Your thoughts on who will win the teammate rivalries 2013?

[SectorOne]

Actually, Rosberg has a higher average grid position than Hamilton. Rosberg has started 6th, 6th, 4th, 1st, 1st, 1st. Hamilton has started 3rd, 4th, 1st, 9th, 2nd, 2nd. Rosberg's average is 3.167, while Hamilton's average is 3.5.

That´s with penalties though. Not fair comparing who´s on average quicker if you include a gearbox penalty thanks to Pirelli delaminating.

Where every driver qualified for the race Hamilton is leading the charts with 2.67 while Rosberg is third with 3.17
or split second with Vettel.

So then it is 61 points to Hamilton and 60 points to Rosberg when trying to look behind the results. And to me it becomes very clear that they are too close to make any call. Even if you argue that Rosberg wouldn't have scored any points in China even if his car had been working, and that Hamilton would have taken 3rd in Bahrain if he had started 4th, you will see that the total difference is too small to say anything else than that they are at the same level.

Think i already said that in a couple of posts above.

I´m just stating what the facts say. If we remove the bad luck from Rosberg his points would have been much closer yes no doubt about that.

And forgive me if i´m wrong here but have i said that Hamilton is automatically quicker or have i simply looked at the numbers?

[Ral]

Now we're just starting to split hairs.

Regardless of who you think is beating who, my point was simply that I think the advantage is less than how beelsebob phrased it. And I think the same goes for the Force India pair even if it's a bit less clear with those two.

But it's just my opinion and it's beelsebob running this thing, so you know. Whatever

[SilverArrow10]

In regards to the Mercedes qualifying battle pole in Malaysia would most likely have been Hamilton's if he had changed his tires at the correct time, just thought id bring that up. Isn't he also the only driver this season to never qualify outside the top 5 excluding penalties, interesting thought. I think Mercedes will have the best driver rivalry this year, all the other top teams have clear cut number 1s and number 2s.

[beelsebob]

Now we're just starting to split hairs.

Regardless of who you think is beating who, my point was simply that I think the advantage is less than how beelsebob phrased it. And I think the same goes for the Force India pair even if it's a bit less clear with those two.

But it's just my opinion and it's beelsebob running this thing, so you know. Whatever

I think that's a valid opinion, I certainly had trouble deciding which category to put that one in, perhaps my fannish bias got the better of me.

What would help though is if together we figured out a nice way to quantify the results as one nice number (as raymond says), then we can avoid discussions like the above, simply because the categories will be well defined.

If you have any good ideas about where I could go with that, I'm all ears.

[Blackout]

The same goes for Lotus and Grosjean who's car had some technical issues that have been identified in Bahrain and solved Friday night. His E21 had unsound rear suspensions during the Australian race too. And you should add to that the fact that the team screwed up his qualy in Malaysia. Since Bahrain he was far more fast than in the 3 first GP. Unfortunately he made a small mistake in Barcelona Q3 where he was at par with Raikkonen. He then scrued up his weekend in Monaco alone by commiting every possible mistake and crashing in every session but the team and Riccardo helped him a bit in screwing up Q3 too although he had a great pace.

[Ral]

I guess we'd want to weight the 3 factors we're taking into account. Presumably, the championship points would weigh heaviest, but in such a way that retirements due to mechanical failure or another driver's brainfade doesn't unduly influence the actual picture.

But as evidenced in the Monaco race thread at the moment, even defining "someone else's brainfade" introduces a vast amount of subjectivity.

To alleviate that, perhaps we'd leave the weighting as it is, but also take into consideration free practice performances for a "whole weekend" kind of picture. But here again, Lotus and Red Bull for example tend to split programmes with Raikkonen and Vettel very often running much slower (suggesting heavier fuel) than Webber and Grosjean in FP1 in particular. I think it's going to be hard to come up with a rating system that everyone will agree with because there is no way to eliminate subjectivity altogether.

So my suggestion really would be to leave things as they are and perhaps just to highlight that your ratings are your opinion and people are free to make up their own from what they've perceived from the context of the races? That's how I use it - more as a collection of the relative outcome between the team mates regardless of performance than as a definitive source to tell me who is beating who. I mean, regardless of how well they are driving, I'd be pretty blind if I were to try to argue that Rosberg is beating Hamilton, looking at the points.

[SectorOne]

Very interesting article.

http://www1.skysports.com/formula-1/new ... des-so-far

Posted in the car section i think.

[Stradivarius]

Actually, Rosberg has a higher average grid position than Hamilton. Rosberg has started 6th, 6th, 4th, 1st, 1st, 1st. Hamilton has started 3rd, 4th, 1st, 9th, 2nd, 2nd. Rosberg's average is 3.167, while Hamilton's average is 3.5.

That´s with penalties though. Not fair comparing who´s on average quicker if you include a gearbox penalty thanks to Pirelli delaminating.

Technical failures do affect the grid position, as they affect the points. I see nothing unfair about taking into account that Hamilton startet from 9th on the grid in Bahrain, as long as we clearly take into account that Rosberg scored 0 points in Australia.

And forgive me if i´m wrong here but have i said that Hamilton is automatically quicker or have i simply looked at the numbers?

I can't recall you having used the word "automatically", but you have said that Hamilton is quicker than Rosberg, something I would be very reluctant to claim, considering that Rosberg has been quicker than Hamilton in qualifying on all of the last 3 occasions. I find it kind of difficult to explain why the quicker driver is slower, but is seems to make sense to you, so let's just agree to disagree here.

With regards to the general evaluation of team mates, I actually don't think it makes sense to consider both qualifying and race results (and points). Qualifying is already accounted for in the race result and the actual value of qualifying is generally reflected through the points. Only in cases were the race result isn't representative, i.e. it is affected by circumstances beyond the driver's control, incidents such as technical failures, punctures, team orders, and some collisions where another driver has all the blame, should the qualifying be considered. But even then, I think it makes more sense to look at the actual position at the time before the incident and try to predict a likely race result based on the information available.

Qualifying well is an advantage, but only to the extent that it makes the driver finish the race in a good position. We may some times see drivers selecting to save tyres for the race and thus qualifying worse, but then having an advantage in the race. This also goes for car setup. I am sure both Kimi and Lotus was pleased with their setup in Australia even though Kimi only qualified 7th, and they should actually get more credit for qualifying with a setup that allowed them to win, than Red Bull should get for qualifying with a setup that allowed them to take pole, but didn't allow them to win. I think the most sensible thing is to credit the driver based on where he finishes, completely ignoring qualifying. Generally, the sum of everything the driver has done which matters in a race weekend, is reflected in the end result.

I think the points is the parameter that most accurately describes the driver performance, as it is the points that the driver is seeking to optimize, at least when we consider drivers who score points regularly. Results in practise sessions are simply not relevant because the aim is to find the best setup and not to set the best time. The driver's performance during practice sessions is reflected in the setup he uses in qualifying and the race. This means that when a driver crashes in FP3 and misses qualifying, his mistake is reflected in the end result as well.

The drivers make their judgements based on how it will likely be reflected by the points (at least they should do). There may be an exception when a driver is not fighting for the championship but is fighting for a race win late in the season, as he may find it worth some extra risk to take a race win rather than securing points in a championship he has already lost. The driver may then justify taking risks that most likely won't pay off, but generally, the driver aims at scoring as many points as possible and that is what they should be judged by.

[SectorOne]

Technical failures do affect the grid position, as they affect the points. I see nothing unfair about taking into account that Hamilton startet from 9th on the grid in Bahrain, as long as we clearly take into account that Rosberg scored 0 points in Australia.

But the point with the Qualifying was to see who´s on average was the quicker.
And we both have already established that all DNF´s in the race, Rosberg would have been much closer.

And forgive me if i´m wrong here but have i said that Hamilton is automatically quicker or have i simply looked at the numbers?

I can't recall you having used the word "automatically", but you have said that Hamilton is quicker than Rosberg, something I would be very reluctant to claim, considering that Rosberg has been quicker than Hamilton in qualifying on all of the last 3 occasions. I find it kind of difficult to explain why the quicker driver is slower, but is seems to make sense to you, so let's just agree to disagree here.

Sounds good, although i would recommend this article, i think it sheds some light on the situation.
http://www1.skysports.com/formula-1/new ... des-so-far

I think it makes more sense to look at the actual position at the time before the incident and try to predict a likely race result based on the information available.

Qualifying well is an advantage, but only to the extent that it makes the driver finish the race in a good position. We may some times see drivers selecting to save tyres for the race and thus qualifying worse, but then having an advantage in the race. This also goes for car setup. I am sure both Kimi and Lotus was pleased with their setup in Australia even though Kimi only qualified 7th, and they should actually get more credit for qualifying with a setup that allowed them to win, than Red Bull should get for qualifying with a setup that allowed them to take pole, but didn't allow them to win. I think the most sensible thing is to credit the driver based on where he finishes, completely ignoring qualifying. Generally, the sum of everything the driver has done which matters in a race weekend, is reflected in the end result.

Yes this is all fine if you let´s say want to figure out who´s doing the best job overall.
My take was the speed of the two and Qualifying over 6 races is the best place that you can measure this.

This means that when a driver crashes in FP3 and misses qualifying, his mistake is reflected in the end result as well.

It can be, but doesn´t necessarily have to be.

[Stradivarius]

And forgive me if i´m wrong here but have i said that Hamilton is automatically quicker or have i simply looked at the numbers?

I can't recall you having used the word "automatically", but you have said that Hamilton is quicker than Rosberg, something I would be very reluctant to claim, considering that Rosberg has been quicker than Hamilton in qualifying on all of the last 3 occasions. I find it kind of difficult to explain why the quicker driver is slower, but is seems to make sense to you, so let's just agree to disagree here.

Sounds good, although i would recommend this article, i think it sheds some light on the situation.
http://www1.skysports.com/formula-1/new ... des-so-far

Are you saying that Hamilton is quicker, or are you saying that Hamilton could have been quicker? I am sure there is a lot of explainations why Massa is slower than Alonso and why Webber is slower than Vettel as well, but I thought you were simply looking at the numbers.

Yes this is all fine if you let´s say want to figure out who´s doing the best job overall.

Isn't that what this thread is about? At least I would expect the best driver overall to win the teammate rivalry 2013.

My take was the speed of the two and Qualifying over 6 races is the best place that you can measure this.

Actually, you don't measure the driver's speed by looking at the qualifying position. If Hamilton beats Rosberg by half a second with no other drivers between them, you will get a different result than if Hamilton beats Rosberg by half a second and one or more drivers beats Rosberg by less than half a second, i.e. qualifies between them. So speed and qualifying position are two different things.

To compare the speed you need to look at the lap times. One way to do this is to normalize the lap times before comparing, as 0.1 s difference in Monaco is indicates a greater speed difference than 0.1 s difference in Malaysia. I remember doing a rough estimate earlier and you are actually right about Hamilton so far being quicker overall. But if I remember correctly it is all due to the qualifying session in Malaysia which took place in the rain. When it rains, the track conditions can change every minute and it is very circumstantial who starts his lap at the optimal time. In Malaysia Vettel got it right and qualified 2 seconds quicker than Hamilton, which clearly indicates a kind of "exageration" in lap time differences. If we exclude Malaysia (which I admit is not fair, as the times may be representative if Hamilton actually is better in the wet than Rosberg), the difference between Hamilton and Rosberg is next to nothing. On average Hamilton would beat Rosberg with 0.006 s on a circuit with a lap time of 1 minute and 30 seconds.

This means that when a driver crashes in FP3 and misses qualifying, his mistake is reflected in the end result as well.

It can be, but doesn´t necessarily have to be.

When isn't it? Incidents of force majeur is obviously not counted anyway. Mistakes that don't show on the race results do per definition not count as serious mistakes, so the points actually accounts for everything, exept force majeur.

[SectorOne]

Are you saying that Hamilton is quicker, or are you saying that Hamilton could have been quicker? I am sure there is a lot of explainations why Massa is slower than Alonso and why Webber is slower than Vettel as well, but I thought you were simply looking at the numbers.

Not only could have been quicker but probably will be quicker.

And yes i´m looking at the numbers.
The numbers that despite his issues he´s still qualifying on average higher then Rosberg,
And not only that but is on average 0.143s quicker.

Those are the numbers so far when comparing the speed of the two.

Isn't that what this thread is about?

Then why are you quoting me?

Actually, you don't measure the driver's speed by looking at the qualifying position. If Hamilton beats Rosberg by half a second with no other drivers between them, you will get a different result than if Hamilton beats Rosberg by half a second and one or more drivers beats Rosberg by less than half a second, i.e. qualifies between them. So speed and qualifying position are two different things.

Actually you do use Qualifying as a means to compare drivers speed relative to each other because they are running identical cars with equal opportunities.
And the best way to do this is to take out an average over x amount of races.

To compare the speed you need to look at the lap times.

No you don´t because in the races you have so many more factors to consider that comparing the fastest time set by both drivers in Q3 is always going to be the best environment to take measures from.

In Malaysia Vettel got it right and qualified 2 seconds quicker than Hamilton, which clearly indicates a kind of "exageration" in lap time differences.

Vettel did that time on new tires. Hamilton was fastest of the guys with old tires.
Rosberg was behind Hamilton as well so he should have theoretically have the advantage.
I believe it was the same story in Australia as well.

When isn't it?

Drivers work in different ways. Some needs to build things up to perfection and some can afford to lose a session and still get the best out of the car because of many reasons like setup just so happen to be absolutely spot on with only minor modifications during the pauses between Q sessions.

[Stradivarius]

@ SectorOne: First of all, I think you misinterpreted what I wrote when I said that the speed is reflected by the lap times and not by qualifying position. I obviously meant the lap times from qualifying, not those from the race. And this is indeed what you have done as well, as far as I can see. If you add all the lap times that actually made any difference, you get exactly the number that you refered to: Hamilton is on average 0.143 s faster than Rosberg. (Only Q3 times are relevant, as Mercedes usually have no problem going through Q1 and Q2, so there the aim is to avoid mistakes rather than extract the last few tenths in lap time).

But the number 0.143 s isn't a good measure of the speed difference when we are considering different circuits with different lap times, as it doesn't unambigously describe a speed difference. In Malaysia the Q3 times were above 1 minute and 50 seconds, while in Monaco they were below one minute and 14 seconds. That's a substantial difference, meaning that if for example Hamilton had beaten Rosberg by 0.2 s in the Malaysia qualifying and Rosberg had beaten Hamilton by 0.2 s in the Monaco qualifying, you would find an average difference of 0 using your method. While in reality Rosberg would be the relatively quickest driver on average. Lap times and the differences in lap times are not directly comparable from one track to another. That is why you have to normalize the times in order to get meaningful results, and even then there may be issues. For example you could argue that when the cars are running close to terminal speed on the straights, the driver doesn't affect the speed at all and this part of the track should be excluded. But at least the times will be more comparable when normalizing.

With regards to the wet qualifying in Malaysia, they were running on a drying track with intermediates. That should normally give the driver who runs last an advantage. But it should also mean he wears his tyres faster, as intermediates wear very quickly on the dry parts of the track. Considering that Mercedes didn't change to new tyres and were beaten by 2 seconds by Vettel, tyre wear was probably a large factor and you can't exclude the posibility that Rosberg simply had slightly more worn tyres than Hamilton and that this accounts for the speed difference.

By the way, are you aware that if you do the same exercise with Hamilton and Button from the first 6 races of 2010, you will actually come to the conclusion that Button was quicker than Hamilton? On average Button beat Hamilton by 0.121 s in qualifying for the 6 first races of 2010. The same arguments about being new in the team and not fully adapted yet could be used about Button in 2010. Would you agree that Button was quicker than Hamilton and a better qualifier? If not, how come you rely on analyses that would give such a conclusion?

Finally, when it comes to what the driver is doing during practise sessions, my position is that anything the driver does which is of importance, will be reflected by the race results and by the points, as long as there is no force majeur incidents, which would have to be accounted for anyway. If a driver already has found an optimal setup in FP1, it means that he has earned himself the privilege of affording a crash in FP2 or FP3 as long as there is time to get the car fixed for qualifying. If the race isn't affected, then the mistake is of no importance. The only reason to run during the practise sessions is to prepare for qualifying and race with only one ultimate target: To finish the race as high as possible, scoring as many points as possible. This is what the competition is about and this is what the competitors should be measured by.

[Richard]

At least I would expect the best driver overall to win the teammate rivalry 2013.

I'd suggest it is subtle variation on that - The best driver is the one who wins the teammate rivalry.

It's a very simple matter of positions gained in quali and points won in the race. Anything else is subjective post rationalising in a vain (often emotional) attempt to say the person who came second was "faster" that the person who came first.

ps Bob - How do you define "outraced"? Is that the head to head performance when both are on track and not limited by car failure or team orders?

[Stradivarius]

At least I would expect the best driver overall to win the teammate rivalry 2013.

I'd suggest it is subtle variation on that - The best driver is the one who wins the teammate rivalry.

It's a very simple matter of positions gained in quali and points won in the race. Anything else is subjective post rationalising in a vain (often emotional) attempt to say the person who came second was "faster" that the person who came first.

I really don't think it makes sense to consider qualifying as long as we consider the points. Some times we see drivers not running in Q3 because they want to save tyres for the race. That doesn't mean the driver is doing worse than his team mate who is wasting his tyres to start further up the grid, but who will then suffer in the race. Qualifying well is only an advantage as long as it allows you to score more points and we already have this aspect covered when we consider the points, at least when it comes to drivers who regularly score points. Drivers who don't score points should then be judged by their position at the end. There is also the usual reservation regarding force majeur, like technical failures, team orders etc.

ps Bob - How do you define "outraced"? Is that the head to head performance when both are on track and not limited by car failure or team orders?

I am also curious to know that. Quite often we see that two team mates perform very similarly in both race and qualifying. In Monaco, it wasn't unlikely that Rosberg and Hamilton could have finished 1st and 2nd respectively, if it hadn't been for the safety car and Hamilton falling too far behind on the way to the pits. Hamilton might then have finished the same couple of seconds behind Rosberg as he was until the safety car. In that case, I don't think it is accurate to say that Rosberg outraced Hamilton, as their performance were very similar. Hamilton might actually have been quite a bit quicker than Rosberg in the race without that being enough for him to beat him. Rosberg outqualified Hamilton and that is why he won the race. So again, I feel the most sensible way to go is to look at the points (the race result), and rely on the fact that qualifying has then already been accounted for and given the appropriate emphasis.

[beelsebob]

At least I would expect the best driver overall to win the teammate rivalry 2013.

I'd suggest it is subtle variation on that - The best driver is the one who wins the teammate rivalry.

It's a very simple matter of positions gained in quali and points won in the race. Anything else is subjective post rationalising in a vain (often emotional) attempt to say the person who came second was "faster" that the person who came first.

I really don't think it makes sense to consider qualifying as long as we consider the points. Some times we see drivers not running in Q3 because they want to save tyres for the race. That doesn't mean the driver is doing worse than his team mate who is wasting his tyres to start further up the grid, but who will then suffer in the race. Qualifying well is only an advantage as long as it allows you to score more points and we already have this aspect covered when we consider the points, at least when it comes to drivers who regularly score points. Drivers who don't score points should then be judged by their position at the end. There is also the usual reservation regarding force majeur, like technical failures, team orders etc.

ps Bob - How do you define "outraced"? Is that the head to head performance when both are on track and not limited by car failure or team orders?

I am also curious to know that. Quite often we see that two team mates perform very similarly in both race and qualifying. In Monaco, it wasn't unlikely that Rosberg and Hamilton could have finished 1st and 2nd respectively, if it hadn't been for the safety car and Hamilton falling too far behind on the way to the pits. Hamilton might then have finished the same couple of seconds behind Rosberg as he was until the safety car. In that case, I don't think it is accurate to say that Rosberg outraced Hamilton, as their performance were very similar. Hamilton might actually have been quite a bit quicker than Rosberg in the race without that being enough for him to beat him. Rosberg outqualified Hamilton and that is why he won the race. So again, I feel the most sensible way to go is to look at the points (the race result), and rely on the fact that qualifying has then already been accounted for and given the appropriate emphasis.

"Outraced" here simply means "finished ahead of", whether it be through mechanical failure, team mate retardidity, or awesome driving. I didn't want to get into judgement calls about who would have finished where if... so I've stuck to facts. I agree that that can be imperfect sometimes.