[MKSixer]

Originally Posted by e90335e36m3

Based on how Russell was able to get to the front several times during the race, and given his relative inexperience, it's evident to me that most of Hamilton's talent is actually the car. Even though Russell didn't finish P1, he was the clear winner of the race. Imagine if as Hamilton has, Russell had a few years experience in the car, he'd be winning championships left and right.

McLaren knows how to build race cars like they do street cars. Hamilton is a great driver, but he's winning because he has a superior car. Put him in a Red Bull, he'd be on par with Verstappen.

Originally Posted by e90335e36m3

Maybe take away the Verstappen as an example, but the point still holds, there is definitely talent out there on par with HAM, that just don't have the right set of wheels. Not that this hasn't always been the case in F1, but at least in the analog days (MT, fewer electronics) the driver was more of a variable. Now you have people riding HAM's nuts, but is he really that good? Russell's performance this weekend definitely serves as a counter that it's HAM's talent that got him where he is.

This is an interesting point of view that actually belies the facts. Here are two videos for you to watch. One is the 2009 season recap and the 2006 Turkish GP. HAMs talent is apparent in both. I have also included an interview by Paddy Lowe who has worked with more WDCs than you can shake a stick at. Do you honestly believe that he has lucked into 7 titles? It's absolutely insane to believe that.

Are you going to take one data point and weigh it more heavily than 14 years of excellence in F1 and several more in the lesser formulae?

https://www.planetf1.com/news/paddy-...lton-analysis/