planetf1.com

It is currently Fri Feb 21, 2020 5:00 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic

The best 10 F1 drivers ever
Alonso 7%  7%  [ 22 ]
Ascari 4%  4%  [ 15 ]
Brabham, J 1%  1%  [ 2 ]
Clark 11%  11%  [ 38 ]
Fangio 9%  9%  [ 30 ]
Fittipaldi 1%  1%  [ 4 ]
Hakkinen 1%  1%  [ 4 ]
Hamilton 10%  10%  [ 34 ]
Hill, D 0%  0%  [ 1 ]
Hill, G 2%  2%  [ 6 ]
Lauda 7%  7%  [ 24 ]
Mansell 1%  1%  [ 5 ]
Moss 5%  5%  [ 17 ]
Piquet 1%  1%  [ 3 ]
Prost 9%  9%  [ 31 ]
Rosberg, N 0%  0%  [ 1 ]
Schumacher 11%  11%  [ 37 ]
Senna 10%  10%  [ 35 ]
Stewart 7%  7%  [ 24 ]
Vettel 1%  1%  [ 5 ]
Total votes : 338
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2020 1:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 1345
mikeyg123 wrote:
Johnson wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
tim3003 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:

Hmmm I don't think people ignore it so much as those kind of physical advantages are all factored in as part of the package. This is done across all sports. Part of what may have made Prost so good was his light weight. The same as part of what makes Messi or Ronaldo so good is their pace.


Interesting thought. But if being light was such an advantage I'd expect many more of the top drivers to be light too - like horse-racing jockeys. The fact that they aren't surely makes it unlikely weight is a major factor.


Well Prost's time was when it would have been most of an advantage however the 80s and early 90s cars did also require a lot of strength to drive so there is a trade off that there wouldn't be today without weight restrictions.


It was a trade off but 80% advantage to be light 20% to be strong. Especially 89 onwards when Turbos went.

Felipe Massa had the same advantage as Prost, my calculations are that if just car weight was being used in Massa era he would have won at least 2 WDCs and been Alonso’s match at Ferrari. He would be on this list.


Why are you not viewing a drivers physicality as part of the package? There is never any attempts to do this in other sports.


Post 1995 it is embedded into the very rules of F1. So its clearly a fundemental principle, the rules were flawed and that was cleaned up post 1995 to include driver and car weight and not just car weight.

Other sports were weight is critical do take measures, there is also a minimum weight for Jockeys for example.

Even after that period, a much smaller advantage was still available as lighter drivers had a lower center of gravity and could use more ballast. Now, post 2018 we finally have an even playing field. So the rule makers have now essentially removed physical elements.

So the reason I account for it is the same reason the rules makers felt the need to with the rules in 1995 and then again recently. Nico Rosberg stopped painting his helmet for 2014 as he worked out it saved him 0.005 a lap. When Prost was partnered with Mansell, he was gaining up to 0.6 per lap at some tracks.

When I am considering the GOATs list, I am focussed entirely on skill level and not weight. I don't think anybody would want a return to the pre 1995 rules would they?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2020 1:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16676
Johnson wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Johnson wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
tim3003 wrote:

Interesting thought. But if being light was such an advantage I'd expect many more of the top drivers to be light too - like horse-racing jockeys. The fact that they aren't surely makes it unlikely weight is a major factor.


Well Prost's time was when it would have been most of an advantage however the 80s and early 90s cars did also require a lot of strength to drive so there is a trade off that there wouldn't be today without weight restrictions.



It was a trade off but 80% advantage to be light 20% to be strong. Especially 89 onwards when Turbos went.

Felipe Massa had the same advantage as Prost, my calculations are that if just car weight was being used in Massa era he would have won at least 2 WDCs and been Alonso’s match at Ferrari. He would be on this list.


Why are you not viewing a drivers physicality as part of the package? There is never any attempts to do this in other sports.


Post 1995 it is embedded into the very rules of F1. So its clearly a fundemental principle, the rules were flawed and that was cleaned up post 1995 to include driver and car weight and not just car weight.

Other sports were weight is critical do take measures, there is also a minimum weight for Jockeys for example.

Even after that period, a much smaller advantage was still available as lighter drivers had a lower center of gravity and could use more ballast. Now, post 2018 we finally have an even playing field. So the rule makers have now essentially removed physical elements.

So the reason I account for it is the same reason the rules makers felt the need to with the rules in 1995 and then again recently. Nico Rosberg stopped painting his helmet for 2014 as he worked out it saved him 0.005 a lap. When Prost was partnered with Mansell, he was gaining up to 0.6 per lap at some tracks.

When I am considering the GOATs list, I am focussed entirely on skill level and not weight. I don't think anybody would want a return to the pre 1995 rules would they?


But surely this isn't any difference to other sports? As they evolve and change different physical attributes become more or less important.

One thing I do notice across the board with sports is that when being genetically bigger is an advantage nothing is done to try and level it out. When being smaller is advantage it is somehow seen as unfair.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2020 1:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 8023
tim3003 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Fiki wrote:

Why wasn't Keke in the list?


I was thinking why is Nico included?


Purely on stats: Nico has 1 championship + 2 runner-ups. Keke just the one champs. Nico's win per race ratio at 11% is far higher than Keke's at 4%.


Oh sorry, I wasn't comparing the two, rather thinking why would Nico be considered in a top 10. I do not think I have ever seen him myself in such a list


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2020 1:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7884
Location: Belgium
Siao7 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Very surprised with the ranking up to now, but pleasantly so, to see Clark leading.

My votes went to Clark, Senna, Hamilton, Fangio, Schumacher, Stewart, Prost, Lauda, Ascari and Piquet. In my opinion, Prost hasn't been replaced as best driver yet.

Why wasn't Keke in the list?


I was thinking why is Nico included?
Seeing him in the list made me question his father's absence. I have no idea whether I would have voted for him, but he is one of my favourite drivers.

Thinking of Keke, I was reminded of the Zolder tyre test day in the spring of 1984, when I passed most of the drivers in the pitlane. Not being tall myself, I was struck by how small so many of them were. Prost was definitely light, but so were quite a few of them. Mansell was taller, but his weight was a long way away from him being unable to get into the McLaren cockpit a decade later. So, especially in light of the enormous amounts of power available from the top engines at the time, I think weight was at most a secondary consideration. One thing I would like to ask a specialist of the era, is what influence on aerodynamics the posture/attitude of the drivers had. Looking at how Arnoux's and Prost's heads were further forward in the cockpit than most other drivers, drag and/or turbulence must have been different between them and their taller team-mates. Then again, I would be surprised if the (slightly more forward) weight distribution wasn't an issue yet. A question for Gary Anderson at Autosport, perhaps.

pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:

Well Prost's time was when it would have been most of an advantage however the 80s and early 90s cars did also require a lot of strength to drive so there is a trade off that there wouldn't be today without weight restrictions.

Yeah I remember a story were Mansell was quicker than Piquet through a particular chicane, Piquet asked him how he could be so quick, Mansell replied that he just gripped the steering wheel tighter, he was a strong as an ox.


I think it was Patrese in 92. Part of the reason Mansell could get so much more out of the active suspension that Patrese was his ability to through it into a corner more aggressively.

With Patrese it was most corners, this relates to just one corner and I'm sure it was Piquet.
As I recall, Patrese simply found the difference between classic and active suspension difficult to adapt to. Strength may have been an issue, as the Williams didn't have power steering. But I doubt that just gripping the steering wheel tighter is going to make much of a difference. I think being prepared for a harder bump on going up the kerbs may explain it better. Mansell was doubtless strong, but how much room did he have in a tight cockpit to bring that strength to bear?

Fascinating thread!

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2020 1:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 8:07 am
Posts: 1303
tim3003 wrote:
Clark 13% 13% [ 20 ] x
Hamilton 12% 12% [ 19 ] x
Schumacher 11% 11% [ 18 ] x
Senna 11% 11% [ 17 ] x
Fangio 9% 9% [ 15 ] x
Prost 8% 8% [ 13 ] x
Stewart 8% 8% [ 12 ] x
Alonso 7% 7% [ 11 ] x
Lauda 6% 6% [ 10 ] x
Moss 5% 5% [ 8 ] x
Ascari 5% 5% [ 8 ]
Piquet 2% 2% [ 3 ]
Mansell 1% 1% [ 1 ]
Hill, G 1% 1% [ 1 ]
Fittipaldi 1% 1% [ 1 ]
Brabham, J 1% 1% [ 1 ]
Vettel 0% 0% [ 0 ]
Rosberg, N 0% 0% [ 0 ]
Hill, D 0% 0% [ 0 ]
Hakkinen 0% 0% [ 0 ]
Total votes : 158

Does anyone know how the figures are calculated? I assume the % is the % of the total votes each driver has received; but what does the 158 total mean? Is it the total number of people who've voted, or the total votes cast - theoretically at 10 per voter. If so, does Clark's 20 mean 20 voters have included him?
That way it looks to me like 20-odd people have voted, averaging about 8 votes each, and almost all have included Clark..


Yes. basically that. 158 votes cast in total but the system doesn't enforce 10 votes at a time so you won't get nice even multiples of 10. I think as others have pointed out, calling the thread the "best" won't have hlped as I'm sure some have just voted for a single driver. I think the idea was to vote for the top 10 and then the "best" would emerge as the driver who appeared most often in the top 10 listings. Obviously a bit flawed but it's just a bit of off-season fun and whatever your take on the top 10, it's actually those getting the least votes that are generating much of the discussion. Also highlights how it's really only the passing of time that allows us to separate our judgement on their overall standing from their actual achievements.

_________________
"I'd rather lose a race going fast enough to win it, than win one going slow enough to lose it".
-Stirling Moss


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2020 3:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:46 am
Posts: 363
Location: Suffolk, UK
DOLOMITE wrote:
Yes. basically that. 158 votes cast in total but the system doesn't enforce 10 votes at a time so you won't get nice even multiples of 10. I think as others have pointed out, calling the thread the "best" won't have hlped as I'm sure some have just voted for a single driver. I think the idea was to vote for the top 10 and then the "best" would emerge as the driver who appeared most often in the top 10 listings. Obviously a bit flawed but it's just a bit of off-season fun and whatever your take on the top 10, it's actually those getting the least votes that are generating much of the discussion. Also highlights how it's really only the passing of time that allows us to separate our judgement on their overall standing from their actual achievements.


As I said in an earlier post, you can substitute 'greatest' for best if you want - but not 'fastest'. If I only sought 1 vote per voter I wouldn't have allowed 10! If this poll is flawed, what is a better way to work out who is rated the best?

I'm actually surprised Clark is at no 1.. Maybe the forum's members are older than I thought! :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2020 3:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16676
tim3003 wrote:
DOLOMITE wrote:
Yes. basically that. 158 votes cast in total but the system doesn't enforce 10 votes at a time so you won't get nice even multiples of 10. I think as others have pointed out, calling the thread the "best" won't have hlped as I'm sure some have just voted for a single driver. I think the idea was to vote for the top 10 and then the "best" would emerge as the driver who appeared most often in the top 10 listings. Obviously a bit flawed but it's just a bit of off-season fun and whatever your take on the top 10, it's actually those getting the least votes that are generating much of the discussion. Also highlights how it's really only the passing of time that allows us to separate our judgement on their overall standing from their actual achievements.


As I said in an earlier post, you can substitute 'greatest' for best if you want - but not 'fastest'. If I only sought 1 vote per voter I wouldn't have allowed 10! If this poll is flawed, what is a better way to work out who is rated the best?

I'm actually surprised Clark is at no 1.. Maybe the forum's members are older than I thought! :)


You could ask Mod Aqua to set up one if his polls where you can vote from best to worst and it comes up with an aggregate. Like the ones we have used for best driver in 2019 etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33721
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Johnson wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
tim3003 wrote:
Interesting thought. But if being light was such an advantage I'd expect many more of the top drivers to be light too - like horse-racing jockeys. The fact that they aren't surely makes it unlikely weight is a major factor.


Well Prost's time was when it would have been most of an advantage however the 80s and early 90s cars did also require a lot of strength to drive so there is a trade off that there wouldn't be today without weight restrictions.


It was a trade off but 80% advantage to be light 20% to be strong. Especially 89 onwards when Turbos went.

Felipe Massa had the same advantage as Prost, my calculations are that if just car weight was being used in Massa era he would have won at least 2 WDCs and been Alonso’s match at Ferrari. He would be on this list.

When did it change from just car weight to car weight and driver?


I think 94 but I might be wrong.

Soon after Prost retired then. :)

_________________
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: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 8:07 am
Posts: 1303
tim3003 wrote:

...you can substitute 'greatest' for best if you want



can you though... ;)

I googled this one and it's a bit grey but the consensus seemed to be that "greatest" seemed to be based on achievement rather that outright ability. If that's the case Schu is for now at least, the greatest.

So maybe it's another poll, but on that basis. I'd go with Greatest: Schu, Fastest:Senna, Best: Clark.

_________________
"I'd rather lose a race going fast enough to win it, than win one going slow enough to lose it".
-Stirling Moss


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33721
Johnson wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Johnson wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
tim3003 wrote:
Interesting thought. But if being light was such an advantage I'd expect many more of the top drivers to be light too - like horse-racing jockeys. The fact that they aren't surely makes it unlikely weight is a major factor.


Well Prost's time was when it would have been most of an advantage however the 80s and early 90s cars did also require a lot of strength to drive so there is a trade off that there wouldn't be today without weight restrictions.


It was a trade off but 80% advantage to be light 20% to be strong. Especially 89 onwards when Turbos went.

Felipe Massa had the same advantage as Prost, my calculations are that if just car weight was being used in Massa era he would have won at least 2 WDCs and been Alonso’s match at Ferrari. He would be on this list.


Why are you not viewing a drivers physicality as part of the package? There is never any attempts to do this in other sports.


Post 1995 it is embedded into the very rules of F1. So its clearly a fundemental principle, the rules were flawed and that was cleaned up post 1995 to include driver and car weight and not just car weight.

Other sports were weight is critical do take measures, there is also a minimum weight for Jockeys for example.

Even after that period, a much smaller advantage was still available as lighter drivers had a lower center of gravity and could use more ballast. Now, post 2018 we finally have an even playing field. So the rule makers have now essentially removed physical elements.

So the reason I account for it is the same reason the rules makers felt the need to with the rules in 1995 and then again recently. Nico Rosberg stopped painting his helmet for 2014 as he worked out it saved him 0.005 a lap. When Prost was partnered with Mansell, he was gaining up to 0.6 per lap at some tracks.

When I am considering the GOATs list, I am focussed entirely on skill level and not weight. I don't think anybody would want a return to the pre 1995 rules would they?

I seem to remember this was attempted a few years ago, about 10 years or so ago, and for some reason it needed the unanimous support of the drivers, Massa was the only driver to vote against it so it wasn't implemented.

_________________
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: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16676
DOLOMITE wrote:
tim3003 wrote:

...you can substitute 'greatest' for best if you want



can you though... ;)

I googled this one and it's a bit grey but the consensus seemed to be that "greatest" seemed to be based on achievement rather that outright ability. If that's the case Schu is for now at least, the greatest.

So maybe it's another poll, but on that basis. I'd go with Greatest: Schu, Fastest:Senna, Best: Clark.


Yes for me greatest and best are quite different.

Best is purely how good someone was at being an F1 driver. For me it's much harder to come up with an accurate list of best as it's actually hard to tell how good someone is at being an F1 driver.

Greatest incorporates that but also encompass things like success, impact on the sport and legacy. Someone like Lauda who had a huge legacy and was the most successful in his era but was also beaten by multiple less rated team mates would feature higher on a list of greatest than best.

I use Massa as another example. Had Hamilton not overtaken Glock on the last lap in Brazil would Massa have been any better of an F1 driver Of course not. But you could well argue the attainment of a WDC makes him greater.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33721
mikeyg123 wrote:
Johnson wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Johnson wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Well Prost's time was when it would have been most of an advantage however the 80s and early 90s cars did also require a lot of strength to drive so there is a trade off that there wouldn't be today without weight restrictions.



It was a trade off but 80% advantage to be light 20% to be strong. Especially 89 onwards when Turbos went.

Felipe Massa had the same advantage as Prost, my calculations are that if just car weight was being used in Massa era he would have won at least 2 WDCs and been Alonso’s match at Ferrari. He would be on this list.


Why are you not viewing a drivers physicality as part of the package? There is never any attempts to do this in other sports.


Post 1995 it is embedded into the very rules of F1. So its clearly a fundemental principle, the rules were flawed and that was cleaned up post 1995 to include driver and car weight and not just car weight.

Other sports were weight is critical do take measures, there is also a minimum weight for Jockeys for example.

Even after that period, a much smaller advantage was still available as lighter drivers had a lower center of gravity and could use more ballast. Now, post 2018 we finally have an even playing field. So the rule makers have now essentially removed physical elements.

So the reason I account for it is the same reason the rules makers felt the need to with the rules in 1995 and then again recently. Nico Rosberg stopped painting his helmet for 2014 as he worked out it saved him 0.005 a lap. When Prost was partnered with Mansell, he was gaining up to 0.6 per lap at some tracks.

When I am considering the GOATs list, I am focussed entirely on skill level and not weight. I don't think anybody would want a return to the pre 1995 rules would they?


But surely this isn't any difference to other sports? As they evolve and change different physical attributes become more or less important.

One thing I do notice across the board with sports is that when being genetically bigger is an advantage nothing is done to try and level it out. When being smaller is advantage it is somehow seen as unfair.

Maybe deep down we are a bit sizeist and we don't really want a male sporting hero to be 5ft 4ins tall?

_________________
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: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33721
Fiki wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Very surprised with the ranking up to now, but pleasantly so, to see Clark leading.

My votes went to Clark, Senna, Hamilton, Fangio, Schumacher, Stewart, Prost, Lauda, Ascari and Piquet. In my opinion, Prost hasn't been replaced as best driver yet.

Why wasn't Keke in the list?


I was thinking why is Nico included?
Seeing him in the list made me question his father's absence. I have no idea whether I would have voted for him, but he is one of my favourite drivers.

Thinking of Keke, I was reminded of the Zolder tyre test day in the spring of 1984, when I passed most of the drivers in the pitlane. Not being tall myself, I was struck by how small so many of them were. Prost was definitely light, but so were quite a few of them. Mansell was taller, but his weight was a long way away from him being unable to get into the McLaren cockpit a decade later. So, especially in light of the enormous amounts of power available from the top engines at the time, I think weight was at most a secondary consideration. One thing I would like to ask a specialist of the era, is what influence on aerodynamics the posture/attitude of the drivers had. Looking at how Arnoux's and Prost's heads were further forward in the cockpit than most other drivers, drag and/or turbulence must have been different between them and their taller team-mates. Then again, I would be surprised if the (slightly more forward) weight distribution wasn't an issue yet. A question for Gary Anderson at Autosport, perhaps.

pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:

Well Prost's time was when it would have been most of an advantage however the 80s and early 90s cars did also require a lot of strength to drive so there is a trade off that there wouldn't be today without weight restrictions.

Yeah I remember a story were Mansell was quicker than Piquet through a particular chicane, Piquet asked him how he could be so quick, Mansell replied that he just gripped the steering wheel tighter, he was a strong as an ox.


I think it was Patrese in 92. Part of the reason Mansell could get so much more out of the active suspension that Patrese was his ability to through it into a corner more aggressively.

With Patrese it was most corners, this relates to just one corner and I'm sure it was Piquet.
As I recall, Patrese simply found the difference between classic and active suspension difficult to adapt to. Strength may have been an issue, as the Williams didn't have power steering. But I doubt that just gripping the steering wheel tighter is going to make much of a difference. I think being prepared for a harder bump on going up the kerbs may explain it better. Mansell was doubtless strong, but how much room did he have in a tight cockpit to bring that strength to bear?

Fascinating thread!

Yes I know that Patrese struggled with the active suspension I just didn't go into that level of detail.

_________________
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: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33721
mikeyg123 wrote:
tim3003 wrote:
DOLOMITE wrote:
Yes. basically that. 158 votes cast in total but the system doesn't enforce 10 votes at a time so you won't get nice even multiples of 10. I think as others have pointed out, calling the thread the "best" won't have hlped as I'm sure some have just voted for a single driver. I think the idea was to vote for the top 10 and then the "best" would emerge as the driver who appeared most often in the top 10 listings. Obviously a bit flawed but it's just a bit of off-season fun and whatever your take on the top 10, it's actually those getting the least votes that are generating much of the discussion. Also highlights how it's really only the passing of time that allows us to separate our judgement on their overall standing from their actual achievements.


As I said in an earlier post, you can substitute 'greatest' for best if you want - but not 'fastest'. If I only sought 1 vote per voter I wouldn't have allowed 10! If this poll is flawed, what is a better way to work out who is rated the best?

I'm actually surprised Clark is at no 1.. Maybe the forum's members are older than I thought! :)


You could ask Mod Aqua to set up one if his polls where you can vote from best to worst and it comes up with an aggregate. Like the ones we have used for best driver in 2019 etc.

It's something I would find almost impossible to determine.

_________________
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: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33721
mikeyg123 wrote:
DOLOMITE wrote:
tim3003 wrote:

...you can substitute 'greatest' for best if you want



can you though... ;)

I googled this one and it's a bit grey but the consensus seemed to be that "greatest" seemed to be based on achievement rather that outright ability. If that's the case Schu is for now at least, the greatest.

So maybe it's another poll, but on that basis. I'd go with Greatest: Schu, Fastest:Senna, Best: Clark.


Yes for me greatest and best are quite different.

Best is purely how good someone was at being an F1 driver. For me it's much harder to come up with an accurate list of best as it's actually hard to tell how good someone is at being an F1 driver.

Greatest incorporates that but also encompass things like success, impact on the sport and legacy. Someone like Lauda who had a huge legacy and was the most successful in his era but was also beaten by multiple less rated team mates would feature higher on a list of greatest than best.

I use Massa as another example. Had Hamilton not overtaken Glock on the last lap in Brazil would Massa have been any better of an F1 driver Of course not. But you could well argue the attainment of a WDC makes him greater.

I actually view winning one WDC title as something many drivers can achieve if all the stars align, however winning multiple titles starts putting a driver onto a different level.

_________________
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: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 7615
Location: Michigan, USA
pokerman wrote:
I actually view winning one WDC title as something many drivers can achieve if all the stars align, however winning multiple titles starts putting a driver onto a different level.

I don't see why, to be honest. If you can win one title by circumstance, you can win multiple titles by circumstance. I view Rosberg and Vettel as pretty similar level drivers, for example. Swap the cars and teammates, and I think you'd swap the titles as well.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017 & 2019
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2020 7:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:57 am
Posts: 777
Location: Scotland/U.A.E
DOLOMITE wrote:
tim3003 wrote:
Clark 13% 13% [ 20 ] x
Hamilton 12% 12% [ 19 ] x
Schumacher 11% 11% [ 18 ] x
Senna 11% 11% [ 17 ] x
Fangio 9% 9% [ 15 ] x
Prost 8% 8% [ 13 ] x
Stewart 8% 8% [ 12 ] x
Alonso 7% 7% [ 11 ] x
Lauda 6% 6% [ 10 ] x
Moss 5% 5% [ 8 ] x
Ascari 5% 5% [ 8 ]
Piquet 2% 2% [ 3 ]
Mansell 1% 1% [ 1 ]
Hill, G 1% 1% [ 1 ]
Fittipaldi 1% 1% [ 1 ]
Brabham, J 1% 1% [ 1 ]
Vettel 0% 0% [ 0 ]
Rosberg, N 0% 0% [ 0 ]
Hill, D 0% 0% [ 0 ]
Hakkinen 0% 0% [ 0 ]
Total votes : 158

Does anyone know how the figures are calculated? I assume the % is the % of the total votes each driver has received; but what does the 158 total mean? Is it the total number of people who've voted, or the total votes cast - theoretically at 10 per voter. If so, does Clark's 20 mean 20 voters have included him?
That way it looks to me like 20-odd people have voted, averaging about 8 votes each, and almost all have included Clark..


Yes. basically that. 158 votes cast in total but the system doesn't enforce 10 votes at a time so you won't get nice even multiples of 10. I think as others have pointed out, calling the thread the "best" won't have hlped as I'm sure some have just voted for a single driver. I think the idea was to vote for the top 10 and then the "best" would emerge as the driver who appeared most often in the top 10 listings. Obviously a bit flawed but it's just a bit of off-season fun and whatever your take on the top 10, it's actually those getting the least votes that are generating much of the discussion. Also highlights how it's really only the passing of time that allows us to separate our judgement on their overall standing from their actual achievements.


Perhaps would be an idea for one of the mods to take the top 10 from this, and do one of those graded in order polls that they do - see who comes out best of all.

_________________
I'm competing if anyone is interested in how I am getting on.
Car #36 - Blog


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33721
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I actually view winning one WDC title as something many drivers can achieve if all the stars align, however winning multiple titles starts putting a driver onto a different level.

I don't see why, to be honest. If you can win one title by circumstance, you can win multiple titles by circumstance. I view Rosberg and Vettel as pretty similar level drivers, for example. Swap the cars and teammates, and I think you'd swap the titles as well.

That's all hypothetical though, I'd venture most would rate Vettel higher than Rosberg, personally I didn't put Vettel in the top 10 just to be fair to each era.

_________________
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: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2020 1:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 1345
mikeyg123 wrote:

But surely this isn't any difference to other sports? As they evolve and change different physical attributes become more or less important.

One thing I do notice across the board with sports is that when being genetically bigger is an advantage nothing is done to try and level it out. When being smaller is advantage it is somehow seen as unfair.


Nearly all other sports, your skill level is entirely related to your physical body. F1 is not that for me, the same as something like darts, snooker, shooting. Like F1, these are skill sports, I see no reason why any advantage should be had in a skill sport due to some physical aspect and some quirk in the rules. Someobody decided at the start of F1 for some reason that only the car should be weighed, why they did that I do not know but it was a mistake that has since been fixed.

I have raced people in karts that are 20kgs lighter than me and have been easily beaten by people who don't know what a race line is (literally driving around in the middle of the track) and literally have no skill at all but just breeze past you on the straight.

Similarly, my friend who I raced against for years we were always -/+ 0.1 every single time we went karting and we both weighed the exact same, 85kg the least you can weigh to race heavyweight karts. We karted again more recently and he was put on 6kg and I was 0.6-0.7 a lap quicker and just playing with him and able to overtake at will at any point. It was no fun at all because it was not a race and not competitive at all, so we stopped going until he loses the weight. But I didn't suddenly become a better karter than him. Our skill levels have always been equal and likely always will be. I thrashed him because I had a big advantage.

There are some 10-11 year old kids out there that would easily beat Hamilton, Vettel and Alonso in karts if you didn't equalise the weights... those kids aren't the best karters in the world. Not to me anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2020 2:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 8023
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
DOLOMITE wrote:
tim3003 wrote:

...you can substitute 'greatest' for best if you want



can you though... ;)

I googled this one and it's a bit grey but the consensus seemed to be that "greatest" seemed to be based on achievement rather that outright ability. If that's the case Schu is for now at least, the greatest.

So maybe it's another poll, but on that basis. I'd go with Greatest: Schu, Fastest:Senna, Best: Clark.


Yes for me greatest and best are quite different.

Best is purely how good someone was at being an F1 driver. For me it's much harder to come up with an accurate list of best as it's actually hard to tell how good someone is at being an F1 driver.

Greatest incorporates that but also encompass things like success, impact on the sport and legacy. Someone like Lauda who had a huge legacy and was the most successful in his era but was also beaten by multiple less rated team mates would feature higher on a list of greatest than best.

I use Massa as another example. Had Hamilton not overtaken Glock on the last lap in Brazil would Massa have been any better of an F1 driver Of course not. But you could well argue the attainment of a WDC makes him greater.

I actually view winning one WDC title as something many drivers can achieve if all the stars align, however winning multiple titles starts putting a driver onto a different level.

While winning 4 in a row doesn't even get you in the top 10 according to this poll!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2020 2:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 1345
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
DOLOMITE wrote:
tim3003 wrote:

...you can substitute 'greatest' for best if you want



can you though... ;)

I googled this one and it's a bit grey but the consensus seemed to be that "greatest" seemed to be based on achievement rather that outright ability. If that's the case Schu is for now at least, the greatest.

So maybe it's another poll, but on that basis. I'd go with Greatest: Schu, Fastest:Senna, Best: Clark.


Yes for me greatest and best are quite different.

Best is purely how good someone was at being an F1 driver. For me it's much harder to come up with an accurate list of best as it's actually hard to tell how good someone is at being an F1 driver.

Greatest incorporates that but also encompass things like success, impact on the sport and legacy. Someone like Lauda who had a huge legacy and was the most successful in his era but was also beaten by multiple less rated team mates would feature higher on a list of greatest than best.

I use Massa as another example. Had Hamilton not overtaken Glock on the last lap in Brazil would Massa have been any better of an F1 driver Of course not. But you could well argue the attainment of a WDC makes him greater.

I actually view winning one WDC title as something many drivers can achieve if all the stars align, however winning multiple titles starts putting a driver onto a different level.

While winning 4 in a row doesn't even get you in the top 10 according to this poll!!!


Winning one can happen through a set of fortunate circumstances but winning multiple can also occur in a similar fashion. Damon Hill could have won 3-4 WDC's over 1994-1997 for example. If we had won 1994 he probably wouldn't have driven so badly in 1995 and got himself dropped before he even started his title winning year. Hill was a broken wishbone from probably being a 3x WDC.

Rosberg could have also pulled off 3-4 straight WDC's if Mercedes didn't sign Hamilton.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2020 2:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33721
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
DOLOMITE wrote:
tim3003 wrote:

...you can substitute 'greatest' for best if you want



can you though... ;)

I googled this one and it's a bit grey but the consensus seemed to be that "greatest" seemed to be based on achievement rather that outright ability. If that's the case Schu is for now at least, the greatest.

So maybe it's another poll, but on that basis. I'd go with Greatest: Schu, Fastest:Senna, Best: Clark.


Yes for me greatest and best are quite different.

Best is purely how good someone was at being an F1 driver. For me it's much harder to come up with an accurate list of best as it's actually hard to tell how good someone is at being an F1 driver.

Greatest incorporates that but also encompass things like success, impact on the sport and legacy. Someone like Lauda who had a huge legacy and was the most successful in his era but was also beaten by multiple less rated team mates would feature higher on a list of greatest than best.

I use Massa as another example. Had Hamilton not overtaken Glock on the last lap in Brazil would Massa have been any better of an F1 driver Of course not. But you could well argue the attainment of a WDC makes him greater.

I actually view winning one WDC title as something many drivers can achieve if all the stars align, however winning multiple titles starts putting a driver onto a different level.

While winning 4 in a row doesn't even get you in the top 10 according to this poll!!!

Against other multiple champions, Moss being the exception.

_________________
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: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2020 3:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 8023
Johnson wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
DOLOMITE wrote:

can you though... ;)

I googled this one and it's a bit grey but the consensus seemed to be that "greatest" seemed to be based on achievement rather that outright ability. If that's the case Schu is for now at least, the greatest.

So maybe it's another poll, but on that basis. I'd go with Greatest: Schu, Fastest:Senna, Best: Clark.


Yes for me greatest and best are quite different.

Best is purely how good someone was at being an F1 driver. For me it's much harder to come up with an accurate list of best as it's actually hard to tell how good someone is at being an F1 driver.

Greatest incorporates that but also encompass things like success, impact on the sport and legacy. Someone like Lauda who had a huge legacy and was the most successful in his era but was also beaten by multiple less rated team mates would feature higher on a list of greatest than best.

I use Massa as another example. Had Hamilton not overtaken Glock on the last lap in Brazil would Massa have been any better of an F1 driver Of course not. But you could well argue the attainment of a WDC makes him greater.

I actually view winning one WDC title as something many drivers can achieve if all the stars align, however winning multiple titles starts putting a driver onto a different level.

While winning 4 in a row doesn't even get you in the top 10 according to this poll!!!


Winning one can happen through a set of fortunate circumstances but winning multiple can also occur in a similar fashion. Damon Hill could have won 3-4 WDC's over 1994-1997 for example. If we had won 1994 he probably wouldn't have driven so badly in 1995 and got himself dropped before he even started his title winning year. Hill was a broken wishbone from probably being a 3x WDC.

Rosberg could have also pulled off 3-4 straight WDC's if Mercedes didn't sign Hamilton.


I know, I was jesting


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 7615
Location: Michigan, USA
Johnson wrote:
Similarly, my friend who I raced against for years we were always -/+ 0.1 every single time we went karting and we both weighed the exact same, 85kg the least you can weigh to race heavyweight karts. We karted again more recently and he was put on 6kg and I was 0.6-0.7 a lap quicker and just playing with him and able to overtake at will at any point. It was no fun at all because it was not a race and not competitive at all, so we stopped going until he loses the weight. But I didn't suddenly become a better karter than him. Our skill levels have always been equal and likely always will be. I thrashed him because I had a big advantage.

There are some 10-11 year old kids out there that would easily beat Hamilton, Vettel and Alonso in karts if you didn't equalise the weights... those kids aren't the best karters in the world. Not to me anyway.

I'm curious what kind of karts you race and what the length of the lap is, because that goes counter to my own experience and the empirical tests I've seen.

WTF1 did that test with Jack Aitken driving, the idea being that an F1 test driver would be able to set consistent laps and eliminate the driver variable. They got a result that +20kg was worth +0.232 over a 55 second lap. This was at an indoor track using petrol powered karts, but with up and down ramps to complicate the issue.

The track I race at (which is indoor, and electric) did their own test. They added 90lb (40.8kg) and found that it cost ~4 tenths on a 23 second lap. Now, that wasn't with any F1 test driver, so consistency may be an issue - but it's broadly in line with the WTF1 result.

I wouldn't deny that weight costs you some time in karting, but I have trouble believing it's anything near to 1kg = 1 tenth.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017 & 2019
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2020 12:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33721
Exediron wrote:
Johnson wrote:
Similarly, my friend who I raced against for years we were always -/+ 0.1 every single time we went karting and we both weighed the exact same, 85kg the least you can weigh to race heavyweight karts. We karted again more recently and he was put on 6kg and I was 0.6-0.7 a lap quicker and just playing with him and able to overtake at will at any point. It was no fun at all because it was not a race and not competitive at all, so we stopped going until he loses the weight. But I didn't suddenly become a better karter than him. Our skill levels have always been equal and likely always will be. I thrashed him because I had a big advantage.

There are some 10-11 year old kids out there that would easily beat Hamilton, Vettel and Alonso in karts if you didn't equalise the weights... those kids aren't the best karters in the world. Not to me anyway.

I'm curious what kind of karts you race and what the length of the lap is, because that goes counter to my own experience and the empirical tests I've seen.

WTF1 did that test with Jack Aitken driving, the idea being that an F1 test driver would be able to set consistent laps and eliminate the driver variable. They got a result that +20kg was worth +0.232 over a 55 second lap. This was at an indoor track using petrol powered karts, but with up and down ramps to complicate the issue.

The track I race at (which is indoor, and electric) did their own test. They added 90lb (40.8kg) and found that it cost ~4 tenths on a 23 second lap. Now, that wasn't with any F1 test driver, so consistency may be an issue - but it's broadly in line with the WTF1 result.

I wouldn't deny that weight costs you some time in karting, but I have trouble believing it's anything near to 1kg = 1 tenth.

I raced karts for many years, my local track was a 54 second lap, on that track 2Kg = 1 tenth.

However this wasn't done scientifically as such just a feeling that was the case.

However I actually did the experiment in an indoor kart track lap time 17 seconds and found that 1 stone equated to 0.09s.

Doing a comparison with the outdoor kart track I raced on, if we times the 17 seconds by 3 to make it a 51 second lap similar to the outdoor track and then convert to Kgs we get 2Kg = 0.085s.

That's quite consistent to what we estimated how the weight effected the lap time.

_________________
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: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2020 4:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 7615
Location: Michigan, USA
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Johnson wrote:
Similarly, my friend who I raced against for years we were always -/+ 0.1 every single time we went karting and we both weighed the exact same, 85kg the least you can weigh to race heavyweight karts. We karted again more recently and he was put on 6kg and I was 0.6-0.7 a lap quicker and just playing with him and able to overtake at will at any point. It was no fun at all because it was not a race and not competitive at all, so we stopped going until he loses the weight. But I didn't suddenly become a better karter than him. Our skill levels have always been equal and likely always will be. I thrashed him because I had a big advantage.

There are some 10-11 year old kids out there that would easily beat Hamilton, Vettel and Alonso in karts if you didn't equalise the weights... those kids aren't the best karters in the world. Not to me anyway.

I'm curious what kind of karts you race and what the length of the lap is, because that goes counter to my own experience and the empirical tests I've seen.

WTF1 did that test with Jack Aitken driving, the idea being that an F1 test driver would be able to set consistent laps and eliminate the driver variable. They got a result that +20kg was worth +0.232 over a 55 second lap. This was at an indoor track using petrol powered karts, but with up and down ramps to complicate the issue.

The track I race at (which is indoor, and electric) did their own test. They added 90lb (40.8kg) and found that it cost ~4 tenths on a 23 second lap. Now, that wasn't with any F1 test driver, so consistency may be an issue - but it's broadly in line with the WTF1 result.

I wouldn't deny that weight costs you some time in karting, but I have trouble believing it's anything near to 1kg = 1 tenth.

I raced karts for many years, my local track was a 54 second lap, on that track 2Kg = 1 tenth.

However this wasn't done scientifically as such just a feeling that was the case.

However I actually did the experiment in an indoor kart track lap time 17 seconds and found that 1 stone equated to 0.09s.

Doing a comparison with the outdoor kart track I raced on, if we times the 17 seconds by 3 to make it a 51 second lap similar to the outdoor track and then convert to Kgs we get 2Kg = 0.085s.

That's quite consistent to what we estimated how the weight effected the lap time.

Interesting. :thumbup:

I'm guessing that a lot of variables come into play, including the balance of straights vs. corners, the type of kart, and (perhaps most importantly) where you put the weight.

(but I admit this is all starting to look a bit off topic... :uhoh:)

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017 & 2019
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2020 1:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:57 am
Posts: 777
Location: Scotland/U.A.E
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Johnson wrote:
Similarly, my friend who I raced against for years we were always -/+ 0.1 every single time we went karting and we both weighed the exact same, 85kg the least you can weigh to race heavyweight karts. We karted again more recently and he was put on 6kg and I was 0.6-0.7 a lap quicker and just playing with him and able to overtake at will at any point. It was no fun at all because it was not a race and not competitive at all, so we stopped going until he loses the weight. But I didn't suddenly become a better karter than him. Our skill levels have always been equal and likely always will be. I thrashed him because I had a big advantage.

There are some 10-11 year old kids out there that would easily beat Hamilton, Vettel and Alonso in karts if you didn't equalise the weights... those kids aren't the best karters in the world. Not to me anyway.

I'm curious what kind of karts you race and what the length of the lap is, because that goes counter to my own experience and the empirical tests I've seen.

WTF1 did that test with Jack Aitken driving, the idea being that an F1 test driver would be able to set consistent laps and eliminate the driver variable. They got a result that +20kg was worth +0.232 over a 55 second lap. This was at an indoor track using petrol powered karts, but with up and down ramps to complicate the issue.

The track I race at (which is indoor, and electric) did their own test. They added 90lb (40.8kg) and found that it cost ~4 tenths on a 23 second lap. Now, that wasn't with any F1 test driver, so consistency may be an issue - but it's broadly in line with the WTF1 result.

I wouldn't deny that weight costs you some time in karting, but I have trouble believing it's anything near to 1kg = 1 tenth.

I raced karts for many years, my local track was a 54 second lap, on that track 2Kg = 1 tenth.

However this wasn't done scientifically as such just a feeling that was the case.

However I actually did the experiment in an indoor kart track lap time 17 seconds and found that 1 stone equated to 0.09s.

Doing a comparison with the outdoor kart track I raced on, if we times the 17 seconds by 3 to make it a 51 second lap similar to the outdoor track and then convert to Kgs we get 2Kg = 0.085s.

That's quite consistent to what we estimated how the weight effected the lap time.

Interesting. :thumbup:

I'm guessing that a lot of variables come into play, including the balance of straights vs. corners, the type of kart, and (perhaps most importantly) where you put the weight.

(but I admit this is all starting to look a bit off topic... :uhoh:)


The biggest myth in karting is that more weight makes you faster on the corners.

Being heavier is in no way an advantage, in any aspect, of karting - or motorsport in general. The bigger vehicles with more power mask the disadvantages more than light and low powered karts.

Doing the karting available to me as a teenager, it was fine at the lowest level where talent in the field varied wildly. As soon as you moved up a level, and the other drivers were all pretty decent, weight was a massive factor. Fastest in the field was a girl who weighed < 50 kg. At 80kg, I was a back marker.

_________________
I'm competing if anyone is interested in how I am getting on.
Car #36 - Blog


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2020 1:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16676
Badgeronimous wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Johnson wrote:
Similarly, my friend who I raced against for years we were always -/+ 0.1 every single time we went karting and we both weighed the exact same, 85kg the least you can weigh to race heavyweight karts. We karted again more recently and he was put on 6kg and I was 0.6-0.7 a lap quicker and just playing with him and able to overtake at will at any point. It was no fun at all because it was not a race and not competitive at all, so we stopped going until he loses the weight. But I didn't suddenly become a better karter than him. Our skill levels have always been equal and likely always will be. I thrashed him because I had a big advantage.

There are some 10-11 year old kids out there that would easily beat Hamilton, Vettel and Alonso in karts if you didn't equalise the weights... those kids aren't the best karters in the world. Not to me anyway.

I'm curious what kind of karts you race and what the length of the lap is, because that goes counter to my own experience and the empirical tests I've seen.

WTF1 did that test with Jack Aitken driving, the idea being that an F1 test driver would be able to set consistent laps and eliminate the driver variable. They got a result that +20kg was worth +0.232 over a 55 second lap. This was at an indoor track using petrol powered karts, but with up and down ramps to complicate the issue.

The track I race at (which is indoor, and electric) did their own test. They added 90lb (40.8kg) and found that it cost ~4 tenths on a 23 second lap. Now, that wasn't with any F1 test driver, so consistency may be an issue - but it's broadly in line with the WTF1 result.

I wouldn't deny that weight costs you some time in karting, but I have trouble believing it's anything near to 1kg = 1 tenth.

I raced karts for many years, my local track was a 54 second lap, on that track 2Kg = 1 tenth.

However this wasn't done scientifically as such just a feeling that was the case.

However I actually did the experiment in an indoor kart track lap time 17 seconds and found that 1 stone equated to 0.09s.

Doing a comparison with the outdoor kart track I raced on, if we times the 17 seconds by 3 to make it a 51 second lap similar to the outdoor track and then convert to Kgs we get 2Kg = 0.085s.

That's quite consistent to what we estimated how the weight effected the lap time.

Interesting. :thumbup:

I'm guessing that a lot of variables come into play, including the balance of straights vs. corners, the type of kart, and (perhaps most importantly) where you put the weight.

(but I admit this is all starting to look a bit off topic... :uhoh:)


The biggest myth in karting is that more weight makes you faster on the corners.

Being heavier is in no way an advantage, in any aspect, of karting - or motorsport in general. The bigger vehicles with more power mask the disadvantages more than light and low powered karts.

Doing the karting available to me as a teenager, it was fine at the lowest level where talent in the field varied wildly. As soon as you moved up a level, and the other drivers were all pretty decent, weight was a massive factor. Fastest in the field was a girl who weighed < 50 kg. At 80kg, I was a back marker.


I've no doubt it's true. What i don't understand is why this is viewed differently than all the top high jumpers being over 6ft tall.

Having certain physical attributes helps in most sports yet you rarely see performances of athletes discounted on the basis that they are particularly genetically gifted for it.

A basketball coach famously said you can't coach height. The same could be said of F1 in the 80s.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2020 1:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33721
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Johnson wrote:
Similarly, my friend who I raced against for years we were always -/+ 0.1 every single time we went karting and we both weighed the exact same, 85kg the least you can weigh to race heavyweight karts. We karted again more recently and he was put on 6kg and I was 0.6-0.7 a lap quicker and just playing with him and able to overtake at will at any point. It was no fun at all because it was not a race and not competitive at all, so we stopped going until he loses the weight. But I didn't suddenly become a better karter than him. Our skill levels have always been equal and likely always will be. I thrashed him because I had a big advantage.

There are some 10-11 year old kids out there that would easily beat Hamilton, Vettel and Alonso in karts if you didn't equalise the weights... those kids aren't the best karters in the world. Not to me anyway.

I'm curious what kind of karts you race and what the length of the lap is, because that goes counter to my own experience and the empirical tests I've seen.

WTF1 did that test with Jack Aitken driving, the idea being that an F1 test driver would be able to set consistent laps and eliminate the driver variable. They got a result that +20kg was worth +0.232 over a 55 second lap. This was at an indoor track using petrol powered karts, but with up and down ramps to complicate the issue.

The track I race at (which is indoor, and electric) did their own test. They added 90lb (40.8kg) and found that it cost ~4 tenths on a 23 second lap. Now, that wasn't with any F1 test driver, so consistency may be an issue - but it's broadly in line with the WTF1 result.

I wouldn't deny that weight costs you some time in karting, but I have trouble believing it's anything near to 1kg = 1 tenth.

I raced karts for many years, my local track was a 54 second lap, on that track 2Kg = 1 tenth.

However this wasn't done scientifically as such just a feeling that was the case.

However I actually did the experiment in an indoor kart track lap time 17 seconds and found that 1 stone equated to 0.09s.

Doing a comparison with the outdoor kart track I raced on, if we times the 17 seconds by 3 to make it a 51 second lap similar to the outdoor track and then convert to Kgs we get 2Kg = 0.085s.

That's quite consistent to what we estimated how the weight effected the lap time.

Interesting. :thumbup:

I'm guessing that a lot of variables come into play, including the balance of straights vs. corners, the type of kart, and (perhaps most importantly) where you put the weight.

(but I admit this is all starting to look a bit off topic... :uhoh:)

I put the lead in the seat, about 2 stone of sheet lead placed on the inside of the seat, which is basically were they presently put the lead in F1 for the new driver minimum weight regulations.

The effect could not only be seen in the lap times but also in the driving experience with the engine sounding noticeable more sluggish as it had to accelerate the extra weight.

_________________
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: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2020 2:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7884
Location: Belgium
Even if you add weight to remove that difference between drivers, you will still have a difference in height, and therefore weight distribution.

It may seem to be an effort towards providing a level playing field, but in a way it takes away one talent from those of us 'lucky' enough to be born smaller/lighter. In a formula that deals with anything but underpowered cars, that seems an unwanted discrimination to me.

One of the items brought up in the discussion fascinates me. What is it that pushes a driver on to want more than one title? I remember Kimi Räikkönen saying that he had achieved what he wanted to achieve on winning his first title. That satisfaction might be seen to be (or actually be) a serious disadvantage in the following phase of a driver's career - from the point of view of those only interested in multiple titles. I believe that team preferance often disadvantages the other driver's performance - Barrichello being a prime example. It does tarnish a driver's record if he never measured himself alongside another champion.

Thinking back to Kimi, his not being 'political' may well point to him being more of a sportsman than just being 'past it'. F1 being an industry rather than a sport may help to explain this. Or vice versa.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2020 7:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 2289
Location: Miami, Florida
For reasons I've stated countless times here, that answer will forever be… Michael Schumacher.

Like him or hate him, NO ONE before or since has ever dedicated and committed themselves as completely as he did for as long as he did in the quest to be the best in the world, and he didn't merely edge out the competition, he obliterated it. Today's veteran drivers aren't too far behind, but in his prime, Michael was unbeatable over a season. The only other driver from a different era that similarly, was consistently better than everyone else over his career was Novolari and that was way Pre-F1. Jim Clark was there as well, but his untimely and premature death saw to it that he didn't rake in more wins and titles.

Sadly, the one driver that is seemingly always overlooked whenever this question is asked is Nelson Piquet Sr. His talents get overlooked and he was a complete driver & Mechanic who often worked on his own cars, and would teach his mechanics new tricks.

_________________
HAMILTON :: VERSTAPPEN :: LECLERC :: BOTTAS :: VETTEL :: SAINZ :: NORRIS
KVYAT :: RAIKKONEN :: RUSSEL :: ALBON :: RICCIARDO :: HULKENBURG :: PEREZ
STROLL :: MAGNUSSEN :: GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: GIOVANAZZI :: KUBICA


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2020 12:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 7615
Location: Michigan, USA
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Sadly, the one driver that is seemingly always overlooked whenever this question is asked is Nelson Piquet Sr. His talents get overlooked and he was a complete driver & Mechanic who often worked on his own cars, and would teach his mechanics new tricks.

The problem with Piquet being perceived as a contender for best driver is his teammates, basically. During his purple stretch at Brabham he was partnered with the likes of Hector Rebaque and other no-name drivers; Riccardo Patrese was the best teammate he had at Brabham, and Patrese was never more than a second tier driver at best. When he went to Williams he partnered Mansell, and was no faster. After that he had his injury and became really quite slow -- by his own admission.

I have respect for Piquet, in the same way I respect Jack Brabham. But neither in my opinion deserves to be in the conversation for best driver of all time.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017 & 2019
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2020 1:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33721
Exediron wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Sadly, the one driver that is seemingly always overlooked whenever this question is asked is Nelson Piquet Sr. His talents get overlooked and he was a complete driver & Mechanic who often worked on his own cars, and would teach his mechanics new tricks.

The problem with Piquet being perceived as a contender for best driver is his teammates, basically. During his purple stretch at Brabham he was partnered with the likes of Hector Rebaque and other no-name drivers; Riccardo Patrese was the best teammate he had at Brabham, and Patrese was never more than a second tier driver at best. When he went to Williams he partnered Mansell, and was no faster. After that he had his injury and became really quite slow -- by his own admission.

I have respect for Piquet, in the same way I respect Jack Brabham. But neither in my opinion deserves to be in the conversation for best driver of all time.

Yeah the Mansell match up kind of killed the idea that Piquet was the best driver of his era, it put him firmly behind the likes of Senna and Prost, then when you're trying to pick so many drivers from each era Piquet is too far down the queue.

It's a similar thing with Vettel, he's now firmly placed behind the likes of Hamilton and Alonso in his era, Ricciardo was his equivalent Mansell, and then we even have already other drivers coming along like Verstappen who's definitely better than Vettel and Leclerc who might be?

_________________
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: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2020 9:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 2:54 pm
Posts: 1074
tim3003 wrote:
Last year I produced a statistical F1 analysis to list and rank the greatest F1 drivers. This met with varying levels of disapproval, so I thought I'd put the question to a vote of P-F1 forum users, and see how the 2 lists compare.
Thanks.


All based on opinion.

The only comparisons we can do is what they achieve and who they faced, especially in the same machinery.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2020 10:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7884
Location: Belgium
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
For reasons I've stated countless times here, that answer will forever be… Michael Schumacher.
He could have been, had he trusted his own talents enough and stopped driving into people. Since he didn't, he can't.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2020 10:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 8023
Fiki wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
For reasons I've stated countless times here, that answer will forever be… Michael Schumacher.
He could have been, had he trusted his own talents enough and stopped driving into people. Since he didn't, he can't.

One does not exclude the other; the fact that he drove into JV doesn't take away that his talent was immense. I can understand if you don't see him as the best from an ethics point of view, but you can't deny the talent/speed/racecraft.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2020 10:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 5:58 pm
Posts: 178
.

I do not understand people voting for Schumacher, not because he wasn't a very, very good driver, but because of his very questionable tactics at times.

Likewise, of the minimum of 42 voters (248/6) so many (at least 12) didn't vote for ANY of Clark, Hamilton, Senna, or Fangio.

.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2020 11:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 8023
Greenman wrote:
.

I do not understand people voting for Schumacher, not because he wasn't a very, very good driver, but because of his very questionable tactics at times.

Likewise, of the minimum of 42 voters (248/6) so many (at least 12) didn't vote for ANY of Clark, Hamilton, Senna, or Fangio.

.


Wait, Senna did the same (or worse) questionable things as Schumacher, so you are wondering why people didn't vote for him but question why people voted for Schumacher? Doesn't add up frankly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2020 12:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:58 am
Posts: 1368
Location: Kansas
Clark
Schumacher
Hamilton
Senna
Fangio
Prost
Stewart
Lauda

I don't see a need to go to ten. The above eight are in a class of their own. They all changed the face of Formula One in some fashion and left a permanent mark on the sport. The others on the list, not so much.

_________________
Mission WinLater


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2020 1:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33721
Fiki wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
For reasons I've stated countless times here, that answer will forever be… Michael Schumacher.
He could have been, had he trusted his own talents enough and stopped driving into people. Since he didn't, he can't.

The only thing I find disappointing about Schumacher's career is that he was never matched with the best drivers of his time, his best teammate was in his rookie season against Piquet who was past his prime, Piquet also was his closest teammate but of course Schumacher himself was a rookie.

He was to be matched up against Kimi but then he retired.

_________________
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: (8)


Last edited by pokerman on Thu Feb 06, 2020 1:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: froze and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group