Examining Hamilton-Vettel: Was 2017 a Truthful and Honest Representation?

by Lewis Wells

(source: BBC)

We’d been waiting for this for a while.

Lewis Hamilton vs Sebastian Vettel. Mercedes vs Ferrari. Germany vs Italy.

Two contrasting personalities, nationalities, backgrounds: yet the same level of status within the F1 community, one might argue. Both with an astounding collection of world championship titles each, as well as wins, pole positions, but essentially their trademark approaches, comments and behaviours. What a pity it took so long for such a fight to occur. Up until now, a direct fight between the two has not taken place, for the coincidental reasons of representing different teams, at different times of their evolution, thus the possibility of being competitive can be quite vague.

As both assertive, in-demand and ‘controlling’ drivers, having both Hamilton and Vettel on the same team remains a distant dream. Yet as they both commit their futures to both Mercedes and Ferrari respectively, and as they remain the most financed, structurally supported, and most recently successful teams, it is likely 2017 marks the start of a new F1 era, not just a blemish on the competition.

Character

For anyone unfamiliar with the general mindsets and characters of the two drivers, allow me to digress into their key traits.

Hamilton is driven by the efforts, sacrifices and adversities his family overcame to put him where he is today. His social media portfolios are evident of his commitment to the continuation of thanking those who support/ have supported him. Thus so, his repetitive radio messages during races, of which seem scripted or naturally built in even, (Thank you so much for all your hard work back at the factory!), or our constant reminding of his boxing ring episodes in childhood, or karting scenes, gives the impression of an extremely emotional and highly motivated individual. That being said, we are reminded that he does not love F1, and how he longs for a post-racing career in the musical industry, or potentially within fashion, film, or all of the above! His affiliation with high profile celebrities has commanded him a level of popularity not seen since that of Michael Schumacher.

I personally believe he enjoys F1 as an outlet he can always rely on, and always have with him, alongside his other excursions. In my opinion, his partying and controversial off-track choices are paramount to the stability of his character on-track and although seldom supported by former drivers and many journalists, he continues to perform. He was set on achieving the 2017 title ever since he lost it to mechanical failure. Knowing that he was capable of a greater fight, Lewis committed himself to maximising every opportunity this year, regardless of its perceived value, as hindsight can be a tricky concept.

Vettel, a German who idolised Michael Schumacher, is less revealing of his childhood and journey towards F1, yet he remains appreciative and humble. He does indeed love F1, and speaks very highly of his love of racing, period. He lives in the countryside in Switzerland, and is often quoted mentioning the love he possesses for his family and his vehicles, for which he has BMWs, Mercedes, Ferraris, but also a secondary admiration and collection for motorbikes. His life is primarily orientated around his career, and thus one may argue has fewer outlets of release and enjoyment outside of his family sphere, compared to Hamilton. How do we know? For he “sees no point” in Social Media, thus we are left to develop our opinions from his sole appearances and interviews, trackside.

His defeat this year did not warrant any emotional outpour, instead a reaffirming commitment to establishing future dominance. He was aware he was set to lose the title, many weeks prior to the eventual result. He also assures himself that, “not many have achieved what I have already”, referencing his 4 consecutive world titles, and thus possibly believes the fate of his year has been down proportionally to between himself and the team, which I will explore later.

Composure

Hamilton is naturally quick. He is the sport’s most successful polesitter, commanding an astonishing 72 pole positions, and his recollection of track qualities is evident from his firm questioning in Driver Q&A sessions, “Why has this changed?”, “Can we drive there?”. It is clear he relies more on his natural-born traits and values of bravery, commitment and practise to deliver his performances. Thus, we have seen the occasional disadvantage in his psychological mindset, as he constantly thinks of the other driver, the competitor, and seems unable to find “the zone” which renders these disruptive thoughts null and void. When displaying a particular emotion, it is evident from his body language, tone, rate of answer and engagement with fans.

He is clearly very dynamic. He arguably had the upper skill when battling Rosberg 2014–2015, yet this fell to Rosberg during 2016. He picked himself up psychologically to enable him to physically defeat Vettel in 2017.

Vettel is logical, mathematical and inquisitive. He is very repetitive in his style, his approach in terms of braking and acceleration are signature. He is always asking for ways to improve, for the data and evidence, knowing where he fell short and reaffirming his absence of perfections. It is true that, his expletive-laden rants on the radio are as a result of his large fondness for winning and delivering for his team. It is perhaps here where, like Hamilton has in the past, slipped up in terms of maintaining a calm, collected approach to driving, regardless of the difficulty one has encountered, or is encountering.

He is always joking, shaking drivers’ hands, never boosting himself onto a pedestal. He is always humble of his successes, and seeks to make civil relationships with those around him. Yet he lost this year. Does he need to find something else, that winning edge? Or does he need to “get into his head”, as Rosberg told F1 Racing Magazine regarding Hamilton, of his own reformed approach.

Consequence

Race by Race, each comprising of varying challenges and adversities, provided us a stark image of both these drivers and their teams.

Australia offered us a revitalised Ferrari, whom were able to capitalise on a dormant Mercedes, by providing Vettel a pit-stop strategy that would see him able to pass Hamilton without performing a genuine on-track overtake. For a team regarded as one of the worse for strategy and in-race decision making, this broke the mould.

China showed us a flipped result, with the two key drivers switching to Hamilton (1st) and Vettel (2nd). The contest was getting perhaps too civil and peaceful and bets were cast over the conclusion of this rather tedious period of calm.

Towards Bahrain, the outsider being Hamilton’s teammate, Valtteri Bottas, stormed towards pole position, but once again, the resurgent strategical department at Ferrari found an opportunity and embraced it, overtaking him and taking the victory with Vettel.

Russia was perhaps, too good to be true (from Qualifying). Ferrari had both their drivers on the front row of the grid for qualifiying, the first time such a feat has been achieved by them since 2008. A storming Bottas overtook the both of them and secured his first win. It was a lacklustre race, marked only by how close Vettel was able to get to Bottas on the final lap.

Spain saw Ferrari unable to defend from Hamilton with Vettel as they ran an inferior strategy with their tires. Regardless of raw pace and talent, tires are a realistic image of how your later result could pan out, the driver being left hopeless. What we are seeing however so far is a consistent Vettel, perhaps not winning, but always finishing on the rostrum (the top three) — can one complain?

Monaco saw Ferrari mischeviously offer Vettel the opportunity at victory by failing to inform his teammate Raikkonen of his faltering pace and imminent race-leading demotion. Can this be defined as engineering the result? If Ferrari wanted to protect Raikkonen’s lead, they could have. So one may interpret it as such, but what we can definitely infer is that Vettel has established himself the primary position within the team and thus preferential treatment.

Canada saw Vettel make the first of a number of crucial errors. Although arguably difficult to avoid, and subjective, Vettel’s failure to break resulted in contact with an intruding car and thus placed him at the back of the race. He was able to work his back onto the podium, but he may have had the chance to win.

Azerbaijan was above all, one of the most crucial races of the year. After misjudging the unnecessary action of Hamilton in reducing his speed, Vettel drove into Hamilton to exemplify his anger and frustration. This faux pas was met with a timed penalty, warranting him unable to potentially win the race. His denial of the evident action was eventually corrected, but not before his team had something to say on the matter, where they were forced to question Vettel’s value at Ferrari, whether “he had earned his place”. This is developing the “what might have been” story.

Austria was a mere repeat of Russia, where Vettel was within under a second distance of 1st place, but perhaps his focus on enticing the stewards to investigate a jump start of Bottas, who started 1st, left him flustered and unable to contend for a win.

Great Britain saw Vettel lead the majority of the race in 4th place, yet a spectacular failure of his tyres, not of his own doing, left him fighting for 7th. What struck me was his maintainted calm and composure, he told us “that the championship is won at the end”. Of course Seb, but this can’t help contribute to that.

Hungary saw Vettel lead the race from start to finish, albeit a steering issue that rendered him unable to develop a gap from the challenging Mercedes cars. Ferrari engineered his victory by ensuring Raikkonen would ditch his ulterior motive of winning the race, as an overtake would be far easier, by bolstering Vettel and keeping firm bay between them and the other cars. Vettel can be very sure of a submissive and supportive teammate, as Raikkonen has already won a world title with Ferrari, whereas Hamilton may not always be able to claim such an easygoing teammate.

Belgium saw Ferrari and Vettel perform under expectation, yet this was simply limited to car performance and not any specific error. Hamilton was able to command this race, and I evidently remember his uplifted mood and enjoyment of the weekend, as Vettel struggled to catch him.

Italy, the home of Ferrari, was unable to seal Vettel a victory. It is often the case that Ferrari’s car is more suited to slower, smaller corners and that Mercedes are more suited to larger, longer corners with straight sections of track. Thus, Monza suits the profile of Hamilton’s car much more. Vettel could only manage 3rd, after an unfortuante qualifying which exposed the weakness of his car in wet conditions, leaving him 8th.

Singapore was perhaps peak sorrow and heartbreak, from a Ferrari Fan, a Vettel Fan and possibly an entire F1 Fan’s perspective. Already plagued on some occasions by unfortunate events, the perhaps “too defensive” and “unnecessary” move by Vettel to defend his leading position from another driver, despite it being perfectly acceptable to finish lower down given the success he has had with consistency this season, cost him a race win. Out of a race we all expected, and knew, he could win, and should have won. Hamilton, a driver we did not expect, and knew, were unlikely to win, won. Thus we have a championship battle decided upon chance and mistake so far, not quite the “duel to end all duels” we had all originally forecast and obviously would prefer to a battle fought by failures and mistakes.

Malaysia saw Vettel plagued by an unfortunate engine failure in the electronics department, a somewhat avoidable incident that rendered him unable to contest in Qualifying. His failure was mirrored by his teammate the following day, highlighting the common problem among the car and perhaps inadequate response in the form of solution and in the first place, prevention of occurence.

In Japan, a spark plug, merely 4 inches high and an inch wide, costing only 56 euros, rendered Vettel without substantial amounts of power, useless and unable to defend himself on track. Retirement. Game over? As a Sport we love delving into mathematical possiblities, to say the least. It’s likely impossible for this driver to win, but if he finishes here, and these 3 drivers finish in these 3 respective positions, it’s game on. Etc. Etc. Still, it gives us a remnant of enthusiasm.

The USA highlighted the unfortunate lack of capacity for Vettel to overtake Hamilton, yet he remained in close proximity for the duration of the race. At times, it appears as if Vettel didn’t have enough pace, and were unable to control his tyres to the same extent as Lewis, but Ferrari did their best to present him a 200m opportunity to overtake as a result of their continued, improved strategical decision making. It was in the USA that Lewis first had the opportunity to win the title, but this was denied by Vettel’s strong but arguably little impact finish.

To conclude the title battle, a race that summed up, in my mind, the events of this tumultuous and anti-climatic, abstract season. Mexico. Vettel attained pole position. We are starting to see a Vettel capitalise on events when it is most important. In contrast, when under pressure, Hamilton performs, here he was most certainly not under pressure. Thus, 3rd place he managed. In the first corner, Vettel misjudged the proximity of two other cars and subsequently collided with them, damaging the front wing and sideboard of his car. Having pitted, alongside Hamilton, they both drove from the back. How comical. Hamilton was able to manage 9th, all he had to do was finish, whilst Vettel needed to finish in the top 2. He was able to manage 4th, and the allowance of his third placed teammate to move would not have granted him easier access to contention for 2nd. Thus, albeit unceremoniously, Hamilton became world champion.Conclusion

In conclusion, from the events of the season I have explored in relative detail, one can infer that the key faults in Vettel’s season lie with his inability to match the speed of Hamilton in Qualifiying sessions, his misjudgments and accidental, costly, collisions, with a side of untimely mechanical failure and team chaos.

But do I believe that he was able to win this year? Absolutely. This is where perhaps Hamilton has a psychological edge, a hunger edge, an edge in training and management of the entire process.

Do I believe that 2017 is a realistic, truthful representation of a Hamilton-Vettel title contest? One is unable to present a large argument against this motion. Both cars were, for the majority of the events this year, equal and with mutual potential. Thus, the battle lied with the skill and capability of the driver, for which we have seen their strengths and weaknesses, (for which they both claim to know of each other, quite comprehensively). Should Ferrari’s new appointment of Maria Mendoza, as Head of Trackside Quality Control, reduce any avoidable mechanical woes, and if both teams continue to develop their cars on a similar timescale as last year, with the same hunger and manpower, 2018 may be a better representation. But it has primarily been a pleasure and a relief to experience a contest between two drivers more suited to be rivals than childhood friends and team-mates Lewis and Nico, two drivers for which we have yet to see a conclusive, strikingly clear declaration of who is superior.