planetf1.com

pokerman wrote:Just a slight titbit, Hamilton didn't need Rosberg's car to breakdown to win the title in Abu Dhabi but Rosberg needed Hamilton's car to breakdown for him to win the title.

Only assuming that Rosberg would still have lost all the races after Malaysia like he actually did. If he had needed to win any of them, we don't know what would have happened.

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:Just a slight titbit, Hamilton didn't need Rosberg's car to breakdown to win the title in Abu Dhabi but Rosberg needed Hamilton's car to breakdown for him to win the title.

Only assuming that Rosberg would still have lost all the races after Malaysia like he actually did. If he had needed to win any of them, we don't know what would have happened.

Wrong season I think.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:Just a slight titbit, Hamilton didn't need Rosberg's car to breakdown to win the title in Abu Dhabi but Rosberg needed Hamilton's car to breakdown for him to win the title.

Only assuming that Rosberg would still have lost all the races after Malaysia like he actually did. If he had needed to win any of them, we don't know what would have happened.

Wrong season I think.

Ah, you're probably right. Lewis has won two titles in AD though, so it it is open to misinterpretation.

I think I understand what pokerman was saying, then: a Mercedes 1-2 in Hamilton's favor would still have given him the title, whereas a 1-2 in Rosberg's favor would not have. True enough, as far as it goes, and he never should have been within striking distance anyway without double points.

Arguably however, the Abu Dhabi effective retirement put the balance of unreliability towards Nico's side, with 3 no-fault DNFs to Hamilton's 2 (if you believe Mercedes that the issues in Canada were identical on both cars and Nico successfully drove his car to the end, it was within Hamilton's ability to do so as well). Nico had opportunities to do better in the season (winning Hungary, most prominently), but with the retirement at Abu Dhabi none of it would have mattered. He didn't throw away enough points to cancel out the 50-point automatic gain for Lewis (or at least 36, if you assume Hamilton was going to win anyway).

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:Just a slight titbit, Hamilton didn't need Rosberg's car to breakdown to win the title in Abu Dhabi but Rosberg needed Hamilton's car to breakdown for him to win the title.

Only assuming that Rosberg would still have lost all the races after Malaysia like he actually did. If he had needed to win any of them, we don't know what would have happened.

Wrong season I think.

Ah, you're probably right. Lewis has won two titles in AD though, so it it is open to misinterpretation.

I think I understand what pokerman was saying, then: a Mercedes 1-2 in Hamilton's favor would still have given him the title, whereas a 1-2 in Rosberg's favor would not have. True enough, as far as it goes, and he never should have been within striking distance anyway without double points.

Arguably however, the Abu Dhabi effective retirement put the balance of unreliability towards Nico's side, with 3 no-fault DNFs to Hamilton's 2 (if you believe Mercedes that the issues in Canada were identical on both cars and Nico successfully drove his car to the end, it was within Hamilton's ability to do so as well). Nico had opportunities to do better in the season (winning Hungary, most prominently), but with the retirement at Abu Dhabi none of it would have mattered. He didn't throw away enough points to cancel out the 50-point automatic gain for Lewis (or at least 36, if you assume Hamilton was going to win anyway).

Hamilton has won only 1 title in AD? Therefore, I would assume Pokerman is referring to 2014. Hamilton could afford to finish 2nd behind Rosberg, so it was Rosberg who needed Hamilton’s car to fail, not vice versa. Without the double points, Hamilton would have needed only 6th.

From what I can remember of that race, Hamilton already had a decent lead over Rosberg on track, even before Rosberg’s car started to experience problems. Of course, we can never know for sure what would have happened without Rosberg’s ERS problem. But even if he had no such problem, Rosberg would have needed to somehow find a way past Hamilton on track (something Rosberg had been unable to do all season?) plus hope Hamilton DNF’d or finished 3rd or lower. Unlikely.

Again, my recollection is a little hazy, but I’m pretty sure Hamilton had other technical issues that year e.g fire in Hungary qual, brake problem in Germany qual etc. Hence, in terms of reliability, i would question your sentence that Rosberg's issue in AD put the balance of unreliability towards Rosberg. Perhaps we can say, it merely evened out the unreliability score?

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:Just a slight titbit, Hamilton didn't need Rosberg's car to breakdown to win the title in Abu Dhabi but Rosberg needed Hamilton's car to breakdown for him to win the title.

Only assuming that Rosberg would still have lost all the races after Malaysia like he actually did. If he had needed to win any of them, we don't know what would have happened.

Wrong season I think.

Ah, you're probably right. Lewis has won two titles in AD though, so it it is open to misinterpretation.

I think I understand what pokerman was saying, then: a Mercedes 1-2 in Hamilton's favor would still have given him the title, whereas a 1-2 in Rosberg's favor would not have. True enough, as far as it goes, and he never should have been within striking distance anyway without double points.

Arguably however, the Abu Dhabi effective retirement put the balance of unreliability towards Nico's side, with 3 no-fault DNFs to Hamilton's 2 (if you believe Mercedes that the issues in Canada were identical on both cars and Nico successfully drove his car to the end, it was within Hamilton's ability to do so as well). Nico had opportunities to do better in the season (winning Hungary, most prominently), but with the retirement at Abu Dhabi none of it would have mattered. He didn't throw away enough points to cancel out the 50-point automatic gain for Lewis (or at least 36, if you assume Hamilton was going to win anyway).

It still didn't need Rosberg to have more bad luck for Hamilton to win the title but Rosberg needed Hamilton to have more bad luck for him to win the title which was my point.

Regarding the 2014 season I believe Hamilton had to start from the back of the grid twice because of car failures in qualifying so your bad luck analysis is probably not right anyway?

SR1 wrote:Again, my recollection is a little hazy, but I’m pretty sure Hamilton had other technical issues that year e.g fire in Hungary qual, brake problem in Germany qual etc. Hence, in terms of reliability, i would question your sentence that Rosberg's issue in AD put the balance of unreliability towards Rosberg. Perhaps we can say, it merely evened out the unreliability score?

pokerman wrote:Regarding the 2014 season I believe Hamilton had to start from the back of the grid twice because of car failures in qualifying so your bad luck analysis is probably not right anyway?

I'm including the effect of double points in my conclusion. In 2014 starting from the back of the grid meant probably 3rd place (and maybe even 2nd), so 10 points lost compared to a win. Having your engine blow up in a double points race is 50 points from a win, or 36 from a presumed second place. That's a much bigger points swing than having to start last twice in a car that's so much faster than anything else.

Without the fact that the last race was double points, I agree that Rosberg wouldn't have had the balance of unreliability, but the place he had his issue ruled him out of the championship even if things had gone much better for him earlier in the season.

Exediron wrote:

SR1 wrote:Again, my recollection is a little hazy, but I’m pretty sure Hamilton had other technical issues that year e.g fire in Hungary qual, brake problem in Germany qual etc. Hence, in terms of reliability, i would question your sentence that Rosberg's issue in AD put the balance of unreliability towards Rosberg. Perhaps we can say, it merely evened out the unreliability score?

pokerman wrote:Regarding the 2014 season I believe Hamilton had to start from the back of the grid twice because of car failures in qualifying so your bad luck analysis is probably not right anyway?

I'm including the effect of double points in my conclusion. In 2014 starting from the back of the grid meant probably 3rd place (and maybe even 2nd), so 10 points lost compared to a win. Having your engine blow up in a double points race is 50 points from a win, or 36 from a presumed second place. That's a much bigger points swing than having to start last twice in a car that's so much faster than anything else.

Without the fact that the last race was double points, I agree that Rosberg wouldn't have had the balance of unreliability, but the place he had his issue ruled him out of the championship even if things had gone much better for him earlier in the season.

However the starting point for this was me saying that Hamilton has never needed greater luck than Rosberg in order to beat him to the title, Rosberg lost 36 points in Abu Dhabi, Hamilton won the title by 67 points, he would have beat Rosberg by 31 points and that would have been with Rosberg having the better luck.

Also let's not forget that Hamilton won 11 races to the 5 wins of Rosberg yet the poster I replied to said that Hamilton won by luck.

SR1 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:Just a slight titbit, Hamilton didn't need Rosberg's car to breakdown to win the title in Abu Dhabi but Rosberg needed Hamilton's car to breakdown for him to win the title.

Only assuming that Rosberg would still have lost all the races after Malaysia like he actually did. If he had needed to win any of them, we don't know what would have happened.

Wrong season I think.

Ah, you're probably right. Lewis has won two titles in AD though, so it it is open to misinterpretation.

I think I understand what pokerman was saying, then: a Mercedes 1-2 in Hamilton's favor would still have given him the title, whereas a 1-2 in Rosberg's favor would not have. True enough, as far as it goes, and he never should have been within striking distance anyway without double points.

Arguably however, the Abu Dhabi effective retirement put the balance of unreliability towards Nico's side, with 3 no-fault DNFs to Hamilton's 2 (if you believe Mercedes that the issues in Canada were identical on both cars and Nico successfully drove his car to the end, it was within Hamilton's ability to do so as well). Nico had opportunities to do better in the season (winning Hungary, most prominently), but with the retirement at Abu Dhabi none of it would have mattered. He didn't throw away enough points to cancel out the 50-point automatic gain for Lewis (or at least 36, if you assume Hamilton was going to win anyway).

Hamilton has won only 1 title in AD? Therefore, I would assume Pokerman is referring to 2014. Hamilton could afford to finish 2nd behind Rosberg, so it was Rosberg who needed Hamilton’s car to fail, not vice versa. Without the double points, Hamilton would have needed only 6th.

From what I can remember of that race, Hamilton already had a decent lead over Rosberg on track, even before Rosberg’s car started to experience problems. Of course, we can never know for sure what would have happened without Rosberg’s ERS problem. But even if he had no such problem, Rosberg would have needed to somehow find a way past Hamilton on track (something Rosberg had been unable to do all season?) plus hope Hamilton DNF’d or finished 3rd or lower. Unlikely.

Again, my recollection is a little hazy, but I’m pretty sure Hamilton had other technical issues that year e.g fire in Hungary qual, brake problem in Germany qual etc. Hence, in terms of reliability, i would question your sentence that Rosberg's issue in AD put the balance of unreliability towards Rosberg. Perhaps we can say, it merely evened out the unreliability score?

Yea in Abu Dhabi 14' Rosberg started on pole but Hamilton beat him off the line and was in front the whole race by a couple of seconds until Rosberg started experiencing problems with his car. As we have seen the past few years there is no overtaking like cars in AD, so Hamilton would have most definitely won that race anyway even if Rosberg didn't run into problems. And even if Nico did win, Lewis still would have been champion by coming second.

2015 is the year that you can argue Rosberg had more bad luck, but Lewis got a win taken away from him in Monaco, so even though his car was more reliable than Rosberg's that year, his bad luck at Monaco surely evened that out.

kleefton wrote:

SR1 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote: Only assuming that Rosberg would still have lost all the races after Malaysia like he actually did. If he had needed to win any of them, we don't know what would have happened.

Wrong season I think.

Ah, you're probably right. Lewis has won two titles in AD though, so it it is open to misinterpretation.

I think I understand what pokerman was saying, then: a Mercedes 1-2 in Hamilton's favor would still have given him the title, whereas a 1-2 in Rosberg's favor would not have. True enough, as far as it goes, and he never should have been within striking distance anyway without double points.

Arguably however, the Abu Dhabi effective retirement put the balance of unreliability towards Nico's side, with 3 no-fault DNFs to Hamilton's 2 (if you believe Mercedes that the issues in Canada were identical on both cars and Nico successfully drove his car to the end, it was within Hamilton's ability to do so as well). Nico had opportunities to do better in the season (winning Hungary, most prominently), but with the retirement at Abu Dhabi none of it would have mattered. He didn't throw away enough points to cancel out the 50-point automatic gain for Lewis (or at least 36, if you assume Hamilton was going to win anyway).

Hamilton has won only 1 title in AD? Therefore, I would assume Pokerman is referring to 2014. Hamilton could afford to finish 2nd behind Rosberg, so it was Rosberg who needed Hamilton’s car to fail, not vice versa. Without the double points, Hamilton would have needed only 6th.

From what I can remember of that race, Hamilton already had a decent lead over Rosberg on track, even before Rosberg’s car started to experience problems. Of course, we can never know for sure what would have happened without Rosberg’s ERS problem. But even if he had no such problem, Rosberg would have needed to somehow find a way past Hamilton on track (something Rosberg had been unable to do all season?) plus hope Hamilton DNF’d or finished 3rd or lower. Unlikely.

Again, my recollection is a little hazy, but I’m pretty sure Hamilton had other technical issues that year e.g fire in Hungary qual, brake problem in Germany qual etc. Hence, in terms of reliability, i would question your sentence that Rosberg's issue in AD put the balance of unreliability towards Rosberg. Perhaps we can say, it merely evened out the unreliability score?

Yea in Abu Dhabi 14' Rosberg started on pole but Hamilton beat him off the line and was in front the whole race by a couple of seconds until Rosberg started experiencing problems with his car. As we have seen the past few years there is no overtaking like cars in AD, so Hamilton would have most definitely won that race anyway even if Rosberg didn't run into problems. And even if Nico did win, Lewis still would have been champion by coming second.

2015 is the year that you can argue Rosberg had more bad luck, but Lewis got a win taken away from him in Monaco, so even though his car was more reliable than Rosberg's that year, his bad luck at Monaco surely evened that out.

The pattern was that Rosberg needed Hamilton to have more bad luck in order for the title battle to be close, when Rosberg had more bad luck in 2015 Hamilton won the title with 3 races to spare.

Going on this title thread, I agree that Hamilton only wants to drive for 2 more seasons, but who knows with Lewis. Believe he's got another title in the bag, hoping more fans will warm up to him over this period.. Seems to me, F1 viewers have split opions of him, despite his genuine honesty on track.

I'm not a huge fan of team orders unless it's mathematically impossible to win the WC or there is a car problem.. I was so gutted that Eddie Irvine and Massa allowed Schumacher those wins. Lewis has always IMHO been a fair driver and wants wins won on talent and not handed to him.. Not sure Vettel or Ferrari has that same mind set.

Noni wrote:Going on this title thread, I agree that Hamilton only wants to drive for 2 more seasons, but who knows with Lewis. Believe he's got another title in the bag, hoping more fans will warm up to him over this period.. Seems to me, F1 viewers have split opions of him, despite his genuine honesty on track.

I'm not a huge fan of team orders unless it's mathematically impossible to win the WC or there is a car problem.. I was so gutted that Eddie Irvine and Massa allowed Schumacher those wins. Lewis has always IMHO been a fair driver and wants wins won on talent and not handed to him.. Not sure Vettel or Ferrari has that same mind set.

I'm sort of surprised his new contract hasn't been sorted yet, it's well past the Christmas break, it was said it would be sorted over the winter?

If not then it might suggest a suck it and see approach from Hamilton with thoughts of 2018 being his final season if Mercedes are struggling?

If he does sign a new contract then I see Mercedes wanting it to be a 2 year contract taking him to the end of the 2020 season and the present Concorde agreement, after that there is a big reset in the rules and perhaps the pecking order?

Will Mercedes themselves stay in F1 when everything is going to be greatly equalised, Hamilton himself will be 35, will he want to continue into the new look F1 or will the changed and uncertain F1 be an apt time for him to retire, a F1 were a driver winning half of the races would be frowned upon and highly unlikely.

Noni wrote:Going on this title thread, I agree that Hamilton only wants to drive for 2 more seasons, but who knows with Lewis. Believe he's got another title in the bag, hoping more fans will warm up to him over this period.. Seems to me, F1 viewers have split opions of him, despite his genuine honesty on track.

I'm not a huge fan of team orders unless it's mathematically impossible to win the WC or there is a car problem.. I was so gutted that Eddie Irvine and Massa allowed Schumacher those wins. Lewis has always IMHO been a fair driver and wants wins won on talent and not handed to him.. Not sure Vettel or Ferrari has that same mind set.

Not sure there's a difference with any of the drivers tbh. They all want to win at all costs and at the end of the day they'll take points however they come by them (excluding cheating, of course)

Noni wrote:Going on this title thread, I agree that Hamilton only wants to drive for 2 more seasons, but who knows with Lewis. Believe he's got another title in the bag, hoping more fans will warm up to him over this period.. Seems to me, F1 viewers have split opions of him, despite his genuine honesty on track.

I'm not a huge fan of team orders unless it's mathematically impossible to win the WC or there is a car problem.. I was so gutted that Eddie Irvine and Massa allowed Schumacher those wins. Lewis has always IMHO been a fair driver and wants wins won on talent and not handed to him.. Not sure Vettel or Ferrari has that same mind set.

IMO they have exactly the same mind set but one is very keen to make you believe that they don't : )

AnRs wrote:

Noni wrote:Going on this title thread, I agree that Hamilton only wants to drive for 2 more seasons, but who knows with Lewis. Believe he's got another title in the bag, hoping more fans will warm up to him over this period.. Seems to me, F1 viewers have split opions of him, despite his genuine honesty on track.

I'm not a huge fan of team orders unless it's mathematically impossible to win the WC or there is a car problem.. I was so gutted that Eddie Irvine and Massa allowed Schumacher those wins. Lewis has always IMHO been a fair driver and wants wins won on talent and not handed to him.. Not sure Vettel or Ferrari has that same mind set.

IMO they have exactly the same mind set but one is very keen to make you believe that they don't : )

Noni wrote:Going on this title thread, I agree that Hamilton only wants to drive for 2 more seasons, but who knows with Lewis. Believe he's got another title in the bag, hoping more fans will warm up to him over this period.. Seems to me, F1 viewers have split opions of him, despite his genuine honesty on track.

I'm not a huge fan of team orders unless it's mathematically impossible to win the WC or there is a car problem.. I was so gutted that Eddie Irvine and Massa allowed Schumacher those wins. Lewis has always IMHO been a fair driver and wants wins won on talent and not handed to him.. Not sure Vettel or Ferrari has that same mind set.

Which wins did Massa and Irvine allow Schumacher to have? Barrichello did, at least twice, but other than that I'm struggling to remember any from Massa and Irvine.

All drivers want to win at all costs and they'll have any help they can, but I think primarily they want to win fair and square. As we are on Schumacher, this will give you an idea if you watch it after the 4th minute: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HH8qbRaDhlQ

Of course this doesn't happen always and their emotions and desires get the better of them sometimes, as indeed Schumacher himself has also demonstrated.

Regarding Lewis, he has raced fair in his career and I have never read any negative comments regarding his driving. Ok, liegate stands out as a negative point (and it was a really bad one), but this was an exceptional situation and not the M.O. of Lewis. Maybe a couple of grey areas in '07 as well and a couple of things with Button and Rosberg, but his driving has normally been fair. You'll find that the negativity he gets has to do mostly with his and lifestyle, some of his off-track antics and some of his comments over the years. Of course being in the spotlight doesn't help and any little thing he does gets under the microscope and blown out of proportion, as witnessed with the latest video with his nephew. Something that is expected up to a point if you are famous and put yourself out there.

Siao7 wrote:

Noni wrote:I'm not a huge fan of team orders unless it's mathematically impossible to win the WC or there is a car problem.. I was so gutted that Eddie Irvine and Massa allowed Schumacher those wins. Lewis has always IMHO been a fair driver and wants wins won on talent and not handed to him.. Not sure Vettel or Ferrari has that same mind set.

Which wins did Massa and Irvine allow Schumacher to have? Barrichello did, at least twice, but other than that I'm struggling to remember any from Massa and Irvine.

I can't remember which race or races off the top of my head, but I know Irvine claimed that team orders cost him the title in 1999. That would certainly imply that (he believed) he lost points to Michael due to team orders prior to the latter's injury.

Siao7 wrote:

Noni wrote:Going on this title thread, I agree that Hamilton only wants to drive for 2 more seasons, but who knows with Lewis. Believe he's got another title in the bag, hoping more fans will warm up to him over this period.. Seems to me, F1 viewers have split opions of him, despite his genuine honesty on track.

I'm not a huge fan of team orders unless it's mathematically impossible to win the WC or there is a car problem.. I was so gutted that Eddie Irvine and Massa allowed Schumacher those wins. Lewis has always IMHO been a fair driver and wants wins won on talent and not handed to him.. Not sure Vettel or Ferrari has that same mind set.

Which wins did Massa and Irvine allow Schumacher to have? Barrichello did, at least twice, but other than that I'm struggling to remember any from Massa and Irvine.

All drivers want to win at all costs and they'll have any help they can, but I think primarily they want to win fair and square. As we are on Schumacher, this will give you an idea if you watch it after the 4th minute: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HH8qbRaDhlQ

Of course this doesn't happen always and their emotions and desires get the better of them sometimes, as indeed Schumacher himself has also demonstrated.

Regarding Lewis, he has raced fair in his career and I have never read any negative comments regarding his driving. Ok, liegate stands out as a negative point (and it was a really bad one), but this was an exceptional situation and not the M.O. of Lewis. Maybe a couple of grey areas in '07 as well and a couple of things with Button and Rosberg, but his driving has normally been fair. You'll find that the negativity he gets has to do mostly with his and lifestyle, some of his off-track antics and some of his comments over the years. Of course being in the spotlight doesn't help and any little thing he does gets under the microscope and blown out of proportion, as witnessed with the latest video with his nephew. Something that is expected up to a point if you are famous and put yourself out there.

Schumacher had a lot of respect for Hakkinen but he really wouldn't be a prime example of a driver that liked to win fair and square.

Exediron wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Noni wrote:I'm not a huge fan of team orders unless it's mathematically impossible to win the WC or there is a car problem.. I was so gutted that Eddie Irvine and Massa allowed Schumacher those wins. Lewis has always IMHO been a fair driver and wants wins won on talent and not handed to him.. Not sure Vettel or Ferrari has that same mind set.

Which wins did Massa and Irvine allow Schumacher to have? Barrichello did, at least twice, but other than that I'm struggling to remember any from Massa and Irvine.

I can't remember which race or races off the top of my head, but I know Irvine claimed that team orders cost him the title in 1999. That would certainly imply that (he believed) he lost points to Michael due to team orders prior to the latter's injury.

I don't remember that if I want to be honest.

I do remember Schumacher helping him though when he came back; to the point that Irvine exclaimed something like "he's not only the best Nr1 driver in F1, but also the best Nr2!"

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/hami ... f1-984187/

I've often speculated that Hamilton won't grow old in the sport but this is the first time he has indicated that may be true.

Hamilton says he is thinking about retiring at the end of 2019 when his current contract expires. He would be 34.

Cue certain people being offended that you're discussing the possibility of Hamilton retiring early...

Cue those who will ridicule him and say he should retire because he's average at best.

Siao7 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Noni wrote:I'm not a huge fan of team orders unless it's mathematically impossible to win the WC or there is a car problem.. I was so gutted that Eddie Irvine and Massa allowed Schumacher those wins. Lewis has always IMHO been a fair driver and wants wins won on talent and not handed to him.. Not sure Vettel or Ferrari has that same mind set.

Which wins did Massa and Irvine allow Schumacher to have? Barrichello did, at least twice, but other than that I'm struggling to remember any from Massa and Irvine.

I can't remember which race or races off the top of my head, but I know Irvine claimed that team orders cost him the title in 1999. That would certainly imply that (he believed) he lost points to Michael due to team orders prior to the latter's injury.

I don't remember that if I want to be honest.

I do, MSC admitted that he wasn't fussed about helping him.

I remember Schumacher gifting Irvine a win at the Malaysian grand prix.

I'm struggling to remember Irvine moving over for Schumacher.

Teddy007 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/hami ... f1-984187/

I've often speculated that Hamilton won't grow old in the sport but this is the first time he has indicated that may be true.

Hamilton says he is thinking about retiring at the end of 2019 when his current contract expires. He would be 34.

Cue certain people being offended that you're discussing the possibility of Hamilton retiring early...

Cue those who will ridicule him and say he should retire because he's average at best.

Cue those who will make asinine claims that are not founded on truth. Name those who have claimed that Hamilton is "average at best".

Blake wrote:

Teddy007 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/hami ... f1-984187/

I've often speculated that Hamilton won't grow old in the sport but this is the first time he has indicated that may be true.

Hamilton says he is thinking about retiring at the end of 2019 when his current contract expires. He would be 34.

Cue certain people being offended that you're discussing the possibility of Hamilton retiring early...

Cue those who will ridicule him and say he should retire because he's average at best.

Cue those who will make asinine claims that are not founded on truth. Name those who have claimed that Hamilton is "average at best".

Cue the Mod that will implore you all to nip this in the bud and play nicely.

Ouch Mod burn

Teddy007 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Noni wrote:I'm not a huge fan of team orders unless it's mathematically impossible to win the WC or there is a car problem.. I was so gutted that Eddie Irvine and Massa allowed Schumacher those wins. Lewis has always IMHO been a fair driver and wants wins won on talent and not handed to him.. Not sure Vettel or Ferrari has that same mind set.

Which wins did Massa and Irvine allow Schumacher to have? Barrichello did, at least twice, but other than that I'm struggling to remember any from Massa and Irvine.

I can't remember which race or races off the top of my head, but I know Irvine claimed that team orders cost him the title in 1999. That would certainly imply that (he believed) he lost points to Michael due to team orders prior to the latter's injury.

I don't remember that if I want to be honest.

I do, MSC admitted that he wasn't fussed about helping him.

Do you remember him holding the Maccas and letting Irvine pass twice?

Teddy007 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/hami ... f1-984187/

I've often speculated that Hamilton won't grow old in the sport but this is the first time he has indicated that may be true.

Hamilton says he is thinking about retiring at the end of 2019 when his current contract expires. He would be 34.

Cue certain people being offended that you're discussing the possibility of Hamilton retiring early...

Cue those who will ridicule him and say he should retire because he's average at best.

This is an unfair comment, I don't think there is a sane person in this world that would call Hamilton average at best.

Maybe Alonso (just joking!)

Nobody ever said we were all sane here. But as Yellow has said, let's leave that comment be.

mikeyg123 wrote:I remember Schumacher gifting Irvine a win at the Malaysian grand prix.

I'm struggling to remember Irvine moving over for Schumacher.

I can't believe this is nearly 20 years ago...
From memory, there's the French Grand Prix, where places were swapped, though not for the win. Switching that result alone wouldn't have made Irvine champion, but add the three-wheel pitstop at the Nürburgring (European or German GP?) and we're starting to get there. It is useless to just point at race position swaps to decide whether Irvine could have been a world champion, but one thing that definitely put him on the back foot, was the total focus of the team on one driver only. When it suddenly became necessary to get Irvine's points tally past the post first, they found they didn't know how to. Nor did Irvine himself. That's what three and a half years being the other guy at the back of the garage (and the mind) can do.

And to top it all off; that sad episode also saw Mika Salo give up his only Grand Prix win. It's enough to make you weep.

mikeyg123 wrote:I remember Schumacher gifting Irvine a win at the Malaysian grand prix.

I'm struggling to remember Irvine moving over for Schumacher.

I think it actually happened in the Lux GP in '98, Irvine passed Schumacher at the start and then he ran a bit wide in the exit of the final chicane, giving Schumacher his chance to overtake for the lead. Intentionally or not (probably not, there are better ways of letting the other car past without running in the dirt and risking your own race), it was almost certain that he would have let Schumacher past so that he wouldn't interfere with the WDC battle. Equally, DC backed off slightly from his very good start to allow Hakkinen to get behind Schumacher in the first turn. This was the penultimate GP of the year and Schumacher and Hakkinen were tied in points coming into it I believe.

Teddy007 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/hami ... f1-984187/

I've often speculated that Hamilton won't grow old in the sport but this is the first time he has indicated that may be true.

Hamilton says he is thinking about retiring at the end of 2019 when his current contract expires. He would be 34.

Cue certain people being offended that you're discussing the possibility of Hamilton retiring early...

Cue those who will ridicule him and say he should retire because he's average at best.

Hamilton's contract actually runs out this year so how accurate is the article?

pokerman wrote:

Teddy007 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/hami ... f1-984187/

I've often speculated that Hamilton won't grow old in the sport but this is the first time he has indicated that may be true.

Hamilton says he is thinking about retiring at the end of 2019 when his current contract expires. He would be 34.

Cue certain people being offended that you're discussing the possibility of Hamilton retiring early...

Cue those who will ridicule him and say he should retire because he's average at best.

Hamilton's contract actually runs out this year so how accurate is the article?

Given that it has direct quotes from Hamilton I'd say pretty accurate

pokerman wrote:

Teddy007 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/hami ... f1-984187/

I've often speculated that Hamilton won't grow old in the sport but this is the first time he has indicated that may be true.

Hamilton says he is thinking about retiring at the end of 2019 when his current contract expires. He would be 34.

Cue certain people being offended that you're discussing the possibility of Hamilton retiring early...

Cue those who will ridicule him and say he should retire because he's average at best.

Hamilton's contract actually runs out this year so how accurate is the article?

Pretty accurate for an article released last year.

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Teddy007 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/hami ... f1-984187/

I've often speculated that Hamilton won't grow old in the sport but this is the first time he has indicated that may be true.

Hamilton says he is thinking about retiring at the end of 2019 when his current contract expires. He would be 34.

Cue certain people being offended that you're discussing the possibility of Hamilton retiring early...

Cue those who will ridicule him and say he should retire because he's average at best.

Hamilton's contract actually runs out this year so how accurate is the article?

Pretty accurate for an article released last year.

I didn't read it, did Mikey misread it then?

I guess. Or just mistyped.

Lotus49 wrote:I guess. Or just mistyped.

For some reason the link isn't highlighted for me.

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:I guess. Or just mistyped.

For some reason the link isn't highlighted for me.

On page 1?

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:I guess. Or just mistyped.

For some reason the link isn't highlighted for me.

On page 1?

Oh right from 2 months ago, I thought it was something new that had just been brought forward, yeah I've already read that.