But also, to make your worthwhile comparison, you'll have to remove any car from contention in any race from the past at about 104%+ of pole time.DOF_power said:Last time I've got the numbers (` Monza) there was an average of 25% less passes per car/driver compared to last year. Meaning a terrible decline, and all time low for GP racing.
Its a selected set of examples to illustrate a point*. It does not need to be a complete list, either, since my point is that there exist Grand Prix where your rationale would require a change the current data, not that that would apply to all Grand Prix. You are claiming you must bin 315 passes whilst keeping every pass from the data before 2010. You cannot do this, as you are being inconsistent which clearly invalidates any claim you make.DOF_power said:Numbers please. It's not a complete list.
teabagyokel said:Its a selected set of examples to illustrate a point*
Neither the cars nor the Monza circuit of the 1950's are even remotely equivalent to the cars and Monza circuit of 2010. Todays touring cars might have a similar performance, you might like to seek your motorsport fix there.DOF_power said:This would be unthinkable today, but back then the same cars or equivalent cars could pass each other.
Pass whom? Where? What the...? Have you been drinking?DOF_power said:I'm sick of excuses and "they are closer" speeches; Hamilton was 2 seconds per lap faster BTW and still couldn't pass.
OK, so the 1950 Italian Grand Prix.DOF_power said:By Brazil there were 271 lost positions for HRT/ Lotus/ Virgin combined, but then adding they position gained (on each other no doubt) the number grows to 315.
That's a huge number, 315 passes that have to be discounted from total passes in 2010 without counting Abu Dhabi.
I'm not saying it was, I'm just applying your logic. At Valencia, Lotus were only 103.1% of pole funnily enough, which is actually closer than any car bar Prost to Senna's pole time at the 1988 San Marino Grand Prix.DOF_power said:and it wasn't because of 4-6 seconds gaps or the 104% nonsense
That is a really daft thing to bring up when you note that the drivers did not even drive the cars flat out in the 50s. If you have seen any early GP, driver or team interview footage you would know this. The leader was effectively the pace setter like in a middle distance+ running race or cycle race. The cars were not even capable of stopping in a reliable distance, engines were over stressed and had to be managed carefully to last an entire race, indeed at tracks with long straight sections, as most had, drivers would have to back off the throttle in a straight line to prevent the engine just letting go, so if you are following of course you will squeeze the peddle a little to get past and begin managing your own pace. Drivers pushed each other faster than they dared each lap previous and although daring and entertaining, drivers were not even in a position to extract the variable 100% performance from the car, risked engine failure, brake failure or death by attempting to get within 10% of it and this practice generally led to up to 2/3 of the cars retiring and up to 1/3 of the field being killed trying each year.DOF_power said:Point this, in 1950 at the first WC GP Fangio and Farina passed each other for nearly 2h despite driving with the same car, till Fangio had to retire.
Hawthorne and Fangio passed an re-passed each other at Rheims for over 3 hours.
There were 25 to 41 on track lead changes alone at Monza in the 60s, and it wasn't because of 4-6 seconds gaps or the 104% nonsense.
This would be unthinkable today, but back then the same cars or equivalent cars could pass each other.
I'm sick of excuses and "they are closer" speeches; Hamilton was 2 seconds per lap faster BTW and still couldn't pass.
Detritus was the name of a Troll in the Ankh-Morpork City Watch.teabagyokel said:If, however, you wish to continue to post unsubstantiated detritus then I will have no option but to point out the logical flaws in your argument, as I have done elsewhere on this site to other members, in the name of getting any statistics and conclusions thereof to be accurate, serious and sound