2018 Canadian Grand Prix interactive data: lap charts, times and tyres

18 comments on “2018 Canadian Grand Prix interactive data: lap charts, times and tyres”

1. 

   Phylyp (@phylyp)
   11th June 2018, 12:49

   That chart comparing each driver’s lap time to the leader – it clearly shows the separation between the top 3 and midfield, but it also shows that Ericsson and Sirotkin were also far slower than the midfield (and in Ericsson’s case, his teammate as well).

   Despite Vandoorne also showing up there, the slope of his line puts him in the midfield, but he ended up there solely due to his extra pit stop.
   1. 

      Martijn (@)
      12th June 2018, 9:02

      Selecting team mates only view is very insightful as well.
2. 

   vjanik (@vjanik)
   11th June 2018, 13:11

   Its a joke. Pirelli make 7 types of dry tyre and ALL of them are too hard. With the softest selection of tyres possible, we still get an easy one-stop race, on a track that was always tough on tyres and gave us great races. I think Pirelli overcompensated for the 2017 and 2018 regulations and went way too hard.

   Teams are only making pit stops because they are forced to by the regulations. I think a non-stopper would be fastest on many tracks this year if it was allowed.
   1. 

      Matthijs (@matthijs)
      12th June 2018, 8:25

      @vjanik I don’t know if this is true. I don’t think the hypersofts are too hard. If the drivers were really pushing, the hypersofts would degrade within a few laps. The problem is that track position is key (because overtaking is very hard), so every team will try to do one stop. A softer compound just means more tyre saving, so the softer the tyre, the more tyre saving. That’s not Pirelli’s fault.
   2. 

      Srdjan Mandic (@srga91)
      12th June 2018, 10:10

      I agree with @matthijs, the tyres aren’t too hard. The hypersoft lasted less than 20 laps on the Red Bull, which has the lowest degredation of all cars.

      IMO the cars have too much downforce. It helps keeping the tyres in the operating window and reduces wear, it’s like they are driving on rails. The cars don’t seem to need the mechanical grip from the tyres, as they are fast even on the hardest compounds.

      If they reduce the downforce, it would lead to more sliding, more stress on the tyres which would result in higher degredation. That means the difference between compounds and also between new and worn tyres would be bigger which leads to more pit stops and overtakes.
3. 

   Phylyp (@phylyp)
   11th June 2018, 13:23

   @vjanik – what I don’t quite understand are why teams were generally struggling with the HS at Monaco, but at a faster track like Canada they were able to merrily run beyond half a race distance with the same HS tyre, despite this track having faster straights and harder braking zones. I don’t think I’ll ever have a good understanding of these tyres (from the standpoint of a fan).
   1. 

      TdM (@tdm)
      11th June 2018, 13:38

      It’s all about the temperature window on the tyres. They are so sensitive these days, going slower can do more harm because you lose grip start sliding and the the tyres grain and wear. At Canada the track is fast enough to keep them in the window
      1. 

         Phylyp (@phylyp)
         11th June 2018, 13:54

         @tdm – thanks, that makes sense.
4. 

   Jere (@jerejj)
   11th June 2018, 16:01

   So close to beating the official lap record. Only two tenths off.
   1. 

      hobo (@hobo)
      11th June 2018, 18:09

      @jerejj – Effectively they were well below the record. Even with the tire difference (which we just have to assume is part of the package – i.e. different cars, downforce, power units), if refueling was a thing, the lap times would have been destroyed. I get that isn’t how it works (ifs/buts).
      1. 

         Jere (@jerejj)
         11th June 2018, 18:34

         @hobo Agreed in principle, but on a few circuits, the fastest 2004 race lap time has already been beaten even with the significant difference in fuel loads due to the lack of in-race refuelling compared to those days. For example, in Brazil, the previous official lap record which the 2004 season held got beaten last season, but probably wouldn’t have happened had Verstappen not made an extra pit stop for a fresh set of the supersoft (the softest compound available for that race weekend) relatively late in the race. The fastest 2004 race lap got beaten last season in Malaysia last as well, and Monaco this season while the fastest 2009 race lap (still from the refuelling era) got beaten in Belgium last season, but the similar aspect featuring here is that more or less all of these were down to someone pitting for a fresh set of tyres relatively late in the race when the fuel loads are, of course, significantly lower than at the start.
         1. 

            Jere (@jerejj)
            11th June 2018, 18:35

            I was supposed to take off the word ‘last’ from between ‘Malaysia’ and ‘as well,’ but forgot to do so.
            1. 

               F1 in Figures (@f1infigures)
               12th June 2018, 20:02

               @jerejj Of course there are many differences between the 2004 and 2017 cars. The current generation of cars has much more downforce to compensate for the weight increase. My post was about the cars’ ultimate performance, with almost no fuel and fresh tires.

               Compared to the Bridgestone tyres we had until 2010, I don’t think the Pirelli tyres are any faster (based on the pole times in 2010 and 2011). They simply degrade faster. Unfortunately, Pirelli only manages to reduce tyre wear by making the tyres much harder. When André Lotterer drove a race for Caterham in 2014, he was thoroughly disappointed with the tyre performance (low grip and high degradation). Even the grooved tyres offered a better performance, especially during the last tyre war (2001-2006). It was the reduction of downforce that mostly explains why the cars got slower when the grooved tyres were introduced back in 1998.
         2. 

            F1 in Figures (@f1infigures)
            11th June 2018, 21:44

            @jerejj Most tracks where lap records were broken in this era were resurfaced. As a result of this, Interlagos and Sepang got much faster. In qualifying, the current generation of cars is faster, but usually in the race they are still slower due to fuel and tyre saving.
            1. 

               Jere (@jerejj)
               12th June 2018, 11:01

               @f1infigures Interlagos was resurfaced ahead of the 2014 race already, so three years before the official lap record got beaten when the tarmac wasn’t as smooth as during the 2014 race weekend anymore. Nevertheless, as I pointed out in my original comment: the official lap record probably wouldn’t have been beaten had Verstappen not made the extra pit stop for a fresh set of the supersoft compound with only 15-17 laps remaining. Furthermore, the primary reason the current generation of cars are usually still slower in the race than 2004 (and the other late refuelling era seasons) is the significant difference in fuel loads, though, and that has been the regularity ever since the ban on in-race refuelling ahead of 2010, not just since the current aero regs came into effect.
         3. 

            F1 in Figures (@f1infigures)
            12th June 2018, 14:41

            @jerejj So in the mid-2000s the fastest lap at Interlagos was:
            2002: 1:16.079 (early in the season, otherwise I don’t know why they were so slow)
            2003: 1:22.032 (wet race)
            2004: 1:11.473 (drying track)
            2005: 1:12.268
            2006: 1:12.162

            And in 2017 it was 1:11.044

            In 2017 the fastest lap was set on fresh tyres and slightly over 10 laps of fuel (which costs maybe 0.4 seconds), in 2004 the fastest lap was set on worn tyres and almost no fuel (time loss due to tyre wear unknown but likely low), so the circumstances were similar. Given how much Verstappen was quicker than anyone else, it’s probably safe to say that under normal circumstances the lap record wouldn’t have been beaten, but nowadays virtually everyone can set the fastest lap of the race.

            Of course, nowadays cars are heavier (also because of the refueling ban) and they have low-performance tyres, which also reduces their performance, especially in the race. One point I forgot to mention is that at Interlagos the high altitude is advantageous to the turbo engines, which may explain their relatively fast lap times. Last year, the pole time was almost two seconds faster than in 2004 (when the cars were slowed somewhat by a higher fuel load). Overall, I think last year the cars were about a second per lap faster in qualifying under the same circumstances, whereas they were a over second per lap slower in the race (which can probably be cut down to about half a second if refueling is allowed).

            The effect of track resurfacing was best shown in Malaysia (not Brazil), where last year’s race was actually faster than the 2004 race.
            1. 

               Jere (@jerejj)
               12th June 2018, 17:20

               @f1infigures Valid points and I agree with you on them in principle, but how exactly are the current tyres ”low-performance” tyres? They’re very durable and grippy especially compared to the ones from 2011-16, but also grippier than the grooved ones used most recently in 2008. Furthermore, yes, the 2004 cars had to qualify with race fuel onboard, but even with around 15 laps worth of fuel onboard they’re still significantly lighter than the current cars with only 1 or 2 flying laps worth of fuel onboard, so I don’t think that really makes a difference in pole lap comparisons between 2004 and 2017, ’18, or any post-refuelling era season.
5. 

   Lolita
   13th June 2018, 17:02

   Bof…

   Still +1.6s from the record lap at this circuit…

Comments are closed.