Scientists work out the best F1 driver of all time and the winner is...

[chunterer]

What makes you suggest there were better cars than the Ferrari in 2000,'03 and '06? '03 was a tyre war perhaps but it was a cracking season with 3 fairly evenly matched teams and unpredictable racing. In '06 Enstone continued where they had left off in '05 vs Kimi and Mclaren but upped their game to deal with a strong Ferrari back on decent tyres after the 05 rubber issues and Alonso was more than a match in the cockpit.

Rubens was certainly no mug but to suggest he was on a par with any of those other 3 doesn't really tally with their relative performance levels overy the seasons they competed together.

Rubens had a job dealing with Swerve at Jordan although Eddie was a crafty operator. Both of whom were good number 2's.

[Beryl]

Originally Posted by chunterer

Rubens was certainly no mug but to suggest he was on a par with any of those other 3 doesn't really tally with their relative performance levels overy the seasons they competed together.

Rubens had a job dealing with Swerve at Jordan although Eddie was a crafty operator. Both of whom were good number 2's.

Rubens was much closer to MSC than Massa was, and Kimi turned out to be the equal of Massa. JPM struggled to separate himself from Ralf and was thoroughly beaten by Raikkonen.

Rubens was fairly young when paired with Irvine, but he nonetheless outperformed the Irishman. Even in old age, he was as fast as Button.

You view Barrichello through the lens of the circumstances of his career. You view him as a #2 because he spent his prime years alongside an all-time great in his prime, not alongside a weaker teammate in a Newey rocket.

Feel free to disagree.

[TrapezeArtist]

It's journalistic nonesense! They've used the word "science" (in big capital letters) to give it some sense of respetability when it is just the mathematical manipulation of one person's priorities.

The sheer fact that some journeymen appear high up and some stars are way down or not there at all, shows that the algorithm is badly flawed.

And twice in the part I read (before giving up in disgust) they described Fangio as a "gentleman-racer". He was a motor mechanic.

[sparkione]

[QUOTE=wnut;3632954]Spot on!

... and Lauda - not in the top 50!

M. Andretti - not in top 50

Brabham at 40!

Mansell not in top 50!

Complete and utter total ********, the whole thing. If that's serious scientific analysis, I shall revert to tea-leaves...

[sparkione]

********, ********, ********, ********....

[Paradise City]

Fangio getting the top spot is only justice.

Whaddya know, the quacks get something right.

[John Turner]

Well 1 out of 50, can't be bad, I suppose

[GT6]

These sort of surveys/waste of money investigations are always fun but surely these scientists have got better things to do with there time, we all know who the best driver is, unfortunately it is never going to be the same driver for everyone and never will be. Scientists/accountants/politicians can always pick statistics to prove whatever they want, IMHO Schumacher must be there and i am English and a sportscar fan so a surprise in that.

[dsg]

The title of the thread should really be changed, because calling an opinion science, doesn't make it so and having an opinion, doesn't make you a scientist.

[VIVA GT]

It also typifies the inaccuracy of "statistics" which as has been said, can be used to "prove" anything.
Statistically, six out of seven dwarfs aren't Happy, but this doesn't "prove" (apart from maybe 'Grumpy') that 'Doc', 'Sleepy', 'Dopey', 'Bashful' & 'Sleepy' are unhappy...

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

It also typifies the inaccuracy of "statistics" which as has been said, can be used to "prove" anything.
Statistically, six out of seven dwarfs aren't Happy, but this doesn't "prove" (apart from maybe 'Grumpy') that 'Doc', 'Sleepy', 'Dopey', 'Bashful' & 'Sleepy' are unhappy...

Well, I can't quite agree with much of that. What is a better explanation is the misuse of data (statistical or otherwise) by those who don't understand it. The media is quick to exaggerate and extend the claims beyond what the data says. An example is reporting poll data but ignoring the importance of margin of error. Take the title for this thread as an example... Pure hyperbole (nothing against the OP). I don't agree with the conclusions or methods of the source paper, but the author is only saying he ranked drivers via a specific model. It's just an opinion backed, by some math, but still an opinion. Lastly... the general public just doesn't understand the concepts behind statistics (as a type of math). Such as your seven dwarves example is exactly the type of thing taught early on in statistics (i.e. It's not correct usage), but the public like to use failed logic like that to try to tear down statistics as a whole.

Richard

[BSchneiderFan]

I would like to put one canard to bed. When did Schuey ever veto a team-mate, or when was it even suggested or rumoured that he had done so? I've been following F1 since the early 90s and I've never heard even a whisper of it. Whereas I HAVE heard suggestions/rumours that the great Ayrton did so. The point is, most of Schuey's rivals wouldn't have wanted to drive in the same team as him. Like Fast Eddie used to say, it was like being hit over the head with a cricket bat every other weekend.

On a separate point, I think Irvine and Barrichello were both bloody good. Each could have been World Champion under different circumstances (and remember how tantalisingly close Eddie came in 1999 when McLaren started to self-destruct).

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

...Lastly... the general public just doesn't understand the concepts behind statistics (as a type of math). Such as your seven dwarves example is exactly the type of thing taught early on in statistics (i.e. It's not correct usage), but the public like to use failed logic like that to try to tear down statistics as a whole.

perhaps neither here nor there as im not too knowledgeable about compiling statistics but it seems to me that the author has taken care of that himself by amending the data from his first list only to then include a list with a pre 2006 schumi.

its almost as if he saw the data from his first list and realized that it was pants because it had schumi so far down so he made it better by excluding the post Ferrari years while not applying that same method for every other driver on the list.

rather, if he is being selective in which years of a driver's career should be included, how many spots would Jacques Villeneuve jump up if he had excluded JV's post Williams career?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

perhaps neither here nor there as im not too knowledgeable about compiling statistics but it seems to me that the author has taken care of that himself by amending the data from his first list only to then include a list with a pre 2006 schumi.

its almost as if he saw the data from his first list and realized that it was pants because it had schumi so far down so he made it better by excluding the post Ferrari years while not applying that same method for every other driver on the list.

rather, if he is being selective in which years of a driver's career should be included, how many spots would Jacques Villeneuve jump up if he had excluded JV's post Williams career?

I hear what you are saying. To pile on... Maybe poor design (what data is used, etc.) before even getting to the point of pulling out the calculator to crunch number. But I can't complain too much. At least the guy gave it a go. It would be a fun exercise. I just don't have the time to do it myself.

Richard

[chillibowl]

true true, credit to buddy for giving it a go and it encouraged conversation which is a bonus.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by BSchneiderFan

I would like to put one canard to bed. When did Schuey ever veto a team-mate, or when was it even suggested or rumoured that he had done so? I've been following F1 since the early 90s and I've never heard even a whisper of it. Whereas I HAVE heard suggestions/rumours that the great Ayrton did so. The point is, most of Schuey's rivals wouldn't have wanted to drive in the same team as him. Like Fast Eddie used to say, it was like being hit over the head with a cricket bat every other weekend.

On a separate point, I think Irvine and Barrichello were both bloody good. Each could have been World Champion under different circumstances (and remember how tantalisingly close Eddie came in 1999 when McLaren started to self-destruct).

Schumacher certainly did interfere with the selection of his wing-man, and he also ensured that their contracts contained clauses that mandated that they were strictly No. 2 drivers. I would love to give you the names of those that the Scuderia wanted to place in the second cars because I know that they existed, but I cannot drag those names from my memory cells. This was oft discussed by F1 racing journalists at the time.

It also should be noted that Irvine only came that close because Schumacher was hors de combat from the British GP onwards; if not, he would have likely trailed behind Michael.

[bauble]

http://grandprixratings.blogspot.co.uk/

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Schumacher certainly did interfere with the selection of his wing-man, and he also ensured that their contracts contained clauses that mandated that they were strictly No. 2 drivers. I would love to give you the names of those that the Scuderia wanted to place in the second cars because I know that they existed, but I cannot drag those names from my memory cells. This was oft discussed by F1 racing journalists at the time.

It also should be noted that Irvine only came that close because Schumacher was hors de combat from the British GP onwards; if not, he would have likely trailed behind Michael.

interfere or have input? surely its not uncommon in all sports for highly paid and talented athletes to be given input into who their team mates are.

and perhaps as a carry over for the previous era of greater unreliability and scarcity, not unusual that a driver would want certain guarantees about who got what support/parts first.

that said did Schumi go too far in 1999? i do recall speculation from that time that once Schumi had broken his leg there was a decrease in support and development for Irvine's and Salo's ( he was the replacement right?) cars and also speculation that Ferrari and Schumi wanted to make sure that it was Schumi who clinched the teams first WDC in 20 years.

Schumi was the brand they wanted to build upon.

[bauble]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

interfere or have input? surely its not uncommon in all sports for highly paid and talented athletes to be given input into who their team mates are.

and perhaps as a carry over for the previous era of greater unreliability and scarcity, not unusual that a driver would want certain guarantees about who got what support/parts first.

that said did Schumi go too far in 1999? i do recall speculation from that time that once Schumi had broken his leg there was a decrease in support and development for Irvine's and Salo's ( he was the replacement right?) cars and also speculation that Ferrari and Schumi wanted to make sure that it was Schumi who clinched the teams first WDC in 20 years.

Schumi was the brand they wanted to build upon.

Fangio never bothered who his team mates were, even happy to have Moss alongside, probably his greatest rival in terms of talent.

[chillibowl]

im assuming he didnt need to have a team of agents, managers, lawyers, and hundreds of millions worth of sponsorship deals hanging in the balance either.

certainly a very different and more noble era. no disputing that.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

im assuming he didnt need to have a team of agents, managers, lawyers, and hundreds of millions worth of sponsorship deals hanging in the balance either.

certainly a very different and more noble era. no disputing that.

No, back then the proprietor of the team or the team manager was god, and he dictated what the hierarchy was within the team. And if driver A's car broke down, it was not unusual for a pit-board to be put out calling in driver B so that driver A could take over his car.

Mind you, that was what got Sauber into trouble last year; putting another driver in somebody else's car.

[BSchneiderFan]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Schumacher certainly did interfere with the selection of his wing-man, and he also ensured that their contracts contained clauses that mandated that they were strictly No. 2 drivers. I would love to give you the names of those that the Scuderia wanted to place in the second cars because I know that they existed, but I cannot drag those names from my memory cells. This was oft discussed by F1 racing journalists at the time.

It also should be noted that Irvine only came that close because Schumacher was hors de combat from the British GP onwards; if not, he would have likely trailed behind Michael.

I'd be fascinated to know who Schuey supposedly vetoed. The only rumours I can remember are that Prost might have come out of retirement (again) to partner Michael in 1996, and that at one point Michael was agitating for Ferrari to take on Jos the Boss as his team-mate.

On Irvine, yes, if Michael hadn't had his shunt at Silverstone he'd likely have been champion in '99; but it's worth noting how close Fast Eddie ran the much-lauded Häkkinen, despite slip-ups like three wheels on my wagon at the Nürburgring,

[Kempi]

Originally Posted by bauble

Fangio never bothered who his team mates were, even happy to have Moss alongside, probably his greatest rival in terms of talent.

And at the same time he requested teammates to turn over their cars when his broke down. Is that really that much better?

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by BSchneiderFan

I'd be fascinated to know who Schuey supposedly vetoed. The only rumours I can remember are that Prost might have come out of retirement (again) to partner Michael in 1996, and that at one point Michael was agitating for Ferrari to take on Jos the Boss as his team-mate.

On Irvine, yes, if Michael hadn't had his shunt at Silverstone he'd likely have been champion in '99; but it's worth noting how close Fast Eddie ran the much-lauded Häkkinen, despite slip-ups like three wheels on my wagon at the Nürburgring,

Montoya, Mika, DC and Jaqcues were 3 of the leading lights of 'his' Ferrari era that were mentioned. I think that even if they were offered a deal, they rejected it case as it was blatantly clear that the team was set up around Michael and they would not be joining on equal terms (regardless of whether any of us think they would be able to take him on or not!).

So the management could have told Michael that he was their employee and not the other way around and signed whoever they liked but that would have messed up the strategy which was working pretty well.

[Mike Harte]

chunterer, you raise an interesting point about MS's time at Ferrari because he was actually paid by Philip Morris during that period. What we don't know, of course, is whether it was Ferrari or Philip Morris that held his contract!