Michael Schumacher and race finishes

[Knowlesy]

Are the tyres classed as 'mechanical'? I'm not entirely sure they are, but what would you classify them as?

[ASCII Man]

Tyre failures are classified as mechanical failures because they're part of the package just like the brakes, suspension, electronics, etcetera, etcetera...

[esorniloc]

Originally posted by Yoong Montoya
Would the tyre failure at Hockenheim this year be worth considering as a mechanical failure?

Well it was a failure (probably caused by driver though), but he still finished 7th in the points.

[Jordi]

OK I'll do it myself...
These are only the mechanical failures. I added the position they were in when they retired.

2000 MS: Monaco (1), France (2)
RB: Brazil (8), Great Britain (1), Belgium (4)
2001 MS: San Marino (17*), Germany (2)
RB: Spain (10), United States (2)
2002 MS: -
RB: Malaysia (2), Brazil (1), Spain (DNS), France (DNS)
2003 MS: -
RB: Brazil (1), Hungary (5)

*after a pitstop

The numbers are MS 2, 2, 0, 0 and RB 3, 2, 4, 2. It's certainly not normal that MS has had zero failures in 35 races while Rubens has had 7 in that time, in apparently the same car.

[corkholio]

If you think that's not normal, consider this: in 1989, Senna had 5 mechanical failures, while Prost had only 1, and that's with Prost complaining about the team favoring Senna.

[corkholio]

Originally posted by esorniloc
Well it was a failure (probably caused by driver though), but he still finished 7th in the points.

The 'stones had a habit of blowing up that weekend after a certain number of laps. It happened during practice and the race.

[Jordi]

OK, we can consider that one a failure. But Jacques' 12th place at Austria is also a failure!

[Speed]

Hope Montoya beats Michael with no mechanical failures included.

Go Juan Go !!!

[beau]

Early 2005

[Led ZeppF1]

Juan will beats Michael with no mechanical failures included.

But, fingers crossed for the US GP...

[climb]

DC last year commented his win at Montecarlo saying that MS is the driver you dream to be runner-up when you win.
I mean that for every driver it's way better to defeat him, thanto win cos he retired.
So let's his opponents enjoy their possible victories and let MS finish the races!

[esorniloc]

Well it is now 3 years since he retired from a GP with mechanical failure!

Is there any chance it could fail during the German GP?

[Irv the Swerve]

The last time Mick retired due to a mechanical failure was right in front of me - I feel like I witnessed history.

By the way, as an indication of how long ago that was, he was pretty concerned that Coulthard was still in the race and only lightened up a bit and started playing with the crowd once DC retired.

[deeks6]

I did'nt vote ... there was no choice for "Never"

[Kicking-back]

It's a tough one - laws of averages suggest each time he goes another race without a failure it becomes more likely.

But laws of probability suggest each time he goes another race without a failure it becomes even less likely.

[Adam43]

Probability. You'll probably get this, but anyway, I wam wondering if I can demonstrate this on an internet forum.

I have three cards.

 A     B     C

One of them is a Queen, the other two aren't. Chose one.

[Kicking-back]

C

[Adam43]

OK, C. Now if I tell you that A isn't the Queen does that make any difference. Would you like to change you mind?

[Kicking-back]

I'll stick with C

[Adam43]

That is a mistake.

The probability it is C is 1/3, the probability it is B is 2/3s. (you might be right, but there is twice the chance you are wrong).

I'll come to the reasoning later, but

Basically it gives an indication into probability and what we expect. I'm not sure how related it is to engine blow ups, but I quite like it. Generally people never change there minds, but should in light of the new information.

The reason you should always change is because.

At first you know there is a 1/3 chance it is each of the cards A, B or C.

However when you are told that one of the one you haven't chosen is wrong (A isn't a Queen) then you think, ha, I have a 50-50 chance. However C (your original choice) is still 1/3, but the chance it was one of the other two cards (A or B) is 2/3s and you have been told that A isn't a Queen so there must be a 2/3rds chance B is.

A diagram would be better!

[Adam43]

Your mention of the law of averages and law of probability I san interesting way of looking at the situation as you said.

With the law of averages you are assuming that the situation stays constant and you don't take into account more data. If he didn't break down this time, he must next.

With the law of probabilities you re-assess after each GP and take into account what has happened. Well he hasn't blown up for 100GP now, so it is unlikely he will next time.

The problem, I think, with people's understanding is that averages and probability is just that - they are just chance. Michael could blow up today and everyone would cry "it was bound to happen sometime"... And it did happen so there is no argument (well there is, but it isn't worth it!).

And this final point I can related back to the three cards case! What if I told you the Queen was C! You were right! However if you play the game a lot more, you'd be better off changing your mind!

(I apologise as this is all a little off topic, but the background is needed to have a stab at the likely time Michael's engine will self-destruct)

[Kicking-back]

So, if we change engine every third race it won't blow up

[Adam43]

[Don K]

Originally posted by AdamAshmore
The reason you should always change is because.

At first you know there is a 1/3 chance it is each of the cards A, B or C.

However when you are told that one of the one you haven't chosen is wrong (A isn't a Queen) then you think, ha, I have a 50-50 chance. However C (your original choice) is still 1/3, but the chance it was one of the other two cards (A or B) is 2/3s and you have been told that A isn't a Queen so there must be a 2/3rds chance B is.

A diagram would be better!

Adam,

I'm afraid you are wrong here.

Whether or not it is better to change, depends on the strategy you (the "host") are using.

- In case you want the queen to be found, and if you decided you will always show the "candidate" one of the wrong cards, this problem defaults into the well-known "Monty Hall" problem, in which the candidate indeed gets a 2/3 chance if he changes.
- Some other variations include the ones I call the "ignorant host"-version and the "nasty host"-version. In the "ignorant host" version, changing will give you a 50% chance. In the "nasty host"-version, changing will give you a 0% chance. In the "nice host"-version, changing will give you a 100% chance.

The situation you scetched for us, did not tell us whether you would follow any of these four "host"-strategies.
(In fact, your previous post --in which you told was that C was the correct answer-- tells us in hindsight that you are not following the "nice host"-strategy).

-----------

If you want to discuss this any further, please open a thread in the "Parc Ferme" forum.

[Kicking-back]

On the actual subject of Michael Schumacher and race reliability, I've a funny feeling the Ferrari may let him down this afternoon.