The 2019 Season - Your Verdict

[Nitrodaze]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/NINTCHDBPICT000536650049.jpg?w=1240

This was a season that did not disappoint. It produced thrills, setbacks, resurgence and a great showcase of brilliant newcomers to the grid. Though Mercedes produced a magnificent car, it found the second half of the season a real challenge as Ferrari stepped up and stole the show. Redbull against the odds claimed three wins for Honda and showed how much behind Mclaren really is from the sharp end of the grid.
https://e0.365dm.com/19/12/768x432/skysports-charles-leclerc-max-verstappen_4853768.jpg?20191201185418
Leclerc got the measure of four times world champion Vettel, and demonstrated amazing racing skills as he became a force to reakon with when the Ferrari was in form. We noticed a brewing rivary between Verstapenn and Leclerc shaping up. We saw both of these guys give Hamilton a hard time when the Mercedes was not in good form. With these young guns snapping at Hamilton's heels, 2020 promises to be a great season of racing.

https://image.redbull.com/rbcom/052/2019-02-18/b3233ca7-befe-4716-a12f-bb7b990f151e/0100/0/1/carlos_sainz_mclaren_spain_testing_2019.jpg

Mclaren seemed to have turned a corner this season and have rose to 4th in the championship. After four years of dismal performances, they can hold their heads high again. The fourth place was a very convincing archievement as they thoroughly thrashed 5th place Renault with a handsome points clearance. Their operational performances this season was poor though as they left a lot of points on the table with shabby strategies and poor pitstops on a number of occassions. That said, there was good indication that they can do much better and l look forward to it.

https://f1i.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/XPB_1022655_1200px-725x500.jpg

Torro Rosso finished the season sixth but were the stars of the Midfield in my opinion. They underperformed l think. But they were the only team in the midfield with two podium appearances this season. Sainz was a late recipient of third at Brazil but did not partake in the podium ceremony and the only other midfield driver with a trophy this season.

LEWIS HAMILTON moved into a unique historic position this season as the only driver in F1 history with six drivers World Championship titles to his name. Second only to the Meteoric Michael Schumacher [The Red Baron] with seven titles and the most successful f1 driver ever.

https://www.formula1.com/content/dam/fom-website/sutton/2019/Spain/Saturday/1017497386-LAT-20190512-_X4I9993.jpg.transform/9col/image.jpg

As we come to the close of the 2019 season, we noticed Ferrari has caught up with Mercedes. We saw enough to guess that Ferrari may be the dominant force in 2020. The Ferrari engine is now superior to the Mercedes engine but the Mercedes chassis is still more superior in every department.

We also notice that the Honda engine is now within touching distance of the Mercede engine. With Honda's projection over the last three years, they should be there about [closer] in 2020 and on par 2021.

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/onesport/cps/800/cpsprodpb/FC14/production/_109623546_albonbody_getty.jpg

Gasly faltered on his Redbull debut and gave way to Alex Albon who delighted and grasped his opportunity with both hands. For a rookie in his first year in F1 and thrown into the deep end halfway through his first season, he was exceptional and did Redbull and us, his British fans very proud. If there is any fairness in the F1 system, he should be awarded the rookie of the year award.

Alex Albon has been confirmed as Verstapenn's teammate for the 2020 season.

Formular racing lost another one of its bright young talents this years, we should remember Antione Hubert. And remember that this is also a very dangerous sport.

[N. Jones]

Great season. Lots of drama. Bottas will never be Hamilton's equal. Sad to see the Hulk leave. Interested in how Ocon does next year. Kubica was a nice try but should of been replaced many races ago. Love Russel's attitude. Ferrari are still a mess and they cannot figure out who to back. Hurting Charles' career. Honda should stay as they are close to having a winner in Red Bull. STR too. Great drives by Albon, Gasly, and Kvyat. Good to see McLaren in the points again. I wish Stroll would leave. I hope Renault are better. Ha, I also hope there are more teams in 2021. Ten, with ten drivers scoring, is a joke.

That's my brain dump on the season.

[gm99]

Great season again for Mercedes, winning over 70 % of the races, and Lewis Hamilton in particular, who won his sixth title in a dominating fashion.

Honda did far better than most expected, winning three times and having a driver in the top three of the championship. Said driver (Verstappen) has impressed with a far more mature approach.

McLaren have done extremely well, too, to finish fourth in the constructors' championship and young Lando Norris has shown his talent in an outstanding rookie season. Alex Albon has had a great rookie season as well, whereas Gasly looked out of his depth in the Red Bull, but did quite well once he was back in the Toro Rosso.

LeClerc got the better of his far more experienced team-mate, but still has a bit to learn before becoming a true championship contender.

The biggest loser this season for me has been Renault, who have set out to finish at least fourth and maybe even challenge Red Bull for third. In the end, they ended up barely ahead of Toro Rosso and miles behind the customer Renault-powered McLaren.

The other big loser of the year is Vettel, who just made too many stupid mistakes and didn't take too well to being beaten by his younger team-mate.

Williams have had an appaling season again and are looking more and more like the new Minardi - except that Minardi never had Mercedes engines, of course. Kubica demonstrated why nobody had been willing to give him another chance in F1 after his accident.

[airshifter]

Overall a great season. Though Merc stayed dominant long enough to secure things fairly easy in the end, the resurgence of both Ferrari and Red Bull stepping up and stealing some wins still made for some good action. I smell disaster at Ferrari if they don't recognize Leclerc for this season, and the antics within the team will keep costing them points if they don't put an end to it all. Max stamped enough dominance at RB to make sure that didn't become a concern, and Lewis continued to do the same. I think they ended the season with cars close enough that things could get a lot closer next year.

The mid field was a lot more fun to watch this year. It more than made up for the fact that the frontrunners occasionally had races with obvious dominance and the only deciding factors being mostly strategy. I hope Mclaren and the others in the middle of the pack continue progress, as it's obvious that there are plenty of good drivers in the current pack. If the cars become closer to equal, they could step up now and then and steal points from the front of the pack teams.

Sadly, Williams are still a far cry from the team they could be. It's just embarrassing at this point, and I can't see much future for them if they don't at least challenge for something other than last soon.

[Nitrodaze]

2019 was a major disaster for Haas. They built a temperimental fast car that showed brilliance on rare occassions and simply faded backwards at every race this season. Though they haven't got Williams type of problems, they had enough to want to toss this 2019 car into the skip. The true cost of a bad season would sting Haas when they approach the financial planning for the new 2020 season. The car had brilliant pace inherrently, thus l expect Haas would turn up with a better car next season.

Also puzzling was Alfa Romeo. What happened there?

The Williams cars seemed to improve as the season progressed but not enough to really make it into the midfield club. Somehow they managed to score one solitary point this season. One had to pinch one's self to remind myself the this team is a multi- world championship winner. It was a big mistake to lose Paddy Lowe. Smedley departing cannot be a good thing either. Williams needs new management blood to help steer the team back to winning ways. Its current constitution is unlikely to get the team out of the tail of the grid. But the only way is up from here, so "go Williams!".

[Jag_Warrior]

I thoroughly enjoyed this season. I was happy to see Hamilton and Mercedes overcome some early challenges from Ferrari to seal up another WCC and WDC (happier for Lewis than Mercedes though). I like Leclerc and was really happy to see him do so well and get the better of Vettel. When Lewis retires, I'll be pulling for Leclerc to win the WDC over Lil Verstappen - for the first time in 20 years or so, I'll be cheering for Ferrari again. :D I was pleased that Honda overcame the bad years with McLaren and are on song now. And lastly, I was happy for me, in that I got to attend my first F1 race after being a fan for almost 50 years. Circumstances or other commitments always got in my way before.

I'm sorry to see Hulkenberg have to ride off in the sunset (probably). I liked him from his GP2 days and thought that he would have a better career than he has. Too bad for Haas. I hoped to see them do well from the beginning, since it's something of a local company and I've done business with them in the past. Maybe a better car next year... but their choice of drivers confuses me. I don't know what in the world happened that they kept Grosjean and Nico Hulk didn't get that seat. Oh well, that's on them. And Williams... what can one say? I tend to think that Villeneuve is right (for once). I agree with Nitro that a complete management overhaul is necessary there. Claire Williams is a perfect example of why nepotism is not good for the long term health of a business. But the blame is on the ones who put her in that position. When an experienced team can't even get a car built to start pre-season testing and they're consistently short on spare parts throughout the season, it's time to shake some monkeys out of the tree.

Yep, great season. And I'm thankful that this board is still here for us to share our thoughts about F1 with each other. :wave:

[zako85]

Well, this season really surprised me. The Mercedes-Hamilton performance early on was so dominant that I have written this season off after the fourth or fifth race, and said to everyone "good bye, see ya all next year". But then, the competition picked up somewhere around the Canadian GP, and it was good competitive racing since then. In fact, the season was very interesting after the first five or six races or so. But alas, with Hamilton picking up such a huge lead in the first one-third of season, it was clear that, excluding 1999-like Schumacher crash and injury, Lewis will still win the champion title.

Nonetheless, there were many interesting things happening. The biggest takeaway of the season is that Leclerc now established himself as the top young talent who will go on racing against Max Verstappen in the next decade. The other takeaway is that Bottas "v2.0" is more like Bottas "v1.1" (same old Bottas), and finally Vettel botched another possibility for a "comeback". Man, things are going to get only tougher for Seb from now on.

[Nitrodaze]

What are the chances that Ferrari would win the 2020 titles; constructor and driver? Would Leclerc therefore win his first driver's title before Verstapenn? Better still, would Vettel rack up his fifth drivers title chasing down Hamilton?

[The Black Knight]

It was a good season but at the half way point it was obvious that Hamilton was going to be a six time WDC. It's also pretty clear that it is very unlikely Bottas will ever be able to match Hamilton. The only reason Bottas was close was because of the engineer swap from Hamilton's side to Bottas with Riccardo Musconi and, even though that disadvantaged Hamilton, like it did in 2016 when Mercedes swapped Rosberg's engineers Hamilton beat him comfortably. This was really Bottas's year to show what he could do and, although he was improved massively, he was nowhere near Hamilton over the course of the season.

We saw once again in Vettel that he is a slightly above average driver and nothing more. Beaten comprehensively by Leclerc in qualifying and the only reason Leclerc doesn't have 5 race wins to his name is because of mechanical reliability or Ferrari screwing him over like in China and Singapore. At least they started to readdress that balance in Russia a little.

A tough year for Riccardo at Renault but he performed well and impressed outpacing Hulkenberg from the start really.

Max had a good year overall but he had no challenge from his teammates so hard to gauge where he really was performance wise.

It was a good season but not one that I'm going to look back on and think, wow that was so exciting.

[journeyman racer]

Let's take a moment to take stock that in a thread about the 2019 season, TBK has posted about 2016 and given Nico Rosberg a dig.

[journeyman racer]

But speaking of the 2019 season, I'm linking this podcast of Mika Hakkinen's summary of the season.

https://soundcloud.com/unibetfinland/inside-formula-one-with-mika-hakkinen-season-2019-review

Now, Mika is an outstanding media figure in F1. Whether it's these unibet series of podcasts, his Beyond The Grid interview, or whatever else, he is a terrific analyst.

There's no figure in motorsport that gives a great an insight into what goes on in F1/motorsport, and what drivers of his calibre go through.

In regards to N Jones' line about Bottas never being Hamilton's equal (Presumably as a talent and in performance?) and TBK's line about that it's clear "that it is very unlikely Bottas will ever be able to match Hamilton". Well, Hakkinene gives an insight into why this is the case.

If you listen to 13:30 to 15:30, you'll hear Hakkinen's opinion of Hamilton's title win. If you listen from 24:30 to 28:20, you'll hear his insight into what Gasly has to deal with and what contributed to his lack of performance at RB, particularly when you compare it to his performances at TR. This is relevant because Bottas is faced with the same situation, but isn't affected as much (Although it may give an insight into Bottas 2018 season?)

If we go back to the race thread, I'm sure there'll be numerous occasions when posters laud Hamilton and how he makes it look so "easy". Well, Hakkinen tells you why.

The best part for me about it is that none of the hardened Hamilton fans can dispute what Hakkinen says. He's lived through everything as a driver, and knows what's going on within MB, as he's a part of Bottas' team, and the race team probably tells him anyway with the clout he's got.

Another best part about what Hakkinen says is that Hamilton fans can't be spiteful towards him because Hakkinen isn't begrudging or spiteful about the situation at all.

Hopefully some of you will listen to the parts I've highlighted, if not all of it, before I go on. All I'll say is that he does put a different context into driving the "same" car, and that it doesn't necessarily mean that it's an equal situation.

Enjoy.

[Nitrodaze]

But speaking of the 2019 season, I'm linking this podcast of Mika Hakkinen's summary of the season.

https://soundcloud.com/unibetfinland/inside-formula-one-with-mika-hakkinen-season-2019-review

Now, Mika is an outstanding media figure in F1. Whether it's these unibet series of podcasts, his Beyond The Grid interview, or whatever else, he is a terrific analyst.

There's no figure in motorsport that gives a great an insight into what goes on in F1/motorsport, and what drivers of his calibre go through.

In regards to N Jones' line about Bottas never being Hamilton's equal (Presumably as a talent and in performance?) and TBK's line about that it's clear "that it is very unlikely Bottas will ever be able to match Hamilton". Well, Hakkinene gives an insight into why this is the case.

If you listen to 13:30 to 15:30, you'll hear Hakkinen's opinion of Hamilton's title win. If you listen from 24:30 to 28:20, you'll hear his insight into what Gasly has to deal with and what contributed to his lack of performance at RB, particularly when you compare it to his performances at TR. This is relevant because Bottas is faced with the same situation, but isn't affected as much (Although it may give an insight into Bottas 2018 season?)

If we go back to the race thread, I'm sure there'll be numerous occasions when posters laud Hamilton and how he makes it look so "easy". Well, Hakkinen tells you why.

The best part for me about it is that none of the hardened Hamilton fans can dispute what Hakkinen says. He's lived through everything as a driver, and knows what's going on within MB, as he's a part of Bottas' team, and the race team probably tells him anyway with the clout he's got.

Another best part about what Hakkinen says is that Hamilton fans can't be spiteful towards him because Hakkinen isn't begrudging or spiteful about the situation at all.

Hopefully some of you will listen to the parts I've highlighted, if not all of it, before I go on. All I'll say is that he does put a different context into driving the "same" car, and that it doesn't necessarily mean that it's an equal situation.

Enjoy.

Merry Christmas Journeyman. Hope the turkey was delicious :-).

Unfortunately, l disagree with Mika on Mercedes building their car exclusively to suit Hamilton. If that was the case, Hamilton would have won Melbourne 2019 and Bottas would have struggled to beat him. Instead Bottas turned up and won that race with Hamilton struggling to get his car setup to suit himself. Hamilton struggled most of the season to get the car setup to his liking because Mercedes being a fair team tried to find a compromise design to suit both their driver's style of driving which meant both drivers struggled to find a perfect sweet spot for their setup most of the time. Hence, they rarely performed at their most comfortable setup at the same time at the same race. Even with these compromises, the car remained very fast and good enough to challenge the very tip of the front of the grid.

When Hamilton won a race and said the car was brilliant, Valterrie would say he struggled with aspects of the car, and vice- versa.

The theory does not hold up either when you take Ferrari into consideration. Leclerc who has never driven a Ferrari for a full season comes into Ferrari this season and thrashes the four times world champion who has been in that car for three seasons. This hypothesis would suggest that Ferrari built their 2019 car to suit Vettel who was their number one driver but fails to explain how Leclerc was able to overcome under these conditions. This view would suggest that Vettel is crap which is rubbish for a start. The other would suggest that maybe Leclerc have the same driving style or similar to Vettel's driving style, thus was able to get use to the car quicker, which is possible but unlikely.

Besides, one could see that Hakkinenn struggled to be complimentary of Hamilton's accomplishments. That is understandable because Hamilton has accomplished three times more than he was able to accomplish.

Whatever the case, it is an unacceptable suggestion to imply that Mercedes disadvantaged Bottas to assist Hamilton to triumph. Such suggestion attempts to tarnish the Mercedes team for favoritisim; which is rubbish. And tries to undermine the accomplishments of Hamilton as a six times world champion; that suggestion is cheap and rubbish too.

The obvious facts are that Bottas was not consistently fast for whatever reason. I doubt it is mostly to do with the car, because the car was good enough for him to be at least one tenths behind Hamilton but mostly Bottas tends to fade backwards in most races. So l think Bottas has personal issues that he needs to address, if he wants to beat Hamilton. He has access to a championship winning car, hence to blame the championship car for not performing is just simply rubbish.

With respect to Redbull, l would tend to agree that the Redbull was designed to suit Verstapenn's driving style. Redbull tend to back the driver with the highest prospect of winning the drivers chasmionship. They did it for Vettel at the expense of Webber and to some extent Ricciado. It was always going to be hard for any driver that partner Verstapenn at Redbull. Which is why Albon has impressed so much. And l agree that Gasly faltered because he could not get the car be setup the way he likes it.

This season would give Bottas a good boost going into 2020. I expect him to be more confident and to have improved further. But if anyone is talking about Hamilton, it is because he is the the very best that F1 has to offer at the moment. He is the benchmark by which every driver on the grid is measured. And he is the most successfull racing driver in the pinacle of motorsport at the moment. And you must respect that.

[journeyman racer]

Bro, if you actually did listen to the podcast. You have to understand that you're disputing with someone who knows the industry of F1 intimately. He has a greater range of experience than what ever guys like Hamilton and Schumacher do.

This as opposed to you, whose interest is comparatively superficial. You can write as much as you like, you don't have the clout he does. If you express a point of view of F1 operations that is the opposite of Hakkinen's, you have to understand that yours is the inaccurate, or incorrect, view.

It's best that you accept his point of view as fact. Understand what he's saying, and recognise that he has no bitterness. Mika is a kind spirit, bro. He just wants to give the fans actual insights into what is going on.

You cannot suggest that RB make a car to suit Verstappen, and that MB don't do the same for Hamilton. The evidence is compelling. Some teams have been doing this for decades. Would you like to know why Bottas was burning up his tyres when Hamilton wasn't? Hakkinen indirectly tells you why.

If you want to sound as silly as TBK, go ahead. But you owe to yourself to not to.

[The Black Knight]

That a poster would state that another viewpoint of a former driver is the only viewpoint that can be taken as accurate and every other viewpoint is wrong, is a glaring indication as to the limited intelligence of the poster. I guess it explains a lot of this posters behaviour over the years. He becomes identified and boxes himself into a certain position and can no longer see anything from coordinates outside that box. A big insight we have now into this individual.

Mika is simply expressing a view point based on his observations (just like all of us are) and it cannot be taken as fact. In the podcast he states you can see the car looks easy for him, you can see this or that. It is all simple observations which can either be correct or incorrect.

On the other hand, I'll take the word of Bottas and Hamilton whom actually work within the team and know what they are talking about. At the end of the 2017 season Bottas stated that he had not much influence on the design of the 2017 because he joined so late, but that would not be the case for 2018, he said that he provide feedback to engineers to influence the design more to his liking. Of course, it's always a balance between two drivers. Given that Hamilton has been with Mercedes since 2013 it only stands to reason that some fundamental historical design decisions carried over from year to year may favour Lewis. This is not an excuse for Bottas I'm afraid, he has had 3 years now to adapt and stamp his influence on the design of the car and has been provided every opportunity to do so, including giving him one of Hamilton's best engineers. If that isn't enough for him then I'm afraid nothing will be.

Take Leclerc moving to Ferrari and beating Vettel this year, how did that happen if fundamental car design decisions tailored to a driver directly influence their speed. It's up to the other driver to adapt to the situation and Leclerc did it in under half a season, albeit against a driver whom is far inferior to Bottas, hasn't managed it in 3 years.

I'll also refer to Bottas after last years Chinese Grand Prix where he said that him and Hamilton usually chose pretty similar setups as their driving style wasn't miles apart. Hamilton has also said the same on a number of occasions.

But hey, Hakkinen knows better, right? LOL!

[Nitrodaze]

Bro, if you actually did listen to the podcast. You have to understand that you're disputing with someone who knows the industry of F1 intimately. He has a greater range of experience than what ever guys like Hamilton and Schumacher do.

This as opposed to you, whose interest is comparatively superficial. You can write as much as you like, you don't have the clout he does. If you express a point of view of F1 operations that is the opposite of Hakkinen's, you have to understand that yours is the inaccurate, or incorrect, view.

It's best that you accept his point of view as fact. Understand what he's saying, and recognise that he has no bitterness. Mika is a kind spirit, bro. He just wants to give the fans actual insights into what is going on.

You cannot suggest that RB make a car to suit Verstappen, and that MB don't do the same for Hamilton. The evidence is compelling. Some teams have been doing this for decades. Would you like to know why Bottas was burning up his tyres when Hamilton wasn't? Hakkinen indirectly tells you why.

If you want to sound as silly as TBK, go ahead. But you owe to yourself to not to.

Don't get me wrong, l have a lot of respect for Mika Hakkinenn. He is a two times F1 driver world champion after all. He is one of three men to have beaten the great Michael Schumacher and one of two to beat him twice to F1 world championship titles. That is one of the highest accalade that any driver can claim in F1.

That said, he has his opinion. I bet a million bucks that if you randomly pick anyone from the Mercedes team or Ferrari Team or even the Redbull team, they would most likely have a different view on some of the things that he has said.

Unfortunately, opinion is subjective. Like noses, everyone has one.

Hence it is disappointing that you would surrender yours and blindly take whatever view that is thrusted at you.

The truth about Bottas is, he has been in the Mercedes for three seasons now and has not yet reached the level of performance of Rosberg. Considering his first two seasons were flops, 2019 was a massive improvement. But even so, he was well short of the Rosberg threshold.

[The Black Knight]

Don't get me wrong, l have a lot of respect for Mika Hakkinenn. He is a two times F1 driver world champion after all. He is one of three men to have beaten the great Michael Schumacher and one of two to beat him twice to F1 world championship titles. That is one of the highest accalade that any driver can claim in F1.

That said, he has his opinion. I bet a million bucks that if you randomly pick anyone from the Mercedes team or Ferrari Team or even the Redbull team, they would most likely have a different view on some of the things that he has said.

Unfortunately, opinion is subjective. Like noses, everyone has one.

Hence it is disappointing that you would surrender yours and blindly take whatever view that is thrusted at you.

The truth about Bottas is, he has been in the Mercedes for three seasons now and has not yet reached the level of performance of Rosberg. Considering his first two seasons were flops, 2019 was a massive improvement. But even so, he was well short of the Rosberg threshold.

Spot on. Not to mention that, also being Finnish, Mika’s opinions can hardly be counted as likely being entirely unbiased.

[gm99]

Spot on. Not to mention that, also being Finnish, Mika’s opinions can hardly be counted as likely being entirely unbiased.

Häkkinen is also a partner in Aces Management, which counts among its clients one Valtteri Bottas...

[Nitrodaze]

Spot on. Not to mention that, also being Finnish, Mika’s opinions can hardly be counted as likely being entirely unbiased.

Mika was asked which two drivers on the current grid would choose to drive for his team if he owned one. His reply; Bottas and Leclerc. Now honestly, which two would you pick if you were in the same position of team boss?

If l was a team boss of a F1 racing team with the cash to employ any driver on the grid, l am very certain that Bottas would not be on my radar. I would most probably pick Verstapenn and Leclerc because they are the best of the next generation of drivers.

[journeyman racer]

Nope, the 3 of you have demonstrated a lack of being able to decipher when he's telling as it is, and when he's milking it.

So, in a 1 hour conversation, some of you pick out one light hearted point about which two driver he'd pick to drive. So what if he'd pick Bottas and that was "biased"? It doesn't denigrate all the other stuff he's said.

What you're not seeing is the stuff that's in the blind spot. For someone in Mika's position, he's more than capable of changing the PR situation for Bottas for the better, and worse for MB. Someone in his position can go to the media and blow up about all the biases against Bottas. "Hamilton always gets this, Bottas never gets that, etc..." And no one would be able to dispute him.

He can make it extremely difficult for MB in a PR sense, and tap into any angst fans have towards Hamilton, with some few choice statements. But you never hear about him in the press talking, he's never quoted. It cos he knows what the F1 industry is, and he doesn't play games. The "biases" Hamilton gets Mika knows he probably got himself during his career. So he's not resentful or cynical when Bottas is copping it, unlike how you/we are capable of.

You can't talk about bias when Mika is just giving an insight into the natural process of F1/racing teams. He could be talking about the Honda MotoGP team. They don't change anything for the second rider. Marquez wins, and you should ride like him to get the results. It's the same at MB.

Consider that the next time Hamilton wins and Bottas is second, 10+secs behind with his tyres burnt to a crisp, where none of you knew Hamilton could look after his tyres like he had in the previous 12 seasons of F1.

Regarding Gasly, Hakkinen brought up about there being no time and no mercy in F1? That's true and none of you can argue against it, as you're quick to rip into any driver that doesn't meet "your" standards.

Pointing out that Hakkinen is Finnish and that his company manages Bottas. When you consider all the criticisms Bottas has copped, do you think Hakkinen doesn't know what he could do to offset the criticism from a PR battle?

There's nothing none of you can argue against Mika. He has clout and knowledge none of you have. He's not as lame as what any of you are. He's literally experienced everything in F1, while you guys are hanging onto your prejudices.

From my pov, I got triggered internally when Ricciardo wasn't one of the drivers he picked. But I don't use that as evidence to diminish everything he says.

Mika's opinion>Your opinion.

[journeyman racer]

Don't get me wrong, l have a lot of respect for Mika Hakkinenn.
I don't think you do.


He is a two times F1 driver world champion after all. He is one of three men to have beaten the great Michael Schumacher and one of two to beat him twice to F1 world championship titles. That is one of the highest accalade that any driver can claim in F1.

I don't like this opinion of yours. Schumacher is this great character that is the barometer where all drivers are judged by. A heroic character like in the movies. From Hakkinen's pov, Schumacher is just another guy, who he knows he can beat in an equal situation. You'd recognise this from his Beyond The Grid interview.

Hakkinen points out that they were the best drivers in F3 in 1990. But he was better still, as he flogged him in a one-off round in the German championship.

The following year, they both enter F1. Hakkinen with the small, under funded Lotus team. Jordan being a one off drive, Schumacher effectively started out in a race winning team.

Hakkinen produces great results at Lotus, but is overshadowed by Schumacher drivinging a better car, producing results that include winning a race.

1993 Portuguese GP. Having not raced all year, this race is notable for Hakkinen outqualifying Senna first time out. What's not recognised is that Hakkinen outqualified Schumacher by a second. 2-1 to Hakkinen in qualifying that year.

By the 1995-96 off season. Schumacher gets the best of everything, wins 2 championships 25+wins, and becomes this legendary figure. Hakkinen had to battle with Peugeot and MB grenades. Hakkinen then had to deal with a serious head injury.

Both beat Brundle and Herbert as team mates.

When he gets a more even situation in F1 to Schumacher, he wins the championship, and was ahead when Schumacher broke his leg at Silverstone.

For you, beating Schumacher to an F1 title is the highest accolade a driver can claim in F1. For Hakkinen, beating Schumacher is like Rickard Rydell beating Tim Harvey at Volvo in the 1995 BTCC.

[Nitrodaze]

I don't like this opinion of yours. Schumacher is this great character that is the barometer where all drivers are judged by. A heroic character like in the movies. From Hakkinen's pov, Schumacher is just another guy, who he knows he can beat in an equal situation. You'd recognise this from his Beyond The Grid interview.

If you cannot appreciate the achievements of Schumacher, then you do not understand racing. I begin to see why you do not appreciate Hamilton. Hakkinen was awesome but not in the Schumacher or Hamilton sense of the word. These guys are in a league of their own and Hakkinen is miles away from it.

[Nitrodaze]

I don't like this opinion of yours. Schumacher is this great character that is the barometer where all drivers are judged by. A heroic character like in the movies. From Hakkinen's pov, Schumacher is just another guy, who he knows he can beat in an equal situation. You'd recognise this from his Beyond The Grid interview.

If you cannot appreciate the achievements of Schumacher, then you do not understand racing. I begin to see why you do not appreciate Hamilton. Hakkinen was awesome but not in the Schumacher or Hamilton sense of the word. These guys are in a league of their own and Hakkinen is miles away from it.

To win one F1 driver championship is awesome. To win two is double awesome. To win three is mega-awesome. To win six is surreal and simply amazing. The only living able bodied person qualified to comment on what it means or what it takes to achieve such superhuman feat is five times world champion Alain Prost. Unfortunately, Hakkinen do not qualify as he does not know nor has he the experience to say what it takes to win more than five F1 driver titles. Thus, it is a misplaced assertion to say Schumacher was just another guy he was racing. Schumacher was the guy to beat. He was the benchmark to which drivers of his time were measured.

The junior formulas do not count for much in F1. It is what one does in a F1 car on race day that matters. And Schumacher smashed all the records and set new ones, many of which are still unbroken. Get real man.

[journeyman racer]

Like I said Hakkinen's opinion> Your opinion.

For you, and many other fans, F1 is just a tv show. Whereas Hakkinen has lived through all the experiences F1 has to offer.

Hakkinen gives the listeners an insight into what goes on in F1. Three anonymous posters try to diminish the value of Hakkinen's insights.

Yeah, good one.

[journeyman racer]

Schumacher is just another guy for Hakkinen to beat. It's you that exaggerates Schumacher's driving to Hakkinen.

From 27:39

Mark, the host of the podcast -

"The incredible complexity of Formula 1 cars today and the precision with which they're designed, and engineered, and operated. So if a team builds a car around Lewis Hamilton, then Valtteri Bottas has to effectively adjust to that, or if it's built around Sebastien Vettel, then Charles Leclerc perhaps has to accommodate the way it's driven, so it actually becomes a factor."

"So although the cars are not, the cars are not really designed for each individual driver, they're designed for the way the team expects to get the most out, usually out of the guy they see as they number one driver?"

Hakkinen - "That is correct."

Mika Hakkinen has done everything in F1. He's just told you how F1 teams operate, but you're going to question him?

gm99 is, lamely, going to bring up that Bottas is managed by a company Hakkinen co-owns?

When he's talking about Gasly and RB, it's got nothing to do with his management company. He's just telling you how F1 teams operate.

Trying to diminish Hakkinen puts you at the latter point of your signature. Elevating Schumacher and Hamilton because they've accumulated more stats has nothing to do with the merit of their driving abilities.

It's like saying that Hakkinen went to a restaurant twice to eat pizza, Hamilton went 6 six to eat pizza, and Schumacher 7 times to eat pizza.

"Hakkinen will never know the superhuman effort it takes to eat pizza 6-7 times."

[Nitrodaze]

Like I said Hakkinen's opinion> Your opinion.

For you, and many other fans, F1 is just a tv show. Whereas Hakkinen has lived through all the experiences F1 has to offer.

Hakkinen gives the listeners an insight into what goes on in F1. Three anonymous posters try to diminish the value of Hakkinen's insights.

Yeah, good one.

Not really, you are expanding what l have said to include everything Hakkinen has said. I have disputed only one aspect, the bit about the Mercedes car been designed exclusively for Hamilton which suggest why after three seasons Bottas is not measuring up. l see l have touched a sore point for you, l have doubted the words of your hero. Man up buddy, that is the point of this forum to review and discuss everything about motorsport including whatever our heros have to say.

[journeyman racer]

Since MB became the dominant team. At 326pts (even 323 excluding fl points), Bottas has scored the second most points for a guy 2nd in the championship.

What is the minimum you'd expect him to do?

[Nitrodaze]

Since MB became the dominant team. At 326pts (even 323 excluding fl points), Bottas has scored the second most points for a guy 2nd in the championship.

What is the minimum you'd expect him to do?

Fair point. 2019 was an excellent year for Bottas. But let us not take that out of perspective, he was within beating distance of Leclerc in the Ferrari if Ferrari had not imploded again. And within Verstapenns reach with a bit of luck. That said, Bottas put in a very strong end of season races to pull himself clear of the competition.

The question in everyones mind is, in his fourth season can he give Hamilton a proper challenge in 2020. He has enjoyed an unusual patience from Mercedes. With his first two seasons performances, he would have been given the boot if he were at Redbull or Ferrari. Instead, he has enjoyed three seasons and is going into his fourth on the back of being the 2019 runner up. I think you can see how influencial Hakkinen is at Mercedes fighting his corner. Without that support which most drivers on the grid do not enjoy; Ricciado for instance, Bottas would have lost his drive a long time ago.

Unlike the likes of Bottas, Verstapenn, Sainz and Stroll with very influencial people backing them, drivers like Ricciado, Hamilton, Leclerc, Vettel, Kyvat, Perez, Albon etc all have to do it on their own merit, with the knowledge that their performances is what stands between their relevance and the door. As Hulkkenburg has discovered this season.

[journeyman racer]

The question in everyones mind is, in his fourth season can he give Hamilton a proper challenge in 2020.
That's why we're going to watch.



He has enjoyed an unusual patience from Mercedes. With his first two seasons performances, he would have been given the boot if he were at Redbull or Ferrari.
RB probably, but not Ferrari if the designated no1 was winning.

Otherwise, have you ever considered why he's been given contracts, when a lot of fans don't rate him?

I'll ask the question a different way. If 326pts and 4 wins isn't good enough for you. How many points/wins should Bottas have got in 2019?

[journeyman racer]

What, now you're not going to respond?

Just to digress a bit, re-reading Nitrodaze's posts.

I think there has to be an acknowledgement of different points of view. What you see is not necessarily what guys who've done it, like Hakkinen, see. Someone like him is not bewildered by F1 like what fans are.

Anyway, in light of Nitrodaze's post at the top, I was a bit confused as to what he's saying. Then it occurred to me "Oh yeah, Nitrodaze is an F1 fan. As opposed to a motor racing fan, where F1 is the top level. Just like almost all F1 fans.

Typically, F1 fans couldn't care less about other racing and embellish everything about F1.

Dare I say for F1 fans (And maybe Nitrodaze), F1 is this uber world where only the elite are present. An F1 car is this wild mechanical beast, and you need this incredible will to tame it. Michael Schumacher (And Lewis Hamilton) is like this being from another superior world, with these unimaginable powers to deal with the extraordinary challenge of an F1 car. To an F1 fan, a F3 is a POS they couldn't care less about.

But that's not how Mika Hakkinen sees F1 and racing. You can tell from listening to him in all his interviews (Certainly the ones I've heard).

For Mika Hakkinen, a F3 car is just a racing car. An F1 car is just another racing car as well. An F1 car is more powerful, faster, and requires more concentration to drive, but just another racing car.

For Mika Hakkinen, Michael Schumacher is like a guy you knew at a place you used to work at. We had some disagreements over a few things, but he's alright. He's good at his job and produced some great results. But he's not better than me at doing the job.

Subsequently, it's like that guy still works for that company, where you've moved onto another employer or field of work.

For some of you, it might seem unbelievable that F1 could be seen as so dull. But that's how it is for him relative to us, and why he's a legend WC, and we're posters on this site.

From his pov, he's beaten Schumacher in F3 in even circumstances, and flogged him on his home turf. He's knows he's better, but he knows it won't necessarily translate to F1.

1991 - Beaten by Schumacher, with a much better car.
1992 - Beaten by Schumacher, with a much better car.
1993 - He drove only 3 races, with Schumacher having the factory Ford engine.
1994 - Beaten by Schumacher, with a much better car.
1995 - Beaten by Schumacher, with a much better car.
1996 - Beaten by Schumacher, with a better car.
1997 - Beaten by Schumacher, with a better car.
1998 - When he finally had a better car than Schumacher, he won the WC.
1999 - Schumacher broke his leg, but Hakkinen was leading by a clear margin in the points.
2000 - Beaten by Schumacher, with a marginally better car and favourable team/tyre situation
2001 - Beaten by Schumacher, with a better car. But lost his modjo and didn't care and retired.

He's worked with Ayrton Senna and Alain Prost. So between those two, there's nothing even Hamilton has done that would wildly impress him, the same way it does fans.

[gm99]

gm99 is, lamely, going to bring up that Bottas is managed by a company Hakkinen co-owns?

When he's talking about Gasly and RB, it's got nothing to do with his management company. He's just telling you how F1 teams operate.

Trying to diminish Hakkinen puts you at the latter point of your signature.

If it's my signature you're talking about, it has got nothing to do with Häkkinen winning the F1 championship on that day, but rather the death of CART racer Greg Moore on the same day, to whom my nickname is a tribute also. In fact, I was actually rooting for Mika to win the title earlier that day, as I much preferred him as a person to Schumacher.

So I'm not trying to diminish Häkkinen's achievements at all, nor his views on F1. I'm only questioning his objectivity with regard to Bottas, whom he known and mentored since his teen days and now manages.

[zako85]

If you cannot appreciate the achievements of Schumacher, then you do not understand racing. I begin to see why you do not appreciate Hamilton. Hakkinen was awesome but not in the Schumacher or Hamilton sense of the word. These guys are in a league of their own and Hakkinen is miles away from it.

Schumacher made plenty achievements, but in my opinion his biggest achievement was starting the trend of "baby drivers" joining F1. He basically said, you will be more likely to win multiple champion titles if you join F1 at the tender age of only 20 years or younger, unlike grown men like Ayrton Senna (came into F1 at age of 23-24) or Damon Hill (much older).

But at the same time Schumacher has done enough of shoddy things to make me consider Hamilton a better driver even already after the 2018 season. What's wrong my Schummy's record? The absolutely despicable 1994 season involving a cheater car from Benetton with illegal launch control system, which Schumacher almost certainly used, removed valve from the fueling system, and the championship deciding collision in the final race. This should should have been Hill's tittle IMHO.

Then in 1997 he crashed into Villeneuve, on purpose again, in order to decide the championship, but this time the FIA was much harsher on him, disqualifying Schummy from the entire season. The great thing about Hamilton is that he was never involved in such scandals. Schummy was involved in two championship deciding collisions and yet we still consider him the greatest of all time? Please..

He did very well in the 2000s, but having Barrichello as a teammate is like having Bottas or Webber in your team, which means not enough competition. I give credit to Hamilton because he had to battle with Rosberg 2013-2016, who was much better than anyone predicted, and then with Vettel-Ferrari in 2017-18.

[airshifter]

Schumacher made plenty achievements, but in my opinion his biggest achievement was starting the trend of "baby drivers" joining F1. He basically said, you will be more likely to win multiple champion titles if you join F1 at the tender age of only 20 years or younger, unlike grown men like Ayrton Senna (came into F1 at age of 23-24) or Damon Hill (much older).

But at the same time Schumacher has done enough of shoddy things to make me consider Hamilton a better driver even already after the 2018 season. What's wrong my Schummy's record? The absolutely despicable 1994 season involving a cheater car from Benetton with illegal launch control system, which Schumacher almost certainly used, removed valve from the fueling system, and the championship deciding collision in the final race. This should should have been Hill's tittle IMHO.

Then in 1997 he crashed into Villeneuve, on purpose again, in order to decide the championship, but this time the FIA was much harsher on him, disqualifying Schummy from the entire season. The great thing about Hamilton is that he was never involved in such scandals. Schummy was involved in two championship deciding collisions and yet we still consider him the greatest of all time? Please..

He did very well in the 2000s, but having Barrichello as a teammate is like having Bottas or Webber in your team, which means not enough competition. I give credit to Hamilton because he had to battle with Rosberg 2013-2016, who was much better than anyone predicted, and then with Vettel-Ferrari in 2017-18.


And let's face facts. During the Ferrari years, nobody was allowed to race him while on the same team. He rightfully earned his way into the team and helped mold it, but the dominance from that point on was assisted by the team. As for the comparison to Hamilton, Hamilton easily wins in the "race hard but clean" category IMHO.

While in the heat of battle he was a great driver, his competitive side would just as often force him into bad decisions that weren't at all sporting. Parking a car at Rascasse comes to mind, and since Mika has entered the thread, why don't we ask him about being put onto the grass at 180 MPH?




But IMHO, NONE of these guys are superhuman, and their records on the track are only part of the story. Not a single one of them won a WDC in a crap car, and both hard work and luck led them to the cars that allowed them titles. There are drivers who never got a good break to find themselves in one of those cars, and others who just had the bad luck of when they made moves to other teams. There is nothing surreal or amazing about those with multiple titles really. If anything I'm more impressed that they were (or are) fortunate enough to drive for a team that can consistently put hardware under them that is capable of winning those titles.

On the flip side, there has to be a great driver in the seat to provide good racing. And when the cars were closely matched, Schumi and The Häkk gave us some great racing to watch at the front of the pack. Both great drivers in their day, but also both vastly aided in their success by the cars they were driving. And human, subject to flaws all of us have.

[journeyman racer]

If it's my signature you're talking about, it has got nothing to do with Häkkinen winning the F1 championship on that day, but rather the death of CART racer Greg Moore on the same day, to whom my nickname is a tribute also. In fact, I was actually rooting for Mika to win the title earlier that day, as I much preferred him as a person to Schumacher.

So I'm not trying to diminish Häkkinen's achievements at all, nor his views on F1. I'm only questioning his objectivity with regard to Bottas, whom he known and mentored since his teen days and now manages.

I was talking to Nitrodaze, and it was his signature I was referring to. The first two lines of my quote refer to you, the last one to Nitrodaze.

Ok, Hakkinen probably favours Bottas when he probably knows there's guys inherently better than him. But it's not definitely the case that it is. It's not completely mind blowing that one could consider Bottas/Leclerc as the two best. If you surveyed enough people of varying demographics, it's possible you could find random people that share Mika's opinion without having the insight he has.

The more knowledge you have, the better you're able to make an accurate decision or opinion. Mika would have a better insight into what goes on than many of us. He's always going to be respected at MB having won WC with them. Even if they don't tell him the juicy bits, Bottas would tell. If nothing else, Raikkonen would tell him how Ferrari go about it. He's a WC in an Adrian Newey car, and he works for McLaren.

That's 4 avenues to access how the top 4 in the wcc go about it. But you're going to give the old "He manages Bottas, so he's probably biased.." line?

racing is pretty complicated. Have you considered the possibility that Bottas' best chance to beat Hamilton to the title, is to drive for a different team in a slightly worse car? At Ferrari for instance, as ide from MB being slanted towards Hamilton, he would not be asked to slow down to allow Hamilton pit and get out in front of him, like MB did at Singapore.

What if you got a job at the engineering department of MB, and found out about all these intricate advantages MB gave Hamilton, but was so boring and complicated, it doesn't get out to the public? "Shit, Autosport never told me about this..."

The Dutchies are biased, TBK is biased. Mika breaks it down and tells you what's going on.

[airshifter]

I was talking to Nitrodaze, and it was his signature I was referring to. The first two lines of my quote refer to you, the last one to Nitrodaze.

Ok, Hakkinen probably favours Bottas when he probably knows there's guys inherently better than him. But it's not definitely the case that it is. It's not completely mind blowing that one could consider Bottas/Leclerc as the two best. If you surveyed enough people of varying demographics, it's possible you could find random people that share Mika's opinion without having the insight he has.

The more knowledge you have, the better you're able to make an accurate decision or opinion. Mika would have a better insight into what goes on than many of us. He's always going to be respected at MB having won WC with them. Even if they don't tell him the juicy bits, Bottas would tell. If nothing else, Raikkonen would tell him how Ferrari go about it. He's a WC in an Adrian Newey car, and he works for McLaren.

That's 4 avenues to access how the top 4 in the wcc go about it. But you're going to give the old "He manages Bottas, so he's probably biased.." line?

racing is pretty complicated. Have you considered the possibility that Bottas' best chance to beat Hamilton to the title, is to drive for a different team in a slightly worse car? At Ferrari for instance, as ide from MB being slanted towards Hamilton, he would not be asked to slow down to allow Hamilton pit and get out in front of him, like MB did at Singapore.

What if you got a job at the engineering department of MB, and found out about all these intricate advantages MB gave Hamilton, but was so boring and complicated, it doesn't get out to the public? "Shit, Autosport never told me about this..."

The Dutchies are biased, TBK is biased. Mika breaks it down and tells you what's going on.


You know, maybe if you quit with the kid level insults directed at certain forum members people would take you more seriously. But your trend is to troll the forums looking for an argument, then disregarding any facts or opinions brought into the discussion by others. Discussion/debate/dialogue involves more than one person, and thus other opinions.

I think we have all seen the lengths you will go to in order to declare yourself right. The Mika stuff is just the latest attempt to assert you must be right because Mika must be right. Yet you would just as quickly disregard the opinion of others that have great insight into the sport..... if their opinion opposed yours.

I think you take your opinion as fact not to be disputed. Yet you've not even come close to convincing anyone else of that, nor will you with an approach that resembles that of a 12 year old having a tantrum.


Mika was one of my favorite drivers, and he's still well connected. But Alonso was another favorite, and very well connected also. Yet I'd bet they differ on quite a few opinions regarding the sport, as would any other driver. They are all human and just as prone to bias as anyone on the forum.

[Nitrodaze]

And let's face facts. During the Ferrari years, nobody was allowed to race him while on the same team. He rightfully earned his way into the team and helped mold it, but the dominance from that point on was assisted by the team. As for the comparison to Hamilton, Hamilton easily wins in the "race hard but clean" category IMHO.

While in the heat of battle he was a great driver, his competitive side would just as often force him into bad decisions that weren't at all sporting. Parking a car at Rascasse comes to mind, and since Mika has entered the thread, why don't we ask him about being put onto the grass at 180 MPH? Both great drivers in their day, but also both vastly aided in their success by the cars they were driving. And human, subject to flaws all of us have.

There is no doubt about it, Schaumacher was a controvercial multiple world champion. Yes he would do whatever it takes to win, including crashing into opponents and any dirty tricks he can get away with. This is the reason why Hill is not a multiple world champion. He was super fast but lacked Schumachers killer instinct. These are traits that you see in the very best on the grid. They hate losing, winning is everything.

We saw it when Prost crashed into Senna to win the championship and when Senna returned the favour to himself win the championship. There isn't one multiple world champion without some form of chequered past, if you look closely enough. Be it Alonso or Vettel or Hamilton 2016 as Rosberg squirmed through the Abu Dhabi race that sealed his only drivers world championship.

Winning world championships is not an easy affair. And not all drivers on the grid have the particular skill to do it. Those that do are few and far between and are usually very special. They usually are unapologetically singleminded about winning.

I think it is a load of crap to say any driver on the grid could have won the same titles given the same chances. If that were the case, Massa would have been world Champion. He was good enough to be world champion but it eluded him. So was Irvine, Webber, Coultard to name a few. All of these guys were super fast and had access to championship winning cars but could not convert the opportunity into a single driver's title. Also, Nico Rosberg would have had more than one title to his name.

I have to say, it is plain stupid to say the multiple world champion were lucky as well. Luck had a small part to do with it, but a majority of the time, making their own luck had lots to do with their incredible achievements. Making luck is the difference between the champions and those that never win championships.

Inspite of his flaws, Schumacher's achievement is unquestionably the highest ever attained in the history of the formula. Just as Hamilton's achievement is unquestably the most impressive in the current era of F1 racing. They are not just another racer to be raced, they are the guy any racer must beat to attain any semblance of respect. The question is always going to be; "Who did you beat". Hakkinen and Alonso can always say l beat Schumacher which gave them instant credibility. Vettel would say l beat Alonso, Hamilton, Raikonenn and Button. And Hamilton can say, I beat Alonso, Vettel, Raikonenn, Button and Rosberg. Each of these guys world champions.

So we should not make an incredibly hard achievement into a ridicle or trivia. Even if the champion is not to your particular liking.

[airshifter]

There is no doubt about it, Schaumacher was a controvercial multiple world champion. Yes he would do whatever it takes to win, including crashing into opponents and any dirty tricks he can get away with. These are traits that you see in the very beast in the grid. They hate losing, winning is everything.

We saw it when Prost crashed into Senna to win the championship and when Senna returned the favour to himself win the championship. There isn't one multiple world champion without some form of chequered past, if you look closely enough. Be it Alonso or Vettel or Hamilton 2016 as Rosberg squirmed through the Abu Dhabi race that sealed his only drivers world championship.

Winning world championships is not an easy affair. And not all drivers on the grid have the particular skill to do it. Those that do are few and far between and are usually very special. I think it is a load of crap to say any driver on the grid could have won the same titles given the same chances. If that were the case, Massa would have beeen world Champion. He was good enough to be world champion but it eluded him. So was Irvine, Webber, Coultard to name a few. All of these guys had access to championship winning cars but could not convert the opportunity into a single driver's title.

I have to say, it is plain stupid to say the multiple world champion were lucky as well. Luck had a small part to do with it, but a majority of the time, making their own luck had lots to do with the incredible achievements. Making luck is the difference between the champions and those that never win championships.

I think they need that drive to keep them going, and some just don't turn it off when it's appropriate. Though of the group you listed, I think Lewis has had far fewer of the "red mist" sinister actions considering his time in the sport.


I guess I would have to say that Jenson Button didn't really do anything sinister his WDC year. The car was so dominant that all he really had to do was beat his team mate, and then towards the end of the year keep Seb and RB in hand.

[Nitrodaze]

I guess I would have to say that Jenson Button didn't really do anything sinister his WDC year. The car was so dominant that all he really had to do was beat his team mate, and then towards the end of the year keep Seb and RB in hand.

I was actually refering to multiple world champions which Button isn't. Even so, he did run Hamilton into the wall at Canada when they were both at Mclaren. I am sure Hamilton had given him a similar treatment at some point as well.

[airshifter]

There is no doubt about it, Schaumacher was a controvercial multiple world champion. Yes he would do whatever it takes to win, including crashing into opponents and any dirty tricks he can get away with. This is the reason why Hill is not a multiple world champion. He was super fast but lacked Schumachers killer instinct. These are traits that you see in the very best on the grid. They hate losing, winning is everything.

We saw it when Prost crashed into Senna to win the championship and when Senna returned the favour to himself win the championship. There isn't one multiple world champion without some form of chequered past, if you look closely enough. Be it Alonso or Vettel or Hamilton 2016 as Rosberg squirmed through the Abu Dhabi race that sealed his only drivers world championship.

Winning world championships is not an easy affair. And not all drivers on the grid have the particular skill to do it. Those that do are few and far between and are usually very special. They usually are unapologetically singleminded about winning.

I think it is a load of crap to say any driver on the grid could have won the same titles given the same chances. If that were the case, Massa would have been world Champion. He was good enough to be world champion but it eluded him. So was Irvine, Webber, Coultard to name a few. All of these guys were super fast and had access to championship winning cars but could not convert the opportunity into a single driver's title. Also, Nico Rosberg would have had more than one title to his name.

I have to say, it is plain stupid to say the multiple world champion were lucky as well. Luck had a small part to do with it, but a majority of the time, making their own luck had lots to do with their incredible achievements. Making luck is the difference between the champions and those that never win championships.

Inspite of his flaws, Schumacher's achievement is unquestionably the highest ever attained in the history of the formula. Just as Hamilton's achievement is unquestably the most impressive in the current era of F1 racing. They are not just another racer to be raced, they are the guy any racer must beat to attain any semblance of respect. The question is always going to be; "Who did you beat". Hakkinen and Alonso can always say l beat Schumacher which gave them instant credibility. Vettel would say l beat Alonso, Hamilton, Raikonenn and Button. And Hamilton can say, I beat Alonso, Vettel, Raikonenn, Button and Rosberg. Each of these guys world champions.

So we should not make an incredibly hard achievement into a ridicle or trivia. Even if the champion is not to your particular liking.

I'm quoting this again, as I think you were editing it after I had quoted it, thus I missed some of the context....

I've never stated that any driver on the grid could win a WDC in the right car, I'm just of the strong opinion that as often as not (if not more) the car is at least 50-60% of the equation. We've seen multiple instances of WDC drivers that struggle in average or even above average cars. If they themselves (and not the car/driver combination) were the primary factor in WDC standings, we would have examples of WDC drivers in cars that were down in the WCC standings quite a bit. And in any case, good car or bad, the driver must beat the other drivers on his team. By the time you factor in that, mechanical problems, status within the team, team orders, etc..... well there are quite a few times the best driver on a given day might not win the race.

As far as luck... IMHO luck is luck. Despite all the hard work that gives the upper tier drivers more options, they can make a decision that leaves them in a car that isn't going to take anyone to a WDC. Who beat who is a circular debate, as every WDC beat everyone else that year. So regardless of the driver, you still have to take their whole career into the picture to have a better gauge of where they stand among the best. Would Jenson be considered one of the GOATs if the Brawn dominance continued? By some maybe, but not by me. He beat Seb, Fernando, Lewis, Nico, and Kimi. That year, in a superior car. This doesn't mean that I don't consider him a very good or even great driver, or ridicule his title. It simply means that I view his entire career in context, just as I do with others. He even beat Lewis in the same car, but only one out of three times.

So overall, I still view the car as a big part of a drivers record. And though I openly agree that drivers must propel themselves to the upper levels, at some point luck is still just luck and not made IMHO.


The worst drivers that make it to the grid have more road racing skill than most of us will ever hope to have. Which are the very best is highly subjective, even when we realize they are all better than most of the world. But they are still humans, and in this case humans highly assisted by the hardware they are in. I'll remember the years that any driver dominated another team mate, or drove well beyond what the car seemed capable of, just as much as I'll remember the years that a team and driver walked away with titles. Alonso in that pig of a Ferrari he walked into on his return comes to mind.

[Nitrodaze]

I'm quoting this again, as I think you were editing it after I had quoted it, thus I missed some of the context....

I've never stated that any driver on the grid could win a WDC in the right car, I'm just of the strong opinion that as often as not (if not more) the car is at least 50-60% of the equation. We've seen multiple instances of WDC drivers that struggle in average or even above average cars. If they themselves (and not the car/driver combination) were the primary factor in WDC standings, we would have examples of WDC drivers in cars that were down in the WCC standings quite a bit. And in any case, good car or bad, the driver must beat the other drivers on his team. By the time you factor in that, mechanical problems, status within the team, team orders, etc..... well there are quite a few times the best driver on a given day might not win the race.

As far as luck... IMHO luck is luck. Despite all the hard work that gives the upper tier drivers more options, they can make a decision that leaves them in a car that isn't going to take anyone to a WDC. Who beat who is a circular debate, as every WDC beat everyone else that year. So regardless of the driver, you still have to take their whole career into the picture to have a better gauge of where they stand among the best. Would Jenson be considered one of the GOATs if the Brawn dominance continued? By some maybe, but not by me. He beat Seb, Fernando, Lewis, Nico, and Kimi. That year, in a superior car. This doesn't mean that I don't consider him a very good or even great driver, or ridicule his title. It simply means that I view his entire career in context, just as I do with others. He even beat Lewis in the same car, but only one out of three times.

So overall, I still view the car as a big part of a drivers record. And though I openly agree that drivers must propel themselves to the upper levels, at some point luck is still just luck and not made IMHO.


The worst drivers that make it to the grid have more road racing skill than most of us will ever hope to have. Which are the very best is highly subjective, even when we realize they are all better than most of the world. But they are still humans, and in this case humans highly assisted by the hardware they are in. I'll remember the years that any driver dominated another team mate, or drove well beyond what the car seemed capable of, just as much as I'll remember the years that a team and driver walked away with titles. Alonso in that pig of a Ferrari he walked into on his return comes to mind.

Sorry buddy, l was not directing my comments to you in particular. It was a general statement mostly from Journeymans recent comments.

[Zico]

I'm quoting this again, as I think you were editing it after I had quoted it, thus I missed some of the context....

I've never stated that any driver on the grid could win a WDC in the right car, I'm just of the strong opinion that as often as not (if not more) the car is at least 50-60% of the equation. We've seen multiple instances of WDC drivers that struggle in average or even above average cars. If they themselves (and not the car/driver combination) were the primary factor in WDC standings, we would have examples of WDC drivers in cars that were down in the WCC standings quite a bit. And in any case, good car or bad, the driver must beat the other drivers on his team. By the time you factor in that, mechanical problems, status within the team, team orders, etc..... well there are quite a few times the best driver on a given day might not win the race.

As far as luck... IMHO luck is luck. Despite all the hard work that gives the upper tier drivers more options, they can make a decision that leaves them in a car that isn't going to take anyone to a WDC. Who beat who is a circular debate, as every WDC beat everyone else that year. So regardless of the driver, you still have to take their whole career into the picture to have a better gauge of where they stand among the best. Would Jenson be considered one of the GOATs if the Brawn dominance continued? By some maybe, but not by me. He beat Seb, Fernando, Lewis, Nico, and Kimi. That year, in a superior car. This doesn't mean that I don't consider him a very good or even great driver, or ridicule his title. It simply means that I view his entire career in context, just as I do with others. He even beat Lewis in the same car, but only one out of three times.

So overall, I still view the car as a big part of a drivers record. And though I openly agree that drivers must propel themselves to the upper levels, at some point luck is still just luck and not made IMHO.


The worst drivers that make it to the grid have more road racing skill than most of us will ever hope to have. Which are the very best is highly subjective, even when we realize they are all better than most of the world. But they are still humans, and in this case humans highly assisted by the hardware they are in. I'll remember the years that any driver dominated another team mate, or drove well beyond what the car seemed capable of, just as much as I'll remember the years that a team and driver walked away with titles. Alonso in that pig of a Ferrari he walked into on his return comes to mind.


At last... someone unbiased, able to apply logic and who really understands the status quo in F1. Thank you for restoring my faith in this forum!
I wholeheartedly agree with 99% of everything you have written, our views are so similar its unreal.

The only tiny thing that I might disagree on is your statement on the car being 50-60% of the equation. I'm of the opinion that it is not a fixed percentage and actually a variable percentage and more in line with just how much better the dominant car is as well as simply being quicker than your team mate.


Could all of the drivers on the grid win the WDC in a hugely dominant car? Of course not... simple maths, of any 2 drivers in a team, someone has to finish 2nd which automatically rules out half the grid.

Open ended question... Is luck just luck? I think in most cases it is... Although I guess if you are super well connected with a finger on the pulse and able to have half an insight on which team is likely to dominate, one might reasonably argue that to be a skill... It is clearly not a driver skill though, if anyone really wants to argue otherwise please do go for it... I've got some popcorn in the cupboard.

What does this 'GOAT' word I keep reading on here actually mean? Greatest what of all time?

Lets face it, until F1 is a one make series with far more equality between machinery, this constant crowing from the one winning drivers fanboy fanbase is quite frankly an embarrassment to true F1 fans... normal people who just love great wheel to wheel racing regardless of who it is.

[airshifter]

At last... someone unbiased, able to apply logic and who really understands the status quo in F1. Thank you for restoring my faith in this forum!
I wholeheartedly agree with 99% of everything you have written, our views are so similar its unreal.

The only tiny thing that I might disagree on is your statement on the car being 50-60% of the equation. I'm of the opinion that it is not a fixed percentage and actually a variable percentage and more in line with just how much better the dominant car is as well as simply being quicker than your team mate.


Could all of the drivers on the grid win the WDC in a hugely dominant car? Of course not... simple maths, of any 2 drivers in a team, someone has to finish 2nd which automatically rules out half the grid.

Open ended question... Is luck just luck? I think in most cases it is... Although I guess if you are super well connected with a finger on the pulse and able to have half an insight on which team is likely to dominate, one might reasonably argue that to be a skill... It is clearly not a driver skill though, if anyone really wants to argue otherwise please do go for it... I've got some popcorn in the cupboard.

What does this 'GOAT' word I keep reading on here actually mean? Greatest what of all time?

Lets face it, until F1 is a one make series with far more equality between machinery, this constant crowing from the one winning drivers fanboy fanbase is quite frankly an embarrassment to true F1 fans... normal people who just love great wheel to wheel racing regardless of who it is.

Well as far as the car percentage, I'd have to agree that it's just "needed" at the top of the field. Until you are in that hardware, you're not winning titles.

As for the "GOAT" I've never figured that out much myself. Maybe the Greatest (Record) Of All Time, regardless of the luck of the car? Maybe the claim to be the best driver, even in inferior hardware? Maybe the person with the largest fanboy base?

I watch for the show and to appreciate all the talented drivers, along with seeing the teams efforts and the improvements in the cars. I've watched F1 far too long to think that luck isn't a big part of the equation. And sometimes the luck of lack of with certain drivers is what levels the playing field some, and when you see the better drivers really display their ability, even when in a lesser car.

I also feel that people take it over the top in making any of these guys superhuman when they win.

[Nitrodaze]

Well as far as the car percentage, I'd have to agree that it's just "needed" at the top of the field. Until you are in that hardware, you're not winning titles.

As for the "GOAT" I've never figured that out much myself. Maybe the Greatest (Record) Of All Time, regardless of the luck of the car? Maybe the claim to be the best driver, even in inferior hardware? Maybe the person with the largest fanboy base?

I watch for the show and to appreciate all the talented drivers, along with seeing the teams efforts and the improvements in the cars. I've watched F1 far too long to think that luck isn't a big part of the equation. And sometimes the luck of lack of with certain drivers is what levels the playing field some, and when you see the better drivers really display their ability, even when in a lesser car.

I also feel that people take it over the top in making any of these guys superhuman when they win.

Ok now l am confused. If l read you correctly, luck has nothing to do with it, it just pure skill that win races. Or you are saying that the luck is about being in th fastest car in the first place and everything else is the level of talent available to the individual. But you also say that drivers performing above what the car or inferior car can produce is a display of talent above sheer luck. And l agree with this last bit actually.

But l also agree that luck is not a big part of it as well. But it is a part of winning more times than not. Like Hamilton driving his tyres for a longer run than would otherwise be ideal with the hope for a safety car situation that materializes against the odds, giving him a win that would have otherwise been a win for Bottas that had driven a flawless race but to be deprived of the win due to the safety car. This is what l mean by making luck.

You also say that machinery is a big part of it. But Ferrari had the fastest car this season and last. And probably for some time now since 2017. Yet Mercedes has won both driver and constructors title inspite of it. Which disproves the argument that better machinery has alot to do with success. Unfortunately, that statement undermines the immense amount of work that Mercedes has put into finding a solution to overcome Ferrari and their mighty engine.

The level of excellence that brings a driver and a team above a competitor with a superior machinery is not ordinary by any means. It is that bit above what even the best of the time can produce. That l say is superhuman.

In terms of Schumacher and Hamilton, is not ordinary talent that makes a driver win more than 5 F1 driver's title. Having a superior car is not the full answer either because there is another driver in a similar car racing against him. It is that very special talent that separates that driver from the rest. Because not all drivers on the grid can be world champions in that car. Be it a Mercedes or a Ferrari. If that was the case, the other driver would win just as much titles as the him [Schumacher, Hamilton, Prost].

I would not go as far as to say GOAT, as l find such terms unequivocal, but l certainly think it is not ordinary talent. And you can see how it separates the up and coming from their peers. Verstapenn and Leclerc stand out immediately because we could see that very special quality in them.

The reason we are having this discussion is the comparison of Bottas to Verstapenn and Leclerc as implied by Hakkinen. Bottas is fast but lacks that very particular quality that we associate with Verstapenn and Leclerc.

[Zico]

You also say that machinery is a big part of it. But Ferrari had the fastest car this season and last. And probably for some time now since 2017. Yet Mercedes has won both driver and constructors title inspite of it. Which disproves the argument that better machinery has alot to do with success. Unfortunately, that statement undermines the immense amount of work that Mercedes has put into finding a solution to overcome Ferrari and their mighty engine.



Ferrari having the highest top speed in the straight speed traps does not equal fastest car. That is only one single parameter and a very simplistic view.
Mercedes had advantages in other key areas such as highest fast and slow corner cornering speeds of everyone on the grid... which you really shouldnt ignore when looking at the bigger picture.





In terms of Schumacher and Hamilton, is not ordinary talent that makes a driver win more than 5 F1 driver's title. Having a superior car is not the full answer either because there is another driver in a similar car racing against him. It is that very special talent that separates that driver from the rest. Because not all drivers on the grid can be world champions in that car. Be it a Mercedes or a Ferrari. If that was the case, the other driver would win just as much titles as the him [Schumacher, Hamilton, Prost].

.
A few contradictions there...

Dominating your team mate is not exclusive to Hamilton and it certainly does not set him apart from the rest of the grid.
No of course not all other drivers can be world champions in that car.. as some wouldnt beat Bottas but the main, super obvious big reason is that they aren't driving it!


I rate Hamilton very highly but having the most amount of WDC's does not automatically make him the best on the grid. That logic is absurd and actually quite niave.
If that was the case, shouldnt Vettel with his 4 WDC's have destroyed LeClerc (Zero WDC's btw) last year?
It is not the real measure of any driver on the grid and simply cannot be as long as machinery disparity exists... and that is not in any way disparaging to Hamilton.

[Nitrodaze]

Ferrari having the highest top speed in the straight speed traps does not equal fastest car. That is only one single parameter and a very simplistic view.
Mercedes had advantages in other key areas such as highest fast and slow corner cornering speeds of everyone on the grid... which you really shouldnt ignore when looking at the bigger picture.
I think you should read my post again. My point was Mercerdes could not match Ferrari on straightline speed but had to find speed in the corners to get ahead of Ferarri. This is a demonstration of the technology competition that makes F1 unique in its formula and DNA. The intellectual innovative competition between the brains in one team against the brains in other teams.




I rate Hamilton very highly but having the most amount of WDC's does not automatically make him the best on the grid. That logic is absurd and actually quite niave.
If that was the case, shouldnt Vettel with his 4 WDC's have destroyed LeClerc (Zero WDC's btw) last year?
It is not the real measure of any driver on the grid and simply cannot be as long as machinery disparity exists... and that is not in any way disparaging to Hamilton.

I am not sure why you are making this about Hamilton. But if we go with your post. Schumacher was not the best of his time, neighter was Prost or Fangio. How do you work out who was the best? If you do not go with acheivements, then you are left with subjective criterias such as, you have to like the guy or he is your countryman etc.

You say they have to be in equal machinery to say who is the best. Even that is not possible, if we have learnt anything from F2. There would still be superior machinery and more than one tier of performances between the teams depending on their ability to build the car to the highest efficiency of the specification. Attaining equality is not going to be automatic or even attainable. There would always be some differences.

As with life, the best drivers would end up in the best machinery. And they would perform exceptionally in those machinery which would translate to points, records and World Championship titles. That is just the way it is. You cannot deprive them of their status because they ended up in the fastest machinery. And it is nonsense to equate Vettel to Hamilton. They are two individuals dealing with their respective situations differently. Vettel has struggled to find the level of hungar that won him 4 WDCs. Yet Hamilton, due to the draught after his first WDC at Mclaren has found a way to sustain his hungar and keep at his best.



A few contradictions there...

Dominating your team mate is not exclusive to Hamilton and it certainly does not set him apart from the rest of the grid.
No of course not all other drivers can be world champions in that car.. as some wouldnt beat Bottas but the main, super obvious big reason is that they aren't driving it!

You also miss the point on this one. My post was not neccessarily about dominating his teammate. It was the fact that his teammate had access to the same machinery available to him. Hence, had equal chance to win as many WDC as he has won. Proving the point that, not everyone can win WDC in the fastest car.

Yes, the other drivers are not driving the Mercedes because they are not good enough by Mercedes standard to drive their car, Simple!.

We must respect the achievement of those that excel. It shows we understand what it took to excel and appreciate the difficulties involved in being the best of the best drivers in the world.

[Zico]

I think you should read my post again. My point was Mercerdes could not match Ferrari on straightline speed but had to find speed in the corners to get ahead of Ferarri. This is a demonstration of the technology competition that makes F1 unique in its formula and DNA. The intellectual innovative competition between the brains in one team against the brains in other teams.

I've read your post again, it does not read that way at all, sorry.





I am not sure why you are making this about Hamilton. But if we go with your post. Schumacher was not the best of his time, neighter was Prost or Fangio. How do you work out who was the best? If you do not go with acheivements, then you are left with subjective criterias such as, you have to like the guy or he is your countryman etc.

Yep.. thats exactly my whole point, the cream does rise to the surface in a lot of cases.. but until they are racing in the same team you cannot definatively or objectively say for sure who is the best.
Personally, I dont need a driver to idolise but if I was that way minded, F1 would be the wrong sport for me.




You say they have to be in equal machinery to say who is the best. Even that is not possible, if we have learnt anything from F2. There would still be superior machinery and more than one tier of performances between the teams depending on their ability to build the car to the highest efficiency of the specification. Attaining equality is not going to be automatic or even attainable. There would always be some differences.

100% Agree. I do think it would be a lot easier to discern a pecking order when there is a closer performance baseline though.





As with life, the best drivers would end up in the best machinery. And they would perform exceptionally in those machinery which would translate to points, records and World Championship titles. That is just the way it is. You cannot deprive them of their status because they ended up in the fastest machinery. And it is nonsense to equate Vettel to Hamilton. They are two individuals dealing with their respective situations differently. Vettel has struggled to find the level of hungar that won him 4 WDCs. Yet Hamilton, due to the draught after his first WDC at Mclaren has found a way to sustain his hungar and keep at his best.

For me Vettel has shown some flashes of desperation against a very quick LeClerc which I dont see happening without there being the underlying hunger there.





You also miss the point on this one. My post was not neccessarily about dominating his teammate. It was the fact that his teammate had access to the same machinery available to him. Hence, had equal chance to win as many WDC as he has won. Proving the point that, not everyone can win WDC in the fastest car.

I dont think I missed your point at all and of course not everyone can win in the fastest car as I've stated a few times now.




Yes, the other drivers are not driving the Mercedes because they are not good enough by Mercedes standard to drive their car, Simple!.

Are you saying you think Valteri is the 2nd best driver on the grid now?
No, it really is not that simple at all, not even close.. There are quite a few drivers on the grid who are good enough, you can only pick 2 though... your number 1 and a support driver. Or if you have the luxury of a healthy performance advantage, give them equal status and allow them to duke it out for a spectacle for the fans.

Some will be seen to be more marketeable than others/have an image that the decision makers at the top see as more fitting to the Mercedes brand. Other suitable candidates will be under contract and unavailable. There will also be other politics such as drivers management teams, their links with manufacturers etc all at play too.




We must respect the achievement of those that excel. It shows we understand what it took to excel and appreciate the difficulties involved in being the best of the best drivers in the world.


I do respect them, I just think the difference between us is that I dont need an idol and this allows me to appreciate the many different strengths, but also able to criticise any weaknesses, in all of them.
Conversely, I get the feeling that any comment made by anyone that is not in addulation of Lewis, or could even be construed as negative, is taken to heart in a really negative way by the Lewis superfans that think he's the messiah of F1. I'm really glad I'm just a general fan of the sport.

[airshifter]

But l also agree that luck is not a big part of it as well. But it is a part of winning more times than not. Like Hamilton driving his tyres for a longer run than would otherwise be ideal with the hope for a safety car situation that materializes against the odds, giving him a win that would have otherwise been a win for Bottas that had driven a flawless race but to be deprived of the win due to the safety car. This is what l mean by making luck.

I've always seen this more as a roll of the dice. If the deciding factor is the "luck" of the safety car, it's just luck. In this example without a safety car the strategy of going long doesn't work. And IMO to some extent pure luck plays a part in many a drivers standings as far as results. Ricciardo at RB is a good example. I personally don't buy into any of the theories that they were intentionally allowing his car to fail, but his bad luck at RB with reliability was just that.... bad luck.




You also say that machinery is a big part of it. But Ferrari had the fastest car this season and last. And probably for some time now since 2017. Yet Mercedes has won both driver and constructors title inspite of it. Which disproves the argument that better machinery has alot to do with success. Unfortunately, that statement undermines the immense amount of work that Mercedes has put into finding a solution to overcome Ferrari and their mighty engine.

I'm glad you further clarified your context in a follow up post on this one, because I don't think for a second Ferrari had the fastest car in either season unless we count only straight line speed. But based
on your follow up post, sure they are all constantly fighting to keep a superior car. And in my view this year showed that in some aspects both Ferrari and RB made up some ground on Mercedes this year. Since all cars are a compromise hoping to suit the overall season, the characteristics of certain strengths and weaknesses are most apparent on specific tracks that exploit both strengths and weaknesses within the grid.



The level of excellence that brings a driver and a team above a competitor with a superior machinery is not ordinary by any means. It is that bit above what even the best of the time can produce. That l say is superhuman.

In terms of Schumacher and Hamilton, is not ordinary talent that makes a driver win more than 5 F1 driver's title. Having a superior car is not the full answer either because there is another driver in a similar car racing against him. It is that very special talent that separates that driver from the rest. Because not all drivers on the grid can be world champions in that car. Be it a Mercedes or a Ferrari. If that was the case, the other driver would win just as much titles as the him [Schumacher, Hamilton, Prost].

I would not go as far as to say GOAT, as l find such terms unequivocal, but l certainly think it is not ordinary talent. And you can see how it separates the up and coming from their peers. Verstapenn and Leclerc stand out immediately because we could see that very special quality in them.

The reason we are having this discussion is the comparison of Bottas to Verstapenn and Leclerc as implied by Hakkinen. Bottas is fast but lacks that very particular quality that we associate with Verstapenn and Leclerc.

In my view the total effort of any team can only set the bar higher, but I can't consider it superhuman. It is a combination of the great driving talent and the great efforts of the teams to provide that driver the best possible chance to win races or otherwise gain as many points as possible on that day. And without doubt some rise to the top of both sides of the equation, that we can agree on.

As for driver pairings, IMO often all the outside factors along with team factors make it a lopsided comparison to say that there was equal chance to win titles and such. If all the teams always got the driver they wanted, and always opted to pick what they felt the two strongest drivers were, we [i]might[i] see a better comparison there. But only one team can get any driver, and often teams choose to allow a #1 driver and "wingman" status within the team. Though we agree that Bottas lacks that special talent we often see in the very top level drivers, he has upped his game. But Lewis has continued to refine his game as well, so there is no real challenge there. But I think we could probably agree that Seb, Leclerc maybe even Ricciardo and a couple others would have made for a much tighter battle at Merc if they were paired with Lewis. Vettel was proven to not be as strong as some think by the up and coming Leclerc, but not without some team tensions and problems due to the fact that they have two very solid drivers.

[Nitrodaze]

I've read your post again, it does not read that way at all, sorry.





Yep.. thats exactly my whole point, the cream does rise to the surface in a lot of cases.. but until they are racing in the same team you cannot definatively or objectively say for sure who is the best.
Personally, I dont need a driver to idolise but if I was that way minded, F1 would be the wrong sport for me.




100% Agree. I do think it would be a lot easier to discern a pecking order when there is a closer performance baseline though.





For me Vettel has shown some flashes of desperation against a very quick LeClerc which I dont see happening without there being the underlying hunger there.





I dont think I missed your point at all and of course not everyone can win in the fastest car as I've stated a few times now.




Are you saying you think Valteri is the 2nd best driver on the grid now?
No, it really is not that simple at all, not even close.. There are quite a few drivers on the grid who are good enough, you can only pick 2 though... your number 1 and a support driver. Or if you have the luxury of a healthy performance advantage, give them equal status and allow them to duke it out for a spectacle for the fans.

Some will be seen to be more marketeable than others/have an image that the decision makers at the top see as more fitting to the Mercedes brand. Other suitable candidates will be under contract and unavailable. There will also be other politics such as drivers management teams, their links with manufacturers etc all at play too.





I do respect them, I just think the difference between us is that I dont need an idol and this allows me to appreciate the many different strengths, but also able to criticise any weaknesses, in all of them.
Conversely, I get the feeling that any comment made by anyone that is not in addulation of Lewis, or could even be construed as negative, is taken to heart in a really negative way by the Lewis superfans that think he's the messiah of F1. I'm really glad I'm just a general fan of the sport.

I have not suggested anywhere that you have to idolize any driver. I have stated that you must respect multiple world champions for their achievements. One thing is certain, the people who make the decision about who gets the drive in their team, look hard and long at each driver available and choose the best driver for their team. They are not stupid.

If a driver do not get selected, it is because they did not think he is good enough or they have found better or they have already found a winner. Any argument not based on facts is pointless. My view is, if a driver do not find a seat in a top car thoroughout their career, it is because the top teams did not rate him as a good enough driver. Therefore, we can certainly surmise that they are not as good as the drivers that did well in the top cars. Hence, we must respect those drivers [MWDCs] and their achievements because they delivered to the teams expectations. And justified the team's decision to select them above other drivers in the first place.

So yes, we do know Schumacher, Hamilton, Prost and Fangio were the best of their time. There is no doubt about it.

Your problem appears to me to be that you do not like Hamilton who happens to be the current best on the grid. And you are trying to diminish his achievement by saying he is not the best on the grid because other drivers did not get the same chance as he did in a fast Mercedes. I think that is crap. If Mercedes thought for one moment that there was any other driver on the current grid better, they would sign him up without delay. Mercedes are not fools.

They have a driver that delivers championship year in year out successfully, l don't know why they would want to consider anyone else at this point. That said, Mercedes would be looking for a driver to replace Hamilton when he either retires or stops being competitive.

[Nitrodaze]

In my view the total effort of any team can only set the bar higher, but I can't consider it superhuman. It is a combination of the great driving talent and the great efforts of the teams to provide that driver the best possible chance to win races or otherwise gain as many points as possible on that day. And without doubt some rise to the top of both sides of the equation, that we can agree on.

No team in the history of the sport has won both the Drivers and Constructors title six times in a row. That is kind of special. It is above what we have seen as humanly possible in the past and qualifies as superhuman. Because all the people at Mercedes that made this happen dug deeper than any other before them to ensure they achieved this feat. To call it anything else is to belittle the incredible achievement.



As for driver pairings, IMO often all the outside factors along with team factors make it a lopsided comparison to say that there was equal chance to win titles and such. If all the teams always got the driver they wanted, and always opted to pick what they felt the two strongest drivers were, we [i]might[i] see a better comparison there. But only one team can get any driver, and often teams choose to allow a #1 driver and "wingman" status within the team. Though we agree that Bottas lacks that special talent we often see in the very top level drivers, he has upped his game. But Lewis has continued to refine his game as well, so there is no real challenge there. But I think we could probably agree that Seb, Leclerc maybe even Ricciardo and a couple others would have made for a much tighter battle at Merc if they were paired with Lewis. Vettel was proven to not be as strong as some think by the up and coming Leclerc, but not without some team tensions and problems due to the fact that they have two very solid drivers.

The Hamilton - Rosberg pairing was the strongest at Mercedes up until 2016. It was a very close and highly competitive pairing. Unfortunately, Bottas has not measured up to that standard. That does not takeaway anything from Hamilton, in my opinion.

I suppose it would be nice to have someone in the other car to give Hamilton a harder run. But Ferrari and Redbull are much closer to the Mercedes now, they cannot afford in fighting that could cost them the championship. From that perspective, Bottas is a great driver to occupy the other seat at Mercedes.

[airshifter]

No team in the history of the sport has won both the Drivers and Constructors title six times in a row. That is kind of special. It is above what we have seen as humanly possible in the past and qualifies as superhuman. Because all the people at Mercedes that made this happen dug deeper than any other before them to ensure they achieved this feat. To call it anything else is to belittle the incredible achievement.



The Hamilton - Rosberg pairing was the strongest at Mercedes up until 2016. It was a very close and highly competitive pairing. Unfortunately, Bottas has not measured up to that standard. That does not takeaway anything from Hamilton, in my opinion.

I suppose it would be nice to have someone in the other car to give Hamilton a harder run. But Ferrari and Redbull are much closer to the Mercedes now, they cannot afford in fighting that could cost them the championship. From that perspective, Bottas is a great driver to occupy the other seat at Mercedes.

Without a doubt Merc and the drivers have made a lot of impressive records. Overall I think statistics shows them as the most dominant team of Formula 1 when adjusted for time in the sport. And in many cases they have already surpassed the overall totals of teams that have been around a lot longer.

No sense in us debating the semantics of the use of a word on this one. It has been without a doubt an incredible team.


Rosberg and Alonso have been the toughest team competition for Lewis, but this brings up another prime example of statistics not always telling the entire story. Bottas is probably the weakest team mate Lewis has had in Formula 1. He beat (on count back) Alonso at Mclaren and missed that WDC by a couple of points. Points that he would have easily had if someone the caliber of Bottas (or at least not as strong as Alonso!) we driving in the team with him. In comparison Schumacher didn't have those really fast team mates, and when he did they were still demoted to a #2 status and often team orders were employed to assist him with his dominance. Most likely if he had not been paired with such high caliber drivers Lewis would already have matched or exceeded Schumacher in WDC titles.

All across the grid this happens, and at times it can diminish the record of one driver while assisting the record of another. The balance of driver skill within teams is a big factor in that, along with any team orders a team might make.

[Nitrodaze]

Without a doubt Merc and the drivers have made a lot of impressive records. Overall I think statistics shows them as the most dominant team of Formula 1 when adjusted for time in the sport. And in many cases they have already surpassed the overall totals of teams that have been around a lot longer.

No sense in us debating the semantics of the use of a word on this one. It has been without a doubt an incredible team.


Rosberg and Alonso have been the toughest team competition for Lewis, but this brings up another prime example of statistics not always telling the entire story. Bottas is probably the weakest team mate Lewis has had in Formula 1. He beat (on count back) Alonso at Mclaren and missed that WDC by a couple of points. Points that he would have easily had if someone the caliber of Bottas (or at least not as strong as Alonso!) we driving in the team with him. In comparison Schumacher didn't have those really fast team mates, and when he did they were still demoted to a #2 status and often team orders were employed to assist him with his dominance. Most likely if he had not been paired with such high caliber drivers Lewis would already have matched or exceeded Schumacher in WDC titles.

All across the grid this happens, and at times it can diminish the record of one driver while assisting the record of another. The balance of driver skill within teams is a big factor in that, along with any team orders a team might make.

You touch on one of the contentions of Schumacher's acheivemnents which is an unfortunate way that Ferrari operates. Yes, Eddie Irvine came close to stealing one of Schumacher's titles. In true Schumacher fashion, he did as little as possible to assist Irvine to win the title that year.

But a team that fosters a number one and two status for their driver lineup would styme the chances of the number two driver in the interest of the team and the number one driver. But initially, they are given the chance to prove themselves worthy of the number one status at the early stages of the season in most teams. If they are not able to muster up enough points to get ahead, they naturally get relegated to the number two status. And that is because the better driver gets the requisite number of points to claim the number one status.

Even in the case of Schumacher, the number two driver was given all the tools and support to get pole positions and win races. But Schumacher always did something special to ensure he was well ahead of his teammates. The relative numbers of pole positions tells the true story of how Schumacher always keeps ahead of his teammates, as there are no team orders during qualification.

I really don't like team orders, but they become unquestionably necessary when used in a situation that could make a significant impact or difference to the championship prospect of the team or the driver with the highest points in the fight for the driver's championship.

[Big Ben]

Even in the case of Schumacher, the number two driver was given all the tools and support to get pole positions and win races. But Schumacher always did something special to ensure he was well ahead of his teammates. The relative numbers of pole positions tells the true story of how Schumacher always keeps ahead of his teammates, as there are no team orders during qualification.


BS. Rewriting history much? Remember Austria 2002? Barichello was given all the tools and support up until the last lap. Then all tools and support were withdrawn and given to the one and only, Schumacher, driver number 1 even before Barichello went to Ferrari. MS won 4 out of the first 5 races of the season. It hardly looked like a very contested championship. They were dominating and there was no need for it. They did it to satisfy the egomaniac, probably just to "fabricate" a record. In the end he won 11 of 17 races and Ferrari won as many points as all the other teams combined.

Or USA 2005, that charade of a race? Even there they had to "fix" the race for him. Totally pointless for the team. It only served the same egomaniac.

Yeah, he did do something special to keep always ahead of his team mates at Ferrari. When he went there there was one important condition (among others I'm sure). Whoever they would hire to be his team mate, they would make him be his own personal b****. And they agreed. And his team mates were the kind of drivers who would take that job.

[Nitrodaze]

BS. Rewriting history much? Remember Austria 2002? Barichello was given all the tools and support up until the last lap. Then all tools and support were withdrawn and given to the one and only, Schumacher, driver number 1 even before Barichello went to Ferrari. MS won 4 out of the first 5 races of the season. It hardly looked like a very contested championship. They were dominating and there was no need for it. They did it to satisfy the egomaniac, probably just to "fabricate" a record. In the end he won 11 of 17 races and Ferrari won as many points as all the other teams combined.

Or USA 2005, that charade of a race? Even there they had to "fix" the race for him. Totally pointless for the team. It only served the same egomaniac.

Yeah, he did do something special to keep always ahead of his team mates at Ferrari. When he went there there was one important condition (among others I'm sure). Whoever they would hire to be his team mate, they would make him be his own personal b****. And they agreed. And his team mates were the kind of drivers who would take that job.

That is one of the ugly side of the Ferrari team order regime that has pissed off many fans, including myself mind you. We all remember the Alonso is faster than you crap that Massa had to endure. Yes, these sort of things distort the measure of the accomplishments of Schumacher. One of the reasons why Hamilton is so refreshing. There were some team orders that were employed to aid Hamilton, but very seldom. Hamilton takes on his teammate on equal footing without any favoritism in his favor.

That said, Schumacher may have still won seven championships with the calibre of teammates paired up with him. Though with closer points difference to the stronger teammates like Irvine, Barrichello and even Massa.

[Big Ben]

I can understand team orders in the context of a fight with another team. I didn't get it when the team didn't really have much to win from them, just for the sake of favoring one driver. MS would have beaten Barichello anyway in the long run. What was the point? It was nice to see that in similar circumstances Mercedes allowed it's pilot to fight. And proof stands the fact that Rosberg actually won. But I suspect the reason they keep Bottas now is that he is close to that level where he helps the team enough in the constrictor's championship without creating too much internal fight. He's not good enough to fight for the title and nice enough to just get out of the way when other teams get close. He's close to the perfect no. 2 driver.

[Nitrodaze]

I can understand team orders in the context of a fight with another team. I didn't get it when the team didn't really have much to win from them, just for the sake of favoring one driver. MS would have beaten Barichello anyway in the long run. What was the point? It was nice to see that in similar circumstances Mercedes allowed it's pilot to fight. And proof stands the fact that Rosberg actually won. But I suspect the reason they keep Bottas now is that he is close to that level where he helps the team enough in the constrictor's championship without creating too much internal fight. He's not good enough to fight for the title and nice enough to just get out of the way when other teams get close. He's close to the perfect no. 2 driver.

I think Bottas is abit like Hakkinen. If he can get on top of his inconsistent performance, he is good enough to win championships. I think he may do, if given the chance to complete his maturity as Hakkinen did in the end for Mclaren. Unlike Hakkinen, he has a tougher mountain to climb, in that he must beat Hamilton to be world champion while Hamilton is still in Mercedes. If he does that, he would have instant credibility of the same status as Rosberg before him. But can he?

If he is still around when Hamilton retires, l would bet that would be his very best chance to knick at least one world championship. That would also depend on how quickly, his new team mate can ramp up in the their first season. If paired with a young racer like Russell, then he would most likely get a good run for his money.