Lewis Hamilton..what a bellend

highlandsflyer":3v3i6pmv said:
I just don't want to see the last bastion of British engineering excellence being cowed in favour of global politics, nor do I want to see Grand Prix racing becoming the gentle cousin of my brother's precious IndyCars.
Your brother is Tony George AICMFP?

British engineering has less of stranglehold on motorsport engineering than it once had - admittedly still more dominant than many would probably realise, but recent years have seen some change, there.

As to the politics angle - well first rule, it's all about the money, but beyond that, and the sport has to fit in with something that aligns with the people. They can't distance themselves totally, because just in ivory towers, with no human interest, and there isn't money, really.

In the end, though, there's enough snobbery and (loosely) union with the teams to not be entirely dominated by FOM.

As to Indycars, it wasn't always like it is now. The split was bad, and the series I preferred was quite entertaining - a rough split between oval circuits, street circuits, and "road" circuits. There were several chassis makers and engine manufacturers, and although the level of innovation and sophistication somewhat behind F1, the series was most entertaining.

The cars, whilst looking reasonably similar to F1 cars, then, were although more powerful than F1 cars, heavier, not as well braked, but had some aero aspects (admittedly, often, some were dictated by type of circuit) that helped in terms of cars following and overtaking (ground effects and venturi tunnels were still allowed).

Yes the often prolonged and invasive safety car periods could often be seen as intrusive or contrived, but on the flip-side frequently added more action. Clearly that has parallels with modern F1, with single manufacturer and spec tyres, KERS and DRS.

It was often a very entertaining series, but the split was damaging, long term, and sometime over the last 10 / 15 years, I lost interest, when fuel economy started to become a major factor in race strategy. The concept of turning down boost / revs, running lean and slower, to try and avoid a pit-stop, at least to me robbed many races of interest and excitement.

When the IRL formed, I couldn't muster any interest in it. Don't think I've ever watched a post-split Indy 500. However, for those that criticise the role of a circuit like Monaco for F1, you have to say, there's at least some argument, that some tracks are of bigger significance to a series than some would credit them.

A lot of those spec decisions of the American series, though, could (and have at times) shown some similarities in F1.

I realise that in modern times they can't just open the floodgates and effectively loosen regulations to make it entirely money-no-object racing in F1. Whilst elitism is never that absent in F1, it makes new blood most difficult, and shows no empathy with society. But they do need to find a good balance between making it more relevant, and not being too contrived and artificial.

I'd like to think that the principles of the American single-seater / open-wheeled series won't become major factors for F1. But the spec ECU sounded alarming, even if I could see / get some of the thinking. Yet still custom throttle maps are to some degree making a mockery of it. Maybe the whole launch control, traction control, and before it "3D" throttle mapping were difficult to police, but I wonder if we're now that far from it, in reailty.

All the same, I'd like to think that F1 won't end up castrated to become like some of the US single-seater / open-wheel series, but there's certainly lessons to be learnt from them - splits and breakaway groups are bad and damaging long-term; too much interference - either for spec reasons, cost reasons, or racing reasons can often be (ultimately) self-defeating.

Entertainment and relevance to the audience are significant factors, even if many existing fans don't like the prospect. You've only got to see some of the races on the calendar, where local people just don't get an F1 race, and there's little local interest to realise that the reality of branching out into these places isn't exactly the expansion or changes that F1 needs.

There are times when I think that what FOM needs is new blood, and on the other hand, just as many times when I think that what it needs is the same control it's had for decades.

But as to the parallels in other posts, about other sports, there was some interesting debate on governance in sport on Radio 4 earlier this week. Some of it quite thought provoking, but even accepting (and I always have) about the role of money, I have to say the ever-increasing dumbing-down to chase ratings is becoming a heavy spectre, and is certainly reducing my interest in sports and TV that I used to enjoy.
 
Neil":u8fp7wfu said:
Neil G":u8fp7wfu said:
FMJ":u8fp7wfu said:
highlandsflyer":u8fp7wfu said:
Can you let me know what other drivers entered the sport in such a manner, winning their second season at such a young age?
As in what other drivers were handed a seat with a top tier team in a car capable of winning on a silver platter, all orchestrated by a team manager that financed them? None that I can think of.

Even Senna had to tough it out with Toleman his first season. Shumi brought Benetton from backmarker to Constructor's Champion...........
Couldn't agree more and that's why I don't think he's really an exceptional driver like the other two.
I think it's a mistake to think of it simply like that - just because he's not had to drive for a mid-field team, that it dilutes his abilities or achievements.

I have to say, I think it's good for their development to have some lean years - but all the same, he's definitely fast, and most definitely talented, and may well be in the leagues of Senna or Schumacher.

Now I know some will say that he was the golden boy at McLaren, but lets not forget, in his rookie year, his team mate was a very capable and talented 2 x WC. He had a very strong season, and truth be told, snatched defeat from the jaws of victory where the world championship was concerned - but then a lot was going on with the team and drivers, and it was his rookie year after all - all the same, though, he more than kept up with Alonso.

I genuinely don't believe that for most of that year, certainly the early part, McLaren favoured Hamilton over Alonso - that would be bad business sense and I don't see that in them. They may not have been overly deferential to Alonso, and maybe that was more the issue.

Pit-stop-gate was clearly a pivotal moment, in the tension becoming absolute and apparent to the rest of the world.

There have been other scenarios, in recent times, of drivers parachuted into top teams - Jacques Villeneuve and Juan Pablo Montoya - who were both relatively young when they were. Admittedly, both had raced in Champ Cars / CART before F1 (as well as other formulas) and both were Champ Car / CART champions and Indy 500 winners.

Jacques Villeneuve won the WC in his 2nd year in F1, and was Hill's only real rival in his 1st year in F1. After that, though, and accepting that William's performance dropped off somewhat, and allowing for the BAR years being rather fruitless, he didn't have the same zing that Hamilton does.

I feel Hamilton is not shy of driving talent - I think it's early - but perhaps prophetic to compare him to the likes of Senna and Schumacher - but for any driver, it's a big ask to match the results of Senna, never mind Schumacher.

He does need to evolve, though. To become truly great, I feel he needs to demonstrate the same degree of intelligence or at least savvy that Schumacher has throughout his career. If Button doesn't have quite the same pure talent that Hamilton has, he most certainly has more driving smarts - and those are important lessons to learn for Hamilton, but I wonder whether his ego is too big a stumbling block for him to overcome where that's concerned.

I also think that when the cracks start to show, to me at least, Hamilton seems like a driver that's been groomed very well for quite some time, into mostly being able to show himself as professional, and able to pull off a "nice guy" with something of a humble personality - but the reality is more of an egotistical brat that most of the time manages to project a facade nice-guy-genuine-and-humble.

But the one thing I don't doubt is his speed and talent - he just needs to become more of a cerebral driver than a purely instinctive one. That and either learn when to button-it, or show some responsibility when some flaws are exposed.

Good points there. Good drivers will always be compared to the likes of Senna and Schumacher but the playing field has changed so much since their days so it's a difficult one. I've never been overly keen on Hamilton from the get go, there's just something about his personality that makes him come across like a bit of a tit.
 
Neil G":3s8j957g said:
I've never been overly keen on Hamilton from the get go, there's just something about his personality that makes him come across like a bit of a tit.
Agreed - same here.

I recognise he's very talented, and at times have been wanting to see him win races or even the WC - but all the same, there's just something about him that doesn't sit comfortably with me. I'm sure he's just gutted about it.
 
Back
Top