Hamilton will never!

[DezinerPaul]

It is safe to say that unless Hamilton is given a car that is superior to the rest, he will never win the title. Most of the driver in F1 would have won as much or more than Hamilton, if given the same car! There are at least 8 drivers in F1, who are better, with some real hot shoes knocking on the door.

[gloomyDAY]

http://shopping.hobidas.com/image-resources/far-east/GOODS/CHARACTERS/TROLL/TROLL-BANK-GR1.jpg

[markabilly]

It is safe to say that unless Hamilton is given a car that is superior to the rest, he will never win the title. Most of the driver in F1 would have won as much or more than Hamilton, if given the same car! There are at least 8 drivers in F1, who are better, with some real hot shoes knocking on the door.
Yeah, there is Danica P.............keep on knocking......her shoes all are hot :eek: ...always shopping for a new pair

[DezinerPaul]

Hulkenberg, Alguersuari,Maki and a host of others

[Powered by Cosworth]

I have to agree, Hamilton is like JV or Damon Hill, put him in a bad car, you'll get bad results. Not like Schumacher or Alonso who won championships in inferior cars.

[fabricator/61]

At last a like minded person. I have said to friends that Lewis will be another Stirling Moss, win shed loads of races but never the big one.I hope for British motorsport and the survival of the GP that I am wrong but this season little things are starting to surface that suggests perhaps he cannot handle pressure.Also this years car does'nt look as quick as last years.

[gravity]

Perhaps he would be slow in a slow car. Why is he in a fast car? Perhaps he helped the team get the car fast? It's only the dude's second season... time will tell if he is going to be good or not.

[F1boat]

http://shopping.hobidas.com/image-resources/far-east/GOODS/CHARACTERS/TROLL/TROLL-BANK-GR1.jpg

ROFL!

[ioan]

Perhaps he helped the team get the car fast? It's only the dude's second season...

That's exactly why he didn't help the team make the car faster, because he's not good enough to do it, yet.
He's in the team because he was their protegee for a decade.

[gravity]

That's exactly why he didn't help the team make the car faster

How do we know that he didn't help the team? Even in his first season he was fast. In his second season, he is outperforming HK too.

[ioan]

How do we know that he didn't help the team? Even in his first season he was fast. In his second season, he is outperforming HK too.

Don't twist the facts, I said he didn't hel the team make the car faster, not that he didn't help the team!

I believe he didn't have and still doesn't have the required knowledge to make a difference in the development of the car. He's simply not good enough yet.

[ShiftingGears]

Don't twist the facts, I said he didn't hel the team make the car faster, not that he didn't help the team!

I believe he didn't have and still doesn't have the required knowledge to make a difference in the development of the car. He's simply not good enough yet.

I think that is the keyword the threadstarter has missed. Michael Schumacher couldn't develop a car when he came into F1, and he spun out of a few races.

Hamilton will iron out these flaws in time.

[DezinerPaul]

I think that is the keyword the threadstarter has missed. Michael Schumacher couldn't develop a car when he came into F1, and he spun out of a few races.

Hamilton will iron out these flaws in time.

That is not true, Michael was always an engineers driver, a thinker. What you see in Hamilton is what you get, a fast driver, with not a great deal going on between the ears. How do I know that, simple, take a quick look at what he has to say. The reason that he is the fastest in the team, he is the favored driver. Dennis has been playing god for years with his drivers, he gave Mika the number one status, when at the time DC was faster and better, he then talked DC out of being a winner. RD is the main reason they have not won more races.

[ShiftingGears]

That is not true

Some facts from James Allen's book, and quotes from Ross Brawn, are contrary to your assumptions.


Michael was always an engineers driver, a thinker.

He started out as reluctant to test the cars. I'm not sure how you can compare them based on PR messages. Give Hamilton a few years to learn from his mistakes and then see if he's all he's cracked up to be.

[markabilly]

At last a like minded person. I have said to friends that Lewis will be another Stirling Moss, win shed loads of races but never the big one.I hope for British motorsport and the survival of the GP that I am wrong but this season little things are starting to surface that suggests perhaps he cannot handle pressure.Also this years car does'nt look as quick as last years.
Wrong wrong wrong, as lewie "can't break me" hamilton hisself has made abundantly clear

these series of quotes from just thelast few weeks beginning in Canada, great quotes from "i am kooler than kimi.....", so just as wilco said, nutting but quotes :D

Such as:

""That’s what they do: they build you up and then they break you down, but they can’t break me.

"There’s a lot of crap coming out in the papers. I’m here to race and I don’t want all this stuff. But I’m very strong mentally and my belief in my own ability is stronger than ever and there’s nothing that can break me....."

"I feel cool. It's all good. Racing is racing. I'm still here, there's nothing you can do to get me out of it,"


"I kept pushing. There's nothing you can do that can distract me. You can keep on giving me penalties and whatever you want to do and I'll keep battling and try and come back with a result."



"This will make no difference," he said, speaking to British newspapers.

"It hasn't knocked me confidence-wise. I'm not gutted or disappointed.

"We are baffled how it came to that in the space of 30 seconds.

"I had two guys in front of me and suddenly they have stopped as I have looked at the red light. But you can't win them all. This makes me stronger.

"Going forward, the mood is strong. The fact is, we destroyed everyone [on pace].

"With the car we have right now, there is no stopping us. It is not going to take me a day to recover or anything. I am really looking forward to Magny-Cours."

""At the end of the day if there is a problem, it is my job to find a solution and get around it as quick as possible. So I am not surprised that I have that big a gap there, because I can see other people would probably not have found it. So that is why I am on pole."
"It is one of my skills. I am able to adjust to whatever conditions I have, and that is probably why I am so strong in the wet. I feel at home, I feel comfortable. And it wasn't tough, to be honest."

[Valve Bounce]

That's exactly why he didn't help the team make the car faster, because he's not good enough to do it, yet.


Can't tell until I check his e-mails. :p :

[Valve Bounce]

That is not true, Michael was always an engineers driver, a thinker. What you see in Hamilton is what you get, a fast driver, with not a great deal going on between the ears. How do I know that, simple, take a quick look at what he has to say. The reason that he is the fastest in the team, he is the favored driver. Dennis has been playing god for years with his drivers, he gave Mika the number one status, when at the time DC was faster and better, he then talked DC out of being a winner. RD is the main reason they have not won more races.

Is this guy related to Bolton?

[DezinerPaul]

Some facts from James Allen's book, and quotes from Ross Brawn, are contrary to your assumptions.



He started out as reluctant to test the cars. I'm not sure how you can compare them based on PR messages. Give Hamilton a few years to learn from his mistakes and then see if he's all he's cracked up to be.

James Allen is the biggest dud of all time, it takes a non thinking person to listen to his biased dribble!

[ShiftingGears]

James Allen is the biggest dud of all time, it takes a non thinking person to listen to his biased dribble!

As opposed to your view, which does not quote anyone with knowledge of Schumachers early days, like Ross Brawn.

[DezinerPaul]

It is Michael that made Ross B as he did a lot of other people around him.
As for J Allen, he has hated Michael since day 1, his bias, is well known. He is also Hamiltons biggest fan, so that tells you how smart he is!
As for Hamilton, he will not get close to becoming the best Englishmen, let alone the best Brit!

[ShiftingGears]

It is Michael that made Ross B as he did a lot of other people around him.
As for J Allen, he has hated Michael since day 1, his bias, is well known. He is also Hamiltons biggest fan, so that tells you how smart he is!
As for Hamilton, he will not get close to becoming the best Englishmen, let alone the best Brit!

I see opinions but no facts to justify them. Try harder ;)

[DezinerPaul]

I see opinions but no facts to justify them. Try harder ;)

There is no need, Michael made a lot of people very rich and famous, that is a fact.
James Allen has been quite open over the years, regarding his feelings over Michael.
James Allen makes it no secret that he thinks Hamilton is the greatest thing since sliced cheese.
As for the UK announcing team, having had the pleasure to hear the US announcers, the UK guys really do suck, their bias is evident to the most casual of listener, their analysis is nothing better than a joke.

[ShiftingGears]

I see opinions but no facts to justify them. Try harder ;)

;)

I want facts contradicting Ross Brawn's quote of Schumacher originally not being a good development driver, not your opinion regarding James Allen.

Can you do that?



And Allen admits he is a Schumacher fan. And has written three books on him. So you're wrong there, too.

[DezinerPaul]

;)

I want facts contradicting Ross Brawn's quote of Schumacher originally not being a good development driver, not your opinion regarding James Allen.

Can you do that?


For a decade you worked with the exceptionally gifted Michael Schumacher, who tirelessly pushed his team for performance. How do you see the situation with Jenson and Rubens?
RB: Well, there is a big difference. Michael was a reference for Grand Prix racing, for every driver. I was lucky to work with somebody on the level of Michael. That sort of driver comes along only once every ten years.


If being a reference point is not a great foundation for development, then what is?

[ShiftingGears]

For a decade you worked with the exceptionally gifted Michael Schumacher, who tirelessly pushed his team for performance. How do you see the situation with Jenson and Rubens?
RB: Well, there is a big difference. Michael was a reference for Grand Prix racing, for every driver. I was lucky to work with somebody on the level of Michael. That sort of driver comes along only once every ten years.


If being a reference point is not a great foundation for development, then what is?

Read what I wrote, and you might realise that nothing of what you said contradicts it. But I'm glad you've realised you were totally wrong regarding JA.

[DezinerPaul]

Read what I wrote, and you might realise that nothing of what you said contradicts it. But I'm glad you've realised you were totally wrong regarding JA.

James Allen is a useless tool, who is so biased, that it makes a listening to a race painful. The audio quality from the states, is many times better and far more informative!

[ShiftingGears]

I didn't think you were that thick.


As for J Allen, he has hated Michael since day 1, his bias, is well known.


Allen admits he is a Schumacher fan. And has written three books on him. So you're wrong there, too.

Come back when you can interpret my argument, and justify your claims with some facts. Until then, I'm not going to continue arguing this with you.

[ioan]

What you see in Hamilton is what you get, a fast driver, with not a great deal going on between the ears. How do I know that, simple, take a quick look at what he has to say.

Completely agree with you on this one, he lacks in that specific department.

[ioan]

Some facts from James Allen's book...

Now that's some proof! :rotflmao:


...and quotes from Ross Brawn, are contrary to your assumptions.

Feel free to post those quotes. We are all interested to see where did Ross Brawn say that MS wasn't a good car developer!

[ioan]

As opposed to your view, which does not quote anyone with knowledge of Schumachers early days, like Ross Brawn.



I see opinions but no facts to justify them. Try harder :)

Maybe you could finally post those Ross Brawn quotes you are bragging about and present as facts. :rolleyes:
I read the whole thread and didn't see any quote in any of your posts!
Come on, try harder! :p :




Come back when you can interpret my argument, and justify your claims with some facts. Until then, I'm not going to continue arguing this with you.

A bit rich coming from someone who didn't post one "fact" or quote in the whole thread, not even those "facts" from James Allan's book!
You're disappointing me!

[ShiftingGears]

Feel free to post those quotes. We are all interested to see where did Ross Brawn say that MS wasn't a good car developer!


It is in the "Edge of Greatness" book, by James Allen, and the quote was circa 1992, from Ross Brawn. I guarantee you, it is in there.

[Valve Bounce]

There you go ioan; now it's up to you to come up with something else.

[DezinerPaul]

I didn't think you were that thick.





Come back when you can interpret my argument, and justify your claims with some facts. Until then, I'm not going to continue arguing this with you.

Selling a book is one thing, what he says in the booth is another!

[Valve Bounce]

Selling a book is one thing, what he says in the booth is another!

That is hardly an argument nor a justification of your stance. You'll have to come up with something more definite than your impressions of what he means in his broadcasts, which most of the time is babble anyway, just to remind the public their radio/TV sound is still ON.
James Allen has come up with the Xylophone effect, button is glued to Barichello, and heaps of nonsense, so what he says in broadcasts is hardly proof of anything in this universe.

[ioan]

There you go ioan; now it's up to you to come up with something else.

You mean I'll have to buy a stupid book by James Allen in order to see if he's right, just because he's not capable of posting a quote?!

[fabricator/61]

Ronnie Peterson was a quick driver but could'nt set a car up. When at Lotus they would put Emerson's set up on his car and he would go quicker and annoy the hell out of Emmo.

[Valve Bounce]

You mean I'll have to buy a stupid book by James Allen in order to see if he's right, just because he's not capable of posting a quote?!

You don't HAVE to buy the book; just sneak into a library and read it. Or go to the book shop, tell them you are a famous F1 driver and that you are reviewing this wonderful book of James Allen's, and that you will autograph the book for them when you have read it.

Just sign it as Jean Allesi - they will never know the difference. (I hope you do have a swarthy appearance, otherwise you might have to sign it as Kimi).

[ShiftingGears]

You mean I'll have to buy a stupid book by James Allen in order to see if he's right, just because he's not capable of posting a quote?!

That is correct. Or you could read it at a bookshop or library without spending anything :p :

[ShiftingGears]

Ronnie Peterson was a quick driver but could'nt set a car up. When at Lotus they would put Emerson's set up on his car and he would go quicker and annoy the hell out of Emmo.

Very similiar case with Andretti as well.

Then theres some drivers who weren't blindingly quick, but are brilliant at setting the car up, eg Jack Brabham.

[jens]

Poor Lewis. He has been getting enormous amount of criticism lately, but in some way this is logical. Everyone has his lows and true - Lewis is no superhuman to avoid lows. It had to happen sooner or later, even if it's in his second season. Remember last year already from the beginning of the season everyone was waiting and wondering - "When will the rookie bin it? He can't drive flawlessly forever". But races went by and by and he continued racing brilliantly - everyone's amazement just grew. It made him look like unstoppable and when he has had some hard time, then it looks contradictory than what it looked like for a large part of last year so that failures create extra attention, bash and criticism.

His reputation was at its highest last year and it has fallen to rock bottom by now. In some way it's good - it can't get worse, he can only prove himself in a positive way. I think there is little doubt that Lewis has a lot of talent, he just needs to become a top challenger mentally. Maybe something similar to Lorenzo at Moto GP, who as a rookie became a championship leader for a brief moment, but this was maybe a bit too much in such early phase of career and he started making mistakes after that. You need time to adapt to the status of a superstar. When Lewis has done it, I have no doubt he would perform excellently and will be an extremely hard driver to beat. His consistency in the majority of the 2007 season has proved to me his worth and ability as a top driver. But we have to wait to see this status getting cemented. He needs to try to reach the proper attitude needed to maximize his potential. How easy or hard it will be for him, it remains to be seen.

As I have said, everyone has his lows. The fact that Lewis has a low, is only normal, not a catastrophe or a testimony for the rest of his career.

[DezinerPaul]

That is hardly an argument nor a justification of your stance. You'll have to come up with something more definite than your impressions of what he means in his broadcasts, which most of the time is babble anyway, just to remind the public their radio/TV sound is still ON.
James Allen has come up with the Xylophone effect, button is glued to Barichello, and heaps of nonsense, so what he says in broadcasts is hardly proof of anything in this universe.

Are you kidding, he just about has an orgasm when Jenson or Hamilton, do anything right!

[ShiftingGears]

Are you kidding, he just about has an orgasm when Jenson or Hamilton, do anything right!

Is english your first language?

[wedge]

Ross Brawn summed it up perfectly:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7470746.stm

Schumi wasn't a complete driver in his early Benetton career.

Brundle, on his day was the better race driver and gave Michael something to think about.

He was in more or less equal machinery to Senna's McLaren and yet had certain problems trying to match Senna and ended crashing into him.

There was the 1994 British GP when he overtook Hill on the parade lap and went off into the distance, later ignored the black flag and subsequently banned for a couple of races.

The thing is, Lewis has raised the bar so high in his first year that people forget that he's still a baby in terms of his F1 career. And when things do go wrong its turned into a disaster because the expectations are so high.

Sport and like anything in life is about the highs and lows. Sometimes you have to put up with the lows and manage them to attain the highs.

[ioan]

That is correct. Or you could read it at a bookshop or library without spending anything :p :

Didn't see any bookshop in France that carry James Allen's books! There must be a good reason for this! :p :

[ioan]

He was in more or less equal machinery to Senna's McLaren and yet had certain problems trying to match Senna and ended crashing into him.

The Benetton was more or less equal to Senna's McLaren?! What planet are you living on?


There was the 1994 British GP when he overtook Hill on the parade lap and went off into the distance,

No he didn't, he overtook Hill on the parade lap but gave the place back after short time.

Distorting reality is not helping in a discussion.

[DezinerPaul]

Ross Brawn summed it up perfectly:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7470746.stm

Schumi wasn't a complete driver in his early Benetton career.

Brundle, on his day was the better race driver and gave Michael something to think about.

He was in more or less equal machinery to Senna's McLaren and yet had certain problems trying to match Senna and ended crashing into him.

There was the 1994 British GP when he overtook Hill on the parade lap and went off into the distance, later ignored the black flag and subsequently banned for a couple of races.

The thing is, Lewis has raised the bar so high in his first year that people forget that he's still a baby in terms of his F1 career. And when things do go wrong its turned into a disaster because the expectations are so high.

Sport and like anything in life is about the highs and lows. Sometimes you have to put up with the lows and manage them to attain the highs.




You are funny, Brundle, a man with 165 races without a win, finishes in the points only 23% of the time, was never a match for Michael. The year that they raced together was Michaels first full season, he had 8 podiums and a win, Brundle in what was his best year had 5 podiums, no wins. Michael had 2 fastest laps Brundle none. Michael finished 3rd for the year, Brundle finished 6th. Head to head, of the races they finished that year, Michael had the fastest lap 8 times, Brundle 3 times.
Martin Brundle, was nothing more than a seat warmer, while Michael was the greatest of the modern era!

[Valve Bounce]

Are you kidding, he just about has an orgasm when Jenson or Hamilton, do anything right!

Good grief!! you are getting to sound just like them. :(

Personally, I disregard all the nonsense about bunsen or Hamilton from these two, but I do try to follow what is happening on the track from their commentary.

[yodasarmpit]

Well in his first season, he was one point behind the eventual winner and equal on points with a two time world champion (in the same car).
We are only half way through his second season, so I think it is way too early to assume he will never win the championship.
Wait until his third or fourth season to make a more educated guess.

[wedge]

You are funny, Brundle, a man with 165 races without a win, finishes in the points only 23% of the time, was never a match for Michael.

Schumi wasn't perfect.

Brundle was ahead of Schumacher in Canada, catching Berger for the lead until mechanical failure.

Beat Schumi to the podium at Silverstone.

Finished behind Senna at Monza, Schumi 3rd

[DezinerPaul]

Schumi wasn't perfect.

Brundle was ahead of Schumacher in Canada, catching Berger for the lead until mechanical failure.

Beat Schumi to the podium at Silverstone.

Finished behind Senna at Monza, Schumi 3rd

Michael went onto become the greatest driver of the modern era, with nobody even a close second. Brundle is today what he was when racing, a seat warmer!

[Sleeper]

Poor Lewis. He has been getting enormous amount of criticism lately, but in some way this is logical. Everyone has his lows and true - Lewis is no superhuman to avoid lows. It had to happen sooner or later, even if it's in his second season. Remember last year already from the beginning of the season everyone was waiting and wondering - "When will the rookie bin it? He can't drive flawlessly forever". But races went by and by and he continued racing brilliantly - everyone's amazement just grew. It made him look like unstoppable and when he has had some hard time, then it looks contradictory than what it looked like for a large part of last year so that failures create extra attention, bash and criticism.

His reputation was at its highest last year and it has fallen to rock bottom by now. In some way it's good - it can't get worse, he can only prove himself in a positive way. I think there is little doubt that Lewis has a lot of talent, he just needs to become a top challenger mentally. Maybe something similar to Lorenzo at Moto GP, who as a rookie became a championship leader for a brief moment, but this was maybe a bit too much in such early phase of career and he started making mistakes after that. You need time to adapt to the status of a superstar. When Lewis has done it, I have no doubt he would perform excellently and will be an extremely hard driver to beat. His consistency in the majority of the 2007 season has proved to me his worth and ability as a top driver. But we have to wait to see this status getting cemented. He needs to try to reach the proper attitude needed to maximize his potential. How easy or hard it will be for him, it remains to be seen.

As I have said, everyone has his lows. The fact that Lewis has a low, is only normal, not a catastrophe or a testimony for the rest of his career.
:up: The ONLY intelligent post in this thread.

[keysersoze]

Lewis was a match for 2X WDC Fernando Alonso last year while they were paired at McLaren. This is the same Alonso who beat Michael Schumacher, generally regarded as the greatest driver of the past two decades, a driver on everybody's top 5 all-time.

Lewis has won two races already this year--in what can be argued is the third best car on the grid.

These two facts alone are enough to convince me that Hamilton is a special driver, one certainly capable of winning a WDC.

Who would've suggested that Felipe Massa would be WDC material after HIS first 25 or so races? But there he is, isn't he? Three wins, a regular polesitter, and leading the championship.

[wedge]

Michael went onto become the greatest driver of the modern era, with nobody even a close second. Brundle is today what he was when racing, a seat warmer!

:D :D


The Benetton was more or less equal to Senna's McLaren?! What planet are you living on?

1993 season

Benetton had factory support for Ford and were the official first team.

McLaren was more technologically advanced but started the year off with inferior Ford engines.


No he didn't, he overtook Hill on the parade lap but gave the place back after short time.

I stand corrected


Distorting reality is not helping in a discussion.

Whatever. Outcome still the same. Schumi made errors early in his career and was criticised just as we now criticise Lewis when he makes an error in his infantile F1 career.

[DezinerPaul]

Lewis was a match for 2X WDC Fernando Alonso last year while they were paired at McLaren. This is the same Alonso who beat Michael Schumacher, generally regarded as the greatest driver of the past two decades, a driver on everybody's top 5 all-time.
Alonso, won using a car that was miles better than anything else. In the McLaren, the real Alonso showed up and he is nothing special!

Lewis has won two races already this year--in what can be argued is the third best car on the grid.
It is not the third best car, it is the second on some tracke and the best at others

These two facts alone are enough to convince me that Hamilton is a special driver, one certainly capable of winning a WDC.

Who would've suggested that Felipe Massa would be WDC material after HIS first 25 or so races? But there he is, isn't he? Three wins, a regular polesitter, and leading the championship.

Not sure about your neck of the woods, but in mine Massa was always going to the top. His problem was that he had to wait for so long to get his ride and then Michael was his team mate

[wedge]

Alonso, won using a car that was miles better than anything else. In the McLaren, the real Alonso showed up and he is nothing special!


I would disagree to a large extent.

2005 - McLaren blatantly had the faster car had the Mercedes powerplant stayed in one piece over a GP weekend.

2006 - Ferrari/Bridgestone had the better package and most definitely in the dry.

Alonso held off Schumi in an inferior car in: Imola 2005 and Turkey 2006.

Japan 2006 - Alonso trailing Schumi decides to turn the wick up and go for broke in turn forcing Schumi to show his hand. Eventually its the Ferrari that lets go. On to Brazil and Alonso cruises for a points finish. That shows you how smart and canny Alonso is.

Never underestimate him!

Penalised in Monza 2006 for 'blocking' Massa in qualy, falls out with McLaren, penalised for blocking Hamilton, political shenanigans - these things doesn't put a dent on Alonso. They only seem to make him stronger!

[DezinerPaul]

Alonso, is not the next great thing that many were saying he is.

[pino]

Please everyone, do not use capital letters...thanks :)

[jens]

Not sure about your neck of the woods, but in mine Massa was always going to the top. His problem was that he had to wait for so long to get his ride and then Michael was his team mate

Really? You must be a rare exception. ;) Massa reached the same career phase, where Hamilton is now, in mid-2004, when he was getting beaten by Fisichella. While at that time the Italian was a very highly rated driver, then I don't remember anybody considering Massa as a future WDC contender. It was Fisi, who got all the praise and who everyone wished to see in a top car.

[ioan]

Please everyone, do not use capital letters...thanks :)

Those are called BOLD letters pino, not capitals! ;)

[MrJan]

Felipe Massa was a laughing stock for years. He trashed virtually everything he drove and it was only by going to an outfit like Ferrari that stopped him making stupid mistakes.

I get that people don't like the hype around Hamilton but you have to be fairly stupid to think that there are 8 drivers on the grid better than him. This is a bloke who has walked almost every championship he has been in.


As far as I'm aware GP2 is controlled (I.E everyone in the same car) so don't give me that 'McLaren superiority' bull**** when you watch this clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjotF2Bwbmg

Hate him as much as you like but to say that a fast driver, in a quick car, and still only in his early 20s will never win a championship is laughable.

[Tazio]

Hamilton has the craft and machinery to win a WDC. too me there is no doubt.
I'm just over here enjoying the show!

[Valve Bounce]

I'm waiting for Bolton to show up. :p :

[Valve Bounce]

Funny how DP showed up just after Bolton got banned.

[DezinerPaul]

Hamilton will not win the title, the guy is too weak between the ears!

[Rollo]

I think that is the keyword the threadstarter has missed. Michael Schumacher couldn't develop a car when he came into F1, and he spun out of a few races.

There was/is someone more important than Schumacher who developed the car even at Ferrari. That credit needs to go to Luca Badoer who is Ferrari's permanent test driver. I'm willing to suggest that Luca has covered more miles in an F1 car than any other driver.


Dennis has been playing god for years with his drivers, he gave Mika the number one status, when at the time DC was faster and better, he then talked DC out of being a winner. RD is the main reason they have not won more races.

DC is probably the reason why Hill won the title in 1996 for Williams and why Mika won it in 1998 and 1999. More than likely is was DC's testing miles which helped put the remaining few % on those cars. Though lack of personal success probably led to him slowly coming off the boil.

It's Pedro De La Rosa who is providing most of the back end data for McLaren at the moment, and I don't think he's anywhere near as good as Badoer despite scoring more points in races.

[DezinerPaul]

Lets not forget how Dennis talked DC out of that all important win in Oz. A win that started off Mika's winning, until that race, DC had Mika covered. The McLaren was a vastly superior car and whoever won, was going to take the title.

[Roamy]

I have to agree, Hamilton is like JV or Damon Hill, put him in a bad car, you'll get bad results. Not like Schumacher or Alonso who won championships in inferior cars.

well you are pretty misinformed here. Damon developed the car to win. He should have won when cheater punted him. Actually JV may have been able to beat him in 96 but Frank really wanted Damon to win a WDC and rightly so it happened with or without help. Damon was a fast and very technically talented driver.

JV won the title fighting with Patrick Head in a year that the cheater was pulling out all stops. Had JV not set his car up based on a per corner setup he would not have won the title. The 2004 Honda was a result of a JV developed car and had JV stayed at Honda they would have won and be much further ahead that currently.

School is out on Hamilton - he is young and you really need to know how much of his input is being developed. He is on a learning curve and it may take him a while to learn develpment skils.. Alonso is quite developed and it shows that RD is a idiot. I would imagine that JV learned quite a bit from Hill and Lewis would have learned quite a bit from Alonso if RD hadn't screw the whole team

[ArrowsFA1]

He's in the team because he was their protegee for a decade.
He's in the team because at every stage throughout his career he has produced results i.e. race wins and championships.

[SGWilko]

Michael went onto become the greatest driver of the modern era

Indeed. But it took him a while to get where he needed to be in terms of personnel around him to achieve it.

Lewis has time on his hands....

[555-04Q2]

But I'm glad you've realised you were totally wrong regarding JA.

I'm not taking sides here, but the guy is right. JA is an idiot with a capital I !!! I listen to nearly every GP on satellite with the Portugal commentary feed instead of the ITV feed just so I can miss JA's bumbling while still enjoying the sound of the cars. And I dont understand a word of the language!!!

[wedge]

DC is probably the reason why Hill won the title in 1996 for Williams and why Mika won it in 1998 and 1999. More than likely is was DC's testing miles which helped put the remaining few % on those cars. Though lack of personal success probably led to him slowly coming off the boil.

JV did loads of testing as well.

I would put it down Hill getting the job done. He was really under pressure to deliver the WDC.

He learnt a lot at the team. Very good in testing but I remember him crediting Prost for setting up the car and visualising the perfect qualy lap was something he took from Senna.


Lets not forget how Dennis talked DC out of that all important win in Oz. A win that started off Mika's winning, until that race, DC had Mika covered. The McLaren was a vastly superior car and whoever won, was going to take the title.

That was a gentleman's agreement between the drivers - whoever led the first corner on the first lap should go on to win the race.

Senna & Prost had a similar agreement (instigated by Prost) for 1988 but at the 1989 San Marino, on the restart after Berger fiery crash, Senna overtook Prost. Prost was unhappy and Senna refused to apologise.

And why did Mika deserve #1 status? In 1998/99 he was much too quick for DC, especially in qualy trim - he was the best driver over a lap, quicker than Schumi.

[ShiftingGears]

I'm not taking sides here, but the guy is right. JA is an idiot with a capital I !!! I listen to nearly every GP on satellite with the Portugal commentary feed instead of the ITV feed just so I can miss JA's bumbling while still enjoying the sound of the cars. And I dont understand a word of the language!!!

My point was not about what people think of Allens' commentating abilities, but on the fact that he is a Schumacher fan.

[DezinerPaul]

JV did loads of testing as well.

I would put it down Hill getting the job done. He was really under pressure to deliver the WDC.

He learnt a lot at the team. Very good in testing but I remember him crediting Prost for setting up the car and visualising the perfect qualy lap was something he took from Senna.



That was a gentleman's agreement between the drivers - whoever led the first corner on the first lap should go on to win the race.

Senna & Prost had a similar agreement (instigated by Prost) for 1988 but at the 1989 San Marino, on the restart after Berger fiery crash, Senna overtook Prost. Prost was unhappy and Senna refused to apologise.

And why did Mika deserve #1 status? In 1998/99 he was much too quick for DC, especially in qualy trim - he was the best driver over a lap, quicker than Schumi.


Sorry Mika was a nobody before he got that dream car. His titles were all car, very little driver. It is impossible to say he was quicker than any driver in another car, simply because they are in different cars!

[MrJan]

Sorry Mika was a nobody before he got that dream car. His titles were all car, very little driver. It is impossible to say he was quicker than any driver in another car, simply because they are in different cars!

I suppose that Jim Clark, Michael Schumacher, Alain Prost and Ayrton Senna were all a bit rubbish too?

In your mind is anybody actually a good driver or are they all just lucky to be in a quick car? Every single driver in F1 is superb and to say that any race winner won because it was 'all car, very little driver' shows how little you know about motorsport :laugh:

[SGWilko]

Sorry Mika was a nobody before he got that dream car. His titles were all car, very little driver. It is impossible to say he was quicker than any driver in another car, simply because they are in different cars!

Hey, don't apologise. Really, we sympathise with you.....

Mika seemed to hold his own quite well in the Lotus, given that they had no money to build a good car.

He also outqualified that other journeyman - Senna - in his first race.

You're right, Mika was awful. ;)

[555-04Q2]

My point was not about what people think of Allens' commentating abilities, but on the fact that he is a Schumacher fan.

:up: He's still an idiot though!

[DezinerPaul]

Hey, don't apologise. Really, we sympathise with you.....

Mika seemed to hold his own quite well in the Lotus, given that they had no money to build a good car.

He also outqualified that other journeyman - Senna - in his first race.

You're right, Mika was awful. ;)

You mean the year that Senna won 5 races, 7 podiums. The Race at Estoril, saw him have engine problems all day, fact is he never finished the race, then won the last two races of the season. In Mikas two seasons with Loyus, he finished on the lead lap, only three times. The guy had two and half good seasons, simply because he was in a dominant car, nothing else.

[DezinerPaul]

I suppose that Jim Clark, Michael Schumacher, Alain Prost and Ayrton Senna were all a bit rubbish too?

In your mind is anybody actually a good driver or are they all just lucky to be in a quick car? Every single driver in F1 is superb and to say that any race winner won because it was 'all car, very little driver' shows how little you know about motorsport :laugh:

Your rambling rhetoric is giving me a headache. Your last sentence, is a clear indicator how little you know yourself about motor racing. It is only the great ones that can take an inferior car and make a race of it. Most drivers win, because of the car and luck, that is a fact, like it or not!

[ioan]

That was a gentleman's agreement between the drivers - whoever led the first corner on the first lap should go on to win the race.

give me a break with this bullcrap. Who would be so idiot as to concede a race after the 1st corner?
Especially back than when a race was far by decided at the first corner?!
No racing driver would do that, unless the team put pressure on him.

And BTW Ron Dennis did explain what happened back than as something else than a gentlemen agreement. Given that everyone had a different version to explain those team orders it was clear that they were lying (not a surprize with McLaren and RD).

[MrJan]

Your rambling rhetoric is giving me a headache. Your last sentence, is a clear indicator how little you know yourself about motor racing. It is only the great ones that can take an inferior car and make a race of it. Most drivers win, because of the car and luck, that is a fact, like it or not!

Do you race? It is very difficult to drive any car on the limit, let alone one with nigh on 800bhp. Every single driver on the F1 grid is an absolutely brilliant driver just for being able to take the car around the track.

Mika is not the best driver there ever was but to say that he won through luck is ridiculous. Was he lucky to hit all those apexes? Lucky to apply the throttle at the right time? Did the car run on rails? The answer to all of those questions is 'no'.

[ioan]

In your mind is anybody actually a good driver or are they all just lucky to be in a quick car? Every single driver in F1 is superb and to say that any race winner won because it was 'all car, very little driver' shows how little you know about motorsport :laugh:

Actually there is a general consensus that in modern F1 the car is more important than the driver.

[ArrowsFA1]

Given that everyone had a different version to explain those team orders it was clear that they were lying (not a surprize with McLaren and RD).
One of those other versions was that Ferrari had intercepted/interrupted McLaren's race radio communications causing Mika to pit when he didn't need to. Is that better? :p :

[SGWilko]

Actually there is a general consensus that in modern F1 the car is more important than the driver.

Why are drivers paid so much.....remind me again?

[SGWilko]

One of those other versions was that Ferrari had intercepted/interrupted McLaren's race radio communications causing Mika to pit when he didn't need to. Is that better? :p :

I had heard similar, that someone intercepted the frequency and told Mika to pit, but did not know it was levelled at Ferrari.

That team would not do such a thing, would it? Surely not, they are angelic in the way they go racing - Think Ferrari, think Integrity! (cue sound of vinyl scratch) :laugh:

[ioan]

One of those other versions was that Ferrari had intercepted/interrupted McLaren's race radio communications causing Mika to pit when he didn't need to. Is that better? :p :

:laugh:
RD must have been reading some good SF stuff at that time! :rotflmao:

No matter what they do it's never their fault, it's Ferrari's or MS' fault!

That explanation just goes to show they were lying, like they always did. There was no gentlemen agreement, it was team orders dressed up in lots of different explanations. :D

[ArrowsFA1]

I had heard similar, that someone intercepted the frequency and told Mika to pit, but did not know it was levelled at Ferrari.

That team would not do such a thing, would it? Surely not, they are angelic in the way they go racing - Think Ferrari, think Integrity! (cue sound of vinyl scratch) :laugh:
It was Mika Salo who let it slip:
"When I was driving for Ferrari we always spied on McLaren, listening their radio traffic."

[SGWilko]

It was Mika Salo who let it slip:

No! No! No!

Ferrari would NEVER do that.

They are too nice, just too nice and fluffy to do that. Don't you know, they are the ones full of real integrity, never do nowt wrong or naughty.

;)

[DezinerPaul]

One of those other versions was that Ferrari had intercepted/interrupted McLaren's race radio communications causing Mika to pit when he didn't need to. Is that better? :p :


That is pure gobly gook, if you believe that, I have a bridge that I would like to sell you!

[SGWilko]

I have a bridge that I would like to sell you!

Got any tunnels?

[SGWilko]

gobly gook!

Vietnamese prostitute? ;)

[ArrowsFA1]

That is pure gobly gook, if you believe that, I have a bridge that I would like to sell you!
Well Mika Salo did say - "When I was driving for Ferrari we always spied on McLaren" :p :laugh:

Not sure what this all has to do with Hamilton though :dozey:

[ioan]

It was Mika Salo who let it slip:

Listening to their radio =/= messing up their connection.

[ioan]

I had heard similar, that someone intercepted the frequency and told Mika to pit, but did not know it was levelled at Ferrari.

That team would not do such a thing, would it? Surely not, they are angelic in the way they go racing - Think Ferrari, think Integrity! (cue sound of vinyl scratch) :laugh:

Look who's talking about integrity, a McLiars fan! :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

By the looks of it still hurts that the McCheats were caught red handed! :D
They are cheaters, lousy cheaters on top of that. :laugh:

[SGWilko]

I understand that Mika was leading DC when, he [Mika] came into the pits. He claimed he was called in, the team did not, were not ready for him/not expecting him, and waived him on. The net effect was he lost the lead to DC.

DC let him pass to re-take the lead because that is what the two drivers had agreed.

But, no - it seems some want us to believe that it was team orders.

The team called Mika in when they were not ready? I thought that kinda stuff was reserved for the Ferrari/Irvine three wheels on my wagon m'larky. That is how to properly implement team orders.

:rotflmao:

[SGWilko]

Look who's talking about integrity, a McLiars fan! :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

By the looks of it still hurts that the McCheats were caught red handed! :D
They are cheaters, lousy cheaters on top of that. :laugh:

Ooohhh, not heard that for a while. Thanks for reminding me, I'd almost forgotten! ZzZzZz :laugh:

[ioan]

Ooohhh, not heard that for a while. Thanks for reminding me, I'd almost forgotten! ZzZzZz :laugh:

It's always a pleasure to do so! :rotflmao:

[ioan]

I understand that Mika was leading DC when, he [Mika] came into the pits. He claimed he was called in, the team did not, were not ready for him/not expecting him, and waived him on. The net effect was he lost the lead to DC.

DC let him pass to re-take the lead because that is what the two drivers had agreed.

But, no - it seems some want us to believe that it was team orders.

The team called Mika in when they were not ready? I thought that kinda stuff was reserved for the Ferrari/Irvine three wheels on my wagon m'larky. That is how to properly implement team orders.

:rotflmao:

It seems that either MH was hallucinating or the team are lying to cover up their cock up. :p :

[SGWilko]

It seems that either MH was hallucinating or the team are lying to cover up their cock up. :p :

I think the call to come in (who ever tapped in to the frequency and made it - if that really is the case) would have come verbally, over the earphones. To hallucinate suggests seing something that is not really there.

Are you suggesting he heard with his eyes? :confused:

[DezinerPaul]

Got any tunnels?

Yes it goes under the swamp and has a bridge at either end!

[ioan]

I think the call to come in (who ever tapped in to the frequency and made it - if that really is the case) would have come verbally, over the earphones. To hallucinate suggests seing something that is not really there.

Are you suggesting he heard with his eyes? :confused:

And me thinking that you are a native English speaker! I'm disappointed! :rotflmao:

Here:


Hallucinations may occur in any sensory modality—visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, proprioceptive, equilibrioceptive, nociceptive, and thermoceptive.

Just in case you don't believe it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinate

:p :

[ioan]

Yes it goes under the swamp and has a bridge at either end!

Good one! :up:

[SGWilko]

And me thinking that you are a native English speaker! I'm disappointed! :rotflmao:

Here:



Just in case you don't believe it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinate

:p :

Give me a chance to edit that stuff off Wiki first will ya? ;)

[SGWilko]

Yes it goes under the swamp and has a bridge at either end!

You only got the one then?

[DezinerPaul]

You only got the one then?
Had three, one is in escrow, one I sold too Hamilton, that leaves one left with your name on it!

[Knock-on]

http://shopping.hobidas.com/image-resources/far-east/GOODS/CHARACTERS/TROLL/TROLL-BANK-GR1.jpg

I really don't think we should be posting nude pictures of Flav here.

Why the Mods allow this sort of porn is beyond me ;)

[SGWilko]

I really don't think we should be posting nude pictures of Flav here.

Why the Mods allow this sort of porn is beyond me ;)

Flav? I thought it was that boxing promoter, with the real strange Afro. Did wander what it had to do with F1. :laugh:

[Knock-on]

Flav? I thought it was that boxing promoter, with the real strange Afro. Did wander what it had to do with F1. :laugh:

When, on a troll thread, it seemed the only thing of note worth commenting on :laugh:

[ioan]

I really don't think we should be posting nude pictures of Flav here.

Why the Mods allow this sort of porn is beyond me ;)

:rotflmao:

[MrJan]

Actually there is a general consensus that in modern F1 the car is more important than the driver.

Yeah from the blokes sat on their sofa, they're the ones that really know :rolleyes:

Did you see the Top Gear when Hammond drove the Renault F1 car? Cars are important, I couldn't deny that, but so is the driver and without somebody decent behind the wheel it doesn't matter how good the vehicle is. A bad driver will not win in a good car, let alone win championships.

[SGWilko]

a troll thread

Oh dear, oh deary dear. I have been very slow - I see where the bridges thing comes from now.

Doh! Now, where is my dunces hat? :verysillyperson: :laugh:

[Knock-on]

Oh dear, oh deary dear. I have been very slow - I see where the bridges thing comes from now.

Doh! Now, where is my dunces hat? :verysillyperson: :laugh:

Go and stand in a corner and repeat 1000 times...

"I must not feed the Trolls"

[DezinerPaul]

Yeah from the blokes sat on their sofa, they're the ones that really know :rolleyes:

Did you see the Top Gear when Hammond drove the Renault F1 car? Cars are important, I couldn't deny that, but so is the driver and without somebody decent behind the wheel it doesn't matter how good the vehicle is. A bad driver will not win in a good car, let alone win championships.

Look am not being rude but you are miles off. Teams spend millions and millions just to pick up a small part of a second. Fi is all about the cars, yes all of the drivers are good, some are very good and once in a rare while, somebody is special.
The same goes for cars, some off those cars were unbeatable, the McLaren that took Mika to two titles was such a great car most of the grid could have won with it

[Tazio]

Flav? I thought it was that boxing promoter, with the real strange Afro. Did wander what it had to do with F1. :laugh:
The only connection I can think of between Don King, and the current top dogs of F1,
is that he almost single handedly dismantled the sport of boxing, especially heavyweight.
Why??????? Money, and power! Sound familiar!
The difference is that King killed a man, and was convicted of manslaughter!
Bernie and Max.’s criminal CV's don't include felonious convictions. As far as I know!

[jens]

This thread was meant to be a Hamilton-bashing thread, but I'm glad for him that the bashing wave has moved on and found new targets. :p :

About car vs driver. Well, car has always had more importance than the driver, it's not just the modern era.
Already in the 30's Daimler-Benz drivers at one moment complained that they couldn't win with that car. Team boss Neubauer tried to respond by saying "ultimately the result is dependent on a driver, maybe he lacks a bit of courage or skills in corners or something else."

Or for example 1979, when the ground-effect had become quite common among F1 teams. One reason for Lauda's and Hunt's retirement was that in their view a driver had too little effect in ultimate race results and as both had quite poor seasons, they didn't see a reason to continue competing, when they felt they couldn't make much difference with their driving.

[ioan]

Yeah from the blokes sat on their sofa, they're the ones that really know :rolleyes:

No, it came from people involved in F1.


Did you see the Top Gear when Hammond drove the Renault F1 car?

Stop supposing that we all live in the UK. There is life outside your island too.

[wedge]

give me a break with this bullcrap. Who would be so idiot as to concede a race after the 1st corner?
Especially back than when a race was far by decided at the first corner?!
No racing driver would do that, unless the team put pressure on him.

And BTW Ron Dennis did explain what happened back than as something else than a gentlemen agreement. Given that everyone had a different version to explain those team orders it was clear that they were lying (not a surprize with McLaren and RD).

Errr... between team-mates, given team orders on behalf of the championship???

IIRC, it was because it was the first race of the season and Ron wanted a guaranteed points finish. Kinda similar to Monaco last year.

Oh, and another thing. Who would be so idiot as to concede two race wins on the final lap and on the same race track??? :rolleyes:

[ioan]

I suppose that you don't see the difference between 1st lap and last lap, nor between 1st race and nth race.

Also if you were alluding to Ferrari you would know that they never lied and owned up to the fact that they asked RB to move over. I don't think that McLaren and especially Ron Dennis will ever be men enough to own up to their negative actions.

[yodasarmpit]

Stop supposing that we all live in the UK. There is life outside your island too.
Top Gear is broadcast world wide, downloaded by many who don't receive the broadcast, and with both an American and Australian series also in the works.

Mr Jan Yeo, brought up a perfectly valid point.

[ioan]

Top Gear is broadcast world wide, downloaded by many who don't receive the broadcast, and with both an American and Australian series also in the works.

Mr Jan Yeo, brought up a perfectly valid point.

Depends on your definition of World Wide and broadcast.
If you mean that you can get it if you pay to have access to a certain channel via satellite connection, than I agree, but that isn't called World Wide broadcasting.

Anyway, my point is that Top Gear isn't as known world wide as it is in the UK.

Not to mention that the fact that their driver couldn't properly drive an F1 car doesn't mean that real F1 drivers struggle to drive it to the limit.

[Rollo]

Anyway, my point is that Top Gear isn't as known world wide as it is in the UK.

http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSPAR44788520080104

Jeremy Clarkson, the gruff and opinionated presenter of Top Gear, a program about cars watched by 350 million people from Finland to Australia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_one


On average about 55 million people all over the world watch Formula One races live.

Oops.

[AJP]

http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSPAR44788520080104


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_one


Oops. :)

[AJP]

Can we just change the subject title to "Hamilton MAY never" instead of "Hamilton WILL never"..? I think that will settle everyone down a little.

[PSfan]

Can we just change the subject title to "Hamilton MAY never" instead of "Hamilton WILL never"..? I think that will settle everyone down a little.


Or we can just Hi-Jack this thread:

Hamilton will Never:

Mow my lawn
Do my Laundry
Un-plug my toilet (saving that chore for Webber :p : )
Run for President of the U.S.A.
Win a popularity contest in Spain
Have sexual relations with Madonna and Britney spears in the same night (I'm taking a gamble on that prediction)

[AJP]

Or we can just Hi-Jack this thread:

Hamilton will Never:

Mow my lawn
Do my Laundry
Un-plug my toilet (saving that chore for Webber :p : )
Run for President of the U.S.A.
Win a popularity contest in Spain
Have sexual relations with Madonna and Britney spears in the same night (I'm taking a gamble on that prediction)

Hamilton will never:
run into the back of my car ;)
slide off the track on worn out tires ever again
listen to any of the dribble that comes out of most of our mouths on this forum.. ;)
turn down Danni Minogues advances..

[DezinerPaul]

Can we just change the subject title to "Hamilton MAY never" instead of "Hamilton WILL never"..? I think that will settle everyone down a little.
NO! as Will was the intent of the title. Just do not believe this guy will win the title, unless he is given a special car. The guy is just not that good!

[AJP]

NO! as Will was the intent of the title. Just do not believe this guy will win the title, unless he is given a special car. The guy is just not that good!I will not believe that he WILL not win a title. Certainly not from your comments.

[SGWilko]

NO! as Will was the intent of the title. Just do not believe this guy will win the title, unless he is given a special car. The guy is just not that good!

When you say 'special' car, you don't mean one of them blue three wheeler jobbies do you? ;)

Perhaps you could define a 'special' car for us all. Then, IF Lewis wins a WDC, we can check your definition against the car he potentially achieves it in, and see if your crystal nut was on form. :p :

[MrJan]

Look am not being rude but you are miles off. Teams spend millions and millions just to pick up a small part of a second. Fi is all about the cars, yes all of the drivers are good, some are very good and once in a rare while, somebody is special.
The same goes for cars, some off those cars were unbeatable, the McLaren that took Mika to two titles was such a great car most of the grid could have won with it

I can't remember the seasons but I'm pretty sure that the McLaren wasn't 'unbeatable'. F1 has a LOT to do with the cars but to say that it is ALL about them is wrong. As I said before the car will not turn in itself, nor accelerate or brake. Mika wasn't as good as MS but otherwise he was one of the top 5 drivers on the grid.


Depends on your definition of World Wide and broadcast.
If you mean that you can get it if you pay to have access to a certain channel via satellite connection, than I agree, but that isn't called World Wide broadcasting.

Anyway, my point is that Top Gear isn't as known world wide as it is in the UK.

Not to mention that the fact that their driver couldn't properly drive an F1 car doesn't mean that real F1 drivers struggle to drive it to the limit.

My brother lives in Toronto and downloads TG torrents within hours of it being on. I'm aware that the show is broadcast in the UK and not in a lot of countries but also know that a lot of people on this forum watch it, or see clips on Youtube.

I'm not saying that the show is the final word but the Top Gear blokes have fairly good car control and drive some fairly powerful cars yet couldn't even get the car running properly.

For those non-UK residents (or any of the other countries that show TG) the video is here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=I0O7gFycPho

[DezinerPaul]

When you say 'special' car, you don't mean one of them blue three wheeler jobbies do you? ;)

Perhaps you could define a 'special' car for us all. Then, IF Lewis wins a WDC, we can check your definition against the car he potentially achieves it in, and see if your crystal nut was on form. :p :

If he has a car as dominant as the one enjoyed by Mika in 98

[ShiftingGears]

NO! as Will was the intent of the title. Just do not believe this guy will win the title, unless he is given a special car. The guy is just not that good!

So you're saying he can't learn from his mistakes?

[AJP]

If he has a car as dominant as the one enjoyed by Mika in 98
Mika had a good car in 98'..It certainly wasn't clearly dominant. Mika won 8 races, and Michael only two behind on 6 wins.
Dominance is Michael's year in 04' winning 13 from 18 races.

[ArrowsFA1]

NO! as Will was the intent of the title. Just do not believe this guy will win the title, unless he is given a special car. The guy is just not that good!
Well I guess he has not won much yet, but the fact that yet = 25 GPs and he's won 6 of them is evidence to contradict your opinion that he's "not that good".

As for the title...Time will tell.

[SGWilko]

If he has a car as dominant as the one enjoyed by Mika in 98

Dominant cars to me are as follows:

1986 & 1987 Williams (diluted by in team fighting)
1988 McLaren
1992 & 1993 Williams
2002 Ferrari
2004 Ferrari
2005 McLaren (Exclude the Mercedes powerplant from that!)

Rule stability (in terms of the FIA being less than competent in banning stuff depending on wind direction) has meant that domination from one team is less and less likely.

I also think you overestimate the '98 Mclaren while underestimate Mika's abilities.

[Azumanga Davo]

When you say 'special' car, you don't mean one of them blue three wheeler jobbies do you? ;)

Perhaps you could define a 'special' car for us all. Then, IF Lewis wins a WDC, we can check your definition against the car he potentially achieves it in, and see if your crystal nut was on form. :p :

Spy shot of 'special' car in action yesterday...

http://www.imcdb.org/images/007/718.jpg

[SGWilko]

Spy shot of 'special' car in action yesterday...

http://www.imcdb.org/images/007/718.jpg

Ahhhh, the Reliant Regal - cushty!

This is more what I had in mind....

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.motoringpicturelibrary.com/docs/pic1110c.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.motoringpicturelibrary.com/preview_image.asp%3FlcID%3D20%26fleID%3D3707&h=326&w=396&sz=32&tbnid=AFVAvqC2MVYJ::&tbnh=102&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dinvalid%2Bcarriage&hl=en&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=1&ct=image&cd=1

:D

NB - I hope no one is offended by this - please remove it if it causes an issue.

[leopard]

We can rest assured: The Car in Front is a Fiat

[DezinerPaul]

Dominant cars to me are as follows:

1986 & 1987 Williams (diluted by in team fighting)
1988 McLaren
1992 & 1993 Williams
2002 Ferrari
2004 Ferrari
2005 McLaren (Exclude the Mercedes powerplant from that!)

Rule stability (in terms of the FIA being less than competent in banning stuff depending on wind direction) has meant that domination from one team is less and less likely.

I also think you overestimate the '98 Mclaren while underestimate Mika's abilities.


No, it is you that is overestimating his ability. The McLaren of 98 was almost unbeatable, I say almost, simply because Michael was in the Ferrari and he kept people honest. If Michael was in that McLaren, he would have gone through 98-99 maybe even 2000 unbeaten. Lets be honest here, Mika even with two titles does not make the top 20 all time.

[ioan]

You mean less than the the whole UK watches it?! :laugh:

Put together all the Commonwealth countries and you will get a very low percentage of them watching Top Gear, because 55 million is nothing when you compare it with billions!

Just my 2 cents! :D

[ArrowsFA1]

The McLaren of 98 was almost unbeatable...
...in Mika Hakkinen's hands.

I say almost, simply because Michael was in the Ferrari and he kept people honest.
We appear to be getting to the crux of the matter where your views of drivers are concerned :)

[ioan]

We appear to be getting to the crux of the matter where your views of drivers are concerned :)

We can say the same about the opinions of any forumer on this board.
As much as you didn't like it everyone, including yourself, has affinity for one driver or another, so don't play that card so innocently. :rolleyes:

[ArrowsFA1]

We can say the same about the opinions of any forumer on this board.
As much as you didn't like it everyone, including yourself, has affinity for one driver or another, so don't play that card so innocently. :rolleyes:
Who's playing a card :rolleyes: Of course it's all about opinions, and IMHO DezinerPaul hasn't offered much, if anything, to back up his low opinion of Mika Hakkinen.

If the best he has is a driver having the best car then that would eliminate a lot of drivers (including Michael Schumacher) who have won one or more WDCs. The fact is no-one will win a WDC with a Force India. A driver needs the best, or certainly one of the best, cars on the grid.

Riccardo Patrese won 6 GPs in his 256 GP career. That's the same number as Lewis Hamilton, and a hell of a lot less than many drivers, but that fact alone doesn't lessen my opinion of Riccardo, or boost my opinion of any other driver.

Bikinis and numbers. Bikinis and numbers :s mokin:

[Tazio]

I can't remember the seasons but I'm pretty sure that the McLaren wasn't 'unbeatable'. F1 has a LOT to do with the cars but to say that it is ALL about them is wrong. As I said before the car will not turn in itself, nor accelerate or brake. Mika wasn't as good as MS but otherwise he was one of the top 5 drivers on the grid.



My brother lives in Toronto and downloads TG torrents within hours of it being on. I'm aware that the show is broadcast in the UK and not in a lot of countries but also know that a lot of people on this forum watch it, or see clips on Youtube.

I'm not saying that the show is the final word but the Top Gear blokes have fairly good car control and drive some fairly powerful cars yet couldn't even get the car running properly.

For those non-UK residents (or any of the other countries that show TG) the video is here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=I0O7gFycPho
Nice vid. Can I get Top Gear in the states?

[MrJan]

Nice vid. Can I get Top Gear in the states?

I don't know if it's on normal TV but the internet is a wonderful thing and if you get a torrent program (uTorrent or the like) I think that you should be able to find episodes of the programme fairly easy, although it takes a while to download.

I can't help with the technical aspects but I know that when I visited my brother back in December he downloaded it less than 24 hours after it had aired in the UK. Sadly I don't know how to search for it because I get to watch it on TV.

[DezinerPaul]

...in Mika Hakkinen's hands.

We appear to be getting to the crux of the matter where your views of drivers are concerned :)

Not so, you are just jumping to conclusions. In my opinion, there is one and only one way to judge a driver, that is with statistics. Statistics can show consistency over a long period of time, it can reflect a cars real performance and how one team mate compares against another. Yes, there are many other issues, one can consider, however at days end, statistics are the only objective way to evaluate ones performance. Mika had a few great years in the brilliant McLaren, at the same time, there was a marked change in consistency, that is the result of the car. As for Mika, his stats are sketchy at best, even in the lowly DTM series (compared to F1) he did not show anything special.








http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Tourenwagen_Masters

[ArrowsFA1]

In my opinion, there is one and only one way to judge a driver, that is with statistics.

Which is where you and I disagree. Statistics are interesting, but they tell us nothing about how the numbers were achieved and they tell us nothing about the individual behind the numbers.

[MrJan]

even in the lowly DTM series (compared to F1) he did not show anything special.

You can't compare tin-tops to F1 though, it's a different sport.

[DezinerPaul]

Which is where you and I disagree. Statistics are interesting, but they tell us nothing about how the numbers were achieved and they tell us nothing about the individual behind the numbers.



So you prefer to be subjective, that is fine. For my part, I will stick to the facts and figures. One little point, if one knows how to use statistics, we do indeed know how the numbers are achieved. As for the individual, they are paid a great deal of money to perform, that performance is measured by their respective teams using statistics.

[MrJan]

Also statistics show that Aryton Senna wasn't as good as Prost or Schumacher but there are many, many people who would argue that were it not for Imola '94 he would have been.

[MrJan]

So you prefer to be subjective, that is fine. For my part, I will stick to the facts and figures. One little point, if one knows how to use statistics, we do indeed know how the numbers are achieved. As for the individual, they are paid a great deal of money to perform, that performance is measured by their respective teams using statistics.

How much does Hamilton earn? If indeed he is as rubbish as you make out then he probably would be on the same wage as the Toro Rosso drivers right?

[wedge]

. As for Mika, his stats are sketchy at best, even in the lowl[U]y DTM series (compared to F1) he did not show anything special.

What about Macau 1990 F3 showdown?

Mika and Schumi were near equal.

Schumi didn't look spectacular up against HH Frentzen and Wendlinger when they were together.

Senna and Brundle were near equal in F3.

And yet Schumi and Senna went on to become legends.

Schumi acknowledged Mika as his greatest rival which says a lot. Jim Clark acknowledged that Dan Gurney was the driver he feared most and yet some people will laugh that off.

You say any driver could win a title with a dominant car well first you need to overcome a dominant team mate or equal/superior opponent. Why couldn't DC win the WDC because Mika peaked at the right time. Why did Schumi become champ and not Rubens? Because Schumi is the better driver.

What about Damon Hill? He had the cars to win titles and failed twice.

[DezinerPaul]

Also statistics show that Aryton Senna wasn't as good as Prost or Schumacher but there are many, many people who would argue that were it not for Imola '94 he would have been.

In 94 Senna was on his way out, his star was clearly fading. As for how he stacks up against AP, Prost was clearly a faster and more productive driver, while Senna has a shocking, pole conversion record, in fact the worst among multiple Champions. As a team owner, I would pick AP over Senna any day, consistency is vital.

[ArrowsFA1]

So you prefer to be subjective, that is fine. For my part, I will stick to the facts and figures.
If either you or I stuck entirely to one or the other then we would both miss out :) Both have their part in assessing drivers. I happen to believe the detail behind the numbers is more important.

One little point, if one knows how to use statistics, we do indeed know how the numbers are achieved.
You may well be a statistician so perhaps you can explain how. We know a GP is won by crossing the finishing line first, so in that sense we know how the number is achieved, but the number alone does not, and cannot, tell us anything about the story of the race(s).

As for the individual, they are paid a great deal of money to perform, that performance is measured by their respective teams using statistics.
Using that as the basis for a discussion then...apparently Jenson Button is the 4th highest paid driver on the grid, and he has been retained by BAR/Honda since 2003. In those 6 seasons he has 1 win, 15 podiums and 3 pole positions. It's a poor statistical record and yet he is certain to be retained by the team. Why? (I ask the question because I do not believe statistics alone determine team driver choice, not because I'm looking for another JB discussion!!)

[MrJan]

In 94 Senna was on his way out, his star was clearly fading. As for how he stacks up against AP, Prost was clearly a faster and more productive driver, while Senna has a shocking, pole conversion record, in fact the worst among multiple Champions. As a team owner, I would pick AP over Senna any day, consistency is vital.

:laugh: :laugh:

You are just screwing with us now aren't you?

Senna wasn't that good either?

[DezinerPaul]

What about Macau 1990 F3 showdown?

Mika and Schumi were near equal.

Schumi didn't look spectacular up against HH Frentzen and Wendlinger when they were together.

Senna and Brundle were near equal in F3.

And yet Schumi and Senna went on to become legends.

Schumi acknowledged Mika as his greatest rival which says a lot. Jim Clark acknowledged that Dan Gurney was the driver he feared most and yet some people will laugh that off.

You say any driver could win a title with a dominant car well first you need to overcome a dominant team mate or equal/superior opponent. Why couldn't DC win the WDC because Mika peaked at the right time. Why did Schumi become champ and not Rubens? Because Schumi is the better driver.

What about Damon Hill? He had the cars to win titles and failed twice.

Your post has a lot of disconnected thoughts, not even sure what point or points, you are trying to make.

[DezinerPaul]

:laugh: :laugh:

You are just screwing with us now aren't you?

Senna wasn't that good either?


Never said that Senna was not that good, I simply said that if I was a team owner, I would have hired AP before Senna.

[wedge]

In 94 Senna was on his way out, his star was clearly fading.

Another case of reading too much into statistics.

The Williams that year compares a bit to today's BMW. It was horribly twitchy on the limit but became more neutral into the season. Senna made a mistake coming out of the last corner in Brazil, but was punted off in TI Aida in Japan.

[ArrowsFA1]

...As for how he stacks up against AP, Prost was clearly a faster and more productive driver...
In the light of that it's interesting to read JYS's comments:

"Prost in my opinion was one of the greatest drivers of all time because he made a car work for him, and he made it work for Senna. I don't think Senna would have won as much if Prost had not been there.
"What he did with the development of the vehicle for McLaren helped Senna, who was a much more liberated driver – with absolute feel, balance and driving skill that was probably above Prost. But Prost made it happen. You just need to look at the onboard camera and watch the steering movements – the wheel hardly moved.
"Prost absolutely drove the car to mechanical perfection. Senna could take that mechanical perfection to a higher level but then it introduced over inducement, but he had the reactions and the dynamic feel to still control the semi wild bull that Prost very seldom visited.
"Prost was very seldom on the back of a wild bull – which is why he was so good and delivered such success. I didn't want to be on the back of a wild bull, it gave me no thrill at all. I needed to give it Valium to calm it down."
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/68770

One driver better than another, or simply different?

[SGWilko]

In 94 Senna was on his way out, his star was clearly fading.

In '94, the Williams started the season as not a very well sorted car. Senna put it on pole a couple of times but had to drive over the limit to keep up with the Benetton.

History tells us that Williams got a handle on the car, and Hill was prevented from taking the title by Michael, who drove into him having previously driven into the wall and damaging his Benetton.

If Hill was able to mount a challenge, I think it fair to say Ayrton would have made a better job of it.

I think Schumacher's rise to star status would easily have kept Senna motivated to continue.

[DezinerPaul]

You may well be a statistician so perhaps you can explain how. We know a GP is won by crossing the finishing line first, so in that sense we know how the number is ac hieved, but the number alone does not, and cannot, tell us anything about the story of the race(s).

You know those guys from each team, that sit around looking at computers. Well guess what, they are collecting data, that is the story of the race. What you watch, is only one very small part of the race. The real story in the race is in numbers, not some flashy pass.

Using that as the basis for a discussion then...apparently Jenson Button is the 4th highest paid driver on the grid, and he has been retained by BAR/Honda since 2003. In those 6 seasons he has 1 win, 15 podiums and 3 pole positions. It's a poor statistical record and yet he is certain to be retained by the team. Why? (I ask the question because I do not believe statistics alone determine team driver choice, not because I'm looking for another JB discussion!!)[/quote]

In the case of Honda and Jenson, they have had very little choice up to now. The promise of a good car, was always just a short time away. When you are trying to build a car, one school of thought, is that if one keeps the same driver, there is at least a foundation to build a better car. One thing is for sure, Jenson will probably get an extension, it will not be for a long time and he will be expected to perform up to the cars capabilities.

[wedge]

In the light of that it's interesting to read JYS's comments:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/68770

One driver better than another, or simply different?


The latter, IMO. Prost skill of setting up a race car vs. Senna balls out driving. Left foot braking vs. right foot braking. You could go on.

There was a Mexican GP 88 or 89, can't remember which but I was surprised Prost had more problems with tyre degradation than Senna!

[DezinerPaul]

In the light of that it's interesting to read JYS's comments:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/68770

One driver better than another, or simply different?

For my money, the guy that best delivers, is the better driver. Between the two, AP delivered more consistently that Senna.

[DezinerPaul]

The latter, IMO. Prost skill of setting up a race car vs. Senna balls out driving. Left foot braking vs. right foot braking. You could go on.

There was a Mexican GP 88 or 89, can't remember which but I was surprised Prost had more problems with tyre degradation than Senna!

AP was a much faster driver than Senna, that is a fact. Sure in a race for pole, nobody was as good as Senna, however the guy was horrible in converting those poles into wins. One driver was consistently faster and delivered his entire career (even if he chased teams to get the best car)

[ArrowsFA1]

You know those guys from each team, that sit around looking at computers. Well guess what, they are collecting data, that is the story of the race. What you watch, is only one very small part of the race. The real story in the race is in numbers, not some flashy pass.
Blow me down, and I thought they were playing Doom :p Yup, it's data - lap times, car settings etc etc - which all contributes to how they view their drivers. It's one explaination for why McLaren consistently say Heikki is doing a good job, although the statistics in terms of results don't show it.

In the case of Honda and Jenson, they have had very little choice up to now.
But how does that fit with "there is one and only one way to judge a driver, that is with statistics"? On that basis JB should have been gone before now.

The latter, IMO. Prost skill of setting up a race car vs. Senna balls out driving. Left foot braking vs. right foot braking. You could go on.
Indeed, and all with no mention of statistics :)

[ArrowsFA1]

For my money, the guy that best delivers, is the better driver. Between the two, AP delivered more consistently that Senna.
1988/9
WDC's: Prost - 1 Senna - 1
Wins: Prost - 11 Senna - 14
Poles: Prost - 4 Senna - 26
F/L: Prost - 12 Senna - 6
Laps Lead - Prost - 708 Senna - 1040

[Dave B]

Not so, you are just jumping to conclusions. In my opinion, there is one and only one way to judge a driver, that is with statistics.
If you apply your logic to music, Westlife are better than Led Zeppelin or Jimi Hendrix. God help us if that were remotely true.

[wedge]

If you apply your logic to music, Westlife are better than Led Zeppelin or Jimi Hendrix. God help us if that were remotely true.

Art is more subjective than sports.

[DezinerPaul]

[quote="ArrowsFA1"]1988/9
WDC's: Prost - 1 Senna - 1
Wins: Prost - 11 Senna - 14
Poles: Prost - 4 Senna - 26
F/L: Prost - 12 Senna - 6
Laps Lead - Prost - 708 Senna - 1040[/quote


Thats the thing about stats, you need to use all of the stats, not one little part of an entire career, otherwise you are not painting a true picture.

[DezinerPaul]

If you apply your logic to music, Westlife are better than Led Zeppelin or Jimi Hendrix. God help us if that were remotely true.


What in the Blue Moon are you talking about. Whatever you are drinking, I will have a double.

[MrJan]

If you apply your logic to music, Westlife are better than Led Zeppelin or Jimi Hendrix. God help us if that were remotely true.

:laugh:

I've always been a heart over head kind of person so statistics aren't where I judge people. If I see that a driver has good car control or can actually overtake then they will be who I'll believe can be good. If you look at MotoGP then in 2006 Nicky Hayden was the better rider, in the sense that he won the championship. However almost everyone will say that Rossi is a better rider but had a poor year in which he made mistakes and had troubles.

From watching Lewis Hamilton you can see that he is something quite special. This is someone who came second in his debut year. Regardless of how good the car is that shows that he has some talent, especially as he gave Alonso a run for his money. I just don't see how anyone can say that he will NEVER win a championship when he's only done a season and a half.

Incidentally the last two people that I have seen in lower Formulae and thought would be something special haven't done too bad. One is some Spanish bloke called Alonso and the other is this Finnish geezer called Kimi Raikkonen ;) Hamilton has about 12 years of career to follow in their footsteps and win a WDC, I reckon it'll take him 2 seasons max before he has the number 1 on his car.

[wedge]

But that's when they were team mates with equal machinery.

If you take into account for driving different teams then it becomes far more subjective. Eg. driver X could've won if he had a better car. Prost had the dominant car in 1993 which contributed to his successful pole to flag conversion.

[ArrowsFA1]

Thats the thing about stats, you need to use all of the stats, not one little part of an entire career, otherwise you are not painting a true picture.
Ok, so where does that leave us with Lewis Hamilton?

[ioan]

In '94, the Williams started the season as not a very well sorted car. Senna put it on pole a couple of times but had to drive over the limit to keep up with the Benetton.

History tells us that Williams got a handle on the car, and Hill was prevented from taking the title by Michael, who drove into him having previously driven into the wall and damaging his Benetton.

If Hill was able to mount a challenge, I think it fair to say Ayrton would have made a better job of it.

No offense but you are talking bollocks.

Hill only got close because MS was DQed in two races and banned for another two.

:s mokin:

[ioan]

1988/9
WDC's: Prost - 1 Senna - 1
Wins: Prost - 11 Senna - 14
Poles: Prost - 4 Senna - 26
F/L: Prost - 12 Senna - 6
Laps Lead - Prost - 708 Senna - 1040[/quote


Thats the thing about stats, you need to use all of the stats, not one little part of an entire career, otherwise you are not painting a true picture.

You see, the problem on this forum is that people will only post about what makes them happy, and when you try to show them the part they were hiding you'll get all kind of comments coming your way but not serious arguments!

You're lucky you didn't discover this forum while MS was still around, there was war around here, not the small riots we get today. ;)

[ioan]

Ok, so where does that leave us with Lewis Hamilton?

Who???

[ioan]

But that's when they were team mates with equal machinery.

That's exactly what makes it a valuable comparison.

[wedge]

You see, the problem on this forum is that people will only post about what makes them happy, and when you try to show them the part they were hiding you'll get all kind of comments coming your way but not serious arguments!

You're lucky you didn't discover this forum while MS was still around, there was war around here, not the small riots we get today. ;)


No offense but you are talking bollocks

:s mokin:

How some of us managed to cope with the likes of Ioan, I do not know!!!!

:p

[ArrowsFA1]

Hill only got close because MS was DQed in two races and banned for another two.
He didn't only get close for that reason.

1) MS/Benetton were out of those races for a reason, none of which had anything to do with Hill.
2) Hill had to produce performances to take full advantage of those circumstances and he did.
3) Hill out-drove and out-raced MS in Suzuka and Adelaide, plain and simple.

[MrJan]

Ok, so where does that leave us with Lewis Hamilton?

He's rubbish because the car is obviously brilliant and statistics show that he hasn't won a WDC :rolleyes: Doesn't matter that he was GP2 champ (where everyone ahs the same machinery) and has been a force in almost every series he's competed in.

It doesn't matter that he missed out on a championship in his debut season because of inexperience (beating his more experienced, reigning WDC team mate), nor that he is only 10 points adrift at the mid-point of this year's championship. It also doesn't seem relevant that he is one of the youngest drivers on the grid (the youngest??).

Like I said before I don't care if you want to bad mouth him, he seems arrogant and still makes stupid mistakes (Canada etc.), but to say that he is not capable of winning a championship seems a little shortsighted.

[DezinerPaul]

You see, the problem on this forum is that people will only post about what makes them happy, and when you try to show them the part they were hiding you'll get all kind of comments coming your way but not serious arguments!

You're lucky you didn't discover this forum while MS was still around, there was war around here, not the small riots we get today. ;)


Well Michael is the greatest driver of the modern era, nobody comes close. Senna fans know this and it upsets them, they know that deep down their driver is at best, tied with 3 or 4 other driver for 4th

[DezinerPaul]

He didn't only get close for that reason.

1) MS/Benetton were out of those races for a reason, none of which had anything to do with Hill.
2) Hill had to produce performances to take full advantage of those circumstances and he did.
3) Hill out-drove and out-raced MS in Suzuka and Adelaide, plain and simple.

For some reason Hill gets a bad rap, yet he really is one of the best drivers in the last 20 years.

[wedge]

For some reason Hill gets a bad rap, yet he really is one of the best drivers in the last 20 years.

Statistics perhaps?

He really should've won it in 1995 but Schumi got the job done and made the world take notice.

[MrJan]

Nobody can say whether Schumi is better than Senna because they never got to truly compete against each other. Many would have liked to have seen it but sadly it was not to be. Also it can't be overlooked that Schumacher was never really challenged. Mika was the best and, for my money, MS was probably better than him. Meanwhile Senna was racing Prost who is acknowledged as a great driver.

Certainly once Mika left the fray Schumacher had no real competition I can think of.

[DezinerPaul]

Nobody can say whether Schumi is better than Senna because they never got to truly compete against each other. Many would have liked to have seen it but sadly it was not to be. Also it can't be overlooked that Schumacher was never really challenged. Mika was the best and, for my money, MS was probably better than him. Meanwhile Senna was racing Prost who is acknowledged as a great driver.

Certainly once Mika left the fray Schumacher had no real competition I can think of.


Michael is many times better than Senna. At the end of the day, you have to be consistent to be great and Senna was not, brilliant yes, consistent no!

[ioan]

He didn't only get close for that reason.

Even if MS would have got only 2 points in those races he was DQed (I think he had 16 points in these two races alone) and banned, Hill wouldn't even had the remotest chance to the title.

However you look at it the only reason hill challenged MS was because MS was denied points in 4 races out of 16, that's 25% of the season.

[DezinerPaul]

Nobody can say whether Schumi is better than Senna because they never got to truly compete against each other. Many would have liked to have seen it but sadly it was not to be. Also it can't be overlooked that Schumacher was never really challenged. Mika was the best and, for my money, MS was probably better than him. Meanwhile Senna was racing Prost who is acknowledged as a great driver.

Certainly once Mika left the fray Schumacher had no real competition I can think of.


Mika was retired by Michael, as simple as that. Mika would not make the top 10 of the modern era!

[MrJan]

But do you agree that Mika was the closest thing that MS had to a challenge between '98 and his retirement?

'In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king'. Just because Schumacher won lots of races it doesn't automatically make him better than Senna. I would have loved to see them race for a championship as I think it would have been close.

And what is 'the modern era'? If you mean the last 10 years then Mika is in there, probably in the last 20 years too.

[DezinerPaul]

But do you agree that Mika was the closest thing that MS had to a challenge between '98 and his retirement?

'In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king'. Just because Schumacher won lots of races it doesn't automatically make him better than Senna. I would have loved to see them race for a championship as I think it would have been close.

And what is 'the modern era'? If you mean the last 10 years then Mika is in there, probably in the last 20 years too.


The modern era, started in 1950. You keep talking about Senna, yet was not as good as Prost. So if there was anybody that one could make an argument for was AP, you would still lose, but it would be a closer argument!

[Jag_Warrior]

Felipe Massa was a laughing stock for years. He trashed virtually everything he drove and it was only by going to an outfit like Ferrari that stopped him making stupid mistakes.

I get that people don't like the hype around Hamilton but you have to be fairly stupid to think that there are 8 drivers on the grid better than him. This is a bloke who has walked almost every championship he has been in.


As far as I'm aware GP2 is controlled (I.E everyone in the same car) so don't give me that 'McLaren superiority' bull**** when you watch this clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjotF2Bwbmg

Hate him as much as you like but to say that a fast driver, in a quick car, and still only in his early 20s will never win a championship is laughable.

Well, you never know. Maybe this lot has the power to see into the future. Let's get some lottery numbers from them before insulting them. If the numbers don't win, then let the beatings continue!

For how many years did the know-it-all brigade claim that Heinz-Harald Frentzen was quicker than Michael Schumacher? Yeah, that really proved to be true, eh? :rolleyes: Babies pushing baseless opinion as fact. Let them cry and enjoy the show. :s mokin:

[jens]

It's funny to follow, how the discussion topic keeps changing. First a Hamilton-bash, then the arguing 'unnoticably' enters history phase, going gradually further and further back in time scale, starting with Häkkinen and having reached the debates about Senna by now. :p : Hopefully you have thoroughly analyzed the whole history of motor racing quite soon.

About statistics vs no-statistics.
I personally prefer to rate drivers based on what I have seen them doing on the race track. What more races in anyone's representation have been seen, that better it can be possible to judge him. Of course besides pure watching other affecting factors should be taken into account, for example if someone was slow, it is needed to find out, whether he had a problem - or other factors, what might have reduced driver's effort.

We debate mostly about top drivers, but I'd say that the ratings of those drivers, who are not fighting at the top, but more precisely are in the midfield or backmarkers, are often more misleading, because folks are not so interested in them and are simply not observing, how have they been exactly performing. What less successful drivers have been, that more statistics-based their ratings tend to be. Opinions like "He has achieved only 1 win in his career, so his is nothing special" occur quite often.

[MrJan]

The modern era, started in 1950. You keep talking about Senna, yet was not as good as Prost. So if there was anybody that one could make an argument for was AP, you would still lose, but it would be a closer argument!

Although the '50s saw a form of F1 that is recognisable I don't think that a 60 year period can be used to compare drivers. When Fangio was strutting his stuff it was a different concept to the high profile of today. Even drawing comparison between Prost (as you wish) and Schumacher is difficult because of the change in cars.

Anyway, regardless of how good Senna, Fangio, Prost, Schumacher, Hakkinen and all the other WDC are/were, it still doesn't explain why you think that Lewis Hamilton is incappable of winning a championship.

[Jag_Warrior]

Anyway, regardless of how good Senna, Fangio, Prost, Schumacher, Hakkinen and all the other WDC are/were, it still doesn't explain why you think that Lewis Hamilton is incappable of winning a championship.


It's simple. He's already stated that he doesn't like McLaren and he doesn't seem to care for Hamilton either. So he crafts a make-it-up-as-he-goes argument to fit his needs.

Why can't people just be honest, instead of making irrational statements that make them look silly? They could just say, "I don't like McLaren or Lewis Hamilton. I don't think he'll ever win the WDC... at least I hope that he doesn't."

End of story...

[DezinerPaul]

Although the '50s saw a form of F1 that is recognisable I don't think that a 60 year period can be used to compare drivers. When Fangio was strutting his stuff it was a different concept to the high profile of today. Even drawing comparison between Prost (as you wish) and Schumacher is difficult because of the change in cars.

Anyway, regardless of how good Senna, Fangio, Prost, Schumacher, Hakkinen and all the other WDC are/were, it still doesn't explain why you think that Lewis Hamilton is incappable of winning a championship.


First I do not agree with your isolated views of F1. Just because the cars are different, racers are racers. To say that a Jim Clark or Ascari would not be at the highest level today, is completely unfounded.

As for Hamilton, I do not like the guy at all. Even so, that has nothing to do with why I do not think he has what it takes. Is he quick enough,of course, he also has enough physical ability. That being said, the reason that I do not think he will ever win the title, without a dominant car, is that I think he is too irrational and emotional. This is demonstrated every time he opens his mouth, it is my opinion, that he will fold like a deck of cards, when real pressure applied

[MrJan]

The kid is young and liable to some mistakes. The Youtube clip I posted earlier shows that he CAN cope with pressure and given a bit more experience he will calm down. Massa has matured (4 years ago he was a liability yet now he leads the championship) and I believe Hamilton will do the same. At the core though I truly believe that Lewis is a faster driver than Felipe.

I would hardly say that my view of F1 is isolated just because I look at a 10 year period. You talk about F1 being 'all about the car' yet are happy to compare a driver of a 1950s Mercedes to one that is 50 years younger. The sport has changed so much that I don't think a comparison can take place and produce a meaningful outcome.

[ioan]

He didn't only get close for that reason.

Even if MS would have got only 2 points in those races he was DQed (I think he had 16 points in these two races alone) and banned, Hill wouldn't even had the remotest chance to the title.

However you look at it the only reason hill challenged MS was because MS was denied points in 4 races out of 16, that's 25% of the season.

[gravity]

...
As for Hamilton, I do not like the guy at all. Even so, that has nothing to do with why I do not think he has what it takes.

I'm not so sure that you wouldn't like him if you met him face to face. The same would go for the 'Schumacher haters' (or any other F1 driver). The media create a lot of hype around certain drivers to try and get better ratings. Senna and Mansell for example; the media chose to play them off as arch rivals willing to poke each others eyes out, yet, they got along better than most drivers in F1 ever did.

As for saying that LH doesn't have what it takes (under pressure), did you see Massa trying to pass Hamilton at Sepang? (I think it was Hamilton's 3rd or 4th race). Lewis seemed to handle the pressure rather well.

[Rollo]

Even if MS would have got only 2 points in those races he was DQed (I think he had 16 points in these two races alone) and banned, Hill wouldn't even had the remotest chance to the title.

Your point being?
Schumacher was disqualified in Britain '94 for overtaking on the parade lap, and then served a two race ban for disobeying a stop/go penalty. That's an offence of the driver - no-one else.
He was disqualified in Belguim for having a car which failed scrutineering.
All of which were thoroughly deserved, and for three races is part of the proof of why he earnt so much scorn.

[AJP]

bottom line is,
wether you hate him or not, Lewis is bloody good. absolutely no question about it.
It is totally silly saying he will never win a title.

[DezinerPaul]

The kid is young and liable to some mistakes. The Youtube clip I posted earlier shows that he CAN cope with pressure and given a bit more experience he will calm down. Massa has matured (4 years ago he was a liability yet now he leads the championship) and I believe Hamilton will do the same. At the core though I truly believe that Lewis is a faster driver than Felipe.

I would hardly say that my view of F1 is isolated just because I look at a 10 year period. You talk about F1 being 'all about the car' yet are happy to compare a driver of a 1950s Mercedes to one that is 50 years younger. The sport has changed so much that I don't think a comparison can take place and produce a meaningful outcome.

A comparison can be made, simply because each driver have statistics against their contemporaries. In baseball a 300 hitter is a 300 hitter, 20 wins is 20 wins, the same is true in racing. If rules out the anomalies for dominant or DNF equipment, one can get a clear picture of the drivers real performance.

[AJP]

If rules out the anomalies for dominant or DNF equipment, one can get a clear picture of the drivers real performance.Rubbish

[DezinerPaul]

Rubbish


That is a mindless remark, of course we can take a dominant car and or DNF;s as anomalies. We can tell at any time if a car is dominant and or competitive, without it winning, it is a fundamental element of racing.

[gloomyDAY]

:rolleyes:

Some troll decides to open another pointless thread bashing McLaren. Then what happens? Everyone ends up arguing over the best driver to have ever graced the sport of F1 and making even more people angry.

I love this thread!

[DezinerPaul]

:rolleyes:

Some troll decides to open another pointless thread bashing McLaren. Then what happens? Everyone ends up arguing over the best driver to have ever graced the sport of F1 and making even more people angry.

I love this thread!

I guess you are talking about Michael Schumacher when you said "arguing over the best driver to have ever graced the sport of F1"

[Ranger]

:rolleyes:

Some troll decides to open another pointless thread bashing McLaren. Then what happens? Everyone ends up arguing over the best driver to have ever graced the sport of F1 and making even more people angry.

I love this thread!

I guess you are talking about Michael Schumacher when you said "arguing over the best driver to have ever graced the sport of F1"
Case in point! :D

[gloomyDAY]

I guess you are talking about Michael Schumacher when you said "arguing over the best driver to have ever graced the sport of F1"Sure, if it makes you stop posting a bunch of nonsense.

[DezinerPaul]

Case in point! :D
Just stating the obvious, who else could he be talking about!

[Valve Bounce]

:rolleyes:

Some troll decides to open another pointless thread bashing McLaren. Then what happens? Everyone ends up arguing over the best driver to have ever graced the sport of F1 and making even more people angry.

I love this thread!

I'm just waiting for Bolton to return and make his contribution. :eek: He's even more entertaining.

[Tazio]

I'm just waiting for Bolton to return and make his contribution. :eek: He's even more entertaining.

Yea' Bolton :p :

[DezinerPaul]

Sure, if it makes you stop posting a bunch of nonsense.


Why not be more specific, what exactly is nonsense?

[Valve Bounce]

Why not be more specific, what exactly is nonsense?

No offense, but most of the stuff you have posted is based on opinions without any factual basis. Even your assumptions of a rigid reliance on statistics is, at best, dubious in conclusiveness.

Having worked in laboratories for a number of years, I can safely say that one can pick and choose statistics to back up many dubious conclusions which those not willing to look into how the statistics were obtained would not know how dodgy the results really are.

Statistics can be likened to lamp posts for drunks to lean on.

[PSfan]

:rolleyes:

Some troll decides to open another pointless thread bashing McLaren.

Are you lost? This is a Hamilton Bashing thread? get it right...

And as for Trolls in this thread... Have you even made a single comment that relates to the original post? If there is a Troll in this thread, it aint DP

And for the record... I tend to agree with the original post in this thread... It's looking like barring having the best car on the grid, LH probably doesn't have a prayer of winning a championship... Why? because he seems to be lacking in the reflexes department... Looking at his blunders this year, his mounting Alonso from behind as an example, He just doesn't seem to react to some situations fast enough, I'm inclined to believe every NASCAR driver would have been smart enough to lift the split second to not make contact with Alonso...

Now instead of pointing out that this year could very well prove DP wrong seeing as Ferrari clearlyt have the best car on the grid, and Hamilton dispite his blunders still has a real chance at the the title... You choose to post retarded pictures and moan about trolls...


Then what happens? Everyone ends up arguing over the best driver to have ever graced the sport of F1 and making even more people angry.

There, I'm trying to get the thread back on track, no other drivers, and I'm not bashing McLeran... Happy now?



I love this thread!

Me Too :cheese:

[Rollo]

I wonder if these sorts of threads were flying around in 2001 when a chap who'd only raced motor cars 23 times was given an F1 Super Licence with a "promise" of performance from his team boss.

...because that youngster currently wears No.1 on his car.

[DezinerPaul]

No offense, but most of the stuff you have posted is based on opinions without any factual basis. Even your assumptions of a rigid reliance on statistics is, at best, dubious in conclusiveness.

Having worked in laboratories for a number of years, I can safely say that one can pick and choose statistics to back up many dubious conclusions which those not willing to look into how the statistics were obtained would not know how dodgy the results really are.

Statistics can be likened to lamp posts for drunks to lean on.


You argument regarding statistics, are valid if one uses, a part of the whole thing to make a point. That is not what I suggested, in fact you will see that I mentioned the word in the specific and illustrative sense, in the context of longevity. So at no time have or would I "pick and choose statistics to back up many dubious conclusions"
An example is, I said that Senna had a horrible pole/win conversion record, now if you have a problem with that statement, be specific and tell me what it is.

[Dave B]

I wonder if these sorts of threads were flying around in 2001 when a chap who'd only raced motor cars 23 times was given an F1 Super Licence with a "promise" of performance from his team boss.

...because that youngster currently wears No.1 on his car.
If I recall correctly, yes they were. The same type of threads were also around when Massa was crashing a Sauber every other Sunday, when Kubica was bouncing off the walls in Canada last year, and when Villeneuve was trying to alleviate the boredom of driving a BAR by crashing at Eau Rouge. Plus ca change...

Hamilton is a supremely talented driver who needs to occasionally reign in his hot-headedness. Yes he's driving for a top team but he's earned that privelege over the last decade by working his nuts off at every rung of the motorsport ladder.

If he can get back to driving like he did for the first three-quarters of 2007, and provided that McLaren don't slip backwards in the development race, then there's no good reason why Lewis can't win Championship(s).

[Dave B]

An example is, I said that Senna had a horrible pole/win conversion record, now if you have a problem with that statement, be specific and tell me what it is.
That's purely a function of Senna's brilliance in qualifying. It stands to reason that a guy with so many poles wouldn't be able to convert them all into race wins.

Incidentally, given that statistics apparently are the be-all and end-all, how do you account for Senna "only" winning 3 Championships cf Prost's 4 or Schumacher's 7? Don't let the trivial matter of his death while still at the top of his game cloud your judgement, after all that's not relevant to the stats - is it? :rolleyes:

[ArrowsFA1]

Even if MS would have got only 2 points in those races he was DQed (I think he had 16 points in these two races alone) and banned, Hill wouldn't even had the remotest chance to the title.

However you look at it the only reason hill challenged MS was because MS was denied points in 4 races out of 16, that's 25% of the season.
If's don't cut it. As Damon has said he was only in a position to challenge for the title because Senna was no longer there, but the fact was he did challenge for the title, just as the fact was MS/Benetton were penalised because they did wrong (as we now know they were lucky to even be in the championship at all).

[DezinerPaul]

That's purely a function of Senna's brilliance in qualifying. It stands to reason that a guy with so many poles wouldn't be able to convert them all into race wins.

Incidentally, given that statistics apparently are the be-all and end-all, how do you account for Senna "only" winning 3 Championships cf Prost's 4 or Schumacher's 7? Don't let the trivial matter of his death while still at the top of his game cloud your judgement, after all that's not relevant to the stats - is it? :rolleyes:

You assume that he was at the top of his game, I disagree, he died when 34 Michael who was a very fit a driver , left the sport at 37, Prost 38.
At best, even if he would have lived, he would have driven for 3 maybe 4 years and they would not be at his peak. His days were clearly numbered.
As for Senna, the reason that he did not win as many as Post, Senna was not as fast in race trim and Prost was far more consistent!

[SGWilko]

you need to use all of the stats, not one little part of an entire career, otherwise you are not painting a true picture.

Ding ding ding - Jackpot!

You know, the coffee smells great once one is no longer asleep.

And so, we have a situation. Lil Lewboy is at the start of his career - his statistics to date cannot paint a fair picture - unless of course you have a time machine...... ;)

[SGWilko]

No offense but you are talking bollocks.

Hill only got close because MS was DQed in two races and banned for another two.

:s mokin:

No offense taken - my wife would deffo agree with you on the talking bollocks!!! ;)

Yes, that was a skewed championship - but we know how TW was a cheat, and sadly that team paid the price.

Needless to say, if Senna was still alive after May '94, I suggest he would have been '94 WDC. :)

[DezinerPaul]

That's purely a function of Senna's brilliance in qualifying. It stands to reason that a guy with so many poles wouldn't be able to convert them all into race wins.

Incidentally, given that statistics apparently are the be-all and end-all, how do you account for Senna "only" winning 3 Championships cf Prost's 4 or Schumacher's 7? Don't let the trivial matter of his death while still at the top of his game cloud your judgement, after all that's not relevant to the stats - is it? :rolleyes:


Regarding Senna and his pole/win conversion record, his stats are horrible.The fact that he was good at qualifying has nothing to do with, if it does, then Michael Schumacher is even greater than we all imagine,
Michael had 40 wins from 68 poles, Senna had 29 wins from 66 poles, Prost 18 wins from 33.
With a Victory/Pole/Fastest Lap, the order is Schumacher with 22-Clark 11- Prost 8.
As far as fastest laps, Senna does not make the top ten

[Dave B]

Sadly, one can only speculate. Senna was clearly well-behind in 1994 when his season was tragically cut short, but it seems reasonable to assume he would have adapted to the Williams and then who knows what might have happened?

Had he driven for a further "3 maybe 4 years" as you said, and stayed at Williams, it seems likely that he would have taken at least one more championship given what we now know about the strength of the FW18 / 19. Even if, as you claim, he "would not be at his peak", it's probably he would have given Hill, Schumacher and Villeneuve a good run for their money.

Anyway, this is all speculation and a good illustration of why one should never rely purely on statistics. From a statistical point of view Senna was not as successful as Schumacher, but that overlooks the events of May 1994.

[Dave B]

As far as fastest laps, Senna does not make the top ten
How many points does one score for fastest lap? And anyway, who was it who said that the aim is to win at the slowest possible speed?

[Valve Bounce]

Regarding Senna and his pole/win conversion record, his stats are horrible.The fact that he was good at qualifying has nothing to do with, if it does, then Michael Schumacher is even greater than we all imagine,
Michael had 40 wins from 68 poles, Senna had 29 wins from 66 poles, Prost 18 wins from 33.
With a Victory/Pole/Fastest Lap, the order is Schumacher with 22-Clark 11- Prost 8.
As far as fastest laps, Senna does not make the top ten
You did ask me about your reliance of stats? Here is your answer.

[DezinerPaul]

Sadly, one can only speculate. Senna was clearly well-behind in 1994 when his season was tragically cut short, but it seems reasonable to assume he would have adapted to the Williams and then who knows what might have happened?

Had he driven for a further "3 maybe 4 years" as you said, and stayed at Williams, it seems likely that he would have taken at least one more championship given what we now know about the strength of the FW18 / 19. Even if, as you claim, he "would not be at his peak", it's probably he would have given Hill, Schumacher and Villeneuve a good run for their money.

Anyway, this is all speculation and a good illustration of why one should never rely purely on statistics. From a statistical point of view Senna was not as successful as Schumacher, but that overlooks the events of May 1994.


Just have to be honest, Senna is not even close to Michael on stats. The fact is that the man he raced most against is Prost and he is miles behind Alain. In my humble opinion, because of Senna's tragic death, the myth is now greater than the man. While he made people gasp with his brilliant qualifying, he was not consistent in delivering the whole package.

[DezinerPaul]

How many points does one score for fastest lap? And anyway, who was it who said that the aim is to win at the slowest possible speed?


Lets see, the men who won the most races are also the men who were fastest during the race. The truth is Senna never looked as much in control as Prost, yet AP was faster.

[Valve Bounce]

Lets see, the men who won the most races are also the men who were fastest during the race. The truth is Senna never looked as much in control as Prost, yet AP was faster.

Do you have the stats to prove that?

[Dave B]

I can't argue with someone who uses statistics when it suits them and opinions when it doesn't. This started off about Hamilton but somehow has turned into a Senna thread. I can't be bothered feeding the trolls any more.

:wave:

[ShiftingGears]

Lets see, the men who won the most races are also the men who were fastest during the race. The truth is Senna never looked as much in control as Prost, yet AP was faster.

http://www.formula1.com/results/season/1989/233/
http://www.formula1.com/results/season/1989/232/

Prost set the fastest lap in these two races, and Senna beat him by at least 40 seconds in both races. So no, you are not correct.

[DezinerPaul]

With a Victory/Pole/Fastest Lap
22Michael Schumacher (http://www.4mula1.ro/formulaone/index.php?cdx=1a89d6446dcef256da4c9030d133b65d&pos=1&pol=1&fl=1&idd=778) 11Jim Clark (http://www.4mula1.ro/formulaone/index.php?cdx=6d46ea862ff423f1515e5299e264e5f6&pos=1&pol=1&fl=1&idd=425) 8Alain Prost (http://www.4mula1.ro/formulaone/index.php?cdx=418a5e64ba3f6ae1fa2b3bb5295e2c28&pos=1&pol=1&fl=1&idd=688) 7Alberto Ascari (http://www.4mula1.ro/formulaone/index.php?cdx=effdb0d199bcd3eb9ce64b2645041012&pos=1&pol=1&fl=1&idd=29) 7Ayrton Senna (http://www.4mula1.ro/formulaone/index.php?cdx=c205cca15517760536f06a2179b69ff8&pos=1&pol=1&fl=1&idd=726) 7Juan Manuel Fangio (http://www.4mula1.ro/formulaone/index.php?cdx=dacf8ad174117ca256615b47d489241b&pos=1&pol=1&fl=1&idd=13)

[DezinerPaul]

http://www.formula1.com/results/season/1989/233/
http://www.formula1.com/results/season/1989/232/

Prost set the fastest lap in these two races, and Senna beat him by at least 40 seconds in both races. So no, you are not correct.


This is a perfect example of somebody not using stats the correct way.

[ShiftingGears]

With a Victory/Pole/Fastest Lap
22Michael Schumacher (http://www.4mula1.ro/formulaone/index.php?cdx=1a89d6446dcef256da4c9030d133b65d&pos=1&pol=1&fl=1&idd=778) 11Jim Clark (http://www.4mula1.ro/formulaone/index.php?cdx=6d46ea862ff423f1515e5299e264e5f6&pos=1&pol=1&fl=1&idd=425) 8Alain Prost (http://www.4mula1.ro/formulaone/index.php?cdx=418a5e64ba3f6ae1fa2b3bb5295e2c28&pos=1&pol=1&fl=1&idd=688) 7Alberto Ascari (http://www.4mula1.ro/formulaone/index.php?cdx=effdb0d199bcd3eb9ce64b2645041012&pos=1&pol=1&fl=1&idd=29) 7Ayrton Senna (http://www.4mula1.ro/formulaone/index.php?cdx=c205cca15517760536f06a2179b69ff8&pos=1&pol=1&fl=1&idd=726) 7Juan Manuel Fangio (http://www.4mula1.ro/formulaone/index.php?cdx=dacf8ad174117ca256615b47d489241b&pos=1&pol=1&fl=1&idd=13)

So what?

[ShiftingGears]

This is a perfect example of somebody not using stats the correct way.

Only because it doesn't suit your unjustified and, frankly, wrong opinion.

[DezinerPaul]

I can't argue with someone who uses statistics when it suits them and opinions when it doesn't. This started off about Hamilton but somehow has turned into a Senna thread. I can't be bothered feeding the trolls any more.

:wave:

The truth is that you do not like people using stats in a proper fashion, because they are objective. You would rather live the fantasy land of subjectivity.

[DezinerPaul]

Only because it doesn't suit your unjustified and, frankly, wrong opinion.

Not so, stats are to be used in their context, not exceptions. Maybe that is a little over your head. Would you like me to spell it out for you, in crayon.

[DezinerPaul]

So what?


I understand that it maybe a little hard for you to grasp!

[Dave B]

The truth is that you do not like people using stats in a proper fashion, because they are objective. You would rather live the fantasy land of subjectivity.
Ok, I'll refer you back to a point I made earlier which you didn't appear to understand.

Music. UK single charts. Westlife have had 14 number ones. Led Zeppelin have peaked, once, at #21. Which is the "better" band?

You rely on statistics if it helps your arguement, that's your privelege. But don't get the hump when those same statistics back you into a corner.

Anyway, I said I was going, and here I am fighting a battle I can't win. I'm off to argue gun-laws with fousto, it's more productive :p

[ShiftingGears]

Not so, stats are to be used in their context, not exceptions. Maybe that is a little over your head. Would you like me to spell it out for you, in crayon.

Ok, spell it out to me, in crayon then. Go on. Tell me that the men who won the most races are also the men who set the fastest lap in the race. Given that in 1989, Prost had more fastest laps, and less wins.

And when both of them finished the race, Prost beat Ayrton once.

[DezinerPaul]

Ok, spell it out to me, in crayon then. Go on. Tell me that the men who won the most races are also the men who set the fastest lap in the race. Given that in 1989, Prost had more fastest laps, and less wins.

And when both of them finished the race, Prost beat Ayrton once.

AS I SAID BEFORE, STATS NEED TO BE USED IN THEIR ENTIRETY!
YOU CANNOT TAKE ISOLATED INCIDENCES AND USE THEM TO MAKE A POINT!

[ShiftingGears]

AS I SAID BEFORE, STATS NEED TO BE USED IN THEIR ENTIRETY!
YOU CANNOT TAKE ISOLATED INCIDENCES AND USE THEM TO MAKE A POINT!

If I compared the stats over their whole career there would not be a controlled variable, because their cars are different. So it would not be an accurate comparison. So I used a season where they drove the same car in the same team. That way, we can see whether there is a trend of the winning driver setting the fastest lap of the race.

There was not.

I understand that it maybe a little hard for you to grasp!

[AJP]

Anyway, I said I was going, and here I am fighting a battle I can't win. I'm off to argue gun-laws with fousto, it's more productive :p

:)

[jens]

Your point being?
Schumacher was disqualified in Britain '94 for overtaking on the parade lap, and then served a two race ban for disobeying a stop/go penalty. That's an offence of the driver - no-one else.
He was disqualified in Belguim for having a car which failed scrutineering.
All of which were thoroughly deserved, and for three races is part of the proof of why he earnt so much scorn.

Well, don't you think that a two-race-ban was way too harsh for such incident? Therefore I wouldn't say the penalties were "thoroughly deserved" and Hill "deservedly" joined the title battle at the end of the season.



Needless to say, if Senna was still alive after May '94, I suggest he would have been '94 WDC. :)

Well, we can't make such assumptions too. ;) Why? If Senna had been racing, then all the situations during the rest of the season would have been different. For example maybe Schumacher wouldn't have passed anyone on the parade lap with Senna being near him and therefore wouldn't have got a 2-race-ban? The championship would have looked a lot different. Also your suggestion assumes that after three retirements early in the season Senna would have had no setbacks during the rest of the year. 30-0 gap is quite big gap and considering, how consistently MS was achieving top results in that season, if we leave disqualifications aside, then it would have been a very tough task to catch him.

In the same way I'm sceptical about assumptions (I have read at times) like MS would have surely won in 1999 if he hadn't been injured. We never know, what might have happened during that period, when Michael was injured. Maybe at A1-ring Schumacher would have been between Mika and David after the start and DC wouldn't have been in position to push Mika into a spin in Turn2, without which the Finn would have taken a comfortable win. Maybe instead of MH and McLaren MS or Ferrari would have made mistakes.

If one or another driver hadn't been eliminated, when they in reality were, then the scenarios of GP's would have been different.

[ArrowsFA1]

Senna is not even close to Michael on stats.
And therein rests the problem. All drivers pale into insignificance when measured against MS's numbers. All. And that's very sad, because it diminishes the achievements of other greats in the sport for a generation who only want to know the Schumacher era.

MS's numbers dwarf the likes of Fangio and Clark. Even now the argument goes that Fangio "only" won 5 titles, or Clark "only" won 25 races.

Of course it does mean that MS fans can use the very lazy argument that "of course he's the best, just look at his stats", and it seems that's all that matters in some cases :dozey:

[SGWilko]

AS I SAID BEFORE, STATS NEED TO BE USED IN THEIR ENTIRETY!
YOU CANNOT TAKE ISOLATED INCIDENCES AND USE THEM TO MAKE A POINT!

Errrmmmm, that's in captals, not crayon. :dozey: Nice try though. ;)

[555-04Q2]

And therein rests the problem. All drivers pale into insignificance when measured against MS's numbers. All. And that's very sad, because it diminishes the achievements of other greats in the sport for a generation who only want to know the Schumacher era.

MS's numbers dwarf the likes of Fangio and Clark. Even now the argument goes that Fangio "only" won 5 titles, or Clark "only" won 25 races.

Of course it does mean that MS fans can use the very lazy argument that "of course he's the best, just look at his stats", and it seems that's all that matters in some cases :dozey:

Here's one for you mate ;)

If the greats only achieved what they achieved stats wise, how did someone who is not "greater" achieve the amazing stats that he did :?: Luck :?: MS was a phenomenon that will likely never be repeated again. Not even Fangio, Clark or Senna came close, hence the huge gap in stats. He was fast from his first race to his last. A total master of his craft.

[SGWilko]

Here's one for you mate ;)

If the greats only achieved what they achieved stats wise, how did someone who is not "greater" achieve the amazing stats that he did :?: Luck :?: MS was a phenomenon that will likely never be repeated again. Not even Fangio, Clark or Senna came close, hence the huge gap in stats. He was fast from his first race to his last. A total master of his craft.

Consider how MS stats were amassed.....

Building a 'dream team' to suit his needs. Not allowing or having a competetive teammate - look what happened when Jos and Herbert matched his pace in the Benetton.

Look at the quality of the competition (lest we forget the sportmanship and comradeship) in the days of Fangio, Clark and Moss......

Senna had Piquet, Mansell & Prost to beat.....

It focuses the attention when you dig a little deeper.

I am not doubting Mike's ability, just how the stats were achieved.

[ShiftingGears]

He was fast from his first race to his last. A total master of his craft.

But then again, so was Clark, Senna, Stewart and Fangio ;)

[Ranger]

Here's one for you mate ;)

If the greats only achieved what they achieved stats wise, how did someone who is not "greater" achieve the amazing stats that he did :?: Luck :?: MS was a phenomenon that will likely never be repeated again. Not even Fangio, Clark or Senna came close, hence the huge gap in stats.

Number of starts maybe?

Sorry, that's a silly statement on a few levels.

Let's use our beloved statistics for this one. ;)

Fangio started 52 races.
Schumacher started 250.


Driver Win Percentage Pole Percentage Fastest Lap %
Fangio 46.1 55.8 44.2
Schumacher 36.4 27.2 28.4

There, Schumacher's behind Fangio in every field.

I'll be damned if anyone says Fangio wasn't as good as Schumacher based on 'statistics'.

:)

[Knock-on]

I can't argue with someone who uses statistics when it suits them and opinions when it doesn't. This started off about Hamilton but somehow has turned into a Senna thread. I can't be bothered feeding the trolls any more.

:wave:

Dave, old son. I figured that out before I had finished reading the title of this thread :)

Just pop back in here for the odd laugh :D

[ioan]

Your point being?
Schumacher was disqualified in Britain '94 for overtaking on the parade lap, and then served a two race ban for disobeying a stop/go penalty. That's an offence of the driver - no-one else.
He was disqualified in Belguim for having a car which failed scrutineering.
All of which were thoroughly deserved, and for three races is part of the proof of why he earnt so much scorn.

What a load of crap. :rolleyes:
Disqualify someone because he briefly overtook on the parade lap, and than give him a 2 race ban of top of that. people nowadays complain that Lewy got a 10 place grid penalty for running into someone in the pitlane, but a DQ and 2 race ban for a brief overtake on the parade lap is seen as just(well it was iat Silverstone, so I'm not surprized that the british Marshals decide to favor the local boy)! :laugh:
Than disqualify him for having worn underplate due to going over the kerbs, let's say it's acceptable.

Bernie wanted a close championship back than, and getting MS out of it for 4 races was the only way to give DH a chance, as we all know that he was a poor driver in a good car, nothing more.

[ArrowsFA1]

If the greats only achieved what they achieved stats wise, how did someone who is not "greater" achieve the amazing stats that he did :?: Luck :?: MS was a phenomenon that will likely never be repeated again. Not even Fangio, Clark or Senna came close, hence the huge gap in stats. He was fast from his first race to his last. A total master of his craft.
Firstly, and obviously, MS is up there with the greats and he certainly was a master of his craft.

Regarding the stats consider this; when Fangio won his first title in 1951 there were 8 races that counted towards the championship, one of them being the Indy 500. When Schumacher won his first title in 1994 there were twice that number. Fangio's career spanned nine seasons, Schumacher's spanned 16.

You ask how MS achieved such amazing stats - that is one of the reasons. Simply he had many more opportunities to do so.

[ioan]

Number of starts maybe?

Sorry, that's a silly statement on a few levels.

Let's use our beloved statistics for this one. ;)

Fangio started 52 races.
Schumacher started 250.


Driver Win Percentage Pole Percentage Fastest Lap %
Fangio 46.1 55.8 44.2
Schumacher 36.4 27.2 28.4

There, Schumacher's behind Fangio in every field.

I'll be damned if anyone says Fangio wasn't as good as Schumacher based on 'statistics'.

:)

There is no question that Fangio is the benchmark, and that will never change.