POB's daughter Catherine here, using his log-in to respond to @DOLOMITE:
DOLOMITE wrote:Chaps, it can't be done. POB System was meticulous but flawed as any other. The problem is there is no single marker to use as your baseline. Last year's Ferrari won't go down as a Championship one, but I think it would have been in the hands of Alonso or Hamilton. Barrichello was pretty handy but even he didn't always end up 2nd after Schumacher. So to say a driver was driving at x % of the cars potential is misleading - all you can say is the other guy went quicker, but that doesnt mean someone else couldn't have been quicker still.
POB's review of the literature (Chapter 2 of his 'Explanatory Chapters') argues why his System is the least flawed of the methodologies that exist to date. It does not take championship points into account at all, but rather is based on actual race-times, which provides an objective measure, minimising or 'constraining' subjective judgements. The use of both quantitative and qualitative measures in his rating system ensures that it is sensitive to the complexities of what is actually going on on the track.
Here POB specifies the strengths and limitations of his method, so that it can be compared to other methodologies:
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com/20 ... lable.html
POB would agree that there is no single marker to use as a baseline, although actual race-times is his starting point:
"The primary measure of my Rating System is the actual race-finishing times. Hence most of the ratings are based on race-times. However, when the race-times work out (1) equal or (2) obviously out of sync with team-mate times or other data such as race results, then I resort to secondary measures, which include both quantitative and qualitative measures. These secondary measures include:
1. Race results
2. Leading distances
3. Fastest race laps
4. Starting grid positions
5. Race-finishing positions"
Here POB discusses what he uses as a baseline:
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com/p/ ... -used.html
I think he would agree with you that "to say a driver was driving at x % of the cars potential is misleading". He deals with the difficulties of answering this question, termed "Car:Driver ratio", in his 2016 'Explanatory Chapters' book:
"Assessments on the ratio of ‘Car contribution relative to Driver contribution’ to Package performance by engineers, drivers and commentators have ranged widely: from the commonly cited 50:50 to Peter Windsor’s 60:40 and Phillips’s (2015) average ratio of 61:39, others reckon it is 70:30, while Neubauer’s estimation is 90:10 when referring to the success of the car, claiming 90% resides in the car’s preparation. In 2013, a F1 forum poster quoted a contemporary driver as saying “it is 85% car, which could be reduced to 65% for the car with a top-driver”. This 20% improvement due to a driver change is unrealistically high (85% – 65% = 20%). That would be equivalent to a 20-second improvement in a single 100.0-second qualifying lap at Abu Dhabi, and 20 minutes in a 100-minute, 60-lap race. This is not realistic.
"A top-rated driver extracts the maximum from a car; that is, he contributes 100% to the package performance. A slow driver in Car A would not extract only half the car’s potential, as in the 50:50 estimate; he would extract only somewhat less than a fast driver. Even a ratio of 60:40 is too wide. [...]"
Hope I'm not breaking Forum rules by giving these links, and that this helps to drive forward this fascinating and perennial debate! It took POB 17 volumes to address it: 14 volumes for each of the Grand Prix seasons up to 2016 (he died in March 2017), plus 3 theoretical volumes giving his method. Based on POB's race-by-race working tables (unpublished), Nuno Moreira is replicating POB's method and continuing the season analyses to the present day.
Follow POB posthumously on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/pob_renaissanceman/