People still die in Motorsport. I was watching Le Mans when Allan Simonsen had his accident a few years back and I’ll never forget it.Also they could die everytime they got into the car because of safety.
I have a hard time comparing era and drivers because each of eras were so much different, but the old school drivers have the utmost respect from me because they knew each time they got in the car that if they had an accident it could mean their death.
Completely agree. Rip Antoine Hubert. There is a big difference though knowing you might risk injury vs risking death each and every time you got in the car.People still die in Motorsport. I was watching Le Mans when Allan Simonsen had his accident a few years back and I’ll never forget it.
Yes- safety advancements have brought the death toll down significantly. This is also true for coal mining, truck driving, fight sports and all other dangerous jobs. The world is a safer place than it was in the 50s, but Motorsport is still one of the most dangerous things a person can pursue.
Don’t pretend for a second that anyone at the wheel of a race car genuinely believes they can’t be hurt. There is still risk and bravery is still required to drive fast.
Today, it's Daniel for me and has been for a few years.Yes? What great drivers haven't been in the best cars?
Tough day at the office.He looks so done with it
But don't you think that is a bit unfair? Even if you do ignore the completely different worlds of F1 you're judging one person on first hand experience, and one not.They were about 40 years before my time. All I can go on is statistics, recaps of their races and seasons, and the statements and observations made by their contemporaries. Fangio had a win average of about 50% in an era where half his rivals would be driving the same car as him, and Clark managed a mathematically perfect season in a car that wasn’t the fastest on the grid.
But he still fits what Martin said, RIC started in an HRT, the worst car in the grid, but via his skill and past reputation he advanced up to Red Bull which was one of the best cars at one point.Meanwhile countless other drivers have started at the bottom and stayed there.Today, it's Daniel for me and has been for a few years.
I'm going to have to pull you up on this one. He was able to mount a championship fight in his first year, which no-one has been able to do before or since. Not even Verstappen was in such a position. "But he was in a top car with a top team, of course he was up the front!" I hear you cry. Look, just because you're racing for a top team doesn't instantly mean that you'll be successful. Hamilton proved himself from day 1, and met all of McLaren's expectations. Probably exceeded them in some respects. He could've succumbed to the pressure and failed to perform like Albon and Gasly, but he didn't. That's talent, not the car. He's definitely 91 wins and 7 championships talented. It's one thing to be in a good car but it's another to perform week in week out and beat your team mate in an equal car. That's the mark of a true champion right there - Senna, Lauda, Prost, Fangio and Schumacher could always perform when they needed to, and couldn't be kept down by any adversity. Hamilton is no different and deserves to sit alongside the legends of the sport.Not even close to the level of Mercedes dominance though. That’s just the facts. Yes Schumachers numbers were bloated, but Hamilton’s numbers are bloated even moreso
I realized that most of you probably think that I’m just a Hamilton hater, but I think he is a very talented driver. I just don’t think he’s 91 wins and 7 championships talented. Had it not been for Mercedes, he would maybe have 2-3 championships max.
.... It's one thing to be in a good car but it's another to perform week in week out and beat your team mate in an equal car....
Doesnt help that the benz engine is leagues above the rest of the grid, Ferrari had some compertition back in the day, because they didnt suck back thenSchumacher got 91 wins and 7 championships in 14 seasons, Hamilton will do it in 13. He is legendary, and that is all there is to say about it.
Ricciardo probably had more real pace, Perez was catching Ricciardo before because he was on a much better strategy with newer tyres as Ricciardo pitted earlier under the VSC(which went green basically as soon as he entered pits anyway) and Perez went half the race on the softs and had much newer mediums.What was wrong with the racing point towards the end of the race?
<1 second behind Ricciardo after the SC restart, I thought Ricciardo was not going to make the podium due to racing point being the faster car and all.
But the RP was just going slower.
Agreed mate. He'll get his chance again... I bloody well hope!... the best drivers always end up in the best cars at some point. How long they stay in the best cars is down to a number of factors, but they always get there.
But don't you think that is a bit unfair? Even if you do ignore the completely different worlds of F1 you're judging one person on first hand experience, and one not.
Am I though? I don’t know Lewis personally. I don’t know how he and the team operate behind closed doors. I don’t have access to the data of how he drives. All my information of Lewis comes from second and third hand sources. The info shared to me by his teammates, his team, the telly presenters, and the rare morsels of subjective info he gives us in the occasional interview. Just because it’s happening right now in 2020 doesn’t mean I’m less divorced from the actual facts. Without knowing him personally, everything I know about Lewis is just as much hearsay as what I know about Clark. I know more about Winston Churchill than I do about Lewis Hamilton, and Churchill died before even my parents were born.
One of Schumacher's team mates would've taken one or more off him....
My point was the exact same thing can be said today. Without having every team’s telemetry data in my lap, all I have to go on is roughly the same level of information available to me with regards to a race in the 60s: simple observation and 2nd/3rd party subjective opinion. There are fairly accurate race reports of every single grand prix, you know.I'm not talking about their personality, but their performance. You're judging Hamilton on every minute detail that you can see today, whereas you don't have that luxury for the older drivers. How do we truly know the pace difference between those old cars, and how much was about the driver? We have very little data.
The one thing i dont hear people saying that hamilton has done that i personally think is important to his legacy is win a championship in multiple regulation eras. He won before the hybrid era in a mcclaren before the merc dominance.
My point was the exact same thing can be said today. Without having every team’s telemetry data in my lap, all I have to go on is roughly the same level of information available to me with regards to a race in the 60s: simple observation and 2nd/3rd party subjective opinion. There are fairly accurate race reports of every single grand prix, you know.
Right, that's why Ferrari's Constructor Title win margins in 2000-2004 saw 43%, 58%, & 55%, some of the highest win margins ever & the only 2 teams that got close to beating them were Williams & McLaren til' Renault came along.Doesnt help that the benz engine is leagues above the rest of the grid, Ferrari had some compertition back in the day, because they didnt suck back then
But.....you're watching it. You're seeing him race first hand. Every mistake, every win, everything. It's all there, and that's what you're judging Hamilton on when you say you don't think he's one of the best. That isn't the case for the sixties. Race reports and stats are never going to give you a similar picture of a driver, you're drawing on someone else's descriptions and feelings of the events, not your own.
Also again, comparing the wildly different cars makes no sense. The 60s and 70s were cars without any real downforce, manual gearboxes, low grip skinny tyres, and so on. They required a completely different skillset to a modern car. How would Hamilton have done in a 60s car? How would Jim Clark have managed a high downforce car on grippy slicks? It's impossible to know.
Whoever made this deserves a cookie.
It should also be mentioned that during Michael’s time at Ferrari there was no control tire, and Bridgestone often had a clear advantage over Michelin.
With all of that said, I do not see these kind of comparisons as silly. I see them as fascinating. It's interesting to compare different eras and observe what has changed, and what has remained the same...