Groups

Hamilton’s alternative championship since Singapore (15 posts)

Topic tags: Hamilton, What if

Viewing post 1 to 15 (15 total posts)

AdrianMorse said 5 months, 4 weeks ago:

What if Hamilton hadn’t encountered any reliability gremlins and spinning Force Indias since the Singapore Grand Prix?

Singapore: Hamilton wins: +25; Vettel – 7; Alonso -3
Japan: Hamilton had some issues both in qualifying and the race, but it was all rather vague and I don’t know which position he would have finished in.
Korea: with a normally functioning car, Hamilton finishes 4th: + 11
Abu Dhabi: Hamilton wins: + 25; Vettel -3; Alonso -3
Brazil: Hulkenberg passes Hamilton who is boxed in behind Kovalainen, and Lewis finishes P2: +18; Vettel -2; Alonso -6.

Final championship standings:
1. Hamilton 269
2. Vettel 269
3. Alonso 266

#
mclaren said 5 months, 4 weeks ago:

It is pointless doing these calculations, it is a fact, had Mclaren not screwed up so badly, Hamilton would have been the 2012 WDC by abu dhabi,
I for one will remember this season as Hamiltons year, a year he really should have been champion.
Hamilton was flawless all year, its such a shame and sad if you think about it, that the history books will say Vettel 2012 WDC, when in reality, Hamilton really deserved this title and really should have won it(Seb is also a worthy champion), oh well, life goes on.

#
Girts said 5 months, 4 weeks ago:

2012 should have been Hamilton’s championship year. The team did well in winter tests, the car was quick enough, Hamilton was in the right shape and made almost no mistakes over the season. It would have been fair and good for the sport, too. But unfortunately it wasn’t meant to be. Now we’ll have to wait and see if Hamilton can win the title with Mercedes and if Perez and Button are capable of that in McLaren.

#
Nick said 5 months, 4 weeks ago:

If we’re going to knee jerk, we might as well state Alonso could have had 2 second places more, Vettel should have won in Valencia and came in 3rd in Monza, Button 2nd in Monza plus a few podiums if he understood the McLaren better, Schumacher should have had second in China, Hulkenberg a win yesterday, factor in the time lost by McLaren during pitstops, calculate the points missed by others because of Perez, Grosjean and Maldonado and I’m pretty sure you’ll end up with the order being Hamilton – Button – Vettel – Alonso or something.

Really though, why is everyone so obsessed with Hamilton alone? While I feel he had a very good season and he has lost a lot of points, I doubt we’ll think too much about this in 10 years, much like we don’t really have threads about ’1999 if Schumacher didn’t break his leg’ or ’2005 if Raikkonen didn’t DNF all the time’.

#
Girts said 5 months, 4 weeks ago:

@npf1 Well, at least 2005 will always remain in my memory as the year when Raikkonen & McLaren were quicker but Alonso & Renault won both titles with consistency and reliability.

It’s true that many drivers lost points through no fault of their own this year but Hamilton suffered much more from bad luck and technical problems than Vettel and Alonso did and most likely Lewis would have become champion without them, even if Vettel and Alonso hadn’t lost their potential points.

#
AdrianMorse said 5 months, 4 weeks ago:

@Nick, the season is over, and I like to indulge in some what-if scenarios. There are others who like what-if scenarios (in fact, didn’t Keith once do an ‘alternative championship’?), but I suppose you are not one of them. As for “obsessing” over Hamilton, I’m a fan and wonder “what if”. Nothing more.

As to knee-jerking, the nice thing about this particular what-if scenario is that it’s relatively straightforward, and doesn’t require enormous amounts of conjecture. Hamilton retiring from the lead affected only him, and gave a few points to those behind him, without otherwise having a great impact on the course of a race. By contrast, if we would wonder “what if Grosjean hadn’t taken out half of the top 10 in Spa”, we would have to imagine a completely different race.

In addition, in the period from Singapore to Brazil, Alonso and Vettel didn’t suffer from too many misfortunes, so we don’t have to go into the argument “yes, but what if Vettel’s alternator hadn’t failed him in Korea”. Of course, Alonso had a start-line incident in Japan, but he was not blameless there (imo).

You are free to consider this a pointless exercise notwithstanding, but the reason I found this scenario interesting is that Hamilton still had a realistic shot at the title (after all the misfortune he had already suffered up to that point), but in the actual standings he is a massively distant fourth.

#
Girts said 5 months, 4 weeks ago:

@AdrianMorse

in fact, didn’t Keith once do an ‘alternative championship’?

That’s right! http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2010/10/19/hes-14-points-behind-but-vettel-should-be-leading-the-championship-by-59/

#
Kingshark said 5 months, 4 weeks ago:

@Nick

Vettel should have won in Valencia and came in 3rd in Monza,

How should he have come 3rd in Monza? More like 6th, behind the Ferrari’s, Mclaren’s and Perez.

#
Atticus said 5 months, 4 weeks ago:

People are concerned with Hamilton, because he dropped so much points by no fault of his own. Of course, Vettel also dropped a bit, like 25 in Valencia, 10 in Monza, and about 10 or 3 in Abu Dhabi. But that’s still only 38-45.

Compare this to Lewis: just counting Barcelona (21), Singapore (25), Abu Dhabi (25), that’s 71! And, I repeat, these are only the no-brainers, not counting with South Korea or Brazil. Or the screwed up pit stops.

It was actually, Alonso, who came closest to his potential – which is always one of the most used attribute used to describe him. He lost 10 in Monza and something like 10-18 in Spa. I don’t count Suzuka, it was partly his fault, he was out.

Also, there are things which does not count – like Button struggling with the car mid-season, or Hulkenberg’s exit in Brazil. Only the totally or almost totally no-brainers. Otherwise, one can quickly get caught up in endless permutations.

#
MazdaChris said 5 months, 4 weeks ago:

If you want to play the ‘what if’ game, then how about this

in 2007 McLaren decided to support Alonso’s title bid, allowing him to win the championship
In 2010, Ferrari got the call right in Abu Dhabi and Alonso scored the points he needed to secure the championship
In 2012, Vettel’s first-lap crash broke the rear suspension, putting him out of the race. Alonso then drove to a podium finish, winning the championship

Alonso is celebrating winning his fifth championship. He’s now the second most successful F1 driver in history, and people are asking how long it will be before he matches Schumacher’s record of 7 titles.

Yep, just a slight change of circumstance and Alonso is suddenly a five time champion, and Vettel only wins one. You can play this game for pretty much any championship year in history. That’s the nature of competition – success or failure comes down to the smallest margins.

But at the end of the day, Alonso isn’t a five time world champion, and no amount of playing the what if game will actually change things in favour of your preferred driver or team.

#
Atticus said 5 months, 4 weeks ago:

@mazdachris In a way, you are right of course. But on the other hand, these ‘what if’ games do serve to illustrate a point: playing it in a given manner (i. e. for example discounting errors which were out of one driver’s hands) serves to illustrate a driver’s ability more, independent from his team’s work.

And of course, one can argue that ultimately, a team is a team, and there is no point in splitting a driver’s performance from that of the ‘team’ – because he is inherently part of that team. Of course – but one can always examine parts of a team, and I for one like to delve into the details and the parts of a whole.

And it does give some interesting results every now and then as this topic illustrates.

Another favourite example of mine: Massa’s 2008 bid – Hungary (10), Singapore (10), once again, only the no-brainers…

#
MazdaChris said 5 months, 4 weeks ago:

The problem is that it involves a lot of guesswork and assumption. Even when it looks for all the world like a driver would have otherwise won the race, how many times have we seen situations where it looked like a driver would be on for an easy win, only for something like tyre degredation to come into play and take away the win? Or a momentary lapse of concentration? No matter how objective you try to be, you’ll always be making assumptions, and for the most part those assumptions will be biased in one way or another.

#
Atticus said 5 months, 4 weeks ago:

Yes, that is also true.

#
Kingshark said 5 months, 4 weeks ago:

in 2007 McLaren decided to support Alonso’s title bid, allowing him to win the championship
In 2010, Ferrari got the call right in Abu Dhabi and Alonso scored the points he needed to secure the championship
In 2012, Vettel’s first-lap crash broke the rear suspension, putting him out of the race. Alonso then drove to a podium finish, winning the championship

Alonso is celebrating winning his fifth championship. He’s now the second most successful F1 driver in history, and people are asking how long it will be before he matches Schumacher’s record of 7 titles.

Now that’d be amazing. :D

Being a 5 time word champion with some 30-ish victories would be quite strange though.

#
Nick said 5 months, 4 weeks ago:

Being a 5 time word champion with some 30-ish victories would be quite strange though.

If I remember correctly, Fangio only needed 24. Different times, but I still find it amazing Rosberg won the 1982 with just a single victory. Stranger things have happened. But it serves a good point that a lot of guesswork is involved. For Valencia, maybe Karthikeyan would have made Vettel’s life miserable, McLaren could have botched another pitstop for Hamilton, Perez could have collided with Vettel at Monza, etc.

Only the totally or almost totally no-brainers. Otherwise, one can quickly get caught up in endless permutations.

You draw the line at car failures, but that still leaves dozens of laps open where they could have tripped over backmarkers, kerbs or the Maldonado’s, Grosjeans’s and Perezes.

I’ve said it (in another thread, I think) before, Hamilton had a great season and was mighty quick, but bad luck/or something like that is another part of the game. I get it when people say ‘Hamilton could have ended up so much better this year’, but to speculate about the specifics, in my opinion, is a little but too much.

#