The 2019 Season - Your Verdict

[zako85]

If you cannot appreciate the achievements of Schumacher, then you do not understand racing. I begin to see why you do not appreciate Hamilton. Hakkinen was awesome but not in the Schumacher or Hamilton sense of the word. These guys are in a league of their own and Hakkinen is miles away from it.

Schumacher made plenty achievements, but in my opinion his biggest achievement was starting the trend of "baby drivers" joining F1. He basically said, you will be more likely to win multiple champion titles if you join F1 at the tender age of only 20 years or younger, unlike grown men like Ayrton Senna (came into F1 at age of 23-24) or Damon Hill (much older).

But at the same time Schumacher has done enough of shoddy things to make me consider Hamilton a better driver even already after the 2018 season. What's wrong my Schummy's record? The absolutely despicable 1994 season involving a cheater car from Benetton with illegal launch control system, which Schumacher almost certainly used, removed valve from the fueling system, and the championship deciding collision in the final race. This should should have been Hill's tittle IMHO.

Then in 1997 he crashed into Villeneuve, on purpose again, in order to decide the championship, but this time the FIA was much harsher on him, disqualifying Schummy from the entire season. The great thing about Hamilton is that he was never involved in such scandals. Schummy was involved in two championship deciding collisions and yet we still consider him the greatest of all time? Please..

He did very well in the 2000s, but having Barrichello as a teammate is like having Bottas or Webber in your team, which means not enough competition. I give credit to Hamilton because he had to battle with Rosberg 2013-2016, who was much better than anyone predicted, and then with Vettel-Ferrari in 2017-18.

[airshifter]

Schumacher made plenty achievements, but in my opinion his biggest achievement was starting the trend of "baby drivers" joining F1. He basically said, you will be more likely to win multiple champion titles if you join F1 at the tender age of only 20 years or younger, unlike grown men like Ayrton Senna (came into F1 at age of 23-24) or Damon Hill (much older).

But at the same time Schumacher has done enough of shoddy things to make me consider Hamilton a better driver even already after the 2018 season. What's wrong my Schummy's record? The absolutely despicable 1994 season involving a cheater car from Benetton with illegal launch control system, which Schumacher almost certainly used, removed valve from the fueling system, and the championship deciding collision in the final race. This should should have been Hill's tittle IMHO.

Then in 1997 he crashed into Villeneuve, on purpose again, in order to decide the championship, but this time the FIA was much harsher on him, disqualifying Schummy from the entire season. The great thing about Hamilton is that he was never involved in such scandals. Schummy was involved in two championship deciding collisions and yet we still consider him the greatest of all time? Please..

He did very well in the 2000s, but having Barrichello as a teammate is like having Bottas or Webber in your team, which means not enough competition. I give credit to Hamilton because he had to battle with Rosberg 2013-2016, who was much better than anyone predicted, and then with Vettel-Ferrari in 2017-18.

And let's face facts. During the Ferrari years, nobody was allowed to race him while on the same team. He rightfully earned his way into the team and helped mold it, but the dominance from that point on was assisted by the team. As for the comparison to Hamilton, Hamilton easily wins in the "race hard but clean" category IMHO.

While in the heat of battle he was a great driver, his competitive side would just as often force him into bad decisions that weren't at all sporting. Parking a car at Rascasse comes to mind, and since Mika has entered the thread, why don't we ask him about being put onto the grass at 180 MPH?




But IMHO, NONE of these guys are superhuman, and their records on the track are only part of the story. Not a single one of them won a WDC in a crap car, and both hard work and luck led them to the cars that allowed them titles. There are drivers who never got a good break to find themselves in one of those cars, and others who just had the bad luck of when they made moves to other teams. There is nothing surreal or amazing about those with multiple titles really. If anything I'm more impressed that they were (or are) fortunate enough to drive for a team that can consistently put hardware under them that is capable of winning those titles.

On the flip side, there has to be a great driver in the seat to provide good racing. And when the cars were closely matched, Schumi and The Häkk gave us some great racing to watch at the front of the pack. Both great drivers in their day, but also both vastly aided in their success by the cars they were driving. And human, subject to flaws all of us have.

[journeyman racer]

If it's my signature you're talking about, it has got nothing to do with Häkkinen winning the F1 championship on that day, but rather the death of CART racer Greg Moore on the same day, to whom my nickname is a tribute also. In fact, I was actually rooting for Mika to win the title earlier that day, as I much preferred him as a person to Schumacher.

So I'm not trying to diminish Häkkinen's achievements at all, nor his views on F1. I'm only questioning his objectivity with regard to Bottas, whom he known and mentored since his teen days and now manages.

I was talking to Nitrodaze, and it was his signature I was referring to. The first two lines of my quote refer to you, the last one to Nitrodaze.

Ok, Hakkinen probably favours Bottas when he probably knows there's guys inherently better than him. But it's not definitely the case that it is. It's not completely mind blowing that one could consider Bottas/Leclerc as the two best. If you surveyed enough people of varying demographics, it's possible you could find random people that share Mika's opinion without having the insight he has.

The more knowledge you have, the better you're able to make an accurate decision or opinion. Mika would have a better insight into what goes on than many of us. He's always going to be respected at MB having won WC with them. Even if they don't tell him the juicy bits, Bottas would tell. If nothing else, Raikkonen would tell him how Ferrari go about it. He's a WC in an Adrian Newey car, and he works for McLaren.

That's 4 avenues to access how the top 4 in the wcc go about it. But you're going to give the old "He manages Bottas, so he's probably biased.." line?

racing is pretty complicated. Have you considered the possibility that Bottas' best chance to beat Hamilton to the title, is to drive for a different team in a slightly worse car? At Ferrari for instance, as ide from MB being slanted towards Hamilton, he would not be asked to slow down to allow Hamilton pit and get out in front of him, like MB did at Singapore.

What if you got a job at the engineering department of MB, and found out about all these intricate advantages MB gave Hamilton, but was so boring and complicated, it doesn't get out to the public? "Shit, Autosport never told me about this..."

The Dutchies are biased, TBK is biased. Mika breaks it down and tells you what's going on.

[airshifter]

I was talking to Nitrodaze, and it was his signature I was referring to. The first two lines of my quote refer to you, the last one to Nitrodaze.

Ok, Hakkinen probably favours Bottas when he probably knows there's guys inherently better than him. But it's not definitely the case that it is. It's not completely mind blowing that one could consider Bottas/Leclerc as the two best. If you surveyed enough people of varying demographics, it's possible you could find random people that share Mika's opinion without having the insight he has.

The more knowledge you have, the better you're able to make an accurate decision or opinion. Mika would have a better insight into what goes on than many of us. He's always going to be respected at MB having won WC with them. Even if they don't tell him the juicy bits, Bottas would tell. If nothing else, Raikkonen would tell him how Ferrari go about it. He's a WC in an Adrian Newey car, and he works for McLaren.

That's 4 avenues to access how the top 4 in the wcc go about it. But you're going to give the old "He manages Bottas, so he's probably biased.." line?

racing is pretty complicated. Have you considered the possibility that Bottas' best chance to beat Hamilton to the title, is to drive for a different team in a slightly worse car? At Ferrari for instance, as ide from MB being slanted towards Hamilton, he would not be asked to slow down to allow Hamilton pit and get out in front of him, like MB did at Singapore.

What if you got a job at the engineering department of MB, and found out about all these intricate advantages MB gave Hamilton, but was so boring and complicated, it doesn't get out to the public? "Shit, Autosport never told me about this..."

The Dutchies are biased, TBK is biased. Mika breaks it down and tells you what's going on.

You know, maybe if you quit with the kid level insults directed at certain forum members people would take you more seriously. But your trend is to troll the forums looking for an argument, then disregarding any facts or opinions brought into the discussion by others. Discussion/debate/dialogue involves more than one person, and thus other opinions.

I think we have all seen the lengths you will go to in order to declare yourself right. The Mika stuff is just the latest attempt to assert you must be right because Mika must be right. Yet you would just as quickly disregard the opinion of others that have great insight into the sport..... if their opinion opposed yours.

I think you take your opinion as fact not to be disputed. Yet you've not even come close to convincing anyone else of that, nor will you with an approach that resembles that of a 12 year old having a tantrum.


Mika was one of my favorite drivers, and he's still well connected. But Alonso was another favorite, and very well connected also. Yet I'd bet they differ on quite a few opinions regarding the sport, as would any other driver. They are all human and just as prone to bias as anyone on the forum.

[Nitrodaze]

And let's face facts. During the Ferrari years, nobody was allowed to race him while on the same team. He rightfully earned his way into the team and helped mold it, but the dominance from that point on was assisted by the team. As for the comparison to Hamilton, Hamilton easily wins in the "race hard but clean" category IMHO.

While in the heat of battle he was a great driver, his competitive side would just as often force him into bad decisions that weren't at all sporting. Parking a car at Rascasse comes to mind, and since Mika has entered the thread, why don't we ask him about being put onto the grass at 180 MPH? Both great drivers in their day, but also both vastly aided in their success by the cars they were driving. And human, subject to flaws all of us have.

There is no doubt about it, Schaumacher was a controvercial multiple world champion. Yes he would do whatever it takes to win, including crashing into opponents and any dirty tricks he can get away with. This is the reason why Hill is not a multiple world champion. He was super fast but lacked Schumachers killer instinct. These are traits that you see in the very best on the grid. They hate losing, winning is everything.

We saw it when Prost crashed into Senna to win the championship and when Senna returned the favour to himself win the championship. There isn't one multiple world champion without some form of chequered past, if you look closely enough. Be it Alonso or Vettel or Hamilton 2016 as Rosberg squirmed through the Abu Dhabi race that sealed his only drivers world championship.

Winning world championships is not an easy affair. And not all drivers on the grid have the particular skill to do it. Those that do are few and far between and are usually very special. They usually are unapologetically singleminded about winning.

I think it is a load of crap to say any driver on the grid could have won the same titles given the same chances. If that were the case, Massa would have been world Champion. He was good enough to be world champion but it eluded him. So was Irvine, Webber, Coultard to name a few. All of these guys were super fast and had access to championship winning cars but could not convert the opportunity into a single driver's title. Also, Nico Rosberg would have had more than one title to his name.

I have to say, it is plain stupid to say the multiple world champion were lucky as well. Luck had a small part to do with it, but a majority of the time, making their own luck had lots to do with their incredible achievements. Making luck is the difference between the champions and those that never win championships.

Inspite of his flaws, Schumacher's achievement is unquestionably the highest ever attained in the history of the formula. Just as Hamilton's achievement is unquestably the most impressive in the current era of F1 racing. They are not just another racer to be raced, they are the guy any racer must beat to attain any semblance of respect. The question is always going to be; "Who did you beat". Hakkinen and Alonso can always say l beat Schumacher which gave them instant credibility. Vettel would say l beat Alonso, Hamilton, Raikonenn and Button. And Hamilton can say, I beat Alonso, Vettel, Raikonenn, Button and Rosberg. Each of these guys world champions.

So we should not make an incredibly hard achievement into a ridicle or trivia. Even if the champion is not to your particular liking.

[airshifter]

There is no doubt about it, Schaumacher was a controvercial multiple world champion. Yes he would do whatever it takes to win, including crashing into opponents and any dirty tricks he can get away with. These are traits that you see in the very beast in the grid. They hate losing, winning is everything.

We saw it when Prost crashed into Senna to win the championship and when Senna returned the favour to himself win the championship. There isn't one multiple world champion without some form of chequered past, if you look closely enough. Be it Alonso or Vettel or Hamilton 2016 as Rosberg squirmed through the Abu Dhabi race that sealed his only drivers world championship.

Winning world championships is not an easy affair. And not all drivers on the grid have the particular skill to do it. Those that do are few and far between and are usually very special. I think it is a load of crap to say any driver on the grid could have won the same titles given the same chances. If that were the case, Massa would have beeen world Champion. He was good enough to be world champion but it eluded him. So was Irvine, Webber, Coultard to name a few. All of these guys had access to championship winning cars but could not convert the opportunity into a single driver's title.

I have to say, it is plain stupid to say the multiple world champion were lucky as well. Luck had a small part to do with it, but a majority of the time, making their own luck had lots to do with the incredible achievements. Making luck is the difference between the champions and those that never win championships.

I think they need that drive to keep them going, and some just don't turn it off when it's appropriate. Though of the group you listed, I think Lewis has had far fewer of the "red mist" sinister actions considering his time in the sport.


I guess I would have to say that Jenson Button didn't really do anything sinister his WDC year. The car was so dominant that all he really had to do was beat his team mate, and then towards the end of the year keep Seb and RB in hand.

[Nitrodaze]

I guess I would have to say that Jenson Button didn't really do anything sinister his WDC year. The car was so dominant that all he really had to do was beat his team mate, and then towards the end of the year keep Seb and RB in hand.

I was actually refering to multiple world champions which Button isn't. Even so, he did run Hamilton into the wall at Canada when they were both at Mclaren. I am sure Hamilton had given him a similar treatment at some point as well.

[airshifter]

There is no doubt about it, Schaumacher was a controvercial multiple world champion. Yes he would do whatever it takes to win, including crashing into opponents and any dirty tricks he can get away with. This is the reason why Hill is not a multiple world champion. He was super fast but lacked Schumachers killer instinct. These are traits that you see in the very best on the grid. They hate losing, winning is everything.

We saw it when Prost crashed into Senna to win the championship and when Senna returned the favour to himself win the championship. There isn't one multiple world champion without some form of chequered past, if you look closely enough. Be it Alonso or Vettel or Hamilton 2016 as Rosberg squirmed through the Abu Dhabi race that sealed his only drivers world championship.

Winning world championships is not an easy affair. And not all drivers on the grid have the particular skill to do it. Those that do are few and far between and are usually very special. They usually are unapologetically singleminded about winning.

I think it is a load of crap to say any driver on the grid could have won the same titles given the same chances. If that were the case, Massa would have been world Champion. He was good enough to be world champion but it eluded him. So was Irvine, Webber, Coultard to name a few. All of these guys were super fast and had access to championship winning cars but could not convert the opportunity into a single driver's title. Also, Nico Rosberg would have had more than one title to his name.

I have to say, it is plain stupid to say the multiple world champion were lucky as well. Luck had a small part to do with it, but a majority of the time, making their own luck had lots to do with their incredible achievements. Making luck is the difference between the champions and those that never win championships.

Inspite of his flaws, Schumacher's achievement is unquestionably the highest ever attained in the history of the formula. Just as Hamilton's achievement is unquestably the most impressive in the current era of F1 racing. They are not just another racer to be raced, they are the guy any racer must beat to attain any semblance of respect. The question is always going to be; "Who did you beat". Hakkinen and Alonso can always say l beat Schumacher which gave them instant credibility. Vettel would say l beat Alonso, Hamilton, Raikonenn and Button. And Hamilton can say, I beat Alonso, Vettel, Raikonenn, Button and Rosberg. Each of these guys world champions.

So we should not make an incredibly hard achievement into a ridicle or trivia. Even if the champion is not to your particular liking.

I'm quoting this again, as I think you were editing it after I had quoted it, thus I missed some of the context....

I've never stated that any driver on the grid could win a WDC in the right car, I'm just of the strong opinion that as often as not (if not more) the car is at least 50-60% of the equation. We've seen multiple instances of WDC drivers that struggle in average or even above average cars. If they themselves (and not the car/driver combination) were the primary factor in WDC standings, we would have examples of WDC drivers in cars that were down in the WCC standings quite a bit. And in any case, good car or bad, the driver must beat the other drivers on his team. By the time you factor in that, mechanical problems, status within the team, team orders, etc..... well there are quite a few times the best driver on a given day might not win the race.

As far as luck... IMHO luck is luck. Despite all the hard work that gives the upper tier drivers more options, they can make a decision that leaves them in a car that isn't going to take anyone to a WDC. Who beat who is a circular debate, as every WDC beat everyone else that year. So regardless of the driver, you still have to take their whole career into the picture to have a better gauge of where they stand among the best. Would Jenson be considered one of the GOATs if the Brawn dominance continued? By some maybe, but not by me. He beat Seb, Fernando, Lewis, Nico, and Kimi. That year, in a superior car. This doesn't mean that I don't consider him a very good or even great driver, or ridicule his title. It simply means that I view his entire career in context, just as I do with others. He even beat Lewis in the same car, but only one out of three times.

So overall, I still view the car as a big part of a drivers record. And though I openly agree that drivers must propel themselves to the upper levels, at some point luck is still just luck and not made IMHO.


The worst drivers that make it to the grid have more road racing skill than most of us will ever hope to have. Which are the very best is highly subjective, even when we realize they are all better than most of the world. But they are still humans, and in this case humans highly assisted by the hardware they are in. I'll remember the years that any driver dominated another team mate, or drove well beyond what the car seemed capable of, just as much as I'll remember the years that a team and driver walked away with titles. Alonso in that pig of a Ferrari he walked into on his return comes to mind.

[Nitrodaze]

I'm quoting this again, as I think you were editing it after I had quoted it, thus I missed some of the context....

I've never stated that any driver on the grid could win a WDC in the right car, I'm just of the strong opinion that as often as not (if not more) the car is at least 50-60% of the equation. We've seen multiple instances of WDC drivers that struggle in average or even above average cars. If they themselves (and not the car/driver combination) were the primary factor in WDC standings, we would have examples of WDC drivers in cars that were down in the WCC standings quite a bit. And in any case, good car or bad, the driver must beat the other drivers on his team. By the time you factor in that, mechanical problems, status within the team, team orders, etc..... well there are quite a few times the best driver on a given day might not win the race.

As far as luck... IMHO luck is luck. Despite all the hard work that gives the upper tier drivers more options, they can make a decision that leaves them in a car that isn't going to take anyone to a WDC. Who beat who is a circular debate, as every WDC beat everyone else that year. So regardless of the driver, you still have to take their whole career into the picture to have a better gauge of where they stand among the best. Would Jenson be considered one of the GOATs if the Brawn dominance continued? By some maybe, but not by me. He beat Seb, Fernando, Lewis, Nico, and Kimi. That year, in a superior car. This doesn't mean that I don't consider him a very good or even great driver, or ridicule his title. It simply means that I view his entire career in context, just as I do with others. He even beat Lewis in the same car, but only one out of three times.

So overall, I still view the car as a big part of a drivers record. And though I openly agree that drivers must propel themselves to the upper levels, at some point luck is still just luck and not made IMHO.


The worst drivers that make it to the grid have more road racing skill than most of us will ever hope to have. Which are the very best is highly subjective, even when we realize they are all better than most of the world. But they are still humans, and in this case humans highly assisted by the hardware they are in. I'll remember the years that any driver dominated another team mate, or drove well beyond what the car seemed capable of, just as much as I'll remember the years that a team and driver walked away with titles. Alonso in that pig of a Ferrari he walked into on his return comes to mind.

Sorry buddy, l was not directing my comments to you in particular. It was a general statement mostly from Journeymans recent comments.

[Zico]

I'm quoting this again, as I think you were editing it after I had quoted it, thus I missed some of the context....

I've never stated that any driver on the grid could win a WDC in the right car, I'm just of the strong opinion that as often as not (if not more) the car is at least 50-60% of the equation. We've seen multiple instances of WDC drivers that struggle in average or even above average cars. If they themselves (and not the car/driver combination) were the primary factor in WDC standings, we would have examples of WDC drivers in cars that were down in the WCC standings quite a bit. And in any case, good car or bad, the driver must beat the other drivers on his team. By the time you factor in that, mechanical problems, status within the team, team orders, etc..... well there are quite a few times the best driver on a given day might not win the race.

As far as luck... IMHO luck is luck. Despite all the hard work that gives the upper tier drivers more options, they can make a decision that leaves them in a car that isn't going to take anyone to a WDC. Who beat who is a circular debate, as every WDC beat everyone else that year. So regardless of the driver, you still have to take their whole career into the picture to have a better gauge of where they stand among the best. Would Jenson be considered one of the GOATs if the Brawn dominance continued? By some maybe, but not by me. He beat Seb, Fernando, Lewis, Nico, and Kimi. That year, in a superior car. This doesn't mean that I don't consider him a very good or even great driver, or ridicule his title. It simply means that I view his entire career in context, just as I do with others. He even beat Lewis in the same car, but only one out of three times.

So overall, I still view the car as a big part of a drivers record. And though I openly agree that drivers must propel themselves to the upper levels, at some point luck is still just luck and not made IMHO.


The worst drivers that make it to the grid have more road racing skill than most of us will ever hope to have. Which are the very best is highly subjective, even when we realize they are all better than most of the world. But they are still humans, and in this case humans highly assisted by the hardware they are in. I'll remember the years that any driver dominated another team mate, or drove well beyond what the car seemed capable of, just as much as I'll remember the years that a team and driver walked away with titles. Alonso in that pig of a Ferrari he walked into on his return comes to mind.

At last... someone unbiased, able to apply logic and who really understands the status quo in F1. Thank you for restoring my faith in this forum!
I wholeheartedly agree with 99% of everything you have written, our views are so similar its unreal.

The only tiny thing that I might disagree on is your statement on the car being 50-60% of the equation. I'm of the opinion that it is not a fixed percentage and actually a variable percentage and more in line with just how much better the dominant car is as well as simply being quicker than your team mate.


Could all of the drivers on the grid win the WDC in a hugely dominant car? Of course not... simple maths, of any 2 drivers in a team, someone has to finish 2nd which automatically rules out half the grid.

Open ended question... Is luck just luck? I think in most cases it is... Although I guess if you are super well connected with a finger on the pulse and able to have half an insight on which team is likely to dominate, one might reasonably argue that to be a skill... It is clearly not a driver skill though, if anyone really wants to argue otherwise please do go for it... I've got some popcorn in the cupboard.

What does this 'GOAT' word I keep reading on here actually mean? Greatest what of all time?

Lets face it, until F1 is a one make series with far more equality between machinery, this constant crowing from the one winning drivers fanboy fanbase is quite frankly an embarrassment to true F1 fans... normal people who just love great wheel to wheel racing regardless of who it is.