planetf1.com

F1Tyrant wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 13, 2021 4:19 pm

Can we please move on from this tedious semantics?

A.J. wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 13, 2021 4:09 pm

He was even beaten by Alonso driving the horrid 2011 Ferrari - ouch!

...and if Alonso had been in the Ferrari in 2018, Hamilton would still have beat him over the season in a marginally inferior car! Fight me!

That should do the trick.

I see what you're doing with this, but I'll bite - I think Alonso in the 2018 Ferrari would have won the title, but that's just an opinion. For what it's worth, I think Hamilton in the 2018 Ferrari would have also won the title had he been up against anyone except Alonso in the Merc.

tootsie323 wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 13, 2021 4:36 pm

So we've established that both Schumacher and Hamilton lost to teammates in specific years due to explainable circumstances. In all cases, they beat the same teammates over other seasons.

Not sure they are exactly the same, but sure.

A.J. wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 13, 2021 4:38 pm

F1Tyrant wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 13, 2021 4:19 pm

Can we please move on from this tedious semantics?

A.J. wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 13, 2021 4:09 pm

He was even beaten by Alonso driving the horrid 2011 Ferrari - ouch!

...and if Alonso had been in the Ferrari in 2018, Hamilton would still have beat him over the season in a marginally inferior car! Fight me!

That should do the trick.

I see what you're doing with this, but I'll bite - I think Alonso in the 2018 Ferrari would have won the title, but that's just an opinion. For what it's worth, I think Hamilton in the 2018 Ferrari would have also won the title had he been up against anyone except Alonso in the Merc.

Not sure he'd win it in '18, but he'd do better than Vettel!

pokerman wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 13, 2021 4:26 pm

A.J. wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 13, 2021 3:35 pm

pokerman wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 13, 2021 1:18 pm

A.J. wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 13, 2021 12:51 pm

pokerman wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 13, 2021 12:38 pm

I wonder if we can discount all the engine inflicted races that Hamilton had in 2016?

Was it a DNS for him?

Schumacher clearly started the race and had brake failure, as a comparison Hamilton has had car failures and engine penalties in qualifying that meant him starting at the back before qualifying even started so he basically didn't even take part but Rosberg still gets the credit for beating him, I never see an asterisk put on some of Rosberg's pole positions when comparison is made with Hamilton.

I don't think you understood my question.

Is someone counting races for Hamilton in 2016 where it was a DNS for him? If not then you are asking a rhetorical question.

No it's just an example of people counting what they want to count, this counts as Rosberg out qualifying Hamilton and is used in the pole count against Hamilton, I can't remember what failure Hamilton had but he was deemed to have not taken part in qualifying but was given permission to race.

https://www.formula1.com/en/results.htm ... fying.html

As for Schumacher it merely was being used as an example of how being a superior driver is not always reflected in the points, for some reason it became so important to have as big a points gap as possible for Schumacher in the few races he competed against Irvine in 1999.

Instead of creating strawman arguments about things being counted against Hamilton and bringing it up in irrelevant conversations, how about you respond to that when it's actually brought up?

A.J. wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 13, 2021 4:44 pm

pokerman wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 13, 2021 4:26 pm

A.J. wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 13, 2021 3:35 pm

pokerman wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 13, 2021 1:18 pm

A.J. wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 13, 2021 12:51 pm

Was it a DNS for him?

Schumacher clearly started the race and had brake failure, as a comparison Hamilton has had car failures and engine penalties in qualifying that meant him starting at the back before qualifying even started so he basically didn't even take part but Rosberg still gets the credit for beating him, I never see an asterisk put on some of Rosberg's pole positions when comparison is made with Hamilton.

I don't think you understood my question.

Is someone counting races for Hamilton in 2016 where it was a DNS for him? If not then you are asking a rhetorical question.

No it's just an example of people counting what they want to count, this counts as Rosberg out qualifying Hamilton and is used in the pole count against Hamilton, I can't remember what failure Hamilton had but he was deemed to have not taken part in qualifying but was given permission to race.

https://www.formula1.com/en/results.htm ... fying.html

As for Schumacher it merely was being used as an example of how being a superior driver is not always reflected in the points, for some reason it became so important to have as big a points gap as possible for Schumacher in the few races he competed against Irvine in 1999.

Instead of creating strawman arguments about things being counted against Hamilton and bringing it up in irrelevant conversations, how about you respond to that when it's actually brought up?

I answered that it counts to those who believe it counts, on the other hand who cares it's never classed as Irvine beating Schumacher whether he had more points or not, what was being said is how close the points were between Schumacher and Irvine in the half season they race against one another despite Schumacher obviously being the much superior driver so points don't always tell the whole story.

For some reason it then made some Schumacher fans feel uncomfortable to the point to argue what should count and what shouldn't, is anybody saying that Irvine beat Schumacher, I'm not sure not me anyway.

tootsie323 wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 13, 2021 4:36 pm

So we've established that both Schumacher and Hamilton lost to teammates in specific years due to explainable circumstances. In all cases, they beat the same teammates over other seasons.

If you're talking about comeback Schumacher then yes. Pre-retirement Schumacher never lost to a team-mate over a full season, unlike Hamilton (twice!).

Siao7 wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 12, 2021 4:49 pm

Johnson wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 12, 2021 4:28 pm

Siao7 wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 12, 2021 4:01 pm

Johnson wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 12, 2021 3:38 pm

Siao7 wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 12, 2021 1:58 pm

Hamilton didn't miss 7 races in 2016, please stop making a nonsense comparison.

What?
Michael entered 10 races in 1999. In those 10 races, Irvine out scored him.

The missed races are removed.

I think you'll find that he wasn't included for Silverstone. Even in F1's website:

https://www.formula1.com/en/results.htm ... esult.html

He was not officially in the race, but he competed in the weekend like I said. He qualified for the race and took part in the first part of the race. If you want to take it to the letter of the law, Irvine beat him in 1997 then. But that would be silly

I just don't agree with this. Same thing happened in Spa 1998, 4 drivers are listed as DNS after what happened in that start. The regs back then said that if there was a restart in the first 2 laps, then these laps were nul and void and a restart would take place as if it never took place. Technically and literally DNS. Being there for the weekend does not mean that he took part in the race.

It's like saying what a cool victory over McLaren and Renault in the US 2005, when in reality they didn't race. It's nonsensical.

He also retained the points in 1997, so you can't really say that Irvine beat him. It would be silly indeed.

Points-wise, yes.
But Schumacher lost to Irvine in 1997 in the final wdc standing.

Anyway, I do not think anyone claims that Irvine ever beat Schumacher on performance over any substantial string of races.

Precisely. Does anyone believe that Irvine and Barichello were better than Schumacher. Does anyone believe that Button and Rosberg were better than Hamilton? Next - would you put those four drovers in roughly the same bracket?

Paolo_Lasardi wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 13, 2021 7:52 pm

Siao7 wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 12, 2021 4:49 pm

Johnson wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 12, 2021 4:28 pm

Siao7 wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 12, 2021 4:01 pm

Johnson wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 12, 2021 3:38 pm

What?
Michael entered 10 races in 1999. In those 10 races, Irvine out scored him.

The missed races are removed.

I think you'll find that he wasn't included for Silverstone. Even in F1's website:

https://www.formula1.com/en/results.htm ... esult.html

He was not officially in the race, but he competed in the weekend like I said. He qualified for the race and took part in the first part of the race. If you want to take it to the letter of the law, Irvine beat him in 1997 then. But that would be silly

I just don't agree with this. Same thing happened in Spa 1998, 4 drivers are listed as DNS after what happened in that start. The regs back then said that if there was a restart in the first 2 laps, then these laps were nul and void and a restart would take place as if it never took place. Technically and literally DNS. Being there for the weekend does not mean that he took part in the race.

It's like saying what a cool victory over McLaren and Renault in the US 2005, when in reality they didn't race. It's nonsensical.

He also retained the points in 1997, so you can't really say that Irvine beat him. It would be silly indeed.

Points-wise, yes.
But Schumacher lost to Irvine in 1997 in the final wdc standing.

Anyway, I do not think anyone claims that Irvine ever beat Schumacher on performance over any substantial string of races.

I agree, standings and points were different in 1997, quite a bizarre one obviously.

tootsie323 wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 14, 2021 6:24 am

Precisely. Does anyone believe that Irvine and Barichello were better than Schumacher. Does anyone believe that Button and Rosberg were better than Hamilton? Next - would you put those four drovers in roughly the same bracket?

Usually most athletes have ups and downs, they are not constant. Messi doesn't score 3 goals per game, etc. It happens.

So I guess the idea is that over a whole season then yes, these drivers could potentially have a better year. In fact, Button and Rosberg did (on points). You could argue that for 1999, however it is not over the whole year, since MS didn't compete the whole year. It is really easy to grasp and that is what was argued. I can't really agree with driver A was better than driver B in a smaller sample than a year, otherwise Winkelhock is the god of F1 in all eternity (for 6 laps)...

And to be clear, having a better year doesn't mean 100% that they are better; it could be (as it was in some cases) that the other driver just didn't perform to his normal standard.

Siao7 wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 14, 2021 7:36 am

tootsie323 wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 14, 2021 6:24 am

Precisely. Does anyone believe that Irvine and Barichello were better than Schumacher. Does anyone believe that Button and Rosberg were better than Hamilton? Next - would you put those four drovers in roughly the same bracket?

Usually most athletes have ups and downs, they are not constant. Messi doesn't score 3 goals per game, etc. It happens.



So I guess the idea is that over a whole season then yes, these drivers could potentially have a better year. In fact, Button and Rosberg did (on points). You could argue that for 1999, however it is not over the whole year, since MS didn't compete the whole year.

For me, what counts is looking at races both teammates entered. Whether these races stretch over a full season shouldn't really matter. As an example, it's universally accepted that Ricciardo beat Verstappen in 2016. I don't see ayone applying an asterisk because the fight wasn't conducted over a full season. A partial season shouldn't devalue Ricciardo's victory or ameliorate Verstappen's loss.

tootsie323 wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 14, 2021 6:24 am

Precisely. Does anyone believe that Irvine and Barichello were better than Schumacher. Does anyone believe that Button and Rosberg were better than Hamilton? Next - would you put those four drovers in roughly the same bracket?

Not even Edmund himself believed that!

tootsie323 wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 14, 2021 6:24 am

Precisely. Does anyone believe that Irvine and Barichello were better than Schumacher. Does anyone believe that Button and Rosberg were better than Hamilton? Next - would you put those four drovers in roughly the same bracket?

I would say no to the first, and also no to the second. Both Schumi and Hamilton have their detractors, but I have never met anyone who (after perhaps 2013) would legitimately claim any of the named teammates was better than either super champion.

As for the final question... maybe. I would put Button and Barrichello in the same broad category, but I think I might have Irvine below either and Rosberg above. Depends on the size of the categories.

SR1 wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:47 am

Siao7 wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 14, 2021 7:36 am

tootsie323 wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 14, 2021 6:24 am

Precisely. Does anyone believe that Irvine and Barichello were better than Schumacher. Does anyone believe that Button and Rosberg were better than Hamilton? Next - would you put those four drovers in roughly the same bracket?

Usually most athletes have ups and downs, they are not constant. Messi doesn't score 3 goals per game, etc. It happens.



So I guess the idea is that over a whole season then yes, these drivers could potentially have a better year. In fact, Button and Rosberg did (on points). You could argue that for 1999, however it is not over the whole year, since MS didn't compete the whole year.

For me, what counts is looking at races both teammates entered. Whether these races stretch over a full season shouldn't really matter. As an example, it's universally accepted that Ricciardo beat Verstappen in 2016. I don't see ayone applying an asterisk because the fight wasn't conducted over a full season. A partial season shouldn't devalue Ricciardo's victory or ameliorate Verstappen's loss.

This is a valid point I guess, but I was not really trying to oppose this. Just the idea of comparing a half year against a full year as the original post did between 1999 and 2016. MS didn't run for 44% of 1999, you can understand that that was a much smaller pool than a full year. That's with Winkelhock's example; he led 35% of all the GP's he entered. Does that give an accurate picture?

Exediron wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:10 am

tootsie323 wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 14, 2021 6:24 am

Precisely. Does anyone believe that Irvine and Barichello were better than Schumacher. Does anyone believe that Button and Rosberg were better than Hamilton? Next - would you put those four drovers in roughly the same bracket?

I would say no to the first, and also no to the second. Both Schumi and Hamilton have their detractors, but I have never met anyone who (after perhaps 2013) would legitimately claim any of the named teammates was better than either super champion.

As for the final question... maybe. I would put Button and Barrichello in the same broad category, but I think I might have Irvine below either and Rosberg above. Depends on the size of the categories.

Siao7 wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:16 am

This is a valid point I guess, but I was not really trying to oppose this. Just the idea of comparing a half year against a full year as the original post did between 1999 and 2016. MS didn't run for 44% of 1999, you can understand that that was a much smaller pool than a full year. That's with Winkelhock's example; he led 35% of all the GP's he entered. Does that give an accurate picture?

I think we can do away with the Winkelhock comparison

MS is a 7-times champion with a full career in F1. You can use a season in which he ran 54% of the time during the middle of his career.

Bentrovato wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:02 pm

Siao7 wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:16 am

This is a valid point I guess, but I was not really trying to oppose this. Just the idea of comparing a half year against a full year as the original post did between 1999 and 2016. MS didn't run for 44% of 1999, you can understand that that was a much smaller pool than a full year. That's with Winkelhock's example; he led 35% of all the GP's he entered. Does that give an accurate picture?

I think we can do away with the Winkelhock comparison

MS is a 7-times champion with a full career in F1. You can use a season in which he ran 54% of the time during the middle of his career.

Sure, you can use whatever you like. The question is how relevant it is going to be

Siao7 wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:10 pm

Sure, you can use whatever you like. The question is how relevant it is going to be

In case of MS (or any driver), using any season during the height of their career is 100% relevant. If you want to exclude rookie or final seasons, there might be a better case.

I'm going to reiterate a point I made earlier in that both Schumacher and Hamilton were better than their teammates regardless of whether they finished ahead of behind on points over a given season.
In terms of the two, I'd rate Hamilton as the better (more gifted) driver but Schumacher as the better (get the team behind him) driver (note - in both instances I think that there are fine margins). I can't draw a direct parallel but if these two had been paired I could envisage a scenario not too dissimilar to that of Mansell and Prost at Ferrari in 1990.
Mansell was capable of mixing it with the very best (Prost being one such benchmark) but, having established himself at Ferrari the year before, found himself coupled with a teammate (Prost) who knew how to get the team behind him.

A major dynamic to factor in is the linear time in which their two careers sit relative to each other. Usually the new generation sits on the shoulders of the previous generation and takes many of the advantages of sitting on those shoulders.

In Schumacher's case he arrived as a 22 year old and then revolutionised the sport in terms of driving style, fitness, technical input, discipline, and so on. It's also worth noting that today we have bullet proof reliability when in the old days these prototypes would break down contantly. Do you know who were the first team to produce bullet proof cars? It was the Schumacher era Ferrari. This is not a coincidence and it contributed greatly to his (and everybody's since including Vettel & Lewis's) career statistics.

When he finished his main career in 2006, Lewis Hamilton arrived in 2007 as a 22 year old in a formula that had transformed under the Schumacher era. Lewis and the others sit on the shoulder's of Schumacher's fitness standards, technical standards, car reliability standards, sports science standards, team cooperation standards, etc. At the end of the Lewis era in the early 2020s, the sport doesn't seem as different in all these standards compared to 2007 as it did in 2006 compared to 1991. And indeed neither does 1991 compared to 1977. Usually there is a progressive curve upwards as time goes on and generations succeed each other. There was a definite spike in the Schumacher era that looked like this if one were to visualise it:



Back to linear time. Not to get too wacky but swap Lewis and Schumacher's debuts, and imagine how each reality would have panned out, based on what we know about them. Would Lewis have revolutionised the sport from 1991 in terms of driving style, fitness, technical standards, discipline, etc? There is nothing in what we've seen to suggest he would. So what would Schumacher do if he arrived in 2007 as a 22 year old just after Lewis retires? How would he have benefited from sitting on the shoulders of the previous generation?

I put it to you, that a normal succession curve would have occurred during Lewis's 1991-2006 career, and we would have see Formula One revolution in standards take place from 2007-now.


Lewis has a massive advantage in any Schumacher/Hamilton comparison, of being the guy who came after the revolutionary finished his career. Even by 2006, other drivers like Alonso and Kimi were closer to Schumacher than the mid 1990s, because they all took up the sport science standards (electrolyte blood testing, etc), Schumacher's left foot braking driving standard, fitness standards, technical involvements etc.

I put it to you that if Schumacher arrived in Formula One in 2007 after Hamilton had just finished his career, there wouldn't even be a comparison between the two today.

That is some very high fantasy you're putting up there, myattitude. Have you considered writing a sci-fi novel on this?

I think it is a very interesting take from myattitude actually - certainly not fantasy in any way. Schumacher revolutionized many aspects of the sport, the likes of which very few others have been able to achieve. Senna before him started with the importance of fitness, and Schumacher took it to another level. There was also a fascinating anecdote from early on in his career, where he wanted a tachometer to be added to the Benetton dashboard, so he could use real-time data to optimize and maximize his corner speed - this is but one example of how Schumacher simply changed the game. Something his detractors seem to completely ignore or minimize.

I feel the next revolution might come from the current or next generation of drivers who might take sim-racing as a platform to refine their driving - although who knows really. if it were obvious to everyone they would already be doing it.

I feel that possibly Schumacher was lucky that he joined when he joined. Back then he could add more value with these things, especially as he had experience working as a mechanic when he was young. Nowadays most things are done with simulation and less on-track testing. So maybe if he joined in 2006 he wouldn't have made as big an impact as the graph above suggests.

Food for thought for sure.

A.J. wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:01 am

I think it is a very interesting take from myattitude actually - certainly not fantasy in any way. Schumacher revolutionized many aspects of the sport, the likes of which very few others have been able to achieve. Senna before him started with the importance of fitness, and Schumacher took it to another level. There was also a fascinating anecdote from early on in his career, where he wanted a tachometer to be added to the Benetton dashboard, so he could use real-time data to optimize and maximize his corner speed - this is but one example of how Schumacher simply changed the game. Something his detractors seem to completely ignore or minimize.

I feel the next revolution might come from the current or next generation of drivers who might take sim-racing as a platform to refine their driving - although who knows really. if it were obvious to everyone they would already be doing it.

When one starts going beyond what athletes achieved in their own time, we're getting fanciful. Transposing entire career blocks, however, is really taking a leap. I really have no idea what Hamilton would have achieved in Schumacher's block. He might not have even become Champion. There's no guarantee that Schumacher would have found equal opportunity in Hamilton's block or that he ends up with the most dominant team. We assume they were talented enough to thrive in most eras, but there are levels to success and all we have is the one instance of either achieving what they did. Run their careers again even in their own time and they might win a lot less than what we know (or indeed more).

We've spoken before on where the next revolution may come from and I agree it probably has something to do with the integration of what can be learned from simulation, especially as sims continue to advance. But there's a time and a place for such revolutions and not every period in the history of a sport or a science or an art actually lends a platform for such a breakthrough. Timing is important and the less fanciful notion of suggesting that people are a product of their era feels more secure here.

Schumacher's pioneering is kinda obvious — get fitter, increase options for data and feedback. Not obvious in the sense that it wasn't impressive, otherwise why wouldn't everyone push on with that sort of vision and ambition? But obvious in the sense that it's a gap which was likely to present itself intuitively, hence the parallel global evolution of professionalism along the same lines across pretty much all major sports through the 1990s and 2000s. That's all taken care of and has come on leaps and bounds in the general sense up till now. Sports in general undergoes a parallelism of evolution, and across the board professionalism is far higher now than it was even a couple of decades ago. So now we're sat in 2021, and in the current time and era one wonders: where can another revolution come from? Because I don't see any obvious, intuitive 'gap' in the model to exploit, with the only thing I can see being skill integration spanning multiple disciplines.

Right now I just don't have the vision or foresight to see a space for the next Michael Jackson, the next Albert Einstein or the next Michael Schumacher. The music market is too saturated and fragmented; the obvious areas of improvement are fairly maximised as far as we can tell across many sports; and the more profound models for understanding the workings of the world seem to be quite well accounted for in the realm of science.

A.J. wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:01 am

I think it is a very interesting take from myattitude actually - certainly not fantasy in any way. Schumacher revolutionized many aspects of the sport, the likes of which very few others have been able to achieve. Senna before him started with the importance of fitness, and Schumacher took it to another level. There was also a fascinating anecdote from early on in his career, where he wanted a tachometer to be added to the Benetton dashboard, so he could use real-time data to optimize and maximize his corner speed - this is but one example of how Schumacher simply changed the game. Something his detractors seem to completely ignore or minimize.

I feel the next revolution might come from the current or next generation of drivers who might take sim-racing as a platform to refine their driving - although who knows really. if it were obvious to everyone they would already be doing it.

Here is the info on what Schumacher was doing at Benetton re what you mentioned: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/driving- ... illem-toet

Siao7 wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:36 am

I feel that possibly Schumacher was lucky that he joined when he joined. Back then he could add more value with these things, especially as he had experience working as a mechanic when he was young. Nowadays most things are done with simulation and less on-track testing. So maybe if he joined in 2006 he wouldn't have made as big an impact as the graph above suggests.

Food for thought for sure.

He almost certainly wouldn't have had as big an impact in the sense of being a "revolutionary" figure. His timing was ideal. And that goes for pretty much any great champion who ended up winning a lot - it's not specific to Schumacher.

In 2006, even supposing F1 is a bit behind in overall development compared to the scenario we know with Schumacher, I have no doubt that it would have still come a long way, especially taking into account the trends of evolution across sports during the period. So the jump would have likely been less extreme, and he wouldn't have carved out so many 'revolutionary' advantages, as many extra things would have been found.

Schumacher was an ideal mind for an ideal time. Yet his talent is blindingly obvious, so he'd have been capable of having an impact on any era and being a winner, as long as we work with the assumption that he has an equally fruitful development of his skills (this is not something which is guaranteed).

If Hamilton had started out in the early 90s, might race have mattered? Would it have been a roadblock? Is Hamilton thriving in the time when the world was ready for him?

Invade wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:00 am

... I really have no idea what Hamilton would have achieved in Schumacher's block. He might not have even become Champion. There's no guarantee that Schumacher would have found equal opportunity in Hamilton's block or that he ends up with the most dominant team. We assume they were talented enough to thrive in most eras, but there are levels to success and all we have is the one instance of either achieving what they did. Run their careers again even in their own time and they might win a lot less than what we know (or indeed more)...

This is an interesting aspect, and alludes to a point I made in another thread in Hamilton refusing to follow team protocol in Hungary qualifying 2007 (and the resultant fallout). His determination to make a statement may well have been the catalyst for the career he has had.
Imagine that he had agreed to play second-fiddle to Alonso that year. Presumably there would not have been the fallout there was and Alonso would have collected his third WDC. Would Alonso himself, as a result, gone on to have the success that Hamilton has had? And, having beaten Schumacher in his own era, would he be considered the undisputed GOAT?
I'm going on a bit of a tangent here, but am interested.

Invade wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:00 am

A.J. wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:01 am

I think it is a very interesting take from myattitude actually - certainly not fantasy in any way. Schumacher revolutionized many aspects of the sport, the likes of which very few others have been able to achieve. Senna before him started with the importance of fitness, and Schumacher took it to another level. There was also a fascinating anecdote from early on in his career, where he wanted a tachometer to be added to the Benetton dashboard, so he could use real-time data to optimize and maximize his corner speed - this is but one example of how Schumacher simply changed the game. Something his detractors seem to completely ignore or minimize.

I feel the next revolution might come from the current or next generation of drivers who might take sim-racing as a platform to refine their driving - although who knows really. if it were obvious to everyone they would already be doing it.

When one starts going beyond what athletes achieved in their own time, we're getting fanciful. Transposing entire career blocks, however, is really taking a leap. I really have no idea what Hamilton would have achieved in Schumacher's block. He might not have even become Champion. There's no guarantee that Schumacher would have found equal opportunity in Hamilton's block or that he ends up with the most dominant team. We assume they were talented enough to thrive in most eras, but there are levels to success and all we have is the one instance of either achieving what they did. Run their careers again even in their own time and they might win a lot less than what we know (or indeed more).

We've spoken before on where the next revolution may come from and I agree it probably has something to do with the integration of what can be learned from simulation, especially as sims continue to advance. But there's a time and a place for such revolutions and not every period in the history of a sport or a science or an art actually lends a platform for such a breakthrough. Timing is important and the less fanciful notion of suggesting that people are a product of their era feels more secure here.

Schumacher's pioneering is kinda obvious — get fitter, increase options for data and feedback. Not obvious in the sense that it wasn't impressive, otherwise why wouldn't everyone push on with that sort of vision and ambition? But obvious in the sense that it's a gap which was likely to present itself intuitively, hence the parallel global evolution of professionalism along the same lines across pretty much all major sports through the 1990s and 2000s. That's all taken care of and has come on leaps and bounds in the general sense up till now. Sports in general undergoes a parallelism of evolution, and across the board professionalism is far higher now than it was even a couple of decades ago. So now we're sat in 2021, and in the current time and era one wonders: where can another revolution come from? Because I don't see any obvious, intuitive 'gap' in the model to exploit, with the only thing I can see being skill integration spanning multiple disciplines.

Right now I just don't have the vision or foresight to see a space for the next Michael Jackson, the next Albert Einstein or the next Michael Schumacher. The music market is too saturated and fragmented; the obvious areas of improvement are fairly maximised as far as we can tell across many sports; and the more profound models for understanding the workings of the world seem to be quite well accounted for in the realm of science.

In fairness, I don't think anyone had the vision of them before they showed up either. We'll only know in hindsight

Invade wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:07 am

Siao7 wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:36 am

I feel that possibly Schumacher was lucky that he joined when he joined. Back then he could add more value with these things, especially as he had experience working as a mechanic when he was young. Nowadays most things are done with simulation and less on-track testing. So maybe if he joined in 2006 he wouldn't have made as big an impact as the graph above suggests.

Food for thought for sure.

He almost certainly wouldn't have had as big an impact in the sense of being a "revolutionary" figure. His timing was ideal. And that goes for pretty much any great champion who ended up winning a lot - it's not specific to Schumacher.

In 2006, even supposing F1 is a bit behind in overall development compared to the scenario we know with Schumacher, I have no doubt that it would have still come a long way, especially taking into account the trends of evolution across sports during the period. So the jump would have likely been less extreme, and he wouldn't have carved out so many 'revolutionary' advantages, as many extra things would have been found.

Schumacher was an ideal mind for an ideal time. Yet his talent is blindingly obvious, so he'd have been capable of having an impact on any era and being a winner, as long as we work with the assumption that he has an equally fruitful development of his skills (this is not something which is guaranteed).

If Hamilton had started out in the early 90s, might race have mattered? Would it have been a roadblock? Is Hamilton thriving in the time when the world was ready for him?

We agree in everything, you just put it better than myself!

tootsie323 wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:10 am

Invade wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:00 am

... I really have no idea what Hamilton would have achieved in Schumacher's block. He might not have even become Champion. There's no guarantee that Schumacher would have found equal opportunity in Hamilton's block or that he ends up with the most dominant team. We assume they were talented enough to thrive in most eras, but there are levels to success and all we have is the one instance of either achieving what they did. Run their careers again even in their own time and they might win a lot less than what we know (or indeed more)...

This is an interesting aspect, and alludes to a point I made in another thread in Hamilton refusing to follow team protocol in Hungary qualifying 2007 (and the resultant fallout). His determination to make a statement may well have been the catalyst for the career he has had.
Imagine that he had agreed to play second-fiddle to Alonso that year. Presumably there would not have been the fallout there was and Alonso would have collected his third WDC. Would Alonso himself, as a result, gone on to have the success that Hamilton has had? And, having beaten Schumacher in his own era, would he be considered the undisputed GOAT?
I'm going on a bit of a tangent here, but am interested.

Alonso would not have left at the end of '07 either. So (possibly) no WDC for Hamilton in '08. Interesting "what if" scenario. But I also believe that cream rises to the top, Hamilton is a quality driver that would have shown his medal (is this how you write it?), probably a bit later, but surely it would happen. Thinking about it, he may have been bored to be in Alonso's team and moved to RB, potentially he would have been the 2010+ WDC multi-champion. God knows

tootsie323 wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:10 am

Invade wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:00 am

... I really have no idea what Hamilton would have achieved in Schumacher's block. He might not have even become Champion. There's no guarantee that Schumacher would have found equal opportunity in Hamilton's block or that he ends up with the most dominant team. We assume they were talented enough to thrive in most eras, but there are levels to success and all we have is the one instance of either achieving what they did. Run their careers again even in their own time and they might win a lot less than what we know (or indeed more)...

This is an interesting aspect, and alludes to a point I made in another thread in Hamilton refusing to follow team protocol in Hungary qualifying 2007 (and the resultant fallout). His determination to make a statement may well have been the catalyst for the career he has had.
Imagine that he had agreed to play second-fiddle to Alonso that year. Presumably there would not have been the fallout there was and Alonso would have collected his third WDC. Would Alonso himself, as a result, gone on to have the success that Hamilton has had? And, having beaten Schumacher in his own era, would he be considered the undisputed GOAT?
I'm going on a bit of a tangent here, but am interested.

Yeah that's how fickle it is. I think in F1 especially, because a great talent like Alonso is able to find himself in a position where he becomes pretty much a non-factor for a huge stretch of his prime. There is too much beyond the driver's control which can shape their career.

Without getting too philosophical, I'm going to assume there's a possible world where Hamilton doesn't end up in the Mercedes and has 0-2 WDCs to his name. I can envisage various 'musical chair' scenarios where the likes of Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel, and others, have quite different fortunes. But that it's still that top echelon of driver who generally goes on to share the Championship spoils. Alonso could have been the winningest driver, and it's not ridiculous to imagine how Vettel could have ended up at Mercedes somehow. Team evolution and competitiveness could have progressed differently.... so on so forth.

Now this isn't quite the high fantasy of transposing entire career blocks across eras, as this does discuss active contemporaries. But it's still high fantasy. We only have one reality to judge, but it seems obvious that many decisions in life are truly pivotal, with profound long-term ramifications. I don't think the one reality we can confirm to have happened is fated, destined, so swapping entire blocks and ascribing maximal importance to the role of singular men is quite dubious.

I know what I'm saying probably sounds obvious and banal, but general sports debate doesn't really align with this. And in F1 it's particularly pertinent, as far as sports goes. It's not the purer meritrocracy which one might find in Snooker or Darts, sports (or games) with which we can also quite reliably monitor a very real evolution of playing standards through statistics - they're stable enough to draw robust conclusions for.

Siao7 wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:12 am

In fairness, I don't think anyone had the vision of them before they showed up either. We'll only know in hindsight

It's true, especially for science. I'd be staggered if we see a global phenom like MJ in music again but hey, let's see.

But yes true.

tootsie323 wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:10 am

Imagine that he had agreed to play second-fiddle to Alonso that year.

Even a repeat of Moss-Fangio would have lead to an epic fallout regardless. Hamilton was too close to Alonso (i.e. winning multiple races on his ability unlike Fisi, Piquet Jr or Massa) for him to be comfortable, even as team leader and winning titles. Hamilton would have been forced out (and wanted to leave) after 2008 I reckon. Just in time to join Red Bull in 2009.

tootsie323 wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:10 am

And, having beaten Schumacher in his own era, would he be considered the undisputed GOAT?

Absolutely, but he turned his nose up at Red Bull in 2007 and 2008. Surrendered 5 titles to Button and Vettel out of pure arrogance.

F1Tyrant wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:31 am

tootsie323 wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:10 am

Imagine that he had agreed to play second-fiddle to Alonso that year.

Even a repeat of Moss-Fangio would have lead to an epic fallout regardless. Hamilton was too close to Alonso (i.e. winning multiple races on his ability unlike Fisi, Piquet Jr or Massa) for him to be comfortable, even as team leader and winning titles. Hamilton would have been forced out (and wanted to leave) after 2008 I reckon. Just in time to join Red Bull in 2009.

tootsie323 wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:10 am

And, having beaten Schumacher in his own era, would he be considered the undisputed GOAT?

Absolutely, but he turned his nose up at Red Bull in 2007 and 2008. Surrendered 5 titles to Button and Vettel out of pure arrogance.

That's what I mentioned above, but in 2007-08 it was obvious he'd ignore RB; Macca have been sponsoring him since his first steps in motor racing, I doubt that he'd turn his back on them after his first year there. 2009-2010 would be more realistic, after seeing that he was treated as a Nr2 and having learned a lot from Nando. Possibly

Siao7 wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:37 am

That's what I mentioned above, but in 2007-08 it was obvious he'd ignore RB; Macca have been sponsoring him since his first steps in motor racing, I doubt that he'd turn his back on them after his first year there. 2009-2010 would be more realistic, after seeing that he was treated as a Nr2 and having learned a lot from Nando. Possibly

For someone as competitive as Hamilton, letting Alonso past for multiple wins and two championship bids would destroy his relationship with Dennis and McLaren almost immediately.

F1Tyrant wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:40 am

Siao7 wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:37 am

That's what I mentioned above, but in 2007-08 it was obvious he'd ignore RB; Macca have been sponsoring him since his first steps in motor racing, I doubt that he'd turn his back on them after his first year there. 2009-2010 would be more realistic, after seeing that he was treated as a Nr2 and having learned a lot from Nando. Possibly

For someone as competitive as Hamilton, letting Alonso past for multiple wins and two championship bids would destroy his relationship with Dennis and McLaren almost immediately.

Depends how good his manager/dad was I guess!

Siao7 wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:43 am

Depends how good his manager/dad was I guess!

I maintain that the most important race of Hamilton's career was the 2007 USA Grand Prix where Sir Lewis held off Alonso for the entire race. At that point he'd won his first race already and was now 8 points ahead of Alonso in the title fight. If he'd rolled over for Alonso then, I reckon history would be entirely different.

F1Tyrant wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:03 am

Siao7 wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:43 am

Depends how good his manager/dad was I guess!

I maintain that the most important race of Hamilton's career was the 2007 USA Grand Prix where Sir Lewis held off Alonso for the entire race. At that point he'd won his first race already and was now 8 points ahead of Alonso in the title fight. If he'd rolled over for Alonso then, I reckon history would be entirely different.

Ah - good point. There I was referencing Hungary as the catalyst for it all. I guess even Monaco showed that Hamilton was not willing to play second fiddle but the US GP was certainly the first obvious demonstration getting his elbows out.

In the end though, sheer talent will make one a hot commodity regardless. If stuff could play out differently then it's probably just as likely that history would play out quite similarly (in terms of general results and impression of greatness, at least as broad brackets) as it is that history would be relatively upended.

Siao7 wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:37 am

F1Tyrant wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:31 am

tootsie323 wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:10 am

Imagine that he had agreed to play second-fiddle to Alonso that year.

Even a repeat of Moss-Fangio would have lead to an epic fallout regardless. Hamilton was too close to Alonso (i.e. winning multiple races on his ability unlike Fisi, Piquet Jr or Massa) for him to be comfortable, even as team leader and winning titles. Hamilton would have been forced out (and wanted to leave) after 2008 I reckon. Just in time to join Red Bull in 2009.

tootsie323 wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:10 am

And, having beaten Schumacher in his own era, would he be considered the undisputed GOAT?

Absolutely, but he turned his nose up at Red Bull in 2007 and 2008. Surrendered 5 titles to Button and Vettel out of pure arrogance.

That's what I mentioned above, but in 2007-08 it was obvious he'd ignore RB; Macca have been sponsoring him since his first steps in motor racing, I doubt that he'd turn his back on them after his first year there. 2009-2010 would be more realistic, after seeing that he was treated as a Nr2 and having learned a lot from Nando. Possibly

I think tootsie and F1Tyrant are talking about Alonso joining RB in 07-08, not Hamilton. At least that's how I read it.