35 responses to “#F1 Victims of Circumstance: Silverstone 2014 – #BritishGP”

1. “TJ13 attempts to remove certain aspects of the race to give a fairer reflection of the race result.”

   Yeah. Remove reality and substitute fantasy.

   • I disagree. These things are of course difficult to quantify, and playing at what-ifs is a multiverse question. But the methodology still is useful.

     Look at the table:
     Lewis is at +43. It means he lucked out, by much. Would you disagree with that?
     What about Nico: he’s at +18. He also lucked out, but by about half less than Lewis. Sounds fair to me.
     Take Sebastien, at +11. He also had bad luck, a fair assessment. As did Felipe.
     Other drivers like Fernando, Jenson, Nico and Kevin are in the negative and on average tend to profit when others have bad luck, and get to positions that they wouldn’t achieve with their machinery if others didn’t have unfortunate incidents. (Where are the McLarens this year and how the hell do they manage to get points at all, if not by getting lucky on average?)

     Seems to me like a useful way to quantify luck in F1 universe..

     • You see that’s where I totally disagree. Top sports stars who consistently profit from others bad luck is not by accident. It’s the nature of their prep and their ability. Equally some who have consistently bad luck don’t have it for no reason, there is an issue there.

       Nico didn’t have twice the bad luck as Lewis. As Brundle writes, NR and LH are about even on that and the difference is NR faired better in a bad situation. The table above calls it luck and therefore strips Nico him that strength and well earned pts. Brundle as a sports man knows it’s not the case. As do I.

       The above table is loser analysis.

       • I disagree, sometimes bad luck is just that. Take for example the miserable 12 hours of Sebring in which the class leading Porsche #22 was mistakenly penalized, instead of the actual culprit, the also class leading Porsche #912. 912 went onto victory while 22 had to serve an 80 second stop and go that effectively put it out of contention for which reparations were never made.

         And I would disagree about Rosberg. The table merely reflects the fact that he has had one mechanical DNF to Hamilton’s 2, which, in essence is the premise of the series. Of course, Brundle is at pains to blame Hamilton’s Canadian DNF on him.

         In Canada, though, both cars suffered mechanical failure. Hamilton’s was fatal because his brake bias was set more rearwards, but that was also faster, so much so that Nico was looking to copy it when trouble struck. And it’s not as if his engineer warned him once the MGU failed to watch his brakes. Neither driver was warned till Lewis’ brakes failed, then the team told Nico to be careful.

         And even if you did think Lewis “earned” his DNF in Montreal, wouldn’t you have to say the same regarding Nico’s gearbox at Silverstone? I notice Brundle failed to address that in his article. Of course, he admits to being a fanboy of Rosberg so I’m not exactly surprised.

         Still, I would say that Rosberg is closer to 100% of his potential than Lewis is ATM. If that’s what is meant than I would agree, though Hamilton’s race looked like he might’ve learned a few things too. Thankfully, the season isn’t anywhere close to over.

         • Before I respond to some of the points, can you show evidence of this statement.

           “Of course, he admits to being a fanboy of Rosberg so I’m not exactly surprised.”

           The unfortunate thing Matt, is that it seems, and I stress SEEMS, you are using the statement to undermine the man as opposed to the argument. Thus Brundle being a Nico fanboi (as you state) means his analysis is flawed and thus me quoting it is by association flawed. A bit ad hom there.

           Anyway, I await to see where Brundle says he’s a Nico fan and a fan at the expense of Lewis, so as to invalidate his analysis.

         • On the contrary, I think because Brundle is a Nico fan he overlooked the inconsistency of his argument because the facts he presented fit with his favor of Rosberg. Those facts and his argument are still worth examining, and I thought I did so, though it’s possible I missed something.

           Anyway the quote I was referring to:

           “I’ve championed Nico since he was at Williams, saying what a great little driver he is because I could see the potential he had. In hindsight, we underestimated Michael Schumacher during his comeback which meant that Nico’s speed was underestimated as well. And this year he has really put it all together.”

           He’s been a fan of Nico since Williams. In Science it’s called confirmation bias, and it’s pernicious and difficult to sort through, even when one is well meaning.

           I will happily admit that the use of the word fanboy was meant in a humorous, not pejorative sense. I could see how that could be taken the wrong way.

         • I was, stupidly, about to go and trawl for quotes that show Brundle is a ‘fan’ and ‘supporter’ of Hamilton too. I cursory glance showed many, many such quotes. I was going to trawl them and post the best one, so as to speak to his equal ‘bias’ or lack thereof between Nico and Lewis, thus reinstating his analysis and then reinstating my use of his analysis to support my view.

           This would then allow me to get back to my original point of ‘fate/luck’ and the view that this topic/post/WDC-analysis misses big critical aspects of a drivers ability to manage a race and maximise opportunities and mitigate ‘bad luck’ better than another drivers inability to do anything but flog the living day lights out of a machine.

           But I thought better. I think this is one of those discussions that fundamentally has no ability to be ‘won’ in that it speaks to the concept of ‘luck’ and ‘fate’ and ‘what if’s’ etc. This is something that has been debated since the ancient Greeks and there are only two real options left here, 1) we continue on, and end up in a circular reference type argument or, 2) one of us (me) accepts that others require the concept of ‘fate/luck’ and will unconsciously apply it throughout their lives and into their F1 hobby via this analysis.

           I choose option 2. I respect but whole heartedly disagree with your view. As an olive branch of sorts, I also repeat what I confessed in a comment around this topic, I tend to see these sorts of things of the sporting realm in black and white, which is underpinned by my view of consistent bad ‘fate/luck’ vs. preparation/ability.

         • I appreciate your response, and I respect as well your point of view. I’m sorry I have to run off to work as this is definitely an entertaining, and as you point out, ultimately unresolvable question. Otherwise, why have philosophy majors.

           I will state for the record though that my personal belief is that much of what we regard as luck or fate is simply the inexorable grind of mathematics. We live in a vastly complex interconnected environment and some folks get heads and some folks get tails, and there may not be much sense or meaning in it beyond that, save what we personally attach to it. Or, to paraphrase Mark Twain, sometimes a gearbox failure is just a gearbox failure.

           But I do agree with you that at the very top, having worked and studied with some world class people, that the differences are in the margins and that they add up. They’re just a little better across the board but when you add it up it’s not even close.And in that sense, they do make their own luck. But it’s their response when things don’t go their way that sets champions apart.

           I’m thinking of an essay by David Foster Wallace, who competed nationally as a junior in tennis. By his own admission he wasn’t that good (relatively) but attained a high ranking because he practiced outdoors and wasn’t bothered by the tremendous variations the often 20+ mph wind induced in his shots (he played in the MidWest, where much of ther spring would feature gale force breezes). Whereas his competitors, often used to playing indoors, would eventually become completely unhinged watching yet another perfect shot get blown past the baseline by a sudden gust of wind.

           I guess that makes me a shades of grey person, but I am of the opinion that there are things we can control and things we can’t. The trick is putting events into the correct category and not getting bugged by things outside our control.

         • So is everyone forgetting what Paddy Lowe said about Lewis’s DNF in Canada, or is Brundle’s opinions the only one that matters in this argument?

         • “Still, I would say that Rosberg is closer to 100% of his potential than Lewis is ATM.”

           Several drivers have said much the same thing but I know that Lauda definitely did say. “The secret”, said Niki Lauda, “is to win going as slowly as possible” You nor I or anyone else for that matter knows what the true potential of any driver in a race is.

           Take as an example last years Spanish GP. Esteban Gutiérrez set fastest lap yet finished 11th one lap down. Should we conclude from that one lap that didn’t drive to his potential for the other 65 laps, and if had he should have won? As far as I’m concerned the exercise is pointless. Reality is what actually happens not what you want to happen.

         • Reality is indeed what happens. Hard to argue with that. And love him or hate him Lauda’s assessment of winning a championship is also correct.

           But it seems to me that the author is engaged in the exercise of trying to determine where drivers would have finished if their races had not been interrupted by force majeure. Into the analysis go such things as lap times track position etc. As an example, from roughly lap 10 till Nico pitted, Lewis gained time on him and was running faster on track, due to Nico struggling with tyres (this is from radio transcripts, fyi). When Lewis emerged on the hards, he was immediately in the 1:37’s, a time that Nico on fresh options never touched in the 2 laps he ran before his gearbox began to give up.

           At that point, it is clear that Hamilton had gained a big advantage from his alternate strategy choice, and it would’ve been a tall order for Rosberg to have pulled off the win. Of course, we don’t know if he could’ve because he didn’t actually finish the race. But then that’s the point of the article, to guess what might have happened. It’s just a game, and certainly one that you don’t need to play if you don’t like it.

           Of course, your Gutierrez point is nonsensical because you are presuming that the author would just look at fast lap, yet if you were to look back to the genesis of the series he discusses the rules by which he plays this game. And the analysis seems a bit more rigorous to me, though I might occasionally disagree.

       • Umm, I think this column gave the AUS win to ROS, saying his start was great. But seeing as Hamilton was down to 5 cylinders from the off, if his engine is right, and he gets the starts he’s been having (we have the benefit of hindsight now), then how could you not give the win to him?

         If this is a bit of a make-up for that one, then I have no problem with it. I think many here doth protest too much. Seriously, you’d think someone died over this stuff.

         IMHO, Hamilton was going to win in Britain no matter what. Either he one stops, and he’s 5 secs up the road at the end, or he two stops after the greater offset, and has him at the end.

         The pass on-track for the win is coming.

2. I agree Cav. I think there are quite a few long bows being drawn in these analyses. I will however put my hand up and confess that I tend to see things in the sporting realm with tones of only black and white, however this seems to stretch the reality somewhat and is simply fictional. I suffer the same fate when, for example, some does an all time top 10 greatest list and a Gilles Villeneuve is included because he knew how to slide a car. His achievements come no where near being a top 10 all time driver and anything else is fiction and romance.

   • Ultimately I think Martin Brundle’s assessment of the championship situation is accurate.

     http://m.skysports.com/article/formula1//9375256

     They (NR & LH) have had now, more or less, the same mechanical bad luck. The pts results and overall qualifying performances are quite accurate as to reflect their pure speed, overall consistency, racing intellect and pressure management. They are very close overall, but Nico does edges it (in both quali and race) after half a season when all things are considered for being a top line Formula One driver.

     How Lewis leads in this is way to subjective. Beyond what is reasonable, IMO.

     • they did not have tje same amount of bad luck. lewis started on the backfoot because he had a dnf right at the first race. that put him under much more pressure than nico, and that first dnf can in no way be attributed to him. the second is debatable although i think that criticizing people for speculating about what if’s and than speculating that mechanical failures might have been caused by driving styles etc. is a bit ridiculous.

       nico so far has been the luckier driver. sure he maximized his points, but if your engine blows up or your brakes fail completely, there isn’t much nursing the car home you can do, so nico was also luckier in the type of problems he encountered, because, with the exception of silverstone, he had mechanical problems that could be dealt with, while lewis didn’t. the only thing that you can accuse hamilton off is that he allowed the.monaco incident to set him off balance. he should have laughed it off. had he shrugfed and said something along the lines off “if that’s the only way he can beat me” I doubt rosberg would have been able to take his momentum.

   • They include gilles in that list simply because in an era where everything about f1 was exciting he managed to be the most exciting of them all. Just like people came to stadions to watch maradona or to see the magic that Micheal jordan brought they came to see villeneuve. That his career was shorter that it should be is a fact that never gives us an answer to the question will he ever be world champion. But he had that je ne sais quoi that all the greatest in any sport have. That magic…

     • Romance and nonsense. He didn’t achieve what would allow him to genuinely be in the top 10. Jordan did in basketball and Maradonna did in football / soccer. Villeneuve isn’t the Jordan or Maradonna of F1.

       Everything you said was exactly as I said in my post. Speculation, romance, rose tinted glasses on the era, drawing a long bow, etc. He may have been exciting to watch, for you, and for others, but his career doesn’t deserve a top 10 based on achievements.

       • Interesting.. where would you rank Senna then? Only in the top ten and not in the running for greatest F1 driver?

         I find ’94 similar to ’82, in that Villeneuve would surely have won soon; if not ’82, then likely in ’83, when Ferrari won the WCC with Arnoux/Tambay. He may have retired then, or after another shot in 85 (Alboreto). We can postulate similar for Senna (Williams ’94-’97).

         What they have is that ability to transcend their results.. Hamilton is similar, looking back, while Rosberg will be more forgotten, from not reaching past a racing audience (and barely to that sometimes, seeing how under-rated he was for the last 7 years).

         For a strict comparison of Gilles.. a deep analysis would be required. By that, I mean races, qualifying, relevant news etc. over the whole period and thus it would be interesting to hear from those who saw all this happen in real time.

         But my impression is, he was seen as the ‘dominant driver talent’ for a brief period, between Lauda and Prost, alongside the rise of GE and the revolving door of dominant cars winning for a short peak period (Lotus, Ferrari, Williams, Brabham).

         • It could also be said that without this year’s Mercedes.. or if Hamilton quit now, then his standing in the sport would be hugely reduced from what it will be after this era.

           These next few years have the potential to become Hamilton’s answer to Vettel’s ‘domination’ period, and stamp his name into the top ten F1 drivers argument.

           Without this, he would end up more of a Hakkinen, Raikkonen, Piquet or Mansell figure, i.e. only sub-dominant at best, to the ‘dominant drivers’ of the period, like Prost, Senna, Schumacher, Alonso, Vettel, who followed on from Lauda, Stewart, Clark, Moss, Fangio.

         • “Interesting.. where would you rank Senna then?”

           Great question. Based on the number of wins and podiums he secured, as well as the poles and front rows he had, and the associate percentage strike rate of each parameter against his total Gp’s and quali sessions, and overlaying that his main rival was also a great, and overlaying the cars he achieved his success in, and of course his WDC results against his total seasons, and various team mate comparisons, and with the assumption that I believe he didn’t have as many years left in F1 as some might want to think (maybe 2-3 more at best without Prost on the grid), I’d say he was easily in the top 2 most talented/fastest drivers ever and overall as a competitor/driver maybe 3rd in the greatest of all time list.

           I personally believe Fangio is the greatest of all time based on all those above parameters. 8 full seasons competing, 5 WDC’s, old past his physical best as F1 as we know it and it’s stats started 1950, amazing pole and win strike rates, destroying team mates all the time and so on.

       • Umm, maybe b/c he died?!? GV isn’t regarded in the top 3 of F1 as both Jordan and Maradona are in basketball or football respectively, so I’m not sure why you’re using them to compare here.

         GV’s first full season was 1978. He played the dutiful #2 to Scheckter in 1979. For the next two years, the car was not there to win the title. In 1982, though, Ferrari had the car and one of the best drivers. Considering how well Pironi did with that car up until his horrible accident later in the season, it’s reasonable to assume that Gilles would’ve walked the title that year. Hell, Ferrari still won the WCC that year despite missing out on 10 race results (i.e. 10 results for one of their cars at any race).

         While it’s always possible that a sporting talent can be cut short, outside of motor racing it was less likely to be b/c of a fatality, especially at the time of Villeneuve. People remember Duncan Edwards, the most celebrated of the Busby Babes, and wonder what might have been? They see how clutch Bobby Charlton was for England, and then hear Charlton claiming he had nothing on Edwards, and the imagination wanders.

         It unfolded the way it did, and there’s no changing it, but there are what-if scenarios that keep within the bounds of reason, and those that do not. Believing that Gilles Villeneuve would’ve been DWC in 1982 had he lived is IMO firmly in the former category.

3. “Ultimately, Hamilton retains the race win as it is difficult to prove he would not have won.”
   This one is madness. Rosberg had shift problems since lap 20. There’s actually zero evidence to suggest ham would overtake ros without problems.

   • Apart from superior performance in lap times, tyre degradation and fuel consumption…

   • Drivers are being reinstated into a race result here. It works in the same way a court does of there is undeniable evidence here that Hamilton won, so inserting Rosberg for the race win would need evidence beyond doubt (in the same way Rosberg won in Australia on this post)

   • Lewis was also on a one stop.. Rosberg was hamstrung by committing to a two stop, before one stop was known to be faster.. the same happened to Vettel. The teams had to react to the tyre deg in the race, to catch on to this unexpected development.

4. Ahh, another article written by a Brit. “Deserve” is fan-statement, not the nature of the sport. The Judge is supposed to be “different” this stuff is not different.

   • What would the nature of the sport say then? The sheer manner of this genre of post is different, as it is not the norm

5. Fate is thinly veiled hubris when things go your way – arrogance and false certainty that belies an unwillingness to acknowledge the effort of the vanquished.
   When things don’t go the way your way fate becomes a scapegoat, an excuse, a way of evading responsibility and the hard questions that come from not meeting the mark.
   Thus fate is a value-drenched, entirely malleable construct and as such rather useless for “explaining” anything at all.

   • I would add that I think you make your own luck.. but once things go past what you can comprehend (happens to everyone.. the world is a complex place), then increasingly the concepts of luck or fate come in to play.

     But for being powerless.. Lewis got what he deserved. But by being powerful on Sunday.. Rosberg’s gearbox gave up at last, so he deserved what he got. This would probably be called ‘making your own fate’.. better to make one then have one simply handed down to you! Vettel might use this argument for Malaysia 2013..

     • No, the idea of making your own fate is as useless as the idea of fate itself. You can invoke “fate” no matter the outcome, no matter the effort expended, no matter the vagaries of random events.
       “Luck” is similarly all-too-human concept. To be lucky is to just find yourself out in the tail of the statistical distribution of random events.
       “Luck” and “fate” and “deservedness” speak to the need for people to tell themselves positive stories about themselves and their place in a universe entirely disinterested in us as a species.
       As a rider, I’d say that whilst I don’t believe in fate, I believe in people / teams that believe in fate. The (misplaced) certainty that comes with the erroneous belief in fate somehow raises the game of the believers. I stole that; I think an NFL coach said it first.

6. Everyone’s saying ‘the championship battle is back on again’ but it’s actually less close than it was before.
   On Sunday morning Rosberg was slight favourite, now Hamilton is a bigger favourite than Rosberg was, making the championship less close than it was originally.
   If you rate Rosberg and Hamilton equally you could say it got closer though. A pedantic point I suppose

   I don’t get the ‘it is difficult to prove [Hamilton] would not have won’ statement because it is difficult to prove anything.
   I don’t think Rosberg or Hamilton have overturned their team mate when trailing after lap 1 all year (excluding retirements) although maybe it looked like that was going to happen in Canada

   • Rosberg is a winner in this situation no matter what happens. If he loses, he was never expected to compete anyway. His unreliability last year cost him dearly. Just look at the ‘Victims’ report from Brazil last year to see how much he had lost out.

     • Oh come on. When Rosberg gets pole you’ll claim it’s because Hamilton made a mistake. When Hamilton gets pole it’s conclusive proof he’s faster than Rosberg. Since Monaco Rosberg has had pole in all four races and there has been 223 total racing laps between the two. Not once has Hamilton overtaken Rosberg on the track. Not once.

       • It’s actually 3 poles unless you thought it was Nico in the Williams in Austria.

         Does the start in Bahrain not qualify as an on track overtake? And yes all the poles (3) that Nico had, are due to mistakes Lewis has made.

         Monaco – everyone knows what happened

         Canada – by your account, he failed to try different lines like nico. Running wide in turn 6 locked his wheel into turn 8. Missed pole by .079

         Austria – Massa not nico. But I’ll continue anyways. First run in Q3 was on a lap that would’ve been quicker than both laps Massa did, ran wide and had his time wiped off. 2nd run spun

         Britain – no point explaining that one.

         So yes, nico has only benefited when Lewis has made errors all you have to do is look back at the previous races before Monaco. Nico got pole in Bahrain fair and square, but got overtaken at the start. Malaysia, China, Spain, perfect weekend, won the races.

         • Oh my lord give me the strength I need to accept others for who they are and how they think.

           Goose Frabah… Goose Frabah…

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.