Kimi Raikkonen performance

[mertol]

Yea, fantastic if you don't care about constructors' championship...

[Phil]

Those reasons are not excuses, he has proven his speed to people in this sport and there are people who know what he is capable of, and these people know more about him than you and me, and they have a truckload of driver telemetry data and know whats good for the team, this is F1 not charity, no matter how great Steve Robertson is if a driver is not performing he will be sacked.

Oddly enough, Ferrari have a very clear historic habit of holding on to drivers that are not performing for whatever reason. Kimi is just one, Massa another. Also, as for Kimi's renewal, I did find it highly odd that he was given a one-year extension right before Vettel pulled the trigger and signed for 3 years. Now I am not saying that Vettel wanted Kimi and got Kimi, but there's no doubt in my mind that a driver given the choice, would always rather have a less competitive team-mate than a more competitive one. The signing of Kimi and subsequently Vettel just had this odd feel about it that Ferrari wanted Vettel and thus gave Kimi another year to make sure Vettel retained the environment he feels comfortable in.

I have no doubt that Kimi on a good day is as good as anyone else - and he had his moments this year when he should have won a race and was genuinely quicker than Vettel - but he is far more off the pace than he is on it. If Kimi can hold on to that seat, why shouldn't he - the criticism is more aimed at Ferrari who I feel may need to change their approach if they ever want to win both the WCC and WDC. Two competitive drivers do hold the risk of taking points off of each other, but it holds the advantage that it pushes both drivers to perhaps even better performance and might give the team a better understanding on when and how the car performs best. Both approaches have their pros and cons, no doubt, but maybe it's about time Ferrari changed something?

[Silent Storm]

I do also find his attitude lacking, he has said he won't change his style (probably just covering up for his lack of ability to adapt). His aversion to the simulator is probably, not because he thinks he doesn't need it, but because he thinks it will show him for what he really is.

Lewis doesn't like using the simulator too because some drivers rely on the feel of the steering wheel and simulator is just a waste of time for them, it's the same reason with Kimi.

Not really true. They are some tracks* that Lewis does not do the track walk on. But Lewis does go in the simulator a lot. Right from his McLaren days there are many videos of Lewis using the sim. kimi on the other hand would not be caught dead in one!

Lewis used to spend a lot of times in the simulator when he was in McLaren but he didn't think it helped him as he couldn't feel the speed or bumps, same as a playstation to him.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/12481 ... than-games
"I don't drive the simulator a lot because it's not at its best at the moment - we're working on trying to make it better," Hamilton said.

"I don't do a lot of time in simulators. When I was at McLaren we did way too much.

"I could spend £100 on a PlayStation and learn the same amount."
"There's a difference between driving a simulator and driving the real thing - you have no emotion," Hamilton added.

"When you get into the simulator you have to adjust yourself to the simulator, and when you get in the car you don't adjust to it, you drive.

"When you get in the simulator you have to adjust all your feelings - you don't get the same movements, the same bumps.

"You drive the same track the day before and on Monday you drive the simulator and the bumps aren't there, the kerbs are different, the speed is different.

"You don't feel the speed, you don't feel the physicality of it.

"The engineers learn more from the fuel usage, the power usage and aerodynamics."

[mertol]

Those reasons are not excuses, he has proven his speed to people in this sport and there are people who know what he is capable of, and these people know more about him than you and me, and they have a truckload of driver telemetry data and know whats good for the team, this is F1 not charity, no matter how great Steve Robertson is if a driver is not performing he will be sacked.

Oddly enough, Ferrari have a very clear historic habit of holding on to drivers that are not performing for whatever reason. Kimi is just one, Massa another. Also, as for Kimi's renewal, I did find it highly odd that he was given a one-year extension right before Vettel pulled the trigger and signed for 3 years. Now I am not saying that Vettel wanted Kimi and got Kimi, but there's no doubt in my mind that a driver given the choice, would always rather have a less competitive team-mate than a more competitive one. The signing of Kimi and subsequently Vettel just had this odd feel about it that Ferrari wanted Vettel and thus gave Kimi another year to make sure Vettel retained the environment he feels comfortable in.

I have no doubt that Kimi on a good day is as good as anyone else - and he had his moments this year when he should have won a race and was genuinely quicker than Vettel - but he is far more off the pace than he is on it. If Kimi can hold on to that seat, why shouldn't he - the criticism is more aimed at Ferrari who I feel may need to change their approach if they ever want to win both the WCC and WDC. Two competitive drivers do hold the risk of taking points off of each other, but it holds the advantage that it pushes both drivers to perhaps even better performance and might give the team a better understanding on when and how the car performs best. Both approaches have their pros and cons, no doubt, but maybe it's about time Ferrari changed something?

I do think Ferrari has the 2 most overrated drivers on the grid atm. Both are champions - one not performing or having any impact whatsoever. And the other one is somewhat fast but wrecks way too much and random. If he wrecked like Schumacher to take advantage out of it I would be ok but he just destroys cars and races for no reason at all.

[Silent Storm]

When paired with WDCs he has come up short every time. His single WDC came up against Massa. Oddly enough, Alonso absolutely butchered both he & Massa when paired with him. I know F1 driver maths doesn't add up, but when you have a relatively comparable Kimi & Massa, and then an elite driver destroying them in relatively equal measure, it's at least a decent indicator that when both Kimi & Massa were highly rated it was more of a result of being in what must have been a very good car whilst coupled with an average, but not yet found out to be average, yardstick.

I don't think Kimi vs Alonso and Massa vs Alonso is as straight forward as it looks, Massa never had any balance issues in that Ferrari, whenever he crashed it was due to his own mistakes and not because he wasn't comfortable with the balance, he was just plain slow, compare it to 2014, Kimi's inability to adapt to new cars, a clearly unbalanced car, rookie race engineer and marriage problems. 1 year is not enough to compare them both, Max vs Daniel is a classic example.

Kimi is not a great No 2 driver like Bottas is but neither is Vettel a great No 1 driver, there were a few races Kimi could have won this year. Kimi's inability to adapt in 2014 has ruined his reputation.

I agree with Phil with the timing of Vettel's contract and the way it was announced. Vettel would definitely choose Kimi as he gets along with him and is slower than him, I don't agree with the point that Ferrari should sack him.
This was posted by PlatinumZealot in the driver performance thread
https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comme ... g_records/

Compare Kimi vs Vettel to Jenson vs Lewis, Fernando vs Massa or Mark vs Vettel.

[mertol]

You are cherrypicking. Why look at some weird percentages when you have championship points? Vettel seriously sucks in qualifying this year. With the current qualifying rules they rarely broadcast the full lap of anyone but when they do I can see Vettel does a mistake in almost every lap. Sometimes even 2 mistakes in the same lap.

[Silent Storm]

You are cherrypicking. Why look at some weird percentages when you have championship points? Vettel seriously sucks in qualifying this year. With the current qualifying rules they rarely broadcast the full lap of anyone but when they do I can see Vettel does a mistake in almost every lap. Sometimes even 2 mistakes in the same lap.

Vettel making mistakes is part of the game, If Palmer didn't make any mistakes in Qualifying then he could have out qualified a RedBull on some tracks, but he did not because he made mistakes.

If Vettel can not deliver a clean lap and that can be used as a valid reason then Kimi's inability to drive around problems because the balance is not perfect is also a valid reason.

[bill shoe]

Yea, fantastic if you don't care about constructors' championship...

It's fantastic for long-term development. So if you care about the constructors championship next year and the year after, etc., then you better have a top-level test/development driver.

Slightly slow drivers have their weakness show up as laptime gaps every race weekend. Weak test/development drivers get away with it because their abilities (or lack thereof) do not get quantified every race weekend.

Humanity measures what's convenient and we undervalue everything else.

[TAG]

You are cherrypicking. Why look at some weird percentages when you have championship points? Vettel seriously sucks in qualifying this year. With the current qualifying rules they rarely broadcast the full lap of anyone but when they do I can see Vettel does a mistake in almost every lap. Sometimes even 2 mistakes in the same lap.

I'm not the biggest Vettel fan in the world but I credit him for being a qualifyer second to none. (he's tied with Hamilton for first)

[mertol]

If Vettel was a good qualifier he would have won ~80% of the poles this year. He certainly would never get beaten by Kimi.
The Ferrari is so quick, he sometimes has a mistake in his pole lap. His catalunya lap was one of his worst this year but I think it's no longer available. I couldn't find it.

[NathanOlder]

Hamilton was on pole that day was he not ?

[mertol]

Yes but Vettel made 3 mistakes in this lap.

[Ennis]

You are cherrypicking. Why look at some weird percentages when you have championship points? Vettel seriously sucks in qualifying this year. With the current qualifying rules they rarely broadcast the full lap of anyone but when they do I can see Vettel does a mistake in almost every lap. Sometimes even 2 mistakes in the same lap.

I don't think any one metric can truly reflect driver performance, but the percentages he posted are a great insight to use alongside others.

Every datapoint we can use is open to issues:
Championship Points - doesn't account for mechanical failure, doesn't account for parts/engines/car optimised towards a driver, doesn't account for consistency further down the field (one spectacular finish for Sauber would bring more points, even if the other guy beat his teammate in every other race)..
One lap pace comparison - Doesn't account for racecraft, consistency, ability to adapt to changing conditions/shifting balance in a race..
Ahead when both finished - Doesn't account for the 'unlucky' aspect of retiring, through no fault of your own, whilst you're ahead
Etc etc...

Nothing is perfect (yet), but we can combine all these datapoints with our own perceptions and see where we land.

[iotar__]

Alternative reality thread.

You are cherrypicking. Why look at some weird percentages when you have championship points? Vettel seriously sucks in qualifying this year. With the current qualifying rules they rarely broadcast the full lap of anyone but when they do I can see Vettel does a mistake in almost every lap. Sometimes even 2 mistakes in the same lap.

I don't think any one metric can truly reflect driver performance, but the percentages he posted are a great insight to use alongside others.

Every datapoint we can use is open to issues:
Championship Points - doesn't account for mechanical failure, doesn't account for parts/engines/car optimised towards a driver, doesn't account for consistency further down the field (one spectacular finish for Sauber would bring more points, even if the other guy beat his teammate in every other race)..
One lap pace comparison - Doesn't account for racecraft, consistency, ability to adapt to changing conditions/shifting balance in a race..
Ahead when both finished - Doesn't account for the 'unlucky' aspect of retiring, through no fault of your own, whilst you're ahead
Etc etc...

Nothing is perfect (yet), but we can combine all these datapoints with our own perceptions and see where we land.

Where to start. You're clinging to general idea that "points don't tell the whole story" without:
- offering proper alternative, in this case about Raikkonen's lack of performance. I'll give you an example, forget about the points, assess in your own words IMO quintessential Raikkonen at Ferrari '17 Canada race. This is mine, car: Q - close to pole, race at worst close second quickest or the quickest. Competition behind: none. What did Raikkonen do with it:
A. Q fourth lowest possible
B Lost one position the start
C. Mistake on his own during first laps - another position lost
D. Ended up behind much slower FI and RB and did nothing afterwards.
So was it the lowest performance or "race with reliability problems"?

- mentioning that points work both ways, driver's speed, skills can be well hidden when there's no competition. Exaggerated but not far from reality example: imagine every race 1-2 Merc, 2-3 Ferrari and no competition it's only 3 points difference. It's 'only" 60 points. over a season. Good example: USA GP.

- car and lack of competition. His performance this season in arguably easiest to drive and most reliable car (performance over the whole season, every type of track, every tyre combination) was outright embarrassing in every basic category: Q, race pace, start and racecraft.

When paired with WDCs he has come up short every time. His single WDC came up against Massa. Oddly enough, Alonso absolutely butchered both he & Massa when paired with him. I know F1 driver maths doesn't add up, but when you have a relatively comparable Kimi & Massa, and then an elite driver destroying them in relatively equal measure, it's at least a decent indicator that when both Kimi & Massa were highly rated it was more of a result of being in what must have been a very good car whilst coupled with an average, but not yet found out to be average, yardstick.

I don't think Kimi vs Alonso and Massa vs Alonso is as straight forward as it looks, Massa never had any balance issues in that Ferrari, whenever he crashed it was due to his own mistakes and not because he wasn't comfortable with the balance, he was just plain slow, compare it to 2014,

This sort of posts get you your precious internet points here. Raikkonen should have been fired from Ferrari mid-way '14 season against Alonso, just after Canada spin (which he BTW replicated year later). Is that too straightforward?

About the most absurd statement ever (the one in bold font). Here's your balance problems lowlights, mostly racecraft (half from memory), pick those against Alonso if you want to check this "not too straightforward" season and points or pace are not enough, bonus - avoided penalties :

- Monaco '14 - crashes on his own at the hairpin, reverses into Magnussen damaging his FW - reprimand
- Monaco '16 - crash on his own - the same place + two collisions, driving slowly broken car on the racing line, no penalty
- Silverstone 15 - goes off, comes back on track, spins on his own, crashes and collects Massa and some other cars - no penalty
- Canada '14 spin at the hairpin
- Canada '15 spin at the hairpin
- Baku '16 - stupid self inflicted penalty, loses to Perez anyway, FI vs Ferrari which car was better?
- Canada '17, lost position at the start, first laps goes off, loses one more ~ joint best car vs FI and RB
- Austria '15 crash on the first lap, the one when ended up on Alonso - no penalty
- Baku '17 - collision on the first lap
- Spain '17 - collision + the end on the first lap
- Bahrain '17 starts fifth, seventh on the first lap
- Russia 15 - Bottas crash - just awful, blame the car balance on that.
- Russia -17 front row Ferrari - Bottas wins the race
- Monza '15 - front row - loses ~20 positions at the start
- Bahrain '16 - lost 2 positions at the start, no Ham, no Vettel
- China '16 - Q failure
- USA - 15 - crash on his own
- Brazil 16 - crash on his own

Instead of pointless graphs I suggest watching or re-watching races, checking lap times (Q + race), starts, basic racecraft, estimating performance compared to nearest competition or lack thereof, estimating potential of a car etc. and drawing conclusion.

[mertol]

That's not even the full list