Interesting F1 "Rain Master" stats

[mattikake]

Annoyed at yet another Schumi fanboy claiming he is the undisputed F1 rain master of all time, I did a little stat calculation tonight...

Some very interesting wet race stats (also for a pro-Senna vid explaining who F1's only rainmaster is), and on comparing a few drivers, I got some interesting results...

Basically I've been through every F1 wet race since 1981 and compared the form of Senna, Schumacher, Hamilton, Vettel, Mansell and Keke Rosberg (Rosberg subject to my sketchy knowledge of 1979 wet races) so far - all drivers known to be to be exceptional in the wet.

These stats are a win ratio and the number of points they would've scored on a 10-8-6 scoring system to make it all equal.

As this is to gauge wet race ability/talent/form I exclude races where the driver had a mechanical failure beyond their control, did not start or were disqualified/black flagged, but include races where they crashed by themselves with unforced (ran-out-of-talent) errors.

Senna wins 70.6% of wet races started, scoring an average of 6.5 points per race.
Schumacher wins 42.9%, average 6 points per race.
Hamilton wins 40%, average 5.1 points per race.
Rosberg wins 33%, average 5 points per race.
Vettel wins 25%, average 4.2 points per race.
Mansell wins 21.4%, average 4.4 points per race.

Points to note:
No surprise Senna is ontop. But he is ontop by miles with only 1 bad race of 20 - in Spain '92. And if he had been able to see Brundle's Brabham in Oz '89 in the spray instead of running into the back of him as Brundle pulled off-line to be lapped, instead of stay on it, that was a certain win. Also worth noting that Senna retired with mechanical failure with about 3 laps to go in Canada '89...

Schumacher made 9 unforced errors, putting himself out of the race and on one occasion Senna (which I didn't count toward Senna's unforced crash count as he was a totally innocent victim in France '92). Schumacher also scores a lot of points due to the massive number of wet races he started in and superb car reliability. 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 ).

Mansell's record would've been massively better if it were not for Senna! (42.9% win ratio and average of 5 points per race. Yes, without Senna would've been equal with Schumacher). Nige also had a tonne of mechanical failures and actually would've/could've had a much better win and points score ratio anyway.

Hamilton's stats for talent purposes, include Belgium '08 as a win, simply because we all know it was and includes the likes of Nurburgring '07 where he aquaplaned off with about 5 others, but got going a lap down and finished 9th. Had he retired his stats would be better. His stats also include China '07 as his fault, not the teams'. Still, if he wins his next wet race, which is a distinct possibility, he will surpass Schumacher.

Vettel's record suffers somewhat due to 3 unforced errors spread from '07 - '09. More starts to wins will cure that, but like Mansell-Senna, he has Hamilton to deal with...

But like all stats, they could mean anything.


btw, wet race's were sourced from www.cliptheapex.com

btw 2, I make no apology for an error or two. It was really for my own info to prove to myself just how much better Senna was than Schumacher.

...Now, back to making my Senna Rain Master video with peace of mind that I was right in the first place!

Edited by mattikake on Wednesday 9th December 02:02

[mattikake]

CampDavid said:

mattikake said:

Hamilton's stats for talent purposes, include Belgium '08 as a win, simply because we all know it was and includes the likes of Nurburgring '07 where he aquaplaned off with about 5 others, but got going a lap down and finished 9th. Had he retired his stats would be better. His stats also include China '07 as his fault, not the teams'. Still, if he wins his next wet race, which is a distinct possibility, he will surpass Schumacher.

Modifying the stats totally loses the credibility, especially as you still haven't grasped the obvious reason for the Belgium DQ, or the fact that as a driver he's responsible for monitoring his tyres.

I have *included* the 'spin' in China as Hamilton's fault, but pointed out you could argue it wasn't as the team ordered him to stay out, despite LH radioing in saying the tyres were shot and the car is undriveable.

Hamilton crossed the line first in Belgium. These stats are about who was the best in the rain, not who racked up the most points in the rain. A world of difference.

Anyway, the reason for Belgium DSQ was obvious - the Stewards are idiots!

[mattikake]

DJC said:

Rainmeisters?

JYS. Spa.

End of.

The original Riegenmeister!

[mattikake]

Evangelion said:

Shame you missed out Damon Hill, I seem to remember him being quite good in the wet.

I didn't but I can easily work that one out.

Evangelion said:

And what about Ascari, Fangio, Moss, Clark, Stewart and Lauda?

Yes I know, but the wet race info actually only goes back to 1983 (and to 1979 by my own personal knowledge). If you can find out what races were wet and the reason behind crashes in these (not that it just says "spin" or "collision" on the official stats) from 1950 onwards, then I would love to do it for my own knowledge.

My bet is Clark and JYS are close behind Senna.

[mattikake]

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...

[mattikake]

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!

Edited by mattikake on Thursday 10th December 01:42

[mattikake]

jamieboy said:

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.

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.

Pah. Usually the accepted technique for F1 drivers in wet weather driving is to listen to the engine of the guy infrton to know when to brake. Maybe Schumi just forgot how to do this at that moment?

In an interview at one of the GP's this season (can remember which) the BBC crew were joined by Schumi and this inevitably came up again. It was clear that neither still wants to admit it was their fault, but it was also clear DC was now working as a pundit and also knows he can't have any such arguments and backed down quickly with agreeing to disagree. Quite funny to see if Schumi would realise his error, both in that and in his over-reaction afterwards (also usually a clue as to knowing it was his fault).

[mattikake]

CampDavid said:

mattikake said:

CampDavid said:

mattikake said:

Hamilton's stats for talent purposes, include Belgium '08 as a win, simply because we all know it was and includes the likes of Nurburgring '07 where he aquaplaned off with about 5 others, but got going a lap down and finished 9th. Had he retired his stats would be better. His stats also include China '07 as his fault, not the teams'. Still, if he wins his next wet race, which is a distinct possibility, he will surpass Schumacher.

Modifying the stats totally loses the credibility, especially as you still haven't grasped the obvious reason for the Belgium DQ, or the fact that as a driver he's responsible for monitoring his tyres.

I have *included* the 'spin' in China as Hamilton's fault, but pointed out you could argue it wasn't as the team ordered him to stay out, despite LH radioing in saying the tyres were shot and the car is undriveable.

Hamilton crossed the line first in Belgium. These stats are about who was the best in the rain, not who racked up the most points in the rain. A world of difference.

Anyway, the reason for Belgium DSQ was obvious - the Stewards are idiots!

He crossed the line first as the penelty was applied after the race. To be fair you should go back and take 25 seconds off for Schumacher and maybe include Belgium 1994? I believe that was wet at MS got punished for having a plank that was too thin (caused by a spin at Blanchemon and totally unjust!)

The Cliptheapex wet race stats don't have this as a wet race... As such win or DSQ (for or against), it's not included in these stats. Was it a wet race, I can't remember that one of the top of my head?

I noticed they also didn't have Hungary 2006 as a wet race either! But I had to include that when doing JB's stats. (Too miserable to publish seeing as he spent at least 2 seasons coming last in a crap car regardless of the conditions.)

Benetton did a lot of cheating that season. Maybe the stewards thought more of it than a spin? I do remember the penalty and thinking it was unjust too, but being a patriotic supporter of Hill at the time, this didn't bother me!