Lewis Hamilton (Vol. 2)
Discussion
ddom said:
No, the issue is you believe that Hamilton is the best, so why would I debate this with you?
Fangio won the title with 4 manufacturers and had (has?) the highest win ratio. “Better to lose honorably in a British car than win in a foreign one” – Sir Stirling Moss, the best never to win. Senna, the greatest driver (for me) to ever race, ability in the wet, one lap pace, his refusal to cower to the FIA and that asshole Balestre which cost him a WC more than likely. Schumacher qualifying 7th at spar never having driven there, the infamous gearbox second place after most the race in 5th gear. He soured his record with some blatant gamemanship, but let's face it, if it had been poor old Damon in his position the British public would have hailed him a genius.
Hamilton is the best driver currently in the world, but let's be realistic about the cars he has had. It's not like he had to make his way with Super Aguri when he began F1 was it
The courage needed in years gone by without an army of technicians and the safety nets (due in no small part to Jackie Stewart and others) we now have make it impossible to state a GOAT.
I'm sorry but Stirling Moss dined out on his Miglia Miglia success of 1955 which was in a German built car and I don't recall him ever turning down the plaudits at any stage over the following 60 years at events around the world purely because the car was foreign. I doubt very much he would ever have preferred to have broken down in a British car rather than win purely for the sake of being seen as honourable. That's laughable.Fangio won the title with 4 manufacturers and had (has?) the highest win ratio. “Better to lose honorably in a British car than win in a foreign one” – Sir Stirling Moss, the best never to win. Senna, the greatest driver (for me) to ever race, ability in the wet, one lap pace, his refusal to cower to the FIA and that asshole Balestre which cost him a WC more than likely. Schumacher qualifying 7th at spar never having driven there, the infamous gearbox second place after most the race in 5th gear. He soured his record with some blatant gamemanship, but let's face it, if it had been poor old Damon in his position the British public would have hailed him a genius.
Hamilton is the best driver currently in the world, but let's be realistic about the cars he has had. It's not like he had to make his way with Super Aguri when he began F1 was it
The courage needed in years gone by without an army of technicians and the safety nets (due in no small part to Jackie Stewart and others) we now have make it impossible to state a GOAT. Anyway, Lewis Hamilton's car is built at Brackley in the UK so I don't see the relevance of the Moss quote or the point you are getting at?
It also isn't a current drivers fault that safety has improved significantly by the time they were born and it has not impact on their driving ability alone. People always use that example to justify drivers of old being somehow better than the modern breed but the reality is that pure driving ability is completely separate and unrelated to the concept of self preservation. Older drivers would logically have had to have been more brave, but that doesn't mean they were better at driving.
ddom said:
paulguitar said:
Actually, if you bothered to read my posts, you would see that I have not said this. I say that Hamilton is the best of his era. My issue with you is when you said 'Hamilton is no match for Schumacher/Prost/Senna et al.' You have no case whatsoever for that, because it's patently b
ks.
What is 'patently bks. ks' is your reading comprehension. You may feel he is a match (perhaps equal is a better word) for others, I do not, for the reasons listed. 
TwentyFive said:
I'm sorry but Stirling Moss dined out on his Miglia Miglia success of 1955 which was in a German built car and I don't recall him ever turning down the plaudits at any stage over the following 60 years at events around the world purely because the car was foreign. I doubt very much he would ever have preferred to have broken down in a British car rather than win purely for the sake of being seen as honourable. That's laughable.
Anyway, Lewis Hamilton's car is built at Brackley in the UK so I don't see the relevance of the Moss quote or the point you are getting at?
It also isn't a current drivers fault that safety has improved significantly by the time they were born and it has not impact on their driving ability alone. People always use that example to justify drivers of old being somehow better than the modern breed but the reality is that pure driving ability is completely separate and unrelated to the concept of self preservation. Older drivers would logically have had to have been more brave, but that doesn't mean they were better at driving.
Go and have a little read of what the contemporary drivers and various team bosses have to say about Sir Stirling Moss, also check his quotes, he was far too classy to 'dine out', how crass of you. The irony is strong with all the criticism of Jackie Stewart, he was instrumental in many ways, but apparently 'he's a wrongun that bloke he dont like Hamilton', faintly amusing. Modern drivers are athletes, they are honed by an enormous team of talent, would they all have made it in yesteryear, no not all (imo better get that in for the pedants). Again, check out the hours of footage of modern F1 drivers in old cars, they all say a very similar thing. Anyway, Lewis Hamilton's car is built at Brackley in the UK so I don't see the relevance of the Moss quote or the point you are getting at?
It also isn't a current drivers fault that safety has improved significantly by the time they were born and it has not impact on their driving ability alone. People always use that example to justify drivers of old being somehow better than the modern breed but the reality is that pure driving ability is completely separate and unrelated to the concept of self preservation. Older drivers would logically have had to have been more brave, but that doesn't mean they were better at driving.
TwentyFive said:
...
It also isn't a current drivers fault that safety has improved significantly by the time they were born and it has not impact on their driving ability alone. People always use that example to justify drivers of old being somehow better than the modern breed but the reality is that pure driving ability is completely separate and unrelated to the concept of self preservation. Older drivers would logically have had to have been more brave, but that doesn't mean they were better at driving.
It may not be their fault that today's cars are safer, but it may have saved their life in a high speed impact, which allows them to keep building records. Drivers of the earlier generation couldn't.It also isn't a current drivers fault that safety has improved significantly by the time they were born and it has not impact on their driving ability alone. People always use that example to justify drivers of old being somehow better than the modern breed but the reality is that pure driving ability is completely separate and unrelated to the concept of self preservation. Older drivers would logically have had to have been more brave, but that doesn't mean they were better at driving.
Today if a driver downshifts too early, a computer says no. A driver can carry on.
In the H pattern manual days, with no rev limit, a driver wrecked the engine and DNFed for a overrev. Potentially damaging their statistics.
The earlier generation weren't necessarily worse drivers, they saw the result of errors they made.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 13th October 14:31
uptheraidillon said:
It may not be their fault that today's cars are safer, but it may have saved their life in a high speed impact, which allows them to keep building records, drivers of the earlier generation couldn't.
Today if a driver downshifts too early, a computer says no. A driver can carry on.
In the H pattern manual days, with no rev limit, a driver wrecked the engine and DNFed for a slight overrev. Potentially damaging their statistics.
The earlier generation weren't necessarily worse drivers, they saw the result of errors they made.
I don't disagree with any of that, but I was just pointing out that ones ultimate driving ability should not be given less credit because they happen to race in a safer era.Today if a driver downshifts too early, a computer says no. A driver can carry on.
In the H pattern manual days, with no rev limit, a driver wrecked the engine and DNFed for a slight overrev. Potentially damaging their statistics.
The earlier generation weren't necessarily worse drivers, they saw the result of errors they made.
ddom said:
paulguitar said:
You've listed some achievements of other drivers, none of which are likely in dispute. Why do you dismiss Hamilton's achievements?
Where have I dismissed them? ddom said:
TwentyFive said:
I'm sorry but Stirling Moss dined out on his Miglia Miglia success of 1955 which was in a German built car and I don't recall him ever turning down the plaudits at any stage over the following 60 years at events around the world purely because the car was foreign. I doubt very much he would ever have preferred to have broken down in a British car rather than win purely for the sake of being seen as honourable. That's laughable.
Go and have a little read of what the contemporary drivers and various team bosses have to say about Sir Stirling Moss, also check his quotes, he was far too classy to 'dine out', how crass of you. 
but yes of course... I am crass for suggesting he dined out on it. Brilliant.ddom said:
Fangio won the title with 4 manufacturers
ddom said:
Hamilton is the best driver currently in the world, but let's be realistic about the cars he has had. It's not like he had to make his way with Super Aguri
so how come Fangio gets a free pass to jump ship into the best cars & still receive the plaudits ...& Hamilton doesn't? (not that the Merc was the best car at that point, or that anyone had a clue that the Merc would become the best car- most on here seemed to think he was nuts for leaving McL)uptheraidillon said:
It may not be their fault that today's cars are safer, but it may have saved their life in a high speed impact, which allows them to keep building records. Drivers of the earlier generation couldn't.
Today if a driver downshifts too early, a computer says no. A driver can carry on.
In the H pattern manual days, with no rev limit, a driver wrecked the engine and DNFed for a overrev. Potentially damaging their statistics.
The earlier generation weren't necessarily worse drivers, they saw the result of errors they made.
But they only had to compete against drivers who were subject to the same restrictions so it's a level playing field. LH, Kimi and others all did pretty well in formula Renault which had a sequential box that they could "Overrev".Today if a driver downshifts too early, a computer says no. A driver can carry on.
In the H pattern manual days, with no rev limit, a driver wrecked the engine and DNFed for a overrev. Potentially damaging their statistics.
The earlier generation weren't necessarily worse drivers, they saw the result of errors they made.
Edited by uptheraidillon on Tuesday 13th October 14:31
uptheraidillon said:
How many high speed crashes did M Schumcher and Hamilton have?
Do you think that would have got these records if it was in a 50s Maserati or 60s Lotus?
The accidents are irrelevant. As I said earlier, a driver cannot control the era in which they race. You have to drive the the appropriate limit for the car, track, etc. That hasn't changed. Its just they are more likely to get away with it when they get it wrong.Do you think that would have got these records if it was in a 50s Maserati or 60s Lotus?
Of course they wouldnt reach these records in a 50s car, but they wouldn't be able to reach 91 wins with 6 races a year. They may have got 7 titles though? Who knows.
Its worth considering that Fangio etc were winning world titles in an era when only the top 5 in the standings were racing the full season.
For example in 1950 and 1951, the driver who finished 6th in the overall standings competed in just one round of the championship. That highlights the lack of depth in the field and as such, the records set by Fangio were not exactly set against a high level of full time competitive drivers like we see today.
ddom said:
paulguitar said:
You consider Hamilton 'no match for Schumacher/Prost/Senna et al'. You've seemingly either not understood what you've seen or otherwise not seen it at all.
Oh dear, you just cannot accept that someone has a different opinion can you, what is it exactly? I also think not all championships are equal.
I don't think the 2020 WDC will be anything like as hard as his ones vs Rosberg or Sebs last chance.
Can't blame him for that, of course, but the numbers are far from everything when you're comparing to guys who beat Prost or Lauda in the same car.
I don't think the 2020 WDC will be anything like as hard as his ones vs Rosberg or Sebs last chance.
Can't blame him for that, of course, but the numbers are far from everything when you're comparing to guys who beat Prost or Lauda in the same car.
angrymoby said:
Fangio could only beat what he was up against ...but c'mon, F1 was pretty much a (rich- very rich!) gentleman's club back then & he won his last WDC at 46! (he also had the sense/ skill to make sure he was in the best car/ team too- which other drivers get maligned for) ... but you wont see a 46 F1 driver again, nor race winner ...let alone a WDC'er
Kimi: "hold my beer"glazbagun said:
I also think not all championships are equal.
I don't think the 2020 WDC will be anything like as hard as his ones vs Rosberg or Sebs last chance.
Can't blame him for that, of course, but the numbers are far from everything when you're comparing to guys who beat Prost or Lauda in the same car.
Couldn’t you say that about any of his challengers too though? I don't think the 2020 WDC will be anything like as hard as his ones vs Rosberg or Sebs last chance.
Can't blame him for that, of course, but the numbers are far from everything when you're comparing to guys who beat Prost or Lauda in the same car.
glazbagun said:
I also think not all championships are equal.
I don't think the 2020 WDC will be anything like as hard as his ones vs Rosberg or Sebs last chance.
Can't blame him for that, of course, but the numbers are far from everything when you're comparing to guys who beat Prost or Lauda in the same car.
I don't think the 2020 WDC will be anything like as hard as his ones vs Rosberg or Sebs last chance.
Can't blame him for that, of course, but the numbers are far from everything when you're comparing to guys who beat Prost or Lauda in the same car.
| Driver | WDC | WDCs Beaten | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alain Prost | 4 | 5 | Lauda (1985); Rosberg (1986); Senna (1989); Mansell (1990); Hill (1993) |
| Lewis Hamilton | 3 | 3 | Alonso (2007); Button (2010, 2012); Rosberg (2013, 2014, 2015) |
| Jenson Button | 1 | 3 | Villeneuve (2003); Hamilton (2011); Alonso (2015) |
| Niki Lauda | 3 | 2 | Piquet (1979); Prost (1984) |
| Fernando Alonso | 2 | 2 | Raikkonen (2014); Button (2016) |
| Alberto Ascari | 2 | 2 | Farina, Hawthorn (1953) |
| Nico Rosberg | 1 | 2 | Schumacher (2010, 2011, 2012); Hamilton (2016) |
| Keke Rosberg | 1 | 2 | Fittipaldi (1980); Mansell (1985) |
| Juan Manuel Fangio | 5 | 1 | Farina (1951) |
| Sebastian Vettel | 4 | 1 | Raikkonen (2015, 2016) |
| Ayrton Senna | 3 | 1 | Prost (1988) |
| Jack Brabham | 3 | 1 | Hulme (1965, 1966) |
| Nelson Piquet | 3 | 1 | Mansell (1987) |
| Emerson Fittipaldi | 2 | 1 | Hulme (1973) |
| Graham Hill | 2 | 1 | Stewart (1965, 1966) |
| Jim Clark | 2 | 1 | Hill (1967) |
| Damon Hill | 1 | 1 | Villeneuve (1996) |
| Giuseppe Farina | 1 | 1 | Hawthorn (1953) |
| Jochen Rindt | 1 | 1 | Brabham (1968) |
| John Surtees | 1 | 1 | Rindt (1966) |
| Nigel Mansell | 1 | 1 | Piquet (1986) |
this was from 2016/17 ...needs updating
TwentyFive said:
uptheraidillon said:
It may not be their fault that today's cars are safer, but it may have saved their life in a high speed impact, which allows them to keep building records, drivers of the earlier generation couldn't.
Today if a driver downshifts too early, a computer says no. A driver can carry on.
In the H pattern manual days, with no rev limit, a driver wrecked the engine and DNFed for a slight overrev. Potentially damaging their statistics.
The earlier generation weren't necessarily worse drivers, they saw the result of errors they made.
I don't disagree with any of that, but I was just pointing out that ones ultimate driving ability should not be given less credit because they happen to race in a safer era.Today if a driver downshifts too early, a computer says no. A driver can carry on.
In the H pattern manual days, with no rev limit, a driver wrecked the engine and DNFed for a slight overrev. Potentially damaging their statistics.
The earlier generation weren't necessarily worse drivers, they saw the result of errors they made.
RB Will said:
TwentyFive said:
uptheraidillon said:
It may not be their fault that today's cars are safer, but it may have saved their life in a high speed impact, which allows them to keep building records, drivers of the earlier generation couldn't.
Today if a driver downshifts too early, a computer says no. A driver can carry on.
In the H pattern manual days, with no rev limit, a driver wrecked the engine and DNFed for a slight overrev. Potentially damaging their statistics.
The earlier generation weren't necessarily worse drivers, they saw the result of errors they made.
I don't disagree with any of that, but I was just pointing out that ones ultimate driving ability should not be given less credit because they happen to race in a safer era.Today if a driver downshifts too early, a computer says no. A driver can carry on.
In the H pattern manual days, with no rev limit, a driver wrecked the engine and DNFed for a slight overrev. Potentially damaging their statistics.
The earlier generation weren't necessarily worse drivers, they saw the result of errors they made.
Maybe clutching at straws ?
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff