Hey guys,

Here is a blog post from my F1 Stats blog called "Making Up The Numbers" which looks at how consistent a driver is. This is done by calculating the mean laptime and standard deviation for each driver and putting these results into graphs.

I do the calculations twice - once for all laps (minus the safety car) and again without pitstops.

I find it a useful tool to see how a driver's strategy affects his race and also to see where a driver who had problems in the race could have finished (for example Rosberg and Barrichello).

Anyway, take a look at the post and let me know what you think - all constructive feedback is appreciated

http://f1numbers.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/...istency-brazil/


Cheers,


//Gavin

just imagine if this years Brazil race was next years. No refueling, it would have being interesting how it would have turned out, would Button, Vettel and Lewis stayed at the back?

Interesting analysis. I like stuff like that. The only comment I can make is - sometimes a driver's pace was dictated by the car in front. Then once released - via an overtake or pitstop his times would improve somewhat. I just wonder how much this factor would add to the deviation.

cool charts dude..

I like your stats..
Somewhat meaningful, less so when considering traffic.
Not that impressed with your race analysis.

Thanks - you can kinda see who was the head of the queue in the traffic as their standard deviations are lower than that of those behind - in other words, if you trace a sine curve over the top point of the SD, then it is possible the 'troughs' are the guys who weren't stuck in traffic...

//Gavin

http://f1numbers.wordpress.com/

Thanks dude - Anything specific about race analysis you didn't like? Too Much Button and you might not be a fan?

The race analysis are just my thoughts and personal feelings on the action - AUTOSPORT and a lot of other blogs do a far better job than me at doing this ...


//Gavin

http://f1numbers.wordpress.com/

Just to add, after Grosjean took pitstop, all Kimis laps - half of the race - were between 1:14.5 - 1:15.0.

The "dry setup" part was completely off the mark. It was the correct one. See Kubica and most others.
I can handle the "Buttonism". Any fan has a right to be excited about winning the WDC...

Actually, the comment on the dry setup is not too far off the mark - this article from AUTOSPORT says that both cars were geared up for a dry setup. However, I will concede because apparently Vettel was caught out by bad luck earlier in the session when the track was in a better condition.

My point was to highlight a rule which I do not agree with - that the cars have to be setup for Sunday's conditions and not those of qualifying - do you think that Vettel would still have qualified 16th if he was on a proper wet setup? We may never know, but surely the rules as they currently stand are nonsensical and possibly dangerous.



//Gavin

http://f1numbers.wordpress.com/

Yeah that has been a theme of Kimi's Grands Prix this year - the man is remarkably consistent! In an earlier post that I made comparing Badoer and Raikkonen at the European Grand Prix, you can see in a graph I made comparing their laptimes that he barely deviates in his pace. I find it amazing how he can do this!


//Gavin

http://f1numbers.wordpress.com/

For this I love your blog, and would very much like you to continue it! Because I've noticed exactly the same. Although I do not know about Massa, what we can say about Raikkonen is that he is able to consistently drive a car that has been described as very difficult to drive, and which looks a bit unstable and twitchy. That's amazing!

If you look at the 5 that did not get out of Q1, setup had nothing to do with it.
In all cases, their teamates were released earlier and the rain had intensified by the time these guys did their runs.
Thus Webber, Kubica, Kovi and all got through and Vettel, Hamilton, Heidfeld did not.

That being said, I agree with you on the stupidity of the parc ferme rule.
That, along with the "must use wrong tyre rule" are the most bogus ever introduced.

Kubica is very good in the wet - this is the main reason he get out Q1.

Compared to which car? I see it as one of the more stable cars out there, especially looking at onboards, this is also why it is able to not chew softer compound tyres too quickly.

Yes he is and no it's not.

Kobayashi'd consistency was superb for a new driver.

Actually it is. At the time Kubica set his best time in Q1 other drivers were also on the track: e.q. Heidfeld and Vettel.

For the sake of staying on topic, I suggest you re-watch the qualifying.
The weather was a lottery and timing was everything.

Very nice Mr. Goat

So what about those pitstops? What could you show us that would be meaninful?

Cumulative stop time, cumulative stop time plus in and out laps. Anything to be gleaned?

he has the chart for the other races with Massa. go to the archives and pick the prior months..

Thanks for the effort.
I left a comment there.

And I disagree. I compared it to the Red Bull and Brawn, both of which seem like they are glued to the track.
Anyway, Domenicali said it himself. I trust him and the team's comments, rather my or your eyes.

Stefano hasn't driven the car has he? Nor has he driven any other F1 car to compare, so why should you trust what he says? Look at Kimi Raikkonen's Q3 lap at Turkey and tell me that the car is hard to drive compared to the rest of them.

No, he hasn't. Have you?

I trust my instinct, and I say, Fisichella is not that much slower than Raikkonen. Yet somehow he has managed to drive inconsistenly and slow at Ferrari. Same goes for Badoer? Coincidence, I do not think it is.

I looked at his lap, that's one lap outta .. you count them

I haven't, no, but I have no reason to believe it is harder to drive than the other 2009 cars, more the opposite.

Okay, the Ferrari is difficult to drive, all F1 cars are, but is it more difficult to drive than other cars?

You must also trust Kimi Raikkonen's words when he says that it is a car with good handling.