WDCs

[LionKing]

In suzuka 2011, Hamilton did NOT have a puncture. He thought he had puncture but he did not... He was just quite slow compared to Button at Suzuka...
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2011/10/13/h ... re-suzuka/

As for Spa while he would have lost time one sector, he should have gained most of it back in the others due to the wing so that does not explain the 0.963 sec deficit in quali.

[CHT]

Very interesting subject. I sat down and crunched a bit of data myself.

http://s24.postimg.org/8zdyouco5/f1_wins2.gif

http://s24.postimg.org/xtxgiwxid/f1_pod2.gif

Interesting comparisons from the chart above:
Lewis Hamilton won 22 races and was on the podium 54 times in his 124 total races so far. Fernando Alonso won 21 races and was 52 times on the podium in his first 123 races. So HAM is pretty much where ALO was at that point in his career with the notable difference that ALO drove for minardi for a whole season.

I really like the graphical presentation.

[fussell]

Are these stats including Schumachers comeback? If they are, then taking them out would show he was a lot more dominant than Vettel

[CHT]

Are these stats including Schumachers comeback? If they are, then taking them out would show he was a lot more dominant than Vettel

If I remove 58 races from MS for his 3 seasons (19+19+20) with Petronas. then is hit rate will be

Win 36%
Podium 62%
Pole 27%
Fastest Lap 31%

Still unable to beat Fangio though

[PlatinumZealot]

Uhm, sorry, but that's not true.

Japan 2011, dry, Hamilton had a puncture.

Australia 2012, dry, Jenson lead the race from the first corner and was simply the faster man.
Hamilton had a sub optimal clutch setting. Engineers admitted fault.

Belgium 2012, dry, Hamilton's problem was starting 7th while Button was on pole. Even without Grosjean it is unlikely Hamilton would have even challenged Button.
Hamilton was given a suboptimal setup here after being assured he would be on pace. The engineers were wrong, Hamilton lost six tenths in ONE sector..

That's 2 out 3 dry races won without needing Hamilton to have problems.
I fully agree Button's a bit flaky at times, but credit where credit is due.

You see, you were so busy watching Vettel's timing sheets you weren't even paying attention to the other team mate battles going on.

Great job on piggybacking a driver in there who has nothing to do with that =D> .
If Hamilton was the faster man in Australia, he would have at least kept up with Button. He simply could not.
And as has already been established that one of Button's flaws is his need for perfect set-up, you can't simply dismiss a bad set-up for Hamilton as a good excuse to qualify almost a second behind.

He was keeping up. The graphs showed that, but anyway Button is more renowned as a changeable conditions kind of driver.

[SectorOne]

As for Spa while he would have lost time one sector, he should have gained most of it back in the others due to the wing so that does not explain the 0.963 sec deficit in quali.

The wing he chose was full stop the slower option regardless of sector times.
This is obviously on him and his fault but it was no "oh you make it up here, simple"-type thing.
It was slower over a lap and he learned the hard way.

-
Back to Button. Yes he´s got a very tiny window to work in compared to other top drivers but if there´s one thing Button is Ayrton Senna at it´s damp conditions.
I´d go so far to say i don´t think there´s ever been a driver in F1 through time that is better then him in damp conditions.

[H2H]

Some great stats and neat graphics. =D>

I have made a very simple driver comparison by taking the WDC gained by the teammates and calculating the relative percentages. Obviously the old points have been adapted to the new point system, with the factor of 2.5. I did not revalue positions which now would have given points to keep it simple. Either way the impact should have been minor. Some points to watch:

1. The more seasons a driver has under his belt the bigger the sample and the greater the value the outcome has.
2. In general luck gets evened out in the long run
3. The impact of the advantages due to a clear number 1 policy is much harder to remove, in general those tended to be bigger in the earlier years with different parts and specs.
4. The recent point systems tend to decrease the point gap between teammates compared to old one.
5. In relatively poor cars chance plays a much bigger role thankfully this tends to get counteracted by the bigger weight of team battles in more competitive cars.

No number is an absolute truth but they are a good mental anchor and starting point for further questions. This goes back to a central idea of Nobel prize winner Daniel Kahneman.

Some interesting bits:

Alonsos teammates only scored 55% of his points. The Ferrari years against Massa have actually lowered this percentage which is rather unusual as battles in good cars tend to tighten the score. All in all he has the most loop-sided percentage.

Button has outscored his teammates far more convincingly then I imagined, in fact they only got 74% of his points. That one surprised me quite a bit and shows the worth of hard data.

Webber's stats were indeed excellent before finding Vettel in the same seat, with his 'mates only getting 60% in 7 years of racing. They have tanked to 129%, meaning that after those additional years stacked against Vettel he has overall only scored 78% of his teammates points. Another surprise there on his pre-Vettel record.

All of them have pretty long runs as drivers so their stats are quite robust. I have to double-check some entries but small errors can hardly change the results in a meaningful way.

There are quite a few more interesting aspects, but I have to leave it for now there. I have collected some ideas which I might implement later but it all takes time and I have only a little...