Lewis Hamilton
Discussion
Gad-Westy said:
How can you possibly know that?
The man states it himself if you watch from 2 minhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbKgW-gX7SI
LDN said:
Let me fill you in. He doesn’t. He doesn’t know much.
James Allison on the other hand; he knows a fair bit! He’s just called LH an ‘all time great’ and potentially the best of all time.
But that doesn’t fit Jim’s narrative, so you’ll see a lot of straw clutching.
Watch the clip below.James Allison on the other hand; he knows a fair bit! He’s just called LH an ‘all time great’ and potentially the best of all time.
But that doesn’t fit Jim’s narrative, so you’ll see a lot of straw clutching.
Even Lewis states it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbKgW-gX7SI
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 8th March 20:23
Seen it before. Lewis says he loves the car and it was more dangerous back then... not sure where he says he shat himself 
My question would be; if all modern drivers are so lame and the sport is lost; why do you punish yourself 1. By watching it 2. By witnessing a legend, who you dislike, in the making??
My question would be; if all modern drivers are so lame and the sport is lost; why do you punish yourself 1. By watching it 2. By witnessing a legend, who you dislike, in the making??
I couldn’t say how many I think are on the current grid, but IMO Lewis is one of those who’d welcome gravel traps and manual gear changes back. Not sure any of them would want to cars to be needlessly dangerous, but I doubt many of them would’ve pursued an entirely different career path if they’d been born two or more decades earlier...
E34-3.2 said:
HustleRussell said:
32 year old can’t communicate to a co-worker that he doesn’t like jovial swearing, ‘skulks off’ and tells the boss.
I’ll leave out the discussion on the appropriateness of offering long overdue condolences for somebody you never met in apparently the second conversation the two had, and attempting to offer profound insight about grief when you have presumably never experienced grief on that scale yourself…
I think that article makes me like James Allison more and Lewis Hamilton less (which is a shame, as he has been on a steady upward trend with me for over a year)
Well, J.Allison had the conversation with L.Hamilton and think that he is a lovely guy and great driver. Maybe the way the story has been written doesn't tell you the all story. I’ll leave out the discussion on the appropriateness of offering long overdue condolences for somebody you never met in apparently the second conversation the two had, and attempting to offer profound insight about grief when you have presumably never experienced grief on that scale yourself…
I think that article makes me like James Allison more and Lewis Hamilton less (which is a shame, as he has been on a steady upward trend with me for over a year)
ELUSIVEJIM said:
Gad-Westy said:
How can you possibly know that?
The man states it himself if you watch from 2 minhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbKgW-gX7SI
Without knowing the content all I will say is that I've never understood why we should equate greatness with risk. Greatness should be about speed and winning and the only way to assess that is against your peers, many of whom have also risen to the top of the tree by (like Lewis) beating everyone else on the way to the top.
Without the luxury of a time machine, we have no way of knowing what Lewis or Seb or anyone else would do against past world champs so in all honesty I hate the concept of calling anyone the definitive 'greatest'. But at the same time, dismissing the current batch just because they face different challenges to those of the past is ridiculous. They're still tasked with driving their car faster than anyone else. If we dismiss drivers purely on the level of risk they face, then we'll have to assume that there will never, ever be another true great and we can dismiss the likes of Clark, Senna, Prost, Lauda et al because none of them had it quite as tough as Fangio.
I'm not a LH fan, spoke to him a few times and I'm just not a fan, he is to focused for my liking, but that's what makes him good at what he does, and any one who thinks he's not a good/great driver is simply wrong.
In 15 years time when he is an ambassador for the sport I think he will be a different man, like Jackie S is today loads of time for people, explains things etc. he is, in my experience/opinion just too wound up in performing to have time for people.
I spent many years working for one of the sponsors, seen him at many events and his attitude to fans is not the same as NIko's, but NIko's lack of focus is partly why he has one WC.
My experience of Rossi is similar in the pits on a race weekend he just doesn't see anything but the bike, but you could easily think he just stone walled you as a personal insult.
Trying to look at how sportsmen compare across generations is difficult, but if you look at golf, while there is some but marginal improvements, equipment improvements having largely been accounted for in longer holes, scores today are not significantly better than 30 years ago.
The big area in sport that has seen improvement is stamina, a result of training and professionalism, again an opinion but I believe that the best of any generation would have risen to the top if they had been born in a different time, all be it that the absolute measure of the top may have moved upward.
I thought Barry John was the king as a boy, but he never kicked a conversion from his own half (Keith Jaratt did against England) has record in % terms or kick length wouldn't stand comparison to Johnny Wilkinsons, but if he had the same opportunities of training etc I sure he would be statistically better if born today than he was in 70's.
In 15 years time when he is an ambassador for the sport I think he will be a different man, like Jackie S is today loads of time for people, explains things etc. he is, in my experience/opinion just too wound up in performing to have time for people.
I spent many years working for one of the sponsors, seen him at many events and his attitude to fans is not the same as NIko's, but NIko's lack of focus is partly why he has one WC.
My experience of Rossi is similar in the pits on a race weekend he just doesn't see anything but the bike, but you could easily think he just stone walled you as a personal insult.
Trying to look at how sportsmen compare across generations is difficult, but if you look at golf, while there is some but marginal improvements, equipment improvements having largely been accounted for in longer holes, scores today are not significantly better than 30 years ago.
The big area in sport that has seen improvement is stamina, a result of training and professionalism, again an opinion but I believe that the best of any generation would have risen to the top if they had been born in a different time, all be it that the absolute measure of the top may have moved upward.
I thought Barry John was the king as a boy, but he never kicked a conversion from his own half (Keith Jaratt did against England) has record in % terms or kick length wouldn't stand comparison to Johnny Wilkinsons, but if he had the same opportunities of training etc I sure he would be statistically better if born today than he was in 70's.
Agreed with all of the above. In most cases; anyone that rose to the top would have done so in any generation, as they would have simply applied themselves differently.
As well, older cars were more of a monster to handle, but modern cars, with the 200 steering wheel buttons; button combinations, bias, DRS, the list goes on... are in many ways, harder to drive. It’s one thing getting around a lap in one piece; but to have to maximise every single straight, corner and chicane; with setup in between, is another thing entirely.
I’d say most drivers would prefer the simplicity of the older cars with the safety of the newer cars. That would be a great combo.
I agree with the above also, that risk doesn’t always equal greatness. Success against ones peers equals greatness. I suppose that why Allison has called Hamilton an all time great.
As well, older cars were more of a monster to handle, but modern cars, with the 200 steering wheel buttons; button combinations, bias, DRS, the list goes on... are in many ways, harder to drive. It’s one thing getting around a lap in one piece; but to have to maximise every single straight, corner and chicane; with setup in between, is another thing entirely.
I’d say most drivers would prefer the simplicity of the older cars with the safety of the newer cars. That would be a great combo.
I agree with the above also, that risk doesn’t always equal greatness. Success against ones peers equals greatness. I suppose that why Allison has called Hamilton an all time great.
Gad-Westy said:
Can't watch in an office but will watch later.
Without knowing the content all I will say is that I've never understood why we should equate greatness with risk. Greatness should be about speed and winning and the only way to assess that is against your peers, many of whom have also risen to the top of the tree by (like Lewis) beating everyone else on the way to the top.
Without the luxury of a time machine, we have no way of knowing what Lewis or Seb or anyone else would do against past world champs so in all honesty I hate the concept of calling anyone the definitive 'greatest'. But at the same time, dismissing the current batch just because they face different challenges to those of the past is ridiculous. They're still tasked with driving their car faster than anyone else. If we dismiss drivers purely on the level of risk they face, then we'll have to assume that there will never, ever be another true great and we can dismiss the likes of Clark, Senna, Prost, Lauda et al because none of them had it quite as tough as Fangio.
Drivers in the past could not drive at 100% all the time as the risks were too big. When you have walls, catch fencing, tree's and very little run off area's it makes things totally different. Even a simple gravel trap would stop modern drivers pushing to the limit into a corner as they know they can simply keep going.Without knowing the content all I will say is that I've never understood why we should equate greatness with risk. Greatness should be about speed and winning and the only way to assess that is against your peers, many of whom have also risen to the top of the tree by (like Lewis) beating everyone else on the way to the top.
Without the luxury of a time machine, we have no way of knowing what Lewis or Seb or anyone else would do against past world champs so in all honesty I hate the concept of calling anyone the definitive 'greatest'. But at the same time, dismissing the current batch just because they face different challenges to those of the past is ridiculous. They're still tasked with driving their car faster than anyone else. If we dismiss drivers purely on the level of risk they face, then we'll have to assume that there will never, ever be another true great and we can dismiss the likes of Clark, Senna, Prost, Lauda et al because none of them had it quite as tough as Fangio.
Knowing that any small mistake or mechanical issue in cars which were extremely dangerous takes much more guts "stupidity" to race then these modern health and safety machines. After the death of Senna and Ratzenberger the tracks have been ruined.
The fact you could die due to the above makes pushing yourself and the car to the limit a much more skilled and mentally challenging than modern F1.
It was only pure stupidity that Bianchi died which would make 1994 the last deaths in F1.
Keep the cars being extremely safe but the tracks and the cars need to be more challenging.
With everyone able to drive without any limits it's no wonder modern records are beating the past.
I think greatness is not solely about success, it's also about how you achieve the success that you do.
Also, I really hope that LH doesn't become at all like Stewart in his retirement. Most of all with the trousers, but also the bit about turning into someone who could be a guest at Fawlty Towers.
Also, I really hope that LH doesn't become at all like Stewart in his retirement. Most of all with the trousers, but also the bit about turning into someone who could be a guest at Fawlty Towers.
LDN said:
Seen it before. Lewis says he loves the car and it was more dangerous back then... not sure where he says he shat himself
My question would be; if all modern drivers are so lame and the sport is lost; why do you punish yourself 1. By watching it 2. By witnessing a legend, who you dislike, in the making??
I follow it via the press to see what is going on but my SKY F1 was cancelled in 2016.My question would be; if all modern drivers are so lame and the sport is lost; why do you punish yourself 1. By watching it 2. By witnessing a legend, who you dislike, in the making??
SKY is annoying enough with the sh** presenters.
If C4 show a race then fine but even then after a few laps its more of the same.
Unless your a Hamilton fan it's the same as when Schumacher and Vettel had the best cars on the grid. Look how many of you complained when they were in the best cars.
It will only hurt F1 in the long run.
ELUSIVEJIM said:
Drivers in the past could not drive at 100% all the time as the risks were too big. When you have walls, catch fencing, tree's and very little run off area's it makes things totally different. Even a simple gravel trap would stop modern drivers pushing to the limit into a corner as they know they can simply keep going.
Knowing that any small mistake or mechanical issue in cars which were extremely dangerous takes much more guts "stupidity" to race then these modern health and safety machines. After the death of Senna and Ratzenberger the tracks have been ruined.
The fact you could die due to the above makes pushing yourself and the car to the limit a much more skilled and mentally challenging than modern F1.
It was only pure stupidity that Bianchi died which would make 1994 the last deaths in F1.
Keep the cars being extremely safe but the tracks and the cars need to be more challenging.
With everyone able to drive without any limits it's no wonder modern records are beating the past.
So the sport has changed a lot. Doubt anybody would argue that. But by implication you seem to be suggesting that skill level has been falling as things have got safer. But that totally ignores the fact that you still have to beat the other 20 odd drivers also hungry for success. You can't just dismiss so easily what is still required for success at this level.Knowing that any small mistake or mechanical issue in cars which were extremely dangerous takes much more guts "stupidity" to race then these modern health and safety machines. After the death of Senna and Ratzenberger the tracks have been ruined.
The fact you could die due to the above makes pushing yourself and the car to the limit a much more skilled and mentally challenging than modern F1.
It was only pure stupidity that Bianchi died which would make 1994 the last deaths in F1.
Keep the cars being extremely safe but the tracks and the cars need to be more challenging.
With everyone able to drive without any limits it's no wonder modern records are beating the past.
To flip this on it's head, would Jim Clark have even been able to drive a modern F1 car fast? They're extremely physically demanding. Would his neck muscles take it? Probably not. Does that mean he cannot be considered in the same breath as Schumacher or was he just competing in a different era where what was required for success was different in all but the fact that you still had to beat everyone else?
ELUSIVEJIM said:
I follow it via the press to see what is going on but my SKY F1 was cancelled in 2016.
SKY is annoying enough with the sh** presenters.
If C4 show a race then fine but even then after a few laps its more of the same.
Unless your a Hamilton fan it's the same as when Schumacher and Vettel had the best cars on the grid. Look how many of you complained when they were in the best cars.
It will only hurt F1 in the long run.
I don’t like one car / driver dominance either. But what’s that got to do with Allison saying Hamilton is an all time great? As said before; the grid / industry deem Hamilton one way... but you deem it another. You tried to say that no modern driver would manage in old cars; debunked as just an opinion; and equally, it could be said, previous gen drivers wouldn’t be able to hack it with the amount of things to manage in modern era machines. Neither of which, anyone can be sure of. At a charity kart event; I had a certain F1 presenter tell me that Hamilton is one of the few that would have, in fact, thrived in a bygone era.SKY is annoying enough with the sh** presenters.
If C4 show a race then fine but even then after a few laps its more of the same.
Unless your a Hamilton fan it's the same as when Schumacher and Vettel had the best cars on the grid. Look how many of you complained when they were in the best cars.
It will only hurt F1 in the long run.
Even given the small amounts of F1 you claim to be partaking in; I suggest you don’t torture yourself and give it a wide berth completely.
[quote=Gad-Westy]
So the sport has changed a lot. Doubt anybody would argue that. But by implication you seem to be suggesting that skill level has been falling as things have got safer. But that totally ignores the fact that you still have to beat the other 20 odd drivers also hungry for success. You can't just dismiss so easily what is still required for success at this level.
To flip this on it's head, would Jim Clark have even been able to drive a modern F1 car fast? They're extremely physically demanding. Would his neck muscles take it? Probably not. Does that mean he cannot be considered in the same breath as Schumacher or was he just competing in a different era where what was required for success was different in all but the fact that you still had to beat everyone else?
Beating 20 other drivers in a car which has a huge advantage is pretty easy for a driver who has the skills. Yes every driver in F1 has the skills. Some are clearly better than others but it's all about the car.
Stating would Jim Clark be able to driver a modern F1 car? Of course he would. The difference in fitness programmes and technology in the modern era would make it much easier.
But do you really think the older cars were easier?? The cars are much faster now but the downforce is massive. These guys were driving on the limit with very little help.
He would not be able to win buy the margins he did in the past as EVERYONE is flat out due to the technology and easier tracks.
The difference back in the day was the skill and bravery these drivers had to be able to do lap after lap on the limit and take corners flat while others would back off or lift. This was the difference which you just do not see anymore.
You respected drivers more knowing they were prepared to risk everything to win races.
As Lewis stated "they were crazy to race back then"
So the sport has changed a lot. Doubt anybody would argue that. But by implication you seem to be suggesting that skill level has been falling as things have got safer. But that totally ignores the fact that you still have to beat the other 20 odd drivers also hungry for success. You can't just dismiss so easily what is still required for success at this level.
To flip this on it's head, would Jim Clark have even been able to drive a modern F1 car fast? They're extremely physically demanding. Would his neck muscles take it? Probably not. Does that mean he cannot be considered in the same breath as Schumacher or was he just competing in a different era where what was required for success was different in all but the fact that you still had to beat everyone else?
Beating 20 other drivers in a car which has a huge advantage is pretty easy for a driver who has the skills. Yes every driver in F1 has the skills. Some are clearly better than others but it's all about the car.
Stating would Jim Clark be able to driver a modern F1 car? Of course he would. The difference in fitness programmes and technology in the modern era would make it much easier.
But do you really think the older cars were easier?? The cars are much faster now but the downforce is massive. These guys were driving on the limit with very little help.
He would not be able to win buy the margins he did in the past as EVERYONE is flat out due to the technology and easier tracks.
The difference back in the day was the skill and bravery these drivers had to be able to do lap after lap on the limit and take corners flat while others would back off or lift. This was the difference which you just do not see anymore.
You respected drivers more knowing they were prepared to risk everything to win races.
As Lewis stated "they were crazy to race back then"
LDN said:
I don’t like one car / driver dominance either. But what’s that got to do with Allison saying Hamilton is an all time great? As said before; the grid / industry deem Hamilton one way... but you deem it another. You tried to say that no modern driver would manage in old cars; debunked as just an opinion; and equally, it could be said, previous gen drivers wouldn’t be able to hack it with the amount of things to manage in modern era machines. Neither of which, anyone can be sure of. At a charity kart event; I had a certain F1 presenter tell me that Hamilton is one of the few that would have, in fact, thrived in a bygone era.
Even given the small amounts of F1 you claim to be partaking in; I suggest you don’t torture yourself and give it a wide berth completely.
I would love to see Hamilton or any modern F1 driver in a car from the past on the limit.Even given the small amounts of F1 you claim to be partaking in; I suggest you don’t torture yourself and give it a wide berth completely.
Even better if they were able to race the cars on circuits which are now not on the F1 circus to see how they feel driving a car without the modern protection.
But I very much doubt any of the modern breed would want to risk it.
It's more mental toughness than just simply skill.
Modern F1 drivers are very skilled racers but the ultimate challenges of the old tracks and tough cars are long gone.
Add the following and make them work
Manuel gearbox
Less aero
Half the systems removed.
No DRS
I would never want to see any driver hurt so keep the track and car safety but at least make them work for their millions.
I don't think we'll agree on this. I disconnect the bravery side of it with the skill level aspect I'm afraid. Yes, you definitely had to have big conkers to drive a 50's/60's GP car but many, many drivers did so. The ones we regard as legendary are the ones that went faster than the others. No different to now.
The reason I asked about Jim Clark was to see if you would assume that Jim Clark would easily adapt to modern F1 given the same facilities around him but at the same time a modern F1 driver could not possibly adapt to the environments the drivers worked with in the past. Doesn't seem logical to me that you can make those assumptions one way but not the other.
I don't really disagree with you about needing a good car underneath you. Hasn't that always been the case? But the best drivers might be expected to find their way into the best cars. We can only judge what is put in front of us.
The reason I asked about Jim Clark was to see if you would assume that Jim Clark would easily adapt to modern F1 given the same facilities around him but at the same time a modern F1 driver could not possibly adapt to the environments the drivers worked with in the past. Doesn't seem logical to me that you can make those assumptions one way but not the other.
I don't really disagree with you about needing a good car underneath you. Hasn't that always been the case? But the best drivers might be expected to find their way into the best cars. We can only judge what is put in front of us.
Edited by Gad-Westy on Friday 9th March 11:16
ELUSIVEJIM said:
LDN said:
I don’t like one car / driver dominance either. But what’s that got to do with Allison saying Hamilton is an all time great? As said before; the grid / industry deem Hamilton one way... but you deem it another. You tried to say that no modern driver would manage in old cars; debunked as just an opinion; and equally, it could be said, previous gen drivers wouldn’t be able to hack it with the amount of things to manage in modern era machines. Neither of which, anyone can be sure of. At a charity kart event; I had a certain F1 presenter tell me that Hamilton is one of the few that would have, in fact, thrived in a bygone era.
Even given the small amounts of F1 you claim to be partaking in; I suggest you don’t torture yourself and give it a wide berth completely.
I would love to see Hamilton or any modern F1 driver in a car from the past on the limit.Even given the small amounts of F1 you claim to be partaking in; I suggest you don’t torture yourself and give it a wide berth completely.
Even better if they were able to race the cars on circuits which are now not on the F1 circus to see how they feel driving a car without the modern protection.
But I very much doubt any of the modern breed would want to risk it.
It's more mental toughness than just simply skill.
Modern F1 drivers are very skilled racers but the ultimate challenges of the old tracks and tough cars are long gone.
Add the following and make them work
Manuel gearbox
Less aero
Half the systems removed.
No DRS
I would never want to see any driver hurt so keep the track and car safety but at least make them work for their millions.
Question... you really dislike modern F1, you've made that clear. So why follow a sport you don't like and clearly annoys you?
^ bingo. Jim likes to torture himself
Hamilton, and I’d say Alonso would have thrived in bygone eras. Quite a few modern drivers might have done very well. To claim that NO modern driver could have raced back then is just plain barmy.
As has been said, the 2000’s is not the 90’s is not the 80’s and so on. Modern cars are difficult to drive for different reasons; as I said; sticking a modern car in a ‘do all’ setting and flying around a lap is one thing, but having to change brake bias before every corner whilst keeping a competitor at bay; with his wing open is another.
Not saying I like modern cars more; just that modern cars are most certainly, NOT easy to race.
Hamilton, and I’d say Alonso would have thrived in bygone eras. Quite a few modern drivers might have done very well. To claim that NO modern driver could have raced back then is just plain barmy.
As has been said, the 2000’s is not the 90’s is not the 80’s and so on. Modern cars are difficult to drive for different reasons; as I said; sticking a modern car in a ‘do all’ setting and flying around a lap is one thing, but having to change brake bias before every corner whilst keeping a competitor at bay; with his wing open is another.
Not saying I like modern cars more; just that modern cars are most certainly, NOT easy to race.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff