What are the most important factors in winning a WDC?
19th February 2013, 13:12 at 1:12 pm #225547
I’m a little confused at the recent string of topics considering WDCs. We’re talking about who’s going to win it, which isn’t rare, but it strikes me as odd that we have two active topics which are basically aimed at excluding certain WDCs from their status.
As far as winning a WDC goes, only one thing matters: having the most points at the end of the season. There are many ways, many styles and many reasons to achieve this, As far as I’m concerned, if anything, this topic should be about what makes a WDC notable, special or memorable, at least more so than another.
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.
I don’t really agree that you need a good relationship with the FIA and such, but their influence can also be seen in seasons like the 1994 and 1999 seasons, banning Schumacher from a few races and the Ferrari measurement thing in Malaysia, respectively. I’m sure I’m forgetting a few as well, plus, teams like BAR in 2005 being banned for a few races, causing a major strain on their Constructor’s position.19th February 2013, 13:24 at 1:24 pm #225548
Stewards decisions are more down to luck these days, you win some you lose some that’s just the way sport goes. Like football, there is no possible way to be 100% consistent when humans are involved as there are too many variables to consider. So no, this Stewards suggestion doesn’t really exist nowadays. I would admit that there maybe is some Larger team bias (Ferrari ect.) but there is no concrete evidence that having a brilliant relationship with the FIA/Stewards has detrimental effect to a title challenge.19th February 2013, 17:13 at 5:13 pm #225549
@npf1 “We’re talking about who’s going to win it, which isn’t rare, but it strikes me as odd that we have two active topics which are basically aimed at excluding certain WDCs from their status.”
One of them is clearly “Who was the worst driver ever to win a World Championship”, but what’s the other one? This thread doesn’t seem to make that point at all.19th February 2013, 17:57 at 5:57 pm #225550
Note that opposed to the fictional facts many Senna admirers want us to believe; the Prost – Senna collision in Japan 1989 had zero affect on the championship that year. Prost beat Senna by 21 points, so what happened at Suzuka was virtually irrelevant.
However, what does have to be pointed out though, is that Senna’s crash at Suzuka ’90 was far more dangerous and outrages than Prost’s “early chicane” Suzuka ’89 or Schumacher’s bumper car at Adelaide ’94.19th February 2013, 18:28 at 6:28 pm #225551
It seems that #5 is much more controversial than any other factor – perhaps we should put it to rest:-)
I’ve read a million topics on who is the fastest and more reliable driver and a million topics on which car is also the fastest and more reliable one.
But I am curious to hear how you guys rate the strategy departments between the constructors. Personally, I think RB’s strategy is vastly underrated and is as important as the #1 factor but even more underrated I think is Ferrari’s strategy who seem to have this aura of incompetence but somehow manage to position Alonso pretty well in every race – Austin 2012 is one great example. Renault did fairly well this year too but I wonder if that was because Grosjean was out of contention in half the races and somehow they could focus on Raikonnen.19th February 2013, 19:56 at 7:56 pm #225552
Vettel’s won three championships almost entirely by virtue of 2, 7 and far more of 8 than he deserves.19th February 2013, 20:26 at 8:26 pm #225553
@sgt-pepper – Oh, wow, totally unexpected swipe from you going by your previous posts.
In 2010, he lost the most points through unreliability amongst any of the title contenders, and in 2012, Mclaren were accepted to have had the fastest car (and Ferrari had better reliability than Mclaren or RBR). Given that the same guy happened to dominate 2011, was runner up in 2009, splitting the Brawns and was top 8 in the WDC for Toro Rosso, it’s obvious that factor number one in the OP played a significant role in his success.
And of course, it’s right that you get “flak” for your post here and your suggestion in the “worst driver to win a championship” thread.19th February 2013, 20:51 at 8:51 pm #225554
@kingshark Absolutely, I realize that. But regardless of the effect they had, they were all stupid, unsporting moves with the intention of securing the championship.20th February 2013, 0:17 at 12:17 am #225555
The problem is, different drivers have different approaches, and sometimes different ways work out better than others. Take the mid-late eighties for example:
1984: Lauda won despite 0 pole positions, by half a point, with some really good consistency.
1985: Prost simply outclassed the field
1986: Prost capitalised on the Williamses tripping over each other, and won, despite having arguably a worse car
1987: Piquet played some very good mind games with Mansell, who was arguably the faster driver. Mansell was slightly unlucky with his injury also.
1988: Senna won more races, and took the title, despite Prost having more points. In this case, speed was more important than consistency.
1989: Prost and Senna fell out, and the two seemed relatively evenly matched over the season, but (it appears) the FIA may have helped determine the outcome.
Some very different ways to win the title there. Compare Button in 2009 and Vettel in 2012 also, Button had a great start to 2009 and then just cruised, whereas Vettel started off without the best car, picked up points, and then put the hammer down once the Red Bull improved. There’s no particular method on how to win a Championship, other than scoring more points than the other drivers. Which, in every case (bar 1988) has been what has been the most important factor in winning a title.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.