Who would have the most wins and the most poles if ..
Discussion
If we applied an equivalence factor to take into account the number of Grands Prix per year who would have the most wins and poles.
Say Hill had 20 wins out of 30 grands prix we'd give him 6.66 ( 20 wins x 10 points per win / 30 races)
and Hamilton had 50 wins over his career from 100 grands prix we'd give him 5 ( 50 X 10 /100 )
My formula and maths might not be correct but I hope you get my drift.
Who statisticaly is/was the best driver in terms of wins and poles.
Say Hill had 20 wins out of 30 grands prix we'd give him 6.66 ( 20 wins x 10 points per win / 30 races)
and Hamilton had 50 wins over his career from 100 grands prix we'd give him 5 ( 50 X 10 /100 )
My formula and maths might not be correct but I hope you get my drift.
Who statisticaly is/was the best driver in terms of wins and poles.
Flooble said:
That is very interesting. I though Schumacher's all time win record was untouchable. But, according to that Hamilton is on a slightly higher percentage of wins at 29.90% vs 29.55% and 104 races behind Schumacher.If Hamilton races for another ~6 years he might get a lot closer to Schumacher's record than I thought.
Flooble said:
Interesting reading. Would be nice to see some points-adjusted tables too, although reading that page only serves to underline you can only really compare drivers to their peers.
It is interesting, but there are a lot of variables to truly equalise. Vettel benefited from a dominant car , as does Hamilton. Shumi's dominance is arguably more impressive because of the timeframe - there were fewer races in the early part of the Century, so it took longer to accrue your wins, ergo other variables could move further, regs, other team's competitiveness, driver skill, for example.
Of the wiki list, I think Jim Clark is probably the stand-out to me.
Of the wiki list, I think Jim Clark is probably the stand-out to me.
majordad said:
If we applied an equivalence factor to take into account the number of Grands Prix per year who would have the most wins and poles.
Say Hill had 20 wins out of 30 grands prix we'd give him 6.66 ( 20 wins x 10 points per win / 30 races)
and Hamilton had 50 wins over his career from 100 grands prix we'd give him 5 ( 50 X 10 /100 )
My formula and maths might not be correct but I hope you get my drift.
Who statisticaly is/was the best driver in terms of wins and poles.
Poles as a percentage: (from http://www.statsf1.com/en/statistiques/pilote/pole...Say Hill had 20 wins out of 30 grands prix we'd give him 6.66 ( 20 wins x 10 points per win / 30 races)
and Hamilton had 50 wins over his career from 100 grands prix we'd give him 5 ( 50 X 10 /100 )
My formula and maths might not be correct but I hope you get my drift.
Who statisticaly is/was the best driver in terms of wins and poles.
FANGIO 29 56.86
CLARK 33 45.83
ASCARI 14 43.75
SENNA 65 40.37
HAMILTON 72 35.12
VETTEL 49 25.13
MOSS 16 24.24
SCHUMACHER 68 22.15
D. HILL 20 17.39
STEWART 17 17.17
Wins as a percentage
FANGIO 24 47.06
ASCARI 13 40.63
CLARK 25 34.72
HAMILTON 62 30.24
SCHUMACHER 91 29.64
STEWART 27 27.27
PROST 51 25.63
SENNA 41 25.47
MOSS 16 24.24
VETTEL 46 23.59
Fastest laps as a percentage:
FANGIO 23 45.10
CLARK 28 38.89
ASCARI 12 37.50
MOSS 19 28.79
SCHUMACHER 77 25.08
GONZALEZ 6 23.08
PROST 41 20.60
HAMILTON 38 18.54
RAIKKONEN 45 16.79
D. HILL 19 16.52
Eric Mc said:
Does that include non championship F1 races (or other types of races such as sports or saloon cars)?
Just World Champion F1 races. Looking at Clark, Moss and Stewart's non-championship F1 results, the percentages for wins are very roughly the same for Clark and Moss, and Stewart's a bit lower, but by the time he came to prominence, non-championship races were less common.Mr. White said:
I'm by no means a Schumacher fan, but I'm interested to know what his stats would be discounting his Mercedes spell.
I'm quite surprised how far up Hamilton is.
Schumacher's percentage then goes up to 36%. But then you'd have to ignore Stewart's two years in the wilderness with the BRM H16 or the year with the March 701.I'm quite surprised how far up Hamilton is.
Hamilton has had 11 years in mainly top-flight teams to build up his results, compared with Stewart (9 years) and Clark or Fangio (8 years).
KevinCamaroSS said:
The other thing that will affect it is how many drivers are competing for the pole or win. Where there are only 10 drivers on the grid you have much more chance of getting pole or the win than if there are 20.
Competing, and competing for the pole/win are two very different things! Another aspect to consider.Slight off-topic diversion, but I'd love to see some of the modern drivers like Hamilton, Alonso and Vettel drive Fangio's 250F and Clark's Lotus 49. Most of them would be too scared to push hard, even on today's safe circuits, let alone on the sort of tracks they used to race on. One of the things that endeared Alonso to many people was when he drove an early 50s Ferrari 375 GP at Silverstone a few years ago. By his second lap he was giving it full beans, drifting every corner.
First of all, I'm always quite proud of Hamilton when I see how far up he is in these lists. It's impossible to actually compare them as the times are/were so completely different but I think it's safe to say Hamilton is up there with the greats.
But as you mention him, Alonso...
I heard it from someone involved that when he first joined Renault he was asked to give a demonstration run in an original Renault 5 Turbo-the mid engined one. He drove it completely without mercy and inflicted quite a lot of damage (it may have blown up, caught fire-I can't quite remember now). Regardless, the insinuation was that as he didn't want to be there nor be driving the old 5, he made sure it would be a relatively short demonstration.
thegreenhell said:
Slight off-topic diversion, but I'd love to see some of the modern drivers like Hamilton, Alonso and Vettel drive Fangio's 250F and Clark's Lotus 49. Most of them would be too scared to push hard, even on today's safe circuits, let alone on the sort of tracks they used to race on. One of the things that endeared Alonso to many people was when he drove an early 50s Ferrari 375 GP at Silverstone a few years ago. By his second lap he was giving it full beans, drifting every corner.
Most of the car's owners would be too scared to let them push their multi million dollar examples, that's before you get to the thorny subject of insurance (remember a certain M.Hales?).But as you mention him, Alonso...
I heard it from someone involved that when he first joined Renault he was asked to give a demonstration run in an original Renault 5 Turbo-the mid engined one. He drove it completely without mercy and inflicted quite a lot of damage (it may have blown up, caught fire-I can't quite remember now). Regardless, the insinuation was that as he didn't want to be there nor be driving the old 5, he made sure it would be a relatively short demonstration.
Smitters said:
It is interesting, but there are a lot of variables to truly equalise. Vettel benefited from a dominant car , as does Hamilton. Shumi's dominance is arguably more impressive because of the timeframe - there were fewer races in the early part of the Century, so it took longer to accrue your wins, ergo other variables could move further, regs, other team's competitiveness, driver skill, for example.
Of the wiki list, I think Jim Clark is probably the stand-out to me.
For just a bit of fun, I broke down the no. of wins per year for the top 5 in the all time win list:Of the wiki list, I think Jim Clark is probably the stand-out to me.
| Schumacher | Wins | Total | Percentage |
| 1992 | 1 | 16 | 6% |
| 1993 | 1 | 16 | 6% |
| 1994 | 8 | 14 | 57% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1995 | 9 | 17 | 53% |
| 1996 | 3 | 16 | 19% |
| 1997 | 5 | 17 | 29% |
| 1998 | 6 | 16 | 38% |
| 1999 | 2 | 10 | 20% |
| 2000 | 9 | 17 | 53% |
| 2001 | 9 | 17 | 53% |
| 2002 | 11 | 17 | 65% |
| 2003 | 6 | 16 | 38% |
| 2004 | 13 | 18 | 72% |
| 2005 | 1 | 19 | 5% |
| 2006 | 7 | 18 | 39% |
| 2010 | 0 | 19 | 0% |
| 2011 | 0 | 19 | 0% |
| 2012 | 0 | 20 | 0% |
| Hamilton | Wins | Total | Percentage |
| 2007 | 4 | 17 | 24% |
| 2008 | 5 | 18 | 28% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 2 | 17 | 12% |
| 2010 | 3 | 19 | 16% |
| 2011 | 3 | 19 | 16% |
| 2012 | 4 | 20 | 20% |
| 2013 | 1 | 19 | 5% |
| 2014 | 11 | 19 | 58% |
| 2015 | 10 | 19 | 53% |
| 2016 | 10 | 21 | 47% |
| 2017 | 9 | 17 | 53% |
| Prost | Wins | Total | Percentage |
| 1980 | 0 | 14 | 0% |
| 1981 | 3 | 15 | 20% |
| 1982 | 2 | 16 | 13% |
| 1983 | 4 | 15 | 27% |
| 1984 | 7 | 16 | 44% |
| 1985 | 5 | 16 | 31% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1986 | 4 | 16 | 25% |
| 1987 | 3 | 16 | 19% |
| 1988 | 7 | 16 | 44% |
| 1989 | 4 | 16 | 25% |
| 1990 | 5 | 16 | 31% |
| 1991 | 0 | 15 | 0% |
| 1993 | 7 | 16 | 44% |
| Vettel | Wins | Total | Percentage |
| 2007 | 0 | 8 | 0% |
| 2008 | 1 | 18 | 6% |
| 2009 | 4 | 17 | 24% |
| 2010 | 5 | 19 | 26% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 11 | 19 | 58% |
| 2012 | 5 | 20 | 25% |
| 2013 | 13 | 19 | 68% |
| 2014 | 0 | 19 | 0% |
| 2015 | 3 | 19 | 16% |
| 2016 | 0 | 21 | 0% |
| 2017 | 4 | 17 | 24% |
| Senna | Wins | Total | Percentage |
| 1984 | 0 | 16 | 0% |
| 1985 | 2 | 16 | 13% |
| 1986 | 2 | 16 | 13% |
| 1987 | 2 | 16 | 13% |
| 1988 | 8 | 16 | 50% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1989 | 6 | 16 | 38% |
| 1990 | 6 | 16 | 38% |
| 1991 | 7 | 16 | 44% |
| 1992 | 3 | 16 | 19% |
| 1993 | 5 | 16 | 31% |
| 1994 | 0 | 3 | 0% |
Assuming these drivers never sat in the outright quickest cars for any of the years they'd raced, how many wins will they have?
In the so-called dominant years (in the tables above), quick driver in the quickest car of the field in a two driver team, wins around half the available races. No s
t sherlock.It gets interesting when this pattern doesn't happen or when someone isn't Champion even after winning close to 50% of the races. Prost (1984, 1988). Also interesting to note, Vettel only won a quarter of the available races in 2010 and 2012, equivalent to a 'two-car' Championship fight, yet the car was considered 'dominant'. With the same logic, the McLaren of 2007 & 2008 should also be dominant, when they were two-car Championships.
Regarding Schumacher, his average win percentage till 1999 is around 30% (20% excluding 1994 & 1995), and from 2000-2004 it's 56%. How much of Schumacher's wins have been inflated by, sitting in that dominant Ferrari & perhaps, the Benetton? (I include the later Mercedes years in the calculation)
About half of his wins (46). Hamilton?
Bit less than half (27), if this year is considered a 'dominant' Championship...it looks that way on pure numbers. Assuming 20 race Championships, Hamilton needs to race 4-5 more years to reach Schumacher's 'alternate' win tally. The graph above quite nicely shows a more stark trend of the effect of a dominant car on his career stats.
Prost? Filtering out '84, '88, '89 & '93.
He'd still have 38 wins. Amazing for the era he raced in. Incidentally, the win percent of Prost and Schumacher is the same in 'non-dominant' cars.
Vettel will have 28 wins filtering out '11 & '13.
And finally, Senna will have 26 wins, if you filter out '88-'91.
The flip side of all this is that, would these drivers have raced for as long as they did, if at some point they hadn't got the title, and therefore attract the interest of top teams? Unlikely.
thegreenhell said:
Slight off-topic diversion, but I'd love to see some of the modern drivers like Hamilton, Alonso and Vettel drive Fangio's 250F and Clark's Lotus 49. Most of them would be too scared to push hard, even on today's safe circuits, let alone on the sort of tracks they used to race on. One of the things that endeared Alonso to many people was when he drove an early 50s Ferrari 375 GP at Silverstone a few years ago. By his second lap he was giving it full beans, drifting every corner.
You should see Hulk drifting the Merc W25 like a pro...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSrgK4ktxmk
in the wet! And spinning.
Edited by Dr Z on Tuesday 24th October 16:13
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff