A master thesis on who is the best F1 driver using stats

[markabilly]

I found this while googling away:
http://david.stadelmann-online.com/pdf/0015_formula1.pdf

it is a econometric study of who was the best based on a system of measuring results in different areas

Ascari and Fangio took top posts for wins compared to races and poles over races, while Clark and Schumacher were close behind, along with some other stats and observations

[D-Type]

Interesting reading. It does illustrate the difficulty of making a rational, as opposed to emotional, comparison doesn't it!

[markabilly]

how in the heckfire did this end up here? I put it in f1, then it gets moved to to history, and now to this???????????????????????

Doomed to be looked at by ppeople like easy and donkey?
Talk about back sliding into the pits of darkness and dispair..

[UltimateDanGTR]

I admire their commitment to such a thing but they have managed to make something exciting-F1 into something boring!

[schmenke]

I can't believe someone actually proposed a Master's Thesis in Economics on that topic :dozey:
What's even more incredulous is that it was accepted :mark:

[F1boat]

Sounds cool. I'll check it :)

[Jon 'Massa' Beagles]

Fascinating to see that, despite all the emotions surrounding Senna, it is Prost that comes out on top when unemotionally analysed. That shouldn't surprise me but it does somehow...

Also had no idea Farina was so good...had the impression that he sort of lucked into the 1950 Championship, but that was apparently mistaken. Thanks for correcting my ignorance lol :)

[Saint Devote]

It is hypothetical nonsense.

Motor racing is not that simple.

How does one consider the brilliance of Ronnie Peterson or Gilles Villeneuve? These names are placed behind Damon Hill for example - yet would anyone knowing anything about Gilles and Damon place the latter before the former given the same car? Of course not.

And their approach to racing was enturely different. Gilles wanted to win races and cared nothing for championships.

Their are great drivers and it is up to each of us to decide who is the "greatest" - because motor racing is a sport where passion cannot be excluded and maybe the drivers we rate the best [versus our favorites] is really a reflection of each of our outlooks and is the reason why the issue will never be decided.

Example: the overall greatest driver in my view is Jim Clark and had he lived would have gone on to win many more......

And how wonderful it would have been had we had Clark, Senna, Villeneuve and so on to comment on f1 today? So very sublime, alas never to be.

[Saint Devote]

Fascinating to see that, despite all the emotions surrounding Senna, it is Prost that comes out on top when unemotionally analysed. That shouldn't surprise me but it does somehow...

Also had no idea Farina was so good...had the impression that he sort of lucked into the 1950 Championship, but that was apparently mistaken. Thanks for correcting my ignorance lol :)

Yet it was Prost himself that declared he had never seen a driver so quick over one lap than Senna.......

[555-04Q2]

WTF :?:

Who has the time to put this cr@p together :s hock:

[Knock-on]

how in the heckfire did this end up here? I put it in f1, then it gets moved to to history, and now to this???????????????????????

Doomed to be looked at by ppeople like easy and donkey?
Talk about back sliding into the pits of darkness and dispair..

The chap doing my suspension is the same. He admitted that after starting in F1, he has happily worked his way down :laugh:

You have more chance trying to carve a fart than applying science and logic to this topic because it is subjective and emotive according to peoples preference, bias and perception.

It's the old case of I know what I likes and I likes what I know.