Quote from Jakg :

Wish there wan onboard footage from Kimi's car

There proberly is but it was just never shown or recorded. But at the time im pretty sure there would have been. I could be wrong but still i would also like to see that footage.

Every car has multiple cameras on it; it's down to the director to choose the right ones at the right time. FOM has the raw onboard of Kimi's entire race from all cameras, but it will probably never go public.

I don't believe that's entirely accurate - as far as I'm aware they can only record footage from a limited number of cameras/cars at one time. Therefore they might not actually have footage from the period of the crash.

But then again, they might.

... I had that idea watching the Monaco GP, have the ability to watch from any car, at any time...

Quote from tristancliffe :

I don't believe that's entirely accurate - as far as I'm aware they can only record footage from a limited number of cameras/cars at one time. Therefore they might not actually have footage from the period of the crash.

I heard that in the past two or three years, they've expanded their capacity and capability to the point that they can record all the footage from all the cars.

I don't really have any proof either way though, so I can't say for sure.

Quote from Alias Driver :

As for Sutil's "great" race, while he was 20th on the grid and should/could have finished 4th, there were really only a couple of overtaking moves on the track. The bulk of his early position gains were due to other drivers having offs (when you start 20th, you gain spots for pretty much everyone's big mistakes) and the (still odd) 3 spot gain while allegedly under yellow. From then onwards he just gained places as the car in front pitted and ultimately benefited from being able to fill the tank and do a one stopper while a lot of the remaining runners were hobbled by final qualifying and the consequent parc fermé fuel regulations.

what made his race great was that he did serveral fastest laps in the slowest car on track and iirc came 3rd on the fastest lap ranking after the race

I see it very simply. As far as credit for winning races is concerned it comes down to this:

a) Driver can take credit for anything he does/doesn't do on the track.
b) Team takes credit for everything else.

So where does that leave Hamiltons win??

Well he crashed, and put himself a few places back. After that he at best matched the pace of the other quicker drivers. So that's an average, (maybe a bit above average) performance marred by a fairly fundamental mistake. That's got to score less than 5/10.

The team however, took a gamble and it paid off in that Hamilton didn't need to pit just to change tyres, as did the majority of the rest of the field. Team performance 8/10.

Conclusion. The team won the race not Hamiltons drive. If he hadn't had the good fortune, of his teams decision, to be able to make the tyre swap at the same time as fuel up for the last stint he would most likely have finished 4th at best, possibly even 5th.

There was one other contributing factor, which no one seemed to comment on on the day. That was the fact that the race was unduely held up behind the safety car for several more laps than it should have been as two drivers refused to unlap themselves. This significantly reduced the chances of the top drivers to gain on and overtake Hamilton, and also ensured that the race didn't go the full distance. Guess what teams those two drivers belonged to. Yep the same teams as the two front runners. Concidence? You decide.

Sorry I haven't read the whole discussion, but did anyone else notice Kimi had a digital speedo on his steering wheel?

Probably distracted him coming out of the tunnel...

Quote from gezmoor :

I see it very simply. As far as credit for winning races is concerned it comes down to this:

a) Driver can take credit for anything he does/doesn't do on the track.
b) Team takes credit for everything else.

So where does that leave Hamiltons win??

Well he crashed, and put himself a few places back. After that he at best matched the pace of the other quicker drivers. So that's an average, (maybe a bit above average) performance marred by a fairly fundamental mistake. That's got to score less than 5/10.

The team however, took a gamble and it paid off in that Hamilton didn't need to pit just to change tyres, as did the majority of the rest of the field. Team performance 8/10.

Conclusion. The team won the race not Hamiltons drive. If he hadn't had the good fortune, of his teams decision, to be able to make the tyre swap at the same time as fuel up for the last stint he would most likely have finished 4th at best, possibly even 5th.

There was one other contributing factor, which no one seemed to comment on on the day. That was the fact that the race was unduely held up behind the safety car for several more laps than it should have been as two drivers refused to unlap themselves. This significantly reduced the chances of the top drivers to gain on and overtake Hamilton, and also ensured that the race didn't go the full distance. Guess what teams those two drivers belonged to. Yep the same teams as the two front runners. Concidence? You decide.

lol you make your own luck in racing. Senna was lucky to finish 2nd in 1984 after blowing the chicance after the tunnel and nearly wrecking his car.

Hamilton drove a superb race. To keep his head straight after binning it was excellent. he could have very very easily pushed to hard after pitting and landed in the wall trying to make up for his mistake. He kept his head, and at one point had a 40 second LEAD. WHich ever way you put that's more than 5/10. If the team is so worthy of the result then you have to give Hamilton 10/10 for lining up with McLaren when he was a young kid. He made the choice to say hello to Dennis... which ever way you put it Hamilton MADE THAT DECISION! 10/10

It appears your what we called an 'excuse' person. It seems you have set your mind that Hamilton isn't any good and when he does well you come up with a MILLION excuses as to why he hasn't

I guess the 3 stopper in Turkey was an advantage too. I guess that was luck too. Nothing to do with him.

Me thinks its extra points to hamilton and sutil for pulling away with HEAVY HEAVY CARS in the rain.
The reason for the extra stop on the other teams is that with the car brimming with fuel, its harder to control, and in the rain its even worse. And in monaco, much worse...
Credits for the two guy that managed to keep their cars off the walls... (hamilton did hit, but when he had a heavy car and knew he jsut _couldnt_ screw up again, managed a boring but very consistent race).

Yes, Hamilton did well not to crack under the strain after hitting the wall, but the actual driving wasn't that remarkable really. Rarely was he the fastest man on the track, and he never overcame any major problems. The team won it through a good strategy brought on by Hamiltons error.

In Turkey it was a very good drive from him. But not as good as a Senna or a Schumi would have done - they would have won the race by miles despite the extra pitstop (enforced on him because Hamilton is the only F1 driver unable to look after his tyres).

It seems as though you are the "praise" man. Even when he does nothing special you find something to harp on about.

Quote from tristancliffe :

But not as good as a Senna or a Schumi would have done

Ugh, yes. As soon as it became obvious that he was on a three-stop, James Allen started calling it "Senna-like", and the race was less than 10 laps in. Martin should just reach across the booth and slap the shit out of that fool.

It was a good drive, but to directly compare it to Senna before it has even occured is ridiculous.

I can't wait until next year when the BBC gets the rights back. If they don't axe Allen and keep Brundle I'm going to be disappointed.

The rumour mill suggests the idiot commentator who hasn't said one accurate thing in several years of attempting to commentate will not be kept on by the BBC, as even the BBC can tell a heap of shit when they hear one.

The polite, well spoken, knowledgable, calm commentator is said to have already signed. It's even suggested 'his' driver (i.e. the large jawed driver that he manages) might become his co-commentator. I'm not sure of the merits of that.

Hopefully Intrepid won't get the job, because it would be even more Hamilton biased than it already is. Sorry, I meant "than what it is" as Blunderelling would say.

Quote from tristancliffe :

The polite, well spoken, knowledgable, calm commentator is said to have already signed.

Great news.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Sorry, I meant "than what it is" as Blunderelling would say.

Ah, Mark Blundell. A right 'ol Cockney geezer, he is.

At this moment in time. Durability. It's just immensely humidity.

Classic.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Yes, Hamilton did well not to crack under the strain after hitting the wall, but the actual driving wasn't that remarkable really. Rarely was he the fastest man on the track, and he never overcame any major problems. The team won it through a good strategy brought on by Hamiltons error.

In Turkey it was a very good drive from him. But not as good as a Senna or a Schumi would have done - they would have won the race by miles despite the extra pitstop (enforced on him because Hamilton is the only F1 driver unable to look after his tyres).

It seems as though you are the "praise" man. Even when he does nothing special you find something to harp on about.

With absolutely no evidence to back up your that claim Senna/Schumi would have done any better Tristan your statement is empty. I can say with as much validity that I could have won Monaco in a McLaren.

The key to Hamilton's strategy was not outright pace, the fuel loads and varying wet set up gambles from other teams may go someway to explaining their pace. What was key to Hamilton's drive was consistancy, and supreme speed under immense pressure. Yes he got lucky, but so did Kimi last year with Hamilton getting a strange electrical fault in Brazil. But no one questions the skill, and ability of Kimi in 2007 to win the WDC.

But just look at what happened to the 'Ice Man' in Monaco. He seemed to forget how to drive for the majority of the race and as you put it showed 'remarkable car control' to slide into the back of Sutil (who I agree appeared to have lost it anyway).

Praising Kimi for showing remarkable car control to take someone out, and then announcing Hamilton's win as unremarkable!!! Tristan what are you on????

Any which way you look at it, Hamilton did superbly. And you can NOT argue that in an INFERIOR car to Ferrari, AND even with some DODGY races Hamilton is somehow LEADING the championship! Yes an unremarkable driver he is!

I am not as pro-Hamilton anti-rest as you seem to try and make out. I am not blinded by my own ego when it comes to deciding who is or isn't good. Alonso, who I thought was a jerk, is rapidly becoming more favourable in my opinion.

Quote from Intrepid :

I am not as pro-Hamilton anti-rest as you seem to try and make out.

Sure.

Quote from Intrepid :

What was key to Hamilton's drive was consistancy, and supreme speed under immense pressure. Yes he got lucky, but so did Kimi last year with Hamilton getting a strange electrical fault in Brazil.

But just look at what happened to the 'Ice Man' in Monaco. He seemed to forget how to drive for the majority of the race and as you put it showed 'remarkable car control' to slide into the back

Any which way you look at it, Hamilton did superbly.

Quote from gezmoor :

I see it very simply. As far as credit for winning races is concerned it comes down to this:

a) Driver can take credit for anything he does/doesn't do on the track.
b) Team takes credit for everything else.

So where does that leave Hamiltons win??

Well he crashed, and put himself a few places back. After that he at best matched the pace of the other quicker drivers. So that's an average, (maybe a bit above average) performance marred by a fairly fundamental mistake. That's got to score less than 5/10.

The team however, took a gamble and it paid off in that Hamilton didn't need to pit just to change tyres, as did the majority of the rest of the field. Team performance 8/10.

Conclusion. The team won the race not Hamiltons drive. If he hadn't had the good fortune, of his teams decision, to be able to make the tyre swap at the same time as fuel up for the last stint he would most likely have finished 4th at best, possibly even 5th.

There was one other contributing factor, which no one seemed to comment on on the day. That was the fact that the race was unduely held up behind the safety car for several more laps than it should have been as two drivers refused to unlap themselves. This significantly reduced the chances of the top drivers to gain on and overtake Hamilton, and also ensured that the race didn't go the full distance. Guess what teams those two drivers belonged to. Yep the same teams as the two front runners. Concidence? You decide.

Concidence

Quote from Intrepid :

With absolutely no evidence to back up your that claim Senna/Schumi would have done any better Tristan your statement is empty. I can say with as much validity that I could have won Monaco in a McLaren.

The key to Hamilton's strategy was not outright pace, the fuel loads and varying wet set up gambles from other teams may go someway to explaining their pace. What was key to Hamilton's drive was consistancy, and supreme speed under immense pressure. Yes he got lucky, but so did Kimi last year with Hamilton getting a strange electrical fault in Brazil. But no one questions the skill, and ability of Kimi in 2007 to win the WDC.

But just look at what happened to the 'Ice Man' in Monaco. He seemed to forget how to drive for the majority of the race and as you put it showed 'remarkable car control' to slide into the back of Sutil (who I agree appeared to have lost it anyway).

Praising Kimi for showing remarkable car control to take someone out, and then announcing Hamilton's win as unremarkable!!! Tristan what are you on????

Any which way you look at it, Hamilton did superbly. And you can NOT argue that in an INFERIOR car to Ferrari, AND even with some DODGY races Hamilton is somehow LEADING the championship! Yes an unremarkable driver he is!

I am not as pro-Hamilton anti-rest as you seem to try and make out. I am not blinded by my own ego when it comes to deciding who is or isn't good. Alonso, who I thought was a jerk, is rapidly becoming more favourable in my opinion.

Kimi deserved the 07 title becuase he didn't fiddle with the buttons on the wheel and he didn't **** up the two most important races of the season, hence victory was his.

for me 5 drivers out there impressed me in monaco.

They were: Kubica, Massa, Sutil, Webber and kovalanien(or how ever hes name is spelt). The reason for this is becuase they all smashed the hell out of there team mates in pace. Hamilton won but Hekki was actually faster then him in the race and for him to get points from last(which wasn't his fualt) means he had a better drive then his over rated team mate.

Quote from Intrepid :

With absolutely no evidence to back up your that claim Senna/Schumi would have done any better Tristan your statement is empty. I can say with as much validity that I could have won Monaco in a McLaren.

No evidence other than the many many times both drivers won races they shouldn't have, be it through poorer cars or poorer strategies, whilst remaining the fastest people on the track... Plenty of evidence.

Quote from Intrepid :

The key to Hamilton's strategy was not outright pace, the fuel loads and varying wet set up gambles from other teams may go someway to explaining their pace. What was key to Hamilton's drive was consistancy, and supreme speed under immense pressure. Yes he got lucky, but so did Kimi last year with Hamilton getting a strange electrical fault in Brazil. But no one questions the skill, and ability of Kimi in 2007 to win the WDC.

Supreme speed under pressure? I see no supreme speed! Strange electrical fault? He pressed the wrong buttons!

Quote from Intrepid :

But just look at what happened to the 'Ice Man' in Monaco. He seemed to forget how to drive for the majority of the race and as you put it showed 'remarkable car control' to slide into the back of Sutil (who I agree appeared to have lost it anyway).

Praising Kimi for showing remarkable car control to take someone out, and then announcing Hamilton's win as unremarkable!!! Tristan what are you on????

Read my post in full. Apart from the initial error (which I'm not denying) he kept 3 or 4 full tankslappers at 160mph out of the wall. Mr Coulthard didn't manage to save 1/4 of a tankslapper! But yes, Kimi was out of sorts that day - why, we'll probably never know. It is easier to win a race when most of the opposition aren't there to beat you though.

Quote from Intrepid :

Any which way you look at it, Hamilton did superbly. And you can NOT argue that in an INFERIOR car to Ferrari, AND even with some DODGY races Hamilton is somehow LEADING the championship! Yes an unremarkable driver he is!

Inferior car? Evidence for this please! Even with DODGY races? Not noticed the oppositions' dodgy races then?

Quote from Intrepid :

I am not as pro-Hamilton anti-rest as you seem to try and make out. I am not blinded by my own ego when it comes to deciding who is or isn't good. Alonso, who I thought was a jerk, is rapidly becoming more favourable in my opinion.

I agree about Alonso - he's driving very very well this year. But I don't see what our own egos has to do about seeing that Hamilton has only rarely put in stunning performances - once, perhaps twice so far. Monaco was certainly NOT a supreme drive from him... Don't confuse winning with supreme driving.

Quote from Tristan (multiple posts) :

...

This man speaks sense (well, on this matter at least :razz- listen to him

Quote from Intrepid :

..... But no one questions the skill, and ability of Kimi in 2007 to win the WDC.

I don't believe anyone here is taking anything away from Hamilton with regards to his skill and ability. It's patently clear that Hamilton is a very good driver. So are all of the F1 drivers, anyone that believes otherwise is just naieve in the extreme. All of what you say is true, but non of it is anything more than we should expect from a driver in the highest level of car racing in the world. That's the whole point I believe. Hamilton is to be judged by comparison with his peers not by the standard of lesser drivers in lesser formuae. In this context, is he an exceptionally talented F1 driver? Personally, I don't believe so. He's certainly one of the top F1 drivers, but I don't see anything exceptional yet. He is clearly in at the least equal best car in F1 and has been matched in terms of pace by his team mate on several occasions.

Lets be honest about it, if Schumacher or Senna where in the same car, does anyone believe they wouldn't be clearly in the lead of the championship having won or placed second in all of the races? So far the person that Hamiltons F1 career most closely represents is that of Jacques Villeneuve who placed second in his first year, (just like Hamilton), and then went on to win 7 races the next year and take the championship title, (only time will tell for Hamilton). Did anyone ever compare Villeneuve with Senna? Of course not.

Quote :

I am not as pro-Hamilton anti-rest as you seem to try and make out. I am not blinded by my own ego when it comes to deciding who is or isn't good. Alonso, who I thought was a jerk, is rapidly becoming more favourable in my opinion.

I'm not anti-Hamilton either. I am however very anti all the sycophantic Hamilton hype. But then it's not surprising, we do it every time any of our drivers show the slightest bit of competence in F1. But I draw the line at having Hamiltons face in the credits of all the F1 coverage and all the commentators wetting themselves over him. At least not at this stage of his career and performance, it's just not warranted as yet in my opinion. He needs to win his first championship at least before we can start idolising him.

I agree, I dislike the coverage Hamilton gets for the main reason that some presenters think he has come from no where which in fact is not the case. But the hype is somewhat warrented if tedious at times. I have witnessed FIRST hand what Lewis Hamilton can do. Not just seen it on TV, but been on the SAME track at the SAME time.

Comparing to Senna or Schumi... well I don't recall either of them beating a reigning world champion in the SAME car in their rookie year. If you don't think that is exceptional then clearly you just don't know racing. This year is he is unquestionably in an inferior car to the Ferrari as well.

I must admit James Allen spouting this Senna nonsence is frustrating. The only reason (from what I know) Hamilton has a yellow helmet is so Anthony could see him from a far distance when he raced karts. Is Hamilton the next Senna??? No of course not, nor the next Schumi, he is the next Lewis Hamilton.

The only reason people don't like HAmilton as he proved most people don't know much about driving. Most thought Kimi/Alonso were the nuts and he proved in his first year they really aren't as GREAT as people thought they were, thus discrediting their opinions, and making them look stupid.

The fact in 1996 I made it known to many of my mates that Hamilton will be fighting for WDCs in his first year in F1 even b4 he was signed up is neither here nor there... just thought I would put that in....

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EfYYIMCunvs

he's overtaken that red car!

OK that's about enough.......

Intrepid you are sounding just like Jame Allen himself.

Hamilton is great and all that and so he doesn't need people defending for him.....he has an inferior car...um okay but it's only very slightly inferior, certainly less than the advantage Mclaren had over ferrari last year, keep banging on these points (and particularly having them in bold does nothing but making you sound like a fanboy).

There's really no point defending a top line F1 driver on a forum. First he knows how good he is and don't need us to inform about that. Second people's love/hate attitude towards driver are often irrational and personal, live with it, just don't get on people's nerves rallying about it (yup just what you are doing). And last but not least, no one actually cares how much you praise him including hamilton himself, people will not suddenly rate hamilton differently because you write a song, fill it with evangelistic lyrics and sing it aloud in Convert Garden.

Its a forum JJ72. If people didn't have personal vendetta's, and pointless arguements this forum would die instantly. This is what forums are about!