F1 Fanatic

I was just wondering what are the factors that are needed to win the WDC:

Here is a list of factors I’ve come up with – I’m curious to hear your thoughts whether you agree and which ones you feel are more important.

1. A fast and equally reliable driver
2. A fast and equally reliable car
3. Good pitstops especially when they matter
4. Good strategy when you need it – both in qualifying and race
5. Good personal and constructor standing with the stewards
6. Good relationship with other drivers – this is a controversial one
7. #1 team standing – this is a controversial one
8. Finally, lots and lots of luck

I wouldn’t say that a “Good personal and constructor standing with the stewards” is important. I’d say it’s totally insignificant. I cannot tihnk of a single instance of a driver winning a World Championship because he and/or his team had a better relationsihp with the stewards than someone else did.

The closest thing I can think of is the stewards changing pole position at Suzuka so that Ayrton Senna would start on the dirty side of the track, giving Alain Prost an advantage. But that was Jean-Marie Balestre interfering with the race because he wanted a French World Champion. The stewards were simply forced to do his bidding.

1. Obviously important
2. Even more obviously important
3. Not a major factor, but still part of it
4. Definitely important
5. Completely irrelevant
6. Also completely irrelevant, unless you’re a real jerk who gets other drivers wanting to hit you off the track
7. Definitely a good thing to have
8. When it comes down to it, there’s no such thing as luck in F1. If the engine blows, it’s the team’s fault. I guess that getting hit by other drivers is bad luck, but most of the time there’s a way to stay out of trouble. Take Räikkönen for instance. He was only involved in one collision last year, and it really wasn’t his fault (let’s not argue about that). As a result of that, he made it into 3rd in the WDC. So as I said, I don’t really believe in luck in Formula 1.

@Nicholas Sunderland

Spa 2008 was a decision made by the stewards that many still disagree with. Ultimately, Hamilton benefited from some extraordinary luck to win the WDC in Brazil.

About Austin it did NOT affect the outcome.

Look what it did to Senna in 1989 – he won pole, was penalized for it, lost any chance at the WDC, was fined $100,000 and banned for 6 months – sweet mother of god. If they had not lifted the 6 month ban, I actually wonder if he would have returned to F1. He looked pretty shocked in the documentary as anyone else would have been and before we go any further I agree that it tells the story from Senna’s POV.

Still we have 2 incidents in 24 years that were influential enough to affect the outcome of the WDC. That’s almost 10% – it’s a lesser factor than other ones but it can surely cost a driver their one shot at the championship.

@Prisoner_Monkeys
If the paddock disagreed with it, why did Senna lose his shot at the WDC as a result and receive the penalties? Obviously a “power that be” had the power to make that happen and to overrule everyone else in F1. If we’re discussing it 24 years later, then it’s obviously a factor.

In 2008, they almost robbed Hamilton of the WDC.

It affects your ability to race massively. For instance, one driver can put 4 wheels off track or push another driver off track and there’s a slight chance of a penalty – the principal will sweet talk the stewards at the end of the race and everyone will be happy. If the driver knows that there will be no repercussions he has many more options when racing.

On the other hand, another driver chucks any qualifying lap where he puts 4 wheels off because he knows it will be used against him.

It’s just that 5%-10% higher degree of difficulty that you want to avoid as a WDC challenger.

If the paddock disagreed with it, why did Senna lose his shot at the WDC as a result and receive the penalties?

Because they were powerless to do anything about it. Balestre had the ability to overrule everyone, and they had to accept it. They didn’t want it to happen, but they were forced to do it anyway.

If we’re discussing it 24 years later, then it’s obviously a factor.

Except that no other driver or team has won a championship simply because of their relationship with the stewards before or since. It’s not a factor, and if you think it is, then you clearly don’t understand the sport. Please, show me one example – other than Balestre moving pole position at Suzuka – where a team or driver has used their relationship with the stewards to become World Champion.

I would like to throw in car development rate (over season) maybe. Not so much a driver based factor but this has helped dictate previous years championships.

@Prisoner_Monkeys

Except that no other driver or team has won a championship simply because of their relationship with the stewards before or since. It’s not a factor, and if you think it is, then you clearly don’t understand the sport. Please, show me one example – other than Balestre moving pole position at Suzuka – where a team or driver has used their relationship with the stewards to become World Champion.

You’re right in so far that the “powers that be” do NOT nominate the WDC – the points ultimately determine that.

We cannot discount Spa 2008 – that decision was a WDC changer.

You don’t need to look any further than Brazil 2012 and Vettel’s spin? How many cars were taken out by Vettel’s mistake? Can you see Hamilton, Senna, or Kobayashi getting away with that?

When the points are close, the “powers that be” wield tremendous influence over the outcome especially when incidents occur since the penalties are completely and utterly up to them to decide. You may either get no penalty or you may be disqualified for the exact same transgression.