Formula One - 2017

You can do the same with wins. 58 out of 200 for Hamilton (29%) vs 91 out of 308 for Schumi (29.5%). That's actually far closer than I expected.

To be fair to current-era drivers who will never match MS's car-development abilities, there were essentially no restrictions on testing. Love hearing about him running into town and loading up the front seat with pizzas for the engineers.

His ability to win in an inferior car was astounding. I remember scratching my head as he stood on the top step, thinking: how the heck did he do that?!?

Confession: I make myself believe that he is fine, the ski accident is a false story so he can live a private life like a normal Joe.

Keith Tanner wrote: You can do the same with wins. 58 out of 200 for Hamilton (29%) vs 91 out of 308 for Schumi (29.5%). That's actually far closer than I expected.

Yeah, although if you discount the last 3 years at Mercedes, Schumacher's percentage is at 36.4%. Many successful drivers have a few underperforming years at the end of their career which push the percentages down -- Hamilton's stats don't include that because he's a current driver, and neither do Senna's for the obvious reason.

You can't really percentage out the points though, because they extended how far back they went several times (from 6th to 8th and now 10th).

codrus wrote: To somewhat correct for that kind of thing, you can look at percentage of races at which he got pole. Hamilton has 68 poles in 200 starts (34%), whereas Schumacher has 68 in 308 races (22%), or 250 (27%) if you want to exclude his "comeback" races at Mercedes. Senna has 68 poles in 162 races (40%) Qualifying wasn't really the area in which Schumacher excelled. I mean, he wasn't *bad* at it, certainly, but he's got 50% more wins than he does poles, whereas both Hamilton and Senna have more poles than victories.

I'm not an F1 technical wizard, so someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the manner in which teams prepare for qualifying has changed a lot as well. I remember back in 2011 one of (among many) reasons Red Bull was so dominant was that they would set their car up to run on fuel maps and settings that would be impractical to last a full race, but were blisteringly quick during qualifying. They would then set up to run really well in clean air during the race. I remember a few races then where Vettel did not qualify well for whatever reason and really struggled wheel-to-wheel and being in the pack and with dirty air.

I think the FIA cracked down on this, but watching F1 nowadays lead changes mostly either come on the first lap or during pit strategy. Qualifying has a huge impact on the chances for a good finish for the two starting rows, so it makes sense for teams to invest in excellent qualifying efforts if you're competing for podiums. Kind of the flip side to how, a few years ago to occasionally recently, a driver would get into Q3 but not set any times...the cost of P9 vs P10 was not worth the wear and tear or risk.

I'm not sure how completely different this was in the Schumacher era and don't have any behind the scenes knowledge, it's just a trend I have noticed that might skew modern top-tier drivers to have better qualifying records.

codrus wrote:

Keith Tanner wrote: You can do the same with wins. 58 out of 200 for Hamilton (29%) vs 91 out of 308 for Schumi (29.5%). That's actually far closer than I expected.

Yeah, although if you discount the last 3 years at Mercedes, Schumacher's percentage is at 36.4%. Many successful drivers have a few underperforming years at the end of their career which push the percentages down -- Hamilton's stats don't include that because he's a current driver, and neither do Senna's for the obvious reason. You can't really percentage out the points though, because they extended how far back they went several times (from 6th to 8th and now 10th).

Absolutely. And consider that Hamilton had a pretty remarkable start for his F1 career.

Double_Wishbone wrote: I think the FIA cracked down on this, but watching F1 nowadays lead changes mostly either come on the first lap or during pit strategy. Qualifying has a huge impact on the chances for a good finish for the two starting rows, so it makes sense for teams to invest in excellent qualifying efforts if you're competing for podiums. Kind of the flip side to how, a few years ago to occasionally recently, a driver would get into Q3 but not set any times...the cost of P9 vs P10 was not worth the wear and tear or risk. I'm not sure how completely different this was in the Schumacher era and don't have any behind the scenes knowledge, it's just a trend I have noticed that might skew modern top-tier drivers to have better qualifying records.

Qualifying was even more important in the Schumacher era than it is today, due to the lack of things like DRS and intentional tire degradation. I don't know much about F1 in the 80s, but I suspect it was critical then too -- basically going back to the introduction of significant amounts of aero grip and the resulting difficulty in passing a car due to "disturbed air".

Passing was epically bad during the early 2000s. During the 2001 Monaco GP, for example, DC (in a very fast McLaren) was stuck behind Enrique Bernoldi (in an Arrows) for 35 laps, completely unable to pass. Yes, it was Monaco, but even so...

Up until 2003 or so, teams had qualifying engines and in some cases even complete qualifying chassis. In the turbo era, qualifying engines ran more boost and made as much as 500 hp more than the race engines did.

It seems that an engine oil burn scenario exists the enables those savvy enough to utilize it within the rules gains a performance advantage up to this past race. Hmmmm Here after the consumption rate will be reduced in the name of BOP....for all those so inclined to wring every last ounce of greyness form the book of rules.

codrus wrote:

Keith Tanner wrote: You can do the same with wins. 58 out of 200 for Hamilton (29%) vs 91 out of 308 for Schumi (29.5%). That's actually far closer than I expected.

Yeah, although if you discount the last 3 years at Mercedes, Schumacher's percentage is at 36.4%. Many successful drivers have a few underperforming years at the end of their career which push the percentages down -- Hamilton's stats don't include that because he's a current driver, and neither do Senna's for the obvious reason. I seem to remember Schumi winning a lot of races by ridiculous margins. I wonder how much he would have backed off in the current rule set where you don't have unlimited hardware? Takes a longer viewpoint than just the next 200 miles, even to the point of retiring if you're just going to wear your driveline with no gain. You can't really percentage out the points though, because they extended how far back they went several times (from 6th to 8th and now 10th).

Then we run the numbers at the end of Hamilton's career and put a star beside them for now. Schumi decided to keep racing, those races are part of his career and lifetime stats. If you start to pick and choose time periods, you're basically just making things up.

Special qualifying trim is nothing new. It was a big thing during the previous turbo era. In the current hybrid era, you can use an unrealistic amount of battery power during your one fast lap.

Keith Tanner wrote: Then we run the numbers at the end of Hamilton's career and put a star beside them for now. Schumi decided to keep racing, those races are part of his career and lifetime stats. If you start to pick and choose time periods, you're basically just making things up.

Well, my goal was to try to infer things about driving style by looking at stats, and for that purpose it makes sense to try to compare apples to apples. If picking the last three years seems arbitrary, then how's this:

In his first 200 starts (up through today), Hamilton has 58 wins (29%) and 68 poles (34%)

In his first 200 starts (up through the European Grand Prix of 2004), Schumacher has 76 wins (38%) and 60 poles (30%)

Schumacher easily had the best car, and a CLEAR #2, so he could concentrate on race set-up. A nice priblem to have when you can spend FP1-3 and qualifying dialing a car in while everybody else takes an educated guess after qualifying.

heck with all of you- Tazio Nouvolare and Juan Manuel Fangio were better drivers than all of these modern kids.

Especially Fangio- the guy started driving F1 races when he was 39 years old, for crying out loud. And won his last championship at 46. Consider how many wins he could have had if he started younger. AND this was an era that drivers didn't last long.

Schumi ended his second period of driving when he was 43. Won his last championship at 37.

If Fangio started at Mike's age, I don't think it would be nearly as close as it was. 8 year career and 5 championships with 4 different makers. Amazing.

(which should point out the fallacy of trying to compare drivers between eras.)

etifosi wrote: To be fair to current-era drivers who will never match MS's car-development abilities, there were essentially no restrictions on testing.

This makes absolutely no sense if you really think about what you are saying.

Of course it would be much easier to develop a car with unlimited testing. Vs a few sessions pre-season and few sessions during the year like they have now.

Poor comparison in my opinion.

In reply to z31maniac:

Really? Seems like I said:

Current drivers can't develop cars due to testing restrictions, therefore will never have the opportunity to build their skills to the same level as MS.

codrus wrote: Qualifying was even more important in the Schumacher era than it is today, due to the lack of things like DRS and intentional tire degradation. I don't know much about F1 in the 80s, but I suspect it was critical then too -- basically going back to the introduction of significant amounts of aero grip and the resulting difficulty in passing a car due to "disturbed air". Passing was epically bad during the early 2000s. During the 2001 Monaco GP, for example, DC (in a very fast McLaren) was stuck behind Enrique Bernoldi (in an Arrows) for 35 laps, completely unable to pass. Yes, it was Monaco, but even so... Up until 2003 or so, teams had qualifying engines and in some cases even complete qualifying chassis. In the turbo era, qualifying engines ran more boost and made as much as 500 hp more than the race engines did.

Much less so, the aero back then was a) far more crude than it is now and b) even after banning skirts, there was a lot more underbody aero so the wake was far less dirty. Also look at the relatively simple front wings, just a simple 2 element wing with flat end plates to balance out the rear wing. That was less affected by wake as well. Finally we didn't get semi automatic trans until Ferrari launched them in 89 and Carbon ceramic brakes until the early 90's. All that meant that cars could follow more closely and longer braking distances meant more chances to overtake under braking into corners. In 1984 when Lauda won his last WDC he never once got a pole position, in fact if memory serves he was never on the front row.....Pause for fact check.... OK I'm back. Not only did he never get on the front row he was only on the second row three times. His average starting position was 7.68 so he 'normally' started from the 4th row of the grid. So no, back in the 80's qualifying was far less important than it has been for the last 20 years.

alfadriver wrote: heck with all of you- Tazio Nouvolare and Juan Manuel Fangio were better drivers than all of these modern kids. Especially Fangio- the guy started driving F1 races when he was 39 years old, for crying out loud. And won his last championship at 46. Consider how many wins he could have had if he started younger. AND this was an era that drivers didn't last long. Schumi ended his second period of driving when he was 43. Won his last championship at 37. If Fangio started at Mike's age, I don't think it would be nearly as close as it was. 8 year career and 5 championships with 4 different makers. Amazing. (which should point out the fallacy of trying to compare drivers between eras.)

I know your post was 50% jest, but comparing driver accross 67 years of F1 or over 100 years of racing in general is impossible.

Let's face it, today Fangio would never have got past local racing or maybe sports cars starting at 39. There is no way he could build the fitness needed for today's single seaters. Even the 'great' Senna was so woefully unfit at the start of his F1 career in 84 that he had to be lifted from the car after some races by his mechanics. Also there is zero chance a half black young kid who's parents came from the Caribbean would have stood a chance making it in racing in the UK back in the late 40's early 50's. I'm not even sure you can truly compare the pre and post wings/slicks era. One things for sure. There's not one person who's won a Grand Prix who I could beat in anything!

In reply to Adrian_Thompson:

Thing is, all of your points do cover the modern era, too. So.

None the less, there were some great drivers in the 50's, and Fangio bested them all, 5 out of 8 seasons. So on a relative basis, that's amazing.

We have a pretty good idea that Ferrari were decent cheaters in Mike's era, so there's that black mark. And there were some tire wars going on, that Ferrari was able to take advantage of, so there's that black mark.

Both Senna and Prost benefited from a great car, and most years, and amazing engine that other teams didn't have. So there's that.

I can go on- there's always a reason someone can be discounted from a comparison. Anyone.

Why we need to put any modern driver "in his place" is beyond me. Senna and Schumi's families were FAR more gracious than fans seem to be. And given the friends I have made of other athletes over the years, that's hardly surprising- fans tend to take this a LOT more serious than they should relative to the people actually competing. Which is silly- it's just entertainment to us.

In reply to alfadriver:

That was my point, I was trying to say that you can't compare across eras. To me Prost is the best because he was the best of that era against Senna, Mansel, Piquet, Berger, Alesi, Jones, Warwick, Lauda etc. To me I count him above Schumacher, Alonso, Hamilton and Vettle because of his behavior out of the cockpit and his sporting behaviour in it, not so much a head to head comparison of driver stats and cars. It's all personal opinion so it's worth jack poopoo anyway.

Adrian_Thompson wrote: In reply to alfadriver: That was my point, I was trying to say that you can't compare across eras. To me Prost is the best because he was the best of that era against Senna, Mansel, Piquet, Berger, Alesi, Jones, Warwick, Lauda etc. To me I count him above Schumacher, Alonso, Hamilton and Vettle because of his behavior out of the cockpit and his sporting behaviour in it, not so much a head to head comparison of driver stats and cars. It's all personal opinion so it's worth jack poopoo anyway.

And it is cool to observe driving styles. You could make an argument that some eras reward some driving styles more than others, but that doesn't stop you from enjoying what's going on. I'm not as big of a Prost fan as you are, but you have to respect the way he approached driving a race car, regardless of the era. Similar to why Verstappen has a lot of fans--people just enjoy watching him race and like the mentality that he brings when he steps in the cockpit. In this way it's a little less like making a comparison and more enjoying what's going on whether you're watching a race live or an old race replay.

In reply to Double_Wishbone:

Good point. I'm not a mad max fan...yet….He can still win me over. Right now he's undoubtable one of the fastest out there, but he's a spoiled petulant brat that needs a smacking upside the head and sitting down for a good talking too. Maybe take away his binkie and send him to bed without any supper. Once he settles down and drops the BS no hope antics and constant whining I think he has the ability to be brilliant.

Remember how Prost matured after his first WDC in 85? Before that he was known to be more reckless, after that is when he picked up the title of ‘the Professor’

Driving style I thought this was a some what comical but truth about driving style. I always thought daniel has a very smooth style of racing.

trigun7469 wrote: Driving style I thought this was a some what comical but truth about driving style. I always thought daniel has a very smooth style of racing.

Not only that, but the charisma of Daniel. Gotta love his breath of fresh air. Not even his sense of humor, his whole personality. I get a kick out of the pictures where everyone is trying to look badass and then there's D-Ric giving his best smile.

The thing I like about his driving style is that he's definitely smooth but takes calculated risks that make for great, but not reckless, racing.

I think a pretty good argument, with drivers over the last fourty or so years, could directly compare their success as a driver to their timing and choice of team. I really do think that Lewis is a hell of a driver, but had he stuck with McLaren, we absolutely would not be having this conversation. Mike's move to Ferrari was well timed, Jacques Villeneuve wouldn't have done a thing without that Williams under him, Mario had the ground effects Lotus..

Timing isn't everything, but it's a big thing. Ask Alonso.

Streetwiseguy wrote: I think a pretty good argument, with drivers over the last fourty or so years, could directly compare their success as a driver to their timing and choice of team. I really do think that Lewis is a hell of a driver, but had he stuck with McLaren, we absolutely would not be having this conversation. Mike's move to Ferrari was well timed, Jacques Villeneuve wouldn't have done a thing without that Williams under him, Mario had the ground effects Lotus.. Timing isn't everything, but it's a big thing. Ask Alonso.

Consider timing at the beginning of careers as well. Lewis started with McLaren at a great time to do so. Rosberg, also a championship winner with Mercedes, had a long career before attaining even a grand prix victory. He drove for Mercedes before they contested for podiums. Lewis won races in his debut year, had a string of podiums, and finished runner up in the championship. Very impressive and no matter what anyone can say about him, he is a phenomenal driver, but timing played a very important part in how his career unfolded.

In reply to Streetwiseguy: Mikey knew how to build a team around him, which not sure if it is timing or just the way some teams may work. Vettel is trying a similar method.

Perhaps it was more driving style then right timing, when R. Barrichelo was at Brawn in 2009, I think he expected too be much faster and leading the championship. Button ended up dominating the first 6-7 races.

Double_Wishbone wrote: Consider timing at the beginning of careers as well. Lewis started with McLaren at a great time to do so. Rosberg, also a championship winner with Mercedes, had a long career before attaining even a grand prix victory. He drove for Mercedes before they contested for podiums. Lewis won races in his debut year, had a string of podiums, and finished runner up in the championship. Very impressive and no matter what anyone can say about him, he is a phenomenal driver, but timing played a very important part in how his career unfolded.

You could make the argument that being able to pick the right teams at the right times has always been a critical-if-overlooked "skill" for F1 drivers. There were some folks that raised their eyebrows at Lewis when he jumped from McLaren to Mercedes. That sure proved to be the right move, though. Alonso, for all his talent, went to Ferrari when it was competitive, but not quite equal to the top teams. Then he left for McLaren-Honda, and we all know how that worked out.

Then there are the guys who simply seem to bend a team to their will. Schumacher at Ferrari, for instance.