How Hamilton became a winning machine Lewis Hamiltons innovative F1 training programme will change the sport, says robert matthews Lewis Hamilton's victory at yesterday's Canadian Grand Prix adds yet another superlative to his unparalleled F1 career. Already the first driver to get podium finishes in all his races, and the youngest to lead the drivers' championship, he is now the first and youngest to combine those with an outright win. But Hamilton's success is more than a collection of stats. It marks the dawn of a new era in F1, where raw driving talent is turbo-charged by the appliance of science. For decades, racing teams have lavished state-of-the-art technology on the performance of the car, and then put their trust in a tiny cadre of humans they hope will drive the result to victory. McLaren has changed all that with its training of its 22-year old wunderkind. Hamilton has undergone an unprecedented McLarens training applied insights from neuroscience and psychology regime at McLaren's Woking headquarters, masterminded by Dr Kerry Spackman, a New Zealand-born neuroscientist hired by McLaren to turn their exceptionally talented English driver into a race-winning machine. A major part of Spackman's approach is the intensive use of computer simulators, which expose Hamilton to every twist, turn and eventuality of a race until dealing with them is utterly instinctive. Nothing very radical there, of course: Nasa did precisely the same with its astronauts more than 40 years ago. But Spackman goes much further, applying insights from neuroscience and psychology to uncover the foibles of Hamilton's technique and mindset, and bring them under control. The result is a driver who combines the standard skill-set of focus and controlled aggression with relentless consistency. Some will lament this clinical approach to a sport once dominated by God-given talents like Ayrton Senna and Alain Prost. Too bad: where McLaren has led, the rest have no choice but to follow.
I fail to see the difference between Hamilton being trained to the nth degree on super simulators and Schumacher racing go karts at age 5. First there is talent, then you have to nurture it. The tools might be different, but the approach remains the same.
Well, I guess the difference, as you state, is in the methodology. The (alleged) Hamilton/McLaren approach is clinical and objective (and therefore more readily duplicated on a subject with a similar level of inate talent), whereas the Schumacher/karting-at-age-5 approach is more visceral and subjective, with the subtleties not so readily duplicated on another "subject". By the way, I'm not sure I buy the Senna-Prost reference- I've always viewed them as having very different types of talent- Senna more emotional, if you will, and Prost more analytical- great results from two different personalities.
i think, Lewis also has the upperhand, because he was taken care at such a young age. i mean, he was practically guided thru his career, with lots of influenced people around him, which is very good and important for him. Schumi, OTOH, practically was just by himself at the same point of his career, compared to Hamilton.
Did you ever read about MS' life? Schumacher was guided through his career first by his father than later by his manager. It was his father who got him a kart at age 5 and took both sons racing. It was a very traditional climb up the ladder of German motorsports where they (like e.g. England or France) have a good structure to build up young talents. When he was racing small Formula cars, Willy Webber stepped into the picture and took it from there. Webber sponsored him and made sure there were later deals and steps on the ladder. He placed him with the other young stars at Mercedes where he underwent some more on the job training driving the Sauber Le Mans cars. That's where he honed his skills for taking care of a car, bringing it home, driving around problems and getting used to massive amounts of power. It was an almost logical step from there into a F1 cockpit. Webber paid for the test drive at Silverstone in the Jordan. That convinced Eddie Jordan to sign him on, then came Spa and the rest is history. Again I see no difference in how people took care of Lewis or Schumacher. And it makes sense: You don't become a super talent by picking up motorsports when you're a teenager. It has to start at toddler age or you'll never make it to the very top. And toddlers normally have somebody who guides them.
Renault has had a driver development program for years and has yet to produce a driver like Hamilton. All the simulators and psychological tools doesn't mean squat if you don't start off with an exceptionally talented driver to begin with.
Both LH and MS rose through the motorsport ranks in their respective countries in basically the same way; the only difference I see these days is the apparent increasing reliance on virtual and pyschological technology. It hasn't been uncommon in the last ten years to see drivers practicing on simulators, especially for tracks they've never seen. Isn't this one of the signs of natural ability? To be able to experience something abstractly and then apply that experience to reality? Beethoven didn't need to physically hear the music while composing the 9th...
True, but Andreas is correct when he argues that Schumacher received huge support from his family, Willi, etc., so I'm not sure how to quantify the difference- both had the benefit of significant grooming.
This stuff of 5 years old kids trained to become super-atheletes of the future is a bit scary, isn´t it?
Doesn't always work, but certainly isn't just about athletes. Similar stories exist of musical super talents, composers and performers alike. Mozart to name one (who I believe composed his first classical piece at age 5), nothing new really. I always find it funny when somebody comes on here asking for tips on how to become a racing driver. By the time you can type and use the internet to ask such questions, the train has long left the station.
