship. No need to mulch it

 

[baldgye]

You mean the guy Hamilton fairly easily beat in the 2014 and 2015, and that he beat in most races he finished in 2016 and only lost the championship thanks to an extra retirement? Don't get me wrong, Rosberg is a good driver, but he's not really someone Hamilton should struggle to beat most of the time, and considering that was almost literally his only competition for 3 years, it's not surprising he racked up a load of pole positions.

But to say he had no completion isn't really fair, Rosberg beat him in 2014 in terms of qualifying and did far better than Lewis at the start of 2016 regardless.
That said Schumy and Senna have had equally dominant cars and I think it's fair to say that Nico offered more of a challenge when compared to Rubens.



While I think you make a valid point, you (as a driver) only get into a position like any of the top record holders by standing out in junior formula, something all of the ‘top’ drivers have done. Lewis being a good example, he dominated the junior series he was a part of beating the likes of Vettel in equal machinery.

If you look to F2 now you can see that there is a new name dominating and it’s fair to imagine that when he comes to F1 and he can perform he probably won’t spend the majority of his time in back markers.


I don't think it's fair to take away from any driver what they have achived, yes they had a great car to do it, but these guys proved themselves before they got to F1.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Now that's a disingenuous stat... "top 2" but "not winning" is "losing". The fact remains that he took many poles in years where he or his team didn't win the championship. No need to mulch it

It really isn't a disingenuous stat, you're the one confining it to a championship winning team because it suits your argument. The reason I used that stat is it is a good indication of how many races he has done where he was driving a car capable of winning races and getting pole positions. Now it's not ideal, take the last 3 seasons for example where the 2nd place team has only had one pole position, but without going into quite a bit of detail for every season, you're not going to get a more accurate indication.

But to say he had no completion isn't really fair, Rosberg beat him in 2014 in terms of qualifying and did far better than Lewis at the start of 2016 regardless.
That said Schumy and Senna have had equally dominant cars and I think it's fair to say that Nico offered more of a challenge when compared to Rubens.

While I think you make a valid point, you (as a driver) only get into a position like any of the top record holders by standing out in junior formula, something all of the ‘top’ drivers have done. Lewis being a good example, he dominated the junior series he was a part of beating the likes of Vettel in equal machinery.

If you look to F2 now you can see that there is a new name dominating and it’s fair to imagine that when he comes to F1 and he can perform he probably won’t spend the majority of his time in back markers.

I don't think it's fair to take away from any driver what they have achived, yes they had a great car to do it, but these guys proved themselves before they got to F1.

I said he had practically no competition, and the reason I said that was because the only driver who was in a position to beat him was his teammate, and as good as Rosberg is, he's not someone Hamilton should really be losing to most of the time, not someone he should beat easily, granted, but still less competition than in most F1 championships. Usually you have at least two teams competing for the title and it's rare for one team to be so dominant, let alone for 3 seasons.

But as I've said before, I agree that Hamilton is one of the best drivers on the grid, and probably one of the best ever, the same can be said for Alonso and Vettel, etc, what annoys me is when people pull out statistics to claim that driver X is the best ever when you can do that for pretty much all the best drivers.

On a side note, lots of money also helps in becoming a top driver.

 

[AnimaVesta]

Rosberg is, he's not someone Hamilton should really be losing to most of the time

He didn't get beat by Rosberg most of the time.

80% of the times Rosberg won was when Hamilton was compromized. This article sums it up very clearly and held up by facts.

http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/18382320/the-curious-win-record-legacy-nico-rosberg

 

[Spurgy 777]

He didn't get beat by Rosberg most of the time.

80% of the times Rosberg won was when Hamilton was compromized. This article sums it up very clearly and held up by facts.

http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/18382320/the-curious-win-record-legacy-nico-rosberg

That's exactly what I said, you're proving my point. Rosberg isn't good enough to beat Hamilton most of the time and he didn't beat him most of the time, and seeing as that was Hamilton's only competition thanks to no other driver having a car to compete for 3 years running, Hamilton has had it relatively easy. Hence why I said that Hamilton's pole record hardly can be used as evidence for why he is better than all the other top drivers.

I mean the Mercedes has been so dominant over the past 3 years that Rosberg has managed to get more pole positions in that time than Alonso has got in his entire career. You give that sort of a car to a top driver and their going to have poles left, right and center.

 

[desmodan]

I'm not a Hamilton fan boy but I'm certainly not a hater.
The problem with comparing any driver is that the machinery has changed vastly over the years , tyre size and construction , downforce , h pattern gearboxes auto semiauto sequential , disc or drum bakes, heaven knows how many different types of suspension , engine position .
And who knows how each driver would have dealt with any variant other than the generation they raced . They all have different strengths and weaknesses which enable them to deal with different circumstances with varying degrees of success .