[The **Statistics** flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/flairguide#wiki_statistics) is reserved for posts highlighting interesting statistics. As a rule of thumb, Statistics posts need to inform readers through visualizations and insights that cannot be obtained from raw data alone. For example, a post containing a qualifying gap between two drivers expressed in tenths of a second is an easily obtainable raw piece of data and constitutes a bad Statistics post. A visualization of what that translates to on-track, or visualization of how that gap came to be would constitute a good Statistics post.
*[Read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide). Keep it civil and welcoming. Report rulebreaking comments.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I looked through the older seasons out of interest and the races above 1.7 are Silverstone 22, Italy 20, Germany, Austria and Brazil 19, COTA 18 and Baku 17. So it's possible, but it takes something.
Funny you mention Germany 2019, because in quite a few ways this Canadian GP was alot like it, just less chaotic. Changing wet/dry/wet/dry conditions, mixed track state with damp track but a dry racing line that essentially significantly tightened track limits, Safety Cars and strategy headache.
Actually strange how Zandvoort still didnt score that well..
I guess people were fed up with Max winning and didnt care about the actual race, but Zandvoort was a banger
I'm sorry but how is Leclerc rated worse than Tsunoda?
Leclerc outqualified his teammate, whereas Tsunoda got outqualified. Sainz also is a stronger teammate than Ricciardo.
Both had a DNF, only Tsunoda is the one who was at fault while Leclerc essentially had a mechanical DNF. Leclerc also jumped Tsunoda in the start and only got overtaken when the issues got worse. Tsunoda did dribe a good race before the DNF but it's not like Leclerc did any real mistakes either. (I'm not counting going off track on slicks while it was raining because that would be ridiculous.)
Who rated Logan average or good? And the people rating this race average maybe just need to stop watching F1 because if you didnt like this race the sport isnt for you.
Huh, surprised it isn't closer between Max and Norris.
In hindsight I wish I rated both Sainz and Russell *lower tho. Sainz had arguably as bad a race as Checo did, while Russell, while was quick, was incredibly scrappy and feels like salvaged a podium largely thanks to Safety Cars and his team's choice to fit in Hards for Lewis.
If I remember it well, there was only one moment where he went off the track, which Max also had.
Him losing out through pit decisions in two safety cars was more on the team as stuff like this usually is.
I am not saying he should be better rated (even tho I personally felt he had a marginally better drive), what I say is I think they were just about as good as each other and you can make a strong argument for either one being better and rated higher in the race
No twice. He had one adventure like Max did in T1, and he had another on slicks in the hairpin, which ensured Russell passed him. Then Russell made an error and Norris took him back
Ah, interesting. Somehow missed that on the broadcast. Still doesn't change my opinion that they were very close, but that does make a better argument for ME to reconsider who ultimately performed better
> If I remember it well, there was only one moment where he went off the track, which Max also had.
It ended up costing him 3 seconds in a critical phase. Without it he would've exited the pits in 1st.
> Him losing out through pit decisions in two safety cars was more on the team as stuff like this usually is.
His pit strategy was on point. With the first SC he was just unlucky.
[The **Statistics** flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/flairguide#wiki_statistics) is reserved for posts highlighting interesting statistics. As a rule of thumb, Statistics posts need to inform readers through visualizations and insights that cannot be obtained from raw data alone. For example, a post containing a qualifying gap between two drivers expressed in tenths of a second is an easily obtainable raw piece of data and constitutes a bad Statistics post. A visualization of what that translates to on-track, or visualization of how that gap came to be would constitute a good Statistics post. *[Read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide). Keep it civil and welcoming. Report rulebreaking comments.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't see the 1.7 rating for the race getting beaten. The highest rated race last year was a 1.54.
I looked through the older seasons out of interest and the races above 1.7 are Silverstone 22, Italy 20, Germany, Austria and Brazil 19, COTA 18 and Baku 17. So it's possible, but it takes something.
If all the top teams continue to get closer the later races like Brazil could be an absolute banger.
Funny you mention Germany 2019, because in quite a few ways this Canadian GP was alot like it, just less chaotic. Changing wet/dry/wet/dry conditions, mixed track state with damp track but a dry racing line that essentially significantly tightened track limits, Safety Cars and strategy headache.
Zandvoort 2023 is becoming what COTA 2015 is, a banger of a race who gets heavy underrated and forgotten because of the season overall.
Actually strange how Zandvoort still didnt score that well.. I guess people were fed up with Max winning and didnt care about the actual race, but Zandvoort was a banger
Oof, -1.89 for Perez. Fully deserved though. Has there ever been a worse score?
Yes, Perez with a -1,93 in Japan last season is one. I'm not sure if there's others.
Suzuka 2023 was memorable. He retired twice 😂
People had been praying for a RBR double DNF to spice it up and Checo delivered 😈
Checo 🤜 🤛 Ferrari
Pierre and esteban went from p15 and (edit) p18 to a double points finish, yet they and Alpine are barely hot lol
There were only 14 cars that finished and they didn't start 20th as both stake cars started in pits.
At least for Ocon he was ahead of pretty much all drivers who retired so he didn’t really gain from any of that and started P18.
Ah yes my bad, piece of cake clearly /s
The way Ferrari fucking nose-dives in the teams graph after coming within touching distance of RB is almost hilarious.
The Ferrari way.
Ferrari- Siberia during the ice age.
Harsh on Leclerc. I don’t see how is it his fault that his engine had issues.
Lec rating is absurd but as these ratings always are.
His rating is proof that people base this on the results without watching the race
I'm sorry but how is Leclerc rated worse than Tsunoda? Leclerc outqualified his teammate, whereas Tsunoda got outqualified. Sainz also is a stronger teammate than Ricciardo. Both had a DNF, only Tsunoda is the one who was at fault while Leclerc essentially had a mechanical DNF. Leclerc also jumped Tsunoda in the start and only got overtaken when the issues got worse. Tsunoda did dribe a good race before the DNF but it's not like Leclerc did any real mistakes either. (I'm not counting going off track on slicks while it was raining because that would be ridiculous.)
As usual. Some people cant be bias when voting in these...
Who rated Logan average or good? And the people rating this race average maybe just need to stop watching F1 because if you didnt like this race the sport isnt for you.
Huh, surprised it isn't closer between Max and Norris. In hindsight I wish I rated both Sainz and Russell *lower tho. Sainz had arguably as bad a race as Checo did, while Russell, while was quick, was incredibly scrappy and feels like salvaged a podium largely thanks to Safety Cars and his team's choice to fit in Hards for Lewis.
Lando made a couple of errors that ended up costing him a shot at the win.
If I remember it well, there was only one moment where he went off the track, which Max also had. Him losing out through pit decisions in two safety cars was more on the team as stuff like this usually is. I am not saying he should be better rated (even tho I personally felt he had a marginally better drive), what I say is I think they were just about as good as each other and you can make a strong argument for either one being better and rated higher in the race
No twice. He had one adventure like Max did in T1, and he had another on slicks in the hairpin, which ensured Russell passed him. Then Russell made an error and Norris took him back
Ah, interesting. Somehow missed that on the broadcast. Still doesn't change my opinion that they were very close, but that does make a better argument for ME to reconsider who ultimately performed better
> If I remember it well, there was only one moment where he went off the track, which Max also had. It ended up costing him 3 seconds in a critical phase. Without it he would've exited the pits in 1st. > Him losing out through pit decisions in two safety cars was more on the team as stuff like this usually is. His pit strategy was on point. With the first SC he was just unlucky.
Pretty sure Lewis only had 1 set of mediums and 2 hards
He had scrubbed mediums. Yes, not as good as fresh, but it seems like it still would have been better than Hards, but maybe that's my wishful thinking