Page 29 of 42
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Wed May 05, 2021 12:42 pm
by A.J.
Johnson wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 12:22 pm
A.J. wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 11:52 am
Johnson wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 11:45 am
Siao7 wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 10:29 am
Johnson wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 10:08 am
Alonso was better than Trulli in 2004, Alonso had 5 DNFs, Trulli had 3. Alonso also made a mistake in the one race Renault had the best car and Trulli out scored him 10-0 in that race. If you re-watch 2004, Alonso is still clearly the better driver but
Trulli did have great 1 lap speed.
And this is exactly what was argued in the first place.
We finally got there!
Finally got where? I've made 2 comments in this thread on Trulli and never disputed that Trulli was quick over 1 lap. I think everybody that watched that era knows Trulli was in the top 3 drivers over 1 lap in that decade.
The original comment was that Trulli would dominant in the Mercedes because he would always get pole - which is a silly point because almost any driver would get pole in the 2014 onwards Mercedes. So Trulli's greatest strength (qualifying) is actually removed by having such a dominant car. It also means his team mate would likely be in P2 right behind him.
The rules of the early 2000's era suited Trulli perfectly. Being quick over 1 lap but not so quick in the race, qualifying on race fuel and strategy locked in, no DRS and near impossible to overtake.
In the era of DRS, undercuts, significantly more tyre strategy and significantly more SC/VSC influence, having track position is much less important now than the early 2000's. If you could put the car on pole with a heavy fuel load back in the early 2000 and lead after the first corner it was almost certain you would win.
This was my original comment: "
I would have loved to see Jarno Trulli in those Mercs - can only wonder how many titles he would have won with his qualifying prowess when the "Trulli train" didn't have to hold anyone up"
There are people arguing on this thread that Trulli wasn't a great qualifier, was at Massa's level, and would somehow be outqualified by a Bottas - when all evidence points otherwise.
In the Merc domination era Trulli would have been truly interesting to watch, as Merc explicitly favoured the driver that was ahead when it came to strategy. If Trulli could qualify ahead of his teammate (no matter who it was) and manage to lead into the first corner (which would also be likely because he was a great starter, but this is purely based on my memory of things) - he would get preferred strategy, and his team-mate would not be allowed to undercut him (as we saw during the HAM-ROS years). This is the perfect situation for someone fighting for titles up front.
The stats clearly show how important pole was for Rosberg/Bottas. There is DRS now, Rosberg was overtaken many times by Hamilton and Bottas even more.
Rosberg converted 13 of his 27 poles and most of those Hamilton was not in contention to win. Such as -
2016 Japan - Hamilton dropped to 8th place with a bad start
2016 Belgium - Hamilton started P20 after engine penalties
2016 Baku - Hamilton started P10 due to qualifying crash
2016 Russia - Hamilton started P10 due to qualifying breakdown
2016 China - Hamilton started P20 due to qualifying breakdown
2014 Germany - Hamilton started P20 due to qualifying breakdown
Half of Nico's conversions from pole involved Hamilton out of the race effectively. Thats why Bottas conversion rate is so low as Hamilton just has not had the same level of bad luck as he did against Rosberg. Mercedes is much more reliable now.
Without going into the Hamilton vs Rosberg conversation, it does seem odd to me that you're bringing up races where Hamilton had bad luck - I'm sure Rosberg also lost some races where due to his bad luck he wasn't in contention for a win (and a bad start like in Japan 2016 isn't bad luck - it's a bad start. Same with Baku - Hamilton's own mistake isn't bad luck). Bottas for me doesn't even figure in this conversation because he's nothing more than a lapdog at Merc, and at a decidedly lower level.
Even with a reasonable 50-60% pole-to-win conversion, Trulli would be in contention for the title.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Wed May 05, 2021 12:52 pm
by Johnson
Why does it seem odd? We are discussing pole conversation rates are we not? Do you not feel most drivers on the grid would score a pole and win if Hamilton blew up in qualifying and started the race in P20? It's a slam dunk.
We are discussing pole conversion rates, please forget Hamilton vs Rosberg on anything of this. I brought this up to highlight Rosbergs pole conversion rate. It is low anyway at less than 50% and of that 50% half of those he simply was in a one car qualifying and race - which I am sure we can both agree, almost any driver on the grid would convert on.
If any driver can score 80% of poles and convert 50-60% of them will win the title almost certainly. Sure Trulli could win titles in Mercedes, almost any driver on the grid would with the 2014-2016 machinery. The question mark, is the team mate. If you paired Alonso-Trulli in the 2014-2016, it would take a freak like 2016 for Trulli to get a title. Alonso would destroy him on race days.
The same as Trulli in the 2021 Mercedes, he might have 3 poles but Verstappen would have 3 race wins.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Wed May 05, 2021 12:56 pm
by pokerman
Yet again I get it the Mercedes of 2014-2016 was dominant and a number of drivers could have been champion in it, however first for many of these drivers you would have to remove Hamilton and Rosberg from the picture especially Hamilton, how many drivers win world titles without being in the best car, Schumacher didn't win until Ferrari gave him the best car.
In respect to Jarno Trulli he was a Mr. Saturday but even then his qualifying stats were worse than Hamilton and probably similar at best to Rosberg but on a Sunday he generally had poor race pace, he was good on fresh tyres when the grip was good, in the wet he was diabolical.
In respect to Kovallainen he wasn't just placed high in the list of fastest drivers over one lap because he beat Trulli, it was also because, fuel corrected, he was a little over a tenth slower than Hamilton, join the dots and you get yet another path to Hamilton being faster than Alonso, at least over 1 lap.
Also we have the convenience it seems of dismissing a drivers performance then they get towards their mid 30s as a means to deride a driver beating them, yet we are here discussing what a washed up Trulli would achieve in the Mercedes while racing in his 40s.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Wed May 05, 2021 1:09 pm
by F1Tyrant
pokerman wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 12:56 pm
...how many drivers win world titles without being in the best car, Schumacher didn't win until Ferrari gave him the best car.
Debatable, I think Hamilton would have beat Schumacher in the McLarens of 1998-2000. Ferrari only gained an edge in 2001 and even then Hakkinen wilted completely. I think that Hakkinen's competitiveness in 2000 points to the fact that it was probably the best car by a consistent margin. If Hakkinen was ever truly a Schumacher-esque talent it was severely blunted after his crash in Adelaide.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Wed May 05, 2021 1:22 pm
by pokerman
F1Tyrant wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 1:09 pm
pokerman wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 12:56 pm
...how many drivers win world titles without being in the best car, Schumacher didn't win until Ferrari gave him the best car.
Debatable, I think Hamilton would have beat Schumacher in the McLarens of 1998-2000. Ferrari only gained an edge in 2001 and even then Hakkinen wilted completely. I think that Hakkinen's competitiveness in 2000 points to the fact that it was probably the best car by a consistent margin. If Hakkinen was ever truly a Schumacher-esque talent it was severely blunted after his crash in Adelaide.
Well Hakkinen was the best rival that Schumacher had until Alonso came along which is nicely on topic.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Wed May 05, 2021 2:14 pm
by mikeyg123
I disagree that Schumacher didn't win in a Ferrari until it was the best car. I think the McLaren was still quicker in 2001. Hakkinen just had a really unlucky start to the season and then gave up.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Wed May 05, 2021 2:36 pm
by Siao7
F1Tyrant wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 1:09 pm
pokerman wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 12:56 pm
...how many drivers win world titles without being in the best car, Schumacher didn't win until Ferrari gave him the best car.
Debatable, I think Hamilton would have beat Schumacher in the McLarens of 1998-2000. Ferrari only gained an edge in 2001 and even then Hakkinen wilted completely. I think that Hakkinen's competitiveness in 2000 points to the fact that it was probably the best car by a consistent margin. If Hakkinen was ever truly a Schumacher-esque talent it was severely blunted after his crash in Adelaide.
I think it is generally accepted that Newey's Macca was better in '98 and '99 (in both years the Ferrari got closer as the in-season development went on). '00 was just about equal, Macca being the faster car broadly, but Ferrari shone in track that suit them.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Wed May 05, 2021 2:49 pm
by F1Tyrant
Siao7 wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 2:36 pm
I think it is generally accepted that Newey's Macca was better in '98 and '99 (in both years the Ferrari got closer as the in-season development went on). '00 was just about equal, Macca being the faster car broadly, but Ferrari shone in track that suit them.
Hakkinen was clearly not in Schumacher's league which implies indirectly that the McLarens were a bit faster than the Ferraris.
Hakkinen's winning campaigns in 1998 and 1999 are some of the most fraught and painful performance in a dominant car I've seen. It's the opposite of Hamilton's 2012 campaign with the operational failures swapped with driver failures.
Make Alonso a decade younger and have him switch to McLaren in 1997, he sweeps 1998-2000 with a very close battle in 2001.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Wed May 05, 2021 3:20 pm
by Siao7
F1Tyrant wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 2:49 pm
Siao7 wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 2:36 pm
I think it is generally accepted that Newey's Macca was better in '98 and '99 (in both years the Ferrari got closer as the in-season development went on). '00 was just about equal, Macca being the faster car broadly, but Ferrari shone in track that suit them.
Hakkinen was clearly not in Schumacher's league which implies indirectly that the McLarens were a bit faster than the Ferraris.
Hakkinen's winning campaigns in 1998 and 1999 are some of the most fraught and painful performance in a dominant car I've seen. It's the opposite of Hamilton's 2012 campaign with the operational failures swapped with driver failures.
Make Alonso a decade younger and have him switch to McLaren in 1997, he sweeps 1998-2000 with a very close battle in 2001.
Very very true.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Wed May 05, 2021 3:26 pm
by pokerman
Fair enough that seems to be reasoned opinion, overall it gives the impression of the 2000 and 2001 Ferrari's being more like the 2017 and 2018 Mercs with ultimately the champion making the big difference.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Wed May 05, 2021 4:31 pm
by schumilegend
F1Tyrant wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 2:49 pm
Siao7 wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 2:36 pm
I think it is generally accepted that Newey's Macca was better in '98 and '99 (in both years the Ferrari got closer as the in-season development went on). '00 was just about equal, Macca being the faster car broadly, but Ferrari shone in track that suit them.
Hakkinen was clearly not in Schumacher's league which implies indirectly that the McLarens were a bit faster than the Ferraris.
Hakkinen's winning campaigns in 1998 and 1999 are some of the most fraught and painful performance in a dominant car I've seen. It's the opposite of Hamilton's 2012 campaign with the operational failures swapped with driver failures.
Make Alonso a decade younger and have him switch to McLaren in 1997, he sweeps 1998-2000 with a very close battle in 2001.
Ahh the great Alonso hype train.. Was shown up by Trulli!?! , a rookie Hamilton! and now a journeyman driver in Ocon..Ya he will definitely sweep 1998-2000 when Schumi was in his PRIME!!
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Wed May 05, 2021 4:36 pm
by pokerman
schumilegend wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 4:31 pm
F1Tyrant wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 2:49 pm
Siao7 wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 2:36 pm
I think it is generally accepted that Newey's Macca was better in '98 and '99 (in both years the Ferrari got closer as the in-season development went on). '00 was just about equal, Macca being the faster car broadly, but Ferrari shone in track that suit them.
Hakkinen was clearly not in Schumacher's league which implies indirectly that the McLarens were a bit faster than the Ferraris.
Hakkinen's winning campaigns in 1998 and 1999 are some of the most fraught and painful performance in a dominant car I've seen. It's the opposite of Hamilton's 2012 campaign with the operational failures swapped with driver failures.
Make Alonso a decade younger and have him switch to McLaren in 1997, he sweeps 1998-2000 with a very close battle in 2001.
Ahh the great Alonso hype train.. Was shown up by Trulli!?! , a rookie Hamilton! and now a journeyman driver in Ocon..Ya he will definitely sweep 1998-2000 when Schumi was in his PRIME!!
So Schumacher was not in his prime in 2006, can Hamilton fans use that this year if he gets beat in a close fight with Max in close to equal cars?
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Wed May 05, 2021 4:38 pm
by schumilegend
pokerman wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 4:36 pm
schumilegend wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 4:31 pm
F1Tyrant wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 2:49 pm
Siao7 wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 2:36 pm
I think it is generally accepted that Newey's Macca was better in '98 and '99 (in both years the Ferrari got closer as the in-season development went on). '00 was just about equal, Macca being the faster car broadly, but Ferrari shone in track that suit them.
Hakkinen was clearly not in Schumacher's league which implies indirectly that the McLarens were a bit faster than the Ferraris.
Hakkinen's winning campaigns in 1998 and 1999 are some of the most fraught and painful performance in a dominant car I've seen. It's the opposite of Hamilton's 2012 campaign with the operational failures swapped with driver failures.
Make Alonso a decade younger and have him switch to McLaren in 1997, he sweeps 1998-2000 with a very close battle in 2001.
Ahh the great Alonso hype train.. Was shown up by Trulli!?! , a rookie Hamilton! and now a journeyman driver in Slowcon..Ya he will definitely sweep 1998-2000 when Schumi was in his PRIME!!
So Schumacher was not in his prime in 2006, can Hamilton fans use that this year if he gets beat in a close fight with Max in close to equal cars?
What a joke!? Schumacher was drained after bringing the Ferrari from nowhere and rebuilding the team to be a dynasty over a period of a decade... Contrast that to a driver who won the MEGA MILLIONS LOTTERY OF F1!
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Wed May 05, 2021 4:49 pm
by F1Tyrant
schumilegend wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 4:31 pm
Ahh the great Alonso hype train.. Was shown up by Trulli!?! , a rookie Hamilton! and now a journeyman driver in Ocon..Ya he will definitely sweep 1998-2000 when Schumi was in his PRIME!!
Congratulations for missing my point so spectularly! My point was that the McLaren in 1998-2000 was the best car and a great driver (Alonso, Hamilton or Schumacher himself) would have brought the titles back to Woking ahead of Schumacher in a slower Ferrari.
The fact all three title fights went to the final race is a damning indictment on Hakkinen and heaping more praise on Schumacher.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Wed May 05, 2021 4:57 pm
by schumilegend
F1Tyrant wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 4:49 pm
schumilegend wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 4:31 pm
Ahh the great Alonso hype train.. Was shown up by Trulli!?! , a rookie Hamilton! and now a journeyman driver in Slowcon..Ya he will definitely sweep 1998-2000 when Schumi was in his PRIME!!
Congratulations for missing my point so spectularly! My point was that the McLaren in 1998-2000 was the best car and a great driver (Alonso, Hamilton or Schumacher himself) would have brought the titles back to Woking ahead of Schumacher in a slower Ferrari.
The fact all three title fights went to the final race is a damning indictment on Hakkinen and heaping more praise on Schumacher.
I didn't miss your point! I don't think Alonso is that superior to Hakkinen... Alonso is overhyped based on his performances in lower performing cars...He hasn't been anything special or spectacular in good/great cars
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Wed May 05, 2021 4:58 pm
by pokerman
schumilegend wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 4:38 pm
pokerman wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 4:36 pm
schumilegend wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 4:31 pm
F1Tyrant wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 2:49 pm
Siao7 wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 2:36 pm
I think it is generally accepted that Newey's Macca was better in '98 and '99 (in both years the Ferrari got closer as the in-season development went on). '00 was just about equal, Macca being the faster car broadly, but Ferrari shone in track that suit them.
Hakkinen was clearly not in Schumacher's league which implies indirectly that the McLarens were a bit faster than the Ferraris.
Hakkinen's winning campaigns in 1998 and 1999 are some of the most fraught and painful performance in a dominant car I've seen. It's the opposite of Hamilton's 2012 campaign with the operational failures swapped with driver failures.
Make Alonso a decade younger and have him switch to McLaren in 1997, he sweeps 1998-2000 with a very close battle in 2001.
Ahh the great Alonso hype train.. Was shown up by Trulli!?! , a rookie Hamilton! and now a journeyman driver in Slowcon..Ya he will definitely sweep 1998-2000 when Schumi was in his PRIME!!
So Schumacher was not in his prime in 2006, can Hamilton fans use that this year if he gets beat in a close fight with Max in close to equal cars?
What a joke!? Schumacher was drained after bringing the Ferrari from nowhere and rebuilding the team to be a dynasty over a period of a decade... Contrast that to a driver who won the MEGA MILLIONS LOTTERY OF F1!
Yeah he did it all by himself, the age double standard is no surprise.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Wed May 05, 2021 5:04 pm
by schumilegend
pokerman wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 4:58 pm
schumilegend wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 4:38 pm
pokerman wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 4:36 pm
schumilegend wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 4:31 pm
F1Tyrant wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 2:49 pm
Hakkinen was clearly not in Schumacher's league which implies indirectly that the McLarens were a bit faster than the Ferraris.
Hakkinen's winning campaigns in 1998 and 1999 are some of the most fraught and painful performance in a dominant car I've seen. It's the opposite of Hamilton's 2012 campaign with the operational failures swapped with driver failures.
Make Alonso a decade younger and have him switch to McLaren in 1997, he sweeps 1998-2000 with a very close battle in 2001.
Ahh the great Alonso hype train.. Was shown up by Trulli!?! , a rookie Hamilton! and now a journeyman driver in Slowcon..Ya he will definitely sweep 1998-2000 when Schumi was in his PRIME!!
So Schumacher was not in his prime in 2006, can Hamilton fans use that this year if he gets beat in a close fight with Max in close to equal cars?
What a joke!? Schumacher was drained after bringing the Ferrari from nowhere and rebuilding the team to be a dynasty over a period of a decade... Contrast that to a driver who won the MEGA MILLIONS LOTTERY OF F1!
Yeah he did it all by himself, the age double standard is no surprise.
Please don't compare what Schumi did to ferrari with what Hamilton did at Merc!? I mean how can you do that comparison with a straight face
edited by PF1 Mod Team
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Wed May 05, 2021 5:10 pm
by schumilegend
Schumi was by FAR the biggest piece in the puzzle in the Ferrari dynasty... Compare that to - The Mercedes Engine is by FAR the biggest piece in the puzzle in the Mercedes dynasty.. Tell me I'm wrong!
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Wed May 05, 2021 5:33 pm
by F1Tyrant
schumilegend wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 4:57 pm
I didn't miss your point! I don't think Alonso is that superior to Hakkinen... Alonso is overhyped based on his performances in lower performing cars...He hasn't been anything special or spectacular in good/great cars
Hakkinen is pretty weak in the pantheon of WDCs and made a real meal of both of his titles when they should have been as straightforward as Vettel's 2011 title (at least in 1998 and 1999).
Alonso on the other hand is incredibly strong defeating and matching a decorated assortment of teammates including three world champions and beating Schumacher at the end of his prime. His 2012 campaign is every bit as good as Schumacher's 1997 and 1998 campaigns without the blatant unsporting behaviour.
To me he has every right to be considered in the 10 greatest drivers the sport has ever seen. It's his pig-headedness and bad luck that have stripped him of decoration. Had he moved to Red Bull in 2009, he's probably be a 7x world champion himself.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Wed May 05, 2021 5:52 pm
by schumilegend
F1Tyrant wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 5:33 pm
schumilegend wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 4:57 pm
I didn't miss your point! I don't think Alonso is that superior to Hakkinen... Alonso is overhyped based on his performances in lower performing cars...He hasn't been anything special or spectacular in good/great cars
Hakkinen is pretty weak in the pantheon of WDCs and made a real meal of both of his titles when they should have been as straightforward as Vettel's 2011 title (at least in 1998 and 1999).
Alonso on the other hand is incredibly strong defeating and matching a decorated assortment of teammates including three world champions and beating Schumacher at the end of his prime. His 2012 campaign is every bit as good as Schumacher's 1997 and 1998 campaigns without the blatant unsporting behaviour.
To me he has every right to be considered in the 10 greatest drivers the sport has ever seen. It's his pig-headedness and bad luck that have stripped him of decoration. Had he moved to Red Bull in 2009, he's probably be a 7x world champion himself.
Had a, could a , should a ...Don't mean nothing in the world of sports.. Alonso starts crumbling as soon as he gets competition..I'm not convinced he posses the raw speed of Hakkinen... MS was an absolute beast 1996-99 before his accident.. Alonso's 2012 season was very weird .. Lots of trip ups from the main contenders..Alonso had alot of luck going for him and bad luck for Vettel to be in the mix..
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Wed May 05, 2021 6:09 pm
by Johnson
schumilegend wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 4:57 pm
F1Tyrant wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 4:49 pm
schumilegend wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 4:31 pm
Ahh the great Alonso hype train.. Was shown up by Trulli!?! , a rookie Hamilton! and now a journeyman driver in Slowcon..Ya he will definitely sweep 1998-2000 when Schumi was in his PRIME!!
Congratulations for missing my point so spectularly! My point was that the McLaren in 1998-2000 was the best car and a great driver (Alonso, Hamilton or Schumacher himself) would have brought the titles back to Woking ahead of Schumacher in a slower Ferrari.
The fact all three title fights went to the final race is a damning indictment on Hakkinen and heaping more praise on Schumacher.
I didn't miss your point! I don't think Alonso is that superior to Hakkinen... Alonso is overhyped based on his performances in lower performing cars...He hasn't been anything special or spectacular in good/great cars
He never had them. I'm no Alonso fan, but he didn't make a single error in 2006 and I think made one in 2005 (Canada, hitting the wall). 2005 and 2006 were close to points maximisation for Alonso.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Wed May 05, 2021 6:12 pm
by Johnson
schumilegend wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 5:52 pm
F1Tyrant wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 5:33 pm
schumilegend wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 4:57 pm
I didn't miss your point! I don't think Alonso is that superior to Hakkinen... Alonso is overhyped based on his performances in lower performing cars...He hasn't been anything special or spectacular in good/great cars
Hakkinen is pretty weak in the pantheon of WDCs and made a real meal of both of his titles when they should have been as straightforward as Vettel's 2011 title (at least in 1998 and 1999).
Alonso on the other hand is incredibly strong defeating and matching a decorated assortment of teammates including three world champions and beating Schumacher at the end of his prime. His 2012 campaign is every bit as good as Schumacher's 1997 and 1998 campaigns without the blatant unsporting behaviour.
To me he has every right to be considered in the 10 greatest drivers the sport has ever seen. It's his pig-headedness and bad luck that have stripped him of decoration. Had he moved to Red Bull in 2009, he's probably be a 7x world champion himself.
Had a, could a , should a ...Don't mean nothing in the world of sports.. Alonso starts crumbling as soon as he gets competition..I'm not convinced he posses the raw speed of Hakkinen... MS was an absolute beast 1996-99 before his accident.. Alonso's 2012 season was very weird ..
Lots of trip ups from the main contenders..Alonso had alot of luck going for him and bad luck for Vettel to be in the mix..
Exactly the reason Schumacher challanged for the title in 97 and 98 himself. Yes, Schumacher was great in those years but if JV and Hakkinen were remotely competent he would not have been involved in the title fight.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Wed May 05, 2021 6:35 pm
by Paolo_Lasardi
A.J. wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 11:06 am
Paolo_Lasardi wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 9:53 am
A.J. wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 9:09 am
Paolo_Lasardi wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 7:56 am
A.J. wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 8:18 pm
The simple fact that Trulli was much closer to Alonso than Massa ever was is evidence enough - you choosing to ignore it because it doesn't suit your agenda doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist. Massa has never looked even close to outscoring Alonso as a teammate, while Trulli did that in their final season together.
Alonso beat both Trulli and Massa over their total time together. How much closer was Trulli actually points-wise, with respect to qualifying duel, qualifying speedwise, etc? That would convince me more than arbitrarily selecting a part season as "evidence".
Since you care enough to ask for it (but apparently not enough to look for it), I'll help you with the stats. The "part season" you talk about was actually 15 races, as compared to 16 races in total for the season prior (but hey, don't let facts get in the way of your story, no matter how ill-informed it may be).
2003:
Qualifying - Dead heat between Alonso and Trulli (8-8)
Points - 55 - 33 in favour of Alonso
2004: Trulli well and 'truly' turns the tables
Qualifying - Trulli wins the qualifying battle 8-7
Points - 46-45 in favour of Trulli
In their time together, Trulli outqualified Alonso 16-15 (for comparison, Hamilton was 9-8 against Alonso as his teammate).
How did Massa fare in qualifying against the mighty Alonso?
2010: 15-4
2011: 15-4
2012: 17-3
2013: 11-8
Overall, Alonso outqualifies Massa 58-19 - but sure, in your fantasy world this is the same as him being beaten 16-15.
Thank you very much.
Indeed, prime Trulli was much closer in qualifying to young Alonso than Massa was to prime Alonso. Only 2013 comes somewhat closer - but is also not there. Good to see that, with some help, you found a more convincing way of reasoning.
The tragedy with Massa is really that the more and the deeper you look into his career, the weaker he appears to be. An interesting question is now race performance. Is Trulli ahead in this regard as well or not? The (incomplete) numbers you brought suggest that he should be closer here as well but maybe with a smaller difference, which may be explained by experience differences (and a smaller data-set).
Anyway, in total, I agree that Trulli was probably overall better than Massa, and definitely in qualifying. Since Bottas convincingly outperformed Massa in every dimension in a direct comparison, a hypothetical Trulli vs. Bottas duel is not determined. Still, my guess is that Bottas would have the upper hand overall.
Whatever man. You've been proven wrong here, your theories comprehensively debunked, and yet you go around putting up your guesses like they are somehow valid. You talk about "prime" drivers but leave out that Bottas was against a very much "past-it" Massa, and still couldn't pull out a gap over him the way Alonso did. The whole history of Alonso vs Trulli/Massa in qualifying is here, so your "incomplete" comment is nonsensical.
Your "guess" like many other of your arguments is plain nonsense, again. You can bury your head in the sand and pretend nobody can see you, but all evidence clearly shows that. You are wrong.
You seem to have a strange idea of a discussion. Of course, I change my opinion when I learn about convincing evidence. Okay, you don't as we could see in the many instances where you have been proven wrong. Most others behave differently, though.
Also, I have been silent about your aggressive style aiming at putting down other members again and again in this and other threads. You can call my guess " nonsense" as much as you want. But Trulli and Bottas did not compete against each other as teammates and there is no clear evidence to either side. So each guess about the outcome of the hypothetical "Bottas vs Trulli in a dominant Mercedes" scenario has some merits - even yours.
I don't think that - in that scenario - Trulli would score a lot titles against Bottas. But you convinced me that Trulli was better than Massa and as such he would likely have scored 2-3 wdcs from 2000 - 2005 in the Ferrari against Barrichello as his teammate.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Thu May 06, 2021 8:44 am
by A.J.
Paolo_Lasardi wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 6:35 pm
A.J. wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 11:06 am
Paolo_Lasardi wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 9:53 am
A.J. wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 9:09 am
Paolo_Lasardi wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 7:56 am
Alonso beat both Trulli and Massa over their total time together. How much closer was Trulli actually points-wise, with respect to qualifying duel, qualifying speedwise, etc? That would convince me more than arbitrarily selecting a part season as "evidence".
Since you care enough to ask for it (but apparently not enough to look for it), I'll help you with the stats. The "part season" you talk about was actually 15 races, as compared to 16 races in total for the season prior (but hey, don't let facts get in the way of your story, no matter how ill-informed it may be).
2003:
Qualifying - Dead heat between Alonso and Trulli (8-8)
Points - 55 - 33 in favour of Alonso
2004: Trulli well and 'truly' turns the tables
Qualifying - Trulli wins the qualifying battle 8-7
Points - 46-45 in favour of Trulli
In their time together, Trulli outqualified Alonso 16-15 (for comparison, Hamilton was 9-8 against Alonso as his teammate).
How did Massa fare in qualifying against the mighty Alonso?
2010: 15-4
2011: 15-4
2012: 17-3
2013: 11-8
Overall, Alonso outqualifies Massa 58-19 - but sure, in your fantasy world this is the same as him being beaten 16-15.
Thank you very much.
Indeed, prime Trulli was much closer in qualifying to young Alonso than Massa was to prime Alonso. Only 2013 comes somewhat closer - but is also not there. Good to see that, with some help, you found a more convincing way of reasoning.
The tragedy with Massa is really that the more and the deeper you look into his career, the weaker he appears to be. An interesting question is now race performance. Is Trulli ahead in this regard as well or not? The (incomplete) numbers you brought suggest that he should be closer here as well but maybe with a smaller difference, which may be explained by experience differences (and a smaller data-set).
Anyway, in total, I agree that Trulli was probably overall better than Massa, and definitely in qualifying. Since Bottas convincingly outperformed Massa in every dimension in a direct comparison, a hypothetical Trulli vs. Bottas duel is not determined. Still, my guess is that Bottas would have the upper hand overall.
Whatever man. You've been proven wrong here, your theories comprehensively debunked, and yet you go around putting up your guesses like they are somehow valid. You talk about "prime" drivers but leave out that Bottas was against a very much "past-it" Massa, and still couldn't pull out a gap over him the way Alonso did. The whole history of Alonso vs Trulli/Massa in qualifying is here, so your "incomplete" comment is nonsensical.
Your "guess" like many other of your arguments is plain nonsense, again. You can bury your head in the sand and pretend nobody can see you, but all evidence clearly shows that. You are wrong.
You seem to have a strange idea of a discussion. Of course, I change my opinion when I learn about convincing evidence. Okay, you don't as we could see in the many instances where you have been proven wrong. Most others behave differently, though.
Also, I have been silent about your aggressive style aiming at putting down other members again and again in this and other threads. You can call my guess " nonsense" as much as you want. But Trulli and Bottas did not compete against each other as teammates and there is no clear evidence to either side. So each guess about the outcome of the hypothetical "Bottas vs Trulli in a dominant Mercedes" scenario has some merits - even yours.
I don't think that - in that scenario - Trulli would score a lot titles against Bottas. But you convinced me that Trulli was better than Massa and as such he would likely have scored 2-3 wdcs from 2000 - 2005 in the Ferrari against Barrichello as his teammate.
You don't have to be silent - but if calling out your 'nonsense' offends you, that is unfortunately not my problem.
As for Trulli in the Ferraris - he might actually be able to pull off the 2004 title, but his weakness really was race pace, and Barrichello was a far stronger driver than Bottas. Hakkinen would take 2000 (possibly 2001 if he was on form), 2002 would likely be Barrichello's, 2003 should definitely be the Williams in the stronger car, and Trulli might take 2004 on account of his qualifying prowess.
The current Merc era though would suit him a lot more, as he just needs to qualify and stay ahead to get the preferred strategy (and ZERO outside competition for 5 years at the minimum). Given how strong he was against Alonso (outqualifying him outright in their time together), he would even nick some titles off of Hamilton/Rosberg, let alone a third-rate driver like Bottas.
Edited by PF1 Mod Team
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Thu May 06, 2021 9:20 am
by A.J.
pokerman wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 12:56 pm
Yet again I get it the Mercedes of 2014-2016 was dominant and a number of drivers could have been champion in it, however first for many of these drivers you would have to remove Hamilton and Rosberg from the picture especially Hamilton, how many drivers win world titles without being in the best car, Schumacher didn't win until Ferrari gave him the best car.
In respect to Jarno Trulli he was a Mr. Saturday but even then his qualifying stats were worse than Hamilton and probably similar at best to Rosberg but on a Sunday he generally had poor race pace, he was good on fresh tyres when the grip was good, in the wet he was diabolical.
In respect to Kovallainen he wasn't just placed high in the list of fastest drivers over one lap because he beat Trulli, it was also because, fuel corrected, he was a little over a tenth slower than Hamilton, join the dots and you get yet another path to Hamilton being faster than Alonso, at least over 1 lap.
Also we have the convenience it seems of dismissing a drivers performance then they get towards their mid 30s as a means to deride a driver beating them, yet we are here discussing what a washed up Trulli would achieve in the Mercedes while racing in his 40s.
You are mistaken here if you think people are discussing what a washed up Trulli in his 40's would achieve in the Mercs - as the person who originally brought him up, I can tell you the discussion is very much hypothetical, but about what a prime Trulli could achieve in the Mercs.
As for Schumacher not winning until he had the best car - that's simply not true. The Williams was a much superior car in 1997 (title went down to the last race), the McLarens were much superior in 1998 (title went down to the last race), again in 1999 (title went down again to the last race - I don't think you will find many arguing Schumacher wouldn't have won that if he hadn't broken his leg), McLarens again superior in 2000 (Schumacher won), equal in 2001 (Schumacher dominated), Ferrari quicker in 2002 and 2004 (easy wins for Schumacher), and Williams the fastest in 2003 (Schumacher won again).
Hamilton has not had any seasons comparable to 97-00 for Schumacher (or 2010 and especially 2012 for Alonso) where he has won or even put up a championship challenge in a clearly inferior car (sometimes by close to a second a lap in qualifying!) to the opposition. His most impressive season thus far has been 2018, where he was excellent but Vettel was completely imploding in the Ferraris.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Thu May 06, 2021 9:36 am
by F1Tyrant
A.J. wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 9:20 am
Hamilton has not had any seasons comparable to 97-00 for Schumacher (or 2010 and especially 2012 for Alonso) where he has won or even put up a championship challenge in a clearly inferior car (sometimes by close to a second a lap in qualifying!) to the opposition.
As a counterpoint, Hamilton never had competition anywhere near as weak as Schumacher. Post-Adelaide Hakkinen is clearly inferior to Vettel especially from 2010-mid 2018 and more comparable recently. Alonso was also at his peak during Hamilton's fallow period. You can only beat what's in front of you but it's reminiscent of Federer in the early 2000s.
Also, Hamilton had a world champion teammate for most of the fallow period and didn't recieve preferential treatment to the extent Schumacher did at Ferrari.
Schumacher's finest hour was his 1996-1998 heroics and Hamilton hasn't achieved anything like that. However, in the context of the competition, his 2009-2013 run is respectable if not exemplary.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Thu May 06, 2021 9:45 am
by mikeyg123
F1Tyrant wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 9:36 am
A.J. wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 9:20 am
Hamilton has not had any seasons comparable to 97-00 for Schumacher (or 2010 and especially 2012 for Alonso) where he has won or even put up a championship challenge in a clearly inferior car (sometimes by close to a second a lap in qualifying!) to the opposition.
As a counterpoint, Hamilton never had competition anywhere near as weak as Schumacher. Post-Adelaide Hakkinen is clearly inferior to Vettel especially from 2010-mid 2018 and more comparable recently. Alonso was also at his peak during Hamilton's fallow period. You can only beat what's in front of you but it's reminiscent of Federer in the early 2000s.
Also, Hamilton had a world champion teammate for most of the fallow period and didn't recieve preferential treatment to the extent Schumacher did at Ferrari.
Schumacher's finest hour was his 1996-1998 heroics and Hamilton hasn't achieved anything like that. However, in the context of the competition, his 2009-2013 run is respectable if not exemplary.
I think this has been discussed on this thread but I massively disagree that Hakkinen was clearly inferior to Vettel. I'd put them at a similar level, although of course Vettel was at that level for longer.
It's at least debateable. I don't think it's clear.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Thu May 06, 2021 10:27 am
by F1Tyrant
mikeyg123 wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 9:45 am
I think this has been discussed on this thread but I massively disagree that Hakkinen was clearly inferior to Vettel. I'd put them at a similar level, although of course Vettel was at that level for longer.
It's at least debateable. I don't think it's clear.
I agree it's debatable but my dismissal of Hakkinen as an elite driver has been a running theme in my commentary.
I think the strongest argument for my position is Vettel's dominant 2011 and 2013 campaigns. Hakkinen had cars at least as dominant as the Red Bull in 1998 and 1999 and drove so poorly that he nearly lost it in the final races to Schumacher and Irvine. He then proceeded to follow through in 2000 and actually lost it in a car that was at worst a match for the Ferrari.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Thu May 06, 2021 10:38 am
by Siao7
F1Tyrant wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 10:27 am
mikeyg123 wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 9:45 am
I think this has been discussed on this thread but I massively disagree that Hakkinen was clearly inferior to Vettel. I'd put them at a similar level, although of course Vettel was at that level for longer.
It's at least debateable. I don't think it's clear.
I agree it's debatable but my dismissal of Hakkinen as an elite driver has been a running theme in my commentary.
I think the strongest argument for my position is Vettel's dominant 2011 and 2013 campaigns. Hakkinen had cars at least as dominant as the Red Bull in 1998 and 1999 and drove so poorly that he nearly lost it in the final races to Schumacher and Irvine. He then proceeded to follow through in 2000 and actually lost it in a car that was at worst a match for the Ferrari.
From memory, I think Vettel's Red Bull days were also marred with mistakes. His two titles in 2011 and 2013 were dominant because he managed to cut down on the mistakes. And we still had things like 2011 Canada, but he managed better in these two years. 2013 was pretty faultless I think.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Thu May 06, 2021 12:29 pm
by mikeyg123
F1Tyrant wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 10:27 am
mikeyg123 wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 9:45 am
I think this has been discussed on this thread but I massively disagree that Hakkinen was clearly inferior to Vettel. I'd put them at a similar level, although of course Vettel was at that level for longer.
It's at least debateable. I don't think it's clear.
I agree it's debatable but my dismissal of Hakkinen as an elite driver has been a running theme in my commentary.
I think the strongest argument for my position is Vettel's dominant 2011 and 2013 campaigns. Hakkinen had cars at least as dominant as the Red Bull in 1998 and 1999 and drove so poorly that he nearly lost it in the final races to Schumacher and Irvine. He then proceeded to follow through in 2000 and actually lost it in a car that was at worst a match for the Ferrari.
Hakkinen was very good in 1998 he didn't drive poorly at all, just Schumacher was exceptional and Hakkinen did end up winning the WDC by 14 points. I also don't think the McLaren was that much better than the Ferrari after the first two races. Just looking at the Irvine/Coulthard comparison. I'd say the 1998 McLaren and 2011 Red Bull comparison works at a push but with Hamilton off form Vettel didn't have anything like the competition Hakkinen had.
The 2013 Red Bull in the second half of the season was far and away more dominant than anything Hakkinen drove apart from the McLaren in the first two races in 1998.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Thu May 06, 2021 1:05 pm
by pokerman
schumilegend wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 5:04 pm
pokerman wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 4:58 pm
schumilegend wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 4:38 pm
pokerman wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 4:36 pm
schumilegend wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 4:31 pm
Ahh the great Alonso hype train.. Was shown up by Trulli!?! , a rookie Hamilton! and now a journeyman driver in Slowcon..Ya he will definitely sweep 1998-2000 when Schumi was in his PRIME!!
So Schumacher was not in his prime in 2006, can Hamilton fans use that this year if he gets beat in a close fight with Max in close to equal cars?
What a joke!? Schumacher was drained after bringing the Ferrari from nowhere and rebuilding the team to be a dynasty over a period of a decade... Contrast that to a driver who won the MEGA MILLIONS LOTTERY OF F1!
Yeah he did it all by himself, the age double standard is no surprise.
Please don't compare what Schumi did to ferrari with what Hamilton did at Merc!? I mean even someone as biased as you can't do that comparison with a straight face
It's more about how age affected Schumacher more than it's going to affect Hamilton but I'm the one that's biased.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Thu May 06, 2021 1:12 pm
by pokerman
schumilegend wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 5:10 pm
Schumi was by FAR the biggest piece in the puzzle in the Ferrari dynasty... Compare that to - The Mercedes Engine is by FAR the biggest piece in the puzzle in the Mercedes dynasty.. Tell me I'm wrong!
F1 has always been about car and engine advantages, Schumacher always needed at least the second best car to be Champion, most of the time he had either the best or equal best car. Without such advantages Schumacher wouldn't have had the success he had, was he not the most advantaged driver before Hamilton came along?
Then to the thread itself, Hamilton may have had better cars but Schumacher had weaker contemporaries.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Thu May 06, 2021 1:45 pm
by mikeyg123
pokerman wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 1:12 pm
schumilegend wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 5:10 pm
Schumi was by FAR the biggest piece in the puzzle in the Ferrari dynasty... Compare that to - The Mercedes Engine is by FAR the biggest piece in the puzzle in the Mercedes dynasty.. Tell me I'm wrong!
F1 has always been about car and engine advantages, Schumacher always needed at least the second best car to be Champion, most of the time he had either the best or equal best car. Without such advantages Schumacher wouldn't have had the success he had, was he not the most advantaged driver before Hamilton came along?
Then to the thread itself, Hamilton may have had better cars but Schumacher had weaker contemporaries.
I've never thought the "but Schumacher had the best car" argument has ever really made sense and here's why...
If everyone had driven equal cars between 1992 and 2006 would Schumacher have won more or less than 7 titles? I think he would have won more.
Throughout his career car discrepancies cost him more titles than they won him.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Thu May 06, 2021 1:50 pm
by schumilegend
pokerman wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 1:12 pm
schumilegend wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 5:10 pm
Schumi was by FAR the biggest piece in the puzzle in the Ferrari dynasty... Compare that to - The Mercedes Engine is by FAR the biggest piece in the puzzle in the Mercedes dynasty.. Tell me I'm wrong!
F1 has always been about car and engine advantages, Schumacher always needed at least the second best car to be Champion, most of the time he had either the best or equal best car. Without such advantages Schumacher wouldn't have had the success he had, was he not the most advantaged driver before Hamilton came along?
Then to the thread itself, Hamilton may have had better cars but Schumacher had weaker contemporaries.
It means ZILCH if your opponents cannot compete with you!
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Thu May 06, 2021 2:06 pm
by Siao7
mikeyg123 wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 1:45 pm
pokerman wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 1:12 pm
schumilegend wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 5:10 pm
Schumi was by FAR the biggest piece in the puzzle in the Ferrari dynasty... Compare that to - The Mercedes Engine is by FAR the biggest piece in the puzzle in the Mercedes dynasty.. Tell me I'm wrong!
F1 has always been about car and engine advantages, Schumacher always needed at least the second best car to be Champion, most of the time he had either the best or equal best car. Without such advantages Schumacher wouldn't have had the success he had, was he not the most advantaged driver before Hamilton came along?
Then to the thread itself, Hamilton may have had better cars but Schumacher had weaker contemporaries.
I've never thought the "but Schumacher had the best car" argument has ever really made sense and here's why...
If everyone had driven equal cars between 1992 and 2006 would Schumacher have won more or less than 7 titles? I think he would have won more.
Throughout his career car discrepancies cost him more titles than they won him.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Thu May 06, 2021 3:02 pm
by pokerman
A.J. wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 9:20 am
pokerman wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 12:56 pm
Yet again I get it the Mercedes of 2014-2016 was dominant and a number of drivers could have been champion in it, however first for many of these drivers you would have to remove Hamilton and Rosberg from the picture especially Hamilton, how many drivers win world titles without being in the best car, Schumacher didn't win until Ferrari gave him the best car.
In respect to Jarno Trulli he was a Mr. Saturday but even then his qualifying stats were worse than Hamilton and probably similar at best to Rosberg but on a Sunday he generally had poor race pace, he was good on fresh tyres when the grip was good, in the wet he was diabolical.
In respect to Kovallainen he wasn't just placed high in the list of fastest drivers over one lap because he beat Trulli, it was also because, fuel corrected, he was a little over a tenth slower than Hamilton, join the dots and you get yet another path to Hamilton being faster than Alonso, at least over 1 lap.
Also we have the convenience it seems of dismissing a drivers performance then they get towards their mid 30s as a means to deride a driver beating them, yet we are here discussing what a washed up Trulli would achieve in the Mercedes while racing in his 40s.
You are mistaken here if you think people are discussing what a washed up Trulli in his 40's would achieve in the Mercs - as the person who originally brought him up, I can tell you the discussion is very much hypothetical, but about what a prime Trulli could achieve in the Mercs.
As for Schumacher not winning until he had the best car - that's simply not true. The Williams was a much superior car in 1997 (title went down to the last race), the McLarens were much superior in 1998 (title went down to the last race), again in 1999 (title went down again to the last race - I don't think you will find many arguing Schumacher wouldn't have won that if he hadn't broken his leg), McLarens again superior in 2000 (Schumacher won), equal in 2001 (Schumacher dominated), Ferrari quicker in 2002 and 2004 (easy wins for Schumacher), and Williams the fastest in 2003 (Schumacher won again).
Hamilton has not had any seasons comparable to 97-00 for Schumacher (or 2010 and especially 2012 for Alonso) where he has won or even put up a championship challenge in a clearly inferior car (sometimes by close to a second a lap in qualifying!) to the opposition. His most impressive season thus far has been 2018, where he was excellent but Vettel was completely imploding in the Ferraris.
I've readdressed what I said about Schumacher not winning a title for Ferrari until they gave him the best car after reasoned reply from posters.
With Trulli I missed the beginning of that conversation as at that point I got disinterested with yet another thread going down the route of looking to undermine Hamilton. The premise of a dominant car means that several drivers could have been champion you just need the other driver to be weaker, in respect to a washed up retired Trulli I just don't see the relevance about what he could have done in his prime to that point you could have a long queue of drivers posing the same question but at the end of the day it's not like Hamilton walked into a dominant car he was with the team the year before, again let's undermine Hamilton as far as I'm concerned.
With the Hamilton has not had seasons like 1997-2000 well that's rubbish really and it goes down the path of why the thread was started Schumacher did what he did because of the level of competition he was up against, just how good were his contemporaries when the best driver he went up against seems to be Hakkinen who now seems to be seen as a modern day Vettel. There's things you can do when up against inferior drivers in better cars, that's how Hamilton won his 2008 title, that's how Hamilton took his title chance mathematically down to the last race in 2010 in marginally the third best car and seen by many as the best driver that year having made fewer mistakes than Vettel and Alonso.
Even Alonso has said that Hamilton can win in not the best car, we perhaps have already had a glimpse of that this year, the Hamilton has not had seasons like 1997-2000 is not true. As for your close to a second a lap deficit comment this is from 2010:-
Bahrain
1. Vettel (Red Bull) 1-54.101
2. Massa (Ferrari) 1-54.242
4. Hamilton (McLaren) 1-55.217
Australia
1. Vettel (Red Bull) 1-23.919
2. Webber (Red Bull) 1-24.035
3. Alonso (Ferrari) 1-24.111
4. Button (McLaren) 1-24.675
Spain
1. Webber (Red Bull) 1-19.995
2. Vettel (Red Bull) 1-20.101
3. Hamilton (McLaren) 1-20.829
Silverstone
1. Vettel 1-29.615
2. Webber 1-29.758
4. Hamilton (McLaren) 1-30.556
Germany
1. Vettel 1-13.791
2. Alonso (Ferrari) 1-13.793
5. Button (McLaren) 1-14.427
Hungary
1. Vettel (Red Bull) 1-18.773
3. Alonso (Ferrari) 1-19.987
5. Hamilton (McLaren) 1-20.499
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Thu May 06, 2021 3:05 pm
by mikeyg123
pokerman wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 3:02 pm
A.J. wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 9:20 am
pokerman wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 12:56 pm
Yet again I get it the Mercedes of 2014-2016 was dominant and a number of drivers could have been champion in it, however first for many of these drivers you would have to remove Hamilton and Rosberg from the picture especially Hamilton, how many drivers win world titles without being in the best car, Schumacher didn't win until Ferrari gave him the best car.
In respect to Jarno Trulli he was a Mr. Saturday but even then his qualifying stats were worse than Hamilton and probably similar at best to Rosberg but on a Sunday he generally had poor race pace, he was good on fresh tyres when the grip was good, in the wet he was diabolical.
In respect to Kovallainen he wasn't just placed high in the list of fastest drivers over one lap because he beat Trulli, it was also because, fuel corrected, he was a little over a tenth slower than Hamilton, join the dots and you get yet another path to Hamilton being faster than Alonso, at least over 1 lap.
Also we have the convenience it seems of dismissing a drivers performance then they get towards their mid 30s as a means to deride a driver beating them, yet we are here discussing what a washed up Trulli would achieve in the Mercedes while racing in his 40s.
You are mistaken here if you think people are discussing what a washed up Trulli in his 40's would achieve in the Mercs - as the person who originally brought him up, I can tell you the discussion is very much hypothetical, but about what a prime Trulli could achieve in the Mercs.
As for Schumacher not winning until he had the best car - that's simply not true. The Williams was a much superior car in 1997 (title went down to the last race), the McLarens were much superior in 1998 (title went down to the last race), again in 1999 (title went down again to the last race - I don't think you will find many arguing Schumacher wouldn't have won that if he hadn't broken his leg), McLarens again superior in 2000 (Schumacher won), equal in 2001 (Schumacher dominated), Ferrari quicker in 2002 and 2004 (easy wins for Schumacher), and Williams the fastest in 2003 (Schumacher won again).
Hamilton has not had any seasons comparable to 97-00 for Schumacher (or 2010 and especially 2012 for Alonso) where he has won or even put up a championship challenge in a clearly inferior car (sometimes by close to a second a lap in qualifying!) to the opposition. His most impressive season thus far has been 2018, where he was excellent but Vettel was completely imploding in the Ferraris.
I've readdressed what I said about Schumacher not winning a title for Ferrari until they gave him the best car after reasoned reply from posters.
With Trulli I missed the beginning of that conversation as at that point I got disinterested with yet another thread going down the route of looking to undermine Hamilton. The premise of a dominant car means that several drivers could have been champion you just need the other driver to be weaker, in respect to a washed up retired Trulli I just don't see the relevance about what he could have done in his prime to that point you could have a long queue of drivers posing the same question but at the end of the day it's not like Hamilton walked into a dominant car he was with the team the year before, again let's undermine Hamilton as far as I'm concerned.
With the Hamilton has not had seasons like 1997-2000 well that's rubbish really and it goes down the path of why the thread was started Schumacher did what he did because of the level of competition he was up against, just how good were his contemporaries when the best driver he went up against seems to be Hakkinen who now seems to be seen as a modern day Vettel. There's things you can do when up against inferior drivers in better cars, that's how Hamilton won his 2008 title, that's how Hamilton took his title chance mathematically down to the last race in 2010 in marginally the third best car and seen by many as the best driver that year having made fewer mistakes than Vettel and Alonso.
Even Alonso has said that Hamilton can win in not the best car, we perhaps have already had a glimpse of that this year, the Hamilton has not had seasons like 1997-2000 is not true. As for your close to a second a lap deficit comment this is from 2010:-
Bahrain
1. Vettel (Red Bull) 1-54.101
2. Massa (Ferrari) 1-54.242
4. Hamilton (McLaren) 1-55.217
Australia
1. Vettel (Red Bull) 1-23.919
2. Webber (Red Bull) 1-24.035
3. Alonso (Ferrari) 1-24.111
4. Button (McLaren) 1-24.675
Spain
1. Webber (Red Bull) 1-19.995
2. Vettel (Red Bull) 1-20.101
3. Hamilton (McLaren) 1-20.829
Silverstone
1. Vettel 1-29.615
2. Webber 1-29.758
4. Hamilton (McLaren) 1-30.556
Germany
1. Vettel 1-13.791
2. Alonso (Ferrari) 1-13.793
5. Button (McLaren) 1-14.427
Hungary
1. Vettel (Red Bull) 1-18.773
3. Alonso (Ferrari) 1-19.987
5. Hamilton (McLaren) 1-20.499
But in 2010 even his teammate was in the championship hunt with two races to go...
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Thu May 06, 2021 3:11 pm
by pokerman
mikeyg123 wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 1:45 pm
pokerman wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 1:12 pm
schumilegend wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 5:10 pm
Schumi was by FAR the biggest piece in the puzzle in the Ferrari dynasty... Compare that to - The Mercedes Engine is by FAR the biggest piece in the puzzle in the Mercedes dynasty.. Tell me I'm wrong!
F1 has always been about car and engine advantages, Schumacher always needed at least the second best car to be Champion, most of the time he had either the best or equal best car. Without such advantages Schumacher wouldn't have had the success he had, was he not the most advantaged driver before Hamilton came along?
Then to the thread itself, Hamilton may have had better cars but Schumacher had weaker contemporaries.
I've never thought the "but Schumacher had the best car" argument has ever really made sense and here's why...
If everyone had driven equal cars between 1992 and 2006 would Schumacher have won more or less than 7 titles? I think he would have won more.
Throughout his career car discrepancies cost him more titles than they won him.
I wouldn't disagree with that but then we're looking at how strong Schumacher's contemporaries were and like you say at the end of the day even Schumacher needed at least the second best car to be champion.
When I look at Hamilton I'm sure Hamilton could have won more titles than one from 2007-2013 with equal cars/teams, with his one lap pace he certainly would have had far more pole positions putting him in prime position to win races.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Thu May 06, 2021 3:15 pm
by mikeyg123
pokerman wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 3:11 pm
mikeyg123 wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 1:45 pm
pokerman wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 1:12 pm
schumilegend wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 5:10 pm
Schumi was by FAR the biggest piece in the puzzle in the Ferrari dynasty... Compare that to - The Mercedes Engine is by FAR the biggest piece in the puzzle in the Mercedes dynasty.. Tell me I'm wrong!
F1 has always been about car and engine advantages, Schumacher always needed at least the second best car to be Champion, most of the time he had either the best or equal best car. Without such advantages Schumacher wouldn't have had the success he had, was he not the most advantaged driver before Hamilton came along?
Then to the thread itself, Hamilton may have had better cars but Schumacher had weaker contemporaries.
I've never thought the "but Schumacher had the best car" argument has ever really made sense and here's why...
If everyone had driven equal cars between 1992 and 2006 would Schumacher have won more or less than 7 titles? I think he would have won more.
Throughout his career car discrepancies cost him more titles than they won him.
I wouldn't disagree with that but then we're looking at how strong Schumacher's contemporaries were and like you say at the end of the day even Schumacher needed at least the second best car to be champion.
When I look at Hamilton I'm sure Hamilton could have won more titles than one from 2007-2013 with equal cars/teams, with his one lap pace he certainly would have had far more pole positions putting him in prime position to win races.
I don't think Hamilton has 7 titles if everyone has equal cars between 2007 and 2020. But that's just my opinion. I can't substantiate that.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Thu May 06, 2021 3:30 pm
by pokerman
mikeyg123 wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 3:05 pm
pokerman wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 3:02 pm
A.J. wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 9:20 am
pokerman wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 12:56 pm
Yet again I get it the Mercedes of 2014-2016 was dominant and a number of drivers could have been champion in it, however first for many of these drivers you would have to remove Hamilton and Rosberg from the picture especially Hamilton, how many drivers win world titles without being in the best car, Schumacher didn't win until Ferrari gave him the best car.
In respect to Jarno Trulli he was a Mr. Saturday but even then his qualifying stats were worse than Hamilton and probably similar at best to Rosberg but on a Sunday he generally had poor race pace, he was good on fresh tyres when the grip was good, in the wet he was diabolical.
In respect to Kovallainen he wasn't just placed high in the list of fastest drivers over one lap because he beat Trulli, it was also because, fuel corrected, he was a little over a tenth slower than Hamilton, join the dots and you get yet another path to Hamilton being faster than Alonso, at least over 1 lap.
Also we have the convenience it seems of dismissing a drivers performance then they get towards their mid 30s as a means to deride a driver beating them, yet we are here discussing what a washed up Trulli would achieve in the Mercedes while racing in his 40s.
You are mistaken here if you think people are discussing what a washed up Trulli in his 40's would achieve in the Mercs - as the person who originally brought him up, I can tell you the discussion is very much hypothetical, but about what a prime Trulli could achieve in the Mercs.
As for Schumacher not winning until he had the best car - that's simply not true. The Williams was a much superior car in 1997 (title went down to the last race), the McLarens were much superior in 1998 (title went down to the last race), again in 1999 (title went down again to the last race - I don't think you will find many arguing Schumacher wouldn't have won that if he hadn't broken his leg), McLarens again superior in 2000 (Schumacher won), equal in 2001 (Schumacher dominated), Ferrari quicker in 2002 and 2004 (easy wins for Schumacher), and Williams the fastest in 2003 (Schumacher won again).
Hamilton has not had any seasons comparable to 97-00 for Schumacher (or 2010 and especially 2012 for Alonso) where he has won or even put up a championship challenge in a clearly inferior car (sometimes by close to a second a lap in qualifying!) to the opposition. His most impressive season thus far has been 2018, where he was excellent but Vettel was completely imploding in the Ferraris.
I've readdressed what I said about Schumacher not winning a title for Ferrari until they gave him the best car after reasoned reply from posters.
With Trulli I missed the beginning of that conversation as at that point I got disinterested with yet another thread going down the route of looking to undermine Hamilton. The premise of a dominant car means that several drivers could have been champion you just need the other driver to be weaker, in respect to a washed up retired Trulli I just don't see the relevance about what he could have done in his prime to that point you could have a long queue of drivers posing the same question but at the end of the day it's not like Hamilton walked into a dominant car he was with the team the year before, again let's undermine Hamilton as far as I'm concerned.
With the Hamilton has not had seasons like 1997-2000 well that's rubbish really and it goes down the path of why the thread was started Schumacher did what he did because of the level of competition he was up against, just how good were his contemporaries when the best driver he went up against seems to be Hakkinen who now seems to be seen as a modern day Vettel. There's things you can do when up against inferior drivers in better cars, that's how Hamilton won his 2008 title, that's how Hamilton took his title chance mathematically down to the last race in 2010 in marginally the third best car and seen by many as the best driver that year having made fewer mistakes than Vettel and Alonso.
Even Alonso has said that Hamilton can win in not the best car, we perhaps have already had a glimpse of that this year, the Hamilton has not had seasons like 1997-2000 is not true. As for your close to a second a lap deficit comment this is from 2010:-
Bahrain
1. Vettel (Red Bull) 1-54.101
2. Massa (Ferrari) 1-54.242
4. Hamilton (McLaren) 1-55.217
Australia
1. Vettel (Red Bull) 1-23.919
2. Webber (Red Bull) 1-24.035
3. Alonso (Ferrari) 1-24.111
4. Button (McLaren) 1-24.675
Spain
1. Webber (Red Bull) 1-19.995
2. Vettel (Red Bull) 1-20.101
3. Hamilton (McLaren) 1-20.829
Silverstone
1. Vettel 1-29.615
2. Webber 1-29.758
4. Hamilton (McLaren) 1-30.556
Germany
1. Vettel 1-13.791
2. Alonso (Ferrari) 1-13.793
5. Button (McLaren) 1-14.427
Hungary
1. Vettel (Red Bull) 1-18.773
3. Alonso (Ferrari) 1-19.987
5. Hamilton (McLaren) 1-20.499
But in 2010 even his teammate was in the championship hunt with two races to go...
Like I said because of mistakes made by Vettel and Alonso, Button had 2 tyre gambled wet weather wins and was the reigning world champion and was a quality act with better reliability than Hamilton hence why Button never figured in driver of the season.
It doesn't take away from the McLaren being the third best car, Button himself hardly made any mistakes but was well beaten by Alonso a driver he would beat in 2015.