Unpopular Motorsport Opinions

[WiisardNic]

@IcySlivers
I think you missed the point of most is not all.
Comparing the drivers isn't fairly done by simply comparing a number of absolute statistics.
There is no driver that can be best of all statistics and there is NO best driver of all time.

However, for entertainment sake, here are some extra context to consider with absolute records of Hamilton are benefitted by:
Most dominant team of all time, better than any Ferrari and better than the 1988, 1989 McLaren
More wins per season to take advantage of a dominant or competitive car 20-21 races per year compared to 15-17 for Schumi, Prost, Senna - this contributes to all records except counts of season titles etc are potentially 15-20% enhanced?

For Most wins at a circuit 8 is equalled with Schumi, but Schumi also has 2 tracks he won 7 times, and 3 tracks won 6 times, interestingly Schumi and Hamilton both have 10 tracks that they have won 5 times or more, next best is Prost and Senna with 2 tracks more than 5 wins and Graham Hill and Vettel have 1 track with 5 wins.
Points are bloated by points scoring systems compared to Schumacher who spent several early years only getting points for the top 6 positions and only 10 points for a win.

Records like most poles at different circuits are difficult to compare to Schumi, Prost, Senna who just didn't race on crazy long calendars.

Schumi's percentage statistics are considerably diluted by the 3 year comeback, however the highlights of a podium and a fasted qualifying time in Monaco 2012 showed he still had some serious skill even after having years off. Otherwise the percent statistics for the first career Schumi is on many measures still better than Hamilton.
In Schumi's first 15 full seasons he scored in the top 3 of the WDC 13 times which is better than Hamilton achieved. That included 1999 when he missed 1/3 of the season due to a broken leg, and he return race he was so dominantly in a league of his own it was almost comedy that he had to slow so much to allow his team mate to take the win as a title contender.

Many of the outright records Hamilton are records that Schumi held previously - some are only a little over, others are starting to get increased markedly, but one point about Schumi's career that he absolutely smashed previous records :
7 WDC for Schumi from 5 for Fangio - an increase of 140%
91 wins for Schumi from 51 for Prost - an increase of 178%
To match this increase Hamilton will need 10 Drivers Titles and about 160 wins.

You can't compare across eras, but you can compare drivers that raced together. Schumi and Hamilton were both clearly as good or better than everyone they raced against - Schumi raced against about 150 other drivers in F1 due to slightly larger grids and turn over in the 90s, while I think the competitor count for Hamilton is between 80 and 90.... so Schumi was measured on track over his career with almost 20% of all 771 drivers to ever compete in F1, while Hamilton has maybe bested about 11% of the drivers.

Beyond statistics Schumi changed the sport more than any other driver and that's partly a lucky accident of being the driver at the right time for the sport becoming more professional and a more serious approach to training and consistent performance - he combined the styles of Senna and Prost to recalibrate so many records to new benchmark levels.

Hamilton's is massively talented and relentless in pursuit of success and in addition to this his off-track work for inclusion, equality and environment is awesome but I'm not sure if it make him better F1 driver.

Came to also offer the same point.

Statistics are funny @IcySlivers and can usually always be twisted to suit whatever narrative you want to tell.

Michael Schumacher
Most championships: 7
Most consecutive championships: 5
Most races left in the season when they've sealed the championship: 6
Most pole positions at the same GP: 8 (Japanese)
Most wins at the same GP: 8 (French)
Most seasons with a win, & most consecutive seasons with a win: 15
Most consecutive podium finishes: 19
Highest percentage of podium finishes in a season: 100%
Most Fastest Laps: 77
Most hat-tricks (win, pole, fastest lap): 22
More consecutive wins than Hamilton: 7
Won on the grid from further back than Hamilton: 16th

Now, some things that can be manipulated:
Most poles in a season, converted to percentage: Hamilton 57.14%, Schumacher 64.71%
Wins in a season, converted to percentage: Hamilton 64.71%, Schumacher 72.22%
Points in a season (in a points per race manner, converted to 2019-2020 points structure): Hamilton 19.67, Schumacher 22.71

Schumacher's first career (1991-2006: 250 races) compared to Hamilton's -2021 (288 races - roughly same length in seasons)
Win percentage: Hamilton 35.76%, Schumacher 36.4%
Pole percentage: Hamilton 35.75%, Schumacher 22.2%
Fastest Lap percentage: Hamilton 20.4%, Schumacher 30.4%
Grand Chelem percentage: Hamilton 2.08%, Schumacher 2.0%
Points per race (converted to 2019 - removal of sprint races): Hamilton 15.83, Schumacher 15.05
Podium percentage: Hamilton 63.19%, Schumacher 61.6%

I always grew up thinking Schumacher could never be bested as the GOAT. Maturing through time has shown me that it is hard to compare era's, and I don't really hold that status of a driver now. Have pretty much gone the "Mount Rushmore" route: (and this is probably my Unpopular Opinion): Fangio, Prost, Schumacher, Hamilton

 

[Pete05]

For me, there is really only one measure by which drivers of a different period can be compared: their Win per Start ratio.

Fangio only started in 51 Grands Prix and yet won 24 times giving him 5 World Drivers Championships.

How many races did other WDC's have to start before registering their 24th win?

Also, we're only comparing drivers from 1950-present. What of those that were active in the pre-War years?

Caracciola, Rosemeyer, Nuvolari,...

In my opinion, those guys displayed some of the greatest intestinal fortitudes ever seen in motor racing when looking at the standard of circuits & the performance potential of their vehicles. 500+bhp, drum brakes, thin cross-ply tyres & leather helmets. Some of the drivers from later periods wouldn't have pushed those cars anywhere near full capacity given the chance.

 

[WiisardNic]

For me, there is really only one measure by which drivers of a different period can be compared: their Win per Start ratio.

Fangio only started in 51 Grands Prix and yet won 24 times giving him 5 World Drivers Championships.

How many races did other WDC's have to start before registering their 24th win?

Also, we're only comparing drivers from 1950-present. What of those that were active in the pre-War years?

Caracciola, Rosemeyer, Nuvolari,...

In my opinion, those guys displayed some of the greatest intestinal fortitudes ever seen in motor racing when looking at the standard of circuits & the performance potential of their vehicles. 500+bhp, drum brakes, thin cross-ply tyres & leather helmets. Some of the drivers from later periods wouldn't have pushed those cars anywhere near full capacity given the chance.

Yes, percentage rates tend to be my go to as well.

Specific achievements are another thing as well.
I've tried to rate the World Champions through a range of achievements, and those four I mentioned earlier (Fangio, Prost, Schumacher and Hamilton) are the ones that stand out based off that. It's almost like my "Triple Crown of World Champions" criteria I've made.

 

[Samus]

Comparing F1 of today to F1 of the 1960s and earlier will always be mostly pointless.

They're the same only in name and basic premise. The skills required for each are vastly different as is so much of the sport in general. For example, Fangio won almost half his races in a time where several of his competitors were killed every year and if his car broke down he could borrow his team mates. He was 39 when he won his first title and wasn't particularly athletic. There were no racing driver academies finding the best talents, it was a sport for the elite gentleman. Field spread was insane, many of the early races were deemed "Alfa Romeo demonstrations" it was that much better than the rest.

I've no doubt for his time he was still very good, clearly, but comparing him to drivers of the sport today, silly. Might as well compare egg and spoon runners at your school to the 100m Olympic Final, they're that different.

 

[toastet]

Different disciplines, as I have outlined somewhere else before. Pinnacle of rallying, pinnalce of sports cars, pinnacle of open-wheelers. The three cannot be merged into one overall title.

Loeb, Röhrl, Ekström drove multiple disciplines on tarmac and dirt. Loeb was 2nd in Le Mans against the unbeatable Audis and won mutiple races in WTCC, Porsche Cups, etc.. Ekström won the STCC, DTM and won the Rallycross World Championship on dirt. Röhrl was multiple WRC Champion and won in WEC, DTM and IMSA on asphalt.

 

[Liquid]

Loeb, Röhrl, Ekström drove multiple disciplines on Tarmac and Dirt. Loeb was 2nd in Le Mans against the unbeatable Audis. Ekström won the STCC, DTM and won the Rallycross World Championship. Röhrl was multiple WRC Champion and won in WEC, DTM and IMSA.

Missing the point completely. It doesn't matter if a driver is versatile, there is no such thing as "best" or "greatest" overall. If one does want to persist with such a subjective and disputed title, you have to be more specific about the discipline.

"Hamilton is the greatest driver ever."
"What about Loeb?"

It's apples and oranges. Chalk and cheese. You might as well say that Real Madrid is the greatest team ever - greatest what, basketball team? Hockey team? Rugby team? NFL team?

A Hamilton vs Schumacher debate is still a divisive subject but an easier one to conduct than a Hamilton vs Loeb one because they are from the same discipline.

 

[MagpieRacer]

Sebastien Loeb is probably a better overall driver than all of them anyway...

If we're looking at the best racing driver overall, I totally agree. Any poll that is, "Who is the best racing driver of all time?" My answer is always Sebastien Loeb.

9 world rally championships (in a row no less)
Most WRC event wins
Most WRC stage wins
Most WRC podiums
Multiple World RX wins
Multiple WTCC wins
Podiums in nearly 50% of his WTCC starts
3 Dakar podiums (best finish 2nd x2)
2nd in Extreme E 2021
4th in first FIA GT series, winning 1/3 of the races for his own team
Le Mans 24hr P2 overall 2006

And barring another pesky super license shortfall, would have made his F1 debut in 2009 at the Abu Dhabi GP for Toro Rosso ahead of a full 2010 campaign, all of which had been signed.

And even at 48 years old, is still capable of winning WRC events having done so at Monte Carlo this year, and was a good bet for Greece this weekend before an alternator failure.

 

[sillybilly]

Comparing F1 of today to F1 of the 1960s and earlier will always be mostly pointless.

They're the same only in name and basic premise. The skills required for each are vastly different as is so much of the sport in general. For example, Fangio won almost half his races in a time where several of his competitors were killed every year and if his car broke down he could borrow his team mates. He was 39 when he won his first title and wasn't particularly athletic. There were no racing driver academies finding the best talents, it was a sport for the elite gentleman. Field spread was insane, many of the early races were deemed "Alfa Romeo demonstrations" it was that much better than the rest.

I've no doubt for his time he was still very good, clearly, but comparing him to drivers of the sport today, silly. Might as well compare egg and spoon runners at your school to the 100m Olympic Final, they're that different.

Yes, mostly pointless - however if you are considering specific points, drivers titles points, statistics of how they compared to their contemporary peers it can still be interesting to dicuss.

The basic premise being the same is still enough as they were all racing cars on closed circuits is more specific than comparing them to rally drivers, speedway or oval track racers, truck racers, motorcycle racers etc.

An incident where he could borrow a team mates car is just a triviality - it's the same advantage that he earned as teams primary driver as in modern days a team mate moves out of the way or tries to block an opponent (Perez blocking Hamilton for Verstappen, Bottas moving out of the way for Hamilton).

Modern racing academies still largely find the best talents of those wealthy or lucky enough to have afforded to have good karting equipment and experience. I think the feeder series currently also easily allows very wealthy families to buy a seat for their son in the 'best' development series teams - the cars are the same but the car setup, preparation, pit-stop and strategy execution can give some drivers a significant advantage. This makes them look like they are great upcoming talents in a 'spec' series but when it comes to the big show it sometimes a little different with more external and internal pressures.

Fangio won the title for 4 manufacturers, he was almost globally respected as an incredibly talented driver and it's pretty incomprehensible to think that he was 'very good' and lucky or politically adept to be 'chosen' as the most 'elite of gentlemen?

Finally, the egg and spoon comparison is so absurd we need to unpack. For comparison we need to consider and introduce some other details:
1. They both need car control so the modern driver also carries and egg.
2. If the egg breaks there is a high chance of injury or death, so the modern has the egg wrapped up in a large bundle of bubblewrap.
3. Running barefoot or with basic shoes compared to modern ergonomic shoes.
4. Manually switching the egg between different spoons (gears) through the race, versus having several spoons with ergonomic handles are stuck to the bubble wrappeds that can be selected (in impossible to fail way) for the best spoon at the best time.
5. Modern races are typically 1 to 1.5 hrs and Fanigos last win was 3.5 hrs so the stamina of physical and mental concentration of both far exceeds the 100m or a school yard.
6. Dangerous tracks versus safe tracks etc.

In addition the old drivers could only get information from the team from pit-board or when they stopped while modern drivers enjoy a huge amount of information that can help them manage their pace. Some modern races the drivers push many laps, but also a huge amount they spend 80% of the race at 95% that doesn't wear them or the car out beyond their training level (their levels are very high for sure).

The old drivers basically needed to drive as fast as they dared, or their skilled judgement allowed, to keep within limits of their ability and to not break the car - the mental strength to concentrate to maintain their pace, safety and endurance is almost a different league.

In Fangio's last race he didn't have help from the team as to how much to push etc, he had a slow pitstop was 1minute behind, chased down the victory. He set new lap record at nurburgring around 7 seconds faster than his pole position time - that would be equivalent on a modern 1-1:30 lap of cutting 1~1.5 seconds off the pole time during the race.

The guys (all eras) all want to win and want to be the fastest and are in the situation to as a record of fact have the chance to test themselves in the fastes cars of the era to see who is the fastest. On the day the fastest was the fastest. Just like the 100m or the egg and spoon race except nowhere near as different as that ludicrous comparison.

 

[GingerBredMan]

I haven’t seen a lot of people wear it (not surprising for Canada), but F1 merch looks incredibly dorky. They only look good in an F1 paddock.

The team shirts make a person look like a walking billboard. And I can’t decide what’s worse: owning a Mercedes hat and owning a Mercedes, or owning a Mercedes hat and not owning a Mercedes. Car brands in general seem to make for bad merchandise.

I’ve also recently come across Mclaren shoes, and all I can say is no, just no.

 

[toastet]

Those Puma, etc. sneakers with BMW, Ferrari, Porsche, etc. brandings just look awful but since people paying 4 figures for those Balenciaga shoes it doesn't even surprise me anymore that these cheaper ones also sell very well.

 

[Liquid]

I want an old 1990s pit jacket even though wearing LIGIER GAULOISES or JORDAN BENSON & HEDGES in a puffy-armed jacket that looks two sizes two big across your back is a ridiculous, Alan Partridge Castrol GTX look. I want one. A lot.

But I agree. F1 merch looks pathetic and will never have the general acceptability it so desperately seeks.

 

[IcySlivers]

% in general are too easy to manipulate and can often look way more impressive then they really are. I prefer hard numbers. Most common issue is small sample size which can make claims look way more impressive then they actually are, e.g. “Joe Blow has a 75% win record” when in reality Joe Blow has only 4 competitions and has won 3. Compare that to a statement like “James Smith who has 100 victories.” Which is a straightforward statement.

 

[WiisardNic]

% in general are too easy to manipulate and can often look way more impressive then they really are. I prefer hard numbers. Most common issue is small sample size which can make claims look way more impressive then they actually are, e.g. “Joe Blow has a 75% win record” when in reality Joe Blow has only 4 competitions and has won 3. Compare that to a statement like “James Smith who has 100 victories.” Which is a straightforward statement.

Alas, but the same can be said for totals, as there are more races held in a season than before.
Percentages work great if you exclude outliers such as Joe Blow and anyone who has competed in under X amount of events.

 

[Liquid]

How many races did other WDC's have to start before registering their 24th win?

Michael Schumacher - 90
Alain Prost - 103
Ayrton Senna - 107
Lewis Hamilton - 132
Max Verstappen - 144

This includes DNSes because that is a registered entry in a GP; Prost and Senna have a negligible amount of DNSes.

 

[Peter.]

I think using statistics and wins without context is a fruitless exercise already. For me I would personally have a hard time holding Lewis' tenure at Mercedes in the same light as Schumacher's time at Ferrari given that one created a good situation while the other benefitted from one. That said, I understand that this is just a personal feeling and isn't really all that objective.

It's not exactly fair to add an asterisk to one driver and not another for the good fortune of being in a good situation at the right time, like Hamilton joining Mercedes, when he still had to win those 6 other titles that he won. The best car tends to win the title anyway.

But for me, judging drivers talents and abilities off their statistics ignores a whole heap of context. For the better part of 14 years now you could not win a driver's title if you didn't have a car either designed by Adrian Newey or powered by a Mercedes hybrid. Wins and titles during this period of time would be especially unfavorable to drivers that simply did not have the machinery.

For example, Alonso hasn't won a single race since 2013 Spain. Since then, Rosberg, Raikkonen, Bottas, Vettel, Hamilton, Verstappen, Ricciardo, Gasly, Ocon, Perez and Sainz have won races. You would have a hard time arguing that he hasn't been a better driver than almost every subsequent race winner in that time.

There's also some very fine margins, luck and politics determining wins and titles that have next to nothing to do with driver talent, that are again ignored by statistics. The list is pretty healthy. F1 is simply a sport that requires a lot more nuance than others in determining ability and talent. The ground beneath them is always moving.

 

[Liquid]

I like statistics, I wasn't using them to make any point.

 

[McLaren]

The team shirts make a person look like a walking billboard. And I can’t decide what’s worse: owning a Mercedes hat and owning a Mercedes, or owning a Mercedes hat and not owning a Mercedes. Car brands in general seem to make for bad merchandise.

Meh. I own a Merc & a McLaren hat, wear them every so often because it's the driver & team I support, no different from people wearing any other sport merchandise. They're also nice souvenirs to remind me of my time at F1 races.

 

[Pupik]

I haven’t seen a lot of people wear it (not surprising for Canada), but F1 merch looks incredibly dorky. They only look good in an F1 paddock.

The team shirts make a person look like a walking billboard.

Finding merchandise that's understated in design is getting more difficult every season, to the point where I've just stopped trying.

Paying $49 for a T-shirt giving one the right to be a billboard just isn't my thing. Maybe if it was for a team that went defunct 3 decades ago, but that's it...even then, I still can't justify that in my head, heart, and checkbook.

edit: Just remembered I probably still have a Jordan Grand Prix polo that's in a box somewhere, I recall neither my wife nor I fit in it anymore, so I may have donated it? The late-1990s McLaren and Ferrari T-shirts have long since made it to the donation centers after wearing out (thus, probably thrown out).

 

[GingerBredMan]

Meh. I own a Merc & a McLaren hat, wear them every so often because it's the driver & team I support, no different from people wearing any other sport merchandise. They're also nice souvenirs to remind me of my time at F1 races.

I get that. I guess it depends where you are, but I feel like most people would see the car brand before associating them with an F1 team.

 

[IcySlivers]

I own a really nice black Ferrari polo shirt, has the Ferrari symbol where the alligator would be on a Lacoste shirt. Very basic and plain. Fits very nicely too. Picked it up from the Ferrari store in Hawaii a couple years back. I wear it from time to time and always get compliments on it.

Then again I’m not trying to wear a drivers jumpsuit out and about. That would look strange. Except maybe for Halloween…

 

[ScottPuss20]

I'm probably going to get a lot of hate for this but Hamilton's decision to keep the door open for Verstappen at Turn 4 on the last lap of the Abu Dhabi GP shows that he's a crap defender. When you're in the lead you do everything you can defend it, even when your tyres are shot.

 

[Clark]

It was fairly obvious that if he didn't leave the door open Verstappen wouldn't have backed out of any move that race, and had them both off.

LH's best shot was to let him through and try and repass him on the main straight.

 

[ScottPuss20]

It was fairly obvious that if he didn't leave the door open Verstappen wouldn't have backed out of any move that race and has them both off.

But in that case Verstappen would be at fault and would probably be penalised, giving Hamilton the title.

 

[Clark]

But would've have still won the WDC on wins.

 

[ScottPuss20]

But would've have still won the WDC on wins.

Who would've?

 

[Clark]

Max.

 

[IcySlivers]

I'm probably going to get a lot of hate for this but Hamilton's decision to keep the door open for Verstappen at Turn 4 on the last lap of the Abu Dhabi GP shows that he's a crap defender. When you're in the lead you do everything you can defend it, even when your tyres are shot.

Of course, cherry pick a single moment and then make a grand claim about a driver

In Jeddah that same year you could say it’s proof Verstappen doesn’t know how to attack, he’s actually a “crap attacker” Multiple occasions he had to give back positions because he kept running off track to get ahead of Hamilton. Then he brake checked him later because his strategy of going off track to pass Hamilton wasn’t working.

 

[ScottPuss20]

Max.

Ok here's the theoretical situation: Hamilton defends his spot going into turn 4 and Verstappen runs into the back of him. From here, a few potential scenarios could play out:

-Verstappen damages his front wing and Lewis spins out. Verstappen carries on but Hamiton catches back up to overtake. Verstappen gets a penalty for avoidable contact. Verstappen loses the championship.

-Verstappen doesn't damage his front wing and Lewis spins out. Verstappen does not redress and is later penalised. Verstappen loses the championship.

-Verstappen doesn't damage his front wing and Lewis spins out. Verstappen redresses the position and doesn't get penalised. Verstappen loses the championship, given that he can't get back past Hamilton.

Hamilton should've tried harder to keep his spot because it could've played to his advantage.

 

[Clark]

I was more implying the move would've ended up with a DNF for both of them.

 

[Liquid]

Too many hypotheticals. Hamilton simply had no chance on that last lap.