Lewis Hamilton Vs Michael Schumacher - Who Is Better?

[angrymoby]

TobyTR said:

A combination of sour grapes and some substance to be fair. But Schumacher was a level ahead of those teammates undoubtedly, it wasn't even close. Irvine, Massa and Brundle didn't have much problems with him.

And out of those teammates you've listed for Hamilton, only Kovalainen had a trouble-free harmonious time with Lewis, although you can also include Bottas in that currently too.

not interested in "trouble-free" or "harmonious" ...they're not there to be best buddies, so cite examples of what they feel was preferential treatment towards Lewis (in their actual words- & not your interpretation)

[TobyTR]

angrymoby said:

quotes on the F310B are scant ...post them up

& straw man argument- find where i stated it as a title contender

& i don't have to 'think' about if i've made that up, I 'KNOW' i haven't

Edited by angrymoby on Wednesday 30th October 12:19

1. Please don't try and compare 2017 Mercedes factory team works engine with a customer engine in the Force India; that's plain stupid and ignorant. The Renault RS9 in the WIlliams and Benetton were identical factory works engines.

2. Coulthard finished 4th and Irvine 7th with a 12-point difference in old money when points were dished out 10-6-4-3-2-1. What point are you trying to make? That it was close? I notice you didn't comment on the points table breakdown between the teammates, so i'll post it again for you... And Schumacher outscored his teammate by 3.2x....

Ferrari: Schumacher 78pts Irvine 24pts
McLaren: Coulthard 36pts, Hakkinen 27pts
Benetton: Alesi 36pts, Berger 27pts (Berger even missed 3 races through illness and still had more points than Irvine lol)

anything to add on that?

3. So if you're not trying to say the '97 Ferrari was legitimate title contender, what are you trying to argue exactly? You're going around in circles.

In '96 Schumacher had 4 poles with the F310, in '97 he had 3 poles with the F310B. Not exactly much of an improvement. Your quote that the F310B was "very fast and reliable" doesn't stack up much. More reliable, yes. But not very fast given the other competition. In Monza that year they qualified 9th and 10th. Says it all.

Talking of qualifying pace here are some stats for you:
1996 Ferrari F310
Schumacher average grid position: 2.625 (4 pole positions)
Irvine average grid position: 7.875 (0 pole positions)

1997 Ferrari F310B
Schumacher average grid position: 3.64 (3 pole positions)
Irvine average grid position: 9.35 (0 pole positions)

The '97 car performed worse in qualifying. Whether you like him or not (and you clearly don't), that sums up how great Schumacher was in inferior machinery.

Next you'll be telling all on here how the '96 Ferrari was actually rather fast...

Edited by TobyTR on Wednesday 30th October 23:07

[angrymoby]

TobyTR said:

1. Please don't try and compare 2017 Mercedes factory team works engine with a customer engine in the Force India; that's plain stupid and ignorant. The Renault RS9 in the WIlliams and Benetton were identical factory works engines.

you best have a word with Toto & the FIA then ...he denied any difference last year after FIA intervention/ clarification last year

proof in the pudding is how Racing Point & Williams have fared since that clarification?

TobyTR said:

2. Coulthard finished 4th and Irvine 7th with a 12-point difference in old money when points were dished out 10-6-4-3-2-1. What point are you trying to make? That it was close? I notice you didn't comment on the points table breakdown between the teammates, so i'll post it again for you... And Schumacher outscored his teammate by 3.2x....

Ferrari: Schumacher 78pts Irvine 24pts
McLaren: Coulthard 36pts, Hakkinen 27pts
Benetton: Alesi 36pts, Berger 27pts (Berger even missed 3 races through illness and still had more points than Irvine lol)

anything to add on that?

nope ...everyone knows Schumacher was much better than Eddie, he was a x2 WDC with & 2-3 years more experience & default No.1 status - he did exactly what he should have done & trounced him

TobyTR said:

3. So if you're not trying to say the '97 Ferrari was legitimate title contender, what are you trying to argue exactly? You're going around in circles.

err, the thing i said right from the start ...that it was the 2nd best car

TobyTR said:

In '96 Schumacher had 4 poles with the F310, in '97 he had 3 poles with the F310B. Not exactly much of an improvement. Your quote that the F310B was "very fast and reliable" doesn't stack up much. More reliable, yes. But not very fast given the other competition. In Monza that year they qualified 9th and 10th. Says it all.

Talking of qualifying pace here are some stats for you:
1996 Ferrari F310
Schumacher average grid position: 2.625 (4 pole positions)
Irvine average grid position: 7.875 (0 pole positions)

1997 Ferrari F310B
Schumacher average grid position: 3.64 (3 pole positions)
Irvine average grid position: 9.35 (0 pole positions)

The '97 car performed worse in qualifying.

Michael with the F310B had x3 more poles than everyone else ...bar Villeneuve

to put that into context- the F310/ F310B grabbed x3 more poles than the RBR has this year ...but they weren't very fast cars - riiiiiiiight

the reason the '96 F310 is classed as a poor car is because it was in the main- horrifically unreliable (10 race failures alone)

& the reason you can't find any quotes about the '97 F310B being a poor car, is because it wasn't ...Ferrari fixed it's fragility

again, you do seem to have confused 'fast' with 'best or better'

[TobyTR]

So why did you bring up the 2017 Force India? Of course Toto would say that, but historically customer engines have never been the same as the works engines. Look up Paul Di Resta's comments on his time with Force India customer Merc engines. And why Ron Dennis chose the works factory Honda path over sticking with Mercedes customer engines... lol. Yeah, because Williams are doing so fantastic with that customer Merc engine!... keep digging.

You've conveniently ignored those qualifying averages to try and make out those Ferraris were fast cars. They weren't, as I've already proven. So here you are again in bold.

1996 Ferrari F310
Schumacher average grid position: 2.625 (4 pole positions)
Irvine average grid position: 7.875 (0 pole positions)

1997 Ferrari F310B
Schumacher average grid position: 3.64 (3 pole positions)
Irvine average grid position: 9.35 (0 pole positions)

Berger, Alesi and Hakkinen all had pole positions too. Coulthard won the Australian and Italian grand prix, Hakkinen won the final race of the season. An ageing Gerhard Berger won the German grand prix with pole, fastest lap and race win. Eddie Irvine's best qualy was a 3rd and he didn't win a race. These stats are not the hallmarks of the F310B being "the second-best car that year"..... if it was then Irvine would've been at the very least on par with Coulthard. This isn't going well for you.

You're welcome to counteract those stats to prove it was the second-best car that year, which you haven't done at all so far.

Lets have it right, you hate Schumacher that much that you refuse to acknowledge he dragged those '96 and '97 cars further up the grid than they had any right to be. Here's a tip - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58COy-XoMNs - Autosport ranking all 20 of Schumacher's F1 cars by experts... 2min 16sec F310 "he was a miracle worker in it" and "the 96 and 97 cars were the cars he did his most amazing races in."

Edited by TobyTR on Thursday 31st October 02:49

[angrymoby]

TobyTR said:

So why did you bring up the 2017 Force India? Of course Toto would say that, but historically customer engines have never been the same as the works engines. Look up Paul Di Resta's comments on his time with Force India customer Merc engines. And why Ron Dennis chose the works factory Honda path over sticking with Mercedes customer engines... lol. Yeah, because Williams are doing so fantastic with that customer Merc engine!... keep digging.

ill keep these succinct...

since 2016...

Renault Works Team vs RBR
Renault Works Team vs McL

It's not just the engines

TobyTR said:

You've conveniently ignored those qualifying averages to try and make out those Ferraris were fast cars. They weren't, as I've already proven. So here you are again in bold.

so grabbing x4 & x3 poles a season aren't fast cars? ...so you've proven diddlly squat

but as we know, you don't win races on a Saturday, see below...

TobyTR said:

1996 Ferrari F310
Schumacher average grid position: 2.625 (4 pole positions)
Irvine average grid position: 7.875 (0 pole positions)

1997 Ferrari F310B
Schumacher average grid position: 3.64 (3 pole positions)
Irvine average grid position: 9.35 (0 pole positions)

Berger, Alesi and Hakkinen all had pole positions too. Coulthard won the Australian and Italian grand prix, Hakkinen won the final race of the season. An ageing Gerhard Berger won the German grand prix with pole, fastest lap and race win. Eddie Irvine's best qualy was a 3rd and he didn't win a race. These stats are not the hallmarks of the F310B being "the second-best car that year"..... if it was then Irvine would've been at the very least on par with Coulthard. This isn't going well for you.

again compounding Quali with race pace ...again compounding the F310 with the F310B

TobyTR said:

You're welcome to counteract those stats to prove it was the second-best car that year, which you haven't done at all so far.

maybe only in your head

...everyone else can see, everyone else can see that an F1 car is more than just an engine & everyone else can differentiate between an unreliable car & a reliable car ...& that a fast car doesn't necessarily mean it's a better car, indeed just as a fast driver (see Eddie) doesn't necessarily equate a good driver (also see Grojean)

TobyTR said:

Lets have it right, you hate Schumacher that much that you refuse to acknowledge he dragged those '96 and '97 cars further up the grid than they had any right to be. Here's a tip - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58COy-XoMNs - Autosport ranking all 20 of Schumacher's F1 cars by experts... 2min 16sec F310 "he was a miracle worker in it" and "the 96 and 97 cars were the cars he did his most amazing races in."

another straw man argument ...as a: i've never said that (obv's Schumi was very very good) & b: i've never met the man, hating someone you haven't met is frankly silly

it's just he'd struggle to get into my top 5 (which seemed to also send you into a frothing frenzy in a previous thread)

anyways ...ill leave you to continue to poke holes in your Michael poster

Edited by angrymoby on Thursday 31st October 09:22

[sparta6]

A44RON said:

Careful, you'll get banned from the Lewis Hamilton forum with logical sensible posts like that

I think Schumacher would've still finished runner-up in 1997 if he didn't pull that stunt in the final race, which would've been very very mighty in that year's Ferrari. But Jacques Villeneuve just had the edge in that Williams which was head-and-shoulders above the rest.

Would Lewis have achieved a similar WDC runner-up in equally lesser machinery? Well he didn't in 2009. Or 2010, 2011, 2012 or 2013.

No question Schumacher wouldn't get any sportsman of the year awards, but he did beat Mika in a totally fair fight in 2000 that was close with no controversies and without the custom tyres.

2000 was a superb battle !

[A44RON]

The thing is Angry, if a car doesn't qualify well (consistently in top-4) then it will struggle to win races and championships. That's why title contending cars tend to be very fast. The championship points show both McLarens and Benetton drivers scoring more and qualifying consistently better than Irvine's Ferrari. If it really was the second best car then that wouldn't have happened. When Eddie was given a race-winning car in 98 and 99 he won races. And he was no slouch - he got Jaguar onto the podium twice.

That Autosport vid said what Toby's been saying here and what most of us knew already - that Michael was performing miracles in 1996 & 1997. Whys that hard to accept?

[angrymoby]

A44RON said:

The thing is Angry, if a car doesn't qualify well (consistently in top-4) then it will struggle to win races and championships. That's why title contending cars tend to be very fast. The championship points show both McLarens and Benetton drivers scoring more and qualifying consistently better than Irvine's Ferrari. If it really was the second best car then that wouldn't have happened. When Eddie was given a race-winning car in 98 and 99 he won races. And he was no slouch - he got Jaguar onto the podium twice.

That Autosport vid said what Toby's been saying here and what most of us knew already - that Michael was performing miracles in 1996 & 1997. Whys that hard to accept?

sorry, but you can't perform 'miracles' in a race car ...it's hyperbole & romantic nonsense

you can extract 100% of it's potential, or as close as ...which Michael did- regularly (without question)

Eddie, for probably many reasons- couldn't/ didn't ...but you can't take Eddie's performance in isolation & say it's only 'his' car- that's plain daft

it's as daft as saying that Gasly's performances in the RBR were solely because of the car

[sparta6]

A44RON said:

The thing is Angry, if a car doesn't qualify well (consistently in top-4) then it will struggle to win races and championships. That's why title contending cars tend to be very fast. The championship points show both McLarens and Benetton drivers scoring more and qualifying consistently better than Irvine's Ferrari. If it really was the second best car then that wouldn't have happened. When Eddie was given a race-winning car in 98 and 99 he won races. And he was no slouch - he got Jaguar onto the podium twice.

That Autosport vid said what Toby's been saying here and what most of us knew already - that Michael was performing miracles in 1996 & 1997. Whys that hard to accept?

I think Schumacher and Senna were both guilty of being able to extract 100% from any car

I haven't seen that from another driver since.

[A44RON]

angrymoby said:

sorry, but you can't perform 'miracles' in a race car ...it's hyperbole & romantic nonsense

you can extract 100% of it's potential, or as close as ...which Michael did- regularly (without question)

Eddie, for probably many reasons- couldn't/ didn't ...but you can't take Eddie's performance in isolation & say it's only 'his' car- that's plain daft

it's as daft as saying that Gasly's performances in the RBR were solely because of the car

So you disagree with the Autosport journalists too then? It is possible for a driver to outperform other drivers in better cars, which is what they're saying and many others have said.

The only time recently I can think of that happening was 2012-2013 with Alonso at Ferrari, but in my opinion those cars were more competitive than Schumacher's 96-97 Ferraris

if Ferrari thought Irvine was doing a rubbish job they would've replaced him by 1998.

Irvine's comments on the Ferrari F310: https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/b7ggbg/...

Basically saying Michael drove around the cars problems, and Eddie got closer to Michael's pace a couple of years later when the cars improved.

Edited by A44RON on Thursday 31st October 10:29

[Frimley111R]

Had this convo with the missus last night who is a big Hamilton fan.

IMO Schumacher was better. He seemed to do things in a car that only Senna had (I have been watching since 1980). For example, he'd pull out a set of stunning mid-race laps that no-one else could get near, particularly before a pitstop and he did that drive in the Benetton at Spa with only 5th gear (or something like that) and lost only a small amount of time. IIRC Eddie J was a bit blown away by his first test in an F1 car, sort of 'WTF time did he just do??' It's those sort of moments that stuck in my head as seeing a driver who was one of the greats, one in a generation.

Hamilton is a dynamic and skilled driver but I don't remember him just smashing the opposition into existence or creating those truly 'wow' moments.

[E34-3.2]

Frimley111R said:

Hamilton is a dynamic and skilled driver but I don't remember him just smashing the opposition into existence or creating those truly 'wow' moments.

I do, qualifying Monza 2017, qualifying Budapest 2017(I think), his first season in F1, he match and finished ahead of the current world champion in the same car. Budapest 2019, pressured Verstapen to burned his tyres and ended up doing 20 qualifying laps after His pit stop.
Destroying everybody in Silverstone under the rain and many more!

[paulguitar]

E34-3.2 said:

I do, qualifying Monza 2017, qualifying Budapest 2017(I think), his first season in F1, he match and finished ahead of the current world champion in the same car. Budapest 2019, pressured Verstapen to burned his tyres and ended up doing 20 qualifying laps after His pit stop.
Destroying everybody in Silverstone under the rain and many more!

Yes, there are many, many of those moments from Hamilton.

Allied to a lack of unethical behaviour on the track, it adds up to a mighty legacy.

[vdn]

paulguitar said:

E34-3.2 said:

I do, qualifying Monza 2017, qualifying Budapest 2017(I think), his first season in F1, he match and finished ahead of the current world champion in the same car. Budapest 2019, pressured Verstapen to burned his tyres and ended up doing 20 qualifying laps after His pit stop.
Destroying everybody in Silverstone under the rain and many more!

Yes, there are many, many of those moments from Hamilton.

Allied to a lack of unethical behaviour on the track, it adds up to a mighty legacy.

Silverstone in the wet; he was on another planet.

Plenty of ‘out of this world’ performances as has been said. Looking back brings out the rose tinted specs IMO; hence the good points of MS remembered ... not so much the shockers and stty, un-sportsman like tactics.

[Aids0G]

E34-3.2 said:

Frimley111R said:

Hamilton is a dynamic and skilled driver but I don't remember him just smashing the opposition into existence or creating those truly 'wow' moments.

I do, qualifying Monza 2017, qualifying Budapest 2017(I think), his first season in F1, he match and finished ahead of the current world champion in the same car. Budapest 2019, pressured Verstapen to burned his tyres and ended up doing 20 qualifying laps after His pit stop.
Destroying everybody in Silverstone under the rain and many more!

I was at Monza in 2017 watching that qualifying session and can attest to the fact that Hamilton just looked like he was on another level, even trackside which I think often takes away some of the context of a full lap. Watching the lap back it really was a stunning run, to be over a second quicker than the 2nd place car, awesome.

[sparta6]

E34-3.2 said:

Frimley111R said:

Hamilton is a dynamic and skilled driver but I don't remember him just smashing the opposition into existence or creating those truly 'wow' moments.

I do, qualifying Monza 2017, qualifying Budapest 2017(I think), his first season in F1, he match and finished ahead of the current world champion in the same car. Budapest 2019, pressured Verstapen to burned his tyres and ended up doing 20 qualifying laps after His pit stop.
Destroying everybody in Silverstone under the rain and many more!

In the all-conquering Mercedes

In the McLaren I remember the last lap in Brazil for the WDC, which was a a bit of a gift from Glock

[paulguitar]

sparta6 said:

In the McLaren I remember the last lap in Brazil for the WDC, which was a a bit of a gift from Glock

If you believe that's the case you've completely misunderstood that situation.

[Graveworm]

sparta6 said:

In the all-conquering Mercedes

Ehm Silverstone wasn't in a Mercedes.
I'd add Singapore last year where he beat what the simulators said was possible as far as I know that's never happened before.

[E34-3.2]

sparta6 said:

E34-3.2 said:

Frimley111R said:

Hamilton is a dynamic and skilled driver but I don't remember him just smashing the opposition into existence or creating those truly 'wow' moments.

I do, qualifying Monza 2017, qualifying Budapest 2017(I think), his first season in F1, he match and finished ahead of the current world champion in the same car. Budapest 2019, pressured Verstapen to burned his tyres and ended up doing 20 qualifying laps after His pit stop.
Destroying everybody in Silverstone under the rain and many more!

In the all-conquering Mercedes

In the McLaren I remember the last lap in Brazil for the WDC, which was a a bit of a gift from Glock

I have actually highlighted races and qualifying where the machine wasn't above the others. Monza and Budapest, Ferrari were faster. Butapest, Verstapen had a huge track position advantage so Hamilton made him burned his tyres laps after laps. Alonso, well no need to explain that one...

Add a few more:

Hamilton keeping Verstsapen behind him in Monaco 2019 despite having completely dead tyres. People talk about Senna holding Mansell in Monaco as an amazing performance. Well, Hamilton kept Verstapen, Vettel and Bottas, all in faster cars behind for a lot longer!

Hamilton doing fastest lap of the race on Silverstone last lap on worn tyres. Many f1 racers have taken the risk to please their home crowd like that?

[mattikake]

vdn said:

paulguitar said:

E34-3.2 said:

I do, qualifying Monza 2017, qualifying Budapest 2017(I think), his first season in F1, he match and finished ahead of the current world champion in the same car. Budapest 2019, pressured Verstapen to burned his tyres and ended up doing 20 qualifying laps after His pit stop.
Destroying everybody in Silverstone under the rain and many more!

Yes, there are many, many of those moments from Hamilton.

Allied to a lack of unethical behaviour on the track, it adds up to a mighty legacy.

Silverstone in the wet; he was on another planet.

Plenty of ‘out of this world’ performances as has been said. Looking back brings out the rose tinted specs IMO; hence the good points of MS remembered ... not so much the shockers and stty, un-sportsman like tactics.

You know it's interesting that while his speed can be unmatched, it's Lewis' wheel-to-wheel race craft that gives me the stand out "wow" moments.

Those that immediately come to mind are (and dates may be a bit foggy for an old man);

Malaysia 2009 v Webber's all-conquering RBR and the McLaren that was currently a dog. LH found himself in front and by pure racecraft he managed to hold off a car that was up to 6 seconds a lap faster at this stage of the race by suckering MW into numerous out braking himself moments. They passed and repassed 9 times before MW found himself in an uncompromised corner and got out of range. Not once did LH touch him or push him off.

Malaysia 2010. That race when Hamilton, Massa, Button and Alonso all got caught out in quali and started at the back. LH started behind all of them and in 12 laps he went from 20th to 7th while Massa, Button and Alonso went nowhere.

Bahrain 2015 v Rosberg. Caught out by a SC on the wrong tyres he racecrafted the a$$ out of Rosberg and kept his slower car in front.

Spa 2018 v Vettel. Knowing that SV's Ferrari was faster in a straight line LH went slower on the approach to Eau Rouge so that SV had to lift, compromising his slipstream, keeping LH ahead and winning him the race.

And many many more. Turkey 2006 and 2012 v Button. Malaysia 2013 v Schumi. Britain 2009 v Alonso...

Each time LH made his opponents look intellectually inferior as he beat them into the ground with wits on the track.

Yet... I cannot think of one single moment where Schumacher demonstrated anywhere near the same level of wheel-to-wheel racecraft. Even masters of overtaking racecraft and understanding like Lauda, Keke, Jones, Mansell, Prost haven't shown such intelligence and clinical quick thinking nor with anywhere near the regularity.

IMO Hamilton is literally in a class of one in this respect.