Lewis Hamilton (Vol. 2)

[sparta6]

Muzzer79 said:

sparta6 said:

Muzzer79 said:

Statistics are in no way the only measure, but they are a factor, otherwise we only have subjective information to work from.

Would we consider Fangio as much of a great if he hadn’t won 5 world titles? His 5 titles may be worth more than 5 titles now, but they are still a measure.

My point is that if (and it’s a big if) Hamilton beats all records in the sport and you don’t consider him in the pantheon of greats, then that is to ignore an indicator of greatness. It doesn’t automatically mean he’s the greatest or better than another great driver, but it means he should be considered.

Stirling Moss: a greater talent than Sebastian Vettel.

I agree:

Muzzer79 said:

Statistics are in no way the only measure

My point is that statistics are evidence of greatness. It's possible to be great with weaker stats, but I don't think it's right to not consider the (soon-to-be) most successful driver in the sport amongst the greats.

Greatest results with the greatest ever team.

No doubt about it.

[kiseca]

Of course there's doubt about it.

1) His current team mate has only managed to finish 2nd in the championship once.
2) For two years Ferrari had a car considered equal to or better than the Mercedes and speculation that Lewis would have been the difference between them winning and losing in at least one of them.
3) The drivers are a part of that great team, not separate to it. If the team is great, so is the driver, unless you think he's a weak link.

[Muzzer79]

sparta6 said:

Muzzer79 said:

sparta6 said:

Muzzer79 said:

Statistics are in no way the only measure, but they are a factor, otherwise we only have subjective information to work from.

Would we consider Fangio as much of a great if he hadn’t won 5 world titles? His 5 titles may be worth more than 5 titles now, but they are still a measure.

My point is that if (and it’s a big if) Hamilton beats all records in the sport and you don’t consider him in the pantheon of greats, then that is to ignore an indicator of greatness. It doesn’t automatically mean he’s the greatest or better than another great driver, but it means he should be considered.

Stirling Moss: a greater talent than Sebastian Vettel.

I agree:

Muzzer79 said:

Statistics are in no way the only measure

My point is that statistics are evidence of greatness. It's possible to be great with weaker stats, but I don't think it's right to not consider the (soon-to-be) most successful driver in the sport amongst the greats.

Greatest results with the greatest ever team.

No doubt about it.

That's right, just like Schumacher at Ferrari, Senna at McLaren and Stewart at Tyrell to name but three.

[Gazzab]

Seems for many it’s about the man not his driving records. He can be a little annoying at times but wow what a driver, what a record etc. I’ll miss him when he is retired.

[sparta6]

Muzzer79 said:

sparta6 said:

Muzzer79 said:

sparta6 said:

Muzzer79 said:

Statistics are in no way the only measure, but they are a factor, otherwise we only have subjective information to work from.

Would we consider Fangio as much of a great if he hadn’t won 5 world titles? His 5 titles may be worth more than 5 titles now, but they are still a measure.

My point is that if (and it’s a big if) Hamilton beats all records in the sport and you don’t consider him in the pantheon of greats, then that is to ignore an indicator of greatness. It doesn’t automatically mean he’s the greatest or better than another great driver, but it means he should be considered.

Stirling Moss: a greater talent than Sebastian Vettel.

I agree:

Muzzer79 said:

Statistics are in no way the only measure

My point is that statistics are evidence of greatness. It's possible to be great with weaker stats, but I don't think it's right to not consider the (soon-to-be) most successful driver in the sport amongst the greats.

Greatest results with the greatest ever team.

No doubt about it.

That's right, just like Schumacher at Ferrari, Senna at McLaren and Stewart at Tyrell to name but three.

The difference is MSC still managed to deliver spellbinding results in a team that was only dominant in 4 years of his tenure.

Had a sniff in 1999 with a car that was running at a deficit.
2000 was an even and straight fight with Mika.

The FIA intervened for 2005. Quite right too.

[RB Will]

On a slight tangent, with yesterday's win making it 9 now does this make Max the most successful driver ever with the least competitive car? That is a higher tally than Bottas who has had access to the best car and team on the grid for the last 4 years. It equals Webber from the Red bull dominant years.

[paulguitar]

RB Will said:

On a slight tangent, with yesterday's win making it 9 now does this make Max the most successful driver ever with the least competitive car? That is a higher tally than Bottas who has had access to the best car and team on the grid for the last 4 years. It equals Webber from the Red bull dominant years.

Max had the best car yesterday, in the conditions.

[sparta6]

paulguitar said:

RB Will said:

On a slight tangent, with yesterday's win making it 9 now does this make Max the most successful driver ever with the least competitive car? That is a higher tally than Bottas who has had access to the best car and team on the grid for the last 4 years. It equals Webber from the Red bull dominant years.

Max had the best car yesterday, in the conditions.

Max certainly had the best tyres.
But even with DRS the Mercs still pulled away from him on the straights.

Merc engine is in another formula.

[WickerBill]

sparta6 said:

paulguitar said:

RB Will said:

On a slight tangent, with yesterday's win making it 9 now does this make Max the most successful driver ever with the least competitive car? That is a higher tally than Bottas who has had access to the best car and team on the grid for the last 4 years. It equals Webber from the Red bull dominant years.

Max had the best car yesterday, in the conditions.

Max certainly had the best tyres.
But even with DRS the Mercs still pulled away from him on the straights.

Merc engine is in another formula.

Max had exactly the same tyres as everyone else.....

Theres no point in having the best power unit, best chassis or most downforce if you cant translate it through the tyres into performance on track.

You can have as much power and straightline speed as you want, but if you cant get around the corners like mercedes yesterday, then you wont win

As pointed out above, Max had the best car in the conditions yesterday.

[HustleRussell]

sparta6 said:

Merc engine is in another formula.

It very definitely isn't, because the formula is described by the technical and sporting regs, and they are the same for every team.

[M5-911]

sparta6 said:

The difference is MSC still managed to deliver spellbinding results in a team that was only dominant in 4 years of his tenure.

Had a sniff in 1999 with a car that was running at a deficit.
2000 was an even and straight fight with Mika.

The FIA intervened for 2005. Quite right too.

Don't forget that MSC, had 19 wins before joining Ferrari, and all of that with a dominant Benetton and traction control...
Hamilton had 20 wins before joining Mercedes and that was never done with a dominant car like the Benetton was.

[sparta6]

M5-911 said:

sparta6 said:

The difference is MSC still managed to deliver spellbinding results in a team that was only dominant in 4 years of his tenure.

Had a sniff in 1999 with a car that was running at a deficit.
2000 was an even and straight fight with Mika.

The FIA intervened for 2005. Quite right too.

Don't forget that MSC, had 19 wins before joining Ferrari, and all of that with a dominant Benetton and traction control...
Hamilton had 20 wins before joining Mercedes and that was never done with a dominant car like the Benetton was.

Ahem...allegedly. FIA also suspected other teams of running TC but couldn't prove who were using what modes.

Williams was the dominant car, and then McLaren, until 2001.

[sparta6]

HustleRussell said:

sparta6 said:

Merc engine is in another formula.

It very definitely isn't, because the formula is described by the technical and sporting regs, and they are the same for every team.

Correct. I should have included "may aswell be" .

[crankedup]

It’s been an interesting read through most of this thread, and of course opinions will always differ.
Which for me is why I now enjoy Moto GP. in this we have multiple World Champion in Marques, and yet his race bike is almost unridable by any other GP rider, certainly to success. That for me is the mark of a genuine genius talent.
Formula 1 stick any of the current crop of drivers in the best car and they should deliver a podium.

[kiseca]

sparta6 said:

M5-911 said:

sparta6 said:

The difference is MSC still managed to deliver spellbinding results in a team that was only dominant in 4 years of his tenure.

Had a sniff in 1999 with a car that was running at a deficit.
2000 was an even and straight fight with Mika.

The FIA intervened for 2005. Quite right too.

Don't forget that MSC, had 19 wins before joining Ferrari, and all of that with a dominant Benetton and traction control...
Hamilton had 20 wins before joining Mercedes and that was never done with a dominant car like the Benetton was.

Ahem...allegedly. FIA also suspected other teams of running TC but couldn't prove who were using what modes.

Williams was the dominant car, and then McLaren, until 2001.

The Williams in 1994 wasn't dominant. The Benetton was the better car. Even Senna kept falling off the circuit trying to keep that Williams ahead of the Benetton. And in 1999 Ferrari won the constructors championship despite their "makes-a-difference-unlike-Lewis" driver missing nearly half the season with a broken leg.

[Muzzer79]

RB Will said:

On a slight tangent, with yesterday's win making it 9 now does this make Max the most successful driver ever with the least competitive car? That is a higher tally than Bottas who has had access to the best car and team on the grid for the last 4 years. It equals Webber from the Red bull dominant years.

Odd question

Do you mean who has won the most races when they haven't had a dominant car?

Max has had 4 seasons in the Red Bull.

Raikkonen won 9 races in 2003-2005 inclusive (3 seasons)

Schumacher himself won 16 races in 1996-1999 and sat out 6 races in '99 when he broke his leg (4 seasons)

Senna won 8 races in just 2 seasons against the dominant Williams-Renaults in 1992-1993.

[sparta6]

kiseca said:

sparta6 said:

M5-911 said:

sparta6 said:

The difference is MSC still managed to deliver spellbinding results in a team that was only dominant in 4 years of his tenure.

Had a sniff in 1999 with a car that was running at a deficit.
2000 was an even and straight fight with Mika.

The FIA intervened for 2005. Quite right too.

Don't forget that MSC, had 19 wins before joining Ferrari, and all of that with a dominant Benetton and traction control...
Hamilton had 20 wins before joining Mercedes and that was never done with a dominant car like the Benetton was.

Ahem...allegedly. FIA also suspected other teams of running TC but couldn't prove who were using what modes.

Williams was the dominant car, and then McLaren, until 2001.

The Williams in 1994 wasn't dominant. The Benetton was the better car. Even Senna kept falling off the circuit trying to keep that Williams ahead of the Benetton. And in 1999 Ferrari won the constructors championship despite their "makes-a-difference-unlike-Lewis" driver missing nearly half the season with a broken leg.

Yes in the hands of MSC the Benetton was a contender in '94.

Yes in '99 MSC was helping out Salo on the phone and Irvine once back in the saddle to max out their points.

A proper team player

[CustardOnChips]

RB Will said:

On a slight tangent, with yesterday's win making it 9 now does this make Max the most successful driver ever with the least competitive car? That is a higher tally than Bottas who has had access to the best car and team on the grid for the last 4 years. It equals Webber from the Red bull dominant years.

Aren't the Alfas the least competitive cars this year? And Williams for a number of years prior!

[kiseca]

sparta6 said:

Yes in the hands of MSC the Benetton was a contender in '94.

Yes in '99 MSC was helping out Salo on the phone and Irvine once back in the saddle to max out their points.

A proper team player

oh my god

Congratulations sparta you just hit expert level trolling

[sparta6]

kiseca said:

sparta6 said:

Yes in the hands of MSC the Benetton was a contender in '94.

Yes in '99 MSC was helping out Salo on the phone and Irvine once back in the saddle to max out their points.

A proper team player

oh my god

Congratulations sparta you just hit expert level trolling

FIA did not find Benetton guilty of using TC, or any other team it suspected of TC infringement for that matter.

A year later the FIA did find McLaren guilty of using an illegal gearbox, but strangely no punishment IIRC.