There was relief for Valtteri Bottas in Abu Dhabi as he grabbed his first win since July and went into the winter break on a high.
It was an emphatic triumph for the Mercedes driver who won from pole and set fastest lap, giving him the first ‘hat trick’ of his career. He is the 45th driver in F1 history to do this.
However Hamilton did finish in the points again, something he did in every championship round this season. He is the second driver in F1 history to do this, albeit with a few caveats.
Michael Schumacher is the only other driver to have scored points in every round of the world championship. He did so in 2002, when he was on the podium in every single race.
Juan Manuel Fangio scored points in every world championship round run to F1 rules in 1954 and 1955. He didn’t take part in the Indianapolis 500 in those seasons, which were not run to F1 rules, but did count towards the championship. He also had to drop scores from some of the other races under the rules of the time.
Had the current points system, which awards the top ten drivers, been used in earlier seasons, three other drivers would have matched Hamilton’s achievement of scoring points by finishing in the top ten in every race. Among them is Dan Gurney, who did so in 1961.
Go ad-free for just £1 per month
>> Find out more and sign up
Graham Hill did likewise the following year, though in France he was ten laps down in ninth place, which he wouldn’t score points for under today’s rules. Likewise Jim Clark scored top ten finishes in every race of 1963, though in Monaco he was 22 laps down in eighth place with a gearbox problem.
Had Hamilton won it would have been the fourth year in a row he had won at least ten races. As it was, he failed to reach a double-digit victory tally for the first time since 2013.
Victory number three for Bottas means he has equalled Max Verstappen’s win tally, as well as that of 1958 champion Mike Hawthorn, 1961 champion Phil Hill and six other drivers. He also has as many poles as Hawthorn: four.
However the win for Bottas wasn’t enough to keep him from being the first Mercedes driver to finish behind one of their rivals since the V6 hybrid turbo era began. Sebastian Vettel beat him to second by 12 points. Bottas, Hamilton and Vettel stood on the final podium of the year which was fitting as they have been the most prolific visitors to the rostrum this season: it was the 13th for all three drivers.
There was more symmetry with the number 13 going on at Red Bull. Their RB13, launched with the slogan ‘unlucky for some’, racked up 13 retirements over the season and 13 podium finishes.
Formula One’s new generation of cars for 2017 achieved the goal of slashing lap times. They broke the track record at every venue they visited with one exception. This was Monza, whether the record might have fallen too had qualifying not been affected by rain.
Review the year in statistics here:
- 2017 F1 championship points
- 2017 F1 season records
- 2017 F1 race data
- 2017 F1 qualifying data
- 2017 F1 retirements and penalties
- 2017 F1 strategy and pit stops
Have you spotted any other interesting stats and facts from the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix? Share them in the comments.
2017 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix
- Final 2017 Predictions Championships winners revealed
- 2017 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix team radio transcript
- 2017 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix Star Performers
- Hamilton matches Schumacher by scoring points in every race
- “It was really boring”: 2017 Abu Dhabi GP radio highlights
Man United_Vettel (@siegfreyco)
27th November 2017, 12:46
Bottas would have done it too had it not been for Spain
Man United_Vettel (@siegfreyco)
27th November 2017, 12:47
It’s a meaningless stat, just saying. And in no way am I devaluing Hamilton’s achievement as his points total proven he was better through the season.
petebaldwin (@)
27th November 2017, 13:05
It’s not meaningless but it is when it’s applied to the driver. For Mercedes, it’s a great stat and shows what level of dominance they are enjoying. For Hamilton, it just shows that he’s one of several who didn’t retire due to a mistake of their own.
Man United_Vettel (@siegfreyco)
27th November 2017, 15:08
@petebaldwin what I’m saying by meaningless is about Bottas 1 race away from matching that record. Not Hamilton’s as it’s a great stat
Bonbonjai
27th November 2017, 20:55
I think for Mercedes, the superiority of the car is a given, more important for them as a brand I suspect, is what it says about the reliability of the power unit. That is especially relevant for 2018.
Ju88sy (@)
27th November 2017, 12:52
As stat it is a useful indicator of the car’s reliability, all the Mercedes cars have been exceptionally reliable this year.
Phylyp (@phylyp)
27th November 2017, 13:12
Quite true, @ju88sy and @petebaldwin – the level of performance and reliability of Mercedes’ power units is remarkable and admirable.
Stephen Crowsen (@drycrust)
27th November 2017, 13:13
Yes, Mercedes had just one retirement for the entire season. Force India were one behind them with two classified as retirements for the entire season (there was one retirement which happened after 90% of the race distance had been traveled, hence the car was given a place).
Erzen (@)
27th November 2017, 13:19
“Had Hamilton won he would have ended the year with the same points tally as last season. It also meant he did reach a double-digit victory tally for the first time since 2013.”
– Didn’t you mean the first time Hamilton didn’t reach a double-digit victory tally for the first time since 2013? If i’m not wrong he has 9 wins this year and he had 10 or more each year for the last 3 years
RetardedF1sh (@retardedf1sh)
27th November 2017, 13:37
Here’s some stats of this race and the season overall:
Bottas’ pole margin of 0,172 seconds was the biggest of his career so far and the first one over a tenth. His race winning margin of 3,899 seconds was also his largest and the first one over a second.
Bottas became the fourth driver to score more than 300 points in a season. The others are Vettel (2011, 2013, 2017), Hamilton (2014-2017) and Rosberg (2014-2016). 2017 was the first time more than two drivers scored over 300 points. Of course other drivers would have previously done it too with the current points scoring system.
Five different drivers won a race this year. (Hamilton, Vettel, Bottas, Ricciardo and Verstappen) This is the most different winners of any season in the hybrid era.
Perez scored 100 points, one less than last year but with one race less. However he failed to get on the podium for the first time since 2013.
Marcus Ericsson remained the only driver to drive the full season without scoring any points highlighting his uselessness.
JettC
27th November 2017, 14:57
This also highlights Kimi’s uselessness. Failing to win in arguably the best all round car on the grid, certainly in the first half of the season and probably the second too judging by Bottas’ performances.
hobo (@hobo)
27th November 2017, 15:57
@JettC – No doubt, the Ferrari was better than recent years and was a good car, but let’s check that “best all round car” idea.
Poles: Merc 15, Ferr 5
Wins: Merc 12, Ferr 5, RBR 3
Laps led: Merc 685, Ferr 326, RBR 153
Kimi certainly is not what he used to be and his improvement would help the team. But even if he was just behind Seb and took everything that RBR had, Ferrari would still be behind. The fact is that both Merc and Ferrari have #2 drivers that underperformed. If the top three teams had essentially equal performance, RBR would have probably taken the WCC as both of their drivers are at the top of their game. Hamilton benefited some from Bottas underperforming, same with Vettel and Raikkonen.
But to say the Ferrari was the best car on the grid all year, even just maybe, is contradicted by the data.
FiamD
27th November 2017, 16:53
@hobo You may be right in concluding that the W08 is the “best overall car” in 2017. But you do realize that your ‘check’ is retrospective and your conclusion would not have been obvious at the beginning of the season?
The stats you give are in fact ‘results’. As in many other fields of human endeavour, outcomes are dependent on several inputs and processes. F1 is no exception: wins, poles, laps led are made possible by the car, the driver and the F1 team. The car needs to be fast; the driver needs to have the skills and to perform on the day; the team needs to quality assure, operate smoothly and have a sound strategy (on the day and on the spur). So the ‘best’ car, in retrospect, may not be the ‘fastest’ car but one receiving an optimum combination of the inputs itemized.
Ferrari’s Sergio Marchionne says: “We regret not having done better, the car is there, it is in my view probably the best car on the track today.” And several pundits have said the SF70H is both the most innovative response to the 2017 rule changes and the fastest car this year. IMHO Hamilton & Mercedes beat Vettel & Ferrari this season even though the former combination did not have the fastest car this year.
hobo (@hobo)
27th November 2017, 21:50
@FiamD — You make good points. Particularly the one regarding my statement of results as ‘proof’ or thereabouts. I agree that race results are probably not the absolute best proof that the Ferrari was not best overall car, but that is what we have. We will never see these cars on the bench against each other, the same driver will never push these cars back to back and compare them. So what do we have?
We have a driver in both teams (HAM and VET) who are highly regarded and tend to get a lot out of their cars. We also have a driver in both teams who many think underperformed (BOT and RAI). So the comparisons are about as good as we can get. Nothing is perfect.
Given that, who outperformed the other? In both cases, the Merc outperformed the Ferrari. The Ferrari was generally slower in qualifying, though not always. Generally slower in the race, though not always, and had more failures. I will even grant you the fact that VET had the highest average starting position, but we are talking very fine margins (3.2 vs 3.4, 3.6, and 3.9 for the other three drivers). The average finishing position, however, is 2.7 and 3.7 for the Mercs and 4.2 and 6.8 for the Ferraris. So even if Vettel started ahead (on average, though this stat is belied by the 15 to 5 pole discrepancy and when qualifying mishaps are controlled, this stat falls back to the Merc), he on average fell behind. When you control for crashes in qualifying and DNFs, HAM is ahead in both categories (avg start and avg finish).
There is no stat that I can find that indicates that the Ferrari was the faster car overall. If you want to argue that HAM is better than VET and that is the difference, feel free. Not really easy to compare. But note that BOT had the same number of poles as VET, 3 wins to VET’s 5, and nearly the same points. Yes, VET had 1 more DNF, but controlling for poor starting grid or DNFs, BOT is still right behind VET. I doubt anyone is going to claim BOT is VET’s equal. My conclusion is that it’s probably the car.
As for your first point, why would “fastest car overall” need to be known at the start of the season for this discussion to be valid? The comparison is just as difficult then as now. However, now we have some data. Is the data imperfect for comparing two cars? Yes. But that does not mean we cannot look at the data and draw reasonable conclusions based upon it. That is what I believe I have done here. If you have any data to back up your claim, feel free. As it is, team boss comments carry little weight with me, sorry.
Bonbonjai
27th November 2017, 21:02
I think your knocking Bottas is a bit harsh, but then again, he is in a formula leading car. Personally, I think he has done ok. Not well. Just ok. This is his 1st year at Mercedes, and in a car expected to win races. The real pressure to take the fight to Hamilton will be next year.
Patrickl (@patrickl)
28th November 2017, 19:45
@hobo If the Ferrari drivers mess up in Q3 and during the race the results don’t come. Doesn’t mean that the car wasn’t superior in many of the races where the drivers faltered.
hobo (@hobo)
29th November 2017, 0:10
@patrickl – It is a fair point, but that is why it is a season-long look as opposed to one or two races. If the Ferrari drivers are messing up so often and/or to such a degree that they are causing the car to look worse than the Merc when it is actually better, then we are back to square one–which is the cars are not comparable.
My contention is that (in general) issues tend to equal out over the course of a season, especially with top drivers, top teams, top cars. I don’t mean that everything is equal but that hiccups are rare and fairly even, failures, etc. If one car was more unreliable that would show up (and it has, with the Ferrari being less reliable this season). But over the course of the entire season the Merc outperformed the Ferrari. It wasn’t by an immense amount all season, every race. But it was a significant difference, in my opinion. I hope Ferrari close the gap next season because I don’t feel that they have done so just yet.
montreal95 (@montreal95)
28th November 2017, 13:58
@JettC Not really if you remember that it was his own team that made him lose Monaco and Hungary
RetardedF1sh (@retardedf1sh)
27th November 2017, 15:36
The only drivers to make it into Q3 in every qualifying session were the two Finns. They both also started all races in the top 10. Hamilton failed to make Q3 twice, (MON, BRA) Vettel, Ricciardo and Verstappen once (MAL, GBR and CHN respectively)
Button had the 7th highest average qualifying position but the lowest average starting position of all due to penalties.
Perez and Wehrlein made the most pitstops with 31. Wehrlein did this despite missing the first two races. He also made the most pitstops in a single race with 5 in Azerbaijan while scoring points in 10th place.
Esteban Ocon was the only driver to not get any penalties during the entire season excluding Giovinazzi and di Resta who drove 3 races collectively. Bottas and Ricciardo were the only other fulltime drivers not to get any penalties caused by the driver. Hartley and Gasly also didn’t get any penaltes caused by the driver but didn’t drive the full season.
Ninjenius (@ninjenius)
27th November 2017, 18:47
@retardedf1sh Technically just one of the Finns. Kimi never started in Malaysia.
Ninjenius (@ninjenius)
27th November 2017, 18:49
Unless you meant of all the races they were able to start in.
Andrew Purkis
27th November 2017, 13:38
this is more about Merc stunning reliablity in the hybrid era and also the most powerful engine to boot
hats off to Andy cowell and merc HPP
until ferrari and renault can get to this level they will not be WDC let alone WCC
Patrickl (@patrickl)
28th November 2017, 19:46
Ferrari could easily have taken the WDC this season. They only need a driver that doesn’t make so many mistakes.
Stephen Crowsen (@drycrust)
27th November 2017, 13:39
Interestingly, all of Valtteri’s race results for this season bar that one retirement are in the top 6 places, so he’d have scored points at each race this season bar that one under the old points system. Michael Schumacher’s points at every GP was part of a run of 24 point scoring races in succession. If Valtteri were able to get through to the Austrian GP without getting worse than a 6th place finish then he’d equal Schumacher’s run of scoring points at 24 races in succession under the old points system.
I must admit one can’t but help have a sense of awe when looking at Michael Schumacher’s race results.
Robbie (@robbie)
27th November 2017, 15:40
I have zero sense of awe at a driver whose teammates were under contract to not compete with him, and who therefore had a designer car and tires meant strictly for him, with unlimited testing. Under the same circumstances many drivers would have achieved the same. That to me is the other side of the coin to loading up one driver with far more advantages than anyone else.
Ben Needham (@ben-n)
27th November 2017, 16:37
@robbie – let’s not be overdramatic. If Schumacher was only successful due to the “designer, car and tyres meant strictly form him, with unlimited testing”, then why didn’t the other teams/drivers do the same? Ferrari’s budget was/is big, but teams like McLaren, Renault and Toyota could have found the same funds if necessary.
As for the team-mate comment, do you really think that if Irvine/Barrichello/Massa was clearly faster than Schumacher then the team would hamper it’s own chances by still favouring the poorer driver?
Ferrari employed a strategy around the best driver available, worked hard to make it come to fruition and Schumacher reaped the benefits with crushing performances from 1996 through to 2006, with cars ranging from easily the best to far from it.
If you want to have a debate about why he’s not the greatest of all time, fair enough, but to have “zero sense of awe” at what Schumacher achieved is lunacy.
Robbie (@robbie)
27th November 2017, 17:36
@ben-n Well I certainly take offence to the ‘lunacy’ comment, but that’s ok this is just anonymous banter.
I’ll ask you…if the MS/Ferrari way was so glorious and righteous why has no team done what they did before or since? Answer: it is not honourable, and goes against the spirit of the sport, to contract one driver to forgo everything to help another from race one of a season(s). In MS’s case, 10 seasons worth or more. And it took no less than Max and Bernie to orchestrate MS and his side of the garage away from Benetton where he was winning, one year ahead of his contract expiring, to go to Ferrari to end their WDC drought, with a mega-contract the likes F1 has never seen etc etc I won’t go through the whole history.
A quote from Patrick Head at the time…”what a shame they forgo the spirit of racing for the sake of share value.” Why don’t you tell me why other teams didn’t do it, if it seems to you such a non-brainer? My answers are no other team had the backing of the FIA and BE, nor the money, nor was it in their moral and ethical makeup to do that to the other driver nor to the viewing audience to that degree of actually contracting a subservient to not compete. It was never just about the money, and it was much about Max and Bernie deciding they needed to create, rather than just let happen, the next chapter post-Senna.
I see you are still under the misconception that they were even interested in drivers that might be faster than MS, and once people saw what Ferrari was doing, when top drivers were asked about going to Ferrari beside MS (pretending that that was the last thing Ferrari was interested in doing) they all said they were not afraid of MS but that there was no way they could trust they’d have equal equipment and opportunity to MS at Ferrari.
You started by saying I was being overdramatic. Calling my stance of lack of awe at the bully MS, who you would think shouldn’t have needed, with all his advantages, that behaviour, lunacy, is far more overdramatic than the facts I have spelled out about what was MS/Ferrari. What is always surprising to me is that people such as yourself still think MS’s teammates not only were hired to compete against him but were actually given a fair and equal chance and it is just that MS was that good. That is far closer to lunacy than anything I have said.
Robbie (@robbie)
27th November 2017, 17:38
Quick correction…yes other teams had the money…it was far more than just about that as I have spelled out.
Robbie (@robbie)
27th November 2017, 17:40
Oops and another one…sorry for my distraction while have posted this…’(pretending that that was something Ferrari was interested in doing)’
Ben Needham (@ben-n)
27th November 2017, 18:26
Firstly, apologies for the lunacy comment – I certainly don’t intend to offend.
I’d be interested to see your source for the suggestion that Mosley and Ecclestone were behind Schumacher’s move to Ferrari; I wasn’t aware of that.
I’m well aware that Ferrari didn’t go after Hakkinen or Montoya whilst Schumacher was there, much for the same reason that Hamilton or Verstappen isn’t alongside Vettel today. They have a policy set up, with a clear Number One and Number Two driver and that hasn’t changed since the days of Schumacher. I don’t see why that arrangement is a problem whilst dominating the Championship, but is suddenly no longer when they have only the second or third best car. As a viewer, I’d have enjoyed a faster driver in the second Ferrari to challenge Schumacher, but that was never their policy. Five double championships in a row say that they made the correct choice.
The signings they chose for the second car knew what they were doing and Barrichello signed multiple extensions; he certainly wasn’t forced into his role. I’d also recommend listening to this YouTube series of interviews with Eddie Irvine (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-IdrYM86KY) – much like some of Jacques Villeneuve’s comments, they’re to be taken with a pinch of salt, but interesting in the context of this discussion nonetheless.
Robbie (@robbie)
27th November 2017, 23:58
@ben-n No apology needed and thank you anyway, and I hope I haven’t said anything too untoward myself. Thanks for the link to that video. Eddie is a blast to listen to.
Much of my source for what I expound on when it comes to MS/Ferrari comes from articles in magazines from around the time, 20 and more years ago, and of course never things spelled out in those articles as curtly as I do, because people making money off of F1 are smart not to run down the very entity that feeds them lest they want to find other employment.
Much of it was simply obvious. MS had a year left at Benetton where he was winning, albeit with much turmoil surrounding the illegalities that were going on, with the media all over Benetton and F1 for allowing MS the 94 WDC after whacking Damon, and with all the other controversies with ride height, missing valves in the fuel filler, traction control, engine mapping etc. They may have not been the only ones with some stretches (and beyond) to the regs but they certainly were rife with them. Briatore felt ‘robbed’ of MS, who had another year on his contract, by Max and Bernie. There was a lot of insider politics going on between that trio. And this was all post-Senna as EI points out.
So MS goes to Ferrari where they’ve been losing for the last 16 years, taken away from Benetton where he was winning, while still under contract, and with whole crew in tow. When has that ever happened? This was not MS going to losing Ferrari with his agent and saying I want out of where I’m winning, prematurely, and to come to you where you haven’t won a WDC in 16 years. And I want you to orchestrate my crew coming too. I’ve not read any accounts that have MS instigating any of this. Why would he? He was winning! Why would he then? It was put together for him. Then we eventually found out about the extra $100 mill Ferrari was getting, and the veto power in the rules. MS’s whack on JV in 97 and it gets deemed ‘instinctual’ and his removal from the Championship but keeps his wins, poles, and points for the record books nonetheless, ie. no real consequence for his actions.
Ah anyway, here I am writing another novel. It is not just about Ferrari having a one-rooster policy, which even on it’s own robs us of some racing when it starts from race one. It is that MS’s teammates were actually under contract to not compete from race one, which gave him a huge psychological advantage and a car absolutely built for him, and let’s throw in the tires too. He didn’t even have to earn the status, it was contracted to him. Absolutely with the drivers signing those contracts eyes wide open. And absolutely that robbed us of racing.
For me the MS/Ferrari era went way beyond what it should ever be, and no wonder MS shattered records. He was set up to do so. I contend many many would have hit the same numbers under the same skewed circumstances. Of course they wouldn’t have had it in them to be as brutal on the track to boot. Nothing honourable about it. Sure, it ‘worked’ to glean them 5 WDC’s in a row. But it wasn’t right, done that way. It wasn’t my idea of success, nor helpful to F1. It robbed F1 of integrity.
Sure MS was a hard worker. He wasn’t stupid. He was handed the holy grail and ran with it. Huge money, huge advantages no driver has ever enjoyed before or since, and this was way beyond just a 1-2 strategy on the team. Not my cup of tea. Not honourable for all that to be orchestrated to happen. I understand 1-2 strategies. Sometimes the team has an experienced driver and someone closer to a rookie or a natural number two whose being groomed. I believe top teams should have top drivers free to compete which is what honours the paying audience. Sometimes a team decides on a number one when the math dictates it after both drivers have had a fair shot. I believe that is what happened at Ferrari this year. Nothing from any body language or verbiage from Kimi suggested anything other than he simply didn’t stamp his authority on the team early on but Seb did. I just don’t believe Kimi is a pushover who would accept anything but that fair shot from race one. He wouldn’t have stayed for 2018 if he thought things weren’t on the up and up.
MS/Ferrari went way beyond the pale.
Armand Serpentier (@armandf1v)
27th November 2017, 21:12
You can say that MS was first driver but i think he is thatbecause he helped the team to build up untill 2000 to win the championship, Irvine could have shown in my opinion in 1996 that he was faster than michael but then you have races like spain 1996 and than you could tell that the team will build around MS, Irvine had his chance to show his class in 1999 season to win from Hakinnen while MS served as 2nd driver, he let Irvine go through a couple of times but he faster ( look at malaysia 1999), Barrichello could have proven( i think) in 2000 that he was faster than michael because team orders weren’t ordered in the first races, the years after that it was clear on who got the no1 spot but to be the no1 you need to show that you are better than the other
Like Vettel in red bull or now in ferrari its because he is clearly faster and was fighting for the championship (this year) or he had more points (except 2010). The teamorders are making sense if they’re fighting for a championship. Just like Lewis Hamilton this year and Bottas but last year they were evenly matched so it was not right to use teamorders. They have teamorders just because they are quicker and they are fighting for the championship more than the other driver. And if you clearly look at 2000-2006 michael had more points and in my opinion deserved to be no1. It’s a shame for moments like Austria 2002 but atleast michael gives the trophy to Rubens which i see as humanlike and that it was Ferrari who did it.
FiamD
27th November 2017, 16:20
@drycrust It depends on how you look at ‘results’. It could be that MS was on a really dominant machine during his run of consecutive points scoring with the old system. Though one should always give a driver (and his team – ask Carlos about his wheel nut yesterday) some of the credit. Also consider that a driver yet to win the WDC nearly equalling the feat could mean it is not really that exceptional.
But if you look at ‘results’ from the point of driver’s productivity over an entire career or career to date, then HAM and VET are pretty awesome themselves. HAM’s 208 GP entries has yielded 172 points finish (83% success rate); VET’s 199 entries has yielded 159 points finish (80%); for MS 221 from 308 entries = 72%.
Armand Serpentier (@armandf1v)
27th November 2017, 21:14
Well he had that time at ferrari 1996-1999 where the car wasnt the best and his run from 2010-2012 also
Nomad
27th November 2017, 13:53
Hamilton has exactly 4 times as many starts as Fangio (208 v 52) and exactly four times as many finishes in the points (172 v 43). This means their percentage finishing in the points is exactly the same (82.69%), and higher than any other driver. The fact that Fangio did it when points were only given out for the top 6 is quite astonishing.
Armand Serpentier (@armandf1v)
27th November 2017, 21:15
And with less races in a season and cars that were ridicilously dangerous
f12007v (@f1fan-2000)
28th November 2017, 6:21
And with less ppl who knows how to drive a car properly
Sumedh
27th November 2017, 13:59
There have been only three non-champion winners of Abu Dhabi. 2009-Vettel and 2016-Rosberg and 2017-Bottas. The first two went on to win the championship the following year. Will Bottas make it 3 on 3?
Sumedh
27th November 2017, 13:59
*2015-Rosberg
Philip (@philipgb)
27th November 2017, 14:39
Every one of Bottas’ victories has been ahead of a 4x wdc in 2nd place.
RB13
27th November 2017, 15:01
Not strictly true as Lewis was a 3x WDC up until Mexico…
montreal95 (@montreal95)
28th November 2017, 14:05
@RB13 That’s precisely what @philipgb meant. Both won in Russia and Austria in front of Vettel.
Philip (@philipgb)
28th November 2017, 15:50
And Hamilton hadn’t finished in second behind Bottas until after Mexico.
Minardi (@gitanes)
27th November 2017, 16:30
The outright lap records held by V8 engines became a thing of the past when Vettel’s 2011 lap record was broken in FP2. The only way one will return will be if Fuji, Korea, India, or Valencia make a return to the calendar.
As mentioned in the article, the Monza record is still held by a V10 (Montoya) and next year Hockenheim (Schumacher) and Magny Cours (Montoya) will also be on the target for V10 records to fall.
Then after that there will still be some race lap records to fall from V10’s.
Telvee32 (@telvee32)
27th November 2017, 17:11
@gitanes The French Grand Prix will be at Paul Ricard, not Magny-Cours.
Jere (@jerejj)
27th November 2017, 17:00
For the 2nd season in a row Verstappen, Hulkenberg, Massa started this race from 6th, 7th, and 10th on the grid respectively.
– Sainz has now DNF’d this race for two editions in a row (it was also the 2nd time during the season that any given driver DNF’d due to a pit stop error caused by the green light going on before all tyres had been fully fitted).
– Ricciardo both started and ended this season with a DNF.
– The softest possible tyre compound combination for any race this season (US/SS/S) was used for both the opening and the final race of the season.
– Bottas’ overall race time was just 11 seconds off the lowest winners’ overall time of this circuit so far.
– The official lap record set in the inaugural 2009 race surprisingly didn’t get beaten even though an official record from that season got beaten in Spa.
AndrewW
27th November 2017, 17:52
Bulletproof reliability where car #44 was concerned this season.
McLaren
27th November 2017, 19:43
Hardly. Headrest cost him victory and gearbox cost him a realistic shot ar Austria.
Kgn11
27th November 2017, 20:59
So you’re complaining about reliability this year…. did you complain about his non-bulletproof reliability in 2016?
Patrickl (@patrickl)
28th November 2017, 19:52
Apart from the technical issues in Baku and Autsria, he got rammed by a blundering Vettel in Mexico.
What the stat shows is that Hamilton didn’t take himself out of any of the race. Unlike Vettel.
Bleu (@bleu)
27th November 2017, 18:30
Hamilton’s first podium in a race which was won by a Finnish driver since Spanish GP 2008.
Kgn11
27th November 2017, 21:00
This was the first time during his WDC winning campaign that he has failed to finish 3rd.
Hyoko
28th November 2017, 12:38
He? Who, Jenson Button?
Patrickl (@patrickl)
28th November 2017, 19:52
Obviously Hamilton
paulgilb (@paulgilb)
27th November 2017, 22:51
Hamilton’s worst season in the hybrid era in terms of points, wins, and podiums.
In 2017, Raikkonen has been classified in every race in which he completed the first lap.
Ricciardo would have finished ahead of Raikkonen under the 10-6-4-3-2-1 system.
First season since 1999 in which Jenson Button has not scored a point, ending his record streak (obviously this was pretty much confirmed ages ago).
First driver to manage his maiden hat-trick (pole, fastest lap, win) since 2009, when both Button and Vettel managed it for the first time.
Only track at which Mercedes have locked out the front row every year of the hybrid era.
First time since 2013 that only 4 teams managed podium finishes. First time since 2002 that 3 teams scored all bar one of the podiums between them.
Thanks to statsf1.com, magnetimarelli.com, and formula1.com for some of these.
michaeldobson13 (@michaeldobson13)
27th November 2017, 23:14
Since returning, Honda have managed 820 places of grid penalties for engines over the past 3 years.
This is around 6.5km, or 2 laps of Monaco
Ben Rowe (@thegianthogweed)
27th November 2017, 23:41
There are loads of pointless stats we could do. Such as the fact that when you average them out, Bottas has got a better starting position over the season than Hamilton due to him never qualifying lower than 6th. Hamilton has qualified 14th and 20th on those 2 occasions which is why this is the case. Another fact is that Bottas has never finished below 6th, whereas Hamilton has twice, although only one of them was down to his own mistake. I still do think that in some areas, Bottas has possibly been more consistent in terms of always getting similar results. As his highs and lows in qualifying and the race have been nothing like as far apart as Hamilton’s.
DonSmee (@david-beau)
28th November 2017, 2:31
Bottas has perfromed more inconsistentpy than Hamilton. It is iust that he has paid lighter consequences for his mistakes whereas Hamilton has paid for his dearly (yellow flag in monaco qualifying, crash in q1 Brazil due to car bottoming out, Baku head rest).
Godwin Joseph (@godwin)
28th November 2017, 4:58
Hamilton has now scored points in 25 straight races. That’s the second best run in F1 history and puts him only two behind Kimi Raikkonen’s all-time best, set between Bahrain 2012 and Hungary 2013, all for Lotus.
Speaking of long records… this was the 175th consecutive occasion on which Mercedes have scored points as an engine manufacturer. They are now well clear in second of all-time ahead of Renault (138), and with Ford (228) potentially in their sights.
And finally on the Silver Arrows: Abu Dhabi was the 100th Grand Prix in which they have claimed a podium. Juan Manuel Fangio and Karl Kling opened the team’s account in France in 1954. Mercedes now sit seventh of all-time for races in the podium; next up is Brabham with 106. Ferrari remain some way clear, however, with 546.
Alex Supertramp
28th November 2017, 7:50
Hi Keith,
Small mistake: Hamilton ended 2016 with 380 points, not 370 – so he would not have equalled that tally with a win in Abu Dhabi. He would have surpassed it in Abu Double though!
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
28th November 2017, 14:26
Fixed that – thanks Alex.
Dave (@daveangel100)
29th November 2017, 7:58
One statistic which has dominated the 2017 season which shows the improvement in coverage is that there wasn’t a single shot of Carmen Jorda interrupting the race footage