Max Verstappen, Toro Rosso, Interlagos, 2015

Verstappen rejects overtaking comparison with Hamilton

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Max Verstappen rejects the suggestion he disproved Hamilton’s claim it was too hard to overtake at Interlagos.

Tweets

Comment of the day

Another surprising statistic about Vettel’s season:

Vettel has also scored more podiums this year than in 2010 and 2012 respectively.
@yobo01

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Matthew H and Ionut93!

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

Twelve months ago today McLaren were agonising over their 2015 driver line-up:

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

  • 103 comments on “Verstappen rejects overtaking comparison with Hamilton”

    1. To add to comment of the day, Vettel has as many podiums this year as his title rival Alonso did in 2012.

      1. but that ferrari was quite bad especially at start of season, where as this was one is comfortably 2nd quickest.

        2012 you had Red Bull, Mclaren, Ferrari, Merc, Lotus, Williams & on their day Sauber & force india capable of podiums. Now its really only Merc & Ferrari and very rarely red bull or williams.

        Alonso 2012 is by far the best season i have ever witnessed from a driver, I’ve been watching since early 90s.

        1. Your middle paragraph is true, as 2012 was an insanely competitive season, especially compared to this one. However, I don’t agree that the F2012 was “bad”. It was still a top 3 car (with Mclaren and Red Bull). Slower than the pair of them, but more reliable.

          1. @david-a Look at Australia 2012 ;). Alonso beaten by the Toro Rossos in Q2, Massa slowest non-backmarker by 0.4s. Ferrari were nowhere in the first flyaways; upgrades for Europe solved it.

            Then again, in the second half of the season, McLaren and Red Bull left all the other teams way behind. McLaren then ditched their overall fastest car going into 2013.

            It’s impressive in retrospect when Alonso had a car that gave up almost 4 tenths to Red Bull and 6 tenths to McLaren in pure Q pace. Agreed that the reliability was better – without Spa and Japan he would have won the title.

            1. @fastiesty
              Without Valencia and Monza, Alonso wouldn’t have stood a chance.

            2. Wouldn’t that just match up with Alonso losing points at Spa and Suzuka? A better example might be Vettel’s penalty at Hockenheim, which cost him 2nd place and 10 points.

            3. @fastiesty

              It’s impressive in retrospect when Alonso had a car that gave up almost 4 tenths to Red Bull and 6 tenths to McLaren in pure Q pace. Agreed that the reliability was better – without Spa and Japan he would have won the title.

              Not to mention how brilliant it was in the rain – Malaysia and Silverstone come to mind and pole in Germany in the rain.

              Also, the Ferrari was closer to the front (with Red Bull) than the current Ferrari is to the Mercedes, still about 7/10ths of in ultimate pace. And this years Mercedes has much better reliability than the 2012 RBa and McLarens did.

            4. @fastiesty Neither Spa or Japan take points away from Vettel is you place him anywhere near where he would likely finish. If you put Vettel on P1 in Valencia, you’d also have to move Alonso down a spot.

            5. @fastiesty Following up on what @xtwl said, we don’t know how things would have worked out. Give Alonso back Spa and Japan, but we don’t know how many points he would have scored. Maybe he finishes on the podium, maybe not. Maybe in each of those races he finishes 4th or 5th only.

              Give Vettel back the 32 points he lost out on DNFing in Valencia that gave Alonso the win (+25 to Vettel for the win and -7 from Alonso for getting P2), and it’s likely that Alonso would not have scored the equal number of points in Spa/Japan and Vettel still wins the WDC. If we give Alonso back two races, let’s go ahead and give Vettel back another race – perhaps Malaysia, where Vettel lost at least 12 points from the 4th place he certainly would have had if NK didn’t puncture his tire.

              I recall reading an article that said if you took reliability issues out of the equation for Hamilton and Vettel, Vettel would have beaten Ham by a small margin and Alonso would have been far far behind.

              Personal, while Alonso had a very good season, I’d say Hamilton was having the better season and probably was driving best. Vettel also drove well, especially in the second half of the season. I think Germany was his worst effort by far.

              The look of disbelief on Alonso’s face after the race in Brazil though – priceless.

            6. @uan I think the data takes into account the Ferrari skill in the wet, as it has Germany as the last time the car was the fastest. It’s true that without the abysmal reliability that the Hamilton/McLaren overall fastest package would have won; they lost I think over 5 wins worth of points!

              But Alonso was definitely the best driver overall. In 2010, I think Hamilton actually ran him pretty close on that one. Plus, Kubica might have improved in the 2011-13 period; seeing him face Alonso at Ferrari would have been brilliant.

            7. @fastiesty

              Robert Kubica, there’s a name from the past. I don’t know how much improving he really needed – what he did need was a better car. Him at Ferrari would have been great. What could have been with RK. It’s a pity we’ll never know.

              Speaking of running Alonso close in 2010 – if Hamilton didn’t DNF from 4th in both Monza and Singapore due to silly errors, he would have ended up WDC. The one thing Alonso understands better than any driver, especially than, was the importance of getting what points you can when you can. It’s why he was so effective in 2012. Except for Japan where he was overly aggressive with Kimi on the start (unnecessarily), Alonso really didn’t put himself into position where a wrong move would cost him points. (I think that also was part of the motivation for Vettel in Malaysia 2013 with Webber – 7 points doesn’t seem like much at race 2 of the season, but after 2012, that could be the difference maker).

        2. That season Hamilton lost more points than anyone due to technical problems + operational problems. After him, it was Vettel who lost a big big chunk of points due to things out of his control as well. I think people underestimate the importance of reliability. Especially in a season with 2 very fast drivers in faster cars with unreliable teams/cars. Vet-Ham were taking points off each other whole season long and RB wasn’t really consistently faster than Ferrari-Lotus duo excluding the 1st half of 2nd half. Actually, I reckon Vettel would have won the championship in Lotus as well. Probably more comfortably. And same probably goes for Hamilton as well.

    2. Most important part of what Verstappen says:

      Verstappen believes that the key to allowing overtaking in F1 is that the two cars battling each have strengths in different areas.

      Now the question how to achieve it!

      1. Easy, with two different engines!

      2. Have only one car per team of course

      3. Reverse grid and points for qualifying!

        But seriously we already achieve it. Williams, Red Bull and Ferrari are all top teams capable on their day of beating one another with wildly varying strengths and weaknesses.

        The problem for the spectacle is you have Mercedes with pretty much no weaknesses.

      4. @bascb Like in the boardgame Dungeons and Dragons each driver must pick a card with a special on. These will vary from ‘extra 10kph’ to ‘drop nails’.

        1. what boardgame Dungeons & dragons are you talking about @xtwl, any D&D boardgame is subpar, just keep with the real thing!

          I happen to play Dungeons & Dragons (5th edition now) and there are no cards involved in that, just dice, paper pens and your imagination (or you can do it with help from a PC/tablet and run it online if you want). A bunch of people to play it with IS important though, that is where the online factor can help

          1. @bascb The one were you get cards with weaponry and potions on etc…? I don’t know, I played this game maybe twice…

          2. @bascb: Easy to do this with proper D&D. Just give the players different pencils, some have to play with 9H pencils that barely leave a mark, others play with 9B that just make a smudgy mess. If you’re lucky with the starting roll you get an HB pencil that’s actually useable.

            1. that is just nonsence @charleski. The fun of the game is in playing out what you do. The pencil is just the table where you write down information for yourself.

              You cannot really compare it to any competition with set rules though, because the most important rule is that the DM can change the rules if they feel the need to do so!

            2. @bascb:

              the DM can change the rules if they feel the need to do so

              Just need to add ‘as long as Ferrari agrees’ and it looks a lot like F1, then.

              /off-topic

            3. HA, but no sensible DM would ever give one player such a trump card @charleski. Oh, right. ehm …

              While writing it, the parallel to the FIA giving up their role as the body who defines the rules of F1 with the Ferrari Veto and even more with the strategy group did certaily occur to me.
              Listening to their opinions makes huge sense, but the regulator should be the one having the final say.

    3. Good argument being made in that Roar article. I feel much the same about their coverage of the the last few races especially.

      1. Even Keith is guilty, regularly including Lewis’ inane tweets in the daily roundups. So over them.

        1. I regularly include tweets from all the drivers in the round-ups, what makes Hamilton different?

          1. @keithcollantine I have the feeling you’re cutting out the ones from Vettel and Kimi! Favouritism! #F1Fanatic #Anti-Ferrari

            1. You do know that Vettel and Kimi don’t have twitter accounts for @keithcollantine to post from? Vettel has said many times he doesn’t see the point in it at all.

            2. @eoin16 Yeah I’m pretty sure @xtwl knows that!

        2. No one forces you to read them.
          Personally I quite like it when Keith puts tweets into the roundup, I rarely use twitter so it’s nice to see stuff I’d otherwise miss.
          What I find realoy annoying is people complaining that certain drivers get more coverage than others in the roundup, Keith has no control over what the wider media publish about F1, or what drivers decide to put onto social media, all he can do is put it all together and let us decide what we want to read.

          1. @beneboy Agree. Nice to see footage of Russell’s McLaren award test for example, in Button’s Canada 2011 car. McLaren should sign him, but they’re in enough trouble already, and are backing Barnicoat instead.

            DriverDB has an ELO ranking of the best under-22s: Kvyat (21), de Vries (20), Ocon (19), Verstappen (18), Russell (17), Norris (16). Stroll is 2nd best for 17, Leclerc 2nd best for 18.

            I imagine there’s more chance of us seeing Stroll in F1 than Russell, but that’s an impressive list of future stars. It’s no surprise that two are already racing in F1 for Red Bull, with McLaren and Mercedes juniors next in line.

        3. Just checked the last three round-ups: one tweet from Hamilton, one from Verstappen, and two from Magnussen.

          Hardly evidence of bias.

          1. @raceprouk
            And Kevin isn’t even an F1 driver! So much for Lewis-centralisation!

            Definitely no bias here imho!

      2. Of course you do

      3. It’s a sad state of affairs which is described in that article, and one of the major complaints (apart from ads) about itv’s coverage before they finally lost the rights.

        Hamilton is good, but he’s not the best, or most complete driver on the grid. He certainly has the most blinkered, obsessive causal fan base, which is also a diving factor in this coverage: people who fail to accept that sport is a variable field, with changing fortunes, where no person or team is invincible.

        The contrast between the idolisation of a man like Hamilton, whose career has been constantly interspersed with episodes of crass, obnoxious behaviour and the recently deceased Jonah Lomu couldn’t be more stark: Lomu was a man who truly was, by some distance, the greatest at his game, changed it for ever, inspired people, and had more right and opportunity to become swaggering and arrogant than anyone could think to have, but remained humble, respectful of others, and a true gentleman all his life.

        This was a man who could run the length of a field with other players literally hanging off him in order to score, but never one turned round and derided or degraded the people he had beaten. For those who believe that obnoxious behaviour towards competitors is “part of sport”, I direct you to his example. A winner has to be better than those around him. Not rude, or infantile, or self centred.

        1. You use the sad passing of Jonah Lomu as an opportunity to dump on Hamilton? And you talk about crass behaviour? It would be a pathetic joke if it wasn’t so disgusting …

          1. As crass as Hamilton’s ‘respectful’ comment about a 7 times WDC in a coma?

            1. You mean the one that was spun by the controversy-fuelling media to be a lot worse than it actually was?

          2. The article discusses one danger of focusing exclusively on Hamilton: for every fan that is obsessive about Hamilton and loves him, there is someone who really dislikes him.

            The issue is not which of those fans is “right”, it’s that the media (particularly the tv media) should be objective and reasonable; if that goes out the window then coverage of the sport suffers.

            Jonah Lomu is an example of a sporting character who was given an immense amount of coverage in rugby, but that coverage was never divisive, therefore the media were never in danger of alienating half the rugby fans by devoting excess column inches to him. The excess coverage was always down to his incredible performances on the field, and nothing else.

            1. the media (particularly the tv media) should be objective and reasonable;

              The media’s job is to help everyone enjoy the sport. If Jonah Lomu was a sweeter personality than Hamilton that has nothing to do with it. The media will praise Lewis or bury him, depending what the interesting story is. He is the star of F1 at the moment.

              Rosberg and Vettel are private, married family men with kids. They’re not that interesting therefore, compared to someone who parties with 4 supermodels or Rihanna or races a Koenigsegg or turns up in his LaFerrari or prangs his Zonda after partying with his mum.

              I dunno about people who get so wound up about him. He’s an F1 driver who can be immodest, contradictory etc etc. So?

              I think the first seriously quick female driver will have the same thing – everything will be fine while she’s perfect.

        2. @hairs

          He’s certainly not the best? Really, certainly? You mean subjectively. As anyone commenting on here saying he isn’t is offering an opinion, nothing certain.

          And as for

          blinkered, obsessive causal fan base

          you can say the same for

          blinkered, obsessive causal haters

          .

          His employers seem to think he’s the best, quite a few of his fellow racers seem to think he’s the best and the world championship standings seem to show he’s the best.

          People can argue until the cows come home about one driver vs another and there is a case to be had for 3, maybe even 6 of the drivers on the grid possibly being the best. But none of it’s certain.

          1. There’s a journalist who does an anonymous survey of all the team bosses regularly at the end of every year.

            Alonso is almost always the unanimous #1 choice for best driver.

            When a similar survey was done with the drivers themselves, Alonso was almost unanimously (with I think 1 dissention) chosen as the best.

            So either they’re all wrong, or it’s *possible* that Hamilton is not the best driver on the grid.

            1. Can you please link me to this where it’s proven with fact that all bosses and all drivers have said Alonso is best. I would particularly like to see the years 2007, 2008, 2014 and 2015 I expect it to be properly sourced :)

            2. Autosport team principals poll?

              2014 was Ham 1st, Alo 2nd, Ric 3rd.
              2013 was Vet 1st, Alo 2nd, Rai 3rd.
              2012 was Alo 1st, Vet 2nd, Ham 3rd.
              2011 was Vet 1st, But 2nd, Alo 3rd.
              2010 was Alo 1st, Vet 2nd, Ham 3rd.

              The last time Alonso missed the top three was 2009, when he came fourth. But he’s not ‘almost always’ the unanimous favourite, unless you mean a different one.

            3. So either they’re all wrong, or it’s *possible* that Hamilton is not the best driver on the grid.

              At least now you’re using the word possible rather than certain :)

              Yes it is possible he isn’t the best on the grid. It’s also possible he is and it will never be a fact one way or the other. Just like it isn’t certain Senna or Schumacher is the best of all time. There is no standard metric that answers that question which is why as fans we can have great fun debating it. And based on his performance, Hamilton has a reasonable case to be made as possibly the best on the current grid.

          2. World championship standings don’t show us who is the best driver. They merely show us who has scored the most points that season and who has overall driven the best over the course of however many races it has been. Does Alonso’s poor points standing indicate that he’s rubbish? No, as the car, amongst anything is a factor.

            1. There are metrics and Schumacher is leading in most of them by obscene ammounts.

              Potentially Verstapen could beat him… Incredibly even Vettels win ratio is to slow…

            2. Vettel has a really good ratio, and it’s not “too slow”. He could eventually surpass Schumacher, but that would mean boring years to come. Since Verstappen will be in STR another year, he will only have 1 year extra wrt Vettel to surpass him. Though he will have more experience as well. People forget that Vettel started properly racing when he was 19. It’s gonna be interesting to see whether Verstappen surpasses Vettel or not. You’d think “of course he will” considering he started even earlier in Formula 1. But you never know…

          3. @philipgb Cows have been gone too long.

            1. @xtwl

              That again is subjective opinion. I’d be happy if they stayed away even longer.

        3. @hairs, You do seem to do a lot of projecting. Try a mirror and see that you are really talking about yourself.

          1. He must have taken a page out of your book.

          2. Well I discussed Hamilton, Lomu, and tv presenting.

            I’m not sure which of those entities you think I’m “projecting” about? If you think I’m projecting about Hamilton being crass and obnoxious because I’m crass and obnoxious, well I don’t know what to tell you. I’m a random nobody on an internet board with no pr staff. Hamilton’s a multi millionaire who has been media trained since he was a teenager and employs people to tweet for him. One of us has less if an excuse if we say something stupid, I suppose?

        4. @hairs

          Once again I ask the question, is there no depths that the recent self styled ‘neutral’ F1 ‘fan’ will not sink in order to simply dump on on one of the finest drivers of all time?

          No of course not. Much better to use the passing of a truly great sportsman (in a completely different field and one where not a single member would ever be able to drive in F1 of course) whom has battled illness since 1998 (work out his age at that point!) and thus preceded social media and never had a single chance to develop a ‘partying’ lifestyle as a result and thus has never been in the same socially aware media light. (He had three wives though… No doubt that is also LH fault!)

          For goodness sake take a look in the mirror – do you really like what you see there? Or are you so completely blinkered that you would suggest a face palm, body shrug or massive body blow from a 20 stone 35mph giant ‘someone’ attempting a match winning try is somehow more ‘gentlemanly’ and much friendlier than a little tickle at the first corner of a race start?

          Regardless, people with your ridiculous outlook and constant innapropriate evaluations and comparisons are exactly what is not required to fix the ills of F1. If you really want crass perhaps you should take a look at the actions of the one single person in charge of this sport last weekend before even suggesting any of the drivers are somehow terrible sportsman.

          But no.. Take the easy road…

          1. The point was made that Hamilton is a divisive figure.

            Whether or not I or anyone else like or dislike him personally is irrelevant: what is relevant is the fact that such divisiveness is counter-productive if the sport is going to have a media broadcaster which is re-sold to multiple markets pushing only one side of the Lewis Hamilton story to the exclusion of almost everything else.

            If they chose to push the “Hamilton is the worst” side instead, then the result would be equally poor for the sport, only a different half of the fan base would be turning off instead. People won’t tune in to coverage which exhibits bi as. That’s sky’s problem at the moment, just as it was ITV’s before.

            The only way that the media concentrating all its attention on one athlete without negatively affecting the coverage is to do so with an athlete who is not divisive, such as Lomu.

        5. Utterly unacceptable. A tribute to Jonah Tali Lomu should remain just that. Do not mix in anything else. Even though he was not involved in F1, everyone familiar with his life story would readily accept a tribute to the great man in as F1 forum. Please show some respect.

      4. Agreed. That’s all.

    4. I guess roar doesn’t understand the difference between a driver getting into DRS range and one not able to close the gap down to less than 2 seconds.

      When Hamilton is in the lead he’s usually slowing down just enough to maintain the gap. That’s controlling the race.

      When Rosberg is in the lead, Hamilton is often fast enough to close up to him for an attack or pressuring him into a mistake. So in that case the driver in front is “unyielding”.

      Of course Rosberg had his “dominating” performances too and they were called just that. Brazil was not one of those.

      1. Your comment underlines one of the article’s main points though. That article isn’t about Hamilton the driver at all, it’s about how the media chooses to focus on Hamilton to the exclusion of all else.

        However you (and many others) pick up on a single point: “did they say Hamilton isn’t as good as I think he is?”. It’s impossible for you, or anyone outside the team, to know for sure that when Hamilton says “I was controlling the pace” it’s always true, and when another driver says it, it isn’t. Hamilton’s not infallible, nor is he unbeatable, nor is he always the fastest driver on track. His behaviour (and his fans) when he got trounced by Button in spa and other races is telling: it’s always apparently the case that the other driver got lucky, or Hamilton had an off day, or the team screwed him over.

        The issue is not whether in this particular race Rosberg dominated Hamilton, or deserved to be described as dominating; it’s that, given exactly the same scenario, a Hamilton win will be described as “inevitable”, “dominant” etc, whereas another driver will be described as “squeaking” a win, or “lucky”, or will simply be ignored in favour of telling snit what Hamilton was doing.

        1. @hairs, No the article is about a false understanding about why the media is talking about Hamilton. When the driver ahead is clearly slower, he is not seen as dominating. Hence the comentators expect something interesting to come from Hamilton.

          Besides Rosberg is a dull as a doorknob. People who dislkike Hamilton don’t like whatever he has to say, but at least now and then he actually lets out his opinion. I haven’t heard Rosberg say a line that wasn’t scripted and well rehearsed in the last 2 seasons.

          He gloats when he wins a race on a rare occasion and puts Hamilton down. Then he loses 4 races in succession again and he looks like he’s about to start crying again.

          Commentators and journalists talk plenty about Vettel. During the race and in between races. Alson about Alonso. it’s not just Hamilton, but the 3 most popular/successful drivers do get more attention. How odd.

          1. LOL @patrickl Have a look at your own comment there. First you mention how Rosberg is apparently dull. Then you go on to prove the contrary when you show how he is clearly showing emotions and giving us talking points when he wins, when he loses again etc!

            As for clearly being slower – Prost used to win as slow as possible, as did Fangio. And Rosberg himself (and the team radio points to it as well) was holding back on purpose during Q2 to try and eke out an advantage by using as little of he could of the tyres.

            Why would Rosberg not drive as slow as he could while feeling secure about his teammate not being able to catch up. Yes, Rosberg has hurt his own chances often enough by seemingly overthinking it. But in Brazil Hamiltons words about not being able to overtake (the same car) on track were proven true enough to leave it to the car in the lead to just take as little out of hte car as he could and not mess up.

            Most drivers would do so – they can save the fuel and the tyres for when/if they really need to use them to get an advantage (or just have fun setting that fastest lap in the dying laps of the race if they never need it).

          2. Why does anyone think Rosberg was slower than Hamilton in Brazil I dunno…. It was quite obvious Rosberg was deliberately taking it slow. I also observed Hamilton sometimes does a too fast pace and his tyres are gone earlier. But he drives defensively and manages to stay ahead, or he does this to overtake or close up the gap, or open up a gap. Malaysia, Monaco come to mind. He was going too fast this time as well.

      2. I agree that Hamilton usually is closer to Rosberg on his own strength than Rosberg is to Hamilton when the positions are reversed but that doesn’t mean the Roar article is wrong because one little aspect of the article is wrong. The article is very right in pointing out that there are more drivers, and subsequent stories, to a race weekend than just Hamilton this and Hamilton that. And that’s exactly the main point of the Roar article, not a minor detail about an example used in the article…. ;-)

        1. It’s a poor, biased article accusing others of bias.

          It puts me in mind of how dads-in-the-garage suddenly became an issue in 2007.

        2. That does mean it’s completely wrong because it’s the entire base of the article. The rest of the article is just a baseless rant. A race “dominated” by a driver maintaining a 2 to 3 second gap versus a race where the lead driver is struggling to keep the other one behind gets completely different coverage.

          If he cannot understand that difference then he shouldn’t pretend to be motor sports journalist.

          It works both ways too. Rosberg dominated in Spain Hamilton never had a chance so there were no questions of how Hamilton was go to attempt an overtake. Awful “Rosberg centric” journalism we had back then.

      3. Oh come on @Patrickl ! The only reason Hamilton got close to Rosberg was NR was cruising, looking after his tyres and brakes expecting to have to stretch the stints out for a 2 stopper. It was obvious watching him into turn one, braking early and taking a line which didn’t stress the tyres too much but gave him great drive out so he didn’t have to worry about Hamilton being in range for an attack into T4.

        Hamilton on the other hand not only destroyed his tyres trying to close up by braking later into turn one, he also took a compromised line into T1 which not only worked his tyres harder but gave him a compromised exit of T2/3. Never mind the ‘Dirty air’ effect on the tyres, something that NR is well aware of having suffered it for most of the season!

        1. I was at the track, and for the most part of the race they were very close to eache other. The only parts where Rosberg was able do open up a gap was on the entrance of the straights, benefit from being on clear air. Hamilton had two great oportunities to pass, on one of them he simply wasn’t able to follow Rosberg on the left hander that leads to the back straight, and on the other (this one was the time that he was closest to Rosberg) Grosjean got in the way and hold him for almost a entire lap. After that he couldn’t recover. If Rosberg did not complaint about getting a different strategy earlier on the season it’s another reason why he is not a champion. This resurgence is almost laughble, it counts for nothing but to give the Mercedes PR machine a chance to make the viewers believe that we will have a big fight between then next year. When it mattered Rosberg was behind Vettel on the championship. Rosberg drove a great race, especially when Lewis tyres gone off on the end of the stints. But the fundamental difference between them is that when Lewis is ahead Rosberg rarely gets close enough to mount a challenge.

      4. @patrickl what makes you think Rosberg was not dominating? He was nursing his tyres, Hamilton just destroyed his own and has never been in a position to overtake. Perfect race-long control in my book.

        1. Because you don’t let your opponent get that close if you have the pace. Way too much of a risk. One tiny slip up and he’s past at that distance.

          1. So…. Just don’t slip up.

            1. Ok how many times has NR been behind and we have LH ‘slipping up’ other than pit issues.

              Vs the embarrassing number of times we see the two running the other way round and the opposite happening?

              Truth is NR has managed two excellent races. If however the real pressure was on – well I know where my money goes and given I spent 20 years competing, I can assure you it’s not as easy to run at the front as forum attendees assume…

            2. Yeah Rosberg shouldn’t slip up, but it does happen quite often really. Even now he panicked and wanted his engineer to stop talking. So he really needs that 2 to 3 seconds margin.

              Thanks for proving my point.

        2. @spoutnik

          Perfect race-long control in my book

          Exactly!!

          1. Exactly, also destroying Hamiltons tires. If he pushed for wider gap he would run risk of being undertaken in pits… Offcorse running 2 seconds infront of Ham44 is incredibly risky position. If LH had the pace to grt closer he would. But HAM at best has around 0.1s raw speed on ROS, not nearly enough to be able to follow.

      5. @patrickl Spain 1981 though? (OK, to be fair they used different tyres back then and DRS was as present as the East Germanic languages)

      6. But Interlagos is different in that aspect, as that you can’t really pull away if another driver is in the DRS window due to the two long straights in close succession. In the same car, you can’t just simple drive a second away in the infield without the other driver making a mistake or is stuck in traffic. Later in the race, the instant Hamilton got out of the 1-second window he was dropping back. It looked much closer than it actually was, especially considering Rosberg lost quite a bit of time in the pits compared to Hamilton. (Waiting for Vettel during stop 1, then two stops which were several tenths slower than Hamiltons).

        Rosberg had a much better line through Turn 1 and a much better exit out of T2 thanks to that, always keeping Hamilton at bay for the whole time he was behind him. This was Rosberg’s weekend, period. And I wholeheartedly agree with the article, that the calls for a different strategy or rule changes because Hamilton now lost a race are terribly biased against Rosberg.

        1. Just to point out Hamilton dropped back when he came out of Drs at the end because he used up all his tires trying to get past. Also Hamilton lost a lot more time passing traffic (no Drs when Nico did and not getting past lapped cars on the straights like Nico did) it just didn’t show because he killed his tires closing up each time. No argument just pointing out a counter to one of your points.

    5. I immediately went and read the Roar article about Lewis Hamilton ;)

      1. Fudge Ahmed (@)
        18th November 2015, 12:43

        Hahaha, very good. ;)

    6. There are some facts we need to see more overtakes: 1. less differences between cars in total. (Of course it must be differences between cars as a consequence of development, such as Mercedes has the best PU and maybe RB has the best aero but now differences are too much. Mercedes worked (and works) better than others and the regulations (tokens) cant let others to catch up Mercedes as fast as possible.) 2. less disadvanteges of the following car in curves, first of all, less turbulent air. 3. durable tires 4. DRS.

    7. Do read the comments on the McLaren delay driver announcement until next month page;
      so funny on hindsight. XD

    8. The Blade Runner (@)
      18th November 2015, 11:29

      Love the ROAR article!

      1. +1
        (with a lot that I’d like to comment, but struggle to put into words)

        1. +2. Especially every time David Croft gets all defensive about Hamilton being slower and begins with the da da da da da eb eb eb eb eb eb stutters before delivering some statement in a tone akin to someone trying to speak whilst doing a number 2 (yes the toilet kind) about how something must be wrong for Hamilton to be being beaten. Ugh.

    9. Red Bull – TAG anyone?

      1. Sounds like perfect preparation for another TAG-Porsche engine in the long run :P

    10. Hearing that the BBC are 90% likely to be renegotiating there F1 deal down to highlights only for every round apart from the British Gp due to future cuts to the sport budget.

      1. Fudge Ahmed (@)
        18th November 2015, 12:49

        I find the BBC coverage to be quite awful, saved only by DC.

        The highlight shows dilute the actual race a ton, EJ is just a joke and Suzy Perry trips over the script like Bambi on ice;

        “For the 5th race is succession, Lewis Hamilton is denied pole yet again by Lewis Hamilton”

        *Eddy Jordan nods sagely*

        I’m done. I’ll take Sky coverage any day of the week.

        1. I don’t think it’s quite that bad; certainly, it’s better than Sky and their endless stirring up controversy. Having said that, the BBC coverage is a long way short of what it used to be.

          1. Oh it is that bad! Their continual use of the made up word Overspeed as well makes me want to throw things at the TV!

            There isn’t one good presenter/commentator amongst them. Thank god for SKY!

            1. Their continual use of the made up word Overspeed as well makes me want to throw things at the TV!

              I think you should see someone about that…

      2. If that’s true, then F1 is going to lose yet more fans…

      3. Half the races live is terrible value. Is it £30m they’re paying? Negotiated stupidly doing an all-nighter with Bernie – only going to be one winner doing that!

        I do enjoy the Sky coverage, but it’s absurdly expensive. If / when they switch off my legacy deal I don’t think I’ll go full price.

        1. @lockup, the thing is, Bernie wasn’t the one who set up, or even particularly want, that deal up in the first place. The reports at the time indicated that it was the BBC who approached Sky to set out that deal, reportedly with the sole intention of ensuring that Channel 4 could not then try to bid for the TV rights.

          I would not be surprised if the BBC did cut its F1 coverage back – as Dave notes, the quality of their programming has declined quite markedly in recent years, both in terms of their TV coverage and their written articles (for example, technical errors tend to crop up relatively frequently in Benson’s articles). They don’t seem to be that interested in producing the best experience they can – rather, it seems to be about serving out their contract until they can persuade Sky to take the contract off them, as has happened with quite a few of the BBC’s other events (such as test cricket and golf).

          @offdutyrockstar, the worst part is, the BBC could be using the figures that they have there so much more effectively. Eddie Jordan, for example, has now effectively been set up as “Crazy Uncle Eddie”, there to be used for comic relief by the other commentators and to spout silly comments.

          What is frustrating is that Eddie Jordan is capable of more insightful comments if given the platform to do so. I remember how, in the early years when the BBC actually seemed to care about its F1 show, Eddie Jordan gave a piece to camera where he provided set up sheets from his days at Jordan and talked through how a team would work with their driver to set the car up in the Friday practise sessions – that sort of insight is far more interesting to listen to, and yet it is those moments which have been cut in favour of cheap jokes and inane comments.

          1. I thought BBC approached Bernie because they suddenly decided they couldn’t afford the £50m @anon [why don’t you join dude?] and then Bernie brought in Sky, charged Sky £80m or something (not sure) and cut £20m off the BBC’s bill while the gormless Director of Sport was nice and sleep-deprived and suggestible.

            BBC spent the money on the rights to The Voice, in exchange for massacring their F1 coverage, and CVC ended up with loads more money.

          2. In Holland all of a sudden F1 is broadcasted live for free since Brazil!

    11. Fudge Ahmed (@)
      18th November 2015, 12:44

      IF there’s any truth in this Illien developed rebranded engine, is there a possibility TAG could be looking to be the brand partner?

    12. TAG Heuer is no longer in any way related to TAG the company. It’s owned by LVMH. So any rebranding of engines is very far off.

    13. The journalist who wrote the piece for The Roar should read Eurosports app…

    14. I know it’s a bit late in the day and it’s not super important, but the COTD was posted by @crammond as a reply to one of my comments, it wasn’t written by me as the article suggests.

      Having said that, it’s another interesting stat. It shows the consistency from Ferrari and Vettel this year. Many people complain about Mercedes domination because it’s boring, buy you could argue that without them this year would have been a complete Vettel domination, probably even more than 2011 or 2013.

      1. I watched Vettel domination. I prefer Vettel domination. At least he doesn’t get your hopes up. I don’t think there is anyone more consistently fast and dependable than him on the field. But I wish we didn’t have domination at all… It would be nice to have multiple drivers from multiple teams going at it at the sharp end of the field.

    Comments are closed.