I agree with Fred, the 2009 McLaren won a race so it cannot be considered totally rubbish. My point is he has never driven a car that has been back-marking for an entire season, that's all.
He hasn't, but then what does that say about him, that a big front running team were willing to put him in a good car from the get-go? I get the point you are making, comparing first 100 races when 1 driver is in a top car for pretty much all that time, while others weren't but you also have to take into account that Lewis was the first driver that any big team was willing to give him that chance in his first year, which isn't something that you can really hold against him. Maybe top teams should have taken a chance on other drivers earlier in their careers too, and the stats would be different, but the point remains that they didn't. My 2p on the 2009 season... I'd go with the Red Bull being the best car for the second half of the season at least, with the McLaren improving a lot as they made the KERS unit smaller and smaller and got to grips with it.
Mclaren, Renault, BMW and Ferrari were poor at the start of the 2009 season for the reason they couldnt get benifits from KERS. Mclaren and Ferrari became better in the second half and were level if not better than Brawn GP.
Heard this all before gentleman! Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Yes Lewis was put into McLaren early but the same could be said for Seb and Red Bull, you can't favour one driver and say he is better than the other when both have been given the same privileges early into their career.
To be fair, after Monza, what wasnt better than the Brawn? It was probably about the 5th in the end, but like this year, the midfield was really close!
