F1: Mid-Season Driver Rankings Part One

My assessment is not based on hypothetical data nor does it call for speculation. I'm simply going on head to head records in the same car, since virtually everything else in F1 is tainted by machine, not driver. After eliminating mechanical failures (but not crashes) Sainz out-qualified, out-raced, and made up more positions than Verstappen when they were both at STR. And, frankly, the numbers were not even that close. After getting Kvyat, Sainz dominated that former RBR driver even more. I'm not sure *anyone* on the grid takes care of the machinery better or yanks more out of the equipment than Sainz. Just take a look at his rock steady (and often stunning points hauls) races this year. Why the media ignores him, I'll never know.
No I wasn't saying that you were dealing with hypotheticals, I was referring to myself ranking the drivers based on what they've actually accomplished versus what they possibly could have if their roles had been reversed.

I have to say I really disagree with you though. The first four races of 2016, Verstappen outclassed Sainz in every race bar Russia, where he retired (Sainz had a retirement in Bahrain).

Australia:
  • Max: 10th
  • Carlos: 9th
    • Max was miles faster than Carlos in Melbourne, but was unable to get past because of the difficulty in overtaking at Albert park.
Bahrain:
  • Max: 6th
  • Carlos: Retired
China:
  • Max: 8th
  • Carlos: 9th
Russia:
  • Max: Retired
  • Carlos: 12th
You can also look back at the 2015 results, Max and Carlos were indeed very very close, but in the second half the season, Max really started to pull away thanks to stringing some beautiful drives together. Yes, Carlos bore the brunt of the mechanical failures, but when he did have a working car, he was still outpaced in the races by Max.

I'm not saying Carlos is not quick enough, because he's incredibly good, and is deserving of a top drive IMO, but he's not as good as Max, and I certainly don't agree that he's the best on the grid at extracting the most performance from his car.
 
You can also look back at the 2015 results, Max and Carlos were indeed very very close, but in the second half the season, Max really started to pull away thanks to stringing some beautiful drives together. Yes, Carlos bore the brunt of the mechanical failures, but when he did have a working car, he was still outpaced in the races by Max.

I'm not saying Carlos is not quick enough, because he's incredibly good, and is deserving of a top drive IMO, but he's not as good as Max, and I certainly don't agree that he's the best on the grid at extracting the most performance from his car.

Chris, essentially I agree with you, but sheer statistics often lie unless you apply some logic. That's why they are generally inadmissible in court. I have no beef with your 2016 analysis before Spain. Max was clearly on a tear, but he also has come under much criticism from rock solid guys like Button, Alonso, and Raikkonen. That does not include Grosjean from last year.

I lay out why I disagree with your last sentence in an earlier post. 2015, to me, was clearly in favor of Sainz. And to this day, Sainz in clearly in a league all his own when it comes to consistency. And don't forget...that's much tougher to do when you are amongst the pack, as he usually is. Just my opinion (and many F1 drivers) but Max deserved to finish about 13th in Hungary this year. So, both drivers have different styles and equal performance overall, but if I were a team owner, I'd much prefer the consistent one. Less expensive too.

Where we may agree is Rosberg. lol. I think about 80% of the grid is better than that moving hazard.
 
Where we may agree is Rosberg. lol. I think about 80% of the grid is better than that moving hazard.
Haha I think Rosberg gets a rough go of it some times, lol. He's better than some care to admit. Certainly in qualifying he's very quick, but his race pace and race craft really needs some work if he's to contend with the likes of Hamilton, Vettel, etc. Still, to me he's "that bloody German", as I'm a Hamilton man through and through lol.

He's a strong driver, I'll admit that, but as a fan, I hate him haha. But I won't let that get into my ranking of him as it'll be completely objective.
 
Verstappen is a Grand Prix winner on debut for a new team.

Because the Mercedes duo took themselves out, Red Bull accidentally put Ricciardo on the worse strategy (Ferrari doing the same to Vettel) and then all he needed to do was keep in front of Raikkonen who didn't really go for a move. He didn't really deserve the win, it was handed to him.

(*Awaits incoming angry ratings*)
 
Last edited:
Because the Mercedes duo took themselves out, Red Bull accidentally put Ricciardo on the worse strategy (Ferrari doing the same to Vettel) and then all he needed to do was keep in front of Raikkonen who didn't really go for a move. He didn't really deserve the win, it was handed to him.

(*Awaits incoming angry ratings*)
Sure, things were presented to him, but he took the opportunity when it came and made the most of it. Grand Prix racing is a game of mistakes. Minimizing those mistakes is how you become successful, and they did exactly that in Spain.
 
Because the Mercedes duo took themselves out, Red Bull accidentally put Ricciardo on the worse strategy (Ferrari doing the same to Vettel) and then all he needed to do was keep in front of Raikkonen who didn't really go for a move. He didn't really deserve the win, it was handed to him.

(*Awaits incoming angry ratings*)

Well said. You can't have it both ways. You can't "seize the opportunity" and simultaneously deny that "being presented with it" (and getting a good result) didn't skew the stats in your favor.

In fact, F1 is so fouled up, so political, and so technocratic, that it's impossible to compare driver to driver or even F1 to another form of racing (want some angry rants? just say you believe, as do I, that the driver talent in F1 is not superior to *any* other major racing league, open wheel or not). About the only time this is even remotely possible is when you compare teammates. Even then, there is always bias towards one. Who gets favored is sometimes obvious, but sometimes not.
 
In fact, F1 is so fouled up, so political, and so technocratic, that it's impossible to compare driver to driver or even F1 to another form of racing (want some angry rants? just say you believe, as do I, that the driver talent in F1 is not superior to *any* other major racing league, open wheel or not). About the only time this is even remotely possible is when you compare teammates.
It's always been like that though. So long as F1 remains a series where you design your own car, your teammate will always be the only measuring stick for you. It's not like this is something new. But it's clear to see when a driver is under performing and when someone is extracting more from the car.

As for driver talent, it varies so greatly because all forms of Motorsport require different styles of driving. As far as driving an open wheeler on a circuit with left and right turns, F1 drivers are the best in the world. Say what you will about the racing quality in F1, but the skill level required is greater than that of Indycar because everything is just more: More speed. More acceleration. More G-forces. More braking power. More torque. In the same way that the NASCAR drivers are the best at their form of oval racing.

It's just different styles requiring different attributes.
 
As far as driving an open wheeler on a circuit with left and right turns, F1 drivers are the best in the world. Say what you will about the racing quality in F1, but the skill level required is greater than that of Indycar because everything is just more: More speed. More acceleration. More G-forces. More braking power. More torque. In the same way that the NASCAR drivers are the best at their form of oval racing.

Cannot agree. Your first sentence was right, but then you went too far. I'll even concede the fact that F1 drivers are great in i) an open wheel car that costs $500M; and ii) goes right and left, because that's all those guys do. That's all they have ever done. But when you make a blanket statement about "the skill level" being greater than IndyCar, I respectfully disagree. Everything in F1 is not "just more."

We can start with salaries. F1 is so awash in the need for money that only a handful of drivers make boo-koo bucks. You know the types...Rosberg, Massa, Button. Despite being in a struggle for its life until this year, IndyCar salaries, after going down for years, now remain competitive with F1 (probably six drivers above $5M and Sainz making less than most IndyCar drivers :O_o:...and you can make $2M by winning Indy alone). In the worst year, the top 1/3rd of Indy drivers were around $5-6M, while the middle third were $1M and the lower 1/3rd less than $200,000. But with F1, most of the talent is ignored. Disparity is huge. Why? Because IndyCar drivers actually get to keep money based on how well they perform. Ergo, there is much more incentive to hire talent, and not just a young, pretty face with a rich sponsor.

More speed? More G forces? More skill? (Okay, you got me on acceleration and braking...which are done in a straight line most of the time). Maybe you forget that IndyCar races on ovals? And ratty, pothole filled street courses (not Monaco)? And has no power steering? And does not cater the schedule to avoid 100F heat? And has no manufacturer that is guaranteed to run miles ahead ever race? And avoids creating stop/go, right-angle nightmares that only Tilke could love? And...well, you get the picture.

In Toronto, Newgarten had the wheel ripped out of his broken hand. Since 1950, you are 3x more likely to die at Indianapolis alone than in a whole season of F1, at Texas, IndyCar drivers were reporting 5 lateral Gs sustained for 14-18 of the 23 seconds per lap (which caused the race to be cancelled one year) as opposed to F1 that rarely gets there for 1/-2 seconds, etc. etc. The only time they experienced anything close (Indy), they balked.

And if you don't believe me, maybe you will believe someone who has won a lot in three major series':
“In F1, now as then, the driver with the fastest car wins, period,” the 40-year-old, notably heavier now than in his F1 career, told Italia Racing.
But he is happier now in the US, “I think Indycar is the maximum. On TV it’s good, the public likes it, the races are hard-fought.
“F1 today is slow in the corners, there isn’t much downforce. But at Phoenix we have 5G in the corners — not bad, right?”

-JPM
 
Sure, things were presented to him, but he took the opportunity when it came and made the most of it. Grand Prix racing is a game of mistakes. Minimizing those mistakes is how you become successful, and they did exactly that in Spain.

It's not how you become successful though. Tell me what mistake Ricciardo made at Spain and Monaco for him not to win. He drove brilliantly on two occasions for him to be let down on strategy.

Verstappen didn't have the speed to actually past Ricciardo. He would have never made the move. Spain is a very difficult track to overtake at. Hamilton couldn't pass a slower Ferrari last season here. Just because someone can pick up the pieces, doesn't mean they deserve the win.
 
In Toronto, Newgarten had the wheel ripped out of his broken hand. Since 1950, you are 3x more likely to die at Indianapolis alone than in a whole season of F1, at Texas, IndyCar drivers were reporting 5 lateral Gs sustained for 14-18 of the 23 seconds per lap (which caused the race to be cancelled one year) as opposed to F1 that rarely gets there for 1/-2 seconds, etc. etc. The only time they experienced anything close (Indy), they balked.
It's not a good comparison to compare the G-forces on an oval to that of a circuit. Of course the loading is going to be greater on a track that is essentially one giant corner, especially when there are practically non-existent braking zones and you're at near V-max for pretty much the entire time.

If an F1 and Indycar were to each do a lap around, say Spa, the F1 car will generate more lateral G-force through the corners. They're pulling 4.5 to 5 G through Pouhon. Heck, in Abu Dhabi, the braking for Turn 8 pulls 6G! Even with F1's reduced aerodynamic downforce since 2014, they're still producing a greater amount of downforce than Indycars.

We can start with salaries. F1 is so awash in the need for money that only a handful of drivers make boo-koo bucks. You know the types...Rosberg, Massa, Button. Despite being in a struggle for its life until this year, IndyCar salaries, after going down for years, now remain competitive with F1 (probably six drivers above $5M and Sainz making less than most IndyCar drivers :O_o:...and you can make $2M by winning Indy alone). In the worst year, the top 1/3rd of Indy drivers were around $5-6M, while the middle third were $1M and the lower 1/3rd less than $200,000. But with F1, most of the talent is ignored. Disparity is huge. Why? Because IndyCar drivers actually get to keep money based on how well they perform. Ergo, there is much more incentive to hire talent, and not just a young, pretty face with a rich sponsor.
I fail to see how that has anything to do with driver talent in F1. It's a rather redundant comparison because the two series are structured and organised in vastly different ways. I don't personally agree with the payment structure of F1 one bit, but because of the way the revenue is distributed and how the teams are funded, it's a bit of stretch to try and compare the two, no?

Since 1950, you are 3x more likely to die at Indianapolis alone than in a whole season of F1
Of course, and that's perfectly logical when you consider the average speed is above 220mph at Indy. F1 cars do not average that speed because they do not race on Ovals. I'm sure that if they did, then the risks of death would go up. As with anything, as the speed increases, the risk of an accident increases. Again, this has nothing to do with driver talent in F1.

It's not how you become successful though. Tell me what mistake Ricciardo made at Spain and Monaco for him not to win. He drove brilliantly on two occasions for him to be let down on strategy.
I agree, he did drive brilliantly and did nothing wrong on his part, but you cannot separate the driver from the team. They are one and the same thing. You win together and you lose together. Did Renault get 1 point in Hungary after Palmer spun? The mechanics and strategists made no mistakes on their part, yet they lost a championship point because of something out of their control.

Just because someone can pick up the pieces, doesn't mean they deserve the win.
Are you actually serious? Well if it's like that, then Raikkonen and Vettel didn't deserve to be on the podium either because the two Mercedes' crashed out. Heck, if we're just giving it to who deserves it most, then let's just give the WCC trophy to Mercedes right now and be done with it.
 
Last edited:
Chris, essentially I agree with you, but sheer statistics often lie unless you apply some logic. That's why they are generally inadmissible in court. I have no beef with your 2016 analysis before Spain. Max was clearly on a tear, but he also has come under much criticism from rock solid guys like Button, Alonso, and Raikkonen. That does not include Grosjean from last year.

I lay out why I disagree with your last sentence in an earlier post. 2015, to me, was clearly in favor of Sainz. And to this day, Sainz in clearly in a league all his own when it comes to consistency. And don't forget...that's much tougher to do when you are amongst the pack, as he usually is. Just my opinion (and many F1 drivers) but Max deserved to finish about 13th in Hungary this year. So, both drivers have different styles and equal performance overall, but if I were a team owner, I'd much prefer the consistent one. Less expensive too.

Where we may agree is Rosberg. lol. I think about 80% of the grid is better than that moving hazard.

O.K. Let's apply some logic here. Why is it that Ferrari, Mercedes and Red Bull wanted Verstappen and not Sainz? Don't think sheer statistics had something to do with it. The most logical conclusion would be that they wanted Verstappen because they think he is a better driver then Sainz. It would more logical to trust their opinion then (respectfully) yours, just because they are in F1 and we are not. Sainz is a real talent as well, and he will end up in a top team in the near future.
 
Well if it's like that, then Raikkonen and Vettel didn't deserve to be on the podium either because the two Mercedes' crashed out. Heck, if we're just giving it to who deserves it most, then let's just give the WCC trophy to Mercedes right now and be done with it.

Well Raikkonen definitely did not deserve the podium. Ferrari were way off in qualifying and Raikkonen had such an so and so race. He didn't do anything. Vettel maybe deserved it more, but Red Bull were better that weekend

Yeah Mercedes (and Hamilton) deserve to win the championship. But that's going to happen anyway. They've had a few lucky wins from a driver standpoint (Australia, Monaco and maybe you could argue Canada) but they have been the best team and Hamilton has been the best driver.

Now. Let me pose you a scenario. Last race, Hamilton leading (both the race and championship). However, he breaks down and Rosberg takes the lead and goes on to win the championship. Does Rosberg then deserve the championship because he picks up the pieces?
 
Now. Let me pose you a scenario. Last race, Hamilton leading (both the race and championship). However, he breaks down and Rosberg takes the lead and goes on to win the championship. Does Rosberg then deserve the championship because he picks up the pieces?
Would he have deserved to win? Yes but that doesn't take anything away from Rosberg because breaking down is just part and parcel of racing. It would be incredibly tough to take for him [Hamilton] because it's not a nice way to lose it, and sure on a moral level he may have deserved it given he was supposedly leading the race, but that's just Motorsport mate.

Did Ricciardo deserve to win in Monaco? Yes. But again, that shouldn't detract from Hamilton at all. He made a bold strategy decision to stay out on wets and it payed off thanks in part to Red Bull's "communication error". Should Hamilton have pulled over to let Ricciardo through and said "Here you go mate, have the lead, you deserve it.", absolutely not!

It's racing. These things happen. Whether or not someone deserves it is beside the point. Max made the best of the situation he was in, in Spain, and won the race. End of.
 
He made a bold strategy decision to stay out on wets and it payed off thanks in part to Red Bull's "communication error". Should Hamilton have pulled over to let Ricciardo through and said "Here you go mate, have the lead, you deserve it.", absolutely not!

It was a bold call, but it wasn't very well executed. He pitted a lap too early. He would have lost the lead. I agree he shouldn't pull over and let Ricciardo through, but doesn't change the fact he lucked into the win.

(So I'll go with a agree to disagree)

It's racing. These things happen. Whether or not someone deserves it is beside the point. Max made the best of the situation he was in, in Spain, and won the race. End of.

If they deserve it or not is a point in my opinion. It makes you look like you did better than you did.

(Agree to disagree again)
 
Chris, essentially I agree with you, but sheer statistics often lie unless you apply some logic. That's why they are generally inadmissible in court. I have no beef with your 2016 analysis before Spain. Max was clearly on a tear, but he also has come under much criticism from rock solid guys like Button, Alonso, and Raikkonen. That does not include Grosjean from last year.

I lay out why I disagree with your last sentence in an earlier post. 2015, to me, was clearly in favor of Sainz. And to this day, Sainz in clearly in a league all his own when it comes to consistency. And don't forget...that's much tougher to do when you are amongst the pack, as he usually is. Just my opinion (and many F1 drivers) but Max deserved to finish about 13th in Hungary this year. So, both drivers have different styles and equal performance overall, but if I were a team owner, I'd much prefer the consistent one. Less expensive too.

Where we may agree is Rosberg. lol. I think about 80% of the grid is better than that moving hazard.
Id say they were pretty even at the start of the 2015 season. Even though Carlos had 6 years of race car driving experience including gp3 and FR3.5 wich has 500bhp vs 1 year of Max in a 200 bhp F3 car. So you could expect Sainz to simply beat Verstappen but he did not. The second half of the season Max was clearly bettter then Carlos.

If u really think Sainz was the better of the two then why would you think red bull went for Verstappen. Red bull has ALL their data and they chose Max over Sainz. Ferrari wanted Max to replace Kimi and not Carlos. Max won the rookie of the year award and not Carlos. Max scored a total of 62 points in the TR (15&16) vs Carlos 48 points, while Carlos drove 8 races more then Max did in the TR.

Carlos is a good and fast driver but i think almost anybody would agree Max was just a bit better.
 
Red bull has ALL their data and they chose Max over Sainz.
I'd say papa Jos had to do with that. I mean, his move to RB was inevitable due to how well he was performing, but Ferrari were lurking, Jos put the pressure on RB and they had to act.
Plus Max is very much overhyped from the media, perhaps overshadowing his true skill.

But hey, at least Carlos knows how to defend properly! *fanboys be like: triggering intensifies :x3:*
 

Latest News

How long have you been simracing

  • < 1 year

    Votes: 310 15.5%
  • < 2 years

    Votes: 212 10.6%
  • < 3 years

    Votes: 207 10.3%
  • < 4 years

    Votes: 157 7.8%
  • < 5 years

    Votes: 271 13.5%
  • < 10 years

    Votes: 232 11.6%
  • < 15 years

    Votes: 150 7.5%
  • < 20 years

    Votes: 118 5.9%
  • < 25 years

    Votes: 89 4.4%
  • Ok, I am a dinosaur

    Votes: 257 12.8%
Back
Top