planetf1.com

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote: No one has had 3 years of a dominant car?

There have never been a driver who's had so many dominant or title contenders before that's true yes.

Why do you insist on talking nowt but rubbish? Hamilton has had 8 championship contending cars. Schumacher had 11 and Prost had 10. That's just off the top my head.

Mod Yellow wrote:Enough now, any more off topic arguing and I will start getting heavy handed with those involved.

The least you could do is buy us dinner first

Jenson's Understeer wrote:

Mod Yellow wrote:Enough now, any more off topic arguing and I will start getting heavy handed with those involved.

The least you could do is buy us dinner first

Not on what they pay me here

Alienturnedhuman wrote:If Hamilton clinches the title in Austin, he will be the youngest 5x WDC beating Schumacher by 360 days.

If Vettel wins a championship in 2019 or 2020 then he will take the record from Hamilton.

If Hamilton doesn't win next year Schumacher will remain the youngest 6x and 7x WDC even if Hamilton goes on to win that many titles. Vettel has to win 6 by 2021 and 7 by 2022 to become the youngest of those, although if Hamilton wins his 6th next year then Vettel cannot claim any youngest records unless he surpasses Hamilton's count first.

I realised I made an error, Schumacher will remain the youngest by 5 days if Hamilton secures it in Austin as I erroneously used 2003 as Schumacher's 5th WDC, not 2002.

This means that Hamilton cannot take any more "youngest" records unless he becomes the youngest 8x WDC.

Vettel has to become a 5x WDC next year to take it from Schumacher.

Interesting

mikeyg123 wrote:

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote: No one has had 3 years of a dominant car?

There have never been a driver who's had so many dominant or title contenders before that's true yes.

Why do you insist on talking nowt but rubbish? Hamilton has had 8 championship contending cars. Schumacher had 11 and Prost had 10. That's just off the top my head.

I count Hamiltons to 10 but please continue to talk rubbish.

AnRs wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote: No one has had 3 years of a dominant car?

There have never been a driver who's had so many dominant or title contenders before that's true yes.

Why do you insist on talking nowt but rubbish? Hamilton has had 8 championship contending cars. Schumacher had 11 and Prost had 10. That's just off the top my head.

I count Hamiltons to 10 but please continue to talk rubbish.

2007, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014-2018. Which one am I missing?

Invade wrote:

AnRs wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote: No one has had 3 years of a dominant car?

There have never been a driver who's had so many dominant or title contenders before that's true yes.

Why do you insist on talking nowt but rubbish? Hamilton has had 8 championship contending cars. Schumacher had 11 and Prost had 10. That's just off the top my head.

I count Hamiltons to 10 but please continue to talk rubbish.

2007, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014-2018. Which one am I missing?

2011, probably more questionable but Button put that McLaren in 2nd place in WDC.

AnRs wrote:
I count Hamiltons to 10 but please continue to talk rubbish.

2007, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014-2018. Which one am I missing?[/quote]

2011, probably more questionable but Button put that McLaren in 2nd place in WDC.[/quote]

Neither the 2011 or 2012 Mclaren contended for the championship so couldn't be included. If you want to extend it to cars fast enough to challenge for a championship then I guess you could include the 2012 car. That would make 9.

Even if you want to claim it's 10 that's less than Schumacher and the same as Prost so you were still wrong.

mikeyg123 wrote:

AnRs wrote:
I count Hamiltons to 10 but please continue to talk rubbish.

2007, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014-2018. Which one am I missing?

2011, probably more questionable but Button put that McLaren in 2nd place in WDC.[/quote]

Neither the 2011 or 2012 Mclaren contended for the championship so couldn't be included. If you want to extend it to cars fast enough to challenge for a championship then I guess you could include the 2012 car. That would make 9.

Even if you want to claim it's 10 that's less than Schumacher and the same as Prost so you were still wrong.[/quote]

Well it's certainly not a rubbish claim is it? His cars is certainly up there with those who's had the most dominant streaks in F1 history

AnRs wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

AnRs wrote:
I count Hamiltons to 10 but please continue to talk rubbish.

2007, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014-2018. Which one am I missing?

2011, probably more questionable but Button put that McLaren in 2nd place in WDC.

Neither the 2011 or 2012 Mclaren contended for the championship so couldn't be included. If you want to extend it to cars fast enough to challenge for a championship then I guess you could include the 2012 car. That would make 9.

Even if you want to claim it's 10 that's less than Schumacher and the same as Prost so you were still wrong.[/quote]

Well it's certainly not a rubbish claim is it? His cars is certainly up there with those who's had the most dominant streaks in F1 history[/quote]

You said them most championship contending cars which as I've proved is a false assertion. It's not that far away from the norm in modern, longer F1 careers. Vettel has had 8 himself.

mikeyg123 wrote:

AnRs wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

AnRs wrote:
I count Hamiltons to 10 but please continue to talk rubbish.

2007, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014-2018. Which one am I missing?

2011, probably more questionable but Button put that McLaren in 2nd place in WDC.

Neither the 2011 or 2012 Mclaren contended for the championship so couldn't be included. If you want to extend it to cars fast enough to challenge for a championship then I guess you could include the 2012 car. That would make 9.

Even if you want to claim it's 10 that's less than Schumacher and the same as Prost so you were still wrong.

Well it's certainly not a rubbish claim is it? His cars is certainly up there with those who's had the most dominant streaks in F1 history[/quote]

You said them most championship contending cars which as I've proved is a false assertion. It's not that far away from the norm in modern, longer F1 careers. Vettel has had 8 himself.[/quote]

8? I get it to 7, 2009-13, 2017-2018, where do you put that 8th?

I have 7 for Vettel and 9 for Hamilton.

World Titles. I think Hamilton will win eight. He's too close and too young at the moment to retire now without giving it a fair crack. If Mercedes maintain form, and there's no reason to think they won't, this one's his.
Wins. I think Hamilton will surpass MSC's 91 in 2020, but possibly late 2019.
Podiums. If he gets more wins I expect he'll beat the podium number too.
Wins/Podiums in consecutive years. He'll need to if he's going to achieve what I've said he will.

Given Vettel has been mentioned, I'd not be surprised if Sebastian didn't win another World Championship. I expect Lewis will have him covered until he retires, and if Vettel is still going he'll have to contend with drivers like Ricciardo, Verstappen and Leclerc (just to name three - many more top drivers could come through in the next two or three years).

Johnson wrote:All the drivers high up in the WDC count could have won more titles...

Schumacher: 97,98,06 were all lost in the final race and 99 would have been his easily without the leg break.
Senna: 89 would have easily been his without such reliability.
Prost: 81,82, 83,84 could all have been his with a little more luck.
Hamilton: 07 and 16.

To that, I'd add that if Schumacher won the '06 title and thus continued and didn't retire, he would have also most likely sewn the '07 and '08 ones.

These if's and but's games are so much fun!

Siao7 wrote:

Johnson wrote:All the drivers high up in the WDC count could have won more titles...

Schumacher: 97,98,06 were all lost in the final race and 99 would have been his easily without the leg break.
Senna: 89 would have easily been his without such reliability.
Prost: 81,82, 83,84 could all have been his with a little more luck.
Hamilton: 07 and 16.

To that, I'd add that if Schumacher won the '06 title and thus continued and didn't retire, he would have also most likely sewn the '07 and '08 ones.

These if's and but's games are so much fun!

Would he have continued if he won the '06 WDC though? He announced his retirement post Monza when the championship was well up for grabs.

Other than a couple of years of Hakkinen, who really challenged Michael for any period of time?

Today's grid has far better depth, and I feel that Lewis has had tougher team mates than Michael did overall.

I'd like to see him overtake in race wins, and if that happens the WDC could be matched. I can't see him overtaking in WDC's.

Yellowbin74 wrote:Other than a couple of years of Hakkinen, who really challenged Michael for any period of time?

Today's grid has far better depth, and I feel that Lewis has had tougher team mates than Michael did overall.

I'd like to see him overtake in race wins, and if that happens the WDC could be matched. I can't see him overtaking in WDC's.

I mean no disrespect to Hamilton, I mean the guy can drive.

Most probably he will break Schumi's record of victories, maybe even WDCs as well.

But something similar could be said about Hamilton.

In 2007, yes he was impressive versus Alonso. In 2008 he won against the underwhelming Massa -- again no disrespect to Mr Massa but we all know where he figures in the list of all time greats. He doesn't.

Then Hamilton beat Rosberg, a determined good driver, but not outstanding. In fact Rosberg felt the need to quit after he made his point when he won WDC in 2016. The last two years, Hamilton has been beating Vettel, who has shown to us all, he can only drive when leading from pole position and that he struggles in the rain and to overtake drivers who do not jump out of his way.

In fact when you really think about it, it is a little bit frustrating and disappointing when most drivers on the grid have no chance to fight for a Grand Prix win, let alone a championship, despite the rich talent we have.

This is a situation which should concern us all.

Me personally, I used to watch F1 more religiously ten years ago, but as the years go on and you realise that at any year only two or three drivers can vie for the championship it is a bit disappointing. We should have a more level playing field, but I do not pretend to hold the answer to this million dollar question. Perhaps three car teams and damn the associated costs will bring more excitement or at least more intra-team rivalries.

But it is a shame we don't have Verstappen and Ricciardo in a faster car, that Alonso wasted his years in that McLaren, that Kimmi was driving the second Ferrari (without scoring a single victory, IIRC), Bottas has been a very subdued second Mercedes driver and so on.

This is not a dig at Hamilton, he did the best he could with what he had in his hands. But it's a shame we did not get better and closer championship fights.

Yellowbin74 wrote:Other than a couple of years of Hakkinen, who really challenged Michael for any period of time?

Today's grid has far better depth, and I feel that Lewis has had tougher team mates than Michael did overall.

I'd like to see him overtake in race wins, and if that happens the WDC could be matched. I can't see him overtaking in WDC's.

Yes that's my take as well, Schumacher dominated for a decade but there was a dearth of talent in comparison to today.

FrusEldar wrote:

Yellowbin74 wrote:Other than a couple of years of Hakkinen, who really challenged Michael for any period of time?

Today's grid has far better depth, and I feel that Lewis has had tougher team mates than Michael did overall.

I'd like to see him overtake in race wins, and if that happens the WDC could be matched. I can't see him overtaking in WDC's.

I mean no disrespect to Hamilton, I mean the guy can drive.

Most probably he will break Schumi's record of victories, maybe even WDCs as well.

But something similar could be said about Hamilton.

In 2007, yes he was impressive versus Alonso. In 2008 he won against the underwhelming Massa -- again no disrespect to Mr Massa but we all know where he figures in the list of all time greats. He doesn't.

Then Hamilton beat Rosberg, a determined good driver, but not outstanding. In fact Rosberg felt the need to quit after he made his point when he won WDC in 2016. The last two years, Hamilton has been beating Vettel, who has shown to us all, he can only drive when leading from pole position and that he struggles in the rain and to overtake drivers who do not jump out of his way.

In fact when you really think about it, it is a little bit frustrating and disappointing when most drivers on the grid have no chance to fight for a Grand Prix win, let alone a championship, despite the rich talent we have.

This is a situation which should concern us all.

Me personally, I used to watch F1 more religiously ten years ago, but as the years go on and you realise that at any year only two or three drivers can vie for the championship it is a bit disappointing. We should have a more level playing field, but I do not pretend to hold the answer to this million dollar question. Perhaps three car teams and damn the associated costs will bring more excitement or at least more intra-team rivalries.

But it is a shame we don't have Verstappen and Ricciardo in a faster car, that Alonso wasted his years in that McLaren, that Kimmi was driving the second Ferrari (without scoring a single victory, IIRC), Bottas has been a very subdued second Mercedes driver and so on.

This is not a dig at Hamilton, he did the best he could with what he had in his hands. But it's a shame we did not get better and closer championship fights.

Hamilton has beat 5 world champions without the need of superior equipment, only Verstappen has not had the chance against Hamilton thus far, the rest are not on his level and I include Ricciardo who is getting pummeled against Verstappen so why does he deserve a chance?

JN23 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Johnson wrote:All the drivers high up in the WDC count could have won more titles...

Schumacher: 97,98,06 were all lost in the final race and 99 would have been his easily without the leg break.
Senna: 89 would have easily been his without such reliability.
Prost: 81,82, 83,84 could all have been his with a little more luck.
Hamilton: 07 and 16.

To that, I'd add that if Schumacher won the '06 title and thus continued and didn't retire, he would have also most likely sewn the '07 and '08 ones.

These if's and but's games are so much fun!

Would he have continued if he won the '06 WDC though? He announced his retirement post Monza when the championship was well up for grabs.

Yeah, you are right, I forgot the timeline. But in an if scenario, he could have gone on I guess.

Yellowbin74 wrote:Other than a couple of years of Hakkinen, who really challenged Michael for any period of time?

Today's grid has far better depth, and I feel that Lewis has had tougher team mates than Michael did overall.

I'd like to see him overtake in race wins, and if that happens the WDC could be matched. I can't see him overtaking in WDC's.

Hill over 4 years?

pokerman wrote:

Yellowbin74 wrote:Other than a couple of years of Hakkinen, who really challenged Michael for any period of time?

Today's grid has far better depth, and I feel that Lewis has had tougher team mates than Michael did overall.

I'd like to see him overtake in race wins, and if that happens the WDC could be matched. I can't see him overtaking in WDC's.

Yes that's my take as well, Schumacher dominated for a decade but there was a dearth of talent in comparison to today.

We've been through all of that. So the talent pool suddenly depleted when Schumacher was there and magically re-appeared when he retired? LEt's not open that discussion again please

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Yellowbin74 wrote:Other than a couple of years of Hakkinen, who really challenged Michael for any period of time?

Today's grid has far better depth, and I feel that Lewis has had tougher team mates than Michael did overall.

I'd like to see him overtake in race wins, and if that happens the WDC could be matched. I can't see him overtaking in WDC's.

Yes that's my take as well, Schumacher dominated for a decade but there was a dearth of talent in comparison to today.

We've been through all of that. So the talent pool suddenly depleted when Schumacher was there and magically re-appeared when he retired? LEt's not open that discussion again please

Of course that is how it happened. Do you question it?

You are right, I believe that somewhere it must be in the forum bylaws that the topic be brought up at least twice a year.

Siao7 wrote:

Yellowbin74 wrote:Other than a couple of years of Hakkinen, who really challenged Michael for any period of time?

Today's grid has far better depth, and I feel that Lewis has had tougher team mates than Michael did overall.

I'd like to see him overtake in race wins, and if that happens the WDC could be matched. I can't see him overtaking in WDC's.

Hill over 4 years?

Hill who was at least half a second slower than Senna.

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Yellowbin74 wrote:Other than a couple of years of Hakkinen, who really challenged Michael for any period of time?

Today's grid has far better depth, and I feel that Lewis has had tougher team mates than Michael did overall.

I'd like to see him overtake in race wins, and if that happens the WDC could be matched. I can't see him overtaking in WDC's.

Yes that's my take as well, Schumacher dominated for a decade but there was a dearth of talent in comparison to today.

We've been through all of that. So the talent pool suddenly depleted when Schumacher was there and magically re-appeared when he retired? LEt's not open that discussion again please

When Schumacher won his first world title he was the only world champion on the grid, I see you mentioned Hill as being a serious test for Schumacher, that says it all.

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Yellowbin74 wrote:Other than a couple of years of Hakkinen, who really challenged Michael for any period of time?

Today's grid has far better depth, and I feel that Lewis has had tougher team mates than Michael did overall.

I'd like to see him overtake in race wins, and if that happens the WDC could be matched. I can't see him overtaking in WDC's.

Yes that's my take as well, Schumacher dominated for a decade but there was a dearth of talent in comparison to today.

We've been through all of that. So the talent pool suddenly depleted when Schumacher was there and magically re-appeared when he retired? LEt's not open that discussion again please

When Schumacher won his first world title he was the only world champion on the grid, I see you mentioned Hill as being a serious test for Schumacher, that says it all.

The question was who challenged Schumacher for a period apart from Hakinen. The answer is Hill, from '94 til he went to Jordan, is that factually inaccurate somehow? If you consider him a "serious" challenge is another thing, but that wouldn't stop you making snide comments apparently?

AnRs wrote:
2011, probably more questionable but Button put that McLaren in 2nd place in WDC.

Just 122 points off the title.

Further away than Vettel was in 2015 and around the same as Ricciardo in 2014 (once double points are removed). Bottas was much closer in 2017.

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Yellowbin74 wrote:Other than a couple of years of Hakkinen, who really challenged Michael for any period of time?

Today's grid has far better depth, and I feel that Lewis has had tougher team mates than Michael did overall.

I'd like to see him overtake in race wins, and if that happens the WDC could be matched. I can't see him overtaking in WDC's.

Yes that's my take as well, Schumacher dominated for a decade but there was a dearth of talent in comparison to today.

We've been through all of that. So the talent pool suddenly depleted when Schumacher was there and magically re-appeared when he retired? LEt's not open that discussion again please

Talent started to come in about 2000... 1992-1999 nobody special debuted in F1. The drivers that did got beaten by the new guard when they arrived.

Alonso > Fisichella
Alonso > Trulli
Raikkonen > Coulthard
Alonso, Button, Massa > JV

The old guard who passed over from the 80s era weren’t top drivers either - Berger, Alesi, Herbert etc.

The only stand out is Hakkinen who didn’t even debut in that period.

The race winning cars over 1992-1999 were.
Mclaren - Coulthard and Hakkinen
Ferrari - Irvine, Alesi, Berger
Benetton - Verstappen, Herbert, JJ Lehto, Berger, Alesi
Williams - Mansell* Prost* Coulthard, Hill, JV, Frentzen

* obviously those two are top drivers but once Prost went in 1993, every car capable of winning races 1993-2000 had a none top driver. Hakkinen aside.

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Yellowbin74 wrote:Other than a couple of years of Hakkinen, who really challenged Michael for any period of time?

Today's grid has far better depth, and I feel that Lewis has had tougher team mates than Michael did overall.

I'd like to see him overtake in race wins, and if that happens the WDC could be matched. I can't see him overtaking in WDC's.

Yes that's my take as well, Schumacher dominated for a decade but there was a dearth of talent in comparison to today.

We've been through all of that. So the talent pool suddenly depleted when Schumacher was there and magically re-appeared when he retired? LEt's not open that discussion again please

When Schumacher won his first world title he was the only world champion on the grid, I see you mentioned Hill as being a serious test for Schumacher, that says it all.

The question was who challenged Schumacher for a period apart from Hakinen. The answer is Hill, from '94 til he went to Jordan, is that factually inaccurate somehow? If you consider him a "serious" challenge is another thing, but that wouldn't stop you making snide comments apparently?

Why is a factual remark a snide remark, it's a fact that at the start of Schumacher dominance all the world champions were no longer around, the void was filled by the likes of Hill and Villenueve.

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Yellowbin74 wrote:Other than a couple of years of Hakkinen, who really challenged Michael for any period of time?

Today's grid has far better depth, and I feel that Lewis has had tougher team mates than Michael did overall.

I'd like to see him overtake in race wins, and if that happens the WDC could be matched. I can't see him overtaking in WDC's.

Hill over 4 years?

Hill who was at least half a second slower than Senna.

At least, no less... Do you think Schumacher was slower than Senna? I always found it striking that Schumacher's first pole position only came after Senna's death. I believe that in 1994, Senna was still faster than Schumacher, though it may partially have been for the same reason why Prost was slower.

I never considered qualifying to be very important, even though it does show how well the combination of car and driver compares with competitors. It's what made Schumacher versus Hill and Schumacher versus Häkkinen so interesting.

Which of Schumacher's records will Lewis break? If he continues to have the best car available for another few years, most of them, I believe. I have no idea how long Mercedes is willing to keep pumping money into its dominant team. When that stops, Lewis's run stops.

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:Yes that's my take as well, Schumacher dominated for a decade but there was a dearth of talent in comparison to today.

We've been through all of that. So the talent pool suddenly depleted when Schumacher was there and magically re-appeared when he retired? LEt's not open that discussion again please

When Schumacher won his first world title he was the only world champion on the grid, I see you mentioned Hill as being a serious test for Schumacher, that says it all.

The question was who challenged Schumacher for a period apart from Hakinen. The answer is Hill, from '94 til he went to Jordan, is that factually inaccurate somehow? If you consider him a "serious" challenge is another thing, but that wouldn't stop you making snide comments apparently?

Why is a factual remark a snide remark, it's a fact that at the start of Schumacher dominance all the world champions were no longer around, the void was filled by the likes of Hill and Villenueve.

Kimi won his with only one other WDC present. I don't see why that should devalue it

Fiki wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Yellowbin74 wrote:Other than a couple of years of Hakkinen, who really challenged Michael for any period of time?

Today's grid has far better depth, and I feel that Lewis has had tougher team mates than Michael did overall.

I'd like to see him overtake in race wins, and if that happens the WDC could be matched. I can't see him overtaking in WDC's.

Hill over 4 years?

Hill who was at least half a second slower than Senna.

At least, no less... Do you think Schumacher was slower than Senna? I always found it striking that Schumacher's first pole position only came after Senna's death. I believe that in 1994, Senna was still faster than Schumacher, though it may partially have been for the same reason why Prost was slower.

I never considered qualifying to be very important, even though it does show how well the combination of car and driver compares with competitors. It's what made Schumacher versus Hill and Schumacher versus Häkkinen so interesting.

Which of Schumacher's records will Lewis break? If he continues to have the best car available for another few years, most of them, I believe. I have no idea how long Mercedes is willing to keep pumping money into its dominant team. When that stops, Lewis's run stops.

Senna's death robbed us of an incredible battle between himself and Schumacher just as Schumacher got himself into a title contending car, I actually never gave thought to who might be quicker, the match up kind of finished soon after it started.

In respect to Hamilton you are saying dominant team as opposed to dominant car?

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote: We've been through all of that. So the talent pool suddenly depleted when Schumacher was there and magically re-appeared when he retired? LEt's not open that discussion again please

When Schumacher won his first world title he was the only world champion on the grid, I see you mentioned Hill as being a serious test for Schumacher, that says it all.

The question was who challenged Schumacher for a period apart from Hakinen. The answer is Hill, from '94 til he went to Jordan, is that factually inaccurate somehow? If you consider him a "serious" challenge is another thing, but that wouldn't stop you making snide comments apparently?

Why is a factual remark a snide remark, it's a fact that at the start of Schumacher dominance all the world champions were no longer around, the void was filled by the likes of Hill and Villenueve.

Kimi won his with only one other WDC present. I don't see why that should devalue it

Winning against the reigning double world champion no less, you don't see the difference between Schumacher beating Hill as opposed to him beating Senna?

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:When Schumacher won his first world title he was the only world champion on the grid, I see you mentioned Hill as being a serious test for Schumacher, that says it all.

The question was who challenged Schumacher for a period apart from Hakinen. The answer is Hill, from '94 til he went to Jordan, is that factually inaccurate somehow? If you consider him a "serious" challenge is another thing, but that wouldn't stop you making snide comments apparently?

Why is a factual remark a snide remark, it's a fact that at the start of Schumacher dominance all the world champions were no longer around, the void was filled by the likes of Hill and Villenueve.

Kimi won his with only one other WDC present. I don't see why that should devalue it

Winning against the reigning double world champion no less, you don't see the difference between Schumacher beating Hill as opposed to him beating Senna?

Now you're putting caveats on it, though. Of course it's more satisfactory to beat a WDC but as an achievement it makes no real difference. So much depends on what equipment you have and what opportunities you're afforded. If you beat whoever's out there then you're deserving. Senna's victory in 1988 wasn't made any sweeter by the fact that Piquet was also in the field, largely because Piquet didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being competitive that year anyway.

Well obliviously depends on 1) how long Hamilton keeps racing and 2) how much of that period he's in a potentially winning car. But if he continues at the rate he's been going the last few years, he's got a good chance of taking a number of them.

I don't think he's anywhere near done yet. Can't see him doing a Rosberg but equally can't see him doing a Raikkonen. He has a lot of interests outside of F1 as we know and my guess is he will just have a winter where he decides those things are where he wants to focus his energy more because there's either nothing left to prove in F1 or there is not enough pleasure coming from it.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote: The question was who challenged Schumacher for a period apart from Hakinen. The answer is Hill, from '94 til he went to Jordan, is that factually inaccurate somehow? If you consider him a "serious" challenge is another thing, but that wouldn't stop you making snide comments apparently?

Why is a factual remark a snide remark, it's a fact that at the start of Schumacher dominance all the world champions were no longer around, the void was filled by the likes of Hill and Villenueve.

Kimi won his with only one other WDC present. I don't see why that should devalue it

Winning against the reigning double world champion no less, you don't see the difference between Schumacher beating Hill as opposed to him beating Senna?

Now you're putting caveats on it, though. Of course it's more satisfactory to beat a WDC but as an achievement it makes no real difference. So much depends on what equipment you have and what opportunities you're afforded. If you beat whoever's out there then you're deserving. Senna's victory in 1988 wasn't made any sweeter by the fact that Piquet was also in the field, largely because Piquet didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being competitive that year anyway.

I totally disagree ask Alonso how he values his 2006 title because he beat Schumacher, ask anyone how they valued that title?

Senna beat Prost in the same car in 1988, he beat the driver previously considered the best driver in F1, Piquet wasn't at that time considered to be as good as Prost anyway and was slowly on his way down in F1 but still better than the likes of Hill and Villenueve.

Presently Hamilton's recent titles carry more value because he's beating Vettel.

We have both foresight and hindsight now though...

Post Imola, Prost, Senna, Mansell and Piquet had all retired within 2 years and the grid had not just no champions but barely any winners or proven top talent. Not only that but nobody new seemed at there level, expect Schumacher. It was thought that Alesi might have been, but Prost thrashed him. Berger clearly wasn’t top level. Schumacher battled Hill/Coulthard/Herbert for the 1994/95. At the time we wasn’t clear how good these drivers exactly were. Now we know, not greats but Hill was at least very good.
Coulthard also made his debut in 94 and Hill 93, so even less to go on at the time.

Kimi in 2007, we had seen him and Alonso for 5-6 seasons already and had a very good idea how good they were. Now with hindsight we have an even better view of how good Hamilton and Alonso were too. The top cars had top drivers in them in 2007.

1994 was quite a unique scenario. The equivalent of probably removing Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel and Ricciardo and leaving just Verstappen for 2019 whilst leaving Bottas in the Mercedes to fight Verstappen.

I think when people say 1994 had no champions it’s a shorthand way of saying all the above.

So long as Mercedes deliver a car capable of winning 80% of races entered, and giving Lewis wins in over 50% of the races he enters, as per the last 5 seasons, he possibly will take them all.

Tbh, if he had a more compliant team mate, akin to Schumacher, he probably would be there already.

His 5yr run of really great cars is unprecedented in F1 history. The first 3 years were pretty unreal with Merc dominance.

Johnson wrote:I think when people say 1994 had no champions it’s a shorthand way of saying all the above.

No, I guarantee from knowing people who say it that it's a revisionist attempt to remove Schumacher's WDC for perceived cheating.

Exediron wrote:

Johnson wrote:I think when people say 1994 had no champions it’s a shorthand way of saying all the above.

No, I guarantee from knowing people who say it that it's a revisionist attempt to remove Schumacher's WDC for perceived cheating.

Revisionist?

Its a fact, when Senna died the field had no champions in it.