Moral Championship Standings

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by journeyman racer

Is there a problem?

---

OK, just some examples.

I count Hamilton's DNF in Spain 2010 as a car problem, which based on my memory was a suspension failure rather than just puncture.

This analysis hasn't counted Sebastian Vettel finishing 4th in Bahrain, while he started suffering from a car problem from the race lead, thus losing 13 points (dropped from 1st to 4th).

Regarding Räikkönen's 2003 you said his score includes Spain, where he had a start crash. But he started from last (!) position on the grid and was unlikely to score (many) points anyway.

And so on, and so on.

Not a big problem. I am trying to understand you are trying to have some general methodology. If I personally calculated, I would go on a race-by-race basis. I.e there is a difference whether a driver retired from P1 or P5, whether he had a car problem from P2 and dropped to P6, or retired altogether. Whether he stalled on the grid from P3, or had a crash with another car from P7. Or he inherited a race win from P5, because all drivers in front of him retired with problems (Johnny Herbert in 1995). For example in Spain 2012 Hamilton finished 8th, but arguably lost a race win, because he was DQ'd from qualifying due to fuel irregularity. Every situation is unique. That's why I personally don't use a "generic methodology", because it doesn't enlighten, what exactly was going on.

BUT... Leaving criticism aside, your work shows at least several tendencies (i.e Vettel winning by a bigger margin in 2010/12, Mansell and Senna neck-and-neck in 1991, Ferraris winning 07-08, etc). I don't want to criticise too much people, who put in an effort to do something.:) While it is easy to criticize from distance. But there is a possibility to go more into detail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steveaki13

1991 to early for me to recall really, but I never felt Mansell seem that unlukcy in 1991, especially with his luck in 1992 in getting such a ridiculously dominant car :p

---

Mansell really did have a lot of issues. He retired from the first three races straight, having already a 0:30 handicap to Senna in the points. Then the famous Canada retirement. He would have likely won in Belgium, but DNF with a car problem. His pit crew didn't fit his wheel properly in Portugal and DNF. I am unsure how many points he lost, but he lost a few wins and would have been at the very least on podium on each of those occasions.

Senna also had some retirements, but from my memory these were from minor positions, and he didn't lose a win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jens

OK, just some examples.

I count Hamilton's DNF in Spain 2010 as a car problem, which based on my memory was a suspension failure rather than just puncture.

---

I included that as a nde/dnf, along with the problem in Hungary. The dnf at Monza and Singapore were his errors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jens

This analysis hasn't counted Sebastian Vettel finishing 4th in Bahrain, while he started suffering from a car problem from the race lead, thus losing 13 points (dropped from 1st to 4th).

---

True.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jens

Regarding Räikkönen's 2003 you said his score includes Spain, where he had a start crash. But he started from last (!) position on the grid and was unlikely to score (many) points anyway.

---

True. His average points haul per finish was 7. Between Spain and a probable win in Nurburgring, he gets a minimum of 10pts. The average points of those two races is 5. It might've been a bit of a stretch for him to finish 5th in Spain (for 4pts), to get the average of those races to 7. But it wouldn't have been impossible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jens

And so on, and so on.

Not a big problem. I am trying to understand you are trying to have some general methodology. If I personally calculated, I would go on a race-by-race basis. I.e there is a difference whether a driver retired from P1 or P5, whether he had a car problem from P2 and dropped to P6, or retired altogether. Whether he stalled on the grid from P3, or had a crash with another car from P7. Or he inherited a race win from P5, because all drivers in front of him retired with problems (Johnny Herbert in 1995). For example in Spain 2012 Hamilton finished 8th, but arguably lost a race win, because he was DQ'd from qualifying due to fuel irregularity. Every situation is unique. That's why I personally don't use a "generic methodology", because it doesn't enlighten, what exactly was going on.

BUT... Leaving criticism aside, your work shows at least several tendencies (i.e Vettel winning by a bigger margin in 2010/12, Mansell and Senna neck-and-neck in 1991, Ferraris winning 07-08, etc). I don't want to criticise too much people, who put in an effort to do something.:) While it is easy to criticize from distance. But there is a possibility to go more into detail.

---

It was too hard to figure out a fair equation to paint the picture. It's also too hard to when you account Chaos theory. The thread was born out of Hamilton fans going into meltdown over his problems this year. SO I just made what I thought was a fair points haul. Accounting for their season form. Regardless of what position or what lap they dnf at the time.

If you can figure out a more detailed equation. You can use my figures for a base, and go ahead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by journeyman racer

It was too hard to figure out a fair equation to paint the picture. It's also too hard to when you account Chaos theory. The thread was born out of Hamilton fans going into meltdown over his problems this year. SO I just made what I thought was a fair points haul. Accounting for their season form. Regardless of what position or what lap they dnf at the time.

If you can figure out a more detailed equation. You can use my figures for a base, and go ahead.

---

You are right about the "too hard" part if such analysis was tried to be made properly in depth. Because not only top drivers, but the whole field has to be "re-adjusted". And lots of things would be impossible to tell. For example if a driver stalled on the grid or was wiped out in the first corner, where would he have finished? How would the "re-adjusted" 2012 Belgian Grand Prix look like, if half of the top 10 had not been wiped out by Grosjean at the start?

That's what I'm saying. I found that once you start trying to predict race results, it becomes subjective. That's when it becomes a ****storm amongst fans. With what I did, it eliminates 90% of the issue. It can become clearer where ones opinion forms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

1988 is a disgrace and 1990 was a criminal act. 1984

---

88 was down to the points system and being required to drop scores, but you're right if all the races counted Prost easily wins.

However, if you want to throw out 1990, you also have to throw out 1889 when Prost clearly turned into Senna at Suzuka and initiated the collision. Senna rejoined won the race but was DQed because he restarted from the escape instead of going back to where he went off. I thought that was pretty petty considering that he lost all that time, had to pit for a new wing, and still ran Naninni down and passed him for the "win."

That, and Senna would have never had to use the escape road if Prost had not turned into him, and that's what sealed the championship for him!

Things were made worse because JM Balestre was running the FIA and was firmly in fellow Frenchman Prost's corner no matter what had transpired. It just reeked of a fixed championship.

If Suzuka had stood with Senna winning, he's the champion. However, I almost don't care because it was those two chopping, blocking, swerving and crashing into each other deliberately that set those tactics as the ones to use if you want to win.

I've only gotten so deep into this thread but wanted to comment. It will be interesting to see your take on 94, if you have not already posted it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jens

How would the "re-adjusted" 2012 Belgian Grand Prix look like, if half of the top 10 had not been wiped out by Grosjean at the start?

---

Who knows? Maybe without the crash at the start Grosjean takes everyone out at Eau rouge instead!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc Austin

However, if you want to throw out 1990, you also have to throw out 1889 when Prost clearly turned into Senna at Suzuka and initiated the collision. Senna rejoined won the race but was DQed because he restarted from the escape instead of going back to where he went off. I thought that was pretty petty considering that he lost all that time, had to pit for a new wing, and still ran Naninni down and passed him for the "win."
That, and Senna would have never had to use the escape road if Prost had not turned into him, and that's what sealed the championship for him!

---

Prost's line into that chicane doesn't seem to deviate that far off what he would have taken. Given that the rear view mirrors on the MP4/5B are so small, I honestly think that Prost never saw him.
Senna was trying to jam a car into a space where it wouldn't fit. This was a racing incident.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc Austin

I've only gotten so deep into this thread but wanted to comment. It will be interesting to see your take on 94, if you have not already posted it.

---

Schumacher's line into Hunt Street doesn't seem to deviate that far off what he would have taken. Schumacher and Hill definitely had visual contact but Hill tried it anyway.
Hill was trying to jam a car into a space where it wouldn't fit. This is mainly Hill's fault.

The truth is that Hill wouldn't have even got close in the points to Schumacher if it wasn't for the two race ban, which he'd picked up in Britain. Schumacher was in effect penalised four times for one offence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Schumacher's line into Hunt Street doesn't seem to deviate that far off what he would have taken. Schumacher and Hill definitely had visual contact but Hill tried it anyway.

---

Deliberate, but instinctual.

Of course, that was another time, but I think Jerez now erases all doubt about Adelaide. Once was maybe an accident, but Jerez established a pattern.

Quote:

---

The truth is that Hill wouldn't have even got close in the points to Schumacher if it wasn't for the two race ban, which he'd picked up in Britain. Schumacher was in effect penalised four times for one offence.

---

Yep, it was a BS call, but that did not justify taking Hill out.

If these were road accidents, then the car coming from behind is usually the one at fault. Hill would go on to prove form for this at the 1995 British GP, which was embarrassingly clumsy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=az_CdcAdAjE