planetf1.com

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: No, it isn't

It certainly doesn't mean what you said.

Comparing with Vettel, who apparently had the best qualifying record of anyone as regards getting the very best out of the car

yes, fair enough, I don't think I expressed myself properly. I meant to say he was statistically the best at getting the theoretical maximum out of the car. Compare with Leclerc, who currently leaves a lot of time on the table

That's still saying the same thing, all Vettel is doing is stringing his own theoretical best lap together more often than other drivers.

*All* he's doing? If he's stringing his best possible lap together more often than anyone else, then he's getting the best he possibly can, surely? Which is the point the article is making

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: That extra set is the one drivers set their best laps on, usually, so I don't really see what's unfair about it

Because his one lap in Q3 is being compared with 2 laps on the limit in Q2, whereas Vettel is just being compared with one other fast lap in Q3 and not the one other in Q2 because there's not the need to be on the limit.

no that's not really true. The comparison was made with all the drivers and Vettel came out best and Leclerc worst. It illustrates that Leclerc still has a fair bit of work to do

I'm comparing specifically with Leclerc which the article is about after all and in that respect the comparison is unfair and somewhat bogus, the whole idea that a driver is a better qualifier because he happens to purple his best laps more than other drivers is also somewhat suspect.

The context is important, though. The fact is that they are going to partner next year and ifVettel is the best at this particular task and Leclerc the worst (which is where the context comes in), then Leclerc needs to raise his game a fair amount in order to be able to take the fight to Vettel. That's all that's being said here.

Zoue wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Exediron wrote:

kleefton wrote:Pretty rubbish article.
Leclerc is going to have a chance to prove himself against Seb. So let’s see how that goes before assuming that vettel already proved he is the better qualifier through some meaningless data shall we?
I can’t count how many times vettel admitted that he left time on the table.
Imo Leclerc will struggle to match Seb in the beginning of the season all due to experience but I fully expect Charles to catch up by seasons end and show up Seb in quali eventually. So let’s wait and see how it pans out. Let’s go Charles!

I don't think it's rubbish. I think it makes a valid point - Vettel tends to deliver his best effort (however good that may be) in Q3 when it counts, and that ability to string together his best sectors has been the difference between him and Kimi on many occasions. That's not to say that Vettel is faster than other drivers who don't combine their sectors as often, just that he's more capable of reliably accessing his own potential at the decisive moment.

Comparing a Ferrari driver who can pretty much make q3 with the car on cruise control to a Sauber driver that is going flat out from q1 is ridiculous.

All the top guys do in q1 and q2 is trying to get through and they don’t even have the engine settings to the max until sometimes the very last lap in q3. This means that they might not set their true theoretical best lap in q3 if the track had more grip prior to q3. The midfield drivers are obviously pushing all the time and sometimes you can see these guys set a better time in q2 than in q3 or in q1 than in q2. You never see that with the top 4 cars.

And even if Seb manages to often be able to save his best for last, as the article portrays, it won’t help him much if Leclerc is just flat out faster, because Seb just wouldn’t be able to match his best times. So yeah... I think it was a pretty rubbish comparison.

It isn't, really. The point is that Leclerc has the worst record of anyone on the grid and he can't claim to be the only midfield driver, so it's clearly an area where he can improve to be even better than he is. He's clearly quick, but maybe a bit rough around the edges. And now he's up against a team mate who has the best record of all of them, so including his own peers, which means that there's a benchmark for Leclerc to aim for. Bit puzzling why that should be controversial, tbh.

Rockie wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Rockie wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:So interesting article on motorsport.com comparing Leclerc and Vettel in qualifying. In a nutshell, it says that while Leclerc had some excellent qualifying performances and generally qualified higher than one would expect his car to be, it also suggested that he was fairly inconsistent overall. Comparing with Vettel, who apparently had the best qualifying record of anyone as regards getting the very best out of the car - which no doubt will be contentious for some - and Leclerc still has some catching up to do in qualifying at least.

Of course the flipside is that Leclerc still has room for improvement, while Vettel doesn't in theory have much more scope, but it suggests that Leclerc may have his work cut out matching Vettel in qualifying.

However, Leclerc also had the worst record of the entire grid for piecing together his theoretical best lap in qualifying.
On only three occasions did Leclerc combine his three best sectors on the same lap, and he also had the second-biggest average deficit between his actual lap time and his theoretical best, lapping 0.132s slower than he could have.

While this seems like harsh criticism, it is worth noting that Leclerc's 2019 Ferrari teammate Sebastian Vettel led the way for both theoretical-best metrics.

Vettel combined his three best sectors in 11 of 21 qualifying sessions, three more than any other driver. He was also top of the pile for his average deficit, giving away only 0.025s over the campaign.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/vett ... d/4325186/

Discuss

Combining your three best sectors doesn't equate to getting the most out of the car at all. With these tires you often have to hold back during part of your Q3 lap otherwise face a loss of grip before the lap is over (Singapore comes to mind). The article overreaches pretty dramatically. I'm not sure how Vettel could possibly be considered the best qualifier of 2018 when he frequently failed to get pole despite having the quickest car on the day. In races like Spa, Monza and Hungary Vettel bottled it when it mattered most in Q3.

Actually it does atleast what is humanly possible, it shows consistency and also when you start from the point Vettel is not a slow driver 3rd overall all time pole sitter, putting two fast laps together under pressure, your favourite couldn't do it from the article.

Were does it mention 2 fast laps, if you mess up one lap then it's so much easier to post all 3 fastest sectors in the other lap, it's like it's some new made up thing?

if someone puts their best sectors together you do understand, it is not from one lap you make a comparison right?

Black_Flag_11 wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Exediron wrote:

kleefton wrote:Pretty rubbish article.
Leclerc is going to have a chance to prove himself against Seb. So let’s see how that goes before assuming that vettel already proved he is the better qualifier through some meaningless data shall we?
I can’t count how many times vettel admitted that he left time on the table.
Imo Leclerc will struggle to match Seb in the beginning of the season all due to experience but I fully expect Charles to catch up by seasons end and show up Seb in quali eventually. So let’s wait and see how it pans out. Let’s go Charles!

I don't think it's rubbish. I think it makes a valid point - Vettel tends to deliver his best effort (however good that may be) in Q3 when it counts, and that ability to string together his best sectors has been the difference between him and Kimi on many occasions. That's not to say that Vettel is faster than other drivers who don't combine their sectors as often, just that he's more capable of reliably accessing his own potential at the decisive moment.

Comparing a Ferrari driver who can pretty much make q3 with the car on cruise control to a Sauber driver that is going flat out from q1 is ridiculous.

All the top guys do in q1 and q2 is trying to get through and they don’t even have the engine settings to the max until sometimes the very last lap in q3. This means that they might not set their true theoretical best lap in q3 if the track had more grip prior to q3. The midfield drivers are obviously pushing all the time and sometimes you can see these guys set a better time in q2 than in q3 or in q1 than in q2. You never see that with the top 4 cars.

And even if Seb manages to often be able to save his best for last, as the article portrays, it won’t help him much if Leclerc is just flat out faster, because Seb just wouldn’t be able to match his best times. So yeah... I think it was a pretty rubbish comparison.

I agree it heavily favours the top guys who can hold back until the final moments of Q3.

However the fact that Leclerc is bottom of the pile, even including drivers who are in a similar position of having to push all qualifying long, and that Vettel is top, even including drivers who can hold back until Q3, does indicate that there is something that could be taken away from this data: Vettel is relentlessly consistent in qualifying, whereas Leclerc hasn't been.

The fact one is a 4 time champion and the other is a rookie makes that hardly surprising, but I wouldn't have guessed that Vettel would be top and Leclerc bottom of everyone on the grid. So it points out just how strong/weak they have been in this area, and the huge challenge Leclerc will face this coming season.

Rockie wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Exediron wrote:

kleefton wrote:Pretty rubbish article.
Leclerc is going to have a chance to prove himself against Seb. So let’s see how that goes before assuming that vettel already proved he is the better qualifier through some meaningless data shall we?
I can’t count how many times vettel admitted that he left time on the table.
Imo Leclerc will struggle to match Seb in the beginning of the season all due to experience but I fully expect Charles to catch up by seasons end and show up Seb in quali eventually. So let’s wait and see how it pans out. Let’s go Charles!

I don't think it's rubbish. I think it makes a valid point - Vettel tends to deliver his best effort (however good that may be) in Q3 when it counts, and that ability to string together his best sectors has been the difference between him and Kimi on many occasions. That's not to say that Vettel is faster than other drivers who don't combine their sectors as often, just that he's more capable of reliably accessing his own potential at the decisive moment.

Comparing a Ferrari driver who can pretty much make q3 with the car on cruise control to a Sauber driver that is going flat out from q1 is ridiculous.

All the top guys do in q1 and q2 is trying to get through and they don’t even have the engine settings to the max until sometimes the very last lap in q3. This means that they might not set their true theoretical best lap in q3 if the track had more grip prior to q3. The midfield drivers are obviously pushing all the time and sometimes you can see these guys set a better time in q2 than in q3 or in q1 than in q2. You never see that with the top 4 cars.

And even if Seb manages to often be able to save his best for last, as the article portrays, it won’t help him much if Leclerc is just flat out faster, because Seb just wouldn’t be able to match his best times. So yeah... I think it was a pretty rubbish comparison.

I agree it heavily favours the top guys who can hold back until the final moments of Q3.

However the fact that Leclerc is bottom of the pile, even including drivers who are in a similar position of having to push all qualifying long, and that Vettel is top, even including drivers who can hold back until Q3, does indicate that there is something that could be taken away from this data: Vettel is relentlessly consistent in qualifying, whereas Leclerc hasn't been.

The fact one is a 4 time champion and the other is a rookie makes that hardly surprising, but I wouldn't have guessed that Vettel would be top and Leclerc bottom of everyone on the grid. So it points out just how strong/weak they have been in this area, and the huge challenge Leclerc will face this coming season.

Well said!

The problem arising here is that folks cant bring themselves to accept Vettel strength at qualifying.

pokerman wrote:

Rockie wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Exediron wrote: I don't think it's rubbish. I think it makes a valid point - Vettel tends to deliver his best effort (however good that may be) in Q3 when it counts, and that ability to string together his best sectors has been the difference between him and Kimi on many occasions. That's not to say that Vettel is faster than other drivers who don't combine their sectors as often, just that he's more capable of reliably accessing his own potential at the decisive moment.

Comparing a Ferrari driver who can pretty much make q3 with the car on cruise control to a Sauber driver that is going flat out from q1 is ridiculous.

All the top guys do in q1 and q2 is trying to get through and they don’t even have the engine settings to the max until sometimes the very last lap in q3. This means that they might not set their true theoretical best lap in q3 if the track had more grip prior to q3. The midfield drivers are obviously pushing all the time and sometimes you can see these guys set a better time in q2 than in q3 or in q1 than in q2. You never see that with the top 4 cars.

And even if Seb manages to often be able to save his best for last, as the article portrays, it won’t help him much if Leclerc is just flat out faster, because Seb just wouldn’t be able to match his best times. So yeah... I think it was a pretty rubbish comparison.

I agree it heavily favours the top guys who can hold back until the final moments of Q3.

However the fact that Leclerc is bottom of the pile, even including drivers who are in a similar position of having to push all qualifying long, and that Vettel is top, even including drivers who can hold back until Q3, does indicate that there is something that could be taken away from this data: Vettel is relentlessly consistent in qualifying, whereas Leclerc hasn't been.

The fact one is a 4 time champion and the other is a rookie makes that hardly surprising, but I wouldn't have guessed that Vettel would be top and Leclerc bottom of everyone on the grid. So it points out just how strong/weak they have been in this area, and the huge challenge Leclerc will face this coming season.

Well said!

The problem arising here is that folks cant bring themselves to accept Vettel strength at qualifying.

I think there is an attempt perhaps to put forward the notion that Vettel is the best qualifier but only 5 pole positions maybe tells a different tale?

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Exediron wrote:

kleefton wrote:Pretty rubbish article.
Leclerc is going to have a chance to prove himself against Seb. So let’s see how that goes before assuming that vettel already proved he is the better qualifier through some meaningless data shall we?
I can’t count how many times vettel admitted that he left time on the table.
Imo Leclerc will struggle to match Seb in the beginning of the season all due to experience but I fully expect Charles to catch up by seasons end and show up Seb in quali eventually. So let’s wait and see how it pans out. Let’s go Charles!

I don't think it's rubbish. I think it makes a valid point - Vettel tends to deliver his best effort (however good that may be) in Q3 when it counts, and that ability to string together his best sectors has been the difference between him and Kimi on many occasions. That's not to say that Vettel is faster than other drivers who don't combine their sectors as often, just that he's more capable of reliably accessing his own potential at the decisive moment.

Comparing a Ferrari driver who can pretty much make q3 with the car on cruise control to a Sauber driver that is going flat out from q1 is ridiculous.

All the top guys do in q1 and q2 is trying to get through and they don’t even have the engine settings to the max until sometimes the very last lap in q3. This means that they might not set their true theoretical best lap in q3 if the track had more grip prior to q3. The midfield drivers are obviously pushing all the time and sometimes you can see these guys set a better time in q2 than in q3 or in q1 than in q2. You never see that with the top 4 cars.

And even if Seb manages to often be able to save his best for last, as the article portrays, it won’t help him much if Leclerc is just flat out faster, because Seb just wouldn’t be able to match his best times. So yeah... I think it was a pretty rubbish comparison.

It isn't, really. The point is that Leclerc has the worst record of anyone on the grid and he can't claim to be the only midfield driver, so it's clearly an area where he can improve to be even better than he is. He's clearly quick, but maybe a bit rough around the edges. And now he's up against a team mate who has the best record of all of them, so including his own peers, which means that there's a benchmark for Leclerc to aim for. Bit puzzling why that should be controversial, tbh.

I'm not sure you either read or understood what kleefton was saying?

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: Because his one lap in Q3 is being compared with 2 laps on the limit in Q2, whereas Vettel is just being compared with one other fast lap in Q3 and not the one other in Q2 because there's not the need to be on the limit.

no that's not really true. The comparison was made with all the drivers and Vettel came out best and Leclerc worst. It illustrates that Leclerc still has a fair bit of work to do

I'm comparing specifically with Leclerc which the article is about after all and in that respect the comparison is unfair and somewhat bogus, the whole idea that a driver is a better qualifier because he happens to purple his best laps more than other drivers is also somewhat suspect.

The context is important, though. The fact is that they are going to partner next year and ifVettel is the best at this particular task and Leclerc the worst (which is where the context comes in), then Leclerc needs to raise his game a fair amount in order to be able to take the fight to Vettel. That's all that's being said here.

It's full of holes and doesn't take into account the different circumstances of the two drivers.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: yes, fair enough, I don't think I expressed myself properly. I meant to say he was statistically the best at getting the theoretical maximum out of the car. Compare with Leclerc, who currently leaves a lot of time on the table

That's still saying the same thing, all Vettel is doing is stringing his own theoretical best lap together more often than other drivers.

*All* he's doing? If he's stringing his best possible lap together more often than anyone else, then he's getting the best he possibly can, surely? Which is the point the article is making

That doesn't necessarily mean that he would beat Leclerc, what if Leclerc is naturally the quicker driver, also it's been explained how drivers don't always push hard for the whole lap if the tyres are going off, I've seen pole laps been made were the driver has deliberately gone that bit slower through sector one to look after the tyres, under this metric it wouldn't be classified as a great lap because by not purpling sector one the driver did not maximise his lap.

I find the notion that one driver will beat another driver because of being able to put all his purple sectors in one lap a bit of a nonsense.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Exediron wrote: I don't think it's rubbish. I think it makes a valid point - Vettel tends to deliver his best effort (however good that may be) in Q3 when it counts, and that ability to string together his best sectors has been the difference between him and Kimi on many occasions. That's not to say that Vettel is faster than other drivers who don't combine their sectors as often, just that he's more capable of reliably accessing his own potential at the decisive moment.

Comparing a Ferrari driver who can pretty much make q3 with the car on cruise control to a Sauber driver that is going flat out from q1 is ridiculous.

All the top guys do in q1 and q2 is trying to get through and they don’t even have the engine settings to the max until sometimes the very last lap in q3. This means that they might not set their true theoretical best lap in q3 if the track had more grip prior to q3. The midfield drivers are obviously pushing all the time and sometimes you can see these guys set a better time in q2 than in q3 or in q1 than in q2. You never see that with the top 4 cars.

And even if Seb manages to often be able to save his best for last, as the article portrays, it won’t help him much if Leclerc is just flat out faster, because Seb just wouldn’t be able to match his best times. So yeah... I think it was a pretty rubbish comparison.

It isn't, really. The point is that Leclerc has the worst record of anyone on the grid and he can't claim to be the only midfield driver, so it's clearly an area where he can improve to be even better than he is. He's clearly quick, but maybe a bit rough around the edges. And now he's up against a team mate who has the best record of all of them, so including his own peers, which means that there's a benchmark for Leclerc to aim for. Bit puzzling why that should be controversial, tbh.

I'm not sure you either read or understood what kleefton was saying?

I think I did, but I think too much focus is being placed on Vettel's position at the top of these particular standings. The point of the article is really more about where Leclerc needs to focus, as Vettel is clearly setting a pretty decent benchmark. Leclerc is also clearly quick, but if he's at the bottom of the standings for consistency, for want of a better word, then that means he's also doing worse than those in his peer group in that regard. That may work against Ericsson, but he might find Vettel a tougher standard to beat and so he will need to ensure he's not dropping time anywhere if he wants to come out on top

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Rockie wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:

kleefton wrote: Comparing a Ferrari driver who can pretty much make q3 with the car on cruise control to a Sauber driver that is going flat out from q1 is ridiculous.

All the top guys do in q1 and q2 is trying to get through and they don’t even have the engine settings to the max until sometimes the very last lap in q3. This means that they might not set their true theoretical best lap in q3 if the track had more grip prior to q3. The midfield drivers are obviously pushing all the time and sometimes you can see these guys set a better time in q2 than in q3 or in q1 than in q2. You never see that with the top 4 cars.

And even if Seb manages to often be able to save his best for last, as the article portrays, it won’t help him much if Leclerc is just flat out faster, because Seb just wouldn’t be able to match his best times. So yeah... I think it was a pretty rubbish comparison.

I agree it heavily favours the top guys who can hold back until the final moments of Q3.

However the fact that Leclerc is bottom of the pile, even including drivers who are in a similar position of having to push all qualifying long, and that Vettel is top, even including drivers who can hold back until Q3, does indicate that there is something that could be taken away from this data: Vettel is relentlessly consistent in qualifying, whereas Leclerc hasn't been.

The fact one is a 4 time champion and the other is a rookie makes that hardly surprising, but I wouldn't have guessed that Vettel would be top and Leclerc bottom of everyone on the grid. So it points out just how strong/weak they have been in this area, and the huge challenge Leclerc will face this coming season.

Well said!

The problem arising here is that folks cant bring themselves to accept Vettel strength at qualifying.

I think there is an attempt perhaps to put forward the notion that Vettel is the best qualifier but only 5 pole positions maybe tells a different tale?

would it help if the "best" was taken away and you just viewed it as Vettel near the top and Leclerc near the bottom?

I didn't post to try to big Vettel up. It's purely to highlight that if Leclerc wants to beat Vettel then he's going to probably have to up his game and be more consistent. He can't be dropping sectors against tough opposition like that.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: yes, fair enough, I don't think I expressed myself properly. I meant to say he was statistically the best at getting the theoretical maximum out of the car. Compare with Leclerc, who currently leaves a lot of time on the table

That's still saying the same thing, all Vettel is doing is stringing his own theoretical best lap together more often than other drivers.

*All* he's doing? If he's stringing his best possible lap together more often than anyone else, then he's getting the best he possibly can, surely? Which is the point the article is making

That doesn't necessarily mean that he would beat Leclerc, what if Leclerc is naturally the quicker driver, also it's been explained how drivers don't always push hard for the whole lap if the tyres are going off, I've seen pole laps been made were the driver has deliberately gone that bit slower through sector one to look after the tyres, under this metric it wouldn't be classified as a great lap because by not purpling sector one the driver did not maximise his lap.

I find the notion that one driver will beat another driver because of being able to put all his purple sectors in one lap a bit of a nonsense.

I don't think the article is saying that Vettel would definitely beat Leclerc. It's just saying that Vettel extracts the maximum that we know the car can do* in qualifying, whereas Leclerc doesn't, or at least he doesn't do it as often. It doesn't mean that Leclerc couldn't be quicker anyway, but if things are close then he needs to be better at extracting the most across the entire lap, not just parts of it.

If you're reading it as Vettel will always beat Leclerc then I think you're probably misunderstanding what the article is saying

*that doesn't mean the car definitely can't go quicker in somebody else's hands, but on the evidence available it hasn't yet gone any quicker in any sector

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Rockie wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote: I agree it heavily favours the top guys who can hold back until the final moments of Q3.

However the fact that Leclerc is bottom of the pile, even including drivers who are in a similar position of having to push all qualifying long, and that Vettel is top, even including drivers who can hold back until Q3, does indicate that there is something that could be taken away from this data: Vettel is relentlessly consistent in qualifying, whereas Leclerc hasn't been.

The fact one is a 4 time champion and the other is a rookie makes that hardly surprising, but I wouldn't have guessed that Vettel would be top and Leclerc bottom of everyone on the grid. So it points out just how strong/weak they have been in this area, and the huge challenge Leclerc will face this coming season.

Well said!

The problem arising here is that folks cant bring themselves to accept Vettel strength at qualifying.

I think there is an attempt perhaps to put forward the notion that Vettel is the best qualifier but only 5 pole positions maybe tells a different tale?

would it help if the "best" was taken away and you just viewed it as Vettel near the top and Leclerc near the bottom?

I didn't post to try to big Vettel up. It's purely to highlight that if Leclerc wants to beat Vettel then he's going to probably have to up his game and be more consistent. He can't be dropping sectors against tough opposition like that.

Well the article was only ever about Vettel and Leclerc in the first place, I think the dropping sectors is a bit of a red herring you don't dominate Ericsson the level that Leclerc did by constantly dropping sectors.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: That's still saying the same thing, all Vettel is doing is stringing his own theoretical best lap together more often than other drivers.

*All* he's doing? If he's stringing his best possible lap together more often than anyone else, then he's getting the best he possibly can, surely? Which is the point the article is making

That doesn't necessarily mean that he would beat Leclerc, what if Leclerc is naturally the quicker driver, also it's been explained how drivers don't always push hard for the whole lap if the tyres are going off, I've seen pole laps been made were the driver has deliberately gone that bit slower through sector one to look after the tyres, under this metric it wouldn't be classified as a great lap because by not purpling sector one the driver did not maximise his lap.

I find the notion that one driver will beat another driver because of being able to put all his purple sectors in one lap a bit of a nonsense.

I don't think the article is saying that Vettel would definitely beat Leclerc. It's just saying that Vettel extracts the maximum that we know the car can do* in qualifying, whereas Leclerc doesn't, or at least he doesn't do it as often. It doesn't mean that Leclerc couldn't be quicker anyway, but if things are close then he needs to be better at extracting the most across the entire lap, not just parts of it.

If you're reading it as Vettel will always beat Leclerc then I think you're probably misunderstanding what the article is saying

*that doesn't mean the car definitely can't go quicker in somebody else's hands, but on the evidence available it hasn't yet gone any quicker in any sector

I believe the article refers to Vettel maximising his own personal performance on a more consistent basis, did the article actually say that Vettel maximises the car itself on a more consistent basis in respect to other drivers?

In respect to Leclerc of course if the drivers are quite evenly matched then Vettel being more consistent will pay dividends for him but in that respect nobody knows how the land is going to lie in respect to who may be the quickest driver.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Rockie wrote: Well said!

The problem arising here is that folks cant bring themselves to accept Vettel strength at qualifying.

I think there is an attempt perhaps to put forward the notion that Vettel is the best qualifier but only 5 pole positions maybe tells a different tale?

would it help if the "best" was taken away and you just viewed it as Vettel near the top and Leclerc near the bottom?

I didn't post to try to big Vettel up. It's purely to highlight that if Leclerc wants to beat Vettel then he's going to probably have to up his game and be more consistent. He can't be dropping sectors against tough opposition like that.

Well the article was only ever about Vettel and Leclerc in the first place, I think the dropping sectors is a bit of a red herring you don't dominate Ericsson the level that Leclerc did by constantly dropping sectors.

well clearly he did drop sectors. I'm assuming these stats are factual, which means that he didn't always nail each sector in his flying laps, not as much as everyone else did.

Look, I know we've had debates before after qualifying where Driver X has been criticised for leaving time on the table in his flying lap because either he or his team mate has posted a faster sector time before. So I don't really get why all of a sudden it's not considered a valid metric

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: *All* he's doing? If he's stringing his best possible lap together more often than anyone else, then he's getting the best he possibly can, surely? Which is the point the article is making

That doesn't necessarily mean that he would beat Leclerc, what if Leclerc is naturally the quicker driver, also it's been explained how drivers don't always push hard for the whole lap if the tyres are going off, I've seen pole laps been made were the driver has deliberately gone that bit slower through sector one to look after the tyres, under this metric it wouldn't be classified as a great lap because by not purpling sector one the driver did not maximise his lap.

I find the notion that one driver will beat another driver because of being able to put all his purple sectors in one lap a bit of a nonsense.

I don't think the article is saying that Vettel would definitely beat Leclerc. It's just saying that Vettel extracts the maximum that we know the car can do* in qualifying, whereas Leclerc doesn't, or at least he doesn't do it as often. It doesn't mean that Leclerc couldn't be quicker anyway, but if things are close then he needs to be better at extracting the most across the entire lap, not just parts of it.

If you're reading it as Vettel will always beat Leclerc then I think you're probably misunderstanding what the article is saying

*that doesn't mean the car definitely can't go quicker in somebody else's hands, but on the evidence available it hasn't yet gone any quicker in any sector

I believe the article refers to Vettel maximising his own personal performance on a more consistent basis, did the article actually say that Vettel maximises the car itself on a more consistent basis in respect to other drivers?

In respect to Leclerc of course if the drivers are quite evenly matched then Vettel being more consistent will pay dividends for him but in that respect nobody knows how the land is going to lie in respect to who may be the quickest driver.

Did you not see the bit at the end of my post? The one you were replying to? It specifically answers that point!

Agree nobody knows the landscape. But whatever you think of Vettel most people would say he's a fairly decent qualifier. It's very doubtful he'd be a pushover, which means that Leclerc will probably have to dig deep and this article highlights that his consistency needs working on

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: I think there is an attempt perhaps to put forward the notion that Vettel is the best qualifier but only 5 pole positions maybe tells a different tale?

would it help if the "best" was taken away and you just viewed it as Vettel near the top and Leclerc near the bottom?

I didn't post to try to big Vettel up. It's purely to highlight that if Leclerc wants to beat Vettel then he's going to probably have to up his game and be more consistent. He can't be dropping sectors against tough opposition like that.

Well the article was only ever about Vettel and Leclerc in the first place, I think the dropping sectors is a bit of a red herring you don't dominate Ericsson the level that Leclerc did by constantly dropping sectors.

well clearly he did drop sectors. I'm assuming these stats are factual, which means that he didn't always nail each sector in his flying laps, not as much as everyone else did.

Look, I know we've had debates before after qualifying where Driver X has been criticised for leaving time on the table in his flying lap because either he or his team mate has posted a faster sector time before. So I don't really get why all of a sudden it's not considered a valid metric

I don't believe it's comparing teammates though only Vettel's own personal best sectors, maybe that's were we are getting crossed lines?

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: would it help if the "best" was taken away and you just viewed it as Vettel near the top and Leclerc near the bottom?

I didn't post to try to big Vettel up. It's purely to highlight that if Leclerc wants to beat Vettel then he's going to probably have to up his game and be more consistent. He can't be dropping sectors against tough opposition like that.

Well the article was only ever about Vettel and Leclerc in the first place, I think the dropping sectors is a bit of a red herring you don't dominate Ericsson the level that Leclerc did by constantly dropping sectors.

well clearly he did drop sectors. I'm assuming these stats are factual, which means that he didn't always nail each sector in his flying laps, not as much as everyone else did.

Look, I know we've had debates before after qualifying where Driver X has been criticised for leaving time on the table in his flying lap because either he or his team mate has posted a faster sector time before. So I don't really get why all of a sudden it's not considered a valid metric

I don't believe it's comparing teammates though only Vettel's own personal best sectors, maybe that's were we are getting crossed lines?

No I think the article takes the fastest sectors for the car, including both team mates, and compares them to the fastest overall lap achieved by the quickest driver. It then how well that driver did relative to the theoretical fastest lap the car could achieve.

On only three occasions did Leclerc combine his three best sectors on the same lap,

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: Well the article was only ever about Vettel and Leclerc in the first place, I think the dropping sectors is a bit of a red herring you don't dominate Ericsson the level that Leclerc did by constantly dropping sectors.

well clearly he did drop sectors. I'm assuming these stats are factual, which means that he didn't always nail each sector in his flying laps, not as much as everyone else did.

Look, I know we've had debates before after qualifying where Driver X has been criticised for leaving time on the table in his flying lap because either he or his team mate has posted a faster sector time before. So I don't really get why all of a sudden it's not considered a valid metric

I don't believe it's comparing teammates though only Vettel's own personal best sectors, maybe that's were we are getting crossed lines?

No I think the article takes the fastest sectors for the car, including both team mates, and compares them to the fastest overall lap achieved by the quickest driver. It then how well that driver did relative to the theoretical fastest lap the car could achieve.

Are you sure?

On only three occasions did Leclerc combine his three best sectors on the same lap,

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: well clearly he did drop sectors. I'm assuming these stats are factual, which means that he didn't always nail each sector in his flying laps, not as much as everyone else did.

Look, I know we've had debates before after qualifying where Driver X has been criticised for leaving time on the table in his flying lap because either he or his team mate has posted a faster sector time before. So I don't really get why all of a sudden it's not considered a valid metric

I don't believe it's comparing teammates though only Vettel's own personal best sectors, maybe that's were we are getting crossed lines?

No I think the article takes the fastest sectors for the car, including both team mates, and compares them to the fastest overall lap achieved by the quickest driver. It then how well that driver did relative to the theoretical fastest lap the car could achieve.

Are you sure?

On only three occasions did Leclerc combine his three best sectors on the same lap,

I think so, yes. in order for a driver to get the perfect score he has to set all of the fastest sectors. That's how I read it, anyway

Leclerc did improve, especially in the final races where he qualified in the top 10 for five of the last six grands prix, but even then he cost himself places on the grid by not putting together HIS theoretical best lap.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: I don't believe it's comparing teammates though only Vettel's own personal best sectors, maybe that's were we are getting crossed lines?

No I think the article takes the fastest sectors for the car, including both team mates, and compares them to the fastest overall lap achieved by the quickest driver. It then how well that driver did relative to the theoretical fastest lap the car could achieve.

Are you sure?

On only three occasions did Leclerc combine his three best sectors on the same lap,

I think so, yes. in order for a driver to get the perfect score he has to set all of the fastest sectors. That's how I read it, anyway

No I've edited that post to explain why the drivers times were combined, that's just to set the performance level of the car in respect to other cars, another part which shows it's just using the driver's own personal best sectors as a measure against himself.

Leclerc did improve, especially in the final races where he qualified in the top 10 for five of the last six grands prix, but even then he cost himself places on the grid by not putting together HIS theoretical best lap.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: No I think the article takes the fastest sectors for the car, including both team mates, and compares them to the fastest overall lap achieved by the quickest driver. It then how well that driver did relative to the theoretical fastest lap the car could achieve.

Are you sure?

On only three occasions did Leclerc combine his three best sectors on the same lap,

I think so, yes. in order for a driver to get the perfect score he has to set all of the fastest sectors. That's how I read it, anyway

No I've edited that post to explain why the drivers times were combined, that's just to set the performance level of the car in respect to other cars, another part which shows it's just using the driver's own personal best sectors as a measure against himself.

Leclerc did improve, especially in the final races where he qualified in the top 10 for five of the last six grands prix, but even then he cost himself places on the grid by not putting together HIS theoretical best lap.

yes I think you're right. Reading it again it takes the faster driver's fastest lap and then compares it to his theoretical fastest. It doesn't mix fast sectors between drivers, as I originally thought.

Still, I guess it doesn't really change the fact that Leclerc still could improve in getting the absolute best performance in his final lap, whereas Vettel appears to nail that better. Even more impressive from Leclerc's perspective really since he's still hammering his team mate while theoretically not doing his absolute best over the whole lap. It's probably something he will need to improve to beat drivers of a better calibre than Ericsson, though

TheGiantHogweed wrote:I didn't vote here. I think Vettel will win by a reasonable margin, but not a mile. But I don't think he's only just going to beat Leclect, So I won't go for the close option either.

What surprises me is that overall, 35% think Leclerc will beat Vettel. That is a pretty big percentage for a driver in his 2nd season against a 4 times WDC. With over 10 years in the sport and his 5th year with Ferrari. I know that Vettel lost out to Ricciardo in 2014, but there was a significant change in the cars that season and Ricciardo wasn't as inexperienced as Leclerc. With so many seasons at Ferrari now, I really struggle to see how it will even be close as Leclerc is getting used to the team. The orders are always stricter on one driver at this team anyway and I'm sure they will favour Vettel. To begin with, I expect the gap between Him and Vettel to be bigger than it was with Kimi there. But I do expect Leclerc will get very good in time.

I'm just not sure what some people are Basing Leclerc's performances on. I think he's been the best "rookie" in ages. but I don't think he's at the level of any of the other top drivers yet. Sauber improving so much this year and him having a rather weak team mate made many of his performances very over rated IMO. If not, then Ericsson has been seriously under rated for a few of his drivers this season. ANd given how badly Ericsson was rated (especially in wet weather), I find it interesting that on each wet occasion, Ericsson seemed better. Vettel may have crashed out of the race in Germany, which was not good at all, But if Leclerc had been in A ferrari that race, he would have effectively been last 2 if he made the same mistakes he did. Normally Vettel is decent in the wet, But from what we have seen, it seems Leclerc might have a weakness here.

I still think Leclerc is an extremelly good driver, but I think it has probably been one of the most over rated seasons in a while IMO. People often have a go at drivers like Bottas for under performing when it could just be the car not being right at the top and Hamilton is just so good that that makes him look bad. Leclerc's results have been mixed this year, and how do we know for sure that it is the car for some of his lower results. We don't really. But many seem to assume it the car and he's vertually always done well. I'm not so sure. I think the massive improvement from Sauber has made him look better than he is. He didn't totally destroy Ericsson in all areas the whole time, and I think he's a pretty not the best driver to judge Leclerc's season against.

I certainly could be wrong. I expected Verstappen to be quite some way of Ricciardo, but that isn't the case at all. But I don't think there are going to be many drivers that prove to be so good when they quickly move up to a top team. I don't think Vettel will have a hard job at all. for most of the season anyway.

TheGiantHogweed wrote:I didn't vote here. I think Vettel will win by a reasonable margin, but not a mile. But I don't think he's only just going to beat Leclect, So I won't go for the close option either.

What surprises me is that overall, 35% think Leclerc will beat Vettel. That is a pretty big percentage for a driver in his 2nd season against a 4 times WDC. With over 10 years in the sport and his 5th year with Ferrari. I know that Vettel lost out to Ricciardo in 2014, but there was a significant change in the cars that season and Ricciardo wasn't as inexperienced as Leclerc. With so many seasons at Ferrari now, I really struggle to see how it will even be close as Leclerc is getting used to the team. The orders are always stricter on one driver at this team anyway and I'm sure they will favour Vettel. To begin with, I expect the gap between Him and Vettel to be bigger than it was with Kimi there. But I do expect Leclerc will get very good in time.

I'm just not sure what some people are Basing Leclerc's performances on. I think he's been the best "rookie" in ages. but I don't think he's at the level of any of the other top drivers yet. Sauber improving so much this year and him having a rather weak team mate made many of his performances very over rated IMO. If not, then Ericsson has been seriously under rated for a few of his drivers this season. ANd given how badly Ericsson was rated (especially in wet weather), I find it interesting that on each wet occasion, Ericsson seemed better. Vettel may have crashed out of the race in Germany, which was not good at all, But if Leclerc had been in A ferrari that race, he would have effectively been last too if he made the same mistakes he did. Normally Vettel is decent in the wet, But from what we have seen, it seems Leclerc might have a weakness here.

I still think Leclerc is an extremely good driver, but I think it has probably been one of the most over rated seasons in a while IMO. People often have a go at drivers like Bottas for under performing when it could just be the car not being right at the top and Hamilton is just so good that that makes him look bad. Leclerc's results have been mixed this year, and how do we know for sure that it is the car for some of his lower results. We don't really. But many seem to assume it the car and he's virtually always done well. I'm not so sure. I think the massive improvement from Sauber has made him look better than he is. He didn't totally destroy Ericsson in all areas the whole time, and I think he's not the best driver to judge Leclerc's season against.

I certainly could be wrong. I expected Verstappen to be quite some way off Ricciardo, but that isn't the case at all. But I don't think there are going to be many drivers that prove to be so good when they quickly move up to a top team. I don't think Vettel will have a hard job at all. for most of the season anyway.

TheGiantHogweed wrote:I didn't vote here. I think Vettel will win by a reasonable margin, but not a mile. But I don't think he's only just going to beat Leclect, So I won't go for the close option either.

What surprises me is that overall, 35% think Leclerc will beat Vettel. That is a pretty big percentage for a driver in his 2nd season against a 4 times WDC. With over 10 years in the sport and his 5th year with Ferrari. I know that Vettel lost out to Ricciardo in 2014, but there was a significant change in the cars that season and Ricciardo wasn't as inexperienced as Leclerc. With so many seasons at Ferrari now, I really struggle to see how it will even be close as Leclerc is getting used to the team. The orders are always stricter on one driver at this team anyway and I'm sure they will favour Vettel. To begin with, I expect the gap between Him and Vettel to be bigger than it was with Kimi there. But I do expect Leclerc will get very good in time.

I'm just not sure what some people are Basing Leclerc's performances on. I think he's been the best "rookie" in ages. but I don't think he's at the level of any of the other top drivers yet. Sauber improving so much this year and him having a rather weak team mate made many of his performances very over rated IMO. If not, then Ericsson has been seriously under rated for a few of his drivers this season. ANd given how badly Ericsson was rated (especially in wet weather), I find it interesting that on each wet occasion, Ericsson seemed better. Vettel may have crashed out of the race in Germany, which was not good at all, But if Leclerc had been in A ferrari that race, he would have effectively been last too if he made the same mistakes he did. Normally Vettel is decent in the wet, But from what we have seen, it seems Leclerc might have a weakness here.

I still think Leclerc is an extremely good driver, but I think it has probably been one of the most over rated seasons in a while IMO. People often have a go at drivers like Bottas for under performing when it could just be the car not being right at the top and Hamilton is just so good that that makes him look bad. Leclerc's results have been mixed this year, and how do we know for sure that it is the car for some of his lower results. We don't really. But many seem to assume it the car and he's virtually always done well. I'm not so sure. I think the massive improvement from Sauber has made him look better than he is. He didn't totally destroy Ericsson in all areas the whole time, and I think he's not the best driver to judge Leclerc's season against.

I certainly could be wrong. I expected Verstappen to be quite some way off Ricciardo, but that isn't the case at all. But I don't think there are going to be many drivers that prove to be so good when they quickly move up to a top team. I don't think Vettel will have a hard job at all. for most of the season anyway.

BMWSauber84 wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:I didn't vote here. I think Vettel will win by a reasonable margin, but not a mile. But I don't think he's only just going to beat Leclect, So I won't go for the close option either.

What surprises me is that overall, 35% think Leclerc will beat Vettel. That is a pretty big percentage for a driver in his 2nd season against a 4 times WDC. With over 10 years in the sport and his 5th year with Ferrari. I know that Vettel lost out to Ricciardo in 2014, but there was a significant change in the cars that season and Ricciardo wasn't as inexperienced as Leclerc. With so many seasons at Ferrari now, I really struggle to see how it will even be close as Leclerc is getting used to the team. The orders are always stricter on one driver at this team anyway and I'm sure they will favour Vettel. To begin with, I expect the gap between Him and Vettel to be bigger than it was with Kimi there. But I do expect Leclerc will get very good in time.

I'm just not sure what some people are Basing Leclerc's performances on. I think he's been the best "rookie" in ages. but I don't think he's at the level of any of the other top drivers yet. Sauber improving so much this year and him having a rather weak team mate made many of his performances very over rated IMO. If not, then Ericsson has been seriously under rated for a few of his drivers this season. ANd given how badly Ericsson was rated (especially in wet weather), I find it interesting that on each wet occasion, Ericsson seemed better. Vettel may have crashed out of the race in Germany, which was not good at all, But if Leclerc had been in A ferrari that race, he would have effectively been last too if he made the same mistakes he did. Normally Vettel is decent in the wet, But from what we have seen, it seems Leclerc might have a weakness here.

I still think Leclerc is an extremely good driver, but I think it has probably been one of the most over rated seasons in a while IMO. People often have a go at drivers like Bottas for under performing when it could just be the car not being right at the top and Hamilton is just so good that that makes him look bad. Leclerc's results have been mixed this year, and how do we know for sure that it is the car for some of his lower results. We don't really. But many seem to assume it the car and he's virtually always done well. I'm not so sure. I think the massive improvement from Sauber has made him look better than he is. He didn't totally destroy Ericsson in all areas the whole time, and I think he's not the best driver to judge Leclerc's season against.

I certainly could be wrong. I expected Verstappen to be quite some way off Ricciardo, but that isn't the case at all. But I don't think there are going to be many drivers that prove to be so good when they quickly move up to a top team. I don't think Vettel will have a hard job at all. for most of the season anyway.

There seems to be this bizarre narrative amongst some that Ericsson held his own against Leclerc. It was about as comprehensive a drubbing as it realistically gets in modern F1. 39 points to 9 with Leclerc having one more retirement. More of Charles' retirements came from promising positions too.

The average qualifying gap was around 4 tenths too in Leclerc's favour. To put that into some perspective the quali gap between Wehrlein and Ericsson had been the closest on the grid last season.

BMWSauber84 wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:I didn't vote here. I think Vettel will win by a reasonable margin, but not a mile. But I don't think he's only just going to beat Leclect, So I won't go for the close option either.

What surprises me is that overall, 35% think Leclerc will beat Vettel. That is a pretty big percentage for a driver in his 2nd season against a 4 times WDC. With over 10 years in the sport and his 5th year with Ferrari. I know that Vettel lost out to Ricciardo in 2014, but there was a significant change in the cars that season and Ricciardo wasn't as inexperienced as Leclerc. With so many seasons at Ferrari now, I really struggle to see how it will even be close as Leclerc is getting used to the team. The orders are always stricter on one driver at this team anyway and I'm sure they will favour Vettel. To begin with, I expect the gap between Him and Vettel to be bigger than it was with Kimi there. But I do expect Leclerc will get very good in time.

I'm just not sure what some people are Basing Leclerc's performances on. I think he's been the best "rookie" in ages. but I don't think he's at the level of any of the other top drivers yet. Sauber improving so much this year and him having a rather weak team mate made many of his performances very over rated IMO. If not, then Ericsson has been seriously under rated for a few of his drivers this season. ANd given how badly Ericsson was rated (especially in wet weather), I find it interesting that on each wet occasion, Ericsson seemed better. Vettel may have crashed out of the race in Germany, which was not good at all, But if Leclerc had been in A ferrari that race, he would have effectively been last too if he made the same mistakes he did. Normally Vettel is decent in the wet, But from what we have seen, it seems Leclerc might have a weakness here.

I still think Leclerc is an extremely good driver, but I think it has probably been one of the most over rated seasons in a while IMO. People often have a go at drivers like Bottas for under performing when it could just be the car not being right at the top and Hamilton is just so good that that makes him look bad. Leclerc's results have been mixed this year, and how do we know for sure that it is the car for some of his lower results. We don't really. But many seem to assume it the car and he's virtually always done well. I'm not so sure. I think the massive improvement from Sauber has made him look better than he is. He didn't totally destroy Ericsson in all areas the whole time, and I think he's not the best driver to judge Leclerc's season against.

I certainly could be wrong. I expected Verstappen to be quite some way off Ricciardo, but that isn't the case at all. But I don't think there are going to be many drivers that prove to be so good when they quickly move up to a top team. I don't think Vettel will have a hard job at all. for most of the season anyway.

There seems to be this bizarre narrative amongst some that Ericsson held his own against Leclerc. It was about as comprehensive a drubbing as it realistically gets in modern F1. 39 points to 9 with Leclerc having one more retirement. More of Charles' retirements came from promising positions too.

The average qualifying gap was around 4 tenths too in Leclerc's favour. To put that into some perspective the quali gap between Wehrlein and Ericsson had been the closest on the grid last season.

pokerman wrote:

BMWSauber84 wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:I didn't vote here. I think Vettel will win by a reasonable margin, but not a mile. But I don't think he's only just going to beat Leclect, So I won't go for the close option either.

What surprises me is that overall, 35% think Leclerc will beat Vettel. That is a pretty big percentage for a driver in his 2nd season against a 4 times WDC. With over 10 years in the sport and his 5th year with Ferrari. I know that Vettel lost out to Ricciardo in 2014, but there was a significant change in the cars that season and Ricciardo wasn't as inexperienced as Leclerc. With so many seasons at Ferrari now, I really struggle to see how it will even be close as Leclerc is getting used to the team. The orders are always stricter on one driver at this team anyway and I'm sure they will favour Vettel. To begin with, I expect the gap between Him and Vettel to be bigger than it was with Kimi there. But I do expect Leclerc will get very good in time.

I'm just not sure what some people are Basing Leclerc's performances on. I think he's been the best "rookie" in ages. but I don't think he's at the level of any of the other top drivers yet. Sauber improving so much this year and him having a rather weak team mate made many of his performances very over rated IMO. If not, then Ericsson has been seriously under rated for a few of his drivers this season. ANd given how badly Ericsson was rated (especially in wet weather), I find it interesting that on each wet occasion, Ericsson seemed better. Vettel may have crashed out of the race in Germany, which was not good at all, But if Leclerc had been in A ferrari that race, he would have effectively been last too if he made the same mistakes he did. Normally Vettel is decent in the wet, But from what we have seen, it seems Leclerc might have a weakness here.

I still think Leclerc is an extremely good driver, but I think it has probably been one of the most over rated seasons in a while IMO. People often have a go at drivers like Bottas for under performing when it could just be the car not being right at the top and Hamilton is just so good that that makes him look bad. Leclerc's results have been mixed this year, and how do we know for sure that it is the car for some of his lower results. We don't really. But many seem to assume it the car and he's virtually always done well. I'm not so sure. I think the massive improvement from Sauber has made him look better than he is. He didn't totally destroy Ericsson in all areas the whole time, and I think he's not the best driver to judge Leclerc's season against.

I certainly could be wrong. I expected Verstappen to be quite some way off Ricciardo, but that isn't the case at all. But I don't think there are going to be many drivers that prove to be so good when they quickly move up to a top team. I don't think Vettel will have a hard job at all. for most of the season anyway.

There seems to be this bizarre narrative amongst some that Ericsson held his own against Leclerc. It was about as comprehensive a drubbing as it realistically gets in modern F1. 39 points to 9 with Leclerc having one more retirement. More of Charles' retirements came from promising positions too.

The average qualifying gap was around 4 tenths too in Leclerc's favour. To put that into some perspective the quali gap between Wehrlein and Ericsson had been the closest on the grid last season.

He did make Leclerc look a bit weak in the wet.

BMWSauber84 wrote:Yeah a bit. But wet weather is unlikely to play an enormous part in any given season.

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

BMWSauber84 wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:I didn't vote here. I think Vettel will win by a reasonable margin, but not a mile. But I don't think he's only just going to beat Leclect, So I won't go for the close option either.

What surprises me is that overall, 35% think Leclerc will beat Vettel. That is a pretty big percentage for a driver in his 2nd season against a 4 times WDC. With over 10 years in the sport and his 5th year with Ferrari. I know that Vettel lost out to Ricciardo in 2014, but there was a significant change in the cars that season and Ricciardo wasn't as inexperienced as Leclerc. With so many seasons at Ferrari now, I really struggle to see how it will even be close as Leclerc is getting used to the team. The orders are always stricter on one driver at this team anyway and I'm sure they will favour Vettel. To begin with, I expect the gap between Him and Vettel to be bigger than it was with Kimi there. But I do expect Leclerc will get very good in time.

I'm just not sure what some people are Basing Leclerc's performances on. I think he's been the best "rookie" in ages. but I don't think he's at the level of any of the other top drivers yet. Sauber improving so much this year and him having a rather weak team mate made many of his performances very over rated IMO. If not, then Ericsson has been seriously under rated for a few of his drivers this season. ANd given how badly Ericsson was rated (especially in wet weather), I find it interesting that on each wet occasion, Ericsson seemed better. Vettel may have crashed out of the race in Germany, which was not good at all, But if Leclerc had been in A ferrari that race, he would have effectively been last too if he made the same mistakes he did. Normally Vettel is decent in the wet, But from what we have seen, it seems Leclerc might have a weakness here.

I still think Leclerc is an extremely good driver, but I think it has probably been one of the most over rated seasons in a while IMO. People often have a go at drivers like Bottas for under performing when it could just be the car not being right at the top and Hamilton is just so good that that makes him look bad. Leclerc's results have been mixed this year, and how do we know for sure that it is the car for some of his lower results. We don't really. But many seem to assume it the car and he's virtually always done well. I'm not so sure. I think the massive improvement from Sauber has made him look better than he is. He didn't totally destroy Ericsson in all areas the whole time, and I think he's not the best driver to judge Leclerc's season against.

I certainly could be wrong. I expected Verstappen to be quite some way off Ricciardo, but that isn't the case at all. But I don't think there are going to be many drivers that prove to be so good when they quickly move up to a top team. I don't think Vettel will have a hard job at all. for most of the season anyway.

There seems to be this bizarre narrative amongst some that Ericsson held his own against Leclerc. It was about as comprehensive a drubbing as it realistically gets in modern F1. 39 points to 9 with Leclerc having one more retirement. More of Charles' retirements came from promising positions too.

The average qualifying gap was around 4 tenths too in Leclerc's favour. To put that into some perspective the quali gap between Wehrlein and Ericsson had been the closest on the grid last season.

I did try to word that carefully. And I still think it is clear that I think that Leclerc did still beat him by a long way. Leclerc also had a weaker 3 races and well as wet weather issues. I know they were his first few races, but given how hyped his season was, we should include them. Them and the wet races is enough to say Ericsson wasn't totally destroyed.

Exediron wrote:

BMWSauber84 wrote:Yeah a bit. But wet weather is unlikely to play an enormous part in any given season.

It can - Hamilton for example only won the 2008 title because of the unusual number of wet races that year. But I agree that as far as talents required to win a world championship, it's pretty far down the list.

pokerman wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

BMWSauber84 wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:I didn't vote here. I think Vettel will win by a reasonable margin, but not a mile. But I don't think he's only just going to beat Leclect, So I won't go for the close option either.

What surprises me is that overall, 35% think Leclerc will beat Vettel. That is a pretty big percentage for a driver in his 2nd season against a 4 times WDC. With over 10 years in the sport and his 5th year with Ferrari. I know that Vettel lost out to Ricciardo in 2014, but there was a significant change in the cars that season and Ricciardo wasn't as inexperienced as Leclerc. With so many seasons at Ferrari now, I really struggle to see how it will even be close as Leclerc is getting used to the team. The orders are always stricter on one driver at this team anyway and I'm sure they will favour Vettel. To begin with, I expect the gap between Him and Vettel to be bigger than it was with Kimi there. But I do expect Leclerc will get very good in time.

I'm just not sure what some people are Basing Leclerc's performances on. I think he's been the best "rookie" in ages. but I don't think he's at the level of any of the other top drivers yet. Sauber improving so much this year and him having a rather weak team mate made many of his performances very over rated IMO. If not, then Ericsson has been seriously under rated for a few of his drivers this season. ANd given how badly Ericsson was rated (especially in wet weather), I find it interesting that on each wet occasion, Ericsson seemed better. Vettel may have crashed out of the race in Germany, which was not good at all, But if Leclerc had been in A ferrari that race, he would have effectively been last too if he made the same mistakes he did. Normally Vettel is decent in the wet, But from what we have seen, it seems Leclerc might have a weakness here.

I still think Leclerc is an extremely good driver, but I think it has probably been one of the most over rated seasons in a while IMO. People often have a go at drivers like Bottas for under performing when it could just be the car not being right at the top and Hamilton is just so good that that makes him look bad. Leclerc's results have been mixed this year, and how do we know for sure that it is the car for some of his lower results. We don't really. But many seem to assume it the car and he's virtually always done well. I'm not so sure. I think the massive improvement from Sauber has made him look better than he is. He didn't totally destroy Ericsson in all areas the whole time, and I think he's not the best driver to judge Leclerc's season against.

I certainly could be wrong. I expected Verstappen to be quite some way off Ricciardo, but that isn't the case at all. But I don't think there are going to be many drivers that prove to be so good when they quickly move up to a top team. I don't think Vettel will have a hard job at all. for most of the season anyway.

There seems to be this bizarre narrative amongst some that Ericsson held his own against Leclerc. It was about as comprehensive a drubbing as it realistically gets in modern F1. 39 points to 9 with Leclerc having one more retirement. More of Charles' retirements came from promising positions too.

The average qualifying gap was around 4 tenths too in Leclerc's favour. To put that into some perspective the quali gap between Wehrlein and Ericsson had been the closest on the grid last season.

I did try to word that carefully. And I still think it is clear that I think that Leclerc did still beat him by a long way. Leclerc also had a weaker 3 races and well as wet weather issues. I know they were his first few races, but given how hyped his season was, we should include them. Them and the wet races is enough to say Ericsson wasn't totally destroyed.

No I don't think you can include his first 2 or 3 races, we see now that was not his true level, he was a rookie after all.

BMWSauber84 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

BMWSauber84 wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:I didn't vote here. I think Vettel will win by a reasonable margin, but not a mile. But I don't think he's only just going to beat Leclect, So I won't go for the close option either.

What surprises me is that overall, 35% think Leclerc will beat Vettel. That is a pretty big percentage for a driver in his 2nd season against a 4 times WDC. With over 10 years in the sport and his 5th year with Ferrari. I know that Vettel lost out to Ricciardo in 2014, but there was a significant change in the cars that season and Ricciardo wasn't as inexperienced as Leclerc. With so many seasons at Ferrari now, I really struggle to see how it will even be close as Leclerc is getting used to the team. The orders are always stricter on one driver at this team anyway and I'm sure they will favour Vettel. To begin with, I expect the gap between Him and Vettel to be bigger than it was with Kimi there. But I do expect Leclerc will get very good in time.

I'm just not sure what some people are Basing Leclerc's performances on. I think he's been the best "rookie" in ages. but I don't think he's at the level of any of the other top drivers yet. Sauber improving so much this year and him having a rather weak team mate made many of his performances very over rated IMO. If not, then Ericsson has been seriously under rated for a few of his drivers this season. ANd given how badly Ericsson was rated (especially in wet weather), I find it interesting that on each wet occasion, Ericsson seemed better. Vettel may have crashed out of the race in Germany, which was not good at all, But if Leclerc had been in A ferrari that race, he would have effectively been last too if he made the same mistakes he did. Normally Vettel is decent in the wet, But from what we have seen, it seems Leclerc might have a weakness here.

I still think Leclerc is an extremely good driver, but I think it has probably been one of the most over rated seasons in a while IMO. People often have a go at drivers like Bottas for under performing when it could just be the car not being right at the top and Hamilton is just so good that that makes him look bad. Leclerc's results have been mixed this year, and how do we know for sure that it is the car for some of his lower results. We don't really. But many seem to assume it the car and he's virtually always done well. I'm not so sure. I think the massive improvement from Sauber has made him look better than he is. He didn't totally destroy Ericsson in all areas the whole time, and I think he's not the best driver to judge Leclerc's season against.

I certainly could be wrong. I expected Verstappen to be quite some way off Ricciardo, but that isn't the case at all. But I don't think there are going to be many drivers that prove to be so good when they quickly move up to a top team. I don't think Vettel will have a hard job at all. for most of the season anyway.

There seems to be this bizarre narrative amongst some that Ericsson held his own against Leclerc. It was about as comprehensive a drubbing as it realistically gets in modern F1. 39 points to 9 with Leclerc having one more retirement. More of Charles' retirements came from promising positions too.

The average qualifying gap was around 4 tenths too in Leclerc's favour. To put that into some perspective the quali gap between Wehrlein and Ericsson had been the closest on the grid last season.

I did try to word that carefully. And I still think it is clear that I think that Leclerc did still beat him by a long way. Leclerc also had a weaker 3 races and well as wet weather issues. I know they were his first few races, but given how hyped his season was, we should include them. Them and the wet races is enough to say Ericsson wasn't totally destroyed.

No I don't think you can include his first 2 or 3 races, we see now that was not his true level, he was a rookie after all.

Yes, it took Ocon a good 5 or 6 races to get the measure of Wehrlein at Manor. Although he had the disadvantage of a mid-season start.

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

BMWSauber84 wrote:Yeah a bit. But wet weather is unlikely to play an enormous part in any given season.

It can - Hamilton for example only won the 2008 title because of the unusual number of wet races that year. But I agree that as far as talents required to win a world championship, it's pretty far down the list.

Yeah about 10% of races are affected by wet conditions but still it's an extra arrow to your bow and can put you on your back foot, last season I'm thinking of the race in Germany and the qualifying in both Hungary and Japan, in particular in Germany and Hungary I would say certain Ferrari wins were lost because of the rain, these were quite critical.

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

BMWSauber84 wrote:Yeah a bit. But wet weather is unlikely to play an enormous part in any given season.

It can - Hamilton for example only won the 2008 title because of the unusual number of wet races that year. But I agree that as far as talents required to win a world championship, it's pretty far down the list.

Yeah about 10% of races are affected by wet conditions but still it's an extra arrow to your bow and can put you on your back foot, last season I'm thinking of the race in Germany and the qualifying in both Hungary and Japan, in particular in Germany and Hungary I would say certain Ferrari wins were lost because of the rain, these were quite critical.

I think those combined races were quite possibly decisive to the championship, when you consider it in terms of the knock-on effect of putting pressure on Vettel - which he then cracked under.

Being poor in wet races is a fairly minor weakness, but it's not clear you can afford to have any weaknesses if you're going to be going up against Hamilton or Verstappen.

Yellowbin74 wrote:I think Vettel will edge it this year, with Leclerc getting stronger as the year goes on.

Qualifying has been mentioned a lot - maybe going to this format of a couple of runs doesn't suit him. I agree it's something that needs work.

I have to mention the wet weather as well - Leclerc seemed a bit ragged, especially in Germany.

All in all, it's the match up I'm most interested to see this season. Ric v Hulk a close second.