Jump to content


Photo

Finally! A scientific analysis: The best F1 driver


  • Please log in to reply
81 replies to this topic

#1 ViMaMo

ViMaMo
  • Member

  • 6,513 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 08 March 2010 - 06:28

Who is the Best Formula 1 Driver: An Econometric Analysis

Advertisement

#2 shunt

shunt
  • Member

  • 160 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 08 March 2010 - 06:39

Who is the Best Formula 1 Driver: An Econometric Analysis



Bloody hell there's some reading there! I'm not going to bother though. We all know it's Mark Webber :drunk:

#3 Jose Mourinho is Special

Jose Mourinho is Special
  • Member

  • 368 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 08 March 2010 - 07:06

Posted Image

Edited by Jose Mourinho is Special, 08 March 2010 - 07:14.


#4 HoldenRT

HoldenRT
  • Member

  • 6,773 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 08 March 2010 - 07:21

Posted Image

:eek: :lol: :up:

#5 ViMaMo

ViMaMo
  • Member

  • 6,513 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 08 March 2010 - 07:34

Posted Image


Gave up on women? :lol:


#6 BRK

BRK
  • Member

  • 4,596 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 08 March 2010 - 08:29

5 Conclusions
Formula 1 drivers are fast and good cars make them even faster.


Ground-breaking.

Particularly, J. M. Fangio is better than M.Schumacher. J. Clark, N. Farina, A. Prost, K. Räikkönen, A. Senna, A. Ascari, J. Stewart
and F. Alonso can usually be found under the TOP-10 in all evaluations.


Much the same as the results of any poll on the internet.

I guess it's a good 'read' for the academe. Definitely not my thing,though.

#7 saunarobot

saunarobot
  • Member

  • 250 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 08 March 2010 - 11:45

The mean rankings in order from best to last.

[codebox]1 1.41 J. M. Fangio
2 3.22 M. Schumacher
3 3.73 N. Farina
4 4.64 J. Clark
5 5.55 A. Prost
6 5.76 A. Ascari
7 7.37 A. Senna
8 7.98 K. Räikkönen
9 8.49 J. Stewart
10 11.91 F. Alonso
11 13.91 B. McLaren
12 14.61 T. Brooks
13 15.71 N. Piquet
14 16.41 J. P. Montoya
15 16.62 M. Häkkinen
16 17.62 D. Hulme
17 18.92 S. Moss
18 19.22 D. Coulthard
19 19.92 J. Hunt
20 20.62 J. Rindt
21 21.42 D. Hill
22 23.12 J. Scheckter
23 23.52 D. Gurney
24 24.42 J. Brabham
25 26.03 E. Fittipaldi
26 26.13 N. Lauda
27 27.33 R. Barrichello
28 27.43 G. Berger
29 29.33 C. Reutemann
30 29.73 N. Mansell
31 29.83 R. Schumacher
32 30.33 G. Hill
33 30.83 J. Surtees
34 31.03 R. Patrese
35 31.14 H.H. Frentzen
36 34.44 E. Irvine
37 35.54 G. Villeneuve
38 37.04 J. Laffite
39 38.54 J. Villeneuve
40 38.54 K. Rosberg
41 38.84 R. Peterson
42 42.34 J. Ickx
43 42.44 A. Jones
44 43.34 J. Watson
45 43.55 M. Andretti
46 45.55 T. Boutsen
47 47.15 M. Alboreto
48 47.35 J. Herbert
49 47.65 C. Regazzoni
50 49.35 R. Arnoux
[/codebox]

#8 mrade

mrade
  • Member

  • 76 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 08 March 2010 - 12:00

The mean rankings in order from best to last.

1	1.41	J. M. Fangio2	3.22	M. Schumacher3	3.73	N. Farina4	4.64	J. Clark5	5.55	A. Prost6	5.76	A. Ascari7	7.37	A. Senna8	7.98	K. Räikkönen9	8.49	J. Stewart10	11.91	F. Alonso11	13.91	B. McLaren12	14.61	T. Brooks13	15.71	N. Piquet14	16.41	J. P. Montoya15	16.62	M. Häkkinen16	17.62	D. Hulme17	18.92	S. Moss18	19.22	D. Coulthard19	19.92	J. Hunt20	20.62	J. Rindt21	21.42	D. Hill22	23.12	J. Scheckter23	23.52	D. Gurney24	24.42	J. Brabham25	26.03	E. Fittipaldi26	26.13	N. Lauda27	27.33	R. Barrichello28	27.43	G. Berger29	29.33	C. Reutemann30	29.73	N. Mansell31	29.83	R. Schumacher32	30.33	G. Hill33	30.83	J. Surtees34	31.03	R. Patrese35	31.14	H.H. Frentzen36	34.44	E. Irvine37	35.54	G. Villeneuve38	37.04	J. Laffite39	38.54	J. Villeneuve40	38.54	K. Rosberg41	38.84	R. Peterson42	42.34	J. Ickx43	42.44	A. Jones44	43.34	J. Watson45	43.55	M. Andretti46	45.55	T. Boutsen47	47.15	M. Alboreto48	47.35	J. Herbert49	47.65	C. Regazzoni50	49.35	R. Arnoux



Any model that puts Räikkönen in 8th and Lauda in 26th is fundamentally flawed.
However, I like the fact that Prost is placed ahead of Senna.

Edited by mrade, 08 March 2010 - 12:10.


#9 Vitesse2

Vitesse2
  • Administrator

  • 36,830 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 08 March 2010 - 12:08

"Finally"? That was somebody's Masters thesis back in 2006 - as it clearly states on the first page. It was bollocks then and it's still bollocks now: Schumacher Minor a better driver than six World Champions? Moss in 17th place? I don't think so ... :rolleyes:

Edited by Vitesse2, 08 March 2010 - 12:09.


#10 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 65,569 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 08 March 2010 - 12:11

Can you provide a scientific rebuttal? :p

#11 thiscocks

thiscocks
  • Member

  • 1,327 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 08 March 2010 - 12:39

Yawn

#12 ex Rhodie racer 2

ex Rhodie racer 2
  • Member

  • 1,140 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 08 March 2010 - 12:49


That analysis is what is known as a WOFTAM.

Edited by ex Rhodie racer 2, 08 March 2010 - 13:20.


#13 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 08 March 2010 - 13:04

It appears that fans frequently misplace "whom I like best" with "who is the best".



#14 Brian O Flaherty

Brian O Flaherty
  • Member

  • 2,668 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 08 March 2010 - 13:06

Gilles 37th :rotfl:

#15 Jack Burton

Jack Burton
  • Member

  • 400 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 08 March 2010 - 13:12

A pointless, meaningless, waste of time.

What a joke of a master's thesis.

#16 RodrigoL

RodrigoL
  • Member

  • 1,531 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 08 March 2010 - 13:22

"Finally"? That was somebody's Masters thesis back in 2006 - as it clearly states on the first page. It was bollocks then and it's still bollocks now: Schumacher Minor a better driver than six World Champions? Moss in 17th place? I don't think so ... :rolleyes:

Gilles 37th :rotfl:

A pointless, meaningless, waste of time.

What a joke of a master's thesis.


What great arguments. I assume you all have an alternative model, with extensive justifications for every part of the process?

Let me guess...it goes something like:

"I don't like that driver, let's move him down"

"This one didn't win much, but he's old enough to be considered legendary. Move him up the list" :rolleyes:

#17 pgj

pgj
  • Member

  • 1,691 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 08 March 2010 - 13:26

Posted Image


Brilliant! :rotfl:

Very good! :up:


#18 Just waiting

Just waiting
  • Member

  • 868 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 08 March 2010 - 13:30

Actually the study is not showing or proving who is necessarily the best or fastest. It is showing the results of where they qualified and finished against their particular rivals in a study that fails to adequately measure the effect of who had better machinery (esp the impact of mechanical failure) or faced stiffer competition-something difficult to do.

However, the assumption is that the better the results of the various calculations, the better is the driver.

And one needs to look at the various tables and understand them completely. What is clear is how well Fangio and Ascari fared against their rivals, and how well Clark and MS did as well. Moss, despite obvious talent, did not because of his results, many of which were beyond his control

Heinz Frentzen did well because he produced consistently high results with Williams for the brief time he raced, same as JPM.

Indeed, if only the results of 2009 were used for Button, and all other years ignored or not included, he would be butting heads with Fangio, Clark et al.

OTOH, while Clark and Moss might have done well in a modern f1 car, poor Fangio would not manage to be able to sit inside the modern F1 car without severe diet and weight reduction and then there would be the question of fitness and his age.

Edited by Just waiting, 08 March 2010 - 13:32.


#19 AndreasF1

AndreasF1
  • Member

  • 1,200 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 08 March 2010 - 13:34

Any model that puts Räikkönen in 8th and Lauda in 26th is fundamentally flawed.
However, I like the fact that Prost is placed ahead of Senna.



I would suggest that the model is flawed because Prost is ranked higher than Senna. :lol: :lol:

Advertisement

#20 thiscocks

thiscocks
  • Member

  • 1,327 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 08 March 2010 - 13:38

Gilles 37th :rotfl:


And below Irvine! :lol:

#21 mrade

mrade
  • Member

  • 76 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 08 March 2010 - 13:45

I would suggest that the model is flawed because Prost is ranked higher than Senna. :lol: :lol:

:up:

That shows the futility of trying to put together such a list.

#22 AndreasF1

AndreasF1
  • Member

  • 1,200 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 08 March 2010 - 13:47

And below Irvine! :lol:



Coulthardt ahead of Mansell, Rindt and Lauda :rotfl: :rotfl:

Whoever came up with this scientific analysis maybe had a Phd but was lacking in the common sense department.

#23 Brian O Flaherty

Brian O Flaherty
  • Member

  • 2,668 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 08 March 2010 - 13:48

What great arguments. I assume you all have an alternative model, with extensive justifications for every part of the process?

You don't need an alternative model in order to know that the results of this model are total and utter b*llocks. Sometimes it's just staring you in the face.

#24 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 65,569 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 08 March 2010 - 13:49

But in this sort of analysis numbers are king. It's not saying it's the final word on 'who is best', it's just a different take on it. You guys react to this as if you were related to the drivers.

#25 Just waiting

Just waiting
  • Member

  • 868 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 08 March 2010 - 13:49

I would suggest that the model is flawed because Prost is ranked higher than Senna. :lol: :lol:

that is a subjective opinion.....without anything objective to support it...and what this study was attempting to do was avoid subjectivity and based it purely on numbers....

OTOH, because of machinery differences, there may really only be subjectivity that really controls driver ranking, because I have always wondered how did many drivers get such great cars (Yeah Frentzen and Eddie Irvinve, I am talking about you) and many other drivers who I thought to be very talented, got such crap.

Often I think it is because the team making the selection tended to making very subjective selections, as well as sponsorship considerations, and then there is pure luck. Senna got no drive with Williams after his test.....then he got lucky in the rain at Monaco, and suddenly things were different......Suppose Clark had never met Chapman, or could not stand him.....where would Clark have been????

J Stewart might have been far higher than where he was except that he drove crap cars through about half his career

Gurney's constantly broke down....

Personally, I think in the earlier eras, driver talent was the dominant factor in car/driver successs, where as later, it has become far more car dominanted, so clark might have done well in his era no matter what.......OTOH, in 2009, Clark might have never made the right contacts, and his career results might have been laughable, in the absence of the right car

Edited by Just waiting, 08 March 2010 - 13:54.


#26 Brian O Flaherty

Brian O Flaherty
  • Member

  • 2,668 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 08 March 2010 - 13:52

But in this sort of analysis numbers are king. It's not saying it's the final word on 'who is best', it's just a different take on it. You guys react to this as if you were related to the drivers.

Agreed, numbers are king. But in a thread entitled "The best F1 driver" we are allowed to laugh at things like Gilles being 37th & Frentzen being 35th. I probably wouldn't laugh if I was related to Gilles :D

#27 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 65,569 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 08 March 2010 - 13:57

I dunno, this guy has given it a lot more thought and come up with a much better argument than anything I've ever seen on a bulletin board.

#28 Jimisgod

Jimisgod
  • Member

  • 4,954 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 08 March 2010 - 13:59

8 7.98 K. Räikkönen
17 18.92 S. Moss


18 19.22 D. Coulthard
26 26.13 N. Lauda


31 29.83 R. Schumacher
41 38.84 R. Peterson


Scientific in the sense of intelligent design perhaps?

Edited by Jimisgod, 08 March 2010 - 13:59.


#29 Just waiting

Just waiting
  • Member

  • 868 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 08 March 2010 - 13:59

Agreed, numbers are king. But in a thread entitled "The best F1 driver" we are allowed to laugh at things like Gilles being 37th & Frentzen being 35th. I probably wouldn't laugh if I was related to Gilles :D

Really need to read the study to see exactly where it suceeds and where it produces odd results that are influenced by the ability of the car compared to the driver....and noted in the study....Kimi had great cars through most of his career and got great results in high finishes and qulifyifying per race, same with JPM Ralf, and Frenzten, Moss did not do so well overall in the per race results............

I do not think the study is trying to prove who was the best per se, but to put the stats in a classic econometeric study to see how they fared.....

Edited by Just waiting, 08 March 2010 - 14:04.


#30 Neophiliac

Neophiliac
  • Member

  • 283 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 08 March 2010 - 14:01

Actually the study is not showing or proving who is necessarily the best or fastest. It is showing the results of where they qualified and finished against their particular rivals in a study that fails to adequately measure the effect of who had better machinery (esp the impact of mechanical failure) or faced stiffer competition-something difficult to do.


Ummm... maybe you should read the study first, before you mouth off. They actually do a decent job of controlling for the machinery in regression analysis - or as good a job as can be done under the circumstances (being that only two drivers at a time share the same machinery). They also control for mechanical failure. And a whole host of other factors. So yeah, read the stuff before posting - makes you look like a complete idiot otherwise.

#31 Sausage

Sausage
  • Member

  • 1,820 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 08 March 2010 - 14:04

That is even worse than the castrol rankings :o My scientific rebuttal is that there is no proper way to rank drivers because of the immense number of variables. I'll probably write a thesis on it one day when I'm old enough to care :smoking:

#32 Just waiting

Just waiting
  • Member

  • 868 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 08 March 2010 - 14:11

Ummm... maybe you should read the study first, before you mouth off. They actually do a decent job of controlling for the machinery in regression analysis - or as good a job as can be done under the circumstances (being that only two drivers at a time share the same machinery). They also control for mechanical failure. And a whole host of other factors. So yeah, read the stuff before posting - makes you look like a complete idiot otherwise.

Thanks for your kind words....I did read it and I could go into details why the regression fails to "adequately measure"** the results as I stated above (or to quote you when you repeat what I already said:" or as good a job as can be done under the circumstances" ...Indeed I already did.
But thanks again.

PS you might want to read what I actually posted and that you repeated before mouthing off.....

**a study that fails to adequately measure the effect of who had better machinery (esp the impact of mechanical failure) or faced stiffer competition-something difficult to do.



And I add per edit, that is what is so diffcult to do and skews the results with many drivers in the study as well aas many of the purely emotional subjective rankings we love to argue about.......

Edited by Just waiting, 08 March 2010 - 14:17.


#33 alfista

alfista
  • Member

  • 1,015 posts
  • Joined: December 08

Posted 08 March 2010 - 14:34

A pointless, meaningless, waste of time.

What a joke of a master's thesis.


If you have data and you know the result you want/need to have you can always find a formula to achieve that result form your data. :wave:
But it would be interesting to see the same methodology applied to some other championships, i.e. USAC-CART

Edited by alfista, 08 March 2010 - 14:40.


#34 RSNS

RSNS
  • Member

  • 1,521 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 08 March 2010 - 14:49

It is not a joke. It is an effort to apply a measure of achievement to f1. As to the machinery problem, you have no way of telling who is best, man or machine, so results is all you have.

But it is important to understand that this kind of method measures achievement in terms of the results compared to other drivers'.
I performed a somewhat different analysis in the past, and while the results were not the same, they are congruent with this one. My results were

1. Fangio
2.Clark
3.Ascari

then
4.Schumacher

Senna and Prost were rather similar, but with some differences.

Then a group which comprised a lot of three times WDC (I called it the Lauda group)

The group of 1 time World Champions (Surtees, for instance) was no different from the 'gifted drivers', such as Jacky Ickx.


#35 Vitesse2

Vitesse2
  • Administrator

  • 36,830 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 08 March 2010 - 14:53

My scientific rebuttal is that there is no proper way to rank drivers because of the immense number of variables.

Nailed it one. I used to play around with numbers like this: by manipulating the scoring systems and the events you include you can prove that Richard Seaman should have been European Champion in 1938 and that at the end of 1996 Damon Hill's career was more successful than Ascari's ...

I'll probably write a thesis on it one day when I'm old enough to care :smoking:

You won't. The older you get, the more you'll understand it doesn't matter. :yawnface:

#36 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 08 March 2010 - 17:09

Nino Farina was better than Clark, Senna, Stewart and Moss. Good to know.

#37 RSNS

RSNS
  • Member

  • 1,521 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 08 March 2010 - 17:11

Nailed it one. I used to play around with numbers like this: by manipulating the scoring systems and the events you include you can prove that Richard Seaman should have been European Champion in 1938 and that at the end of 1996 Damon Hill's career was more successful than Ascari's ...

You won't. The older you get, the more you'll understand it doesn't matter. :yawnface:


While I understand that it is difficult, and probably impossible to make the claim that Schumacher was better than Fangio, you can certainly rank the drivers according to the variables you consider reliable measures of success. If this weren't so, all classification would be helpless.

But my point is with with the idea that it does not matter. All the drivers want to be number one, in fact, racing is all about that. And you claim that it is not important?

Difficult, subjective, too many variables, yes. But it does matter to both the drivers and the public. In fact, judging from this bb, I would say that it is the thing that matters most.

#38 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 08 March 2010 - 17:17

Posted Image

Man, if you had only posted that sooner!!!!!!!

#39 mclarensmps

mclarensmps
  • Member

  • 6,502 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 08 March 2010 - 17:27

Raikkonnen ahead of Hakkinen is automatic fail.

Advertisement

#40 RodrigoL

RodrigoL
  • Member

  • 1,531 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 08 March 2010 - 17:42

Raikkonnen ahead of Hakkinen is automatic fail.


I think 'fail' should be reserved for describing many people's efforts to undermine an entire research paper using bias, ignorance and what is apparently 'common sense'...

Edited by RodrigoL, 08 March 2010 - 17:42.


#41 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 08 March 2010 - 17:46

I think 'fail' should be reserved for describing many people's efforts to undermine an entire research paper using bias, ignorance and what is apparently 'common sense'...

Actually, not using common sense to judge this load of crap would be the same as to say that we cannot believe in God because there is no scientific data to prove his existance lol

#42 Vitesse2

Vitesse2
  • Administrator

  • 36,830 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 08 March 2010 - 18:06

While I understand that it is difficult, and probably impossible to make the claim that Schumacher was better than Fangio, you can certainly rank the drivers according to the variables you consider reliable measures of success. If this weren't so, all classification would be helpless.

But my point is with with the idea that it does not matter. All the drivers want to be number one, in fact, racing is all about that. And you claim that it is not important?

Difficult, subjective, too many variables, yes. But it does matter to both the drivers and the public. In fact, judging from this bb, I would say that it is the thing that matters most.

My point was that all these things are inherently statistically flawed: even as a great admirer of both Seaman and Damon Hill I wouldn't rate them above (respectively) Caracciola and Ascari. But if you look at Damon's win percentage as a ratio of Championship races run between 1992 and 1996 he actually comes out better than Ascari in an equivalent period - despite Ascari's 1952 and 1953 seasons.

You can only accurately rate a driver against his contemporaries and in most eras you can identify one who was dominant.


#43 FerrariF1Fan

FerrariF1Fan
  • Member

  • 326 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 08 March 2010 - 18:12

Moss in 17th place? I don't think so ... :rolleyes:



I guess there are at least 16 F1 drivers with more championships won than Moss, so I don't see your point.

Just in case anyone missed it, this is not the typical subjective 'my driver is better than yours' crap people like to post an believe, this is a scientific work based on numbers.

Edited by FerrariF1Fan, 08 March 2010 - 18:13.


#44 wati

wati
  • Member

  • 1,154 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 08 March 2010 - 18:18

Gilles 37th :rotfl:


Yeah, that's really funny. He shouldn't be in the top 100, even.


#45 RSNS

RSNS
  • Member

  • 1,521 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 08 March 2010 - 19:17

My point was that all these things are inherently statistically flawed: even as a great admirer of both Seaman and Damon Hill I wouldn't rate them above (respectively) Caracciola and Ascari. But if you look at Damon's win percentage as a ratio of Championship races run between 1992 and 1996 he actually comes out better than Ascari in an equivalent period - despite Ascari's 1952 and 1953 seasons.

You can only accurately rate a driver against his contemporaries and in most eras you can identify one who was dominant.


I tend to agree with you: we can only rate a driver against his competitors. But we may also determine (more or less objectively) who as more dominant — for instance, Clark or Stewart? Of course Fangio may have been dominant because the competitors of his time were very poor (as many people claimed about Schumacher). So unless we can compare triads of drivers (for instance: Fangio-Moss-Clark; Clark-Stewart-Fitipaldi; Fitipaldi-Lauda-Prost, Prost-Senna-Schumacher; Senna-Schumacher-Alonso) we will never solve this problem. As I do not really believe the method of triads solves anything, I agree that we can only compare the ability of contemporary drivers and the relative dominance. (The triads do have one merit: they suggest that all top drivers were very good, that is, they were more or less in the same tier).
So I think we agree, on this issue. Which is not frequent on this bb...

PS: Edited to add: Damon Hill is, statistically a freak, I agree, and there are others. But Hawthorn, Surtees, and Alan Jones are 'sensibly' classified using the normal method of statistical comparison (on percent data, of course).

Edited by RSNS, 08 March 2010 - 19:24.


#46 AndreasF1

AndreasF1
  • Member

  • 1,200 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 08 March 2010 - 19:25

that is a subjective opinion.....without anything objective to support it...and what this study was attempting to do was avoid subjectivity and based it purely on numbers....

OTOH, because of machinery differences, there may really only be subjectivity that really controls driver ranking, because I have always wondered how did many drivers get such great cars (Yeah Frentzen and Eddie Irvinve, I am talking about you) and many other drivers who I thought to be very talented, got such crap.

Often I think it is because the team making the selection tended to making very subjective selections, as well as sponsorship considerations, and then there is pure luck. Senna got no drive with Williams after his test.....then he got lucky in the rain at Monaco, and suddenly things were different......Suppose Clark had never met Chapman, or could not stand him.....where would Clark have been????

J Stewart might have been far higher than where he was except that he drove crap cars through about half his career

Gurney's constantly broke down....

Personally, I think in the earlier eras, driver talent was the dominant factor in car/driver successs, where as later, it has become far more car dominanted, so clark might have done well in his era no matter what.......OTOH, in 2009, Clark might have never made the right contacts, and his career results might have been laughable, in the absence of the right car



I think that after having watched Senna race against Prost for 10 years there is enough conclusive evidence to support that he was the better racing driver. In fact Senna was heads and shoulders above Prost only to loose because his machinery let him down in most circumstances. There are several races where Prost beat Senna on merrit but the overall balance of such race wins does not swing the pendulum in Prost's favor. The problem is that most ardent Prost supporters on this forum started watching F1 long after both drivers retired from the sport. These are fans that hate the status quo and are Rebells without a cause. The experts (people that both raced against and people in F1) that matter on this subject have for the most part concluded that Senna was superior.

Secondly you sound like a socialist :"These drivers are lucky and got what they deserved based on luck. There are others who are more deserving and should be awarded the same... " What makes you think Senna was lucky at Monaco ,Schumacher was lucky at Spa in 91, or Vettel at Monza ? How was it luck that they produced something that nobody else had done so in machinery far more supperior to theirs on that day. And they repeated these performances over and over with inferior machinery. Alonso was amazing as a Minardi driver and showed signs of greatness as did Mark Webber.
Of course there is a component of luck involved but there is in any job or profession as it is part of life. THere was a famous golfer who once said to a fan who called him lucky after he scored a hole in one: Yes the more I practice the luckier I get...
Greats like Schumacher, Prost, Senna, Vettel, Alonso, Lauda etc. will always find their way into the best cars. There is no stopping raw talent and somone is going to catch on to it offer the car.

#47 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 65,569 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 08 March 2010 - 19:31

He may be a socialist, but you are a fantasist if you think drivers beat other drivers in 'superior equipment'. The 1991 Jordan was very fast, particularly at the Belgian GP. The 2008 Toro Rosso was quick at times, particularly at Monza that weekend. If Vettel was God that weekend, Bourdais was making a bid to be one of the archangels.

#48 bonjon1979

bonjon1979
  • Member

  • 1,117 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 08 March 2010 - 19:33

I think that after having watched Senna race against Prost for 10 years there is enough conclusive evidence to support that he was the better racing driver. In fact Senna was heads and shoulders above Prost only to loose because his machinery let him down in most circumstances. There are several races where Prost beat Senna on merrit but the overall balance of such race wins does not swing the pendulum in Prost's favor. The problem is that most ardent Prost supporters on this forum started watching F1 long after both drivers retired from the sport. These are fans that hate the status quo and are Rebells without a cause. The experts (people that both raced against and people in F1) that matter on this subject have for the most part concluded that Senna was superior.

Secondly you sound like a socialist :"These drivers are lucky and got what they deserved based on luck. There are others who are more deserving and should be awarded the same... " What makes you think Senna was lucky at Monaco ,Schumacher was lucky at Spa in 91, or Vettel at Monza ? How was it luck that they produced something that nobody else had done so in machinery far more supperior to theirs on that day. And they repeated these performances over and over with inferior machinery. Alonso was amazing as a Minardi driver and showed signs of greatness as did Mark Webber.
Of course there is a component of luck involved but there is in any job or profession as it is part of life. THere was a famous golfer who once said to a fan who called him lucky after he scored a hole in one: Yes the more I practice the luckier I get...
Greats like Schumacher, Prost, Senna, Vettel, Alonso, Lauda etc. will always find their way into the best cars. There is no stopping raw talent and somone is going to catch on to it offer the car.


No he doesn't. Can stand how this word is misused, especially in America. It's become the standard reaction to anything people don't agree with.

#49 Juan Kerr

Juan Kerr
  • Member

  • 3,096 posts
  • Joined: October 05

Posted 08 March 2010 - 19:53

I love this notion where people think that circumstances address every situation in a predictable way outside the drivers' control. The other thing is no-one mentions how often a driver out-performs themselves. What about the influence of regret, desire, revenge, selfishness, consideration, reason and many other varying human emotions ? There is no amount of shallow calcuations you could ever do to substitute for pure human unbiased judgement. If you're a good judge, not biased, clever and knowlegable you'll make those kinda stats look worthless. It pains me to think of how much time & money is wasted in academic bliss.

#50 RodrigoL

RodrigoL
  • Member

  • 1,531 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 08 March 2010 - 19:57

He may be a socialist, but you are a fantasist if you think drivers beat other drivers in 'superior equipment'. The 1991 Jordan was very fast, particularly at the Belgian GP. The 2008 Toro Rosso was quick at times, particularly at Monza that weekend. If Vettel was God that weekend, Bourdais was making a bid to be one of the archangels.


Indeed. Getting hammered by his teammate, stalling and being lapped is about as impressive as Gilles' lunacy or Moss' non-championship. Yet, not a single person brought up about the total absense of Bourdais from this study :mad: :smoking: