Fastest F1 driver of all time?

[LionKing]

Powerful point Nando.

I think it's telling when fans talk statistics to prove who is the fastest/greatest/biggest appendage as with Schumacher, but also will not entertain stats that prove other points.

Irvine took Hakkinen to the wire in 99....Because of a certain regen meister's absence.

We will of course entertain the stats but only if they are the number are correct not bogus.

Irvine took it to wire not because of him but Hakkinen did not have top notch year that season and made a few mistakes costing him race wins.

[Raptor22]

Hakkinen had three retirements in 6 races while Irvine had none. Another factor is the Ferrari F199 went backwards in terms of grid position and lap time during Schumacher's absense. Mika Salo came into the team aand was thereabouts for two races then gradually slipped back as did Irvine who struggled to keep it in the top 6. WHen Schumacher came back for Suzuka the team got the car set up well again and the lap times came back.'
Thats one of the tricks in a fast drivers armoury; good car set up. Irvine never had it and generally ran off Schumacher's work.
The difference in the car Salo drove and Schumacher drove was only the driver. No other staff member was changed out.
Thats the hallmark of the talented guys like Schumacher, Prost, Senna, Hakkinen, Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel. They get the set up spot on or close to it much more often than the next tier of drivers.
Thats why Schumacher dominated his team mates
Thats why Senna dominated his team mates

[Nando]

We will of course entertain the stats but only if they are the number are correct not bogus.

And i´ve said 3 times now, here´s the link, add up the numbers and come back with a response.

Or let´s do it like this, 40% for Hamilton is wrong. What percentage is it then? "I think" does not cut it.

Reason i´m a bit on the defense is because of a few things.

First is because i have found two lists not written by the same person saying the same numbers for Senna, Schumi and Hamilton.
Although one was slightly more exact with a decimal.

Second one is why would anyone show the correct numbers for Schumacher when it´s somewhat obvious he´s a fan of Senna.
Would it not be more "logical" in his sense to fudge the Schumi numbers and show the real numbers to Ham and Senna.
What does even Schumacher has to do with Hamilton´s record other then the "fact" that they are largely the same?

I´ve given you the link, do Schumacher and Hamilton and give us the numbers, the numbers i provided can be a year or two old.
Seeing as Schumacher has been back in 2010 and experienced a few races although not won any of them i think his numbers would be decreased as well. Probably more so then Hamiltons.

[Nando]

I think I have already done it before:

I listed 4 races won by Hamilton, 11 races won by others. 4/15 = 26.7%. If I have forgotten about more races that Hamilton didn't win. This ratio will decrease further...

Do you see drivers immediately jumping the guy back just after they let him pass because of cutting the chicane etc? Hamilton was impatient and paid the price. This is same as saying we can change Vettel's Germany 2012 result to P2.

The link you have given is just the home page of an F1 related website. The articles read "Korean International Circuit" , "How good is S. Vettel", etc. If you know where list of wet weather races is, let me know...

No what you have done is went on memory then added up some numbers. You are not even sure if there are more races he haven´t won.
If you want to do it correctly then you have the link.

No it´s not the same as changing Vettel´s results. Hamilton played by the rules to the FULLEST.
Vettel did not. He clearly broke a rule by passing outside the track.

Hamilton gave the position back, 6km/h slower, then passed Kimi, Kimi got passed again narrowly missing a back marker, Kimi spins, Hamilton gets past, Kimi wrecks, Hamilton wins.

FIA gets a call from the boys in red, they change the results despite Hamilton playing 100% by the rules.
It has been proven after the race he did nothing wrong, but they would not change the results.

[Nando]

Thats why Senna dominated his team mates

I don´t think this is true really. Put one weaker driver next to a better driver and the result is given.

Web/Vet
Schu/lots and lots of guys
Alo/Fis, Gro, etc etc.

Put two strong drivers in one team and it goes to the wire.

Alo Ham
Senna Prost

etc etc. People shine when their teammate is clearly a weaker driver.
This is why Schumacher has 5 titles at Ferrari.

If Alonso or Hakkinen had used the same car i´m sure the results would have been much much more even.

[LionKing]

We will of course entertain the stats but only if they are the number are correct not bogus.

And i´ve said 3 times now, here´s the link, add up the numbers and come back with a response.

Or let´s do it like this, 40% for Hamilton is wrong. What percentage is it then? "I think" does not cut it.

Reason i´m a bit on the defense is because of a few things.

First is because i have found two lists not written by the same person saying the same numbers for Senna, Schumi and Hamilton.
Although one was slightly more exact with a decimal.

Second one is why would anyone show the correct numbers for Schumacher when it´s somewhat obvious he´s a fan of Senna.
Would it not be more "logical" in his sense to fudge the Schumi numbers and show the real numbers to Ham and Senna.
What does even Schumacher has to do with Hamilton´s record other then the "fact" that they are largely the same?

I´ve given you the link, do Schumacher and Hamilton and give us the numbers, the numbers i provided can be a year or two old.
Seeing as Schumacher has been back in 2010 and experienced a few races although not won any of them i think his numbers would be decreased as well. Probably more so then Hamiltons.

We are not communicating at all:

1. I told you that the link you gave me goes to a homepage of a website. If you kindly show me the link to list of wet races first then I can spend some time when I have and do the calculation.

2. I don't know the actual number for Senna or Schumacher! Hamilton's number looked off so they seemed suspect to me. I noted that in Mclaren Button won 4 wet races and Hamilton only 1. Hamilton has 4 wet weather victories that I am aware of and 11 that he didn't win. This means that unless somebody tells me about another wet race Hamilton won then he has a winnning percentage of less then 26.7%

I really don't know what is not clear in what I said....

[illario]

I think that the best way to try and find some credible variant is to check for wet races, which came on just before the race, totally unexpected. If these criteria is fulfilled than, top ten cars should end up on almost equal opportunity for win. Considering that no car from - at least - top ten has any significant advantage. This, i would consider is the best way to analyze speed(reflex - feeling - concentration - mind control - rationality). So sad that i have absolutely no record of such details.

[Nando]

Here was the rain races sourced from.
http://cliptheapex.com/community/pages/home/

If you think one step ahead it could be that you might have to sign up.

Stats were compiled in December 2009 so stop there to compare to the results i posted.
then add the remaining years to see the stats of all drivers now.

[Raptor22]

Powerful point Nando.


I would have to say Schumacher is not as good as his stats suggest because he was playing a game biased in his favour.
If he was, I reckon we all would be eulogising about how Schumacher manhandled a Mercedes to victory by now.
But as it turns out, he cannot. So he is Human, and yes, he needs a bloody good car to win.

Your non sequitur is quite amusing, I see this all the time.
It is the job of anyone, no matter what you do in life, to load the dice in your favour. Whether through superior preparation, identifying more potential problems and finding solutions, better planning , more practice or a higher level of natural talent, it is the nature of life to load the dice in your own favour. Every F1 driver tries to do that. But first te driver has to have the necessary skills to load the dice.
He needs a natural ability to drive
an aptitude to understand the car
An aptitude to feel the cars behaviour
an aptitude to communicate that.

Yes he is not able to achieve that at Mercedes because the key drivers tools have been taken away. i.e driving and doing a lot of it to develop the car and setup. The teams who can achieve good set up have good simulators. There is no coincidence here.
The tools available to drivers to get the car working within its design limits are now available to much more drivers. The driver engineer relationship is skewed toward the engineer. The driver has to bring it home.

Its not so much that Schumacher isn't as good as anyone thought, but rather that theres a great deal more drivers who are able to perform thanks to the much more sophisticated tools that s helps them achieve what they require the car to do before the car has turned a wheel.

Like I said in another thread, Schumacher is from an era when cars were far more agricultural and a seat of the pants technique was required. Todays cars aer much safer, and sims allow near perfect set up to those who are able to use the tool effectively. It also makes it harder to compare but I think loooking at Schumacher's performance, he is still as fast as he ever was and thats pretty darn quick in a dog

[Raptor22]

Here was the rain races sourced from.
http://cliptheapex.com/community/pages/home/

If you think one step ahead it could be that you might have to sign up.

Stats were compiled in December 2009 so stop there to compare to the results i posted.
then add the remaining years to see the stats of all drivers now.

great article that illustrates why Vettel is deservng of being compared with some of the best ever. nice find

[FoxHound]

Raptor

I'm not questioning the man's skill level. Au contraire, he was a demonically fast driver. He still performed like a champion in each season he won. He deserves his success.

What I'm pointing out is that, giving how far superior his stats are to say for example Senna, it is explained simply by the fact he had as good a car as Senna(better in alot of cases...but ok) but he had these machines for a longer period of time and therefore we cannot deduce by mere statisitcs who the fastest driver is.

Nando made a good statistical observation that was dismissed out of hand. If it is incorrect then let us see the stats that disprove it, with references a la Nando, s'il vous plait.

And once those stats are given, if they exist, I checked and Nando's math appears sound....then it still really wouldnt matter.

Senna kicked ass, Schumacher kicked ass, Hakkinen Kicked ass, Gilles Villenueve kicked ass, Ronnie Peterson Kicked ass....theyre all kick ass drivers. Some kicked more ass, but that perhaps cos they had a kick ass car for more GP....

[Raptor22]

the fact they had kick ass cars IS the point. They made the car kick ass by setting it up properly more often than their peers.
The overall Technical level of the car may not always be better ie Benetton B194 and B915 was probably not as good as Williams FW16 and FW17 but the driver was able to get it into a better state more often.
Car quality for the race and driver ability to get the best quality out of it are inextricably linked.

[jdlive]

The guy in that article didn't use the word "dominate" by coincidence. He's so far above all the others, it becomes almost a laughing matter.

One of his supposed "opponents" is relegated to making sure his team directs his teammate to not overtake him. While his other so called "opponent" with the yellow helmet has now degraded to demolishing the track. (The Koreans want their astroturf back!)

[mnmracer]

The guy in that article didn't use the word "dominate" by coincidence. He's so far above all the others, it becomes almost a laughing matter.

One of his supposed "opponents" is relegated to making sure his team directs his teammate to not overtake him. While his other so called "opponent" with the yellow helmet has now degraded to demolishing the track. (The Koreans want their astroturf back!)

[FoxHound]

@raptor, I'm aware the best drivers generally gravitate to the fastest cars.
However in Schumachers case, in 18 seasons he has had a car capable of winning in 11-12 of those seasons. I'll exclude 1991, 92, 93, and generously 1996 and 2010-11-12.

Other than Hamilton, has any driver ever had such luck?