38 replies to this topic

[JimmyClark]

Quite often recently there have been discussions around dominant teams, most recently in the F1 2025 Silly Season thread (I'm reading that word so often now I'm starting to get semantic satiation with it). It seemed sensible to start a thread as it seems to be discussed a lot. 

 

Should there be a defined measure of how dominant a car/team is? I'm just going to speak from the F1 perspective but of course its relevent in other series too. 

 

I used to loosely define a dominant season as winning 70%+ of races, but actually that would preclude some very strong cars from that list (eg McLaren '89, Red Bull '13). However, reducing the % wins means there will be an overdefinition of domination. For example, in a 20 race season, one team winning 12 races (60%) seems quite a straightforward strong year for them, however if you then see that only one other team won the other 8 races, then suddenly that's not much difference at all. Or, going fully extreme, a team winning 8 races in a 20 race season with 12 different teams winning one each could be seen the other way. 

 

So my personal metric has evolved to looking at both the straight up races won and how far behind the second team was - so for me to go on a dominant season list, the team with most wins should have: a) won 60%+ of the races run and b) won 2.5x or more than the team in 2nd place. 

 

In that case, of the last 36 years (1988 onwards), I'd class the true 'domination' seasons as: 

 

1988 - McLaren

1989 - McLaren

1996 - Williams

2002 - Ferrari

2004 - Ferrari

2013 - Red Bull 

2014 - Mercedes

2015 - Mercedes

2016 - Mercedes

2019 - Mercedes

2020 - Mercedes

2022 - Red Bull

2023 - Red Bull 

 

And this is the list of years where only one of the criteria were reached, so let's call this 'mildly dominant' seasons by a team but not on the ultimate list: 

1992 - Williams

1993 - Williams

1995 - Benetton

2011 - Red Bull

2017 - Mercedes

 

I'm not proposing this as definitive, and I don't think there is a right or wrong answer as there are so many factors at play beyond mere results, but this is my personal measure. What are your definitions / thoughts on this topic? 

Edited by JimmyClark, 06 June 2024 - 13:49.

[Secretariat]

I appreciate your effort in trying to define it. I will preface my definition by saying discussing dominant cars/teams/drivers is akin to style points. Whether a team/driver wins by 1 point or 100 points, (1 seconds vs. 30 seconds) the outcome is the outcome. For example, if a driver chooses to operate with a win at the slowest speed possible philosophy, how does that impact the definitions or perceptions that people may have about dominance? Nevertheless, in participating in this discussion my general though is:

 

Domination is if a team wins 66% of the races. But because sometimes you cannot win all the races, I also think about the percentage of points a team gets out of the maximum points available. What is that threshold? I don't know as I have not done calculations. However, it would not be that difficult to establish an average of what some of these teams achieved as to establish a threshold percentage. Additionally, one can devise a metric with these percentages and incorporate a reliability score. Thus highlighting some important variables: does the team win races? If they don't do they score points? Do they build a reliable car/not get into accidents?

[messy]

I just think dominant means that, aside from an unexpected issue like reliability or whatever, only one team is going to have the speed to win. The odd outlier like Singapore last year doesn't stop it being a dominant season but a genuine challenge, even if only for part of the season, does. So 2017, 2018 and 2019 weren't dominant seasons, but 1992 was. 2011, 2013 and 2022 are odd ones because they only become dominant seasons mid way through, but when they did, they REALLY did. I think maybe McLaren won too many races on merit in 2011 for it to qualify, but 2013/22 do. Just my own opinion though.

Edited by messy, 06 June 2024 - 14:35.

[Collombin]

Feels intuitively strange for Williams 1992 not to qualify for the main list. Adding some laps led % criterion would put that right.

[PayasYouRace]

Given that I’ve heard Lotus and Ferrari described as respectively dominating 1978 and 1979, I think that’s a minimum bar to set. I’d go a lot higher. Something like if the championship is guaranteed for one of your drivers by 2/3rds of the season.

[Anderis]

I don't think there's one right way to define dominance because each best car is somewhere on the spectrum between "just barely the best" and "winning 100% with ease". There's no way to draw a line and say "the domination starts here", especially because using just one metric of raw results rarely tells the whole picture. There will always be an element of subjective judgement when you try to do it.

 

That doesn't mean we couldn't have an interesting discussion about which of our imperfect ways to define dominance is the least imperfect. I'll think for a while and maybe I'll come up with something.

[PayasYouRace]

It’s more a qualitative assessment than a quantitative one, I think.

[DeKnyff]

If I'm not mistaken, only Tyrrell in 1971 and McLaren in 1984 would fulfill both criteria in the period from 1966 (start of the 3-litre Formula) to 1987. Close call for Matra in 1969. Close call also for Stewart as a driver in 1971. Before 1966, there were too few races for a statistical analysis.

[PayasYouRace]

If I'm not mistaken, only Tyrrell in 1971 and McLaren in 1984 would fulfill both criteria in the period from 1966 (start of the 3-litre Formula) to 1987. Close call for Matra in 1969. Close call also for Stewart as a driver in 1971. Before, 1966, there were too few races for a statistical analysis.

Shows how relying on statistics can give poor answers. 1950, 1955, 1961, 1963 and 1965 were dominated to extremes.

[eibyyz]

Given that I’ve heard Lotus and Ferrari described as respectively dominating 1978 and 1979, I think that’s a minimum bar to set. I’d go a lot higher. Something like if the championship is guaranteed for one of your drivers by 2/3rds of the season.

 

Yeah, Lotus winning 8 out of 16 seems kinda pedestrian these days.

[DeKnyff]

Given that I’ve heard Lotus and Ferrari described as respectively dominating 1978 and 1979, I think that’s a minimum bar to set. I’d go a lot higher. Something like if the championship is guaranteed for one of your drivers by 2/3rds of the season.

 

By no means Ferrari was dominant in 1979. Lotus in 1978 maybe after the debut of the 79, but it was only at the 6th race. And then they lost Peterson.

[Anderis]

It’s more a qualitative assessment than a quantitative one, I think.

You're right. An exaggerated example: If one car had 24/24 pole positions, but another car was under 0.01 seconds of pole position in every single qualifying session, was the first car really dominant? I would say probably no.

 

But we should probably more lean towards determining if a team was dominant, not a car, because in the example above, you'll always have some fans arguing that one driver was better than the other and the car alone was actually more/less dominant than it seems from raw results. And if we try to include a measure how to drag driver performance into this, it becomes an unsolvable mess.

[Secretariat]

If one was to consider an actual metric of F1 dominance for a driver/team, I think it would be/could be similar to basketball (NBA) player efficiency ratings. To collect already highlighted variables and some others into account: win%, points%, laps led%, pole position%, reliability/race finish% measured against a theoretical dominant season or aggregation of WCC champion results.

[PayasYouRace]

By no means Ferrari was dominant in 1979. Lotus in 1978 maybe after the debut of the 79, but it was only at the 6th race. And then they lost Peterson.

Just going by Murray Walker’s words [1].

[1] Murray’s Magic Moments, Austrian Video, 1997.

[Collombin]

Success can work against a team's stats too. If Ferrari hadn't already clinched its championships in 1961, do you think they'd have skipped the final race?

[Anderis]

Ok, so I have come up with my own criteria for a dominant season.

 

A team has been dominant when all of the conditions below are true:
- they won more than 50% of all races

- they won more than 50% of all qualifying sessions (though, for seasons when they qualified with fuel for the race I would say if their fuel-corrected times were the best, but I don't think we have good stats on this apart from 2009)

- they headed into the last race of the season with both WDC and WCC already secure

- the 2nd best team had fewer than 65% of the best team's race wins

It's just a provisional set, I'm ready to modify it if someone makes a good argument.

[Sterzo]

How are we going to decide on a dominant definition of dominance?

[Secretariat]

How are we going to decide on a dominant definition of dominance?

Through good stewardship of internet community building, presented proposals and a final poll. Disclaimer: I might have said this before to you, but I default to consensus. Also, I am prone to being perhaps naively optimistic.

 

Nevertheless, it actually would be kind of cool if there were some community held definitions for some things which could probably make discussions, debates, and so on more "cleaner" and less tangential.

[Autodromo]

I just figured I'd give two thumbs up to JimmyClark for putting this out there for everyone to toss stones at.  It's a good starting point for sure.

[PayasYouRace]

Ok, so I have come up with my own criteria for a dominant season.

 

A team has been dominant when all of the conditions below are true:
- they won more than 50% of all races

- they won more than 50% of all qualifying sessions (though, for seasons when they qualified with fuel for the race I would say if their fuel-corrected times were the best, but I don't think we have good stats on this apart from 2009)

- they headed into the last race of the season with both WDC and WCC already secure

- the 2nd best team had fewer than 65% of the best team's race wins

It's just a provisional set, I'm ready to modify it if someone makes a good argument.

How do McLaren in 1984 fare with your qualifying point?

[Anderis]

How do McLaren in 1984 fare with your qualifying point?

Hmm, yes, that's an issue.

Perhaps I should make a system "x out of y conditions must be true". Or make a caveat that my system only works from a certain year onwards. F1 used to be very different in the past and since I didn't watch it back then, I'm not capable of coming up with solutions that work for that era.

[chrcol]

Ok, so I have come up with my own criteria for a dominant season.

 

A team has been dominant when all of the conditions below are true:
- they won more than 50% of all races

- they won more than 50% of all qualifying sessions (though, for seasons when they qualified with fuel for the race I would say if their fuel-corrected times were the best, but I don't think we have good stats on this apart from 2009)

- they headed into the last race of the season with both WDC and WCC already secure

- the 2nd best team had fewer than 65% of the best team's race wins

It's just a provisional set, I'm ready to modify it if someone makes a good argument.

Feels like that is too lenient.

 

I like what is put in the OP's post.

Edited by chrcol, 07 June 2024 - 06:11.

[Mark A]

I know this is a hard one to define based purely on numbers but surely a dominant season is where, like last year, the expectation at a GP weekend is that a particular driver or car is expected to win, and if they don't it's a pleasant surprise.

I looked at the years from the OP and his list could be argued as being dominant years, the issue with my criteria comes from the knowledge of the years and peoples perception at the time, 1988 and 2023 are easy to state as dominant, then probably some of the Lewis/Mercedes years, Vettel/RB, JV/Williams, for those years I remember I was basically expecting one of the McLarens, RB's, Mercs or Williams to win.

Similarly watching in the Mansell/Piquet era at Williams, they were going to win or break down, or that's my memory, the stats don't back that up, and in one year Prost actually beat them to the championship in the McLaren, which perhaps disproves expectation as a criteria (or maybe it's just my bad memory)

[PayasYouRace]

Similarly watching in the Mansell/Piquet era at Williams, they were going to win or break down, or that's my memory, the stats don't back that up, and in one year Prost actually beat them to the championship in the McLaren, which perhaps disproves expectation as a criteria (or maybe it's just my bad memory)

Probably not helped by them using the same car from both years, but 1986 and 1987 were very different seasons. 1986 was much closer across the board, and Prost and McLaren were much more able to fight Williams on merit, whereas they had things much their own way in 1987, barring reliability and injury (both drivers missed races though injury). They ended winning the same number of races, but in qualifying they were much faster in ‘87.

[Brian60]

Defining dominance in my mind is simple. It's an equation of the fastest/best driver with the fastest/best car. Nothing more nothing less. You could for instance have the current Red Bull chassis driven by Stroll/Sargeant etc and it might be good enough for a top 5, more likely 5 -10. Or you could put Max in the current Williams but no matter how good he is, its not going to win a race or finish in the top 5.

 

SO as ever, dominance is simple, best car/best driver, will always be on top. And there is the conundrum of F1, we complain but unless it goes to spec cars (which nobody wants) that metric will never change. Even with spec cars (like other series) It would still come down to the best 3 or 4 drivers every time, the rest of the field are left scrapping for places.

[Anderis]

Defining dominance in my mind is simple. It's an equation of the fastest/best driver with the fastest/best car. Nothing more nothing less.

Yeah, good luck defining the fastest/best driver in a simple way.

[Anderis]

Feels like that is too lenient.

It's meant to be several rather lenient conditions. It's not that easy to fulfil them all at the same time but I wanted something that would classify most disputable seasons as dominant. Again, it comes down to how you understand dominance. I would lean towards concluding that if a team has ammassed more success than all the other teams combined and it's not been a close championship fight, then the season was dominant.
 

[PlatenGlass]

Hmm, yes, that's an issue.

Perhaps I should make a system "x out of y conditions must be true". Or make a caveat that my system only works from a certain year onwards. F1 used to be very different in the past and since I didn't watch it back then, I'm not capable of coming up with solutions that work for that era.

You'll never encapsulate dominance in such a way. It's too complex and nuanced.

[ArnageWRC]

Mani Lettenbichler define dominance; 6/6 wins last season, and 10 successive Hard Enduro rounds across 3 seasons.......

[PlatenGlass]

Johnny Mowlem in 1997.

[danmills]

The RB19 was not dominant, just very reliably the best.

 

The MP4/4 was the ultimate dominator definition. If it had a strap on, the entire field would be pregnant. Lapping 1.5s ahead of the third place car is monstrous. 

[lewislorenzo]

The RB19 was not dominant.

😂😂😂😂
Tell me another car that was quick in all corners, all conditions? Amazing top speed

The car had no weaknesses. It was Godly everywhere (except singapore) in the race it was rapid though.

One of the best cars ever

[danmills]

It was an exceptional car. But by comparison to the Mclaren, rivals ran closer to the RB19.

 

That's the difference. 1.5s a lap faster is way MORE dominant.

Edited by danmills, 07 June 2024 - 16:53.

[MikeTekRacing]

Tell me another car that was quick in all corners, all conditions? Amazing top speed

The car had no weaknesses. It was Godly everywhere (except singapore) in the race it was rapid though.

One of the best cars ever

when did you start following F1? What gaps did dominant cars had at that moment?

What was the qualy and race time difference between first team and 3rd team?

 

Don't confuse a perfect extraction of potential and execution during race weekends with a huge insurmountable gap. 

[Gravelngrass]

There would have to be some kind of measure for both cars in the team. For example, if a team won all races in a year with only one car and the other finished 3rd or 4th in the championship, is that more or less dominating than a team that won 66% of the races with the first car but the other was second in all of those? There would also have to be considerations about the time difference of those wins and those wins and seconds from the rest. 

[Secretariat]

There would have to be some kind of measure for both cars in the team. For example, if a team won all races in a year with only one car and the other finished 3rd or 4th in the championship, is that more or less dominating than a team that won 66% of the races with the first car but the other was second in all of those? There would also have to be considerations about the time difference of those wins and those wins and seconds from the rest. 

I think there is where points% and aggregate% of the other variables I mention maybe useful. Those percentages would be based on 2 cars.

[PlatenGlass]

It was an exceptional car. But by comparison to the Mclaren, rivals ran closer to the RB19.

 

That's the difference. 1.5s a lap faster is way MORE dominant.

 

Consistency is much greater now and cars get through races with far fewer problems. Being e.g. 0.2 seconds quicker is worth much more now than decades ago. So purely looking at time gaps doesn't tell the full story.

[PayasYouRace]

It was an exceptional car. But by comparison to the Mclaren, rivals ran closer to the RB19.

That's the difference. 1.5s a lap faster is way MORE dominant.

Gaps are much closer overall today. Winning every race but one is the most dominant display we’ve ever seen in the series, and only three teams, three cars, have achieved it. And the rivals of the MP4/4 ran it a lot closer than the Alfa 158.

[lewislorenzo]

when did you start following F1?

Long time ago mate