|
| Site Partners: | SpotterGuides | Veloce Books |
| Related Sites: | Your Link Here |
|
|
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
|
9 Nov 2001, 17:24 (Ref:172558)
|
#1 | |
|
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,598
 |
Reliabity numbers
2001; highest total number of laps completed; top six:
1. Ferrari (1924 out of a possible 2130 laps (total of all 17 races)) 2. Prost 3. Benetton 4. McLaren 5. BAR 6. Jordan Fastest car with worst reliabilty has got to be the Williams then, surely? Mclaren not much better. I didn't work this out, by the way. I'm only sad enough to have read it in a news story and recycled it! |
|
|
|
|
9 Nov 2001, 22:41 (Ref:172758)
|
#2 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 13,000
|
Of course this will be biased in favour of the teams that did well at the high speed tracks (Monza, Spa and Hockenheim have only 143 laps between them), but went out earlier at Monaco and Hungaroring, the slwoer tracks (155 laps between the two). But Prost's reliability was amazing, especially when Alesi was in the team. I think WIlliams completed less laps than anyoen. Another thought- isn't it interesting that even with a reliable 2000 engine, Sauber did less laps than BAR or Jordan despite outscoring both?
|
||
|
|
|
|
9 Nov 2001, 23:06 (Ref:172770)
|
#3 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,035
|
Alesi only had one DNF all year and that was when he was collected by Raikkonen at Suzuka, not bad at all.
|
||
|
|
|
|
9 Nov 2001, 23:14 (Ref:172776)
|
#4 | ||
|
Racer
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 111
|
finishing almost all the races and having won just 4 points, one cant help wonder at prost....
|
||
|
|
|
|
10 Nov 2001, 00:03 (Ref:172794)
|
#5 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 7,491
 |
Well, Prost showed how you can make a sow's ear out of a silk purse.
|
||
|
|
|
|
10 Nov 2001, 10:28 (Ref:172863)
|
#6 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,727
|
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
10 Nov 2001, 10:58 (Ref:172867)
|
#7 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,035
|
True I forgot about that one but he was classified as a finisher as it was near the end.
|
||
|
|
|
|
10 Nov 2001, 10:59 (Ref:172869)
|
#8 | |
|
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,953
|
I suppose he was sufficiently near the finish to get classified for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 Nov 2001, 22:04 (Ref:173436)
|
#9 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,664
|
He completed 64 of the 67 laps...as per FIAs Sporting Regulations (see paragraph, 168) he made it:
CLASSIFICATION 166) The car placed first will be the one having covered the scheduled distance in the shortest time, or, where appropriate, passed the Line in the lead at the end of two hours. All cars will be classified taking into account the number of complete laps they have covered, and for those which have completed the same number of laps, the order in which they crossed the Line. 167) If a car takes more than twice the time of the winner's fastest lap to cover its last lap this last lap will not be taken into account when calculating the total distance covered by such car. 168) Cars having covered less than 90% of the number of laps covered by the winner (rounded down to the nearest whole number of laps), will not be classified. 169) The official classification will be published after the race. It will be the only valid result subject to any amendments which may be made under the Code and these Sporting Regulations. |
||
|
|
|
|
11 Nov 2001, 22:20 (Ref:173440)
|
#10 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 615
|
Not to quibble but reliability, where it counts can only mean races completed.
Ferrari completed 90.3% of all laps and most races. Let's assume that another car/team would have consistently broken down in all races during the last five laps. This would have given it better lap reliability than the red things....and a total of Zero Points. Would that menan that they had better reliability than Ferrari? Has anyone tabulated reliability in terms of races finished? Cheers, RT 
|
||
|
|
|
|
11 Nov 2001, 22:50 (Ref:173450)
|
#11 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,664
|
And i can take it another step....reliability generally refers to the car not having a systems failure (the machine itself, let's not include the breathing one...), so could Alesis spin be deemed "unreliability"? I know, I know.... then we would have to come up with a whole new set of numbers for those who did not even get "classified" as a finisher, as they might NOT have had "unreliability" either..... shhheeeesssshhhhh!!!!
|
||
|
|
|
|
12 Nov 2001, 03:34 (Ref:173508)
|
#12 | |||
|
Rookie
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 4
|
No sense...
I don not like the number like this...
What do these mean?.. No sense If you want to compare the teams you must look for the recent years's porformance graphs... May be you like numbers which tell about history of F1 but infact these are not effective in performance comparing (in my view)... Quote:
|
|||
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Car Numbers | racer69 | Rallying & Rallycross | 5 | 6 Feb 2004 09:11 |
| Numbers | speedy king | Kart Racing | 1 | 14 Jan 2004 22:16 |
| Numbers | 05forever | Touring Car Racing | 10 | 7 Sep 2002 23:13 |
| Car numbers | Yoong Montoya | Formula One | 42 | 16 Aug 2002 15:37 |
| What do the IP numbers mean? | Slo Racer | Announcements and Feedback | 1 | 21 Mar 2000 11:03 |
Linear Mode
