Mathematical formula for greatest driver ever
- This topic has 17 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 5 months ago by Keith Campbell.
- AuthorPosts
- 6th October 2014, 20:55 at 8:55 pm #277350Aled DaviesParticipant
I came across this article on the net last night. this guy has used a mathematical formula to rank the top 60 drivers in F1 history. some surprising results!!!
http://f1metrics.wordpress.com/2014/07/18/who-was-the-greatest-f1-driver/
I would urge anyone with a spare hour to take the time to read it I fund it fascinating!
anyone else read it? what did you think??
7th October 2014, 4:25 at 4:25 am #277368Theo ParkinsonParticipantDidn’t read all of it. Watson and Rosberg (Nico) were clearly flattered by their highly rated teammates so far behind. Over drivers like Piquet, Prost and Senna were hurt by partnering tough teammates. Still very interesting though.
7th October 2014, 5:57 at 5:57 am #277371ToddParticipantRosberg at 7th? I highly doubt that.
I know mathematical formulas are 100% objective, but when something like Nico Rosberg being ranked 7th happens, it proves that your formulas are flawed.
7th October 2014, 6:14 at 6:14 am #277372Sri HarshaParticipantNico 7th and Senna not even in Top 10
Thats flawed seriously7th October 2014, 11:02 at 11:02 am #277423Craig WoollardParticipantIt’s interesting. Whilst I agree with number 1, I do have to ask some questions regarding the placement of Senna, Hakkinen, N. Rosberg, Alonso, Prost, Hunt etc. however…
7th October 2014, 22:58 at 10:58 pm #277539Aled DaviesParticipant@craig-o yeah a few results very surprising and must be because of the forumla used. Simpy anomalies I guess!! but one or 2 drivers I think show were underrated/overrated.
Frentzen for example is right up there, and when you look closely at it, he was a very good and consistent driver throughout his career but he didn’t get it together the year he had his best chance (1997). the forumla is obviously flawed somewhere but I think there is definitely something to be learned from it.
8th October 2014, 1:13 at 1:13 am #277558AnonymousInactiveare these scores that are based on a formula based on arbitrary scores? or based on algorithms from stats of positions in qualifying and at the end of the races?
8th October 2014, 3:47 at 3:47 am #277604Fer no.65ParticipantIt’s sad he spent so much time working this out and getting it totally wrong.
8th October 2014, 18:10 at 6:10 pm #277696Iestyn DaviesParticipantHe did state that a different final ranking method (e.g. 5 year peak, not 3) would move more renowned drivers, like Prost and Senna, up the rankings. But, it was mainly an exercise to see if he could get a good prediction with a purely mathematical approach…. and many would argue for Clark being the best, or in the top 5 at least.
It could be said that he had a very similar career to Vettel – i.e. totally dominant in 1962-5, only losing 1964 to an inspired, and often underrated, John Surtees, who in some ways was the Alonso of his day – always one of the best two in pure pace, but stuck in dire machinery. Somehow, he dragged Ferrari to a title in 1964, before falling out with management and leaving acrimoniously, ironically when they finally had the fastest car in 1966.
Clark was just a handful of laps away from 4 consecutive titles, while Vettel got that luck (e.g. no last lap car failure) to mke it happen. Clark retired from ten of his pole positions, with 4 of those in 1962 alone, similar to Vettel’s 2010, before two dominant seasons, and one in the middle being a multi-way battle for the title. Clark also felt he could have started at 19, like Chris Amon or Ricardo Rodriguez at the time, and Vettel/Alonso did 40/50 years later.
—
Clark 1960-1967: 73 races – 25 wins, 33 poles, 28 fastest laps, Lotus. 3rd in his debut half season, two more in season two, before becoming number one driver. Four season dominance, three of the best ever recorded. 66 a big transition year, only 1 win, with a H16 engine (!), before losing 67 to reliability (this was Vettel’s 2009, just at the end of the cycle). Was set to dominate 1968, before handing over to ‘protege’ Stewart in 1969.
Vettel 2007-2014: 139 races – 39 wins, 45 poles, 23 fastest laps, Red Bull. 4th place in debut half season, a win in the 2nd, before getting into a top car. Dominates on pace for three seasons, 11-13, before a difficult transition year, best finish 3rd place, handing over to next RB junior Ricciardo. Moves to Ferrari, wanting to replicate his mentor Schumacher’s dominance before the end of his career.
—
Clark-Stewart-Alonso-Schumacher-Fangio… I would definitely put them in my top 10, so they could still make a top 5, all things being equal. But, the hallmarks between Clark and Vettel’s careers, also being guided by one man (Chapman, Marko), picked from obscurity etc. are very striking. After 2013, many people were saying Vettel was now in the top 10 drivers argument.. ahead of underrated and forgotten (Surtees) Alonso.
What if Clark won 68 and lost 69 to Stewart? Would that lower Clark, or raise up Jackie? IMO – the latter.
8th October 2014, 22:13 at 10:13 pm #277720matt90ParticipantThe best thing about it was alerting me to this great video…
9th October 2014, 2:34 at 2:34 am #277734Ed MarquesParticipantHahahahahahaha, as it was said, he putted so much time into this for a really poor result.
Timo Glock ahead of Jacques Laffite, Mika Salo ahead of Mika Hakkinen, Jack Brabham and Nelson Piquet.. hahahahahaha9th October 2014, 20:29 at 8:29 pm #277954ForzaAlanRabbitParticipantI find that hard to believe.
12th October 2014, 0:27 at 12:27 am #278429AnonymousInactiveOn the face of it, this method of ‘calculating’ who is the world’s greatest driver seems ludicrous. But then, all lists of who is the greatest is only based on an individual’s opinion or perception – or, if it’s an era you were too young to watch, your opinion is only based on media reports and other people’s recollection.
For instance, we have a whole generation of people who only know of Ayrton Senna by folklore and endless media commentary. His myth is further extended by the fact he died during a race.
So I never take ‘greatest driver’ polls seriously. My opinion will differ from the next person’s. And I can’t possibly deliver a verdict on any driver pre-mid 80s, as I didn’t watch seriously/too young to notice before then.
12th October 2014, 6:03 at 6:03 am #278433KingsharkParticipantThe top 5 (Clark, Steward, Alonso, Schumacher & Fangio) is fairly accurate.
The rankings of Rosberg, Senna, and Prost however – are absurd.
13th October 2014, 9:38 at 9:38 am #278659Aled DaviesParticipant@Rodney they are somewhat pointless when you really think about it but does always make for a good debate.
The model used does throw up some strange results. The top 5 seems decent enough in principle but the rankings of Senna and Prost surely represent something of an error in the model.
The issue is of course that the passing of time often leads people to make more or less favourable opinions about certain drivers. Senna was no doubt one of the all time greats but i have always felt his legacy is enhanced by the fact he died at the wheel.
- AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.