Lost leads and inherited wins of the last 10 years

[raymondu999]

Gotta wonder how many of these so-called unfortunate mechanical failures were driver influenced or not. We all know some drivers are inevitably harder on equipment than others. I think that is quite an interesting point of discussion these days. When you compare the amount of engine and gearbox problems Vettel and Hamilton have had compared to their respective team mates.... it isn't all 'bad luck'. Perhaps another case of misleading raw data clouding the true circumstances here in my opinion.

Come on! How do you damage your spark plugs or your alternator by riding the curbs. Serious observers have known for a long time that Newey's innovations were mostly responsible. If you blow the exhaust on the tyres and they fail in lap one or two how can that be the fault of the driver? And burning fuel in the over run and loosing spark plugs, also driver' fault? The engine spewing it's content over the track on a straight is also the drivers fault? I think you have not paid attention to your classes if you have an engineering education. And if you are just repeating fanboy talk your rep isn't going to grow here either.

WB - I think you're jumping the gun a bit. There may be some credence to what he is saying. If for example a driver is constantly ramming the car at the high kerbs (like in the last chicane in Canada) you'd expect there to be some price to pay later on, surely?

[WhiteBlue]

WB - I think you're jumping the gun a bit. There may be some credence to what he is saying. If for example a driver is constantly ramming the car at the high kerbs (like in the last chicane in Canada) you'd expect there to be some price to pay later on, surely?

So this curb jumping is purely hypothetical if I understand you right, do I?
People who come up with such theories should have a look at what failed and if it could possibly be connected to the abuse they assume. Otherwise it is pure conjection.
We do have a pretty good engineering grasp of what happened in the cases that are under discussion here. And pretty much all of them have a solid failure analysis that you can research. So making allegations without backing it up with facts and analysis of the individual cases is not going to impress me.

[raymondu999]

WB - I think you're jumping the gun a bit. There may be some credence to what he is saying. If for example a driver is constantly ramming the car at the high kerbs (like in the last chicane in Canada) you'd expect there to be some price to pay later on, surely?

So this curb jumping is purely hypothetical if I understand you right, do I?

Hypothetical in my post, correct.

We do have a pretty good engineering grasp of what happened in the cases that are under discussion here. And pretty much all of them have a solid failure analysis that you can research. So making allegations without backing it up with facts and analysis of the individual cases is not going to impress me.

I don't believe that we as outsiders will ever be able to talk about causation - but talking about correlation is not out of the question.

There are some issues - such as alternators - which I do not believe are driver-caused. Having said that - take a look at the examples I have stated in my earlier post. Vettel had many more car problems than Webber in 2010 - Raikkonen (to memory) than Montoya in 2005 - Hamilton had more problems than Button in 2012.

Statistically speaking the most probable outcome is for both cars to have equal numbers of failures - but that doesn't play out. And when the cars are identical but the patterns of breaking down are different - then we have a situation where one driver is possibly harder on his equipment.

[WhiteBlue]

That statistical argument isn't going to fly with me either. For example we know that Vettel did the lead development applications of the blown diffusor developments that Newey debuted, because that he was more comfortable with trialling and driving it. Consequently the majority of failures from those early trials hit Seb and not Mark.

We are not discussing Webber vs Vettel here anyway. That is off topic. The issue is failures while leading a race. So I would appreciate a focus on the topic and not fanboy theories to be discussed.

[raymondu999]

We are not discussing Webber vs Vettel here anyway.

Nobody is. What myself and scotty are discussing (and to which you have very stubbornly shot down every argument, thinking it to be a Vettel vs Webber thing) whether or not these leads lost were purely down to defects (by design or by manufacturing) vs whether the driver had a "say" in breaking them.

We can change the names to Raikkonen & Montoya in 2005 if you want. Or Hamilton & Button in 2012.

We're simply discussing the possibility of the driver being part of the cause of their own untimely demise from these races.

[mnmracer]

It is indeed an interesting question. I remember back in 2010 that Vettel was a very "brash" driver, always bashing the high kerbs on the inside of corners and always going past the kerbs on exit, which probably would have influenced the number of mechanical DNFs he had.

Some of it is probably down to luck, whilst the rest is down to driving.

It would make interesting reading (hint, mnmracer ) to see how many times a driver is ahead of his teammate while suffering a mechanical, versus how many times a driver is behind (to see whether or not there is a correlation between the alleged car-breaking and pace)

Well, 13 of the 25 entries are Newey cars, and despite some people's claims, there have been far more cars at the front then just Newey's. We all remember Kimi's run of misfortune in 2003 and 2005. That same Kimi that has now beaten Schumacher's point-streak record.
Make of that what you want

(hint taken, noted and considered )

[beelsebob]

Well of course if you look at stats which involve "who was in first at the time" the person who's been in first lots of the time for the past few years tends to come out on top.

Talk about sampling bias.

It is up to each their own (you included) to read into this and draw the conclusions you want for it. I just provide the data

The point is that you are providing incomplete data because your sampling methodology has a bias in it.

Well, 13 of the 25 entries are Newey cars, and despite some people's claims, there have been far more cars at the front then just Newey's. We all remember Kimi's run of misfortune in 2003 and 2005. That same Kimi that has now beaten Schumacher's point-streak record.

Again, showing the sampling bias here. Neweys cars come up lots because Newey tends to design a car that's at the front lots.

[mnmracer]

Well of course if you look at stats which involve "who was in first at the time" the person who's been in first lots of the time for the past few years tends to come out on top.

Talk about sampling bias.

It is up to each their own (you included) to read into this and draw the conclusions you want for it. I just provide the data

The point is that you are providing incomplete data because your sampling methodology has a bias in it.

So do tell, in a topic called "lost leads and inherited wins of the last 10 years", where it is immediately made clear it's about mechanical failures, which provides the data on exactly that, which data is missing in your mind?

Again, showing the sampling bias here. Neweys cars come up lots because Newey tends to design a car that's at the front lots.

*cough*

Well, 13 of the 25 entries are Newey cars, and despite some people's claims, there have been far more cars at the front then just Newey's. We all remember Kimi's run of misfortune in 2003 and 2005. That same Kimi that has now beaten Schumacher's point-streak record.

[beelsebob]

The point is that you are providing incomplete data because your sampling methodology has a bias in it.

So do tell, in a topic called "lost leads and inherited wins of the last 10 years", which provides the data on exactly that, which data is missing in your mind?

Right... Well said, the topic is a ridiculous one. I might as well make a topic "Team with Most Victories in a Red Car", and it would be equally viable.

[mnmracer]

The point is that you are providing incomplete data because your sampling methodology has a bias in it.

So do tell, in a topic called "lost leads and inherited wins of the last 10 years", which provides the data on exactly that, which data is missing in your mind?

Right... Well said, the topic is a ridiculous one. I might as well make a topic "Team with Most Victories in a Red Car", and it would be equally viable.

Yeah, ridiculous that just after a race where two leaders suffered mechanical issues, to look back on that.

What a completely irrelevant thing of me to do. Aside from all the people that do find it interesting, probably because they don't suffer from "any data unsupportive of my views is irrelevant" bias.

[beelsebob]

Right... Well said, the topic is a ridiculous one. I might as well make a topic "Team with Most Victories in a Red Car", and it would be equally viable.

Yeah, ridiculous that just after a race where two leaders suffered mechanical issues, to look back on that.

Yeah, ridiculous that just after a race where five (more?) drivers suffered mechanical issues, to look back on that and filter out the events that happened to all the drivers who didn't happen to be in the lead at the time.

Your analysis doesn't even count the same events depending on the order they happen in... Suppose Vettel's gearbox had died before Hamilton's tyre. Suddenly only Hamilton's deflation is counted in your stat. Ridiculous.

[bhall]

I wish my favorite drivers had the luxury of being given cars so competitive that they were able to overcome such monumental "misfortune" to nonetheless deliver three straight World Championships. Gifted with inferior cars, drivers often find that even one or two more unfortunate incidents than their rivals can prove terminal. For instance:

Raikkonen's MP4-17 in 2003: three retirements in the face of Shumacher's single retirement with the F2003. Raikkonen lost the title by two points.

Massa's F2008 in 2008: two retirements compared to Hamilton's one in the MP4-23. Massa lost the title by a single point.

Alonso's F2012 last year: two retirements compared to Vettel's lone retirement in the RB8. Alonso lost the title by three points.

Conclusion: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." ~ Mark Twain

[LionKing]

I think this is an informative thread so thank you OP.

One can do another one about all mechanical failures or mechanical DNFs from podium positions if desired. Each of these will give some valuable perspective. Wins, WDCs, pole position, podiums are always special. When we look at a profile of a driver on F1 websites, the summary usually presents these information. So it is not surprise that wins lost due to mechanical problems is a lot more interesting than say out of points DNFs.

[Juzh]

Alonso's F2012 last year: two retirements compared to Vettel's lone retirement in the RB8. Alonso lost the title by three points.

Lone retirement??? Vettel retired in valencia and monza. And should have retired the car in malaysia but didn't, scored 0 points anyway. Alonso stalled his engine trying to spin his car back on track in Japan so It was not exactly a mechanical failure rather than purely his fault (not to mention trying to squeez kimi of the curcuit just moments before).
Check some facts first next time.

[WhiteBlue]

All I have to add to this thread is to thank mnmracer for the good work. I'm out of this. If you cannot have a learned opinion and be respected for it I'm not interested. Have a good time.