Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 2 votes

F1 crazy statistics


  • Please log in to reply
5850 replies to this topic

#5701 Beri

Beri
  • Member

  • 2,152 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 09 December 2019 - 21:52

OK Beri, quoting a random post in order to answer the one man quiz you set me somewhere, in a forum time cannot find. Your avatar: definitely Le Mans, definitely an Alfa Romeo (albeit with a strange radiator mask), probably 1933. Must be an Alfa driver, of which I'm one, but it's probably Nuvolari as he's better than me.

Kudos Sterzo! Well done, as Tim already explained. I wanted a new profile picture. And last year I was having a small tour in the Northern of Italy. And upon visiting the Alfa Romeo Museum I came to read about Nuvolari and decided to visit his family tomb, which is about two hours driving away from Milan. After that trip, reading about the about his career made me an instant "fan". Tazios entire life breathes racing. So I thought it would be okay to change my profile picture to the one Le Mans victory Nuvolari accomplished.
On a side note my signature reads what is written on Nuvolaris tomb: "correrai ancor piĆ¹ veloce per le vie del cielo". You will race even faster along the roads of heaven.

Edited by Beri, 09 December 2019 - 21:53.


Advertisement

#5702 Dolph

Dolph
  • Member

  • 7,208 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 13 December 2019 - 17:25

We are talking about F1 here, and his results speak for themselves, competent driver but by far the most GPs without a single podium and rarely had amazing stand out performances. If you are a fan of him and you can't take criticism, its not my problem. I'm not those that like to freely bash drivers without reason.

 

Oh I see, so the moment he switched to F1 his ambition went down. He then did a few races for Porsche where his ambition skyrocketed ending with Le Mans win, only to go down again when he returned to F1. And this is all proved by his F1 results. Utter nonsense - and you believe this yourself?  :rotfl:

 

Additionally, your claim that I am a fan of Hulkenberg is moronic and clearly a pathetic clutching at straws as you really have no legit argument here. He is a competent likeable driver, but I think a few people will miss him in F1. I won't. But that's got nothing to do with his ambition.

 

To be clear: I am fan of Will Power.

Drivers I like: Max Verstappen and Colton Herta.

Drivers I dislike/hate: None



#5703 NixxxoN

NixxxoN
  • Member

  • 2,365 posts
  • Joined: June 17

Posted 14 December 2019 - 13:44

Oh I see, so the moment he switched to F1 his ambition went down. He then did a few races for Porsche where his ambition skyrocketed ending with Le Mans win, only to go down again when he returned to F1. And this is all proved by his F1 results. Utter nonsense - and you believe this yourself?  :rotfl:
 
Additionally, your claim that I am a fan of Hulkenberg is moronic and clearly a pathetic clutching at straws as you really have no legit argument here. He is a competent likeable driver, but I think a few people will miss him in F1. I won't. But that's got nothing to do with his ambition.
 
To be clear: I am fan of Will Power.
Drivers I like: Max Verstappen and Colton Herta.
Drivers I dislike/hate: None

Why are you so aggressive?
Take a chill pill or something

#5704 Grayson

Grayson
  • Autosport digital product manager

  • 3,321 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 23 December 2019 - 11:57

Ferrari have signed Leclerc until the end of 2024.

 

Is a five year contract a record in F1?

 

The only driver I could have imagined signing longer term than that would have been Schumacher at Ferrari, but Googling that a bit it looks like he originally signed with Ferrari for two years and then usually extended three or four years into the future...



#5705 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 3,579 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 23 December 2019 - 13:45

Hamilton-McLaren 2008-2012 = 5 seasons was mentioned in Ferrari thread. Very similar situation actually.



#5706 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 34,926 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 23 December 2019 - 22:36

Alonso too I think. He signed in early 2011 until 2016, that's technically 5.5 years even (even if he left earlier)

#5707 JordanIreland

JordanIreland
  • Member

  • 167 posts
  • Joined: December 15

Posted 24 December 2019 - 02:03

The current decade is the first in F1 history where no new constructor got onto the podium: https://www.statsf1....hronologie.aspx

Force India were the last new team in 2009.

Guess it demonstrates how difficult it is for new teams to get into F1 and be successful.

#5708 SpaceHorseParty

SpaceHorseParty
  • Member

  • 974 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 24 December 2019 - 07:39

The current decade is the first in F1 history where no new constructor got onto the podium: https://www.statsf1....hronologie.aspx

Force India were the last new team in 2009.

Guess it demonstrates how difficult it is for new teams to get into F1 and be successful.

You could say Lotus was a new constructor when it scored all its podiums (and wins). Although, of course, it was still an iteration of the Enstone team.



#5709 Beri

Beri
  • Member

  • 2,152 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 24 December 2019 - 08:09

The current decade is the first in F1 history where no new constructor got onto the podium: https://www.statsf1....hronologie.aspx

Force India were the last new team in 2009.

Guess it demonstrates how difficult it is for new teams to get into F1 and be successful.


It is a hard call where to draw the line. Because why is Force India a new team, after the spells of Jordan, Midland ans Spyker? And why, for example, Lotus (the Enstone one) and Mercedes are not? If you say Force India is a new team, then Mercedes is as well. And by that standard the statistic doesnt float as Mercedes did form in 2010.
I'd say a new team is like Manor, HRT, Lotus/Caterham were and Haas is. And via that standard, the statistic does float.

#5710 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 49,592 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 24 December 2019 - 09:07

Indeed, on that basis, I'd say the last genuinely new team to podium was Toyota in 2005, and the last old-fashioned new team, of someone who had entered cars in lower formulae and decided to have a punt at the big time, was Stewart in 1997. 

 

I think a big factor (quite apart from the obscene financial set-up in F1) is the single make formula.  Standardization is good for sussing out drivers, not for sussing out engineers.



#5711 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 3,579 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 24 December 2019 - 09:39

Another factor is reliability. A team like Haas would fluke a podium with how it was 20-30 years ago.



#5712 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 21,111 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 24 December 2019 - 09:40

It is a hard call where to draw the line. Because why is Force India a new team, after the spells of Jordan, Midland ans Spyker? And why, for example, Lotus (the Enstone one) and Mercedes are not? If you say Force India is a new team, then Mercedes is as well. And by that standard the statistic doesnt float as Mercedes did form in 2010.
I'd say a new team is like Manor, HRT, Lotus/Caterham were and Haas is. And via that standard, the statistic does float.

 

Not a new team, a new constructor. It all fits in no problem when you look at what a constructor is. Lotus, for example, have been raced in F1 by 3 seperate teams. One of those was the Enstone based one, which has raced cars of 4 different constructors.



#5713 Beri

Beri
  • Member

  • 2,152 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 24 December 2019 - 11:07

But if you compare Force India to the Enstone teams, it was not a new constructor either. It continued the mess that was left behind by Midland and Spyker. And those teams were the old Jordan team. In fact, till this day Force India/Racing Point/Canada F1 (or whatever it is called), is based in the same factory that Jordan occupied.

#5714 PlatenGlass

PlatenGlass
  • Member

  • 1,961 posts
  • Joined: June 14

Posted 24 December 2019 - 12:18

Not a new team, a new constructor. It all fits in no problem when you look at what a constructor is. Lotus, for example, have been raced in F1 by 3 seperate teams. One of those was the Enstone based one, which has raced cars of 4 different constructors.

How do we define constructor? Did we have two teams and one constructor when we had that Lotus farce a few years ago?

#5715 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 21,111 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 24 December 2019 - 13:51

How do we define constructor? Did we have two teams and one constructor when we had that Lotus farce a few years ago?

 

It's defined by the brand name, the "make" or "marque" or whatever you want to call it. Just like it always has been. With the Lotus stuff you had Tony Fernandes' team building Lotus from 2010-2011 and then Enstone building Lotus from 2012-2015.

 

But if you compare Force India to the Enstone teams, it was not a new constructor either. It continued the mess that was left behind by Midland and Spyker. And those teams were the old Jordan team. In fact, till this day Force India/Racing Point/Canada F1 (or whatever it is called), is based in the same factory that Jordan occupied.

 

But each time they build a new make of car it's a new constructor. With Racing Point it's also a new team with a new entry since Force India folded. Yes, they are based in the same factory and with mostly the same people, but that's not how you count statistics.



#5716 HistoryFan

HistoryFan
  • Member

  • 6,738 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 24 December 2019 - 14:19

The current decade is the first in F1 history where no new constructor got onto the podium: https://www.statsf1....hronologie.aspx

Force India were the last new team in 2009.

Guess it demonstrates how difficult it is for new teams to get into F1 and be successful.

 

The 3 reasons why is:

1. Reliability: There are just a few races where a lot of cars failed to end the race.

2. There is a big gap between top cars and the midfield cars.

3. There are NO new teams...

 

It was the decade with the least new teams. Only Virgin/Marussia/Manor, HRT, Lotus/Caterham and Haas were new on the grid.

 



#5717 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 3,579 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 24 December 2019 - 14:19

But you can define statistics however you like. I find factory site more interesting than car company or other sponsor naming. Counting Mercedes F1 effort of 50s and now as the same entity is usually pointless.



#5718 HistoryFan

HistoryFan
  • Member

  • 6,738 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 24 December 2019 - 14:22

if you count only new teams and not team overtaken by a new owner you had only 1 new team on the podium in the last decade: Toyota.

BAR, Jaguar, Red Bull, BMW Sauber, Toro Rosso, Brawn and Force India all were NO new teams, just new owners...

 

In the 90s there were 3 new teams on the podium: Jordan, Sauber and Stewart.



#5719 Boxerevo

Boxerevo
  • Member

  • 2,686 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 26 December 2019 - 09:17

Hamilton-McLaren 2008-2012 = 5 seasons was mentioned in Ferrari thread. Very similar situation actually.

When that contract came, i thought in the time it would be a blessing.

 

2 years later, I felt like it spoiled Mclaren's hand with Lewis, like they thought they had him in hands inside this 2010-2012 period and he, Lewis Hamilton, should cope anyway the way they wanted.


Edited by Boxerevo, 26 December 2019 - 09:19.


Advertisement

#5720 HistoryFan

HistoryFan
  • Member

  • 6,738 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 31 December 2019 - 13:56

Numbers of teams in points (decades):

 

1980s: 25
1990s: 16
2000s: 13
2010s: 11

1980s
1. McLaren 887,5
2. Williams 782,5
3. Ferrari 558,5
4. Lotus 356
5. Brabham 313
6. Renault 283
7. Ligier 189
8. Toleman/Benetton 151
9. Tyrrell 109
10. Arrows 98
11. Alfa Romeo 50
12. March 27
13. Fittipaldi 12
14. Scuderia Italia 8
15. Minardi 7
16. Haas 6
17. Onyx 6
18. Rial 6
19. Ensign 5
20. ATS 5
21. Osella 5
22. Larrousse 4
23. Theodore 2
24. Zakspeed 2
25. AGS 2

1990s
1. Williams 1115
2. McLaren 907
3. Ferrari 791,5
4. Benetton 696,5
5. Jordan 216
6. Ligier/Prost 112
7. Sauber 84
8. Tyrrell 61
9. Stewart 47
10. Footwork/Arrows 43
11. Lotus 31
12. Minardi 21
13. Larrousse 19
14. Leyton House/March 11
15. Scuderia Italia 7
16. Brabham 5

2000s
1. Ferrari 1737
2. McLaren 1044
3. Renault/Benetton 800
4. Williams 610,5
5. BAR/Honda/Brawn 505
6. (BMW) Sauber 419
7. Red Bull/Jaguar 305,5
8. Toyota 278,5
9. Jordan/Force India/Spyker 89
10. Toro Rosso/Minardi 66
11. Arrows 10
12. Prost 4
13. Super Aguri 4

2010s
1. Mercedes 5112
2. Red Bull 4468
3. Ferrari 4164
4. McLaren 1972
5. Renault/Lotus 1220
6. Force India/Racing Point 1099
7. Williams 961
8. Toro Rosso 444
9. Sauber/Alfa Romeo 419
10. Haas 197
11. Marussia/Manor 3



#5721 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 21,111 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 31 December 2019 - 14:00

That's with the extended points from 2010 too. Though there have only been 13 teams in the 2010s so only two teams did not score (Team Lotus/Caterham and Hispania). Every team from the 2000s scored points by the looks of it.

 

Got the numbers for teams that failed to score in other decades?



#5722 HistoryFan

HistoryFan
  • Member

  • 6,738 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 31 December 2019 - 14:12

the same for podiums:

 

1980s: 15
1990s: 13
2000s: 10
2010s: 9

1980s
1. McLaren 114
2. Williams 100
3. Ferrari 72
4. Lotus 39
5. Brabham 38
6. Renault 37
7. Ligier 27
8. Benetton/Toleman 18
9. Arrows 6
10. Alfa Romeo 5
11. Tyrrell 4
12. March 3
13. Fittipaldi 2
14. Scuderia Italia 1
15. Onyx 1

1990s
1. Williams 136
2. McLaren 116
3. Ferrari 107
4. Benetton 83
5. Jordan 15
6. Ligier/Prost 11
7. Stewart 5
8. Tyrrell 4
9. Sauber 4
10. Footwork/Arrows 2
11. Leyton House 1
12. Scuderia Italia 1
13. Larrousse 1

2000s
1. Ferrari 192
2. McLaren 131
3. Renault/Benetton 58
4. Williams 48
5. BAR/Honda/Brawn 34
6. Red Bull/Jaguar 21
7. (BMW) Sauber 19
8. Toyota 13
9. Jordan/Force India 5
10. Toro Rosso 1

2010s
1. Mercedes 194
2. Red Bull 151
3. Ferrari 142
4. McLaren 50
5. Lotus/Renault 30
6. Williams 16
7. Force India 5
8. Sauber 4
9. Toro Rosso 2



#5723 HistoryFan

HistoryFan
  • Member

  • 6,738 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 31 December 2019 - 14:15

That's with the extended points from 2010 too. Though there have only been 13 teams in the 2010s so only two teams did not score (Team Lotus/Caterham and Hispania). Every team from the 2000s scored points by the looks of it.

 

Got the numbers for teams that failed to score in other decades?

 

7 teams: Forti, Pacific, Simtek, EuroBrun, AndreaModa, Onyx and Life.

 



#5724 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 15,183 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 31 December 2019 - 14:24

Let me bang on this drum again: F1 needs to reintroduce dropped scores so teams are not so obsessively driven by reliability, and then gamble a little more on outright performance. This in turn might allow the unreliability rates to creep up just enough to give smallers teams a breathing hope of at least scoring more points.

 

Worse case scenario, nothing changes.



#5725 HistoryFan

HistoryFan
  • Member

  • 6,738 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 31 December 2019 - 14:24

And now for wins:

 

1980s: 9
1990s: 7
2000s: 9
2010s: 6

1980s
1. McLaren 56
2. Williams 37
3. Ferrari 18
4. Brabham 15
5. Renault 14
6. Lotus 8
7. Ligier 4
8. Tyrrell 2
9. Benetton 2

1990s
1.Williams 61
2. McLaren 43
3. Ferrari 28
4. Benetton 25
5. Jordan 3
6. Ligier 1
7. Stewart 1

2000s
1. Ferrari 85
2. McLaren 41
3. Renault 30
4. Williams 10
5. Brawn/Honda 9
6. Red Bull 6
7. Jordan 1
8. BMW Sauber 1
9. Toro Rosso 1

2010s
1. Mercedes 93
2. Red Bull 56
3. Ferrari 28
4. McLaren 18
5. Lotus 2
6. Williams 1



#5726 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 21,111 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 31 December 2019 - 14:30

Let me bang on this drum again: F1 needs to reintroduce dropped scores so teams are not so obsessively driven by reliability, and then gamble a little more on outright performance. This in turn might allow the unreliability rates to creep up just enough to give smallers teams a breathing hope of at least scoring more points.

 

Worse case scenario, nothing changes.

 

I'm an advocate for dropped scores because at the front of the grid it encourages drivers to take more risks if they're in a title battle. It won't affect the reliability levels all that much unless the component change penalties are dropped though.



#5727 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 49,592 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 31 December 2019 - 14:45

Let me bang on this drum again: F1 needs to reintroduce dropped scores so teams are not so obsessively driven by reliability, and then gamble a little more on outright performance. This in turn might allow the unreliability rates to creep up just enough to give smallers teams a breathing hope of at least scoring more points.

 

Worse case scenario, nothing changes.

 

When it comes to the Constructors', they should rank the teams in order of where the SECOND car finishes.  On the basis that a team that gets 1st-10th has not done as good a job overall as a team as one that gets 7th-8th.



#5728 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 15,183 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 31 December 2019 - 14:52

You lost me there.

hehe



#5729 garoidb

garoidb
  • Member

  • 6,335 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 31 December 2019 - 14:55

I'm an advocate for dropped scores because at the front of the grid it encourages drivers to take more risks if they're in a title battle. It won't affect the reliability levels all that much unless the component change penalties are dropped though.

 

It tended to reward a degree of conservatism when it was in force, although not every driver noticed that.



#5730 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 21,111 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 31 December 2019 - 15:07

It tended to reward a degree of conservatism when it was in force, although not every driver noticed that.

 

That doesn't make sense. It doesn't reward conservatism because if you're in a position that equals your worst result, you're not scoring any points so there's no need to settle for it.



#5731 garoidb

garoidb
  • Member

  • 6,335 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 31 December 2019 - 16:07

That doesn't make sense. It doesn't reward conservatism because if you're in a position that equals your worst result, you're not scoring any points so there's no need to settle for it.

 

You could equally argue that drivers could have less incentive to defend from someone who is not a rival for the championship in that scenario. The whole thing could only arise when you have a full quota of results in the bag that are all above your current race position (e.g. if you are running third and have eleven* podium finishes that include third places). It also wouldn't apply if you were ahead of your championship opponent in the race (even by several positions) and he would benefit from any failure, error or collision that you might be risking. Even then, any increased appetite for risk would have to be quite late in the season and probably only for the driver trailing in the championship or if it is close. The key thing for the majority of the season would be banking the eleven solid finishes.

 

*the number of points finishes that counted in several seasons. It would likely be a higher number now.



#5732 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 21,111 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 31 December 2019 - 16:30

You could equally argue that drivers could have less incentive to defend from someone who is not a rival for the championship in that scenario. The whole thing could only arise when you have a full quota of results in the bag that are all above your current race position (e.g. if you are running third and have eleven* podium finishes that include third places). It also wouldn't apply if you were ahead of your championship opponent in the race (even by several positions) and he would benefit from any failure, error or collision that you might be risking. Even then, any increased appetite for risk would have to be quite late in the season and probably only for the driver trailing in the championship or if it is close. The key thing for the majority of the season would be banking the eleven solid finishes.

 

*the number of points finishes that counted in several seasons. It would likely be a higher number now.

 

Even early in the season, you aren't going to want to bank whatever points you're looking at because higher results are safer than lower ones. As I said earlier, it makes a bigger difference for the front runners in a title battle.



#5733 garoidb

garoidb
  • Member

  • 6,335 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 31 December 2019 - 16:54

Even early in the season, you aren't going to want to bank whatever points you're looking at because higher results are safer than lower ones. As I said earlier, it makes a bigger difference for the front runners in a title battle.

 

I think its a judgement call under any points system. Risk vs reward. Some drivers won't be in the title race, so a podium or race win today is all that counts for them. I doubt many of them would ever reach the point of having to drop scores, so they wouldn't even take that into consideration. There are so many imponderables that I don't think the effect of a dropped scores rule is entirely predictable. My comment about rewarding a conservative approach was prompted by knowing that Lauda and Piquet both claimed titles from faster (that season) team-mates through a measured approach. Arguably, this approach paid off in 77, 79 and 86 too.



#5734 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 17,362 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 31 December 2019 - 19:03

When it comes to the Constructors', they should rank the teams in order of where the SECOND car finishes.  On the basis that a team that gets 1st-10th has not done as good a job overall as a team as one that gets 7th-8th.

Not sure that flies?  If you add them together - 11 plays 15  -  the lower figure is surely the better overall performance?  



#5735 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 6,210 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 31 December 2019 - 19:07

I'm an advocate for dropped scores because at the front of the grid it encourages drivers to take more risks if they're in a title battle. It won't affect the reliability levels all that much unless the component change penalties are dropped though.

Dropping  scores just sounds counter intuitive to me...It just does..Sorry....Why allow scoring them with all the risks involved  only to subsequently discard them  condom  fashion?
 



#5736 ElectricBoogie

ElectricBoogie
  • Member

  • 615 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 31 December 2019 - 19:16

When it comes to the Constructors', they should rank the teams in order of where the SECOND car finishes.  On the basis that a team that gets 1st-10th has not done as good a job overall as a team as one that gets 7th-8th.

It would a fun idea for a consistency ranking, but a championship...?
Merc- Ferrari-RB this year based on second car. Would that reflect the constructor's efforts fairly, in your opinion?

 

What would be the point? The team leader would then become the tractor. And his interests become oppostite to the ones of the team. The driver cares for good results, not backing off the drag along the team mate who needs a tow three times a lap and helped to overtake slower cars.



#5737 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 6,210 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 31 December 2019 - 19:19

Another factor is reliability. A team like Haas would fluke a podium with how it was 20-30 years ago.

Nothing wrong with fluking it IMHO. We still talking  in awe about Alesi and Maldonado and Brawn! :D



#5738 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 49,592 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 31 December 2019 - 21:10

Not sure that flies?  If you add them together - 11 plays 15  -  the lower figure is surely the better overall performance?  

 

No - a team qua team is only as good as its second car.  Combined performance benefits, essentially, close to 1 car teams.  

 



#5739 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 49,592 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 31 December 2019 - 21:12

It would a fun idea for a consistency ranking, but a championship...?
Merc- Ferrari-RB this year based on second car. Would that reflect the constructor's efforts fairly, in your opinion?

 

Yes.  Ferrari's second string was much better than Red Bull's.   That's a better team job overall.
 



Advertisement

#5740 NoForumForOldPole

NoForumForOldPole
  • Member

  • 534 posts
  • Joined: July 18

Posted 01 January 2020 - 02:38

7 teams: Forti, Pacific, Simtek, EuroBrun, AndreaModa, Onyx and Life.


Lola?

#5741 Bleu

Bleu
  • Member

  • 2,822 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 01 January 2020 - 08:47

Lola?

 

Lola had three incarnations in 1990s. With Larrousse they scored points while Scuderia Italia and MasterCard attempts were complete disasters.



#5742 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 49,592 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 01 January 2020 - 08:59

Nobody has won more Grands Prix than me this decade.



#5743 Currahee

Currahee
  • Member

  • 496 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 01 January 2020 - 11:02

Nobody has won more Grands Prix than me this decade.


Nobody has more fastest laps than me this decade

#5744 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 17,362 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 01 January 2020 - 15:47

No - a team qua team is only as good as its second car.  Combined performance benefits, essentially, close to 1 car teams.  
 

A team is by definition both cars.  To pick the second car alone is as flawed as picking the first car.  It must be measured by the combined performance of the team.  



#5745 shure

shure
  • Member

  • 1,633 posts
  • Joined: April 17

Posted 01 January 2020 - 16:24

When it comes to the Constructors', they should rank the teams in order of where the SECOND car finishes.  On the basis that a team that gets 1st-10th has not done as good a job overall as a team as one that gets 7th-8th.

this may be the wine talking, but why would the second car be a better representative of a team's performance than the lead car?  If you're going down that route wouldn't a position average of the two be a better method?  That way both drivers contribute equally?



#5746 Hati

Hati
  • Member

  • 3,130 posts
  • Joined: March 16

Posted 01 January 2020 - 17:45

this may be the wine talking, but why would the second car be a better representative of a team's performance than the lead car?  If you're going down that route wouldn't a position average of the two be a better method?  That way both drivers contribute equally?

There have been examples where all the attention has been on first car and second is just hanging around. In theory position average is better but it can be something dot half so it requires additional point steps and you have to calculate average of a position and DNF sometimes which may be challenging, is average of eight and ninth better than average of victory and DNF.



#5747 Otaku

Otaku
  • Member

  • 1,418 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 01 January 2020 - 18:18

What is the longest streak of the same driver winning the same GP in consecutive seasons? Senna at Monaco comes to mind with 5, though '88 leaves a sour taste of whatcouldhavebeen...

#5748 PlatenGlass

PlatenGlass
  • Member

  • 1,961 posts
  • Joined: June 14

Posted 01 January 2020 - 18:20

What is the longest streak of the same driver winning the same GP in consecutive seasons? Senna at Monaco comes to mind with 5, though '88 leaves a sour taste of whatcouldhavebeen...

It works both ways though because he was lucky to win in 1987, 1992 and 1993.

#5749 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 49,592 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 01 January 2020 - 18:42

A team is by definition both cars.  To pick the second car alone is as flawed as picking the first car.  It must be measured by the combined performance of the team.  

Think of the Atlantic convoys.  A successful one was one where they all got across the ocean.  Not where all bar one did it in a quick time and the other went down.



#5750 Otaku

Otaku
  • Member

  • 1,418 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 02 January 2020 - 20:36

It works both ways though because he was lucky to win in 1987, 1992 and 1993.

 

I could see how you call the 92 one "lucky" (even if I don't agree), but 87 and 93?? He led more than half the race in those, from lap 30ish to the end.