Formula for Success: Multilevel modelling of F1 Driver/Constructor 1950-2014

Title edited to fit the date

47-page paper. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274080402_Formula_for_success_Multilevel_modelling_of_Formula_One_Driver_and_Constructor_performance_1950-2014

Currently trending on twitter.

There is a lot of data in that paper. This is one of many tables.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I saw an article on that this morning. If you count schumachers come back it puts him down in 8th but brings nico from a lowly 49th up to 13th.

Nikki Lauda not even in the top 200 which to me at least takes away all credibility

Too many variables for maths to be able to solve this


Edit: they said they couldn't account for team orders as one of the flaws

 

Another ridiculous waist of time.....

 

Science proves that Fangio was the greatest F1 driver of all time | Ars Technica

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/15/motorsport/juan-manuel-fangio-greatest-f1-driver-study/index.html

 

Lauda missing but Marc Surer 17?

Sure.

<flush>

 

No Ascari
No credibility

 

Schumacher. ///Thread.

 

Science is wrong.

Schumacher gets my vote.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

The fact that Michael Schumacher ranks behind both Alain Prost and Fernando Alonso highlights immediately that the findings are seriously flawed, to say the least!

Also, it's strange how ars technica state that Schumacher was ranked 6th in the list:

(From: Science proves that Fangio was the greatest F1 driver of all time | Ars Technica ):

"Interestingly, Michael Schumacher only ranks sixth despite records that may never be broken—91 wins, 68 pole positions, and seven world championships. The cause? His return to the sport after three years in retirement, when he wasn't ever able to best then-teammate Nico Rosberg. When Schumacher's 2010-2012 seasons are ignored, he displaces Alonso for third best ever."


Whilst CNN state he was ranked 9th in the list!:

(From: Juan Manuel Fangio named F1's greatest driver by study - CNN.com ):

"While Michael Schumacher is the most successful driver with seven world championships and an unparalleled 91 race wins, people may be surprised by his ranking in the study, which has been published in the Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports.

The German only sits in ninth spot once his team's impact is removed, with his post-retirement performances with Mercedes from 2010 to 2012 dragging him down.
Schumacher, who also raced for Ferrari, Benetton and Jordan, would actually rank third in the study if only his pre-retirement career was taken into account. "


Anyway - Tazio Nuvolari would have kicked all their arses!

 

The problem with this - is that Fangio often took over his teammates car, giving his teammate a DNF.

This makes it look like all the cars Fangio drove were more horrible than they really were.

All Schumacher would need to of done to be #1, is to wreck his car in the pits every race, then climb into Barachello's car. With only one Ferrari finishing, and a last/near last for the other, the Ferrari would appear to be a vastly inferior car in the stats.

 

I like Marc Surer, thought he was very skilled and very fast, but that is rather odd.

 

All this "definitive" study has done, is prove definitively that you cannot come up with a definitive answer as to who is definitively the best driver ever because the subject matter is just too subjective!

What the study has done, is prove that some scientists get paid a lot of money to study pointless things, and prove that science is flawed at the same time!

That's My definitive conclusion!

 

As I've posted in the other thread on this subject ( https://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/f1/519289-fangio-best-scientifically.html ) :

 

Any f.1 study were Gilles doesn't come up as the best there ever was is seriously flawed!!!!

 

No Gilles in the first place and Alonso and Elton inside the top 20 means crappy system to me.

 

Villeneuve looks to be you favourite.

OK, he was maybe very spectacular, but hardly the best.

 

Christian Fittipaldi at #11....that's one less than he scored in his (2) season F1 career lol.

Are they giving extra credit for that backflip crash in 1993?

 

Lauda doesn't break the top 100 - but his team Regazzoni is 45th... I think they are using the same models as the IPCC

 

Under which category was he good/fast/skilled? Man, #11...! Hard to believe.
Yes Niki and Villeneuve not there, makes one wonder.

 

Another scientist tailoring his data to fit his hypothesis..

enough said..

 

Christian Fittipaldi at No.11 having never even won an F1 race was a better driver than the likes of Lewis Hamilton, Graham Hill, Dan Gurney, Nino Farina, Stirling Moss, Jack Brabham, Phil Hill, etc., etc., etc.? - Whilst Niki Lauda and Gilles Villeneuve don't even make the list?

As Colin Edwards would say in his wonderful Texan drawl:
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Thank God for science, otherwise I wouldn't know what to think. But, this is not science, it is someone's opinion supported by manipulated statistics. Oh, and I'll think for myself...thanks science!

 

+1, this list is an absolute joke. The credibility of this statistician and his university has been now been officially documented to be suspect at best. What is the old saying, figures never lie, but liars always figure. Manipulate the data in the way you see fit for your argument and you can prove anything, isn't the world still flat?

 

What a complete & utter crock o' ****!

"There's lies."
...

"Then there's damn lies."
...

"Then there's statistics."

Cheers,
Ian