planetf1.com

Zoue wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Junglist wrote:Long time lurker and have been following this back and forth for some time now.
Seems everyone is caught up on the word 'Lucky'.

My take on it; Lewis (or everyone else not driving a Ferrari) was lucky that it rained as it made it possible to get a result that looked quite unlikely otherwise. However, this is what I think is the main point, Lewis wasn't lucky to get on pole. That was his skills shining through.

Saying he was lucky shouldn't be taken as an insult or detract from his performance. He was lucky it rained but it wasn't luck that put him in P1.

Agreed. Only thing I would change in your last sentence is that "it wasn't luck alone that put him in P1", since there was some element of luck in that it rained and negated Ferrari's dry advantage. On a level playfield Lewis put a great performance, that was all him!

yeah it's what I've been saying all along. It's not an insult to acknowledge that it was fortunate the rain provided the opportunity Hamilton would otherwise have been denied. He did well to seize it with both hands, but that's another story

dompclarke wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Junglist wrote:Long time lurker and have been following this back and forth for some time now.
Seems everyone is caught up on the word 'Lucky'.

My take on it; Lewis (or everyone else not driving a Ferrari) was lucky that it rained as it made it possible to get a result that looked quite unlikely otherwise. However, this is what I think is the main point, Lewis wasn't lucky to get on pole. That was his skills shining through.

Saying he was lucky shouldn't be taken as an insult or detract from his performance. He was lucky it rained but it wasn't luck that put him in P1.

Agreed. Only thing I would change in your last sentence is that "it wasn't luck alone that put him in P1", since there was some element of luck in that it rained and negated Ferrari's dry advantage. On a level playfield Lewis put a great performance, that was all him!

yeah it's what I've been saying all along. It's not an insult to acknowledge that it was fortunate the rain provided the opportunity Hamilton would otherwise have been denied. He did well to seize it with both hands, but that's another story

Through a season we have to expect rain in qualifying at some point so drivers and teams should be able to deal with it. Rain was forecast so the teams and drivers were prepared.
If it hadn't rained and Vettel had made pole would people be saying he was fortunate or lucky? I doubt it...

Just as if Vettel had made pole in the dry, Hamiltons pole was a result of good work by the team and driver dealing with the hand that was dealt.

Zoue wrote:

dompclarke wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Junglist wrote:Long time lurker and have been following this back and forth for some time now.
Seems everyone is caught up on the word 'Lucky'.

My take on it; Lewis (or everyone else not driving a Ferrari) was lucky that it rained as it made it possible to get a result that looked quite unlikely otherwise. However, this is what I think is the main point, Lewis wasn't lucky to get on pole. That was his skills shining through.

Saying he was lucky shouldn't be taken as an insult or detract from his performance. He was lucky it rained but it wasn't luck that put him in P1.

Agreed. Only thing I would change in your last sentence is that "it wasn't luck alone that put him in P1", since there was some element of luck in that it rained and negated Ferrari's dry advantage. On a level playfield Lewis put a great performance, that was all him!

yeah it's what I've been saying all along. It's not an insult to acknowledge that it was fortunate the rain provided the opportunity Hamilton would otherwise have been denied. He did well to seize it with both hands, but that's another story

Through a season we have to expect rain in qualifying at some point so drivers and teams should be able to deal with it. Rain was forecast so the teams and drivers were prepared.
If it hadn't rained and Vettel had made pole would people be saying he was fortunate or lucky? I doubt it...

Just as if Vettel had made pole in the dry, Hamiltons pole was a result of good work by the team and driver dealing with the hand that was dealt.

I think you are also missing the point. It's not about who was prepared or not. It's not about anybody's abilities or preparation. The luck is in the fact that it seemed that nothing bar rain was going to let Mercedes get near the front in qualifying, as they were struggling mightily. And lo and behold, rain came in the exact moment that they needed it, just before Q3, to give them a chance. That's the luck element, not how good/bad the drivers were.

dompclarke wrote:

Zoue wrote:

dompclarke wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Siao7 wrote:Agreed. Only thing I would change in your last sentence is that "it wasn't luck alone that put him in P1", since there was some element of luck in that it rained and negated Ferrari's dry advantage. On a level playfield Lewis put a great performance, that was all him!

yeah it's what I've been saying all along. It's not an insult to acknowledge that it was fortunate the rain provided the opportunity Hamilton would otherwise have been denied. He did well to seize it with both hands, but that's another story

Through a season we have to expect rain in qualifying at some point so drivers and teams should be able to deal with it. Rain was forecast so the teams and drivers were prepared.
If it hadn't rained and Vettel had made pole would people be saying he was fortunate or lucky? I doubt it...

Just as if Vettel had made pole in the dry, Hamiltons pole was a result of good work by the team and driver dealing with the hand that was dealt.

I think you are also missing the point. It's not about who was prepared or not. It's not about anybody's abilities or preparation. The luck is in the fact that it seemed that nothing bar rain was going to let Mercedes get near the front in qualifying, as they were struggling mightily. And lo and behold, rain came in the exact moment that they needed it, just before Q3, to give them a chance. That's the luck element, not how good/bad the drivers were.

I get your point, I disagree with it is all

mikeyg123 wrote:If Hamilton is lucky when it rains is Vettel, or any of his competitors who are not as good in the wet, lucky everytime it stays dry?

Zoue wrote:

dompclarke wrote:

Zoue wrote:

dompclarke wrote: Through a season we have to expect rain in qualifying at some point so drivers and teams should be able to deal with it. Rain was forecast so the teams and drivers were prepared.
If it hadn't rained and Vettel had made pole would people be saying he was fortunate or lucky? I doubt it...

Just as if Vettel had made pole in the dry, Hamiltons pole was a result of good work by the team and driver dealing with the hand that was dealt.

I think you are also missing the point. It's not about who was prepared or not. It's not about anybody's abilities or preparation. The luck is in the fact that it seemed that nothing bar rain was going to let Mercedes get near the front in qualifying, as they were struggling mightily. And lo and behold, rain came in the exact moment that they needed it, just before Q3, to give them a chance. That's the luck element, not how good/bad the drivers were.

I get your point, I disagree with it is all

It baffles me how it can be disagreed with. When just about every pundit and driver involved says that it was fortunate that rain came down when it did, it's beyond me that it could even be a question.

If rain had happened just 20 minutes later, it would likely have been a Ferrari pole. Only the perfect circumstance of rain falling in Q3 only (let's face it, Q2 was much lighter) gave Mercedes a chance. And it was a complete fluke that Mercedes' handling problems in the dry, which they readily admitted to, disappeared with the rain. Nobody planned for that.

mikeyg123 wrote:If Hamilton is lucky when it rains is Vettel, or any of his competitors who are not as good in the wet, lucky everytime it stays dry?

dompclarke wrote:

Zoue wrote:

dompclarke wrote:

Zoue wrote:

dompclarke wrote: Through a season we have to expect rain in qualifying at some point so drivers and teams should be able to deal with it. Rain was forecast so the teams and drivers were prepared.
If it hadn't rained and Vettel had made pole would people be saying he was fortunate or lucky? I doubt it...

Just as if Vettel had made pole in the dry, Hamiltons pole was a result of good work by the team and driver dealing with the hand that was dealt.

I think you are also missing the point. It's not about who was prepared or not. It's not about anybody's abilities or preparation. The luck is in the fact that it seemed that nothing bar rain was going to let Mercedes get near the front in qualifying, as they were struggling mightily. And lo and behold, rain came in the exact moment that they needed it, just before Q3, to give them a chance. That's the luck element, not how good/bad the drivers were.

I get your point, I disagree with it is all

It baffles me how it can be disagreed with. When just about every pundit and driver involved says that it was fortunate that rain came down when it did, it's beyond me that it could even be a question.

If rain had happened just 20 minutes later, it would likely have been a Ferrari pole. Only the perfect circumstance of rain falling in Q3 only (let's face it, Q2 was much lighter) gave Mercedes a chance. And it was a complete fluke that Mercedes' handling problems in the dry, which they readily admitted to, disappeared with the rain. Nobody planned for that.

If Q3 had been variable conditions where timing of runs was crucial to lap time I'd agree luck may play a part, had a driver gone off causing a red flag to the detriment of one driver again luck/fortune comes into it. As it was it was a predictable session for the teams to work with so comes down to how well the team/driver deal with it as far as I'm concerned.

Had it been raining throughout Q1, 2 and 3 with the same result I'm sure luck would still be the cause to many....

Zoue wrote:

dompclarke wrote:

Zoue wrote: It baffles me how it can be disagreed with. When just about every pundit and driver involved says that it was fortunate that rain came down when it did, it's beyond me that it could even be a question.

If rain had happened just 20 minutes later, it would likely have been a Ferrari pole. Only the perfect circumstance of rain falling in Q3 only (let's face it, Q2 was much lighter) gave Mercedes a chance. And it was a complete fluke that Mercedes' handling problems in the dry, which they readily admitted to, disappeared with the rain. Nobody planned for that.

If Q3 had been variable conditions where timing of runs was crucial to lap time I'd agree luck may play a part, had a driver gone off causing a red flag to the detriment of one driver again luck/fortune comes into it. As it was it was a predictable session for the teams to work with so comes down to how well the team/driver deal with it as far as I'm concerned.

Had it been raining throughout Q1, 2 and 3 with the same result I'm sure luck would still be the cause to many....

If a car is at a disadvantage in the dry, but rain allows it to compete, you don't consider it fortunate for them that it does rain? Strange

Junglist wrote:I think there is a bit of confusion.

Zoue, am I correct in thinking you aren't saying Lewis had a lucky drive, just he got lucky that it rained? If that's the case I don't know why people are having an issue with what you say.

Did anyone think that P1 was up for grabs for Lewis after the free practice sessions? I sure as hell didn't. I thought that race was going to be damage control. Everyone knows rain is a leveller so he was lucky that it rained. It's not even a negative thing. He put in a brilliant wet weather lap.

dompclarke wrote:

Junglist wrote:I think there is a bit of confusion.

Zoue, am I correct in thinking you aren't saying Lewis had a lucky drive, just he got lucky that it rained? If that's the case I don't know why people are having an issue with what you say.

Did anyone think that P1 was up for grabs for Lewis after the free practice sessions? I sure as hell didn't. I thought that race was going to be damage control. Everyone knows rain is a leveller so he was lucky that it rained. It's not even a negative thing. He put in a brilliant wet weather lap.

No confusion, just different opinions

Junglist wrote:I think there is a bit of confusion.

Zoue, am I correct in thinking you aren't saying Lewis had a lucky drive, just he got lucky that it rained? If that's the case I don't know why people are having an issue with what you say.

Did anyone think that P1 was up for grabs for Lewis after the free practice sessions? I sure as hell didn't. I thought that race was going to be damage control. Everyone knows rain is a leveller so he was lucky that it rained. It's not even a negative thing. He put in a brilliant wet weather lap.

Junglist wrote:

dompclarke wrote:

Junglist wrote:I think there is a bit of confusion.

Zoue, am I correct in thinking you aren't saying Lewis had a lucky drive, just he got lucky that it rained? If that's the case I don't know why people are having an issue with what you say.

Did anyone think that P1 was up for grabs for Lewis after the free practice sessions? I sure as hell didn't. I thought that race was going to be damage control. Everyone knows rain is a leveller so he was lucky that it rained. It's not even a negative thing. He put in a brilliant wet weather lap.

No confusion, just different opinions

Think I see it from both sides. I can see why some think he was fortunate that it rained as the Ferrari did have the advantage in the dry but with the rain being a fairly good leveller making things mostly equal between the teams it wasn't luck that he got P1. He simply did the best lap

dompclarke wrote:

Zoue wrote:

dompclarke wrote:

Zoue wrote: It baffles me how it can be disagreed with. When just about every pundit and driver involved says that it was fortunate that rain came down when it did, it's beyond me that it could even be a question.

If rain had happened just 20 minutes later, it would likely have been a Ferrari pole. Only the perfect circumstance of rain falling in Q3 only (let's face it, Q2 was much lighter) gave Mercedes a chance. And it was a complete fluke that Mercedes' handling problems in the dry, which they readily admitted to, disappeared with the rain. Nobody planned for that.

If Q3 had been variable conditions where timing of runs was crucial to lap time I'd agree luck may play a part, had a driver gone off causing a red flag to the detriment of one driver again luck/fortune comes into it. As it was it was a predictable session for the teams to work with so comes down to how well the team/driver deal with it as far as I'm concerned.

Had it been raining throughout Q1, 2 and 3 with the same result I'm sure luck would still be the cause to many....

If a car is at a disadvantage in the dry, but rain allows it to compete, you don't consider it fortunate for them that it does rain? Strange

No more fortunate than if it stays dry for a driver who's car is better in the dry when the forecast says that is likely; so no I don't.

Zoue wrote:

dompclarke wrote:

Zoue wrote:

dompclarke wrote:

Zoue wrote: It baffles me how it can be disagreed with. When just about every pundit and driver involved says that it was fortunate that rain came down when it did, it's beyond me that it could even be a question.

If rain had happened just 20 minutes later, it would likely have been a Ferrari pole. Only the perfect circumstance of rain falling in Q3 only (let's face it, Q2 was much lighter) gave Mercedes a chance. And it was a complete fluke that Mercedes' handling problems in the dry, which they readily admitted to, disappeared with the rain. Nobody planned for that.

If Q3 had been variable conditions where timing of runs was crucial to lap time I'd agree luck may play a part, had a driver gone off causing a red flag to the detriment of one driver again luck/fortune comes into it. As it was it was a predictable session for the teams to work with so comes down to how well the team/driver deal with it as far as I'm concerned.

Had it been raining throughout Q1, 2 and 3 with the same result I'm sure luck would still be the cause to many....

If a car is at a disadvantage in the dry, but rain allows it to compete, you don't consider it fortunate for them that it does rain? Strange

No more fortunate than if it stays dry for a driver who's car is better in the dry when the forecast says that is likely; so no I don't.

This is getting ridiculous. If the weather is normally raining and everything suddenly dries up just in time for qualifying, then of course they would be fortunate.

mikeyg123 wrote:If Hamilton is lucky when it rains is Vettel, or any of his competitors who are not as good in the wet, lucky everytime it stays dry?

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:If Hamilton is lucky when it rains is Vettel, or any of his competitors who are not as good in the wet, lucky everytime it stays dry?

No, because it being dry is the default state.

However, arguably they are already lucky to be in a car capable of pole, so...

dompclarke wrote:

Zoue wrote:

dompclarke wrote:

Zoue wrote:

dompclarke wrote: If Q3 had been variable conditions where timing of runs was crucial to lap time I'd agree luck may play a part, had a driver gone off causing a red flag to the detriment of one driver again luck/fortune comes into it. As it was it was a predictable session for the teams to work with so comes down to how well the team/driver deal with it as far as I'm concerned.

Had it been raining throughout Q1, 2 and 3 with the same result I'm sure luck would still be the cause to many....

If a car is at a disadvantage in the dry, but rain allows it to compete, you don't consider it fortunate for them that it does rain? Strange

No more fortunate than if it stays dry for a driver who's car is better in the dry when the forecast says that is likely; so no I don't.

This is getting ridiculous. If the weather is normally raining and everything suddenly dries up just in time for qualifying, then of course they would be fortunate.

The only ridiculous thing is you refusing to accept that a point of view that doesn't agree with yours may be valid. As I've said the session was predictable therefore I don't see the result as fortune just a better job being done, given that Kimi thought he had the time for pole within him the Ferrari was most likely capable of being at the front.
I understand why you have your point of view and accept it's a valid one, I just happen to have a different one

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: No need for your nose to be put out of joint. I'm not saying he's talking complete rubbish, just that he's making a number of assumptions. But I also said it was possible. And for Kimi and Mark Hughes saying the Ferrari was better, we have Toto and Vettel saying the opposite about the wet weather performance. But even if we imagine that the Ferrari was slightly ahead, the point still stands that the large advantage they appeared to have in the dry, or struggles Mercedes appeared to have, appeared to vanish with the rain and therefore that gave the Mercs a chance. Something Hughes also said, by the way.

I think it's perfectly possible that Kimi may have had the car to get pole. I also think Vettel had a poor qualifying (in the wet). Rain changed things and the timing of it couldn't have worked out better for Mercedes.

Well I kind of was making a generalised point that F1 journalists only seem to be relevant when they say things we want to hear.

Over to the luck part of this it seems to be a modern thing that rain now either makes you lucky or unlucky, in the past it made heroes out of drivers, sorted the men out of the boys, Senna won his first race because of the rain, a race he wouldn't have won otherwise, never heard Senna being called lucky just people marveling at his drive.

Now Vettel has a slow speed crash on a wet track and he's deemed to be unlucky, Vettel under performs in wet qualifying when he would have been on pole if it had been dry and again he's viewed as being unlucky, the benefactor Hamilton was lucky.

I think this was the first wet qualifying session in years that full wets set the pole time, normally when conditions are that bad the session gets delayed until the track dries ready for inters and many applauded the session going ahead and the drivers having to deal with the conditions, likewise in the race once the track is wet enough for full wets then normally the SC gets called again until the time the track is ready again for inters.

Compared to the past we have moved away from true wet races and qualifying sessions were conditions have to be as dry as possible for qualifying sessions or races to continue, this almost to the point it seems were wet conditions are to be avoided and unwanted and when it does interfere then that's just bad luck and not tied to feats of heroic or dismal driving.

so when Hamilton said:

"We couldn't have expected this," said Hamilton. "Ferrari have been quickest all weekend. Then the heavens opened and it was fair game."

and Toto said:

"We were lucky with the weather," admitted Mercedes boss Toto Wolff. "In the dry we didn't have the pace."

because:

Mercedes had struggled in Friday's heat when they overheated their tyres. But that characteristic of working the Pirelli tyres hard worked to the Silver Arrows' advantage around a sodden Hungaroring while Ferrari faltered.

you don't think luck has anything to do with it?

http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/ ... -take-pole

A Sky Sports article, Hughes also works for Sky Sports but you dismiss what he has to say, just finding opinions that are agreeable to you.

When Hamilton says fair game that means now we have a chance which often can be the case when it rains which is why it's called a leveler, like he did at the start of the wet race in Singapore last year, Red Bull constantly ask for the rain and when it comes and the likes of Verstappen excels I never see the word luck come into play.

Back in 2014 in wet qualifying Vettel nearly out qualified Hamilton's dominant Mercedes, if Vettel had got pole I doubt the word luck would have come into play, more so I would say plaudits would have rained down on Vettel and how he out performed Hamilton's superior car.

All of a sudden such things become a matter of luck, Vettel skates off on a wet track into a barrier and he was unlucky, Hamilton gets pole only because it rained and he's lucky, if the roles were reversed would we be talking about luck or giving praise to Vettel at the expense of Hamilton, I'm thinking the latter?

I don't know why I bother but I'll give it a shot

It's truly remarkable how you see anything other than unconditional praise as an attack on Hamilton. The point being made is that he was fortunate the rain came down when it did because it negated Ferrari's advantage at a crucial moment, when they looked to have pole sewn up. He's admitted it, Toto's admitted it, Mark Hughes has stated it, as have a myriad other pundits. I don't think there's a single alternative professional opinion on that. Heck, you've even admitted it's a leveller, but somehow describing it as luck is a step too far? It never ceases to amaze how you can take issue with even the most innocuous of statements where Hamilton is involved.

You really need to lighten up and stop taking issue with absolutely everything where Hamilton is concerned. He had a car disadvantage in the dry, but that disappeared in the wet. It's not an insult to say that was good fortune. Of course, he still had to seize his chance and drove well to get the pole, but the point being made is only that he got that chance in the first place. The rain was brief and came at exactly the right time. How is that not fortunate?

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:All of a sudden such things become a matter of luck, Vettel skates off on a wet track into a barrier and he was unlucky, Hamilton gets pole only because it rained and he's lucky, if the roles were reversed would we be talking about luck or giving praise to Vettel at the expense of Hamilton, I'm thinking the latter?

Then you're wrong. Why on earth would we be praising Vettel for Hamiltom making a mistake, and benefiting from a wet qualifying session?

What you don't seem to be admitting is that most people - not a few outliers, but most forum members - actually do treat the two drivers equally. You, however, often seem to take offense at any statement that takes anything away from Hamilton: it's not enough that he out-drove Vettel in the same conditions, now he has to have out-driven him in the same condition and at a car disadvantage? Sorry, but only one of those things happened. In the wet, the Mercedes seemed to be very much on par with the Ferrari.

Invade wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: No need for your nose to be put out of joint. I'm not saying he's talking complete rubbish, just that he's making a number of assumptions. But I also said it was possible. And for Kimi and Mark Hughes saying the Ferrari was better, we have Toto and Vettel saying the opposite about the wet weather performance. But even if we imagine that the Ferrari was slightly ahead, the point still stands that the large advantage they appeared to have in the dry, or struggles Mercedes appeared to have, appeared to vanish with the rain and therefore that gave the Mercs a chance. Something Hughes also said, by the way.

I think it's perfectly possible that Kimi may have had the car to get pole. I also think Vettel had a poor qualifying (in the wet). Rain changed things and the timing of it couldn't have worked out better for Mercedes.

Well I kind of was making a generalised point that F1 journalists only seem to be relevant when they say things we want to hear.

Over to the luck part of this it seems to be a modern thing that rain now either makes you lucky or unlucky, in the past it made heroes out of drivers, sorted the men out of the boys, Senna won his first race because of the rain, a race he wouldn't have won otherwise, never heard Senna being called lucky just people marveling at his drive.

Now Vettel has a slow speed crash on a wet track and he's deemed to be unlucky, Vettel under performs in wet qualifying when he would have been on pole if it had been dry and again he's viewed as being unlucky, the benefactor Hamilton was lucky.

I think this was the first wet qualifying session in years that full wets set the pole time, normally when conditions are that bad the session gets delayed until the track dries ready for inters and many applauded the session going ahead and the drivers having to deal with the conditions, likewise in the race once the track is wet enough for full wets then normally the SC gets called again until the time the track is ready again for inters.

Compared to the past we have moved away from true wet races and qualifying sessions were conditions have to be as dry as possible for qualifying sessions or races to continue, this almost to the point it seems were wet conditions are to be avoided and unwanted and when it does interfere then that's just bad luck and not tied to feats of heroic or dismal driving.

so when Hamilton said:

"We couldn't have expected this," said Hamilton. "Ferrari have been quickest all weekend. Then the heavens opened and it was fair game."

and Toto said:

"We were lucky with the weather," admitted Mercedes boss Toto Wolff. "In the dry we didn't have the pace."

because:

Mercedes had struggled in Friday's heat when they overheated their tyres. But that characteristic of working the Pirelli tyres hard worked to the Silver Arrows' advantage around a sodden Hungaroring while Ferrari faltered.

you don't think luck has anything to do with it?

http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/ ... -take-pole

A Sky Sports article, Hughes also works for Sky Sports but you dismiss what he has to say, just finding opinions that are agreeable to you.

When Hamilton says fair game that means now we have a chance which often can be the case when it rains which is why it's called a leveler, like he did at the start of the wet race in Singapore last year, Red Bull constantly ask for the rain and when it comes and the likes of Verstappen excels I never see the word luck come into play.

Back in 2014 in wet qualifying Vettel nearly out qualified Hamilton's dominant Mercedes, if Vettel had got pole I doubt the word luck would have come into play, more so I would say plaudits would have rained down on Vettel and how he out performed Hamilton's superior car.

All of a sudden such things become a matter of luck, Vettel skates off on a wet track into a barrier and he was unlucky, Hamilton gets pole only because it rained and he's lucky, if the roles were reversed would we be talking about luck or giving praise to Vettel at the expense of Hamilton, I'm thinking the latter?

Hamilton was lucky and good and Vettel was unlucky and bad in Hungary qualifying.

As for Germany, Vettel wasn't unlucky but instead was just bad... bad enough to ruin his race in one instant.

Zoue wrote:

dompclarke wrote:

Zoue wrote:

dompclarke wrote:

Zoue wrote: yeah it's what I've been saying all along. It's not an insult to acknowledge that it was fortunate the rain provided the opportunity Hamilton would otherwise have been denied. He did well to seize it with both hands, but that's another story

Through a season we have to expect rain in qualifying at some point so drivers and teams should be able to deal with it. Rain was forecast so the teams and drivers were prepared.
If it hadn't rained and Vettel had made pole would people be saying he was fortunate or lucky? I doubt it...

Just as if Vettel had made pole in the dry, Hamiltons pole was a result of good work by the team and driver dealing with the hand that was dealt.

I think you are also missing the point. It's not about who was prepared or not. It's not about anybody's abilities or preparation. The luck is in the fact that it seemed that nothing bar rain was going to let Mercedes get near the front in qualifying, as they were struggling mightily. And lo and behold, rain came in the exact moment that they needed it, just before Q3, to give them a chance. That's the luck element, not how good/bad the drivers were.

I get your point, I disagree with it is all

It baffles me how it can be disagreed with. When just about every pundit and driver involved says that it was fortunate that rain came down when it did, it's beyond me that it could even be a question.

If rain had happened just 20 minutes later, it would likely have been a Ferrari pole. Only the perfect circumstance of rain falling in Q3 only (let's face it, Q2 was much lighter) gave Mercedes a chance. And it was a complete fluke that Mercedes' handling problems in the dry, which they readily admitted to, disappeared with the rain. Nobody planned for that.

mikeyg123 wrote:If Hamilton is lucky when it rains is Vettel, or any of his competitors who are not as good in the wet, lucky everytime it stays dry?

Zoue wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:If Hamilton is lucky when it rains is Vettel, or any of his competitors who are not as good in the wet, lucky everytime it stays dry?

Hamilton isn't lucky every time it rains, though

Zoue wrote:

dompclarke wrote:

Zoue wrote:

dompclarke wrote:

Zoue wrote: I get your point, I disagree with it is all

It baffles me how it can be disagreed with. When just about every pundit and driver involved says that it was fortunate that rain came down when it did, it's beyond me that it could even be a question.

If rain had happened just 20 minutes later, it would likely have been a Ferrari pole. Only the perfect circumstance of rain falling in Q3 only (let's face it, Q2 was much lighter) gave Mercedes a chance. And it was a complete fluke that Mercedes' handling problems in the dry, which they readily admitted to, disappeared with the rain. Nobody planned for that.

If Q3 had been variable conditions where timing of runs was crucial to lap time I'd agree luck may play a part, had a driver gone off causing a red flag to the detriment of one driver again luck/fortune comes into it. As it was it was a predictable session for the teams to work with so comes down to how well the team/driver deal with it as far as I'm concerned.

Had it been raining throughout Q1, 2 and 3 with the same result I'm sure luck would still be the cause to many....

If a car is at a disadvantage in the dry, but rain allows it to compete, you don't consider it fortunate for them that it does rain? Strange

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:If Hamilton is lucky when it rains is Vettel, or any of his competitors who are not as good in the wet, lucky everytime it stays dry?

No, because it being dry is the default state.

However, arguably they are already lucky to be in a car capable of pole, so...

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: I don't know why I bother but I'll give it a shot

It's truly remarkable how you see anything other than unconditional praise as an attack on Hamilton. The point being made is that he was fortunate the rain came down when it did because it negated Ferrari's advantage at a crucial moment, when they looked to have pole sewn up. He's admitted it, Toto's admitted it, Mark Hughes has stated it, as have a myriad other pundits. I don't think there's a single alternative professional opinion on that. Heck, you've even admitted it's a leveller, but somehow describing it as luck is a step too far? It never ceases to amaze how you can take issue with even the most innocuous of statements where Hamilton is involved.

You really need to lighten up and stop taking issue with absolutely everything where Hamilton is concerned. He had a car disadvantage in the dry, but that disappeared in the wet. It's not an insult to say that was good fortune. Of course, he still had to seize his chance and drove well to get the pole, but the point being made is only that he got that chance in the first place. The rain was brief and came at exactly the right time. How is that not fortunate?

Hamilton is fortunate that every time it rains he seems to do well, this is the first time that I've seen drivers doing well in the wet stuck with the label LUCKY.

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:If Hamilton is lucky when it rains is Vettel, or any of his competitors who are not as good in the wet, lucky everytime it stays dry?

No, because it being dry is the default state.

However, arguably they are already lucky to be in a car capable of pole, so...

Does the temperature have a default state as well?

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

dompclarke wrote:

Zoue wrote:

dompclarke wrote: It baffles me how it can be disagreed with. When just about every pundit and driver involved says that it was fortunate that rain came down when it did, it's beyond me that it could even be a question.

If rain had happened just 20 minutes later, it would likely have been a Ferrari pole. Only the perfect circumstance of rain falling in Q3 only (let's face it, Q2 was much lighter) gave Mercedes a chance. And it was a complete fluke that Mercedes' handling problems in the dry, which they readily admitted to, disappeared with the rain. Nobody planned for that.

If Q3 had been variable conditions where timing of runs was crucial to lap time I'd agree luck may play a part, had a driver gone off causing a red flag to the detriment of one driver again luck/fortune comes into it. As it was it was a predictable session for the teams to work with so comes down to how well the team/driver deal with it as far as I'm concerned.

Had it been raining throughout Q1, 2 and 3 with the same result I'm sure luck would still be the cause to many....

If a car is at a disadvantage in the dry, but rain allows it to compete, you don't consider it fortunate for them that it does rain? Strange

Not being able to drive in the rain is a weakness not bad luck, it's all part of a drivers CV, if Hamilton had been driving the Ferrari then this might not have even been a debate?

I raced for may years, not the best wet weather driver, if ever I had a race result worsened because of rain I never felt I'd been unlucky, I put it on myself, I just don't understand the concept of luck because it rained, Senna was never called lucky because it rained and improved his result, I just don't understand an ability that was once marveled at is now getting bracketed into the luck department.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:If Hamilton is lucky when it rains is Vettel, or any of his competitors who are not as good in the wet, lucky everytime it stays dry?

Hamilton isn't lucky every time it rains, though

Just about 90% of the time, I see it's still labelled as luck though.

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:If Hamilton is lucky when it rains is Vettel, or any of his competitors who are not as good in the wet, lucky everytime it stays dry?

Nail on the head.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:If Hamilton is lucky when it rains is Vettel, or any of his competitors who are not as good in the wet, lucky everytime it stays dry?

Nail on the head.

not even close

Laz_T800 wrote:What is all this negative stuff doing in the Official thread.
Gotta be better places for discussing Hamiltons luck, as opposed to his driver skill, than this.

sandman1347 wrote:

Laz_T800 wrote:What is all this negative stuff doing in the Official thread.
Gotta be better places for discussing Hamiltons luck, as opposed to his driver skill, than this.

It's the same people; Zoue, Siao7, KingVoid, etc. They are apparently quite bothered by Hamilton's success and will perform all manner of mental gymnastics to try to discredit or dampen it.

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Laz_T800 wrote:What is all this negative stuff doing in the Official thread.
Gotta be better places for discussing Hamiltons luck, as opposed to his driver skill, than this.

It's the same people; Zoue, Siao7, KingVoid, etc. They are apparently quite bothered by Hamilton's success and will perform all manner of mental gymnastics to try to discredit or dampen it.

what a load of nonsense. Nothing I have written here diminishes Hamilton's driving in any way whatsoever. I even said he did well to seize the opportunity with both hands.

This whole thing started from a discussion I was having with pokerman about Ferrari looking to have the slower car and me saying circumstance played a part in the results from the last two races. It's only people like you who see anything other than unmitigated praise as somehow diminishing the driver. It takes a special kind of paranoia to reach that conclusion.

Even Toto stated Mercedes were lucky in qualifying on Saturday. Strange I haven't seen that much condemnation of him. Hamilton's not normally shy when he perceives he's been insulted, so if he doesn't think it diminishes him to say it, why should you?