DaveKillens wrote:I consider this whole episode as a result of two factors. Firstly, Hamilton is still relatively new to F1, and additionally, his aggression sometimes goes to far. The kid still has a lot of learning to do. Secondly, the manner in which the FIA runs the race is something to be ashamed of. I watch various forms of racing, and in the now passe Champ Cars, the race steward was up to date, and reacted immediately to issues. If a car overtook by taking a shorter line through a chicane, the race director would immediately contact the team and instruct them to order the driver to give back what he had taken. Simple, fast, and much more efficient that the three ring circus of the FIA. Why do stewards have to take so long? Are they on a coffe break? Taking a nap, or changing their colostomy bags?
Geesh, I don't know but driver mistakes get amplified by their mistakes and methods.
Dave, you just took
the discussion in a very interesting direction. First to address the stewards' management of the race; there's certainly a history of belated decisions in F1. No regulatory measure should be changed in nature due to the length of stewards' deliberation process alone. Whether the FIA has published the reasoning behind Hamilton's drive-through, I haven't bothered to look. Clearly there was prolonged contact about the situation between Dennis and the stewards: Hence I'm left wondering whether it wasn't the length of McLaren's
challenging of the stewards' view rather than the offence itself that ultimately required a sanction instead of just Lewis conceding a place? McLaren's management appears to retain serious misgivings about FIA's motivations and this can cloud judgement in snap-call situations - though they did correctly anticipate and compensate for Heikki's grid penalty in rather pressing circumstances as well. A slight indication of differences in driver management, perhaps.
And secondly, Lewis, Lewis, Lewis ... this is a very interesting time in the science of developing (
as) a driver. There's a marked difference even between such recent, still present even, generations such as Schumacher's and the "current" one. Nurturing skills and capabilities is intensive, comprehensive and both by chance and design Hamilton most perfectly embodies this latest trend. Still, there are no free lunches and this "more of everything" approach doesn't come out of nothing. Clearly Lewis is right up there in talent or he wouldn't have lived up to expectations. My exception to this is that in being able to do this, continually live up to expectations, one risks a perception of self-worth that is based on an ability to reconcile any externally given contradictions within. This is my experience anyway. And in not having had to make real choices between truly irreconcilable options by one's own virtue of talent, the learning process in acquiring experience of determining such mutually exclusive choises is delayed. I'm afraid there are no shortcuts to the art of making the most out of one's own failures and wonder whether such individuals aren't more hampered by their winning capabilities rather than losing abilities?
An outside-the-racing World example would be the "incident" of Hamilton being lowered onto a re-enactment of the battle of Troy in McLaren race gear. It was blamed on his management, but Lewis himself commented that he had just tried to get into an acting mindset never mind his doubts. In effect, even if every facet of the proposition surely screamed "abject, disastrous ridicule and humiliation" to an intelligent person such as he undoubtedly is, he was more prone to appease expectations of success than to put his foot down and call it like it was. All this is pure speculation of course, but an inability to back down from impossible situations under external pressure undoubtedly would put a driver and his team at a disadvantage. Such a thing, I imagine, can hamper communication especially - between a driver and his team and between a driver and his co-competitors as well.