Start, Albert Park, Melbourne, 2016

Hamilton points finger at Rosberg over poor start

2016 Australian Grand PrixPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

Lewis Hamilton said his team mate’s driving, rather than his slow getaway, did the most damage to his start at the Australian Grand Prix.

Having qualified on pole position Hamilton fell to sixth place on the first lap of the race after getting away poorly from the line and being overtaken on the run to turn three.

Hamilton said his poor getaway wasn’t down to the new restrictions on starting procedures. “I asked my engineer and I think we just had a lot of wheelspin,” he told reporters after the race. “Just one of those difficult starts.”

“The actual start wasn’t shocking, wasn’t the worst, it was at turn one when Nico [Rosberg] run me off. I lost most ground then but I’m just grateful I was able to recover.”

The Ferrari drivers led the early stages of the race after passing both Mercedes at the start. But Hamilton, who said on Thursday Ferrari had “something up their sleeve”, was not surprised by their performance.

“We thought they were going to be close again in the race,” he said. “I can’t remember what the gap was in qualifying but I knew they would be quicker in qualifying because they had another lap. So the gap was smaller than you would expect or thought, and then we thought they would be quicker today.”

Hamilton said Rosberg “doesn’t seem to think he had problems” staying close to the Ferraris, but said he enjoyed his scrap with Sebastian Vettel in the closing stages of the race but held him off for second.

“When Sebastian was behind me I was excited because I was having a race with Sebastian,” said Hamilton. “But unfortunately this track doesn’t really allow you have serious battles, it’s just following someone around in the dirty air which is a bit unfortunate.”

2016 Australian Grand Prix

Browse all Australian Grand Prix articles

98 comments on “Hamilton points finger at Rosberg over poor start”

  1. Well, you did exactly the same at Japan and Texas last year.

    1. He doesn’t say it was unfair @craig-o, so I suppose it is all just racing :)

    2. By this time all of us should have known that both drivers tend to target the other at turn one.
      While they were able to do such to themselves for two years without much repercussions, today’s was different cos the Ferraris are now fast and are right there with them at turn one.
      Nico’s concentration on Lewis at turn one left a huge space on the right side of the track for Kimi and the rest to zoom past.
      2016 might just be a very good year.

      1. “While they were able to do such to themselves for two years without much repercussions”
        And they still can, they had an easy one-two in the end.

        1. @paeschli Not because their car was so super fast, had Vettel got the mediums at the red flag I highly doubt there would be even a Mercedes on 1.

          1. I highly doubt your thinking… In testing, Ham, showed not only he could last the meds longer than Ferrari, but he could do so with 1-2 sec faster in average… Ros also if you watched was following Vet in worse tyre, and Vet couldnt open up a significant gap (by significant i mean they were expecting 20 sec gap, they managed 3-4 sec max…) and soft vs med battle with Ham/Vet shows a different story to your imagination mate… If Vet changed to Meds, he wouldnt keep with the paceof Mercs! Only reason he kept pace is due to running S/SS tires!

  2. Pot. Kettle. Black.

    1. That is not fair, its all because he is … Ok, I’ll get my coat now @sw6569

    2. “Maybe it’s because I’m black” – Lewis Hamilton, Monaco, 2011

      1. Get a life dude.

    3. Not really, since Lewis wasn’t complaining, he’s just making a correct and factual observation as to why he got stuck behind so many cars, it wasn’t the so much the bad start (as the interviewer asked him about the poor get-away), but being cut off at the first corner.

      1. Agreed. I might have missed something but I didn’t hear Hamilton saying it was unfair. He was the first to congratulate Nico and was happy with his own race. There was no animosity on the podium either. If Lewis had felt aggrieved we would have seen it – he can’t hide it.

        1. Hes having to hide it!!!! Dodo will not put up with the public displays of animosity anymore and they are BOTH under orders to be on their best behaviour at every race regardless of who does what to whom! Both of them also know that any extensions to their current contracts will ensure the behave accordingly. #;)

          1. they*

  3. Well, poor getaway seems to be a Mercedes trademark… Which is about the only thing they dont do excellent.

    Nico just did a Lewis on Lewiz, firm and fair. We all know Nico had many opportunities to observe from first row how that is done.

    Great salvage. Mercedes poor starts do more for F1 racing than all quali changes combined…

    Radio rules maybe helped a little aswell?

  4. Hahaha, Karma.

      1. RaceProUK (@)
        20th March 2016, 15:43

        Because some people get a sick pleasure from watching Hamilton suffer

        1. also hamilton did that to rosberg on multiple occasions over the last two years….

          (from the top of my head suzuka and USA 2015)

          1. Not sure of Suzuka, but USA, Ham came from the back in the wet, and was side by side and ahead while Ros was covering racing line so not much he could do other than outbreak himself in cold breaks on wet surface, Ros here was well ahead, and didnt go to racing line for until very late at all… if you ask me, it was naughty… it looked as if he intentionally chose the inside line to outbreak himself almost like his “unintentional” mistake in Monaco quali…

          2. RaceProUK (@)
            22nd March 2016, 0:34

            People are still harping on about that Monaco thing? It was a simple mistake; get over it already.

  5. The thing is Rosberg was so busy pushing Lewis off that he lost a position to Kimi himself and therefore compromising team’s position in the race. I don’t think Lewis is wrong for pointing out why he ended up being 6th when he was 3rd at the first corner.

    1. How far behind was Rosberg after turn one at Suzuka last year?

      Lewis has been doing this for years, Rosberg learned this trick from him.

      1. @paeschl I think what @ivan-vinitskyy tried to say is Rosberg also put himself at worse position. A Mercedes 2nd and 3rd after 1st lap with Rosberg leading Hamilton is better than Mercedes 3rd and 6th in every way except for Rosberg title fight. Suzuka last year, even though Rosberg dropped to 5th, but Hamilton is still at lead so not really a fair comparison.

        1. @sonicslv Depends how you see it.

          Suzuka 2015: Hamilton puts two cars between him and Rosberg
          US 2015: Hamilton puts three cars between him and Rosberg
          Australia 2016: Rosberg puts two cars between him and Hamilton

          1. @paeschli Well the way I see it is:

            Suzuka 2015: Hamilton should lead and still lead the race
            US 2015: Hamilton should lead and still lead the race
            Australia: Rosberg should be in 2nd position but he’s in 3rd instead.

            I welcome any fight between those to, but Rosberg need to learn on doing it “properly” that doesn’t make other team benefit much from their battles.

          2. @sonicslv Okay, last try.

            Japanese GP, US GP and Australian GP : Mercedes gets a 1-2

            I really don’t see the difference.

          3. Well said Sonics.

          4. @paeschli I’m looking it as immediate result here (position after 1 lap) and you looking it as how the race ends. My argument is you don’t want to handicapping your team chances more than needed since there still a lot more to the race after 1st lap, however I can see why you look at the end result.

            Does the journey that matters? or is the end justified the means? I guess we can agree to disagree?

  6. They kinda both do that every time they get to turn one side by side recently. Maybe they´ll want to stop that, as it may put them (or at least the respective driver on the outside) on the back foot against Ferrari in future races. That said, as the team hasn´t intervened on previous occurences (Austin, Suzuka etc.), the inside driver very much has to do that in order to get maximum advantage on the occasion and thus not (completely) turning into number two in the longer run. Going at one of them individually would thus be unfair, but the team probably should tell its drivers “you do not longer do that to each other”.

  7. This headline makes no sense. He blames wheel spin for the poor start and Rosberg for the fact that he lost a couple of more places and that’s where the real damage was done. I don’t really feel any hate, just stating the facts.

    1. @thetick

      This headline makes no sense.

      Only if you’re unfamiliar with the idiom.

      and that’s where the real damage was done

      Exactly: he is saying the bulk of the blame for his poor start is down to Rosberg pushing him wide, which is what the headline refers to.

      1. it reads to me like suggestive clickbait

        1. Haven’t been here long? It’s not even worth complaining about, pretty common practice here.

          Come for the content, not the suggestive agenda pushing headlines or prepare to be disappointed.

          1. Fully agreed. HAM’s words are always rephrased to fit a certain agenda.

          2. Not just HAM’s, constant anti-Red Bull bias, constant anti-Bernie bias.

            There are lots of reasons for it (generate views, generate clicks, generate discussions) and it’s not worth complaining about it in the slightest. I really doubt Keith is sitting there going “muahaha I have damaged the popular opinion of certain driver. World domination is afoot!”

            I see the independent tagline of this site not meaning of an independent or neutral stance, but independent meaning separate / inofficial from FOM. People are only human and of course put their own spin on things, consciously or not.

        2. @thetick I’m trying to be straight with you here – I genuinely have no idea what you’re objecting to. Per his own words, Hamilton is blaming Rosberg. That is all the headline says. If you could point out to me what you think I’ve done wrong here I’d appreciate it.

          1. @keithcollantine Ignore them, they are not worth replying to. Never has a title struck me as clickbait and the content has always been impeccable.

          2. To be fair, although the title doesn’t say anything false, “points finger” sounds like he is blaming Rosberg for his start, as saying he did it intentionally, while simply Hamilton is describing what happened and he never implied the move from Rosberg was unfair.
            Proof of this is comments on facebook of people, that probably only read the title, are assuming that Hamilton is complaining about Rosberg’s behaviour. See below:

            Oh wow another sook from Lewis how surprising!
            And so the whining starts!
            Hahaha suck it up princess you lost
            That’s right Lewis. It couldn’t possibly be your own fault.
            As usual whining

          3. You, a professional journalist, a person who makes his living with words, can’t understand how the headline “points finger at” is is not consistent with the quote and overly dramatic? Sorry friend, but if you worked in a professional newsroom and tried to get that by an editor, you would be laughed at.

            The quote basically acknowledges that getting pushed wide impacted his start, but in no way does Lewis insinuate that this was wrong on Nico’s part or that he is to “blame” for him not having a better start. If you say that you can’t see the difference between those two, then you are either not a very good writer or not very honest.

          4. @keithcollantine @xtwl I agree that the title is kinda clickbaity, because its implying Hamilton totally blames Rosberg for his poor start, instead if what the article and Hamilton said.

            Consider this title (Apologies for the caps because we don’t have formatting anymore in the comments) : “Hamilton point finger at Rosberg FOR WORSENING HIS poor start”. A 3 word change (that doesn’t make the title lengthy) totally changes the implication of the sentences and much more accurate to the article itself.

          5. Mentioning clickbait seems to be the quickest way to get your reaction, @Keithcollantine.

            And though I agree that some titles are somewhat suggestive it does spark a good debate which is part of what makes this site so good.

          6. @keithcollantine, @xtwl

            Keith, that is part of the game and you are doing a great job. BUT, please don’t insult us by pretending that is not your intention. $$$$ The link to Now TV, which someone made a valid comment recently, says it all but we get it. This is a business at the end of the day.

            PorscheF1, we are all here for a reason therefore should all be respected together with our opinions. Asking Keith to ignore “Them” is just silly especially when “they” have a valid point/fair comments.

          7. Per his own words, Hamilton is blaming Rosberg. That is all the headline says.

            Well it’s not ‘all’ it says really @keithcollantine. ‘Finger-pointing’ entails more than just describing the cause of something. It involves some accusation, hostility and confrontation. So as we see below people who only read the headline end up with a false impression of Hamilton’s attitude.

            Afaik nobody else has run this as a story – because he wasn’t pointing a finger at Rosberg, he was conciliatory; as was Rosberg.

            So the headline does look somewhat bait-esque, to be honest.

          8. @keithcollantine
            This well written comment sums it up for me

            “Slowhands (@slowhands)
            20th March 2016, 18:53

            “Points a finger at” is an analogy. Analogy is useful in language since it can convey the entirety of a situation in concise language, by comparing the event being recounted to common experience. Common experience of having a finger pointed at you, especially in your face, is that you are being made fun of, singled out for something unattractive, or blamed. My immediate emotional reaction to having a finger pointed at me is not positive. Only with inanimate objects or animals is pointing a finger neutral, not with people. Hence, in most cultures, “pointing a finger at” a person is considered quite rude.

            Most of those on this site agree that Keith is an excellent writer. This is why he is being admonished by some for “lowering” himself to a “clickbait” headline. Good journalism requires that the writer understand the emotional content of a phrase and not use it when that emotion is not actually part of the events being described. In this case, a more accurate headline would have “included” Rosberg or “cited” him “among the factors” leading to the poor position after the first corner. “Points a finger at Rosberg” conveys emotionally to the audience “blames solely”, which is not the case here, and therefore misleading. Journalism should not mislead in the interest of attracting viewership to a story. We have too much of the acquiescence of values in the interest of $$$ in the world; it is contrary to passion, and passion is what brings most of us here.”

        3. Actually, the quote in the body of the text is correct, but I’d agree the title is perhaps over-egging it a bit. One thing text can never do is show how he said it. If you actually watch the interview, the way he says it, he’s not specifically blaming Rosberg, rather the incident. There’s an element of “well I’d do the same to him” in his eyes, so it appeared to me that he was accepting it happening to him. That cannot be gleamed from the headline, or the quoted text.

          1. The problem is that the article headline is written to generate interest in the article, not accurately convey the story.

            An accurate article headline would be “Hamilton points finger at wheel spin, Rosberg, over poor start” but Keith wouldn’t write that because it is less likely to generate story interest

      2. @@keithcollantine

        You are grasping straws on this one. Call it whatever you want but it’s pure click bait

    2. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with the title. I’d be curious to know of a more ‘objective’ wording saying the same thing.

      1. There is nothing wrong with the title, but people take issue because it ‘appears’ as if Hamilton is coming out and making a statement off his own back that his race was ruined because of Rosberg, when in actual fact, he was questioned about his start from the media and he is simply describing how he ended up in 6th. At no point did Hamilton actually just come out and blame Rosberg for anything.

    3. This is what Hamilton said “… it was at turn one when Nico [Rosberg] run me off.”

      To put it the exact same way without quoting it, ‘Hamilton points finger at Rosberg over poor start’.

      The first turn is the start of the race. Had it been written “… over poor launch”, then you would have made your point. It appears your point is about semantics. Which in this case is irreverent.

      1. irrelevant*

      2. No, the start of the race is exactly when the lights goes out and the drivers free to race. It’s called race start procedure, and have a line called start/finish line for a reason. You the one trying to playing with semantics here with using the term “launch” and trying to stretch the “start” definition. Also Hamilton himself said “turn one” to describe the incident with Rosberg and only said “start” to describe the wheel spin.

        1. Ah, so the wheel spin wasn’t at the start either because it was momentarily after the 0.1 second period following the lights going out. Got you.

          1. @matt90 *sigh* Now we really debating semantics are we?

            Per the quote in the article itself:
            “I asked my engineer and I think we just had a lot of wheelspin,” he told reporters after the race. “Just one of those difficult starts.”

            “The actual start wasn’t shocking, wasn’t the worst, it was at turn one when Nico [Rosberg] run me off. I lost most ground then but I’m just grateful I was able to recover.”

            If Hamilton himself quoted saying wheelspin incident as start and Rosberg incident as turn one and you still refuse it, I don’t have anything left to say to you.

          2. @sonicslv I don’t understand, you started debating semantics yourself! If you think the title is misleading, despite the painfully obvious context, because ‘start’ is being used more liberally (but justifiably) than for just the couple of seconds after lights out, then I don’t have anything left to say either, as your stance seems overly pedantic.

    4. Seems like Mercedes themselves also believe this headline is very misleading and wrong, hence their reply to it on Twitter.

  8. I don’t think He meant that it was unfair, but that He had a Bad Start and there for rosberg Got the Chance to be Inside and next to him in the corner , and there was no Chance to stay in Front. … I think ham seemed rather reasonable, considering how then two of them can act like

  9. I agree with Lewis that this was the culprit, but Nico went in steep and had a lock up. so it was less intentional and rather unlucky that they ended up needing the same piece of tarmac to have a good T1 exit.

  10. What would be Hamilton’s definition of a bad start…?
    Vettel trashed the two Merc’s

    1. Raikkonens monza 2015 start?

  11. I have seen this interview and he in no way blamed Nico… He just stated what happened. The article is a little lisleading

  12. Don’t mind them if they keep doing this every race, playing right into the hands of Vettel, if only Ferrari can sort their strategy.

  13. I actually prefer LH to NR but this is pathetic. What was it that Lewis has said about Nico’s complaints about his own aggressive starts last year? “Nico’s generally unhappy about a lot of things”. Well it’s time to have some of your own medicine Lewis

    The start was ok. Yes Rosberg was aggressive but that’s what I expect from a WDC contender or he’s worthless. Lewis should just shut up and concentrate on getting a better start next time

    1. He shouldn’t shut up, Lewis is playing mind games with Rosberg which is part of sports, its ok to be hypocrite when the drivers championship is on the line.

    2. Read the actual quote, Lewis isn’t exactly crying about it he’s just saying he lost most ground from Nico pushing him wide rather than from the slow start itself.

    3. Shut up? He was being interviewed and you want him to stand there not saying anything? Do you not possess a brain? *facepalm*

    4. It makes me laugh on the epic fail that people cannot read articles. LOL

  14. As long as they finish 1-2, there’s nothing wrong with being agressive.

    1. They should keep doing it the majority of time there will not be a lucky red flag and strategy mistake by Ferrari so hopefully Ferrari will win the title if not this year likely next year but Ferrari have the race pace on Merc…..which is nice

  15. Well, it’s not only the regs and some materials (the tyres, for example) used in F1 to blame for more or less the sorry state of today’s F1, but part of the drivers too. And it’s even worse because these drivers are the best of the best. Blaming ROS for ruining his race is ridiculous from HAM’s part. Nobody made him have that poor start, nobody made him place his car in that zone of the track etc etc etc. Would have been credible if ROS would have pushed him off track… but it’s not the case. Verstappen is a joke just as much. RIP F1, there’s more and more proof that it became a joke. Been watching F1 constantly since 1997, but I don’t remember MSchumacher himself asking his team mates to give up his place for him, blaming his team mates for his poor race etc etc., for ex. They may brake records, but Hamilton, Verstappen etc will never be like Senna, Prost, MSchumacher.

    1. @corrado-dub Well, actually Senna and Prost had a very intense “whining-battle” for years and were absolutely paranoid of not given equal material and equal treatment. They were far further into that direction as possible in todays mind-managment-era.

    2. “I don’t remember MSchumacher himself asking his team mates to give up his place for him”

      You don’t really have to if it’s written into your contract.

  16. I’m surprised he doesn’t mention (or more to the point that no one asked!) why he didn’t plan to cover the inside while lining up. Even Brundle commented how strange it was to not have his car pointed toward the inside like he / the pole sitter usually does.

  17. Wow, and people accuse Verstappen of childish comments. Keep it up, Hamilton!

    1. Nothing childish here, just biased internet commentators!

    2. RaceProUK (@)
      20th March 2016, 15:46

      Today I learned a list of factual statements is ‘childish’

  18. Does this article refer to Hamilton’s comments on the press conference ??

    If it is, Hamilton’s comments didn’t seem to me that he was blaming Rosberg for the turn 1 incident. Both of them handled it in a professional manner.

    LH: ” I was on the outside of Nico and Nico was forced wide or something maybe and I was on the outside of him so a little bit on the astroturf and the grass so I lost a little bit of ground. Got overtaken by quite a few people and after that did something to try and fight my way back which was hard work but I enjoyed it.”

    NR: ” I just realised now when Lewis was mentioning it, so I will have to look at it and if I did push you out wide then I apologise of course, that was not the intention. I was of kind of on the edge myself as you could see.”

    1. As far as I can tell this is from the press pen interview with Sky. Hamilton was asked if the new start procedure was behind his poor start to which he replied no it was just wheel spin, adding that the start itself wasn’t so bad and being ran wide by Rosberg in turn one was a bigger problem. I think anyone objectively looking at the footage would agree that is the case.

  19. For me Keith has never taken too much license with a headline. The fact is LH said what he said, but even ‘pointing a finger’ doesn’t have to mean ‘blame’ but rather ‘singling out as a factor,’ including an innocent factor. It is a fact NR forced LH to back off and lose momentum, but only in a 100% normal scenario. LH never owned third, thanks to his poor start, which is actually far and away the biggest factor toward which a finger should be pointed.

    So I do think LH with that particular wording is being unfair because I don’t think he believes for one second NR did anything wrong. NR may have technically cost LH some spots, but not through intention or extreme measure.

    As to ‘clickbait’…I don’t quite get the complaint. So, in someone’s particular opinion the headline took license and what…sucked someone into reading an article he or she otherwise would have ignored? You’re here on this site, checking out the immense amount of product Keith produces, even commenting on it, but how dare you get lured into reading something? With a headline of the type all media uses to entice people to buy into their product? Keith is a veritable angel when it comes to journalistic integrity. He has supported every ‘questionable’ headline that people have chosen to point the finger at, with a reasonable defense of said headline, which is much more than many media would ever care to do after taking far greater license than he does.

    1. @robbie @keithcollantine

      “Points a finger at” is an analogy. Analogy is useful in language since it can convey the entirety of a situation in concise language, by comparing the event being recounted to common experience. Common experience of having a finger pointed at you, especially in your face, is that you are being made fun of, singled out for something unattractive, or blamed. My immediate emotional reaction to having a finger pointed at me is not positive. Only with inanimate objects or animals is pointing a finger neutral, not with people. Hence, in most cultures, “pointing a finger at” a person is considered quite rude.

      Most of those on this site agree that Keith is an excellent writer. This is why he is being admonished by some for “lowering” himself to a “clickbait” headline. Good journalism requires that the writer understand the emotional content of a phrase and not use it when that emotion is not actually part of the events being described. In this case, a more accurate headline would have “included” Rosberg or “cited” him “among the factors” leading to the poor position after the first corner. “Points a finger at Rosberg” conveys emotionally to the audience “blames solely”, which is not the case here, and therefore misleading. Journalism should not mislead in the interest of attracting viewership to a story. We have too much of the acquiescence of values in the interest of $$$ in the world; it is contrary to passion, and passion is what brings most of us here.

      1. No One Better (@)
        20th March 2016, 19:51

        Thank you, sir! Very eloquently explained. I raised the click bait technique on a few articles back and of course Keith denied it as he always does.

      2. @slowhands No, not misleading at all. LH uses the term …’run me off. I lost most ground then…’ directly referencing Nico.

        I’d say that pretty much falls within your definition of pointing a finger, and the article also makes it clear it is not like LH is solely blaming NR…he’ll discuss the bad start with his engineer too.

  20. Adam (@rocketpanda)
    20th March 2016, 14:17

    You what?

    Rosberg didn’t push Hamilton wide – if anything he was generous compared to the amount of times Hamilton has shoved Rosberg off. Being pushed wide didn’t do Hamilton any favours but his problem was the very slow getaway from the line.

    Also, I don’t think the article is ‘clickbait’, Hamilton clearly thinks he was pushed wide and that contributed to his bad start – blaming Rosberg by name. He may not be ‘pointing the finger’ as in an anger, but he clearly feels aggrieved. I’m not surprised that Hamilton makes a mistake and blames someone else.

  21. Phew, that was close.

    Just imagine if Hamilton’s wing had punctured Rosbergs tyre!

    The public humiliation by Wolf and Lauda. The dressing down by Mercedes management. The threat of expulsion from the team. The 100,000 € fine.

    Or perhaps not…

    1. Exactly. Or the booing by the fans.

      It is very telling that no one is mentioning how Hamilton broke Mercedes commandment of no crash between team mates when it could easily have been a puncture and ruined Rosberg’s race completely.

      The other way around, the Hamilton fans would have made it out to be a deliberate act, but now, not a single word. Not a peep. Hitting your team mate’s tyre with your front wing (that in most cases produces a puncture) is not even worth a mention. Says it all really. Rosberg apologizes for the situation so as not to get the wrath of the Hamilton fans on him with boos coming races. Hamilton saying how he got hurt by the situation. Hamilton fans attacking reporter for mentioning their driver’s comments about it..

    2. When I saw it happen on replay I thought ” all hell is going to break loose ” again ,

      But ,
      Nothing ,

      Well spotted @dustybloke

  22. rosberg did a great move in turn one, braking late, going wide and cutting off Hamilton’s apex to not give Hamilton a run at him for next turn, that is racing – that is good racing, that is what Hamilton did to Rosberg but in a more blatent way at Suzuka last year. Hamilton needs to realize that racing scenario was his own doing by having a slow getaway which let that scenario unfold, he cant blame Rosberg.

  23. I am fascinated about the next races… Ferrari have changed their launch to a 1 clutch system, if they have an advantage for race starts, it will be fascinating for the rest of the season, as Mercedes still seem bit ahead, but might be less at different tracks.

  24. Trust Keith to always try and make Lewis a loolk like villain.

  25. VES is 18 years old and has an excuse: his age… HAM is double that age and keeps whining..

  26. What Hamilton did at USA last year was far more blatant. Rosberg pushing Hamilton off today looked largely unintentional. He got squeezed by Vettel at the start and locked up. Hamilton deliberately opened up his steering to ram Rosberg wide at Austin.

  27. Why am I not surprised that Hamilton doesn’t like Rosberg serving up his own Texan and Japanese medicine.

    More please Nico.

  28. Great stuff from Rosberg. Would love to see him drive like this all season.

  29. Hamilton’s plight was compounded by Rosberg pushing him wide, and that was exactly what Nico needs to do. He had to be firm, without making contact like he did at Spa in 2014. If Rosberg can get a couple of wins under his belt, it will put Lewis under more pressure and that’s a good thing.
    Having said that, Hamilton’s recovery drive today showed his quality and that if his team. You could see at the end how relieved Lewis was at finishing second, and at how disappointed Vettel was at his position.
    The Ferrari’s showed real pace today, and if Raikkonen had stayed in the race things could have been very different.

  30. If Rosberg hitting Hamilton’s rear tire with his front wing was intentional at Spa 2014 as a lot of Hamilton fans claim, so is Hamilton hitting Rosberg’s now. You can see he is moving his steering wheel into Rosberg and getting the tip of the wing to hit the tyre perfectly and this was at relatively slow speeds. The 3 time world champion and expert at close quarter racing could easily have backed out of it or steered away but didn’t. Maybe he thought this would be the best way to crush Rosberg’s championship spirit early.

  31. Hamilton had a poor start, wheelspin and was pushed by Rosberg in the first turn.
    And Keith gets blamed for clickbaiting. People, be fair and respectful, here is a guy who gives you the best F1 website on this planet for free he does not deserve your endless complaining over nothing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.