Hamilton V Senna! [Archive] - Motorsport Forums

ASCAR24/7/365.5

6th July 2008, 15:23

yodasarmpit

6th July 2008, 15:31

It was an exceptional drive today, however I think we are a little early in Lewis's career to make an accurate comparison.
Only time will tell.

ST205GT4

6th July 2008, 16:12

The big difference being of course that Hamilton is in one of the best cars in the field and Senna was in the crappy customer-Ford powered 93 McLaren.

DezinerPaul

6th July 2008, 16:27

You are joking, come on tell me the truth, you did mean this as a joke!

wedge

6th July 2008, 16:28

Surprised James Allen didn't use 'Senna-esque' in his commentary today.

The big difference being of course that Hamilton is in one of the best cars in the field and Senna was in the crappy customer-Ford powered 93 McLaren.

But it still had TC and had aircraft style fly-by-wire throttle linkages. Senna said his win in Estoril was better than Donington.

ASCAR24/7/365.5

6th July 2008, 16:31

im not saying that hamilton is better than senna im just saying that a lot of comparisons can be made between the 2 races i just hope that people start to get off his back now, noone was on riakonnens back when he slipped up and its pretty obvious in the interviews with anthony that the whole family have been under a lot of pressure in the past few weeks, as murray said jus let the guy get on with his job. the british media are very ficcle, one minute they compalin we have no brits to cheer,the next theyre on the back of the only brit who can win in f1 at the moment...

Blancvino

6th July 2008, 16:33

It was an exceptional drive today, however I think we are a little early in Lewis's career to make an accurate comparison.
Only time will tell.

A have a case of ale that says Hamilton never reaches the Senna level. Senna drove mediocre cars and won. Hamilton would be a back marker in average equipment.

My 2 cents.

PSfan

6th July 2008, 16:39

No not your usual is hamilton better than senna thred but i thought it would be appropriate to put some comparisons between hamiltons drive today and sennas drive at donington in 1993, both destroyed the field by over a minute in horrible conditions, took gambles in tyres and were both driving mclarens, oh and with the news of the gp going back to donington it makes it even more appropriate...im suppirised noone has mentioned it yet! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t8QMyuGhdE&feature=related and yes that is jonathon Woss commentating!

The Podium in Donington in 93 was:

1st Senna (finished 2nd in the championship in 93)
2nd Hill (Finished 3rd in 93 championship)
3rd Prost (Won the Championship in 93)

now let compare with Todays race:

1st Hamilton (currently tied for 1st in the standings)
2nd Heidfeld ( 5th in the standings)
3rd Barrichello ( I think this podium bumps him up to 10th...)

gravity

6th July 2008, 16:50

The Podium in Donington in 93 was:

1st Senna (finished 2nd in the championship in 93)
2nd Hill (Finished 3rd in 93 championship)
3rd Prost (Won the Championship in 93)

now let compare with Todays race:

1st Hamilton (currently tied for 1st in the standings)
2nd Heidfeld ( 5th in the standings)
3rd Barrichello ( I think this podium bumps him up to 10th...)

I don't quite follow what the podium comparison was for? I'm sure there's a logical reason to have them both displayed tho...

ioan

6th July 2008, 17:01

I don't quite follow what the podium comparison was for? I'm sure there's a logical reason to have them both displayed tho...

That he only won because he's closest competitors were hindered by wrong strategies?!

PSfan

6th July 2008, 17:07

I don't quite follow what the podium comparison was for? I'm sure there's a logical reason to have them both displayed tho...

Its rather simple isn't it... Perhaps had Hamilton had to battle Kimi for the win instead of Ferrari decision makers getting it all wrong again, then we can make comparisons to some other great finishes... Senna beat his closest rivals

As it stands, Hamilton may have looked impressive running on the inters faster then anyone else in the late stages, but since I slept in a little and missed all the good stuff and was left with the ITV people reminding us every 2 or 3 laps on how Kimi was catching up to Lewis until they decided to double stint the tires. HAd Ferrari not f'd up who knows how quick he would have been if he was chasing down Hamilton instead of weeding his way through the slower cars...

We know Senna had a good race because of who finished behind him...

Did Hamilton have a really good race... or did Ferrari have a very bad one?

gravity

6th July 2008, 17:17

That he only won because he's closest competitors were hindered by wrong strategies?!

In those comparisons, u see Hill finished 2nd. We all know how rubbish MS made Hill look in the wet... and he was best of the rest in that race. Not saying much for AS as a comparison (yet we all know how good he was in the rain).
I'd understand the comparison if the main rivals in the championship were removed due to accident/mechanical breakdown today. LH just made everyone else look average today.
To make a proper comparison (comparing to the title challengers), u should time the difference from LH to KR and FM which makes it look like an even bigger winning margin.

gravity

6th July 2008, 17:26

As it stands, Hamilton may have looked impressive running on the inters faster then anyone else in the late stages, but since I slept in a little and missed all the good stuff and was left with the ITV people reminding us every 2 or 3 laps on how Kimi was catching up to Lewis until they decided to double stint the tires. HAd Ferrari not f'd up who knows how quick he would have been if he was chasing down Hamilton instead of weeding his way through the slower cars...

Kimi was still off pace even when he had a clear track on inters.
I'm not sure about the fuel load though, but from the interview with Ross Braun, he didn't think that the fuel load made any difference to the lap time in those conditions.

52Paddy

6th July 2008, 18:03

HAd Ferrari not f'd up who knows how quick he would have been if he was chasing down Hamilton instead of weeding his way through the slower cars...

Did Hamilton have a really good race... or did Ferrari have a very bad one?

Regardless of who was directly behind Hamilton, he still droves an exceptional race. The majority of drivers who were quick [Webber, Raikkonen, Kovalainen] fell into trouble either strategically or by stuggeling with driving in the conditions. Hamilton didn't and thats something to be credited.
No, I don't think he's comparable to Senna but, nor do I think we can compare a lot of things from one era to the next, such is the rate of changes in this sport.
Ferrari did have a bad race. Kimi's tyre strategy messed him up and Felipe couldn't drive properly because of the conditions. But, that shouldn't take away from Hamilton's race. He didn't put a foot wrong [except a minor spin] and the package came together for him. Maybe he wasn't under as much pressure as he could [or should] have been but you can only deal with the cards your given.

ioan

6th July 2008, 18:25

But, that shouldn't take away from Hamilton's race. He didn't put a foot wrong [except a minor spin] and the package came together for him.

Now either "he didn't put a foot wrong" or he had "a minor spin", you can't have both.

Zico

6th July 2008, 19:14

Hamilton was fantastic today , incredible drive, no question.

I have a theory as to how it was achieved...

In dry conditions the Mclarens are notably heavier on thier tyres than most of the other teams... however, in todays wet conditions and coupled with Lewis's 'hard on tyres' driving style, this combination helped keep his tyre temps in the zone while nearly all his rivals tyres were falling out of their performance envelopes and as a result were losing 5 secs + per lap to him.

If my theory has the slightest degree of acuracy, we should expect the Hamilton/McLaren combination to be very competative in conditions like today.

What do you think?

elinagr

6th July 2008, 19:33

so pathetic!!! English people are bad for sport

gravity

6th July 2008, 20:06

so pathetic!!! English people are bad for sport
hahahahaha! Says he in... what's that language again? :s mokin:

PSfan

6th July 2008, 20:39

In those comparisons, u see Hill finished 2nd. We all know how rubbish MS made Hill look in the wet... and he was best of the rest in that race. Not saying much for AS as a comparison (yet we all know how good he was in the rain).

MS retired from that race, history has it written as a "driving mistake" So hill was clearly better on that day. The top three finishers in the 1993 donnington race had their fastest laps of the race within 1 secs... They where the only 3 to lap under 1:20, and Senna had gotten fast lap of the race...

In comparison, while We'll have to wait for more stats to come from todays race, its safe to assume that even during the best of times, the other podium finishes have their fastest lap times within a sec of Lewis'

Also who got the Fastest lap of the race? Kimi...

I'd understand the comparison if the main rivals in the championship were removed due to accident/mechanical breakdown today. LH just made everyone else look average today.

When Ferrari left Kimi's tires at the first pit stop, they effectively removed him from contention every bit as much as if he was in an accident or had a mechanical breakdown, except He wasw able to atleast salvage a finish.

To make a proper comparison (comparing to the title challengers), u should time the difference from LH to KR and FM which makes it look like an even bigger winning margin.

Why? I suggest that Hamilton's win isn't on the same level as Senna's because of hardships his title rivals had. Kimi gets fresh tires after his 1st stop, or Rubens doesn't suffer a fuel rig problem, the gap from 1st to 2nd would probably be alot less then the 65 secs Hamilton did earn.

ioan

6th July 2008, 20:45

MS retired from that race, history has it written as a "driving mistake" So hill was clearly better on that day. The top three finishers in the 1993 donnington race had their fastest laps of the race within 1 secs... They where the only 3 to lap under 1:20, and Senna had gotten fast lap of the race...

In comparison, while We'll have to wait for more stats to come from todays race, its safe to assume that even during the best of times, the other podium finishes have their fastest lap times within a sec of Lewis'

Also who got the Fastest lap of the race? Kimi...

When Ferrari left Kimi's tires at the first pit stop, they effectively removed him from contention every bit as much as if he was in an accident or had a mechanical breakdown, except He wasw able to atleast salvage a finish.

Why? I suggest that Hamilton's win isn't on the same level as Senna's because of hardships his title rivals had. Kimi gets fresh tires after his 1st stop, or Rubens doesn't suffer a fuel rig problem, the gap from 1st to 2nd would probably be alot less then the 65 secs Hamilton did earn.

Very good points, as usually! :up:

ioan

6th July 2008, 20:46

hahahahaha! Says he in... what's that language again? :s mokin:

Surely it could be written in another language, but than you wouldn't understand it! :p :

yodasarmpit

6th July 2008, 22:38

so pathetic!!! English people are bad for sport

Would you mind expanding upon that comment, or at least offer a reasoned argument as to why you believe English people are bad for sport.

Being a Scot I'm impartial, however I find the comment rather offensive non the less.

Rollo

6th July 2008, 23:34

The big difference being of course that Hamilton is in one of the best cars in the field and Senna was in the crappy customer-Ford powered 93 McLaren.

Yeah, it is funny how a car which came second in the constructors championship was crap. How stupid of us.

Rain is the great equaliser. Because as Massa proved, you can't get the power down anywhere near as effectively, then it tends not to matter anywhere near as much which car you're in.
For your statement to hold true, then the 1996 Ligier was a better car than the McLaren and the Benetton.

The rain if anything shows up whp the best drivers are. The truly great drivers even get the tag of rainmaster... then again Senna and Schumacher were just utter bollocks anyway.

so pathetic!!! English people are bad for sport

Wasn't Euro 2008 wonderful? Of course those 396 arrests were all English fans weren't they?

wedge

7th July 2008, 00:01

Yeah, it is funny how a car which came second in the constructors championship was crap. How stupid of us.

It was good, but crap for Senna's standards and Senna carried the team that year. Even Hakkinen, their star in testing, struggled in GPs.

The rain if anything shows up whp the best drivers are. The truly great drivers even get the tag of rainmaster... then again Senna and Schumacher were just utter bollocks anyway.

What about Prost? He was awful in the wet most of his career even though he's one of the greatest drivers ever. Didn't he make the most pitstops at Donington '93?

MadDan

7th July 2008, 00:34

1 thing to remember is that back in Senna days you only got 9 points for a win.

Jimmy Magnusson

7th July 2008, 00:47

The Podium in Donington in 93 was:

1st Senna (finished 2nd in the championship in 93)
2nd Hill (Finished 3rd in 93 championship)
3rd Prost (Won the Championship in 93)

now let compare with Todays race:

1st Hamilton (currently tied for 1st in the standings)
2nd Heidfeld ( 5th in the standings)
3rd Barrichello ( I think this podium bumps him up to 10th...)

I think Barrichello will struggle to win the title this year...

MadDan

7th July 2008, 00:57

home track advantage as you all say he has only been in f1 for 2 years so i gess he has done a lot of racing there in the last 10 years so i see this win as no big thing

Zico

7th July 2008, 01:44

home track advantage as you all say he has only been in f1 for 2 years so i gess he has done a lot of racing there in the last 10 years so i see this win as no big thing

As has been said, rain is a great leveler.... A win at your home track might not be such a biggy but to utterly dominate and win by such a margin in these difficult conditions shows anyones true class as a racing driver.

In saying that, I'll only compare Lewis with Senna when Lewis's overall achievments compare... he still has a long way to go.

ShiftingGears

7th July 2008, 01:44

jens

7th July 2008, 12:38

BDunnell

7th July 2008, 12:55

While it's claimed that Hamilton got such huge advantage yesterday due to strategy, then it was the same case with Senna back at Donington in 1993. His advantage was about 10-20 secs over Williamses, definetely not more, when he decided to stay out on slicks, when the raindrops fell, meanwhile the Williamses went into the pits for wets and were forced to change them back a few laps later. That's how the gap was suddenly over a minute. Hamilton's 2008 Silverstone performance is IMO quite well comparable with the very best drives in the history.

I agree. It's almost heretical to say so, but I think that 1993 European GP was actually one of the most boring races you could ever hope to see. Senna's first lap was amazing, but after that it was basically a procession around a circuit not entirely suited to F1 cars, interrupted by the endless Williams pit stops. The most interesting thing was Senna's fastest lap, set on a lap during which he went through the pit lane and decided not to stop. Of course, this was in the days before pit lane speed limiters.

52Paddy

7th July 2008, 12:57

Now either "he didn't put a foot wrong" or he had "a minor spin", you can't have both.

His team didn't put a foot wrong. His whole package came together when other drivers were suffering major problems with driving conditions as well as dodgy strategies. Hamilton managed to see it all through and came out on top.

As I said, this is no way comparable to Senna's drive because of many factors which have mentioned already. It's hard to rate a driver on his own this day. So much depends on the team and Hamilton is one of those guys, it seems to me. He can deliver when everything is in place, as he has proved but still has a long way to go to be considered a "great" in my book.

But that's past the point of this thread anyway. :)

Rollo

7th July 2008, 23:51

DezinerPaul

8th July 2008, 03:54

To even consider a comparison, is ridiculous!

DezinerPaul

8th July 2008, 03:56

No not your usual is hamilton better than senna thred but i thought it would be appropriate to put some comparisons between hamiltons drive today and sennas drive at donington in 1993, both destroyed the field by over a minute in horrible conditions, took gambles in tyres and were both driving mclarens, oh and with the news of the gp going back to donington it makes it even more appropriate...im suppirised noone has mentioned it yet! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t8QMyuGhdE&feature=related and yes that is jonathon Woss commentating!

The only comparison worth talking about, is which one choked when the title was theirs, all they had to do was drive smart for two races, I will give you a clue, it was not Senna!!

Rollo

8th July 2008, 04:12

To even consider a comparison, is ridiculous!

Please justify this.

DezinerPaul

8th July 2008, 07:06

Please justify this.

Simple, hamilton has done nothing to be compared with any of the top drivers. He threw away a title, when the ONLY way he could lose was by throwing it away. His motor mouth, writes checks that his performance's to date cannot cash. Lets be honest, if was not for Webbers bonehead move off the line, Hamilton would have been at best 4th or 3rd , he would have leaving him then to pass drivers without the help of a pit directive to the guy in front. If he would have got by Webber, Kimi and at that point, he would have had to try and catch his team mate! Luck is a very important part of racing and Sunday was his lucky day, no matter how well he drove, he had some incredible luck, when was the last time you saw somebody on the second row, have the guy in front mover over and let him through? hamilton, had a good race, lets not debate that, however to compare him to a driver who is in everybodies top 5 of the modern era (with a lot of fans having him as their best ever), is just plain stupidity!

Tumbo

8th July 2008, 08:11

it's possible to compare anyone w/ anyone, not stupidity, rather stupidity would be to find that Hamilton was miles in front of Senna, had achieved all of what Senna did, was the embodiment of Senna in modern F1 without any evidence that would be stupidity.

To say that Hamilton showed glimpses of brilliance on the weekend is fair, to say that he dominated that race in similar ways to what we saw MS and Senna achieve is also fair. To say that this performance does stand up there is fair again - luck is something that must be made and also taken, Hamilton got some this weekend, Senna and MS also had it during their careers.

Whether Hamilton will ever equal Senna or show through in such a way to be likened to Senna and MS when his career is over cannot be determined now, he's only in his 2nd yr and while in a top team with ace machinery still has a learning curve

Knock-on

8th July 2008, 13:31

I don't like comparing Senna with Lewis because I have rather less respect for Senna than some because of some of his antics. I feel the same way about Schumacher but much stronger.

The 93 race was not the best wet race for Senna. It was superb but he drove better races without TC.

In those races, I did see a similarity between Senna and Hamilton. They both scare the f**k out of me when they're on track but usually seem to pull it off. I think their ability is similar as time will see.

It's useless to compare them at this point of Lewis's career as Ayrton had some testing drives and Lewis has always been in the 2nd best car out there. I think it's fair to compare their start to win rate as Lewis is in his second year while Senna had some great cars and a career of experience. The stats are 27% for Lewis and 25.5% for Ayrton. This is comparable although others may not consider so and come up with excuses.

I would be happy if we compared Lewis to Fangio but I think that is a crown that is a long way off so I'll just wait till the next hot thing is likened to "the next lewis".

Thankfully, nobody is comparing him to Schumacher!!

:)

wedge

8th July 2008, 14:11

Thankfully, nobody is comparing him to Schumacher!! :)

Well I would!

Schumi's first win was at a wet/dry Spa.

Destroys the opposition in Fuji, amazing come-back drive in Monaco, mastering the conditions at Silverstone - the level of skill of Lewis, it's got to be up there with Senna and Schumacher.

We'll just have to wait till Lewis is in an inferior car

Knock-on

8th July 2008, 14:15

I think the McLaren is inferior to the Ferrari this year as it was last.

When the track dried for example, Kimi was closing the gap until the mistake by Ferrari to not change tyres.

8th July 2008, 14:25

What about Prost? He was awful in the wet most of his career even though he's one of the greatest drivers ever. Didn't he make the most pitstops at Donington '93?

Towards the end of his career, Alain was no longer a rain specialist. The accident he had that finished Pironi's career always played on his mind in the wet.

That said -

Winning his first GP in the wet at Dijon in a turbo-lagging and therefore not best suited to the conditions Renault, showed he was no slouch come the rain.

One of the biggest myths is that Alain was weak in the wet. His Mclaren was misfiring all day at Silverstone in 1988 and in Australia 1989 he was the only driver with the balls to say it was too dangerous. The other drivers, led by Senna, betrayed him and....oh, Senna ploughed into the back of a car he couldn't see, rather proving Alain's point.

I am evil Homer

8th July 2008, 14:35

Wasn't it a Brabham driver by a certain Mr. M Brundle?

8th July 2008, 15:03

Wasn't it a Brabham driver by a certain Mr. M Brundle?

'Twas indeed.

wedge

8th July 2008, 15:06

I think the McLaren is inferior to the Ferrari this year as it was last.

When the track dried for example, Kimi was closing the gap until the mistake by Ferrari to not change tyres.

That's highly debatable.

In the BBC podcast Anthony Davidson referred to paddock gossip and agreed that McLaren is now equal to Ferrari and that was going by the practice times in the dry.

When I say inferior, a car that's not quite in touch with the leaders like the BMW now, Benetton/McLaren 1993.

52Paddy

8th July 2008, 18:56

We'll just have to wait till Lewis is in an inferior car

I doubt Ron Dennis will let his golden boy go without a punch up :rolleyes:

If McLaren stay on form and produce cars that can head the field as they are doing currently, then I think Lewis will be there at the forefront of the McLaren team [presuming he doesn't jump ship of course.]

One thing about Schumi was that he had the whole Ferrari team behind him. During his years at Ferrari [mainly 2000-2006], he was the main focus of attention and what the team revolved around. If Lewis doesn't turn into a "nearly man" [like so many others in the past] I think a repeat may be seen at McLaren.

I think the only way we'll see him in an inferior car is if McLaren get it wrong and make a botch job of one of their cars [have heard he might be interested in Force India though :p :]

Am I right in saying that Ron Dennis has been following and supporting Lewis' motorsport campaign since he was racing karts?

Zico

8th July 2008, 19:57

That's highly debatable.

In the BBC podcast Anthony Davidson referred to paddock gossip and agreed that McLaren is now equal to Ferrari and that was going by the practice times in the dry.

When I say inferior, a car that's not quite in touch with the leaders like the BMW now, Benetton/McLaren 1993.

I see the improved McLaren as now equal to the Ferrari in the dry on a single lap... but generally not over full race distance due to them being harder on their tyres.
However, these increased tyre temps could be, what makes it superior to the Ferrari in the wet.

What do you think?

SGWilko

8th July 2008, 21:14

home track advantage as you all say he has only been in f1 for 2 years so i gess he has done a lot of racing there in the last 10 years so i see this win as no big thing

Never mind!....

wedge

9th July 2008, 00:27

I see the improved McLaren as now equal to the Ferrari in the dry on a single lap... but generally not over full race distance due to them being harder on their tyres.
However, these increased tyre temps could be, what makes it superior to the Ferrari in the wet.

What do you think?

Hard to say.

Probably about equal judging practice and qualy, but you can't read into anything in a wet race because all the development is done in dry conditions because most races are in the dry.

Also you can't rule out the Hamilton factor - by that I mean he was on a mission to prove his critics wrong and pressure was there to produce at your home race.

home track advantage as you all say he has only been in f1 for 2 years so i gess he has done a lot of racing there in the last 10 years so i see this win as no big thing

It's not really his home track.

When he did Formula Renault UK that was on the shorter International circuit, it was only GP2 that he raced the full GP circuit.

Inbetween he did EuroF3 series and they don't run Silverstone.

His first F1 break was in Silverstone tests in September 2006. The testing rules changed in 2007 which means altogether he's only had a weeks worth of testing mileage.

In terms of mileage at Silverstone, Lewis is still a baby

Jimbo Mc

11th July 2008, 21:50

DezinerPaul

12th July 2008, 04:00

I think the McLaren is inferior to the Ferrari this year as it was last.

When the track dried for example, Kimi was closing the gap until the mistake by Ferrari to not change tyres.

You Hamilton/McLaren people never cease to amaze me. Last year, the McLaren was the dominant car by a very long way, it was that way because McLaren cheated. The only reason that Kimi was catching Queen Hamilton ,was because he is a better driver, end of!

ShiftingGears

12th July 2008, 04:23

Last year, the McLaren was the dominant car by a very long way

You're joking, right?

Incredible.

markabilly

12th July 2008, 04:34

A bit early to compare hamilton to senna. People always compare the young guns to the legends. Senna was brilliant but had no morals and is rated above so many better drivers due to the horrible events that occurred. .

Unfortunately too true. Sometimes I think the reason for special homage to Clark and Senna was because they died at the wheel, where equally talented drivers like JYS and Prost did not. If MS, Prost or JYS had died at the wheel, then they names would also recieve the same special homage, unfortunately and as sad as I am to say it.

after all when it came to crashing out your opponent, Senna was much better at it than MS......and the hamster has yet to really put someone off as in really big time style ala Senna or Schumacher...

wedge

12th July 2008, 11:55

A bit early to compare hamilton to senna. People always compare the young guns to the legends.

There's a great quote by the late great journalist Denis 'Jenks' Jenkinson referring to Senna at a wet Spa:

"It's like Gilles all over again"

Drivers come and go, the next best thing is only around the corner. There's always a buzz when someone comes along and tries to dethrone the king.

Bezza

12th July 2008, 14:04

Well, if you want to compare the two drivers then maybe it's worthwhile comparing them at the same stages of their career. Senna's drive in Monaco of 1984 was in the wet and had the race gone full distance he would have won the GP in equally as trying circumstances (and also rather ironically he would have beaten Prost who by virtue of the race going longer would have taken an extra 1.5 points and with the the WDC).

Senna in a Toleman got him noticed by Lotus who singed him, he then rewarded them with a win in Portugal of 1985?
The point being that in the 1980s, there were plenty of pure bollocks teams that a driver could faff about in and do their "apprenticeship" whereas today that is not the case; and Lewis did his in GP2.
I think that in terms of raw talent, Lewis is probably better but at this stage is not as polished. Mind you, he's about 15000 miles ahead of Senna in character.

Senna's drive at Monaco in 1984 was in a TOLEMAN - at best the 6th or 7th best car in the 1984 field. Hamilton is in a McLaren, one of the top two cars in the field in 2008.

Had Hamilton won the race by a minute in a Honda or Toro Rosso for example, I'd happily be saying it was one of the greatest drives of all time. But it wasn't. Barrichello's performance in a poor car was better. Hamilton drove very well but his percieved performance was improved because of other drivers making mistakes - mainly the Ferrari's - his closest competitors.

In 1984, Senna was in an awful car and was catching the McLaren of Prost - which was miles better than all its opposition in that year.

In terms of raw talent, it is impossible to compare - because Hamilton walked straight into the best car in the field. How would he have coped by starting at a lower team - like Alonso, Raikkonen, Schumacher, Hakkinen, etc.

I feel that if Hamilton gets a car that is not capable of winning, he will really struggle - as he does not know how to drive when in the middle of a pack.

In terms of arrogance Hamilton beats Senna, and in my opinion this is made worse by the fact that Hamilton doesn't really have anything to arrogant about. "I'm sorry IF I ruined Kimi's race" in Canada was the last straw - 15,000 miles ahead of Senna in terms of character??! Do me a favour.

wedge

12th July 2008, 15:49

Barrichello's performance in a poor car was better. Hamilton drove very well but his percieved performance was improved because of other drivers making mistakes - mainly the Ferrari's - his closest competitors.

But Rubens made up most time because he was one of very few to gamble with the extreme wets.

Its a bit like comparing his drive to Schumi's win in Spain 1996. Because he gambled on full wet set up.

There's greater reliance on mechanical grip in the rain because full wet tyres are less likely to aquaplane than inters. Rubens even admitted to spinning off before changing to full wets.

Lewis stuck it out on inters. Whereas drivers fell off left, right and centre, he made the least mistakes. Even the team told to him to slow down because they thought he was going much too quick.

In 1984, Senna was in an awful car and was catching the McLaren of Prost - which was miles better than all its opposition in that year.

In terms of raw talent, it is impossible to compare - because Hamilton walked straight into the best car in the field. How would he have coped by starting at a lower team - like Alonso, Raikkonen, Schumacher, Hakkinen, etc.

Destroying the opposition in Fuji, comeback win in Monaco. Fluke? He may have driven in on of the best cars but driving in the wet requires more on driver skill because anyone can fall off in those conditions.

If he can destroy the opposition in the wet then surely he'd at least be very competitive in a lesser car?

markabilly

12th July 2008, 16:08

But Rubens made up most time because he was one of very few to gamble with the extreme wets.

Its a bit like comparing his drive to Schumi's win in Spain 1996. Because he gambled on full wet set up.

There's greater reliance on mechanical grip in the rain because full wet tyres are less likely to aquaplane than inters. Rubens even admitted to spinning off before changing to full wets.

Lewis stuck it out on inters. Whereas drivers fell off left, right and centre, he made the least mistakes. Even the team told to him to slow down because they thought he was going much too quick.

Destroying the opposition in Fuji, comeback win in Monaco. Fluke? He may have driven in on of the best cars but driving in the wet requires more on driver skill because anyone can fall off in those conditions.

If he can destroy the opposition in the wet then surely he'd at least be very competitive in a lesser car?

Of course, and that is why I think Sutil has great promise as a racer as he seems to do well in the wet.

And just how did Senna earn his reputation early in his career? In 1984 in a Toleman, in such bad rain conditions that the Jackie Ickxx as race marshall stopped the race and as the cars crossed the finish line, Senna passed Prost who was leading (but the official race stoppage had been a lap earlier-unknown to drivers at time-as the red flag was being shown just as Senna passed prost). In any event, at Senna's rate of closure, it looked as though a rookie was about to snatch a victory in very bad weather in a very uncompetive car......as it were, he finished second....

Bezza

12th July 2008, 18:23

But Rubens made up most time because he was one of very few to gamble with the extreme wets.

Its a bit like comparing his drive to Schumi's win in Spain 1996. Because he gambled on full wet set up.

There's greater reliance on mechanical grip in the rain because full wet tyres are less likely to aquaplane than inters. Rubens even admitted to spinning off before changing to full wets.

Lewis stuck it out on inters. Whereas drivers fell off left, right and centre, he made the least mistakes. Even the team told to him to slow down because they thought he was going much too quick.

Destroying the opposition in Fuji, comeback win in Monaco. Fluke? He may have driven in on of the best cars but driving in the wet requires more on driver skill because anyone can fall off in those conditions.

If he can destroy the opposition in the wet then surely he'd at least be very competitive in a lesser car?

He can do it from the front, but he hasn't shown he can race through the field yet. One mistake seems to lead to another.

Monaco was a fluke. He made a mistake but got away with it which directly but accidentally helped him win the race!

His performance in the wet at Nurburgring and especially China in 2007 was not so good if you recall.

SGWilko

12th July 2008, 18:36

His performance in the wet at Nurburgring and especially China in 2007 was not so good if you recall.

Hang on - Nurburgring it was raining stair-rods when he came down the start/finish straight, and aquaplaning put paid to him (and many others).

China, well he was doing OK by pulling away at a great rate of knots, but inexperience led to him cooking his rears and failing to pit at the right time. Remember what happened to Alonso in Japan?

He is still only on his second season.

jens

12th July 2008, 19:33

Lemmy-Boy

12th July 2008, 20:14

At the moment, LH lacks the arrogance and, most important of all, the MACHISMO Senna displayed during his tenure in F1. LH is a mere pussy when compared to Senna.

LH needs to do the following things in order to reach equal status (or better) with the late great, and RUTHLESS, Ayrton Senna:

1) Ram Your Partner Off the Track in order to win the Drivers World Championship. Plus, having the courage to admit you did it on purpose (Suzuka 1990).

2) Punch a lapped driver at the end of race in the confines of his team garage (Suzuka 1993, Post race altercation with Eddie Irvine)

3) Attain a God-Like status with an automotive manufacturer and adopted country (Honda & Japan).

4) Hold your team hostage by racing on on a race-by-race contract, while performing miracles in a relatively inferior car (McLaren 1993).

5) And of course, Win 3 World Championships with at least 1 of them in a very controversial matter.

Overall, Senna is an arrogant Cowboy compared to LH. Senna was not afraid to express his feelings nor stray away from the mundance corporate line. When Senna talked, he backed it up with his actions and fists, like any REAL MAN would. Even though a lot of his actions (on and off the track) we're despicable, I have way more respect for him than most of the politically correct, corporate clones, (F1 Drivers) in today's F1.

jens

12th July 2008, 20:26

Oh one more thing. Why should Lewis definetely drive in a poor car to become rated higher? Maybe he has earned a drive in a top team, no?
But to the relief of his dislikers it can be said one day he will surely be forced to drive a car, which is not a championship material just because no-one and no team stays at the top forever and everyone has setbacks and periods of struggle in some periods...

Btw, I remember similar thoughts during MS's reign too. If in some periods he was totally dominating F1, it was said he was nothing special, because the wins came just due to the car...

1) Ram Your Partner Off the Track in order to win the Drivers World Championship.

Hey, Lewis did it at Montreal! :D If he wins the WDC by less than 10 points from Kimi, it'll be a WDC decider. :D

markabilly

12th July 2008, 20:44

I wonder, for how long will folks continue mentioning Nürburgring and Shanghai in 2007 as a "proof" that Lewis is no rainmaster?! Show me a driver, who hasn't made a mistake in the wet. M. Schumi, like Lewis, spun off in his first wet F1 race, which took place in Spain'91, but I don't know anyone trying to prove based on that race that he wasn't any good in the wet. Or Senna. Mistakes in Australia '89, Spain '91 & '92. Surely no rainmaster? And among current drivers Alonso, who is rated as one of the best rain drivers (or even The best by some) has made mistakes recently (Fuji '07, Monaco '08).

The real problem in the rain, is all one has to do is hit some water slightly wrong (one of Massa's spins was on the straight) and off you go, no matter how good you are.

So crashing out and going fast in the wet, go hand in hand

Requires a certain luck, blind determination, and the realization and willingness to have it all go to hell in a heartbeat due to some little unavoidable invisible puddle. Plus a certain touch or feel for the car beyond point and shoot method that some drivers seem to have. Take away TC and that touch becomes even more important.

Of course there are those who go slow in the wet and still spin. :mad:

Having raced both cars and bikes in wet conditions, I always figured one just might as well go flat out in the wet, because even at slower and safer speeds, one can still hit that certain puddle, and off you go. And if you ain't the one spinning, someone is likely to be losing it and taking you out. So just go for it or get off the track (probably the latter is what massa should have done, as for whatever reason, Massa seemed to have lost confidence in the wet).

Bottom line: it is not the driver who is avoiding crashing that makes a real rainmaster, it is the driver who is winning races when it is wet, even when he has the occaisional crash in the rain.

wedge

13th July 2008, 15:22

He can do it from the front, but he hasn't shown he can race through the field yet. One mistake seems to lead to another.

Hard to say.

Arguably he hasn't had the right circumstances. Brazil for instance when he lost even more time from the technical glitch.

Nurburgring - jumped to slicks to soon but he did put some moves that day, notably passing Fisi with two wheels on the grass on the back straight and passing Rubens from a distance.

Magny Cours he broke the rules trying to scythe through the field

That's thing with Lewis, he puts impressive moves such as passing Kimi from nowhere in Monza but has problem with temperant - he has that mentality to win every race when there a times when you have to settle for points finish.

Lewis has a tendency to be over-eager and anxious which leads to mistakes. Probably due to putting too much pressure on himself.

But Lewis can do it, Turkey in GP2 being a prime example. It's just that F1 is the next level and the pressure is much greater.

Monaco was a fluke. He made a mistake but got away with it which directly but accidentally helped him win the race!

I wouldn't necessarily call that a fluke. It's part of racing round Monaco. To some extent you can get away with banging the armco and some instances you won't - I remember Schumi banged the armco out of St. Devote, damaged the suspension and handed the win to DC.

The important thing is that Lewis made a mistake but came back stronger.

His performance in the wet at Nurburgring and especially China in 2007 was not so good if you recall.

IMHO China was a team failure, much like Ferrari at Silverstone this year. McLaren dithered that day and Lewis should've settled for a points finish.

jens

13th July 2008, 18:02

:up: Good post markabilly!

I remember Schumi banged the armco out of St. Devote, damaged the suspension and handed the win to DC.

Uhoh?! Wasn't that just a suspension failure? Several drivers hit the barrier at Ste Devote, but MS was not among them!

And finally.
If we are talking about Hamilton's ability or non-ability of rising up the field, then I have to say he is quite an aggresive overtaker. I agree with wedge that at times he may be a bit impatient, but I think he'll be more calm and turn into a more efficient overtaker with more experience.

Starts are a good example of the aggressiveness of Lewis. Recall 2007 at the Nürburgring. From 10th on the grid he was up to P6 by Turn1 and only a piece of a BMW's car, which had had a collision in front of him, punctured his tyre and didn't allow Lewis to harass Ferraris and Alonso already on Lap1 as LH had risen directly behing them already by Turn3.

Rollo

13th July 2008, 23:48

Senna's drive at Monaco in 1984 was in a TOLEMAN - at best the 6th or 7th best car in the 1984 field. Hamilton is in a McLaren, one of the top two cars in the field in 2008.

In the rain, the quality of the cars that the driver's are in is almost entirely negated, because the ability to get the power down, use traction and handing in the corners etc etc etc is severly diminished; hence the reason why Olivier Panis is on the list of winners at Monaco. Apart from that drive, the car only accrued 5 points from the rest of the year, which was truly woeful.

A wet drive proves the driver; not the car.

jso1985

14th July 2008, 00:09

Oh one more thing. Why should Lewis definetely drive in a poor car to become rated higher? Maybe he has earned a drive in a top team, no?
But to the relief of his dislikers it can be said one day he will surely be forced to drive a car, which is not a championship material just because no-one and no team stays at the top forever and everyone has setbacks and periods of struggle in some periods...

Btw, I remember similar thoughts during MS's reign too. If in some periods he was totally dominating F1, it was said he was nothing special, because the wins came just due to the car...

so let's compare them to how they did with great cars, Senna won 3 WDC's, Lewis has won nothing.

But still not much sense in comparing, lots of factors come into play when a driver wins or not a WDC, Senna probably faced a thougher competition but then again how you fairly compare Boutsen with Heidfeld for example.

One thing can be sure, Senna excelled among his top competitors and beat them 3 times, while Hamilton has also excelled, he hasn't been able yet to beat them.

DezinerPaul

14th July 2008, 04:12

Omly a fool wants to compare a driver like Senna with motor mouth Hamiltion.
There is one thing that we could see in time, where he is like Senna, and that is inconsistency.

Rollo

14th July 2008, 06:19

Inconsistency eh? Hamilton has finished in the points 21 times from 26 starts. An 80% finishing rate in the points in F1 is reasonably high. Senna himself only finished in the points 96 times from 161 starts or only 59%. Then again, you don't even rate a three times World Champion, so what hope is there?

Not so, even in getting pole, he (Senna) is not in the top three, that honor goes to Ascari, Fangio and Clark (not in order). So, here we are the myth grows, tell me one area, where he is in the top three. Tell me one real reason why he should be even considered in the same breath as Michael Schumacher.

Ok then if you want to take someone's opinion then why not ask the great Schumacher himself?

http://www.atlasf1.com/news/2001/oct/report.php/id/5969/.html

"He's a quality driver, very strong and only 16. If he keeps this up I'm sure he will reach F1. It's something special to see a kid of his age out on the circuit. He's clearly got the right racing mentality."
- Michael Schumacher.

If Hamilton was being noticed by World Champions a full 6 years before starting an F1 race, then he must have been a talent then; that talent does not translate into an F1 drive unless the driver is extremely consistent. Only losing the World Championship by a point proves that McLaren did well to put their faith in him.

DezinerPaul

14th July 2008, 09:48

You mean consistent, with his 40% pole conversions rate and that is without a great driver pushing him.

SGWilko

14th July 2008, 10:05

You mean consistent, with his 40% pole conversions rate and that is without a great driver pushing him.

You're gonna need a hose for that one guv'nor

DezinerPaul

14th July 2008, 10:23

The facts are what they are! It is not my fault, that a nation that is starved for a champion(how long ago was it Damon won)have hung their hearts on air headed motor mouth

SGWilko

14th July 2008, 10:26

The facts are what they are!

They are what you want them to be. For an air head, he sure aint doing to bad....

I understand he speaks equally highly of you sir!

DezinerPaul

14th July 2008, 10:37

They are what you want them to be. For an air head, he sure aint doing to bad....

I understand he speaks equally highly of you sir!

Actually, I think he and Ron Dennis are well suited!

SGWilko

14th July 2008, 10:39

Actually, I think he and Ron Dennis are well suited!

Ah, that'll be down to Hugo Boss then.....

DezinerPaul

14th July 2008, 10:49

Ah, that'll be down to Hugo Boss then.....

One speaks with a forked tongue while the other babbles like a fool

"I'm not going to build up your hopes but just to let you know that I'm working as hard as I can to bring the Championship home for all of us - keep your fingers crossed," he said.

"I've been racing since I was eight years old and every Sunday before the race I always have the same nerves and I can never control it," he said.

"I always try to come up with a formula or a way to deal with all the nerves and the race to make sure I win and it's always difficult.

"There is always something different happening; it could be raining or dry, you are always starting from a different position and there is always a different crowd and a different vibe.

"So it's all about trying to take it all in and do the best job I can."

Barf! Barf! :rolleyes:

SGWilko

14th July 2008, 10:54

One speaks with a forked tongue while the other babbles like a fool

"I'm not going to build up your hopes but just to let you know that I'm working as hard as I can to bring the Championship home for all of us - keep your fingers crossed," he said.

"I've been racing since I was eight years old and every Sunday before the race I always have the same nerves and I can never control it," he said.

"I always try to come up with a formula or a way to deal with all the nerves and the race to make sure I win and it's always difficult.

"There is always something different happening; it could be raining or dry, you are always starting from a different position and there is always a different crowd and a different vibe.

"So it's all about trying to take it all in and do the best job I can."

Barf! Barf! :rolleyes:

Natch, I thought he made suits :confused:

DezinerPaul

14th July 2008, 11:28

What is the difference between, Hamilton and a vacuum?

.......................

A vacuum handles pressure better!

Knock-on

14th July 2008, 11:34

What is the difference between, Hamilton and a vacuum?

.......................

A vacuum handles pressure better!

Ummm, I don't think a vacuum cleaner handles pressure at all. Rather the opposite in fact as it works on suction which is where the vacuum bit comes in.

Are you trying to say that a vacuum cleaner sucks but Lewis doesn't?

:p :

SGWilko

14th July 2008, 11:50

Ummm, I don't think a vacuum cleaner handles pressure at all. Rather the opposite in fact as it works on suction which is where the vacuum bit comes in.

Are you trying to say that a vacuum cleaner sucks but Lewis doesn't?

:p :

Depends on the brand also. As a Dyson would be a better championship contendor, as the manufacturer claims NO loss of suction.

Man, that really sucks! :laugh:

SGWilko

14th July 2008, 11:51

What is the difference between, Hamilton and a vacuum?

.......................

A vacuum handles pressure better!

How do you keep an idiot in suspense?

DezinerPaul

14th July 2008, 12:20

How do you keep an idiot in suspense?

Do you really want to know?

SGWilko

14th July 2008, 12:22

Do you really want to know?

Rhetoric.

Dave B

14th July 2008, 12:52

The facts are what they are! It is not my fault, that a nation that is starved for a champion(how long ago was it Damon won)have hung their hearts on air headed motor mouth
Unless you're Canadian, German, Finnish or Spanish it's fair to say that most nations have been "starved for a champion" for a while now. Britain punches well above its weight in terms of F1 champions.

And if you want to play the nationality card, aren't you from the USA? Population of 300 million, supposedly one of the most advanced nations on earth, and only 2 F1 drivers champions the last of which was when I was 6 years old. Did you hang your heart on Scott Speed? :laugh:

Daniel

14th July 2008, 13:22

Oooh can I say DON'T FEED THE TROLL? :D

DezinerPaul

14th July 2008, 13:34

Unless you're Canadian, German, Finnish or Spanish it's fair to say that most nations have been "starved for a champion" for a while now. Britain punches well above its weight in terms of F1 champions.

And if you want to play the nationality card, aren't you from the USA? Population of 300 million, supposedly one of the most advanced nations on earth, and only 2 F1 drivers champions the last of which was when I was 6 years old. Did you hang your heart on Scott Speed? :laugh:

First I am not American, next last time I checked England is not Britain. Name the English drivers of the last ten years, then name those from England that have won more than one race!