Patrick O’Brien’s Grand Prix Ratings
- 9th October 2013, 21:16 at 9:16 pm #133741
I`ve just found this really interesting website!
What do you think about this rating system? What do you say about author`s claim in one article that superb ferrari f2004 was actually the second fastest in the field that year :D9th October 2013, 21:48 at 9:48 pm #242943AnonymousInactive
Curious, to say the least. The same applies to the Brawn GP in 2009.29th October 2013, 13:24 at 1:24 pm #242944
There is a quote on the website: “Patrick O’Brien’s system is the most objective I’ve seen to date.” ~ Peter Windsor, F1 journalist, broadcaster and team manager.
I really respect Peter, so these ratings seem to be quite real :)
Interesting is the list of champions, who won the WDC in off pace cars:
1958 – Hawthorn
1962 – Hill
1964 – Surtees
1969 – Stewart
1971 – Stewart
1972 – Fittipaldi
1973 – Stewart
1974 – Fittipaldi
1975 – Lauda
1977 – Lauda
1978 – Andretti
1979 – Scheckter
1981 – Piquet (according to O`Briens ratings, he won the title with the car which was 0,9s slower than the fastetst!?)
1982 – Rosberg
1983 – Piquet
1985 – Prost
1986 – Prost
1989 – Prost
1991 – Senna
1995 – Schumacher
2001 – Schumacher
2003 – Schumacher
2004 – Schumacher
2005 – Alonso
2008 – Hamilton
2009 – Button
“These 26 occasions of the 63 seasons since 1950 represent 41% when drivers won championships in cars that were not the fastest. That means that 59% of seasons were won by drivers who had the fastest cars.”
© Patrick O’Brien 201129th October 2013, 14:40 at 2:40 pm #242945Ben NeedhamParticipant
I agree with most of that list… but how on earth does he think the 2004 Ferrari wasn’t the best car in the field?!
Securing 15 victories, 14 fastest laps, 12 poles, 8 one-two’s and appearing on the podium in every one of the 18 races.
Hmm… rubbish car! ;-)29th October 2013, 14:48 at 2:48 pm #242946
“2004: this season the Schumacher/Ferrari ‘steamroller’ was utterly dominant, winning 13 races from 8 poles. Team-mate Barrichello won twice from four poles. And yet the Ferrari F2004 rated as only the second-fastest car at 100.1. The car that was faster was the generally unacknowledged BAR-Honda 006, which top-car- rated at 100.0. Many have and will disagree with my system’s car rating here. However perceptions of Ferrari’s utter dominance and superiority cloud the issue. Main reason is that the BAR-Honda team was led by the talented but yet inexperienced Jenson Button who driver rated at 100.4. Schumacher’s 100.0 driver-rating more than made-up the BAR-Honda’s 0.1 car advantage enjoyed by Button, to the tune of a comfortable 0.3%. Even Barrichello, driver-rated at 1002, had 0.1 in hand over the Button/BAR-Honda combination, and scored four poles and two wins to the one pole and no win for Button.”
© Patrick O’Brien 201129th October 2013, 14:50 at 2:50 pm #242947MatthijsParticipant
It’s a very interesting exercise, but I think the author makes one fundamental mistake: he places the influence of the driver on the same level as that of the car. For 2004 he states that the BAR was on average 0.1 second faster than the Ferrari, but Schumacher was 0.4 seconds faster than the 2004-Jenson, therefore the combination Ferrari-Schumacher was on average 3 tenths faster than the combination BAR-Button.
I think the author overestimates the role of the driver and underestimates the role of the car. I think it’s not fifty-fifty, the performance of the car is perhaps about 70% of the overall performance.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.