148 replies to this topic

[f1RacingForever]

...save for the fact that Ferrari wanted him until Kimi waddled along.

 

Hulk's problem is the lack of open seats at top teams.

Really?  Lotus, Ferrari, Mclaren and Redbull all recently had open seats and could have attempted to sign him had they so chosen. The fact that he isn't driving for any of them next year is safe grounds to assume neither showed interest as im sure he would have accepted what ever offer offered to him.

[kosmos]

People forget that Hulk was set for Ferrari, the only thing that prevented him to dress in red next year was the little war between Alonso and Montezemolo. Kimi was never an option till the team realized that Alonso could abandon the team in 2015.

[Oho]

The top 10 in 2008:

...

 

The top 10 in 2009:

....

 

EVERY movement in these two tables, upwards or downwards, coincides with whether the driver's car got better or worse between the two seasons. That is all.

 

Yeah Räikkönen stands in testimony....

Edited by Oho, 13 December 2013 - 07:27.

[ollebompa]

Why do you have to go down this road every time?Just agree to disagree and move on.

[apoka]

If I have my numbers correct here, Vettel 2013 has the highest number of points per team principal closely followed by Alonso in 2012 and Vettel in 2011.

[Mox]

Massa in there, Webber too despite not winning a single race with the car that won 13 races...

Here's a thought. Perhaps it wasn't the same car!   

[Wander]

Yeah Räikkönen stands in testimony....

 

Räikkönen didn't move at all so that actually doesn't affect the validity of the claim.

[apoka]

Here's a thought. Perhaps it wasn't the same car!   

 

Yes. Due to weight and space restrictions RB opted not to put them in the same car, but rather provided two equal cars instead.

[Miggeex]

I don't think it's even possible to think that this top 10 isn't reasonable since the people who knows nearly everything behind the performances of the drivers ranked them.

 

They knows the circumstances whether good results were done in bad circumstances/bad results in good circumstances etc. F1 is a small community (yes, smaller than many thinks) and team-principals knows what's going outside their team.

 

Ofc some drivers are quite low which I wouldn't have done (like Massa) but the team-principals knows better than me so ...

[ensign14]

I don't think it's even possible to think that this top 10 isn't reasonable since the people who knows nearly everything behind the performances of the drivers ranked them.

 

Of course it is.  Because the absence of Ricciardo from anyone's top three, despite Red Bull choosing him as one of two drivers, means that either Horner is an idiot for choosing a driver who is, by definition, his fourth rate at best, or Horner sees something that none of the other team principals see.

 

So either Horner is wrong or the other team principals are wrong.

 

Which means, logically, that everyone here knows better than at least one team principal. 

[sopa]

Really? The fact Webber and Massa are rated so highly just makes me think TPs can't see past car pace.

 

I don't think Massa is "rated highly" since he got 14 points, which is nothing really.

 

I am sure Grosjean got so many points based on perceived potential and the improvement he showed, because based on overall season you'd put him 1-2 positions below. TP's believe Grosjean is going to be as good as he showed late in the season and the early season woes are a thing of past - or they think Grosjean's chassis was really cracked early in the season like rumoured.

 

Webber is curious, because he almost got the same amount of vote points as Hulkenberg, Grosjean and not far off Rosberg, and is well ahead of Button. I think he was viewed sympathetically based on his old age ("not bad for a 37-year-old driver"), career ending and solid string of results in the end (2nd, 3rd, 2nd).

 

I agree with people, who say that Hulkenberg's P7 doesn't mean he isn't really rated by TP's. I mean based on current evidence would you REALLY rate him above four WDCs, who are all in good form? You may rate him highly, but there is lack of argument he is that special. Also he is behind Rosberg, who almost matched Hamilton. And Grosjean, who is just perceived to have improved a lot and has lots of potential, plus podiums to back up good form. I think Hulk is in a solid group - most importantly well ahead of Button, Massa, etc, gang.

 

However, what is true that Hulkenberg isn't rated as your once-in-a-decade talent, a "must have in your team", like Benetton in 1991 fought to get Schumacher on board. Nobody is prepared to sack their WDC drivers and get Hulk instead. He isn't rated as that incredible.

Edited by sopa, 13 December 2013 - 09:35.

[Fontainebleau]

If I have my numbers correct here, Vettel 2013 has the highest number of points per team principal closely followed by Alonso in 2012 and Vettel in 2011.

I know that Toro Rosso did not participate in the poll in one of the years (can't remember which one, I think it was one of the first polls); no idea if that changes the score.

[Rinehart]

They don't keep track of every driver on an ongoing basis. 

 

Its either wonderful how inventive people can be to keep their argument intact, or lovely how people perceive the inner workings of F1.

 

You, I am sure, have a fairly clear ranking of all drivers in your mind, a picture formed from watching the races and discussion - a picture formed on the basis of plenty of detail you can easily recall. Yet in your world TP's are too busy to do this... despite their proximity to the vast inner workings of F1, including their involvement the actual employment of drivers (all but a couple of teams have changed drivers this season). 

[Rinehart]

 

 

EVERY movement in these two tables, upwards or downwards, coincides with whether the driver's car got better or worse between the two seasons. That is all.

 

Except for Kimi (same position but car was better), Kubica and Sutil whilst Massa was injured half way through it. That is all.

[Rinehart]

Really? The fact Webber and Massa are rated so highly just makes me think TPs can't see past car pace.

Whereas I think that fans doesn't really appreciate how much tougher racing is towards the front. 

[boldhakka]

You, I am sure, have a fairly clear ranking of all drivers in your mind, a picture formed from watching the races and discussion - a picture formed on the basis of plenty of detail you can easily recall. Yet in your world TP's are too busy to do this... despite their proximity to the vast inner workings of F1, including their involvement the actual employment of drivers (all but a couple of teams have changed drivers this season). 

 

Yikes. Not at all. 

 

Boullier better not have been wasting his time trying to rank all the drivers in his head instead of making sure his team stays solvent. Otherwise...off with his head! 

[Wander]

Except for Kimi (same position but car was better), Kubica and Sutil whilst Massa was injured half way through it. That is all.

 

I hate to repeat myself, but drivers staying in the same position does not contradict ebeneezer's claim that each actual movement coincides with the car having got better or worse. Also, I don't know why you mention Kubica as he's a prime example of going backwards when the car got worse. Massa would have almost certainly gone backwards regardless of his injury.

[sopa]

Its either wonderful how inventive people can be to keep their argument intact, or lovely how people perceive the inner workings of F1.

 

You, I am sure, have a fairly clear ranking of all drivers in your mind, a picture formed from watching the races and discussion - a picture formed on the basis of plenty of detail you can easily recall. Yet in your world TP's are too busy to do this... despite their proximity to the vast inner workings of F1, including their involvement the actual employment of drivers (all but a couple of teams have changed drivers this season). 

 

I agree with this. I mean team principals do not need to "sit down and think" about drivers ranking. They basically do this on a daily basis. I am sure out of 24 hours per day they spend at least some time doing this, because drivers like all the other personnel are employees. You need to analyze your strengths/weaknesses and how to go on as a team. This includes understanding the strengths/weaknesses of other teams as well to understand, how to beat them, and whether there are people worth hiring into your team. And so on, and so on. So basically knowing driver levels is part of their everyday job.

 

For drawing up a ranking they do not need to "think", the ranking comes by heart, because all these analyses have been done throughout the season by them and also other people working closely with drivers.

 

However, what is true, is that even if you analyze a lot, there are always quite a few close calls and you can rank drivers either way, because competition is close. So that a driver got a certain amount of points, doesn't mean he sits exactly there in their way. More like "thereabouts".

Edited by sopa, 13 December 2013 - 10:17.

[Rinehart]

Of course it is.  Because the absence of Ricciardo from anyone's top three, despite Red Bull choosing him as one of two drivers, means that either Horner is an idiot for choosing a driver who is, by definition, his fourth rate at best, or Horner sees something that none of the other team principals see.

 

So either Horner is wrong or the other team principals are wrong.

 

Which means, logically, that everyone here knows better than at least one team principal. 

 

No. The problem is your argument is completely ridiculous.

 

There is NO reason for Red Bull to have considered either (A) only this seasons performance or (B) only DR's perceived performance level as his maximum as metrics to chose a driver. In reality they can also consider prior performances and importantly his potential, his abilities in the car as well as outside it and most importantly his availability, not to mention the commercial considerations. 

 

To say well he's not even top 10 this year therefore Horner is an idiot... we'll lets just say that Horner is the last person who looks silly as a consequence of that sentence.

[Rinehart]

I hate to repeat myself, but drivers staying in the same position does not contradict ebeneezer's claim that each actual movement coincides with the car having got better or worse. Also, I don't know why you mention Kubica as he's a prime example of going backwards when the car got worse. Massa would have almost certainly gone backwards regardless of his injury.

 

I skipped it the first time because you are wrong I'm afraid. Staying in the same position with a car of a clearly different capability relative to the competition is a move. 

I meant Trulli, not Kubica, sorry.

[sopa]

 

Possible points distribution (not prove, i'm not a mathmatic) but this is the only combo I can find that works out:

		25	18	15	12	10	8	6	4	2	1
vet	248	8	1	2							
alo	213	3	6	2							
rai	158	0	4	2	3	2					
ham	117			3	3	1	2	1	1		
ros	95			1	2	2	2	2	2		
gro	76				2	2	1	2	2	2	
hul	68				1	2		5	1		2
web	66			1		2	1	1	3	2	1
but	24						1		2	2	4
mas	14						1			1	4
other	32						3			4	
total	1111	11	11	11	11	11	11	11	11	11	11

 

Looking at this, it seems likely there was one TP, who took this "top ten" drivers VERY literally and just put the top 10 WDC ranking, because, well, that is the objective top 10 and you can't argue with it. Because by this chart Webber has been third for once, which coincides with his WDC position.

[ensign14]

 

There is NO reason for Red Bull to have considered either (A) only this seasons performance or (B) only DR's perceived performance level as his maximum as metrics to chose a driver. In reality they can also consider prior performances and importantly his potential, his abilities in the car as well as outside it and most importantly his availability, not to mention the commercial considerations. 

 

When doing a confidential ranking, his availability does not come into it.  When it comes to joining RB, which driver would not jump at the chance?  Alonso made a cheeky overture.  As far as potential is concerned, how much potential does someone have if they aren't considered to be better than Massa after a couple of seasons?

 

I don't think it's Horner making the mistake, incidentally, per se.  Ricciardo would definitely be in my top ten.  But if I had the pick of the field to choose a driver for the benefit of the team, rather than the number 1, I'd've gone for the best available.  Red Bull is one team that does not need to rely on potential, it can let others season a driver without taking a punt.

[Wander]

I skipped it the first time because you are wrong I'm afraid. Staying in the same position with a car of a clearly different capability relative to the competition is a move. 

I meant Trulli, not Kubica, sorry.

 

Now you are arguing semantics. I do mean literally: if the driver is in the same position as the previous year, he is not even included in the claim "EVERY movement in these two tables, upwards or downwards, coincides with whether the driver's car got better or worse between the two seasons."

 

If you are not happy with that point, one could make a clearer one too: according to that data, the best a driver can wish to accomplish if his car is downgraded from previous year is to manage to keep perceived value among drivers the same as before.

 

On a more general level, the point is that team principals are in no way immune to the car effect that makes it hard to view drivers fighting for podiums on the same level with those in cars that hardly have a hope of scoring points. the different motor sport magazine driver ratings regularly showed this effect in play as well as the "team mate expectation" effect where a worse driver gets sympathy points when he's closer to his team mate than expected. I think these factors are also clearly present in these team principals' driver top tens.

 

You are actually right that both Trulli and Glock managed to drop out of the top 10 with pretty much the exact same car as the previous year, but I guess someone had to give way what with Jenson, Rubens and Mark all suddenly becoming top drivers with their race winning cars.

Edited by Wander, 13 December 2013 - 11:08.

[Mox]

Yes. Due to weight and space restrictions RB opted not to put them in the same car, but rather provided two equal cars instead.

     

[Zava]

Its not the stupidest thing to think Alonso was close to Seb this year.

 

I think Seb was better than Alonso in 2013, but it is very hard to measure. I did expect Vettel to by a wider margin in this poll mind.

 

Team principles are prone to bias though, just like us fans, and although they are closer to what is going on, its not like say for example Ron Dennis would ever want to vote Alonso high, even if who voted for who is kept a secret.

not that the actual closeness of the points mean they were actually close. here's an example:

 

case 1: let's say Vettel was the benchmark, the 100%, while Alonso/Hamilton/Raikkönen were 99%. every TP sees that, and puts Seb as 1st, and the other 3 in varying order, as they were on the same level. that leaves Vettel with 275 points, while the other 3 will be 168, 165, 162.

 

case 2: Vettel is still at 100%, but now the others did worse, Alonso is 80%, Raikkönen is 75%, Hamilton is 70%. every TP sees that, and they put the drivers in this order, in this case we have Vettel at 275, Alonso at 198, Raikkönen at 165, and Hamilton at 132.

 

 

you see? Alonso is much closer despite being worse than in case 1. the difference is the 2nd place being close, or having a clear 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. last year the spread of the 2nd-4th places were 22 points, while this year it was 96.

last year = case 1

this year = case 2

(obviously not with the exact precentages, those are just to emphasise my point.)

[sopa]

Car certainly plays a role. Can we really say that Barrichello performed better in 2009 than 2008? In 2008 he beat Button, in 2009 got marginally beaten by Button. However, in 2008 Barrichello would have barely made into top 10 in anyone's ranking, while in 2009 he was usually in top6 or at least thereabouts.

 

The reason why this is happening is that drivers are actually so close in talent and performance. And that's why they rate based on cars or if a driver "was more visible"/"had more moments" or whatever. Comparatively speaking, say, Trulli was rated better in 2008, because he had a better car and was "more visible". Conversely the same applied to Barrichello in 2009.

 

Does it mean one definitely performed better than the other? Nope. But the thing is if you are making a ranking, you have to make a decision. Which driver to prefer if they were performign similar or even more so, it is just hard to compare them due to very different cars. And in this case you go with the driver, who was fighting at the front of the field or close to it, because it is easier to argue with his favour as he got the big result done. An impressive drive to 11th place isn't better or worse, but you'd choose the impressive 2nd place above it if you HAD to choose between the two, even if both seemed equally impressive to you.

[sennafan24]

not that the actual closeness of the points mean they were actually close. here's an example:

 

 

Makes sense 

 

Good analysis 

[Rinehart]

Now you are arguing semantics. 

 

Not at all, if a driver retains ranking position with a lesser car, it totally contradicts the point you make - that cars influence the ranking. If you need to use the literal to "claim" the point, then you don't have much of an argument, which lets face it is based on 4 year old data, some helpful coincidence and the dismissal of 4 drivers whose ranking positions also completely refute the point. You've obviously not considered the fact that the better drivers are probably in the better cars? Nor possibly have you considered the fact that more than 50% of the drivers finished in ranking positions ahead of drivers in better cars. Or even, the core point that drivers such as JB drove better in 2009 than 2008 - I thought it was obvious to anyone with even a passing understanding of psychology that closer proximity to "win" will inspire additional performance from an athlete. 

Edited by Rinehart, 13 December 2013 - 14:57.

[ebeneezer2]

Not at all, if a driver retains ranking position with a lesser car, it totally contradicts the point you make - that cars influence the ranking. If you need to use the literal to "claim" the point, then you don't have much of an argument, which lets face it is based on 4 year old data, some helpful coincidence and the dismissal of 4 drivers whose ranking positions also completely refute the point. You've obviously not considered the fact that the better drivers are probably in the better cars? Nor possibly have you considered the fact that more than 50% of the drivers finished in ranking positions ahead of drivers in better cars. Or even, the core point that drivers such as JB drove better in 2009 than 2008 - I thought it was obvious to anyone with even a passing understanding of psychology that closer proximity to "win" will inspire additional performance from an athlete. 

 

The argument is that the quality of the car influence the ranking: position changes that did move in line with the quality of the car: Hamilton, Massa, Alonso, Kubica, Vettel, Kovalainen, Heidfeld, Button, Barrichello, Webber. 10 drivers.

Drivers that moved down despite the car staying about the same: Glock and Trulli

Driver that didn't change position despite the car changing: Raikkonen and Sutil.

 

There's clearly a strong correlation between changes in car ability and perceived driver ability changes - there are a minority that don't quite fit the trend, that doesn't completely contradict the point, it just means the trend doesn't apply in every situation every time. That is like arguing that you know someone who smoked and they lived til 100, therefore that disproves the theory that smoking is bad for you. The more general point I was making by displaying these lists is that it's fairly clear team managers do not make their lists by reviewing the evidence of a thorough unbiased statistical analysis using data we don't have access to. I used the 08/09 seasons as a comparison because it's the one occasion when you can't argue that the the best drivers find themselves in the best cars naturally, because they same drivers were in bad cars the year before and were not rated as the best drivers. What's the problem with it being 4 years ago, have Domenicalli, Whitmarsh grown up a lot since then or something

[fabr68]

Last year the TP rating was more important than the WDC cup itself.

I think it says a lot about a driver when the majority of team principals vote a driver as the best of the season even though he did not win the wdc.

Vettel in 2009 is a good example.

[SpaMaster]

People forget that Hulk was set for Ferrari, the only thing that prevented him to dress in red next year was the little war between Alonso and Montezemolo. Kimi was never an option till the team realized that Alonso could abandon the team in 2015.

Exactly. Hulk was all set for Ferrari indeed. It was the Alonso situation that made Ferrari cover their base with Kimi. If it had all been rosy between Alonso and Ferrari, Hulk would have been in Ferrari now. Anyway, if Alonso and Ferrari split, count Hulk to be right back there.

 

[SpaMaster]

Really?  Lotus, Ferrari, Mclaren and Redbull all recently had open seats and could have attempted to sign him had they so chosen. The fact that he isn't driving for any of them next year is safe grounds to assume neither showed interest as im sure he would have accepted what ever offer offered to him.

You can rule Lotus out of that list.

 

[Knot]

Really?  Lotus, Ferrari, Mclaren and Redbull all recently had open seats and could have attempted to sign him had they so chosen. The fact that he isn't driving for any of them next year is safe grounds to assume neither showed interest as im sure he would have accepted what ever offer offered to him.

 

Hulk is in Ferrari's orbit. I'm pretty sure he chose not to drive for Lotus, McLaren or RB in favor of a (not too distant) future Ferrari seat.

 

Hulk is smart; he thinks long term and not season by season.

[stillOrange]

Exactly. Hulk was all set for Ferrari indeed. It was the Alonso situation that made Ferrari cover their base with Kimi. If it had all been rosy between Alonso and Ferrari, Hulk would have been in Ferrari now. Anyway, if Alonso and Ferrari split, count Hulk to be right back there.

Was he really. I must have missed something (very possible) because all I remember in terms of Nico at Ferrari was Domenicali's words where he mentioned Kimi, Nico and Paul in one sentence. Oh, and there also was a statement from Ferrari denying any pre-contract signed for 2015.

In terms of the ranking, there isn't a lot you can argue with considering that they are THE ones that should know best. I would love to see their actual votes

[SebnandoKimilton]

Was he really. I must have missed something (very possible) because all I remember in terms of Nico at Ferrari was Domenicali's words where he mentioned Kimi, Nico and Paul in one sentence. Oh, and there also was a statement from Ferrari denying any pre-contract signed for 2015.

In terms of the ranking, there isn't a lot you can argue with considering that they are THE ones that should know best. I would love to see their actual votes

But are they the ones who know best?

 

Take for instance Mclaren signing Perez as the "most exiting midfield talent" (or words to that affect), he failed to deliver and was dropped the next year.

 

In truth the team principles know very little more about the relative competitiveness of drivers than we do IMO. 

Edited by SebnandoKimilton, 13 December 2013 - 19:49.

[Knot]

But are they the ones who know best?

 

Take for instance Mclaren signing Perez as the "most exiting midfield talent" (or words to that affect), he failed to deliver and was dropped the next year.

 

In truth the team principles know very little more about the relative competitiveness of drivers than we do IMO. 

 

I'm not sure that using McLaren as a metric for your argument is the best way to go about it.

 

After all, they are the only team on the grid to piss away fantastic talent with utter reliability.

 

Kimi? Gone.

Alonso? Gone.

Lewis? Gone.

[fabr68]

Exactly. Hulk was all set for Ferrari indeed. It was the Alonso situation that made Ferrari cover their base with Kimi. If it had all been rosy between Alonso and Ferrari, Hulk would have been in Ferrari now. Anyway, if Alonso and Ferrari split, count Hulk to be right back there.

Was it the "Alonso situation" or Lotus financial situation that put Raikkonen on the market.

The more we hear about Lotus the more clear it is why Raikkonen jumped ships. I think four years of WCC failure had more weight than one driver asking for his car to be faster.

[SpaMaster]

Was it the "Alonso situation" or Lotus financial situation that put Raikkonen on the market.

The more we hear about Lotus the more clear it is why Raikkonen jumped ships. I think four years of WCC failure had more weight than one driver asking for his car to be faster.

The Lotus situation put Raikkonen on the market. The Alonso situation made Ferrari hire him. Capiche? Hulk would have helped with WCC just fine.

 

[boldhakka]

I think it says a lot about a driver when the majority of team principals vote a driver as the best of the season even though he did not win the wdc.

 

Perhaps you could explain why it says any more than if the majority of team principals vote a driver as the best of the season when he did win the WDC. Think about it. 

 

Face it folks, F1 isn't set up to rank drivers. TPs are better positioned than us unwashed masses to make comparisons, yes. But that's not saying much. 

[f1RacingForever]

Hulk is in Ferrari's orbit. I'm pretty sure he chose not to drive for Lotus, McLaren or RB in favor of a (not too distant) future Ferrari seat.

 

Hulk is smart; he thinks long term and not season by season.

I don't know about that. Maybe you are right, i just have a hard time seeing a driver like Nico pass up an opportunity at a top team like that, pinning all his hopes on a seat opening up at Ferrari in the near furure. Those types of opportunities don't come around often.

[Radion]

Exactly. Hulk was all set for Ferrari indeed. It was the Alonso situation that made Ferrari cover their base with Kimi. If it had all been rosy between Alonso and Ferrari, Hulk would have been in Ferrari now. Anyway, if Alonso and Ferrari split, count Hulk to be right back there.

I don't think so.

If they indeed were afraid of alonso leaving them in 2015, why not hire (the very talented) hulk, let him learn from alonso (to become even better) and go with him for couple more years? 

[bourbon]

So here we go, the annual TP votes are online.

This year we've got no big surprises, actually the list looks pretty similar to the WDC standings when Raikkönen was still here, with a positive correction for Hulkenberg for shining in a midfield car, and a negative correction for Massa and Webber.

 

2013 top10 drivers:

 

1 Sebastian Vettel 248
2 Fernando Alonso 213
3 Kimi Raikkonen 158
4 Lewis Hamilton 117
5 Nico Rosberg 95
6 Romain Grosjean 76
7 Nico Hulkenberg 68
8 Mark Webber     66
9 Jenson Button 24
10 Felipe Massa 14

 

Maximum possible score is 275, so that means Vettel is probably best for 8 TPs, second best for 1, and only third best for 2 (8*25 + 1*18 + 2*15 = 200 + 18 + 30 = 248), my guess is Domenicali put Alonso, while Boullier and Brawn both their drivers over him. Any guesses for the other drivers? 

 

 

Although not surprising, if the TPs rated fairly and without bias:

 

1) Alonso + F138 would be back quite a bit further from first.  There is no way his performance merited even 1 first place based on what Vettel + RB9 did this year. 

 

2) Alonso + F138 as compared to Kimi + E21 is probably okay considering Kimi did not participate in the last 2 races, had the back issues and in-house issues with Lotus. 

 

3) The distance between Kimi + E21 and Lewis + W04 was about right, considering the above notes regarding Kimi.  Kimi was more consistent and more aptly brought his experience to bear on the season.  Lewis did well for his first season at Mercedes, except when he didn't, and for that, he should be and was knocked.

 

4) The distance between Lewis + W04 and Rosberg W04 was probably too great.  The latter was ambushed with reliability issues at a time when the car was hot.  I don't think they gave NR the benefit of the doubt there.  Lewis is the better driver at bottom levels, but going just on this season, that point tally should have been within 5.

 

But I am not surprised at how it came out because bias and whatnot does play a role.

[Disgrace]

I think it says a lot about a driver when the majority of team principals vote a driver as the best of the season even though he did not win the wdc.

Vettel in 2009 is a good example.

 

Not really - 2013 could really have done with some of the errors he made during that year. Things like handing the lead to Button in Turkey and crashing in Monaco would be unthinkable now.

[Rinehart]

The argument is that the quality of the car influence the ranking: position changes that did move in line with the quality of the car: Hamilton, Massa, Alonso, Kubica, Vettel, Kovalainen, Heidfeld, Button, Barrichello, Webber. 10 drivers.

Drivers that moved down despite the car staying about the same: Glock and Trulli

Driver that didn't change position despite the car changing: Raikkonen and Sutil.

 

There's clearly a strong correlation between changes in car ability and perceived driver ability changes - there are a minority that don't quite fit the trend, that doesn't completely contradict the point, it just means the trend doesn't apply in every situation every time. That is like arguing that you know someone who smoked and they lived til 100, therefore that disproves the theory that smoking is bad for you. The more general point I was making by displaying these lists is that it's fairly clear team managers do not make their lists by reviewing the evidence of a thorough unbiased statistical analysis using data we don't have access to. I used the 08/09 seasons as a comparison because it's the one occasion when you can't argue that the the best drivers find themselves in the best cars naturally, because they same drivers were in bad cars the year before and were not rated as the best drivers. What's the problem with it being 4 years ago, have Domenicalli, Whitmarsh grown up a lot since then or something

 

Appreciate the reasoned response, which is what I thought my comment was - that it was a trend and not definitive and that it needs to be recognised that there are also many other factors that coincide with the car improving. The original poster was trying to claim that the poll is worthless because this trend obviously proves that the TP's do not separate the car from the driver - which they obviously do. Webber was 8th this year. It matters that it is 4 year old data otherwise why not use current data... Oh! 

[Rinehart]

But are they the ones who know best?

 

Take for instance Mclaren signing Perez as the "most exiting midfield talent" (or words to that affect), he failed to deliver and was dropped the next year.

 

In truth the team principles know very little more about the relative competitiveness of drivers than we do IMO. 

 

OMG!!!

 

To be frank about it, I think its fair to say that some people simply don't know what they don't know and what the experts do know.

 

Take Perez, the myth seems to be that McLaren chose Perez after a huge phase on analysis out of every driver on the planet. That blatantly wasn't the case, the facts are they were caught with their pants down by the Hamilton defection and rushed to sign the best driver AVAILABLE with COMMERCIAL benefit. 

[as65p]

Take Perez, the myth seems to be that McLaren chose Perez after a huge phase on analysis out of every driver on the planet. That blatantly wasn't the case, the facts are they were caught with their pants down by the Hamilton defection and rushed to sign the best driver AVAILABLE with COMMERCIAL benefit. 

 

Well, maybe they had some hopes for more, but McLarens (or Whitmarsh's? curse struck again: hindsight!

[Gorma]

I'm not sure that using McLaren as a metric for your argument is the best way to go about it.

After all, they are the only team on the grid to piss away fantastic talent with utter reliability.

Kimi? Gone.
Alonso? Gone.
Lewis? Gone.

Had things gone differently in a couple of races McLaren could have been champion in 2003, 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2012

[Kingshark]

Had things gone differently in a couple of races McLaren could have been champion in 2003, 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2012

 

2010 was quite close too.

[sopa]

Despite what people say, McLaren's Perez signing wasn't that bad. The only available option that has turned out to be more impressive since then, has been Hulkenberg, and even he hadn't been that impressive until the moment McLaren was prepared to take a decision regarding 2013.

 

All other good drivers, like WDC's or Rosberg, were under contract and not possible to hire at the time.