FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[andrew]

I'm active on 3 but this is still the main one, chiefly because the others are just F1 and nothing else and the F1 world is quiet at the moment.

The rest I just lurk and see if there are any interesting tid bits on the go.

[darwin dali]

More than one F1 related forum... how do you people do it?

And they keep saying how great the other Forums are....... but never seem to leave this place. Maybe this place is the Hotel California of the F1 Forum World....?

We've been found out

[mnmracer]

...

The only ignorance and faulty reasoning lies with the people that put words into my mouth, and can not accept that something that might not interest them, does interest others. It's the same bitching as there always is with the 'misfortune threads'; if you're not interested, or feel threatened by what you get from different insights, no one forces you to read it.

If you are not interested in seeing who overtook most cars this years, so be it, no one forces you to read it.
If you are interested in those numbers, you can not tell me some further breakdown is not interesting.
If you believe that when someone simply posted the numbers, with Vettel on top of that list, people would not go and complain "yes, but everyone can overtake HRTs", you are fooling yourself. Ergo, there is an inherent need for people to know who else was overtaken other than the HRTs. Supply and demand.
Whatever niche market you're in, you just need to find your own supplier.

Given this data, that's what can be done with it.
If you can do it better, stop bitching and do it better already.

[scotty]

mnmracer, don't be so aloof, just cause people are questioning the validity of the data and therefore (and this is the point) the assumptions that people are jumping to because of it. It's perfectly reasonable and sensible to question these things when the data is so obviously incomplete.

More than one F1 related forum... how do you people do it?

F1Technical has some useful stuff especially good photos of car updates throughout a season, although it's too full of OTT engineering types for me to want to post regularly if at all... i get enough of that IRL. Like there's one guy there who was adamant that he'd created a gearbox (or whatever it was) that was a better design than anything any current motorsports team (F1 or not) could offer. Go figure...

[mnmracer]

mnmracer, don't be so aloof, just cause people are questioning the validity of the data and therefore (and this is the point) the assumptions that people are jumping to because of it. It's perfectly reasonable and sensible to question these things when the data is so obviously incomplete.

Did you see anyone jump to the conclusion that Vettel is the best overtaker?
I know you implied it on page 2, but did you actually see someone say that?

No.
The only conclusion people draw from it is that it should finally put to rest the 'Vettel can't overtake myth' to those people still so ignorant they would make that statement.

[FerrariFan63]

...

The only ignorance and faulty reasoning lies with the people that put words into my mouth, and can not accept that something that might not interest them, does interest others. It's the same bitching as there always is with the 'misfortune threads'; if you're not interested, or feel threatened by what you get from different insights, no one forces you to read it.

If you are not interested in seeing who overtook most cars this years, so be it, no one forces you to read it.
If you are interested in those numbers, you can not tell me some further breakdown is not interesting.
If you believe that when someone simply posted the numbers, with Vettel on top of that list, people would not go and complain "yes, but everyone can overtake HRTs", you are fooling yourself. Ergo, there is an inherent need for people to know who else was overtaken other than the HRTs. Supply and demand.
Whatever niche market you're in, you just need to find your own supplier.

Given this data, that's what can be done with it.
If you can do it better, stop bitching and do it better already.

I have told you over and over what is wrong with what you've done, and how it can be better. It's not that it doesn't interest me at all, I think it's very important that people learn basic rules of how statistics work and how they should or should not be used. And I've told you over and over how it can be done better. Which was to stop with the incorrect creation of new statistics after you'd gathered your data. By that time it's too late to start making up new statistics which count or weight things differently, and the best you can do is to give the basic numbers but in analysis discuss reasons why this number isn't an exactly measurement of who is a better overtaker of whom. Given you have the data now, that's all you can do with it. For the reasons that have been patiently explained to you in this thread, you can't do any more with it. It's too late. If you want to come up with better statistics, then you'll need to do so, producing a convincing explanation of why your statistic measures overtaking better than potential alternative statistics, and then count those for the 2013 season. And either of those options are far superior to what you've done.

You say that I'm complaining, but I'm not. I'm pointing out your errors. If you don't believe these are errors, then why don't you go and find statistical authorities who say that it is a good thing to do to redesign your statistics once you've actually gathered and looked at your data. If you look into that properly, you can only gain. Because either you'll find the support you need to actually answer me properly, or you'll find out that I'm right in which case you learn and won't repeat your error.

If you are very sensitive to criticism, which seems to be the case, then one way of avoiding criticism is to learn how to do things right. Then people won't have anything to criticise. Just becoming angry and stubborn when people point out your errors is a very poor strategy.

EDIT:

I thought of an analogy which might explain things.

Imagine that we had the F1 2012 season without having decided what points were going to be for all the finishing positions. Then, after all the races had been run, the FIA sat down and started to decide how many points there would be for first, how many points there would be for second, etc. It would be appalling and nobody would accept that any points system they came up with wouldn't have been biased by who finished where in what races, and whom the FIA believed should win. And even if the FIA were trying to be honest and just, there would be no way they could avoid subconscious preferences for certain points systems because they confirm who the FIA believe should come ahead of who.

The same applies to choosing new statistics after you've looked at the data. There's no way to avoid bias, and nobody should take statistics generated in this way seriously.

Oh, and I notice the thread on F1Technical was locked after similar criticism of misuse of statistics.

[LewEngBridewell]

This thread has turned into the biggest yawn ever....

[mnmracer]

We can keep running around in circles all year (all 28 days), but we are not going to agree.

You believe that the available data should just be burned and thrown out; I believe there is always something to take from it.
You will never agree that certain data is irrelevant in an overview assessment, I share the view of the people that take the effort to compile said data (CTA, Pirelli).
I have taken the effort to write up the data, you can't be bothered to write anything.

I am sensitive to critcism in the sense that I always want to learn and improve.
Unfortunately, aside from sitting on your high horse, there is little to learn from someone who is unwilling to get off his couch and lead by example.
It's easy to say something is wrong, it's admirable if you can actually show you know what you're talking about.

[FerrariFan63]

I see that after mnmracers has had his inability to handle statistics pointed out on both F1Technical and here, that he's now gone and posted the same material on GrandPrix.com

I wonder how that will turn out.

[mnmracer]

I thought of an analogy which might explain things.

Imagine that we had the F1 2012 season without having decided what points were going to be for all the finishing positions. Then, after all the races had been run, the FIA sat down and started to decide how many points there would be for first, how many points there would be for second, etc. It would be appalling and nobody would accept that any points system they came up with wouldn't have been biased by who finished where in what races, and whom the FIA believed should win. And even if the FIA were trying to be honest and just, there would be no way they could avoid subconscious preferences for certain points systems because they confirm who the FIA believe should come ahead of who.

So we're back at the break-down of the categories.
A break-down you have yet to substantiate why it is wrong (other than "I don't know, but I assume you've made these up post-data") or how you would have improved on it.

If you're so keen on 'doing it right', be a doll and explain how you come to the conclusion I made up the categories post-data.

[mnmracer]

I see that after mnmracers has had his inability to handle statistics pointed out on both F1Technical and here, that he's now gone and posted the same material on GrandPrix.com

I wonder how that will turn out.

Another false statement if you would bother to check the times.
But that's kind of your thing isn't it? Making false statements you can't substantiate.

[FerrariFan63]

So we're back at the break-down of the categories.
A break-down you have yet to substantiate why it is wrong (other than "I don't know, but I assume you've made these up post-data") or how you would have improved on it.

If you're so keen on 'doing it right', be a doll and explain how you come to the conclusion I made up the categories post-data.

I've told you many many times how you should have handled the data, and why what you did is wrong. But you simply say "you have yet to substantiate why it is wrong ... or how you would have improved on it." I've posted this five or six times, so if you haven't got it now, you aren't going to get it. Fundamentally there's no point in telling you anything any more.

I see that not only have you been given very good explanations of what you're doing wrong here, but also on F1Technical. And probably other places either now or in the future. You clearly have no interest in learning how to do things properly, but simply repeat exactly the same errors again and again no matter how many times they're pointed out to you. Anyone third party will have seen enough of the discussion by now. And you clearly are just ignoring it.

So, there's no hope for you, unless sometime in the future you become more mature. I'm not holding my breath.

[mnmracer]

So, there's no hope for you, unless sometime in the future you become more mature. I'm not holding my breath.

Does it make you feel big to repeat the same faulty thing over and over?

- You assume "these alternate stats are chosen after the year is finished", which is faulty.
- You assume this is an assessment of who is "the better overtaker", which is faulty.
- You again assume I am "making up new stats after seeing the data", which is faulty.
- You claim I posted elsewhere after not finding positive feedback, which is faulty.

I'm sorry if I don't find you very mature after making numerous claims based on faulty premises.
Start by getting your facts straight and by substantiating your claims.

Your whole rant is based on the premise that I am "making up new stats after seeing the data", an assumption you make without any basis, very immature if you ask me.
Start with a basis for that assumption, and we'll go from there. Right now, you're a lot of big talk and NOT A SINGLE BIT of substance.

[FerrariFan63]

So, there's no hope for you, unless sometime in the future you become more mature. I'm not holding my breath.

Does it make you feel big to repeat the same faulty thing over and over?

- You assume "these alternate stats are chosen after the year is finished", which is faulty.
- You assume this is an assessment of who is "the better overtaker", which is faulty.
- You again assume I am "making up new stats after seeing the data", which is faulty.
- You claim I posted elsewhere after not finding positive feedback, which is faulty.

I'm sorry if I don't find you very mature after making numerous claims based on faulty premises.
Start by getting your facts straight and by substantiating your claims.

Your whole rant is based on the premise that I am "making up new stats after seeing the data", an assumption you make without any basis, very immature if you ask me.
Start with a basis for that assumption, and we'll go from there. Right now, you're a lot of big talk and NOT A SINGLE BIT of substance.

I've challenged you to actually go off and learn about stats, and then come back.

As with other forums, you follow the same strategy. You just ignore what has been written and come up with non-sequiturs.

There's no hope for you unless you learn something. I can't teach it to you because you're too <EDITED WB> and you refuse to learn.

Why don't you come up with some backing for your "use" of statistics. Anything at all?

Fundamentally, you've been asked many times to actually "put up" and you can't. The evidence of what has happened is clear if anyone can be bothered to look on the named forums.

I've posted lots of good information, you haven't posted anything. The ball's in your court. Come up with some comment or discussion of some actual substance. I have. Other have. Other people have "put up", you haven't been able to address a single point, but just avoid the issues.

I won't comment on this thread, as I'm involved. But I've looked through the F1Technical thread, and I believe that the current phrase is that you were utterly "pwned". And your strategy and even many of the words and phrases you used were identical.

[mnmracer]

Your whole rant is based on the premise that I am "making up new stats after seeing the data".
This is a deceitful lie.

If you consider yourself to be in the right because you are lying, you have some serious issues.
It takes both balls and ignorance, knowing that you are lying, you can come back here and act like you're in the right.
It takes both balls and ignorance, knowing that you are lying, you can claim the ball is in my park.
And if you can not understand why threads get derailed because people are telling lies, you are truly ignorant.
I must say, that's what baffles me about you; you put up this serious mask, but when it all comes down to it, your whole argument is based on a lie.
Stop lying, then there is ground for a discussion. But there can be no discussion if your premise is a lie.

And since you've probably zoned out by now because I'm telling you the truth, let me repeat
"Your whole rant is based on the premise that I am "making up new stats after seeing the data".
This is a deceitful lie."