Lewis Hamilton or Jenson Button? It's the F1 car that counts, not the driver!*Spoiler

In all fairness, LH has done more in 2 races with a POS car than Button did with his floundering Honda. His car had gearing trouble on Sunday yet he took his car from 12th to finishing in the points.

Remember, Ferrari was actually the better car the last two seasons but they couldn't stay out of their own way. I'd take LH over JB in the same car every day of the week.

 

+1

 

I have stated often that it is way too early to suggest that Lewis Hamilton "is the real thing", to be compared to a Schumahcer, Senna, even Lauda or Prost. He was in the best car on the grid, in a car suited to his driving style. Certainly he is very very good, but I do not see how anyone can realistically elevate him so soon to the status of these other drivers. Truli is now in a good car and his performance is excellent, but most people ignored his talents bascially because he was in a real crap car. Until this year.

Drivers like Webber, Vettel, in the McLaren last year probably would have done as well as Hamilton. I have no explantion as to Alonso's failure except that he allowed his emotions to interfere. I have no doubt that Alonso is definetely better than Hamilton. And it is likely that Button is as good as Hamilton. Hamilton is good for the sport, his WDC was good for the sport, too bad he is botching it up now.

Personally, I see Lewis as another Jacque Villenueve. Not sure if Hamilton sings, and I doubt if Hamilton could win the Indianapolis 500, but there are similarities. More with Jacque than any other driver.

 

+1

 

I guess we'll see this season if Hammi can indeed develop a car.

 

Hamilton is not in a crappy car, certainly not comparable to last year's Honda in any means.

 

hamilton raced against better competition (hello fernando alonso in the same car) and kimi and massa in 2 excellent ferraris. Button has no one besides maybe nico rosberg and vettel and his team mate keeping pace with him. the brawn gp car is far better than the competition at this point. my nod still goes to lewis as being the better driver, i don't even think it's close.

 

thank you

 

The car isn't crappy?

It's one of the slowest on the grid.

What do you call crappy? If it only goes in reverse?

 

+1

I've always rated Button as a good driver. When he is in the best car, he does very well. When he was in a crappy car, he was still smooth but just couldn't challenge for a win.

Hamilton is a significantly better driver. He took a car that was clearly NOT the best car last year (last year, the Ferraris were much quicker) and he still on the WDC with it. The year before that, the Ferraris were also quicker, and he nearly won the WDC with that too - against Alonso as a teammate, who was splitting points with Lewis because they are both really good drivers.

 

The car makes a huge difference, that is obvious. That said; Vettel, Alonso and Hamilton are the class of the field as far as drivers go, with Kimi in the group when he is "on".

 

Ahem, +1000000

 

The McLaren was "clearly" not the best car last year? Michael, using the word clearly does not make it fact. I would say the McLaren was the best car over-all in 2008.

One could make the argument that the Ferraris were sometimes faster because the Ferrari drivers are better than Hamilton. One could make the argument that Massa or Raikkonen in the McLaren would have gone even faster than Hamilton.

And those arguments would be just as likely as the subjective arguments I have been reading in this thread. Can someone please prove with fact that Button is not faster or better than Hamilton? No one, has the the crystal ball to be able to say without any doubt any of these points either way is true.

Its all a guess based on personal bias.

The only way to tell who is faster, is to put everyone in an identical car, over 2-3 circuits of different calibre, minimum 10 laps each, and see who adjusts and posts the best times on all three. One circuit should have a bit of water on the surface. Could be Hamilton. Could be Raikkonen. Could be Massa. Could be Button. Could be Alonso....Vettel......in the right car, even Giancarlo!

And even then, I am not sure we would have the definitive answer.

 

It was clear that Trulli was good when he was a match for Fernando Alonso in 2004. Trulli dominated at Monaco that year, and although not as consistent as Alonso, seemed like he was just as fast. You quickly dismiss Hamilton's performance against Alonso as simply an occurance of him having a car that suited his style (but not Alonso's huh? Funny how Lewis got his setups FROM ALONSO up until Hungary or Spa) and Alonso simply letting his emotions get in the way, which is frankly BS. Either you get on with it or don't, your excuse sounds like something Rubens Barrichello would say.

 

I'd like to add another 1000000.

If Schumacher didn't have the absolute best car for 7 years, would he have one 7 WDC's?

Doubt it.

 

The Ferrari won 8 races, the McLaren won 6.

The Ferrari had 8 poles, the McLaren had 7.

The Ferrari had 13 fastest laps, the McLaren had 3


I watched every minute of every race, as I am sure others did too. The Ferrari was faster under most circumstances than the McLaren. There were a few places the McLaren was faster, but it was definitely the exception rather than the rule.

I am sure you would say the McLaren was better, because if you acknowledged what the facts and figures say, it would mean you would have to admit Hamilton did a better job in a worse car than Massa or Kimi did in a faster car. You can't accept Hamilton is a superb driver, so you'll never do that and will instead invent various excuses why McLaren won, none of which will give tribute to Lewis as one of the top 2 or 3 drivers currently in F1 (and Massa isnt on that list)

By this logic, there is no way to know if Yoong was really better than Schumacher, right? Or maybe Ralf was actually the faster of the Schumacher brothers? Perhaps Sato was the best driver there ever was?

That's a bunch of BS, and everyone knows it. You can tell skill based on lots of different metrics... unless you just don't want to recognize skill when you see it, as in your case. You said yourself you "can't explain" why Hamilton beat Alonso in identical cars... I can... because Hamilton is easily the measure of Alonso as a driver, that's why. By your own words the only way to tell how good a driver is, would be for them to race against a known quantity. Well, Hamilton did that, and beat Alonso! So, in order to keep your theory intact that Massa is actually the best driver on the grid, and Hamilton isn't that good, you have to come up with an exception to your rule, and say there is no explanation why Hamilton beat Alonso.

You have stated many times that F1 insiders should be trusted more with their views on who is good and who isn't, than some person on the internet. Well, Hamilton drives for McLaren and most people regard him as one of the very best drivers in F1 right now, along with guys like Alonso, Kimi (who'se stock is falling) and perhaps Vettel. If Button had the same level of performance, he would have been picked up by a faster team... McLaren, Ferrari, Renault and others all had spots they could have put him in, but didn't. But they did recognize talent like Alonso and Kimi at lower level teams.

Sorry, but the suggestion that we don't really know if Hamilton is better than Button is just silly.

The argument that we don't really know if Hamilton is "the real deal" is equally silly. He came 2nd in his rookie year for the WDC against Alonso, the 2xWDC and widely regarded at that time as the best driver in F1. Hamilton beats him, in equal cars, to close within 1 point of the WDC, only losing it due to stupid rookie mistakes.

The following year, he wins the WDC in a slower car

This year, he takes one of the slowest cars on the grid, and twice hoists it into the points, finishing ahead of much faster cars.


If that isn't proof of his talents, it only means that the people who think so are blind.

 

Spot on as usual Mike...

I think in this case, we're simply not going to convice him and others of anything. They'll not concede anything and their opinion will stand.

 

This is such a load of ****, if anything this year proves Hamilton is better than Button, Hamilton's results in the last two races have been amazing.

 

Hamilton has the ability to take a car of what is essentially Q1 only pace, and score points with it...hmm...nuff said.

 

Folks can make excuses until the cows come home, being the fastest car means NOTHING if you don't have the results - no matter what the reason.

Perhaps it was not the car last year, it was the motor ?

I've been saying this forever.

But in defense of Button, it's not HIS fault others cannot keep up and get with the program, this is the same as a few years ago when MS won half the races - nobody was whining about MS 'not having any competition', but today you do ?

I just wonder what you guys would be saying if Ferrari had finished 1-2 in both races this year ????
I'm betting it would be something like 'great job Maranello'.

Some of you guys are the most fickle, biased, whining, excuse-driven people I have ever seen - and I DON'T mean the posters I quoted above necessarily.

 

I understand your words, but I still do not agree. I stick with what I said earlier. There is no way to tell yet if Hamilton is another Schumacher or Senna. I am not sayng he is not, only that there is no way to tell. The statistics between the Ferrari and the McLaren do not tell an entire story, their speed could also mean that the Ferrari drivers are faster than the rest, including Hamilton.

You offer no empirical proof either way, your analysis is hypothetical. Now if Hamilton stepped into last year's Ferrari and matched or beat either Massa's or Raikkonen's times consistently, I would agree with you. If Massa or Raikkonen got into the McLaren, and went faster than Hamilton, I would say you are wrong. When it comes to the top 10-15 drivers, there is no way to tell who is faster, or who is "for real" as long as they are in different automobiles with different budgets. Especially if the statistics that 75% is the car, and only 25% is the driver is true.

What is silly is to believe this about Hamilton so early in his career. How many "real deals" have come along the last 25 years and ended up fading into the sunset? LIke I said elsewhere, I am beginning to see Hamilton as another Jacque Villenueve, another so called "real deal".

Maybe in another year, we will see, you could be right about Hamilton. At this point, I am not yet convinced either way. In another year I could be right.

 

He was far and away the best driver in the field leaving his teammates in the dust. He could have driven last year's BMW to a WDC probably.

 

Agree. He took an inferior F310b to almost winning the championship in 1997 before attempting to take Jacques Villeneuve out when the last set of tires let him down (a VERY clean and sporting move, imo lol). It was Schumacher alone who put that car in the position to win...his drive at Spa in the rain would have been the defining moment of the season had he pulled it off. The Williams of Villenueve was an infinitely better racer. I don't think Schumacher truly drove a dominant car until maybe the 2003 & 2004 seasons.

Jensen has a dominant car right now.

 

+100. I'm not certain of Kubica and Rosberg yet, but I'd include them in the top six.