200 replies to this topic

[Ivanhoe]

 Just stop the car and let them go off

You do realise there was a packed bunch of 15 cars behind them? Can't believe you think he should have just "stopped" the car 

Edited by Ivanhoe, 07 December 2020 - 11:49.

[NixxxoN]

Leclerc goes to the right? He is understeering to the left and would definitely have cought Max had he slowed down. But let's agree to disagree.

Yes, look after he crashes, he has front suspension broken but yet doesn't go completely straight, he goes slightly to the right.
 

You do realise there was a packed bunch of 15 cars behind them? Can't believe you think he should have just "stopped" the car

Not on the middle of the track or in the middle of the racing line, obviously...
 

Edited by NixxxoN, 07 December 2020 - 11:59.

[ANF]

You guys should watch the helicopter footage again, if Verstappen would have slowed down directly after the incident he would have been hit by Charles and had he slowed down after avoiding Charles he would have been hit by Perez, there was absolutely nothing he could do.

Well pointed out. Watching his onboard I thought he seemed to carry too much speed, but of course he was about to get hit from behind!

[IrvTheSwerve]

Yes, look after he crashes, he has front suspension broken but yet doesn't go completely straight, he goes slightly to the right.
 

Not on the middle of the track or in the middle of the racing line, obviously...
 

That’s the thing with all of the asphalt runoff we have, drivers are tempted to miss the corner completely, floor it and come out the other side. Max effed this one up as he didn’t realise there was also gravel there.

[JeePee]

Ahhh yes. Max getting blamed for flooring it after dodging other cars and backing out of too-close-for-comforft fights every inch of his race, only to still be eliminated by an over eager Leclerc.

 

At least some things are normal this weekend.

[F127]

I agree that Max misjudged this one, I don't think he realised that it was dark grey gravel after the asphalt. Pretty unlucky, just one of those things. Totally Leclercs fault though, can't mark Max down for not being able to read every permutation of that incident.

[Casey]

Speculating Max somehow didn't know there was gravel there after first examining the track and every corner on bike or street car

as he usually does and after two days of testing and quali makes no sense to me .

[Augurk]

Yes, look after he crashes, he has front suspension broken but yet doesn't go completely straight, he goes slightly to the right.
 

Not on the middle of the track or in the middle of the racing line, obviously...
 

So Max should've just turned left in a right hand corner and he would've been fine. That's a reasonable thing to expect.

Of course he could've induced a left hand turn spin and got out of the wreck, but it's always easy judging from a still in retrospect. It's about what was reasonable to expect from him in the situation he found himself in through no fault of his own. All the way onto the Pirelli logo Perez was next to him uncontrollably and Leclerc was behind him on a crash course. The best decision he could've made was to try and avoid it by carrying speed off-track and hoping for the best. 

 

And I can't quite comprehend how Leclerc made another move (one of too many so far) ending up in himself and another driver DNF'ing the race and yet the flak is being directed at Max for trying to avoid the mess and ending up in the barriers. 

As someone else said, if Max would've done anything remotely similar to that all hell would've broken loose on the forums. 

 

Leclerc does it and what... gets a few 6s or 7s as a rating? No thread to discuss the ongoing incidents with Leclerc and that he will never learn and should be demoted back to Alfa Romeo? 

[as65p]

 

Ahhh yes. Max getting blamed for flooring it after dodging other cars and backing out of too-close-for-comforft fights every inch of his race, only to still be eliminated by an over eager Leclerc.

 

At least some things are normal this weekend.

 

Why so dramatic? It's not about blame, not from my side at least. Just looking what could have been done to avoid a DNF for whose initial cause Max was NOT responsible, clearly Leclerc was. Doesn't mean there weren't any other possible outcomes for those involved, like Max.

[F127]

No thread to discuss the ongoing incidents with Leclerc and that he will never learn and should be demoted back to Alfa Romeo? 

 

Please start this 

It wasn't like Leclerc harpooned Max on purpose on the last lap for the lead (he was clearly after Sergio instead). Plus, It wasn't like Max ditched it into the wall on his own accord either, it was more of a cause and effect thing.

[FTB]

I gave Leclerc 5.5 because he had perhaps the best qualifying of the season. Otherwise it would have been lower, especially with the 3 place grid penalty he received. Gave him 4 on Austria 2 for example.

[Lights]

[Augurk]

Please start this 

It wasn't like Leclerc harpooned Max on purpose on the last lap for the lead (he was clearly after Sergio instead). Plus, It wasn't like Max ditched it into the wall on his own accord either, it was more of a cause and effect thing.

Seeing your join date and post count you probably weren't here. But that's the stuff the forum threw at Verstappen when he made errors like these. 

Anyways back on topic. 

[NixxxoN]

So Max should've just turned left in a right hand corner and he would've been fine. That's a reasonable thing to expect.

Of course he could've induced a left hand turn spin and got out of the wreck, but it's always easy judging from a still in retrospect. It's about what was reasonable to expect from him in the situation he found himself in through no fault of his own.

 

Not the first time nor second a driver has to turn the opposite direction of the corner to avoid a collision.

That's a similar scenario but without a third car (Perez)

1:20 - MS had to turn slightly left and go off track to avoid Montoya messing up. He did quite well. And max could've done the same yesterday to avoid crashing and DNF.

 

 

Those guys get paid millions, so we should espect them to make good and intelligent decisions mostly all the time. And Max is supposedly one of the best drivers on the grid...

Edited by NixxxoN, 07 December 2020 - 16:54.

[Joefane]

Not the first time nor second a driver has to turn the opposite direction of the corner to avoid a collision.

That's a similar scenario but without a third car (Perez)

1:20 - MS had to turn slightly left and go off track to avoid Montoya messing up. He did quite well. And max could've done the same yesterday to avoid crashing and DNF.

 

 

Those guys get paid millions, so we should espect them to make good and intelligent decisions mostly all the time. And Max is supposedly one of the best drivers on the grid...

Key point there, "without a third car".

 

He has Leclerc about to run into the back of him, and if he avoids that, he would t-bone Perez. In the context of that video, Leclerc would have hit the back of Max if he turned and stopped like that.

[NixxxoN]

Key point there, "without a third car".

 

He has Leclerc about to run into the back of him, and if he avoids that, he would t-bone Perez. In the context of that video, Leclerc would have hit the back of Max if he turned and stopped like that.

Third car makes no difference.

Max was about side by side with Leclerc just as MS-Montoya in the video. Leclerc was going straight off the track more or less like Montoya did. Max should have done similar to what MS did, stop the car, wait for the other to go off, and rejoin

[Joefane]

Third car makes no difference.

Max was about side by side with Leclerc just as MS-Montoya in the video. Leclerc was going straight off the track more or less like Montoya did. Max should have done similar to what MS did, stop the car, wait for the other to go off, and rejoin

Leclerc barely misses him anyway, if he slows down, he slows into Leclercs path.

[Kao18]

Yes, look after he crashes, he has front suspension broken but yet doesn't go completely straight, he goes slightly to the right.
 

Not on the middle of the track or in the middle of the racing line, obviously...
 

 

Even better yet, he could have stopped in any of the below highlighted area's, they were completely empty..

 

[Retrofly]

Lights your score for for Russell is just whack.

Perez - 10

Ocon - 9

Stroll - 8

Sainz - 8

Ric - 8

Albon - 5

Kvyat - 8
Bottas - 6
Russell - 9
Noris - 7
Gasly - 7
Vettel - 6
GIo - 7
Kimi - 5
Kmag - 6
Aitken - 6
Fittipaldi - 5
Latifi - 6
Leclerc - 4
Max - 7




 

[shure]

Lights your score for for Russell is just whack.

 

Is it, though?  Or are we allowing sentimentality to influence the scoring?

 

Russell has never scored particularly highly.  Now he's been put in  a front running car do we think he's suddenly upped his game?  Or is it possible that he's driven the same he's done all year but the car has allowed him to showcase his talents better?  I do think he did drive well but the recent reviews are a textbook example of how people rarely really rate the driver but are heavily influenced by the car he's in.  

[Requiem84]

Is it, though? Or are we allowing sentimentality to influence the scoring?

Russell has never scored particularly highly. Now he's been put in a front running car do we think he's suddenly upped his game? Or is it possible that he's driven the same he's done all year but the car has allowed him to showcase his talents better? I do think he did drive well but the recent reviews are a textbook example of how people rarely really rate the driver but are heavily influenced by the car he's in.

He’s never been up against a driver like Bottas. So doing overall better than Bottas over a wknd shows he has been actually underrated so far.

Hamilton gets 9’s too for beating Bottas... so if its your first wknd in the car..

[Ivanhoe]

He got beaten in qualifying though.

[Requiem84]

He got beaten in qualifying though.

By the tiniest margins, in - again - his first wknd in a top car, his first time in Q3, his first time in a 2020 Mercedes, with a flimsy seating position, cut of shoes, helmet too high (how many thousands of a second did that cost?)

And besides: what rating did Hamilton get for Imola, where Bottas beat him in qualifying?

[Clrnc]

Max definitely F up there. It looks like it was just a terrain he could drive out of, he didn't realise its a gravel. Tell him there's a gravel there and 10 out of 10 times he will do something different and easily drives away. 

[shure]

He’s never been up against a driver like Bottas. So doing overall better than Bottas over a wknd shows he has been actually underrated so far.

Hamilton gets 9’s too for beating Bottas... so if its your first wknd in the car..

Hulk was also very impressive in his first weekend in the RP, when he'd been away from F1 for a while.  And Hulk was never thought of particularly as an elite driver.  Is it possible we're over-estimating how difficult it is to adapt to one of these cars?

 

I'm not trying to knock Russell, btw.  Agree it's possible he's simply been underrated so far.  The point is that a lot of these ratings overall - and especially the media ones, too - seem to be a lot more about whether the car is at the front of the pack than the actual driving ratings.  If they're at the back they are generally assumed to be having an average weekend, while if they score decent points then that automatically grants them extra ability "credits" seemingly regardless of the machinery they're in.  I think it's a bit coincidental that Russell suddenly blossomed as a driver the moment he stepped into the Merc

[Requiem84]

Hulk was also very impressive in his first weekend in the RP, when he'd been away from F1 for a while.  And Hulk was never thought of particularly as an elite driver.  Is it possible we're over-estimating how difficult it is to adapt to one of these cars?

 

I'm not trying to knock Russell, btw.  Agree it's possible he's simply been underrated so far.  The point is that a lot of these ratings overall - and especially the media ones, too - seem to be a lot more about whether the car is at the front of the pack than the actual driving ratings.  If they're at the back they are generally assumed to be having an average weekend, while if they score decent points then that automatically grants them extra ability "credits" seemingly regardless of the machinery they're in.  I think it's a bit coincidental that Russell suddenly blossomed as a driver the moment he stepped into the Merc

 

Hulk lost qualifying in his first weekend to... Lance Stroll. Stroll's Q3 lap was 7 tenths faster than Hulk's Q2 lap. Interestingly, Hulk's Q1 lap was faster than his Q2 lap - (which would have gotten him into Q3 (!). Takes some time to built that consistency when you jump into a new car.

 

I agree with you that the car performance implicitly is taken into account, especially for the top cars. I mean, Hamilton getting 9's in the media for his Imola drive was just bs. Qualifying behind Bottas and beating a broken Bottas car... well kudos kudos . 

[Kalmake]

By the tiniest margins, in - again - his first wknd in a top car, his first time in Q3, his first time in a 2020 Mercedes, with a flimsy seating position, cut of shoes, helmet too high (how many thousands of a second did that cost?)

And besides: what rating did Hamilton get for Imola, where Bottas beat him in qualifying?

You don't have to give bonus for those excuses. You can just rate the performance.

 

Hamilton 7, Bottas 8. What's your point?

[Ivanhoe]

Bottas also clearly left some time on the table in quali. Not saying George didn't do great, but a 10 is more based on sentiments than on pure driver performance.

[Retrofly]

He got beaten in qualifying though.

Thats why its a 9.

 

Max should take a leaf out of Schumacher's book and drive across the runoff in practice. Might have been able to avoid the wall this weekend if he had

[Requiem84]

You don't have to give bonus for those excuses. You can just rate the performance.

Hamilton 7, Bottas 8. What's your point?

It’s not an excuse. Its context.

Do you expect any driver ever to do equally well in the first race in a car without preparation compared to a race in a car when he’s fully prepared and has been driving that car for seasons long?

[shure]

Hulk lost qualifying in his first weekend to... Lance Stroll. Stroll's Q3 lap was 7 tenths faster than Hulk's Q2 lap. Interestingly, Hulk's Q1 lap was faster than his Q2 lap - (which would have gotten him into Q3 (!). Takes some time to built that consistency when you jump into a new car.

 

I agree with you that the car performance implicitly is taken into account, especially for the top cars. I mean, Hamilton getting 9's in the media for his Imola drive was just bs. Qualifying behind Bottas and beating a broken Bottas car... well kudos kudos . 

Be fair.  Hulk's Q2 lap was 0.065s slower than Stroll's.  That's pretty much as close as you can get. Agree that consistency may take a little time but Russell also had the benefit of recent F1 experience to help him, while Hulk came in pretty cold - he only got the call late Thursday afternoon!  I think Hulk's main issue was getting used to F1 again, not trying to adapt to the car. Factor that in and he hit the ground at a reasonable canter.

[Requiem84]

Be fair.  Hulk's Q2 lap was 0.065s slower than Stroll's.  That's pretty much as close as you can get. Agree that consistency may take a little time but Russell also had the benefit of recent F1 experience to help him, while Hulk came in pretty cold - he only got the call late Thursday afternoon!  I think Hulk's main issue was getting used to F1 again, not trying to adapt to the car. Factor that in and he hit the ground at a reasonable canter.

 

While being slower than his Q3 lap ánd while leaving - at least - a whopping 7 tenths on the table as shown by Stroll in Q3. And we all agree that Stroll is no Bottas on Saturdays. 

 

For me that performance was less impressive than Russell. Hulk's second Silverstone race was perhaps equally impressive as Russell's Bahrain 2 race. 

[mjjTT]

Leclerc barely misses him anyway, if he slows down, he slows into Leclercs path.

 

At first I thought LeClerc just missed Verstappen. But yesterday I saw some pictures where Leclerq has a black circular smug on the left side of his front wing, after Verstappen and Leclerc crossed paths.

This smug was not there after Leclerc crashed into Perez.

 

Not sure if I am allowed to share copyrighted pictures here, so I attached some links to web pages with the pictures.

 

After Leclerc crashed into Perez

https://www.planetf1...-leclerc-crash/

 

After Verstappen and Leclerc crossed path

https://nl.motorspor...keloos/4922658/

[Kalmake]

It’s not an excuse. Its context.

Do you expect any driver ever to do equally well in the first race in a car without preparation compared to a race in a car when he’s fully prepared and has been driving that car for seasons long?

Is the rating for potential of the driver or the performance they actually delivered? For me, it makes sense to adjust for car performance and luck that happens in the event, anything else is needles complication.

[shure]

While being slower than his Q3 lap ánd while leaving - at least - a whopping 7 tenths on the table as shown by Stroll in Q3. And we all agree that Stroll is no Bottas on Saturdays. 

 

For me that performance was less impressive than Russell. Hulk's second Silverstone race was perhaps equally impressive as Russell's Bahrain 2 race. 

I'd just like to point out that Bottas and Russell both left a pretty decent 4 tenths on the table this Saturday, too.  And both of them didn't have to acclimatise back into F1.  I think an additional 3 tenths isn't that bad at all for Hulk under the circumstances.

 

Regardless, the point I was making was that adapting to another car - disregarding trying to re-learn F1 at the same time - doesn't appear to be the big hurdle most of us assumed it might be, given that on both occasions it has happened the drivers in question performed pretty well with few signs they were struggling.  Which helps put some of the performances in perspective

[Requiem84]

I'd just like to point out that Bottas and Russell both left a pretty decent 4 tenths on the table this Saturday, too.  And both of them didn't have to acclimatise back into F1.  I think an additional 3 tenths isn't that bad at all for Hulk under the circumstances.

 

Regardless, the point I was making was that adapting to another car - disregarding trying to re-learn F1 at the same time - doesn't appear to be the big hurdle most of us assumed it might be, given that on both occasions it has happened the drivers in question performed pretty well with few signs they were struggling.  Which helps put some of the performances in perspective

 

How do you come up with 4 tenths?

[shure]

How do you come up with 4 tenths?

Bottas Q2 53.803 vs Q2 53.377 difference just over 4 tenths

Russell Q2 53.819 vs Q3 53.403 difference just over 4 tenths

 

Almost identical difference, funnily enough.  one hundredth in it

[Requiem84]

Bottas Q2 53.803 vs Q2 53.377 difference just over 4 tenths

Russell Q2 53.819 vs Q3 53.403 difference just over 4 tenths

 

Almost identical difference, funnily enough.  one hundredth in it

 

So why did they leave 4 tenths on the table then in Q3? 

[shure]

So why did they leave 4 tenths on the table then in Q3? 

I don't quite follow.  You said Stroll improved by 7 tenths in Q3 over his Q2 time, which meant that Hulk left those 7 tenths on the table (because his Q2 was nearly identical to Stroll's).  I was pointing out that it's not uncommon for drivers to improve significantly from Q2 to Q3 and drew a parallel with another driver recently new to a team.

[Requiem84]

I don't quite follow.  You said Stroll improved by 7 tenths in Q3 over his Q2 time, which meant that Hulk left those 7 tenths on the table (because his Q2 was nearly identical to Stroll's).  I was pointing out that it's not uncommon for drivers to improve significantly from Q2 to Q3 and drew a parallel with another driver recently new to a team.

 

Err.. Bottas and Russell set their Q2 times on mediums and then went on to softs...

[shure]

Err.. Bottas and Russell set their Q2 times on mediums and then went on to softs...

ah yes of course!  Fair point, well played!

[smitten]

For me, it makes sense to adjust for car performance and luck that happens in the event, anything else is needles complication.

 

So you what would you score Perez at on Sunday?  Arguably second or third fastest car, and had the luck of at least 3 or 4 faster packages ahead of him dropping out/behind.  So you'd 'adjust' for both those factors?

 

See I'd rate him highly - feel-good story (and lets not pretend that anyone is truly objective when it is ll so subjective anyway),  kept it together under pressure towards the end, kept it together after a disastrous start (involved in an incident some other drivers would be castigated for), etc.   Would Gasly have got a 10 at Monza if he hadn't of had the 'luck' of Hamilton transgressing and coping a penalty.

 

You make you own luck, and I don't think you can really adjust for it.

 

 

[FTB]

This was terribly boring. Not too enthused and really struggled to rate them but here we go:

First of all, ratings of the final race:

Verstappen 9 Albon 6.5

Bottas 7.5 Hamilton 7

Norris 8 Sainz 7.5

Ricciardo 8 Ocon 7

Gasly 7.5 Kvyat 7

Stroll 6 Perez N/A

Raikkonen 7.5 Giovinazzi 6

Leclerc 8 Vettel 7

Russell 7 Latifi 6

Magnussen 6.5 Fittipaldi 6

 

 

And this is the total ratings of the 2020 F1 season from me:

1 Max Verstappen 8.56

2 Lewis Hamilton 8.34

3 Charles Leclerc 7.85

4 Daniel Ricciardo 7.82

5 Sergio Perez 7.54

6 Carlos Sainz 7.38

7 Pierre Gasly 7.22

8 Lando Norris 7.15

9 Valtteri Bottas 7.00

10 George Russell 6.79

11 Esteban Ocon 6.74

12 Kimi Raikkonen 6.62

13 Sebastian Vettel 6.45

14 Kevin Magnussen 6.38

14 Daniil Kvyat 6.38

16 Lance Stroll 6.22

17 Romain Grosjean 6.10

18 Antonio Giovinazzi 6.00

19 Nicholas Latifi 5.68

20 Alexander Albon 5.62

 

Reserves

Hulkenberg 6.67

Fittipaldi  5.75

Aitken 5.5

Edited by FTB, 13 December 2020 - 18:12.

[Lights]

Btw, I'm open to make another overview of Autosport forum member ratings as I did mid-season. Didn't announce it back then I realized more people were interested.

 

So if you share your driver year ratings here (or you can send them to me) before Wednesday, I'll group them together and see where we as a forum ended up on! 

Edited by Lights, 14 December 2020 - 14:52.

[Marklar]

well then, for the season, idk

Verstappen 9
Hamilton 9
Ricciardo 8
Leclerc 8
Sainz 7
Norris 7
Gasly 7
Perez 7
Russell 6.5
Bottas 6
Raikkonen 6
Kvyat 5.5
Grosjean 5.5
Magnussen 5.5
Stroll 5.5
Ocon 5.5
Giovinazzi 5.5
Vettel 5.5
Latifi 5
Albon 5

[markelov74]

Verstappen 9
Hamilton 9
Ricciardo 8.5
Leclerc 8.5
Perez 8
Sainz 7.5
Gasly 7.5
Norris 7
Bottas 6.5
Russell 6.5
Ocon 6.5
Raikkonen 6
Vettel 5.5
Stroll 5.5
Kvyat 5.5
Magnussen 5
Giovinazzi 5
Albon 4.5
Grosjean 4.5
Latifi 4

[Lights]

Alright, here's the 2020 season overview:

 

 

The +- column comparing us with the media takes the averages of both columns into account.

A few interesting observations:

• The media generally gives higher ratings (+0.56) and in a much narrower window (2.79) than we do (3.66) when looking at the best and worst rated driver.
• Probably because of the previous point, drivers at the top of the list seem underrated by them while drivers at the bottom seem overrated by them. It wasn't possible for me to cancel this out.
• As a team, the Ferrari drivers are by far the most underrated by the media. I put that down to expectations from previous seasons that they couldn't match and the media unable to deal with that correctly. They also seem to put the large gap between Leclerc and Vettel purely on Vettel's struggles, instead of considering that perhaps Leclerc improved as a driver as well.

[shure]

 

Alright, here's the 2020 season overview:

 

 

The +- column comparing us with the media takes the averages of both columns into account.

A few interesting observations:

• The media generally gives higher ratings (+0.56) and in a much narrower window (2.79) than we do (3.66) when looking at the best and worst rated driver.
• Probably because of the previous point, drivers at the top of the list seem underrated by them while drivers at the bottom seem overrated by them. It wasn't possible for me to cancel this out.
• As a team, the Ferrari drivers are by far the most underrated by the media. I put that down to expectations from previous seasons that they couldn't match and the media unable to deal with that correctly. They also seem to put the large gap between Leclerc and Vettel purely on Vettel's struggles, instead of considering that perhaps Leclerc improved as a driver as well.

 

you've put a lot of work in here and I don't mean to criticise - in fact I broadly agree - but I really don't understand the Perez love from everyone.  The RP was easily the 3rd best car and was arguably knocking on the door of the RB, but Perez was all over the place with his results.  Given how poor Albon was, he should have been nailing 4th all season long but his results were up and down and he made a much bigger meal of 4th in the WDC than he should have done, even allowing for his missed race.  He did have good races, to be fair to him, but his consistency was way off.  Having said that, not entirely sure where I'd put him if I'm honest but given he didn't maximise the potential of the car I think that should count against him

[Ivanhoe]

Thanks for that Lights. Don’t exactly understanding how the +/- column works though. How did you calculate those numbers?

[Lights]

you've put a lot of work in here and I don't mean to criticise - in fact I broadly agree - but I really don't understand the Perez love from everyone.  The RP was easily the 3rd best car and was arguably knocking on the door of the RB, but Perez was all over the place with his results.  Given how poor Albon was, he should have been nailing 4th all season long but his results were up and down and he made a much bigger meal of 4th in the WDC than he should have done, even allowing for his missed race.  He did have good races, to be fair to him, but his consistency was way off.  Having said that, not entirely sure where I'd put him if I'm honest but given he didn't maximise the potential of the car I think that should count against him

 

In terms of making a meal of 4th in the WDC, yeah I get that on paper that's very much what it looks like. But unlike Hamilton and Stroll who missed 1 race, Perez actually missed 2 races, 12% of the season.

It's also plausible that he was struggling with COVID after-effects in the following races (they just weren't spoken about like they were with Stroll and Hamilton), and he was unfortunate in Monza as well.

All of this l meant that for a few races he wasn't getting the (pretty good looking) upgrades his teammate had.

 

It's not that surprising that he struggled to secure P4, as at this stage of the season Perez was very much on the back foot. But as explained above I don't think it's fair to put that all on his consistency.

Overall I don't think he maximized the potential of the car, but then again, very few drivers did. I could understand someone making the case for Sainz or maybe Gasly to be rated above Perez, but that's very much it. 

What I find a lot more surprising is the media rating Perez above Leclerc and Ricciardo, which is something the people in this thread at least didn't do.

So I'm not sure if I see the same 'Perez love' as you do, unless you were talking about the media, and then I'd probably agree with you, that they rate him an 8.1, just 0.5 down from Verstappen, is very questionable.

 

Thanks for that Lights. Don’t exactly understanding how the +/- column works though. How did you calculate those numbers?

 

I wanted to compare our ratings with those of the media. But as the media apparently gives significantly higher ratings than we do, I took the average of both columns and inserted that difference into the calculation.

So for example, Verstappen was rated 8.79 by us and 8.62 by the media, which is a difference of -0.17. But the average rating of the media is about 0.56 higher, which makes the 'net' difference -0.72.

I found it gave a clearer picture of who was over- or underrated by either side.