I had a discussion with a friend today and we both support the same football team. When it comes to F1 though, he and his wife follow the team (Ferrari), whilst I follow British drivers. They reckon the last four British drivers to win the Drivers' Championship were lucky. Surely you make your own luck? You can argue, (off the top of my head), that Vettel (2010), Raikkonnen (2007), Hakkinen (1999), Schumacher (1994), Prost (1986) and Rosberg (1982) were 'lucky' champions? Why isn't triple World Champion Piquet not considered a great? Hamilton deserved it this year, McLaren failed him in 2007 but the gamble paid off in 2008, for example. I would be interested in other posters opinions/reasons.
Just ignore them. If they consider 'luck' to be simply the opportunity to drive the best car in the field, then it's pretty feeble as very few drivers have won the WDC in a car that is not at least equal to the fastest, or is the fastest car on the grid.
If lucky means having the best car (except in Button's case where over the season the Red Bull was better imo) with a less than par team mate, then yes, they were lucky. Maybe you should ask them who Ferrari's 4th last champioship winning driver was and when it was. Then they might realise it's been pretty much 40 years. (and let's be honest Raikkonen only won in '07 because if either of the Mclaren's won it that year the "sport" would be going downhill quicker than it has this year)
Also, when 'luck' is considered, when you look at Hill and Mansell, they spent many years testing and developing the cars and technology that eventually won them their WDC's, so it can be argued it was just reward for the work they put in, especially in Hill's case as he was probably the best test and development driver there had ever been, remember Newey left Williams because they let Hill go. In a way, a 'lucky' WDC would be a driver who drops into a new team and wins straight away, as any move would have been a gamble and they would have had no input into that car. Therefore Kimi's win could definitely be considered lucky, both on that basis and McLaren/Alonso/Hamilton screwing up the last 2 races and letting Kimi take the WDC away from both of them.
There is no such thing as a "lucky" championship IMO. You can say what you want about others failing in the final race etc, but what about all the races leading up to that? obviously they have put themselves in a position over the rest of the season to be fortunate to pick up the results when others failed.
Luck is a big factor in everything. People say you make your own luck, and that might be right to some degree, but being in the right car at the right time has an element of luck. Even Schumacher would admit that he was lucky that the right people were available at the right time. You don't win a title without a good dose of luck.
You could also say that Mansell was unlucky to not be a triple winner. He wasn't just lucky to be the only driver to hold the F1 and Indy title simultaneously. It needed ability. As for Hill... he was the development driver for the FW14, and also cost Wiliams the services of a certain Adrian Newey when they canned him. He was lucky to be in the services of Williams, he was lucky Newey was there... Williams were also lucky to have such a great development driver. Luck... all champions have a bit of it, and some of those that don't become champion lack it.
This has been discussed before, for me it's an individual driver irrelevant of nationality. I don't believe that luck makes a WDC, but fortune can often play its part. To say the last 4 British champions were "lucky" is pretty disrespectful. I'm not a Lewis fan but I would argue that he is unlucky to not be a 3 or 4 time WDC.
Maybe the post should've been headed "LUCKY British...". Some sensible balanced posts, thanks, it hasn't descended into an all-out bashing you get on football forums.
And this. Champions wouldn't have won their respective titles without the talent to drive the potential of their respective cars and the ability to beat their teammates. Of course there are two ways of acheiving this. 1- work with the team over many years and build a car to the drivers specification. 2- join the team when they have a title winning car (but you still need the talent to beat your teammates and keep momentum throughout the season). I'd say luck is only involved when other drivers have mechanical issues, but in Lewis's case he had his fair share at the start of the season. I don't think any driver that has ever won the title didn't deserve it, that would be a silly statement.
I still stand by the fact that Mercedes had it way too easy this season (sometimes 2secs ahead of others) but we can only hope other engines speed up sooner rather than later, otherwise you could rename it Formula Mercedes.
On the other hand, if luck is involved, it's probably the element that gets drivers into Formula 1 in the first place. How many potential (unlucky) world champions are there that none of us has ever heard of? I think you have to accept Formula 1 for what it is. It isn't football. We wouldn't want homogenised cars, or a level playing field, would we? The difference between the teams, their strengths and weaknesses, is part of the interest. It is what sets it apart from many other sports and it is always going to affect the outcome of the WDC. It also gives us plenty to talk and speculate about in online Fora, like this.
Hamilton was certainly lucky, in any other sport he and his team would have been thrown out for their cheating, illegal mid-season testing is the equivalent of doping, that he disguised himself and released misleading tweets saying he was 1,000's of miles away just confirms he knew he was cheating. Again.
Good post, Charlie. I take it your analogy with football was a bit tongue-in-cheek? For any meaningful discussion centred upon a concept, it is essential to define what is being discussed as precisely as possible, since most arguments involve qualitative thinking revolving around interpretation, rather than disagreement about precise quantities. Indeed, this is why some may prefer to stick to statistical analysis which avoids such discussion completely. (For this reason, statistics should not be used/confused in trying to sway qualitative discussion, since to do so is out of step with the logic of using them!). I recently mentioned in this forum that all competitors, whilst not wishing their opponents ill, hope for errors from others. This becomes ever truer at the higher end of sport where the value of winning is greatest and is certainly true of motor sport; particularly F1, which requires so many variables to go according to a (very exacting) plan. So let us close in on a definition We can assert that if a winner is helped (promoted) by the error/s of one or more opponent, the victory is not invalid, since the latter is merely an outcome; but equally, that this winner has fared better (been 'luckier') than if not helped by such error. In 2007 for example, Kimi Räikkönen could only win the World Drivers' Championship if the (statistically) more likely winners fell over themselves. This also required by far the most (statistically) likely winner, Hamilton, to fail to score a single point in consecutive races; something beyond Räikkönen's control and, from his perspective, entirely dependant upon external influence. So whilst not suggesting he was unworthy, one can say that Räikkönen's World Drivers' Championship was luckier than most. Is there anything more we can about 'luck'? Yes, I believe there is… The concept of 'luck' is relative to what might normally be expected without it. (This requires further definition: that of a 'norm'). Since we live in a world which is essentially not predictable*, there are random elements at play in everything, to a greater or lesser extent. It is also said that one makes one's own luck; but this argument is not logical, since 'making it' involves doing things as planned. Therefore, all else being equal, the winner is the competitor who makes the fewest errors; or conversely, he or she who gets more of the important things right more often than a loser – even if the loser experiences factors ('bad luck'?!) beyond his/her influence! Therefore, we can say that if 'luck' is a valid word at all, it plays its part in pretty much everything, including sport – and has nothing whatever to do with nationality, even when concerned with the British! - - -o0o- - -*Even according to the most rigourous science, where nature itself is found to be random at the most fundamental (quantum) level.
Exactly. I'm glad you've mentioned the quantum level which, ultimately, regulates everything. As I understand it, what we might define or imagine as "luck" is only the manifestation in our (Newtonian) universe of randomness in the quantum universe. The effect of this on Formula 1 is not special or unusual, as canarian's friends seem to think, but both are really interesting. (I'm looking forward to Jim Al-Khalili's BBC4 series starting this week!)
Some people are born lucky. Me on the other hand... I could fall in to bucket of boobs and still come out sucking my thumb. I rarely gamble, but I had a flutter on a horse a couple years back at a local track. The horse fell and to be shot on the track. And... that's why I don't gamble. I still carry the guilt today.
