You can GUESS who is the best of the three drivers, but they way you put it that Alonso and vettel are definitely better and Hamilton can't win without having the best car while suggesting the other two can, is laughable.
Laughable? Alonso did win a race when his car was qualifying in 9th/10th, earlier this season. He was also scoring decent points during this time. This enabled him to keep in the title hunt, when his car was the 4th-5th fastest.
At the start of the season, we saw the McLaren, without doubt, had the best car. I think this form lasted about 3 races, after that, other teams caught up. During this time, Hamilton did not win. From what I remember in the first race, compared to Vettel (who was driving a slower car), Hamilton was not as fast during the race.
The difference is that when Hamilton has the best car...he may win...if he is really lucky. When Vettel or Alonso have the best car, they have a higher probability of winning the race.
I realise that this is a British forum so many Brits don't like to hear anything bad about a Brit, but the fact remains Alonso is ahead of Hamilton, in a Ferrari (which if averaged over the first 8 races), was on average slower than the McLaren. Lest we forget that in the first few races of the season, the Ferrari could barely make Q3.
Pretty much every commentator I have heard has stated their opinion that Alonso is the best driver in F1. Coulthard. Brundle. Murray Walker. Andrew Benson. In fact, when listening to commentary, on the subject of the best driver in F1, I've not heard any other name (recently), other than Alonso.
Why do I rate Vettel so highly - because when he has the best car, he nails the race almost everytime. He is dependable and almost guaranteed to deliver. Do I need to remind you of last year? The same cannot be said about Hamilton (first 3 races of 2012 season).
Hamilton did have the best car earlier this season and we saw luke warm performances - not great...not bad....just slightly above average. Vettel and Alonso would've probably won the first 3 races in that car.
You don't win without a little luck or without having one of the very best cars on the grid.
Agreed.
I'm 98% sure ALonso and Vettel couldn't have won a single title at Mclaren in the past few years either.
In 2010, McLaren had a decent car. I think up to the middle of the season, Hamilton was in the running. He then faded (the car was pretty quick...just not as fast as the RBR). Had Vettel been in the McLaren (with a lesser driver in the RBR), I believe Vettel would've done a better job.
Lotus looked poor, not sure where you're getting that idea from, ...
Hamilton thrives in an environment where he is No.1 and the darling of the team. This was the case when Heikki was at McLaren and even when Alonso was out of favour in 2007. Alonso (Ferrari/Renault), MSc (Bennetton/Ferrari) and Vettel (RBR) also need a similar level of cuddling, to get the best out of them. Once Lotus have a focal point for their development I think they have a good chance of making a car, to suit Hamilton (only). Without a promise of No.1 status, a move to Lotus won't work and Hamilton may as well stay at McLaren. No.1 status would be VERY important if he moved to Lotus. And I just want to point out, the Lotus car, this year, is actually a very good car. Had Vettel or Alonso been there, they would've won at least 1 race this year.