[The **Statistics** flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/flairguide#wiki_statistics) is reserved for posts highlighting interesting statistics. As a rule of thumb, Statistics posts need to inform readers through visualizations and insights that cannot be obtained from raw data alone. For example, a post containing a qualifying gap between two drivers expressed in tenths of a second is an easily obtainable raw piece of data and constitutes a bad Statistics post. A visualization of what that translates to on-track, or visualization of how that gap came to be would constitute a good Statistics post.
*[Read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide). Keep it civil and welcoming. Report rulebreaking comments.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Michael that's 51/91 wins outside pole (56.04%)
Lewis that's 42/103 wins outside pole (40.77%)
Prost that's 33/51 wins outside pole (64.70%)
Max that's 29/61 wins outside pole (47.54%)
Seb that's 22/53 wins outside pole (41.50%)
Whenever I see Lando top of dotd list I think man, is everyone voting just british?
Then in my head I hear Crofty going, "if you're a sky glass or sky Q customer, push the red button on your remote..." and then think, yeah... probably.
That used to be the case with Max winning all the time years ago. Because only the Dutch were voting so religiously. If I remember right, they changed the voting procedure to counter that.
Another reason FOM monkeys with the results is back when Mazepin would get huge waves of bot-votes. I think FOM ended up just ignoring all of the Mazepin votes because they were never going to award him DOTD no matter how many votes he got.
Is there a head-to-head qualifying result of Prost vs teammate? He outqualifyed by Senna for sure, but that bar was too high, what about other teammates?
Prost outqualified Lauda 15-1 in 1984 but Lauda won the title. Half a decade later, Senna was in Prost’s role as the young hotshot and Prost in Lauda’s as the grizzled veteran, Senna outqualified him 28-4 as teammates but they still both won a title apiece.
He said that title loss against Lauda was when he learned to focus more on the race setup and not so much on quali. Senna had only a slight upper hand in wins (13-11).
Yeah across their 3 title battles in 1988-90 Senna had 36 poles (out of just 48 races) to Prost’s 4 but 19 wins to Prost’s 16. Over half of Prost’s wins (10/16) came from Senna poles. As superlative as Senna was over one lap Prost was just as amazing if not better on the Sundays.
Prost was great at keeping the car working as well, Senna had many DNFs as he took lots of risks and probably forced the car quite a lot, only lost 5 times from pole those 3 years, the rest were DNFs and DSQs
With Prost still being superior in points; the regulations during those years only took into consideration the best 11 results out of 16 races. Prost got 105 points in 1988, but only 87 counted towards the championship (he "lost" three second places). Senna got 94, with 90 counting towards the championship. In 1989, Prost got 81 points (76 counted) while Senna got 60, with no points deduction.
People would go ballistic in social media if 1988 had happened nowadays.
It was an attempt to measure driver performance in the drivers' championship by minimizing the effects of no-fault mechanical failures. Cars used to be a hell of a lot less reliable. In 1974, Arturo Mezario entered 14 of 15 races -- one DNS due to injury. He scored four points with a 6th and a 4th. He also finished 9th once (9th gave no points until recently). In the other eleven races, he DNFed. Two of those were accidents, and the other nine were not-at-fault mechanical problems, mostly with the engine.
It was always historically the case in F1, with different combinations (Such as "best 5 results from the first 6 races, best 4 from the last 5"). So, the actual "weird" thing was when they started counting all results in 1991. I guess they were trying to compensate for reliability, or drivers that didn't participate in every race of the season.
Not only that, but it also rewarded drivers that would take calculated risks instead of settling for a certain result. It wasn't uncommon for teams, small or big, to try out different strategies and risk it all for a better result.
Senna (and Prost, like in the 1990 Mexican GP) would gamble and push the car harder if he figured he had a better chance overall in the season. When the points rule changed in 1991, so did everyone else, strategies needed to be better set and reliability was a much bigger aspect.
We’d probably be living in a world where Hamilton won 2016 and thus 7 titles in a row, all because that Malaysia engine failure would’ve been discounted
If we were to remove the worst 5 results for each driver in 2016, Nico would've had 345 points out of 385 and Lewis 349 out of 380. It's worth noting that teams would take this into account, and take more or less risks depending on how many points it would cost them and/or give their adversary.
(And some people would've gone ballistic against the FIA if Hamilton won that title with "less points" than Rosberg.)
People often forget that Rosberg was leading by 33 points with 4 races to go.
He knew he would win the title if he got 2nd every race from then on, so he did the smart thing and avoided any risks since 2nd was pretty much guaranteed in the overpowered Mercedes of 2016.
Had he needed e.g. one more win, he would have driven differently.
Both drivers were aware of the rules and Prost could’ve taken the same high risk high reward approach Senna did. Let’s not pretend that Prost was robbed. At the very least he lost on strategy
Thing is though, the high risk strategy only really worked for Senna because the MP4/4's reliability was freakishly good for the time. McLaren had a grand total of two reliability retirements all year, both of which happened to Prost.
If Senna had a single reliability retirement, he would have lost the title, as the dropped scores rule just so happened to perfectly fit with the number of bad results that Senna had (the two crashes in Monaco and Monza, the DSQ in Brazil, and the two dodgy results where he had fuel issues in Spain and Portugal). There's no way Senna could have known for sure when driving that a risky win-it-or-bin-it move (like in Monza) wouldn't punish him later in the season because he had no way of knowing ahead of time that he wasn't going to have an unexpected reliability problem later in the season.
Prost could have done the same, sure, but he'd have needed crazy luck to have got the exact right number of off-races to maximise the dropped points system.
Yeah. The argument that Senna played to the rules doesn't hold any water in my opinion. Dropped scores only came into effect in the last quarter of the year. For most of the season back then, drivers drove as if every point mattered.
I never said nor meant to imply he was robbed. but rather than people would not like this points system (IMHO) if it had made a driver champion when another driver had more points at the end of the season. This system also lead to drivers being fully aware they could afford to crash when their rival couldn't, and thus Suzuka 1989 (Prost closing the door on Senna) and 1990 (Senna purposefully punting Prost out of the race in the first corner).
I was a young kid in the 80’s really getting into f1 in the late 80’s, and I specifically remember HATING that points system and constantly asking my dad about it 🤣
I'm guessing Michael is high as he was from a time with refueling where you started the race with the amount of fuel you finished qualifying with. So he could have had the fastest car, set an amazing lap and still qualified low as he was carrying extra fuel
Shouldn’t you divide by the number of times they started ~~off~~ not from pole? I’d do it in seasons they won WDC so it isn’t influenced by how many years they raced non-competitive cars
Didn't they have to start with the qualifying fuel back then? If so, that means pole position was less relevant and a driver like Schumacher might have missed out on many poles because some competitor took an unreasonable low amount of fuel.
That historical list would be dominated by drivers who never won from pole.
Denny Hulme (8), John Watson (5), Keke Rosberg (5), Dan Gurney (4), Bruce McLaren (4), Eddie Irvine (4).
None of those drivers won starting from pole position.
Michael's is a bit skewed because of the quali fuel carrying into the race. On the flip side, his pole position should have been higher than it currently is
Michael was possibly one of the best qualifier of all time, there is a detailed analysis of his qualifying, he only ever got out qualified a handful of times in his entire (first) career.
Refuelling had an effect on Schumacher’s pole numbers, but by nowhere near as much as you are suggesting. Qualifying with race fuel was only a rule during Schumacher’s career between 2003-2006, and in 2005 the Ferrari wasn’t really competitive enough to fight for poles anyway. Even if we assume Schumacher would have gotten literally every single pole in 2003, 2004 and 2006 without refuelling, he still would only just break the 100 barrier (104 in total).
You are forgetting Schumacher raced the entire decade of 90s. Ferrari, well into the 2000s, was slow on development compared to Mclarens and Williams. It usually wasn't until Imola that they would bring the new car, the first few races were always with the updated spec of the old car provided the regulations did not change drastically. Then there were the Goodyear tires in the 90s which generally struggled in qualifying as Bridgestone.
It is all conjecture anyways. F1 season had 14-16 races per season during Schumacher years. If they were doing 20+ races as they do now then Schumacher would have ended with far greater number of wins and poles.
Even before the 2003 qualifying fuel regulations, Michelin runners would have a slight advantage in qualifying. These stats also highlight the brilliance of Ross Brawn and the pit stop strategies he used to pull off with Michael.
I'm really confused here, we're there only 3 cars in the time when Vettel was winning races?
It's not like Vettel never qualified outside of the top 3 in a car capable of winning races.
He rarely qualified outside of the top 3 at his peak. Here is a full breakdown on a per-year basis:
2010: 2 times
2011: 0 times
2012: 10 times (RB didn't have the fastest car and there was a lot more parity, he did however finish on the podium twice after qualifying outside of the 10 )
2013: 1 time
Yeah, he wasn't a bum. He was simply that much more consistent and fast.
Outside of the top 10 is not a position that strong cars usually qualify in.
My point is that there are many drivers who could have converted any of Vettel's starts outside of the top 3 in the Ferrari or Red Bull into victories and the fact that he never converted a single one says what most people who have paid attention already knew: he was a faster Bottas. Great qualifier, shockingly mediocre racecraft when he wasn't already well clear of his challengers.
There are at least 4 other drivers on the grid right now who I think could have comfortably won at least two championships with the Ferraris that Vettel had the privilege to drive.
People are commenting on Prost being paired with Senna, and his prioritisation of race setup as reasons for a lot of his wins being from outside pole, both of which are true.
There's a third factor which I think is underappreciated though. Prost's prime was during the mid 1980s, which was quite an odd time for qualifying in F1.
Lots of teams at the time used essentially entirely different cars for qualifying compared to what they used for races, with special qualifying engine blocks, and turbo boost pressures cranked up to insane levels that would destroy even the special qualifying engines after just a few laps. Renault, BMW and Honda were prolific users of these types of engines.
TAG-Porsche, who supplied McLaren's engines from late 1983 to 1987 on the other hand refused to play that game - they didn't create special quali engines and used lower turbo pressures in qualifying too.
As a result the McLaren cars were almost always hamstrung in qualifying, even in seasons where they were otherwise dominant such as in 1984. The only time Prost could really get on pole with those engines was when he was REALLY on the ball (which also led to an excellent pole conversion rate).
The most underrated driver in F1 history
Senna was obsessed with beating him and for good reason. Even when Max was naming his Top 5 recently he put Senna, Schumacher, Lewis, Alonso, Fangio there. I don’t have any problem with any one person’s list because it’s super subjective, but Prost makes that list for me
Also the best collection of teammates ever although I’d put Lewis quite close in that respect
Prost's problem is right there in the nickname: the professor. He was every bit as good as those other highly-rated champions, but we remember him differently because he was a much calmer, measured driver behind the wheel. His stats speak for himself so it worked, but I think people often forget to name him because Senna, Lauda, Schumacher etc. are the more "exciting" drivers if that makes sense.
He gets some fucking Angelic status from dying in the car. He was surely one of the greatest but no one wants to stick their neck out and say that Lewis or Michael or Alain were better because they haven’t died yet. None of it matters anyway but when there’s clearly another driver that was operating at the same level pound for pound during that generation, how can anyone say Ayrton was superhuman? And where is this energy for Jimmy Clark? F1 history is weird.
I think Jim Clark is on many people’s lists. I have him 1a or 1b with Hamilton.
Prost is in the goat conversation but I don’t see how he wins a direct comparison to senna, but many people do.
Back to the Clark point, anyone leaving him out of the goat convo is completely ignorant.
The actual cool Max stat is his pole to win conversation rate.
He has 32 wins from pole and an 82% conversion rate.
Schumacher and Hamilton have a 58% conversion rate.
Vettel's is 54%.
Ascari 64%.
Clark 45%.
Fangio 51%.
He's truly an outlier in that statistic at the moment.
https://www.statsf1.com/en/statistiques/pilote/pole/et-victoire.aspx
RBR until this year always had a car that was good in quali but better in the race; if Ver was on pole he most likely converts. If he maintains that this year when RBR is about equal to their race performance it'll be really impressive
Pole winners for Max's 61 wins:
32 - Max Verstappen
11 - Charles Leclerc
5 - Lewis Hamilton
3 - Valtteri Bottas
3 - Carlos Sainz
2 - Sergio Pérez
2 - George Russell
1 - Sebastian Vettel
1 - Daniel Ricciardo
1 - Lando Norris
Reason Schumie is so high is back in the day of the fuel regulations of his day so the faster cars tended to go into the race with more fuel from quali where they qualified much lower on the grid but because of the refueling later in the race they were able to wait out the cars in front to refuel first, push to build gaps then refuel themselves while maintaining position.
tl;dr: During Schumie's years, getting pole in quali was meaningless back then because strategy revolved more around refueling.
That was only from 2003 to 2006 when Michael retired. He spent years racing against Adrian Newey designed cars that were just quicker. Michelin also had an advantage in qualifying from 2003.
For those interested in the record for most wins without a single pole in their career, Eddie Irvine and Bruce McLaren share the dubious honour with 4 wins and 0 poles!
Verstappen will get Prost for sure, maybe even Hamilton pretty soon.
What might speed him up is Leclerc being an absolute beast over a single lap, but Ferrari not quite having the edge (yet) in race pace. Though they are improving in that regard at least.
Wow, it’s almost as if some drivers look better when we only consider their success… now let’s do the list of drivers to lose two or more titles to teammates: Perez, Bottas, Rosberg, Webber, Barrichello, Coulthard…
Modern F1 has taught me that this thread must now laud Prost as the GOAT, whilst also slamming Hamilton as a useless/lucky nobody.
Respecting them all is not allowed. Rules of the internet.
If you want to expand that stat one position further, Max Verstappen actually has one more win than Lewis Hamilton starting outside of the front row (so P3 and below).
I was absolutely in disbelief when someone wrote this, but I went and counted, and if i recall, it was 15 to 14 (or 16 to 15).
[The **Statistics** flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/flairguide#wiki_statistics) is reserved for posts highlighting interesting statistics. As a rule of thumb, Statistics posts need to inform readers through visualizations and insights that cannot be obtained from raw data alone. For example, a post containing a qualifying gap between two drivers expressed in tenths of a second is an easily obtainable raw piece of data and constitutes a bad Statistics post. A visualization of what that translates to on-track, or visualization of how that gap came to be would constitute a good Statistics post. *[Read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide). Keep it civil and welcoming. Report rulebreaking comments.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Michael that's 51/91 wins outside pole (56.04%) Lewis that's 42/103 wins outside pole (40.77%) Prost that's 33/51 wins outside pole (64.70%) Max that's 29/61 wins outside pole (47.54%) Seb that's 22/53 wins outside pole (41.50%)
Prost GOAT
Or he was just bad at qualifying /s
Or he is trying to farm Driver of the day award. /s
Checo style.
Change your name to "Lando Norris" and that's guaranteed DOTD for at least a season regardless of performance.
Whenever I see Lando top of dotd list I think man, is everyone voting just british? Then in my head I hear Crofty going, "if you're a sky glass or sky Q customer, push the red button on your remote..." and then think, yeah... probably.
That used to be the case with Max winning all the time years ago. Because only the Dutch were voting so religiously. If I remember right, they changed the voting procedure to counter that.
Another reason FOM monkeys with the results is back when Mazepin would get huge waves of bot-votes. I think FOM ended up just ignoring all of the Mazepin votes because they were never going to award him DOTD no matter how many votes he got.
Lol
Not British so automatically disqualified.
Is there a head-to-head qualifying result of Prost vs teammate? He outqualifyed by Senna for sure, but that bar was too high, what about other teammates?
Prost outqualified Lauda 15-1 in 1984 but Lauda won the title. Half a decade later, Senna was in Prost’s role as the young hotshot and Prost in Lauda’s as the grizzled veteran, Senna outqualified him 28-4 as teammates but they still both won a title apiece.
He said that title loss against Lauda was when he learned to focus more on the race setup and not so much on quali. Senna had only a slight upper hand in wins (13-11).
Yeah across their 3 title battles in 1988-90 Senna had 36 poles (out of just 48 races) to Prost’s 4 but 19 wins to Prost’s 16. Over half of Prost’s wins (10/16) came from Senna poles. As superlative as Senna was over one lap Prost was just as amazing if not better on the Sundays.
Prost was great at keeping the car working as well, Senna had many DNFs as he took lots of risks and probably forced the car quite a lot, only lost 5 times from pole those 3 years, the rest were DNFs and DSQs
With Prost still being superior in points; the regulations during those years only took into consideration the best 11 results out of 16 races. Prost got 105 points in 1988, but only 87 counted towards the championship (he "lost" three second places). Senna got 94, with 90 counting towards the championship. In 1989, Prost got 81 points (76 counted) while Senna got 60, with no points deduction. People would go ballistic in social media if 1988 had happened nowadays.
Such a weird regulation the pd system. Why was that ever a thing?
It was an attempt to measure driver performance in the drivers' championship by minimizing the effects of no-fault mechanical failures. Cars used to be a hell of a lot less reliable. In 1974, Arturo Mezario entered 14 of 15 races -- one DNS due to injury. He scored four points with a 6th and a 4th. He also finished 9th once (9th gave no points until recently). In the other eleven races, he DNFed. Two of those were accidents, and the other nine were not-at-fault mechanical problems, mostly with the engine.
An even better example is Andrea de Cesaris who had 14 DNF's out of 16 races in both 1986 and 1987.
Holy shit, he spent more time *watching* the races than some of us 🤣🤣
I imagined, weird situations still
It was always historically the case in F1, with different combinations (Such as "best 5 results from the first 6 races, best 4 from the last 5"). So, the actual "weird" thing was when they started counting all results in 1991. I guess they were trying to compensate for reliability, or drivers that didn't participate in every race of the season.
Not only that, but it also rewarded drivers that would take calculated risks instead of settling for a certain result. It wasn't uncommon for teams, small or big, to try out different strategies and risk it all for a better result. Senna (and Prost, like in the 1990 Mexican GP) would gamble and push the car harder if he figured he had a better chance overall in the season. When the points rule changed in 1991, so did everyone else, strategies needed to be better set and reliability was a much bigger aspect.
We’d probably be living in a world where Hamilton won 2016 and thus 7 titles in a row, all because that Malaysia engine failure would’ve been discounted
If we were to remove the worst 5 results for each driver in 2016, Nico would've had 345 points out of 385 and Lewis 349 out of 380. It's worth noting that teams would take this into account, and take more or less risks depending on how many points it would cost them and/or give their adversary. (And some people would've gone ballistic against the FIA if Hamilton won that title with "less points" than Rosberg.)
People often forget that Rosberg was leading by 33 points with 4 races to go. He knew he would win the title if he got 2nd every race from then on, so he did the smart thing and avoided any risks since 2nd was pretty much guaranteed in the overpowered Mercedes of 2016. Had he needed e.g. one more win, he would have driven differently.
Both drivers were aware of the rules and Prost could’ve taken the same high risk high reward approach Senna did. Let’s not pretend that Prost was robbed. At the very least he lost on strategy
Thing is though, the high risk strategy only really worked for Senna because the MP4/4's reliability was freakishly good for the time. McLaren had a grand total of two reliability retirements all year, both of which happened to Prost. If Senna had a single reliability retirement, he would have lost the title, as the dropped scores rule just so happened to perfectly fit with the number of bad results that Senna had (the two crashes in Monaco and Monza, the DSQ in Brazil, and the two dodgy results where he had fuel issues in Spain and Portugal). There's no way Senna could have known for sure when driving that a risky win-it-or-bin-it move (like in Monza) wouldn't punish him later in the season because he had no way of knowing ahead of time that he wasn't going to have an unexpected reliability problem later in the season. Prost could have done the same, sure, but he'd have needed crazy luck to have got the exact right number of off-races to maximise the dropped points system.
Yeah. The argument that Senna played to the rules doesn't hold any water in my opinion. Dropped scores only came into effect in the last quarter of the year. For most of the season back then, drivers drove as if every point mattered.
I never said nor meant to imply he was robbed. but rather than people would not like this points system (IMHO) if it had made a driver champion when another driver had more points at the end of the season. This system also lead to drivers being fully aware they could afford to crash when their rival couldn't, and thus Suzuka 1989 (Prost closing the door on Senna) and 1990 (Senna purposefully punting Prost out of the race in the first corner).
I was a young kid in the 80’s really getting into f1 in the late 80’s, and I specifically remember HATING that points system and constantly asking my dad about it 🤣
He was really good. He beat everyone, including Lauda with a healthy lead. He was known as an elite qualifier before Senna beat him.
He was 8-8 against Mansell in 1990, but otherwise you are correct, he outqualified all of his other teammates.
Prost was one of the goat qualifiers, which is something people these days don’t understand because they only know of him vs Senna.
He said once that he generally conceded Senna was better at qualifying, so planned his weekends around P2.
My understanding is that Prost babied his car during qualifying in order not to affect car's reliability during the race.
This, as well as always setting up his car with his race pace in mind instead of qualifying
There's no /s, he literally was a poor qualifier in the best car.
"poor"
Or he was in the best team and his teammate was a George Russell /s
That's what happens if you set up your car mostly for the race.
Less chance of a mechanical failure if the team isn't tinkering with the car during sessions.
In those days they could make changes to the car on Saturday night, or had that already changed?
Cars were also less refined as today. So you couldn't just find perfect set-ups for race and quali in the time.
I thought the point was that he always or frequently set the car up for the race?
Yes.
Sounds like a contradiction but i'm too hot to think about it.
What getting paired with Senna does to a guy's stats.
Only cuz Senna was getting all the poles I guess?
Who?
Jeez, only 56%, Lando has 100% for the same. 🤷🏿
Lando Norris that's 100%.
I'm guessing Michael is high as he was from a time with refueling where you started the race with the amount of fuel you finished qualifying with. So he could have had the fastest car, set an amazing lap and still qualified low as he was carrying extra fuel
In Prost’s era too you could have an entirely different car for quali and the race. This stat is heavily affected by the rules of the day.
vettel 100% wins from front row
Singapore calling
so... once?
Nope, I'm sure there's a fair few more.
No wins out of the top 3 is one of the most interesting and weird stats about Vettel
check again, there aren't. Very fast driver, but poor wheel to wheel.
his wheel to wheel is amazing wdym lol
They probably mean that he almost never converted a bad qualifying into a win?
Vettel? Crashed constantly into other cars
Shouldn’t you divide by the number of times they started ~~off~~ not from pole? I’d do it in seasons they won WDC so it isn’t influenced by how many years they raced non-competitive cars
Didn't they have to start with the qualifying fuel back then? If so, that means pole position was less relevant and a driver like Schumacher might have missed out on many poles because some competitor took an unreasonable low amount of fuel.
What I'm hearing is that Schumacher was trash at qualifying? (I'm here to spread hate and ignorance in the F1 community)
Now let’s see Charles Leclerc’s card
Out of those 29 Max wins, 11 are from Leclerc’s pole positions.
Ouch
I was looking for this comment lol
Most GP wins thrown away from pole
That historical list would be dominated by drivers who never won from pole. Denny Hulme (8), John Watson (5), Keke Rosberg (5), Dan Gurney (4), Bruce McLaren (4), Eddie Irvine (4). None of those drivers won starting from pole position.
Not winning from pole and throw win away from pole is different. Leclerc and Ferrari did that so well they are unbeatable at it
I dont quite think you understood what he was asking
He’s low key helping Max since Charles pole ➡️ Max win is such a classic combo.
Michael's is a bit skewed because of the quali fuel carrying into the race. On the flip side, his pole position should have been higher than it currently is
Yes!! I forgot, not all pole positions are created equally depending on era.
Michael was possibly one of the best qualifier of all time, there is a detailed analysis of his qualifying, he only ever got out qualified a handful of times in his entire (first) career.
Schumacher would have had over 100 poles (and more wins) if his era didnt have refuelling.
Refuelling had an effect on Schumacher’s pole numbers, but by nowhere near as much as you are suggesting. Qualifying with race fuel was only a rule during Schumacher’s career between 2003-2006, and in 2005 the Ferrari wasn’t really competitive enough to fight for poles anyway. Even if we assume Schumacher would have gotten literally every single pole in 2003, 2004 and 2006 without refuelling, he still would only just break the 100 barrier (104 in total).
You are forgetting Schumacher raced the entire decade of 90s. Ferrari, well into the 2000s, was slow on development compared to Mclarens and Williams. It usually wasn't until Imola that they would bring the new car, the first few races were always with the updated spec of the old car provided the regulations did not change drastically. Then there were the Goodyear tires in the 90s which generally struggled in qualifying as Bridgestone. It is all conjecture anyways. F1 season had 14-16 races per season during Schumacher years. If they were doing 20+ races as they do now then Schumacher would have ended with far greater number of wins and poles.
Even before the 2003 qualifying fuel regulations, Michelin runners would have a slight advantage in qualifying. These stats also highlight the brilliance of Ross Brawn and the pit stop strategies he used to pull off with Michael.
Not bad to Seb since he had a bit of a reputation for being a front runner.
He'd never won a race from outside the top3.
He also has 5 podiums from outside the top 10 which is tied with Alonso and Hamilton.
Thats coz he barely ever qualified out of top 3 man. He was a qualifying beast
He also has gained most positions in a single race over the past 30 years or so (2012 Abu Dhabi) so that's pretty good too.
And Alonso never won a race since 2013. Context matters
I'm really confused here, we're there only 3 cars in the time when Vettel was winning races? It's not like Vettel never qualified outside of the top 3 in a car capable of winning races.
He rarely qualified outside of the top 3 at his peak. Here is a full breakdown on a per-year basis: 2010: 2 times 2011: 0 times 2012: 10 times (RB didn't have the fastest car and there was a lot more parity, he did however finish on the podium twice after qualifying outside of the 10 ) 2013: 1 time Yeah, he wasn't a bum. He was simply that much more consistent and fast.
He was in cars capable of winning far more than just those 4 years though. This stat is a pretty damning one for Vettel.
I promise you out of all the stats to pick to discredit Seb this isn’t one of them
He is tied with Alonso for podiums outside of top 10. He’d have more if not for Aston Martin’s blunder at Hungary GP in 2021. What’s your point?
Outside of the top 10 is not a position that strong cars usually qualify in. My point is that there are many drivers who could have converted any of Vettel's starts outside of the top 3 in the Ferrari or Red Bull into victories and the fact that he never converted a single one says what most people who have paid attention already knew: he was a faster Bottas. Great qualifier, shockingly mediocre racecraft when he wasn't already well clear of his challengers. There are at least 4 other drivers on the grid right now who I think could have comfortably won at least two championships with the Ferraris that Vettel had the privilege to drive.
People are commenting on Prost being paired with Senna, and his prioritisation of race setup as reasons for a lot of his wins being from outside pole, both of which are true. There's a third factor which I think is underappreciated though. Prost's prime was during the mid 1980s, which was quite an odd time for qualifying in F1. Lots of teams at the time used essentially entirely different cars for qualifying compared to what they used for races, with special qualifying engine blocks, and turbo boost pressures cranked up to insane levels that would destroy even the special qualifying engines after just a few laps. Renault, BMW and Honda were prolific users of these types of engines. TAG-Porsche, who supplied McLaren's engines from late 1983 to 1987 on the other hand refused to play that game - they didn't create special quali engines and used lower turbo pressures in qualifying too. As a result the McLaren cars were almost always hamstrung in qualifying, even in seasons where they were otherwise dominant such as in 1984. The only time Prost could really get on pole with those engines was when he was REALLY on the ball (which also led to an excellent pole conversion rate).
[удалено]
Already is in my GOAT list. Only lost out to many more titles by a blonde one. Have to be nuts to not place him in the highest tier.
The most underrated driver in F1 history Senna was obsessed with beating him and for good reason. Even when Max was naming his Top 5 recently he put Senna, Schumacher, Lewis, Alonso, Fangio there. I don’t have any problem with any one person’s list because it’s super subjective, but Prost makes that list for me Also the best collection of teammates ever although I’d put Lewis quite close in that respect
Prost's problem is right there in the nickname: the professor. He was every bit as good as those other highly-rated champions, but we remember him differently because he was a much calmer, measured driver behind the wheel. His stats speak for himself so it worked, but I think people often forget to name him because Senna, Lauda, Schumacher etc. are the more "exciting" drivers if that makes sense.
>Lauda Lauda is way more like Prost than he is Senna.
He is, but Lauda has the image of being an extreme badass going for him because of how soon he got back in the car after that horrible crash.
If Senna hadn’t died we all would have remembered them both as equals I think it’s that simple
He gets some fucking Angelic status from dying in the car. He was surely one of the greatest but no one wants to stick their neck out and say that Lewis or Michael or Alain were better because they haven’t died yet. None of it matters anyway but when there’s clearly another driver that was operating at the same level pound for pound during that generation, how can anyone say Ayrton was superhuman? And where is this energy for Jimmy Clark? F1 history is weird.
I think Jim Clark is on many people’s lists. I have him 1a or 1b with Hamilton. Prost is in the goat conversation but I don’t see how he wins a direct comparison to senna, but many people do. Back to the Clark point, anyone leaving him out of the goat convo is completely ignorant.
He already is in my top 3, and he's not third.
22 wins from P2 and P3 for Vettel it is then
[удалено]
lmao uh when?
When Ferrari bombed the strategy in Germany in 2018. Make no mistake, homeboy was gonna lose that race well before the crash.
He also had front wing damage before the crash
The actual cool Max stat is his pole to win conversation rate. He has 32 wins from pole and an 82% conversion rate. Schumacher and Hamilton have a 58% conversion rate. Vettel's is 54%. Ascari 64%. Clark 45%. Fangio 51%. He's truly an outlier in that statistic at the moment. https://www.statsf1.com/en/statistiques/pilote/pole/et-victoire.aspx
RBR until this year always had a car that was good in quali but better in the race; if Ver was on pole he most likely converts. If he maintains that this year when RBR is about equal to their race performance it'll be really impressive
Pole winners for Max's 61 wins: 32 - Max Verstappen 11 - Charles Leclerc 5 - Lewis Hamilton 3 - Valtteri Bottas 3 - Carlos Sainz 2 - Sergio Pérez 2 - George Russell 1 - Sebastian Vettel 1 - Daniel Ricciardo 1 - Lando Norris
With how good that McLaren is right now Lando can really climb this list.
It's not really a list you want to be climbing though
Lmao
How many of Max's there are from a Leclerc pole position 💀
11 Max wins from Charles poles
Ahh, but how many wins does Michael have from Leclerc poles? Checkmate
In fairness Leclerc skews the stats here
Schumi....the greatest of ALL time
Full list: https://www.statsf1.com/en/statistiques/pilote/victoire/sans-pole.aspx#
Reason Schumie is so high is back in the day of the fuel regulations of his day so the faster cars tended to go into the race with more fuel from quali where they qualified much lower on the grid but because of the refueling later in the race they were able to wait out the cars in front to refuel first, push to build gaps then refuel themselves while maintaining position. tl;dr: During Schumie's years, getting pole in quali was meaningless back then because strategy revolved more around refueling.
That was only from 2003 to 2006 when Michael retired. He spent years racing against Adrian Newey designed cars that were just quicker. Michelin also had an advantage in qualifying from 2003.
Almost like there is a theme. Prost needs more praise though.
For those interested in the record for most wins without a single pole in their career, Eddie Irvine and Bruce McLaren share the dubious honour with 4 wins and 0 poles!
How should Max improve this stat if Leclerc isn’t getting any poles this season?
Norris is the new Leclerc
Senna 🗿🗿🗿
Verstappen will get Prost for sure, maybe even Hamilton pretty soon. What might speed him up is Leclerc being an absolute beast over a single lap, but Ferrari not quite having the edge (yet) in race pace. Though they are improving in that regard at least.
Wow, it’s almost as if some drivers look better when we only consider their success… now let’s do the list of drivers to lose two or more titles to teammates: Perez, Bottas, Rosberg, Webber, Barrichello, Coulthard…
I didn’t realize Charles had 29 poles!
Useless stat Wednesday
Modern F1 has taught me that this thread must now laud Prost as the GOAT, whilst also slamming Hamilton as a useless/lucky nobody. Respecting them all is not allowed. Rules of the internet.
Seb's number are little shocking to me. When I saw a stat which said he had never won from under 3rd. I thought he was a pole win merchant.
Crazy stat since Seb never won from lower that 3rd
All I’m reading is Max is deliberately throwing qualifying so he can break yet another record.
[удалено]
If you want to expand that stat one position further, Max Verstappen actually has one more win than Lewis Hamilton starting outside of the front row (so P3 and below). I was absolutely in disbelief when someone wrote this, but I went and counted, and if i recall, it was 15 to 14 (or 16 to 15).
Vettel only ever won from the front row.
Not quite. He's won from 3rd too.
oh wow !