Hamilton Vs Vettel, See The Video

[maure 1]

I asked for that

Okay, but if it was providence that it started raining hard enough on the last lap to drop Glock back, was it not also providence that it started raining at all in the last 6 laps (causing them to have to pit for inters). Remember - before that pit Hamilton was comfortable in 4th and could have had Vettel come past without a worry in the world? Either both were providence or neither - and either way, there's no argument to be made here - there just isn't. Was it not providence that it rained at Silverstone and equally at Monza? - or was it only providence when Hamilton benefitted? Just because it was the last race doesn't make it any more important than those occasions, all races are worth the same number of points after all.

call it either - call it luck, chance, providence, divine intervention - it comes to the same end. Yes chance has an effect on the WDC, it always has, it always will - racing is not a science, it's a sport - but luck is not the be all and end all of it either - it evens out and what comes through are quality cars with competent drivers - otherwise we could stick my granny behind the wheel of a Force India and cross our fingers. This is not Las Vegas either.

I never took it as a religious sentiment - I credit you with more intelligence than that - my comments were largely tongue in cheek, the main point was the one I've made above.

Your bold sentence here: you have more faith than me - I'd say the odds are that equal measures of good and bad luck will happen to everyone - like rain six laps from the end - causing Hami to drop to fifth then sixth, then more rain assisting his rise from 6th to 5th again - see - it works both ways. Since he actually lost a place (4th - 5th) over the last 6 laps - one might argue that he had more bad luck than good - no?

You see - if you bring luck into the equation then there's never a winner. Luck runs both ways and the concept of what is luck and what isn't and what constitutes more or less luck is totally subjective. I could say Sutil deserved to be WDC, he just had bad luck. Who's to say I'm wrong? But that would be a pointless discussion - as is this one - think about why.

i) To argue that Hamilton won the WDC on pure skill alone is incorrect. (Lewisterics)

ii) To argue that he won it on luck alone is equally false. (Hamophobics)

iii) To say that he was more or less lucky than the other drivers is purely subjective and therefore groundless (Anyone who can't accept the facts as they are)

So what do we have to fall back on?

1 point. That's the only non-negotiable fact.

...and voodoo dolls.

You are reading too much into it but it is clear that you are having fun. Good on you.

I just felt sorry for Hamilton when Vettel passed him. You can see how much emotion some people put on this race. Some even say is the "best they've ever seen". When I see the video of Massa's family celebrating, I think of some of the posters around here also in the grips of disbelief, on the edge of their chairs, unknowingly clenching their fists, as clueless to what was going on as Massa's family.

I was not seeing the best race of my life in any form whatsover. I did not have any emotions, strong or otherwise, blocking my senses or judgement. I was relaxed and detached from a WDC to which I've become indifferent. I was watching a boring race that was uncompetitive save for a couple of things. It was then that I saw Hamilton choke and Vettel cruise by. I could see the live timing and Glock was fine. At that moment, I felt sorry for Hamilton and, in a way, hoped that he would be able to dig himself out. Why? Because losing like that once again, with the violent fan-base he's got, with the mess he created in McLaren last year, with so many expectations unfairly dumped on his shoulders, Hamilton had just commited himself to a horrible undeserved outcome. At that time, like I said before, Hamilton needed the WDC more than Massa and, caring absolutely nothing either way, I think it is good that Hamilton took it for the reasons explained.

[maure 1]

Hey I am just pointing out the fact that you still haven't explained your 'so young, so few opportunities' comment about Fettel kid I await enlightenment.

Since I did there are only two possibilities left. You are lying (not unsual for you) or you are high on your ignorance (not unsual for you, either). Go search and come back with more than beggings.

[maure 1]

Maure, I reckon that, while it might not raise your blood pressure (which is good), you really do have some issue with the McLaren side of things. And probably not even the team, and definitely not Hamilton, but something along the lines of Ron Dennis? Last year that was the name that ignited you the most. So you can choose not to answer me, but my question is, what did Dennis do to deserve your constant criticism? (At any given point in time). Or if it's not him, then can you discern another cause? Because for example this year Ferrari have screwed up more than once, but your comments on that didn't go half as far as your comments about a mismanaged McLaren team I have read before.

As I said to Adam, I simply react and the RD thingy is no different.

The only reason why RD came up so much was because of the denials of the lewisterics. They chose the topics and, don't forget that in the end, McLaren was forced to admit that they had been lying from day one. How could digging into that ugly mess of denial not be fun...

[cavallino 2]

Since I did there are only two possibilities left. You are lying (not unsual for you) or you are high on your ignorance (not unsual for you, either). Go search and come back with more than beggings.

Classic maure tactic when you are painted into a corner - claim that you alread answered the question. You didn't, read my post further up on this page. Here I will put my questions more clearly to you:

1) How does it make Lewis' championship less or more worthy than others decided by similar events (strokes of luck if you must), just because one such event (and there were many such events through the season, some favoured Lewis, some didn't) happened in the last corner?

2) How can you claim that it is impossible for the STR to be a better car under certain conditions after FEttel won a race this season from pole?

3) How can you say Fettel kid has had 'so young, so few opportunities' when at his age, noone else on the grid even had an F1 drive!

You're alway most amusing when you paint yourself into a corner

[Fed up 0]

Why are we still debating this rubbish. Oh, I forget Maure needs to find a way to practice his English.

Sir Stirling is clueless. The last time I looked he had never won a WDC, unless you count the accolade 'the best driver never to have won a wdc'

Over to you maure I'm sure you've got another word you want to try out on this forum. Your English is definitely improving

[cavallino 2]

Sir Stirling is clueless. The last time I looked he had never won a WDC, unless you count the accolade 'the best driver never to have won a wdc'

You sir are utterly clueless, if you are comparing Lewis and Moss based on who won a WDC and who didn't. Please read up some history, to find out why Moss is rated so highly. Hint: It wasn't all about F1 in those days.

[freaky2 1]

3) How can you say Fettel kid has had 'so young, so few opportunities' when at his age, noone else on the grid even had an F1 drive!

Didn't they? I'd think that at his age the best of them would have already been in some version of Minardi/Benetton? Which is exactly his case by the way. He's saying Hamilton had more opportunities, and I agree, because he got a top drive ever since he started in F1, which I don't think has happened (much?) before, as they are expected to prove themselves first in a crappy team.

Regardless of age, you see it's Hamilton's fault that he was still in GP2 at Vettel's age

[cavallino 2]

Didn't they?

Umm I don't remember clearly. I think Button did. Anyway, we're comparing him to Hamilton.

He's saying Hamilton had more opportunities, and I agree, because he got a top drive ever since he started in F1

Fettel kid got to drive a race winning car one and a half years before Hamilton did. Fettel kid got paired with a rookie, Hamilton got paired with a double world champion, arguably at that time the best driver on the grid. He has earned everything he has achieved.

And if you read the other thread, Mclaren wanted to sign Vettel, so if he hadn't screwed up by slaving himself to Red Bull, he would have a Mclaren drive. Fettel kid has had far more opportunities than Hamilton, and at a younger age. So much for maure's theory about a conspiracy in F1 to keep out new talents, it is incredibly funny that he picked Fettel kid as his example.

[Fed up 0]

Fettel kid got to drive a race winning car one and a half years before Hamilton did. Fettel kid got paired with a rookie, Hamilton got paired with a double world champion, arguably at that time the best driver on the grid. He has earned everything he has achieved.

Rare words of wisdom

[freaky2 1]

Umm I don't remember clearly. I think Button did. Anyway, we're comparing him to Hamilton.

Fettel kid got to drive a race winning car one and a half years before Hamilton did. Fettel kid got paired with a rookie, Hamilton got paired with a double world champion, arguably at that time the best driver on the grid. He has earned everything he has achieved.

A Toro Rosso might have won a race, but it's hardly a top drive for anyone! There are 2 top drives right now, an almost-top drive which is BMW, and then "decent teams to be in" which are Toyota, and the second-half of the championship Renault and Toro Rosso. But at the start of this year Vettel was as good as buried in his Scuderia, and Hamilton started and has always been in a race winning car. A more than one lucky-because-it-was-wet race!

You're horrible when arguments go against you too, by the way. Just so you don't think Maure is alone.

I hope a more clever, less prone to get upset poster can help me in this, because now I really want to prove my point.

[cavallino 2]

A Toro Rosso might have won a race, but it's hardly a top drive for anyone! There are 2 top drives right now, an almost-top drive which is BMW, and then "decent teams to be in" which are Toyota, and the second-half of the championship Renault and Toro Rosso. But at the start of this year Vettel was as good as buried in his Scuderia, and Hamilton started and has always been in a race winning car. A more than one lucky-because-it-was-wet race!

You're horrible when arguments go against you too, by the way. Just so you don't think Maure is alone.

I hope a more clever, less prone to get upset poster can help me in this, because now I really want to prove my point.

Read my edited post If Fettel kid had played his cards right, he would be at Mclaren.

[pabloh20 1]

Why are we still debating this rubbish. Oh, I forget Maure needs to find a way to practice his English.

Sir Stirling is clueless. The last time I looked he had never won a WDC, unless you count the accolade 'the best driver never to have won a wdc'

Over to you maure I'm sure you've got another word you want to try out on this forum. Your English is definitely improving

Sir Stirling is anything but clueless, Feddy.

You sir are utterly clueless, if you are comparing Lewis and Moss based on who won a WDC and who didn't. Please read up some history, to find out why Moss is rated so highly. Hint: It wasn't all about F1 in those days.

Indeed.

[Fed up 0]

A Toro Rosso might have won a race, but it's hardly a top drive for anyone! There are 2 top drives right now, an almost-top drive which is BMW, and then "decent teams to be in" which are Toyota, and the second-half of the championship Renault and Toro Rosso. But at the start of this year Vettel was as good as buried in his Scuderia, and Hamilton started and has always been in a race winning car. A more than one lucky-because-it-was-wet race!

You're horrible when arguments go against you too, by the way. Just so you don't think Maure is alone.

I hope a more clever, less prone to get upset poster can help me in this, because now I really want to prove my point.

It is very simple;

Torro Rosso has a Newey designed chassis with a Ferrari engine. The engine is EXACTLY THE SAME as Felipe's and Kimi's engine and Newey is one of the most celebrated designers of his time. Christian Horner has also admitted that there is total synergy between the two RBR teams, so Vettel benefited from the best RBR car with the total support of both teams.

Monza was lucky, but he beat a Mclaren fair and square, on pace.

[freaky2 1]

Yup, you're quite right in the edited part. And just for the record I don't support Maure's conspiracy theories, I just didn't agree with you. But anyway, he'll compensate for that. If he's doing what he's doing so young, then he has a nice margin to get experience (I actually took a look and it seems he really is the youngest kid in ages to venture into F1 - which can only be good for him). Of course it's a pity, but I guess he enslaved himself to Red Bull because he couldn't know he'd do so well that the top teams would want him so soon. Anyway, I'd rather see him in Ferrari in 2010

[maure 1]

Classic maure tactic when you are painted into a corner - claim that you alread answered the question. You didn't, read my post further up on this page. Here I will put my questions more clearly to you:

So you fcked up again and want to blame for not searching out your posts. What can I say, you are a bore.

1) How does it make Lewis' championship less or more worthy than others decided by similar events (strokes of luck if you must), just because one such event (and there were many such events through the season, some favoured Lewis, some didn't) happened in the last corner?

Find similar events (the eventual winner loses on merit three laps from the flag and rain gifts the WDC to him) and I will stop lauging at your desperate ignorance.

2) How can you claim that it is impossible for the STR to be a better car under certain conditions after FEttel won a race this season from pole?

It is not only possible for the Toro Rosso to be the fastest car on the track, it is precisely what we've seen all season long, race after race. In fact, it is something so mathematical that, just when you need a desperate excuse to justify Hamilton's choke, it works like a charm. Hilarious.

By the way, not only Vettel humiliated Hamilton. Kubica flied by both.

3) How can you say Fettel kid has had 'so young, so few opportunities' when at his age, noone else on the grid even had an F1 drive!

Compared to Hamilton, Vettel has gotten screwed. The entire field has. Hamilton's jump from nothing to a top team in a whine and that team being at his feet almost from the get-go is something never seen before in F1.

The normal route, if you are able to ever see beyond Hamilton, is to be a test driver and work you way up, perhaps by driving for small teams before moving on. Vettel is doing that. Hamilton never did. You know this, everyone does.

You're alway most amusing when you paint yourself into a corner

If only.

[maure 1]

Why are we still debating this rubbish. Oh, I forget Maure needs to find a way to practice his English.

Sir Stirling is clueless. The last time I looked he had never won a WDC, unless you count the accolade 'the best driver never to have won a wdc'

Over to you maure I'm sure you've got another word you want to try out on this forum. Your English is definitely improving

You are a bigot.

Did I spell that right?

[cavallino 2]

Compared to Hamilton, Vettel has gotten screwed. The entire field has. Hamilton's jump from nothing to a top team in a whine and that team being at his feet almost from the get-go is something never seen before in F1.

Do you read anything at all? Read this, again: Mclaren wanted Fettel kid for 2008!!! So the only reason he ddin't go to Mclaren is he signed a stupid deal with Red Bull. OTherwise he would have had the same chances as Hamilton at a much younger age!

[Medilloni 6]

Yup, you're quite right in the edited part. And just for the record I don't support Maure's conspiracy theories, I just didn't agree with you. But anyway, he'll compensate for that. If he's doing what he's doing so young, then he has a nice margin to get experience (I actually took a look and it seems he really is the youngest kid in ages to venture into F1 - which can only be good for him). Of course it's a pity, but I guess he enslaved himself to Red Bull because he couldn't know he'd do so well that the top teams would want him so soon. Anyway, I'd rather see him in Ferrari in 2010

We all assume it's the 'right thing' for a driver to serve an apprenticeship in a banger at the back of the field, then when they amaze others, and stopped over-driving to compensate for driving their BOS, they get the climb up the ladder to the best car, hopefully. At least most of F1 history tells us that's the norm.

Seb Vet's looking pretty special, and as long as he doesn't stagnate if Adrian Newboy designs a dog in the future, then he'll be fine. But who's had it best out of Seb and Lew? Difficult to answer, none of us know how others would have coped with being with a race winning car the way Hamster has (i'm not saying he's coped well, but he has coped!), and would the same situation have been as good for Seb? I don't think so (only my opinion), but more due to the way Hamster was 'groomed' for such a long time, along with all the pressure of having set goals on the motorsport route from a very early age, which Seb probably hasn't had to the same extent.

Seb isn't enslaved, he's just on the ladder that we've seen others on before - and anyway, there's something special seeing a young guy in an 'underdog'(ish) team squezing the metaphorical nuts off it.

Am I still on thread?

Oh yeah, maure, conspiracy theories and this thread. He just likes to wind people up Freaky - at least I'd hope that's what it is, there's no other reason for being like two pods in a pea; a slightly curious quirk of nature, fascinates you for two minutes, then it just gets on yer t1ts

[mikathegreat2 2]

Your Dad must start postin.

As I said before, he thinks the forums are full of idiots!

[freaky2 1]

We all assume it's the 'right thing' for a driver to serve an apprenticeship in a banger at the back of the field, then when they amaze others, and stopped over-driving to compensate for driving their BOS, they get the climb up the ladder to the best car, hopefully. At least most of F1 history tells us that's the norm.

Seb Vet's looking pretty special, and as long as he doesn't stagnate if Adrian Newboy designs a dog in the future, then he'll be fine. But who's had it best out of Seb and Lew? Difficult to answer, none of us know how others would have coped with being with a race winning car the way Hamster has (i'm not saying he's coped well, but he has coped!), and would the same situation have been as good for Seb? I don't think so (only my opinion), but more due to the way Hamster was 'groomed' for such a long time, along with all the pressure of having set goals on the motorsport route from a very early age, which Seb probably hasn't had to the same extent.

Seb isn't enslaved, he's just on the ladder that we've seen others on before - and anyway, there's something special seeing a young guy in an 'underdog'(ish) team squezing the metaphorical nuts off it.

Am I still on thread?

Oh yeah, maure, conspiracy theories and this thread. He just likes to wind people up Freaky - at least I'd hope that's what it is, there's no other reason for being like two pods in a pea; a slightly curious quirk of nature, fascinates you for two minutes, then it just gets on yer t1ts

Oh, yeah, I agree. I actually like it that Vettel's spending the "reglamentary" 1+ years at midfield teams (at least the Toro Rosso wasn't a Force India), as you say it's great to watch. And I think it's good for the drivers, though it's just my opinion. And I know we can't compare him to Hamilton, but I hope we'll be able to - soon But right now we can't because they arrived in F1 in two very different situations, and are still in a situation that doesn't let us compare them. (Ok, I should have realized that before I got into this mess, )

[Fed up 0]

Seb Vet's looking pretty special, and as long as he doesn't stagnate if Adrian Newboy designs a dog in the future, then he'll be fine. But who's had it best out of Seb and Lew? Difficult to answer, none of us know how others would have coped with being with a race winning car the way Hamster has (i'm not saying he's coped well, but he has coped!), and would the same situation have been as good for Seb? I don't think so (only my opinion), but more due to the way Hamster was 'groomed' for such a long time, along with all the pressure of having set goals on the motorsport route from a very early age, which Seb probably hasn't had to the same extent.

This is what some people don't realise or acknowledge. Lewis has scored more points, more victories, more podiums than any other driver in the time he has been in f1. He has also beaten each of his team mates, one an incumbent WDC. Alonso wilted under the pressure as did Kovy, so how Vettel will cope in similar circumstances to Lewis is an unknown. I think he is too young and inexperienced to be compared to Lewis. He has talent, is very fast and has huge potential, but he is still an unknown as a front running driver. Pairing him with Lewis would have been a mistake IMHO as I think Lewis would have beaten him convincingly and perhaps knocked his confidence.

Only time will tell.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

A Toro Rosso might have won a race, but it's hardly a top drive for anyone!

Well its better than what he is moving to and better than a Honda; sometimes better than a Toyota and a Williams.... Usually better than a Red Bull and nearly always better than a Force India. That's half the field. Agreed not as good as a Ferrari, Mclaren or BMW (usually) but with a Ferrari engine and Newey aero its not a *bad* drive. Especially when you consider its heritage.....

I hope a more clever, less prone to get upset poster can help me in this, because now I really want to prove my point.

You called?

[cavallino 2]

This is what some people don't realise or acknowledge. Lewis has scored more points, more victories, more podiums than any other driver in the time he has been in f1. He has also beaten each of his team mates, one an incumbent WDC. Alonso wilted under the pressure as did Kovy, so how Vettel will cope in similar circumstances to Lewis is an unknown. I think he is too young and inexperienced to be compared to Lewis. He has talent, is very fast and has huge potential, but he is still an unknown as a front running driver. Pairing him with Lewis would have been a mistake IMHO as I think Lewis would have beaten him convincingly and perhaps knocked his confidence.

Only time will tell.

Blah Blah Hamilton Blah

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Blah Blah Hamilton Blah

Blah Blah X Blah - Hey, that's my line!!!

[maure 1]

Do you read anything at all? Read this, again: Mclaren wanted Fettel kid for 2008!!! So the only reason he ddin't go to Mclaren is he signed a stupid deal with Red Bull. OTherwise he would have had the same chances as Hamilton at a much younger age!

Yet, it never happen. All words. Reality is otherwise.

And no matter how you cling to the age issue, Hamilton's got treatment than no one else has.