369 replies to this topic

[SenorSjon]

20 to go   

 

Where did the color coding go?

[Marklar]

Where did the color coding go?

Found it kinda pointless to have the same numbers twice, but it will be defiitely there after Bahrain 

[Morgan111]

20 to go

Thank you for doing this every year 🙂

Edited by Morgan111, 18 March 2019 - 17:09.

[Lights]

20 to go   

 

AMuS gave Albon a 6, you wrote a 7.

[zanquis]

I am pleased that Stroll and Hulk are finally getting some recognition by almost everyone. . .

Well Hulk has been recognized as a top driver for years.

Stroll first of all the biggest complaint was not that he didn’t have talent but that he wasn’t ready for it. Now he ismore experienced to the level he should be not have excuses. His Q wasn’t good, but his race was one of his better ones as he moved up the way Gasly failed at. But 1 good race isn’t a good season yet.

[tormave]

Well Hulk has been recognized as a top driver for years.
Stroll first of all the biggest complaint was not that he didn’t have talent but that he wasn’t ready for it. Now he ismore experienced to the level he should be not have excuses. His Q wasn’t good, but his race was one of his better ones as he moved up the way Gasly failed at. But 1 good race isn’t a good season yet.

Stroll moved up because of a good start, and thereafter because GIO was both slow and hard to pass. Everyone who started on softs and was behind RAI ended up in the 99 train.

[metz]

The biggest complaint against Stroll was that his father was rich. He almost did miracles with that Williams last year. But who would have noticed.

And if Hulk has been recognized (not only by some of us) as a top driver for years, he sure doesn't get the hype.

[Dan333SP]

10 for Bottas is pretty crazy IMO. He had a normal gap to Lewis in Qualifying, nailed the start, and then drove serenely in a dominant car while his teammate suffered from balance issues behind him. Yea, it was a dominant win, but IMO a 10 should be reserved for something that's a bit more than simply nailing the start in a great car.

[Lights]

I would love it if we only post "official" ratings, and not personal ratings.

 

No, but it will get messy when everyone posts his own lists here.

 

I agree, this shoud be for the media.

 

Aah, "official media" only. Whatever that is. F1i.com, apparently. Or crash.net or PlanetF1. Maybe I should make a website thebestf1siteintheworld.com and put my ratings there and then copy them here. If I use a randomizer I'd probably end up with a similar rating quality. The holy media trinity of AMuS Sky & AS aren't a lot better, doesn't seem like they give this more than a minute of thought. 

 

I actually enjoyed seeing some members sharing their own view here, but I guess they're not worthy compared to the 'experts'.

 

Should that not be "The media professional 100% correct, non bias, experts 2019 driver ratings thread"?

 

That would be very fitting indeed.

Edited by Lights, 18 March 2019 - 20:50.

[Gambelli]

Did I read that Amus gave Hamilton a 9?????

 

Has that ever happened that a driver beaten by his team mate gets a 9????

 

Yes floor damage, of course, if you ask Toto that probably cost him 25 seconds over a race distance and its a wonder he was able to even get the car to the end blah blah but geez louise, thats just praying at Temple Hamilton (I get they are a German publication btw, doesn't mean its not a Hamilton fan writing the review)

 

Its saying that Hamilton's weekend was better than Hulks?  Hulk who out qualified his team mate who gets paid 4 times more and had one less run on an evolving track, Hulk who made up 3 places with the best start in the field.  Hulk who held off a string of cars to finish P7 after mechanical issues in FP1 and Qualifying.  I'd just love to hear the rationale behind that sort of thing....  thats just 1 example of many of the craziness that goes on with driver ratings.....

[Mian30]

20 to go   

Thanks Marklar, really nice you do this again!

[Anderis]

Stroll first of all the biggest complaint was not that he didn’t have talent but that he wasn’t ready for it.

Are you sure there weren't numerous people suggesting that Stroll is not F1 material talent-wise?

[Mian30]

Can't help but feel some publications are going to be substituting and interchanging "point for pole" with "point for fastest lap" to bump scores.

Hence why Bottas scores 10 without pole.

Why is pole important?
If he starts 20 and ends first, then its a 10.
I dont think pole position should count that much, that is not where the points are.

Edited by Mian30, 18 March 2019 - 21:50.

[Gambelli]

Why is pole important?
If he starts 20 and ends first, then its a 10.
I dont think pole position should count that much, that is not where the points are.

 

Thats fair too, and I think its always been a bone of contention.  Are they rating the driver's weekend performance or are they rating the driver's outcome for the weekend?

 

Eg, say you had Verstappen spin out of Q2 due entirely to his own mistake, Gasly qualifies P5 in a car not on Ferrari and Mercedes pace.  Through fantastic driving and a tiny bit of luck (safety car) Verstappen storms through and takes P5 in the race ahead of Gasly.  He maximises the cars result potential but made it hard for himself through Quali.  What score does he get?  A 9 or a 10 for an incredible race? or a 7 or 8 for making it hard for himself in the first place?  Its a tough one isn't it, not even sure I have a strong view either way....

[Anderis]

10 should be for an ideal weekend and being outqualified by your team-mate in a fair fight is not an ideal weekend. Everyone wants to qualify as high as possible, especially top teams. Even if you do everything right in the race, it's often circumstancial that not being on pole didn't hamper you.

Starting 20th and finishing 1st should not be an automatic 10 either. If starting 20th was by your fault and you inheritted 1st because of other cars running into trouble, then you definetely didn't do the best possible job over the race weekend. I think everybody agrees we should rate performance, not results, because we already know the race results without ratings.

Edited by Anderis, 18 March 2019 - 22:00.

[scheivlak]

 

Its saying that Hamilton's weekend was better than Hulks?  Hulk who out qualified his team mate who gets paid 4 times more and had one less run on an evolving track, 

Somebody's salary should not be relevant at all. Performance is. It could well be that Ricciardo's Q wasn't that great and that a lot of drivers could have beaten him.

[HeadFirst]

Are you sure there weren't numerous people suggesting that Stroll is not F1 material talent-wise?

 

There were many that said Stroll was not F1 material, but as Z suggests there were also many who said that he needed more time in the minor leagues before being F1 ready. 

[HeadFirst]

Somebody's salary should not be relevant at all. Performance is. It could well be that Ricciardo's Q wasn't that great and that a lot of drivers could have beaten him.

 

Agreed. Salary should not be relevant in evaluating driver performance. Should that apply tp "pay" drivers as well?

[metz]

I disagree.
Driver salary when diverse, is a true indication of team preference and favouritism. Team favouritism can be a handicap or boost to a driver’s performance.

[Gambelli]

Somebody's salary should not be relevant at all. Performance is. It could well be that Ricciardo's Q wasn't that great and that a lot of drivers could have beaten him.

 

Yep, sure, but salary is a guide to whats expected from a driver surely.  After al, all Hamiltons 10's in the most dominant cars of all time, how do we not know that half the field would have beaten him in that car too?  We just have to base it on who's in the other car, so by that measure, Hulk beat a guy who is considered, monetarily, 4 times more important than him by the team, and he did it with 1 attempt vs 2, so we have to assume its a match for anyone else who won their intra team battle, including Hamilton, Verstappen et al.

[Reddington]

10 should be for an ideal weekend and being outqualified by your team-mate in a fair fight is not an ideal weekend. Everyone wants to qualify as high as possible, especially top teams. Even if you do everything right in the race, it's often circumstancial that not being on pole didn't hamper you.

Starting 20th and finishing 1st should not be an automatic 10 either. If starting 20th was by your fault and you inheritted 1st because of other cars running into trouble, then you definetely didn't do the best possible job over the race weekend. I think everybody agrees we should rate performance, not results, because we already know the race results without ratings.

However, originally (and currently) the weekend is all built up for the results on Sunday. There are no points for qualifying, it’s just a means to determine starting positions, nothing more.
If a driver has the choice to set up his car for a race win, but sacrificing qualifying, should he be deducted for choosing a lower starting position, even when due to that choice he’d win the race? That’s just plain odd.

[Anderis]

However, originally (and currently) the weekend is all built up for the results on Sunday. There are no points for qualifying, it’s just a means to determine starting positions, nothing more.
If a driver has the choice to set up his car for a race win, but sacrificing qualifying, should he be deducted for choosing a lower starting position, even when due to that choice he’d win the race? That’s just plain odd.

Good point. Without drivers or team-members admitting it (doesn't happen very often), we have no way of knowing that one team-mate went for a more race-oriented set-up than the other, though. I'm not convinced there are drivers in modern F1 who deliberately compromise their Q set-up for race set-up to  a large extent compared to their team-mate, when overtaking is rather hard and following other cars closely destroys tyres and overheats brakes. But yeah, if it's a carefully planned and perfectly executed strategy, I could see why the points shouldn't be deducted for that.

[ZaZ]

However, originally (and currently) the weekend is all built up for the results on Sunday. There are no points for qualifying, it’s just a means to determine starting positions, nothing more.
If a driver has the choice to set up his car for a race win, but sacrificing qualifying, should he be deducted for choosing a lower starting position, even when due to that choice he’d win the race? That’s just plain odd.

 

Advocate of the devil here: If it was just all about the points, then this whole thread would be unnecessary and we just have to look at the championship standings at the end of the year.

[motohead]

Well Hulk has been recognized as a top driver for years.

Stroll first of all the biggest complaint was not that he didn’t have talent but that he wasn’t ready for it. Now he ismore experienced to the level he should be not have excuses. His Q wasn’t good, but his race was one of his better ones as he moved up the way Gasly failed at. But 1 good race isn’t a good season yet.

 

I don't think the race was that great by Hulk. Whilst he did outqualify his teammate he should have been in Q3 I feel with Perez and Norris arguably being in slower cars. He got a good start to the race, but other than that, he made a mistake when trying to overtake Magnussen who'd come out on cold tires, whom he should really have overtaken and finally he barely held on to P7.

 

I think the recognition of him will come from him being more or less equal to Ricciardo this season. I think a lot of the mid-field guys are generally underrated and some of the guys driving for the top 3 teams overrated. But I guess that'll be to Hulkenburg's advantage this season.

[SenorSjon]

Aah, "official media" only. Whatever that is. F1i.com, apparently. Or crash.net or PlanetF1. Maybe I should make a website thebestf1siteintheworld.com and put my ratings there and then copy them here. If I use a randomizer I'd probably end up with a similar rating quality. The holy media trinity of AMuS Sky & AS aren't a lot better, doesn't seem like they give this more than a minute of thought. 

 

I actually enjoyed seeing some members sharing their own view here, but I guess they're not worthy compared to the 'experts'.

 

 

That would be very fitting indeed.

 

You can moan about it, or open a thread with the 2019 board driver ratings or something similar.

[Retrofly]

I actually enjoyed seeing some members sharing their own view here, but I guess they're not worthy compared to the 'experts'.

 

 

That would be very fitting indeed.

I think it was fine when people were doing their top 3 or 5's last year, but doing the whole grid just seems rather pointless.

[zanquis]

Aah, "official media" only. Whatever that is. F1i.com, apparently. Or crash.net or PlanetF1. Maybe I should make a website thebestf1siteintheworld.com and put my ratings there and then copy them here. If I use a randomizer I'd probably end up with a similar rating quality. The holy media trinity of AMuS Sky & AS aren't a lot better, doesn't seem like they give this more than a minute of thought. 

 

I actually enjoyed seeing some members sharing their own view here, but I guess they're not worthy compared to the 'experts'.

 

 

That would be very fitting indeed.

 

People can comment on a rating and indicate their agreements/disagreements as they are already doing now, but allowing everyone to post thier own list would cloud those from the media and would make it impossible to make a summary. 

 

if we want to have the "board" ratings I would like to redirect you to the Autosport drivers readers ratings, they basically have what you want already.

[Gambelli]

I don't think the race was that great by Hulk. Whilst he did outqualify his teammate he should have been in Q3 I feel with Perez and Norris arguably being in slower cars. He got a good start to the race, but other than that, he made a mistake when trying to overtake Magnussen who'd come out on cold tires, whom he should really have overtaken and finally he barely held on to P7.

 

I think the recognition of him will come from him being more or less equal to Ricciardo this season. I think a lot of the mid-field guys are generally underrated and some of the guys driving for the top 3 teams overrated. But I guess that'll be to Hulkenburg's advantage this season.

 

I'm curious, and I really dont know the answer to this, where was he placed prior to everyone's final runs?  Was he in the top 10?  Because he never got a final run.

 

I didin't see his mistake to be honest, and ultimately he did hang on to 7th.  Just like we don't know what 'floor damage' cost Hamilton, or how bad Ferrari really was, we dont know how difficult the Renault was for the last 10 laps.  All I judge on is he did a good job of nabbing P11 before mechanical issue, great start, walked away with P7....

[SenorSjon]

GP Today: https://www.gptoday....-driver-ratings

 

Bottas 9

Hamilton 7

Verstappen 9

Vettel 7

Leclerc 7

Magnussen 8

Hulkenberg 8

Kimi 7.5

Stroll 8,5

Kvyat 6,5

Gasly 6

Norris 7.5

Perez 5.5

Albon 5,5

Giovinazzi 6

Russell n/a

Kubica n/a

Grosjean 8

Ricciardo n/a

Sainz n/a

[statman]

Gazzetta:

 

Bottas: 10

Verstappen: 8

Hulkenberg: 8

Leclerc: 7

Raikkonen: 7

Magnussen: 7

Vettel: 7

Hamilton: 6

Perez: 5

Ricciardo: 4

[sgtkate]

Did I read that Amus gave Hamilton a 9?????

 

Has that ever happened that a driver beaten by his team mate gets a 9????

 

Yes floor damage, of course, if you ask Toto that probably cost him 25 seconds over a race distance and its a wonder he was able to even get the car to the end blah blah but geez louise, thats just praying at Temple Hamilton (I get they are a German publication btw, doesn't mean its not a Hamilton fan writing the review)

 

Its saying that Hamilton's weekend was better than Hulks?  Hulk who out qualified his team mate who gets paid 4 times more and had one less run on an evolving track, Hulk who made up 3 places with the best start in the field.  Hulk who held off a string of cars to finish P7 after mechanical issues in FP1 and Qualifying.  I'd just love to hear the rationale behind that sort of thing....  thats just 1 example of many of the craziness that goes on with driver ratings.....

The numbers are ridiculous. If you don't win the race you can rarely get higher than an 8 even if you started in 20th and finished 3rd. Bottas won because he had a good enough car to do it, he drove better than his team mate, but a 10? Stroll beat his team mate too by a bigger margin yet he gets a 7? I wish they'd rate the DRIVERS and not the car...

[motohead]

I'm curious, and I really dont know the answer to this, where was he placed prior to everyone's final runs?  Was he in the top 10?  Because he never got a final run.

 

I didin't see his mistake to be honest, and ultimately he did hang on to 7th.  Just like we don't know what 'floor damage' cost Hamilton, or how bad Ferrari really was, we dont know how difficult the Renault was for the last 10 laps.  All I judge on is he did a good job of nabbing P11 before mechanical issue, great start, walked away with P7....

 

What mechanical issue? It is the first time I hear about any mechanical issues...both in qualification and in the race. Haven't and can't see Renault mentioning that anywhere.

 

He was slower because his Hard compound tires were worn out. In comparison Magnussen who was on older Mediums gained 6 sek the last 10 laps. So it is a question of tyre management, which was the reason why he almost got overtaken.

[Bleu]

Taking qualifying into account, I feel Brazil 2017 is a brilliant example between team-mates. 

 

Bottas takes pole, loses the lead in the start and isn't really threatening Vettel for the win, finishing 2nd.

Hamilton crashes in Q1 and ends up starting from the last position, has a brilliant race and rises up to 4th.

 

So which driver had better weekend?

[Vesuvius]

Taking qualifying into account, I feel Brazil 2017 is a brilliant example between team-mates.

Bottas takes pole, loses the lead in the start and isn't really threatening Vettel for the win, finishing 2nd.
Hamilton crashes in Q1 and ends up starting from the last position, has a brilliant race and rises up to 4th.

So which driver had better weekend?

Bottas

Edited by Vesuvius, 19 March 2019 - 16:41.

[Galoredk]

Gazzetta:

Bottas: 10
Verstappen: 8
Hulkenberg: 8
Leclerc: 7
Raikkonen: 7
Magnussen: 7
Vettel: 7
Hamilton: 6
Perez: 5
Ricciardo: 4

I guess qualifying 11 and finishing 7 beats qualifying 7 and finishing 6. What a ****ing joke.

[Ben24]

So Vettel outqualifies his team mate by twice the margin that Hamilton does and finishes ahead of his team mate instead of over 20 seconds behind (having the same inferior race strategy that Hamilton had) but gets given a lower rating across the board. How does that make any sense?

[lbennie]

Because most of these scores come from British Publications.

Edited by lbennie, 20 March 2019 - 05:49.

[PistolPete]

The perception of how fast a team should be also plays a role. Think thats why.

[SenorSjon]

So Vettel outqualifies his team mate by twice the margin that Hamilton does and finishes ahead of his team mate instead of over 20 seconds behind (having the same inferior race strategy that Hamilton had) but gets given a lower rating across the board. How does that make any sense?

 

Because Leclerc was ordered not to pass Vettel.

[AnR]

Because Leclerc was ordered not to pass Vettel.

 

No he wasn't, he was told to hold still because of technical problems, it was not a given he had the pace to pass

[MikeTekRacing]

No he wasn't, he was told to hold still because of technical problems, it was not a given he had the pace to pass

what technical problems?!

[xtremeclock]

what technical problems?!

 

Engine problems, Ferrari will not confirm it but the evidence is out there, plenty of videos.

Edited by xtremeclock, 20 March 2019 - 11:00.

[SenorSjon]

Is that the same as the 'brake problems' Massa used to have?

[Marklar]

Not convinced that Vettel had more engine issues than Leclerc, but he definitely had a massively compromised strategy, which isnt really considered in most ratings I think, especially as he also had a way better qualifying and unlike Leclerc did no real mistake in the race. It should be a no-brainer to have him at least one higher.

[Gambelli]

What mechanical issue? It is the first time I hear about any mechanical issues...both in qualification and in the race. Haven't and can't see Renault mentioning that anywhere.

 

He was slower because his Hard compound tires were worn out. In comparison Magnussen who was on older Mediums gained 6 sek the last 10 laps. So it is a question of tyre management, which was the reason why he almost got overtaken.

 

In Q2, when they all went out on their final runs, Hulk had a loss of power on his out lap and had to return to the pits so didn't get that final run in.  I'm pretty sure until that point he was well within the top 10.

 

Re race, we dont know if its tyre management or a car that uses its tyres heavily, we'll know in a few races time but as yet we dont, so score the result, not the queue of cars behind.   FWIW I hope it was poor tyre management, or Renault are in trouble.....

 

Oh, this is from Renaults website...

 

Renault F1 Team will start the season-opening Formula 1 Rolex Australian Grand Prix with Nico Hülkenberg eleventh and Daniel Ricciardo twelfth following a tight qualifying session around Albert Park, Melbourne.

Both drivers eased into Q2 following strong – and closely-matched – laps. Nico’s progress was however hampered by an electrical issue that prevented him completing his final run of the session. He just missed the top ten by 0.03secs in one run.

Edited by Gambelli, 20 March 2019 - 11:57.

[Ben24]

Because Leclerc was ordered not to pass Vettel.

So it's better to lose to your team mate by nearly 30 seconds than it is to potentially lose by a few seconds (worst case scenario if Ferrari let their drivers race)?

[P123]

So Vettel outqualifies his team mate by twice the margin that Hamilton does and finishes ahead of his team mate instead of over 20 seconds behind (having the same inferior race strategy that Hamilton had) but gets given a lower rating across the board. How does that make any sense?

Because he had a better race than Vettel, and his teammate had a better race than Leclerc. In the race Vettel lost a position on track, and was only saved falling further back by TOs. Your view only makes sense if you think the ratings should purely be based on how a driver fairs relative to their teammate. Rating Hamilton higher than Bottas would however not make sense.

[SenorSjon]

So it's better to lose to your team mate by nearly 30 seconds than it is to potentially lose by a few seconds (worst case scenario if Ferrari let their drivers race)?

 

I doubt it would have been a few seconds. http://en.mclarenf-1...ebastian Vettel Vettel was bleeding a lot of time. Look at time gap with Verstappen it was stable at around 15 seconds, but it leaped upwards when he got to Vettel. Losing 20 seconds in 8 laps while Verstappen was also stuck behind Hamilton.

[AnR]

Because he had a better race than Vettel, and his teammate had a better race than Leclerc. In the race Vettel lost a position on track, and was only saved falling further back by TOs. Your view only makes sense if you think the ratings should purely be based on how a driver fairs relative to their teammate. Rating Hamilton higher than Bottas would however not make sense.

 

Pure guesswork, Hamilton also lost position on track and lost to his teammate which Vettel didn't

[Gambelli]

So Vettel outqualifies his team mate by twice the margin that Hamilton does and finishes ahead of his team mate instead of over 20 seconds behind (having the same inferior race strategy that Hamilton had) but gets given a lower rating across the board. How does that make any sense?

 

1) Hamilton always maximises the car, his default is 10 unless it can be proven otherwise, this weekend being a perfect example, the way he majestically caressed around that stricken vehicle was poetry in motion.....

 

2) didn't you know, the Ferrari is half a second a lap faster, ask everyone, so Vettel's race was appalling....