FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Ferrari man 009]

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

Was his comment not down to misinterpreting a FI radio message he heard as the car had a terminal brake failure when it wasnt?

[overboost]

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

I thought Lewis's luck at Brazil 2008 was that the rain got heavier on that final lap causing Glock to slow down just enough for him to get past!

[Hammer278]

I really hope you didn't bother to read Cookin's post in full....and posted that 1 liner **** prematurely.

Because if you actually got the POINT and posted that...God help you.

[CookinFlat6]

I thought Lewis's luck at Brazil 2008 was that the rain got heavier on that final lap causing Glock to slow down just enough for him to get past!

Nope, the rain did not have to get worse, it would have had to get much much better almost instantly for Glock to have stayed ahead on slicks of guys in faster cars on wets

It was not about Glock slowing down, it was about Glock unable to control his car on account of the fact he was on old slicks and it was wet, it wasnt gonna dry up instantly

The bottom line is that if slicks in the wet are easy to handle NOONE would have pitted just for a lap

Glock did not suddenly slow down, Glock was unable to keep the car in a straight line and lost grip and so slowed down.

The rain getting heavier was not the reason Glock slowed, there was water on the track, he was on slicks, slicks dont have grip in the wet. you are therefore likely to slow down at some point due to losing control

\in fact Glock was already all over the place

The only reason it wasnt obvious was that the idiot commentator FORGOT about Glock even being in the race 'oh look, who is that? its its Glock' Glock was there the whole time going slow and all over the place and the guys who had pitted were much faster

It really is easier to see all this when you watch it without the 'excitement factor' of Lewis is not in place

Ok lets try this - imagine there was still refuelling, Lewis and another driver in a race, both very low on fuel, unabl;e to finish without refueling UNLESS a safety car comes out on second last lap. Lewis pits and drops back, he can sprint to the end. The other guy is out in front but he has to drive really slow to save fuel (slicks in wet) AND pray for a safety car (rain doesnt get heavier) - He is driving slow and no safety car happens - the inevitable happens - he runs out of fuel on last lap

Brundle screams 'Lewis has lost it, its the last lap and theres a car in front, eh hold on, who is that car, where did it come from?, its Glock!!!!! and he is out of petrol'

Oh how lucky is Lewis?

[What's Burning?]

I thought Lewis's luck at Brazil 2008 was that the rain got heavier on that final lap causing Glock to slow down just enough for him to get past!

I hope you weren't devastated when that happened.

[sagi58]

To para-phrase a wise man, NO title can be won or lost in ONE race.
IF two or more drivers are close in the standings, EVERY race/point
counts, regardless of how those points are earned.

Luck does have a part to play in F1, albeit a small/supporting role;
but, the hard work is down to the driver, his car and his team.

[Ferrari man 009]

I thought Lewis's luck at Brazil 2008 was that the rain got heavier on that final lap causing Glock to slow down just enough for him to get past!

Nope, the rain did not have to get worse, it would have had to get much much better almost instantly for Glock to have stayed ahead on slicks of guys in faster cars on wets

It was not about Glock slowing down, it was about Glock unable to control his car on account of the fact he was on old slicks and it was wet, it wasnt gonna dry up instantly

The bottom line is that if slicks in the wet are easy to handle NOONE would have pitted just for a lap

Glock did not suddenly slow down, Glock was unable to keep the car in a straight line and lost grip and so slowed down.

The rain getting heavier was not the reason Glock slowed, there was water on the track, he was on slicks, slicks dont have grip in the wet. you are therefore likely to slow down at some point due to losing control

Really? Not according to this analysis, Glock finished what, 7 seconds behind Hamilton. And on the last lap went 16 seconds slower than he did on lap 70, and 26 seconds slower than he did on lap 69, indicating that the gamble was working until the last lap or two.

As the track began to dampen from laps 65-69 Glock’s lap times jumped into the high 1’18s while Trulli lapped in the 1’20s. Clearly Glock was able to cope with the wet conditions better at first (although, as he was further ahead of Trulli, his laps would have been set on a slightly drier track).

The penultimate lap, number 70, appears to be the point at which the combination of an increasingly wet surface and decreasingly warm tyres tipped the Toyotas into trouble. Glock’s lap time rocketed to 1’28 and Trulli was five seconds slower.

With dry weather tyres that were now not only very low on temperature but also heavily worn, the pair tiptoed around the final lap in 1’44. The fact that this produced a thrilling run to the chequered flag for the title contenders was, in a sense, a side-show for Glock. For him, the gamble of staying out on dry tyres paid off:

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2008/11/04/2 ... -analysis/

At the end of the day while most strategy decisions are based on some sort of logic, luck does play a part sometimes. Incidents such as crashes bringing out safety cars or technical failures cannot be predicted. Hamilton was unlucky in Canada, but im sure Rosberg will have a DNF before the end of the season and on that occasion Hamilton may well benefit.

Also interesting to note on Glock's part it was a good decision as he gained a place, and so nearly gained 3 to finish 4th. Either way Hamilton pitting and losing track position was a gamble that nearly didnt work. That said both him and Massa had good and bad luck that evened out over the season, Massa with team errors and unreliability, Hamilton with questionable stewards decisions.

[CookinFlat6]

Do you actually understand strategy and modelling?

Hamilton pitting was a gamble that nearly didn't work? As opposed to what? As opposed to not pitting when the best thing to do was to pit based on empirical evidence? 16 and 26 full seconds slower in 2 laps, do you even know which lap Lewis pitted on and what the time cost is to pit?

So if you gamble by taking the optimal choice that must mean every single thing done in F1 is a gamble and it's all based on blind luck - no skill or judgement

So I could cross the road at the pedestrian crossing or at the blind corner. I pick the crossing and you say that's a gamble that paid off?

I really cannot be bothered with this when people are not willing to aquire any basic understanding

[What's Burning?]

The Mia scuderia lounge has a we hate Lewis Hamilton thread.

[CookinFlat6]

They should introduce a thread called basic F1 knowledge beyond loving your team and and cheering for a driver at your team. The only sports fans in the world actually happy to say 'I don't know any details but that doesn't matter, i like the hats and the colours and the loyalty' even football hooligans know how football works.

[sagi58]

The Mia scuderia lounge has a we hate Lewis Hamilton thread.

[Hammer278]

The Mia scuderia lounge has a we hate Lewis Hamilton thread.

This has to be a joke right?

[vaptin]

The Mia scuderia lounge has a we hate Lewis Hamilton thread.

This has to be a joke right?

You know how to find out right?

[Hammer278]

No..you do know people without the red fever have no access to that little shrine though right?

I tried going through a couple of red guys' post history, doesn't show up there either. Not bothered enough to try anything else. But I'd be curious enough to know if my true thoughts of these little red clubs on the net are indeed happening in reality.

[What's Burning?]

The Mia scuderia lounge has a we hate Lewis Hamilton thread.

This has to be a joke right?

You know how to find out right?

I hope you guys would have known me enough to know that this indeed is a joke and not intended to be anything more than friendly ribbing. I apologize though as it could have been taken as said with a snarl and not a snigger.