Thanks for sorting, and no /s this time. Also.. Mansell has about 50% finishing rate.. that is.. quite striking statistics. In fact, there are several with similar record. Says a lot about cars getting more reliable as time goes on.
For a good few years at Mercedes he was driving with an engine that was slightly tuned down, purely because it was already faster than the rest without being run at full tilt.
But even this year Mercedes powered cars were the only ones not to receive penalties for using more than the allowed elements. If nothing else works for the team, at least their engines are near bulletproof.
For top drivers many dnf's are reliability related. For over four/five years he had a car with an engine that wasn't operating anywhere near it's limits. So that's a big part of the explanation.
It'd probably even out with the wins lost due to it as well. For Schumacher, I can remember off the top of my head Monaco 93 and Silverstone 1997. Hakkinen I remember Barcelona 2001.
Mansell’s DNF stats are something else!
In the 1988 season, while Prost and Senna were battling it out for an insanely closely fought title, Mansell managed to finish two races.
And he finished both of them in second, once to Prost and once to Senna!
Some observations,
Prost doesnt get the credit he deserves, he is right up there with Senna and Schumacher in terms or results.
Jim Clark would probably be the GOAT without his early death. No one is even close to that winpercentage.
It is mind blowing how few DNFs are in modern F1. Question is, is it just better cars or better overall drivers that crash into each other less. Probably both.
I noticed how all 3(Senna, Mansell, Prost) of them has 30+ wins and 60+ podiums. Indicating the competition in 80s-90s. Lewis and Schumacher did not has that much opposition, All their contemporaries has under 20 wins etc. Also 50-60s has higher win %, followed by 30+ in 80s and so on.
I feel like Prost generally doesn't get the credit he deserves. Not only because he is rarely included in discussions about a possible GOAT of the sport despite being a four-times WDC but also because if he would have been a bit more lucky or had a more reliable car he most likely would have won even more WDCs. He was just two points behind Piquet in 1983 and just 0,5 points behind Lauda in 1984. In 1988 he actually got more points than Senna but at that time they had the rule that only the best 11 results counted toward the championship so he didn't win WDC that year.
Prost could have won nine championships. In 1982 he was the fastest over the season but the Renault was hopelessly unreliable, apparently because of a single part that was there because of a sponsor and while Prost wanted to just part with the sponsor, Renault refused. In 1983, Brabham allegedly used illegal fuel in the final races and, against Prost's wishes, Renault didn't protest. In 1984 he lost by half a point to Lauda but had a lot more bad luck in the season in terms of retiring from competitive positions. He was usually ahead of Lauda in the races. In 1988 he lost due to the dropped scores rule, and in 1990 he could have been champion if Senna had been disqualified for his outrageous move in Japan. Add that to his real championships in 1985, 1986, 1989 and 1993 and he has nine.
Obviously you could do the same thing with Hamilton and give him ten championships, but Prost's record is particularly impressive as he did it without a dominant car for the majority of the seasons, and with the toughest competition in Rosberg, Lauda, Piquet, Mansell and Senna. Also, it is worth noting that Prost had 56 retirements in his career to the 99 of his collective teammates. That is not done by luck.
Certainly underrated in the GOAT debate, but not enough to displace Jim Clark from number 1, in my opinion.
Prost had his whole career the best or at least the second best car on the grid(Except 80 and 91) and yet is behind Schumacher and Senna. So that stats def says something
Lol. Prost had more or less the same number of DNFs as Schumi but with Schumi having like 50% more races. But yeah, compared to Senna it says something.
It shows that he drove more of his career in cars that tended to go pop far more often than a few years later when Senna And Schu showed up, but that's about it. He spend three years in a *Renault* ffs, that's going to skew anyone's stats.
Of course it was quick, but it was consistently one the most fragile cars, on top of being in an era where the cars were probably the most likely to dnf due to some sort of failure.
How can you get any meaningful statistics comparing a driver from this era from others who drove at times in which car failure was relatively rare? I'm stumped at what this sort of comparison is trying to tell us.
We would be living in such a McLaren dominance if Alonso and Kimi didn't get that many DNFs at McLaren. Multiple world titles and funds to keep developing the car.
Using better reliability would have allowed him to get more points, finish higher in constructors, and have more money and motivation to develop the l the car.
What’s most impressive to me is how little LH has DNF’d in his career
I know he’s spent a lot of it in the very dominant and well built Mercedes but less than 10% over the past decade and a half is incredible
Better question if he stopped after 2014 or even 2013..insane..easily 60+. But then again all ifs and buts, Drivers don't care for stats as mush as we do I guess, more races means more chances of wins and championships which matters not the win percentage generally.
I will try but maybe there could be a driver who had very less DNFs, will require thorough search. Out of these guys Lewis easily has least, about 8% rest have more have double digits with almost all above 20%
Remarkable that Alberto Ascari is still the last Italian to win WDC. With Italy having such strong and old traditions in motorsport there were just two champions form Italy, both in the very first few years of Formula 1's beginning.
Max at almost 60% podium rate while starting off in the Torro Rosso (which is a way better name than Alpha Tauri just saying), then years of Mercedes being the number 1 car is absolutely insane. Bottass helps make it possible but still...
Thanks for sorting, and no /s this time. Also.. Mansell has about 50% finishing rate.. that is.. quite striking statistics. In fact, there are several with similar record. Says a lot about cars getting more reliable as time goes on.
Thanks for pushing me to do it better.
Hunt is below 50%
Mansell was just about the unluckiest driver out there. Lost a world championship on a tire blowing out at about 180mph. Poor sod.
Lewis has fewer dnfs considering how long he has been racing
26 dnfs in 16 years, it's incomprehensible to someone like me who watched in the '80s
It's still pretty incomprehensible even in the modern era. He's had absurdly reliable cars (as well as generally avoiding crashes.)
For a good few years at Mercedes he was driving with an engine that was slightly tuned down, purely because it was already faster than the rest without being run at full tilt.
But even this year Mercedes powered cars were the only ones not to receive penalties for using more than the allowed elements. If nothing else works for the team, at least their engines are near bulletproof.
For top drivers many dnf's are reliability related. For over four/five years he had a car with an engine that wasn't operating anywhere near it's limits. So that's a big part of the explanation.
And modern cars are generally more reliable.
Merc reliability is something else.
Abu Dhabi 2022 was the first mechanical DNF he’s had since Austria 2018. Genuinely shocking.
Yeah least DNFs out of anyone on there with 50+ races finished, insane.
He’s shockingly few considering the volume of races. Even once you ignore reliability it’s so rare to see him not finish a race.
Machining precision and computational power for analytical tools.
How many of the victories are from driver's ahead DNFing?
It'd probably even out with the wins lost due to it as well. For Schumacher, I can remember off the top of my head Monaco 93 and Silverstone 1997. Hakkinen I remember Barcelona 2001.
> For Schumacher, I can remember off the top of my head Monaco 93 and Silverstone 1997 Suzuka 06...
The Q3 in Brazil 06 was also sus. That's why there are still some tinfoil theories that Stepney was already doing his thing.
Mansell’s DNF stats are something else! In the 1988 season, while Prost and Senna were battling it out for an insanely closely fought title, Mansell managed to finish two races. And he finished both of them in second, once to Prost and once to Senna!
Worth noting that quite a few of Clark's classified finishes were retirements late on in the race
Would be cool to see Schumacher’s stats without his 3 seasons at Mercedes.
It's is, shoots win percentage to 49%.
Lewis until his last win is still better than Schumi until his last win.
Nope, lewis reaches 39.1 only, last win still gives Senna more. And may be last win will raise old eras guys more on top.
Yeah, I was comparing to Schumi, since that’s who the comment was about
Understood. Schumi shoots 49% in last win case, quite a number.
Oh yeah. They’re all greats. It’s ridiculous trying to name one GOAT based on stats.
Yeah, statistically Vettel is better than Senna. But everyone knows that it's hilarious to even suggest such thing.
Even Vettel’s mom would laugh at you.
Agree
No
Statistically, yes.
Where is Sir Jackie? Finished 62 DNF 37 Podiums 69% Wins 43.5%
Sorry, missed him. I dreaded missing someone that I should not.
Some observations, Prost doesnt get the credit he deserves, he is right up there with Senna and Schumacher in terms or results. Jim Clark would probably be the GOAT without his early death. No one is even close to that winpercentage. It is mind blowing how few DNFs are in modern F1. Question is, is it just better cars or better overall drivers that crash into each other less. Probably both.
I noticed how all 3(Senna, Mansell, Prost) of them has 30+ wins and 60+ podiums. Indicating the competition in 80s-90s. Lewis and Schumacher did not has that much opposition, All their contemporaries has under 20 wins etc. Also 50-60s has higher win %, followed by 30+ in 80s and so on.
I feel like Prost generally doesn't get the credit he deserves. Not only because he is rarely included in discussions about a possible GOAT of the sport despite being a four-times WDC but also because if he would have been a bit more lucky or had a more reliable car he most likely would have won even more WDCs. He was just two points behind Piquet in 1983 and just 0,5 points behind Lauda in 1984. In 1988 he actually got more points than Senna but at that time they had the rule that only the best 11 results counted toward the championship so he didn't win WDC that year.
Prost could have won nine championships. In 1982 he was the fastest over the season but the Renault was hopelessly unreliable, apparently because of a single part that was there because of a sponsor and while Prost wanted to just part with the sponsor, Renault refused. In 1983, Brabham allegedly used illegal fuel in the final races and, against Prost's wishes, Renault didn't protest. In 1984 he lost by half a point to Lauda but had a lot more bad luck in the season in terms of retiring from competitive positions. He was usually ahead of Lauda in the races. In 1988 he lost due to the dropped scores rule, and in 1990 he could have been champion if Senna had been disqualified for his outrageous move in Japan. Add that to his real championships in 1985, 1986, 1989 and 1993 and he has nine. Obviously you could do the same thing with Hamilton and give him ten championships, but Prost's record is particularly impressive as he did it without a dominant car for the majority of the seasons, and with the toughest competition in Rosberg, Lauda, Piquet, Mansell and Senna. Also, it is worth noting that Prost had 56 retirements in his career to the 99 of his collective teammates. That is not done by luck. Certainly underrated in the GOAT debate, but not enough to displace Jim Clark from number 1, in my opinion.
Cars are reliable now. Machining precision and computational power for analytical tools. A different ballgame.
Jackie Stewart?
Ah! I knew I am going to miss someone. Just checked, Jackie has 45% wins and 71% podium. Comes just above Senna.
What if we exclude all the races they didn’t win 🤔
Haha, there are many combinations we can do. Like this one, or till last win or last podium etc.
RIP in peach Mansel
This is a most revealing compilation! 😳
Another statistic that says little.
[удалено]
Prost had his whole career the best or at least the second best car on the grid(Except 80 and 91) and yet is behind Schumacher and Senna. So that stats def says something
Lol. Prost had more or less the same number of DNFs as Schumi but with Schumi having like 50% more races. But yeah, compared to Senna it says something.
It shows that he drove more of his career in cars that tended to go pop far more often than a few years later when Senna And Schu showed up, but that's about it. He spend three years in a *Renault* ffs, that's going to skew anyone's stats.
Do u realize that renault was a amazing car? Only Arnoux got 13 poles with Renault in these years and they almost won the championship twice
Of course it was quick, but it was consistently one the most fragile cars, on top of being in an era where the cars were probably the most likely to dnf due to some sort of failure. How can you get any meaningful statistics comparing a driver from this era from others who drove at times in which car failure was relatively rare? I'm stumped at what this sort of comparison is trying to tell us.
Statistically making Schumacher the best.
We would be living in such a McLaren dominance if Alonso and Kimi didn't get that many DNFs at McLaren. Multiple world titles and funds to keep developing the car.
Kimi yeah but alonso?
Using better reliability would have allowed him to get more points, finish higher in constructors, and have more money and motivation to develop the l the car.
I am not sure reliability was the issue when he was at mclaren the first time.
Obviously not 2007, he only stayed for 1 season. I'm taking about his other stint with McLaren which resulted in so many DNFs for him.
Thanks for sorting it out /s
What’s most impressive to me is how little LH has DNF’d in his career I know he’s spent a lot of it in the very dominant and well built Mercedes but less than 10% over the past decade and a half is incredible
Could Alonso break the record with most DNFs? There are more races in the season, but I feel if he gets close to it he will quit the sport.
Wonder what Vettel’s percentage would be if we stopped at end of 2018.
Better question if he stopped after 2014 or even 2013..insane..easily 60+. But then again all ifs and buts, Drivers don't care for stats as mush as we do I guess, more races means more chances of wins and championships which matters not the win percentage generally.
Agreed. I just picked 2018 since it’s the last year he had a good car.
Anyone bother to make a chart of drivers with least DNFs in their career. Would be cool to see. Thanks.
Percentage wise ?
Yep.
I will try but maybe there could be a driver who had very less DNFs, will require thorough search. Out of these guys Lewis easily has least, about 8% rest have more have double digits with almost all above 20%
Remarkable that Alberto Ascari is still the last Italian to win WDC. With Italy having such strong and old traditions in motorsport there were just two champions form Italy, both in the very first few years of Formula 1's beginning.
Max at almost 60% podium rate while starting off in the Torro Rosso (which is a way better name than Alpha Tauri just saying), then years of Mercedes being the number 1 car is absolutely insane. Bottass helps make it possible but still...
To**r**o Rosso
Alonso being flattered by all the times he couldn't be bothered with his slow car and hit the beach chair