Wrong. Never forget winning. Winning is the first and only important metric ever. Hulkenberg beat his team mate last year, yet can't get near a top team. Beating your team mate is no goal of Sir Lewis Hamilton's, only winning.
Yes Hamilton has driven through a load of regulation changes and different formulas and has been successful in all of them. Was he the difference maker to his success? Perhaps at times, but for the most part he just got the result. Fortunately for him he always had the best car through all the rule changes. Until now. Very rarely does he dominate his teammate in qualifying. His safe and stable setup and cars built to his spec definitely benefit him in the race. Probably part of why he doesn't make a lot of mistakes. Button, Rosberg, Bottas, Russell. All of these drivers showed to be similar in pace, and often beat Lewis in quali and sometimes even beat him in the championship.
ANY car he drives at this age. he's not gonna be the same as years ago. ANY... ground effect, sky effect, water effect, doesn't matter. He already spanked Russell in 2023. Do you think Russell didn't know how to drive ground effect cars?
There is some truth to this but father time is undefeated. In a sports where a pole is to be had for les than 0.100 your decline in fast twich muscle, eye hand coordination and thirst to win is everything. When i watch Lewis last sunday, too often he wasnt agressive enough on antonelli; 10 years ago he would have gone for it. What he gained in wisdom he lost in speed imo
Hamilton has had the most fortunate career in F1 history. No driver has driven the best car so many times. We won't even talk about dominant cars. This is a fact, and therefore my statement was extremely correct. This topic has been beat to death with your own involvement and it's been proven endlessly that he has driven the best cars most of his career
I don't buy into the whole age thing. It's not like traditional athletes where the body can't perform as well to be competitive. The body is not a big factor in motor racing. I believe Hamilton likely has lost that drive to win compared to his youth. After 100+ wins and 7 championships I wouldn't blame him. The argument of should be taking the 2nd seat at Ferrari if his desire isn't there of course could be discussed. I also don't believe that great drivers need a full season or more to adapt. That's nonsense to me. The true greats always seem to just make a difference right away. I don't recall Senna being a lost dog in the MP4/4. He had the best teammate on the grid and didn't slack against him. Schumacher dragged that clunker F310 to multiple wins in 1996 and was fighting for a championship in 1997. Easily crushed his teammates. Alonso immediately was fast with McLaren in 2007 and he won his first race with Ferrari in 2010. Kimi Raikkonen even went from a completely different car with McLaren in 2006 and not only won his first race with Ferrari in 2007, he won the championship! A 7x champ with 100+ wins and poles and supposedly the greatest of all time should easily be able get up to speed in a few races. Sainz isn't considered anywhere close to Hamilton's level and he's figuring it out against a very good driver in Albon. Hamilton not performing great against Leclerc is not a surprise at all to me. It's just another chapter in exposing how good Hamilton really is after all these years. People just want to make excuses for him, hanging onto a fantasy that he was an untouchable talent. Facts tell a different story. It doesn't change the fact that Hamilton is still very good. Despite his struggles he's still getting results and points on the board. Sometimes he's lucky and sometimes he just stays out of trouble, but he's getting results regardless. Is taking the 4th best car onto the podium on merit? Not a chance at the moment. But he's always there to capitalize.
Exactly. Lewis was fine in 21. 22 new cars come around and he's been struggling. Lewis didn't age significantly in those 3 months. He can't adapt to the current cars. He's mighty quick in cars that suit his driving style, like many others can be, but not an all-rounder. Same like Vettel, same like Kimi. It's a limitation in their skill set. Kimi did win the title yes but he was never as comfortable as he was on the Michelins. Funny how some are saying it's only about wins and not about beating your teammate (I love shifts of narratives/moving of goal posts). It's always been about beating your teammate first.
It's flat out hilarious. Your teammate is your baseline. If you're not right there with him, you're going to get replaced. Just look at RBR... Furthermore, win counts do not win championships outside of a tie situation. Points are what matter.
He could have accomplished both by winning. So this answer doesn't make sense. Again, name a driver who would choose to beat their team mate over winning.
We don't live in "could have land." Ricciardo had more wins than Norris at McLaren but Norris had more points by a wide margin. I'm sure even you can do the math to calculate who still has a seat.
I can’t agree with this, especially at the F1 level. I think the body is an important factor: cardio fitness, neck and other gross muscle strength, fine senses and motor control… When was the last time there was a competitive F1 driver that would be considered “out of shape”?
Right, just look at how the drivers look after Singapore. Not to mention dwindling reaction time with age as well...
Yes in this case he kept the seat. Still it does does not superceed winning. Mclaren would rather see a driver win, doesn't matter who it is.
This particular debate is really pretty silly. If you’re winning, then by definition you’re obviously beating your teammate. Point is, if you’re not in a car capable of winning, then your benchmark is beating your teammate. Do you really think a driver in a non-winning car only cares about what can’t be achieved? Aren’t drivers, you know, sort of competitive?
Yes that's a bench mark. No problem with being competitive. But a driver would choose winning everytime over just being competitive. The ultimate goal is winning. That's why I say beating your team mate never superceeds winning.
According to ****ing who does it not supersede wining? You? I would be willing to bet my house that Ricciardo would trade that one win to have buried Norris in the points like he said he would in order to keep his job. Oh, so now we are talking about what McLaren would rather see, not the driver? You are the master at shifting goal posts when your argument goes sideways. Ricciardo's win was an ANECDOTE that did not save him from his fate, demonstrating that it was MEANINGLESS in the big picture to all but you.
Alan Jones comeback in 1983 ,Arrows A5/6 with added bulges to fit him in ..can confirm a true story ,did a few laps of Dijon 1988.
