Driver Statistics

[ykickamoocow 0]

1998 was sure a good year for DC to have a bad season as the McLaren was dynamite that season and was by far the best car on the grid. DC lost his bottle I suspect knowing he had the best car but also having a team mate who was clearly faster than him.

You can't keep using car failures or reliability issues to defend Coulthard... At the end of the day, he was a good driver but he didn't take the next step that was taken by Damon Hill and Nigel Mansell.

DC had 7 retirements in a season of 16 races. That is huge and anyone who believes that DC could/should have won that season with 7 retirements is out of their mind.

PS ButtonGod did you even watch the 1999 season because you dont seem to know anything about it.

[Max Mosley 2]

DC was good but not as good as Hill and Mansell and the other deserving WDC's.

[pumpdoc 2]

DC was good but not as good as Hill and Mansell and the other deserving WDC's.

And this is why he never was or will be WDC.................

[Jem of the Shire 0]

But Eddie Irvine came VERY close to being wdc, is he better than DC?

[nojvnof1 0]

In DC's defence, Eddie only got that close because Michael broke his leg at Silverstone.

[Jem of the Shire 0]

In DC's defence, Eddie only got that close because Michael broke his leg at Silverstone.

Michael broke his leg - so DC should've got closer than he did. Anyway, when MS broke his leg he and Irv were equal on points

[ykickamoocow 0]

Michael broke his leg - so DC should've got closer than he did. Anyway, when MS broke his leg he and Irv were equal on points

Also the Ferrari was the best car in 1999. If MS didnt break his leg then im 90% certain that he would have won the championship. The only time that DC has been in the fastest car in his career was 1998.

[nojvnof1 0]

Anyway, when MS broke his leg he and Irv were equal on points

no they weren't. Michael was leading the Championship, and I believe he would have gone on to win the title had he not crashed.

[ButtonGod 0]

DC had 7 retirements in a season of 16 races. That is huge and anyone who believes that DC could/should have won that season with 7 retirements is out of their mind.

PS ButtonGod did you even watch the 1999 season because you dont seem to know anything about it.

Firstly are we even talking about the same year? I'm referring to 1998 and not 1999.

Back to 1998, DC retired 5 times that year and only 3 of them were due to car failures the rest was due to driver error. Let nots forget who caused the first corner pile up at Spa! Of the 9 races that McLaren won that year, DC only won one race. He was completely out raced by his Finnish team mate.

PS ykickamoocow did you even watch the 1998 season as you seem to know nothing about it. The fact that you seem to think that DC had the best car in 1995 earlier on in this thread seems to suggest that you weren't watching that season either.

For the record, I have watched every F1 race since the 1993 season.

[Jem of the Shire 0]

Firstly are we even talking about the same year? I'm referring to 1998 and not 1999.

Back to 1998, DC retired 5 times that year and only 3 of them were due to car failures the rest was due to driver error. Let nots forget who caused the first corner pile up at Spa! Of the 9 races that McLaren won that year, DC only won one race. He was completely out raced by his Finnish team mate.

PS ykickamoocow did you even watch the 1998 season as you seem to know nothing about it. The fact that you seem to think that DC had the best car in 1995 earlier on in this thread seems to suggest that you weren't watching that season either.

For the record, I have watched every F1 race since the 1993 season.

DC didnt retire at spa, he finished 7th. You also may have forgotten that DC was on his way to win in canada and monza in 98 so would have got at least 3 wins had his engine not blown

[Kopite Girl 0]

In DC's defence, Eddie only got that close because Michael broke his leg at Silverstone.

True. But in Eddie's defence he pounced once M$ was out of the picture.

Was it not Michael himself who said he didn't want Eddie to win because he himself wanted to be the first Ferrari driver to win since Schekter?

That in itself would have contributed to a MAJOR psychological scar to M$.

[ButtonGod 0]

DC didnt retire at spa, he finished 7th. You also may have forgotten that DC was on his way to win in canada and monza in 98 so would have got at least 3 wins had his engine not blown

I know DC didn't retire in 1998 at first but he did later on when he smashed MS out of the race!

It doesn't matter if DC was on his way to wins in Canada and Monza, he was still outclassed by his Finnish team mate. What part of that sentence do you not understand?

[Jem of the Shire 0]

I know DC didn't retire in 1998 at first but he did later on when he smashed MS out of the race!

It doesn't matter if DC was on his way to wins in Canada and Monza, he was still outclassed by his Finnish team mate. What part of that sentence do you not understand?

No, he finished 7th, cos he re-entered the race. Did I say I didnt understand your sentence??? No, so what are you talking about. I was merely pointing out that whilst Hakkinen did outperform DC, its worth mentioning that in 2 of DC's retirements he was on his way to win

[ButtonGod 0]

No, he finished 7th, cos he re-entered the race. Did I say I didnt understand your sentence??? No, so what are you talking about. I was merely pointing out that whilst Hakkinen did outperform DC, its worth mentioning that in 2 of DC's retirements he was on his way to win

It doesn't matter if he was on his way to win he still didn't win them. IF in F1 is not worth talking about and it is not the IFs that go on the drivers records. I used to always entertain the IFs but whats the point it doesn't count.

What part of my sentence don't you understand was meant as sacarsm but you take things way to seriously and personally.

[Jem of the Shire 0]

What part of my sentence don't you understand was meant as sacarsm but you take things way to seriously and personally.

Sounded to me like you were trying to make me feel stupid.... anyway I hope you see my point. I agree that Hakkinen was the better driver in 98 but DC did have a little bit of bad luck

[Senna 0]

no they weren't. Michael was leading the Championship, and I believe he would have gone on to win the title had he not crashed.

Indeed. The Ferrari F399 was a superlative machine. Superior equipment is the only reason Eddie was able to challenge Mika after Michael was effectively eliminated from the championship fight.

[juanpablo 0]

no they weren't. Michael was leading the Championship, and I believe he would have gone on to win the title had he not crashed.

Michael wasnt leading the championship going into the British GP...it was 40-32 in Hakkinen's Favor

[ykickamoocow 0]

Firstly are we even talking about the same year? I'm referring to 1998 and not 1999.

Back to 1998, DC retired 5 times that year and only 3 of them were due to car failures the rest was due to driver error. Let nots forget who caused the first corner pile up at Spa! Of the 9 races that McLaren won that year, DC only won one race. He was completely out raced by his Finnish team mate.

PS ykickamoocow did you even watch the 1998 season as you seem to know nothing about it. The fact that you seem to think that DC had the best car in 1995 earlier on in this thread seems to suggest that you weren't watching that season either.

For the record, I have watched every F1 race since the 1993 season.

I started watching F1 in 1999. I also never said that DC had the best car in 1995. I have said on many occassions that the only time in his career that DC has had the best car was 1998 and DC had a bad year in 1998. Every driver has at least 1 bad year and 1998 was DC's turn.

[Senna 0]

I started watching F1 in 1999. I also never said that DC had the best car in 1995. I have said on many occassions that the only time in his career that DC has had the best car was 1998 and DC had a bad year in 1998. Every driver has at least 1 bad year and 1998 was DC's turn.

Indeed. DC only had the best car in 1998 and Mika was (understandably) better.

[Max Mosley 2]

I started watching F1 in 1999. I also never said that DC had the best car in 1995. I have said on many occassions that the only time in his career that DC has had the best car was 1998 and DC had a bad year in 1998. Every driver has at least 1 bad year and 1998 was DC's turn.

Yes but he clearly isn't WDC material.

[funkejay 0]

Good stats.

I can add my rating of above drivers (last 5 years counts)

= Driver - Success - Strength =

MS 75 42

RB 52 45

KR 51 35

FA 49 34

JPM 41 32

JB 24 24

RS 23 21

JT 19 18

DC 18 16

GF 15 12

NH 7 7

MW 5 5

TS 4 4

FM 2,5 2,5

= note = only VERY strong drivers have more Success =)

And TEAMS (note Ferrari = MS+RB, exactly)

FER 127 87

MCL 83 59

REN 72 53

WIL 57 51

BAR 28 28

TOY 14 14

SAU 8 8

JOR 6 5

=)

Kup, I'd love to scrutinize your stats for meaning, but I don't understand what the hell you're trying to say half the time.

How about giving us some indication of what "success" and "strength" are suppoed to represent in your table, and how you calculated those numbers?

JV's car in 96-97 was completely dominant. In 97 he only really fought for wins against MS cos Frentzen was useless. When DC had the best car in 98,99,2000, he had to first beat MS & Hakkinen. In 95 he was very new and had to beat MS & Hill to win a race. DC has scored some really impressive wins - monaco 02 stands out, so does Brazil 01 when he passed MS in the wet. JV hasnt really scored any brilliant wins

I agree.

No brilliant wins?? What rubbish.

Nurburgring '96 - held off Michael and was under strong pressure in only his fourth race on an unfamiliar track to win his first race.

Estoril '96 - made a bad start to drop to P4 behind Hill, Alesi and Michael. Passed Michael around the outside of Parabolica (he did the impossible basically) and then proceeded to chase down Hill's 20 second lead and win the race.

Barcelona '97 - Goodyear runners had major blistering problems. JV held a steady pace at the start of each stint to keep tyres in condition then demolished everyone. Michael and Frentzen suffered massive blisters.

A1-Ring '97 - On a 1 stop strategy hence was fat with fuel at the start. Got passed by Jarno and Rubens but then passed Rubens and set off a string of fast laps to win the race.

nojvnof1, don't bother, you'll never persuade these guys - their bias is complete and absolute, and they will not be swayed by something as trite and meaningless as facts.....

[Max Mosley 2]

I seem to remember you having the good grace to admit you too are biased a while back. In any case it must be said that in 96 and 97 JV had a the best car by quite a way.

[funkejay 0]

I seem to remember you having the good grace to admit you too are biased a while back. In any case it must be said that in 96 and 97 JV had a the best car by quite a way.

If we are to be honest, we must all admit some bias in the way we see world. I am no different. However, I will at least attempt to be objective in evaluating whether the facts can support my bias - and I certainly don't shy away from such a debate.

On the other hand, Senna (and to a lesser extent jemstride too) loves to pounce on less experienced and less informed members and bully them, but generally won't engage in a debate on any issue where he suffers from soft footing, choosing instead to insult his opponent and dismiss them without so much as acknowledging their arguments. It may be an effective tactic, but I don't feel the slightest hesitation in chastising him (them) for it.

[kup 0]

Funny stats: "IF ONE Driver never be F-1 pilot" (and never win a race)

WHO gonna win all those races (actually was finished 2nd =) ?

Example: Ayrton Senna = 41 wins

Funny-EX: (no-AS)

AP 16+ NM 8+ NP 3+ DH 3+ GB 3+ RP 2+ JA 2+

Example: Alain Prost = 51 wins

Funny-EX: (no-AP)

AS 7+ NP 7+ NM 5+ GB 5+ MA 5+ MS 4+ NL 3+

Example: Michael Schumacher = 84 wins

Funny-EX: (no-MS)

RB 20 DC 9 DH 8 JPM 8 MH 7 KR 4 RS 4 JA 4

NOTE: take it easy, and try to see above Funny ideas from some several points of view, before trying to interpret it =) Thanx =)

[funkejay 0]

Funny stats: "IF ONE Driver never be F-1 pilot" (and never win a race)

WHO gonna win all those races (actually was finished 2nd =) ?

Example: Ayrton Senna = 41 wins

Funny-EX: (no-AS)

AP 16+ NM 8+ NP 3+ DH 3+ GB 3+ RP 2+ JA 2+

Example: Alain Prost = 51 wins

Funny-EX: (no-AP)

AS 7+ NP 7+ NM 5+ GB 5+ MA 5+ MS 4+ NL 3+

Example: Michael Schumacher = 84 wins

Funny-EX: (no-MS)

RB 20 DC 9 DH 8 JPM 8 MH 7 KR 4 RS 4 JA 4

NOTE: take it easy, and try to see above Funny ideas from some several points of view, before trying to interpret it =) Thanx =)

Kup, for all I know you're a genius statistician, but I can't understand what the hell you're driving at man!!!!! PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT THE HELL YOU'RE NUMBERS MEAN AND WHAT THE HELL YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY!!!!!