Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 2 votes

F1 crazy statistics


  • Please log in to reply
4549 replies to this topic

#4501 Dolph

Dolph
  • Member

  • 7,097 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 30 April 2019 - 15:29

I mentioned this in the Mercedes Tech Thread already, but I find it amazing that we had multiple times five 1-2 wins, but never in more than 5 consecutive races two drivers of the same team on the podium.

 

ermmm... what?

 

how about 2015 first 9 GP Rosberg-Hamilton on the podium in a row

 

2016 last 5 races + 2017 first race . again Mercedes



Advertisement

#4502 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 29,988 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 30 April 2019 - 15:44

ermmm... what?

 

how about 2015 first 9 GP Rosberg-Hamilton on the podium in a row

 

2016 last 5 races + 2017 first race . again Mercedes

My bad, probably looked at the wrong row or accidently excluded the hybrid era. Did look unbelievable indeed!



#4503 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 15,353 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 30 April 2019 - 17:02

The same group of 5 drivers have finished 1st to 5th in the first 4 races of the season. Surely this is some sort of record for predictability?



#4504 TheFish

TheFish
  • Member

  • 483 posts
  • Joined: October 14

Posted 01 May 2019 - 22:08

In the last 12 races Vettel has finished ahead of Hamilton once.

#4505 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 11,681 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 04 May 2019 - 11:02

I remember in 2006 in two consecutive races the top 5 was in the same order: 1. Alonso, 2. M.Schumacher, 3. Raikkonen, 4. Fisichella, 5. Massa. These back-to-back races were British and Canadian Grands Prix. Has it happened in any other time that top 5 (or more) is in the same order in consecutive races?



#4506 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 11,681 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 04 May 2019 - 17:28

The same group of 5 drivers have finished 1st to 5th in the first 4 races of the season. Surely this is some sort of record for predictability?

 

Current standings in the old 10-6-4-3-2-1 system after 4 races.

Bottas      32
Hamilton    32
Vettel      13
Verstappen  13
Leclerc     10
Magnussen    1
Norris       1
Gasly        1
Perez        1

Mercedes    64
Ferrari     23
Red Bull    14
Haas         1
McLaren      1
Racing Pt.   1

Lol. This has got to be the most predictable start into the season in terms of "groupings". 1-2 has always been the same. Then 3-5 the same, making up their own group. And the rest can only get one 1 point at best.  :p



#4507 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 9,146 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 04 May 2019 - 18:35

Current standings in the old 10-6-4-3-2-1 system after 4 races.

Bottas      32
Hamilton    32
Vettel      13
Verstappen  13
Leclerc     10
Magnussen    1
Norris       1
Gasly        1
Perez        1

Mercedes    64
Ferrari     23
Red Bull    14
Haas         1
McLaren      1
Racing Pt.   1

Lol. This has got to be the most predictable start into the season in terms of "groupings". 1-2 has always been the same. Then 3-5 the same, making up their own group. And the rest can only get one 1 point at best.  :p

 

 

 

Still anyone for the return to this points score system left???



#4508 realracer200

realracer200
  • Member

  • 1,075 posts
  • Joined: April 15

Posted 04 May 2019 - 19:35

Current standings in the old 10-6-4-3-2-1 system after 4 races.

Bottas      32
Hamilton    32
Vettel      13
Verstappen  13
Leclerc     10
Magnussen    1
Norris       1
Gasly        1
Perez        1

Mercedes    64
Ferrari     23
Red Bull    14
Haas         1
McLaren      1
Racing Pt.   1

Lol. This has got to be the most predictable start into the season in terms of "groupings". 1-2 has always been the same. Then 3-5 the same, making up their own group. And the rest can only get one 1 point at best.  :p

 

Wow this just shows how much are the top 3 teams ahead of the others. Back in the day there would already be 2 or 3 other teams having podiums by this point of the season.



#4509 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 14,366 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 04 May 2019 - 19:43

That's what you get when reliability is written into the rules. To me it's another reason to dislike the mandated long lasting parts.



#4510 HistoryFan

HistoryFan
  • Member

  • 6,422 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 04 May 2019 - 19:50

Renault 0 points...



#4511 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 9,146 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 04 May 2019 - 19:57

Renault 0 points...

 

So does Alfa for that matter ....



#4512 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 17,650 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 04 May 2019 - 20:24

That's what you get when reliability is written into the rules. To me it's another reason to dislike the mandated long lasting parts.


You can’t write unreliability into the rules though. The shift towards super reliability was started by the Ferrari dream team well before components had to last multiple races. Pandora’s Box was opened and it can’t be closed.

#4513 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 11,681 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 04 May 2019 - 20:44

Still anyone for the return to this points score system left???

 

Yeah, the old system just doesn't work in the reliability-era.



#4514 Barty

Barty
  • Member

  • 1,786 posts
  • Joined: August 03

Posted 04 May 2019 - 20:48

Still anyone for the return to this points score system left???

 

Yes. The main problem is that the current system promotes reliability and discourages risk taking, both mechanical and racing risk. If the difference between DNF and 7th place is 0 points you take more risks to reach the points.



#4515 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 11,681 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 04 May 2019 - 20:57

Key reason for reliability has to be long-lasting components though. If you must use only 3 engines per seasons, you can't afford to let them blow up in every other race, irrespective of how many risks you want to take or how the points system looks like.

 

But I'm sure quality control has improved a lot too. You can only compare the amount of people now working in teams compared to 70's or 80's to see the difference it would make making sure everything works flawlessly.


Edited by sopa, 04 May 2019 - 20:58.


#4516 l2k2

l2k2
  • Member

  • 752 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 04 May 2019 - 21:44

Key reason for reliability has to be long-lasting components though. If you must use only 3 engines per seasons, you can't afford to let them blow up in every other race, irrespective of how many risks you want to take or how the points system looks like.

But I'm sure quality control has improved a lot too. You can only compare the amount of people now working in teams compared to 70's or 80's to see the difference it would make making sure everything works flawlessly.


I would almost out the larger part of the blame to the improved QC & added professionalism in the sport in general. (Like, when the midfield of early nineties didn't have resources to change a known questionable clutch in Spa in 1992.. though, Alfa and their front wing in Baku 2019 begs to differ.)

Also, they do nowadays have the ability to monitor the car in real time, and do mid-race reconfiguration on engines to save them from going “boom”

#4517 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 9,146 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 05 May 2019 - 07:13

Yes. The main problem is that the current system promotes reliability and discourages risk taking, both mechanical and racing risk. If the difference between DNF and 7th place is 0 points you take more risks to reach the points.

 

Sorry but do I understand you correct?

Drivers taking not enough risks to get in the points anymore with the current first 10 given points?

It is that Gasly had bad luck and less than stellar races that he missed out on the top 6 but otherwise, only three teams and 6 drivers had scored points with the old system insstead of 6 teams and 9 drivers.

Imagine that Gasly had indeed made the top 6 every time and that there had indeed been only three teams and 6 drivers with points. Good chance that the outcry about the predictability of F1 nowadays had been even larger.

Or do you only care about those three teams to begin with, since your favorites are among them so who cares about the others?

 

Nowadays the top 6 in a race is virtually locked up, the top 5 is.

Leaving 15 others to fight for a single point.

And even within those 15 you have some that have a way better chance to gain points.

 

I think that right now the current point score works, it give `the other 7 teams` at least four point scoring positions to fight for and thus more chance of achieving something than that it would be if the old top 6 score was maintained.

 

Apologies in case I did misunderstand you.



#4518 Hati

Hati
  • Member

  • 2,419 posts
  • Joined: March 16

Posted 05 May 2019 - 08:15

Sorry but do I understand you correct?

Drivers taking not enough risks to get in the points anymore with the current first 10 given points?

 

I think he meant that cars are made to last but in my opinion point system has very little to do with it. Current rules where team (and driver) has to think a race over month away while aiming to chequered flag kill any chance of risk taking.



#4519 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 9,474 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 05 May 2019 - 08:35

Still anyone for the return to this points score system left???

Yes, tomorrow if we could. A point was a real achievement and heroes sung when achieved one. Now it is an inflated mess. They differ from MotoGP as well, making it harder to follow.

Like others stated, having parts last 7 races per the rules is killing random results. Add the Pirelli mess that punishes driving on the edge AND runoffs everywhere to save you from mistakes and you know why the top 5 scored almost all points this season in such a points ranking.

Edited by SenorSjon, 05 May 2019 - 08:36.


Advertisement

#4520 Dalin80

Dalin80
  • Member

  • 640 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 05 May 2019 - 08:46

Yes. The main problem is that the current system promotes reliability and discourages risk taking, both mechanical and racing risk. If the difference between DNF and 7th place is 0 points you take more risks to reach the points.

 

 

That and fuel flow limits + No refueling. When you can't push you arent going to get too close to the limits of your car or talent.



#4521 Barty

Barty
  • Member

  • 1,786 posts
  • Joined: August 03

Posted 05 May 2019 - 08:52

Sorry but do I understand you correct?

Drivers taking not enough risks to get in the points anymore with the current first 10 given points?

 

No, it is that because so many points are given out that reliability and finishing is rewarded rather than risk taking and trying to get (more) points. When the difference between second and DNF is 18 rather than 6 points you take less risk in trying to get that second place, you have more to lose by messing up and risk missing the 15 (rather than 4) points for third place. When a smaller number of points are given out each point is worth more in risk taking.



#4522 E.B.

E.B.
  • Member

  • 4,381 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 05 May 2019 - 09:44

But you can't just compare 18 to 6 and say it's 3 times as valuable now, it's all relative. If every point scoring position was for example worth 10 times as many points (250 for a win, 180 for 2nd etc) the effect of that change would be zero.

#4523 Barty

Barty
  • Member

  • 1,786 posts
  • Joined: August 03

Posted 05 May 2019 - 10:19

But you can't just compare 18 to 6 and say it's 3 times as valuable now, it's all relative. If every point scoring position was for example worth 10 times as many points (250 for a win, 180 for 2nd etc) the effect of that change would be zero.

 

No, because you have to compare it also with the distance to DNF, which in that case would increase tenfold, rewarding finishing and reliability even more.



#4524 E.B.

E.B.
  • Member

  • 4,381 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 05 May 2019 - 10:32

That makes no sense whatsoever!

#4525 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 17,650 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 05 May 2019 - 10:37

No, because you have to compare it also with the distance to DNF, which in that case would increase tenfold, rewarding finishing and reliability even more.


That’s flawed. Because any points finish is infinity times a DNF.

You have to compare points finishes with the potential to claw it back. As E.B. says, it’s only the percentage difference in points that makes a real difference. It doesn’t matter that you lose 18 in a DNF from 2nd when you can make up 25 with a win next time. As long as the ratio is similar, you gain as much as you lose.

#4526 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 9,146 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 05 May 2019 - 14:26

Yes, tomorrow if we could. A point was a real achievement and heroes sung when achieved one. Now it is an inflated mess. They differ from MotoGP as well, making it harder to follow.

Like others stated, having parts last 7 races per the rules is killing random results. Add the Pirelli mess that punishes driving on the edge AND runoffs everywhere to save you from mistakes and you know why the top 5 scored almost all points this season in such a points ranking.

 

 

So you assume that with no restriction on engines and other parts all of a sudden as if magic the advantage and the superiority of the big three over the other teams is gone? And all of a sudden the top 6 is more and bettter penetratable for the `bottom` 7  teams?.



#4527 Hati

Hati
  • Member

  • 2,419 posts
  • Joined: March 16

Posted 05 May 2019 - 15:03

So you assume that with no restriction on engines and other parts all of a sudden as if magic the advantage and the superiority of the big three over the other teams is gone?

 

I think that he hopes that without restrictions there would be more technical failures among top three when cars are taken closer to limit. I may be a bit cynical but I think they wouldn't break much more than today, it would be the lesser teams that would take things closer to the edge in hope to catch big three causing more failures in bottom seven.



#4528 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 9,146 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 05 May 2019 - 15:12

I think that he hopes that without restrictions there would be more technical failures among top three when cars are taken closer to limit. I may be a bit cynical but I think they wouldn't break much more than today, it would be the lesser teams that would take things closer to the edge in hope to catch big three causing more failures in bottom seven.

 

Same kind of thinking with me over here, hence my post #4526



#4529 l2k2

l2k2
  • Member

  • 752 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 07 May 2019 - 02:03

That and fuel flow limits + No refueling. When you can't push you arent going to get too close to the limits of your car or talent.


Then why there was more action in the previous non-refueling era than the following refueling era?

On the fuel-flow limit, I agree. It having it would make the teams able to push their engines to their breaking point (for the least few HP). Though, with that, the amount of lift-and-coast for the fastest race strategy would be horrible...

#4530 Rediscoveryx

Rediscoveryx
  • Member

  • 1,593 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 07 May 2019 - 07:55

I think that he hopes that without restrictions there would be more technical failures among top three when cars are taken closer to limit. I may be a bit cynical but I think they wouldn't break much more than today, it would be the lesser teams that would take things closer to the edge in hope to catch big three causing more failures in bottom seven.

 

Even the top teams would be forced to sacrifice reliability (compared to today's level) in order not to lose relative performance. Of course, you can always speculate and argue about what "much more" really means, but for sure their reliability levels would go down.

 

You are probably right that the lesser teams would take things closer to the edge in order to catch the top three, with more failures occurring. But wouldn't it be better to have a McLaren mixing it up with the big guys, even at the price of a 75% retirement rate than to have them troddle around 50 seconds down the road like they are today?



#4531 Rediscoveryx

Rediscoveryx
  • Member

  • 1,593 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 07 May 2019 - 08:06

So you assume that with no restriction on engines and other parts all of a sudden as if magic the advantage and the superiority of the big three over the other teams is gone? And all of a sudden the top 6 is more and bettter penetratable for the `bottom` 7  teams?.

 

You can probably think about it this way:

 

There is always a trade-off between performance and reliability. There's no avoiding that and it applies to everyone, even the very richest of the rich. A team that is down on performance could/would chose to sacrifice reliability for performance in order to squeeze out maximum performance from their car. Thereby the performance gap closes at the price of higher unreliability for this particular team. Or maybe the top teams will engage in a performance war, forcing them to sacrifice reliability for outright performance. In this case, the performance gap won't close, but the "best of the rest" will at least have a reasonable chance of inheriting good results, making them more attractive for sponsors, introducing more unpredictability to the sport etc.

 

When you mandate a certain level of reliability you remove the flexibility for teams to chose how to approach this trade-off. Everyone effectively does the same thing, which cements the pecking order. 

 

It's not that the top teams advantage would suddenly just get blown away without the reliability mandates (of course it wouldn't). But it would introduce greater flexibility and therefore unpredictability to the races.



#4532 7MGTEsup

7MGTEsup
  • Member

  • 2,028 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 07 May 2019 - 13:45

Also, they do nowadays have the ability to monitor the car in real time, and do mid-race reconfiguration on engines to save them from going “boom”

 

 

They had 2 way telemetry back in 2001 so the pits could alter the engine without the driver ever knowing there was an issue it was promptly banned next season. Real time telemetry has been around for 30 years.


Edited by 7MGTEsup, 07 May 2019 - 13:57.


#4533 HistoryFan

HistoryFan
  • Member

  • 6,422 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 10 May 2019 - 17:21

it looks like we'll see 3 new F1 race tracks in 2020 (Hanoi, Rio, Zandvoort). When did we have last time so many new race tracks? And what was the most new race tracks in one season?



#4534 NewMrMe

NewMrMe
  • Member

  • 156 posts
  • Joined: August 12

Posted 10 May 2019 - 18:31

As you are counting Zandvoort as a returning venue with a different layout, I think the last time there were three new tracks was 1986. First Hungarian Grand Prix, first Spanish Grand Prix at Jerez and the returning Mexican Grand Prix at Hermanos Rodriguez with a different layout from when it was last used in 1970.

 

 

Edit: I suppose for 1986 you could also include the French Grand Prix at Paul Ricard. After Elio de Angelis's fatal crash in testing the GP switched to a substantially shorter circuit configuration that bypassed the section where de Angelis crashed.


Edited by NewMrMe, 10 May 2019 - 18:37.


#4535 E.B.

E.B.
  • Member

  • 4,381 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 10 May 2019 - 18:34

The last part of the 1959 season included 3 venues that were new to the WDC (AVUS, Sebring and whatever the Portuguese one was called).

#4536 HistoryFan

HistoryFan
  • Member

  • 6,422 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 10 May 2019 - 18:34

it must not be a different layout but Zandvoort wasn't on the calender in 2019 but will be in 2020



#4537 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Moderator

  • 21,446 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 10 May 2019 - 19:30

Some other years with three new circuits:

1967: Kyalami, Le Mans and Mosport

1973: Interlagos, Zolder and Anderstorp

#4538 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 16,631 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 10 May 2019 - 19:40

1950 saw seven new circuits.    ;)



#4539 BiggestBuddyLazierFan

BiggestBuddyLazierFan
  • Member

  • 321 posts
  • Joined: April 18

Posted 10 May 2019 - 20:21

Here's a statistic that absolutely no one asked for. If a driver was disqualified from all the qualifying results they ever had in the WDC, how many total pole positions would their team-mates have accummulated? This was to find out the "potential" amount of pole positions the driver "should" have accumulated with their equipment they have had. I calculated the number for all drivers with at least 20 pole positions.

Name - Pole Positions - Team Mate Pole Positions
Lewis Hamilton - 84 - 85
Alain Prost - 33 - 63
Nico Rosberg - 30 - 56
Damon Hill - 20 - 36
Ayrton Senna - 65 - 35
Sebastian Vettel - 55 - 34
Michael Schumacher - 68 - 31
Nigel Mansell - 32 - 29
Mika Häkkinen - 26 - 22
Juan Manuel Fangio - 29 - 20
Niki Lauda - 24 - 17
Nelson Piquet - 24 - 17
Fernando Alonso - 22 - 17
Jim Clark - 33 - 9

However in the end, I guess it turned out to tell almost more about the standard of the team-mates the drivers have had, than the standard of equipment. But because of the time I put in it I decided to share it anyway in case anyone finds it interesting.


Couldn't you just compare total number of pp against number of pp-s that were part of 1-2 front row lockout

Instead of overcomplicating things with this disqualification siliness

The end result is the same you know!?

Advertisement

#4540 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 17,650 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 10 May 2019 - 21:17

The last part of the 1959 season included 3 venues that were new to the WDC (AVUS, Sebring and whatever the Portuguese one was called).

 

Monsanto Park in Lisbon.



#4541 HistoryFan

HistoryFan
  • Member

  • 6,422 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 12 May 2019 - 15:04

So 5 races and the top 5 always the same drivers (although, not in the same order).

 

Is that record?

 

What were the longest runs so far with the top 5 consecutively were the same? (not in the same order?)



#4542 Anderis

Anderis
  • Member

  • 3,820 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 13 May 2019 - 06:13

Yeah, it's incredible statistics. Also The top2 has always had the same two drivers. Makes you think what's the point of watching races nowadays.



#4543 JeePee

JeePee
  • Member

  • 2,432 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 13 May 2019 - 06:25

Max Verstappen now finished 14 consecutive races in front of his team mate, equalling Alonso in 2013-2014.



#4544 HistoryFan

HistoryFan
  • Member

  • 6,422 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 13 May 2019 - 08:41

Max Verstappen now finished 14 consecutive races in front of his team mate, equalling Alonso in 2013-2014.

is that really a record?



#4545 HistoryFan

HistoryFan
  • Member

  • 6,422 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 13 May 2019 - 08:58

Kubica was the last driver to finish the race 5 times in a row. I think that also never happened before...



#4546 ernestomodena

ernestomodena
  • Member

  • 380 posts
  • Joined: June 18

Posted 13 May 2019 - 09:02

is that really a record?

Well only 52 people finished more then 14 races consecutive so it could be possible.



#4547 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 11,681 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 13 May 2019 - 09:26

HAM  2 1 1 2 1
BOT  1 2 2 1 2
VER  3 4 4 4 3
VET  4 5 3 3 4
LEC  5 3 5 5 5

The only question left asking about this season is... surely someone is bound to have a DNF somewhere? It can't last forever.

 

Looking at recent seasons, then for example the amount of DNF-s Hamilton has had:

2015 - 1

2016 - 2

2017 - 0

2018 - 1

 

On average 1 DNF per season. So let's wait for that one then.  :p



#4548 MrMonaco

MrMonaco
  • Member

  • 475 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 13 May 2019 - 10:14

HAM  2 1 1 2 1
BOT  1 2 2 1 2
VER  3 4 4 4 3
VET  4 5 3 3 4
LEC  5 3 5 5 5

The only question left asking about this season is... surely someone is bound to have a DNF somewhere? It can't last forever.

 

It's looking strange but to be fair it's a logical conclusion of few factors:

- huge margin between top 3 teams and the midfield

- huge margin between Max and Gasly

- buletproof reliability

- lack of...luck for midfield or lack of...bad luck for the top drivers

 

Coming up next is Monako and Montreal. Two of the most odd race tracks in the calendar. There's a high chance for changing top five in the upcoming GP.



#4549 DeKnyff

DeKnyff
  • Member

  • 1,385 posts
  • Joined: November 13

Posted 13 May 2019 - 10:27

It's looking strange but to be fair it's a logical conclusion of few factors:

- huge margin between top 3 teams and the midfield

- huge margin between Max and Gasly

- buletproof reliability

- lack of...luck for midfield or lack of...bad luck for the top drivers

 

Coming up next is Monako and Montreal. Two of the most odd race tracks in the calendar. There's a high chance for changing top five in the upcoming GP.

The most odd race track is Baku and nothing happened.



#4550 Hati

Hati
  • Member

  • 2,419 posts
  • Joined: March 16

Posted Yesterday, 11:08

Does anyone have a current statistics of who has highest average starting position in Monaco? I was little surprised that couple years ago it was Kimi Räikkönen with average starting position of 4.9 (of active drivers).