Kimi, the demolisher

[Juppe]

only because you decide not to take account of the data you don't like ... that's the way to have fun with the results

Ok, I take it you do not make a lot of statistical analysis?

If there is one year that supports your conclusion and five years that do not support it what is the outcome?

It is quite normal to disregard the data that does not fit the rest of the results from a statistical analysis.

[chap]

Ok, I take it you do not make a lot of statistical analysis?

If fact it is the opposite ... that's why I know your discussion is false.

If there is one year that supports your conclusion and five years that do not support it what is the outcome?

It is not me who decided to ignore the year that not fit ...

It is quite normal to disregard the data that does not fit the rest of the results from statistical analysis.

Your last sentence is true but has nothing to do with the way you treat the data.

In addition there are no statistical analysis here. It's simply matter of comparison year by year ...

Cheers.

[catnip]

Off the top of my head, Kimi 'only' had more engine failures than his teammate(s) in 2002, 2004 and 2005. In 2001 he had none, and in 2003/2006 his failure count was as low as or lower than his teammates'. Furthermore, his engine failures in 2005 tended to happen very early on in the engine's life cycle so it's questionable if his driving style really affected the outcome - after all, if an engine can only take, like, 10 practice laps, it's a bit difficult to state with any confidence that it's a great engine.

That leaves two seasons during which he indeed had an abnormally high number of engine failures. I don't know what those were all about, to be honest, and I admit they do look a bit suspect. However, those were also generally poor seasons for McLaren so maybe they were taking unnecessary risks with their engines to be even remotely competitive - I don't know. I'm just saying that while you can simply add up the numbers over the years and conclude that Kimi's stats look a bit weird, it'd be a good idea to keep in mind that he's also gone three entire seasons with excellent engine reliability. That probably wouldn't happen if his driving style was exceptionally and unacceptably abusive.

[Juppe]

If fact it is the opposite ... that's why I know your discussion is false.

....

Ok, this gets a little bit boring, but...

It is true that there is no real statistical study here and I am far too lazy to make one properly, but if there is one year's data that is very different from the rest, the natural conclusion would be either disregard it or to try to find a reason for its peculiarity. So what is false?

Cheers

The only sure-fire fact is that the story was in SportBild.

Which makes the only relevant statistic this - it is likely to be 99.999999% sure-fire bollocks.

[F1boat]

Ilien denied it. This story stinks.

[VresiBerba]

Strange that Ron Dennis & co wanted to keep that kind of a car-wrecker in McLaren so desperately...

If they were so desperate to hang on to Kimi, McLaren would have not let the option they had on Kimi laps, but they did.

[Juppe]

If they were so desperate to hang on to Kimi, McLaren would have not let the option they had on Kimi laps, but they did.

I cannot find any details, but did McLaren have an option for Kimi 2007?

[agwiii]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/56372

Will KR have the same "bad luck" at Ferrari? Is he really that "savage" or is it just the opinion of an engineer defending his products?

Now Illien denies the statements. We will never know the truth in the matter, but beginning on March 19, 2007, we will know if Kimi really is hard on cars.

[Ian McC]

The only sure-fire fact is that the story was in SportBild.

Which makes the only relevant statistic this - it is likely to be 99.999999% sure-fire bollocks.

That was exactly what I was going to say