Hamilton glad F1 “still has danger factor”

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Lewis Hamilton says the danger of Formula One is part of its appeal.


Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

Lewis Hamilton: The ‘danger factor’ (Al Jazeera)

“It definitely is dangerous and I’m glad that it still has that danger factor to it because that’s what makes it so exciting. That’s what separates us from, you know, any other sport.”

Williams development still strong (ESPN)

Williams chief race engineer Xevi Pujolar: “We had some new parts [in Hungary] and then in Spa and Monza it’s different packages, but for Singapore we will still be pushing and trying to bring more parts to the car because we want to improve and we want to get closer to the top ten.”

Webber: Austria return good for F1 (Autosport)

“I think it’s absolutely brilliant and I was really happy to see F1 is going back to a super-traditional venue.”


Comment of the day

Tom hits the nail on the head regarding the difficulty of comparing F1 drivers:

Impressive performances become more spectacular and more rewarding when the driver has better machinery to demonstrate with.

I’m sure several of this years lower ranked-drivers like Bianchi and Hulkenberg have the potential for greatness, but without a means of delivering it they just have to bide their time and rack up the experience.

They will no doubt be in top fives in years to come.
Tom (@Newdecade)

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Luts and Electrolite!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Jackie Stewart won the non-championship Oulton Park International Gold Cup 45 years ago today driving a Matra.

Chris Amon finished less than five seconds behind in his Ferrari with Jackie Oliver completing the podium for Lotus.

Image © Daimler/Hoch Zwei

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.

86 comments on “Hamilton glad F1 “still has danger factor””

  1. idk, I think i’d rather have a brake failure in a F1 car than a parachute not opening, or a rope cut while climbing some vertical mountain.
    F1 cars are quite safeactually. If I have an accident, better be in inside a machine that is designed to deal with the crash.

    1. Brake faliure at 200mph is not much different from a parachute failure – in both circumstances, you are simply a passenger and have no control over your fate.

      1. The difference being in an F1 car you have a crash structure to protect you, whereas if your parachute fails it’s going to be you that hit’s the ground.

        Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t want to do either, but you have a bit more protection in an F1 car.

      2. Lol at the guy saying a parachute fail is similar to a f1 car crash. The things I read here sometimes…. @kbdavies

      3. Show me these magnificent people who have survived parachute failures, please.

        1. There are plenty. Depends on the severity of the failure.

          1. OmarR-Pepper (@)
            17th August 2013, 15:07

            @matt90 yes but some of these “survivors” are in a comma now

          2. @omarr-pepper

            And many aren’t. So I don’t get your point.

          3. Do I have to specify every single detail on the internet nowdays so people won’t nitpick for no reason at all?

            A parachute failure during a 3000 meters skydive does not even get close to a brake failure at 300 km/h.

            Again, before you start picking on meaningless details, there are these freak cases where people will survive a much higher free fall. But statistically the chances of doing so are much, much lower than falling from the goddamn sky. To the point where you can’t even compare the two, I have no idea why we’re even discussing this.

          4. But statistically the chances of doing so are much, much lower than having a brake failure at any circumstance.***

            We need an edit button!

          5. I don’t know why we’re discussing this either, because as I said originally, the severity of the parachute failure can have a big impact. As does whether you try to land with the problem, cut-away to your reserve, or have the failure on your reserve too. It is a bit more multi-faceted than failure=death or coma. A total failure/malfunctions almost certainly does, but there are a variety of other malfunctions.

          6. OmarR-Pepper (@)
            17th August 2013, 18:15

            @matt90 if the parachute (or 2 parachutes) don’t open correctly (and the person is on terminal velocity) the rate to die is much higher to die in a F1 accident, where most of the times there is still the chance to brake or finish in a escape area. Talking about motorsports in general, the rate should be higher.

            Source: dropzone
            Fatalities by Year (skydiving and chuting)
            2004 (71)
            2005 (64)
            2006 (60)
            2007 (64)
            2008 (64)
            2009 (68)
            2010 (54)
            2011 (56)
            2012 (50)

          7. @omarr-pepper I’m definitely not disputing that in such an event skydiving is far more deadly, just that there is a degree to the severity of a malfunction which means that plenty of people do actually walk away (or sometimes limp).

            And @aced your first post was also nitpicking, so I don’t understand why you’ve gotten annoyed. I’m not doing it to irritate anybody, I just don’t like seeing skydiving misrepresented.

          8. @omarr-pepper @matt90
            Comma, point… are you guys talking punctuation marks or skydiving? :P

    2. I suppose he meant compared to any such mainstream sport.

      1. I’m not sure professional and competitive sports involving parachuting or mountain-climbing even exist, correct me if I’m wrong. I wouldn’t consider them a sport anyway.

        He’s right though, it’s definitely among the attractive characteristics of the sport. We don’t want anything bad to happen, but just knowing that the chance is always there… it’s part of the thrill.

        1. You are wrong in that skydiving and climbing are professional and competitive, and are certainly sports.

          1. All motorsport is dangerous, regardless of category. Some are more dangerous than others though. Like motorbike racing, or sidecars. Those guys are crazy.

      2. I think it would be quite easy to calculate the number of injuries per sportsperson in F1, let’s say over the past decade, and compare it other sports. I have a gut feeling that F1 wouldn’t be anywhere near the top of the list.

        1. @maroonjack you have to also bear in mind how they got the injuries: Mark Webber for example has injured himself twice(?) riding his mountain bike…

          1. @vettel1 Of course.

            I think that F1 is quite safe, and I’m not saying it’s a bad thing. And if it gives additional thrill to some drivers, when they convince themselves that it’s extremely dangerous, then good for them. But just off the top of my head: I think that ice hockey, rugby, boxing & other fighting sports, surfing (especially big wave surfing), horseback riding, bull riding, motorcycle biking, motocross, supercross, ATV racing, base jumping, sky diving, cave diving, gymnastics, skateboarding, alpine skiing (especially speed skiing/downhill), cycling, downhill biking, speed boat racing, weight lifting and even football are far more dangerous than F1 nowadays.

          2. The only recent (as in last 4/5 years ) injuries I can think of in F1 caused by crashes in relation to the competitors are Perez’s in Monaco 2011 and Massa’s in 2009 at Hungary. There have been far more in even just Scotland’s rugby squad this year!

          3. JP (@jonathanproc)
            17th August 2013, 15:02

            @vettel1 Glock crashed at Suzuka in 2009 during qualifying I seem to remember. He understeered off at the final corner and injured his legs and back which ended his season early. Kobayashi replaced him.

          4. Forgot about that one, yes you are correct. He was replaced for the Brazillian and Abu Dhabi Grand Prix because he had sustained cracked vertebra @jonathanproc.

            Any others anybody can think of?

          5. JP (@jonathanproc)
            17th August 2013, 16:03

            I know, that’s what I said. ;)

            Kubica in Canada is still fairly recent albeit more than “4/5 years” ago.

            Of course there was Webber in Valencia which could have easily resulted in injury. Similarly the situation in Spa last year could have been worse.

          6. @jonathanproc it’s an elaboration ;)

          7. Er Nico Rosberg and Karthikeyan at Abu Dhabi? That was pretty spectacular as well

          8. @milleniumbug nobody was injured though.

      3. All of the comments about danger from Motorsports-men and ‘women and their fans always forget Equestrianism. In terms of amateur and professional deaths per participant, you’re more likely to die riding a horse than any other competitive sport arbitrated by an internationally recognised body.

        1. lol. As a follow up, some studies indicate that horse-riding fatalities and life threatening injuries resulting in an ambulance attendance were greater than for all other sport combined in 2010.
          Pfft. motorsports, they’re barely dangerous at all. My wife and daughter are more at risk than the average F1 driver over any 12 month period.

    3. Parachuting and rock climbing are not competitive sports.

      1. Skydiving and various forms of climbing are indeed competitive sports.

      2. @ryanisjones Some forms are competitive, but that’s irrelevant, as Lewis was talking about “any other sport”. And “any” seem to be pretty much all-encompassing.

        1. Just read the article. Can’t believe a website can generate a massive debate over one of Hamilton’s throwaway comments. He is clearly worth his salary in PR alone.

          @MarronJack You are completely correct, however I’m not going to engage in an argument over the syntax and semantics of what he said. Anyone with half a brain understands what he was trying to say. “Driving a car fast is scary and that’s one of the reasons I do it…” Why do we need 120 comments for that?

          1. Come on, seriously? You are nit-picking at Jon’s examples of parachuting and rock climbing, and when we point out that you’re wrong, you suddenly “don’t want to discuss semantics”?

            Lewis said that F1 is more dangerous than any other sport. Some people take issue with that because, well, it’s not. And it’s a good thing that it’s not terribly dangerous! I love F1 and I don’t want drivers unnecesserily risking their lives.

            I’m also glad that he finds driving an F1 car exciting or even scary. Good for him. But “exciting” and “scary” are not the same thing as “dangerous”. A rollercoaster ride can be “scary”. It can really make your heart pumping, it can make your central nervous system produce adrenaline like there’s no tomorrow, but it’s not really that dangerous.

          2. @maroonjack I nit-picked at Jon because he was nit-picking himself, yet using two examples which aren’t really sports. Then you highlighted the fact that both can be competitive and I agreed I was wrong.

            I never entertained discussing what Hamilton said however, you brought that up. There was no “suddenly I don’t want to discuss” – I never wanted to discuss it.

            But OK, lets get pedantic.

            Lewis said that F1 is more dangerous than any other sport.

            No what he actually said was “the danger factor […] separates us […] from any other sport”. Yep everyone is actually paraphrasing him and inferring a meaning which is not actually what he said. (SYNTAX & SEMANTICS).

            “Danger factor / (X Factor)” how does one define that. Well there is no standard definition for a made up feeling. In other words parachuting is clearly more dangerous than F1, but maybe taking a corner at faster and faster speeds next to a wall 70 times a day would have the higher danger factor making it more exciting (what he said).

            Do you see how silly things get when people become anal about syntax. Context and meaning / semantics are just as important as syntax but neither of us can prove what he meant. An educated guess however, probably tells you that the fact he said “you know” probably means he was thinking on his feet (thus do not take too seriously) and also it is unlikely he genuinely believes F1 is the most dangerous sport in the world (he didn’t even say that anyway). So why bother arguing about it?

          3. @ryanisjones Let’s make one thing clear: do you think that “danger factor” is what separates F1 from “any other sport”, or not? Because I think it’s nonsense, no matter how you slice it.

            I don’t know how you can say that Jon’s examples “aren’t really sports”…

  2. That’s what separates us from, you know, any other sport.

    So, that’s what this is about? Doing something that might make one feel greater than other sportspersons? Or doing something that one has a pure love for, irrespective of how it stands with respect to other sports?

    1. I think he’s stating that its one of the reasons he loves F1. Its not just a bragging rights thing

  3. I think Lewis is romanticising the dark years of F1, and in doing so probably shows just how out of touch he is with this period in F1. I don’t know if its just a maturity aspect he’s lacking in this regard, or if he genuinely is a thrill seeker. In any case, I’m finding that my views and his are widening ever more.

    1. There are a great number of other figures who romanticise that era of the sport, be it journalists, former drivers (Moss, for example, has repeatedly commented about how much he enjoyed the thrill of cheating death when racing and complained at times that the sport is now too safe), or former fans who look back at that era through the filter of nostalgia.

    2. Absolute nonsense.
      I’m not a Lewis fan by any stretch of the imagination, but you certainly don’t have to search far to see this is just not the case.

      He’s simply saying F1 is dangerous, and if you were driving flat out through Eau Rouge, for example, you’d tend to agree. F1 in many ways is an extreme sport, certainly for the driver. Although it seems contradictory, it’s perfectly possible to have the thrill of the danger while knowing that everything has been done to make you as safe as possible.

      No one wants to go back to an era of magnesium cars and hay bales.

  4. RACING this weekend,get over those withdrawal pains by watching Moto GP from Indianapolis this weekend!

  5. Umm Lewis…
    Competition wrestling
    Moto GP
    Indy cars
    Any form of classic racing series
    Banger racing, stock cars
    Mountain biking
    X-games sports
    Winter sports
    All have higher injury/death rates per competitor in the modern era (and lower pay and glamour levels).
    I vividly remember watching Imola ’94 as a 12-year old kid, and I never EVER want to see it again in the sport I love so much.

    1. Though I would point out that UFC isn’t a sport, MMA is. Otherwise I agree with your point

  6. I don’t see anything wrong with what Lewis is saying. I ride a motorcycle and while I do wear all my safety gear all the time, the fact that is still that possibility that something could happen makes it more enjoyable. Going through a bend throttle open, knee down low just wouldn’t get the adrenaline going if I was 100% safe. Not saying we want fatalities, but if we were all so averse to danger we would have a lot of sports anyway…

    1. Agree 100%

  7. People don’t like Lewis’ attitude but I think Lewis has this little bit of social awkwardness which reminds me of Michael Jackson. It’s the reason I start to like him – it’s interesting to see how insecure even the best of the best can be.

  8. He says his dad even encouraged him to “never give up” when he went in the boxing ring and fought a boy twice his size.

    If you love danger so much, why didn’t you continue with that?

    And I simply don’t buy that safety would sap the excitement out of F1 – as long as the cars continue to go as fast or faster then the response will be exactly the same as it is on a rollercoaster; you know you won’t fall off but your brain still tricks you into believing it is a highly dangerous situation and releases adrenaline. It is only logical to presume the same applies to an F1 car.

    So no Hamilton, unsurprisingly I don’t agree with your assessment.

    1. I think the overriding concern should be protecting the driver’s and specator’s lives, as it is horrible news to hear either die. I say this not to disagree with Hamilton, but because of poor safety standards Ayrton Senna died before I could see him race and I think I’ve deeply missed out from that.

      1. Poor safty standards didnt kill Ayrton. A piece of debris pierced his heltmet. That can happen to any driver of any era. Did you miss Massa’s inncodent in 2009? If that spring hit his visor, he’d be no longer with us too, then what, it would be put down to poor safty standards because his visor could not withstand hitting a 3kg object at 170+ mph?

        Certain situations are going to arise no matter how safe you try to be.

        PS. I find your incessent disagreeing of anything that comes out in the media with Lewis name on it, tiring. His dad told him not to give up boxing, he grew up and other prioities demanded his time, get over it. Maybe you’ll find this out when you grow older if you have any current hobbies.

        1. So therefore the fact that he was killed by a piece of metal piercing his helmet doesn’t scream safety issue to you? And a high-speed corner with minimal run-off also? And the fact his car failed in the first place? Come on.

          PS. I find your incessent disagreeing of anything that comes out in the media with Lewis name on it, tiring. His dad told him not to give up boxing, he grew up and other prioities demanded his time, get over it. Maybe you’ll find this out when you grow older if you have any current hobbies.

          I am sorry you see it that way, but frankly I don’t really care to be honest! You have your opinions, I have mine. As long as respect is given to a driver’s abilities as is earned I don’t see any problem disagreeing with their opinions or not liking their personalities.

          @jonathanproc I know I took it out of context, that was very much intentional ;) I am highlighting if danger was the motive for him F1 probably isn’t the right environment as it is arguably the safest racing series in the world. Also, there are far more dangerous sports that aren’t motor racing related, such as the boxing example.

          1. JP (@jonathanproc)
            17th August 2013, 18:17

            @vettel1 Well your comment makes no sense then. The fact that you took it out of context shows me that you don’t understand the situation. If you left the quote in it’s original context you would realise his involvement in boxing had nothing to do with danger.

            Danger isn’t his motive. Winning and achieving his ambitions is. Danger just makes it more exciting for him. There are many things I’ve wanted to achieve and have achieved, just because those things weren’t particularly exciting doesn’t mean that I don’t view the achievement (or the road to it) any less.

            He was prompted by the interviewer to give his views on the subject. He didn’t turn around and say “I love danger. That is why I am in Formula One” out of the blue, which is what you seem to be implying.

          2. @jonathanproc no, I understood fully what I said: I was being snide towards him. I also understand danger is not his single motive but in that sense he is going very much against the tide of the FIA, so therefore if that’s what “keeps it interesting” for him so to speak then he’s frankly in the wrong motorsport.

          3. JP (@jonathanproc)
            17th August 2013, 23:15

            @vettel1 Well your intentions in your initial comment aren’t conveyed well if that is the case. You say “If you love danger so much, why didn’t you continue with that?” when the answer to that is in fact quite obvious. If it was intended to be a snide remark then it just comes across the wrong way.

            Hamilton after the British GP when is tyre blew up: “It was the first time in my career I’ve ever felt it was dangerous. It’s just unacceptable really. It’s only when someone gets hurt that someone will do something about it. It’s a waste of time talking to the FIA and if they don’t do anything that says a lot about them.”

            As you can clearly see here he is obviously very against the idea of someone getting injured. Even to the extent where he blasts the FIA for not doing anything about it…That’s hardly against the tide of the FIA. As I previously said, these single quotes from interviews are commonly taken out of context and misunderstood.

          4. @jonathanproc that’s fair enough.

            If what he actually said is that he doesn’t want F1 to become sterile (i.e. they drive around in bubbles at 150 mph tops) then I agree – that’s not the point. The cars should still be fast and the tracks challenging as that is what makes the sport so exciting for the viewers, but absolutely I wouldn’t want them to deliberately keep it at a level of danger when it’s not necessary – the technology should always continue to advance (such as with the new side impact structures for 2014 and lower noses).

          5. JP (@jonathanproc)
            17th August 2013, 23:37

            @vettel1 I simply believe that the interviewer put him in a slightly awkward situation. He asked him if the sport is still dangerous, obviously Hamilton had to respond truthfully, as there is no hiding the fact that it is. At this point it’s as if he feels he has to defend the fact that his sport is still dangerous by saying it’s exciting. He then quickly changes the subject to the fact that safety is improving each year and that it was come a long way.

    2. JP (@jonathanproc)
      17th August 2013, 16:39

      @vettel1 You’ve taken that quote out of context here. He was using that as an example to demonstrate his fathers support and showing that with encouragement from his father he was able to win the fight. This is of course the same in his motor racing career.

      “If you love danger so much, why didn’t you continue with that?”

      He says in the interview that he went boxing just to train. Nothing at all to do with the danger of it. As usual with these quotes they are often taken out of context and misunderstood.

  9. I think MOTO GP riders are even worse than this… If you saw some MOTO GP crashes in the last races, they are very scary… Even in Practice sessions they crash… F1 drivers are good to have safety like that… I rather crash in an F1 car…

    As for Lewis, this is why I love this guy!!! RISK TAKER, DANGER SEEKER, always looking to HARDCORE things!!

  10. Go on and attack Lewis, you just bubbling on about a whole lot of nonsense though….

  11. The guy can’t say anything! Yeah, there are other sports which are just as dangerous which he doesn’t mention. Why is that such a massive deal to you guys?

    1. @electrolite because if he liked the danger then he’s in the wrong motorsport. He should’ve pursued a career in American racing series or Moto GP/MX.

      As I’ve already argued, it is not the danger than makes it exciting but the speed which gives the illusion of danger – frankly even if the cars were so safe that you couldn’t possibly die if they were still going at the speeds they are now as close to the walls of some tracks as they are now they’d still get that adrenaline, so if he is essentially applauding an element of unsafeness then I think he’s got the wrong approach entirely.

      1. As with a lot of things Hamilton says, I really don’t think it needs to be scrutinised that closely (and I don’t think it would be anywhere near as much if anyone else said it). Like it or not, F1 is still dangerous, and some people find that quite exciting.

      2. You know, just because a person says they like danger, dosnt mean they have to go walking on the rims of active volcano’s. Stop trying so desperatly to pick apart anything and everything that Lewis’ is quoted as saying.

      3. “As I’ve already argued, it is not the danger than makes it exciting but the speed which gives the illusion of danger”

        Oh really, maybe you wanna replay the start of Spa 2012 to watch Alonso nearly get decapited at one of the slowest corners in the entire sport.

      4. First of all, if he feels like he’s in the right sport then he’s in the right sport.
        Second, he never said that danger is the only reason he’s in F1 so even if you’re going by that it doesn’t mean he’s in the wrong sport.
        And third, what makes it exciting for you does not necessarily make it exciting for the rest of mankind.

      5. I guess no one has any right to say that a driver of Lewis’s caliber is in the wrong sport :)

        Anyway he did not say he races in F1 just because it’s dangerous , he said he finds it more exciting because of the danger element… some people seem to miss this difference entirely…

        1. @puneethvb my main argument was structured around the idea that it probably isn’t the danger that excites them, it’s approaching Eau Rouge at 200mph in the hope the car will stick – in a crash itself the cars really aren’t that dangerous at all (in actual fact as @maroonjack has listed most sports are actually more “dangerous” than F1).

          So no, he most probably likes that roller-coaster thrill, not the danger element (that mainly applies in bull fighting or something of that calibre).

      6. @vettel1

        LOL what a couch coach you are… :)

        Just because no driver has died last decade doesn’t mean that F1 is not deadly dangerous.

        Take 5 minutes of, go check the pics of eau rouge and sit back and imagine you drive that flat out in the fastest racing car there is.

        I assure you that is highly dangerous, no matter how safe the car’s are nowadays and if you don’t realize that after those 5 minutes then its just because you need some more time to think about it.

        Illusion of danger.. good one, looks like it on the couch I agree :)

        1. @tvm I’d say that proves my point actually – when was the last time somebody was actually injured at Eau Rouge in an F1 car? Nonetheless, I’d still be scared even though in the back of my head I would know that I’m pretty safe! :)

          N.B sorry to become all serious but I hate the use of the argument “why don’t you do it” – I don’t claim to be able to drive an F1 car so I think I’m perfectly just to scrutinise those who do! ;)

          1. @vettel1

            I agree the “why don’t you” can be a lame argument and not entirely what I meant.

            I think we have all been lulled a little to sleep due to the lack, knock on wood, of driver deaths for a long time in F1.

            But there can be no cheating with physics, the energy is there in abundance, with the right set of circumstances rest assured these drivers can get killed, carbon fiber monocoque can’t save, say a driver getting side swiped by another if the speed is there or hitting hard a just the right spot.

            Look for Alan Simonsen’s crash in Le Man, no monocoque could have saved him, killed by g force, not contact.

            I think the drivers get that sensation better than the rest of us though.

  12. It’s interesting how people have spoken against Hamilton here, when he talks about the previous eras of F1, but Webber hardly gets a mention when he speaks about F1 going ‘back to a super-traditional venue’ in Austria (whenever a space appears on the calendar, 2017?)

    I like to consider myself a fan of the sport above being a fan of any driver, I guess that’s what happens when you start in the Schumacher era, but I get rather annoyed when people take whatever Hamilton/Alonso/Button/Vettel say and turn it against them (And by doing so, completely losing what was actually said)

    1. @keeleyobsessed
      Well the difference is what Hamilton said was both wrong and insulting to other sportspeople who risk their lives, as has been discussed above.

      Webber was perhaps over-egging it a bit, but the site of the Red Bull Ring held grand prix all through the 70s and most of the 80s, I think that qualifies it as a traditional venue.

      1. @keeleyobsessed What are you on about? Austria is on the 2014 F1 schedule, don’t know where you got 2017 from

        And there’s absolutely no connection between what Webber has said and what Hamilton has said(I agree with him btw). Same as you don’t like people distorting Hamilton all the time, I don’t like your tendency to drag Webber into every conversation in a negative manner

  13. OmarR-Pepper (@)
    17th August 2013, 15:36

    About safety, I think there have been many near-misses which were luckily just a bad scary thing, just in recent years:
    – Kubica in Canada: you can see Kubica’s legs out of the broken nosecone. If one of those turns the car did hitting the floor had been in a different angle, he would have probably broken / lost one or both legs.

    – Grosjean at Spa: As much as I dislike Alonso, I feared for his life in that crash (my first impression was that the Lotus had impacted Alonso’s head, that would have been instant death)

    – Schum in Abu Dhabi in 2010: His car spun, got pointing backwards and a car came almost to his head (again, more final speed on the other car would have killed Schum),

    – There was also a Grosjean-like accident in Monaco many years ago, I remember Heidfeld involved, I don’t remember if the other was Trulli, almost hitting his head.

    So the sport IS dangerous, even before Imola 1994 there was a good period when drivers didn’t get killed in F1, so it’s better not to take things for granted about safety. Even in a straight line test something can go wrong, as Maria de Villota suffered it.

    1. I’m glad you prefaced Grosjean’s pileup at Spa 2012 as you did.

      It implies that if you really REALLY dislike someone, you might just not fear for their life after a scary incident.

      Top post, mate.

      1. OmarR-Pepper (@)
        17th August 2013, 20:47

        @alonsowdc You are reading on my comment something I didn’t say. It’s sad you replied to me in that way.

  14. The driver Hamilton is most like is … Nigel Mansell. From the BBC profile of Mansell:

    Whether it be daring overtaking manoeuvres, his muscular handling of some of the sport’s defining cars, or the histrionics and apparent persecution complex that accompanied much of his career, there was never a dull moment when the moustachioed Midlander was around.

    Mansell’s career coincided – and is inextricably linked – with those of Ayrton Senna and Alain Prost. He went toe-to-toe with these two titans and in so doing earned his own place in the pantheon.

    His exciting, fighting style won him enormous adulation from fans, many of whom were not from the usual F1 audience demographic. But an awkward, complex, demanding personality often made him difficult to work with.

    Substitute Hamilton, Vettel and Alonso for Mansell, Vettel and Prost in that passage and it fits perfectly.

    1. OmarR-Pepper (@)
      17th August 2013, 18:05

      @jonsan Yeap, and probably the amount of championships finishes in the same way:
      -Vettel with 4
      – Alonso with 3
      – Hamilton with 1
      What can be on their favor to add more championships foreach one is their age (they are much younger than Prost, Senna or Mansell at the moments they got their championships), but at the same time, what can stop their harvest is the fact of many and much younger drivers coming every year, I think the possible champions of the future are Hulkenberg and Perez. Not all the youngsters are talented enough, but there’s a huge possibility to have more champions in the mix the following years.

      1. I’d have Alonso with Prost and Vettel with Senna though @omarr-pepper – I think that’s more representative of each ones approach. ;)

        1. OmarR-Pepper (@)
          17th August 2013, 18:18

          I’m not talking about politics or cheating under the table, @vettel1. Bout that I agree with you. (Vettel has had his fair share of blames too, don’t forget it. Well, most of them on track (Turkey 2010))

          1. @omarr-pepper I really meant what @jonsan said :)

      2. I meant style and personality rather than number of titles. I expect Hamilton will win more than just the one. And I made a typo, but I meant that Vettel is the modern Senna figure with Alonso in the Prost role. Again that’s with respect to how each man drives and nothing to do with politics. Though if you wanted to go there, I suppose Alonso is a bit similar to Prost in the politics department as well.

  15. Michael Brown (@)
    17th August 2013, 21:57

    I don’t know whether this is a credible source or not but according to this Daniel Ricciardo has been confirmed for Red Bull.

Comments are closed.