>>150707767
>mu-muh old drivers...WERE LE REAL PROS!!! I JUST KNOW!!!
fucking KEK you could timetravel stroll into one of the 60s shitboxes and give him 3 days to pracc and he'd win a championship
>Yes. Which is why your x/48 calculation was so ridiculous.
Nu-uh
>Of course, in the Red Bull example, we see that one of their two drivers disproportionally finished on the podium compared to the other (7 vs. 0). Now, doesn't that suggest that while both drivers had that same 7/16 chance to finish on podium given the car performance, right? And that one of them did get more out of that than the other, right? Now, why not do the same for Ferrari?
It's just not that complicated. You see when 2 cars essentially make the number of available podium spots "1", then to get on the podium you realistically need to beat the odds of one of the 2 cars not making it (15%), Max not making it (?%), OR you have to beat your Teammate who's got an edge over you (so far, 0%)

Now take your shitter from the 70s, they have to beat an assortment of various shittermobiles driven by hobbyists and playboys and maybe a few serious drivers in the top teams beside ferrari, and with cars blowing up half time time, the field spread not being ~0.7sec, it's just a lot easier.