Parameter's for judging car advantage.

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
User avatar
FoxHound
55
Joined: 23 Aug 2012, 16:50

Parameter's for judging car advantage.

Post

I'm looking for a complete set of parameters when looking into car advantage.

In this discussion, I would like to get the thoughts of the forum on what you all think would warrant a car being "the best".
Is speed the be all and end all?
Is reliability a decisive factor overall?

In terms of Era's, would extenuating circumstances also be set into the parameter's? For example, 2010-current(pirelli/DRS/engine freeze), 1998-2006(differing tyre manufacturers) 1960s-70s(horrific safety).

As we have data to go buy historically speaking, you can also use these facts to help with your assessments. I'm hoping we can all use this thread as a reference at some point so as to eliminate any circular debates.
JET set

User avatar
WhiteBlue
92
Joined: 14 Apr 2008, 20:58
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Re: Parameter's for judging car advantage.

Post

The three most important factors historically that continue today are power from the engine and aerodynamic efficiency of the chassis and reliability. You do get a bunch of other things like absolute weight, centre of gravity, fuel efficiency of the engine and performance enhancers like seamless shifting that occasionally played a role until the competition caught up with the innovators. But the basic three should be a good set.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)

User avatar
Kiril Varbanov
147
Joined: 05 Feb 2012, 15:00
Location: Bulgaria, Sofia

Re: Parameter's for judging car advantage.

Post

I will share some thoughts only about the latest era cars (called "Bolids" in my native language), as I think the engine power output was a great factor back in the days. Today, we have them frozen and almost equalized.

The most important things are, IMHO, interaction with tires (recent Pirelli years, see Mercedes rear tires temps and the mild Lotuses) , mechanical traction and chassis superiority (Red Bull springs to mind), aero efficiency and reliability.
We've seen many championship points lost due to various mechanical components failure, and it's insignificant if you have a fast car which can't make it to the final.

User avatar
FoxHound
55
Joined: 23 Aug 2012, 16:50

Re: Parameter's for judging car advantage.

Post

WhiteBlue wrote:The three most important factors historically that continue today are power from the engine and aerodynamic efficiency of the chassis and reliability.

Ok, but then Aero has dominated F1 for some time now, whereas in the 70s it was more a chassis/engine Formula.
My aim is to find the car advantage within those confines. So if engine dominated, the engine will naturally be the more important factor over aero.
We can look at historical statistics to see how it unfolded as a guide.

Ultimately though, I would like to have something of a formula that we can apply for each and every season that will not be distorted by any of the above factors or trolls looking to big up their deity driver.
.Speed can be deduced by qualification.
.Race pace can be deduced by starting position multiplied by positions gained or divided by positions lost.
.Reliability can be deduced from races finished out of a season of races percentile.
.Driver error should be eliminated as this has nothing to do with judging a car's advantage.

I would like to add more parameters, and improve vastly on the above. Once set, we can then agree upon some denomination to flesh out numbers.
This will work better if more opinions are voiced.
JET set

User avatar
FoxHound
55
Joined: 23 Aug 2012, 16:50

Re: Parameter's for judging car advantage.

Post

Kiril Varbanov wrote:We've seen many championship points lost due to various mechanical components failure, and it's insignificant if you have a fast car which can't make it to the final.
Agreed. Kimi Raikkonen in 2005 with the MP4-20 probably had the fastest car(12 fastest laps out of 18 races), but it had stupendously poor reliability from the Mercedes engine. Then again, maybe it was fast as Newey designed the car with marginal cooling for the engine, the strength may well have been it's achilles heel.
Car advantage dissipated.
JET set

User avatar
mcjamweasel
11
Joined: 18 Mar 2010, 15:23

Re: Parameter's for judging car advantage.

Post

FoxHound wrote:.Driver error should be eliminated as this has nothing to do with judging a car's advantage.
I'm not convinced that it's as straight forwards as that. What if the car is bloody quick but a nightmare to drive on the limit, provoking lots of mistakes? In that case is the outright pace more of an advantage than a slightly slower car that's easy to drive on the limit, thus causing the drive to make more mistakes?

User avatar
FoxHound
55
Joined: 23 Aug 2012, 16:50

Re: Parameter's for judging car advantage.

Post

mcjamweasel wrote:
FoxHound wrote:.Driver error should be eliminated as this has nothing to do with judging a car's advantage.
I'm not convinced that it's as straight forwards as that. What if the car is bloody quick but a nightmare to drive on the limit, provoking lots of mistakes? In that case is the outright pace more of an advantage than a slightly slower car that's easy to drive on the limit, thus causing the drive to make more mistakes?
A good point, one that I did ache over before writing.
However, one man's garbage is another's gold. Scientifically speaking, there is no real way we can decipher this other than from a driver's feedback.
The Williams of 1994 was probably the most famous of these, but over the season it got better as Williams managed to overcome it's reliance of electronic driver aids(banned that year).
Once other more prominent parameter's are settled, I'm sure we could add this later.
JET set

User avatar
FoxHound
55
Joined: 23 Aug 2012, 16:50

Re: Parameter's for judging car advantage.

Post

My opening gambit would be:

(P)Poles x(L) Laps led x (F)fastest laps / (M)mechanical failure = X

You could even get an accurate figure by dividing the events so as to not favour cars that have attended more events.

PxLxF/M/(E)Events=X

For car's with poorer pole records, but better race pace the formula would need adjusting. Which basically means the above formula is nowhere near complete.
JET set

Gerhard Berger
Gerhard Berger
-1
Joined: 20 Sep 2010, 11:17

Re: Parameter's for judging car advantage.

Post

FoxHound wrote:I'm looking for a complete set of parameters when looking into car advantage.

In this discussion, I would like to get the thoughts of the forum on what you all think would warrant a car being "the best".
Is speed the be all and end all?
Is reliability a decisive factor overall?

In terms of Era's, would extenuating circumstances also be set into the parameter's? For example, 2010-current(pirelli/DRS/engine freeze), 1998-2006(differing tyre manufacturers) 1960s-70s(horrific safety).

As we have data to go buy historically speaking, you can also use these facts to help with your assessments. I'm hoping we can all use this thread as a reference at some point so as to eliminate any circular debates.
I believe the speed of the car is the most important factor.

Reliability can play a factor, but it depends on the specific circumstances and to what extent a car is unreliable. 1 or 2 DNFs are not a disaster in a 20 race season if you have a fast enough car to string a number of race wins together. However, regular problems (as Mclaren had in 2005) will be very problematic.

Gerhard Berger
Gerhard Berger
-1
Joined: 20 Sep 2010, 11:17

Re: Parameter's for judging car advantage.

Post

FoxHound wrote:
mcjamweasel wrote:
FoxHound wrote:.Driver error should be eliminated as this has nothing to do with judging a car's advantage.
I'm not convinced that it's as straight forwards as that. What if the car is bloody quick but a nightmare to drive on the limit, provoking lots of mistakes? In that case is the outright pace more of an advantage than a slightly slower car that's easy to drive on the limit, thus causing the drive to make more mistakes?
A good point, one that I did ache over before writing.
However, one man's garbage is another's gold. Scientifically speaking, there is no real way we can decipher this other than from a driver's feedback.
The Williams of 1994 was probably the most famous of these, but over the season it got better as Williams managed to overcome it's reliance of electronic driver aids(banned that year).
Once other more prominent parameter's are settled, I'm sure we could add this later.
Another good example is the B195. On the limit, it had quite alot of oversteer which Schumacher could handle. When berger and Alesi tried the car, they kept spinning off the track whilst pushing to the limit.

User avatar
FoxHound
55
Joined: 23 Aug 2012, 16:50

Re: Parameter's for judging car advantage.

Post

I had a spare 10 minutes and found a few stats easily attainable on the web.
I took 3 cars from last year that at one point or another was a contender for the title.
They where the Red Bull RB8, Ferrari F2012 and the McLaren 27.

Red Bull RB8:
Laps led 434, Poles attained 8, fastest laps 7, laps completed 2293 from a possible 2384.

Ferrari F2012:
Laps led 217, Poles attained 2, fastest laps 0, laps completed 2271 from a possible 2384

McLaren MP4-27:
Laps led 365, Poles attained 8, fastest laps 7, laps completed 2150 from a possible 2384.

RB8
The RB8 was at least the equal fastest car, and it lead more laps by some margin. Quickest for longer and more time. It also completed more laps than either McLaren or Ferrari.

Ferrari
Complete lack of one lap pace, allied to indifferent race pace but it was consistent enough for some decent podium positions.
The weaker of the 3 cars here from the data I have pulled, based on performance alone.

MP4-27
Very fast and comparable to the RB8, however did not lead as many laps as the RB8 due in no small part to team errors costing the machinery dearly, reliability also not quite up to the Red Bull benchmark.

I think 2012 is pretty clear cut and doesn't really require a formula to conjure a figure. But it is a good starting point to get sharp minds thinking and discussing as to what which parts of the formula should be given more precedence over others.
JET set

bhall
bhall
244
Joined: 28 Feb 2006, 21:26

Re: Parameter's for judging car advantage.

Post

Gentlemen, "The Pomeroy Index."
McCabism wrote:The Pomeroy Index is the primary means of measuring the relative speed of Formula 1 cars which not only raced in different years, but in different eras of the sport. Remarkably, it is capable of comparing the relative speeds of cars which never even raced on the same circuits. To achieve this, it uses a daisychaining technique, similar to the manner in which dendrochronology uses the overlap between tree rings from different eras to extend its dating technique all the way back from the present to prehistoric times (see The Greatest Show on Earth, Richard Dawkins, pp88-91). In both cases, it is the overlap principle which is vital. In the case of Formula 1, the daisychaining is achieved by identifying the circuits which are common to successive years of Grand Prix racing. Speed differences between successive years are averaged over these overlapping circuits, and the speed differences can then be daisychained all the way from the inception of Grand Prix racing in 1906 to the present day.

The index was invented by engineer and motoring journalist Laurence Pomeroy, and updated by Leonard (L.J.K.) Setright in 1966. (Another motoring journalist, Setright was hard to miss, "with his long, wispy beard, wide-brimmed hat, cape and black leather gloves, he looked like 'an Old Testament prophet suddenly arriving at a Hell's Angels meeting'." (On Roads, Joe Moran, p172)).

The index was resurrected and updated again more recently by Mark Hughes. The algorithm for calculating the index is as follows:

1) Identify the fastest car from each year by averaging the qualifying performance of all the cars over all the races.

2) For each pair of successive years, identify the overlapping circuits in the respective calendars. In other words, identify the circuits which were used in both years, in unaltered form.

3) Take the fastest car from the first year of Grand Prix racing, Ferenc Szisz's 1906 Renault, and assign it a Pomeroy Index of 100.

4) For year t+1, calculate the speed difference between the fastest car that year and the fastest car from year t, averaged over the overlapping circuits (and eliminating spurious cases where speed differentials were skewed by rain conditions). Express this speed difference as a percentage, and add it to the Pomeroy Index of the fastest car in year t to find the Pomeroy Index of the fastest car in year t+1. For example, if the fastest car in year t+1 is 2% faster than the fastest car from year t, and the fastest car in year t had a Pomeroy Index of 150, then the fastest car in year t+1 had a Pomeroy Index of 152.

5) Repeat step 4 until one reaches the current year.

An on-line version of the index from 1906 to 1966 exists for perusal, and Hughes's updated version in Autosport magazine obtained a value of 234.7 for Michael Schumacher's 2004 Ferrari. (Speeds have since fallen due to the imposition of smaller engines, rev-limits, a control-tyre formula, and a generally more restrictive set of technical regulations).

This doesn't mean, however, that the 2004 Ferrari was 2.347 times faster than the 1906 Renault. This would be to underestimate the speed difference between Herr Schumacher and Ur Szisz's respective steeds. Perhaps the crucial point to digest here is that average speeds in Formula 1 have historically increased, not in a linear fashion, and not even according to a power law; rather, average speeds in Formula 1 increase exponentially. Hence, the percentage speed increments tallied in the Pomeroy Index are akin to the yearly interest rates of a compound interest account. The 1935 Mercedes-Benz was 3% faster than the 1934 Auto Union, and the 1936 Auto Union was 5% faster than the 1935 Mercedes-Benz, but the 1936 Auto Union was more than 8% faster than the 1934 Auto Union because the 5% increase was 5% of a speed greater than the speed of the 1934 Auto Union.

Such an exponential increase in speed can be represented by the formula:

Q(t) = Q(0) (1 + r(t))t ,

where Q(t) is the speed in year t, Q(0) is the speed in year 0, t is the discrete year number, and r(t) is the interest rate in year t, expressed as a decimal. Thus, for example, if the year-on-year increase in speed were a constant 2%, then speeds would increase exponentially according to the formula:

Q(t) = Q(0) (1 + 0.02)t.

User avatar
raymondu999
54
Joined: 04 Feb 2010, 07:31

Re: Parameter's for judging car advantage.

Post

IMO reliability should not be a "multiplier" in this thing. When your car gives you a DNF - whatever the cause may be... faulty clutch... blown engine etc... then you have absolutely no car advantage. It doesn't matter if you completed 1 lap out of a possible 66, or 65 laps. Fact of the matter is, even if you had a 2s/lap advantage on the field, on that day your car precisely has as much points-scoring capability as a 2012 HRT in 2013.
失败者找理由,成功者找方法

User avatar
FoxHound
55
Joined: 23 Aug 2012, 16:50

Re: Parameter's for judging car advantage.

Post

raymondu999 wrote:IMO reliability should not be a "multiplier" in this thing. When your car gives you a DNF - whatever the cause may be... faulty clutch... blown engine etc... then you have absolutely no car advantage. It doesn't matter if you completed 1 lap out of a possible 66, or 65 laps. Fact of the matter is, even if you had a 2s/lap advantage on the field, on that day your car precisely has as much points-scoring capability as a 2012 HRT in 2013.
True, so how would you formulate this?

@Bhall
Can you apply the math to recent machinery to decipher dominant or "best" cars over say, the last 10 years?
Reading the article you posted it does go into some depth of giving you an idea of the performace difference of cars over the years. But will it work to calculate a cars performance advantage "in season"?
JET set

beelsebob
beelsebob
85
Joined: 23 Mar 2011, 15:49
Location: Cupertino, California

Re: Parameter's for judging car advantage.

Post

raymondu999 wrote:IMO reliability should not be a "multiplier" in this thing. When your car gives you a DNF - whatever the cause may be... faulty clutch... blown engine etc... then you have absolutely no car advantage. It doesn't matter if you completed 1 lap out of a possible 66, or 65 laps. Fact of the matter is, even if you had a 2s/lap advantage on the field, on that day your car precisely has as much points-scoring capability as a 2012 HRT in 2013.
I don't understand how your evidence backs up your argument. Quite the opposite in fact. If your car is unreliable, it doesn't matter how fast it is, it's still ---. That means that in a fast, unreliable car, you have not got a car advantage, but a car disadvantage. So yes, surely reliability should be taken into account.