Lewis Hamilton Vs Michael Schumacher - Who Is Better?

[kiseca]

NewUsername said:

kiseca said:

EDIT: Those comparing Mansell to Schumacher through age, have a look through Formula 1's "Oldest" records. Schumacher appears on them repeatedly, setting age records not matched since 1970 in some cases. Mansell does not.

Edited by kiseca on Tuesday 22 October 09:05

Largely irrelevant, as we know the record books show JB scored more points then LH over 3 seasons etc etc

Fact is Mansell was plenty competitive at that age ( against his team mate also ) after two seasons driving vastly different cars, this is not a mansell fanboy post but merely a case study in age/performance/comeback, so using MS age as an excuse doesn't hold true with me, especially as its claimed he was in such fine shape and he had tested extensively in his time away.

He wasn't. He won a pole position, which is good, but so did Schumacher - in a car that wasn't the class of the field, and two years older. Mansell also won a race, but only after the sister car, driven by Hill, and Schumacher himself, were out. He didn't do enough to secure his seat from Coulthard. He wasn't as fast as Hill in race trim. He managed two races with McLaren the next season before throwing in the towel.

[angrymoby]

kiseca said:

Small point, but pole position wasn't moved to the dirty side. It was the same side it always had been. Senna asked for it to be moved to the racing line (clean side) but they refused.

iirc Senna had been given assurances it would be moved, as starting from pole in '88 & '89 he'd lost out on the start to those starting on the cleaner racing line side

Balestre then back tracked

Interstingly, Suzuka pole was moved in '91 ...& has been on the racing line since

on a side note, Balestre had also informed everyone at the drivers meeting in '90, that cutting of the chicane wouldn't mean disqualification this year- obviously that went down well with Senna too

[NewUsername]

kiseca said:

NewUsername said:

kiseca said:

EDIT: Those comparing Mansell to Schumacher through age, have a look through Formula 1's "Oldest" records. Schumacher appears on them repeatedly, setting age records not matched since 1970 in some cases. Mansell does not.

Edited by kiseca on Tuesday 22 October 09:05

Largely irrelevant, as we know the record books show JB scored more points then LH over 3 seasons etc etc

Fact is Mansell was plenty competitive at that age ( against his team mate also ) after two seasons driving vastly different cars, this is not a mansell fanboy post but merely a case study in age/performance/comeback, so using MS age as an excuse doesn't hold true with me, especially as its claimed he was in such fine shape and he had tested extensively in his time away.

He wasn't. He won a pole position, which is good, but so did Schumacher - in a car that wasn't the class of the field, and two years older. Mansell also won a race, but only after the sister car, driven by Hill, and Schumacher himself, were out. He didn't do enough to secure his seat from Coulthard. He wasn't as fast as Hill in race trim. He managed two races with McLaren the next season before throwing in the towel.

If you look at 1994 he was competitive, in 3 races he Qualified 3,4, 1 and finished 3rd and 1st.... if that's not competitive i don't know what is particularly when you look at who was engineering who's car and team orders about interfering with the champoinship. Coulthard was signed on age and budget, not performance.

Anyway, you can attempt to divert from the core of the discussion but the fact is age at 41 is not a barrier especially someone in peak condition like MS and yet he was thrashed by NR for 3 years in a row because he wasn't in his negotiated bubble like previously

[angrymoby]

question for Schumi fans ...who was his best/ fastest team mate?

Edited by angrymoby on Tuesday 22 October 11:24

[kiseca]

NewUsername said:

If you look at 1994 he was competitive, in 3 races he Qualified 3,4, 1 and finished 3rd and 1st.... if that's not competitive i don't know what is particularly when you look at who was engineering who's car and team orders about interfering with the champoinship. Coulthard was signed on age and budget, not performance.

Anyway, you can attempt to divert from the core of the discussion but the fact is age at 41 is not a barrier especially someone in peak condition like MS and yet he was thrashed by NR for 3 years in a row because he wasn't in his negotiated bubble like previously

I'm not diverting from anything. I'm disagreeing with examples you're using to support the opinion you are putting forward and are now claiming to be fact.

[sparta6]

HTP99 said:

What are his thoughts on Hamilton and his ability?

There are plenty of drivers that he hasn't worked with or commented on, including Hamilton

[NewUsername]

kiseca said:

NewUsername said:

If you look at 1994 he was competitive, in 3 races he Qualified 3,4, 1 and finished 3rd and 1st.... if that's not competitive i don't know what is particularly when you look at who was engineering who's car and team orders about interfering with the champoinship. Coulthard was signed on age and budget, not performance.

Anyway, you can attempt to divert from the core of the discussion but the fact is age at 41 is not a barrier especially someone in peak condition like MS and yet he was thrashed by NR for 3 years in a row because he wasn't in his negotiated bubble like previously

I'm not diverting from anything. I'm disagreeing with examples you're using to support the opinion you are putting forward and are now claiming to be fact.

The examples i've put forward are fact, go and look at the official FIA results lol

[sparta6]

kiseca said:

sparta6 said:

It's simple.
Bottas has upped his game this year, but I still don't consider him a Top 6 driver.
He may have improved his own game by 2% which has made the difference in being runner up in WDC.

A close colleague of mine has helped several F1 drivers, and an improvement of just 1% can make a world of difference to the results.

So if you can attribute Bottas's performance to the driver, why do you insist that Hamilton's is due to the car? Do tyou not see that this position just confirms you are starting from a baised viewpoint and that your reasoning is being built backwards from that? It's obvious to me at least. Can't speak for everyone else on the forum but you've been called out for your biased viewpoint before.

Perhaps you should start paying attention to that instead of bludgeoning on perpetually with your biased opinions?

Hamilton is better than Bottas.
By how much % we don't know.
The Mercedes provides a cushion of performance over race distance, and has done since 2014.

Perhaps Toto being Bottas manager had something to do with his initial signing as he would naturally get a cut of VB's salary.

All quite nice and cosy, but Ricciardo would be a better choice now.

[vdn]

angrymoby said:

question for Shcumi fans ...who was his best/ fastest team mate?

Exactly.

[NewUsername]

sparta6 said:

kiseca said:

sparta6 said:

It's simple.
Bottas has upped his game this year, but I still don't consider him a Top 6 driver.
He may have improved his own game by 2% which has made the difference in being runner up in WDC.

A close colleague of mine has helped several F1 drivers, and an improvement of just 1% can make a world of difference to the results.

So if you can attribute Bottas's performance to the driver, why do you insist that Hamilton's is due to the car? Do tyou not see that this position just confirms you are starting from a baised viewpoint and that your reasoning is being built backwards from that? It's obvious to me at least. Can't speak for everyone else on the forum but you've been called out for your biased viewpoint before.

Perhaps you should start paying attention to that instead of bludgeoning on perpetually with your biased opinions?

Hamilton is better than Bottas.
By how much % we don't know.
The Mercedes provides a cushion of performance over race distance, and has done since 2014.

Perhaps Toto being Bottas manager had something to do with his initial signing as he would naturally get a cut of VB's salary.

All quite nice and cosy, but Ricciardo would be a better choice now.

Alonso....

[vdn]

NewUsername said:

sparta6 said:

kiseca said:

sparta6 said:

It's simple.
Bottas has upped his game this year, but I still don't consider him a Top 6 driver.
He may have improved his own game by 2% which has made the difference in being runner up in WDC.

A close colleague of mine has helped several F1 drivers, and an improvement of just 1% can make a world of difference to the results.

So if you can attribute Bottas's performance to the driver, why do you insist that Hamilton's is due to the car? Do tyou not see that this position just confirms you are starting from a baised viewpoint and that your reasoning is being built backwards from that? It's obvious to me at least. Can't speak for everyone else on the forum but you've been called out for your biased viewpoint before.

Perhaps you should start paying attention to that instead of bludgeoning on perpetually with your biased opinions?

Hamilton is better than Bottas.
By how much % we don't know.
The Mercedes provides a cushion of performance over race distance, and has done since 2014.

Perhaps Toto being Bottas manager had something to do with his initial signing as he would naturally get a cut of VB's salary.

All quite nice and cosy, but Ricciardo would be a better choice now.

Alonso....

Been there. Beaten him. Got the T-Shirt.

[kiseca]

sparta6 said:

kiseca said:

sparta6 said:

It's simple.
Bottas has upped his game this year, but I still don't consider him a Top 6 driver.
He may have improved his own game by 2% which has made the difference in being runner up in WDC.

A close colleague of mine has helped several F1 drivers, and an improvement of just 1% can make a world of difference to the results.

So if you can attribute Bottas's performance to the driver, why do you insist that Hamilton's is due to the car? Do tyou not see that this position just confirms you are starting from a baised viewpoint and that your reasoning is being built backwards from that? It's obvious to me at least. Can't speak for everyone else on the forum but you've been called out for your biased viewpoint before.

Perhaps you should start paying attention to that instead of bludgeoning on perpetually with your biased opinions?

Hamilton is better than Bottas.
By how much % we don't know.
The Mercedes provides a cushion of performance over race distance, and has done since 2014.

Perhaps Toto being Bottas manager had something to do with his initial signing as he would naturally get a cut of VB's salary.

All quite nice and cosy, but Ricciardo would be a better choice now.

I agree that Hamilton is better than Bottas, and we can calculate by how much as a minimum at least. It will work out to be less than 1% of overall performance difference, as I think 1% would equate to nearly a minute's advantage over a 90 minute race?

I also agree Ricciardo would be performing better in the second Merc.

[kiseca]

NewUsername said:

kiseca said:

NewUsername said:

If you look at 1994 he was competitive, in 3 races he Qualified 3,4, 1 and finished 3rd and 1st.... if that's not competitive i don't know what is particularly when you look at who was engineering who's car and team orders about interfering with the champoinship. Coulthard was signed on age and budget, not performance.

Anyway, you can attempt to divert from the core of the discussion but the fact is age at 41 is not a barrier especially someone in peak condition like MS and yet he was thrashed by NR for 3 years in a row because he wasn't in his negotiated bubble like previously

I'm not diverting from anything. I'm disagreeing with examples you're using to support the opinion you are putting forward and are now claiming to be fact.

The examples i've put forward are fact, go and look at the official FIA results lol

[vdn]

I’ve watched F1 since being a young pup. And lower formulae also. I’ve even raced karts and single seaters.

Hamilton is the greatest F1 driver in history IMO and his career isn’t even over yet.

Every great car he’s landed in; he’s earnt. People seem to forget...

He dominated in everything from being child to modern day. Never has their been a driver so good over such a period of time.

Team Principals anonymously vote him their best driver every year; even the year he lost to Rosberg. Alonso says that Hamilton is in another league.

But let’s let PH armchair experts attempt to say otherwise

[NewUsername]

vdn said:

NewUsername said:

sparta6 said:

kiseca said:

sparta6 said:

It's simple.
Bottas has upped his game this year, but I still don't consider him a Top 6 driver.
He may have improved his own game by 2% which has made the difference in being runner up in WDC.

A close colleague of mine has helped several F1 drivers, and an improvement of just 1% can make a world of difference to the results.

So if you can attribute Bottas's performance to the driver, why do you insist that Hamilton's is due to the car? Do tyou not see that this position just confirms you are starting from a baised viewpoint and that your reasoning is being built backwards from that? It's obvious to me at least. Can't speak for everyone else on the forum but you've been called out for your biased viewpoint before.

Perhaps you should start paying attention to that instead of bludgeoning on perpetually with your biased opinions?

Hamilton is better than Bottas.
By how much % we don't know.
The Mercedes provides a cushion of performance over race distance, and has done since 2014.

Perhaps Toto being Bottas manager had something to do with his initial signing as he would naturally get a cut of VB's salary.

All quite nice and cosy, but Ricciardo would be a better choice now.

Alonso....

Been there. Beaten him. Got the T-Shirt.

I think it would make excellent viewing though for fans of the sport.

[NewUsername]

kiseca said:

NewUsername said:

kiseca said:

NewUsername said:

If you look at 1994 he was competitive, in 3 races he Qualified 3,4, 1 and finished 3rd and 1st.... if that's not competitive i don't know what is particularly when you look at who was engineering who's car and team orders about interfering with the champoinship. Coulthard was signed on age and budget, not performance.

Anyway, you can attempt to divert from the core of the discussion but the fact is age at 41 is not a barrier especially someone in peak condition like MS and yet he was thrashed by NR for 3 years in a row because he wasn't in his negotiated bubble like previously

I'm not diverting from anything. I'm disagreeing with examples you're using to support the opinion you are putting forward and are now claiming to be fact.

The examples i've put forward are fact, go and look at the official FIA results lol

[kiseca]

NewUsername said:

kiseca said:

NewUsername said:

kiseca said:

NewUsername said:

If you look at 1994 he was competitive, in 3 races he Qualified 3,4, 1 and finished 3rd and 1st.... if that's not competitive i don't know what is particularly when you look at who was engineering who's car and team orders about interfering with the champoinship. Coulthard was signed on age and budget, not performance.

Anyway, you can attempt to divert from the core of the discussion but the fact is age at 41 is not a barrier especially someone in peak condition like MS and yet he was thrashed by NR for 3 years in a row because he wasn't in his negotiated bubble like previously

I'm not diverting from anything. I'm disagreeing with examples you're using to support the opinion you are putting forward and are now claiming to be fact.

The examples i've put forward are fact, go and look at the official FIA results lol

OK, show me where in the official FIA results where it declares it a fact that age is not a barrier, because that's the opinion you claimed as fact.

Also,

NewUsername said:

Coulthard was signed on age and budget,

NewUsername said:

fact is age at 41 is not a barrier

So which is it? Is it a barrier as you claim Williams believed, or is it not a barrier and you claim Williams screwed up?

How did Mansell's comeback go in a midfield car? You've been quiet about those facts.

Personally I don't care either way. Schumacher's comeback wasn't a success, we both agree. So convince me that age isn't a factor. I'm open to it, but you haven't managed yet.

[vdn]

A factor? Surely. How much of one? Not so easy to establish.

MS was still behind a wheel of one sort or another.

Fact is he came back to a field of better drivers; with no unlimited testing and no bias to his favour.

Massive fail.

[NewUsername]

kiseca said:

NewUsername said:

kiseca said:

NewUsername said:

kiseca said:

NewUsername said:

If you look at 1994 he was competitive, in 3 races he Qualified 3,4, 1 and finished 3rd and 1st.... if that's not competitive i don't know what is particularly when you look at who was engineering who's car and team orders about interfering with the champoinship. Coulthard was signed on age and budget, not performance.

Anyway, you can attempt to divert from the core of the discussion but the fact is age at 41 is not a barrier especially someone in peak condition like MS and yet he was thrashed by NR for 3 years in a row because he wasn't in his negotiated bubble like previously

I'm not diverting from anything. I'm disagreeing with examples you're using to support the opinion you are putting forward and are now claiming to be fact.

The examples i've put forward are fact, go and look at the official FIA results lol

OK, show me where in the official FIA results where it declares it a fact that age is not a barrier, because that's the opinion you claimed as fact.

Also,

NewUsername said:

Coulthard was signed on age and budget,

NewUsername said:

fact is age at 41 is not a barrier

So which is it? Is it a barrier as you claim Williams believed, or is it not a barrier and you claim Williams screwed up?

How did Mansell's comeback go in a midfield car? You've been quiet about those facts.

Personally I don't care either way. Schumacher's comeback wasn't a success, we both agree. So convince me that age isn't a factor. I'm open to it, but you haven't managed yet.

Coulthard was signed on age because the sponsors wanted a young long term prospect not a short term one, and Nigel was also very expensive...does that help, its in Franks book, we are talking physical barriers to perfomance anyway so a massively irrelevant point, as both nigel and Michael drove at 41

The 95 season isnt worth noting, Nigel didn't perform because he couldn't test pre season and the car wasn't ready for him till race three, he was signed late and if you know anything McLarens aero philosphy at the time you'll know why the car didn't fit, motivation was therefore zero and he walked away, you don't go from winning in November to being useless a few months later ......

Age is still not a barrier......Raikkonen will be 40 shortly if not already......go across the Atlantic and look at Indycar, historically they run drivers way older, their cars have higher top speeds, high lateral G and run on road circuits and ovals......plenty of over 40's win/have won there. Age is not a barrier to motorsports, F1 has limited seats so using historic examples there are few examples to choose.

[kiseca]

He didn't win only on merit. Schumacher and Hill failed to finish, and being in the fastest car in the field, winning when the sister car with the faster driver was out of the way wasn't exactly a miracle.

Of course the McLaren performances matter. Or are we only to consider the performances that suit your point of view?

And Raikkonen has gone through two top teams and now at the age of 40 finds himself, having being outdriven by the not especially highly regarded Seb Vettel, in a midfield team. Also not a great example to predict greatness from Schumi, as he is, like Mansell, yet another driver who, at 40, is showing that his best speed and biggest successes are behind him.

Oh, and I agree that older drivers have shown they can be competitive in Indycar. I don't doubt Schumacher would have been successful there too, as Formula 1 drivers have frequently shown they can move to Indy and win, whereas Indy drivers seem more inclined to fail when they move to F1.

However, if they can succeed in Indy, why don't they succeed in Formula 1? It's a performance orientated sport. If they were getting rid of drivers too soon, then someone would pick it up, but they don't. It's not prejudice or marketing.

Edited by kiseca on Tuesday 22 October 14:37