Current Sir Lewis Carl Davidson Hamilton MBE

A place to put all the posts from all the other threads primarily but love him or hate him, and even for the indifferent amongst us this is the place to discuss the marmite that is Lewis Hamilton, to learn a thing or two about his rise, talk about those controversial, genius or mad moments and something that i am bemused by, the recent articles that suggest something quite different to my perception of what's going on. Any experiences of meeting LH?

Brundle had to write a Lewis Hamilton article recently and in my tweets (which were probably ignored) I asked him to talk about LH the driver not LH the personality. It seems that you can't have one without the other.

So as a starter for ten, here is a fairly recent LH article. Posts should not be limited to this link but it can get some discussion going. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/formula_one/13755883.stm

The only banned topic as it is clearly ridiculous involves these four things "Glock" "2008" "Brazil" "conspiracy"

 

[The Pits]

I didnt!

Does that mean I'm virtually nobody?

 

[F1Brits_90]

And if he had been in any car other than Mercedes, his WDC total would be 1.

but you could say that about anyone. if vettel was in the red bull 2010 - 2013 he would have 1 or no world championships & if Schumacher came back as vettel teammate he wouldve had a 8th maybe 9th world title

like alonso knows all too well half of the battle is being right team right time

 

[The Artist.....]

I didnt!

Does that mean I'm virtually nobody?

That just makes you smug , and gives you the right to lord it over me!

 

[The Pits]

Not sure if there is a smug smilie....

 

[F1Brits_90]

The Artist.....
I thought at the time what are you doing, but I heard the rumours of 2014 being good & that take the pain of 2013 to get back in 2014, not that it was guaranteed because Honda had the same rumours in 2015. but you could see him willing to take a chance with ross brawn & Niki Lauda because I remember lewis title chances in 2012 being undermined as he lost 100pts due to McLaren incompetence.

but I doubt anybody ever thought they would've been as dominant as they have been.

 

[RasputinLives]

F1Brits_90 Schumacher Wouldn't have beaten Vettel in 2010-13

 

[F1Brits_90]

F1Brits_90 Schumacher Wouldn't have beaten Vettel in 2010-13

i think he wouldve beat vettel in same red bull in 2010

 

[RasputinLives]

Sorry completely disagree. Not a chance. 2010 was one of the closests and most hard fought championships of all time with 5 drivers from 3 teams in the mix. The 'best car' changed from race to race and Vettels late comeback for the title was truly special given Webbers head start on him and a Hamilton and Alonso at the height of their form.

Schumacher showed that year that his years out had dulled his skills. He could not have lived with the others.

 

[Lewywo4]

And if he had been in any car other than Mercedes, his WDC total would be 1.

Luckily he joined Mercedes to make it 4.

 

[sobriety]

I'm sure I read somewhere that part of being a truly great driver is ensuring that you're in the right car at the right time.

 

[teabagyokel]

If you take the view that winning the title in a dominant machine is worthless, then Senna has no titles.

 

[RasputinLives]

and Prost only has 1!

 

[The Artist.....]

If you take the view that winning the title in a dominant machine is worthless, then Senna has no titles.

I'm not sure you can argue that...

In 1990, the Ferrari was easily a match for Senna's McLaren, and in 1991, the Williams was clearly the better car - albeit let down by reliability. In neither year was the McLaren dominant in the same way as the Mercs have been in recent years.

 

[RasputinLives]

The Ferrari was not a match for the Mclaren as shown by Berger regularly beating Mansell and sometime Prost. Also the Mclaren was as superior as the Merc in the first half of 91.

 

[siffert_fan]

How is being superior for half of one season comparable to being totally dominant for 4 complete seasons?

 

[RasputinLives]

It's not. We were talking about championships won in superior machinery.

 

[siffert_fan]

When it comes to winning a WDC, there is a vast difference between having a superior car for a fraction (even half) of a season vs having one for the entire season.

For instance, in 1968, Team Lotus initially had a large advantage when they introduced the high-mounted wing. By mid-season, both Matra and McLaren had either equaled or surpassed the Lotus in performance. That meant that Graham's title was MUCH more difficult to obtain than is currently the case.

 

[gethinceri]

One could say the same for the lovely championship.

 

[FB]

So does that make Jim Clark's title in 1965 worthless as he won 6 of the 9 races so must have had the best car? It's very easy to dismiss a drivers achievement as "well he had the best car didn't he?" but as many have proven over the years you can be in a car which is so far ahead of the field it's astonishing and still not win very much if anything at all. Look at Hector Rebaque in the 1981 Brabham or Riccardo Patrese in the 1992 Williams.

I recall when Damon Hill came close the the title in 1994 after Schumacher was disqualified in Belgium and then banned in Italy and Portugal. So many said "Ah, but if Michael hadn't been banned", but Damon still had to go out and win all the bloody races.

 

[siffert_fan]

The bullet-proof reliability of today's cars makes the likelihood of a superior car do most of the winning far beyond what it ever was in the past. Look at the profusion of 1-2 finishes that teams get today. That would have been virtually unthinkable in the past.

As for Clark, when the Lotus 25 made its debut, another team manager went on record as saying "the fastest thing about a monocoque is Jim Clark"! Can you imagine any team manager saying that about another team's driver today?

And remember, Hamilton has been beaten by two teammates and failed to outscore a third. Essentially the only teammates he has dominated were Heikki K and this year's designated doormat: Bottas.