I think I'll leave the Quantum realm for BLS to get stuck in to, as I suspect his grasp on quantum field theory vastly surpasses mine. Plus, I've already had my weekend's fill of science debate on these forums (see some of my recent posts on the Norwich board if rants about climate change appeal to you). I will say though that I think a little too much credit is being given to quantum theory, and not enough to statistics.
The only time I've gambled was on the Grand National a few years back. Neither of the horses backed by myself or my friend made it past the second fence, and both had to subsequently be euthanised. Decided it probably wasn't for me after that!
Maybe not on a Sunday night As for luck, well you can get lucky in a race no doubt, but over a whole season it's unlikely. Hamilton has had it easy in some ways this season but has also seemed the more unlucky of the two Mercedes drivers. As it turned out the luck balanced out come the end of the season with both drivers having remarkably equal misfortune.
Very true, BLS. I'd add that in most two horse races, it is unusual to see the element of 'luck' (whatever it is) play out so evenly in the end. More often than not, at the top level, with margins between competitors being so small, luck plays a bigger part in the outcome. (Kimi Räikkönen probably knows this as well as anyone)… In a sense, it is fortunate (lucky!?) that 2014's F1 luck factor was so well-balanced; it leaves an unusual (for F1) clarity about the validity (whatever that is) of the outcome…
Can a man be considered lucky to find himself behind the wheel of the most advanced make in the season? Merc's split turbo gave them a huge advantage over the rest of the field. There are probably 10 drivers who could have on the championship in those cars.
I agree with you, Cyclonic. I think few people would dispute that Mercedes were vastly superior during 2014. And yes, any driver will surely be thankful to find him/herself behind the wheel of the best car on the grid, howsoever such a situation comes about. That said, I think it fair to say Rosberg is probably one of those "10 drivers who could have won the championship in those cars", yet he did not. Clearly, this leads to the conclusion that the most valid comparisons between drivers in F1 are those of team-mates. Such comparisons are surely even more valid if the outcome is less influenced by elements beyond their control and/or that when such mishap inevitably occurs, it does so in roughly equal measure? I think this brings us back to the point BLS and I were both making. BLS was comparing the misfortunes of the two drivers 'lucky' enough to find themselves in the same top team, and suggesting that by the end of the season, they had experienced a similar degree of influence beyond their control. My point continued from his; that the viewing public were ultimately 'luckier' to find such a reasonable balance rather than, for instance, feel the outcome of a season-long battle had been swayed by one of these two drivers suffering unfavourable mishap far more than the other. Of course, the viewing public in general would have been even more fortunate to witness a battle between more than two drivers – and a closer Constructors' Championship…
I think if we're truly going to go down the "luck" road, then we're about to open up a real can of worms. No two cars, no matter how well prepared, are going to be of equal value. They can be stuck on a dyno, and pump out the same numbers, but being two separate entities, they will always behave in a manner unique to themselves once on the track. And there is every chance that a swapping of drivers will result in a step back in the performance of both cars. I'll never be able to reason why, but the Hamilton package, for mine, just seemed to be the slightly quicker car. I don't know what the usual top end speeds were between the two, but it seemed to me that Hamilton, for the better part, had the wood on his team mate. Some of this can be the Brit's driving. I noticed in a lot of the in-car film that some were holding a higher gear than others on certain corners. And this was not just between different makes, but at times, between team mates. Was this down to the way the car was set up, or driver input...who knows? If we're going to tear this apart, then we can go on for ever. Either way, it's bloody hard to get away from the feeling that it's just about all car, with a bit of driver thrown in.
Similar . Years ago bet on the only Grey horse in the race . Race started , I popped upstairs to the loo , came back down only to be advised by my brother in law that it had fallen . It was put to sleep........
Was having this argument over Christmas with a relative who was very upset that Hamilton had won SPOTY and not the golf guy. If it holds that (in his view) anyone could have won in that car, or that (in the view of someone on this forum) one of 10 drivers could, then you have to ask why teams pay those top top drivers so much money, and go to such lengths to recruit them as Mercedes did with Lewis and McLaren have done with Alonso, when they are making a big push for championships. It may be (I wouldn't have admitted this when I was having that argument) that the driver makes up the final 5-10% of the equation when it comes to having the best package. But in a sport where margins are so tiny 5-10% is a hell of a lot of difference.
It's not true that anyone could have won in that Merc as there can only be one winner and Rosberg didn't win. Could the result have been different if Alonso or Vettel was in Rosberg's car? Possibly. Could the result have been the same result if Alonso or Vettel was in Rosberg's car? Possibly. F1 is always about the car... but the driver still has to get the job done. And are people really still upset about SPOTY? Man risks life at 200mph vs man who hits ball with a stick... At least Mansell could do both, hey?
