The Official Lewis Hamilton thread

[sandman1347]

He ticks all the boxes apart from one. And like Schumacher he has no control over that one. Hunt/Lauda; Senna/Prost. Hamilton/????

Hunt and Lauda were really only direct title rivals for two seasons. Senna and Prost for three. Hamilton has had a rivalry with Alonso as a rookie and Vettel throughout several seasons. He's also had multiple strong teammates like Alonso, Button and Rosberg. I think he has faced more direct challenges from other top drivers than any of the greats. Name me one all-time great driver who has had stronger teammates throughout their career.

No, suggesting that his time has been similar to Schumacher is just not accurate. Michael did his damage with teammates who were not permitted to really race him and without strong rivals in the other teams most of the time. The 3-4 years where he battled with Hakkinen were probably the most intense rivalry that Michael had and I do have fond memories of it but I'd say it was similar to Hamilton's battles with Vettel the last two years. Again, the main thing is that Michael never had a teammate who was given equal status until he came back and faced Rosebrg (who beat him three straight years).

I disagree, firstly the rivalries are not between team mates (and Schumacher's team mates were allowed to race him on that). And secondly, if you think that Vettel gave Hamilton a better rivalry the last few years than the fights that Schumacher had with the Williams's or with Hakkinen, then I think we can't have a serious conversation really.

No they were not. There is no real debate about whether Michael's teammates were racing him. They were not. Both at Benetton and Ferrari, both cars were used to help Michael win. He always had the better fuel strategy and preference on parts, etc. None of Michael's teammates had equal status until Rosberg where literally all of Hamilton's teammates (except Kovaleinen) had equal status.

As for the idea that rivalries cannot be between teammates; I don't understand what you mean there. The most intense rivalries are between teammates. The greatest rivalry in F1 history was between Senna and Prost at McLaren. What makes for a better rivalry than having two elite drivers in identical machinery? Maybe you can explain what you mean by that?

Hamilton has been in many close battles for the championship that came down to the wire. His first two years at McLaren were decided in the final race by a single point. He was also still alive going into Abu Dhabi in 2010. Then you have the battles with Rosberg in 2014 and 2016.

You want to claim that Michael had better rivalries with Williams but he ended two of those years by intentionally crashing his opponent out of the race. Are we supposed to put that on a pedestal? Against Mika, there was never a title that came down to the last race (although I did appreciate this battle).

All his team mates were allowed to prove they were faster. All of them, they just couldn't hold a candle to him. It's like saying that poor Kova wasn't allowed to race Hamilton when in reality he was never good enough. Irvine has confirmed this, there was nothing in his contract to say that he wasn't allowed to. Nor Rubens's, and Rubens was not a guy that would stay quiet...

Regarding the bold part that is my fault, I confused what you said, until I re-read it now.

Now, why is winning on the last race constituting a rivalry with someone for you? No one said a rivalry is only for the last race, Jesus, you are reaching so much here...

Also, the intentional crashes did not take anything from the rivalry with the Williamses; if nothing else, you yourself mention Prost/Senna as the greatest rivalry ever and they had 2 intentional crashes of their own. Are you sure you are not just anti-Schumacher?

By the way, with Mika it came to the last race in 1998, so no idea why you say they never had a last race showdown.

A couple of things; first of all, I'm not suggesting that Michael's teammates couldn't have proven themselves to be faster than him. They were not faster, on that we agree but being faster is not really necessary in order to beat someone over a season. If you have better luck, reliability or are more consistent over a season, you can beat a quicker driver who has worse luck or consistency. That opportunity was denied them because they were not given equal status. As such, their lack of pace was compounded by consistently inferior strategy and compromised races. If Hamilton received the same treatment as Schuamcher throughout his career, he likely would have at least two more titles (2007 and 2016) and potentially more than that when you look at how McLaren tripped over themselves to give him and Button equal treatment while generally compromising both of them relative to the other teams.

I'd say that none of the Williams drivers were actual rivals to Michael. In fact, they seemed interchangeable. It was about Michael trying to beat a better car in those years. None of those drivers were top-tier. I already said that I appreciate the Hakkinen rivalry and my point about the last race was just for context. The whole idea that a driver's rivalries are important is based on the importance of how they perform in key moments and against top competition. That was my purpose in bringing that up but I agree that the last race thing is not really critical. I would point out that it becomes critical for Michael because of his track record of cheating in order to try to win in the last race.

And no, I'm not anti-Schumacher. I'm just not going to pretend that he didn't do the things he did.

[pokerman]

He ticks all the boxes apart from one. And like Schumacher he has no control over that one. Hunt/Lauda; Senna/Prost. Hamilton/????

Who can forget Hamilton/Alonso 2007 and let's not forget Vettel is a 4 times WDC, the fight for five last year was a situation we may never see again?

The fight in the last five years was between Hamilton and a guy driving like a newbie in fairness... You can't really say that Vettel gave Hamilton a proper race for his money, he spun every time Hamilton was within 2m of his car!

History might play out differently though, didn't the Hunt/Lauda itself only really last 1 year, the only year that Hunt was in contention for the title?

Then we have the Alonso/Hamilton rivalry in 2007 including spygate, they might make a film about that as well?

I don't know. And I wasn't the one who mentioned the Hunt/Lauda example. If I'm not mistaken though it was a "rivalry" that lasted a few years, since they raced before F1, wasn't it?

I think they did a couple of F3 races together which got used to pan out the rivalry?

[pokerman]

Hamilton is making me more nostalgic for Schumacher every time he keys his microphone to complain about the great challenges he faces driving the best car on the same tires and track as his competitors. He's a superb driver, but not much of a man. How I long for the days when Ross Brawn could tell Michael Schumacher that he needed to make up 25 seconds in 19 laps and Schumacher simply responded, "Ok." What would Hamilton do if he were ever asked to outdrive his opponents with an inferior car and strategy when he cries like a baby over having to merely not drive worse than his competition?

Schumacher raced on tyres that could be pushed every lap and the notion that he achieved what you implied in an inferior car is a bit wide of the mark.

[pokerman]

Shumacher had major rivalries with Hill and Hakkinen. With a lot more intensity than Hamilton has had with Vettel. It's not Hamilton's fault at all but the great rivalry for him should have been Vettel but for various reasons it's just not materialised. They haven't had a season long championship battle since 2010.

That's credit to Hamilton, Vettel is a better driver than Hill, probably similar to Hakkinen, whilst Alonso out ranks them all, let's not forget that Alonso beat Schumacher in 2006 and then faced Hamilton a year later.

[pokerman]

Wow Hamilton keeps getting better. Best driver on the grid and one of the greatest of all time, surely.

He ticks all the boxes apart from one. And like Schumacher he has no control over that one. Hunt/Lauda; Senna/Prost. Hamilton/????

Hunt and Lauda were really only direct title rivals for two seasons. Senna and Prost for three. Hamilton has had a rivalry with Alonso as a rookie and Vettel throughout several seasons. He's also had multiple strong teammates like Alonso, Button and Rosberg. I think he has faced more direct challenges from other top drivers than any of the greats. Name me one all-time great driver who has had stronger teammates throughout their career.

No, suggesting that his time has been similar to Schumacher is just not accurate. Michael did his damage with teammates who were not permitted to really race him and without strong rivals in the other teams most of the time. The 3-4 years where he battled with Hakkinen were probably the most intense rivalry that Michael had and I do have fond memories of it but I'd say it was similar to Hamilton's battles with Vettel the last two years. Again, the main thing is that Michael never had a teammate who was given equal status until he came back and faced Rosebrg (who beat him three straight years).

Got to love the way you go off on one when you completely miss the point, and refute statements that nobody has made in the first place. And why would I name you who has had stronger teammates? When I said he has an impressive CV, not least 3 WDC teammates; did not that give you a clue how high I rate him in that regard?

But hell, if you think Hamilton has had a singular rivalry to match the Hunt/Lauda one, or the Prost/Senna one, I can't wait to see the inevitably movie. Now who is the other driver in this movie that everyone will want to see?

Alonso, spygate, you don't think that it would make a good movie?

[Junglist]

Alonso, spygate, you don't think that it would make a good movie?

Even as a Hamilton fan I don't think a movie would be that exciting to anyone but F1 fans and even then, it would be debatable.

Though I guess people may have said that about Rush. I thoroughly enjoyed it but that's because I wasn't even a glint in anyones eye at that point.

[Siao7]

Hunt and Lauda were really only direct title rivals for two seasons. Senna and Prost for three. Hamilton has had a rivalry with Alonso as a rookie and Vettel throughout several seasons. He's also had multiple strong teammates like Alonso, Button and Rosberg. I think he has faced more direct challenges from other top drivers than any of the greats. Name me one all-time great driver who has had stronger teammates throughout their career.

No, suggesting that his time has been similar to Schumacher is just not accurate. Michael did his damage with teammates who were not permitted to really race him and without strong rivals in the other teams most of the time. The 3-4 years where he battled with Hakkinen were probably the most intense rivalry that Michael had and I do have fond memories of it but I'd say it was similar to Hamilton's battles with Vettel the last two years. Again, the main thing is that Michael never had a teammate who was given equal status until he came back and faced Rosebrg (who beat him three straight years).

I disagree, firstly the rivalries are not between team mates (and Schumacher's team mates were allowed to race him on that). And secondly, if you think that Vettel gave Hamilton a better rivalry the last few years than the fights that Schumacher had with the Williams's or with Hakkinen, then I think we can't have a serious conversation really.

No they were not. There is no real debate about whether Michael's teammates were racing him. They were not. Both at Benetton and Ferrari, both cars were used to help Michael win. He always had the better fuel strategy and preference on parts, etc. None of Michael's teammates had equal status until Rosberg where literally all of Hamilton's teammates (except Kovaleinen) had equal status.

As for the idea that rivalries cannot be between teammates; I don't understand what you mean there. The most intense rivalries are between teammates. The greatest rivalry in F1 history was between Senna and Prost at McLaren. What makes for a better rivalry than having two elite drivers in identical machinery? Maybe you can explain what you mean by that?

Hamilton has been in many close battles for the championship that came down to the wire. His first two years at McLaren were decided in the final race by a single point. He was also still alive going into Abu Dhabi in 2010. Then you have the battles with Rosberg in 2014 and 2016.

You want to claim that Michael had better rivalries with Williams but he ended two of those years by intentionally crashing his opponent out of the race. Are we supposed to put that on a pedestal? Against Mika, there was never a title that came down to the last race (although I did appreciate this battle).

All his team mates were allowed to prove they were faster. All of them, they just couldn't hold a candle to him. It's like saying that poor Kova wasn't allowed to race Hamilton when in reality he was never good enough. Irvine has confirmed this, there was nothing in his contract to say that he wasn't allowed to. Nor Rubens's, and Rubens was not a guy that would stay quiet...

Regarding the bold part that is my fault, I confused what you said, until I re-read it now.

Now, why is winning on the last race constituting a rivalry with someone for you? No one said a rivalry is only for the last race, Jesus, you are reaching so much here...

Also, the intentional crashes did not take anything from the rivalry with the Williamses; if nothing else, you yourself mention Prost/Senna as the greatest rivalry ever and they had 2 intentional crashes of their own. Are you sure you are not just anti-Schumacher?

By the way, with Mika it came to the last race in 1998, so no idea why you say they never had a last race showdown.

A couple of things; first of all, I'm not suggesting that Michael's teammates couldn't have proven themselves to be faster than him. They were not faster, on that we agree but being faster is not really necessary in order to beat someone over a season. If you have better luck, reliability or are more consistent over a season, you can beat a quicker driver who has worse luck or consistency. That opportunity was denied them because they were not given equal status. As such, their lack of pace was compounded by consistently inferior strategy and compromised races. If Hamilton received the same treatment as Schuamcher throughout his career, he likely would have at least two more titles (2007 and 2016) and potentially more than that when you look at how McLaren tripped over themselves to give him and Button equal treatment while generally compromising both of them relative to the other teams.

I'd say that none of the Williams drivers were actual rivals to Michael. In fact, they seemed interchangeable. It was about Michael trying to beat a better car in those years. None of those drivers were top-tier. I already said that I appreciate the Hakkinen rivalry and my point about the last race was just for context. The whole idea that a driver's rivalries are important is based on the importance of how they perform in key moments and against top competition. That was my purpose in bringing that up but I agree that the last race thing is not really critical. I would point out that it becomes critical for Michael because of his track record of cheating in order to try to win in the last race.

And no, I'm not anti-Schumacher. I'm just not going to pretend that he didn't do the things he did.

This makes more sense. I'm not sure about Hamilton winning 2007 and 2016, but I'm not going to argue about it. 2007 was a very strange year on it's own accord. Kudos to Lewis for showing his teeth, but I personally am not sure if the rookie was the sure bet that year compared to the established WDC.

Inferior strategy yes, but reliability is a head scratcher for me. This was used again recently and I still wonder about it. How does a team know which piece of equipment is going to fail in one car compared to another? Reliability is a lottery (to a point I guess, I know that a driver may be gentler in his driving and not stress the car as much), you can't tell which part will have better reliability over another, so I can't really blame a driver if his team mate has worse luck with parts. It's not like they knew and allocated the crap part to one driver. Although thinking about it, I wouldn't completely dismiss it, we've seen worse things.

As for the Williams drivers, Hill and Schumacher have had a good few years of scraps, it's not only Schumacher trying to get them in the much inferior Ferrari. As far as rivalries go, since the one with Senna was ill fated, it was him and Hill and later on with Hakkinen that kept us interested in the 90's. I agree you that with the Williams's it was maybe interchangeable, but they had some bad blood with Hill, with the '94 and '95 having both drivers taking out each other.

Finally I'm not quite sure how the rivalries are important based on the performance in key moments. For example, Lauda missed many races in '76 and he dropped out of the final showdown race, yet it is one of the most intriguing rivalries as mentioned above. Senna won his 1990 in a fashion that set the example and the bar for Schumacher, yet you called their rivalry the greatest ever and Schumacher having a record of cheating in order to win the last race. So forgive me if I thought that you had a beef against Schumacher, because it very much came across like it.

[Siao7]

Alonso, spygate, you don't think that it would make a good movie?

Even as a Hamilton fan I don't think a movie would be that exciting to anyone but F1 fans and even then, it would be debatable.

Though I guess people may have said that about Rush. I thoroughly enjoyed it but that's because I wasn't even a glint in anyones eye at that point.

I agree, Rush was also the story of a personal triumph for the man who came back from the dead and he won the respect of his main rival despite being called names on the paddock etc.

Spygate would be the story of the world's crappiest photocopy store selection...

[Siao7]

Hamilton is making me more nostalgic for Schumacher every time he keys his microphone to complain about the great challenges he faces driving the best car on the same tires and track as his competitors. He's a superb driver, but not much of a man. How I long for the days when Ross Brawn could tell Michael Schumacher that he needed to make up 25 seconds in 19 laps and Schumacher simply responded, "Ok." What would Hamilton do if he were ever asked to outdrive his opponents with an inferior car and strategy when he cries like a baby over having to merely not drive worse than his competition?

Schumacher raced on tyres that could be pushed every lap and the notion that he achieved what you implied in an inferior car is a bit wide of the mark.

I may be wrong, but I think the point that Todd is making is different. Hamilton tends to "big" up his wins sometimes and sometimes sounds like a PR robot. He really doesn't need that, he is a brilliant racer by himself and there's no need to pull an Alonso "greatest Le Mans victory ever" speech to prove anything to anyone. For example, take this year so far, Mercedes is obliterating everything and all we hear from Mercedes is how difficult it is, how close was the car to braking down, etc. Every bloody race you'd think that they pulled a rabbit out of a hat when the results and their pace shows the opposite. Hamilton himself called his French win - the biggest snoozefest in recent history - as not being easy at all as he had two blisters in his tyres.... Two blisters!!! It does sound like they have a bit of a liking for drama. I think that is what Todd is referring to

[Siao7]

Who can forget Hamilton/Alonso 2007 and let's not forget Vettel is a 4 times WDC, the fight for five last year was a situation we may never see again?

The fight in the last five years was between Hamilton and a guy driving like a newbie in fairness... You can't really say that Vettel gave Hamilton a proper race for his money, he spun every time Hamilton was within 2m of his car!

History might play out differently though, didn't the Hunt/Lauda itself only really last 1 year, the only year that Hunt was in contention for the title?

Then we have the Alonso/Hamilton rivalry in 2007 including spygate, they might make a film about that as well?

I don't know. And I wasn't the one who mentioned the Hunt/Lauda example. If I'm not mistaken though it was a "rivalry" that lasted a few years, since they raced before F1, wasn't it?

I think they did a couple of F3 races together which got used to pan out the rivalry?

I'm not sure, I can't even remember the film now!

[sandman1347]

No they were not. There is no real debate about whether Michael's teammates were racing him. They were not. Both at Benetton and Ferrari, both cars were used to help Michael win. He always had the better fuel strategy and preference on parts, etc. None of Michael's teammates had equal status until Rosberg where literally all of Hamilton's teammates (except Kovaleinen) had equal status.

As for the idea that rivalries cannot be between teammates; I don't understand what you mean there. The most intense rivalries are between teammates. The greatest rivalry in F1 history was between Senna and Prost at McLaren. What makes for a better rivalry than having two elite drivers in identical machinery? Maybe you can explain what you mean by that?

Hamilton has been in many close battles for the championship that came down to the wire. His first two years at McLaren were decided in the final race by a single point. He was also still alive going into Abu Dhabi in 2010. Then you have the battles with Rosberg in 2014 and 2016.

You want to claim that Michael had better rivalries with Williams but he ended two of those years by intentionally crashing his opponent out of the race. Are we supposed to put that on a pedestal? Against Mika, there was never a title that came down to the last race (although I did appreciate this battle).

All his team mates were allowed to prove they were faster. All of them, they just couldn't hold a candle to him. It's like saying that poor Kova wasn't allowed to race Hamilton when in reality he was never good enough. Irvine has confirmed this, there was nothing in his contract to say that he wasn't allowed to. Nor Rubens's, and Rubens was not a guy that would stay quiet...

Regarding the bold part that is my fault, I confused what you said, until I re-read it now.

Now, why is winning on the last race constituting a rivalry with someone for you? No one said a rivalry is only for the last race, Jesus, you are reaching so much here...

Also, the intentional crashes did not take anything from the rivalry with the Williamses; if nothing else, you yourself mention Prost/Senna as the greatest rivalry ever and they had 2 intentional crashes of their own. Are you sure you are not just anti-Schumacher?

By the way, with Mika it came to the last race in 1998, so no idea why you say they never had a last race showdown.

A couple of things; first of all, I'm not suggesting that Michael's teammates couldn't have proven themselves to be faster than him. They were not faster, on that we agree but being faster is not really necessary in order to beat someone over a season. If you have better luck, reliability or are more consistent over a season, you can beat a quicker driver who has worse luck or consistency. That opportunity was denied them because they were not given equal status. As such, their lack of pace was compounded by consistently inferior strategy and compromised races. If Hamilton received the same treatment as Schuamcher throughout his career, he likely would have at least two more titles (2007 and 2016) and potentially more than that when you look at how McLaren tripped over themselves to give him and Button equal treatment while generally compromising both of them relative to the other teams.

I'd say that none of the Williams drivers were actual rivals to Michael. In fact, they seemed interchangeable. It was about Michael trying to beat a better car in those years. None of those drivers were top-tier. I already said that I appreciate the Hakkinen rivalry and my point about the last race was just for context. The whole idea that a driver's rivalries are important is based on the importance of how they perform in key moments and against top competition. That was my purpose in bringing that up but I agree that the last race thing is not really critical. I would point out that it becomes critical for Michael because of his track record of cheating in order to try to win in the last race.

And no, I'm not anti-Schumacher. I'm just not going to pretend that he didn't do the things he did.

This makes more sense. I'm not sure about Hamilton winning 2007 and 2016, but I'm not going to argue about it. 2007 was a very strange year on it's own accord. Kudos to Lewis for showing his teeth, but I personally am not sure if the rookie was the sure bet that year compared to the established WDC.

Inferior strategy yes, but reliability is a head scratcher for me. This was used again recently and I still wonder about it. How does a team know which piece of equipment is going to fail in one car compared to another? Reliability is a lottery (to a point I guess, I know that a driver may be gentler in his driving and not stress the car as much), you can't tell which part will have better reliability over another, so I can't really blame a driver if his team mate has worse luck with parts. It's not like they knew and allocated the crap part to one driver. Although thinking about it, I wouldn't completely dismiss it, we've seen worse things.

As for the Williams drivers, Hill and Schumacher have had a good few years of scraps, it's not only Schumacher trying to get them in the much inferior Ferrari. As far as rivalries go, since the one with Senna was ill fated, it was him and Hill and later on with Hakkinen that kept us interested in the 90's. I agree you that with the Williams's it was maybe interchangeable, but they had some bad blood with Hill, with the '94 and '95 having both drivers taking out each other.

Finally I'm not quite sure how the rivalries are important based on the performance in key moments. For example, Lauda missed many races in '76 and he dropped out of the final showdown race, yet it is one of the most intriguing rivalries as mentioned above. Senna won his 1990 in a fashion that set the example and the bar for Schumacher, yet you called their rivalry the greatest ever and Schumacher having a record of cheating in order to win the last race. So forgive me if I thought that you had a beef against Schumacher, because it very much came across like it.

To your first point, I'd have to point out that Hamilton had the measure of Alonso that year and things only closed up in the final two races as his season imploded. Either way, it's irrelevant. If either Hamilton or Alonso got the Schumacher treatment that year, they would have almost certainly beaten Kimi. They both finished just a point behind while fighting each other like crazy.

To your second point; what I mean by saying that reliability can help a lesser driver beat a better one should be self-explanatory. Think of Rosberg's title in 2016. Reliability made the difference there but if Nico did not have equal status to begin with, it wouldn't have mattered because he wouldn't have been close enough in the points to capitalize. Ferrari always used the second car to try to better ensure the win for the first car so Rubens was never going to be able to capitalize should he have superior luck.

Senna may have taken Prost out in 90' but that was AFTER Prost took him out the year before. There were also other factors there such as the whole dirty side of the grid for the polesitter and the other behind the scenes politics to factor in. Schumacher cheated in cold blood and completely unprovoked. You don't have to have a vendetta against him to point that out. If we're going to make those kinds of insinuations, I'd have to point out that you seem to jump at any opportunity to try to dull Hamilton's achievements...

[shoot999]

Alonso, spygate, you don't think that it would make a good movie?

Even as a Hamilton fan I don't think a movie would be that exciting to anyone but F1 fans and even then, it would be debatable.

Though I guess people may have said that about Rush. I thoroughly enjoyed it but that's because I wasn't even a glint in anyones eye at that point.

I agree, Rush was also the story of a personal triumph for the man who came back from the dead and he won the respect of his main rival despite being called names on the paddock etc.

Spygate would be the story of the world's crappiest photocopy store selection...

I'm not so sure. Yes Lauda come back from the dead; but I think you are forgetting Hamilton had a bump on the elbow during a fashion shoot.

And whilst Hunt took a journalists wife round the back of the garages, and thumped another one. Hamilton was castigated for using an app on his phone during the drivers press conference.

Although there has been talk of a movie, I think mainly covering his early years; racism and bullying and the poor boy taking on the rich kids sort of thing.

[sandman1347]

Alonso, spygate, you don't think that it would make a good movie?

Even as a Hamilton fan I don't think a movie would be that exciting to anyone but F1 fans and even then, it would be debatable.

Though I guess people may have said that about Rush. I thoroughly enjoyed it but that's because I wasn't even a glint in anyones eye at that point.

How many F1 drivers would make for interesting movie subjects? You seemingly have to have a fatal or near-fatal accident to make the grade.

The truth is that you could probably easily make a compelling movie about Lewis Hamilton by the time he's Lauda's age. Think of the recent Ray Charles and Johnny Cash movies. A biopic would work. After all he has had a life of going from rags to riches, winning F1 championships, bedding super models, etc. Hollywood would have a lot to work with there. I'd be interested in watching the obligatory scene where he overdoses on narcotics and breaks down crying...

[F1 Racer]

No they were not. There is no real debate about whether Michael's teammates were racing him. They were not. Both at Benetton and Ferrari, both cars were used to help Michael win. He always had the better fuel strategy and preference on parts, etc. None of Michael's teammates had equal status until Rosberg where literally all of Hamilton's teammates (except Kovaleinen) had equal status.

As for the idea that rivalries cannot be between teammates; I don't understand what you mean there. The most intense rivalries are between teammates. The greatest rivalry in F1 history was between Senna and Prost at McLaren. What makes for a better rivalry than having two elite drivers in identical machinery? Maybe you can explain what you mean by that?

Hamilton has been in many close battles for the championship that came down to the wire. His first two years at McLaren were decided in the final race by a single point. He was also still alive going into Abu Dhabi in 2010. Then you have the battles with Rosberg in 2014 and 2016.

You want to claim that Michael had better rivalries with Williams but he ended two of those years by intentionally crashing his opponent out of the race. Are we supposed to put that on a pedestal? Against Mika, there was never a title that came down to the last race (although I did appreciate this battle).

All his team mates were allowed to prove they were faster. All of them, they just couldn't hold a candle to him. It's like saying that poor Kova wasn't allowed to race Hamilton when in reality he was never good enough. Irvine has confirmed this, there was nothing in his contract to say that he wasn't allowed to. Nor Rubens's, and Rubens was not a guy that would stay quiet...

Regarding the bold part that is my fault, I confused what you said, until I re-read it now.

Now, why is winning on the last race constituting a rivalry with someone for you? No one said a rivalry is only for the last race, Jesus, you are reaching so much here...

Also, the intentional crashes did not take anything from the rivalry with the Williamses; if nothing else, you yourself mention Prost/Senna as the greatest rivalry ever and they had 2 intentional crashes of their own. Are you sure you are not just anti-Schumacher?

By the way, with Mika it came to the last race in 1998, so no idea why you say they never had a last race showdown.

A couple of things; first of all, I'm not suggesting that Michael's teammates couldn't have proven themselves to be faster than him. They were not faster, on that we agree but being faster is not really necessary in order to beat someone over a season. If you have better luck, reliability or are more consistent over a season, you can beat a quicker driver who has worse luck or consistency. That opportunity was denied them because they were not given equal status. As such, their lack of pace was compounded by consistently inferior strategy and compromised races. If Hamilton received the same treatment as Schuamcher throughout his career, he likely would have at least two more titles (2007 and 2016) and potentially more than that when you look at how McLaren tripped over themselves to give him and Button equal treatment while generally compromising both of them relative to the other teams.

I'd say that none of the Williams drivers were actual rivals to Michael. In fact, they seemed interchangeable. It was about Michael trying to beat a better car in those years. None of those drivers were top-tier. I already said that I appreciate the Hakkinen rivalry and my point about the last race was just for context. The whole idea that a driver's rivalries are important is based on the importance of how they perform in key moments and against top competition. That was my purpose in bringing that up but I agree that the last race thing is not really critical. I would point out that it becomes critical for Michael because of his track record of cheating in order to try to win in the last race.

And no, I'm not anti-Schumacher. I'm just not going to pretend that he didn't do the things he did.

This makes more sense. I'm not sure about Hamilton winning 2007 and 2016, but I'm not going to argue about it. 2007 was a very strange year on it's own accord. Kudos to Lewis for showing his teeth, but I personally am not sure if the rookie was the sure bet that year compared to the established WDC.

Inferior strategy yes, but reliability is a head scratcher for me. This was used again recently and I still wonder about it. How does a team know which piece of equipment is going to fail in one car compared to another? Reliability is a lottery (to a point I guess, I know that a driver may be gentler in his driving and not stress the car as much), you can't tell which part will have better reliability over another, so I can't really blame a driver if his team mate has worse luck with parts. It's not like they knew and allocated the crap part to one driver. Although thinking about it, I wouldn't completely dismiss it, we've seen worse things.

As for the Williams drivers, Hill and Schumacher have had a good few years of scraps, it's not only Schumacher trying to get them in the much inferior Ferrari. As far as rivalries go, since the one with Senna was ill fated, it was him and Hill and later on with Hakkinen that kept us interested in the 90's. I agree you that with the Williams's it was maybe interchangeable, but they had some bad blood with Hill, with the '94 and '95 having both drivers taking out each other.

Finally I'm not quite sure how the rivalries are important based on the performance in key moments. For example, Lauda missed many races in '76 and he dropped out of the final showdown race, yet it is one of the most intriguing rivalries as mentioned above. Senna won his 1990 in a fashion that set the example and the bar for Schumacher, yet you called their rivalry the greatest ever and Schumacher having a record of cheating in order to win the last race. So forgive me if I thought that you had a beef against Schumacher, because it very much came across like it.

To your first point, I'd have to point out that Hamilton had the measure of Alonso that year and things only closed up in the final two races as his season imploded. Either way, it's irrelevant. If either Hamilton or Alonso got the Schumacher treatment that year, they would have almost certainly beaten Kimi. They both finished just a point behind while fighting each other like crazy.

To your second point; what I mean by saying that reliability can help a lesser driver beat a better one should be self-explanatory. Think of Rosberg's title in 2016. Reliability made the difference there but if Nico did not have equal status to begin with, it wouldn't have mattered because he wouldn't have been close enough in the points to capitalize. Ferrari always used the second car to try to better ensure the win for the first car so Rubens was never going to be able to capitalize should he have superior luck.

Senna may have taken Prost out in 90' but that was AFTER Prost took him out the year before. There were also other factors there such as the whole dirty side of the grid for the polesitter and the other behind the scenes politics to factor in. Schumacher cheated in cold blood and completely unprovoked. You don't have to have a vendetta against him to point that out. If we're going to make those kinds of insinuations, I'd have to point out that you seem to jump at any opportunity to try to dull Hamilton's achievements...

Rosberg was a better driver than Barrichello though.

Clearly Schumacher was better than Button. However in 2009 when Barrichello had title winning equipment, against a weaker teammate than Schumacher and no number 2 contract status to deal with, he still wasn't really in championship contention.

[mikeyg123]

All his team mates were allowed to prove they were faster. All of them, they just couldn't hold a candle to him. It's like saying that poor Kova wasn't allowed to race Hamilton when in reality he was never good enough. Irvine has confirmed this, there was nothing in his contract to say that he wasn't allowed to. Nor Rubens's, and Rubens was not a guy that would stay quiet...

Regarding the bold part that is my fault, I confused what you said, until I re-read it now.

Now, why is winning on the last race constituting a rivalry with someone for you? No one said a rivalry is only for the last race, Jesus, you are reaching so much here...

Also, the intentional crashes did not take anything from the rivalry with the Williamses; if nothing else, you yourself mention Prost/Senna as the greatest rivalry ever and they had 2 intentional crashes of their own. Are you sure you are not just anti-Schumacher?

By the way, with Mika it came to the last race in 1998, so no idea why you say they never had a last race showdown.

A couple of things; first of all, I'm not suggesting that Michael's teammates couldn't have proven themselves to be faster than him. They were not faster, on that we agree but being faster is not really necessary in order to beat someone over a season. If you have better luck, reliability or are more consistent over a season, you can beat a quicker driver who has worse luck or consistency. That opportunity was denied them because they were not given equal status. As such, their lack of pace was compounded by consistently inferior strategy and compromised races. If Hamilton received the same treatment as Schuamcher throughout his career, he likely would have at least two more titles (2007 and 2016) and potentially more than that when you look at how McLaren tripped over themselves to give him and Button equal treatment while generally compromising both of them relative to the other teams.

I'd say that none of the Williams drivers were actual rivals to Michael. In fact, they seemed interchangeable. It was about Michael trying to beat a better car in those years. None of those drivers were top-tier. I already said that I appreciate the Hakkinen rivalry and my point about the last race was just for context. The whole idea that a driver's rivalries are important is based on the importance of how they perform in key moments and against top competition. That was my purpose in bringing that up but I agree that the last race thing is not really critical. I would point out that it becomes critical for Michael because of his track record of cheating in order to try to win in the last race.

And no, I'm not anti-Schumacher. I'm just not going to pretend that he didn't do the things he did.

This makes more sense. I'm not sure about Hamilton winning 2007 and 2016, but I'm not going to argue about it. 2007 was a very strange year on it's own accord. Kudos to Lewis for showing his teeth, but I personally am not sure if the rookie was the sure bet that year compared to the established WDC.

Inferior strategy yes, but reliability is a head scratcher for me. This was used again recently and I still wonder about it. How does a team know which piece of equipment is going to fail in one car compared to another? Reliability is a lottery (to a point I guess, I know that a driver may be gentler in his driving and not stress the car as much), you can't tell which part will have better reliability over another, so I can't really blame a driver if his team mate has worse luck with parts. It's not like they knew and allocated the crap part to one driver. Although thinking about it, I wouldn't completely dismiss it, we've seen worse things.

As for the Williams drivers, Hill and Schumacher have had a good few years of scraps, it's not only Schumacher trying to get them in the much inferior Ferrari. As far as rivalries go, since the one with Senna was ill fated, it was him and Hill and later on with Hakkinen that kept us interested in the 90's. I agree you that with the Williams's it was maybe interchangeable, but they had some bad blood with Hill, with the '94 and '95 having both drivers taking out each other.

Finally I'm not quite sure how the rivalries are important based on the performance in key moments. For example, Lauda missed many races in '76 and he dropped out of the final showdown race, yet it is one of the most intriguing rivalries as mentioned above. Senna won his 1990 in a fashion that set the example and the bar for Schumacher, yet you called their rivalry the greatest ever and Schumacher having a record of cheating in order to win the last race. So forgive me if I thought that you had a beef against Schumacher, because it very much came across like it.

To your first point, I'd have to point out that Hamilton had the measure of Alonso that year and things only closed up in the final two races as his season imploded. Either way, it's irrelevant. If either Hamilton or Alonso got the Schumacher treatment that year, they would have almost certainly beaten Kimi. They both finished just a point behind while fighting each other like crazy.

To your second point; what I mean by saying that reliability can help a lesser driver beat a better one should be self-explanatory. Think of Rosberg's title in 2016. Reliability made the difference there but if Nico did not have equal status to begin with, it wouldn't have mattered because he wouldn't have been close enough in the points to capitalize. Ferrari always used the second car to try to better ensure the win for the first car so Rubens was never going to be able to capitalize should he have superior luck.

Senna may have taken Prost out in 90' but that was AFTER Prost took him out the year before. There were also other factors there such as the whole dirty side of the grid for the polesitter and the other behind the scenes politics to factor in. Schumacher cheated in cold blood and completely unprovoked. You don't have to have a vendetta against him to point that out. If we're going to make those kinds of insinuations, I'd have to point out that you seem to jump at any opportunity to try to dull Hamilton's achievements...

Rosberg was a better driver than Barrichello though.

Clearly Schumacher was better than Button. However in 2009 when Barrichello had title winning equipment, against a weaker teammate than Schumacher and no number 2 contract status to deal with, he still wasn't really in championship contention.

I don't necessarily think Rosberg was better than Barrichello. Barrichello stood out a lot more in midfield cars than Rosberg IMHO.

[Exediron]

I don't necessarily think Rosberg was better than Barrichello. Barrichello stood out a lot more in midfield cars than Rosberg IMHO.

I think in 2009 Rosberg was quite impressive, in what was decidedly a midfield car.

[Siao7]

No they were not. There is no real debate about whether Michael's teammates were racing him. They were not. Both at Benetton and Ferrari, both cars were used to help Michael win. He always had the better fuel strategy and preference on parts, etc. None of Michael's teammates had equal status until Rosberg where literally all of Hamilton's teammates (except Kovaleinen) had equal status.

As for the idea that rivalries cannot be between teammates; I don't understand what you mean there. The most intense rivalries are between teammates. The greatest rivalry in F1 history was between Senna and Prost at McLaren. What makes for a better rivalry than having two elite drivers in identical machinery? Maybe you can explain what you mean by that?

Hamilton has been in many close battles for the championship that came down to the wire. His first two years at McLaren were decided in the final race by a single point. He was also still alive going into Abu Dhabi in 2010. Then you have the battles with Rosberg in 2014 and 2016.

You want to claim that Michael had better rivalries with Williams but he ended two of those years by intentionally crashing his opponent out of the race. Are we supposed to put that on a pedestal? Against Mika, there was never a title that came down to the last race (although I did appreciate this battle).

All his team mates were allowed to prove they were faster. All of them, they just couldn't hold a candle to him. It's like saying that poor Kova wasn't allowed to race Hamilton when in reality he was never good enough. Irvine has confirmed this, there was nothing in his contract to say that he wasn't allowed to. Nor Rubens's, and Rubens was not a guy that would stay quiet...

Regarding the bold part that is my fault, I confused what you said, until I re-read it now.

Now, why is winning on the last race constituting a rivalry with someone for you? No one said a rivalry is only for the last race, Jesus, you are reaching so much here...

Also, the intentional crashes did not take anything from the rivalry with the Williamses; if nothing else, you yourself mention Prost/Senna as the greatest rivalry ever and they had 2 intentional crashes of their own. Are you sure you are not just anti-Schumacher?

By the way, with Mika it came to the last race in 1998, so no idea why you say they never had a last race showdown.

A couple of things; first of all, I'm not suggesting that Michael's teammates couldn't have proven themselves to be faster than him. They were not faster, on that we agree but being faster is not really necessary in order to beat someone over a season. If you have better luck, reliability or are more consistent over a season, you can beat a quicker driver who has worse luck or consistency. That opportunity was denied them because they were not given equal status. As such, their lack of pace was compounded by consistently inferior strategy and compromised races. If Hamilton received the same treatment as Schuamcher throughout his career, he likely would have at least two more titles (2007 and 2016) and potentially more than that when you look at how McLaren tripped over themselves to give him and Button equal treatment while generally compromising both of them relative to the other teams.

I'd say that none of the Williams drivers were actual rivals to Michael. In fact, they seemed interchangeable. It was about Michael trying to beat a better car in those years. None of those drivers were top-tier. I already said that I appreciate the Hakkinen rivalry and my point about the last race was just for context. The whole idea that a driver's rivalries are important is based on the importance of how they perform in key moments and against top competition. That was my purpose in bringing that up but I agree that the last race thing is not really critical. I would point out that it becomes critical for Michael because of his track record of cheating in order to try to win in the last race.

And no, I'm not anti-Schumacher. I'm just not going to pretend that he didn't do the things he did.

This makes more sense. I'm not sure about Hamilton winning 2007 and 2016, but I'm not going to argue about it. 2007 was a very strange year on it's own accord. Kudos to Lewis for showing his teeth, but I personally am not sure if the rookie was the sure bet that year compared to the established WDC.

Inferior strategy yes, but reliability is a head scratcher for me. This was used again recently and I still wonder about it. How does a team know which piece of equipment is going to fail in one car compared to another? Reliability is a lottery (to a point I guess, I know that a driver may be gentler in his driving and not stress the car as much), you can't tell which part will have better reliability over another, so I can't really blame a driver if his team mate has worse luck with parts. It's not like they knew and allocated the crap part to one driver. Although thinking about it, I wouldn't completely dismiss it, we've seen worse things.

As for the Williams drivers, Hill and Schumacher have had a good few years of scraps, it's not only Schumacher trying to get them in the much inferior Ferrari. As far as rivalries go, since the one with Senna was ill fated, it was him and Hill and later on with Hakkinen that kept us interested in the 90's. I agree you that with the Williams's it was maybe interchangeable, but they had some bad blood with Hill, with the '94 and '95 having both drivers taking out each other.

Finally I'm not quite sure how the rivalries are important based on the performance in key moments. For example, Lauda missed many races in '76 and he dropped out of the final showdown race, yet it is one of the most intriguing rivalries as mentioned above. Senna won his 1990 in a fashion that set the example and the bar for Schumacher, yet you called their rivalry the greatest ever and Schumacher having a record of cheating in order to win the last race. So forgive me if I thought that you had a beef against Schumacher, because it very much came across like it.

To your first point, I'd have to point out that Hamilton had the measure of Alonso that year and things only closed up in the final two races as his season imploded. Either way, it's irrelevant. If either Hamilton or Alonso got the Schumacher treatment that year, they would have almost certainly beaten Kimi. They both finished just a point behind while fighting each other like crazy.

To your second point; what I mean by saying that reliability can help a lesser driver beat a better one should be self-explanatory. Think of Rosberg's title in 2016. Reliability made the difference there but if Nico did not have equal status to begin with, it wouldn't have mattered because he wouldn't have been close enough in the points to capitalize. Ferrari always used the second car to try to better ensure the win for the first car so Rubens was never going to be able to capitalize should he have superior luck.

Senna may have taken Prost out in 90' but that was AFTER Prost took him out the year before. There were also other factors there such as the whole dirty side of the grid for the polesitter and the other behind the scenes politics to factor in. Schumacher cheated in cold blood and completely unprovoked. You don't have to have a vendetta against him to point that out. If we're going to make those kinds of insinuations, I'd have to point out that you seem to jump at any opportunity to try to dull Hamilton's achievements...

First two points, lets agree.

As for Senna, you may as well have said that you are pulling my leg already. If we are going to equate a red mist moment to a premeditated act such as Suzuka '90, then I'm lost for words. Prost took a stand the year before after feeling a lot of bullying from Senna within the team. It was a statement. The whole dirty side of the grid was Senna tilting at windmills. The pole has always been on that side and because he fudged it there in '88 and '89 he decided that he wanted the pole side to switch. Just decided it himself. Incredible! When had ever a driver such power to literally change the procedures on race day? He then went to the stewards that had no authority over the matter. Then made a fuss about Balestre being pro-Prost being French and all, just to complete this joke when the FIA called him out and said no to his petition to change the pole side.

Finally, I'm trying to dull Hamilton's achievements? Really? Have you seen me in this whole debate using liegate, Mercedes secret tyre testing, etc.? No, it's rather you that brought up the negative stuff that a driver has done to belittle him. So take a good look in the mirror on that one please. Also take a look in my posts where I praise Hamilton, that would be a better starting point. Let's leave it here and not derail the official thread

[Siao7]

A couple of things; first of all, I'm not suggesting that Michael's teammates couldn't have proven themselves to be faster than him. They were not faster, on that we agree but being faster is not really necessary in order to beat someone over a season. If you have better luck, reliability or are more consistent over a season, you can beat a quicker driver who has worse luck or consistency. That opportunity was denied them because they were not given equal status. As such, their lack of pace was compounded by consistently inferior strategy and compromised races. If Hamilton received the same treatment as Schuamcher throughout his career, he likely would have at least two more titles (2007 and 2016) and potentially more than that when you look at how McLaren tripped over themselves to give him and Button equal treatment while generally compromising both of them relative to the other teams.

I'd say that none of the Williams drivers were actual rivals to Michael. In fact, they seemed interchangeable. It was about Michael trying to beat a better car in those years. None of those drivers were top-tier. I already said that I appreciate the Hakkinen rivalry and my point about the last race was just for context. The whole idea that a driver's rivalries are important is based on the importance of how they perform in key moments and against top competition. That was my purpose in bringing that up but I agree that the last race thing is not really critical. I would point out that it becomes critical for Michael because of his track record of cheating in order to try to win in the last race.

And no, I'm not anti-Schumacher. I'm just not going to pretend that he didn't do the things he did.

This makes more sense. I'm not sure about Hamilton winning 2007 and 2016, but I'm not going to argue about it. 2007 was a very strange year on it's own accord. Kudos to Lewis for showing his teeth, but I personally am not sure if the rookie was the sure bet that year compared to the established WDC.

Inferior strategy yes, but reliability is a head scratcher for me. This was used again recently and I still wonder about it. How does a team know which piece of equipment is going to fail in one car compared to another? Reliability is a lottery (to a point I guess, I know that a driver may be gentler in his driving and not stress the car as much), you can't tell which part will have better reliability over another, so I can't really blame a driver if his team mate has worse luck with parts. It's not like they knew and allocated the crap part to one driver. Although thinking about it, I wouldn't completely dismiss it, we've seen worse things.

As for the Williams drivers, Hill and Schumacher have had a good few years of scraps, it's not only Schumacher trying to get them in the much inferior Ferrari. As far as rivalries go, since the one with Senna was ill fated, it was him and Hill and later on with Hakkinen that kept us interested in the 90's. I agree you that with the Williams's it was maybe interchangeable, but they had some bad blood with Hill, with the '94 and '95 having both drivers taking out each other.

Finally I'm not quite sure how the rivalries are important based on the performance in key moments. For example, Lauda missed many races in '76 and he dropped out of the final showdown race, yet it is one of the most intriguing rivalries as mentioned above. Senna won his 1990 in a fashion that set the example and the bar for Schumacher, yet you called their rivalry the greatest ever and Schumacher having a record of cheating in order to win the last race. So forgive me if I thought that you had a beef against Schumacher, because it very much came across like it.

To your first point, I'd have to point out that Hamilton had the measure of Alonso that year and things only closed up in the final two races as his season imploded. Either way, it's irrelevant. If either Hamilton or Alonso got the Schumacher treatment that year, they would have almost certainly beaten Kimi. They both finished just a point behind while fighting each other like crazy.

To your second point; what I mean by saying that reliability can help a lesser driver beat a better one should be self-explanatory. Think of Rosberg's title in 2016. Reliability made the difference there but if Nico did not have equal status to begin with, it wouldn't have mattered because he wouldn't have been close enough in the points to capitalize. Ferrari always used the second car to try to better ensure the win for the first car so Rubens was never going to be able to capitalize should he have superior luck.

Senna may have taken Prost out in 90' but that was AFTER Prost took him out the year before. There were also other factors there such as the whole dirty side of the grid for the polesitter and the other behind the scenes politics to factor in. Schumacher cheated in cold blood and completely unprovoked. You don't have to have a vendetta against him to point that out. If we're going to make those kinds of insinuations, I'd have to point out that you seem to jump at any opportunity to try to dull Hamilton's achievements...

Rosberg was a better driver than Barrichello though.

Clearly Schumacher was better than Button. However in 2009 when Barrichello had title winning equipment, against a weaker teammate than Schumacher and no number 2 contract status to deal with, he still wasn't really in championship contention.

I don't necessarily think Rosberg was better than Barrichello. Barrichello stood out a lot more in midfield cars than Rosberg IMHO.

Yes, but using the same driver as a yardstick, Rosberg did better. If nothing else, I think that Barrichello was very technical, but not as consistent as Rosberg, not for the long run of a WDC.

[mikeyg123]

This makes more sense. I'm not sure about Hamilton winning 2007 and 2016, but I'm not going to argue about it. 2007 was a very strange year on it's own accord. Kudos to Lewis for showing his teeth, but I personally am not sure if the rookie was the sure bet that year compared to the established WDC.

Inferior strategy yes, but reliability is a head scratcher for me. This was used again recently and I still wonder about it. How does a team know which piece of equipment is going to fail in one car compared to another? Reliability is a lottery (to a point I guess, I know that a driver may be gentler in his driving and not stress the car as much), you can't tell which part will have better reliability over another, so I can't really blame a driver if his team mate has worse luck with parts. It's not like they knew and allocated the crap part to one driver. Although thinking about it, I wouldn't completely dismiss it, we've seen worse things.

As for the Williams drivers, Hill and Schumacher have had a good few years of scraps, it's not only Schumacher trying to get them in the much inferior Ferrari. As far as rivalries go, since the one with Senna was ill fated, it was him and Hill and later on with Hakkinen that kept us interested in the 90's. I agree you that with the Williams's it was maybe interchangeable, but they had some bad blood with Hill, with the '94 and '95 having both drivers taking out each other.

Finally I'm not quite sure how the rivalries are important based on the performance in key moments. For example, Lauda missed many races in '76 and he dropped out of the final showdown race, yet it is one of the most intriguing rivalries as mentioned above. Senna won his 1990 in a fashion that set the example and the bar for Schumacher, yet you called their rivalry the greatest ever and Schumacher having a record of cheating in order to win the last race. So forgive me if I thought that you had a beef against Schumacher, because it very much came across like it.

To your first point, I'd have to point out that Hamilton had the measure of Alonso that year and things only closed up in the final two races as his season imploded. Either way, it's irrelevant. If either Hamilton or Alonso got the Schumacher treatment that year, they would have almost certainly beaten Kimi. They both finished just a point behind while fighting each other like crazy.

To your second point; what I mean by saying that reliability can help a lesser driver beat a better one should be self-explanatory. Think of Rosberg's title in 2016. Reliability made the difference there but if Nico did not have equal status to begin with, it wouldn't have mattered because he wouldn't have been close enough in the points to capitalize. Ferrari always used the second car to try to better ensure the win for the first car so Rubens was never going to be able to capitalize should he have superior luck.

Senna may have taken Prost out in 90' but that was AFTER Prost took him out the year before. There were also other factors there such as the whole dirty side of the grid for the polesitter and the other behind the scenes politics to factor in. Schumacher cheated in cold blood and completely unprovoked. You don't have to have a vendetta against him to point that out. If we're going to make those kinds of insinuations, I'd have to point out that you seem to jump at any opportunity to try to dull Hamilton's achievements...

Rosberg was a better driver than Barrichello though.

Clearly Schumacher was better than Button. However in 2009 when Barrichello had title winning equipment, against a weaker teammate than Schumacher and no number 2 contract status to deal with, he still wasn't really in championship contention.

I don't necessarily think Rosberg was better than Barrichello. Barrichello stood out a lot more in midfield cars than Rosberg IMHO.

Yes, but using the same driver as a yardstick, Rosberg did better. If nothing else, I think that Barrichello was very technical, but not as consistent as Rosberg, not for the long run of a WDC.

Rosberg did better against Hamilton than Barrichello did against Schumacher but don't forget Barrichello was never actually allowed to compete against Schumacher on equal terms.

So I'm not sure it's really a fair comparison.

[pokerman]

Alonso, spygate, you don't think that it would make a good movie?

Even as a Hamilton fan I don't think a movie would be that exciting to anyone but F1 fans and even then, it would be debatable.

Though I guess people may have said that about Rush. I thoroughly enjoyed it but that's because I wasn't even a glint in anyones eye at that point.

I agree, Rush was also the story of a personal triumph for the man who came back from the dead and he won the respect of his main rival despite being called names on the paddock etc.

Spygate would be the story of the world's crappiest photocopy store selection...

I'm not so sure. Yes Lauda come back from the dead; but I think you are forgetting Hamilton had a bump on the elbow during a fashion shoot.

And whilst Hunt took a journalists wife round the back of the garages, and thumped another one. Hamilton was castigated for using an app on his phone during the drivers press conference.

Although there has been talk of a movie, I think mainly covering his early years; racism and bullying and the poor boy taking on the rich kids sort of thing.

You wouldn't be a fan then?

The racism angle though has legs in respect to him being the only driver from that background that made it into F1, but not only that is set to become the second most successful driver in F1, they wouldn't make a film about that?

Imagine if a woman ever became a F1 WDC, I'm sure a film would get made about that?

[Siao7]

To your first point, I'd have to point out that Hamilton had the measure of Alonso that year and things only closed up in the final two races as his season imploded. Either way, it's irrelevant. If either Hamilton or Alonso got the Schumacher treatment that year, they would have almost certainly beaten Kimi. They both finished just a point behind while fighting each other like crazy.

To your second point; what I mean by saying that reliability can help a lesser driver beat a better one should be self-explanatory. Think of Rosberg's title in 2016. Reliability made the difference there but if Nico did not have equal status to begin with, it wouldn't have mattered because he wouldn't have been close enough in the points to capitalize. Ferrari always used the second car to try to better ensure the win for the first car so Rubens was never going to be able to capitalize should he have superior luck.

Senna may have taken Prost out in 90' but that was AFTER Prost took him out the year before. There were also other factors there such as the whole dirty side of the grid for the polesitter and the other behind the scenes politics to factor in. Schumacher cheated in cold blood and completely unprovoked. You don't have to have a vendetta against him to point that out. If we're going to make those kinds of insinuations, I'd have to point out that you seem to jump at any opportunity to try to dull Hamilton's achievements...

Rosberg was a better driver than Barrichello though.

Clearly Schumacher was better than Button. However in 2009 when Barrichello had title winning equipment, against a weaker teammate than Schumacher and no number 2 contract status to deal with, he still wasn't really in championship contention.

I don't necessarily think Rosberg was better than Barrichello. Barrichello stood out a lot more in midfield cars than Rosberg IMHO.

Yes, but using the same driver as a yardstick, Rosberg did better. If nothing else, I think that Barrichello was very technical, but not as consistent as Rosberg, not for the long run of a WDC.

Rosberg did better against Hamilton than Barrichello did against Schumacher but don't forget Barrichello was never actually allowed to compete against Schumacher on equal terms.

So I'm not sure it's really a fair comparison.

Ok, forget the yardstick, looking at them purely from a driving point of view, Rubens never looked as consistent as Rosberg. At times the only thing that Rubens could do consistently for a whole year seemed to be complaining about something. For me that was his main negative point, on his day he was untouchable, but that was twice a year. Rosberg was a better qualifier and turned this into more results than Rubens.

[sandman1347]

I don't necessarily think Rosberg was better than Barrichello. Barrichello stood out a lot more in midfield cars than Rosberg IMHO.

I think in 2009 Rosberg was quite impressive, in what was decidedly a midfield car.

For me, there is no real comparison. Both Rosberg and Rubens were teammates with Michael. I know we're all supposed to pretend that didn't happen but Rosberg was able to best Michael 3 straight years (arguably 2/3 with Michael being very unlucky in 2012) while Rubens never looked like troubling him at all. I do think that the way Ferrari run their operation tends to exacerbate the gaps between teammates but I find it difficult to make an argument that Rubens was better, even if we assume that Michael had fallen off by the time he came back.

[sandman1347]

All his team mates were allowed to prove they were faster. All of them, they just couldn't hold a candle to him. It's like saying that poor Kova wasn't allowed to race Hamilton when in reality he was never good enough. Irvine has confirmed this, there was nothing in his contract to say that he wasn't allowed to. Nor Rubens's, and Rubens was not a guy that would stay quiet...

Regarding the bold part that is my fault, I confused what you said, until I re-read it now.

Now, why is winning on the last race constituting a rivalry with someone for you? No one said a rivalry is only for the last race, Jesus, you are reaching so much here...

Also, the intentional crashes did not take anything from the rivalry with the Williamses; if nothing else, you yourself mention Prost/Senna as the greatest rivalry ever and they had 2 intentional crashes of their own. Are you sure you are not just anti-Schumacher?

By the way, with Mika it came to the last race in 1998, so no idea why you say they never had a last race showdown.

A couple of things; first of all, I'm not suggesting that Michael's teammates couldn't have proven themselves to be faster than him. They were not faster, on that we agree but being faster is not really necessary in order to beat someone over a season. If you have better luck, reliability or are more consistent over a season, you can beat a quicker driver who has worse luck or consistency. That opportunity was denied them because they were not given equal status. As such, their lack of pace was compounded by consistently inferior strategy and compromised races. If Hamilton received the same treatment as Schuamcher throughout his career, he likely would have at least two more titles (2007 and 2016) and potentially more than that when you look at how McLaren tripped over themselves to give him and Button equal treatment while generally compromising both of them relative to the other teams.

I'd say that none of the Williams drivers were actual rivals to Michael. In fact, they seemed interchangeable. It was about Michael trying to beat a better car in those years. None of those drivers were top-tier. I already said that I appreciate the Hakkinen rivalry and my point about the last race was just for context. The whole idea that a driver's rivalries are important is based on the importance of how they perform in key moments and against top competition. That was my purpose in bringing that up but I agree that the last race thing is not really critical. I would point out that it becomes critical for Michael because of his track record of cheating in order to try to win in the last race.

And no, I'm not anti-Schumacher. I'm just not going to pretend that he didn't do the things he did.

This makes more sense. I'm not sure about Hamilton winning 2007 and 2016, but I'm not going to argue about it. 2007 was a very strange year on it's own accord. Kudos to Lewis for showing his teeth, but I personally am not sure if the rookie was the sure bet that year compared to the established WDC.

Inferior strategy yes, but reliability is a head scratcher for me. This was used again recently and I still wonder about it. How does a team know which piece of equipment is going to fail in one car compared to another? Reliability is a lottery (to a point I guess, I know that a driver may be gentler in his driving and not stress the car as much), you can't tell which part will have better reliability over another, so I can't really blame a driver if his team mate has worse luck with parts. It's not like they knew and allocated the crap part to one driver. Although thinking about it, I wouldn't completely dismiss it, we've seen worse things.

As for the Williams drivers, Hill and Schumacher have had a good few years of scraps, it's not only Schumacher trying to get them in the much inferior Ferrari. As far as rivalries go, since the one with Senna was ill fated, it was him and Hill and later on with Hakkinen that kept us interested in the 90's. I agree you that with the Williams's it was maybe interchangeable, but they had some bad blood with Hill, with the '94 and '95 having both drivers taking out each other.

Finally I'm not quite sure how the rivalries are important based on the performance in key moments. For example, Lauda missed many races in '76 and he dropped out of the final showdown race, yet it is one of the most intriguing rivalries as mentioned above. Senna won his 1990 in a fashion that set the example and the bar for Schumacher, yet you called their rivalry the greatest ever and Schumacher having a record of cheating in order to win the last race. So forgive me if I thought that you had a beef against Schumacher, because it very much came across like it.

To your first point, I'd have to point out that Hamilton had the measure of Alonso that year and things only closed up in the final two races as his season imploded. Either way, it's irrelevant. If either Hamilton or Alonso got the Schumacher treatment that year, they would have almost certainly beaten Kimi. They both finished just a point behind while fighting each other like crazy.

To your second point; what I mean by saying that reliability can help a lesser driver beat a better one should be self-explanatory. Think of Rosberg's title in 2016. Reliability made the difference there but if Nico did not have equal status to begin with, it wouldn't have mattered because he wouldn't have been close enough in the points to capitalize. Ferrari always used the second car to try to better ensure the win for the first car so Rubens was never going to be able to capitalize should he have superior luck.

Senna may have taken Prost out in 90' but that was AFTER Prost took him out the year before. There were also other factors there such as the whole dirty side of the grid for the polesitter and the other behind the scenes politics to factor in. Schumacher cheated in cold blood and completely unprovoked. You don't have to have a vendetta against him to point that out. If we're going to make those kinds of insinuations, I'd have to point out that you seem to jump at any opportunity to try to dull Hamilton's achievements...

First two points, lets agree.

As for Senna, you may as well have said that you are pulling my leg already. If we are going to equate a red mist moment to a premeditated act such as Suzuka '90, then I'm lost for words. Prost took a stand the year before after feeling a lot of bullying from Senna within the team. It was a statement. The whole dirty side of the grid was Senna tilting at windmills. The pole has always been on that side and because he fudged it there in '88 and '89 he decided that he wanted the pole side to switch. Just decided it himself. Incredible! When had ever a driver such power to literally change the procedures on race day? He then went to the stewards that had no authority over the matter. Then made a fuss about Balestre being pro-Prost being French and all, just to complete this joke when the FIA called him out and said no to his petition to change the pole side.

Finally, I'm trying to dull Hamilton's achievements? Really? Have you seen me in this whole debate using liegate, Mercedes secret tyre testing, etc.? No, it's rather you that brought up the negative stuff that a driver has done to belittle him. So take a good look in the mirror on that one please. Also take a look in my posts where I praise Hamilton, that would be a better starting point. Let's leave it here and not derail the official thread

The way you choose to characterize the events of 89' and 90' is quite humorous. If you'll recall, Prost wasn't actually successful at taking Senna out in 89' so the stewards finished the job with that DQ (now that was a stupid penalty - forget about Vettel in Canada). The issue with pole being on the dirty side of the grid was one that Senna raised during the driver's meeting prior to the actual qualifying session in 90'. He was actually told by the race director that the pole sitter would start on the clean side. So no, he didn't just decide himself to change the rules. I know it's very popular to characterize Senna as totally unreasonable and arrogant now that he's not here to defend himself but he wasn't a cartoon character. He was actually a normal person. He brought up a concern to the proper authorities, who then agreed with him and provided assurance that it would be addressed (which it wasn't). Of course someone like you sees is as making sense that the slower qualifier should start in the better position...

As for the Hamilton thing, you seem to have completely missed my point. You do generally try to pounce on any negative thread related to him but I don't actually think you have something against him. I was actually pointing out how it's silly for you to suggest that I have something against Michael simply because I brought up substantial issues with his competitive character. You can bring up the Mercedes tire test all you want but that was actually totally insignificant and pales in comparison to the countless miles Ferrari used to rack up with Bridgestone at their own private testing facility. You want to talk about lie-gate? That was about trying to get 3rd in a race instead of 4th and all reports are that it wasn't Hamilton's idea. Again; it pales in comparison to intentionally crashing into opponents to try to secure the WDC in the final race.

[F1 Racer]

Rosberg did better against Hamilton than Barrichello did against Schumacher but don't forget Barrichello was never actually allowed to compete against Schumacher on equal terms.

So I'm not sure it's really a fair comparison.

Ferrari still wanted Rubens to do as well as possible in any given weekend to maximise points earned to help with the close Constructors Championship battles of 2000 and 2003, (and also going into the early rounds of 2001, 2002 and 2004 they wouldn't have known these were easy battles). So Ferrari had no incentive to slow Rubens down in any way outside of late 2001/2002/2004 to help Michael wrap up the WDC quicker. If we look at the whole of 2000 and 2003, and the first third of 2001, 2002 and 2004, and indeed the whole of 2005, Ferrari were heavily incentivised to maximise Rubens' results during these large periods and he still couldn't hold a candle to Michael.

Had Rubens been super quick and troubled Michael more, then there would have been more occurrences of Austria 2001 and Austria 2002, and more of a case that Ferrari were trying to stop him winning, but the overwhelming majority of weekends Rubens couldn't qualify near Michael, nor could he spend the race glued to Michael's gearbox.

[mikeyg123]

Rosberg did better against Hamilton than Barrichello did against Schumacher but don't forget Barrichello was never actually allowed to compete against Schumacher on equal terms.

So I'm not sure it's really a fair comparison.

Ferrari still wanted Rubens to do as well as possible in any given weekend to maximise points earned to help with the close Constructors Championship battles of 2000 and 2003, (and also going into the early rounds of 2001, 2002 and 2004 they wouldn't have known these were easy battles). So Ferrari had no incentive to slow Rubens down in any way outside of late 2001/2002/2004 to help Michael wrap up the WDC quicker. If we look at the whole of 2000 and 2003, and the first third of 2001, 2002 and 2004, and indeed the whole of 2005, Ferrari were heavily incentivised to maximise Rubens' results during these large periods and he still couldn't hold a candle to Michael.

Had Rubens been super quick and troubled Michael more, then there would have been more occurrences of Austria 2001 and Austria 2002, and more of a case that Ferrari were trying to stop him winning, but the overwhelming majority of weekends Rubens couldn't qualify near Michael, nor could he spend the race glued to Michael's gearbox.

Schumacher had more advantages than that though. Always had the spare car set up for him, first call on basically everything, all the team attention etc. All that stuff makes a difference. I'm not arguing that Barrichello could've matched Schumacher but his position at Ferrari was a very different one to the equal status Rosberg enjoyed at Mercedes.

[Siao7]

A couple of things; first of all, I'm not suggesting that Michael's teammates couldn't have proven themselves to be faster than him. They were not faster, on that we agree but being faster is not really necessary in order to beat someone over a season. If you have better luck, reliability or are more consistent over a season, you can beat a quicker driver who has worse luck or consistency. That opportunity was denied them because they were not given equal status. As such, their lack of pace was compounded by consistently inferior strategy and compromised races. If Hamilton received the same treatment as Schuamcher throughout his career, he likely would have at least two more titles (2007 and 2016) and potentially more than that when you look at how McLaren tripped over themselves to give him and Button equal treatment while generally compromising both of them relative to the other teams.

I'd say that none of the Williams drivers were actual rivals to Michael. In fact, they seemed interchangeable. It was about Michael trying to beat a better car in those years. None of those drivers were top-tier. I already said that I appreciate the Hakkinen rivalry and my point about the last race was just for context. The whole idea that a driver's rivalries are important is based on the importance of how they perform in key moments and against top competition. That was my purpose in bringing that up but I agree that the last race thing is not really critical. I would point out that it becomes critical for Michael because of his track record of cheating in order to try to win in the last race.

And no, I'm not anti-Schumacher. I'm just not going to pretend that he didn't do the things he did.

This makes more sense. I'm not sure about Hamilton winning 2007 and 2016, but I'm not going to argue about it. 2007 was a very strange year on it's own accord. Kudos to Lewis for showing his teeth, but I personally am not sure if the rookie was the sure bet that year compared to the established WDC.

Inferior strategy yes, but reliability is a head scratcher for me. This was used again recently and I still wonder about it. How does a team know which piece of equipment is going to fail in one car compared to another? Reliability is a lottery (to a point I guess, I know that a driver may be gentler in his driving and not stress the car as much), you can't tell which part will have better reliability over another, so I can't really blame a driver if his team mate has worse luck with parts. It's not like they knew and allocated the crap part to one driver. Although thinking about it, I wouldn't completely dismiss it, we've seen worse things.

As for the Williams drivers, Hill and Schumacher have had a good few years of scraps, it's not only Schumacher trying to get them in the much inferior Ferrari. As far as rivalries go, since the one with Senna was ill fated, it was him and Hill and later on with Hakkinen that kept us interested in the 90's. I agree you that with the Williams's it was maybe interchangeable, but they had some bad blood with Hill, with the '94 and '95 having both drivers taking out each other.

Finally I'm not quite sure how the rivalries are important based on the performance in key moments. For example, Lauda missed many races in '76 and he dropped out of the final showdown race, yet it is one of the most intriguing rivalries as mentioned above. Senna won his 1990 in a fashion that set the example and the bar for Schumacher, yet you called their rivalry the greatest ever and Schumacher having a record of cheating in order to win the last race. So forgive me if I thought that you had a beef against Schumacher, because it very much came across like it.

To your first point, I'd have to point out that Hamilton had the measure of Alonso that year and things only closed up in the final two races as his season imploded. Either way, it's irrelevant. If either Hamilton or Alonso got the Schumacher treatment that year, they would have almost certainly beaten Kimi. They both finished just a point behind while fighting each other like crazy.

To your second point; what I mean by saying that reliability can help a lesser driver beat a better one should be self-explanatory. Think of Rosberg's title in 2016. Reliability made the difference there but if Nico did not have equal status to begin with, it wouldn't have mattered because he wouldn't have been close enough in the points to capitalize. Ferrari always used the second car to try to better ensure the win for the first car so Rubens was never going to be able to capitalize should he have superior luck.

Senna may have taken Prost out in 90' but that was AFTER Prost took him out the year before. There were also other factors there such as the whole dirty side of the grid for the polesitter and the other behind the scenes politics to factor in. Schumacher cheated in cold blood and completely unprovoked. You don't have to have a vendetta against him to point that out. If we're going to make those kinds of insinuations, I'd have to point out that you seem to jump at any opportunity to try to dull Hamilton's achievements...

First two points, lets agree.

As for Senna, you may as well have said that you are pulling my leg already. If we are going to equate a red mist moment to a premeditated act such as Suzuka '90, then I'm lost for words. Prost took a stand the year before after feeling a lot of bullying from Senna within the team. It was a statement. The whole dirty side of the grid was Senna tilting at windmills. The pole has always been on that side and because he fudged it there in '88 and '89 he decided that he wanted the pole side to switch. Just decided it himself. Incredible! When had ever a driver such power to literally change the procedures on race day? He then went to the stewards that had no authority over the matter. Then made a fuss about Balestre being pro-Prost being French and all, just to complete this joke when the FIA called him out and said no to his petition to change the pole side.

Finally, I'm trying to dull Hamilton's achievements? Really? Have you seen me in this whole debate using liegate, Mercedes secret tyre testing, etc.? No, it's rather you that brought up the negative stuff that a driver has done to belittle him. So take a good look in the mirror on that one please. Also take a look in my posts where I praise Hamilton, that would be a better starting point. Let's leave it here and not derail the official thread

The way you choose to characterize the events of 89' and 90' is quite humorous. If you'll recall, Prost wasn't actually successful at taking Senna out in 89' so the stewards finished the job with that DQ (now that was a stupid penalty - forget about Vettel in Canada). The issue with pole being on the dirty side of the grid was one that Senna raised during the driver's meeting prior to the actual qualifying session in 90'. He was actually told by the race director that the pole sitter would start on the clean side. So no, he didn't just decide himself to change the rules. I know it's very popular to characterize Senna as totally unreasonable and arrogant now that he's not here to defend himself but he wasn't a cartoon character. He was actually a normal person. He brought up a concern to the proper authorities, who then agreed with him and provided assurance that it would be addressed (which it wasn't). Of course someone like you sees is as making sense that the slower qualifier should start in the better position...

As for the Hamilton thing, you seem to have completely missed my point. You do generally try to pounce on any negative thread related to him but I don't actually think you have something against him. I was actually pointing out how it's silly for you to suggest that I have something against Michael simply because I brought up substantial issues with his competitive character. You can bring up the Mercedes tire test all you want but that was actually totally insignificant and pales in comparison to the countless miles Ferrari used to rack up with Bridgestone at their own private testing facility. You want to talk about lie-gate? That was about trying to get 3rd in a race instead of 4th and all reports are that it wasn't Hamilton's idea. Again; it pales in comparison to intentionally crashing into opponents to try to secure the WDC in the final race.

You see, if you'd stop childish comments like "someone like you", solely intended to provoke, your posts would be that much better. So try and get off your high horse before you touch your keyboard please. Be less Eury if you want.

Now Senna's penalty. You missed the point; I replied to you raising Prost taking him out. The penalty was idiotic, I am fully with you on that. The issue with the pole is that Senna was happy with every start the F1 circus had in Suzuka before. After he messed it twice before he wanted it changed because "the pole should not be on the dirty side". And since you are going to a tangent from the main point I made in my first post, no I did not say that Senna was a cartoon character, merely that his premeditated actions set the bar that era (lest you forget how did Schumacher get the idea for slowing down at Rascasse, you can see what Senna did to Alboreto in the 80's). The whole point is that a premeditated act like that (including Prost's chop the year before) didn't stop you calling it as the greatest rivalry ever, while the red mist that Schumacher got made you just call him a cheater. Do you see where I was going? Fairly simple.

You whole Hamilton point was indeed missed, as you didn't really make it. Was I supposed to get the bit in bold above from "you seem to jump at any opportunity to try to dull Hamilton's achievements"??? If I did miss it then apologies, it wasn't intentional as it wasn't clear what you meant.

The tyre test that you mention is... cute. Back then it was free for all to have any testing facility for unlimited mileage as they pleased. MSC didn't have a unique privilege as such. On the contrary, if you are saying that having the privilege to gain knowledge of the single new tyre compound ahead of a season with locked rules is insignificant, then go ahead.

[Siao7]

Rosberg did better against Hamilton than Barrichello did against Schumacher but don't forget Barrichello was never actually allowed to compete against Schumacher on equal terms.

So I'm not sure it's really a fair comparison.

Ferrari still wanted Rubens to do as well as possible in any given weekend to maximise points earned to help with the close Constructors Championship battles of 2000 and 2003, (and also going into the early rounds of 2001, 2002 and 2004 they wouldn't have known these were easy battles). So Ferrari had no incentive to slow Rubens down in any way outside of late 2001/2002/2004 to help Michael wrap up the WDC quicker. If we look at the whole of 2000 and 2003, and the first third of 2001, 2002 and 2004, and indeed the whole of 2005, Ferrari were heavily incentivised to maximise Rubens' results during these large periods and he still couldn't hold a candle to Michael.

Had Rubens been super quick and troubled Michael more, then there would have been more occurrences of Austria 2001 and Austria 2002, and more of a case that Ferrari were trying to stop him winning, but the overwhelming majority of weekends Rubens couldn't qualify near Michael, nor could he spend the race glued to Michael's gearbox.

Schumacher had more advantages than that though. Always had the spare car set up for him, first call on basically everything, all the team attention etc. All that stuff makes a difference. I'm not arguing that Barrichello could've matched Schumacher but his position at Ferrari was a very different one to the equal status Rosberg enjoyed at Mercedes.

How many times did Schumacher actually use the T-car? How many did Rubens want to use it and couldn't? It didn't really make a difference in the grand scheme of things. What's more value probably is that article that compared their styles in depth with telemetry and showed how much better job MSC was doing compared to Rubens. Rubens was never on par, but it wasn't because of the equipment.

Rosberg indeed had a happier time at Mercedes, let's not forget that they swapped their mechanics after the 2015 title to give Rosberg the same chance to win and not to have fractions within the team (something that annoyed Hamilton actually). I can't see that happening with Ferrari

[shoot999]

Alonso, spygate, you don't think that it would make a good movie?

Even as a Hamilton fan I don't think a movie would be that exciting to anyone but F1 fans and even then, it would be debatable.

Though I guess people may have said that about Rush. I thoroughly enjoyed it but that's because I wasn't even a glint in anyones eye at that point.

I agree, Rush was also the story of a personal triumph for the man who came back from the dead and he won the respect of his main rival despite being called names on the paddock etc.

Spygate would be the story of the world's crappiest photocopy store selection...

I'm not so sure. Yes Lauda come back from the dead; but I think you are forgetting Hamilton had a bump on the elbow during a fashion shoot.

And whilst Hunt took a journalists wife round the back of the garages, and thumped another one. Hamilton was castigated for using an app on his phone during the drivers press conference.

Although there has been talk of a movie, I think mainly covering his early years; racism and bullying and the poor boy taking on the rich kids sort of thing.

You wouldn't be a fan then?

The racism angle though has legs in respect to him being the only driver from that background that made it into F1, but not only that is set to become the second most successful driver in F1, they wouldn't make a film about that?

Imagine if a woman ever became a F1 WDC, I'm sure a film would get made about that?

Iv'e been a fan since Rye House and Buckmore Park (I lived opposite). But no one can 'top' Lauda's remarkable come back, and no present day misogynist would be portrayed as a hero.
The 'hook' as far as the racism angle is concerned with regard to Hamilton would be who within motor racing was one of the main offenders. And so far; apart from a few clues, nobody's saying, 'a well-respected figure in the higher echelons of bike and car racing' Mat Oxley. Motorsportmagazine 2015.

[FormulaFun]

Schumacher is one of the sports biggest cheats and got dumpstered by competition multiple times. Hamilton destroyed Vettel a four time WDC in inferior/equal machinery, and bested all team mates he's come up against including 2 WDCs and a 2xWDC and this some how takes away from his legacy?

LOL

[sandman1347]

This makes more sense. I'm not sure about Hamilton winning 2007 and 2016, but I'm not going to argue about it. 2007 was a very strange year on it's own accord. Kudos to Lewis for showing his teeth, but I personally am not sure if the rookie was the sure bet that year compared to the established WDC.

Inferior strategy yes, but reliability is a head scratcher for me. This was used again recently and I still wonder about it. How does a team know which piece of equipment is going to fail in one car compared to another? Reliability is a lottery (to a point I guess, I know that a driver may be gentler in his driving and not stress the car as much), you can't tell which part will have better reliability over another, so I can't really blame a driver if his team mate has worse luck with parts. It's not like they knew and allocated the crap part to one driver. Although thinking about it, I wouldn't completely dismiss it, we've seen worse things.

As for the Williams drivers, Hill and Schumacher have had a good few years of scraps, it's not only Schumacher trying to get them in the much inferior Ferrari. As far as rivalries go, since the one with Senna was ill fated, it was him and Hill and later on with Hakkinen that kept us interested in the 90's. I agree you that with the Williams's it was maybe interchangeable, but they had some bad blood with Hill, with the '94 and '95 having both drivers taking out each other.

Finally I'm not quite sure how the rivalries are important based on the performance in key moments. For example, Lauda missed many races in '76 and he dropped out of the final showdown race, yet it is one of the most intriguing rivalries as mentioned above. Senna won his 1990 in a fashion that set the example and the bar for Schumacher, yet you called their rivalry the greatest ever and Schumacher having a record of cheating in order to win the last race. So forgive me if I thought that you had a beef against Schumacher, because it very much came across like it.

To your first point, I'd have to point out that Hamilton had the measure of Alonso that year and things only closed up in the final two races as his season imploded. Either way, it's irrelevant. If either Hamilton or Alonso got the Schumacher treatment that year, they would have almost certainly beaten Kimi. They both finished just a point behind while fighting each other like crazy.

To your second point; what I mean by saying that reliability can help a lesser driver beat a better one should be self-explanatory. Think of Rosberg's title in 2016. Reliability made the difference there but if Nico did not have equal status to begin with, it wouldn't have mattered because he wouldn't have been close enough in the points to capitalize. Ferrari always used the second car to try to better ensure the win for the first car so Rubens was never going to be able to capitalize should he have superior luck.

Senna may have taken Prost out in 90' but that was AFTER Prost took him out the year before. There were also other factors there such as the whole dirty side of the grid for the polesitter and the other behind the scenes politics to factor in. Schumacher cheated in cold blood and completely unprovoked. You don't have to have a vendetta against him to point that out. If we're going to make those kinds of insinuations, I'd have to point out that you seem to jump at any opportunity to try to dull Hamilton's achievements...

First two points, lets agree.

As for Senna, you may as well have said that you are pulling my leg already. If we are going to equate a red mist moment to a premeditated act such as Suzuka '90, then I'm lost for words. Prost took a stand the year before after feeling a lot of bullying from Senna within the team. It was a statement. The whole dirty side of the grid was Senna tilting at windmills. The pole has always been on that side and because he fudged it there in '88 and '89 he decided that he wanted the pole side to switch. Just decided it himself. Incredible! When had ever a driver such power to literally change the procedures on race day? He then went to the stewards that had no authority over the matter. Then made a fuss about Balestre being pro-Prost being French and all, just to complete this joke when the FIA called him out and said no to his petition to change the pole side.

Finally, I'm trying to dull Hamilton's achievements? Really? Have you seen me in this whole debate using liegate, Mercedes secret tyre testing, etc.? No, it's rather you that brought up the negative stuff that a driver has done to belittle him. So take a good look in the mirror on that one please. Also take a look in my posts where I praise Hamilton, that would be a better starting point. Let's leave it here and not derail the official thread

The way you choose to characterize the events of 89' and 90' is quite humorous. If you'll recall, Prost wasn't actually successful at taking Senna out in 89' so the stewards finished the job with that DQ (now that was a stupid penalty - forget about Vettel in Canada). The issue with pole being on the dirty side of the grid was one that Senna raised during the driver's meeting prior to the actual qualifying session in 90'. He was actually told by the race director that the pole sitter would start on the clean side. So no, he didn't just decide himself to change the rules. I know it's very popular to characterize Senna as totally unreasonable and arrogant now that he's not here to defend himself but he wasn't a cartoon character. He was actually a normal person. He brought up a concern to the proper authorities, who then agreed with him and provided assurance that it would be addressed (which it wasn't). Of course someone like you sees is as making sense that the slower qualifier should start in the better position...

As for the Hamilton thing, you seem to have completely missed my point. You do generally try to pounce on any negative thread related to him but I don't actually think you have something against him. I was actually pointing out how it's silly for you to suggest that I have something against Michael simply because I brought up substantial issues with his competitive character. You can bring up the Mercedes tire test all you want but that was actually totally insignificant and pales in comparison to the countless miles Ferrari used to rack up with Bridgestone at their own private testing facility. You want to talk about lie-gate? That was about trying to get 3rd in a race instead of 4th and all reports are that it wasn't Hamilton's idea. Again; it pales in comparison to intentionally crashing into opponents to try to secure the WDC in the final race.

You see, if you'd stop childish comments like "someone like you", solely intended to provoke, your posts would be that much better. So try and get off your high horse before you touch your keyboard please. Be less Eury if you want.

Now Senna's penalty. You missed the point; I replied to you raising Prost taking him out. The penalty was idiotic, I am fully with you on that. The issue with the pole is that Senna was happy with every start the F1 circus had in Suzuka before. After he messed it twice before he wanted it changed because "the pole should not be on the dirty side". And since you are going to a tangent from the main point I made in my first post, no I did not say that Senna was a cartoon character, merely that his premeditated actions set the bar that era (lest you forget how did Schumacher get the idea for slowing down at Rascasse, you can see what Senna did to Alboreto in the 80's). The whole point is that a premeditated act like that (including Prost's chop the year before) didn't stop you calling it as the greatest rivalry ever, while the red mist that Schumacher got made you just call him a cheater. Do you see where I was going? Fairly simple.

You whole Hamilton point was indeed missed, as you didn't really make it. Was I supposed to get the bit in bold above from "you seem to jump at any opportunity to try to dull Hamilton's achievements"??? If I did miss it then apologies, it wasn't intentional as it wasn't clear what you meant.

The tyre test that you mention is... cute. Back then it was free for all to have any testing facility for unlimited mileage as they pleased. MSC didn't have a unique privilege as such. On the contrary, if you are saying that having the privilege to gain knowledge of the single new tyre compound ahead of a season with locked rules is insignificant, then go ahead.

Oh my, you seem to be a little angry here so I'll avoid arguing further. There are two things I just have to mention and they have been bolded above.

Your point about Michael seeing "red mist" is preposterous. Those acts were entirely premeditated too. Those acts involved knowing the points situation as well as the race situation and attempting to cheat his way to victory. You can sugarcoat it all you want but I won't. If you dislike Senna or just objectively feel that he was a dirty driver, that's your opinion and you're welcome to it. Are you trying to claim that Senna vs. Prost wasn't a great rivalry? Because if so, we will have to agree to disagree. It is the single most storied rivalry in F1 history.

For your second point; I most certainly did make that point. What I said before the passage you quoted was that "if we're going to make those kinds of insinuations" (referring to the way you suggested I was "anti-Schumcher" simply because I pointed out some very meaningful examples of his conduct) then I will make the same kinds of insinuations about your comments. You seem to have completely missed what I was saying there and now you seem angry about it to boot.

[Option or Prime]

The point was made over the weekend in a comparison with Vettel that Hamilton has been so successful in recent times because of his ability to put in fast laps in qualification just when needed but also simply because he hardly makes any mistakes.

That is evident in comparing his recent form against Vettel. Not only that, when compared to Schumacher he not only hasn't forced drivers off the track but he is not a wrecker of machinery in the same way as MS was. David Coulthard, who raced with MS, pointed out that what made MS special was his ability to turn out identically fast laps time after time not necessarily that he was the fastest.

I like this argument as it does away with the one driver was/is faster than another by indirect comparison of who beat who and when and in what car. This in my view is a very subjective argument.

Its very hard to say say Hamilton is faster full stop, he has been beaten on occasion by Rosberg and Button in the same car, what cannot be disputed though is that over the last 10 years Hamilton, has mixed speed, consistency, temperament, judgement and team work to repeatedly accrue more points than his rivals. Add to that his ability to handle pressure its not really surprising that he threatens the all time records.

[Siao7]

To your first point, I'd have to point out that Hamilton had the measure of Alonso that year and things only closed up in the final two races as his season imploded. Either way, it's irrelevant. If either Hamilton or Alonso got the Schumacher treatment that year, they would have almost certainly beaten Kimi. They both finished just a point behind while fighting each other like crazy.

To your second point; what I mean by saying that reliability can help a lesser driver beat a better one should be self-explanatory. Think of Rosberg's title in 2016. Reliability made the difference there but if Nico did not have equal status to begin with, it wouldn't have mattered because he wouldn't have been close enough in the points to capitalize. Ferrari always used the second car to try to better ensure the win for the first car so Rubens was never going to be able to capitalize should he have superior luck.

Senna may have taken Prost out in 90' but that was AFTER Prost took him out the year before. There were also other factors there such as the whole dirty side of the grid for the polesitter and the other behind the scenes politics to factor in. Schumacher cheated in cold blood and completely unprovoked. You don't have to have a vendetta against him to point that out. If we're going to make those kinds of insinuations, I'd have to point out that you seem to jump at any opportunity to try to dull Hamilton's achievements...

First two points, lets agree.

As for Senna, you may as well have said that you are pulling my leg already. If we are going to equate a red mist moment to a premeditated act such as Suzuka '90, then I'm lost for words. Prost took a stand the year before after feeling a lot of bullying from Senna within the team. It was a statement. The whole dirty side of the grid was Senna tilting at windmills. The pole has always been on that side and because he fudged it there in '88 and '89 he decided that he wanted the pole side to switch. Just decided it himself. Incredible! When had ever a driver such power to literally change the procedures on race day? He then went to the stewards that had no authority over the matter. Then made a fuss about Balestre being pro-Prost being French and all, just to complete this joke when the FIA called him out and said no to his petition to change the pole side.

Finally, I'm trying to dull Hamilton's achievements? Really? Have you seen me in this whole debate using liegate, Mercedes secret tyre testing, etc.? No, it's rather you that brought up the negative stuff that a driver has done to belittle him. So take a good look in the mirror on that one please. Also take a look in my posts where I praise Hamilton, that would be a better starting point. Let's leave it here and not derail the official thread

The way you choose to characterize the events of 89' and 90' is quite humorous. If you'll recall, Prost wasn't actually successful at taking Senna out in 89' so the stewards finished the job with that DQ (now that was a stupid penalty - forget about Vettel in Canada). The issue with pole being on the dirty side of the grid was one that Senna raised during the driver's meeting prior to the actual qualifying session in 90'. He was actually told by the race director that the pole sitter would start on the clean side. So no, he didn't just decide himself to change the rules. I know it's very popular to characterize Senna as totally unreasonable and arrogant now that he's not here to defend himself but he wasn't a cartoon character. He was actually a normal person. He brought up a concern to the proper authorities, who then agreed with him and provided assurance that it would be addressed (which it wasn't). Of course someone like you sees is as making sense that the slower qualifier should start in the better position...

As for the Hamilton thing, you seem to have completely missed my point. You do generally try to pounce on any negative thread related to him but I don't actually think you have something against him. I was actually pointing out how it's silly for you to suggest that I have something against Michael simply because I brought up substantial issues with his competitive character. You can bring up the Mercedes tire test all you want but that was actually totally insignificant and pales in comparison to the countless miles Ferrari used to rack up with Bridgestone at their own private testing facility. You want to talk about lie-gate? That was about trying to get 3rd in a race instead of 4th and all reports are that it wasn't Hamilton's idea. Again; it pales in comparison to intentionally crashing into opponents to try to secure the WDC in the final race.

You see, if you'd stop childish comments like "someone like you", solely intended to provoke, your posts would be that much better. So try and get off your high horse before you touch your keyboard please. Be less Eury if you want.

Now Senna's penalty. You missed the point; I replied to you raising Prost taking him out. The penalty was idiotic, I am fully with you on that. The issue with the pole is that Senna was happy with every start the F1 circus had in Suzuka before. After he messed it twice before he wanted it changed because "the pole should not be on the dirty side". And since you are going to a tangent from the main point I made in my first post, no I did not say that Senna was a cartoon character, merely that his premeditated actions set the bar that era (lest you forget how did Schumacher get the idea for slowing down at Rascasse, you can see what Senna did to Alboreto in the 80's). The whole point is that a premeditated act like that (including Prost's chop the year before) didn't stop you calling it as the greatest rivalry ever, while the red mist that Schumacher got made you just call him a cheater. Do you see where I was going? Fairly simple.

You whole Hamilton point was indeed missed, as you didn't really make it. Was I supposed to get the bit in bold above from "you seem to jump at any opportunity to try to dull Hamilton's achievements"??? If I did miss it then apologies, it wasn't intentional as it wasn't clear what you meant.

The tyre test that you mention is... cute. Back then it was free for all to have any testing facility for unlimited mileage as they pleased. MSC didn't have a unique privilege as such. On the contrary, if you are saying that having the privilege to gain knowledge of the single new tyre compound ahead of a season with locked rules is insignificant, then go ahead.

Oh my, you seem to be a little angry here so I'll avoid arguing further. There are two things I just have to mention and they have been bolded above.

Your point about Michael seeing "red mist" is preposterous. Those acts were entirely premeditated too. Those acts involved knowing the points situation as well as the race situation and attempting to cheat his way to victory. You can sugarcoat it all you want but I won't. If you dislike Senna or just objectively feel that he was a dirty driver, that's your opinion and you're welcome to it. Are you trying to claim that Senna vs. Prost wasn't a great rivalry? Because if so, we will have to agree to disagree. It is the single most storied rivalry in F1 history.

For your second point; I most certainly did make that point. What I said before the passage you quoted was that "if we're going to make those kinds of insinuations" (referring to the way you suggested I was "anti-Schumcher" simply because I pointed out some very meaningful examples of his conduct) then I will make the same kinds of insinuations about your comments. You seem to have completely missed what I was saying there and now you seem angry about it to boot.

Oh my, you seem to got over posting without insults. For someone like you this is a first step, nice.

Yet again you missed the point. I did not say that Senna Prost wasn't a great rivalry, it is THE story of the century. My point is really clear and it is about your preference to call one rivalry great and another one not because it had cheating involved. Completely missing that the great rivalry you described had cheating written all over it. When you somehow digest this you can reply. Although you seem to be avoiding it and that tells a lot. It also seems that you've made up your mind also about the Schumacher incidents, which is your opinion and one that we certainly do not share.

Your last point is again baffling. Just re-read the whole thing and maybe you'll get it, as you are missing the forest here again. It is related to the Prost/Senna rivalry again and how you seem to be ok with the cheating there but not ok with Schumacher's. Just baffling. You can see of course how this can make one wonder if you just do not like Schumacher when demonstrating such double standards. Right?

I don't want to derail this further, so you can pm me if you want to continue. I won't be upset, I promise

[Invade]

Lewis Hamilton & Valtteri Bottas review 10 Mercedes F1 cars!


Was hoping for a longer feature but it's still quite interesting.

[Black_Flag_11]

Seems the animosity between Hamilton and Rosberg is still alive and well.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/hami ... e/4510148/

Responding to the claims that Verstappen is now the fastest driver, overtaking Hamilton:

"I've never seen the blog, I don't know who follows it, but it has no bearing on anything that I do," he said after his Hungarian GP win. "I don't care, everyone has their own opinion.

"Whether he's right or wrong, I don't really care. All you have to do is look at my tally of results over the years, and they kind of speak for themselves.

"So naturally there will be people that have not had the success that I've had, and might want to talk it down, but that's OK."

Can't wait for all the post retirement tell all books from Lewis, Nico and Toto

[Black_Flag_11]

Lewis Hamilton & Valtteri Bottas review 10 Mercedes F1 cars!


Was hoping for a longer feature but it's still quite interesting.

I really like the concept but like you say I was hoping for more. The little detail of the steering wheel being moved was the most interesting part, I was hoping for more of that.

I like the idea of getting a driver who's had a long career and going through all their cars in age order, getting all those little details.

[Covalent]

Seems the animosity between Hamilton and Rosberg is still alive and well.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/hami ... e/4510148/

Responding to the claims that Verstappen is now the fastest driver, overtaking Hamilton:

"I've never seen the blog, I don't know who follows it, but it has no bearing on anything that I do," he said after his Hungarian GP win. "I don't care, everyone has their own opinion.

"Whether he's right or wrong, I don't really care. All you have to do is look at my tally of results over the years, and they kind of speak for themselves.

"So naturally there will be people that have not had the success that I've had, and might want to talk it down, but that's OK."

Can't wait for all the post retirement tell all books from Lewis, Nico and Toto

Well he seems to be suffering from some symptoms that are all too well known also around this forum, ie. if someone says something that isn't outright praising, then it should be taken unfair treatment and critique of the worst kind and be put down to bitterness etc.

[shoot999]

Lewis Hamilton & Valtteri Bottas review 10 Mercedes F1 cars!


Was hoping for a longer feature but it's still quite interesting.

I really like the concept but like you say I was hoping for more. The little detail of the steering wheel being moved was the most interesting part, I was hoping for more of that.

I like the idea of getting a driver who's had a long career and going through all their cars in age order, getting all those little details.

If you look online for vids around the time Ham first went to Mercedes Brawn and others talk about the seat change; how it altered the centre of gravity and allowed them to play around with the balance a lot more . And there was a further vid, I think for the seat fitting. At that time Hamilton always did the final 'shave' of the seat himself. (No idea if he still does that?)

[pokerman]

Seems the animosity between Hamilton and Rosberg is still alive and well.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/hami ... e/4510148/

Responding to the claims that Verstappen is now the fastest driver, overtaking Hamilton:

"I've never seen the blog, I don't know who follows it, but it has no bearing on anything that I do," he said after his Hungarian GP win. "I don't care, everyone has their own opinion.

"Whether he's right or wrong, I don't really care. All you have to do is look at my tally of results over the years, and they kind of speak for themselves.

"So naturally there will be people that have not had the success that I've had, and might want to talk it down, but that's OK."

Can't wait for all the post retirement tell all books from Lewis, Nico and Toto

Well he seems to be suffering from some symptoms that are all too well known also around this forum, ie. if someone says something that isn't outright praising, then it should be taken unfair treatment and critique of the worst kind and be put down to bitterness etc.

I think it's how it gets relayed to Hamilton, they tell him negative things that Rosberg might say but never any positive things, they are looking for clickbait responses with Hamilton always being fed the negative.

However Rosberg generally speaking is very supportive of Hamilton and I would be guessing that Hamilton doesn't know that?

[babararacucudada]

Seems the animosity between Hamilton and Rosberg is still alive and well.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/hami ... e/4510148/

Responding to the claims that Verstappen is now the fastest driver, overtaking Hamilton:

"I've never seen the blog, I don't know who follows it, but it has no bearing on anything that I do," he said after his Hungarian GP win. "I don't care, everyone has their own opinion.

"Whether he's right or wrong, I don't really care. All you have to do is look at my tally of results over the years, and they kind of speak for themselves.

"So naturally there will be people that have not had the success that I've had, and might want to talk it down, but that's OK."

Can't wait for all the post retirement tell all books from Lewis, Nico and Toto

Well he seems to be suffering from some symptoms that are all too well known also around this forum, ie. if someone says something that isn't outright praising, then it should be taken unfair treatment and critique of the worst kind and be put down to bitterness etc.

I think it's how it gets relayed to Hamilton, they tell him negative things that Rosberg might say but never any positive things, they are looking for clickbait responses with Hamilton always being fed the negative.

However Rosberg generally speaking is very supportive of Hamilton and I would be guessing that Hamilton doesn't know that?

Rosberg seems generally be doing a good job as an F1 pundit - he does have a lot more insight than most.

The 'man flu' comment was a negative, but Rosberg does also (as you say), say a lot of positive things about Hamilton's driving.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3at9ZOLg_s

His interviews with Toto and Ricciardo were good watches. I can't see there being an interview with Lewis though.

[pokerman]

Seems the animosity between Hamilton and Rosberg is still alive and well.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/hami ... e/4510148/

Responding to the claims that Verstappen is now the fastest driver, overtaking Hamilton:

"I've never seen the blog, I don't know who follows it, but it has no bearing on anything that I do," he said after his Hungarian GP win. "I don't care, everyone has their own opinion.

"Whether he's right or wrong, I don't really care. All you have to do is look at my tally of results over the years, and they kind of speak for themselves.

"So naturally there will be people that have not had the success that I've had, and might want to talk it down, but that's OK."

Can't wait for all the post retirement tell all books from Lewis, Nico and Toto

Well he seems to be suffering from some symptoms that are all too well known also around this forum, ie. if someone says something that isn't outright praising, then it should be taken unfair treatment and critique of the worst kind and be put down to bitterness etc.

I think it's how it gets relayed to Hamilton, they tell him negative things that Rosberg might say but never any positive things, they are looking for clickbait responses with Hamilton always being fed the negative.

However Rosberg generally speaking is very supportive of Hamilton and I would be guessing that Hamilton doesn't know that?

Rosberg seems generally be doing a good job as an F1 pundit - he does have a lot more insight than most.

The 'man flu' comment was a negative, but Rosberg does also (as you say), say a lot of positive things about Hamilton's driving.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3at9ZOLg_s

His interviews with Toto and Ricciardo were good watches. I can't see there being an interview with Lewis though.

No, Rosberg did some things that I think that Hamilton is never going to forgive.