Printable View
did you read it, the guy did not suggest telemetry was a reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Since when do just basic average calculations take into account differences in years and the cars?
BTW, since you don't seem find nothing wrong with it how do you think it explained those differences between the mentioned years? ;)
Why not ask about differences per race if you already chose to go down this road?Quote:
Originally Posted by janneppi
Analysis of any kind will yield better results when the data used is taken over a larger intervals, thus the only thing that really matters is:
Quote:
TOTAL 2002-2006 88 races.
Kimi: 23. (26%).
Teammates: 16. (18%).
Because i don't need as thorough answer from you, season differences will suffice. Why aren't you interested in explaining that?Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Nothing lies like a simple statistc, you should know that, but i guess things like differences in engineering staff, regulation changes, etc wont affect at all? :)Quote:
Analysis of any kind will yield better results when the data used is taken over a larger intervals, thus the only thing that really matters is:
They might affect it, please send me the thesis on this subject when you finished it, no matter the outcome of the research! :p :Quote:
Originally Posted by janneppi
Statistics exist because they are useful, believe it or not.
So no answer to my question then?
Sorry; I've been busy this two days and I couldn't even look at the Forum, so I had no idea of this discussion around my post.
First of all thanks to those who understood my intention of a simple overlook of Kimi retirements in the period 2002-2006, [b]only as an answer to a wrong asumption made by Mallen:
When I read it, I knew it was wrong (as I remember I did this calculation last year), and in order to give a real answer, I checked the results from the 88 races, separating retirements by its kind.Quote:
Originally Posted by "
As Mallen's afirmation was just if Kimi had more retirements than his teammates, that data should be enough, because the numbers are clear (23 to 16), and no further work should be done with this figures.
Of course I can make a full statistic of Kimi's problems, separating those which appeared during practices from those in race; separating the hidraulic from the electrical, from the simply mechanical; separating the different mechanical problems due to pure malfuncioning of a part from those caused by the driver.
I could go further and calculate the cost in points this problems would represent, according to his position in the race, or many other factors. And I could do the same with his teammates too if this would be of any help.
Because this is the point where I can't undersatand the objections; all this is about the comparison between Kimi's problems against his teammates' ones; just like this, a simple comparison, plain and direct. So why does anybody need more details?
If the matter is if Kimi is a car breaker, all the things some mentioned are neccesary to make a serious study, and much more than the mentioned (if you want a good study). But I didn't try to do it (and beleive, I can).
Imagine if someone says between Nurburgring and Hungaroring there're three weeks, and another one answers with a copy-paste of the calendar showing the las two weeks of July and the first two of August, to demonstrate there're only two weeks between both races. And then a thisrd person protests saying this is not enough, and it would be neccesary to make a study of the evolution of local temperatures during the last 50 years, plus a orographic comparision between both tracks, and another one about the mystic simbolism of the letters from the names of the past winners of all races :eek: .
I told you, if you wish to go into detail you can do it, but first take a look at the whole image.Quote:
Originally Posted by janneppi
Cherry picking occasions that suit your POV is no proof against what generalized statistics say. ;)
Good night!
Some mechanical failures could be caused due to driver. Such as Kimi's failure in Nurb 05, though it was a car failure, he bought that by himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by andreag
How any driver can bring about an electronic or hydraulic failure though - well, no one seems to know. It's pretty much accepted drivers don't cause these kind of failures. That's why an in-depth analysis is needed.
And to the forumer who stated you shouldn't be able to critizise anyone without doing a better job yourself - how silly statement is that! Does that mean he won't critizise Alonso or any other driver who challenges Ferrari when he makes a mistake. Can we not critizise the government with their policies unless we can first come up with our own policies? Please...be serious!
A generalized image is just a a generalization which can easily tell different stories, for exampleQuote:
Originally Posted by ioan
years 2003-2006
Kimi has the same mechanical problem rate(andreag's numbers) as his team mates. (16% ;)
Why the difference, could it possibly be that from years 2002-2006, 43% of Kimi's problems were from 2002, a whopping 73% were from years 2002 and 2004?
How's that for generationalyzing. ;)
If you look too far away at the forest, you miss the trees, despite point of views and bias. ;)
schumacher´s are the worst... trust meQuote:
Originally Posted by ioan
You mean Ralf??? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by eu
Given that he's the only one Schumacher in F1 it must be him! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by wmcot
But than Ralf fans are an almost extincted species, with very few of us still kicking around! ;)