The place for speaking your mind on current goings-on in F1
by Rob Dylan 23 Jul 2019, 11:35
There was a lot of criticism of "Formula 1.5" as a theory, though I think these statistics give at least a little more weight. It definitely seems to have hit a consistent streak of sameyness since 2016, at least in that ability to get even into the top 6.

Murray Walker at the 1997 Austrian Grand Prix wrote:The other [Stewart] driver, who nobody's been paying attention to, because he's disappointing, is Jan Magnussen.


Felipe Nasr - the least forgettable F1 driver!
by Bleu 23 Jul 2019, 16:05
Gasly this year is about only case in last two and half years when someone in the top 3 teams has finished behind "Formula 1.5" teams without any issues including self-inflicted ones:

2017 Monaco: Hamilton 7th behind Sainz - a mistake in qualifying followed by red flag which didn't allow him to improve time
2017 Canada: Räikkönen 7th behind Perez and Ocon - an extra pit stop
2017 Azerbaijan: Vettel 4th and Hamilton 5th behind Stroll - Vettel had stop/go penalty and Hamilton an extra pit stop due to loose headrest
2017 Britain: Vettel 7th behind Hülkenberg - puncture
2017 Italy: Verstappen 10th behind Ocon, Stroll, Massa and Perez - puncture
2017 Mexico: Hamilton 9th behind Ocon, Stroll, Perez and Magnussen - puncture
2018 Australia: Verstappen 6th behind Alonso, and Bottas 8th also behind Hülkenberg - Verstappen had spin, Bottas qualifying crash
2018 China: Vettel 8th behind Hülkenberg and Alonso - collision with Verstappen
2018 Monaco: Verstappen 9th behind Ocon, Gasly and Hülkenberg - unable to take part in qualifying due to practice crash
2018 France: Bottas 7th behind Magnussen - puncture due to first-lap crash
by Bleu 05 Aug 2019, 17:32
Kimi Räikkönen is 8th in WDC. With the point system until 2002 (top 6 getting points), he would have zero points while 14 drivers would have scored.
by Rob Dylan 10 Sep 2019, 19:26
Wait a second, just noticed something. The ages of the world champions has consistently gone up every year since 2010.

2010 - Vettel: 23
2011 - Vettel: 24
2012 - Vettel: 25
2013 - Vettel: 26
2014 - Hamilton: 29
2015 - Hamilton: 30
2016 - Rosberg: 31
2017 - Hamilton: 32
2018 - Hamilton 33

If he wins again, as he looks set to, Hamilton will continue that trend by winning at 34.

Murray Walker at the 1997 Austrian Grand Prix wrote:The other [Stewart] driver, who nobody's been paying attention to, because he's disappointing, is Jan Magnussen.


Felipe Nasr - the least forgettable F1 driver!
by UncreativeUsername37 11 Sep 2019, 00:44
well it's easy when the decade is mainly the same guy winning a bunch of times in a row

Rob Dylan wrote:Mercedes paying homage to the other W12 chassis by breaking down 30 minutes in
by UncreativeUsername37 07 Dec 2019, 14:25
F1® StatsOff!® 2019™
It's the end of a decade. Prost, Vettel, and Hamilton have all been in an equal number of seasons. That makes it a great time to do statistical comparisons! It's been a few years since I did this, maybe even several, and hopefully a bit of extra age-related intelligence will make me do a better job. Not that I can think of anything too crazy I did, but I'll be honest with you, I don't trust that guy.

As last time, it's a single-elimination bracket with 64 drivers. The seeding is by normalized 1961 points, which means that the basic system is 9-6-4-3-2-1, with (for example) a race in a 7-race season counting for three times as much as a race in a 21-race season.

For each matchup, I'll be deciding which driver has the better career statistics. There are no actual criteria, so I'll be making a lot of subjective judgements that I fantasise will result in angry arguments. If it's really close, I might involve my opinion of who was actually better, but for the most part it's about stats.

Round 1 Top Bracket
Michael Schumacher v. Jarno Trulli
Er... sorry, Jarno. You've got a deficit of seven world championships.

Alberto Ascari v. Valtteri Bottas
Ascari has two titles. In dominant cars, okay, but Bottas has had three of those and zero championships to show for it. And 1952 and '53 weren't exactly close either. The greatest ever F2 driver moves on.

Jack Brabham v. René Arnoux
How's your one championship podium, Arnoux? Not good enough to beat Brabham, that's for sure.

Niki Lauda v. Max Verstappen
This has a good chance of being a serious question one day. For now, Verstappen's two third places isn't going to cut it.

Juan Manuel Fangio v. John Watson
Watson deserves better than this. Not too much better, but better than going up against Fangio in the first round. Anyway, Fangio wins.

Felipe Massa v. Jean Alesi
Using the 1961 system and looking at how many career points they had after the same number of races, the curves are pretty similar after a few years and it doesn't help. In terms of championship positions, Massa certainly has a better peak with that 3rd, 4th, and 2nd. They have the same number of overall top 10s with Alesi's (very) slow nine-year rise and Massa's more successful years at Ferrari and Williams. Massa has a lot more wins, mean but true. What's less mean is that in terms of podiums, Massa has a few more even after you account for the lengths of their seasons, which isn't decisive on its own, but... no matter what you do, say you'll look at the whole career, the best certain number of years, compensate for this and that, Massa comes out slightly ahead in everything. Blame this on the reliability Alesi had to deal with if you must, but Massa has the better stats.

Nelson Piquet v. Richie Ginther
What you got, Richie? 1963? Cool. Well, Piquet has three championships, and even though 1987 doesn't count – more on that if turns out I have to – he's still easily the one going through.

Damon Hill v. Ronnie Peterson
They have an almost equal number of entries, and Hill wins at everything. Wins, poles, fastest laps, points, all by a not insane but quite good margin. Oh, and one more world championship.

Sebastian Vettel v. Patrick Depailler
Uh... yeah. For every championship Vettel has, Depailler has half a win.

John Surtees v. Ralf Schumacher
They both have career arcs that are remarkably... well, like arcs, in terms of championship positions. They both have six years where they came in the top six overall, but Surtees has a 1st and a 2nd. Surtees has the same number of wins and a similar number of podiums despite the far fewer races he got. In their six seasons each where they were highly relevant, Surtees got a better percentage of possible points, despite the flatter system Schumacher had for two years. Surtees is better at everything, he moves on.

Graham Hill v. Eddie Irvine
I don't think Irvine has anything on Hill's run from 1962 to '65. Even with Hill's unnecessarily long career, he beats Irvine in all the "per race" metrics. In fact, Hill had 31 more races. So yes, I can't see anything to overcome two championships....

Jenson Button v. Juan Pablo Montoya
In terms of the time they were both in F1, it goes to Montoya, but after he left, Button won a championship and had another great year with 2011. Montoya came close in 2003, at least. Montoya's career started after and ended before Button's, but if we want to be nice and take out Button's last few years, i.e. the ones where Montoya would've been old, those are just the later McLaren days, which aren't going to contribute much. Montoya has better percentage statistics, but mainly because he didn't last. He does have more poles and fastest laps, as in not even per race, which is quite something, but overall Button has things better. More wins, way more points however you do it, the small matter of a championship... it isn't as nice and densely clustered as Montoya, but that's okay.

Fernando Alonso v. Jochen Rindt
Last time I said Rindt deserved better than seed 63. Now he's seed 60 and he gets to go up against Fernando Alonso. What he could've done without being cut down at 28 we don't know, ignoring that he said he would retire anyway, but his "mere" one championship, even if it was quite a brilliant one, is no match for Alonso's career.

Bruce McLaren v. Clay Regazzoni
Their careers are two races away from overlapping, and considering they were born less than two years apart, you could make a reasonable comparison if they did. Of course, this sadly isn't what we have to work with. It's a close one, just look at their best five championship classifications: McLaren 2, 3, 3, 5, 6 and Regazzoni 2, 3, 5, 5, 5. They're one apart in both wins and podiums and 12 apart in points (standardising things to the 1961 system). Of course, even though McLaren loses all of those comparisons, he had much shorter seasons. So let's take those best five years and see how they did....

1959, basically McLaren's rookie year. He's done four F1 races before, worth points or otherwise. A fifth place for his first time in the Monaco GP, mid-season his first podium at Aintree, and at the last race at Sebring, his first win. 1960 and 1962: a win early in the season, then a few podiums, leading to a championship podium. 1968: wins the Belgian GP, his only points of the European season, then gets a couple podiums. 1969: finishes in the points in most of the races, including three podiums, for 3rd in the championship. Not included in those years: seven more podiums. Across his career he got 4 wins and 23 other podiums.

In 1970, Regazzoni gets third in the championship despite being a rookie and only being in 8 of 13 races. Also, he wins the Italian GP in a Ferrari. As a rookie. 1974: points in 11 of 15 races and a median finish of 3rd gets him second overall. 1975, '76, and '79: one win and a few other races in the points gets him 5th. Not included in those years: five more podiums. Across his career he got 5 wins and 23 other podiums.

I think you get my point by now. But even with this apparent closeness in the way I tell it, it makes me comfortable giving it to McLaren, for a reason I already mentioned: in those really good seasons of his, he had around 10 races, and Regazzoni would get about 15. "A few podiums" means a lot more in a 10-race season. The percentage of points available that McLaren managed to get in his best few seasons was a few percentage points higher. Whatever you mean by "few" in those cases, it's the same sort of picture. It's still pretty close, but it is, finally, something that's clearly better.

Rubens Barrichello v. James Hunt
Now this is an interesting one. One championship versus lots of podiums. Hunt obviously has all the cool percentages won – over three times the win rate, and despite his career's length, the same number of poles – but it isn't because of an untimely death or a late start to F1, it's because of his own decision to do an early retirement.

If I do be nice to Hunt and give them both their best three-year period in terms of championship positions, 1975–77 and 2002–04, what do their stats look like, keeping in mind Barrichello's super unfair advantage of over 1 race more per season? Well, Hunt isn't going to change much. He still has 10 wins and he has 7 other podiums. Barrichello has 8 wins, and 24 other podiums which are probably largely down to reliability and Ferrari, but tough cookies. We can do 4 or 5 years and let the podium gap get even more hilarious, but it doesn't help answer the question of whether a narrowly won championship is more important than lots and lots of points over a long and more competitive period but in a dominant team.

That dominant team thing is important, though. They both had their chances at a championship and Hunt is the one who succeeded. And 1976 was a case of the deserving winner being whoever actually managed to win it, there are certainly no, let's say, Phil Hill problems. Barrichello had those years at Ferrari – yes, he was a number two, but he knew that, and it was for a reason – and then had a more equal chance at Brawn only to fail. So with that, Hunt moves on.

Gerhard Berger v. Mike Hawthorn
Hawthorn could have had a career of similar length to Berger's had he not retired – and then died, which is obviously sad but doesn't matter – so percentages won't be too important. I mean, it's not fair to brag about your podium rate when your last season was a title win in your late 20s. So keeping in mind that Berger had about twice as many races every season, what stats does he have that could be better than a championship? He has slightly more everything – wins, podiums, poles, FLs – but that's not enough. What Berger did have is a career with more years near the top, 9 championship top sixes compared to Hawthorn's 5, and plenty more points to go with it, but still not by a margin that makes me consider it over a championship. Hawthorn moves on.

Rob Dylan wrote:Mercedes paying homage to the other W12 chassis by breaking down 30 minutes in
by UncreativeUsername37 08 Dec 2019, 16:24
Round 1 Bottom Bracket
Lewis Hamilton v. Maurice Trintignant
Uhh. I'm going with Hamilton. He even surpassed Trintignant in Monaco wins this year.

Riccardo Patrese v. Jody Scheckter
3rd, 7th, 3rd, 2nd. Who had that sequence of championship positions? The answer is both. Trouble is that Scheckter had a championship pretty soon after that and nothing else, whilst Patrese had a long, long career before it to accumulate plenty of stats. And though Patrese did get a couple wins and poles and several podiums, that's like all he did. There are a lot of retirements in there. Scheckter's championship is "ehh" enough that I'm willing to let a long run at the top possibly beat it, but getting around 10th in the championship five times rather than 3rd or something isn't good enough. Scheckter goes through.

David Coulthard v. Michele Alboreto
Coulthard was way more successful in their shared season. Just saying. But seriously, Coulthard has more stuff. Pick whatever stat you want, it doesn't matter.

Nico Rosberg v. Daniel Ricciardo
Rosberg was way more successful in their shared seasons, and this time it actually means a lot. Ricciardo's still got time left, but for now, he's definitely the loser in this matchup.

Ayrton Senna v. Keke Rosberg
Senna wins at everything despite dying when he still had championships to win.

Carlos Reutemann v. Jacky Ickx
Reutemann's best five years: 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th. Ickx's: 2nd, 2nd, 4th, 4th, 4th. Reutemann has more wins and podiums overall, but not in a way that's decisive... or is it? Reutemann did get a bigger fraction of points on offer in those years, by about 4 percentage points on average. And he had a couple top years that aren't in there. Ickx may have the better season rankings on pure count-back, but with 9-6-4-3-2-1 Reutemann wins by a couple points, and that stuff's what this is all about. And in terms of who actually came closer to a title win, it's an easy one. Ickx may have more single fast laps, both in qualifying and races, but that's secretly all he's got going for him here.

Jackie Stewart v. Giancarlo Fisichella
Stewart is way better in terms of championships, favourable teammate comparisons, and potential lives saved. All relevant, of course.

Denny Hulme v. Dan Gurney
Hulme has more everything, except poles of course, and it's kind of an actual fair comparison. Hulme did of course get more races being a few years later, but not by enough for it to change the overall picture.

Alain Prost v. José Froilán González
I don't think González has anything on four championships. Maybe if being underappreciated was a stat, he'd have a chance.

Mark Webber v. Giuseppe Farina
Webber had a few overall podiums because he was in a Red Bull, which won't beat Farina's only four full years. But apart from his years at Red Bull as a top team, he has... a couple podiums and a bunch of minor points finishes. Not good enough.

Jim Clark v. Mario Andretti
Two dominant championships, and he could have had so much more, is certainly enough to beat any old one-time champion. It's not that worth explaining this one in detail, is it?

Mika Häkkinen v. Jacques Villeneuve
Villeneuve got a world title in his second year, then everything after that was a disappointment. Not much positivity, really. Endless disappointment. Häkkinen's extra championship certainly helps, but even if he did just lose one of them, an easily imaginable scenario to say the least, it wouldn't change that he still got way more stuff, no matter how you define "stuff", over their nearly equal number of races. Or actually equal... depends on what you mean by "race". But yes, Häkkinen overall had the better career.

Kimi Räikkönen v. Heinz-Harald Frentzen
Frentzen was the best driver of 1999, and when was Räikkönen ever the best in a year? In F1 PerformanceOff that would matter, but the brilliance of 1999 and the career-ruining disappointment of '97 don't have much on 2007 and the five other overall podiums of Räikkönen.

Emerson Fittipaldi v. Jacques Laffite
Fittipaldi achieved more than what Laffite did by quite a clear margin. Did Laffite deserve better? Probably, yeah. Doesn't matter.

Nigel Mansell v. Phil Hill
They're equal on championships and they really shouldn't be. Mansell deserves 1987, dammit! But even if we have to deal with reality, which I seem to be making a big deal about, Mansell's definitely got more to brag about.

Stirling Moss v. Alan Jones
Is this finally it? The case where a ton of overall podiums beats a single win? It's not like Jones didn't deserve his championship. It's also not like Moss wasn't driving really well, but there's no year that makes me scream for the injustice of the world. But Moss did by far achieve more in an individual race results sense, and that's where things get fun, and by fun I mean frustratingly subjective. All I can really do is repeat myself a lot about championship versus everything else. Blandly counting championships simultaneously seems like it very much is and very much isn't what this should be all about. And should it be titles (Jones wins), deserved titles as in discounting team politics, team swings in form, or undeserved poor results I decide I don't like (Jones wins), or deserved titles as in who was the single best driver in a year (Moss wins)? aaaah

Well, I could think of it like this: with championships I'm arguing with myself the whole time, though leaning quite a bit toward Jones, whereas with individual race stuff it's clearly Moss. Maybe this is the right time to just base it on teammate comparisons, except they both beat everyone who they went up against for a decent number of races. Except Fangio, but that hardly means anything.

All right, I've slept on this, not literally, but, well, I should've been asleep in the time I was away from it. That's got to count for something. On account of Moss's far better count of championship positions on anything other than pure count-back, I'm giving it to him, because that seems like the sort of thing that should matter in this sort of thing.

Rob Dylan wrote:Mercedes paying homage to the other W12 chassis by breaking down 30 minutes in
by UncreativeUsername37 10 Dec 2019, 14:34
DHL Round of Champions
Michael Schumacher v. Alberto Ascari
Two legends of Ferrari. And that's all I can say to try to make this sound like it could be close. Ascari could certainly have won more titles if he hadn't died, but the way things are, he can't beat five extra championships, despite how great his own were.

Jack Brabham v. Niki Lauda
Three championships and one second place. And in terms of the points they got in those years, they're very close to each other. Lauda has a couple of extra overall 4ths, though, and he did have more bad luck over his career. So for those things I'm giving it to him, because the actual race statistics are being way too close to be of much help.

Juan Manuel Fangio v. Felipe Massa
Massa has no answer to five well deserved championships. Don't think there's much to tell you....

Nelson Piquet v. Damon Hill
Hill's win rate is great and all, but nothing he's got makes up for the deficit in championships.

Sebastian Vettel v. John Surtees
Vettel has three more titles and he's still picking up plenty of stats. If this was Top Motorsport In General StatsOff, I think he'd lose, but that's not what I'm doing. I don't like mentioning Surtees' motorcycle exploits because it's like crates in video games, but it's all I can do to distract from the fact that this isn't a hard one.

Graham Hill v. Jenson Button
Hill's 1962-65 is something Button doesn't have; his three overall podiums are spread out. I guess 2009-12 is the closest he has. But in terms of a single peak or otherwise, Hill clearly has the better championship positions and Button needs something to make up for it. And when you take season length into account, he does have more... uh... I'd like to bring something up, but Hill simply wins this one.

Fernando Alonso v. Bruce McLaren
McLaren's truckload of podiums, despite the number of trailers, isn't going to help him beat Alonso, who has quite a lot of those himself and much more.

James Hunt v. Mike Hawthorn
Hunt has over twice as many wins and poles considering season length, yet Hawthorn has more points. What I find decisive is that Hawthorn has an extra 3rd and 4th in the championship. If he didn't have those I might give it to Hunt, but the basic goal of F1 dictates that third overall is better than a lot of round wins.

Lewis Hamilton v. Jody Scheckter
Scheckter could use a few extra championships, you know what I'm saying? Of course you do.

David Coulthard v. Nico Rosberg
Battle of the top team underperformers. How exciting? What do you prefer, Rosberg's 2013-16 or Coulthard's 1995-02? Well, duh, everyone would take the championship. Coulthard had a longer period of success, but Rosberg had a much more... successful period, whilst he was there. So okay, what about individual races? Coulthard's career offers more consistency, same deal as before, but Rosberg has more wins by a decent margin and way more poles. Coulthard (for the third time) may have made his mark on a longer period of history, but Rosberg is better at all the things people care about the most, so it's Rosberg who moves on.

Ayrton Senna v. Carlos Reutemann
Reutemann came really close to winning the championship once, and averaged just over one win and half a pole per season. That's not going to beat the Senna stats.

Jackie Stewart v. Denny Hulme
I thought I could bring up something in favour of Hulme, probably podiums, make it at least kind of a struggle. But nope.

Alain Prost v. Giuseppe Farina
I mean, the four world titles would have been enough, you didn't need to bring every single other great year you had.

Jim Clark v. Mika Häkkinen
Two double champions, but it's not as dramatic as it sounds. Clark has more wins, poles, and even fastest laps, even without accounting for season length. And in terms of championship positions there isn't too much to choose. So even with the tragically shorter time he had, Clark wins the stats battle.

Kimi Räikkönen v. Emerson Fittipaldi
This is reminiscent of the Coulthard-Rosberg comparison, one having a few consecutive years with a lot to show and one spreading it out over a much longer time. Räikkönen has more wins, way more poles and podiums, and way more success in terms of actual championship ranking... except he's down one title. I did previously establish in Moss-Jones that you can overcome that if you're better at everything else, so I guess he should win? It's annoyingly subjective. And if you talk about deserving it, maybe Fittipaldi was the best in a year and Räikkönen wasn't, but the latter had much tougher opposition. I'm not fully happy with either choice, but I'll go with Räikkönen just to be self-consistent.

Nigel Mansell v. Stirling Moss
Is this another moment where Moss beats a one-time champion? Well, no. Besides the travesty of 1987 which, yes, I will keep mentioning, Mansell's got a couple other second places. They're very close in terms of individual races, Mansell maybe with the slight edge, but that doesn't help much. So thanks to having a few other quite good years, Mansell isn't swamped by all of Moss's podiums, making the one championship enough.

Rob Dylan wrote:Mercedes paying homage to the other W12 chassis by breaking down 30 minutes in
by UncreativeUsername37 11 Dec 2019, 18:25
Verizon Round of 16
Michael Schumacher v. Niki Lauda
I'd like to bring up something in favour of Lauda, but it isn't happening for me. Even against a three-time champion, it's another clear victory for M. Schumacher.

Juan Manuel Fangio v. Nelson Piquet
Fangio has one more win than Piquet and five more poles. I mean, those are cherry-picked to be funny, but still. I don't see anything in favour of Piquet.

Sebastian Vettel v. Graham Hill
Graham Hill doesn't have a single better thing either, unless you count championships with Lotus. Disappointing, I know.

Fernando Alonso v. Mike Hawthorn
Yeah... not a lot to say about this one.

Lewis Hamilton v. Nico Rosberg
Hey, this one actually happened! But as you know, this matchup too is boringly easy, Hamilton did better. Plus his career before was more successful and his career after was more existent.

Ayrton Senna v. Jackie Stewart
Three titles, two second places, and one third place. This one will have to go to individual races. Stewart's seasons had an average of 11 5/9 races, so multiplying the relevant stats by 16/11.(5), here's what we get.
Wins: 41–37.4
Podiums: 80–59.5
Points (1961): 599.5–498.5
Poles: 65–24
FLaps: 19–20.8
DNQs: 1–0
Monaco wins: 6–3
Well capable of championships by end of career: yes–yes
So aside from fastest laps, Senna has more of all these great things, with his pole tally particularly crushing (never would've thought that), so it's he who moves on.

Alain Prost v. Jim Clark
If Clark hadn't died, this might be a really interesting one. As it is, he doesn't have enough to overcome a gap of two championships. His epic pole rate – they have the same number – is certainly epic, but it doesn't beat the extra titles and points Prost has collected.

Kimi Räikkönen v. Nigel Mansell
Mansell has wins and poles, Räikkönen has points. What means more to you? It's even true of their seasons. Mansell has more years he should've won, grr, Räikkönen has a better set of overall placings by any other metric. Except top 2s, I suppose. So I guess it's time for teammate comparisons, and there Räikkönen probably wins, existing in the new millenium. He did what he did against tougher opposition, not only in terms of teammates but just in general. For that I'll give it to him.

Rob Dylan wrote:Mercedes paying homage to the other W12 chassis by breaking down 30 minutes in
by dr-baker 11 Dec 2019, 19:07
As regards Stewart v. Senna, you said you had to take individual races into account. But there is no mention that Jackie Stewart was the first of only two drivers to win a Grand Prix by two laps, something that Senna, Prost, and Schumacher never managed between them.

watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
dinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
MCard LOLA
by Klon 11 Dec 2019, 19:57
dr-baker wrote:As regards Stewart v. Senna, you said you had to take individual races into account. But there is no mention that Jackie Stewart was the first of only two drivers to win a Grand Prix by two laps, something that Senna, Prost, and Schumacher never managed between them.


Though the fact that Damon Hill was the other one kinda undermines this achievement a bit.

by dr-baker 11 Dec 2019, 20:22
Klon wrote:
dr-baker wrote:As regards Stewart v. Senna, you said you had to take individual races into account. But there is no mention that Jackie Stewart was the first of only two drivers to win a Grand Prix by two laps, something that Senna, Prost, and Schumacher never managed between them.

I disagree.
Though the fact that Damon Hill was the other one kinda undermines this achievement a bit.

watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
dinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
MCard LOLA
by Klon 12 Dec 2019, 08:03
dr-baker wrote:
Klon wrote:
dr-baker wrote:As regards Stewart v. Senna, you said you had to take individual races into account. But there is no mention that Jackie Stewart was the first of only two drivers to win a Grand Prix by two laps, something that Senna, Prost, and Schumacher never managed between them.

Though the fact that Damon Hill was the other one kinda undermines this achievement a bit.

I disagree.


In hindsight, I can see why you would, because I failed to explained my reasoning: it's not that "Damon Hill did it, therefore it's not noteworthy", it's more that Damon Hill achieving it shows that for this type of achievement you are very much dependent on lel rel for your opposition and it's not something you can achieve out of driver skill and car performance alone.

For the record, I should notice that I only argue against using this trivia as an argument for why Stewart may be rated above Senna; I personally rate Sir Jackie ahead of Senna (as well?).

by UncreativeUsername37 12 Dec 2019, 16:33
When I say "individual races", I mean counting things like wins as opposed to championship placings. I don't think a single race could ever make a difference, even without the policy of "a win is a win and a retirement is a retirement" that I've been doing.

Rob Dylan wrote:Mercedes paying homage to the other W12 chassis by breaking down 30 minutes in
by dr-baker 12 Dec 2019, 17:30
I understand both of you better now. Thank you for the clarifications.

watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
dinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
MCard LOLA
by UncreativeUsername37 13 Dec 2019, 05:21
Quarterfinals
Michael Schumacher v. Juan Manuel Fangio
In the FIFA World Cup, the quarterfinals is the point at which the matchups are completely random, if you know what I mean. But even though the world's biggest sport is all right with that, it doesn't feel right that Schumacher and Fangio meet this early. Anyway, with "only" five titles, what does Fangio have to make up for it? After adjusting for season length, he has far fewer wins and podiums and a bit fewer poles.

Fangio tended to be dominant in the years he was champion, which is nice, but Schumacher has depressingly dominant seasons too. The best thing for Fangio might be to look at certain spans of years – who had the best five-year span, three, eight, whatever – and they're still too similar to separate based on that, what with Schumacher's time at Ferrari and Fangio's time at... four teams.

What I'm saying is that whatever you can come up with for Fangio you can usually come up with for Schumacher and serve it with another year at the top on the side. Fangio has the better percentages, but you could say it's because Schumacher has what Fangio has and a bit (a "bit" being dozens more wins, even considering how many races he had) of extra stuff. You could also say it's because Fangio never got the chance to collect championship F1 stats in his thirties the same way Schumacher did, and there's the problem. because we all know how many 1940s grandes épreuves he won

So I tried to find something for Fangio to make it more interesting than "one guy has two more championships", but there's no gap in another area big enough to defeat it. Schumacher moves on.

Sebastian Vettel v. Fernando Alonso
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSYmb_IkHU0
Vettel has two more championships, but let's say it's all Grosjean's fault and give Alonso 2012. If we pretend they're tied on titles, it turns out they're quite close, with Vettel having more podiums 5–3. If we take the 1961 system and apply it to their season rankings, we get 62 points for Vettel and 53 for Alonso. So it's a slight edge for Vettel, but something that other stats could overpower.

So let's have a look at some other stats, from reality now:
Wins: 53–32
Points (2003): 1293–1104
Poles: 57–22
Poles as teammates: 1–0
It isn't working out for Alonso, which as you know is the story of his post-2007 career, epic driving unrewarded with epic statistics. Though this comparison seems like some sweeping thing covering decades, there's actually a specific point in time where Alonso lost: his decision to move to McLaren. Imagine the overall podiums he'd have instead of Vettel! But they made their decisions and that's where they ended up. Thanks to Alonso's "crystal" ball that's in fact glass, Vettel makes it to the semifinals.

Lewis Hamilton v. Ayrton Senna
What could possibly be brought up to give Senna three extra championships' worth of statistical brilliance? Well, he'd likely have two or three extra championships without his death, but Hamilton isn't done yet.... In terms of championship positions besides first, they're very close, so that won't help. Nothing will. Not even pole positions will help. Multiplying Hamilton's count by .832 to put it on the level of a 16-race season still leaves him with 8.216 more. And when you're beating Senna in poles, well, that puts you in the semifinals.

Alain Prost v. Kimi Räikkönen
Räikkönen has had two close calls to get this far, but can he defeat Alain Prost? Well, he has three fewer championships, and fewer wins (41% of Prost's total), podiums (97%), and poles (55%) even though he entered F1 about two decades later. So he's really got nothing going for him. Oh well.


Semifinals
Michael Schumacher v. Sebastian Vettel
So! Last time I did this, Vettel had three titles to make up. But now that we're at the end of the decade he'll more than likely be most associated with, he has three titles to make up. Yeah. And they're pretty close to equal on other positions.

So how about wins? As you just might know, Schumacher has it, 91–53. Poles is much closer but still a win for Schumacher, 68–57. And he has, like, any other stat. This includes things like points in the 2010 system, engine makes driven for, and controversial collisions. And perhaps most embarrassingly and tellingly, best four-year span by fraction of potential points scored. I hate to say it for such a late round, but this is an easy one.

Lewis Hamilton v. Alain Prost
They have the same number of championship top 2s and almost the same number of 4ths and 5ths. The thing is that two more of Hamilton's top 2s are 1sts. I don't know if you knew that. Other than that, accounting for season length, Hamilton has just over a whole extra season's worth of wins, they're almost equal on fastest laps, and the gap in poles in favour of Hamilton is quite big. I thought maybe Prost would be better at something, like podiums per race, but that isn't how it is. Hamilton is just better.


Third place match
Alain Prost v. Sebastian Vettel
The two four-time champions, together at last. Prost has slightly better final rankings otherwise, but it's by such a small margin that other things will make more of a difference. So let's look at those other things. Prost first, Vettel's numbers multiplied by .816:
Wins: 51–43.2
Podiums: 106–97.9
Points (1961): 791.5–787.4
Points (2010): 2464.5–2585.9
Fastest laps: 41–31.0
Poles: 33–46.5
You know when I said other things will make more of a difference? I was clearly too confident.

Vettel has his nice four-year run of championships, but judging just the peaks is mainly a way to deal with careers of different lengths, and besides, doing things further apart means more to me, it shows versatility. If I go by who I actually think was better, that doesn't help either; Prost showed well against all his teammates and was probably the best driver in more years, but Vettel has done quite well in both of those categories in a tougher era.

So adjusting for season length, Prost has slightly better championship results, slightly more wins, and reasonably more fastest laps. Meanwhile, Vettel has reasonably more poles. It would be really nice if they were majorly different on points, in any reasonable system, but they were never going for the same thing and it's very close anyway. Should Prost win because he has the more important things – qualifying is a means to an end, after all – or should Vettel win because he's not done yet? Or should Prost win because he retired as champion and therefore he could've got extra stuff too and them having an equal number of seasons is something I may have mentioned as convenient? Vettel's got a few more years before he's as old as Prost was at his retirement....

All right, I'm going for Prost, because championship positions are what's most important. He has a 2nd instead of a 3rd, plus an extra 4th. Is that a lot, of course not, but neither is anything else here. Alain Prost takes third place in F1® StatsOff!® 2019™, emphasis on the 2019.


Final
Michael Schumacher v. Lewis Hamilton
#1 versus #2. Not only that, the semifinals were #1–4 and the quarters were #5–8. So what I'm saying is that every round before this was a massive waste of time. But that's over, now it's time for the most important question in the world: is Hamilton done yet? The answer to this will be very important to F1 statistics until the day humanity destroys itself, which to be honest might not be that far off, but you get the point.

So okay, let's say this is 2019 and Hamilton just has to deal with the fact that he's down a title. What's he going to do about it? He doesn't have as many wins. Poles is pretty much all he's got, but it doesn't make up for a whole season of adjusted wins. He's even down on 2010-style points.

I even looked at ChicaneF1, not my oft favoured STATS F1 as it calls itself in the page titles or StatsF1 as it calls itself in the copyright notice at the bottom, in the hope of finding something to get him ahead so I didn't have to base things on speculations of future success. But all I found out was that Schumacher, at the time he retired, held the record for most 3rds in fastest lap classifications and was one of three drivers to have qualified 8th and been 8th in fastest laps en route to an 8th-place finish. Seriously, I love random records, even historical ones, but ChicaneF1 needs to settle down. Do we really need to know that, after setting a new record for most races led at USA 2006, he set a new record for most races led at France 2006? Especially in an eye-burning electric green and cyan on black colour scheme?

My point is that I want this section to be longer because the decision is disappointingly easy for a final round. Unless you consider qualifying the ultimate determinant of success, which it isn't because points are what the championship is based off and those are reserved for races, Michael Schumacher is still the best... for now.

Rob Dylan wrote:Mercedes paying homage to the other W12 chassis by breaking down 30 minutes in
by mario 14 Dec 2019, 08:22
UncreativeUsername37, have you taken a look at the F1 Metrics website?

It might be the sort of thing that is of interest to you, as the person behind that site has attempted to take a statistical approach towards rating drivers, as well as considering the potential long term potential of some drivers whose careers were cut short.

That writer did also look at what he considered to be the best 100 drivers in the sport, which threw up some interesting results. There is perhaps a question over whether the rating system is a bit front loaded towards more modern times, and the one area which could cause some controversy is his rating of both Prost and Senna (20th and 21st respectively) - a phenomenon that he puts down to an assessment of the 1980s actually being a period when the competition within the sport was weaker than the periods around it (citing assessments by others that make a similar point). https://f1metrics.wordpress.com/2019/11 ... s-top-100/

Martin Brundle, on watching a replay of Grosjean spinning:
"The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
by UncreativeUsername37 14 Dec 2019, 14:31
I have, I love that site. That list is actually something I took into account when it came down to "who was actually better", and in fact when I wrote

UncreativeUsername37 wrote:Prost showed well against all his teammates and was probably the best driver in more years, but Vettel has done quite well in both of those categories in a tougher era.

it was honestly just off of that. Not that I just looked at numbers with no understanding of the model, but still.

Rob Dylan wrote:Mercedes paying homage to the other W12 chassis by breaking down 30 minutes in
by Bleu 15 Dec 2019, 20:04
Talking about Damon Hill and his two-lap-win, here's the grid of the race with all non-finishers blacked over. It explains well why he won by two laps - that's because basically all other front-runners retired from the race for different reasons.

Image
by dr-baker 16 Dec 2019, 13:00
Bleu wrote: - that's because basically all other front-runners retired from the race for different reasons.

True, but it comes down to the old adage - to finish first, first you have to finish. And Damon Hill managed to finish the race that day. He avoided the pit wall on entry. He didn't spin on pit entry. He didn't hit his rivals. And so on. And if he had retired, Panis would have been less likely to have finished on the podium I reckon, not knowing how much more life was in his engine...

watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
dinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
MCard LOLA
by giraurd 28 Dec 2019, 13:11
mario wrote:UncreativeUsername37, have you taken a look at the F1 Metrics website?

It might be the sort of thing that is of interest to you, as the person behind that site has attempted to take a statistical approach towards rating drivers, as well as considering the potential long term potential of some drivers whose careers were cut short.

That writer did also look at what he considered to be the best 100 drivers in the sport, which threw up some interesting results. There is perhaps a question over whether the rating system is a bit front loaded towards more modern times, and the one area which could cause some controversy is his rating of both Prost and Senna (20th and 21st respectively) - a phenomenon that he puts down to an assessment of the 1980s actually being a period when the competition within the sport was weaker than the periods around it (citing assessments by others that make a similar point). https://f1metrics.wordpress.com/2019/11 ... s-top-100/


I do like the model itself, obviously it's the best out there, but some of the results it produces do still beg the question whether the dataset is large enough to produce conclusive results.

Like Mark Donohue rated as the best driver of 1975 (based on essentially just one single race in 1971, where he podiumed on a "customer" car at high attrition in Mosport which he knew well) or Cheever in 1982 (based on beating Laffite, whose rating had been inflated by beating the litany of neglected #2 drivers the previous year). Or indeed, the fact Chico Serra is on the list in the first place, literally based on that the one race where he did outrace Rosberg in 1981 was one of the only 2 races all year where both Fittipaldis finished, making that battle 1-1 in the model's eyes - where it could have been 5-0 or something with a bit different mechanical luck..

Reckon that one thing downgrading the 80's in contrast to everything else is the improved safety and the high grid numbers of the early nineties, too. In the previous decades, someone racing over 10 years was the exception, so the turnover of the grid was high and usually a Collins, Bandini, or Depailler wouldn't get to spend long enough in the sport to get beaten by the next generation. But when there was plenty of openings for the past their prime Boutsens, Arnouxes and Alboretos to keep trundling along in the midfield making the bucks with perhaps a bit less motivation, probably those drivers regularly getting beat by the nineties' drivers is the explanation why the model thinks the entire 80's is to be perceived to have been filled by drivers worse than not only the later generations (which is plausible given the increasing competition), but also worse than the drivers of the earlier generations too, which is less plausible to me.

when you're dead people start listening
by mario 28 Dec 2019, 21:57
giraurd wrote:
mario wrote:UncreativeUsername37, have you taken a look at the F1 Metrics website?

It might be the sort of thing that is of interest to you, as the person behind that site has attempted to take a statistical approach towards rating drivers, as well as considering the potential long term potential of some drivers whose careers were cut short.

That writer did also look at what he considered to be the best 100 drivers in the sport, which threw up some interesting results. There is perhaps a question over whether the rating system is a bit front loaded towards more modern times, and the one area which could cause some controversy is his rating of both Prost and Senna (20th and 21st respectively) - a phenomenon that he puts down to an assessment of the 1980s actually being a period when the competition within the sport was weaker than the periods around it (citing assessments by others that make a similar point). https://f1metrics.wordpress.com/2019/11 ... s-top-100/


I do like the model itself, obviously it's the best out there, but some of the results it produces do still beg the question whether the dataset is large enough to produce conclusive results.

Like Mark Donohue rated as the best driver of 1975 (based on essentially just one single race in 1971, where he podiumed on a "customer" car at high attrition in Mosport which he knew well) or Cheever in 1982 (based on beating Laffite, whose rating had been inflated by beating the litany of neglected #2 drivers the previous year). Or indeed, the fact Chico Serra is on the list in the first place, literally based on that the one race where he did outrace Rosberg in 1981 was one of the only 2 races all year where both Fittipaldis finished, making that battle 1-1 in the model's eyes - where it could have been 5-0 or something with a bit different mechanical luck..

Reckon that one thing downgrading the 80's in contrast to everything else is the improved safety and the high grid numbers of the early nineties, too. In the previous decades, someone racing over 10 years was the exception, so the turnover of the grid was high and usually a Collins, Bandini, or Depailler wouldn't get to spend long enough in the sport to get beaten by the next generation. But when there was plenty of openings for the past their prime Boutsens, Arnouxes and Alboretos to keep trundling along in the midfield making the bucks with perhaps a bit less motivation, probably those drivers regularly getting beat by the nineties' drivers is the explanation why the model thinks the entire 80's is to be perceived to have been filled by drivers worse than not only the later generations (which is plausible given the increasing competition), but also worse than the drivers of the earlier generations too, which is less plausible to me.

It is indeed an interesting question, and one where there are debates over whether the way in which certain factors are weighted can give rise to odd results.

Certainly, there have been those who have also questioned whether additional consideration should be given to reliability issues and relative position in the race order before a driver retired, so it seems it is an issue some have raised before. Career length and small sample sizes are indeed other factors which have been highlighted - the author of that site has already chosen to exclude some drivers because of that factor, and there is the question of whether a single result might be overly significant in that respect.

I'd agree that the modelling is perhaps imperfect, but at the same time I suspect that constructive criticism might be reasonably well received by the author of that site, and it does feel refreshing that somebody is trying to take a more analytical approach towards the situation, rather than the emotive basis that most decisions are usually made on. That said, some of the rankings do come across as a little surprising, and I'd agree that the situation with the drivers of the 1980s may be something of a modelling flaw.

Now, I do think the author of that model does probably have a point that, in some ways, the drivers of the 1980s may have a disproportionately large impact on popular culture because they sit at that point when the sport first gained a mass market appeal via TV broadcast. The zeitgeist does seem to be starting to shift to drivers from the early 1990s now, as they tend to sit in that period of 20-30 years before the current era and in that period when the fans who dominate the fanbase now were probably kids and started watching then, but the 1980s is certainly not far behind that in terms of popularity and appeal in the general fan base.

With that in mind, it probably does mean that some of the drivers from the 1980s, particularly those who were from the late 1980s and had careers running into the 1990s, may have a popular appeal that exceeds their reputation as a driver. Some drivers within that period who had a particularly large popular appeal may therefore end up being ranked more highly than perhaps they deserve simply by dint of being more memorable to those who come up with the ranking in the first place.

That said, such factors would potentially only impact a limited number of drivers, and it would seem to be a little at odds with the expectation that, by the 1980s, you might expect to see a greater degree of professionalisation and preparation of drivers than in the 1970s, aligning with that wider long term trend of those two factors generally improving as a whole. You might expect there to be times which are at odds with the wider trends, but it does seem questionable as to whether it is quite as dramatic.

Martin Brundle, on watching a replay of Grosjean spinning:
"The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
by giraurd 29 Dec 2019, 11:57
Indeed the author is making excellent work and I truly applaud him for trying to take up the task of ranking the drivers with an objective model. Granted, I am of the opinion that a model can never be perfect - and don't get me wrong, it's certainly not because of the low ranking of the 80's drivers, or high ranking of the modern drivers, or any other driver ranked lower or higher than I would prefer. ¨

It's because there are too many factors to explain someone's "goodness" and "badness" of a driver to make a perfectly representative list solely based on stats and age. For some more examples than the limited dataset - what about an early or late blooming driver whose career trajectory doesn't quite follow the expected; how does the model account for that kind of drivers? (Some of the earlier warriors on the list only started racing cars in their late twenties or thirties!) What about the impact of injuries, or suffering an ill-prepared #2 car with someone like Lotus or Benetton, or Irvine's gifted wins in 1999? etc etc - all something that an "emotive" ranking is able to take into consideration, but a model can't quite put itself around that.

But in any case, whatever the opinion on modeling, the F1metrics websites still certainly produces plenty to think about. The posts are long but all the little tidbits and graphs that he has taken the time to use to accompany and explain analysis with surely make it worth taking the time to look at his analysis thoroughly.

Yes, it would certainly be interesting to see the head-to-head stats padded with the races where one of the drivers didn't finish due to a mechanical problem. He also mentions possibly including the non-championship races, which I guess would help with that too, though not up to the eighties.

when you're dead people start listening
by WeirdKerr 19 Mar 2020, 23:12
Most races cancelled in a season..... :o :(
by dr-baker 19 Mar 2020, 23:41
WeirdKerr wrote:Most races cancelled in a season..... :o :(

I imagine it is. Certainly championship races. I imagine if the 1955 calendar had as many races as recent seasons have had, the Le Mans disaster might have led to a greater number of Championship races being cancelled.

watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
dinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
MCard LOLA
by Rob Dylan 18 Feb 2021, 10:06
Just perusing through random careers and noticed that Katayama is not a reject, because I forgot about his 1994.

However, he did about 57 races by my count after his last point where he didn't score any. Obviously Luca Badoer has the record for most races without any points over a career, BUT

What about drivers who just didn't score points for ages.

I checked out Kovalainen's career and I count 63 races in a row without any points! Who can beat that?

Murray Walker at the 1997 Austrian Grand Prix wrote:The other [Stewart] driver, who nobody's been paying attention to, because he's disappointing, is Jan Magnussen.


Felipe Nasr - the least forgettable F1 driver!
by Bleu 18 Feb 2021, 19:03
For the competed races between two point-scoring finishes, I believe the record holder is Mr. Super Aguri himself. Scored in 1991 opener at USA (18th Grand Prix) and after that in Germany 1995 (63rd Grand Prix).
by tBone 01 Jun 2021, 08:22
Just a shower thought: the Netherlands are now one of the countries to win a triple crown: Verstappen in the Monaco GP, Luyendyk in the Indy 500 and Lammers and Van Lennep in Le Mans.

A quick look through Wikipedia shows that Great Britain, Italy, France, Canada, Sweden, New Zealand and Australia have also achieved this.

Just some remarkable countries who aren't on the list: USA have never won a Monaco GP, Brazil has never won Le Mans.

YOUR
LOGO

Here
by tBone 23 Jun 2021, 12:28
I made this last winter, perhaps some of you like to see it. It is an infographic on the youngest and oldest starters of every Formula 1 Grand Prix.

Image

YOUR
LOGO

Here
by UncreativeUsername37 23 Jun 2021, 16:47
I do like to see it! I was thinking of making an age-related F1 chart at some point and never did, but this is more beautiful than what I planned.

Rob Dylan wrote:Mercedes paying homage to the other W12 chassis by breaking down 30 minutes in
by tommykl 27 Jun 2021, 07:55
I'd already worked out the stats a few years ago, but never got around to making a graphic. This is beautiful!

kevinbotz wrote:Cantonese is a completely nonsensical f*cking alien language masquerading as some grossly bastardised form of Chinese

Gonzo wrote:Wasn't there some sort of communisim in the East part of Germany?
by Rob Dylan 30 Jun 2021, 08:54
I've been working out, just out of interest, how Pérez has compared to the previous Red Bull #2s. While he's been comfortably ahead of Gasly and Albon since round three or four or so, I don't think I or too many others expected him to be so close in performance to Ricciardo!

After 8 rounds in 2018: Ricciardo had 96 points
After 8 rounds in 2021: Pérez has 96 points :o

Murray Walker at the 1997 Austrian Grand Prix wrote:The other [Stewart] driver, who nobody's been paying attention to, because he's disappointing, is Jan Magnussen.


Felipe Nasr - the least forgettable F1 driver!
by CaptainGetz12 01 Jul 2021, 00:30
Rob Dylan wrote:I've been working out, just out of interest, how Pérez has compared to the previous Red Bull #2s. While he's been comfortably ahead of Gasly and Albon since round three or four or so, I don't think I or too many others expected him to be so close in performance to Ricciardo!

After 8 rounds in 2018: Ricciardo had 96 points
After 8 rounds in 2021: Pérez has 96 points :o


Granted Ricciardo had the 3rd fastest car of that season, not the 1st or 2nd fastest, but I do agree that Checo is doing much better than his two predecessors. Just what Red Bull need to take the fight to Mercedes more often. :D

Klon wrote:What did poor André do to you for him to be insulted like that?
by Rob Dylan 01 Jul 2021, 08:55
CaptainGetz12 wrote:
Rob Dylan wrote:I've been working out, just out of interest, how Pérez has compared to the previous Red Bull #2s. While he's been comfortably ahead of Gasly and Albon since round three or four or so, I don't think I or too many others expected him to be so close in performance to Ricciardo!

After 8 rounds in 2018: Ricciardo had 96 points
After 8 rounds in 2021: Pérez has 96 points :o


Granted Ricciardo had the 3rd fastest car of that season, not the 1st or 2nd fastest, but I do agree that Checo is doing much better than his two predecessors. Just what Red Bull need to take the fight to Mercedes more often. :D
My memory is also good enough to remember just how terrible Ricciardo's reliability was that year. In fact it may have been the worst on the grid. So at the very least we can say that Pérez is far ahead of his two predecessors, if a little behind Ricciardo.

Murray Walker at the 1997 Austrian Grand Prix wrote:The other [Stewart] driver, who nobody's been paying attention to, because he's disappointing, is Jan Magnussen.


Felipe Nasr - the least forgettable F1 driver!
by Rob Dylan 29 Jul 2021, 11:33
Alonso turns 40 today, and it got me thinking. Rosberg and Hamilton are born the same year, 1985, making them both 36 at the time of writing. Vettel is a few years younger, born in 1987, and just recently turned 34.

This also means that, of all the champions ever, Vettel is the youngest, at such a high age! It surprises me (or not considering the RB/Merc domination since 2009) how even the latest born champions can be so old.

So I thought, ok, what about when Schumacher was dominating? In 2004/2005, Jacques Villeneuve was probably the youngest champion at the age of 33/34 as well. Again, before that, you'll have to go back to 1994 when Senna was the latest-born champion until Schumacher won, again at 34. Prost was 33 when Senna was on the way to the title in 88. Piquet again was 33 when Prost won in 85 and became the latest-born champion.

The further back I go in my search, the last time a latest-born world champion was that old was Alberto Ascari. Ascari, who won his titles at the age of 34 and 35, didn't have his age record beaten until Hawthorn in 1958. That meant that Ascari would have been around 39/40 when Hawthorn won. Before that Farina and Fangio were both already in their 40s, and they really don't count for this exercise.

Anyway, all this useless trivia means that, if Hamilton wins the championship this year, it will make Vettel next year the oldest person to be the youngest living world champion... maybe ever, discounting Farina? As far as I can tell, nobody has ever been 35 and the youngest living champion. If we count the deceased, then yes Ascari holds the record, but the fact that Vettel would be second still just shows the dearth of world champions F1 has had since 2010.

I just think it's interesting, because especially in the last 15 years the average age of drivers has dropped so dramatically (2014 was notable for this) that it's almost paradoxical that our current and former world champions are so old. The class of 2001 and 2007 are still ruling over all the young talent of this era.

Murray Walker at the 1997 Austrian Grand Prix wrote:The other [Stewart] driver, who nobody's been paying attention to, because he's disappointing, is Jan Magnussen.


Felipe Nasr - the least forgettable F1 driver!
by dinizintheoven 01 Aug 2021, 20:26
In 1993, the BBC Grand Prix guide assessed "one-hit wonders" and concluded that the 1980s had been so dominated by Prost, Senna, Piquet and Mansell that there weren't any. They forgot Alessandro Nannini.

The 1990s gave us two (Jean Alesi and Olivier Panis), the 2000s gave us three (Jarno Trulli, Robert Kubica and Heikki Kovalainen), and the 2010s only one (Pastor Maldonado) - the last decade getting a similar hatchet-job on behalf of Red Bull and Mercedes as McLaren and Williams had done 30 years before.

The 2020s is now back up to two... albeit with eight and a half seasons still to run. And if the cards had fallen differently at Sakhir last year, we could have had four at this point.

Also: there are 10 American one-hit wonders. Richie Ginter is the only one to have won his only race in an event run to F1 regulations - the other nine are, unsurprisingly, Indy 500 winners from 1950-60. If only Bill Vukovich hadn't won twice in that era...

James Allen, on his favourite F1 engine of all time:
"...the Life W12, I can't describe the noise to you, but imagine filling your dustbin with nuts and bolts, and then throwing it down the stairs, it was something akin to that!"
by 1993DonningtonNo1Mk2 01 Aug 2021, 22:00
dinizintheoven wrote:In 1993, the BBC Grand Prix guide assessed "one-hit wonders" and concluded that the 1980s had been so dominated by Prost, Senna, Piquet and Mansell that there weren't any. They forgot Alessandro Nannini.

The 1990s gave us two (Jean Alesi and Olivier Panis), the 2000s gave us three (Jarno Trulli, Robert Kubica and Heikki Kovalainen), and the 2010s only one (Pastor Maldonado) - the last decade getting a similar hatchet-job on behalf of Red Bull and Mercedes as McLaren and Williams had done 30 years before.

The 2020s is now back up to two... albeit with eight and a half seasons still to run. And if the cards had fallen differently at Sakhir last year, we could have had four at this point.

Also: there are 10 American one-hit wonders. Richie Ginter is the only one to have won his only race in an event run to F1 regulations - the other nine are, unsurprisingly, Indy 500 winners from 1950-60. If only Bill Vukovich hadn't won twice in that era...


Make that three now Ocon's a race winner.

Also marks a half-century of wins for the team that started competing as Toleman 40 years ago.
by dinizintheoven 02 Aug 2021, 13:03
1993DonningtonNo1Mk2 wrote:
dinizintheoven wrote:The 2020s is now back up to two... albeit with eight and a half seasons still to run. And if the cards had fallen differently at Sakhir last year, we could have had four at this point.

Make that three now Ocon's a race winner.

Hang on, what?

We had one one one-hit wonder in 2020 (Gasly, Monza), went up to two (Pérez, Bahrain "oval"), went back down to one this season (Pérez won again), and we're back to two (Ocon, yesterday).

It could have been four if George Russell hadn't been nobbled at Sakhir - although that's assuming Pérez still got the Red Bull drive in that scenario and won at Baku.

James Allen, on his favourite F1 engine of all time:
"...the Life W12, I can't describe the noise to you, but imagine filling your dustbin with nuts and bolts, and then throwing it down the stairs, it was something akin to that!"
by 1993DonningtonNo1Mk2 02 Aug 2021, 14:59
dinizintheoven wrote:
1993DonningtonNo1Mk2 wrote:
dinizintheoven wrote:The 2020s is now back up to two... albeit with eight and a half seasons still to run. And if the cards had fallen differently at Sakhir last year, we could have had four at this point.

Make that three now Ocon's a race winner.

Hang on, what?

We had one one one-hit wonder in 2020 (Gasly, Monza), went up to two (Pérez, Bahrain "oval"), went back down to one this season (Pérez won again), and we're back to two (Ocon, yesterday).

It could have been four if George Russell hadn't been nobbled at Sakhir - although that's assuming Pérez still got the Red Bull drive in that scenario and won at Baku.


My mistake but Russell didn't nobble in Sakhir, it was nobbled for him by Merc pit errors and a puncture, I was right about Alpine though. I've counted several times.
by dinizintheoven 02 Aug 2021, 20:51
1993DonningtonNo1Mk2 wrote:My mistake but Russell didn't nobble in Sakhir, it was nobbled for him by Merc pit errors and a puncture...

...just like I said, then.

James Allen, on his favourite F1 engine of all time:
"...the Life W12, I can't describe the noise to you, but imagine filling your dustbin with nuts and bolts, and then throwing it down the stairs, it was something akin to that!"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests