An interesting thread! However, at the risk of coming across as overly critical, I will explain why I have not voted, and why I consider that this thread may be slightly flawed! If it is intended to draw any meaningful conclusion(s), surely it should be explained before votes are cast, precisely what is to be taken into account? Surely all voters should be voting upon the same set of criteria? And surely this should be based upon one of the following only? : a driver's performance during the race. a driver's performance during the race and qualifying, combined. a driver's performance during the race, qualifying and practice sessions, combined. I believe this thread came about as the result of a criticism levelled at Autosport's conclusions; and in particular, with the seemingly bizarre (to some) score for Hulkenberg who, according to my scribbled notes, took part in three practice sessions and did qualify his Sauber for a grid slot. If the vote is based on a driver's performance for the whole meeting, it should be clear that Hulkenberg does indeed justify a score. On the other hand, if, for whatever reason, he does not justify a score, he surely cannot be awarded zero! I would suggest that in such instances, a driver's season average should be based on the number of relevant events, and not include any where he might be discluded from the criteria. I have the impression that this is intended to be run for the whole season, in an effort to compare our collective thoughts against the authoritative claims of such publications as Autosport. I also think it's a brilliant idea, and that it could be of interest to many. Of course, it's a bit of trivial fun – but without such an explanation, there is clearly some confusion over such things. I would also suggest that if, subsequent to this (hopeful) post, any clarification is made, voters should be encouraged to edit their posts accordingly, if and where necessary.
How about sticking with the Autosport rating? I'm biased obviously. Oh, and don't forget to give Bianchi a Edit: Just read Cosi's post and I'll give Hulk a 7, in that case.
I think it might be useful to base our votes on exactly the same criteria used by Autosport; but that whatever system they use should be made clear to everyone here!
I view it as their weekend performace, though it may all be subjective anyway as some people's opinions on drivers can be biased one way or the other which would make the difference between race or race/quali scores irrelevant anyway, so whilst it's interesting to know what people think, it is just a bit of fun.
They base theirs on qualifying AND the race, the number of drivers who've been marked down for having a poor qualifying, even if they then finished in the points in the race, was always one of my pet peeves with them
Sounds good, going forward, for Malaysian GP, ratings must take into account the drivers performance in FP1-3, Q1-3 and the Race? If so, I too will go back and edit the score I gave to the Hulk.
Yes, this is precisely what I am hoping will be 'officially' clarified, Jonny! I do not know – and I think this needs to be made clear in the original, opening post of this thread. According to recent posts, it seems Autosport do take account of all sessions (not just qualifying), but I am guessing because I do not know. What matters is that anyone voting knows how to make their assessments in order to award a score. When this becomes clear, I will offer my own scores.
As FP is too varied becuase of teams testing parts/evaluations etc we will stick to just combined Quali & Race ratings only.
I agree. Atleast we have a stable foundation to rate on then, FP is full of varied fuel and laps.... Quali and race are set levels.
That could work too.. Do we "fine tune" the ratings further by having 3 tiers? Drivers like Vettel and Alonso, due to their ability and car are in tier 1, the likes VDG and Max in tier 3? So, tier 1 driver should qualify in the top 10 and finish in that position as well, should there be no outside influences, otherwise points off? Or have I over thought that idea?
That's what happens when you drink coffee at times your body doesn't usually expect it I've got loads more ideas but I'll keep them to myself For now....
Thanks Bando. Perhaps this needs to be made clear in the opening post of each thread, so as to be immediately clear to any new visitors? Please forgive my abbreviated quoting of your post, Jonny; but I couldn't resist! I've highlighted your final sentence because I thought it the most relevant! As ASC says, it's important that this is simple! I will probably offer my scores later tonight but certainly will make the effort before Friday.
I'm getting flashbacks of painful memories of classroom mocking when no one else understood my ideas I should stop thinking/typing out aloud!
Cheers to everyone for trying to get this working, I'll put up my scores at some point but given I missed quali they won't be that entertaining...
Based on Quali and Race. Vettel: 7 Webber: 5 Alonso: 8 Massa: 7 Button: 7 Perez: 6 Kimi: 9 Grosjean: 4 Rosberg: 7 Hamilton: 7 Hulk: 5 Gutierrez: 5 di Resta: 7 Sutil: 8 Maldonado: 3 Bottas: 6 Vergne: 6 Ricciardo: 4 Pic: 6 Vab der Garde: 3 Bianchi: 8 Chilton: 6
Autosport/Me Vettel: 7/7 - Race ruined by tyre wear issues, but did the best he could Webber: 6/7 - Race ruined by ECU, got caught in traffic and couldn't make as much headway as he'd like Alonso: 8/8- Should have won, maybe took too much out of his tyres too early Massa: 7/8 - He's back. Button: 8/7 - Horrific car, valiant effort. Perez: 7/5 - Horrific car, poor effort Kimi: 9/10 - Made a strategy work that shouldn't have worked, and won due to smart driving and good management Grosjean: 5/4 - He raced? Didn't see him at all. Rosberg: 7/7 - Excellent in the wet, was never going to match Hamilton for outright dry pace Hamilton: 8/8 - Good first weekend for Merc, got hamstrung by typical Merc tyre issues. Hulk: 7/ N/A - Cannot judge, he didn't race Gutierrez: 6/4 - Crap driver di Resta: 8/4 - Got owned by a guy who hasn't driven for a year. Sutil: 8/10 - Probably his best drive in an F1 car, what on earth was he doing last year? It worked anyway. Tyres cost him a shot at a podium Maldonado: 3/4 - He raced too? Bottas: 7/4 - Looked very slow, not the same guy who matched Maldo in practice last year. Vergne: 6/6 - I don't remember him Ricciardo: 4/6 - See JEV Pic: 6/4 - Don't rate him, no match for last years Caterham drivers. Vab der Garde: 6/1 - Doesn't look like an F1 driver. Spent most of the weekend exploring gravel traps. Bianchi: 8/9 - The guy can drive. By a mile the best of the rookies. Would give him a 10, but he's french with an Italian name, which is confusing. Chilton: 7/7 - Not as horifically bad as i was expecting, actually quite solid.
Based on qualifying and the race combined â as I think is the case with Autosport â here are my driver rankings for Round 1: Australia. I would have preferred to be able to give marks with decimals, but accept that it would be out of kilter with Autosport's method. Some of these team mates were very closely matched but most justify at least some difference in their mark. Vettel: 7 â A good, solid performance leading to the podium. Webber: 6 â To be without KERS for roughly 20 laps is now a very serious hindrance, seemingly overlooked by some. Poor start made things even worse but he raced well. Alonso: 8 â A good, intelligent performance which probably would have been enough to win, had it not been for the superior tyre preserving of the Lotus in Räikkönen's hands. Massa: 7 â A spirited drive but just not quite the equal of Alonso. Almost â but not quite! Button: 8 â A thoroughly disastrous car but I believe he did as much as could have been done with it, in achieving 2 points! Perez: 7 â As above but without the points. Nonetheless, it was a good first outing with his new team. Räikkönen: 9 â Not 10! His qualifying was less than it should have been but his race was superbly judged. Grosjean: 4 â Given that car, his drive was less than special. Perhaps too fearful of incident, he needs to up his game, in my opinion. Rosberg: 7 â Good, solid drive ruined through mechanical failure and apparently no fault of his own. After his super work throughout practice, his qualifying was a slight let down. Hamilton: 9 â Great qualifying and a better drive than his team mate, regardless of the latter's mechanical problem. Displayed very good racecraft despite a somewhat short-sighted strategy. Would have liked to given 8.5 but I can't. Hulkenberg: 7 â Good performance for the weekend â as far as it went! Very sorry not to see him take to the grid. Gutierrez: 6 â A decent début. di Resta: 8 â I agree with Autosport here. He did a good job and was very close to eclipsing a great drive from his team mate. TV cameras naturally tend to follow the front but this can skew the perspective of the viewing public. Would have liked to award 7.5 but I can't. Sutil: 8 â Very good drive which held the lead for some time and was running close to the front for almost all of the race. However, his strategy â which kept him firmly in the public eye â exaggerated his performance a little. Would have liked to award 8.4 but I can't. Maldonado: 2 â Very poor. No doubt in my mind that this was the weakest drive of the race. Two very careless, 'rookie' errors; the last of which saw him removed from the action. Bottas: 7 â A great start to his season and very well done. Maldonado could come under pressure if he does not immediately up his game. Vergne: 6 â Solid but nothing special. Ricciardo: 5 â He'll be disappointed with his performance and will certainly hope to do better here this weekend. Pic: 6 â Solid but nothing special. Vab der Garde: 6 â Once again: solid but nothing special. Bianchi: 8 â A great début drive in my opinion. Not a 9 though. Chilton: 6 â Not as poor as this forum seem to be suggesting, in my opinion. However, he'll have been disappointed to have been very much in the shadow of his fellow-rookie.
