Autocourse Top 10?

dont agree with lewis being no 1 though clearly the best of the rookies.

did he really out perform fred?

at us alonso clearly prevented by mclaren from challenging him, and clearly also kimi was faster at hungary. japan was appalling conditions but many of us are critical of many aspects of lewis job that day and canada seemed really more a case of the rest of the field driving like idiots - particularly his teammate. frankly lewis was too often beaten by his teammate in equal machinary to be number 1. if that (excluding his inexperience was the nest performance by a driver then bit of a sad reflection on the yr. bit like 2003 in that sense and yet kimi with his 2nd half performance put together a better season than michael managed in 2003 and for that and in particular his change i the season's momentum to date to me puts him clealry in number 1. to maintain a kead is one thing, its another to seeminglly change your fortunes and beat someone is so far ahead and can afford to be so much more conservative really is a championship perfromance - and ipsofacto number 1 driver of the yr for me

F1-Racing, Autocourse, ITV-F1....
What do you all expect? Predictable isn't it?

Kimi is the driver of the year in my book.

Can't see why all the fanboys are getting their knickers in a knot over what a few motor racing journos think. In the long run history records who won the World Drivers Championship, and that's all that counts. Nobody cares, or remembers about who came second. After all wasn't it Ron Dennis who once said coming second just means your the first of the losers.

You don't have to be "nationalistic British media" to put Lewis on the top. I am often critical of the hype surrounding him but I can see no wrong in naming him "Driver of the Year" in 2007*. To me it has to be him or Kimi. I named Kimi in another thread here a couple of weeks ago because he is the WDC but indeed it's very close and Lewis can be that too - esp. if you are looking for spectacular drives, we had more of that from Lewis than from Kimi. Alonso is a bit below of the two for me. Of course he had the same amount of points as Lewis but he should have had more based on his more experience.

EDIT: * Sorry, 2007, not 2008.

Originally posted by Ricardo F1
Brazil - well Hamilton for being unnecessarily over enthusiastic about trying to get back around Alonso...

As he himself said afterwards, he had the whole race to catch back up. Had it not been for the gearbox problem he would have been 4th at worst. Racing attitude.

Originally posted by former champ


Alonso at 3 and Massa at 4 is fairly standard and there is no guarantee others would have done a better job than Felipe, lets not forget had things fallen slightly differently, it would have been him fighting till the end for the title and not Raikkonen. Also he was clearly the fastest man over 1 lap, no mean feat at all.

Agreed. Massa is my special mention also. He still tends to be underrated IMO, although at least people now start to realize he IS fast.

In my list LH is the man of the year, because he as a rookie could match very well his team mate, who was a double-WDC. LH earns a lot of congratulations. But on my the list of the best drivers I have KR as #1 and LH as #2.
Lewis had a phenomenal season, but his mistakes in the last two races very relatively big ones and Kimi a a strong end of the season. I think, that McLaren package was a tiny bit better than the Ferrari package especially because the Mac's reliabiloity was better.

Then there a couple points, where Kimi might have been worse than he deserved. At Montreal Kimi had problems with his brakes and becuasse of that his driving was below par. One of my frieds was at Montral and he said that Kimi took that curve, where he was, in a different way on almost every lap, when LH was extremily consistent. He said, that there simply had to be something fishy going on with KR's car.

At Bahrain there was a rolling restart, where KR seemed to be very slow to react. But watch the driving of the leader FM just, before the SC comes back from the track. If you compare Felipe's driving with MS and KR driving in a similar situation as a leader, you will notice, that FM does not slow nearly as much as MS or KR have done. These two drivers usually drove very very slowly just before a massive accleration. This is against the regulations, but it is effective, because the leader forces the other almost to stop and so they will be late when the accleration tooks place. Also the SC will be safely out of the way. Now at Bahrain KR let the front drivers to gain some ground so, that when the leader would slow his pace, Kimi would not have been forced to slow so much. In that way Kimi's speed would have been higher than the driver ahead of him, when the accleration would start. But Felipe did not act as Kimi had thought that he would do - and so Kimi was left badly behind. I think, that this would not happen again - the communication between the team mates has to work out better than what happened at Bahrain in 2007.

Originally posted by Ricardo F1
I'd say China was his and the teams, he beached it but they should have had him in a couple of laps sooner. Might have beached it then too, but those tyres were beyond shot.

And who worn down the tyres so much? Ron Dennis? Martin Whitmarsh? or Norbert Haug?

Hamilton shot the tyres because he was going WAY quicker than Alonso and Raikkonen during the first few laps of the race. He had no need to drive that fast at that stage of the race when there was speculation on the change of conditions.

How did Alonso and Raikkonen manage to save his tyres and he did not?

Originally posted by Mat
I thinnk that's one thing people forget. Lewis did well all year by backing himself, by being on the attack and being agressive. I don't see why he should have changed his game plan for the last races.

He should have changes his game plan in China and collected the points he needed to clinch the world championship. Who cares if you win the championship with a win or with an eight place or whatever position he needed? Schumacher's 2003 championship is not worth less than any of the other ones because he won it with an eight place in Suzuka.

Originally posted by Mat
He made very few mistakes all year, arguably less than any of the other top 4 drivers out there. Credit to him. I don't think it will be so easy for him next year.

Agree. He just choked when it mattered.

Originally posted by MONTOYASPEED
He should have changes his game plan in China and collected the points he needed to clinch the world championship. Who cares if you win the championship with a win or with an eight place or whatever position he needed? Schumacher's 2003 championship is not worth less than any of the other ones because he won it with an eight place in Suzuka.

But there is always the worry of changing your game plan and everything falling apart completely. There is almost a hint of that happening in China. The McLaren/Lewis game plan seemed to change from trying win, and if not win, to get as good a result as possible. That changed in China to trying to beat Alonso. They seemed to be back to just trying to get a good result in Brazil and then the racing gods intervened.

I think the best way for a driver to get good results is to stay on the attack, or atleast driver how they would naturally, the minute a driver starts slowing down to play it safe, it seems the wheels fall of the wagon.

Originally posted by MONTOYASPEED
Agree. He just choked when it mattered.

Im being pedantic but i don't think choke is the right word.

I'd say he just made some mistakes when it mattered. The other three all made mistakes when it mattered as well, because all races count.

All kinds of lists are just that - they are someone's opinions and arguable as shown here. I remember Kimi topping the lists a few years ago eventhough he didn't win the championship. The nominations or lists do not comfort the driver who has lost the championship - Kimi admitted that after winning last year's title. He said that only the championship counts - that's what they all want.

I don't mind Lewis topping the driver of the year lists, can not say that he would not deserve that. An impressive debut season at F1 level, no doubts. It's going to be interesting to see how he performs in case Mcl would not be a car that you can fight for the wins on any given weekend. His F1 career start has been like from a fairytale.

Well he may have missed out on the WDC last year but he can add that accolade to this lot:

SQUARE MILE SPORT AWARDS 2007
Sports Person of the Year
SPORTS JOURNALIST ASSOCIATION
Sportsman of the Year
Best International Newcomer award
ITALIAN CONFARTIGIANATO MOTORI
Racing Driver of the Year
PRIDE OF BRITAIN
Most Inspiring Public Figure Award
GQ UK
Sportsman of the Year
GQ GERMANY
Man of the Year
BILD AM SONNTAG
Golden Steering Wheel Award for Outstanding Achievement
AUTOCAR AWARD
Motorsport Award
WALPOLE AWARDS FOR BRITISH EXCELLENCE 2007
British Sporting Excellence
F1 RACING MAGAZINE’S MAN OF THE YEAR AWARDS
Driver of the Year
Man of the Year
Rookie of the Year
Qualifier of the Year
Personality of the Year
AUTOSPORT AWARDS
Best British Competition Driver
Best International Racing Driver
Rookie of the Year
BRDC ANNUAL AWARDS
2007 Gold Star Winner
BBC EAST SPORTS AWARDS
Sports Personality of the Year

Originally posted by MONTOYASPEED


And who worn down the tyres so much? Ron Dennis? Martin Whitmarsh? or Norbert Haug?

Hamilton shot the tyres because he was going WAY quicker than Alonso and Raikkonen during the first few laps of the race. He had no need to drive that fast at that stage of the race when there was speculation on the change of conditions.

How did Alonso and Raikkonen manage to save his tyres and he did not?

Hammy was 20 seconds ahead of Fernando, 8 ahead of Kimi. A pitstop there is only 25 seconds. That was not overdriving by Hammy, or tactical by the others, he was getting more out of the car. The team just needed to bring him in 2 laps earlier.

Originally posted by scheivlak

Now I'm getting interested

Who's fault was it, Ricardo?

I'm not suggesting it was entirely Hamilton's, just interested who's fault it was
a) in China
b) in Brazil
according to you!

It was a combination of factors...
China...
Team kept him out too long
Didn't come in on his own (after his Nurburgring cockup I suppose)
Trulli in the way
Driving error
The only pitlane gravel trap
Round gravel that is lubricated by rain, not compacting like the usual aggregate

Brazil...
Overaggressive with Fernando
Gearbox fault, possibly because of...
Overheating (not enough rad aperture, it wasn't a sensor according to LH)
Team strategy error (2nd stint on option tyre)
Bridgestone tyre choices too soft (prime tyre couldn't do a long 3rd stint, forcing a 3-stopper, but they didn't find out until they looked at the tyres after the first stop)

If any one of these hadn't been, he would have won. Except the overaggressive move on FA, which only cost 8 seconds or so and wasn't decisive either way. Lots of other ifs and buts for all the drivers through the season, of course, but you can't call it a "choke" by Hammy (nasty term anyway IMO).

Originally posted by MONTOYASPEED


He had no need to drive that fast

This is the sort of comment that makes me wonder whether the poster is really interested in the sport itself, or in a particular driver for whatever reason. In this case, fortunately, the name confirms someone who has stayed with it following the departure of 'their' driver.

There is always the need for a driver to go as fast as he can - it's what each and every one should be doing.

That Hamilton seemd not to fall for the 'driving for points' mentality I found refreshing in the extreme. Long may it continue.

Originally posted by undersquare


Hammy was 20 seconds ahead of Fernando, 8 ahead of Kimi. A pitstop there is only 25 seconds. That was not overdriving by Hammy, or tactical by the others, he was getting more out of the car. The team just needed to bring him in 2 laps earlier.

He was certainly getting more out of his car...and just as certainly taking more out of his tyres in the process. Fernando and Kimi ran much longer on the same tyres as Lewis without anything like the distress Lewis suffered.

As for the source of my earlier quote from Brundle, http://www.itv-f1.co...dle&PO_ID=41532

The two key points for me were:

The key thing a lot of people forget is that while Hamilton scampered off at the front, disappeared and wore out his tyres, Alonso and Raikkonen ran comfortably longer on the same rubber.

They looked after their tyres better because they were more experienced.

and the quotes I supported my earlier comments with

There was a phase of races where he appeared to go backwards after the first stop, or when the team went on to option tyres. Silverstone and Brazil were good examples of this.

I don't know why. It is not as if he lost his talent half way through a race...

Michael did it beautifully; he took the wins and the glory when they were on offer and maximised the points when they weren't.

Schumacher always came through the field and made something out of nothing. We have yet to see Lewis really do that in F1.

Originally posted by Lifew12


This is the sort of comment that makes me wonder whether the poster is really interested in the sport itself, or in a particular driver for whatever reason. In this case, fortunately, the name confirms someone who has stayed with it following the departure of 'their' driver.

There is always the need for a driver to go as fast as he can - it's what each and every one should be doing.

That Hamilton seemd not to fall for the 'driving for points' mentality I found refreshing in the extreme. Long may it continue.

I think Prost, Fangio, Stewart, Piquet had some interest in the sport.

Originally posted by kar


He was certainly getting more out of his car...and just as certainly taking more out of his tyres in the process. Fernando and Kimi ran much longer on the same tyres as Lewis without anything like the distress Lewis suffered.

Brundle, and anyone else who thinks Fernando and Kimi deliberately dropped that far behind, is using 20-20 hindsight. FA had dropped almost a full pitstop, there's no way that was tyre management. Kimi said his balance was no good on full tanks, that's why he dropped back.

In his live commentary Brundle was all for Hammy driving off into the distance, no mention of tyre wear at all! And if he'd been pitted at the right time he'd have kept his lead, over FA at least, and no-one would ever have said he used up his tyres too quickly.

Originally posted by santori


I think Prost, Fangio, Stewart, Piquet had some interest in the sport.

Indeed they did. Remind me, wasn't it Stewart who won by four minutes at the 'Ring that time? Didn't Piquet get widely pilloried for his tactics in '87? Didn't Prost drive as quick as he bloody well could on many occasions, and Fangio too?

What is your point?

Originally posted by kar


and the quotes I supported my earlier comments with

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was a phase of races where he appeared to go backwards after the first stop, or when the team went on to option tyres. Silverstone and Brazil were good examples of this.

I don't know why. It is not as if he lost his talent half way through a race...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael did it beautifully; he took the wins and the glory when they were on offer and maximised the points when they weren't.

Schumacher always came through the field and made something out of nothing. We have yet to see Lewis really do that in F1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think those quotes support your translation...

"As Brundle put it very well in his recap of 2007s top drivers, Lewis didn't do anything magical he was merely exceptionally competent."

That is not at all the same. You have put words into his mouth to make it appear that he agrees with you, when he doesn't.

Originally posted by Lifew12


Indeed they did. Remind me, wasn't it Stewart who won by four minutes at the 'Ring that time? Didn't Piquet get widely pilloried for his tactics in '87? Didn't Prost drive as quick as he bloody well could on many occasions, and Fangio too?

What is your point?

I didn't say they never went quickly. I would have thought that that was pretty obviously not my point.

You said 'There is always the need for a driver to go as fast as he can - it's what each and every one should be doing.'

Jackie Stewart was, in the words of Stirling Moss, 'the first of the modern-style drivers, a man who drove fast enough to win but at the slowest possible speed'. That's debatable, as much the same has been said about Fangio, who never again wanted to drive as he had in pursuit of Hawthorn and Collins at the Nurburgring. Prost was famous for his pacing, and I think it was John Barnard who was hugely impressed by Prost finishing sixth in a race because he felt that that was best for the championship. Piquet... you agree with me?

Originally posted by santori


I didn't say they never went quickly. I would have thought that that was pretty obviously not my point.

You said 'There is always the need for a driver to go as fast as he can - it's what each and every one should be doing.'

Jackie Stewart was, in the words of Stirling Moss, 'the first of the modern-style drivers, a man who drove fast enough to win but at the slowest possible speed'. That's debatable, as much the same has been said about Fangio, who never again wanted to drive as he had in pursuit of Hawthorn and Collins at the Nurburgring. Prost was famous for his pacing, and I think it was John Barnard who was hugely impressed by Prost finishing sixth in a race because he felt that that was best for the championship. Piquet... you agree with me?

It seems the difference is in our respective interpretation of what an F1 driver should be doing. I have little regard for the Championship, and never have, as it seems to win it requires the participant to do the direct opposite of what I believe an F1 drivers job is - that is, to achieve the very best possible finish in each and every race. That can never be a place that could have been bettered, hence my intense dislike of 'driving for points'.

That Barnard was (and I don't know the origin of the quote) hugely impressed by Prost finishing sixth in those circumstances is, to me, completely and utterly mad; he should have been asking him why he didn't try harder!

I guess one can point to Lewis' effort at Shanghai as why he might have been proud. It showed that the driver was more interested in the result for the overall good of the championship and the team than his own pride.

While we want to see race winners and daring racing, the ultimate objective rightly or wrongly is championships.

Originally posted by kar
I guess one can point to Lewis' effort at Shanghai as why he might have been proud. It showed that the driver was more interested in the result for the overall good of the championship and the team than his own pride.

While we want to see race winners and daring racing, the ultimate objective rightly or wrongly is championships.

I disagree. the ultimate objective is winning races, beating your rivals. The Championship is (or should be) a mathematical result of such, and not something that should engender a driver to consider finishing third, or fourth.

Originally posted by Lifew12
That Barnard was (and I don't know the origin of the quote) hugely impressed by Prost finishing sixth in those circumstances is, to me, completely and utterly mad; he should have been asking him why he didn't try harder!

Is this the race where Prost finished 6th in a McLaren with bent engine mounts or something to that effect back in 85/86?? If that's what your talking about, it was actually a phenomenal performance he finished where he did.

Originally posted by Owen
Well he may have missed out on the WDC last year but he can add that accolade to this lot:

SQUARE MILE SPORT AWARDS 2007
Sports Person of the Year
SPORTS JOURNALIST ASSOCIATION
Sportsman of the Year
Best International Newcomer award
ITALIAN CONFARTIGIANATO MOTORI
Racing Driver of the Year
PRIDE OF BRITAIN
Most Inspiring Public Figure Award
GQ UK
Sportsman of the Year
GQ GERMANY
Man of the Year
BILD AM SONNTAG
Golden Steering Wheel Award for Outstanding Achievement
AUTOCAR AWARD
Motorsport Award
WALPOLE AWARDS FOR BRITISH EXCELLENCE 2007
British Sporting Excellence
F1 RACING MAGAZINE’S MAN OF THE YEAR AWARDS
Driver of the Year
Man of the Year
Rookie of the Year
Qualifier of the Year
Personality of the Year
AUTOSPORT AWARDS
Best British Competition Driver
Best International Racing Driver
Rookie of the Year
BRDC ANNUAL AWARDS
2007 Gold Star Winner
BBC EAST SPORTS AWARDS
Sports Personality of the Year

Despite the long list, I think he would swap all the nominations to just one achievement, championship ;)

Originally posted by kar
I guess one can point to Lewis' effort at Shanghai as why he might have been proud. It showed that the driver was more interested in the result for the overall good of the championship and the team than his own pride.

While we want to see race winners and daring racing, the ultimate objective rightly or wrongly is championships.

then we have to praise alonso even more...trying always to make a difference on track...barcelona, montreal, hungary, france...

Originally posted by Owen
Well he may have missed out on the WDC last year but he can add that accolade to this lot:

SQUARE MILE SPORT AWARDS 2007...

...Sports Personality of the Year

Great list. I think he came 2nd in Sports Personality of the Year, though. A bit of a surprise, but maybe Hammy Fatigue setting in by then

Originally posted by HSJ


Well, I would agree that there were effectively no stand-out driver performances in 2007, from anyone really. If pushed, I'd say Kovalainen at Fuji was special, and perhaps Nico in Brazil and Fisi in Monaco, but that's it.

Oh St. Lewis in Fuji you say? I can distinctly recall Kubica making a overtaking move on him, the faster driver trying to overtake the slower driver, but we all know how that turned out, don't we? Truth is both McL drivers were both fast and slow at Fuji, depending on exact timing and conditions on track.

Ok, that's your opinion, but I still think that the Fuji race was superb driving from Lewis. A rookie driving like that in the rain, despite not having the momentum going into the race is incredible. Not to mention the pressure for the WDC, which is bound to affect any driver.

Originally posted by undersquare


Great list. I think he came 2nd in Sports Personality of the Year, though. A bit of a surprise, but maybe Hammy Fatigue setting in by then

No, I think it was the Taffia out in numbers.

Originally posted by kar


Kimi won two races by overtaking his teammate, one race by overtaking both mclarens and on a day when the mclaren was the best car by some margin (hungary) he tenaciously pushed Lewis all the way to the flag. At almost any other circuit (other than hungary) lewis would have lost the race.

It's ridiculous to suggest Lewis was rubbish in 2007, but he wasn't as good as Kimi. As Brundle put it very well in his recap of 2007s top drivers, Lewis didn't do anything magical he was merely exceptionally competent. He didn't do a Kimi at Fuji, nor a Michael at Shanghai 06. Kimi made some mistakes but he also performed some miracles e.g. Fuji and Hungary. Lewis only made some (catastrophic) mistakes without any major redemption.

And for as average as Kimi was in some races (Bahrain / Barca) so too was Lewis when things weren't going his way, e.g. the ridiculousness at the Nurburgring, the chronically mediocre race pace at Silverstone, Monza, Spa, Magny Cours etc...

I think his rookie status should afford him some credit in terms of rating his performance in a relative sense. But taking it into account in terms of who actually performed the best in an aggregate measure over the whole season it is ridiculous.

I don't recall Kimi doing any overtaking on track, and much less for the lead. His overtakings in the pits may have been "special" but that was strategy at work, not overtaking at track.
So I don't quite understand why you give Lewis such a hard time for lack of overtaking while Kimi gets your approval despite not overtaking on track...

While Kimis drive in Fuji was excellent, it doesn't even come close to Michael at Shanghai, or Kimi in Suzuka 05 for that matter. Had it not been for the stupid accident by Vettel, he would have been 5th. A good race but not a classic race, not even close.

So I really don't understand where you get this idea of Kimi performing miracles (and mentioning Hungary is a joke), while Lewis was plain ordinary. His race pace may have not been stellar in Silverstone, but he did execute good overtakings on track in both Monza and Magny Cours for position. That's something I can't recall Raikkonen doing (on dry circuits).

Your opinion is that Kimi performed miracles this year while Lewis was a simple rookie. I fail to see the validity of both points when confronted with facts.

Originally posted by Claudius
I don't recall Kimi doing any overtaking on track

Heidfeld at T1 in Indy, and Coulthard on the outside of 100R in Fuji. Possibly more in Fuji as he climbed many places, although I can't remember any particular ones.

But you're right, he didn't pass many people on track this season. Then again, few drivers did, and most of those came from as a result of having to start from a way lower position than usual (Massa at Silverstone for example). Kimi only was in these conditions twice - Fuji where he did a good comeback and Monaco which didn't go so well as the track makes it really quite a challenge to pass there.

I think I'm going to open a thread on the best passes of 2007 later today, it's the sort of stuff I like to remember.

Originally posted by paranoik0


Heidfeld at T1 in Indy, and Coulthard on the outside of 100R in Fuji. Possibly more in Fuji as he climbed many places, although I can't remember any particular ones.

But you're right, he didn't pass many people on track this season. Then again, few drivers did, and most of those came from as a result of having to start from a way lower position than usual (Massa at Silverstone for example). Kimi only was in these conditions twice - Fuji where he did a good comeback and Monaco which didn't go so well as the track makes it really quite a challenge to pass there.

I think I'm going to open a thread on the best passes of 2007 later today, it's the sort of stuff I like to remember.

Thanks for the info about Heidfeld, that had slipped my mind.

OT And that sounds like a good thread. Heidfeld on Alonso in Bahrain would get my vote...

Originally posted by Claudius


Thanks for the info about Heidfeld, that had slipped my mind.

OT And that sounds like a good thread. Heidfeld on Alonso in Bahrain would get my vote...

Alonso on Heidfeld in countryside somewhere in France I liked the most.

Originally posted by Claudius



I don't recall Kimi doing any overtaking on track, and much less for the lead.

According to http://www.forix.com...r=20070015&c=11 Kimi overtook seven cars at Fuji on track (Yamamoto, Davidson, Ralf, Sutil, Fisichella, Heidfeld, Coulthard), most of them not shown on TV..... I remember watching formula1.com and my TV at turns, and "saw" on the timing screen that he passed both Fisi and Nick in the lap immediately after the 2nd safety car period - alas not shown on TV.

Of course he overtook Hamilton for the lead in China

Originally posted by MONTOYASPEED
And who worn down the tyres so much? Ron Dennis? Martin Whitmarsh? or Norbert Haug?

Lewis Hamilton did. That's why he was leading. That's also why they should have brought him in.

Originally posted by Ricardo F1
Lewis Hamilton did. That's why he was leading. That's also why they should have brought him in.

And that's why he lost any chance of winning the race...and ultimately the championship. He made the choice to push so hard and it was a mixture of arrogance and inexperience.

He paid a pretty heavy price for it.

Originally posted by Ricardo F1
Lewis Hamilton did. That's why he was leading. That's also why they should have brought him in.

You see now how nationalism comes to play ? , in your eyes Hamilton can do no wrong, it is someone else's fault but Hamilton , c'mom .... he knew that his tyres weren't good at all couple laps before his misfortune, so why didn't he kept calling the team to bring him in ???? , arrogance maybe ?...

Originally posted by kar


And that's why he lost any chance of winning the race...and ultimately the championship. He made the choice to push so hard and it was a mixture of arrogance and inexperience.

He paid a pretty heavy price for it.

With the weather being completely unpredictable, no-one was aiming for a particular lap to stop. Through pushing Hammy had 20 SECONDS in his pocket. Obviously a car being driven fast wears its tyres faster, but that wasn't a mistake. It would have been plenty to beat FA and probably win the race, but the team told him to stay out too long, and after Nurburgring he was bound to let the team call it.

He had 20seconds? When? When he was running away with 4-5 laps less fuel than Kimi and doing his best to annihilate his tyres? After the first stops - the only valid point of comparison - he had a mere 4 second advantage and toasted rubber for his efforts. In other words all that pushing and the phantom pole were but for nought.

Lap 20: Hamilton leads Raikkonen by 4.0 seconds. The top four remain as before.

It increased slightly to 5.3 as Lewis tried his best to completely obliterate his rubber then, as was inevitable he started to reap the benefits of his arrogance and inexperience.

Originally posted by kar


And that's why he lost any chance of winning the race...and ultimately the championship. He made the choice to push so hard and it was a mixture of arrogance and inexperience.

He paid a pretty heavy price for it.

And if the weather hadn't been so uncertain at that very moment in time, McLaren would have called him in as planned and all this might be different. Such is life. Or are you saying that at the beginning stint of the race Lewis Hamilton should have been going slow because he should know that at that precise moment the weather may or may not be changing . . .

Originally posted by kar
He had 20seconds? When? When he was running away with 4-5 laps less fuel than Kimi and doing his best to annihilate his tyres? After the first stops - the only valid point of comparison - he had a mere 4 second advantage and toasted rubber for his efforts. In other words all that pushing and the phantom pole were but for nought.



It increased slightly to 5.3 as Lewis tried his best to completely obliterate his rubber then, as was inevitable he started to reap the benefits of his arrogance and inexperience.

20 seconds over Fernando. Kimi wasn't a factor.

Originally posted by nestor
You see now how nationalism comes to play ?

Nope.

Originally posted by nestor
in your eyes Hamilton can do no wrong, it is someone else's fault but Hamilton , c'mom .... he knew that his tyres weren't good at all couple laps before his misfortune, so why didn't he kept calling the team to bring him in ???? , arrogance maybe ?...

You know for a fact that he didn't? He did do wrong, he beached the car in the gravel trap because he entered the pitlane too quickly. The team didn't want to bring him in because at the time no one could guess what tyres to put him back out on. What the hell that has to do with nationalism is beyond me.

Originally posted by undersquare


20 seconds over Fernando. Kimi wasn't a factor.

And that would be the arrogance I was talking about. Because that view of Kimi is what cost Hamilton the driver's title. And in any respect, we're talking precisely about Kimi vs Lewis I thought? My main argument is some (morons, I might add, e.g. Peter Windsor) consider Lewis' drive in Shanghai _superior_ to that of Kimi.

The data overwhelmingly shows Kimi and Ferrari rather outshone Lewis both in terms of outright pace, as well as race nous.

Said morons point at Monaco and Bahrain as justification for why Kimi cannot be considered to have done better than Lewis in 2007. I would in contrast point to Shanghai, Fuji and Interlagos as to how Lewis equally could not be, and Kimi really ought to be.

Originally posted by undersquare


20 seconds over Fernando. Kimi wasn't a factor.

Rather: he wasn't considered a factor ;)

Originally posted by kar
The data overwhelmingly shows Kimi and Ferrari rather outshone Lewis both in terms of outright pace, as well as race nous.

Outright pace?

What data?

Originally posted by kar


And that would be the arrogance I was talking about.

But who's arrogance - whose decision was it to stay out - his, or the teams? Personally, I thought he took a calculated risk; just like Kimi a couple of years ago at the 'ring, it didn't pay off.

You, however, see taking risk, as I read it, as a failure, Sad, really.

Originally posted by scheivlak

Rather: he wasn't considered a factor ;)

Well yes, but in the context of Shanghai Hammy just had to beat Fernando, then he would automatically have been close enough to Kimi, so no need to worry about him. As was famously said, he was basically racing Fernando : .

Originally posted by undersquare


Well yes, but in the context of Shanghai Hammy just had to beat Fernando, then he would automatically have been close enough to Kimi, so no need to worry about him. As was famously said, he was basically racing Fernando : .

But, as said before, what a sad attitude; in fact, he was racing 21 other cars, in order to win, cross the line first, beat them all.

Originally posted by kar


And that would be the arrogance I was talking about. Because that view of Kimi is what cost Hamilton the driver's title. And in any respect, we're talking precisely about Kimi vs Lewis I thought? My main argument is some (morons, I might add, e.g. Peter Windsor) consider Lewis' drive in Shanghai _superior_ to that of Kimi.

The data overwhelmingly shows Kimi and Ferrari rather outshone Lewis both in terms of outright pace, as well as race nous.

Said morons point at Monaco and Bahrain as justification for why Kimi cannot be considered to have done better than Lewis in 2007. I would in contrast point to Shanghai, Fuji and Interlagos as to how Lewis equally could not be, and Kimi really ought to be.

We're debating your idea that at Shanghai Hammy foolishly used up his tyres while Kimi and Fernando were the wise virgins deliberately going slowly.

Kimi's Ferrari can't be compared because it was inherently easier on its tyres. In the same car FA was 20 seconds behind, which was obviously not deliberate. Some of it was forced by being behind Massa, in fact. Hammy only needed to be pitted 2 laps earlier than he was to have kept a huge lead over FA, there was nothing wrong with how hard he pushed.