the best ever F1 driver?
Discussion
well here for a change is a serious scientific analysis https://www.unifr.ch/makro/assets/files/p_stadelma...
the answer, insofar as I can understand the stats, is Fangio.
the answer, insofar as I can understand the stats, is Fangio.
BMCG said:
and why would a decade invalidate the thesis?
Because there are another ten years of drivers not included, I suppose.If you really want to talk statistics then it's almost certain the best F1 driver has never driven an F1 car.
There are only ever a handful of seats available and very few drivers - if any - get to F1 on pure talent, so it's almost certain that the most naturally gifted F1 driver has never sat in an F1 car.
Facetiousness aside; it's an interesting study and they do seem to have included the main complex factors you would have to consider. It'd be interesting to run it again and include Hamilton and Vettel in particular.
Ultimately, no matter how sophisticated your thesis, you can't possibly prove something or someone is best. There are just too many variables.
the bit that interests me and which caused me to look for data in the first place is the split between car and driver. In a winning combination, how much is down to the car and how much to the driver. Was Schumacher that good or was it just that Ferrai made by far the best car and Schumacher was a bit better than his team mate?
I washoping that a statistical analysis looking at how often the two cars in a team finished close together would show that. At the moment, for example, Mercedes finish first and second every race they finish which shows that they are dominant but doesnt show that Hamilton is better than Vettel.
I washoping that a statistical analysis looking at how often the two cars in a team finished close together would show that. At the moment, for example, Mercedes finish first and second every race they finish which shows that they are dominant but doesnt show that Hamilton is better than Vettel.
bordseye said:
the bit that interests me and which caused me to look for data in the first place is the split between car and driver. In a winning combination, how much is down to the car and how much to the driver. Was Schumacher that good or was it just that Ferrai made by far the best car and Schumacher was a bit better than his team mate?
I washoping that a statistical analysis looking at how often the two cars in a team finished close together would show that. At the moment, for example, Mercedes finish first and second every race they finish which shows that they are dominant but doesnt show that Hamilton is better than Vettel.
Schumacher had a team mate that was very clearly number 2 so that wasn't an issue like Hamilton and Rosberg. I washoping that a statistical analysis looking at how often the two cars in a team finished close together would show that. At the moment, for example, Mercedes finish first and second every race they finish which shows that they are dominant but doesnt show that Hamilton is better than Vettel.
I would agree with Fangio or someone else from that era F1 was a very different sport back then you were either very lucky or very talented to last anytime at all without crashing and not living to tell the tale. Also an era where you didn't need the best car to win a race unlike the last decade.
BoRED S2upid said:
Schumacher had a team mate that was very clearly number 2 so that wasn't an issue like Hamilton and Rosberg.
I would agree with Fangio or someone else from that era F1 was a very different sport back then you were either very lucky or very talented to last anytime at all without crashing and not living to tell the tale. Also an era where you didn't need the best car to win a race unlike the last decade.
Schumacher did pretty well at Benetton if I remember rightly 2x championship. I would agree with Fangio or someone else from that era F1 was a very different sport back then you were either very lucky or very talented to last anytime at all without crashing and not living to tell the tale. Also an era where you didn't need the best car to win a race unlike the last decade.
He moved from a team with a great car and he'd have won more championships to Ferrari who were rubbish and had been for a long time. It took 5 years for him to develop the car to a winning formula.
You have to think had he stayed or moved to another top team not Ferrari would he have won >10. He was that good he brought the clinical and utter professionalism into the sport ie fitness and moved away from the Hunt style driver off track partying.
Ruthless yep so was Senna and Prost plus others
Hard to say I've era is better than another but he will rightly be remembered forever as one of the all time best - it's a travesty about his skiing injury.
Eric Mc said:
I really hate these surveys that leave out the generations of Grand Prix drivers who raced before 19520. The best driver of them all is probably Tazio Nuvolari - who's career predated F1 and the World Driver's Championship.
Why was he the best? Was it inferior competition superior vehicle more funds to get said training I'd probably say he best driver of all time probably hasn't ever touched an F1 car.
What about those who died and could have achieved more? Ascari no doubt would have done so much more.
Eric Mc said:
I really hate these surveys that leave out the generations of Grand Prix drivers who raced before 19520. The best driver of them all is probably Tazio Nuvolari - who's career predated F1 and the World Driver's Championship.
To be fair Eric, it's title is 'Best ever F1 driver', not best ever Grand Prix or best ever racing driver.I have far more respect for racing drivers up until the early 70's, unlike todays pampered pooches, they often drove saloon cars, different formulas (formulae?), had a go at rallying and hill climbing. Many times they would drive several races in a meeting, and generally they were far more sporting.
eccles said:
To be fair Eric, it's title is 'Best ever F1 driver', not best ever Grand Prix or best ever racing driver.
Unfortunately, the vast bulk of such surveys are labelled thus. I have very rarely seen a survey that even acknowledges that Grand Prix racing existed before 1950.Nuvolari's reputation came from his ability to get the most out of inferior and outclassed machinery - particularly the period when he was driving for Alfa Romeo against the might of Mercedes and Auto Union. Like most racing drivers until the 1980s. he also drove in multiple classes of racing as well as hill climbing, road races etc. He had also been a very good motor cycle racer before he moved to cars.
Lies, damned lies and statistics..
Vittorio Brambilla won a Grand Prix, Tom Pryce and Chris Amon didn't - so he's the better driver.
Alan Jones won a WDC, Stirling Moss didn't - same conclusion.
Let's keep it simple rather than a long and questionable scientific analysis - we can all have our own "best ever" F1 driver based on our own perspective, experiences and emotions - and that's how it should be. I'll go for Jimmy Clark - if yours is Pastor Maldonado that's fine by me...
Vittorio Brambilla won a Grand Prix, Tom Pryce and Chris Amon didn't - so he's the better driver.
Alan Jones won a WDC, Stirling Moss didn't - same conclusion.
Let's keep it simple rather than a long and questionable scientific analysis - we can all have our own "best ever" F1 driver based on our own perspective, experiences and emotions - and that's how it should be. I'll go for Jimmy Clark - if yours is Pastor Maldonado that's fine by me...
Eric Mc said:
eccles said:
To be fair Eric, it's title is 'Best ever F1 driver', not best ever Grand Prix or best ever racing driver.
Unfortunately, the vast bulk of such surveys are labelled thus. I have very rarely seen a survey that even acknowledges that Grand Prix racing existed before 1950.durbster said:
If you really want to talk statistics then it's almost certain the best F1 driver has never driven an F1 car.
There are only ever a handful of seats available and very few drivers - if any - get to F1 on pure talent, so it's almost certain that the most naturally gifted F1 driver has never sat in an F1 car.
.
But that only is true if you assume best = most naturally talented. There are only ever a handful of seats available and very few drivers - if any - get to F1 on pure talent, so it's almost certain that the most naturally gifted F1 driver has never sat in an F1 car.
.
Graham Hill wasn't a talent, but a great driver. I would say if you popped someone with arguably more natural talent in a car first off - he wouldn't have been close to Graham Hill until he'd at least gotten used to it all.
So the best F1 driver must have driven a Formula One car - by definition - in my opinion. If they haven't they aren't the best - at least not yet. Its just potential.
BoRED S2upid said:
Schumacher had a team mate that was very clearly number 2 so that wasn't an issue like Hamilton and Rosberg.
That simply isn't true. Yeah, Barrichello was ordered out of the way in Austria two years in a row, but Schumacher didn't have a team mat that was "very clearly number 2".http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x179a4b_f1-legend...
Skip to 22:08 for the truth.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff