Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 4 votes

F1 crazy statistics


  • Please log in to reply
13030 replies to this topic

#13001 Beri

Beri
  • Member

  • 11,448 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 13 March 2024 - 18:44

The Williamses were not the best chassis of the field in their BMW days. That is for sure. 2003 was perhaps their best year.



Advertisement

#13002 Countersteer

Countersteer
  • Member

  • 97 posts
  • Joined: February 24

Posted 13 March 2024 - 21:58

The Williamses were not the best chassis of the field in their BMW days. That is for sure. 2003 was perhaps their best year.

In 2003, Williams won in Monaco, Nurburgring, Magny Cours, and Hockenheim. Those are not exactly power circuits.

Montoya was also leading in Austria and Japan before his car conked.

Likewise, Montoya was leading in Australia and Canada but he spun.

That’s 8 potential wins right there… out of 16 races…

#13003 F1Frog

F1Frog
  • Member

  • 619 posts
  • Joined: August 21

Posted 13 March 2024 - 23:26

In 2003, Williams won in Monaco, Nurburgring, Magny Cours, and Hockenheim. Those are not exactly power circuits.

Montoya was also leading in Austria and Japan before his car conked.

Likewise, Montoya was leading in Australia and Canada but he spun.

That’s 8 potential wins right there… out of 16 races…


In my opinion, Montoya was also a step below Raikkonen as a driver, who himself was multiple steps below Schumacher.

#13004 JimmyClark

JimmyClark
  • Member

  • 4,733 posts
  • Joined: July 20

Posted 13 March 2024 - 23:53

Yes, I think had Michael been in the 2003 Williams he would have dragged a championship out of it.

#13005 Dan333SP

Dan333SP
  • Member

  • 4,681 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 14 March 2024 - 02:38

Yes, I think had Michael been in the 2003 Williams he would have dragged a championship out of it.


This we can all agree on.

#13006 NewMrMe

NewMrMe
  • Member

  • 863 posts
  • Joined: August 12

Posted 14 March 2024 - 06:39

Given that both Montoya and Ralf Schumacher were both disappointing after leaving Williams, I have for a while now wondered if the 2003 Williams was actually a lot better can than thought at the time. Montoya and Ralf masked each other's mediocrity.



#13007 Beri

Beri
  • Member

  • 11,448 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 14 March 2024 - 07:20

In 2003, Williams won in Monaco, Nurburgring, Magny Cours, and Hockenheim. Those are not exactly power circuits.

Montoya was also leading in Austria and Japan before his car conked.

Likewise, Montoya was leading in Australia and Canada but he spun.

That’s 8 potential wins right there… out of 16 races…

 

Like I said; 2003 was perhaps their best year.



#13008 IrvTheSwerve

IrvTheSwerve
  • Member

  • 4,982 posts
  • Joined: July 15

Posted 14 March 2024 - 12:00

Saudi was the first time since 1968 where we’ve had 4 Brits finish in the points.

 

French GP ‘68

Surtees

Stewart

Elford

Courage

 

Saudi ‘24

Norris

Russell

Bearman

Hamilton



#13009 IrvTheSwerve

IrvTheSwerve
  • Member

  • 4,982 posts
  • Joined: July 15

Posted 14 March 2024 - 12:02

Proof that you shouldn’t believe everything you read in the papers, lol…

 

https://www.dailymai...im top 10 spots

 

Points awarded to top 6 in those days, obvs.



#13010 NCB619

NCB619
  • New Member

  • 15 posts
  • Joined: December 16

Posted 15 March 2024 - 02:11

Proof that you shouldn’t believe everything you read in the papers, lol…

 

https://www.dailymai...im top 10 spots

 

Points awarded to top 6 in those days, obvs.

That looks to be an adjusted stat on their (Daily Mail) end, considering they've included the Brits that finished 7th and 8th for that race



#13011 IrvTheSwerve

IrvTheSwerve
  • Member

  • 4,982 posts
  • Joined: July 15

Posted 15 March 2024 - 07:07

That looks to be an adjusted stat on their (Daily Mail) end, considering they've included the Brits that finished 7th and 8th for that race

Indeed. 
 

Can’t really do that though and claim they all scored points in 2000…


Edited by IrvTheSwerve, 15 March 2024 - 11:05.


#13012 WonderWoman61

WonderWoman61
  • Member

  • 1,603 posts
  • Joined: December 21

Posted 15 March 2024 - 11:07

Proof that you shouldn’t believe everything you read in the papers, lol…
 
https://www.dailymai...im top 10 spots
 
Points awarded to top 6 in those days, obvs.


They need to swot up on their F1 history.

#13013 IrvTheSwerve

IrvTheSwerve
  • Member

  • 4,982 posts
  • Joined: July 15

Posted 15 March 2024 - 11:11

They need to swot up on their F1 history.

Indeed. Changed to top 8 in 2003 iirc.



#13014 WonderWoman61

WonderWoman61
  • Member

  • 1,603 posts
  • Joined: December 21

Posted 15 March 2024 - 11:57

Indeed. Changed to top 8 in 2003 iirc.


And top 10 in 2010.

#13015 NCB619

NCB619
  • New Member

  • 15 posts
  • Joined: December 16

Posted 15 March 2024 - 12:21

I mean personally... if I want to look up a stat like that, I do adjust to one time-period for consistency (that's the one thing I don't like about the points system changes), but I also note that when sharing.



#13016 IrvTheSwerve

IrvTheSwerve
  • Member

  • 4,982 posts
  • Joined: July 15

Posted 15 March 2024 - 13:31

I mean personally... if I want to look up a stat like that, I do adjust to one time-period for consistency (that's the one thing I don't like about the points system changes), but I also note that when sharing.

 

I don't see reason to do that - if they scored points (or not) with the points system at the time, then that is all that counts. What if they start giving out points for every position (as has been mentioned before), do we then start to talk about tail-enders in the 70s and 80s who barely qualified as double-figure point scoring drivers?

 

They've written that article stating that 4 Brits finished in the points, when Herbert and Irvine finished 7th and 8th - so it is factually incorrect. Probably a screw-up more than any 'adjustment' that they made.



#13017 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 35,982 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 15 March 2024 - 14:34

I mean personally... if I want to look up a stat like that, I do adjust to one time-period for consistency (that's the one thing I don't like about the points system changes), but I also note that when sharing.

 

If you mean 4 brits in top 8 while sport only gave out for 6 first positions, then adjusting to 8 and say the 7th and 8th driver were in the points? Then I disagree whole heartedly.



#13018 NCB619

NCB619
  • New Member

  • 15 posts
  • Joined: December 16

Posted 15 March 2024 - 15:21

I don't see reason to do that - if they scored points (or not) with the points system at the time, then that is all that counts. What if they start giving out points for every position (as has been mentioned before), do we then start to talk about tail-enders in the 70s and 80s who barely qualified as double-figure point scoring drivers?

 

They've written that article stating that 4 Brits finished in the points, when Herbert and Irvine finished 7th and 8th - so it is factually incorrect. Probably a screw-up more than any 'adjustment' that they made.

 

 

If you mean 4 brits in top 8 while sport only gave out for 6 first positions, then adjusting to 8 and say the 7th and 8th driver were in the points? Then I disagree whole heartedly.


I should clarify more that I mean when talking about stats like all time points scorers, etc. In terms of individual GPs (this driver finished in the points at the X GP), I don't like doing it.

 

Just irritates me seeing things like the all-time points scorers list with recency bias, because A) more drivers get points now, and B) more points available in general. I know it's not 'factually' correct, but for comparisons sake over the performance of a driver over their career, it's a much realistic comparison.



#13019 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,699 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 15 March 2024 - 15:27

I should clarify more that I mean when talking about stats like all time points scorers, etc. In terms of individual GPs (this driver finished in the points at the X GP), I don't like doing it.

 

Just irritates me seeing things like the all-time points scorers list with recency bias, because A) more drivers get points now, and B) more points available in general. I know it's not 'factually' correct, but for comparisons sake over the performance of a driver over their career, it's a much realistic comparison.

Though counter point C), a smaller percentage of finishers score points today.



Advertisement

#13020 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 35,982 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 15 March 2024 - 15:36

I should clarify more that I mean when talking about stats like all time points scorers, etc. In terms of individual GPs (this driver finished in the points at the X GP), I don't like doing it.

 

Just irritates me seeing things like the all-time points scorers list with recency bias, because A) more drivers get points now, and B) more points available in general. I know it's not 'factually' correct, but for comparisons sake over the performance of a driver over their career, it's a much realistic comparison.

 

The points are the points, the number of races a points system existed, it all give a skewed picture - Unfortunately there is no real way to adjust facts in order to make a statistic - The accumulated points across the full F1 history is no longer a relevant one, as there are no one-to-one of how to score.



#13021 F1Frog

F1Frog
  • Member

  • 619 posts
  • Joined: August 21

Posted 17 March 2024 - 23:07

From whenever team car numbers started, to as recently as 2013, when car numbers were determined by constructor’s championship positions, number 13 was always deliberately skipped out.

Something I hadn’t thought about for a long time but is a pretty crazy statistic.

Edited by F1Frog, 17 March 2024 - 23:08.


#13022 Rob G

Rob G
  • Member

  • 11,609 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 17 March 2024 - 23:41

From whenever team car numbers started, to as recently as 2013, when car numbers were determined by constructor’s championship positions, number 13 was always deliberately skipped out.

Something I hadn’t thought about for a long time but is a pretty crazy statistic.

 

It was much longer than that -- pretty much since 1926, with a few exceptions. Paul Torchy was killed at San Sebastian in 1925 while driving car #13. From that point on, most race organizers skipped 13 when assigning numbers. The Italians were slower to do so, since their unlucky number is 17, not 13.



#13023 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 61,701 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted Yesterday, 00:39

And of course it's monumentally stupid - think of the following...

 

1 - Clark

2 - Senna

3 - Earnhardt

4 - von Trips

5 - Siffert

6 - Cevert

7 - Rodriguez ®

8 - Ascari (Antonio)

9 - Winkelhock

10 - Renna

11 - Mayer (Timmy)

12 - Smith (Sparrow)*

14 - Williamson

15 - Miller

16 - Pryce

17 - Bianchi (Jules)

18 - Bandini

19 - Bianchi (Lucien)

20 - Levegh (surely, if ANY number were to be boycotted, it would be this one)

 

&c &c.  Probably fill up most of the way to 100 with numbers involved in fatal crashes.

 

* if you want a real one in F1, then Shane Summers



#13024 dmj

dmj
  • Member

  • 2,250 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted Yesterday, 10:17

IIRC Moises Solana once used number 13 in F1 in mid Sixties, for long the only occassion it was used in a WDC race.



#13025 Goron3

Goron3
  • Member

  • 4,443 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted Yesterday, 10:29

Nico Rosberg is pretty much gaurenteed to end up as the third most successful driver of the hybrid era, right? In terms of wins and championship?



#13026 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 12,860 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted Yesterday, 12:00

And of course it's monumentally stupid - think of the following...

 

1 - Clark

2 - Senna

3 - Earnhardt

4 - von Trips

5 - Siffert

6 - Cevert

7 - Rodriguez ®

8 - Ascari (Antonio)

9 - Winkelhock

10 - Renna

11 - Mayer (Timmy)

12 - Smith (Sparrow)*

14 - Williamson

15 - Miller

16 - Pryce

17 - Bianchi (Jules)

18 - Bandini

19 - Bianchi (Lucien)

20 - Levegh (surely, if ANY number were to be boycotted, it would be this one)

 

&c &c.  Probably fill up most of the way to 100 with numbers involved in fatal crashes.

 

* if you want a real one in F1, then Shane Summers

 

Since you list at least one Indycar driver (and I think a second as well but he also qualifies as WDC fatality)

For certain kind of Indy fans perhaps an interesting one: which number has been the deadliests on the track over the years....

Pretty sure someone has sorted out that too by now.



#13027 LegendInTheMaking

LegendInTheMaking
  • Member

  • 170 posts
  • Joined: December 21

Posted Yesterday, 13:20

IIRC Moises Solana once used number 13 in F1 in mid Sixties, for long the only occassion it was used in a WDC race.

Solana and Divina Galica are the only ones to have used no. 13 until Maldonado picked it as his personal number when the numbers system was changed prior to the 2014 season.

 

Maldonado did complain about his bad luck, but truthfully, can you really be called unlucky if you crash so often but never suffer an injury? To refresh our memories, this is how Maldonado spend his time in 2014 and 2015, driving around with no. 13:

 

pastor-maldonado-lotus-2015-belgian-gp_3

XPB_723623_HiRes.jpg

maldonado-grosjean-crash-silverstone_335

images_Formule1_2015_nieuws-april_Maldon

accident-prone-f1-drivers-list-pastor-ma

 

While no. 13 was always avoided for driver numbers, it has been part of a lot of chassis names, often not without success:

 

The Williams FW13 (1989-90) won 3 races, a step up from the FW12© and paving the way for the successful FW14 cars.

The Footwork FA13 (1992) performed considerably better than its predecessors, providing an unexpected upturn to the career of Alboreto. 

The Sauber C13 (1994) was a solid performer, giving rookie Heinz-Harald Frentzen multiple points finishes. 

The McLaren MP4/13 (1998) won McLaren's first titles since 1991 and its only constructors title in the last 30 years.

The Jordan EJ13 (2003) was the last Jordan to win a race.

The Toro Rosso STR13 (2018) was successful as a testing mule for the Honda engines, but failed to score big in points in a competitive midfield that season. 

The Red Bull RB13 (2017) suffered from reliability issues, but still won 3 races.

The Mercedes W13 (2022), while not quite as good as its predecessor, was the last Mercedes to win a race. 

 

The superstition seems to be most profound with the older British teams and Ferrari, who have avoided both no.13 and no.17 in naming their cars. British teams Brabham, Lotus and Surtees, who all had sequential numbering of their car types, never had a BT13, Type 13 or TS13. In a similar fashion, Tyrrell skipped from 012 to 014, but they probably should have build an interim 013: the team was excluded from the 1984 championship as their 012 car was deemed illegal as Tyrrell had a manoeuvre to circumvent the minimum weight rules. They sort-of needed this to compensate for their lack of power as they did not have a turbo-charged engine like the top teams had. One could argue that if they would have secured a turbo engine (and had to built an updated version of the 012, which -for the sake of argument- would be named 013), this likely wouldn't have happened and the teams' future would have been quite different. 



#13028 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 61,701 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted Yesterday, 13:55

Since you list at least one Indycar driver (and I think a second as well but he also qualifies as WDC fatality)

For certain kind of Indy fans perhaps an interesting one: which number has been the deadliests on the track over the years....

Pretty sure someone has sorted out that too by now.

 

Chances are it's 1.  Simply because it's going to be the most common number in racing as a whole.  Just OTTOMH in decent-level racing there's Clark, Jimmy Bryan, Rich Vogler, and Ted Horn.



#13029 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 12,860 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted Yesterday, 14:17

Solana and Divina Galica are the only ones to have used no. 13 until Maldonado picked it as his personal number when the numbers system was changed prior to the 2014 season.

 

Maldonado did complain about his bad luck, but truthfully, can you really be called unlucky if you crash so often but never suffer an injury? To refresh our memories, this is how Maldonado spend his time in 2014 and 2015, driving around with no. 13:

 

 

While no. 13 was always avoided for driver numbers, it has been part of a lot of chassis names, often not without success:

 

The Williams FW13 (1989-90) won 3 races, a step up from the FW12© and paving the way for the successful FW14 cars.

The Footwork FA13 (1992) performed considerably better than its predecessors, providing an unexpected upturn to the career of Alboreto. 

The Sauber C13 (1994) was a solid performer, giving rookie Heinz-Harald Frentzen multiple points finishes. 

The McLaren MP4/13 (1998) won McLaren's first titles since 1991 and its only constructors title in the last 30 years.

The Jordan EJ13 (2003) was the last Jordan to win a race.

The Toro Rosso STR13 (2018) was successful as a testing mule for the Honda engines, but failed to score big in points in a competitive midfield that season. 

The Red Bull RB13 (2017) suffered from reliability issues, but still won 3 races.

The Mercedes W13 (2022), while not quite as good as its predecessor, was the last Mercedes to win a race. 

 

The superstition seems to be most profound with the older British teams and Ferrari, who have avoided both no.13 and no.17 in naming their cars. British teams Brabham, Lotus and Surtees, who all had sequential numbering of their car types, never had a BT13, Type 13 or TS13. In a similar fashion, Tyrrell skipped from 012 to 014, but they probably should have build an interim 013: the team was excluded from the 1984 championship as their 012 car was deemed illegal as Tyrrell had a manoeuvre to circumvent the minimum weight rules. They sort-of needed this to compensate for their lack of power as they did not have a turbo-charged engine like the top teams had. One could argue that if they would have secured a turbo engine (and had to built an updated version of the 012, which -for the sake of argument- would be named 013), this likely wouldn't have happened and the teams' future would have been quite different. 

 

In F1 it didn't happen that often that from a certain type op car so many examples were built that there was a chassis number  #####-13. I know about quite a number of Williams FW07's being built but was there a FW07-13?

 

 

March, Lola and Reynard however when dealing with indycars and other spec series had to do with such high production numbers.

I know of at least one indycar built by these companies of a chassis #13 existing, and it being a lucky #13 too.  Bobby Rahal's '86 Indy 500 winning car was the March 86C 013.

Even more remarkable is the fact that the car raced as the #3, yet it wasn't entered as the primary car for Bobby that year but the backup that eventually was taken over as preferred car for the race.

 

 

I have heard that Rahal has requested on other occasions too when his team ordered new cars that he was willing to receive the 013 of the series. But from what I could work out he did not get that many more, if any more 013's throughout his career.

At least one other March Indycar had a 013 in the production line: the '88 typ 88C 013 was driven that year by Billy Vukovich and the car brought him the rookie of the year title. 

If having been in a 013 once in his career was a factor in him being killed while racing in a dirt track event little more than two years later...... 


Edited by Henri Greuter, Yesterday, 14:20.


#13030 Hati

Hati
  • Member

  • 6,868 posts
  • Joined: March 16

Posted Yesterday, 15:25

 

The Jordan EJ13 (2003) was the last Jordan to win a race.

The Mercedes W13 (2022), while not quite as good as its predecessor, was the last Mercedes to win a race. 

 

 

You know something we don't?



#13031 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,699 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted Yesterday, 15:26

You know something we don't?


Those two statements are correct, unless you know something we don’t.