Interesting F1 "Rain Master" stats
Discussion
Project 644 said:
freedman said:
Lots of names mentined but everyones missed the best of his generation and beyond
Jacky Ickx
Jacky Ickx
And surely JYS should be associated with the Nurburgring in the wet, not Spa. Spa is where he had his biggest accident.
This thread misses the true genius wet drives in motorsport though, the most amazing ones have been in sportscars. Drives like Pedro Rodriguez at Brands in the 917, or Lehto at Le Mans in the McLaren GTR were epic.
Surely to make this a useful statistic you have to compare them to all the dry races.
Wouldn't it show those who are better in the wet?
Such as if someone gets average 6 points in dry, but 4 points in wet compared to someone who gets 1 point in dry and 4 points in the wet which one is the better in the wet? As technically they are both the same. however the 2nd driver is better in the wet even though they are overall not as good, or at least do not perform as well.
Wouldn't it show those who are better in the wet?
Such as if someone gets average 6 points in dry, but 4 points in wet compared to someone who gets 1 point in dry and 4 points in the wet which one is the better in the wet? As technically they are both the same. however the 2nd driver is better in the wet even though they are overall not as good, or at least do not perform as well.
CampDavid said:
4rephill said:
A more basic comparision:
Ayrton Senna:
Years in F1: 10 years (1984 - 1994)
World Drivers Chamionships: 3 (1988, 1990, 1991)
End of F1 career: Dead. Failed to negotiate the Tamburello corner at the San Marino GP 1st May 1994 and hit the wall.
Michael Scumacher:
Years in F1: 15 years (1991 - 2006)
World Drivers Championships: 7 (1994, 1995, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004)
End of career: Alive. Managed to negotiate the Tamburello corner at the San Marino GP 1st May 1994 and did not hit the wall.
So in summary:
Ayrton Senna: 3 World Championships and dead.
Michael Schumacher: 7 World Championships and alive.
Think that tells Me all I need to know really.
Possibly the most idiotic post I've read all year.Ayrton Senna:
Years in F1: 10 years (1984 - 1994)
World Drivers Chamionships: 3 (1988, 1990, 1991)
End of F1 career: Dead. Failed to negotiate the Tamburello corner at the San Marino GP 1st May 1994 and hit the wall.
Michael Scumacher:
Years in F1: 15 years (1991 - 2006)
World Drivers Championships: 7 (1994, 1995, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004)
End of career: Alive. Managed to negotiate the Tamburello corner at the San Marino GP 1st May 1994 and did not hit the wall.
So in summary:
Ayrton Senna: 3 World Championships and dead.
Michael Schumacher: 7 World Championships and alive.
Think that tells Me all I need to know really.
Shocking in its banality and selectivity.
freedman said:
plg101 said:
Read Maurice Hamiltons book on Williams as well for their view, in the words of the designer himself.
Well he wasnt ever going to say it was a failure on the car was he4rephill, put your head down and walk out in disgrace. What a terible post....
Senna was undisputedly better than Schumacher in the wet in my opinion.
But two others need mentioning. One Stefan Bellof (1984 Monaco) showed even Ayrton how to drive in the wet in an underpowered car and my personal hero, Stookie! - Hans Stuck Jnr at the helm of a 962 on slicks in the wet. Mega car control and he was still smiling... That is what i call spirit.
Senna was undisputedly better than Schumacher in the wet in my opinion.
But two others need mentioning. One Stefan Bellof (1984 Monaco) showed even Ayrton how to drive in the wet in an underpowered car and my personal hero, Stookie! - Hans Stuck Jnr at the helm of a 962 on slicks in the wet. Mega car control and he was still smiling... That is what i call spirit.
Hill had a win ratio of 30.8% (4 wins) and a average points score of 4.1. Better than I thought though 2 of the wins came because "rain master" Schumacher couldn't keep it on the island and he had 1x 2nd place because of Schumacher.
Hill was kinda - slow and steady wins the race - as Wogan might fart out of his mouth...
Hill was kinda - slow and steady wins the race - as Wogan might fart out of his mouth...
Going back to the ever increasingly clear genius of Senna, if the French didn't rob him of that win in Monaco '84, if his engine managed just 3 more laps in Canada '89 and didn't have Brundle move into his path when he was lapping him and blinded by spray with some 30secs in the lead after 10 laps, Senna was very close to winning 15 of the 20 wet races he started, with 1 unforced error, 2 mechanical failures and 2 5th places.
Or with only 3 races he actually failed to win by himself (2x 5th and a crash) That would be a win ratio of 83.3%. 15 out of 17! (btw, Schumacher won 12 of 29 races. Not even in the same league)
Compared to the rest this was a just few moments of luck away from being probably THE most outstanding proof of talent in F1... maybe even sport in it's entirety.
I must be in a superlative mood!
Or with only 3 races he actually failed to win by himself (2x 5th and a crash) That would be a win ratio of 83.3%. 15 out of 17! (btw, Schumacher won 12 of 29 races. Not even in the same league)
Compared to the rest this was a just few moments of luck away from being probably THE most outstanding proof of talent in F1... maybe even sport in it's entirety.
I must be in a superlative mood!
Edited by mattikake on Thursday 10th December 01:42
mattikake said:
Hill had a win ratio of 30.8% (4 wins) and a average points score of 4.1. Better than I thought though 2 of the wins came because "rain master" Schumacher couldn't keep it on the island and he had 1x 2nd place because of Schumacher.
Hill was kinda - slow and steady wins the race - as Wogan might fart out of his mouth...
what is the value of including Hill when he won only 4 wet races? four is so nominal in terms of statistics and research that no valid study would use a sample of four so I think Hill can be discounted. furthermore, there must be some merit as to why he "inherited" two wins from suchamcher, was hill trundling around in second content with that or was he pushing schumacer to force schumacher into an error, what were the lap times like between the two, was schuhmacer pushing hard and increasing the gap between himself and hill or was hill coming back at schumacher? who had more traffic to contend with?Hill was kinda - slow and steady wins the race - as Wogan might fart out of his mouth...
a "wet race" is quite hard to define, how long prior to therace was it raining? what is the standing water/drainage at the circuit like? does it vary betweeen cicruits? is there also oil on the track? have there been any support races prior to the GP? at what stage of the season is this wet race and will that affect the drivers desire to score points? what traction control systems were in place on the cars/races in question? does it vary?
learn about interbal and external validity, then come back with a more reasonable hypothesis. your bias towards proving senna was the best is farcical. it makes everything you write somewhat tainted as we all know what the conclusion will be...
mattikake said:
Compared to the rest this was a just few moments of luck away from being probably THE most outstanding proof of talent in F1... maybe even sport in it's entirety.
[Richard Burton] "I think I might have you committed." [/Richard Burton]You are obviously forgetting Clark.
A350, Yes I agreeYou can't discount Hill because he only won 4 races! If he'd only raced 4 races then it wouldn't be statistically significant, but I'm pretty sure he raced a few more than that?
So is someone going to do the stats properly and include the statistical significance to go with the numbers or is this thread just wasting everyone's time?
So is someone going to do the stats properly and include the statistical significance to go with the numbers or is this thread just wasting everyone's time?
mattikake said:
Schumacher made 9 unforced errors... Currently these stats count running to the back of Coulthard as his own fault, because we all know it was his fault, not Coulthard's (Coulthard stayed on the racing line, 100% the correct thing to do in heavy spray. Schumacher is an obvious 
for not admitting this ).
Interestingly, Coulthard now says that coming off the throttle on the racing line in heavy spray was entirely the wrong thing to do. He attributes it to youthful ignorance. for not admitting this ).Coulthard said:
The reality is, I lifted to let him past me but I did it in heavy spray on the racing line. You should never do that. I would never do that now. In 1998 I didn't have the experience and knowledge.
Still, that Schumacher, eh? What a rotter. Grrr.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff