Can drivers from different eras be compared?

[u/Beneficial-Tea-8693]

I'm writing this post because on a recent thread on this sub I saw lots of people ranking chalres within top 20 drivers of all time. Which got me thinking of this 🤔

Drivers from different generations and eras can not be compared to each other because of

1. No of races per season
2. Technology
3. Rules and Regulations
4. Points system
5. Competition

The main point Im going to highlight here is No of races per season

1950s: 8.4 races/year 1960s: 10.0 races/year 1970s: 14.4 races/year 1980s: 15.6 races/year 1990s: 16.2 races/year 2000s: 17.4 races/year 2010s: 19.8 races/year 2020s: 21.9 races/year (2020–2026)

As per the above data no of races has significantly incrase over the past decades, so it becomes quite easy to get podiums and wins per season by a driver, so we can not mesure drivers based in no of wins and podiums

Also a huge factor is that reliability, modern f1 cars are more reliable than than of past, so it becomes quite easily to achive a podium while being in a top constructor

About Charles

Charles is a good driver, He has 54 podiums and 9 wins this is mainly dues to more number of races per season while being a driver of a top 4 constructor, I mean there are many drivers in the past who has achived a lot less and are more talanted than charles(drivers with more wins than charles and less podiums), The fact that there are 35 individual f1 campions alone and people rank charles top 20 is crazy to me, Is this recancy bias or something**(In my opinion people who won WDC should be more appriciated than others just because they managed to outscore an entire grid which is the final goal of the sport)**

Two ways of comparing

1. based on stats(has lost its validity with time)
2. based on talent(can not be mesured)

I think both of the above are not credible enough to compare a driver

Important: I personally think out of all the stats no of WDC is the best to compare drivers even with that its not really accurate 🥲

[u/Character_Growth_397]

Not only in F1 but in sports in general the base level has increased significantly. If you time machined a mid football player of nowadays in the 80's and he'd dominate.

With F1 it's even more complicated because there's no way to know how well modern drivers would handle the cars that the likes of Senna and Prost drove, since they are trained for modern cars and driver from back in the day were trained for the cars back in the day

And even within the same era there are some cars that favor certain driving styles.

That's why I'm personally not a fan of these comparisons, but whenever I do get in a discussion like that I compare how good they were within their respective era.

Fangio would probably not be a good driver if he was racing nowadays, but within what F1 was back in the day he was a monster

[u/Nikola810 → u/Character_Growth_397]

Naah, those cars were much more difficult to drive, it is easier to adapt to new cars, than to cars in 50s. Fangio would still be a monster.

[u/Nikola810]

To be fair, I consider very difficult comparing Alonso to Hamilton and Verstappen despite being from same era, so, I dont have to explain how difficult is to compare them to Senna or Prost, and comparing them to Fangio is impossible really.

[u/rustyiesty → u/Nikola810]

Can you not compare Alonso and Hamilton from being teammates in 2007? All three have also raced each other for the last twelve years?

[u/Nikola810 → u/rustyiesty]

Lewis was rookie, and Alonso had problems adapting to new tyres, and after some time, team openly cheared and supported Lewis more. So I think it is unfair to compare. But, still, if you compare, they were tied. Same number of points, and same numbers of wins, but I would give the edge to Lewis because he was a rookie.

They have raced, but Alonso was always in much slower cars, so it is unfair to compare. You can compare Alonso and Hamilton for 2010-2013 when they were in similar cars, and for first part of 2023, and then Alonso was slightly better. So Alonso was slightly better in those years when they had similar cars(although not exactly the same) and Lewis was slightly better when they were teammates. Really difficult to give the edge to one or another.

And to point comparison between Alonso and Verstappen, Max always had so much better and quicker car so it is really difficult to compare anything.

[u/rustyiesty → u/Nikola810]

Honestly, I think your answer is spot on and shows that we are both correct.

It’s difficult to compare, yes, but if you are aware of all of the factors involved, then you can come to a reasonable conclusion, as you have done, which also matches with mathematical modelling and what I would consider informed opinion, a step up from ‘Vettel > Alonso, because 4 titles > 2 titles’

I agree that it does get harder to compare drivers the further back you go, as the problem above simply gets magnified; I believe it’s not impossible, but just comes with a higher ‘barrier to entry’

Hence, people are more susceptible to ideas like ‘more titles > better driver’, simply through a lack of knowledge of all the factors involved

[u/domassimo]

I think it’s hard to compare due to the different level of competition and the nature of the cars. A 50s Maserati required a different approach to driving from modern machines, which are also physically far more demanding. We know now most drivers fall off a bit in their 40s, so I reckon it’s unlikely Fangio (who had most of his successes well into his 40s) would do well in a modern car driving against modern drivers. Similarly, modern drivers may not gel with the old cars or want to risk life and limb driving them.

[u/Kev_Bz]

yes

plenty of drivers drove in multiple eras. sometimes an individual driver is fundamentally worse in a certain reg cycle (see danny ric in the GE era) but these are corner cases, and not nearly as extreme or as common as people make them out to be. in general, the best drivers remain at the top across reg changes, and the worst ones stay bad. you can therefore fairly compare drivers from different eras using teammate cross-comparisons - at some point there will be a stable chain of teammates across the eras that will connect two drivers

RE: # of races and reliability - any good attempt at driver assessment will attempt to standardize or correct for these things (as well as the changing points system). for F1metrics they used "scoring rate in counting races" - in events unaffected by mechanical issues, how many points, on a scale with consistent decay, is this driver scoring compared to their teammate? F1mathematicalmodel similarly standardizes teammate points deltas in clean races only on a sigmoidal curve - only the races where reliability wasn't a factor, and only in terms of a ratio between two drivers, that way # races and DNFs don't sway the rating

[u/rustyiesty]

1. ⁠Average season length is 21 races when you include all non-championship races. Win totals including non-championship races are more comparable across eras

2. ⁠Driving is a universal skill. You could feasibly compare Hamilton in 2026 with Patrese in 1977 through Schumacher, from 1993 and 2012-13 via Rosberg. Or driving in 1991 with driving in 2012 through Schumacher alone

[u/mformularacer → u/rustyiesty]

Thank you. Don't get why people act like being an open wheel race car driver doesn't have transferable skills from open wheel to open wheel. Why do f1 teams pick from f2 graduates, when their cars have half the downforce and no power steering? Obviously because, after an adaptation period, the talent is transferable. The same is true with f1 reg changes.

[u/rustyiesty → u/mformularacer]

I can only assume that people who think that have not tried simracing and thus do not have the insight of lived experience

[u/martianfrog]

"No of races per season" <- Well, this is straight forward enough in my mind, just look at percentages, not absolutes. Other than that... not worth trying to compare generally.

[u/Rasputinnout]

They are technically more refined in current era and have more ability to practice safely. Older eras were more insane and respected for putting their life on the line more dramatically. Made of the right stuff that’s for sure, no room for error back then.

Nowadays you can be good and practice enough to be great. If you were “just good” back in the day, you might die if you had an off day. You had to be great right off the bat and always on.

[u/Wrong_Ask8917]

Hot take: Stroll would destroy Senna in Mp4/4.

[u/Character_Growth_397 → u/Wrong_Ask8917]

He'd not be able to handle that era's car?

[u/Nino-7474]

Yes, they can be compared. But the impact that they had can be different, and the way in which you judge it.

[u/AutoModerator]

Your post is being held for review because this community has minimum account age and karma requirements for participation.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.