[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.