Schuttelberg wrote:Changeable conditions do have an element of luck, but also a lot of skill and intelligence. While Hamilton on all counts is a better driver than Rosberg, at Silverstone Rosberg was better, just like Hamilton at Monaco.
Great points Schuttelberg. Nothing really to add, except for two minor points. First of all, I wanted to clarify my comment about Rosbergs DNF now making things level; I really only meant it in a way that I do think Hamilton was
robbed of that win at Monaco. To pit was utterly stupid (I was actually screaming at the tv screen when he went in to the pits), irregardless if it the decision was by the team, by Hamilton - whatever. He was so dominant, he could have stopped for an ice cream and still win the race. On the contrary, Rosberg was extremely lucky to be given that win and my only point was, that Rosberg gained 17 points that day and if Mercedes's race-strategist hadn't imploded, the point gap (assuming the other races would have turned out the same) would have been those 17 points larger already. Rosberg with his blown engine yesterday lost 15 points. So I think the point gap of 53 points right now is an accurate and fair representation of what the general standings between those two. I still feel gutted for Rosberg however. To give up the race 3 laps from the end is very hard, especially from such a good position.
My second point is on the changeable conditions. I agree with most of what you said, but I honestly think that sometimes we are giving way too much credit to the drivers, attributing more 'intelligence' to one than they realistically deserve. It goes the other way too; I feel most of the time, most drivers receive too much flak too. An easy example; if a driver attempts a gamble, like Hamilton did in Silverstone, fans are generally quick to praise that as a move of great intelligence or superb driving craft, perhaps even super natural feel for changing conditions. I don't buy it. Neither did I with Button, when he miraculously went onto slicks in wet conditions and pulled a win when he was way out of position (I forget which race that was, but it's brought up over and over again when people praise Buttons superb changeable condition skills). What people forget is; Button was out of position in that very race and he pitted for tires because he took a gamble. It was a bold move, only one would attempt who has little to lose. No front-runner in their right mind would have done that. Button was exactly in that position; All to gain, little to lose. He went against the flow, pitted for slicks in what seemed impossible conditions and guess what? He went off the track first corner. It could have been a DNF. Perhaps should have been. But he got back on the track and then his tires came to life and with it he was seconds faster than anyone else (especially on the drying parts). The weather played greatly into his hands too. If the rain had intensified, it would have been a move everyone would struggle to remember, but the way it turned out that race, everyone remembers it as one of the masterful decisions. Yeah right.
Same applies to Hamilton in Silverstone too. He sure as hell had no frickin' idea how the weather would continue just as you say. What was clear was that his tire had lost temperature (too much) because he was conserving his lead and tires and tip toeing around the track. My guess is he was slightly nervous and desperately wanted that win in front of his home crowd. It doesn't really matter; He lost temperature and when that happens, you are in a downward spiral and there's little you can do to turn it around. Just as it did for Button back in that other race, Rosberg too had little to lose. He was, I think in 4th position behind both Williams, and when the rain came, the Williams were toast. But because he still had to pass them, maybe even thanks to sitting in dirty air, his driving aggressively spared him from losing tire temperatures which then showed us the 2 second faster lap times vs. Hamilton ahead. Hamilton knew he was in trouble and with the changeable conditions, the gamble of pitting for tires paid off brilliantly. That too was a bold move. And another driver did it too; Vettel. Which actually makes me question how bold that move really was. Now you might say one can expect of a driver of Hamiltons caliber to know all and he could have driven aggressively to prevent that happening. Maybe. But what if Rosberg, who was driving like a maniac in those conditions had gone off (I think he did at some point actually) and his race ended in a DNF? Everyone would be hitting on him as if he's the worlds biggest moron while praising Hamilton super uber intelligence for driving with safety margins. It can always go both ways; Thus why I believe we attribute far too much into the ability of certain drivers. Yes, they do account for a lot, but many of the times, they just make the best of the situation they are in. If they are in front, leading, like Hamilton has been most of this season, one usually drives a bit more conservative because at front, you can only go backwards. The mindset of a driver "on the hunt" is very different and that also influences how one drives or how certain situations and their circumstances turn out. Sometimes they just play into their hands, like I believe it did for Rosberg in Silverstone.
Anyway, as an equalizer; Even if Hamilton is considered lucky to win ahead of Rosberg, pointing to my earlier point, it would only level that deficit of 17 points by 7. Which was the prime point why I disagreed with things being level after Silverstone.
