Driver of the Weekend: 2015 FORMULA 1 BRITISH GRAND PRIX

Who was your driver of the 2015 British Formula 1 Grand Prix weekend? Remember this takes into account the whole race weekend, from FP1 to the end of the race. Please use the comments to tell us why you voted the way you did.

39 responses to “Driver of the Weekend: 2015 FORMULA 1 BRITISH GRAND PRIX

  1. No votes for Max yet? They must be following the Tour this week and next.

  2. Hulk for me, P7 was a another cracking drive.

    I’m a little surprised so many have voted for Lewis, he had a pretty poor weekend by all accounts. Poor start, re-passed by Bottas, couldn’t make a move on either Williams post lap 1 despite a hugely faster car, lost bundles of time to his team mate on a damp track and headed off at copse one lap too IIRC. In fact the only bit Hamilton actually got right was pitting on Lap 43, which was more by luck than judgement (same applies for Vettel) given the rain intensity didn’t increase until just after he’d left the pits. A victory yes, but, but a rather fortuitous one, though not as fortuitous as Nico’s Monaco win.

    • With all due respect, but I think you look at Lewis’ race in a very negative way. The fact he was passed by Williams at the start, had nothing to do with either Lewis or Nico. Williams must have done something with their launch control, don’t know. Then, being at Silverstone, I saw Lewis trying to pass Massa at Club, he locked and failed and then got past by Bottas. But this is where Lewis showed his maturity. He knew he was faster than both of them, so he waited for the pit stops. The ‘old’ Lewis would have kept trying till destroying his tyres. Then at the pit stops, he drove a phenomenal in-lap and out-lap, many people on the stands couldn’t believe how he did it. And finally, his great call when the rain started to fall. I guess, it all depends on whether you want to focus on that lock-up or actually see how he managed the race after this.

      • Not to mention coming away from the weekend with the hat-trick of pole, fastest lap and the race win (by a convincing margin too).

        The “lost bundles of time to his team mate on a damp track” is kind of a weird comparison too. He had time in hand on Rosberg, so why try and push too hard in sketchy conditions? As mentioned he’d had to use the run-off already, so being more measured would make more sense. The extra tyre degradation he had courtesy of stopping earlier would also make life a little trickier, but that’s by the by – the person trying to catch the car in front is going to commit more to closing the gap than the person comfortably in front is going to commit to trying to open the gap further in that situation.

        To put it another way, say Hamilton kept trying to open the gap on Rosberg when it was damp, and rather than just using some run-off he’d beached it in the gravel. Then we’d be looking at more “he’s not focussed enough” headlines, more “he’s too hot-headed/not mature enough” headlines and so on. As it is, we’re talking about a race win.

    • Can’t blame him for the start, since that seems to have been the row that was to blame (Rosberg had exactly the same).

    • “Pretty poor weekend” that comment is beyond laughable….

      Pole, fastest lap of the race, increased his lead in the championship and breaking a 45 year old record at the same time. Yup that’s a pretty poor weekend indeed.

      “Fortuitous win”….πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚

      • In the best car out there, by a big margin. I remember a while ago vettel got slayed for the same. They even use the argument till this day. So I’ll be giving this counter argument every timeπŸ˜‚

        • Ahh yes, but the difference is when “they” said it about Vettel, “they” probably meant it… rightly or wrongly. They said from a place of their truth… correctly or incorrectly.

          When you say it now, about Hamilton, you not only do not mean it, but you’re actually espousing an argument you don’t inherently agree with. You’re propagating a view that you fundamentally dislike, i.e. the “best car” paradox – being that a driver wants it but then it undermines the perception of the result.

          Where’s the logic in that? Who’s the winner and who’s the loser? What’s the point of lowering oneself to a level of stupidity, voluntarily? Revenge isn’t that sweet, is it?

          Not trying to pick on you; though it probably reads that way. I actually agree with you in identifying the irony that exists in the analyses that some Hamilton fans do on Vettel’s Red Bull WDC period and then subsequently do on Hamilton’s current Mercedes WDC period. It’s ironic, at best. As it was when the ol’ “best car” rhetoric was levelled at Clark, Senna, Mansell and Schumacher before Vettel.

          Such is life; such is F1.

          Take comfort in the fact that even if Hamilton wins this year’s title – and given how close Rosberg is to Hamilton in terms of performance and Hamilton only enjoying a 17pts gap makes it hardly a sure thing – he still needs another two titles to objectively, as measured by the ultimate measure, WDC’s, be considered more successful than Vettel. My exp in sport and life is that subjective contextual BS arguments are irrelevant in the face of the objective trophies. Best car, not best car, tough no2, not tough no.2 etc all pales under the brightness the trophies ultimately give. Vettel and Ferrari won’t be default No3 on the grid for long, and certainly not long enough for an additional two titles to be earned, after this title, without challenge.

          The fight for greatest of this generation is still on…

          • Didn’t see it as picking on me. This is the reason why I come here. To discuss. In real life I’m even worse πŸ˜‚ and indeed I do not stand behind my argument. As I never ever used it before in all my f1 fan years. Sure there where periods where a car was undoubtedly the best, but I still believe it’s the combo of men and machine.(not only the driver, but the people behind the car aswel) And maybe even a combination of luck. But I just like to rattle fortis’ cage a bit (be it a little bit more civilised than the hippo πŸ˜‚) and this argument was perfect for it. I rate hamilton very high, as a driver and as I person. I don’t give a shit if he goes out with pharell or if he flies his dogs first class, hell if I’d be him, I’d be worse. I’d go James hunt on this world… and after all as long as hamilton wins the championship he’ll be better than the other guy in the best car out there. And that’s all that maters. The fact that I rate vettel higher than most (british) people is just because I’m a fan. But I’m not afraid to admit that. And that is why I do look forward to the hamilton vettel battle that is going to happen soon. Each and every great driver needs his nemesis. And I believe those two will be theirs.

        • You have never seen me slate Seb for what he has achieved, if anything I’ve always respected him for it. It’s not his fault he had the best car, but even with the best car he still had to go out there and get the job done.

      • Obviously I’m talking in terms of his personal performance rather than the result. That is what I rate driver of the weekend on.

        If you felt it was all based on the result, why did you vote for Pastor in Austria rather than Nico?

        Just because you only see the result does not make this a classic Hamilton performance, it wasn’t a great drive by him. Yes he won, but winning and good performances are not mutually inclusive.

        • Well i guess you didn’t read why I voted for Pastor or else you wouldn’t be asking me now.

  3. I voted for driver of the weekend based on the driver of the weekend. Seems many forget quali and concentrate on the race. I’d say this adds to Hamiltons cause, snatching pole from what seemed a faster Nico Rosberg.

      • I pray Hulk gets a really good car in 2016. He deserves it. I think he could excel given the right equipment. There’s only so many times you can out perform a car without getting a decent seat. I have no doubts that in like for like cars he’d be right at the sharp end of the grid with Vettel, Alonso, Lewis and Ricciardo.

        • @**Paul**

          While I certainly agree that Hulk sometimes strings impressive performances, he hasn’t yet shown that he has what it takes to dice it out with the top-tier. According to f1metrics his past performances are merely decent-ish.

          “After 76 starts, it is surprising that he is yet to achieve a podium. Currently, the model consider him one of the two best drivers in history to never score a podium. The other is Jean-Eric Vergne.”

          The model puts: Nico Hulkenberg (ranked 74th), Pastor Maldonado (ranked 81st), Heikki Kovalainen (ranked 78th), Sergio Perez (ranked 71st), David Coulthard (ranked 66th), Mark Webber (ranked 63rd), Eddie Irvine (ranked 61st). Well, you get the ballpark picture. As a direct comparison, Felipe Massa is ranked 29th and Kimi Raikkonen 14th.

          These rankings are based on 3-year peak performances. I too expect impressive stuff from Hulkenberg if he gets his hands on a proper wheel, but sofar the cold numbers seem to be speaking against him. Maybe this is why top teams haven’t yet given him a real chance…

          • Except for maldonado all of them got drives in a top team. So the numbers don’t always tell the truth.

          • @bruznic

            All of them got drives in top teams, including Maldonado for two years in a Williams, and for two years in Enstone.

            And where did they all end up?

            Let’s leave Crashtor out of this, with a blippy solitary pole position and win. Heikki got his chance at McLaren for two years, and was dropped without as much as a second thought; he too goes about with a solitary win and pole position. Perez too got a shot, and got dropped unceremoniously. Webber, Coulthard and Irvine had championship winning machinery for many consecutive years, yet they consistently made a dog’s breakfast out of it. That’s thus far the company in which Hulk finds himself according to hard data…

            This said, the numbers don’t account for Hulk’s incredible pole with Williams in Brazil 2010, or his incredible dicing it out with the McLaren’s in 2012 also in Brazil (before crashing into a Caterham). They also don’t account for Hulk changing teams more often than shaving, usually one choice being worse than the other…

            Hulk may or may not be a future WDC, but so far the data is inconclusive at best… If Hulk were that good, he’d be crushing Perez like he did Gutierrez by now, but he doesn’t…

          • But the thing is they all got that drive in a top teams car, that they didn’t do better is their blame, not nico’s. And it would only be fair to compare his numbers if he got a drive in a top team, giving him machinery which could be good enough for podiums. ..
            And as for team battle with perez this year. Quali: 7-2 in favour of hulk race: 4-5 in favour of perez. But hulk had one dnf and perez didn’t and hulk scored more points ( 9th place overal with 24 point, against perez 12th place with 15 points.) What this says is that perez is better than guitierez, but not as good as nico…

          • The model controls for car performance. For instance, Kovalainen’s 3-year peak is 2010-2012, his Caterham years (NOT his McLaren years).

            As for machinery good enough for podiums, Perez nabbed a number of podiums, in inferior machinery (not his McLaren years). Not so Hulkenberg…

          • @Iestyn Davies

            Absolutely! I’m wondering though if Perez went much too early than he should have against Button at McLaren, and had an… hmm… “uncharacteristically” sluggish performance against the veteran. Whereas in the Force India against Hulk he finally matured and learned to control his driving.

            This is something the model couldn’t possibly account for. If Perez had an intrinsic lift in performance after his McLaren year, then Hulk’s beating him overall sofar would be a much more impressive performance, indeed.

          • Well, that car was just a failure, probably worse than the 2012 Sauber.

            He told Sky he had 3 offers: McLaren, Mercedes and Ferrari (we can presume to replace Massa and Schumacher if not Hamilton).

            He went with McLaren (which came last after Monza), thinking they had the fastest car in 2012 and would evolve it for 2013 before the big rules change..

          • @Iestyn Davies
            I’d be mighty surprised if Perez had any top-team offers other than McLaren. Ferrari publicly stated Checo wasn’t good enough (“not ready”), and I’d be surprised Ross to take such a Whitmarsh gamble with drivers. Ross would have possibly went for Hulkenberg if Hamilton wasn’t there for the switch… He wanted a driver with accurate technical feedback, and the “arrogant” Checo would be unlikely to fit the bill…

          • True, well at the end of the day McLaren were the only ones that needed the extra $5m Perez brought along. Ferrari kept Massa and looked at Hulk/Bianchi, while Mercedes moved for Hamilton after Singapore. Ferrari tested Bianchi vs. Perez at Fiorano and Bianchi was faster.

          • @Iestyn Davies

            Well, that car was just a failure, probably worse than the 2012 Sauber.

            All the more reasons Perez should have had the measure of Button. Button is renowned for being nowhere if the car isn’t perfect…

          • Well, Perez said that the car was not even consistent for the first half of the year, after which his results picked up and he did manage to outpace Jenson over some Q and Rs. I get the feeling anyone would have struggled with that car!

          • Perez said that the car was not even consistent for the first half of the year, after which his results picked up

            We’re talking about a bit more than just the first half of the year. Looking at the results, and disconsidering races in which one failed to finish, Perez finished ahead of Button on the track only twice (!) in the first 15 races. His results picked up with only 4 races to go, finishing ahead of Button 3 times and then wrecking his weekend with an impromptu crash in Brazil (in quali, I think). From half season (race 9-10) till 4 races to go, Jense consistently outclassed Checo on track… At 11-5 over the season, it isn’t hard to see why Checo got dropped.

            I guess that up-tick in performance towards the end (it was 10-2 prior to that) was too little too late for Whitmarsh to be able to defend Checo in front of Big Ron… (I do recall though Checo’s passing two cars on the Buddh straight towards the end of the Indian GP; that was awesome!)

          • You’ve got a better memory than me, but that is the race that he really took it to Jenson.

            Monaco he was also in front before trying one move too many against Kimi.. evens the score up a bit, but still what we would expect looking at both drivers.

            I wonder what Hamilton or Button would have done in the 2012 Sauber or Williams! Button win at Malaysia?

          • The model is evolving all the time, but to give you an update after Canada 2015: Irvine 65th, Hulk 69th, Webber 70th, Coulthard 73rd, Perez 77th, Maldonado 80th, Kovalainen 82nd; Raikkonen 16th, Massa 35th. Also, Ricciardo 27th, Vergne 32nd, Bottas 42nd, Grosjean 64th. Button 19th, Kobayashi 72nd.

            Alonso’s still 3rd, while it’s likely to be Ham-Vet-Ros by the end of this year in 10-12th, though Rosberg is still inflated a little by besting a returning Schumi.

          • @Iestyn Davies

            Where can we get the updated ratings, or are you doing the crunching of numbers yourself?

            Anyways, I’m surprised (and not, go figure) to see JEV so high up in the classification. But these rankings are clear like the light of day: Ricciardo 27th, Vergne 32nd, Bottas 42nd, Massa 35th. Ferrari are much more likely to end up with a top performer with any of the above, rather than with Hulk 69th. If they go with Hulk, it would be because they’d rather a solid rear-gunner to Seb (top 10), as in e.g. Webber 70th…

          • @Iestyn Davies

            Rosberg is still inflated a little by besting a returning Schumi.

            Rosberg’s ranking drops by some 10 notches when excluding Schumi’s 3-year return…

          • True, that puts him behind Raikkonen at his best (2003-5, battling Schumi/Alonso), and more on Button’s level, which feels more accurate given how both have fared against Hamilton.

  4. To be honest, Hamilton’s race was very similar to Vettel’s race. I would even say that Vettel’s was slightly better imo.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.