can't wait for a wet race tomorrow.
oh no wait, they aren't allowed to race in the wet any more....
+1n smikle wrote:Just came back from the local black magic worker.
It is done.
1982 is the obvious one. 5 drivers had more race wins than the champion, 5 other drivers had the same number of wins. There are probably other years as well.Red Schneider wrote:A little trivia question.
Let's say Hamilton wins from Alonso, with Vettel crashing. That makes Alonso champion with three race wins on the year. Sometimes a lot of talk is made about 'beaten champions,' i.e. when the driver with the most wins does not win the title. However, in a case such as this there would actually be two drivers with more wins than the champion. Hamilton 5, Vettel 5, and Alonso 3.
Has this ever happened before?
I hope it's not the same guy/gal who predicted all those updates earlier this season.n smikle wrote:Just came back from the local black magic worker.
It is done.
Let's not go that route. Then there would be Barcelona, Monaco, Valencia, Singapore, etc etc going into the mix, and it gets messy.myurr wrote:You could also look at the results and say that Vettel inherited a race win from Hamilton where his car broke down through no fault of his own. So if this is about who deserves the title, then there's a case where you could say that Vettel only has 4 race wins on merit and Hamilton has 6 (presuming he wins today).
Chuckjr wrote:I wonder if a situation occurred whereby Vettle is 14 points behind if Alonso wins the race, if Lewis would let FA pass him for the win so FA could win the WDC..prolly not.
I +1 that. Thinking this way would lead you to Bernie's inglourious basterds idea of gold medals.raymondu999 wrote:Let's not go that route. Then there would be Barcelona, Monaco, Valencia, Singapore, etc etc going into the mix, and it gets messy.myurr wrote:You could also look at the results and say that Vettel inherited a race win from Hamilton where his car broke down through no fault of his own. So if this is about who deserves the title, then there's a case where you could say that Vettel only has 4 race wins on merit and Hamilton has 6 (presuming he wins today).
On that note - is reliability not worthy of "merit?" A car's merits should be both speed and reliability, not just speed.
There's absolutely no way the FIA can punish him for it, even if I agree that it was optimistic, because their own rule says it was Pedro's fault. A significant portion of the car was along side.AnthonyG wrote:I think it's Grosjean's fault, he should know better then to go on the inside in such a highspeed corner.stefan_ wrote:Any news about the decision for the sHitRT / Grosjean incident?
Notably they're competing for the World Driver's Championship, not the World Constructor's Championship, so no, I feel fine in saying hamilton deserves it more, because car reliability doesn't come into how well a driver drove.raymondu999 wrote:Let's not go that route. Then there would be Barcelona, Monaco, Valencia, Singapore, etc etc going into the mix, and it gets messy.myurr wrote:You could also look at the results and say that Vettel inherited a race win from Hamilton where his car broke down through no fault of his own. So if this is about who deserves the title, then there's a case where you could say that Vettel only has 4 race wins on merit and Hamilton has 6 (presuming he wins today).
On that note - is reliability not worthy of "merit?" A car's merits should be both speed and reliability, not just speed.
For the record I completely agree. Someone else was raising the point of Vettel having more victories than Alonso and asking if a championship winner had ever won less races than the runner up. The implication being Vettel was more worthy as he had more wins.Intego wrote:I +1 that. Thinking this way would lead you to Bernie's inglourious basterds idea of gold medals.raymondu999 wrote:Let's not go that route. Then there would be Barcelona, Monaco, Valencia, Singapore, etc etc going into the mix, and it gets messy.myurr wrote:You could also look at the results and say that Vettel inherited a race win from Hamilton where his car broke down through no fault of his own. So if this is about who deserves the title, then there's a case where you could say that Vettel only has 4 race wins on merit and Hamilton has 6 (presuming he wins today).
On that note - is reliability not worthy of "merit?" A car's merits should be both speed and reliability, not just speed.
BTW: 2010 would have been funny if Vettel and Alonso have had equal points at the end, because it then would have been 5 victories, 2 second, 3 third places for both. Only one more 4th finish for Vettel would have made difference.
Sad, but true.fiohaa wrote:can't wait for a wet race tomorrow.
oh no wait, they aren't allowed to race in the wet any more....
Maybe it is because the today's f1 cars are unable to drive in "heavy rain"AnthonyG wrote:Sad, but true.fiohaa wrote:can't wait for a wet race tomorrow.
oh no wait, they aren't allowed to race in the wet any more....
Schumacher (and everyone else with a wet setup so far the last 3 years) will enjoy not using it.