Is the RB18 dominant?

[organic]

Max led fewer laps in 2022 than in 2021

[AR3-GP]

I actually had completely the opposite feeling: that this topic was set up to declare dominance of the RB18 (note the choice of simply declaring that it is; not determine whether it is), and thereby downplaying Max' performance

But they´re not. As you´ve said repeatedly, this thread is about RB18 dominance, or not.Nothing about team dominance, or driver perfomance, only about RB18 dominance

Okay...then how many races did Perez win and why is his performance not taken into account for the "RB18 dominance"?

Of course I don't think that's correct.

As I proposed previously, the thread really should be renamed, was the Verstappen/Team RB/RB18 package dominant? and the simple answer is yes.

[Andres125sx]

I actually had completely the opposite feeling: that this topic was set up to declare dominance of the RB18 (note the choice of simply declaring that it is; not determine whether it is), and thereby downplaying Max' performance

But they´re not. As you´ve said repeatedly, this thread is about RB18 dominance, or not.Nothing about team dominance, or driver perfomance, only about RB18 dominance

Okay...then how many races did Perez win and why is his performance not taken into account for the "RB18 dominance"?

It is taken into account, but means nothing.

Perez won 2 GPs in 2022. Same as Barrichelo in 00-04 Ferrari/Schumacher era. Similar to Webber in RBR/Vettel era. Will you say Ferrari or RBR were not dominant in thoset eras because the second driver didn´t win regularily?

[SiLo]

But they´re not. As you´ve said repeatedly, this thread is about RB18 dominance, or not.Nothing about team dominance, or driver perfomance, only about RB18 dominance

Okay...then how many races did Perez win and why is his performance not taken into account for the "RB18 dominance"?

It is taken into account, but means nothing.

Perez won 2 GPs in 2022. Same as Barrichelo in 00-04 Ferrari/Schumacher era. Similar to Webber in RBR/Vettel era. Will you say Ferrari or RBR were not dominant in thoset eras because the second driver didn´t win regularily?

Bottas won 2 races in 2020 as well. This whole thread should have just been a poll, which most people would have said yes to, and that would be that.

[DDopey]

Okay...then how many races did Perez win and why is his performance not taken into account for the "RB18 dominance"?

It is taken into account, but means nothing.

Perez won 2 GPs in 2022. Same as Barrichelo in 00-04 Ferrari/Schumacher era. Similar to Webber in RBR/Vettel era. Will you say Ferrari or RBR were not dominant in thoset eras because the second driver didn´t win regularily?

Bottas won 2 races in 2020 as well. This whole thread should have just been a poll, which most people would have said yes to, and that would be that.

That looks like an even less objective based observation than the wins, which I think already does not say a lot about car dominance.

[AR3-GP]

But they´re not. As you´ve said repeatedly, this thread is about RB18 dominance, or not.Nothing about team dominance, or driver perfomance, only about RB18 dominance

Okay...then how many races did Perez win and why is his performance not taken into account for the "RB18 dominance"?

It is taken into account, but means nothing.

Perez won 2 GPs in 2022. Same as Barrichelo in 00-04 Ferrari/Schumacher era. Similar to Webber in RBR/Vettel era. Will you say Ferrari or RBR were not dominant in thoset eras because the second driver didn´t win regularily?

See but now you're asking a different question.

You asked if "Ferrari and RBR" were dominant. You didn't say "F2002" and "RB18". And that's the point.

You might find this to be semantics but it's a critical distinction.


The points remains is that you cannot say "car dominance" without including the driver and the team who is doing the dominating. Anyone looking to narrow it down more than that won't be able to do so. We can't really know more beyond that 1 driver, car, team package was dominant. That does not mean it was all on the driver, and it doesn't mean it was all on the team but as a package, only 1 trio dominated.

[DDopey]

In my opinion you can qualify a car by taking the average of the two drivers (and then I rather take a lot of data, like race pace over multiple rounds, multiple races, and qualifying speeds). Then you still have the issue around the quality of the two drivers, but I think this will be the closest approximation to car speed you can get based on data (I already suggested doing this, but only if there is a bit of consensus).

[Vanja #66]

Then you still have the issue around the quality of the two drivers, but I think this will be the closest approximation to car speed you can get based on data (I already suggested doing this, but only if there is a bit of consensus).

That's a very big issue with averaging between drivers, since a very bad 2nd driver can bring down the results substantially. You make less of an error if you only compare the fastest results for the car over a race weekend.

[AR3-GP]

Then you still have the issue around the quality of the two drivers, but I think this will be the closest approximation to car speed you can get based on data (I already suggested doing this, but only if there is a bit of consensus).

That's a very big issue with averaging between drivers, since a very bad 2nd driver can bring down the results substantially. You make less of an error if you only compare the fastest results for the car over a race weekend.

Your new assumption presumes that all drivers are equally talented and each are able to access the car's ultimate pace so we still end up being quite limited.

[DDopey]

Then you still have the issue around the quality of the two drivers, but I think this will be the closest approximation to car speed you can get based on data (I already suggested doing this, but only if there is a bit of consensus).

That's a very big issue with averaging between drivers, since a very bad 2nd driver can bring down the results substantially. You make less of an error if you only compare the fastest results for the car over a race weekend.

Although true, I think that is mitigated as we are looking at the top teams. An yes, part of my suggestion to look at the data was looking at the 20 top laps per race.

[Vanja #66]

Your new assumption presumes that all drivers are equally talented and each are able to access the car's ultimate pace so we still end up being quite limited.

I understand it may sound like that at first, but if you look at things like this it sounds reasonable:

- Hypothetically cars A, B, C can all go exactly 1:30 per lap
- Team A: Driver A1 extracts 99.95% from the car (1:30.045), Driver A2 extracts 99.5% (1:30.452) - average lap 1:30.249
- Team B: Driver B1 extracts 99.90% from the car (1:30.091), Driver B2 extracts 99.6% (1:30.361) - average lap 1:30.226
- Team C: Driver C1 extracts 99.90% from the car (1:30.091), Driver C2 extracts 99.85% (1:30.135) - average lap 1:30.113

I think we can all reasonably agree neither Max, Lewis or Charles can bring more than 0.05s per lap compared to one another (if Russell was only 0.3-04s a lap faster v Latifi in Q in 2021), so it's all there well within 0.1%. Contrary, Perez and Sainz were considerably slower this year, lot more than 0.5% a lap, so their laps would still skew the analysis...

It's all hypothetical in this thread in the end

Although true, I think that is mitigated as we are looking at the top teams. An yes, part of my suggestion to look at the data was looking at the 20 top laps per race.

As mentioned above, I think it would still skew the results well over a reasonable margin.

[Sieper]

There is a guy who has put all those relative performances into an algorithm. He even detailed the choices behind the logic employed. So you won’t have to guess at some thought up relative performances. It’s there, in the data.

https://f1-analysis.com/

[DDopey]

As mentioned above, I think it would still skew the results well over a reasonable margin.

I think there is something to be said about those numbers, but I might not be objective in that.
So then the only sensible thing can be said if a particular driver/car combi is dominant, we cannot objectively determine if the car at itself is dominant. And thus the topic question would be unanswerable.

[AR3-GP]

Your new assumption presumes that all drivers are equally talented and each are able to access the car's ultimate pace so we still end up being quite limited.

I understand it may sound like that at first, but if you look at things like this it sounds reasonable:

- Hypothetically cars A, B, C can all go exactly 1:30 per lap
- Team A: Driver A1 extracts 99.95% from the car (1:30.045), Driver A2 extracts 99.5% (1:30.452) - average lap 1:30.249
- Team B: Driver B1 extracts 99.90% from the car (1:30.091), Driver B2 extracts 99.6% (1:30.361) - average lap 1:30.226
- Team C: Driver C1 extracts 99.90% from the car (1:30.091), Driver C2 extracts 99.85% (1:30.135) - average lap 1:30.113

I think we can all reasonably agree neither Max, Lewis or Charles can bring more than 0.05s per lap compared to one another (if Russell was only 0.3-04s a lap faster v Latifi in Q in 2021), so it's all there well within 0.1%. Contrary, Perez and Sainz were considerably slower this year, lot more than 0.5% a lap, so their laps would still skew the analysis...

It's all hypothetical in this thread in the end

I like this quantitative perspective. I think the problem now is I'm uncertain how reasonable it is to agree that Max, Lewis, Charles can only bring 0.05s relative to one another. We really have no idea. They've never driven the same cars.

Leclerc is often lauded for bringing additional performance over 1 lap. Verstappen and Hamilton lauded for race pace. Is that all really only worth half a tenth? each way? That's a whole lot of nothing

[Vanja #66]

I think there is something to be said about those numbers, but I might not be objective in that.
So then the only sensible thing can be said if a particular driver/car combi is dominant, we cannot objectively determine if the car at itself is dominant. And thus the topic question would be unanswerable.

If people come to an agreement of relative pace between drivers, then any real pace advantage larger than it is due to car obviously. In my view, between the 3 fastest guys right now is no more than 0.1s per lap. Sometimes it can go a lot higher if one driver has a good feel with the right setup and the other is simply off. This is always noticeable when compared to team mate's pace over the weekend, but top drivers hardly experience it more often than once in 10-15 races. Just look at how Hamilton started the year and how he ended it, simply because he got his motivation back.

I like this quantitative perspective. I think the problem now is I'm uncertain how reasonable it is to agree that Max, Lewis, Charles can only bring 0.05s relative to one another. We really have no idea. They've never driven the same cars.

Leclerc is often lauded for bringing additional performance over 1 lap. Verstappen and Hamilton lauded for race pace. Is that all really only worth half a tenth? each way? That's a whole lot of nothing

They haven't driven same cars, but after watching F1 for almost 20 years, for me it's clear margins between drivers are very small. It's about getting the car right on the limit (you can't driver it faster than it can go obviously) and it's much easier to do that when you know pushing too hard won't physically hurt you - unlike MotoGP and other bike series.

I mentioned differences between Russell and Latifi last year, so how big can the difference be between Russell and Hamilton, Max and Leclerc?