So far this season Mercedes have suffered three retirements, two for Rosberg (one whilst leading in Sochi) and one for Hamilton. If their most recent breakdown had been on Hamilton's car, and had been at the next race in Austin, Rosberg would have 329 points (assuming he went on to win in Sochi), and Hamilton 331 going into the last race, with Rosberg having won the previous four. Amazing how one little thing out of the drivers' control could have such an enormous bearing on the complexion of the championship. Although the final three races would almost certainly have gone differently if the title was still alive.
Ifs and buts - however I do feel we have been robbed of a legitimate fight to the last race - regardless of the outcome.
Despite the bigger points gap, I still argue that Rosberg has been much better this year. Last year, when he got pole, I'd just wait until the time he was overtaken, this year the same isn't always happening and he's becoming a lot more reliable from pole and his race pace has improved a lot. Still a little bit off, but if he can continue this form he'll be in for a good year, especially if he gets off to a good start like last year. He's been incredibly unlucky this year though, with pretty much all of the reliability issues going his way, and the only one Hamilton had was when he was even behind Kimi to show how bad they were at that track.. Could have been much closer, but this year has been especially boring, so I'm not even all that surprised
How to make friends and influence people the Lewis Hamilton way. Apparently he has said this to Germany's Sport Bild: At least Nando will be pleased
Where did that come from - has somebody pointed out to him he hasn't had to beat anyone decent to win his titles and put him on the defensive? I'd also contend that Fernando wasn't at his best during their year at McLaren, struggled to adapt to the Bridgestones and then alienated from the team for the second half of the season. Raikonnen serves as a good barometer between Alonso and Vettel. I'd suggest that Vettel has had a similar margin over him as Alonso did last year, meaning they are reasonably comparable. Vettel may improve more with increasing familiarity with Ferrari though.
I can understand the argument, certainly the first 8 or so races to Canada seemed impressive at the time. For me there's one big caveat though, it seems wrong to judge people based on their time driving an illegal car. It just raises a huge question mark, you'll never be able to truly rationalise. To illustrate from the other side, in isolation that season it seemed Raikkonnen lucked into that Championship, but before that point it seemed he had the talent to go out and win one decisively. Maybe that's what would have happened if McLaren hadn't had the Ferrari data, but it seems now Raikkonen will retire with one championship that is remembered mostly for being one that Hamilton and Alonso lost. My feeling is that Raikkonnen deserves better than that, but I can't back it up with any data.
Are you referring to Hamilton's McLaren (stolen date) or Vettel's Red Bull (flexi wings, floor etc etc), or Alonso's Renault (mass dampers). If you are going to compare one scenario, then surely you have to look at the others as well? Also, as ever, aren't people reading too much into what one driver has said in an interview? If he speaks truthfully about what he feels, people pick holes in his statements and point out where he is being hypocritical etc, if he says nothing and spews out a load of corporate friendly nonsense, he's called a robot with no personality or independent thought train. Pretty much any interview from a driver can be dissected and aspects of it thrown back at them to show them that they are talking out of their arse for some of it. Alonso's drives for the earlier part of the year were pretty decent, he won many more times than Hamilton did, so the talk of him not adapting to Bridgestones is nonsense. Up to Canada, Hamilton was getting podiums, hsi consistency was more impressive than his speed for the frist half of that season. Something happened in Canada to him which ruined Alonso's head, it was possibly the worst drive of his career, and then he lost it for the rest of the season. Yes he was alienated from the team, but to clarify, he brought that upon himself.
I disagree with that, he had a contract that said he was their number 1 driver, and they refused to honour that. I don't know about you, but I would be pretty annoyed at they wouldn't honour the terms of the contract. Having said all that, I do think he could of handled it better, and he shouldn't of shut out the team, but I disagree that hi brought it on himself.
When did they dishonour it? By telling Hamilton to hold station behind him at Monaco? Sounds like he got no.1 status for the most part, but after Canada I think Hamilton was in front of Alonso in the WDC, so must have been hard to tell the WDC leader that he then had to be submissive to his teammate who was not doing as well as him. How far does no.1 status go in terms of whether your teammate is allowed to race you on the track, i.e the US GP? Were McLaren wrong not to tell Hamilton to yield to Alonso simply because of a supposed contract status?
In relation to the interview (which as usual is difficult to understand without the Context) is that Lewis was massively vocal (and always has been) in questioning Vettles legitimacy as a worthy 4 X WDC. He regularly made references to the championships being uncontested due to the RB dominance and how he would relish the opportunity to race in equal machinery. Fast forward a season or two and we have the situation reversed, which is ironic. So to be quoted as questioning Vettle's status for me is disrespectful given that I personally think the Merc has an overall clearer performance advantage. I would also hold his comments on Alonso as doubly ironic in the sense that by praising him elevates himself, because technically he beat him. Like I said I felt that season was his best. I would also argue that Webber was a tough team mate, in 2009/2010 he was fast, he was older and quite a dominant outspoken personality which must have been intimidating for Vettle - as it would have been for Lewis when partnered with Alonso. I'm not sure that Nico has offered any sterner a test for Lewis than Webber did for Vettle.
Just the illegal one, I think it's pretty obvious what the difference between that and the two other examples is if you've watched F1 for a while. The Alonso Bridgestone thing came from him, maybe it's true, maybe not. Why he was alienated is irrelevant here, the point was the impact on his performance.
Yes, been watching since 1987 thanks. Tell me, which car was illegal and why, and the reasons the others can be ignored, despite one system on the Renault being declared illegal mid-season? I'm just after consistency with people's arguments on events, nothing personal.
No problem, obviously I can only be consistent personally, I can't enforce consistency with "people". 1. One broke the rules - McLaren, defrauded the sporting competition, were found guilty and punished 2. One exploited the rules - Flexi wings - Red Bull never failed a test resulting in an exclusion, the rule only defined the behaviour required under test. Any behaviour on track was not explicitly regulated. No rule was broken, despite numerous toughening of the tests 3. One was deemed illegal after a rules clarification - mass damper was known to be present on the car and accepted for many races. The FIA changed their minds about what they considered legal. This is not uncommon. I've used your examples, but I should note that I consider the race exclusion in 3 inconsistent with this sort of situation. Imo results should have stood and they should have asked them to change for the next race, e.g. In cases such as blown diffuser mapping or McLaren brake pedal.
Don't forget :- In 2007 Renault were found guilty of breaching article 151(c) of the International Sporting Code by another FIA WMSC hearing, but escaped penalty. To recollect, that was for having illegal data from McLaren given to them by a McLaren employee, but for some reason the FIA chose not to impose a penalty. Again, let's just gloss over any inconvenient facts which don't shove the boot into McLaren/Hamilton combo from 2007, or suggest that anything they did was unique and not done by anyone else, as no one has ever moved between teams and brought some secrets with them. After all, we all know the FIA are consistent in how they apply the rules and what penalties and sanctions they take against people who flout the regs so we can point to their findings and say "I told you so".
