2011 Team mate Wars

[Duke]

Rosberg is a bit like Vettel in some respects, he has done well in an average car but you never really know if they are WDC material until given a winning car for a season (or two ).

 

[sunama]

With respect you have not yet seen him drive in a competitive car.

Do you think "the most complete F1 driver of all time" MSC would have won 7 world championships driving in a mid-field team? without the right wheels under him he'd have gone down in history as just another average driver like Button was portrayed before his return with Brawn GP.

When a driver is in a car which is not too competitive, we see glimpses of greatness. We saw this Hamilton when he was in an uncompetitive McLaren at the start of 2009. He held his own.

Button: even when Honda didnt have the best car, Button still did a decent enough job. If memory services me correct, when Ferrari were untouchable, he finished 3rd place in 2004's WDC. Also Button won his first race when he was not in the best car.

Now lets talk about Rosberg: he is in a car which is competitive - not race winning I grant you - but he is in a competitive car. He was also in a decent car when he was at Williams. I remember him topping practise time sheets pretty regularly. His race pace is what consistently lets him down.

Key point: a top driver like Hamilton/Alonso do not need the best car to win races. Alonso won 2 races in Renault a couple of years ago - they did not have the best car. Hamilton also won races in 2009, in what was not the best car.

I maintain that Rosberg, at this point in time, with 0 race wins to his name, has not done anything spectacular which differentiates him as someone with super talent. Yes, he is decent, but he is not in the same category as Alonso, Hamilton or MSc (first career).

 

[sunama]

Rosberg is a bit like Vettel in some respects, he has done well in an average car but you never really know if they are WDC material until given a winning car for a season (or two ).

Strongly disagree!!!

Vettel won a race (Italian GP, 2008) for Torro Rosso. He also got pole position in that race, too. To remind people, the Torro Rosso was a midfield car, probably equivalent to a Force India in today's terms. If Di Riesta won the upcoming Spanish GP, I would liken that achievement to Vettel's achievement, when he won in the Torro Rosso.

Guys, the arguments I am seeing is very much opinion. No facts. No statistics to back up the arguments. Lets see some stats and reasoning.

I know that Mr Jack has previously given some pretty sound arguments to back up his opinions...I'd love to hear what he thinks.

 

[Duke]

Strongly disagree!!!

Vettel won a race (Italian GP, 2008) for Torro Rosso. He also got pole position in that race, too. To remind people, the Torro Rosso was a midfield car, probably equivalent to a Force India in today's terms. If Di Riesta won the upcoming Spanish GP, I would liken that achievement to Vettel's achievement, when he won in the Torro Rosso.

True but I was talking more about WDC potential, rather than just one race win. Being able to keep that going all season is the tricky bit. Which is why although Rosberg has potential (and maybe should have won a race by now), we won't know if he can string a WDC together until he is in a top 2 or 3 team.

 

[Kenai]

Guys, the arguments I am seeing is very much opinion. No facts. No statistics to back up the arguments. Lets see some stats and reasoning.

I explained above why trying to rely on numbers to discuss a topic like this is a waste of time though, you can throw all the numbers you like at it but you'll never be any nearer to making an accurate portrayal of a drivers skills and abilities.

 

[pingwing]

Vettel won a race (Italian GP, 2008) for Torro Rosso. He also got pole position in that race, too. To remind people, the Torro Rosso was a midfield car, probably equivalent to a Force India in today's terms. If Di Riesta won the upcoming Spanish GP, I would liken that achievement to Vettel's achievement, when he won in the Torro Rosso.

As a bit of a nit pick, that particular race is one of those wet day anomaly races (much like Buttons first win) but this one had a whole wet weekend. The Torro Rosso wasnt the best car of the season, but on that day it was the best car for the wet race, Bourdais making it to 4th on the grid sort of shows that the team and car really got it all together that day and if he handn't stalled on the grid it probably could have been a 1-2 for the team.

Realistically it wasnt Vettels best performance, he was just the person that didnt flounder in the rainy weekend in the same way others did. It's still an impressive young win, but not comparable to say Di Riesta winning at the weekend (unless it rained constantly all weekend, which isnt likely).

 

[sunama]

Pingwing...getting your first win is always difficult. Some drivers say it is the hardest thing to do. Yes, there was rain (with Vettel's first win) and rain is a leveller...but Vettel was able to take full advantage. A lesser driver (like Rosberg ), would probably never have been able to take advantage of this situation.

Can a driver come from nowhere and win a championship?
I don't believe so. I think that if you are a future WDC, you will be fast right from the get-go. MSc and Hamilton are both perfect examples of this. MSc won his first race in 1992. This was the year when Williams were super dominant. How dominant? At Silverstone, Mansell out qualified the next non-Williams car by about 3s!!!
At Spa (1992), it rained, and MSc was there...waiting. He won his first race, beating the (apparently unbeatable) Williams.

Lets look at Senna. In 1985 Senna certainly didn't have the fastest car (or a WDC winning car). He got his first win though.

Moral of the story, to show your WDC potential, you do not need to be in the fastest car. You have to use your guile and get the best out of the car. Then, when the opportunity presents itself...you will get your first win. Hamilton is perhaps the only driver in the last few years, who has been in the unique position where he has been in a race winning car, from day one. This is the exception though.

Rosberg: 93 races, 0 wins, 0 poles...that says it all really.
And before anybody suggests that the Williams and Mercedes car he has driven were impossible to win with...they were/are both decent cars. Try putting Hamilton or Alonso in those cars (for 93 races) and my guess is that they would each have got at least 1 win each, in those cars.

The guy who I shall be closely watching now is Di Riesta. He has been fast from day one (similar to Senna, Hamilton, MSc, et all). This bodes well for him and he could be a potential WDC.

 

[Mr Jack]

I know that Mr Jack has previously given some pretty sound arguments to back up his opinions...I'd love to hear what he thinks.

Heh. Well then, I shall take a break from trying to figure out why this F1 car is driving through the walls at Monaco and tell you

Okay then: I don't know. I think Rosberg is a pretty decent talent - in the top ten drivers on the grid - but not one of very best. But, there really is very solid evidence to base an opinion on. As I see it you can only really judge a driver by how they do against their team mates, but where a driver hasn't had decent team mates there's little to learn.

The only seasons he's been matched with a really good driver was his first season of F1 when he sat alongside Webber and lost out to him. But that year's Williams was such an unreliable dog of a thing, and it was his rookie season, that I don't think you can read too much into that. Still, he did set the fastest lap of the race in his very first Grand Prix - that's impressive.

Other than that he sat alongside first Wurz and then Nakajima, and beat both (Wurz landed the only podium the team got that season but that was down to freak strategy), but neither are particularly noteworthy drivers. Nothing in those years particularly showed Rosberg pushing that car far above its natural placing.

And now he's sitting alongside Michael and doing a fine job. But Michael's in his forties and had been out of F1 for some time so whether or not you think that means much comes down to how good you think Michael still is - and that's a judgement call rather than something you can really derive from stats.

Looking further back, Nico did win the 2005 GP2 series but by a fairly narrow margin from Kova. He also beat Lewis and Kubica in the 2004 F3 Euro season. Nothing stands out like Lewis's stunning 2005 F3 Euro season though. So, well, he had a good record pre-F1 but nothing startling.

To me, I think his record and performances speak of a driver who is definitely talented but not quite the complete package needed to be truly great.

 

[sunama]

The only seasons he's been matched with a really good driver was his first season of F1 when he sat alongside Webber and lost out to him. But that year's Williams was such an unreliable dog of a thing, and it was his rookie season, that I don't think you can read too much into that.

Rookie season = no excuse.
If a driver is going to be big in F1, he will be fast from the get-go.

Senna, MSc and more recently Hamilton all demonstrated this.

Hamilton matched Alonso in his rookie season, points wise, in the WDC.

...and how good is Alonso? Arguably the best driver in F1 and certainly the most highest rated driver in F1, by his peers. He was also voted as the best driver last year.

MSc was amazing in his first full season, as was Senna.

To me, I think his record and performances speak of a driver who is definitely talented but not quite the complete package needed to be truly great.

This is my assessment precisely. Which is why I feel that MSc is a shadow of his former self. Given that over the last 20 races or so, Rosberg has beaten MSc. My argument would be that if Mercedes were to all of a sudden produce the best car on the grid, Rosberg would be the one to win the title...not MSc. And as you stated above, Rosberg isn't exactly great.

 

[pingwing]

Pingwing...getting your first win is always difficult. Some drivers say it is the hardest thing to do. Yes, there was rain (with Vettel's first win) and rain is a leveller...but Vettel was able to take full advantage. A lesser driver (like Rosberg ), would probably never have been able to take advantage of this situation.

Oh I know its a big thing getting your first win I just felt he just took the best advantage of other people messing the day up, a very good trait but not really the best way to win multiple titles (Button is a fairly good showing of this).

Do agree that Di Riesta is the one to watch at the moment, it'll be good to see how he develops over the next few years

 

[dannyjo22]

Fully updated and added qfy stats and race stats.

Team mates as of China qfy.


Vettel out-qualified Webber 3-0
Hamilton out-qualified Button 2-1
Alonso out-qualified Massa 3-0
Rosberg out-qualified M Sch 3-0
Petrov out-qualified Heidfeld 2-1
Barrichello out-qualified Maldonado 2-1
di Resta out-qualified Sutil 3-0
Kobayashi out-qualified Perez 2-1
Buemi out-qualified Alguersuari 2-1
Kovalainen out-qualified Trulli 3-0
Liuzzi out-qualified Karthi 3-0
Glock out-qualified D'Ambrosio 2-1

Race finishes after China

Vettel out-raced Webber 3-0
Hamilton out-raced Button 2-1
Alonso out-raced Massa 1-2
Rosberg out-raced M Sch 2-1
Petrov out-raced Heidfeld 2-1
Barrichello out-raced Maldonado 3-0
di Resta out-raced Sutil 2-1
Kobayashi out-raced Perez 2-1
Buemi out-raced Alguersuari 3-0
Kovalainen out-raced Trulli 2-1
Liuzzi out-raced Karthi 2-0
Glock out-raced D'Ambrosio 2-1


Average qualifying gaps after Turkey

Vettel to Webber -0.594
Hamilton to Button -0.261
Alonso to Massa -0.336
Rosberg to M Sch -0.673
Petrov to Heidfeld -0.83
Barrichello to Maldonado -0.276
di Resta to Sutil -1.197
Kobayashi to Perez -0.452
Buemi to Alguersuari -0.17
Kovalainen to Trulli -0.388
Liuzzi to Karthi -0.861
Glock to D'Ambrosio -0.09

Average qually position

Vet 1.0
Web 6.5
Ham 2.8
But 4.0
Alo 5.0
Mas 7.8
Msc 11.0
Ros 5.8
Hei 12.3
Pet 7.8
Bar 14.5
Mal 16.0
Sut 14.0
DIR 12.3
Kob 14.0
Per 14.0
Bue 11.8
Alg 12.3
Kov 18.8
Tru 19.8
Kar 23.8
Lui 22.5
Glo 21.5
Amb 21.3

Average finish position (races finished)

Vet 1.4 (4)
Web 3.5 (4)
Ham 3.8 (4)
But 4.0 (4)
Alo 5.0 (4)
Mas 7.3 (4)
Msc 9.7 (3)
Ros 7.3 (3)
Hei 9.3 (4)
Pet 9.3 (4)
Bar 13.0 (2)
Mal 17.5 (2)
Sut 12.0 (4)
DIR 10.3 (3)
Kob 9.0 (3)
Per 15.5 (2)
Bue 11.0 (4)
Alg 13.7 (3)
Kov 16.7 (4)
Tru 16.7 (3)
Kar 22.0 (2)
Lui 22.0 (2)
Glo 18.5 (2)
Amb 18.0 (3)

 

[sunama]

Come on Danny. Update this thread please.

I'm particularly interested in Di Riesta and his monumental 1.197/qualifying lap, faster than his team-mate. That's pretty brutal.

I've also got a keen eye on Rosberg giving MSc a good beating.

 

[dannyjo22]

Come on Danny. Update this thread please..

I will do on monday, work and the garden has got in the way lately

 

[Kenai]

I'm particularly interested in Di Riesta and his monumental 1.197/qualifying lap, faster than his team-mate. That's pretty brutal.

Do we know how he's calculating these numbers?

For example, in the first race of the year, Sutil's Q2 time was 1.31.407 vs Di Resta's 1.26.739. A huge gap. However, in Q1, Sutil had posted a 1.26.245 which beat anything Di Resta managed in qualifying.

So Sutil stuffed up Q2 by spinning on his flying lap and thus made a huge time gap but really, looking beyond the numbers, he was the faster of the two at that circuit.

Things like that 5 second deficit really skew the numbers in Di Resta's favour. I suspect if you were doing proper statistical analysis on this data, that particular result would be discarded as an outlier and the resulting figure would be much more in line with the differences seen elsewhere.

edit - in fact, when you pull that result out of the figures, the average difference is more like 0.1s in Di Resta's favour.

Really, it's just one fluffed lap from Sutil creating a hugely distorted figure.

 

[dannyjo22]

Do we know how he's calculating these numbers?

For example, in the first race of the year, Sutil's Q2 time was 1.31.407 vs Di Resta's 1.26.739. A huge gap. However, in Q1, Sutil had posted a 1.26.245 which beat anything Di Resta managed in qualifying.

So Sutil stuffed up Q2 by spinning on his flying lap and thus made a huge time gap but really, looking beyond the numbers, he was the faster of the two at that circuit.

Things like that 5 second deficit really skew the numbers in Di Resta's favour. I suspect if you were doing proper statistical analysis on this data, that particular result would be discarded as an outlier and the resulting figure would be much more in line with the differences seen elsewhere.

Yes it's the comparison where both drivers set a time in a session. Why would you discard times where a team mate has stuffed up. It's just a fun stat like any other. Depends how deep you want to look.

It's not really all that serious, I just did it for fun to get some of the banter and discussion out of the main race threads. We have a big forum and every thing keeps getting junked into one spot.

 

[Kenai]

You'd discard them as they'd be a statistical outlier and prone to distorting results (as we see here).

I'm well aware this is just a bit of fun and done for some interesting comparisons, hence the comment 'if you were doing proper statistical analysis' preceding that comment.

 

[dannyjo22]

So you are saying if a team mate stuffs up the stat should be discarded to the detriment of the better driver who keeps it on the tarmac?

So say Di resta outqualifies Sutil 17-1 because sutil crashes or makes a mistake 17 times but the one time he doesn't stuff up he beats Diresta by 0.5 because direstas KERs fails (for example) sutil would have a stat that was 0.5 better even though he only outqualified him once.



So do you want mechanical and Kers failures discarded as well to get a fairer result, what about weather conditions, wind direction, track temp.

You could never get a totally accurate balanced stat which couldnt be debated on accuracy

 

[Kenai]

I am saying if you were attempting to perform a proper statistical analysis on the data, you would find such a result is an outlier and as such including it in a calculation of something like the mean can be a flawed and misleading thing to do. It's one of many reasons the mean can often be a misleading statistic and the median preferable.

You're not doing a proper analysis though, so it doesn't matter. That's why I used the word IF. IF.

In this case, it certainly is misleading as really, the typical gap is nowhere near a second, it's normally less than 0.2 seconds and has twice been in the favour of Sutil but that one result makes it look as if Di Resta has been making an embarrassment of Sutil all season - really, it's all because of a single fluffed lap.

In your example of Sutil making a mistake 17 times, those results wouldn't be considered outliers as they would be the usual result. Whether something is an outlier is a statistically determinable thing, it's not a case of picking and choosing.

 

[Deleted member 651465]

Disagree with that point Kenai.

Yes, Sutil stuffed his flying lap, but so what? You can't really compare q1 results against q3, but it's already been proven that Di Resta is the better driver by the sheer fact he's been in q3 more times, in a new car, in his rookie season.

To disregard a lap because a driver fluffed it, would screw the results so badly.. Imagine the WDC! "you aren't really 25 points ahead, I was faster until I crashed "

Calling this an anomaly is an unknown until we get more results, it could be a regular occurrence

 

[Kenai]

I don't know why I even bother sometimes, I swear people just read what they want to read rather than what I actually write.

It was a comment related purely to statistical outliers and their effect on statistics such as the mean. That's why I said:

if you were doing proper statistical analysis on this data

Perhaps people might read it now.