It is currently Fri Jun 05, 2020 1:53 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 4:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 20, 2020 2:15 pm
Posts: 6
The official Formula 1 drivers standing is to a very high degree decided by the machinery, not the driver. According to Nico Rosberg earlier this year, the car accounts for approximately 80% of the result and the driver for only 20%.

Even though the best drivers are usually hired by the best teams, the cars massive influence on the result can still create a significant error in the official standing. One obvious example was Fernando Alonso finishing #11 in the final 2018-standing behind Carlos Sainz, Kevin Magnussen and Sergio Perez. I think most fans will agree this standing painted a very flawed picture of Alonsos strength.

It's impossible to split the results in two parts, so the drivers part of it stands out clear and undisputable. But that doesn't mean that it's impossible to have an opinion about it. And it doesn't mean, that this opinion can't be based on the available facts. That's where ratings come into the equation.

Even though ratings of drivers strength isn't the undisputable truth (neither is the official standing), they often provide alternative ways of estimating the drivers "real" position in the Formula 1 hierarchy of strength. And new ways of looking at thing is very often interesting.

Enough talk. Let's get ready to rumble...

I like numbers, statistics and Formula 1, so I've made an alternative standing based on available information about races, drivers and teams, and when this is exposed to a few statistic tools the result is a Drivers Strength Standing adjusted for the cars estimated contribution to the results.

Please notice the word "estimated", as the following rating doesn't claim to be a scientific 100% correct rating. Such a rating doesn't exist. But I believe it does come a long way towards an unbiased rating of the drivers current strength.


























Top 20%Max Verstappen64.9
Charles Leclerc62.0
Lewis Hamilton60.7
Sebastian Vettel58.2
Inside Top 10Valtteri Bottas54.8
Kimi Raikkönen54.5
Sergio Perez52.6
Daniel Ricciardo52.1
Carlos Sainz Jr.50.1
Daniil Kvyat47.3
Outside Top 10Lando Norris47.2
Romain Grosjean46.4
Alex Albon46.1
Nico Hülkenberg42.2
Kevin Magnussen42.1
George Russell41.5
Bottom 20%Pierre Gasly39.8
Antonio Giovinazzi38.4
Lance Stroll37.1
Robert Kubica22.8


A few comments to the rating:
1) I believe that Lando Norris will pass Daniil Kvyat during the upcoming season, and that the reason for Kvyat currently being slightly ahead is experience.

2) I also believe we will see a driver like George Russell move upwards in the strength hierachy as he gains experience. His position in the rating might be less interesting than the distinct difference between him and teammate Robert Kubica, who unfortunately didn't succeed with his attempted comeback.

3) It surprised me a little that both Verstappen and Leclerc has passed Hamilton, but it's a close fight at the top.

4) Ferrari has just let the fourth strongest driver go and replaced him with the ninth strongest. It doesn't seem to make sense, but remembering Toto Wolffs words about the importance of a Wingman it might make sense anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2020 5:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 2631
I'm suspicious of some of the findings which appear counterintuitive to common sense and judgment that can be made through simple observation, but I am very intrigued by your project and would love to hear more about it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 6:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 20, 2020 2:15 pm
Posts: 6
Invade wrote:
I'm suspicious of some of the findings which appear counterintuitive to common sense and judgment that can be made through simple observation, but I am very intrigued by your project and would love to hear more about it.


I understand the way you feel about it, and I felt pretty much the same way, when the results started popping up. For instance, I would put Ricciardo above both Bottas, Raikkönen and Perez, but when we look at the actual results during the 2019-season, there is simply no ground for doing that.

It's important to remember that this is the current strength standing. Not an overall rating of the drivers qualities during a lifetime in Formula 1. I also have a standing showing the average ranking for the past three seasons (Hamilton #1 followed by Verstappen and Vettel), but the ranking above is based on the last 20 races. So if a strong driver like Ricciardo for whatever reason has a mediocre season (as he did in 2019), then he moves down the short term strength list. Which is just the way it should be.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 7:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16949
Beleriand_K wrote:
Invade wrote:
I'm suspicious of some of the findings which appear counterintuitive to common sense and judgment that can be made through simple observation, but I am very intrigued by your project and would love to hear more about it.


I understand the way you feel about it, and I felt pretty much the same way, when the results started popping up. For instance, I would put Ricciardo above both Bottas, Raikkönen and Perez, but when we look at the actual results during the 2019-season, there is simply no ground for doing that.

It's important to remember that this is the current strength standing. Not an overall rating of the drivers qualities during a lifetime in Formula 1. I also have a standing showing the average ranking for the past three seasons (Hamilton #1 followed by Verstappen and Vettel), but the ranking above is based on the last 20 races. So if a strong driver like Ricciardo for whatever reason has a mediocre season (as he did in 2019), then he moves down the short term strength list. Which is just the way it should be.


With the top 5 drivers all coming from the top 3 teams are you confident you have the balance between car and driver correct? It looks to me, with that and George Russell's low placing that you are not correcting for the car enough?

When assessing the value of the car are giving it a score per race or over the whole season? If it is the later then that would account for Raikkonen's high score. He scored a lot of points early on in the season when the Alfa was very competitive but hardly any later in the year when it had probably slipped to 8th best.

How are you establishing what score to give the scores? If it is the speed they are being driven it or results they are achieving is that not somewhat manipulated by drivers as well? A pair of really good drivers will make a car look better than a pair of average ones for example.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 7:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3808
I think a key thing to ask here is what exactly are you doing? Are you literally taking Nico Rosberg's comment as "the car is responsible for 80% and the driver 20%" at face value and doing a split based on that ratio. If so then this is going to be completely meaningless because wordings like that are never meant to be literal, it's just a way of saying "it's heavily weighted to towards the car, but the driver can make an impact" - and even if it could be quantified like that, a perfect 1:4 ratio of driver to car seems awfully tidy and convenient to have any accuracy...

I think you need to explain how you've arrived at these figures in a little more detail in order for us to assess them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 7:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 20, 2020 2:15 pm
Posts: 6
mikeyg123 wrote:
With the top 5 drivers all coming from the top 3 teams are you confident you have the balance between car and driver correct? It looks to me, with that and George Russell's low placing that you are not correcting for the car enough?

When assessing the value of the car are giving it a score per race or over the whole season? If it is the later then that would account for Raikkonen's high score. He scored a lot of points early on in the season when the Alfa was very competitive but hardly any later in the year when it had probably slipped to 8th best.

How are you establishing what score to give the scores? If it is the speed they are being driven it or results they are achieving is that not somewhat manipulated by drivers as well? A pair of really good drivers will make a car look better than a pair of average ones for example.


I would love to say that "Yes, I'm sure, I have the balance between car and driver correct". But that would not be true.

In the real world the balance between the car and driver is an unknown parameter, that has to be estimated. I have used the 80/20 suggested by Nico Rosberg, but I have read another analysis claiming the balance to be more like 85/15 today falling from 70/30 some decades ago.

The scores are based on a drivers average laptime during a race compared with the average laptime for all the drivers completing the race. This difference is adjusted for the cars average advantage/disadvantage compared with the other teams during the season. During the last 20 races Mercedes preformed on average 1,32% better than a "neutral" team, while Williams on average performed 1,63% worse. It is well known that some cars perform better on some tracks than other, but by including 20 races this should be equalled out.

It is true that two really good drivers can make a car look better than two average drivers, but I believe the law of supply and demand will equal that out, as the best drivers will be snapped up by the best teams, while the average drivers will be stuck with the less attractive teams.

Regarding George Russel I mentioned him in a comment, and he would be placed higher with more weight put on the cars importance. But on the other hand we have to remember, that he is an unexperienced driver, and experience is not an unimportant part of a drivers strength. I think the big gap between him and Robert Kubica says a lot about George Russel, and I certainly expect him to advance in the ranking, when we finally get the season started.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 8:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16949
Beleriand_K wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
With the top 5 drivers all coming from the top 3 teams are you confident you have the balance between car and driver correct? It looks to me, with that and George Russell's low placing that you are not correcting for the car enough?

When assessing the value of the car are giving it a score per race or over the whole season? If it is the later then that would account for Raikkonen's high score. He scored a lot of points early on in the season when the Alfa was very competitive but hardly any later in the year when it had probably slipped to 8th best.

How are you establishing what score to give the scores? If it is the speed they are being driven it or results they are achieving is that not somewhat manipulated by drivers as well? A pair of really good drivers will make a car look better than a pair of average ones for example.


I would love to say that "Yes, I'm sure, I have the balance between car and driver correct". But that would not be true.

In the real world the balance between the car and driver is an unknown parameter, that has to be estimated. I have used the 80/20 suggested by Nico Rosberg, but I have read another analysis claiming the balance to be more like 85/15 today falling from 70/30 some decades ago.

The scores are based on a drivers average laptime during a race compared with the average laptime for all the drivers completing the race. This difference is adjusted for the cars average advantage/disadvantage compared with the other teams during the season. During the last 20 races Mercedes preformed on average 1,32% better than a "neutral" team, while Williams on average performed 1,63% worse. It is well known that some cars perform better on some tracks than other, but by including 20 races this should be equalled out.

It is true that two really good drivers can make a car look better than two average drivers, but I believe the law of supply and demand will equal that out, as the best drivers will be snapped up by the best teams, while the average drivers will be stuck with the less attractive teams.

Regarding George Russel I mentioned him in a comment, and he would be placed higher with more weight put on the cars importance. But on the other hand we have to remember, that he is an unexperienced driver, and experience is not an unimportant part of a drivers strength. I think the big gap between him and Robert Kubica says a lot about George Russel, and I certainly expect him to advance in the ranking, when we finally get the season started.


I appreciate the work you are doing and it is interesting. I just don't think these things can mathematically calculated. The driver is obviously influenced by the car but the car is also influenced by the driver. Mercedes had better drivers than Haas but the stats you are using to get the cars baseline assumes both pairings are equal if you see what I mean.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 8:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:42 pm
Posts: 2242
Beleriand_K wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
With the top 5 drivers all coming from the top 3 teams are you confident you have the balance between car and driver correct? It looks to me, with that and George Russell's low placing that you are not correcting for the car enough?

When assessing the value of the car are giving it a score per race or over the whole season? If it is the later then that would account for Raikkonen's high score. He scored a lot of points early on in the season when the Alfa was very competitive but hardly any later in the year when it had probably slipped to 8th best.

How are you establishing what score to give the scores? If it is the speed they are being driven it or results they are achieving is that not somewhat manipulated by drivers as well? A pair of really good drivers will make a car look better than a pair of average ones for example.


I would love to say that "Yes, I'm sure, I have the balance between car and driver correct". But that would not be true.

In the real world the balance between the car and driver is an unknown parameter, that has to be estimated. I have used the 80/20 suggested by Nico Rosberg, but I have read another analysis claiming the balance to be more like 85/15 today falling from 70/30 some decades ago.

The scores are based on a drivers average laptime during a race compared with the average laptime for all the drivers completing the race. This difference is adjusted for the cars average advantage/disadvantage compared with the other teams during the season. During the last 20 races Mercedes preformed on average 1,32% better than a "neutral" team, while Williams on average performed 1,63% worse. It is well known that some cars perform better on some tracks than other, but by including 20 races this should be equalled out.

It is true that two really good drivers can make a car look better than two average drivers, but I believe the law of supply and demand will equal that out, as the best drivers will be snapped up by the best teams, while the average drivers will be stuck with the less attractive teams.

Regarding George Russel I mentioned him in a comment, and he would be placed higher with more weight put on the cars importance. But on the other hand we have to remember, that he is an unexperienced driver, and experience is not an unimportant part of a drivers strength. I think the big gap between him and Robert Kubica says a lot about George Russel, and I certainly expect him to advance in the ranking, when we finally get the season started.


I'd love to see the workings of this.

But regarding the bit I have highlighted.

Doesn't this disadvantage the faster drivers/teams?

Once a driver is in the lead, there is no point in pushing the car more than necessary. They also need to make the car parts last as long as possible, so it is well known that drivers will sometimes take their foot off the gas - leading to a slower average lap time. This may not be possible for the cars in the midfield, that are often in a dogfight for large parts of the race.

_________________
Top Three Team Champions 2017 (With Jezza13)
Group Pick 'Em Champion: 2016 & 2019


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 10:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 20, 2020 2:15 pm
Posts: 6
Herb wrote:
Once a driver is in the lead, there is no point in pushing the car more than necessary. They also need to make the car parts last as long as possible, so it is well known that drivers will sometimes take their foot off the gas - leading to a slower average lap time. This may not be possible for the cars in the midfield, that are often in a dogfight for large parts of the race.


I think the problem with having to take the foot of the gas for technical reasons hit everybody once in a while. And the midfield cars are not necessarily under more pressure than the top cars. Kevin Magnussen said once after a race, that it had been very boring, because he was far behind the top 3 teams, but strong enough to keep a safe distance to the rest of the field. So he had just finished lap after lap pretty much on his own. That was once upon a time, when Haas was a fast car...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 11:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3808
I think that there is definitely some use in this thread, but rather than an exercise to try and prove some ranking of the drivers, it should be to discuss the merits of using such a system to rank the drivers.

There are several underlying flaws here in the system, and that is highlighted by the fact that the list is still heavily influenced by the car (Williams drivers at the bottom, top three teams cover the top 5)

The discussion about any simple mathematical model shouldn't be about proving it is right (because a model with this few variables is never going to be give any level of accuracy, let alone to 3 significant figures) - but rather discussing what can we learn from it. What does it tell us?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 12:17 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34186
I like numbers myself and appeciate anyone trying to come up with a rating of drivers using a scientific method but sorry when I look at your results they seem to make little sense, it reminds me a bit of the F1 matrix.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 12:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 20, 2020 2:15 pm
Posts: 6
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
I think that there is definitely some use in this thread, but rather than an exercise to try and prove some ranking of the drivers, it should be to discuss the merits of using such a system to rank the drivers.

There are several underlying flaws here in the system, and that is highlighted by the fact that the list is still heavily influenced by the car (Williams drivers at the bottom, top three teams cover the top 5)

The discussion about any simple mathematical model shouldn't be about proving it is right (because a model with this few variables is never going to be give any level of accuracy, let alone to 3 significant figures) - but rather discussing what can we learn from it. What does it tell us?


It's not surprising that the best drivers drive for the best teams, so I don't see a problem with the drivers from the top 3 teams at top and two of the bottom five places filled by Williams' drivers. As I see it, it is much more interesting, that George Russel driving for the most hopeless team in years still manage to keep four other drivers under him in the ranking. That gives us some important information about his exciting potential. Racing for Williams doesn't automatically demote you to the lowest two position at the list.

But basically I agree with what you say in your post. As I pointed out in the first post, I'm fully aware that there isn't a bulletproof way of separating driver/car performance, even though we all know there is a balance between them that is very important for positions. That's what makes this interesting.

So this thread is open to all creative ideas and point of views about how to rank drivers. I will stick to my version until something better turns up, but I'm definitely willing to listen to a discussion of alternative possibilities.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 2:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:42 pm
Posts: 2242
Firstly, can I just add that I am always keen to see people conduct rankings like this, so thanks for sharing! I spent a long time in this kind of work, and did an MSc in a related field a few years ago too. As I said above, I'd love to see your formulae.

Beleriand_K wrote:
Herb wrote:
Once a driver is in the lead, there is no point in pushing the car more than necessary. They also need to make the car parts last as long as possible, so it is well known that drivers will sometimes take their foot off the gas - leading to a slower average lap time. This may not be possible for the cars in the midfield, that are often in a dogfight for large parts of the race.


I think the problem with having to take the foot of the gas for technical reasons hit everybody once in a while. And the midfield cars are not necessarily under more pressure than the top cars. Kevin Magnussen said once after a race, that it had been very boring, because he was far behind the top 3 teams, but strong enough to keep a safe distance to the rest of the field. So he had just finished lap after lap pretty much on his own. That was once upon a time, when Haas was a fast car...


It does hit everyone once in a while, but I suspect it hits the front drivers more often than the midfield drivers. Hence why I think your formula will punish faster drivers more often. It's kind of the same reason that we have scoffed at fastest laps over the last decade or so - it was often taken by a midfield driver who had something to push for.

Can I also ask how you are handling retirements?

As you brought up Alonso, where would he have featured in your ranking for his last season?

_________________
Top Three Team Champions 2017 (With Jezza13)
Group Pick 'Em Champion: 2016 & 2019


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 3:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3808
Can you provide some kind of formula?

For example, if we have Team X, with drivers A & B, can you show how you take their laptimes and convert it into a ranking? In terms of variables?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 4:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 20, 2020 2:15 pm
Posts: 6
Herb & Alienturnedhuman

I'll try to explain the formulae. Which isn't really a formula, but a number of formulaes.

In every race it takes every driver a certain time to complete the race. From that time and the number of laps I calculate the average time per lap for every driver and for every team. I then calculate the average teamtime per lap, and the specific teams are then ranked according to their average laptime in relation to this average teamtime. It varies from race to race, but pooled for the past 20 races it paints a pretty accurate picture of Mercedes being clearly fastest and Williams being clearly slowest. Not surprising, but it give us some numbers to work with.

It's possible to point out weak points already here, but the intention is not to create the perfect model or nothing at all. The intention is to make something usefull. Knowing that it is not the undisputable truth. Neither is the official standing by the way.

With this teamtime information for the past 20 races I adjust the drivers time per lap for every one of these 20 races by a factor decided by the average strength/weakness of their team. Let me illustrate this with an example:

In the last race of the 2019 season Hamilton won in 1.34.05.715 which is 102.649 seconds per lap. He had a 16.772 seconds gap to Verstappen on 1.34.22.487 which is 102.954 seconds per lap.

But with Mercedes being a considerably faster car than Red Bull (On average 1.32 percent faster than a "neutral" car and Red Bull being 0.78 faster) I adjust the time by 80 percent of the advantage gained by driving a Mercedes and not an average neutral car. The 80 percent is an estimate of the cars part of the difference with the drivers part being the last 20 percent. And the same for Red Bull.

Now Verstappens average time per lap is adjusted upwards to 103.601 seconds (because Red Bull-drivers are also "penalized" for being in a faster car than the average F1 car) and Hamiltons average time per lap is adjusted upwards to 103.732 seconds.

So with the time adjusted for the advantage delivered by a superior car the result now is Verstappen #1 and Hamilton #2. In other words: If Verstappen had been driving the Mercedes and Hamilton the Red Bull, Verstappen would theoretically have won the race by (103.732-103.601) x 55 = 7.205 seconds.

The same calculation is made for all drivers, and that creates a new result of the Abu Dhabi 2019 GP. Sometimes this adjustment causes significant changes to the official result, and other times the adjustment is only minor. But the result of a single race is without much importance.

From the adjusted results from the 20 races in 2019 I calculate a Mean for finishing position, a Standard Deviation and a Standard Error, and with the help of the t-score table I set up a one-sided 90 percent confidence interval. The CI-value is then transformed to a number between 0 and 100 to make the results more readable.

This also answer your (Herb) question about retirements, because a retired driver did not finish the race, and therefore does not figure in the results for that race. In that way a retirement doesn't affect a drivers position neither positively nor negatively directly. But it does have an indirect effect, because fewer completed races creates lower degrees of freedom in the t-score, and therefore lower the drivers total score. Simply because the uncertainty is higher the less data the result is based on.

And now we take a deep breath, and continue to your question about Alonso.

Alonso is a good example of exactly what I just wrote about growing uncertainty with fewer races. I rank Alonso #5 in 2017 (he was #15 in the official standing) and #6 in 2018 (#11 in the official standing), but his results was based on fewer races than most of the other drivers. As you probably remember his McLaren wasn't the most reliable car at that time.

Personably I think his strength would have placed him higher the #5 and #6 if his car had been more reliable. But the important thing here is, that my ranking system placed him 10 and 5 places higher in the final standing than the official standing. Which makes a lot of sense, because he was a world class driver in a not-world class car.


Last edited by Beleriand_K on Sat May 23, 2020 5:23 am, edited 5 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 4:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:46 am
Posts: 390
Location: Suffolk, UK
Beleriand_K wrote:

The scores are based on a drivers average laptime during a race compared with the average laptime for all the drivers completing the race. This difference is adjusted for the cars average advantage/disadvantage compared with the other teams during the season. During the last 20 races Mercedes preformed on average 1,32% better than a "neutral" team, while Williams on average performed 1,63% worse. It is well known that some cars perform better on some tracks than other, but by including 20 races this should be equalled out.

It is true that two really good drivers can make a car look better than two average drivers, but I believe the law of supply and demand will equal that out, as the best drivers will be snapped up by the best teams, while the average drivers will be stuck with the less attractive teams.


I applaud your efforts, but it seems to me this approach is flawed:

In measuring 'the cars average advantage/disadvantage compared with the other teams during the season' you must include its driver's performance. So the fact that Mercedes were 1.32% better than average may be as much down to Hamilton/Bottas's skills as to the car. This makes the offset for the relative performance of the cars regardless of drivers impossible to judge. Indeed as you say, the best drivers are usually in the best cars, so without Hamilton/Bottas we could conclude the 1.32% advantage for the Mercedes car would be less.

As for a driver's average laptime during a race: It's well-known that a leader will often slow down to protect his car and win by as small a gap as possible, thus increasing his average lap-time. You say only drivers completing the race are included. What about those who don't? Drivers of unreliable cars could be penalised in your system - or even advantaged, it's hard to say. But it's clear there's room for inconsistancy. These days there is also fuel-saving to consider, which will affect some teams more than others - again artificially increasing some drivers' lap-times.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2020 6:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 2631
From what I can gather then, this is an attempt to determine a "race pace" ranking rather than a holistic driver ranking. Regarding race pace, I think the pertinent points, pitfalls and problematics have already been outlined and we could discuss ways to better address them.

THE FALLACY OF ‘OBJECTIVE’ SYSTEMS… numbers stripped of context can only ever provide an adumbration and they are maladaptive by design. The obsession with facts, with certain knowledge, fosters an atmosphere in which representation devoid of context is seen as more accurate than fuller sys-tems with more overtly subjective, historical and contextual components. As such, only certainties are permitted, seen as a purification of analysis which is also an incomplete sketch and interpretative framework. The model of F1Metrics first comes to mind in that it measures a sport which is a far cry from a meritocracy, where context is even more vital than in a sport such as tennis, or even those more synchronous in model to production, darts and snooker. To dismiss the subjective component because it is seen as volatile or unreliable and to settle for a half-baked system full of missing parts and then touting it as being far more representative than an opinion drawn through the ‘eye-test’ is disingenuous precisely because it is just as half-baked as that non-analytical judgment, which is, of course, often driven by emotions and biases. There is context between the numbers which can so too be modelled, but always between and embedded in any analytical abstraction is a context which can only be sharpened by communicative means, with an honest and informed rigour. To shy away from this element and yet shower it with lip service upon criticism is not really fooling anyone with a sharp eye. Its repudiation in action is an admittance to a personal view in the pre-eminence of the ‘objective’. This is often a misguided belief. (POLEMIC).

This was an impromptu polemic, I suppose, in reaction to F1Metrics and his attitude toward criticisms of his system taken from an ongoing project. The point I was trying to make is that models typically abandon and saw off a huge proportion of reality when addressing that reality, and yet the allure of steadfast metrics and analytics can sometimes con the system builder into believing they are getting closer to the "truth" through an unfounded skepticism toward the subjective and through a blind belief that "contextless" variables can accurately map out and conjure contextual reality.

I'm just posting this as something to consider and not to attack the OP. I'm actually a fan of systems and models, and trying to find ways to make them as useful as possible


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2020 12:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 8:07 am
Posts: 1375
A good effort Beleriand, very reminiscent of old POBRatings bless 'im.

Anyway, nice work and always good to see some well presented stats.

_________________
"I'd rather lose a race going fast enough to win it, than win one going slow enough to lose it".
-Stirling Moss


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2020 12:33 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34186
I think race pace is flawed with engines that have to last 7 races, Hamilton for instance often turns his engine down after his last pit stop in the lead of a race.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2020 2:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16949
pokerman wrote:
I think race pace is flawed with engines that have to last 7 races, Hamilton for instance often turns his engine down after his last pit stop in the lead of a race.


To be fair lots of drivers will do that. What will have more effect is getting lapped. Russell and Kubica will be losing seconds of time on a lot of laps during the race.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2020 9:16 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34186
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I think race pace is flawed with engines that have to last 7 races, Hamilton for instance often turns his engine down after his last pit stop in the lead of a race.


To be fair lots of drivers will do that. What will have more effect is getting lapped. Russell and Kubica will be losing seconds of time on a lot of laps during the race.

Yes I was just giving that one example, how can you judge race pace when drivers are not always driving flat out?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 31, 2020 7:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 8:07 am
Posts: 1375
I can't be the only one who had to Google "adumbration"....

_________________
"I'd rather lose a race going fast enough to win it, than win one going slow enough to lose it".
-Stirling Moss


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: pokerman, Siao7 and 22 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group