Another Best F1 Driver analysis

[Monolakes]

Those stats boffins at FiveThirtyEight have had a go at F1

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/formula-one-r...

David Coulthard will be pleased, he squeaks into the top ten!

[rdjohn]

DC at 10th may we’ll be an indicator of flawed analysis. He is the first non WDC winner in the list.

ALO at 22 is perhaps even more telling. Some method of identifying the added value that a driver brings to a chassis is what is really needed. IMHO.

[SlipStream77]

rdjohn said:

DC at 10th may we’ll be an indicator of flawed analysis. He is the first non WDC winner in the list.

ALO at 22 is perhaps even more telling. Some method of identifying the added value that a driver brings to a chassis is what is really needed. IMHO.

Agreed. A seriously flawed analysis. Coulthard above Clark for example?!

[thegreenhell]

Junk. That ranking system was first developed for chess and makes no allowance for the team and car influence on a driver's performance. You might as well have a phone vote for all its worth.

[Vaud]

Double junk.

Alonso below Barrichello and Patrese?

[coppice]

Tragic . Risible . So... .. David Coulthard ( a good , but not outstanding Grand Prix driver ) is better than Jim Clark, Stirling Moss and Jackie Stewart ? Oh my aching sides ...

[Jasandjules]

Um. No. That "Analysis" is flawed. Massively.

[Eric Mc]

These "lists" are always pretty silly and always rather pointless.

[Graveworm]

thegreenhell said:

Junk. That ranking system was first developed for chess and makes no allowance for the team and car influence on a driver's performance. You might as well have a phone vote for all its worth.

Of course I understand that the results come from a combination of car performance and the ability of the driver to extract the maximum from it. However, like a lot of professions, it's also about the driver making the right career choices and getting themselves into the best car. If that is the case then a rating system like this has some merit.

[coppice]

But the logic is flawed on so many levels - there were fewer GPs in Clark et al's day , cars broke more often and drivers died . Frequently . Few were smarter , nor more commercially adept than Stewart , who was also one of the best drivers I have ever seen in F1 . He raced in F1 for nine years from memory but only completed 99 . Nowadays that'd be 180 races (He would have done 100 had his team mate Cevert not been killed in practice) . Coulthard better - come on ....

[Car-Matt]

Coulthard above Jim Clark

Clearly utter nonsense, credibility of this is zero

[thegreenhell]

Graveworm said:

Of course I understand that the results come from a combination of car performance and the ability of the driver to extract the maximum from it. However, like a lot of professions, it's also about the driver making the right career choices and getting themselves into the best car. If that is the case then a rating system like this has some merit.

The drivers don't have a free choice of which car to drive, and more often than not there's only one dominant car on the grid. If you're not in that one car then your results will suffer, and there's nothing the driver can do about it. until contract renewal time, which could be two or three years down the line.

For example, the last four years of Mercedes dominance, and four years of Red Bull before that, or the Schumacher/Ferrari years. Was it the other drivers' fault that they weren't all driving those cars? Vettel was the up and coming Red Bull junior driver at the time, just as the car came good. No other driver had an opportunity to be hired to drive for the team because they only promote from within. Those teams were happy with their lead drivers and would not have hired anyone else, no matter what. That doesn't make the other drivers any less good by any measure - they just had no opportunity to use the best equipment.

It's not like a tennis player who can decide to use a different coach or brand of tennis racquet if they aren't performing as they'd like.

[Halmyre]

coppice said:

But the logic is flawed on so many levels - there were fewer GPs in Clark et al's day , cars broke more often and drivers died . Frequently . Few were smarter , nor more commercially adept than Stewart , who was also one of the best drivers I have ever seen in F1 . He raced in F1 for nine years from memory but only completed 99 . Nowadays that'd be 180 races (He would have done 100 had his team mate Cevert not been killed in practice) . Coulthard better - come on ....

And after an impressive first year, Stewart spent two years in the wilderness with the recalcitrant BRM H16. So in the following six years he was three times world champion; twice starting from scratch with a new car (Matra and Tyrrell) and including a year with the ultimately uncompetitive March 701.

[Andy S15]

There many more facets of a drivers skill than just their headline results.

Would you expect the 10th best driver to crash into his team mate or crash on pit entry for example?
Would you expect the 4th best driver to spectacularly take out his team mate or intentionally barge into someone under SC?

These are all things that must be considered when talking about the best of the best.

[whatxd]

Andy S15 said:

Would you expect the 10th best driver to crash into his team mate or crash on pit entry for example?

No harm in everyone seeing this classic again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jr1DXYKX8ZU