Lewis Hamilton Vs Michael Schumacher - Who Is Better?

[TobyTR]

NewUsername said:

I've also heard Ross Brawn comment on the fact MS could 'hide' deficiencies in the car which only came to light when other drivers drove the car because he could just adapt to problems so well. .... You just listen to the bits you want to listen to.
I will never agree that he was that far ahead of everyone else, he just worked the circumstances very well, the same as Lewis has recently and the same as others have managed in shorter bursts. Take a load of F1 drivers, put them all in the same car and they'd all be very close but as we know it doesn't work like that (THANK GOD)

He was also rubbish when he returned with Mercedes when he was less able to set up a favourable position. Age was nothing to do with it, Mansell won in F1 at 40

Edited by NewUsername on Wednesday 16th October 13:11

Unfortunately age does have everything to do with it. When an F1 driver takes over three years out from the pinnacle of motor racing and a motorbike accident, returns at 41 years old and continues to stick around until 43 years old. It's well regarded that most modern F1 drivers are edging past their prime once they hit 37-38. And Martin Brundle commented in 2010 that M.Schumacher was three-tenths behind the car, instead of one-tenth ahead. It's not rocket science.

Quite why people continue to bring up his Mercedes stint on here and try to use it as a negative against him is beyond me - he's the only modern F1 driver to return after over three years away well into his 40s and still be within three-tenths of his young decent teammate, and manage to stick it on pole at 43 years old... - but apparently racing drivers are the same in their 40s as in their late 20s

[vdn]

TobyTR said:

Unfortunately age does have everything to do with it. When an F1 driver takes over three years out from the pinnacle of motor racing and a motorbike accident, returns at 41 years old and continues to stick around until 43 years old. It's well regarded that most modern F1 drivers are edging past their prime once they hit 37-38. And Martin Brundle commented in 2010 that M.Schumacher was three-tenths behind the car, instead of one-tenth ahead. It's not rocket science.

Quite why people continue to bring up his Mercedes stint on here and try to use it as a negative against him is beyond me - he's the only modern F1 driver to return after over three years away well into his 40s and still be within three-tenths of his young decent teammate, and manage to stick it on pole at 43 years old... - but apparently racing drivers are the same in their 40s as in their late 20s

Nice try... but no cigar.

MS was st and Rosberg hammered him. Three years out isn’t an eternity; and whilst there could be an edge lost; nobody predicted just how bad he’d be; against a newer, tougher field. Without bias, status and unlimited testing; he was a nobody.

[oyster]

vdn said:

Nice try... but no cigar.

MS was st and Rosberg hammered him. Three years out isn’t an eternity; and whilst there could be an edge lost; nobody predicted just how bad he’d be; against a newer, tougher field. Without bias, status and unlimited testing; he was a nobody.

In your opinion, it’s important to add.

An opinion not shared within the F1 paddock.

But never let first hand expertise and knowledge get in the way of the most important type of expertise of all - the armchair type.

[whatxd]

oyster said:

In your opinion, it’s important to add.

An opinion not shared within the F1 paddock.

But never let first hand expertise and knowledge get in the way of the most important type of expertise of all - the armchair type.

I wouldn’t waste too much time on vdn, formally LDN, a relentless Hamilton defender. I’m surprised he’s not camped out in the Hamilton thread promoting his current stance on climate change. He’s normally there defending him whenever that thread is bumped.

[NewUsername]

TobyTR said:

NewUsername said:

I've also heard Ross Brawn comment on the fact MS could 'hide' deficiencies in the car which only came to light when other drivers drove the car because he could just adapt to problems so well. .... You just listen to the bits you want to listen to.
I will never agree that he was that far ahead of everyone else, he just worked the circumstances very well, the same as Lewis has recently and the same as others have managed in shorter bursts. Take a load of F1 drivers, put them all in the same car and they'd all be very close but as we know it doesn't work like that (THANK GOD)

He was also rubbish when he returned with Mercedes when he was less able to set up a favourable position. Age was nothing to do with it, Mansell won in F1 at 40

Edited by NewUsername on Wednesday 16th October 13:11

Unfortunately age does have everything to do with it. When an F1 driver takes over three years out from the pinnacle of motor racing and a motorbike accident, returns at 41 years old and continues to stick around until 43 years old. It's well regarded that most modern F1 drivers are edging past their prime once they hit 37-38. And Martin Brundle commented in 2010 that M.Schumacher was three-tenths behind the car, instead of one-tenth ahead. It's not rocket science.

Quite why people continue to bring up his Mercedes stint on here and try to use it as a negative against him is beyond me - he's the only modern F1 driver to return after over three years away well into his 40s and still be within three-tenths of his young decent teammate, and manage to stick it on pole at 43 years old... - but apparently racing drivers are the same in their 40s as in their late 20s

In your opinion, oh and Shuey tested very regularly during his 'time off'....Have a word with yourself, Ross Brawn didn't sign him because he thought he'd do well to get within 3 tenths of Nico lololol. Nige must be some kind of superhero to be competitive and win in his 40's

[vdn]

oyster said:

vdn said:

Nice try... but no cigar.

MS was st and Rosberg hammered him. Three years out isn’t an eternity; and whilst there could be an edge lost; nobody predicted just how bad he’d be; against a newer, tougher field. Without bias, status and unlimited testing; he was a nobody.

In your opinion, it’s important to add.

An opinion not shared within the F1 paddock.

But never let first hand expertise and knowledge get in the way of the most important type of expertise of all - the armchair type.

Which opinion is not shared? Are you saying that Rosberg didn’t beat MS over the course of their time together? It’s not an opinion that MS was shown up on his return; it’s a fact.

I knew people that were convinced Schuey would return and ‘show these kids how it’s done’ - there were posters on PH that said the same. I was of a different opinion and the results / facts played out exactly as I thought they would.

MS was immense but he relied too much on bias and dirty tactics. Records tainted as a result; that much is an opinion. Separately; his return was an embarrassment.

[kiseca]

Halmyre said:

37chevy said:

sparta6 said:

You are correct.
Previous eras were tough, Darwinian, and drivers such as Jones, Lauda, Senna, Schumacher had what it took to compete and win.
Whether Hamilton with his more sensitive Little Mermaid character would have prospered in such an environment we will never know.

if I remember correctly, drivers/ fans were condemning Jackie Stewart for being over sensitive and too safe....look how that turned out

Stewart had the backing of most of the GPDA; he just got the flack for sticking his head above the parapet. I think Jacky Ickx was the only driver who spoke out against him. Ickx's beef with Stewart was that he wanted to set his own limits of what was acceptable, not have them imposed wholesale (or something like that). Ironically, it was Ickx who refused to start at Le Mans until he was properly buckled in - he walked across to his car while everyone else was running and did up his belts before setting off.

I've seen an interview with Ickx where he says he wasn't against the safety improvements, he was against the methods that Stewart wanted to employ to encourage circuits to make changes. Ickx didn't like the idea of boycotting a race at the last minute - basically the drivers going on strike - because the circuit hadn't met their conditions. He wanted it all to be done well in advance so if a race got cancelled it didn't waste everyone's time.

[soad]

vdn said:

Separately; his return was an embarrassment.

Nobody is getting any younger (I’m sure aren’t, neither are my colleagues). Sometimes things don’t go your way either.

It’s takes some courage to came back also. All the expectations that come with it, aside.

[vdn]

soad said:

vdn said:

Separately; his return was an embarrassment.

Nobody is getting any younger (I’m sure aren’t, neither are my colleagues). Sometimes things don’t go your way either.

It’s takes some courage to came back also. All the expectations that come with it, aside.

Yes. Agreed.

[angrymoby]

well, Schumacher 2.0 did get a Monaco pole (before his grid penalty) ...& led in Canada (would've won if the conditions had stayed changeable/wet )

so clearly not as 'past it' as some would like to think

[vdn]

angrymoby said:

well, Schumacher 2.0 did get a Monaco pole (before his grid penalty) ...& led in Canada (would've won if the conditions had stayed changeable/wet )

so clearly not as 'past it' as some would like to think

Yes, a real trail blazing return. He sure showed Rosberg.

[angrymoby]

vdn said:

Yes, a real trail blazing return. He sure showed Rosberg.

exactly ...schrodinger's Schumacher 2.0, clearly not as good as the original- yet still manages a pole & near win in a car that wasn't the class of the field (yet still got spanked)

[E34-3.2]

Very difficult to compare both men but if we had to put them head to head, I would say Hamilton is the faster driver of the two.

Why? There is one driver who fought against both of them when both where driving supremely fast. Alonso...

Alonso won v Schumacher
Alonso lost v Hamilton

So Hamilton is faster.

[kiseca]

NewUsername said:

TobyTR said:

NewUsername said:

I've also heard Ross Brawn comment on the fact MS could 'hide' deficiencies in the car which only came to light when other drivers drove the car because he could just adapt to problems so well. .... You just listen to the bits you want to listen to.
I will never agree that he was that far ahead of everyone else, he just worked the circumstances very well, the same as Lewis has recently and the same as others have managed in shorter bursts. Take a load of F1 drivers, put them all in the same car and they'd all be very close but as we know it doesn't work like that (THANK GOD)

He was also rubbish when he returned with Mercedes when he was less able to set up a favourable position. Age was nothing to do with it, Mansell won in F1 at 40

Edited by NewUsername on Wednesday 16th October 13:11

Unfortunately age does have everything to do with it. When an F1 driver takes over three years out from the pinnacle of motor racing and a motorbike accident, returns at 41 years old and continues to stick around until 43 years old. It's well regarded that most modern F1 drivers are edging past their prime once they hit 37-38. And Martin Brundle commented in 2010 that M.Schumacher was three-tenths behind the car, instead of one-tenth ahead. It's not rocket science.

Quite why people continue to bring up his Mercedes stint on here and try to use it as a negative against him is beyond me - he's the only modern F1 driver to return after over three years away well into his 40s and still be within three-tenths of his young decent teammate, and manage to stick it on pole at 43 years old... - but apparently racing drivers are the same in their 40s as in their late 20s

In your opinion, oh and Shuey tested very regularly during his 'time off'....Have a word with yourself, Ross Brawn didn't sign him because he thought he'd do well to get within 3 tenths of Nico lololol. Nige must be some kind of superhero to be competitive and win in his 40's

Mansell wasn't successful at 40. That's when he came back from CART, did a handful of races for Williams, was slower than Damon Hill in race trim and lost his seat to Coulthard. He won in Australia, age 41, after Hill and Schumacher's collision took those two out - though Mansell was unlikely to have been trying to beat Hill at that stage in the championship even if he did have the speed. He then managed 2 races with McLaren before retiring again.

When Schumacher came back, things were very different from when he left. Firstly, he'd had 3 seasons out of cars, while Mansell in his 1 year away was in CARTs. Schumacher was also 43 - to put that in perspective, if his Monaco pole had counted, he'd have been the oldest polesitter in 40 years - at a time when Formula 1 drivers are getting younger and younger. The cars were very different. He couldn't prepare with testing like he used to - one advantage removed. The tyres were joke tyres that overheated if you pushed too hard. Schumacher's ability to run in a race for lap after lap at qualifying pace therefore also now worthless.

Also, as an opinion, he looked too happy and relaxed in TV interviews - like he was happy just to be there, and didn't have the focus on winning that he'd had before. That's on him though.

When he came back, my thoughts were it's too long, he's too old. he's been out of the game too long. But if anyone can make a success of it, Schumacher can. And then he didn't of course, but I don't think any driver could have. Lauda's the only one I can think of who made it really work.

EDIT: Oh, and it turns out he's also the oldest driver to set a fastest lap in a race since 1970.

Edited by kiseca on Thursday 17th October 13:13

[sparta6]

E34-3.2 said:

Alonso won v Schumacher

Alonso won because the FIA suddenly changed tyre regs to suit Michelin runners.
They were bored with Schumacher's dominance and wanted to spice things up.

[37chevy]

sparta6 said:

E34-3.2 said:

Alonso won v Schumacher

Alonso won because the FIA suddenly changed tyre regs to suit Michelin runners.
They were bored with Schumacher's dominance and wanted to spice things up.

huh....ironic given the special bridgestones only Ferrari had access to

[vdn]

sparta6 said:

E34-3.2 said:

Alonso won v Schumacher

Alonso won because the FIA suddenly changed tyre regs to suit Michelin runners.
They were bored with Schumacher's dominance and wanted to spice things up.

Oh dear, MS had to race on rubber not especially in his favour.

[kiseca]

37chevy said:

sparta6 said:

E34-3.2 said:

Alonso won v Schumacher

Alonso won because the FIA suddenly changed tyre regs to suit Michelin runners.
They were bored with Schumacher's dominance and wanted to spice things up.

huh....ironic given the special bridgestones only Ferrari had access to

I know! He also had a special Ferrari that only Ferrari had access to. Completely unfair to not give all the other teams access to the same components that made the Ferrari quick..

EDIT: Probably being a bit harsh there actually, considering you were only responding to the post about Renault's Michelin, I just don't think that Ferrari's special Bridgestones were an unfair advantage (not that you were saying they were), any more than Ferrari having their own engine or aerodynamics.

Edited by kiseca on Thursday 17th October 14:40

[37chevy]

kiseca said:

I know! He also had a special Ferrari that only Ferrari had access to. Completely unfair to not give all the other teams access to the same components that made the Ferrari quick..

EDIT: Probably being a bit harsh there actually, considering you were only responding to the post about Renault's Michelin, I just don't think that Ferrari's special Bridgestones were an unfair advantage (not that you were saying they were), any more than Ferrari having their own engine or aerodynamics.

Edited by kiseca on Thursday 17th October 14:40

yups…..certainly not condemning him for having special tyres, given bridgestone was their sponsor, just like they have special fuel because shell are their sponsor.....

….I just laugh at Sparta trying to use the Michelin example

[KevinCamaroSS]

I currently work with an ex-McLaren trackside engineer. We have chatted about various drivers and her opinion is that Hamilton is the most naturally gifted and talented racer she has ever seen from any team in F1. She did include Schumacher in that calculation.