planetf1.com

It is currently Tue Mar 28, 2017 4:12 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
 Post subject: WDC driver-ratings
PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2017 4:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:06 am
Posts: 3180
These are figures from my System, and are independent of the car (ie car-neutral).

Most WDCs driver-rated at 100.0: from Fangio in 1951 and Ascari 1952,1953 to Vettel in 2011, 2013 and Hamilton in 2014, 2015. What boosted the number of 100.0 driver-rated WDCs was that several won a few WDCs: Schumacher, Senna, Prost, Lauda, Stewart and Clark. And most were in top car teams.

The slowest WDC was Denny Hulme in 1967, at 100.9. Hulme was very consistent and brought the car home. However he was either cautious or just did not have the natural speed of other WDCs. His 1967 Brabham-Repco four-cam was an exceptional car, its speed under-rated.

A bunch of WDCs driver-rated at 100.5: Brabham 1959,1966; , Graham Hill 1962,1968; Fittipaldi 1972,1974; Keke Rosberg 1982; Piquet in 1987, Damon Hill 1996 and Jacques Villeneuve 1997.

_________________
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com


Last edited by POBRatings on Tue Feb 28, 2017 5:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WDC driver-ratings
PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2017 4:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 10297
Interesting as always.

Off topic a bit but I was wondering earlier, which car had the biggest advantage without either of its drivers being able to win the WDC in it?

Perhaps the Renault or Ferrari of 82? or the Williams of 86?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WDC driver-ratings
PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2017 5:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:06 am
Posts: 3180
mikeyg123 wrote:
Interesting as always.

Off topic a bit but I was wondering earlier, which car had the biggest advantage without either of its drivers being able to win the WDC in it?

Perhaps the Renault or Ferrari of 82? or the Williams of 86?


The Renault turbos or the Ferrari 1982 seem to be candidates; have to look up the stats.
The 1986 Williams-Renaults were clearly superior to the actual WDC winning McLaren-Porsche. Again I'd have to find the stats.

_________________
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WDC driver-ratings
PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2017 6:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:06 am
Posts: 3180
Which cars had the biggest advantage but that did not win the WDC?
Perceptions created by packages, 'name' drivers or results can be deceptive and sometimes obscure pure car-ratings.

1982: The fastest two cars were rated equal, the Renault and the Williams-Cosworth 08; the Ferrrari was 0.2 slower.

1986: The Williams-Honda was the fastest car, having an advantage of 0.4 over the Lotus-Renault, and 0.5 over the McLaren-Porsche; but the Ligier-Renault equal top car-rated with the Williams-Honda. The Ligier drivers Arnoux and Lafitte were much slower than Piquet and Mansell and the Ligier team not as good as Williams. The Ligiers retired 13 times to Williams' 8.

My System does not measure reliability, only relative speeds.

_________________
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WDC driver-ratings
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 10:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 10297
POBRatings wrote:
Which cars had the biggest advantage but that did not win the WDC?
Perceptions created by packages, 'name' drivers or results can be deceptive and sometimes obscure pure car-ratings.

1982: The fastest two cars were rated equal, the Renault and the Williams-Cosworth 08; the Ferrrari was 0.2 slower.

1986: The Williams-Honda was the fastest car, having an advantage of 0.4 over the Lotus-Renault, and 0.5 over the McLaren-Porsche; but the Ligier-Renault equal top car-rated with the Williams-Honda. The Ligier drivers Arnoux and Lafitte were much slower than Piquet and Mansell and the Ligier team not as good as Williams. The Ligiers retired 13 times to Williams' 8.

My System does not measure reliability, only relative speeds.


Interesting to see things like that. Especially the Ligier.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WDC driver-ratings
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:49 am
Posts: 711
Pre the late 1990s, the cars could be unreliable so the fastest cars might not be the best cars....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WDC driver-ratings
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:49 am
Posts: 711
Early on - the driver often made the difference - Fangio winning his home GP with a broken exhaust and getting 2nd degree burns after many hours of driving - or winning a race holding the car together when they found the spark plugs welded to the engine after the race.

there are many more examples - whereas today - it is rare that the driver makes a difference - Rosberg managing to hold on to second in Canada when his car was handicapped (loved the winner but kudos to Nico for that drive) a more recent example


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WDC driver-ratings
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 10297
F1Oz wrote:
Early on - the driver often made the difference - Fangio winning his home GP with a broken exhaust and getting 2nd degree burns after many hours of driving - or winning a race holding the car together when they found the spark plugs welded to the engine after the race.

there are many more examples - whereas today - it is rare that the driver makes a difference - Rosberg managing to hold on to second in Canada when his car was handicapped (loved the winner but kudos to Nico for that drive) a more recent example


I think drivers still make a difference all the time. Look at Alonso finishing 10th in the WDC last year. Plenty of time a driver finishes higher than the natural position of his car and beats slower drivers in faster cars.

I agree drivers have less scope to make a difference now but lets not forget the speed differentials between cars is much less now than in the early years.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WDC driver-ratings
PostPosted: Thu Mar 02, 2017 8:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:06 am
Posts: 3180
Just seen on the news that Roger Federer has been beaten by a player ranked 116th. Often seen this in golf, even with say Tiger Woods at his best, being beaten by a player ranked 39th.

I don't think Federer or Woods are inferior as athletes in their own fields to any of Fangio, Senna, Alonso, Hamilton. But in F1 the top drivers would never go down to a driver ranked number 116 or a younger, less experienced driver.

F1 driving seems to involve so much of experience and perhaps a technical knowledge or at least a superior 'feel' for the tech of the car-road? Golf and tennis seem to be 'simpler' sports in not having so much technical requirements, more natural talent and athleticism? Even for a young driver with Verstappen's natural talent, he is still not quite a match for the top few, being betetred by team-mate Ricciardo overall. Same with Gilles Villeneuve, Piquet until they had a few years experience and development.

Thoughts?

_________________
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WDC driver-ratings
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2017 11:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:49 am
Posts: 711
POBRatings wrote:
Just seen on the news that Roger Federer has been beaten by a player ranked 116th. Often seen this in golf, even with say Tiger Woods at his best, being beaten by a player ranked 39th.

I don't think Federer or Woods are inferior as athletes in their own fields to any of Fangio, Senna, Alonso, Hamilton. But in F1 the top drivers would never go down to a driver ranked number 116 or a younger, less experienced driver.

F1 driving seems to involve so much of experience and perhaps a technical knowledge or at least a superior 'feel' for the tech of the car-road? Golf and tennis seem to be 'simpler' sports in not having so much technical requirements, more natural talent and athleticism? Even for a young driver with Verstappen's natural talent, he is still not quite a match for the top few, being betetred by team-mate Ricciardo overall. Same with Gilles Villeneuve, Piquet until they had a few years experience and development.

Thoughts?


Wish I could see this in Women's tennis - where I can't remember a player outside the top 100 or more beating a player in the top 10 - err, EVER in my living memory

And the women ONLY play 3 sets in grand slam - despite getting same prize money - sexist clearly (pro women) - anti those who are fitter as opposed to the power players - needs to change to 5 sets or needs to drop to 67% prizewmoney - anything else is SEXIST and has been for years - especially given lower depth in women's tennis


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WDC driver-ratings
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2017 11:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 18084
POBRatings wrote:
Just seen on the news that Roger Federer has been beaten by a player ranked 116th. Often seen this in golf, even with say Tiger Woods at his best, being beaten by a player ranked 39th.

I don't think Federer or Woods are inferior as athletes in their own fields to any of Fangio, Senna, Alonso, Hamilton. But in F1 the top drivers would never go down to a driver ranked number 116 or a younger, less experienced driver.

F1 driving seems to involve so much of experience and perhaps a technical knowledge or at least a superior 'feel' for the tech of the car-road? Golf and tennis seem to be 'simpler' sports in not having so much technical requirements, more natural talent and athleticism? Even for a young driver with Verstappen's natural talent, he is still not quite a match for the top few, being betetred by team-mate Ricciardo overall. Same with Gilles Villeneuve, Piquet until they had a few years experience and development.

Thoughts?

I think it's difficult to make an accurate comparison.

For starters, nobody except an F1 driver will have had any experience of driving an F1 car, which gives the incumbents an enormous advantage in any head to head. In tennis or golf, all the players have a level playing field as far as that goes and it's then entirely down to their talent and amount of effort they are willing to put in.

And driver ranked that low (assuming there was a ranking, of course) would likely never get near an F1 car in the first place. Unless they're called Suzie Wolff, and the fact that Williams wouldn't put her in the race seat even when there was an opportunity and she was their development driver speaks volumes.

I just don't see such an event happening. But it should be noted that Lewis Hamilton did a sterling job of competing against Alonso in his first year, although even then I'm not sure he'd have been listed as 116 in any rankings, having just won GP2. So it is possible for a relative unknown to cause an upset, but the deck is always stacked in favour of the top seeds, by virtue of the closed club they operate in handing them all the advantage of experience


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WDC driver-ratings
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2017 1:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:42 pm
Posts: 1521
F1Oz wrote:
POBRatings wrote:
Just seen on the news that Roger Federer has been beaten by a player ranked 116th. Often seen this in golf, even with say Tiger Woods at his best, being beaten by a player ranked 39th.

I don't think Federer or Woods are inferior as athletes in their own fields to any of Fangio, Senna, Alonso, Hamilton. But in F1 the top drivers would never go down to a driver ranked number 116 or a younger, less experienced driver.

F1 driving seems to involve so much of experience and perhaps a technical knowledge or at least a superior 'feel' for the tech of the car-road? Golf and tennis seem to be 'simpler' sports in not having so much technical requirements, more natural talent and athleticism? Even for a young driver with Verstappen's natural talent, he is still not quite a match for the top few, being betetred by team-mate Ricciardo overall. Same with Gilles Villeneuve, Piquet until they had a few years experience and development.

Thoughts?


Wish I could see this in Women's tennis - where I can't remember a player outside the top 100 or more beating a player in the top 10 - err, EVER in my living memory

And the women ONLY play 3 sets in grand slam - despite getting same prize money - sexist clearly (pro women) - anti those who are fitter as opposed to the power players - needs to change to 5 sets or needs to drop to 67% prizewmoney - anything else is SEXIST and has been for years - especially given lower depth in women's tennis


You write quite well for a 5 year old...

But with your rant about prize money, you obviously have a bee in your bonnet about it :)

_________________
Group Pick 'Em 2016 Champion


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WDC driver-ratings
PostPosted: Wed Mar 15, 2017 7:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:06 am
Posts: 3180
Who'd have thought Jim Clark, one of the cleanest and fairest of WDCs, would ever blatantly jump a Grand Prix start?
1963 belgian GP at Spa. ON this old, 14km per lap version of the great ciurcyuit, the pits were immediately after La Source hairpin, on the right-hand side going downhill towards Eau Rouge. IN practice Lotus had been having trouble with their gearboxes and change mechanisms, so Clark got in only a few laps . Consequently he started P8, last on the third row of the 3-2-3 grid.

Before the flag fell however, Clark's monocoque Lotus-Climax 25 started creeping along in the pitlane (no Armco barriers then), and by the time the field reached the Eau Rouge River bridge, Clark was in the lead. He led to the end and won by a huge margin after heavy rain storms.

Thirty years earlier there was an even more blatant jumped start: Louis Chiron. Chiron was one of the top drivers from 1928 to 1936, on a par with Nuvolari, Varzi, Caracciola, Wimille and Rosemeyer. 1934 French GP at Montlhery: Chiron was driving for Alfa Romeo, who were determined to beat the new, advanced Mercedes-Benz and Auto-Union cars. Grid positions were by ballot then, and Chiron was miffed at drawing only P8, last on the third row of the 3-2-3 grid. Same position as Clark in 1963! Before flag fall though, Chiron imitated clutch creep and jumped across the line before the others had moved. A start pic shows Chiron 20 metres ahead of the furious pack, cheekily watching them in his mirror. Chiron dominated to lead 32 of the 40 laps to win one of his greatest races.

A big difference between Chiron and Clark though, is that Chiron habitually jumped the start. His argument to officialdom 'Let me please explain, Monsieur Whiting: the race starts at the line'. His comment to journalists: "If I am not in second gear when the flag falls, I consider that I have made a bad start." :lol:

Wonder what message Vettel would have had for the race directors, had he been on pole in those two races? :?

_________________
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Consolidated, mnrvermaak and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group