Fastest F1 driver rankings revealed.

[numbnuts70]

F1 driver rankings revealed on official website.

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/...test-f1-driver-of.3DwwPLW4glCmlunjciH1Cz.html

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/...have-got-everyone.30c1aGdJ6OHtGC3FYREhJt.html


The Top 20 revealed

Ranking Driver Time Delta
1 Ayrton Senna 0.000s
2 Michael Schumacher 0.114s
3 Lewis Hamilton 0.275s
4 Max Verstappen 0.280s
5 Fernando Alonso 0.309s
6 Nico Rosberg 0.374s
7 Charles Leclerc 0.376s
8 Heikki Kovalainen 0.378s
9 Jarno Trulli 0.409s
10 Sebastian Vettel 0.435s
11 Rubens Barrichello 0.445s
12 Nico Hulkenberg 0.456s
13 Valtteri Bottas 0.457s
14 Carlos Sainz 0.457s
15 Lando Norris 0.459s
16 Daniel Ricciardo 0.461s
17 Jenson Button 0.462s
18 Robert Kubica 0.463s
19 Giancarlo Fisichella 0.469s
20 Alain Prost 0.514s

I'm sure most of you have your opinions on this.
Start leafing through the pages of your 'Autocourse' library to decide.

 

[TheCracker]

The "fastest driver over a single lap on a Saturday" rankings.

The data used doesn't (and can't) take into account a driver's standing within and influence on a team. Schumacher and to a lesser extent Senna, Hamilton and Alonso, as world champions they have the opportunity to build a team around their needs. Even down to the car being designed around how it physically and dynamically suits them, but also having some say in specifying team mates who were quick enough to be useful as a team mate but not so quick as to be a threat or distraction.

 

[numbnuts70]

The "fastest driver over a single lap on a Saturday" rankings.

The data used doesn't (and can't) take into account a driver's standing within and influence on a team. Schumacher and to a lesser extent Senna, Hamilton and Alonso, as world champions they have the opportunity to build a team around their needs. Even down to the car being designed around how it physically and dynamically suits them, but also having some say in specifying team mates who were quick enough to be useful as a team mate but not so quick as to be a threat or distraction.

Agreed, a pure data algorithm is used to dispel bias.

 

[daan]

The "fastest driver over a single lap on a Saturday" rankings.

The data used doesn't (and can't) take into account a driver's standing within and influence on a team. Schumacher and to a lesser extent Senna, Hamilton and Alonso, as world champions they have the opportunity to build a team around their needs. Even down to the car being designed around how it physically and dynamically suits them, but also having some say in specifying team mates who were quick enough to be useful as a team mate but not so quick as to be a threat or distraction.

“What we do is we look at two team mates,” says Brawn, “exactly the same day, same situation, same opportunity,

But this is patently wrong, Ross. Dumfries and Nakajima did not get the same equipment, or opportunity, that Senna got at Lotus.

 

[Liquid]

Heikki Kovalainen is one of the top 10 fastest drivers of the last 40 years.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Kubica makes the list but his teammate who dominated him at Williams doesn't....

 

[PeterJB]

This looks at the same as the algorithm that tried to rank the best drivers of all time and put Perez ten places above Prost and Senna. Kovalainen and Trulli were fairly equal on qualifying and race pace during their time as team mates, but Kovalainen was the Albon of 2008/2009 when at McLaren so I really don't see how he can qualify (no put intended) for this.

 

[Greycap]

This looks at the same as the algorithm that tried to rank the best drivers of all time and put Perez ten places above Prost and Senna. Kovalainen and Trulli were fairly equal on qualifying and race pace during their time as team mates, but Kovalainen was the Albon of 2008/2009 when at McLaren so I really don't see how he can qualify (no put intended) for this.

I don't know how good the algorithm is but if it's done properly it acknowledges the "alternative tactics" used at McLaren at that time, ie. Hamilton always drove a light car in qualifying and was set for a short first stint, Kovalainen drove a fuel tanker that could go halfway through the race before refueling. I remember exactly one exception to that, Silverstone 2008 when Hamilton had botched it on his first Q3 run, so they let Kovalainen loose with a light car and he put it on the pole with a half a second difference.

He's not slow, far from it. One doesn't win the Race of Champions, match Alonso in the pre-season testing when driving a F1 car for the first season, and win the Super GT championship if the performance isn't there. He just fell victim to both Renault being built around Alonso and McLaren being built around Hamilton, and all the support going to those two.

 

[daan]

He's not slow, far from it. One doesn't win the Race of Champions, match Alonso in the pre-season testing when driving a F1 car for the first season, and win the Super GT championship if the performance isn't there. He just fell victim to both Renault being built around Alonso and McLaren being built around Hamilton, and all the support going to those two.

I think part of the reason Kovalainen is as high is because he was partnered with qualifying experts like Alonso, Hamilton and Trulli*.


* and yes, he was, or else we wouldn't have had the Trulli train as he dropped back in the races.

 

[Kingofweasles]

This list looks like something a hack at Donut Media put together in a day just to get click-bait.

 

[EngieDiesel]

I saw "machine learning" and immediately knew that list was meaningless. These things are only as good as the datasets you feed into them, and there's no way they were able to include the huge disparity between cars, regulations, track conditions or the dozens of other variables that would make these comparisons meaningful.

That whole article reads more like disguised advertising for AWS than anything.

 

[TenEightyOne]

But this is patently wrong, Ross.

I can't see how Ross can think this, unless he has no experience of working in a team that would give a particular driver Number One status.

 

[Roger the Horse]

Rubbish goes in, rubbish comes out.

But more seriously, the fact that it's so easy based off of human experience and intuition to pick holes in this shows just how overhyped a lot of AI and machine learning tech is.

So far as a qualifying pace comparision goes it does get some things right, it's very hard to argue against Senna's position at the top (however much the man's weird posthumous personality cult distorts people's assessments of him in almost any other area), and as many have pointed out Trulli always stood out during his career as a 1-lap specialist.

Seeing Prost in the top 20 over any of Senna's other contemporaries (Mansell in particular) is in some ways actually quite surprising, but then again this list put Kovalainen in the top 10, so commenting on one's surprise is probably a fool's errand.

Overall this is a relatively harmless little distraction, although it's highly dubious how much of a place F1 has officially endorsing a list like this. From a sporting perspective they should probably let the results stand for themselves.

The recency bias also raises a lot of questions about whatever algorithm was used. All algorithms inevitably reflect the biases of their creators, and while in this case it doesn't really matter, sadly out in the real world we often see significant demographic biases slipping into technology which can have a very real effect on people's lives, with the supposed "neutrality of machine learning" being used to cover for the fact that whichever algorithm was used actually favouring the hiring of white men or promoting the work of younger artists.

 

[LeGeNd-1]

Yeah, meaningless list as others have said. It's very easy to skew analysis like this given the right starting parameters and comparison algorithm. What you have is a list of fastest drivers, but only by that EXACT criteria the analysis used.

Couple of caveats that immediately came to mind:
- Didn't take into account car/setup/treatment differences between teammates
- Didn't account at what stage of their careers each teammate was at
- Didn't take into account track/weather conditions when the lap was set
- Some drivers are known to tune their car more for race than quali (Prost is notorious for this, I'm sure he would've been higher otherwise)
- If you're paired with a fast driver and beat them even once, that would inflate your ranking considerably compared to if you're always close but never beat a fast teammate (aka how Kovalainen and Trulli got on the list)
- I feel like recent drivers have more chance of being placed higher, given they are on the same grid during 3 of the longest stretches of dominance in the sport (Schumi, Vettel, Hamilton)

More broadly speaking, F1 really shouldn't have any part in subjective "official" lists like this. Let the records and history speak for themselves. AWS has done nothing good for F1 since they came on board. Hated the in race prediction graphics. Hated their ads on BTG podcast. And now this stupid and pointless list...

 

[Dotini]

Decades ago Road and Track magazine sponsored a supposedly careful comparison of F1 driver corner apex speeds/g-loads achieved.

They concluded Ronnie Peterson was quicker than either Mario Andretti or Jackie Stewart.

 

[mustafur]

Back in the day it would of been alot harder to bang out a perfect lap with cars that where significantly less consistent, which in turn made big time gaps in qualifying compared to now.

It's not something that would be possible to work out.

 

[numbnuts70]

Decades ago Road and Track magazine sponsored a supposedly careful comparison of F1 driver corner apex speeds/g-loads achieved.

They concluded Ronnie Peterson was quicker than either Mario Andretti or Jackie Stewart.

Yeah, if you watch the sky documentary (superswede), Stewart and Andretti acknowledged that Peterson was way out of their league.
Even Lauda admits he was the fastest of the era and taught him to drive faster (left foot braking etc).
Peterson had a clause in his last Lotus contract (78?), that he had to let Andretti win and was 'overfuelled' and running on 'old tyres' when qualifying just to give Andretti a head start.

 

[ShiftingGears]

Proof that the internet was a big mistake

 

[TenEightyOne]

Proof that the internet was a big mistake

I don't get it, what does that have to do with this thread? Or shouldn't the thread itself exist?

 

[Earth]

The rankings here are so predictable. This is pure clickbait.

I've seen it all before

Put the safe, "fan favorite" at #1. Throw in a few controversial picks to generate discussion. Seen it before in so many top 10 lists. yawn

 

[mustafur]

When we can't accurately work out who is the fastest on the grid in 2020 how are we supposed to work it out between drivers that never competed with each other?

 

[ShiftingGears]

I don't get it, what does that have to do with this thread? Or shouldn't the thread itself exist?

Just the fact that its a platform for F1 to publish idiotic ideas for clicks.

Nothing against the original poster at all.

 

[Jump_Ace]

No love for Lauda, aw well at least Senna is #1 so this list has to be correct(?) I'm sure someone had fun entering the data, just not enough data and this just isn't possible, even if we had 2 internets!


Jerome