FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Jabberwocky]

I just watched Alan Carr's Chatty Man, if Nicoles latest song is anything to go by, Lewis will be lucky if the sound of the new F1 engines drowns out the sound of her singing.

Sent using NCC-1701

[What's Burning?]

I just watched Alan Carr's Chatty Man, if Nicoles latest song is anything to go by, Lewis will be lucky if the sound of the new F1 engines drowns out the sound of her singing.

And still it's probably better than Psy and Snoop Dog's collaboration.

[geetface9]

A lot of F1 nowadays appears to be a tale of the blind leading the blind

How so? Speak on it, brotha!

You haven't watched the full race, you were not even watching F1 in 2008.

You say Glock spun because he was on the wrong tyres for the condition, whereas Lewis and the other drivers had stopped for the correct tyres. Yet you conclude by saying Lewis was lucky because Glock was unlucky not to get lucky (see what I did there?)

Others who also didn't watch or with even less knowledge can feel attracted to your argument and this becomes a reality

Hence 'the blind following the blind'

Most F1 followers with a rudimentary understanding of pit stops and tyre choice and track position tend to see deeper into that event. However Montezemolo is on record as saying 'Glocks' spin was 'Mysterious' implying something more than luck, again this argument attracts many followers with even less understanding

Again the 'blind leading the blind' or maybe the 'senile leading the blind' in this case

Anyways I suspect you know all this and are just having a laugh, so it could be a case of the 'smartass leading the blind'

Alright I'm back at work so BOOM! I brought up the 2008 brazilian grand prix because it's been mentioned how lucky rosberg is, so I used timo glock as a counter to that, as well as the fact that the 2008 belgian gp was brought up earlier in the thread regarding running chicanes.

I respect why rosberg running the chicane upset a lot of people. It goes back to 2008 spa when hamilton was penalized for it. So what's happening is that the underlying issue is the consistency of the stewards, and people are miffed about something that happened before and was punished. I understand that. That's an issue regarding steward consistency.

How can one expect there to not be any level of "the blind leading the blind" (no matter how disrespectful that phrase is when referring to fellow forum members) when you have newcomers to the sport discussing issues with more seasoned viewers? What I'm basing my views on is mostly what I'm seeing right now, not something that happened SIX YEARS AGO. So if it's the "blind leading the blind" then perhaps the "seeing" ones should let the past go and just focus on this year and not disrespect both hamilton and rosberg by putting so much of this season down to pure luck. It's starting to demean the efforts of both drivers. I appreciate the history lesson, but how could one not expect "the blind" to ignorantly refer to old incidents when the "seeing" are referring back to old incidents in the realm of another issue with Formula 1? (i.e. steward consistency)

I have my own loyalties to drivers just like anyone else. I can guarantee you that if the roles were reversed for hamilton and rosberg in canada, I would have the same opinion (whether or not the stewards would have the same opinion is a different issue). I think the stewards made a good call. So perhaps the "seeing" should let SIX YEAR OLD incidents go. Webber's been gone but a minute and I'm already over the trouncing he got for three years. 2010 wasn't a trounce so don't even try cuz I'll list every foot wrong both drivers put from memory

so back to canada as a whole, THAT $#@! WAS CRAZY AS HELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I AIN'T EVEN DRUNK AND I'MA STILL THROW CAPS OUT EVERYBODY!!!!!!

[racechick]

Hang on Geet, you were the one who brought Glock into the debate! If you don't want to discuss it and don't want people to put you right regarding what happened then don't bring it up. You sited Glock as a time when Lewis was 'lucky'. That was six years ago and he wasn't lucky. Glock gambled a long shot on the tyres and lost the gamble .
I was talking about the luck Rosberg has had thus season, and that can't be denied. Not taking anything away from the high level of driving he's been producing all season, but he's been lucky, with both stewards decisions and DNf's for his teammate.

[Jabberwocky]

So we can all agree there is no such thing as luck in F1 then

[Hammer278]

What I'm basing my views on is mostly what I'm seeing right now, not something that happened SIX YEARS AGO.

Lol...no one was talking about 6 years ago until someone who bases what he sees "right now" brought up Glock and Hamilton's Championship.....SIX YEARS AGO.

You're not one of those known for 'foot in mouth' in this forum, don't start now geet. Friendly advise....from a friend.

[geetface9]

Guys I know what you're saying. I said in my last post the reason I brought up brazil 2008 is because it was a mention of hamilton being lucky and because spa 2008 was brought up earlier in the thread, i.e. something six years ago. So I apologize if that was a little too far fetched and if I put my foot in my mouth but hopefully this clears up why I was saying what I said

either way, mad respect y'all. At least we all civilly disagree

You're not one of those known for 'foot in mouth' in this forum, don't start now geet. Friendly advise....from a friend.

I'll try and make sure I'm only known as the semi-lovable village idiot/forum drunk

[geetface9]

If you don't want to discuss it and don't want people to put you right regarding what happened then don't bring it up.

Just for the record, I don't mind having people putting me right if my recollection of a race or highlights aren't correct. I did ask for clarification from cookinflat6 on what happened and I rewatched the last lap on youtube to see if I made a mistake. I'd just like it to be a polite correction as I would make the same effort to be polite when correcting someone else

[racechick]

If you don't want to discuss it and don't want people to put you right regarding what happened then don't bring it up.

Just for the record, I don't mind having people putting me right if my recollection of a race or highlights aren't correct. I did ask for clarification from cookinflat6 on what happened and I rewatched the last lap on youtube to see if I made a mistake. I'd just like it to be a polite correction as I would make the same effort to be polite when correcting someone else

But you said you didn't want to discuss six year old events after you brought the six year old events up. That's what I meant.

[geetface9]

If you don't want to discuss it and don't want people to put you right regarding what happened then don't bring it up.

Just for the record, I don't mind having people putting me right if my recollection of a race or highlights aren't correct. I did ask for clarification from cookinflat6 on what happened and I rewatched the last lap on youtube to see if I made a mistake. I'd just like it to be a polite correction as I would make the same effort to be polite when correcting someone else

But you said you didn't want to discuss six year old events after you brought the six year old events up. That's what I meant.

Ah k. I only brought it up cuz spa 2008 got brought up. I'll leave my posts in regards to current events! Onward and upward!

[CookinFlat6]

Now now geet, lets not get carried away. My blind leading the blind comment was not aimed at anyone, its just an expression that is commonly used to express the situation where someone says something thats wrong but attractive to others who then accept it as gospel because they are unwilling or unable to see it for themselves and decide.

And when you asked me to clarify I was forced to relate the phrase to this discussion. Please note that I pointed out that you were being a smartass and not being blind. You were doing a geet, you could actually take that as a compliment instead of let a hangover get to you

Lenin had an expression for the extreme version of this phrase http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot - now thats a real insult that could be aimed at some F1 fans in general or climate change deniers etc but would be wrong and uncivil to aim at fellow members

[geetface9]

Now now geet, lets not get carried away. My blind leading the blind comment was not aimed at anyone, its just an expression that is commonly used to express the situation where someone says something thats wrong but attractive to others who then accept it as gospel because they are unwilling or unable to see it for themselves and decide.

And when you asked me to clarify I was forced to relate the phrase to this discussion. Please note that I pointed out that you were being a smartass and not being blind. You were doing a geet, you could actually take that as a compliment instead of let a hangover get to you

Lenin had an expression for the extreme version of this phrase http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot - now thats a real insult that could be aimed at some F1 fans in general or climate change deniers etc but would be wrong and uncivil to aim at fellow members

My apologies, sir!

[geetface9]

I think rob smedley is full of $#@! thinking that perez should have retired before the crash.

[CookinFlat6]

So we can all agree there is no such thing as luck in F1 then

There is luck in F1 and everywhere. With luck the smaller the sample size the more it distorts things, So over a season luck is said to even itself out for each driver - bad/good luck cancelling each other out. However over 1 or 2 or 6 races luck can distort things more and when debating the relative performance etc of 2 drivers then ofcourse it will be a bigger factor in the discussion. so at the end of the year it should be less relevant than it is after 1 or 2 races. And ofcourse if we accept that 'God' or nature does not have it in for 1 guy in particular then over time luck is a constant that cancels out on both sides of the equation.

So thats luck in general, hopefully thats clarified in what context some of us are referring to Nicos luck. Anyone saying 'dont mention Nicos luck should also be saying dont mention Nicos position in the points table. Both are played out at the end of the season'

Now about a driver being 'lucky' on one occasion 6 years ago and then using that to relate to these first few races is only a result of certain factions ut there who diminish Lewis' WDC by saying he was lucky. i.e. apart from the luck equation over the season, he was particularly lucky to win because Glock had no grip
This must be made clear that the event was not down to luck as we have defined, it wasnt even down to any luck outside the equation.

Lewis needed to finish in a certain position - so he planned to finish in that position (so it was always going to look tight or lucky to those with an axe)
Everything happened as planned
There was rain which as we all know can make plans go wrong
Lewis was in the position he needed before the rain
When it started raining Glock was behind Lewis
When it started raining every sensible team and driver came in for the right tyres
If anyone could have finished the race without coming in to change tyres they would have
Except Glock, Glock decided to take a chance on the wrong tyres, anyone could have decided to take a chance on wrong tyres
Chaniging tyres was the correct choice
Glock disnt come in the pits when everyone did
Glock therefore gained track position
That means he ended up ahead of Lewis
But Lewis was on the right tyres
And so Glock lost the track position, not by pitting but by slowing cos he was on the wrong tyres
So Glock was never ahead of Lewis according to how tyres/rain works - on account he was on the wrong fricken tyres
So Lewis gained the place back he lost by changing tyres, and glock lost the same place (that he appeared to gain to the thick) - on account he was on the wrong fricken tyres

So when brundle got excited and said Lewis had lost it, on account he is a biased twat, thousands of not so knowlegeable F1 followers started salivating and counted the chickens
And so when things returned to normal, it seemed to these people that Lewis had got lucky to come from behind and gain a place because glock slowed

And since then those who are attracted to Brundles glimmer of hope go round saying 'Lewis got lucky' or even worse 'it was mysterious' and some F1 followers buy into it

This was not luck but it was F1 rain/tyre strategy works

At a stretch because of rain and because it was a certain McLaren management on the pitwall, we could say Glock was unlucky not to get lucky against the odds, we cannot say Lewis was lucky because he didnt get unlucky despite the odds

[What's Burning?]

Let's think back to Vettel turned around in the opening laps of the Brazilian GP, with half a dozen cars coming at him and a gouge in the side of the car that could have easily handed someone else a championship....

So I agree, there is no "luck". There are however random happenstance events that are advantageous or disadvantageous.