Schumacher’s 91 wins record looks safe for now

F1 Statistics

Posted on

| Written by

Fernando Alonso and Sebastian Vettel’s wins this year have raised them higher up among the most successful F1 drivers of all time.

Alonso is now tied with Nigel Mansell as the four most-successful driver ever in terms of race wins. At the last round Vettel surpassed Jackie Stewart’s tally of 27 race wins, which stood as the record for 14 years.

But even if you took Alonso and Vettel’s win totals and threw in Lewis Hamilton’s for good measure, you’d still be well short of the ultimate record.

Michael Schumacher’s 91 race wins is 60 more than the next best driver currently racing in F1.

Most wins by an F1 driver: 1950-2013

Giuseppe Farina won the first ever world championship race but Juan Manuel Fangio and Alberto Ascari quickly outstripped his wins tally. The latter lost his life in 1955, leaving Fangio to set the benchmark at 24 wins when he retired from racing in 1958. Two of those were shared victories with other drivers.

Armed with the Lotus 49, Jim Clark would probably moved the tally further than he did had he not been killed in 1968. Fellow Scotsman Jackie Stewart picked up the baton and his 27 wins stood as the record from 1973 to 1987.

Niki Lauda came closest to Stewart’s record in the meantime, winning 25 times. But it was his former McLaren team mate Alain Prost who finally beat it.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Prost already had 17 victories to his name when Ayrton Senna became a winner in 1985. Senna never surpassed the wins tally of his great rival. He came closest following his victory in the 1993 European Grand Prix at Donington Park, with 38 wins to Prost’s 45, but by the end of his final season Prost had raised the bar to 51. Three races later Senna lost his life at Imola.

In the absence of Prost and Senna plus Nelson Piquet and, later, Nigel Mansell, the way was clear for Michael Schumacher to begin his assault on the record books. The combination of his supreme talent and an often dominant Ferrari allowed him to push the record to extraordinary new heights.

Will Schumacher ever be caught?

Just as impressive as Schumacher’s total number of wins is the high rate of wins he enjoyed across 19 seasons of Formula One. Despite a winless three-year comeback with Mercedes he departed the sport having won almost 30% of all the races he started.

That’s more than Vettel and any of the other drivers enjoy at the moment. For Vettel to reach Schumacher’s tally at his current rate he would need to start a further 237 races which would probably take until 2027.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

It’s not inconceivable the 25-year-old Vettel will carry on racing into his 21st season. But it’s doubtful Alonso, 31, will hang around until 2032 to amass the 591 starts he requires to match Schumacher’s win tally at his current rate.

It’s a statistical oddity that the driver who enjoys the highest win rate for world championship races is Lee Wallard, winner of the 1951 Indianapolis 500. The race countes towards the championship that year and it, along with the previous year’s race, were the only two championship events Wallard started.

Among regular grand prix drivers Fangio has the highest win rate. But Schumacher’s is especially impressive given it spanned a career of over 300 races.

Here are the top ten race winners in terms of total wins and their winning rate:

DriverStartsMost wins rankWinsWin rate rankWin rate (%)
Michael Schumacher306191629.64
Alain Prost199251925.63
Ayrton Senna1613411025.47
Nigel Mansell1874311616.58
Fernando Alonso2004311815.42
Sebastian Vettel105628826.67
Jackie Stewart99727727.27
Jim Clark72825534.72
Niki Lauda1718252014.62
Juan Manuel Fangio511024247.06
Lee Wallard2721150.0
Alberto Ascari322113340.63
Bill Vukovich5612440.0

Over to you

The increasing number of races on the F1 calendar and improvements in driver safety go a long way towards explaining why the record for most wins has continued to grow.

But can it go much further? Will we ever see a driver hit 100 wins? And will someone on the grid today be the person to do it?

Have your say in the comments.

F1 statistics

Browse all F1 statistics articles

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

58 comments on “Schumacher’s 91 wins record looks safe for now”

  1. It won’t happen unless races start to get incredibly porcessional and one of the top drivers gets a very fast and reliable car in consecutive seasons.

    Red Bull and Vettel might be dominant force in recent seasons (and 37 wins in 3 and a bit years is incredibly impressive), but with current tyres and DRS and all… I’m not so sure.

    1. @fer-no65 That is impressive. Question is, is it impressive enough? The Red Bull-Vettel partnership has won 21 races from 2010-2012. The Schumacher-Ferrari partnership won 24 races in 2000, 2001, and 2003 (it’s 3 “not-so-dominant” titles), and won another 24 races in 2002 and 2004 alone.

      1. Schumacher won 48 races in the 5 consecutive seasons from 2002-2004. That’s an average of 10 wins per year, and he won something like 57% of the total races held during this period of time.

        Tbh, I can never see such a domination period replicated again.

        Another thing to note was that Schumacher was exceptionally good at bagging in lots of race wins, including during his non-dominant years.

        For instance, in 2000 Schumi won 9 races compared to 4 for Mika.
        In 2003, he won 6 races when no one else won more than 2.

        Nobody can argue that he had a dominant car in these two seasons, and he still won much more races than anyone else.

        1. 5 consecutive seasons from 2002-2004

          2000-2004.

          1. Agreed: even though Vettel has undeniably had a good car these last three years, neither could hold a candle to the level of sustained dominance the Ferrari’s had.

            That, coupled with an arguably more talented field relative to the champion and I can’t see Vettel winning thirteen races in a season. Eleven was highly unexpected.

          2. Schumacher did not have a dominant car in 1995, 2000 nor 2003 yet he still won a ridiculous amount of races that season compared to his rivals. Michael was the master of bagging up wins.

    2. YOU FOOL! YOU JINXED IT!

  2. knoxploration
    2nd May 2013, 13:15

    Ah, but now take your graph above (which brings my browser to its knees, by the way) and disable every line except Schumacher and Vettel. Take a screenshot, and overlay Vettel’s win record over Schumachers, precisely aligning the moment of both drivers’ first wins.

    Notice anything? Vettel has hit that 27th win at almost exactly the same moment in his career that Schumacher did. And Schumacher got that first win at the age of 23 years and eight months, or near as makes no difference. Vettel was two and a half years younger when he got that first win, so realistically he could remain in F1 for easily an extra two and a half years over what Schumacher managed.

    I am not a betting man, but if I were, I would not be betting against Vettel to take that record from Schumacher.

    1. Is the graph in Atari mode? It loads like 1 minute after the page and delay my browser.

      First off, I’d thought Schumacher record won’t be nor approached, nor equalled, nor beaten. But if Vettel can carry on this way, anything could happen.

    2. Yes but Michael Schumacher has 6 or 7 years coming up in his career where Ferrari approached a level of dominance that I am extremely sceptical that we will ever see again. Its not the age, Vettel needs to have a good car basically every season for the rest of his career.

      1. yes, a great – or even dominant – car, and that for the next 10 years at least. Not likely to happen indeed

      2. OmarR-Pepper (@)
        2nd May 2013, 16:23

        @debaser91 don’t forget champions get good contracts and with that, good cars. Or the car may not be exceptionally good, but they can develop it (Schum did it with Ferrari, I don’t think it’s a miracle Red Bull is a dominant car, just for Newey, Vettel must be part of “reading” what the car behavior is).
        So if Vettel keeps till 40 in F1, it could happen.
        Of course, don’t forget there are stronger rivals now than in Schum’s times. That makes the record difficult to reach. And don’t forget, as well, that new talents (real talents) appear from time to time. In 3 or 4 years, I think Hulkenberg, maybe Bianchi, maybe Perez, can be in the fight for the title as well, so even when Button, Webber or Kimi step aside, new guys will replace them to snatch victories (and championships)

        1. @omarr-pepper It is true the best drivers end up in the best cars but I cannot see Vettel going through the entirety of his career without a lull i.e. where he doesn’t have a car that can win 5 or 6 races a season. If you had posed the question at the end of 2006 as to who would get close to Michael Schumacher’s record people would have said Fernando Alonso. If you had done it at the end of 2008 the same for Lewis Hamilton. Both guys are world champions and should end up in the best cars right?

          In practice it doesn’t quite play out that way, and in the meantime they have both had cars that weren’t capable of winning consistenly, in some cases not capable of winning at all (Alonso 2009) and that has really shot their chances of getting close to 91 wins. All Vettel needs is a few seasons like this and the record will be out of reach.

  3. The thing with Schumacher’s record is, it expects a lot from the guy who’ll take it (Vettel or someone we haven’t seen yet).

    1. In seasons where they will win the title, they need to dominate (at least 6, ideally 9 wins per year). There’s more chances to hit this mark now in a year. Vettel’s hit this mark once (2011), but the competition has just been too tight for him to pull it off in other years. And they need to win titles almost half the time – Schumi won 7 titles in his 15 full seasons before his first retirement.
    2. In seasons where they will NOT win the title, they need to contend for it anyway (at least 3, ideally 5 wins per year). In Vettel’s case, we haven’t seen him in such a situation yet. Perhaps when he moves to Ferrari…
    3. They need to stick around – Schumacher got his 91 wins by winning for 15 consecutive seasons. Not even Alonso is close to pulling that off (0 wins in 2009). Vettel is already on 6 straight (including this year), but he’s got 9 years to go yet.

  4. I actually think it’s quite likely that Vettel could do it. As long as he continues on his current trajectory and stays in top cars (he’ll pretty much be able to pick his seat once Red Bull finally starts to fade) his ambition to rack up the numbers and break records will keep him going well into his forties. Advances in medicine, physical conditioning and nutrition should make that a doddle.

    1. @spawinite the thing is though, I think what he really needs is not to be in the sport for a long time but to have a car which can reliably score him wins akin to the RB7 for a good few seasons, which is pretty much a statiscal impossibility given the current constrictions of the rules.

      I could absolutely see him winning 7 or more titles (he’s nearly halfway there and only 25!) but 91 victories? Seems like a longshot to me…

      However, Schumacher’s 68 pole positions record I think is far from safe!

      1. How many is Vettel on?
        (Poles)

        1. 38.
          He’s 3rd in all-time standings now, behind Senna (65) and Schumacher (68).
          I have no doubt whatsoever that record is going down, and it might even be well before the end of his career.

          1. @mnmracer, wouldn’t it be fitting for Vettel to achieve 91 pole positions and 68 race wins in his career?

          2. That would be all kinds of epic!

  5. Personally hope the record never gets beaten, and I don’t say that merely because Vettel would be the most likely to judging by the strength of Red Bull, but because I feel any driver dominating so regularly is damaging for the sport in the long run.

    Schumacher is highly respected, there’s no doubt about it, but people don’t hold up ’02 or ’04 as his ‘golden years,’ they’re viewed as what they were – snooze fests where other often equally great drivers (Montoya/Kimi/Hakkinen before he burnt out etc) were unable to touch him because the car was simply so dominant.

    For any driver, and this goes for ones like I like, and the ones I don’t, to match that, he would have to have multiple seasons that would be;
    a) Incredibly dull to watch.
    b) No reflection on the driver’s skill and deservedness of a championship, one way or the other.

    1. Oh I so agree. Not because I have anything for Schumacher, it’s just that these records represent fundamentally boring periods of racing. I remember those seasons where I didn’t even bother finding out who won because it was always Schu – they were dead years, and I hope they never happen again.
      Overall, this article just shows how irrelevant statistics are. If Lee Wallard can post a 50% success rate and Brawn can post a 100% success rate (don’t talk to me about name changes; Brawn was the entrant), it shows how pointless these exercises are. Sorry Keith.

    2. While there might have been quite a few dull races to watch, I think we also got to see some flashes of brilliance. The 2004 French GP for example was an example of strategic brilliance and flawless execution from the entire team. For a boring season that was one hell of a race I won’t forget.

  6. Schumacher’s dominance on his way to his 91 wins has made it more difficult for other drivers to reach this point, as difficult as that feat is to begin with. This is because his success, particularly with Ferrari, was a major factor in the resulting changes in philosophy of those running F1. The way F1 is run and regulated now I believe makes it much more difficult for a single team to dominate, the regulators are much quicker in changing the rules up to head off dominance.

    There has been a gradual shift in the philosophy of how F1 is run from the days where it was not considered unusual nor a problem for a team or driver to dominate a few years running (Fangio, Clark & Stewart look just as dominant as Schumacher). Now competition between drivers and teams is required by those running the sport for financial reasons, not just between years but within each individual season. And those that run the sport are now much more involved in ensuring that this occurs. Now it’s silly to attribute this change entirely to Schumacher, this change would have occurred eventually, but I believe the success that Schumacher had coupled with the decreasing viewership during those years had a fundamental impact on the people running F1. Hence why his success on the way to 91 race wins has helped ensure that he is likely to hold his record much longer than previous holders.

    The jokers in the pack though are Vettel, Newey and how many races Bernie can fit into a season.

  7. RON LANTERN
    2nd May 2013, 14:36

    A potential problem that is on the horizon is the 2014 chassis and engine combinations. Who is to say that REDBULL will still get it right and another team won’t. When the formula takes a new direction often the pot of success is stirred in such a fashion that maybe Caterham suddenly becomes the cream of the crop. Although unlikely none of us has a crystal ball and for Vettle to continue to amass so many wins seems questionable.

  8. Vettel definitely looks like he has the best chance of the current crop of drivers, but even if he had triple the amount of starts, and kept the same win rate, he would ‘only’ tally up to 84 wins, which whilst impressive it would still fall short of the ultimate record.

    For Seb to do it, he’s going to need to (providing we stick with a calendar of around 20 races) win 6 or 7 races a year for the next ten years, and if he were able to do that, he would not only be the most successful driver in terms of wins, but given how many Champions (or near Champions) have won that amount during their Championship year lately (Hamilton and Massa in 2008, Button in 2009, Vettel and Alonso in 2010, Vettel in 2012) he’d have a great shot at the 7 world titles, which is slightly daunting.

  9. Will we ever see a driver hit 100 wins? And will someone on the grid today be the person to do it?

    I most certainly hope not to see any driver doing that one. I sincerely hope that in between we will have enough great drivers entering the sport that by the time they come in their prime, the likes of Button, Massa, Webber, Kimi and Alonso will be gone and the Vettels, Hamiltons, Rosbergs, Perezes, Hulkenbergs and who knows will also have to be on top of their game to match the new upcoming talents.

    One factor in Schumi’s career has undoubtedly been him raising fitness to a new level. Today the field is more leveled as everyone is about the same level as standards have gone up. I doubt we are going to see the same kind of situation with this exceptional driver, a relative lack of other top drivers at top teams and the dominant package Ferrari were able to build in the 2000’s get together anytime soon , and I am glad it wont.

  10. Whether Vettel could do it or not is not up to him actually, you can be the best driver in the world but if the car is not dominant for several years in a row there’s simply no chance Schumacher’s wins record will be beaten.

  11. Traverse (@)
    2nd May 2013, 16:35

    And will someone on the grid today be the person to do it?

    I’m willing to bet a pack of 6 almond rounds (with a tin of custard of course), a Dime bar (half eaten) and a signed picture of Flavio Briatore butt naked doing Usain Bolt’s victory stance, that Jules Bianchi will be the man that beats Schumi’s tally of 91 wins.

    1. So far, I haven’t laughed louder reading a comment here. Nice!

  12. Moh'd AlAmmari
    2nd May 2013, 16:44

    Let’s not forget the surcumstances were different back then, they use to have 12-14 races a year whereas now 20 in per season.
    Drivers used to join F1 in their 20s whereas now u can join F1 at age 18-19.

    1. When Schumacher joined F1 they had 16-17 races per season.

  13. 91 wins seems incredibly difficult to reach but 7 world championships, for a triple world champion at 25… hmmm possible.

    1. @makana agreed: 91 victories seems a long shot considering the competitiveness of the grid, but that might turn out to be his alibi in his efforts to win 7 titles: it’s very posisble he could be a 4 time champion at the end of this season, which at 26 is really good going!

      I think the only other record of Schumacher’s he could touch though is 68 pole positions – that doesn’t look that hard to beat for someone who already has 38!

  14. The rules of modern F1, where the FIA more or less openly enforces a high degree of parity between cars, make it virtually impossible for a modern driver to duplicate Schumachers feat of 91 wins. Unless they expand the season to 30 races: then, perhaps …

    Given the rules of the sport as they have been for the last several years, it’s extremely impressive that Alonso, Vettel and Hamilton have been able to rack up the numbers they have. Just imagine any of them in a car as dominant as an MP4/4 or FW14B or F2004.

    1. Schumacher only ever had a truly dominant car in 2002 and 2004. In 2001 Ferrari was only slightly better. Williams had terrible reliability and Hakkinen had a poor season (Schumacher broke his will), so it flattered the Ferrari’s performance.

      He never had the best car in the 90’s, but was always competing for wins. It wasn’t until 1999 he had a car on par with the McLaren, but then he broke his leg. It seemed like it was never going to happen for him at Ferrari despite clearly being the best driver on the grid by far.

      2000 the Ferrari and McLaren were even. The middle of the season was disastrous for Schumacher and by the time Ferrari got to Monza it seemed McLaren had the faster package and all the momentum. Hence why the pressure of everything got to Schumacher and he cried in the interview after winning at Monza. If Hakkinen’s engine doesn’t blow up at Indy it might have changed everything and Hakkinen would have put himself among the legends of the sport winning three straight titles.

      It seems people forget how special 2000 was. He didn’t have the best car. It seemed like his championship for the taking until he had reliability problems like in Monaco and being taken out through no fault of his own like at the A-1 Ring and Hockenheim. Hakkinen puts that pass on him at Spa, everything was against him it seemed. He wins that critical race at Monza. If Hakkinen won and Schumacher had of been second it would have been 10 points difference with 3 races remaining.

      2003 he had a car almost uncompetitive at times because Michelin were the superior tyres. He didn’t have a dominant car, let alone a superior car in 2003. The FIA had pulled out all the stops to stop Ferrari dominating like they did in 02. It was his great drive at Indy in the wet that won the championship in the end. He had clearly been the best driver of the season again, though I thought 2003 was the first time in his career that he had some actual “bad” races. The same hunger wasn’t there in a few races. The closeness of the championship gave Schumacher and Ferrari a scare and made them realise the field had caught back up and nothing short of 100% commitment at all times would suffice. And that’s how the dominance of 2004 came about.

      I sometimes think Schumacher’s legacy would have been better served by losing 2003 and instead winning 2006 instead because people with poor memory or those who didn’t watch the races seem to brush over the era as Ferrari being unbeatable from 2000-2004 when it’s far from the case. Yes, a dominant car in 2002 and 2004, but only unbeatable in Schumacher’s hands. He only ever had the best car for three seasons in his career, and when he did have the best car he broke every record in the book.

  15. That’s an impressive jump by Schumacher, almost as good as Webbers after his first win!

    1. Traverse (@)
      2nd May 2013, 18:14

      If there’s one thing that Webber does better than anyone else, it’s aerobatics.

    2. That’s the biggest joke i ever heard!! Webber is better than Schumacher is like saying Pentium 3 is faster than Intel i7

      1. He was referring to the physical motion of jumping on the podium, not anything to do with ability.

  16. I remember Schumi said.. I see win number 100. Yeah right..

  17. Vettel has won 28 races and he is 25 years old. Schuamcher won his 28th at 29 years old.
    He definitely can do it.

  18. Hamilton in his six full seasons in F1 has averaged 3.5 wins per season. Alonso in 11 has averaged 2.81. Vettel has in his first 5 full seasons averaged 5.2 wins (excluding 2007 and anything so far in 2013). In Schumacher’s fifteen full seasons until his first retirement from 1992-2006 he averaged 6.07.

    Taking out his two wins in 1999 and excluding that season due to his broken leg, he averages 6.36. Including his three comeback seasons and ’99 this drops to a still impressive 5.05.
    Excluding Alonso’s winless 2009 season and his first season with Minardi that 2.81 rises to 3.444. All this means nothing (other than it was fun to work out!), and that Schumacher’s win/season stat is incredible, and in my view unlikely to be repeated. If Vettel was to compete for the next ten years (2013-2022) in order to match Schumacher’s record he would need 6.5 wins per season. If Vettel continues another 15, until 2027, he only needs a mere 4.333.

  19. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
    2nd May 2013, 18:56

    I think this question comes down to two factors, one being talent distribution and the over being regulations. In terms of the first factor, I’m sure most of you would agree with me when I say that all of F1’s finest talent in the early 2000s was concentrated at Ferrari. Ross Brawn was the best strategist, Rory Byrne was the best designer, and after Hakkinen lost interest, Schumacher was clearly the best driver. OK, Coulthard change challenge…occasionally, Montoya could challenge…occasionally, Ralf could challenge… occasionally, and Barrichello…wasn’t allowed. Yes, Raikkonen and Alonso began to start nibbling at Schumacher’s rear wings in the later “scarlet years”, but they simply did not have the technical teams, as things stood then, to back up their talent. None of this is the case in 2013. In 2013 we have five champion, five of the finest drivers F1 has ever seen, in five different teams, all supposedly going for the title. OK, Red Bull have Newey and Vettel, but Ferrari have Alonso and Fry, Mercedes have Brawn and Hamilton… And then there our drivers like “the Nicos” and Felipe Massa, who will put in great performances this year. To put things simply, ever since the establishment of GP2, FR3.5 and other “ladder series”, the quality of the grid has been exceptional, and certainly suitable for any form of dominance.

    Moving onto my second factor, the “tyre war” was arguable the most important factor in the creation of Schumacher dominance. By having two manufacturers competing for the cash of the team you get tyres that fulfil the team’s requirement, i.e. durability, which obviously creates an extremely linear series of the fastest car winning every time. I don’t need to explain how this is not the case now. And now I shall move onto the highly subjective issue that is DRS. I know it is hated with a passion on this forum, and I am not so keen on it myself, but it brings the chaotic nature to a race that makes domination so difficult. In the past you only had to get your nose ahead with a good qualifying/start/fuel strategy and the win was yours. Now this no longer the case, as Hamilton proved in the excellent DRS created battle in Austin 2012. Put simply, with these regulations, and with another wave of regulatory turbulence coming next year, I simply cannot see the conditions needed for domination, especially with such a talented field all fighting in such chaotic races.

  20. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
    2nd May 2013, 18:56

    I think this question comes down to two factors, one being talent distribution and the over being regulations. In terms of the first factor, I’m sure most of you would agree with me when I say that all of F1’s finest talent in the early 2000s was concentrated at Ferrari. Ross Brawn was the best strategist, Rory Byrne was the best designer, and after Hakkinen lost interest, Schumacher was clearly the best driver. OK, Coulthard change challenge…occasionally, Montoya could challenge…occasionally, Ralf could challenge… occasionally, and Barrichello…wasn’t allowed. Yes, Raikkonen and Alonso began to start nibbling at Schumacher’s rear wings in the later “scarlet years”, but they simply did not have the technical teams, as things stood then, to back up their talent. None of this is the case in 2013. In 2013 we have five champion, five of the finest drivers F1 has ever seen, in five different teams, all supposedly going for the title. OK, Red Bull have Newey and Vettel, but Ferrari have Alonso and Fry, Mercedes have Brawn and Hamilton… And then there our drivers like “the Nicos” and Felipe Massa, who will put in great performances this year. To put things simply, ever since the establishment of GP2, FR3.5 and other “ladder series”, the quality of the grid has been exceptional, and certainly suitable for any form of dominance.

    Moving onto my second factor, the “tyre war” was arguable the most important factor in the creation of Schumacher dominance. By having two manufacturers competing for the cash of the team you get tyres that fulfill the team’s requirement, i.e. durability, which obviously creates an extremely linear series of the fastest car winning every time. I don’t need to explain how this is not the case now. And now I shall move onto the highly subjective issue that is DRS. I know it is hated with a passion on this forum, and I am not so keen on it myself, but it brings the chaotic nature to a race that makes domination so difficult. In the past you only had to get your nose ahead with a good qualifying/start/fuel strategy and the win was yours. Now this no longer the case, as Hamilton proved in the excellent DRS created battle in Austin 2012. Put simply, with these regulations, and with another wave of regulatory turbulence coming next year, I simply cannot see the conditions needed for domination, especially with such a talented field all fighting in such chaotic races.

  21. The number of MSC`s wins is really impresive. Vettel seems to be the most possible driver in the moment to beat MSC`s 7 WDC tittles, 69 poles and maybe also 91 wins. But the same I thought about Alonso in the end of 2006, and after that about Hamilton. I think that Vettel will also have some strugling years, so he will need to drive at least to the age of 36-7, if he wants to get close to those incredible numbers. But I really doubt that, because we have already many highly talented drivers and so potential serial winners in F1 (Hulk, Rosberg, Perez…) and some promising names for the future (Da Costa, …), who are just waiting for competitive car.

  22. Michael Brown (@)
    2nd May 2013, 23:58

    With the competition closer in recent seasons, I don’t think anyone will beat Schumacher’s record of wins unless Vettel dominates many seasons. However, I think the record of 7 WDCs is more likely to be broken.

  23. It won’t happen. To fairly compare Vettel and Schumacher you have to lay out their careers side by side.

    Currently Vettel has 105 starts, in these 105 starts he has
    28 Wins, 49 Podiums, 38 Poles and 17 Fastest Laps. Which is incredibly impressive.

    But he is already behind Schumacher in 3 out of the 4 categories.
    When Schumacher had 105 Starts, he already had
    28 Wins, 58 Podiums, 17 Poles and 29 Fastest laps.

    Keep in Mind Schumacher had not yet reached his dominant era of 2000-2004 at this point. His 105th start was at the 1998 Monaco Grand Prix, early in his third season with Ferrari. At which point he had only 9 wins in a Ferrari, he would go on to get 63 more!

    I just can’t see Vettel winning 64 more races, no matter how long he sticks around. Could he set the all time record for Pole Positions, you bet! Will he for anything else? I highly doubt it.

  24. Just as F1/FIA set up MS at Ferrari to end the WDC drought, so too would the FIA have to feel a motivation to prop up a driver in order for anyone to catch and surpass MS’s wins. If for example one were to say SV has the best chance, they’d have to start now by contracting him a subservient teammate, which would then give them the go ahead to build him a designer car, and then if they could also arrange that he have designer tires too, then perhaps SV might get close to the wins record. But I don’t see it happening. Also SV would have to become much more of a bully out there and be allowed to get away with meaningless penalties time and time again for infractions committed. Won’t happen. MS had highly illegal Benettons and had to whack DH for one of his Championships. That WDC shouldn’t have been allowed, and that was the general sentiment of the media and many fans at the time. Then MS was handed the sweetest deal not only of any F1 driver before or since, but probably one of the sweetest deals any athlete in any sport has ever received, and he was still an unethical boor on top of it all. And in 97 he was stripped of his second place standing but was allowed to keep his wins. No points equals 5 wins if you are MS.

    SV nor any driver will ever beat the wins record because it would take too much trumping up of everything toward him, which is why some posts above speak of another processional era like MS enjoyed never happening again. Thank goodness the odds are unlikely that another driver will ever be propped up and artificially made a record holder again. So far, I can respect any driver’s numbers that are even only half of MS’s when they have gained said numbers without a contracted non-competing teammate, without a designer car and tires, and without an extra 100 mill a year from the FIA to do it and without veto power on the rules as Ferrari enjoyed in the MS era.

    ie. the MS records are a false anomoly achieved because the FIA and F1 were motivated to see it happen post-Senna. It is unreasonable to expect anyone to beat the records in an actual apples to apples environment, unlike what MS had, and thank goodness nobody likely will have that much skewing toward him, by the very governing body, again.

    1. Complete rubbish, where to begin in cutting through your clear hatred for Schumacher?

      The FIA conspiracy to hand him dominance? That he had no brilliant performances but was merely a ‘boor’ and a bully? That everything was designed for his needs or illegal? The only thing false here is your assessment of Schumacher’s career. Your claims are baseless (the need for Schumi dominance post Senna? Why?) His 91 wins are as legitimate as his talents, if you were around to watch him in the late 1990’s you would not dispute his ability behind the wheel or shrug off his talent as contrived by some massive, all enveloping conspiracy by the shady powers of the FIA. You sound like a conspiracy theorist and a poor one at that.

      1. Hmmm…where to begin in cutting through your clear love of MS to the point of ignoring the facts.

        Fact. Nowhere did I say he didn’t have brilliant performances. My issue is the skewing toward him that allowed him the apples to oranges racing he enjoyed that helped him make his performances look brilliant.

        Fact. The Benettons had many illegalities and were banned from some races.

        Fact. MS was moved from Benetton where he was winning, to Ferrari where they weren’t, along with much of his crew from Benetton. Ask yourself why.

        Fact. MS’s teammates had contracts to be subservient. See RB’s comments post Austria 02 where he says, upon handing MS a win with metres to go, “I thought I should obey my contract.”

        Fact. Ferrari have admitted a one-rooster philosophy, and even recently it has been revealed, as it was back then, that Ferrari had veto power over the rules, not to mention getting upwards of 100mill per year, just because they are Ferrari, over and above what the other teams get.

        Fact. Denying any or all of these facts is just as conspiratorial in an effort to promote MS as some God-like Champion, as my comment seems to be to those in the dark.

        1. Just wanted to add, in case you are going to come back to this topic, an answer as to why I think this skewing happened post-Senna. I think it is an undeniable fact that BE has always played a hand in shaping what F1 looks like. It’s his bat, his ball, his game. He is well documented to have had much influence on many occasions as to moving drivers into F1 onto certain teams, or moving one driver to another team, and helping new teams enter F1, throughout the years. So why it is so hard to imagine him having much to do with MS moving from a team he was winning at to a team that hadn’t won a WDC in 16 years at the time, is beyond me.

          As I see it, Senna was the last icon of his era, with the likes of Mansell, Prost, Herbert, Berger, Piquet gone, or pretty much about to be gone from F1 at the time of Senna’s death. The transition from the previous chapter of F1 containing said icons to the new chapter was to be a Senna/MS rivalry. But Senna tragically died, and along with him, any links to the previous era of F1. So I believe BE felt the need to orchestrate a new chapter in F1 since Senna was no longer there to help the new chapter form itself with a Senna/MS rivalry.

          And I didn’t pull my reasons for this theory out of a hat. It is a fact that the media were on BE, the FIA, and Benetton like pitbulls, wanting answers as to how MS could be allowed a WDC with such highly illegal cars, not to mention his whack on DH in 94. The kangaroo court that then took place within F1, under the guise of it being real court, to somehow exhonerate Benetton and MS from the big heat they were taking, combined with him then being moved from a team he was winning at to a team that wasn’t winning and hadn’t for 16 years, along with a mega deal including much of the Benetton crew that worked with MS, I think presents a compelling argument that this was orchestrated to create a new chapter in F1 post-Senna, since Senna was no longer there to help create it on it’s own, to set up F1’s newly crowned main icon with the task of ending Ferrari’s WDC drought.

        2. “Fact. Nowhere did I say he didn’t have brilliant performances. My issue is the skewing toward him that allowed him the apples to oranges racing he enjoyed that helped him make his performances look brilliant.”

          The were brilliant. His record speaks for itself.

          “Fact. The Benettons had many illegalities and were banned from some races.”

          I will grant you that there were irregularities with the fuel pump. Nothing else proven, unlike cheating by Michelin, by Renault and McLaren. All proven. Senna spread malicious rumors because of sour grapes. Despite all this, Senna’s Williams was still superior to the Benetton.

          “Fact. MS was moved from Benetton where he was winning, to Ferrari where they weren’t, along with much of his crew from Benetton. Ask yourself why.”

          Because he wanted to be the guy to resurrect the most famous name is world motor-sport after going nearly two decades without a drivers championship. He could have stayed at Benetton and won championship after championship. Any other driver would have and it would have destroyed the sport.

          “Fact. MS’s teammates had contracts to be subservient. See RB’s comments post Austria 02 where he says, upon handing MS a win with metres to go, “I thought I should obey my contract.””

          His contract was to follow instructions. He was far behind Schumacher in the championship, so Ferrari made a sensible decision to allow Schumacher to maximize his lead in the championship. 1997-99 Ferrari missed out by nothing, and after a disastrous middle of 2000 where Schumacher retired in 4/5 races it looked like they were going to miss out again. They didn’t want to take anything for granted.

          People forget that Ferrari got Barrichello because they didn’t want a repeat of 99 where McLaren did everything they could to hand Irvine the championship in Schumacher’s absence. A better driver would have meant Ferrari won the championship in 99. They went after Barrichello because he was one of the hottest prospects on the grid. He was sometimes beating Irvine with the Stewart like in Brazil. In Australia he started in pitlane and got to 4th before his engine blew up. Lot of other performances like that.

          Schumacher blew him away and Barrichello got increasingly bitter.

          “Fact. Ferrari have admitted a one-rooster philosophy, and even recently it has been revealed, as it was back then, that Ferrari had veto power over the rules, not to mention getting upwards of 100mill per year, just because they are Ferrari, over and above what the other teams get.”

          One rooster policy only applies to Alonso and Massa. You’re also wrong because the FIA changed the rules in 2003 to stop a repeat of Ferrari’s dominance in 2002. Then when Ferrari dominated in 2004, the FIA changed the rules again. What are you talking about???

          “Fact. Denying any or all of these facts is just as conspiratorial in an effort to promote MS as some God-like Champion, as my comment seems to be to those in the dark.”

          He is the best of all time. Had 91 wins from 250 races was it? What has Alonso got? 31 from about 202? hahaha. Kimi has 20 from 181. Plus none of them voluntarily went to a basket case team in the prime of their career. Alonso ran off to Renault but that’s because he couldn’t beat a rookie in the same equipment.

  25. Tony Jolevski
    5th May 2013, 1:48

    Proof that he is and always will be the best of all time.

  26. It’s gonna be hard to beat

  27. Stephen Higgins
    26th October 2020, 16:22

    ^ You were saying ….

  28. The record has just been broken on Oct 25 2020. 7 years after this article was written and by the driver that was the most unlikely of the 3….Hamilton…..

  29. Interesting to read these old comments. Proves that nobody has a crystal ball, no matter what they may claim

Comments are closed.