planetf1.com

https://f1metrics.wordpress.com/2018/08 ... ls-part-i/

Here, a hypothetical is presented by where Senna lives on and a rivalry with Schumacher ensues. What I'm curious about from your side is your thoughts on how the model rates Senna (and Prost) vs Schumacher. The model appears to have Schumacher as a new standard in F1 who is far beyond Senna or Prost and that the new standard would carry through post-Schumacher (mainly through Alonso judging by driver rankings over the last several years), with the average level of driver continuing to increase.

Interesting article. I don't always agree with F1Metrics, but I do believe they have probably the best in-depth model at the moment. Where I think it breaks down is usually in terms of making assumptions, which is where any model is fallible.

As for Schumi vs. Senna/Prost and generational differences in general... This won't be a popular opinion with some quarters, but he's almost certainly right. In every sport where it's measurable, athletes have become objectively better in every generation. It's true in physical sports like running, and it's true in mental sports like chess. People simply become better at a thing as the body of knowledge expands, new techniques become available, and the human race generally just moves forward. I think there's very little doubt that the pure output level of each generation of drivers peaks higher than that of the last.

What does that say about talent? Absolutely nothing. Personally, I believe that the base talent level doesn't really change, and if Senna was at 100% of the possible talent he would have been able to match Schumacher if he was born into his generation. But that's another question, and doesn't address whether the best of one generation can beat the best of the next. The answer, throughout sports history, is almost always 'no'. Prost couldn't match Senna, and Senna wouldn't have been able to match Schumacher.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017

The main issue for me is that I don't think it's possible to apply a mathematical formula to an individual's performances with that level of accuracy. Things can and will go wrong when you least expect them to. He's predicting a 4pt gap over a season to clinch a title, but a single spin or contact with another driver would eradicate that. Added to this, there were significant changes to the cars made after Senna's death and without that catalyst things may have looked significantly different on the design front.

As to the general principle of driver standards increasing, this is true of all sports where the level of professionalism goes up. In the '70s drivers would puff away before and after a race, while exercise was something that not every driver did in the 1980s (Piquet was famously unfit, which made some of his performances all the more remarkable). Now drivers have virtually every component of their intake measured and factored into their diet, while they follow scientifically designed exercise regimes for almost every waking moment. Nothing is left to chance these days.

But the level of talent doesn't increase, just how it is managed and applied. Part of what made Senna so unusual was his level of professionalism and attention to detail, so he was already ahead of most of his peers in that respect. And Schumacher was similar. That doesn't make either "better" than e.g. Clark, just better prepared.

You have to say, it's hard to think of any sport were records have stood from the 'golden age' or whatever you want to call it. I'm thinking particularly of athletics, but also generally speaking the baseline becomes higher. For instance, in the 80s I was a 'competent' guitarist, but today I would be laughably poor... the kids can all play Malmsteen by the time they're 10. And so it goes...

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."

F1 metrics has Christian Fittipaldi ranked as the 11th best driver that's ever driven in F1, I will leave it at that.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)

Honestly I'm getting sick of these supposedly accurate models that people create to try to tell us what "would" happen "if" blah blah blah. Isn't it enough to watch what actually does happen? These people who attempt to deconstruct the sport into some kind of abstraction almost always have an agenda underneath what they do.

For me, the idea that Schumacher was some kind of massive leap forward from Senna is totally unsubstantiated. Hakkinen (Michael's greatest rival) was no match for Senna as a teammate (although he was respectable). Damon Hill (arguably Michael's second biggest rival) was also nowhere near Senna in the same car. Michael is less than a decade younger than Ayrton. I don't think he represents some kind of quantum leap forward. In fact, I think the vacuum left behind after Senna's death contributed substantially to the amount of success in Michael's career.

Obviously, sport evolves and improves over time. Schumacher though, according to the model, is seen as a quantum leap and something very drastic, and since Schumacher there has not been such a jump but rather a supposed increase in the prevalence of similarly talented (in terms of realised level, not raw talent) racers, with high scores from Hamilton, Vettel and especially Alonso. The model registers a clear sudden jump in a new top standard in the world of Formula 1 whereas Senna is seen as roughly an equal of Prost according to that same model. At a glance, this didn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Further, I feel Schumacher inherited a barren landscape without worthy rivals regarding pure ability in a time after many superb drivers were no longer around, so I wonder how the comparisons could be drawn. Further still, Schumacher wasn't the first to reach such heights according to the model so it's as though Prost and Senna aren't so highly regarded by it. If you look at the hypothetical for Tom Pryce & Tony Brise, you'll see that in 1970 a score of 9+ was achieved.

Yes indeed 7 years after Senna's death Schumacher's nearest rivals were drivers that Senna was superior to in the same car, the likes of Hill, Hakkinen and Berger, also in his final 3 races Senna out qualified Schumacher every time in an inferior car.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)

How can Hakkinen be judged as no match as a team mate to Senna. They had 3 races together. Hakkinen out qualified Senna once and was very close on the next race. Not bad for a driver coming in mid season.

If qualifying were the ultimate measure Senna would be judged superior...however as you love to point out Wins are what counts. How many of those last 3 races were won by Schumi?

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15

Considering Senna crashed in all of them we can hardly make a fair comparison of their relative abilities. Especially as two of them were not his fault.

Hakkinen was the test driver when there was unlimited testing, he spent plenty of time in the car, enough time for McLaren to assess that Hakkinen was quicker than Michael Andretti.

The last race Senna out qualified Hakkinen by 7 tenths so representing an average 0f 0.24s, the only race were they both finished Senna won and Hakkinen was third 26 seconds behind being 0.5s a lap slower.

In the 3 races they competed together Senna won 2 races and Hakkinen had one 3rd place, fair enough a very small sample size but still...

Very much expanding on the limited Hakkinen matched Senna in his first two qualifying sessions, I believe Berger out qualified Senna first time out, how did that turn out?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)

When have I ever said it's wins that count and in what context would I ever say that, I always look at qualifying in trying to assess a driver's speed and 90% of the time it gives an accurate overall measure.

We are in a thread here were Schumacher apparently pushed the level of F1 to a level much higher than ever seen before so how does Senna keep out qualifying him in a car that I believe people saw as being inferior?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)

Also we may want to tread a path down the road of was Schumacher's car actually legal, something that Senna puzzled himself as he watched from track side.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)

That's not to even mention the fact that Michael was driving an illegal car...

Senna believed he was a racing God, and his belief that Schumacher was driving an illegal car seemed to stem almost entirely from a disbelief that anyone could be quicker than him.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017

Edit: For the sake of discussion, it's gone.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2018: {Rookie Year}
Final positon: 1st | 3 Podiums | 2 Wins
2018 Pick 10 Champion

Can we not go down the Illegal car route? It drives what is now an interesting discussion to dire tedium.

Fair enough

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2018: {Rookie Year}
Final positon: 1st | 3 Podiums | 2 Wins
2018 Pick 10 Champion

I didn’t see Senna question the legality of the 92 or 93 Williams cars.

The early season Williams was awful. Damon Hill was lapped by Schumacher in the first 3 races. Lapped.

Senna was also a few laps from lapping Hill in the 94 Brazilian GP. The only race they did with one another.

Damon Hill, who comfortably beat Schumacher in 1993 and was fighting him close for wins from mid 94 onwards.

People who dislike Senna consistently try to paint him as a deeply irrational and arrogant person who believe he was god's gift to racing. It's been like that for decades actually. It has very little to do with the man himself.

Indeed and in that car Senna got pole position every time so it begs me to wonder how Schumacher raised F1 to performance levels far above what was seen before?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)

The problem I find with any of these things is that the driver performs to the level required, especially now with multi race engines... whereas in the past driver chucked everything at it because they knew the engine was going in the bin. For example, maybe Lewis could lap everyone in every race, but he won't because it would put unnecessary stress on the engine, whereas Senna probably would have done... you just can't get an accurate enough picture of old vs new

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."

This is what people rarely understand. These abstract models are often assessing things that the drivers are not actually concerned with at all. Any abstraction of the competition itself will often include metrics that drivers may or may not be trying to maximize. Things like margin of victory or total race time can be totally compromised by drivers choosing to be conservative. That's why these abstractions are misleading.