How fast is Verstappen relative to Hamilton? (THREAD SPLIT)

[mikeyg123]

How fast is Verstappen relative to Hamilton?

The Ricciardo/Hulkenberg and Ricciardo/Vettel cross comparisons basically suggest that Verstappen is around 2 tenths quicker than even Hamilton/Alonso tier

I know sounds absurd, but that is what the numbers say.

Yeah I'm aware of that, it's still too early to make those defining conclusion though, Ricciardo out qualifying the Hulk by 9 tenths in Baku is maybe a bit of an outlier that overly weights things towards Ricciardo at this moment in time considering we only have 7 sample cases?

One thing I would say is that it would be hard to make a case for Hamilton being quicker than Verstappen but then again I believe Verstappen will end up as one of the greats of the sport anyway, which we kind of see with him being 5 tenths quicker than Gasly.

It has to be said though that with things that I've read a decision was taken not to go up against Hamilton at Mercedes.

I don't usually see the posts of the user you quoted.
Where does the logic come from that suggests Verstappen is 2 tenths faster than Hamilton?
Genuinely interested as I can't quite fathom how that can be computed by any kind of relevant data that exists?

It's multiple cross references between drivers but at this point far from conclusive with Ricciardo having done only 7 qualifying sessions with the Hulk one of which Ricciardo was 0.9s quicker which he may never repeat again, however in simplistic form:-

Hamilton > Button 0.2s
Button = Perez = Hulkenberg
Ricciardo > Hulkenberg 0.21s
Verstappen > Ricciardo 0.17s

For me that’s way too much cross referencing and layers. I accept simple ones like, Hamilton faster than Bottas. Bottas faster than Massa. Hamilton almost definitely faster than Massa. Hamilton faster than Massa can also be proven via about 10 different methods using various drivers and disproven by I think 0. It’s also pretty obvious. The above can be disproven in quite a few ways.

If you extend the above, it would put Sainz and Norris at Hamiltons level?

Poker has already said he discounts rookie seasons for his model. I find rookie seasons and final seasons through a lot of cross team mate comparisons out of wack.

[JN23]

If you extend the above, it would put Sainz and Norris at Hamiltons level?

Verstappen was 17 when he went up against Sainz. I get that both were rookies, but Max only had one year of experience in cars, while Sainz took the traditional route to F1.

I don’t think Verstappen fully got up to speed until his third season, which is completely normal given just how young and inexperienced he was when he made his debut.

IMO Max has been the fastest driver on the grid since 2017.

I’ve held this opinion for some time now:
http://forum.planet-f1.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14436

I remember that thread. Now I'm off to buy some popcorn and have a read of it!

[FormulaFun]

To say verstappen is faster than Hamilton is one thing but better over a season or race is another...

Also if Verstappen was that good he would have a pole position by now. I definitely think he's one of the quickest but to say outright quicker than Hamilton by 2 tenths is a bit extreme. I would say on par probably.

[Badgeronimous]

To say verstappen is faster than Hamilton is one thing but better over a season or race is another...

Also if Verstappen was that good he would have a pole position by now. I definitely think he's one of the quickest but to say outright quicker than Hamilton by 2 tenths is a bit extreme. I would say on par probably.

Tbf he isn't exactly getting many genuine opportunities to get a pole. Although he hasn't delivered in the 2-3 opportunities he had a chance of.

He isn't 0.2s a lap faster than Hamilton. So many variables to consider so it's impossible, but if you let them have a hypothetical test in several cars with different characteristics, you'd probably find all the F1 drivers are with 0.5s of each other.

[Johnson]

If you extend the above, it would put Sainz and Norris at Hamiltons level?

Verstappen was 17 when he went up against Sainz. I get that both were rookies, but Max only had one year of experience in cars, while Sainz took the traditional route to F1.

I don’t think Verstappen fully got up to speed until his third season, which is completely normal given just how young and inexperienced he was when he made his debut.

IMO Max has been the fastest driver on the grid since 2017.

I’ve held this opinion for some time now:
http://forum.planet-f1.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14436

Fair enough, Max may well be the fastest in F1. But even for 2016 when he and Sainz had had a full season and a full 2 pre seasons in F1 cars. Max was less than 0.1 ahead of Sainz.

Max did make a jump during 2016 but I put that down to acclimatising to a car he had never driven. I think Ricciardo out qualified him 7-0 in the first 7 races and then it was 3-3 for the last 3 once Max was up to speed.

[KingVoid]

Another weekend, another race where Verstappen outqualifies Gasly by 7 tenths (around a very short circuit, 1.1% of laptime). He also outqualifies Bottas with an inferior car.

Again, these kind of performances are basically the norm for Max.

[sandman1347]

Another weekend, another race where Verstappen outqualifies Gasly by 7 tenths (around a very short circuit, 1.1% of laptime). He also outqualifies Bottas with an inferior car.

Again, these kind of performances are basically the norm for Max.

Really? When was the last time Max out-qualified Bottas? This is not a circuit where Mercedes has some huge advantage over Red Bull. As for Gasly, what does beating him by a big margin tell you about Max? Nothing really. It tells you a lot more about Gasly.

I get it. You've given up on Vettel and now you're going to be pushing your Verstappen narrative full force in the forum. Odds are, he will have his chance to compete against Hamilton on level terms in the near future and then we'll see how he does. If you want sensible people to prop him up above Lewis when he hasn't earned it, I don't think you'll get too many takers.

[pokerman]

How fast is Verstappen relative to Hamilton?

The Ricciardo/Hulkenberg and Ricciardo/Vettel cross comparisons basically suggest that Verstappen is around 2 tenths quicker than even Hamilton/Alonso tier

I know sounds absurd, but that is what the numbers say.

Yeah I'm aware of that, it's still too early to make those defining conclusion though, Ricciardo out qualifying the Hulk by 9 tenths in Baku is maybe a bit of an outlier that overly weights things towards Ricciardo at this moment in time considering we only have 7 sample cases?

One thing I would say is that it would be hard to make a case for Hamilton being quicker than Verstappen but then again I believe Verstappen will end up as one of the greats of the sport anyway, which we kind of see with him being 5 tenths quicker than Gasly.

It has to be said though that with things that I've read a decision was taken not to go up against Hamilton at Mercedes.

I don't usually see the posts of the user you quoted.
Where does the logic come from that suggests Verstappen is 2 tenths faster than Hamilton?
Genuinely interested as I can't quite fathom how that can be computed by any kind of relevant data that exists?

It's multiple cross references between drivers but at this point far from conclusive with Ricciardo having done only 7 qualifying sessions with the Hulk one of which Ricciardo was 0.9s quicker which he may never repeat again, however in simplistic form:-

Hamilton > Button 0.2s
Button = Perez = Hulkenberg
Ricciardo > Hulkenberg 0.21s
Verstappen > Ricciardo 0.17s

For me that’s way too much cross referencing and layers. I accept simple ones like, Hamilton faster than Bottas. Bottas faster than Massa. Hamilton almost definitely faster than Massa. Hamilton faster than Massa can also be proven via about 10 different methods using various drivers and disproven by I think 0. It’s also pretty obvious. The above can be disproven in quite a few ways.

If you extend the above, it would put Sainz and Norris at Hamiltons level?

By making comparison with a 17 year old Verstappen who had only 1 season of car racing?

[sandman1347]

Yeah I'm aware of that, it's still too early to make those defining conclusion though, Ricciardo out qualifying the Hulk by 9 tenths in Baku is maybe a bit of an outlier that overly weights things towards Ricciardo at this moment in time considering we only have 7 sample cases?

One thing I would say is that it would be hard to make a case for Hamilton being quicker than Verstappen but then again I believe Verstappen will end up as one of the greats of the sport anyway, which we kind of see with him being 5 tenths quicker than Gasly.

It has to be said though that with things that I've read a decision was taken not to go up against Hamilton at Mercedes.

I don't usually see the posts of the user you quoted.
Where does the logic come from that suggests Verstappen is 2 tenths faster than Hamilton?
Genuinely interested as I can't quite fathom how that can be computed by any kind of relevant data that exists?

It's multiple cross references between drivers but at this point far from conclusive with Ricciardo having done only 7 qualifying sessions with the Hulk one of which Ricciardo was 0.9s quicker which he may never repeat again, however in simplistic form:-

Hamilton > Button 0.2s
Button = Perez = Hulkenberg
Ricciardo > Hulkenberg 0.21s
Verstappen > Ricciardo 0.17s

For me that’s way too much cross referencing and layers. I accept simple ones like, Hamilton faster than Bottas. Bottas faster than Massa. Hamilton almost definitely faster than Massa. Hamilton faster than Massa can also be proven via about 10 different methods using various drivers and disproven by I think 0. It’s also pretty obvious. The above can be disproven in quite a few ways.

If you extend the above, it would put Sainz and Norris at Hamiltons level?

By making comparison with a 17 year old Verstappen who had only 1 season of car racing?

So you understand how that variable can skew the results but don't understand how other variables can?

[pokerman]

I don't usually see the posts of the user you quoted.
Where does the logic come from that suggests Verstappen is 2 tenths faster than Hamilton?
Genuinely interested as I can't quite fathom how that can be computed by any kind of relevant data that exists?

It's multiple cross references between drivers but at this point far from conclusive with Ricciardo having done only 7 qualifying sessions with the Hulk one of which Ricciardo was 0.9s quicker which he may never repeat again, however in simplistic form:-

Hamilton > Button 0.2s
Button = Perez = Hulkenberg
Ricciardo > Hulkenberg 0.21s
Verstappen > Ricciardo 0.17s

For me that’s way too much cross referencing and layers. I accept simple ones like, Hamilton faster than Bottas. Bottas faster than Massa. Hamilton almost definitely faster than Massa. Hamilton faster than Massa can also be proven via about 10 different methods using various drivers and disproven by I think 0. It’s also pretty obvious. The above can be disproven in quite a few ways.

If you extend the above, it would put Sainz and Norris at Hamiltons level?

By making comparison with a 17 year old Verstappen who had only 1 season of car racing?

So you understand how that variable can skew the results but don't understand how other variables can?

I see it as a list of excuses, Verstappen being only 17 years old is hardly an excuse.

I understand people don't like these kind of constructs in particular when they don't like the results, in respect to KingVoid I have said he is jumping the gun a bit with Verstappen, both Hakkinen and Berger out qualified Senna first time of asking, Irvine out qualified Schumacher first time of asking. I was pointing out that there was some merit in what he was saying but his sample size is a little weak for it to be defining.

[sandman1347]

So you understand how that variable can skew the results but don't understand how other variables can?

I see it as a list of excuses, Verstappen being only 17 years old is hardly an excuse.

I understand people don't like these kind of constructs in particular when they don't like the results, in respect to KingVoid I have said he is jumping the gun a bit with Verstappen, both Hakkinen and Berger out qualified Senna first time of asking, Irvine out qualified Schumacher first time of asking. I was pointing out that there was some merit in what he was saying but his sample size is a little weak for it to be defining.

It's a list of reasons why the time gaps are not a reliable metric; just like Verstappen's age when he lost out to Sainz (who was also quite young at the time and also a rookie at the time ) in qualifying. You seem to want to drag this down into a case of people arguing against you because they don't like your conclusions but people have put forward many explanations as to why you cannot rely on the figures. It seems you only acknowledge those explanations when they prevent your method from being debunked and you call them excuses when they debunk your method...

[KingVoid]

I get it. You've given up on Vettel and now you're going to be pushing your Verstappen narrative full force in the forum.

Do you see how old this post is?
http://forum.planet-f1.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14436

At the time of this post, Vettel was leading the championship.

I have been on the “Verstappen is the fastest” bandwagon for a long time now. He’s been the fastest driver on the grid ever since he established a clear upper hand over Ricciardo on pure pace.

I don’t actually think that Verstappen is the best driver on the grid yet, he’s just the fastest.

[sandman1347]

I get it. You've given up on Vettel and now you're going to be pushing your Verstappen narrative full force in the forum.

Do you see how old this post is?
http://forum.planet-f1.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14436

At the time of this post, Vettel was leading the championship.

I have been on the “Verstappen is the fastest” bandwagon for a long time now. He’s been the fastest driver on the grid ever since he established a clear upper hand over Ricciardo on pure pace.

I don’t actually think that Verstappen is the best driver on the grid yet, he’s just the fastest.

Correction: You think he's the fastest. When you state something as a fact that is nothing more than your opinion, you will end up getting pushback from people who don't agree with you.

[froze]

If you say that Verstappen has 2 tenths over Hamilton then where exactly is it made? Evenly over the course of one lap during which neither driver made any driving mistakes? Also, on which track and on which conditions? Or does the margin actually include some driving mistakes? I don't really believe any driver can be consistently X tenths faster than the other. I think it's absurd to try to calculate such numbers because it's not like they're running on rails with some drivers travelling at a different velocity than the others. It's more like that in some corners some drivers sometimes perform better than others.

Also the car setup kind of dictates the theoretical maximum of where the car can be pushed at a given time. So if driver X's car has a better overall setup than driver Y's then it doesn't matter even if driver Y always pushes to the theoretical maximum of his car, because driver X is always ahead assuming if he does the same. Does that mean that driver Y is a slower driver though, even when he actually pushed to the maximum? It's another discussion then why the drivers have different setups, but one huge factor is the driving style. Then you'd probably have to compare which driving style is superior, but how do you measure that, and again, on which track and on which conditions?

I guess the bottom line what I'm trying to say is that, it's not possible to make those measurements on such accuracy level. The only measure you could realistically make is which driver beat his teammate, preferably over the course of one or several seasons, with mechanical DNF corrected results. Even that is tricky.

[pokerman]

So you understand how that variable can skew the results but don't understand how other variables can?

I see it as a list of excuses, Verstappen being only 17 years old is hardly an excuse.

I understand people don't like these kind of constructs in particular when they don't like the results, in respect to KingVoid I have said he is jumping the gun a bit with Verstappen, both Hakkinen and Berger out qualified Senna first time of asking, Irvine out qualified Schumacher first time of asking. I was pointing out that there was some merit in what he was saying but his sample size is a little weak for it to be defining.

It's a list of reasons why the time gaps are not a reliable metric; just like Verstappen's age when he lost out to Sainz (who was also quite young at the time and also a rookie at the time ) in qualifying. You seem to want to drag this down into a case of people arguing against you because they don't like your conclusions but people have put forward many explanations as to why you cannot rely on the figures. It seems you only acknowledge those explanations when they prevent your method from being debunked and you call them excuses when they debunk your method...

So you have decided that you have debunked my method?

[sandman1347]

So you understand how that variable can skew the results but don't understand how other variables can?

I see it as a list of excuses, Verstappen being only 17 years old is hardly an excuse.

I understand people don't like these kind of constructs in particular when they don't like the results, in respect to KingVoid I have said he is jumping the gun a bit with Verstappen, both Hakkinen and Berger out qualified Senna first time of asking, Irvine out qualified Schumacher first time of asking. I was pointing out that there was some merit in what he was saying but his sample size is a little weak for it to be defining.

It's a list of reasons why the time gaps are not a reliable metric; just like Verstappen's age when he lost out to Sainz (who was also quite young at the time and also a rookie at the time ) in qualifying. You seem to want to drag this down into a case of people arguing against you because they don't like your conclusions but people have put forward many explanations as to why you cannot rely on the figures. It seems you only acknowledge those explanations when they prevent your method from being debunked and you call them excuses when they debunk your method...

So you have decided that you have debunked my method?

Are you actually trying to claim that your data is statistically significant?

[pokerman]

So you understand how that variable can skew the results but don't understand how other variables can?

I see it as a list of excuses, Verstappen being only 17 years old is hardly an excuse.

I understand people don't like these kind of constructs in particular when they don't like the results, in respect to KingVoid I have said he is jumping the gun a bit with Verstappen, both Hakkinen and Berger out qualified Senna first time of asking, Irvine out qualified Schumacher first time of asking. I was pointing out that there was some merit in what he was saying but his sample size is a little weak for it to be defining.

It's a list of reasons why the time gaps are not a reliable metric; just like Verstappen's age when he lost out to Sainz (who was also quite young at the time and also a rookie at the time ) in qualifying. You seem to want to drag this down into a case of people arguing against you because they don't like your conclusions but people have put forward many explanations as to why you cannot rely on the figures. It seems you only acknowledge those explanations when they prevent your method from being debunked and you call them excuses when they debunk your method...

So you have decided that you have debunked my method?

Are you actually trying to claim that your data is statistically significant?

I believe it has strong relevance but I can see not as strong as the need for subjective opinion and I fully appreciate that.

[KingVoid]

Serious question: when was the last weekend where Verstappen was slow?

[KingVoid]

I get it. You've given up on Vettel and now you're going to be pushing your Verstappen narrative full force in the forum.

Do you see how old this post is?
http://forum.planet-f1.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14436

At the time of this post, Vettel was leading the championship.

I have been on the “Verstappen is the fastest” bandwagon for a long time now. He’s been the fastest driver on the grid ever since he established a clear upper hand over Ricciardo on pure pace.

I don’t actually think that Verstappen is the best driver on the grid yet, he’s just the fastest.

Correction: You think he's the fastest. When you state something as a fact that is nothing more than your opinion, you will end up getting pushback from people who don't agree with you.

Based on your old and previous posts, you seem very confident that Hamilton is faster than Vettel despite the fact that there’s no concrete evidence to support this theory. They have never been teammates or even had mutual teammates. The best we can do is cross comparisons (Raikkonen-Alonso or Webber-Rosberg).

Well, I have a similar confidence that Verstappen is the fastest on the grid, faster than Hamilton. This is based mostly on what Verstappen did to Ricciardo in 2017-2018 and what Ricciardo has done to all his other teammates.

[Exediron]

Serious question: when was the last weekend where Verstappen was slow?

Simply slow, as opposed to error-prone?

I'd say the 2017 Italian Grand Prix. He didn't have Ricciardo's pace, and would probably have finished behind him even if you compensated for the lost time from hitting Massa. The most recent really clear-cut example would be Singapore 2016.

When was the last time Hamilton was slow, since we're talking Lewis vs. Max?

[JN23]

Serious question: when was the last weekend where Verstappen was slow?

Simply slow, as opposed to error-prone?

I'd say the 2017 Italian Grand Prix. He didn't have Ricciardo's pace, and would probably have finished behind him even if you compensated for the lost time from hitting Massa. The most recent really clear-cut example would be Singapore 2016.

When was the last time Hamilton was slow, since we're talking Lewis vs. Max?

Canada or China 2018 are the only one's I would consider in the last 1.5 seasons. Before that Russia 2017 probably.

[KingVoid]

Serious question: when was the last weekend where Verstappen was slow?

Simply slow, as opposed to error-prone?

I'd say the 2017 Italian Grand Prix. He didn't have Ricciardo's pace, and would probably have finished behind him even if you compensated for the lost time from hitting Massa. The most recent really clear-cut example would be Singapore 2016.

When was the last time Hamilton was slow, since we're talking Lewis vs. Max?

At Monza 2017 Max probably had a fair bit of floor damage from driving around with a puncture over the whole lap. He was quicker than Ricciardo in qualifying.

As for Hamilton, in the last 18 months or so he lacked pace at Australia 2019, China 2018 and Canada 2018.

Vettel lacked pace at France 2019, Bahrain 2019 and Brazil 2018

[Exediron]

Serious question: when was the last weekend where Verstappen was slow?

Simply slow, as opposed to error-prone?

I'd say the 2017 Italian Grand Prix. He didn't have Ricciardo's pace, and would probably have finished behind him even if you compensated for the lost time from hitting Massa. The most recent really clear-cut example would be Singapore 2016.

When was the last time Hamilton was slow, since we're talking Lewis vs. Max?

At Monza 2017 Max probably had a fair bit of floor damage from driving around with a puncture over the whole lap. He was quicker than Ricciardo in qualifying.

As for Hamilton, in the last 18 months or so he lacked pace at Australia 2019, China 2018 and Canada 2018.

Vettel lacked pace at France 2019, Bahrain 2019 and Brazil 2018

If you're using the floor damage excuse for Max, you should also use it for Lewis in Australia 2019 - that's Mercedes' official explanation of his pace there.

The 2018 ones I think are on the money, though.

[sandman1347]

Serious question: when was the last weekend where Verstappen was slow?

He was slow in Baku in 2018. He was also off the pace at Monza in 2017. Not that it matters. If a fast driver is slow it's almost always to do with setup or other car issues. Pretty irrelevant question.

[sandman1347]

I get it. You've given up on Vettel and now you're going to be pushing your Verstappen narrative full force in the forum.

Do you see how old this post is?
http://forum.planet-f1.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14436

At the time of this post, Vettel was leading the championship.

I have been on the “Verstappen is the fastest” bandwagon for a long time now. He’s been the fastest driver on the grid ever since he established a clear upper hand over Ricciardo on pure pace.

I don’t actually think that Verstappen is the best driver on the grid yet, he’s just the fastest.

Correction: You think he's the fastest. When you state something as a fact that is nothing more than your opinion, you will end up getting pushback from people who don't agree with you.

Based on your old and previous posts, you seem very confident that Hamilton is faster than Vettel despite the fact that there’s no concrete evidence to support this theory. They have never been teammates or even had mutual teammates. The best we can do is cross comparisons (Raikkonen-Alonso or Webber-Rosberg).

Well, I have a similar confidence that Verstappen is the fastest on the grid, faster than Hamilton. This is based mostly on what Verstappen did to Ricciardo in 2017-2018 and what Ricciardo has done to all his other teammates.

Which means absolutely nothing to me (or anyone else other than yourself). Don't get me wrong, you are welcome to your opinion but it's just an opinion. Max was faster than Ricciardo. That much is true and it is very impressive. Hamilton has been faster than Alonso (a guy who has trounced most of his teammates) and Rosberg (a guy who has also smashed most of his teammates - including Michael Schumacher). For me, that's even more impressive. I think Max is in Hamilton's league in terms of raw pace but for me to suggest he's faster, I would need to actually see it.

With regards to Vettel; let's see how things go with Charles. The bottom line is that Vettel was slower than Daniel while they were teammates and he might prove to be slower than Charles as well. Again, you are welcome to your own opinion but don't expect to convince many people that he's faster than Hamilton.

[KingVoid]

What makes Verstappen’s 2017 and 2018 special is not only that he was faster than Ricciardo, but the gap he had over Ricciardo. His average gap over Ricciardo was almost 2 tenths in clean qualifying sessions. That’s the same gap Hamilton has over Bottas, and double the gap Hamilton had over Rosberg. I rate Ricciardo similar to Rosberg and higher than Bottas.

These statistics, along with my gut feeling, makes me think that Verstappen is probably the fastest.

[sandman1347]

Yeah I get that you think he's the fastest. But your whole explanation is based on speculation. You think Ricciardo is faster than Bottas, you think Rosberg is even with Ricciardo. That's all speculation. Like I said, in order to know who is faster between Lewis and Max, you would need to put them in the same car or, at the least, put Daniel in the Mercedes or put Valteri in the Red Bull.

[stevey]

What makes Verstappen’s 2017 and 2018 special is not only that he was faster than Ricciardo, but the gap he had over Ricciardo. His average gap over Ricciardo was almost 2 tenths in clean qualifying sessions. That’s the same gap Hamilton has over Bottas, and double the gap Hamilton had over Rosberg. I rate Ricciardo similar to Rosberg and higher than Bottas.

These statistics, along with my gut feeling, makes me think that Verstappen is probably the fastest.

The problem being we already know RBR operate a number one and two driver policy since the days of Mark and Seb. If you are the prodigal son of Helmut Marko you will get all the best of the resources around you including parts, engines , engineers, prime quali strategy (ordering).

Merc is the only team that seems not to do this - i mean look at how they moved engineers around etc with Nico.

[mikeyg123]

What makes Verstappen’s 2017 and 2018 special is not only that he was faster than Ricciardo, but the gap he had over Ricciardo. His average gap over Ricciardo was almost 2 tenths in clean qualifying sessions. That’s the same gap Hamilton has over Bottas, and double the gap Hamilton had over Rosberg. I rate Ricciardo similar to Rosberg and higher than Bottas.

These statistics, along with my gut feeling, makes me think that Verstappen is probably the fastest.

The problem being we already know RBR operate a number one and two driver policy since the days of Mark and Seb. If you are the prodigal son of Helmut Marko you will get all the best of the resources around you including parts, engines , engineers, prime quali strategy (ordering).

Merc is the only team that seems not to do this - i mean look at how they moved engineers around etc with Nico.

Well then Verstappen would be *inaudible* seeing as he doesn't come from the young driver program.

I think Red Bull were pretty even handed with Webber and Vettel. Webber just did a lot more whinging.

[Teddy007]

How fast is Verstappen relative to Hamilton?

The Ricciardo/Hulkenberg and Ricciardo/Vettel cross comparisons basically suggest that Verstappen is around 2 tenths quicker than even Hamilton/Alonso tier

I know sounds absurd, but that is what the numbers say.

No such thing as numbers. You are comparing drivers that have never been team mates.

Alonso was faster than Kimi like Vettel was. But unless you examine in detail what their comparisons were (doesn't look like you've even attempted it). BUT in defense of Vettel Vs Ric - this was one a single season.

Now bearing in mind that Kimi/Alonso/Vettel have all been world champions when they became team mates. You are forgetting one finer point to the Alonso/Lewis comparison - Lewis was in his first F1 season. Nearly every driver on this grid right now is far more experienced compared to what Lewis was in his first season. In fact, even Leclerc is now more experienced compared to what Lewis was when teamed against Alonso BUT again in defense of the double world champion - it was a single season. Lewis/Nico is 2-1 in favour of Lewis.

One day, I want to see a pairing of Lewis Vs Max/Vet. The closest we have come is the last few years of Vet V Lewis when Lewis came out on top. We didn't get to see more great racing against these two because of mistakes by Vettel or Ferrari.

I get the feeling we may see a Lewis V Max which I think will be fantastic for F1 and for the fans. BUT you can't really compare, you can only guess. Vet was slower than Ric, Ric was slower than Max, Kimi was slower than Alonso and Vet... sometimes, luck plays a part.

[pokerman]

How fast is Verstappen relative to Hamilton?

The Ricciardo/Hulkenberg and Ricciardo/Vettel cross comparisons basically suggest that Verstappen is around 2 tenths quicker than even Hamilton/Alonso tier

I know sounds absurd, but that is what the numbers say.

No such thing as numbers. You are comparing drivers that have never been team mates.

Alonso was faster than Kimi like Vettel was. But unless you examine in detail what their comparisons were (doesn't look like you've even attempted it). BUT in defense of Vettel Vs Ric - this was one a single season.

Now bearing in mind that Kimi/Alonso/Vettel have all been world champions when they became team mates. You are forgetting one finer point to the Alonso/Lewis comparison - Lewis was in his first F1 season. Nearly every driver on this grid right now is far more experienced compared to what Lewis was in his first season. In fact, even Leclerc is now more experienced compared to what Lewis was when teamed against Alonso BUT again in defense of the double world champion - it was a single season. Lewis/Nico is 2-1 in favour of Lewis.

One day, I want to see a pairing of Lewis Vs Max/Vet. The closest we have come is the last few years of Vet V Lewis when Lewis came out on top. We didn't get to see more great racing against these two because of mistakes by Vettel or Ferrari.

I get the feeling we may see a Lewis V Max which I think will be fantastic for F1 and for the fans. BUT you can't really compare, you can only guess. Vet was slower than Ric, Ric was slower than Max, Kimi was slower than Alonso and Vet... sometimes, luck plays a part.

Just for the record Lewis/Nico was 3-1 in favour of Lewis.

[sandman1347]

Are you actually trying to claim that your data is statistically significant?

I believe it has strong relevance but I can see not as strong as the need for subjective opinion and I fully appreciate that.

You didn't actually answer the question; instead choosing to make the same fallacious argument. The question was; do you believe that your method produces statistically significant results? Because, if so, you are mistaken. You don't have a scientifically viable method because you don't actually fix any variables in your assessments. You claim that there is relevance to the data and I agree. The relevance is in showing which teammate is generally quicker between two drivers in identical machinery. That is the comparison that has merit. Trying to apply it transitively across different teams, seasons, rule sets and circumstances while using the exact time increments creates far too many changing variables to have any statistical significance.

[pokerman]

Are you actually trying to claim that your data is statistically significant?

I believe it has strong relevance but I can see not as strong as the need for subjective opinion and I fully appreciate that.

You didn't actually answer the question; instead choosing to make the same fallacious argument. The question was; do you believe that your method produces statistically significant results? Because, if so, you are mistaken. You don't have a scientifically viable method because you don't actually fix any variables in your assessments. You claim that there is relevance to the data and I agree. The relevance is in showing which teammate is generally quicker between two drivers in identical machinery. That is the comparison that has merit. Trying to apply it transitively across different teams, seasons, rule sets and circumstances while using the exact time increments creates far too many changing variables to have any statistical significance.

I think I have said before that I believe it does, I'm happy with the results I get from it and how it gives me a good idea of the playing field, as for scientifically viable methods to fix any variables, these variables can be as convoluted as much as you wish to make them to try and disprove any method, the bottom line is the preservation of personal opinion.

For me it's a guide for others maybe a load of rubbish but it least it's something that tries to be free of any bias, that's something that personal opinion really struggles with.

[sandman1347]

Are you actually trying to claim that your data is statistically significant?

I believe it has strong relevance but I can see not as strong as the need for subjective opinion and I fully appreciate that.

You didn't actually answer the question; instead choosing to make the same fallacious argument. The question was; do you believe that your method produces statistically significant results? Because, if so, you are mistaken. You don't have a scientifically viable method because you don't actually fix any variables in your assessments. You claim that there is relevance to the data and I agree. The relevance is in showing which teammate is generally quicker between two drivers in identical machinery. That is the comparison that has merit. Trying to apply it transitively across different teams, seasons, rule sets and circumstances while using the exact time increments creates far too many changing variables to have any statistical significance.

I think I have said before that I believe it does, I'm happy with the results I get from it and how it gives me a good idea of the playing field, as for scientifically viable methods to fix any variables, these variables can be as convoluted as much as you wish to make them to try and disprove any method, the bottom line is the preservation of personal opinion.

For me it's a guide for others maybe a load of rubbish but it least it's something that tries to be free of any bias, that's something that personal opinion really struggles with.

I understand where you are coming from but the idea that your method must be disproven is bogus. It must actually be proven and it has shown to be fairly accurate in some cases but quite inaccurate in others. No one is actually arguing for the imposition of personal opinion. What people are saying is that you cannot tell from the information available. Of course most people struggle with that as a response, instead seeking to formulate a definitive answer even in the absence of sufficient information to generate it.

[tootsie323]

Unless you put them in the same car, under the same conditions, all you can call on are subjective conclusions from what available info you have.

[Teddy007]

Just for the record Lewis/Nico was 3-1 in favour of Lewis.

Wow time has flown by, has it really been 4 seasons that it was Nico V Lewis? I honestly thought Nico won 1 compared to Lewis 2

Old age kicking in.

OH WAIT. Done some info checking it is 2-1, They were team mates for 3 seasons and Nico retired when he won it. While Lewis won it twice with Merc before Nico did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_F ... _Champions

[Teddy007]

Unless you put them in the same car, under the same conditions, all you can call on are subjective conclusions from what available info you have.

This is my thinking.

[F1_Ernie]

Just for the record Lewis/Nico was 3-1 in favour of Lewis.

Wow time has flown by, has it really been 4 seasons that it was Nico V Lewis? I honestly thought Nico won 1 compared to Lewis 2

Old age kicking in.

OH WAIT. Done some info checking it is 2-1, They were team mates for 3 seasons and Nico retired when he won it. While Lewis won it twice with Merc before Nico did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_F ... _Champions

It was 4 seasons.

[pokerman]

Are you actually trying to claim that your data is statistically significant?

I believe it has strong relevance but I can see not as strong as the need for subjective opinion and I fully appreciate that.

You didn't actually answer the question; instead choosing to make the same fallacious argument. The question was; do you believe that your method produces statistically significant results? Because, if so, you are mistaken. You don't have a scientifically viable method because you don't actually fix any variables in your assessments. You claim that there is relevance to the data and I agree. The relevance is in showing which teammate is generally quicker between two drivers in identical machinery. That is the comparison that has merit. Trying to apply it transitively across different teams, seasons, rule sets and circumstances while using the exact time increments creates far too many changing variables to have any statistical significance.

I think I have said before that I believe it does, I'm happy with the results I get from it and how it gives me a good idea of the playing field, as for scientifically viable methods to fix any variables, these variables can be as convoluted as much as you wish to make them to try and disprove any method, the bottom line is the preservation of personal opinion.

For me it's a guide for others maybe a load of rubbish but it least it's something that tries to be free of any bias, that's something that personal opinion really struggles with.

I understand where you are coming from but the idea that your method must be disproven is bogus. It must actually be proven and it has shown to be fairly accurate in some cases but quite inaccurate in others. No one is actually arguing for the imposition of personal opinion. What people are saying is that you cannot tell from the information available. Of course most people struggle with that as a response, instead seeking to formulate a definitive answer even in the absence of sufficient information to generate it.

From my point of view I find it strange how people can be so defined in their opinion about drivers when they have never even been teammates, for me it's trying to come to a better understanding rather than entrenched opinions like x is better than y come what may.

[pokerman]

Unless you put them in the same car, under the same conditions, all you can call on are subjective conclusions from what available info you have.

Even that gets dismissed for x,y,z reasons.