If Hamilton doesn't have the car to challenge for the title this year

If he doesn't have the car this year I expect to see more of this

Originally posted by Chiara
Well he shouldn't have any problems against Kimi if this report is anything to go by ;)

http://en.f1-live.co...302125750.shtml

Hamilton better than Raikkonen, Williams suggests
''Kimi's weakness is that he is not that interested''
02/03/08 12:57

Lewis Hamilton is a better driver than F1's reigning world champion Kimi Raikkonen, the boss of the British Formula One team Williams has suggested.

Sir Frank Williams told reporters at a media lunch in London last week that rivals McLaren will have some consolation this season if Ferrari's F2008 turns out as expected to be a quicker package.

Referring to 23-year-old rookie Hamilton, the 2007 championship runner up, Williams is quoted as saying by the Daily Record: "If the Ferrari is the better car this year, McLaren should be saying to themselves 'Thank god he is not in a Ferrari, otherwise there would be no point going racing'."

Williams, 65, is reluctant to declare decisively that Raikkonen, the Finnish driver, is simply not as good as Hamilton.

"I don't know Kimi well. He is a gifted driver, as good as anyone, but Kimi's weakness is that he is not that interested.

"So if a man of equal skill, let's say, turns up in an identical car, with one working harder than the other, it is more likely that that man would have the upper hand," he added.

Source: GMM
© CAPSIS International

Williams said October 8th 2006: "But he [Kimi] hasn't taken it seriously enough, which I find very sad. I don't follow what he does when he's away, but Michael's approach is different to Kimi's and maybe that's the more professional."

Source:
http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/55021

It looks like Sir Frank Williams is a true armchair expert - permanently.

Originally posted by Ural




Williams said October 8th 2006: "But he [Kimi] hasn't taken it seriously enough, which I find very sad. I don't follow what he does when he's away, but Michael's approach is different to Kimi's and maybe that's the more professional."

Source:
http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/55021

It looks like Sir Frank Williams is a true armchair expert - permanently.

am i understanding this right? is this comment a dig at Frank for being handicapped? if it is, that is in very bad taste. if its not sorry i didnt understand the remark

Originally posted by ex Rhodie racer
I can see it already.
"It has been acknowledged as fact by most F1 insiders, that the racist taunts suffered by Lewis, at the hands of Spanish government paid agitators, has contributed to his poor performances this season", reported the Daily Telegraph.
" I know I shouldn´t have let it get to me", said Hamilton, "but when Fernando refused to condemn their disgusting behaviour, I just lost all hope in humanity".
MacLaren have decided to sell their simulator in order to generate funds in order to pay for professional help for their star driver.
"It´s all that Spanish upstarts fault", Ron Dennis was heard to mutter as he packed his bags and handed in the keys to his company car.

Don't quit your day job.

Originally posted by Ural




Williams said October 8th 2006: "But he [Kimi] hasn't taken it seriously enough, which I find very sad. I don't follow what he does when he's away, but Michael's approach is different to Kimi's and maybe that's the more professional."

Source:
http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/55021

It looks like Sir Frank Williams is a true armchair expert - permanently.

Truly a pathetic comment from a total asshat.

Originally posted by steelyman


am i understanding this right? is this comment a dig at Frank for being handicapped? if it is, that is in very bad taste. if its not sorry i didnt understand the remark

It's a joke, bad one I admit! Sir Frank is always a very correct, cool and analytical and I don't believe he has said those words about Räikkönen!

Originally posted by Ural


It's a joke, bad one I admit! Sir Frank is always a very correct, cool and analytical and I don't believe he has said those words about Räikkönen!

i see

Sir Frank. maybe kimi can win another and make Frank think again

HEY!

This is a Hamilton bashing thread not a Kimi or Sir Frank bashing thread!

Lets please keep our intolerant & biased remarks aimed at Lewis only.

Thanks in advance

Frank B.

Originally posted by steelyman


i see

Sir Frank. maybe kimi can win another and make Frank think again

I haven't use english for a while and also missed the question mark in my comment!

... then he will be battling Alonso again ;)

Originally posted by MarkWRX


Don't quit your day job.

I don´t intend to. Journalism is my life.;)

Originally posted by HSJ
Says you. But then you're a JV fan. LH did what JV did in 96, nothing more. The transition from GP2 to F1 and champ cars to F1 would have been of similar magnitude, and they both had overrated (but in the right car WDC capable) teammates, which then made them look good. But in LH's case he should have more development potential than JV, so I'm not expecting identical career development in his case compared to JV.

LH did exactly what JV did in 1996, yes your right. Except I think he did even better and Villeneuve in his own right was exceptional and sometimes downright brilliant (pole on debut, overtaking MS around the outside at Estoril to win the race......). So Lewis was pretty special. One things for sure, they both were light years ahead of Raikkonen's debut year, against Heidfeld I believe......

In terms of career develpment, Hamilton should surpass Villeneuve should he not take Jacques route and go to a start up team which eventually ruined his best years. I didn't expect you to know that though, given I'm pretty confident you didn't even watch F1 at the time. Of course, according to you, Jacques just got worse after his World title in 1997 didn't he? Yes of course, the car had nothing to do with it, even though he was exceptional for quite a while with shitboxes......

Hill and Alonso only capable of titles in the right car? Here's a hint, that goes for almost every driver in the history of the sport, apart from the rare occasions such as Prost in 1986. Raikkonen falls in the Hill/Alonso category (and everyone else), not Alain Prost in 1986.

So what's the difference? Also KR's teammate is hardly a world beater, is he? Oh right, now he is hey!

Originally posted by HSJ


Says you. But then you're a JV fan. LH did what JV did in 96, nothing more. The transition from GP2 to F1 and champ cars to F1 would have been of similar magnitude, and they both had overrated (but in the right car WDC capable) teammates, which then made them look good. But in LH's case he should have more development potential than JV, so I'm not expecting identical career development in his case compared to JV.
.

Hill was never overrated. You wouldnt know that because you never watched the sport back then. JV was never rated as high as Hamilton is now and thats because of who his team mate is. JV was never rated as the next schumacher even after 97.

Originally posted by Durant


Hill was never overrated. You wouldnt know that because you never watched the sport back then. JV was never rated as high as Hamilton is now and thats because of who his team mate is. JV was never rated as the next schumacher even after 97.

Yes I agree.

Originally posted by Durant


Hill was never overrated. You wouldnt know that because you never watched the sport back then. JV was never rated as high as Hamilton is now and thats because of who his team mate is. JV was never rated as the next schumacher even after 97.

and that is correct. Hamilton is rated THAT highly because, for one, he is THAT impressive, against Alonso who has beaten Schumacher to a World title. For another, there is no Schumacher around to be compared to. Hamilton is being compared to the likes of Raikkonen and he has not shown the certain brilliance that MS showed on so many occasions. Therefore given his rookie year, is it any wonder Hamilton is talked up as the next Schumacher/Senna/whoever?

Originally posted by former champ


and that is correct. Hamilton is rated THAT highly because, for one, he is THAT impressive, against Alonso who has beaten Schumacher to a World title. For another, there is no Schumacher around to be compared to. Hamilton is being compared to the likes of Raikkonen and he has not shown the certain brilliance that MS showed on so many occasions. Therefore given his rookie year, is it any wonder Hamilton is talked up as the next Schumacher/Senna/whoever?

I have to agree here he did have a good year and showed signs of absolute brilliance, especially in qualifing. HE pulled out some stunning OT moves i really can see why people talk him up. Also this was his rooky year I know he was in one of the best cars but still he matched Alonso thats impressive in my books. Alonso of track may have some flaws but his driving is STUNNING to match that is very impressive!

I dont think Hamilton is that loyal to any team, but i really wouldnt expect to see him in Ferrari ever. Also i think people are underestimating Kimi or Alonso based on what they saw last year. No doubt Hamilton had a very impressive year, but his two main oponents were struggling at some points. Hamilton does deserve a title at least once in his career since he is working so hard for it, but between him and Kimi, i would pick Kimi any day

Originally posted by hobbes
I dont think Hamilton is that loyal to any team, but i really wouldnt expect to see him in Ferrari ever. Also i think people are underestimating Kimi or Alonso based on what they saw last year. No doubt Hamilton had a very impressive year, but his two main oponents were struggling at some points. Hamilton does deserve a title at least once in his career since he is working so hard for it, but between him and Kimi, i would pick Kimi any day

I don't think you can compare the 2 yet. Hamilton has only had one season. So you can only compare him right now to other drivers' rookie seasons. And his was certainly better than Raikkonen's. But like I said, too early to tell acurately. Some drivers develop more from their initial level than others. Many of the real talents of the sport have really come good in their second/third season (in terms of consistancy, having already shown glimpses of their skills), Raikkonen, Montoya, Schumacher, Alonso for example.

Originally posted by Chiara
Well he shouldn't have any problems against Kimi if this report is anything to go by ;)

http://en.f1-live.co...302125750.shtml

Hamilton better than Raikkonen, Williams suggests
''Kimi's weakness is that he is not that interested''
02/03/08 12:57

[skipped...]

Referring to 23-year-old rookie Hamilton, the 2007 championship runner up
[skipped...]

Source: GMM
© CAPSIS International

I see he's still a rookie....

Williams: If the Ferrari is the better car this year, McLaren should be saying to themselves 'Thank god he is not in a Ferrari, otherwise there would be no point going racing'.

me: I agree. McLaren lost Alonso. Had they lost Lewis too they wuold be in trouble. There are not many drivers in F1 who could give Kimi a serious threat on equal car.

Williams: "I don't know Kimi well. He is a gifted driver, as good as anyone, but Kimi's weakness is that he is not that interested.

me: Indeed that's how it looks. But he seems to be very interested of driving and Ferrari to have him doing this.

Williams: "So if a man of equal skill, let's say, turns up in an identical car, with one working harder than the other, it is more likely that that man would have the upper hand,"

me: That's likely true but as you said, you dont really know Kimi. I wonder what you think about your star lineup of Ralf and Montoya now? Both are out of the sport once they faced other teammates.

Originally posted by MONTOYASPEED
FORZA KIMI!

Originally posted by Risil
OMG TROLL

I wonder if the retired F1 guys troll here as well

Then we'll likely have a friendly scrap with Kimi and Massa for the title.

Even if Hamilton and Kimi get along, the old Mclaren vs Ferrari battle is what will make the season exciting, can Mclaren win without cheating, the redemption of the team vs Ferrari's almighty post Schumacher beefed up Italy sandwich family fun package of family spirit.

I dunno...it seems that in F1 once a label is attached to a driver (often incorrectly) is will follow him throughout his career. Kimi gained the reputation of not being that interested in testing and feedback but all the testing stats would say otherwise. When he arrived at Ferrari he did the most testing KM's and this year again he's at the top of the list. To me that states commitment and professionalism. After all if he wasn't any good then Ferrari would test Badoer/Massa more. From what I hear, Kimi's feedback is all about quality than quantity, straight to the point, no nonsense.

Massa gained the label of being weak at testing and that followed him alot until the last couple of seasons.

But once the label is attached the press keep hold of it and it goes around the world. Suddenly posters on forums take the press articles as being factual and use it as the basis of their argument as to why a certain driver is weak or slow. The strangest thing is that people take the 3rd party sources as fact, journalists and other people in the paddock often don't even work with these drivers and don't know anything about how they work etc yet they have some clout with the media. I find it completely astonishing that some people in the paddock (not SFW) can make claims like driver "A" is lazy/unprofessional/lacks motivation without ever working with them and sitting in with them in a testing debrief etc. At the end of the day the only people's opinion that matter are the people directly around the driver who work with him, namely the chief engineer, designers, team boss etc.

Kimi somehow got the label at Sauber in his first season and it stuck but people forget that he was a rookie in his first season of F1 coming from Formula Renault! I can't imagine a 19(?) year old kid coming from Formula Renault being strong in giving F1 testing feedback until at least his third season. Even in his second year at McLaren Kimi was in a different car and only coming to grips with testing and would only start to become confident in his testing feedback and the direction he was giving his engineers.

Originally posted by F1Champion
I dunno...it seems that in F1 once a label is attached to a driver (often incorrectly) is will follow him throughout his career.

Dunno.

Mansell, and even Prost had a loser label for years. 2007 Raikkonen stripped off his car breaker label. 1986 Rosberg lost his worldbeater label, as well as Montoya his at McLaren.

And so on.

Originally posted by abc
Gewählter Zeitraum: 01.01.2007 - 15.03.2007
Zeitraum ändern

Pos. Fahrer Testkilometer
1. Kimi Räikkönen 6.384
2. Felipe Massa 5.564
3. Jenson Button 5.543

The winter off-season did not start on January 1st but in October.

Originally posted by former champ
Don't agree with any of that to be honest abc. It seems that simply because Raikkonen had 2 DNF's, that automatically makes the McLaren a superior car. That's the general vibe around here from KR's fans. Well in my book it does not and I would have thought it was clear to see that in terms of speed, Ferrari had an advantage (however big or small) more often than not.

An advantage that Raikkonen (and Massa) didn't always make the best of. Had Raikkonen had 8 dnf's, I'd agree that McLaren had the better package. However 2 dnf's are not the end of the world and don't dictate what the Ferrari was for Raikkonen at all the other races.

BTW Schumacher had Massa covered in a way that Raikkonen simply didn't. If KR is as good as we are led to believe, he should take care of Massa in a similar way to Schuey in 06. Let's see, I won't say it can't happen until we see this year.....

What someone needs to do is make a chart for all gps, and show where the ferrari suffered and where Mclaren gained.

When Mclaren had time to find in 2007, at least they were consistently more reliable then ferrari for most of the season. And when ferrari suffered, like Monaco, they really suffered. Ferrari wasn't good in certain corners, they were off the pace at times, other times Mclaren were fast enough to keep in touch and apply pressure, and that is a useful position to be in.

Even when Kimi won Silverstone, he had to really work on his fastest laps like Schumacher did to overcome his rival Alonso, Mclaren got the pole. Some races were not straightforward wins for Ferrari, this must be considered also.

Originally posted by SeanValen



What someone needs to do is make a chart for all gps, and show where the ferrari suffered and where Mclaren gained.

When Mclaren had time to find in 2007, at least they were consistently more reliable then ferrari for most of the season. And when ferrari suffered, like Monaco, they really suffered. Ferrari wasn't good in certain corners, they were off the pace at times, other times Mclaren were fast enough to keep in touch and apply pressure, and that is a useful position to be in.

Even when Kimi won Silverstone, he had to really work on his fastest laps like Schumacher did to overcome his rival Alonso, Mclaren got the pole. Some races were not straightforward wins for Ferrari, this must be considered also.

An interesting thread for this debate, if I do say so myself ...

And as an aside, I like the way you shoe horned Schumacher into that post Sean right at the end. I was begining to worry that you wouldn't manage it ...

Originally posted by former champ
Don't agree with any of that to be honest abc. It seems that simply because Raikkonen had 2 DNF's, that automatically makes the McLaren a superior car. That's the general vibe around here from KR's fans. Well in my book it does not and I would have thought it was clear to see that in terms of speed, Ferrari had an advantage (however big or small) more often than not.

An advantage that Raikkonen (and Massa) didn't always make the best of. Had Raikkonen had 8 dnf's, I'd agree that McLaren had the better package. However 2 dnf's are not the end of the world and don't dictate what the Ferrari was for Raikkonen at all the other races.

When the difference between the top three drivers totals to 1 Point, even if 2 dnfs are not the end of the world, they are very significant as Kimi could have atleast got 12 points (6 pts for third in two races) if you consider the top three.

In my opinion, Kimi won the WDC similar to that of Schumi in 2003 (bad first half with mistakes and less reliability) along with an incredible mistake free comeback in the second half of the season to win the WDC.

So, long story short, if you think that Lewis was better than Kimi last year(I agree to that), I presume, you would agreethat Kimi was better that Schumi in 2003 ( driving a year old mclaren MP-4 17D)

BTW Schumacher had Massa covered in a way that Raikkonen simply didn't. If KR is as good as we are led to believe, he should take care of Massa in a similar way to Schuey in 06. Let's see, I won't say it can't happen until we see this year.....

This is not a valid comparison as Schumi had been driving for ferrari for 10 years and knows the in and Outs of the team and More importantly 100 % confidence in the handling of the Car. Also, Massa was driving a good car for the first time in his career and hence the big gap.

If you remember, Kimi (3 yrs with Mclaren) trounced Montoya in a similar way (even worse to be frank) in the year 2005-2006.

Further, You can't compare Kimi's ability to that of Schumi since it's not realistic to assume that Massa's performance is exactly the same in 2006 and 2007

Originally posted by former champ

Therefore given his rookie year, is it any wonder Hamilton is talked up as the next Schumacher/Senna/whoever?

To even mention Hamiltons name, at this stage of his career, in the same sentence as Schumacher and Senna is absolutely laughable. The only people talking Hamilton "up" are the stupid Brit press. Their agenda should be quite obvious to all but the very ********. Shades of Moss I´m afraid.

Originally posted by Nevermind
In my opinion, Kimi won the WDC similar to that of Schumi in 2003 (bad first half with mistakes and less reliability) along with an incredible mistake free comeback in the second half of the season to win the WDC.

So, long story short, if you think that Lewis was better than Kimi last year(I agree to that), I presume, you would agreethat Kimi was better that Schumi in 2003 ( driving a year old mclaren MP-4 17D)

Firstly, I don't think Lewis Hamilton was better than Kimi last year. I've stated in numerous threads that Raikkonen was the driver of the year for me, based on his brilliant 2nd half of the year. Lewis is a close second but I still gave Raikkonen the nod, where he came from to snatch the World title was exceptional.

In terms of 2003 though, I don't agree that Kimi was better than Schumacher. Not in the slightest. For one, MS won 6 races to Kimi's 1. For another, the points system was changed and this was to Schumacher's disadvantage. On top of that, Ferrari's form fluctuated alot through the year and at certain times both BMW Williams and McLaren were thereabouts, it was an open year. That said, the right man won the WDC given he won 6 races, it would have been a farce had Kimi snatched it with 1 win to his name.

Raikkonen was impressive in 03 but I rate last year and his 2005 season (not to mention his 04 win at Spa) as far more impressive and a genuine showcase of his abilities. He was consistent in 03 but benefited not just from Ferrari being all over the place but also BMW Williams and Montoya making one too many errors.

Originally posted by ex Rhodie racer

To even mention Hamiltons name, at this stage of his career, in the same sentence as Schumacher and Senna is absolutely laughable. The only people talking Hamilton "up" are the stupid Brit press. Their agenda should be quite obvious to all but the very ********. Shades of Moss I´m afraid.

I'm not mentioning him in the same sentence as them in terms of how good he is. The jury is still out on that. My post was in reference to what others compare him to at this stage. That's all. Given his rookie year, I can see why.

Originally posted by SuperFastKimi
How will the British media react?

They'll point out the "unfair" fine, how it has "crippled" the team, and paint Lewis and Mclaren as valiant underdogs who are fighting the evil forces of the entire universe--with one hand tied behind their backs, no less--to bring glory to the great British empire.

Yeah, that's about it. Any other questions?

Originally posted by giacomo
The winter off-season did not start on January 1st but in October.

But then you obviously need to take into account that KR and FA could not test (much) prior to January due to them switching teams.

Turun Sanomat has listed this year's numbers:

Nick Heidfeld BMW 6168 km (19 päivää)

Heikki Kovalainen McLaren 6083 km (17)

Kazuki Nakajima Williams 5882 km (18)

Timo Glock Toyota 5868 km (16)

Kimi Räikkönen Ferrari 5719 km (16)

Robert Kubica BMW 5632 km (15)

Mark Webber Red Bull 5440 km (17)

Nico Rosberg Williams 5415 km (15)

Lewis Hamilton McLaren 5407 km (14)

Felipe Massa Ferrari 5376 km (15)

Sebastien Bourdais Toro Rosso 5138 km (14)

Fernando Alonso Renault 4967 km (15)

Taking into account that Kimi lost 2 days due to being sick, he has tested a lot again. Had he done the whole planned program, he'd probably have done the most mileage of all drivers again.Turun Sanomat

Based on the "jury is still out" Hamilton critiques here, all I can say is it seems like some people that are "racing fans" should probably just read the stats of races (ala baseball fans) and not even bother watching the races - it would be easier for you.

When he was in GP2 - killing - I posted on Another Known Board "why isn't anyone talking about him?"... Then here and elsewhere post season "this is THE GUY next year", and unanimously got "there's no way, "not going to happen", "rookie", blah blah blah...

Ok, fine, maybe most didn't watch him in GP2.

But now, after seeing him drive last year - you're still unconvinced he's "the Real Deal"????

Why do I get the feeling, years from now, after having won WDC's - you guys are still going to be trying to find fault? You want to cite his "error" in China, obviating the part about keeping up with Kimi on tires that effectively were no longer tires, but just canvas/Kevlar-aramid bags?

Don't you *watch* them drive????

Is this why the concern over testing times is so rabid?

Originally posted by Rubens Hakkamacher
Based on the "jury is still out" Hamilton critiques here, all I can say is it seems like some people that are "racing fans" should probably just read the stats of races (ala baseball fans) and not even bother watching the races - it would be easier for you.

When he was in GP2 - killing - I posted on Another Known Board "why isn't anyone talking about him?"... Then here and elsewhere post season "this is THE GUY next year", and unanimously got "there's no way, "not going to happen", "rookie", blah blah blah...

Ok, fine, maybe most didn't watch him in GP2.

But now, after seeing him drive last year - you're still unconvinced he's "the Real Deal"????

Why do I get the feeling, years from now, after having won WDC's - you guys are still going to be trying to find fault? You want to cite his "error" in China, obviating the part about keeping up with Kimi on tires that effectively were no longer tires, but just canvas/Kevlar-aramid bags?

Don't you *watch* them drive????

Is this why the concern over testing times is so rabid?

Hamilton had excellent rookie year in 2007, no doubt. But the "jury is still out" simply because this was just one year (and because it was a year with the best or equal best car), that is not enough to put him in a category of drivers who have proved themselvs year after year. For example, remember Villeneuves debut in 96? With a logic like yours, he should have been considered as good as Senna etc after that year. Now if Hamilton wins WDC this year, he will actually equal JVs achievements in F1 (2nd in rookie year, champ in second year), so then it might be appropriate to call him as good as JV, but even after that he will still have a long way to go before he can be compared to legends of the sport, remember how JVs career proceeded? BTW I watched him racing in GP2 (even watched the Barcelona race in person) and he was very good, that´s why I too predicted he will do fine in F1 before he raced his first GP.

Originally posted by Rubens Hakkamacher

When he was in GP2 - killing - I posted on Another Known Board "why isn't anyone talking about him?"... Then here and elsewhere post season "this is THE GUY next year", and unanimously got "there's no way, "not going to happen", "rookie", blah blah blah...

Do you have any particular stocks or horses you like in the next few weeks?

Originally posted by yr


Hamilton had excellent rookie year in 2007, no doubt. But the "jury is still out" simply because this was just one year (and because it was a year with the best or equal best car), that is not enough to put him in a category of drivers who have proved themselvs year after year. For example, remember Villeneuves debut in 96? With a logic like yours, he should have been considered as good as Senna etc after that year. Now if Hamilton wins WDC this year, he will actually equal JVs achievements in F1 (2nd in rookie year, champ in second year), so then it might be appropriate to call him as good as JV, but even after that he will still have a long way to go before he can be compared to legends of the sport, remember how JVs career proceeded? BTW I watched him racing in GP2 (even watched the Barcelona race in person) and he was very good, that´s why I too predicted he will do fine in F1 before he raced his first GP.

Ummm So how does someone like Gilles Villeneuve factor into this neat analysis of yours if you don't mind me asking?

Originally posted by Fatgadget


Ummm So how does someone like Gilles Villeneuve factor into this neat analysis of yours if you don't mind me asking?

Well, I for one am not convinced that great stats means great driver and vice versa, I´m Kimi fan after all and it took him quite long to win his first WDC

So GV has nothing to do with it. I merely tried to point out that one (or two) good season(s) isnt enough to immediately earn you a status alongside with Schumi, Senna etc.

One season is way too short time to give a verdict on a driver. He did well to beat Alonso over the season, but how do we know how much Alonso underperformed? He certainly didnt feel like home at Mclaren and he seems quite fragile on menatal side, so perhaps his perfomances were not that outstanding and thus Hamilton matching him wasnt toughest challenge ever, we just all thought that matching double WDC automatically means brilliant perfomances. I´m not saying this was the case, only that its one possibility, but that is why we cant really judge a driver after one season. Lets see some more seasons before we announce Hamilton as one of best ever, shall we?

Originally posted by yr


Well, I for one am not convinced that great stats means great driver and vice versa, I´m Kimi fan after all and it took him quite long to win his first WDC

So GV has nothing to do with it. I merely tried to point out that one (or two) good season(s) isnt enough to immediately earn you a status alongside with Schumi, Senna etc.

One season is way too short time to give a verdict on a driver. He did well to beat Alonso over the season, but how do we know how much Alonso underperformed? He certainly didnt feel like home at Mclaren and he seems quite fragile on menatal side, so perhaps his perfomances were not that outstanding and thus Hamilton matching him wasnt toughest challenge ever, we just all thought that matching double WDC automatically means brilliant perfomances. I´m not saying this was the case, only that its one possibility, but that is why we cant really judge a driver after one season. Lets see some more seasons before we announce Hamilton as one of best ever, shall we?

To me there's a big difference between a "the jury is still out" on Hamilton in the grand scheme of F1 history and Hamilton in F1 today. With regard to the former, I think it's absolutely fair enough to say the jury is still out (in fact, the jury hasn't even convened yet) on his position in F1 history other than to say "one of the best rookie seasons of all time". So I completely agree with your final sentence.

With regards to the latter, I think that even though it was just one season, the fact that season was rookie versus one of F1's best (if not the best) drivers, means that its fair to say at this point that Hamilton is one of the top drivers in F1 - and I don't think the jury is out on that one.

Originally posted by Gareth

To me there's a big difference between a "the jury is still out" on Hamilton in the grand scheme of F1 history and Hamilton in F1 today. With regard to the former, I think it's absolutely fair enough to say the jury is still out (in fact, the jury hasn't even convened yet) on his position in F1 history other than to say "one of the best rookie seasons of all time". So I completely agree with your final sentence.

With regards to the latter, I think that even though it was just one season, the fact that season was rookie versus one of F1's best (if not the best) drivers, means that its fair to say at this point that Hamilton is one of the top drivers in F1 - and I don't think the jury is out on that one.

Fair enough I'd say. There is no denying the truly sensational impression he gave last year, all things considered.

We will certainly be a bit wiser after this year.. and another bit after three years, and so on.

Although I have to say with his interview on the frontpage he just missed another opportunity to keep quiet and concentrate on the essentials. I really wonder what he's trying to achieve with that kind of talk. So far, everytime he was talking up himself it backfired on him: "Monaco is my race"... ouch / "Alonso the evil" (before Spa)... ouch / comparing his mindset to Kimi's... ouch / "I'm not fighting KR" (Saturday in Brazil)... ouch.

Not that I personally have anything against that trend to continue.

;)

Originally posted by Fatgadget


Ummm So how does someone like Gilles Villeneuve factor into this neat analysis of yours if you don't mind me asking?

Gilles Villeneuve is one of the most overrated drivers ever IMO.

*runs for cover*

Originally posted by Suntrek


Gilles Villeneuve is one of the most overrated drivers ever IMO.

*runs for cover*

Absolutely not true IMO. I watched him on several occasions and he was a hard charger with awesome car control. If he had a fault it was that he drove with his heart and not his head, but then he was a racer through and through.

Originally posted by yr


Hamilton had excellent rookie year in 2007, no doubt. But the "jury is still out" simply because this was just one year (and because it was a year with the best or equal best car), that is not enough to put him in a category of drivers who have proved themselvs year after year. For example, remember Villeneuves debut in 96? With a logic like yours, he should have been considered as good as Senna etc after that year. Now if Hamilton wins WDC this year, he will actually equal JVs achievements in F1 (2nd in rookie year, champ in second year), so then it might be appropriate to call him as good as JV, but even after that he will still have a long way to go before he can be compared to legends of the sport, remember how JVs career proceeded? BTW I watched him racing in GP2 (even watched the Barcelona race in person) and he was very good, that´s why I too predicted he will do fine in F1 before he raced his first GP.

The only problem with all that is, you and I both know Villeneuve shot his career in the foot with the move to the new BAR team and then stayed loyal to them. After 1997 (and later on) he was truly seen as a great driver. He was never the next Schumacher or Senna but how could he be with MS racing against him? When MS went up against Senna, no one called him the 'next Senna', did they? The Senna's and Schumachers are rare as it is but given neither of them are on the grid now, its not surprising Hamilton is talked up the way he is.

Lewis has already proven he's a great driver. The jury is not out on that. Whether he's the next Schumacher remains to be seen. Yet, unless he goes and does a 'Villeneuve', I'd say its a sure bet where this driver's career is headed. Multiple titles most likely. The only thing that will stop him will be the only thing that stopped Jacques, a stupid decision and loyalty.

Personally, I don't think Hamilton is stupid enough to do that. Therefore he will become a major force in F1. He's already proven he is.....

Originally posted by former champ


The only problem with all that is, you and I both know Villeneuve shot his career in the foot with the move to the new BAR team and then stayed loyal to them. After 1997 (and later on) he was truly seen as a great driver. He was never the next Schumacher or Senna but how could he be with MS racing against him? When MS went up against Senna, no one called him the 'next Senna', did they? The Senna's and Schumachers are rare as it is but given neither of them are on the grid now, its not surprising Hamilton is talked up the way he is.

Lewis has already proven he's a great driver. The jury is not out on that. Whether he's the next Schumacher remains to be seen. Yet, unless he goes and does a 'Villeneuve', I'd say its a sure bet where this driver's career is headed. Multiple titles most likely. The only thing that will stop him will be the only thing that stopped Jacques, a stupid decision and loyalty.

Personally, I don't think Hamilton is stupid enough to do that. Therefore he will become a major force in F1. He's already proven he is.....

My only point was that you cant consider a driver as "great" after only one season, even after having a best/equal best car and thus fighting for wins all year. For example Damon Hill was 3rd in WDC in his rookie year, behind Prost and Senna, but above Schumacher. Hill isnt one of the greates ever by any strech of the imagination but he was beaten only by two legends of the sport and he himself beat a legend in making, so that should give you some clue how much a great car can make it easier for the rookie to shine.

There are dozens of ways for LH to have only mediocre career despite his brilliant debut season. First one, and propably only bigger problem in his arsenal as a driver, was his total f@ck up when he had a chance to grab the title, that does raise some questions about his ability to deal with pressure. Perhaps it was because he was rookie, but it remains to be seen how he will cope if title is decided in last race and he doesnt have any points advantage, will he do mistakes again? Schumacher BTW had the same weakness, whenever WDC went to last race, he used to crash against the other title contender (94, 97) or stall on the grid (98) or just drove like it was first time in a racing car in his life (03). That didnt do much harm for his stats though as he had it his way in 94 and 03, rest of his titles came with more or less dominant car so he didnt need to deal with pressure. If Hamilton doesnt have such a luxury (have a dominant car for multiply years) he may have hard time winning the title even once.

Then there´s of course possibility of wrong career choises as was the case with Villeneuve, but I doubt that will occur unless Mclaren somehow drops the ball. That doesnt seem very likely, but who would have thought back in 79 that it will take 21 years for Ferrari to win title again? Who would have thought after Williams dominated sport in mid 90´s that they will not be even runner-ups for a decade, if ever again? If he then wants to change a team its not granted he will get a seat from current top team(s), just ask 2xWDC Fernando. Should he then stuck in midfield for rest of his career with Mclaren, he wont be rememberd after his career is over as a great driver.

That´s why one year is not enough to say anything more than "he had great debut year". Lets see some more of his career, ok?

Like Murray said: "anything can happen in F1 and it usually does".

Originally posted by yr

Schumacher BTW had the same weakness, whenever WDC went to last race, he used to crash against the other title contender (94, 97) or stall on the grid (98) or just drove like it was first time in a racing car in his life (03).

You're being a bit 'harsh' on Schumacher there, two of those occasions (94, 97) were hardly down to nerves. Rather like Monaco '06, Schumacher had a split second in which to concede defeat or commit a professional foul.

Originally posted by Orin


You're being a bit 'harsh' on Schumacher there, two of those occasions (94, 97) were hardly down to nerves. Rather like Monaco '06, Schumacher had a split second in which to concede defeat or commit a professional foul.

Professional foul thats a nice way of saying cheated...

Anyway in 2006 Brazil I think he drove one of the best races of his career, and that was a title fight to the last race (no matter how remote a chance).

Originally posted by Orin


You're being a bit 'harsh' on Schumacher there, two of those occasions (94, 97) were hardly down to nerves. Rather like Monaco '06, Schumacher had a split second in which to concede defeat or commit a professional foul.

In 94 MS just went off on his own while clear in the lead, it was a classic pressure mistake. The annoying Hammy-bashers who were crowing "choker" after Fuji all seemed blissfully unaware of the precedent.

Originally posted by undersquare


In 94 MS just went off on his own while clear in the lead, it was a classic pressure mistake. The annoying Hammy-bashers who were crowing "choker" after Fuji all seemed blissfully unaware of the precedent.

Ah yes, I withdraw '94.
[the post contained a smidgen of irony anyway ;) ]

Mika Mika, his Brazil '06 race almost mirrors Hamilton's GP2 race in Turkey. A great way to bow out for Schumacher, a great way to announce his arrival for Hamilton.

Originally posted by Rubens Hakkamacher


When he was in GP2 - killing - I posted on Another Known Board "why isn't anyone talking about him?"... Then here and elsewhere post season "this is THE GUY next year", and unanimously got "there's no way, "not going to happen", "rookie", blah blah blah...

Ok, fine, maybe most didn't watch him in GP2.

I still remember the first time I saw Hamilton in GP2; I was very impressed. Then I saw him in Hungary (wicked weather). He "seemed" to have driven through the entire field twice ... I look at my wife and said, "this is the first time in a long time where I can just "see" that someone is so damn fast."

Just so you know: I am no fan boy, frankly I don't care if he ever wins another Grand Prix. I like F1.