planetf1.com

Thanks to Exediron for suggesting this poll.

It's quite simple, rank the driver pairings for 2020 from best to worst. I have listed the team names in the poll, and that refers to the driver pairing as it exists at the start of the year

Mercedes - Hamilton and Bottas
Ferrari - Vettel and Leclerc
Red Bull - Verstappen and Albon
McLaren - Sainz and Norris
Renault - Ricciardo and Ocon
AlphaTauri - Kvyat and Gasly
Racing Point - Perez and Stroll
Alfa Romeo - Raikkonen and Giovinazzi
Haas - Grosjean and Magnussen
Williams - Russell and Latifi


How to use the poll
To add a team to the list, click on the team name in the left column and it will move to the right hand column below whichever team is highlighted in blue (obviously, in the empty list it just gets added in position 1)

To remove a team from the list, click on the x by the name. To change the team you are adding after, click on the team in the right hand list and they will be turned blue. To insert a team at the top, click on the right hand column header.

Note, you must have ranked all items in the poll to be able to vote and you cannot rank things 'equal'

I simply looked to how I rated drivers in the other polls, for Renault I judged Ocon to be much a like for like for the Hulk and similar for Latifi for Kubica hence;-

01. Mercedes 7
02. Ferrari 9
03. Renault 11
04. Red Bull 16
05. McLaren 21
06. Racing Point 26
07. Haas 28
08. Williams 29
09. Alfa Romeo 30
10. Alpha Tauri 33

Used the same formula as poker and got

1. Mercedes 8
2. Ferrari 9
3. Renault 11
4. Red Bull 15
5. Mclaren 19
6. Racing Point 25
7. Alfa Romeo 29
8. Williams 31
9. Haas 31
10. Apha Tauri 32

I put Williams ahead of Haas as I think they have the best driver and I felt having one good driver and one poor one is more likely to score you more points than having two below average ones.

1. Ferrari
2. Mercedes
3. Red Bull
4. Renault
5. McLaren
6. Racing Point
7. AlphaTauri
8. Alfa Romeo
9. Haas
10. Williams

There are so many different ways to vote for this. Basically, when they are both at their best, i think vettel and Leclerc are better than Bottas. But the amount of team orders ignored, clashes with eachother on track (something that never happens with the Mercedes pair) is what makes a massive difference IMO. I think bottas is certainly pretty good and Hamilton is currently the best, so I feel it is Mercedes by a long long way. But heavily because of how well the two get on as a team. This is how I rate them anyway. I don't just rank them based on each drivers ability. I think about how them both being at the same team could effect things. Grosjean and Magnussen are not quite as bad as many think, but they don't look great when pared together.

I think some have under rated Red Bull. Verstappen I think is incredibly close to Hamilton, and Albon looks to be pretty far off Verstappen in a similar way to Bottas off Hamilton, but probably by a bit more. But the advantage to this is that I expect no fighting or problems like Ricciardo had, so in some aspects, it is better, some worse than when Ricciardo was there. But I think that from what I have seen with vettel and Leclerc together in a team this year, I don't think I would rate them as the 2nd strongest pairing either. Probably 3rd after Red Bull.

I think the top 3 are quite easy for me to decide, but not sure about who are next. The McLaren is such an unknown. 2 drivers, both new to the team and one was a rookie last year. At the same time, the car looked to make a sudden swing in form compared to last year with the engine switch that it is so hard to judge them. Maybe Norris could be very good that he out qualified Sainz, or Sainz was pretty poor in this area? Really difficult. They seemed to get on really well though so they overall look prretty strong and I think I would vote them or Renault next. Not sure about the rest.

Thanks for making the poll!

There's a few different ways to look at this -- most dramatically, from the WDC point of view or the WCC. Since the WCC is the ultimate goal of every team, I'm going to be casting my vote with the WCC in mind.

The Good Teams

The Best Team
It's Mercedes, of course. While I feel that Ferrari probably has the edge in talent, Mercedes has a team that actually works together. Can you imagine Bottas holding Hamilton up or hitting him? Me either, unlike...

Almost The Best
Ferrari is a close second, and in terms of raw potential I would put them ahead. However, they're almost infamous for not delivering on that potential, and their current lineup has a (admittedly brief) history of bleeding points from their potential.

#3
The third team is a lot less clear. Red Bull has Verstappen, arguably the only potentially 'transformative' driver outside the two aforementioned teams. He can deliver results beyond the expectations of the car, but the same cannot be said for his teammate. Other contenders are McLaren and Renault, both of whom field a very strong pairing without a real weak driver between them.

I'm going to go with Red Bull, however, because I see Albon as a driver who will do what's expected, and Max being able to go above and beyond gives them the edge.

#4 & #5
These are Renault and McLaren. At present I'm going to give the nod fairly decisively to Renault; I see Ricciardo as superior to either McLaren driver, and Ocon as probably a close match for Sainz. A bit of a wildcard is how Norris will develop in his second year.

The Flawed Teams

And that takes us past all of the partnerships that can boast two strong drivers. Every remaining team has at least one weak link dragging down their ability to post consistent WCC points (one team has two such). Honestly, I find these teams a lot harder to place than the ones with two good drivers, but here's my best attempt...

#6
Racing Point, by benefit of Perez's proven ability to drag points out of a midfield car and Stroll's general status as being at least better than Latifi. This one is close with...

#7
Williams. I see Russell as quite likely the best driver in the lower half of the field, but he's held back by his unknown -- but probably quite poor -- teammate. If there are results to be had Russell should be snatching them, but I expect him to be quite often fighting alone.

#8 & #9
This is a close tossup between Alfa Romeo and Alpha Tauri (already confused), but I'm giving the edge to Alfa over Alpha. Kimi is past his peak, but I'd gave ti say still a match for Gasly -- and with Giovinazzi seeming to find his feet towards the end of last season, I'm rating him ahead of Kvyat for the tiebreaker.

The Worst Lineup
It's Haas, clearly, and for the same reason Mercedes is the best. The raw talent of the Haas pairing probably wouldn't put them bottom of the pile, but you just cannot trust these guys to deliver what the car is capable of. At least one of the two will be having an awful day on any given weekend of the year.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:Using that system - although I make Ocon = Hulk and slotted Latifi in behind Gasly at 17, bumping the others down (ties decided by the best driver) - I would get:

Mercedes: 1+5 = 6
Ferrari: 4+6 = 10
Renault: 3 + 9 = 12
Red Bull: 2 + 14 = 16
McLaren: 7 + 11 = 18
Racing Point: 8 + 20 = 28
Alfa Romeo: 10 + 18 = 28
Williams: 12 + 17 = 29
Toro Rosso: 13 + 16 = 29
Haas: 15 + 19 = 34

However, I'm not sure just adding the numbers like this works, as the difference between the drivers wasn't equal, they were clustered.

I originally graded them in 5 tiers: Gold / Silver / Bronze / Standard / Relegation

So I figured I would add some bonuses for drivers being in each zone: -3 / -2 / -1 / 0 / +1

This resulted in:


Mercedes: 1+5 - 3 - 2 = 1
Ferrari: 4+6 - 2 - 2 = 6
Renault: 3 + 9 - 3 - 1 = 8
Red Bull: 2 + 14 -3 = 13
McLaren: 7 + 11 - 1 - 1 = 16
Alfa Romeo: 10 + 18 -1 = 27
Racing Point: 8 + 20 -1 + 1 = 28
Williams: 12 + 17 - 1 = 28
Toro Rosso: 13 + 16 = 29
Haas: 15 + 19 +1 = 35

This elevated Alfa Romeo, but that was it. I'm not sure this method actually reflects too much, so I considered normalising each driver to their groups average and then spreading them by .2 points

So Hamilton and Verstappen are Gold tier, so that's an average of 1.5, so they get 1.4 and 1.6
Ricciardo / Leclerc / Bottas / Vettel are Silver tier, so that's an average of 4.5, so they are 4.2 / 4.4 / 4.6 / 4.8
Sainz / Perez / Ocon / Kimi / Norris / Russel are Bronze tier, an average of 9.5, so 9.0 / 9.2 / 9.4 / 9.6 / 9.8 / 10.0
Kyvat / Albon / Magnussen / Gasly / Latifi / Giovinazzi are Standard tier, average of 15.5, so 15.0 / 15.2 / 15.4 / 15.6 / 15.8 / 16.0
Grosjean and Stroll are Relegation tier, average 19.5, so 19.4 and 19.6.

This now changes things to:

Mercedes: 1.4 + 4.6 = 6
Ferrari: 4.4 + 4.8 = 9.2
Renault: 4.2 + 9.4 = 13.6
Red Bull: 1.6 + 15.2 = 16.8
McLaren: 9.0 + 9.8 = 18.8
Alfa Romeo: 9.6 + 16.0 = 25.6
Williams: 10.0 + 15.8 = 25.8
Racing Point: 9.2 + 19.6 = 28.8
Toro Rosso: 15.0+15.6 = 30.6
Haas: 15.4 + 19.4 = 34.8

And this is basically the same order as all the others - which I suppose makes sense. I think of the three lists this feels the most right to me. Although may I should do an average of the avera... no. I'm going with this.

Latifi better than Grosjean and Stroll? Wow!

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:Using that system - although I make Ocon = Hulk and slotted Latifi in behind Gasly at 17, bumping the others down (ties decided by the best driver) - I would get:

Mercedes: 1+5 = 6
Ferrari: 4+6 = 10
Renault: 3 + 9 = 12
Red Bull: 2 + 14 = 16
McLaren: 7 + 11 = 18
Racing Point: 8 + 20 = 28
Alfa Romeo: 10 + 18 = 28
Williams: 12 + 17 = 29
Toro Rosso: 13 + 16 = 29
Haas: 15 + 19 = 34

However, I'm not sure just adding the numbers like this works, as the difference between the drivers wasn't equal, they were clustered.

I originally graded them in 5 tiers: Gold / Silver / Bronze / Standard / Relegation

So I figured I would add some bonuses for drivers being in each zone: -3 / -2 / -1 / 0 / +1

This resulted in:


Mercedes: 1+5 - 3 - 2 = 1
Ferrari: 4+6 - 2 - 2 = 6
Renault: 3 + 9 - 3 - 1 = 8
Red Bull: 2 + 14 -3 = 13
McLaren: 7 + 11 - 1 - 1 = 16
Alfa Romeo: 10 + 18 -1 = 27
Racing Point: 8 + 20 -1 + 1 = 28
Williams: 12 + 17 - 1 = 28
Toro Rosso: 13 + 16 = 29
Haas: 15 + 19 +1 = 35

This elevated Alfa Romeo, but that was it. I'm not sure this method actually reflects too much, so I considered normalising each driver to their groups average and then spreading them by .2 points

So Hamilton and Verstappen are Gold tier, so that's an average of 1.5, so they get 1.4 and 1.6
Ricciardo / Leclerc / Bottas / Vettel are Silver tier, so that's an average of 4.5, so they are 4.2 / 4.4 / 4.6 / 4.8
Sainz / Perez / Ocon / Kimi / Norris / Russel are Bronze tier, an average of 9.5, so 9.0 / 9.2 / 9.4 / 9.6 / 9.8 / 10.0
Kyvat / Albon / Magnussen / Gasly / Latifi / Giovinazzi are Standard tier, average of 15.5, so 15.0 / 15.2 / 15.4 / 15.6 / 15.8 / 16.0
Grosjean and Stroll are Relegation tier, average 19.5, so 19.4 and 19.6.

This now changes things to:

Mercedes: 1.4 + 4.6 = 6
Ferrari: 4.4 + 4.8 = 9.2
Renault: 4.2 + 9.4 = 13.6
Red Bull: 1.6 + 15.2 = 16.8
McLaren: 9.0 + 9.8 = 18.8
Alfa Romeo: 9.6 + 16.0 = 25.6
Williams: 10.0 + 15.8 = 25.8
Racing Point: 9.2 + 19.6 = 28.8
Toro Rosso: 15.0+15.6 = 30.6
Haas: 15.4 + 19.4 = 34.8

And this is basically the same order as all the others - which I suppose makes sense. I think of the three lists this feels the most right to me. Although may I should do an average of the avera... no. I'm going with this.

Latifi better than Grosjean and Stroll? Wow!

He may be better than Stroll who isn't exactly a high benchmark, in respect to Grosjean he may prove better in not making stupid mistakes?

pokerman wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:Using that system - although I make Ocon = Hulk and slotted Latifi in behind Gasly at 17, bumping the others down (ties decided by the best driver) - I would get:

Mercedes: 1+5 = 6
Ferrari: 4+6 = 10
Renault: 3 + 9 = 12
Red Bull: 2 + 14 = 16
McLaren: 7 + 11 = 18
Racing Point: 8 + 20 = 28
Alfa Romeo: 10 + 18 = 28
Williams: 12 + 17 = 29
Toro Rosso: 13 + 16 = 29
Haas: 15 + 19 = 34

However, I'm not sure just adding the numbers like this works, as the difference between the drivers wasn't equal, they were clustered.

I originally graded them in 5 tiers: Gold / Silver / Bronze / Standard / Relegation

So I figured I would add some bonuses for drivers being in each zone: -3 / -2 / -1 / 0 / +1

This resulted in:


Mercedes: 1+5 - 3 - 2 = 1
Ferrari: 4+6 - 2 - 2 = 6
Renault: 3 + 9 - 3 - 1 = 8
Red Bull: 2 + 14 -3 = 13
McLaren: 7 + 11 - 1 - 1 = 16
Alfa Romeo: 10 + 18 -1 = 27
Racing Point: 8 + 20 -1 + 1 = 28
Williams: 12 + 17 - 1 = 28
Toro Rosso: 13 + 16 = 29
Haas: 15 + 19 +1 = 35

This elevated Alfa Romeo, but that was it. I'm not sure this method actually reflects too much, so I considered normalising each driver to their groups average and then spreading them by .2 points

So Hamilton and Verstappen are Gold tier, so that's an average of 1.5, so they get 1.4 and 1.6
Ricciardo / Leclerc / Bottas / Vettel are Silver tier, so that's an average of 4.5, so they are 4.2 / 4.4 / 4.6 / 4.8
Sainz / Perez / Ocon / Kimi / Norris / Russel are Bronze tier, an average of 9.5, so 9.0 / 9.2 / 9.4 / 9.6 / 9.8 / 10.0
Kyvat / Albon / Magnussen / Gasly / Latifi / Giovinazzi are Standard tier, average of 15.5, so 15.0 / 15.2 / 15.4 / 15.6 / 15.8 / 16.0
Grosjean and Stroll are Relegation tier, average 19.5, so 19.4 and 19.6.

This now changes things to:

Mercedes: 1.4 + 4.6 = 6
Ferrari: 4.4 + 4.8 = 9.2
Renault: 4.2 + 9.4 = 13.6
Red Bull: 1.6 + 15.2 = 16.8
McLaren: 9.0 + 9.8 = 18.8
Alfa Romeo: 9.6 + 16.0 = 25.6
Williams: 10.0 + 15.8 = 25.8
Racing Point: 9.2 + 19.6 = 28.8
Toro Rosso: 15.0+15.6 = 30.6
Haas: 15.4 + 19.4 = 34.8

And this is basically the same order as all the others - which I suppose makes sense. I think of the three lists this feels the most right to me. Although may I should do an average of the avera... no. I'm going with this.

Latifi better than Grosjean and Stroll? Wow!

He may be better than Stroll who isn't exactly a high benchmark, in respect to Grosjean he may prove better in not making stupid mistakes?

Stroll and Grosjean are the two drivers I rate negatively and feel should be relegated from F1. Latifi is coming in at zero.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:Using that system - although I make Ocon = Hulk and slotted Latifi in behind Gasly at 17, bumping the others down (ties decided by the best driver) - I would get:

Mercedes: 1+5 = 6
Ferrari: 4+6 = 10
Renault: 3 + 9 = 12
Red Bull: 2 + 14 = 16
McLaren: 7 + 11 = 18
Racing Point: 8 + 20 = 28
Alfa Romeo: 10 + 18 = 28
Williams: 12 + 17 = 29
Toro Rosso: 13 + 16 = 29
Haas: 15 + 19 = 34

However, I'm not sure just adding the numbers like this works, as the difference between the drivers wasn't equal, they were clustered.

I originally graded them in 5 tiers: Gold / Silver / Bronze / Standard / Relegation

So I figured I would add some bonuses for drivers being in each zone: -3 / -2 / -1 / 0 / +1

This resulted in:


Mercedes: 1+5 - 3 - 2 = 1
Ferrari: 4+6 - 2 - 2 = 6
Renault: 3 + 9 - 3 - 1 = 8
Red Bull: 2 + 14 -3 = 13
McLaren: 7 + 11 - 1 - 1 = 16
Alfa Romeo: 10 + 18 -1 = 27
Racing Point: 8 + 20 -1 + 1 = 28
Williams: 12 + 17 - 1 = 28
Toro Rosso: 13 + 16 = 29
Haas: 15 + 19 +1 = 35

This elevated Alfa Romeo, but that was it. I'm not sure this method actually reflects too much, so I considered normalising each driver to their groups average and then spreading them by .2 points

So Hamilton and Verstappen are Gold tier, so that's an average of 1.5, so they get 1.4 and 1.6
Ricciardo / Leclerc / Bottas / Vettel are Silver tier, so that's an average of 4.5, so they are 4.2 / 4.4 / 4.6 / 4.8
Sainz / Perez / Ocon / Kimi / Norris / Russel are Bronze tier, an average of 9.5, so 9.0 / 9.2 / 9.4 / 9.6 / 9.8 / 10.0
Kyvat / Albon / Magnussen / Gasly / Latifi / Giovinazzi are Standard tier, average of 15.5, so 15.0 / 15.2 / 15.4 / 15.6 / 15.8 / 16.0
Grosjean and Stroll are Relegation tier, average 19.5, so 19.4 and 19.6.

This now changes things to:

Mercedes: 1.4 + 4.6 = 6
Ferrari: 4.4 + 4.8 = 9.2
Renault: 4.2 + 9.4 = 13.6
Red Bull: 1.6 + 15.2 = 16.8
McLaren: 9.0 + 9.8 = 18.8
Alfa Romeo: 9.6 + 16.0 = 25.6
Williams: 10.0 + 15.8 = 25.8
Racing Point: 9.2 + 19.6 = 28.8
Toro Rosso: 15.0+15.6 = 30.6
Haas: 15.4 + 19.4 = 34.8

And this is basically the same order as all the others - which I suppose makes sense. I think of the three lists this feels the most right to me. Although may I should do an average of the avera... no. I'm going with this.

Latifi better than Grosjean and Stroll? Wow!

He may be better than Stroll who isn't exactly a high benchmark, in respect to Grosjean he may prove better in not making stupid mistakes?

Stroll and Grosjean are the two drivers I rate negatively and feel should be relegated from F1. Latifi is coming in at zero.

Stroll's presence is surely also affecting Racing Point's ranking to some extent out here!

pokerman wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:Using that system - although I make Ocon = Hulk and slotted Latifi in behind Gasly at 17, bumping the others down (ties decided by the best driver) - I would get:

Mercedes: 1+5 = 6
Ferrari: 4+6 = 10
Renault: 3 + 9 = 12
Red Bull: 2 + 14 = 16
McLaren: 7 + 11 = 18
Racing Point: 8 + 20 = 28
Alfa Romeo: 10 + 18 = 28
Williams: 12 + 17 = 29
Toro Rosso: 13 + 16 = 29
Haas: 15 + 19 = 34

However, I'm not sure just adding the numbers like this works, as the difference between the drivers wasn't equal, they were clustered.

I originally graded them in 5 tiers: Gold / Silver / Bronze / Standard / Relegation

So I figured I would add some bonuses for drivers being in each zone: -3 / -2 / -1 / 0 / +1

This resulted in:


Mercedes: 1+5 - 3 - 2 = 1
Ferrari: 4+6 - 2 - 2 = 6
Renault: 3 + 9 - 3 - 1 = 8
Red Bull: 2 + 14 -3 = 13
McLaren: 7 + 11 - 1 - 1 = 16
Alfa Romeo: 10 + 18 -1 = 27
Racing Point: 8 + 20 -1 + 1 = 28
Williams: 12 + 17 - 1 = 28
Toro Rosso: 13 + 16 = 29
Haas: 15 + 19 +1 = 35

This elevated Alfa Romeo, but that was it. I'm not sure this method actually reflects too much, so I considered normalising each driver to their groups average and then spreading them by .2 points

So Hamilton and Verstappen are Gold tier, so that's an average of 1.5, so they get 1.4 and 1.6
Ricciardo / Leclerc / Bottas / Vettel are Silver tier, so that's an average of 4.5, so they are 4.2 / 4.4 / 4.6 / 4.8
Sainz / Perez / Ocon / Kimi / Norris / Russel are Bronze tier, an average of 9.5, so 9.0 / 9.2 / 9.4 / 9.6 / 9.8 / 10.0
Kyvat / Albon / Magnussen / Gasly / Latifi / Giovinazzi are Standard tier, average of 15.5, so 15.0 / 15.2 / 15.4 / 15.6 / 15.8 / 16.0
Grosjean and Stroll are Relegation tier, average 19.5, so 19.4 and 19.6.

This now changes things to:

Mercedes: 1.4 + 4.6 = 6
Ferrari: 4.4 + 4.8 = 9.2
Renault: 4.2 + 9.4 = 13.6
Red Bull: 1.6 + 15.2 = 16.8
McLaren: 9.0 + 9.8 = 18.8
Alfa Romeo: 9.6 + 16.0 = 25.6
Williams: 10.0 + 15.8 = 25.8
Racing Point: 9.2 + 19.6 = 28.8
Toro Rosso: 15.0+15.6 = 30.6
Haas: 15.4 + 19.4 = 34.8

And this is basically the same order as all the others - which I suppose makes sense. I think of the three lists this feels the most right to me. Although may I should do an average of the avera... no. I'm going with this.

Latifi better than Grosjean and Stroll? Wow!

He may be better than Stroll who isn't exactly a high benchmark, in respect to Grosjean he may prove better in not making stupid mistakes?

Latifi was miles away from Stroll's F3 performances. Even if you factor in a possible car/team advantage.

And a handful of good Grosjean-races per season will easily be enough to outdo Latifi.

But well ...

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:Using that system - although I make Ocon = Hulk and slotted Latifi in behind Gasly at 17, bumping the others down (ties decided by the best driver) - I would get:

Mercedes: 1+5 = 6
Ferrari: 4+6 = 10
Renault: 3 + 9 = 12
Red Bull: 2 + 14 = 16
McLaren: 7 + 11 = 18
Racing Point: 8 + 20 = 28
Alfa Romeo: 10 + 18 = 28
Williams: 12 + 17 = 29
Toro Rosso: 13 + 16 = 29
Haas: 15 + 19 = 34

However, I'm not sure just adding the numbers like this works, as the difference between the drivers wasn't equal, they were clustered.

I originally graded them in 5 tiers: Gold / Silver / Bronze / Standard / Relegation

So I figured I would add some bonuses for drivers being in each zone: -3 / -2 / -1 / 0 / +1

This resulted in:


Mercedes: 1+5 - 3 - 2 = 1
Ferrari: 4+6 - 2 - 2 = 6
Renault: 3 + 9 - 3 - 1 = 8
Red Bull: 2 + 14 -3 = 13
McLaren: 7 + 11 - 1 - 1 = 16
Alfa Romeo: 10 + 18 -1 = 27
Racing Point: 8 + 20 -1 + 1 = 28
Williams: 12 + 17 - 1 = 28
Toro Rosso: 13 + 16 = 29
Haas: 15 + 19 +1 = 35

This elevated Alfa Romeo, but that was it. I'm not sure this method actually reflects too much, so I considered normalising each driver to their groups average and then spreading them by .2 points

So Hamilton and Verstappen are Gold tier, so that's an average of 1.5, so they get 1.4 and 1.6
Ricciardo / Leclerc / Bottas / Vettel are Silver tier, so that's an average of 4.5, so they are 4.2 / 4.4 / 4.6 / 4.8
Sainz / Perez / Ocon / Kimi / Norris / Russel are Bronze tier, an average of 9.5, so 9.0 / 9.2 / 9.4 / 9.6 / 9.8 / 10.0
Kyvat / Albon / Magnussen / Gasly / Latifi / Giovinazzi are Standard tier, average of 15.5, so 15.0 / 15.2 / 15.4 / 15.6 / 15.8 / 16.0
Grosjean and Stroll are Relegation tier, average 19.5, so 19.4 and 19.6.

This now changes things to:

Mercedes: 1.4 + 4.6 = 6
Ferrari: 4.4 + 4.8 = 9.2
Renault: 4.2 + 9.4 = 13.6
Red Bull: 1.6 + 15.2 = 16.8
McLaren: 9.0 + 9.8 = 18.8
Alfa Romeo: 9.6 + 16.0 = 25.6
Williams: 10.0 + 15.8 = 25.8
Racing Point: 9.2 + 19.6 = 28.8
Toro Rosso: 15.0+15.6 = 30.6
Haas: 15.4 + 19.4 = 34.8

And this is basically the same order as all the others - which I suppose makes sense. I think of the three lists this feels the most right to me. Although may I should do an average of the avera... no. I'm going with this.

Latifi better than Grosjean and Stroll? Wow!

He may be better than Stroll who isn't exactly a high benchmark, in respect to Grosjean he may prove better in not making stupid mistakes?

Latifi was miles away from Stroll's F3 performances. Even if you factor in a possible car/team advantage.

And a handful of good Grosjean-races per season will easily be enough to outdo Latifi.

But well ...

Despite Latifi's Father being richer than Stroll's Father they chose not to go down the route of buying the best team in F3, signing a deal with the Williams F1 team, part of which was for them to design special parts for his car and his car only, and employ drivers who were there specifically to help Stroll win the title.

In his first season of F3 the Stroll's employed Felix Rosenqvist to coach Stroll, Rosenqvist won the title that year. Yes the Latifi's have looked to put him in the best/good teams but he never received the special treatment that Lance Stroll received in F3.

Yes Latifi was weak in F3 but his results in F2 have been good, he had a strong second full season in the second tier category finishing only 13 points behind his highly rated teammate Oliver Rowland who was Leclerc's strongest rival throughout the season.

The following season was poor and he got easily beat by his teammate Albon but he supposedly was suffering from illness throughout the year. Last season was again another strong season and he beat his teammate Camara who is quite highly rated, Camara would have beat Norris the year before if not for bad luck.

So Latifi comes into F1 has a reasonably solid driver albeit nothing special but is Stroll anything special, he's 3 years in F1 now and got rated as the second worse driver beating only the disabled Kubica.

In respect to Grosjean you could almost be describing Pastor Maldonado, a handful of good races hardly cuts it.

Now who fancis getting the driver salaies and doing a comparison to see which team has the best value line up?

DOLOMITE wrote:Now who fancis getting the driver salaies and doing a comparison to see which team has the best value line up?

Good luck in finding the numbers, it always seems to be different depending on the source.

pokerman wrote:

DOLOMITE wrote:Now who fancis getting the driver salaies and doing a comparison to see which team has the best value line up?

Good luck in finding the numbers, it always seems to be different depending on the source.

https://racing-elite.com/2019/09/17/rev ... f1-driver/

whether you believe them or not is up to you!

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:Using that system - although I make Ocon = Hulk and slotted Latifi in behind Gasly at 17, bumping the others down (ties decided by the best driver) - I would get:

Mercedes: 1+5 = 6
Ferrari: 4+6 = 10
Renault: 3 + 9 = 12
Red Bull: 2 + 14 = 16
McLaren: 7 + 11 = 18
Racing Point: 8 + 20 = 28
Alfa Romeo: 10 + 18 = 28
Williams: 12 + 17 = 29
Toro Rosso: 13 + 16 = 29
Haas: 15 + 19 = 34

However, I'm not sure just adding the numbers like this works, as the difference between the drivers wasn't equal, they were clustered.

I originally graded them in 5 tiers: Gold / Silver / Bronze / Standard / Relegation

So I figured I would add some bonuses for drivers being in each zone: -3 / -2 / -1 / 0 / +1

This resulted in:


Mercedes: 1+5 - 3 - 2 = 1
Ferrari: 4+6 - 2 - 2 = 6
Renault: 3 + 9 - 3 - 1 = 8
Red Bull: 2 + 14 -3 = 13
McLaren: 7 + 11 - 1 - 1 = 16
Alfa Romeo: 10 + 18 -1 = 27
Racing Point: 8 + 20 -1 + 1 = 28
Williams: 12 + 17 - 1 = 28
Toro Rosso: 13 + 16 = 29
Haas: 15 + 19 +1 = 35

This elevated Alfa Romeo, but that was it. I'm not sure this method actually reflects too much, so I considered normalising each driver to their groups average and then spreading them by .2 points

So Hamilton and Verstappen are Gold tier, so that's an average of 1.5, so they get 1.4 and 1.6
Ricciardo / Leclerc / Bottas / Vettel are Silver tier, so that's an average of 4.5, so they are 4.2 / 4.4 / 4.6 / 4.8
Sainz / Perez / Ocon / Kimi / Norris / Russel are Bronze tier, an average of 9.5, so 9.0 / 9.2 / 9.4 / 9.6 / 9.8 / 10.0
Kyvat / Albon / Magnussen / Gasly / Latifi / Giovinazzi are Standard tier, average of 15.5, so 15.0 / 15.2 / 15.4 / 15.6 / 15.8 / 16.0
Grosjean and Stroll are Relegation tier, average 19.5, so 19.4 and 19.6.

This now changes things to:

Mercedes: 1.4 + 4.6 = 6
Ferrari: 4.4 + 4.8 = 9.2
Renault: 4.2 + 9.4 = 13.6
Red Bull: 1.6 + 15.2 = 16.8
McLaren: 9.0 + 9.8 = 18.8
Alfa Romeo: 9.6 + 16.0 = 25.6
Williams: 10.0 + 15.8 = 25.8
Racing Point: 9.2 + 19.6 = 28.8
Toro Rosso: 15.0+15.6 = 30.6
Haas: 15.4 + 19.4 = 34.8

And this is basically the same order as all the others - which I suppose makes sense. I think of the three lists this feels the most right to me. Although may I should do an average of the avera... no. I'm going with this.

Latifi better than Grosjean and Stroll? Wow!

He may be better than Stroll who isn't exactly a high benchmark, in respect to Grosjean he may prove better in not making stupid mistakes?

Latifi was miles away from Stroll's F3 performances. Even if you factor in a possible car/team advantage.

And a handful of good Grosjean-races per season will easily be enough to outdo Latifi.

But well ...

Paul di Resta beat Vettel in Formula 3, yet failed to inspire in F1. Until a driver steps into an F1 car, it's impossible to know for certain how they will perform. I will not be surprised in the slightest if I end 2020 ranking Latifi absolute bottom - but he at least has to be given the opportunity to fail, it's not a given.

Grosjean and Stroll have already done enough to show they should no longer be in F1. Stroll is just too slow, Grosjean is faster than a lot of the drivers ahead of him (including his team mate) but he's just too unreliable in the races. He's worse than Maldonado, I mean Maldonado won a race on merit, tactically goading Alonso into burning out his tyres.

The only reason Grosjean managed to shed his totally hopeless reputation from his brief first F1 career was because he was almost as fast as Kimi in the same car - but we have subsequently learned Kimi (at least during his second F1 career) was a big step down against Alonso and a step down against Vettel. He's slightly faster than Magnussen in qualifying, but is out classed where it matters in the face. I think he's a liability for his team and I was shocked he was retained for 2020, and I would have been shocked even if Hulkenberg hadn't been available.

Sure, Latifi can fall below both of these drivers - but if a driver can earn a super license then that's the bar at zero. They have to acrue the negative points to move down from there.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:Using that system - although I make Ocon = Hulk and slotted Latifi in behind Gasly at 17, bumping the others down (ties decided by the best driver) - I would get:

Mercedes: 1+5 = 6
Ferrari: 4+6 = 10
Renault: 3 + 9 = 12
Red Bull: 2 + 14 = 16
McLaren: 7 + 11 = 18
Racing Point: 8 + 20 = 28
Alfa Romeo: 10 + 18 = 28
Williams: 12 + 17 = 29
Toro Rosso: 13 + 16 = 29
Haas: 15 + 19 = 34

However, I'm not sure just adding the numbers like this works, as the difference between the drivers wasn't equal, they were clustered.

I originally graded them in 5 tiers: Gold / Silver / Bronze / Standard / Relegation

So I figured I would add some bonuses for drivers being in each zone: -3 / -2 / -1 / 0 / +1

This resulted in:


Mercedes: 1+5 - 3 - 2 = 1
Ferrari: 4+6 - 2 - 2 = 6
Renault: 3 + 9 - 3 - 1 = 8
Red Bull: 2 + 14 -3 = 13
McLaren: 7 + 11 - 1 - 1 = 16
Alfa Romeo: 10 + 18 -1 = 27
Racing Point: 8 + 20 -1 + 1 = 28
Williams: 12 + 17 - 1 = 28
Toro Rosso: 13 + 16 = 29
Haas: 15 + 19 +1 = 35

This elevated Alfa Romeo, but that was it. I'm not sure this method actually reflects too much, so I considered normalising each driver to their groups average and then spreading them by .2 points

So Hamilton and Verstappen are Gold tier, so that's an average of 1.5, so they get 1.4 and 1.6
Ricciardo / Leclerc / Bottas / Vettel are Silver tier, so that's an average of 4.5, so they are 4.2 / 4.4 / 4.6 / 4.8
Sainz / Perez / Ocon / Kimi / Norris / Russel are Bronze tier, an average of 9.5, so 9.0 / 9.2 / 9.4 / 9.6 / 9.8 / 10.0
Kyvat / Albon / Magnussen / Gasly / Latifi / Giovinazzi are Standard tier, average of 15.5, so 15.0 / 15.2 / 15.4 / 15.6 / 15.8 / 16.0
Grosjean and Stroll are Relegation tier, average 19.5, so 19.4 and 19.6.

This now changes things to:

Mercedes: 1.4 + 4.6 = 6
Ferrari: 4.4 + 4.8 = 9.2
Renault: 4.2 + 9.4 = 13.6
Red Bull: 1.6 + 15.2 = 16.8
McLaren: 9.0 + 9.8 = 18.8
Alfa Romeo: 9.6 + 16.0 = 25.6
Williams: 10.0 + 15.8 = 25.8
Racing Point: 9.2 + 19.6 = 28.8
Toro Rosso: 15.0+15.6 = 30.6
Haas: 15.4 + 19.4 = 34.8

And this is basically the same order as all the others - which I suppose makes sense. I think of the three lists this feels the most right to me. Although may I should do an average of the avera... no. I'm going with this.

Latifi better than Grosjean and Stroll? Wow!

He may be better than Stroll who isn't exactly a high benchmark, in respect to Grosjean he may prove better in not making stupid mistakes?

Latifi was miles away from Stroll's F3 performances. Even if you factor in a possible car/team advantage.

And a handful of good Grosjean-races per season will easily be enough to outdo Latifi.

But well ...

Paul di Resta beat Vettel in Formula 3, yet failed to inspire in F1. Until a driver steps into an F1 car, it's impossible to know for certain how they will perform. I will not be surprised in the slightest if I end 2020 ranking Latifi absolute bottom - but he at least has to be given the opportunity to fail, it's not a given.

Grosjean and Stroll have already done enough to show they should no longer be in F1. Stroll is just too slow, Grosjean is faster than a lot of the drivers ahead of him (including his team mate) but he's just too unreliable in the races. He's worse than Maldonado, I mean Maldonado won a race on merit, tactically goading Alonso into burning out his tyres.

The only reason Grosjean managed to shed his totally hopeless reputation from his brief first F1 career was because he was almost as fast as Kimi in the same car - but we have subsequently learned Kimi (at least during his second F1 career) was a big step down against Alonso and a step down against Vettel. He's slightly faster than Magnussen in qualifying, but is out classed where it matters in the face. I think he's a liability for his team and I was shocked he was retained for 2020, and I would have been shocked even if Hulkenberg hadn't been available.

Sure, Latifi can fall below both of these drivers - but if a driver can earn a super license then that's the bar at zero. They have to acrue the negative points to move down from there.

With the issues Hass has had this year, there isn't really enough evidence to say Grosjean has been too unreliable to be worth keeping, especially when the team kept him. Grosjean has actually made smaller mistakes this year than nearly half the field. A great deal like Bottas, Leclerc, Hulkenberg, Ricciardo and several others have been totally at fault for their own retirement, and Grosjean hasn't. Grosjean has poor racecraft, but he hasn't actually made a single big mistake on race day this year if I remember correctly. Plenty of stupid little ones, but not any that cost him a great deal. I'd say about half the grid have had at least 1 mistake this year that has been worse than anything by Grosjean. The level of bad luck he's had as well has how awful the car has been really seems to be putting some off Grosjean because it has limited what we have seen of him. I'd say it is good that he's got another chance as I think his speed is still there. He has cut down on his big mistakes. I could list a whole load from 2018, but there were not many this year.

Regarding what you are saying about qualifying and the race, it seems you are talking about the complete opposite as to what happened. You are saying he's slightly faster then Magnusssen in qualifying when that is actually the area it has looked to be the other way round. Then you say he is outclassed when it matters in the race. By points, i guess you can say that, but when looking closely at all the races they both finished, Grosjean usually was better than Magnussen and when he beat him, it was usually by a far bigger margin than when it was the other way round. Even the races when Grosjean retired (7 in total and 4 more than magnussen), he was ahead several times before his car hit trouble. Then in brazil he missed an extremely likely chance of getting 4th given all the chaos that went on ahead of him, but he had yet another issue. If he had got 4th, just that would have put him ahead in the championship.

As some have said, the Hass was likely a different for each of the drivers, but from the on track performances between them, there really isn't anything to suggest magnussen has been better this year. And Hass won't have kept Grosjean for no reason will they?

I read a lot of the race reports from what the Hass team and the drivers had said about their races this year. And from this, it explains the trouble that hit Grosjean and also showed where his feedback to the team has been pretty helpful at times, despite sounding like it is non stop moaning. I feel the people that are so against him are just people who seem to have had enough of him being in F1 and don't think about what the team may want. I don't think them as a pair goes particularly well, but their ability and especially Grosjean's certainly isn't past it IMO. Although I wouldn't rate him high up.

DOLOMITE wrote:

pokerman wrote:

DOLOMITE wrote:Now who fancis getting the driver salaies and doing a comparison to see which team has the best value line up?

Good luck in finding the numbers, it always seems to be different depending on the source.

https://racing-elite.com/2019/09/17/rev ... f1-driver/

whether you believe them or not is up to you!

That seems reasonable to me, I wonder if that includes Verstappen's new contract, given the length of his contract I thought it might be more than that?

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:Using that system - although I make Ocon = Hulk and slotted Latifi in behind Gasly at 17, bumping the others down (ties decided by the best driver) - I would get:

Mercedes: 1+5 = 6
Ferrari: 4+6 = 10
Renault: 3 + 9 = 12
Red Bull: 2 + 14 = 16
McLaren: 7 + 11 = 18
Racing Point: 8 + 20 = 28
Alfa Romeo: 10 + 18 = 28
Williams: 12 + 17 = 29
Toro Rosso: 13 + 16 = 29
Haas: 15 + 19 = 34

However, I'm not sure just adding the numbers like this works, as the difference between the drivers wasn't equal, they were clustered.

I originally graded them in 5 tiers: Gold / Silver / Bronze / Standard / Relegation

So I figured I would add some bonuses for drivers being in each zone: -3 / -2 / -1 / 0 / +1

This resulted in:


Mercedes: 1+5 - 3 - 2 = 1
Ferrari: 4+6 - 2 - 2 = 6
Renault: 3 + 9 - 3 - 1 = 8
Red Bull: 2 + 14 -3 = 13
McLaren: 7 + 11 - 1 - 1 = 16
Alfa Romeo: 10 + 18 -1 = 27
Racing Point: 8 + 20 -1 + 1 = 28
Williams: 12 + 17 - 1 = 28
Toro Rosso: 13 + 16 = 29
Haas: 15 + 19 +1 = 35

This elevated Alfa Romeo, but that was it. I'm not sure this method actually reflects too much, so I considered normalising each driver to their groups average and then spreading them by .2 points

So Hamilton and Verstappen are Gold tier, so that's an average of 1.5, so they get 1.4 and 1.6
Ricciardo / Leclerc / Bottas / Vettel are Silver tier, so that's an average of 4.5, so they are 4.2 / 4.4 / 4.6 / 4.8
Sainz / Perez / Ocon / Kimi / Norris / Russel are Bronze tier, an average of 9.5, so 9.0 / 9.2 / 9.4 / 9.6 / 9.8 / 10.0
Kyvat / Albon / Magnussen / Gasly / Latifi / Giovinazzi are Standard tier, average of 15.5, so 15.0 / 15.2 / 15.4 / 15.6 / 15.8 / 16.0
Grosjean and Stroll are Relegation tier, average 19.5, so 19.4 and 19.6.

This now changes things to:

Mercedes: 1.4 + 4.6 = 6
Ferrari: 4.4 + 4.8 = 9.2
Renault: 4.2 + 9.4 = 13.6
Red Bull: 1.6 + 15.2 = 16.8
McLaren: 9.0 + 9.8 = 18.8
Alfa Romeo: 9.6 + 16.0 = 25.6
Williams: 10.0 + 15.8 = 25.8
Racing Point: 9.2 + 19.6 = 28.8
Toro Rosso: 15.0+15.6 = 30.6
Haas: 15.4 + 19.4 = 34.8

And this is basically the same order as all the others - which I suppose makes sense. I think of the three lists this feels the most right to me. Although may I should do an average of the avera... no. I'm going with this.

Latifi better than Grosjean and Stroll? Wow!

He may be better than Stroll who isn't exactly a high benchmark, in respect to Grosjean he may prove better in not making stupid mistakes?

Latifi was miles away from Stroll's F3 performances. Even if you factor in a possible car/team advantage.

And a handful of good Grosjean-races per season will easily be enough to outdo Latifi.

But well ...

Paul di Resta beat Vettel in Formula 3, yet failed to inspire in F1. Until a driver steps into an F1 car, it's impossible to know for certain how they will perform. I will not be surprised in the slightest if I end 2020 ranking Latifi absolute bottom - but he at least has to be given the opportunity to fail, it's not a given.

Grosjean and Stroll have already done enough to show they should no longer be in F1. Stroll is just too slow, Grosjean is faster than a lot of the drivers ahead of him (including his team mate) but he's just too unreliable in the races. He's worse than Maldonado, I mean Maldonado won a race on merit, tactically goading Alonso into burning out his tyres.

The only reason Grosjean managed to shed his totally hopeless reputation from his brief first F1 career was because he was almost as fast as Kimi in the same car - but we have subsequently learned Kimi (at least during his second F1 career) was a big step down against Alonso and a step down against Vettel. He's slightly faster than Magnussen in qualifying, but is out classed where it matters in the face. I think he's a liability for his team and I was shocked he was retained for 2020, and I would have been shocked even if Hulkenberg hadn't been available.

Sure, Latifi can fall below both of these drivers - but if a driver can earn a super license then that's the bar at zero. They have to acrue the negative points to move down from there.

I believe Haas were interested in the Hulk but he priced himself out, you also have to bear in mind that I believe both KMag and Grosjean took pay cuts in order to retain their seats at Haas, they are both reportedly earning only €1M whilst I believe the Hulk was earning between €4-6M at Renault.

https://www.racefans.net/2020/01/21/ive ... nt-4390355

Depending on how you rank the drivers, this is some interesting information about Grosjean. Could well be why the team kept him. As I keep saying, I don't think he's as bad as people think. Perhaps he could be better than average at development?

How can you have Mercedes above Ferrari? Bottas isn't better than either Ferrari driver. I though it was driver paring not best team. Both Red Bull drivers could be ranked ahead of Bottas.

Vettel Fan wrote:How can you have Mercedes above Ferrari? Bottas isn't better than either Ferrari driver. I though it was driver paring not best team. Both Red Bull drivers could be ranked ahead of Bottas.

Only by people detached to reality.

Vettel Fan wrote:How can you have Mercedes above Ferrari? Bottas isn't better than either Ferrari driver. I though it was driver paring not best team. Both Red Bull drivers could be ranked ahead of Bottas.

In my fruit league table I rate Bananas at 96% awesome. I also rate Lemons at 56%. I rate Strawberries at 65% and Raspberries at 63%.

Now, Lemons are rated lower than both red fruits. But the mean (or the median if that's how you want to do it) of the red fruits is 64% compared to 76% for the yellow fruits.

Incidentally, I rate Blueberries at 85% and Blackberries 59%, also both above Lemons, but with an average of 72% the bluey-purpley fruits are also below the yellow fruits.

Yellow fruits are awesome.

Considering Williams line up for 2020, this doesn't reflect well on Grosjean and K-Mag does it...

DOLOMITE wrote:Considering Williams line up for 2020, this doesn't reflect well on Grosjean and K-Mag does it...

It's because of the high rating of Russell, someone asks why are the Mercedes drivers ranked higher than the Ferrari drivers when both are better than Bottas, might that not be because of Lewis Hamilton?

Likewise the relative high ranking of Racing Point because of Perez despite having Stroll in the team and I would say similar with Red Bull for those of us thinking how good is Albon?

Vettel Fan wrote:How can you have Mercedes above Ferrari? Bottas isn't better than either Ferrari driver. I though it was driver paring not best team. Both Red Bull drivers could be ranked ahead of Bottas.

Albon better than Bottas? No!

Vettel is better than Bottas. They had similar cars 2017 and 2018, and Vettel was better in both years by a decent margin. I also believe that Leclerc has the talent of an elite driver. If Leclerc can fulfill his true potential next year, then Ferrari have the best driver pairing IMO.

1. Ferrari
2. Mercedes
3. Renault
4. Red Bull
5. McLaren
6. Alfa Romeo
7. Williams
8. Toro Rosso
9. Racing Point
10. Haas

1. Ferrari
2. Red Bull
3. Mercedes
4. Renault
5. McLaren
6. Alfa Romeo
7. Williams
8. Toro Rosso
9. Racing Point
10. Haas

Some late Vettel voters convinced that Albon is better than Bottas.

pokerman wrote:Some late Vettel voters convinced that Albon is better than Bottas.

Or think Verstappen is much, much better than Hamilton. Ether way it takes some contortion.

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:Some late Vettel voters convinced that Albon is better than Bottas.

Or think Verstappen is much, much better than Hamilton. Ether way it takes some contortion.

Well one for definite said that Albon was better than Bottas.

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:Some late Vettel voters convinced that Albon is better than Bottas.

Or think Verstappen is much, much better than Hamilton. Ether way it takes some contortion.

Well one for definite said that Albon was better than Bottas.

Well I think people are ranking these in very different ways. Some including me take into consideration how well the two drivers work as a team as well as their ability, whereas others just seem to individually rate each driver in the team and base it on that. The 2nd way of judging it I don't think is there right way. As they are both in the same team, and if they both are strong, (Vettel and Leclerc for example), it can result in a lot of tension and things not working out. We saw a lot of this with these two last year. Ability of the drivers, I wouldn't argue them being first, but I struggle to see that as a combination of the two, how can they be better than the Mercedes pair? I know Bottas isn't as good as either Ferrari driver can be, but I believe if Vettel and Leclerc were at Mercedes last year, the team will have got far less points than the combination of Bottas and Hamilton.


Similar story about the Hass line up. Grosjean and Magnussen do not seem to go together very well, appearing to make the team (driver pairing) pretty weak. But ability wise, I would place them both ahead of Stroll and one or two other drivers, and based on the drivers alone, would possibly rate them ahead a couple of other teams. But the strength as a pair of drivers is the weak point and that is why i agree they should be last. Most have done this, and probably for that reason. But then if that is the reason, I can't really see how people are voting Ferrari first as they have a similar problem to the Hass boys, though admittedly are both still far better.