Why do people keep saying Lewis should have not raced Kimi in China?

Question

Ok, maybe because of it he lost the title, but so what.
Recently people have bemoaned the lack of real racing in F1 and now we have someone who will go for a win regardless and you call him for it.
Personally, I think it shows character that he feels second is nowhere.
I've always said I'd much rather watch a driver make an error chasing a win rather than watch someone who plays the percentages and lets a win pass by.
Kimi had done this in the past, let us not forget the dreaded 1 set of tyres per race rule a few years ago. With a damaged tyre Kimi chased a win until his suspension exploded and put him out of the race.
Do you really want to see and end to such obvious single mindedness towards winning?

You have a very good point here Firefox. Hamilton has indeed only won from pole this year but has shown more desire to win from behind than some other drivers.
I also agree to a point about looking at the bigger picture, in this case the world championship, and yes the old racing proverb will always be applicable but the fact remains, drivers who play the percentages are just plain boring.

I've been doing some research and have found some interesting statistics for you Sunil...
Lewis and Kimi have had similar losses and gains on track with regards to their qualifying positions. The only Wins Kimi had away from pole were either when the Ferrari was clearly the superior car in race trim or he had to beat Massa.....which isn't much of a challenge.
I'm not trying to take anything away from Kimi, far from it, he was far and away the best driver in the second half of the season, and has proved it on outright speed. but for on track overtaking and racing Hamilton has very much been Kimi's equal a numbr of times.

It wasn't win details I was comparing Sunil. I was pointing out that overall during the season each driver has had to fight through the field to gain position or as moved backwards overall in reasonably equal amount.
I wasn't suggesting that Massa moved over for Kimi either, just that Massa isn't really in the same league as Kimi.
Yes, Kimi has a better record of winning from behind but as you say, the Ferrari in general was faster in race trim which seems to suggest a heavily raced biased qualifying set up. On the other hand, the tracks where Mclaren were faster they seemed to dominate the whole weekend.
I'm not trying to say Kimi is a poor racer, far from it, just that I thought it unfair to suggest Lewis isn't a racer because of the way the tracks have either suited one or the other car this year.
If you want me to be completely honest about Kimi I'll say just this. I'd say he won this year because he's become a much more consistent driver. He's improved vastly and it shows.

I've had some good answers but I've not really found what I was hoping for.
With this in mind I shall put it to the vote.

Answer 1

Well to be fair, Kimi can be called one of the Kings of preserving their tyres. His weren't as brutally balded like Lewis' since if my memory serves me right, he (Lewis) glided a few times (sure it's good for speed but it tortures the tyres) and then tried to hold off Kimi on absolutely gripless tyres. Now the sensible thing is to let Kimi pass, then he might have been able to retain enough of the tyres to reach the pits in a technical view. But anyways, I agree, the drivers who play the percentage are just boring.

Answer 2

The issue is about winning - in this case winning a championship! When actively fighting with another driver for position, you are wearing your tires at a faster rate... and under those conditions with the intermediate tires, potentially a very fast rate! And you are also ultimately slowing both drivers down, making it easier for other drivers to catch up.

In the big picture, Hamilton was racing for a championship, not the one race; similarly, should a racer risk lapping a driver just in order to "race" when they already have the lead, and doing so could likely lead to a retirement when they could simply wait, and pass at a more opportune spot? This was the issue facing Hamilton... Kimi was clearly faster at this point, and would go by at some point. By fighting this for the length he did, he almost certainly cost himself enough tire wear that could have been the difference on turn-in at the pits. In short, people keep saying he should not have raced because this was a mistake, plain and simple.

Comparing it to the issue with Kimi and the tire problem in 2005... Kimi was not leading the championship, but trailing, and in need of points to keep up. He could've pitted and received a new tire under the regulations for safety since the tire created an unsafe condition. However, if you look at how close the points were in that race, making such a stop would have pushed him too far back to have made it worthwhile... in the big picture of both the season and the race, it was a calculated gamble to try and make it to the end. He was clearly not pushing as hard as he had earleir and trying to nurse the car home... however, it didn't make it.

Part of being a good driver and a good racer is knowing what is possible, and working to achieve the best result possible. Second place is a good result... no one will win every race! Hamilton had a chance for a championship not because he won so many races this year, but because he in the early going, he consistently finished on the podium! Late in the year he lost sight of how he got where he was, and it cost him dearly.

Answer 3

Yes, I can see your point. But the thing is, sometimes even when you don't want to settle for second, you have to put that aside and think logically. Is it worth fighting when you will win in the end whether you're first or second? If you fight with the other driver, does that guarantee you'll win the title? No. Lewis should've headed straight for the pits. I'm sure he would've secured his position and maybe even manage to overtake Kimi later.

And if he'd won there, he wouldn't be bugged now because Kimi won the title. After all that fighting, he's lost. I think it's better that he'd settled for second place there and won the title instead of not even finishing the race. It's all about seeing the bigger picture and not just being focused on "I must win this!".

Answer 4

He fought a battle when he should have been focussing on the war. This is a high stakes professional game, he should have fixed his priorities.

And more important, he didnt really have the wares to win in Shanghai. That McLaren was shaky and you dont race with such machinery. The Ferrari's were more balanced and faster, Hamilton was beaten on track by Kimi. In 2007, between fast cars, you dont really overtake back.

I love to see the one with the winning attitude, I still hero-worship the Spartans at Thermopylae. But there is also the story of the donkey who kept butting the tree while there was way all around it. Between dumb foolhardiness and common sense, I'd always choose the latter, for the eternal racing rule is strictly imposed "to finish first, you should first finish".

And finally Derek Smith, does Lewis really have the attitude that is projected? How many did he win? 4, and all of that from the Pole. I'd say you need to wait and let him win one from behind before you call him a true racer. I'd only say he is a "maintainer" when it comes to GP wins. A racer is one like our boy Kimi!
--------- ------------ ------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
Edit: A bit of disagreement Derek Smith. Kimi has won only two from pole. Of the remaining 4, Massa had qualified ahead of him only twice and in both Kimi gained track position because of pit strategy. And in France Massa was leading Kimi in points, so you cant say Massa "moved over". Brazil is the only place you can have an element of doubt (though I'd say, Kimi won it on merit). And, importantly, in all the four, Lewis was ahead of him. Twice Lewis was beaten on fast laps, twice on starts. So you cannot really claim that these two have similar win records. All of Kimi's non-pole wins had the sweet sight of Lewis being beaten.

Finally, Ferrari almost always had the faster car. Its just the Ferrari reliability issues that made McLaren look good.

Answer 5

If he hadn't raced Kimi and just concentrated on bring the car home he would have had the championship. I screamed and had my hands in the air, but after the initial disappointment i had the same sort of conversation with a friend of mine. we both agreed that Lewis is a born racer. he doesn't like to settle for second if he thinks he can get first. that is very refreshing to see. he handled his loss of the championship very maturely and is already looking forward to next year. I think we will see many a great race, and i mean proper race, from the young Lewis Hamilton.

Answer 6

Because Hamilton did not need to win the race to win the championship. So by fighting for the win he was putting himself in a very dangerous position. Yes it would be better to win the championship with a race win but are the risks worth it? Instead of clinching the title he let the battle go to Brazil where he lost it.

Answer 7

At that point, neither of them had pitted, they were on the same tyres, lewis could have come back after he pitted, but he didn't. He took a gamble and he lost. I think lewis is sometimes a little too competitive for his own good. Having enough points is not enough for him, he has to beat everyone on the track as well. I've no doubt that if he were in a similar situation, he would do the same thing all over again.

Answer 8

Kimi was gone when Lewis put it in the Gravel, Kimi was 16 seconds clear by then. Win was his.

Also, they had already both stopped once, contrary to what somebody else said.

Nice to see somebody fight for wins, but when you can win the title in that race by coming home 4th, just do that. Not too many risks, otherwise you might end in the gravel

Answer 9

It is good to see someone who wants to win each race and not rely on the percentages. But people say that he should have looked at the greater prize of the World Championship, rather than the single win in China.

But hats off to the guy, you cant fault him for being competitive

Answer 10

Totally agree with you Smith I'd never complain about someone going for a win even if it is the bad thing to do according to the percentages. Racing is about well racing each other to see who's the fastest not who can best play the percentages.