But in realistic terms, you have to have serious money to compete even in go karting. And yes there are 50 tracks for car racing in Chatham as well, none of them legal but always available. Lewis was talented but go karting is not a sport you immediately have a penchant for. You can run fast, jump high naturally, kick a ball far, but you can't speed shift gears, or slide a performance car into a corner without lots and lots of practice. That practice costs. Somehow he got the breaks, his level of progression is not remarkable. There are a lot better drivers out there who were not picked up. It seems he was a manufactured driver, a Take That driver, someone that ticked the boxes, and would take the sport into the next decade. Formula 1 had an identity crisis after Michael Schumacher, and a different type of driver was needed . I drive a Renault Espace and can get the facka on two wheels going round Well Hall round a bout. I can drive anything fast - you put anyone in the right car and it will go fast. The talent is in the engine not the driver. I just don't see a correlation between a car and a driver as natural talent.
yeah, but you said it yourself - only 000.1% make it from everyone. Hamilton was 2 tenths faster than button (also one of the 000.1%) in the same car. imagine the odds on that! 000.1 * 000.1 * (0.2 * however long in seconds a lap is).... even by your calculations, that's phenomenal.
That Typical is a crock of ****, probably the worst post you have come up with. People have been given the exact same specification car, some drivers drive it faster than others. That is because some drivers have more skill than others. Just ask any former F1 driver about Hamilton and they will tell you about how skilful he is. I suggest that you watch the programme about Jim Clark if you think it is just down to the car.
Dick its is all about design. You ask Nascar drivers what they think of Formula 1. They might be rednecked simpletons but they know that the car is king. To get the edge in Formula 1, you do the following design the car first, then, the engine, then the braking, steering, balance and ensure that they are within the rules and lastly you get a driver who is ideally suited to THAT car's nuances and specifications. All cars are not the same, at the starting line of a grand prix. That's the point where your argument falls on its bum. There are dozens of differences. Your driving a space shuttle not a skoda. If you stuck any ordinary driver in the best car, they would win the drivers championship. Safety regs and bizarre rules dictate that the formula 1 circus is about construction, advertising, and posturing for the manufactures to sell commercial vehicles and I see no talent. There is a heap of difference between Jim Clark, Sterling Moss, Jackie Stewart and James Hunt, where true 'seat of your pants driving' took place.. Comparuing Jim Clark to Lewis Hamilton is like playing football with a balloon, there was 6 wheeled cars in Jim Clarks Day!!! . Lewis Hamilton is an average driver with average abilities in the best constructed car obligated to perform not to its abilities but to safety standards. Is that a sport?
lack of appreciation/knowledge here. some cars will be better than others, but he still has to beat his team mate - this is proof that the car is not the key. they'd tie for the championship if it was all about the car. in his first year, having never driven a f1 car, he'd have won the championship if it wasnt for his team/tyres. alonso and raikkonen had been in the sport for years already.
Of course two machines although identically designed will behave differently, giving one driver an advantage. Some cars just 'feel better' two identical cars react differently, some react to debris, some react to wind, some react to heat, cold, its is impossible to get two cars the same. Some cars have more fuel in the engine, less tyre wear, these are all factors on the grid or is that not the case?. If two drivers have the same car, then you can argue skill, you can also argue luck. So one car breaks down and the other don't? how does that work then?
cool, so you now see that it took skill to control environmental issues not related or controlled by the car to become the worlds best driver?
That begs the question: Why does it have to be held in such a vast arena..? After all, it's a television show..... made for a television audience. Think of the cost of putting on that extravaganza: The expense of using such a vast arena.... hiring rock bands.... forking out on what would have been the junket to end all junkets for all those superstars.... and no doubt there were more than a few cars laid on for all those big names who would only deign to turn up if they were treated "according to their status" It all comes out of the imposed TAX that is the licence fee. The BBC isn't Sky. It doesn't have to pander to subscribers who are paying voluntarily for all that glitz via a subscription. The Licence Fee is a tax that nobody can avoid. How do you justify the expense of Sunday's show when it could have been done just as effectively for a fraction of the cost if the celebrity razzamatazz were ditched?
Its all about design, luck, then talent. There are very few sports where the principal factor to success is the machine. I cant get my head around a sport that is determined by a machine.
I have nothing specific against Simple Minds apart from the fact that they were there, or rather, that ANY rock band was there. What was the point..? What did they contribute to the sporting flavour of the occasion..? Nothing that I could tell. It was just a piece of gratuitous showmanship: We're in Glasgow. Gotta have a Scottish rock band. If the show had been held in Cardiff we would probably have had the Manic Street Preachers. Nothing at all to do with sport, just pointless time filling which meant there was less room in the schedule for showing the sporting highlights of 2014 which..... excuse me for being so naïve..... I thought was a major part of the exercise. Silly me, eh..? As for SM being a "fantastic band" (your words), I'm afraid that, old chum, is a matter of opinion on which you and I should agree to disagree. Pax Vobiscum.
I bet you were into U2. All you Church Of England schools are the same, U2, The Smiths and the Bangles. No wonder we used to bash you lot up at lunchtime. Typical - Eaglesfield headboy and Jim Kerr fan.
Agree, to compete in Karting you need to have someone, usually your Dad, who is prepared to give up his weekends to drive you all over the country, and invest a lot of money in it as well.It's not a mass sport like football or golf. Dressage is even worse in that respect, yet quite a lot of time was devoted to watching a horse doing silly walks. Anyway Hamilton's Swiss.
I will not stand here and be insulted in that way...!! U2...? Pah. Typical Eaglesfield. Get it wrong as usual..!! We used to stuff you at everything and you never could handle being second best.
Ok academically, we did leave a lot to be desired. But given our catchment area was the Ferrier, Barnfield, and Feltham Young Persons Unit we could hardly compete with all you duffle coat wearing nancy boys from Blackheath. However we did have our fair share of sporting success, We had three in my year that went onto play football for the Belmarsh first team and one even captained Broadmoor for 23 seasons. In addition to that we had a number of potential Olympian standard shooters and one of our sixth formers took Gold (an entire caseload) at the Securicor Games in Erith.
Hamilton sums up everything I despise in sport and society. The two diamond earrings and the tax exile status for starters.
