I did this last year and I think it will be interesting to get people’s views again as the changing competitive order through the year should give some valid variation in opinions.
I did it simply enough that top 10 had to be one form each team. Theres only one or two drivers that would even merit discussions different to this approach imo (piastri in particular) 1. Verstappen. can't ignore it. 2. alonso Only 24 points behind Hamilton in 3rd despite his car falling off a cliff under him after 6 or 7 races. 3. Hamilton - does he really deserve to be this high? 4. Norris - some good drives in the year, and benefitted from a vastly improved car. 5. Le Clerc - Just barely beats sainz so hard to split the two. So many errors but far better in quali 6 Albon - Some really good drives and a team that only performances at some tracks but he's in general popped his team up there where it may not have a right to be. 7 Tsunoda - reacted well to the improved car, same improvement 8 Gasly - just barely on qualified better than ocon. too many clashes and OGs 9 Hulkenburg - did "alright is a poor haas, but realistically only alight 10. Bottas - A team in a holding pattern. he has to appear top 10 as better dirver of his team 11. Sainz - consistent - feel bad he is here and not higher. 12. Piastri - ROOKIE OF THE YEAR - would be 7th or 8th really. 13. Russell - Too many errors. I really don't rate him very highly. he has matched the old man in qualifying but has been consistently beaten by him in racing. 14. Ocon - given his position in alpine he has been dominated in qualify by his team mate. constant issues between them 15. Guanyu - Not great. Has mixed it with his teammate so not completely dominated but was firmly second in his team. 16. K.Mag. Looks like a man who ought to be retiring 17. Ricciardo, Lawson, D Vries. - all 3 had issues, no real performance 18. Perez. Just crap. You've a massively better car than the rest of the field and deliver an absolutely shambolic performance. shoudl be consistently 2nd 19. Stroll - should not be in F1 20. Sargeant - really shouldn't be in F1 lol. Looking at this i could change 6-10 in any order depending on how i feel like. I feel bad for Piastri and sainz not to be in the top 10 compared to some of the names in there. Otherwise, ruseel wouldn't make my top 10 irrespective and perez is crap.
1. Max (Obviously) --------- 2. Lewis 3. Alonso 4. Leclerc 5. Norris (2-5 are functionally interchangeable) ------------ 6. Albon 7. Sainz 8. Tsunoda 9. Russell (Not a great season, but has become a little underrated. I doubt any of the below get closer to Lewis) 10. Gasly 11. Piastri (Will inevitably be top 10 soon, but for now lacks tyre management) 12. Hulk 13. Ocon 14. Bottas 15. Ricciardo 16. Lawson (Considering he was a rookie thrown in mid-season, 16th best is actually decent) -------------- 17. Perez (At least he has Baku, which is more than you can say for the below) 18. Zhou 19. Magnussen 20. Stroll 21. De Vries 22. Sargeant
1) Max - Really obvious choice. Clearly the car played a big part, but the car was definitely much stronger on Sunday than it was on Saturday and it’s in the Saturday performances that I think we saw Verstappen at his very best - most notably at Monaco, but there were other fantastic qualifying performances through the year to get what was often not the fastest qualifying car at or near the front. Max’s average grid position was 3rd, Sergio’s 9th the biggest gap on the grid between team mates. On Sunday he definitely had a performance advantage on nearly every weekend and the records fell, some weeks it was easy, some weeks it was definitely possible to drop the ball, but between Max and the team they got everything right, even when there were weather or safety car challenges, or when others were surprisingly quick - credit needs to go also to race engineer GP and strategist Hannah Schmitz for some of this. Ultimately it wasn’t the best watch if you were focused on the front this year, but I do think over time we’ll come to appreciate that we’ve seen something special this year, that has redefined what’s possible in the sport. 2) Alonso - just edges it for me, because when the car was good at the start of the year he really maximised it despite the challenge of being in a new team. He then did what he could as the car’s competitiveness ebbed through the middle of the year. If it’s true that it’s helpful to be pushed by a teammate then he’s done that all with no challenge at all. 3) Hamilton, did what he should have done and came third what was on average the second fastest car. Generally solid rather than spectacular, but he turned the tables on George and had the edge on pace all year. After last year I thought this could be his last, expecting George to build on his first season and effectively take over the team leader role, instead he’s earned a new two year deal and very much called into question whether Mercedes need to find another driver to take over in the long term. 4) Norris - perhaps less impressive than in the last couple of seasons. Like all good drivers, when the car was good, he took off and I very nearly put him ahead of Hamilton as a result, however I had a bit of a nagging feeling that he dropped the ball on a couple of occasions where he could have got a winning result and that’s starting to become a bit of a pattern with him. It also nearly dropped it him behind… 5) Sainz - when the car was at its best this year, so was Carlos and he was the one to get the win that RedBull didn’t with an excellent drive under quite some pressure. Ferrari need a calm head and he proved to be that in the early part of the year. 6) Piastri - Rookies are going to have up and down seasons, but the highs were notable and included a sprint race win in fortuitous circumstances. Much more to come from him next year I think and it could be a defining season for both him and Lando. 7) Leclerc - definitely unlucky and inarguably quicker and more consistent than Sainz through the year. Ferrari need to bet on one driver or the other - I feel - as they seem incapable of being quick at the same time and this year it was Sainz who was quick when it really mattered. 8) Perez - So hard to judge, he was the only man to actually beat Verstappen at any point on performance, and whilst he could have achieved more in terms of points, he did what he needed to and secured second in a car that to some extent highlighted his weaknesses and obscured his strengths. It has to be said his championship position owed a lot to the lack of a single consistent challenger, which perhaps allowed him to experiment with trying to get on Verstappen’s pace without losing anything and we should perhaps credit him for that as opposed to “doing a Bottas”. Equally without Verstappen, he would only have won 6 races and whilst that might tell you that the car wasn’t as superior as the stats suggest, or that extracting it’s performance was hard - it also points to a level of underperformance that could have easily seen him outside the top ten. 9) Gasly - came into a new team and just about outperformed his more established team mate, who isn’t slow. Had a lot of finishes just outside the points so the margin looks smaller than it actually was, although he did fade towards the end of the season too. 10) Albon- definitely better on Saturday than Sunday, in part due to the car, but at times he took it into places it had no right to be - easily the best driver outside of the top 6 teams in my opinion. Honourable mention: Liam Lawson - ineligible due to a partial season, but he showed he’s worth a spot on the grid and it’s a shame no-one seems keen to take a punt on him next year.
May come in and fill in the reasons when I get some spare time. 1. Max 2. Alonso 3. Hamilton 4. Norris 5. Piastri 6. Leclerc 7. Albon 8. Gasly 9. Sainz 10. Ocon
Was a poor season, only about 5 drivers actually had good seasons. Don't think the Red Bull was as good as prime Mercedes of 2014-2016 or maybe even the Ferrari of 2002 or 2004 either just Max is so good.
controversial view given the merc was all engine and it could have had a brick of a chassis due to having a huge hp advantage. that red bull is vastly superior despite 3 very close engine marks so that says superiority in all aspects of suspension, aero and stability. that's says to me it's a complete package therefore better than the merc. is is better than the Williams or mclarens of the day when masses of races were won? I don't know.
I think he means that its margin over the rest wasn’t as great as the Merc’s or some previous dominant cars were. From a margin vs results perspective I think that’s pretty fair.
given the fact it sailed by everyone all year but pulled funding from mid season for the next years car while others continued to play catch up I think it's done just fine. it's 1 race from perfection over a vastly inflated calender and we are just lucky perez was thrown to the wolves as well or we'd be starting at nothing but 1/2s the merc was dominant due to engine but was always described as on the edge by Hamilton. that is one wat to dominate. the Williams had active suspension the brawn had double diffuser and other such things. it wasn't developed much at all so was caught. the ferrari had a lot of little cheaty bits on it in 2000s in the end this red bull is in an era of engine freezing which actually helps it massively as mercs would have put engined this massive error on the aero side. red bull/Honda are only "competitive" in engine terms and thst makes the chassis and aero utterly dominant quite possibly the most dominant since ground effect was first put on cars way back when?
Again - I think he means the whole package i.e. what was “car” vs what was driver. This ruleset is designed to keep the cars close in performance and from nearly all perspectives it has worked, in that that margins are smaller. Because unlike the some of the great cars in the past, which did have the best of every (important) thing - thinking MP4/4, FWB14B, some Schumacher era Ferraris and most of those Mercs (but agree probably not the 2014 car) this RB19 was merely competitive in terms of power pack and development budget. It is to me the most striking aspect of this year’s results, that they are - when you put them in context - a genuine freak. In 50 years time people will assume that this was a car that had every advantage over the rest of the field and will wonder how it was achieved when the understand the context. It’s exactly the same feeling I had when all the Ascari records were falling earlier this year and I couldn’t explain how they’d survived so long given the increasing reliability in F1 along with the apparent increased predictability. The other freak aspect is that the Meta in F1 in the 2000’s has very much been, ”stick it on pole and drive away”, something that the Merc power advantage was perfect for and ultimately - we discovered - their aero was optimised around. That we’ve seen this run from a car with, at best, a small qualifying pace advantage is incredible. I think a lot of the above underpins why I’m less down on the sport and sporting regs than some others on here. The underlying fundamentals seem strong to me, we’re just experiencing an anomaly.
surely not when the car has that much extra mph under drs, completely exploiting thr intent of the rules. And what about the car level of drag being less due to much better under car aero and what about car stability compared the the bouncy dodgems of other teams. the car was directed towards verstappen. perez hates it. if alonso was in there he'd win all those races too. this car is just an example of perfect execution of every aspect and when team after tram are copying it then its patently obvious its hit the right track on every part of the regs. there's not really one "innovation" like hybrid engine format, active suspension, original ground effect or double diffuser etc. from the front wing to pushing front wheels forward to higher suspension mounts to understanding or floor air flow and laminar flow, to beam wing usage and side pods etc
