Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)

[Badgeronimous]

Mercedes dominance makes it hard to assess for me in terms of where Hamilton stands as a tier 1 driver.

Also different peaks too. I believe Schumacher peaked between ages 26 and 32, where has Hamilton probably peaked 32 to present. The performances in the 'wilderness years" are what cements Schumachers reputation, but casts doubt on Hamiltons - I'm not sure it's totally fair to think like that.

One thing with Hamilton - 5 of his title challenging years have been driving for a team who have been mostly racing themselves securing 4/5 titles. I can only say that for 2 of Schumachers title challenging years. Hamilton has had, IMO, better machinery (and by a decent margin) over his first 14 seasons than Schumacher had, but the flip side is - Hamilton was up against better drivers.

But..... despite that I still think peak Hamilton maybe slightly better than peak Schumacher.

It's all conjecture though. Both are tier 1 ATG's.

[JN23]

Schumacher could have been leading the title race after 7 races, I think you need to run that past me.

Unreliability in 2012. Had he collected the points in the positions he retired in, he'd have been leading the 2012 WDC by the time they arrived Canada.

I know he had unreliability but you still need to run that past me, retiring from a couple of third places doesn't quite do it for me, he was never close to winning a race which you kind of need to do to be leading a title race. In the first 7 races he crashed out of one of them which was his own fault and he got penalised with a grid penalty at Monaco which otherwise he would have been on for winning before retiring, but what happed is that he retired from about 6th place, the numbers don't add up.

Just of them was his own fault. That cost him the win. Certainly without that he would have be leading the WDC.

How, where's the evidence?

I've done some maths and think I worked it out.

After six rounds (Monaco), if you take the position that Schumacher was in when he retired and give him the win in Monaco his results would have been:

Australia 3rd, Malaysia 10th (finished), China 2nd, Bahrain 10th (finished), Spain 6th, Monaco 1st = 68 points. Adjusting the results of the others near the top of the championship at that point I work out the following:

Alonso 70
Schumacher 68
Vettel 67
Webber 64
Rosberg 54
Hamilton 53

This of course adjusts for Schumacher not crashing with Senna in Spain and therefore winning in Monaco. The clash in Spain was seen as his fault so he wouldn't have been top of the championship just due to bad luck.

After the seventh round (Canada) where Schumacher was running out of the points before his DRS failed he'd have been below Alonso, Vettel, Webber and Hamilton.

That's, I think, the maths but by my working Schumacher wouldn't have been leading the championship if not for bad luck.

[WHoff78]

I get the impression that Hamilton is perhaps less ruthless than Schumacher was. I think he embraces the competition and is fairly comfortable working in a transparent environment and accepting that his team mates are closer to him, but also therefore both drivers and the team as a whole is more competitive. And you get a more stable environment where the team are satisfied that both drivers are getting the results they should be. Perhaps this is part of the reason that he has enjoyed such competitive machinery throughout his career. It certainly can’t hurt a team’s performance. I’m sure stories will emerge when Hamilton has retired that provide greater insight into these things though.

Regardless of where people stand, the greatest compliment is that people are comparing Hamilton against Schumacher before he has even finished his career.

[Schumacher forever#1]

Unreliability in 2012. Had he collected the points in the positions he retired in, he'd have been leading the 2012 WDC by the time they arrived Canada.

I know he had unreliability but you still need to run that past me, retiring from a couple of third places doesn't quite do it for me, he was never close to winning a race which you kind of need to do to be leading a title race. In the first 7 races he crashed out of one of them which was his own fault and he got penalised with a grid penalty at Monaco which otherwise he would have been on for winning before retiring, but what happed is that he retired from about 6th place, the numbers don't add up.

Just of them was his own fault. That cost him the win. Certainly without that he would have be leading the WDC.

How, where's the evidence?

I've done some maths and think I worked it out.

After six rounds (Monaco), if you take the position that Schumacher was in when he retired and give him the win in Monaco his results would have been:

Australia 3rd, Malaysia 10th (finished), China 2nd, Bahrain 10th (finished), Spain 6th, Monaco 1st = 68 points. Adjusting the results of the others near the top of the championship at that point I work out the following:

Alonso 70
Schumacher 68
Vettel 67
Webber 64
Rosberg 54
Hamilton 53

This of course adjusts for Schumacher not crashing with Senna in Spain and therefore winning in Monaco. The clash in Spain was seen as his fault so he wouldn't have been top of the championship just due to bad luck.

After the seventh round (Canada) where Schumacher was running out of the points before his DRS failed he'd have been below Alonso, Vettel, Webber and Hamilton.

That's, I think, the maths but by my working Schumacher wouldn't have been leading the championship if not for bad luck.

I opened a can of worms when I initially stated this, unsurprisingly I suppose. It is very hard to recall 2012, but I know I remember doing the math at the time and seeing other people tout the same opinion.

Your summary is however missing the Bahrain GP, where Schumacher had a problem in qualifying meaning he had to start near the back (edit: started 22nd after rear-wing failure during Q1 and a subsequent gearbox penalty). Otherwise I think it's pretty good from what memory I have of it.

Also, while the Spain incident was Schumacher's fault, it highlights Schumacher's performance potential at that point of his career. We can clearly identify that this was a mistake Schumacher would not have made in the prime of his career - but however his pace in 2012 would obviously not exceed his pace ten years before.

[mikeyg123]

Unreliability in 2012. Had he collected the points in the positions he retired in, he'd have been leading the 2012 WDC by the time they arrived Canada.

I know he had unreliability but you still need to run that past me, retiring from a couple of third places doesn't quite do it for me, he was never close to winning a race which you kind of need to do to be leading a title race. In the first 7 races he crashed out of one of them which was his own fault and he got penalised with a grid penalty at Monaco which otherwise he would have been on for winning before retiring, but what happed is that he retired from about 6th place, the numbers don't add up.

Just of them was his own fault. That cost him the win. Certainly without that he would have be leading the WDC.

How, where's the evidence?

I've done some maths and think I worked it out.

After six rounds (Monaco), if you take the position that Schumacher was in when he retired and give him the win in Monaco his results would have been:

Australia 3rd, Malaysia 10th (finished), China 2nd, Bahrain 10th (finished), Spain 6th, Monaco 1st = 68 points. Adjusting the results of the others near the top of the championship at that point I work out the following:

Alonso 70
Schumacher 68
Vettel 67
Webber 64
Rosberg 54
Hamilton 53

This of course adjusts for Schumacher not crashing with Senna in Spain and therefore winning in Monaco. The clash in Spain was seen as his fault so he wouldn't have been top of the championship just due to bad luck.

After the seventh round (Canada) where Schumacher was running out of the points before his DRS failed he'd have been below Alonso, Vettel, Webber and Hamilton.

That's, I think, the maths but by my working Schumacher wouldn't have been leading the championship if not for bad luck.

You've not accounted for all the bad luck. Malaysia he was punted round by Grosjean when running high up and fell to the back. In Bahrain his DRS stuck open in quali and then he took a gearbox penalty which meant he started last. Accounting for lost points in these races definitely puts him in the lead of the WDC.

[JN23]

I know he had unreliability but you still need to run that past me, retiring from a couple of third places doesn't quite do it for me, he was never close to winning a race which you kind of need to do to be leading a title race. In the first 7 races he crashed out of one of them which was his own fault and he got penalised with a grid penalty at Monaco which otherwise he would have been on for winning before retiring, but what happed is that he retired from about 6th place, the numbers don't add up.

Just of them was his own fault. That cost him the win. Certainly without that he would have be leading the WDC.

How, where's the evidence?

I've done some maths and think I worked it out.

After six rounds (Monaco), if you take the position that Schumacher was in when he retired and give him the win in Monaco his results would have been:

Australia 3rd, Malaysia 10th (finished), China 2nd, Bahrain 10th (finished), Spain 6th, Monaco 1st = 68 points. Adjusting the results of the others near the top of the championship at that point I work out the following:

Alonso 70
Schumacher 68
Vettel 67
Webber 64
Rosberg 54
Hamilton 53

This of course adjusts for Schumacher not crashing with Senna in Spain and therefore winning in Monaco. The clash in Spain was seen as his fault so he wouldn't have been top of the championship just due to bad luck.

After the seventh round (Canada) where Schumacher was running out of the points before his DRS failed he'd have been below Alonso, Vettel, Webber and Hamilton.

That's, I think, the maths but by my working Schumacher wouldn't have been leading the championship if not for bad luck.

You've not accounted for all the bad luck. Malaysia he was punted round by Grosjean when running high up and fell to the back. In Bahrain his DRS stuck open in quali and then he took a gearbox penalty which meant he started last. Accounting for lost points in these races definitely puts him in the lead of the WDC.

Yep fair enough I didn't look at what happened in the races - although if you take away the points I've given him for Spain and Monaco (33) and give him seventh position (6), he'd need two third places from those races (Malaysia and Bahrain). No idea whether that would have happened.

[JN23]

I know he had unreliability but you still need to run that past me, retiring from a couple of third places doesn't quite do it for me, he was never close to winning a race which you kind of need to do to be leading a title race. In the first 7 races he crashed out of one of them which was his own fault and he got penalised with a grid penalty at Monaco which otherwise he would have been on for winning before retiring, but what happed is that he retired from about 6th place, the numbers don't add up.

Just of them was his own fault. That cost him the win. Certainly without that he would have be leading the WDC.

How, where's the evidence?

I've done some maths and think I worked it out.

After six rounds (Monaco), if you take the position that Schumacher was in when he retired and give him the win in Monaco his results would have been:

Australia 3rd, Malaysia 10th (finished), China 2nd, Bahrain 10th (finished), Spain 6th, Monaco 1st = 68 points. Adjusting the results of the others near the top of the championship at that point I work out the following:

Alonso 70
Schumacher 68
Vettel 67
Webber 64
Rosberg 54
Hamilton 53

This of course adjusts for Schumacher not crashing with Senna in Spain and therefore winning in Monaco. The clash in Spain was seen as his fault so he wouldn't have been top of the championship just due to bad luck.

After the seventh round (Canada) where Schumacher was running out of the points before his DRS failed he'd have been below Alonso, Vettel, Webber and Hamilton.

That's, I think, the maths but by my working Schumacher wouldn't have been leading the championship if not for bad luck.

I opened a can of worms when I initially stated this, unsurprisingly I suppose. It is very hard to recall 2012, but I know I remember doing the math at the time and seeing other people tout the same opinion.

Your summary is however missing the Bahrain GP, where Schumacher had a problem in qualifying meaning he had to start near the back (edit: started 22nd after rear-wing failure during Q1 and a subsequent gearbox penalty). Otherwise I think it's pretty good from what memory I have of it.

Also, while the Spain incident was Schumacher's fault, it highlights Schumacher's performance potential at that point of his career. We can clearly identify that this was a mistake Schumacher would not have made in the prime of his career - but however his pace in 2012 would obviously not exceed his pace ten years before.

Yeah I get what you mean - just thought I'd do the maths (albeit not properly) and see what happened.

[mikeyg123]

Just of them was his own fault. That cost him the win. Certainly without that he would have be leading the WDC.

How, where's the evidence?

I've done some maths and think I worked it out.

After six rounds (Monaco), if you take the position that Schumacher was in when he retired and give him the win in Monaco his results would have been:

Australia 3rd, Malaysia 10th (finished), China 2nd, Bahrain 10th (finished), Spain 6th, Monaco 1st = 68 points. Adjusting the results of the others near the top of the championship at that point I work out the following:

Alonso 70
Schumacher 68
Vettel 67
Webber 64
Rosberg 54
Hamilton 53

This of course adjusts for Schumacher not crashing with Senna in Spain and therefore winning in Monaco. The clash in Spain was seen as his fault so he wouldn't have been top of the championship just due to bad luck.

After the seventh round (Canada) where Schumacher was running out of the points before his DRS failed he'd have been below Alonso, Vettel, Webber and Hamilton.

That's, I think, the maths but by my working Schumacher wouldn't have been leading the championship if not for bad luck.

You've not accounted for all the bad luck. Malaysia he was punted round by Grosjean when running high up and fell to the back. In Bahrain his DRS stuck open in quali and then he took a gearbox penalty which meant he started last. Accounting for lost points in these races definitely puts him in the lead of the WDC.

Yep fair enough I didn't look at what happened in the races - although if you take away the points I've given him for Spain and Monaco (33) and give him seventh position (6), he'd need two third places from those races (Malaysia and Bahrain). No idea whether that would have happened.

Possible but unlikely. A 3rd in Malaysia and a 5th in Bahrain would probably be the fairest results you could substitute. Either way it's close. I think it's a shame we were denied the excitement of Schumacher's last stand. Pretty impressive for a 43 year old.

[JN23]

How, where's the evidence?

I've done some maths and think I worked it out.

After six rounds (Monaco), if you take the position that Schumacher was in when he retired and give him the win in Monaco his results would have been:

Australia 3rd, Malaysia 10th (finished), China 2nd, Bahrain 10th (finished), Spain 6th, Monaco 1st = 68 points. Adjusting the results of the others near the top of the championship at that point I work out the following:

Alonso 70
Schumacher 68
Vettel 67
Webber 64
Rosberg 54
Hamilton 53

This of course adjusts for Schumacher not crashing with Senna in Spain and therefore winning in Monaco. The clash in Spain was seen as his fault so he wouldn't have been top of the championship just due to bad luck.

After the seventh round (Canada) where Schumacher was running out of the points before his DRS failed he'd have been below Alonso, Vettel, Webber and Hamilton.

That's, I think, the maths but by my working Schumacher wouldn't have been leading the championship if not for bad luck.

You've not accounted for all the bad luck. Malaysia he was punted round by Grosjean when running high up and fell to the back. In Bahrain his DRS stuck open in quali and then he took a gearbox penalty which meant he started last. Accounting for lost points in these races definitely puts him in the lead of the WDC.

Yep fair enough I didn't look at what happened in the races - although if you take away the points I've given him for Spain and Monaco (33) and give him seventh position (6), he'd need two third places from those races (Malaysia and Bahrain). No idea whether that would have happened.

Possible but unlikely. A 3rd in Malaysia and a 5th in Bahrain would probably be the fairest results you could substitute. Either way it's close. I think it's a shame we were denied the excitement of Schumacher's last stand. Pretty impressive for a 43 year old.

Yeah it is close, and agreed would have been exciting to see him near the front of the championship.

[myattitude]

Why are we saying Schumacher's crash with Bruno was Schumacher's fault? It was a carbon copy of Max/Ricciardo at Baku, the driver in front was weaving in the braking zone. It was Bruno's fault.

[Exediron]

Why are we saying Schumacher's crash with Bruno was Schumacher's fault? It was a carbon copy of Max/Ricciardo at Baku, the driver in front was weaving in the braking zone. It was Bruno's fault.

A lot of people think that one was Ricciardo's fault, to be fair.

I think Barcelona was a 50/50 incident. I can't put all the blame on either driver. Senna defended to the inside and then moved left, but he left room for Schumacher. Michael started going left with Senna, but then cut back right in an attempt to pull a (way too late) switchback.

Schumacher / Senna crash
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_YR6JVHppM

Go to 31 seconds for the best view.

[Paolo_Lasardi]

Why are we saying Schumacher's crash with Bruno was Schumacher's fault? It was a carbon copy of Max/Ricciardo at Baku, the driver in front was weaving in the braking zone. It was Bruno's fault.

A lot of people think that one was Ricciardo's fault, to be fair.

I think Barcelona was a 50/50 incident. I can't put all the blame on either driver. Senna defended to the inside and then moved left, but he left room for Schumacher. Michael started going left with Senna, but then cut back right in an attempt to pull a (way too late) switchback.

Schumacher / Senna crash
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_YR6JVHppM

Go to 31 seconds for the best view.

It is 100 per cent Schumacher's fault, really. He is not even close to making a move. It is funny how things get shifted, when it comes to Schumacher.

[Paolo_Lasardi]

How, where's the evidence?

I've done some maths and think I worked it out.

After six rounds (Monaco), if you take the position that Schumacher was in when he retired and give him the win in Monaco his results would have been:

Australia 3rd, Malaysia 10th (finished), China 2nd, Bahrain 10th (finished), Spain 6th, Monaco 1st = 68 points. Adjusting the results of the others near the top of the championship at that point I work out the following:

Alonso 70
Schumacher 68
Vettel 67
Webber 64
Rosberg 54
Hamilton 53

This of course adjusts for Schumacher not crashing with Senna in Spain and therefore winning in Monaco. The clash in Spain was seen as his fault so he wouldn't have been top of the championship just due to bad luck.

After the seventh round (Canada) where Schumacher was running out of the points before his DRS failed he'd have been below Alonso, Vettel, Webber and Hamilton.

That's, I think, the maths but by my working Schumacher wouldn't have been leading the championship if not for bad luck.

You've not accounted for all the bad luck. Malaysia he was punted round by Grosjean when running high up and fell to the back. In Bahrain his DRS stuck open in quali and then he took a gearbox penalty which meant he started last. Accounting for lost points in these races definitely puts him in the lead of the WDC.

Yep fair enough I didn't look at what happened in the races - although if you take away the points I've given him for Spain and Monaco (33) and give him seventh position (6), he'd need two third places from those races (Malaysia and Bahrain). No idea whether that would have happened.

Possible but unlikely. A 3rd in Malaysia and a 5th in Bahrain would probably be the fairest results you could substitute. Either way it's close. I think it's a shame we were denied the excitement of Schumacher's last stand. Pretty impressive for a 43 year old.

And now please add corrections for any bad luck that anybody else had. Only then we get a decent picture.

As for Schumacher's second career, he was truly and overwhelmingly beaten by Rosberg, despite being the number one driver. Arbitrarily selecting some races out of the total comparison shows nothing at all. Nothing.

[Invade]

Hilarious reaction from Schumacher after the Senna incident. He sounded like Sebby Vettel.

[Schumacher forever#1]

Why are we saying Schumacher's crash with Bruno was Schumacher's fault? It was a carbon copy of Max/Ricciardo at Baku, the driver in front was weaving in the braking zone. It was Bruno's fault.

A lot of people think that one was Ricciardo's fault, to be fair.

I think Barcelona was a 50/50 incident. I can't put all the blame on either driver. Senna defended to the inside and then moved left, but he left room for Schumacher. Michael started going left with Senna, but then cut back right in an attempt to pull a (way too late) switchback.

Schumacher / Senna crash
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_YR6JVHppM

Go to 31 seconds for the best view.

Looking back on it I think you're right. That movement to the left by Senna really left Michael stuck guessing whether Senna would completely cut Schumacher off the line or not.

[Schumacher forever#1]

Why are we saying Schumacher's crash with Bruno was Schumacher's fault? It was a carbon copy of Max/Ricciardo at Baku, the driver in front was weaving in the braking zone. It was Bruno's fault.

A lot of people think that one was Ricciardo's fault, to be fair.

I think Barcelona was a 50/50 incident. I can't put all the blame on either driver. Senna defended to the inside and then moved left, but he left room for Schumacher. Michael started going left with Senna, but then cut back right in an attempt to pull a (way too late) switchback.

Schumacher / Senna crash
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_YR6JVHppM

Go to 31 seconds for the best view.

It is 100 per cent Schumacher's fault, really. He is not even close to making a move. It is funny how things get shifted, when it comes to Schumacher.

Indeed! Very funny!

[A.J.]

A lot of people think that one was Ricciardo's fault, to be fair.

I think Barcelona was a 50/50 incident. I can't put all the blame on either driver. Senna defended to the inside and then moved left, but he left room for Schumacher. Michael started going left with Senna, but then cut back right in an attempt to pull a (way too late) switchback.

Schumacher / Senna crash
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_YR6JVHppM

Go to 31 seconds for the best view.

It is 100 per cent Schumacher's fault, really. He is not even close to making a move. It is funny how things get shifted, when it comes to Schumacher.

You looked at *that* and thought it was 100% Schumacher's fault? The driver in front covers the inside, then moves towards the outside in the braking zone - but it is 100% Schumacher's fault?

Ok.

[Invade]

I get the impression that Hamilton is perhaps less ruthless than Schumacher was. I think he embraces the competition and is fairly comfortable working in a transparent environment and accepting that his team mates are closer to him, but also therefore both drivers and the team as a whole is more competitive. And you get a more stable environment where the team are satisfied that both drivers are getting the results they should be. Perhaps this is part of the reason that he has enjoyed such competitive machinery throughout his career. It certainly can’t hurt a team’s performance. I’m sure stories will emerge when Hamilton has retired that provide greater insight into these things though.

Regardless of where people stand, the greatest compliment is that people are comparing Hamilton against Schumacher before he has even finished his career.

To me, this is a big key, and a general theory I've sucbscribed to for a while now. I do believe the team can peak higher with this dynamic, or at least for longer.

edit:

However, I don't like that Mercedes have now kept the same driver lineup for so long. More data points and insights with a new driver (Russell alongside Hamilton) could well contribute to even longer lasting dominance. Mercedes could become stale with Bottas and be overhauled before too long (I know it's already been forever). Hamilton can learn even more by having to deal with a new challenger and the team can push further forwards.

[Paolo_Lasardi]

A lot of people think that one was Ricciardo's fault, to be fair.

I think Barcelona was a 50/50 incident. I can't put all the blame on either driver. Senna defended to the inside and then moved left, but he left room for Schumacher. Michael started going left with Senna, but then cut back right in an attempt to pull a (way too late) switchback.

Schumacher / Senna crash
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_YR6JVHppM

Go to 31 seconds for the best view.

It is 100 per cent Schumacher's fault, really. He is not even close to making a move. It is funny how things get shifted, when it comes to Schumacher.

You looked at *that* and thought it was 100% Schumacher's fault? The driver in front covers the inside, then moves towards the outside in the braking zone - but it is 100% Schumacher's fault?

Ok.

Yes, because he crashed right into the back of Senna. The minor movements don't cause the accident, very obviously.
Come on, take your Schumacher glasses off.

[A.J.]

A lot of people think that one was Ricciardo's fault, to be fair.

I think Barcelona was a 50/50 incident. I can't put all the blame on either driver. Senna defended to the inside and then moved left, but he left room for Schumacher. Michael started going left with Senna, but then cut back right in an attempt to pull a (way too late) switchback.

Schumacher / Senna crash
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_YR6JVHppM

Go to 31 seconds for the best view.

It is 100 per cent Schumacher's fault, really. He is not even close to making a move. It is funny how things get shifted, when it comes to Schumacher.

You looked at *that* and thought it was 100% Schumacher's fault? The driver in front covers the inside, then moves towards the outside in the braking zone - but it is 100% Schumacher's fault?

Ok.

Yes, because he crashed right into the back of Senna. The minor movements don't cause the accident, very obviously.
Come on, take your Schumacher glasses off.

Except that it isn't a minor movement, very obviously. He is covering the inside knowing that an overtake is coming, the speed delta is huge because of DRS, and then he just moves over under braking as if the other car just disappeared. Racing incident at best - and certainly nowhere near 100% Schumacher's fault.

Perhaps you ought to take your anti-Schumacher glasses off this time

[pokerman]

So in real basic terms these are the drivers that drove cars that would REALISTICALLY (so know Verstappen in 2020 or Button in 2004 where literally everything would have to go right to allow them to challenge for championship) during time time Hamilton and Schumacher were competing for championships -

I'll stick to full seasons as to not muddy the waters by including the likes of Mansell and Senna.

Schumacher - 94-06

Hill
Coulthard
Herbert
Alesi
Berger
Villeneuve
Irvine
Frentzen
Hakkinen
Barrichello
Raikkonen
Montoya
R.Schumacher
Alonso
Fissichella

Hamilton - 07-20

Raikkonen
Massa
Alonso
Kubica
Heidfeld
Button
Barrichello
Vettel
Webber
Grosjean
Rosberg
Bottas

I'm not seeing a gulf in class between the two groups. 12 on Hamilton's side and 15 on Schumacher's after I have consumed my dinner I might have a go at ordering Hamilton's 12 and Schumacher's best 12 from best to worst and see if I come to a definitive decision on who had the stiffer competition.

I guess you're listing drivers that Schumacher and Hamilton beat without need of a car advantage, Schumacher never beat Alonso without a car advantage.

Nope, these are a list of drivers who drove cars capable of realistically challenging for a championship between the dates specified. I.E the competition both drivers actually had to face.

Alonso had a realistic challenge in 2003/2004?

[pokerman]

My opinion on this is very clear

The grid from 2014-2020 was more talented than in Schumacher’s time, but that is completely meaningless because all the best drivers from 2014-2020 were stuck in hugely inferior machinery.

Say what you want about Hill, Villeneuve and Hakkinen - they all had a fair shot against Schumacher in equal or even superior machinery.

It doesn’t really matter how good Ricciardo or Verstappen are because neither have ever competed against Hamilton on a level playing field.

If the 2020 version of Leclerc drove a Ferrari car as good as the ones from 2017-2018, that would have been proper competition. Luckily for Hamilton, Ferrari fell off a cliff just as Leclerc came into his own.

We all know about Alonso’s machinery in the hybrid era, nothing more needs to be said on that subject.

The only competition Hamilton has had since 2014 has been Rosberg, Bottas, Vettel and Raikkonen. Far from a mesmerizing group of drivers.

2014-2020 is without a doubt the weakest era of all time if you judge it by the competition at the front.

Schumacher's group of challengers you selected in equal machinery have 4 WDCs and 5 runners up.

Hamilton's group of challengers you selected have 6 WDCs and 8 runners up positions. Even if you normalise, that's 4.5/6.

Schumacher's list contains the two drivers who most consider the weakest WDCs of the modern era (Hill and Villeneuve). I suspect if people were asked to rank all 7 drivers, whilst Hakkinen would probably top the list, Hill and Villeneuve would be bottom - probably something like: Hakkinen, Vettel, Rosberg, Raikkonen, Bottas, Villeneuve, Hill.

You should also include Verstappen in the second list, as between his errors, Red Bull's errors and Honda's errors they gave a 164 point swing to Hamilton in the 2020 season, and he only finished 133 points ahead.

It's really something to put this way: Which is a tougher challenge -

Hakkinen, Montoya, Hill, Villeneuve, Alonso, and Kimi (the good version) in title contending McLarens, Renaults and Williams's?

or

Max in a car up 0.3-1.0 secs slower, an imploding Vettel, an old Kimi, and an Alonso driving a McHonda?

Didn't Schumacher have the best car for much of this period, Kimi (the good version) nearly beat him in a year old McLaren. Montoya got exposed by Kimi and quit F1, I'm not sure his ego could take it, he only ever beat Alonso when having a much better car but we can't list the likes of Verstappen and Leclerc for Hamilton beating them in similar circumstances.

As I've said previously most of the drivers listed for Schumacher later got exposed but we will keep them relevant as being exceptional when Schumacher beat them, and of course any driver that Hamilton beat was rubbish.

And the award for most strawman arguments packed into two paragraphs goes to....

I think I will just bow out now and leave you to it.

[Siao7]

A lot of people think that one was Ricciardo's fault, to be fair.

I think Barcelona was a 50/50 incident. I can't put all the blame on either driver. Senna defended to the inside and then moved left, but he left room for Schumacher. Michael started going left with Senna, but then cut back right in an attempt to pull a (way too late) switchback.

Schumacher / Senna crash
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_YR6JVHppM

Go to 31 seconds for the best view.

It is 100 per cent Schumacher's fault, really. He is not even close to making a move. It is funny how things get shifted, when it comes to Schumacher.

You looked at *that* and thought it was 100% Schumacher's fault? The driver in front covers the inside, then moves towards the outside in the braking zone - but it is 100% Schumacher's fault?

Ok.

Yes, because he crashed right into the back of Senna. The minor movements don't cause the accident, very obviously.
Come on, take your Schumacher glasses off.

Except that it isn't a minor movement, very obviously. He is covering the inside knowing that an overtake is coming, the speed delta is huge because of DRS, and then he just moves over under braking as if the other car just disappeared. Racing incident at best - and certainly nowhere near 100% Schumacher's fault.

Perhaps you ought to take your anti-Schumacher glasses off this time

I am a Schumacher fan, but I agree with you.

Having said that, both Ricciardo and Verstappen were reprimanded for the all Red Bull incident in Baku, a very similar incident in my view.

https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433 ... Turn%20One.

[pokerman]

Unreliability in 2012. Had he collected the points in the positions he retired in, he'd have been leading the 2012 WDC by the time they arrived Canada.

I know he had unreliability but you still need to run that past me, retiring from a couple of third places doesn't quite do it for me, he was never close to winning a race which you kind of need to do to be leading a title race. In the first 7 races he crashed out of one of them which was his own fault and he got penalised with a grid penalty at Monaco which otherwise he would have been on for winning before retiring, but what happed is that he retired from about 6th place, the numbers don't add up.

Just of them was his own fault. That cost him the win. Certainly without that he would have be leading the WDC.

How, where's the evidence?

I've done some maths and think I worked it out.

After six rounds (Monaco), if you take the position that Schumacher was in when he retired and give him the win in Monaco his results would have been:

Australia 3rd, Malaysia 10th (finished), China 2nd, Bahrain 10th (finished), Spain 6th, Monaco 1st = 68 points. Adjusting the results of the others near the top of the championship at that point I work out the following:

Alonso 70
Schumacher 68
Vettel 67
Webber 64
Rosberg 54
Hamilton 53

This of course adjusts for Schumacher not crashing with Senna in Spain and therefore winning in Monaco. The clash in Spain was seen as his fault so he wouldn't have been top of the championship just due to bad luck.

After the seventh round (Canada) where Schumacher was running out of the points before his DRS failed he'd have been below Alonso, Vettel, Webber and Hamilton.

That's, I think, the maths but by my working Schumacher wouldn't have been leading the championship if not for bad luck.

So even giving him points he was never going to earn on merit in the first place he was never going to be leading the title race, interesting that we even have to adjust for any bad luck that Schumacher may have had but we have to assume that none of the other drivers had bad luck.

[JN23]

I know he had unreliability but you still need to run that past me, retiring from a couple of third places doesn't quite do it for me, he was never close to winning a race which you kind of need to do to be leading a title race. In the first 7 races he crashed out of one of them which was his own fault and he got penalised with a grid penalty at Monaco which otherwise he would have been on for winning before retiring, but what happed is that he retired from about 6th place, the numbers don't add up.

Just of them was his own fault. That cost him the win. Certainly without that he would have be leading the WDC.

How, where's the evidence?

I've done some maths and think I worked it out.

After six rounds (Monaco), if you take the position that Schumacher was in when he retired and give him the win in Monaco his results would have been:

Australia 3rd, Malaysia 10th (finished), China 2nd, Bahrain 10th (finished), Spain 6th, Monaco 1st = 68 points. Adjusting the results of the others near the top of the championship at that point I work out the following:

Alonso 70
Schumacher 68
Vettel 67
Webber 64
Rosberg 54
Hamilton 53

This of course adjusts for Schumacher not crashing with Senna in Spain and therefore winning in Monaco. The clash in Spain was seen as his fault so he wouldn't have been top of the championship just due to bad luck.

After the seventh round (Canada) where Schumacher was running out of the points before his DRS failed he'd have been below Alonso, Vettel, Webber and Hamilton.

That's, I think, the maths but by my working Schumacher wouldn't have been leading the championship if not for bad luck.

So even giving him points he was never going to earn on merit in the first place he was never going to be leading the title race, interesting that we even have to adjust for any bad luck that Schumacher may have had but we have to assume that none of the other drivers had bad luck.

Just to be clear, I know that I've not accounted for others bad luck but that wasn't the point of my exercise.

[A.J.]

Completely unrelated, but this race from the RoC in 2011 between Schumacher and Vettel was amazing - Schumacher got a worse start (seemed taken by surprise really), but then smokes Vettel completely. Margin of win is a bit exaggerated by a mistake from Vettel, but Schumacher was already far ahead by the time it happened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzFMS2u1RXI

[pokerman]

I get the impression that Hamilton is perhaps less ruthless than Schumacher was. I think he embraces the competition and is fairly comfortable working in a transparent environment and accepting that his team mates are closer to him, but also therefore both drivers and the team as a whole is more competitive. And you get a more stable environment where the team are satisfied that both drivers are getting the results they should be. Perhaps this is part of the reason that he has enjoyed such competitive machinery throughout his career. It certainly can’t hurt a team’s performance. I’m sure stories will emerge when Hamilton has retired that provide greater insight into these things though.

Regardless of where people stand, the greatest compliment is that people are comparing Hamilton against Schumacher before he has even finished his career.

To me, this is a big key, and a general theory I've sucbscribed to for a while now. I do believe the team can peak higher with this dynamic, or at least for longer.

edit:

However, I don't like that Mercedes have now kept the same driver lineup for so long. More data points and insights with a new driver (Russell alongside Hamilton) could well contribute to even longer lasting dominance. Mercedes could become stale with Bottas and be overhauled before too long (I know it's already been forever). Hamilton can learn even more by having to deal with a new challenger and the team can push further forwards.

Mercedes did want to sign Russell for this year but it got blocked by Claire Williams looking to maximise the sale of the Williams team.

[pokerman]

Just of them was his own fault. That cost him the win. Certainly without that he would have be leading the WDC.

How, where's the evidence?

I've done some maths and think I worked it out.

After six rounds (Monaco), if you take the position that Schumacher was in when he retired and give him the win in Monaco his results would have been:

Australia 3rd, Malaysia 10th (finished), China 2nd, Bahrain 10th (finished), Spain 6th, Monaco 1st = 68 points. Adjusting the results of the others near the top of the championship at that point I work out the following:

Alonso 70
Schumacher 68
Vettel 67
Webber 64
Rosberg 54
Hamilton 53

This of course adjusts for Schumacher not crashing with Senna in Spain and therefore winning in Monaco. The clash in Spain was seen as his fault so he wouldn't have been top of the championship just due to bad luck.

After the seventh round (Canada) where Schumacher was running out of the points before his DRS failed he'd have been below Alonso, Vettel, Webber and Hamilton.

That's, I think, the maths but by my working Schumacher wouldn't have been leading the championship if not for bad luck.

So even giving him points he was never going to earn on merit in the first place he was never going to be leading the title race, interesting that we even have to adjust for any bad luck that Schumacher may have had but we have to assume that none of the other drivers had bad luck.

Just to be clear, I know that I've not accounted for others bad luck but that wasn't the point of my exercise.

I know and I appreciate the legwork you put in, I was just pointing out in general the one eyed take on what Schumacher could have achieved if not for bad luck.

[Siao7]

Completely unrelated, but this race from the RoC in 2011 between Schumacher and Vettel was amazing - Schumacher got a worse start (seemed taken by surprise really), but then smokes Vettel completely. Margin of win is a bit exaggerated by a mistake from Vettel, but Schumacher was already far ahead by the time it happened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzFMS2u1RXI

Nice find, thank you. I do wish they had a bit nicer wheels than a 90's Ford Fiesta...

[schumilegend]

Nice to see Brits in a British board trying to justify a British driver to be superior than a German driver....very surprising

[Invade]

I think there are a lot of similarities between Schumacher and Hamilton in how they try to push forward and innovate and maximise, but Hamilton had to grow into that whereas Schumacher reached that sort of work ethic and emotional maturity earlier on. In a sense, Schumacher plateaued after a while because he'd already pushed near the ceiling, so it wasn't complacency as such but more that he had already more or less maximised within the range of vision afforded to him. I believe Hamilton has tended to have a bit more in the locker to go at to make further gains from season to season than Schumacher, not necessarily through laziness, but a somewhat different mental approach and circumstantial adaptability. I'm not sure how to explain it though.

Ultimately, I think Schumacher was more opportunistic and had a slightly better vision of the race than Hamilton, but that he made more errors. If the two were contemporaries I'm sure the rivalry would have been titanic if we assume both found themselves as lead drivers in strong operations.

In terms of their competition, I don't think there is much to choose between them in terms of realistic threats faced for titles, which is a theme that has come up many times in the past on this forum. The talent pool sure seems deeper for Hamilton's run in general but the two greatest talents he's had to face in his career weren't competition during years where Hamilton was in a realistic position to win the WDC other than in 2007 and 2010. Verstappen has yet to have the car to challenge.

[Invade]

Nice to see Brits in a British board trying to justify a British driver to be superior than a German driver....very surprising

Well Hamilton does have very impressive accomplishments which are in the same bracket as Schumacher's, so it seems like a reasonable debate to have.

[mikeyg123]

So in real basic terms these are the drivers that drove cars that would REALISTICALLY (so know Verstappen in 2020 or Button in 2004 where literally everything would have to go right to allow them to challenge for championship) during time time Hamilton and Schumacher were competing for championships -

I'll stick to full seasons as to not muddy the waters by including the likes of Mansell and Senna.

Schumacher - 94-06

Hill
Coulthard
Herbert
Alesi
Berger
Villeneuve
Irvine
Frentzen
Hakkinen
Barrichello
Raikkonen
Montoya
R.Schumacher
Alonso
Fissichella

Hamilton - 07-20

Raikkonen
Massa
Alonso
Kubica
Heidfeld
Button
Barrichello
Vettel
Webber
Grosjean
Rosberg
Bottas

I'm not seeing a gulf in class between the two groups. 12 on Hamilton's side and 15 on Schumacher's after I have consumed my dinner I might have a go at ordering Hamilton's 12 and Schumacher's best 12 from best to worst and see if I come to a definitive decision on who had the stiffer competition.

I guess you're listing drivers that Schumacher and Hamilton beat without need of a car advantage, Schumacher never beat Alonso without a car advantage.

Nope, these are a list of drivers who drove cars capable of realistically challenging for a championship between the dates specified. I.E the competition both drivers actually had to face.

Alonso had a realistic challenge in 2003/2004?

Erm... 2005 and 2006. Last time I checked those years were between 1994-2006 and Alonso drove a car that allowed him to compete for the championship.

[schumilegend]

Nice to see Brits in a British board trying to justify a British driver to be superior than a German driver....very surprising

Well Hamilton does have very impressive accomplishments which are in the same bracket as Schumacher's, so it seems like a reasonable debate to have.

LOL...ok...Let's just ignore the most dominant car and team ever seen in F1 history...

[Invade]

Nice to see Brits in a British board trying to justify a British driver to be superior than a German driver....very surprising

Well Hamilton does have very impressive accomplishments which are in the same bracket as Schumacher's, so it seems like a reasonable debate to have.

LOL...ok...Let's just ignore the most dominant car and team ever seen in F1 history...

Doesn't that hurt your likely argument? But OK let's ignore it.

[F1Tyrant]

I get the impression that Hamilton is perhaps less ruthless than Schumacher was. I think he embraces the competition and is fairly comfortable working in a transparent environment and accepting that his team mates are closer to him, but also therefore both drivers and the team as a whole is more competitive.

I feel this is another major strength of Hamilton as opposed to drivers such as Schumacher and Alonso (most of the time). As Rosberg recalls, Schumacher acted as if his teammate was dead. No acknowledgement in team briefings. No friendliness. Just a frosty determination.

The major moment for me is after Malaysia 2014 when Hamilton took a spectacular Grand Chelem and made Rosberg look like he was driving for another team. Mercedes then basically gave him a 700 page document on what Hamilton did that weekend.

Can you imagine Schumacher would allow such a detailed debrief to be given to the likes of Irvine, Barrichello or Massa? Hamilton's willingness to be open strengthens the teammates that are willing and able to learn from him.

[Exediron]

Can you imagine Schumacher would allow such a detailed debrief to be given to the likes of Irvine, Barrichello or Massa? Hamilton's willingness to be open strengthens the teammates that are willing and able to learn from him.

I don't think Hamilton had anything to do with that, and I highly doubt he would have okayed it if he had a choice. That's a very clear example of what's different between the teams, but I don't think it says anything about the drivers.

[Schumacher forever#1]

I get the impression that Hamilton is perhaps less ruthless than Schumacher was. I think he embraces the competition and is fairly comfortable working in a transparent environment and accepting that his team mates are closer to him, but also therefore both drivers and the team as a whole is more competitive.

I feel this is another major strength of Hamilton as opposed to drivers such as Schumacher and Alonso (most of the time). As Rosberg recalls, Schumacher acted as if his teammate was dead. No acknowledgement in team briefings. No friendliness. Just a frosty determination.

The major moment for me is after Malaysia 2014 when Hamilton took a spectacular Grand Chelem and made Rosberg look like he was driving for another team. Mercedes then basically gave him a 700 page document on what Hamilton did that weekend.

Can you imagine Schumacher would allow such a detailed debrief to be given to the likes of Irvine, Barrichello or Massa? Hamilton's willingness to be open strengthens the teammates that are willing and able to learn from him.

I don't think that's necessarily true. Massa stated already that Schumacher was like a father figure to him in the team.

And I recall that as soon as Hamilton and Rosberg were in a title fight, it only took a half dozen races for Hamilton to state that 'we're not friends' when asked about his relationship between his mate from the karting days. I don't really recall any instance where a teammate has spoken about Hamilton's helping hand as a teammate actually. Maybe that will change if and when Russell joins Merc and Hamilton hands the baton to him for the next generation of drivers.

Indeed, I think Whoff's statement is one that we may perceive , but we really don't have an understanding what goes on behind closed doors - they're only shared to us in brief moments when drivers talk about past and present teammates.

[Paolo_Lasardi]

Nice to see Brits in a British board trying to justify a British driver to be superior than a German driver....very surprising

Well Hamilton does have very impressive accomplishments which are in the same bracket as Schumacher's, so it seems like a reasonable debate to have.

LOL...ok...Let's just ignore the most dominant car and team ever seen in F1 history...

That is actually the difference: the Schumacher brigade thinks that already the discussion is not justified.

It shows how far the fanatism goes ...

[WHoff78]

I get the impression that Hamilton is perhaps less ruthless than Schumacher was. I think he embraces the competition and is fairly comfortable working in a transparent environment and accepting that his team mates are closer to him, but also therefore both drivers and the team as a whole is more competitive. And you get a more stable environment where the team are satisfied that both drivers are getting the results they should be. Perhaps this is part of the reason that he has enjoyed such competitive machinery throughout his career. It certainly can’t hurt a team’s performance. I’m sure stories will emerge when Hamilton has retired that provide greater insight into these things though.

Regardless of where people stand, the greatest compliment is that people are comparing Hamilton against Schumacher before he has even finished his career.

To me, this is a big key, and a general theory I've sucbscribed to for a while now. I do believe the team can peak higher with this dynamic, or at least for longer.

edit:

However, I don't like that Mercedes have now kept the same driver lineup for so long. More data points and insights with a new driver (Russell alongside Hamilton) could well contribute to even longer lasting dominance. Mercedes could become stale with Bottas and be overhauled before too long (I know it's already been forever). Hamilton can learn even more by having to deal with a new challenger and the team can push further forwards.

Fully agree with this, and also that the time has probably for transition. Harsh on Bottas who I think does a respectable job, but I think he would probably also benefit from a change of scenery at this point, and would be great to see him go up against someone else at this stage in his career as well. Russell would definitely freshen things up at Merc, and agree that with that line-up they would probably both push each other to improve more. All going well eventually we'll see Hamilton hand over the baton to another future British champion, hopefully with some other teams finally getting themselves back in the mix. We can only hope anyway.