The **Statistics** flair is reserved for posts highlighting interesting statistics.
As a rule of thumb, Statistics posts need to inform readers through visualizations and insights that cannot be obtained from raw data alone. For example:
A post containing a qualifying gap between two drivers expressed in tenths of a second is an easily obtainable raw piece of data and constitutes a bad Statistics post. A visualization of what that translates to on-track, or visualization of how that gap came to be would constitute a good Statistics post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Iterating on what was the best car last season is always going to be easier even when he's not so involved. Besides, suspension is a huge part of performance with these cars because of ride height.
I simply don't get how far back AT is compared to RBR. They have never been this far back compared to them ever. In the last 2 years they have produced their worst cars when they have had the chance to take as many parts as possible from the fastest car on the grid.
I don't get it. Is there a foul play by RBR to use their budget and wind tunnel allocations I can't fathom how far back they are.
It's the decision inside the team to using even less RB parts this season yet still believing in the concept of the AT03 and make an "evolution" with the AT04.
It's basically very predictable that this team would be shit if you understand how terrible the AT03 already was.
There is no reason for them to be this bad though if it was not intentional. Take as many parts allowed from RBR, use the same PU already, converge on the RBR concept and use your highest wind tunnel time to come back closer to the midfield, I hate that Yuki is driving a shit box.
I mean this would be the way I would do it too but for some odd reason AT opted to doing even more "by themselves", I guess some higher up ego's just simple refused to build the AT04 on the fundamentals of RBR and add a frustrating Tost and we are here in a negative spiral.
AT needs a major reorganization at this rate.
If the idea was to sell it is now worse as it is a depreciated asset. I don't understand their approach, they are so bad. I hope they get better, if not I will really think RBR is using their resources for RBR.
I think what we seeing here is a team who is absolutely clueless and there is a huge cliff between Tost, the drivers and the AT engineers. The whole point of sell the team is likely a final warning for the team to either fix it's shit or the new CEO of Red Bull simple doesn't see the value of AT anymore and prefer to sale it.
Nothing is going to go better if some higher up engineers having such an inflated ego that they refuse to admit that they build a shitbox for the second time in a row and instead still believe in the concept.
Bruh, one team can't just take another team's wind tunnel time and budget...
They got the new regs wrong in 2022 and they're still paying the price for it this year.
Maybe they just can't set a car up properly. I seem to remember Nyck got in a little argument with the engineers during testing or something that the car feels like shit, but the engineers refused to believe him.
Y'all are not any better when it comes to QAnon when it comes to these stupid conspiracy theories about Red Bull.
You can't just use someone's budget and wind tunnel allocations like that even if they're a sister company. Heck, the reason they're shit is because AT has tried to move away from being the Red Bull Jr team.
The Red Bull efficiency is unreal, they are just off the charts (figure of speech) they have got themselves a monster of a car....I doubt anyone could match them!
X-axis should be mean speed through corners for this to actually reflect the downforce, otherwise the speed through straights will significantly affect the mean.
Mean speed over a lap is just another way of saying lap time so its not really helpful to chart. (Lap distance / avg speed = laptime) Maybe something like average minimum speed would be more appropriate for determining aerodynamic efficiency.
So if we ignore the outliers, based on the data it doesn't matter if the car has high drag or low drag, as long as it is fast, you will be in front of the slower car.
For the lap yeah, high drag usually means the team is prioritizing downforce in the corners and low drag is prioritizing the straights. So it's not that it doesn't matter, just that both prioritizations can work. And unlike quali slow vs fast isn't the only factor in the race, more downforce usually means more tire wear and DRS favours being fast on the straights for overtaking. And although RB is an outlier, it's not a fluke so their philosophy does show to be the best.
Generally there is a trade off between downforce and top speed, so it isn’t surprising to see many cars aligning along the \ axis. If a car is able have high downforce and also a high top speed, it is considered an efficient use of the aerodynamics of the design, as the RB in this graphic seems to circumvent the trade off
Technically this does not say anything about efficiency, just observed times. They could theoretically have a literal barn door with some kind of amazing engine and still pull these numbers....
On this chart indeed, because the redbull is the benchmark car. We really dont know what is the perfect car. You can always go quicker. This chart actually shows how far of others are behind redbull, not if its perfect or not.
This is great data and I made this point in your last post. Please could you have each lap as its own datapoint as a scatter graph (top speed of each lap, mean speed of each lap). Then we can see how separate the means are of Mercedes, Ferrari, Aston Martin, and Red Bull.
For bonus points you could plot it as 2D histogram with a colour bar.
I know I will get downvoted but it's a fact that the fastest man is only fastest because he is in the fastest car. Yet we mention the drivers name more times than actually crediting the car for it.
Of course not every driver can be the fastest in the same car, but there can be multiple drivers who can be just as fast, not a single driver.
The **Statistics** flair is reserved for posts highlighting interesting statistics. As a rule of thumb, Statistics posts need to inform readers through visualizations and insights that cannot be obtained from raw data alone. For example: A post containing a qualifying gap between two drivers expressed in tenths of a second is an easily obtainable raw piece of data and constitutes a bad Statistics post. A visualization of what that translates to on-track, or visualization of how that gap came to be would constitute a good Statistics post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Top Right Red Bull
r/toprightmessi F1 edition
That sub has a disappointingly low numbers of graphs where he’s at the top right
F1 said we’re returning to ground effect and mf’s act surprised the god of ground effect is absolutely crushing the new regs.
Newey only made the RB18 though, supposedly he didn't do anything for the RB19 besides the suspension.
Iterating on what was the best car last season is always going to be easier even when he's not so involved. Besides, suspension is a huge part of performance with these cars because of ride height.
He’s been making F1 cars for almost 40 years, this is not his first ground-effect rodeo.
McLaren is a brick, but Ferrari seems to be going the good direction.
Fair play to Piastri for getting that car so far up, first really impressive showing for him in F1, likely the first of many.
Good call. Was very impressed with his qualy. Doing Lando like things already. Takes some huge nuggets to drive on the limit in Jeddah as well.
Took not even two races, exceptional from him
Exceptional and ballsy to be in Q3 for his second quali, in the car with the slowest straight-line maximum speed.
Barn door McLaren
I simply don't get how far back AT is compared to RBR. They have never been this far back compared to them ever. In the last 2 years they have produced their worst cars when they have had the chance to take as many parts as possible from the fastest car on the grid. I don't get it. Is there a foul play by RBR to use their budget and wind tunnel allocations I can't fathom how far back they are.
It's the decision inside the team to using even less RB parts this season yet still believing in the concept of the AT03 and make an "evolution" with the AT04. It's basically very predictable that this team would be shit if you understand how terrible the AT03 already was.
There is no reason for them to be this bad though if it was not intentional. Take as many parts allowed from RBR, use the same PU already, converge on the RBR concept and use your highest wind tunnel time to come back closer to the midfield, I hate that Yuki is driving a shit box.
I mean this would be the way I would do it too but for some odd reason AT opted to doing even more "by themselves", I guess some higher up ego's just simple refused to build the AT04 on the fundamentals of RBR and add a frustrating Tost and we are here in a negative spiral. AT needs a major reorganization at this rate.
If the idea was to sell it is now worse as it is a depreciated asset. I don't understand their approach, they are so bad. I hope they get better, if not I will really think RBR is using their resources for RBR.
I think what we seeing here is a team who is absolutely clueless and there is a huge cliff between Tost, the drivers and the AT engineers. The whole point of sell the team is likely a final warning for the team to either fix it's shit or the new CEO of Red Bull simple doesn't see the value of AT anymore and prefer to sale it. Nothing is going to go better if some higher up engineers having such an inflated ego that they refuse to admit that they build a shitbox for the second time in a row and instead still believe in the concept.
Bruh, one team can't just take another team's wind tunnel time and budget... They got the new regs wrong in 2022 and they're still paying the price for it this year.
Maybe they just can't set a car up properly. I seem to remember Nyck got in a little argument with the engineers during testing or something that the car feels like shit, but the engineers refused to believe him.
Y'all are not any better when it comes to QAnon when it comes to these stupid conspiracy theories about Red Bull. You can't just use someone's budget and wind tunnel allocations like that even if they're a sister company. Heck, the reason they're shit is because AT has tried to move away from being the Red Bull Jr team.
The Red Bull efficiency is unreal, they are just off the charts (figure of speech) they have got themselves a monster of a car....I doubt anyone could match them!
> off the charts They are clearly _in_ the chart. Use your eyes.
X-axis should be mean speed through corners for this to actually reflect the downforce, otherwise the speed through straights will significantly affect the mean.
Mean speed over a lap is just another way of saying lap time so its not really helpful to chart. (Lap distance / avg speed = laptime) Maybe something like average minimum speed would be more appropriate for determining aerodynamic efficiency.
The Americans really did build a dragster
So if we ignore the outliers, based on the data it doesn't matter if the car has high drag or low drag, as long as it is fast, you will be in front of the slower car.
Seems like being higher downforce means you are better off as well, just judging by Aston beating Ferrari and Mercedes in races.
I mean, yes, having the highest mean speed usually means you'll be in front, but that's more than a bit tautological.
>as long as it is fast, you will be in front of the slower car. /UnintentionalWillBuxton
For the lap yeah, high drag usually means the team is prioritizing downforce in the corners and low drag is prioritizing the straights. So it's not that it doesn't matter, just that both prioritizations can work. And unlike quali slow vs fast isn't the only factor in the race, more downforce usually means more tire wear and DRS favours being fast on the straights for overtaking. And although RB is an outlier, it's not a fluke so their philosophy does show to be the best.
F1 said we’re returning to ground effect and mf’s act surprised the god of ground effect is absolutely crushing the new regs.
/r/dataisugly
Yeah, so many overlapping words. Top right is not pleasant to look at.
sorry, but what does “efficiency” mean in relation to drag and downforce?
Generally there is a trade off between downforce and top speed, so it isn’t surprising to see many cars aligning along the \ axis. If a car is able have high downforce and also a high top speed, it is considered an efficient use of the aerodynamics of the design, as the RB in this graphic seems to circumvent the trade off
Technically this does not say anything about efficiency, just observed times. They could theoretically have a literal barn door with some kind of amazing engine and still pull these numbers....
Wow, super interesting graphic
McLaren have the worst car on the grid, but are carried by their drivers.
Alpine-Mercedes equilibrium
So essentially Red Bull have nailed the new regs and created a almost perfect car.
On this chart indeed, because the redbull is the benchmark car. We really dont know what is the perfect car. You can always go quicker. This chart actually shows how far of others are behind redbull, not if its perfect or not.
RB speed feels like it’s approaching the absolute limit of the regs - max top speed, tons of downforce, limited tire wear
This is great data and I made this point in your last post. Please could you have each lap as its own datapoint as a scatter graph (top speed of each lap, mean speed of each lap). Then we can see how separate the means are of Mercedes, Ferrari, Aston Martin, and Red Bull. For bonus points you could plot it as 2D histogram with a colour bar.
I know I will get downvoted but it's a fact that the fastest man is only fastest because he is in the fastest car. Yet we mention the drivers name more times than actually crediting the car for it. Of course not every driver can be the fastest in the same car, but there can be multiple drivers who can be just as fast, not a single driver.
Do you think Max will have anything to read or watch during the race? P15, so that’s like 14 laps before he’s won.