he is msport fan so.....
Printable View
he is msport fan so.....
What's wrong with M-Sport stats there? They are pretty good, aren't they?Quote:
Originally Posted by nafpaktos
Mirek you started highlighting the stats on reliability... what were You trying to say ?
I dont suppose it's because they favoured Škoda...
I don't understand why you seem surprised about these stats? Škoda is a bit better than Ford (quite small margin), everyone know PSA R5 is (at least was) rubbish, I20 relatively new car with possibly not eliminated defects, and Mirage is garage made rally car; everything is true, and reflects in those stats. Old bodyshell is irrelevant - it's all about maintaining car, replacing parts, and how driver using it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie WRC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie WRC
I have posted an article with an analysis based on very large amount of data which us fans don't have. I am not author of the analysis (neither have I any sort of relation to the author or ewrc server) and I don't claim anything besides what is described in the article. It's You who came with a statement which is in direct contradiction with recorded stats therefore it's up to You to back up Your claims (i.e. that older cars become less reliable while the recorded trend shows exactly opposite).
I haven't posted this article because I like Škoda (I like M-Sport too and FYI I worked for years on Ford vehicle development). Yes, it shows Škoda as the most reliable but I think that it's hardly a surprise for anyone. Maybe the fact that M-Sport was on near same numbers is more of a surprise especially considering that M-Sport is much cheaper. M-Sport also has better customer support.
It’s never too much to praise and thank eWRC guys for their fantastic work (as long as they keep the site free ;)), but for them or any other people gathering rally data it may not be easy to establish retirements real causes, as those aren’t always reported by the teams or the organizers.
If a driver destroys a suspension (for example hitting a rock or a tree) and retires, how many times that kind of retirement is classified as 'technical' (mechanical faillure) and not as 'accident' (driver mistake)? Otherwise, a driver can go off the road and even roll due to a brake failure and no technical problem is indicated as the accident cause. On a recent CNR rally, former champ Moura got 2 punctures and retired, after a deep corner cut; somehow the retirement cause appears as ‘mechanical’.
That’s why we should take these reliability stats in a light way.
Yes, that is for sure a concern but logically this kind of mistake is from its nature global, i.e. it shall not depend on vehicle type. It means that there is for sure a certain error in the stats but this error shall be statistically same for all cars.
You don't need to go after tenths of percent to see that the cars are basically in three largely different groups. First most reliable one is Fabia and Fiesta. Second much worse is PSA cars and i20 and the third worst one is represented by the only private car Mirage. The differences between the groups are so big that few mistakenly reported retirements don't change anything.
I think that it all corresponds with the generally knows stuff, i.e. Škoda and M-Sport put a lot of effort into R5 because it's very important for them. Hyundai R5 seemed to be always a bit of side-project with lower importance. PSA cars are known for many design flaws which were partially fixed in time but many still remain and finally the Mirage as a private project suffers from the same problems as all other similar ones before.
Anyway it's interesting statistic and thanx for sharing it! Even if there are some questions about data from ewrc for sure final results are quite logical, understandable and like expected, so error margin in those stats is small.
As a guy who wrote that eWRC article, I can assure you, that I´m not so big fan of Skoda, my most favourite drivers usualy drive some different machinery, usually from M-Sport :) So, no Skoda bias. And I am aware of limitations of data, it was written in the beggining of text, that I counted as crash only those retirement which were labeled as "accident" or "accident damage", so i would suppose, that in real, number of retirement related with accident would be even bigger. Last but not leas, I´m happy, that you like it even if it was in Czech
No matter the way we tend to analyze the data, the article is indeed quite interesting and you and your partners at eWRC deserve huge congratulations. Keep up the good work!Quote:
Originally Posted by kure91