195 replies to this topic

[BiggestBuddyLazierFan]

I don't know what kind of statistics would apply here, but I find 2021 team lineups exceptionally mismatched and I wonder how it could be quantified and compared historically. For example, teammate win counts:

 95 - 9
 53 - 0
 32 - 0
 21 - 0
 10 - 1
  7 - 0
  2 - 0
  1 - 0
  0 - 0
  0 - 0
-------
221 - 10

8/10 teams have race winners driving for them, but only two of them have a race winner pair. Even one of those is a fluke winner, and the other a lowly win count considering the car driven for four years. Surely the first drivers having 22 times more wins than second drivers must be some kind of record, can anyone confirm?

Perez is not a fluke winner.

It was genuine well deserved win.

This topic is such a huge source of sadness for me.

Many great drivers have been mercilessly devalued in this topic.

And only because of our desperate need to turn everything into numbers

[Dan333SP]

Perez is not a fluke winner.

It was genuine well deserved win.

This topic is such a huge source of sadness for me.

Many great drivers have been mercilessly devalued in this topic.

And only because of our desperate need to turn everything into numbers

 

You seem to be lost, as this is a thread devoted to statistics. You know, analyzing quantifiable (numeric) data. Pretty sure the drivers being "mercilessly devalued" don't give a hoot about this thread, nor should it hurt your feelings. It's just analysis. 

[Risil]

He's right that Perez wasn't a fluke winner, which is what Paipa suggested.

[DeKnyff]

This topic is such a huge source of sadness for me.

Many great drivers have been mercilessly devalued in this topic.

And only because of our desperate need to turn everything into numbers

 

Posters turn everything into numbers in this thread because it's specifically about statistics. If you don't like it, why don't you open a thread about drivers whose accomplishments are not reflected by statistics?

[NewMrMe]

Posters turn everything into numbers in this thread because it's specifically about statistics. If you don't like it, why don't you open a thread about drivers whose accomplishments are not reflected by statistics?

 

Isn't that what this thread is about? Surely a case where the numbers don't tell the full story is a candidate for a crazy statistic.

[jcbc3]

Isn't that what this thread is about? Surely a case where the numbers don't tell the full story is a candidate for a crazy statistic.

 

No, that's down the hall in room 12A.

[Risil]

Posters turn everything into numbers in this thread because it's specifically about statistics. If you don't like it, why don't you open a thread about drivers whose accomplishments are not reflected by statistics?

If someone wants to propose a formula by which we can attribute a flukiness index to each Grand Prix win...

[KWSN - DSM]

If someone wants to propose a formula by which we can attribute a flukiness index to each Grand Prix win...

 

[BiggestBuddyLazierFan]

If someone wants to propose a formula by which we can attribute a flukiness index to each Grand Prix win...

Well, in my opinion fluke victory does not even exist. I can not remember not a one single fluke victory.

What exist is improbable and unexpected victories. And improbable victories are even more valuable than probable victories.

For example. Panises win at Monaco 1996 is such a victory. It has more value than all Hamilton's Mercedes hybrid era victories.

Because, Panis drove a midfield car. There were at least 10 drivers on the grid with better cars. But Panis survived tretcherous conditions, where a lot of drivers crashed and he won. He was the best driver that day. It was well deserved but unexpected victory.

There are at least 40 Lewises victories where we can not tell was he the best driver that day. He might have been, but we can not tell for certain.

And that is what makes Panis win a worth win. Because we can tell with 100% certanty that Panis was the best driver in 1996 Monaco GP

[Risil]

Fisichella in Brazil in 2003 (with no disrespect to Giancarlo). That's the only one on my list, and while I don't know enough about what happened at the 1973 Canadian Grand Prix (does anyone?) that may be a contender too. Perhaps Riccardo Patrese in the 1982 Monaco Grand Prix, given that he binned it and stalled on the penultimate lap. I'm sure we've covered this elsewhere but what would've happened if he hadn't got the car going again?

 

Anyway we're getting off-topic, that would be the "Flukey wins" thread we're looking for.

[KWSN - DSM]

And that is what makes Panis win a worth win. Because we can tell with 100% certanty that Panis was the best driver in 1996 Monaco GP

 

[Hati]

Well, in my opinion fluke victory does not even exist. I can not remember not a one single fluke victory.

Schumacher Spain 2001.

[PayasYouRace]

Just because a win is a bit of a fluke doesn’t mean the winner is unworthy. It just means they had a stroke of luck on their way to doing it that otherwise wouldn’t have resulted in a win.

Panis wouldn’t have won without a bunch of people crashing out ahead of him, and without a rare failure for a Renault engine. But he still fully deserved the win and fought hard for it.

Perez too. He needed Mercedes to screw up their pit stops and for Russell to have a puncture, but he still drove well, etc.

Saying there are no fluke wins is to ignore what the word means.

[Collombin]

Tony Bettenhausen once won a champcar race in which he ran out of fuel just after taking the chequered flag. It soon transpired that the officials had waved the flag a lap early. That's as fluky as it gets, even if on pace he had the race in the bag.

[Risil]

Saying there are no fluke wins is to ignore what the word means.

 
It's another word for a flounder, or failing that a flounder-shaped parasite that lives in the livers of sheep. Apparently.

 

But I think a fluke has to mean something rarer and chancier than simply succeeding because others have failed. That happens in most motor races. Fisichella in 2003 is a good example of a real fluke as he won because the red flag fell during the last pitstop cycle. Panis and Perez won their respective races because they and their teams were the best performers on the day. They received no special attentions from fate or fortune.

[BiggestBuddyLazierFan]

Schumacher Spain 2001.

Schumacher's engeneers did better job than Hakkinen's engeneers. Thus his car endured the whole race, while Hakkinen's engine exploded on last lap.

There is nothing fluke about that win. Infact Spain 2001 is the essence of motorsport. Do you go quick and risk retirement or do you go conservatevly.

Too bad that F1 went the way where you have to keep an engine for certain number of races. Modern generations are missing out on what motorsport really is.

[BiggestBuddyLazierFan]

Tony Bettenhausen once won a champcar race in which he ran out of fuel just after taking the chequered flag. It soon transpired that the officials had waved the flag a lap early. That's as fluky as it gets, even if on pace he had the race in the bag.

Exactly. This is one of rare examples of fluke win

[DeKnyff]

For example. Panises win at Monaco 1996 is such a victory. It has more value than all Hamilton's Mercedes hybrid era victories.

Because, Panis drove a midfield car. There were at least 10 drivers on the grid with better cars. But Panis survived tretcherous conditions, where a lot of drivers crashed and he won. He was the best driver that day. It was well deserved but unexpected victory.

There are at least 40 Lewises victories where we can not tell was he the best driver that day. He might have been, but we can not tell for certain.

 

I'm sorry? And when Lewis wins, isn't it because he and his team have done a better job than anyone else? Isn't that exactly the same reason why Panis won in Monaco 96?

[Dolph]

I'm sorry? And when Lewis wins, isn't it because he and his team have done a better job than anyone else? Isn't that exactly the same reason why Panis won in Monaco 96?

 

Note how you injected the word "team" in there and then try to play it off as if "driver" is the same as "driver and his team", whilst the whole point is exactly that it isn't.

[DeKnyff]

Note how you injected the word "team" in there and then try to play it off as if "driver" is the same as "driver and his team", whilst the whole point is exactly that it isn't.

 

Ok, but then again, when a driver wins because the cars in front of him retire for mechanical reasons, it's not that he has been better than the others. Panis won in Monaco because he didn't crash, but also because others retired for mechanical reasons (notably, Damon Hill, who has a 30 sec lead). He was lucky in that.

 

Alternatively, you can say that Panis + Ligier did a better job that anybody else that day (no crashes and no mechanical troubles, unlike most of his rivals), but if you admit that, you'll have to admit that when Hamilton wins, it's also because he and his team have been the best.

[Dolph]

Ok, but then again, when a driver wins because the cars in front of him retire for mechanical reasons, it's not that he has been better than the others. Panis won in Monaco because he didn't crash, but also because others retired for mechanical reasons (notably, Damon Hill, who has a 30 sec lead). He was lucky in that.

 

Alternatively, you can say that Panis + Ligier did a better job that anybody else that day (no crashes and no mechanical troubles, unlike most of his rivals), but if you admit that, you'll have to admit that when Hamilton wins, it's also because he and his team have been the best.

 

 

I am not at all emotionally invested as much in this who deserves what conversation as you imagine. I merely pointed out that you twisted around what was being said and then played it towards your agenda.

Edited by Dolph, 17 February 2021 - 19:39.

[DeKnyff]

I am not at all emotionally invested as much in this who deserves what conversation as you imagine. I merely pointed out that you twisted around what was being said and then played it towards your agenda.

 

What agenda? What emotional involvement? I was the guy saying this is a statistics thread and it should be about numbers.

[BiggestBuddyLazierFan]

Ok, but then again, when a driver wins because the cars in front of him retire for mechanical reasons, it's not that he has been better than the others. Panis won in Monaco because he didn't crash, but also because others retired for mechanical reasons (notably, Damon Hill, who has a 30 sec lead). He was lucky in that.

Alternatively, you can say that Panis + Ligier did a better job that anybody else that day (no crashes and no mechanical troubles, unlike most of his rivals), but if you admit that, you'll have to admit that when Hamilton wins, it's also because he and his team have been the best.

The point is we can not tell with 100% certanty that Lewis was the best driver that day when he won.

Whereas in Panises case we can.

[PayasYouRace]

The point is we can not tell with 100% certanty that Lewis was the best driver that day when he won.

Whereas in Panises case we can.

 

No we can't! For starters, he barged Eddie Irvine out of the way with the clumsiest overtaking moved I've ever seen with no penalty attached to it. Not good driving there. Secondly, how can you say he was the best driver that day when so many drivers, including long time race leaders Damon Hill, and then Jean Alesi, both went out with mechanical problems that were no fault of their own? You can't, any more than with Lewis Hamilton.

[Risil]

When we watched that race during lockdown last year I couldn't believe how poorly Irvine's car was handling during the race. It was remarkable that Edmund got as far as he did! I will defend Panis though. Bumping drivers out the way is a venerable tradition at Monte Carlo. Look at all the bent front ends in photos of Monaco GPs from the fifties. And how else are you going to get by?

[Myrvold]

while Hakkinen's engine exploded on last lap.

 

If you are going to be all high and mighty at least get the basics right.

[MrMonaco]

Well, in my opinion fluke victory does not even exist. I can not remember not a one single fluke victory.

What exist is improbable and unexpected victories. And improbable victories are even more valuable than probable victories.

What about Kovalainen's maiden and only win?

[jcbc3]

Did you know that fuel corrected he outqualified Hamilton over a season?

[BiggestBuddyLazierFan]

What about Kovalainen's maiden and only win?

Nothing fluke about that either.

Won in the best car in the field after both his teammate and Felipe Massa suffered misfortunes.

There are plenty of wins like that. Nearly all Bottases wins for example.

Or perhaps Mansell's win in Adelaide 1994

Or Piquet's wins at Suzuka 1990 and Montreal 1991

Nothing fluke about it. Regular wins where the leader suffers misfortune and the next in line picks up pieces.

The essence of motorracing.

[f1paul]

Nothing fluke about that either.

Won in the best car in the field after both his teammate and Felipe Massa suffered misfortunes.

There are plenty of wins like that. Nearly all Bottases wins for example.

Or perhaps Mansell's win in Adelaide 1994

Or Piquet's wins at Suzuka 1990 and Montreal 1991

Nothing fluke about it. Regular wins where the leader suffers misfortune and the next in line picks up pieces.

The essence of motorracing.

Austria 02? Or USA later that year?

 

What about Alonso's Germany 2010 win?

[PayasYouRace]

Nothing fluke about that either.

Won in the best car in the field after both his teammate and Felipe Massa suffered misfortunes.

There are plenty of wins like that. Nearly all Bottases wins for example.

Or perhaps Mansell's win in Adelaide 1994

Or Piquet's wins at Suzuka 1990 and Montreal 1991

Nothing fluke about it. Regular wins where the leader suffers misfortune and the next in line picks up pieces.

The essence of motorracing.

 

That's also the definition of fluke. It's a bit of good luck.

[garoidb]

That's also the definition of fluke. It's a bit of good luck.

 

In the definition, a fluke has to be something unusual. Back when engine and other mechanical failures were common, they couldn't be considered flukes. They happened with too much regularity for that. It was rational to drive in a manner designed to minimise your own exposure to DNFs and maximise your ability to benefit from those of others. 

[Anderis]

Nothing fluke about that either.

Won in the best car in the field after both his teammate and Felipe Massa suffered misfortunes.

There are plenty of wins like that. Nearly all Bottases wins for example.

You might want to check how Bottas won most of his races before you write such an unfair comment. Then you would've realised that most of Bottas' wins were races he led from the start his main rivals were not terribly hampered by things outside of their control.

 

A fluke is something that is very unlikely to be repeated and it is up to debate as how unlikely it has to be before we call it a fluke. I would suggest that top2 cars having mechanical issues in the same race has not been very common at least since mid 00's, although I find it pointless to argue if that does or does not qualify as a fluke because there's no definition of how unlikely something has to be to be called a fluke.

Alonso's 2008 Singapore win would've been a perfect example of a fluke if not for the fact that the race was fixed. Piquet's win in German GP 2008 would've been a perfect example of a fluke too had he managed to hold the lead for a few more laps until the finish line. He would've finished something like 14th if not for a perfectly timed SC and he had not even been close to the drivers ahead of him.

I consider Hamilton's 2008 Monaco win a fluke- how puncturing after his own mistake actually made him to pit at the beneficial time.

All 3 examples are from 2008 when having to pit before SC while the rest had to do it after was a recipe for success. I barely remember any race from the hybrid era so it's hard to think of any more recent flukes for me.

[shure]

Nothing fluke about that either.

Won in the best car in the field after both his teammate and Felipe Massa suffered misfortunes.

There are plenty of wins like that. Nearly all Bottases wins for example.

Or perhaps Mansell's win in Adelaide 1994

Or Piquet's wins at Suzuka 1990 and Montreal 1991

Nothing fluke about it. Regular wins where the leader suffers misfortune and the next in line picks up pieces.

The essence of motorracing.

It's still a fluke, though, which is defined as "an unexpected stroke of good luck."  So someone suffering car failure in front of you just a couple of laps from the end qualifies.

[Risil]

There are obviously different ways to define "fluke". It's not going to be productive to insist on your preferred categorization.

[PayasYouRace]

In the definition, a fluke has to be something unusual. Back when engine and other mechanical failures were common, they couldn't be considered flukes. They happened with too much regularity for that. It was rational to drive in a manner designed to minimise your own exposure to DNFs and maximise your ability to benefit from those of others. 

I don’t disagree. But your logic is flawed. Just because some unreliability wasn’t unusual, doesn’t mean that all unreliability was unusual. Or indeed, that all unusual circumstances are to do with unreliability.

[PlatenGlass]

This isn't really objectively measurable, but in terms of low probability wins, I think one driver stands out for having three of them - Johnny Herbert.

[PlayboyRacer]

This isn't really objectively measurable, but in terms of low probability wins, I think one driver stands out for having three of them - Johnny Herbert.

My first thought would have been Thierry Boutsen. But then I remembered his 1990 Hungarian GP weekend was superb. From start to finish.

[BiggestBuddyLazierFan]

In the definition, a fluke has to be something unusual. Back when engine and other mechanical failures were common, they couldn't be considered flukes. They happened with too much regularity for that. It was rational to drive in a manner designed to minimise your own exposure to DNFs and maximise your ability to benefit from those of others.

Modern people who are used to present formula 2014 onwards can not understand that. And will never be able to understand that. Hence the constant devaluing of everything prior to 2014

[BiggestBuddyLazierFan]

That's also the definition of fluke. It's a bit of good luck.

By that definition all our lives are fluke lives. Because from the very beggining of our lives we needed huge amount of luck on our side to beat million other sperm racers in the race to the ovum

[Izzyeviel]

By that definition all our lives are fluke lives. Because from the very beggining of our lives we needed huge amount of luck on our side to beat million other sperm racers in the race to the ovum

By your definition, the sperm that won was the best one out of hundreds of millions... next time you see Trump (400lbs of flab) struggle to walk stairs, brag about passing a dementia test, and unable to point to Asia on a map, remember, he was the best sperm...

[KWSN - DSM]

No single win in F1 should be under valued, making it to F1 is hard, making it in to a car capable of winning is hard, winning a race is hard - For some drivers it never happens, for some it happens a lot, and then there are those who manage it once, maybe two or three times.

 

They are not flukes, there are always reasons and explanations the driver taking the first corner in first not winning the race, the progression of a race is ongoing through the field, the drivers at the front are those we see, are those primarily battling for the win, those further back battle and race just as hard, though the general discussion being more about the shortcomings of cars and drivers than appreciation of the actual talent all the drivers in the field has.

 

I have always liked Panis, I was sitting in my Girlfriends living room cheering him on, he started 14th, he finished 1st. Monaco is a drivers track, overtaking is not easy, hitting the walls are easy, keep it on track, take advantage of all opportunities, make no mistakes.

 

That is what racing is about, that is what Panis executed to perfection that day.

[BiggestBuddyLazierFan]

No single win in F1 should be under valued, making it to F1 is hard, making it in to a car capable of winning is hard, winning a race is hard - For some drivers it never happens, for some it happens a lot, and then there are those who manage it once, maybe two or three times.

They are not flukes, there are always reasons and explanations the driver taking the first corner in first not winning the race, the progression of a race is ongoing through the field, the drivers at the front are those we see, are those primarily battling for the win, those further back battle and race just as hard, though the general discussion being more about the shortcomings of cars and drivers than appreciation of the actual talent all the drivers in the field has.

I have always liked Panis, I was sitting in my Girlfriends living room cheering him on, he started 14th, he finished 1st. Monaco is a drivers track, overtaking is not easy, hitting the walls are easy, keep it on track, take advantage of all opportunities, make no mistakes.

That is what racing is about, that is what Panis executed to perfection that day.

Amen

[DeKnyff]

There are and there have always been fluke wins in motor racing. I'm sorry, but to deny that is just plain trolling.

 

A race car is made out of thousands on components. There is no way a team can check all of them and be sure they will all stand a race without breaking. Reliability is better now than forty tears ago, because of advances in technology, but the concept of 'zero risk' doesn't exist and it will never exist. Teams work under finite budgets, so in the real world, it's impossible to avoid mechanical DNFs with a 100% certainty. Hell, even the NASA lost two shuttles and sure they had double or triple checked everything. Not only that, there is an added mechanical randomness: components are never equal, so a driver can randomly have an engine or a set a tyres which is better than his teammate's.

 

Also, there is randomness in the races theirselves: a driver can go off for his own doing and it will be his fault, of course, but also because another driver takes him off without doing absolutely anything wrong. Or they can be slowed (or have an extra DRS) by a lapped car. Or others can be unfairly punished or unfairly unpunished by stewards. And then, there are safety cars which can play against or in favour of a driver. Not to speak about red flags which can allow you a tyre change for free, like Gasly in Monza.

 

So, in a nutshell, motor racing is, has always been and will most likely be, subjected to random events. And when there is randomness, flukes occur.

[jcbc3]

THIS is a fluke win:

 

https://youtu.be/fAADWfJO2qM?t=87

[Hati]

THIS is a fluke win:

 

https://youtu.be/fAADWfJO2qM?t=87

I was going to say that a driver error can't be a fluke win but I have to change opinion, if one driver error eliminates bunch of drivers from the lead then it can be counted as a fluke win.

[ensign14]

The ultimate fluke win was Winkelhock/Surer at the Monza 1,000km in a Kremer Porsche in 1985.  A bloody great tree fell across the track ending the race early - just after Bell/Stuck had made a scheduled pitstop but before Winkelhock/Surer made theirs...

 

Mario Dominguez at Surfer's Paradise as well.  I think there was about 1 lap of actual racing and the result was determined by the order of the last pitstops.  An insanely stupid race because the various Champcar series have been plagued with insanely stupid officials.

[Dolph]

THIS is a fluke win:

 

https://youtu.be/fAADWfJO2qM?t=87

 

 

You say its a fluke, but Bradbury has said it was his strategy to hang back and pick up the pieces, as he didn't actually have the pace to go with the leaders. In these types of races crash happen. He was very luck that all 4 of the guys wiped out, he was hoping more for 2 to get a medal. I wouldn't call it a fluke, but rather a strategy that came good.

[DeKnyff]

Tell us Sir DeKnyff why has Lady Fluke never kissed the likes of Taki Inoue, Riccardo Rosset and simmilar unfortunate peasants, pardon myself, drivers.

 

Because you need to be, at least, a half-decent driver to be in a position to win, even in the case of a fluke. It's the difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition.

 

I think you take the word 'fluke' as derogatory. No, it isn't. It simply states a fact: that a driver, not having performed better than his rivals, sees himself in the lead because random events have played in his favour.

[DeKnyff]

You say its a fluke, but Bradbury has said it was his strategy to hang back and pick up the pieces, as he didn't actually have the pace to go with the leaders. In these types of races crash happen. He was very luck that all 4 of the guys wiped out, he was hoping more for 2 to get a medal. I wouldn't call it a fluke, but rather a strategy that came good.

 

I won't discuss what probability makes a 'fluke' and what not (1%? 5%? 10%?), but the strategy of staying behind, just in case those in the front fall, is by definition a gamble on an unlikely outcome. I don't know if that makes a fluke or not, but sure it's close. It can be the right strategy if you feel you can't win on pure speed, but I don't think it has the same value han winning a medal because you skate quicker than your rivals (which is what the sport is about).