The Lucky Championship?

[Peeweev 0]

This year was full of ups and downs for all the front runners and title contenders/possible contenders. Drivers often say that the luck that one driver has in one race is evened out across the season by bad luck in another, however I believe that Vettel had a lot more luck than other drivers which meant he secured the championship. I am going through each race and rememebering how each race went. I am a Hamilton fan and maybe a bit bias towards him but I will try to be impartial.

Australia

Won by Button in a great drive. But Vettel got second due to the safety car coming out at the exact point that Hamilton left the pits. This meant that vettle, who was a long way behind the McLarens was able to get back to the pits in time to get new tyres before Hamilton could get back round. When the safety car came out Vettel was able to drive round at normal speeds whilst Hamilton, and Button, had to drive to a set time (there is a minimum arrival time at set points on the race track during a safety car). This meant that it took Hamilton just long enough to get round the track to allow Vettel to pit, change his tyres and get back out onto track.

Malaysia

A different race with an unexpected Winner (Alonso). The McLaren of Hamilton was again on pole for the start (as he was in Australia), but the weather made it an interesting race. Alonso got the Luck here with the weather otherwise he wouldn’t have got close to the podium. Vettel finished in 11^th after having a few issues including a puncture sustained from hitting one of the HRT’s, I use “hitting” as I believe he cut in front of the HRT too soon. This could be called bad luck but its also his mistake so …

Hamilton also could have done better but he was let down by his team in the pits.

China

I don’t remember too much controversy in the race although I believe that Hamilton had a poor pit stop again, its not bad luck just poor performance by the team.

Bahrain

Again it doesn’t seem to be a race of note for most of the contenders, apart from Vettel winning his 1^st of the season and Buttons car breaking.

Spain

Ummm where to start? First off Hamilton’s penalty: the rule seems to be too extreme for not returning to the pits after quail. He did have enough fuel for a sample, which was provided, and apparently enough to make it to the pits as well. He was put to the back of the grid and having already put his car on pole with a previous run should have been allowed to start the race from pole, or at the very least 10^th as he had made it into q3. I am aware that there was a similar problem for Vettel later on in the season but I’ll get to that later. Hamilton then managed to fight his way from the back of the grid to 8^th place with only a few retirements in front of him (at least 2 where behind him maybe 3/4 when they retired). Some rather bad luck on Hamilton’s behalf or possibly some rather dodgy stewards decisions.

Monaco

A typical Monaco with a lil splash of flashback from the old master Schmi. Again not sure if there was anything here that would constitute luck or not but I cant recall anything.

Canada

What a race! Sorry had to get that out the way. But this was a race where skill, planning and adaptability won the day. Hamilton changed his tyres when they started going off and vettel and Alonso didn’t, Hamilton won! It wasn’t luck it was good response and belief by Mclaren.

Europe

Hmmm so a lot of Luck for Alonso, although he was driving very well. Vettel’s alternator broke when he was in a strong place for the win, almost certain. And Maldonado took Hamilton out. I know many would argue that Hamilton shouldn’t have fought so hard with Maldonado when he was on fresher tyres and was likely to lose the place next lap anyway but that’s what racers do. Maldonado was clearly in the wrong and that cost Hamilton.

Britain

A poor race for the McLaren’s and a good win for Webber who pushed Alonso all the way until he got passed.

Germany

Hamilton got a dollop of bad luck here when he got an early puncture which put him a lap down which he struggled to recover from when he had a car which could have won the race potentially if not got a podium. Vettel lost places due to a penalty for overtaking button off the track, which it clearly was, and the “red mist” had fallen on him for a change after Hamilton had unlapped himself.

Hungary

Hamilton was on form here! A good win from pole to flag, chased by the Lotus’ but never really under threat from them. Other than that I cant remember anything else of merit here.

Spa

Right … FatJohn … yeah so Hamilton and Alonso got taken out. Bad luck for both but I think Alonso used a lot of good luck to escape injury! Vettel got a 2^nd place he would never have got if that crash hadn’t happened. Hamilton and mclaren were good enough for 2^nd and others could have been there too.

Italy

Another win for Hamilton and a great drive from Sergio! Alonso got a solid 3^rd. Vettel had the same old problem of broken alternator and was a bit unlucky as a podium would have been possible.

Singapore

Hamilton SHOULD have won this but his car let him down. Vettel got a win where he would have had second. Alonso was in the race but got all he could out of it.

Japan

Alonso got punted off in a racing incident but Vettel was supreme and won well. Mclaren’s weren’t ever really there!

Korea

Another win for Vettel and a decent finish for Alonso. Hamilton didn’t do so well, not helped by the large piece of astro-turf that got stuck on his sidepods, but not all of it was down to bad luck he didn’t have a great car.

India

Seemed a pretty straight forward race again with Vettel winning but Alonso doing his best to get as many points as possible.

Abu Dhabi

Kimi won his 1^st race this year! Hamilton was unlucky again to be in a likely place to win but his car let him down. Alonso picked up good points but the good luck went to Vettel. His weekend started ok setting some good times but he stopped at the end of Quali as there wasn’t enough fuel in his car to get back to the pits and get a sample. When the Stewards went to get a sample they couldn’t get 1L, unlike with Hamilton where they could get a litre. He was sent to the back of the grid. He got incredibly lucky through the race to finish 3^rd. Only 17 cars finished and those that went out most of them were in front of Vettel at the time. There were several safety cars aswell which bunched the field up otherwise he wouldn’t have got near the podium. This race was one of the ones that, for me, summed up the championship and Vettels season.

United States

Hamilton drove well and eventually got the win. Vettel moaned but it was inevitable that Hamilton would catch him up. Alonso got a decent 3^rd.

Brazil – The decider!!!

Vettel had the second race that summed up his season. 4^th turn he spun round due to a collision with Senna. In my opinion it seemed that he turned in from quite a high position with a decent proportion of his car alongside. I believe Vettel was VERY lucky not to get a drive through, particularly as Senna was forced to retire. Again there were a few safety cars, although that’s nothing new in brazil. Hamilton was unlucky not to get the perfect end to his Mclaren career with a win when he got caught behind Kov and Hulk slide into him and gave him a rear suspension failure. (on a slightly different note I felt it was harsh for Hulk to get a drive through). Alonso did all he could to get as high as possible but in the end it wasn’t enough.

Races with good and bad luck:

Hamilton GL 2 maybe BL 8 or so

Alonso GL 2 (+ spa) BL 2

Vettel GL 5 BL 2

So in conclusion it seems that Alonso and Vettel’s bad luck seemed to be similar but Vettel seemed to get more results through good luck, or others bad. In contrast it seems that Hamilton had a lot more bad luck maybe that’s why he wasn’t there fighting at the end of the season. Vettel benifited from a lot of Hamilton’s bad luck but I believe that Vettel was still lucky to get a 3^rd championship, even if he is a good driver i’m still yet to be convinced that he is in the same class as Alonso and Hamilton.

Feel free to dissect and argue.

[Ikyrotz 0]

Bahrain

Again it doesn’t seem to be a race of note for most of the contenders, apart from Vettel winning his 1^st of the season and Buttons car breaking.

Kimi from 11th on the grid to 2nd on the flag, and pressure Vettel for the win. I was on the edge of my seat almost entire race!

[Massa 0]

I appreciate your effort in trying to prove your point, but I saw the thread title and thought "Peeweev's got jokes."

Vettel and Red Bull secured the championships because they were better than everyone else over the course of the entire season. Vettel had two retirements, Alonso had two retirements. Both benefitted from the retirements of McLarens etc. at times this year.

Each won a race when the other retired.

In Alonso's other retirement, Vettel finished second.

In Vettel's other retirement, Alonso finished third.

The difference between second place and third place?

3 points. Imagine that...

[JHS18 0]

You make your own luck in this game.

Vettel was there to capitalise on the misfortune of others. So what? When has a champion not had a bit of luck on his side over the course of year? Personally I thought it was very lucky how Hamilton won the title back in 2008...

[dribbler 6]

There is no such thing as luck. Only events, which we decide are positive or negative, depending on how they sit amongst our world.

No one is lucky, unlucky or capable of making their own luck.

[Rainmaster 7]

If you think luck made the ultimate difference, I don't know how you could enjoy this sport.

Hamilton would have been the strongest candidate for this title but the performance of the team was not good enough. Vettel was the strongest candidate for the title because his team did perform, not making basic mistakes and improving the car (including reliability) throughout the season.

[AleHop 0]

I see peeweev's point but as it normaly happens in F1 the better your car the luckier you get. The better you drive the luckier you get. Etc.

If we understand luck as a chain of external events that help us in some way, that's life. Winning a super professional competition is no lottery game although the best driver isn't always the winner.

[Rainmaster 7]

Yep.

I think everybody can accept that not the best driver will always win, but definitely there are better ways of dealing with that "problem" than explaining it via luck. I prefer to think if Ferrari had developed the car better Alonso would have won.

[AleHop 0]

Yep.

I think everybody can accept that not the best driver will always win, but definitely there are better ways of dealing with that "problem" than explaining it via luck. I prefer to think if Ferrari had developed the car better Alonso would have won.

I don't think luck (as in a lottery game) applies to F1, definitely not for winning a championship. It was very difficult that Alonso could have won the title without a race win since Germany? although he was close, it was very dificult for Hamilton to win after so many DNF and problems. It was Vettel who won because no matter what the others did he did a bit more. The championship finished so tight that the tiniest thing could make the diference.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

There is no such thing as luck. Only events, which we decide are positive or negative, depending on how they sit amongst our world.

No one is lucky, unlucky or capable of making their own luck.

I bet you don't believe in Santa or fairies either (steady)

Actually agree. The concept of a driver being "lucky" is nonsense.

Its usually what fans of a losing driver/team use as an excuse for failure, poor engineering or lack of performance.

[Massa 0]

I bet you don't believe in Santa or fairies either (steady)

Actually agree. The concept of a driver being "lucky" is nonsense.

Its usually what fans of a losing driver/team use as an excuse for failure, poor engineering or lack of performance.

Yeah.

It's pretty easy to spin anything as "luck." Nice catch-all term for things we can't explain.

I guess it was "luck" that Alonso had a wild Australian Grand Prix (only 12 cars finished) and a wet Malaysian Grand Prix when the Ferrari was at its worst, allowing him to not bleed as many points when he was most vulnerable. But would you call it that? Nah. I'd call it two great races from him amidst the circumstances.

The real "luck" is ours. The two best drivers in the world are at the top of Formula One, and it went down to the very end...

[HandyNZL 1]

So what you really mean is that Alonso was very very lucky to finish second.

[Massa 0]

Lucky went out of F1 with the tobacco advertising ban. Alonso was plucky at times, though.

[Kati 0]

I think everybody can accept that not the best driver will always win...

I was thinking about this earlier. It's simple: who finishes ahead the most amount of time wins. It doesn't matter if it rained, if there was a SC, if Grosjean spun on turn one and took half of the contenders out. However, I do think the best driver wins. The best driver is basically the more stable one, so the one who can achieve the best results during the season.

There was this whole Alonso is a better driver thing and I would have agreed with it a couple of months ago, but I guess the right thing to say would be Alonso is more experienced. He knows how to deal with a different number of situations better than anyone else in the grid. That alone, however, does not make him the best driver. On the other hand, I have spent the season in some disbelief about Sebastian. Not that I thought he had gone wrong, but I just wasn't seeing a big deal anymore... until the last races. He used to be a driver who was very skilled but could not deal with certain situations and more specifically, pressure. If you watch the last races he has held it together very well. Interlagos was impressive, it wouldve been lost in the first lap and he held it together. So I think he is over the lack of experience thing that made me rate him below Alonso in the past (even if I always fancied him more than the spaniard).

As for Hamilton, that's what I miss on him. I think he's very talented and I think he could be there winning these championships instead of Vettel, but he lacks this bit of maturity that would make him take the right decisions in the right moments. This Mercedes move per se is a very dumb decision (my opinion). Or you can think about last year. How many times he was called in the stewards room??? Just not quite there yet, I'm sorry.

Trying to avoid being biased, I'd go Alonso = Vettel > Hamilton > Button

I didn't use this when I compared them above but here goes my own little thoughts about Alonso atm:

I also does not appreciate, even if I know it's part of all types of sport, the psychological game Alonso tried to play before the last race. You're that great? Go there and win the damn race. Overtake Button! I do not agree either with team orders. I didn't agree when RBR told Webber to let Vettel overtake him and won't agree with Ferrari making a puppet out of Felipe, even though I don't think he'd keep that seat if it wasn't for these 'favours'. The qualifying thing was a joke. And really, where I come from, when you win any type of game, you congratulate the winner and think about the next season, instead of trying to make it sound unfair and going on about how you are so much better anyway. It's sad.

[BradSpeedMan 6]

I was thinking about this earlier. It's simple: who finishes ahead the most amount of time wins. It doesn't matter if it rained, if there was a SC, if Grosjean spun on turn one and took half of the contenders out. However, I do think the best driver wins. The best driver is basically the more stable one, so the one who can achieve the best results during the season.

There was this whole Alonso is a better driver thing and I would have agreed with it a couple of months ago, but I guess the right thing to say would be Alonso is more experienced. He knows how to deal with a different number of situations better than anyone else in the grid. That alone, however, does not make him the best driver. On the other hand, I have spent the season in some disbelief about Sebastian. Not that I thought he had gone wrong, but I just wasn't seeing a big deal anymore... until the last races. He used to be a driver who was very skilled but could not deal with certain situations and more specifically, pressure. If you watch the last races he has held it together very well. Interlagos was impressive, it wouldve been lost in the first lap and he held it together. So I think he is over the lack of experience thing that made me rate him below Alonso in the past (even if I always fancied him more than the spaniard).

As for Hamilton, that's what I miss on him. I think he's very talented and I think he could be there winning these championships instead of Vettel, but he lacks this bit of maturity that would make him take the right decisions in the right moments. This Mercedes move per se is a very dumb decision (my opinion). Or you can think about last year. How many times he was called in the stewards room??? Just not quite there yet, I'm sorry.

Trying to avoid being biased, I'd go Alonso = Vettel > Hamilton > Button

I didn't use this when I compared them above but here goes my own little thoughts about Alonso atm:

I also does not appreciate, even if I know it's part of all types of sport, the psychological game Alonso tried to play before the last race. You're that great? Go there and win the damn race. Overtake Button! I do not agree either with team orders. I didn't agree when RBR told Webber to let Vettel overtake him and won't agree with Ferrari making a puppet out of Felipe, even though I don't think he'd keep that seat if it wasn't for these 'favours'. The qualifying thing was a joke. And really, where I come from, when you win any type of game, you congratulate the winner and think about the next season, instead of trying to make it sound unfair and going on about how you are so much better anyway. It's sad.

He also held it together beautifully for his first championship, also after being labeled as a crash-kid... Then Hamilton started crashing ppl out the next year

[Jem of the Shire 0]

Every single f1 season can be analysed to show who really 'should've won' cos of luck/misfortune.

I remember being hacked off at the end of 2005 because Kimi had the better of Alonso nearly all year but the useless mclaren/mercedes kept breaking, either when he was in leading or in quali/practise (meaning grid penalties). At the time I thought Alonso had lucked in to that title but 7 years on i've accepted it lol. To win the title you do need luck - I think you can look back at every season & point out times when the champion got lucky.

I hate it when 1 driver has it all their way whilst the others break down or get crashed into, but it just happens.

Also, Vettel had his fair share of bad luck this season too.

[Jean-Pierre 0]

There is no question in my mind that LH's many bad lucks this year cost him the trophee. He was often dominant in an inferior car (his team mate was accasionally so far behind that Lewis' performances seemed surrealistic) and deserved to win it IMHO.

[Massa 0]

Hamilton's performance this year was overlooked by many, though I'm not entirely sure McLaren had an inferior car as much as an inferior situation as a whole. At the season's start, the McLaren was the best one out there based solely on my observations. They never capitalized on that, and, in not being opportunistic, they had no cushion when things fell apart over the summer.

I still believe Vettel deserved the championship and earned it, but it definitely doesn't mean Alonso and Hamilton didn't have great seasons. Of them, Hamilton gets the least credit, probably because he was supposed to just dominate this era of F1 and hasn't. At the same time, he's a more recent champion than Alonso.

It will be interesting to see who earns the title in 2013. Has it ever been so competitive where we can all make different cases for who had the best season, and where the actual performance levels of the cars were so unclear for much of the season? I don't think so, and I like that. It's amazing how exciting it was to get to the heavily-predicted pre-season outcome.

[Quiet One 15]

There is no question in my mind that LH's many bad lucks this year cost him the trophee. He was often dominant in an inferior car (his team mate was accasionally so far behind that Lewis' performances seemed surrealistic) and deserved to win it IMHO.

As much as anti Alonsos like to bitch about that phrase, it was quite fitting for the Spaniard and Ferrari.

Applied to McLaren, though...

They won 7 races with that inferior car, as many as RBR, in fact.. Compare it with the 3 meager wins Alonso/Ferrari had to manage to fight for the championship.

Nope, you can't blame the car for that...

[Massa 0]

Ferrari only has one driver, though, they couldn't possibly win 7.

I still think the inferiority of the Ferrari is overblown simply because it's a Ferrari, and if a Ferrari isn't dominant, it has to be the worst car ever made. That's just how touchy things are with Ferrari.

At the same time, I don't think the car needed to be vastly inferior for Alonso's season to be so impressive. It sells Alonso short to say his season was good considering the car; it was just good, period (well, comma, in this case).

I did find it interesting in 2012 the Ferrari was so horrible and Massa needed to be fired. Just think about it. If the Ferrari is so horrible, Massa's performance is excused. If Massa's performance is not excused, then the Ferrari is not so horrible, and therefore, Alonso is not taking a twelfth place car and finishing third...

But as I say, even if Alonso's not doing that, what he did was still very, very good, in the same what Vettel did in a car that clearly wasn't inferior was also very, very good.

This is not to discredit Alonso, but I think in any other season (one where McLaren doesn't have pit errors and Pastor Maldonado doesn't win races), the Ferrari is worse off more so than if the Ferrari didn't have Alonso driving. Obviously, whatever the performance level was, Alonso was clearly superior to Massa, so the driver played a role and if you had to ask me, I'd tell you I prefer Alonso to Vettel. I believe a lot of circumstances (not luck, though) contributed to inflated performance beyond just Alonso.

So, how good was the Ferrari? I think it was the second-best car by virtue of being more consistent and reliable. The McLaren, the Lotus, hell, even the Sauber, the Mercedes, and the Williams, could be better cars than the Ferrari on any given weekend (the Red Bull pretty much always was), but none of them were better than Ferrari frequently enough. Most weekends, there were two teams better than Ferrari, but they were never the same two teams, so the Ferrari ended up being the second-best car...

...and I still insist it doesn't matter if the Ferrari were the best car of all-time or if it were a NASCAR truck. What Alonso did is impressive regardless, and what Vettel did is even more so because he got those extra three points there...

[AleHop 0]

At the same time, I don't think the car needed to be vastly inferior for Alonso's season to be so impressive. It sells Alonso short to say his season was good considering the car; it was just good, period (well, comma, in this case).

Alonso's season was just good, period. Considering the car was epic. Considering some of his unforgettable races and performances it was a fable your grand children will hear about.

[Senna's Ghost 0]

The analysis at the start is highly subjective. Hamilton wins because of skill and brilliant driving whereas Vettel is a spawny git.

Maybe Hamilton used up all his luck when he won the championship in Brazil in 2008?

[Quiet One 15]

Ferrari only has one driver, though, they couldn't possibly win 7.

I still think the inferiority of the Ferrari is overblown simply because it's a Ferrari, and if a Ferrari isn't dominant, it has to be the worst car ever made. That's just how touchy things are with Ferrari.

At the same time, I don't think the car needed to be vastly inferior for Alonso's season to be so impressive. It sells Alonso short to say his season was good considering the car; it was just good, period (well, comma, in this case).

I did find it interesting in 2012 the Ferrari was so horrible and Massa needed to be fired. Just think about it. If the Ferrari is so horrible, Massa's performance is excused. If Massa's performance is not excused, then the Ferrari is not so horrible, and therefore, Alonso is not taking a twelfth place car and finishing third...

But as I say, even if Alonso's not doing that, what he did was still very, very good, in the same what Vettel did in a car that clearly wasn't inferior was also very, very good.

This is not to discredit Alonso, but I think in any other season (one where McLaren doesn't have pit errors and Pastor Maldonado doesn't win races), the Ferrari is worse off more so than if the Ferrari didn't have Alonso driving. Obviously, whatever the performance level was, Alonso was clearly superior to Massa, so the driver played a role and if you had to ask me, I'd tell you I prefer Alonso to Vettel. I believe a lot of circumstances (not luck, though) contributed to inflated performance beyond just Alonso.

So, how good was the Ferrari? I think it was the second-best car by virtue of being more consistent and reliable. The McLaren, the Lotus, hell, even the Sauber, the Mercedes, and the Williams, could be better cars than the Ferrari on any given weekend (the Red Bull pretty much always was), but none of them were better than Ferrari frequently enough. Most weekends, there were two teams better than Ferrari, but they were never the same two teams, so the Ferrari ended up being the second-best car...

...and I still insist it doesn't matter if the Ferrari were the best car of all-time or if it were a NASCAR truck. What Alonso did is impressive regardless, and what Vettel did is even more so because he got those extra three points there...

I've spent quite some time lurking around the other forums, just because I like to get a "feel" of what the people is all ranting about, much in the same way I like to get a "feel" of Paul's...no, wait...

In any case, I think people gets too confused and misses the point of whatever is being discussed as long as the words "Alonso" and "not the best car" are being put in the same sentence.

FYI, the other forums were the Autosport, PF1 and F1Technical and all had the same pattern. Suddenly they end up all discusing whether Ferrari was SO DAMN BAD or not.

I am still to find the original post where some Alonso fanboi wrote: "Ferrari is so bad the HRTs shine compared with it". All I read is people stating the obvious ("Ferrari was never the dominant car") and then 200 pages of "Ferrari wasn't so bad because..."

Nobody ever said Ferrari was awful, except at start of season. After thtat it was a good car, if you compare it with the Mercs and the Force Indias, an excellent car if you compare it with the Marussias and HRTs, but never quite a match AS A CAR compared with the RBRs and McLarens (was more like a Lotus, never so bad as to fall way behind but never so good as to have an easy weekend to the podium)

Again, we are talking about the car. RBRs and McLaren displayed more than once dominant weekends, front row lockouts, half second a lap gains over races and things like that. The fact that reliability issues, botched team tactics or whatever reduced their performance are TEAM issues, not CAR ones. Well, you may argue that reliability issues are part of it, but then again, those only plagued RBR at the beginning.

Ferrari was reliable, yes. That was their edge over Lotus, probably. They weren't as fast as Lotus many times. They had better race pace. I think they deserved to end 3rd behind McLaren and RBR but still above Lotus based on the car alone.

The fact that they didn't end up like that had lots to do with the drivers. RBR could have lost it if not for the fact that Vettel makes very few mistakes (in fact, his last race was disastrous for his usual level). FERRARI WOULD HAVE ENDED UP A DISTANT 3RD IF NOT FOR ALONSO (and that's all about it, nobody is saying that they were useless, just not as good as Alonso was). McLaren had the best car they had in ages judging from the dominance they could exert most weekends, until they shoot their own foot one way or another. This you may argue, but I think that a better working team would have had a hand on the prize already by half season and I am not sure even a strong comeback from RBR would have made them lose it.

Lotus was a victim of not being ready for the struggle with the big guys, but they were very close to Ferrari.

So, Alonso is everything you said, we agree about that . Ferrari was bad, and bad as in "it was no RBR", not bad as in "it was a brick and Alonso made it a Supercar". The energy wasted in trying to make the Ferrari look better so as not to "overhype the Alonso legend too much" ends up trying to prove that the Ferrari was at some time an actual title contending car. Something that is not supported neither by the results, nor by the most lenient of the observations of any race weekend during past season.

[AleHop 0]

In fact Ferrari could only compete against RBR and McLaren for the win in Monza because of the characteristics of the track but only with Alonso. If Ferrari is a one driver team, which I don't think they are, a 2nd place in the constructors is no small feat.

Grid Positions: 12, 8, 9, 9, 2 ,5, 3 , 11, 1, 1, 6, 5, 10, 5, 6, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7 Ugly!

I guess everybody loves starting on pole. When I play(ed) PC games, that's the only way I manage to win a race (and all aids on).

[Jean-Pierre 0]

I still believe Vettel deserved the championship and earned it,

I'm not quite confortable with that, since he had the best car and won many races from the front "à la Shumacher". But I guess he deserves some credit...