72 replies to this topic

[santori]

Looking back through the forum, I don't see a thread specifically dedicated to Louis Chiron (I may have missed one) and he seems to generally receive less attention than Nuvolari, Varzi, Carraciola and Rosemeyer (though possibly more than Lang or Wimille).
But from what I know of him, his career bears comparison with anyone's. How do you rate him? Does he receive the credit he deserves?

[David Birchall]

Someone must reply to this and since I just got back from the pub....
Chiron had a longer and possibly more varied career than the others you mentioned and for that he should get more recognition:- he was at or near the top for a long time. I seem to recall-not looking up anything here-that one of his last drives was in a Healey Silverstone having started in a Bugatti. Quite a career!

[D-Type]

I totally agree with you, he definitely deserves to be included in the very short list of 'greats'

He also holds a unique record. He is the only GP winner to also win the Monte Carlo Rally.

[fines]

I personally rate Chiron far above (ahead?) of Nuvolari, Varzi and Caracciola, not to mention Rosemeyer - I think of him on a level with Fangio, Clark and Prost. Chiron suffers from a syndrome much like Graham Hill did: he continued his carrer well past his sell-by date and therefore many remember him from his days as a virtual backmarker. Especially statisticians do drivers like Hill and Chiron a disservice with their wins-per-race ratios and such nonsense.

[jpm2]

Originally posted by fines
I personally rate Chiron far above (ahead?) of Nuvolari, Varzi and Caracciola, not to mention Rosemeyer - I think of him on a level with Fangio, Clark and Prost. Chiron suffers from a syndrome much like Graham Hill did: he continued his carrer well past his sell-by date and therefore many remember him from his days as a virtual backmarker. Especially statisticians do drivers like Hill and Chiron a disservice with their wins-per-race ratios and such nonsense.

Well, Michael, I think you are overrating Louis.
It is true that, like Graham Hill or Maurice Trintignant (or Nuvolari, for that matter) he went on and on, well past his sell-by date, as you say. And that, of course, has a certain weight when we come to wins-per-race ratios and that sort of thing.
But there are other criteria besides wins-per-race. And, please, don't forget there are wins and wins. The level of the races one may win is not always the same.

If we use a balanced criteria to compare drivers' results, and even in his prime, i. e., well within "his sell-by date", it's easy to see that Chiron was no match for the likes of Nuvolari or Caracciola. In my personal Grand Prix overall "championship" (1932-2004) even Rosemeyer (with 3 racing seasons, only) stands higher than Chiron.


12th - Caracciola
13th - G. Hill

16th - Nuvolari

23rd - Varzi

40th - Rosemeyer

42th - Chiron


And, needless to say, Chiron is way far behind the likes of Prost (2nd), Fangio (4th) or Clark (7th)

Regards

[fines]

That is perhaps because your "overall championship" starts in 1932, a year in which Chiron was already an 'elder statesman of racing' and arguably past his sell-by-date...;)

[everybody has his own standards, cheers]

[jpm2]

Originally posted by fines
That is perhaps because your "overall championship" starts in 1932, a year in which Chiron was already an 'elder statesman of racing' and arguably past his sell-by-date...;)

[everybody has his own standards, cheers]

Do you think so? Well I think one could say the same of most of the others he compared to
In 1932 Chiron was 33 years of age. Far from being past his sell-by date by the standards of those times.
Varzi was 28 years, Caracciola was 31 years, and Nuvolari was much older, 40 years of age .

Fangio was born in 1911. He was 37 years old when he started racing in Europe and won his first championship at 39 (he was 46 years old when he won the last one).

Everyone has his own standards, of course, but I fear they are not all equivalent.

All the best

[Barry Lake]

This is always dangerous ground - Who was better...? How good was...?

I first was aware of the existence of European grand prix racing in 1953 (although I first went to Australian motor races in 1951) and began to follow GPs closely in 1954, more so from 1955 onwards.

So my early picture of Louis Chiron was as a cheerful mid-fielder out having a bit of fun.

It wasn't until I began to study the early history of GP racing - generally working backwards through the 1940s, 1930s, 1920s, and then earlier - that I realised what a super star Chiron was in his early days.

I agree with Michael (fines) that his image has suffered, perhaps irrepairably, in the eyes of those who remember him from his later years, or who study only statistics - particularly those that are most plentiful, since 1950.

I haven't ever studied closely the Chiron vs Others situation, so bow to the opinion of serious researchers like fines and Hans Etzrodt (do you have an opinion, Hans?), but my impression, for some time now, has been that Chiron, at his peak, was something very special as a racing driver.

When studying this, it is important to compare the types of cars the various drivers were racing at any time. If I remember correctly, Chiron was very much out to beat - or at least harass - the German teams in the 1930s. A sure way to spoil one's statistics and to be relegated to the back benches as a potential team driver.

To my mind, momentum is and always has been an important factor in any driver's career. Once a bad run, injury, lay-off, war etc has taken the sting out of a driver's momentum, it is very difficult for them to get it back again. Some do, some don't. I believe this is what happened to Chiron's career. There even could be more to it than meets the eye.

Personally, I would like to see Chiron written about and remembered for his early career rather than for the years in which he appeared to be just having fun.

[Hans Etzrodt]

Originally posted by fines
I personally rate Chiron far above (ahead?) of Nuvolari, Varzi and Caracciola, not to mention Rosemeyer - I think of him on a level with Fangio, Clark and Prost...

Really !!!

[David McKinney]

Originally posted by Barry Lake
Chiron was very much out to beat - or at least harass - the German teams in the 1930s.

And what seems universally overlooked is that, when he joined Mercedes in 1936, he was right up with their stars in terms of speed. He qualified faster than Caracciola, von Brauchitsch and Fagioli for his first Grand Prix with the team, at Monaco, and again in the very different environment of Tripoli for his second race.
Unfortunately he didn't get the results, and so doesn't feature in the staistics.
I believe it was his very bad accident at the Nürburgring that year that ended the "star" phase of his career.

[jpm2]

Originally posted by David McKinney

Unfortunately he didn't get the results, and so doesn't feature in the staistics.
I believe it was his very bad accident at the Nürburgring that year that ended the "star" phase of his career.

He does feature in my statistics, David. That's because, in what I call "my statistics" or "my championship", it's not only the final result that counts. There is also a point system that rewards drivers who obtained the 1st, 2nd and 3rd best practice times and, also, for those who held 1st, 2nd and 3rd position during the race (on a 50 kms basis). You didn't know that, of course. I suppose Hans Hetzrodt, Félix Muelas and other Spanish friends are the only members here that are familiar with "my championship".

As for the consequences his bad accident in Nurburgring had on the "star" fase of his career, you are probably right but that's true for everyone else, or almost everyone else. It's simply one of the facts of life (in particular, that kind of life).

When one wants to compare drivers, measurable facts are needed. This is the cliometric historian's
garden. As a matter of fact, the same happens with actual racing. In 2005 Alonso was better than Fisichella. How do I know it? Measurable facts: times, race positions, points. Of course, there are the facts of their personall history too (the driver A went through a divorce that jeopardized his concentration, the driver B suffered food-poisoning in an Asiatic country and wasn't at his best in 3 or 4 races, and so on). Those facts are historical facts, too. But belong to a different series. They are not decisive when one compares results or performances.

Regards

[jpm2]

Originally posted by Barry Lake
[B]This is always dangerous ground - Who was better...? How good was...?

I have to disagree. A difficult ground, maybe, but not a dangerous one. There are balanced ways to judge and measure "who was better".

Originally posted by Barry Lake
I first was aware of the existence of European grand prix racing in 1953 (although I first went to Australian motor races in 1951) and began to follow GPs closely in 1954, more so from 1955 onwards.

So my early picture of Louis Chiron was as a cheerful mid-fielder out having a bit of fun.

It wasn't until I began to study the early history of GP racing - generally working backwards through the 1940s, 1930s, 1920s, and then earlier - that I realised what a super star Chiron was in his early days.

I agree with Michael (fines) that his image has suffered, perhaps irrepairably, in the eyes of those who remember him from his later years, or who study only statistics - particularly those that are most plentiful, since 1950.

Well, Barry, I started 5 years later. I saw my first F1 race in 1959 and, for that reason, I never had the chance to see Chiron racing. I never saw Caracciola, Nuvolari or Varzi either. But that's not the point here, is it?

The point is not Chiron's image, either. The facts and the images each one of us may have of those facts are very different things. When someone says Chiron's on the same level of Fangio, and far better than Nuvolari or Caracciola, we are talking of measurable performances and results (or, at least, I hope we are, because if we aren't, and if we are just talking of emotional preferences, there is simply no ground for a good debate; personal liking or disliking are not a matter of discussion).
Well, resuming my idea, we are talking performances and results, and consistent ones, for that matter, because there is no historical significance in comparing performances or results in a very narrow field of study (2 or 3 races, for example). The fact that Chiron was faster than Caracciola or von Brauchitsch in two 1936 races, like David underlines, proves very little.

Originally posted by Barry Lake

I haven't ever studied closely the Chiron vs Others situation, so bow to the opinion of serious researchers like fines and Hans Etzrodt (do you have an opinion, Hans?), but my impression, for some time now, has been that Chiron, at his peak, was something very special as a racing driver.

When you speak of "serious researchers like fines or Hans Etzrodt" I hope you are not implying that the others are not serious...

[Hans Etzrodt]

Originally posted by jpm2

When you speak of "serious researchers like fines or Hans Etzrodt" I hope you are not implying that the others are not serious...

jpm2 - your system of judging drivers is very interesting but for my liking too complicated and because I am a simple thinking person your approach is way too complex for me. I know that Chiron was a first rate driver, especially dominating during 1928. In 1930 he had another good year but Varzi outshined him with the Maserati 26M (8C-2500), the most successful design in the 1930 season, once it became available. From 1928 to 1934 Chiron belonged to the tiny circle of top five drivers and in the years to follow, the German onslaught made it almost impossible for drivers in cars other than silver.

[jpm2]

Originally posted by Hans Etzrodt
jpm2 - your system of judging drivers is very interesting but for my liking too complicated and because I am a simple thinking person your approach is way too complex for me. I know that Chiron was a first rate driver, especially dominating during 1928. In 1930 he had another good year but Varzi outshined him with the Maserati 26M (8C-2500), the most successful design in the 1930 season, once it became available. From 1928 to 1934 Chiron belonged to the tiny circle of top five drivers and in the years to follow, the German onslaught made it almost impossible for drivers in cars other than silver.

Hello Hans, and thank you for your words. I know you think my system is too complicated, and my approach too complex. I don't think so, considering what it aims at, but I do respect your opinion, of course.

I agree that Chiron was maybe one of the top 5-6 drivers from 1928-33, but that doesn't put him on the same level of Fangio or Clark. Let me give you an example. I suppose we may agree that Gurney was one of the top 5-6 drivers from 1961-67; and the same could be said of Peterson, from 1973-78. Please note that I have chosen those two names precisely because I was a big fan of both. But, leaving my emotions aside, I don't think it is reasonable to put them on the same level of Fangio or Clark. The fact is that Fangio and Clark smashed their opposition consistently (and that shows in "my system").

One may think that much depends on the car you drive. That is, obviouslly important and you are quite right about the German onslaught from 1934 onwards. But all the top drivers drove one of those silver cars one time or another (including... Chiron).

Regards

[D-Type]

Another way of looking at things: between 1934 and 1939 who beat Mercedes and Auto Union in a major GP?

1934 GP de l'ACF - Louis Chiron
1935 GP von Deutschland - Tazio Nuvolari

[Vitesse2]

While Chiron won the GP de l'ACF in 1934, I don't think he can be said to have beaten MB and AU, since that was the one occasion when both German teams lost all their entries to retirements, mainly due to the fact that both cars were very new, while Chiron was driving a proven design.

Similarly, Nuvolari at the Ring in 1935: he was somewhat fortunate to win, since only a final-lap tyre failure deprived von Brauchitsch of the win.

However, at his peak, I think he was probably one of the benchmarks: one of the men all the others wanted to beat. At the beginning of his top-line career (late 20s) he was perhaps the equal of Benoist, going on to prove himself a better driver than (say) Williams and Dreyfus and - at his peak, which I'd say was about 1932-34 - perhaps as good as Varzi, Caracciola (how good would Scuderia CC have been if only ....?) and Nuvolari.

A very complex man though ....

[Scribe06]

Originally posted by jpm2
This is the cliometric historian's garden.

This phrase made my blood run cold and sent shivers down my aged spine..... along with the flashbacks racing through my mind to many years ago of the sampler hanging on the wall in the office of one of my professor's: "If It Is Not A Number, It Is Not Important."

While I am someone who has successfully employed "cliometrics" many times in my reseach, that does not mean that analysis based upon "cliometrics" is accepted willingly or easily by me for use in certain areas, certainly not in such a trivial area as "judging" drivers.

I think that Chiron was among the leading drivers for a period, especially the 1928 to 1934 timeframe mentioned by Hans, and, as such, is worthy of note. Since I have no consistant concept of "judging" drivers, I rate him highly, but not quite as, say, his contemporaries Nuvolari or Carraciola , but that is scarcely a damning thing to say about him since few were then or later.

Also, while we can be hammered into senselessness by analysis developed from "cliomterics" or other reams of statistics, or by years of learned discourse, there should be room for the acceptance of the purely personal preference in terms of who was or wasn't Up There. We tend to easily dismiss the idea, the validity if you will, of a choice based upon a purely personal or subjective basis.

The over-analysis and over-thinking we often find ourselves in usually makes us forget that once upon a time there was still some magic, some mystery to all this. Or is that obsolete thnking these days when we have the power of "cliometrics" at our our fingertips?

[jpm2]

Originally posted by D-Type
Another way of looking at things: between 1934 and 1939 who beat Mercedes and Auto Union in a major GP?

1934 GP de l'ACF - Louis Chiron
1935 GP von Deutschland - Tazio Nuvolari

That way of looking at things can be very, very tricky, D-Type. The mechanical failures of main opponents can play a part here, as Vitesse underlines.

But let's leave that aside. Just consider the following:

1- Between 1946 and 1951 who beat the mighty Alfa Romeo 158 and (later) Ferrari in a major GP?

1946 - R. Sommer, St. Cloud

2- In 1952 and 1953 who beat the factory Ferraris and (later) Maseratis?

1952 - J. Behra, Reims

3- In 1954 and 1955 who beat the mighty Mercedes-Benz?

1954 - F. Gonzalez, Silverstone
1955 - M. Trintignant, Monaco

And we could go on and on...

Regards

[jpm2]

Originally posted by Scribe06


This phrase made my blood run cold and sent shivers down my aged spine..... along with the flashbacks racing through my mind to many years ago of the sampler hanging on the wall in the office of one of my professor's: "If It Is Not A Number, It Is Not Important."

While I am someone who has successfully employed "cliometrics" many times in my reseach, that does not mean that analysis based upon "cliometrics" is accepted willingly or easily by me for use in certain areas, certainly not in such a trivial area as "judging" drivers.

Hello Scribe06
Maybe there are some misunderstandings.
Although I'm an historian, I'm not a "cliometricist". Quite the opposite. Nevertheless, if ever there was a field where "cliometrics" applied, this is the one. And why? Because I'm not "judging" or analysing people (drivers in this case). I am judging or analysing people's PERFORMANCES as racing drivers.
And numbers are needed when you "judge" PERFORMANCES. After all, that's what this game is about. Numbers are needed to find out who lapped quickly. Championships are gained on a number basis. And so on... NUMBERS ARE NEEDED WHEN YOU COMPARE PERFORMANCES, and that's what we are talking here... PERFORMANCES.

Originally posted by Scribe06

I think that Chiron was among the leading drivers for a period,..., and, as such, is worthy of note.

He is worthu of a note and much more than that. Who said he wasn't ? But that's not the point. The point was how to caompare his performances with other racing drivers, even recent ones like Prost.

Originally posted by Scribe06
... there should be room for the acceptance of the purely personal preference in terms of who was or wasn't Up There. We tend to easily dismiss the idea, the validity if you will, of a choice based upon a purely personal or subjective basis.

The over-analysis and over-thinking we often find ourselves in usually makes us forget that once upon a time there was still some magic, some mystery to all this. Or is that obsolete thnking these days when we have the power of "cliometrics" at our our fingertips?

Who wants to take away "a choice based upon a purely personal or subjective basis"? Not me, for sure. But, that is a different cup. Each one of us has his personal preferences but there is no point in discussing personal preferences based on "magic" or emotions. And, after all, this is a discussion forum, isn't it?;)

Best wishes

[simonlewisbooks]

Originally posted by jpm2

The fact is that Fangio and Clark smashed their opposition consistently (and that shows in "my system").

well.... yes and no.
Yes in the stat's they do dominate over a number of years but then in Fangio's case how much of his success in 55 was down to Moss being a loyal team man and not pushing him too hard?

Likewise in 56 Collins gave up the world title in the most famous display of sportsmanship in F1 history so that Fangio could take over his car and beat him to it.

This is not in anyway to deride Fangio who was a true giant of the sport but ALL the opposition wasn't quite 'consistantly smashed'. There were a number of drivers who, in the right car, were able to better him.

In Clark's case he was of course helped by being in a car designed by the best brain in F1 at the time and the No.2 slot at Lotus was a bit like the No.2 slot at Ferrari in recent years- merely there to catch crumbs from the table, so to speak.
Again this is NOT to deride Clark, another giant of the sport, but sometimes the myth exists that someone was simply unbeatable in their peak years and I don't think it's true.

In 1967, for example, take Clark and Hill who were the main sparring partners of the mid 60s'. Put them, for once, in the same team with new (and sadly unreliable) car partway through the year and it's suprising how much the performances and results see-saw between them. It's certainly not the kind of total cominance of the Schumacher/Ferrari era or of the kind people envisage when pitting one aginst the other(Hill reputation having suffered, as previously said, by going on too long in F1).

The races ran as follows -

Monaco - Hill beat Clark (Clark spun early on)

Zandvoort - Hill was on pole and led early on - Jim won, Graham retired.

Spa - Clark was on Pole and neither had a good race (mechanical woes)

French GP - Hill was on pole (again both had mechanical trouble in the race after Jim passed Graham for the lead and Graham then repassed Jim..)

Silverstone -Clark was on pole and won (Hill had suspension failures in practice and the race)

Germany - Clark was on pole (again both had bad races, Hill also had practice crash)

Canada - Clark and Hill 1-2 on the grid , Hill 4th, Jim had ignition failure while leading

Italy - Clark was on pole and led before trouble dropped him to 3rd(utterly brilliant recovery drive) Hill was in the lead when engine failed

USA - Hill on pole, Clark wins (with broken suspension), Hill 2nd (with gearbox troubles).

mexico - Clark on Pole & wins, Hill has drive shaft failure early on

So while Clark certainly had the upper hand it was not quite the percieved 'smashing' of his most direct opposition (team mate Hill) and some of the performances on both sides were seriously hampered by the 49's fragile nature - even the cribes of the day said Hill suffered most from that.

To play devil's advocate for a while, one is left wondering how history might have looked had Clark gone to BRM in 1960 and Hill stayed at Lotus?

With Chapman's brilliance to work alongside would Hill have attained a similar level of results to Clark between 62 and 65?

Would Clark, in the less pampered atmosphere of BRM with all it's quirky team management have done better than rather more robust and mechanically minded Hill?

Simon Lewis
Transport Books

[ensign14]

Originally posted by jpm2
1- Between 1946 and 1951 who beat the mighty Alfa Romeo 158 and (later) Ferrari in a major GP?

1946 - R. Sommer, St. Cloud

Reg Parnell, International Trophy 1951...;)

I'd never considered Chiron on a par with Varzi, Nuvolari and Caracciola but I've DEFINITELY been influenced by his later career. How did he do against Rudi when they were team-mates?

[jpm2]

Welcome Simon, and thank you for your analysis.
But, you'll pardon me saying, picking up a season to draw conclusions on that basis, is precisely the kind of analysis one should try evade when judging Grand Prix drivers performances on an overall perspective (i. e., the one you need if you're aiming at ranking drivers, saying A was much better than B, or C).

In Clark's case, why pick 1967? Why not 1963, or 1965, for example? The conclusions can be muddy if based on a narrow or selected set of events.

To say nothing about being No. 2 at Lotus. Was it always a bit "like the No.2 slot at Ferrari in recent years"? I don't think so. Trevor Taylor was a faster driver (in my opinion) before his big accident at Spa; the same thing happened with Arundell and the 1964 Reims crash. Remember 1967, when Hill was No. 2 at Lotus (and Clark's performances were consistently better than Hill's). And, if you want to step out of F1, remember Indianapolis and Milwaukee. Gurney was an excellent driver and he had the same car. The problem of driver's weight, an important handicap on Gurney's case when driving underpowered cars like the F1 then were, didn't matter much there. Nevertheless, he was beaten by Clark's pace, like the rest of the Americans.
Myself, I preferred Gurney, the idol of my youth. But Clark was the best from 1962 till he died.

An the same could be said about Fangio. Why pick 1956?

Just a final note on terminology. When I say CONSISTENTLY, that doesn't mean ALWAYS.

Regards

[jpm2]

Originally posted by ensign14
Reg Parnell, International Trophy 1951...;)

I'd never considered Chiron on a par with Varzi, Nuvolari and Caracciola but I've DEFINITELY been influenced by his later career. How did he do against Rudi when they were team-mates?

Well, Ensign14. That doesn't count.
As you know, it was a diluvium, the race being stopped after only 6 laps.

Regards

[simonlewisbooks]

Originally posted by jpm2

In Clark's case, why pick 1967? Why not 1963, or 1965, for example?

Because 67 was the ONLY year in which Clark and Hill raced in the same team and the ONLY year in which Clark, as an establshed Grand prix winner had a similarly established world class driver for a No.2 rather than an promising newcomer with much less experience than himself (Taylor,Arunell,Spence etc.). Taylor was undoubtedly a very talented driver, Arundell likewise, but it was already Clark's team by this point (justifiably) and both suffered as a result.

I think 67 is one of those fascinating but rare years where two top names are directly comparable in the same team in a fast car - other expamples being 88-89 (Senna & Prost ) or 55 (Moss and Fangio) and one might even add 93 (Prost & Hill) although that was at the end of one career and the start of another so not quite the same thing.

Aside from these years there is always a question mark concerning what 'edge' the car contributes to the driver's performance and vice versa. It is inescapable and one of the fascinating but frustrating things about motor sport in general. In all the years I mention above one is left with the impression that there wasn't actually that much between the team mates once in similar cars, certainly no great gulf of obvious talent, as one sometimes suspects will be visible. Cetainly no 'smashing' of the opposition as such.

As for Fangio and 1956, well as in 55, he had a number 2 willing to give up victory for him.No question. It happened. Not by contract, as would now be the case, but out of admiration and sportsmanship. 56 was another year when two great drivers sat side by side in the top team.

Simon Lewis
Transport Books

ps. Gurney and weight. Interesting point, How tall and heavy were Hill, Clark, Gurney & Surtees at this time one wonders? I always got the impression Graham was also a much bigger build than Jim or John but how tall was he compared to Dan?

[ensign14]

Originally posted by jpm2


Well, Ensign14. That doesn't count.
As you know, it was a diluvium, the race being stopped after only 6 laps.

If it'd've been a WC GP they'd've given points. And they paid out first prize money to Reg. So I'm counting it.

[jpm2]

Originally posted by ensign14
If it'd've been a WC GP they'd've given points. And they paid out first prize money to Reg. So I'm counting it.

That may be true in official statistics, but not on "my system". In "my system" that doesn't count. I only count races with 125 kms or more. So, the final results of the 1971 International Trophy, or of the 1975 Spanish Grand Prix, doesn't count for me. All the rest does, though (practice times and positions held during the race).

[Wolf]

As for 'cliometrics'- I need more numbers to evaluate jpm's method... What place is Moss on?

[jpm2]

Originally posted by Wolf
As for 'cliometrics'- I need more numbers to evaluate jpm's method... What place is Moss on?

Moss is 11th.

If you and other members are interested, and if you give me time, I can explain "my method" in detail, and put it to the trial of your critics, as I've done in the Spanish forum last year.


A footnote for Ensign14, that I forgot to add: If one considers 1951 Reg Parnell's victory (I do not, as you know) that would only strenghen the main point I was trying to prove while discussing with D-Type. One hit wonders is a tricky way to look at it.

[Wolf]

I'd like your method much better if he was in Top 10! ;) Williams' SuperStat ( http://members.atlasf1.com/williams/ ) has him in 5th spot, so he is still my most liked cliometricist.

Looking forward to reading about Your method and thanks for the prompt response.

[ensign14]

Originally posted by jpm2

A footnote for Ensign14, that I forgot to add: If one considers 1951 Reg Parnell's victory (I do not, as you know) that would only strenghen the main point I was trying to prove while discussing with D-Type. One hit wonders is a tricky way to look at it.

Maybe - although it's difficult to evaluate drivers who missed out on their Golden Years thanks to Herr Hitler. Was Parnell a world-class talent who was a potential GP winner? Dunno. I get the impression, however, that the Wild Boar of the Ardennes CERTAINLY was, a Moss of his time.

[Scribe06]

Originally posted by jpm2
And numbers are needed when you "judge" PERFORMANCES. After all, that's what this game is about. Numbers are needed to find out who lapped quickly. Championships are gained on a number basis. And so on... NUMBERS ARE NEEDED WHEN YOU COMPARE PERFORMANCES, and that's what we are talking here... PERFORMANCES.

Well, I can see where the concept of "I am not a number..." certainly does not apply here.

[ensign14]

Originally posted by Scribe06


Well, I can see where the concept of "I am not a number..." certainly does not apply here.

You are Number 06.

[jpm2]

Originally posted by Wolf
I'd like your method much better if he was in Top 10! ;) Williams' SuperStat ( http://members.atlasf1.com/williams/ ) has him in 5th spot, so he is still my most liked cliometricist.

Looking forward to reading about Your method and thanks for the prompt response.

I would like "my method" better if my favorite drivers were higher in the rank than they are

Speaking seriously, that's precisely what I've been trying to achieve: a balanced "method" that would allow us to compare Grand Prix drivers' performances and results over a long period of time, and without "rewarding" our favorite drivers (past or present).

As for reading about "my method", just give me some extra time to write a long and detailed explanation in English.

Regards

[jpm2]

Originally posted by Scribe06


Well, I can see where the concept of "I am not a number..." certainly does not apply here.

It seems you're still "mixing" the concept of "driver" (and, of course, people are not numbers) with the concept of "drivers performances and results" (that are obviously measured in numbers, as everyone knows).

A bit of "muddy thinking" to keep me busy, Scribe06?

[D-Type]

jpm2,

"The numbers" are a means to an end and not an end in themselves. This is particularly apposite when considering the prewar period when the racing scene was so different from today.

There is something flawed with your system if it ranks Chiron below Rosemeyer based on results.

I look forward to seeing the explanation of your method, but please do it on a separate thread.

[jpm2]

Originally posted by ensign14
Maybe - although it's difficult to evaluate drivers who missed out on their Golden Years thanks to Herr Hitler. Was Parnell a world-class talent who was a potential GP winner? Dunno. I get the impression, however, that the Wild Boar of the Ardennes CERTAINLY was, a Moss of his time.

Yes, the war and its aftermath affected drivers carreers, like everything else, and the ban on German drivers was an handicap for people like Lang, Caracciola and others. But, those are facts of life that seem to touch individual lives in an undetermined and, often, unjust way.

Not only in the past, but always. What if Siffert was born in a craddle of gold? What if Lauda hadn't stopped for a time? What if Bristow or R. Rodriguez hadn't died so early in their carreers? What if Gunnar Nilsson... ?

Are we entering here on the realms of good and bad luck, and of individual and social differences and inequalities (something that is inherent to social human life, as we know it) ?

Count me out. I see no point in "contra-factual history". History is complex enough as it is.

Regards

[jpm2]

Originally posted by D-Type
jpm2,

There is something flawed with your system if it ranks Chiron below Rosemeyer based on results.

Well, that's funny, D-Type. How can you say "there is something flawed" with my system when you don't know the system, and how it works?
Is it simply because the outcome does not match what you have expected?

But it seems there is a misunderstanding. I'm not "ranking Chiron below Rosemeyer based on results". My system is not based on results, only. It is based on results and performances (in practice and throughout the race).

Regards

[EcosseF1]

Who is number 1?

[Scribe06]

Originally posted by D-Type
"The numbers" are a means to an end and not an end in themselves. This is particularly apposite when considering the prewar period when the racing scene was so different from today.

Other than personal satisfaction, which is certainly something that has to be a priority consideration in such matters, what does this tell me and why should I care? That is, what does it matter if Moss is 11th and So-and-so is 10th or 110th? What about those who never raced in GP or F1? Or, are they considered irrelevant? Merely bit players regardless of their achievements elsewhere?

[jpm2]

Originally posted by simonlewisbooks

Because 67 was the ONLY year in which Clark and Hill raced in the same team and the ONLY year in which Clark, as an establshed Grand prix winner had a similarly established world class driver for a No.2 rather than an promising newcomer with much less experience than himself (Taylor,Arunell,Spence etc.). Taylor was undoubtedly a very talented driver, Arundell likewise, but it was already Clark's team by this point (justifiably) and both suffered as a result.

I don't think that in 1962 or 63 Taylor had "much less" experience than Clark. And please remember that Clark and Gurney were team-mates in America. But if that's the reason, my question stands. Why Fangio in 1955-56? Why not 1951 when he was with Nino Farina (the World Champion) in the same team?

Originally posted by simonlewisbooks
I think 67 is one of those fascinating but rare years where two top names are directly comparable in the same team in a fast car - other expamples being 88-89 (Senna & Prost ) or 55 (Moss and Fangio) and one might even add 93 (Prost & Hill) although that was at the end of one career and the start of another so not quite the same thing.

You could add 1973 (Fittipaldi and Peterson), 1980-81 (Jones and Reutemann), and a lot of other cases. But the fact remains that today is not tomorrow, things and people change in the course of time, and different drivers adapt differently to the same car. Think, for example, of Peterson and Depailler, in 1977 Tyrrell. Well, I think Ronnie was a little better. Nevertheless, he was beaten by Patrick in 1977.
That type of analysis centered on selected years tends to be circular, because time changes and the "ingredients" also change along with it. It is sometimes amazing to compare 3 drivers, that were paired one time or another. A was better then B, the year after C was better than A, and the year next B was better than C. Who is the best, after all? This is not pure abstraction: Gurney was better than Brabham, Brabham was better than Hulme; Hulme was better than Gurney.
As you say, when comparing Prost and Hill, "that was at the end of one career and the start of another so not quite the same thing". Well, Simon, it's never the same thing (and, by the way, was D. Hill a "top name" in 1993)? and that's why it's funny and unpredictable

Well, maybe we can continue this discussion on the separate thread I will open within shortly (perhaps tomorrow or the day after)

Regards

[ensign14]

Originally posted by EcosseF1
Who is number 1?

bira.

[Scribe06]

Originally posted by EcosseF1
Who is number 1?

Originally posted by ensign14
bira.

Hard to argue against that one....

[jpm2]

Originally posted by Scribe06


What about those who never raced in GP or F1? Or, are they considered irrelevant? Merely bit players regardless of their achievements elsewhere?

You are absolutely right, Scribe06. How on Earth could I forget, in "my system" of points for Grand Prix and F1 racing from 1932-2005, those "who never raced in GP or F1"?

I fear I'm not fit for the job.
You must be the opposite, I'm sure. And I'm also sure that in the near future you will enlighten all of us with your statistic work of results and performances of those "irrelevant" drivers, those "bit players", that I have treated so unjustly.

Regards

[jpm2]

Originally posted by ensign14
bira.

Good joke.
Well, wait and see. But don't expect any big surprises (there are no big surprises when it comes to history or correlated work; and if there are, well ... then, it's a forgery).

Regards

[Option1]

Originally posted by jpm2
...My system is not based on results, only. It is based on results and performances (in practice and throughout the race).

:

Neil

[Scribe06]

Originally posted by jpm2
And I'm also sure that in the near future you will enlighten all of us with your statistic work of results and performances of those "irrelevant" drivers, those "bit players", that I have treated so unjustly.

I think you will be waiting for a very long time for any "enlightenment" from me since I don't do "statistics" and certainly not those related to "performance" which infers an inherently ordinal view of the universe.

As Casey Stengel once remarked, "Without the losers, where would the winners be?" There is far more to racing than the superstars and their related "performance statistics" which place them into some pecking order. Indeed, heresy of all heresies, there is far more to motor racing than GP and F1. I easily rate Curtis Turner as a member of that vague group of top tier of drivers that I carry around in my head. But never confuse such a notion with my concept of favorite drivers, most of whom must have horrific performance ratings in your system. These include the following: Carel de Beaufort, Peter Revson, Tommy Hinnershitz, Parnell Jones, Bruce McLaren, P.L. Newman, David Pearson, Lloyd Ruby, Roy Salvadori, Hans Stuck (both), the Rodriguez brothers, Tim Flock, and on and on, with.

While I have been poking you in the ribs a bit about your approach, there is certainly merit to doing something such as this, even if it is purely personal. Perhaps the true worth is that it is done on a personal basis. You seem to have the good fortune to be able to even attempt this because of the work that was done by many others to assemble this mass of data that you tap into. About 25 years ago, such a project would have been extremely difficult, if not next to impossible. Access to data was very difficult and often incomplete. Had times been different, no doubt that I might have gone a similar route.

[jpm2]

Originally posted by Scribe06

I think you will be waiting for a very long time for any "enlightenment" from me...

What a shame...

Originally posted by Scribe06
As Casey Stengel once remarked, "Without the losers, where would the winners be?"

Mr. Stengel is surely a very fine thinker. There once was an even finer thinker in France. He was Monsieur de La Palisse

Originally posted by Scribe06
There is far more to racing than the superstars and their related "performance statistics" which place them into some pecking order.

Sure there is. But motor racing (like any race for that matter) is about order (who came 1st, and 2nd...) and pecking order (in the Team and outside, also).

Originally posted by Scribe06
never confuse such a notion with my concept of favorite drivers, most of whom must have horrific performance ratings in your system.

I'm sure your concept of favorite drivers has nothing to do with performance ratings. "My system" is not about "favorite drivers". There is nothing to fear.

Originally posted by Scribe06
You seem to have the good fortune to be able to even attempt this because of the work that was done by many others to assemble this mass of data that you tap into.

Yes and no. I've been "working" on "my system" since the early 1970s, based on the huge collection of magazines and newspapers I had then. I even wrote to Franco Lini (and he replied). But it was, then, limited to the WC races. Paul Sheldon's work (he used to sell leaflets, before the black books) was very important, of course. And, with internet, came the rest. And the possibility to talk about it.

Originally posted by Scribe06
I don't do "statistics" and certainly not those related to "performance" which infers an inherently ordinal view of the universe....
... About 25 years ago, such a project would have been extremely difficult, if not next to impossible. Access to data was very difficult and often incomplete. Had times been different, no doubt that I might have gone a similar route.

I thought your opposition to "my system" was based on a deep-rooted philosophic perspective. It now seems it is mainly an a posteriori rationale, that reminds me of one of La Fontaine fables. After all, you might have gone a "similar route", had data been available.

[simonlewisbooks]

Originally posted by EcosseF1
Who is number 1?

"I am not a number - I am a free man"



It was Patrick McGoohan himself wasn't it?

Simon Lewis

[Scribe06]

Originally posted by jpm2
After all, you might have gone a "similar route", had data been available.

Ah, but I didn't, that is the difference..... Anyway, enough of this nonsense, we need to get back dear ol' Louis, a driver I always found to be a welcome addition to any event. As I can say about any number of those in motor racing, we are the better for his presence.

[simonlewisbooks]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jpm2


I don't think that in 1962 or 63 Taylor had "much less" experience than Clark.
[/QUOTE]

Well with due respect Clark had already been in a top F1 drive since 1960 by then so yes he actually had a lot more experience.

[QUOTE][i]
Why Fangio in 1955-56? Why not 1951 when he was with Nino Farina (the World Champion) in the same team?
[/QUOTE]

55-56 was an example, yes why not 51 ? But then wouldn't Ascari and Gonzales have an effect on this too as Ferrari was competetive by 51 ? Was Farina still their match in 51?

[QUOTE][i]You could add 1973 (Fittipaldi and Peterson),[/B][/QUOTE]

True it makes for a good comparison between to of the best but I was really comparing the rare years when THE top drivers sat side by side in THE top car, which wasn't the case in 73 with Stewart and Tyrrell taking the title..

[QUOTE][i]1980-81 (Jones and Reutemann)[/B][/QUOTE]

True again but Piquet was Jones' most direct rival in 1980 and in 81 the FW07 was mixing it with a lot of fairly equal cars, if anything the BT49 was probably the class of the field in 1981.

[QUOTE][i]
It is sometimes amazing to compare 3 drivers, that were paired one time or another. A was better then B, the year after C was better than A, and the year next B was better than C. Who is the best, after all? This is not pure abstraction: Gurney was better than Brabham, Brabham was better than Hulme; Hulme was better than Gurney.[/B][/QUOTE]

Which is more or less what I was saying isn't it?

[QUOTE][i]
As you say, when comparing Prost and Hill, "that was at the end of one career and the start of another so not quite the same thing". ...(and, by the way, was D. Hill a "top name" in 1993)?[/B][/QUOTE]

I think by mid season he certainly was and had the measure of Alain (a multiple world champion). However he suffered from some very dubious, and none too subtle, team politics.Even early in the season he was starting to make things very difficult for Prost and the team. At Donington there appeared to be a concerted effort to keep him behind Prost while the latter dodged in and out of the pits for different tyres all race. Hill was almost cruising in Alains wake and given his chance would have been long gone and chasing Senna. And he was a rookie in 93 as Taylor was in 62, the difference was the level of competetivness. Hill imbarrissed the teams No.1.

[QUOTE]
And please remember that Clark and Gurney were team-mates in America.[/QUOTE]
[/B][/QUOTE]


But wasn't this all about F1 ?

What IS this system based on?
To be fair of the rest of us it's impossible to argue a point if we aren't able to figure out what counts and what doesn't. It would be interesting to look at it in detail as it seems to throw up some real curiosities.

Simon