Mercedes without Hamilton in numbers

[wesley123]

Statistics are really interesting. On one hand, this disproves the claim, on the other hand, it doesn't.

What we first of all see is that Hamilton loses 3 poles if his time is 0,5s slower. He loses 2 of those poles to his teammate, and 1 to Ferrari.

What we can deduce from this is that Hamilton cleared the rest of the field(and his teammate) with over 0,5 seconds on 4 occasions, which is quite significant.

What also should be noticed is that Mercedes was consistently at least 0,5s clear of the field in 2014, so of course these statistics aren't going to change all that much.

You'd be better off doing this on the years that Mercedes wasn't the dominant team by far.

[notsofast]

The analysis shows that Hamilton delivered more speed than what Mercedes needed. I suppose that's an obvious and intuitive conclusion, but it's nice to see some numbers in support of that conclusion. The teams would need to do this kind of analysis if driver salaries were included in the budget cap. Based on 2022 performance, will Mercedes really need Hamilton in 2023, or will they be able to get the same result with Russell and a solid number 2 driver? And how solid (i.e., expensive) would this number 2 driver need to be? If the team wants to make a case to keep (or not keep) Hamilton, a PowerPoint slide with numbers like these wouldn't hurt.

[cooken]

Hamilton is a great driver but after reading a silly comment stating Mercedes went from 1 to 100 poles after he joined

You say it's silly but it's absolutely true. Before Hamilton joined, Mercedes had just 1 pole thanks to Rosberg in China. That's a statement of fact.

It's silly to insinuate that Hamilton is the reason they went from 1 to 100.

Can we please remember that the statement of "1 to 100" was in response to an equally silly statement that "Merc was building rocket ships before Lewis got there" or something to that effect. The original intent was to disprove this. Context is important.

Anyway thanks for the facts based initial post. For serious I appreciate the effort.

[Gillian]

Statistics are really interesting. On one hand, this disproves the claim, on the other hand, it doesn't.

What we first of all see is that Hamilton loses 3 poles if his time is 0,5s slower. He loses 2 of those poles to his teammate, and 1 to Ferrari.

What we can deduce from this is that Hamilton cleared the rest of the field(and his teammate) with over 0,5 seconds on 4 occasions, which is quite significant.

What also should be noticed is that Mercedes was consistently at least 0,5s clear of the field in 2014, so of course these statistics aren't going to change all that much.

You'd be better off doing this on the years that Mercedes wasn't the dominant team by far.

Hamilton's abilities are not in question. I don't take anyone serious who tries to do that. The numbers show that driver skill wasn't the deciding factor in Mercedes getting almost all poles in 2014. Takes nothing away from Hamiltons qualities.

I can do this for the entire hybrid period sure. Can already predict the outcome.

[Gillian]

The analysis shows that Hamilton delivered more speed than what Mercedes needed. I suppose that's an obvious and intuitive conclusion, but it's nice to see some numbers in support of that conclusion. The teams would need to do this kind of analysis if driver salaries were included in the budget cap. Based on 2022 performance, will Mercedes really need Hamilton in 2023, or will they be able to get the same result with Russell and a solid number 2 driver? And how solid (i.e., expensive) would this number 2 driver need to be? If the team wants to make a case to keep (or not keep) Hamilton, a PowerPoint slide with numbers like these wouldn't hurt.

Based on poles they would be better of keeping Rosberg and dumping Hamilton. Now if you look at the actual sessions and take into account Hamilton's bad luck, it starts to look a little different. An analysis of the race results would paint a very different picture. All that however would not change the pace deficit between Mercedes and the rest.

[Gillian]

You say it's silly but it's absolutely true. Before Hamilton joined, Mercedes had just 1 pole thanks to Rosberg in China. That's a statement of fact.

It's silly to insinuate that Hamilton is the reason they went from 1 to 100.

Can we please remember that the statement of "1 to 100" was in response to an equally silly statement that "Merc was building rocket ships before Lewis got there" or something to that effect. The original intent was to disprove this. Context is important.

Anyway thanks for the facts based initial post. For serious I appreciate the effort.

Fair enough and thank you. For me the entire discussion was a bit silly but at the same time I can see the point of both sides. I believe putting it in numbers actually shows both those sides. If I have time I will do the same for 2015 - 2020.

[Manoah2u]

Hamilton is a great driver but after reading a silly comment stating Mercedes went from 1 to 100 poles after he joined

You say it's silly but it's absolutely true. Before Hamilton joined, Mercedes had just 1 pole thanks to Rosberg in China. That's a statement of fact.

Simply not true, the Great Legend Michael Schumacher did a pole in Monaco 2012.

also, topic title should have 'In Qualification' added.
And qualification is not where the points are given or races won and champions decided.
On top of that, how does one 'simply take a tenth off' and think that's a reasonable deduction or would 'disprove' Hamilton there? especially on the original 'silly' quote.

[Just_a_fan]

Hamilton is a great driver but after reading a silly comment stating Mercedes went from 1 to 100 poles after he joined

You say it's silly but it's absolutely true. Before Hamilton joined, Mercedes had just 1 pole thanks to Rosberg in China. That's a statement of fact.

Simply not true, the Great Legend Michael Schumacher did a pole in Monaco 2012.

also, topic title should have 'In Qualification' added.
And qualification is not where the points are given or races won and champions decided.
On top of that, how does one 'simply take a tenth off' and think that's a reasonable deduction or would 'disprove' Hamilton there? especially on the original 'silly' quote.

But it was disallowed and therefore he didn't get pole. That's the way it works. So, yes, Mercedes had just one pole thanks to Rosberg.

[aMessageToCharlie]

Good effort and impressive numbers. Really shows how the Mercedes team raised the standards in f1.

The discussion about performance becomes muddy whenever people try to factor in and overweight subjective observations that cannot be objectively measured in any way and hence cannot be disproven. Then it goes from rational discussion to purely emotional opinion stating and threads tend to go sour.

I would like to see numbers supporting the driver making a huge difference in Mecedes' case as well to add to the discussion. Maybe qualifying and fastest race lap delta between HAM/BOT & HAM/ROS could be a start. And we will get more data for the analysis next year with RUS/HAM as another data point.

[Gillian]

Good effort and impressive numbers. Really shows how the Mercedes team raised the standards in f1.

The discussion about performance becomes muddy whenever people try to factor in and overweight subjective observations that cannot be objectively measured in any way and hence cannot be disproven. Then it goes from rational discussion to purely emotional opinion stating and threads tend to go sour.

I would like to see numbers supporting the driver making a huge difference in Mecedes' case as well to add to the discussion. Maybe qualifying and fastest race lap delta between HAM/BOT & HAM/ROS could be a start. And we will get more data for the analysis next year with RUS/HAM as another data point.

Good idea, I can do that. I already have crunched some numbers but want to get a cohesive view first before posting. I posted 2014 poles first to see the reactions and it seems to me it's very much possible to have a normale civil discussion. Now I feel free to post some more.

[flynfrog]

posts deleted warning given. Any new off topic posts after this point will be given a shiny new warning. if you are unsure what the thread is about please reread the first post

[wesley123]

Statistics are really interesting. On one hand, this disproves the claim, on the other hand, it doesn't.

What we first of all see is that Hamilton loses 3 poles if his time is 0,5s slower. He loses 2 of those poles to his teammate, and 1 to Ferrari.

What we can deduce from this is that Hamilton cleared the rest of the field(and his teammate) with over 0,5 seconds on 4 occasions, which is quite significant.

What also should be noticed is that Mercedes was consistently at least 0,5s clear of the field in 2014, so of course these statistics aren't going to change all that much.

You'd be better off doing this on the years that Mercedes wasn't the dominant team by far.

Hamilton's abilities are not in question. I don't take anyone serious who tries to do that. The numbers show that driver skill wasn't the deciding factor in Mercedes getting almost all poles in 2014. Takes nothing away from Hamiltons qualities.

I can do this for the entire hybrid period sure. Can already predict the outcome.

I've done it for 2017. For the delta of 0,5s Hamiltons poles went from 11 to 2, and Mercedes' went from 15 to 8, nearly halved.

[Gillian]

Statistics are really interesting. On one hand, this disproves the claim, on the other hand, it doesn't.

What we first of all see is that Hamilton loses 3 poles if his time is 0,5s slower. He loses 2 of those poles to his teammate, and 1 to Ferrari.

What we can deduce from this is that Hamilton cleared the rest of the field(and his teammate) with over 0,5 seconds on 4 occasions, which is quite significant.

What also should be noticed is that Mercedes was consistently at least 0,5s clear of the field in 2014, so of course these statistics aren't going to change all that much.

You'd be better off doing this on the years that Mercedes wasn't the dominant team by far.

Hamilton's abilities are not in question. I don't take anyone serious who tries to do that. The numbers show that driver skill wasn't the deciding factor in Mercedes getting almost all poles in 2014. Takes nothing away from Hamiltons qualities.

I can do this for the entire hybrid period sure. Can already predict the outcome.

I've done it for 2017. For the delta of 0,5s Hamiltons poles went from 11 to 2, and Mercedes' went from 15 to 8, nearly halved.

0,5s is very unrealistic though but it makes sense to have made an impact in 2017, where it did not in 2014 - 2016.
It's also interesting to swap the times of Vettel and Hamilton with a margin of -/+ 200ms. I will update the thread with more seasons and might include some race data. Would be nice to have a single post to point too, to avoid the same boring discussion again and again.

[PlatinumZealot]

Hamilton is a great driver but after reading a silly comment stating Mercedes went from 1 to 100 poles after he joined I decided to put it in numbers. It's very rudimentary and it misses a lot of context but it does give some insight. What I did was take the qualifying results and adjust them in steps of 1/10 second, simulating what the result would have been had a x tenth slower driver been driving for Mercedes.

Just looking at these numbers for qualifying it would not have mattered at all if Hamilton was driving for Mercedes or not. Even at 5/10 slower this driver would still have taken 4 poles (!) and Rosberg would have taken 15 (!) instead of 11. Vettel would have taken a single pole. Even a slower driver would still have made it in the top 3 for almost all races. The one race that stands out is Singapore, where a 5/10 slower driver would have dropped to P7, instead of taking pole.

Ofcourse qualifying is not a race, this is just an indication. Can do for more seasons but need some time.

You did a lot of work in response to that single poster. I apologize on his behalf because you sure took a good chunk of your time to make this for him.

Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong: the gist of the topic is to say that Mercedes' achievements do not depend on having Lewis Hamilton there?

Interesting analysis of 2014 their most dominant year. I guess you will need more time to analysis the years up to 2021 but I won't request that obviously. Haha.

But it is clear that regardless of dominance, a slower driver would have finished behind Nico in 2014. Nico might have ended up will 100% mercedes poles against his teammate. For the years 2017, 2018 a slower driver would also be much further behind.

Which brings me to a my first point...

Hamilton wasn't hired to simply drive the car around as you are implying. He was hired as a replacement for the great Michael Schumacher and as a benchmark for Nico Rosberg. In other words, he was to steward the team leadership to guide development and to extract every drop of performance from the car. Which he has done exceptionally well.

That brings me to my second point. Csr setup and development.

How can you quantify that though? Chopping off Q3 times don't tell the whole story because most of the time it is Lewis driving the setup of the car (remember dossier gate with Nico?). So if were to make an adjustment to your work, I would assume that setup work is worth maybe 3 tenths? Development deviation another 2 tenths? And allocate some fraction for the time time Lewis lead the setup, and another factor for development and apply that to the different qualifyings. Still loaded with assumptions, but at least it looks into the setup and development contribution of the lead driver.

[Gillian]

...

You did a lot of work in response to that single poster. I apologize on his behalf because you sure took a good chunk of your time to make this for him.

No need to apologize. I did not make this for him. I made this to show the facts. This is a technical forum afterall.

...

Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong: the gist of the topic is to say that Mercedes' achievements do not depend on having Lewis Hamilton there?

No that's a too broad statement. The succes of Mercedes is not just about polenumbers but about winning races/championships. This analysis is very rudimentary and you have to be careful to make conclusions based on the data. That's why I keep iterating it's not to downplay Hamilton's achievements. What it does however is put into perspective what an advantage Mercedes had for these years.

...

Interesting analysis of 2014 their most dominant year. I guess you will need more time to analysis the years up to 2021 but I won't request that obviously. Haha.

No need to ask, I will do it. I started this so I'm doubling down to make it as comprehensive as possible.

...

But it is clear that regardless of dominance, a slower driver would have finished behind Nico in 2014. Nico might have ended up will 100% mercedes poles against his teammate. For the years 2017, 2018 a slower driver would also be much further behind.

And that's what this data shows. A slower driver would still have made it to 2nd or 3rd place on the grid almost every single race, with Nico taking almost all pole positions. That already proves Hamilton's talent was not the deciding factor in giving Mercedes so many poles.

We will get to 2017/2018 in due time.

...

Hamilton wasn't hired to simply drive the car around as you are implying. He was hired as a replacement for the great Michael Schumacher and as a benchmark for Nico Rosberg. In other words, he was to steward the team leadership to guide development and to extract every drop of performance from the car. Which he has done exceptionally well.

I am not agreeing nor disagreeing on this point. It's however pretty much conjecture and not at all relevant in this context.

...

That brings me to my second point. Csr setup and development.

How can you quantify that though? Chopping off Q3 times don't tell the whole story because most of the time it is Lewis driving the setup of the car (remember dossier gate with Nico?). So if were to make an adjustment to your work, I would assume that setup work is worth maybe 3 tenths? Development deviation another 2 tenths? And allocate some fraction for the time time Lewis lead the setup, and another factor for development and apply that to the different qualifyings. Still loaded with assumptions, but at least it looks into the setup and development contribution of the lead driver.

Indeed a lot assumptions and more conjecture which I want to avoid. I purposefully stick to qualifying gaps in this analysis because it is a clear indication for the pace of the car.