Who has had better cars - Hamilton or Vettel?

[Jonnycraig]

Vettel enjoyed the best car by a country mile four seasons in a row. I don't think it's entirely accurate or fair, but if you judge by Kimi and Massa's current performances, in 2007 and '08 Ferrari was the best car and Macca only came close.

If Mercedes keep their dominance for two more years I'd say Ham and Vet would be even stevens. IMHO, it's also worth noting some of Merc's current performance is redundant for Ham to win the WDC title.

The thread doesn't ask who had the best cars, rather who had better cars. Hamilton undeniable had a championship competitive car in 2007 & 2008, whilst Vettel didn't. The only years you can make a case for Hamilton not having a challenger is 2009, 2011 & 2013, and even in 2011, Button was able to comfortably beat Webber in the RB7.

[sgth0mas]

This thread is going to "go fanboy" before long...

Yep...this is nothing but a "whose the better driver" thread. Which is always filled with bias and personal preference.

[mrluke]

I think the best way to judge how a good a car was for each year would be to see what ‰ of points they scored in the wcc against the winning car for that year.

If the constructor won the championship they arguably had the best car, if the constructor was a really close 2nd then they still had a great car.

[flynfrog]

Ok guys the first poster presented his data, his method, and his results and not one of the replies has attempted to do the same...... Lets try to focus on that instead of what you "feel"

[SectorOne]

I can definitely see this thread going smooth with constructive opinions based on facts.





Said nobody ever.

[Miguel]

The fact is there is no single way to declare that either had a better car through their career. Like in referendums (Scotland, Greece, UK in EU to come), the result strongly depends on the question asked. In this case, it depends on how you define ¨better¨:

• Total points: According to Kingshark, if 2015 continues unchanged, Hamilton's team average will be higher than Vettel's.
• By year, binary according to WCC final position: Vettel wins 5-2 when both compete, since Hamilton's car has only been better in WCC in 2008 and 20014.
• By year, not WCC. This is full of "I feel, maybe, perhaps". Was 2009 McLaren better than 2014 RBR? Was the 2012 McLaren better than the 2012 RBR, even if the latter won the WCC? By how much? Was the 2007 McLaren the best car of the field? Obviously, the best car that year was a Ferrari, though.
• Arbitrary points classification: Dominant car, 4 points. WCC winner, 3 points. WCC challenger, 2 points. Race winner, 1 points. Other, 0 points. After this you ask, is the 2010 RBR dominant, or just WCC? What about the 2007 McLaren? Is the 2012 McLaren a race winner or a WCC challenger?.

Anyway, you get the idea. Of course, if you don't like the answer that option 4 gives you, you can adopt an exponential points curve, or a logarithmic one, or, why not, a non-monotonous one.

Having said all that, my feel is that Hamilton's had pretty fast cars regularly, but Vettel's have been even better. But well, I also feel that RBR almost managed to ruin the 2010 championships, and in 2012 they should have won much earlier. I also feel that adding WCC points isn't entirely fair, because, well, Button/Alonso/Rosberg for 3/4ths of your career looks more impressive than Webber for the same proportion. But that's only how I feel.

PS: I'll throw Arrow's theorem for some laughs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s ... ty_theorem

[Just_a_fan]

Hamilton undeniable had a championship competitive car in 2007 & 2008, whilst Vettel didn't.

Yes, in the first year he was a rookie, came second in the championship by one point and beat the reigning double world champion. All whilst the team imploded around them. Not too shabby, all things considered.

In the second year he won the title.

The only years you can make a case for Hamilton not having a challenger is 2009, 2011 & 2013, and even in 2011, Button was able to comfortably beat Webber in the RB7.

In 2009 Hamilton had a dog of a car and still managed 2 wins that year. Vettel, by the way, didn't win at all in his "dog" RB10 in 2014 although his team mate did win 3 races. Make of that what you will.
In 2010, the McLaren wasn't bad but it couldn't stay with the RedBull and Ferrari (at least in Alonso's hands). Vettel and Alonso both took 5 wins, the other RedBull had 4 wins, Hamilton 3 and Button 2. So the McLaren drivers look to have extracted what the car could give. McLaren beat Ferrari to second in the WCC which shows that to be the case.
In 2011, Hamilton under-performed. There can be no argument to that. He had the same wins as Button but other than that he messed up.
In 2012, The Ferrari pair were ahead of the McLaren drivers at the end of the season so we can probably say that the 2012 car wasn't as good as it needed to be - especially when we look at retirements that year where the McLaren had 7 retirements compared to only 5 for the RedBull and Ferrari combined. One of McLaren's retirements was in the last race where Hamilton was taken out in the lead. Had he won that race he would have finished ahead of Kimi in the WDC too. So, does that mean the car wasn't good enough or that the McLaren drivers weren't good enough? As both were WDC, one can suggest that the car wasn't as good as they needed.
In 2013, the Mercedes wasn't top drawer - although it was quick at times, it didn't have sufficient "race pace" to be a title contender.
2014 was a title winning year in THE title contender.

I think that's a fairly even-handed appraisal.

[dans79]

Hamilton has had cars capable of challenging for titles in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014 & 2015.

Vettel has had cars capable of challenging for titles in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 & 2013.

So to answer the OP, Hamilton has marginally had better cars, but even with the level of Merc dominance, has until the end of 2014, managed to average less performance wise from them.

You need to factor in the fact that Hamilton has had far better teammates than Vettel.

[Kingshark]

I think the best way to judge how a good a car was for each year would be to see what ‰ of points they scored in the wcc against the winning car for that year.

If the constructor won the championship they arguably had the best car, if the constructor was a really close 2nd then they still had a great car.

Hamilton:
2007 = 100%
2008 = 88%
2009 = 41%
2010 = 91%
2011 = 76%
2012 = 82%
2013 = 60%
2014 = 100%
2015 = 100%

Average = 82.0 %

Vettel:
2008 = 23%
2009 = 89%
2010 = 100%
2011 = 100%
2012 = 100%
2013 = 100%
2014 = 58%
2015 = 59%

Average = 78.6 %

[mrluke]

I think the best way to judge how a good a car was for each year would be to see what ‰ of points they scored in the wcc against the winning car for that year.

If the constructor won the championship they arguably had the best car, if the constructor was a really close 2nd then they still had a great car.

Hamilton:
2007 = 100%
2008 = 88%
2009 = 41%
2010 = 91%
2011 = 76%
2012 = 82%
2013 = 60%
2014 = 100%
2015 = 100%

Average = 82.0 %

Vettel:
2008 = 23%
2009 = 89%
2010 = 100%
2011 = 100%
2012 = 100%
2013 = 100%
2014 = 58%
2015 = 59%

Average = 78.6 %

That takes into account 2015 but otherwise I cant see a fairer way of objectively measuring it.

[flynfrog]

Hamilton undeniable had a championship competitive car in 2007 & 2008, whilst Vettel didn't.

Yes, in the first year he was a rookie, came second in the championship by one point and beat the reigning double world champion. All whilst the team imploded around them. Not too shabby, all things considered.

In the second year he won the title.

The only years you can make a case for Hamilton not having a challenger is 2009, 2011 & 2013, and even in 2011, Button was able to comfortably beat Webber in the RB7.

In 2009 Hamilton had a dog of a car and still managed 2 wins that year. Vettel, by the way, didn't win at all in his "dog" RB10 in 2014 although his team mate did win 3 races. Make of that what you will.
In 2010, the McLaren wasn't bad but it couldn't stay with the RedBull and Ferrari (at least in Alonso's hands). Vettel and Alonso both took 5 wins, the other RedBull had 4 wins, Hamilton 3 and Button 2. So the McLaren drivers look to have extracted what the car could give. McLaren beat Ferrari to second in the WCC which shows that to be the case.
In 2011, Hamilton under-performed. There can be no argument to that. He had the same wins as Button but other than that he messed up.
In 2012, The Ferrari pair were ahead of the McLaren drivers at the end of the season so we can probably say that the 2012 car wasn't as good as it needed to be - especially when we look at retirements that year where the McLaren had 7 retirements compared to only 5 for the RedBull and Ferrari combined. One of McLaren's retirements was in the last race where Hamilton was taken out in the lead. Had he won that race he would have finished ahead of Kimi in the WDC too. So, does that mean the car wasn't good enough or that the McLaren drivers weren't good enough? As both were WDC, one can suggest that the car wasn't as good as they needed.
In 2013, the Mercedes wasn't top drawer - although it was quick at times, it didn't have sufficient "race pace" to be a title contender.
2014 was a title winning year in THE title contender.

I think that's a fairly even-handed appraisal.

so whats your method here?

Before you can compare cars you have to define what makes a car good and how to get that from your data set.
You have posted nothing but your opinion.

[flynfrog]

Hamilton has had cars capable of challenging for titles in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014 & 2015.

Vettel has had cars capable of challenging for titles in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 & 2013.

So to answer the OP, Hamilton has marginally had better cars, but even with the level of Merc dominance, has until the end of 2014, managed to average less performance wise from them.

You need to factor in the fact that Hamilton has had far better teammates than Vettel.

Is that the same Hamilton factor where you get to add all the points he could have scored with DNFs? What factor do you use to multiply by? What are you multiplying?

[turbof1]

ughh, these topics are dealing with the very same issues over and over again.

The topic creator tried to keep things relative simple by using a pointscale-corrected model based on the gathered points. Some have raised doubts about it being too simple, which it is of course.

However, where it's really getting subjective is everybody tries to add variables to the model which WILL favor the one or other driver, conciously done or unconciously done.

Flynfrog made that point obvious by asking the kind of questions, on purpose to make that point, nobody really can answer objectively.

It's difficult to tell what needs to be done with this topic. History showed us that due the lack of a proper base for objectivity, these topics decent into chaos with bickering and a lockdown as an endresult. We'll keep it open for now, but in all honesty this is a steerless topic. A shame for the effort of Kingshark, who actually tried to stick to simple numbers instead of trying to add variables which are neigh-impossible to quantify.

[Emmcee]

It's so hard to discuss things like this because so many variables are at play. Retirements,penalties,weather conditions, track temperatures. We know you can visit a circuit with fine weather and return 12 months later with fine weather also but a totally different outcome come through due to all sorta of factors. At the end of the day, the best drivers end up with the best cars and that's all that can realistically be said IMO.

[PlatinumZealot]

Hamilton has had cars capable of challenging for titles in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014 & 2015.

Vettel has had cars capable of challenging for titles in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 & 2013.

So to answer the OP, Hamilton has marginally had better cars, but even with the level of Merc dominance, has until the end of 2014, managed to average less performance wise from them.

Car performance is relative to the competition and so it is easier to challenge for the win when your car is dominant.

I am not sure if the thread title adresses winning cars or flat out dominant cars.

Vettel had dominant cars fof four years. Ham had for one year.

We now know those 2007 2008 ferraris were faster than the macks. Alonso and ham at the wheel versus massa and kimi. They rarris were not dominant in the hands of those two drivers tho so in a way vettel deserves credit for how he made those redbull fly.