planetf1.com

It is currently Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:42 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 3:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 3:41 pm
Posts: 170
Here is a list of the drivers having won at least 10 percent of their races. I have disregarded drivers having participated in less than 10 races:

Percentage of Wins
Name – Percentage – Races


Alberto Ascari - 46.4% - 28
Juan-Manuel Fangio - 45.1% - 51
Jim Clark - 34.7% - 72
Michael Schumacher - 29.5% - 308
Lewis Hamilton - 28.4% - 190
Jackie Stewart - 27.0% - 100
Ayrton Senna - 25.3% - 162
Alain Prost - 25.2% - 202
Stirling Moss - 23.9% - 67
Sebastian Vettel - 23.8% - 181

Damon Hill - 18.0% - 122
Nigel Mansell - 16.2% - 191
Nino Farina - 14.7% - 34
Niki Lauda - 14.5% - 173
Tony Brooks - 13.2% - 38
Mika Hakkinen - 12.0% - 166
Fernando Alonso - 11.6% - 276
Nico Rosberg - 11.2% - 206
Nelson Piquet - 11.1% - 207
Jack Brabham - 11.1% - 126

James Hunt - 10.9% - 92
Alan Jones - 10.3% - 116


Personally I find Michael Schumachers winrate the most impressive of all. Winning almost 30 percent of more than 300 races is exceptional.

The eternal Prost-Senna discussion turns out to be a draw if we look at the drivers winrate. But that changes a bit if we look at the percentage of Podium-finishes. The list includes drivers having participated in more than 10 races, and having finished at least 1 of 4 races on the podium.


Percentage of Podium finishes
Name – Percentage – Races


Juan-Manuel Fangio - 62.7% - 51
Lewis Hamilton - 55.8% - 190
Alain Prost - 52.5% - 202
Michael Schumacher - 50.3% - 308
Alberto Ascari - 50.0% - 28
Nino Farina - 50.0% - 34
Ayrton Senna - 49.4% - 162
Sebastian Vettel - 48.6% - 181
Jim Clark - 44.4% - 72
Jose Froilan Gonzalez - 44.4% - 27

Jackie Stewart - 43.0% - 100
Mike Hawthorn - 37.8% - 45
Fernando Alonso - 35.1% - 276
Damon Hill - 34.4% - 122
Stirling Moss - 32.8% - 67
Kimi Räikkönen - 32.7% - 257
Phil Hill - 32.7% - 49
Juan Pablo Montoya - 31.6% - 95
Niki Lauda - 31.2% - 173
Carlos Reutemann - 31.0% - 145

Nigel Mansell - 30.9% - 191
Mika Hakkinen - 30.7% - 166
Denny Hulme - 29.5% - 112
Jody Scheckter - 29.2% - 113
Nelson Piquet - 29.0% - 207
Piero Taruffi - 27.8% - 18
Nico Rosberg - 27.7% - 206
Francois Cevert - 27.7% - 47
Bruce McLaren - 26.5% - 102
Richie Ginther - 25.9% - 54

Peter Revson - 25.8% - 31
James Hunt - 25.0% - 92
Luigi Musso - 25.0% - 24
Luigi Villoresi - 25.0% - 32



This time Juan-Manuel Fangio goes top, followed by Lewis Hamilton. Hamilton is one of only four drivers having finished more than half of their races on the podium. Extremely impressive.

While Prost-Senna was a draw regarding win-percentage, Prost comes out the winner, if we look at podiums. Apparently the two drivers were equally good at winning, but it seems Prost was better at bringing a non-winning car home to a podium finish.


Last edited by Beleriand_K on Wed Apr 12, 2017 3:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 3:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4109
To me, the Senna/Prost debate is settled by how they measured up when in identical machinery (don't want to go too far so I'll leave it there). Also please replace the commas with decimal points.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 3:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:06 pm
Posts: 2110
Location: England
Lies, damn lies, and statistics :)

That Hamilton stat can forever be argues with the fact that he has pretty much always (with the exception of maybe a season's worth of races) in a car that can win, compared to some of the fairy cakes heaps that the others (Alonso if we are looking at this day and age) have been handed.

_________________
http://tsatr.mooo.com
The Sun and The Rain - The reluctant runner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 3:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2215
Flash2k11 wrote:
Lies, damn lies, and statistics :)

That Hamilton stat can forever be argues with the fact that he has pretty much always (with the exception of maybe a season's worth of races) in a car that can win, compared to some of the fairy cakes heaps that the others (Alonso if we are looking at this day and age) have been handed.


Not to mention a car which finishes pretty much every race. 1980s racers had a much higher rate of attrition to contend with (see Jean Alesi for one such example!)

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 3:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 3:41 pm
Posts: 170
sandman1347 wrote:
Also please replace the commas with decimal points.


Thank you. I forgot that's the right way to do it in an english speaking community. :-) . It has now been corrected.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 3:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 5:35 pm
Posts: 252
Location: Toronto, Canada
Flash2k11 wrote:
Lies, damn lies, and statistics :)

That Hamilton stat can forever be argues with the fact that he has pretty much always (with the exception of maybe a season's worth of races) in a car that can win, compared to some of the fairy cakes heaps that the others (Alonso if we are looking at this day and age) have been handed.


Considering we can basically universally agree that you can only win in very competitive machinery isn't that a statement as to the skill Hamilton has both on the track and off? Considering it was 100% his choice to move from a competitive team at the time in McLaren to an unproven team in Mercedes. IIRC he was without a manager at the time as well. Basically the whole F1 world thought he was nuts.

I agree about the reliability being a factor that helps. The flip of that being Hamilton has not enjoyed driving for teams where he was so much an obvious #1 driver that the conspiracy theories say he had illegal aspects to his car his team mates didn't (eg. Rubens' statement). Or having his team mates ordered to always give up the places to him.

Being in competitive machinery shouldn't take anything away from his accomplishments. He has had top shelf level team mates for most of his career and has beaten most of them every year. I don't see anything to argue in his stats. The argument should be made on how Alonso has cost himself a chance at the history books with his very poor team choice. Doesn't help to be one of the finest drivers of all time if you can't get yourself into a good enough team to do something with those talents.

_________________
Proudly supporting Force India first, Lewis Hamilton second.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 4:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3416
TheDamus wrote:
Flash2k11 wrote:
Lies, damn lies, and statistics :)

That Hamilton stat can forever be argues with the fact that he has pretty much always (with the exception of maybe a season's worth of races) in a car that can win, compared to some of the fairy cakes heaps that the others (Alonso if we are looking at this day and age) have been handed.


Considering we can basically universally agree that you can only win in very competitive machinery isn't that a statement as to the skill Hamilton has both on the track and off? Considering it was 100% his choice to move from a competitive team at the time in McLaren to an unproven team in Mercedes. IIRC he was without a manager at the time as well. Basically the whole F1 world thought he was nuts.

Being in competitive machinery shouldn't take anything away from his accomplishments. He has had top shelf level team mates for most of his career and has beaten most of them every year. I don't see anything to argue in his stats. The argument should be made on how Alonso has cost himself a chance at the history books with his very poor team choice. Doesn't help to be one of the finest drivers of all time if you can't get yourself into a good enough team to do something with those talents.


Good fortune still plays a role though as Lewis wanted to go to RB but was turned down and allegedly Ferrari(The Alonso veto rumour) before deciding to gamble on Mercedes over McLaren.

If RB said yes he may well have won 2013 but his stats would change drastically and Nico could well have surpassed him in this list.

Which says everything about F1 and lists.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 4:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20637
Lotus49 wrote:
TheDamus wrote:
Flash2k11 wrote:
Lies, damn lies, and statistics :)

That Hamilton stat can forever be argues with the fact that he has pretty much always (with the exception of maybe a season's worth of races) in a car that can win, compared to some of the fairy cakes heaps that the others (Alonso if we are looking at this day and age) have been handed.


Considering we can basically universally agree that you can only win in very competitive machinery isn't that a statement as to the skill Hamilton has both on the track and off? Considering it was 100% his choice to move from a competitive team at the time in McLaren to an unproven team in Mercedes. IIRC he was without a manager at the time as well. Basically the whole F1 world thought he was nuts.

Being in competitive machinery shouldn't take anything away from his accomplishments. He has had top shelf level team mates for most of his career and has beaten most of them every year. I don't see anything to argue in his stats. The argument should be made on how Alonso has cost himself a chance at the history books with his very poor team choice. Doesn't help to be one of the finest drivers of all time if you can't get yourself into a good enough team to do something with those talents.


Good fortune still plays a role though as Lewis wanted to go to RB but was turned down and allegedly Ferrari(The Alonso veto rumour) before deciding to gamble on Mercedes over McLaren.

If RB said yes he may well have won 2013 but his stats would change drastically and Nico could well have surpassed him in this list.

Which says everything about F1 and lists.

Yes, in a sport where so much is tied up in the machinery at a driver's disposal, particularly in comparison to the opposition, stats are at best taken with a huge dose of salt. Well over half of Lewis' wins have been in the three year period where he had virtually no opposition. Just under half his poles and podiums have occurred in the same period and he'd have to have been sleeping not to get podiums in the Mercedes these last three years. And for Nico Rosberg to be next to Piquet on the above list...sigh


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 4:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8514
Flash2k11 wrote:
Lies, damn lies, and statistics :)

That Hamilton stat can forever be argues with the fact that he has pretty much always (with the exception of maybe a season's worth of races) in a car that can win, compared to some of the fairy cakes heaps that the others (Alonso if we are looking at this day and age) have been handed.


The entire top 9 practically won a race in every full season they competed in with a few exceptions, the same for multiple podiums. Very few of those drivers sat in a car that couldn't win races long.

Schumacher won in 15/18. (15/15 before Mercedes)
Stewart 8/9
Prost 10/11
Senna 9/10
Fangion 7/7
Ascari 3/3
Hamilton 10/10
Clark 7/9
Moss 7/8

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 4:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4109
lamo wrote:
Flash2k11 wrote:
Lies, damn lies, and statistics :)

That Hamilton stat can forever be argues with the fact that he has pretty much always (with the exception of maybe a season's worth of races) in a car that can win, compared to some of the fairy cakes heaps that the others (Alonso if we are looking at this day and age) have been handed.


The entire top 9 practically won a race in every full season they competed in with a few exceptions, the same for multiple podiums. Very few of those drivers sat in a car that couldn't win races long.

Schumacher won in 15/18. (15/15 before Mercedes)
Stewart 8/9
Prost 10/11
Senna 9/10
Fangion 7/7
Ascari 3/3
Hamilton 10/10
Clark 7/9
Moss 7/8

Schumacher's teammate won a race in 2012 (Michael himself probably would have won at Monaco had the pole position stood). Fangio spent much of his career in a car that was several seconds per lap quicker than the closest competition and a level of #1 status that would make Fernando Alonso jealous.

The point you're making is salient. There is no logical reason to single out any of these drivers for driving top cars. All of the most successful drivers drove top cars and (unless you're Kimi Raikkonen) you don't get to drive top cars unless you're a top driver. Each of them also won in cars that not just anyone would have won races in. There aren't many drivers who would have won in the 1996 Ferrari or the 2009 McLaren.

It is true though that the most important thing in F1 is the car. The driver is not even close to being equally important.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 5:01 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12038
ALESI wrote:
Flash2k11 wrote:
Lies, damn lies, and statistics :)

That Hamilton stat can forever be argues with the fact that he has pretty much always (with the exception of maybe a season's worth of races) in a car that can win, compared to some of the fairy cakes heaps that the others (Alonso if we are looking at this day and age) have been handed.


Not to mention a car which finishes pretty much every race. 1980s racers had a much higher rate of attrition to contend with (see Jean Alesi for one such example!)


In fairness I think that evens out somewhat because whilst you retired more so did others around you making a win easier when you kept going unless you have a dominant car, in which case nobody retiring is clearly better.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 5:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8514
sandman1347 wrote:
All of the most successful drivers drove top cars and (unless you're Kimi Raikkonen) you don't get to drive top cars unless you're a top driver.

:lol: genuine laugh out loud.

Poor Kimi, but you are right he has been signed three times by a top team. Mclaren 2002, Ferrari 2007 and Ferrari 2015. He is a good driver but I think he must be one the worst drivers of all time in terms of wages vs overall performance. A sweet irony is that when Lotus signed him on his only modest contract he had an extensive bonus clause for; points, podiums, wins and WDC finishing positions. The car was way better than anybody at Lotus ever expected and Kimi put in a very consistent and good performance - he ended up one of the highest earners on the grid that season :lol:

He must have the highest total wages to wins ever? For drivers who won more than say 5 GP's

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Last edited by lamo on Wed Apr 12, 2017 5:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 5:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 3:41 pm
Posts: 170
sandman1347 wrote:
There is no logical reason to single out any of these drivers for driving top cars. All of the most successful drivers drove top cars and (unless you're Kimi Raikkonen) you don't get to drive top cars unless you're a top driver.


That's a very important point. A lot of people degrade statistics that doesn't confirm their own opinions, and the easy way to do it is by zooming in on one single result that everybody will agree isn't correct. But that doesn't mean that all statistic in general is useless, as some people have a habit of saying.

People have been questioning Michael Schumachers results because he was so lucky to drive a superb Ferrari. Now Lewis Hamiltons results are being questioned because his Mercedes is reliable. Another example is Damon Hills results, because he was driving a monster of a car during a significant part of his career. Or Fangios results because he was good enough/lucky enough to race the best cars. The same can be said about Nigel Mansell, who also was lucky enough to drive the ultimate car of the season once. Or how about Sebastian Vettels Adrian Newey Red Bull, that fitted him perfectly for four seasons?

There's probably a lot more examples, but the point is that even though statistics isn't perfect, it definitely isn't as flawed as some people want it to appear. Not in F1 either. If the best drivers in general (yes, there is exceptions) get the best cars, then the achieved results does paint a reliable picture of their qualities and capabilities.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 7:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 12:28 pm
Posts: 20
How about exclude any races where drivers retired?
For example, Michael Schumacher has 308 races in total but 68 of those are retirements. So that makes 240 GP finishes.
91 wins out of 240 races is 37.91%. A bit more than 29%, isn't it?

If you want to make it more complicated, exclude only DNFs from mechanical failures (or when a driver was not at fault).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 9:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 1:04 pm
Posts: 677
Lotus49 wrote:
TheDamus wrote:
Flash2k11 wrote:
Lies, damn lies, and statistics :)

That Hamilton stat can forever be argues with the fact that he has pretty much always (with the exception of maybe a season's worth of races) in a car that can win, compared to some of the fairy cakes heaps that the others (Alonso if we are looking at this day and age) have been handed.


Considering we can basically universally agree that you can only win in very competitive machinery isn't that a statement as to the skill Hamilton has both on the track and off? Considering it was 100% his choice to move from a competitive team at the time in McLaren to an unproven team in Mercedes. IIRC he was without a manager at the time as well. Basically the whole F1 world thought he was nuts.

Being in competitive machinery shouldn't take anything away from his accomplishments. He has had top shelf level team mates for most of his career and has beaten most of them every year. I don't see anything to argue in his stats. The argument should be made on how Alonso has cost himself a chance at the history books with his very poor team choice. Doesn't help to be one of the finest drivers of all time if you can't get yourself into a good enough team to do something with those talents.


Good fortune still plays a role though as Lewis wanted to go to RB but was turned down and allegedly Ferrari(The Alonso veto rumour) before deciding to gamble on Mercedes over McLaren.

If RB said yes he may well have won 2013 but his stats would change drastically and Nico could well have surpassed him in this list.

Which says everything about F1 and lists.


With Hamilton in RB there would be NO mercedes. Certainly not the same dominant team of the last 3 seasons.
There is a video on the Mercedes Facebook page from behind the scenes in China 2017 just before the team picture with the winner. That video shows the kind of positive and competitive atmosphere necessary to win and dominate.

Hamilton is actually quite humble given his stats and never miss an occasion to thank his team and engineers because he knows without them nothing would have been possible.

Talent is not enough to rack the stats, you need to have good people(the kind who make things happen and do care about you) in your corner. And no, picking the right team is not just LUCK.

The turning point for Mercedes was not ONLY the engine(after all McLaren was using the same engine but was USELESS), but finally understanding the tyres.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 10:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3416
Pullrod wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
TheDamus wrote:
Flash2k11 wrote:
Lies, damn lies, and statistics :)

That Hamilton stat can forever be argues with the fact that he has pretty much always (with the exception of maybe a season's worth of races) in a car that can win, compared to some of the fairy cakes heaps that the others (Alonso if we are looking at this day and age) have been handed.


Considering we can basically universally agree that you can only win in very competitive machinery isn't that a statement as to the skill Hamilton has both on the track and off? Considering it was 100% his choice to move from a competitive team at the time in McLaren to an unproven team in Mercedes. IIRC he was without a manager at the time as well. Basically the whole F1 world thought he was nuts.

Being in competitive machinery shouldn't take anything away from his accomplishments. He has had top shelf level team mates for most of his career and has beaten most of them every year. I don't see anything to argue in his stats. The argument should be made on how Alonso has cost himself a chance at the history books with his very poor team choice. Doesn't help to be one of the finest drivers of all time if you can't get yourself into a good enough team to do something with those talents.


Good fortune still plays a role though as Lewis wanted to go to RB but was turned down and allegedly Ferrari(The Alonso veto rumour) before deciding to gamble on Mercedes over McLaren.

If RB said yes he may well have won 2013 but his stats would change drastically and Nico could well have surpassed him in this list.

Which says everything about F1 and lists.


With Hamilton in RB there would be NO mercedes. Certainly not the same dominant team of the last 3 seasons.
There is a video on the Mercedes Facebook page from behind the scenes in China 2017 just before the team picture with the winner. That video shows the kind of positive and competitive atmosphere necessary to win and dominate.

Hamilton is actually quite humble given his stats and never miss an occasion to thank his team and engineers because he knows without them nothing would have been possible.

Talent is not enough to rack the stats, you need to have good people(the kind who make things happen and do care about you) in your corner. And no, picking the right team is not just LUCK.

The turning point for Mercedes was not ONLY the engine(after all McLaren was using the same engine but was USELESS), but finally understanding the tyres.


I think Mercedes would have stayed in the sport no question and if they stay in the sport then they'd have been just as dominant as they had the key engineers already in place.

And of course it's not just luck, it's not just anything. It was a great call to pick Mercedes over McLaren no doubt, I'm just pointing out that in hindsight he was fortunate Red Bull baulked at the thought of dealing with partnering Seb and Lewis otherwise that list changes drastically.

You need things to fall your way in this game because there are so many obstacles your talent alone can't overcome.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 10:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4109
Lotus49 wrote:
I think Mercedes would have stayed in the sport no question and if they stay in the sport then they'd have been just as dominant as they had the key engineers already in place.

And of course it's not just luck, it's not just anything. It was a great call to pick Mercedes over McLaren no doubt, I'm just pointing out that in hindsight he was fortunate Red Bull baulked at the thought of dealing with partnering Seb and Lewis otherwise that list changes drastically.

You need things to fall your way in this game because there are so many obstacles your talent alone can't overcome.

I often wonder whether there is any empirical difference between the gamble Hamilton took on Mercedes and the one Alonso took on McLaren Honda. Of course we are not privy to the conversations that took place behind closed doors. Both were sold a bill of goods about big plans for the future. Both were wined and dined by legends of the sport with track records littered with success (Brawn and Dennis). Both were basically taking a leap of faith.

The results were basically the polar opposite; with Hamilton finding himself in position to dominate the sport and Alonso banished to purgatory. On the face of it though, it seems their decision making was extremely similar. The only thing I can point out is that Mercedes perhaps had a clear upward trajectory while McLaren seemed to be heading in the wrong direction.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 10:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 1:04 pm
Posts: 677
Lotus49 wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
TheDamus wrote:
Flash2k11 wrote:
Lies, damn lies, and statistics :)

That Hamilton stat can forever be argues with the fact that he has pretty much always (with the exception of maybe a season's worth of races) in a car that can win, compared to some of the fairy cakes heaps that the others (Alonso if we are looking at this day and age) have been handed.


Considering we can basically universally agree that you can only win in very competitive machinery isn't that a statement as to the skill Hamilton has both on the track and off? Considering it was 100% his choice to move from a competitive team at the time in McLaren to an unproven team in Mercedes. IIRC he was without a manager at the time as well. Basically the whole F1 world thought he was nuts.

Being in competitive machinery shouldn't take anything away from his accomplishments. He has had top shelf level team mates for most of his career and has beaten most of them every year. I don't see anything to argue in his stats. The argument should be made on how Alonso has cost himself a chance at the history books with his very poor team choice. Doesn't help to be one of the finest drivers of all time if you can't get yourself into a good enough team to do something with those talents.


Good fortune still plays a role though as Lewis wanted to go to RB but was turned down and allegedly Ferrari(The Alonso veto rumour) before deciding to gamble on Mercedes over McLaren.

If RB said yes he may well have won 2013 but his stats would change drastically and Nico could well have surpassed him in this list.

Which says everything about F1 and lists.


With Hamilton in RB there would be NO mercedes. Certainly not the same dominant team of the last 3 seasons.
There is a video on the Mercedes Facebook page from behind the scenes in China 2017 just before the team picture with the winner. That video shows the kind of positive and competitive atmosphere necessary to win and dominate.

Hamilton is actually quite humble given his stats and never miss an occasion to thank his team and engineers because he knows without them nothing would have been possible.

Talent is not enough to rack the stats, you need to have good people(the kind who make things happen and do care about you) in your corner. And no, picking the right team is not just LUCK.

The turning point for Mercedes was not ONLY the engine(after all McLaren was using the same engine but was USELESS), but finally understanding the tyres.


I think Mercedes would have stayed in the sport no question and if they stay in the sport then they'd have been just as dominant as they had the key engineers already in place.

And of course it's not just luck, it's not just anything. It was a great call to pick Mercedes over McLaren no doubt, I'm just pointing out that in hindsight he was fortunate Red Bull baulked at the thought of dealing with partnering Seb and Lewis otherwise that list changes drastically.

You need things to fall your way in this game because there are so many obstacles your talent alone can't overcome.


Exactly.. and big engineers don't work night and day to make cars for Palmer.
Mercedes was looking for a driver with big marketability for the Post Schumacher and they wanted to make their brand desirable to "young" people. Hamilton was the only one who fit the bill.

Mercedes website pre 2013 was a mess(it crashed days before the presentation of the W04), so was their merchandise. All changed when they signed Hamilton.


McLaren post Hamilton had nobody. Engineers with big ambitions left that team for Mercedes and Hamilton/Lowe basically triggered it.
Alonso may have been sold a dream/project but that team was clearly not the same anymore the day Lewis and many engineers left the (sinking) ship.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 11:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8514
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
I think Mercedes would have stayed in the sport no question and if they stay in the sport then they'd have been just as dominant as they had the key engineers already in place.

And of course it's not just luck, it's not just anything. It was a great call to pick Mercedes over McLaren no doubt, I'm just pointing out that in hindsight he was fortunate Red Bull baulked at the thought of dealing with partnering Seb and Lewis otherwise that list changes drastically.

You need things to fall your way in this game because there are so many obstacles your talent alone can't overcome.

I often wonder whether there is any empirical difference between the gamble Hamilton took on Mercedes and the one Alonso took on McLaren Honda. Of course we are not privy to the conversations that took place behind closed doors. Both were sold a bill of goods about big plans for the future. Both were wined and dined by legends of the sport with track records littered with success (Brawn and Dennis). Both were basically taking a leap of faith.

The results were basically the polar opposite; with Hamilton finding himself in position to dominate the sport and Alonso banished to purgatory. On the face of it though, it seems their decision making was extremely similar. The only thing I can point out is that Mercedes perhaps had a clear upward trajectory while McLaren seemed to be heading in the wrong direction.


I think Alonso's move was a genuine gamble, Hamiltons was more of a calculated risk. Honda were 2 years behind everybody else with the engine that is a huge deficit and Mclaren had already began its decline under the older rules for 2013 and 2014 under the new rules was a further drop.

Hamiltons move to Mercedes was like Alonso's to Ferrari for 2010 or Vettels to Ferrari in 2015. The team was decent and with the right people ready to challenge. Mercedes had the added benefit of investing heavily into an era of new rules which didn't occur on the other two occasions but big turnarounds did occur in all three instances.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8514
Unless Hamilton secured some continued investment from sponsors or the board around late 2012/ early 2013 (for the 2014 car and engine development) that wouldn't have been there otherwise - I think the Mercedes were going to dominate 2014-2016 with or without Hamilton.

Rosberg would have beaten Schumacher 3 years straight and then likely gone on to win 3 WDC's assuming Mercedes didn't sign a grade A driver. Rosberg would have gone down as a great with that record. The only blemish being his debut season defeat to Webber. Michaels comeback would probably have been judged a lot more successful with hindsight too, which it actually already has due to Rosbergs efforts against Hamilton and Michael going out on a strong year in 2012.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3416
Pullrod wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
TheDamus wrote:

Considering we can basically universally agree that you can only win in very competitive machinery isn't that a statement as to the skill Hamilton has both on the track and off? Considering it was 100% his choice to move from a competitive team at the time in McLaren to an unproven team in Mercedes. IIRC he was without a manager at the time as well. Basically the whole F1 world thought he was nuts.

Being in competitive machinery shouldn't take anything away from his accomplishments. He has had top shelf level team mates for most of his career and has beaten most of them every year. I don't see anything to argue in his stats. The argument should be made on how Alonso has cost himself a chance at the history books with his very poor team choice. Doesn't help to be one of the finest drivers of all time if you can't get yourself into a good enough team to do something with those talents.


Good fortune still plays a role though as Lewis wanted to go to RB but was turned down and allegedly Ferrari(The Alonso veto rumour) before deciding to gamble on Mercedes over McLaren.

If RB said yes he may well have won 2013 but his stats would change drastically and Nico could well have surpassed him in this list.

Which says everything about F1 and lists.


With Hamilton in RB there would be NO mercedes. Certainly not the same dominant team of the last 3 seasons.
There is a video on the Mercedes Facebook page from behind the scenes in China 2017 just before the team picture with the winner. That video shows the kind of positive and competitive atmosphere necessary to win and dominate.

Hamilton is actually quite humble given his stats and never miss an occasion to thank his team and engineers because he knows without them nothing would have been possible.

Talent is not enough to rack the stats, you need to have good people(the kind who make things happen and do care about you) in your corner. And no, picking the right team is not just LUCK.

The turning point for Mercedes was not ONLY the engine(after all McLaren was using the same engine but was USELESS), but finally understanding the tyres.


I think Mercedes would have stayed in the sport no question and if they stay in the sport then they'd have been just as dominant as they had the key engineers already in place.

And of course it's not just luck, it's not just anything. It was a great call to pick Mercedes over McLaren no doubt, I'm just pointing out that in hindsight he was fortunate Red Bull baulked at the thought of dealing with partnering Seb and Lewis otherwise that list changes drastically.

You need things to fall your way in this game because there are so many obstacles your talent alone can't overcome.


Exactly.. and big engineers don't work night and day to make cars for Palmer.
Mercedes was looking for a driver with big marketability for the Post Schumacher and they wanted to make their brand desirable to "young" people. Hamilton was the only one who fit the bill.

Mercedes website pre 2013 was a mess(it crashed days before the presentation of the W04), so was their merchandise. All changed when they signed Hamilton.


McLaren post Hamilton had nobody. Engineers with big ambitions left that team for Mercedes and Hamilton/Lowe basically triggered it.
Alonso may have been sold a dream/project but that team was clearly not the same anymore the day Lewis and many engineers left the (sinking) ship.


Well they weren't winning anything yet so I'ts not shocking if their website wasn't up to much. Agree Lewis was the best fit by a mile. And he was an important signing no doubt but everyone but Lowe was already there and the engine and suspension well under development and those along with the aero team are why they dominated.

McLaren weren't in that bad a position, they were bringing in Honda and regaining work status and had signed Prod. And while not as impressive as Mercedes technical line up (IMO) they still had impressive people there. I can see why Alonso felt it was worth a go.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 2941
The reliability of modern cars does not automatically translate to an increased win rate, because it also means that your opposition has an increased win rate. While it does mean if you have a dominant car then you are likely to ramp up your win percentages compared to in the past,
at the same time, in the past you were more likely to inherit a win in the second fastest car.

Having said that, dominant cars today are nothing like as dominant as dominant cars in the past in terms of speed dominance. The dominance today comes from having a slight speed advantage, big reliability and super computer race strategizing software.

It's difficult to compare Fangio and Ascari and Clark to Schumacher and Hamilton - they do have very impressive win margins, however the laws of averages would suggest that you would expect the average calibre of top drivers to be broadly similar. The fact the top three drivers from the past have much bigger win percentages than the top drivers of the 21st century would suggest that it was in fact easier to be dominant back then.

I think that is probably true, because the dominant cars (on pace) tended to be much more dominant back then. But also, the difference in talent was much bigger. So while engines went bang a lot more often, the competition was not so strong, the races far less understood and more unpredictable. Also, with teams being smaller, the drivers had a much bigger role and effect on events that unfolded, in all aspects, from the percentage difference in the driver/machine speed package, to the decisions and direction taken by the team in terms of how to conduct the race.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3416
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
I think Mercedes would have stayed in the sport no question and if they stay in the sport then they'd have been just as dominant as they had the key engineers already in place.

And of course it's not just luck, it's not just anything. It was a great call to pick Mercedes over McLaren no doubt, I'm just pointing out that in hindsight he was fortunate Red Bull baulked at the thought of dealing with partnering Seb and Lewis otherwise that list changes drastically.

You need things to fall your way in this game because there are so many obstacles your talent alone can't overcome.

I often wonder whether there is any empirical difference between the gamble Hamilton took on Mercedes and the one Alonso took on McLaren Honda. Of course we are not privy to the conversations that took place behind closed doors. Both were sold a bill of goods about big plans for the future. Both were wined and dined by legends of the sport with track records littered with success (Brawn and Dennis). Both were basically taking a leap of faith.

The results were basically the polar opposite; with Hamilton finding himself in position to dominate the sport and Alonso banished to purgatory. On the face of it though, it seems their decision making was extremely similar. The only thing I can point out is that Mercedes perhaps had a clear upward trajectory while McLaren seemed to be heading in the wrong direction.


Yeah I can see the similarities. I sometimes wonder if Brawn let on much about the pre-chamber tech they were going to use or if Alonso was sold a dummy on the importance of the split turbo which seemed to dominate that Spring/Summer.

To be a fly on one of those walls.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5759
Location: Nebraska, USA
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
The reliability of modern cars does not automatically translate to an increased win rate, because it also means that your opposition has an increased win rate. While it does mean if you have a dominant car then you are likely to ramp up your win percentages compared to in the past,
at the same time, in the past you were more likely to inherit a win in the second fastest car.

So, in effect, if you could inherit a win in the second fastest car, then by that logic, it could be said that it must have been harder to win over the other cars which may not have been that far off the mark. However, that said, can we not say that over the past three years, any race not won by a Mercedes was an "inherited win in the second fastest car"??? So why would that only apply to the cars of the past?

Having said that, dominant cars today are nothing like as dominant as dominant cars in the past in terms of speed dominance. The dominance today comes from having a slight speed advantage, big reliability and super computer race strategizing software.

It's difficult to compare Fangio and Ascari and Clark to Schumacher and Hamilton - they do have very impressive win margins, however the laws of averages would suggest that you would expect the average calibre of top drivers to be broadly similar. The fact the top three drivers from the past have much bigger win percentages than the top drivers of the 21st century would suggest that it was in fact easier to be dominant back then.

It was also much easier to be DEAD....

I think that is probably true, because the dominant cars (on pace) tended to be much more dominant back then. But also, the difference in talent was much bigger.

Really? I disagree. Fangio had the likes of Moss, Ascari, Musso, Farina, Gonzalez, Hawthorne, Behra, Collins, Brabham, Salvadori and many more most capable drivers. Many of those were also Fangio teammates at one time or another. I think one can make the case that difference in talent was perhaps even closer than it is today.

So while engines went bang a lot more often, the competition was not so strong, the races far less understood and more unpredictable. Also, with teams being smaller, the drivers had a much bigger role and effect on events that unfolded, in all aspects, from the percentage difference in the driver/machine speed package, to the decisions and direction taken by the team in terms of how to conduct the race.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 4:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 2769
lamo wrote:
Unless Hamilton secured some continued investment from sponsors or the board around late 2012/ early 2013 (for the 2014 car and engine development) that wouldn't have been there otherwise - I think the Mercedes were going to dominate 2014-2016 with or without Hamilton.

Rosberg would have beaten Schumacher 3 years straight and then likely gone on to win 3 WDC's assuming Mercedes didn't sign a grade A driver. Rosberg would have gone down as a great with that record. The only blemish being his debut season defeat to Webber. Michaels comeback would probably have been judged a lot more successful with hindsight too, which it actually already has due to Rosbergs efforts against Hamilton and Michael going out on a strong year in 2012.



Wow, shocking statement from you there lamo. I reckon Michael would have found a way to win one or two of those championships. You give him a dominant car and he only had one guy to beat? I think he would have ramped up the motivation and found a way to beat Nico.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 7:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2215
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
The reliability of modern cars does not automatically translate to an increased win rate, because it also means that your opposition has an increased win rate. While it does mean if you have a dominant car then you are likely to ramp up your win percentages compared to in the past,
at the same time, in the past you were more likely to inherit a win in the second fastest car.

Having said that, dominant cars today are nothing like as dominant as dominant cars in the past in terms of speed dominance. The dominance today comes from having a slight speed advantage, big reliability and super computer race strategizing software.

It's difficult to compare Fangio and Ascari and Clark to Schumacher and Hamilton - they do have very impressive win margins, however the laws of averages would suggest that you would expect the average calibre of top drivers to be broadly similar. The fact the top three drivers from the past have much bigger win percentages than the top drivers of the 21st century would suggest that it was in fact easier to be dominant back then.

I think that is probably true, because the dominant cars (on pace) tended to be much more dominant back then. But also, the difference in talent was much bigger. So while engines went bang a lot more often, the competition was not so strong, the races far less understood and more unpredictable. Also, with teams being smaller, the drivers had a much bigger role and effect on events that unfolded, in all aspects, from the percentage difference in the driver/machine speed package, to the decisions and direction taken by the team in terms of how to conduct the race.


Not so sure about that to be honest. If Merc had a new engine every race they would be lapping everyone, up until this season anyway. Modern F1 is as much about tyre management, fuel saving, and component saving as anything, it's a solid fact that in recent times F1 cars have been driven nowhere near their actual potential.

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 8:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:08 pm
Posts: 3767
lamo wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
All of the most successful drivers drove top cars and (unless you're Kimi Raikkonen) you don't get to drive top cars unless you're a top driver.

:lol: genuine laugh out loud.

Poor Kimi, but you are right he has been signed three times by a top team. Mclaren 2002, Ferrari 2007 and Ferrari 2015. He is a good driver but I think he must be one the worst drivers of all time in terms of wages vs overall performance. A sweet irony is that when Lotus signed him on his only modest contract he had an extensive bonus clause for; points, podiums, wins and WDC finishing positions. The car was way better than anybody at Lotus ever expected and Kimi put in a very consistent and good performance - he ended up one of the highest earners on the grid that season :lol:

He must have the highest total wages to wins ever? For drivers who won more than say 5 GP's

I would add DC as the one of "best cars/worst driver" ratio


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 8:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20637
lamo wrote:
Unless Hamilton secured some continued investment from sponsors or the board around late 2012/ early 2013 (for the 2014 car and engine development) that wouldn't have been there otherwise - I think the Mercedes were going to dominate 2014-2016 with or without Hamilton.

Rosberg would have beaten Schumacher 3 years straight and then likely gone on to win 3 WDC's assuming Mercedes didn't sign a grade A driver. Rosberg would have gone down as a great with that record. The only blemish being his debut season defeat to Webber. Michaels comeback would probably have been judged a lot more successful with hindsight too, which it actually already has due to Rosbergs efforts against Hamilton and Michael going out on a strong year in 2012.

Agree with the first point, but not the second. Michael had already matched Rosberg in qualifying and would have beaten him on track in 2012 if not for mechanical problems (a bit like Lewis in 2016) so there's no reason to believe Rosberg would have beaten him in the following years. I think few would rate Rosberg as a better racer than Michael so I suspect we'd have seen a similar outcome to the Lewis-Nico battle. We may well have seen Michael as a 10-times WDC. Or maybe not, but it definitely wouldn't have been the sure thing you suggest here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 8:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20637
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
I think Mercedes would have stayed in the sport no question and if they stay in the sport then they'd have been just as dominant as they had the key engineers already in place.

And of course it's not just luck, it's not just anything. It was a great call to pick Mercedes over McLaren no doubt, I'm just pointing out that in hindsight he was fortunate Red Bull baulked at the thought of dealing with partnering Seb and Lewis otherwise that list changes drastically.

You need things to fall your way in this game because there are so many obstacles your talent alone can't overcome.

I often wonder whether there is any empirical difference between the gamble Hamilton took on Mercedes and the one Alonso took on McLaren Honda. Of course we are not privy to the conversations that took place behind closed doors. Both were sold a bill of goods about big plans for the future. Both were wined and dined by legends of the sport with track records littered with success (Brawn and Dennis). Both were basically taking a leap of faith.

The results were basically the polar opposite; with Hamilton finding himself in position to dominate the sport and Alonso banished to purgatory. On the face of it though, it seems their decision making was extremely similar. The only thing I can point out is that Mercedes perhaps had a clear upward trajectory while McLaren seemed to be heading in the wrong direction.

:thumbup:

Very much this and what I've been saying for a while. The drivers don't have a crystal ball and their decisions are as much a product of the sales pitch they've been given as any driver intuition. Honda recently said they'd underestimated the scale of the challenge, but at the time they doubtless told Alonso they'd be investing hugely to be at the front, much like Mercedes probably did with Hamilton. The end result is out of the driver's hands


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 8:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20637
kleefton wrote:
lamo wrote:
Unless Hamilton secured some continued investment from sponsors or the board around late 2012/ early 2013 (for the 2014 car and engine development) that wouldn't have been there otherwise - I think the Mercedes were going to dominate 2014-2016 with or without Hamilton.

Rosberg would have beaten Schumacher 3 years straight and then likely gone on to win 3 WDC's assuming Mercedes didn't sign a grade A driver. Rosberg would have gone down as a great with that record. The only blemish being his debut season defeat to Webber. Michaels comeback would probably have been judged a lot more successful with hindsight too, which it actually already has due to Rosbergs efforts against Hamilton and Michael going out on a strong year in 2012.



Wow, shocking statement from you there lamo. I reckon Michael would have found a way to win one or two of those championships. You give him a dominant car and he only had one guy to beat? I think he would have ramped up the motivation and found a way to beat Nico.

He was already beating him in 2012. There are similarities between Michael's mechanically-compromised final season and Lewis' own last year. On track both had Rosberg's measure, but the points don't reflect that. There's every reason to believe Schumacher would have provided stiff competition to Rosberg and with his experience and especially with only one driver to beat it's doubtful Nico would have come out ahead


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4109
Zoue wrote:
kleefton wrote:
lamo wrote:
Unless Hamilton secured some continued investment from sponsors or the board around late 2012/ early 2013 (for the 2014 car and engine development) that wouldn't have been there otherwise - I think the Mercedes were going to dominate 2014-2016 with or without Hamilton.

Rosberg would have beaten Schumacher 3 years straight and then likely gone on to win 3 WDC's assuming Mercedes didn't sign a grade A driver. Rosberg would have gone down as a great with that record. The only blemish being his debut season defeat to Webber. Michaels comeback would probably have been judged a lot more successful with hindsight too, which it actually already has due to Rosbergs efforts against Hamilton and Michael going out on a strong year in 2012.



Wow, shocking statement from you there lamo. I reckon Michael would have found a way to win one or two of those championships. You give him a dominant car and he only had one guy to beat? I think he would have ramped up the motivation and found a way to beat Nico.

He was already beating him in 2012. There are similarities between Michael's mechanically-compromised final season and Lewis' own last year. On track both had Rosberg's measure, but the points don't reflect that. There's every reason to believe Schumacher would have provided stiff competition to Rosberg and with his experience and especially with only one driver to beat it's doubtful Nico would have come out ahead

No he was not. The way people bend reality to suggest that amazes me. The only way to come to that conclusion is to look at all of the bad luck Michael had that year and totally ignore the bad luck that Nico had.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 5196
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
kleefton wrote:
lamo wrote:
Unless Hamilton secured some continued investment from sponsors or the board around late 2012/ early 2013 (for the 2014 car and engine development) that wouldn't have been there otherwise - I think the Mercedes were going to dominate 2014-2016 with or without Hamilton.

Rosberg would have beaten Schumacher 3 years straight and then likely gone on to win 3 WDC's assuming Mercedes didn't sign a grade A driver. Rosberg would have gone down as a great with that record. The only blemish being his debut season defeat to Webber. Michaels comeback would probably have been judged a lot more successful with hindsight too, which it actually already has due to Rosbergs efforts against Hamilton and Michael going out on a strong year in 2012.



Wow, shocking statement from you there lamo. I reckon Michael would have found a way to win one or two of those championships. You give him a dominant car and he only had one guy to beat? I think he would have ramped up the motivation and found a way to beat Nico.

He was already beating him in 2012. There are similarities between Michael's mechanically-compromised final season and Lewis' own last year. On track both had Rosberg's measure, but the points don't reflect that. There's every reason to believe Schumacher would have provided stiff competition to Rosberg and with his experience and especially with only one driver to beat it's doubtful Nico would have come out ahead

No he was not. The way people bend reality to suggest that amazes me. The only way to come to that conclusion is to look at all of the bad luck Michael had that year and totally ignore the bad luck that Nico had.

I don't remember the team apologising to Nico


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8514
I was going with the assumption that Michael retired but even if he stayed, Nico had found a way to beat him 3-0 and whilst 2012 was practically even race for race, Nico did win the race they had the best car at that year, out qualifying him by 0.5 as well. Although Schumacher probably would have won Monaco without the penalty.

I think Nico would probably win the title in 2014 if Schumacher had Hamiltons luck. Hamilton basically beat Nico nearly every single race it was a clean/staight fight, I don't see Michael being able to do that, especially given Nico was very strong on one lap that year.

Nico's wins were
Australia - Hamilton retired from pole
Monaco - Nico blocks Hamiltons final qualifying run
Austria - Hamilton has his time deleted then spins on 2nd quali run, starts 9th
Germany - Hamilton starts p20 after quali break down
Brazil - Nico wins fair and square but Hamilton still should have won as he had enough time to perform the over cut already but took one more lap to secure it and spun.

Nico was quite fortunate to challenge for the title in 2014, all based off Hamiltons DNF in race one and race 7.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5759
Location: Nebraska, USA
lamo wrote:
Unless Hamilton secured some continued investment from sponsors or the board around late 2012/ early 2013 (for the 2014 car and engine development) that wouldn't have been there otherwise - I think the Mercedes were going to dominate 2014-2016 with or without Hamilton.

Rosberg would have beaten Schumacher 3 years straight and then likely gone on to win 3 WDC's assuming Mercedes didn't sign a grade A driver. Rosberg would have gone down as a great with that record. The only blemish being his debut season defeat to Webber. Michaels comeback would probably have been judged a lot more successful with hindsight too, which it actually already has due to Rosbergs efforts against Hamilton and Michael going out on a strong year in 2012.


So all it takes do go down as a GREAT is to be on one of the most dominate teams in F1 history and win... even without an "A driver" teammate... and be a GREAT.

Kind of a sad state of affairs isn't it?

A good driver becomes an all-time great, by being in a dominate car, even if there are truly better drivers in the field, but in lesser machinery.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8514
Blake wrote:
lamo wrote:
Unless Hamilton secured some continued investment from sponsors or the board around late 2012/ early 2013 (for the 2014 car and engine development) that wouldn't have been there otherwise - I think the Mercedes were going to dominate 2014-2016 with or without Hamilton.

Rosberg would have beaten Schumacher 3 years straight and then likely gone on to win 3 WDC's assuming Mercedes didn't sign a grade A driver. Rosberg would have gone down as a great with that record. The only blemish being his debut season defeat to Webber. Michaels comeback would probably have been judged a lot more successful with hindsight too, which it actually already has due to Rosbergs efforts against Hamilton and Michael going out on a strong year in 2012.


So all it takes do go down as a GREAT is to be on one of the most dominate teams in F1 history and win... even without an "A driver" teammate... and be a GREAT.

Kind of a sad state of affairs isn't it?

A good driver becomes an all-time great, by being in a dominate car, even if there are truly better drivers in the field, but in lesser machinery.


How would anybody know there were better drivers in the field than Rosberg under that scenario? He would have beaten every team mate he had since his debut season (all be quite a weak bunch) and then quite comprehensively beaten Schumacher over 3 years and then won 3 WDC's. People would be speaking about him being the best on the grid... You only stop being spoken about as one the best once your pace is poor against a known quantity team mate. I.e. Kimi, once Massa matched and then beat him. Montoya, once Kimi thrashed him in 2005 etc

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4109
Blake wrote:
lamo wrote:
Unless Hamilton secured some continued investment from sponsors or the board around late 2012/ early 2013 (for the 2014 car and engine development) that wouldn't have been there otherwise - I think the Mercedes were going to dominate 2014-2016 with or without Hamilton.

Rosberg would have beaten Schumacher 3 years straight and then likely gone on to win 3 WDC's assuming Mercedes didn't sign a grade A driver. Rosberg would have gone down as a great with that record. The only blemish being his debut season defeat to Webber. Michaels comeback would probably have been judged a lot more successful with hindsight too, which it actually already has due to Rosbergs efforts against Hamilton and Michael going out on a strong year in 2012.


So all it takes do go down as a GREAT is to be on one of the most dominate teams in F1 history and win... even without an "A driver" teammate... and be a GREAT.

Kind of a sad state of affairs isn't it?

A good driver becomes an all-time great, by being in a dominate car, even if there are truly better drivers in the field, but in lesser machinery.

This is the reality of F1 and it has always been that way. The car is simply vastly more important than the driver. Most die-hard fans focus on teammate matchups more than anything else because those are the only fair fights (and even they are often not at all fair).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 4:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20637
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
kleefton wrote:
lamo wrote:
Unless Hamilton secured some continued investment from sponsors or the board around late 2012/ early 2013 (for the 2014 car and engine development) that wouldn't have been there otherwise - I think the Mercedes were going to dominate 2014-2016 with or without Hamilton.

Rosberg would have beaten Schumacher 3 years straight and then likely gone on to win 3 WDC's assuming Mercedes didn't sign a grade A driver. Rosberg would have gone down as a great with that record. The only blemish being his debut season defeat to Webber. Michaels comeback would probably have been judged a lot more successful with hindsight too, which it actually already has due to Rosbergs efforts against Hamilton and Michael going out on a strong year in 2012.



Wow, shocking statement from you there lamo. I reckon Michael would have found a way to win one or two of those championships. You give him a dominant car and he only had one guy to beat? I think he would have ramped up the motivation and found a way to beat Nico.

He was already beating him in 2012. There are similarities between Michael's mechanically-compromised final season and Lewis' own last year. On track both had Rosberg's measure, but the points don't reflect that. There's every reason to believe Schumacher would have provided stiff competition to Rosberg and with his experience and especially with only one driver to beat it's doubtful Nico would have come out ahead

No he was not. The way people bend reality to suggest that amazes me. The only way to come to that conclusion is to look at all of the bad luck Michael had that year and totally ignore the bad luck that Nico had.

yes he was. Ross Brawn even made a public apology to Schumacher at the number of times the team had messed up for him. If you analyse the season beyond the points score you will see that Schumacher was usually ahead of Rosberg when he had to retire and on track the veteran had Rosberg's measure


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 4:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4109
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
kleefton wrote:
lamo wrote:
Unless Hamilton secured some continued investment from sponsors or the board around late 2012/ early 2013 (for the 2014 car and engine development) that wouldn't have been there otherwise - I think the Mercedes were going to dominate 2014-2016 with or without Hamilton.

Rosberg would have beaten Schumacher 3 years straight and then likely gone on to win 3 WDC's assuming Mercedes didn't sign a grade A driver. Rosberg would have gone down as a great with that record. The only blemish being his debut season defeat to Webber. Michaels comeback would probably have been judged a lot more successful with hindsight too, which it actually already has due to Rosbergs efforts against Hamilton and Michael going out on a strong year in 2012.



Wow, shocking statement from you there lamo. I reckon Michael would have found a way to win one or two of those championships. You give him a dominant car and he only had one guy to beat? I think he would have ramped up the motivation and found a way to beat Nico.

He was already beating him in 2012. There are similarities between Michael's mechanically-compromised final season and Lewis' own last year. On track both had Rosberg's measure, but the points don't reflect that. There's every reason to believe Schumacher would have provided stiff competition to Rosberg and with his experience and especially with only one driver to beat it's doubtful Nico would have come out ahead

No he was not. The way people bend reality to suggest that amazes me. The only way to come to that conclusion is to look at all of the bad luck Michael had that year and totally ignore the bad luck that Nico had.

yes he was. Ross Brawn even made a public apology to Schumacher at the number of times the team had messed up for him. If you analyse the season beyond the points score you will see that Schumacher was usually ahead of Rosberg when he had to retire and on track the veteran had Rosberg's measure

Yet another anecdotal defense. Yes, Michael had awful luck that season but so did Rosberg and the team went in a direction with the car that suited Michael and went away from Nico (who had a very strong start to the season). Michael was much more even with Nico that year but you have to look at the matchup in a completely one-sided fashion to say that he beat him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 5:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20637
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
kleefton wrote:
Wow, shocking statement from you there lamo. I reckon Michael would have found a way to win one or two of those championships. You give him a dominant car and he only had one guy to beat? I think he would have ramped up the motivation and found a way to beat Nico.

He was already beating him in 2012. There are similarities between Michael's mechanically-compromised final season and Lewis' own last year. On track both had Rosberg's measure, but the points don't reflect that. There's every reason to believe Schumacher would have provided stiff competition to Rosberg and with his experience and especially with only one driver to beat it's doubtful Nico would have come out ahead

No he was not. The way people bend reality to suggest that amazes me. The only way to come to that conclusion is to look at all of the bad luck Michael had that year and totally ignore the bad luck that Nico had.

yes he was. Ross Brawn even made a public apology to Schumacher at the number of times the team had messed up for him. If you analyse the season beyond the points score you will see that Schumacher was usually ahead of Rosberg when he had to retire and on track the veteran had Rosberg's measure

Yet another anecdotal defense. Yes, Michael had awful luck that season but so did Rosberg and the team went in a direction with the car that suited Michael and went away from Nico (who had a very strong start to the season). Michael was much more even with Nico that year but you have to look at the matchup in a completely one-sided fashion to say that he beat him.

No, you don't at all. Michael had many more problems than Nico did and was more often than not ahead of him on track when he had his issues. I don't know why that should be so hard to acknowledge? Michael had arguably a stronger start than Nico did, for example, out-qualifying him in the first two races of the season. He had issues almost every race at the beginning, not all of which caused retirement: e.g. in Bahrain a stuck DRS flap put him out of qualifying, compounded by a gearbox change which put him at the very back of the grid, while Nico started 5th. Despite this, Schumacher finished in the points, only 16s behind Nico. But unless you look beyond the stats you won't see what issues he had to contend with.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 5:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 5196
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
No he was not. The way people bend reality to suggest that amazes me. The only way to come to that conclusion is to look at all of the bad luck Michael had that year and totally ignore the bad luck that Nico had.

yes he was. Ross Brawn even made a public apology to Schumacher at the number of times the team had messed up for him. If you analyse the season beyond the points score you will see that Schumacher was usually ahead of Rosberg when he had to retire and on track the veteran had Rosberg's measure

Yet another anecdotal defense. Yes, Michael had awful luck that season but so did Rosberg and the team went in a direction with the car that suited Michael and went away from Nico (who had a very strong start to the season). Michael was much more even with Nico that year but you have to look at the matchup in a completely one-sided fashion to say that he beat him.


Sandman, Michael had so many retirements that the team apologised to him. They varied from loose wheel, to DRS failure, gearbox (twice), fuel pressure and technical fault (with the telemetry, they retired the car to save it). Nico had only retirements from collisions.

May I also point that car direction has nothing to do with luck. You were the one that brought luck into the conversation by the way.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Clarky, Covalent, F1_Ernie, GingerFurball, Google Adsense [Bot], JamWalsh, mikeyg123, Option or Prime, simonr23, TheGiantHogweed and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group