Is the RB18 dominant?

[AR3-GP]

The only post with relevant numbers so far is the one last page that does state Ferrari were -0.05 compared to RB before the summer break.

It doesn't take a car to be 1s a lap faster than second best to be dominant. 0.1s a lap with better top speed on straights to protect from overtakes is more than enough and RB18 had a lot more than 0.1s a lap in the second half - even in those arbitrary analyses.

I understand your sentiment, but we risk diluting the meaning of "dominant car".

RB smothered the competition this year (largely aided by the mid-season meddling, minorly aided by Ferrari's fantastic pitwall).

[harty71]

Bahrain seems a lifetime ago, Leclerc really put the manners on Verstappen, completely out drove him in an inferior car on the day.

How our hopes were built up with that battle, from then on it's as though Ferrari didn't want to win the championships, really poor outing from them with a capable car.

Inferior car on the day?

Of course it was, the RB was faster on race day, Leclerc just defended like a lion and put manners on Max.

[Andres125sx]

The only post with relevant numbers so far is the one last page that does state Ferrari were -0.05 compared to RB before the summer break. Which seems to support what several people here were arguing - the car was not dominant before summer, after summer it did clearly have the upper hand.

And yes, in the end it's team dominance that matters. But that is not what this thread is about, it clearly considers the RB18, not Red Bull racing...

I disagree mate. When did you see some trophy earned by pace difference? In the end, victories are what matters, nobody cares about the advantage. Even if it was only 1 tenth advantage at every single victory, anyone who takes 70% of victories is dominant.

Maybe we should take a look at the dictionary (at least I need it ):

Dominant: more important, powerful, or successful than other people, companies, etc.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/es-LA/ ... h/dominant

Was Red Bull, or to be more precise, the RB18 more successful than Ferrari, Mercedes, etc.

RB18: 17 victories
F1-75: 4 victories
W13: 1 victory

They got 3.4 victories for each victory of any other car on the grid, so yes, they were more successful than any other car on the grid, by a huge margin

About if victories can be due to circumstances, agree. But single victories. If we analyse the longest season ever, and final numbers are this overwhelming, circumstances for any single or even several victories, are irrelevant. 17-4 is a serious beating. Even if, because of circumstances, we take 4 victories from the RB18 and give it to Ferrari, it still is 13-8 for the RB18, still dominant


And even if we only take first half of the season, they got 7 victories in 11 GPs, Ferrari 4, so even in this first half they were more successful than any other team, with almost double victories than next rival. This, by definition, is being dominant

[Sieper]

Another long story with the exact same message that has already been comprehensively rebutted. Most wins does not equal dominant car. It is a poor metric.

[Andres125sx]

Another long story with the exact same message that has already been comprehensively rebutted. Most wins does not equal dominant car. It is a poor metric.

So dominant does not mean winning most races.... curious statement

If winning is a poor metric, then what metric should be applied in your opinion? Fair question. I bothered to elaborate my reasoning, please elaborate yours

[DDopey]

The only post with relevant numbers so far is the one last page that does state Ferrari were -0.05 compared to RB before the summer break. Which seems to support what several people here were arguing - the car was not dominant before summer, after summer it did clearly have the upper hand.

And yes, in the end it's team dominance that matters. But that is not what this thread is about, it clearly considers the RB18, not Red Bull racing...

I disagree mate. When did you see some trophy earned by pace difference? In the end, victories are what matters, nobody cares about the advantage. Even if it was only 1 tenth advantage at every single victory, anyone who takes 70% of victories is dominant.

Maybe we should take a look at the dictionary (at least I need it ):

Dominant: more important, powerful, or successful than other people, companies, etc.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/es-LA/ ... h/dominant

Was Red Bull, or to be more precise, the RB18 more successful than Ferrari, Mercedes, etc.

RB18: 17 victories
F1-75: 4 victories
W13: 1 victory

They got 3.4 victories for each victory of any other car on the grid, so yes, they were more successful than any other car on the grid, by a huge margin

About if victories can be due to circumstances, agree. But single victories. If we analyse the longest season ever, and final numbers are this overwhelming, circumstances for any single or even several victories, are irrelevant. 17-4 is a serious beating. Even if, because of circumstances, we take 4 victories from the RB18 and give it to Ferrari, it still is 13-8 for the RB18, still dominant


And even if we only take first half of the season, they got 7 victories in 11 GPs, Ferrari 4, so even in this first half they were more successful than any other team, with almost double victories than next rival. This, by definition, is being dominant

Now you are talking about team dominance or even driver dominance, not car (RB18) dominance.

Also I think 0.1 faster in current F1 context is not dominance, it is faster, not dominance.

[Andres125sx]

If any argument used is rebutted with "that is the team or driver, not the car", assuming the team or driver played a higher role than the car, without any evidence, then a sensible discussion is imposible

[DChemTech]

Another long story with the exact same message that has already been comprehensively rebutted. Most wins does not equal dominant car. It is a poor metric.

So dominant does not mean winning most races.... curious statement

If winning is a poor metric, then what metric should be applied in your opinion? Fair question. I bothered to elaborate my reasoning, please elaborate yours

You basically said it yourself, "anyone who takes 70% of the victories is dominant" - that's a statement about team dominance, not of car dominance. A team can take all victories without having a dominant car (e.g. by dominant strategy, driver, or consistent failure of opponents).

Saying that a team has a dominant car because it won most races is a fallacy of affirming the consequent, as noted before. If A leads to B, it does not mean observing B automatically stems from A. If a dominant car leads to many victories it does not mean many victories result from a dominant car - there could be other underlying reasons.

Now you have stated before something along the lines that car dominance is not that relevant, but team dominance is, and I agree. But that is not the topic of this thread, car dominance is. And for car dominance, the number of victories is a poor metric. There are better ones related directly to car performance (e.g. on different sections of the track), and actual margins. As I mentioned on one of the earlier pages, consistently winning with something close to a free pitstop and/or even the second driver often outqualifying the field by 0.5s or so signals car dominance - such margins are rarely achieved by having a better driver or strategy.

[DDopey]

If any argument used is rebutted with "that is the team or driver, not the car", assuming the team or driver played a higher role than the car, without any evidence, then a sensible discussion is imposible

Now you assume that the car is not part of the team, or the car is not driven. I meant the difference between talking only about the car or the complete team effort, which includes the car. The reason for separately mentioning the driver is because not all drivers extract the same amount of performance out of car.

[mrluke]

Does anybody have any precendent of a "Dominant team" winning more than 70% of races in a season when they had an inferior car?

Or a "Dominant driver" winning more than 70% of races with an inferior car and team?

For me the team, driver and car are all a package. When the same team, car and driver has won pretty much every race in a season they have to be considered dominant, thats what dominant means.

Sure you can argue on occasion somebody else was faster but not in a consistent or meaningful way.

[AR3-GP]

The first problem with this entire 12 page thread is that it ask if the "RB18" is dominant. The thread content goes on to discuss Verstappen's performances (as opposed to Perez's), and furthermore the RB pitwall (as opposed to Ferrari's).

Which question are we focusing on?

Should this thread be renamed? Was the Verstappen/RB/RB18 package dominant? The answer is a simple and resounding yes. Was the RB18 itself dominant at all times? No. See the first half of the season. The Ferrari was the faster car on average in both qualifying and races before the technical directive. In the second half, the RB18 had no peers (outside of Mexico and Brazil where the extreme high altitude and sprint race idiosyncrasies flattered Mercedes).

[yamahasho]

It's the car like everyone says.

Only a few drivers have won in a non Newey designed car. To Max's credit though, he is in his peak window as an athlete, took him 7 years to get a championship which is about the right time, he has the right experience and still has youth to outshine Perez, Perez is way passed his prime and his age is showing. Put Ricardo or Webber back in and they'll go back to crashing into each other.

Any real racer knows it's the car. In this case the RB18.

[Andres125sx]

Another long story with the exact same message that has already been comprehensively rebutted. Most wins does not equal dominant car. It is a poor metric.

So dominant does not mean winning most races.... curious statement

If winning is a poor metric, then what metric should be applied in your opinion? Fair question. I bothered to elaborate my reasoning, please elaborate yours

You basically said it yourself, "anyone who takes 70% of the victories is dominant" - that's a statement about team dominance, not of car dominance. A team can take all victories without having a dominant car (e.g. by dominant strategy, driver, or consistent failure of opponents).

Saying that a team has a dominant car because it won most races is a fallacy of affirming the consequent, as noted before. If A leads to B, it does not mean observing B automatically stems from A. If a dominant car leads to many victories it does not mean many victories result from a dominant car - there could be other underlying reasons.

Sorry but you can´t see the forest for the trees. You get lost on theories, when real world speaks volumes. Yes some victories can be achieved by underlying reasons, but we´re talking about 2022 season.

Do you think RB18 won 17 of 22 races (77%!) because of underlying reasons?

[DChemTech]

So dominant does not mean winning most races.... curious statement

If winning is a poor metric, then what metric should be applied in your opinion? Fair question. I bothered to elaborate my reasoning, please elaborate yours

You basically said it yourself, "anyone who takes 70% of the victories is dominant" - that's a statement about team dominance, not of car dominance. A team can take all victories without having a dominant car (e.g. by dominant strategy, driver, or consistent failure of opponents).

Saying that a team has a dominant car because it won most races is a fallacy of affirming the consequent, as noted before. If A leads to B, it does not mean observing B automatically stems from A. If a dominant car leads to many victories it does not mean many victories result from a dominant car - there could be other underlying reasons.

Sorry but you can´t see the forest for the trees. You get lost on theories, when real world speaks volumes. Yes some victories can be achieved by underlying reasons, but we´re talking about 2022 season.

Do you think RB18 won 17 of 22 races (77%!) because of underlying reasons?

Please do not strawman my position. I never said that the RB18 did not have the overhand as a car this season. Most of my contributions that actually say something about the performance of the car were made when this thread was started, just after the summer break. At that point, my position was that the RB18 was not dominant based on the races before summer - where in my view the Ferrari was on par and the reason RB won most races was due to better strategy and fewer driver errors - but that the races after summer may change that assessment. And indeed it has. My current position is that based on the whole season, the RB18 definitely had the overhand, but zooming in on parts of the season the car was only decisively better after summer - not before. As a team/driver/car combo, Red Bull was dominant all season, but again, that is not the question that is being asked in this thread.

Now, your statement "you can´t see the forest for the trees. You get lost on theories, when real world speaks volumes.".

I'm sorry, but that's just bollocks. Proper, logically sound argumentation matters in the real world. Wins are a poor indicator of car dominance because wins can come from many underlying causes, and if you want to argue car dominance, you should look beyond wins alone. If Williams won all races with their currrent car because all the other cars consistently crashed in the last lap, I doubt anyone would call the williams car dominant. Yet, by just looking at wins, it would be.

[DChemTech]

Does anybody have any precendent of a "Dominant team" winning more than 70% of races in a season when they had an inferior car?

Or a "Dominant driver" winning more than 70% of races with an inferior car and team?

For me the team, driver and car are all a package. When the same team, car and driver has won pretty much every race in a season they have to be considered dominant, thats what dominant means.

Sure you can argue on occasion somebody else was faster but not in a consistent or meaningful way.

In an inferior car, no, but noone is arguing the RB18 was inferior - only that in the first half of the season it was on par with the Ferrari, and in that part of the season, other factors were decisive in RB winning most races.

And that has happened before. Maybe not often in F1 (that I know of at least).
It is easier to judge in other series, especially those where the cars are equal to begin with and hence driver/team performance has to be the decisive factor. E.g. British F3 1983, where Senna won the first 9 races and finished first or second for all others if he finished the race. Or the 1994 season where Jan Magnussen won all but 3 races of the season, with most of the participants (albeit not all) driving the same chassis/engine combination.