Hamilton

[Nibor]

Hamilton's opponents (drivers or teams) make mistakes and that's luck. Hamilton or his team make mistakes and that's... a mistake?

Hamilton can't pass someone and it's a negative for Hamilton but when another driver can't pass Hamilton it's luck.

Hamilton makes poor tyre choices and it's his fault but when he gets it right and his car outperforms the others it's because his car is better.

How's that work exactly? Don't you think that's a tad biased?

The Mclaren car is slightly better than Ferrari on some tracks and not on others. Both cars are streets ahead of the rest.

Hamilton has the most points out of the four drivers from those two teams.

That's not down to luck at all.

If the other drivers were better they'd be beating him, end of. You don't think Schumacher would be losing in the Ferrari as it is do you?

I agree the sport might be more interesting if the points system were weighted more in favour of race winners but were that the case Hamilton would still be ahead having won as many races as Raikonnen and Alonso and finished better than them in others.

[Redhyde]

Hamilton's opponents (drivers or teams) make mistakes and that's luck. Hamilton or his team make mistakes and that's... a mistake?

No, it's THEIR mistakes, it's HIS luck.

Hamilton can't pass someone and it's a negative for Hamilton but when another driver can't pass Hamilton it's luck.

It was unlucky that Raikkonen had engine trouble in the one race i mentioned the overtaking of him. The race i mentioned about Hamilton's overtaking was a comparison between him and the other drivers ability to come from the back and still score points. You're combining different situations into a sweeping generalisation sometimes it's good driving, sometimes it's luck. In those cases i've mentioned it's highlighting where Hamilton has been lucky and the other drivers haven't.

Hamilton makes poor tyre choices and it's his fault but when he gets it right and his car outperforms the others it's because his car is better. How's that work exactly?

Hamilton has only to my knowledge tried to make one different and unique call on tires this season. He got that very wrong and that of course is his fault. You disagree with that?

And it doesn't. But then i wasn't saying that. Because that would be contradictory.

I'm not overly convinced yet because when Alonso, Massa and Raikkonen hasn't had problems either of their own making or their car or teams Hamilton has performed well twice IMO.

That's not down to luck at all.

Well that's just a lie. And a ridiculous statement to boot. Hamilton has had absolutely no luck this season? Well there's the bias you accused me of having coming through!

If the other drivers were better they'd be beating him, end of.

It doesn't work like that. If Alonso had suffered 10 engine failures you'd still be saying "If the other drivers were better they'd be beating him, end of"? Really? Part of it's driver skill, alot of it's luck.

You don't think Schumacher would be losing in the Ferrari as it is do you?

He was a better driver than the two in the Ferrari now certainly. Why is that relevant? Would Lewis be doing as well as Heidfeld in the BMW? Who knows? I don't know why you chose that line, doesn't really seem to add anything to your point of view.

I agree the sport might be more interesting if the points system were weighted more in favour of race winners but were that the case Hamilton would still be ahead having won as many races as Raikonnen and Alonso and finished better than them in others.

He would be now certainly.

I'm not against Lewis, I don't support Ferrari, i'm just not caught up in the hype yet. He's very good, has he performed particularly well this season? Not for me. Has this been a good season in terms of racing, again no. Just because he's British and winning doesn't make him great, especially when his rivals have had very poor seasons and alot of bad luck too.

[Nibor]

No, it's THEIR mistakes, it's HIS luck.

When you say Hamilton is lucky his rivals made mistakes, don't they have an equal chance of being lucky if he makes a mistake? And if he makes less mistakes that's not really down to any luck is it? That's actually the difference between drivers is it not? Or should he just thank his lucky stars that Massa got a DQ and Alonso went off four times and somehow he got lucky and didn't?

It was unlucky that Raikkonen had engine trouble in the one race i mentioned the overtaking of him. The race i mentioned about Hamilton's overtaking was a comparison between him and the other drivers ability to come from the back and still score points. You're combining different situations into a sweeping generalisation sometimes it's good driving, sometimes it's luck. In those cases i've mentioned it's highlighting where Hamilton has been lucky and the other drivers haven't.

You're arguing the specific to the general. Different races on different tracks in different circumstances - a comparison of Massa's performance from the back of the grid in one race against Hamilton's in another doesn't mean that Hamilton is any worse at overtaking.

Hamilton has only to my knowledge tried to make one different and unique call on tires this season. He got that very wrong and that of course is his fault. You disagree with that?

Drivers have the final say on all car setup, they have a huge influence on it. If you're going to criticise for one case of getting setup wrong why aren't you giving credit for all the times he's got it right? More right than his rivals anyway.

I'm not overly convinced yet because when Alonso, Massa and Raikkonen hasn't had problems either of their own making or their car or teams Hamilton has performed well twice IMO.

Makes no sense whatsoever to me. The very fact that the other drivers have had more problems of their own making than Hamilton would seem to indicate to me he's driving better.

Well that's just a lie. And a ridiculous statement to boot. Hamilton has had absolutely no luck this season? Well there's the bias you accused me of having coming through!

It doesn't work like that. If Alonso had suffered 10 engine failures you'd still be saying "If the other drivers were better they'd be beating him, end of"? Really? Part of it's driver skill, alot of it's luck.

b***ocks! You don't end up top after that many races from luck. It evens out. The league table doesn't lie. Right now he's top because he's driven more consistently than the other three drivers in comparable cars.

He was a better driver than the two in the Ferrari now certainly. Why is that relevant? Would Lewis be doing as well as Heidfeld in the BMW? Who knows? I don't know why you chose that line, doesn't really seem to add anything to your point of view.

You're saying that Hamilton is only in front because he's lucky and the other drivers make mistakes. Don't you think a better driver in those other cars would be in front of him in the championship now? I do. If you do, doesn't that make your theory about luck and better cars sort of... well rubbish?

I'm not against Lewis, I don't support Ferrari, i'm just not caught up in the hype yet. He's very good, has he performed particularly well this season? Not for me. Has this been a good season in terms of racing, again no. Just because he's British and winning doesn't make him great, especially when his rivals have had very poor seasons and alot of bad luck too.

I'm not buying into any hype. I see a very young, raw driver with a fantastic attitude who's worked very hard to get a drive with Maclaren doing exceptionally well for his first season. You seem to give him next to no credit and employ double standards when comparing his performances to other drivers and I find that bemusing especially considering those other drivers are all vastly more experienced than him.

Three other drivers have had a pretty equal chance to be in front of him and they're not. I can't see how you can put that down to luck.

[Redhyde]

When you say Hamilton is lucky his rivals made mistakes, don't they have an equal chance of being lucky if he makes a mistake? And if he makes less mistakes that's not really down to any luck is it? That's actually the difference between drivers is it not? Or should he just thank his lucky stars that Massa got a DQ and Alonso went off four times and somehow he got lucky and didn't?

IT's a combination of luck and ability. I don't think the world championship is long enough or the points structure is suited enough to properly define who's the best. It's the same in most sports, but it's a level playing field in most sports. It isn't in F1

You're arguing the specific to the general. Different races on different tracks in different circumstances - a comparison of Massa's performance from the back of the grid in one race against Hamilton's in another doesn't mean that Hamilton is any worse at overtaking.

Of course not, but you can look at where his teammate finished and assume who has the good car. In that race i think Lewis was poor and didn't make the most of his opportunities and frankly didn't drive well enough.

Drivers have the final say on all car setup, they have a huge influence on it. If you're going to criticise for one case of getting setup wrong why aren't you giving credit for all the times he's got it right? More right than his rivals anyway.

Rival. Has he? I dunno, i don't know the exact details of exactly what he's said and when. I can only use the examples i know that have come out. More right than Alonso? Perhaps. But Alonso has had alot more problems than Hamilton this year IMO.

Makes no sense whatsoever to me. The very fact that the other drivers have had more problems of their own making than Hamilton would seem to indicate to me he's driving better. b***ocks! You don't end up top after that many races from luck. It evens out. The league table doesn't lie. Right now he's top because he's driven more consistently than the other three drivers in comparable cars.

You can in F1, answer the point about the ten engine failures from Alonso. Does that make Hamilton a better driver when he's top?

You're saying that Hamilton is only in front because he's lucky and the other drivers make mistakes. Don't you think a better driver in those other cars would be in front of him in the championship now? I do. If you do, doesn't that make your theory about luck and better cars sort of... well rubbish?

Depends what the circumstances are of course. Don't be silly. A better driver in the same car with no problems would always win. The only reason he wouldn't would be LUCK. In F1 better drivers aren't given the chance to show their ability. They can't overtake because of the way the cars are built. And th eother drivers have had far more technical problems than Hamilton. That's luck, not driver error.

I'm not buying into any hype. I see a very young, raw driver with a fantastic attitude who's worked very hard to get a drive with Maclaren doing exceptionally well for his first season. You seem to give him next to no credit and employ double standards when comparing his performances to other drivers and I find that bemusing especially considering those other drivers are all vastly more experienced than him.

I'm not employing double standards. You can't know that because i haven't given my view on the other drivers. I think they've all been poor too, but much less LUCKY than Hamilton. It's been a poor championship, complimented by a poor points system, that IMO has been decided by mistakes and technical problems rather than good driving.

Three other drivers have had a pretty equal chance to be in front of him and they're not. I can't see how you can put that down to luck.

Pretty equal but not equal. You make my point for me. Part of it's luck. It's not solely down to luck, however Hamilton has had an extremely lucky year. F1 allows for that. Best car + luck vs one rival who has had not much luck = a poor world champion for me.

Hamilton's performances have been decent but not spectacular for me. I've only seen the twice where's he's driven really well and outperformed his teammate and rivals on a level playign field.