Is the RB18 dominant?

[Sieper]

Hamilton never won more than 11 times in a season, most (except 2020, where he won 11 out of 17) were longer than 18 races. The evidence is not there that he would do it, in fact, he hasn’t. Charles wasn’t on his way either, in the first halve of the season they had equal(ish) cars.

It is not a given they would perform like Max has been.

[PlatinumZealot]

Hamilton never won more than 11 times in a season, most (except 2020, where he won 11 out of 17) were longer than 18 races. The evidence is not there that he would do it, in fact, he hasn’t. Charles wasn’t on his way either, in the first halve of the season they had equal(ish) cars.

It is not a given they would perform like Max has been.

11 wins is decent considering Lewis had fast teammates or fast rival cars.

2014 to 2016 - Rosberg
2017 to 2018 - Fast rival Ferrari
2019 - Bottas and Max were fast enough to take wins. Redbull faster on some tracks.
2020 - 17 races
2021 - Fast rival RedBull

There was never a clear year with a number 2 driver, and a car fast on all tracks. So 11 wins is actually decent. 2020 would have been interesting with more races. The car was dominant and Bottas was making mistakes.

Any decent driver above Perez level could have won in the RB18 and won by miles too.

[Just_a_fan]

Some don’t do it at all under said circumstances for the best part of a decade. Max has had the outright best car for the second part of the season. Not the first. You can diminish it all you want but if he achieves 16 wins it is pretty special. Period.

Ah, Max is a God. All hail Max.

It's really quite boring now.

The guy's a great driver. No one discounts that. But no one - absolutely no one - wins big without the car beneath them.

Leclerc or Hamilton would've won just as many as Max has done - maybe more. The rb18 looking dominant is partly down to Max, but other great drivers would have done just as well. The reality is that the car seems dominant because Ferrari have failed many times this season.

Exactly. Max or Fernando (or even Seb?) would have won in recent Mercs. They would all win in the RB18, too, just as Max is doing. Just as they would all have won in cars like the F2004, MP4/4 if they'd been around at the time. Chuck the top drivers in top cars and they perform. If they don't have to look across the garage at a competitive team mate, they get even better results. None of this is new or startling. Sadly, this year the Ferrari team has dropped the ball too often to make the season competitive, but that's not Max's fault. He's done his job perfectly.

[Just_a_fan]

Hamilton never won more than 11 times in a season, most (except 2020, where he won 11 out of 17) were longer than 18 races. The evidence is not there that he would do it, in fact, he hasn’t. Charles wasn’t on his way either, in the first halve of the season they had equal(ish) cars.

It is not a given they would perform like Max has been.

Max hasn't had any competition from the other garage, however, just as Michael didn't in 2004 when he won 13 of 18 races, coming 2nd in two others and only having 2 bad races and a retirement to mar the year.

That's not to take away from Max - he's done his job pretty much perfectly. But to compare to drivers that had team mates that could, and did, win races isn't fair on those you're comparing with. Max absolutely hasn't had to worry about the other side of the garage.

[Sieper]

Hamilton never won more than 11 times in a season, most (except 2020, where he won 11 out of 17) were longer than 18 races. The evidence is not there that he would do it, in fact, he hasn’t. Charles wasn’t on his way either, in the first halve of the season they had equal(ish) cars.

It is not a given they would perform like Max has been.

11 wins is decent considering Lewis had fast teammates or fast rival cars.

2014 to 2016 - Rosberg
2017 to 2018 - Fast rival Ferrari
2019 - Bottas and Max were fast enough to take wins. Redbull faster on some tracks.
2020 - 17 races
2021 - Fast rival RedBull

There was never a clear year with a number 2 driver, and a car fast on all tracks. So 11 wins is actually decent. 2020 would have been interesting with more races. The car was dominant and Bottas was making mistakes.

Any decent driver above Perez level could have won in the RB18 and won by miles too.

11 wins is more than decent, it is exceptionally good.

Rosberg is imho better than Perez. Let’s stripe those years away.
17-18 Fast Ferrari, Yes, faster than the 22 Ferrari. No. Those years were equal opportunities.
19 this year the Mercedes has been a challenger on some tracks as well. Pole in Hungary. Zandvoort.
20 cut short. Here he equaled Max after 17 races.
2021 fast rival indeed.

Bottas is imho not better than Perez. That still leaves several comparable years on the table. This is not the only indicator (when purely looking at numbers) that Max is doing something right.

Max took the highest number of podiums ever in the 2021 season which saw him compete against a very equal car.

Look, in the end these numbers don’t say all, you can only use them as an indicator at best. But for me, it was years that Max was ridiculed precisely as he did not have the numbers. “But what has he won, nothing” that kind of reasoning. Now he has the car and he made the numbers and now it suddenly doesn’t mean anything. That is what I am trying to refute.

[CMSMJ1]

There are some interesting (meant in the proper way) takes on the question in this thread.

It's a simple question, in my view, and has a simple answer: Of course it is dominant. It has won the most races and that's the measure I would use.

Have found it informative how the other measures stand up and how these have been argued.

[Tvetovnato]

Hamilton never won more than 11 times in a season, most (except 2020, where he won 11 out of 17) were longer than 18 races. The evidence is not there that he would do it, in fact, he hasn’t. Charles wasn’t on his way either, in the first halve of the season they had equal(ish) cars.

It is not a given they would perform like Max has been.

11 wins is decent considering Lewis had fast teammates or fast rival cars.

2014 to 2016 - Rosberg
2017 to 2018 - Fast rival Ferrari
2019 - Bottas and Max were fast enough to take wins. Redbull faster on some tracks.
2020 - 17 races
2021 - Fast rival RedBull

There was never a clear year with a number 2 driver, and a car fast on all tracks. So 11 wins is actually decent. 2020 would have been interesting with more races. The car was dominant and Bottas was making mistakes.

Any decent driver above Perez level could have won in the RB18 and won by miles too.

11 wins is more than decent, it is exceptionally good.

Rosberg is imho better than Perez. Let’s stripe those years away.
17-18 Fast Ferrari, Yes, faster than the 22 Ferrari. No. Those years were equal opportunities.
19 this year the Mercedes has been a challenger on some tracks as well. Pole in Hungary. Zandvoort.
20 cut short. Here he equaled Max after 17 races.
2021 fast rival indeed.

Bottas is imho not better than Perez. That still leaves several comparable years on the table. This is not the only indicator (when purely looking at numbers) that Max is doing something right.

Max took the highest number of podiums ever in the 2021 season which saw him compete against a very equal car.

Look, in the end these numbers don’t say all, you can only use them as an indicator at best. But for me, it was years that Max was ridiculed precisely as he did not have the numbers. “But what has he won, nothing” that kind of reasoning. Now he has the car and he made the numbers and now it suddenly doesn’t mean anything. That is what I am trying to refute.

Well, the last part is exactly what is the problem with judging achievements in F1. It’s just as wrong to slate someones ability by using no wins or podiums as a measurement as it is slating someone for winning by having the best car. Fanboys will always use either argument to favour their driver and make another look bad. Then there are those that can see it more ”objectively” and appreciate that you can be extremely good without having an astronomic amount of titles AND that you can be extremely good DESPITE having the best car and as a result many titles.

The best drivers are maximising the results they can get. If that yields 15 wins in a season or 2 wins… it doesn’t matter, at least not in terms of judging ability or anything like that.

[PlatinumZealot]

Hamilton never won more than 11 times in a season, most (except 2020, where he won 11 out of 17) were longer than 18 races. The evidence is not there that he would do it, in fact, he hasn’t. Charles wasn’t on his way either, in the first halve of the season they had equal(ish) cars.

It is not a given they would perform like Max has been.

11 wins is decent considering Lewis had fast teammates or fast rival cars.

2014 to 2016 - Rosberg
2017 to 2018 - Fast rival Ferrari
2019 - Bottas and Max were fast enough to take wins. Redbull faster on some tracks.
2020 - 17 races
2021 - Fast rival RedBull

There was never a clear year with a number 2 driver, and a car fast on all tracks. So 11 wins is actually decent. 2020 would have been interesting with more races. The car was dominant and Bottas was making mistakes.

Any decent driver above Perez level could have won in the RB18 and won by miles too.

11 wins is more than decent, it is exceptionally good.

Rosberg is imho better than Perez. Let’s stripe those years away.
17-18 Fast Ferrari, Yes, faster than the 22 Ferrari. No. Those years were equal opportunities.
19 this year the Mercedes has been a challenger on some tracks as well. Pole in Hungary. Zandvoort.
20 cut short. Here he equaled Max after 17 races.
2021 fast rival indeed.

Bottas is imho not better than Perez. That still leaves several comparable years on the table. This is not the only indicator (when purely looking at numbers) that Max is doing something right.

Max took the highest number of podiums ever in the 2021 season which saw him compete against a very equal car.

Look, in the end these numbers don’t say all, you can only use them as an indicator at best. But for me, it was years that Max was ridiculed precisely as he did not have the numbers. “But what has he won, nothing” that kind of reasoning. Now he has the car and he made the numbers and now it suddenly doesn’t mean anything. That is what I am trying to refute.

Lol lost all credibility with Rosberg is no better than Perez.

[Andres125sx]

RB18 is dominant partly due to Merc failing and Ferrari's inconsistency.

Opinion aside, the RB18 will go down in history as the most dominant car linked to Adrian Newey

You didn´t watch 2010-14 era, did you?

[Andres125sx]

Yes, and I could have an affair with Scarlett Johansson... but reality is no, I wont. Have you ever seen any car winning most of the races without being dominant? Then no need to imagine absurd scenarios

It's a thought experiment obviousy, which has been an acceptable form of rhetoric at least since the classical era. It serves to illustrate that a driver/team can win consistently without a dominant car. Whether or not that happens in practice is irrelevant, it simply means that the notion that "x always wins" or "x wins >y%" in itself is not definitive proof of car dominance. One needs to consider the conditions under which it happens.

As I posted before, the performace of a team is a function of at least three factors; team_performance = f(car, driver, strategy). And if one considers performance versus competitors, one could say it has four factors team_performance = f(car, driver, strategy, competition performance). If competitors consistently fail, or your driver and strategy is much better than that of the main competitor, it could still be that you win the (vast) majority of races without having a dominant car. And we could do other thought experiments. What if a car always starts 2nd (with a different team in front), but always ends first by 0.1s (in absence of calamities) because they systematically mananage to perform faster pitstops and overtake the competitor in the pit. Is that a dominant car? To me, no, it's dominant strategy.

And in my opinion, the data does point to that for at least the first half of the season; in cases where RB won with a big margin over Fer, there was an issue with Fer (strategy or crash). In the other situations, it was typically a close call between Verstappen and Leclerc. Often Max came out on top - which can be because in 'uneventful' races the strategy of RB was better than of Fer, or because Max is a somewhat better driver than Charles, or because the RB18 is a marginally better car - but it is not a sign of dominance. Some have argued that RB decided to run with a less aggressive engine setup, but to me, that seems risky if the margin is only 1-3 seconds at the line for the lead driver, and the second driver is not on the podium. So, just looking at number of wins in itself is not enough, conditions matter, and I don't think the conditions pre-summer break point at car dominance.

Perez did 9 podiums, same as Lecrerc. Would you say Lecrerc is struggling to get on the podium?

I would say Leclerc was hampered by issues (strategy, technical, and in some cases driver error) more frequently than Perez. In 'uneventful' races Leclerc, and also Sainz, could compete with Perez and often beat Perez. Which hints there is a large driver factor at play. If it was just the car that was dominant, then also a mediocre/decent driver would often end second. We did not see that with the RB18, and in most cases where Perez did end 2nd (before summer) there were, again, issues with Ferrari at play. It could very well be that RB will score consistent 1-2 finishes in absence of Ferrari issues from now on, we will see.

If that was true, Lecrerc and Sainz should be ahead in the table... but they´re not, Max is first and Perez is second, with same DNFs as Lecrerc

Nope, it can be other effects are at play. Issues don't always lead to DNFs - poor strategic choices, long pitstops because one of the wheels was missing, etc. don't show up as DNFs; they do show up as poor scores that can alter the ranking.

The season is the whole season, it doesn´t matter how strong or weak the beginning of the season was, it´s the whole season what counts.

I guess that is more of a philosophical point - should we average performance over a season, or is 'dominance' something dynamic that can shift? To me, it is the second. Brawn was dominant at the start of 2009, but certainly not at the end. Over the whole season, that averaged out to being non-dominant, but just good enough to stick the win.
For this season, RB as a team is certainly dominant on average; in other words, the combination (car,driver,strategy, relative performance to competition) is dominant. But in isolation, the car factor was not dominant in the first half of the season if the conditions are considered. Whether it is dominant on average over the entire season? Maybe, depends a bit on what happens in races to come.

Apart from that, I agree Max is responsible of a good part of the domination, but it´s not a black or white scenario, it is also possible that the car is dominant and Max has been the best. That´s the reason he won the title with 4 races remaining, that´s a huge margin can´t be achieved without both a dominant car and a dominant driver.

I think the notion that it is not black or white is important to remark. There are certainly people that want to attribute Hamilton's title streak to being 'just the car'. I disagree there, the notion that he crushed his teammates in most seasons shows that he was also dominant as a driver, and very likely would still have been WDC in a car that was equal to the competition. Driver performance is harder to appreciate if the car is not dominant, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

Apart from the last paragraph, wich I agree with, the rest continue with the thought experiment theory. I agree for a single race, but not for a whole season. Specially with current seasons wich are the longest ever. With 10 venues someone can be lucky/unlucky, but with current 22 venues per season it is much more difficult to consider luck as a main factor. Obviously it will play a role, but when someone with the title with 4 races (100 points) remaining, you can be sure luck has not been the main factor, even if it did add to the domination this season


Anycase luck is a bold parameter to mention in F1, 90% of times it´s mentioned, it really was a poor job by the team. There are some scenarios like the exact moment a SC is raised (just before pit entry, or just after, can make a huge difference in final result), but those are a minority, most of the time it´s all dependand on the team work.

[mendis]

Hamilton never won more than 11 times in a season, most (except 2020, where he won 11 out of 17) were longer than 18 races. The evidence is not there that he would do it, in fact, he hasn’t. Charles wasn’t on his way either, in the first halve of the season they had equal(ish) cars.

It is not a given they would perform like Max has been.

11 wins is decent considering Lewis had fast teammates or fast rival cars.

2014 to 2016 - Rosberg
2017 to 2018 - Fast rival Ferrari
2019 - Bottas and Max were fast enough to take wins. Redbull faster on some tracks.
2020 - 17 races
2021 - Fast rival RedBull

There was never a clear year with a number 2 driver, and a car fast on all tracks. So 11 wins is actually decent. 2020 would have been interesting with more races. The car was dominant and Bottas was making mistakes.

Any decent driver above Perez level could have won in the RB18 and won by miles too.

You need to consider the fact that, until 2018, Lewis had weekends where he wasn't up to the mark and let his team mates get the better of him. He dropped focus in 2015 for the last 4 races after winning the championship and prior to that, he simply dominated Nico through the season. Despite getting poles, he couldn't nail the start in 2016 due to which Nico won races. The record could have looked a lot better for Lewis if not for those lapses. Nico couldn't have beaten Lewis on his good days (forget on his best days).

[Sieper]

11 wins is decent considering Lewis had fast teammates or fast rival cars.

2014 to 2016 - Rosberg
2017 to 2018 - Fast rival Ferrari
2019 - Bottas and Max were fast enough to take wins. Redbull faster on some tracks.
2020 - 17 races
2021 - Fast rival RedBull

There was never a clear year with a number 2 driver, and a car fast on all tracks. So 11 wins is actually decent. 2020 would have been interesting with more races. The car was dominant and Bottas was making mistakes.

Any decent driver above Perez level could have won in the RB18 and won by miles too.

11 wins is more than decent, it is exceptionally good.

Rosberg is imho better than Perez. Let’s stripe those years away.
17-18 Fast Ferrari, Yes, faster than the 22 Ferrari. No. Those years were equal opportunities.
19 this year the Mercedes has been a challenger on some tracks as well. Pole in Hungary. Zandvoort.
20 cut short. Here he equaled Max after 17 races.
2021 fast rival indeed.

Bottas is imho not better than Perez. That still leaves several comparable years on the table. This is not the only indicator (when purely looking at numbers) that Max is doing something right.

Max took the highest number of podiums ever in the 2021 season which saw him compete against a very equal car.

Look, in the end these numbers don’t say all, you can only use them as an indicator at best. But for me, it was years that Max was ridiculed precisely as he did not have the numbers. “But what has he won, nothing” that kind of reasoning. Now he has the car and he made the numbers and now it suddenly doesn’t mean anything. That is what I am trying to refute.

Lol lost all credibility with Rosberg is no better than Perez.

I didn’t say that, thanks for the roll eyes. It says the exact opposite of what you are saying, Rosberg is better than Perez. Bit weird to make those credibility claims when you missed the first sentence already.

[Andi76]

Max could win the remaining four races. That's 16 wins in one season?

You don't do that without a dominant car and a number 2 teammate.

Its a fact that the RB18 IS dominant since Spa. Before Spa it wasn't. Not at all. The F1-75 was faster in 7 out of the first 12 races and was considered to be the fastest car by most experts. So i think one has to divide that clearly - first part of the season the RB18 was NOT dominant at all, the Ferrari was probably even the faster car, and the fact alone that there are many many people who share that opinion, proves that the RB18 was not dominant at all before the summer break. After the summer break - clearly. But i think there is one thing thing to consider - is it dominant or was it just luck and favored by a TD? I think there can be no doubt that TD39 hurt Ferrari massively. So everyone has to judge by himself, if he wants to call it "truely dominant", especially viewed in a historical context, as its dominance is based on the introduction of a TD mid season. Also if one considers these (probably) 19 race wins, definetely not done by their own, as dominance, while other cars in history of F1 did win 15 or 16 races(when there were only 16 to 18) on their own and were dominant from beginning to the end. In my personal opinion, Red Bull was not dominant at all before the summer break. The F1-75 was faster. After that it was. But as TD39 played a role, this dominance is a bit clouded.

[PlatinumZealot]

Max could win the remaining four races. That's 16 wins in one season?

You don't do that without a dominant car and a number 2 teammate.

Its a fact that the RB18 IS dominant since Spa. Before Spa it wasn't. Not at all. The F1-75 was faster in 7 out of the first 12 races and was considered to be the fastest car by most experts. So i think one has to divide that clearly - first part of the season the RB18 was NOT dominant at all, the Ferrari was probably even the faster car, and the fact alone that there are many many people who share that opinion, proves that the RB18 was not dominant at all before the summer break. After the summer break - clearly. But i think there is one thing thing to consider - is it dominant or was it just luck and favored by a TD? I think there can be no doubt that TD39 hurt Ferrari massively. So everyone has to judge by himself, if he wants to call it "truely dominant", especially viewed in a historical context, as its dominance is based on the introduction of a TD mid season. Also if one considers these (probably) 19 race wins, definetely not done by their own, as dominance, while other cars in history of F1 did win 15 or 16 races(when there were only 16 to 18) on their own and were dominant from beginning to the end. In my personal opinion, Red Bull was not dominant at all before the summer break. The F1-75 was faster. After that it was. But as TD39 played a role, this dominance is a bit clouded.

Dominant from beginning to end is not a requirement IMO. The car only needs to be be dominant enough to put the championship out of the control of your rivals. As in the rival would need extreme luck to beat you. Essentially only half a season of dominance is really needed to be "dominant" IMO.

If you look at the data there is little to supoort the F1-75 as being faster for half a season. When you examine the race pace and vehicle reliability its clearly not the case.

[Andi76]

Max could win the remaining four races. That's 16 wins in one season?

You don't do that without a dominant car and a number 2 teammate.

Its a fact that the RB18 IS dominant since Spa. Before Spa it wasn't. Not at all. The F1-75 was faster in 7 out of the first 12 races and was considered to be the fastest car by most experts. So i think one has to divide that clearly - first part of the season the RB18 was NOT dominant at all, the Ferrari was probably even the faster car, and the fact alone that there are many many people who share that opinion, proves that the RB18 was not dominant at all before the summer break. After the summer break - clearly. But i think there is one thing thing to consider - is it dominant or was it just luck and favored by a TD? I think there can be no doubt that TD39 hurt Ferrari massively. So everyone has to judge by himself, if he wants to call it "truely dominant", especially viewed in a historical context, as its dominance is based on the introduction of a TD mid season. Also if one considers these (probably) 19 race wins, definetely not done by their own, as dominance, while other cars in history of F1 did win 15 or 16 races(when there were only 16 to 18) on their own and were dominant from beginning to the end. In my personal opinion, Red Bull was not dominant at all before the summer break. The F1-75 was faster. After that it was. But as TD39 played a role, this dominance is a bit clouded.

Dominant from beginning to end is not a requirement IMO. The car only needs to be be dominant enough to put the championship out of the control of your rivals. As in the rival would need extreme luck to beat you. Essentially only half a season of dominance is really needed to be "dominant" IMO.

If you look at the data there is little to supoort the F1-75 as being faster for half a season. When you examine the race pace and vehicle reliability its clearly not the case.

If a car that only dominates half of a season can be called dominant, how should we call cars like the MP4-4, the Ferrari F2002 and F2004 or the Mercedes W07, who were dominant from the beginning to the end? Of course everyone can have his opinion of how he definies dominance. But relation to these cars - the RB18 was not really dominant. And in my opinion, its always about a season as whole. And if most people considered another car to be faster for 50% of the season, a car cannot be called "dominant", as it only was for some races.

And there is a lot of evidence that the F1-75 was faster in the first half of the season. Even if examining race pace only, what by the way is not the way to judge about one car being faster than another one. Qualifying(maybe the most telling when it comes to how fast a car really is), has to be taken into account, too, while reliability - is reliability... but anyway - in terms of data and race pace, the F1-75 was faster in 7 out of the first 12 races. Fastest lap and winning in Bahrain, fastest lap and dominating in Australia, clearly faster in Spain, and obviously faster in Monaco and Ascherbaidschan, faster in Silverstone with both Ferrari beating Red Bull in the race, clearly faster in Austria and France. Next to the fact that most experts called the F1-75 "fastest car" before the summer break, i would say thats plenty of evidence.