planetf1.com

It is currently Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:06 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:41 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26889
Blake wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
I've said this before but I will repeat it in here. Having watched the battle between Senna and Prost, there really was no doubt that Senna was superior. Its not the popular thing to say but it's the simple truth. They were not even closely matched to be blunt.


you make this statement as though everything you say if FACT, it is not. Yes, you have said it before, no argument, but there is a doubt "that Senna was superior" There is just no doubt that you believe it, that is the only FACT you have established. And if they were not closely matched or if your opinion were truly the "simple truth" why would there be ANY discussion about it?

Personally, I don't believe that Senna was better than the "professor". Yes, he was more flamboyant, and yes, he passion was very visible and gained him fans... but that does not necessarily make him the better driver only more popular amongst some fans. That is about all you can prove.

Prost's approach the the sport was different, it wasn't as flashy, but no one can deny it was effective. Prost may not have had the big Pole position numbers, but then his race-craft was tough to argue against. Also, I sometimes wonder if this discussion would even be taking place had Senna not deliberately plowed into Prost... we may well have been discussing a 5x WDC vs a 2x WDC. While WDCs are not the only measure of a driver, the greater discrepancy might well have kept this whole topic from coming up every year in here.

Lastly, I don't think that one can dismiss the effect of a great driver dying on the track can have on how he is remembered. I think of Senna and I think of Dale Earnhardt and see how revered they have become since their passing and how much greater their skills seem to have become in some people's minds. Earnhardt would have never approached Richard Petty's win totals, his Daytona 500 wins, and his positive effect on a growing sport.... yet almost any poll you see today of great NASCAR drivers in history, will have Earnhardt at the top. Petty made the "error" of not dying on the track. How many references have seen to about how many WDCs Senna would have had if it were not for his accident, taking them away from Schumi, of course, thereby justifying his greatness over Schumi. The simple truth is we do not know if Senna would have ever won another WDC, or not. Schumi was coming into his own at the time, certainly was not afraid of Aryton, and may well have been tough for even Senna to beat. We don't know one way or the other, and while it may be fun to discuss it, one cannot make an statement of "fact" one way or the other... to be blunt!
;)

It annoys me when people flaunt Senna being killed on track as being the reason why he is revered so much and how his skills have been exaggerated because of it, would this same logic be applied to Jim Clark?

All these reference to titles is somewhat irrelevant, Prost still won more titles after all, and then questioning whether Senna would have won any more titles when lesser driver like Hill and Villenueve became Champions in basically the same car he would have had, let's also not forget that Schumacher had to crash Hill out the race in 1994 to win the title from him so how close would Senna have got and is that morally 1 less title for Schumacher?

Also why bring Schumacher into the argument, a driver you always feel the need to defend, so now perhaps we see a need to diminish Senna's reputation?

Regarding crashes no mention of Prost's crash with Senna in 1989 which gave Prost the title.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1738
What I wonder about though is how quickly Ferrari might have snapped up Senna had he lived on and how it might have changed the wider narrative.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:16 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26889
Invade wrote:
What I wonder about though is how quickly Ferrari might have snapped up Senna had he lived on and how it might have changed the wider narrative.

I find it hard to believe that Senna would have joined Ferrari whilst Williams had the best car?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5020
Invade wrote:
What I wonder about though is how quickly Ferrari might have snapped up Senna had he lived on and how it might have changed the wider narrative.

At that time, Ferrari hadn't won a championship in ages and Williams were the dominant team. I don't think Senna was going anywhere. A lot of people forget the way Schumacher, Brawn and Byrne transformed the team.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6274
sandman1347 wrote:
Invade wrote:
What I wonder about though is how quickly Ferrari might have snapped up Senna had he lived on and how it might have changed the wider narrative.

At that time, Ferrari hadn't won a championship in ages and Williams were the dominant team. I don't think Senna was going anywhere. A lot of people forget the way Schumacher, Brawn and Byrne transformed the team.


Plus, Senna was 34 at the time he died, he would have been 35 and over before joining Ferrari. How long would he have stayed there to really make an impact?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6274
pokerman wrote:
Blake wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
I've said this before but I will repeat it in here. Having watched the battle between Senna and Prost, there really was no doubt that Senna was superior. Its not the popular thing to say but it's the simple truth. They were not even closely matched to be blunt.


you make this statement as though everything you say if FACT, it is not. Yes, you have said it before, no argument, but there is a doubt "that Senna was superior" There is just no doubt that you believe it, that is the only FACT you have established. And if they were not closely matched or if your opinion were truly the "simple truth" why would there be ANY discussion about it?

Personally, I don't believe that Senna was better than the "professor". Yes, he was more flamboyant, and yes, he passion was very visible and gained him fans... but that does not necessarily make him the better driver only more popular amongst some fans. That is about all you can prove.

Prost's approach the the sport was different, it wasn't as flashy, but no one can deny it was effective. Prost may not have had the big Pole position numbers, but then his race-craft was tough to argue against. Also, I sometimes wonder if this discussion would even be taking place had Senna not deliberately plowed into Prost... we may well have been discussing a 5x WDC vs a 2x WDC. While WDCs are not the only measure of a driver, the greater discrepancy might well have kept this whole topic from coming up every year in here.

Lastly, I don't think that one can dismiss the effect of a great driver dying on the track can have on how he is remembered. I think of Senna and I think of Dale Earnhardt and see how revered they have become since their passing and how much greater their skills seem to have become in some people's minds. Earnhardt would have never approached Richard Petty's win totals, his Daytona 500 wins, and his positive effect on a growing sport.... yet almost any poll you see today of great NASCAR drivers in history, will have Earnhardt at the top. Petty made the "error" of not dying on the track. How many references have seen to about how many WDCs Senna would have had if it were not for his accident, taking them away from Schumi, of course, thereby justifying his greatness over Schumi. The simple truth is we do not know if Senna would have ever won another WDC, or not. Schumi was coming into his own at the time, certainly was not afraid of Aryton, and may well have been tough for even Senna to beat. We don't know one way or the other, and while it may be fun to discuss it, one cannot make an statement of "fact" one way or the other... to be blunt!
;)

It annoys me when people flaunt Senna being killed on track as being the reason why he is revered so much and how his skills have been exaggerated because of it, would this same logic be applied to Jim Clark?

All these reference to titles is somewhat irrelevant, Prost still won more titles after all, and then questioning whether Senna would have won any more titles when lesser driver like Hill and Villenueve became Champions in basically the same car he would have had, let's also not forget that Schumacher had to crash Hill out the race in 1994 to win the title from him so how close would Senna have got and is that morally 1 less title for Schumacher?

Also why bring Schumacher into the argument, a driver you always feel the need to defend, so now perhaps we see a need to diminish Senna's reputation?

Regarding crashes no mention of Prost's crash with Senna in 1989 which gave Prost the title.


Easy Pokerman, he didn't say that "the reason" that Senna is revered is because he died. In fact, it was the last of the things that Blake mentioned. So don't get so offended.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 2:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6288
Location: Nebraska, USA
Thank you, Siao7.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 2:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6288
Location: Nebraska, USA
sandman1347 wrote:
As far as Dale goes, I think a lot of that has to do with the sport being much more popular during his time than it was during Petty's time (never knew you were a Dale hater lol).


So now I am a "Dale hater" too? Some of you sure seem to love to throw around the word HATE anytime someone questions any aspect of a driver. So am I a sandman1347 HATER too, when I don't agree with something you said?

BTW, Petty is one of the major reasons NASCAR became much more popular for what it is worth.
;)

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 3:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5020
Blake wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
As far as Dale goes, I think a lot of that has to do with the sport being much more popular during his time than it was during Petty's time (never knew you were a Dale hater lol).


So now I am a "Dale hater" too? Some of you sure seem to love to throw around the word HATE anytime someone questions any aspect of a driver. So am I a sandman1347 HATER too, when I don't agree with something you said?

BTW, Petty is one of the major reasons NASCAR became much more popular for what it is worth.
;)

This is one of those generational things old-timer ;) . The term "hater" doesn't necessarily mean you hate someone. It's just a slang term for a person who is critical of successful people.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 5:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:21 pm
Posts: 92
Blake wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
As far as Dale goes, I think a lot of that has to do with the sport being much more popular during his time than it was during Petty's time (never knew you were a Dale hater lol).


So now I am a "Dale hater" too? Some of you sure seem to love to throw around the word HATE anytime someone questions any aspect of a driver. So am I a sandman1347 HATER too, when I don't agree with something you said?

BTW, Petty is one of the major reasons NASCAR became much more popular for what it is worth.
;)


Nah ... Kyle really wasn't that good !!! 8O


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 6:55 pm 
Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Invade wrote:
What I wonder about though is how quickly Ferrari might have snapped up Senna had he lived on and how it might have changed the wider narrative.

At that time, Ferrari hadn't won a championship in ages and Williams were the dominant team. I don't think Senna was going anywhere. A lot of people forget the way Schumacher, Brawn and Byrne transformed the team.


Plus, Senna was 34 at the time he died, he would have been 35 and over before joining Ferrari. How long would he have stayed there to really make an impact?


I don't see Senna leaving a dominant car either. I see him at Williams until at least 1997 (his initial contact ended at the end of 1995 I believe) at which point he would have been his earliest point of retirement for me. If he didn't manage to haul MS back in 1994, then the titles of 1995,1996 and probably 1997 were there for the taking.

The top drivers of the time all drove until at least 39, Prost, Mansell and Piquet - Mansell last raced F1 at 41, Prost nearly came back into F1 at 41 too. Senna I think would have gone on at least until he was 37/38 and maybe as long as 1999 at which point he would be 39 himself. Plenty of time for pretty easy titles with Williams and maybe a couple of seasons back at Mclaren/Ferrari at the very end of his career.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 7:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 13758
lamo wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Invade wrote:
What I wonder about though is how quickly Ferrari might have snapped up Senna had he lived on and how it might have changed the wider narrative.

At that time, Ferrari hadn't won a championship in ages and Williams were the dominant team. I don't think Senna was going anywhere. A lot of people forget the way Schumacher, Brawn and Byrne transformed the team.


Plus, Senna was 34 at the time he died, he would have been 35 and over before joining Ferrari. How long would he have stayed there to really make an impact?


I don't see Senna leaving a dominant car either. I see him at Williams until at least 1997 (his initial contact ended at the end of 1995 I believe) at which point he would have been his earliest point of retirement for me. If he didn't manage to haul MS back in 1994, then the titles of 1995,1996 and probably 1997 were there for the taking.

The top drivers of the time all drove until at least 39, Prost, Mansell and Piquet - Mansell last raced F1 at 41, Prost nearly came back into F1 at 41 too. Senna I think would have gone on at least until he was 37/38 and maybe as long as 1999 at which point he would be 39 himself. Plenty of time for pretty easy titles with Williams and maybe a couple of seasons back at Mclaren/Ferrari at the very end of his career.


I'm not sure the Williams would have been dominant in a Senna V Schumacher battle in 95 TBH. After that I could see a move to Ferrari. Don't forget the 95 Ferrari was a very good car. Schumacher thought he would have won the championship in the 95 Ferrari.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 10:35 pm 
The 1995 Williams was the class of the field for me, it was just Hill had 7 DNFs (4 of which accidents) and Coulthard had 8... those two were useless that year and how Schumacher ran rings around them in a worse car was ridiculous.

Schumacher managed 4 poles that year, the Williams pair and pit wall managed to lose a lot of races. They ended up winning 5 and threw away another 5 with the drivers they had. I have no doubt Senna would have been at very least 0.4-0.5 ahead of the pair of them which would put him in a position to dominant nearly every race from pole. Even in a worst case scenario, Senna wins 7-8 races in 1995 so I don't see him leaving that Williams even if he somehow lost the WDC to Schumacher.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 12:22 am 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26889
lamo wrote:
The 1995 Williams was the class of the field for me, it was just Hill had 7 DNFs (4 of which accidents) and Coulthard had 8... those two were useless that year and how Schumacher ran rings around them in a worse car was ridiculous.

Schumacher managed 4 poles that year, the Williams pair and pit wall managed to lose a lot of races. They ended up winning 5 and threw away another 5 with the drivers they had. I have no doubt Senna would have been at very least 0.4-0.5 ahead of the pair of them which would put him in a position to dominant nearly every race from pole. Even in a worst case scenario, Senna wins 7-8 races in 1995 so I don't see him leaving that Williams even if he somehow lost the WDC to Schumacher.

Without doubt Schumacher won the 1995 title in an inferior car, put Senna in the Williams then Schumacher doesn't win it.

Senna could have ended up with 6 titles, another thought though is if Schumaher had not retired in 2006, even if he loses the 1995 title to Senna he wins the 2007 and 2008 titles and ends up an 8 times champion.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 1:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3108
While I don't consider records to be proof without analysis - and my opening thesis is all about analyzing the evolution of Hamilton - and especially the changes seen this season - it is worth pointing out a few updates since starting this thread, and this thread seems the most appropriate place to make them.

With Hamilton now certain to go into the final race as a WDC contender (and very likely to be crowned WDC this Sunday) it marks the 7th season where he has done that (2007,2008, 2010, 2014 , 2015 , 2016, 2017)

This is the most of any driver on the grid. Vettel is at 4 (2010/2011/2012/2013) , Alonso 5 (2005/2006/2007/2010/2012).

He has wins and poles in every season he has contested.

He now has the record for poles by a margin and also now has the record for front row starts, and shares the joint record for wins from pole with Schumacher.

He has a realistic chance of challenging Schumacher's all time win record, and if his 2017 win rate relative to Vettel and Alonso continues, by the end of 2020 he will have as many wins as them combined.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 4:32 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:10 am
Posts: 464
I have split the Kimi/Schumacer/Massa 2007 hypothesising out into its own thread because it had gone significantly off topic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 1:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 3:41 pm
Posts: 190
Based on results and the number of races needed to get these results, Lewis Hamilton is now the most successful F1-driver ever.

Please notice: That doesn't necessarily mean the BEST driver ever. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't, but that's another discussion.

Results does to a large extend follow the car, but judged by achieved results corrected for the different number of races needed to achieve them, Lewis Hamilton has now made the exclusive elite of Schumacher and Fangio into a trio.

Points - Driver

0.2122 - Lewis Hamilton
0.2118 - Michael Schumacher
0.2117 - Juan-Manuel Fangio

0.1841 - Alain Prost
0.1725 - Ayrton Senna
0.1715 - Sebastian Vettel
0.1687 - Jim Clark
0.1587 - Jackie Stewart
0.1485 - Alberto Ascari
0.1211 - Stirling Moss


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 1:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6274
Sceptical to ask, which point system have you used?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 1:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6288
Location: Nebraska, USA
To answer the question... NO.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 1:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6274
Blake wrote:
To answer the question... NO.

Yes, this is what I didn't mention in my post. I am not regarding Lewis for this position yet, as he hasn't finished his career yet. He may go on a 3 year dry spell and mess his statistics, who knows?

But I was more keen to see how the points were calculated


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 1:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 3:41 pm
Posts: 190
Siao7 wrote:
Sceptical to ask, which point system have you used?


The calculation is based on number of wins, second, third and so on down to sixths. All results are given a certain weight (like equaling three second positions with one win), but the result is not influenced by the numerous changes in the point scoring system during the years.

This is the formula for anyone interested: (First+Second/3+Third/9+Fourth/18+Fifth/36+Sixth/72)/Races*(1-1/LOG(Races))

Siao7 wrote:
I am not regarding Lewis for this position yet, as he hasn't finished his career yet. He may go on a 3 year dry spell and mess his statistics, who knows?


That's true. The numbers are "as the world looks right now", and change a little bit after each race. Alonso took a serious drop in the list when McLaren started using Honda-engines. That doesn't make him a less brilliant driver, but I don't think anyone will deny that it has made his career a lot less successful than it would have been, if he had raced with Mercedes the past few year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 3:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:29 am
Posts: 1933
What does the table look like if you divide by the power of 2 rather than 3, so 1/2 for a second, 1/4 for a third, 1/8 for a fourth etc ?

_________________
Kimi: "Come on, get the McLaren out of the way!”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 3:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 3:41 pm
Posts: 190
mas wrote:
What does the table look like if you divide by the power of 2 rather than 3, so 1/2 for a second, 1/4 for a third, 1/8 for a fourth etc ?


That would make the table look like this:

0.2404 - Lewis Hamilton
0.2349 - Michael Schumacher
0.2265 - Juan-Manuel Fangio
0.2110 - Alain Prost
0.2010 - Sebastian Vettel
0.1955 - Ayrton Senna
0.1777 - Jim Clark
0.1745 - Jackie Stewart
0.1521 - Alberto Ascari
0.1362 - Damon Hill


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 3:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 13758
Interesting stats and thank you for sharing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 4:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23209
there's a website which still has Schumacher leading in overall points, adjusted for different points systems used over the years. Hamilton is second, though and I don't know how up to date it is

http://formula1.markwessel.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 5:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 5560
Location: Michigan, USA
He's not the most successful. F1 drivers race for two things; World Championships first, and Grand Prix victories second. Schumacher has the most of both, so he's still the most successful F1 driver until he doesn't.

There could be an argument that Lewis is the most successful based on the length of his career, but Fangio won half of all the races he entered, took over half the pole positions available, and was first or second in literally every season he completed. There's no comparison.

Bottom line: points are only useful to determine a champion. Championships make a driver successful, not points.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (3 wins, 12 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #2)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 5:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1300
I have been scanning the Wiki "List of Formula One driver records" and many statistics do not agree with the assessment by the OP.

Image
https://eavi.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/misleading-data.jpg-large.jpg

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 5:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3108
Beleriand_K wrote:
This is the formula for anyone interested: (First+Second/3+Third/9+Fourth/18+Fifth/36+Sixth/72)/Races*(1-1/LOG(Races))

Why are you multiplying by 1-1/LOG(Races) at the end. Surely you just need to divide the accumulation of points and divide by the number of races participated in - or am I missing something??


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 5:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1738
Exediron wrote:
He's not the most successful. F1 drivers race for two things; World Championships first, and Grand Prix victories second. Schumacher has the most of both, so he's still the most successful F1 driver until he doesn't.

There could be an argument that Lewis is the most successful based on the length of his career, but Fangio won half of all the races he entered, took over half the pole positions available, and was first or second in literally every season he completed. There's no comparison.

Bottom line: points are only useful to determine a champion. Championships make a driver successful, not points.



Yes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 5:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 3:41 pm
Posts: 190
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Beleriand_K wrote:
This is the formula for anyone interested: (First+Second/3+Third/9+Fourth/18+Fifth/36+Sixth/72)/Races*(1-1/LOG(Races))

Why are you multiplying by 1-1/LOG(Races) at the end. Surely you just need to divide the accumulation of points and divide by the number of races participated in - or am I missing something??


I have choosen to use a Log-function for correction, because that corrects (reduce the score) proportionally most for the drivers with a low number of races. The more races a driver has participated in, the more likely it is that his average score represents reality. And the less correction margin is needed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 7:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:42 pm
Posts: 1969
I think you need to change you're clickbait thread title.

Lewis is not the most successful ever. He's certainly up towards the top by any measure without the need to use a co.pkicated formula.

_________________
Top Three Team Champions 2017 (With Jezza13)
Group Pick 'Em 2016 Champion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 5:34 am
Posts: 379
Beleriand_K wrote:

Please notice: That doesn't necessarily mean the BEST driver ever. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't, but that's another discussion.



There is no maybe about it. Hamilton is not even in the top five greatest ever, probably not even top 10. He's benefited from an unbeatable car and still managed to lose one season.

While the stats for Hamilton look cool, they are distorted by the ridiculous unprecedented advantage Mercedes has had - and the fact we've been running more races than ever before per season during this era of Merc domination.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1738
MasterRacer wrote:
Beleriand_K wrote:

Please notice: That doesn't necessarily mean the BEST driver ever. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't, but that's another discussion.



There is no maybe about it. Hamilton is not even in the top five greatest ever, probably not even top 10. He's benefited from an unbeatable car and still managed to lose one season.

While the stats for Hamilton look cool, they are distorted by the ridiculous unprecedented advantage Mercedes has had - and the fact we've been running more races than ever before per season during this era of Merc domination.



He has had an extremely dominant car, though he was genuinely not the #1 driver in his team during the stint with Rosberg, I'd suggest.

I was running some basic numbers earlier on percentage of wins per season

Code:
                   Schumacher       Hamilton  Vettel
1991               0%                        
1992               6%                        
1993               6%                        
1994               50%                        
1995               56%                        
1996               19%                        
1997               29%   (DSQ)                     
1998               31%                        
1999               13%                        
2000               53%                        
2001               53%                        
2002               65%                        
2003               38%                        
2004               72%                        
2005               5%                        
2006               39%                        
2007                                 24%      0%
2008                                 28%      6%
2009                                 12%      24%
2010               0%                16%      26%
2011               0%                16%      58%
2012               0%                20%      25%
2013                                 5%       68%
2014                                 58%      0%
2015                                 53%      21%
2016                                 48%      0%
2017                                 53%      24%


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 11:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3108
MasterRacer wrote:
There is no maybe about it. Hamilton is not even in the top five greatest ever, probably not even top 10.

Fernando Alonso would care to disagree with you:
Quote:
Asked if Hamilton now ranked among the all-time top five drivers in F1, Alonso replied: "Yes."

http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24181/ ... ow-drivers

And Massa, a driver who isn't exactly Hamilton's BFF, had this to say:
Felipe Massa wrote:
Lewis is definitely one of the best drivers in the history of Formula 1. You cannot really take him away or in a different level compared to Michael Schumacher and Ayrton Senna. He's there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 11:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 8027
The definitive answer would be Number of races entered / number of races won+come second etc v next bet driver.

BUT to be a level playing field it would have to be the same number of races a year, have an equally as strong/weak team mate, have an equivalent car advantage etc.

Not possible to do in hard maths.

Using my own neural processor though, I still can not put him in front of Schumacher. *inaudible* the maths.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2017 1:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6288
Location: Nebraska, USA
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
MasterRacer wrote:
There is no maybe about it. Hamilton is not even in the top five greatest ever, probably not even top 10.

Fernando Alonso would care to disagree with you:
Quote:
Asked if Hamilton now ranked among the all-time top five drivers in F1, Alonso replied: "Yes."

http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24181/ ... ow-drivers

And Massa, a driver who isn't exactly Hamilton's BFF, had this to say:
Felipe Massa wrote:
Lewis is definitely one of the best drivers in the history of Formula 1. You cannot really take him away or in a different level compared to Michael Schumacher and Ayrton Senna. He's there.

OK... I agree with Alonso and Massa. Hamilton is one of the best ever, easily in the Top 50 of all-time. What they are saying is nothing more than a statement that he has been among the best. Most of us would agree with that much.
;)

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2017 1:24 am 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26889
Blake wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
MasterRacer wrote:
There is no maybe about it. Hamilton is not even in the top five greatest ever, probably not even top 10.

Fernando Alonso would care to disagree with you:
Quote:
Asked if Hamilton now ranked among the all-time top five drivers in F1, Alonso replied: "Yes."

http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24181/ ... ow-drivers

And Massa, a driver who isn't exactly Hamilton's BFF, had this to say:
Felipe Massa wrote:
Lewis is definitely one of the best drivers in the history of Formula 1. You cannot really take him away or in a different level compared to Michael Schumacher and Ayrton Senna. He's there.

OK... I agree with Alonso and Massa. Hamilton is one of the best ever, easily in the Top 50 of all-time. What they are saying is nothing more than a statement that he has been among the best. Most of us would agree with that much.
;)

I'm surprised you put him in the top 50. ;)

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2017 1:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6288
Location: Nebraska, USA
:lol:

Of course, I do, poker. I don't deny his skills, never really have (well, except for his year of playing bumper cars with Massa). BTW, I only used the number 50 to show the absurdity of someone saying his one of the greatest to suggest that he might be the greatest. It could have been the Top 100 as easily.
;)

From a personal standpoint, I do not think Lewis is, at this point, anywhere near the "greatest" or the most successful "ever". However, I don't put Vettel there either. They both have a long way to go in my opinion, and neither have reached Alonso status yet either... no offense meant to either of them.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 5560
Location: Michigan, USA
Blake wrote:
From a personal standpoint, I do not think Lewis is, at this point, anywhere near the "greatest" or the most successful "ever". However, I don't put Vettel there either. They both have a long way to go in my opinion, and neither have reached Alonso status yet either... no offense meant to either of them.

Successful isn't the same thing as best, and unfortunately (personal opinion) both Hamilton and Vettel are far more successful than Alonso. Hamilton is either the second most (in terms of wins) or about to become the joint third most (in terms of championships) all time; he is definitely one of the most successful F1 drivers of all, just not the most.

As far as best, would I put him top five? Not yet, because I refuse to classify drivers by their place in history when they're still active. But I could see doing so when he retires if he continues at his current level. He's been one of the two or three (I think two) best drivers in the sport since he started racing, and is almost certainly an all-time great qualifier if nothing else. Top five is a very elite club, but he might make it. Vettel won't unless I see something very different from him in the future.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (3 wins, 12 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #2)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2017 6:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 13758
In terms of greatness I think anyone that has made as much as an impact on their era as Hamilton has deserves to be in the "all time great category". Of course greatest, best and most successful are three different things.


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: Google Adsense [Bot], MB-BOB, Noni, paulsf1fix, pokerman 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