You're not getting the point. Hamilton does more mistakes than the others and doesn't have enough flawless races to cover for those mistakes.
How many times has Alonso made a major mistake this season? -Not many.
How many has Hamilton done? -I've lost count already.
Mclaren has been faster than Ferrari but still Alonso is only one point behind Hamilton. All comes to the amount of mistakes he doesn't make and Hamilton does.
Button has been slower than Hamilton in almost every race and still he's only 12 points behind Hamilton. Also Webber has been driving consistantly to third or fourth and he's ahead of Hamilton with only one second place and no victories. You might say it's because of the car that Webber's so fast but that doesn't change the fact that Webber has been about as fast as Hamilton in every race and actually many times much slower. He just doesn't make major mistakes which is the reason he's a perfect second driver for Red Bull and why he's second in standings.
Sinbad; that's a good question. I'm rooting for your idea in future but somehow in every race we have users who come claim Hamilton was mistreated in almost every possible way and that he is the best driver in the history of the sport. That pretty much changes the subject every time.
Jenson has said to press that he would not have taken the intermediates because he thought he was faster at the moment with dry tires. You are forgetting that the driver ''should'' know what tires will be the fastest at the moment. If Hamilton thought slick tires were fastest why didn't he wait for a lap and pit then if the track conditions had changed? How do you expect those 20+ people on the pitwall know how much water is there in corners 5, 6 and 7 and if they can be driven with slick tires? They don't know that from their data. They rely on driver's opinion about the situation and that's why it's 99% of the time the driver's call to use dry or rain tires. The driver is calculated tactics by the possibilities of rain continuing, increasing or diminishing but they never change the driver's tires until the driver has said that other tires would be faster and that he wants to pit.
What's the point in changing to intermediate if you expect rain after the next few laps? Why don't you change after those few laps when it starts really to rain? Hamilton was fast enough with his tires and could have continued with them for the next few laps if he thought the intermediate tires were a bad call right now. (assuming he's not just considered an idiot and just told to pit without even telling him which tires they are giving him)
No one is saying he messes up all the time. The truth is that Hamilton does more mistakes than his opponents and has lately had a habit of making bad calls in races. Also saying Hamilton outsmarted others is quite debatable. He did outrace his rivals but I remember people here saying how Mclaren is always to blame when Hamilton's tactics fail. Following that logic it was his team who outsmarted his rivals' teams. Not Hamilton himself.
Also try to compare Hamilton's flawless races to Vettel's or maybe Alonso's. You'll see that he doesn't have more flawless races than the others do. That makes comparing his bad calls to the bad calls others make quite important don't you think?
Hamilton is still young in F1 terms. That and his behavior is why I regard him as a kid. He's not yet shown his true potential and has given arguments that make him look like a kid. Mocking stewards and other drivers plus not refusing to accept your own mistakes is quite childish don't you think? Also the race card was out of the charts and was more like pure stupidity than being childish. I will regard him as a F1 champion once he starts to act like one. Until that, he's a ''kid'' to me. Currently Mclaren make Hamilton fix his comments in almost every race because he's said something he shouldn't have and that probably means that they still view him as a ''kid'' since he needs so much guidance. When was the last time before Hamilton Mclaren had to interfere with what their driver was saying to press. To be honest, I don't even remember.
Besides it's not only Hamilton who I see as a kid. Vettel is also young and did his best to blow his championship victory last season. If I'm talking about the most talented kid it means there are other ''kids'' to whom I compare him. That list includes Vettel. I regard all young drivers as ''kids'' because in their sport they are such. So I don't see what's the fuss about using the word kid over driver or man. I also regard Barrichello as a ''veteran'' in F1. Should I change that one too because it might imply he's old?
Explain yourself. What have I said that was not true? It's no secret that I do not root for Hamilton until he's shown enough sings of growing up (Which he's actually began to do in the last 2 races) but nothing I've said has been about trashing Hamilton. Merely pointing out his weaknesses and where he needs to develop. If I say he's the most talented kid in the sport you don't read that sentence but when I say he made a mistake or that he should take responsibility of his actions it's because I hate him. I actually did root for Hamilton over Alonso in 2007 at times when I thought Kimi had no shot at the title. You obviously don't know that and I doubt you'll even believe me.
You on the other hand are just an arrogant kid who refuses to see the entire picture and tries to mock and silence the ones who say something you don't like. Grow up.
Ok, seems odd that MTV3 didn't mention Hamilton's radio being dead in the broadcast. I was unaware of his radio being dead. Not a single mention about it in Finnish news about the race. Quite strange behaviour from Mclaren if it's true that they didn't even tell Hamilton which tires they were going to give him and that they wanted to ruin Button's race. Certainly something Ron Dennis would never have done.
If it's true Mclaren makes the decisions about weather to use rain or dry tires they are unbelievably dumb. Mika Salo has said many times that it's the driver's call to make about using rain or dry tires. If you are racing on dry conditions then of course the team calculates you the best possible tactics but the team crew can, according to him, never know just how much water is there on the track and how slippery it is out there if it's raining so they can't make the decisions about the tires. For example when the rain had stopped Vettel was said that it's not going to rain anymore, come pit for dry tires when you feel like it.
Button's tactic to use hard tires and to go with them to the end was designed by the team and Hamilton's pit stop where they gave him wet tires was due to his tires running out but taking the intermediate tires was for sure Hamilton's call. He had to pit anyway because his tires were running out and he decided to take a chance. Blaming Mclaren for giving him intermediate tires is just ridiculous.
The penalty was for Hamilton turning his car around unsafely after the spin. He almost hit another driver and forced the next one to drive into grass to avoid hitting him. He should have waited for them to pass him and then turn around.
Great race from Button though. Deserved the win. The only driver from top 4 who didn't make big mistakes during the race.
I'm sorry about my tone but I'm not a native speaker and I can only use words I know. If I sound arrogant that's not my meaning. I just do get a bit pissed when people are saying their opinions as truth and can't even really back up what they are saying. I don't remember replying to opinions if they haven't been stated like they were the one and only truth.
I'll try to reduce my posts in here then but I just do have a habit of answering back when someone disagrees with about everything I say. I'm just trying to make others understand my point of view and maybe get a reply why others feel they are right.
The difference between Hamilton and Kovalainen wasn't as great as you seem to remember. 2008 Kovalainen was faster than Hamilton in 5 of 18 qualifies with much more fuel than Hamilton. He also finished better than Hamilton in 5 races. It was actually a miracle Kovalainen could even beat Hamilton with the tactics he had. Kovalainen and Hamilton were usually quite even in practice sessions and first 2 rounds in qualifying. (third was messed up due to Mclaren quite often) Kovalainen wasn't as good driver in races as Hamilton but the main reason he ''failed'' was because of the tactics he was given and that he didn't always have the newest parts that Hamilton had. He was never talented enough to win championships but you are making it sound like he's a bad driver which he isn't.
It's actually kinda funny that if I merely state a truth that Hamilton was favoured over Kovalainen you start bashing him and saying I only say so because I'm a Finn but when I'm talking about a British driver you refuse to hear anything bad of him and talk of him like he's the God Almighty. Of course his first season was great but he was the first talented driver to get a position in top team in his rookie year. Plus Mclaren did have the fastest car and Alonso had troubles with the team. Everyone else than Hamilton have started their journey from the bottom. That's one reason why their first seasons aren't as great. Part of Hamilton's attitude problem is that he got everything too fast and too soon.
And Tinvek;
Do you even understand what you're saying?
1.I haven't seen Webber overtake with the DRS or in straights any more than Vettel in races they both have been behind others.
2. Are Hamilton's and Alonso's cars poor? No. Webber has actually said that their advantage this year is less than in last year. Hamilton's and Alonso's cars are fast, almost as fast as the Red Bull but they are designed for racing. Red Bull's car is designed to go as fast as possible around the track. There is a difference. Red Bull has better downforce and they can drive the corners much faster. That's where they are fast. They lack speed in straights because of that (and also because of their engines) but they lose less in straights than what they gain in corners.
Overtaking ability isn't what makes your car good. It's a part of it. Red Bull have designed their car to be faster at the cost of overtaking. So far it has worked quite well don't you think?
True. I did not mention that since from the top drivers only Hamilton and Alonso have been on the same team and if you start comparing how their current teammates performed against others and they against others it just doesn't work. Also you need to consider that not all teams treat the drivers equally even in the start of the season and some cars fit better for certain drivers. (one of the many ways of getting the driver team likes to do better) For example it was not unusual for Hamilton to have newer/better car parts than Kovalainen when they were teammates. Also for some reason Kovalainen never pitted earlier than Hamilton and every time he was faster in the practices for some reason he was given a strategy that had extremely long first stint so that Hamilton would be faster than him in the qualifying. It's not always so direct but still makes ranking drivers' performances extremely hard because there's no way of knowing just what is going inside the team.
Intrepid. Tell me how do you define who's better than the others? Unless you have 2 drivers who have had a same teammate or they have raced against each others in the same car you cannot say someone is better than others. All you can look for seeing ''true skill' are race victories and championship victories. Besides the difference between top teams hasn't really been enormous after Ferrari's (Michael Schumacher's) reign. Had there been someone slower than Vettel in Red Bull right now we wouldn't be talking about Red Bull being superior. Webber hasn't shown superiority with his driving and is just few points ahead of Hamilton. It's Vettel's magical driving in qualifying and races that has created the illusion that Red Bull has been clearly faster than everyone else. Webber hasn't been faster than everyone. He's got no victories and only one second place. He on the other hand has shown exactly what consistency is by driving to positions 2-5 in every race. He's also been second and fifth only once so all his other positions are either third or fourth. That's no superiority but solid driving with a top car.
Can you show me any top 2 list from anywhere than Great Britain that says Alonso and Hamilton are the two best drivers since I do not for a second believe that is ''common knowledge''? There are never exact lists for the best or the two best drivers. There are always larger lists since many drivers who are obviously talented have never had a winning car. Had Hamilton ''been raised'' in a worse team than Mclaren and gotten his chance in F1 there I don't think you would be talking about him at all since he wouldn't have won a single race. That's the issue with comparing top drivers. You can't. You can only assume something based on the driver's performance against others. Only champions are remembered and only victories matter. That's the nature of this sport.
Actually Vettel's ahead of everyone. That is all that matters.
You don't get it do you. Being second doesn't count for anything. How many drivers are remembered for being second? Maybe one.
2007 Räikkönen won the championship because Alonso and Hamilton were too busy fighting against each others with the best car in the series. 2007 is remembered as the year Räikkönen won the championship, not as a year Hamilton finished second in the standings with equal amount of points as Alonso (who had problems with the team all season). Hamilton threw his great season away with horrible performance in the last 2 races and showed he wasn't ready to be a champion.
Do you remember 2008? Hamilton screwed up the final race and only by luck managed to finish 5th in the race and win the championship. That isn't remembered though. It is only remembered that he won it and Massa who came second isn't remembered. That's because he finished second. Hamilton has issues with withstanding the pressures and so far hasn't really impressed with his mental capabilities.
Also try to remember that Alonso has 2 world championship victories and Hamilton has 2. That sort of implies that Alonso's better than Hamilton. If they both retired now Alonso would be remembered as better driver because of his championship victories. It's all about the results you have after the season, not about the performance in single races. If you don't win it doesn't matter are you second, third, fourth or fifth no one will remember you from that season as a winner. With bad luck you might be remembered as a loser.
I'd rather win the F1 championship once than finish second ten times. I'm sure all drivers feel that way.
I didn't say it was the only reason in every overtake. It was the reason in that particular overtake Hamilton did to Webber. Webber didn't have worse exit, he passed in the corner from the inside, Hamilton drove slower in the corner and was left behind. Slipstream is overrated. Besides it is same to everyone when overtaking so it doesn't explain differences between overtaking difficulties. Without faster exit speed or better speed slipstream doesn't help you nearly enough in a situation like Webber and Hamilton had.
Everyone uses KERS in same places and you must know that. Every time you see the KERS meter of 2 cars in tv it's in about the same level. No major differences. If both use KERS at the same time then KERS doesn't give you advantage unless you've got a better one (and Mclaren does have advantage in KERS over Red Bull too, they've had problems with it all the time and I remember reading that Red Bull doesn't have all the power in their KERS that could be used by the rules).
Have you seen the top speed charts from practices? In practice 3 Red Bull drivers were 19th and 20th in the top speed and lost over 11 km/h to the first one and 5km/h to Hamilton. That is a huge difference. Red Bulls exit the corners faster than others since their better corner speed is the only possible explanation for their fast times because they clearly lose in every straight so the speed difference between Red Bull and other top cars is quite big when thinking that the others first catch Red Bulls and then draw that big gap before the speed trap. Also note that Red Bulls DRS is designed for qualifying, not overtaking and doesn't give as much advantage as Mclaren's or Ferrari's when opened.
You cannot deny that it's much easier for Hamilton to overtake with his car than Vettel because of their top speed differences in tracks. There are other variables that affect overtaking of course but none are as important as speed in straights if you look at the car design, not driving. Wake up.
And pearcy, it's because when Hamilton has finished high in this season he usually has finished higher than Alonso. Simple, isn't it. Alonso finishes more often in top but Hamilton finishes higher when he's in the top. That makes up for his mistakes once in a while but does hurt his chances to fight for the championship. Alonso has finished in top three 5 times this season and Hamilton has only 4 times. Hamilton has finished 2 times as first and 2 times as second. Alonso has finished once in the first place, three times as second and once in the third place. Hamilton messed his own race in Malaysia, Monaco and Canada. Excluding those races his worst result is 4th. See what I'm meaning?
Partly true but it requires skill to beat the crap out of Webber about every race (excluding the last 2) and winning all the time. Vettel has lead something like 70% of all the laps he's driven this year.
I would really like to know where you got in your mind that it would be widely known that Hamilton would be in top 2 best drivers. It's probably just in Britain since I've never heard anything like that. I've seen top 3 and top 5 lists of best drivers which all have included Vettel, Alonso and Hamilton in no particular order. I think you're just upset that your favourite driver Hamilton isn't doing as well as he should have and that he's messed few of this year's races on his own.
Honestly I think it's Hamilton who needs to improve the most. (also see as ''can improve the most'') He's probably the most talented guy of the three but also has a problem with driving to good points constantly. Vettel and Alonso are almost every time in the top where Hamilton is either in the top 3 or somewhere bottom due to crashes, penalties or just some mess he's created. Hamilton also lacs the mentality to look after the drivers championship points and not to think only the race you are currently racing.
Isn't it a wonder how two best racers in F1 are both over 80 points behind the current leader in championship points? About Vettel's overtaking skills, I would like to see you overtake someone who's 5-10 km/h faster than you in straights. (that's the difference between Red Bull and Mclaren in case you didn't know) It's a lot harder than being faster or equal in straight speeds. Vettel can't overtake as easily as Hamilton because his car isn't fast enough. That's just the way their car is designed. Just remember what happened between Hamilton and Webber this race when Webber overtook Hamilton and Hamilton overtook him in the next straight. That overtake wasn't about skill, it was about pure engine power and showed how much more superior Mclaren's car is in straights when compared to Red Bull's. Also note that unlike Hamilton Vettel hasn't really had to race against anyone more than a few times this season. If you are fast enough you don't need to overtake. If you can't drive well enough in qualifying and tend to make lot of mistakes then you might need to overtake.
If you have 2 racers and one is faster than the other no matter how good the slower one is in overtaking the faster one will win more races because we have a thing called qualifying where the fastest driver gets the pole. Also you might not need to overtake in the track but rather just be able to drive few perfect laps before or after your pit (depending whether your opponent pits before or after you) to overtake.
I'm also surprised you are not commenting about Hamilton's move on Webber since you're the one whining about Hamilton's overtake attempts being blocked. Only this time it was Hamilton who pushed Webber out of the track to the grass.
Great race from Hamilton. Mclaren had the best strategy and they deserved the victory. I feel that pushing Webber out of the track after second pit was unnecessary and quite rude. It seems to be allowed though so good move. Alonso had the opportunity to do likewise to Hamilton when he came from his second pit stop but decided not to, or just froze.
Can anyone explain to me why I can get a laptop with Intel Core i7 SandyBridge 2630QM for 900 euros in Finland (Asus N73SV for example) but every desk computer with intel's i7 processor somehow costs way over 1000 euros? I always thought that desk computers were superior to laptops in every way in the same price range.
What did I say that implied anything about hate? I agreed with you about the rattling part. I merely said that it wasn't a good thing they concentrated on winning eachothers. Had they worked together one of them would've won the championship and that's the goal if you have the best car. Isn't it?
I believe that without Alonso as a teammate in Mclaren Hamilton would've won the championship and that without Hamilton as a teammate in Mclaren Alonso would've won the championship. They both failed because they concentrated on each others and didn't co-operate. That's the same thing I believe will be likely to happen with Vettel if Hamilton moves to RBR. 2 extremely fast drivers in the same team is rarely a good thing if you are fighting for the championship and rattling the other one's cage doesn't mean anything if you don't win the championship with the best car. Hamilton's goal is to win championships so he probably shouldn't go to Red Bull considering how he couldn't co-operate with Alonso
If you disagree with me you're free to do so but please explain your view. Saying that I hate Hamilton without even backing up that claim or showing where I'm wrong just proves that you don't have anything more to offer to this conversation and rather try to undermine everyone who thinks differently than you.
A while back (don't remember exact time) Mclaren brought new parts that in the paper should've made their car much faster. Results were exactly the opposite.
I don't talk about set-up and development differently because you can't know their difference from your couch or even if you were watching every race live unless every driver drives every car and gets to set it up the way they like it. For all we know RBR's car might be worse than Ferrari's car but Vettel is just a genious with set-ups and can transform the lousy car absolute beast with setups that are exactly perfect for him and that's why Webber has been so far away from him in most races. Nothing is black and white. Rubens Barrichello is 0.4 seconds faster than Jenson Button in Top Gear with exactly the same car so does that mean that Barrichello is a better driver? How come Button won the championship instead of Barrichello when they had the same car and we have proof that Barrichello is the faster one with similar gear?
Telling which way to go is as important as how you go there since if you don't have someone to point the way you might end up in the wrong way. If you are going slower than everyone else even the exactly right way to the finish line might not be enough.
Greybull, you are absolutely right. I forgot that Webber drove better than Rosberg in Williams 2006 Thank you for the correction.
Did I say that drivers design a car by themselves? I simply stated that drivers have a part in designing the car. That is the truth. Drivers give the designers constant feedback about new parts they test, how the car handles and in which areas the driver feels the car should be improved the most. If the driver says ''the car is rubbish everywhere'' it doesn't do any good but if he says that ''our major problem is in the amount of downforce we get in the front'' the developers do have an idea on where to concentrate in developing the car.
Pre season tests tell nothing and many times teams hide their true power using only few parts that make it to the ''new car'' and just test many parts with older gear to see how it affects their speed with an old car since they don't have too many testing days and they want to know how the new part affects the total balance of the car. If you instantly put 50 new parts into a car and see that it's faster how can you be sure each part is better than the previous part?
Lewis was developing the 2009 car so if you were right that the car was complete failure don't you think Lewis and his ''requests'' about the car's behaviour might have had something to do with it? Designers don't drive the cars so they don't know how the car will behave. They can see stats about it's performance in the straight and have guesses about it's possible performance in the corners but without a driver to tell them how it behaves and how it should be altered the designers can't build a winning car.
And as we saw last week RBR was still faster than Mclaren with Mclaren's blown diffusers set to 50% and RBR's 10%. Flexible front wing is just bullshit and it hasn't been proved so it's quite ridiculous to come up with that. Mclaren had their F-tube and did it make Hamilton a champion?
Innovations tend to lead teams to few victories in the beginning but they always get copied quickly and do not have the same advantage over the whole season.
Newey's record of designing cars that can win is of cource great but as I said 80% of the drivers in F1 can win if they have clearly the best car. The differences aren't that big. Also note that Michael Schumacher has won the F1 championship in 3 different teams and that he did create Ferrari's dynasty alongside with Ross Brawn. As you see with Brawn and Mercedes GP even with the best car designers without the right drivers and the right crew behind you you can't win.
Please tell me how Räikkönen managed to make Ferrari so good after Massa got injured? Was it the car developers who were building the next year's car? Räikkönen could give them orders on how to adjust the car, without new parts, and the car got over a second faster with that. How do you explain that? Ferrari's car was designed for Massa and as soon as he got hurt Räikkönen could say how he wanted the car to handle and how it should be chanced and got immediate results.
If you still think drivers don't have anything to do with car development you must be out of your mind.
You seem to forget that when Alonso and Hamilton battled neither won the championship. Both had the best car but due to their rivalry Räikkönen ended up as the champion. Hamilton won his only championship with Kovalainen his side because Kovalainen was a ''second driver'' and worked his ass off to help Hamilton. If Hamilton and Vettel are in the same team the result will be hard to see and we can't be certain which one will be better (no matter what you Hamilton fans think) but I dare say that should they be in a same team neither will win the championship. Vettel also has one advantage; he can be a part of building a winning car where Hamilton hasn't yet shown any skills in building a winning car. Like it or not but Drivers do have a major role in car development and Hamilton has so far only made Mclaren's car lose the edge they had when he came. (I predict that will happen to Red Bull also if Hamilton decides to move there)
If you have two drivers who race against each other and ''cannot lose'' to the other one it also means no setup sharing, no hints on how to drive hard corners etc. They also tend to do stupid moves to try and beat the other one. What every team needs is 2 fast drivers who co-operate since co-operating is beneficial to both drivers. Hamilton and Alonso didn't co-operate and look where it got them even though they had the best car under them. Hamilton and Kovalainen on the other hand co-operated and Hamilton won the championship with a car that was pretty much as good as Massa's Ferrari.
I believe Hamilton has only bad options now. His relations with Mclaren crew are getting worse (just listen to him when he answers to anything they tell him to do. He always answers with ''doing it already, shut the **** up'' tone and the message he says is pretty much the same.
With Red Bull he will be faced with quest to beat Vettel who I believe to be the fastest racer in the sport. His pressures would also be quite high since he'd be moving into a team that dominated the last year (and we've seen that Hamilton hasn't really driven well when he's had enormous pressures on him.
Ferrari is impossible since Santander and Alonso run the business there and Alonso will not let Hamilton in the same team again.
Mercedes might be good if Schumacher retires and Hamilton would have the chance to show his car developing skills to every one but it would require few years of hard work and Roseberg as a teammate who's so far dominated every teammate he's had. Even Michael Schumacher. Hamilton has clearly stated that he wants to win the championship now and to get in a winning team so Mercedes might not be good enough for him. (and he might not be the person Mercedes wants)
That's exactly what they should not do. (although I believe they will do so) There's enough competition in the races right now. Changing the rules when someone is faster than the others is just stupid and will show the world how F1 isn't about pure racing and technology but only money. If we should change the rules because one team is faster than the rest why shouldn't we just throw all the rules into a trash can because the worst cars are so much behind and ''should be allowed a fresh start with completely new rules for everyone''?
If every good innovation in F1 will be banned why don't we just go with same cars for everyone? That'll keep the ''competition'' good until we discover that someone is faster than the others all the time and decide to add weight to drivers' cars depending on how they have performed in the season. The last race will cause 50% of the weight since we don't want to see the same guy win twice in a row, right? That'll keep the competition fair and viewers will be delighted to see who will win the next time since it can be anyone and we'll have absolutely no clue about the results until we've seen the ''race''. And then we'll probably have to ban drivers as well since they are too predictable and the best ones' skills are ruining a perfectly good competition. We'll just have to switch to robots since that way we can program them to do slight errors in about every third corner (just a possibility of 33% though) and make them do major errors about once in every 200 corners (possibility of 0,5%). Now we have perfect competition. We can't be certain which robot will be the fastest since it'll be based on luck and the robots will race each other's so we can watch racing. The cars can also be adjusted to be faster since it doesn't matter if they crash going 300 mph. We can just build another one and viewers will be thrilled to see extremely fast racing.