1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Some reflections on Formula One in 2017

Discussion in 'Formula 1' started by David O'Reilly, Sep 5, 2017.

  1. Worthy World Champion

    12 vote(s)
  2. Very good but got lucky

    14 vote(s)
  3. A journeyman #2 driver

    0 vote(s)
  1. David O'Reilly

    David O'Reilly
    A bad quali means I can go forwards in the race. Premium

    I found myself becoming a fan of Lewis Hamilton again after a long break.
    I bought his cap before he even drove a lap for McLaren having seen him in GP2.
    I was rooting for him when he could have taken the WDC in his rookie year but for his beaching at China.

    I fell out of his spell during a period of what I felt (just my views) was quite immature behaviour.
    I won't list stuff in detail but things like the spiky behaviour when Rosberg ever beat him, the sillyness of putting team data in instagram at Spa, stuff liike that.
    Then I got really resentful of the "rockstar" behaviour and tired of pics with him "hanging with his bros" like Will Smilth, Pharell Williams etc on the wing of his personal jet.
    Yes he earns 30m p.a. but I dont want to see the bling.
    For me it was just a bit too nouveau rich.
    I was more liking Rosberg. Family values, good education, several languages.
    I also got tired of the face "like he swallowed a wasp" when he was beaten.

    Anyway, this season I like him again. He has found a way to work with Bottas, even though he did him (Bottas) NO favour when he let him back past in Hungary. It was a deal. In a deal someone does something for you and you do something in return. A favour is when you do something expecting no return. He honoured his deal like any honourable person should.

    I see a more balanced personality now. Loving his racing. Driving very very well.
    He said something very wise this weekend; His heart is his engine and his mind is his rudder. To me that says that he has grasped an understanding that he didnt have before.

    He is now the greatest qualifier of all time, that's official.
    It does raise a very interesting question:
    How good was Rosberg? I mean the press, epecially the british like to paint very black and white pictures eg "the genius of Hamilton vs the workmanlike Rosberg". A lot of ppl bought that story.
    He saw off Schumacher.
    In 2015 he convincingly outqualified the world greatest qualifier.
    He won a WDC in equal cars with a 3 time WDC as a team mate. (I checked and can't find anything similar in F1 history).
    I mean is Bottas any good? and Hamilton never got that type of lead over Nico.
  2. paracletus


    NR got the points, so deserved to win. Under-rated driver.

    Not one to worry about haircuts, bling and wallet chains etc. but:
    LH is getting very close to being a contender for all-time greats; most pole positions is an incredible achievement.
    Hamilton's rain driving is arguably the best ever seen in the sport.

    A DC win 2017 for either LH or SV should firmly place them in top ten greats of the sport.
  3. Bram Hengeveld

    Bram Hengeveld
    Founder Staff Premium

    I am sure he was a talented driver otherwise you don't make it into F1. But his departure after winning the WDC left me with a bad taste in my mouth. Tasted like chicken.

    On a serious note, Hamilton is obviously the more talented driver of the two and I think Nico knows that as well. There wasn't anything to win for him this year unless Lewis got another portion of bad luck like he had in 2016.

    But it would be cool if he actually tried to prove us all wrong in 2017.
  4. Coffer


    They both have 3+ titles against very serious competition. The fact that people still think they don't belong in that top 10 already is farcical. They're both better than Senna, for one. The real question is whether they're in the top 5, which I'd argue at least one of them is.
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2017
  5. JayOTT


    Rosberg deserved his title. You can make a claim that Hamilton was ultimately the better driver and many will agree with you, but that is properly reflected by the fact that Hamilton won 2 titles vs Rosberg's 1. Saying that Rosberg didn't deserve it creates a slippery slope where you can discredit other world champions for various reasons. For example;

    - Button was in the best car and had a driver who's skills may have been on the decline as a team-mate.

    - Hakkinen was in the best car and was at times given favourable treatment over Coulthard.

    - Hill was in the best car and only had a rookie team-mate for competition.

    - Senna was in the best car and failed to outscore Prost in races during their time as team-mates.

    That last one should discredit this entire argument, as whilst some may over-rate Senna since drivers who died tend to get that treatment, I don't think anyone would dare call him an unworthy champion, nor are any of the other names I mentioned unworthy.
  6. Coffer


    I don't think it'd be unreasonable to discredit all of those to some extent.

    Button really did have the best car when it mattered most as well as Brawn's total backing, with Barrichello suffering most of the bad luck early on and beating Button most of the time in the second half, though by then it was too late. Seeing as, without Hamilton's extreme bad luck, he would've been outscored badly between 2010-2012 even with Lewis's hilariously bad 2011 season, it's pretty easy to say that Button is one of the weaker world champions. The likes of Hunt, Hill and Villeneuve are no better, though you can at least credit JV for being smart by figuring out that MSC would try taking him out. Hakkinen is the odd one out here, as barring the first few dominant races of 1998, the car difference between Ferrari and McLaren was not big at all, with Ferrari in particular having a better car in 1999 but being so easy to drive that MSC couldn't overdrive it and later no longer being suited to Irvine's approach either, and an equal car in 2000 when Indianapolis killed Hakkinen's championship. And that's without getting into how Rory Byrne is convincingly better than Adrian Newey.

    And no, the last one is the coup de grace for anyone who's done their research and doesn't just look at the past through rose-tinted glasses and fading memories, as, indeed, Senna and Alonso in particular would have no championships if not for their extreme good luck (Patrese was absolutely robbed in 1991) and especially dominant cars in the years when they didn't fight their teammates for the championship (as well as the extreme support of Ron Dennis and Honda in the former's case), a big reason why they are both massively overrated. I'd still say they're both in the all-time top 10 and are still significantly better than those with less serious competition like Clark and Fangio, but compared to Prost in the former's case and Vettel and Hamilton in the latter's, Senna and Alonso don't bring very much to the table besides making Brits totally hysteric.
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2017
  7. JayOTT


    The key factor is that, whilst most championship are won by the best car and not the best driver, usually you need to prove that you're one of the best drivers on the grid (unless you're applying for Ferrari's dreaded #2 slot) before the best teams, who are usually spoilt for choice, will make an offer.

    The lone exception here is Brawn GP, but even then Button went to McLaren afterwards and fared pretty well relative to Hamilton. Again, Hamilton was ultimately that little bit faster, but hypothetically speaking, if every F1 driver was in equal machinery, I still don't think the quickest driver would win every single time. Sometimes that 'lesser' talent can pull off the upset, much as is the case in all sports.

    Hakkinen was mentioned because of his spin at Italy 1999 which put him on the verge of losing a championship to aforementioned Ferrari #2 in Irvine, before he made amends with the win in Japan. I think you're also underestimating how good the 1998 McLaren was; it was clearly the better car until the last three races of the season. You have a point regarding 1999 though; the McLaren was still faster on average, but suffered 9 mechanical DNF's vs 3 on the Ferrari for the year.

    As for saying that Senna wouldn't be a champion if not for luck... are you taking the piss? The only thing I'd knock Senna for was his relative lack of success on race day when the weather was dry, but if anything, it was Senna's bad luck in regards to reliability and incurring the wrath of dumb stewarding decisions that allowed Prost to compare favourably to him. Senna had the lions share of reliability issues compared to Prost in 1989 in particular.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. RasmusP

    AC Stuff and G27 help Staff

    I watched every F1 race with my Grandpa back when I was a little child. The earliest season I remember was the last with Mika Hakkinen and they all where my heroes.
    I then lost track of F1 totally right before Schumacher retired the first time. Any time I wanted to give it a go, everything was totally different. Cars looking strange, all names swapped, new tires, new rules, new qualifying. Didn't get me hooked again I must admit.
    The changes are not necessarily bad, just too many I think.

    So much for my nostalgic story :roflmao:
    Now every time my gf and I are visiting her parents, F1 is running on TV. I got interested again but I really disliked Hamilton. As described above, I thought he's an arrogant, not sympathetic character but the more I watched him driving and the deeper I got back into Motorsport and driving in our Clubs he earned my respect!

    He seems to get a bit more... "mature" currently and his driving his purely awesome and I enjoy every moment the cameras are on him, driving like a true master! :cool: