Talk:List of Formula One driver records

Idea

Just an idea, someone might add entries for most records held and youngest record holder. --711groove (talk) 04:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Shortest Formula One career (having qualified for at least one race)

Purely on the grounds of accuracy and without wishing to cause offence, shouldn't this be Riccardo Paletti? Mighty Antar (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Paletti completed 7 laps of the 1982 San Marino Grand Prix. DH85868993 (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I remembered it being said at the time that it was his first Grand Prix but I hadn't checked the stats Mighty Antar (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Just in case anyone else should have the same thought I did, I looked up the race report published in the Autocar magazine for the 1982 Canadian Grand Prix and it does state that it was Paletti's first ever F1 race and it also states this on the video review of the 1982 GP season, however he is listed in results published in Autosport for the 1982 San Marino Grand Prix, so the Canadian GP reports are incorrect, probably confusion at the time over the status of the San Marino GP due to the boycott. Mighty Antar (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Could be confusion arising from Canada being his first start from the grid; at Imola he started from the pit laneMr Larrington (talk) 12:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Most points in season without winning world championship

Might be an idea to add this to the page. - ARC Gritt^TALK 14:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is already included in Most championship points in a season. --FeinerMax (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Points for 7th and 8th

As the points system changed so dramatically in 2003, we might need to find a way of showing what the records would be without this chance, or what they would be if 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 had always been used. Two of the 3 youngest points finishers took theirs with an 8th and a 7th (although both scored again within a few months), and DC's total is a lot higher than it would've been in the 10-6-4-3-2-1 days, for example.--MartinUK (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand your thinking, but there are several issues to consider:

• As soon as we start talking about what the records would be, we are speculating. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should be about the facts, i.e. what the records actually are.
• Drivers drove knowing the points system that was currently in force. For example, with about 20 laps to go, Nelson Piquet was comfortably leading the 1983 South African Grand Prix, but dropped back to 3rd at the finish, secure in the knowledge that that was sufficient for him to win the World Championship. If he had needed to win the race to take the title, he possibly/probably could/would have.
• In the 1950s, multiple drivers used to be able to share a single car and split the points. These days they cannot. So, in the alternative points system(s), do you allow shared drives or not? It makes a big difference to Fangio's points total in 1956, for example.

In summary, I think the simplest and best approach is for Wikpedia to present the facts and leave the interesting theoretical exercises for others. (From memory there's a website that recalculates each year's World Championship under the various pointscoring systems (conveniently ignoring the shared drives issue!) - I think it's listed in one of the WT:F1 archive pages). DH85868993 (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

MartinUK has a point that is being reinforced. The changes in the point system mean that comparisons are essentially meaningless. There should either be a note on all of records regarding points that the system changed or the records should be broken up into the years they were in force. I prefer a little note reminding people that the points system changed. Mr-914 (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Indy 500

Can we extend a few of these tables to show the top 10 drivers who could igf the Indy 500 is ignored? Things like 'fewest starts before first win' are really ruined by it--MartinUK (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Despite it's name, this article is actually a list of World Drivers' Championship driver records and, like it or not, for the first 11 years, the Indy 500 was a round of the Championship. So Wallard's win in his first WDC race is just as valid as Baghetti's or Farina's. DH85868993 (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Many (most?) of these records have nothing to do with the Driver's Championship per se. The 500 was part of the World Championship but was not a Formula One race. It should not be included in an article with this title. Rdikeman (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear. What I meant is that this article lists records achieved during races which were part of the World Drivers' Championship (which is now known as the Formula One World Drivers' Championship). Regarding your point about the Indy 500 not being a Formula One race - none of the WDC races in 1952 or 1953 were Formula One races either - are you proposing we should remove them from the lists as well? DH85868993 (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

DH85868993 is right, the records should stay as they are, as the Indy 500 was part of the World Drivers' Championship between 1950 and 1960. If you look at reliable sources, for example formula1.com, they include the Indy 500 as part of the '1950 FIA Formula One World Championship', and for all Championships upto and including 1960, so if this page is to be named 'List of Formula One driver records', then the Indy 500 records must be included for it to be complete. Schumi555 (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The distinction that is being obfuscated (including on the Formula One site!) is between "World Championship" (a season title) and "Formula One" (a set of sporting regulations). It's understood that the Indy 500 was part of the World Championship for a time, but there were no Formula One cars in those races. I was not aware of the Championship being run according to Formula 2 regulations for two years ('52-'53) because of a lack of Formula One entrants; thanks for that. :-) You could follow Formula1.com's lead by calling the article "Formula One World Championship driver records," I suppose. It's a mess, to be sure. Rdikeman (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Consecutive fastest laps

Should we have this one? Either as a full table or just the record holder in the 'Other Records' section? Madraykin86 (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Added. DH85868993 (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Classified retirements

Those finishing statistics included races where driver didn't finish but was classified, having run over 90% of race distance. Namely these:

• Heikki Kovalainen retired at the 2007 Monaco Grand Prix, so he finished only four races from the start of his career, making Tiago Monteiro record-holder alone.
• Andrea de Cesaris retired all 16 races during 1987 season. While adding retirements of 1986 and 1988 into that, he retired 22 races in a row.
• Nick Heidfeld retired at 2007 Japanese Grand Prix, meaning that his current streak is at 16.

BleuDXXXIV (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Grand Chelem?

Is there a reliable source for this term being applied to motor racing? There are half a dozen instances on the web, but I suspect those are quoting Wikipedia - I've never seen it before. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty, I don't see why we shouldn't use the term to describe F1. It's a lot less cumbersome than the alternative. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It ain't a matter of us *using* the term though - it's documenting that the term is in use in motor racing, which I don't believe. Without a source, why is it better in the English Wikipedia than "grand slam" or "full house"? Or, for that matter, "flump", if we're allowed to coin the phrase ourselves! :-) -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I've never heard it used. The question is 'what should we call it instead?' - logically it would be 'perfect race', but this has another (less perfect) meaning.--MartinUK (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd never come across the term at all until I encountered it here on Wikipedia. As for an alternative, I guess we could always use "Grand Slam" (i.e. the literal translation). DH85868993 (talk) 08:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The only place I've ever seen it is on Forix, where I suspect the term was copied from. Readro (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I am re-opening the discussion on Grand Chelem/Grand Slam term. In my experience (which pre-dates Wiki), this term is relatively widely used among people familiar with Formula One history and statistics. Also, searching the web, it appears there are plenty places where either "Grand Chelem" or "Grand Slam" are used in conjunction with Formula 1, some of them are definitely after the change was made to this page which eliminated the term from it (which negates this specific argument used earlier). So I disagree with the arguments used earlier, which led to removal of the term from here. I would strongly support restoring the term to this page, since this term is used on and off the web for quite a while. cherkash (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide some cites, then? --Ian Dalziel (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Olav Mol, the Dutch commentator of Formula One since 1991, has used the term several times since I've been following formula one (1996). GameLegend (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

These are couple recent online sources that mentioned the term: [1], [2], and [3]; but you can also see it used here and here, which are examples of real-life use of the term where people used it in online dicussions and apparently nobody needed to be told what the term meant and it was in general widely understood.

Apart from online sources, I've heard it used numerous times in TV broadcasts, read it in books, journals and newspapers, and in general encountered it many times in my 20 years of following Formula 1.

cherkash (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Now I want to shift the topic of discussion slightly from whether the term is used in motor-racing (it is!) to the question of which version of the term ("Grand Chelem" or "Grand Slam") has preferred use in English (I've personally seen both versions used, so it may as well be that none of the two is obviously more used than another). Here's my hunch: since both terms are used interchangeably (with the first one being of clear French import), and since French wikipedia explains here that the term was originally derived in French language from (American) English term "slam" meaning "crush", we may as well standardize this article to use the "Grand Slam (Grand Chelem)" instead of "Grand Chelem (Grand Slam)" or even "Grand Slam/Grand Chelem", since "Grand Slam" would seem to be an original term in English as opposed to the re-imported "Grand Chelem".cherkash (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd certainly prefer the English term (as I said two years ago). The French term was completely new to me when it first appeared here - I do think its increasing use in English stems from the web, if not actually from Wikipedia. "Grand Slam" is less likely to be picked up by users of WP as a motor racing specific term.

Oh, and if we're willy-waving about the extent of our OR, I've been following the sport and collecting books about it since 1962...

Ian Dalziel (talk) 12:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The alleged OR is not an OR in this case - see, e.g., the recent sources I provided.

But besides this, it really sounds to me that we don't disagree about the fact that the term "Grand Slam" is in common use, and your original questioning was of the term "Grand Chelem" specifically. I wouldn't object to restoring the "Grand Slam", with "Grand Chelem" in parentheses.

Unfortunately, your original inquiry caused "Grand Slam" to be removed as well, which I assume was an unintended consequence. So I vote for at least restoring "Grand Slam", and also acknowledging the (not uncommon nowadays) term "Grand Chelem" as well. Although I'd be ok with just restoring the "Grand Slam" alone. Thoughts?

cherkash (talk) 07:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If my original comment caused it to be removed it was a slow burn, because I made the comment two years ago! I don't actually see why it needs a name at all, but I've no real objection to it saying "Grand Slam". -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 11:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been following the sport for two decades and I've never heard either of these terms even once. Nor is it even common to hear "hat trick" used to describe the pole/win/fastest lap combo. I think it's stupid to try and force a term into the article when it's not actually used. If some Dutch guy says it, put it into the Dutch Wikipedia. English-speaking formula one fans simply don't use the term. It doesn't appear anywhere on grandprix.com, fia.com, or formula1.com. Google searches throw up mostly French tennis results, with English-language F1 results far from the top. It's pretty weird to insist on using obscure terms for things that are much more clearly described without them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.15.124 (talk) 09:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This topic is mostly closed now. To summarize (and to clarify!) the subject: there was a misunderstanding at some point, since the original question was posed about the French-originated term "Grand Chelem" specifically as opposed to the term "Grand Slam". It was since agreed to use "Grand Slam" (a widely known term, even if not uniformly and very widely used) - and there was supporting evidence given in the English-language sources. So although the discussion was revolving around the term "Grand Chelem" specifically, the original conclusions circa 2008 may have been misunderstood by at least some participants to encompass "Grand Slam" as well - but it was not as much a discussion about "Grand Slam/Grand Chelem" term, but specifically about "Grand Chelem" variation. We since re-considered the discussion and agreed to use the term "Grand Slam" and this wasn't met with any reasonable objections.cherkash (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The reasonable objection is that the term is seldom if ever used in motor sport. Nor is "hat-trick", or "double". It is ridiculous to try to force into this article terms that are simply not used by anyone connected with motor sport. There is no need to make up names for things in this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.222.86.15 (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

We have previously established that the term IS used in motor sports; the fact it is seldom used, is because it seldom happens. But if you want to antagonize against the use of it, please first rebute why you believe our previous establishment is incorrect. GameLegend (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I obviously missed where you established this is used anywhere other than a few recent blogs, only one of the sources you've given above looks even remotely valid. Other than Wikipedia I've never come across Grand Chelem being used in the 50 years I've followed motorsport in the UK and whenever "Grand Slam" is used, it's where a team of several cars (like Ford at Le Mans) has finished in sequential places e.g. 1st, 2nd 3rd and 4th. Both terms are used regularly in Tennis though, so perhaps it's a US thing? Please provide a couple of mainstream news sources from the last 60 years. Mighty Antar (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hat trick is used a LOT in F1 from what I've seen. Double rarely. I've never heard of grand slam or chelem or whatever it's called and I've been watching F1 for 15 years at least.Whatzinaname (talk) 08:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Grand Chelem inconsistency

The article states that Mansell achieved the "Grand Chelem" (or whatever we choose to call it) in the 1991 British Grand Prix. The article for that race states that Senna took the lead very early in the race. One must be incorrect. Does anyone know which is wrong? Julianhall (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. It depends how you define "Grand Chelem". Senna took the lead at the start, but Mansell reclaimed it before the end of the first lap. So, if you define "Grand Chelem" as "led the entire race", then Mansell didn't do it. But if you define it as "being in the lead at the end of every lap", then he did.... DH85868993 (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Entries and starts

From this Sunday on, shouldn't those two be listed separately? The way it is, the list is flawed. If you count only starts, not entries, Jean Alesi should be there on 9th place, with 201 starts, ahead of Trulli's 200. And not Michele Alboreto, who only started a race 194 times. If you count only entries, then Alboreto makes the list. Could this be changed? JimboB (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Would it be ok if I changed this? Does anyone oppose? JimboB (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It's fine with me. Please remember to update the Table of Contents at the top of this article and also the one in List of Formula One records. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. JimboB (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Most amount of laps lead in one race

Jenson Button led all 58 laps at Australia + Schumacher in 2004 and I was just wondering whether it was liable to be put on the table and if anyone else has done so? Chubbennaitor 17:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If you look in the Grand Chelem section, you'll see 40 plus Grands Prix where a driver has led the entire race from pole. Taking the 1998 Monaco Grand Prix as just one example, that was led for all 78 laps by Mika Häkkinen. Julianhall (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Least days as world champion

Just wondering, which world champion, discounting Button, held the title for the shortest time? I'm thinking claimed it late in the season and next season a walkover for someone else. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

A quick look at the "Clinched" column of the table in List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions suggests the following as likely candidates:

• Surtees (clinched the 1964 title at race 10 of 10; Clark clinched the 1965 title at race 7 of 10)
• Rindt (clinched the 1970 title at race 12 of 13; Stewart clinched the 1971 title at race 8 of 11)
• Hunt (clinched the 1976 title at race 16 of 16; Lauda clinched the 1977 title at race 15 of 17)

But you'd need to look at the actual race dates to work it out for sure. If you're looking for minimum number of days a particular WDC title was held (rather than "minimum total number of days as WDC"), then you can add Fangio 1951, Brabham 1959, Hill 1962, Hill 1968, Lauda 1984, Senna 1991 and Schumacher 2000 to the list of likely candidates. DH85868993 (talk) 09:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally I don't think it's very interesting, mostly because it is not something that a driver has much influence on.GameLegend (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

New points system

Next year, there will be a new points system, which is more dramatically changed then ever before. Since it's better to be early than late, I think it would be good to discuss it here. Before, the point was made for 7th and 8th position points, and I agree that that is not worth speculating about, but with the winner getting 25 points, any comparisons are completely off. GameLegend (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your point about the difficulty of comparing points totals in the future, but I'm unclear as to what you're suggesting - are you suggesting that we include "scaled" points (i.e. how many points each driver would have scored under the 2010 points scheme) or that we just remove the points tables altogether? If you're suggesting including "scaled" points, then I would be opposed, for the same reasons as previously expressed. DH85868993 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's why I bring this up well in time now so we can brainstorm.

The 2 ideas I have right now, but I'm very open to other suggestions, are:

Make 2 lists for everything, keeping the old records as is, and starting anew next season

Keep the old records, and for the new point system, only make a new average point list

But yes, please, any ideas or suggestions, are very welcome (and happy new year!) GameLegend (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Propose different comparison tables for points systems based on seasons where same maximum was available - notably 10 points for a win period and 25 points for a win period. As we can't undertake any independent research or speculation here we can only list points that were actually scored. This does not change the fact that it is misleading to display (as currently) a table where half way through this season the top 4 drivers are appearing in the 'Most points in a season' table. The effect of 7th and 8th place points on tables like this is minimal by comparison. If nobody disagrees I will make this change as I don't want all these tables to become meaningless. 86.29.37.24 (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You have my blessing. GameLegend (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. There have been five main different points systems: 8-,9-,10-6, 10-8 and now 25- points. The 25 point thing is by some margin the most drastic change and hence I think it is totally appropriate to treat it as unique, although for things like 'Most points in a season' you could have one table for each system. Statistician's nightmare all these changes - imagine the outcry in Cricket if they suddenly started giving 10 runs for a boundary and all the modern players passed Don Bradman's batting average. Doesn't bear thinking about. Btljs (talk) 14:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Schumacher and Räikkönen, active?

In this page, both Schumacher and Räikkönen are shown as active F1 drivers. IMHO this is a mistake; if we mean drivers who were active during the 2009 season, Schumacher shouldn't be, while Räikkönen isn't an F1 driver anymore. I wouldn't mark Kimi as an active driver. 88.2.190.104 (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's incorrect for both Räikkönen and Schumacher to be marked in bold. I think it's simpler to highlight drivers who competed during the 2009 season (i.e. per the existing statement at the top of the article), to avoid disputes about who is/isn't a "current" driver, e.g. Heidfeld. DH85868993 (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hat trick (pole, win & fastest lap in same race) ordering

Looking at the article as a whole, there seems to be some inconsistency over the ordering of drivers who hold equal positions for a record; for example the Hat trick section lists the drivers sharing 5th, 7th and 9th places alphabetically, whereas other sections such as Race leaders (Stewart and Barrichello in 9th) and Consecutive podiums from first race of season are listed with the most recent achiever at the bottom. Could we decide on a consensus on how the drivers should be listed? Regards, Schumi555 14:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree this is confusing. There are occasions when there might be a reason to put one driver over another, say if their record is better somehow (e.g. with most finishes in a season, you could argue that Heidfeld deserves to hold the record more because he finished 18 races out of 18, and perhaps could have finished more if there had been more races, whereas Monteiro failed to finish one of his 19 races). If we're not going to be consistently alphabetical, could we consider a convention that the driver who took the record most recently comes out top? This would be valid because the most recent record will be most relevant to the current F1 experience.Dotdotdotcomma (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the Hat trick I notice there's no mention to Juan Pablo Montoya's (2003 Germany GP) Fabiogil (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That's because (like the majority of the article) the table only lists the "top 10", which in this case means drivers who have achieved the feat 5 or more times, which Montoya has not done. DH85868993 (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This page is not what it was

With the new points system I have started to find this page Un-Useful. By the end of the season all the results on this page will be tainted. --81.6.215.1 (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion for making it less "Un-Useful" ? DH85868993 (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we convert the points or at least have some comparison feature.

Or maybe devide Pre-2010 and Post-2010. Its the start of the season so not too hard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.6.215.1 (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The point conversion was mentioned before, and not much liked (agree with that).

I do support a split list though. GameLegend (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

How about changing from most points in a season, which was always a bit odd as there have been loads of different systems over the years, to highest % of possible points. Admittedly that's still not a perfect solution, for instance 4 wins and 6 2nds from a 10 race season would be 76% under the 10-6-4 system, 88% under 10-8-6 and 83.2% under the latest method, but it's a start. Another option could be to convert old scores into new ones, although this falls into trouble with different season lengths. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

See above discussion under 'New points system' and my changes to see if they meet with approval. Career records (which tend to bridge different points systems) have to be left in one table but a pre 2010 column at least gives some perspective. Single seasons just need breaking up according to the points system in place - to me there are five categories 8-, 9-, 10-6, 10-8 and 25 points but the 25 point change is of a different order to the others so needs to be treated as a new starting point for things like most points in a season. Until we have several seasons we don't even need a table for the new scoring system - you never know they might scrap it next season and we can all go back to normal again. Btljs (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Most races without points

I think this should be added 112.2.254.238 (talk) 09:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Abu Dhabi Grand Prix -if a Red Bull driver takes the title

If one of the Red Bull drivers takes the title this weekend, there is another record: "most championship leader changes in a season: 9 in 2010" GameLegend (talk) 10:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Most wins in the same Grand Prix

Shouldn't we remove all the mentions to drivers who won 5 times the same Grand Prix? If you go from Schumacher/France to the ones with 6 wins per race, that already makes 10 items, which is kind of the template for these tallies, isn't it? JimboB (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Done. DH85868993 (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Fewest races before first win

Should Emerson Fittipaldi be in this table as well? He won his fourth start; he was a DNS at Monza in 1970 following the death of Jochen Rindt. Mr Larrington (talk) 13:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The section title is somewhat ambiguous. The table actually lists fewest *entries* before first win; while as you correctly point out, Fittipaldi's first win was his 4th race start, it was his 5th race entry. DH85868993 (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"Highest percentage of races finished in the points" table

I question the completeness of the "Highest percentage of races finished in the points" table. It's missing at least the following drivers:

• Oscar Alfredo Gálvez, Dorino Serafini and Eric Thompson (racing driver) (each with 1 points finish from 1 entry = 100%)
• Luigi Musso Luigi Fagioli (6 points finishes from 7 entries = 85.7%)
• Paul Goldsmith (2 points finishes from 3 entries = 66.7%)

I suspect that wherever the table was originally sourced from had a caveat such as "minimum 10 entries" or something like that. So, should we:

• complete the table (which might involve original research),
• decide and apply a "minimum number of entries" threshold, noting that we don't do this for any other tables on the page,
• just delete the table altogether, or
• something else?

Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 10:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it adds anything to what we already have here. Once you start qualifying the table, "minimum 10 entries" etc. and combine that with the vagaries of the points system over the years it all becomes rather subjective anyway. Mighty Antar (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Other than this table, it only applies to "percentage wins" and "percentage podium finishes".

Why I'd like to have 'less than 10 entries' marked or included in a special way- is that I'm trying to think of what the readers are looking for. When looking up information on the top so many drivers in something, I don't think many are looking for a couple drivers that just drove 1 or 2 races. If we'd include the above examples, and let them push the 'more than 10 entries' drivers out, the only driver on that list that's a 'full season driver' would be Paul di Resta. I don't think that's really the kind of information people are looking for in an article.

I think if we base the tables on "minimum 10 entries", and mix the "less than 10 entries" in between, it would be a much more valuable article, rather than just the facts outside their context.

In order of my preferences, first most preferered, I would suggest

• Make a seperate table for "drivers with less than 10 entries".

Highest percentage of races finished in the points (minimum 10 entries)

	Driver	Entries	Points Finishes	Percentage
1	Michael Schumacher	271	203	74.9%
2	Lewis Hamilton	73	54	74.0%
3	Fernando Alonso	161	109	67.7%
4	Alain Prost	202	128	63.4%
5	Sebastian Vettel	64	40	62.5%
6	Kimi Räikkönen	157	94	59.9%
7	Ayrton Senna	162	96	59.3%
8	Jenson Button	193	95	49.2%
9	David Coulthard	247	121	49.0%
10	Nelson Piquet	207	100	48.3%

Highest percentage of races finished in the points

	Driver	Entries	Points Finishes	Percentage
1	Paul di Resta	2	2	100.0%
	Dorino Serafini	1	1	100.0%
	Eric Thompson	1	1	100.0%
	Oscar Alfredo Gálvez	1	1	100.0%
5	Luigi Fagioli	7	6	85.7%
6	Michael Schumacher	271	203	74.9%
7	Lewis Hamilton	73	54	74.0%
8	Fernando Alonso	161	109	67.7%
9	Paul Goldsmith	3	2	66.7%
10	Alain Prost	202	128	63.4%

• Include the <10 drivers in the list, but mark them mixed in with the 'main drivers'.

	Driver	Entries	Points Finishes	Percentage
	Paul di Resta	2	2	100.0%
	Dorino Serafini	1	1	100.0%
	Eric Thompson	1	1	100.0%
	Oscar Alfredo Gálvez	1	1	100.0%
	Luigi Fagioli	7	6	85.7%
1	Michael Schumacher	271	203	74.9%
2	Lewis Hamilton	73	54	74.0%
3	Fernando Alonso	161	109	67.7%
	Paul Goldsmith	3	2	66.7%
4	Alain Prost	202	128	63.4%
5	Sebastian Vettel	64	40	62.5%
6	Kimi Räikkönen	157	94	59.9%
7	Ayrton Senna	162	96	59.3%
	Sam Hanks	8	4	50.00%
	Mauri Rose	2	1	50.00%
	George Amick	2	1	50.00%
8	Jenson Button	193	95	49.2%
9	David Coulthard	247	121	49.0%
10	Nelson Piquet	207	100	48.3%

• Make a mention of the "less than 10 entries" drivers in a note.
• Should neither idea be supported, I'm equal to include these or delete them.

GameLegend (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: I mistakenly wrote "Luigi Musso" instead of "Luigi Fagioli" in my original post; I've corrected it there and removed Musso from GameLegend's tables, to avoid confusion. DH85868993 (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

My preference is to list just the top 10, regardless of the number of entries (i.e. like the second table above - the one that goes from Di Resta down to Prost) for simplicity and consistency with the rest of the article, also noting that the table isn't swamped by "one hit wonders" as I feared it might be. DH85868993 (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the table in the article to match the second table above. Note that I'm not trying to pre-empt the outcome of the discussion but the existing table was definitely incomplete/inconsistent/inaccurate - at least now we have a table that's accurate, even if we subsequently decide to change it to something else. DH85868993 (talk) 02:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I would support removing all drivers below a certain threshold in these percentage statistics - it's not very notable to e.g. reach 1 podium position in 2 races, because that is not "statistically significant" at all. Also, the current "podium percentages" table is inconsistent since it already misses one such statistical outlier, when comparing to [4]: Serafini with one podium finish in one race. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Another thing I would like to see changed are the shared drives: IMO an entry/win/podium with a shared drive should only count as half an entry/win/podium for each of the two drivers - this is just fair since they did only "half the work" each, and since championship points were also halved between "shared drivers". For their "two shared drives" in one 1951 race by Fangio and Fagioli, this would result in 0.5 wins and podiums for each, and 2*0,5=1 entry each. This would slightly decrease Fagioli's, Fangio's and Hank's "podium percentages", moving Hanks out of the Top Ten (behind Ayrton Senna) and thus eliminate one of the "minor drivers" even without a threshold. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

One difficulty with omitting results which aren't "statistically significant" is deciding what falls into that category. You believe that 1 podium from 2 races is not statistically significant; someone else might think it is. IMO, it's preferable for this page to just "present the facts" and allow the reader to make their own decision. Thanks for identifying Serafini's omission; I have now added him to the table.

Regarding shared drives: Most reliable sources (e.g. FORIX, Autocourse GPA, etc) count shared wins and podiums as "full" achievements (e.g. they show Fangio with 24 wins and 35 podiums), so IMO Wikipedia should do the same. DH85868993 (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that deciding on a "significance" threshold is somewhat subjective, but I think no-one would seriously consider 1 podium in 2 races more significant than e.g. Senna's 80/162 ratio, which is currently left out by restricting the table to "top ten" (which is also a subjective cut-off) without a significance threshold. E.g. GameLegend's "10 entries" cutoff suggested above is even stronger than the "5 podiums" cut-off I tried to apply.

It's good to look at what reliable sources do, but since there's no "official source" available, we should judge if their way of counting is really sensible. To me it's absurd to give a driver the possibility to score two podiums with a single "race entry", as is apparently done currently with e.g. Farina and Fagioli. Had Farina only performed the one race in which he gained two three-shared podiums, he would stand at an absurd 200% in our table, in spite of him not even driving the entire race distance with the two cars combined.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

PS: One of the two "References" given in the article actually counts shared drives differently than this article does: ChicaneF1 counts shared drives "full", but counts multiple shared drives in a single race as several "entries: E.g. Fagioli has 7 races, but 8 entries [5]. This also avoids the "200%" problem I mentioned (and gives a "fairer" representation of a driver's percentual achievement than "our" system, IMO), so I would also prefer this method to the one currently used.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

My first impression of a table like this is fancruft which should be deleted.... On thinking about it, I have to wonder if it's not also sythesis. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Trek here, this table by design has a limited use. I'll go further and say most tables on this article dealing with points are not only fancruft but not even factually reliable either. Some try to make different columns to deal with the most recent points change, but make no mention of previous changes and result drops - and nothing taking account of the fact that seasons have gradually gained more and more races. There really is limited purpose to them - if you really want to compare points systems, just look up the comparison table on F1 facts. QueenCake (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the third table is the best, because it shows the "one hit wonders", but it does not include them in the rankings. This way, if the reader can see which ever list he/she likes. THEY can choose whether to include the "one hit wonders" if they like. I think it properly gives them credit, however it does not take away from the "main drivers'" achievements. Editadam 11:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this really a significant enough statistic to track? My privisional vote is to delete as it is an obscure statistic. Is this a stat in use anywhere or is it OR? --Falcadore (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's listed e.g. on the StatsF1 site referenced in the article (as a total list sortable by percentage; with slightly different numbers than here as they divide by starts, not entries). I consider such average performances notable enough to include here (at least after excluding the "one-hit-wonders" which are likely just "coincidential" records). IMO this table is more notable than e.g. all the "negative records" ("Most races without a win" etc.) listed, or most of the "Youngest" Top Ten. I'd rather delete/reduce those than the percentage tables. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Percentage pole positions

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask my question.

I noticed that in the section of percentage of pole positions, it is mentioned that Vettel has 18 poles and a certain percentage (which is less important for my point)

I also noticed on top of the document that article is updated including the malaysian GP 2011.

To my knowledge, Vettel only scored 17 poles up till malaysia. So unless his pole from this morning has already been included, according to my info the number is incorrect; 2008- 1 pole; 2009 - 4 poles; 2010 - 10 poles; 2011 - 2 poles (3 including China); Total = 17 poles

Can anyone else verify this to make sure I'm not mistaking?

Thx Glenn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unionscum (talk • contribs) 22:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. Vettel's total of 18 pole positions includes the one from China. Ideally, everyone would wait until after the race and then update this page in its entirety. But there's usually someone keen who updates the pole position and front row stats immediately after qualifying, thereby making that information inconsistent with "accurate up to and including" statement. Past experience has shown that if we change the information back, someone else keen will come along and update it again. So we usually just live with the inconsistency for 24 hours until the whole page is updated after the race. I guess we could consider having a separate "accurate up to and including" statement for the pole position and front row tables. DH85868993 (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

How come only one listing has a "pre-2010" rules category?

Only the points per race has a pre-2010 listing, yet there are many more categories that have been highly influenced by the point changes. Either all of them should have pre-2010 listing or none of them.Whatzinaname (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Double / hat-trick

The term "hat-trick" is far more commonly used to describe three victories in a row than it is to describe pole, win and fastest lap (eg http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sport/formula_1/315829.stm, http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7413474.stm, http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/1492666.stm, http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/3598455.stm, http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7706496.stm. The term "double" is not widely in use for a pole and win (eg http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=formula+one+pole+win+double&pbx=1&oq=formula+one+pole+win+double). Forcing the use of terms which are not widely accepted is original research. Encyclopaedias should describe, not prescribe. 90.199.34.136 (talk) 03:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Expanding the tables

Might be a good idea to expand the tables from 10 to 20 entries. This way the information presented would be much more dynamic, as some of the info available right now, even though very important, are pretty static, being really hard to break in the top 10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Florins1 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I think including places 11 through to 20 would perhaps overstep the mark as being too trivial. Readro (talk) 12:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I think "top 10" is a more common benchmark than "top 20" ("top 10" returns about 700 million ghits versus about 165 million for "top 20"). Plus, FWIW, I think it should be hard to break into one of the "top N" lists of a competition that's been going for more than 60 years. DH85868993 (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Readro and DH85868993 that top ten is enough - this article is already extremely long, and places 11-20 are not really notable for most categories. Also, even the "Top Ten" here are not really static, with e.g. Vettel entering lots of them within just two years. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Fewest seasons before first title

Would it not make sense to remove Nino Farina from the top of this table (ie. alter the title of the table to say "(excluding 1950)"), as the deserving holders of this record are surely Fangio & Hamilton? Farina only tops the table as a result of it being the very first f1 season. 94.195.26.44 (talk) 08:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)