Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

2013 - big gaps between team-mates


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 2,699 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 26 August 2013 - 10:43

I remember I was asking in 2012 whether that season indicated that driver again matters more, because we saw some big gaps between team-mates. particularly Alonso v Massa early in the year.

 

In 2013 we again have some big gaps. Let's look at five top teams. Only Rosberg is reasonably close, all others are far away. It probably indicates that all the best drivers have been distributed across different teams, so we are really missing a hot in-team contest. Like we had in 2007 in both McLaren and Ferrari. In 2009 neither Barrichello nor Webber were far from their team-mates either.

 

%-wise points scored of their team-mates in the first five teams. Bottom three aren't even within 50%.

 

Rosberg: ~69,1%

Webber: ~58,4%

Massa: ~44,4%

Grosjean: ~39,6%

Perez: ~38,3%

 

All this makes the driver v driver battle threads quite meaningless. The only ones to discuss anything about are Force India and Toro Rosso pairings. Though in Force India Sutil's % is a modest 69,4% too, but at least on track the drivers look close.



Advertisement

#2 Anderis

Anderis
  • Member

  • 2,645 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 26 August 2013 - 11:11

It seems these Pirelli tyres really differentiate the best drivers from others. :cool:

 

Although when you look at these numbers, it seems all top teams apart from Mercedes should be definetely looking for a better number 2 driver. Having less than 50% points of your team-mate when you're driving for a good team is quite embarrassing. It's not like any of those is a rookie or whatever.



#3 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 2,699 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 26 August 2013 - 11:46

It seems these Pirelli tyres really differentiate the best drivers from others. :cool:

 

Although when you look at these numbers, it seems all top teams apart from Mercedes should be definetely looking for a better number 2 driver. Having less than 50% points of your team-mate when you're driving for a good team is quite embarrassing. It's not like any of those is a rookie or whatever.

 

The funniest discovery for me is that Grosjean and Perez have roughly a similar percentage, while looking at comments section you wouldn't think so - Grosjean is considered so trashed that he should be sent away from F1, while Perez was considered giving Button a run for his money!



#4 vista

vista
  • Member

  • 533 posts
  • Joined: April 13

Posted 26 August 2013 - 11:58

A more meaningful system would be the difference in time or finish places between team mates. The point system awards winners more so you don't get the true difference.



#5 trogggy

trogggy
  • Member

  • 7,194 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 26 August 2013 - 12:02

The funniest discovery for me is that Grosjean and Perez have roughly a similar percentage, while looking at comments section you wouldn't think so - Grosjean is considered so trashed that he should be sent away from F1, while Perez was considered giving Button a run for his money!

You have to consider where that considering has been coming from though.  ;)



#6 MustangSally

MustangSally
  • Member

  • 368 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 26 August 2013 - 12:12

I remember I was asking in 2012 whether that season indicated that driver again matters more, because we saw some big gaps between team-mates. particularly Alonso v Massa early in the year.

 

In 2013 we again have some big gaps. Let's look at five top teams. Only Rosberg is reasonably close, all others are far away. 

 

I wonder what teams think is an 'acceptable' points gap? I read somewhere once that Piquet Jnr had a 'performance target' in his contract of 40%. Obviously it makes a big difference to constructor points and revenue. 

 

Anyway, on that basis, quite a few team-mates have been under-achieving in the past couple of seasons. Notably Massa. You would imagine that the other top teams would want at least as strong a pairing as, say, Button and Hamilton . . . who finished last year within just two points of each other. Now Hamilton and Rosberg look like the yardstick.

 

Force India has picked up some useful points too by hiring fairly equal drivers.

 

In defence of the 'under-achievers' though, the current points-scoring system does amplify the gap between the #1 and #2 driver, where there is a clear demarcation. 



#7 Myrvold

Myrvold
  • Member

  • 2,589 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 26 August 2013 - 12:15

It's interesting to see the gap between Rosberg & Hamilton, and then think that Rosberg have 2 wins, Hamilton 1!



#8 Obi Offiah

Obi Offiah
  • Member

  • 8,287 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 26 August 2013 - 12:21

You have to consider where that considering has been coming from though.  ;)

I did give that some brief consideration, then considered that considering such a thing fully would require far too much consideration.



#9 Jimisgod

Jimisgod
  • Member

  • 2,556 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 26 August 2013 - 12:32

It's interesting to see the gap between Rosberg & Hamilton, and then think that Rosberg have 2 wins, Hamilton 1!

 

Then again, hasn't Rosberg had much worse reliability. Australia, Hungary, China...



#10 TurboF1

TurboF1
  • Member

  • 698 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 26 August 2013 - 12:36

I wonder what teams think is an 'acceptable' points gap? I read somewhere once that Piquet Jnr had a 'performance target' in his contract of 40%. Obviously it makes a big difference to constructor points and revenue. 
 
Anyway, on that basis, quite a few team-mates have been under-achieving in the past couple of seasons. Notably Massa. You would imagine that the other top teams would want at least as strong a pairing as, say, Button and Hamilton . . . who finished last year within just two points of each other. Now Hamilton and Rosberg look like the yardstick.
 
Force India has picked up some useful points too by hiring fairly equal drivers.
 
In defence of the 'under-achievers' though, the current points-scoring system does amplify the gap between the #1 and #2 driver, where there is a clear demarcation.


To be honest last year Jenson was totally outclassed by Lewis, and he definitely was not close, that he ended up only 2 points behind shows how the points system doesn't always reflect the difference between 2 drivers. Hamilton lost out on 4 potential wins thru no fault of his own (spain underfueled in q, Singapore and Abu Dhabi no fault Dnfs from the lead and being taken out by the hulk at brazil). That said, the gaps this year is more in line. I wonder why in the world Ferrari keeps Massa, that guy has scored such a low percentage of Alonsos points that even with a great car I can't see him delivering enough to ensure a Ferrari WCC. He is just too inconsistent for a top team. The gap between Kimi and Romaine speaks volumes about the importance of consistency.

#11 TurboF1

TurboF1
  • Member

  • 698 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 26 August 2013 - 12:42

Then again, hasn't Rosberg had much worse reliability. Australia, Hungary, China...


All races where he was behind his teammate on track and in lower points scoring positions. Iirc it adds up to about 12 points lost if he'd finished where he Dnfed. If you cinsider the points swing from the Silverstone blowout Lewis would be even further ahead in points. It shows what a great Job Hamilton is doing vs a quality driver in Nico. Rosberg is a great driver and is strong enough to help Merc win the WCC when the car comes good.I think scoring 60% of your teammates points is respectable

#12 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 8,034 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 26 August 2013 - 12:45

Then again, hasn't Rosberg had much worse reliability. Australia, Hungary, China...

 

He has.  But mostly from minor placings.  He did gain a large points swing due to the Pirelli issues at Silverstone which knocked his teammate out of the lead.  Everything has a different cost.  I've not looked at the figures, but even accounting for Malaysia I doubt the points difference would change much should each be given 'perfect' seasons to date with no issues.



#13 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 2,699 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 26 August 2013 - 18:22

 

 

In defence of the 'under-achievers' though, the current points-scoring system does amplify the gap between the #1 and #2 driver, where there is a clear demarcation. 

 

I am not so sure. In the 1991 system (10-6-4-3-2-1) we would have...

 

Rosberg ~76.3% (higher % than now, but largely due to 2 wins, back then win was valued more).

Webber ~38.6%

Grosjean ~23.8%

Massa ~23.4%

Perez 20% (he would have mere 1 pt versus Button's 5)

 

 

A question was posed, what is the acceptable points gap. I am sure teams would like the second driver to get more than 50% in current system. But we have had threads about diminishing talent in modern times. Years ago teams could choose between a fair few good number two drivers. Now we are in a situation, where increasingly #1 drivers are actually paired with #3 drivers, who are not quite able to play the role of a #2, i.e finishing reliably behind and giving a run for the money of the team leader.

 

Not surprising Raikkonen is so hot on the driver market, he would give a huge points boost to any of Red Bull, Ferrari, McLaren, let alone Lotus.

I know Red Bull plans to hire Ricciardo, but I suspect he is somewhat similar to McLaren's Perez choice. Out of necessity, because leaving Kimi aside there is not much to choose from. And I suspect Ricci is going to struggle with the 50% mark too.



#14 Blackmore

Blackmore
  • Member

  • 152 posts
  • Joined: June 13

Posted 26 August 2013 - 18:50

It's interesting to see the gap between Rosberg & Hamilton, and then think that Rosberg have 2 wins, Hamilton 1!

 

And 3 DNFs by Rosberg against 1 by Hamilton and team orders and strategy always favoring Hamilton by coincidence of course. Take away all those things and it would be about the same amount of points. 



#15 TomNokoe

TomNokoe
  • Member

  • 3,946 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 26 August 2013 - 19:02

The perfect Merc driver would see you within a race win of Vettel. If Seb had a decent team mate we'd have a battle for the championship. His weak team mates help him so much. Fast enough to beat his rivals but not fast enough to beat him.

#16 Lights

Lights
  • Member

  • 9,316 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 26 August 2013 - 19:08

Hamilton lost out on 4 potential wins thru no fault of his own (spain underfueled in q, Singapore and Abu Dhabi no fault Dnfs from the lead and being taken out by the hulk at brazil).

Small note: Hamilton was 45 seconds behind Button when a safety car came out for 'debris'. Luck works many ways.



#17 MustangSally

MustangSally
  • Member

  • 368 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 26 August 2013 - 19:11

I am not so sure. In the 1991 system (10-6-4-3-2-1) we would have...

 

Rosberg ~76.3% (higher % than now, but largely due to 2 wins, back then win was valued more).

Webber ~38.6%

Grosjean ~23.8%

Massa ~23.4%

Perez 20% (he would have mere 1 pt versus Button's 5)

 

 

A question was posed, what is the acceptable points gap. I am sure teams would like the second driver to get more than 50% in current system. But we have had threads about diminishing talent in modern times. Years ago teams could choose between a fair few good number two drivers. Now we are in a situation, where increasingly #1 drivers are actually paired with #3 drivers, who are not quite able to play the role of a #2, i.e finishing reliably behind and giving a run for the money of the team leader.

 

Not surprising Raikkonen is so hot on the driver market, he would give a huge points boost to any of Red Bull, Ferrari, McLaren, let alone Lotus.

I know Red Bull plans to hire Ricciardo, but I suspect he is somewhat similar to McLaren's Perez choice. Out of necessity, because leaving Kimi aside there is not much to choose from. And I suspect Ricci is going to struggle with the 50% mark too.

 

 

Yes, all food for thought. 

 

My arithmetic is useless, but Brawn would not have won the 2009 WCC without Rubens scoring at around 80% of Jenson. 

 

Red Bull's dominance has also been shored up by a couple of seasons where Webber could be super close to Vettel. A 50% or 60% rate would not have been enough, and have seen another team win the WCC. (Probably McLaren in 2010.) 

 

Interesting thread . . . comparing recent seasons, the gaps are indeed too large in many cases for a team to hope to win the WCC. Statistically, Ferrari has no chance whatsoever with Massa. Grosjean and Perez have to double their scoring ability at least. 



#18 JonathanProc

JonathanProc
  • Member

  • 266 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 26 August 2013 - 19:25

And 3 DNFs by Rosberg against 1 by Hamilton and team orders and strategy always favoring Hamilton by coincidence of course. Take away all those things and it would be about the same amount of points. 

 

I disagree. However, please prove me wrong by actually showing me the amount of points you think they would both be at if you took away those things.



#19 bub

bub
  • Member

  • 1,975 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 26 August 2013 - 19:34

Small note: Hamilton was 45 seconds behind Button when a safety car came out for 'debris'. Luck works many ways.

 

Doesn't really make any difference, Jenson won and Lewis still DNF'd through bad luck.



Advertisement

#20 Lights

Lights
  • Member

  • 9,316 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 26 August 2013 - 19:44

Doesn't really make any difference, Jenson won and Lewis still DNF'd through bad luck.

It does make a difference. Lewis got in that position through the bad luck of Jenson and Hulkenberg losing 45 seconds, else it would have never been a "potential win lost through no fault of his own". It doesn't fit among the rest of the examples.



#21 bub

bub
  • Member

  • 1,975 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 26 August 2013 - 20:12

It does make a difference. Lewis got in that position through the bad luck of Jenson and Hulkenberg losing 45 seconds, else it would have never been a "potential win lost through no fault of his own". It doesn't fit among the rest of the examples.

 

True it doesn't fit with those examples, I missed that. I just meant the safety car luck didn't really matter because luck then took Hamilton out and gave JB his position back so Hamilton still lost points through luck whereas luck evened itself out for JB in that race.



#22 Kelateboy

Kelateboy
  • Member

  • 5,791 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 27 August 2013 - 05:46

The perfect Merc driver would see you within a race win of Vettel. If Seb had a decent team mate we'd have a battle for the championship. His weak team mates help him so much. Fast enough to beat his rivals but not fast enough to beat him.

 

So you are saying that Webber is chopped liver? OK....  :rotfl:



#23 Gorma

Gorma
  • Member

  • 1,214 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 27 August 2013 - 06:57

All races where he was behind his teammate on track and in lower points scoring positions. Iirc it adds up to about 12 points lost if he'd finished where he Dnfed. If you cinsider the points swing from the Silverstone blowout Lewis would be even further ahead in points. It shows what a great Job Hamilton is doing vs a quality driver in Nico. Rosberg is a great driver and is strong enough to help Merc win the WCC when the car comes good.I think scoring 60% of your teammates points is respectable

Well that is assuming the problems he had with his car did not affect his pace one bit. In reality that is not the case. Teams can often see things coming and try to minimise the risk of a DNF.



#24 DampMongoose

DampMongoose
  • Member

  • 1,200 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 27 August 2013 - 09:08

They're all doing well compared to David Walker in 1972.  Fittipaldi = World Champion / Walker = 0pts!



#25 ryan86

ryan86
  • Member

  • 1,100 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 27 August 2013 - 09:24

Could it be the relative closeness of say the top 4 teams in pace. For instance, you can remember times where a driver would finish 4th and his teammate would be 20 seconds down the road and finish 5th. Nowadays, you could have a couple of cars in there and you've went from a 4th and a 5th to a 4th and an 8th.

 

If you look for instant at the Ferrari years. Whilst Schumacher was winning the titles, dependant on how good the car was relative the others meant the difference between whether Rubens would finish 2nd most of the time or if he would then slip behind or McLaren or Williams in finish 3rd or 4th. Rubens could be a similiar difference in percentage time terms to Schumi, but the percentage points would change.