349 replies to this topic

[massivechicken]

Check this out, some fascinating reading.

 

https://f1metrics.wo...test-f1-driver/

[garagetinkerer]

Check this out, some fascinating reading.

 

https://f1metrics.wo...test-f1-driver/

As fascinating it may be to some, but how can one say with a straight face that Damon Hill was better than Graham Hill? :rotfl:There are a lot of other fails in the ranking. This is not to ridicule a mathematical formula and i apologise humbly if it comes across as that. I'm just saying that math is not going to be good enough, or merely enough to ascertain greatness. You could add various factors and ranking will be influenced by that. A lot of rankings, or systems just fail to take into consideration one thing or the other. One of my biggest gripes is most don't account for what the machinery was provided to one, and how good was one with it. This system to be fair does try to address it, but some of the multiple times champion are rated below Fisichella. I like Fisichella, and i think he was very talented, and if he were perhaps with a team which wasn't run by Briatore, he may have had a better shot in a capable car. However, i don't rate him better than some of the drivers he's rated better than. Nor do i rate Heidfeld that highly... Just go through it yourself. I don't have the time right now to rant about other such discrepancies, May be later...

Edited by garagetinkerer, 19 July 2014 - 08:37.

[aguri]

This is good first step but I think a few more stats need to be brought into the equation in order to give it a bit more legitimacy. Especially regarding length of career. I think that as the stats are refined a bit the abnormalities in the listing would be ironed out a bit. 

 

Alonso has disposed of a lot of teammates is what I took from it. I'd love to see him and hamilton in the same car again although it will never happen.

[Diablobb81]

This is not to ridicule a mathematical formula and i apologise humbly if it comes across as that.

 

Can i do that?

[Lights]

Very interesting list, but there is an infinite amount of data that can further contribute to these formulas.

 

That said, there is no consensus on an ultimate list and there never will be. Whatever list you can imagine there will be people saying "How can Driver A be rated above Driver B?" 

From that perspective I applaud the creator of this.

[hittheapex]

As fascinating it may be to some, but how can one say with a straight face that Damon Hill was better than Graham Hill? :rotfl:There are a lot of other fails in the ranking. This is not to ridicule a mathematical formula and i apologise humbly if it comes across as that. I'm just saying that math is not going to be good enough, or merely enough to ascertain greatness. You could add various factors and ranking will be influenced by that. A lot of rankings, or systems just fail to take into consideration one thing or the other. One of my biggest gripes is most don't account for what the machinery was provided to one, and how good was one with it. This system to be fair does try to address it, but a some of the multiple times champion are rated below Fisichella. I like Fisichella, and i think he was very talented, and if he were perhaps with a team which wasn't run by Briatore, he may have had a better shot in a capable car. However, i don't rate him better than some of the drivers he's rated better than. Nor do i rate Heidfeld that highly... Just go through it yourself. I don't have the time right now to rant about other such discrepancies, May be later...

 

Most rankings will have a few that people disagree with, but I can't reconcile this order with what I have seen as a viewer and my own attempt at ranking drivers with a formula to account for cars. Watson above Senna? The Ulsterman was good, but not that good! (In my opinion)

 

It just goes to show that the numbers can be interpreted in so many different ways. Even if math is used to try and reduce the factor of the car, there are still different ways in how one could go about making a formula. Not to mention that the perception of the car's pace is in the first place influenced by the drivers.Finally, I would say that I know veteran F1 journalist Alan Henry ranked Damon above Graham in his own Top 100 book several years ago. I'm not certain of his birthday but there is a very good chance he was alive to see both. It's not the majority opinion, but it's not one I would quickly dismiss either.

[Frank Tuesday]

Honestly, whoever did that analysis should have looked at the results and said, "There must be a problem with my analysis. I should reconsider my method before publishing."

[Thomas99]

I just don't see Senna and Prost being that far down.

 

Interesting list and the Author has obviously put a lot of effort into it but to have Kimi Raikkonen, Lewis Hamilton and Sebastian Vettel ahead of Senna and Prost means something has gone wrong. Hamilton is the strongest of that trio but Raikkonen and Vettel have never beaten a champion in the same equipment and Kimi was out done by Felipe Massa.

 

Rosberg is rated ahead of Hamilton despite Lewis being a world champion and looking faster when they're team mates.

 

I have no real issue with the top 5 had Senna and Prost been 6 and 7.

Edited by Thomas99, 19 July 2014 - 06:59.

[Ricciardo2014]

Check this out, some fascinating reading.

https://f1metrics.wo...test-f1-driver/

Wow !
I've just taken the time to read that.
Took me a while, and once I understood his formula I did skip a few drivers.

Can't say I agree with the findings, but it's well thought out.
Just goes to show how ridiculous it is to compare different eras.

Almost impossible I'd say.

[HamiltonFanboy]

Its a nice list and he should be praised for building a model and sticking to it. It would be very tempting to take a look at the results and immediately start changing things but good on him for just posting it.

 

There are a few glaring problems though.

 

Current drivers(past 10 years) are hugely overrated.

80's drivers are hugely underrated(this is the single biggest flaw of the model)

Drivers are penalized too much for winning titles in dominant cars. Best example is Hakkinen.

Frentzen?????

 

I would also like to know the formula he uses to rank each car yearly. That would be an extremely hard thing to do and looking at the results straight off it seems like Alonso's cars are heavily overrated. Probably due to being paired with significantly under performing team mates.There is no way he was the best driver in 2003, 2009, 2011 or 2013 regardless of if his car was poor. 2008 and 2010 could be argued and 2005, 2006, 2012 are the only certainties in my opinion. If Vettel did not get awarded as the best driver in 2011 and 2013 despite his car advantage then something is wrong with the model. Schumacher is also an anomaly. The model awards Schumacher 10 championships in equal cars yet only places him 4th. This to me is extremely weird. It seems sustained success is not appreciated by this model and championships, equal car based or otherwise seem to be irrelevant.

 

 

[Mauseri]

Honestly, whoever did that analysis should have looked at the results and said, "There must be a problem with my analysis. I should reconsider my method before publishing."

It is better to publish crap than not publish at all. It is good to make publications, although no one will read them. 'Peer reviewed' means that someone has read it, but did not understand the flaws.

Edited by Mauseri, 19 July 2014 - 07:09.

[Atic Atac]

I've found this a really interesting reading. No model can be perfect but it gives a fresh look into some aspects. He has been very clear on how he got to the results and the flaws of the model.

 

The good thing about this kind of models is that they give insight on performance leaving aside the emotional aspect. Yes, you can get some weird results, but I think this is a really interesting way of comparing drivers of different eras taking in account the car factor, which is pretty difficult to isolate. I am surprised by some of the results, but at the same time I feel that I agree with quite a number of them.

 

The biggest flaw I see (and the author talks about that) is the gain you get beating a competitive teammate that has passed his best  (Rosberg's position would fall from 7 to 15th if you take 2010 Schumy's results away as they reckon in the analysis) and the number of positions you lose is the model predicts that competition was weak that era, but with just a quick read I just can't complain about the work.

[Atic Atac]

Honestly, whoever did that analysis should have looked at the results and said, "There must be a problem with my analysis. I should reconsider my method before publishing."

 

If you do that you end up with a list similar to anybody else's. When you do this kind of analysis is, precisely, to get a fresh look at the data from a different perspective.

 

The author reckons the model has weaknesses, but that does not invalidate the job. With a little more tweaking it's a really valid way of measuring driver skills, and certainly way more accurate than other systems I've came across.

[ensign14]

Aloson 3rd, Hamilton 12th?

 

Remind me again who beat whom when who was a rookie.

[Cesc]

It is interesting and an effort to rank drivers on some objective criteria, but as always, everyone has his own opinion.

[Jejking]

It is better to publish crap than not publish at all. It is good to make publications, although no one will read them. 'Peer reviewed' means that someone has read it, but did not understand the flaws.

That must be why the gossip papers report so much about F1 drivers and factual stories. Oh no, wait, they don't.

[garagetinkerer]

Aloson 3rd, Hamilton 12th?

 

Remind me again who beat whom when who was a rookie.

You do know a lot has happened since 2007?

 

i guess i know what you were aiming at, but toeing such a line will keep one from objectively evaluating how good the car was, and how good the driver was. As one will always end up comparing a driver against another, and most don't spend their entire careers racing against each other. Case in point, Alonso and Hamilton raced together for only 1 season. It is not to be ignored, but some people forget everything else, and concentrate on only some particular thing(s), and that leaves their lists prepared such, looking not as well thought out. Surely one could twist the narrative so that it sounds self-evident, but then there are statistics, which are a by product, but they also have a story to tell. For instance, number of poles is cited routinely to suggest Senna was so great and fast, but by the same token, number of fastest laps are suggested to be irrelevant and Prost had Senna licked in that department. I have read so many best drivers list, and when one is young and coming up the curve in terms of knowledge, sometimes one doesn't know better (hey i thought professionals knew better ), and one sometimes is led down a path. It is always interesting or/ and entertaining, but if one really start learning a bit about the sport, then at times it is hard not to feel a bit let down. It is not cheap to buy all those magazines. Spent most of my monthly budget on those

Edited by garagetinkerer, 19 July 2014 - 08:20.

[Wingcommander]

Quite intresting, but the results are very questionable in my opinion. Needs more work.

[Tsarwash]

Aloson 3rd, Hamilton 12th?
 
Remind me again who beat whom when who was a rookie.

I believe they finished on equal points. I'd call that a draw.

[joshb]

Aloson 3rd, Hamilton 12th?

 

Remind me again who beat whom when who was a rookie.

It was a tie wasn't it

[Galko877]

Lies, damned lies, and statistics...

Others have already pointed some of the very obviously ridiculous results of this formula.

[garagetinkerer]

Lies, damned lies, and statistics...

Others have already pointed some of the very obviously ridiculous results of this formula.

If these were merely statistics represented in print, i would not have an issue with it. Here statistics and other things are being mixed. Well, it is the case with most such lists. There are stats thrown in with gut-feeling (read analysis) of the author, or a group of people in question. This list is unique that it tries to quantify things, so as keep things less of a variable. However, what comes in as a question mark is how the cars are being evaluated, and it was a good question asked already by another forumer (thanks!) here. One of the more ridiculous results is Hunt is rated to be 6th, while Lauda is rated 10(iirc).

[Collombin]

I love maths, and it has an enormous number of applications to which it is highly suited.

Ranking F1 drivers is not one of them.

[blackmme]

Look I'm sure the guy who did the list put in a huge amount of effort.

But when I found out that Stefano Modena is rated higher than Mika Hakkinen, it kinda lost my interest.

Regards Mike

[DarthWillie]

The massive effort should be applauded!

The results unfortunately questionable at times. The grading of how competitive an era was is completely wrong. Clearly the writer forgot the finishing rate in the 70's was way lower, meaning scoring point could be less frequent.

My biggest complaints are treating the driver as a constant factor. Using Patrese as a yardstick is an example. 1991 Patrese was quite close to mansell, 1992 he was demolished, a big factor in that his inability to come to terms with active suspension.

Another flaw is the team situation, Schumacher is without any hesitation an all time great, but Ferrari was moulded around him, his teammates knew they were there to support him. That makes the teammate comparison less meaningfull.

Fun excercise, like how he tries to seperate the car from the driver. Works with some drivers but other drivers get overrated probably because their not being a top driver didn't get them in top cars and they seem to get awarded for that, Cheever for example

[AlexS]

It is just bad science.

[DS27]

I bet this guy could prove there is no such thing as gravity with a formula this meaningful.

[Nemo1965]

It is just bad science.

 

Every great scientist stands on the shoulders of other great scientists, but when you go back time one these grands will stand on the shoulder of a so-called 'bad scientist'. Archimedes was dead-wrong on a number of topics. Was he a bad scientist? No, he worked with a model of reality that could be improved.

 

This guy has tried to use mathematics to rate drivers, it is clear from the page that there were suprises he did not agree with (or suprised him).

 

So the next step is another mathematician to enhance the model. Why not you? You seem to have superior knowledge or skills...

Edited by Nemo1965, 19 July 2014 - 09:18.

[darkkis]

Hmmm... Häkkinen worse than Salo? Yeah right..

[Risil]

You do know a lot has happened since 2007?

 

Hamilton won a world championship and Alonso didn't, I think.

[Collombin]

I love the particularly patronising attitude in the bit about Gilles, as if all the experts (who actually saw him drive) can't see beyond sentimental tosh and how his model will wash all that away and enlighten them from their silly ways. T wat.

And if he can't even get basic facts right I'm not sure I would want to trust his number crunching either.

Edited by E.B., 19 July 2014 - 09:25.

[RuleyRamundo]

RG 59, MH 56 I stopped there. Championships, Championships and Championships full stop

Edited by RuleyRamundo, 19 July 2014 - 09:55.

[sopa]

That's why gut feeling rankings remain by far the best ones. Mathematical methods are interesting as they are, but in rating and ranking driving art they can't get anywhere near the reality.

 

The reason for that is that "people's impressions" are usually formulated by all the aspects, which can't be even mathematically brought to us properly - like wheel-to-wheel racing skills and ability in traffic, or sheer unluck. I guess a mathematical method could get anywhere near the "real picture" if someone finds a way to take into account absolutely every single detail - like all the laptimes during a race (to analyze in-race consistency of a driver), but also includes strategies, car issues, misfortune and traffic-effect to differentiate whether a driver was handicapped during a race outside his control. Even then you need to analyze with a naked eye, how much a driver was handicapped, which can't be brought to us with mathematics.

 

But as it stands, such in-depth analysis would be way too much work for anyone to really go through. So we keep analyzing based on points, head-to-head results, etc, which can give us interesting results, but do not enlighten us in any way of driving skills, which is an entirely different matter.

[sennafan24]

Frentzen better than Senna?

 

[Rob]

A driver's performance level varies over time. Rosberg is so high up because of his time as team mate to Schumacher, who'd returned following a long break. Do we really believe 2010 Schumacher was at the same level as say he was in 1995? It's an ultimately flawed model.

[Thomas99]

That's why gut feeling rankings remain by far the best ones. Mathematical methods are interesting as they are, but in rating and ranking driving art they can't get anywhere near the reality.

 

The reason for that is that "people's impressions" are usually formulated by all the aspects, which can't be even mathematically brought to us properly - like wheel-to-wheel racing skills and ability in traffic, or sheer unluck. I guess a mathematical method could get anywhere near the "real picture" if someone finds a way to take into account absolutely every single detail - like all the laptimes during a race (to analyze in-race consistency of a driver), but also includes strategies, car issues, misfortune and traffic-effect to differentiate whether a driver was handicapped during a race outside his control. Even then you need to analyze with a naked eye, how much a driver was handicapped, which can't be brought to us with mathematics.

 

But as it stands, such in-depth analysis would be way too much work for anyone to really go through. So we keep analyzing based on points, head-to-head results, etc, which can give us interesting results, but do not enlighten us in any way of driving skills, which is an entirely different matter.

 

Its because there is no benchmark in F1. This isn't cricket in which you can rate runs per over, runs per wicket etc in a concrete statistic to determine better. As the machinery is different for every driver and form varies its very difficult to work out who is doing the best job.

[Vesuvius]

Checked and until I saw Mika Häkkinen so low, I stopped because that's just fxll of shxx...most likely the worst ever written analyze I have seen.

[RubalSher]

I have no reason to downplay this analysis any more than I would of all those mocking it. Of course, there may be some anomalies but a lot seems in the ballpark based on what you would think.

 

for the effort alone!

[RubalSher]

Frentzen better than Senna?

 

 

I was waiting for you to pop in to hear your comments on the blasphemous article

[pizzalover]

You can build any equation to fit the results you want find. Doh!

 

Worthless.

[sennafan24]

I was waiting for you to pop in to hear your comments on the blasphemous article

I could understand the likes of Fangio, Clark and Schumi being ranked over Senna. But Frentzen, Rosberg, Hunt and Kimi?  

 

Also Prost at number 16?

Edited by sennafan24, 19 July 2014 - 10:59.

[RubalSher]

I could understand the likes of Fangio, Clark and Schumi being ranked over Senna. But Frentzen, Rosberg, Hunt and Kimi?  

 

Also Prost at number 16?

 

You have to understand that this is not somebody's personal wish list. The author came up with a mathematical model and had no idea how the results would pan out. As happens with most of maths n science, you need to keep working at it till you keep fixing your bugs, remove the wrong assumptions, add more meaningful relevant data and slowly improve your model. Once that happens, the anomaly of Senna would likely be auto corrected. But I would take a scientific / mathematical approach any day over religious fanaticism of personal beliefs. I am not talking about you and Senna in particular but the dozens others who are mightily offended because it doesnt suit their agenda.

[sennafan24]

 But I would take a scientific / mathematical approach any day over religious fanaticism of personal beliefs. 

Maths does not account for context and circumstance. F1 has too many conflicting considerations to reduced to a numerical science.

[pizzalover]

You have to understand that this is not somebody's personal wish list. The author came up with a mathematical model and had no idea how the results would pan out. As happens with most of maths n science, you need to keep working at it till you keep fixing your bugs, remove the wrong assumptions, add more meaningful relevant data and slowly improve your model. Once that happens, the anomaly of Senna would likely be auto corrected. But I would take a scientific / mathematical approach any day over religious fanaticism of personal beliefs. I am not talking about you and Senna in particular but the dozens others who are mightily offended because it doesnt suit their agenda.

 

Errr, but that the point isn't it. You put in the variables, you think are important. Hardly "scientific".

 

Economists use thousands of different equations to prove they are right. And guess what. They can't agree on anything.

[IamFasterthanU]

The amount of effort that went into the excercise should be lauded. People will always criticize such rankings as we all have our favourites based on our own criterea. But, I feel this can be used as a base model to further improve it by adding on complexities like any other mathematical model. Assumption that a driver drives at the same level throughout his career is wrong imo & it is the primary reason Nico is so high up in the rankings (which is the only anamoly in my opinion as far as current drivers are concerned). May be age or number of years in f1 can be used as a variable. 

 

Regarding Hamilton being placed below Alonso, I feel being matched by Button ruined it for him. 2007 was probably his finest year and the entire team was publicaly behind him (He was the Chosen one for McLaren and was performing). McLaren was publicaly against his Alonso and with WCC not possible one cannot rule out them favouring Hamilton. But Alonso was also to be blamed for that situation, however rankings are for driving ability and not attitude so I guess he should be ranked so high up.

 

I used to be a Mika Hakkinen fan once but looking back McLaren always backed him, sometimes unfairly. Ron Dennis always wanted him to win the WDC for them rather than Coulthard (kind of similar to Alonso - Hamilton). Apart from 1998-00 seasons, he was not very good. Ironical now McLaren says it has never had No.1 driver policy. He should have closed 1999 championship much earlier. Not 58 though somewhere around 40 would be more adequate.

[discover23]

Honestly, whoever did that analysis should have looked at the results and said, "There must be a problem with my analysis. I should reconsider my method before publishing."

Exactly. I did not see Webber nor Rosberg..
HHF ahead of Senna.. Lol

Trulli ahead of JV and Montoya..

[Thomas99]

Maths does not account for context and circumstance. F1 has too many conflicting considerations to reduced to a numerical science.

Maths is only as good as the logic applied to it. While I'm sure somewhere there is a perfect mathematical formula this certainly isn't it.

It is however a great basis for starting analysis and then using intuition to smudge it a bit.

Edited by Thomas99, 19 July 2014 - 11:22.

[Longtimefan]

Damon Hill ahead of Graham? Ludicrous!! Utterly ridiculous.

Nico ahead of Vettel, Ascari, Lauda, Rindt, Moss, Prost, Peterson, Senna, Fittipaldi etc etc.

I can't take this seriously, it's totally ridiculous and a joke.

[sopa]

I started to wonder if it is possible to create a formula to determine the best qualifying driver or at least get close to a meaningful order.

 

I ask this because qualifying is a bit more straightforward than racing with lesser factors blurring the final outcome. So let's take a qualifying average gaps over a year, perhaps exclude some anomalies and five biggest team-mate gaps over a year. I know some people have been calculating Q averages in a single season (including a thread also in this forum), but can some meaningful performance trends be constructred over a set of (many) seasons?

[P123]

Seems like the person who created it has gone to a huge amount of effort, so a thumbs up for that.

However with Hakkinen rated well below the likes of Frentzen and Fisi, who raced in the same era as him, then it does seem that something has gone a little awry with the method he is using.