Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 7 votes

Top 20 Greatest F1 Drivers of all time - BBC list [split]


  • Please log in to reply
1662 replies to this topic

#1601 DUCKTOWN

DUCKTOWN
  • New Member

  • 15 posts
  • Joined: November 12

Posted 03 December 2012 - 20:40

What opinion?

I just made clear that the +50sec lead wasn´t representative for the pace, which your statement seemed to suggest. That´s it.



I was responding to some people who said


"But in the Monaco 88 **race** Prost was with excellent race pace, started setting fastest laps (faster than Senna by more than 2sec a lap if i remember well) on his way to catching Senna, Ayrton took Prost's bait and increased his lap pace until he crashed out."


Implying that:


a) Alain was catching Ayrton

Not true


b) Alains race pace was excelent

Not true, after Prost overtook Berger on lap 56, the gap increased 7 seconds till lap 66 when Ayrton made a mistake (just checked it went from 47 seconds to 54 seconds on lap 66). It means Ayrton was more than one second per lap faster than Alain when Berger was in front of him and 0.7 seconds faster per lap when Alain was pushing hard and " catching Ayrton..."


Your point about Prost beeing stuck behind Berger for 50 laps or so, means exactly what?

Have you checked the lap times after Alain overtook Berger and "was setting fastest laps " according to another poster or you didn´t feel the need to make it clear?

In your opinion, that 0,7 seconds per lap is representative of their respectives race pace? Would you consider maybe Ayrton was not pushing as hard as possible as Alain was almost one lap down?



Edited by DUCKTOWN, 03 December 2012 - 20:52.


Advertisement

#1602 garoidb

garoidb
  • Member

  • 3,663 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 03 December 2012 - 20:54

I think it's largely speculation that anything Prost did affected Ayrton in that race. It could just as easily be that he just lost focus, because he really was under no pressure.


OK then, the problem is Ayrton crashed.

#1603 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,279 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 03 December 2012 - 21:09

OK then, the problem is Ayrton crashed.


Yeah, that's a problem most of the time. :)

Senna made a race ending error, Prost was there to benefit, fair game. But a far cry from those stories how Prost pressured Senna into a mistake, form half a lap behind. :drunk:

Funnily enough, there is quite a bit of folklore about there two years together, how every time Senna retied form the lead, Prost had it all worked out in advance with some cunning plan. Most of that originates from Nigel Roebuck, who pretty much worked as Prosts press officer at that time.

#1604 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 03 December 2012 - 21:11

Your point about Prost beeing stuck behind Berger for 50 laps or so, means exactly what?


It means exactly, what i already said in my previous post....that we can´t deduce anything from the driver´s respective pace for the first ~50 laps as Prost was held up (and also little after that btw. as the postions were completely settled).
You mentioned the 50sec gap as it would´ve been representative for something, but it wasn´t.
That doesn´t mean that i think, Prost was faster. I never implied that...not in the slightest.

Edited by LiJu914, 03 December 2012 - 21:12.


#1605 hogstar

hogstar
  • Member

  • 182 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 03 December 2012 - 22:48

7xWDC, 91 GP wins, 69 pole positions, 155 podiums and 77 fastest laps. Won 2 WDCs, could have taken the easy way out but decided to revitalise the oldest and grandest F1 team. Senna try that? Nah-huh, jumped ship once the going got tough. Prost try that? Nah-huh. And he cameback, albeit he didn't return to his former heights, but he still proved that he was still up there with the best at the age of 43. The man who brought us Catalunya '96 and Brazil '06. Greatest ever F1 driver. Michael Schumacher

Thank you and goodnight.



Although I'm not a huge Schumacher fan, you can't really argue with most of the above and IMO took F1 to a higher level. Senna's death robbed us of him battling out with Schumi for a few seasons in what I would of seen as Senna getting increasingly bitter that he wasn't necessarily the fastest anymore. It would of been impossible for them to be in the same team and would of made Senna's days with Prost at McLaren seem like a love affair.

While both drivers have similarities, the main difference between them is that Michael is just a 'normal' guy, while Ayrton was too emotional, too obsessive and I think that was his biggest flaw which is one reason why I would never have Senna at the top and would have Schumacher above him every time. I would place Senna no higher than 5th, with Schumacher, Stewart, Prost and Lauda all above him. F1 followers of a certain age will concur that Senna is held is much higher regard compared to when he was still alive, but in death, the myth becomes often the legend.




#1606 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 03 December 2012 - 23:03

Although I'm not a huge Schumacher fan, you can't really argue with most of the above and IMO took F1 to a higher level. Senna's death robbed us of him battling out with Schumi for a few seasons in what I would of seen as Senna getting increasingly bitter that he wasn't necessarily the fastest anymore. It would of been impossible for them to be in the same team and would of made Senna's days with Prost at McLaren seem like a love affair.

While both drivers have similarities, the main difference between them is that Michael is just a 'normal' guy, while Ayrton was too emotional, too obsessive and I think that was his biggest flaw which is one reason why I would never have Senna at the top and would have Schumacher above him every time. I would place Senna no higher than 5th, with Schumacher, Stewart, Prost and Lauda all above him. F1 followers of a certain age will concur that Senna is held is much higher regard compared to when he was still alive, but in death, the myth becomes often the legend.


This list isn't based solely on statistics.

If it were, they would not have placed Gilles Villeneuve ahead of a few multiple world champions.

There were other factors that came into this list, and I'm afraid for as evident as it should be, it's been missed by a ton of people here.

But you know what's funny, is that Gilles Villeneuve had many of the same qualities as Senna --emotional, obsessive-- and there is nary not a word from anyone here about it. Also, Senna was by far smarter and more calculating than I think people also realize. There's this misnomer he drover 10/10ths every single race of his career, which he did not. Monaco 1988 was a tremendous learning experience for him, and as I mentioned, he never lost a race at that circuit again.

#1607 DUCKTOWN

DUCKTOWN
  • New Member

  • 15 posts
  • Joined: November 12

Posted 04 December 2012 - 00:15

[quote name='hogstar' date='Dec 3 2012, 20:48' post='6062940']
Although I'm not a huge Schumacher fan, you can't really argue with most of the above and IMO took F1 to a higher level. Senna's death robbed us of him battling out with Schumi for a few seasons in what I would of seen as Senna getting increasingly bitter that he wasn't necessarily the fastest anymore. It would of been impossible for them to be in the same team and would of made Senna's days with Prost at McLaren seem like a love affair.



A huge mistake here.

Senna´s entry in F1 and it s impact in F1 was so huge so enormous, you should have known better why. He was nothing but a genius in his pre F1 career. Although was not 100% certain he would be such a phenomenon when compared to the really big guys, there was a massive expectation around his performances and speed. It took five races to be considered one of the fastest guy to ever drive a F1 car. Five races.

After his first year driving a Toleman - i wonder how Michael´s fans would rate that car..., finally Ayrton had a good car.

Not the best one at all, but a decent car. In his second race for Lotus he lapped everyone but one driver. The competition was incredible and there was no driver who could blame a mechanical problem a bad strategy or bad luck. Senna was simply the most skilled driver ever.

Michael Schumacher had his chances to do the same. He drove a winning car since his first race (Andrea de Cesaris was about to win Spa 1991). Driving a Benneton (a car able to win races that year) Michael was outscored by a very old Nelson P, we must recognize he was racing at the same level as the old 3WDC.

If you belong to that group of people that think old Michael has lost a lot since his comeback, and considering Nelson was an old playboy, Michael´s performance in 1991 doesn´t say much about his skills, at least not as much as Senna driving a Toleman.


In 1992, Michael´s first win was also way diferent than Senna´s diferent. He was lapping as fast as his teamate until he spun. No faster no slower. The same race pace. No similarities with Ayrton´s greatness and superiority.

Michael was a great driver but not in Senna´s league at all. Prost was the one closer to Ayrton, but boy...there was a huge dif between these two drivers.

Don´t fool yourself. Fangio, Prost, Lauda, Moss, Michael, Alonso and almost every single F1 driver know a thing or two you don´t.

Senna was the greatest ever.

Edited by DUCKTOWN, 04 December 2012 - 02:09.


#1608 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 04 December 2012 - 01:51

A huge mistake here.

Senna´s entry in F1 and it s impact in F1 was so huge so enormous, you should have known better why. He was nothing but a genius in his pre F1 career. Although was not 100% certain he would be such a phenomenon when compared to the really big guys, there was a massive expectation around his performances and speed. It took five races to be considered one of the fastest guy to ever drive a F1 car. Five races.

After his first year driving a Toleman - i wonder how Michael´s fans would rate that car..., finally Ayrton had a good car.

Not the best one at all, but a decent car. In his second race for Lotus he lapped everyone but one driver. The competition was incredible and there was no driver who could blame a mechanical problem a bad strategy or bad luck. Senna was simply the most skilled driver ever.

Michael Schumacher had his chances to do the same. He drove a winning car since his first race (Andrea de Cesaris was about to win Spa 1990). Driving a Benneton (a car able to win races that year) Michael was outscored by a very old Nelson P, we must recognize he was racing at the same level as the old 3WDC.

If you belong to that group of people that think old Michael has lost a lot since his comeback, and considering Nelson was an old playboy, Michael´s performance in 1990 doesn´t say much about his skills, at least not as much as Senna driving a Toleman.


In 1991, Michael´s first win was also way diferent than Senna´s diferent. He was lapping as fast as his teamate until he spun. No faster no slower. The same race pace. No similarities with Ayrton´s greatness and superiority.

Michael was a great driver but not in Senna´s league at all. Prost was the one closer to Ayrton, but boy...there was a huge dif between these two drivers.

Don´t fool yourself. Fangio, Prost, Lauda, Moss, Michael, Alonso and almost every single F1 driver know a thing or two you don´t.

Senna was the greatest ever.


After getting so many things wrong, please stop pretending that you actually visited the 88 Monaco GP.

#1609 DUCKTOWN

DUCKTOWN
  • New Member

  • 15 posts
  • Joined: November 12

Posted 04 December 2012 - 02:05

It means exactly, what i already said in my previous post....that we can´t deduce anything from the driver´s respective pace for the first ~50 laps as Prost was held up (and also little after that btw. as the postions were completely settled).
You mentioned the 50sec gap as it would´ve been representative for something, but it wasn´t.
That doesn´t mean that i think, Prost was faster. I never implied that...not in the slightest.



We can´t deduce their pace after qualifying. Senna was 1.4 seconds faster in quali
We can´t deduce their race pace for the first 56 laps because Prost was stuck behind Berger. Senna was some 0.8 seconds per lap faster
We can´t deduce their race pace AFTER Prost overtook Berger because the positions were completelly sttled. Senna was 0.7 seconds per lap faster


Such a clear agenda.


But hey, Prost had a fantastic race pace and was catching Senna!

Edited by DUCKTOWN, 04 December 2012 - 02:09.


#1610 DUCKTOWN

DUCKTOWN
  • New Member

  • 15 posts
  • Joined: November 12

Posted 04 December 2012 - 02:08

After getting so many things wrong, please stop pretending that you actually visited the 88 Monaco GP.



1991, not 1990. So many things wrong!


Prost was catching Senna...

#1611 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 04 December 2012 - 02:16

Such a clar agenda.


Yeah of course i have to push the reputation of my darling Alain...like i did here (e.g.) :

In my book Alain Prost never beat Senna. It´s more that his car-reliability did. Even (e.g.) Berger would´ve finish ahead of Senna in 1989, if he would´ve been in Prosts position - and also Mansell´s huge retirement-rate in 1990 was a big help to look comfortably ahead on paper (even though i think Prost would´ve been still ahead without that)
3rd - Damon Hill was a rookie and after he got some race experience, he outscored Prost in the 2nd half of 1993 despite retiring from the lead in Silverstone and Hockenheim


Just because i´m not delusionally biased towards Senna, doesn´t mean that i loathe him.

And stop putting words in my mouth please.

Edited by LiJu914, 04 December 2012 - 02:17.


#1612 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 04 December 2012 - 02:22

1991, not 1990. So many things wrong!


The funniest part was actually this:

It took five races to be considered one of the fastest guy to ever drive a F1 car.



#1613 DUCKTOWN

DUCKTOWN
  • New Member

  • 15 posts
  • Joined: November 12

Posted 04 December 2012 - 02:29

You know that Prost was stuck behind Berger for 50 laps or so, right?



This was the funniest part, c´mon!


As if after Prost overtook Berger, the hunt began...

#1614 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 04 December 2012 - 02:34

This was the funniest part, c´mon!


That is just an undeniable fact, but you have obviously a problem with it.

As if after Prost overtook Berger, the hunt began...


Good, that i never said that, but you´re obviously mentally unable to understand that. :)

Edited by LiJu914, 04 December 2012 - 02:34.


#1615 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,338 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 04 December 2012 - 04:30

Although I'm not a huge Schumacher fan, you can't really argue with most of the above and IMO took F1 to a higher level. Senna's death robbed us of him battling out with Schumi for a few seasons in what I would of seen as Senna getting increasingly bitter that he wasn't necessarily the fastest anymore. It would of been impossible for them to be in the same team and would of made Senna's days with Prost at McLaren seem like a love affair.

While both drivers have similarities, the main difference between them is that Michael is just a 'normal' guy, while Ayrton was too emotional, too obsessive and I think that was his biggest flaw which is one reason why I would never have Senna at the top and would have Schumacher above him every time. I would place Senna no higher than 5th, with Schumacher, Stewart, Prost and Lauda all above him. F1 followers of a certain age will concur that Senna is held is much higher regard compared to when he was still alive, but in death, the myth becomes often the legend.


That would have never happened given Ayrton's age. How long was his contract at Williams for? 2-3 years?

He wanted to go to Ferrari and retire there.

Schumacher certainly would have never gone to Ferrari.

#1616 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:08

This list isn't based solely on statistics.

If it were, they would not have placed Gilles Villeneuve ahead of a few multiple world champions.

There were other factors that came into this list, and I'm afraid for as evident as it should be, it's been missed by a ton of people here.

What are those other factors which show driver A is greater than driver B ? I did not seem to find it, you obviously did, can you please elaborate ?

But you know what's funny, is that Gilles Villeneuve had many of the same qualities as Senna --emotional, obsessive-- and there is nary not a word from anyone here about it. Also, Senna was by far smarter and more calculating than I think people also realize. There's this misnomer he drover 10/10ths every single race of his career, which he did not. Monaco 1988 was a tremendous learning experience for him, and as I mentioned, he never lost a race at that circuit again.

Gilles was always fair to his opponents, unlike Senna. And I dont remember him being emotionally unbalanced or threatening other drivers.

#1617 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 829 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 04 December 2012 - 13:22

What are those other factors which show driver A is greater than driver B ? I did not seem to find it, you obviously did, can you please elaborate ?

I like these.
Battle against teammates when both finished the races. (race pace)
Battle against teammates in qualifying. (one lap speed)
% of retirements when the driver was involved in accidents. Car failures are not included. (Capability to stay out of trouble and not make mistakes)

Senna
Finished ahead 84% of the time (against -- 32% Prost -- 31% Berger -- 11% Nakajima -- 10% de Angelis -- 16% Others)
Qualified ahead 89% of the time
12% of retirements

Schumacher
Finished ahead 74% of the time (against -- 40% Barrichello -- 21% Rosberg -- 16% Irvine -- 8% Massa -- 15% Others)
Qualified ahead 75% of the time
10% of retirements

#1618 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 04 December 2012 - 13:32

I like these.


Certainly interesting regarding how good driver X did against his teammates (even though i don´t think that a stat about joint race finishes draws a precise picture of each driver´s capabilites in the races), but it´s becoming more complex if you want to use this to compare two drivers, even if they never shared a single teammate - and even then it´s often hard enough to deduce reliabe assumptions from that, as many "paradoxa" appeared in such constellations (e.g. Villeneuve losing to Heidfeld and Hill, Frentzen winning against both, but losing against Villeneuve himself).

btw. I don´t think the Qualifying-systems from 2003 onwards (until 2010 perhaps, but the knock out system is still quite different) are comparable to the older systems.

Edited by LiJu914, 04 December 2012 - 13:43.


#1619 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 04 December 2012 - 14:11

What are those other factors which show driver A is greater than driver B ? I did not seem to find it, you obviously did, can you please elaborate ?


Gilles was always fair to his opponents, unlike Senna. And I dont remember him being emotionally unbalanced or threatening other drivers.


Spark,

How would you then explain why Gilles --who never won a championship-- was ranked higher than Nelson Piquet who was world champion 3 times? Or even Mika Hakkinen who was double world champion.

Here's the thing about Gilles...there were plenty of drivers who thought he was an absolute danger on the track. There wasn't an equally shared love by everyone. Yes he was loved by and large, but many drivers were critical of him in his day.

That should be the red light that statistics aren't the old measure in play here.

Were this list developed purely on statistics, then Schumacher would have to be first based on his numbers alone, followed by Fangio.

What was Senna's influence? How did he touch the fans? What are the memories of those who knew him personally? Those are the questions I would be asking if you are coming up with the list of "greatest" F1 driver.

Schumacher's influence was limited to just F1. Senna's influence stretched beyond F1. If you take Muhammad Ali as an example. He made his mark because of what he did in the ring, but that alone was not enough. It was the mark he had outside the ring. The true greats not only redefine how a sport is viewed, but they also make non-fans take notice. Ali, Jordan, Gretzky, Pele, Nicklaus, and Federer are all shining examples of this. That was also Senna. That's something Schumacher could ever achieve. There is no statistical equation that can measure their influence in and out of sport.

Advertisement

#1620 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 829 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 04 December 2012 - 14:27

Certainly interesting regarding how good driver X did against his teammates (even though i don´t think that a stat about joint race finishes draws a precise picture of each driver´s capabilites in the races), but it´s becoming more complex if you want to use this to compare two drivers, even if they never shared a single teammate - and even then it´s often hard enough to deduce reliabe assumptions from that, as many "paradoxa" appeared in such constellations (e.g. Villeneuve losing to Heidfeld and Hill, Frentzen winning against both, but losing against Villeneuve himself).

btw. I don´t think the Qualifying-systems from 2003 onwards (until 2010) are comparable to the older systems.

I agree, there is no perfect system, this one is one I like since it let me compare direct performance between teammates (to compare teammates it work 95% of the time better than the points system IMO). To compare drivers from different eras, I never found one good enough. This one is just as good as saying Schumacher is 7xWDC, 91 GP wins, 69 pole positions and so Schumacher is the best ever. We need to question what made it possible to come to the conclusion if he is or isn't the best ever. how long was Schumacher career? How many seasons he had a car capable of having a shot at the championship? how good was the competition he faced? What indicates a better driver, wining more or having a better percentage of wins? and so on...

Imagine the situation. Two drivers in a dominant car do 100 races in their careers. both wins 25 races. The conclusion seems simple, they are equals, after all they have same numbers and same % of wins. But when you look closer you see one raced in a period that he only finished 50 races duo to mechanicals problems, other raced in a period that he finished 90 races since reliability was not really a big deal? would you keep thinking they are just as good?

#1621 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 04 December 2012 - 14:53

@ Kyo

I didn´t want to imply, that one has to measure greatness by pure stats (and especially not pure absolute numbers ahead of relative ones).
I have no system. I just try to bear in mind every information, i have - as simple as it may sound (the result of that is anything else but simple of course, it´s rather extremly complex).
However, i think, there is no such thing like the GOAT (if that would be determined by each driver´s skills), no matter what approach one wants to take - which i already said, when i wrote my first post in here.
F1 is just too tech-dependent. Recently we seen several times how such tiny things like an engine mapping or an exhaust configuration can shift the balance between teammates. So how the hell is anyone supposed to know how well the current drivers or the ones of the 90s and 80s would´ve done in these tiny cigars of the 50s - vice versa?

I think one can only determine the greatness of drivers in their own era or overlapping eras at best - and that is already hard enough.

Ps. In absolute terms i have the belief, that the abilities of the individuals gradually improve over the decades, as we can witness in virtually every other sport...i don´t think F1 is an exception of that.
But even that has little relevance imho, as you can´t seriously blame Fangio, Coppi, Jesse Owens etc. for not being several decades ahead of their time.

Edited by LiJu914, 04 December 2012 - 15:04.


#1622 Wander

Wander
  • Member

  • 2,279 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 04 December 2012 - 15:12

Imagine the situation. Two drivers in a dominant car do 100 races in their careers. both wins 25 races. The conclusion seems simple, they are equals, after all they have same numbers and same % of wins. But when you look closer you see one raced in a period that he only finished 50 races duo to mechanicals problems, other raced in a period that he finished 90 races since reliability was not really a big deal? would you keep thinking they are just as good?


But this comparison becomes really difficult if the other driver's competition also suffered a lot from mechanical problems. It all evens things out to some extent. Even if driver A won half the races he finished, a big percentage of those might have been won just cause his team mate or any other rival car retired. To tie this into reality, in today's F1 you really do have to be the fastest car out there most of the time to win, cause cars rarely retire. Inherited wins still happen, but are not as frequent as they used to be right now. Of course new engine regulations might change that again, at least for a while.

Edited by Wander, 04 December 2012 - 15:13.


#1623 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 829 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 04 December 2012 - 15:25

@ Kyo

I didn´t want to imply, that one has to measure greatness by pure stats (and especially not pure absolute numbers ahead of relative ones).
I have no system. I just try to bear in mind every information, i have - as simple as it may sound (the result of that is anything else but simple of course, it´s rather extremly complex).
However, i think, there is no such thing like the GOAT (if that would be determined by each driver´s skills), no matter what approach one wants to take - which i already said, when i wrote my first post in here.
F1 is just too tech-dependent. Recently we seen several times how such tiny things like an engine mapping or an exhaust configuration can shift the balance between teammates. So how the hell is anyone supposed to know how well the current drivers or the ones of the 90s and 80s would´ve done in these tiny cigars of the 50s - vice versa?

I think one can only determine the greatness of drivers in their own era or overlapping eras at best - and that is already hard enough.

Ps. In absolute terms i have the belief, that the abilities of the individuals gradually improve over the decades, as we can witness in virtually every other sport...i don´t think F1 is an exception of that.
But even that has little relevance imho, as you can´t seriously blame Fangio, Coppi, Jesse Owens etc. for not being several decades ahead of their time.

I have a similar opinion! :up:

#1624 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 829 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 04 December 2012 - 15:53

But this comparison becomes really difficult if the other driver's competition also suffered a lot from mechanical problems. It all evens things out to some extent. Even if driver A won half the races he finished, a big percentage of those might have been won just cause his team mate or any other rival car retired. To tie this into reality, in today's F1 you really do have to be the fastest car out there most of the time to win, cause cars rarely retire. Inherited wins still happen, but are not as frequent as they used to be right now. Of course new engine regulations might change that again, at least for a while.

I thought about this when I create the example, but in my mind the best driver loses more when we see reliability issues. Imagine we have 3 drivers that always finishes 1st, 2nd and 3rd. They do 100 races.
If we have 0% of reliability problems. 1st driver wins 100 races, 2nd and 3rd never wins.
If we have 10%. 1st driver wins 90 races, 2nd wins 9 times 3rd win 1 time.
50% now. 1st wins 50 times, 2nd 25 times, 3rd 13 times, others 12 times.

Now if we have 2 equal drivers that always finishes 1st and 2nd they both gonna win less times.
If they have 0% of reliability problems. 50 each.
10% of reliability problems. 49 each, 2 others.
50% now. 37 each 26 others.

I'm not so good in statistics so it may have some mistakes but I believe the idea is still the same.

Edited by Kyo, 04 December 2012 - 15:55.


#1625 Junky

Junky
  • Member

  • 281 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 04 December 2012 - 17:03

When I read that Schumacher had winning cars in the Jordan 191 and in the Benetton B191, it's definitely time for me to leave this thread.

#1626 Fortymark

Fortymark
  • Member

  • 5,795 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 04 December 2012 - 17:23

When I read that Schumacher had winning cars in the Jordan 191 and in the Benetton B191, it's definitely time for me to leave this thread.


And you´re aware that the Benetton B191 actually was a race winner?


#1627 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 04 December 2012 - 17:27

And you´re aware that the Benetton B191 actually was a race winner?


Yeah so was e.g. the Jordan EJ 13 or the Stewart SF3, but i think it´s clear, what he meant. No need to go into semantics.

#1628 Junky

Junky
  • Member

  • 281 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 04 December 2012 - 19:16

When I read that Schumacher had winning cars in the Jordan 191 and in the Benetton B191, it's definitely time for me to leave this thread.


So I assume that for you this year's Williams was a winning car. Am I right?

#1629 garoidb

garoidb
  • Member

  • 3,663 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 04 December 2012 - 19:50

Yeah so was e.g. the Jordan EJ 13 or the Stewart SF3, but i think it´s clear, what he meant. No need to go into semantics.


No need to bring facts into it, you mean!

#1630 jj2728

jj2728
  • Member

  • 2,788 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 05 December 2012 - 00:56

Here's the thing about Gilles...there were plenty of drivers who thought he was an absolute danger on the track. There wasn't an equally shared love by everyone. Yes he was loved by and large, but many drivers were critical of him in his day.


No there weren't, if anything the drivers respected him more than enough to know that doing battle with him on track was going to be fair and square. The only instance that I can recall the other drivers
calling him to task was after the '79 French GP and his classic battle for 2nd with Rene Arnoux. And it was Mario Andretti who quickly calmed the waters by saying that it was no big deal as it was just a couple of young lions clawing at each other.

#1631 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 05 December 2012 - 05:07

Spark,

How would you then explain why Gilles --who never won a championship-- was ranked higher than Nelson Piquet who was world champion 3 times? Or even Mika Hakkinen who was double world champion.

Here's the thing about Gilles...there were plenty of drivers who thought he was an absolute danger on the track. There wasn't an equally shared love by everyone. Yes he was loved by and large, but many drivers were critical of him in his day.

I'm surprised at this myself. Gilles does not deserve a place above either Mika or Nelson based on their achievements on track, that is for sure. Which makes this list even less believable for me. I suspect, Gilles was rated that high because the authors extrapolated and assumed that he would be WDC if he did not die. Always a tricky assumption to make.

What was Senna's influence? How did he touch the fans? What are the memories of those who knew him personally? Those are the questions I would be asking if you are coming up with the list of "greatest" F1 driver.

Schumacher's influence was limited to just F1. Senna's influence stretched beyond F1. If you take Muhammad Ali as an example. He made his mark because of what he did in the ring, but that alone was not enough. It was the mark he had outside the ring. The true greats not only redefine how a sport is viewed, but they also make non-fans take notice. Ali, Jordan, Gretzky, Pele, Nicklaus, and Federer are all shining examples of this. That was also Senna. That's something Schumacher could ever achieve. There is no statistical equation that can measure their influence in and out of sport.

Are you stating that if Schumacher or Prost had more of a "personality", they would be rated higher than Senna ? Or if personality is removed from this equation of "greatest" both of these would be rated higher ?

In that case, I think we need to come up with another list, "the Best F1 drivers of all time", instead of this list which seems to bring in highly subjective and controversial traits of a F1 driver to rank one higher than the other.

#1632 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 05 December 2012 - 05:20

I like these.
Battle against teammates when both finished the races. (race pace)
Battle against teammates in qualifying. (one lap speed)
% of retirements when the driver was involved in accidents. Car failures are not included. (Capability to stay out of trouble and not make mistakes)

Senna
Finished ahead 84% of the time (against -- 32% Prost -- 31% Berger -- 11% Nakajima -- 10% de Angelis -- 16% Others)
Qualified ahead 89% of the time
12% of retirements

Schumacher
Finished ahead 74% of the time (against -- 40% Barrichello -- 21% Rosberg -- 16% Irvine -- 8% Massa -- 15% Others)
Qualified ahead 75% of the time
10% of retirements

This is a clear case of cherry picking of statistics to prove one greater than another.

Prost for example was much better at nursing his equipment compared to Senna which is why "Battle against teammates when both finished the races. (race pace)" is a very controverial stat to take. In the 70s and 80s, a driver did have substantial impact on reliability with manual gearboxes, highly sensitive engines and turbos which were susceptible against abuse. It was only in the mid to late 90s that we started to see bullet proof reliability in Formula 1 cars with highly standardized processes of making Formula 1 components. This is why in modern Formula 1, we cannot conclusively lay the blame on Lewis Hamilton or Kimi Raikkonen for having more car failures than their teammates through their careers, especially when it comes to engine failures, gearbox damage etc.

The other factors you clearly seem to ignore are that Schumacher was past the age of 40 and is acknowledged at being way past his prime, since there is no other driver past the age of 40 in the history of modern Formula 1 where you can compare.

Senna
Finished ahead 84% of the time (against -- 32% Prost -- 31% Berger -- 11% Nakajima -- 10% de Angelis -- 16% Others)

Schumacher
Finished ahead 74% of the time (against -- 40% Barrichello -- 21% Rosberg -- 16% Irvine -- 8% Massa -- 15% Others)

Care to explain this stat with numbers ? I am honestly not able to grasp this. :)

#1633 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,279 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 05 December 2012 - 07:35

Prost for example was much better at nursing his equipment compared to Senna which is why "Battle against teammates when both finished the races. (race pace)" is a very controverial stat to take. In the 70s and 80s, a driver did have substantial impact on reliability with manual gearboxes, highly sensitive engines and turbos which were susceptible against abuse. It was only in the mid to late 90s that we started to see bullet proof reliability in Formula 1 cars with highly standardized processes of making Formula 1 components. This is why in modern Formula 1, we cannot conclusively lay the blame on Lewis Hamilton or Kimi Raikkonen for having more car failures than their teammates through their careers, especially when it comes to engine failures, gearbox damage etc.


How does that work? How do we have 'bulletproff reliability' in modern F1, yet certain drivers evidently have car failures significantly more often than other drivers? What's with their cars 'bulletproff reliability'?

#1634 repcobrabham

repcobrabham
  • Member

  • 9,309 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 05 December 2012 - 10:20

I'm surprised at this myself. Gilles does not deserve a place above either Mika or Nelson based on their achievements on track, that is for sure. Which makes this list even less believable for me. I suspect, Gilles was rated that high because the authors extrapolated and assumed that he would be WDC if he did not die. Always a tricky assumption to make.

Are you stating that if Schumacher or Prost had more of a "personality", they would be rated higher than Senna ? Or if personality is removed from this equation of "greatest" both of these would be rated higher ?

In that case, I think we need to come up with another list, "the Best F1 drivers of all time", instead of this list which seems to bring in highly subjective and controversial traits of a F1 driver to rank one higher than the other.


there's no reason why and all the other geeks (i mean that as a neutral descriptor rather than an insult) on here can't crunch the numbers for a definitive 'best' from a statistical point of view. but then, statistics are ultimately as flexible as opinions ... and less fun IMHO!

#1635 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 829 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 05 December 2012 - 13:20

This is a clear case of cherry picking of statistics to prove one greater than another.

Prost for example was much better at nursing his equipment compared to Senna which is why "Battle against teammates when both finished the races. (race pace)" is a very controverial stat to take. In the 70s and 80s, a driver did have substantial impact on reliability with manual gearboxes, highly sensitive engines and turbos which were susceptible against abuse. It was only in the mid to late 90s that we started to see bullet proof reliability in Formula 1 cars with highly standardized processes of making Formula 1 components. This is why in modern Formula 1, we cannot conclusively lay the blame on Lewis Hamilton or Kimi Raikkonen for having more car failures than their teammates through their careers, especially when it comes to engine failures, gearbox damage etc.

The other factors you clearly seem to ignore are that Schumacher was past the age of 40 and is acknowledged at being way past his prime, since there is no other driver past the age of 40 in the history of modern Formula 1 where you can compare.


Care to explain this stat with numbers ? I am honestly not able to grasp this. :)

So now statistics are not all that black and white like you seemed to suggest before huh? Haven't you did the same?
If in todays F1 with highly standardized processes of making Formula 1 components we see sometimes one driver having much more car failures like Lewis or Michael compared to their teammates imagine when we didn't have all this quality control. One peace outside the standards could mean a retirement for a driver. I have already brought some examples of failures that I can't see how it could be considered a drivers fault like when Senna's car differential failed at the start before even the first corner in France or his gear selector that broke on the parade lap in Brazil, or the two consecutive races that Ayrton had problems with fuel readout. I don't see how these could be drivers fault, can you?

so I should not extrapolate and just look to stats but not in Schumacher case since I should have obviously extrapolated and assumed he is past his prime and so I should not have considered his comeback in the stats.
Extrapolating we would have this numbers to Schumacher
Finished ahead 83% of the time (against -- 50% Barrichello -- 20% Irvine -- 10% Massa -- 6% Herbert -- 14% Others)
Qualified ahead 85% of the time
Quite close to Senna indeed, but I must not extrapolate the quality of the teammates or the times he swapped places with a subservient teammate...

Before his comeback Schumi took part in 139 races that both he and his teammate finished the race. The total score was 115-24. From these 139 races, 70 were against Barrichello, 28 against Irvine, etc...

#1636 1Devil1

1Devil1
  • Member

  • 2,738 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 05 December 2012 - 13:49

Quite close to Senna indeed, but I must not extrapolate the quality of the teammates or the times he swapped places with a subservient teammate...
Before his comeback Schumi took part in 139 races that both he and his teammate finished the race. The total score was 115-24. From these 139 races, 70 were against Barrichello, 28 against Irvine, etc...


And the quality of the drivers Senna had as teammate were extra supreme I guess. The only one that stands out was Prost. The others drivers, the likes of Berger, Andretti were not better (in my opinion even slower than Barrichello or Massa) than the teammates Schumacher had. Prost was known for being not a top qualifier. This whole qualifying statistics is out of proportion because around Schumacher's time in Formula one the qualifying format changed (low fuel runs were possible, one lap format) so often to prevent Ferrari to lock out the first row. We had occasion in 2006 Massa covered Schumacher with a low fuel run to help him in the race. Did you check possible problems in qualifying? If I have to change a gearbox or not makes a huge difference. I can see the point for Senna, he raced in era, you went out and did your best with qualifying setup and tires. In Schumacher's times strategy played a bigger role in qualifying that I can't see a possible comparison of Schumacher and Senna stats.

#1637 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 05 December 2012 - 13:59

so I should not extrapolate and just look to stats but not in Schumacher case since I should have obviously extrapolated and assumed he is past his prime and so I should not have considered his comeback in the stats.
Extrapolating we would have this numbers to Schumacher
Finished ahead 83% of the time (against -- 50% Barrichello -- 20% Irvine -- 10% Massa -- 6% Herbert -- 14% Others)
Qualified ahead 85% of the time
Quite close to Senna indeed, but I must not extrapolate the quality of the teammates or the times he swapped places with a subservient teammate...


Senna´s ratio in the races against Berger is 87%, which is not all too different than the ratio against Prost (84%). The ratio in Qualifying (83%) is even worse than his ratio against Prost (87%).
So do these statictics extrapolate the quality of the teammates completely accurate in your opinion?
btw. Schumacher´s qualifying ratio under comparable qualifying-rules is 91%.
And how often swapped MSC places with his teammates? Here´s a list: Austria 98, Austria 2001, Austria 2002 (there is a pattern emerging ;) ) , on the other hand we have Malaysia 99 and arguably Indy 2002.

Anyway...the general problem, that i have with this statistic, might be demonstrated by the following example:
Senna crashing out of the Monaco GP in 88 has no negative impact on this statistic - Schumacher losing his frontwing at the start in Monza 1992 falling back to dead last, carving trough the field and finishing 3rd just 7sec behind Brundle on the other hand has...
Another problem is, that due to several factors the field and also each driver pairings began to get closer and closer together during the last 20 years, which lead to the situation that minor mishaps generally had a bigger impact on your position than in the 80s or very early 90s. Before the early 2000s Schumacher was actually just 7 times behind his teammate in joint race finishes - and in two of them he was at the back of the field at or after the start...and in another two it was solely due to damage on his car. In the end he was just beaten under completely normal circumstances 1x by Piquet (Portugal 91) and 1x by Brundle (Silverstone 92).

Edited by LiJu914, 05 December 2012 - 14:57.


#1638 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 05 December 2012 - 15:18

I'm surprised at this myself. Gilles does not deserve a place above either Mika or Nelson based on their achievements on track, that is for sure. Which makes this list even less believable for me. I suspect, Gilles was rated that high because the authors extrapolated and assumed that he would be WDC if he did not die. Always a tricky assumption to make.


Except, what the placement of Gilles should be telling you, is that this list isn't just about statistics. It may be less believable for you, but it explains more about what the entire list is. I don't agree with a few of the placements as is...all current drivers outside of Schumacher should have been punted off the list.


Are you stating that if Schumacher or Prost had more of a "personality", they would be rated higher than Senna ? Or if personality is removed from this equation of "greatest" both of these would be rated higher ?

In that case, I think we need to come up with another list, "the Best F1 drivers of all time", instead of this list which seems to bring in highly subjective and controversial traits of a F1 driver to rank one higher than the other.


I do not know if they would be rated higher than Senna had they had more personality. But, who Senna was is not something that can simply be replicated by anyone, or can it be created in a marketing exercise.

Even in doing a list of "the Best F1 drivers of all time", it still wouldn't be definitive because there are those who think statistical numbers are the end all. Unless you factor in the competition relative to the era a driver drove in, how did the team(s) he drove for benefit from the rules & regulations, and what the quality of his teammates were (were they allowed to race, or to act as a glorified blocker) it's rather difficult to come up with an easy "one size fits all" criteria.

Edited by BoschKurve, 05 December 2012 - 15:18.


#1639 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 829 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 05 December 2012 - 17:16

And the quality of the drivers Senna had as teammate were extra supreme I guess. The only one that stands out was Prost. The others drivers, the likes of Berger, Andretti were not better (in my opinion even slower than Barrichello or Massa) than the teammates Schumacher had. Prost was known for being not a top qualifier. This whole qualifying statistics is out of proportion because around Schumacher's time in Formula one the qualifying format changed (low fuel runs were possible, one lap format) so often to prevent Ferrari to lock out the first row. We had occasion in 2006 Massa covered Schumacher with a low fuel run to help him in the race. Did you check possible problems in qualifying? If I have to change a gearbox or not makes a huge difference. I can see the point for Senna, he raced in era, you went out and did your best with qualifying setup and tires. In Schumacher's times strategy played a bigger role in qualifying that I can't see a possible comparison of Schumacher and Senna stats.

I posted the race comparison as well. Obviously the race comparison is more important than qualy. Prost alone represented 32% of the comparison (race). I have de Angelis in high regard too, but I agree that the rest were no better than Barrichello or Massa.

Senna´s ratio in the races against Berger is 87%, which is not all too different than the ratio against Prost (84%). The ratio in Qualifying (83%) is even worse than his ratio against Prost (87%).
So do these statictics extrapolate the quality of the teammates completely accurate in your opinion?
btw. Schumacher´s qualifying ratio under comparable qualifying-rules is 91%.
And how often swapped MSC places with his teammates? Here´s a list: Austria 98, Austria 2001, Austria 2002 (there is a pattern emerging ;) ) , on the other hand we have Malaysia 99 and arguably Indy 2002.

Anyway...the general problem, that i have with this statistic, might be demonstrated by the following example:
Senna crashing out of the Monaco GP in 88 has no negative impact on this statistic - Schumacher losing his frontwing at the start in Monza 1992 falling back to dead last, carving trough the field and finishing 3rd just 7sec behind Brundle on the other hand has...
Another problem is, that due to several factors the field and also each driver pairings began to get closer and closer together during the last 20 years, which lead to the situation that minor mishaps generally had a bigger impact on your position than in the 80s or very early 90s. Before the early 2000s Schumacher was actually just 7 times behind his teammate in joint race finishes - and in two of them he was at the back of the field at or after the start...and in another two it was solely due to damage on his car. In the end he was just beaten under completely normal circumstances 1x by Piquet (Portugal 91) and 1x by Brundle (Silverstone 92).

Let's go part by part. I have Senna's ratio in races against Berger in 84% (Would be 89% if not for Senna letting Berger trough for his 1st win at McLaren) (16-3). The ratio against Prost is 70% (14-6). In qualifying I have the same as you.
"So do these statictics extrapolate the quality of the teammates completely accurate in your opinion?" Completely accurate no and not the quality of the teammates, but more how they performed in that specific time together. Example: Rosberg beat Schumi in 2010. This means Rosberg is better than Schumi? No, it just means he was better for whatever the reason. It may be the car that not suited Schumi, it may be he was out of form, etc, but the fact stands that he was better that season.
So changing Austria 98, Austria 2001, Austria 2002 and Malaysia 99, Shumi goes to 81%.

About the problems. Thats why I count the % of retirements not related to car failures. That way you are penalized in one place or another depending if you kept racing or retired.
About the field together. I'm not very sure, after 2004 I certainly can say that, but before that is hard to say.
About the completely normal circumstances I would say Senna only lost twice in his entire career. Mexico 88 and France 88 against Prost.

Advertisement

#1640 TifosiUSA

TifosiUSA
  • Member

  • 142 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 05 December 2012 - 19:54

Senna was the greatest ever.


You're right, he was...



...until Michael took over.

#1641 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,279 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 05 December 2012 - 21:08

You're right, he was...



...until Michael took over.


That's not how "ever" works, you know.  ;)

#1642 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,301 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 06 December 2012 - 10:57

You're right, he was...



...until Michael took over.


And along came Rosberg who.....

beat Schumacher 3-0 in the same team, out-qualified him, out-scored him and made less mistakes.



#1643 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:05

The ratio against Prost is 70% (14-6). In qualifying I have the same as you.


Yep, my mistake. I accidentally used all 32 races as the divisor instead of the number of joint races finishes.

"So do these statictics extrapolate the quality of the teammates completely accurate in your opinion?" Completely accurate no and not the quality of the teammates, but more how they performed in that specific time together.


The intention is clear, but i still doubt, that the numbers against all teammates combined (and also sometimes isolated against a single teammate) are precise enough to represent the real hierarchy between all these drivers as there are still many potential distorting factors (that must not necessarily be true for "Senna vs. teammates" or "MSC vs. teammates", but my critique was more related to this kind of statistic in general).
- What if one driver had just 3 joint race finishes in a season with some trash can, whereas another driver had 10 instead? That would polish up the statistic (overall ratio against all teammates) of the latter more than that of the former, despite the fact, that both would´ve beaten their respective teammates 100% of the time.
- What if all of the races, in which driver X was slower than his teammate, were also joint race finishes at the same time, whereas driver Y had more luck as in 2-3 races, in which he was slower than his teammate, either he himself or his teammate retired?
- Does this statistic really show all aspects of the abilites in the races or qualifying? Driver X reaches 110% of a certain performance level in 85% of the time, but has also 2 or 3 off days and gets beaten by his teammate. Driver Y on the other hand reaches 100% all of the time and has zero off days. Which driver did better? According to the statistic driver Y as it focuses on consistency (even if the data would be completely acurrate).
etc. pp.

To demonstrate this on our two examples:
MSC has just 3 joint races finishes against his poor teammates of 1994. But Senna has 5 against Dumfries and 7 against Nakajima.

But the more striking example is this: Schumacher has a pretty poor ratio against Martin Brundle (4-3 or 57%), but that doesn´t represent their respective race performances at all. Out of all the season´s races Brundle was only ahead in two occasions due to his pace/strategy (Silverstone and Canada) or 3 if include also MSC´s mistake/mishap in Monza. As you can see Brundle was pretty lucky statisticwise, that his "wins" are overrepresented.

Of course one general idea of such a statistic would be, that such things even out over the course of a whole career, but these numbers are still pretty small from a mathematical p.o.v.:
How many joint races finishes did Senna have e.g.? I guess not even 100, probably more like 80 or lower. So, if the statistical chance had altered just 5 of all these joint race finishes, the ratio would already deviate by more than 5 percentage points...

About the problems. Thats why I count the % of retirements not related to car failures. That way you are penalized in one place or another depending if you kept racing or retired.
About the field together. I'm not very sure, after 2004 I certainly can say that, but before that is hard to say.
About the completely normal circumstances I would say Senna only lost twice in his entire career. Mexico 88 and France 88 against Prost.


- Alright, but that doesn´t change the fact, that these incidents still have a influence on the other statistic, if some are terminal and some only cause, that you fall behind your teammte.
- Ok. This point is not really important, so to make it short: It can perhaps be seen best on the basis of the gaps in qualfying. They gaps got closer throughout the late 90s and early 2000s...already before 2004.
- I guess, you meant examples, that were also considered in the statistic (not also Adelaide 88?), cause i remember some (not many of course) races, in which e.g. Berger was better, but either he or Senna didn´t make it to the finish (of course that´s true for every other driver, as i pointed out above).

Edited by LiJu914, 06 December 2012 - 12:57.


#1644 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:10

And along came Rosberg who.....

beat Schumacher 3-0 in the same team, out-qualified him, out-scored him and made less mistakes.


If one wants to take MSC´s comeback performances as completely representative for his abilities in his first career, then the only logical deduction can be, that all his opponents (even including the short time together with Prost, Mansell, Piquet, Senna) are overrated as well.

Edited by LiJu914, 06 December 2012 - 12:14.


#1645 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 829 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 06 December 2012 - 16:52

The intention is clear, but i still doubt, that the numbers against all teammates combined (and also sometimes isolated against a single teammate) are precise enough to represent the real hierarchy between all these drivers as there are still many potential distorting factors (that must not necessarily be true for "Senna vs. teammates" or "MSC vs. teammates", but my critique was more related to this kind of statistic in general).

Neither do I think it's precise enough to represent a real hierarchy between all drivers. I don't go driver X has 90% so rank him 1st, this one has 89% goes 2nd, etc, but It gives me a pretty good idea of how good a driver was when I look to these stats together with against who they achieved such numbers. Prost for example has only 61%, but when you look to his teammates it's clear how good he was.

- What if one driver had just 3 joint race finishes in a season with some trash can, whereas another driver had 10 instead? That would polish up the statistic (overall ratio against all teammates) of the latter more than that of the former, despite the fact, that both would´ve beaten their respective teammates 100% of the time.


It's the same as having or not a poor teammate. It's not black and white, it just serves for you to have a clear picture to take your own opinion, like every other stat in F1.

- What if all of the races, in which driver X was slower than his teammate, were also joint race finishes at the same time, whereas driver Y had more luck as in 2-3 races, in which he was slower than his teammate, either he himself or his teammate retired?
- Does this statistic really show all aspects of the abilites in the races or qualifying? Driver X reaches 110% of a certain performance level in 85% of the time, but has also 2 or 3 off days and gets beaten by his teammate. Driver Y on the other hand reaches 100% all of the time and has zero off days. Which driver did better? According to the statistic driver Y as it focuses on consistency (even if the data would be completely acurrate).
etc. pp.


And we came to the point that BoschKurve was talking about. Somethings are impossible to measure with stats. How that perfect lap that many thought impossible to achieve inspire new and old drivers, fans and kids? What about that incredible overtake or that victory against all odds? It can't be measured by stats but it certainly has influence in how a driver is seen by fans and other driver as will have influence in how he is rated.

To demonstrate this on our two examples:
MSC has just 3 joint races finishes against his poor teammates of 1994. But Senna has 5 against Dumfries and 7 against Nakajima.

Senna has 3 against Dumfries and 7 against Nakajima - It returns to the discussion of the beginning of this post.


But the more striking example is this: Schumacher has a pretty poor ratio against Martin Brundle (4-3 or 57%), but that doesn´t represent their respective race performances at all. Out of all the season´s races Brundle was only ahead in two occasions due to his pace/strategy (Silverstone and Canada) or 3 if include also MSC´s mistake/mishap in Monza. As you can see Brundle was pretty lucky statisticwise, that his "wins" are overrepresented.

I never said it is a perfect way to compare teammates just that is better than most and 95% of the time is better than the point system to compare the direct performance between teammates. In this same example that you considered not representative of their respective race performances, and I agree, we have Schumi ahead in the points system with 58% of the Benetton points. Basically just as bad.
In this year standings we have Vettel, Alonso, Raikkonen, Hamilton, Rosberg, Perez, Hulk, Maldonado, Vergne, Petrov, Glock and Karthikeyan ahead of their respective teammates. Using the direct comparison like I did we have the same results except Schumi, Ricciardo and de la Rosa would be ahead. IMO a better picture of the teammates battle this season.

Of course one general idea of such a statistic would be, that such things even out over the course of a whole career, but these numbers are still pretty small from a mathematical p.o.v.:
How many joint races finishes did Senna have e.g.? I guess not even 100, probably more like 80 or lower. So, if the statistical chance had altered just 5 of all these joint race finishes, the ratio would already deviate by more than 5 percentage points...

62. Like I said it is not perfect just a good picture.

- Alright, but that doesn´t change the fact, that these incidents still have a influence on the other statistic, if some are terminal and some only cause, that you fall behind your teammte.
- Ok. This point is not really important, so to make it short: It can perhaps be seen best on the basis of the gaps in qualfying. They gaps got closer throughout the late 90s and early 2000s...already before 2004.
- I guess, you meant examples, that were also considered in the statistic (not also Adelaide 88?), cause i remember some (not many of course) races, in which e.g. Berger was better, but either he or Senna didn´t make it to the finish (of course that´s true for every other driver, as i pointed out above).

Yes, I did just like you. Looked at the races that both drivers finished and discarded the races when one of the drivers had something out of the ordinary. Senna had a faulty gearbox in Adelaide 88.

#1646 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 06 December 2012 - 17:18

^^
Ok, so basically we largely agree.

Just one small point:

...we have Schumi ahead in the points system with 58% of the Benetton points. Basically just as bad.


The ratio regarding points is usually significantly lower than the ratio in joint races finishes, if the car is good enough for regular points finishes. That number in fact isn´t "bad" at all (especially if we consider that it´s not that easy to pull big gaps, when Williams is usually locking out the two top spots) it´s rather quite good. E.g. : In 1990 - when Senna won the WDC and Berger didn´t win a single race - the points ratio is "just" 64%-36%. Or to look at a recent example: The gap between Alonso and Massa was enormous this year and furthermore Massa never finished ahead of ALO (even though he might have been ahead 2 or 3 times without teamorders), but the points ratio is still "just" 69%.

#1647 TifosiUSA

TifosiUSA
  • Member

  • 142 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 06 December 2012 - 17:19

And along came Rosberg who.....

beat Schumacher 3-0 in the same team, out-qualified him, out-scored him and made less mistakes.

Waiting on Rosberg's 7 titles.


annnnnnd you lose.

#1648 TifosiUSA

TifosiUSA
  • Member

  • 142 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 06 December 2012 - 17:22

That's not how "ever" works, you know.;)

:lol: :lol:

Quoted for hilarity.

Ever as in "up to that point in time" genius. I'm sure people thought radio was the best form of entertainment ever until television showed up...

Edited by TifosiUSA, 06 December 2012 - 17:22.


#1649 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 829 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 06 December 2012 - 17:38

^^
Ok, so basically we largely agree.

Just one small point:


The ratio regarding points is usually significantly lower than the ratio in joint races finishes, if the car is good enough for regular points finishes. That number in fact isn´t "bad" at all (especially if we consider that it´s not that easy to pull big gaps, when Williams is usually locking out the two top spots) it´s rather quite good. E.g. : In 1990 - when Senna won the WDC and Berger didn´t win a single race - the points ratio is "just" 64%-36%. Or to look at a recent example: The gap between Alonso and Massa was enormous this year and furthermore Massa never finished ahead of ALO (even though he might have been ahead 2 or 3 times without teamorders), but the points ratio is still "just" 69%.

Indeed.

#1650 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 06 December 2012 - 18:01

^^
Ok, so basically we largely agree.

Just one small point:


The ratio regarding points is usually significantly lower than the ratio in joint races finishes, if the car is good enough for regular points finishes. That number in fact isn´t "bad" at all (especially if we consider that it´s not that easy to pull big gaps, when Williams is usually locking out the two top spots) it´s rather quite good. E.g. : In 1990 - when Senna won the WDC and Berger didn´t win a single race - the points ratio is "just" 64%-36%. Or to look at a recent example: The gap between Alonso and Massa was enormous this year and furthermore Massa never finished ahead of ALO (even though he might have been ahead 2 or 3 times without teamorders), but the points ratio is still "just" 69%.


If Ferrari was using Massa's car as a test bed for various things -resulting in a constantly changing car that the driver never gets a feel for-- how does one really factor in such things when doing a points comparison between teammates?

This is just a broader statement...can statistics really be effectively used to judge comparisons between Schumacher and Irvine, and then Schumacher and Barichello since team orders were in full play? Assuming the cars are equal, and there are no team orders, a statistical comparison is going to be more effective. Yet, how would we know if the cars were equal? We're taking it for granted both cars are equal. Without knowing all of the other external factors on the situation, it makes any statistical analysis of F1 difficult.