2010 in stats part two: Vettel and other champions

45 comments on “2010 in stats part two: Vettel and other champions”

1. 

   enka
   6th December 2010, 16:51

   So I think it is true that McLaren had a second quickest car. Too bad they could not convert it to winning for both drivers, and this is where FA won team principals vote.
   1. 

      Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
      6th December 2010, 17:00

      Funnily enough, the final part of 2010 in stats will be looking at car performance data.
      1. 

         Mr. Zing Zang
         7th December 2010, 1:49

         Kieth can you do like an analysis showing the consistency of the drivers. Like standard deviation or something of that nature?
   2. 

      Monad
      7th December 2010, 1:01

      In way was the Mclaren car the second best. It was clearly Ferrari. Mclaren only had the advantage in a few specific circuits like Turkey and Canada.
      1. 

         ConfusedLotusFan
         8th December 2010, 22:14

         well, they didn’t really have the advantage in turkey, they only got a 1-2 cause of vettel and webber’s argument about who gets the top bunk spilling over onto the track
2. 

   alexf1man
   6th December 2010, 17:32

   should do points comparison as: points scored per race finished / classified and then maybe attempt for constructors
   1. 

      bananarama
      6th December 2010, 18:37

      I wonder if the ‘points per race’ statistic is points per race they participated in or points per all races of the season (oh god what a horrible sentence). I’m wondering because of Jochen Rindt, if he really scored “so little” points or if his stat dropped because .. well .. he died.
      1. 

         Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
         6th December 2010, 18:53

         All races of the season.
         1. 

            bananarama
            6th December 2010, 19:36

            Thats what I thought .. but isn’t it kind of unfair to ‘penalize’ him for .. dying …
            But I see why it was done, since a championship counts all races, not only those someone participates in. Nevertheless, that other statistic would be kind of interesting, as, something like 30 years ago it wasn’t uncommon for drivers to skip races.

            I’l lstop thinking about it now, thanks for the interesting stats :-)
            1. 

               Daniel
               6th December 2010, 20:37

               This is exactly why the ‘best races’ rule was used initially. In the early days of the championship it was acknowledged many drivers couldn’t be at every round. Sometimes events might clash, or a driver/team was short cash needed to compete. It was especially difficult for the European drivers to do the Indy 500. So, this stops someone winning the championship just because they had enough money to do every event when their competitor didn’t.
            2. 

               US_Peter (@us_peter)
               6th December 2010, 20:50

               Yeah that was a really interesting statistic, and just shows how much closer the competition was this year than any of the other championships in the last decade, although 2008 and 2009 are both a ways down the list as well.
            3. 

               bananarama
               6th December 2010, 23:39

               Sadly I feel like this championship was only this close because of mistakes and not because of “awesomeness”. Lets face it, the RedBull should have blown everyone away, but they failed too many times in the beginning of the year. Vettel crashed twice all by himself. Webber crashed twice. Hamilton crashed once and had some technical problems but also a littlebit of luck (reprinamds, overtaking safetycar). Alonso ruinde his championship by crashing in Monaco and Spa and had some bad luck with Hamilton twice (somehow also his own fault if he gets tricked). Button was sometimes just too slow in qualifying and had bad luck in Monaco and Spa. Massa was just bad at many occasions.

               Everything I mentioned above paints mainly a picture of failure, not of a fantastic championship. On the other hand there was some great stuff, good overtaking moves, tough battles, interesting weather conditions. But overall I’d say the championship was more lost by the others than won by the champion.

               (maybe i’m just too negative :-P)
         2. 

            CC
            7th December 2010, 15:11

            For the points per race graph, before ~1970/1960 when only the best 5 results / best 7 results / best ‘whatever’ results in a season counted, have you divided total points by 5, 7 or total no GP’s in that season in the calculations.
            1. 

               Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
               7th December 2010, 15:14

               No – it’s just how many points they scored per season, ignoring “best X results count”-type rules.
3. 

   DaveW
   6th December 2010, 18:08

   This is very lovely stuff. My only nit is that the tables with rankings should be inverted so the low number is high. And I really don’t get the race results table. It does not appear to show finishing position per race, Is it a running average finishing position?

   The main tale is the reversed fortunes of Hamilton and Alonso in the 4th quarter of the season. Hamilton went from having strong hold on the title–he even could survive the Hungaroring disaster—to disappearing completely under a 3 solid waves of ill fortune. Alonso did the reverse, coming from a series of disasters to snatch an firm lead. Of course, both of them were on borrowed time, as the RB6 had the ability to exert sustained dominance at any time, whenever they pulled it togeter..

   I was convinced post Spa that Hamilton would take the title, purely because RBR had by then established their inabilty to execute or to avoid mistakes. I didnt think RBR would pull it together. But for Hamilton the car never really recovered from its Silverstone-Hungary surgery; I think the car was worse. Maybe quicker in absolute terms, but even harder to set up and drive. (See Button’s flailing around in Korea and Brazil.)

   Vettel’s title worthiness is difficult to work out. One the one hand, he had a whole crew of very good drivers to deal with in pretty good cars. On the other hand, those other guy’s cars only seemed pretty good because of how poorly he and the team executed. His numbers really should look like Schumacher’s in 2002 or at least Alonso’s. Schumacher had Hakkinen to deal with the Alonso had Schumacher, formidable foes, but it was just them.

   I suppose Keith’s car performance work will answer this conundrum. I am predicting that it will show that the RB6 itself was as dominant as Schmacher’s greatest Ferraris and at least as good as Alonso’s championship Renaults.

   For McLaren, if the car does turn out to be third-best, it will be of some historical interest that they led the WDC for 7 races and came very close to a WCC.

   Because I have it in for Goss and Lowe so badly, I am also keen to see proof that the relative pace cratered after the car went under their knives at Silverstone.
   1. 

      Daniel
      6th December 2010, 20:48

      I really think we should stop talking about reliability and speed like they aren’t linked. It’s easier to make a fast car if you skimp on reliability and vice versa. The key is to get the balance right. Because good cars are on such a knife edge with reliability drivers can’t just drive the wheels off them all the time – a driver needs to manage their machinery.

      Reliability is not luck, but rather an aspect of design and the result of careful management. Others were better on that front but not as quick in raw pace terms. This year, in the end, Vettel and Newey managed the best combination of all aspects of performance. It was a closely run thing, but we shouldn’t imagine simply that Vettel and RBR were unlucky not to wrap the championship up earlier.
      1. 

         Calum
         6th December 2010, 21:21

         They aren’t neccesarilly.

         The 2004 Ferrari barely ever broke down, the 2007 and 2008 Mclaren and Ferrari never broke down, the 1996 and 1997 Williams cars never broke down, the Brawns never broke down.

         Build a fast car and coat it in steel. :D
         1. 

            Nick
            6th December 2010, 21:37

            2007 Ferrari broke down at Spain & Nurburgring for Kimi.
         2. 

            Raymond
            7th December 2010, 4:47

            You’ve completely missed what the guy is saying. If Adrian Newey had diverted a bit more of his attention to reliability rather than pure pace, the speed differential would be cut by several tenths, and the RB6 would be a lot more robust.
            1. 

               DaveW
               7th December 2010, 14:49

               And I think what Calum is saying is that the evidence that speed and reliability, in the modern era, are inversely related is thin.

               Granted, if Newey only has 15 hours a day to work, he can only focus on so many things, but it’s not necessarily the case that every new development creates a reliability issue, or that a performance development also does not make the car less reliable. After all, adding more fins and ripples to the splitter doesnt affect reliability at all.

               For the RedBull cars, I think this is a special case. Newey apparently has a way of working in which he disregards reliability at first, and then works it in later. But sometimes it doesn’t work out at all. See the MP4-18/19. His Leyton House Marches were promising and innovative cars, but desperately fragile—and they never got to the front. Not everything he touches turns to gold. And dont forget it took many years of mediocre RedBull cars, that were also very unreliable, to get to the RB6.

               Chronic unreliability is a basic tradeoff of his approach. Maybe its a result of his unusually conceptual approach, where he just draws stuff with pencils, and sees if it works. From what I understand, he sits in the CAD room at a separate desk with his #2s and paper and does his thing, and carries our a notebook in the paddock doodling.
4. 

   Victor.
   6th December 2010, 18:24

   These tables are epic!

   Considering how Hamilton would have been only three points down on Vettel in Abu Dhabi, last year’s points could have meant an even tighter season finale. The top four drivers would have entered the race with the following amount of points:

   Alonso – 99
   Webber – 96
   Vettel – 94
   Hamilton – 93

   Hamilton would have entered the race with only a third-place deficit to Alonso rather than a victory-deficit…
   1. 

      sato113 (@sato113)
      6th December 2010, 19:57

      i Hamilton had overtook Vettel in abu dhabi, he’d have won the championship! incredible!
      1. 

         sato113 (@sato113)
         6th December 2010, 19:58

         under the old points system of course!

         HAM-102
         VET-102
         ALO-101
         WEB-97
5. 

   sumedh
   6th December 2010, 18:35

   Had we used last year’s points system, 3 drivers would have scored atleast 100 points.

   I believe that has happened only once before in 2007.

   Put this in comparision with the 2006 season. Michael scored 121 points, an average of 6.6 points per race (or 16.7 points per race by 2010 system) but finished runner-up. In 2007, Kimi scored 110 to win the championship, 2008 – Lewis 98, 2009 – Jenson – 95 and in 2010 – Sebastian – 104.

   Michael as runner-up scored more points than any of the champions thereafter.
   I think this means either of 3 things, one, the competitors are making too many mistakes, two, the cars are far more closer in performance, three, Alonso and Michael were truly sensational in 2006.
   1. 

      Nick
      6th December 2010, 21:40

      2006 Only Ferrari and Renault were competitive that year & both MIchael & Alonso used team orders and had teammates stay out of their way.
   2. 

      BasCB
      7th December 2010, 7:12

      I think it shows the points being spread between more drivers.

      Look at those champions with low average points per race (2 seasons of Piquet winning it, Keke Rosbergs championship, …), those are years where we had an intense fight between several drivers and teams getting into the points. Just like we had this year.
6. 

   Adam Tate
   6th December 2010, 18:48

   @ sumedh, I think it means all three of those things. :)

   Great article Keith! I especially like the tables where it shows past championships under the new points system. I bet that took a lot of work to figure up.
   1. 

      DaveW
      6th December 2010, 20:40

      Yes, all three. But it’s a lot easier to make mistakes when you have to push like hell at all times and battle for position with a gaggle of other good drivers for the champioship. That is a real difference of 2010 versus 2008 going back to 2002. Quite a lot of Schmacher’s and Alonso’s races were done by half-way. But you can’t take away from Schumcher that he made very few driving errors in his day.

      Also, the Ferraris of Schumacher’s long WDC run were very reliable. I think he went more than three years without a mechanical at one point.
      1. 

         US_Peter (@us_peter)
         6th December 2010, 21:02

         Just looking through Wikipedia it looks like you’re right. Schumacher had no retirements in ’02 and one each in ’03 and ’04 each caused by crashes due to small errors he made, so for 3 seasons in a row he had no mechanical retirements.
7. 

   sumedh
   6th December 2010, 20:01

   BTW Keith, Love the new “select all” and “select none” buttons. If you can, get them for all the race and practice analysis charts next year. It becomes easier to use the charts.
8. 

   LuvinF1
   6th December 2010, 21:26

   Hi Keith … I went back to Part 1 to make sure that I had full view of all your charts – which I do. But in Part 2, the only chart I can see is the “F1 champions’ points per race under 2010 points system”. Are there any settings required that I need to adjust on my browser? I have Microsoft’s 64-bit browser – beta version and Office 2007 Professional. Thank you and regards!
   1. 

      Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
      7th December 2010, 8:18

      I have Microsoft’s 64-bit browser – beta version

      Do you mean Internet Explorer? Which version?
      1. 

         LuvinF1
         7th December 2010, 11:46

         Hi Keith … Windows Internet Explorer 9 Beta version 9.0.7930.16406 IC. Regards.
9. 

   W-K
   7th December 2010, 2:11

   What I hope 2010 has shown, is that to win the team title, both drivers have to be close to the front.
   Which means team orders are by default a bad thing as usually a designated #2 driver drives like a division two driver.
10. 

    Marti
    7th December 2010, 7:33

    Statistics, lies and statistics.
    It is possible to gather the statistics to prove any point – the facts are; as much as I don`t like it/him – Vettel is 2010 WDC. Similarly Button in 2009.
    Statistically speaking it is 2011 that will count.
    Will he follow the many 1 winner wonders???
    1. 

       Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
       7th December 2010, 8:39

       Statistics, lies and statistics.

       Do you mean that as in the cliché, or are you literally saying I’ve lied about something in this article?
11. 

    Icthyes (@icthyes)
    7th December 2010, 9:58

    I really like the new charts, but saw nothing wrong with the old ones. Are they staying for future race analyses? Also, there appears to be no way of making these new ones full-screen, so even with only 5 drivers selected it’s hard to read a lot of them. But good work nonetheless :)

    To add to the stats, Lewis Hamilton was the only driver this year to have had all his points come from the first 6 finishing positions. Vettel had one 7th, Alonso a 7th and 8th, Webber three 8ths and a 9th and Button a 7th and two 8ths.

    I think it’s interesting that in the end the previous system came out as giving a closer championship then the new one. I think we would have lost Button earlier, but to be honest his “chance” of the championship really was just a mathematical oddity.
    1. 

       sumedh
       7th December 2010, 12:01

       The new charts are better in few aspects but worse in 1 big aspect – they can’t be zoomed into. Keith, race-charts for races like the Korean GP this year were impossible to read without zooming in lap 4 onwards.
12. 

    richevans123
    7th December 2010, 11:23

    Hamilton must be kicking himself, he lead for 7 events, more than any other driver, those dropped scores in monza and singapore, added to mechanicals in spain, japan and hungary really cost him.
13. 

    sam crawford
    7th December 2010, 12:00

    Looking at the chart at Silverstone, then Brazil, points out to me why Fernando Alonso was amazing this year. Also, looking at Massa’s stats shows just how much Alonso drove the wheels off his Ferrari just to keep up with Red Bull and McLaren. Yes, Vettel is the WDC, but for me DOTY is Alonso, without doubt
14. 

    PepsiPerfect
    7th December 2010, 14:09

    statistics, lies & statistics as in the cliché.
    There is NOTHING wrong with UR data, just annoyed with the final outcome.
    SECOND best, as Ron himself says: thats first of the losers !!!
    1. 

       Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
       7th December 2010, 14:20

       Fair enough :-)
15. 

    VXR
    7th December 2010, 17:34

    I hope that crap happening has been factored in too, otherwise it’s just a case of lies, damn lies, and statistics.

    Too many factors involved to make a real assessment of either car or driver performance.

    How do you factor in Petrov holding both a Ferrari and its driver up for example?
16. 

    Fixy (@)
    8th December 2010, 16:59

    Must have been difficult/taken a lot of time to calculate WDCs in 2010 points.
17. 

    Fixy (@)
    8th December 2010, 17:00

    Love the graphs, particularly the “drivers’ grid position” one!

Comments are closed.