planetf1.com

What's been impressive is that at 5 of the last 6 races he's been the best non-Mercedes driver, and in 4 of those races he's finished ahead of at least 1 of the Mercedes drivers.

mds wrote:

F1Oz wrote: How was Max faster when he wasn't closing up on Dan in the first stint (and DR did some fastest laps early) - Max put in faster laps when he was on 'newer' tyres - that isn't Max being faster, it's tyre related and DR managing his tyres for a longer stint.

Max was faster on 7 lap younger tyres when pushing DR before the last pitstop - and it was only traffic that allowed Max to catch up to just over a second at the end - but DR again pulled away - so where's the evidence for faster for Max?

Hard to prove Max was faster of course - I think it's safe to say he was at least as fast based on the first stint. We don't have much more to go by, alas.

Max was quiet a bit slower in the final stint too. Ricciardo wasn't even pushing but Verstappen fell right back.

infi24r wrote:

mds wrote:

F1Oz wrote: How was Max faster when he wasn't closing up on Dan in the first stint (and DR did some fastest laps early) - Max put in faster laps when he was on 'newer' tyres - that isn't Max being faster, it's tyre related and DR managing his tyres for a longer stint.

Max was faster on 7 lap younger tyres when pushing DR before the last pitstop - and it was only traffic that allowed Max to catch up to just over a second at the end - but DR again pulled away - so where's the evidence for faster for Max?

Hard to prove Max was faster of course - I think it's safe to say he was at least as fast based on the first stint. We don't have much more to go by, alas.

Max was quiet a bit slower in the final stint too. Ricciardo wasn't even pushing but Verstappen fell right back.

Max was on used tyres, and he was not "quite a bit slower". He went from 3.84s behind after pitting to 2.93s on the penultimate lap.

I mean if you're going to say that, I might as well say that Ricciardo's hard tyres weren't THAT much older (for hards) than Verstappen's, and the speed differential of them both was far bigger on those hards than the speed differential between both in the last stint.

infi24r wrote:

mds wrote:

F1Oz wrote: How was Max faster when he wasn't closing up on Dan in the first stint (and DR did some fastest laps early) - Max put in faster laps when he was on 'newer' tyres - that isn't Max being faster, it's tyre related and DR managing his tyres for a longer stint.

Max was faster on 7 lap younger tyres when pushing DR before the last pitstop - and it was only traffic that allowed Max to catch up to just over a second at the end - but DR again pulled away - so where's the evidence for faster for Max?

Hard to prove Max was faster of course - I think it's safe to say he was at least as fast based on the first stint. We don't have much more to go by, alas.

Max was quiet a bit slower in the final stint too. Ricciardo wasn't even pushing but Verstappen fell right back.

He gained time in the final stint.

Dont remember exactly what was said, but after Max's attack Ricciardo was given the code language 'Max will not attack anymore'. Then he started losing time.

Dont remember exactly what was said, but after Max's attack Ricciardo was given the code language 'Max will not attack anymore'. Then he started losing time.

Max was faster all weekend, if he didn't have to evade Vettel, he would be second.

So exactly where he finished then?

I posted this somewhere else and I got flamed.

Daniel is on form and is definitely the best driver on the grid, followed by Alonso and a perhaps a tie between Hamilton and Alonso, based on performance and their own situations.

Knuppel1983 wrote:Dont remember exactly what was said, but after Max's attack Ricciardo was given the code language 'Max will not attack anymore'. Then he started losing time.

Max was faster all weekend, if he didn't have to evade Vettel, he would be second.

Why do people keep chanting this mantra that Max was faster all weekend? Dan was faster by a few tenths in one practice session, and I don't call a race 'fastest lap' 0.073 seconds faster anything more than pretty even. In clear air - the gaps (other than with distinct tyre type/age differences) were pretty similar.

Max - according to Marko - was damaging his front tyres more than Dan and thus Dan was driving more smoothly and giving himself a longer 'higher performance' window

Dan was doing what he needed to do - more Prost like

Knuppel1983 wrote:Dont remember exactly what was said, but after Max's attack Ricciardo was given the code language 'Max will not attack anymore'. Then he started losing time.

Max was faster all weekend, if he didn't have to evade Vettel, he would be second.

From memory Ricciardo said after the race that they were free to race to the chequered flag.

The only comment I thought was strange was when his Engineer said "Have a drink". I thought it was an odd thing to say at the time so maybe thats the code but then that poses the question as to why is there a need for a code when team orders are allowed ?

Perhaps the reason Max dropped back Knuppel1983 is also what Helmut Marko was saying - Max was damaging his front tyres

I think Max gave it a good shot shortly after the VSC stopped, but burnt his tyres out. I think Dan was just toying with him - he never let Max within 1 second, similar to Spain.

On another note, interesting to see that Ricciardo's engine has been down on power compared to Max's... Marko's influence?

Clearly a problem for Dan in the race - but engines are variable - good drive from both in circumstances (pity Dan got caught by Lewis and lost out to the force India) - as said elsewhere - great defending by Max at the end

DOLOMITE wrote:interesting question. He's been better than his results suggest. It's safe to say that Merc have the best car, so Ricciardo is effectively racing for 3rd all things being equal. Let's say that Hamilton as the WDC "should" be 1st and Rosberg as the other driver in the best car "should" be 2nd. After 16 races how are they doing against their theoretical maximum

Hamilton 265 / 400 = 67%
Rosberg 288/288 = 100%
Ricciardo 204/240 = 85%

but if you simplify it to being best car should win every race and put Rosberg and Hamilton on an equal footing you get

Hamilton 265 / 400 = 67%
Rosberg 288/400 = 72%
Ricciardo 204/240 = 85%

So you *could* argue that Ricciardo is having the best season out of all 3 in terms of what you could expect given the car he has. And that assumes the Red Bull has been the 2nd best car all season which is debatable.

As for comparison to 2014, using the same approach they finished

Hamilton: 384/500 = 77%
Rosberg: 317/500 = 63%
Ricciardo: 238/ 360 = 66%

However you look at it he's driving superbly and I'd love to see him have a proper crack at the title next year.

I quite like this approach!

After USA

Rosberg = 331/450 = 74%
Ricciardo = 227/324 = 70%
Hamilton = 305/450 = 68%
Vettel = 177/270 = 66%
Raikkonen = 170/270 = 63%

Assuming Mercedes is best car, Red Bull 2nd, Ferrari 3rd.

Should probably eliminate mechanical dnf's from the equation but too much to do!

And look at that - fresh engine for both & Dan has his edge back.



ill add to what you guys are talking about above.

Its easier for the merc boys to get hit their maximum (450) because the have 1/2 a second gap behind them most of the time. This isn't the case for ric (in many races the RB was actually 3rd best so a good chunk of those his theoretic maximum is 5th)

After Brazil

Rosberg (367/500) = 73.4%
Hamilton (355/500) = 71%
Ricciardo (246/300) = 82%
Verstappen (197/240*) = 82.1%

(*exc Torro Rosso Races)

Interesting... I'd like to do it for the full grid but would have to get agreement on how to rate the cars..

DOLOMITE wrote:After Brazil

Rosberg (367/500) = 73.4%
Hamilton (355/500) = 71%
Ricciardo (246/300) = 82%
Verstappen (197/240*) = 82.1%

(*exc Torro Rosso Races)

Interesting... I'd like to do it for the full grid but would have to get agreement on how to rate the cars..

I like to see different stats and people's analyses of them. I think this has the potential to be skewed though.

The merc drivers have no opportunity to exceed their maximum. So even if Rosberg was on fire and lapped the field, he'd still only get his 25 points. Whereas the RB drivers can have a good but not spectacular drive, but can score 25/18 points if the Mercedes drivers take each other out (as long as they stay in front of Ferrari).

I had a look at Dans 2014, I knew he had Seb beaten well and truly. But I forgot how big it was.

When both finished Dan beat him 11-3.

Vettels three aheads were.

1) Germany, Dan out qualified Vettel by 0.3 but got caught up in a first corner incident and dropped to P14. He climbed back up to 6th but Seb finished 4th. This was the first time Seb finished ahead of Dan all season, it made it 5-1

2) Singapore, going into this race Dan was 8-1 up when both had finished. Singapore, Vettels strongest track on the calendar. He is a specialist around there. Dan still out qualified him but got jumped by Vettel at the start. They finished 2nd/3rd. It took until race 15 for Seb to finish ahead of Dan on merit.

3) Japan, wet race, again Vettel is a specialist in the wet and Dan was beaten by Vergne in the wet. He isn't known for his wet weather atnics, proven again yesterday by Max. Vettel finished 3rd, Dan 4th.

Basically, Vettel finished ahead of merit just twice. It was basically Webber vs Vettel but Seb had become the Webber.

Herb wrote:

DOLOMITE wrote:After Brazil

Rosberg (367/500) = 73.4%
Hamilton (355/500) = 71%
Ricciardo (246/300) = 82%
Verstappen (197/240*) = 82.1%

(*exc Torro Rosso Races)

Interesting... I'd like to do it for the full grid but would have to get agreement on how to rate the cars..

I like to see different stats and people's analyses of them. I think this has the potential to be skewed though.

The merc drivers have no opportunity to exceed their maximum. So even if Rosberg was on fire and lapped the field, he'd still only get his 25 points. Whereas the RB drivers can have a good but not spectacular drive, but can score 25/18 points if the Mercedes drivers take each other out (as long as they stay in front of Ferrari).

This is the flaw, maybe you should make the Red Bull driver for example only be able to score 15 points. So even if they win the race, they get 15 points.

lamo wrote:It took until race 15 for Seb to finish ahead of Dan on merit.

While true at face value, it's not entirely fair. He was ahead on merit in Malaysia - it was not his fault that Ricciardo encountered problems later on in the race. He was ahead on merit in Monaco - not his fault that his car broke down. Hungary, again ahead on merit, then has the worst luck in safety car timing (who knows whether he would have spun if he had caught a more lucky break, possibly not trying to overdrive the car afterwards?). And in Italy, he was ahead on merit but did not receive optimum strategy which Ricciardo did.

Not trying to find excuses - Ricciardo was the better driver. But there was a lot that went wrong for Vettel, making everything seem worse (on the surface) than it actually was.

mds wrote:

lamo wrote:It took until race 15 for Seb to finish ahead of Dan on merit.

While true at face value, it's not entirely fair. He was ahead on merit in Malaysia - it was not his fault that Ricciardo encountered problems later on in the race. He was ahead on merit in Monaco - not his fault that his car broke down. Hungary, again ahead on merit, then has the worst luck in safety car timing (who knows whether he would have spun if he had caught a more lucky break, possibly not trying to overdrive the car afterwards?). And in Italy, he was ahead on merit but did not receive optimum strategy which Ricciardo did.

Not trying to find excuses - Ricciardo was the better driver. But there was a lot that went wrong for Vettel, making everything seem worse (on the surface) than it actually was.

Thanks for the info, I assumed there would be a few that went the other way.

So if you was to score it on "better driver that weekend" you would probably end up somewhere around 13-6 or 14-5 in Ricciardos favour. That is actually how I remembered it, so I did actually remember it correctly

lamo wrote:

mds wrote:

lamo wrote:It took until race 15 for Seb to finish ahead of Dan on merit.

While true at face value, it's not entirely fair. He was ahead on merit in Malaysia - it was not his fault that Ricciardo encountered problems later on in the race. He was ahead on merit in Monaco - not his fault that his car broke down. Hungary, again ahead on merit, then has the worst luck in safety car timing (who knows whether he would have spun if he had caught a more lucky break, possibly not trying to overdrive the car afterwards?). And in Italy, he was ahead on merit but did not receive optimum strategy which Ricciardo did.

Not trying to find excuses - Ricciardo was the better driver. But there was a lot that went wrong for Vettel, making everything seem worse (on the surface) than it actually was.

Thanks for the info, I assumed there would be a few that went the other way.

So if you was to score it on "better driver that weekend" you would probably end up somewhere around 13-6 or 14-5 in Ricciardos favour. That is actually how I remembered it, so I did actually remember it correctly

Without going over all races again, you might very well be correct.

Jezza13's comment on using Verstappen's age as a gauge for Ricciardo is no longer relevant, imo is correct.

There have been young drivers in the past who have had the maturity to race competitively and sensibly against established top-raters. Back when I was young ( ) in 1910-1912, a 20-year-old American David Bruce-Brown raced and won against several experienced top-rated drivers. Bruce-Brown was race-shrewd and fast. Sadly his enthusiasm got the better of him: practicing for the 1912 GP in Milwaukee, the timekeeper warned him his Fiat's tyres were worn, but he pleaded to be allowed one more lap. Halfway round a tyre burst and Bruce-Brown and his mechanic died in the high speed rollover crash. It was his third season.

In the mid-thirties Auto-Union driver Rosemeyer was a startlingly fast rookie who won a race in his first season. Within three years, 1937, Rosemeyer was top-rated and equal scored four wins with Mercedes driver Caracciola.

Verstappen has to stand alone now and be judged irrespective of age or experience. He was a well-prepared and well-managed rookie.

late edit:similar to the above, in 2007 of course there was the example of Hamitlon, a fast rookie who was given no 'young' leeway, and was immediately judged directly against rivals/team-mates.

POBRatings wrote:Jezza13's comment on using Verstappen's age as a gauge for Ricciardo is no longer relevant, imo is correct.

There have been young drivers in the past who have had the maturity to race competitively and sensibly against established top-raters. Back when I was young ( ) in 1910-1912, a 20-year-old American David Bruce-Brown raced and won against several experienced top-rated drivers. Bruce-Brown was race-shrewd and fast. Sadly his enthusiasm got the better of him: practicing for the 1912 GP in Milwaukee, the timekeeper warned him his Fiat's tyres were worn, but he pleaded to be allowed one more lap. Halfway round a tyre burst and Bruce-Brown and his mechanic died in the high speed rollover crash. It was his third season.

In the mid-thirties Auto-Union driver Rosemeyer was a startlingly fast rookie who won a race in his first season. Within three years, 1937, Rosemeyer was top-rated and equal scored four wins with Mercedes driver Caracciola.

Verstappen has to stand alone now and be judged irrespective of age or experience. He was a well-prepared and well-managed rookie.

One of my favorite sayings is 'If you're good enough, you're old enough.'

Applies here I think.

POBRatings wrote: Verstappen has to stand alone now and be judged irrespective of age or experience.

Maybe, but that doesn't mean one can't think he has the same kind of room for growth as one that enters the sport at, say 23-24yo. While impossible to say, there is merit in that line of thought. We'll continue to reassess, I'm sure, we'll see in 5 years or so how much he has or hasn't progressed.

MDS raises an interesting point: is there a difference between a driver entering F1 at 17-18 to one who starts at 24-25? I don't know, just personal opinion that each is different. Graham and Damon Hill did really well although each started late at over 30.

Of course Verstappen has plenty of room to improve; something wrong if he doesn't. He has everything going for him. For me he first has to equal his current team-mate on season-average stats!

Does anyone know if golfers or tennis players are starting/peaking/winning at top level younger today than in the past? Is this a trend?

mds wrote:

POBRatings wrote: Verstappen has to stand alone now and be judged irrespective of age or experience.

Maybe, but that doesn't mean one can't think he has the same kind of room for growth as one that enters the sport at, say 23-24yo. While impossible to say, there is merit in that line of thought. We'll continue to reassess, I'm sure, we'll see in 5 years or so how much he has or hasn't progressed.

In my opinion, once you have 2-3 seasons under your belt then how young you are doesn't matter at all. I would say Max is moving into that time frame now.

The interesting thing is the "2nd season jump". Generally when a driver joins a team with a incumbent driver present, they increase their performance relative to the incumbent driver in the 2nd year. This has quite a strong pattern, although Seb has ruined it this year, although that is possibly explained by the sensitivity of Raikkonen

Recent trends of new driver improving in second year:

Hamilton-Rosberg 13-14
Alonso- Massa 10-11
Alonso- Button 15-16
Schumacher- Rosberg 10-11 (Schumacher still behind in 11, but closer)
Button- Hamilton 10-11
Massa- Bottas 14-15*


*This trend can be over powered by new rules however, so if a new driver join just as the rules change, the pattern doesn't hold so well. But it did with this pairing.

Anyone else have any other recent examples that go with or against this trend? It makes sense, the car can be a little more tailored to you as a driver and you know how to work with the team to extract the maximum in all areas, that has to be worth at least 0.1 or maybe 0.2.

Max was dropped into the car and performed immediately, its kind of incredible really with no in season testing or pre-season. I expect him to be ahead next year, although I like Dan so would love him to hold his own. The new rules might also favour Dan's style more.

POBRatings wrote: Does anyone know if golfers or tennis players are starting/peaking/winning at top level younger today than in the past? Is this a trend?

Well with tennis that is actually the opposite. Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi were already at the top of the game as teenagers. But currently the guys at the top, Djokovic and Murray are both in their late 20s and in their prime.

I think the main reason we see younger champions in motor racing is the quality of the simulators that are available. I mean, did Prost and Senna even use simulators? With that said, a guy like Max should still improve by a great deal as he gets older.

kleefton wrote:

POBRatings wrote: Does anyone know if golfers or tennis players are starting/peaking/winning at top level younger today than in the past? Is this a trend?

Well with tennis that is actually the opposite. Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi were already at the top of the game as teenagers. But currently the guys at the top, Djokovic and Murray are both in their late 20s and in their prime.

I think the main reason we see younger champions in motor racing is the quality of the simulators that are available. I mean, did Prost and Senna even use simulators? With that said, a guy like Max should still improve by a great deal as he gets older.

I think tennis is also a lot more physical, which suits a younger athlete. With today's F1 cars being less strenuous to drive it allows older drivers to compete

Where it comes to age Verstappen is an interesting case.

While I believe in specificity, you don't train the same way for a 5k as you do a marathon, judging based solely on how many years they've been in F1 misses the difference in overall racing experience. It's a little unfair to compare him to other drivers in their 2nd year of F1 because they will mostly have at least 2-3 years in the junior categories racing cars rather than carts before making the step up while Max had only one.

While Hamilton did a bang up job from the start when he went to McLaren he'd done several years in the lower classes first and it's not like he hasn't improved since then. So that Max is more than holding his own against Dan in only his 3rd year of racing cars says quite a bit about him without taking anything away Dan's achievements or abilities.

lamo wrote:I had a look at Dans 2014, I knew he had Seb beaten well and truly. But I forgot how big it was.

When both finished Dan beat him 11-3.

Vettels three aheads were.

1) Germany, Dan out qualified Vettel by 0.3 but got caught up in a first corner incident and dropped to P14. He climbed back up to 6th but Seb finished 4th. This was the first time Seb finished ahead of Dan all season, it made it 5-1

2) Singapore, going into this race Dan was 8-1 up when both had finished. Singapore, Vettels strongest track on the calendar. He is a specialist around there. Dan still out qualified him but got jumped by Vettel at the start. They finished 2nd/3rd. It took until race 15 for Seb to finish ahead of Dan on merit.

3) Japan, wet race, again Vettel is a specialist in the wet and Dan was beaten by Vergne in the wet. He isn't known for his wet weather atnics, proven again yesterday by Max. Vettel finished 3rd, Dan 4th.

Basically, Vettel finished ahead of merit just twice. It was basically Webber vs Vettel but Seb had become the Webber.

On Japan, Dan was on a tear and I had the thought he might win that race. He was the fastest on track, Vettel pitted and came out behind Dan. However Bianci had his accident and the safety car came out. When they red flagged the race, they did a count back to the last raced lap 3-4 laps earlier where Vettel was in 3rd. When they red flagged the race it was Dan in 3rd.
Sad sad day.

I actually rate Dan's wet weather driving pretty high. At Monaco he was great, and there have been other examples too. However He had a shocker in Brazil compared to Max!

RaggedMan wrote:Where it comes to age Verstappen is an interesting case.

While I believe in specificity, you don't train the same way for a 5k as you do a marathon, judging based solely on how many years they've been in F1 misses the difference in overall racing experience. It's a little unfair to compare him to other drivers in their 2nd year of F1 because they will mostly have at least 2-3 years in the junior categories racing cars rather than carts before making the step up while Max had only one.

While Hamilton did a bang up job from the start when he went to McLaren he'd done several years in the lower classes first and it's not like he hasn't improved since then. So that Max is more than holding his own against Dan in only his 3rd year of racing cars says quite a bit about him without taking anything away Dan's achievements or abilities.

I have the feeling that Dan will be better than Max next year.
This is based on that Dan seems to have quicker pace over a lap (qualifying for example) where Max had superior tyre management. Dan had to adjust his style to get more out of the tyres.
Next year the rubber Pirelli are offering should have a much larger operating range and as a result should be able to be pushed lap after lap.
This may give Dan an edge. (I hope!! )

Max is driving very well for his age. But he has been shaped since birth to be behind the wheel. He will have a long successful career in F1 for sure.

A trend I have noticed is that older, very experienced drivers late in their careers, ones who had always been competitive, (such as Farina, Brabham, Graham Hill, and
Button in F1, and the pre-WW2 drivers in the forties Chiron, Sommer, Villoresi) have been able to race better than they qualify, due to experience, judgement, pacing, talent.

Zoue wrote:

kleefton wrote:

POBRatings wrote: Does anyone know if golfers or tennis players are starting/peaking/winning at top level younger today than in the past? Is this a trend?

Well with tennis that is actually the opposite. Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi were already at the top of the game as teenagers. But currently the guys at the top, Djokovic and Murray are both in their late 20s and in their prime.

I think the main reason we see younger champions in motor racing is the quality of the simulators that are available. I mean, did Prost and Senna even use simulators? With that said, a guy like Max should still improve by a great deal as he gets older.

I think tennis is also a lot more physical, which suits a younger athlete. With today's F1 cars being less strenuous to drive it allows older drivers to compete

The top male tennis players are around the 30 year old mark, Serena Williams is about 34, Damon Hill and Mansell were both near the 40 year old mark when they became WDC, that doesn't really correlate with what you said.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

kleefton wrote:

POBRatings wrote: Does anyone know if golfers or tennis players are starting/peaking/winning at top level younger today than in the past? Is this a trend?

Well with tennis that is actually the opposite. Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi were already at the top of the game as teenagers. But currently the guys at the top, Djokovic and Murray are both in their late 20s and in their prime.

I think the main reason we see younger champions in motor racing is the quality of the simulators that are available. I mean, did Prost and Senna even use simulators? With that said, a guy like Max should still improve by a great deal as he gets older.

I think tennis is also a lot more physical, which suits a younger athlete. With today's F1 cars being less strenuous to drive it allows older drivers to compete

The top male tennis players are around the 30 year old mark, Serena Williams is about 34, Damon Hill and Mansell were both near the 40 year old mark when they became WDC, that doesn't really correlate with what you said.

Doesn't it? I'd say 30 is considerably younger than 40.

Schumacher was competitive against Rosberg and he was some 16 years younger than him. I don't think (m)any 45 year old tennis players are competing against their younger peers. The point is that age isn't that much of a barrier to competitiveness in F1 in the same way it is in tennis. Boris Becker would get slaughtered if he entered regular (i.e. not senior) Wimbledon now and he's the same age as Schumacher.

Against that, of course, is the fact that drivers enter F1 at a far younger age than they used to, but that's more a function of the sport become a lot more professional and accessible at an earlier age.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

kleefton wrote:

POBRatings wrote: Does anyone know if golfers or tennis players are starting/peaking/winning at top level younger today than in the past? Is this a trend?

Well with tennis that is actually the opposite. Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi were already at the top of the game as teenagers. But currently the guys at the top, Djokovic and Murray are both in their late 20s and in their prime.

I think the main reason we see younger champions in motor racing is the quality of the simulators that are available. I mean, did Prost and Senna even use simulators? With that said, a guy like Max should still improve by a great deal as he gets older.

I think tennis is also a lot more physical, which suits a younger athlete. With today's F1 cars being less strenuous to drive it allows older drivers to compete

The top male tennis players are around the 30 year old mark, Serena Williams is about 34, Damon Hill and Mansell were both near the 40 year old mark when they became WDC, that doesn't really correlate with what you said.

Doesn't it? I'd say 30 is considerably younger than 40.

Schumacher was competitive against Rosberg and he was some 16 years younger than him. I don't think (m)any 45 year old tennis players are competing against their younger peers. The point is that age isn't that much of a barrier to competitiveness in F1 in the same way it is in tennis. Boris Becker would get slaughtered if he entered regular (i.e. not senior) Wimbledon now and he's the same age as Schumacher.

Against that, of course, is the fact that drivers enter F1 at a far younger age than they used to, but that's more a function of the sport become a lot more professional and accessible at an earlier age.

Just to add as well that we are in an extremely rare period for tennis where the current generation has been so good they have kept the new generation at bay. Typically a lady tennis player peaks between about 19-25 and a male between about 21-27.

Historically it's been unusual for tennis players to be successful after about 32.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

kleefton wrote:

POBRatings wrote: Does anyone know if golfers or tennis players are starting/peaking/winning at top level younger today than in the past? Is this a trend?

Well with tennis that is actually the opposite. Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi were already at the top of the game as teenagers. But currently the guys at the top, Djokovic and Murray are both in their late 20s and in their prime.

I think the main reason we see younger champions in motor racing is the quality of the simulators that are available. I mean, did Prost and Senna even use simulators? With that said, a guy like Max should still improve by a great deal as he gets older.

I think tennis is also a lot more physical, which suits a younger athlete. With today's F1 cars being less strenuous to drive it allows older drivers to compete

The top male tennis players are around the 30 year old mark, Serena Williams is about 34, Damon Hill and Mansell were both near the 40 year old mark when they became WDC, that doesn't really correlate with what you said.

Surely you're aware that they both won those WDCs in a car so dominant their only competition came from their own teammates, who were a rookie in one case (and Jacques nearly beat Damon at that) and a driver who was basically the same age (Patrese is only a year younger than Mansell) and never at his level of competitiveness. Neither of them would have been able to win a WDC against the entire F1 field in equal cars at that point.

Randine wrote:

RaggedMan wrote:Where it comes to age Verstappen is an interesting case.

While I believe in specificity, you don't train the same way for a 5k as you do a marathon, judging based solely on how many years they've been in F1 misses the difference in overall racing experience. It's a little unfair to compare him to other drivers in their 2nd year of F1 because they will mostly have at least 2-3 years in the junior categories racing cars rather than carts before making the step up while Max had only one.

While Hamilton did a bang up job from the start when he went to McLaren he'd done several years in the lower classes first and it's not like he hasn't improved since then. So that Max is more than holding his own against Dan in only his 3rd year of racing cars says quite a bit about him without taking anything away Dan's achievements or abilities.

I have the feeling that Dan will be better than Max next year.
This is based on that Dan seems to have quicker pace over a lap (qualifying for example) where Max had superior tyre management. Dan had to adjust his style to get more out of the tyres.
Next year the rubber Pirelli are offering should have a much larger operating range and as a result should be able to be pushed lap after lap.
This may give Dan an edge. (I hope!! )

Max is driving very well for his age. But he has been shaped since birth to be behind the wheel. He will have a long successful career in F1 for sure.

Hope your predictions are correct!

Ric’s usually quicker over 1 lap, has a cleaner, more "honed" racecraft –best out there imo. You rarely see Ric make any major mistakes. Ric also has a more “level headed" mentality than Max. This “risk all” attitude of Max’s, though it can reap rewards, can often end in disaster too. Ric has enough natural armoury to beat Max next year but i think it’s important than Ric puts down a marker in the last race. Max has recently trumped him in qualifying and brilliantly outshone Ric in Brazil. The last thing Ric needs is to lose to Max in AD to bolster Max’s already sky-high confidence and hand him momentum going into 2017. Hamilton took his foot off the gas the back end of 2015-this allowed Rosberg to get a foot in the door , grab a bit of confidence and momentum going into 2016.

I think that there will be races where Max will be best - and all races where Max will push - but I think Dan will do better than naysayers suggest in return

F1Oz wrote:I think that there will be races where Max will be best - and all races where Max will push - but I think Dan will do better than naysayers suggest in return

Dan's biggest problem is Verstappen's up curve. Almost being as good in his second season suggests being better by his 4th/5th.

Vettel was better in 2011 than 2009, Alonso better in 2006 than 2004, Button better in 2004 than 2001 etc.