Current Lewis Hamilton

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"
 
There would have been, but McLaren have tended not to win the races that they really should have...

Nobody should have won anything. Maybe they could have, but that's entirely different.

And to be honest, the traditional wisdom (I use that term lightly) was completely wrong this year. Red Bull brought the best package to both Spa and Monza this year and dominated. Simple as. They recognized these circuits as weak spots and basically designed a whole new car for those 2 GP. Just because McLaren had traditionally gone well there doesn't mean they should have won this year.

They were the fastest in those races in clean air.

Trouble is, when's it not out front then it's not quite as valuable.

Trying to beat a car that's on Pole for EVERY RACE is a monumental task.
 
Nobody should have won anything. Maybe they could have, but that's entirely different.

And to be honest, the traditional wisdom (I use that term lightly) was completely wrong this year. Red Bull brought the best package to both Spa and Monza this year and dominated. Simple as. They recognized these circuits as weak spots and basically designed a whole new car for those 2 GP. Just because McLaren had traditionally gone well there doesn't mean they should have won this year.

Those two tracks weren't the ones I was talking about, there were several races mid-season which they had a car to compete for the win, and I do believe they also could have won in Monza as Button and Hamilton were really fast after they cleared Schumacher.

McLaren, have had a lot of missed oppurtunities and have been their own worst enemy this season.
 
Red Bull brought the best package to both Spa and Monza this year...They recognized these circuits as weak spots and basically designed a whole new car for those 2 GP. Just because McLaren had traditionally gone well there doesn't mean they should have won this year.

Quote from Lewis Hamilton:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/94574

"I think we had a car capable of winning in both Belgium and Italy, so I really want to make sure we arrive in Singapore with a good set-up, and that we're able to run with it through practice and qualifying,"

AUTOSPORT premium feature on Monza, McLaren:

http://plus.autosport.com/premium/feature/3870/how-mclaren-could-have-beaten-vettel-at-monza/

I agree with Brogan. Vettel has been exceptional. Especially at Monza. But he had help (from outside Red Bull) and we all know it.
 
Let me just get this straight Ray. You're suggesting that the Red Bull was NOT the fastest car at both Spa and Monza. Do I have that right?

Liuzzi nearly paved the way for Ricciaro at Italy didn't he. LOL

I think Red Bull had the fastest car in qualifying at Spa but had blistering issues which could have been pounced upon if McLaren had put them under greater pressure...but Lewis crashed out and Button wasn't good enough.

So I don't think McLaren had the faster car at Spa.

Monza is slighlty different. I think it was very close in Q3 at Monza.

Vettel got the absolute maximum from the car in Q3 whilst Lewis made an error. So the 0.5 second gap was not the real gap.

Let's say RBR (in Vettel's hands) was 0.2 seconds faster in Monza qually.

So, theoretically, McLaren didn't have the fastest qually car over 1 lap but you already know that McLaren, for what ever reason, have a faster car relative to Red Bull at times in the races. Monza was such a race but Button was in 7th on lap 5 and Lewis had complete and utter brain fade when he should have been lining up Vettel at Parabolica for a slipsteam pass down the front straight.

So, Hamilton possibly had a faster race car than the RBR but Vettel got it absolutely right while Lewis was a total failure on the SC in-lap run to Parabolica.
 
Hey Ray, we don't need to hear your same tired arguments in every single post. Give the Monza slipstream a rest please! It's also completely immaterial to the point I'm making.

Your beating around the bush and nonsensical equivocations lead me to the conclusion that you know I'm right. The Red Bull was the fastest car at Belgium, and Italy, and every other race this year!

Just say it Ray. The RB7 is by far the class of the field. Possibly the greatest Grand Prix car ever.
 
Just say it Ray. The RB7 is by far the class of the field. Possibly the greatest Grand Prix car ever.

LOL

Perhaps Vettel is the fastest driver since Senna? I don't see Webber lifting any Victory Trophies and he won 4 races in 2010 and 2 in 2009.

That Andretti Lotus (the 78) was pretty handy. The 1988 McLaren would be my choice. And what about the Williams in which Mansell won. What about the 2002 and 2004 Ferraris?
 
Perhaps Vettel is the fastest driver since Senna?

Oh, that's not even up for debate. He's been the absolute cream of the crop since Bruno came along last year.

what about the Williams in which Mansell won.

The FW14B was a decent car, but even that beauty relinquished Pole Position on one occasion.

Back to our discussion though, let's have a simple answer. Yes or No. Was the RB7 the fastest package at both Spa and Monza?
 
There's an interesting take on Hamilton here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/formula_one/15066906.stm

Yes that was the article being discussed earlier before Ray woke up, declared it "shit" because he said so (no other reason) and then refused to allow sensible discussion on it to ensue.

But as I said before it is nice to see an article that discusses skill rather than psychology and I think it's an interesting point that rule changes could have such an impact. I said in the overtaking thread that for me it's quality not quantity and yes it's been more interesting this year but those drivers that are exceptional in this particular skill area have lucked out.
 
Yeah, it's a real shame you can't run races through the simulators back in Woking, because that's about the only place that setup was going to win a GP.

Keke,

In 1986 Senna took Pole 8 times from 16 GPs.

No other driver came close to as many Poles. Mansell got some, Keke himself got one. Fabi too.

But does that mean the Lotus 98T was the 'fastest package' at 8 of the 16 meetings?

You'll probably say "it has nothing to do with anything here''...though I could be wrong on that.

Point being, isn't it possible that some - not all mind you- of the Poles Vettel has gotten in 2011 is somewhat his own doing (like Senna in 1986)...and isn't it possible that Pole doesn't neccessarily mean that a car is the fastest race package at that point in history?

What if Vettel is an extremely fast driver like Ayrton was?

Isn't it slightly possible?

Or is Lewis the only one that can be in the Senna lineage?
 
Back
Top Bottom