Mercedes drivers told to obey team orders in future

[jens]

I am a general Hamilton fan, but I would say, we seem to see lewis being on the end of these sort of controversies/bad team strategy's/falling outs an awful lot.

I remember his last couple of seasons at Mclaren, people saying Mclaren kept ruining his races, and then the Alonso thing in 2007 and now at Mercedes a feeling he is not happy with the team.

Either he is very unlucky or his attitude behind the scenes, or inter team relations are stopping his progress of challenging for titles.

Coupled with mistakes, he always seems to be on the wrong side of everything. I would think it can't just be bad luck.

You raise an interesting point. Regardless of how much greater the expectations on Hamilton are compared to his team-mates, I never expect him to dominate his team-mates. Be it Button or Rosberg. Whatever it is, it is always close in points and will most probably remain to be so. A Schumacher v Barrichello/Irvine or Alonso v Massa/Räikkönen situation never seems likely, so that already after half a year it is clear, who comes out on top.

Guess that's what Hamilton is. "Looks" supremely fast, "seems" unlucky, but that's the way he is as a driver - regardless of reasons close combats with team-mates.

I think this shows that there is more to being a "complete driver" than we can see based on just looking things. Hamilton looks fast, but look at Schumacher, who built an entire team and even era around himself. Again some people say that's lucky, but IMO there is more to it. It is an additional skill/talent/workaholism (some even say politics) off the track, that in addition to speed you build the other factors in favour of yourself as well - so that you truly dominate.

That's why some of the great drivers get bashed - people say that they were just favoured, lucky, teams revolving around them. But to me this is an additional effort, skills, traits in character in addition to on-track racing. Attention to detail that you make sure everything works in favour of you.

I believe Alesi was a bit of Hamilton - fast, entertaining, but never got the results his talent "deserved". It is very hard work to maximize the potential of your talent. Just being fast and an entertaining driver with lots of overtakes isn't enough. So Alesi-Berger was a bit like Hamilton-Button/Rosberg. Pretty close throughout the years.

To truly dominate you need everything to go in favour of you. And it doesn't come automatically, it needs huge effort. That's why Vettel's 4 WDCs are still in high regard for me, despite people now downplaying him. Whatever it was, he made sure everything worked for him.

[jens]

Another exhibit: Nelson Piquet. Many think he was lucky to win 3 titles and wasn't such a great driver. Some even dislike his personality. But again - he made things work for him. His co-operation with Ecclestone and Brabham was an excellent one. They were like made for each other and fitted perfectly together. I think early-to-mid 1980s Brabham-Piquet was the best case of a #1 driver situation of that era.

In contrast I mentioned Alesi. I absolutely adored him, but I have to admit in some respects he wasn't the sharpest tool in the box. I view Hamilton in the same way. I suspect Hamilton's inter-personal skills are not as good as some of the others. That's why he could have significant mood swings, and struggle to get teams revolving around him and getting the things he really needs and wants. For that one you must understand yourself, others and greater team dynamics very well to design a working environment really suitable for yourself.

This could explain Räikkönen's plight as well, who has never seemed at ease in Ferrari. They are culturally different and as communication with other people isn't Räikkönen's strength, he has never properly adapted in Ferrari.

So - for greater success in F1 you need to be a perfectionist. Being a perfectionist is not being lucky like some portray it. It is an additional depth in character that some may struggle to grasp, hence call it "pure luck".

[BDunnell]

So - for greater success in F1 you need to be a perfectionist. Being a perfectionist is not being lucky like some portray it. It is an additional depth in character that some may struggle to grasp, hence call it "pure luck".

Well, there's often a certain amount of luck involved. One thinks of Piquet's win in the 1981 championship — he was, one might say, lucky that Reutemann had such an abject final race (his car, Patrick Head has said, was absolutely fine). But you're right — it can't all be put down to luck. There is also a lot of rubbish often written about drivers who were successful through 'hard work' rather than 'natural talent', Graham Hill being a classic example. He had much more natural talent than he's often given credit for.

[henners88]

You raise an interesting point. Regardless of how much greater the expectations on Hamilton are compared to his team-mates, I never expect him to dominate his team-mates. Be it Button or Rosberg. Whatever it is, it is always close in points and will most probably remain to be so. A Schumacher v Barrichello/Irvine or Alonso v Massa/Räikkönen situation never seems likely, so that already after half a year it is clear, who comes out on top.

Guess that's what Hamilton is. "Looks" supremely fast, "seems" unlucky, but that's the way he is as a driver - regardless of reasons close combats with team-mates.

I think this shows that there is more to being a "complete driver" than we can see based on just looking things. Hamilton looks fast, but look at Schumacher, who built an entire team and even era around himself. Again some people say that's lucky, but IMO there is more to it. It is an additional skill/talent/workaholism (some even say politics) off the track, that in addition to speed you build the other factors in favour of yourself as well - so that you truly dominate.

That's why some of the great drivers get bashed - people say that they were just favoured, lucky, teams revolving around them. But to me this is an additional effort, skills, traits in character in addition to on-track racing. Attention to detail that you make sure everything works in favour of you.

I believe Alesi was a bit of Hamilton - fast, entertaining, but never got the results his talent "deserved". It is very hard work to maximize the potential of your talent. Just being fast and an entertaining driver with lots of overtakes isn't enough. So Alesi-Berger was a bit like Hamilton-Button/Rosberg. Pretty close throughout the years.

To truly dominate you need everything to go in favour of you. And it doesn't come automatically, it needs huge effort. That's why Vettel's 4 WDCs are still in high regard for me, despite people now downplaying him. Whatever it was, he made sure everything worked for him.

I can't say I agree with much of that. The examples you give of Schumacher etc are totally different situations and eras. Michael didn't build a team around himself, he had a team that gelled well for a number of reasons. He was also a cheat who all too often played the political game regardless of the damage to his legacy. He was the best driver of his generation and I felt he could have done things so much cleaner.

I always expect Hamilton to dominate his team mates and has usually done this, especially in F1. The only season where he was beaten on points was 2011 and the following season he demonstrated his talent when on form. Comparing Lewis with serial underachievers like Alesi and Berger is rather insulting, especially when they are compared to a world champion!

For a guy who has had such bad luck, a number of DNF's, and some dodgy decisions go away from his favour, he's second in the championship and only 11 points behind his team mate. For me he's put the doubters to bed this season even if they can't admit it.

[jens]

Well, there's often a certain amount of luck involved. One thinks of Piquet's win in the 1981 championship — he was, one might say, lucky that Reutemann had such an abject final race (his car, Patrick Head has said, was absolutely fine). But you're right — it can't all be put down to luck. There is also a lot of rubbish often written about drivers who were successful through 'hard work' rather than 'natural talent', Graham Hill being a classic example. He had much more natural talent than he's often given credit for.

I agree. Luck certainly plays a role as well.

For some reason people often think that the "most naturally talented" drivers have got the "right to win". Hence the calls that the "best drivers" should win titles, etc. But what about drivers, who maybe are not so naturally talented, but manage to maximize their talents in other ways and "overachieve"? In my view such achievements are fantastic. You may not be supremely gifted, but you still manage to maximize whatever you have got. But people often say that they were undeserving winners, because the "best and most talented" didn't win (due to car, luck, circumstance, favouring, whatever argument is thrown out).

[jens]

I can't say I agree with much of that. The examples you give of Schumacher etc are totally different situations and eras. Michael didn't build a team around himself, he had a team that gelled well for a number of reasons. He was also a cheat who all too often played the political game regardless of the damage to his legacy. He was the best driver of his generation and I felt he could have done things so much cleaner.

I always expect Hamilton to dominate his team mates and has usually done this, especially in F1. The only season where he was beaten on points was 2011 and the following season he demonstrated his talent when on form. Comparing Lewis with serial underachievers like Alesi and Berger is rather insulting, especially when they are compared to a world champion!

For a guy who has had such bad luck, a number of DNF's, and some dodgy decisions go away from his favour, he's second in the championship and only 11 points behind his team mate. For me he's put the doubters to bed this season even if they can't admit it.

Well, whatever it is, Hamilton does not dominate his team-mates, neither Button nor Rosberg, even if you expect so. Domination is what Alonso has done to Massa and Räikkönen. Do you expect Hamilton to collect twice as many points as Rosberg in some of the subsequent seasons? I don't think so. We have evidence of five years by now (2010-2014) that Hamilton roughly ties on the result sheets with Button/Rosberg combination. Hard data doesn't suggest he should be dominating.

By the way, there are lots of drivers, who have had lots of unluck and DNF-s, including lots of so-called underachievers. Insulting? I don't think so. Perhaps comparing Hamilton to Maldonado would be insulting, but Alesi was a top3 driver on the grid in his prime. By the way, it is not a direct driving skills comparison, more like who those people remind me.

Comparing talented drivers to a World Champion isn't insulting. As you yourself admit, circumstances often play a role in results (also either meaning winning titles or not).

Schumacher's cheating doesn't explain, why did he have such a strong standing in the team though and general influence on the sport. These are different subjects.

[henners88]

I very much doubt the other comparable drivers in Hamilton's position would dominate Rosberg either. Hamilton absolutely wiped the floor with Button in 2012 and more than made up for the previous year too. I think we have a different definition of dominating as I never look at points for my answer.

I will remind you if this at the end of the season if Lewis beats Rosberg, even if it's by a single point

[BDunnell]

For some reason people often think that the "most naturally talented" drivers have got the "right to win". Hence the calls that the "best drivers" should win titles, etc. But what about drivers, who maybe are not so naturally talented, but manage to maximize their talents in other ways and "overachieve"? In my view such achievements are fantastic. You may not be supremely gifted, but you still manage to maximize whatever you have got. But people often say that they were undeserving winners, because the "best and most talented" didn't win (due to car, luck, circumstance, favouring, whatever argument is thrown out).

Saying such winners are 'undeserving' betrays, in my opinion, both a lack of appreciation of a driver's all-round talents and a lack of emotion towards the sport. One almost need not have a championship — just decide who the 'best' driver is, who thus 'should' win, at the start of the season and don't bother running the races.

[BDunnell]

Well, whatever it is, Hamilton does not dominate his team-mates, neither Button nor Rosberg, even if you expect so.

I wouldn't, because both are very fine drivers.

[BDunnell]

I can't say I agree with much of that. The examples you give of Schumacher etc are totally different situations and eras. Michael didn't build a team around himself, he had a team that gelled well for a number of reasons.

There is never one single factor at play, but it does need pointing out that Schumacher's approach in bringing a team around him and getting them to work for him, as it were, is far from unique. Jackie Stewart basically did just that with Ken Tyrrell, albeit in a different style that never excluded his team-mates. Niki Lauda tried to do it at Ferrari, and was partially successful. Mario Andretti at Lotus might be another example.