Silly Season 2018/2019

[Capharol]

1. & 2. Senna did it to Prost aswell, and Prost did it to Senna
3. thats is not cheating, thats called being clever, and believe me others would have done it aswell when they had the change to it.

Just because Senna and Prost did it, doesn't make it right. It tarnishes them too.
And deliberately parking your car to cause a yellow flag is cheating, not "being clever". It was cheating when Schumacher did it, it was cheating when Rosberg did it, although Rosberg was actually clever in the way he did it.

But anyway, your love of Schmacher won't let you see his flaws - he's human and thus has flaws - but that's ok. Just don't get annoyed when others point out those flaws.

i have to get you of you're high horse ..... i never was a fan of Michael Schumacher , but he was a outstanding driver
in those days i was more a fan of Hill, Häkkinnen, Villeneuve

but lets get back to topic....

[NathanOlder]

Well 97 was deliberate enough that he was thrown out of the championship.

[NathanOlder]

oh and as GPR-A already said ..... those are assumptions and no hard prove.... so provide hard prove, and i mean like Schumacher admitting to it.... otherwise this is a silly discussion and, by the way, has nothing to do with the topic-title

On the subject of silly discussions and hard proof,

how about Lewis Hamilton being the fastest ever driver in F1 history?!

To prove I'm right, He is the best qualifier of all time. thats a fact. so the proof is saying Hamilton is faster than Schumacher and Max combined.

I know its off topic, but I'd love to know what you think about that.

[marvin78]

Why is it a fact, that he is the best qualifier? Do you mean the absolute number of pole positions in nearly always a very good car? Whereas other drivers had partly much harder qualifying formats to master?

That's no proof for anything. And I don't see the "fact" in it.

I don't say that the assumption is not right but it is one based on numbers that are not comparable.

[Capharol]

Why is it a fact, that he is the best qualifier? Do you mean the absolute number of Poles in nearly always a very good car? Whereas other drivers had partly much hardy qualifying formats to master?

That's no proof for anything. And I don't see the "fact" in it.

I don't say that the assumption is not right but it is one based on numbers that are not comparable.

[zac510]

The fact is there has only been one Pole in a car. Actually he was in 6 cars, and only one of them was a good car, but still only one Pole.

[Just_a_fan]

Why is it a fact, that he is the best qualifier? Do you mean the absolute number of Poles in nearly always a very good car? Whereas other drivers had partly much hardy qualifying formats to master?

That's no proof for anything. And I don't see the "fact" in it.

I don't say that the assumption is not right but it is one based on numbers that are not comparable.

Of course, all of that argument applies to Schumacher. And Senna. And Prost (who got 13 of his 33 poles in his final year (which had only 16 races) in the Williams FW15C - which was another all-conquering car.

All of them, as has Hamilton, also got poles in cars that weren't all-conquering.

[Jolle]

Nah, Hamilton is one of the best qualifiers of formula one and without much doubt the best qualifier on the grid right now, but, other then race wins, the rules and circumstances changed to much over the years to just count numbers. Prost is a good example, during some of his best years, when he and his car dominated F1 (the almighty MP4-2), they were up against cars with the BMW qualifying special while their TAG's only delivered a bit of boost extra. Of course, after that he was up against Senna, who was a absolute master in a single lap. During Schumachers reign, you had the "you have to qualify with he fuel you start", what made that being on pole wasn't always the best place.

For me, apart from numbers, Senna was the absolute master but with Hamilton a close second.

[GPR-A]

Yes, money does buy success:
https://f1metrics.wordpress.com/2015/05 ... formula-1/
The numbers are from 2015 so they go up to the 2014 season, but the correlation is extremely clear.
The more money you pump in, the larger your chances of success are. There are outliers, sure, but those do not disrupt the trend.

https://f1metrics.files.wordpress.com/2 ... =640&h=512

I am not a data scientist, so not sure what that metrics is all about. I would rely on layman approach.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/228 ... a-1-season
2014
------
Mercedes - 240 Million Pounds
Red Bull - 340 Million Pounds (3 wins)
Ferrari - 328 Million Pounds (0 Wins)

https://www.crash.net/f1/news/221835/1/ ... pends-most
2015
------
Mercedes - 467.4 Million Euros
Red Bull - 468.7 Million Euros (0 wins)
Ferrari - 418 Million Euros (3 wins)

https://thenewswheel.com/what-did-formu ... d-in-2016/
2016
-----
Mercedes - 310 Million Euros
Red Bull - 252 Million Euros (2 wins)
Ferrari - 386 Million Euros (0 wins)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/csylt/2018 ... 5adc436595
2017
-----
Mercedes - 275 Million Pounds
Red Bull - 238 Million Pounds (3 wins)
Ferrari - 464 Million Pounds (5 wins)

https://www.wheels24.co.za/FormulaOne/t ... s-20190311
2018
-----
Mercedes - 400 Million Dollars
Red Bull - 310 Million Dollars (4 wins)
Ferrari - 410 Million Pounds (6 wins)

I don't see money buying success in that period to other two teams!

[DChemTech]

The data essentially shows that you need money to buy success, but having money is not a guarantee of success.
The central point on the x-axis is the average budget. Of all teams analysed (don't know how far back it goes), there was only one that became champion on a less-than-average budget (Brawn 2009, after a rule change), and a few more that did well on below average budgets (RB2009, but also williams2014 and FI2014 profiting from the rule change leading to mercedes engine dominance).

In all but one other (unspecified) case, no team got more than 15% of the maximum points on a below-average budget. On the other hand, a budget more than 2x the average is pretty much a guarantee for scoring >40% of the points (exception: Ferrari 2014).
Now, an above-average budget is no guarantee of winning races or even success. There are plenty of dots with an above average budget and hardly any points, and although RB and Ferrari in recent years have an above-average no. points with similar budgets as mercedes, they do fall short (only one can win, after all).

But that doesn't take anything away from the notion that budget does matter: without budget, you don't really stand a chance, and the higher your budget is, the bigger the chance of success. You don't need to be a data scientist to see that.

[GPR-A]

The data essentially shows that you need money to buy success, but having money is not a guarantee of success

By going all around the globe, you finally made the same point that I had made when I argued with @Jolle in the first place. Thanks.

[DChemTech]

Not at all - your statement was "money doesn't buy success", while mine is "money is a prerequisite for success, but not a guarantee". Those are quite different statements altogether. But anyway, it's off-topic here.

[Pyrone89]

Yes, money does buy success:
https://f1metrics.wordpress.com/2015/05 ... formula-1/
The numbers are from 2015 so they go up to the 2014 season, but the correlation is extremely clear.
The more money you pump in, the larger your chances of success are. There are outliers, sure, but those do not disrupt the trend.

https://f1metrics.files.wordpress.com/2 ... =640&h=512

I am not a data scientist, so not sure what that metrics is all about. I would rely on layman approach.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/228 ... a-1-season
2014
------
Mercedes - 240 Million Pounds
Red Bull - 340 Million Pounds (3 wins)
Ferrari - 328 Million Pounds (0 Wins)

https://www.crash.net/f1/news/221835/1/ ... pends-most
2015
------
Mercedes - 467.4 Million Euros
Red Bull - 468.7 Million Euros (0 wins)
Ferrari - 418 Million Euros (3 wins)

https://thenewswheel.com/what-did-formu ... d-in-2016/
2016
-----
Mercedes - 310 Million Euros
Red Bull - 252 Million Euros (2 wins)
Ferrari - 386 Million Euros (0 wins)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/csylt/2018 ... 5adc436595
2017
-----
Mercedes - 275 Million Pounds
Red Bull - 238 Million Pounds (3 wins)
Ferrari - 464 Million Pounds (5 wins)

https://www.wheels24.co.za/FormulaOne/t ... s-20190311
2018
-----
Mercedes - 400 Million Dollars
Red Bull - 310 Million Dollars (4 wins)
Ferrari - 410 Million Pounds (6 wins)

I don't see money buying success in that period to other two teams!

Just looking at those numbers you can already see they are not reliable. The budgets as shown by your numbers have swings of 50 - 100 million year on year for the same team even accounting for currency. That is EXTREMELY unlikely. Also, it does not match the fact that Newey said Mercedes have double the chassis staff of RBR and Hamilton said they are now at 2000 employees. Also for years now the story has been Mercedes is by far outspending everyone else and it can be seen with the massive ease they seem to bring massive upgrades in short time.

[Just_a_fan]

I wonder if Newry is being a bit sharp by claiming that. I'd bet he's including the engine team in to "chassis" - the engine is part of the structure after all.

Mercedes have lots of people because they make their engines too.

[Pyrone89]

I wonder if Newry is being a bit sharp by claiming that. I'd bet he's including the engine team in to "chassis" - the engine is part of the structure after all.

Mercedes have lots of people because they make their engines too.

He was talking explicitly about the aero department. I mentioned it as chassis side, but he himself said aero department and them being able to work on 3 models (years) at the same time.