planetf1.com

It is currently Tue Sep 02, 2014 6:51 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 3:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 3930
POBRatings wrote:
Schumirules: in terms of topping the driver speed ratings on my system, car-neutral, Michael reigned for 11 seasons 1995-2005; this is a record not only for F1 but for all grand prix history.

Uniquely though for ten seasons between Senna's death in 1994 and 2005, there was no driver as fast. Closest was Hakkinen who was at best 0.1 slower. But in 2005 newboys Raikkonen and Alonso arrived and were equal in speed to Michael by my rating system.

Next longest reign was Senna's 9 seasons 1986-1994.

Then a tie at 8 seasons, between Prost (1983-1990) and Alonso (2005-2012).

Ranked fourth with 6 seasons at the top: Moss (1956-1961), Clark (1963-1968) and Stewart (1968-1973).

This ranking/rating of mine does not mean these drivers are equal or can be directly compared. I am just tabling the longevity of their reigns, as measured/scored by my system, which is based primarily on relative speeds.

So many other factors affect driver performance, including team/car, designers and other staff (moving-joining teams), rivals and the level of competition.


This is interesting and I have tried (not hard enough I admit) to understand how your formula works, but to no avail. For example, you mentioned 2005. In 2005 you reckon Michael was as fast as Kimi and Fernando, car-neutral. How do you quantify this? As 2005 was a horrible year for Ferrari (well, for BS), so how do you know how fast Michael was? True there were races that the BS did perform well enough for Michael to challenge the Michelin-shod cars, but generally the whole year can be easily forgotten by most Ferrari fans.

I don't want to ask you to reveal your formula, I am just trying to understand and failing miserably!

_________________
ΜΣ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 4:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:58 pm
Posts: 973
Eva 09 -Well that is where you are going to disagree.

Some think it warranted a severe punishment, whilst you and I am sure others felt it did not. There is a case either way.

_________________
http://top-people.starmedia.com/tmp/swotti/cacheYXLYDG9UIHNLBM5HUGVVCGXLLVBLB3BSZQ==/imgAyrton%20Senna2.jpg


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 4:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 10:14 pm
Posts: 2460
SchumieRules wrote:
POBRatings wrote:
Schumirules: in terms of topping the driver speed ratings on my system, car-neutral, Michael reigned for 11 seasons 1995-2005; this is a record not only for F1 but for all grand prix history.

Uniquely though for ten seasons between Senna's death in 1994 and 2005, there was no driver as fast. Closest was Hakkinen who was at best 0.1 slower. But in 2005 newboys Raikkonen and Alonso arrived and were equal in speed to Michael by my rating system.

Next longest reign was Senna's 9 seasons 1986-1994.

Then a tie at 8 seasons, between Prost (1983-1990) and Alonso (2005-2012).

Ranked fourth with 6 seasons at the top: Moss (1956-1961), Clark (1963-1968) and Stewart (1968-1973).

This ranking/rating of mine does not mean these drivers are equal or can be directly compared. I am just tabling the longevity of their reigns, as measured/scored by my system, which is based primarily on relative speeds.

So many other factors affect driver performance, including team/car, designers and other staff (moving-joining teams), rivals and the level of competition.


This is interesting and I have tried (not hard enough I admit) to understand how your formula works, but to no avail. For example, you mentioned 2005. In 2005 you reckon Michael was as fast as Kimi and Fernando, car-neutral. How do you quantify this? As 2005 was a horrible year for Ferrari (well, for BS), so how do you know how fast Michael was? True there were races that the BS did perform well enough for Michael to challenge the Michelin-shod cars, but generally the whole year can be easily forgotten by most Ferrari fans.

I don't want to ask you to reveal your formula, I am just trying to understand and failing miserably!


2005 was a good year for Michael in terms of performance compared to Barrichello in my view. After Barrichello got quite close in 2003 (but not too close), it was back to more like 2001 relative pace. Michael seemed to understand how to make the tyres last better.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 4:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 3930
sennafan24 wrote:
Eva09 wrote:
sennafan24 wrote:
Because unsportsman like conduct should be punished because its cheating.

If Schumi would have been punished for his last race incident in 1994 by just a small points deduction he would have lost the title. Many thought he should have gotten worse than that.

Whether I agree with Fiki or not, his point us far from "utter bollocks" like you said in my view.


Sorry what was his point again?

He thinks Schumi should have not won the title in 1994 based on his last race incident with Hill. He must blame Schumacher for it and felt he caused the crash on purpose in a unsportsman like way and therefore cheated.

Please correct me if I am wrong Fiki.


You are wrong. Fiki didn't say "should have won", he said Hill had won 2 WDC's. Which is utter bullshit (as he has one trophy in his cupboard) and means Fiki needs to check his eyes. Rightly or wrongly (still debated by many) Hill has only one WDC and even himself has put it behind. Only Fiki seems to be having issues with that.

Nothing new there.

Let's get back on topic now please

_________________
ΜΣ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 4:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 3930
Eva09 wrote:
SchumieRules wrote:
POBRatings wrote:
Schumirules: in terms of topping the driver speed ratings on my system, car-neutral, Michael reigned for 11 seasons 1995-2005; this is a record not only for F1 but for all grand prix history.

Uniquely though for ten seasons between Senna's death in 1994 and 2005, there was no driver as fast. Closest was Hakkinen who was at best 0.1 slower. But in 2005 newboys Raikkonen and Alonso arrived and were equal in speed to Michael by my rating system.

Next longest reign was Senna's 9 seasons 1986-1994.

Then a tie at 8 seasons, between Prost (1983-1990) and Alonso (2005-2012).

Ranked fourth with 6 seasons at the top: Moss (1956-1961), Clark (1963-1968) and Stewart (1968-1973).

This ranking/rating of mine does not mean these drivers are equal or can be directly compared. I am just tabling the longevity of their reigns, as measured/scored by my system, which is based primarily on relative speeds.

So many other factors affect driver performance, including team/car, designers and other staff (moving-joining teams), rivals and the level of competition.


This is interesting and I have tried (not hard enough I admit) to understand how your formula works, but to no avail. For example, you mentioned 2005. In 2005 you reckon Michael was as fast as Kimi and Fernando, car-neutral. How do you quantify this? As 2005 was a horrible year for Ferrari (well, for BS), so how do you know how fast Michael was? True there were races that the BS did perform well enough for Michael to challenge the Michelin-shod cars, but generally the whole year can be easily forgotten by most Ferrari fans.

I don't want to ask you to reveal your formula, I am just trying to understand and failing miserably!


2005 was a good year for Michael in terms of performance compared to Barrichello in my view. After Barrichello got quite close in 2003 (but not too close), it was back to more like 2001 relative pace. Michael seemed to understand how to make the tyres last better.


I agree that he was better, but this was down to Michael understanding the tyres better as you said, this doesn't mean that his performance was equal best... I'm still trying to figure out how to quantify the performance as per POB's suggestions.

_________________
ΜΣ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 4:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:58 pm
Posts: 973
SchumieRules wrote:
sennafan24 wrote:
Eva09 wrote:
sennafan24 wrote:
Because unsportsman like conduct should be punished because its cheating.

If Schumi would have been punished for his last race incident in 1994 by just a small points deduction he would have lost the title. Many thought he should have gotten worse than that.

Whether I agree with Fiki or not, his point us far from "utter bollocks" like you said in my view.


Sorry what was his point again?

He thinks Schumi should have not won the title in 1994 based on his last race incident with Hill. He must blame Schumacher for it and felt he caused the crash on purpose in a unsportsman like way and therefore cheated.

Please correct me if I am wrong Fiki.


You are wrong. Fiki didn't say "should have won", he said Hill had won 2 WDC's. Which is utter bullshit (as he has one trophy in his cupboard) and means Fiki needs to check his eyes. Rightly or wrongly (still debated by many) Hill has only one WDC and even himself has put it behind. Only Fiki seems to be having issues with that.

Nothing new there.

Let's get back on topic now please


I missed the definitive point of "had won" still I got his point right.

Anyway, as you said back to the topic.

_________________
http://top-people.starmedia.com/tmp/swotti/cacheYXLYDG9UIHNLBM5HUGVVCGXLLVBLB3BSZQ==/imgAyrton%20Senna2.jpg


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 4:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 3930
sennafan24 wrote:
SchumieRules wrote:
sennafan24 wrote:
Eva09 wrote:
sennafan24 wrote:
Because unsportsman like conduct should be punished because its cheating.

If Schumi would have been punished for his last race incident in 1994 by just a small points deduction he would have lost the title. Many thought he should have gotten worse than that.

Whether I agree with Fiki or not, his point us far from "utter bollocks" like you said in my view.


Sorry what was his point again?

He thinks Schumi should have not won the title in 1994 based on his last race incident with Hill. He must blame Schumacher for it and felt he caused the crash on purpose in a unsportsman like way and therefore cheated.

Please correct me if I am wrong Fiki.


You are wrong. Fiki didn't say "should have won", he said Hill had won 2 WDC's. Which is utter bullshit (as he has one trophy in his cupboard) and means Fiki needs to check his eyes. Rightly or wrongly (still debated by many) Hill has only one WDC and even himself has put it behind. Only Fiki seems to be having issues with that.

Nothing new there.

Let's get back on topic now please


I missed the definitive point of "had won" still I got his point right.

Anyway, as you said back to the topic.


It is his conviction as he said! Many times in the past. On what you said though, I have never heard him saying 4xWDC Alain Prost, or 2xWDC Ayrton Senna. Only 6xWDC Schumacher. Which says a lot about a little chip on his shoulder.

In any case, the point is not if Michael, Ayrton or Alain should have been disqualified, the point is that they were not. Rightly or wrongly, they were not. It makes for a nice debate, but we have gotten over it now, even they have, a long time ago. We can agree to put it in rest!

_________________
ΜΣ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 4:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:06 am
Posts: 2326
Schumirules: my method of comparison would take pages to explain. I use more than one formula, and am working towards publishing the whole thing with tables for each season.

In 2005 even with the problem car/tyres Schumacher would have done as well as anyone else in that Ferrari, probably better. The car was off-pace, but Michael's driving was not. He performed even faster from Barrichello than in 2004.

Same when Fangio, Moss, Clark, Senna, Prost, etc had off-pace cars, their driving skills were still tops. Alonso in the Renaults 2008-2009 too. Unless they become demotivated, top drivers always perform at the top, when in their peak years.

I plot driver performances separate from car, race-by-race and work to season averages. Since racing began in the 1890s, top drivers' performances do not vary much in their peak years; cars however can and do vary more. EG Ferrari's drop in 2005, 2009, McLaren's in 2006, Williams 1998, etc. But a slower car does not necessarily mean the driver has slowed.

This does not answer your question mathematically, but the basic reasoning imo is correct.

_________________
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 4:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:58 pm
Posts: 973
Schumierules - Yeah, the "conviction" I alluded to when I said "definitive point"

I agree that rightly or wrongly Schumi is a 7 times champion, we cannot change what the records say.

_________________
http://top-people.starmedia.com/tmp/swotti/cacheYXLYDG9UIHNLBM5HUGVVCGXLLVBLB3BSZQ==/imgAyrton%20Senna2.jpg


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 4:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 4624
Eva09 wrote:


Why?[/quote]

Doesn't really matter does it?[/quote]

No it doesn't but discussion is the whole point of the forum and you should not expect to be able to make a claim you are unwilling to substantiate without question.[/quote]

Oh I interpreted youre answer wrong, sorry I thought you meant why was he down and dirty.

Substantiate? I've seen him make several aggressive moves right out of the Michael playbook.

Weaving that time in Canada, blocking aggressively in a few occasions (one was in Aida), blocking Michael in Spa 98 before he got past, he also punted Michael off that time in Silverstone.

You'd get penalised for it these days probably, this was in the mid-late 90s a hangover of the Senna days.[/quote]

Oh I agree with that but to be as "down and dirty" as Schumi he would of needed to deliberately take a rival out at least once. Hill was not whiter than white but he never went as far as Michael.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 5:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 3930
POBRatings wrote:
Schumirules: my method of comparison would take pages to explain. I use more than one formula, and am working towards publishing the whole thing with tables for each season.

In 2005 even with the problem car/tyres Schumacher would have done as well as anyone else in that Ferrari, probably better. The car was off-pace, but Michael's driving was not. He performed even faster from Barrichello than in 2004.

Same when Fangio, Moss, Clark, Senna, Prost, etc had off-pace cars, their driving skills were still tops. Alonso in the Renaults 2008-2009 too. Unless they become demotivated, top drivers always perform at the top, when in their peak years.

I plot driver performances separate from car, race-by-race and work to season averages. Since racing began in the 1890s, top drivers' performances do not vary much in their peak years; cars however can and do vary more. EG Ferrari's drop in 2005, 2009, McLaren's in 2006, Williams 1998, etc. But a slower car does not necessarily mean the driver has slowed.

This does not answer your question mathematically, but the basic reasoning imo is correct.


I know and I fully agree, I am just trying to figure out how to put it in numbers and how to make it work!

_________________
ΜΣ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 5:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 3930
mikeyg123 wrote:
Eva09 wrote:


Why?


Doesn't really matter does it?[/quote]

No it doesn't but discussion is the whole point of the forum and you should not expect to be able to make a claim you are unwilling to substantiate without question.[/quote]

Oh I interpreted youre answer wrong, sorry I thought you meant why was he down and dirty.

Substantiate? I've seen him make several aggressive moves right out of the Michael playbook.

Weaving that time in Canada, blocking aggressively in a few occasions (one was in Aida), blocking Michael in Spa 98 before he got past, he also punted Michael off that time in Silverstone.

You'd get penalised for it these days probably, this was in the mid-late 90s a hangover of the Senna days.[/quote]

Oh I agree with that but to be as "down and dirty" as Schumi he would of needed to deliberately take a rival out at least once. Hill was not whiter than white but he never went as far as Michael.[/quote]

Kind of took him out in Silverstone in '95, but what the heck. He wasn't as agressive as Michael overall though

_________________
ΜΣ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 5:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 4624
SchumieRules wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Eva09 wrote:


Why?


Doesn't really matter does it?


No it doesn't but discussion is the whole point of the forum and you should not expect to be able to make a claim you are unwilling to substantiate without question.[/quote]

Oh I interpreted youre answer wrong, sorry I thought you meant why was he down and dirty.

Substantiate? I've seen him make several aggressive moves right out of the Michael playbook.

Weaving that time in Canada, blocking aggressively in a few occasions (one was in Aida), blocking Michael in Spa 98 before he got past, he also punted Michael off that time in Silverstone.

You'd get penalised for it these days probably, this was in the mid-late 90s a hangover of the Senna days.[/quote]

Oh I agree with that but to be as "down and dirty" as Schumi he would of needed to deliberately take a rival out at least once. Hill was not whiter than white but he never went as far as Michael.[/quote]

Kind of took him out in Silverstone in '95, but what the heck. He wasn't as agressive as Michael overall though[/quote]

It was very clumsy but not deliberate like Schumi on JV


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 5:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 3930
mikeyg123 wrote:

It was very clumsy but not deliberate like Schumi on JV


The WDC was not on the line!!!!

_________________
ΜΣ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 5:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 4624
SchumieRules wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:

It was very clumsy but not deliberate like Schumi on JV


The WDC was not on the line!!!!


Maybe I am not understanding but i really don't see why it makes any difference. If you deliberately take somebody out of the race then its foul play and worse than causing an accident by making an error of judgement even if you are under pressure for the tittle.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 6:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 3930
I was joking.... Don't worry about it

_________________
ΜΣ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 6:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 4624
SchumieRules wrote:
I was joking.... Don't worry about it


Oh ok fair enough :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 6:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 3:41 pm
Posts: 106
POBRatings wrote:
I plot driver performances separate from car, race-by-race and work to season averages. Since racing began in the 1890s, top drivers' performances do not vary much in their peak years; cars however can and do vary more. EG Ferrari's drop in 2005, 2009, McLaren's in 2006, Williams 1998, etc.

But a slower car does not necessarily mean the driver has slowed.


Emerson Fittipaldis more or less carrier ending move from McLaren to Copersucar must be one of the more extreme examples of a driver suddenly dropping down the ranks because of a slower car.

Emerson Fittipaldi finished first or second four years in a row (1972-1975) scoring an average of 54 points per season for two different teams (Lotus and McLaren). But after moving to Copersucar, he scored only 3 point in 1976 as the reigning champion. And an average of 7,4 point per season the next five seasons until retiring after 1980.

I've always considered Emerson Fittipaldi one of the potentially great drivers, who never made it to "One of the Greatest"-status because of his unfortunate move to Copersucar.

It would be very interesting to hear how your system ranked him during his years with Copersucar. Did his poor choice of car cost him a third title in 1976 challenging James Hunt and Niki Lauda?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 10:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:06 am
Posts: 2326
Beleriand: Emerson Fittipaldi.
There is no doubt the Copersucar issue ruined his career. Like Surtees(1968) and Gurney (1966), their driving suffered when they set-up their own teams, with all the financial, staff, admin ,design, etc responsibities. All of which drivers do not have to worry about. I'm sure Prost and Stewart would have slowed if they'd tried to do both.

The driver ratings (my stats) for Fittipaldi, Surtees and Guney all dropped suddenly when their own teams started. As time went on they got even slower from lack of concentration on driving, but also from demotivation, as funds ran out.

Your question on 1976: imo Emerson was not fast enough to have coped with Lauda, Regazzoni, Andretti, Pace, Pryce and Hunt, if he were in the same-car/team.

This is based on my driver-ratings for 1976. My system showed that in 1975 Emerson's McLaren-Cosworth M23 was the fastest car, yet he only won twice, team-mate Mass once, and set no poles vs Lauda's five wins and nine poles in the slower Ferrari; Pace won once and set three poles in the Brabham BT44 which my stats have equal in speed to the Ferrari.

Emerson was a fine driver: very smooth, sensitive mechanically, a crafty racer, good car developer. Yet he was just not as fast as his best peers. Piquet pointed this out saying "Emerson was never the fastest driver". I don't know why Emerson was slower, amybe he took no chances? At the time most thought so highly of him as a driver, including such authories as Denis Jenkinson and Alan Henry. My ratings showed up his slower speed, and for some time I thought my stats must be wrong; checked and re-checked, but what Piquet said seems to be correct.

_________________
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 2:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 3730
Location: Belgium
My apologies for returning to this for one post, but I was laid low by the flu.
sennafan24 wrote:
Eva09 wrote:
sennafan24 wrote:
Because unsportsman like conduct should be punished because its cheating.

If Schumi would have been punished for his last race incident in 1994 by just a small points deduction he would have lost the title. Many thought he should have gotten worse than that.

Whether I agree with Fiki or not, his point us far from "utter bollocks" like you said in my view.


Sorry what was his point again?

He thinks Schumi should have not won the title in 1994 based on his last race incident with Hill. He must blame Schumacher for it and felt he caused the crash on purpose in a unsportsman like way and therefore cheated.

Please correct me if I am wrong Fiki.
It would be wrong to say I think Schumacher should not have won the title in 1994, as you put it. My point of view is that he simply didn't - regardless of whether he should have been racing for a cheating team at all by mid-1994. That the FIA continue to portray him as a 7-times world champion is dishonourable to both competitors who play by the rules, and to fans of the sport. I'm sure we can all of us point to the same rea$on why, but that doesn't make it any less dishonourable.

SchumieRules wrote:
Fiki needs to check his eyes
:D Thank you for your concern Schumie, but that is done each and every year! Failing my professional eyesight test would mean losing my job. ;)

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 3:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:58 pm
Posts: 973
Apologies to Fiki for taking him out of context :thumbup:

_________________
http://top-people.starmedia.com/tmp/swotti/cacheYXLYDG9UIHNLBM5HUGVVCGXLLVBLB3BSZQ==/imgAyrton%20Senna2.jpg


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 6:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 3730
Location: Belgium
sennafan24 wrote:
Apologies to Fiki for taking him out of context :thumbup:

None necessary!

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 7:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:48 pm
Posts: 273
This is a strange one , but after watching F1 for 30 years and supporting many great drivers and watching a lot of F1 documentaries and videos I am going with Clark, there was a documentary on him and he came across as a very special driver who was fast in anything ,whose career was ended early and should he have driven on may have had much more success, the 1963 spa GP epitomized his ability , wet foggy weather and 17 laps in had lapped every other car but 2nd place.
1967 monza he went a lap down after a puncture and came back to unlap himself and retake the lead.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 9:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 9:57 am
Posts: 15
I think Senna's speed and his death makes them stand out among fans. Probably why many regard him as the best.

As I think we associate by 'being faster' you're better than the next guy. I know I've mentioned his death which many not agree but it's a factor to why some choose to regard him as the 'best'. Very subjective end of the day...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 9:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:19 pm
Posts: 897
Location: Los Angeles, California
Sheepgobba wrote:
I think Senna's speed and his death makes them stand out among fans. Probably why many regard him as the best.

As I think we associate by 'being faster' you're better than the next guy. I know I've mentioned his death which many not agree but it's a factor to why some choose to regard him as the 'best'. Very subjective end of the day...



I agree. I know he was regarded by some as the best when he was alive, but his death basically ensured that his fans (Both the ones who saw him race and those who didn't, but ESPECIALLY those who didn't) and others would never be open to a discussion about whether any driver who came along later was better than him or not. I still see stupid comments on youtube, such as the moron who said that Senna outdrove his race car more times than any driver in history, as if that was an actual stat or something. His career has become romanticized to the point that many of his over-aggressive tactics have been forgotten.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 9:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:19 pm
Posts: 897
Location: Los Angeles, California
Fiki wrote:
My apologies for returning to this for one post, but I was laid low by the flu.
sennafan24 wrote:
Eva09 wrote:
sennafan24 wrote:
Because unsportsman like conduct should be punished because its cheating.

If Schumi would have been punished for his last race incident in 1994 by just a small points deduction he would have lost the title. Many thought he should have gotten worse than that.

Whether I agree with Fiki or not, his point us far from "utter bollocks" like you said in my view.


Sorry what was his point again?

He thinks Schumi should have not won the title in 1994 based on his last race incident with Hill. He must blame Schumacher for it and felt he caused the crash on purpose in a unsportsman like way and therefore cheated.

Please correct me if I am wrong Fiki.
It would be wrong to say I think Schumacher should not have won the title in 1994, as you put it. My point of view is that he simply didn't - regardless of whether he should have been racing for a cheating team at all by mid-1994. That the FIA continue to portray him as a 7-times world champion is dishonourable to both competitors who play by the rules, and to fans of the sport. I'm sure we can all of us point to the same rea$on why, but that doesn't make it any less dishonourable.



You can pretend all you want, but in real life, Michael Schumacher is a 7-time World Champion, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Ever. :smug:

I feel so good right now. :]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 3730
Location: Belgium
SnakeSVT2003 wrote:

You can pretend all you want, but in real life, Michael Schumacher is a 7-time World Champion, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Ever. :smug:

I feel so good right now. :]
That you, Lance? :]

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:09 am
Posts: 2169
Location: Perth, Australia
POBRatings wrote:
Beleriand: Emerson Fittipaldi.
There is no doubt the Copersucar issue ruined his career. Like Surtees(1968) and Gurney (1966), their driving suffered when they set-up their own teams, with all the financial, staff, admin ,design, etc responsibities. All of which drivers do not have to worry about. I'm sure Prost and Stewart would have slowed if they'd tried to do both.

The driver ratings (my stats) for Fittipaldi, Surtees and Guney all dropped suddenly when their own teams started. As time went on they got even slower from lack of concentration on driving, but also from demotivation, as funds ran out.

Your question on 1976: imo Emerson was not fast enough to have coped with Lauda, Regazzoni, Andretti, Pace, Pryce and Hunt, if he were in the same-car/team.

This is based on my driver-ratings for 1976. My system showed that in 1975 Emerson's McLaren-Cosworth M23 was the fastest car, yet he only won twice, team-mate Mass once, and set no poles vs Lauda's five wins and nine poles in the slower Ferrari; Pace won once and set three poles in the Brabham BT44 which my stats have equal in speed to the Ferrari.

Emerson was a fine driver: very smooth, sensitive mechanically, a crafty racer, good car developer. Yet he was just not as fast as his best peers. Piquet pointed this out saying "Emerson was never the fastest driver". I don't know why Emerson was slower, amybe he took no chances? At the time most thought so highly of him as a driver, including such authories as Denis Jenkinson and Alan Henry. My ratings showed up his slower speed, and for some time I thought my stats must be wrong; checked and re-checked, but what Piquet said seems to be correct.


Fascinating. Brilliant post, as always.

_________________
Image
I also have one of these.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 11:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:45 am
Posts: 1281
Location: Sydney, Australia
SnakeSVT2003 wrote:
Sheepgobba wrote:
I think Senna's speed and his death makes them stand out among fans. Probably why many regard him as the best.

As I think we associate by 'being faster' you're better than the next guy. I know I've mentioned his death which many not agree but it's a factor to why some choose to regard him as the 'best'. Very subjective end of the day...



I agree. I know he was regarded by some as the best when he was alive, but his death basically ensured that his fans (Both the ones who saw him race and those who didn't, but ESPECIALLY those who didn't) and others would never be open to a discussion about whether any driver who came along later was better than him or not. I still see stupid comments on youtube, such as the moron who said that Senna outdrove his race car more times than any driver in history, as if that was an actual stat or something. His career has become romanticized to the point that many of his over-aggressive tactics have been forgotten.

:thumbup: Agreed. I loved watching him race & his total self belief fascinated me & I wouldn't have missed that part of F1 racing history for the world but I am always amazed at how some fans criticise other drivers for their actions whilst exonerating Senna for doing the same or worse :D
Fiki wrote:
SnakeSVT2003 wrote:

You can pretend all you want, but in real life, Michael Schumacher is a 7-time World Champion, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Ever. :smug:

I feel so good right now. :]
That you, Lance? :]

:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:19 pm
Posts: 897
Location: Los Angeles, California
Fiki wrote:
SnakeSVT2003 wrote:

You can pretend all you want, but in real life, Michael Schumacher is a 7-time World Champion, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Ever. :smug:

I feel so good right now. :]
That you, Lance? :]


Epic fail :lol: They took Lance's titles, remember?

Image

You're just upset that you can't do the same. Again, I feel so happy. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:06 am
Posts: 2326
Fittipaldi: thanks for that Toby.

Before the 1978 SA GP my brother and I took Denis Jenkinson and Alan Henry to dinner. We talked GP racing and cars until about 1am. A fantastic experience.

One of our topics was Fittipaldi and how his career was ruined by the Copersucar venture. We all reckoned that Emerson 'would have won at least as many races as Hunt had if he'd stayed with McLaren'.

Until 2002 when I devsied my ratings system this remained my opinion.

But quantifying and separating driver from car has shown me many diffferent views of racing. Bare results, wins, championships and points have such a powerful effect on our perceptions.

_________________
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 3730
Location: Belgium
SnakeSVT2003 wrote:
Epic fail :lol: They took Lance's titles, remember?
Ouch... DrG got it, why not you? Ah well...


8)

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 2:56 am
Posts: 1186
POBRatings wrote:
Beleriand: Emerson Fittipaldi.
There is no doubt the Copersucar issue ruined his career. Like Surtees(1968) and Gurney (1966), their driving suffered when they set-up their own teams, with all the financial, staff, admin ,design, etc responsibities. All of which drivers do not have to worry about. I'm sure Prost and Stewart would have slowed if they'd tried to do both.

The driver ratings (my stats) for Fittipaldi, Surtees and Guney all dropped suddenly when their own teams started. As time went on they got even slower from lack of concentration on driving, but also from demotivation, as funds ran out.

Your question on 1976: imo Emerson was not fast enough to have coped with Lauda, Regazzoni, Andretti, Pace, Pryce and Hunt, if he were in the same-car/team.

This is based on my driver-ratings for 1976. My system showed that in 1975 Emerson's McLaren-Cosworth M23 was the fastest car, yet he only won twice, team-mate Mass once, and set no poles vs Lauda's five wins and nine poles in the slower Ferrari; Pace won once and set three poles in the Brabham BT44 which my stats have equal in speed to the Ferrari.

Emerson was a fine driver: very smooth, sensitive mechanically, a crafty racer, good car developer. Yet he was just not as fast as his best peers. Piquet pointed this out saying "Emerson was never the fastest driver". I don't know why Emerson was slower, amybe he took no chances? At the time most thought so highly of him as a driver, including such authories as Denis Jenkinson and Alan Henry. My ratings showed up his slower speed, and for some time I thought my stats must be wrong; checked and re-checked, but what Piquet said seems to be correct.


POBRatings wrote:
Fittipaldi: thanks for that Toby.

Before the 1978 SA GP my brother and I took Denis Jenkinson and Alan Henry to dinner. We talked GP racing and cars until about 1am. A fantastic experience.

One of our topics was Fittipaldi and how his career was ruined by the Copersucar venture. We all reckoned that Emerson 'would have won at least as many races as Hunt had if he'd stayed with McLaren'.

Until 2002 when I devsied my ratings system this remained my opinion.

But quantifying and separating driver from car has shown me many diffferent views of racing. Bare results, wins, championships and points have such a powerful effect on our perceptions.


Patrick, remember that your ratings system is only there to measure SPEED, not overtaking ability, car-setup ability, versatility under adverse conditions, and/or racecraft.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:54 pm
Posts: 98
Considering I am under 30... going with the drivers i have had the privilege of watching race. I believe shumi is the best modern driver followed closely by Alonso, Vettel and Hamilton. Kimi deserves a mention as well.

A few drivers from the past who deserve a mention but will have trouble making a top 10 list because they never reached full potental before they left us is Stefan Bellof, Gilles Villeneuve and Francois Cevert


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 7:35 pm
Posts: 32
Fangio, Prost and Schumcher all miss one thing – tragic death on track. I know it sounds harsh but it’s just the way it is. Spectacular death in a young age creates a legend you cannot compete with.

Just as that obsession with James Dean, for example.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2010 8:49 pm
Posts: 1743
Senna & Kimi share this award jointly


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 9:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 2:25 pm
Posts: 487
Location: Florida
Stefan Bellof

_________________
As soon as you touch this limit, something happens and you suddenly can go a little bit further. With your mind power, your determination, your instinct, and the experience as well, you can fly very high.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 9:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 10:05 pm
Posts: 2973
Probably the best I've seen...

1. Senna
2. Schumacher
3. Hamilton
4. Mansell
5. Alonso

_________________
We want heroes, but there are few, mainly it's cars - Pedro De La Rosa


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 2:32 pm
Posts: 11
Location: Biggleswade
WOW what a thread this is a subject that will prob never be settled and someone would have to do really well to prove to everyone why someone is the greatest...

I was very young when Senna was racing but i remember him and he excited me alot and schumacher well he just blow my mind away most sunday afternoons, But the argument of different eras and how F1 has changed will always overshadow an answer to this question and only opinion well divide the result.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 9:16 pm
Posts: 13
In a sport where the hardware is so important and also it is not the same for all players, I honestly think it is very hard to find "The Best player" –driver, in this case–.


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: AstralProjection, flynn, Google Adsense [Bot], James14, PiMuRho, shoot999, TBWG, zaar 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