Lewis Hamilton

[Teddy Lop]

37chevy said:

Halmyre said:

If Lewis takes pole in the next consecutive 50 races he'll overtake Clark.

Unfortunately the longer you live and drive in f1 the more the stats are affected in terms of percentage. I’m not saying Clark wasn’t great, but you can’t just use percentage to define a driver...if that was the case, there are plenty of drivers greater than Clark who only competed a handful of times and got a 100% pole record

Statistically, brawnGP are the greatest of all time

[Halmyre]

37chevy said:

Halmyre said:

If Lewis takes pole in the next consecutive 50 races he'll overtake Clark.

Unfortunately the longer you live and drive in f1 the more the stats are affected in terms of percentage. I’m not saying Clark wasn’t great, but you can’t just use percentage to define a driver...if that was the case, there are plenty of drivers greater than Clark who only competed a handful of times and got a 100% pole record

There's no-one with a 100% pole record. There's Fangio at 57%. Hamilton is fifth, behind Fangio, Clark, Ascari and Senna.

https://www.statsf1.com/en/statistiques/pilote/pol...

Lewis will overtake Fangio if he takes the next 129 poles. Looking at the list, Leclerc is the only potential challenger to Lewis, but after 40 races he has 7 poles; Lewis had clocked up 13 by his 40th race.

[37chevy]

Halmyre said:

There's no-one with a 100% pole record. There's Fangio at 57%. Hamilton is fifth, behind Fangio, Clark, Ascari and Senna.

https://www.statsf1.com/en/statistiques/pilote/pol...

Lewis will overtake Fangio if he takes the next 129 poles. Looking at the list, Leclerc is the only potential challenger to Lewis, but after 40 races he has 7 poles; Lewis had clocked up 13 by his 40th race.

Thought there was but hey ho...my point stands....statistics lie to you depending on what you want to hear...for instance, with the Indy 500 being part of f1 between 1950 and 1960 multiple drivers have around 25% pole position strike rate....does that make them better than Vettel?

I mean it will take multiple races for him to catch up their percentage even though they’ve only got 1 pole.

[CoolHands]

Regardless of the numbers though, do any of you feel he is the best at poles? I think he’s the greatest driver who brings it home, gets points, is great at overtaking, intuitive racer etc. But I don’t see poles as a stand-out feature like those other aspects.

[37chevy]

CoolHands said:

Regardless of the numbers though, do any of you feel he is the best at poles? I think he’s the greatest driver who brings it home, gets points, is great at overtaking, intuitive racer etc. But I don’t see poles as a stand-out feature like those other aspects.

Yes. I think we tend to forget the stellar performances because there are so many of them.

I also think laps that Schumacher/ Senna did LOOKED more spectacular because of the cars...these days you have to be pinpoint so the car looks relatively boring and on rails, back in the days the cars looked and sounded more alive s it seemed more impressive

It’s on the days that Hamilton shouldn’t have been on pole or shouldn’t have won because the car doesn’t suit the conditions where he shines.

[mattikake]

Imo Hamilton's pole performance is his weakest driving trait. He was never "senna-esq" in any formula bar euro f3. It's his relentless and consistent race pace regardless of car or race conditions, where he excels in terms of raw speed. Often I think he concentrates on race setup anyway, instead of pole setup. Or rather, he qualifies on what would be closer to a race setup [given he knows his race pace and overtaking ability]. The number of times he out-performs his quali performance come the race is notable.

The fact he's way ahead on total poles and has a very good pole strike rate anyway, is an example of how good he is.

He's just a racer at the end of the day. Give him a carrot in any form and he's off.

[Halmyre]

37chevy said:

Halmyre said:

There's no-one with a 100% pole record. There's Fangio at 57%. Hamilton is fifth, behind Fangio, Clark, Ascari and Senna.

https://www.statsf1.com/en/statistiques/pilote/pol...

Lewis will overtake Fangio if he takes the next 129 poles. Looking at the list, Leclerc is the only potential challenger to Lewis, but after 40 races he has 7 poles; Lewis had clocked up 13 by his 40th race.

Thought there was but hey ho...my point stands....statistics lie to you depending on what you want to hear...for instance, with the Indy 500 being part of f1 between 1950 and 1960 multiple drivers have around 25% pole position strike rate....does that make them better than Vettel?

I mean it will take multiple races for him to catch up their percentage even though they’ve only got 1 pole.

True but the Indy 500 is an anomaly. Discounting Indycar drivers, the highest one-pole driver is Mike Parkes, whose career was cut short in an accident. And Parkes was no mean driver.

[37chevy]

Halmyre said:

True but the Indy 500 is an anomaly. Discounting Indycar drivers, the highest one-pole driver is Mike Parkes, whose career was cut short in an accident. And Parkes was no mean driver.

Just pointing out percentages don’t mean everything. That’s not to say Clark/ fangio weren’t greats....of course they are, just trying to compare drivers from different eras is very difficult. Higher percentages in the past but with less races and shorter careers....more poles in modern F1 but with longer careers and more races....it’s incredibly difficult to compare

Only thing that’s consistent is the top 5/6 are always the top 5/6 it doesn’t matter which way around you work the numbers

[anonymous-user]

paua said:

A Prost didn't have any problem.

He had his rivals. Nigel nearly won the '86 WDC.

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 17th November 03:24

[glazbagun]

If you remove Jim Clarks mechanical failures his stats were ridiculous-

25 wins from 46 non-mech failures: 54%
32 podiums from 46 non-mech dnf's: 69.5%

[paulguitar]

glazbagun said:

If you remove Jim Clarks mechanical failures his stats were ridiculous-

25 wins from 46 non-mech failures: 54%
32 podiums from 46 non-mech dnf's: 69.5%

Is there anyone here who was watching F1 at that time? Whilst not questioning the undoubted brilliance of Clark, I am curious as to whether:

1. The Lotus had a mechanical advantage?

2. He had much opposition from any top quality teammates?

[Halmyre]

paulguitar said:

glazbagun said:

If you remove Jim Clarks mechanical failures his stats were ridiculous-

25 wins from 46 non-mech failures: 54%
32 podiums from 46 non-mech dnf's: 69.5%

Is there anyone here who was watching F1 at that time? Whilst not questioning the undoubted brilliance of Clark, I am curious as to whether:

1. The Lotus had a mechanical advantage?

2. He had much opposition from any top quality teammates?

It could be argued that the Lotus had a mechanical DISadvantage, in that it was prone to falling apart, and it needed someone like Clark to drive it with a modicum of care.

[paulguitar]

Halmyre said:

It could be argued that the Lotus had a mechanical DISadvantage, in that it was prone to falling apart, and it needed someone like Clark to drive it with a modicum of care.

Okay, but when it held together, was it the quickest car?

Also, what about question 2?

Genuinely curious as this was before I was born.

[StevieBee]

paulguitar said:

Is there anyone here who was watching F1 at that time? Whilst not questioning the undoubted brilliance of Clark, I am curious as to whether:

2. He had much opposition from any top quality teammates?

He had quite a few teammates but few of any note. Those that one might put on an equal footing were John Surtees, Graham Hill and Innes Ireland. As good as these were, you would put Clark streets ahead of all of them.

But you can't really use this as a comparison as second drivers weren't always 'permanent' in the team and would be swapped around at the whim of the team managers on a race by race basis.

[glazbagun]

paulguitar said:

Okay, but when it held together, was it the quickest car?

Also, what about question 2?

Genuinely curious as this was before I was born.

FWI read (which isn't much) The Ferrari was the best car until a regulation change when Lotus built a machine which either broke or did very well.

Clark would often win by mega margins, but that seemed to be quite common back then (see also JYS famous win at the Nurburgring! in '68- won by over four mins) He also had remarkable drives when his car would be dying and he'd eke the last out of it.

Apart from Hill, I don't know much about his teammates. But when Hill was driving for rival BRM he was interviewed anf had this to say:

internet said:

Later, being interview on British TV, he was asked about Clark, to which he answered: “He’s a very tough opponent. He can drive quickly and he can race, which are not the same thing.” Then the host asks him, as the interview is being aired live, if he would like to say something to Clark. Hill, answering with no hesitation, looks at the camera and says “I hope you go back to farming.”

Clark won the 1965 british GP by turning his engine off to save it from oil starvation:

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/history/f1/jim-...

And won at Monza in a car that was off the pace by following others. The overtake sounds like it was the equivalent of Mika on Schumi at Spa:

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/history/f1/jim-...

Re: teammates, it should also be noticed that F1 drivers had much shorter careers back then and injury was more common.

Edited by glazbagun on Saturday 16th November 15:05

[paulguitar]

glazbagun said:

Graham Hill was very witty.

How about this one:

Interviewer: 'You've travelled most of the way this season behind Jim Clark, what would you say is his most outstanding characteristic as a racing driver'?

Hill 'Well, I think getting across the line first'.

[cuprabob]

paulguitar said:

Graham Hill was very witty.

Demonstrated in these clips...
https://youtu.be/nYm_jgFjOhs

[Halmyre]

cuprabob said:

paulguitar said:

Graham Hill was very witty.

Demonstrated in these clips...
https://youtu.be/nYm_jgFjOhs

Another time he was when he and Barry Gill were commentating on a saloon car race for team owners. Colin Chapman was hounding Jack Brabham, and Gill said "Jack must be using his mirrors more than looking out of the windscreen, mustn't he Graham?" Hill replied "Highly unlikely, I've never known him to use his mirrors at all."

[anonymous-user]

cuprabob said:

Demonstrated in these clips...
https://youtu.be/nYm_jgFjOhs

Good footage. When banter was alive and well.

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 19th November 03:21

[sparta6]

StevieBee said:

He had quite a few teammates but few of any note. Those that one might put on an equal footing were John Surtees, Graham Hill and Innes Ireland. As good as these were, you would put Clark streets ahead of all of them.

But you can't really use this as a comparison as second drivers weren't always 'permanent' in the team and would be swapped around at the whim of the team managers on a race by race basis.

John Surtees =
Agostini and Nuvolari combined

Amazing talent