Hamilton on Vettel: "He is not unbeatable, his car is"
- This topic has 60 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
Back in 2006, almost everyone wanted to see Raikkonen and Alonso in the same car, and it looks as now we have our wish granted.
Hopefully, we’ll one day get to see Hamilton and Vettel in the same car too. It’d be electrifying for the fans, and I’ll be watching it with close interest too.
It will also settle a lot of things.
Villeneuve gets a bad rap, he was a talented driver but he moved for money instead of for the best car.
Villeneuve didn’t just move for the money. He had some very nice offers from Benetton and McLaren between 1998 and 2001. Villeneuve also moved because he figured BAR would be ‘his’ team, much like Schumacher ‘ran’ Ferrari. I mentioned JV’s mentality before, because he really didn’t feel like doing anything other than getting in the car to set it up on Friday, to Qualify on Saturday and to race on Sunday. F1Rejects has a great article on his years at BAR, which is worth reading regardless of this discussion.
Both changed their drives for big money to a wealthy new team.
The reasons varied very much, though. Villeneuve wanted to be ‘in charge’ at a team and believed his manager and close friend Craig Pollock would get a team going that could win in its first season. The budget and people were certainly there, but the experience and ability perhaps less so. Don’t forget; Jacques was always going to be judged as Gilles’ son. He had something to prove, especially since most people subscribed the 1997 title to the Williams, much like they’re doing to Vettel. Villeneuve had a lot to prove; he could win for another team than Williams. I’m sure Williams’ 1998 season helped the move to BAR as well.
Hamilton had been involved with McLaren since he was a kid. Much like people will get tired of living with their parents after some time, he seemingly got tired at McLaren and needed some breathing space. I’d say he isn’t doing too great emotionally this season, but you can tell he’s acting different than at McLaren, so he is going though personal development; which is what I imagine he wanted to do by leaving McLaren.
Money is of course a factor, but I don’t think Villeneuve would have moved to BAR if Craig Pollock wasn’t involved, much like Hamilton wouldn’t have moved to Mercedes had he been in a more open environment at McLaren.
It’s a little late now, though. In 2006, they were already great drivers, but still developing. Now, they’re at their peak and perhaps even a little over it. Now, if Alonso had joined Ferrari with Raikkonen in 2007 or 2010, that would have been something. I’m still excited, but not as much as I would have been back then.
@full-throttle-f1
I think when you say “Vettel needs to show quite a bit more”, while at the same time dismissing performances with “obviously it worked”, it is fair to ask what it is exactly that you want to see. Because you can dismiss everything as “obviously it worked”, yet you choose to only use that phrase on Vettel, and not on Hamilton. Shouldn’t be too hard to explain what you want Vettel to do, right? what is for you the difference between “great drive, obviously not the car” and “it worked”?@mnmracer
I think that it’s the difference between China 2013 and Malaysia 2012. One “obviously worked”, the other was an “unforgettable drive” (at least as a Ferrari fan). Can you guess which one is which? ;-)I don’t know on whether that’s the point Michael is trying to make, but if it is, I somewhat (not entirely) agree with him.
I don’t really care for Hamilton’s increasingly regular rhetoric-filled denouncements of Vettel…I think they’re really bad form, and in the days of Clark, Moss, Fangio, Ascari and Stewart (generally acknowledged to be some of the all-time greats of F1) such things would not have been tolerated – people seem to have lost the ability to be gentlemen nowadays – a crying shame!
Hamilton just seems to be so wrapped up in self-aggrandisement (made all the more shameful by including his ‘buddy’ Alonso) that he forgets the circumstances of his own time in F1. Since 2007, he has constantly been in a top 3 team – and even managed to leave McLaren just before everything went wrong for them, and moving to Mercedes, whose fortunes have improved – but somehow feels that he can criticise Vettel for consistently being up there.
I know that one person or one team so consistently winning can be annoying for viewers of any sport (you just have to look at a lot of people’s attitude to Manchester United in Football (soccer) to see that this is the case), but I think it would be much more constructive for people (both professional and fans) to focus their ire on their own teams (or even just providing more positive and vocal support) to put the onus on them to improve and rise to the top – that is true support!
I don’t think many of you get it. Lewis wants to be in the race. He doesn’t want to accidentally win by some strategic call or because his car is just way faster.
Like any true competitor, he doesn’t want to enter the soccer field to use the analogy knowing that he’s already lost unless the RB9 retires and he happens at least competitive to be in P2 which is another big question mark or his team is willing to let him change tyres. I loved the Bob Varsha comment “Sorry, we are eating ice cream!” Come back in 5 laps:-)
He wants to be competing and 5 years is a long time not to be competitive. Another 5 and his career will be almost be over.
It was disheartening for Hamilton to see the Sauber pull away the way it did off turn 2. That’s a mid-field car and it was just unpassable and it held off Ferrari and Mercedes directly and indirectly Lotus and Red Bull for 20-30 laps in the DRS zones…
He must not think much of his championship then, as he won that on the turn of the weather/ Toyota strategic call didn’t he?
Every driver wants to win, I’m sure Max Chilton would rather be at the sharp end than dawdling around at the back.
And Hamilton has been competitive the past 5 years, even when the car has not. He hasn’t gone a season without a win and has a record better than some entire teams.
He, like a lot of fans, is wrapped up in some romantic notion of F1 being a drivers’ contest, when it’s not. It’s an engineering competition. Arguably, it has more in common with something like the JSF or ATF programs than a spec motorsport series.
Lewis wants to be in the race. He doesn’t want to accidentally win by some strategic call or because his car is just way faster.
Come on now, it’s obvious that he would give his eye teeth for any win of any sort. Which is a good trait in a racing driver, but lets not swallow his self-serving nonsense about how he’d turn up his nose at an easy win. I like him as a driver, but he can’t seem to open his mouth without putting his foot in it. “Higher caliber” indeed.
@Jon_Sandor
No driver would give up a free championship. Heck, I’m sure everyone on this forum would take a couple if anyone was willing to give them to us.I’m sure that racing for the win is very gratifying for these guys. Of course, you always hope the cards will fall your way but that can not be the case and defeat is inevitable and part of the sport. The most impressive memory I have of Vettel is clapping his hands from onboard as he passed Lewis after Austin Texas.
It was a fantastic wheel-to-wheel race and the cards happened to fall in Lewis’ favor that day. This inability to engage Vettel after turn 1 must be driving all the other drivers nuts.
This inability to engage Vettel after turn 1 must be driving all the other drivers nuts.
Along with a sizable slice of the fan base!
It’s always been this way in F1 though. One team, and usually one driver, wins for a number of years before somebody else comes along. And those race wins tend to be “easy”. Half of all Senna’s race wins consisted of his leading the race from start to finish. Vettel has been making things very exciting by comparison.
just new twits in which Hamilton “explains” his first PR. Well, who knows if thia came out of himself or out of his PR manager…
I don’t know how long you guys have been watching F1, I really don’t.
But it used to be like this for a long time: Top car a second or even more faster than the next cars, pole positions sometimes with more than a second at hand, and at most maybe two teams capable of winning a race.
Compared to that, these last few years have been phenomenal, mostly the 2010 and 2012 seasons, with som many winning cars and drivers. Vettel was simply the most consistent. I would even argue that the McLarens, with Lewis, were as good as or a tad faster than the Red Bulls in 2011!
Lewis Hamilton could have been WDC in 2010, but for many reasons, he wasn’t. He could have done it in 2011 and 2012, too, but he didn’t. 2013 it is impossible, but this is the first year it is so.
That Vettel is dominating or perceived to be dominating in these last 4 seasons is a testimony to his talent, since things are much less clear than in the Schumacher-years, in the 1992 and 1993 William years and in the McLaren dominance from 1988 to 1990.I don’t know how long you guys have been watching F1, I really don’t.
But it used to be like this for a long time: Top car a second or even more faster than the next cars, pole positions sometimes with more than a second at hand, and at most maybe two teams capable of winning a race.I’ve only watched since 2008, so thanks for the info on what it was like back then (Of course, I’ve read about the FW14B/15, the MMP4/4, or even the BT46B and the FA1L, etc, but I didn’t know about the years which don’t have anybody covering how cars performed that year).
Is the RB9 a good race car? Yes. But is the RB9 truly unbeatable, in that any given driver behind the wheel will instantly win? No. Indeed, the Red Bull car itself has been beaten numerous times – that’s why Webber sits 5th in the championship at the moment, and has never finished as championship runner-up.
Extending the line of flawed logic that “Vettel is unbeatable only because of the car”, dismissing drivers based on the dominance of their car would mean disregarding Hakkinen (who only ever won races in fast McLarens) and all of Schumacher’s championships (well-designed Benettons and dominant Ferraris). That’s ludicrous.
F1 is, and always has been, about the combination of car and driver. You can’t dismiss the driver’s contribution, given it takes a competent workman to make the most of his tools.
Extending the line of flawed logic that “Vettel is unbeatable only because of the car”, dismissing drivers based on the dominance of their car would mean disregarding Hakkinen (who only ever won races in fast McLarens) and all of Schumacher’s championships (well-designed Benettons and dominant Ferraris).
And Fangio.
As well as Farina, Alonso, Clark, Mansell…..basically most of the champions.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.