107 replies to this topic

[prty]

Cool, it shows that Alonso is the most consistent driver in the grid by far. Nothing that we didn't know before though. But thanks for the work

[zawisza]

2008 Canadian Grand Prix: Kimi Räikkönen loses the lead (crashed into by Hamilton); Robert Kubica wins

??? At what point was he leading ? Before the pitstop he was 3rd. At pitlane exit under the red light? Side by side with Kubica.

[Kobasmashi]

Did you read the title of the thread - leading the race are the magic word in it. Spain 2012 Hamilton never lead the race or Spa 2008 was his own fault. If you open a wide "should, would, could" category I guess you can make a claim Vettel could have won Abu Dhabi 2012 seeing is speed from the back of the grid or Vettel should have won Canada 2011. I know you guys like to make Lewis the poor guy with the most bad luck. But I guess his comes second losing a safe win (leading the pack by quit are margin and the losing it because of a car failure)

some variables should be set : guy was in front - over the half the race distance was driven, and it was a sure thing he will win (huge time lead) - otherwise this thread will end in hypothetical dream land.

The difference between Spain and Abu Dhabi is that Hamilton was on pole by miles, and Vettel wasn't even on pole, and Vettel's unfair IMO setup changes for the race and some sheer blind luck got him 3rd. He wouldn't have troubled Hamilton even from his original grid slot, so saying he would have won based on some false pace brought on by setup changes that no one else was allowed and some jamminess is a stretch. Whereas in Spain all the signs pointed to Hamilton romping it from pole, the Williams and Ferrari would not have been a match.

And to say that Spa 08 was Hamilton's fault is downright ridiculous.

And Canada 11?! Ok so now even if he makes a mistake Vettel is perfect?!

Edited by Kobasmashi, 03 July 2013 - 16:19.

[1Devil1]

The difference between Spain and Abu Dhabi is that Hamilton was on pole by miles, and Vettel wasn't even on pole, and Vettel's unfair IMO setup changes for the race and some sheer blind luck got him 3rd. He wouldn't have troubled Hamilton even from his original grid slot, so saying he would have won based on some false pace brought on by setup changes that no one else was allowed and some jamminess is a stretch. Whereas in Spain all the signs pointed to Hamilton romping it from pole, the Williams and Ferrari would not have been a match.

And to say that Spa 08 was Hamilton's fault is downright ridiculous.

And Canada 11?! Ok so now even if he makes a mistake Vettel is perfect?!

long story short Vettel hamilton As I said would've should've could've - I never claimed Vettel would have won Abu Dhabi you claim Hamilton would have won those race - that's the difference here and that's ridiculous because in Spain he never led the race one lap. How do you know he wouldn't have lost place one after start or would have crashed with maldonado? A pole is not a sure race win..

Edited by 1Devil1, 03 July 2013 - 17:13.

[Kobasmashi]

You're just being obtuse, Hamilton was head and shoulders clear, there were no races last year where a car would do what this year's Mercedes did and fall back from being comfortably quickest. And if Maldonado had knocked him out of the lead, then the race would still be under the category of a last lead, would it not?

[Skinnyguy]

So m&m, I'm sure you'll once again deny that there was any bias whatsoever in creating this thread.;)

Told you before mate... it´s REALLY easy to spot this stuff when you´re around long enough, isn´t it?;)

Funny it´s OK you pulling it, but you go all mad when people spots your intentions from miles away.

[Briz]

Inheriting a win from your championship rival is a HUMONGOUS boost. In current scoring system it's a 32 point swing in your favour thrown at you from the skies. It's comparable to finishing 5 times in front of your opponent when both of you have top cars. There's a lot of luck involved in f1 and in life for that matter. Whoever thinks it's all "deserved, fair and luck evens out over time" has a pretty vague understanding of probability theory. I'm enjoying the contest of personalities and talent in f1 put in various unexpected situations and of course a lot of the joy comes from seeing exceptional decisions and performances that swing the result in a surprising direction, but one should not discard how big a role luck plays. That's why I find the information in this thread very valuable about forming my opinion who was lucky and who not. It's just one of many factors, but it is a very important one nevertheless.

[quaint]

I looked back at the last 10 years, which cover every Grand Prix win from drivers currently on the grid, to see which drivers suffered mechanical failures from the lead, and who were there to pick up the points.

IMO it doesn't cover quite enough still, for you would have had to look a year farther were it not for the oil spill in the 2002 French Grand Prix, which allowed MSC to pass RAI for his 5th title. I think it falls squarely into 'non-mechanical non-driver issues' category (even though you didn't explicitly allow exceptional circumstances).