519 replies to this topic

[MikeV1987]

The fact that Ocon doesn't have a drive says enough how he is rated around the paddock. Something that would have never happened with Leclerc or Verstappen. Teams would have moved heaven and earth to still get them a seat.

Or it just shows how much Mercedes value him since they are not willing to let him go. He could have got a drive with STR, Renault or McLaren if he wasn’t tied to the hip with Mercedes

Edited by MikeV1987, 02 December 2018 - 00:07.

[MNader]

I have always found it very interesting that there is nothing Perez can do to be considered worthy.

At McLaren, he did a great job compared to an experienced world champion, but people still described him as $hit.

Ocon has had, in force india, the same situationas Perez in McLaren for 2 years in a row (and without Button), but somehow, he's the better of the two and he's WDC material?

 

Let me see... using the logic heard in this forum:

• 2013 Button finished better than Perez: "Button was Great and Perez was $hit". "Button destroyed Perez"
• 2017 Perez finished better than Ocon: "OMG Ocon is future WDC!!!!"
• 2018 Perez finished better than Ocon: "Ocon is clearly the better of the two. he deserves a Mercedez seat"

...therefore Button>Perez>Ocon, means that Ocon is best.

 

Perez has had 8 podiums and he's not given one speck of credit for them (saying it was pure luck).

 

If we compare Perez with his teammates in the seasons when he finished ahead:

2012 - Perez-Kobayashi 66-60 = +6

2015 - Perez-Hulkenberg 78-58 = +20

2016 - Perez-Hulkenberg 101-72 = +29

2017 - Perez-Ocon 100-87 = +13

2018 - Perez Ocon 62-49 = +13

 

Ocon would be no better than Kobayashi. How is he WDC material?

 

I'm starting to think that the reason why Ocon is so great on the eyes of many, is because he's less Mexican.

 

So that is now very very interesting. To be honest, i am one of those people who consider Hulkenberg the better driver than Perez and when i read this i thought maybe i should revise my position and decided to double check my memory for the seasons you mentioned. I honestly always and still do think that Hulkenberg was/is the best thing coming and it baffles me why he has not been picked up by some of the top teams teams. And i do work in Motorsports (as an engineer but not F1).

 

I also am a Ricciardo admirer and will be keen to see how Hulk/Ric battle shapes up next year.

 

Anyhow regarding the seasons between Hulk and Perez now i have double checked and can perhaps give some counters as to why some (including me) rate Hulkenberg better than Perez:

 

2014:

Points: Hulk 96: Perez 59

Retirements: Hulk 2: Perez 5 (including DNS)

Qualifying: 12 Hulk: 7 Perez (average gap 0.47s for Hulk)

Races when both finished: 7-7

 

2015:

 

Points: Hulk 58: Perez 78

Retirements: Hulk 6: Perez 1 (including DNS)

Qualifying: 11 Hulk: 8 Perez (average gap 0.4s for Hulk)

Races when both finished: 7-6 for Hulk

 

2016:

 

Points: Hulk 72: Perez 101

Retirements: Hulk 5: Perez 1 (including DNS)

Qualifying: 12 Hulk: 9 Perez (average gap 0.07s for Hulk)

Races when both finished: 8-8

 

 

ofcourse my memory doesn't recall the circumstances of their DNFs and battles but that is what i can find or deduct.

 

I think it is fair to say that Hulk had the qualifying speed and had the worse reliability overall, in races he was also quite handy to Perez and they were maybe close to being equal, Perez did have more podiums but that i think says more about being more opportunistic and can take risks (which is also a part of being a racing driver).

 

For me i am still a believer that Hulkenberg is the better drivers (and i believe he was/is one of the best on the grid) and i do hope he gets a chance for top competition, shame that now he gets a world class teammate when he is quite old but i am in the camp that he is better than Perez.

 

Perez is however a very capable driver it has to be said, and even though Button did beat him he proved to be a challenge. But i don't rate him as one of the top guys in the field, and i do think Ocon has the potential to beat him (and was a quicker qualifier) so if i were Mercedes i would take Ocon over Perez.

 

But i do think Perez is a very capable driver and i am glad he is on the grid, and i think if you rate him higher than Hulkenberg and others you can do so and it should be acceptable as he did always deliver. And with drivers and teams circumstances always play an effect to how they perform, so with such fine margins it is plausible that Perez is indeed a class driver. i just don't have that opinion, but hey, i was wrong before.

[coppilcus]

You can lol all you want, but Ocon's improvements over the course of the season have been well documented, and they've been quite astonishing. I referenced a few of those developments even in this thread.

Astonishing...

... yet still loosing against Perez throughout two seasons (Ocon has now more experience than Perez when he was signed by McLaren).

Your view is that the learning curve from the Frenchman is somehow infinite and never flatens out.

Well, that’s very optimistic.

Edited by coppilcus, 02 December 2018 - 14:33.

[coppilcus]

So that is now very very interesting. To be honest, i am one of those people who consider Hulkenberg the better driver than Perez and when i read this i thought maybe i should revise my position and decided to double check my memory for the seasons you mentioned. I honestly always and still do think that Hulkenberg was/is the best thing coming and it baffles me why he has not been picked up by some of the top teams teams. And i do work in Motorsports (as an engineer but not F1).

I also am a Ricciardo admirer and will be keen to see how Hulk/Ric battle shapes up next year.

Anyhow regarding the seasons between Hulk and Perez now i have double checked and can perhaps give some counters as to why some (including me) rate Hulkenberg better than Perez:

2014:
Points: Hulk 96: Perez 59
Retirements: Hulk 2: Perez 5 (including DNS)
Qualifying: 12 Hulk: 7 Perez (average gap 0.47s for Hulk)
Races when both finished: 7-7

2015:

Points: Hulk 58: Perez 78
Retirements: Hulk 6: Perez 1 (including DNS)
Qualifying: 11 Hulk: 8 Perez (average gap 0.4s for Hulk)
Races when both finished: 7-6 for Hulk

2016:

Points: Hulk 72: Perez 101
Retirements: Hulk 5: Perez 1 (including DNS)
Qualifying: 12 Hulk: 9 Perez (average gap 0.07s for Hulk)
Races when both finished: 8-8


ofcourse my memory doesn't recall the circumstances of their DNFs and battles but that is what i can find or deduct.

I think it is fair to say that Hulk had the qualifying speed and had the worse reliability overall, in races he was also quite handy to Perez and they were maybe close to being equal, Perez did have more podiums but that i think says more about being more opportunistic and can take risks (which is also a part of being a racing driver).

For me i am still a believer that Hulkenberg is the better drivers (and i believe he was/is one of the best on the grid) and i do hope he gets a chance for top competition, shame that now he gets a world class teammate when he is quite old but i am in the camp that he is better than Perez.

Perez is however a very capable driver it has to be said, and even though Button did beat him he proved to be a challenge. But i don't rate him as one of the top guys in the field, and i do think Ocon has the potential to beat him (and was a quicker qualifier) so if i were Mercedes i would take Ocon over Perez.

But i do think Perez is a very capable driver and i am glad he is on the grid, and i think if you rate him higher than Hulkenberg and others you can do so and it should be acceptable as he did always deliver. And with drivers and teams circumstances always play an effect to how they perform, so with such fine margins it is plausible that Perez is indeed a class driver. i just don't have that opinion, but hey, i was wrong before.

Comparing drivers is an extremely difficult job indeed, unless the differences between them are so huge that making a comparison is pointless, it’s evident which driver is the better one...

But in close battles between talented drivers it’s a tough job!

Like the case between Perez and Hulkenberg... If we take the average gap time that you published (being the average deficit between the times registered from the lap times of their respective qualifying result), the picture is quite blurr. That difference would look like the difference in speed between Palmer and Hulkenberg or Vandoorne and Alonso, but yet Perez still managed to beat the German 40% of the time? That’s just impossible, and that’s why a more rigorous process of analysis, like the one used by Tyker, frames a better picture of the ‘real’ speed difference between teammates.

How about DNF’s? Same case... Every example should be scrutinised and classified to know if it was a mechanical issue or an accident caused by the driver or other driver’s fault.

To me the most curious number is the head to head when both drivers finished the race and they’re tied every season! Still Perez got more points out of those results... How? Better race craft, race pace, wittiness, luck?

It’s impossible to objectively assess every data available and conclude that in a closely match talented drivers battle, X is better than Y.

Yet, in three seasons, not a short period of time in F1, Perez won the battle against a very talented Hulkenberg... That’s an awful amount of luck if it just comes to that.

The only way to obtain objective data would be to have identical setuped cars in insulated tracks and without other competitors from different teams, and that’s not just impossible, but quite boring.

Edited by coppilcus, 02 December 2018 - 14:39.

[MNader]

Comparing drivers is an extremely difficult job indeed, unless the differences between them are so huge that making a comparison is pointless, it’s evident which driver is the better one...

But in close battles between talented drivers it’s a tough job!

Like the case between Perez and Hulkenberg... If we take the average gap time that you published (being the average deficit between the times registered from the lap times of their respective qualifying result), the picture is quite blurr. That difference would look like the difference in speed between Palmer and Hulkenberg or Vandoorne and Alonso, but yet Perez still managed to beat the German 40% of the time? That’s just impossible, and that’s why a more rigorous process of analysis, like the one used by Tyker, frames a better picture of the ‘real’ speed difference between teammates.

How about DNF’s? Same case... Every example should be scrutinised and classified to know if it was a mechanical issue or an accident caused by the driver or other driver’s fault.

To me the most curious number is the head to head when both drivers finished the race and they’re tied every season! Still Perez got more points out of those results... How? Better race craft, race pace, wittiness, luck?

It’s impossible to objectively assess every data available and conclude that in a closely match talented drivers battle, X is better than Y.

Yet, in three seasons, not a short period of time in F1, Perez won the battle against a very talented Hulkenberg... That’s an awful amount of luck if it just comes to that.

The only way to obtain objective data would be to have identical setuped cars in insulated tracks and without other competitors from different teams, and that’s not just impossible, but quite boring.

 

 

I agree with most parts, which is why in the end it comes down to a subjective evaluation. the numbers tell part of the story no matter how you look at them, and after watching thing and perceiving what was seen you can draw your own conclusion. two people always can interpret different things from the same dataset.

 

And in that case, for me, they were a very close and strong pairing, and to me as well if i was a team principal of let's say Mercedes and had to choose between the two, i would take Hulkenberg. And i can also see why someone would say Perez was the better driver. 

[JacobRPP]

The only flaw in that plan would have been that McLaren would have sacked a driver better than both Perez and Magnussen. 

 

I do not agree.

 

I think Perez was on par with Button and Magnussen was a rookie. Both drivers got ruined by the popular demand of fans and the game of politics.

[sopa]

I think the issue with Perez is that it is not quite entirely recognized, how good this guy is in races. Outscored Hulk and Ocon? How does he do it? "Umm, just... happened." No, there is more to it. The only drivers, who would beat him in race trim are the very elite drivers, and that's it.

 

Already when Perez was achieving podiums in Sauber, some were saying he was just lucky, because he got a great strategy. Well, he had a good strategy, but he was very quick in races too. His team-mate was nowhere near him in those races, irrespective of which compound of tyres each was running at the time.

 

Now compared to Hulkenberg, Bottas, Ocon - yeah, Perez would be outqualified by all of them over a season. But conversely in races Perez would be better than all of them. Of course knowing how F1 works, being quicker in the race doesn't mean you finish in front, because track position matters a lot. But superiority in races is enough for Perez to turn his qualifying deficit to at least a match in the overall battle.

 

The thing with Perez is that in my view he is very consistent in races. He always delivers, when he has a sniff of points, unless he tangles with someone (happens a couple of times in a season) or he has a bad track position post-qualifying on a circuit, where it's hard to overtake. Compare that to Hulk, Ocon, Bottas, who always have races in each season, where they just totally go missing and are nowhere. Or make mistakes.

 

It reminds me a bit of Hamilton v Button battle. Hamilton obviously looked faster, but people were dumbfounded, how could Button sit so near Hamilton in the points. Also somehow Button always delivered in the wet. Was it luck? I remember it was at times confusing for people. Same thing with Perez. It's not "luck" that it's usually him, who somehow ends up with podiums and can consistently deliver points in races if he has a sniff of a chance. There is some real underlying quality.

Edited by sopa, 03 December 2018 - 11:46.

[sopa]

 

ofcourse my memory doesn't recall the circumstances of their DNFs and battles but that is what i can find or deduct.

 

I think it is fair to say that Hulk had the qualifying speed and had the worse reliability overall, in races he was also quite handy to Perez and they were maybe close to being equal, Perez did have more podiums but that i think says more about being more opportunistic and can take risks (which is also a part of being a racing driver).

 

I would agree that Perez and Hulk were close overall. However, Hulk didn't lose out due to reliability. Let me bring you a striking example from 2015.

 

In 2015 before the Russian Grand Prix the points were - Perez 39, Hulk 38.

Russian GP - Hulk qualified 6th, Perez 7th. Hulk spun out in the first corner, Perez finished 3rd.

US GP - Hulk crashed into someone (forgot who), Perez finished 5th.

 

Points after those two races: Perez - 64, Hulk - 38.

 

Those two races decided the battle of 2015 between them. And it was Hulk, who crashed out in those two races, which happened to be important in terms of scores. But these things occasionally happen to Hulkenberg. In 2018 he also crashed at the start of the Belgian and Abu Dhabi Grands Prix.

 

Now this is not Hulk v Perez thread. But I think it's a good illustration to the post I wrote just above to highlight the inconsistent and less reliable race performances fellow Perez' midfielders have. However, Hulk is still a good driver. And when he is on it, qualifies well and races well, then on that good day Perez had a hard time catching up with him.

 

By the way, in 2014 the opposite happened. Perez crashed out in races, where some good points were on offer (Monaco and Canada I think), and that's why he ended some way behind Hulk in points. But I think in the second half of 2014 Perez was already marginally better in races than Hulk. I think that was also the point, where Perez became a more complete driver than he had been before. Until mid-2014 it was Checo, who had the tendency to throw away points with mistakes. I don't know, what clicked then, but he became much more reliable. And it shows in scoring.

Edited by sopa, 03 December 2018 - 12:10.

[Collective]

US GP - Hulk crashed into someone (forgot who), Perez finished 5th.

 

It was Ricciardo, but in the interest of fairness it has to be said that it was because of a front wing failure.

 

RE Checo vs Hulk... two things happened: Checo improved his Saturdays at some point in 2015 (he had a 20 race streak between the summer break of 2015 and the summer break of 2016 where he outqualified Hulk by a large margin. So large that in an update to the F1 videogame, one of the release notes was "Pérez is now faster than Hulkenberg"), and he stopped getting into messy situations. Led to him maximizing his chances. Hulkenberg had a great comeback to close in in the points table and finish the 2016 season ahead in the qualy battle. They were very even through those years.

Edited by Collective, 03 December 2018 - 16:07.

[guillo]

So that is now very very interesting. To be honest, i am one of those people who consider Hulkenberg the better driver than Perez and when i read this i thought maybe i should revise my position and decided to double check my memory for the seasons you mentioned. I honestly always and still do think that Hulkenberg was/is the best thing coming and it baffles me why he has not been picked up by some of the top teams teams. And i do work in Motorsports (as an engineer but not F1).

 

I also am a Ricciardo admirer and will be keen to see how Hulk/Ric battle shapes up next year.

 

Anyhow regarding the seasons between Hulk and Perez now i have double checked and can perhaps give some counters as to why some (including me) rate Hulkenberg better than Perez:

 

2014:

Points: Hulk 96: Perez 59

Retirements: Hulk 2: Perez 5 (including DNS)

Qualifying: 12 Hulk: 7 Perez (average gap 0.47s for Hulk)

Races when both finished: 7-7

 

2015:

 

Points: Hulk 58: Perez 78

Retirements: Hulk 6: Perez 1 (including DNS)

Qualifying: 11 Hulk: 8 Perez (average gap 0.4s for Hulk)

Races when both finished: 7-6 for Hulk

 

2016:

 

Points: Hulk 72: Perez 101

Retirements: Hulk 5: Perez 1 (including DNS)

Qualifying: 12 Hulk: 9 Perez (average gap 0.07s for Hulk)

Races when both finished: 8-8

 

 

ofcourse my memory doesn't recall the circumstances of their DNFs and battles but that is what i can find or deduct.

 

I think it is fair to say that Hulk had the qualifying speed and had the worse reliability overall, in races he was also quite handy to Perez and they were maybe close to being equal, Perez did have more podiums but that i think says more about being more opportunistic and can take risks (which is also a part of being a racing driver).

 

For me i am still a believer that Hulkenberg is the better drivers (and i believe he was/is one of the best on the grid) and i do hope he gets a chance for top competition, shame that now he gets a world class teammate when he is quite old but i am in the camp that he is better than Perez.

 

Perez is however a very capable driver it has to be said, and even though Button did beat him he proved to be a challenge. But i don't rate him as one of the top guys in the field, and i do think Ocon has the potential to beat him (and was a quicker qualifier) so if i were Mercedes i would take Ocon over Perez.

 

But i do think Perez is a very capable driver and i am glad he is on the grid, and i think if you rate him higher than Hulkenberg and others you can do so and it should be acceptable as he did always deliver. And with drivers and teams circumstances always play an effect to how they perform, so with such fine margins it is plausible that Perez is indeed a class driver. i just don't have that opinion, but hey, i was wrong before.

 

Good analysis... and civilized...ha!
As someone said afterwards, it's very difficult to know exactly who's better. I think Perez, Hulk, Ocon, Bottas, are pretty even. It just comes down to personal preference.

Otherwise we would end up in a useless argument of "which top model is hotter". It's just personal preference.

 

If someone wants it to be Hulk, so be it. I'm a Hulk fan too, as well as Perez and some others. And I would probably be an Ocon fan too if it wasn't for the fan base, the Media bias in Perez-Ocon incidents and Ocon's inability to accept his share of responsibility in crashes.

As I explained in this post: https://forums.autos...10#entry8604511

They can't just say they like Ocon better, but they "lobby" as politicians to damage Perez's image.

Even when stewards claim it was a "racing incident", everyone and their mother gets 100% on Ocon's side and claim Perez should be banned. Which is OK for fans to do it (personal preference), but not for the media who have a responsibility to inform and be impartial.

And that's what really bugs me, because it definitely has helped damage Perez's image and has helped to make Big teams discard Perez as an option.

Edited by guillo, 03 December 2018 - 19:49.

[KWSN - DSM]

I think the issue with Perez is that it is not quite entirely recognized, how good this guy is in races. Outscored Hulk and Ocon? How does he do it? "Umm, just... happened." No, there is more to it. The only drivers, who would beat him in race trim are the very elite drivers, and that's it.

 

Already when Perez was achieving podiums in Sauber, some were saying he was just lucky, because he got a great strategy. Well, he had a good strategy, but he was very quick in races too. His team-mate was nowhere near him in those races, irrespective of which compound of tyres each was running at the time.

 

Now compared to Hulkenberg, Bottas, Ocon - yeah, Perez would be outqualified by all of them over a season. But conversely in races Perez would be better than all of them. Of course knowing how F1 works, being quicker in the race doesn't mean you finish in front, because track position matters a lot. But superiority in races is enough for Perez to turn his qualifying deficit to at least a match in the overall battle.

 

The thing with Perez is that in my view he is very consistent in races. He always delivers, when he has a sniff of points, unless he tangles with someone (happens a couple of times in a season) or he has a bad track position post-qualifying on a circuit, where it's hard to overtake. Compare that to Hulk, Ocon, Bottas, who always have races in each season, where they just totally go missing and are nowhere. Or make mistakes.

 

It reminds me a bit of Hamilton v Button battle. Hamilton obviously looked faster, but people were dumbfounded, how could Button sit so near Hamilton in the points. Also somehow Button always delivered in the wet. Was it luck? I remember it was at times confusing for people. Same thing with Perez. It's not "luck" that it's usually him, who somehow ends up with podiums and can consistently deliver points in races if he has a sniff of a chance. There is some real underlying quality.

 

Perfect summing up of Perez.

 

[30L]

 

For me i am still a believer that Hulkenberg is the better drivers (and i believe he was/is one of the best on the grid) and i do hope he gets a chance for top competition, shame that now he gets a world class teammate when he is quite old but i am in the camp that he is better than Perez.

 

Perez is however a very capable driver it has to be said, and even though Button did beat him he proved to be a challenge. But i don't rate him as one of the top guys in the field, and i do think Ocon has the potential to beat him (and was a quicker qualifier) so if i were Mercedes i would take Ocon over Perez.

 

 Mhhh... I always thought that after three years pairing it was quite clear who was the better driver and why, also considered people saying Hulk was(is) better a little crazy (biased) but honestly I do see where you're coming from, truth is they were very closely matched just like with Per vs Oco, can't help but wonder if the deciding factor could be the podiums since it is also a deciding factor (like when drivers are tied in points) in this case they could be tied in skill and the difference could come down to just that?

 

 Also I know we have our preferences but, being entirely honest, Per practically came outta nowhere, before his first race he was just a paydriver (for many he still is, debatable to say the least) but Hulk and Oco were totally stars before their first race, all things considered also BIG credit to SP to beat 2 highly rated (as future WDC) drivers, but in the end if I had an F1 team (and trying to be objective) the fact that an outta nowhere dude is able to beat 2 WDC rated drivers has a lot of merit, how does he do it, well i would say his race pace while conserving tires is simply astonishing, but even so, the fact that everybody still rates Hulk or Oco as faster and SP came out on top means (in my head) that he is best one, hence that would be my choice (Teams are after points not qualys or fastest laps, which btw Per led Hulk in that respect as well) but beating "faster" drivers is a quality not very common among the F1 grid. 

 

 Still as you (and everybody) said, personal opinions come into play, I might be wrong but you shed light into something not that clear for me. I rate both Hulk and Oco highly as well, I hope Hulk wins against Ricc as he had Sainz, anyways not trying to annoy just expressing some thoughts here...

Edited by 30L, 05 December 2018 - 16:50.

[Nemo1965]

As far as I recall Massa wasn't that impressive in his debut year though. He was quick, but made lots of errors and overdrove, hence he was laid up for a year. I thought Alonso was picked up by a top team (Renault) just there was no seat free for him in 2002, but he was already lined up for 2003 and under contract.

 

Yes, I agree. Massa did not impress me at all... and I thought his testing for Ferrari would be a dead-end street... and Alonso did impress me, and had to test for a year. Two drivers, different expectations (from me at last). And see where they ended.

 

(I still don't rate Massa highly, I must say.)

[baddog]

I think the issue with Perez is that it is not quite entirely recognized, how good this guy is in races. Outscored Hulk and Ocon? How does he do it? "Umm, just... happened." No, there is more to it. The only drivers, who would beat him in race trim are the very elite drivers, and that's it.

 

Already when Perez was achieving podiums in Sauber, some were saying he was just lucky, because he got a great strategy. Well, he had a good strategy, but he was very quick in races too. His team-mate was nowhere near him in those races, irrespective of which compound of tyres each was running at the time.

 

Now compared to Hulkenberg, Bottas, Ocon - yeah, Perez would be outqualified by all of them over a season. But conversely in races Perez would be better than all of them. Of course knowing how F1 works, being quicker in the race doesn't mean you finish in front, because track position matters a lot. But superiority in races is enough for Perez to turn his qualifying deficit to at least a match in the overall battle.

 

The thing with Perez is that in my view he is very consistent in races. He always delivers, when he has a sniff of points, unless he tangles with someone (happens a couple of times in a season) or he has a bad track position post-qualifying on a circuit, where it's hard to overtake. Compare that to Hulk, Ocon, Bottas, who always have races in each season, where they just totally go missing and are nowhere. Or make mistakes.

 

It reminds me a bit of Hamilton v Button battle. Hamilton obviously looked faster, but people were dumbfounded, how could Button sit so near Hamilton in the points. Also somehow Button always delivered in the wet. Was it luck? I remember it was at times confusing for people. Same thing with Perez. It's not "luck" that it's usually him, who somehow ends up with podiums and can consistently deliver points in races if he has a sniff of a chance. There is some real underlying quality.

 

I see a few issues for him with all this though when discussing just how far up the pole it puts him..

 

Firstly being able to manage tyres extremely well doesn't actually excuse mediocre qualifying, the very very best can pole AND manage their tyres. 

 

Second it may not work for him if he got into a fight at the top, it is a diminishing returns kind of thing..this super consistency and running long tyre strats often lets you get clear of a midfield pack but is it going to get you to actual wins consistently? 

 

Finally I think you overinflate the results. 'usually him who somehow ends up with podiums' is a bit rich when its, what, 8 from 155 race starts.

 

A bit of a one-trick pony I think. All I see is a wingman for a real top driver who gets a win when other people screw up. Unfortunately his belligerent attitude to teammates and ignoring of team instructions may mean he wont get hired for that.

[IamFasterthanU]

Ocon in his second full season totally dominated Perez as far as qualifying was concerned and was very close in race pace. Even in races they finished I think Ocon is 9-5 ahead, he was behind in points due to being involved in some needless incidents which is something he can improve upon. Though, honestly Perez did appear to be slightly faster in races but given how difficult overtaking is and how poor his qualifying is don't think anyone will rate him above Ocon. 

 

Ocon has been impressive this year, yes he has few areas to improve upon but its clear he will get a shot again in F1 with better teams. Perez on the other hand is a weird case, still can't see why he turned down Renault which was his only chance to get into a manufacturer backed team. 

[30L]

 

 

I see a few issues for him with all this though when discussing just how far up the pole it puts him..

 

- Highest of midfield, what issue can you see, he has beaten everybody, more than once.

 

Firstly being able to manage tyres extremely well doesn't actually excuse mediocre qualifying, the very very best can pole AND manage their tyres.

 

- Nobody said it would, and again nobody is saying he is among the very best (altho it is clearly a possibility and since he hasn’t had the chance to prove himself like that, but has beaten everybody else, he has won the benefit of the doubt, at least).

 

Second it may not work for him if he got into a fight at the top, it is a diminishing returns kind of thing..this super consistency and running long tyre strats often lets you get clear of a midfield pack but is it going to get you to actual wins consistently?

 

- Well, ask Button he did win consistently with the right car, didn’t he? Besides you forget that he doesn’t only conserve tires he also keeps up a decent pace, iot he doesn’t have to lower the pace that much to conserve them, also sometimes teams make mistakes with strats I’m sure that they would take advantage of the tire preservation he could offer, in any case as you very well put it it MAY not work, but then again he might make it work.

 

Finally I think you overinflate the results. 'usually him who somehow ends up with podiums' is a bit rich when its, what, 8 from 155 race starts.

 

- 155 race starts and 8 podiums in which one or two had a podium capable car IS quite rich, if we were talking a better team well yeah, you’d be right, but we aren’t, we are talking about a team that has only 6 podiums to their name. 'usually him who somehow ends up with podiums' refers to against Hulk Oco or Kob (who strangely was the only teammate along SP to also get a podium) it would be interesting to know your opinion about Hulk or Oco not getting a podium cuz if we are "overinflating" the results, they are underperforming (at least, according to your logic).

 

 A bit of a one-trick pony I think. All I see is a wingman for a real top driver who gets a win when other people screw up. Unfortunately his belligerent attitude to teammates and ignoring of team instructions may mean he wont get hired for that

 

- Again, nobody is saying he should be considered the lead driver for Mercedes or Ferrari, i think he could be capable of it tho, but he would need to prove that himself. Fortunately his consistency and results are enough to at least be considered, it seems quite hard now seeing all new talent around, but as they say here, hope never dies.

 

  Anyways at least now Per haters are not as present as before, even you did unwind quite considerably, it’s good to see you still got it tho. 

[sopa]

Perez on the other hand is a weird case, still can't see why he turned down Renault which was his only chance to get into a manufacturer backed team. 

 

Perez' career choice is a valid question, especially considering the long term. Has he been too loyal to Force India? Drivers, who have been too loyal, often end up being at the wrong place. I understand Perez' sponsors have been closely tied to Force India and were instrumental in saving the team too. But with each passing year it gets more questionable, how well can this team keep performing well.

 

Of course if necessary Perez probably could jump into another midfield team, like Haas or even Sauber. But the Renault ship has probably sailed.

[coppilcus]

I see a few issues for him with all this though when discussing just how far up the pole it puts him..

Firstly being able to manage tyres extremely well doesn't actually excuse mediocre qualifying, the very very best can pole AND manage their tyres.

Second it may not work for him if he got into a fight at the top, it is a diminishing returns kind of thing..this super consistency and running long tyre strats often lets you get clear of a midfield pack but is it going to get you to actual wins consistently?

Finally I think you overinflate the results. 'usually him who somehow ends up with podiums' is a bit rich when its, what, 8 from 155 race starts.

A bit of a one-trick pony I think. All I see is a wingman for a real top driver who gets a win when other people screw up. Unfortunately his belligerent attitude to teammates and ignoring of team instructions may mean he wont get hired for that.

You lost me at “overinflated results”...

... a fifth, sixth or seventh from the ‘Next Senna’ Hulkenberg or the ‘Next Senna’ Ocon is hyper inflated to absurd extremes, and yet Perez’s podiums in the exact same cars are ‘luck’.

In F1 you’re completely dependable on the capabilities of your machine, not a single ‘driving god’ have won races or become world champion in a bathtub with wheels, except in extremely rare and exceptional conditions: rain and the entire grid not finishing the race.

Edited by coppilcus, 11 December 2018 - 19:41.

[JacobRPP]

Perez' career choice is a valid question, especially considering the long term. Has he been too loyal to Force India? Drivers, who have been too loyal, often end up being at the wrong place. I understand Perez' sponsors have been closely tied to Force India and were instrumental in saving the team too. But with each passing year it gets more questionable, how well can this team keep performing well.

 

Of course if necessary Perez probably could jump into another midfield team, like Haas or even Sauber. But the Renault ship has probably sailed.

 

Maybe he just did not see the other options as viable?

 

I think after an experience as McLaren, and you feel, you are in a good place with a team, you stick with it. I understand his decision to stick with FI, because they have and had potential with the right funding. And if his backers could push the team forward and ensure it enough time to find an owner that could give the team a fighting chance.

[taran]

Maybe he just did not see the other options as viable?

 

I think after an experience as McLaren, and you feel, you are in a good place with a team, you stick with it. I understand his decision to stick with FI, because they have and had potential with the right funding. And if his backers could push the team forward and ensure it enough time to find an owner that could give the team a fighting chance.

 

I am sorry but this reasoning makes no sense at all to me.

Force India was an independent team. When Renault made overtures, it was still owned by a Mallya-led group with little money to spare. Over his entire ownership period, Mallya has funded the team reasonably well (until the banks started squeezing) but never lavishly. So when Renault were interested in Perez in 2016, there was no "hidden" potential. Force India were just a decent midfield team, capable of podiums under very favourable circumstances but nothing more. They weren't even on the Williams level with the same Mercedes engines.

Renault, as a works team with pedigree, had far more potential. And Perez has (rigthly) mentioned about getting a better drive in the future so he was obviously not completely soured on driving for a big team by his McLaren experience.

 

Perhaps the Renault offer was not attractive but it must have been very unattractive for Perez to reject it. Yet attractive enough for Hulkenberg (Renault's #2 choice) to accept it........