kup 0 Report post Posted January 20, 2007 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rumblestrip 0 Report post Posted January 20, 2007 Too much math for me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
F1 FANatic 1 Report post Posted January 20, 2007 im sorry but i don't even understand what you are trying to say so i don't get it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kup 0 Report post Posted January 20, 2007 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kup 0 Report post Posted January 20, 2007 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Autumnpuma 0 Report post Posted January 21, 2007 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? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kup 0 Report post Posted January 21, 2007 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? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kup 0 Report post Posted January 21, 2007 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kup 0 Report post Posted January 21, 2007 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 % * Share this post Link to post Share on other sites