Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Opinions on drivers - Who do you trust?


  • Please log in to reply
103 replies to this topic

#1 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,579 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 18 January 2013 - 17:09

It's a common question asked of drivers, ex-drivers, engineers, team principals, journalists, bloggers, and forum users etc across the whole gamut of motorsport series; "Who is the best driver or rider today?"

The question for this thread is, whose view holds most weight, or is the most trustworthy, least nuanced or most independent? Are we to take it that only those who are involved in the sport have views which we should sit up and take notice of? If that's the case, where do we draw the line? Are journalists close enough? Joe Saward believes that articles written by journalists who make the effort to attend the event should be trusted more than those who do not (or given more weight, if you prefer). A team principal will have in depth knowledge of the drivers he has worked with over the years but not have the same appreciation of how the others work, so do we trust him fully or just give due weight in a narrow area related to his specific experience? There are definitely gaps and flaws in his knowledge.

The fellow driver might have many reasons for claiming that another is the best, not just for positive or negative comparison, but perhaps to destabilise or perhaps with an eye on their own future. Do they even get to see much of the other drivers or would they only look at their immediate peers in the current season hierarchy?

But where does the blogger or forum user sit in the hierarchy? Sometimes we get members correcting statements by some of the 'insiders' who although seemingly closer to the sport and more knowledgeable, have made factual howlers. Keith at F1Fanatic is occasionally quoted here both as authority and as someone with obvious bias. I've certainly learned things from Atlas members, or looked at things in a different way because of comments made here by casual viewers of the sport, so wouldn't dismiss so readily.

It's a point that could be debated differently depending on the question asked, and the issues raised, because the answer for the same group or individual would be different if they were asked about an incident, or team or regulation, so this is just about an opinion offered on who the best driver or rider might be. Someone has said that driver 'x' is the best. Someone else will say that they would rather trust the word of someone different. Who do you trust, and why?

Advertisement

#2 Imperial

Imperial
  • Member

  • 2,715 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 18 January 2013 - 17:14

Nigel Roebuck. Nobody else.

See his latest 'Ask Nigel' over on the Motorsport site. Declining interviews because drivers wanted editorial control over the piece is to be admired.

In contrast, a comment under Nigel's piece claims that Autosport pulled an article, at Mclarens request, where a Mclaren director said Vettel had outdriven Button/Hamilton last season.

Edited by Imperial, 18 January 2013 - 17:16.


#3 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,458 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 18 January 2013 - 17:15

1st is myself. I'm the only person whose opinion always matches the way I see things. :p

2nd up would be a select few forum members who I think show consistently rational and well-formed opinions.

3rd would be respected journalists and ex-drivers that dont have chips on their shoulders.

Everybody else I generally take with a grain of salt.

#4 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 18 January 2013 - 17:22

I trust everyone, who shares my opinion...

#5 gm914

gm914
  • Member

  • 6,046 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 18 January 2013 - 17:24

3rd would be respected journalists and ex-drivers that dont have chips on their shoulders.

Can we call Joe Saward a 'balanced' writer? He has chips on both shoulders...

#6 lambylamby

lambylamby
  • Member

  • 554 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 18 January 2013 - 17:26

Can we call Joe Saward a 'balanced' writer? He has chips on both shoulders...


Ask Liuzzi.

Edit: I find I like some articles by Saward, but do find agendas and the way he comments (again sometimes within reason) to be quite divisive.

I must add this is the quietist pre-launch year on forums/internet I have ever known since re-sparking an interest from 2007.

Edited by lambylamby, 18 January 2013 - 17:29.


#7 garoidb

garoidb
  • Member

  • 3,663 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 18 January 2013 - 17:26

It's a common question asked of drivers, ex-drivers, engineers, team principals, journalists, bloggers, and forum users etc across the whole gamut of motorsport series; "Who is the best driver or rider today?"

The question for this thread is, whose view holds most weight, or is the most trustworthy, least nuanced or most independent? Are we to take it that only those who are involved in the sport have views which we should sit up and take notice of? If that's the case, where do we draw the line? Are journalists close enough? Joe Saward believes that articles written by journalists who make the effort to attend the event should be trusted more than those who do not (or given more weight, if you prefer). A team principal will have in depth knowledge of the drivers he has worked with over the years but not have the same appreciation of how the others work, so do we trust him fully or just give due weight in a narrow area related to his specific experience? There are definitely gaps and flaws in his knowledge.

The fellow driver might have many reasons for claiming that another is the best, not just for positive or negative comparison, but perhaps to destabilise or perhaps with an eye on their own future. Do they even get to see much of the other drivers or would they only look at their immediate peers in the current season hierarchy?

But where does the blogger or forum user sit in the hierarchy? Sometimes we get members correcting statements by some of the 'insiders' who although seemingly closer to the sport and more knowledgeable, have made factual howlers. Keith at F1Fanatic is occasionally quoted here both as authority and as someone with obvious bias. I've certainly learned things from Atlas members, or looked at things in a different way because of comments made here by casual viewers of the sport, so wouldn't dismiss so readily.

It's a point that could be debated differently depending on the question asked, and the issues raised, because the answer for the same group or individual would be different if they were asked about an incident, or team or regulation, so this is just about an opinion offered on who the best driver or rider might be. Someone has said that driver 'x' is the best. Someone else will say that they would rather trust the word of someone different. Who do you trust, and why?


The fact that a professional journalist has to be able to make criticisms of any and all of the main drivers while also having to maintain some sort of professional connection to them means, to me, that they have to be somewhere close to fair.

Drivers and teams would not co-operate with journalists obviously biased against them or towards their rivals, and real journalists would need to have access to all the main teams. Journalists are also not anonymous, and have to retain credibility to maintain their careers.

I also think that former drivers, and particularly champions, have insight into the mental aspects of pushing back the outer edges of the race driving envelope and are worth listening to on those aspects. They can be biased, though, as their status means they don't have the same reputational considerations as regular paddock journalists.

#8 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 2,927 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 18 January 2013 - 17:27

I trust everyone, who shares my opinion...


:p
Like forum members, insiders have all their own views and interpretations on how good anyone is. In the end there is no truth, just guesses. That's why opinions vary, even among insiders.

#9 Kingshark

Kingshark
  • Member

  • 2,944 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 18 January 2013 - 17:28

Anyone who supports Alonso and Ferrari. :cat:

Other than that, I generally trust the opinion of dedicated fans of the sport who don't have an agenda against certain F1 personnel or teams.

Edited by Kingshark, 18 January 2013 - 17:30.


#10 jjcale

jjcale
  • Member

  • 7,281 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 18 January 2013 - 17:32

Never been interested in the "best driver" unless its obvious like Senna for a time or MS for a time ..... more interested in "favourite driver" which is whose driving style do I love to watch ... cause I'm a fan. Not a critic. Not a TP. Not a journo. etc. I dont have a vested interest except to have some fun watching the cars go round.

My judgment is based on my two eyes. What I see in the flesh counts for more than what I see on TV.

Also best driver does not have a common definition - just check out any of the SV threads. For some its results achieved. For others its perceived talent. For others its ability to work in a team to maximise potential of the car on race day.

Most of the coverage is focused on the drivers and so generally the top journos will seem more credible as they are covering drivers more than 50% of the time... same for the "top posters here" ... we talk about driver mostly so those of us who are best at it are most credible at talking about drivers.

Its pretty simple really.

As for the opinions of drivers and others in the sport I can see why some ignore these as F1 is such a shark tank that nothing they say is ever said "just because".

Interesting question Buttoneer....

Edited by jjcale, 18 January 2013 - 17:32.


#11 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 18 January 2013 - 17:40

I think even those involved in the sport make a lot of subjective decisions. They go by their instincts and feelings a lot while we tend to take their words as gospels.

Next, I don't think we can ever conclusively say who the best driver is. Because, they all don't drive the same cars and F1 is not a spec series. The endless best driver discussions are mostly subjective. I think it is often a consensus of subjective feelings to the extent it looks objective and common sense.

Very thoughtful and interesting thread, I must say.

First and foremost, I trust myself :p , be as well-informed and inquisitive as possible. After that we can trust various external sources (journalists, team principals, engineers and drivers, but some are definitely more trust-able than others, some are not to be trusted at all!). But any of them could be wrong sometimes.

#12 Winter98

Winter98
  • Member

  • 638 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 18 January 2013 - 17:42

Who do you trust, and why?


I don't trust anyone's opinion, because they are all biased. This seems like a pretty well written article explaining a scientific study on bias and "fanboyism": Fanboyism . What it essentially says is fanboyism occurs subconciously, it happens to all of us, and we have no control over it. (well, except me of course! :p )

The only unbiased measure is a mathematical formula derived before the competition begins, one that all drivers are aware of and make their ultimate goal: championships.

And historically, drivers are ranked very closely to the number of championships they won. Drivers who died in the middle of their careers get potential championships added, and drivers from earlier periods get championships outside of F1 added to their resumes (Clark, Senna, Moss, GV, etc.). I think we do it this way because it makes the most sense.

Edited by Winter98, 18 January 2013 - 17:58.


#13 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 8,332 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 18 January 2013 - 17:53

Journalists, ex-drivers, forumers, etc are all guilty of trying to pigeon-hole drivers, and then spend lots of time trying to reinforce that narrow view, blinding themselves to things that are contrary to their already entrenched views. They make up the majority.

#14 Winter98

Winter98
  • Member

  • 638 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 18 January 2013 - 18:07

Journalists, ex-drivers, forumers, etc are all guilty of trying to pigeon-hole drivers, and then spend lots of time trying to reinforce that narrow view, blinding themselves to things that are contrary to their already entrenched views. They make up the majority.


You are correct.

Check this out P123. Read here It is part of the human condition, everyone is guilty of it, and it is beyond our control.

Edited by Winter98, 18 January 2013 - 18:13.


#15 showtime

showtime
  • Member

  • 2,585 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 18 January 2013 - 18:13

The only unbiased measure is a mathematical formula derived before the competition begins, one that all drivers are aware of and make their ultimate goal: championships.

And historically, drivers are ranked very closely to the number of championships they won. Drivers who died in the middle of their careers get potential championships added, and drivers from earlier periods get championships outside of F1 added to their resumes (Clark, Senna, Moss, GV, etc.). I think we do it this way because it makes the most sense.


It's unbiased if you measure how successful I driver has been. It's highly biased if you want to measure how good a driver was because it ignores the most important factor on a driver success, the car.

#16 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,458 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 18 January 2013 - 18:13

The only unbiased measure is a mathematical formula derived before the competition begins, one that all drivers are aware of and make their ultimate goal: championships.

Thats not the only unbiased measure.

Another would be most fastest laps. Most race wins. Most pole positions.

Picking 'championships' and saying thats the ONLY unbiased measure just sounds like a way for you to make your favorite driver look best. You wouldn't be a Vettel fan, would you? ;)

There really is no completely unbiased way of picking who the best is. People always value certain things differently and the circumstances that surround statistics in F1 mean that two idential on-paper results could be seen in two entirely different lights. I dont think most people will rate JV's WDC in 1997 equal with Hamilton's in 2008, for instance. Picking raw statistics alone is something anybody with access to the internet could do. You dont even need to know what F1 is. Thats far too simplistic.

And this is why hearing people's opinions and analysis who are knowledgable on the subject can be interesting. They tend to dig deeper than surface level, statistical arguments. Not saying their opinion is necessarily more worthwhile just because of that, because they may still be extremely biased or close-minded, but it at least shows they are making an effort to look beyond what any random person could see from searching Wikipedia pages.

You are correct.

Check this out P123. Read here It is part of the human condition, everyone is guilty of it, and it is beyond our control.

Its not beyond your control. Rooting out and identifying your biases and making a conscious effort to look past them is part of what being 'rational' is all about.

Edited by Seanspeed, 18 January 2013 - 18:16.


#17 Winter98

Winter98
  • Member

  • 638 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 18 January 2013 - 18:14

Thats not the only unbiased measure.

Another would be most fastest laps. Most race wins. Most pole positions.

Picking 'championships' and saying thats the ONLY unbiased measure just sounds like a way for you to make your favorite driver look best. You wouldn't be a Vettel fan, would you?;)


Lol! Doh! Caught red handed!

I agree those are certainly secondary measures which can move a driver up or down in their historical ranking. I think I made a fair point in saying that historically Championships won seems to be the ultimate ranking guide (adding potential championships and championships outside F1). What do you think?

Edited by Winter98, 18 January 2013 - 18:29.


#18 Winter98

Winter98
  • Member

  • 638 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 18 January 2013 - 18:24

And this is why hearing people's opinions and analysis who are knowledgable on the subject can be interesting.


Agreed.

They tend to dig deeper than surface level, statistical arguments. Not saying their opinion is necessarily more worthwhile just because of that, because they may still be extremely biased or close-minded, but it at least shows they are making an effort to look beyond what any random person could see from searching Wikipedia pages.


Agreed. The more knowledgeable people are generally able to make more coherent arguments because they have more base knowledge, and have seen more arguments and counter-arguments and know what works best to win their arguments.

Its not beyond your control. Rooting out and identifying your biases and making a conscious effort to look past them is part of what being 'rational' is all about.


If you read the parts of study talked about in the article, it looks like this happens at such a low level in the brain that it is ultimately beyond our control.


#19 fabr68

fabr68
  • Member

  • 3,963 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 18 January 2013 - 18:29

I do my driver trusting on the track

Advertisement

#20 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,458 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 18 January 2013 - 18:34

I agree those are certainly secondary measures which can move a driver up or down in their historical ranking. I think I made a fair point in saying that historically Championships won seems to be the ultimate ranking guide (adding potential championships and championships outside F1). What do you think?

I think I've already said that you're just using that as a measure because it makes your favorite driver look better, and thats only reinforced seeing that I was right about Vettel being your favorite driver. That you agree with my other points and still stick to this seems a little paradoxical.

If you read the parts of study talked about in the article, it looks like this happens at such a low level in the brain that it is ultimately beyond our control.

Obviously we cant completely absolve ourselves of ALL bias, but we can identify and control it to a fair degree. Those who are better at this are considered more 'rational', while those who are seemingly unable to are the 'fanboyish' types. To just say, "Oh we all have biases, we cant control it, we're all the same" seems to be a terribly lazy attitude on the subject.

#21 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,241 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 18 January 2013 - 18:37

Nigel Roebuck. Nobody else.


I wouldn't even trust him to give me an objective view on Andretti and (G)Villeneuve.

#22 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,579 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 18 January 2013 - 18:42

I wanted this to be a thread about who you could trust, not the best measure to use :cry:

#23 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,458 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 18 January 2013 - 18:48

I wanted this to be a thread about who you could trust, not the best measure to use :cry:

Its relevant still to discuss why somebody is more trustworthy than somebody else.

In this case, somebody who uses statistics as the basis for their opinion is far less trustworthy than somebody who digs deeper than that.

#24 Tombstone

Tombstone
  • Member

  • 1,018 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 18 January 2013 - 18:52

Nigel Roebuck. Nobody else.


This.

#25 Winter98

Winter98
  • Member

  • 638 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 18 January 2013 - 18:53

It's unbiased if you measure how successful I driver has been. It's highly biased if you want to measure how good a driver was because it ignores the most important factor on a driver success, the car.


Excellent point. My counter argument would be:

The ultimate goal of every driver is to win the championship.

Every driver wants to be in the fastest car.

The better you are as a driver (not just driving on the track, but team building, deciding what will be the best ride in the future, etc.), the more selection you have in choosing which car you drive.

So ultimately the cream rises to the top and wins the most championships.



#26 Winter98

Winter98
  • Member

  • 638 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 18 January 2013 - 18:54

I wanted this to be a thread about who you could trust, not the best measure to use :cry:


Sorry. :blush:

OK, I'll go with Nigel.

Edited by Winter98, 18 January 2013 - 18:55.


#27 BullHead

BullHead
  • Member

  • 6,713 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 18 January 2013 - 19:15

Opinions are just that, opinions.
Is there a well respected 'gentleman' racer / mech / boss in the pitlane these days?
Someone who most others in there respect, always seems to talk in a sensible philosphical way about things, always seems aimable and friendly. That's whose opinion you can trust.
Erm.. as far as drivers go what about Pedro de la Rosa? He's been about a bit, worked with a few different guys, is apparently well trusted and respected by all....
Never heard him talk much though about... well, anything.

#28 jonpollak

jonpollak
  • Member

  • 13,260 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 18 January 2013 - 19:18

Nigel Roebuck. Nobody else.


+∞
Jp

Edited by jonpollak, 18 January 2013 - 19:26.


#29 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 13,891 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 18 January 2013 - 19:24

Its relevant still to discuss why somebody is more trustworthy than somebody else.

In this case, somebody who uses statistics as the basis for their opinion is far less trustworthy than somebody who digs deeper than that.


:D

I have been in Formula One for over eight seasons. I won four Grands Prix with Ferrari and I was nearly world champion in 1999. I doubt that many of the other drivers have the same qualities and experience. I am quite intelligent, quite arrogant and a good enough driver to win. Only Michael Schumacher is better than me.


-- Eddie Irvine. Can't beat a quote from Honest Eddie.

Edited by Risil, 18 January 2013 - 19:24.


#30 RealRacing

RealRacing
  • Member

  • 1,753 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 18 January 2013 - 19:43

Statistics. The less variables, the more exact (f. ex. drivers in the same team). Add additional adjustments (taking out DNFs for example) and they will give you the best possible picture.

#31 Mika Mika

Mika Mika
  • Member

  • 6,738 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 18 January 2013 - 20:13

Of the forum members ATM-Andy seems very trustworthy but doesn't seem to talk about drivers, has anyone asked him?

Maybe I trust him because he doesn't talk bout drivers...

Edited by Mika Mika, 18 January 2013 - 20:15.


#32 tkulla

tkulla
  • Member

  • 3,156 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 18 January 2013 - 20:23

The only guys who have the real data to compare drivers are the Pirelli guys like Paul Hembery. He's said some things about drivers in the JA on F1 podcast but obviously doesn't go into a direct ranking of the drivers.

#33 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,579 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 18 January 2013 - 21:05

But Hembery can't separate the driver from the car either. His point of view might allow him to say who is generally easier on the tyre, but still not know who the fastest is, for example.

#34 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 18 January 2013 - 21:15

Whom I trust (on the internet?)?

Forumers - one or two, no names, but they stopped posting some time ago on RC. I know however they do read some odd stuff here and there, while posting at another forum.

Team - Peter Sauber

Media, journalists - no names, but it is one Frenchman, one German, and one Finn. Those I read, but then I do not know too many of them, and perhaps there is more excellent writers that I know nothing about, and it would be disservice to them to rate them low.

Drivers - Michael Schumacher. From the rest of them it is sometimes easier to admit dislike for the person, than unconditional trust in someone. Vettel seems to be gaining in my plus-column as up and up guy.



#35 Lone

Lone
  • Member

  • 659 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 18 January 2013 - 21:25

I trust driving coach Rob Wilson because he's the most qualified to say who is the fastest driver. He knows more than any journo or driver who has the best technique to drive a F1 car as fast as possible. He's a professional at knowing how to drive a F1 car as fast as possible.

Edited by Lone, 18 January 2013 - 21:26.


#36 showtime

showtime
  • Member

  • 2,585 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 18 January 2013 - 21:36

Excellent point. My counter argument would be:

The ultimate goal of every driver is to win the championship.

Every driver wants to be in the fastest car.

The better you are as a driver (not just driving on the track, but team building, deciding what will be the best ride in the future, etc.), the more selection you have in choosing which car you drive.

So ultimately the cream rises to the top and wins the most championships.


Denying skills and success are related would be stupid and I respect if you rate drivers only by their titles but I strongly disagree that is a mathematical and unbiased way of rating. My point is there are also other factors and luck is one of the most important. The difference between winning 1 or 3 WDC is smaller than it seems and most of the times is not even in the driver's hands. Vettel won his titles thanks to his great skills and decisions but he was also lucky there was a free seat at the right time and that the team reached its peak at the same time. The same could be said about Alonso and Renault. Alonso could have signed for Brawn and RBR and he would probably have at least 2 WDC more. It's impossible to predict what team is going to be the best, only play with probabilities and Ferrari seemed as safe bet as you can get.

Back on topic, I think there isn't a unbiased way to rate drivers so if I have to choose a biased view I prefer to stick to mine. If I have to say a name, I think James Allen has a simplistic approach that I tend to like.


#37 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,458 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 18 January 2013 - 21:46

I trust driving coach Rob Wilson because he's the most qualified to say who is the fastest driver. He knows more than any journo or driver who has the best technique to drive a F1 car as fast as possible. He's a professional at knowing how to drive a F1 car as fast as possible.

How is he the 'most qualified'? :confused:

Edited by Seanspeed, 18 January 2013 - 21:47.


#38 Lone

Lone
  • Member

  • 659 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 18 January 2013 - 21:47

I think there isn't a unbiased way to rate drivers so if I have to choose a biased view I prefer to stick to mine. If I have to say a name, I think James Allen has a simplistic approach that I tend to like.
[/quote]

Simplistic is the right word, if there wasn't a Joe Saward James Allen would be the fool of the town. Seriously, neither of them knows nothing about who is the fastest driver. Joe Saward believes that Liuzzi is the second coming.

You should've liked Andrew Benson because that would've given the answer you were looking for.

#39 911

911
  • Member

  • 2,207 posts
  • Joined: April 99

Posted 18 January 2013 - 21:55

Nigel Roebuck. Nobody else.

See his latest 'Ask Nigel' over on the Motorsport site. Declining interviews because drivers wanted editorial control over the piece is to be admired.

In contrast, a comment under Nigel's piece claims that Autosport pulled an article, at Mclarens request, where a Mclaren director said Vettel had outdriven Button/Hamilton last season.


Ditto - Nigel is one of my favorites.

Advertisement

#40 showtime

showtime
  • Member

  • 2,585 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 18 January 2013 - 22:05

I think there isn't a unbiased way to rate drivers so if I have to choose a biased view I prefer to stick to mine. If I have to say a name, I think James Allen has a simplistic approach that I tend to like.


Simplistic is the right word, if there wasn't a Joe Saward James Allen would be the fool of the town. Seriously, neither of them knows nothing about who is the fastest driver. Joe Saward believes that Liuzzi is the second coming.

You should've liked Andrew Benson because that would've given the answer you were looking for.


At the end, most of them have the same opinion, if you like colourful explanations and explanations based on info they don't have...

#41 tkulla

tkulla
  • Member

  • 3,156 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 18 January 2013 - 22:39

But Hembery can't separate the driver from the car either. His point of view might allow him to say who is generally easier on the tyre, but still not know who the fastest is, for example.


But he will also know which teammates are easier on the tyres while still being fast. For all the complaining about tyre conservation that goes on around here, the real skill is on driving fast while conserving tyres. In 2014 it will be on conserving fuel while driving fast too.

Nobody else has data on every single set of teammates. TPs only have it for their own drivers, after all.

Oh, and I disagree with some of you about James Allen. The guy gets good insider information (sources he dare not disclose) that definitely gives him a more informed view than those of use who are watching from afar.


#42 Velocifer

Velocifer
  • Member

  • 736 posts
  • Joined: January 02

Posted 18 January 2013 - 22:44

select few forum members who I think show consistently rational and well-formed opinions.

+1


#43 senna da silva

senna da silva
  • Member

  • 4,431 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 18 January 2013 - 22:52

I would say anybody who doesn't have a vested interest in a team or sponsor, which rules out most of the talking heads. The Journos tend to be more interested in keeping their creds and sucking up than being factual and honest.
Ex drivers who aren't connected anymore I hold in high regard as they've been there and understand the process. But what we're really talking about are opinions, and as we all know opinions are like.................

#44 D.M.N.

D.M.N.
  • RC Forum Host

  • 7,198 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 18 January 2013 - 23:06

Have to agree with those that said Nigel Roebuck. The problem with most journalists nowadays is that they tend to say things to 'big' someone up to a nauseating degree, like how much of the British media is bigging up Paul di Resta for no apparent reason. It's difficult to take some seriously when they do that.

Despite that, I think Martin Brundle is worth mentioning as not many people in the paddock have commentated on Formula 1 for the past 15 years, and raced in the previous 15 years before that. So Brundle's position is quite unique in that respect.

It's a fascinating one, but I don't think the list of potential names is that long, unfortunately.

#45 Lights

Lights
  • Member

  • 9,409 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 18 January 2013 - 23:11

Current drivers often play mind games. Ex-drivers tend to act out of jealousy/unfinished business. Engineers know few drivers up close. Team principles are the worst of the worst. Journalist and bloggers work in a wider spectrum but can overreact on things for attention. Nobody knows everything so I would end up trusting myself the most. Of course my own view is also influenced by loads of input, but as that incorporates comments from basically any type of figure in F1 I could not really claim that I trust a particular person. I soak up everything and merge it into my own view. Perhaps coincidentally Keith Collantine from F1Fanatic has agreed with my top 5 drivers of the season for the past 3 years.

#46 mnmracer

mnmracer
  • Member

  • 1,972 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 18 January 2013 - 23:13

Not saying he is alone in this, but as Alonso is the most recent case, I'll use him as two examples of an opinion who I can't trust.

Person 1 I can not trust, is one to apply an obvious double standard. In Alonso's case, his opinions always seem very political. The praise he is singing now for Hamilton, he was singing for Räikkönen in 2008, when he put down Hamilton like he is doing to Vettel now. His measure -their season as team-mates- also existed back then, but he uses a double standard.

Person 2 I can not trust, is one that gets his measurable facts wrong. In Alonso's case, he claims that in 2011 "Red Bull were first and second consistently". Dear Fernando, Red Bull scored 3 1-2s in 2011, just 1 more than your team scored in 2010. You will find no statistician who will consider 3 out of 20 even remotely 'consistent'.

It's very simple: be fair (no standards) and be true (know your facts).
Then we'll talk :)

#47 Taxi

Taxi
  • Member

  • 3,034 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 18 January 2013 - 23:25

I tend to trust Martin Brundle as he knows more or less what he's talking about and as an inside info, But generaly I trust my instinct. Never failed on me.



#48 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 4,517 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 18 January 2013 - 23:30

Eddie Jordan...... At the point when he doesn't engage his brain before talking........ Often a good insight to be had there......


#49 mattferg

mattferg
  • Member

  • 847 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 18 January 2013 - 23:34

Thats not the only unbiased measure.

Another would be most fastest laps. Most race wins. Most pole positions.

Picking 'championships' and saying thats the ONLY unbiased measure just sounds like a way for you to make your favorite driver look best. You wouldn't be a Vettel fan, would you?;)

There really is no completely unbiased way of picking who the best is. People always value certain things differently and the circumstances that surround statistics in F1 mean that two idential on-paper results could be seen in two entirely different lights. I dont think most people will rate JV's WDC in 1997 equal with Hamilton's in 2008, for instance. Picking raw statistics alone is something anybody with access to the internet could do. You dont even need to know what F1 is. Thats far too simplistic.

And this is why hearing people's opinions and analysis who are knowledgable on the subject can be interesting. They tend to dig deeper than surface level, statistical arguments. Not saying their opinion is necessarily more worthwhile just because of that, because they may still be extremely biased or close-minded, but it at least shows they are making an effort to look beyond what any random person could see from searching Wikipedia pages.


Its not beyond your control. Rooting out and identifying your biases and making a conscious effort to look past them is part of what being 'rational' is all about.


Saying championships don't really mean anything and pole positions/fastest laps do? You wouldn't be a Hamilton fan, would you? :-) considering he almost lost 08, I'd rate it equal.

Pole positions and race wins happen easily if you're in the fastest car, but it doesn't take into account age and a variety of other factors. Fastest laps are pointless with the current tyre spec. Championships are the only constant.

#50 ApexOversteer

ApexOversteer
  • Member

  • 57 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 18 January 2013 - 23:36

Martin Brundle. And other ex-F1 drivers that know what they are talking about. (bar Jacques Villeneuve)