You obviously have a problem with the guy.We all know that now..

Atleast pick a single thread to vent your hate-stained babble ..stop the flame baiting at every single thread where kubica gets mentioned

It's hard to find a thread where he is not mentioned nowadays

Not only the John Doe whose right rear wheel came off and had to retire, which was shame for everyone including me, but also another John Doe who had to retire by being hit by Petrov.

He got 8? Same score as LH, NR, MW and higher than MS? Must be kidding.

You left out certain years...

But you know what I mean and that works for me.

Right, that was the point I was getting at. You wouldn't say Alonso did bad at those races he retired in due to faulty wheel attachments?

So why are people against Kubica's score in this race?

Yeah!!!!!!!! so brilliant start.
I would even say best start in many years

Hm, credit where credit is due - Petrov was mega off the line. Sadly, his brain turned off, a second later.

Petrov had an awesome start off the line, I mean he shot forward like a F-14 on a catapult. Shame he clipped Hulk, though I think Petrov was worried about NH coming across him, still should have just held his line.

Look again at Renaults performance in Q1 and Q2 in Japan and then compare it to Roberts "golden" lap in dying seconds of Q3, got a clue?

He's probably the toughest call for rating this weekend because he retired so early into the race but it's fully justified to rate his qualy performance and start of the race as "10" and you can't deny that the retirement was not his fault. It's just very debatable that he got same rating as Vettel who had a perfect weekend.

although this is debatable whether kubica was better than vettel this weekend, in my book their performances were pretty even, with slightly more effort from robert to achieve that level. ok, but no one says kubica was better than vettel. for this weekend i would rank them the same, but at the end of the day it was vettel who won the race so he was the man of the weekend.

It's difficult but just because you were denied the opportunity to show what you could do doesn't mean you should get the same points as if you did get the chance and proved what you could do.

The raters are making a big assumption about what kubica would have done in the race based on their perception of kubica's ability.

Don't penalise him for the DNF and give him points for having a great quali, but surely 8/10 at best?

I agree with that, seems fair.

Yeah! Always dead last

It's always the same in this thread, after scores are published we have.

Phase 1 - whining/questioning ; WTF? how is that possible? is this a joke? no way that X got more points than Y, rubbish etc.

Phase 2 - answering ; it' simple, X got more points than Y because ... obviously you must be blind/hate X, deal with it etc.

Phase 3 - joking (best part ) ------> thread fade until next GP

its silly giving people high rating for stuff like kubica did.

in theory Yamamoto could do qualifying with 10 laps of fuel , have a mechanical failure in the race but the odds are he would qualify highish and zomg 10 autosport rating

everyone of them qualifies on fumes

welcome in 2010

What an epic fail.

Try harder next time m8.

lol ok i forgot that, he could still start the race with not enough fuel to finish the odds are he wouldnt finish anyway but he would show amazing pace compared to his team mate and probably dominate the lotus and virgin cars

Ok, now it sounds plausible .... well, kind of

virgin almost did it

Perhaps you could explain what Robert could have done better then during his limited time?
If if you're so full of clues then offer a better scoring system for autosport to use. Once again you're arguing for arguments sake, like there is a perfect rating sytem.

So if a driver starts and then 2 seconds after the start the car blows up, he gets a 100/100 because he couldn't have done any better?

A race which is not completed should only add/substract to the score by the % of the race completion.

Dude... it's not only about the race! Can't you understand that?

I don't think Vettel agrees with you

Who is asking Vettel?

Motorsport news on his performance was hilarious (actually their reviews are funny). Basically it was rubbish, rubbish, rubbish.......

I think he got 1/10, probably for finishing the race. He did manage to outscore one driver, Massa. Yamamoto finished a lap down on his teaammate who had dodgy brakes. He really must have huge financial backing.

how did Webber only crack an 8 whilst Alonso got a 9?

Webber was half a tenth slower than Vettel in qually, and didnt let Vettel get away all race. The only black mark against Webber was surely a tardy start, but most of the right side of the grid had bad starts including Alonso.

I don't think he would care, as he basically won everything this weekend (excluding the FP3 which, ehrm, let's say that just didn't happen )

That's not really the point is it? The race was a test of their ability across the entire race and Kubica was ultimately never given the chance to challenge or defend at a safety car restart, nor nail or screw up his pit stop, show good or bad performance on his second set of tyres, challenge/hold off another car, or deal with backmarkers. He was largely untested and for that reason alone should have scored lower that his front-running peers. The scoring system is flawed if is based on cumulative demerits although difficult to argue against in this case if that's truly what it is based on.

Yes, Webber did have a good race pace wise.

But I guess the rating system has some criterion about beating your teammate which Alonso did while Webber did not (although he matched him pretty well IMO)

So going back to the topic, how would you rate the importance of FP1, FP2, FP3, Q, RACE in %?

Never thought about it that way. I think if driver is on the pace for the whole weekend he deserves more points than someone with one briliant lap in Saturday. And I think race should be counted for more but for some races qualifying is crucial.

All in all it doesn't matter what I think. I don't make the ratings.

It's certainly plausible - the Toleman team did this at the 1982 British Grand Prix.

Jenson 2
Lewis 8
Michael 8
Nico 9
Sebastian 10
Mark 4
Felipe 7
Fernando 10
Rubens 7
Nico 7
Robert 7
Vitaly 4
Adrian 2
Vitantonio 9
Sebastien 2
Jaime 6
Jarno 4
Heikki 7
Sakon 6
Bruno 7
Nick 6
Kamui 6
Timo 8
Lucas 4

Mastah, I think sutil should get a minus score. Shocking performance.

Quite ok again, I think... But what are the overall ratings so far?

Seems OK, quite consistent, apart from Button. Too harsh. For poor qualifying/crashing into other driver on the first lap you get twice as many points (dry race) - Hamilton/Monza.

Sauber drivers only 6 ?

And why they should have got more? Both benefited of Hulkenberg (puncture) and Alguersuari (messed pitstop) problems... They were not really fast and especially Koibayashi was minimum 2 times off the track in battles with Yamamoto and Buemi...

Updated Averages for the season
Kubica 8.18
Hamilton 8.18
Alonso 8.06
Klien 8.00
Rosberg 7.88
Vettel 7.59
Webber 7.53
Barrichello 7.29
Button 7.06
Kovalainen 7.06
Heidfeld 7.00
Sutil 6.82
Senna 6.69
Chandhok 6.60
Kobayashi 6.59
De La Rosa 6.57
Glock 6.50
Trulli 6.47
Massa 6.47
Hulkenberg 6.41
Di Grassi 6.38
Alguersuari 6.12
Buemi 6.06
Schumacher 6.06
Liuzzi 5.76
Petrov 5.71
Yamamoto 5.00

Commentary:
- Amazing at this late stage the number of position movements. 19 out of 27 drivers changed postion.
- Hamilton joins Kubica as equal leader
- Alonso jumps the anomaly Klien
- Vettel overtakes Webber
- Barrichello overtakes Heidfeld and Button
- Heidfeld down 4 spots, Kovalainen up 2
- Chandhok up TWO PLACES, and he didn't even drive in Korea!!
- Glock up 3 places, Trulli down 4
- Di Grassi down 3
- Alguersuari overtakes Buemi in the STR battle
- Liuzzi demotes Petrov back to second last
- Autosport ratings championship is down to the top 3, Kubica, Hamilton and Alonso

As there was not much to choose between them, perhaps they were both extracting the maximum performance possible from an uncompetitive car?

Looks fair

Spot on

Very biased standings, the Schumacher hate is so obvious.

WHAT ??!! Care to elaborate ??

So what you are saying is, through out the season he's done better than 6/10?

I'm a Schumacher fan, but i'm not blind.

That's not what I was saying. In relation to the drivers closest above him, you can tell there's something wrong. He simply isn't one of the worst, as the standings seem to imply.

Seriously, de la Rosa, di Grassi, Massa, Hülkenberg all much higher?

Firstly, not much higher

Secondly, At least they have matched their teammates a few times this year....

Di Grassi being that high is a complete mystery to me... In my opinion he is the most invisible driver on the grid almost constantly beaten by his teammate Timo Glock... And lately he made many stupid mistakes in qualifyings and also races...

Given that the only times the new teams are shown are when they hold up a front-runner or catch fire, maybe being invisible is a good thing.

Bullshit, Schumacher has been pretty much crap all year long, one good race is not enough.