Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes, Melbourne, 2013

Joining Mercedes at the right time ‘no fluke’ – Hamilton

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Lewis Hamilton refutes the idea he was lucky to join Mercedes when he did.

Tweets

Comment of the day

Alexander Rossi, Manor, Autodromo Hermanos Rodriguez, 2015
Big changes are going on at Manor
The goodwill around Manor is disappearing along with its top staff:

It leaves me cold after all the work done by Booth and others to keep the team – that it now seems (to me, anyway) to be ebbing away. I hope that’s not the case, F1 needs more racers and less big business.

The Manor team have been the perfect example of a team of racers, just doing the best they can. I genuinely hope they continue, but it doesn’t look good.
Stuart (@Sham)

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Narboza22 and Rafael!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Happy birthday to 1980 world champion Alan Jones who is 69 today.

Also on this day in 2007 Fernando Alonso confirmed his departure from McLaren:

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.

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 73 comments on “Joining Mercedes at the right time ‘no fluke’ – Hamilton”

    1. Alas poor Yorico, I knew him well.

    2. Unfair comments about Vettel and Kimi. I know how Sky saw it, I guess their views spread like wildfire. The media has a gigantic impact on our view of the sport. I think Vettel/Ric was bad luck but Kimi/Bottas was Bottas fault, maybe if Kimi had left no space at all Bottas wouldn’t have put the car there, but the Williams is off track already, he ought to slow down. Anyway it’s not more ludicrous than Kimi’s Russia move. Anyway, double standards failure.

      1. @peartree It was quite clearly KR’s fault. Bottas was quite easily halfway alongside him, and so KR should have recognized that and given him room. This corner is pretty similar to Turns 7 & 8 at Abu Dhabi, and just watch some previous Abu Dhabi GPs to get an idea of what clean, fair racing is; something KR does not seem to be able to do.

        1. @mashiat I can’t find your definition of clearly on the dictionary. If you watch the footage once, you can see that Raikkonen gave him some space on the inside which is more than he should had, he’s in front, it’s on the rulebook that drivers side-by-side should give space to each other, this wasn’t side-by-side and even if it had been, in this case Bottas could have taken avoiding action, he drove into a wedge, just like Massa in Singapore. A couple years ago this scenarios would always favour the driver ahead, now F1 favours the driver behind, why I don’t know it’s not written in the rulebook, maybe it’s bias stewards.

          If I was Kimi I would adopt Fernando’s style on racing, it’s less exciting but it makes more sense, Kimi leaves too much space, that’s how he got passed by Rosberg in Russia and that’s how he gave space for Bottas prayer.

          1. @peartree And who got the penalty for that Singapore incident?

          2. I think it’s a long stretch to make this Bottas’ fault. Surely Kimi knew he was there, if he knew he was there, is it ok to take the tight line? knowing that it will cause a crash? No, obviously not. The rules make clear that a driver must not push another off the track, surely this is what happened.

            1. @mike This is an age old discussion. Senna used to chop off the inside line, his opponents would back out in fear of crashing. This way of defending became norm, all great champions do it. Raikkonen didn’t, Bottas thought there was a gap to be taken, which there wasn’t, so it’s Russia on reverse. The only difference is that this move was at much slower speed and more feasible.

              @mashiat I don’t agree with the Singapore penalty either. Hulk could have avoided the crash but it was Massa who went for a gap that wasn’t there. You ask me to judge past Abu Dhabi GP’s and so I did. I even analysed the past decade of F1 racing and only in the past couple years stewards blame the car in front in these situations. It all started with Canada 2014.
              Now people with no opinions only prejudice @psynrg mock people for actually thinking about something rather than echo the words of someone they don’t even know.

              psynrg perhaps @patrickl words make more sense to you. His opinion is my opinion, take care to comment rather than mock.

              Raikkonen had nowhere to go in Sochi …

              The driver behind is always at fault. Unless the stewards assume the lead driver crashed on purpose (Massa get a penalty for that once).

              To me it’s a double standards fail.

              I think we can all agree that the Stewards decisions are not consensual with F1fanatics. Everyone has expressed their desire to achieve more clarity. In the end over regulation ends up with more and more doubtful decisions. The implication of bias on the stewardship is not a fresh topic either. Williams this weekend again favoured on the pit entry incident where both Hulk and Bottas violated the pit entry directive but only one received the prescribed penalty for it. Both crossed the line, Hulk went wide and came back in, Bottas hit the bollard. 2 different events but both broke the same rule. So why not issue a standardized penalty? If a driver exceeds pit lane speed by 1 mile or 5 the penalty is the same, as is when a driver jumps the start but takes no advantage out of it. Transparency, clarity. You have to assert a firm position. Stop drawing grey lines F1!

            2. If all the champions purposefully risk a crash then I am quite sure they are all in the wrong together…

      2. I disagree on that incident being the fault of Bottas @peartree, but I do agree with you that Kimi should look at his driving and change for the better

        1. ColdFly F1 (@)
          2nd November 2015, 7:30

          I don’t see it as Bottas’ fault; he had nowhere to go.
          Racing incident to me. But if anyone is to blame then it’s Karma.

          1. @coldfly, Raikkonen had nowhere to go in Sochi …

            The driver behind is always at fault. Unless the stewards assume the lead driver crashed on purpose (Massa get a penalty for that once).

            1. ColdFly F1 (@)
              2nd November 2015, 8:34

              Raikkonen had nowhere to go in Sochi

              Similar to the final words of a kamikaze pilot. @patrickl

              The driver behind is always at fault. Unless the stewards assume the lead driver crashed on purpose

              Nope – many accidents are deemed racing incidents (some blame shared by both drivers), especially when the cars are largely side by side – like yesterday.

            2. Just saying that they always say that there was “nowhere to go”. That’s really such a nonsense argument. It’s as bad as “for sure”.

              Even if there is no penalty the blame falls on the driver that was behind when a mid corner collision happens.

      3. If it was Bottas’ fault then why didn’t the stewards punish him? I guess you know something they didn’t?

      4. The incident was Bottas’s fault in the same way the track surface is made of meringue.

    3. Vettel may be assuming the blame for the crash, but by the way he went off in both the occasions it seemed like there was a problem with the car, maybe brakes or gearbox.

      1. @toiago That’s what Brundle was inferring. I think Vettel as in the Monza turn 1 spin was running “greedy” on regen.

    4. Mansell was a good choice, but maybe Jo Ramirez would’ve been A LOT better for the Mexican crowd. A respectable guy, a fellow Mexican fluent in both english and spanish, and a very relevant figure in F1.

      BUT… this was hardly the worst choice made by FIA. Remember Placido Domingo conducted the post-podium Q&A…

      1. Yeah it wasn’t cringeworthy at all when Mansell said ‘Viva la Americ……. hahahaha oops la Mexico’. Gotta love your country being compared to America……..not.

        1. ColdFly F1 (@)
          2nd November 2015, 7:55

          At least he wasn’t wearing a tracksuit like that rapper on the podium last week.

          1. I switched off as soon as the podium “interview” started last week, really not keen on that run down looking guy in the track suit they had there. Was it someone well known @coldfly?

            Bit of a shame they didn’t have someone spanish speaking there, as you mention @fer-no65 Jo Ramirez would have been a nice pick (or JPM, we know he was there). Now the interview was not realy an interview at all. Then again, they could have done better than Mansell, and the great crowd made it a special feeling non the less!

          2. Who doesn’t like Piano Rap? I wonder if Elton will take Lewis under his wing.. :P

            1. Elton should have done the podium in Russia standing alongside Putin.

      2. @fer-no65 Yeah, Jo Ramirez or JPM would have been a good pick – but once the last turn was named Mansell turn, it was almost inevitable that Mansell would somehow be involved in the weekend. He wasn’t even the driver steward! Just an ‘elderly fan’ at his own turn :P

    5. Buxton makes a good point about the Metro, I reckon the only people having trouble going in and out of the circuit were the foreigners, probably because they’re unwilling to try out public transport.

      I was like that the first time I visited the city, taking taxis everywhere but once you know your way around using the Metro and buses, it’s fastest way to move within the city and even though it’s crowded is pretty safe actually.

    6. What is L.H. talking about in that Reuters article? This guy really is really into himself, more so than I thought he is.
      He probably thinks he’s a saint and has never a thing wrong on track live or in his dreams. Just last week-end he forces Rosberg wide in turn one, maneuver which was/is punished with penalties in MotoGP. But in F1 since cars don’t tip over that easily, it doesn’t seem as dramatic. So does L.H. actually think that unless parts fly or cars tip over, everything he does is acceptable? I just can’t believe this guy, first talking non-sense about him carrying some baton from Senna and now this with Schumacher. First I would tell him to try and win when he doesn’t have the best car like others did, and then talk about winning only through natural ability. Second, he should be glad those two guys are not around or else he wouldn’t be winning much. And third, I remember a race a few years ago when he was still at McLaren in a superior car to Mercedes, wining over the radio he couldn’t pass Schumacher because supposedly he was moving too much on track. I guess he didn’t have the ‘natural ability’ with him that day…

      1. Sam Sam The press is a catalyst. Lewis is a rightful championship but I reckon he’s not aware of the helping hand his team gives him. I’m sure he’s been seeing Rosberg as a sore loser but Hamilton’s wins are much as much to do with his side of the garage as Lewis himself. I think once he realises this he’ll understand how is Nico being such a sore loser. Lewis is out muscling Nico on track, and Merc is muscling Nico out whenever they see fit. I’m sure Nico himself he’s not aware that Toto is not his friend, Toto is Merc’s Christian Horner and Lauda is Merc’s Marko. Nico ought to redirect his anger and be firm on track.

      2. Agree @Sam Sam it is cringeworthy but once you see it for what it is its also laughable. The only sad part is that a lot of his fans just lap it up and the spew it back at anyone who dares to try and speak facts. Just grab the popcorn, have a laugh and enjoy it for what it is, you can’t argue with that level of delusion :-)

      3. >He probably thinks he’s a saint and has never a thing wrong on track live or in his dreams. Just last week-end he forces Rosberg wide in turn one, maneuver which was/is punished with penalties in MotoGP.

        “He probably thinks…” is just a covert way of expressing your opinion way. Stick to the facts or your interpretation of them. Also, why should a F1 driver adhere to MotoGP etiquette?

        [Lewis] couldn’t pass Schumacher because supposedly he was moving too much on track. I guess he didn’t have the ‘natural ability’ with him that day

        Lewis isn’t a natural driver because he got stuck behind a slower car one time 4 years ago (Monza 2011)? It probably escaped you that Hamilton actually finished ahead of Schumacher in that race.

        You probably also missed the fact that Ross Brawn, Mercedes GP Team Principal advised Schumacher to “be more careful” and “make room” for Lewis Hamilton during that Italian Grand Prix, as Charlie Whiting had warned the team that he would be penalised.
        (BBC).

        But I guess Lewis, Ross and Charlie should bow before your superior knowledge…

      4. >He probably thinks he’s a saint and has never a thing wrong on track live or in his dreams. Just last week-end he forces Rosberg wide in turn one, maneuver which was/is punished with penalties in MotoGP.

        “He probably thinks…” is just a covert way of expressing your bias. Stick to the facts. Also, why should a F1 driver adhere to MotoGP etiquette?

        [Lewis] couldn’t pass Schumacher because supposedly he was moving too much on track. I guess he didn’t have the ‘natural ability’ with him that day

        Lewis isn’t a natural driver because he got stuck behind a slower car one time 4 years ago (Monza 2011)? It probably escaped you that Hamilton actually finished ahead of Schumacher in that race.

        You probably also missed the fact that Ross Brawn, Mercedes GP Team Principal advised Schumacher to “be more careful” and “make room” for Lewis Hamilton during the Italian Grand Prix, as Charlie Whiting had warned the team that he would be penalised.
        (BBC)

        But I guess Lewis, Ross and Charlie should bow before your superior knowledge…

        1. Lewis isn’t a natural driver because he got stuck behind a slower car one time 4 years ago

          Stuck behind a slower car once in 4 year, really? Care to show the evidence for that.

          Also the reason Charlie Whiting was involved was because Lewis was doing a Fernando, and complaining over the radio about double defenses and track limit violations.

          1. I meant to say “that one time”. I didn’t mean Lewis has only been stuck behind a faster car once in 4 years but that he is picking a random race from years ago to make his point. You can’t use one moment from the distant past as a barometer of performance. Otherwise:

            Fernando isn’t a top driver because he couldn’t get past Petrov in Abu Dhabi that one time.

            Jenson isn’t a top driver because he couldn’t get past Heikki’s Caterham that one time.

            It’s ridiculous to suggest that one case proves or disproves someone’s ability.

            1. ColdFly F1 (@)
              2nd November 2015, 8:52

              @kodongo. I probably should stay out of this discussion. But anyway.
              As you meant to say ‘that one time’, Sam Sam probably also meant to say ‘that one time, during that part of the race’.

              My suggestion is: try not to attack him on his exact wording; we all make those mistakes. But rather build your counterargument why you think that Hamilton rightly made those Schumacher comments.
              Or alternatively scroll down to the next comment.

        2. @kodongo The problem is that, after Lewis’s 3rd WC, his detractors are having to resort to increasingly desperate arguments. We saw the same happen to those trying to disparage Seb a few years ago.

    7. Owing to the three-hour time zone difference, the Baku race will start after the finish of Le Mans, allowing fans to watch both in full

      Errrrrr Baku is to the East of Le Mans, so surely it’s the opposite, right?

      1. yeah, really shows that awesome quick thinking the other article lauds Todt for, doesn’t it @andae23.

      2. @andae23 Exactly, when it’s 15:00 at Le Mans, it will be 18:00 in Baku. If they really want to start the “European” GP after the finish of Le Mans, they should do it at 19:00 local time. The sunset is at 21:14 so… Shame on Todt and Motorsport’s “news editor”.

      3. Indeed. I checked time zone difference as soon as the F1 calendar with the clash was announced, and it was clear the races would run in parallel (at least partly).

        1. In actual fact the whole of the F1 race will be held while Le Mans is on. If Baku starts at noon it will be 9am at Le Mans… Does Todt not know what time it is in France?? lol

          Double TVs or choosing Le Mans.

    8. I think its funny how Hamilton is saying he is completely relaxed now (he mentioned the same for Austin, only now admitting that it wasn’t quite that relaxed) but he has been trying a bit of mind games for the whole weekend (showing that he does consider his teammate a real challenger). Rosberg should take that, and the way he was able to go this weekend, and go with it to be in the title fight for real next year.

      I do agree with Hamilton that its not as much Rosberg being weaker this year but Hamilton being better (and reliability being in favour of Lewis vs. Nico this year), so now we need Rosberg to make a step up too.

      1. ‘I’ve never ever done the things that Michael had done to win a championship. I’ve won through just natural ability.'”

        @bascb And on top of that words like this make him sound foolish too.

        1. That copied wrong, nevermind.

        2. Not more than most people @xtwl. Sure, his actions on track belie that statement somewhat (Tough Schumacher clearly is quite something else for dodgy-ness in persueing winning at all cost, Hamilton is no different from Senna and others in winning ruthlessly etc.), but most of us tend to see our own actions in a different light than outsiders do.

          1. @bascb I meant to say he talks about Schumacher like that but then forgets Senna (his God) was no less in driving Prost off the road.

            1. I do see a significant difference between Senna and Schumacher. The latter clearly took winning at all cost to an entirely different level. Prost vs Senna was more personal, about ego and being on top in their team (a bit of that is seen at Mercedes too)

        3. I think the most interesting context for that quote would be to take it alongside what Joe Saward let us infer recently – i.e. that not all of Schumi’s cars were strictly legal. That’s probably referring to 1994, and he did say Schumi was still a great driver after Monaco 2012 was pointed out.

          Lewis is probably talking about the myriad of on track controversies, not that Senna didn’t have any, unless he also knows something we don’t.. and you’d have to say he did in September 2012 when he moved to Mercedes (just how far ahead their engine would be, in league with increased team budget).

        4. He is not fit to tie up Schumachers race boots. He idolises a cheat but then I was never sad post Imola 1994, not of course that I wanted that to happen but that it did was no big issue for me.

      2. I don’t think Hamilton has grown as a person at all in his career, and his personality has not changed, it has just got more annoying with the hip-hop theme. the only thing that has changed ever is what car he has and what result he gets, and that determines his mood – so ofcourse he will be happy and relaxed now.

    9. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
      2nd November 2015, 8:17

      I think what is stunningly frustrating about Rosberg’s victory yesterday, and his wins in Spain and Austria, is that they are virtually indistinguishable from Hamilton’s ten wins in terms of consistency, control and pace. The 2014 United States Grand Prix made it abundantly clear that Nico would not be able to fight Hamilton for a championship until he addressed his deficit in race trim. Clearly “Mission: Winter 2014/5” succeeded: Lewis has not managed to wrestle track position from him since. If only Rosberg had had track position more often this year, he could have been a genuine threat to Hamilton.

      Baring in mind Rosberg has clearly shown himself capable of retaining track position in 2015, Nico can regretfully look back at a season that could have been much better. He missed the essential pole in China by 0.040 with a lock-up, he was the fastest Mercedes driver in the quickly worsening conditions at Silverstone but didn’t pit on the optimal lap, he gifted Hamilton a victory at Suzuka with a substandard start, and with a mistake at Austin, and lost a likely victory in Sochi to a faulty throttle potentiometer. Yes, there is no amount of counterfactual reflection that would put Rosberg as champion, but in reality, he is not yet ready to be labelled Hamilton’s whipping-boy.

      It is just a shame that Rosberg couldn’t improve on his race pace without compromising his qualifying pace in a season were the driver that arrives at T1 first has invariably been on course to victory.

      1. @william-brierty, There was actually a glaring difference between the races that Rosberg won and the ones that Hamilton won. The difference is that Rosberg was actually faster all weekend in Spain, Austria and Mexico and Hamilton was faster all weekend in the others (barring Sochi).

        So Hamilton didn’t really have a chance to attack in those 3 races, let alone pass. Vice versa, Rosberg never had a chance in those other races.

        Thing is that Hamilton is faster than Rosberg more often than not.

        In 2014 Hamilton also was faster more often in the race even though he qualified behind Rosberg. Most likely due to a different setup focus for race or qualifying. So then he could attack and pass or pressure Rosberg into a mistake.

        This season we actually saw the same thing in Austin. Hamilton was faster yet behind and Rosberg couldn’t take the pressure from Hamilton following in his DRS window and made a mistake again.

        1. @patrickl
          In USA, Rosberg was a bottle away from winning, and he was most certainly faster than Hamilton in throughout the majority of that race. No doubt about that whatsoever. Hamilton would never have came close to the win if the two safety cars didn’t gift it to him on a silver plate.

          In Silverstone, again Rosberg losing pole by 0.1 seconds was enough to lose the win. He was comfortably the fastest driver once the rain came down, he cut a 10 second deficit to Hamilton (a deficit caused by being stuck behind the Williams cars) to practically nothing.

          Hamilton’s wins in Australia and Canada, in many ways, are identical to Rosberg’s win in Mexico. Once you get track position, it is very difficult to almost impossible for the car behind to overtake. His qualifying in both weekends was poor, which was the main problem.

          1. Completly random just to pick on a point you don’t generally believe rosberg is ten seconds faster than Hamilton over a few laps in the wet do you? If you think about it the more logical conclusion is that Hamilton was avoiding making a mistake using that ten seconds to his advantage to guarantee a win.

        2. @patrickl I do not dispute that Hamilton has on aggregate been consistently the faster driver, but I do maintain that Rosberg has demonstrated his ability to win races with similar aplomb as Lewis, and that on many occasions this year Hamilton’s victories have only really resulted from a track position advantage.

          It is simply not true to say Hamilton steamrolls Nico on weekends when he wins. At Spa, he was Brundle’s tip for pole, at Silverstone Rosberg had been markedly quicker on Friday before being pipped by a tenth on Saturday, and in Canada Nico looked marginally faster in race trim and did trouble Hamilton’s DRS zone in the closing laps. Also, did Hamilton dominate the weekend in his past three race wins, where he relied on a mistake/poor start/technical error to ensure victory? In Austin, like Silverstone, it was Rosberg that was noticeably the faster driver in wet/dry conditions, and prior to his error was doing an admirable job of resisting Hamilton on five lap newer tyres.

          Inversely, despite being faster in both of the representative practice sessions, the slender 0.014 advantage Rosberg held over Hamilton in FP3 still made the Brit the favourite for pole to most F1 Fanatic readers.

          Yes, Hamilton has without doubt been the faster more consistent performer in 2015, but it doesn’t take an inconceivable leap of judgement to conclude that had Nico Rosberg arrived in T1 first a bit more often, he could have won a lot more races this year. He is no Mark Webber yet.

          1. *Inversely, despite being faster in both of the representative practice sessions in Mexico

            1. On that note, I did have Rosberg on pole with Mercedes’ 1:19.5 simulated time, but changed it to Hamilton at the last minute after looking at the best sectors/thinking he dropped time in FP3..

          2. @william-brierty, Well they need to be a lot faster to actually be able to challenge in the race. The point is also more which driver is quickest in the race has the biggest chanced to win. Friday times often don’t say much. The Austin free practice times especially …

            When did it happen that Rosberg was behind Hamilton and was able to get and stay within DRS range? He got only got slightly close in Canada for a few laps after they gave him the undercut on Hamilton.

            Hamilton was in DRS range behind Rosberg in Austin. Clearly showing superior pace and Rosberg choked again (helped by a gust of wind of course). The first corner had nothing to do with that. Hamilton was faster on track and won.

            I’d say Rosberg actually is a bit of a Mark Webber. Webber was also rather poor at racecraft more of a qualification specialist. Unfortunately for him, Vettel was even more of a qualification specialist.

            1. @patrickl

              Hamilton was in DRS range behind Rosberg in Austin. Clearly showing superior pace and Rosberg choked again (helped by a gust of wind of course). The first corner had nothing to do with that. Hamilton was faster on track and won.

              Claiming that Hamilton was faster than Rosberg in Austin is downright nonsense, and I’ve already explained why. The faster driver does not drop 10 seconds to the slower driver with equal tyres in equal cars, only to get saved by the SC. If not for that first SC, Hamilton wouldn’t have been anywhere near Rosberg.

            2. @patrickl As @kingshark says, it is simply not true to say Hamilton was directly under Rosberg’s wing at the time of his Austin mistake; he was 1.5 seconds behind over the line and Nico had been the faster on the previous lap. I equally think his mistake was quite understandable. He had to push, Hamilton was on five lap newer tyres and could have pressurized Nico at the end, and it was very windy. How many cars do we see making errors on a windy day at Silverstone?

              In terms of Rosberg being a Webber, that couldn’t be further from the truth. How many races did Mark control and win from the front following the switch to Pirellis? One perhaps? Monaco 2012? And in that same space of time, how many did his teammate dominate? Upwards of twenty maybe? So whilst the Hamilton-Rosberg win ratio currently stands at 22:11 (or 2:1), the final three years of the Vettel-Webber partnership saw a win ratio of 29:3. As for Vettel being a qualifying specialist, you will of course remember that he had approaching a thirty second advantage as he emerged from his first stop at the 2013 Abu Dhabi GP; the same track where he went from pitlane to podium the year before.

            3. Hamilton drove up to Rosberg for an attack for the last 10 laps of the race. He was within DRS range for lap after lap. Then Rosberg flew off track.

              Just like he did several times earlier in voer the last 2 seasons.

              I’m not saying Rosberg is just as bad as Webber. In fact I’d say even Vettel would have difficulty beating Rosberg. On the other hand, Rosberg is clearly better over a single lap than he is in a race.

            4. @patrickl
              Hamilton did not “drive up” to Rosberg at Austin, he should have been 15 seconds behind if not for the safety car, which gave him a free pit stop and let him close right up to Rosberg in the final stint.

            5. Yep you are utterly correct and it yet completely proves my point.

              How does it matter if the safety car helped close the gap? Whatever happened before, Hamilton was faster at that point of the race and he pushed Rosberg into another driver error. So Hamilton passed him on track and won.

      2. Rosberg has been super strong of late, but it was too late in the season, he needs better consistency. but still, of all the world champions, how many have been beaten to pole 4 races in a row by what everyone considers an inferior teammate and driver? this is one of Hamilton’s failings, he cant match Schumacher, Vettel, Senna, Alonso or even Hakkinen for dominating a teammate. in his McLaren era, Jenson Button beat Hamilton 672 to 657 in points scored… no other great driver has a score like that against their name (well, except for Schumacher vs Rosberg, but that is a different story – as Schumi was past it and should not have come out of retirement.) also Hamilton’s qualifying advantage, it is not as good as above said drivers ever – that is where outright pace is.

        1. And yet Hamilton won 3 out of those 4 races and came a close second in the fourth. Where are the points handed out exactly?

          Schumacher made sure his team mates were no threat to him by limiting their telemetry access. Herbert explained that he wasn’t even allowed to see his own telemetry at all.

          1. Links please. And no bs article. Herbert on cam explaining why he couldn’t do what Schumacher did.

            1. Common knowledge needs no links. Just google it or pick up a book on the subject. There are plenty of interviews from all team mates that Schumacher had saying just this.

    10. not a fluke…. well maybe not, but very lucky.. he joined in 2013, and at that time the team was only good enough for 4th best, failing as always since joining after taking over brawn. also in that season the team got worse as the year went along, the same as from 2010 to 2012 for Mercedes. all this in 2010-2013 with the most powerful engine. the fluke, or luck was that Mercedes then jumped from 4th best to 1st best, and by a second a lap, and it was all down to to the engine rules and Mercedes engine luckily being most powerful straight away, it was a lottery, and then VERY LIMITED engine development allowed – not allowing natural parity to happen over a short period of time, which has locked in an advantage for the next few years for Mercedes.

      1. So when Hamilton says (beforehand) that he went to Mercedes to maximize the potential of being in a works team for the new engine regulations? Then it’s still “luck” that indeed he did maximize the potential of being in a works team for the new engine regulations?

        Seeing how Mercedes had been the best at engine design at least since Hamilton entered into F1, it’s still “luck” that they produced the best engine again?

        Ferrari actually have around the same number of bhp from their powertrain. So it was possible to catch up. They only lack some on the chassis side and probably the drivers side.

        1. Hamilton had no way of knowing that Mercedes would also produce a stellar chassis. Because that’s what they did. It’s not just the engine that is best of class.
          If they still had the same tyre destroying issue like they had in 2013, they wouldn’t have been double world champions. In 2013 the mercedes was often the only competitor to Red Bull and sometimes even faster over a single lap. Hamilton could not have known this in 2012 when McLaren was the fastest car on track with a Mercedes engine.

          1. No he didn’t. So what?

            He gambled that Ferrari and Mercedes would be the place to be and he was 100% right. Not sure why you need to get so worked up over that.

    11. “McLaren: No ‘charity’ for Red Bull (Autosport)”
      Is that engine called and manufactured by McLaren or Honda…?

      However, watching Red Bulls recent pace, it would be the best solution for them to retake Renault, if no Ferrari or Mercedes engines are available.

    12. A recent headline in Italy suggesting Hamilton had been ‘more Schumacher than Senna’ was swiftly dismissed. ‘I’ve never ever done the things that Michael had done to win a championship. I’ve won through just natural ability.

      It’s amazing. Every time I think Hamilton can’t get anymore self-absorbed he goes and proves me wrong. What a talent.

      1. Sounds just like you.

        He’s right too though. I guess that irks you most and then he trashes the guy that thrashed Schumacher too.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
    If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.