planetf1.com

Even when looking at drivers in our current era, there are still some huge question marks about how good each of them truly are relative to each other, (for example is Danny Ric a Tier One driver, did Vettel just win titles because Red Bull were dominant and covered his error-prone nature, how good is Hulk etc.), so if we can't definitively answer some of these questions yet, then we have no chance of being able to accurately compare across different eras over larger stretches of time with totally different driver pools and even more incomplete information.

tim3003 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote: The problem with that is how we view a car is almost wholly dependent on the results achieved in it. Look at the Red Bull this year. Put two Gasly's in it and nobody would suggest it was the third best car in Australia or Bahrain. We would probably be talking about his brilliant drive in China to get such a slow car comfortably ahead of the midfield.

Agreed: I've not heard anyone question my assertion that the best drivers always get the best cars - or make their cars the best - so we can judge them against eachother on that basis. It's often said that part of the reason for Schumacher's dominance from 2000-04 is that he built the team around himself (with Brawn and Todt's help). Compare his success to Alonso, who often tore apart and demotivated teams he drove for.

Yeah, I question that assertion as well. I think it's completely false, and is used to justify the idea that stats = ability. There are clear-cut cases of great drivers not getting into the best cars, and equally clear cases of mediocre drivers having their stats badly flattered by excellent cars.

F1 Racer wrote:Even when looking at drivers in our current era, there are still some huge question marks about how good each of them truly are relative to each other, (for example is Danny Ric a Tier One driver, did Vettel just win titles because Red Bull were dominant and covered his error-prone nature, how good is Hulk etc.), so if we can't definitively answer some of these questions yet, then we have no chance of being able to accurately compare across different eras over larger stretches of time with totally different driver pools and even more incomplete information.

Totally agree it's something I try to do with my cross comparison data but it takes years and years to get some kind of idea, in respect to comparing drivers from different eras it just comes down to opinion because they never actually raced against one another.

pokerman wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:Even when looking at drivers in our current era, there are still some huge question marks about how good each of them truly are relative to each other, (for example is Danny Ric a Tier One driver, did Vettel just win titles because Red Bull were dominant and covered his error-prone nature, how good is Hulk etc.), so if we can't definitively answer some of these questions yet, then we have no chance of being able to accurately compare across different eras over larger stretches of time with totally different driver pools and even more incomplete information.

Totally agree it's something I try to do with my cross comparison data but it takes years and years to get some kind of idea, in respect to comparing drivers from different eras it just comes down to opinion because they never actually raced against one another.

This makes me wonder... is it possible to trace a line - however tenuous - by direct teammate comparisons from a current driver all the way back to the 1950s? And if not, what is the farthest you can trace?

pokerman wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:Even when looking at drivers in our current era, there are still some huge question marks about how good each of them truly are relative to each other, (for example is Danny Ric a Tier One driver, did Vettel just win titles because Red Bull were dominant and covered his error-prone nature, how good is Hulk etc.), so if we can't definitively answer some of these questions yet, then we have no chance of being able to accurately compare across different eras over larger stretches of time with totally different driver pools and even more incomplete information.

Totally agree it's something I try to do with my cross comparison data but it takes years and years to get some kind of idea, in respect to comparing drivers from different eras it just comes down to opinion because they never actually raced against one another.

Yeah, I mean most of us probably thought that Gasly was at least fairly decent going into this season, and would be at least as competitive as Dan was with Max, but instead he is being shown up as mediocre if not outright bad. Yes, he's new to the team, but then so is Leclerc at Ferrari and it hasn't taken him long to get up to speed.

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:Even when looking at drivers in our current era, there are still some huge question marks about how good each of them truly are relative to each other, (for example is Danny Ric a Tier One driver, did Vettel just win titles because Red Bull were dominant and covered his error-prone nature, how good is Hulk etc.), so if we can't definitively answer some of these questions yet, then we have no chance of being able to accurately compare across different eras over larger stretches of time with totally different driver pools and even more incomplete information.

Totally agree it's something I try to do with my cross comparison data but it takes years and years to get some kind of idea, in respect to comparing drivers from different eras it just comes down to opinion because they never actually raced against one another.

This makes me wonder... is it possible to trace a line - however tenuous - by direct teammate comparisons from a current driver all the way back to the 1950s? And if not, what is the farthest you can trace?

It is not possible because drivers are humans and their performance fluctuates over time, generally rising with more experience but then losing their touch with age, (and this age that they drop off will be very different from driver to driver, as well as the extent of the drop off when it occurs). Also, that will just be the general trend, as drivers can have a random bad season in the middle of seemingly strong stretches of performance, like Lewis in 2011 and Seb in 2014, so again when doing comparisons in this way, how do we know that the said drivers involved were driving at their normal level for the one season that we are doing the said comparison?

One driver could have just been uncharacteristically bad that year, which made the other driver look better than they were, like 2014 where Seb could have had motivational issues when he realised he wasn't fighting for the title, and his head was being turned by Ferrari, so perhaps he underperformed compared to his norm, and then Dan looked stellar from that one year and 'definitely' top tier, only for Dan to then put that assertion into doubt with his generally decent but not outstanding performances since then, and as a result now having a lot to prove against Hulk this year.

F1 Racer wrote:

pokerman wrote:Totally agree it's something I try to do with my cross comparison data but it takes years and years to get some kind of idea, in respect to comparing drivers from different eras it just comes down to opinion because they never actually raced against one another.

Yeah, I mean most of us probably thought that Gasly was at least fairly decent going into this season, and would be at least as competitive as Dan was with Max, but instead he is being shown up as mediocre if not outright bad. Yes, he's new to the team, but then so is Leclerc at Ferrari and it hasn't taken him long to get up to speed.

I actually think only a minority thought that. I for one was quite vocal in my belief that he was flattered by a poor teammate at Toro Rosso, and would not be as close as Ricciardo was. In a forum poll on the subject of teammate match-ups, 94% of responders (16-1) expected Max to win, with comments such as:

Exediron wrote:I'm expecting utter domination by Verstappen. If Gasly out-qualifies him more than once or twice in the year, that will already be doing better than I expect.

Source: I think Verstappen is the fastest (or equal fastest) of anyone in terms of pure speed, and I think Gasly is overrated based on actually achieving very little at Toro Rosso.

kleefton wrote:Yeah I probably rate gasly lower than most. Max is going to destroy him. Still think kvyatt will be back at redbull, heck maybe this year.

j man wrote:Verstappen. I doubt it'll even be close.

BMWSauber84 wrote:It is probably up there as one of the most clear cut TMW wins on paper. Gasly is as likely to outperform Verstappen as Stroll is to outperform Perez. It could be that one sided.

So in other words, most people (at least on this forum) expected it to be quite one-sided.

F1 Racer wrote:

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:Even when looking at drivers in our current era, there are still some huge question marks about how good each of them truly are relative to each other, (for example is Danny Ric a Tier One driver, did Vettel just win titles because Red Bull were dominant and covered his error-prone nature, how good is Hulk etc.), so if we can't definitively answer some of these questions yet, then we have no chance of being able to accurately compare across different eras over larger stretches of time with totally different driver pools and even more incomplete information.

Totally agree it's something I try to do with my cross comparison data but it takes years and years to get some kind of idea, in respect to comparing drivers from different eras it just comes down to opinion because they never actually raced against one another.

This makes me wonder... is it possible to trace a line - however tenuous - by direct teammate comparisons from a current driver all the way back to the 1950s? And if not, what is the farthest you can trace?

It is not possible because drivers are humans and their performance fluctuates over time, generally rising with more experience but then losing their touch with age, (and this age that they drop off will be very different from driver to driver, as well as the extent of the drop off when it occurs). Also, that will just be the general trend, as drivers can have a random bad season in the middle of seemingly strong stretches of performance, like Lewis in 2011 and Seb in 2014, so again when doing comparisons in this way, how do we know that the said drivers involved were driving at their normal level for the one season that we are doing the said comparison?

One driver could have just been uncharacteristically bad that year, which made the other driver look better than they were, like 2014 where Seb could have had motivational issues when he realised he wasn't fighting for the title, and his head was being turned by Ferrari, so perhaps he underperformed compared to his norm, and then Dan looked stellar from that one year and 'definitely' top tier, only for Dan to then put that assertion into doubt with his generally decent but not outstanding performances since then, and as a result having a lot to prove against Hulk this year.

Just to be clear, I'm not implying the data would have any validity. I'm just curious if a number can be produced at all.

Exediron wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

pokerman wrote:Totally agree it's something I try to do with my cross comparison data but it takes years and years to get some kind of idea, in respect to comparing drivers from different eras it just comes down to opinion because they never actually raced against one another.

Yeah, I mean most of us probably thought that Gasly was at least fairly decent going into this season, and would be at least as competitive as Dan was with Max, but instead he is being shown up as mediocre if not outright bad. Yes, he's new to the team, but then so is Leclerc at Ferrari and it hasn't taken him long to get up to speed.

I actually think only a minority thought that. I for one was quite vocal in my belief that he was flattered by a poor teammate at Toro Rosso, and would not be as close as Ricciardo was. In a forum poll on the subject of teammate match-ups, 94% of responders (16-1) expected Max to win, with comments such as:

Exediron wrote:I'm expecting utter domination by Verstappen. If Gasly out-qualifies him more than once or twice in the year, that will already be doing better than I expect.

Source: I think Verstappen is the fastest (or equal fastest) of anyone in terms of pure speed, and I think Gasly is overrated based on actually achieving very little at Toro Rosso.

kleefton wrote:Yeah I probably rate gasly lower than most. Max is going to destroy him. Still think kvyatt will be back at redbull, heck maybe this year.

j man wrote:Verstappen. I doubt it'll even be close.

BMWSauber84 wrote:It is probably up there as one of the most clear cut TMW wins on paper. Gasly is as likely to outperform Verstappen as Stroll is to outperform Perez. It could be that one sided.

So in other words, most people (at least on this forum) expected it to be quite one-sided.

I don't think people saw it to be this one-sided where Gasly is making the car look like a midfield car. No one expected him to beat Max of course, because Dan didn't.

F1 Racer wrote:

Exediron wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

pokerman wrote:Totally agree it's something I try to do with my cross comparison data but it takes years and years to get some kind of idea, in respect to comparing drivers from different eras it just comes down to opinion because they never actually raced against one another.

Yeah, I mean most of us probably thought that Gasly was at least fairly decent going into this season, and would be at least as competitive as Dan was with Max, but instead he is being shown up as mediocre if not outright bad. Yes, he's new to the team, but then so is Leclerc at Ferrari and it hasn't taken him long to get up to speed.

I actually think only a minority thought that. I for one was quite vocal in my belief that he was flattered by a poor teammate at Toro Rosso, and would not be as close as Ricciardo was. In a forum poll on the subject of teammate match-ups, 94% of responders (16-1) expected Max to win, with comments such as:

Exediron wrote:I'm expecting utter domination by Verstappen. If Gasly out-qualifies him more than once or twice in the year, that will already be doing better than I expect.

Source: I think Verstappen is the fastest (or equal fastest) of anyone in terms of pure speed, and I think Gasly is overrated based on actually achieving very little at Toro Rosso.

kleefton wrote:Yeah I probably rate gasly lower than most. Max is going to destroy him. Still think kvyatt will be back at redbull, heck maybe this year.

j man wrote:Verstappen. I doubt it'll even be close.

BMWSauber84 wrote:It is probably up there as one of the most clear cut TMW wins on paper. Gasly is as likely to outperform Verstappen as Stroll is to outperform Perez. It could be that one sided.

So in other words, most people (at least on this forum) expected it to be quite one-sided.

I don't think people saw it to be this one-sided where Gasly is making the car look like a midfield car. No one expected him to beat Max of course, because Dan didn't.

I think you're willfully ignoring the words people used to describe their expectations. Descriptions such as 'it could be as one-sided as Perez vs. Stroll' or 'I think Kvyat will be back at Red Bull, maybe this year' are not implying it will be similar to Max vs. Dan. They're implying Gasly will be absolutely embarrassed.

F1 Racer wrote:

pokerman wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:Even when looking at drivers in our current era, there are still some huge question marks about how good each of them truly are relative to each other, (for example is Danny Ric a Tier One driver, did Vettel just win titles because Red Bull were dominant and covered his error-prone nature, how good is Hulk etc.), so if we can't definitively answer some of these questions yet, then we have no chance of being able to accurately compare across different eras over larger stretches of time with totally different driver pools and even more incomplete information.

Totally agree it's something I try to do with my cross comparison data but it takes years and years to get some kind of idea, in respect to comparing drivers from different eras it just comes down to opinion because they never actually raced against one another.

Yeah, I mean most of us probably thought that Gasly was at least fairly decent going into this season, and would be at least as competitive as Dan was with Max, but instead he is being shown up as mediocre if not outright bad. Yes, he's new to the team, but then so is Leclerc at Ferrari and it hasn't taken him long to get up to speed.

There actually was insufficient data on Gasly to make any kind of presumption.

Exediron wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

Exediron wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

pokerman wrote:Totally agree it's something I try to do with my cross comparison data but it takes years and years to get some kind of idea, in respect to comparing drivers from different eras it just comes down to opinion because they never actually raced against one another.

Yeah, I mean most of us probably thought that Gasly was at least fairly decent going into this season, and would be at least as competitive as Dan was with Max, but instead he is being shown up as mediocre if not outright bad. Yes, he's new to the team, but then so is Leclerc at Ferrari and it hasn't taken him long to get up to speed.

I actually think only a minority thought that. I for one was quite vocal in my belief that he was flattered by a poor teammate at Toro Rosso, and would not be as close as Ricciardo was. In a forum poll on the subject of teammate match-ups, 94% of responders (16-1) expected Max to win, with comments such as:

Exediron wrote:I'm expecting utter domination by Verstappen. If Gasly out-qualifies him more than once or twice in the year, that will already be doing better than I expect.

Source: I think Verstappen is the fastest (or equal fastest) of anyone in terms of pure speed, and I think Gasly is overrated based on actually achieving very little at Toro Rosso.

kleefton wrote:Yeah I probably rate gasly lower than most. Max is going to destroy him. Still think kvyatt will be back at redbull, heck maybe this year.

j man wrote:Verstappen. I doubt it'll even be close.

BMWSauber84 wrote:It is probably up there as one of the most clear cut TMW wins on paper. Gasly is as likely to outperform Verstappen as Stroll is to outperform Perez. It could be that one sided.

So in other words, most people (at least on this forum) expected it to be quite one-sided.

I don't think people saw it to be this one-sided where Gasly is making the car look like a midfield car. No one expected him to beat Max of course, because Dan didn't.

I think you're willfully ignoring the words people used to describe their expectations. Descriptions such as 'it could be as one-sided as Perez vs. Stroll' or 'I think Kvyat will be back at Red Bull, maybe this year' are not implying it will be similar to Max vs. Dan. They're implying Gasly will be absolutely embarrassed.

Their words were sensationalism and likely not in line with their true beliefs given the information that they had when making those comments. Otherwise they knew even more than Red Bull who promoted Gasly. I mean we knew Hartley wasn't anything special, but he's clearly downright terrible, but that is only apparent now after the season has got underway. Also the quotes you provide do not come with any reasoning as to their extreme beliefs, hence why I believe it to be sensationalism at the time, that has just happened to turn out to be true.

pokerman wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

pokerman wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:Even when looking at drivers in our current era, there are still some huge question marks about how good each of them truly are relative to each other, (for example is Danny Ric a Tier One driver, did Vettel just win titles because Red Bull were dominant and covered his error-prone nature, how good is Hulk etc.), so if we can't definitively answer some of these questions yet, then we have no chance of being able to accurately compare across different eras over larger stretches of time with totally different driver pools and even more incomplete information.

Totally agree it's something I try to do with my cross comparison data but it takes years and years to get some kind of idea, in respect to comparing drivers from different eras it just comes down to opinion because they never actually raced against one another.

Yeah, I mean most of us probably thought that Gasly was at least fairly decent going into this season, and would be at least as competitive as Dan was with Max, but instead he is being shown up as mediocre if not outright bad. Yes, he's new to the team, but then so is Leclerc at Ferrari and it hasn't taken him long to get up to speed.

There actually was insufficient data on Gasly to make any kind of presumption.

Yes, I agree, but what we knew for sure is that Red Bull had promoted him, and when they have done that before, (with Seb, Dan, Kyvat and then Max), those promoted drivers have been either excellent or with Kyvat just ok but not Gasly-bad. So the promotion in itself had an inherent hope for at least a reasonable performance from him.

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:Even when looking at drivers in our current era, there are still some huge question marks about how good each of them truly are relative to each other, (for example is Danny Ric a Tier One driver, did Vettel just win titles because Red Bull were dominant and covered his error-prone nature, how good is Hulk etc.), so if we can't definitively answer some of these questions yet, then we have no chance of being able to accurately compare across different eras over larger stretches of time with totally different driver pools and even more incomplete information.

Totally agree it's something I try to do with my cross comparison data but it takes years and years to get some kind of idea, in respect to comparing drivers from different eras it just comes down to opinion because they never actually raced against one another.

This makes me wonder... is it possible to trace a line - however tenuous - by direct teammate comparisons from a current driver all the way back to the 1950s? And if not, what is the farthest you can trace?

I actually started doing comparisons back in the mid 80s using note books, pre computers for me anyway. It was more driver on driver than cross comparisons, just driver A is better than driver B, unfortunately I didn't keep all the books, moving house, getting rid of clutter etc. Plus it wasn't something I was going to share with anyone else at that time, I guess the data is still out there in cyber land but would take a long time to compile?

This is just qualifying stats so it's more in line with who may be the fastest not necessarily the best, I stopped doing this in the 2000s because of the rubbish qualifying systems turned qualifying into a lottery, then restarted again in 2007 so it basically relates to just the drivers of today.

F1 Racer wrote:

pokerman wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

pokerman wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:Even when looking at drivers in our current era, there are still some huge question marks about how good each of them truly are relative to each other, (for example is Danny Ric a Tier One driver, did Vettel just win titles because Red Bull were dominant and covered his error-prone nature, how good is Hulk etc.), so if we can't definitively answer some of these questions yet, then we have no chance of being able to accurately compare across different eras over larger stretches of time with totally different driver pools and even more incomplete information.

Totally agree it's something I try to do with my cross comparison data but it takes years and years to get some kind of idea, in respect to comparing drivers from different eras it just comes down to opinion because they never actually raced against one another.

Yeah, I mean most of us probably thought that Gasly was at least fairly decent going into this season, and would be at least as competitive as Dan was with Max, but instead he is being shown up as mediocre if not outright bad. Yes, he's new to the team, but then so is Leclerc at Ferrari and it hasn't taken him long to get up to speed.

There actually was insufficient data on Gasly to make any kind of presumption.

Yes, I agree, but what we knew for sure is that Red Bull had promoted him, and when they have done that before, (with Seb, Dan, Kyvat and then Max), those promoted drivers have been either excellent or with Kyvat just ok but not Gasly-bad. So the promotion in itself had an inherent hope for at least a reasonable performance from him.

The promotion was rather forced upon them, I'm not sure they would have thought Gasly was ready as such?

pokerman wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:
Yes, I agree, but what we knew for sure is that Red Bull had promoted him, and when they have done that before, (with Seb, Dan, Kyvat and then Max), those promoted drivers have been either excellent or with Kyvat just ok but not Gasly-bad. So the promotion in itself had an inherent hope for at least a reasonable performance from him.

The promotion was rather forced upon them, I'm not sure they would have thought Gasly was ready as such?

Yeah, it was forced but I don't think anyone could reasonably envision Gasly would be this slow.

F1 Racer wrote:

pokerman wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:
Yes, I agree, but what we knew for sure is that Red Bull had promoted him, and when they have done that before, (with Seb, Dan, Kyvat and then Max), those promoted drivers have been either excellent or with Kyvat just ok but not Gasly-bad. So the promotion in itself had an inherent hope for at least a reasonable performance from him.

The promotion was rather forced upon them, I'm not sure they would have thought Gasly was ready as such?

Yeah, it was forced but I don't think anyone could reasonably envision Gasly would be this slow.

Alternatively, you didn't see it coming and now you're denying that anybody else could have.

There were also people who insisted that Danny Ric would soundly beat Vettel, and they mostly got laughed at or called Vettel haters. They turned out to be correct.

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:Even when looking at drivers in our current era, there are still some huge question marks about how good each of them truly are relative to each other, (for example is Danny Ric a Tier One driver, did Vettel just win titles because Red Bull were dominant and covered his error-prone nature, how good is Hulk etc.), so if we can't definitively answer some of these questions yet, then we have no chance of being able to accurately compare across different eras over larger stretches of time with totally different driver pools and even more incomplete information.

Totally agree it's something I try to do with my cross comparison data but it takes years and years to get some kind of idea, in respect to comparing drivers from different eras it just comes down to opinion because they never actually raced against one another.

This makes me wonder... is it possible to trace a line - however tenuous - by direct teammate comparisons from a current driver all the way back to the 1950s? And if not, what is the farthest you can trace?

It will definitely be possible

Raikkonen - Coulthard - Hill - Prost - Lauda - Regazzoni - Ickx - Gurney - Behra - Manzon

F1 Racer wrote:

pokerman wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:
Yes, I agree, but what we knew for sure is that Red Bull had promoted him, and when they have done that before, (with Seb, Dan, Kyvat and then Max), those promoted drivers have been either excellent or with Kyvat just ok but not Gasly-bad. So the promotion in itself had an inherent hope for at least a reasonable performance from him.

The promotion was rather forced upon them, I'm not sure they would have thought Gasly was ready as such?

Yeah, it was forced but I don't think anyone could reasonably envision Gasly would be this slow.

It's only 3 races I wouldn't be jumping the gun on him just yet.

Exediron wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

pokerman wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:
Yes, I agree, but what we knew for sure is that Red Bull had promoted him, and when they have done that before, (with Seb, Dan, Kyvat and then Max), those promoted drivers have been either excellent or with Kyvat just ok but not Gasly-bad. So the promotion in itself had an inherent hope for at least a reasonable performance from him.

The promotion was rather forced upon them, I'm not sure they would have thought Gasly was ready as such?

Yeah, it was forced but I don't think anyone could reasonably envision Gasly would be this slow.

Alternatively, you didn't see it coming and now you're denying that anybody else could have.

There were also people who insisted that Danny Ric would soundly beat Vettel, and they mostly got laughed at or called Vettel haters. They turned out to be correct.

I'm guessing that would have been 1 in a 100 that said that?

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:Even when looking at drivers in our current era, there are still some huge question marks about how good each of them truly are relative to each other, (for example is Danny Ric a Tier One driver, did Vettel just win titles because Red Bull were dominant and covered his error-prone nature, how good is Hulk etc.), so if we can't definitively answer some of these questions yet, then we have no chance of being able to accurately compare across different eras over larger stretches of time with totally different driver pools and even more incomplete information.

Totally agree it's something I try to do with my cross comparison data but it takes years and years to get some kind of idea, in respect to comparing drivers from different eras it just comes down to opinion because they never actually raced against one another.

This makes me wonder... is it possible to trace a line - however tenuous - by direct teammate comparisons from a current driver all the way back to the 1950s? And if not, what is the farthest you can trace?

It will definitely be possible

Raikkonen - Coulthard - Hill - Prost - Lauda - Regazzoni - Ickx - Gurney - Behra - Manzon

I've been doing this from 2007 and I couldn't with any certainty ascertain who presently is the fastest driver in F1 so I'm kind of sceptical about that?

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:Even when looking at drivers in our current era, there are still some huge question marks about how good each of them truly are relative to each other, (for example is Danny Ric a Tier One driver, did Vettel just win titles because Red Bull were dominant and covered his error-prone nature, how good is Hulk etc.), so if we can't definitively answer some of these questions yet, then we have no chance of being able to accurately compare across different eras over larger stretches of time with totally different driver pools and even more incomplete information.

Totally agree it's something I try to do with my cross comparison data but it takes years and years to get some kind of idea, in respect to comparing drivers from different eras it just comes down to opinion because they never actually raced against one another.

This makes me wonder... is it possible to trace a line - however tenuous - by direct teammate comparisons from a current driver all the way back to the 1950s? And if not, what is the farthest you can trace?

It will definitely be possible

Raikkonen - Coulthard - Hill - Prost - Lauda - Regazzoni - Ickx - Gurney - Behra - Manzon

I've been doing this from 2007 and I couldn't with any certainty ascertain who presently is the fastest driver in F1 so I'm kind of sceptical about that?

Exediron just asked about a direct line back from present day to 1950. That's what I've shown. I'm making no comment on performance.

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote: Totally agree it's something I try to do with my cross comparison data but it takes years and years to get some kind of idea, in respect to comparing drivers from different eras it just comes down to opinion because they never actually raced against one another.

This makes me wonder... is it possible to trace a line - however tenuous - by direct teammate comparisons from a current driver all the way back to the 1950s? And if not, what is the farthest you can trace?

It will definitely be possible

Raikkonen - Coulthard - Hill - Prost - Lauda - Regazzoni - Ickx - Gurney - Behra - Manzon

I've been doing this from 2007 and I couldn't with any certainty ascertain who presently is the fastest driver in F1 so I'm kind of sceptical about that?

Exediron just asked about a direct line back from present day to 1950. That's what I've shown. I'm making no comment on performance.

Yes but that still doesn't mean that they are viable cross references to embody all the main drivers?

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote: This makes me wonder... is it possible to trace a line - however tenuous - by direct teammate comparisons from a current driver all the way back to the 1950s? And if not, what is the farthest you can trace?

It will definitely be possible

Raikkonen - Coulthard - Hill - Prost - Lauda - Regazzoni - Ickx - Gurney - Behra - Manzon

I've been doing this from 2007 and I couldn't with any certainty ascertain who presently is the fastest driver in F1 so I'm kind of sceptical about that?

Exediron just asked about a direct line back from present day to 1950. That's what I've shown. I'm making no comment on performance.

Yes but that still doesn't mean that they are viable cross references to embody all the main drivers?

This makes 0 sense.

F1 Racer wrote:

pokerman wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:
Yes, I agree, but what we knew for sure is that Red Bull had promoted him, and when they have done that before, (with Seb, Dan, Kyvat and then Max), those promoted drivers have been either excellent or with Kyvat just ok but not Gasly-bad. So the promotion in itself had an inherent hope for at least a reasonable performance from him.

The promotion was rather forced upon them, I'm not sure they would have thought Gasly was ready as such?

Yeah, it was forced but I don't think anyone could reasonably envision Gasly would be this slow.

Maybe not quite as bad as he’s been but I think there were clear signs he wasn’t going to be close to Max. I personally thought he’d be around ..3-.5 slower but it’s actually double that. My main problem with Gasly is that during his tenure at Toro Rosso he wasn’t that much faster than Hartley, and nobody rated Hartley at all.

mikeyg123 wrote:

tim3003 wrote:
Well how do we know which are the best cars? Those that win most races and championships. And which drivers win most races and championships? Those in those cars? And they are the best. If not then who??

Isn't it obvious that the managers of the teams with the best cars want the best drivers, and can get them. Similarly the best drivers have the clout to get the best drives.. If not, show me some examples of the best drivers toiling in poor cars and mediocre drivers winning consistently only because they had the best cars..

Both have happened often but you would never agree as you think best = most successful. So if they have not been in cars to achieve results you are never going to think they are the best driver.

Conversely no matter how average a driver is if he has been in the best car and achieved results you are never going to believe he was average because you think his success "proves" how good he was.

Can you not see how circular your logic is?

I'm not saying that the best drivers are always in the best cars, but that for several years at their peak they will have been, as witnessed by their results. Also that 2nd rate drivers who lucked into the best cars will not get the maximum out of them. I recall how much Frentzen disappointed at williams; how Coulthard could never beat Hakkinen; how Massa seldom beat Alonso... A 2nd rate driver is unlikely to get a go as team leader in a top car, whereas a 1st rate one will..

It's easy to talk in generalities. Show me some examples of your theory, and demonstrate how they undermine a results-based view of who's best...

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote: Totally agree it's something I try to do with my cross comparison data but it takes years and years to get some kind of idea, in respect to comparing drivers from different eras it just comes down to opinion because they never actually raced against one another.

This makes me wonder... is it possible to trace a line - however tenuous - by direct teammate comparisons from a current driver all the way back to the 1950s? And if not, what is the farthest you can trace?

An interesting idea. But to be valid it assumes that all drivers were at their peak during the years they shared cars. Was the Prost who raced at Williams with Hill as good as the one who beat Senna 4 years earlier? Also, who from the 1st rank did Schumacher ever share a team with? 5 races with Piquet in his last season?? You also have to ignore any years where there was a designated 1-2 - ie every year at Ferrari!

tim3003 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

tim3003 wrote:
Well how do we know which are the best cars? Those that win most races and championships. And which drivers win most races and championships? Those in those cars? And they are the best. If not then who??

Isn't it obvious that the managers of the teams with the best cars want the best drivers, and can get them. Similarly the best drivers have the clout to get the best drives.. If not, show me some examples of the best drivers toiling in poor cars and mediocre drivers winning consistently only because they had the best cars..

Both have happened often but you would never agree as you think best = most successful. So if they have not been in cars to achieve results you are never going to think they are the best driver.

Conversely no matter how average a driver is if he has been in the best car and achieved results you are never going to believe he was average because you think his success "proves" how good he was.

Can you not see how circular your logic is?

I'm not saying that the best drivers are always in the best cars, but that for several years at their peak they will have been, as witnessed by their results. Also that 2nd rate drivers who lucked into the best cars will not get the maximum out of them. I recall how much Frentzen disappointed at williams; how Coulthard could never beat Hakkinen; how Massa seldom beat Alonso... A 2nd rate driver is unlikely to get a go as team leader in a top car, whereas a 1st rate one will..

It's easy to talk in generalities. Show me some examples of your theory, and demonstrate how they undermine a results-based view of who's best...

But surely what you write above proves my point to a degree, Massa and Coulthard both spent longer in top cars than many better drivers.

I think there are plenty of champions who are not as good as many who were never able to win the championship.

Hawthorn
Phil Hill
Hulme
Hunt
Scheckter
Damon Hill
Villeneuve

All won championships when there are better drivers who haven't. But you won't believe the likes of Gurney,Peterson, Reutemann, Barrichello etc were better drivers because they didn't win a championship. Your model is a self fulfilling prophecy.

mikeyg123 wrote:

tim3003 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

tim3003 wrote:
Well how do we know which are the best cars? Those that win most races and championships. And which drivers win most races and championships? Those in those cars? And they are the best. If not then who??

Isn't it obvious that the managers of the teams with the best cars want the best drivers, and can get them. Similarly the best drivers have the clout to get the best drives.. If not, show me some examples of the best drivers toiling in poor cars and mediocre drivers winning consistently only because they had the best cars..

Both have happened often but you would never agree as you think best = most successful. So if they have not been in cars to achieve results you are never going to think they are the best driver.

Conversely no matter how average a driver is if he has been in the best car and achieved results you are never going to believe he was average because you think his success "proves" how good he was.

Can you not see how circular your logic is?

I'm not saying that the best drivers are always in the best cars, but that for several years at their peak they will have been, as witnessed by their results. Also that 2nd rate drivers who lucked into the best cars will not get the maximum out of them. I recall how much Frentzen disappointed at williams; how Coulthard could never beat Hakkinen; how Massa seldom beat Alonso... A 2nd rate driver is unlikely to get a go as team leader in a top car, whereas a 1st rate one will..

It's easy to talk in generalities. Show me some examples of your theory, and demonstrate how they undermine a results-based view of who's best...

But surely what you write above proves my point to a degree, Massa and Coulthard both spent longer in top cars than many better drivers.

I think there are plenty of champions who are not as good as many who were never able to win the championship.

Hawthorn
Phil Hill
Hulme
Hunt
Scheckter
Damon Hill
Villeneuve

All won championships when there are better drivers who haven't. But you won't believe the likes of Gurney,Peterson, Reutemann, Barrichello etc were better drivers because they didn't win a championship. Your model is a self fulfilling prophecy.

And why didn't they win championships? Reutemann had the chance in 81 but blew it. His nerve was suspect.
Barrichello never beat a 1st rate team-mate - ie Schumacher or Button.
Peterson never got into the right team at the right time. And when he did with Lotus in 78 he had to settle for no 2 status. So Colin Chapman made the decision that Andretti was his best bet for the championship.
(Don't know enough of Gurney's history to comment).

As I've said, being a great driver is not only about being fast. It's about convincing team bosses you can win titles and then demonstrating it. Surely your 3 examples never did that. You could say Gilles Villeneuve was amazingly fast as many did, but he didn't have the self-control to handle Pironi's more ruthless tactical approach and that in part led to his crashing fatally.

I don't think circular logic is the right term, but there is a self-fulfilling prophecy part to it; ie if you show promise you get noticed by the big teams. If you get a chance and take it, team bosses give you more chances and if you keep taking them you stay in the best seats. If you never quite convince the team boss to give you the chance, or if you don't quickly take it when it comes, you may not get another. Maybe some drivers don't have the self-belief or determinaton to do what is needed to get the top no 1 drives despite their speed. I think Peterson was like that - he just loved driving, whereas Andretti was prepared to do whatever it took to win the title.

tim3003 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

tim3003 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

tim3003 wrote:
Well how do we know which are the best cars? Those that win most races and championships. And which drivers win most races and championships? Those in those cars? And they are the best. If not then who??

Isn't it obvious that the managers of the teams with the best cars want the best drivers, and can get them. Similarly the best drivers have the clout to get the best drives.. If not, show me some examples of the best drivers toiling in poor cars and mediocre drivers winning consistently only because they had the best cars..

Both have happened often but you would never agree as you think best = most successful. So if they have not been in cars to achieve results you are never going to think they are the best driver.

Conversely no matter how average a driver is if he has been in the best car and achieved results you are never going to believe he was average because you think his success "proves" how good he was.

Can you not see how circular your logic is?

I'm not saying that the best drivers are always in the best cars, but that for several years at their peak they will have been, as witnessed by their results. Also that 2nd rate drivers who lucked into the best cars will not get the maximum out of them. I recall how much Frentzen disappointed at williams; how Coulthard could never beat Hakkinen; how Massa seldom beat Alonso... A 2nd rate driver is unlikely to get a go as team leader in a top car, whereas a 1st rate one will..

It's easy to talk in generalities. Show me some examples of your theory, and demonstrate how they undermine a results-based view of who's best...

But surely what you write above proves my point to a degree, Massa and Coulthard both spent longer in top cars than many better drivers.

I think there are plenty of champions who are not as good as many who were never able to win the championship.

Hawthorn
Phil Hill
Hulme
Hunt
Scheckter
Damon Hill
Villeneuve

All won championships when there are better drivers who haven't. But you won't believe the likes of Gurney,Peterson, Reutemann, Barrichello etc were better drivers because they didn't win a championship. Your model is a self fulfilling prophecy.

And why didn't they win championships? Reutemann had the chance in 81 but blew it. His nerve was suspect.
Barrichello never beat a 1st rate team-mate - ie Schumacher or Button.
Peterson never got into the right team at the right time. And when he did with Lotus in 78 he had to settle for no 2 status. So Colin Chapman made the decision that Andretti was his best bet for the championship.
(Don't know enough of Gurney's history to comment).

As I've said, being a great driver is not only about being fast. It's about convincing team bosses you can win titles and then demonstrating it. Surely your 3 examples never did that. You could say Gilles Villeneuve was amazingly fast as many did, but he didn't have the self-control to handle Pironi's more ruthless tactical approach and that in part led to his crashing fatally.

I don't think circular logic is the right term, but there is a self-fulfilling prophecy part to it; ie if you show promise you get noticed by the big teams. If you get a chance and take it, team bosses give you more chances and if you keep taking them you stay in the best seats. If you never quite convince the team boss to give you the chance, or if you don't quickly take it when it comes, you may not get another. Maybe some drivers don't have the self-belief or determinaton to do what is needed to get the top no 1 drives despite their speed. I think Peterson was like that - he just loved driving, whereas Andretti was prepared to do whatever it took to win the title.

I disagree fundamentally that being able to get into a more competitive team makes you a better driver. I would only factor in things that are actually relevant to driving. And you're not just ranking the great's. I agree that the true greats do transcend enough to get a shot in quality equipment but you are also ranking the very good and they don't always.

Honestly, If you truly believe the best is the most successful then you really don't need to come up with a system for that. Just count the WDC's. That is the ultimate guide to success after all.

IMO any system that makes Felipe Massa arbitrarily a worse driver because Hamilton passes Glock on the last corner of the last race of a championship is not one I can have faith in.

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote: It will definitely be possible

Raikkonen - Coulthard - Hill - Prost - Lauda - Regazzoni - Ickx - Gurney - Behra - Manzon

I've been doing this from 2007 and I couldn't with any certainty ascertain who presently is the fastest driver in F1 so I'm kind of sceptical about that?

Exediron just asked about a direct line back from present day to 1950. That's what I've shown. I'm making no comment on performance.

Yes but that still doesn't mean that they are viable cross references to embody all the main drivers?

This makes 0 sense.

I'm just going by the fact I'm not able to do it presently with todays drivers.

kleefton wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

pokerman wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:
Yes, I agree, but what we knew for sure is that Red Bull had promoted him, and when they have done that before, (with Seb, Dan, Kyvat and then Max), those promoted drivers have been either excellent or with Kyvat just ok but not Gasly-bad. So the promotion in itself had an inherent hope for at least a reasonable performance from him.

The promotion was rather forced upon them, I'm not sure they would have thought Gasly was ready as such?

Yeah, it was forced but I don't think anyone could reasonably envision Gasly would be this slow.

Maybe not quite as bad as he’s been but I think there were clear signs he wasn’t going to be close to Max. I personally thought he’d be around ..3-.5 slower but it’s actually double that. My main problem with Gasly is that during his tenure at Toro Rosso he wasn’t that much faster than Hartley, and nobody rated Hartley at all.

It's actually around 5 tenths.

tim3003 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote: Totally agree it's something I try to do with my cross comparison data but it takes years and years to get some kind of idea, in respect to comparing drivers from different eras it just comes down to opinion because they never actually raced against one another.

This makes me wonder... is it possible to trace a line - however tenuous - by direct teammate comparisons from a current driver all the way back to the 1950s? And if not, what is the farthest you can trace?

An interesting idea. But to be valid it assumes that all drivers were at their peak during the years they shared cars. Was the Prost who raced at Williams with Hill as good as the one who beat Senna 4 years earlier? Also, who from the 1st rank did Schumacher ever share a team with? 5 races with Piquet in his last season?? You also have to ignore any years where there was a designated 1-2 - ie every year at Ferrari!

Yes plus 1 year line ups are not ideal either.

mikeyg123 wrote: I disagree fundamentally that being able to get into a more competitive team makes you a better driver. I would only factor in things that are actually relevant to driving. And you're not just ranking the great's. I agree that the true greats do transcend enough to get a shot in quality equipment but you are also ranking the very good and they don't always.

Honestly, If you truly believe the best is the most successful then you really don't need to come up with a system for that. Just count the WDC's. That is the ultimate guide to success after all.

IMO any system that makes Felipe Massa arbitrarily a worse driver because Hamilton passes Glock on the last corner of the last race of a championship is not one I can have faith in.

And where do we rank drivers like Moss, no championship, but far better than most of his competition including WDC winners ? Jabouille, the best ratio of win/finished race ever ? Siffert who never enjoyed a works drive, except the year he died ? etc.
For my own personnal ranking of best ever, I use my own method of "wet finger in the wind", and think it is as good as another. And I don't feel the need of discussing the result (except swapping the first 3 every now and then, so they top the ranking alternatively).

pokerman wrote:

kleefton wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

pokerman wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:
Yes, I agree, but what we knew for sure is that Red Bull had promoted him, and when they have done that before, (with Seb, Dan, Kyvat and then Max), those promoted drivers have been either excellent or with Kyvat just ok but not Gasly-bad. So the promotion in itself had an inherent hope for at least a reasonable performance from him.

The promotion was rather forced upon them, I'm not sure they would have thought Gasly was ready as such?

Yeah, it was forced but I don't think anyone could reasonably envision Gasly would be this slow.

Maybe not quite as bad as he’s been but I think there were clear signs he wasn’t going to be close to Max. I personally thought he’d be around ..3-.5 slower but it’s actually double that. My main problem with Gasly is that during his tenure at Toro Rosso he wasn’t that much faster than Hartley, and nobody rated Hartley at all.

It's actually around 5 tenths.

You counted Australia using both drivers q1 times didn’t you?

Well I wouldn’t have. Max q1 time in that session was slower than both Toro Rossos but he ended up being a sec faster than them in q2 so I’m pretty sure Max’s time in q1 wasn’t representative.

So what we have left is Max 0.4 faster in Bahrain and 0.8 faster in China. So about 0.6 on average on an extremely small sample.Somehow I feel it’s only gonna get larger... but I could be wrong.

kleefton wrote:

pokerman wrote:

kleefton wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

pokerman wrote: The promotion was rather forced upon them, I'm not sure they would have thought Gasly was ready as such?

Yeah, it was forced but I don't think anyone could reasonably envision Gasly would be this slow.

Maybe not quite as bad as he’s been but I think there were clear signs he wasn’t going to be close to Max. I personally thought he’d be around ..3-.5 slower but it’s actually double that. My main problem with Gasly is that during his tenure at Toro Rosso he wasn’t that much faster than Hartley, and nobody rated Hartley at all.

It's actually around 5 tenths.

You counted Australia using both drivers q1 times didn’t you?

Well I wouldn’t have. Max q1 time in that session was slower than both Toro Rossos but he ended up being a sec faster than them in q2 so I’m pretty sure Max’s time in q1 wasn’t representative.

So what we have left is Max 0.4 faster in Bahrain and 0.8 faster in China. So about 0.6 on average on an extremely small sample.Somehow I feel it’s only gonna get larger... but I could be wrong.

That was because of the track progression that caught out Gasly and nearly caught out Verstappen whilst they both sat in the pits while other cars were going much quicker later in the session, they ran exactly the same qualifying program in Q1.

mikeyg123 wrote:

tim3003 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:
Both have happened often but you would never agree as you think best = most successful. So if they have not been in cars to achieve results you are never going to think they are the best driver.

Conversely no matter how average a driver is if he has been in the best car and achieved results you are never going to believe he was average because you think his success "proves" how good he was.

Can you not see how circular your logic is?



But surely what you write above proves my point to a degree, Massa and Coulthard both spent longer in top cars than many better drivers.

I think there are plenty of champions who are not as good as many who were never able to win the championship.

Hawthorn
Phil Hill
Hulme
Hunt
Scheckter
Damon Hill
Villeneuve

All won championships when there are better drivers who haven't. But you won't believe the likes of Gurney,Peterson, Reutemann, Barrichello etc were better drivers because they didn't win a championship. Your model is a self fulfilling prophecy.

And why didn't they win championships? Reutemann had the chance in 81 but blew it. His nerve was suspect.
Barrichello never beat a 1st rate team-mate - ie Schumacher or Button.
Peterson never got into the right team at the right time. And when he did with Lotus in 78 he had to settle for no 2 status. So Colin Chapman made the decision that Andretti was his best bet for the championship.
(Don't know enough of Gurney's history to comment).

As I've said, being a great driver is not only about being fast. It's about convincing team bosses you can win titles and then demonstrating it. Surely your 3 examples never did that. You could say Gilles Villeneuve was amazingly fast as many did, but he didn't have the self-control to handle Pironi's more ruthless tactical approach and that in part led to his crashing fatally.

I don't think circular logic is the right term, but there is a self-fulfilling prophecy part to it; ie if you show promise you get noticed by the big teams. If you get a chance and take it, team bosses give you more chances and if you keep taking them you stay in the best seats. If you never quite convince the team boss to give you the chance, or if you don't quickly take it when it comes, you may not get another. Maybe some drivers don't have the self-belief or determinaton to do what is needed to get the top no 1 drives despite their speed. I think Peterson was like that - he just loved driving, whereas Andretti was prepared to do whatever it took to win the title.

I disagree fundamentally that being able to get into a more competitive team makes you a better driver. I would only factor in things that are actually relevant to driving. And you're not just ranking the great's. I agree that the true greats do transcend enough to get a shot in quality equipment but you are also ranking the very good and they don't always.

Honestly, If you truly believe the best is the most successful then you really don't need to come up with a system for that. Just count the WDC's. That is the ultimate guide to success after all.

IMO any system that makes Felipe Massa arbitrarily a worse driver because Hamilton passes Glock on the last corner of the last race of a championship is not one I can have faith in.

I think one thing I said wasn't clear: when I said the best drivers always get the best cars, I didn't mean only the best drivers get those cars. Of course there are the no 2's as well, like Coulthard, Massa, Webber who as we discussed are not greats. I am not ranking these drivers, only those who've won a title or come close enough more than once to have proved they could genuinely compete for titles. That's why I included 2nd places in championships. Luck of course plays a part, as it did in 2008 for Massa. But if he was a top driver, he'd have manouevred his way into other opportunities over his career. He didn't.

I didn't say getting into the best car makes you a better driver - but that it gives you the opportunity to prove you are the best driver. Some take that opportunity, some don't.

The WDC stats do tell most of the story in my view, but the case of Moss needs to be accounted for. He was clearly a top driver as he proved with 4 title 2nd places, but luck never came his way.

Poker,

Verstappen got 2 laps in though, while Gasly only did one. Actually Gasly’s first flyer was faster than his teammate’s. I don’t like to compare q1 times for the top guys because they are sometimes in “cruise control” mode in the early sessions. Proof is that most of the midfield guys barely improved in q2, actually some got worse while Verstappen found a second in q2. We don’t know what Gasly would have done in the later sessions.

tim3003 wrote:

Covalent wrote:I'd say you've created a meter for success which isn't always the same thing as being best.

So again, I'll ask: what is the 'best' if it's not the most successful? We all have our favourites, that's a personal opinion. But is there some objective criteria by which we can judge the 'best'? Of course I agree it's not possible to compare drivers from different eras with complete accuracy, but can we at least get a fair idea?

In other sports it is usually agreed to be the number of titles - majors in golf, grand slams in tennis, gold medals/world records in athletics.

That's because those Sports are generally fought on a level playing field equipment wise. Non spec Sports series like F1 never does so its more subjective like asking who's the best footballer. Stats will be part of the discussion of course but ultimately Giggs was going to struggle to win as many World Cups as Pele could for reasons that are pretty clear so using them to show how much better Pele was would be pretty shaky ground so we wouldn't I don't think.

Also if Fed had to use a badminton racket and Tiger a baseball bat when playing the past ten years and Nadal and Mickelson could use their proper equipment we wouldn't be clamouring to use majors/grand slams either in any comparison for obvious reasons.

There just isn't any strictly objective criteria in a non-spec Sport such as F1 so I think you're looking for something that just doesn't exist there tbh.

The real difference is that the sports named (Golf, Tennis, athletics) are individual sports. F1 is a team sport, and like any other team sport, stats are dependent on the team. There are plenty of examples of team sports where a certain player has weaker stats than a different player but is universally considered superior, and the same has to be true in F1.