176 replies to this topic

[jcbc3]

Autosport changing their ratings: https://www.autospor...wards/10437393/

 

Plus content, so here goes. In the future only raceday performance counts. Still have 1-10 rating. 10 is not reserved for other worldly races but the bar is higher than before. So expect less of these. Examples of what would score a 10 is Verstappen in Spa 2022 and Hamilton's Silverstone 2008. Even if Hamilton had a slight off, he was still crushingly dominant.

[William Hunt]

British drivers or Max will still get a point extra from Autosport like in the past? And will Perez still automatically get a point less from Autosport? They always had the worst (most biased) ratings of all F1 media.

[jcbc3]

British drivers or Max will still get a point extra from Autosport like in the past? And will Perez still automatically get a point less from Autosport? They always had the worst (most biased) ratings of all F1 media.

 

Funny you should say so:

 

 

 

Simplicity in a complex and very popular motorsport division is also a key aim. Plus, we hope it’ll reduce the tiresome accusations of ‘bias’ towards or against drivers of certain nationalities.

[SenorSjon]

I think we can skip their ratings now? Others do have the whole weekend.

[JimmyClark]

It still *has* to take qualifying into account to some extent. 

 

You can't have a Haas getting a miraculous top 2 spot, then shuffling back down to 11th and their natural position after 300km and give a crap rating. 

 

Or if Max's car is dominant, but he crashes into a wall in Q1, starts last, then easily wins due to DRS fly-bys and other cars falling off the road and give that a 10. 

[Lowgrip]

It still *has* to take qualifying into account to some extent. 

 

You can't have a Haas getting a miraculous top 2 spot, then shuffling back down to 11th and their natural position after 300km and give a crap rating. 

 

Or if Max's car is dominant, but he crashes into a wall in Q1, starts last, then easily wins due to DRS fly-bys and other cars falling off the road and give that a 10. 

 

That's the reason why drivers who excel in qualifying will always be punished in those rating, viceversa the guys who are not (always) excellent on saturdays will generally score higher.

Take Leclerc for example. 

Edited by Lowgrip, 28 February 2023 - 14:07.

[jcbc3]

It still *has* to take qualifying into account to some extent. 

 

You can't have a Haas getting a miraculous top 2 spot, then shuffling back down to 11th and their natural position after 300km and give a crap rating. 

 

Or if Max's car is dominant, but he crashes into a wall in Q1, starts last, then easily wins due to DRS fly-bys and other cars falling off the road and give that a 10. 

 

Funny you should say so:

 

 

But perhaps the most important change we’ve made that is worth your consideration, is that from now our ratings will only concern the race action each GP weekend.

This will mean that, without a potent qualifying result boosting an otherwise unremarkable race, drivers will likely receive more lower and fewer higher scores. For example, under our old system, a Williams driver making Q3 and then finishing outside the top 10 in the race was nailed on for a ‘8’ or similar. Now, they’re much more likely to come down a few marks simply for executing a ‘par’ race performance.

[jcbc3]

And this will end my direct quoting of the article. Fair use limit reached.

[as65p]

Quote

 

But perhaps the most important change we’ve made that is worth your consideration, is that from now our ratings will only concern the race action each GP weekend.

This will mean that, without a potent qualifying result boosting an otherwise unremarkable race, drivers will likely receive more lower and fewer higher scores. For example, under our old system, a Williams driver making Q3 and then finishing outside the top 10 in the race was nailed on for a ‘8’ or similar. Now, they’re much more likely to come down a few marks simply for executing a ‘par’ race performance.

 

 

That quote shows a much bigger problem in their "thinking" (using the term losely). It implies finishing position determines race day performance and rating. Why not, let's have that. Oh wait, the rules already assign points in order of finishing positions!

 

Brainiacs, eh?
 

Edited by as65p, 28 February 2023 - 15:02.

[KWSN - DSM]

I like that the change in how they only rate the races, if driver taking Pole against normal odds, then in race is holding on and finish as strong as he possibly can against much better competition, and the ranking score will be given accordingly. I have always felt that the many outlets we post rankings from have over ranked most.

 

10 - Should be the exceedingly rare, very, very special occasional rank. *

9 - A very special and strong race

8 - Most common high mark of a race

 

* Any driver winning his first race will get a 10 by me, does not matter if running last and everyone fall of track on last lap, and you pirouette backwards across the finish line, first win is a 10.

 

P.S. Nationality is not the over ranking, perceived greatness is.

[Lights]

This is basically Autosport declaring that from now on their driver ratings will be even ĺess accurate.

Qualifying can be a critical element of a race result. If you have the best car, bin it in Q1, to then drive well with great overtakes to finish 4th, you still shouldn't deserve high marks. You should have won from the front row. But it sounds like Autosport will ignore this logic.

[Anderis]

Qualifying is an integral part of a race weekend. What's the point of rating the race day alone? Are we going to praise drivers in top cars for crashing out of Q1 or getting a self-inflicted grid penalty in a FPS and then doing an OK recovery drive in the race, because they gained so many positions? Are we going to pretend that a driver who qualified 13th after a poor performance and finished 4th a few seconds behind his team mate who qualified 3rd and finished 3rd was actually the one who did better? You see where this is going. Either they're going to backtrack on that rule a lot of times or we're going to get some utterly absurd ratings.

[GuilhermeMach]

I have been following F1 for two decades now and nothing will convince me these media ratings have any relevancy whatsoever. The methodology will always be flawed and it’s not going to change anyone’s opinion. Giving number grades to something as nuanced as F1 driver performance over a weekend is almost offensive considering the complexity and depth motorsport has to offer. As usual in media nowadays, this serves only to generate clicks

[jcbc3]

Planetf1.com

 

Ratings explained: Every driver starts the weekend slap bang in the middle with a 5/10 rating and we operate on a sliding scale from there. We take the entire weekend into account, not just the race itself.

However, the scores will be weighted more towards a driver’s race performance, but qualifying performances (good or bad) are also factored into our ratings and, in extreme circumstances, practice will also play a minor part in the overall score.

 

Max Verstappen 10

Sergio Perez 8.5

Fernando Alonso 10

Carlos Sainz 6

Lewis Hamilton 7.5

Lance Stroll 8.5

George Russell 7

Valtteri Bottas 8

Pierre Gasly 9

Alex Albon 8.5

Yuki Tsunoda 7.5

Logan Sargeant 8

Kevin Magnussen 7

Nyck de Vries 6.5

Nico Hülkenberg 5.5

Zhou Guanyu 6.5

Lando Norris 6.5

Esteban Ocon 4.5

Charles Leclerc 8

Oscar Piastri 5

[Laster]

Well the race have changed how they do this, they no longer doing out of 10 scores instead ranking the drivers in order. So I guess they won’t be able to be used in the average scores anymore.

[jcbc3]

Ratings explained: The 20 drivers will be ranked in order of performance from best to worst on each grand prix weekend. This will be based on the full range of criteria ranging from pace and racecraft to consistency and whether or not they made key mistakes. How close each driver got to delivering on the maximum performance potential of the car will be an essential consideration.

This creates what might be called a ‘zero-sum’ ratings system whereby there is a finite amount of ‘credit’ to be awarded (the 20 ranking positions).

 

As if Edd Straw couldn't embarass himself more, I hereby give you his ranking:

 

Alonso

Albon

Verstappen

Leclerc

Stroll

Bottas

Tsunoda

Hamilton

Perez

Norris

Sainz

Russell

Sargeant

Gasly

Hülkenberg

Piastri

Guanyu

Magnussen

de Vries

Ocon

[JimmyClark]

Ratings explained: The 20 drivers will be ranked in order of performance from best to worst on each grand prix weekend. This will be based on the full range of criteria ranging from pace and racecraft to consistency and whether or not they made key mistakes. How close each driver got to delivering on the maximum performance potential of the car will be an essential consideration.
This creates what might be called a ‘zero-sum’ ratings system whereby there is a finite amount of ‘credit’ to be awarded (the 20 ranking positions).

As if Edd Straw couldn't embarass himself more, I hereby give you his ranking:

Alonso
Albon
Verstappen
Leclerc
Stroll
Bottas
Tsunoda
Hamilton
Perez
Norris
Sainz
Russell
Sargeant
Gasly
Hülkenberg
Piastri
Guanyu
Magnussen
de Vries
Ocon

What a terrible system. I guess he must have had a lot of abuse for his ratings so ditched them, but can't see this going much better.

[balmybaldwin]

 

Planetf1.com

 

Ratings explained: Every driver starts the weekend slap bang in the middle with a 5/10 rating and we operate on a sliding scale from there. We take the entire weekend into account, not just the race itself.

However, the scores will be weighted more towards a driver’s race performance, but qualifying performances (good or bad) are also factored into our ratings and, in extreme circumstances, practice will also play a minor part in the overall score.

 

Max Verstappen 10

Sergio Perez 8.5

Fernando Alonso 10

Carlos Sainz 6

Lewis Hamilton 7.5

Lance Stroll 8.5

George Russell 7

Valtteri Bottas 8

Pierre Gasly 9

Alex Albon 8.5

Yuki Tsunoda 7.5

Logan Sargeant 8

Kevin Magnussen 7

Nyck de Vries 6.5

Nico Hülkenberg 5.5

Zhou Guanyu 6.5

Lando Norris 6.5

Esteban Ocon 4.5

Charles Leclerc 8

Oscar Piastri 5

 

That seems overly harsh on Piastri...  had to race a dog of a car and was doing well until the car broke....  seems a lot better than 0.5 ahead of Ocon would suggest

[Laptom]

Ratings explained: The 20 drivers will be ranked in order of performance from best to worst on each grand prix weekend. This will be based on the full range of criteria ranging from pace and racecraft to consistency and whether or not they made key mistakes. How close each driver got to delivering on the maximum performance potential of the car will be an essential consideration.
This creates what might be called a ‘zero-sum’ ratings system whereby there is a finite amount of ‘credit’ to be awarded (the 20 ranking positions).

As if Edd Straw couldn't embarass himself more, I hereby give you his ranking:

Alonso
Albon
Verstappen
Leclerc
Stroll
Bottas
Tsunoda
Hamilton
Perez
Norris
Sainz
Russell
Sargeant
Gasly
Hülkenberg
Piastri
Guanyu
Magnussen
de Vries
Ocon

He takes the finishing order and alter the standings on the applause the drivers get during the weekend?

[alexsab]

Hi all,

 

The new rating systems from Autosport and The Race are interesting, though I'm not convinced that disregarding qualifying performance - Autosport's new approach - is a wise idea... It's also worth noting that this will have much more of a bearing on their scores than being slightly less generous in terms of handing out 10s (which I reckon is sensible). Yet they spent more time (i.e. words) explaining/justifying the latter change than the former.

 

Whatever their merits, the new scoring systems certainly make it trickier to compare ratings across publications! Not only are the criteria different - which could probably be covered with the appropriate asterisks/caveats - but Edd Straw's ranking system can't easily be converted into scores out of 10.

 

Yet I think it would be a shame to narrow the range of ratings which are aggregated in a table, and I'm not persuaded that other publications apply much rigour to the task. For example, to take a few gripes I have with Planet's ratings for Bahrain... they state that qualifying performances are factored into their scores, yet they give Gasly (who drove a great race but had a stinker of a qualifying) a 9; I can't understand why Perez (who did a good competent job but was soundly beaten by Verstappen in qualifying and the race) should score higher than Leclerc (who wrung everything there was out of the Ferrari); and the McLaren drivers' scores seem pretty harsh given the car's lack of competitiveness and reliability. Sure, we can argue the toss about other publications' ratings (and do so all the time given their inevitably subjective nature), but let's just say I'm not impressed by these Planet ones as a potential substitute for The Race.

 

I'll try to think of a way of converting Edd's rankings to ratings - possibly bracketing 2-3 drivers in increments of 0.5 across a range of 9.5 down to 2.5, which was his typical scoring range last year - and incorporating them into a composite score, but not sure it's going to be feasible... 

 

Alex

Edited by alexsab, 06 March 2023 - 11:22.

[Ivanhoe]

Autosport

 

Max Verstappen 9

Sergio Perez 8

Fernando Alonso 9

Carlos Sainz 6

Lewis Hamilton 7

Lance Stroll 9

George Russell 6

Valtteri Bottas 8

Pierre Gasly 9

Alex Albon 8

Yuki Tsunoda 6

Logan Sargeant 7

Kevin Magnussen 5

Nyck de Vries 5

Nico Hülkenberg 4

Zhou Guanyu 5

Lando Norris 7

Esteban Ocon 3

Charles Leclerc 8

Oscar Piastri 5

[Astandahl]

 

Autosport

 

Max Verstappen 9

Sergio Perez 8

Fernando Alonso 9

Carlos Sainz 6

Lewis Hamilton 7

Lance Stroll 9

George Russell 6

Valtteri Bottas 8

Pierre Gasly 9

Alex Albon 8

Yuki Tsunoda 6

Logan Sargeant 7

Kevin Magnussen 5

Nyck de Vries 5

Nico Hülkenberg 4

Zhou Guanyu 5

Lando Norris 7

Esteban Ocon 3

Charles Leclerc 8

Oscar Piastri 5

 

Perez and Lec same score?

 

It begins

[Beamer]

Autosport

Max Verstappen 9
Sergio Perez 8
Fernando Alonso 9
Carlos Sainz 6
Lewis Hamilton 7
Lance Stroll 9
George Russell 6
Valtteri Bottas 8
Pierre Gasly 9
Alex Albon 8
Yuki Tsunoda 6
Logan Sargeant 7
Kevin Magnussen 5
Nyck de Vries 5
Nico Hülkenberg 4
Zhou Guanyu 5
Lando Norris 7
Esteban Ocon 3
Charles Leclerc 8
Oscar Piastri 5

Can anybody explain what Max should have done different to get a 10?

[GentlemanDriver091]

Can anybody explain what Max should have done different to get a 10?

Fastest lap? Leading every race lap?

[mclara]

Can anybody explain what Max should have done different to get a 10?

Isnt that properly explained in the OP?

[Lowgrip]

Can anybody explain what Max should have done different to get a 10?

Qualify second and win the race 

 

What would you say then about the 7 and 6 of Hamilton and Russell?

I guess they will never get a 9 with this terrible car?

It shows you how useless these ratings are.

Edited by Lowgrip, 06 March 2023 - 11:09.

[MastaKink]

Gasly and Stroll same rating as Alonso and Max 

 

Nice of Autosport to let us know straight out of the gate their ratings are going to be even more useless than feared with the change I suppose. 

[TomNokoe]

How do the media fall for this Alonso "comeback" strategy all the time? His qualifying lap, first lap and first stint overall weren't that strong.

 

The AM was comfortably 2nd fastest and he made hard work of it.

Edited by TomNokoe, 06 March 2023 - 11:30.

[jcbc3]

That seems overly harsh on Piastri...  had to race a dog of a car and was doing well until the car broke....  seems a lot better than 0.5 ahead of Ocon would suggest

 

Piastris score is completely according to the explanation of how they rate. He qualified where he was supposed to and his race was compromised by factors outside his control. Hence: Every driver starts the weekend slap bang in the middle with a 5/10 rating

[Gareth]

Piastris score is completely according to the explanation of how they rate. He qualified where he was supposed to and his race was compromised by factors outside his control. Hence: Every driver starts the weekend slap bang in the middle with a 5/10 rating

Then the Ocon one makes no sense at all.

 

The idea you only lose 0.5 for his Keystone Cops routine this weekend can't be right!

 

(generally all these ratings so far have mainly been entertaining for the lols though)

[Beamer]

Qualify second and win the race 

 

What would you say then about the 7 and 6 of Hamilton and Russell?

I guess they will never get a 9 with this terrible car?

It shows you how useless these ratings are.

 

Agree on that. I think HAM got the maximum possible out of the car. 

[Beamer]

Isnt that properly explained in the OP?

 

Paywall. Can't read the articcle. 

[DeKnyff]

Gasly and Stroll same rating as Alonso and Max 

 

Considering that Stroll was injured, his performance was excellent.

[MastaKink]

Considering that Stroll was injured, his performance was excellent.

 

Sure but he also lost comfortably to his team mate and nearly took them both out just on Sunday. If we're not taking Saturday's into account then I'm not taking their pre season testing (or lack thereof) or physical condition entering the Sunday into account either. Context matters or it doesn't.

 

Max also should've had some daylight between him and Alo as well, even half a point at least.

[milestone 11]

And this will end my direct quoting of the article. Fair use limit reached.

I'd always thought Autosport plus was a perk of the job for mods.

[jcbc3]

Since all publications have different ideas and rating system, let med suggest to whoever make the collective rankings that we just collect positions from first to last and then average it out.

[jcbc3]

I'd always thought Autosport plus was a perk of the job for mods.

 

Even if it is/was it wouldn't give me the right to quote a paywall article in full on the free boards.

[milestone 11]

Even if it is/was it wouldn't give me the right to quote a paywall article in full on the free boards.

I getcha.

[William Hunt]

What a terrible system. I guess he must have had a lot of abuse for his ratings so ditched them, but can't see this going much better.

 

We could still make an Ed Straw year ranking by giving 20 pts to the driver he rates first and 1 pt to the one he rates 20th and then adding all points up. It's his system and his personal opinion in the end so he's entitled to use any system he wants.

[TomNokoe]

What a terrible system. I guess he must have had a lot of abuse for his ratings so ditched them, but can't see this going much better.

Yes, I agree, I preferred the ratings. This seems to have been motivated because the majority of readers didn't understand the "ratings" system which prompted too much unfair abuse.

[William Hunt]

Agree on that. I think HAM got the maximum possible out of the car. 

 

Personally I thought Hamilton's performance was outstanding, he might have even been the strongest driver during the race if you consider that his car / the Mercedes is lacking half a second per lap on pace and that the Mercedes is clearly behind Aston Martin & Ferrari.

Lewis in the past has had 9 or 10/10 ratings for winning a race in a completely dominant car. But fighting hard and imho driving great in the 4th best car doesn't give you automatically a high score because those media outlets clearly let the quality of the car and the end result weighing through too much.

I don't think Stroll deserves such a high rating higher because the Aston Martin is probably the 2nd best car right now so maximimising performance meant he should have been 4th behind Alonso. Stroll had a good points finish mainly because his car is easy to drive and very competitive.
Sargeant had a very strong debut imho, he was the best rookie.

Edited by William Hunt, 06 March 2023 - 12:20.

[jcbc3]

William Hunt said:

 

We could still make an Ed Straw year ranking by giving 20 pts to the driver he rates first and 1 pt to the one he rates 20th and then adding all points up. It's his system and his personal opinion in the end so he's entitled to use any system he wants.

 

Tried really fast (i.e. errors may occur)

 

 

 

 

But it still have the issue that e.g. Hülkenberg was weighed up by some by his qualification and not by Autosport. Same with Gasly in reverse. He got the credit fror the race but not the debet for his qualifying.

Edited by jcbc3, 06 March 2023 - 12:45.

[Spillage]

Can anybody explain what Max should have done different to get a 10?

Be British.

[dissident]

How do the media fall for this Alonso "comeback" strategy all the time? His qualifying lap, first lap and first stint overall weren't that strong.

 

The AM was comfortably 2nd fastest and he made hard work of it.

 

Agreed.

 

Great result and great to see him back at the sharp end of the grid, but there was more than one scruffy moment...

[Spillage]

How do the media fall for this Alonso "comeback" strategy all the time? His qualifying lap, first lap and first stint overall weren't that strong.

The AM was comfortably 2nd fastest and he made hard work of it.

I was just thinking this. He was lucky to escape that bump with Sainz without damage too. It's great to see him back at the sharp end but I don't think it was a 10/10 performance. I suppose he perhaps gets a pass as it was his first weekend with the team.

Edited by Spillage, 06 March 2023 - 12:37.

[alexsab]

Auto Motor und Sport

 

Verstappen - 10

Alonso - 10

Stroll - 10

Leclerc - 9

Perez - 9

Albon - 9

Hamilton - 8

Bottas - 8

Sargeant - 8

Russell - 7

Sainz - 7

Norris - 7

Tsunoda - 7

Hulkenberg - 7

Gasly - 6

Guanyu - 6

Magnussen - 6

Piastri - 5

De Vries - 5

Ocon - 4

[William Hunt]

I find it a bit harsh to rate Ocon a 4 after he qualified that Alpine, which is clearly not that competitive, as 9th and got in Q3. Sure his race was appalling, amassing 15 penalty seconds, but qualifying is also part of the weekend and he excelled there.

 

Also strange that Tsunoda got a 7 and Albon a 9 even though Tsunoda finished the race right behind Albon after he had shadowed Albon all race (1.5 to 2 seconds behind the Williams). 
The reason that Tsunoda didn't manage to pass Albon was most likely because of a higher straight line speed of the Williams. So in reality Tsunoda's performance certainly wasn't worth 2 points less (7 instead of 9), it was probably an equal driving performance as Albon. Both should have been rated an 8 imho or Albon 9 (since Williams is a small underdog team and a point means a lot to them) and Tsunoda (who had a fine weekend, outclassed de Vries and only just missed out on a point) an 8.

 

On Piastri I do find the 5 rating correct. Sure he had a dog of a car but he didn't show anything either. He was lacklustre.

Edited by William Hunt, 06 March 2023 - 13:37.

[Marklar]

I was just thinking this. He was lucky to escape that bump with Sainz without damage too. It's great to see him back at the sharp end but I don't think it was a 10/10 performance. I suppose he perhaps gets a pass as it was his first weekend with the team.

it's hype.

We have this every year for the driver/s of the "most improved" team, even more when it's a popular driver.

[Primo]

Autosport changing their ratings: https://www.autospor...wards/10437393/

 

Plus content, so here goes. In the future only raceday performance counts. Still have 1-10 rating. 10 is not reserved for other worldly races but the bar is higher than before. So expect less of these. Examples of what would score a 10 is Verstappen in Spa 2022 and Hamilton's Silverstone 2008. Even if Hamilton had a slight off, he was still crushingly dominant.

I'm surprised, and a bit disappointed, in how they kind of hung out Lando there. Basically saying, "Lando did not like his ratings so we change them for him". Not very professional IMO.

[Primo]

What a terrible system. I guess he must have had a lot of abuse for his ratings so ditched them, but can't see this going much better.

Might actually be better - imagine if Max gets obsessed by Straw's ranking system and in order to get a 10 he constantly drives his car to the absolute limit and thereby produces enough DNF's to bring someone else in contention for the title?