Lewis Hamilton Vs Michael Schumacher - Who Is Better?
Discussion
kiseca said:
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.
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
It was probably equal in pace to McLaren in 2000 and gave F1 some outstanding battles with Hakkinen.
If the car had been competitive out of the gates in '96 it would've looked like 10 WDC's for MS
kiseca said:
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
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.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
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
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
My point is Age is no barrier if you’re still quick, Shuey for the first time ever wasn’t treated as undisputed number 1 and got humped by Nico, no shame as Nico is way better that a lot of folks think but nevertheless he got humped, added to his questionable behaviour in 94,97, Monaco qualy etc and team orders in his favour he’s not the greatest in my eyes
oyster said:
vdn said:
Nice try... but no cigar.
MS was s
t 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. 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.
Their hatred for Schumacher is embarrasing.
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
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.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
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
Lets have it right - Mansell won the championship at 39 years old. He then took one year off F1 in 1993 to go and race in IndyCar (winning the championship) and then had four races for Williams in 1994 at the age of 41, and he won one race.
Then in 1995 at the age of 42 he had two races for McLaren finishing 10th and a retirement - hardly setting the world alight in his 40s
But don't let facts get in the way of your argument
TobyTR said:
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
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.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
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
Lets have it right - Mansell won the championship at 39 years old. He then took one year off F1 in 1993 to go and race in IndyCar (winning the championship) and then had four races for Williams in 1994 at the age of 41, and he won one race.
Then in 1995 at the age of 42 he had two races for McLaren finishing 10th and a retirement - hardly setting the world alight in his 40s
But don't let facts get in the way of your argument
1994 however he was right on the pace. Are you disputing that? Because it’s a fact. The results and session times and Williams comments are there for all to examine.
The fact is that age was no barrier so the excuse of age for Shuey doesn’t hold true given his conditioning
Again Ross Brawn did not sign him because he thought MS would be fine getting within 3/10ths of Nico Rosberg. He signed him to lead and win, something he failed miserably at.
sparta6 said:
kiseca said:
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.
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
It was probably equal in pace to McLaren in 2000 and gave F1 some outstanding battles with Hakkinen.
If the car had been competitive out of the gates in '96 it would've looked like 10 WDC's for MS
NewUsername said:
Context, the McLaren was an awful car in 1995
1994 however he was right on the pace. Are you disputing that? Because it’s a fact. The results and session times and Williams comments are there for all to examine.
The fact is that age was no barrier so the excuse of age for Shuey doesn’t hold true given his conditioning
Again Ross Brawn did not sign him because he thought MS would be fine getting within 3/10ths of Nico Rosberg. He signed him to lead and win, something he failed miserably at.
You refuse to accept it. Age in F1 IS a barrier! Otherwise we'd see half the grid carry on well into their 40s. Your reaction times, fitness and perception decline with age. And it's magnified when a driver takes more than a year out from the sport. The average age an F1 driver leaves is 37. Good grief, that bit bolded above is the most moronic post ever in this PH F1 section.1994 however he was right on the pace. Are you disputing that? Because it’s a fact. The results and session times and Williams comments are there for all to examine.
The fact is that age was no barrier so the excuse of age for Shuey doesn’t hold true given his conditioning
Again Ross Brawn did not sign him because he thought MS would be fine getting within 3/10ths of Nico Rosberg. He signed him to lead and win, something he failed miserably at.
So why didn't Williams sign Mansell for 1995 or why didn't any other F1 team give him a full-time drive for '95?
Ross Brawn also signed him for his driver development skills, work ethic, experience and feedback - something you also refuse to accept, that he was very good at feedback and development.
vdn said:
sparta6 said:
kiseca said:
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.
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
It was probably equal in pace to McLaren in 2000 and gave F1 some outstanding battles with Hakkinen.
If the car had been competitive out of the gates in '96 it would've looked like 10 WDC's for MS
Michael didn't need a special uncle in his corner either
Bo_apex said:
vdn said:
sparta6 said:
kiseca said:
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.
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
It was probably equal in pace to McLaren in 2000 and gave F1 some outstanding battles with Hakkinen.
If the car had been competitive out of the gates in '96 it would've looked like 10 WDC's for MS
Michael didn't need a special uncle in his corner either
Clutching at straws methinks. Who is the special uncle in this fantasy tale of yours? Ron? The same Ron / McLaren that nearly got rid of Lewis early on, but only hung onto him due to continued performance?
Or someone else?
To be fair to Michael, he left arguably the second-best team at the time in 1995 to join arguably the fourth-best team for a new challenge and to build a new Ferrari legacy, which he succeeded after four years of hard graft and commitment. It had nothing to do with lower formulae performances; he already had proved his F1 credentials after one race in 1991.
Interesting thread that's littered with some nonsense from the usual suspects who dismiss Button, Brundle, Jonny Herbert's comments because they think they know better than former F1 drivers.
The textbook example of clutching at straws is trying to argue a 43-year-old F1 driver is the same as in their prime years and then describing his Mercedes years as rubbish
- they're basically saying Rosberg is better than Michael overall, which anyone who has a clue about F1 knows is total b0ll0cks.
Until another multiple world champion F1 driver comes back from over three years away in their early 40s and performs to a better level than Michael managed, we will never know how hard that task was. But nobody has managed it as well as Michael so far - not even Mansell did at 43, who I idolise - so I'll go on record saying we won't see it being repeated or even bettered in the future.
In my opinion, he should never have come back after 2006, but fair play to him for making a good go of it and helped develop the car from 2010 into a race-winner come 2012 in Rosberg's hands.
Interesting thread that's littered with some nonsense from the usual suspects who dismiss Button, Brundle, Jonny Herbert's comments because they think they know better than former F1 drivers.
The textbook example of clutching at straws is trying to argue a 43-year-old F1 driver is the same as in their prime years and then describing his Mercedes years as rubbish
- they're basically saying Rosberg is better than Michael overall, which anyone who has a clue about F1 knows is total b0ll0cks.Until another multiple world champion F1 driver comes back from over three years away in their early 40s and performs to a better level than Michael managed, we will never know how hard that task was. But nobody has managed it as well as Michael so far - not even Mansell did at 43, who I idolise - so I'll go on record saying we won't see it being repeated or even bettered in the future.
In my opinion, he should never have come back after 2006, but fair play to him for making a good go of it and helped develop the car from 2010 into a race-winner come 2012 in Rosberg's hands.
E34-3.2 said:
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.
I'd agree Hamilton is slightly faster than Michael was over a single lap & qualifying, but in terms of overall ability I'd give Michael the edge with fewer weaknesses, better consistency during races and over an entire season, and better problem-solving.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.
Interesting, the Alonso lost against Hamilton; they finished on equal points in the same car. While Alonso beat Hamilton from 2010-2013 (actually finished ahead of him on points, not just equal points) in what many F1 experts describe as inferior cars, particularly in 2013.
A44RON said:
Interesting, the Alonso lost against Hamilton; they finished on equal points in the same car. While Alonso beat Hamilton from 2010-2013 (actually finished ahead of him on points, not just equal points) in what many F1 experts describe as inferior cars, particularly in 2013.
Interesting as you say but Alonso lost against Hamilton. I didn't make it up. This is what the drivers standing says. Hamilton finished ahead in 2008-2009 as well. You will say that it is unfair as Alonso was at Renault and the car wasn't very good which I would agree but let's not forget how shocking McLaren was as a team during 2010-11-12 which I believed made Hamilton quit the team.
One thing for sure is that both Alonso and Hamilton were quicker than Schumacher. They are both naturally more gifted were Schumacher was more of a machine ready to do anything to win even if it was illegal....
NewUsername said:
Context, the McLaren was an awful car in 1995
1994 however he was right on the pace. Are you disputing that? Because it’s a fact. The results and session times and Williams comments are there for all to examine.
The fact is that age was no barrier so the excuse of age for Shuey doesn’t hold true given his conditioning
Again Ross Brawn did not sign him because he thought MS would be fine getting within 3/10ths of Nico Rosberg. He signed him to lead and win, something he failed miserably at.
Age is a barrier. Look at the oldest winners and records in F1. Drivers over 40 have barely achieved anything since 1970. If age was no barrier why do drivers retire so young?1994 however he was right on the pace. Are you disputing that? Because it’s a fact. The results and session times and Williams comments are there for all to examine.
The fact is that age was no barrier so the excuse of age for Shuey doesn’t hold true given his conditioning
Again Ross Brawn did not sign him because he thought MS would be fine getting within 3/10ths of Nico Rosberg. He signed him to lead and win, something he failed miserably at.
E34-3.2 said:
A44RON said:
Interesting, the Alonso lost against Hamilton; they finished on equal points in the same car. While Alonso beat Hamilton from 2010-2013 (actually finished ahead of him on points, not just equal points) in what many F1 experts describe as inferior cars, particularly in 2013.
Interesting as you say but Alonso lost against Hamilton. I didn't make it up. This is what the drivers standing says. Hamilton finished ahead in 2008-2009 as well. You will say that it is unfair as Alonso was at Renault and the car wasn't very good which I would agree but let's not forget how shocking McLaren was as a team during 2010-11-12 which I believed made Hamilton quit the team.
One thing for sure is that both Alonso and Hamilton were quicker than Schumacher. They are both naturally more gifted were Schumacher was more of a machine ready to do anything to win even if it was illegal....
NewUsername said:
Context, the McLaren was an awful car in 1995
1994 however he was right on the pace. Are you disputing that? Because it’s a fact. The results and session times and Williams comments are there for all to examine.
The fact is that age was no barrier so the excuse of age for Shuey doesn’t hold true given his conditioning
Again Ross Brawn did not sign him because he thought MS would be fine getting within 3/10ths of Nico Rosberg. He signed him to lead and win, something he failed miserably at.
Then Lewis joins the team, and the leading and winning really kicks off 1994 however he was right on the pace. Are you disputing that? Because it’s a fact. The results and session times and Williams comments are there for all to examine.
The fact is that age was no barrier so the excuse of age for Shuey doesn’t hold true given his conditioning
Again Ross Brawn did not sign him because he thought MS would be fine getting within 3/10ths of Nico Rosberg. He signed him to lead and win, something he failed miserably at.
A44RON said:
The textbook example of clutching at straws is trying to argue a 43-year-old F1 driver is the same as in their prime years and then describing his Mercedes years as rubbish - they're basically saying Rosberg is better than Michael overall, which anyone who has a clue about F1 knows is total b0ll0cks.
He was 41 ...& unlike Mansell, he re-wrote the rule book on F1 driver physical fitness - they're basically saying Rosberg is better than Michael overall, which anyone who has a clue about F1 knows is total b0ll0cks.& i'm sure you're well aware Kimi is 40 this year & seems to be doing ok still
A44RON said:
Interesting, the Alonso lost against Hamilton; they finished on equal points in the same car. While Alonso beat Hamilton from 2010-2013 (actually finished ahead of him on points, not just equal points) in what many F1 experts describe as inferior cars, particularly in 2013.
same points- still lost ...to a rookie, a rookie who wasn't getting insider info on tyre pressures or balance from the Ferrari either& yeah, the Ferrari was probably marginally worse than the McLaren ...then again, the Mclaren paring was stronger imo (x2 WDC drivers) & afaiaa no team orders (& i think we all know Fred likes being no.1, hence 'spy gate' ...& "Fernando is faster than you")
Eggs & baskets & all that
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff