No farewells for the most "entertaining" driver that F1 has seen in this era???

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

3rd February 2016, 15:09
Starter

Quote:

Originally Posted by jens

Interesting, though it was the era in which there were no 'limits' on components during race weekends. You could completely write off a car, and still race in a spare car. And from what I remember, drivers used to crash/spin or at least 'test the limits' during free practices quite a lot. I'd guess (far) more than nowadays.

I am definitely not the fan of Senna that most are. Though fast, I thought he was a dangerous and unsportsman like driver. 66 incidents in 95 race weekends is a 69% rate - hardly the mark of the best driver. Could someone pull up the incident rate for a few others like Clark, Fangio, Stewart, etc. for comparison?
3rd February 2016, 15:17
AndyL

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starter

I am definitely not the fan of Senna that most are. Though fast, I thought he was a dangerous and unsportsman like driver. 66 incidents in 95 race weekends is a 69% rate - hardly the mark of the best driver. Could someone pull up the incident rate for a few others like Clark, Fangio, Stewart, etc. for comparison?

Can it really be valid to compare accident rates from different eras? Back in the day, I'm sure there were sadly too many drivers who only ever had 1 accident.
3rd February 2016, 16:56
The Black Knight

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nitrodaze

Maldonano is a better driver than he displayed in 2014/5. A year out may be just the thing he needs to get his act together. Winning a GP in a car that was inferior to a Ferrari with Alonso in it, ahead of the Mclaren with Hamilton in it and a Redbull with Vettel in it, is not a trivial achievement. The last two seasons has not done Maldonado any favors.

He's not really. I look at that weekend as a fluke where the car was just perfect and he drove reasonably well. You can't be as good as he appeared that weekend and then suddenly be as bad as he was for the remainder of his career. He's not better than what he displayed. He's not deserving of an F1 seat and he should never be allowed near a F1 circuit again.
3rd February 2016, 18:41
Nitrodaze

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Black Knight

He's not really. I look at that weekend as a fluke where the car was just perfect and he drove reasonably well. You can't be as good as he appeared that weekend and then suddenly be as bad as he was for the remainder of his career. He's not better than what he displayed. He's not deserving of an F1 seat and he should never be allowed near a F1 circuit again.

Well, Hulkenburg in a similar position a few years back, driving a Force India did not pull off a win. That's not to suggest that Hulkenburg is a bad driver or worst than Maldonado. Just simply that it takes a little more than luck to pull off a win with so many quality drivers on the grid. The swing in performance is typically a Maldonado temperament. Something he has struggled with for some time and has not seemed to get on top of yet. His showing in 2014 1nd 2015 is the worst expected of any driver without a doubt. But within that uglyness is a Fomula 1 race winning driver. Something you cannot take away from the guy. He is capable of better and it is a shame he has let himself and a lot of fans down.
3rd February 2016, 20:00
Starter

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyL

Can it really be valid to compare accident rates from different eras? Back in the day, I'm sure there were sadly too many drivers who only ever had 1 accident.

I agree it would be a fairer measure if you can factor out the mechanical incidents and only count driver error and car to car contact, but I doubt that data is readily available. I also don't think the era makes much difference, but if it makes you feel better throw Schumi and Proust in there too.
3rd February 2016, 20:39
The Black Knight

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nitrodaze

Well, Hulkenburg in a similar position a few years back, driving a Force India did not pull off a win. That's not to suggest that Hulkenburg is a bad driver or worst than Maldonado. Just simply that it takes a little more than luck to pull off a win with so many quality drivers on the grid. The swing in performance is typically a Maldonado temperament. Something he has struggled with for some time and has not seemed to get on top of yet. His showing in 2014 1nd 2015 is the worst expected of any driver without a doubt. But within that uglyness is a Fomula 1 race winning driver. Something you cannot take away from the guy. He is capable of better and it is a same he has let himself and a lot of fans down.

Being a race winning driver does not particularly mean you are a good one. He was lucky that weekend and that is it! He wasn't capable of more. If he had been capable of better then he would have managed it in four years of driving. Talent alone isn't enough. If you're a complete idiot, and he is, then your talent is wasted, because it's canceled out by the wrong mentality and that mentality renders you incapable of achieving more.

As for Hulk, I'm not convinced about him either. I don't see what others see in him. He impressed me once to get pole in Brazil, just like Maldonado impressed once.
4th February 2016, 11:48
AndyL

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starter

I agree it would be a fairer measure if you can factor out the mechanical incidents and only count driver error and car to car contact, but I doubt that data is readily available. I also don't think the era makes much difference, but if it makes you feel better throw Schumi and Proust in there too.

I wasn't really thinking about mechanical incidents. I was thinking drivers of past, more dangerous eras probably took fewer risks. I doubt any driver of Clark's or Fangio's eras had 53 crashes because they wouldn't have survived that long.
4th February 2016, 11:55
Rollo

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyL

I wasn't really thinking about mechanical incidents. I was thinking drivers of past, more dangerous eras probably took fewer risks. I doubt any driver of Clark's or Fangio's eras had 53 crashes because they wouldn't have survived that long.

This:
Jim Clark had only five accidents in his motor racing career? Someone? I don't have access to that sort of data back them.

Clark - 72 starts - 25 win - 23 DNFs - 3 incidents??
4th February 2016, 12:40
jens

That win by Maldonado was well-deserved and earnt on merit. No question about that.

But one impressive race in a career is not good enough. Many drivers can shine on odd occasion. You need at least a bit consistency to have a sustainable career.:)

As for Hülkenberg... Well yeah, he has not won a race. But on average his performance has been better, including far more good and decent drives, not to mention significantly less crashes.
4th February 2016, 12:45
jens

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starter

I am definitely not the fan of Senna that most are. Though fast, I thought he was a dangerous and unsportsman like driver. 66 incidents in 95 race weekends is a 69% rate - hardly the mark of the best driver. Could someone pull up the incident rate for a few others like Clark, Fangio, Stewart, etc. for comparison?

I wonder, what do these 66 incidents include. Because looking at races (I don't know about practices!) Senna wasn't THAT crash-prone, even if he had some incidents. He had lots of DNF-s, but mostly due to unreliable cars. The Lotus of 1985-87 was prone to running out of fuel before the chequered flag. And Senna had a pretty bad reliability in seasons like 1989 or 1992.

But that was a different era. Era in which cars were far more unreliable than today and could blow up regularly.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page