I've been charged money to pay someone to write that utter tripe. Hamilton is first because he's good, but Rosberg is only second because of the Mercedes.
I just think that that type of propaganda almost devalues what Lewis is achieving. The guy has the opportunity to be one of the most successful racing drivers ever and go down as one of the all time greats, there is simply no need to over hype the obvious. It's just really bad and lazy journalism and unless I'm mistaken it's been written by (or on behalf) of ...... Conclusions from the British GP Hamilton delivers the perfect result for Silverstone and F1, Bottas may have hit a glass ceiling at Williams, McLaren’s patience with Honda is wearing thin, and don’t mess with Susie Wolff… By Pete Gill
Well, I was just admiring Smithers' write-up and was about to click 'Like'. It seemed to me that in light of the majority of contributions to this thread since qualifying, he'd had some courage to show appreciation of Sunday's Grand Prix – which I personally found pretty entertaining. Until seeing the above comment, it hadn't occurred to me that he may not have written it, since I see nothing obvious to tell me someone else had. Since seeing your post, ASC, I've reread it. Although the first emboldened paragraph appears at odds with what follows, the link provided does not tie-in with the rest of the post. I am therefore left to conclude (presumably like any casual viewer of the forum) that Smithers did write it, since I believe there is a general respect of authorship in this forum and a reasonable understanding that plagiarism is not only disrespectful but also at odds with copyright law. I therefore have every confidence that Smithers wrote it. - - -o0o- - - Back on topic, I make no apologies to this forum in saying I thought our home Grand Prix was pretty good. I think I am able to make a reasonable comparison with others and do not believe my nationality is colouring my perception. There was a lot of action and a lot of good driving. It had a lot of unpredictable elements and although spiced-up towards the end of the race as well as at the start, the precipitation was most definitely not artificial! I had a quick glance at threads here yesterday. I found myself despairing at some of the criticism and wondering what is now expected of a Grand Prix. Why do I find myself feeling apologetic these days? I really shouldn't but I do. Are our expectations really reasonable? Am I out of touch, perhaps; or have I finally got those rose-tinted specs? I have a very long memory of Grands Prix, spanning more decades than I care to remember, and whilst I think I'm in agreement with the consensus that F1 is in serious trouble and that some key decisions* were poorly thought out in an attempt to appease an increasingly demanding audience and that the mess is gong to be very difficult to sort out for the long-term unless there are serious earth-movements, I can still appreciate a decent race. *A couple of examples off the top of my head: 1] Pay to view was always going to hurt and did nothing for F1 itself. All it did was underline some very greedy and exploitative pockets… 2] Pirelli cardboard tyres was always a poor way to go in my opinion and I said as much on various fora, including the old BBC606. Even before Pirelli came aboard, I was very concerned that the brief they were coerced to accept was a cheap patch-up designed to appease the critical but so ultimately flawed that these very same people would come back to criticise it along with anything else handy to throw.
Hmmm, rather of a lot of hyperbole and some laughable writing here and there, but a fair point about the 34 point gap if not for the fiasco of Monaco. A 34 point gap at this stage would be a fair reflection of the gap between them this year. Austria has been the only weekend where Rosberg has managed to dominate.
P.S. to my above: Having been interrupted just before posting, I came back to finish and only now have seen Smithers' did not write most of the content of his post.
I apologise if I have miss led any poster in thinking I had wrote the article, normally I copy the whole article which is signed off at the bottom and also the associated link! Mea Culpa! I thought my bold starting paragraph would highlight that the following content was not of my opinion. What appeared quite obvious to me is clearly my own perception and I must make sure I account for how others may perceive what I post in the future. I do believe this to be my first mistake (offence). Apologies for any confusion....
Thanks, Smithers. I genuinely thought you'd written it before reading ASC's question. Obviously your oversight was highly unusual, which added to my misunderstanding. I am certain it was completely unintentional. P.S. I'd like to add that I do not care for the gushing stories served up from certain sources of propaganda. However, believing you'd written it, I thought, "Aha! At last, a positive statement from someone"!
No I didnt..I think it might have been Big Ern..??? maybe? By the way I dont have to boost Lewis Hamilton in any form or fashion...He is doing it quite well on the track I am sure.
really? he got overtaken three times and ran off the track at the restart. His pit crew and strategists did a good job though, bringing him in from third for the undercut. I guess installing someone at the top after Tiny Tim put his oar in at Monaco over their pit-strategy has helped.
You are really funny.. So Hamilton didnt have to do anything on the in-lap to get himself into position for the undercut, the pit crew did it all by themselves right?? Brilliant..lol So you think it was a bad thing to make a challenge for the lead at the restart when Williams tyres were a bit cold, even if that would have been the best and most likely place challenge for the lead? Come on, I know you are much more analytical than that... certainly! lol And I noticed at the end of you posts there is this quote: "It's a small world when you've got unbelievable tits." Are you sure tits aren't in your way when you are watching races? Well it's a good way to watch races anyway..lol
Anyone think Mercedes would've lost this race if Ferrari had been the second fastest team? Williams' hallmark in the last couple of years has been failing to capitalise on opportunities.
I did think that. Williams would rather take good points rather than risk it all for victory. Demonstrated by not letting bottas through. But I don't think any team in Williams position could of beat them. Hamilton pitted at the perfect time to undercut them. even if he was still behind one car after the pit he would have got past eventually as they would not have DRS anymore
The Merc was just far too fast as demonstrated by Lewis with the undercut, Nico rolling right on the back of them when Lewis pitted and Nico mixed condition pace once he cleared the pair. In dry conditions and the more or less fixed 1 stop strategy it probably left Williams a little short on options, but I would have liked to have seen them been more brave. The options for me would have been to have let Bottas go early (but I can understand the reasons why they didn't) or to have pitted one of them early. The latter would have been my preferred option and in effect would have split the strategy, especially with the weather which was very likely to have hit the race at some point.
A more balance view? http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/24181/9906698/analysing-lewis-hamiltons-british-gp-perfect-timing Lewis Hamilton’s call to pit on lap 43, just before rain arrived to coat the whole circuit, sealed him his British Grand Prix victory. Hamilton’s motivation for pitting was that his tyres were finished, Rosberg was catching fast and looked certain to pass him on the next lap. This would then have given Rosberg strategic priority as to who stopped first – almost guaranteeing a Rosberg victory. Hamilton was hoping that the rain would arrive soon after he pitted – and was encouraged by the blackness of the clouds he was seeing as he came down Hangar Straight. As he said afterwards, “For the first time in my whole F1 career, I made the perfectly right choice in coming in Yes, he made the call, yes he did so informed by his own eyes of how black the clouds were and yes it turned out to be the perfect call – for almost at the precise moment the intermediates were fitted to his Mercedes the heavens opened. But he was pressured into taking that initiative only because he was about to lose the lead to Rosberg. Had he been circulating with a big lead and no-one catching him, would he have taken the decision to pit at that precise moment – when it looked far from certain that the rain would be arriving on this lap rather than the next, or even five laps later? There would have been no reason to take that gamble. It was Rosberg catching at two seconds per lap that forced Hamilton to make a decision – and he took the only logical one that was available to him for he was almost certain to lose the race if he stayed out long enough for Rosberg to pass him, which he would surely have done on lap 44. please log in to view this image figure__image Hamilton famously lost the chance to take the 2007 world championship in his rookie year by not pitting earlier at the Chinese Grand Prix, through waiting to be told to do so by the team rather than simply telling them he was coming in. That day back in 2007 McLaren was trying to delay the decision so as to understand what the weather was about to do, so as to know if slicks or intermediates would be the best choice – but for every lap it deferred that decision Hamilton’s rear tyres were getting into an ever-more desperate state. Hamilton should have been the one to first understand that the luxury of that deferral was not available – and to have taken it out of their hands by taking the initiative. Instead he infamously ended up in the pitlane gravel trap, with his down-to-the-canvas tyres unable to even get him round the pit road’s left-hand turn. In Australia 2010, Jenson Button showed McLaren what in-cockpit leadership was when he made the call in the early laps of Melbourne to change from inters to slicks. The extra two laps Hamilton waited to be called in lost him that race to Button. Although Hamilton has made calls of his own even before Silverstone on Sunday, as a generality he is one of the less proactive. Button, Sebastian Vettel, Fernando Alonso and – in the past – Robert Kubica were always much more likely to take the decision out of the team’s hands if they felt they knew better. It’s a very delicate balancing act; in some situations the team has a much fuller picture of the crucial pieces of information than the driver can possibly have. Other times the team’s detailed data on gaps and deltas is less relevant and the situation so fluid on track that the driver actually has a much better perspective than the team. Sunday was one such occasion. please log in to view this image Throughout Hamilton’s racing career, from karting onwards his massive talent has been the decisive factor in his success. For him, the fewer random variables that are thrown in the better – as he feels that with a competitive machine he can take care of the rest. Has this led perhaps to a less developed sense of ambush and opportunity than in some others? If so, it’s an area of potential improvement he could target as he refines his game. Was that lap 43 decision at Silverstone indicative of someone who is developing that skill? There’s little to suggest it was. He made an informed decision, and it was the right one – but it was forced upon him. The alternative was near-certain defeat. But, now he knows what it is to feel the satisfaction of his initiative having been the deciding factor in victory, is it a skill he will now become more confident in utilising? MH
Funny how it's always Hamilton's decision when it pays of and the team's when it backfires. Used to be the same with di Resta. In those situations the decision will be made by team and driver, the driver only knows what it's like on the stretch of tarmac he's currently on, if a driver wants inters and the team can see from TV pictures that it's bone dry/torrential rain for three quarters of the lap they're going to override him. A drying track is when the decision is placed almost entirely on the driver because they're in a far better position to judge the conditions. I do think there's some comparison between Hamilton's decision Sunday and Button's in Australia 2010 that Hughes mentions. Some have said Hamilton made an inspired decision based on the conditions, others have said he was forced to roll the dice as his team mate was so much faster. It was the same with Button in 2010, he'd just been caught, passed and left by Hamilton when he came in. In fact I don't think there's any doubt that Button's was a panic move rather than a shrewd decision because the first thing he did after stopping was almost beach it in the gravel at turn 3, it wasn't for a couple laps that the tyres came in and he was able to undercut those ahead of him so he hadn't really judged the conditions perfectly.
Not sure how you evaluate Hamilton's decision making success, AG; but your comparison with di Resta is very interesting. Back to your main point though; yes, only the driver knows the conditions for the tarmac he or she is on and of course any decision will take account of opinion (if there is one) from the pit-wall, especially when any such decision becomes more obvious. Historically, Hamilton has tended to either be indecisive or to rely too much upon guidance from the pit-wall (in my opinion), whereas this time he recognised the importance of making a decision from his own perspective even if he felt it was forced by circumstance – which is essentially the only criteria in any case. On this occasion he had a better overall view of the evolving situation than his engineers who are reliant upon computers and data as opposed to driving 'feel'; the latter only becoming dominant in a decision making process when a driver literally dictates it. Hamilton knew he was in trouble and that Rosberg was likely to catch him within a few laps, even though both needed new tyres. With the threat of rain, on this occasion, he made the correct call at exactly the right moment, even if he felt he had no realistic alternative. And this is really the point; on this occasion he was not slow to take the necessary decision, regardless of whether he saw it as blatantly obvious and the only way to go. Actually, this is precisely where he's gone wrong in the past - canvas tyres at the Chinese Grand Prix being one of the clearest examples. As an evolving situation transits from one state to another, the critical moment is vitally important. Sometimes – as was the case on Sunday – the pit crew require guidance from the driver in order to reach the optimal decision at the very best moment. Without such guidance, any decision tends to be delayed by approximately 1 lap (although back in China 2007, it was far longer because the McLaren crew were also very indecisive), hinting at a more corporate and often less incisive decision. But when a driver gives firm feedback, his or her decision normally supersedes and is precisely what the team of engineers are hoping for! This is where Hamilton may have come up short in the past. Not this time though. On this occasion, I think it only fair he be given some credit. - - - o0o - - - [Edited colour and cut a few words]
It's quite ironic really, for a couple of seasons they've had a decent car and 2 decent drivers, but the last time they stood on the top step they had a **** car and Maldonado was behind the wheel
the 2012 car was very good. If they had this driver pairing back then, Williams would have scored a hell of a lit more points.
