Lewis vs Seb

[oyster]

Paul Dishman said:

StevieBee said:

Something that occurred to me is that comparing Hamilton to Vettel and in fact the likes of Alonso and Schumacher is that I can't recall Hamilton ever resorting to underhand or unsporting tactics whenever something didn't go his way. All we get from him is a pouty bottom lip.

I may be wrong but can't remember him deliberately driving into the side of someone, holding a teammate up in a pitstop, parking the car in qualifying to stop others posting a faster time, running a competitor into the pit wall (near as damn it).....

I agree, he fights clean. I thought it was most telling at Baku, when Vettel was saying that Lewis had brake-tested him, Nico Rosberg's reaction was to say that Lewis wouldn't do that.

Abu Dhabi 2016??!

Even his team were spitting feathers at his antics.

[entropy]

KevinCamaroSS said:

In other words Webber could all but match Vettel, despite Vettel having the car developed to suit him and the team only really supporting Vettel. All because Vettel was an RB academy driver and Webber was not.

It's a rather simplistic way of seeing things...

It's just not that Seb is exceptional when there's masses of rear downforce available but I'd say crap Pirellis hindered Mark more. Go back to 2010 with the double decker diffusers and RBR arguably having the best car, rock solid Bridgestone tyres and WDC was Webber's to lose. Webber was never a fan of the Pirelli's and his tyres tended to degrade earlier than Seb not helped by his driving style who carries more speed into corners more than Seb whereas Seb is more concerned about getting it stopped and setting up for flat-out exit - much similar to Lewis's driving style.

[E34-3.2]

oyster said:

Abu Dhabi 2016??!

Even his team were spitting feathers at his antics.

He slowed down, nothing else.

[S0 What]

oyster said:

Paul Dishman said:

StevieBee said:

Something that occurred to me is that comparing Hamilton to Vettel and in fact the likes of Alonso and Schumacher is that I can't recall Hamilton ever resorting to underhand or unsporting tactics whenever something didn't go his way. All we get from him is a pouty bottom lip.

I may be wrong but can't remember him deliberately driving into the side of someone, holding a teammate up in a pitstop, parking the car in qualifying to stop others posting a faster time, running a competitor into the pit wall (near as damn it).....

I agree, he fights clean. I thought it was most telling at Baku, when Vettel was saying that Lewis had brake-tested him, Nico Rosberg's reaction was to say that Lewis wouldn't do that.

Abu Dhabi 2016??!

Even his team were spitting feathers at his antics.

If you dont understand the context of the conversation why bother joining in ?

[Dr Z]

entropy said:

KevinCamaroSS said:

In other words Webber could all but match Vettel, despite Vettel having the car developed to suit him and the team only really supporting Vettel. All because Vettel was an RB academy driver and Webber was not.

It's a rather simplistic way of seeing things...

It's just not that Seb is exceptional when there's masses of rear downforce available but I'd say crap Pirellis hindered Mark more. Go back to 2010 with the double decker diffusers and RBR arguably having the best car, rock solid Bridgestone tyres and WDC was Webber's to lose. Webber was never a fan of the Pirelli's and his tyres tended to degrade earlier than Seb not helped by his driving style who carries more speed into corners more than Seb whereas Seb is more concerned about getting it stopped and setting up for flat-out exit - much similar to Lewis's driving style.

Even with the Bridgestones, I believe Seb was just plain quicker over a lap (10 vs 5 pole positions in 2010). Mark's race pace was as good as Seb, even if his starts weren't (he admitted to this), so he could just fight back up with those tyres. This was mostly not possible with the Pirellis; if one falls into the pack at the start, it's game over.

2010 was a chaotic year, both drivers lost a lot of points to mechanical problems and racing incidents/collisions with other drivers. I think Seb would have won the title more convincingly, if it wasn't for some of the mechanical issues he had. Late in the season, Webber dropped it in Korea which was a big blow for him in the title run, when Vettel also had a mechanical retirement in that race.

Maybe my memory is a bit hazy, but the 'dominant' RB cars of yesteryear seemed to experience a crazy amount of relibility gremlins. It almost made them look beatable.

[entropy]

deadslow said:

Button appeared to say today that Fred was the better driver, and Massa has previously said he was better than Schuey. These two guys know. They're not qwerty warriors.

JB has a new autobiography:

"I'd say that over the years Fernando had been one of - if not the - toughest competitors I'd faced, both as a team-mate and a rival at other teams," Button writes.

"Lewis was unbelievably quick and could pull a lap out of the bag just like that; him and Ayrton Senna were the two quickest guys over one lap, maybe ever.

"But Fernando was the more rounded driver. I'd know, even if I out-qualified him, that he'd still be tough to beat in a race."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/41528046

[Hungrymc]

E34-3.2 said:

oyster said:

Abu Dhabi 2016??!

Even his team were spitting feathers at his antics.

He slowed down, nothing else.

To come back to Lewis vs Seb, a good question may be What would Seb have done?

[Hungrymc]

entropy said:

deadslow said:

Button appeared to say today that Fred was the better driver, and Massa has previously said he was better than Schuey. These two guys know. They're not qwerty warriors.

JB has a new autobiography:

"I'd say that over the years Fernando had been one of - if not the - toughest competitors I'd faced, both as a team-mate and a rival at other teams," Button writes.

"Lewis was unbelievably quick and could pull a lap out of the bag just like that; him and Ayrton Senna were the two quickest guys over one lap, maybe ever.

"But Fernando was the more rounded driver. I'd know, even if I out-qualified him, that he'd still be tough to beat in a race."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/41528046

I’m not as much of a student of the sport as many on here are. But I think there are comments from Button that explain the problems McLaren are still suffering from today.

When Jenson arrived at McLaren he describes Lewis as having to cope with it no longer being his team but being “our” team. I’m unsure if the “our” meant both the Lewis and Jenson camps or if it meant Jenson and his entourage’s. However, this coincided with the clueless Whitmarsh and I’ve long held the view that Jenson and his dad were a political / PR machine that was extremely powerful. And I think that Whitmarsh attached himself to them as he saw them being very handy political allies. They then spent the next few years defending themselves from accusations of poor performance. It’s like the worst corporate behaviour when everyone justifies the situation and focuses all efforts on defending themselves rather than getting into the real causes of poor performance.

I may be wrong and I’m happy to be corrected, but I think it was a perfect storm of the Buttons political savvy, charm and media appeal, along with Whitmarsh being basically clueless on how to lead the team and trying to use the Button relationship to deflect pressure.

Could be wrong and I’m sure Jenson’s book will be a great read.

[DanielSan]

oyster said:

Abu Dhabi 2016??!

Even his team were spitting feathers at his antics.

Speaking as a none Hamilton but very much pro hard racing fan, he did nothing wrong in Abu Dhabi, it was a brilliant piece of technical driving, nothing dirty just pegging the car behind back in the right places to allow the cars behind to close up and as a result win the title. He didn't force anyone off or ram them he just used his head and did the only thing he could do.

[Hungrymc]

DanielSan said:

Speaking as a none Hamilton but very much pro hard racing fan, he did nothing wrong in Abu Dhabi, it was a brilliant piece of technical driving, nothing dirty just pegging the car behind back in the right places to allow the cars behind to close up and as a result win the title. He didn't force anyone off or ram them he just used his head and did the only thing he could do.

I asked the question earlier “what would Seb have done”? We know for a fact that there are many other drivers that would have done whatever was necessary to roll the dice for a possible WDC. Just like swapping positions back with Bottas earlier this year, I do wonder if he lacks a little ruthlessness. It’s ironic that so many people really, really think he has a messiah complex but he seems to draw the line way before many of his piers have or do.

[Sa Calobra]

DanielSan said:

Speaking as a none Hamilton but very much pro hard racing fan, he did nothing wrong in Abu Dhabi, it was a brilliant piece of technical driving, nothing dirty just pegging the car behind back in the right places to allow the cars behind to close up and as a result win the title. He didn't force anyone off or ram them he just used his head and did the only thing he could do.

I agree he wasn't being lapped, he was in the lead and as such he could control the pace. It also gave everyone behind him opportunity to catch and jump him

[tankplanker]

Hungrymc said:

I’m not as much of a student of the sport as many on here are. But I think there are comments from Button that explain the problems McLaren are still suffering from today.

When Jenson arrived at McLaren he describes Lewis as having to cope with it no longer being his team but being “our” team. I’m unsure if the “our” meant both the Lewis and Jenson camps or if it meant Jenson and his entourage’s. However, this coincided with the clueless Whitmarsh and I’ve long held the view that Jenson and his dad were a political / PR machine that was extremely powerful. And I think that Whitmarsh attached himself to them as he saw them being very handy political allies. They then spent the next few years defending themselves from accusations of poor performance. It’s like the worst corporate behaviour when everyone justifies the situation and focuses all efforts on defending themselves rather than getting into the real causes of poor performance.

I may be wrong and I’m happy to be corrected, but I think it was a perfect storm of the Buttons political savvy, charm and media appeal, along with Whitmarsh being basically clueless on how to lead the team and trying to use the Button relationship to deflect pressure.

Could be wrong and I’m sure Jenson’s book will be a great read.

This matches with what I felt at the time and still feel now. Jenson is a naturally likeable extrovert, and Lewis is the opposite, its easy to see even if Jenson didn't intend it, why the team at an individual level would be more open to helping Jenson.

I heard recently that when Jenson joined McLaren they split up Lewis's team between Lewis and Jenson. I'd expect that to be destabilising on Lewis as it would take him longer to form a working bond between his team than somebody like Jenson, and that is still making the assumption that they are as good as the replacement mechanics.

I seem to remember that Jenson had problems switching on the McLaren but Lewis did not, and McLaren ended up changing the development focus of the car to suit Jenson more as he was the one struggling.

I'd put money on Whitmarsh being thrown into the lake at the technology centre complete with concrete boots as much because he didn't deliver as he cost the team Lewis. I am sure if the team had carried on focusing on Lewis he would have stayed on.

Jenson is clearly a great driver but he has bottled it all too often when under pressure, even Brawn called him out on that when they were both at BAR-Honda/Brawn days.

[StevieBee]

Hungrymc said:

I’ve long held the view that Jenson and his dad were a political / PR machine that was extremely powerful. And I think that Whitmarsh attached himself to them as he saw them being very handy political allies.

Mmm. Not so sure on this.

When John Button died, many F1 insiders were very open in their admiration for the man. Jackie Steward said that F1 'Dads' tend to be quietly ushered away from the general throng of things once their sons are established within a team and the sport. John Button wasn't because he was just a bloke who was as pleased as punch to be in the paddock and never interfered with team matters. He was just a nice bloke who's son happened to be one the driver's Dad - as likely to be lording it up in the Red Bull motor home as any other.

All successful drivers have to have political 'nous'. I'm surprised that more don't enter into politics once they leave F1.

[Hungrymc]

StevieBee said:

Mmm. Not so sure on this.

When John Button died, many F1 insiders were very open in their admiration for the man. Jackie Steward said that F1 'Dads' tend to be quietly ushered away from the general throng of things once their sons are established within a team and the sport. John Button wasn't because he was just a bloke who was as pleased as punch to be in the paddock and never interfered with team matters. He was just a nice bloke who's son happened to be one the driver's Dad - as likely to be lording it up in the Red Bull motor home as any other.

All successful drivers have to have political 'nous'. I'm surprised that more don't enter into politics once they leave F1.

I guess a lot depends on the subtle distinction on if you see the ‘political / PR machine’ thing as a deliberate cynical policy by the Buttons to manipulate the situation or if it’s just a natural result of the charming, media savvy personalities that they had. I’m not sure it was deliberate / tactical but it was a tool that they had and they used (off course, they’d be stupid not to)

The big issue for me is relationship that developed with Whitmarsh and the culture that I think it created in the team. Whitmarsh behaved as if he was on to a good thing but was never capable of delivering what was needed. He was determined to deflect blame and cling on to power. Forming a relationship with the Buttons was part of that and I’ve always been disappointed that they aligned with him instead of seeing through him. Has been painful seeing the state of McLaren since.

As I said, many will know more about this than I and I’d be happy to be wrong.

[Hungrymc]

tankplanker said:

I'd put money on Whitmarsh being thrown into the lake at the technology centre complete with concrete boots as much because he didn't deliver as he cost the team Lewis. I am sure if the team had carried on focusing on Lewis he would have stayed on.

I hadn't even really looked at if from that angle. I've always assumed the poor organisation and declining competitiveness of the car were main drivers of the move, but maybe the direction and development focus that you highlight were even more important.

I still think it was a brave move. We've seen some tragically bad team moves, and many thought the move from McL was going to be one of them. Was a big decision. Seb's Ferrari move could still go either way.

[tankplanker]

Hungrymc said:

I hadn't even really looked at if from that angle. I've always assumed the poor organisation and declining competitiveness of the car were main drivers of the move, but maybe the direction and development focus that you highlight were even more important.

I still think it was a brave move. We've seen some tragically bad team moves, and many thought the move from McL was going to be one of them. Was a big decision. Seb's Ferrari move could still go either way.

With hindsight Lewis's move looks amazingly astute, but at the time I felt he just wanted out rather than him having a clear indicator of which team would have the best performance. At the time Ferrari and Red Bull either didn't want or need him, leaving no other big budget teams left to go to.

I'm reminded of this: https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/mclaren-chose-b... Now Lewis states that the team were already booked on Jenson's fun run, but then I think Lewis always takes the team bowling after the Japan GP, here is this years outing: https://streamable.com/x8vuf

[deadslow]

Hungrymc said:

tankplanker said:

I'd put money on Whitmarsh being thrown into the lake at the technology centre complete with concrete boots as much because he didn't deliver as he cost the team Lewis. I am sure if the team had carried on focusing on Lewis he would have stayed on.

I hadn't even really looked at if from that angle. I've always assumed the poor organisation and declining competitiveness of the car were main drivers of the move, but maybe the direction and development focus that you highlight were even more important.

I still think it was a brave move. We've seen some tragically bad team moves, and many thought the move from McL was going to be one of them. Was a big decision. Seb's Ferrari move could still go either way.

I thought LH was desperate to get out of McLaren because he didn't like the corporate culture (set by Ron). This would have been well known in the paddock and gave Lauda/Wolff/Brawn the opportunity to make an advance.

It is always a brave move to leave a big team, and Lewis decided to roll the dice, which was bold, even if he was dying to get out. No doubt Merc promised him the earth (as all teams, no doubt, do). Year one, it didn't look all that inspired, but year two he couldn't believe his luck - the engineers/designers at Merc had produced a car which was miraculous/disappointingly unbeatable, depending on your preferred driver/team.

Rosberg, however, was very unlucky, since, as has been said on here before, had LH not joined, Nico would have romped to the four easiest WDCs in history, and been classed as a legend by his fans.

Hey ho.

[isaldiri]

tankplanker said:

I'd put money on Whitmarsh being thrown into the lake at the technology centre complete with concrete boots as much because he didn't deliver as he cost the team Lewis. I am sure if the team had carried on focusing on Lewis he would have stayed on.

Always am surprised how much Whitmarsh is blamed for Mclaren's various misfortunes (to put it mildly). RD was not exactly quietly sitting around in the background afaik and when Whitmarsh left and RD returned Mclaren went from poor to disastrous... Ron Dennis not doing everything he could to keep hold of Adrian Newey was imo a far worse thing for Mclaren than Hamilton leaving.

[tankplanker]

isaldiri said:

Always am surprised how much Whitmarsh is blamed for Mclaren's various misfortunes (to put it mildly). RD was not exactly quietly sitting around in the background afaik and when Whitmarsh left and RD returned Mclaren went from poor to disastrous...

Didn't Ron stepdown from directly running the team as part of the 2009 Oz GP? Didn't everything have to go through Whitmarsh to Ron after that point?

I'd agree that McLaren only got worse after Whitmarsh, but that doesn't mean Whitmarsh was remotely competent, just that his replacements were worse.

[StevieBee]

tankplanker said:

idn't Ron stepdown from directly running the team as part of the 2009 Oz GP? Didn't everything have to go through Whitmarsh to Ron after that point?

I'd agree that McLaren only got worse after Whitmarsh, but that doesn't mean Whitmarsh was remotely competent, just that his replacements were worse.

I really don't think it fair to peg the (hopefully, temporary) demise of McLaren to Whitmarsh. There were a couple of years of perfect storm combining the spy gate issue, lying to officials, Alonso / Hamilton and the personal issues with the RD/MO/RD's OH triangle and others. IIRC, the unwelcome inputs from Hamilton Snr didn't help matters either. All things considered, Whitmarsh was the little curly bit on the top of a large and fast-festering turd.