Where's Perry McCarthy?
Where do Hamilton and Vettel rank against the greatest drivers?
- Thread starter spudbynight
- Start date
Where's Perry McCarthy?
Soldato
Still trying to pre-qualify.
Caporegime
Hamilton is probably one of the greatest drivers ever but Vettel only has the record he has because he lucked into the Red Bull at the right time with a fading team mate. Where Hamilton rates is harder to say. I would put him behind Schumacher.
Soldato
No luck at Red Bull. He won titles twice in seasons where the car wasn't the out-right fastest and in the other two seasons he was as dominant as anyone has been. While Webber wasn't at his best towards the end of his career, he was previously considered one of the strongest qualifiers in F1, but he rarely got a sniff against Vettel and wasn't as consistent in the races.
I've said it several times already but nobody could do what Vettel could do in those cars. It danced from corner to corner like no other car I've ever seen and his ability to stretch out an immediate lead was unmatched by anyone. If anyone truly thinks Ricciardo would have jumped into the 2013 Red Bull and beaten Vettel then I think they need to go back and rewatch some races of those races.
He's not as good as Hamilton (or Alonso) but I think in that era he was as good - still not as good a racer as them, but at least as good a driver. An all-time great would be able to transfer those skills to another era, but with the birth of the hybrid era he lost a lot of what made him special in those years - still quick, but he's flatter and less potent now - Hamilton is too, but he's turned that into consistency. He is a top-20 driver of all time in my opinion and one of the most dominant too, but the hybrid era has ended any chance of him being considered a top-5 driver.
As for Hamilton vs Schumacher. That's a tricky one. Both have flaws and controversies in and out of the car, both possess a broad ranges of talents, both could dominate in the wet, both humiliated (albeit in very different circumstances) multiple world champion teammates and both operated best as a clear number one (contractually or effectively).
I think what separates them, and this is as much down to the era as the drivers, is the ability to go beyond what the car could do. I would say Hamilton often maximised what the car could do while Schumacher could go beyond what the car could do. I can't recall a race where I've looked at Hamilton and seen a Hungary 1998 style race for example, a Monaco 1995 race or perhaps a Malaysia 1999 race.
I would say in a way that Hamilton was the successor to Schumacher. Most eras have a driver like that with the natural ability and style to match speed - Ascari, Fangio, Clark, Stewart, 70s Lauda, Senna - and I'd add Schumacher and Hamilton to that list.
I've purposely left off two people that others might add to that list - Villeneuve and Alonso. Personally I think Alonso is at least as good as Schumacher and Hamilton, but it's not natural ability or style that makes him special, it's his consistency, determination and relentless nature that sets him apart - he's an extreme version of Mansell with more talent.
As for Villeneuve in my opinion most of his greatness is legendary... in that it is a legend. While undoubtedly stylish with a degree of natural ability, I just don't feel was all that good. He was often slower than not-especially-highly-rated teammates and was wreckless to the point of being dangerous (his actions killed himself and two others). For those that do consider him a great then the fuel-economy years that followed, had he not died, would have reflected worse on him than the hybrid era has Vettel.
Last edited:
This describes Hamilton' tenure at Mercedes in one sentence and pretty much most of his F1 career. He's never really out-performed a car that was not worthy of championship contention, he's had that comfort zone for most of his F1 career, would love for him to prove otherwise.
That is not to take away from the fact he ranks up there with some of the greatest F1 drivers.
Vettel is a level below Hamilton IMO, I think Hamilton is superior in most areas these days. I would say back in his red bull days Vettel was probably superior to Hamilton at the time when out in front on his own, but Hamilton has become much better since and I think he's just overall better now.
As for comparing to the other generations, I think it's almost impossible to compare as the sport changes so much over the years
As for comparing to the other generations, I think it's almost impossible to compare as the sport changes so much over the years
Caporegime
For his three recent victories, yeah, he's had a huge advantage, and if that was all he had I'd say it wasn't really proof of greatness on his part. But, in 2007 he beat the mighty Alonso (admittedly not on points), and came within a hair's breadth of winning the WC, in his first season, and the next season he won against a stronger Ferrari. This season we've seen him once again beating a better car through most of the season (I think Mercedes now have the edge, but Hamilton has beaten out Vettel despite a weaker car up to this point).
He has, of course, twice been beaten by his teammate - in 2011 and 2016. 2011 was a terrible year for Lewis, he let his frustration get the better of him and made a string of mistakes that cost him dearly, but I think he learnt and matured from that. 2016 was down to reliability not talent, and with Nico on the form of his life, the retirement from the lead in Malaysia was enough to lose the season for Hamilton.
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2018
- Posts
- 1,304
Lads, no offence but this is a load of tosh. You can't outperform a car, its literally impossible unless you want to rewrite the laws of physics. It's just a term commentators use for casual viewers to describe when someone is driving better than expected. It makes the drivers sound like gods, its a nice soundbite... nothing more.
No one has ever outperformed a car in the history of the world, its not possible lol. If someone got a result its because the car was capable of the result in that specific situation.
Replace the drivers with automated computers (more than possible) and the cars would all instantly be faster by a significant amount. The human is the limiting factor in finding a cars true potential.
Last edited:
Soldato
Hello, Captain Obvious. It's pretty clear that what was intended was their ability to make a car perform beyond expectations.
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2018
- Posts
- 1,304
You say that but countless people genuinly believe drivers outperform their cars. I mean the first guy I quoted has literally said 'the ability to go beyond what the car could do'...
Soldato
I can't believe someone just signed up to point that out!
Of course the car has a limit to what can be achieved, but ultimately nobody will ever extract the perfect lap, or perfect stint. That's beyond human capabilities - close to perfect perhaps, and something AI might be able to do a long way in the future, but for now not possible.
It's just a figure of speech. Perhaps I shouldn't have said Hamilton could extract the maximum out of the car and Schumacher beyond it, but you knew exactly what I meant.
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2018
- Posts
- 1,304
Pretty sure it's been possible since the early 90's, Adrian Newey talked about how it was possible whilst at Williams when active ride height suspension was the hot topic.
I didn't though, I thought you meant what you wrote because literally tons of people do genuinely believe drivers can outperform cars, perhaps you're not one of them but you worded the sentence to make it seem like you clearly did believe that to be the case.
Anyway its not like its just me who points this out, Pat Symonds once scolded Brundle live on TV for using that term and saying it winds engineers up no end.
Soldato
It's not possible. While you still need a driver to press the pedals and turn the wheel then there will never a 100% perfect lap.
When the likes of Hamilton says words along the lines of "that was the perfect lap" then they don't mean it literally (just like I didn't), they mean it's as close to perfect that they're likely to do with the limited sets of tyres and time they have. In a parallel universe with unlimited tyres and all day (assuming impossible constant atmospheric conditions) then they would probably beat it several times over.
I think if Brundle used it then I'm not going to feel too bad about upsetting you. Unless you're Pat Symonds. In which case you deserve to be upset.
Outperforming the car has been a phrase used in F1 for decades and while neckbeardthethird is correct in that it's a bit of a nonsensical statement logically (it's like saying "they gave 110%"), the usage of the term is generally used when a driver is in a car that is either horrible to drive or clearly inferior and is seen to be overachieving. It's probably a kind way to say the driver in the superior car who should be winning or winning more easily is being outdriven.
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2018
- Posts
- 1,304
I think you've misunderstood me, the text you quoted was me talking about how Adrian Newey said driverless/automated F1 cars were possible back in the early 90's. It was a hot subject back then because Williams had just introduced active ride height suspension which was controlled by a computer. Im fully aware no human can pull out a perfect lap.
a fair point
You aren’t an F1 engineer by any chance?
Soldato
James Hunt
Niki Lauda
Jackie Stewart
Graham Hill
Jim Clark
Ayrton Senna
Alain Prost
In no particular order but in my view glory years for F1.
Niki Lauda
Jackie Stewart
Graham Hill
Jim Clark
Ayrton Senna
Alain Prost
In no particular order but in my view glory years for F1.
Depends on the context - you can laser scan a tract to high precision these days, map the shortest distance against the car's abilities and even adjust the car's abilities on the fly to dynamically adjust its performance to a given section, etc. with computers, etc. to pretty much get a "perfect lap".