- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

>Marcus streets <mar…@eightflames.org> wrote in
>news:hg8nc1$2hab$1@news.ett.com.ua:

>> Marcus wrote:
>>> APLer wrote:

>>>> Looking again, Isn’t Mark Webber placed a *bit* low?

><snip>

>> The only driver on this list missing from the driver’s selection is
>> Peter Revson, the American who won 2 Grand Prix and the Indy 500 for
>> McLaren in the 1970s. Revson is the last US born racer to win a Grand
>> Prix.

>> The unlucky driver is Rubens – 5st on this list and overlooked by the
>> drivers.

>Thanks for the work. I guess the best way to look at top drivers lists
>is to either ignore them or use them as an excuse to keep up your math
>skills <g>.

True, but you also owe me a pint because "xxx" was ranked higher than
"yyy".  :-)
—

- dillon  I am not invalid

I love my country, It’s my government I fear.

Hey, turnabout’s fair play.

> Marcus wrote:
>> APLer wrote:

>>> Looking again, Isn’t Mark Webber placed a *bit* low?

<snip>

> The only driver on this list missing from the driver’s selection is
> Peter Revson, the American who won 2 Grand Prix and the Indy 500 for
> McLaren in the 1970s. Revson is the last US born racer to win a Grand
> Prix.

> The unlucky driver is Rubens – 5st on this list and overlooked by the
> drivers.

Thanks for the work. I guess the best way to look at top drivers lists
is to either ignore them or use them as an excuse to keep up your math
skills <g>.

> However, I am amazed anybody voted for Nakajima or de Cesaris in a top 10.

Autosport’s editorial dropped a heavy hint that Kazuki’s dad might have
had something to do with his appearance on the list.

–
Duncan Snowden.

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

Marcus wrote:
> APLer wrote:

>> Looking again, Isn’t Mark Webber placed a *bit* low?

> He presumably got one 10th place vote.
> It means one driver could not think of 10 better drivers.
> He has every opportunity to move up the pecking order.

> However, I am amazed anybody voted for Nakajima or de Cesaris in a top 10.

> As for father son pairs, Damon is always ranked well below Graham – even
> though Damon’s success rate was significantly higher.

> Driver Wins Races Conversion
> Damon    22  122 = 18%
> Gilles    6   68 =  8.82%
> Graham   14  179 =  7.82%
> Jaques   11  165 =  6.67%

> I know I should not let facts get in the way of emotion when it comes to
> poles like this – and yes I know that it is hard to compare as different
> drivers had access to different cars and were subject to team orders.

> Marcus

Following up my own post
Here are the top drivers in terms of the ratio of Wins to Starts
Asterisks mark current drivers.
Obelisks Champions

Qualification more than one win and more than ten races entered.

Name                    Races   Wins    Ratio
Juan Manuel Fangio†    52     24      0.46
Alberto Ascari†                33     13      0.39
Michael Schumacher†   250     91      0.36
Jim Clark†             73     25      0.34
Jackie Stewart†               100     27      0.27
Ayrton Senna†         162     41      0.25
Alain Prost†          202     51      0.25
Stirling Moss            67     16      0.24
Lewis Hamilton†*       52     11      0.21
Damon Hill†           122     22      0.18
Nigel Mansell†                191     31      0.16
Tony Brooks              39      6      0.15
Fernando Alonso†*     140     21      0.15
Nino Farina†           34      5      0.15
Niki Lauda†           177     25      0.14
Mika Häkkinen†               165     20      0.12
Nelson Piquet†                191     23      0.12
Sebastian Vettel*        43      5      0.12
Kimi Räikkönen†             157     18      0.11
Jack Brabham†         128     14      0.11
James Hunt†            93     10      0.11
Alan Jones†           117     12      0.10
Jochen Rindt†          62      6      0.10
Felipe Massa*           116     11      0.09
Emerson Fittipaldi†   149     14      0.09
Mario Andretti†               131     12      0.09
Jody Scheckter†               113     10      0.09
Gilles Villeneuve        68      6      0.09
Peter Collins            35      3      0.09
Carlos Reutemann        146     12      0.08
Ronnie Peterson         123     10      0.08
Graham Hill†          179     14      0.08
José Froilán González         26      2      0.08
Juan Pablo Montoya       95      7      0.07
Denny Hulme†          112      8      0.07
Wolfgang von Trips       29      2      0.07
Jacques Villeneuve†   165     11      0.07
Jacky Ickx              120      8      0.07

Mike Hawthorn†                 47      3      0.06
Peter Revson             33      2      0.06
Phil Hill†             51      3      0.06
John Surtees†         113      6      0.05
David Coulthard         247     13      0.05
Gerhard Berger          210     10      0.05
Dan Gurney               87      4      0.05
René Arnoux            164      7      0.04
Didier Pironi            72      3      0.04
Jenson Button†*               172      7      0.04
Keke Rosberg†         128      5      0.04
Bruce McLaren           104      4      0.04

The only driver on this list missing from the driver’s selection is
Peter Revson, the American who won 2 Grand Prix and the Indy 500 for
McLaren in the 1970s. Revson is the last US born racer to win a Grand Prix.

The unlucky driver is Rubens – 5st on this list and overlooked by the
drivers.

Marcus

He presumably got one 10th place vote.
It means one driver could not think of 10 better drivers.
He has every opportunity to move up the pecking order.

However, I am amazed anybody voted for Nakajima or de Cesaris in a top 10.

As for father son pairs, Damon is always ranked well below Graham – even
though Damon’s success rate was significantly higher.

Driver Wins Races Conversion
Damon    22  122 = 18%
Gilles    6   68 =  8.82%
Graham   14  179 =  7.82%
Jaques   11  165 =  6.67%

I know I should not let facts get in the way of emotion when it comes to
poles like this – and yes I know that it is hard to compare as different
drivers had access to different cars and were subject to team orders.

Marcus

> Actually this one is interesting. Autosport magazine contacted almost
> all living F1 drivers and asked them for their all-time (since 1950)
> top 10. 217 of them responded and this is the result – no driver could
> vote for themselves and points were allocated 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1

<snip>

>  10  Gilles Villeneuve
>   9  Fernando Alonso           ***
>   8  Stirling Moss
>   7  Niki Lauda
>   6  Jackie Stewart
>   5  Jim Clark
>   4  Alain Prost
>   3  Juan Manuel Fangio
>   2  Michael Schumacher
>   1  Ayrton Senna

Seeing that there’s a *lot* of drivers there of whose career I know
nothing of, I can’t really say much except for the placement of the two
Villeneuves: The father perhaps being to high and the son too low. The
former being just behind Alonzo and Moss might be nostalgia I guess, The
son being lower than Button when both have only one one championship.
Perhaps the possible ending of Button’s career is being guessed at.

Yes, I know it’s in the other place, but it *is* a post here.

Looking again, Isn’t Mark Webber placed a *bit* low?

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

>In article <Xns9D00BE0C1E319AP…@127.0.0.1>, APLer <AP…@floor.tilde>
>wrote:

>> Bob Dubery <megap…@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:ae10c70e-34f1-4bdf-b572-5006887a05d8@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:

>> > On Dec 23 2009, 3:10 am, Dillon Pyron <invaliddmpy…@austin.rr.com>
>> > wrote:

>> >> Hmm, 30.16.  I don’t know about any countries outside of the US, but
>> >> this reg is in violaiton of the Americans with Disabilities Act
>> >> (ADA).

>> >> Animals, except those which may have been expressly authorised by the
>> >> FIA for use by security services, are forbidden on the track, in the
>> >> pit lane, in the paddock or in any spectator area.

>> > I guess the obvious case is guide dogs for blind people. Would you get
>> > many at an F1 event?

>> > But that regulation does surprise me. What do, say, IRL do about guide
>> > dogs?

>> The first thing I’d want to know is why a blind person would want to go
>> to a car race in the first place.

>The sounds, the smells, the electricity, even the food (especially at
>Indy).  I know a blind fellow who’s a huge fan.

When I was but a wee lad, we used to go to the drag races that had
"match racing" with fuelers.  We’d stand at or as close to the start
as we could.  Burned nitro, unburned nitro, burned rubber, clutch
dust, zoomie flames (all races were at night), monster burnouts.  And
about 30 milliseconds of the actual race.

Oh yeah, bad hot dogs, off mix Coke, cardboard pizza.
—

- dillon  I am not invalid

I love my country, It’s my government I fear.

Hey, turnabout’s fair play.

> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 01:55:07 +0000, APLer <AP…@floor.tilde> wrote:

>>Simply because they couldn’t see the cars. Going to a car race and
>>seeing it as an atmosphere thing has it’s advantages, but without
>>actually seeing the race, one is missing the point IMHO.

> Blind people might as well just kill themselves, then?

> They can experience a race just as well as they can experience
> anything else. The point is the competition, not the pretty colours.

Oh, come on. I never said anything of the kind. You’re twisting my words
into some sort of vindicitve discrimination. I don’t expect to have
blind people driving on the road eaither, but that hardly means I hate
them. they’re *blind*. That’s what the word means.

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

> In article <Xns9D02D204D60C4AP…@127.0.0.1>, AP…@floor.tilde
> says…

>> Ian Dalziel <iandalz…@lineone.net> wrote in
>> news:vj43l5pa35641i9ploeesffl4vterklj3f@4ax.com:

>> Simply because they couldn’t see the cars. Going to a car race and
>> seeing it as an atmosphere thing has it’s advantages, but without
>> actually seein
> g
>> the race, one is missing the point IMHO.

> But they can listen into the commentary, while having all the extra
> input of "being there". I don’t understand why anybody would think a
> blind person shouldn’t want to be there. That thinking ends up with
> them never leaving home!

And that *is* the atmosphere part I mentioned in my post.

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 01:55:07 +0000, APLer <AP…@floor.tilde> wrote:
>Ian Dalziel <iandalz…@lineone.net> wrote in
>news:vj43l5pa35641i9ploeesffl4vterklj3f@4ax.com:

>> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 23:50:24 +0000, APLer <AP…@floor.tilde> wrote:

>>>Bob Dubery <megap…@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>news:ae10c70e-34f1-4bdf-b572-5006887a05d8@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:

>>>> On Dec 23 2009, 3:10 am, Dillon Pyron <invaliddmpy…@austin.rr.com>
>>>> wrote:

>>>>> Hmm, 30.16.  I don’t know about any countries outside of the US,
>>>>> but this reg is in violaiton of the Americans with Disabilities Act
>>>>> (ADA).

>>>>> Animals, except those which may have been expressly authorised by
>>>>> the FIA for use by security services, are forbidden on the track,
>>>>> in the pit lane, in the paddock or in any spectator area.

>>>> I guess the obvious case is guide dogs for blind people. Would you
>>>> get many at an F1 event?

>>>> But that regulation does surprise me. What do, say, IRL do about
>>>> guide dogs?

>>>The first thing I’d want to know is why a blind person would want to
>>>go to a car race in the first place.

>> Explain why you think they wouldn’t.

>Simply because they couldn’t see the cars. Going to a car race and seeing
>it as an atmosphere thing has it’s advantages, but without actually seeing
>the race, one is missing the point IMHO.

Blind people might as well just kill themselves, then?

They can experience a race just as well as they can experience
anything else. The point is the competition, not the pretty colours.

–

Ian D