DChemTech wrote: ↑
Thu Nov 24, 2022 12:53 pm
mrluke wrote: ↑
Thu Nov 24, 2022 11:30 am
DChemTech wrote: ↑
Thu Nov 24, 2022 9:01 am
In an inferior car, no, but noone is arguing the RB18 was inferior - only that in the first half of the season it was on par with the Ferrari, and in that part of the season, other factors were decisive in RB winning most races.
And that has happened before. Maybe not often in F1 (that I know of at least).
It is easier to judge in other series, especially those where the cars are equal to begin with and hence driver/team performance has to be the decisive factor. E.g. British F3 1983, where Senna won the first 9 races and finished first or second for all others if he finished the race. Or the 1994 season where Jan Magnussen won all but 3 races of the season, with most of the participants (albeit not all) driving the same chassis/engine combination.
Arent you talking about a spec series where all the cars are the same?
Others are suggesting that the car, the driver and the team can all independently lead to a dominant season. I disagree and dont think we have seen that in an F1 season in at least the last 30 years.
The WDC is won each year by the driver with the "best" (fastest consistent finisher) car. I'm sure there must be an exception but I cant think of one off the top of my head, maybe 2007 where lewis and alonso took points off each other.
However this whole thread feels like an exercise in justifying that Max wins because he's the best driver but Lewis only wins when he has the best car.
Yes, I deliberately chose spec series to show that it is possible to win 70%+ races with a car that is, by definition, not dominant because in spec series the car is simply not part of the equation. Also in response to those that say that "X wins shows car dominance" - spec series with dominance clearly disprove that notion. X wins may just as well signal a dominant team or driver.
Now, F1 is not a spec series, which makes the different factors (team, driver, car) more difficult to untangle - often dominance is a combination of factors. But that still does not mean that a dominant season per definition means a dominant car.
And whether or not something actually happened is irrelevant - what matters is that it can happen. Even if all drivers that won a majority of races in a season F1 did so in a dominant car
, that does not mean that a driver (or driver pair) winning the majority of races in a season per definition did so because the car is dominant
. If one wants to establish whether or not the car is dominant, one should consider car performance statistics and not solely the number of wins.
Now I agree that it would be better to consider the driver/car/team package when talking about dominance as you state (and as I have also stated multiple times), but once again, that is not the subject of this thread - the subject that is stated in the title is solely the car.
And as to the intention of this thread, I actually had completely the opposite feeling: that this topic was set up to declare dominance of the RB18 (note the choice of simply declaring that it is; not determine whether it is), and thereby downplaying Max' performance of this year by assertion that his performance was simply due to the car, not due to the driver - indeed, as others have done for Hamilton. I detest both sides, both Hamilton and Verstappen are excellent drivers in their own right, and there's plenty of evidence for that. Some exceptions aside, both of them have outclassed their teammates in the same material, have shown excellent performance in wet races, etc.
So as to that I am personally not at all interested in assessing car performance to downplay the performance of a particular driver. But I do think car comparison in itself is a nice objective, yet if we do so, we should work with metrics that are as purely as possible metrics of car performance, and win rate is too entangled with other possible causes (such as team and driver performance) to be used in that capacity.
I did respond to each part but tbh i'm not sure if furthered the discussion much. In principle I think we are aligned so no point splitting hairs
Looking at the challenge of identifying each contribution:
A single win is very difficult to determine, consistent wins is more indicative of an underlying performance advantage.
Winning over multiple seasons has to be team driven, and I would include driver's contribution to car development in that as opposed to his performance behind the wheel in a race.
So if a team/driver combination wins 7 in 10 races how can you separate the contribution from each?
If you compare to a team mate it'll be argued that the car was designed around one driver or the other.
- The car gives the total performance envelope.
- The driver is responsible for using the full available car performance.
- The team develops the car (before and during the season) as well as manages the driver and their race strategy.
Of those 3, it is the car that sets the upper limit on available performance, the other two factors are about using that potential.
Therefore I would say that to consistently win throughout a whole season by a decent margin, has to be down to available car performance. At a push you could say other packages had a higher performance limit but were unable to access it, in which case does it even count? If nobody can use it, how do we evaluate it?
Your maximum available performance has to be higher than the level the other teams are delivering to win consistently.
There's going to be some variation between drivers but what do we think the order of magnitude is for that, maybe 0.3s?
The team strategy calls can be pretty big on a race by race basis but over the course of the season you would expect this to even out. RBR probably have a slight advantage here because they always seem to make the right call. There's also maybe 1s per race saved on pitstops.
Then we have the combined ability of the driver and the team to develop the car over the season. Sometimes we see cars finishing the season much more (or less) competitive than when they started. Individually the driver plays a role here but would say its very difficult to evaluate that in isolation.
I guess to tie up that rambling, the available performance comes from the car, its down to everybody else to extract it and make the car in the first place but without a fast enough car you aren't going to dominate anything.