[Official] Team of the Grand Prix: German Grand Prix 2019

[Born Racer]

Who gets your vote?

[Adam43]

Can't be Red Bull as they tried to ruin it for Max by stupidly putting him on yellows. And for giving him turbo lag as well.

[Akrapovic]

Racing Point.

[Richard C]

STR as a whole (both cars), they did well. Close second would be Racing Point.

Richard

[RichardRenes]

STR for me too. Nice work also for Alfa Romeo and Haas with both cars in the top 10.

[marcel82]

Racing Point for putting Stroll on the right tyres at the exact right moment.

[bjohnsonsmith]

STR

[Greem]

STR for me too. Kept their head when all around them - well, Mercedes anyway - were losing theirs.

[GT6]

toro rosso gets my vote a podium for them is an amazing result

[Aysedasi]

Toro Rosso for me too.

[TrapezeArtist]

Mercedes. Keystone Cops comedy as they out-Ferraried Ferrari.

(Don’t worry. I didn’t really vote for them.)

[chillibowl]

Gave it ti STR but so close RP.

[GTRMagic]

Williams... so the whole team doesnt have to run around the Grove precinct in the nuddy for not opening their eye for the year...

[Neil22]

Honda, with a little help from Red Bull and Toro Rosso.

[E.B]

STR.

[crmalcolm]

Ferrari, got everything right with both cars, and only let down by one of their drivers.

[E.B]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Ferrari, got everything right with both cars, and only let down by one of their drivers.

Hmmm.... it is Team of the Grand Prix as opposed to race, and Ferrari had both cars fail in qualifying, one not managing a lap.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by E.B

Hmmm.... it is Team of the Grand Prix as opposed to race, and Ferrari had both cars fail in qualifying, one not managing a lap.

What is a Grand Prix? Is there a difference between a Grand Prix and a race?

Collins' definition: 'A Grand Prix is one of a series of races'

How can STR be Team of the GP if they only qualified 14th and 17th?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by E.B

Hmmm.... it is Team of the Grand Prix as opposed to race, and Ferrari had both cars fail in qualifying, one not managing a lap.

Both cars did fail in qualifying but that was down to unforeseen technical issues, rather than the team itself.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

What is a Grand Prix? Is there a difference between a Grand Prix and a race?

Collins' definition: 'A Grand Prix is one of a series of races'

How can STR be Team of the GP if they only qualified 14th and 17th?

How on earth can we all have differing opinions based on differing viewpoints and biases? How dare we all be different!

[Akrapovic]

Ferrari made a mess of at least 2 pit stops. Continually churning out 4-5 second stops is not good enough to win titles.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

What is a Grand Prix? Is there a difference between a Grand Prix and a race?

The standard I personally use is for the "event" as defined by the FIA rules. Which roughly covers everything from FP1 all the way through the podium. That also broadly covers the span of which we fans will talk about when it comes to a "GP". When we are talking free practice, qualifying, and race it typically is within context of a given "GP".

It would be a pretty boring discussion if all we did was effectively look at something like "team points" as defined by the race on Sunday. My perspective is that teams have a bit of a pecking order as they come into the weekend. You will have teams like Mercedes at the top and Williams at the bottom. That is the starting point. I tend to look at the entire weekend. How did the team "as a whole" perform relative their capabilities.

So for me... Any team could end up effectively winning this unofficial pole as run here. And frequently for me, it is teams like Mercedes who are excellent and execute to the level we expect given their reputation. But it could be others if they stand out.

So lets say that Williams came in with a string a poor performances and then somehow managed to keep their nose clean all weekend (no unforced errors) and then also maybe clawed their way up the grid a bit over the entire weekend. Basically breaking out from their pattern of... sucking. Then I could see me giving "Team of the GP" even if they still finished down in the order.

I will typically deduct points (in my own head) for teams as they screw up over the weekend. Such as creating negative drama during free practice, qualifying badly, etc. And I tend to look again at the team and not just one driver who might do well. So I am expecting BOTH cars to perform to their capabilities or above. Singular performances helps when it comes to "Driver of the GP". Not that I require both to do well for the "Team" part, but it helps.

I also don't put much thought into any of this. It is mostly a semi-gut reaction based upon all of the above. I probably spend no more than 2-3 minutes thinking about this question if I even decide to submit a response to the poll. I spent more time typing this up than I have spent thinking about this topic in the past.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

How can STR be Team of the GP if they only qualified 14th and 17th?

So lets look at STR. If you look at their qualifying positions over the past few races, they are +/- about where they have been. Sometimes they are better, sometimes not. But in a relatively chaotic race in which there were plenty of opportunities to get it wrong. And getting is wrong can be things like wrong strategy, driver error, etc. They seemed to not do that. And managed to get both cars significantly higher up in the finishing order than they qualified, both in the top ten and one on the podium.

I think you voted for Ferrari. Using my method... There is zero way to put them at the top. They had an absolutely disastrous qualifying. One of the drivers crashed out. And Vettel had a personally great Sunday, but him standing out doesn't somehow carry the entire "team" with him IMHO.

Does a team have to qualify 1/2 and finish 1/2 to win this award? Again... a very boring conversation if we limit it to those who already are excellent and perform to their already excellent level.

Originally Posted by Greem

How on earth can we all have differing opinions based on differing viewpoints and biases? How dare we all be different!

Richard

[JeremySmith]

Toro Rosso ....

[crmalcolm]

Richard,

I am deliberately breaking up your post, but I hope it highlights why I voted the way I did, and defend my position in doing so.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

The standard I personally use is for the "event" as defined by the FIA rules. Which roughly covers everything from FP1 all the way through the podium. That also broadly covers the span of which we fans will talk about when it comes to a "GP". When we are talking free practice, qualifying, and race it typically is within context of a given "GP".

You state that this is a standard you personally use, and then give a definition of a GP as being the whole event. I have not seen this officially defined anywhere other than as part of an opinion, and my own view of what is a GP is that it is the race alone.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

The standard I personally use is for the "event" as defined by the FIA rules. Which roughly covers everything from FP1 all the way through the podium. That also broadly covers the span of which we fans will talk about when it comes to a "GP". When we are talking free practice, qualifying, and race it typically is within context of a given "GP".

It would be a pretty boring discussion if all we did was effectively look at something like "team points" as defined by the race on Sunday. My perspective is that teams have a bit of a pecking order as they come into the weekend. You will have teams like Mercedes at the top and Williams at the bottom. That is the starting point. I tend to look at the entire weekend. How did the team "as a whole" perform relative their capabilities.

So for me... Any team could end up effectively winning this unofficial pole as run here. And frequently for me, it is teams like Mercedes who are excellent and execute to the level we expect given their reputation. But it could be others if they stand out.

So lets say that Williams came in with a string a poor performances and then somehow managed to keep their nose clean all weekend (no unforced errors) and then also maybe clawed their way up the grid a bit over the entire weekend. Basically breaking out from their pattern of... sucking. Then I could see me giving "Team of the GP" even if they still finished down in the order.

I will typically deduct points (in my own head) for teams as they screw up over the weekend. Such as creating negative drama during free practice, qualifying badly, etc. And I tend to look again at the team and not just one driver who might do well. So I am expecting BOTH cars to perform to their capabilities or above. Singular performances helps when it comes to "Driver of the GP". Not that I require both to do well for the "Team" part, but it helps.

I accept that this is a way in which people may choose who to vote for, and respect their opinion in doing so. My own process (and everyone should have their own method/view) is to look at starting positions and then form an opinion on which team either maximised their potential or made the least errors over the course of the race.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I also don't put much thought into any of this. It is mostly a semi-gut reaction based upon all of the above. I probably spend no more than 2-3 minutes thinking about this question if I even decide to submit a response to the poll. I spent more time typing this up than I have spent thinking about this topic in the past.

I wonder whether more thought goes into your decisions subconsciously than you care to admit? You very eloquently explained a full method in which you reach your conclusion. I feel that this explanation is only possible because of the consideration with which you make your decision.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

So lets look at STR. If you look at their qualifying positions over the past few races, they are +/- about where they have been. Sometimes they are better, sometimes not. But in a relatively chaotic race in which there were plenty of opportunities to get it wrong. And getting is wrong can be things like wrong strategy, driver error, etc. They seemed to not do that. And managed to get both cars significantly higher up in the finishing order than they qualified, both in the top ten and one on the podium.

I raised the STR situation in response to post stating that my vote for Ferrari was invalid due to the criteria of being the whole event, not just the race.
It was suggested that Ferrari could not be chosen because they 'failed' in qualifying, yet STR's qualifying was worse than their FP results, so it appears their vote was for race alone - something I was criticised for doing with Ferrari.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I think you voted for Ferrari. Using my method... There is zero way to put them at the top. They had an absolutely disastrous qualifying. One of the drivers crashed out. And Vettel had a personally great Sunday, but him standing out doesn't somehow carry the entire "team" with him IMHO.

As we have both agreed, we all reach our decisions based on differing viewpoints. I made my choice based on race alone, where the only mistake that affected their result was made by one driver on one corner. Otherwise, the rest of the team was faultless.

If I was to apply your method, and consider the event as a whole, then Ferrari topped the times in every session of FP and set the fastest Q1 time. Surely worthy of merit?

My choice for this event was to look at just the race when making my decisions as to the 'Team of the Grand Prix'. I accept that we all may have differing opinions on the validity of this choice, and respect everyone's opinion in the contrary. What I do not accept freely is being criticised for making this choice, without any solid justification of why I was wrong to do so.
I defended my choice, and hope that my justification contributes to the discussion rather than being a negative factor, which the response to my post seemed to suggest.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

You state that this is a standard you personally use, and then give a definition of a GP as being the whole event. I have not seen this officially defined anywhere other than as part of an opinion, and my own view of what is a GP is that it is the race alone.

Agree. It's not defined for this poll.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I defended my choice, and hope that my justification contributes to the discussion rather than being a negative factor, which the response to my post seemed to suggest.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I raised the STR situation in response to post stating that my vote for Ferrari was invalid due to the criteria of being the whole event, not just the race.
It was suggested that Ferrari could not be chosen because they 'failed' in qualifying, yet STR's qualifying was worse than their FP results, so it appears their vote was for race alone - something I was criticised for doing with Ferrari.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

As we have both agreed, we all reach our decisions based on differing viewpoints. I made my choice based on race alone, where the only mistake that affected their result was made by one driver on one corner. Otherwise, the rest of the team was faultless.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I accept that this is a way in which people may choose who to vote for, and respect their opinion in doing so. My own process (and everyone should have their own method/view) is to look at starting positions and then form an opinion on which team either maximised their potential or made the least errors over the course of the race.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

My choice for this event was to look at just the race when making my decisions as to the 'Team of the Grand Prix'. I accept that we all may have differing opinions on the validity of this choice, and respect everyone's opinion in the contrary. What I do not accept freely is being criticised for making this choice, without any solid justification of why I was wrong to do so.

I grouped the above together (maybe slightly out of order) as I feel my response is the same for each...

The polls are for fun, they really seem to have no defined rules, no doubt everyone has their own idea as to how it should work and probably think their own is absolutely and clearly the best option (as I do mine! ) I rarely participate to this depth in this type of discussion, but either way wouldn't get too upset with contrary opinions. I occasional get fired up by what other people post on topics that I am more passionate about, but I generally take most anything here with a grain of salt given there is no right or wrong answer given how loosely defined the question is.

I still think Ferrari face planted this weekend. With a tiny bit of luck, Leclerc wouldn't have crashed out and Ferrari might have done MUCH better overall, but in the end it didn't happen that way.

But don't take my opinion to heart. It's not a commentary or criticism on your line of thinking, nor is my opinion more valid than yours!

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I wonder whether more thought goes into your decisions subconsciously than you care to admit? You very eloquently explained a full method in which you reach your conclusion. I feel that this explanation is only possible because of the consideration with which you make your decision.

Absolutely. Actually what I should have said is that spent more time converting my internal process to words and then typing it up than I do coming to a conclusion. I absolutely know that I have an internal process (as described) for how I come to the conclusion. However the values on my internal "score card" are very much subconscious vs. conscious. In the end a team name pops out of my head and if you ask me why I can give you an answer, but not much more.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

If I was to apply your method, and consider the event as a whole, then Ferrari topped the times in every session of FP and set the fastest Q1 time. Surely worthy of merit?

Fair point, and I think their performance... up to the point of qualifying would have been in the positive category. However... along with your thinking of just focusing on the race, all parts of the weekend are not equal. So the race is important, next is qualifying (some may say qualifying is more important... but to finish first, first you must finish... so race results remain very important) and then practice is last. So I would tend to "weight" each part. We may be much closer to each other in our line of thinking than you might imagine, but in the end, I still look at more than I think you do.

Richard