We can support this discussion with data. I saw that there was a new topic opened which claimed dominance based on number of races won, but I think that is not a good measure. Too many variables ignored.
My thought was, but I am open to suggestions, to look at the data. It's used before on this forum (
https://github.com/theOehrly/Fast-F1) and extract data to compare car dominance. It will take some effort so I would love an agreement between to ones who say RB is the dominant car, and the ones who don't.
Now this already starts of course with the definition of dominance, for me that is a massive speed difference over other cars. But I can imagine others have a different definition, in which case this exercise also does not make a lot of sense.
My starting point would be;
Take Ferrari, RB and Merc as comparison.
- Average in qualifying over the past 10 years. Those races where not all drivers of the three teams reached Q3, ignore those qualifying sessions completely.
-Average in race pace over the past 10 years. Take the top 20 fastest round times of each race. Those races where not all drivers got 20 laps, ignore those races.
I think the big discussion point to agree on is the average of two drivers. For me I think it is fair to take the average as these are the top teams, with drivers with the most potential to get most out of the cars. But I am not willing to do this exercise (will take me a couple of hours) if it does not help the discussion.
Would this be something people would see value in (from both sides of the argument) ?.
. But I see there is not a lot of interest in that.