221 replies to this topic

[aramos]

With all of these driver ranking lists around I was having a think about just how you rank your drivers. I know most people have a "Top 3" or "Top 5" in their head, which is a usually the world champions and other strong drivers. But what specific aspects of their performance do you look at? Here's a few things I thought would weigh:

 

On Track Performance:

 

This doesn't include pace. This is things like overtaking ability, defending ability, race starts, lack of errors etc. So the things that are fairly obvious to us fans and you can somewhat 'measure'. 

 

Pace:

 

Now this is harder, because how do you measure the difference in the driver pace vs car pace? I think most of us have a general perceived idea of what the car should be capable of and see if a driver exceeds that expectation, but this is probably the most difficult thing to measure. All it really boils down to is team mate comparisons, but even that is problematic. Prior to this year two drivers people didn't rate that highly, Bottas and Ricciardo were stuck in low-midfield or backmarker cars generally. This year their machinery has improved and so has their general ranking (Both appeared in the top 5 on most lists this year, where as last season neither were in many top 10). Also the circular logic doesn't often make sense in these driver versus situations, as sometimes driver A beats driver B, driver B beats driver C, but driver C beats driver A. These team mate pace comparisons are probably ultimately the best we have, but how can we include swinging form? Based on the Webber-Vettel-Ricciardo triangle should we conclude Ricciardo would win races on pace in the 05 Williams? What about Alonso in the 06 McLaren?

 

Wins/Poles:

 

Important numbers no doubt, as at the end of the day this is what drivers are there to achieve. But they still speak more of car performance than they do driver performance. 

Edited by aramos, 04 January 2015 - 07:54.

[MissingTheApex]

Personally, there are no metrics; you can see the elite drivers and how I judge them is when they seem to be able to find grip where others can't find it.  The ability to overtake when you think it's impossible and just the oh my god did I just see that?  Also the ability to pump in qualifying laps during a race for a concerted period, to push, push, push.

There are, relatively, very few drivers I have seen that make that list, probably 20, 25.  

[Collombin]

Anything but raw stats.

In simplistic terms, I try to think of what they achieved with the equipment at their disposal. How were they rated by their peers? What were their greatest days behind the wheel? How consistently high was their level of performance?

Edited by E.B., 04 January 2015 - 09:00.

[David Lightman]

What about spirit and personality? Jean Alesi won only once but I'd rather watch him race than Vettel for example.

[prty]

I'd say there are three main elements when classifying drivers:

 

- Results: WDCs, wins, podiums...

 

- Global performance: How well it looks that they are driving from the outside: perceived speed, wheel to wheel, mistakes, mistakes when under pressure, consistency...

 

- Relative performance: Performance against team mates.

 

The problem with F1 is that car performance comes into question (it's not a spec series with identical setups). Relative performance establishes a hierarchy between drivers, and ideally if everyone had competed against each other as team mates, they could be ordered from better to worse with a certain degree of confidence. That's not usually the case, so the more team mates a driver has had, the more and more accurate his performance picture is.

But we'd have no idea how well the pack is doing, that is hidden in the global performance. A new driver could come to F1 and suddenly be better than all the others (see Marquez in MotoGP).

 

The problem is also that what people look at is probably ordered as 1. results -> 2. global performance -> 3. relative performance. While reability of the data goes in the opposite direction.

That's the reason of why certain drivers (I won't name names  ) can have more WDCs as the others, but since they haven't been put in many different situations or team mate comparisons (not many comparison points for relative performance), they haven't done well against team mates, or their global performance have stains (making pole even though there are mistakes in the lap, crashing, going backwards in races, etc), they are not ranked as high as other drivers with less results.

Edited by prty, 04 January 2015 - 09:40.

[DutchQuicksilver]

Really only their pure pace (qualifying ability), racecraft (race ability) and the ability to 'outperform' their cars at some point are the main ones. Only after that comes wins, pole positions, championships, fastest laps etc, because these are all dependent on if they have a top car.

[maverick69]

Just that gut feeling of "You could put that bloke in a shopping trolley and he'd be fast".......

[Jackmancer]

It's extremely emotional, I think. Whether you like a driver or not, has a huge influence on whether you think he's fast or not.

 

I never liked Vettel that much during his dominant years, so I probably underrated him. I think Giedo van de Garde is a really nice bloke, so I probably overrated him. 

 

Most people forget that Maldonado actually won a race on merit. 

[HoldenRT]

Wow, was going to post a topic about this a few days ago then forgot about it.  Don't have time to reply properly but it's a very good question.

 

The biggest thing I wanted to talk about was how some people look only at results, or only at the pace of the car, or whatever else..

 

And others look at little things like how many times a driver does UNFORCED errors.  In practice it's not so bad, but in the race it's very bad (in my book).

 

And then there is the question, is it better to have a driver that pushes more, is faster but occasionally puts it in the wall or a driver who is always within a certain safety barrier but lacks a bit of pace.

 

Similar to other sports like basketball, or even poker.. it's a set of compromises and law of averages to be fast, there is risk taking and the good ones just manage the odds better than others.

 

And the final point.. F1 has such POOR statistics in tracking this stuff, it's really bad.  Average positions gained per race?  Average positions gained on starts?  Average of unforced errors?  Average of mechanical failures?  That's what other sports are like.  It's a bit different due to different cars but even so.. there are some universal things like unforced errors, places gained or lost on first lap, average qualifying position, average race position etc.  If there is somewhere to access these sort of stats (other than when they flash up on the TV screen) I haven't found them.

 

In F1it's more about what country is he from and what points does he have on the points table, how good your memory is (for previous races) and how much you care (fanboyism) in order to argue about it.

Edited by HoldenRT, 04 January 2015 - 11:33.

[Risil]

And the final point.. F1 has such POOR statistics in tracking this stuff, it's really bad.  Average positions gained per race?  Average positions gained on starts?  Average of unforced errors?  Average of mechanical failures?  That's what other sports are like.

 

To the benefit of no one except sports statisticians.

[HoldenRT]

Not really.  Some sports I've grown up with are stats heavy, and some have none.  The ones that have them, you can just as easily ignore them and they really do lie sometimes.  There is always the 'eye test' and all the other stuff that people will talk about in this topic, but they also serve as a good reference point.  Something to refer back to, but that doesn't mean you have to believe everything they say.  There is still the knowledge of the sport and the 'big picture' in order to interpret them properly.  It still requires an understanding of the sport, outside of some robotic numbers.  But they do help sometimes.. for example.. just how bad were Webber's starts?  I can't remember every race, but can only remember them being bad.  The stats of average positions lost per race would serve as a reference point, instead of having to rewatch every single race to relive it again.  Doing that for every aspect of a driver's abilities simply isn't practical.  Most people in F1 can barely remember anything beyond the last race.

[noriaki]

None.

 

Attempting to place the drivers in any hierarchical *order* (assuming we're trying to determine who's the *best driver*) is an utter waste of time, for the inambiguity of the concept of *better driver*. When talking about *better*, do we talk about the drivers' optimal performance or their worst performance, what about the consistency to drive to peak? How about drivers who have shorter peaks when talking about years, do we rate them worse than those who peak longer? Must the drivers be able to perform in cars other than an F1 car? What kind of team mates must a *better driver* cope with?

 

Should we factor in the ability to bring the best out of the team? Test driving skills, mechanical understanding? Willingness to yield for a team-mate should such a situation arise? A good career nose for team selection perhaps -- how about the wet weather specialists? 

 

**

 

F1 fans' insistence to create these *best driver* lists is the sole reason why most (F1) threads on here are a massive pain to read. Everybody has a different *correct method* to sort the drivers, thus there is not a single answer. That will cause endless arguments, and then we know we can say hello to the fanboy wars. That's why it should be felonious to even attempt to argue the driver rankings, unless the definition by which the drivers are ranked is exactly specified. 

 

(I'll concede there's some merit to lists such as Driver of the Season for they're supposed to rate the drivers' performance in the equipment they have that season, and that's a plausible argument - but even those will most often get confused for the *best driver* lists - as demonstrated by the OP - and contribute to create another load of stupid fanboy wars.)

 

Hell Max Chilton was the best driver imaginable for Marussia in 2013. Max didn't write off a single front wing, yet brought them a load of money - what more could Marussia have wanted? 

[sopa]

Combination of everything. Or to put it more precisely, combination of as many elements you can think of and make a harmonious mix of them. It is easy to concentrate on one facet (statistics, whatever), and forget about others. Or not consider some things important.

 

From a fan's rating perspective a lot depends also on personal experience. The more years you have watched F1, the more you have learnt about the sport, the more aspects you can take into account, the more examples you have, the more insight you have how much does one thing influence another. Basically all the elements we are possibly talking about, are connected to each other. But it is often hard to see, what is the direct connection, and it takes years to "get it".

 

But even then you can't be completely sure. Often you lack information.

I remember one of the big arguments in the last few years was whether Vettel was a top driver, a match to Hamilton and Alonso; or just a lucky Button/Rosberg type of driver.

I guess sometimes you have to simply take time to settle a matter. But sometimes either a career is short or circumstances such, that you would never get a convincing answer... Each year is different too with driver performances shifting around.

[aramos]

But even then you can't be completely sure. Often you lack information.
I remember one of the big arguments in the last few years was whether Vettel was a top driver, a match to Hamilton and Alonso; or just a lucky Button/Rosberg type of driver.
I guess sometimes you have to simply take time to settle a matter. But sometimes either a career is short or circumstances such, that you would never get a convincing answer... Each year is different too with driver performances shifting around.

Thats a very good point that sometimes you have to "book mark" a thought and wait for it to be answered. Like you said with Vettel in that example.

For some reason f1 fans get subjective views of situations based on things that are impossible to express. Vettel has better statistics than any current driver, so why don't we rate him as the top? It's not an easy answer. I think the term "subjective" is really just taking a mixture of experience and observation of every statistic and comparison to get a "feel" then looking for things to confirm those suspicions.

Edited by aramos, 04 January 2015 - 12:42.

[sopa]

F1 fans' insistence to create these *best driver* lists is the sole reason why most (F1) threads on here are a massive pain to read. Everybody has a different *correct method* to sort the drivers, thus there is not a single answer. That will cause endless arguments, and then we know we can say hello to the fanboy wars. That's why it should be felonious to even attempt to argue the driver rankings, unless the definition by which the drivers are ranked is exactly specified. 

 

Often there are different 'schools' of thought. Often you see people taking one side or another in a debate. I think a lot depends on the personality of each person and what they value in a driver, or in racing in general. Or what they pay most attention to while watching races and following the sport.

 

One interesting case for me was Hulkenberg v Perez this year. Two different drivers, different skillsets, and they attracted different types of fans. In the end there were lots of arguments. What is more important? Getting consistently results onboard and ending the season in a higher position? Or being an exciting driver and putting in some great drives in a season? Basically two completely different ways of looking at it. And then we argue...

[sopa]

Thats a very good point that sometimes you have to "book mark" a thought and wait for it to be answered. Like you said with Vettel in that example.

For some reason f1 fans get subjective views of situations based on things that are impossible to express. Vettel has better statistics than any current driver, so why don't we rate him as the top? It's not an easy answer. I think the term "subjective" is really just taking a mixture of experience and observation of every statistic and comparison to get a "feel" then looking for things to confirm those suspicions.

 

Yeah, gut feeling rating is the main method. But obviously this "gut feeling rating system" can be improved or trained by learning about the sport.

 

However, there are some drivers, who are genuinely confusing also in long-term. Vettel has been mentioned. Another one is Raikkonen. The problem here is that like Vettel, Raikkonen was once rated as a genuine top driver for many years. It was a "gut feeling rating" of many fans, and also people in the know, considering, how he was valued on the driver market by teams.

 

But then you get confusing new information. A driver doesn't perform. Results are for all to see. Then, how would you rate him? What to do with the ratings of the past you used to have? How to take the situation now? How to evaluate the whole career in retrospect?

[aramos]

Yeah, gut feeling rating is the main method. But obviously this "gut feeling rating system" can be improved or trained by learning about the sport.
 
However, there are some drivers, who are genuinely confusing also in long-term. Vettel has been mentioned. Another one is Raikkonen. The problem here is that like Vettel, Raikkonen was once rated as a genuine top driver for many years. It was a "gut feeling rating" of many fans, and also people in the know, considering, how he was valued on the driver market by teams.
 
But then you get confusing new information. A driver doesn't perform. Results are for all to see. Then, how would you rate him? What to do with the ratings of the past you used to have? How to take the situation now? How to evaluate the whole career in retrospect?

Exactly. See, Raikkonen confirmed my views this season, because I always was shocked by his equality with Massa. So it makes sense Alonso held a similar performance advantage over both. How that reflects on his McLaren years I don't know, because he subjectively looked fantastic back then. Have his performances changed or was it an illusion? He's a confusing driver.

[sopa]

All it really boils down to is team mate comparisons, but even that is problematic. Prior to this year two drivers people didn't rate that highly, Bottas and Ricciardo were stuck in low-midfield or backmarker cars generally. This year their machinery has improved and so has their general ranking (Both appeared in the top 5 on most lists this year, where as last season neither were in many top 10). Also the circular logic doesn't often make sense in these driver versus situations, as sometimes driver A beats driver B, driver B beats driver C, but driver C beats driver A. These team mate pace comparisons are probably ultimately the best we have, but how can we include swinging form? Based on the Webber-Vettel-Ricciardo triangle should we conclude Ricciardo would win races on pace in the 05 Williams? What about Alonso in the 06 McLaren?

 

 

 

Team-mate comparisons are interesting, and they are often taken as the "truth", because it is often said it is the only 'objective' criteria in rating drivers.

 

But even then... those comparison have to be let through the "filter of feeling". There are cases, where driver A beats B, B beats C, and C beats A. Then you have to analyze other aspects and use 'feeling' to reach further conclusions - somebody in those team-mate battles for whatever reason did not perform as well as he did in other seasons... I think Hill in 1999 was very obvious that he didn't perform anywhere near his best. But there are many other cases, and perhaps cases, where it is not so clear-cut whether a driver indeed did not perform at his best.

 

For example Raikkonen/Massa v Alonso, and Raikkonen-Massa of 2007-2009. This is one of the big arguments. Did they perform at their best alongside Alonso? Did Fisichella perform at his best alongside Alonso? It feels doubtful they were at their best if I am honest... Then again Trulli gave a good run for Alonso's money, but you get the feeling Alonso himself did not perform at his best at the time...

[aramos]

Team-mate comparisons are interesting, and they are often taken as the "truth", because it is often said it is the only 'objective' criteria in rating drivers.
 
But even then... those comparison have to be let through the "filter of feeling". There are cases, where driver A beats B, B beats C, and C beats A. Then you have to analyze other aspects and use 'feeling' to reach further conclusions - somebody in those team-mate battles for whatever reason did not perform as well as he did in other seasons... I think Hill in 1999 was very obvious that he didn't perform anywhere near his best. But there are many other cases, and perhaps cases, where it is not so clear-cut whether a driver indeed did not perform at his best.
 
For example Raikkonen/Massa v Alonso, and Raikkonen-Massa of 2007-2009. This is one of the big arguments. Did they perform at their best alongside Alonso? Did Fisichella perform at his best alongside Alonso? It feels doubtful they were at their best if I am honest... Then again Trulli gave a good run for Alonso's money, but you get the feeling Alonso himself did not perform at his best at the time...

Alonso was very inexperienced in his time with Trulli, while Trulli was in his prime. Alonso still held the advantage during their time together. Impressive considering their first year together was Alonso's second in F1.

I don't really consider Raikkonen a true top driver. He can be very good. But he's not up there with the absolute best and I get the feeling he may be getting past his prime and falling off the pace.

Alonso also has a habit of making other highly rated drivers look average. I suspect this year Raikkonen will give Vettel a run for his money.

[sopa]

Exactly. See, Raikkonen confirmed my views this season, because I always was shocked by his equality with Massa. So it makes sense Alonso held a similar performance advantage over both. How that reflects on his McLaren years I don't know, because he subjectively looked fantastic back then. Have his performances changed or was it an illusion? He's a confusing driver.

 

I think driver performances do shift around from year-to-year, also in team-mate battles. For example we can analyze some pairings, which were together longer. Webber was closer to Vettel in 2009-2010 than he was from 2011 onwards. It was a combination of Webber getting older and Vettel getting more experienced.

 

However, when drivers change teams, the picture gets complicated especially if their performance is perceived to have changed also.

 

Had Webber left Red Bull after 2010 and joined another team and struggled there, how would we have rated his performance? 

Raikkonen in McLaren v Ferrari?

Frentzen in Williams v Jordan 1999? 

Trulli was beaten by Kovalainen in Lotus, while looking like the better driver of the two, when they were in Toyota and McLaren respectively.

Villeneuve in his last few years, getting beaten by Button, Alonso (by a mile) and Massa. Obviously was not at his best? He was having tough times against Panis already...

And in my view one pretty odd case - Johnny Herbert of 1992, who actually outqualified Mika Hakkinen, the well-known qualifying expert that year.

[sopa]

Alonso was very inexperienced in his time with Trulli, while Trulli was in his prime. Alonso still held the advantage during their time together. Impressive considering their first year together was Alonso's second in F1.

I don't really consider Raikkonen a true top driver. He can be very good. But he's not up there with the absolute best and I get the feeling he may be getting past his prime and falling off the pace.

Alonso also has a habit of making other highly rated drivers look average. I suspect this year Raikkonen will give Vettel a run for his money.

 

Alonso's reputation has indeed been greatly enhanced by team-mate battles, and rightfully so. There can be many questions about other drivers, but there have been no questions about Alonso, which can only be a good thing.

 

Alonso v Button and Vettel v Raikkonen this year are another ones, which will add further information about the puzzle of driver performances. Especially the gaps with which they perform against each other. Collecting 90% or 50% of team-mate points - big difference! Provided luck factor doesn't skew the picture...

[aramos]

I think driver performances do shift around from year-to-year, also in team-mate battles. For example we can analyze some pairings, which were together longer. Webber was closer to Vettel in 2009-2010 than he was from 2011 onwards. It was a combination of Webber getting older and Vettel getting more experienced.

However, when drivers change teams, the picture gets complicated especially if their performance is perceived to have changed also.

Had Webber left Red Bull after 2010 and joined another team and struggled there, how would we have rated his performance?
Raikkonen in McLaren v Ferrari?
Frentzen in Williams v Jordan 1999?
Trulli was beaten by Kovalainen in Lotus, while looking like the better driver of the two, when they were in Toyota and McLaren respectively.
Villeneuve in his last few years, getting beaten by Button, Alonso (by a mile) and Massa. Obviously was not at his best? He was having tough times against Panis already...
And in my view one pretty odd case - Johnny Herbert of 1992, who actually outqualified Mika Hakkinen, the well-known qualifying expert that year.

I agree, plenty of freak occupancies happen around the time of changing teams and ageing. Schumacher and Rosberg being the largest outlier. Still, inbetween the few rare examples of strange outcomes there are hundreds which give us just good examples of performance between drivers.

[HoldenRT]

It's a really hard question to answer because there are so many factors that go into it.  Separate from if we like them individually or not.  You could make a list of 20 different things, and rate each out of 10.

 

It's such a complicated subject, you could write a book on it.

 

Also, I think that no one truly nails it because there are a lot of hypotheticals and it always shifts when drivers change teams, or regs change, or they age.  A lot of guesswork.  It's part of what makes the sport exciting because you never know how Ricciardo will go against Vettel, or Alonso rejoining McLaren or Seb going to Ferrari.  People said Alonso was silly for going to McLaren in 2007, or Lewis to Merc, or certain teammate pairings look like they will be one way, and sometimes it's the opposite.

 

It's really unpredictable at times.  Most of the drivers have a lot of potential to be the best and circumstances align and then they surprise people and go beyond what many thought they could do.  Or they disappoint but it's a similar thing.  It's a fine line and super competitive.  The best drivers are 'solid' in all categories but even then it's machinery dependant and they have their preferences and even the chemistry within the team matters a lot.  To me chemistry is a pretty big thing that has nothing to do with driving itself.

 

For the driving, I like to look at things like unforced errors, a consistency of attacking the track with confidence each weekend, on pretty much every track.  Confident in braking late and just looking 'on it' at all times.  The ex driver commentators usually pick it up and do a good job of translating that through the commentary.  The good drivers make the risky things look simple and under control, despite being on the edge.  They maximise the potential of the car.

 

The reputations usually fluctuate like the stock market over the course of a career, and the main reason I wanted to post a topic about this recently (and forgot) was because I realised that Alonso is the only driver I've ever seen in my time of watching F1.. where I haven't changed my opinion on him from the initial 'hype' or expectation of his reputation.  It made me wonder.. why?  What is it that defines the reputation?  How do you judge it?  The only thing I could criticise off track would be his team chemistry side of things, but on track it's hard to criticise and there has been little to criticise on track.  Rock solid.  Does it mean he is the best?  Maybe not.  It's more about the external reputation and whether or not you think the driving actually matches it.  It's really hard to say anyone is the best with any certainty, due to the unequal machinery and all the variables.  I'm not even sure it matters who the best is.  As long as there is a good number of 'top' drivers battling each other race in and race out, that's all that really matters IMO.

[Clatter]

I think driver performances do shift around from year-to-year, also in team-mate battles. For example we can analyze some pairings, which were together longer. Webber was closer to Vettel in 2009-2010 than he was from 2011 onwards. It was a combination of Webber getting older and Vettel getting more experienced.

 

However, when drivers change teams, the picture gets complicated especially if their performance is perceived to have changed also.

 

Had Webber left Red Bull after 2010 and joined another team and struggled there, how would we have rated his performance? 

Raikkonen in McLaren v Ferrari?

Frentzen in Williams v Jordan 1999? 

Trulli was beaten by Kovalainen in Lotus, while looking like the better driver of the two, when they were in Toyota and McLaren respectively.

Villeneuve in his last few years, getting beaten by Button, Alonso (by a mile) and Massa. Obviously was not at his best? He was having tough times against Panis already...

And in my view one pretty odd case - Johnny Herbert of 1992, who actually outqualified Mika Hakkinen, the well-known qualifying expert that year.

This is where comparisons get so silly. In 1992 MH was not a well known qualifying expert. 

[sopa]

This is where comparisons get so silly. In 1992 MH was not a well known qualifying expert. 

 

Well, here you have a point.  But as it is, most driver ratings are retrospective anyway and we are wondering, what was going on. Only a year later, when Mika re-joined F1 and was very competitive against Senna in qualifying sessions, this reputation started to build up quickly. So retrospectively people are wondering, what was it and whether before that he wasn't fully up to speed due to inexperience yet. People also wonder, why did Rosberg beat Hamilton in 2014 in qualifyings. Will this trend continue in 2015?

 

For example also Trulli's qualifying reputation started to build up only when he started putting a Jordan to the front row. Different team, different and more competitive car can make people take notice of you.

 

Was Webber rated as a quali expert in 2002 in Minardi? But he was in 2003 in the Jaguar, when he qualified into top 3 on multiple occasions.

[tkulla]

In addition to the many factors considered so far in this thread, I'd like to add first impressions. If a driver has an impressive start to his career (or more accurately, if the perception is that he's had such a start) we anticipate greatness. We jump on that bandwagon and then it takes something pretty convincing (like a driver being demolished by a teammate) to get us off of it. In other words, he's great until proven not to be. This is why so many fans love having "new blood" in the sport. We're all looking for the next big thing and want to be the first to notice him.

 

This also means that a driver who has a rocky start to his career (or at least fails to meet the hype) gets knocked off that pedestal early. And there are no second chances when it comes to being perceived as great. 

 

There's also the matter of consistency of opinion. Once we choose a driver and make a public claim to his quality, it's very difficult to reassess that opinion, even in the face of new evidence. In other words, we hate admitting that we're wrong. This is true even when it's very reasonable to do so. For instance, say that a fan watched Kvyat this year and think he's going to be great, and makes posts to that effect. If he's terrible next year, it's unlikely that the poster will admit to being wrong if he's invested enough in that initial opinion. At best he'll keep quiet about it, and at worst he'll be in denial and make excuse after excuse. We've all seen that, and most of us have probably done it at one time or another. 

[Jimisgod]

Teammate vs. teammate is the best comparative way. Aside from raw speed-based statistics basically everything else is emotion.

[ronsingapore]

I think racing and driving are two very different things.

 

Being a great driver means you can qualify really well with great timing but being a great racer means you can really do overtaking, overpassing, gain points and podium wins.

 

I would put it as overtaking ability, cornering speed, pole positions, podium wins and lap times. 

 

Just to add, I would say mechanical/automotive engineering knowledge of the car and mechanical sensitivity to how the car performs and understanding how to set up a car is important too.

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

Just being a fan places anyone in the "irrational" category. We are human, and it is our emotions that drive us into becoming fans.

 

I place little weight on team mate comparisons, it is too simplistic and ignores the realities why a driver is quick or struggling. Raikkonen is a very good example. Anyone who saw him race back around 2003 realized they were watching the real deal. But in 2014 he looked pathetic. Was it because Alonso was just so good, was it motivation, or car issues that never allowed him to reach his full potential? And the hard truth is that unless you were a team insider within Ferrari, it is nothing but guessing on any technical problems. Only they know, and they aren't talking. IMO one relevant factor was the requirement for hydraulic power steering, an incredibly difficult system to sort out and maintain at it's peak of performance. Especially for Raikkonen who relies on knowing what his front end is doing.

 

For me, all Formula One drivers are quick, place almost any one of them in a Mercedes and they would have won the WDC. That is not a slight on Hamilton, but a reflection on the realities of Formula One, where the car determines the outcome.

 

For me, I look for intelligence, the ability to not make dumb mistakes, and also the ability to adapt with changes. A couple of years ago we had tires that required a very specific warm-up and treatment. If you were not capable of that, then no matter how naturally quick you were, the tires were not going to work for you.

 

I love good racecraft (the ability to manage your opponents) and also being able to be tricky. Lastly, the ability to handle pressure, to be the one who almost always comes through under the most demanding pressure.

[sennafan24]

Anything but raw stats.

In simplistic terms, I try to think of what they achieved with the equipment at their disposal. How were they rated by their peers? What were their greatest days behind the wheel? How consistently high was their level of performance?

All of these variables. I would like to also add these

 

- How competitive was the era they raced in

 

- How strong were their teammates

 

- How adaptable were they to various regulations changes

 

- Could they perform relatively well in an off-pace car (as well as a dominant one)

 

Just being a fan places anyone in the "irrational" category. We are human, and it is our emotions that drive us into becoming fans.

 

I place little weight on team mate comparisons, it is too simplistic and ignores the realities why a driver is quick or struggling. 

I agree with the first statement.

 

The second statement,  I disagree with. Teammate comparisons offer a direct comparison between drivers. Even if it is not a definitive perspective of how good a driver is (as you say, regulation changes mean that driver performance can differ), teammate comparisons can reveal how adaptable and consistent a driver is. It provides a direct measuring stick.

 

It can also show how well rounded a driver, and how precarious they are. Kimi's 2014 is good example of this. Without a teammate to reference, we would have no idea that Kimi was not getting the most out of the car.

 

 

 Only a year later, when Mika re-joined F1 and was very competitive against Senna in qualifying sessions, this reputation started to build up quickly. 

I think that is really only based on the first qualifying session. The next two. Senna beat him (the final time by a hefty margin). During the races, Mika never got a sniff. Senna passed him on the first lap in Portugal, and pulled out a nice 2 second gap, then his car expired. At Japan, Senna beat Mika by almost half a minute. At Australia, Mika was well behind Senna before his brakes expired. 

 

Mika's reputation of Senna was pretty much built of one qualifying session. I agree it did start to build his reputation. Beating Brundle the following year helped a great deal as well.

Edited by sennafan24, 04 January 2015 - 16:33.

[sopa]

I think that is really only based on the first qualifying session. The next two. Senna beat him (the final time by a hefty margin). During the races, Mika never got a sniff. Senna passed him on the first lap in Portugal, and pulled out a nice 2 second gap, then his car expired. At Japan, Senna beat Mika by almost half a minute. At Australia, Mika was well behind Senna before his brakes expired. 

 

Mika's reputation of Senna was pretty much built of one qualifying session. I agree it did start to build his reputation. Beating Brundle the following year helped a great deal as well.

 

Actually in the 1993 Japanese Grand Prix qualifying Hakkinen was just 0.032 seconds behind Senna, so this makes it two attempts, where they were basically tied. And in my post I was talking about qualifying performance only. It is clear there was a bigger gulf between the two in race pace at the time.

[sennafan24]

Actually in the 1993 Japanese Grand Prix qualifying Hakkinen was just 0.032 seconds behind Senna, so this makes it two attempts, where they were basically tied. And in my post I was talking about qualifying performance only. It is clear there was a bigger gulf between the two in race pace at the time.

Fair enough, if we are talking about the gap, rather than actually beating. Then yeah, Mika was more than competitive the first two weekends in qualifying.

 

The 1993 McLaren was finally dialled in at that stage, so in theory, there would typically be less for either to gain on each other. However, there was a huge gap at OZ between the two, so who knows. 

[TomNokoe]

In no particular order

Quali pace
Quali consistency

Race pace
Race consistency

Major mistakes
Mistakes under pressure

Wet weather pace

Negotiating traffic

Versus team-mate performance

[FullWets]

Trying to rate drivers is no exact science, but I think identifying some well devised indicators can be useful to understand why a driver performs or will perform well or bad in given conditions

 

I use the three following indicators, that include many other characteristics as most of you have mentioned for simplicity. Reason for selecting them is that I find them uncorrelated:

 

1. Raw Pace:

 

This is, what is the maximum speed a driver is capable of, in optimal conditions.

There is to my knowledge no big differences in this regard among established F1 drivers, probably not more than 3 or 4 tenths, so it is not the biggest performance differentiator

 

2. Race Craft

 

That means, coolness, intelligence and concentration. Mental capacity to decide when to be aggressive or conservative and technical capacity to execute what is needed to make a race strategy work

This is one of the biggest performance differentiators in F1. For instance, drivers that are not lightning fast but very disciplined, focused and intelligent (like Button) have done very well in F1

 

3. Adaptability

 

This is the capacity to perform close to the own limit independently of the material available

Heavily related to common understanding of "talent" of a driver. Also a big performance differentiator, given the cars evolve from year to year, from race to race and from lap to lap. Some very fast F1 drivers are not very adaptable and struggle in certain circumstances, so they have dips in their career and only flourish under favorable conditions. 2014's Raikkonen is a perfect example of what can happen to a very fast but very little adaptable driver in certain conditions.

 

 

Given the points above it is fairly simple to rate drivers and see who is good in what:

 

i.e. (IMO)

Button: Raw Pace - 8 / Race Craft - 9,5 / Adaptability - 7

Raikkonen: Raw Pace - 9,5 / Race Craft - 9 / Adaptability 6

Hamilton: Raw Pace - 9,5 / Race Craft - 8 / Adaptability 8,5

Vettel: Raw Pace - 9,5 / Race Craft - 7 / Adaptability 7

 

I hope with the driver classification above I can cause at least a little polemic even if you find my indicators BS

[RubberKubrick]

[...]

 

I think that is really only based on the first qualifying session. The next two. Senna beat him (the final time by a hefty margin). During the races, Mika never got a sniff. Senna passed him on the first lap in Portugal, and pulled out a nice 2 second gap, then his car expired. At Japan, Senna beat Mika by almost half a minute. At Australia, Mika was well behind Senna before his brakes expired. 

 

Mika's reputation of Senna was pretty much built of one qualifying session. I agree it did start to build his reputation. Beating Brundle the following year helped a great deal as well.

 

People tend to forget that it was kind of a tradition by that time (1993) that Senna quite often lost the first qualifying against a new teammate:

 

Compare "Senna/Hakkinen/Portugal1993" to Senna against

 

- de-Angelis-Brasil1985 0.308 behind de Angelis

- Berger-Phoenix1990 0.767 behind Berger

 

In comparison to that, the 0.048 by Hakkinen over Senna look kinda lame, don't you think?.

 

Who knows, maybe both (de Angelis, Berger) were better drivers than Hakkinen overall (at least not that worse than Hakkinen). Hakkinen was maybe one of those Newey-beneficiaries? But I don't wanna get carried away too much...

 

Back to the following topic:

 

 

 

What elements do you look at when tryin gto place drivers in a hierarchical order?

 

How many wins or poles or won qualifying duels against who as a teammate? And how is the result regarding "outperforming" when both drivers finish the race (unless there is no self-induced problems for either of the drivers). And, besides that, quite an amount of those wins and pole positions have to be achieved either in not best or clearly not best cars or, if in best cars, then against really really strong teammates. Otherwise it doesn't tell us much.

 

If those conditions are fulfilled, it's, to my mind, quite something in order to categorize the driver quite high.

 

[Hoping that my language barrier doesn't make the following not understandable..]

 

Some additional crystal-clear criterias, If a driver e.g. fights for the champtionship:

 

- How he did do against who as a teammate?

 

- How did he do against who in a similarly or even slightly better team?

 

- If his teammate and the teammate of the driver in the similarly or even better team are quite equally strong, then how did his teammate do against that teammate over the season so that one can say how good the respective teams are (for example, if his teammate is roughly the same caliber as the teammate of his main competitor and considering the DNFs which weren't the faults of the drivers and his teammate is still miles [edit:] behind in points behind the similarly talented teammate of his main WDC competitor, then it's a great achievement of that driver in a probably much worse car despite no title).

 

For example as seen mostly in previous years at RedBull vs. Ferrari and taking McLaren-Honda and Ferrari as an example:

 

If Alonso is very close to Vettel as he was sometimes during 2010-2014 and Alonso's teammate, who is roughly as good as Vettel's teammate (or at least not really worse), is MUUUUCH further behind Vettel's teammate in the championship, considering all not self-induced points losses at both teammates, then how the heck can Alonso not considered absolutely highest in the ranking, although missing the WDC year in year out (2010, 2012)?

Edited by RubberKubrick, 04 January 2015 - 21:32.

[sennafan24]

People tend to forget that it was kind of a tradition by that time (1993) that Senna quite often lost the first qualifying against a new teammate:

 

Compare "Senna/Hakkinen/Portugal1993" to Senna against

 

- de-Angelis-Brasil1985 0.308 behind de Angelis

- Berger-Phoenix1990 0.767 behind Berger

 

In comparison to that, the 0.048 by Hakkinen over Senna look kinda lame, don't you think?.

 

Who knows, maybe both (de Angelis, Berger) were better drivers than Hakkinen overall (at least not that worse than Hakkinen). Hakkinen was maybe one of those Newey-beneficiaries? But I don't wanna get carried away too much...

Against Berger, I am led to believe that Senna was hindered in some way. I think he had some sort of mechanical fault when the track was quickest. The ESPN commentators mentioned it during the race (USA 1990). They said Senna went quickest every time he was allowed to complete a clean lap.

 

Berger in his prime was really nifty, he just got lazy in his later years. EDA is pretty underrated, from what I understand. Mika was great on his day, but lacked the consistency for me to consider him a true great. 

[RealRacing]

Whether his nationality is the same as my own...

[f1RacingForever]

How good looking they are or how hot their significant other is. The end.

[baddog]

I dont do it.. I mean I have a vague internal list of the 'greats' I guess, but to try to put Clark, Prost, Senna, Schumacher in order seems pretty foolish!

 

Other than that a driver who has shown he can routinely do the job in a car gets my respect.. I have enough fun analysing and discussing events without having to rank people even semi-formally.

[Kalmake]

1. Market value

[fed up]

Ultimately winning a WDC is a supreme feat in itself so I respect each and every WDC out there including Kimi, Button and Hill of recent times. That said, multiple WDC's and WDC's with seperate teams is what tends to seperate a mere WDC to a great IMO.

 

Peeps tend to wax lyrical about Jim Clark. Apparently he is the best driver to have ever set foot on the earth. Why? Yes he was special but he only ever drove a Lotus. Ok there were a couple of Le Mans races for Aston Martin, but his wins were mainly in Lotus cars.

 

Why for example is he rated above the likes of Schumacher that won races for 2 teams and was amazaing for Jordan in his first race? Senna was awesome at Lotus and Williams - Piquet won for Brabham and Williams. Lewis has won or Mclaren and Mercedes. Graham Hill won WDC with 2 sepearte teams. Jackie Stewart with 2 different cars.

 

Vettel has 4 with one, Nando has 2 with one (but has been up there with Mclaren & ferrari) Mika has 2 with Mclaren - all of these drivers, apart from Nando, are not in the same league as those mentioned above - IMO

 

Just my view

 

For my money Schumacher is the best F1 driver of all time

[Collombin]

Peeps tend to wax lyrical about Jim Clark. Apparently he is the best driver to have ever set foot on the earth. Why? Yes he was special but he only ever drove a Lotus. Ok there were a couple of Le Mans races for Aston Martin, but his wins were mainly in Lotus cars.

This isn't the thread to discuss who we think the best are, but since you commented about Clark and Lotus, I thought I'd give you the stats - Clark won 120 out of 312 races in a Lotus, and 44 out of 108 in other cars.

Roughly. I might have miscounted a heat race or a class win somewhere, but you get the gist.

[RSNS]

Many factors.

 

1. Being consistently fast during one race. This is the Schumacher legacy.

2. Driving fast within the limits of ability. The Prost legacy.

3. Adapting to a car's faults. Alonso comes to mind

4. Being fast in qualifying. That would be Senna or Fangio.

5. Dealing with traffic. Many drivers come to mind.

6. Dealing with varying track conditions. All the great champions.

7. Being able to "tiger". The last Ferrari race of Scumacher, the famous Fangio 'Ring race of 57.

8. This is no longer that important, but having a tactical mind. Prost and Button spring to mind.

9. This has lost importance, but being fast while conserving the car was very important in the past.

 

Not all drivers, even great ones, could claim to have them all. Senna was not particularly consistent during races; Prost was not a great qualifyer; I saw Prost and Alonso being defeated by traffic; G. Villeneuve or Moss never conserved cars, and many fine drivers overstreched themselves in order to be fast and crashed. 

 

Arguably the two drivers who could claim  all of those characteristics were Fangio and Schumacher.

[kingofspa]

Ultimately winning a WDC is a supreme feat in itself so I respect each and every WDC out there including Kimi, Button and Hill of recent times. That said, multiple WDC's and WDC's with seperate teams is what tends to seperate a mere WDC to a great IMO.

 

Peeps tend to wax lyrical about Jim Clark. Apparently he is the best driver to have ever set foot on the earth. Why? Yes he was special but he only ever drove a Lotus. Ok there were a couple of Le Mans races for Aston Martin, but his wins were mainly in Lotus cars.

 

Why for example is he rated above the likes of Schumacher that won races for 2 teams and was amazaing for Jordan in his first race? Senna was awesome at Lotus and Williams - Piquet won for Brabham and Williams. Lewis has won or Mclaren and Mercedes. Graham Hill won WDC with 2 sepearte teams. Jackie Stewart with 2 different cars.

 

Vettel has 4 with one, Nando has 2 with one (but has been up there with Mclaren & ferrari) Mika has 2 with Mclaren - all of these drivers, apart from Nando, are not in the same league as those mentioned above - IMO

 

Just my view

 

For my money Schumacher is the best F1 driver of all time

 

 

Well Clark also won the Indy 500.

and his rivals explicitly said that he was the best among them.So, I think thats enough....

[sennafan24]

 Senna was not particularly consistent during races

This has become a bit of a myth. Mainly based on 1989 and 1992 where reliability hindered him (he had 5 mechanical DNF's in each year). Mid-1993 also does not count, as I stated above, the McLaren had issues with fuel and electronics, which is why his results took a slight blip. Senna's 1991 campaign is as consistent a campaign as they come.

 

If you want to mark Senna down, talk about how he could get caught up in racing incidents. Although even that gets overstated. He would usually have between 1-3 DNF's a year due to crashes/collisions. Not that much, but less than Prost and others. 

 

Senna's race pace was as consistent as they come. You don't beat Prost 14-6 in 2 car finishes, without being "particularly consistent". 

[DampMongoose]

The element of danger? When you look at racing in the earlier periods of F1, a driver's ability when he had everything on the line made it clearer to see who was talented and who wasn't.  Not a particularly good measure accross generations since the early 80's though to be fair.  Plus the general attempts to rate drivers of vastly different era's tends to be a hiding to nothing.  You can't really compare a driver from the 50's or 60's to modern drivers as the rules and practices of number 1 status have a bearing as does the massive difference in car failures.   Far better to look at the drivers peers opinions to decide who to rate from a given period.  You then end up with a few top drivers from each decade or so, but comparison against one another is not really meaningful. Good for an argument but not meaningful. 

[Lotus53B]

I find this impossible to answer.  In the twitching community there's a word to say how you know what a bird it, and it's jizz (this is not a joke) meaning either general impression of size and shape, or, just is.  The latter is more probably - sometimes you just know what an lbb (little brown bird) is, just because you do.

And that's how I measure where drivers are in a heirarchy - when I watch, I don't fixate on laptimes, passes, or anything, but some drivers just stand out, they just are.

Edited by Lotus53B, 08 January 2015 - 18:02.

[DampMongoose]

All drivers from the 50's to the 70's would stand out compared with the current grid, purely for the tracks they drove on. When Kimi first tested in F1 and said it was easy just like PlayStation the comparisons between eras are hard to fathom.

[Jimisgod]

All drivers from the 50's to the 70's would stand out compared with the current grid, purely for the tracks they drove on. When Kimi first tested in F1 and said it was easy just like PlayStation the comparisons between eras are hard to fathom.

He must have picked a higher difficulty setting for 2014 then!

As for Jimmy, some seem to underestimate the difficulty of transitioning between series and winning races -- touring cars, F1, Indy, Rally -- everyone who worked with him was impressed by his ability to find speed in any car.

http://www.motorspor...lark/jim-clark/

[fed up]

Well Clark also won the Indy 500.

and his rivals explicitly said that he was the best among them.So, I think thats enough....

Being best amongst one's peers doens't make him the best of all time and Clark won the indy 500 in a Lotus.

 

My point is that others that have won WDC for seperate teams should be placed higher than one that has only won the WDC in one car, the same car. Vettel, for example has won his WDC's in a RBR - 4 of them. How is that different to Clark?

 

I think a driver's ability tends to get exaggerated posthomously.