8 replies to this topic

[kup]

As a kind of digital worm i present you my new weird as always:
"F 1 Pilots Top-9 ever weird comparsion" I just made 3 rankings.
How i made it - it is easy to do - just hard to explain for me - even in russian.
Be very attentive if you want to understant a bit of eureka. Heh.
1st = RESISTANCE FACTOR * HOW HARDLY WINS ACHIEVED * via SELF-TEAM-MATES *
2nd = FIGHT * ABILITY TO WIN UNDER PRESSURE * via ALL RIVALS *
3rd = RESISTANCE FACTOR "*2-/2" HOW HARDLY WINS ACHIEVED * via ALL RIVALS *
PILOTS ARE (Order by Wins): MS, AP, AS, NM, JS, JC, NL, JMF, NP.
And later i plan to compare Stirling Moss with all Top-9.
Last note: % is more imporpant than raw number of wins. Rank order is by %-age.

1st = RESISTANCE FACTOR (Wins * %s) via Self-Team-Mates
PILOT W %
NM 11 35
NL 06 24
AP 10 20
AS 06 15
JMF 03 13
JC 01 04
MS 00 00
NP -02 -09
JS -05 -19

2nd = FIGHT * (Wins * %s) via ALL
PILOT W %
NP 15 65
NM 16,5 53
AP 26 51
JS 12,5 46
JC 11,5 46
AS 17 41
NL 09 36
MS 26 29
JMF 2,5 11

3rd = RESISTANCE FACTOR "*2-/2" (Wins * %s) via ALL
PILOT W %
NM 16,5 53
AS 18 44
AP 20,5 40
NL 09 36
JC 6,5 26
NP 06 26
JMF 3,5 15
MS 13 14
JS 2,5 09

[rumblestrip]

Too much math for me.

[F1 FANatic]

im sorry but i don't even understand what you are trying to say so i don't get it.

[kup]

rumblestrip, on Jan 20 2007, 10:14 PM, said:

Too much math for me.

Yep. I just used to it. And i can make it clear and easy to got the basic idea.
Just say 2 pilots from above Top-9. And i gonna explain all those math on easy example.

[kup]

F1 FANatic, on Jan 20 2007, 10:46 PM, said:

im sorry but i don't even understand what you are trying to say so i don't get it.

Math says. I just compare numbers an %-ages.
And in this topic i just try to show the idea that Comparsion and %-afes itself
are in facts more important than all well-known raw numbers. As Wins, etc ...
Choose any 2 pilots from Top-9 and i can show you what math says.

[Autumnpuma]

I'll trust your numbers and how you got them, as Nigel is near the top on all three (I'm a fan of Il Leone). Now I need some help figuring out WHO some of your drivers are:

NM - Nigel Mansell
NL - ?
AP - Alain Prost
AS - Ayrton Senna
JMF - Juan Manuel Fangio
JC - Jackie Chan
MS - Michael Schumacher
NP - ?
JS - Jackie Stewart? (He's known as JYS, btw)

Could you fill in the question marks?

[kup]

As i said Top-9 is chosen by number of Wins in F-1 history.
So as ranked # 10 is Damon Hill with 22 wins - others are:
JC = JIM CLARK (not CHAN)
NL = Niki Lauda
NP = Nelson Piquet
Kidding ? And why MS is lower than most of Top-9 ? Aha?

[kup]

Oke. All 3 ranks have much in common. The key difference is deeply in details.
Lets start easy (?) explanation with Nigel Mansell as example:

1st = RESISTANCE Factor (Wins * %s) via Self-Team-Mates * PILOT W % * NM = 11 wins * 35 % * How to "read" this 1st rank math (not mess) ?
Approximatly 11 wins were very hardly achieved by NM. And in comparsion with his overall 31 wins - it is 35%.
What is "resistance factor" = "hardly achieving" ? It is when win is done not in the best car in current season.
So NM`s team power is important and also his team-mate power has influence too. Other teams and pilots has less influence in 1st rank (RF-1)

2nd = FIGHT Factor * (Wins * %s) via ALL * PILOT W % * NP = 15 wins 65 % * How to "read" this 2nd rank math ? (FF-2)
Approximatly 15 wins were made under hard pressure from other teams, cars, pilots on Nelson Piquet`s and his current team and car.
And since NP has overall 23 wins - he has 65 % of FF-2 wins. Same with Nigel Mansell: NM 16,5 wins- but just 53 % as he has 31 wins overall.

3rd = RESISTANCE Factor "*2-/2" (Wins * %s) via ALL * RF-3 * PILOT W % * NM = 16,5 wins * 53 % * As we see NM has same numbers in FF-2.
And it is oke - no problem. As i said above: ranks have much in common. And key diffenerce is deeply in details.
Just for NM all details in FF-2 and in RF-3 played same role in overall. Heh. And note - other pilots has other details influence.

1st + 2nd + 3rd = NM is high ranked in all 3 ranks. MS is low ranked in all 3 ranks. So what ?
Basic eureka is: NM has very powelful rivals in his F-1 career. So all his wins has very high COSTS-payed. No matter PRICE for win is 10 was 9 points.
MS "payed" much less - not "for all" - but for every of his wins. And also all 3 ranks "says": Who of the Top-9 was winning in harder conditions !
All 3 ranks says: IF NM has less resistanse from rivals - he could win more. And if MS has more resistanse from rivals - he could win less.
No matter MS was often in best cars - if he raced in harder conditions (as AP, AS, NM) he gonna have less wins in numbers - but more "payed".

All 3 ranks has nothing in common with my very another rank: SF-0 - STABILITY Factor.
In example - in terms of stability MS is definately higher than NM. All ranks not a way so say who is better or worse.
It is just to wider open eyes (often shut) on F-1 hidden facts.

[kup]

By the way: without * not with * Brawn - MS won just 3 GP (all in 1996). And feel the difference and mutual enfluence:
And without * not with * MS - Brawn won: 95: +2 GP - JH, 99: +4 GP - EI, 00-05: +9 GP - RB, 06: +2 GP - FM. Overall = 2+4+9+2 = 17 GP.
* MS overall wins: 91. 3 is 3,3 % * Ross wins: 91+17 = 108. 17 is 15,7 % *