Lewis Hamilton is revelling in a looming championship duel with Ferrari and Sebastian Vettel, though his concentrated sentiments undermine the worth he places on his erstwhile intra-team battle with Nico Rosberg.
The three-time champion has foreshadowed Mercedes’ impending showdown with the Italian marque as “the best battle he can have… it’s just so much more satisfying”, which can be interpreted as a tacit rebuke of his three-season showdown with the retired 2016 World Champion.
At the risk of inviting criticism, this isn’t a direct assault of the Briton – whose prodigious talent is undeniable – yet the notion that prevailing with the title twice from three attempts boasting equal machinery as Rosberg wasn’t enthralling, casts into question the esteem in which he holds the German’s legacy.
Outlining his desire that “nothing mechanical comes between our sheer battle in ability… an out and out fight through stubbornness, through mental stability, through composure… just outdriving the person on-track”, nothing if not directly champions the perception that Rosberg inherited last year’s crown on account of Hamilton’s over embellished misfortune.
In deference to Hamilton, he’s waited the balance of his career to encounter Vettel mano a mano, with circumstances dictating one’s inexplicable sidelining while the other has prospered despite their combined domination of the sport since 2007.
Comprising seven titles and ninety-seven victories, it’s understandable that the 32-year-old views triumph over Vettel, while Fernando Alonso continues to operate in a separate orbit, coupled with the allure of beating the fabled Prancing Horse to the ultimate prize – having done so previously in 2008, as a defining hallmark of his own legacy.
Having previously elicited a lukewarm appraisal of the four-time champion – whose superiority came turning the wheel of peerless machinery at Red Bull, perhaps Hamilton acknowledges that possessing a class of the field package is no guarantee of triumph. The German enjoyed Mark Webber’s measure throughout his reign, thus a reassessment of his credentials in light of last season’s outcome is distinct possibility.
Despite their calamitous solitary campaign as teammates, Alonso’s continued absence from the reckoning is would be as galling to Hamilton as it is Formula One’s supporters, though a driver can only beat their nearest competition.
In Hamilton’s case, this has been provided in recent seasons by Rosberg. Defeating him to the title on multiple occasions, only to later surrender it, in doing so maintaining the necessary resilience which would have sustained damage following the previous concessions, would logically have enhanced the former’s view,
It’s probable that the Briton is aggrieved by Rosberg’s subsequent departure from the sport, depriving him of an opportunity to settle the scores, yet it’d be dismissive of Hamilton to utilise this trope as a means of diminishing the reality and everything which accompanied this chapter.
As much as these still raw events represented the closure of one portion of Hamilton’s career, battling interior and exterior rivals only provides greater versatility to his legacy, thus embracing all components in equal measure, irrespective of the final outcome is a wise course to uphold.
Intra-team battles often conclude in acrimony and this was largely no exception. It’s natural that Hamilton is enticed and perhaps relieved to face a fresh rival, it certainly looms as a pleasure for supporters, though a repudiation of Rosberg is by extension a repudiation of his own legacy.
SmithHatesMaxwell
Guest
"Yes, Schumacher was an elite driver (as is Ham, Alonso, Seb), But don’t kid yourself that he didn’t have things easy, with teammates who were de-facto number 2’s and were not allowed to challenge him. Even Rubens claims Schu needed team orders to win a championship" Barrichello is a deeply jealous man of Schumacher. The fact is he couldn't get close to Schumacher despite going to Ferrari in 2000 as the fastest available driver in F1. Barrichello only ever moved over for Schumacher at Austria 2002. Off the top of my head, Schumacher moved over for Irvine Malaysia 1999, Massa moved over for Alonso Germany 2010, Rosberg moved over for Hamilton Monaco 2016 (and several other occasions), was forbidden from passing Hamilton in Malaysia 2013. Pathetic! The idea that Schumacher needed team orders to win championships is insane when you consider he was already had two championships to his name by 1995 and kept horrible Ferraris competing with the championship all the way until 2000 (with the 2000 being inferior to the McLaren). You're as big a cry baby as Barrichello. "The only time Schumacher competed with a teammate without the protection of de-facto number 1 status, he got trounced by Rosberg." He was 40+ and had been retired watching TV for three years. He was 10 years past his peak you fool. "And you are clearly not reading the author’s or my responses clearly. NO ONE has said the RB’s were as dominant as the Mercs- but this seems to keep going over your head. RB’s were dominant in their own right," And RBR weren't even in the same league as Mercedes in terms of dominance. Mercedes set a new benchmark for the sport in terms of complete dominance. Yet Hamilton still couldn't win in 2016. against a teammate he still rubbishes to this day. Pathetic.
Buffy
Guest
Yes, Schumacher was an elite driver (as is Ham, Alonso, Seb), But don't kid yourself that he didn't have things easy, with teammates who were de-facto number 2's and were not allowed to challenge him. Even Rubens claims Schu needed team orders to win a championship http://autoweek.com/article/formula-one/rubens-barrichello-michael-schumacher-benefitted-team-orders-win-formula-one The only time Schumacher competed with a teammate without the protection of de-facto number 1 status, he got trounced by Rosberg. And you are clearly not reading the author's or my responses clearly. NO ONE has said the RB's were as dominant as the Mercs- but this seems to keep going over your head. RB's were dominant in their own right,
Buffy
Guest
Do some research on 2010. I assure you Spa 2010 was not the only error Seb made. Stop being lazy and go over the season. Seb made quite a few errors. You can throw your toys out the pram all you want, and put in all kinds of provisos, but RB's of 2011 & 2013 were dominant, the author is quite correct on that. To deny that is just silly. For the THIRD TIME, no one is claiming they were as dominant as the Mercs but the RB's of 2011 & 2013 were dominant. Most F1 experts assessed them as dominant. They know more about it than you. For example, i have already mentioned F1 metrics, they claimed they were the 8th & 3rd most dominant cars in history. Here's a couple more examples https://www.motormag.com.au/features/1603/top-9-dominant-f1-cars https://www.carthrottle.com/post/the-8-greatest-formula-1-cars-of-all-time/ http://www.essentiallysports.com/five-most-dominant-cars-in-formula-1-history/4/ As for 2016, Rosberg blew multiple starts, in fact he lost more points due to poor starts than Hamilton. Rosberg was poor in all the wet races of 2016 and was beaten by the RB's in races like Monaco. He crashed in a FP session, and was poor in races like Canada & Germany. So, what really separated them in the end was that one driver suffered major points loss through car issues, while the other didn't.
SmithHatesMaxwell
Guest
"Errors? Please do your own research on this and remember, Vettel earned the title “crash kid” in 2010. That really should tell you all you need to know. As for Alonso, our debate was never about him? With Hamilton in the 3rd best car in 2010–it really never was mano a mano with Vettel." That's right. Spa was the only error he made and Alonso made a big error in that same race. Vettel being crash prone is just another myth that seems to perpetuate such as Red Bull being as dominant as Mercedes has been. What a joke. "I’d say 2013 was RB most dominant year. Both 2011 & 2013 the RB’s were dominant." That's ridiculous. In 2013 the Ferrari was the outright best car over the first 5 races and on balance the Ferrari was best up until the midseason break. If you want to argue that then at worst the Ferrari was as good up until the break, but Alonso wasn't good enough to convert that into a championship lead because of errors in races and qualifying. After the break, teams other than RBR diverted resources to 2014 (Mercedes and Ferrari both needed to manufacture their own engine for 2014 unlike RBR) and let Red Bull run away with the championship. 2011 was a dominant year, but still nothing like Mercedes dominance from 2014-16. In 2011 McLaren won 6 races and won races on outright pace. I think teams other than Mercedes only won about 6 races for the entire period of 2014-16, and none of those victories were due to outright pace but by blunders made by Mercedes or their drivers. "Re 2016, it’s pretty naïve to think that only 1 DNF derailed Hamilton’s title charge. Have a read of Jordan’s 2nd comment, you might learn a thing or two" Hamilton blew 7 starts, crashed into his teammate in Spain (robbing his teammate of 25 points in the process), crashed in Baku qualifying, threw his toys out of the pram in Shanghai costing himself a certain podium, put in a weak performance in Singapore, needed team orders to win in Monaco. Hamilton only has himself to blame for not winning. He's just not elite like a Schumacher.
Buffy
Guest
"What errors did Vettel make in 2010? Spa he did, but Alonso made an error in the same race" Errors? Please do your own research on this and remember, Vettel earned the title "crash kid" in 2010. That really should tell you all you need to know. As for Alonso, our debate was never about him? With Hamilton in the 3rd best car in 2010--it really never was mano a mano with Vettel. "Even in Red Bull’s only truly dominant year of 2011, their advantage was never even as close to complete as the Mercedes enjoyed in their worst season from 2014-16. Mercedes was in a different league in terms of dominance." I'd say 2013 was RB most dominant year. Both 2011 & 2013 the RB's were dominant. Like i have already stated, i agree, not as dominant as the Mercs, but they were nontheless dominant and the class of their field by quite a margin. Webber failed to extract the maximum out of his machinery so that may have affected perception of how dominant those cars actually were. For example, this is what F1 Metrics says about the 2011 RB which they rank as the 8th most dominant car in F1 history: QUOTE " The result was the RB7, one of the most dominant cars in history.One of the car’s chief strengths was its use of off-throttle blowing of the diffuser, which greatly increased downforce during corner entry. Vettel used this feature to incredible effect, taking 15 poles and 11 wins. Webber achieved much less with the same car, taking only 3 poles and 1 win, and even scoring fewer points than Button in the heavily outmatched McLaren. With two top drivers in the Red Bull car, 2011 would have been even more of a whitewash"..... F1 metrics rates the 2013 RB as the 3rd most dominant car in F1 history, and again points out with another top driver in the car, it could have been even more dominant. Webber was past his best and could not unlock the real potential of those cars. If say Hamilton, Alonso or maybe even Rosberg was in the other RB, perhaps they would have been achieving firsts and seconds more consistently. "Not like Hamilton in 2016 when he still couldn’t get it done against his patsy teammate. Despite only one DNF all year, he still couldn’t consolidate his advantage over his journeyman teammate over a 21 race season" Rosberg is no journeyman. He has always been fast and remember, he did trounce and older Schumacher. Agreed, like Webber, Schumacher was past his best, but it was still an incredible performance from Rosberg to comprehensively beat the great man. And with Bottas now seemingly being less close to Hamilton, rather tells us how fast Rosberg was. Re 2016, it’s pretty naïve to think that only 1 DNF derailed Hamilton’s title charge. Have a read of Jordan’s 2nd comment, you might learn a thing or two http://www.theroar.com.au/2017/04/05/can-lewis-hamilton-paper-cracks-composure-2017/ I think what you fail to grasp is that when the car is ultra dominant, unfortunately, it’s only your teammate and main competitor who has the equipment to take full advantage when things go wrong. For example, due to reliability issues, Hamilton started from the back of the grid in Spa & China. That meant automatic wins for Rosberg- no one else had the car challenge Rosberg, to take points away from Rosberg, so it meant maximum points for Rosberg in those races. In effect, your teammate is the only one able to fully capitalise when things go wrong. Hamilton lost over 50 points due to reliability issues. In the end, with his teammate losing none, it proved too big a loss to overcome. He trounced Rosberg in qualifying, got more poles, podiums and wins. He lost less points than Rosberg due to poor starts. Hamilton was voted driver of the year---so the more “objective” observer do realise that mechanical reliability was Hamilton’s undoing in 2106. "I agree about 2012. The McLaren was indeed the fastest car in 2012" With better reliability and operational efficiency, RB was the better overall package. "Webber and Alonso had their chances to seal the championship, but Vettel was the one that rose to the occasion. Same with 2012. It was handed to Alonso on a platter but wasn’t good enough to take it when it counted" Not disputing this,. .
SmithHatesMaxwell
Guest
What errors did Vettel make in 2010? Spa he did, but Alonso made an error in the same race. Red Bull had a marginal advantage if anything in 2010. When we talk an advantage we're talking a tenth of a second, not the 1.5-2 seconds per lap advantage Mercedes enjoyed over the field from 2014-16. Even in Red Bull's only truly dominant year of 2011, their advantage was never even as close to complete as the Mercedes enjoyed in their worst season from 2014-16. Mercedes was in a different league in terms of dominance. The fact is Vettel as a driver in his third full season out drove his experienced teammate Webber and Alonso in the final races of 2010. Webber and Alonso had their chances to seal the championship, but Vettel was the one that rose to the occasion. Same with 2012. It was handed to Alonso on a platter but wasn't good enough to take it when it counted. I agree about 2012. The McLaren was indeed the fastest car in 2012. Yeah, Vettel might not have driven well for the first half of 2012, but he was good enough to get the job done. Not like Hamilton in 2016 when he still couldn't get it done against his patsy teammate. Despite only one DNF all year, he still couldn't consolidate his advantage over his journeyman teammate over a 21 race season. WEAK
Buffy
Guest
"I disagree. Hamilton had the cars that were good enough to win the championship with in 2010 and 2012. 2010, Hamilton was still ahead of Vettel in the championship after Singapore. Button in the other McLaren was only 4 points behind Vettel. 2012, there were 7 different winners in the first 7 races. Hamilton was still ahead of Vettel after Monza in 2012." Those years were not on "equal" terms though. The McLaren 2010 was arguably the 3rd best car over the entire season. It was only because Seb, in the clear best car, made so many errors, while Hamilton made so few, that Hamilton found himself in that championship battle. Seb won the title in the end, but he had the clear best car on the grid so i wouldn't call that mano a mano. Same with 2012--overall Seb's RB was the best car on the grid. Hamilton was flawless in 2012, hardly made any errors himself, drove supremely, did all he could to keep himself in the title fight, but lost over 110 points due to reliability issues and operational team errors outside his control. I wouldn't call that mano a mano. So i actually agree with the author. This year they seem to have cars that are very evenly matched, and as Hamilton points out, as long as reliability, operational errors does not derail either of their bids, it really will be a close, even battle-mano a mano. And the RBs may not have been as dominant as the Mercs, but they were clearly the class of their fields. Certain F1 sites rate the RB's of 2011 & 2013 as two of the most dominant cars in F1 history--in fact, there is an argument that if a stronger driver than Webber had been in the other RB seat, the RB's could have been even more dominant that what we saw, mainly getting 1-2s. Remember, Webber was well past his prime, had back problems and had decided to retire halfway through the 2013 season. A younger, in prime, more committed driver perhaps would have been able to run closer to Seb. In fact, we saw the following yr in 2014, when Seb finally had to face a driver that wasn't past his best, Ricciardo----, Seb got beat,
SmithHatesMaxwell
Guest
"In deference to Hamilton, he’s waited the balance of his career to encounter Vettel mano a mano, with circumstances dictating one’s inexplicable sidelining while the other has prospered despite their combined domination of the sport since 2007." I disagree. Hamilton had the cars that were good enough to win the championship with in 2010 and 2012. 2010, Hamilton was still ahead of Vettel in the championship after Singapore. Button in the other McLaren was only 4 points behind Vettel. 2012, there were 7 different winners in the first 7 races. Hamilton was still ahead of Vettel after Monza in 2012. Hamilton went into the mid-season break of 2013 with a commanding win in Hungary. 2011, Hamilton couldn't even beat Button so it wouldn't have mattered how fast the car was since he wouldn't have beaten Vettel. Hamilton's just panicking and trying to set the narrative now in case he gets beat by Vettel despite the Mercedes being a much better car than the Ferrari. "Having previously elicited a lukewarm appraisal of the four-time champion – whose superiority came turning the wheel of peerless machinery at Red Bull, " I don't understand how people can say such things like it's fact. We've just had the most dominant car in the history of the sport from 2014-16. Vettel didn't enjoy anything like the car dominance Hamilton has enjoyed for the past three seasons. The only year the Red Bull was truly dominant from start to finish was 2011, yet the McLaren still managed 6 victories that year. Red Bull was dominant after the midseason break of 2013, but that's because everyone diverted resources to the new regs in 2014. So literally 1.5 years of dominance compared to 3 years of total dominance from Mercedes.
Bayden Westerweller
Roar Guru
Especially at this early juncture of the season, he appears to be at pains to stress his enjoyment at this battle as a means of purging memories of the Rosberg era. Yes, perhaps he wants to move on from the toxic memories, though it's a disservice to the German to brush aside what was one of the great rivalries. As for Hamilton vs Vettel, it's hard not to be excited, though much is yet to play out before it can be deemed as "the ultimate fight" and such, without the need for overt references to how reliability and psychological warfare have dictated the outcome
Jawad Yaqub
Roar Guru
From a sporting perspective, it's a low-blow to see Nico's credentials repudiated. Yes, no one likes losing, but at some point it needs to be registered that Rosberg didn't just 'waltz' to the 2016 championship. The personal feud between Lewis and Nico should be factored in too, though now with the latter having bowed out with his head held high, it only looks like petty sportsmanship to be overpraising Vettel this year over his tenure with Rosberg as his title rival. It'll be exciting indeed to at last see Hamilton and Vettel fight toe-to-toe. Both are equally two of the greatest drivers in the sport and have an immense wealth of experience now to draw off compared to the last time they were mildly in a title race together in 2012. Red vs Silver, Seb vs Lewis - let one of the best battles in F1 history begin! Though not at the repudiation of another classic rivalry between Lewis and Nico.