Numbers of Hamilton and Senna

[Gaz.]

Find me one person who predicted Red Bull's success back in 2008.

Im sure people would have seen 2009 onwards as a great chance for Red Bull. Mr Newey joined in 2006, rule changes in 2009, Red Bull would have been a sensible bet. Newey always seems to succeed and Red Bull had the budget. So im sure there were a load of people predicting Red Bulls success.

In 2008 I do not remember a single soul predicting what would happen next with red Bull and certainly no one saw BrawnGP coming either. If anything the big expectation was on BMW after they stopped developing their 2008 car to concentrate on the 2009 car.

[PlatinumZealot]

Senna also gained a lot from the unreliability of other cars as well, since every car was less reliable back then (including his competitors), not just his own.

From the top of my head, all 3 of his wins in 1992 came from Williams mechanical problems (Patrese in Canada and Hungary, both Williams in Monza). He gained Monaco 1993 from Schumacher's car failure. He gained 3 wins in 1991 from Williams' misfortunes (Mansell in Brazil, Patrese in San Marino, Mansell in Belgium). I am sure that there were more from 1984-1990, as I only checked the final three years of his career.

That is pretty smart to look at it from that angle. Fans almost always never look at it like that. With that said, I think Senna's pole ratio is the most impressive. Staggering number of poles when you look at the conditions he had to get them. I am not sure if his teammate's were are as close to him in speed as Hamilton's were but again it depends from the point of view. Maybe Senna was that much faster than everyone else?

[dans79]

That is pretty smart to look at it from that angle. Fans almost always never look at it like that. With that said, I think Senna's pole ratio is the most impressive. Staggering number of poles when you look at the conditions he had to get them. I am not sure if his teammate's were are as close to him in speed as Hamilton's were but again it depends from the point of view. Maybe Senna was that much faster than everyone else?

I think his pole numbers have everything to do with him having giant brass ones in an era where getting seriously injured or killed was a lot more common.

[bdr529]

Maybe a complete driver is able to predict where to go and when to go there ?

Some times it's out of the drivers hands, just as it is with the teams, when their trying to find the best driver that isn't already tied up contractually with another team.

[Andres125sx]

Find me one person who predicted Red Bull's success back in 2008.

Im sure people would have seen 2009 onwards as a great chance for Red Bull. Mr Newey joined in 2006, rule changes in 2009, Red Bull would have been a sensible bet. Newey always seems to succeed and Red Bull had the budget. So im sure there were a load of people predicting Red Bulls success.

That load of people probably kept in mind his talent togheter with McLaren budget wich has never been small, were not enough to beat Ferrari and Renault in past 6-7 seasons

If it was not enough in 2000-2005/6 into McLaren, there were no reasons to think it would be enough into a new team in F1 like it was RBR at that moment


Hindsight is great, isn´t it?

[NathanOlder]

But during those years there wasnt as big rule changes. Newey has normally been good at getting started fast with new rules. Before anyone catches up. Red Bull had the best car by the end of 09, and I feel the Brawn got it lucky with their package (not taking anything away from them) so with those rules Neweys car was always ending the season the fastest.

Looking back at the 00-05 era, the Mclaren was always quuck and would have won at least 2 championships if it was as reliable as it was fast.

So when rule changes are made, a Newey car is always fast. Whether its early 90's with all the active suspension, mid 90's with all the safety features brought in, late 90's with narrow cars and grooved tyres, all through 2000-2009 where the FIA were trying to slow the cars down and the recent rule changes in 2009 & 2014.
So Red Bull were always going to do very well. I think the prediction would have maybe be wrong on how long they would do well.

[NathanOlder]

Putting it simple.

Lets say Newey joins Haas now.
In 4 years time the FIA say they are changing the rules massively. Active suspension, Ground effect with skirts ect.
All teams have similar engine performance.
Haas confirm they have a budget to match Ferrari and Mercedes.
Haas facilities equal to the best.
Haas sign at least 1 top driver.

Are you saying no on would predict them winning anything ?

Other than maybe a top driver (Vettel not proven but already a winner) this is pretty much what Red Bull were bringing to the table at the end of 08.

[Kingshark]

Looking back at the 00-05 era, the Mclaren was always quuck and would have won at least 2 championships if it was as reliable as it was fast.

Apart from 2000 and 2005, McLaren was always clearly slower than Ferrari, including 2003.

And Williams were faster than McLaren in 2002 and 2003, as were both BAR and Renault in 2004, so tyres alone cannot explain this.

[NathanOlder]

2000, 2001, 2003, 2005 Mclaren had their driver finish runner up. It was always a fast car.

[Andres125sx]

Red Bull had the best car by the end of 09, and I feel the Brawn got it lucky with their package

So Newey is the very best and did it great because of designing the fastest car at the end of 09, but Brawn was lucky to design the fastest car when the seasson started...

Putting it simple.

Lets say Newey joins Haas now.
In 4 years time the FIA say they are changing the rules massively. Active suspension, Ground effect with skirts ect.
All teams have similar engine performance.
Haas confirm they have a budget to match Ferrari and Mercedes.
Haas facilities equal to the best.
Haas sign at least 1 top driver.

Are you saying no on would predict them winning anything ?

Yes, I´m saying no top driver would join Haas until they prove they´re a top team. Your assumptions is flawed from the point you put inside a top driver. No top driver will join a new team no matter how good they look.

Best example is Toyota, not even with their budget and Mike Gascoyne they managed to hire a top driver. They got Trulli and Ralf (in the second season), and that was the best they could get.

Top drivers never do such a risky bet, a new team can be as successful as RBR or a disaster and a waste of money as Toyota.

[Facts Only]

Top drivers never do such a risky bet.

Really?

Alonso to Mclaren Honda
Schumacher to Ferrari
Hamilton to Mercedes

All of these believe(d) see that the infrastructure/money/desire was in place to win and were/are willing to play the long game.

If HAAS could demonstrate and convince people that they had the money, facilites and the plan was in place to be winning in say 2018 I bet they could pull in a top driver stuck in a runner up car.

Perhaps all the top drivers could see the truth that Toyota were going nowhere. Top drivers have expereience of top teams, maybe they could tell that Toyota did not have what it takes to be a top team.

[notsofast]

Sadly, it just depends on how good the car is.

I suppose we could look at how well Senna's/Hamilton's car did against the next highest constructor. During Senna's three championships seasons, the next highest constructor got 65% of the total points earned by Senna's team. In the case of Hamilton, if we were to award this year's championship right now, the next constructor got 67% of the points earned by Hamilton's team over three seasons. In other words, the overall average over three championships is about the same.

[NathanOlder]

Red Bull had the best car by the end of 09, and I feel the Brawn got it lucky with their package

So Newey is the very best and did it great because of designing the fastest car at the end of 09, but Brawn was lucky to design the fastest car when the seasson started...

Putting it simple.

Lets say Newey joins Haas now.
In 4 years time the FIA say they are changing the rules massively. Active suspension, Ground effect with skirts ect.
All teams have similar engine performance.
Haas confirm they have a budget to match Ferrari and Mercedes.
Haas facilities equal to the best.
Haas sign at least 1 top driver.

Are you saying no on would predict them winning anything ?

Yes, I´m saying no top driver would join Haas until they prove they´re a top team. Your assumptions is flawed from the point you put inside a top driver. No top driver will join a new team no matter how good they look.

Best example is Toyota, not even with their budget and Mike Gascoyne they managed to hire a top driver. They got Trulli and Ralf (in the second season), and that was the best they could get.

Top drivers never do such a risky bet, a new team can be as successful as RBR or a disaster and a waste of money as Toyota.

Yes im saying Brawn rode their luck, 2 reasons for me, 1, throwing a mercedes engine in it at the last minute for a car made for a Honda power plant. And 2, the FIA ruling in their favour for the use of the double deck diffuser.

And for you to write off a team with a huge budget with Newey onboard makes you as foolish as the people that thought he wouldn't win anything at Red Bull. And we all know how very wrong they all were.

Back on topic now, no more of this rubbish.

For me Hamilton will never be regarded as an equal to Senna, purely because people see past generations for more than what they were. Not saying anything is wrong with that, people always remember the good times. Im just glad Lewis seems happy with what he has achieved so far.

[bonjon1979]

Whats interesting about the Senna/Hamilton/Vettel comparison is the number of technical retirement I.E that Senna had 23 more retirements than Hamilton and 19 more than Vettel. It would be good to take the technical retirments of all 3 and see where they were running or likely to finish. It might boost Senna way above the other two as the cars were far less reliable back then.

This is true but we also have to remember that the other cars Senna was racing against suffered reliability issues. It wasn't unusual for only six cars to finish a race. If there aren't that many people to beat then it becomes easier. So it works both ways really.

[turbof1]

You'd need to factor in both points lost due technical failures and points won due others having technical failures.

However, that's a very difficult and still subjective excercise. I remember we tried this for Hamilton during the 2012 season. We stumbled on issues like if he wouldn't have overtaken someone anyway who dropped out, if he'd vyed for a place while breaking down a place below, do we need to include failures caused by other drivers, etc.

I wouldn't do it.