The thing that sets Mercedes apart from the Vettel Red Bull and Schumacher Ferrari is the consistency of their dominance. Both the Red Bull and Ferrari (I think, my memory isn't so good with that one) had races where they weren't the fastest car and where other teams were stronger. So far the same can't be said for Mercedes as they've been pretty much the fastest team no matter what track they went to.
Also I think you may have missed the original point I was making, and that is that with the Mercedes being so dominant, it gave Hamilton a relatively easy championship as he only had one driver who was able to beat him at every race.
I didn't miss the original point, I happen to disagree with that as well.
I don't think having only one competitor who pushes you until the final race to win the championship is easier than say, 2013 or 2011, where Vettel won the championship with three and four races remaining respectively. 2011 in particular was completely ridiculous. Vettel arguably had
no potential competitors at all, Webber was nowhere near as close in driver skill to Vettel as Rosberg is to Hamilton. And while the gap to the other cars may or may not have been smaller than the current gap to the Mercedes, it was more than enough to guarantee wins unless something went wrong for Red Bull.
I think you've forgotten just how dominant RB and Vettel were in 2011 and 2013. I don't remember the Schumacher years being much different, although it was a long time ago so I won't insist on it.
I think you get the idea though. We've had four years of single manufacturer dominance in the last six. Which is obviously just random statistics and cherry picking, but even extended to 20 years there's a fair number of seasons that are just dominated by machinery. It's not the norm, but nor is it terribly rare. The chance is certainly above 10%.
The fact is, it's not highly uncommon for a manufacturer to make a car that is just massively better than the competition. Pair that with a top tier driver, and you end up with one or two people dominating the standings. It's not terribly exciting, but it's kind of a part of what makes F1 what it is. If the technology and research didn't have the ability to have such a massive impact on the racing, the sport would be quite different.
Hamilton may have had an easier time winning last year than say, Vettel in 2010 (the lucky sod), but it did go down to the wire. He had to drive his little British butt off in the second half of the season to consolidate that victory. While he did do a magnificent job, his championship was in danger all the way up to Brazil, where while Nico was still mathematically in the hunt it would have taken force majeure for him to win it.
Hamilton is unquestionably the better driver, but I don't think he's better enough to say that it was easy for him. Luck is a part of motorsport, and while Hamilton was always going to win in a straight fight, it wouldn't have taken much for Rosberg to have really put him in a tough spot. Hamilton was never safe, and bar Abu Dhabi he always had to be going for that win to try and put some sort of gap between himself and Rosberg. The way the points system works didn't let him get a massive lead, even with his huge win streak.
Consider how Hamilton won his first world championship, essentially by being a lucky mother:censored:. That could well have happened to Rosberg, and Hamilton would have been well aware of that. So no, I don't think it was an easy championship just because he only had one driver who was able to beat him. He had to fight for every inch. He was in the best car with a teammate that, while worse, could on any given day have pulled a win out of his backside and taken it from him.
As much as I dislike the pompous git, he earned his championship by driving the nuts off that car.
