Nigel Mansell one of the Greats ?
Discussion
paulguitar said:
Perhaps Hamilton has yet to reach his prime, which is a chilling thought for his competitors.
And for you.
That's not true. Hamilton underachieved from 2010-2013 - if he really got the best out of those cars then he wouldn't have got beat by Button and Alonso in those years.And for you.
Why do people on here insist on comparing a past-it 41-43 year old Schumacher with 28 year old Hamilton in 2013?! It reeks of desperation. The only fair comparison we can make to Schumacher's second career is Alonso next year and 2022... or if Hamilton decides to have a second career from 41-43 years old, which I highly doubt.
Lets keep it sensible and honest.
Muzzer79 said:
Was it as peachy as the 2005 Ferrari that an in-his-peak Schumacher, coming off the back of his 7th world title, masterfully "hustled" to.........a gifted win at the Indianapolis farce and 4 podiums all year?
He really taught that recalcitrant prancing horse a lesson.
Yeah but to be fair Schumacher still finished 3rd in the 2005 championship... And he finished 3rd in 1996 with an even worse Ferrari, 2nd (had he not been rightly disqualified in final race) in another dog of a Ferrari in 1997, and 2nd in 2006. He could hustle.He really taught that recalcitrant prancing horse a lesson.
Hamilton:
2009: 5th
2010: 4th
2011: 5th
2012: 4th
2013: 4th
Edited by TobyTR on Thursday 27th August 03:16
jsf said:
sparta6 said:
Everyone was bored with Schumacher domination and the FIA quite rightly handed the advantage to Michelin teams with sudden regs change.
Nope, you have that backwards, as usual. It was Ferrari that protested the Michelin tyres and had them defined as not legal, hurting the teams who were forced to use a redesigned Michelin Tyre.http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula...
Full of crap as usual, how do you live with such a bad memory?
The new tyre regs for 2005 did hand an advantage to Michelin teams, as Ross Brawn has since stated.
MSC still had a decent battle with Alonso, which was good for the sport.
TobyTR said:
Yeah but to be fair Schumacher still finished 3rd in the 2005 championship... And he finished 3rd in 1996 with an even worse Ferrari, 2nd (had he not been rightly disqualified in final race) in another dog of a Ferrari in 1997, and 2nd in 2006. He could hustle.
Hamilton:
2009: 5th
2010: 4th
2011: 5th
2012: 4th
2013: 4th
That F310 may well have been Maranellos finest Wonky Donkey. Hamilton:
2009: 5th
2010: 4th
2011: 5th
2012: 4th
2013: 4th
Edited by TobyTR on Thursday 27th August 03:16
sparta6 said:
jsf said:
sparta6 said:
Everyone was bored with Schumacher domination and the FIA quite rightly handed the advantage to Michelin teams with sudden regs change.
Nope, you have that backwards, as usual. It was Ferrari that protested the Michelin tyres and had them defined as not legal, hurting the teams who were forced to use a redesigned Michelin Tyre.http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula...
Full of crap as usual, how do you live with such a bad memory?
The new tyre regs for 2005 did hand an advantage to Michelin teams, as Ross Brawn has since stated.
MSC still had a decent battle with Alonso, which was good for the sport.
Ferrari designed their car for multiple pitstops and tyre changes in the races of the 2005 season.
The FIA then turned and said that tyre changes were to be banned for that season. Bridgestone and Ferrari couldn't catch up with that decision until 2006.
Still, the point remains that Schumacher couldn't exactly "hustle" that recalcitrant Ferrari like the demi-god he's painted out to be.
He, and Senna/Verstappen, are no different to Hamilton - poor car = poor results.
Muzzer79 said:
He, and Senna/Verstappen, are no different to Hamilton - poor car = poor results.
This is true to a very large extent. The one thing that really does level the field is rain. Schu, Senna, and Hamilton in particular have had some days in wet conditions where they made everyone else just look silly. Schu in Spain '96, Senna Donington '93, Hamilton Silverstone 2008. There's also the fact that Hamilton did not lose a rain-affected race for, I think, 5 years...uptheraidillon said:
This.
Looking back at F1 history, generally these multi WDC drivers seem to have been part of the best team package that year, for most of their years.
It can apply for Fangio, Prost, Senna, M Schumacher, Vettel and Hamilton.
The years they didn't perform, they were struggling with their cars. That could be said for the rest of the grid.
There may have been lots of talented drivers over the decades that never earned the stats, due to there being so few seats of competitive, reliable cars.
Hi. I would say that I don't believe there is a single F1 goat. I agree that we can't compare different eras, but I do think we can talk in terms of natural talent. My top four of the most naturally talented are, in no particular order, Fangio, Clark, Stewart, Hamilton.Looking back at F1 history, generally these multi WDC drivers seem to have been part of the best team package that year, for most of their years.
It can apply for Fangio, Prost, Senna, M Schumacher, Vettel and Hamilton.
The years they didn't perform, they were struggling with their cars. That could be said for the rest of the grid.
There may have been lots of talented drivers over the decades that never earned the stats, due to there being so few seats of competitive, reliable cars.
Edited by uptheraidillon on Thursday 27th August 02:33
In response to your post: Fangio won 5x wdcs for four manufacturers, that's a hell of a record. Clark was a supreme natural talent who spent all of his F1 career with the sharpest mind in F1 imo, Colin Chapman. Thus Clark often won because he was in a Lotus and he lost because he was in a Lotus. Jackie Stewart: Somehow Matra and Tyrell were only the best when he drove for them (albeit all Ken Tyrell of course). No-one else ever came close. For Stewart there was no Lotus, no Ferrari, no Cooper, no Brabham, no Mclaren, yet he still won 3x wdc. Incredible.
Hamilton: i think any 'doubts' (I struggle to see how there can be any doubts) are addressed in his pre-F1 career and even with his success with radio-controlled cars at a very young age. I mean, the man's even got 3x Blue Peter badges for chrissakes, that has to be more than all the other drivers combined
. I find it interesting that all of Hamilton's rivals from when he came to F1 have fallen by the wayside, and yet the young drivers of today struggle to match him. I don't mean in terms of results but in terms of personal performance. Charles still makes too many mistakes; Max has struggled to overtake without actually colliding with the car he's overtaking. Max is having a great year this year and long may it continue, but it's what, his 6th year in F1? No-one has come close imo to matching Hamilton's personal performance in his first year in F1. Went head-to-head with a genuine great, with equal opportunity, and finishes ahead in the standings. Edited by heebeegeetee on Thursday 27th August 11:55
TobyTR said:
yup and for how many of those years did he have race-winning and potentially championship-winning cars against Senna and Prost?... No doubt Senna and Prost edge him though.
Mansell was 32 years old by the time he found himself in a race-winning car and title contender. His last full season in F1 was 1992 when he was 39 years old - in '94 he only did 4 races for Williams and in '95 only 2 races for McLaren.
I stand by my point, if Mansell entered into a race-winning team in F1 in his early 20s and had similar level of cars as Hamilton then his record would be very similar... in fact, I think he may have done even better than Hamilton did from 2009-2013 with an equal amount of moaning as Hamilton
In 1992 he beat Ricardo Patrese 12-2 in races, absolutely trounced him, it was nowhere near close, and Patrese was no slouch. You give Mansell an equally dominant car like Hamilton has had 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2019 and the results would've spoken for themselves.
Mansell is a legend.
Let's not forget that Piquet considers Mansell to be an idiot, albeit a fast idiot, and that Nige threw (I forget now, was it 2 or 3?) championships away.Mansell was 32 years old by the time he found himself in a race-winning car and title contender. His last full season in F1 was 1992 when he was 39 years old - in '94 he only did 4 races for Williams and in '95 only 2 races for McLaren.
I stand by my point, if Mansell entered into a race-winning team in F1 in his early 20s and had similar level of cars as Hamilton then his record would be very similar... in fact, I think he may have done even better than Hamilton did from 2009-2013 with an equal amount of moaning as Hamilton
In 1992 he beat Ricardo Patrese 12-2 in races, absolutely trounced him, it was nowhere near close, and Patrese was no slouch. You give Mansell an equally dominant car like Hamilton has had 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2019 and the results would've spoken for themselves.
Mansell is a legend.
Edited by TobyTR on Thursday 27th August 07:25
I was/am a big fan of Mansell, and am likewise of Hamilton. The two don't remotely compare imo. Clearly the young Hamilton got people on his side and he garnered tremendous support whereas Mansell seemed to manage to wind too many people up, made hard work of it all, plus in his early days knowledgeable people were genuinely questioning his ability. However, once he figured out how to win he was a terrific and entertaining competitor, and yes, most certainly a legend in his way. A great? Not for me. Maybe the best of "division two" (and way better than a Patrese etc) but not at all in the pantheon of Fangio, Clark, Stewart, Hamilton, nor Senna Schumacher Prost Lauda etc etc etc.
Muzzer79 said:
sparta6 said:
jsf said:
sparta6 said:
Everyone was bored with Schumacher domination and the FIA quite rightly handed the advantage to Michelin teams with sudden regs change.
Nope, you have that backwards, as usual. It was Ferrari that protested the Michelin tyres and had them defined as not legal, hurting the teams who were forced to use a redesigned Michelin Tyre.http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula...
Full of crap as usual, how do you live with such a bad memory?
The new tyre regs for 2005 did hand an advantage to Michelin teams, as Ross Brawn has since stated.
MSC still had a decent battle with Alonso, which was good for the sport.
Ferrari designed their car for multiple pitstops and tyre changes in the races of the 2005 season.
The FIA then turned and said that tyre changes were to be banned for that season. Bridgestone and Ferrari couldn't catch up with that decision until 2006.
Still, the point remains that Schumacher couldn't exactly "hustle" that recalcitrant Ferrari like the demi-god he's painted out to be.
He, and Senna/Verstappen, are no different to Hamilton - poor car = poor results.
Until your last 2 paras.
Rapidly disintegrating tyres: not even Yoda can deliver without tyre performance
A recalcitrant car is a different dynamic and normally consists of one or more;
1. Failing to go in the direction you need
2. Underpowered.
3. Understeer snapping into oversteer
4. A variety of mechanical and/or software issues, such as being stuck in 5th gear.
This is where drivers such as Senna, Schumacher and Max shine.
TobyTR said:
paulguitar said:
stevemcs said:
The year Mansell won the championship it was the best car on the grid just like the Mercedes has been for the past 5/6 years.
And by a much greater margin. The '92 Williams was often more than two seconds quicker than the next best car. Add to that the Mercedes has certainly not been consistently dominant. A driver other than Hamilton would likely not have won the title in 2018 and 2019, as Luca DiMontezemalo pointed out.and if Hamilton didn't win the title in 2019 then Bottas would've, as he finished 2nd in the championship...
sparta6 said:
paulguitar said:
There's also the fact that Hamilton did not lose a rain-affected race for, I think, 5 years...
Interesting.I was at Hockenheim in 2019.
Edited by grassomaniac on Thursday 27th August 12:46
sparta6 said:
Muzzer79 said:
sparta6 said:
jsf said:
sparta6 said:
Everyone was bored with Schumacher domination and the FIA quite rightly handed the advantage to Michelin teams with sudden regs change.
Nope, you have that backwards, as usual. It was Ferrari that protested the Michelin tyres and had them defined as not legal, hurting the teams who were forced to use a redesigned Michelin Tyre.http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula...
Full of crap as usual, how do you live with such a bad memory?
The new tyre regs for 2005 did hand an advantage to Michelin teams, as Ross Brawn has since stated.
MSC still had a decent battle with Alonso, which was good for the sport.
Ferrari designed their car for multiple pitstops and tyre changes in the races of the 2005 season.
The FIA then turned and said that tyre changes were to be banned for that season. Bridgestone and Ferrari couldn't catch up with that decision until 2006.
Still, the point remains that Schumacher couldn't exactly "hustle" that recalcitrant Ferrari like the demi-god he's painted out to be.
He, and Senna/Verstappen, are no different to Hamilton - poor car = poor results.
Until your last 2 paras.
Rapidly disintegrating tyres: not even Yoda can deliver without tyre performance
A recalcitrant car is a different dynamic and normally consists of one or more;
1. Failing to go in the direction you need
2. Underpowered.
3. Understeer snapping into oversteer
4. A variety of mechanical and/or software issues, such as being stuck in 5th gear.
This is where drivers such as Senna, Schumacher and Max shine.
Muzzer79 said:
sparta6 said:
Muzzer79 said:
sparta6 said:
jsf said:
sparta6 said:
stuff
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/3080936.stmFull of crap as usual, how do you live with such a bad memory?
A recalcitrant car is a different dynamic and normally consists of one or more;
1. Failing to go in the direction you need
2. Underpowered.
3. Understeer snapping into oversteer
4. A variety of mechanical and/or software issues, such as being stuck in 5th gear.
This is where drivers such as Senna, Schumacher and Max shine.
bad memory indeed, can't even manage a month
sparta6 said:
paulguitar said:
There's also the fact that Hamilton did not lose a rain-affected race for, I think, 5 years...
Interesting.I was at Hockenheim in 2019.
Was the point unclear?
ETA. I'm genuinely pleased for you that you were there for that one, must have been a dream day out for you!
Muzzer79 said:
sparta6 said:
Muzzer79 said:
sparta6 said:
jsf said:
sparta6 said:
Everyone was bored with Schumacher domination and the FIA quite rightly handed the advantage to Michelin teams with sudden regs change.
Nope, you have that backwards, as usual. It was Ferrari that protested the Michelin tyres and had them defined as not legal, hurting the teams who were forced to use a redesigned Michelin Tyre.http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula...
Full of crap as usual, how do you live with such a bad memory?
The new tyre regs for 2005 did hand an advantage to Michelin teams, as Ross Brawn has since stated.
MSC still had a decent battle with Alonso, which was good for the sport.
Ferrari designed their car for multiple pitstops and tyre changes in the races of the 2005 season.
The FIA then turned and said that tyre changes were to be banned for that season. Bridgestone and Ferrari couldn't catch up with that decision until 2006.
Still, the point remains that Schumacher couldn't exactly "hustle" that recalcitrant Ferrari like the demi-god he's painted out to be.
He, and Senna/Verstappen, are no different to Hamilton - poor car = poor results.
Until your last 2 paras.
Rapidly disintegrating tyres: not even Yoda can deliver without tyre performance
A recalcitrant car is a different dynamic and normally consists of one or more;
1. Failing to go in the direction you need
2. Underpowered.
3. Understeer snapping into oversteer
4. A variety of mechanical and/or software issues, such as being stuck in 5th gear.
This is where drivers such as Senna, Schumacher and Max shine.
"We just don't have a good balance through the corner," Verstappen said. "Understeer, oversteer, lack of grip. Not having a lot of top speed as well. Everything together just makes us slow."
paulguitar said:
sparta6 said:
paulguitar said:
There's also the fact that Hamilton did not lose a rain-affected race for, I think, 5 years...
Interesting.I was at Hockenheim in 2019.
Evangelion said:
I'll believe Hamilton is one of the greats when he manages to win races without having a car that's a second a lap faster than anyone else's.
Others have used 2009 and 2013 as examples here but to my mind the stand out example is actually when he won the world title in 2008. The Ferrari was widely regarded to be the overall better package that season which is supported by the fact that Kimi and Massa won the constructors title for Ferrari.
Ferrari won 9 races, McLaren won 7.
Yet it was Lewis who won the drivers championship. Surely this proves he can win without a clear car advantage and make up the shortfall himself.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff