planetf1.com

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: No he was not. The win Rosberg had at Silverstone was directly inherited from Hamilton's mechanical failure. In general the issues they had with the tires overshadowed everything they did that year but Hamilton was better on the year.

With regards to Raikkonen and how he stacked up to Vettel and Alonso; Raikkonen beat Vettel out in qualifying over the 2016 season. Alonso out-qualified Raikkonen 16-3 and beat him in the races 15-1 when both finished. Vettel did dominate Raikkonen in 2015 but the actual numbers were 15-4 in qualifying and 10-4 in races where both finished. Vettel was not as dominant over Kimi as Alonso was. More importantly, 2016 and 2017 have been quite a bit closer (especially in qualifying). In other words, the premise of your argument is false.

I don't think that's fair. 16-3 and 15-4 are as near to identical as makes no odds and their average qualifying gap was pretty close too IIRC. Race results can be affected by a number of things, for example Vettel's damaged front wing in Bahrain. All in all their records in their first year together with Kimi look pretty much the same

Vettel and Kimi are into their 3rd year now, all the data is relevant.

No, it isn't. The fairest comparison is to use a similar dataset, which is best represented by their first years together and in that one Vettel beat Kimi by an almost identical margin to Alonso.

No it's not, that's called cherry picking and even at that Alonso did better.

I think you have a rather strange idea of what constitutes cherry picking. And an equally strange one for comparing datasets. It should be plainly obvious that the most accurate comparison is to use as similar a dataset as possible. Comparing 1 year to 3 is not that.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: No, it isn't. The fairest comparison is to use a similar dataset, which is best represented by their first years together and in that one Vettel beat Kimi by an almost identical margin to Alonso.

No it's not, that's called cherry picking and even at that Alonso did better.

I think you have a rather strange idea of what constitutes cherry picking. And an equally strange one for comparing datasets. It should be plainly obvious that the most accurate comparison is to use as similar a dataset as possible. Comparing 1 year to 3 is not that.

By this rationale, if Kimi had beaten Vettel in the points in 2016 and 2017 you would still conclude that Vettel dominated him by the same margin as Alonso...

Lotus49 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:
Both in different periods.

Seb wasn't very good in 2016 I don't think, at least not up to the standard of 15 and 17. Also Kimi has undoubtedly looked more comfortable in periods throughout 2016 and 2017 than he did in 2015 and 14 but he's also looked just as bad and worse some weekends too.

It's not a constant. I actually think Kimi is doing better than Bottas is since Monaco overall but he's got a habit of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Personally I think that, while Kimi has undoubtedly improved in qualifying, he's still pretty average in race pace. he can't seem to scale anywhere near the same heights

As his pomp or compared to Bottas?.

Agree if it's the former but I think he's doing well enough compared to Bottas in that regard since the summer.

Sorry, I'm struggling with "as his pomp?!" help me!

Sorry, in his pomp. As in do you think he's struggling to reach the same heights race pace wise as he could in his prime(pomp)?. Reading it back it could also be you just meant the same heights as Seb?.

Seb,Bottas or Prime, choose your weapon.

Ah OK! I meant same as Vettel, sorry if that wasn't clear. Even when he is close to, or even beats, Vettel in qualifying, he ends up running much, much slower in the race. I don't really get it. His race pace these days is sometimes quite embarrassing. I don't know if it's Seb being that good or Kimi being a bit washed up?

Mind you, lately Bottas hasn't been that good either in that regard. He's dropped off a lot since the beginning of the year

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: No, it isn't. The fairest comparison is to use a similar dataset, which is best represented by their first years together and in that one Vettel beat Kimi by an almost identical margin to Alonso.

No it's not, that's called cherry picking and even at that Alonso did better.

I think you have a rather strange idea of what constitutes cherry picking. And an equally strange one for comparing datasets. It should be plainly obvious that the most accurate comparison is to use as similar a dataset as possible. Comparing 1 year to 3 is not that.

By this rationale, if Kimi had beaten Vettel in the points in 2016 and 2017 you would still conclude that Vettel dominated him by the same margin as Alonso...

Well that would put a completely different spin on things, though, wouldn't it? I mean Kimi has never come close to beating Seb, so I don't think that's realistic. If Rosberg beat Lewis two years running, then people would probably view their partnership differently, too. If, if, if...

I don't see how you can think comparing one driver pair over a single year vs another over a three year period is a fair and accurate way to do it. There are literally three times as many opportunities for things to affect the results.

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: No, it isn't. The fairest comparison is to use a similar dataset, which is best represented by their first years together and in that one Vettel beat Kimi by an almost identical margin to Alonso.

No it's not, that's called cherry picking and even at that Alonso did better.

I think you have a rather strange idea of what constitutes cherry picking. And an equally strange one for comparing datasets. It should be plainly obvious that the most accurate comparison is to use as similar a dataset as possible. Comparing 1 year to 3 is not that.

By this rationale, if Kimi had beaten Vettel in the points in 2016 and 2017 you would still conclude that Vettel dominated him by the same margin as Alonso...

Well that would put a completely different spin on things, though, wouldn't it? I mean Kimi has never come close to beating Seb, so I don't think that's realistic. If Rosberg beat Lewis two years running, then people would probably view their partnership differently, too. If, if, if...

I don't see how you can think comparing one driver pair over a single year vs another over a three year period is a fair and accurate way to do it. There are literally three times as many opportunities for things to affect the results.

The point is that you look at whatever data you have. Throwing data out for no reason is not in any way logical. The larger your sample size, the more valid your conclusions.

sandman1347 wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:
So the cars have only ever been equal or Ferrari better?.

What's the respective quali and h2h stats since Monaco?. Score and avg gap for quali if you've got it. Maybe I'm wrong but it just feels like Kimi has been far closer to troubling Seb than Bottas has to Lewis. (I've no argument that Bottas was much better in the beginning of the season).

The difference really is in what happens to them on a bad weekend. Kimi generally walks away empty handed when things go wrong while Bottas has had at least 3 podiums in races where he has been terrible.

I agree but that's more luck than skill though. Kimi got taken out in Spain,Singapore,Baku and Malaysia through no fault of his own and could have won two of them. (Malaysia being a lot trickier than Baku granted but still possible).

I think Bottas was clearly better before Monaco, and his quali in Monaco was spot on but since then he's been not much if any better at all for me, it's just they've had polar opposites of luck.

Zoue wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

Zoue wrote: Personally I think that, while Kimi has undoubtedly improved in qualifying, he's still pretty average in race pace. he can't seem to scale anywhere near the same heights

As his pomp or compared to Bottas?.

Agree if it's the former but I think he's doing well enough compared to Bottas in that regard since the summer.

Sorry, I'm struggling with "as his pomp?!" help me!

Sorry, in his pomp. As in do you think he's struggling to reach the same heights race pace wise as he could in his prime(pomp)?. Reading it back it could also be you just meant the same heights as Seb?.

Seb,Bottas or Prime, choose your weapon.

Ah OK! I meant same as Vettel, sorry if that wasn't clear. Even when he is close to, or even beats, Vettel in qualifying, he ends up running much, much slower in the race. I don't really get it. His race pace these days is sometimes quite embarrassing. I don't know if it's Seb being that good or Kimi being a bit washed up?

Mind you, lately Bottas hasn't been that good either in that regard. He's dropped off a lot since the beginning of the year

No bother, When I read it back I thought it looked like you meant Seb, no idea why I thought it was one of the other two first time around, must have misread it,lol.

I think it's probably a bit of both. When Seb's on it he's hard to live with and Kimi is pretty sensitive at the best of times so I can imagine if he has a bad stint or something goes wrong he can slip a fair bit or switch off like I think he did in Monza. Whenever he starts well and has something to chase he seems not to shabby and more like he used too but he's had a fair amount of bad luck to deal with as well.

I really think his qualifying has returned to a decent level since 2016 though but he gets not much credit for it.

Lotus49 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:
So the cars have only ever been equal or Ferrari better?.

What's the respective quali and h2h stats since Monaco?. Score and avg gap for quali if you've got it. Maybe I'm wrong but it just feels like Kimi has been far closer to troubling Seb than Bottas has to Lewis. (I've no argument that Bottas was much better in the beginning of the season).

The difference really is in what happens to them on a bad weekend. Kimi generally walks away empty handed when things go wrong while Bottas has had at least 3 podiums in races where he has been terrible.

I agree but that's more luck than skill though. Kimi got taken out in Spain,Singapore,Baku and Malaysia through no fault of his own and could have won two of them. (Malaysia being a lot trickier than Baku granted but still possible).

I think Bottas was clearly better before Monaco, and his quali in Monaco was spot on but since then he's been not much if any better at all for me, it's just they've had polar opposites of luck.

I would tend to agree with you. Since Austria the gap between Bottas and Hamilton has really widened dramatically. Kimi could easily have a lot more points than he does right now. Unfortunately Kimi is often weakest during the times when it is most easy to gain positions (qualifying and at the start). He always seems to be stuck in traffic.

I do think Lewis is making it look even worse fwiw, he's been on another level since the summer.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: I don't think that's fair. 16-3 and 15-4 are as near to identical as makes no odds and their average qualifying gap was pretty close too IIRC. Race results can be affected by a number of things, for example Vettel's damaged front wing in Bahrain. All in all their records in their first year together with Kimi look pretty much the same

Vettel and Kimi are into their 3rd year now, all the data is relevant.

No, it isn't. The fairest comparison is to use a similar dataset, which is best represented by their first years together and in that one Vettel beat Kimi by an almost identical margin to Alonso.

No it's not, that's called cherry picking and even at that Alonso did better.

I think you have a rather strange idea of what constitutes cherry picking. And an equally strange one for comparing datasets. It should be plainly obvious that the most accurate comparison is to use as similar a dataset as possible. Comparing 1 year to 3 is not that.

If I compare one year Alonso still did better, this wanting to disregard certain years and second guessing what may have happened in future years is not the way you go about working out such things.

pokerman wrote:If I compare one year Alonso still did better, this wanting to disregard certain years and second guessing what may have happened in future years is not the way you go about working out such things.

Hill > Villeneuve > Frentzen > Hill

It is kind of important to look at context in teammate battles, especially since if you don't, you end up with an illogical loop like the one above.

Raikkonen's 2014 was his first year back at Ferrari and (by his own admission) he disliked the car. It's not beyond the realms of logic to suggest that if the car got better and easier to drive, Kimi would improve relative to Alonso.

Vettel in his first season dominated Raikkonen by the same margin Alonso did, he outperformed him in all but two races (like Alonso). Either Vettel has got worse, or Kimi has improved a bit. These days Kimi doesn't complain about how much he dislikes the handling of the car (something he did frequently in 2014), so it would be logical to assume that he just likes the Ferrari car better these days.

Again, you are free to dismiss it if you want. But remember, if Rosberg left Mercedes at the end of 2013, would you have accepted the fact that Hamilton is barely any better than him?

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote: As his pomp or compared to Bottas?.

Agree if it's the former but I think he's doing well enough compared to Bottas in that regard since the summer.

Because the Ferrari has been better

It has yeah but when the Mercedes was better we didn't excuse Kimi.

I think that was more of a case of the cars being quite equal and thinking were is Kimi?

It's sort of a strange argument to be making that Kimi is doing better because Bottas is getting hammered by Hamilton when Kimi himself is getting hammered by Vettel.

So the cars have only ever been equal or Ferrari better?.

What's the respective quali and h2h stats since Monaco?. Score and avg gap for quali if you've got it. Maybe I'm wrong but it just feels like Kimi has been far closer to troubling Seb than Bottas has to Lewis. (I've no argument that Bottas was much better in the beginning of the season).

I don't think that Kimi would really get criticised in a situation were the Mercedes was seen as being the faster car?

Hamilton > Bottas 0.42s (6-2)
Vettel > Kimi 0.26s (5-2)

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: No, it isn't. The fairest comparison is to use a similar dataset, which is best represented by their first years together and in that one Vettel beat Kimi by an almost identical margin to Alonso.

No it's not, that's called cherry picking and even at that Alonso did better.

I think you have a rather strange idea of what constitutes cherry picking. And an equally strange one for comparing datasets. It should be plainly obvious that the most accurate comparison is to use as similar a dataset as possible. Comparing 1 year to 3 is not that.

By this rationale, if Kimi had beaten Vettel in the points in 2016 and 2017 you would still conclude that Vettel dominated him by the same margin as Alonso...

Indeed and that would be cherry picking.

pokerman wrote:Indeed and that would be cherry picking.

Alright, since you seem convinced that it's not humanly possible that Kimi could have improved relative to Alonso like he did relative to Vettel:

Do you think that Webber was clearly a better driver than Rosberg like 2006 showed?

Because Vettel dominated Webber by a bigger margin than Hamilton dominated Rosberg by.

Of course you could argue that Rosberg was a rookie in 2006 and he could have improved relative to Webber if they had stayed teammates, but since you don't actually have any evidence, does that conclusively prove that Webber > Rosberg and therefore Vettel > Hamilton?

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: No, it isn't. The fairest comparison is to use a similar dataset, which is best represented by their first years together and in that one Vettel beat Kimi by an almost identical margin to Alonso.

No it's not, that's called cherry picking and even at that Alonso did better.

I think you have a rather strange idea of what constitutes cherry picking. And an equally strange one for comparing datasets. It should be plainly obvious that the most accurate comparison is to use as similar a dataset as possible. Comparing 1 year to 3 is not that.

By this rationale, if Kimi had beaten Vettel in the points in 2016 and 2017 you would still conclude that Vettel dominated him by the same margin as Alonso...

Well that would put a completely different spin on things, though, wouldn't it? I mean Kimi has never come close to beating Seb, so I don't think that's realistic. If Rosberg beat Lewis two years running, then people would probably view their partnership differently, too. If, if, if...

I don't see how you can think comparing one driver pair over a single year vs another over a three year period is a fair and accurate way to do it. There are literally three times as many opportunities for things to affect the results.

Like Kimi equalling Vettel in qualifying in 2016, will we throw that in the bin and forget about it.

KingVoid wrote:

pokerman wrote:If I compare one year Alonso still did better, this wanting to disregard certain years and second guessing what may have happened in future years is not the way you go about working out such things.

Hill > Villeneuve > Frentzen > Hill

It is kind of important to look at context in teammate battles, especially since if you don't, you end up with an illogical loop like the one above.

Raikkonen's 2014 was his first year back at Ferrari and (by his own admission) he disliked the car. It's not beyond the realms of logic to suggest that if the car got better and easier to drive, Kimi would improve relative to Alonso.

Vettel in his first season dominated Raikkonen by the same margin Alonso did, he outperformed him in all but two races (like Alonso). Either Vettel has got worse, or Kimi has improved a bit. These days Kimi doesn't complain about how much he dislikes the handling of the car (something he did frequently in 2014), so it would be logical to assume that he just likes the Ferrari car better these days.

Again, you are free to dismiss it if you want. But remember, if Rosberg left Mercedes at the end of 2013, would you have accepted the fact that Hamilton is barely any better than him?

Villenueve was a rookie, you make allowances for rookies, Vandoorne for instance is now starting to perform better at McLaren.

I year data points are not ideal, the more years the better, regarding Kimi and Alonso it actually is what you would expect given that they both had several years against Massa.

This idea of Kimi improving were is the evidence, the performance gap between him and Vettel shows a driver that is not really performing, he's performing better now than in 2014, there's no defining evidence for that.

KingVoid wrote:

pokerman wrote:Indeed and that would be cherry picking.

Alright, since you seem convinced that it's not humanly possible that Kimi could have improved relative to Alonso like he did relative to Vettel:

Do you think that Webber was clearly a better driver than Rosberg like 2006 showed?

Because Vettel dominated Webber by a bigger margin than Hamilton dominated Rosberg by.

Of course you could argue that Rosberg was a rookie in 2006 and he could have improved relative to Webber if they had stayed teammates, but since you don't actually have any evidence, does that conclusively prove that Webber > Rosberg and therefore Vettel > Hamilton?

Has Kimi improved, the perfomance difference this year is no different than in 2015.

If we make no allowances for rookies then Mercedes might as well dispense with Ocon's services because I'm sure they are looking for a driver who can beat Perez.

Even with Verstappen we can see that he's improved from last year to this year and this is his third season in F1.

Im lazy, Can anyone calculate the difference in qualifying times over the season where they've both done q3? And possible compare this to other pairs.

As a Dan support I am going to defend Dan's performance.

Both Max and Dan were good this weekend. Max got a good pass on a struggling Lewis, while Dan got a good pass on a, at the time, faster than Lewis, Bottas.

Dan lost 10 seconds to Max while behind Bottas and once he passed lost a further 1.5 seconds to Max over the rest of the first stint, they left Dan out which cost him a further 6 seconds: +18sec at start on second stint.

Dan held this deficit give or take 1 second until he defended Seb. Finished +22.

I think their pace in clean air was similar most of the race.

Max was better, just, compared to Dan. Obviously didnt have to deal with fairy cakes strategy call.

Max won it when he didnt let Bottas pass. If Dan had achieved the same I reckon it would have been a 1-2. Dan was unlucky with the wet side of the start grid.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: No it's not, that's called cherry picking and even at that Alonso did better.

I think you have a rather strange idea of what constitutes cherry picking. And an equally strange one for comparing datasets. It should be plainly obvious that the most accurate comparison is to use as similar a dataset as possible. Comparing 1 year to 3 is not that.

By this rationale, if Kimi had beaten Vettel in the points in 2016 and 2017 you would still conclude that Vettel dominated him by the same margin as Alonso...

Well that would put a completely different spin on things, though, wouldn't it? I mean Kimi has never come close to beating Seb, so I don't think that's realistic. If Rosberg beat Lewis two years running, then people would probably view their partnership differently, too. If, if, if...

I don't see how you can think comparing one driver pair over a single year vs another over a three year period is a fair and accurate way to do it. There are literally three times as many opportunities for things to affect the results.

Like Kimi equalling Vettel in qualifying in 2016, will we throw that in the bin and forget about it.

I see you just did your usual ignoring trick. The most accurate was to compare is to simulate each experience as closely as possible. Both pairings first year is ideal for that. Picking any other year is cherry picking

pokerman wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: No, it isn't. The fairest comparison is to use a similar dataset, which is best represented by their first years together and in that one Vettel beat Kimi by an almost identical margin to Alonso.

No it's not, that's called cherry picking and even at that Alonso did better.

I think you have a rather strange idea of what constitutes cherry picking. And an equally strange one for comparing datasets. It should be plainly obvious that the most accurate comparison is to use as similar a dataset as possible. Comparing 1 year to 3 is not that.

By this rationale, if Kimi had beaten Vettel in the points in 2016 and 2017 you would still conclude that Vettel dominated him by the same margin as Alonso...

Indeed and that would be cherry picking.

No. You are completely wrong on this one I'm afraid

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: Vettel and Kimi are into their 3rd year now, all the data is relevant.

No, it isn't. The fairest comparison is to use a similar dataset, which is best represented by their first years together and in that one Vettel beat Kimi by an almost identical margin to Alonso.

No it's not, that's called cherry picking and even at that Alonso did better.

I think you have a rather strange idea of what constitutes cherry picking. And an equally strange one for comparing datasets. It should be plainly obvious that the most accurate comparison is to use as similar a dataset as possible. Comparing 1 year to 3 is not that.

If I compare one year Alonso still did better, this wanting to disregard certain years and second guessing what may have happened in future years is not the way you go about working out such things.

No, he didn't. I don't think you understand how comparisons work

Lotus49 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:
As his pomp or compared to Bottas?.

Agree if it's the former but I think he's doing well enough compared to Bottas in that regard since the summer.

Sorry, I'm struggling with "as his pomp?!" help me!

Sorry, in his pomp. As in do you think he's struggling to reach the same heights race pace wise as he could in his prime(pomp)?. Reading it back it could also be you just meant the same heights as Seb?.

Seb,Bottas or Prime, choose your weapon.

Ah OK! I meant same as Vettel, sorry if that wasn't clear. Even when he is close to, or even beats, Vettel in qualifying, he ends up running much, much slower in the race. I don't really get it. His race pace these days is sometimes quite embarrassing. I don't know if it's Seb being that good or Kimi being a bit washed up?

Mind you, lately Bottas hasn't been that good either in that regard. He's dropped off a lot since the beginning of the year

No bother, When I read it back I thought it looked like you meant Seb, no idea why I thought it was one of the other two first time around, must have misread it,lol.

I think it's probably a bit of both. When Seb's on it he's hard to live with and Kimi is pretty sensitive at the best of times so I can imagine if he has a bad stint or something goes wrong he can slip a fair bit or switch off like I think he did in Monza. Whenever he starts well and has something to chase he seems not to shabby and more like he used too but he's had a fair amount of bad luck to deal with as well.

I really think his qualifying has returned to a decent level since 2016 though but he gets not much credit for it.

Yes I'm in complete agreement on his qualifying. He does show a reasonable turn of speed but, as you say, this often gets dismissed. Usually it's on the lines of "Vettel even got beaten by Kimi," whereas the same doesn't appear to happen whenever Bottas does well.

For me, though, the races tend to be one disappointment after another. I can't remember the last time I felt he was actually a threat to anyone

pokerman wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

pokerman wrote:If I compare one year Alonso still did better, this wanting to disregard certain years and second guessing what may have happened in future years is not the way you go about working out such things.

Hill > Villeneuve > Frentzen > Hill

It is kind of important to look at context in teammate battles, especially since if you don't, you end up with an illogical loop like the one above.

Raikkonen's 2014 was his first year back at Ferrari and (by his own admission) he disliked the car. It's not beyond the realms of logic to suggest that if the car got better and easier to drive, Kimi would improve relative to Alonso.

Vettel in his first season dominated Raikkonen by the same margin Alonso did, he outperformed him in all but two races (like Alonso). Either Vettel has got worse, or Kimi has improved a bit. These days Kimi doesn't complain about how much he dislikes the handling of the car (something he did frequently in 2014), so it would be logical to assume that he just likes the Ferrari car better these days.

Again, you are free to dismiss it if you want. But remember, if Rosberg left Mercedes at the end of 2013, would you have accepted the fact that Hamilton is barely any better than him?

Villenueve was a rookie, you make allowances for rookies, Vandoorne for instance is now starting to perform better at McLaren.

I year data points are not ideal, the more years the better, regarding Kimi and Alonso it actually is what you would expect given that they both had several years against Massa.

This idea of Kimi improving were is the evidence, the performance gap between him and Vettel shows a driver that is not really performing, he's performing better now than in 2014, there's no defining evidence for that.

The more data points the better, that much is true. But you need to get the best common denominator when making a comparison between two sets of data. E.g. if both have five years' worth, why would you only use one for one party? But if one has less, then you need to match that in the other to get any kind of accurate comparison. This should be elementary

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

pokerman wrote:If I compare one year Alonso still did better, this wanting to disregard certain years and second guessing what may have happened in future years is not the way you go about working out such things.

Hill > Villeneuve > Frentzen > Hill

It is kind of important to look at context in teammate battles, especially since if you don't, you end up with an illogical loop like the one above.

Raikkonen's 2014 was his first year back at Ferrari and (by his own admission) he disliked the car. It's not beyond the realms of logic to suggest that if the car got better and easier to drive, Kimi would improve relative to Alonso.

Vettel in his first season dominated Raikkonen by the same margin Alonso did, he outperformed him in all but two races (like Alonso). Either Vettel has got worse, or Kimi has improved a bit. These days Kimi doesn't complain about how much he dislikes the handling of the car (something he did frequently in 2014), so it would be logical to assume that he just likes the Ferrari car better these days.

Again, you are free to dismiss it if you want. But remember, if Rosberg left Mercedes at the end of 2013, would you have accepted the fact that Hamilton is barely any better than him?

Villenueve was a rookie, you make allowances for rookies, Vandoorne for instance is now starting to perform better at McLaren.

I year data points are not ideal, the more years the better, regarding Kimi and Alonso it actually is what you would expect given that they both had several years against Massa.

This idea of Kimi improving were is the evidence, the performance gap between him and Vettel shows a driver that is not really performing, he's performing better now than in 2014, there's no defining evidence for that.

The more data points the better, that much is true. But you need to get the best common denominator when making a comparison between two sets of data. E.g. if both have five years' worth, why would you only use one for one party? But if one has less, then you need to match that in the other to get any kind of accurate comparison. This should be elementary

Completely disagree. You just have to bare in mind one set of data will be more accurate than the other. You still use all the data because that's going to paint the most accurate picture overall.

Imagine if Vettel had his 2016 season in 2015? If you were only allowed to compare that seasons to Alonso's 2014 how misleading would that be? Vettel would look bang average compared to Alonso.

Lotus49 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:
So the cars have only ever been equal or Ferrari better?.

What's the respective quali and h2h stats since Monaco?. Score and avg gap for quali if you've got it. Maybe I'm wrong but it just feels like Kimi has been far closer to troubling Seb than Bottas has to Lewis. (I've no argument that Bottas was much better in the beginning of the season).

The difference really is in what happens to them on a bad weekend. Kimi generally walks away empty handed when things go wrong while Bottas has had at least 3 podiums in races where he has been terrible.

I agree but that's more luck than skill though. Kimi got taken out in Spain,Singapore,Baku and Malaysia through no fault of his own and could have won two of them. (Malaysia being a lot trickier than Baku granted but still possible).

I think Bottas was clearly better before Monaco, and his quali in Monaco was spot on but since then he's been not much if any better at all for me, it's just they've had polar opposites of luck.

I agree that Spain wasn't Kimi's fault. But as it was classed asa racing incident and Kimi and Verstappen retired and Bottas got away with it, I somehow can't say Bottas was responsible. I can say he triggered the oppertunity. I think it was alright for Kimi to do what he did, but Verstappen going on the outside when 2 were on the inside was not a good idea. Bottas ran out of space. He didn't run wide as some say he did. But he only ran out of space because Verstappen didn't go wide enough to allow Kimi to give Bottas enough room. Although Bottas admitted he could have braked later which would have meant this didn't happen, there is nothing wrong with braking early and it wasn't his fault that the others both chose to attempt to go by at the same time.

In Baku, I can agree Kimi certainly was unlucky. But as we discussed earlier, we disagree on the incident on the start. Bottas suffered more than him from that at the time and that was classed as a 50 - 50 racing incident. It was well after this that Kimi was very unfortunate. Bottas was lucky with the safety car, but other than that, here and Britain showed he can be pretty good at recovering from further back. Kimi was just in the wrong place at the wrong time when the Force India's came together. But I can't hold him responsible for that.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

pokerman wrote:If I compare one year Alonso still did better, this wanting to disregard certain years and second guessing what may have happened in future years is not the way you go about working out such things.

Hill > Villeneuve > Frentzen > Hill

It is kind of important to look at context in teammate battles, especially since if you don't, you end up with an illogical loop like the one above.

Raikkonen's 2014 was his first year back at Ferrari and (by his own admission) he disliked the car. It's not beyond the realms of logic to suggest that if the car got better and easier to drive, Kimi would improve relative to Alonso.

Vettel in his first season dominated Raikkonen by the same margin Alonso did, he outperformed him in all but two races (like Alonso). Either Vettel has got worse, or Kimi has improved a bit. These days Kimi doesn't complain about how much he dislikes the handling of the car (something he did frequently in 2014), so it would be logical to assume that he just likes the Ferrari car better these days.

Again, you are free to dismiss it if you want. But remember, if Rosberg left Mercedes at the end of 2013, would you have accepted the fact that Hamilton is barely any better than him?

Villenueve was a rookie, you make allowances for rookies, Vandoorne for instance is now starting to perform better at McLaren.

I year data points are not ideal, the more years the better, regarding Kimi and Alonso it actually is what you would expect given that they both had several years against Massa.

This idea of Kimi improving were is the evidence, the performance gap between him and Vettel shows a driver that is not really performing, he's performing better now than in 2014, there's no defining evidence for that.

The more data points the better, that much is true. But you need to get the best common denominator when making a comparison between two sets of data. E.g. if both have five years' worth, why would you only use one for one party? But if one has less, then you need to match that in the other to get any kind of accurate comparison. This should be elementary

Completely disagree. You just have to bare in mind one set of data will be more accurate than the other. You still use all the data because that's going to paint the most accurate picture overall.

Imagine if Vettel had his 2016 season in 2015? If you were only allowed to compare that seasons to Alonso's 2014 how misleading would that be? Vettel would look bang average compared to Alonso.

Imagine my surprise...

I don't think you quite get how these things work. If Vettel had had his 2016 season in 2015 then it would have been an accurate representation. Because it would have been his first year against Kimi, as Alonso's was. That's the only accurate basis for comparison

red_alert wrote: As a Dan support I am going to defend Dan's performance.

Both Max and Dan were good this weekend. Max got a good pass on a struggling Lewis, while Dan got a good pass on a, at the time, faster than Lewis, Bottas.

Dan lost 10 seconds to Max while behind Bottas and once he passed lost a further 1.5 seconds to Max over the rest of the first stint, they left Dan out which cost him a further 6 seconds: +18sec at start on second stint.

Dan held this deficit

The one thing you don't take into account, however, is that there was absolutely no incentive for Verstappen to go any faster than he did once he got a good enough gap on Hamilton. The entire second stint was just managing the gap. Do you really think Dan was content in running slower than he could, while Vettel was managing 1s/lap faster than him and on target to reach him a good number of laps from the end?

You can't just compare the race pace of a controlling leader with a comfortable gap to the race pace of someone that could've gone for second at first and then came at great risk to losing the podium.

Max won it when he didnt let Bottas pass. If Dan had achieved the same I reckon it would have been a 1-2.

This could be correct.

Zoue wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: Villenueve was a rookie, you make allowances for rookies, Vandoorne for instance is now starting to perform better at McLaren.

I year data points are not ideal, the more years the better, regarding Kimi and Alonso it actually is what you would expect given that they both had several years against Massa.

This idea of Kimi improving were is the evidence, the performance gap between him and Vettel shows a driver that is not really performing, he's performing better now than in 2014, there's no defining evidence for that.

The more data points the better, that much is true. But you need to get the best common denominator when making a comparison between two sets of data. E.g. if both have five years' worth, why would you only use one for one party? But if one has less, then you need to match that in the other to get any kind of accurate comparison. This should be elementary

Completely disagree. You just have to bare in mind one set of data will be more accurate than the other. You still use all the data because that's going to paint the most accurate picture overall.

Imagine if Vettel had his 2016 season in 2015? If you were only allowed to compare that seasons to Alonso's 2014 how misleading would that be? Vettel would look bang average compared to Alonso.

Imagine my surprise...

I don't think you quite get how these things work. If Vettel had had his 2016 season in 2015 then it would have been an accurate representation. Because it would have been his first year against Kimi, as Alonso's was. That's the only accurate basis for comparison

The fact is that it doesn't make sense to disregard part of the data set. That makes no sense at all. Sure, you wish you had a larger data set for Alonso to match the one you have for Vettel but you do the best you can with what you have and acknowledge that you have a more accurate representation with Vettel v Raikkonen. That doesn't change the fact that Kimi has, at times, been competitive with Vettel while he was never really in the picture with Alonso throughout an entire season.

red_alert wrote:Im lazy, Can anyone calculate the difference in qualifying times over the season where they've both done q3? And possible compare this to other pairs.

As a Dan support I am going to defend Dan's performance.

Both Max and Dan were good this weekend. Max got a good pass on a struggling Lewis, while Dan got a good pass on a, at the time, faster than Lewis, Bottas.

Dan lost 10 seconds to Max while behind Bottas and once he passed lost a further 1.5 seconds to Max over the rest of the first stint, they left Dan out which cost him a further 6 seconds: +18sec at start on second stint.

Dan held this deficit give or take 1 second until he defended Seb. Finished +22.

I think their pace in clean air was similar most of the race.

Max was better, just, compared to Dan. Obviously didnt have to deal with fairy cakes strategy call.

Max won it when he didnt let Bottas pass. If Dan had achieved the same I reckon it would have been a 1-2. Dan was unlucky with the wet side of the start grid.

Offhand I'm not sure my system would do exactly as you ask but I have the gap at 0.14s in Verstappen's favour.

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: Villenueve was a rookie, you make allowances for rookies, Vandoorne for instance is now starting to perform better at McLaren.

I year data points are not ideal, the more years the better, regarding Kimi and Alonso it actually is what you would expect given that they both had several years against Massa.

This idea of Kimi improving were is the evidence, the performance gap between him and Vettel shows a driver that is not really performing, he's performing better now than in 2014, there's no defining evidence for that.

The more data points the better, that much is true. But you need to get the best common denominator when making a comparison between two sets of data. E.g. if both have five years' worth, why would you only use one for one party? But if one has less, then you need to match that in the other to get any kind of accurate comparison. This should be elementary

Completely disagree. You just have to bare in mind one set of data will be more accurate than the other. You still use all the data because that's going to paint the most accurate picture overall.

Imagine if Vettel had his 2016 season in 2015? If you were only allowed to compare that seasons to Alonso's 2014 how misleading would that be? Vettel would look bang average compared to Alonso.

Imagine my surprise...

I don't think you quite get how these things work. If Vettel had had his 2016 season in 2015 then it would have been an accurate representation. Because it would have been his first year against Kimi, as Alonso's was. That's the only accurate basis for comparison

The fact is that it doesn't make sense to disregard part of the data set. That makes no sense at all. Sure, you wish you had a larger data set for Alonso to match the one you have for Vettel but you do the best you can with what you have and acknowledge that you have a more accurate representation with Vettel v Raikkonen. That doesn't change the fact that Kimi has, at times, been competitive with Vettel while he was never really in the picture with Alonso throughout an entire season.

and he wasn't in the picture against Vettel throughout his entire first season, either. That's also a fact. It's also a far more appropriate comparison

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote: I think you have a rather strange idea of what constitutes cherry picking. And an equally strange one for comparing datasets. It should be plainly obvious that the most accurate comparison is to use as similar a dataset as possible. Comparing 1 year to 3 is not that.

By this rationale, if Kimi had beaten Vettel in the points in 2016 and 2017 you would still conclude that Vettel dominated him by the same margin as Alonso...

Well that would put a completely different spin on things, though, wouldn't it? I mean Kimi has never come close to beating Seb, so I don't think that's realistic. If Rosberg beat Lewis two years running, then people would probably view their partnership differently, too. If, if, if...

I don't see how you can think comparing one driver pair over a single year vs another over a three year period is a fair and accurate way to do it. There are literally three times as many opportunities for things to affect the results.

Like Kimi equalling Vettel in qualifying in 2016, will we throw that in the bin and forget about it.

I see you just did your usual ignoring trick. The most accurate was to compare is to simulate each experience as closely as possible. Both pairings first year is ideal for that. Picking any other year is cherry picking

No it isn't having the need to pick put 1 particular year is cherry picking, the more data the more accurate the result, people who crunch numbers know this.

Also for your information doing as you ask makes Alonso 0.04s quicker than Vettel but of course you will throw in the caveat that Kimi would have done so much better in his second year against Alonso despite the fact he actually got hammered by Vettel but then the caveat is that Vettel did better against a much improved Kimi.

Overall data makes it Alonso 0.08s quicker than Vettel, bearing in mind that Ricciardo beat Vettel by 0.17s so it's not like that could be unbelievable, however I do except that 1 year match ups are not ideal without correlation data to back it up.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: No it's not, that's called cherry picking and even at that Alonso did better.

I think you have a rather strange idea of what constitutes cherry picking. And an equally strange one for comparing datasets. It should be plainly obvious that the most accurate comparison is to use as similar a dataset as possible. Comparing 1 year to 3 is not that.

By this rationale, if Kimi had beaten Vettel in the points in 2016 and 2017 you would still conclude that Vettel dominated him by the same margin as Alonso...

Indeed and that would be cherry picking.

No. You are completely wrong on this one I'm afraid

So if Kimi beats Vettel then he also beats Alonso?

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: No, it isn't. The fairest comparison is to use a similar dataset, which is best represented by their first years together and in that one Vettel beat Kimi by an almost identical margin to Alonso.

No it's not, that's called cherry picking and even at that Alonso did better.

I think you have a rather strange idea of what constitutes cherry picking. And an equally strange one for comparing datasets. It should be plainly obvious that the most accurate comparison is to use as similar a dataset as possible. Comparing 1 year to 3 is not that.

If I compare one year Alonso still did better, this wanting to disregard certain years and second guessing what may have happened in future years is not the way you go about working out such things.

No, he didn't. I don't think you understand how comparisons work

No it works by you deciding which years you chose to pick and ignoring other years, Alosno still did better than Vettel anyway.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Zoue wrote: I think you have a rather strange idea of what constitutes cherry picking. And an equally strange one for comparing datasets. It should be plainly obvious that the most accurate comparison is to use as similar a dataset as possible. Comparing 1 year to 3 is not that.

By this rationale, if Kimi had beaten Vettel in the points in 2016 and 2017 you would still conclude that Vettel dominated him by the same margin as Alonso...

Indeed and that would be cherry picking.

No. You are completely wrong on this one I'm afraid

So if Kimi beats Vettel then he also beats Alonso?

I have absolutely no idea how you reach that conclusion.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

pokerman wrote:If I compare one year Alonso still did better, this wanting to disregard certain years and second guessing what may have happened in future years is not the way you go about working out such things.

Hill > Villeneuve > Frentzen > Hill

It is kind of important to look at context in teammate battles, especially since if you don't, you end up with an illogical loop like the one above.

Raikkonen's 2014 was his first year back at Ferrari and (by his own admission) he disliked the car. It's not beyond the realms of logic to suggest that if the car got better and easier to drive, Kimi would improve relative to Alonso.

Vettel in his first season dominated Raikkonen by the same margin Alonso did, he outperformed him in all but two races (like Alonso). Either Vettel has got worse, or Kimi has improved a bit. These days Kimi doesn't complain about how much he dislikes the handling of the car (something he did frequently in 2014), so it would be logical to assume that he just likes the Ferrari car better these days.

Again, you are free to dismiss it if you want. But remember, if Rosberg left Mercedes at the end of 2013, would you have accepted the fact that Hamilton is barely any better than him?

Villenueve was a rookie, you make allowances for rookies, Vandoorne for instance is now starting to perform better at McLaren.

I year data points are not ideal, the more years the better, regarding Kimi and Alonso it actually is what you would expect given that they both had several years against Massa.

This idea of Kimi improving were is the evidence, the performance gap between him and Vettel shows a driver that is not really performing, he's performing better now than in 2014, there's no defining evidence for that.

The more data points the better, that much is true. But you need to get the best common denominator when making a comparison between two sets of data. E.g. if both have five years' worth, why would you only use one for one party? But if one has less, then you need to match that in the other to get any kind of accurate comparison. This should be elementary

It's ridiculous to throw out any data.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: No it's not, that's called cherry picking and even at that Alonso did better.

I think you have a rather strange idea of what constitutes cherry picking. And an equally strange one for comparing datasets. It should be plainly obvious that the most accurate comparison is to use as similar a dataset as possible. Comparing 1 year to 3 is not that.

If I compare one year Alonso still did better, this wanting to disregard certain years and second guessing what may have happened in future years is not the way you go about working out such things.

No, he didn't. I don't think you understand how comparisons work

No it works by you deciding which years you chose to pick and ignoring other years, Alosno still did better than Vettel anyway.

No-one is "deciding" anything. Just taking a straightforward comparison between the team mates under as near identical conditions as possible. Which in this case means their first year together. It would be cherry picking if any other year for Vettel was used as a comparison. This is not rocket science

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

pokerman wrote:If I compare one year Alonso still did better, this wanting to disregard certain years and second guessing what may have happened in future years is not the way you go about working out such things.

Hill > Villeneuve > Frentzen > Hill

It is kind of important to look at context in teammate battles, especially since if you don't, you end up with an illogical loop like the one above.

Raikkonen's 2014 was his first year back at Ferrari and (by his own admission) he disliked the car. It's not beyond the realms of logic to suggest that if the car got better and easier to drive, Kimi would improve relative to Alonso.

Vettel in his first season dominated Raikkonen by the same margin Alonso did, he outperformed him in all but two races (like Alonso). Either Vettel has got worse, or Kimi has improved a bit. These days Kimi doesn't complain about how much he dislikes the handling of the car (something he did frequently in 2014), so it would be logical to assume that he just likes the Ferrari car better these days.

Again, you are free to dismiss it if you want. But remember, if Rosberg left Mercedes at the end of 2013, would you have accepted the fact that Hamilton is barely any better than him?

Villenueve was a rookie, you make allowances for rookies, Vandoorne for instance is now starting to perform better at McLaren.

I year data points are not ideal, the more years the better, regarding Kimi and Alonso it actually is what you would expect given that they both had several years against Massa.

This idea of Kimi improving were is the evidence, the performance gap between him and Vettel shows a driver that is not really performing, he's performing better now than in 2014, there's no defining evidence for that.

The more data points the better, that much is true. But you need to get the best common denominator when making a comparison between two sets of data. E.g. if both have five years' worth, why would you only use one for one party? But if one has less, then you need to match that in the other to get any kind of accurate comparison. This should be elementary

It's ridiculous to throw out any data.

no, it's ridiculous to try and make a comparison between two drivers using unequal sets of data

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: By this rationale, if Kimi had beaten Vettel in the points in 2016 and 2017 you would still conclude that Vettel dominated him by the same margin as Alonso...

Indeed and that would be cherry picking.

No. You are completely wrong on this one I'm afraid

So if Kimi beats Vettel then he also beats Alonso?

I have absolutely no idea how you reach that conclusion.

Because you have already determined that Alonso and Vettel are close to equal.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: By this rationale, if Kimi had beaten Vettel in the points in 2016 and 2017 you would still conclude that Vettel dominated him by the same margin as Alonso...

Well that would put a completely different spin on things, though, wouldn't it? I mean Kimi has never come close to beating Seb, so I don't think that's realistic. If Rosberg beat Lewis two years running, then people would probably view their partnership differently, too. If, if, if...

I don't see how you can think comparing one driver pair over a single year vs another over a three year period is a fair and accurate way to do it. There are literally three times as many opportunities for things to affect the results.

Like Kimi equalling Vettel in qualifying in 2016, will we throw that in the bin and forget about it.

I see you just did your usual ignoring trick. The most accurate was to compare is to simulate each experience as closely as possible. Both pairings first year is ideal for that. Picking any other year is cherry picking

No it isn't having the need to pick put 1 particular year is cherry picking, the more data the more accurate the result, people who crunch numbers know this.

Also for your information doing as you ask makes Alonso 0.04s quicker than Vettel but of course you will throw in the caveat that Kimi would have done so much better in his second year against Alonso despite the fact he actually got hammered by Vettel but then the caveat is that Vettel did better against a much improved Kimi.

Overall data makes it Alonso 0.08s quicker than Vettel, bearing in mind that Ricciardo beat Vettel by 0.17s so it's not like that could be unbelievable, however I do except that 1 year match ups are not ideal without correlation data to back it up.

no need to make things up, thanks. I'm not interested in what Kimi may or may not have done.

People who crunch numbers also know that any scientific comparison relies on samples being as close in size and scope as possible. Otherwise the figures for one may be distorted. As mentioned before, this is elementary.

As to Alonso being 0.04s quicker than Vettel, if true that pretty much confirms to me that they had almost identical results vs Kimi. Less than half a tenth is nominal, which just confirms what was being said anyway.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: I think you have a rather strange idea of what constitutes cherry picking. And an equally strange one for comparing datasets. It should be plainly obvious that the most accurate comparison is to use as similar a dataset as possible. Comparing 1 year to 3 is not that.

If I compare one year Alonso still did better, this wanting to disregard certain years and second guessing what may have happened in future years is not the way you go about working out such things.

No, he didn't. I don't think you understand how comparisons work

No it works by you deciding which years you chose to pick and ignoring other years, Alosno still did better than Vettel anyway.

No-one is "deciding" anything. Just taking a straightforward comparison between the team mates under as near identical conditions as possible. Which in this case means their first year together. It would be cherry picking if any other year for Vettel was used as a comparison. This is not rocket science

If I merely do that then Alonso is 0.04s quicker than Vettel.

If such things are so defining then Ricciardo is 0.17s quicker than Vettel.