Scientists work out the best F1 driver of all time and the winner is...

[Moneyseeker]

Fangio....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ed-winner.html

Dr Andrew Bell, of the University of Sheffield's Methods Institute, believes Fangio is the sport's most accomplished competitor, based on pure talent rather than the technology of the car.

This has been a long time debate on and off across the forums!

[chillibowl]

certainly more fodder for the debate!

although i have not seen much more than clips/highlights of Fangio im ok with seeing him at the top...far too many fans, journalists, writers etc with first hand knowledge would agree with that so im not really in any position to disagree.

but Schumi so far down that list doesnt work for me. of course having the right car helps but from the description of their analysis it doesnt sound like they are taking into account a drivers ability to lead and push the development of their own car.

so Schumi, for example, who by most accounts played a large role in the development of his cars is losing places because he had a top car without any credit being given to how much of that car advantage was down to his efforts and skills as a driver.

i would think a similar case could be made for a few others on that list as well.

[Richard C]

Well it has been decided. So moderators, please lock this (and any future) threads on this topic as any further discussion is clearly superfluous!



Seriously, I am a bit of a data nerd and do a bit of statistical analysis. I found what I think is the source paper and quickly scanned through it. While it uses statistical analysis for parts of it, frankly it is just another persons made up ranking system. Given there is no subjective way to measure the accuracy of the model, is it really any different than "expert subjective opinion"? Probably not. It is interesting, but I don't think it should be trusted anymore than anything else.

A few items of note... The author uses the points system from 1991-2002 to "weight" finishing positions. I have no opinion one way or another regarding that point system and how it impacted the championship during those years, but it is an "arbitrary" weighting with no basis being used to explain why it is used to weight in the model other than it was used in F1 at one point in time. Also... other attempts at this have focused on productive or "peak" years for drivers. This model does not do that. It covers an entire career. So for example if you stay in the car beyond your expiration date, your ranking WILL suffer. That can be a valid way of doing it, but not one that I would choose. I haven't read every detail of the paper, but in general, I wouldn't put much stock into any of the "surprising" conclusions.

Here is what I found if anyone is curious...

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ance_1950-2014

Richard

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

but Schumi so far down that list doesnt work for me. of course having the right car helps but from the description of their analysis it doesnt sound like they are taking into account a drivers ability to lead and push the development of their own car.

so Schumi, for example, who by most accounts played a large role in the development of his cars is losing places because he had a top car without any credit being given to how much of that car advantage was down to his efforts and skills as a driver.

What must be taken into consideration with Schumacher is the support he had to take him to his achievements. Without doubt, during his years, he was probably the most single minded amongst his peers and he spent countless hours with his engineers and other members of his teams whilst other drivers had long gone from the circuits, and yes, he helped with the development of his cars. However, in particular during his years at Ferrari, he had a dream team around him, with Rory Byrne and Ross Brawn providing him with superlative cars even if some of the parts weren't quite in line with the regulations.

In comparison, Fangio's prowess alone pushed him to the fore, and his achievements came from his efforts alone. I think that I am also right in saying that his winning ratio to starts is about the best of any driver in any era; no doubt somebody will quickly enlighten me if I am wrong.

[chillibowl]

i feel like you are looking for more of a debate today then i am prepared to offer Mike

actually not much to even argue about here. the part of my post that you didnt quote states that i agree with Fangio being at the top of the list...which means, like you, i rank him ahead of Schumi.

the only point i was making is that i think Schumi should be higher up then the 9th place they have given him.

to be honest though, any list that ranks Alonso over Schumi by 6 spots isnt really worth the time to discuss imo.

[Richard C]

Shame on me, but I actually am pretty ignorant to some of Fangio's history. But what I "think" I know is tales of heroic drives. Comeback from laps down type of thing. What hurts those (particularly in modern times) is the compression of the field due to overall improvement in the quality of the field (I know that ebbs and flows), But my point is that when spanning eras, it can be harder (but not impossible) to quantify those scenarios. Nobody "today" is going to come back from a lap down and pass the entire field to win short of acts of God type of disasters happening to many cars.

For example as I mentioned the author tried to use an older points system to weight finishing places. That point system is the models way of assigning "value" to the results. An alternate method could be to factor in positioned gained, or "heroic drive scenarios". Surely Senna going faster and faster lap after lap at Monaco during qualifying, or Schumacher running most of a race stuck in 5th gear and finishing 2nd should count for something. Another issue is that its hard to perform heroic drives when in first place. I think the days of being in first and driving 10/10ths and continuing to lap chunks of the field is long gone. Why risk the position? My point is that if you are both an exceptional driver, but also in an exceptional car... can you really showcase your skills? You may just (mostly) cruise around in 1st place and maintain a decent gap to 2nd and enjoy the win! So I think those who have been very successful (i.e. Schumacher and maybe... bite my tongue... Hamilton) may have a hard time being able to prove the ultimate level of their skill if you only look at a wide number of races in which they start and finish in 1st most of the time.

Richard

[Nikki Katz]

The top 10 isn't so controversial really, but things get really messy shortly afterwards. 12th Christian Fittipaldi?!? 19th Louis Rosier? I even had to wiki who he was!

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Nikki Katz

The top 10 isn't so controversial really, but things get really messy shortly afterwards. 12th Christian Fittipaldi?!? 19th Louis Rosier? I even had to wiki who he was!

The guy who created this model listed the basic approach but didn't provide source code for repeatability. If he did, (or if someone wanted to replicate his work), you could probably dig into why it ranked them so highly. Then the question would be... Did they somehow rise up due to problem with the model or is the high ranking real?

Richard

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by Nikki Katz

The top 10 isn't so controversial really, but things get really messy shortly afterwards. 12th Christian Fittipaldi?!? 19th Louis Rosier? I even had to wiki who he was!

You can be forgiven not knowing about Rosier, as it'll only be old people like Bob (Bauble) and I who will remember. He was a good, maybe even heroic, driver, but certainly well out of place that high up.

It's another case of statistics can be made to prove anything ...... and nothing. Marc Surer at 23?!! And any list that has Moss as low as 35 ceases to have any value to me. He will be always be in my F1 top ten, and although this is a separate discussion for me he is still the greatest all round driver ever, followed by Mario Andretti, a man who doesn't appear in this list at all!

[steve_r]

Fittipaldi better than Schumacher?
I think there is a fundamental problem with the bullshitometer that he used to come up with this ranking.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by steve_r

Fittipaldi better than Schumacher?
I think there is a fundamental problem with the bullshitometer that he used to come up with this ranking.

Spot on!

... and Lauda - not in the top 50!

M. Andretti - not in top 50

Brabham at 40!

Mansell not in top 50!

" fundamental problem with bullshitometer that he used" - understatement of the year ( Love the statement steve-r! )

[sparkione]

[QUOTE=wnut;3632954]Spot on!

... and Lauda - not in the top 50!

M. Andretti - not in top 50

Brabham at 40!

Mansell not in top 50!

Complete and utter total ********, the whole thing. If that's serious scientific analysis, I shall revert to tea-leaves...

[sparkione]

********, ********, ********, ********....

[Paradise City]

Fangio getting the top spot is only justice.

Whaddya know, the quacks get something right.

[Kempi]

Well, they said openly that if only pre2006 was considered, MSC would be third.

Using the best car argument against MSC is kind of weak anyways, if it is not applied to Fangio in the same way. Fangio made sure he was in the best car all through his career which can be seen with the different makes he won championships with. Nothing wrong with that, but it would need to factor in as well.

That said, I do not have any issue at all ranking Fangio very very high and possibly over MSC.

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by Kempi

Well, they said openly that if only pre2006 was considered, MSC would be third.

Using the best car argument against MSC is kind of weak anyways, if it is not applied to Fangio in the same way. Fangio made sure he was in the best car all through his career which can be seen with the different makes he won championships with. Nothing wrong with that, but it would need to factor in as well.

That said, I do not have any issue at all ranking Fangio very very high and possibly over MSC.

MSC having the best car argument is very valid! He (or his management) made sure he was in the besr car with total no.1 status with no equal teammate in a period when Ferrari were mostly untouchable.

During the years he had rivals in comparable equipment he found the going much tougher. 2000 v Hakkinen, 2003 v Kimi & JPM and 2006 v Alonso. Those years could have gone either way for him and he might have ended up with just 3-4 titles instead of 7!!

[Beryl]

Originally Posted by chunterer

MSC having the best car argument is very valid! He (or his management) made sure he was in the besr car with total no.1 status with no equal teammate in a period when Ferrari were mostly untouchable.

During the years he had rivals in comparable equipment he found the going much tougher. 2000 v Hakkinen, 2003 v Kimi & JPM and 2006 v Alonso. Those years could have gone either way for him and he might have ended up with just 3-4 titles instead of 7!!

How do you know that Hakkinen, Kimi and JPM had comparable equipment during those years and not better equipment? The only driver who for certain had comparable equipment during those years was Rubens, as he was ostensibly driving the same car. Comparing the other cars to the Ferrari is conjecture based on unproven premises.

I personally believe that there was no driver on the grid in the late 90s and early 00s that measured up to Schumacher. In the same car, Haikkinen wouldn't have looked much better than Barrichello, Kimi and JPM probably would have looked worse.

[bauble]

Nothing any scientist, statistician, historian, expert or knowall pundit says will change my opinion that Fangio was the Greatest of All Time.

And I do not expect anything I say will change anyone else's mind about who they consider holds that title.

Should one read the biographies of, Fangio and say Schumacher, I believe the difference in background and opportunity available to them would be striking. A son of an Argentine stonemason who started driving home made cars on cinder tracks in a country far removed from the centre of Grand Prix Racing, as opposed to someone brought up in one of the leading European countries with kart tracks, and Grand Prix circuits within easy reach. Well the comparison is mind boggling, I have read any number of books about El Chueco, and saw him race on a number of occasions, yet still wonder how he could possibly have become a multiple World Champion considering his background.

Probably the only World Champion who was loved by his main rivals.

[Purist]

In F1, yes, I go with Fangio at the top.

I tend to favor the older generations for a few reasons.

One is car reliability. It was just harder to finish any race, period.

Another thing is injury, and the resilience that can be built up from having to come back from a serious/life-threatening incident; Fangio was out of the car for most of 1952, after breaking his neck in an accident that spring.

Then, there is this other factor, also related to safety. That is, drivers back before 1980, certainly, simply couldn't afford to make the number of mistakes that drivers can get by with now. If they had a comparable number of lapses while at the wheel, back then, they wouldn't have lived to see one title, let along three or five.

Those guys had a self-discipline and mutual respect, borne out of necessity, and that is something I don't think the modern drivers can really match.

(And while I don't care for some of the driving I've seen from him in the old race broadcasts, I'm not sure that there's been a driver in F1 history with such a violently intense drive as Ayrton Senna.)

[smellysocks]

Where is Gilles?

[FAS33]

Daniel Ricciardo would destroy Fangio in the same car.

[stripedcat]

Where's Eddie Irvine? After all, I do remember him saying : "After Schumacher - he was the world's best driver." one time, when he was with the now defunct Jaguar team.

No problem with Fangio being on top - his achievements are amazing for the time that he raced in. Sure - he had the best car - but I think that has always been the way in F1 - bar, a few times(e.g. Prost winning in 1986 against the dominant Williams). He was also so well respected by his fellow drivers, with Moss saying that he thought he could only really challenge him in sports cars, not F1 cars.

Schumi being low down is more difficult. I read in one of Nigel Roebuck's columns, that the Ferrari engineers thought that Alonso was actually better than Schumi. I would certainly say, that both Prost and Senna were better than him. For some of his career - he didn't have a strong rival, until Mika then maybe Kimi and perhaps JPM, certainly Alonso pushed him.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by stripedcat

I would certainly say, that both Prost and Senna were better than him. For some of his career - he didn't have a strong rival, until Mika then maybe Kimi and perhaps JPM, certainly Alonso pushed him.

This has always been my hesitation in ranking MS right up there with the best of the best - the noticeable lack of any really close rival for many of his racing years. That may in fact be unfair on Michael but it does give me pause in any case.

The supposedly scientific approach makes a huge number of assumptions and it appears to me that they have got it wrong in many cases but it has always been one of the enjoyments to be had from this sport, trying to compare performance from different eras.

I think that one of the key items that gets missed by many is that this is a team sport, it is not and never has been about the driver alone - as a result, assessments such as this "scientific" one start off with a false premise and go downhill from there.

[sparkione]

[QUOTE=stripedcat;3633171] Sure - he had the best car - but I think that has always been the way in F1

Not at the Nurburgring in '57 he didn't. Just the biggest balls.

[Adam43]

Crikey, that was close, I nearly clicked on a link to the Daily Mail.

Originally Posted by sparkione

Not at the Nurburgring in '57 he didn't. Just the biggest balls.

And the biggest talent.