Hamilton’s pure pace proves too much for Rosberg

123 comments on “Hamilton’s pure pace proves too much for Rosberg”

1. 

   andae23 (@andae23)
   6th October 2014, 12:00

   Yesterday I noticed there were a couple of occasions where the Red Bulls were the fastest cars on track. Looking at the data, it appears that they were the fastest cars for more than 50% of the race. If they would have had a better qualifying, they might have made it a four-way battle for the win. Let’s hope for some rain at Interlagos and see if that’s actually true!
   1. 

      Nin13 (@nin13)
      6th October 2014, 12:04

      I think Horner has confirmed that Red Bull had wet weather setup which compromised them in qualifying. Also in race they were unable to get past Williams quickly who were fast on straights.

      Important part was start when Mercedes were 5 sec per lap quicker than all and got 36 second on field before pitting. Which gave them advantage in 2nd part of race
   2. 

      dan
      6th October 2014, 12:45

      Nope Hamilton was getting held up for 26 laps they would not have come close if Ros was not holding him up as soon as Ham was ahead Vet was only catching Ros untill the mistake. Check Ham pace at end of graph he had alot in hand.
      1. 

         andae23 (@andae23)
         6th October 2014, 16:52

         After Hamilton passed Rosberg on lap 29, you can see that, despite being faster than Rosberg, he was not faster than Ricciardo on older tyres. After the final stops Hamilton was indeed faster than both Red Bulls, but Vettel was on much older tyres and Ricciardo was stuck behind Button.
         1. 

            CG555
            7th October 2014, 7:07

            Stuck behind Button? It may have seemed that way, but the final sector JB kept pulling away. Also look at the laps, they were pretty even the whole race and it wasn’t till JB pitted for full wets and the being held up by the safety car for what seemed like an eternity till the safety car finally let him and the Caterham pass. Though it was for naught as the race was red-flagged.
   3. 

      pking008 (@pking008)
      6th October 2014, 12:50

      Its very simple isnt it? The Bulls pacw was no match for the real Merc pace. as @Dan said, Hamilton was being held up by Rosberg for 29 laps I think it was. The moment he freed himself of Rosberg, you can see the speed at which he pulled away.
      1. 

         Robbie (@robbie)
         6th October 2014, 14:25

         Kudos to NR for ‘holding LH up’ for as long as he did with a very oversteery car. That’s racing right? Lol, ‘holding LH up’ is being made to sound like a bad thing, like some offense toward LH, I guess mainly to LH fans though. It was always up to LH to get past NR, and it took DRS and an oversteery NR for him to do it. Without DRS NR might have defended long enough to get in for better tires and a wing adjustment and/or LH would have harmed his tires more in trying to get past NR.
         1. 

            D (@f190)
            6th October 2014, 14:54

            @robbie

            If’s and buts are completely irrelevant. The facts are that Hamilton was much stronger in the race. His pace was impressive once he got the pass done. I’m not sure how much Rosberg was holding him up in the earlier stages, but I wouldn’t say it was for 29 laps. Rosberg was lapping faster early on, so it does look like Hamilton was watching his pace to keep his tyres fresh. He was held up for a few laps, which was clear when he ran wide into t1 and then was right behind again a few corners later. I’m not having a go at Rosberg, but I saw nothing impressive in his defence. On a wet track there will always be one racing line, so keeping a car behind is made easier. I agree and wouldn’t say “holding him up” is a bad thing at all, but equally I wouldn’t call it impressive.
            1. 

               Robbie (@robbie)
               6th October 2014, 15:58

               @f190 Fair comment. The degree of impressiveness might be debatable, and only known by NR and crew, but I wouldn’t agree that there is only one line in the wet. In fact, there are far fewer if any marbles to contend with, and often you see drivers seeking out different lines for different grip levels, including seeking out water if there isn’t enough to prevent inters from overheating for example. And LH was taking far different lines to NR, not to mention the DRS pass on the outside where a pass likely would not have been possible in the dry at that spot. So I think it is the opposite and that more racing lines open up when the track is wet, and in the dry the racing line is bordered by marbles on each side which makes it risky to go off line.
            2. 

               Jorge Garcia (@nikopol)
               6th October 2014, 16:30

               dear friend, the lines of NR were wide because he had oversteer, he said 3 times o more since the begining… and LH had a brakes problem, thats why he lost the track 1 time. LH is not a Super driver, he’s a good driver who got advantage over the slippery car of NR. Just that.
            3. 

               dan
               6th October 2014, 17:46

               I suppose at one point @roobie being under threat behind was good aswell? Seriously at one point no one can deny Ros did look a little under threat from Vett and Button. Ham as soon as he was past was gone.

               Also it is not that hard being infront Rosberg was taking loads of df away first sector for Hamilton. As soon as Ham was ahead we seen how much he pulled. I was thinkng at one point Ros was just too good through sector 1 but it can’t of been helping Hamilton’s tyres. Ham tryes were in far better shape aswel even in dirty air. Ros was looking fine for 5-8 laps on inters then crumbled all of a sudden.

               And you have to admit his wheel to wheel is bad do you think Hamilton gets took over like that lol. We have seen all we need to know in Hungary Spa Monza and now Suzuka he as cracked. Ah well atleast you can console you’re self cheatborg is still in the race i mean Spa? Haha. Gap would be alot bigger.
         2. 

            Supremacy (@supremacy)
            7th October 2014, 8:49

            @robbie
            We can’t verify Nico’s excuses.

            We just know that Lewis was faster, as he usually is.
            And that overtake was just EPIC!
            Let’s see what happens in the next race.
   4. 

      Matthew Coyne
      6th October 2014, 17:33

      There are some odd people on here who try to make some really strange arguments for things.

      The fact is Lewis DOMINATED Rosberg. After overtaking Rosberg he was 4 seconds ahead within 2 laps and the gap ended up being massive at several points in the race, of course he is going to struggle to overtake someone in the same car as him on a track that is difficult to overtake on at the best of times in the wet when he is making sure he makes no contact after Rosbergs cock up in Spa. His overall quickest laptime was over a second quicker than Rosberg.

      I’ve said it several times before, Rosberg is NO MATCH for Hamilton on sheer pace, he has to be fair had the measure of Lewis in qualifying several times either through mistakes or whatever but in the race (The bit you actually get points for) We have seen that over and over again this season Lewis has always had the upper hand, the only race that arguably Rosberg had him was Monaco which is unique anyway, Austria he beat Lewis but Lewis was always gaining on him, it wasn’t like Rosberg was just pulling away like we’ve seen Lewis do in so many races this year. Anyone who tries to argue otherwise needs to look at the facts, Rosberg will only win this title if Lewis has reliability problems, wait and see.
      1. 

         Robbie (@robbie)
         6th October 2014, 17:54

         And for me the odd thing is to take this one-second disparity in fastest lap times and try to make that sound like it is the norm between these two drivers. It is not. Therefore wet weather races introduce variances that have me hesitating to use them to do true comparisons between drivers overall. And if NR is no match for LH with nearly the same amount of unreliability, then why is LH only 10 points up? Ask LH if he thinks NR is of no concern. No match. Easy peasy.
         1. 

            D (@f190)
            6th October 2014, 18:15

            @robbie

            Hamilton was 1.2 faster in a wet china qualifying ;)
         2. 

            Matthew Coyne
            6th October 2014, 18:16

            Seriously? Almost the same reliability issues?

            Lewis has had 1 more DNF and 2 starts from the back of the grid/pit lane because of reliability issues in qualifying.

            People seem to forget them when they say reliability is almost equal.
            1. 

               Robbie (@robbie)
               6th October 2014, 18:43

               I think both LH and TW both said, after NR’s last dnf, that things were pretty much even. Don’t forget LH caused some of his own grief, and don’t forget NR had a start buggered due to telemetry/radio comm/clutch issues, and he also lost first place in Canada to DR due to the same issue that took LH out of the race.
      2. 

         andae23 (@andae23)
         6th October 2014, 18:00

         I’m assuming that wasn’t meant as a reply to my original comment, because that’s not at all what I was implying.
         1. 

            dan
            6th October 2014, 19:44

            @robbie you miss the point so what Ros could lost 7 pts fact is Ham lost 18. Ham has 1 extra failure and 2 qually problems, gap would be around 25 30 points else.
            1. 

               Robbie (@robbie)
               6th October 2014, 19:48

               No the point is that people like to forget that NR also lost points in Canada, and rather prefer to just call Canada a dnf for LH.
            2. 

               Patrickl (@patrickl)
               7th October 2014, 17:54

               @robbie, You’re forgetting that Rosberg would also have lost a lot more points if Hamilton didn’t have DNF’s. It’s not just that Hamilton would have gained points, but Rosberg would have lost some too.

               So Rosberg would hardly gained any points if both Merc drivers had had no technical issues (and no teammates ramming them off). Hamilton would have gained a ton of points though.

               Also you mention Rosberg had some a start telemetry problem. As if that matters. Hamilton did also at Monza and he went on to win the race. Rosberg already had to start way back (because spun off) and in the end made his way back up to 2nd. So it’s not even worth mentioning those incidents. No points difference was the result anyway.
      3. 

         Hairs (@hairs)
         6th October 2014, 21:41

         Matthew, if a one second per lap advantage in this race means Lewis DOMINATES and Nico is NO MATCH, what did it mean when Nico pulled away from Lewis by over a second in the first lap?

         Perhaps time differences only count when they’re in Lewis’s favour?

         Or perhaps the explanation that different tyres behave differently and may not have suited one car or driver is not satisfying?

         I’m amazed (and saddened) that sections of the media and many commentators characterise Lewis beating another driver by X margin as “dominating” or similar phrasing but refer to another driver beating him by the same margin as “edging” or “denying” Lewis a victory/pole. It’s a sad lack of objectivity.

         A good example is monza this year: everyone concentrates on Lewis’s performance as being dominant, but ignore the fact that his car was 10km/h faster in a straight line than Nico’s. That’s a dominant advantage, and it was all from the car….
         1. 

            Hairs (@hairs)
            6th October 2014, 21:53

            To clarify, I don’t believe that the “pure pace” headline here is a heinous example of media misrepresentation. The BBC website is sadly prone to it however.
         2. 

            D (@f190)
            6th October 2014, 22:36

            @hairs

            I don’t think that’s the case, I’ve seen headlines where it’s the other way as well in regards to “pips and dominates”

            It probably meant that Rosberg could see where he was going and was therefore able to push straight away ,Whereas Hamilton had to wait an extra lap to get the feel ? You can’t seriously compare one lap to a whole GP. And the first lap in wet conditions as well.

            If his car was faster in a straight line then he obviously went a different way on setup. This is just part of the process for drivers.

            I don’t remember reading anything where it started Hamilton dominated in Monza, as it was quite a close race overall. But he did have the pace over Rosberg as having to come back from 4th , close down a 5 second gap and then overtake and build a 5 second gap isn’t easy. If his set up had something to do with that then so be it. It shouldn’t be used to take away from his win, if anything it should add to it as an additional skill.
            1. 

               Hairs (@hairs)
               6th October 2014, 23:07

               Lewis is well known for having raw talent; he’s also well known for being “very reliant on his engineers” for anything to do with setup, strategy or car performance (ref: the grand telemetry tantrum).

               If his car had a 10kph advantage, the one certainty is that the setup wasn’t his suggestion. So no, that doesn’t qualify as his skill. If you don’t think it’s relevant to how he closed the gap that quickly on a circuit which is over 70% full throttle, then I suggest you have another think about it.
            2. 

               Ryan (@ryanisjones)
               7th October 2014, 1:13

               @hairs… I think you got the telemetry issue the wrong way round. Hamilton was “rightly” criticising the engineers for giving him a set up that was at a deficit to Buttons. The reason the tweet was condemned was because it was leaking Maclaren data. Not because Hamilton was incorrect.

               It is also wildly “known” that Button copied Hamilton’s set up many more times than Hamilton did his. It is also well known that Rosberg’s engineers gave him a dossier on Hamilton’s driving style and that Rosberg is the biggest offender of being told how to drive by his engineers. Please listen to any interview this year where Hamilton talks about his driving. The idea that he needs the engineers input more than Rosberg is… Misguided.

               Basically, it is common knowledge that the opposite of what you have said is true.
            3. 

               Hairs (@hairs)
               7th October 2014, 8:00

               @ryanisjones In spa that year, Hamilton chose a higher downforce setup which meant that his car was faster in one sector, while Button’s was faster in another. However the net laptime should have been the same. Lewis wasn’t able to get the speed when he should have, and that’s why he lost.

               Not only did he have to apologise for tweeting confidential data, he had to apologise for blaming his engineers for his failure. This was analysed extensively at the time so it’s not a matter of opinion at all.

               Button often copied Barrichello’s setup in Brawn (to the extent that Ross had to publicly tell Rubens not to hide setup information) but there’s no evidence he did so with Lewis. Given his very different driving style and the fact that Lewis relies on the engineers (see years of radio transmissions where he expressed confusion about strategy and setup), it’s more likely that both drivers went with engineer suggestions than that one driver copied the other.
            4. 

               Ryan (@ryanisjones)
               7th October 2014, 12:19

               @hairs Button gained 1.1 seconds on the straights, Hamilton gained 0.7 seconds in the corners. Net loss 0.4 seconds. This was despite Hamilton breaking later (read – driving quicker) than Button. Hence set up cost him.

               Hamilton is more famous for arguing with his engineers than he is for needing their advice. You have chosen him arguing with his engineers as the reason for him relying on them more than others but that line of argument makes no sense. Was it not three races ago he went against a strategy call saving himself loosing a place? Do those team messages show him relying on his engineers too?

               Lastly, no evidence for Button? Really? Google it. We also know that Rosberg gets data on Hamilton’s driving style. Using these two pieces of information, how can you deduce that Hamilton is more reliant on his engineers. He is clearly better at setting up cars than his previous two team mates.
         3. 

            Matthew coyne
            6th October 2014, 22:53

            There is a difference between being quicker over a lap or two and being CONSISTENTLY quicker. There has been the odd race but look through the Calendar at the races to date, the majority of races Lewis has been consistently quicker. The only race that rosberg really had the measure of Hamilton was Monaco which is unique, Austria Hamilton caught but couldn’t pass.

            As for Rosberg losing the odd position to reliability that does not add up to another DNF or two destroyed qualifying which were rescued by 2 masterful drives.
            1. 

               Hairs (@hairs)
               6th October 2014, 23:11

               Lewis has very often had to rescue races this year from his own mistakes.

               It is possible to acknowledge his flaws as well as his strengths, and that the difference in performance between him and button, or him and Rosberg is not as great (or as straightforward) as a dedicated fan might like to admit.
            2. 

               D (@f190)
               7th October 2014, 0:04

               @hairs

               I think you’re wrong with regards to the speed difference. It was in fact Rosberg who had the faster speed in qualifying.

               The reason for the gap in the race is DRS. So Hamilton didn’t have that advantage every Lap. So what’s your excuse now ?
            3. 

               D (@f190)
               7th October 2014, 10:35

               @hairs

               Actually, you’re wrong again – Button copied Hamiltons set-up in Valencia.

               http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/12479/7832670/button-to-copy-hamiltons-set-up
            4. 

               Hairs (@hairs)
               7th October 2014, 12:02

               @f190 I assume this comment should be a little bit above, but you’ll notice I said “often copied”. No doubt one driver or the other uses a setup tried by the other driver, however as I said in the case of Rubens vs. Button, Rubens designed the setup, whereas in McLaren it was very clear that neither Lewis or Jenson were the primary movers regarding setup: the engineers were. It’s not a strength of either one of them and both were liable to complain about “balance issues” they couldn’t understand in order to explain poor performances.
            5. 

               D (@f190)
               7th October 2014, 12:50

               @hairs

               Your view of Hamilton is evident from previous posts. You tried to discredit his win in Monza by saying he had a “dominant advantage” due to his car being quicker which simply isn’t the case. If you agree he had a dominant advantage then that is 100% down to the driver as Rosberg had the faster car ( speed trap figures) in qualifying and was also only 0.4 kph slower over their respective fastest average speed laps ( which takes into consideration the whole lap ). Any speed advantage was created by Hamilton, not the car.

               You tried to discredit his performance in Suzuka by saying he was 1 second slower than Rosberg on the first lap, which makes no difference to his dominance that race.

               You’ve tried to explain that any advantage Hamilton has is down to his engineers rather than his skill in driving and set-up.

               On all three of your arguments you’ve been proved wrong and cases have been provided to back this up ( unlike many of your arguments.)

               It’s clear you have something against Hamilton, which is your personal choice and you may have your reasons for. But sometimes you have to just give credit where its due, rather than trying to continuously discredit someone with false information.
            6. 

               Hairs (@hairs)
               7th October 2014, 13:42

               @f190
               Speed trap figures for Monza, from the FIA:
               Hamilton : 358.6
               Rosberg : 331.0

               You’re saying I’m making things up, and that 20kph on a circuit which is 70%+ full throttle is nothing to do with the car setup, and doesn’t explain any of the laptime advantage?

               Rosberg wasn’t pressing the throttle pedal?

               How did I get to the FIA to falsify this data which I’m discrediting people who disagree with me, exactly?
            7. 

               D (@f190)
               7th October 2014, 14:51

               @hairs

               As I’ve already pointed out the difference was due to DRS. Rosberg didn’t have has the opportunity to use it. Think about it, he was leading till after the pit stops, then when he made his mistake he fell a few seconds behind Hamilton, and stayed there until the end of the race. DRS would make around 20 kph difference, so it adds up.

               Its completely illogical to think that Hamiltons car was 20kph faster every lap, as it simply wasn’t.

               Rosberg had the fastest car in qualifying, that does’t just disappear and turn into a 20kph disadvantage overnight…
            8. 

               Hairs (@hairs)
               7th October 2014, 15:11

               @f190 so… Rosberg never, ever, even once, during the whole race, ever used drs?

               Hamilton was the only other driver on the track?

               No backmarkers? Ever?

               That’s some run of bad luck.
            9. 

               D (@f190)
               7th October 2014, 16:06

               @hairs

               He may have used it in the other DRS zone, but it doesn’t look like he had it where the speed trap was.

               Rosberg was leading until lap 29 and hadn’t lapped anyone by that stage. He then fell behind hamilton by 2.6 seconds, which Hamilton slowly kept extending. DRS was disabled for a few laps due to Alonso, which only leaves around 20 laps where Rosberg would have had the chance. There were also two DRS zones and a straight for lapped cars to get out of the way.

               You’re constantly looking for reasons to discredit Hamilton, but the simple fact is there isn’t any in this race, sorry.

               Its the only logical explanation for the speed difference. And looking at the race it makes perfect sense.
            10. 

                Hairs (@hairs)
                7th October 2014, 17:51

                @f190

                So, first I was biased, then I was lying, then the whole race Rosberg couldn’t use drs at all, now he could possibly have used it, but not where it could be measured? And that’s the *only* logical explanation to you? Strange that your definition of the *only* possible explanation has changed so many times, no?

                One of us is desperately stretching here. It isn’t me.

                All I have dared to suggest is that Hamilton is an extremely fast driver with several flaws, and that he is not as dominantly invincible as some of his fans may like to believe.

                Like I have said multiple times, it is possible to look at drivers objectively. This isn’t football. Blind unthinking allegiance isn’t necessary. It’s a complex sport where the driver is one element. Just because Rosberg beats Hamilton one week doesn’t mean it’s going to happen every week. Equally, just because Hamilton is much faster one week, doesn’t mean it’ll be the same another week.

                Being a fan of one particular driver shouldn’t blind you to his flaws. They all have flaws.
            11. 

                D (@f190)
                7th October 2014, 18:55

                @hairs

                You’ve completely mis-understood almost everything I’ve said, so I’ll re-explain them again for you.

                “So, first I was biased” – still the case, I’ve seen your past comments regarding Hamilton and its clear what your opinion of him is. My mind hadn’t changed in this regard at all.

                “then I was lying” – I never directly said you were lying, but you were spreading false facts without any information to back those up. Facts about set-up which you know nothing about.

                “then the whole race Rosberg couldn’t use drs at all” – I never actually said that at all. I said Rosberg didn’t have DRS where the speed trap was. You do realise that there is one point where the speed figure is taken ? Which happens to be in a DRS zone. In that zone its clear to see Rosberg didn’t have DRS as if he did his top speed would have been much higher.

                “now he could possibly have used it, but not where it could be measured? ” – Again, he could have used it in the second DRS zone, where indeed there is NO speed trap.

                I’ll say it one more time just incase you don’t understand. There is only ONE point on the track where the drivers top speed is taken. To keep everything universal for all drivers, this is at the SAME point of the track for every driver ( on the main straight ). This point is in a DRS ZONE. A driver with DRS will be able to get much higher top speed than someone without it. It’s therefore clear that Rosberg DIDN’T have DRS in the zone where the top speed is taken, hence his speed was much lower ! Understand ?

                “One of us is desperately stretching here. It isn’t me.” – I’m sorry but it is. You’ve tried to belittle my argument by saying how I’ve changed my mind, when none of my opinions have changed at all. From the start I’ve said you’re bias against Hamilton, You’ve stated your wrong opinion as fact,and that Rosberg DIDN’T have DRS in the ONE speed trap where the figures are taken.

                It sounds like you don’t understand about how the top speed figures are taken, so I hope this helps.

                I don’t deny he has flaws, thats not the issue here. The issue is yourself trying to discredit someone who’s done the better job by saying ” he had a 20kph advantage” which simply isn’t true.
            12. 

                dan
                8th October 2014, 6:19

                @hairs

                lol who cares he was faster last i checked Hamdid not pass him NR cracked and went off.
2. 

   Nin13 (@nin13)
   6th October 2014, 12:01

   This comes from Formula 1 fan.

   Fact is Hamilton is better driver than Rosberg. Those who have seen races know, Hamilton is good at overtaking, better at saving fuel and tyres than Rosberg. Also in wets

   Rosberg has 1 lap pace but Hamilton is complete package. Hamilton has had more bad luck in quali this year and bad start yet recovered in races.
   1. 

      KeeleyObsessed (@keeleyobsessed)
      6th October 2014, 12:18

      Formula 1 fan also, but I believe that Hamilton is not quite as complete as others make him out to be. He suffers with reliability, and people who quote Silverstone 2008 forget Canada 2011 (where he was already making mistakes before the collision with Button) and China 2007 (Where he really should have come in earlier, and therefore lost the championship)

      Yes, he was dominant in Silverstone, and was faster this weekend, but to say he’s ‘brilliant in the wet’ seems to ignore some of the mistakes he’s made in previous races
      1. 

         pking008 (@pking008)
         6th October 2014, 12:47

         @keeleyobsessed you are not getting the point! Making a mistake doesnt mean he is not mean what @nin13 said is not true.

         For clarification:

         1. Canada 2011, he was faster than Button. In my view Button put him on the wall when he tried to overtake Button.

         2. China 2007, the team left him out despite knowing his tyres had gone. If memory serves he wanted to come in but the team kept him out until his tyres were virtually driving on the rims.

         Yes, he was dominant in Silverstone and dominant this weekend again but some of Lewis best races have been in the wet. So how you can discount that I can’t fathom. Just look at previous races and you will see
         1. 

            Hairs (@hairs)
            6th October 2014, 21:46

            Button couldn’t see him through the spray, therefore couldn’t have “put him in the wall”. Lewis chose to drive, foolishly, into a narrowing gap up against a wall, rather than take the equally quick safe route.

            There are easily as many examples of poor racecraft as there are amazing overtakes in his repertoire.

            Nico is nowhere near as far off Lewis’s pace as his fans (or he) would like to think.
      2. 

         Dex
         6th October 2014, 12:50

         Give him a break, he was a rookie in 2007 yet led the WDC.
         1. 

            doug
            6th October 2014, 15:01

            He did better than that:he finished 2nd by 1 point?was it not?on his very 1st year with Alonso”the beast”fernando as team mate.2 time world champion.but again Ricciardo just gave Vettel a beating too:a 4 TIMES CONSECUTIVE world champion.but again Red bull had unfair advantage for 4 years and Ricciardo is on his 3rd year?or 4th in F1?Hamilton had never been there prior to 2007.
      3. 

         Nin13 (@nin13)
         6th October 2014, 13:04

         @keeleyobsessed– I think, I was comparing Hamilton and Rosberg. I did not say Hamilton is best on grid or something. And no where I said Hamilton is better at improvoing car life. Though, I don’t get how a driver can destroy F1 car.

         Crash in wets is something that happened to great drivers too.
         For example MSC 1996 Monaco he crashed, trashed field at 1997 Monaco. Then again 1997 Spa thrashed the field, crashed into Coulthard at 1998 Spa
         .
         Completely agree with @pking008 about those races.
         1. 

            BJ (@beejis60)
            6th October 2014, 15:42

            @nin13 I even remember Senna crashing once in the wet…
      4. 

         KeithR (@)
         6th October 2014, 14:01

         You picked a race where he blew away mixed-conditions guru Jenson Button (after being put off the track) and a mixed-conditions race where he put 20s into the awesome Fernando Alonso, until his team left him driving on kevlar.

         Two examples of him being, er, brilliant in the wet :)

         In 6 years there probably are some wet-race fails, but these aren’t.
         1. 

            Patrickl (@patrickl)
            7th October 2014, 17:59

            Button was even a lap down during that race at some point, because he kept on picking the wrong tyres.

            Only a whole slew of safety cars helped him make his way back. Of course punting off two of his main rivals helped massively too.