|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
3 Aug 2005, 12:03 (Ref:1371022) | #101 | |||||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,814
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
|
3 Aug 2005, 12:27 (Ref:1371043) | #102 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,814
|
Talking of lines in the sand, how about wins-to-start ratios?
Here are the top 27 (because that's the number of World Champions). In bold are the drivers who make this list, but did not win the WDC: 1. Fangio (24/51 = 47.1%) 2. Ascari (41.9) 3. Clark (34.7) 4. Stewart (27.3) 5. Prost (25.6) 6. Senna (25.5) 7. Moss (24.2) 8. Hill, D (19.1) 9. Mansell (16.6) 10. Brooks (15.8) 11. Farina (15.2) 12. Lauda (14.6) 13. Hakkinen (12.4) 14. Piquet (11.3) 15. Brabham (11.1) 16. Hunt (10.9) 17. Jones (10.3) 18. Rindt (10.0) 19. Fittipaldi (9.7) 20. Andretti (9.4) 21. Villeneuve, G (9.0) 22. Schekter (8.9) 23. Reutemann (8.2) 24. Peterson (8.1) 25. Hill, G (8.0) 26. von Trips (7.4) 27. Hulme (7.1) I've left off current drivers, though several of them would make it onto the list (Schuey would be around Clark). World Champs now not on the list: Hawthorn (6.7) Hill, P (6.3) Surtees (5.4) Rosberg (4.4) Other notables Ickx (6.9) Gurney (4.7) Pironi (4.3) A few changes there. Do we think the list is any better? Personally, I think it gains in some areas but is still far from perfect. As Menelaos has said, there are simply too many factors that the stats can't show. However, as someone who favours a wins approach, I find this list quite interesting... |
||
|
3 Aug 2005, 12:42 (Ref:1371061) | #103 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,721
|
But, like any other list, it hides a huge number of variables. Ickx, for example, spent a lot of the 1970s driving for terrible or indifferent teams for whom a win would have been a miracle. Does it make him a lesser driver? I would say no.
|
||
__________________
Interviewer: "Will the McLaren F1 be your answer to the Ferrari F40?" Gordon Murray: "Hmm... I don't think we have anyone at McLaren who can weld that badly..." |
3 Aug 2005, 13:11 (Ref:1371082) | #104 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 13,000
|
Leaving off current drivers strikes me as somethng of a folly in that list, especially as guys like Raikkonen and Alonso have now been around long enough to have built up a consistant total. Alonso's record is (I think) 7 wins from 63 races - 11.1%, well up the list, although as far as I can think only he, JV and Michael would infiltrate the list. The list is quite leant towards the early years, perhaps because there was less strength in depth on te girds in those days, and far more cases of a driver being the only top-line driver in a championship-capable car (much like a couple of Michael's title years)
The thing often overlooked with Fangio's record is that he had been racing for a long time when the world championship started, so his formative experience-gaining years are essentially missing from the calculation. Similarly, Keke's statistic is falsely low as he spent so long in poor teams before getting his chance with Williams. I think the changes to this list do create a more accurate impression of who the best drivers were (althoguh taht could jsut be because there are 6 Brits in the top 10.....) |
||
|
3 Aug 2005, 14:34 (Ref:1371150) | #105 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,809
|
Quote:
And the top driver, with a 50% record, is missed off. Ladies & gentlemen, I give you Lee Wallard... |
|||
__________________
Birmingham City FC. Founded 1875. League Cup Winners 2011. |
3 Aug 2005, 17:49 (Ref:1371275) | #106 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,814
|
Quote:
That's my point really - you can't use stats to 'draw a line in the sand', whether it be with World Drivers titles or not. It just goes to show that title winners do not always rate above those that didn't win it, which is where we came in... Quote:
|
||||
|
3 Aug 2005, 21:59 (Ref:1371432) | #107 | |||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 13,206
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
4 Aug 2005, 00:15 (Ref:1371544) | #108 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,276
|
Quote:
If it's Jacques, he's still active, and if it's Gilles, he should have been in bold... |
|||
__________________
"Many people depend on motor racing for their livelihood, to them it is a business. To me, it is a sport." -Jim Clark |
4 Aug 2005, 00:28 (Ref:1371547) | #109 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,276
|
Active drivers (as of Hungary):
1. M. Schumacher (84/224) 37,5 % 2. Alonso (7/63) 11,1 % 3. Räikkönen (6/80) 7,5 % 4. Villeneuve (11/146) 7,5 % 5. Coulthard (13/188) 6,9 % 6. Montoya (5/81) 6,1 % 7. Barrichello (9/208) 4,3 % 8. R. Schumacher (6/139) 4,3 % 9. Fisichella (2/154) 1,3 % 10. Trulli (1/141) 0,7 % In the earlier list krt917 put up, Schumacher would be 3rd, Alonso 17th. Räikkönen and Villeneuve would be 27th and 28th. |
||
__________________
"Many people depend on motor racing for their livelihood, to them it is a business. To me, it is a sport." -Jim Clark |
4 Aug 2005, 01:09 (Ref:1371555) | #110 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 511
|
", G" ... My guess that stands for Gilles...
DKGandBH |
||
__________________
Look at my web page... |
4 Aug 2005, 06:43 (Ref:1371646) | #111 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 16,661
|
What would be a very interesting set of figures would be the wins-to-start ratio for drivers, for races after they won their first GP.
Eg, Rubens won on his 97th start - so what's his wins to start ratio from that race till now? |
|
|
4 Aug 2005, 10:40 (Ref:1371788) | #112 | |||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 13,206
|
Quote:
It is interesting that of the 6 drivers I nominated alongside the World Champs, 5 appear in KRTs list plus Reutemann but minus Collins. The reason I put Collins in my original list is because he virtually handed the 1956 championship to Fangio because he did not feel that he was ready for WDC status. Sadly, of course, in the short time he had left, he was unable to achieve that goal. I've always found it a little ironic that of the 4 top flight F1 drivers that Britain had in the mid to late 50's, it was Hawthorn that took the title when, arguably, he was the least rounded out of those 4. I accept that is an entirely personal opinion and that others would have a different view. |
|||
|
4 Aug 2005, 11:16 (Ref:1371811) | #113 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,809
|
Quote:
Re Hawthorn, I wonder how good he would have been had it not been for his kidney disease. Not many people beat Ascari on equal terms, but JMH did. |
|||
__________________
Birmingham City FC. Founded 1875. League Cup Winners 2011. |
4 Aug 2005, 11:59 (Ref:1371841) | #114 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 13,206
|
Yes, I concede both are good points, Ensign.
|
||
|
4 Aug 2005, 13:57 (Ref:1371964) | #115 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 13,000
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
4 Aug 2005, 22:18 (Ref:1372376) | #116 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,276
|
Quote:
1996-1997 Williams (race-winning car) 1998 Williams (no win) 1999-2003 BAR (no win) 2004 Renault (race-winning car) 2005 Sauber (no win) Therefore only counting the races where Jacques had a race winning car (16+17+3 = 36), Jacques would have a spectacular 30,5% ratio. But this system is flawed. Do people consider, for example, the 1996 Ferrari F310 a race-winning car? Or did it win just thanks to Michael Schumacher? |
|||
__________________
"Many people depend on motor racing for their livelihood, to them it is a business. To me, it is a sport." -Jim Clark |
8 Aug 2005, 11:59 (Ref:1374885) | #117 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,814
|
Quote:
There are, of course, a few issues with this method too. As Jordi indicates above, it doesn't take into account how long a driver was in a race winning car after their first win. It might also penalise those that managed to score a win in a mediocre car some time before they got into a decent one. Alan Jones, for example, would suffer a bit due to his freak win in the Shadow in strange circumstances in '77, whereas all of the rest of his winning was done in a short space of time; '79-'81. I would imagine that, of recent drivers, Mansell, Barrichello and Hakkinen would benefit most from calculating their strike rates from their first win. |
|||
|
8 Aug 2005, 12:17 (Ref:1374897) | #118 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,550
|
JV chose money over race-winning cars, so that's not the fault of people trying to assess driver performance. The other problem with only counting from teh first win is that it is too generous on drivers who took a long time to get into a winning car, which in some cases is the fault of the driver. The idea of counting half a driver's pre-victory races is a good one. The real problem is that it's only in the modern era that drivers have usually taken more than 20-30 races to become winners, because in the old days they had non-championship races to practice in, there were often more win-capable cars, and each year had less races up to the mid-60s.
|
|
__________________
"Stacy's mom has got it going on, she's all I want, and I've waited so long. Stacy can't you see, you're just not the girl for me, I know it might be wrong but I'm in love with Stacy's mom" |
14 Aug 2005, 20:55 (Ref:1382202) | #119 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,814
|
Quote:
For the record, Moss scored 16 Championship GP wins, 5 seconds and 3 thirds. What do people think of the other guys who appear on the ratios list but who did not win the world title? Brooks, von Trips, Villeneuve (G), Peterson and Reutemann. Peterson and Villeneuve have been discussed already and, along with Moss, stand as perhaps the best examples for those of us who believe that World Champions do not always rate above non-champions. The other three are more difficult. Brooks did not have a long career, but on occasion showed that he had the legs of Collins and Hawthorn. Moss has said that, if he were picking a dream line-up, he'd go for Clark and Brooks, so could Brooks be rated above Hawthorn? Von Trips had an even shorter career and is, perhaps, the hardest one to assess, but he appears to have been at least a match for Phil Hill in the Sharknose Ferrari of '61. Beyond that, though, it is true that his performances were less impressive than Hills. In this instance, I probably would rate Hill above von Trips. Reutemann has to have been one of the most enigamtic F1 drivers ever. On his day, he was absolutely sublime and could be considered one of the greats. His four wins in '78 against the landmark Lotus 78 and 79 and a fast (though inexperienced) hotshoe stand out, but his mental weakness surely drop him down the list. The way he lost the '81 title at Caesars Palace perhaps showed that he wasn't tile-winning material. I know that this kind of debate really only goes to show that there is no such thing as a definitive list of greats, but does anyone have any thoughts on these three, or anyone else, who did not win the title. |
|||
|
14 Aug 2005, 21:39 (Ref:1382259) | #120 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 13,000
|
Personally I wouldn't put Phil Hill or von Trips particularly close to the top of an all-time list, certianly not in the all-important Top 28. They had perhaps the most dominant car of the 60s, but did litttle at any other point in their careers,a lthough we'll neve rknow for sure how good von Trips was becoming.
|
||
|
14 Aug 2005, 21:42 (Ref:1382265) | #121 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,814
|
I have to confess that I'm not really sure I'd put either of them in my top 30, though Hill's achievements outside of F1 would certainly make him a reasonable candidate for me.
You're right about von Trips. Like Bellof, we never really got to see what he could really do. |
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Liuzzi next World Champ?? | arrow1 | Formula One | 34 | 8 Apr 2006 09:48 |
Actual World Champ Predictions - Who will it be? | asha | Bike Racing | 6 | 25 Mar 2006 03:40 |
World champ | moto1 | Bike Racing | 9 | 23 Sep 2002 08:18 |
Katoh World Champ! | moto1 | Bike Racing | 8 | 31 Oct 2001 20:55 |