You wont believe this stastic!

[neutral]

Now I'm a bit of a statistics buff(probably because i do it at uni), and I have just found something that I'm sure you will be suprised at(hopefully). On Formula-1.co.uk they have career statistics, and one statistic they hold is average points per race. Now MS is first, but 2nd is what suprises me. I had no doubt in my mind that it would be Hakkinen, but it's actually DC!(2.71 to 2.63). He must have racked up a few points on Mika during his stint at Williams.

[Peter Mallett]

Well, don't forget DC moved over to give MH his first win at Jerez. Up until then, I believe, he'd scored more points for McLaren than Mika.

[Rated R]

Hmm, well I still wonder what would have happened had DC won that first corner at Albert Park in 1998...

[Schume]

DC did score a few points at Williams.
14 in 1994, 49 in 1995.
In 1995 he was 3rd in the WDC behind MS and Damon Hill.
During that season he had, 5 poles, 1 win, 2nd 4 times and
3rd 3 times.

If you look at the stats on http://www.forix.com DC has percentaged more podiums and more front rows than MH.

Don't you just love the weird world of stats????

[Peter Mallett]

Yep, I recall those days. He got bounced for Mansell in '94. D'you think that was the end of any WDC chance he had?

[neutral]

Just like to apologise for the way I spelt statistic (stastic) in the heading.

[EERO]

The August issue of F1 Racing had some interseting stats for DC as well comparing his career to other drivers as he aproached his 100th GP.

Of the current crop, only TGF had better career statistics.

Coulthard:
255 points, 8 wins, 9 poles, 19 seconds and eight thirds.

at 100 the following driver's tallies:

Alesi: 120 points, 1 win, 1 pole, 8 seconds, 9 thirds

Barrichello: 58 points, 1 win, 1 pole, 2 seconds, 1 third

Hakkinen: 144 points, 3 wins, 3 poles, 4 seconds, 12 thirds

Frentzen: 146 points, 3 wins, 2 poles, 3 seconds, 10 thirds

Irvine: 173 points, 4 wins,0 poles, 6 seconds. 14 thirds

I would say that this is hardly a shabby performance. Consider that DC took two wins for McLaren before Hakkinen was gifted his first two.

Statistics can lie, but in this case I think they plainly show that DC has driven with skill and talent and his best drives may stll be ahead of him.

As the antithetical type, Schumacher, Hill and Villeneuve all got their first wins quickly and went on to rack up big totals very fast.

[Jay]

I have to wonder how much better his performance would have been had his car not failed every time he was in the lead or chasing it last year. He would have been the one Hakkinen would have had to fight at Suzuka, and not a lucky Irishman.

I still think he has a WC in him .

[AL Racing]

EERO, I just want to add that Jean Alesi has two poles not one. Both at Monza '94 and '97

[neutral]

I think we must add that DC had drives in cars which were the best in the field at those times. First the dominant Williams, and then after a couple of years with a mediocre Mclaren he now sits in arguably the fastest car in the field(Ferarri fanatics may dispute this). The statistics are good, but so where the cars.

[Ace]

This proves that TGF and DC have always had the best or at least a very good car and they have not been able to do the best with it. In the case of DC it clearly shows he is an underachiever. In the other hand. Mika had had a very good car in 97,98,99 and 2000 and look at his record: 2 WDC, 18 victories, 28 Poles and another WDC on his reach. That in my book is outstanding.

[Ron Dennis's Mum]

That while DC has a better points/race average that MH, MH is WDC material, and DC patently is not. To equate Points/race to ability is mis-leading as it is, obviously, largely car-dependent.

Although DC has the ability to get a car round a track quickly, he clearly lacks the mental capacity to apply this to race wins consistently. DC's best move, if he wishes to maintain his stats record, is to retire. I am sure RD enjoys the fisting he receives from DC, but if he wants 1-2 in WDC, then he needs better material than the rather lack-lustre Scotsman.

[Minardi fan]

Ace, for once I agree with you. DC is an underachiever who should have achieved far more in the best car on the grid. His talent is nowhere near that of Hakkinen, TGF's or many of the other drivers on the grid.

[Tristan]

Thankyou thankyou thankyou!! That's only what I've been saying for the past few, oooooohh!!, YEARS!!!!

[Redneck]

Here is an interesting one too...

There have been more people in space than people that have driven an F1 car in the past 50 years of the modern era of the series. This was something pointed out in a series called the US Grand Prixview.

[Bononi]

That's great RedNeck !
You might not know, but you just brought my dream back of sometime being in outer space !!
That means that those guys we see almost every weekend with those "alien" look in sharp vehicles that goes from 0 to 200 in seconds are really a sci-fic show !
I knew mad Bernie has its secrets... forget NASA, he wave FIA !

[EERO]

Anders, the stats I quoted were through each driver's 100th race. Alesi's second pole came in 97, after he had achieved that milestone.

There is no doubt that the advantage shifted to Hakkinen in mid '97, but I agree with Jay that his day will come.

[neutral]

Ace has just said that Mika is able to produce in a good car while Michael or DC cannot. I agree with respect to DC, but you can hardly say Michael had as good a car as Mika in 98. He was over a second slower in the first five races in that season, and then only gradually began to claw back. As for 99, he was leading the WDC until silverstone, and 2000 is yet to be decided. I can see your point slightly, but you should not forget that MS has had double the victories, and averages nearly double the amount of points per race than Mika.

[AL Racing]

Oupps, sorry EERO you're right, he was well over 100 Gp's at Monza '97.

[Ace]

You can’t say that Mika was in direct competition with TGF in 94, 95,96 and 97. He did not have the car to compete against him. That explains the difference in victories and points in favor of TGF. Arguably you could say that in 98 the McLaren was faster than Ferrari but not as reliable. Then 99 and 2000 inferior car is not an excuse anymore. Bottom line TGF and Mika were competing head to head since mid season 98 and since then Mika have dominated both in pole positions and in victories. Just the fact that he has equaled TGF’s pole record is outstanding by itself.

I consider that TGF has underachieved (not as bad as DC) because he had title contender cars in 94,95,97,98,99 and 2000 and got 2 WDC. In 94 he should have been disqualified like he was in 97. Therefore 1 of those 2 WDCs is questionable. Would you be surprised if I show you a quote from TGF at the end of 95 where he said “Mika Hakkinen would have been tougher to beat in a Williams than Damon Hill was”? That proves than even him does not consider his triumph in 95 as outstanding or anything special, a fluke perhaps.

[Redneck]

Bononi-

There is hope for you after all! Despite what your friend said.

[robert2000]

The only reason that MH is down in these stats is because of his Lotus and early McLaren drives. However, some of these statistics are outstanding. Remember 1995, and think of how many times he came second in that dodgy car.

[neutral]

Ace, I admit that in 2000 they have droven equal equipment, but I'm sure that if you look look at qualifying results for the start of 99 you will find that both Mclarens were a second faster in qualifying ( I remember because I was there). As for 94, 95, he did have the better car over Mika but he did not have the best car. Williams was by far the strongest ( both Patrick Head and Flavio agreed on this). With respect to 96, The year MS first drove for Ferrari, the Mclaren and Ferarri were as bad as each other but Michael pulled a few race wins in the rain. In 97 the Williams was undisputedly the better car. I admit that Michael has had a better car in some periods and this may give him a slight advantage, but he has never driven a dominant car like the Mclaren and this would give Mika an advantage.

[AL Racing]

Originally posted by robert2000
The only reason that MH is down in these stats is because of his Lotus and early McLaren drives. However, some of these statistics are outstanding. Remember 1995, and think of how many times he came second in that dodgy car.

yeah right, many times...actually he had two second places. But I guess that's better than one...

[Ace]

I thought we were having a decent discussion here Neutral. If you dare to tell us that the Ferrari 96 was as bad as the McLaren 96 then I cannot take you seriously anymore. Take a look at the statistics and see how many pole positions Ferrari got that year. You are not going to tell me that you get pole position unless you have a really fast car, are you? What about 3 poles in a row? What about the Ferrari engine better known as the little bomb (powerful but unreliable) rated as the most powerful engine in F1 then?

Patrick head and Flavio agreed that Williams was better than Benetton in 94 and 95? Where did you get that from? I could understand Flavio saying that. After all he was selling TGF to Ferrari for millions of dollars and had a direct interest in overrating him. How come the Benetton 95 was inferior to the Williams? They used the same engine, did they? What was inferior about it?

2 second positions and a handful of 3rd places in a McLaren that could be comparable to the Williams 99 (compared to the top teams) is clearly outstanding. How come people are saying that Ralf is a miracle maker for getting a couple of podium finishes?