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

Again William,you can look at things from diferent perspectives,to me statistics mean nothing.....Damon Hill as got many vicoties and he's a world champion.....but to me,the year he won, he wasn't even amongst the top 5 best drivers out there.....to compare him to jean alesi or Berger is insulting.To say he was better than Gilles, Moss, Ickx, Peterson Because he won a title and they didn't is very wrong and yest, statisticly he actualy did better then allof them...but we all know who was better.
TomeGilleswas the fastest,the most talented and the most brave driver iever saw,ofcourse Prst drove a mpore inteligent race,he was a better car developer,he cpoouldsave more tyres,use less fuel,soif you thinkthis makeshima better driver,i accept and respect that...to me it doesn't,because that's not what i'm looking for when i watch a race.

 

No, I compare drivers of the same era; those who competed against Gilles Villeneuve.
Several were more successful than him, gathered more points, got more victories, some won championships, etc Therefore he wasn't the best.

Alain Prost was undeniably a better driver than GV; he knew how to develop and set up a car, he approached each race with a strategy, he was consistent, and overall displayed more racecraft. Maybe he was less spectacular, less daring and not so popular because of it, but he was miles better than GV; the results show it too. Prost was one of the best drivers of all time.

 

William if you're all for results Lewis must be in your top 5 right?

 

If it is only statistics that matter, was Prost that great of a development driver? When he joined McLaren in 1984 Lauda had done all of the development to make the MP4/2 the world beater it was and he came second to Lauda because the Monaco GP only counted for half points. The McLaren had less dominance in 1986 and lost to Williams in 1987. He then stepped into Ferrari which did have the best car in 1990 and wiped the floor with Mansell, but the 1991 Ferrari which he helped develop was not good and his comments at the end of the year got him fired. He then stepped into the dominant Williams and won the championship over a mediocre teammate and had competition from McLaren with a customer Ford engine. If one looks solely at the statistics, these top teams all did worse after he developed the cars then before he was there.

I do believe that Prost was one of the greatest of all time and that he did have strong development skills, but this illustrates that simple statistics without context do not paint the entire picture, much like claiming that Piquet in the adjustable ride height Brabham BT49 (which was vastly superior to any other car on the grid in 1981) was significantly better than Gilles Villenueve in the poorly handling Ferrari. I tend to put more credibility into Niki Lauda who stated that Gilles was the best pure racing driver that he had competed with at the time of Gilles death in 1982 and James Hunt who insisted McLaren give him a drive because of his incredible skill and pace, more than those of us (myself definitely included) who were mere spectators.

Gilles was special and had he been able to drive a great car other than the 312T4 he certainly would have been a World Champion. Treachery from Pironi ended the promise that 1982 had and his loyalty to team orders in 1979 provided Scheckter with the World Championship.

Forza sempre Gilles!

 

I beg to differ,Prost was magnificient,but Gilles would wipe the floor with him every single day in a similar car.Prost himself said it, "we are just a bunch of good professionals,Gilles was special".

 

Hamilton doesn't even crack the top 10...

From Road & Track:

---------------------
Original article link:
Researchers Say Juan Manuel Fangio Was the Greatest F1 Driver of All Time

 

haven't a clue on the math they've used, nor do I really care for seeing the presumably huge sums, but IF Rosberg wins the title this year, would Schumacher bump up a spot or two? I presume he's sunk to 8th because of his performance against Rosberg at Mercedes.

 

So this is a different bunch of clowns than referenced in the other thread?

As I noted there, I can't believe these folks get paid for this nonsense. It's a debating subject with no right or wrong answers IMO.

Cheers,
Ian

 

Another rubish.....Fittipaldi was far from being that good..-.i won't even speak about number 5!!!!!!

 

Haha I already sensed a loud outburst 900km west of here .

 

The way these lists are done, its *really* a list of who **** the most on their teammate.

Clark is perhaps the only exception on that top 10.

 

I think Piquet is a little too high. Where's Nikki?

 

About 6K miles to my East, but I too felt it!

+1

As noted in the other thread, 'there's lies, damn lies & statistics.'

It's simply not answerable IMO. We've all got our favorites, for whatever reasons. No amount of statistics is going to change any opinions.

Cheers,
Ian

 

When did vettel win 5?

Btw I don't disagree with the top 5 just not quite that order exactly.

I also don't rank Schumacher the best like many. I think he and vettel share a similar methodology. Very smart, very talented, but also got lucky with team placement. I don't want to start a Schumacher debate, just my opinion.

 

Is a few threats on this already but I don't agree with the list either

 

huh no 'il leone'?Mansell deserves to be in the top 50 .

 

If I look at the era Hamilton competed (and he still active), he is neck-and-neck with Vettel in terms of results.

But you cannot compare drivers from different eras.

The fact is that I don't consider neither Vettel or Hamilton at GREAT drivers, because they mostly owe their success to superior cars. We may never have great drivers anymore, simce technology has taken over F1, and the drivers are mere jockeys nowadays.

 

I think Prost's strength was in setting up a car for each GP.

When other spent practice and qualifs to tune their cars to obtain the best position on the grid, Prost had a more pragmatic approach and set the car FOR THE RACE, regardless of his position on the grid (which was usually not far from the front anyway).
The mechanics who worked with him commented on that: his methodical preparation for the race, taking all the parameters into account. Notably when he was at McLaren.
He was maybe not the fastest on the grid, nor on the faster car, but he was the most prepared to do the laps and progress to the end with a car set for the whole distance.

People like Piquet were looking for a banzai lap with a special car (some say underweight, a short like engine, ultra soft tyres, low fuel load, etc...), but Prost was more interested in testing and setting the car for the whole distance, and in race conditions.

 

Here again, wax-lyrics, not facts.

Prost 4 times WDC, Villeneuve ?

Special? Yes, for putting his car sideways, drifting it, tyre smoke, etc... but not results.

 

Ickx?

 

That was wayyy too many formulas for me to even try to start reading at 7 in the morning.

 

Put Prost in Gilles cars and he would have far less results.

 

Are you kidding me? Piquet won the 81 championship with a Brabham! Not with a Ferrari, not with a Renault, not with a Mclaren, a simple Ford-equipped Brabham.

Then in 83 he won again with the Brabham, this time with the first f1 turbo engine. If you think Piquet is "a little too high", I recommend you to watch the classification of the Austrian Grand Prix in which Piquet goes at the limit with 1200hp!

In 87 he won again against all the odds because Williams was desperate to make a British world champion. Needless to say, Piquet should have won the 86 championship too and probably others if he hadn't gone to Lotus.

He is together with Lauda one of the best "engineers" that F1 has had, inventing and developing numerous technical gimmicks to stay ahead of the competition.

In my humble opinion Piquet should be in the top 5 after Schumacher, Senna, Alonso and Fangio.

 

So where would you put Clark and Stewart

 

Speculations ...


Maybe that Prost would have been able to set up the car differently and make it a winner, rather than Villeneuve trying to get around the faults with aggressive driving.

It was the same between Peterson and Andretti when they were both driving for Lotus.

During a pre season test at Paul Ricard, onlookers saw Peterson with his arms crossed fighting the car oversteer at full speed in the Signes Curve.
Chapman questioned him and Peterson replied: "That's what I have to do to get the car round. It's so twitchy everywhere, and don't want to turn".

Andretti was next the following day, and Chapman briefed him about the characteristic of the Lotus. Andretti did a few laps, and came back in the pits with a list of modifications he wanted to be done immediately: caster, tyre pressure, spring rate, shock absorbers, roll bars, etc... The mechanics worked for 2 hours at least on the car.

Andretti went out, watched by a nervous Chapman, and came back after 2 more laps for other small adjustments. Then he left the pits, gradually built up speed, and finished by breaking the lap record!!

The lesson is that Peterson tried to adapt to a badly set up car by getting braver and braver. Andretti took time to use his knowledge to improve the car.

Gilles Villeneuve was more like Peterson. Prost and Andretti worked along the same methods.