Telling stats: 20 revealing facts on each driver’s 2019 season

2019 F1 season review

Posted on

| Written by

Formula 1 is a rich sport for the statistically-minded. But it can be all too easy to get bogged down in trivia.

So which are the statistics which reveal significant details about drivers? Here are our 20 telling stats, one for each driver, in the 2019 season.

Lewis Hamilton

Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes, Yas Marina, 2019
Hamilton was the most prolific winner for the sixth year in a row, taking 11 victories this season

Valtteri Bottas

Valtteri Bottas, Mercedes, Shanghai International Circuit, 2019
Bottas reached Q3 every weekend in 2019 – his team mate was the only other driver to do the same

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Sebastian Vettel

Sebastian Vettel, Ferrari, Monza, 2019
Vettel had five point-less weekends – the same number as Hamilton, Bottas and Leclerc combined

Charles Leclerc

Charles Leclerc, Ferrari, Singapore, 2019
Leclerc claimed seven pole positions, the most of any driver

Max Verstappen

Max Verstappen, Red Bull, Hockenheimring, 2019
Verstappen spent more laps ahead of his team mates than any other driver. He headed Gasly and Albon for a total of 985 laps during their spells at Red Bull

Alexander Albon

Pierre Gasly, Alexander Albon, Bahrain International Circuit, 2019
Albon scored 76 points in his nine-race spell at Red Bull, more than the 63 Gasly managed in 12 starts for the team

Daniel Ricciardo

Daniel Ricciardo, Renault, Paul Ricard, 2019
Ricciardo collected seven penalty points during 2019, more than any other driver besides Vettel, who did the same

Nico Hulkenberg

Nico Hulkenberg, Renault, Monza, 2019
While Ricciardo finished ‘best of the rest’ four times Hulkenberg never did – the same was true of Stroll’s record against Perez

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Romain Grosjean

Romain Grosjean, Haas, Baku City Circuit, 2019
As Grosjean had the most non-classifications due to technical problems (four) it was no surprise he also completed the fewest laps (1,043)

Kevin Magnussen

Start, Albert Park, 2019
Magnussen lost the most places at the start, averaging a loss of 1.43 positions per race. Grosjean had the second-worst average, losing 1.12 places

Carlos Sainz Jnr

Carlos Sainz Jnr, McLaren, Hungaroring, 2019
Sainz finished ‘best of the rest’ more than any other driver, leading the midfield home six times

Lando Norris

Lando Norris, McLaren, Spa-Francorchamps, 2019
Norris was the midfield’s top qualifier, averaging a position of 9.38 in qualifying

Sergio Perez

Sergio Perez, Racing Point, Circuit of the Americas, 2019
Perez gained more places during races than any other driver: On average he finished 3.47 positions higher than he started. Stroll ranked second on 3.36

Lance Stroll

Start, Bahrain International Circuit, 2019
Stroll gained a total of 40 places on lap one of races during 2019, the most of any driver, an average of 1.9 per race

Kimi Raikkonen

Kimi Raikkonen, Alfa Romeo, Paul Ricard, 2019
Over the first 12 races Raikkonen scored points eight times (and lost another to a penalty in Germany) but after the summer break he only finished in the top 10 once

Antonio Giovinazzi

Antonio Giovinazzi, Alfa Romeo, Red Bull Ring, 2019
In contrast Giovinazzi only finished in the points once before the summer break

Daniil Kvyat

Daniil Kvyat, Toro Rosso, Autodromo Hermanos Rodriguez, 2019
Kvyat scored just 23.9% of his team’s points while Gasly was his team mate, the worst of any driver besides George Russell, as the Williams pair scored just one point between them

Pierre Gasly

Pierre Gasly, Red Bull, Hungaroring, 2019
Over the first 11 races Gasly finished last among the top three teams – ‘worst of the best’ – nine times

George Russell

George Russell, Williams, Interlagos, 2019
Russell had the most non-points-scoring finishes of any driver: 19

Robert Kubica

Robert Kubica, Williams, Suzuka, 2019
Kubica was the only driver who failed to out-qualify his team mate in all 21 races

More statistics on the 2019 F1 season

Have you spotted any other revealing statistics from the 2019 season? Share them in the comments.

Go ad-free for just £1 per month

>> Find out more and sign up

2019 F1 season review

Browse all 2019 F1 season review articles

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

61 comments on “Telling stats: 20 revealing facts on each driver’s 2019 season”

  1. Not sure what’s telling about Bottas reaching Q3 on the best car, just like his team mate.

    1. Its telling he had the best car?

    2. @fer-no65 Some Ferrari fan you are. Even when your team builds the quickest car and bottles it through operations and it’s drivers you don’t give them the credit. Weird.

      1. I’m not a Ferrari fan, far from it. But that stat tells nothing about Bottas’ season!

        1. What makes you think statistics should be informative?

          Do you know that, statistically speaking, the overwhelming majority of Welsh Tenors have more than the average number of legs?

          1. statistics which reveal significant details about drivers
            Here are our 20 telling stats

      2. We’re talking about 2019, not 2008. Merc have had the fastest car since 2014. Sure they spend half the time sandbagging to make it look interesting (and to make sure the PU regs don’t change), but that’s just for the sake of the show (you know, what F1 is).

        1. @asherway and how do you come to that conclusion, by the points table alone? Operationally Ferrari have been a mess 2017, 2018 and this year. They had the car to win both championships in each of those years but for quality control, driver errors and boneheaded strategy. That is where Mercedes have excelled, not pure speed.

          1. Well, the points table is not arbitrary. It is indicative of relative performance over a season. If any of these years had been close you could make an argument that the underdog prevailed. None of these years have been close. At all.

            Perhaps excelling in quality control, driver performance and strategy is a measure of Merc’s true advantage. They have a massive margin for error, Ferrari do not (and it shows).

            Every time Lewis and Toto open their mouths it’s to state how fast the competition is. Why do you think this is? Coincidence?

            Not for nothing, this website has also stated as much (that Merc have had the overall fastest car throughout).

            Ferrari simply have not had the car to win. Supporting this argument requires the most convoluted retelling of race by race performance, reading into practice sessions as though they mean anything. The more backflips you have to do to state an argument, the more you have to wonder: perhaps the simpler explanation is true.

          2. They had the car to win both championships in each of those years


          3. well, the points table is not arbitrary. It is indicative of relative performance over a season. If any of these years had been close you could make an argument that the underdog prevailed. None of these years have been close. At all.

            This ignores drivers throwing away points through errors. Debatably Ferrari had the fastest car last year (2018), but it didn’t look like a close fight mainly due to driver error. Calculations show Vettel threw away a century of points to mistakes AMuS did brilliant analysis. Their data show Ferrari had the fastest car overall in 2018 (by a tiny margin). Here on Racefans, Keith also did his stats. It showed there really wasn’t much between the SF71H & W09. It was close enough for the drivers to make the difference.

          4. @amam – Yep, Keith did his numbers:

            “For the fifth year in a row Mercedes produced the fastest car.”

            “Mercedes on average had the fastest car over a single lap.”

          5. (@asherway)

            Keith stats are based on 1 lap pace only. Even beyond the headline, his figures show it was very close. And IMO, Keith wrongly awards Mexico & USA to Merc (Merc & Ferrari were separated by less than a 10th in those Q3 sessions…so they were basically equal/ the driver may have made the difference).

            Looking at other analysis, AMuS are among the best..they consider BOTH race pace & quali pace & use more sophisticated tools such as GPS. Their data concluded Ferrari in fact had the quickest car overall by a slight margin. Worth noting that Vettel also had excellent reliability in 2018,Hamilton had a mechanical DNF & other reliability issues.

            Vettel simply made too many mistakes in 2018. Threw too many points away. But the cars were close. Which was the fastest, is debatable

          6. @asherway, as others have noted, the issue is that Keith has tended to focus on a single metric, which was single lap pace – and even that is skewed by the debate over whether the Australian GP was truly representative, as that single qualifying session in itself does skew the results (it doesn’t quite switch the order around, but the difference in qualifying pace does come down noticeably if that isn’t included).

            As @amam notes, there are other sites who suggested that the cars were very closely matched in 2018 – F1 Metrics, which takes a statistical approach, also concluded that the difference in race trim between Ferrari and Mercedes was wafer thin, and perhaps did very slightly tip in Ferrari’s favour, at least when looking at the earlier part of the season.

            2018 felt to me like the cars were closely enough matched, having different strengths in different areas – for example, Mercedes seemed to have slightly better high speed stability, but Ferrari were slightly better under braking and forward weight transfer – that the ability of the team and driver combo to not just maximise their opportunities, but to minimise their losses, through strategy and avoiding errors was a telling factor.

            There were more than a few who felt that Ferrari was strategically poor in 2018, including Ferrari itself – there was a criticism, and this is one that has continued into 2019, that Ferrari seemed to have a somewhat conservative approach. Either they gave the impression that they were waiting for their rivals to drive the decision and then react to them, or they would stick to a particular strategy approach even when the race didn’t seem to be going quite as planned.

            Operationally, there was the impression that Ferrari just wasn’t as sharp as Mercedes was in 2018 – whilst Mercedes gave the impression that the whole team had a coherent picture of what they were trying to achieve, at Ferrari it always felt that, whilst the individual pieces of the picture could be good, they never collectively maximised their potential or, for that matter, managed to minimise the damage when they couldn’t get the maximum points haul.

          7. They had the car to win both championships in each of those years but for quality control, driver errors and boneheaded strategy. That is where Mercedes have excelled, not pure speed.

            Mercedes had great race pace and wasn’t eating tires too quickly which can’t be said about 2018 or 2019 Ferrari. What looks like “boneheaded strategy” was mostly just trying to cope with the tire degradation (and, this year, trying to keep both drivers happy).

          8. @(@torrit)

            Mercedes had great race pace and wasn’t eating tires too quickly which can’t be said about 2018 or 2019 Ferrari.

            True, Ferrari were “eating” tyres too quickly this year, but there were portions of 2018 where Merc also struggled with tyre degradation….hence they developed their wheel rim upgrade to try counter this.Races like Mexico, USA, Brazil etc they suffered strong tyre degradation. And Ferrari had the pace in 2018. According to some sources e.g. AMuS, F1 Metrics…slightly better pace than the Merc. Better reliability than Merc too.

            The 2017 Merc was “less kind” on tyres than the 2017 Ferrari…hence that’s partly why the W08 was called a “Diva”.

            Both the 2017 & 2018 Ferrari cars were championship capable…2017 less so than 2018

        2. @asherway I’d say it’s rather telling that even with the fastest car the Ferrari didn’t always manage to end up in Q3.

          Clearly Ferrari had the fastest car this season. Most poles for Leclerc and he could have gotten more. For instance if he hadn’t crashed out in Baku.

          It’s a whole different matter that their drivers and the team made too many mistakes on raceday. But in this case the errors were made during quali.

          1. @@f1osaurus

            It will be interesting to see how Keith works out who had the quickest car this year. My one criticism of his methodology is that he needs to factor driver input a bit more often. Let me give you an example. Last year, in his computations, he had Merc quicker in Q3 than Ferrari, in Mexico. In reality, the two cars were separated by less than a tenth…so they were basically equal. When the gap is that small, it’s feasible that the driver can make the difference and Vettel did make a mistake in Q3. So, if Keith had factored that it, he really should have put Merc & Ferrari as equal in Q3 Mexico. This year, i hope he factors this in more often. For instance, in Baku, Ferrari looked quickest but Leclerc crashed…and with Charles crashing, he couldn’t provide Vettel with a tow. Vettel then sets a time 3ths off pole WITHOUT a tow, but the tow around Baku being worth 4ths.

            In other words, had Charles not crashed & was able to provide a tow, it would have been another Ferrari pole. I hope Keith digs a litter deeper when he finally does his analysis. I felt he failed to do that in 2018.

          2. I believe asherway was trying to show that in order to try to run at the same level as Mercedes , Ferrari needed to take more risks, an run above their “normal” level. Running more on the edge than Mercedes made them lose reliability on their car, also, the drivers tend to be more error prone when they are running more aggressively or above their comfort zone. Mercedes were able to be on the best situation, just controlling their aggressiveness and running consistently and on optimal level. This for me showed what’s the overall better team.

          3. @amam Yes true, it’s difficult to exactly guage performance. Especially when things go wrong.

            Leclerc looked faster than Vettel in Baku. So him being out potentially already hurt their perceived speed.

            Then Vettel actually did have a car in front in Baku, but he decided to pass it. So it’s really his own fault. Just like in Monza when he decided to pass Leclerc.

            I guess Bottas got that tow instead. Which wasn’t entirely an optimal tow. So if Hamilton had been in front of Bottas then perhaps Bottas could have been faster too.

            On the other hand, Bottas pulled his trick where he slows down suddenly at the end of the lap. Which meant that he ruined Hamilton’s lap. So Hamilton didn’t have a proper tow at all. He was almost as fast as Bottas. What could he have done with a proper tow.

            But yes I would agree that Ferrari should/could have taken pole in Baku. Plus also agreed that a simple look at the score board is not enough.

            It’s even more difficult to measure race pace. Especially in 2018 when Ferrari would have been faster on race pace, but Vettel kept crashing or spinning off. Also this season though where Ferrari had the habit of stopping Leclerc way too early and then leaving him with a compromised strategy. Often needing a stop more which he realisticly could never make up for.

            Either way, I notice now that Leclerc actually did make Q3 in Baku. The only time he didn’t was Monaco. Which was a team blunder. Vettel only missed Germany due to a technical issue. Verstappen only missed Canada when he couldn’t set a lap when Magnussen crashed at the end of the session (bad gamble on going late I guess)

            So the “reached Q3 in all events” metric doesn’t actually say anything about the relative performance of the car between the three top teams. It’s one unlucky (or dumb) event that made the “difference”.

            I was actually surprised Bottas went for it in Abu Dhabi. In previous cases like that, for instance they let Hamilton drop out in Q1 in Spa 2016 and chose to save the tyres for the race instead.

          4. @mmertens That is such a nonsensical argument though. Ferrari had the faster car in Q3. So if anything, they could have taken less risk. However they still “fight” their team mate in equal machinery so they need to go for it fully. Whether it’s a Mercedes or Ferrari driver.

    3. He is the most boring driver and so has nothing special statistics-wise either.

      1. Good driving isn’t dramatic driving. Boring is one way to describe good driving. Bottas, like the other Top Four drivers, brought home points at every race he completed. Not a unique statistic, but an important one.

        1. Answering F1 saurus, it’s not at all. The fact that ima car is fast in qualy doesn’t mean that this car is the dominant one. Overall, in race trim, amongst all circuits, the Mercedes was clearly the car to beat, always more consistent, and better in the long runs. That shows better than just looking at q3 pace. If this was the case, the Lotus 98t would be the car to beat in 1985 season, and yet the McLaren’s and Williams were better overall.

    4. @fer-no65 I think it is very telling actually. Every other driver managed to have something, positive or bad, that was unique to them (except Ricciardo) and Bottas only stat of note is equal to his teammate. To me it tells the “true story” of Bottas (version 2.0, 1.5, 2.333, whatever): he’s not a remarkable driver.

      PS – Ricciardo doesn’t come good in this particular article, he also tied with another driver is his most revealing fact!

  2. It’s interesting how numbers alone can tell a different history. Move some 20 years in the future, when the context is lost, and a young fan looking at the 2019 status will see Ricciardo as a dangerous driver (more penalty points than MAG), Russel as worst of the rest on raceday, Stroll as a fierce overtaker on lap one.

    Ferrari’s 2019 history match the numbers somehow. Someone will be able to see clearly how LEC proved his point.

    RedBull had a much better car than the numbers suggest. If not for second driver dilema and VER crashes (some were his fault as Spa but others not, like Vettel’s “misjudgement”) they would be much closer to 2nd place.

    1. @onlyfacts
      Hmm, so placing a car on a place you are fully entitled to because you’re more than halfway alongside, but unfortunately being squeezed by another car, who’s driver admitted after the race he overlooked you because he was more focused on Vallteri, is suddenly “your” fault?
      And since Red Bull apparently didn’t finish close enough due to crashes and 2nd driver dilemma, isn’t it a valid question to ask where Ferrari would have ended without both their drivers crashes?
      Man, Ferrari threw more points away by their own incompetence and driver mistakes than Red Bull’s total tally! Lol
      Only facts? Hmmm, I think you need to go back to school kiddo.

      1. Oconomo, I assume you are going for deliberate massive hyperbole with the claim that “Ferrari threw more points away by their own incompetence and driver mistakes than Red Bull’s total tally!”, as that is rather unrealistic.

        Ferrari’s total this season was 504 points, whilst Red Bull scored 417 points – if you did add Red Bull’s score to Ferrari’s total, that would be 921 points. The theoretical maximum score any team could have achieved was 924 points – the only way that you claim could be true would be if Ferrari not only managed to have a 1-2 finish in every single race this season, they’d also have to take 18 of the possible 21 bonus points for the fastest lap in the race as well.

        I would actually agree with Only Facts! that, when you look at Red Bull’s points total for this season, the problems they had with finding a decent second driver did hurt them – in fact, saying “they would be much closer to 2nd place” might even be an underestimate of their potential.

        In the nine races that Albon had for the team in 2019, he scored at an average of 8.4 points per race – considering you would hope for a minimum of 8 points per race, assuming he could score 6th as a minimum, his average was only just above what you’d have expected as a bare minimum. Gasly, meanwhile, was significantly worse at an average of just 5.25 points per race.

        If you look at Verstappen’s performance this season and in 2018, his total points haul for this season was slightly higher – 278 versus 249 points – but, in terms of points scored per race, when you account for the number of DNF’s that he had in those seasons – 2 this year and 4 last year – his average points scored per race was identical in 2018 and 2019 (14.63 points per race in 2019 and 14.65 in 2018).

        By way of comparison, in 2018 Ricciardo finished with 170 points from just 13 race finishes (he had a freakishly high mechanical failure rate, and his overall retirement race was very unusual at about 40% for the entire season). In the races he was finishing in, Ricciardo was averaging about 13.1 points a race in 2018 – significantly higher than what either Gasly or Albon could manage this season, and not that far behind what Verstappen averaged.

        Collectively, Albon and Gasly contributed 139 points to Red Bull’s total this year. If, as a minimum, they should have contributed a points total equivalent to 6th in every race, you would have expected at least 168 points for the season – so, collectively they fall 29 points short of where they should have been.

        If Ricciardo was at Red Bull this season and managed to score points at the same average he managed in 2018 of 13.1 points per race, and if his mechanical reliability in 2019 was the same as Albon and Gasly was – i.e. one DNF (Gasly’s driveshaft failure in Baku) – then you have expected him to have scored about 260 points in 2019.

        It’s about 120 points more than Gasly and Albon collectively added, and even if you took Albon, as the stronger of the two drivers, and assumed he’d raced for the whole of 2019, it suggests that Ricciardo points total would have been around 100 points higher than Albon’s theoretical total. It’s a big enough difference in points to suggest that Red Bull should have been scoring closer to about 530 points this season if they’d had a driver of Ricciardo’s competitiveness, which would have put them ahead of Ferrari.

        Yes, you can say that Ferrari failed to maximise their chances, but Red Bull’s lack of a strong second driver means there’s a pretty reasonable argument they underperformed quite significantly in the WCC as well. There was no point this season where their second driver was able to outrace either of the Mercedes or Ferrari drivers on raw pace alone, and I think it is reasonable to suggest Ricciardo would have been more competitive if he’d been there.

        1. Additionally to that analysis, Ricciardo’s 2018 season was not only ruined by those mechanical failures, but the additional grid penalties because of those failures, those further lowered his points/finished race average. Such streak of bad luck can affect even the bests’ mindset, and considering those penalties often put him on the grid behind Verstappen, that’s another significant disadvantage too. Summing up all of these his 13.1 compared to Verstappen’s 14.65 is still not a defeat at all for me.

          1. But of course in fairness you posters are being selective with your fiddling with the stats. You are comparing driver performances and how they contributed to WCC points, fair enough.

            But to take out the dnfs and go by averages of races finished still doesn’t account for what happened in races. Eg. Max taken out by Leclerc at the start of whatever race that was…ie. nothing wrong with Max’s performance that day…he was taken out. Max was sent back and I think ultimately out with his tangle with LH. Max started a race at the back due to a components change. Albon was taken out by LH when he was poised for a podium. Ie. nothing wrong at all with AA’s performance that day and in fact it was excellent. Those are just some examples.

            Also, it is folly to substitute one team’s performance over the season but leave another team’s as is. To say if only, and woulda, coulda, shoulda for RBR woulda meant they would have been closer to Ferrari, is rather convenient no? Let’s give Ferrari a better season too then.

            Everything unfolded as it did and it is what it is, team efforts all around, and one must take into account the specifics of each race to truly compare and play the woulda coulda shoulda game.

            That said, I think it is a no-brainer to say had DR stayed at RBR, and obviously as an engrained driver there, familiar with the car and they familiar with him, would have meant many more points for RBR from the getgo, and therefore likely less for Ferrari, assuming all other things kept the same as they happened.

          2. @robbie, I find it odd that you mostly complain that I wasn’t factoring in issues for Verstappen and give the impression that you are getting cross as me for believing that I was criticising Verstappen, when I wasn’t criticising his performance.

            I would also have to disagree with the assertion that Albon was “excellent” in Brazil, as that podium position really wasn’t that representative of his pace in that race. He only got into that position thanks to the safety car from Bottas’s engine blowing, because he’d spent most of the race running in 5th place and really only had the pace to finish 5th – he wasn’t competing with Hamilton on pace for 2nd place, and in fact was over a pit stop’s worth of time behind Hamilton in normal race conditions.

            Just as you raise the accusation that we’re being selective with our stats, it feels like you want to pick and choose events as well to say “well, this is what should have happened instead” (and, as an aside, you complain about Verstappen being taken out in Mexico and Japan, but it turns out those races actually make a pretty minor difference to his season average).

            As for the point “I think it is a no-brainer to say had DR stayed at RBR, and obviously as an engrained driver there, familiar with the car and they familiar with him, would have meant many more points for RBR from the getgo, and therefore likely less for Ferrari, assuming all other things kept the same as they happened.”, whilst you might think that obvious, it seems that Oconomo reacted as if it was some sort of heresy to suggest that might be the case.

          3. @anon Fair comment. I wasn’t cross at you at all nor thought you were criticizing Max’s performance. Nor was I trying to selectively pick events that happened, to suggest something else could have happened. I said ‘those are just some examples.’ As I said, it is what it is, and events unfolded as they did. What I was perhaps ineffectively trying to say is that it is far different when a driver has a dnf but had started high on the grid with all kinds of legit potential, and was taken out in the first corner or two, unfairly, compared to if a driver makes a mistake and takes himself out. They both count as dnfs but the true context makes for a different story in how a driver did during the season or in a race.

            With DR, he generally got outqualified and outlead in races, with Max generally finishing higher more often than not, but it used to be Max’s own mistakes that would add to DR’s points haul. Max would be the better actual performer on the track, impatient and costly moves aside, but DR would outpoint him over the season. On the one hand one could say DR didn’t race himself past Max on track, but it is what it is and Max’s style of racing helped DR to no small amount of points. That’s racing, yeah, and so some love to claim DR beat Max every season but 2018, but it is actually Max that is the better faster qualifier and racer. DR couldn’t do much about Max on track, but was there to capitalize when Max erred. Of course in 2018 DR was quite handcuffed with unreliability and that shaded what he was able to do. When he was ‘healthy’ Max still lead him. Anyway, this all not meant to defend Max or shade DR, but just to say there is more to drivers’ seasons than how many dnf’s and how many points per race on average. The dnf’s can be through no fault of the driver or can be entirely his fault, and the points per race can be hard earned or somewhat inherited, or both dnf’s and points per race for a driver through a season can be in a combination of fault/no fault realities. And that of course goes for all driver combos, not just Max and DR, naturally.

  3. Hamilton was the most prolific winner for the sixth year in a row

    I’m guessing this is a new all-time record for consecutive ‘winningest’ seasons? Schumacher was the winningest driver for 5 consecutive years (2000-2004) and Fangio for 4 consecutive years (1954-1957).

    1. ‘Winningest’ is a horrible, lazy word

      1. Horriblest , lazified descriptiony.

  4. Jelle van der Meer (@)
    19th December 2019, 15:14

    The Haas drivers losing position stats and Racing Point drivers gaining positions are not so much telling something about the drivers but much more about the cars.

    The Haas cars ranked 1st and 2nd in most positions lost – direct result of it being a better qualifying car than race car. If you often (almost) reach Q3 in a bad car it is only logically you lose lots of positions when the car is eating tyres.

    The Racing Point cars ranked 1st and 2nd in most positions gained – direct result of it being a better racing car than qualifying car although this stat is also partly driven by the fact that both Perez and Stroll are not top qualifiers. If you qualify (almost) never in Q3 or even Q2 and start of the back in a reasonable competitive car it is only logically you gain lots of positions during the race – even if you do not make a single overtake – just gain positions only due retirements/issues of cars that qualified ahead.

  5. While Ricciardo finished ‘best of the rest’ four times Hulkenberg never did

    It would’ve been 3-2 if not for bad luck / team orders iirc, with Hulk getting best of the rest at Bahrain and Canada.

    1. +1
      I honestly have no idea why Renault favored Ricciardo so hard this season

  6. Albon scored 76 points in his nine-race spell at Red Bull, more than the 63 Gasly managed in 12 starts for the team

    But you also look at their seasons like this:
    Gasly scored 32 points in his nine-race spell at Toro Rosso, double the 16 Albon managed in 12 starts for the team.

    1. @coldfly Most of that from a lucky P2 in Brazil though where Albon should have had that P2.

      1. Even without those extra 6pts it would have been a strong stat.

        People seem to be tone-deaf to the performance of Gasly at STR; significantly better than what Albon did during his spell there.

        1. @coldfly He gained 12 points through luck that day though. 20 vs 16 doesn’t sound that impressive when comparing a rookies first few races to a second year driver.

          1. @f1osaurus, how did he gain 12 ponts? 2nd instead of 4th is an extra 6pts in my books.
            But even if you want to deduct 12 points, his 9 race at STR were more impressive and rewarding than the 12 race races Gasly did at STR earlier in the year.

          2. @coldfly He’s probably looking at where Gasly was before the Ferrari’s got together.

          3. He’s probably looking at where Gasly was before the Ferrari’s got together.

            Maybe @dragon86, but then his statement that “Albon should have had that P2” doesn’t make any sense.

          4. @coldfly Well if you are claiming Gasly should have had that P2 then Albon would have had a lucky P2 yes.

            In fact for neither it’s a show of good performance. Otger than making it till the end.

      2. @f1osaurus In fairness, half of Albon’s 16 Toro Rosso points came at Hockenheim. A race where he still finished behind his teammate and two other midfield cars.

        1. @dragon86 OK fair enough, but Gasly managed to crash in the same race.

  7. ”Over the first 11 races Gasly finished last among the top three teams – ‘worst of the best’ – nine times”
    – Don’t you mean ’12’ races rather than 11?

    1. Nope, because Bottas was 8th in Hungary.

    2. @jerejj No I don’t: Bottas was ‘worst of the best’ in Hungary.

      1. @keithcollantine My bad. I didn’t take that into account at the time of posting.

  8. This is an excellent new feature, @keithcollantine. Thoroughly enjoyable to read.

    1. I agree it’s nice, but it’s not new, it’s been there for the last few years!

  9. What if Magnussen and Grosjean are top2 @ loosing positions at start is due to that they are quite measureless and generally fought eachother so lost a lot of positions against eachother generally and of course against better opponents too.

  10. “Magnussen lost the most places at the start, averaging a loss of 1.43 positions per race”

    This is odd to me. Magnussen made some very spendid starts where he took 4-5 positions on first lap, so this one puzzles me. Including some of the races where he started behind Grosjean and after first lap he was well ahead.

    How is “…at the start…” measured? Doesn’t look like it’s lap 1.

    1. Hmm, probably he did generally well at first laps, but some really bad starts with loosing something like 10 places can ruin an average like this really well.
      And at F1 margins are really low, this implies very high variance even on a statistical sample of multiple seasons. This is why super drivers like Stirling Moss never won a championship, or Hulk never earned a podium. They were really unlucky in terms of results. Probably instead of averages using medians would be more expressive to factor out extremes.
      Statistics is hard to do really well, even researchers tried to do it with different approaches for a long while, and it’s still a really hot area. These things are for guys like Ross Brawn, he’s really good at applying science.
      And of course many of these stats are fun facts, and to make you think if you want.

      1. I’d define “start” for this stat definitely longer than the first few turns, if I’d have to make the decision.
        Gain or loss on first lap would be at about ok for me, as gaps are likely quite small even after 2-3 laps.

        And as someone mentioned before, Haas was a better at qualifications than at races. Imo they had the
        second worst car. They, and Kubica complained a lot of about grip and tyres, the others not really.
        This is why I not really agree the opinion, that tyres were so bad. Almost all teams got along with them,
        and they were durable. That’s far better than being vulnerable or than having two tyre suppliers and one being much better than the other. The fact that teams choose the current tyres for the next interim season, is quite acceptable, and probably the new specs tryes was a step back idk. The only thing I don’t like that they can only thest the next year’s tyres at the end of the season, while they are designing the new car for a long while before that test. That’s a bit
        nonsense at this pricy world.

  11. Magnussen lost the most places at the start, averaging a loss of 1.43 positions per race.

    Offsetting that poor start statistic is he has the unique place of being the only driver this season to achieve getting the Fastest Lap at a race (note that I didn’t say he got the Fastest Lap Point) without ever standing on the podium at any race. If he had been awarded that point he would be tied on the WDC points table with Lance Stroll (21 points).

  12. I really like these fun stats.

    The Perez stat shows what a top racer he is because it’s not as if he did poorly in qualifying.

  13. From the longer discussion above between @amam @asherway and anon, anon said this:

    …at Ferrari it always felt that, whilst the individual pieces of the picture could be good, they never collectively maximised their potential or, for that matter, managed to minimise the damage when they couldn’t get the maximum points haul.

    anon was speaking about 2018 in particular but it fits for the entirety of this era (2014-present). I still think in its total package, Merc has yet to be caught in car development. There have been races and even seasons where it has been basically a dead heat, but rarely does any car match Merc in single-lap pace, race pace, reliability, tire wear, ability to follow, fuel consumption, etc.

    But, even if there is a legitimate argument that Ferrari had an equal or slightly better car in 2018 or 2019 (and those arguments are discussed above), in equal cars I take Hamilton over Vettel, Hamilton over Leclerc, Wolff et al over Fill_in_the_blank et al, Merc strategy (bumbles and all) over Ferr strategy, Merc design and development over Ferr design and development.

    It will not be good enough, in my estimation, for Ferrari or RBR to show up with an equal car. They will need a better car. I am not a Merc or Hamilton cultist, nor do I think they are without flaw or fault. But until some other team has a real and significant (meaning serious, be it small or large) advantage, the top of the order will not change.

Comments are closed.