Lewis Hamilton praised a “great achievement” by McLaren to finish second in the Australian Grand Prix after their problems in testing.
Speaking in the post-race press conference he said: “I think we can definitely take this and be very proud of ourselves. I think the guys did a great job, as I said, going into this weekend.
“Just a week or two ago we were not expecting to be anywhere near the top five. So to come away with a second and the car was reliable – that’s the longest the car’s ever lasted, or we’ve been able to take it – and so I think it’s a great achievement from us.
“Clearly we were catching Sebastian [Vettel] early on in the race. Strategy is one that for sure we can work on but generally we’ve got good pace and I’m looking forward to the next race.”
Hamilton struggled with a damaged floor in the second half of the race: “The plank and part of the floor is massively damaged.
“I don’t know when it happened, it might have happened when I went off, but I think it maybe happened before that. I was obviously losing quite a lot of downforce with that so at the end I was just trying to nurse the car home and bring in those points because we need them for the rest of the year.”
He said he was only able to hold on to second after making a bad start because he had KERS:
“The start wasn’t particularly great, I really got a lot of wheelspin and lost quite a bit of ground to Sebastian.
“There was nothing I could do but try to keep my position, fortunately with KERS I was able to hold second. And from then on it was quite a smooth race.”
2011 Australian Grand Prix
Browse all 2011 Australian Grand Prix articles
Image © www.mclaren.com
Jake
27th March 2011, 10:24
I actually think Hamilton had a real chance of winning before his problem. He was only 1 sec behind before the first stop, and was managing his tyres much better than Vettel. Had he not had the problem I think he would have been right with Vettel at the end with better tyres.
Leftie (@leftie)
27th March 2011, 10:29
I’m pretty sure Vettel had the pace in reserve to answer.
Jake
27th March 2011, 10:30
I’m not so sure, he wouldn’t have let him get so close in the first stint if he had pace in hand
Gambit
27th March 2011, 10:53
Lets see how Vettel fairs when he has to start from non-pole position and has to actually overtake….without KERS to boot. Just look at Webber.
Hamilton would have taken him out if it weren’t for the underbody damage.
Ben Needham (@ben-n)
27th March 2011, 10:56
But looking at his pace, when do you expect him not to be on pole? He’ll be my default prediction for every race unless something proves otherwise.
Brad
28th March 2011, 0:07
When there is long straights where KERS is needed and works better. ie) Malaysia. Red Bull KERS is unreliable as Horner stated. If it fails during the race it makes braking difficult. Will they run it in Malaysia? This will be an interesting decision.
dennis (@dennis)
27th March 2011, 13:11
Webber had problems with the car other than KERS. And Vettel got past Button quite nicely.
tharris19
27th March 2011, 18:44
Buttons tires were gone. He was a sitting duck for Vettel.
F1iLike
27th March 2011, 13:50
Winning just isn’t enough for some people to understand who is a great driver. They have to come up with bizarre scenarios this guy has to succeed in. But even then there will be small small details that was not what they wanted for it to accept him. Just ludicrous. He got by Button who’s only mission at that moment was to block him to help the team. I know it’s an ugly and very immature and unintelligent expression but, haters gonna hate.
tharris19
27th March 2011, 23:53
It’s not about hating on Vettel on my part it simply a statement of fact. Button barely put up a challenge because his tires were done.
I could accept your argument if that was not the case. I look forward to seeing Vettel in a real fight with a top tier driver. I want to see what he’s got, is he a real racer or is he a good driver with a great car. Can he match the skills of a Alonzo, Hamilton or Kubica?
You can’t see that when you have a car so superior that all you have to do is keep it out front. Again, not hating, just making an observation and raising a question.
Brian Baum
27th March 2011, 15:58
“Hamilton would have taken him out if it weren’t for the underbody damage.” …which was self-inflicted by Hamilton. Just like Hamilton would have been champion in 2007 had he not run his tyres bald and landed in a Chinese gravel trap the size of my cat’s litter box. He is a racer, but he is way too hard on his equipment, and it has cost him dearly in results.
Solo (@solo)
27th March 2011, 16:49
China was Mclaren’s fault not Hamilton’s. They kept him out longer than any other driver for no reason at all while the other were gaining seconds.
ads
27th March 2011, 18:11
Hamilton did not actually cause his damaged tray. The damage was done before his one and only excursion of the race, something which Brundle said will have most likely been due to the loss of downforce resulting from the collapsed tray.
I think the argument about Hamilton being too hard on his equipment is also ill-founded. Hamilton has probably the best reliability record of any driver on the grid, and although this has been due to immense McLaren reliability, it urinates all over the argument that he is a car-breaker. He has refined his driving every year since arriving in F1, and has on several occasions proved those who say he destroys his tyres completely wrong (Brazil 2009, and today when he looked after his tyres better than Vettel and Webber who were in more aerodynamically efficient cars. To look at the onboard shots over the weekend you’d think it was Button driving- something which Brundle actually pointed out- as he was so smooth with his steering. I think Lewis has adapted his driving style to suit the new tyres brilliantly and has quashed any worries of him struggling due to excessive tyre wear throughout the season. Sorry if my nose appears a little brown ;)
Icthyes (@icthyes)
27th March 2011, 11:14
I agree. Okay the stop was pretty bad but he was closer to him than after the first few laps. Would have been a good fight but ultimately Vettel would have had it I think.
infy (@infy)
27th March 2011, 12:46
Looks like RB are very good in qualifying because they get the tyres cooking very quickly, extracting the maximum for the first flyer.
Ferrari seem to have the best tyre management, as their car doesnt cook the tyres. Thats probably why they were so off the pace in qually when testing said they should have been at the front.
Mclaren look to have the best mix.
infy (@infy)
27th March 2011, 12:47
Out of the 3 teams, it looks as if RB’s tyres last the shortest.
Tobitron
27th March 2011, 21:38
You can’t judge from which car has the best tyre management from this race. Felipe was struggling, Alonso wasn’t as quick as the broadcast made him out to be. Vitaly was conserving, Jenson was flying even after that penalty and the stops, Lewis had to conserve after receiving damage. Etc. Sauber were the ones from this very early stage with the best tyre management, but still, the variables are astounding.
MattHT (@mattht)
27th March 2011, 10:29
A great result for Lewis, and how crucial was kers at the start? If he’d been dragged into the battles behind him anything could have happened – but to chase vettel down and challenge him for a bit was brilliant – though i don’t think he would have passed him on track as vettel was imperious today.
BasCB (@bascb)
27th March 2011, 10:30
Looks like there is more to come from them.
Red Bull looks like they have a bit of time yet to get their KERS to actually be competative enough to make it good for the race. A bit BMW and Renault 2009 like. Having it but finding it just is not (yet) worth it.
Oliver
27th March 2011, 10:31
Well the car almost didn’t last. A few more laps and it would either have caught fire or Lewis would have had charred underwear or even still pedaling with his feet.
Derek
27th March 2011, 10:36
The cars are only designed to do a race distance before a rebuild so it does not need to do a few more laps!
Oliver
27th March 2011, 10:48
Thanks for pointing that out, it didn’t occur to me. I guess you are also implying that Mclaren designed the under tray to fail exactly when it did beacuse they knew how long the race was. Well extra laps don’t imply an extended race, it may just mean a certain number of laps from a reference point in time.
Oliver
27th March 2011, 10:51
And the phrase I used originally was “a few more laps”.
Derek
27th March 2011, 10:33
Yes, the McLarens looked better at managing the tyres than both Red Bull and Ferrari, and had real pace. I think their about 0.5 secs of Vettel’s pace right now but they have a lot more fine tuning to do to the McLaren after missing all that track time during winter testing, when RBR completed more than double the McLaren!
qazuhb
27th March 2011, 10:39
What do the rules currently say about the damaged plank?
NW
27th March 2011, 11:29
They say you get a surefire DSQ unless your name is…
Philonso (@philonso)
27th March 2011, 15:59
only if its damaged as a result of having a low car set up where the plank scrapes the ground. In unusual situations, such as this, where performance is actually hindered they are likely to be more lenient
DASMAN
27th March 2011, 16:24
Tell that to Bennetton in ’94.
Homer
28th March 2011, 1:10
how are the rules from ’94 relevant in 2011?
Mike
28th March 2011, 2:39
I dunno like, precedent maybe?
BBT (@bbt)
28th March 2011, 8:33
If the depth is less than a defined measurement at eight designated points the car / driver is DSQ from the standings.
Hamiltons past the test, although apparently the leading edge was damaged but the is not one of the points
BBT (@bbt)
28th March 2011, 8:35
PS In ’94 it was worn on the measuring points
Neil
28th March 2011, 12:40
Don’t let facts get in the way :]
Oliver
27th March 2011, 10:40
Had Mclaren brought in Lewis one lap earlier, we might have had a real race. mclaren is still showing a lack of imagination in terms of race strategy and tactical awareness. They even cost Button a higher finishing place by not making him give back the positon. As such Button lost about 16 seconds. Which is the time lost inthe drive through – the time gained by running ahead of the Ferraris.
Icthyes (@icthyes)
27th March 2011, 11:17
It surprised me they didn’t try to get an extra lap’s jump on Vettel, he was 1.4 seconds behind and fresh rubber could have clawed a second maybe. Then again they made a worse pit-stop.
I’m wondering if McLaren were trying to eke one less stop out of the race for Lewis, but it backfired when the splitter went and the loss of downforce would have started hurting the tyres.
Oliver
27th March 2011, 11:27
I almost agree. But seeing that Vettel and Hamilton did the same number of stops IIII find the fewer stops argument unreasonable. Mclaren could have come out ahead of the RedBull had they pitted one lap earlier. And it is also unlikely Vettel could have got tha position back because of the Mclarens straight line speed. In thed end though it is all academic. What race strategy will give, car reliability will take away. So it still ended up how it would have. :-)
BBT (@bbt)
27th March 2011, 11:24
Well it didn’t really last did it. Half a race with a broken and reduced performance car isn’t exactly great. If it was testing they would of pulled him in and fixed it, so in my eyes no different to the testing failures (although they might have be more critical, and probably were, but they might of also been able to continue running like in the race if there was nothing to lose).
However who could of seen two points finishes coming two weeks ago.
James_mc (@james_mc)
27th March 2011, 11:28
I think that despite Vettel’s domination, the McLaren did show some promise over the whole race distance. I’d expect to see some closer races in future.
a4p (@a4p)
27th March 2011, 12:38
Kobayashi and Perez have been disqualified for a matter of mm, while – curiously – nobody in the F-paddocks seems to have noticed the F-floor of the McLaren. Pardon, the F-Vodafone McLaren Mercedes. Whitmarsh & Co. don’t have the slightest idea of what McLaren represents in the history of this sport.
Brian Baum
27th March 2011, 15:46
Schumacher had been DQd from a win for a damaged plank, why wasn’t Hamilton’s? It does seem like a massive double standard.
Red Andy (@red-andy)
27th March 2011, 16:36
We don’t actually know how badly worn Hamilton’s plank was. It could still have passed legal.
That being said, if it was under the minimum limit Hamilton should have been excluded. That’s what the rules are for, obviously.
I’d also probably have issued a black-and-orange flag to Lewis during the race. It wasn’t possible to tell how badly damaged the floor was or whether bits of it were likely to break off during the race, so Race Control should have erred on the side of caution and told McLaren to get it fixed.
MacademiaNut
27th March 2011, 16:59
Why? They did not do that to Kimi a few years ago when he raced around the track with a dangling part.
Red Andy (@red-andy)
27th March 2011, 18:29
Yeah, fair point. Though I would have flagged Raikkonen for that too (and I think most would have done the same, from the reaction after the race).
I think allowing drivers to race with potentially dangerous damage to their cars is something F1 still needs to address. Remember Vettel trying to finish the Australian GP a couple of years ago after his collision with Kubica, despite all four wheels pointing in different directions and various bits missing from the car. Stupid and dangerous.
SubFL
27th March 2011, 19:58
Solo (@solo)
27th March 2011, 16:55
Tuning your car close to the ground and having something broken ain’t the same you annoying Hamilton haters.
MacademiaNut
27th March 2011, 17:01
If you were to compare every result with something that happened a few years ago, you can see all sorts of double standards. (see the one on Kimi in my response below)
Franz
27th March 2011, 17:24
All these experts claiming bias… did any of you manage to climb under the car & inspect the plank yourselves? Haters will hate, no matter how stupid & immature they sound. Everything is a conspiracy theory. The funny thing is when talking favoritism, there are way more instances of the FIA ruling against McLaren & Lewis Hamilton than for. Anyone who’s been watching F1 regularly (especially in the last 5 years) will know this to be a fact.
tharris19
27th March 2011, 18:57
The rule is applied to a worn plank. In the case of the McLaren, the floor and plank were damaged, not the results of manipulated floor hight.
ibdbeast (@ibdbeast)
27th March 2011, 19:56
Brian, guessing your not a McLaren supporter hey? Stewards wouldnt ban Sauber and then over look McLaren, that would cause chaos of unmanageable proportions, and lets remember here, McLaren are not really favorites at the FIA…
Neil
28th March 2011, 12:43
The answer to your question is a few posts above.
Damon
27th March 2011, 18:11
The anti Hamilton fans are pathetic, you guys have some cheek talking about double standards. Hamilton is probably the most victimised driver on the grid. Why no penalty for vettel making an illegal overtake??? Why no penalty for alonso lastyear in Germany??? Jealousy makes you guys look rather pathetic!!!!
AH
27th March 2011, 21:55
Well tbh vettel overtake is really a mistery why he didnt get penalty. He didnt even get investigated for that. Weird
DaveW
28th March 2011, 2:57
That splitter failure is interesting given just how much scrutiny and compliance testing has been applied to that part and the shennanigans teams have sought via the design element. Not saying VMM was doing anything illegal there, but lo and behold a failure causes the splitter to pivot up and down riding the ground, instead of breaking off. Indeed, that splitter was doing, in an extreme way, what VMM got Ferrari busted for when Stepney dropped the dime on his mates. Im my mind, Hamilton should have dropped straight back but notice, that with that thing grinding on the ground, ostensibly starving the diffuser to death, he was losing no ground to Petrov most of the time and was even holding steady with Vettel in the second stint. I found that mighty curious.
Hamilton was beginning to eat up Vettel at the end of the first stint. If the team didnt make a hash of his first stop, and if Button did not lay down a trail of rose petals for Vettel to come by him right after, Hamilton looked fit to fight for the lead.
AndrewTanner (@andrewtanner)
28th March 2011, 7:46
I don’t think Hamilton is the only one surprised by that result. I knw they had managed to rectify their lack of pace after testing but I still wasn’t holding out much for either McLaren.
andy c (@)
28th March 2011, 10:06
Fantastic turnaround by McLaren in my view. They were in a mess after (and knowing mclaren its hard to believe;-) overcomplicating the exhaust solution.
I had to chuckle when Jenson said at the weekend, the most laps he’d done in one run was 18 over the winter.
What a great season its shaping up to be. Sauber looking good, STR promising, Renault looking good. And thats without even mentioning the top guys who are usually battling.
There must be some strategy guys wondering how the heck Perez did that stint yesterday.
This is shaping up to be a very competitive season, and I dont think Redbull will have it all their own way.
wasiF1 (@wasif1)
28th March 2011, 17:10
I think despite Vettel’s pace Hamilton may have had give Vettel some hard time.He was showing good pace all weekend. Seems like Mclaren have made a better step forward then expected.