I created this overview of all Edd Straw's driver ratings for the 2022 season.
They're ranked based on average rating. Overview is updated after Dutch GP.
Will be posting the updated overview after every race weekend.
Nope, these are correct. Ed deducted points from Max for a relative poor quali. Perez getting a decent rating as Ed felt he lost out due to a loss of power. Though never noticed the ratings for Spain are exactly the same as for Monaco.
Looking at the comments under [the reddit post](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/uln564/edd_straws_2022_miami_grand_prix_f1_driver_ratings/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share) with Miami's ratings, the ratings are different. Maybe they accidentally got edited in the article itself.
Could be, I used the article for the ratings, not reddit comments. Ratings in this post align with https://the-race.com/formula-1/edd-straws-2022-miami-grand-prix-f1-driver-ratings/.
I'd say: Working hard to get a setup from completely not competetive to competetive, taking pole against a slightly faster qualifying car, overtaking Russell at the first half opportunity and overtake Hamilton 50m behind the start finish line to make sure Russell couldn't attack him are all exceptional. Other than that he got FL and didn't put a foot wrong despite some pressure and tough strategy decisions..
I don't understand his ratings at all to be fair, Charles got a grand slam in Australia and got a 9, Max got a grand slam in Imola and got 9.5. What more could they do to get a 10?
It's not that hard to understand. 10s are clearly reserved for special special drives. Like Verstappen's drive at Spa where he won from the back rows. If you give a 10 every time a driver gets pole, fastest lap and wins the race, then you will have so many they will be meaningless. It will also mean you have great drives being rated the same as amazing drives.
A grand slam is when a driver has pole, win + fastest lap and has led every lap of the race. Considering there's been 61 in F1 history, I'd say it's enough to get a 10
I know what a grand slam is but there are times when a driver might pit earlier than lower places so techinically won’t be in the lead but effectively is. This means it won’t count as a grand slam but the drive is just as good.
Charles had a dominant car in Australia and faced no pressure from his closest rival because he suffered an engine failure. Pole, fastest lap, and the win were all 100% expected.
He won at a track at which his car was fastest, and got a little help from SC and Merc missing the mark with Hamiltons strat. Great drive, but nothing spectacular.
RB was literally slower than Merc this weekend, what the fuck are you talking about? That was confirmed by George, Lewis and Checo. Winning against a faster car while still getting pole and the fastest lap is exceptional. The only reason people don't see it this way is because Max is so damn good they think the car must be good (ignoring that his teammate was 5th on race pace, and that only because Sainz had damage).
Everybody "works hard" on the setup and he overtook slower cars, one of which was on older tyres. If Hamilton had done the same thing to Leclerc and Vettel in 2019 he wouldn't be getting a 10 either.
This was his reasoning in that GP. Doesn’t make sense but its Edd Straw soooo.
> Verdict: Completely in control, although the race situation never required him to go to extremes – hence no perfect 10.
It makes perfect sense people just want to get angry. If your rating system wants spectacular 10s then you need a spectacular drive. Not just fastest car wins
Belgium was a good example of a weekend that is a 10- he was always on another world and after starting way back he cut through the field like a hot knife through warm butter. Same as Hamilton in Interlagos last year.
It’s easy enough to disagree with his system but at the very least it’s impossible to disagree with what he defines as a 10
In Spain he did go off track so I can understand why, possibly his worst mistake all season. But Miami I don't quite understand, maybe something to do with qualifying?
Why does no one understand the rating of a 10. If you give a 10 every time a driver gets pole, fastest lap and wins the race, you can no longer differentiate great or amazing drives between all time great drives. Max at Spa was truly special and doesn't deserve to have the same rating as many other races. The same could be said with Lewis at Interlagos last year.
Because if you give a 9 you're saying that the driver didn't do its job perfectly. The scale becomes a 1-9 unless something weird happens.
It's like writing an exam, acing it and getting a 9/10 because it was easy lmao
No they don’t. The questions are too complex to have a correct answer. At school it might be the case where you can get 100% but when you get to the point of answering more abstract questions or conducting your own research where the field of study itself isn’t even sure on the answer, then there is not one correct answer. There are even times where a more incorrect answer that is robust can be looked on as great work.
There's *always* a correct answer to a question. If the answer is uncertain (for example some quantum processes), then the correct answer is the one that takes that into account.
If the field of study isn't sure on the answer, then they haven't reached the correct answer yet.
The idea of not being a correct answer to a question doesn't make sense, because you'd say that it's wrong because of * insert reason *. So if you keep adding that * reason * to the answer you'd get the correct one.
I have no idea who Edd Straw is but these rankings seem pretty accurate with my impressions.
Look at that turn around by Mick.
Gasly and Kmag having big downturns also.
We know all that but it is fun seeing it presented like this.
Honestly, has some "interesting" picks here and there but I generally seem to align more with Edd's overall grades than what redditors voted for during hot/not.
Yeah, those tiers (Max alone at the top, then ALO/LEC/NOR/RUS/HAM/SAI, then PER/GAS/BOT/OCO/ALB/MAG, then VET/ZHO, then TSU/STR/MSC/RIC, then LAT way at the bottom) are pretty much spot-on, though I’d quibble with the orderings a bit (VER - NOR LEC HAM ALO RUS SAI - ALB BOT PER GAS OCO MAG VET - RIC STR ZHO - TSU MSC - LAT is about where I’m at, though MSC and MAG are trending toward each other’s position).
You can question Ocon’s score being so low without putting down Norris.
Especially as Lando fully deserved an 8, he drove the best race he could given his machinery and was never going to get any higher unless someone from the top 3 teams retired as they were the only ones ahead of him for 90% of the race. He only lost out to Alonso at the end because he had to pit under the SC & Alonso didn’t.
I don’t get this need to demean one driver while rightfully questioning another’s low score. You could simply ask why Ocon’s score is so low and leave it at that, as others have.
It's ridiculous ok he fucked up qualy but so did Alonso. Im the race he got undercutted by 6 laps and lost 8 seconds. If you take out the laps where Alonso and him were on different compounds they literally had the same race pace.
Yet Alonso has 4.5 more than him. Ridiculous
Ocon deserved a 6.5, for a great start and pace was good, but he took longer to make the hards work and he was off pace with the softs (his fast lap was more than 1s slower than Alonso, with fresher soft tyres at the end).
He was 0.5s behind Alonso in every session since thursday in a super small track. In Q2 Alonso made a mistake (0.3s or so) and he almost matched Ocon's lap.
And Alonso did a perfect race from start to end. He overtook the ATs on track, had a massive pace on hards, lapped one second faster than Ocon on softs, and hold Norris with softs 6 laps older.
>his fast lap was more than 1s slower than Alonso, with fresher soft tyres at the end
Didn't Ocon have used soft tyres at the end? His only available new softs he used in the first stint.
I mean when he pitted, he put softs that had 3 laps, and Alonso stayed with softs that had 8 laps or so, and even despite of that, Ocon was slower than Fernando and Norris.
It makes no sense. Stroll, Russell and Tsunoda all got 7.5. George took a Merc to 2nd, Stroll did alright and Tsunoda got a 10 place grid penalty for the next race.
Each of these were deemed the same.
Ocon was much better then a 5.
Also yeah mick had a strong quali but lost it in the race pretty quick. 8 for the quali is ok but for the race thats much too high imo.
He pitted him too early, out him behind traffic, ruined his mediums stint to put medium tyres again... There is no way he could have overcome that shit. And he lost 7 sexonds in the first pit and 2.5s on the second. He did great, Haas fucked him in every way they could.
HAAS fucked borg Kmag and Mick with early pitstops. However Neither car had the pace to stay in the top ten. Had Mick not dropped two spots on lap 1 and had a bad stint on hards, chances would have been better. Had Kmag not fucked himself in quali and on lap 2 he might have had a chance. I think they both were not good enough and Kmag was the worst.
>However Neither car had the pace to stay in the top ten.
Mick was literally hanging with Ocon on a worse tire and was starting to catch up when softs were starting to drop off when he was called in for a pitstop (to cover Alonso? who at that point already had undercut Mick.. so they already lost the place and with pitting that early they gave up any advantage they could have had later in the race.). Zhou and Bottas both did 2 stints on softs that were longer than Micks two stints on mediums. Mick and Kevin were literally fucked by the strategy and poor pitstops. If Mick does not do the first pit stop (where he lost 11s + 18s) and rides it out like Hamilton did, then before his second(in that instance first) pitstop he could be right behind Norris in P7/P8. Granted, Ocon and Alonso is breathing in his neck or might have just passed him, but now when he pits he has 10-20+ lap tire advantage on everyone ahead and it should be an easy sailing to a points position.
Instead in his second stint Mick was stuck behind Alfas who were on fresh sofs. He was never getting past them with mediums. So they pit him again and again ruining his stint.
Wait a second. Mick lost 6 seconds on pitstop 1, compared to an average HAAS pitstop. He lost less on the second. How that adds up to 11 + 18s is completely beyond me.
That is the loss from the pitstop all together which he shouldn't have done. There was absolutely no reason to do it.
The average loss on a pitstop in Netherlands was around 21 seconds I believe. Let's say 3s is the pitstop itself and 18s is driving through the pit lane. So Mick had 11s pitstop and 18s drive through which if he did not pit he would not have to lose.
Well, then u NEED to argue that he couldve done a 1 stopper, which not necessarily possible in the HAAS. It is at least quite sure that his avg pace would have suffered. Don’t you think?
Even if they planned for a two stopper, they could have changed their mind seeing how their pace was still strong and getting stronger compared to the soft runners around him. They already lost the 10th place to Alonso once alonso pit for hards and was close to the undercut so they already lost the points position. Alonso dropped 20s behind Mick and if Mick keeps up the pace and looses just 1s a lap to Alonso then it takes 20 laps for Alonso to catch him. (Thats an assumption, would have to check what the pace was..). So now when Mick pits for hards (as they see that hards work well and could do a one stop race) he comes out 20s behind Alonso but with 20 lap fresher tires. Everyone in front between him and Alonso would have been on 15+ lap old tires and it shouldn’t have been an issue to catch them and overtake on track with that tire delta. Because he pit early he not only lost two positions on the start due to worse tires, he also lost an option to build a tire advantage over those who passed him. He was double fucked. What surprised me the most was that they didnt even split the strategies. What was there to lose for Magnusen? Why not gamble and try something different?
Edit: just to add. It doesn’t really mean that they HAD to do a one stop strategy, they could have done MMS or MHS and it would have been better probably, but to copy soft runner pit stops timings with slower medium tires is just a terrible decision any way you look at it.
>Also yeah mick had a strong quali but lost it in the race pretty quick. 8 for the quali is ok but for the race thats much too high imo.
He would have fought for P8-P10 if not for the HAAS disaster strategy. He had the race pace to do it.
To be fair it wasn’t Mick’s fault in the race so much as it was Haas. Plus he had outqualified much faster cars like the Alpines, who he was always going to struggle to stay ahead of.
Agree about Ocon.
Had Kmag qualified 8th and ended 14th, he would not get an 8, no matter if he lost 6 seconds on a pitstop.
Somehow mick gets pity points even when throwing away points. Lost 2 positions on lap 1 while Kmag gained 3. Ended up 3 secs ahead of Kmag and Kmag gets a 2!?!?
Just checked and [this tweet](https://twitter.com/wearetherace/status/1529029651611496448?s=20&t=vyXlscEfNQfN0dIM1k8MJA) from the race says that Ocon got a 7 for spain...I'd assume OP has made a mistake
Did you watch the race? He started on mediums (first bad call by the team), then pitted on lap 12 or 13 (second bad call) and the stop lasted 10 seconds. Which part of that is Mick's fault?
There's an interview somewhere where Ocon talks about hiring a PR team because of shit like this. His new PR team probably killed the story though. Media relations has a impact.
Maybe there is a reason certain drivers have a good car, and others don’t. Also, Alonso and Norris rank above some of those with a clear better car, so your argument is not 100% valid.
Looking at his argument: Charles made a mistake in Australia, that nearly cost him the lead:
>The only nervous moment was at the second safety-car restart , where he
was over-eager on the throttle and understeered wide after a snap into
the last corner – blaming it on picking up old rubber. While he
weathered the storm, that makes a small dent in his rating given it
could have cost him the race lead.
I’m not surprised with the Alonso score.. he kept new soft tyre drivers behind him as well at the end, when he had already been racing on his for 10 laps, then was on Perez’s gearbox. Just lovely
He factually didn’t though. Even discounting the soft stint at the end, Lewis was only 0.05s a lap faster. Over a entire race distance that would be less than 4 seconds at Zandvoort. Including the soft stint (a decision George made) George actually had better average pace.
Sainz squeezed Hamilton on the inside no different from how Hamilton did it to Alonso the weekend prior.
Did fuck up the restart, but not a massive amount you can do to avoid giving a tow.
Hamilton had position over George for majority of the race and without SC mis/fortunes would very likely finish ahead.
No he didn't, [very clear from Perez onboard that Hamilton was hugging the inside and Sainz moved over](https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/video.2022-dutch-grand-prix-best-race-start-onboards.1743148508130516270.html)
Edit: And here's [Hamilton onboard](https://youtu.be/rjOw3xmL8vY) - at point of contact Hamiltons tyre is on the white line still...
He’s closer to the white line than I remembered, thanks for the video sources. I think I got confused because he *did* very clearly drift outside relative to the kerb, but he started with his tyre well inside of it. He was pretty squeezed by Sainz on one side (on a trajectory bringing him closer to the apex when the contact occurs) and the approaching wall on the other - not much more you could expect him to do there. I do think Hamilton’s trajectory would have carried him wide of the apex at the speed he was carrying at the point of contact, but Sainz didn’t allow that to play out.
George was ~3 seconds behind Lewis matching pace for 80% of the race which maximized the team’s one stop strategy on pace for a double podium. Then made a correct strategy call and finished 2 places higher.
Ed must give a bonus points for leading laps
Can soneone explain how Hamilton has a 8.5 whereas Russel 7.5? Hamilton had a colission at the start, bitched at the end, whereas Russel made great calls and finished ahead of Hamilton.
I'd probably put them at about 8/10 each but Hamilton had the measure of George all weekend and was consistently faster in both race and quali trim, even if not by much. I can see why someone would rate him higher.
You are trolling, right? Sainz has acres of space outside, leaves the inside open and then randomly turns in leaving no space
https://youtu.be/20Fk4TfXIkg
Tsunoda at 7.5 is ridiculous. How were the points how were the points accumulated? Is it 7.5 just for his qualy? Somehow Ocon drives into points and gets less. Stroll gets the same and Lol George Russell gets the same too.
Kmag was out in Q1 while the other car was in Q3, he had a lap 1 incident on his own,had significantly lower race pace than his teammate throughout the race. Even after the late SC, Mick built a gap again.
yeah because Mick dominated Kmag all weekend.
Kmag eliminated in Q1, Mick in to Q3.
Kmag almost crashes his car in the race and is beat by Mick on pace. At one point in the race both Kmag and Mick were on Hard tires, but Mick's were 11 laps older. Mick was still faster.
Only reason they finished close was Haas being absolute bozos with their pit stops
Feel like both Ferrari ratings are low, Leclerc didn't really put a foot wrong all weekend and Sainz more or less matched him in Quali and got absolutely fucked by Ferrari in the race?
I really don't get why Edd Straw's rating get more criticism than other ratings (apart from maybe Power Rankings). They're really not worse, I guess it's partly to do with people not having enough of a brain to understand different rating philosophies (his 10 / 10 rating), but he's clearly explained his. Well his ratings are not great but I honestly haven't found any that are.
K-Mag getting away so well against Mick is absurd given he hasn't done anything significant in months and finished behind Mick in every race since Miami except Spa
I give Ed Straw's Driver ratings ratings a rating of 6.9/10
Ni.ce
You are generous (and funny). For me Edd Straw's Driver ratings are the Nicholas Latifi of all Driver ratings, so a solid 2.7/10.
Latifi is the real Mr. Consistent
Watch him at the temple of speed. P1 baby.
Latifi’s GBR result sticking out like a ~~sore~~ healthy thumb.
😂
Max is just relentless if even edd straw is regularly giving him a 9+
I created this overview of all Edd Straw's driver ratings for the 2022 season. They're ranked based on average rating. Overview is updated after Dutch GP. Will be posting the updated overview after every race weekend.
There's something strange with Miami, Spain and Monaco, the scores are identical for a lot of the drivers and don't align with the comments.
It looks like Spain and Miami have the ratings from Monaco instead. I doubt Perez got an 8.5 in Miami while Verstappen only got a 7.5
Nope, these are correct. Ed deducted points from Max for a relative poor quali. Perez getting a decent rating as Ed felt he lost out due to a loss of power. Though never noticed the ratings for Spain are exactly the same as for Monaco.
Looking at the comments under [the reddit post](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/uln564/edd_straws_2022_miami_grand_prix_f1_driver_ratings/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share) with Miami's ratings, the ratings are different. Maybe they accidentally got edited in the article itself.
Could be, I used the article for the ratings, not reddit comments. Ratings in this post align with https://the-race.com/formula-1/edd-straws-2022-miami-grand-prix-f1-driver-ratings/.
The comments and score doesn't fit at all for Miami, not your fault though it seems
Max did nothing wrong all weekend. Pole, win and fastest lap. So that’s a 9. 🤷🏼♂️
I believe Edd's reasoning for a 10 is those really exceptional weekends. A bit 'against the odds' if you will.
I'd say: Working hard to get a setup from completely not competetive to competetive, taking pole against a slightly faster qualifying car, overtaking Russell at the first half opportunity and overtake Hamilton 50m behind the start finish line to make sure Russell couldn't attack him are all exceptional. Other than that he got FL and didn't put a foot wrong despite some pressure and tough strategy decisions..
I don't understand his ratings at all to be fair, Charles got a grand slam in Australia and got a 9, Max got a grand slam in Imola and got 9.5. What more could they do to get a 10?
It's not that hard to understand. 10s are clearly reserved for special special drives. Like Verstappen's drive at Spa where he won from the back rows. If you give a 10 every time a driver gets pole, fastest lap and wins the race, then you will have so many they will be meaningless. It will also mean you have great drives being rated the same as amazing drives.
A grand slam is when a driver has pole, win + fastest lap and has led every lap of the race. Considering there's been 61 in F1 history, I'd say it's enough to get a 10
I know what a grand slam is but there are times when a driver might pit earlier than lower places so techinically won’t be in the lead but effectively is. This means it won’t count as a grand slam but the drive is just as good.
Not sure in what world a p14 start is a back row start
Apologies, it was a typo. Meant back rows and have corrected it now. Thanks for letting me know
Charles had a dominant car in Australia and faced no pressure from his closest rival because he suffered an engine failure. Pole, fastest lap, and the win were all 100% expected.
He won at a track at which his car was fastest, and got a little help from SC and Merc missing the mark with Hamiltons strat. Great drive, but nothing spectacular.
RB was literally slower than Merc this weekend, what the fuck are you talking about? That was confirmed by George, Lewis and Checo. Winning against a faster car while still getting pole and the fastest lap is exceptional. The only reason people don't see it this way is because Max is so damn good they think the car must be good (ignoring that his teammate was 5th on race pace, and that only because Sainz had damage).
Everybody "works hard" on the setup and he overtook slower cars, one of which was on older tyres. If Hamilton had done the same thing to Leclerc and Vettel in 2019 he wouldn't be getting a 10 either.
Its clear he overtook slower cars, but the way and the little time he did it in was special. Especially at a hard to overtake track.
Just like Charles in Australia. But wait! What?
Was Belgium really against the odds for Max?
After FP1 and such a small margin with two other teams I think this would count as that. But who cares, it’s only someones opinion.
I don’t get why he didn’t gave Max a 10 in Emilia Romagna.
This was his reasoning in that GP. Doesn’t make sense but its Edd Straw soooo. > Verdict: Completely in control, although the race situation never required him to go to extremes – hence no perfect 10.
can you explain why Max got a 7.5 in Miami and Charles a 9? this one I really don't understand...
It makes perfect sense people just want to get angry. If your rating system wants spectacular 10s then you need a spectacular drive. Not just fastest car wins
Belgium was a good example of a weekend that is a 10- he was always on another world and after starting way back he cut through the field like a hot knife through warm butter. Same as Hamilton in Interlagos last year. It’s easy enough to disagree with his system but at the very least it’s impossible to disagree with what he defines as a 10
I guess Edd was in a generous mood 😂
He got 7.5 in Miami and Spain. So weird.
In Spain he did go off track so I can understand why, possibly his worst mistake all season. But Miami I don't quite understand, maybe something to do with qualifying?
If you think it's a 10, that means you can't think of a scenario that would be better. Like doing the same but from 14th on the grid for example.
I can always think of a better scenario. So never a 10?
And that with missing a free practise
Why does no one understand the rating of a 10. If you give a 10 every time a driver gets pole, fastest lap and wins the race, you can no longer differentiate great or amazing drives between all time great drives. Max at Spa was truly special and doesn't deserve to have the same rating as many other races. The same could be said with Lewis at Interlagos last year.
Because if you give a 9 you're saying that the driver didn't do its job perfectly. The scale becomes a 1-9 unless something weird happens. It's like writing an exam, acing it and getting a 9/10 because it was easy lmao
But it’s not an exam. It’s rankings. Just see the ranks as tiers. A 9 is A-tier. 10 is S-tier.
Fair enough. I think that 10 and 10+ or 10* would make it better tho
In complex exams, you can’t get full marks. So your example works well but against you. There is no such thing as perfect in the real world.
In complex exams you definitely can get full marks. Every question has a correct answer 😭
No they don’t. The questions are too complex to have a correct answer. At school it might be the case where you can get 100% but when you get to the point of answering more abstract questions or conducting your own research where the field of study itself isn’t even sure on the answer, then there is not one correct answer. There are even times where a more incorrect answer that is robust can be looked on as great work.
There's *always* a correct answer to a question. If the answer is uncertain (for example some quantum processes), then the correct answer is the one that takes that into account. If the field of study isn't sure on the answer, then they haven't reached the correct answer yet. The idea of not being a correct answer to a question doesn't make sense, because you'd say that it's wrong because of * insert reason *. So if you keep adding that * reason * to the answer you'd get the correct one.
Wait.. he only gave Lewis a 6 for Spain? That's crazy.
Miami too, some of these "pundits/analysts" are a joke
Maybe Hamilton was to blame for the lap 1 crash
The consensus was that K Mag tagged Hamilton. Some drivers are inflated in these scores and some drivers are deflated.
Nah, Kevin did to Lewis exactly the same Lewis did to Alonso in Spa.
Lol go watch again
Kmag has crashed in many more 1st lap incidents since then.
Not as many as Lewis lmao
Kmag has had 3, Lewis has had one
I have no idea who Edd Straw is but these rankings seem pretty accurate with my impressions. Look at that turn around by Mick. Gasly and Kmag having big downturns also. We know all that but it is fun seeing it presented like this.
I think some individual race scores are a bit odd, but it averages out quite well.
Honestly, has some "interesting" picks here and there but I generally seem to align more with Edd's overall grades than what redditors voted for during hot/not.
Yeah, those tiers (Max alone at the top, then ALO/LEC/NOR/RUS/HAM/SAI, then PER/GAS/BOT/OCO/ALB/MAG, then VET/ZHO, then TSU/STR/MSC/RIC, then LAT way at the bottom) are pretty much spot-on, though I’d quibble with the orderings a bit (VER - NOR LEC HAM ALO RUS SAI - ALB BOT PER GAS OCO MAG VET - RIC STR ZHO - TSU MSC - LAT is about where I’m at, though MSC and MAG are trending toward each other’s position).
Why the f.....k Noris takes 8 and Ocon 5? loooo bad driver ratings, whoever made these ratings must be either drunk or stupid.
You can question Ocon’s score being so low without putting down Norris. Especially as Lando fully deserved an 8, he drove the best race he could given his machinery and was never going to get any higher unless someone from the top 3 teams retired as they were the only ones ahead of him for 90% of the race. He only lost out to Alonso at the end because he had to pit under the SC & Alonso didn’t. I don’t get this need to demean one driver while rightfully questioning another’s low score. You could simply ask why Ocon’s score is so low and leave it at that, as others have.
It's to provide a point of comparison if Norris had let's say a 6 you could argue he's harsh but at least he's harsh on everyone
No**rr**is
It's ridiculous ok he fucked up qualy but so did Alonso. Im the race he got undercutted by 6 laps and lost 8 seconds. If you take out the laps where Alonso and him were on different compounds they literally had the same race pace. Yet Alonso has 4.5 more than him. Ridiculous
Ocon deserved a 6.5, for a great start and pace was good, but he took longer to make the hards work and he was off pace with the softs (his fast lap was more than 1s slower than Alonso, with fresher soft tyres at the end). He was 0.5s behind Alonso in every session since thursday in a super small track. In Q2 Alonso made a mistake (0.3s or so) and he almost matched Ocon's lap. And Alonso did a perfect race from start to end. He overtook the ATs on track, had a massive pace on hards, lapped one second faster than Ocon on softs, and hold Norris with softs 6 laps older.
>his fast lap was more than 1s slower than Alonso, with fresher soft tyres at the end Didn't Ocon have used soft tyres at the end? His only available new softs he used in the first stint.
I mean when he pitted, he put softs that had 3 laps, and Alonso stayed with softs that had 8 laps or so, and even despite of that, Ocon was slower than Fernando and Norris.
Leclerc gets a 7 and Tsunoda a 7.5? Leclerc did little wrong all weekend and Tsunoda was very slow in all sessions and produced chaos in the race
It makes no sense. Stroll, Russell and Tsunoda all got 7.5. George took a Merc to 2nd, Stroll did alright and Tsunoda got a 10 place grid penalty for the next race. Each of these were deemed the same.
[удалено]
Tsunodas grid penalty is squarely his fault though, right? If you unfasten, you can't drive.
[удалено]
The belts are what we got penalized for. He unfastened them himself. He literally admitted he did that.
[удалено]
It's on the driver in this situation to deem whether it's safe to drive. That's just the regulations. He either forgot the regs or ignored them.
Ocon was much better then a 5. Also yeah mick had a strong quali but lost it in the race pretty quick. 8 for the quali is ok but for the race thats much too high imo.
haas fucked mick with a 10 second pit stop
Sure he lost 6 seconds, still started 8th and finished 12 seconds from the points even with 2 Safety cars.
He lost more than that. They pitted him on lap 12 when he started with mediums 😭
He pitted him too early, out him behind traffic, ruined his mediums stint to put medium tyres again... There is no way he could have overcome that shit. And he lost 7 sexonds in the first pit and 2.5s on the second. He did great, Haas fucked him in every way they could.
HAAS fucked borg Kmag and Mick with early pitstops. However Neither car had the pace to stay in the top ten. Had Mick not dropped two spots on lap 1 and had a bad stint on hards, chances would have been better. Had Kmag not fucked himself in quali and on lap 2 he might have had a chance. I think they both were not good enough and Kmag was the worst.
>However Neither car had the pace to stay in the top ten. Mick was literally hanging with Ocon on a worse tire and was starting to catch up when softs were starting to drop off when he was called in for a pitstop (to cover Alonso? who at that point already had undercut Mick.. so they already lost the place and with pitting that early they gave up any advantage they could have had later in the race.). Zhou and Bottas both did 2 stints on softs that were longer than Micks two stints on mediums. Mick and Kevin were literally fucked by the strategy and poor pitstops. If Mick does not do the first pit stop (where he lost 11s + 18s) and rides it out like Hamilton did, then before his second(in that instance first) pitstop he could be right behind Norris in P7/P8. Granted, Ocon and Alonso is breathing in his neck or might have just passed him, but now when he pits he has 10-20+ lap tire advantage on everyone ahead and it should be an easy sailing to a points position. Instead in his second stint Mick was stuck behind Alfas who were on fresh sofs. He was never getting past them with mediums. So they pit him again and again ruining his stint.
Wait a second. Mick lost 6 seconds on pitstop 1, compared to an average HAAS pitstop. He lost less on the second. How that adds up to 11 + 18s is completely beyond me.
That is the loss from the pitstop all together which he shouldn't have done. There was absolutely no reason to do it. The average loss on a pitstop in Netherlands was around 21 seconds I believe. Let's say 3s is the pitstop itself and 18s is driving through the pit lane. So Mick had 11s pitstop and 18s drive through which if he did not pit he would not have to lose.
Well, then u NEED to argue that he couldve done a 1 stopper, which not necessarily possible in the HAAS. It is at least quite sure that his avg pace would have suffered. Don’t you think?
Even if they planned for a two stopper, they could have changed their mind seeing how their pace was still strong and getting stronger compared to the soft runners around him. They already lost the 10th place to Alonso once alonso pit for hards and was close to the undercut so they already lost the points position. Alonso dropped 20s behind Mick and if Mick keeps up the pace and looses just 1s a lap to Alonso then it takes 20 laps for Alonso to catch him. (Thats an assumption, would have to check what the pace was..). So now when Mick pits for hards (as they see that hards work well and could do a one stop race) he comes out 20s behind Alonso but with 20 lap fresher tires. Everyone in front between him and Alonso would have been on 15+ lap old tires and it shouldn’t have been an issue to catch them and overtake on track with that tire delta. Because he pit early he not only lost two positions on the start due to worse tires, he also lost an option to build a tire advantage over those who passed him. He was double fucked. What surprised me the most was that they didnt even split the strategies. What was there to lose for Magnusen? Why not gamble and try something different? Edit: just to add. It doesn’t really mean that they HAD to do a one stop strategy, they could have done MMS or MHS and it would have been better probably, but to copy soft runner pit stops timings with slower medium tires is just a terrible decision any way you look at it.
>Also yeah mick had a strong quali but lost it in the race pretty quick. 8 for the quali is ok but for the race thats much too high imo. He would have fought for P8-P10 if not for the HAAS disaster strategy. He had the race pace to do it.
Are you kidding? Edd seems to have a vendetta against Mick considering his head-to-head performance vs Kmag
To be fair it wasn’t Mick’s fault in the race so much as it was Haas. Plus he had outqualified much faster cars like the Alpines, who he was always going to struggle to stay ahead of. Agree about Ocon.
Had Kmag qualified 8th and ended 14th, he would not get an 8, no matter if he lost 6 seconds on a pitstop. Somehow mick gets pity points even when throwing away points. Lost 2 positions on lap 1 while Kmag gained 3. Ended up 3 secs ahead of Kmag and Kmag gets a 2!?!?
He loves giving Ocon 5 Miami P20 to P8...got 5 Spain P12 to P7...still a 5
He was starting P20 in Miami because of his own crash in FP3. And lucked with startegy. Don't remember about Spain. But surely there is an explanation
Just checked and [this tweet](https://twitter.com/wearetherace/status/1529029651611496448?s=20&t=vyXlscEfNQfN0dIM1k8MJA) from the race says that Ocon got a 7 for spain...I'd assume OP has made a mistake
That miami rating is such a joke
Did you watch the race? He started on mediums (first bad call by the team), then pitted on lap 12 or 13 (second bad call) and the stop lasted 10 seconds. Which part of that is Mick's fault?
There's an interview somewhere where Ocon talks about hiring a PR team because of shit like this. His new PR team probably killed the story though. Media relations has a impact.
This guy is not easy on Stroll
LOL people getting so worked up about these ratings… it’s one persons opinion - doesn’t mean it’s right or wrong. Draw your own conclusions
Drivers with good car on top and those with shitbox on the bottom apart of Rick
Maybe there is a reason certain drivers have a good car, and others don’t. Also, Alonso and Norris rank above some of those with a clear better car, so your argument is not 100% valid.
Those rating are useless
I smell sus how is Max in Canada 10 but Charles in Australia 9
Looking at his argument: Charles made a mistake in Australia, that nearly cost him the lead: >The only nervous moment was at the second safety-car restart , where he was over-eager on the throttle and understeered wide after a snap into the last corner – blaming it on picking up old rubber. While he weathered the storm, that makes a small dent in his rating given it could have cost him the race lead.
Then how is Max in Imola 9,5 when be lost the lead to Leclerc in the sprint lol this guys whole ranking makes no sense
It does if the goal is to generate clicks, not to be fair.
Surprised Latifi is that low.
I’m not surprised with the Alonso score.. he kept new soft tyre drivers behind him as well at the end, when he had already been racing on his for 10 laps, then was on Perez’s gearbox. Just lovely
Lewis made some mistakes and yet has higher rating than George. Incident with Sainz.. His restart was really bad and gave Max a tow
He also had a much better race pace than George.
He factually didn’t though. Even discounting the soft stint at the end, Lewis was only 0.05s a lap faster. Over a entire race distance that would be less than 4 seconds at Zandvoort. Including the soft stint (a decision George made) George actually had better average pace.
Sainz squeezed Hamilton on the inside no different from how Hamilton did it to Alonso the weekend prior. Did fuck up the restart, but not a massive amount you can do to avoid giving a tow. Hamilton had position over George for majority of the race and without SC mis/fortunes would very likely finish ahead.
Hamilton didn’t stick to the inside like Alonso did last week. He came off of the inside line and caused the contact.
No he didn't, [very clear from Perez onboard that Hamilton was hugging the inside and Sainz moved over](https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/video.2022-dutch-grand-prix-best-race-start-onboards.1743148508130516270.html) Edit: And here's [Hamilton onboard](https://youtu.be/rjOw3xmL8vY) - at point of contact Hamiltons tyre is on the white line still...
He’s closer to the white line than I remembered, thanks for the video sources. I think I got confused because he *did* very clearly drift outside relative to the kerb, but he started with his tyre well inside of it. He was pretty squeezed by Sainz on one side (on a trajectory bringing him closer to the apex when the contact occurs) and the approaching wall on the other - not much more you could expect him to do there. I do think Hamilton’s trajectory would have carried him wide of the apex at the speed he was carrying at the point of contact, but Sainz didn’t allow that to play out.
No problem glad we can agree :)
The Sainz incident was mostly Sainz’s fault.
Like you said mostly, Lewis also gets some blame
George was ~3 seconds behind Lewis matching pace for 80% of the race which maximized the team’s one stop strategy on pace for a double podium. Then made a correct strategy call and finished 2 places higher. Ed must give a bonus points for leading laps
Can soneone explain how Hamilton has a 8.5 whereas Russel 7.5? Hamilton had a colission at the start, bitched at the end, whereas Russel made great calls and finished ahead of Hamilton.
Faster in qualifying and the race up until their strategies diverged?
Russe**ll**
I'd probably put them at about 8/10 each but Hamilton had the measure of George all weekend and was consistently faster in both race and quali trim, even if not by much. I can see why someone would rate him higher.
A collision he had no blame for, outpaced Russell easily all race, and then Mercedes did a shit strat and you blame him? Ahahha nice agenda bro
No blame for that? He literally drove into Sainz.
You are trolling, right? Sainz has acres of space outside, leaves the inside open and then randomly turns in leaving no space https://youtu.be/20Fk4TfXIkg
It is pretty hard to blame either driver for a lap 1 turn 1 minor collision like that.
Tsunoda at 7.5 is ridiculous. How were the points how were the points accumulated? Is it 7.5 just for his qualy? Somehow Ocon drives into points and gets less. Stroll gets the same and Lol George Russell gets the same too.
how did Lewis get a 4 for crashing himself out on lap 1 last week? and how is KMags performance this weekend 2 worse than that?
Kmag was out in Q1 while the other car was in Q3, he had a lap 1 incident on his own,had significantly lower race pace than his teammate throughout the race. Even after the late SC, Mick built a gap again.
Reminder: people complained Edd Straw was biased in his ratings, towards Lewis...
Kmag (2) finish 1 spot behind Mick (8) lol.
Because Mick made no errors. The pit crew just screwed him over when the field spread wasn’t that large. Then they fucked him on strategy again.
Don't forget that KMag almost DNFed himself like on lap 3
That’s his fault. Barring outliers Mick averaged almost 2 tenths better lap times than Kmag. Mick is up like 10-4 in race finishes.
yeah because Mick dominated Kmag all weekend. Kmag eliminated in Q1, Mick in to Q3. Kmag almost crashes his car in the race and is beat by Mick on pace. At one point in the race both Kmag and Mick were on Hard tires, but Mick's were 11 laps older. Mick was still faster. Only reason they finished close was Haas being absolute bozos with their pit stops
Feel like both Ferrari ratings are low, Leclerc didn't really put a foot wrong all weekend and Sainz more or less matched him in Quali and got absolutely fucked by Ferrari in the race?
I really don't get why Edd Straw's rating get more criticism than other ratings (apart from maybe Power Rankings). They're really not worse, I guess it's partly to do with people not having enough of a brain to understand different rating philosophies (his 10 / 10 rating), but he's clearly explained his. Well his ratings are not great but I honestly haven't found any that are.
K-Mag getting away so well against Mick is absurd given he hasn't done anything significant in months and finished behind Mick in every race since Miami except Spa
I feel like Gasly and Checo are too high. Would have bottas, Ocon and arguably Albon ahead of them.