I've noted that too; and because I've noted it, I place my own thought processes under scrutiny. In all conscience I don't believe that I personally fall into the category of "I like that driver = must be talent //// I don't like that driver = it's car dominance" myself. I tend to look a bit more deeply, objectively and more dispassionately to try to avoid personal bias.
I personally look for other *markers* in a driver - such as how they *conduct* themselves on track and, if their car is a clear dominant car, how they conduct themselves against their team mate in the same car, combined with the "talent" and same things in their team mate.
For instance, Schuey - arguably one of the very greatest. I didn't "like" him and his driving was similar to Max's "if I'm losing a battle, we're both crashing out" mentality. Just because I didn't like his driving style, that doesn't mean I can't see that he was still one of the all time greatest talented drivers. But that was in an era where telemetry wasn't a thing, so he could "hide" his antics to a large degree. Schuey, instinctively, had absolutely zero compunction, restraint or misgivings about putting someone into the wall if that was the only way to defend against an overtake.
In the modern era, there's nowhere to hide from telemetry. Example, Max versus Lewis recently. Telemetry showed that Max "entered the corner faster" and "braked later" than at any other time in that race - in other words, subscript, he wasn't going to stay on track even if Lewis wasn't there and would've locked up front brakes all on his own anyway... and this is the clearest indicator of Max's crash'n'smash wheel-to-wheel racing mentality. Lewis actually altered his line to provide space up to the apex. However, Max had gotten *himself* out of control. In the comparison between Lewis and Max they're both similarly unyielding, but I think it is *well evidenced* that Max views wheel-to-wheel racing as an all-out contact sport, whereas Lewis is a hard racer but not at the expense of crashing out (hence Rosberg bested him to win a title).
***
Team-mates:
Vettel and Webber. Absolutely Dominant car. Fairly equally matched in terms of raw skill and race talent. Vettel had the "killer instinct", though, which meant he frequently ignored Team orders, and the Team tacitly allowed this to continue which meant he continued to take more and more liberties. Vettel and Webber frequently appeared to be clumsy oafs during racing where they'd take each other out in fairly innocuous racing circumstances, hardly the look of "best in the world drivers", but this was often brought about by Webber's uncertainty about what moves Vettel would pull in close proximity.
Max and Checko. Absolutely dominant car. Checko has never really been up to very much as a top-top tier driver. Until he had the absolute dominant car, which he could leverage to just drive clean past all and sundry and go, for example, from 10th to finish SECOND. But also be the compliant team mate - the fall guy that the team could tactically throw under the bus in order to elevate the other guy or disrupt the other guy's competition. Max is clearly the superior driver versus Checko. But that does not tell us a great deal about Max, does it?? All it says is that Max is evidently better than a mediocre driver...
Mercedes. Dominant car for a good while. But despite the dominance they brought us some excitement because they allowed racing. Clean racing. Mostly. (Can you imagine that with Max? I certainly cannot!) I appreciated that allowance to race very much. I also appreciated that Rosberg bested Hamilton, but it was very telling that he quit directly afterwards. Able to raise his game but understood that keeping it elevated there might've been costing him too much. I like that Merc will apparently continue to allow racing and would love to see a developing Lewis-vs-George scenario.
***
The things I really keep coming back to are:
For Red Bull, in their dominant years with Vettel, they allowed racing for a good chunk of it, but that often ended in smash-smash, and I largely put that on Vettel and his "killer instinct".
Red Bull have gone full opposite as a result, and do not allow racing, instead just looking for a compliant fall-guy as number 2. Which doesn't play much into actually how great Max is - but what we can categorically say is that Max is a very, very poor driver when placed under pressure and would rather crash'n'smash than lose out wheel-to-wheel. I do not like that. But I do recognise his car control and driving talent. Definitely up with the best.
Vettel was similarly dubious and almost always cracked under some pressure - prime example when Jenson's Braun was fast closing up to his lead at Canada(?), Vettel simply drove himself off the track before Jenson even got close.
With Lewis, I detect something quite different. He took on what I would say was the best driver on the grid in his rookie season. He also flouted the fundamental understanding that it was impossible to overtake in F1 (something that the regulations have battled with over many years...). It often takes a new guy entering a sport to demonstrate the glass ceiling isn't impenetrable. I've seen this a couple of times (many years ago) in the Scottish field archery circuit. There was a sub-category of archery where equipment was restricted to a bare bow with no stabilisers or even sights. The winners in this category were routinely shooting a certain score. This score was thought to be about the highest possible in that category. Enter a new guy into that category who would quickly demonstrate that the score was beatable by a good margin. Suddenly, everyone is beginning to reach this score too, despite their previous apparent best efforts reaching a prior plateau. I saw this happen twice in my time. I felt that Lewis entering F1 I saw clear parallels and suddenly F1 was that bit less boring to watch as a direct result. Yes, I do like Hamilton, but that is because of his impact on improving the *sport*. It isn't because of his results. And I certainly don't want him to perform *just because I like him*. I would only like *his driving* to succeed. Not because of any bias on my part. I'm very sanguine when he is outperformed, because that's the sport - as long as it is being outperformed in a *sporting* way...
Alonso has been the class of the field for much of his F1 days and has always, always, always outperformed the machinery that any team has given him, even if his record of success isn't the greatest, he was almost certainly always in the very top and rarefied tier. The days of grooved tyres didn't suit his natural style, though, and he did struggle to adapt there. Hamilton immediately measured up to the best.
www.planetf1.com
