Saturday, May 28, 2016

F1 Monaco Qualifying

How the drivers progressed through qualifying.

Autodetected signals:

Going from Q1 to Q2:

* GRO failed to improve his time, recording 75.571 compared to 75.465 (0.106s slower)

Going from Q2 to Q3:
* VET failed to improve his time, recording 74.552 compared to 74.318 (0.234s slower)
* KVY failed to improve his time, recording 75.273 compared to 74.794 (0.479s slower)
* ALO failed to improve his time, recording 75.363 compared to 75.107 (0.256s slower)

How the drivers improved position going from Q2 to Q3:

imp1 is time diffrence (negative is an improvement in laptime) for a driver who improved his rank going from Q2 to Q3; imp2 is the improvement in laptime for a driver who lost rank position to the driver in the first column.

So RIC improved his rank going Q2 to Q3 over ROS, HAM and VET; HUL improved rank over RAI, SER, PER and KVY; SAI improved rank over KVY; and PER improved rank over KVY.

driverName   imp1 driverName   imp2
1        RIC -0.735        ROS -0.252
2        RIC -0.735        HAM -0.114
3        RIC -0.735        VET  0.234
4        HUL -0.263        RAI -0.057
5        HUL -0.263        SAI -0.056
6        HUL -0.263        PER -0.035
7        HUL -0.263        KVY  0.479
8        SAI -0.056        KVY  0.479
9        PER -0.035        KVY  0.479

Qualifying session cutoff time evolution:

1. error in table 2 - wrong order in q2 for sainz/kvyat. sainz(74,805) above kvyat (74,794)

1. Not sure I understand? Based on the Q2 session times, SAI was ranked 7th and KVY 6th /in that session/?

2. exactly. but in second table above sainz placed over kvyat in q2.

3. Not sure I know what you mean by the second table?

If you mean the line:
8 SAI -0.056 KVY 0.479

that's going from Q2 to Q3 (SAI ranked higher than KVY in Q3).

If you mean the second blue and grey chart, col1 is Q1, col2 is Q2, col3 is Q3, with better (higher ranked) positions lower down the chart.

4. Oh sorry. I just realized how to understand this table (named qualifying progression chart, the second one). instead of the usual top-down direction to the deterioration of the result, then elected to the reverse order, and the best result at the bottom. I also think that there is the usual order.

5. I explored different orderings/presentation schemes for those charts in https://leanpub.com/wranglingf1datawithr/

The current order reflects laptime decreasing down the chart. Better rank is also lower down the chart.

There seem to be a few issues with posting comments. I think you need to preview your comment before you can submit it... Any problems, send me a message on twitter: @psychemedia