Lewis Hamilton Vs Michael Schumacher - Who Is Better?
Discussion
NewUsername said:
HustleRussell said:
In my view, McLaren Honda is just the most recent example of a business relationship which toxic Fernando has destroyed from the inside out. He has consistently shown himself to be extremely self-absorbed and tactless even by racing driver standards and even by the standards of other famously self-centered World Champions.
I am not claiming he was the only element which guaranteed its failure, but doesn't the team appear to be so much healthier in every aspect since Fernando has gone?
I fully appreciate that Alonso is a formidable racing driver, however during his final stint at McLaren I just got increasingly sick of hearing from him and increasingly fed up of how Zak Brown allowed him to take precedence over the team. I was willing Zak Brown or Honda to take the initiative and put manners on him but based on appearances they never did.
It is a very rare instance that I miss Fernando Alonso in the slightest.
Seeing McLaren going about their business these days is a bit like watching a good friend gradually getting their mojo back after escaping an abusive relationship.
You really have no idea about F1 if you think that failed because of a frustrated driver.I am not claiming he was the only element which guaranteed its failure, but doesn't the team appear to be so much healthier in every aspect since Fernando has gone?
I fully appreciate that Alonso is a formidable racing driver, however during his final stint at McLaren I just got increasingly sick of hearing from him and increasingly fed up of how Zak Brown allowed him to take precedence over the team. I was willing Zak Brown or Honda to take the initiative and put manners on him but based on appearances they never did.
It is a very rare instance that I miss Fernando Alonso in the slightest.
Seeing McLaren going about their business these days is a bit like watching a good friend gradually getting their mojo back after escaping an abusive relationship.
HustleRussell said:
NewUsername said:
HustleRussell said:
In my view, McLaren Honda is just the most recent example of a business relationship which toxic Fernando has destroyed from the inside out. He has consistently shown himself to be extremely self-absorbed and tactless even by racing driver standards and even by the standards of other famously self-centered World Champions.
I am not claiming he was the only element which guaranteed its failure, but doesn't the team appear to be so much healthier in every aspect since Fernando has gone?
I fully appreciate that Alonso is a formidable racing driver, however during his final stint at McLaren I just got increasingly sick of hearing from him and increasingly fed up of how Zak Brown allowed him to take precedence over the team. I was willing Zak Brown or Honda to take the initiative and put manners on him but based on appearances they never did.
It is a very rare instance that I miss Fernando Alonso in the slightest.
Seeing McLaren going about their business these days is a bit like watching a good friend gradually getting their mojo back after escaping an abusive relationship.
You really have no idea about F1 if you think that failed because of a frustrated driver.I am not claiming he was the only element which guaranteed its failure, but doesn't the team appear to be so much healthier in every aspect since Fernando has gone?
I fully appreciate that Alonso is a formidable racing driver, however during his final stint at McLaren I just got increasingly sick of hearing from him and increasingly fed up of how Zak Brown allowed him to take precedence over the team. I was willing Zak Brown or Honda to take the initiative and put manners on him but based on appearances they never did.
It is a very rare instance that I miss Fernando Alonso in the slightest.
Seeing McLaren going about their business these days is a bit like watching a good friend gradually getting their mojo back after escaping an abusive relationship.
TobyTR said:
HustleRussell said:
ntiz said:
I don’t think drivers have all that much input to car development anymore. They are so complicated all they can tell them is about the balance I guess. Then it’s up to the engineers to work it out.
I don’t think that’s the case at all. The teams have three or four drivers in and out of the simulator on a pretty continuous basis. On top of all the usual mechanical and aerodynamic stuff they have to figure out how best to deploy the electrical power over the lap, mode utilisation and probably a million and one other things.imo, Lewis obviously doesn't resort to ramming into teammates ala Senna & Schumacher, and is the best driver on the current grid, but Schumacher shown more flashes of brilliance in less dominant cars during a shorter period, and showed signs of being a better all-round driver. Ross Brawn's many anecdotes of him offering solutions to team strategy calmly and totally unflustered while setting fastest laps is an example of this, and he very rarely had an off-day on Sundays. He was also other-worldy fast during in-laps and out-laps.
kiseca said:
This gets my vote. Schumacher's level of commitment was unprecedented for his era, for things like testing, development, time at the factory, personal fitness. That was one of the things he changed about the sport. And all of those things made him a better driver. Then there's what others have said about him. Ross Brawn's anecdotes as mentioned above but also the words of team mates who have no doubt about his pace. In my opinion he was the most complete driver we've ever seen. No idea whether Hamilton would challenge him or not and no doubt Hamilton is a great, but he's never struck me as so far above the rest as Schumacher did, and many of the things that Schumacher was built to make the most of have changed. Hamilton doesn't need the same strengths, or the same commitment.
its interesting isn't it.......Schumacher was above the rest, in a large part because of his commitment and attention to detail.
...thing is, in 2019, everyone has that attention to detail and commitment, so its much harder to stand head and shoulders above the rest because everything is analysed to the nth degree.
...does that mean that Hamilton is actually better because, despite the micro analysis and preparation of the modern sport, he can still stand above the rest, and given everyone now has the same approach would Schumacher be bested by others using the same approach.
I think if you look at any point in the sport, the greats are those who have massive talent but have also taken a better approach than others. Jim Clark, Nikki Lauda, Prost, Senna, Schumacher and now Hamilton....but its now getting harder and harder to make a massive difference with diminishing returns
37chevy said:
its interesting isn't it....
...Schumacher was above the rest, in a large part because of his commitment and attention to detail.
...thing is, in 2019, everyone has that attention to detail and commitment, so its much harder to stand head and shoulders above the rest because everything is analysed to the nth degree.
...does that mean that Hamilton is actually better because, despite the micro analysis and preparation of the modern sport, he can still stand above the rest, and given everyone now has the same approach would Schumacher be bested by others using the same approach.
I think if you look at any point in the sport, the greats are those who have massive talent but have also taken a better approach than others. Jim Clark, Nikki Lauda, Prost, Senna, Schumacher and now Hamilton....but its now getting harder and harder to make a massive difference with diminishing returns
Schumacher was among those who professionalised the sport from a maximizing every sporting opportunity, attention to detail and physical fitness perspective....Schumacher was above the rest, in a large part because of his commitment and attention to detail.
...thing is, in 2019, everyone has that attention to detail and commitment, so its much harder to stand head and shoulders above the rest because everything is analysed to the nth degree.
...does that mean that Hamilton is actually better because, despite the micro analysis and preparation of the modern sport, he can still stand above the rest, and given everyone now has the same approach would Schumacher be bested by others using the same approach.
I think if you look at any point in the sport, the greats are those who have massive talent but have also taken a better approach than others. Jim Clark, Nikki Lauda, Prost, Senna, Schumacher and now Hamilton....but its now getting harder and harder to make a massive difference with diminishing returns
Perhaps the Mercedes era marks the wholesome, holistic, warm and fuzzy 'mindfulness' revolution- empowering people to be innovative and decisive, the end of blame culture, the "how does that make you feel" movement.
The more I hear from Mercedes the more I think Ferrari could traditionally do with a bit of that.
ChocolateFrog said:
I'll wait until Hamilton is retired.
Can see him equalling MS's WDC's and breaking a whole load of other records. He'll almost certainly get a 100+ pole positions, may even get 100+ wins before he's finished.
But how many more GPs are there now in a season compared to MSC's era?Can see him equalling MS's WDC's and breaking a whole load of other records. He'll almost certainly get a 100+ pole positions, may even get 100+ wins before he's finished.
And how many mechanical DNFs have they suffered?
HustleRussell said:
Schumacher was among those who professionalised the sport from a maximizing every sporting opportunity***, attention to detail and physical fitness perspective.
Perhaps the Mercedes era marks the wholesome, holistic, warm and fuzzy 'mindfulness' revolution- empowering people to be innovative and decisive, the end of blame culture, the "how does that make you feel" movement.
The more I hear from Mercedes the more I think Ferrari could traditionally do with a bit of that.
and maximizing every unsporting opportunity too***Perhaps the Mercedes era marks the wholesome, holistic, warm and fuzzy 'mindfulness' revolution- empowering people to be innovative and decisive, the end of blame culture, the "how does that make you feel" movement.
The more I hear from Mercedes the more I think Ferrari could traditionally do with a bit of that.
I agree that Ferrari need to swap some of their hierarchy of respect/fear culture with modern ways. In many flourishing big businesses the same culture as Mercedes is starting to win through and is proving results. The way it was explained to me was: Imagine a wall that keeps getting graffiti-ed because some people have zero respect for where they live. How do we fix that? We could put up an abrupt sign threatening prosecution to help put people off, and we could have the police keep a very close eye on the wall. But.. wouldn't it be amazing if we could understand the vandals, develop a shared respect and one day have a town that is looked after by all residents?
Ten years ago that would have seemed a pipe-dream, and it still does in terms of the 'perfect' town. But a company can control and promote a shared culture very effectively so long as they understand what their staff really care about and can ensure they're all proud and take ownership of their individual roles. If you're going to pay someone to do a job, then it's clearly a job that's important enough to need doing - hence, there is always a way to make that person feel proud, appreciated and valued. And if even 90% of your staff feel that way, the overall impact on the joint end result will be significant. In addition, it makes other policies such as 'zero blame' possible to implement - if all of your staff trust and respect you, they will believe you when you say they won't be blamed for reporting their own mistakes - and they will do for the most part, because they're proud of their work and want to improve it and not let their fellow employees down.
I never thought a few years ago I'd be a fan of such warm and fuzzy corporate policy! But I run a business, and in the end I will pay attention to anything that can make it more successful. I'm totally confused as to why the modern Ferrari can't see the same benefits - not least when the TP that keeps defeating them explains the value of modern work place culture every time he is asked how they keep winning.
Schumacher was an absolute genius, regarding feel, and performance of a car. He was someone who could, and did, give a technically detailed and accurate commentary, on exactly what was happening, regarding different components, in the middle of a corner / complex whilst ( with a few notable exceptions ) a more ‘normal’ driver would be 100 percent occupied with getting the car through the corner / complex, and may report what had occurred afterwards. He would also spend hours with engineers and technicians, talking through, and sorting any technical issues / difficulties. He was a very important component in turning a ( relatively) ‘meh’ car, into an untouchable class of the field car, and he played the long game, in making sure he helped do just that. He was very highly regarded by (pretty much) the entirety of any team he raced for. He really was a once in a blue moon type of driver, there were very few before him, and nothing even close, since.
GOATever said:
Schumacher was an absolute genius, regarding feel, and performance of a car. He was someone who could, and did, give a technically detailed and accurate commentary, on exactly what was happening, regarding different components, in the middle of a corner / complex whilst ( with a few notable exceptions ) a more ‘normal’ driver would be 100 percent occupied with getting the car through the corner / complex, and may report what had occurred afterwards. He would also spend hours with engineers and technicians, talking through, and sorting any technical issues / difficulties. He was a very important component in turning a ( relatively) ‘meh’ car, into an untouchable class of the field car, and he played the long game, in making sure he helped do just that. He was very highly regarded by (pretty much) the entirety of any team he raced for. He really was a once in a blue moon type of driver, there were very few before him, and nothing even close, since.
Nothing even close since? I think the difference between the very best and worst F1 drivers has always been pretty slim in real terms. I completely disagree no-one has even come 'close' to Shumacher.37chevy said:
kiseca said:
This gets my vote. Schumacher's level of commitment was unprecedented for his era, for things like testing, development, time at the factory, personal fitness. That was one of the things he changed about the sport. And all of those things made him a better driver. Then there's what others have said about him. Ross Brawn's anecdotes as mentioned above but also the words of team mates who have no doubt about his pace. In my opinion he was the most complete driver we've ever seen. No idea whether Hamilton would challenge him or not and no doubt Hamilton is a great, but he's never struck me as so far above the rest as Schumacher did, and many of the things that Schumacher was built to make the most of have changed. Hamilton doesn't need the same strengths, or the same commitment.
its interesting isn't it.......Schumacher was above the rest, in a large part because of his commitment and attention to detail.
...thing is, in 2019, everyone has that attention to detail and commitment, so its much harder to stand head and shoulders above the rest because everything is analysed to the nth degree.
...does that mean that Hamilton is actually better because, despite the micro analysis and preparation of the modern sport, he can still stand above the rest, and given everyone now has the same approach would Schumacher be bested by others using the same approach.
I think if you look at any point in the sport, the greats are those who have massive talent but have also taken a better approach than others. Jim Clark, Nikki Lauda, Prost, Senna, Schumacher and now Hamilton....but its now getting harder and harder to make a massive difference with diminishing returns
TheDeuce said:
GOATever said:
Schumacher was an absolute genius, regarding feel, and performance of a car. He was someone who could, and did, give a technically detailed and accurate commentary, on exactly what was happening, regarding different components, in the middle of a corner / complex whilst ( with a few notable exceptions ) a more ‘normal’ driver would be 100 percent occupied with getting the car through the corner / complex, and may report what had occurred afterwards. He would also spend hours with engineers and technicians, talking through, and sorting any technical issues / difficulties. He was a very important component in turning a ( relatively) ‘meh’ car, into an untouchable class of the field car, and he played the long game, in making sure he helped do just that. He was very highly regarded by (pretty much) the entirety of any team he raced for. He really was a once in a blue moon type of driver, there were very few before him, and nothing even close, since.
Nothing even close since? I think the difference between the very best and worst F1 drivers has always been pretty slim in real terms. I completely disagree no-one has even come 'close' to Shumacher.oyster said:
ChocolateFrog said:
I'll wait until Hamilton is retired.
Can see him equalling MS's WDC's and breaking a whole load of other records. He'll almost certainly get a 100+ pole positions, may even get 100+ wins before he's finished.
But how many more GPs are there now in a season compared to MSC's era?Can see him equalling MS's WDC's and breaking a whole load of other records. He'll almost certainly get a 100+ pole positions, may even get 100+ wins before he's finished.
And how many mechanical DNFs have they suffered?
kiseca said:
I do think that two of Schumacher's key strengths - his commitment to testing and his ability to run at maximum pace for lap after lap - were nullified by the rules when he made his comeback and still would be now. Can't say if he'd do better than Hamilton now, or if Hamilton would do better than him in his era of course. Just, rated against his peers, Hamilton seems fractions ahead but in enough areas to make him dominant. Schumacher seemed miles ahead. Many say that's because he didn't have much competition.... I wonder if he was just so good he made everyone else look ordinary. Much more likely to have 1 standout talent than 20 below par ones for 10 odd years.
Yup, that's basically what Jenson Button said. And we know how good JB was... but Schumacher haters will argue he had no competition and a weaker field - lets forget he beat a prime Mika Hakinen fairly (in an epic title fight) with no controversy in 2000 
TobyTR said:
Yup, that's basically what Jenson Button said. And we know how good JB was... but Schumacher haters will argue he had no competition and a weaker field - lets forget he beat a prime Mika Hakinen fairly (in an epic title fight) with no controversy in 2000
Well let’s be fair, the field was weaker back in schumachers day. The field spread in terms of driver ability/ preparation was much greater....BUT the top half dozen drivers were as strong back then as they are now......you’re right about mika in 2000....but then there’s 94,97, team orders etc etc etc that go against him
Shuey was also not great at testing, his feedback was bland and rather than solve an issue or work a better setup he’d just drive round problems with massive speed. Huge natural talent but an engineers nightmare sometimes. A lot of his testing was for confidence/ego to convince himself he was still quick.
As for setting the standard in physical and technical preparation and driving a team forward, have a read about Mansells return to Williams in 1991, his stipulated terms and how he prepared for 1992.
Shuey was very good no doubt but I’d say 94,97 and countless team orders take the shine off it for me, especially once you start to get into details of his testing ( listen to interviews with John Barnard and Eddie Irvine)
As for setting the standard in physical and technical preparation and driving a team forward, have a read about Mansells return to Williams in 1991, his stipulated terms and how he prepared for 1992.
Shuey was very good no doubt but I’d say 94,97 and countless team orders take the shine off it for me, especially once you start to get into details of his testing ( listen to interviews with John Barnard and Eddie Irvine)
37chevy said:
oyster said:
ChocolateFrog said:
I'll wait until Hamilton is retired.
Can see him equalling MS's WDC's and breaking a whole load of other records. He'll almost certainly get a 100+ pole positions, may even get 100+ wins before he's finished.
But how many more GPs are there now in a season compared to MSC's era?Can see him equalling MS's WDC's and breaking a whole load of other records. He'll almost certainly get a 100+ pole positions, may even get 100+ wins before he's finished.
And how many mechanical DNFs have they suffered?
Whatever the differences between era's, surely all that matters is they beat the rest of the field and how many times they managed that. Then sadly we do have the additional consideration of how much help Shumi had, which does definitely complicate the comparison for me.
37chevy said:
TobyTR said:
Yup, that's basically what Jenson Button said. And we know how good JB was... but Schumacher haters will argue he had no competition and a weaker field - lets forget he beat a prime Mika Hakinen fairly (in an epic title fight) with no controversy in 2000
Well let’s be fair, the field was weaker back in schumachers day. The field spread in terms of driver ability/ preparation was much greater....BUT the top half dozen drivers were as strong back then as they are now......you’re right about mika in 2000....but then there’s 94,97, team orders etc etc etc that go against him
his dirty tactics discount his character, but not his all-round ability - that's why he was able to take that 1997 Ferrari to a title-decider in the final race that year. It would've been like Hamilton achieving the same feat in the 2009 McLaren.
NewUsername said:
Shuey was also not great at testing, his feedback was bland and rather than solve an issue or work a better setup he’d just drive round problems with massive speed. Huge natural talent but an engineers nightmare sometimes. A lot of his testing was for confidence/ego to convince himself he was still quick.
As for setting the standard in physical and technical preparation and driving a team forward, have a read about Mansells return to Williams in 1991, his stipulated terms and how he prepared for 1992.
Shuey was very good no doubt but I’d say 94,97 and countless team orders take the shine off it for me, especially once you start to get into details of his testing ( listen to interviews with John Barnard and Eddie Irvine)
Ross Brawn, Jean Todt, Rory Byrne, Felipe Massa and Briatore have said the opposite.As for setting the standard in physical and technical preparation and driving a team forward, have a read about Mansells return to Williams in 1991, his stipulated terms and how he prepared for 1992.
Shuey was very good no doubt but I’d say 94,97 and countless team orders take the shine off it for me, especially once you start to get into details of his testing ( listen to interviews with John Barnard and Eddie Irvine)
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff