Champions

It seems I start threads on nice round numbers of mesages (200). Inclined by several threads on this forum and not so rare comments on RC, using FORIX data I composed a small table containing a comparison of 4 drivers (sorry, I couldn't resist including Moss:)). I don't think it needs explanations, save few: second columns contain averages (usualy per Races, except Races/Seasons, SC Pts/Seasons, Laps and km Led per Laps and km Raced rescpectively). Last three rows are averages I made out.
These averages are based upon number of races which were not ended with equippment failure or DQ (thus number of shunts and collisions does reduce average). Thus it was intended to eliminate equippment unreliability from the equation supposedly reflecting drivers performance.
So, do these number mean anything? Of course, there are some differences in respect to driving 15 laps on old 'Ring in Lotus 18 and 40ish laps on Hungaroring in 2000 spec McLaren, but they cannot be represented by such statistics.

	   |S.Moss		 |J.M.Fangio	 |M.Hakkinen	 |M.Schumacher   |

Seasons|11	 |	   |9	  |	   |10			 |10			 |

Races  |67	 |6.09   |51	 |5.67   |146	|14.60	|144	|14.40  |

Starts |66	 |98.5%  |51	 |100.0% |143	|97.9%	|142	|98.6%  |

DNQ	|0	  |0.0%   |0	  |0.0%   |2	  |1.4%	|0	  |0.0%   |

Wins   |16	 |23.9%  |24	 |47.1%  |18	 |12.3%	|43	 |29.9%  |

Podiums|24	 |35.8%  |35	 |68.6%  |47	 |32.2%	|82	 |56.9%  |

DNF	|36	 |53.7%  |11	 |21.6%  |53	 |36.3%	|43	 |29.9%  |

 >Accid|2	  |3.0%   |0	  |0.0%   |15	 |10.3%	|18	 |12.5%  |

 >DQ   |2	  |3.0%   |0	  |0.0%   |1	  |0.7%	|2	  |1.4%   |

Poles  |16	 |23.9%  |29	 |56.9%  |26	 |17.8%	|31	 |21.5%  |

F.Rows |37	 |55.2%  |48	 |94.1%  |34	 |23.3%	|58	 |40.3%  |

FL	 |19	 |28.4%  |23	 |45.1%  |20	 |13.7%	|41	 |28.5%  |

Laps R.|3380   |50.45  |3029   |59.39  |6921   |47.40	|7851   |54.52  |

km R.  |20265  |302.46 |20427  |400.53 |33014  |226.12	|35486  |246.43 |

GP Led |30	 |44.8%  |39	 |76.5%  |46	 |31.5%	|75	 |52.1%  |

Laps L.|1178   |34.9%  |1357   |44.8%  |1343   |19.4%	|2544   |32.4%  |

km Led |6163   |30.4%  |9398   |46.0%  |6460   |19.6%	|11691  |32.9%  |

Pts	|186.64 |2.786  |277.64 |5.444  |374	|2.562	|668	|4.639  |

SC Pts |36	 |3.273  |62	 |6.889  |32	 |3.200	|49	 |4.900  |

Avg.Pts|	5.333	  |	6.941	  |	3.431	  |	5.521	  |

Avg.Win|	45.7%	  |	60.0%	  |	16.5%	  |	35.5%	  |

Avg.Pol|	45.7%	  |	72.5%	  |	23.9%	  |	25.6%	  |

Your comments, s'il vouzs plait.

P.S. If table breaks apart, just copy this message and paste it into Notepad or something similar (I almost wrote 'MS Notepad', but thought it may sonfuse someone- 'Hey, what has Schumacher to do with Windows?')

There is little doubt there who was the most successful driver.
Moss' statistics are interesting too - more successful than his world championship placings might suggest.
But there are so many contributing factors - depth of quality in the fields etc. Statistics can be a guide but not necessarily the full story.
Mika Hakkinen, too, takes a severe penalty for loyalty, while sticking with McLaren through their bad years.

Perhaps what you say of Mika is true, but 2WDCs are not small reward.;) I've never been to great fan of his, but that recovery of oversteer in Spa has made me reconsider this. Anyway, I'd like to point out a difference in accidents statistics (in FORIX- spin-off, accident and collision) for drivers of different eras: 2(SCM)+0(JMF):16(MH)+18(MS) !

>>Mika Hakkinen, too, takes a severe penalty for loyalty, while sticking with McLaren through their bad years.

I suspect that the bad years w/ McLaren - while not producing wins during those years - helped Mika form the relationship with the team that allowed them to win two World Championships (and just barely miss another.) I think they were productive in a building sense.

Unless all that kind of stuff is overhyped...you would know better than me...

Dave

My humble opinion on the subject of "averages" is that they aren't very useful when it comes to driver evaluation. Take, e.g., the driver with the best WC points per race ratio and you will find that barely anyone knows him. BTW, it's George Amick from Oregon state in the US of A, and while he's certainly been a great racer he can hardly be considered as the best of all time! Or would Giancarlo Baghetti have been a better choice if he'd decided to quit the sport in July of 1961... ?

What averages do is to punish those who stay in the game longer than their competitive spirit is at their very best, but to me that is more of a sign that these guys love what they're doing and want to give something back to their fans. Consider Mario Andretti or A.J. Foyt, both of whom could've easily called it a day more than 20 years ago. Yet they raced on for many years and gave their wins to races ratio a big tumble by doing so, but their outstanding deeds of the sixties and seventies remain unrivalled, don't they?

As for Mika Häkkinen, his formative years in the Lotus team are surely responsible for his bad averages, yet that's still better than not racing at all! Might be wrong on this, after all...

In the case of Fangio, people often forget that when the championship started he was a mature driver and that he had the best car. He continued to have one of the best cars throughout is career. What would be the affect on his starts:wins ratio if you included his first two seasons? Or Moss' if you only calculated from 1956?

It would be unfair to start counting Moss from 56, for he was in a top team in 55, and the latter half of 54 he was driving works cars... led Fangio at Monza, for instance.

Dave is right that Hakkinen's loyalty to McLaren in the bad times did pay off eventually (imagine if Amon had stuck with Ferrari?). Fines also that Mika's time in the uncompetitive Lotus at least got his foot in the door. But it does show that averages aren't the final answer. Michael Schumacher, for example, has never been with a really off the pace team since he landed in F1 (as was the case with Fangio).
But it is an interesting exercise. It does put some perspective on it all.
The number of "offs" is enlightening. I have often meant to look at this as a statistic. Gravel traps, run-off areas and extremely safe modern cars account for this. In the 1950s you wouldn't have survived that many excursions.
The safer they make the cars and tracks, the closer to the edge (or the further over their limit?) the drivers will drive.

Are spins accounted for? That would be interesting.

Well, DNF rubric has Accidents included, wich, I belive to have mentioned earlier, contains spin-offs, collisions and accidents (Moss has two accidents, no spin-offs, Fangio has neither!). My averages (last three rows), are based upon races that have not been ended by virtue of car failure- to emphasize driver's aspect (although I can't find a way to account for competitivenes of the car, which is IMHO impossible- ask anyone on RC or TF which car is better 2000 spec. Mclaren or Ferrarri:)!). That's why Moss' averages are in my section boosted! Hip, hip hooray for me! My next post shall contain further four profiles, and a few rankings based upon them. As for accuracy (and MS points), I've used FORIX data (pertaining points- total amount). I can be held responsible for DNF, accidents and DQ stats which I extracted from their FORIX records (I wouldn't be very surprised if I messed up something, albeit I tried not to). And there's the issue of shared drives, perhaps I should've counted them as non-technical caused DNFs. Any suggestions?

I've devided to add statistics for four more great ones.

	   |J.Clark		  |J.Y.Stewart   |A.Prost	   |A.Senna	   |

Seasons|9	 |		  |9	 |	   |13	|	   |11	|	   |

GP	 |73	|8.11   |100   |11.11  |202   |15.54  |162   |14.73  |

Starts |72	|98.6%  |99	|99.0%  |199   |98.5%  |161   |99.4%  |

DNQ	|0	 |0.0%   |0	 |0.0%   |0	 |0.0%   |1	 |0.6%   |

Wins   |25	|34.2%  |27	|27.0%  |51	|25.2%  |41	|25.3%  |

Podiums|32	|43.8%  |43	|43.0%  |106   |52.5%  |80	|49.4%  |

DNF	|23	|31.5%  |36	|36.0%  |40	|19.8%  |53	|32.7%  |

 >Accid|2	 |2.7%   |3	 |3.0%   |19	|9.4%   |19	|11.7%  |

 >DQ   |0	 |0.0%   |0	 |0.0%   |2	 |1.0%   |3	 |1.9%   |

Poles  |33	|45.2%  |17	|17.0%  |33	|16.3%  |65	|40.1%  |

F.Rows |48	|65.8%  |42	|42.0%  |86	|42.6%  |87	|53.7%  |

FL	 |28	|38.4%  |15	|15.0%  |41	|20.3%  |19	|11.7%  |

Laps R.|3930  |53.84  |5222  |52.22  |10540 |52.18  |8219  |50.73  |

km R.  |21345 |292.40 |25824 |258.24 |48791 |241.54 |37940 |234.20 |

GPs L. |43	|58.9%  |51	|51.0%  |84	|41.6%  |86	|53.1%  |

Laps L.|1947  |49.5%  |1919  |36.7%  |2684  |25.5%  |2986  |36.3%  |

km L.  |10137 |47.5%  |9183  |35.6%  |12479 |25.6%  |13675 |36.0%  |

Points |274   |3.753  |360   |3.600  |798.5 |3.953  |614   |3.790  |

SC Pts |35	|3.889  |48	|5.333  |72	|5.538  |55	|5.000  |

Avg.Pts|	5.269	 |	5.373	 |	 4.363	|	4.687	 |

Avg.Win|	48.1%	 |	40.3%	 |	 27.9%	|	31.3%	 |

Avg.Pol|	63.5%	 |	25.4%	 |	 18.0%	|	49.6%	 |

So, with eight of them around we can do some sorting. As references I've taken wins, average wins (WA1), corrected average wins (WA2), points, average points (PA1), corrected average points (PA2), SuperC'ship points (SCP), corrected SuperC'ship points (SP1), and correction factor (Cor). I've previously discussed correction factor which (to my great joy, but not introduced with that intention) improves Moss' statistics a lot (1.914) and helps Prost at least (1.104).

  |Win|WA1|WA2|Pts|PA1|PA2|SCP|SP1|Cor|

1.|AP |JMF|JMF|AP |JMF|JMF|AP |AP |SCM|

2.|MS |JC |JC |MS |MS |MS |JMF|JMF|JYS|

3.|AS |MS |SCM|AS |AP |JYS|AS |JYS|JC |

4.|JYS|JYS|JYS|MH |AS |SCM|MS |SCM|MH |

5.|JC |AS |MS |JYS|JC |JS |JYS|AS |JMF|

6.|JMF|AP |AS |JMF|JYS|AS |SCM|MS |AS |

7.|MH |SCM|AP |JC |SCM|AP |JC |JC |MS |

8.|SCM|MH |MH |SCM|MH |MH |MH |MH |AP |

Moss indeed did have spins.. this is the point I am making. He certainly spun in the Portugese (or was it Spanish) GP of 1960, but got going again.
Here's the rub... you don't record them unless they retire. So what about 'innocent' spins?
In this case, Moss rolled down the circuit against the direction of traffic to clutch start the car and was disqualified.

And it was flamin' hipocrisy if I've ever seen one (or to be more accurate -'been born after':)). As I recall, Hawthorn spun-off at the very same spot, and did push start using same method. He wasn't DQ-d, thanks to Moss.
To get back on the subject, innocent spins shouldn't count, I guess. If driver recovered, it due to his skills (Spa '00, for example), or the margin of error was tiny (otherwise, esspecialy in old days, when spin-off zones were non-existent, if not made of trees, recovery would be impossible). Anyway I offered no absolutes- let's take engine failures for example. Nowdays there are, I suppose, rev limiters, protecting engines. In the old days there were no such things, one could hypotetically shift down, instead of shifting up, thus overreving the machine, which would, most probably, show as engine failure in stats. A type of mistake which would favour old drivers. For arguments sake I could say that if driver made x unrecoverable accidents, he would have y recoverable (y being greater than x). But driver having less x would, presumably, have proportionaly less y (or even less); thus making that point fairly irrelevant.
Care to comment on rankings Ray? Especcialy on my averages- I swear I didn't try to make Moss look better, just turned out so (most his DNFs were due to machinery). Seeing Fangio's record- no accidents, and recollecting him having a major spin-off at Monza ('51, if I'm not mistaken), resulting in a broken neck, I'm led to conclude it was non-championship race. Am I correct?

We covered this a week or so ago, but I don't remember which thread it was on... I am a real Moss fan, actually, and a devotee of his books, so you don't have to convince me about him.
The real irony with that disqualification was that Moss had urged Hawthorn to do it... says in a book that he stopped and told him to turn the car around because he'd never get it going uphill... and then stood up for him later. The point Hawthorn gained thus won him the title...
But then, this must mean it happened to Moss in 1959, because I'm sure it was the following year he spun... no, not so, I've had that mixed up in my mind, it was definitely in the Lotus 18.
There weren't many of them around in 1959....
Frankly, I'm too sick to really analyse the statistics.

I know what you mean (if sick does not mean really sick, as in ill)- when I wrote the stats it looked so nice and all, but after reading your message I took a second glance at them and they look like a bunch of numbers- meaningless and dry (frankly, it almost gave me the headache looking at them). And I'm no great fan of stats eithe- here we have the saying 'if half the people are eating meat, and half are eating cabbage, statisticaly everybody is eating a stuffed cabbage rolls (considered a winter-time favourite meal in our parts)'.

Well, cabbage never passes my lips. Ever.

So there must be two men around eating cabbage for us; to make stats right (I'm strictly carnivore except for potatos, rice and wheat - latter three being mostly in solid state, but I don't object to liquid derrivates either).

Every time a topic like this gets going I have rummage around for my Cream CD, "Disreali Gears" for some reason...

...perhaps because as the great Disreali is refuted to have muttered: "There are Lies; damn lies; and, Statistics..."

I still have the sampler my wife did of that witticism for hanging in my office when I taught at The Citadel many, many seasons ago.

Wolfie, statistics only go so far and often miss the essence of many a driver's time in The Show. Today, the statistics & race data are all over the place and almost too abundant. Many of us had to laboriously piece their data together the old fashioned way: a race at a time...

While certain drivers don't shine in the stats, I still think highly of them. Folks like Stefan Bellof, Dan Gurney, Maurice Trintignant, Froilan Gonzalez (what a guy!), Peter Arundell -- until his huge accident at Reims, and even some like Phil Hill, Mike Hawthorn, and Keke Rosberg. Look at the stats and you don't see the driver as he really was.

However, you do need some data to work with so as to assemble the record.

You mention Phil Hill in that lot... it's only recently that I've come to appreciate his skills. I saw him run in three races only, including his last open-wheeler race, the one that he says was the best race he ever drove.
I agree. Must get on with the story about it... where the hell's Peter Bakalor with his lap chart?
Roger might be able to answer this... did Autosport carry lap charts of the Tasman races of 1965?
I desperately need the Longford chart from somewhere.
What a memory!

Don, I'm no research man and I do not hide it (yet, I'm no proud of it, either). Just went to FORIX and saw a lot of data, and thought if I could do some justice in this world (in this case making it a bit more driver oriented, or something to the same aim). That's speaking of last three rows in each table ('Wolf' averages), averages were done by the Quattro Pro. Yet, in any case, I shall try to claim my stats to be 'ultimate' or anything of the kind, just tried to improve them. Moss got a big boost (not intentionaly, but I was glad of it).
There are many things still to account for, and I hope they shall never be accounted for- because then the driving could be reduced to mere numbers. I'm an engineer to be, yet the mere thought disturbes me. How could one account for courage, drivers instinct, &c in numbers? As I see it, racing is a interaction between flesh and aluminum (or whatever), between spirit and muscles; a struggle to go faster, staking your life you can do it- how could that be encompassed in one number?

This is all an alchemy that defies easy or even rational explanation, but when you feel it, it is Obvious to even the Untrained Eye...

The greatest exponent of this sort of thing was Greg Cusack.

As for Phil Hill, was Moss right about him (personal differences aside, '58 title, if they even clouded Moss' judgment) that he lacked 'killer instinct' neccessary for GP racing, but which lack made him extremly suitable for sport-cars races (long distsnce)?

Perhaps he only tigered occasionally, but I was fortunate enough to see him on a good day. And what a day... have you previously read any posts I have done about this race?
120 miles with five drivers, four of them World Champions, the other twice a runner up, all of them had a turn in fourth place and in second place, but only Brabham and McLaren had the lead. The lap record going down lap after lap... McLaren, Brabham, Hill (P) as they slipstreamed each other down Tannery Straight between the trees and the hedges, or along the flying mile, with the open paddocks to each side. Maneouvring across the Long Bridge, with the divers waiting in case they made a mistake, carefully changing gear over the railway crossing to protect the gearboxes, but thrashing it out in a manner I have never seen anywhere else.
The circuit, it turns out, reminded Hill of some of the old road courses he ran on in the early fifties in America. Driving the fastest open wheeler he ever drove on a circuit like that he'd left behind twenty years before... but the surface was magnificent.
That day he had some of the right instincts...

Do you have to remind me that there were more fortunate times for GP fan than today, watching a race from XY on a telly, and a dull race, of course? Snif, snif, and a whine.
I better start worrying abot my biorythm, interacting with Aussies over the Net; but I'll be reminded of that fact (being 04:+ hrs at the time) when I get up tomorrow (I have to find a fairest possible price for spare parts for my car- something's gone bad again, and it requires some wandering about).

Suffer...
No, seriously, I look back and consider myself quite privileged. Those Tasman races, the F5000 era, the circuits I've seen and the drivers I've seen.
Even the one European GP I attended (Monaco 81) was a great race...