Who has had better cars - Hamilton or Vettel?

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
User avatar
Emmcee
0
Joined: 13 Jun 2015, 10:29

Re: Who has had better cars - Hamilton or Vettel?

Post

PlatinumZealot wrote:
Jonnycraig wrote: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.
No way the 2007 Ferrari was better than the Mclaren that year. Mclaren had both titles in the bag of it wasnt for poor managent or "favouritism"
Real eyes realise real lies - Tupac Shakur.

Moose
Moose
52
Joined: 03 Oct 2014, 19:41

Re: Who has had better cars - Hamilton or Vettel?

Post

Emmcee wrote:No way the 2007 Ferrari was better than the Mclaren that year. Mclaren had both titles in the bag of it wasnt for poor managent or "favouritism"
Having seen how both Massa and Raikkonen have performed subsequently to being in that Ferrari, you could trivially argue that Ferrari had a far superior car. McLaren only came close to the titles that year due to having two phenomenal drivers.

User avatar
Emmcee
0
Joined: 13 Jun 2015, 10:29

Re: Who has had better cars - Hamilton or Vettel?

Post

Moose wrote:
Emmcee wrote:No way the 2007 Ferrari was better than the Mclaren that year. Mclaren had both titles in the bag of it wasnt for poor managent or "favouritism"
Having seen how both Massa and Raikkonen have performed subsequently to being in that Ferrari, you could trivially argue that Ferrari had a far superior car. McLaren only came close to the titles that year due to having two phenomenal drivers.
You made a good point, that is true.
Real eyes realise real lies - Tupac Shakur.

User avatar
flynfrog
Moderator
Joined: 23 Mar 2006, 22:31

Re: Who has had better cars - Hamilton or Vettel?

Post

Emmcee wrote: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.
you could at least try? Define your criteria as to what defines a good car ignore who is driving it. Reliability average points scored per race ect. Once again you cant say anything until you define what you are judging the cars on.

User avatar
flynfrog
Moderator
Joined: 23 Mar 2006, 22:31

Re: Who has had better cars - Hamilton or Vettel?

Post

PlatinumZealot wrote:
Jonnycraig wrote: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.
Evidence? Methods? or We all know?

User avatar
Emmcee
0
Joined: 13 Jun 2015, 10:29

Re: Who has had better cars - Hamilton or Vettel?

Post

flynfrog wrote:
Emmcee wrote: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.
you could at least try? Define your criteria as to what defines a good car ignore who is driving it. Reliability average points scored per race ect. Once again you cant say anything until you define what you are judging the cars on.

That is true but IMO, there is still so many variables, like what I said, the best drivers end up in the best cars, but even saying that, how many times was Schumi fighting for the title in the car which wasnt the best? It is fun to speculate though, if you have significant evidence, I guess you can get a "ball park" idea.
Real eyes realise real lies - Tupac Shakur.

Sevach
Sevach
1082
Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 17:00

Re: Who has had better cars - Hamilton or Vettel?

Post

Shrieker wrote: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 2012 car wasn't dominant, it had it's good days and bad days, the Mclaren was the car to beat in just as many races.
2010 has been discussed many times, monstruously fast, a lot of bad luck with reliability.

And even if we go with your assesment of dominant cars from 2010/13... if Mercedes procedes to dominate for 4 seasons, that would make Hamilton the one with better cars since he had challenging cars in 07/08(not to mention cars capable of winning in pure performance 10/11/12/13), while Vettel had only in 09.

User avatar
Emmcee
0
Joined: 13 Jun 2015, 10:29

Re: Who has had better cars - Hamilton or Vettel?

Post

Sevach wrote:
Shrieker wrote: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 2012 car wasn't dominant, it had it's good days and bad days, the Mclaren was the car to beat in just as many races.
2010 has been discussed many times, monstruously fast, a lot of bad luck with reliability.

And even if we go with your assesment of dominant cars from 2010/13... if Mercedes procedes to dominate for 4 seasons, that would make Hamilton the one with better cars since he had challenging cars in 07/08(not to mention cars capable of winning in pure performance 10/11/12/13), while Vettel had only in 09.
I'd have to agree because 2010-2013, button was also able to win a handful of races and button actually scored more points in total compared to lewis in the time they spent as teammates.
Real eyes realise real lies - Tupac Shakur.

Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
593
Joined: 31 Jan 2010, 20:37

Re: Who has had better cars - Hamilton or Vettel?

Post

flynfrog wrote: 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.
Method was to look at the results for each year compared to the other title contenders. This is historical fact - x won y races in year z, not opinion.

Any comparison will introduce opinion / bias depending on the researcher's own views on a subject. That's why real research, rather than internet chatter like this, is so carefully designed and controlled. :roll:
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.

bhall II
bhall II
477
Joined: 19 Jun 2014, 20:15

Re: Who has had better cars - Hamilton or Vettel?

Post

Combined with a decent assessment of relative reliability, this is exactly how such comparisons should be made...
McCabism wrote:The Pomeroy Index is the primary means of measuring the relative speed of Formula 1 cars which not only raced in different years, but in different eras of the sport. Remarkably, it is capable of comparing the relative speeds of cars which never even raced on the same circuits. To achieve this, it uses a daisychaining technique, similar to the manner in which dendrochronology uses the overlap between tree rings from different eras to extend its dating technique all the way back from the present to prehistoric times (see The Greatest Show on Earth, Richard Dawkins, pp88-91). In both cases, it is the overlap principle which is vital. In the case of Formula 1, the daisychaining is achieved by identifying the circuits which are common to successive years of Grand Prix racing. Speed differences between successive years are averaged over these overlapping circuits, and the speed differences can then be daisychained all the way from the inception of Grand Prix racing in 1906 to the present day.

The index was invented by engineer and motoring journalist Laurence Pomeroy, and updated by Leonard (L.J.K.) Setright in 1966. (Another motoring journalist, Setright was hard to miss, "with his long, wispy beard, wide-brimmed hat, cape and black leather gloves, he looked like 'an Old Testament prophet suddenly arriving at a Hell's Angels meeting'." (On Roads, Joe Moran, p172)).

The index was resurrected and updated again more recently by Mark Hughes. The algorithm for calculating the index is as follows:

1) Identify the fastest car from each year by averaging the qualifying performance of all the cars over all the races.

2) For each pair of successive years, identify the overlapping circuits in the respective calendars. In other words, identify the circuits which were used in both years, in unaltered form.

3) Take the fastest car from the first year of Grand Prix racing, Ferenc Szisz's 1906 Renault, and assign it a Pomeroy Index of 100.

4) For year t+1, calculate the speed difference between the fastest car that year and the fastest car from year t, averaged over the overlapping circuits (and eliminating spurious cases where speed differentials were skewed by rain conditions). Express this speed difference as a percentage, and add it to the Pomeroy Index of the fastest car in year t to find the Pomeroy Index of the fastest car in year t+1. For example, if the fastest car in year t+1 is 2% faster than the fastest car from year t, and the fastest car in year t had a Pomeroy Index of 150, then the fastest car in year t+1 had a Pomeroy Index of 152.

5) Repeat step 4 until one reaches the current year.

An on-line version of the index from 1906 to 1966 exists for perusal [not anymore], and Hughes's updated version in Autosport magazine obtained a value of 234.7 for Michael Schumacher's 2004 Ferrari. (Speeds have since fallen due to the imposition of smaller engines, rev-limits, a control-tyre formula, and a generally more restrictive set of technical regulations).

This doesn't mean, however, that the 2004 Ferrari was 2.347 times faster than the 1906 Renault. This would be to underestimate the speed difference between Herr Schumacher and Ur Szisz's respective steeds. Perhaps the crucial point to digest here is that average speeds in Formula 1 have historically increased, not in a linear fashion, and not even according to a power law; rather, average speeds in Formula 1 increase exponentially. Hence, the percentage speed increments tallied in the Pomeroy Index are akin to the yearly interest rates of a compound interest account. The 1935 Mercedes-Benz was 3% faster than the 1934 Auto Union, and the 1936 Auto Union was 5% faster than the 1935 Mercedes-Benz, but the 1936 Auto Union was more than 8% faster than the 1934 Auto Union because the 5% increase was 5% of a speed greater than the speed of the 1934 Auto Union.

Such an exponential increase in speed can be represented by the formula:

Q(t) = Q(0) (1 + r(t))t ,

where Q(t) is the speed in year t, Q(0) is the speed in year 0, t is the discrete year number, and r(t) is the interest rate in year t, expressed as a decimal. Thus, for example, if the year-on-year increase in speed were a constant 2%, then speeds would increase exponentially according to the formula:

Q(t) = Q(0) (1 + 0.02)t.

User avatar
Vasconia
6
Joined: 30 Aug 2012, 10:45
Location: Basque Country

Re: Who has had better cars - Hamilton or Vettel?

Post

Moose wrote:
Emmcee wrote:No way the 2007 Ferrari was better than the Mclaren that year. Mclaren had both titles in the bag of it wasnt for poor managent or "favouritism"
Having seen how both Massa and Raikkonen have performed subsequently to being in that Ferrari, you could trivially argue that Ferrari had a far superior car. McLaren only came close to the titles that year due to having two phenomenal drivers.
The internal war between both drivers prevented them to win the WC by a clear margin. By no means was the Ferrari a better than the Mclaren. And in both years Massa was on his peak, even if he has been always a very irregular driver, as Kimi is. Ferrari only had an advantage with high temperatures as it happened in 2006. We can say the same in 2008, but in this case the Mclaren line up was clearly weaker. And this year there wasnt a real "best driver" it was the less irregular of the two contenders who won the WC, or the luckiest one.

Kingshark
Kingshark
0
Joined: 26 May 2014, 05:41

Re: Who has had better cars - Hamilton or Vettel?

Post

Kingshark wrote:
mrluke wrote: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 %
Using this same methodology with the likes of Senna, Prost, and Schumacher:

Senna:
1984 = 11%
1985 = 79%
1986 = 41%
1987 = 47%
1988 = 100%
1989 = 100%
1990 = 100%
1991 = 100%
1992 = 60%
1993 = 50%

Average = 68.8 %

Prost:
1980 = 9%
1981 = 57%
1982 = 84%
1983 = 89%
1984 = 100%
1985 = 100%
1986 = 68%
1987 = 55%
1988 = 100%
1989 = 100%
1990 = 91%
1991 = 40%
1993 = 100%

Average = 76.4%

Schumacher
1992 = 55%
1993 = 43%
1994 = 87%
1995 = 100%
1996 = 40%
1997 = 83%
1998 = 85%
1999 = 100%
2000 = 100%
2001 = 100%
2002 = 100%
2003 = 100%
2004 = 100%
2005 = 52%
2006 = 98%
2010 = 43%
2011 = 25%
2012 = 31%

Average = 82.9 % (before comeback), 74.6 % (including comeback)

Kingshark
Kingshark
0
Joined: 26 May 2014, 05:41

Re: Who has had better cars - Hamilton or Vettel?

Post

I'd say that, if I had to rank the five drivers mentioned above purely based on the cars they enjoyed throughout their careers:

1. Schumacher

2. Prost

3. Hamilton

4. Vettel

5. Senna


There isn't much between them at all. Prost has a lower average % than either Hamilton or Vettel mainly because of the dreadful car in his rookie season. Prost has had more cars which scored the most WCC points than anyone bar Schumacher, who has an average of nearly 83% in his first career.

Senna, I would actually say, has had the weakest cars out of the five. Both Vettel and Senna won 4 consecutive WCC, but Vettel's 2009 car was stronger relative to the competition than any of Senna's non-WCC winning cars, as the RB5 scored 89% of the Brawn's total points tally.

User avatar
Emmcee
0
Joined: 13 Jun 2015, 10:29

Re: Who has had better cars - Hamilton or Vettel?

Post

Vasconia wrote:
Moose wrote:
Emmcee wrote:No way the 2007 Ferrari was better than the Mclaren that year. Mclaren had both titles in the bag of it wasnt for poor managent or "favouritism"
Having seen how both Massa and Raikkonen have performed subsequently to being in that Ferrari, you could trivially argue that Ferrari had a far superior car. McLaren only came close to the titles that year due to having two phenomenal drivers.
The internal war between both drivers prevented them to win the WC by a clear margin. By no means was the Ferrari a better than the Mclaren. And in both years Massa was on his peak, even if he has been always a very irregular driver, as Kimi is. Ferrari only had an advantage with high temperatures as it happened in 2006. We can say the same in 2008, but in this case the Mclaren line up was clearly weaker. And this year there wasnt a real "best driver" it was the less irregular of the two contenders who won the WC, or the luckiest one.
Some very good points made here.
Real eyes realise real lies - Tupac Shakur.

User avatar
Emmcee
0
Joined: 13 Jun 2015, 10:29

Re: Who has had better cars - Hamilton or Vettel?

Post

Kingshark wrote:
Kingshark wrote:
mrluke wrote: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 %
Using this same methodology with the likes of Senna, Prost, and Schumacher:

Senna:
1984 = 11%
1985 = 79%
1986 = 41%
1987 = 47%
1988 = 100%
1989 = 100%
1990 = 100%
1991 = 100%
1992 = 60%
1993 = 50%

Average = 68.8 %

Prost:
1980 = 9%
1981 = 57%
1982 = 84%
1983 = 89%
1984 = 100%
1985 = 100%
1986 = 68%
1987 = 55%
1988 = 100%
1989 = 100%
1990 = 91%
1991 = 40%
1993 = 100%

Average = 76.4%

Schumacher
1992 = 55%
1993 = 43%
1994 = 87%
1995 = 100%
1996 = 40%
1997 = 83%
1998 = 85%
1999 = 100%
2000 = 100%
2001 = 100%
2002 = 100%
2003 = 100%
2004 = 100%
2005 = 52%
2006 = 98%
2010 = 43%
2011 = 25%
2012 = 31%

Average = 82.9 % (before comeback), 74.6 % (including comeback)
There is no driver better than schumacher IMO when you look at graphs like this. Even when he car wasnt clearly the best or fastest, for over ten years, if you wanted to win a title, you had to go through him, incredible.
Real eyes realise real lies - Tupac Shakur.