Mercedes without Hamilton in numbers

[aral]

Once again, this has descended into a "Hamilton is the greatest " thread. The actual thread is about MERCEDES without Hamilton. So please discuss Mercedes. Whereas some of the info is of interest and on topic, most of the comments are nothing but fanboy rants. Do you want the thread locked? If you do not, then please discuss amicably and leave the fanboy comments behind.

[WaikeCU]

Hamilton is great, that's not the subject. A great driver winning in a dominant car does not make the driver bad. Nor does it make it an undeserving champion. How much of the succes of Mercedes is down to Hamilton is a subject of many discussions. I try to put it in numbers which makes it easier to judge.

I have stated many times now I think Hamilton is one the best. I will say it again, Hamilton is a great driver.

I am open to doing the same analysis for other eras/drivers. Schumacher's career with Ferrari would be a nice comparison.

I will add race analysis. Yes only qualifying results hardly show the full picture.

I honestly don't think you can. Nobody of us can actually tell how much % work ethic rating both Lewis and Nico have and how much their share were in developing those cars season in, season out. All I do know is engineer and team members that worked together with them and have openly expressed why they were as good as they are. And maybe one driver did more of the development work than the other or provided better feedback and input, which might have made the car more suited to either Lewis or Nico. It's something we can't measure.

Let us for instance use an example. Assume the Merc pole position time was 0,5s faster than the nearest competing team for a given track, does that mean if we put a driver that is 0,4s slower than Lewis/Nico, he/she would still be on pole position by 0.1s?

I don't think it as easy as that. Perfect example would be Fisichella stepping in for Luca Badoer in the Ferrari of 2009, who did an appalling job in that Ferrari until then. Fisichella is not a slow driver as he has a proven record, but was it an expected improvement? No.

[Gillian]

Hamilton is great, that's not the subject. A great driver winning in a dominant car does not make the driver bad. Nor does it make it an undeserving champion. How much of the succes of Mercedes is down to Hamilton is a subject of many discussions. I try to put it in numbers which makes it easier to judge.

I have stated many times now I think Hamilton is one the best. I will say it again, Hamilton is a great driver.

I am open to doing the same analysis for other eras/drivers. Schumacher's career with Ferrari would be a nice comparison.

I will add race analysis. Yes only qualifying results hardly show the full picture.

I honestly don't think you can. Nobody of us can actually tell how much % work ethic rating both Lewis and Nico have and how much their share were in developing those cars season in, season out. All I do know is engineer and team members that worked together with them and have openly expressed why they were as good as they are. And maybe one driver did more of the development work than the other or provided better feedback and input, which might have made the car more suited to either Lewis or Nico. It's something we can't measure.

Let us for instance use an example. Assume the Merc pole position time was 0,5s faster than the nearest competing team for a given track, does that mean if we put a driver that is 0,4s slower than Lewis/Nico, he/she would still be on pole position by 0.1s?

I don't think it as easy as that. Perfect example would be Fisichella stepping in for Luca Badoer in the Ferrari of 2009, who did an appalling job in that Ferrari until then. Fisichella is not a slow driver as he has a proven record, but was it an expected improvement? No.

I understand what you are saying and I mostly agree. I do think however doing this gives some insight and, when done properly and with more data, is a lot more valuable than the baseless arguments coming from both sides. You know what I mean: "Hamilton drove a rocket ship for 7 years",
"Anyone would be champion in a Mercedes" or the other side "Every champion had a dominant car" etc. I try to put this in perspective by crunching the numbers. I myself add all the side notes about factors not included. I honestly don't understand the wave of criticism and down talking. Bring ideas to the table to make it better or something.

[Ryar]

Hamilton is great, that's not the subject. A great driver winning in a dominant car does not make the driver bad. Nor does it make it an undeserving champion. How much of the succes of Mercedes is down to Hamilton is a subject of many discussions. I try to put it in numbers which makes it easier to judge.

I have stated many times now I think Hamilton is one the best. I will say it again, Hamilton is a great driver.

I am open to doing the same analysis for other eras/drivers. Schumacher's career with Ferrari would be a nice comparison.

I will add race analysis. Yes only qualifying results hardly show the full picture.

I honestly don't think you can. Nobody of us can actually tell how much % work ethic rating both Lewis and Nico have and how much their share were in developing those cars season in, season out. All I do know is engineer and team members that worked together with them and have openly expressed why they were as good as they are. And maybe one driver did more of the development work than the other or provided better feedback and input, which might have made the car more suited to either Lewis or Nico. It's something we can't measure.

Let us for instance use an example. Assume the Merc pole position time was 0,5s faster than the nearest competing team for a given track, does that mean if we put a driver that is 0,4s slower than Lewis/Nico, he/she would still be on pole position by 0.1s?

I don't think it as easy as that. Perfect example would be Fisichella stepping in for Luca Badoer in the Ferrari of 2009, who did an appalling job in that Ferrari until then. Fisichella is not a slow driver as he has a proven record, but was it an expected improvement? No.

I don't think Gillian is attempting to showcase the off track qualitative performances of a driver. This exercise, is considering the car as the main equipment, which is built by hundreds of intelligent engineers and a driver, is a just a small part of it. Consider the fact that, 2014 Mercedes car had almost zero involvement from Lewis as the work on PU and chassis had started even before he set foot in Mercedes.

The essence of this analytical exercise is considering, once the car is what it is, what would happen if a slower driver is onboard. Like all statistical exercises, they are not perfect, but an attempt to look at the reality in a different perspective. If someone think this is useless, then it's easy to ignore it, instead of keep on telling it's useless. The other best thing is to provide a countering argument with similar data to further the argument and develop meaningful outcomes, not to kill it.

[hollus]

Quite a few people have pointed out that if Hamilton had not been at Mercedes, he would have been with, and taken his tenths to, another team.
Well, the 5 tenths handicap is exactly the same as considering Mercedes losing 2.5 tenths and the second best team gaining 2.5 tenths, so the calculation exercise is already there, in a way.

[Gillian]

Quite a few people have pointed out that if Hamilton had not been at Mercedes, he would have been with, and taken his tenths to, another team.
Well, the 5 tenths handicap is exactly the same as considering Mercedes losing 2.5 tenths and the second best team gaining 2.5 tenths, so the calculation exercise is already there, in a way.

Exactly.

For the 2017/2018 season it will be very interesting. I hope to have some time the next few days to tackle a few more seasons. Will update the start post to make it a bit more clear.

[Ryar]

This thread is just. veiled witch hunt. I dont get the fascination with Hamilton.
You revealed your intent by saying the 2014 car had zero input from Hamilton which is not really true.
He drove the car in 2013 and made a lot of changes mechanically especially on the braking aspect. The 2014 car was not even perfect. The engine was the main reaseon for its speed. The car still had issues with tyre temps.

You probably have to go back and view the interviews of Mercedes chief designer John Owen and Andy Cowell to understand the genesys of W05 better. Don't shoot the messenger. Your attempting too hard to give credit to Lewis where it doesn't belong and in the process, forgetting how crucial Nico's inputs have been in the car designs, who was considered one of the intelligent drivers and needless to highlight, the lack of any interest from Lewis (self admittedly and as echoed by Nico and others in the team) to test the cars.

To be honest, neither this silly argument of yours and nor my response add any value to this valuable thread.

[Just_a_fan]

Ok, if we're not allowed to talk around the subject, I'll bring some data analysis to the table.

If one looks at the 1988 season, Senna's run of poles that year is phenomenal at 13 out of 16 races. He was regularly around half a second up on P2, famously in Monaco he was 1.4s up on P2. Applying the method in the OP, Mansell would have taken two poles instead, if the sub driver was more than 0.5 seconds slower in Brazil, and but only needed to be 0.1 seconds slower in Hungary for Mansell to take pole there. Otherwise, the McLaren sub or Prost would have taken the poles anyway. So what does that say about Senna and McLaren? The car was dominant, yes we all knew that, but what about Senna? Just a driver that was lucky to be in such a good car?

Apply the same thing to many dominant seasons and you'll get the same sort of result (back in the day, Fangio's pole laps were often multiple seconds faster than P2, so that could lead to lively discussions). Indeed, it would be worth changing the thread title to "Successful teams without the star drivers" and do a proper full analysis of all seasons. That would then be worthy of everyone's time. So, how about it? Are we up for that or is only a certain narrative supported hereabouts?

[Gillian]

Ok, if we're not allowed to talk around the subject, I'll bring some data analysis to the table.

If one looks at the 1988 season, Senna's run of poles that year is phenomenal at 13 out of 16 races. He was regularly around half a second up on P2, famously in Monaco he was 1.4s up on P2. Applying the method in the OP, Mansell would have taken two poles instead, if the sub driver was more than 0.5 seconds slower in Brazil, and but only needed to be 0.1 seconds slower in Hungary for Mansell to take pole there. Otherwise, the McLaren sub or Prost would have taken the poles anyway. So what does that say about Senna and McLaren? The car was dominant, yes we all knew that, but what about Senna? Just a driver that was lucky to be in such a good car?

Apply the same thing to many dominant seasons and you'll get the same sort of result (back in the day, Fangio's pole laps were often multiple seconds faster than P2, so that could lead to lively discussions). Indeed, it would be worth changing the thread title to "Successful teams without the star drivers" and do a proper full analysis of all seasons. That would then be worthy of everyone's time. So, how about it? Are we up for that or is only a certain narrative supported hereabouts?

I already said I would be open to do it for other drivers/eras. The way you apply the method I use is incorrect. You apply it incorrectly because you are still in the state of mind I am downplaying Hamilton's achievement.

[Ryar]

Ok, if we're not allowed to talk around the subject, I'll bring some data analysis to the table.

If one looks at the 1988 season, Senna's run of poles that year is phenomenal at 13 out of 16 races. He was regularly around half a second up on P2, famously in Monaco he was 1.4s up on P2. Applying the method in the OP, Mansell would have taken two poles instead, if the sub driver was more than 0.5 seconds slower in Brazil, and but only needed to be 0.1 seconds slower in Hungary for Mansell to take pole there. Otherwise, the McLaren sub or Prost would have taken the poles anyway. So what does that say about Senna and McLaren? The car was dominant, yes we all knew that, but what about Senna? Just a driver that was lucky to be in such a good car?

Apply the same thing to many dominant seasons and you'll get the same sort of result (back in the day, Fangio's pole laps were often multiple seconds faster than P2, so that could lead to lively discussions). Indeed, it would be worth changing the thread title to "Successful teams without the star drivers" and do a proper full analysis of all seasons. That would then be worthy of everyone's time. So, how about it? Are we up for that or is only a certain narrative supported hereabouts?

He was lucky. Isn't it? Look at what happened in 1992 and 1993. Someone else got those dominant cars and Senna's all dominant form disppeared. Senna looked like second rate by trailing multiple tenths on average and multiple seconds on occasions. In 1992, on occasions, outclassed by Schumacher in far lesser car and ended the season as 4th best driver behind Schumacher!

1992 - Qualifying deficit
---------------------
South africa - 0.741
Mexico - 2.445
Brazil - 2.199
Spain - 1.019
San Marino - 1.244
Monaco - 1.113
France - 1.335
Britain - 2.741
Germany - 1.146
Hungary - 0.791
Belgium - 2.198
Italy - 0.601
Portugal - 1.217
Japan - 1.015
Australia - 0.470

[Just_a_fan]

Ok, if we're not allowed to talk around the subject, I'll bring some data analysis to the table.

If one looks at the 1988 season, Senna's run of poles that year is phenomenal at 13 out of 16 races. He was regularly around half a second up on P2, famously in Monaco he was 1.4s up on P2. Applying the method in the OP, Mansell would have taken two poles instead, if the sub driver was more than 0.5 seconds slower in Brazil, and but only needed to be 0.1 seconds slower in Hungary for Mansell to take pole there. Otherwise, the McLaren sub or Prost would have taken the poles anyway. So what does that say about Senna and McLaren? The car was dominant, yes we all knew that, but what about Senna? Just a driver that was lucky to be in such a good car?

Apply the same thing to many dominant seasons and you'll get the same sort of result (back in the day, Fangio's pole laps were often multiple seconds faster than P2, so that could lead to lively discussions). Indeed, it would be worth changing the thread title to "Successful teams without the star drivers" and do a proper full analysis of all seasons. That would then be worthy of everyone's time. So, how about it? Are we up for that or is only a certain narrative supported hereabouts?

I already said I would be open to do it for other drivers/eras. The way you apply the method I use is incorrect. You apply it incorrectly because you are still in the state of mind I am downplaying Hamilton's achievement.

You substitute a driver that is progressively 0.1s slower, then 0.2s slower until such times as someone else takes the pole. Doing that with the 1988 season would see the McLaren still taking the majority of the poles, be it the substitute or Prost. Only in two races would a non-McLaren driver take pole (other than the one that Berger on merit) and one of those had a pole time lead of 0.5s and the other 0.1s and both to Mansell.

So no, I'm not applying it incorrectly. I show that the McLaren would have taken only 2 fewer poles with any random driver in place of Senna and thus the car was the star not the driver. That's what you are showing in this thread - the car was the star in 2014, not the drivers (or more specifically not Hamilton because that is what you set out to show in the thread having taken umbrage at a post that said merely (and correctly) that Mercedes had only one pole in the period from 2010 - 2013).

Of course, if you disagree with my data please do feel free to discuss it. Thanks.

[Ryar]

Ok, if we're not allowed to talk around the subject, I'll bring some data analysis to the table.

If one looks at the 1988 season, Senna's run of poles that year is phenomenal at 13 out of 16 races. He was regularly around half a second up on P2, famously in Monaco he was 1.4s up on P2. Applying the method in the OP, Mansell would have taken two poles instead, if the sub driver was more than 0.5 seconds slower in Brazil, and but only needed to be 0.1 seconds slower in Hungary for Mansell to take pole there. Otherwise, the McLaren sub or Prost would have taken the poles anyway. So what does that say about Senna and McLaren? The car was dominant, yes we all knew that, but what about Senna? Just a driver that was lucky to be in such a good car?

Apply the same thing to many dominant seasons and you'll get the same sort of result (back in the day, Fangio's pole laps were often multiple seconds faster than P2, so that could lead to lively discussions). Indeed, it would be worth changing the thread title to "Successful teams without the star drivers" and do a proper full analysis of all seasons. That would then be worthy of everyone's time. So, how about it? Are we up for that or is only a certain narrative supported hereabouts?

I already said I would be open to do it for other drivers/eras. The way you apply the method I use is incorrect. You apply it incorrectly because you are still in the state of mind I am downplaying Hamilton's achievement.

You substitute a driver that is progressively 0.1s slower, then 0.2s slower until such times as someone else takes the pole. Doing that with the 1988 season would see the McLaren still taking the majority of the poles, be it the substitute or Prost. Only in two races would a non-McLaren driver take pole (other than the one that Berger on merit) and one of those had a pole time lead of 0.5s and the other 0.1s and both to Mansell.

So no, I'm not applying it incorrectly. I show that the McLaren would have taken only 2 fewer poles with any random driver in place of Senna and thus the car was the star not the driver. That's what you are showing in this thread - the car was the star in 2014, not the drivers (or more specifically not Hamilton because that is what you set out to show in the thread having taken umbrage at a post that said merely (and correctly) that Mercedes had only one pole in the period from 2010 - 2013).

Of course, if you disagree with my data please do feel free to discuss it . Thanks.

Mercedes having 1 pole from 2010-2013 to then dominate, the car is the reason on both occasions. Trying to prove anything otherwise, is futile exercise. Consider this. Nico Rosberg was the guy who took 1 pole from 2010-2013 and he was the guy who took most poles in 2014! What changed then?
Once again, this is not about denigrating Lewis. To me, this is about trying to understand, to what lesser extent, a driver can still win in those Mercedes cars.

[Just_a_fan]

Ok, if we're not allowed to talk around the subject, I'll bring some data analysis to the table.

If one looks at the 1988 season, Senna's run of poles that year is phenomenal at 13 out of 16 races. He was regularly around half a second up on P2, famously in Monaco he was 1.4s up on P2. Applying the method in the OP, Mansell would have taken two poles instead, if the sub driver was more than 0.5 seconds slower in Brazil, and but only needed to be 0.1 seconds slower in Hungary for Mansell to take pole there. Otherwise, the McLaren sub or Prost would have taken the poles anyway. So what does that say about Senna and McLaren? The car was dominant, yes we all knew that, but what about Senna? Just a driver that was lucky to be in such a good car?

Apply the same thing to many dominant seasons and you'll get the same sort of result (back in the day, Fangio's pole laps were often multiple seconds faster than P2, so that could lead to lively discussions). Indeed, it would be worth changing the thread title to "Successful teams without the star drivers" and do a proper full analysis of all seasons. That would then be worthy of everyone's time. So, how about it? Are we up for that or is only a certain narrative supported hereabouts?

He was lucky. Isn't it? Look at what happened in 1992 and 1993. Someone else got those dominant cars and Senna's all dominant form disppeared. Senna looked like second rate by trailing multiple tenths on average and multiple seconds on occasions. In 1992, on occasions, outclassed by Schumacher in far lesser car and ended the season as 4th best driver behind Schumacher!

1992 - Qualifying deficit
---------------------
South africa - 0.741
Mexico - 2.445
Brazil - 2.199
Spain - 1.019
San Marino - 1.244
Monaco - 1.113
France - 1.335
Britain - 2.741
Germany - 1.146
Hungary - 0.791
Belgium - 2.198
Italy - 0.601
Portugal - 1.217
Japan - 1.015
Australia - 0.470

In 1992, Schumacher had 4 DNFs to Senna's 7 and still only beat him by 5 points. 5 of Senna's DNF were mechanical failures, one was him hitting Mansell and one was Schumacher taking him out. Schumacher ended the same race as a DNF after later running into someone else. But we're not allowed to add context in here as it's banned by popular acclaim and moderator diktat, so sorry everyone.

[Ryar]

Ok, if we're not allowed to talk around the subject, I'll bring some data analysis to the table.

If one looks at the 1988 season, Senna's run of poles that year is phenomenal at 13 out of 16 races. He was regularly around half a second up on P2, famously in Monaco he was 1.4s up on P2. Applying the method in the OP, Mansell would have taken two poles instead, if the sub driver was more than 0.5 seconds slower in Brazil, and but only needed to be 0.1 seconds slower in Hungary for Mansell to take pole there. Otherwise, the McLaren sub or Prost would have taken the poles anyway. So what does that say about Senna and McLaren? The car was dominant, yes we all knew that, but what about Senna? Just a driver that was lucky to be in such a good car?

Apply the same thing to many dominant seasons and you'll get the same sort of result (back in the day, Fangio's pole laps were often multiple seconds faster than P2, so that could lead to lively discussions). Indeed, it would be worth changing the thread title to "Successful teams without the star drivers" and do a proper full analysis of all seasons. That would then be worthy of everyone's time. So, how about it? Are we up for that or is only a certain narrative supported hereabouts?

He was lucky. Isn't it? Look at what happened in 1992 and 1993. Someone else got those dominant cars and Senna's all dominant form disppeared. Senna looked like second rate by trailing multiple tenths on average and multiple seconds on occasions. In 1992, on occasions, outclassed by Schumacher in far lesser car and ended the season as 4th best driver behind Schumacher!

1992 - Qualifying deficit
---------------------
South africa - 0.741
Mexico - 2.445
Brazil - 2.199
Spain - 1.019
San Marino - 1.244
Monaco - 1.113
France - 1.335
Britain - 2.741
Germany - 1.146
Hungary - 0.791
Belgium - 2.198
Italy - 0.601
Portugal - 1.217
Japan - 1.015
Australia - 0.470

In 1992, Schumacher had 4 DNFs to Senna's 7 and still only beat him by 5 points. 5 of Senna's DNF were mechanical failures, one was him hitting Mansell and one was Schumacher taking him out. Schumacher ended the same race as a DNF after later running into someone else. But we're not allowed to add context in here as it's banned by popular acclaim and moderator diktat, so sorry everyone.

I am happy, at least in this one post, it's not about "my driver is great" and more about data of DNFs. I admire the fact that, when needed, context becomes useful.

Not that I didn't see the DNF data there, as it was popping out in wikipedia like a sore thumb. The only conclusion out of Senna being 4th, was to show that, if the equipment is not good, even if a driver that dominated a year back and probably a couple tenths faster than the field, still can't make much difference. Most F1 drivers are actually bloody good and if the equipment is right, they can produce the results. It's just a matter of being at the right team at the right time. Look at Lewis this year. in the last 14 races, just one pole and Bottas has a couple in that duration. It never happened to Lewis in 2014-2020 timefrme.

On the same breath, anyone that was slower by half a second than Senna, could have still won in those McLarens (without Senna) and the same with those Williams' of 92/93. The massive cushion they had, was only matched by the Mercedes of 2014-2020.

[Just_a_fan]

Mercedes having 1 pole from 2010-2013 to then dominate, the car is the reason on both occasions. Trying to prove anything otherwise, is futile exercise. Consider this. Nico Rosberg was the guy who took 1 pole from 2010-2013 and he was the guy who took most poles in 2014! What changed then?
Once again, this is not about denigrating Lewis. To me, this is about trying to understand, to what lesser extent, a driver can still win in those Mercedes cars.

And as has been said by many of us for many years - no one wins titles in bad cars. With few exceptions, every champion, and certainly every multiple champion, only has their records because they had the right car and it was always at least as good as any other and in most cases it was better than the rest. Better might just be a case of being more reliable (ironically Nico benefitted from just this in 2016). Sometimes, it's ​just being lucky at someone else's expense - Keke Rosberg won in 1982 because his main rival suffered a career-ending crash midway through the season - Keke only won by 5 points from a driver that didn't even race the last five races of the season. James Hunt won in '76 because Lauda pulled out of the last race having already missed two races earlier in the season.

Drivers need the right car to win. This is not news. They do also sometimes need some good fortune. Again this is not news. We don't need to run data to show it, because it's bleeding obvious.