Sir Lewis Hamilton is the GOAT

[john ruston]

It’s one of the highest profile charity and we hope teams or individuals backed Billy
Hope he has raised lots but am thinking that’s unlikely or we would have been told about it.
The motor racing gang could be shown to be a self centred well off people who don’t think about others.
Most of these TV backed charity walks make at least 100 k +
I gave my contribution did you?

[Peter Mallett]

Yup.

[S griffin]

If this is Lewis' last season, which I have a feeling it might be, it's going to be really interesting to see if anyone can beat him before he goes. Come on Bottas, this is your big opportunity!

[steve_r]

Bottas4.0

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

It's actually a good point you raise. Prost and Vettel have similar stats, but Vettel particularly is diminished.

Vettel's comparable stats are a reflection of the change in nature how F1/racing has evolved.

This millennium, F1 is so expensive and strict on tech regs, and the sporting regs favour the the best car, that it's impossible to overcome and advantage of the best car, and much easier to maintain it if you do. Money makes more of a difference than before. The merit of total wins isn't as impressive as it would be if similar occurred up until the 90s. The difference being is that you couldn't rack up those kind of stats.

Prost's 4 titles are of greater merit (Including the freebie in 93) than Schumacher's 5 at Ferrari, Vettel's 4, and Hamilton's last 6.

Yes, I was facetiously referring to Vettel. Prost is certainly a sometimes underconsidered driver. He had great speed and the fact that he claims to have driven only at the necessary speed to win means he was quite canny. Having said that, he did seem to have trouble dragging results out of recalcitrant cars at times, although is that unfair? Would people say he achieved some really good results with difficult-handling cars? Only very few drivers get very strong results with dodgy cars.

He didn't seem to inspire awe in the way Senna did, but that's the romantic's thing speaking. The same with Villeneuve. I mean, many consider Villeneuve one of the greatest, but just look at the results. They're not there.

Re: Bottas, I'm a bit concerned he doesn't believe he can beat Hamilton. In the interview at the launch, he talked about doing his best and seeing what the results would be at the end of the year. It wasn't exactly world champion-talk. You want to hear him saying 'I'll do my best and at the end of the year, I think I can beat this guy standing next to me. If you hear the context of the question, you might expect a bit more fighting talk.

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

Yes, I was facetiously referring to Vettel. Prost is certainly a sometimes underconsidered driver. He had great speed and the fact that he claims to have driven only at the necessary speed to win means he was quite canny. Having said that, he did seem to have trouble dragging results out of recalcitrant cars at times, although is that unfair? Would people say he achieved some really good results with difficult-handling cars? Only very few drivers get very strong results with dodgy cars.

He didn't seem to inspire awe in the way Senna did, but that's the romantic's thing speaking. The same with Villeneuve. I mean, many consider Villeneuve one of the greatest, but just look at the results. They're not there.

Re: Bottas, I'm a bit concerned he doesn't believe he can beat Hamilton. In the interview at the launch, he talked about doing his best and seeing what the results would be at the end of the year. It wasn't exactly world champion-talk. You want to hear him saying 'I'll do my best and at the end of the year, I think I can beat this guy standing next to me. If you hear the context of the question, you might expect a bit more fighting talk.

Prost beat the Williams pair and Senna in 1986 driving arguably a lesser package. Well it wasn't as quick anyway!

But some of that might also have been due to his not taking unecessary risks or percentage playing as you referred to?

Leads neatly onto GV who was the exact opposite. However we can point to his 1980 season in the T5 and more specifically 1981 to see when the results clearly flattered his Ferraris!

I don't think anyone else could have done what he did with the 126CK. The bloke never stopped trying but there are a few times when a little bit more patience could well have netted many more than his 6 wins.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

Okay, I'm not sure if you're saying that Hakkinen is better than Schumacher, or just that Schumacher is not the fastest driver of all time. By the way, I'm not saying Schumacher is the greatest driver of all time - I excluded him from that list because of Jerez 1997. I'm also not saying that he's the fastest on raw speed - that title definitely goes to Ayrton Senna. My argument is that, if there was a championship for every driver in history in equal cars (of course this is difficult to measure because of the differences between cars from different eras (Hamilton wouldn't beat Fangio in a 1950s car, but Fangio wouldn't beat Hamilton in a 2010s car), but lets just pretend that the cars they were driving all suited their driving styles, but were equally good), Michael Schumacher would win the championship, and I stand by that opinion.

I am going to assume you are arguing that Hakkinen was better than Schumacher. If this is not the case, I am sorry, but I don't see how Hakkinen can be used as an example to why Schumacher was less good than Hamilton, or Fangio, or Senna, so I will have to assume that you are arguing that Hakkinen was better than Schumacher.
Now you say that Hakkinen drove an inferior car to Schumacher in most of the seasons that they were in Formula 1. I'm sorry, but this is a totally pointless argument, because Hakkinen didn't beat Schumacher in those seasons. Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but 1992, for example, is not evidence that Hakkinen is better than Schumacher, because Schumacher beat Hakkinen in a superior car. This proves nothing. Then, in 1994 Schumacher won the championship, with Hakkinen not even close on points (92 vs 26), but Schumacher again was in a superior car, so it proves nothing. What I will say is that I think the Williams was a lot better than the Benetton, so the fact that Schumacher beat him to the championship was very impressive. But Hakkinen beat Alesi in a slower car, of course. One way to try and compare them is through teammates. The Hakkinen-Herbert comparison is hard to make for the races, because the Lotus was so unreliable in 1992, but in qualifying Hakkinen was only just ahead (average 12.5 to 13.1). Schumacher was a lot further ahead of Herbert in 1995, but it is not a particularly fair comparison as it doesn't show the closeness in time, just in positions, and I cannot find the data for the differences in time. According to these stats, Hakkinen was slightly further ahead of Brundle than Schumacher was, but don't forget that Hakkinen had a whole season's more experience than Schumacher had at the times that they faced Brundle.

In 1996, Schumacher scored almost double the points of Hakkinen, but Irvine finished behind Coulthard. Was Irvine really that much worse than Coulthard? I don't think so. I think the Ferrari was superior to the McLaren in 1996, but not by the margin that Schumacher beat Hakkinen. I think Schumacher was considerably better than Hakkinen this year. Then to 1997. Schumacher was disqualified this year, and for this reason he cannot be the greatest of all time. But in terms of the championship that I discussed earlier, this disqualification is irrelevant, and the important thing is the overall season. Schumacher dragged his Ferrari within three points of Jacques Villeneuve in a Williams that was so much better. Meanwhile, Hakkinen was beaten by Coulthard. This year, Schumacher was a lot better than Hakkinen, and I think the driver made a big difference here, not just the car - again the Ferrari was better, but the McLaren was not too far off. Schumacher made the difference.

Now, 1998. Here, Hakkinen had the dominant car, but only just edged out Schumacher by fourteen points. Schumacher was the better driver overall. Of course, Hakkinen was a lot further ahead of Coulthard this year than in previous years, maybe because Hakkinen improved, or maybe because Coulthard was much worse than before. It is hard to say, but I still think Schumacher was the better driver this year. You have then rightly ignored 1999 due to Schumacher's injury, but then we get to 2000, where Schumacher just beat Hakkinen in a close fight. But was the Ferrari definitely better than the McLaren? Coulthard beat Barrichello in the championship, and Barrichello had done a brilliant job in previous seasons. One factor that hasn't been considered here is that Schumacher was given preferential treatment by Ferrari, but I don't think that made as big a difference as some have made it seem. Finally, 2001, where Hakkinen had a shocker of a season, and Schumacher dominated the championship. Seeing as Schumacher had a horrible time in 2010-2012, I think I will allow Hakkinen this bad season and not count it against him.

So, overall, I would agree with you that Hakkinen was a very good driver, and is definitely in the top twenty of all time. But he was not on Schumacher's level. Maybe you were not arguing that Hakkinen was better than Schumacher, and were simply arguing that Schumacher is not the fastest driver, but if this is true you cannot use Hakkinen as proof for this. So the 'inferior car' idea doesn't work, because Schumacher beat Hakkinen in his 'superior car,' so it proves nothing. You mentioned the F3 titles, and I don't think this is relevant to the comparison in Formula 1, as Formula 3 is very different. For an example in recent times, Pierre Gasly only just beat a rookie Antonio Giovinazzi to the GP2 crown in 2016, when they were teammates, so Giovinazzi seemed like the better driver. But now look at them in Formula 1. Gasly is a race winner, and Giovinazzi has had a very poor last two years. I stand by my opinion that Schumacher would have won the previously mentioned championship.

I would discourage you from writing such large posts because it's just going to do your head in.

Despite all that, What's your opinion that the substantial changes for the 1994 season heavily benefited Benetton/Schumacher?

The 94 rules were designed specifically to gut the Williams team. But as a consequence, it also shafted McLaren. They were getting better and better with their electronics, and they were affected as well, but it gets lost because of the Peugeot engines blowing up.

Benetton were good, but no great. A few opportune wins here and there, and that's it. Had the rules not changed for 94 (or ever) they were not going to win a championship.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

I would discourage you from writing such large posts because it's just going to do your head in.

Despite all that, What's your opinion that the substantial changes for the 1994 season heavily benefited Benetton/Schumacher?

The 94 rules were designed specifically to gut the Williams team. But as a consequence, it also shafted McLaren. They were getting better and better with their electronics, and they were affected as well, but it gets lost because of the Peugeot engines blowing up.

Benetton were good, but no great. A few opportune wins here and there, and that's it. Had the rules not changed for 94 (or ever) they were not going to win a championship.

There was speculation that Benetton were using a driver aid, if it can be deemed as such, called ''launch control''. An investigation was carried out by LDRA Ltd. and subsequently the FIA in a press release said, the best evidence is that Benetton Formula Ltd. was not using "launch control''.

However, FIA Formula One Technical Delegate the late Charlie Whiting said, that in in accordance with Article 2.6 of the Formula One Technical Regulations, he was not satisfied Schumacher's car complied with the Regulations at all times during the San Marino Grand Prix, which would seem to contradict what the FIA were saying in their press release.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/b...s-release/655/

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

There was speculation that Benetton were using a driver aid, if it can be deemed as such, called ''launch control''. An investigation was carried out by LDRA Ltd. and subsequently the FIA in a press release said, the best evidence is that Benetton Formula Ltd. was not using "launch control''.

However, FIA Formula One Technical Delegate the late Charlie Whiting said, that in in accordance with Article 2.6 of the Formula One Technical Regulations, he was not satisfied Schumacher's car complied with the Regulations at all times during the San Marino Grand Prix, which would seem to contradict what the FIA were saying in their press release.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/b...s-release/655/

It's all a bit hard for me to form a definite opinion on it. I tend to go with a Frank Dernie interview I saw on youtube. He claimed there wasn't any traction control, but didn't deny something could've have been done with IT guys at Benetton that he didn't know about.

What I do know, without a doubt, is that the rules for 94 were to stop specifically the Williams domination. The just went a bit overboard with it, and it also affected McLaren/Hakkinen.