|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
29 Jun 2014, 15:55 (Ref:3427899) | #1 | ||
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,259
|
Grid positions
There many places showing grid positions stats but i hope I can render something usefl here.
"Points" in every GP grid (21=pole, 0=last) Code:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TOT Mer Rosberg 19 19 21 18 20 21 21 19 158 Mer Hamilton 21 21 20 21 21 20 20 13 157 RBR Ricciardo 20 17 9 20 19 19 16 17 137 Fer Alonso 17 18 13 17 15 17 15 18 130 RBR Vettel 10 20 12 19 7 18 19 10 115 Fer Raikkonen 11 16 17 11 16 16 12 14 113 Wil Massa 13 9 15 16 13 6 17 21 110 Wil Bottas 7 4 19 15 18 9 18 20 110 McL Magnussen 18 14 14 7 8 14 10 16 101 For Hulkenberg 15 15 11 14 12 11 11 12 101 McL Button 12 12 16 10 14 10 13 11 98 STR Kvyat 14 11 10 9 10 13 7 15 89 STR Vergne 16 13 8 13 1 15 14 8 88 For Perez 6 8 18 6 11 12 9 7 77 Lot Grosjean 0 7 6 12 17 8 8 0 58 Sau Sutil 9 5 0 8 6 4 6 6 44 Sau Gutierrez 2 10 7 5 9 5 0 5 43 Lot Maldonado 1 6 5 0 0 7 5 9 33 Cat Kobayashi 8 2 4 4 2 2 1 3 26 Mar Bianchi 4 3 3 3 4 1 3 4 25 Mar Chilton 5 1 1 1 5 3 4 1 21 Cat Ericsson 3 0 2 2 3 0 2 2 14 Mer, then RBR-Fer, then Wil, then McL-For-STR, then Lot-Sau, then finally Cat-Mar. This structure (except minor changes) can be seen using several ways to examine how teams are performing (in qualifying). Team mates comparisons in term of grid positions are: Code:
GAP POS Mer 1 0.1 RBR 22 2.8 Ric > Vet Fer 17 2.1 Alo > Rai Wil 0 0.0 McL 3 0.4 For 24 3.0 Hul > Per STR 1 0.1 Lot 25 3.1 Gro > Mal Sau 1 0.1 Cat 12 1.5 Mar 4 0.5 POS = average difference in grid positions. Four cases show a significant gap: Ric, Hul and Gro beat their t-mates in an average of 3 positions (ouch!). Alo beats Rai with an average of two positions. Apart from Kob beating Eri, the remaining teams are pretty balanced. I'll try to put team performances in another post. |
||
|
29 Jun 2014, 16:21 (Ref:3427927) | #2 | ||
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,259
|
A table/graph showing team qualifying grid positions ("points") in every GP. Let's remember that pole = 21 points, last = 0 points, and team's points are just the sum of the two drivers.
Darker colors mean worse results. The last column shows the gap between teams, with three major rifts: Mercedes with good-middle teams, good-middle teams with low teams and low teams with bottom teams. The colors in the bars at right show these subsets. An interesting point is the dependency of some team(s) with respect to the type of circuit. But it will be the subject of another post (I think). |
||
|
29 Jun 2014, 17:12 (Ref:3427968) | #3 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,346
|
does the assessment take include grid penalties?
Or only actual qualifying times? |
|
|
29 Jun 2014, 19:44 (Ref:3428077) | #4 | ||
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,259
|
It (sadly) includes penalties. I say "sadly" because it would prefer to discard penalties but it is easier just to take a raw data web page and extract the data directly.
If I find a comfortable way to eliminate penalties or a good way to circumvent them, I'd do the calculations just with "real" positions, without penalties. A workaround is calculate "robust statistics" that automatically would (hopefully) discard abnormally bad grid positions. With those statistics one could (approx) get the total results without penalties. All that is a future possibility |
||
|
30 Jun 2014, 00:27 (Ref:3428292) | #5 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 437
|
You can never completely have a true account of qualifying differences if someone's had a penalty because the fact that they had a penalty may cause the team to change their qualifying strategy, for example choose to qualify on the primes to have an extra set of softs for the race.
|
||
|
30 Jun 2014, 03:18 (Ref:3428347) | #6 | ||
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,259
|
Never a perfect account but undoing penalties is more accurate than leaving them. For example, in half of GPs Lotus has been the last in grid, it really distorts the true performance in those GPs.
|
||
|
5 Jul 2014, 03:51 (Ref:3430443) | #7 | ||
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,259
|
In few hours we will have the qualifying session in Silverstone. Just in time to do a little analysis about the "intriguing" Williams different performances in different circuits.
Let's do a look at Williams grid "points" (pole = 21, last = 0) across the season and a measure of the "fastness" of every circuit, in this case, fastest race lap in km/h. Code:
WILLIAMS AUS MAL BAH CHI SPA MON CAN AUT Team Grid 20 13 34 31 31 15 35 41 Av. speed 206 193 201 195 188 153 200 216 Vertical axis is team grid points, horizontal axis is average speed in every circuit, from Australia (1) to Austria (8). Line shows the season time line. The two first GPs are apparently two anomalous points. Its can be due to Williams having problems in the beginning of the season, or just due to a rainy qualifying in both GPs that blurs normal performance. Anyway the forth GP was also a wet qualifying but it was not anomalous at all, so one have to wonder if rain was really a factor. The correlation, taking all the GPs, is r = 0.606, it has a level of confidence in that it is really significant (i.e. really positive in this case) of 87%. It is high but not enough to be admitted as a "proven case" in normal scientific procedure. Dropping the first two "anomalous" results, the correlation is excellent: r = 0.9932, with a level of confidence of 98.9%, that can be considered as very good. But this result is valid if really the two first GPs are anomalous and don't represent the current state of Williams. Let's work with those two points removed, and so let's just consider the last 6 GPs. The points look superbly linear, the linear regression that represent those data is: TGP* = -47.1 + 0.407·kmh or TGP* = 34.4 + 0.407·(kmh - 200) The second form says Williams is expected to get 34-35 points (around 4th-5th grid position) in a track with an average speed of 200 km/h (measured in fastest race lap) and it gains/loses 2 points (1 position by car) for each 5 km/h above/below 200 km/h. For example, in a 190 km/h circuit, Williams would expect to lose 2 positions per car; in a 210 km/h circuit, Williams would expect to gain 2 positions per car. So putting the speed of the track in that equation, it theoretically gives a forecast of the team grid points for Williams in that track. Several cautions have to be considered: it is based in the excellent agreement of just 6 points, it was done dropping two points, it doesn't consider the effect of rain, it only have in account the speed but not the type of the track (fast corners or long straights). In short, data suggest strongly a clear dependence of Williams performance according to the quickness of the circuit and it suggest a reasonable prediction for Williams grid positions in the next GP(s). |
||
|
5 Jul 2014, 04:13 (Ref:3430447) | #8 | ||
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,259
|
How is Williams going to do in Silverstone qualifying? In theory it should get a great result because Silverstone is a very fast track. In fact it is out of the bounds of the former 6 GPs circuits, so we cannot a reliable forecast with the former formula (extrapolation). We are in uncharted territory, to say that way.
According to last season's data, Silverstone is going to be a 221 km/h track (fastest lap), thus Williams should get a superb result, but I think I am a bit skeptic, Silverstone is a different type of fast track, so I consider it just a new point datum that will improve the realiability of our little predictive model. |
||
|
5 Jul 2014, 16:37 (Ref:3430627) | #9 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,303
|
Williams did not have a superb result nor Ferrari due to rain and bad pit calls
|
||
|
6 Jul 2014, 02:55 (Ref:3430743) | #10 | ||
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,259
|
Qualifying has been rather hilarious!
Rain was great for the suspense, but poor as data . We will have to wait until next race to increase our little "database". |
||
|
23 Aug 2014, 06:19 (Ref:3446437) | #11 | ||
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,259
|
Data in Germany and Hungary again support the idea that Williams qualitying performance is related to how fast the track is. There can be seen too a sistematic improving as season goes by. I hope I can put some graph and numbers about this after Spa.
Spa is among the fastest tracks so far in the season, and Williams has gone on improving. All this let's forecast a very good qualifying for them. At the moment they did good in Friday runs, but somehow I expect (hope?) more from them this Saturday afternoon. Of course all this expectations are related to a dry qualifying. If it is wet, everything changes and, in addition, Williams has performed badly in wet tarmac. My bet, hours before qualifying? I hope a 3rd/4th in dry conditions. And if Mercedes goes wrong again... |
||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[Qualifying] Drivers and Teams' grid positions (2013) | Schummy | Formula One | 9 | 14 Apr 2013 18:54 |
Grid positions (drivers and teams) | Schummy | Formula One | 13 | 30 May 2011 11:11 |
Grid Positions | wodonnell | IRL Indycar Series | 2 | 27 Jul 2003 09:42 |
Grid positions | angst | Formula One | 1 | 25 Jul 2000 18:20 |
Minardi aim for better grid positions | Minardi fan | Formula One | 16 | 1 Jul 2000 22:25 |