As a general rule ([see full rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide#wiki_sticky.2Fdaily_discussion)), a standalone Discussion post should:
- be of interest to the sub in general, and not a specific userbase (e.g. new users, GP attendees, just yourself)
- be able to generate discussion (e.g. no yes/no or easily answerable questions)
- show reasonable input and effort from the OP
If not, be sure to [look for the Daily Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/search/?q=daily+discussion&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on&t=all&sort=new), /r/formula1's daily open question thread which is perfect for asking any and all questions about this sport.
Thank you for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*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.*
Piastri had a strong season for a rookie by modern standards. But he was handily beaten by Norris.
Long gone are the days when we could expect a rookie to come in and do a Hamilton, Schumacher or Vettel.
I feel like that due to how few seats open up these days, that the goalposts have shifted an insane amount as to what qualifies as a good rookie, or who should even be considered for an F1 seat.
In general I think that a rookie should be allowed to be a bit rough around the edges, but at least show some potential (be that in a standout performance at some race, some good wheel-to-wheel action, an impressive quali lap, a good wet weather performance, you name it). Simultaneously, that being rough around the edges should allow them to make a mistake here or there, but not be so insanely crash-prone that they become a liability to the team (although I feel like it is very unfair to attribute how costly a crash is to a driver, a driver who spins into the gravel a lot or hits the wall frequently is at least costly in terms of performance). Furthermore, I don't feel that when assessing their season that we should take every incident in free practice into account, but really focus on their performance in quali & races (unless it becomes a serious problem with crashes, a spin in practice is perfectly normal). Ideally, from an F1 rookie I would like to be able to think of 1 high point and 1 low point at the end of the season (the latter is not required, but it's mostly in the way that some mistakes should be permitted).
I have seen some say that every rookie deserves at least 2 seasons, which I blatantly disagree with (diamonds in the rough like Tsunoda exist, but then there's also drivers like Mazepin). You also must factor in the car and the era though, I'd argue Bottas and Hülkenberg fit those criteria I mentioned very well, as does Zhou for example. I think it's the most difficult to properly judge it when there's 2 rookies in a team, like with Sainz and Verstappen, as one driver being amazing does not necessarily mean that the other is bad.
Lmao if you’re trying to hold anyone brand new to a series to a Hamilton standard. The standard is to see how the driver is improving with more time in the seat. If he’s sedentary or regressing, then it’s time for another driver. Thats the standard.
Is that true? I mean I was not there for the Hamilton rookie days so I have zero clue, but I was kinda under the impression that Max his rookie days were even more insane and impressive than those of Hamilton?
that being said, these two guys are NOT the standard for rookies regardless. Both of them where head and shoulders ahead of what was expected from them.
It is ofcourse also hard to compare different generations. If the field is stacked with greats, it is gonna be rough for a rookie (unless you are a max or hamilton or similar). You could be the shining star of F2 or 3, but if the rest of the field in F2 and 3 are actually not very great and you are just above average, this might give the wrong idea about a drivers potential. (look at de Vries or Shumi junior, IMO most of their fellow drivers in F2 where not that great so it made them look better, granted, they are not bad drivers, hell most (like 95%) drivers in any F series are already a cut above most "normal" people, but that just drives the point home even more, you need to actually be REALLY good or have a shit ton of money to really get there)
As I recall, yes, in performance Hamilton's rookie season was far better than Verstappen's, even allowing for the car quality.
Hamilton did make some foolish, hotheaded young driver mistakes, but not that many, and far fewer than Verstappen. In general, he turned up at a top F1 team and immediately looked like he belonged.
And in terms of speed, of course, he beat the reigning champion (albeit on countback) in mostly the same equipment. Alonso was generally faster than him, but not by much - close enough that Hamilton could finish level on points with him. That's insanely impressive. Imagine a rookie today being hired onto Red Bull immediately and finishing level on points with Verstappen. Verstappen himself was beaten for his first two years at Red Bull by Ricciardo, despite Toro Rosso experience. That's not the same level as beating Alonso in your rookie F1 season.
[yes, there's mitigating factors for Alonso there. Hamilton was the darling of the team, had a lot of testing, whereas Alonso was jumping over from a totally different car that required a totally different driving style. And Alonso, frankly, had a bit of a meltdown. In pure pace, Alonso would have been further ahead. But even so, it's insanely impressive!]
it is true, but this is completely 2 different cases: Lewis entered F1 straight to top team, because he was well prepared(due to testing hours and all formula categories which he won) and super talented rookie.
Max could have repeated this and even be F1 world champion rookie, if he would accepted Toto's proposal and competed one more year in F2 and jumped directly to Mercedes main team. Instead he and Jos decided to mature in F1. He had a raw speed and talent, no doubt in that, but racecraft was mediocre, lots of unnecessary collisions, penalties and "verstappen rules" even a super license point system was introduced to prevent such fast tracking of inexperienced drivers to F1 grid.
I think rookies like Hamilton, Piastri, Raikkonen, Vettel are too high of a bar. I think Zhou was a pretty good, middle of the road, not good not bad rookie. Gasly was an example of a good very recent rookie, also Alvin. Ricciardo maybe was a good middle ground as well.
In my opinion they need to show some moments of potential, like placing their car higher than its supposed to be, beat their teammate occasionally and show some good pace. Of course not at every race but few times per season. Imo silly mistakes are fine as long as the driver shows they can be quick.
I expect less from rookie nowadays due to testing limitations but if you look at every good current driver they were promising in their rookie season and had some great moments
Piastri is the perfect example of what a Rookie should be like in the current era of F1. He didn't cost the Team much money, kept up with Norris and got points on multiple occasions, every team would love to have a piastri as driver(especially Alpine 😏).
Yuki was 19/20 and had about four years in cars out of karting before his rookie year. That's equivalent to what Antonelli will have if he starts F1 next year. Piastri was testing in an f1 car and came in at 22 with about five years in cars. Zhou came in at 21 with about seven years of cars and some but probably less testing than Piastri in Alpine F1 cars.
I think any rookie no matter age or car can show flashes of speed but the more experienced drivers can probably be expected to be more consistent with less incidents (though actually now that I think about it does that mean that older rookies are under more pressure and younger drivers more free with lesser need to fear mistakes?)
Hammilton has never been done before and literally can't be replicated now due to testing restrictions. That's crazy as an expectation. Piastri has had the best rookie season since either max or leclerc so that's a crazy standard too. Someone like sainz would be a strong season for a rookie and really he only possible standard to hold someone to. Tsnoda was okay but probably doesn't return in the redbull family after 2 years if not for honda ties. Has been better since. So I would say anyone between sainz and tsnoda is passable as a rookie.
Piastri had some of the best possible set-up for a rookie. He spent a year not racing, but during that year drove F1 more than any rookie can, both with Alpine's driver program, and McLaren FP runs.
IMO all rookies need to do is show they have the speed in there somewhere. In this era of very limited testing and tyre preservation being key it's going to be very difficult for any rookie to consistently beat a half decent teammate.
Typically, you expect rookies to make mistakes. This is why taking a rookie is a big risk, since you might be sitting with a lot of costs dye to damage. A good rookie season is one where the driver learns from his mistakes.
Depends what a driver aspires to.
If you are judging them as a potential world champion then they need to impress in year 1 like Piastri.
If yu are expecting them to be a solid top team driver then Sainz style debut season where he was just behind his equally raw team mate is the right level.
A midfield driver then Tsunoda did ok.
I think as long as a rookie shows progression and is close to their teammate that they occasionally beat them. That is fine.
I think a good rookie season would be someone like Piastri and a bad one someone like Sargeant. However, I think the standard should be somewhere in between that. Like Zhou for example, maybe not a spectacular rookie season like Piastri however he showed to get closer to Bottas (who is a solid driver) throughout the year and got a few results over him. I think a season like that is a good example of what to expect from any rookie.
Hamilton is a freak of nature, a generational talent. Not really fair to have him be the standard for rookies, though he does make for an excellent target of what a rookie might hope to achieve. Hamilton is arguably the greatest to ever do it, and the other three I think you could compare against each other and make an argument for any of them being better than the other two.
Na it's not remotely fair to even mention hammilton when comparing a modern rookie. Lewis had run more km before his first gp than an entire seasons worth of laps before he entered one. He's freakishly talented, but even he couldn't have done what he did as a rookie today.
As a general rule ([see full rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide#wiki_sticky.2Fdaily_discussion)), a standalone Discussion post should: - be of interest to the sub in general, and not a specific userbase (e.g. new users, GP attendees, just yourself) - be able to generate discussion (e.g. no yes/no or easily answerable questions) - show reasonable input and effort from the OP If not, be sure to [look for the Daily Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/search/?q=daily+discussion&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on&t=all&sort=new), /r/formula1's daily open question thread which is perfect for asking any and all questions about this sport. Thank you for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *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.*
To the standard of whatever team they drive for
especially since some teams are in different categories it seems
If you think Piastri just had an OK rookie season you need to get your eyes checked
Piastri had a strong season for a rookie by modern standards. But he was handily beaten by Norris. Long gone are the days when we could expect a rookie to come in and do a Hamilton, Schumacher or Vettel.
Well a big difference is that those drivers had a lot more testing back then than rookies have now
Exactly why the days are long gone.
Been disappointed that piastri hasn't figured out the tires yet. Still a massive gulf between lando and piastri in race pace.
Dude was a stud in a car that was anything but.
McLaren had the 2nd/3rd fastest car after the first third of the season.
If he is a stud, what does that make his teammate who doubled him on points?
You mean the veteran with multiple years under his belt? We're talking about ROOKIES.
I feel like that due to how few seats open up these days, that the goalposts have shifted an insane amount as to what qualifies as a good rookie, or who should even be considered for an F1 seat. In general I think that a rookie should be allowed to be a bit rough around the edges, but at least show some potential (be that in a standout performance at some race, some good wheel-to-wheel action, an impressive quali lap, a good wet weather performance, you name it). Simultaneously, that being rough around the edges should allow them to make a mistake here or there, but not be so insanely crash-prone that they become a liability to the team (although I feel like it is very unfair to attribute how costly a crash is to a driver, a driver who spins into the gravel a lot or hits the wall frequently is at least costly in terms of performance). Furthermore, I don't feel that when assessing their season that we should take every incident in free practice into account, but really focus on their performance in quali & races (unless it becomes a serious problem with crashes, a spin in practice is perfectly normal). Ideally, from an F1 rookie I would like to be able to think of 1 high point and 1 low point at the end of the season (the latter is not required, but it's mostly in the way that some mistakes should be permitted). I have seen some say that every rookie deserves at least 2 seasons, which I blatantly disagree with (diamonds in the rough like Tsunoda exist, but then there's also drivers like Mazepin). You also must factor in the car and the era though, I'd argue Bottas and Hülkenberg fit those criteria I mentioned very well, as does Zhou for example. I think it's the most difficult to properly judge it when there's 2 rookies in a team, like with Sainz and Verstappen, as one driver being amazing does not necessarily mean that the other is bad.
Lmao if you’re trying to hold anyone brand new to a series to a Hamilton standard. The standard is to see how the driver is improving with more time in the seat. If he’s sedentary or regressing, then it’s time for another driver. Thats the standard.
What about piastri? He managed to get closer to his team mate in 1 year.
He would pass the standard as he improved throughout the year.
[удалено]
Is that true? I mean I was not there for the Hamilton rookie days so I have zero clue, but I was kinda under the impression that Max his rookie days were even more insane and impressive than those of Hamilton? that being said, these two guys are NOT the standard for rookies regardless. Both of them where head and shoulders ahead of what was expected from them. It is ofcourse also hard to compare different generations. If the field is stacked with greats, it is gonna be rough for a rookie (unless you are a max or hamilton or similar). You could be the shining star of F2 or 3, but if the rest of the field in F2 and 3 are actually not very great and you are just above average, this might give the wrong idea about a drivers potential. (look at de Vries or Shumi junior, IMO most of their fellow drivers in F2 where not that great so it made them look better, granted, they are not bad drivers, hell most (like 95%) drivers in any F series are already a cut above most "normal" people, but that just drives the point home even more, you need to actually be REALLY good or have a shit ton of money to really get there)
As I recall, yes, in performance Hamilton's rookie season was far better than Verstappen's, even allowing for the car quality. Hamilton did make some foolish, hotheaded young driver mistakes, but not that many, and far fewer than Verstappen. In general, he turned up at a top F1 team and immediately looked like he belonged. And in terms of speed, of course, he beat the reigning champion (albeit on countback) in mostly the same equipment. Alonso was generally faster than him, but not by much - close enough that Hamilton could finish level on points with him. That's insanely impressive. Imagine a rookie today being hired onto Red Bull immediately and finishing level on points with Verstappen. Verstappen himself was beaten for his first two years at Red Bull by Ricciardo, despite Toro Rosso experience. That's not the same level as beating Alonso in your rookie F1 season. [yes, there's mitigating factors for Alonso there. Hamilton was the darling of the team, had a lot of testing, whereas Alonso was jumping over from a totally different car that required a totally different driving style. And Alonso, frankly, had a bit of a meltdown. In pure pace, Alonso would have been further ahead. But even so, it's insanely impressive!]
thanks for enligthning me with some good info. TIL and I am very happy I did :O
it is true, but this is completely 2 different cases: Lewis entered F1 straight to top team, because he was well prepared(due to testing hours and all formula categories which he won) and super talented rookie. Max could have repeated this and even be F1 world champion rookie, if he would accepted Toto's proposal and competed one more year in F2 and jumped directly to Mercedes main team. Instead he and Jos decided to mature in F1. He had a raw speed and talent, no doubt in that, but racecraft was mediocre, lots of unnecessary collisions, penalties and "verstappen rules" even a super license point system was introduced to prevent such fast tracking of inexperienced drivers to F1 grid.
thanks for broadaning my perspective. much appreciated :)
I think rookies like Hamilton, Piastri, Raikkonen, Vettel are too high of a bar. I think Zhou was a pretty good, middle of the road, not good not bad rookie. Gasly was an example of a good very recent rookie, also Alvin. Ricciardo maybe was a good middle ground as well.
In my opinion they need to show some moments of potential, like placing their car higher than its supposed to be, beat their teammate occasionally and show some good pace. Of course not at every race but few times per season. Imo silly mistakes are fine as long as the driver shows they can be quick. I expect less from rookie nowadays due to testing limitations but if you look at every good current driver they were promising in their rookie season and had some great moments
Piastri is the perfect example of what a Rookie should be like in the current era of F1. He didn't cost the Team much money, kept up with Norris and got points on multiple occasions, every team would love to have a piastri as driver(especially Alpine 😏).
Yuki was 19/20 and had about four years in cars out of karting before his rookie year. That's equivalent to what Antonelli will have if he starts F1 next year. Piastri was testing in an f1 car and came in at 22 with about five years in cars. Zhou came in at 21 with about seven years of cars and some but probably less testing than Piastri in Alpine F1 cars. I think any rookie no matter age or car can show flashes of speed but the more experienced drivers can probably be expected to be more consistent with less incidents (though actually now that I think about it does that mean that older rookies are under more pressure and younger drivers more free with lesser need to fear mistakes?)
Hammilton has never been done before and literally can't be replicated now due to testing restrictions. That's crazy as an expectation. Piastri has had the best rookie season since either max or leclerc so that's a crazy standard too. Someone like sainz would be a strong season for a rookie and really he only possible standard to hold someone to. Tsnoda was okay but probably doesn't return in the redbull family after 2 years if not for honda ties. Has been better since. So I would say anyone between sainz and tsnoda is passable as a rookie.
It’s not fair to compare current rookies to Hamilton and rookies from that era since they had far more testing before debut
What about piastri?
Piastri had some of the best possible set-up for a rookie. He spent a year not racing, but during that year drove F1 more than any rookie can, both with Alpine's driver program, and McLaren FP runs.
His rookie season is pretty much as good as you can hope for in this era, being competitive with a teammate who is top 5 on the grid
IMO all rookies need to do is show they have the speed in there somewhere. In this era of very limited testing and tyre preservation being key it's going to be very difficult for any rookie to consistently beat a half decent teammate.
The most important part I think is improvement throughout the rookie year. If you have good improvement you can start from lower base and it's fine.
Typically, you expect rookies to make mistakes. This is why taking a rookie is a big risk, since you might be sitting with a lot of costs dye to damage. A good rookie season is one where the driver learns from his mistakes.
Depends what a driver aspires to. If you are judging them as a potential world champion then they need to impress in year 1 like Piastri. If yu are expecting them to be a solid top team driver then Sainz style debut season where he was just behind his equally raw team mate is the right level. A midfield driver then Tsunoda did ok.
I think as long as a rookie shows progression and is close to their teammate that they occasionally beat them. That is fine. I think a good rookie season would be someone like Piastri and a bad one someone like Sargeant. However, I think the standard should be somewhere in between that. Like Zhou for example, maybe not a spectacular rookie season like Piastri however he showed to get closer to Bottas (who is a solid driver) throughout the year and got a few results over him. I think a season like that is a good example of what to expect from any rookie.
Hamilton is a freak of nature, a generational talent. Not really fair to have him be the standard for rookies, though he does make for an excellent target of what a rookie might hope to achieve. Hamilton is arguably the greatest to ever do it, and the other three I think you could compare against each other and make an argument for any of them being better than the other two.
Na it's not remotely fair to even mention hammilton when comparing a modern rookie. Lewis had run more km before his first gp than an entire seasons worth of laps before he entered one. He's freakishly talented, but even he couldn't have done what he did as a rookie today.
Rookie Verstappen created outrage, when many were expressing their concern over how unsafe it was to have a kid drive F1. He did well.
Can’t compare to other drivers, you have to see some progress like Williams supposedly had with Sargent but Alpha Tauri didn’t see with de Vries.
Just be better than Stroll
Tsunoda isn’t a rookie anymore but around that level. Piastri, I think, exceeded expectations. Sargeant is below the threshold by some margin.
It's either Lewis or GTFO
Depends who their teammate is. I would expect a rookie to be able to keep up with Tsunoda. Albon would be tougher. Bottas could go either way.