2018 Pre-Season Thread
Discussion
Car-Matt said:
I'd have it just as it is....it looks to be just under 300kph to me.
It highlights a big performance differential between top and bottom and has the right scale to demonstrate the relative positions of the other teams.
Starting the axis at anything less than that is madness as you just have all the teams filling the space, which is not helpful or meaningful.
The fact that the performance differential is a tiny percentage is irrelevant as a tiny percenatge can be huge in F1......the chart is sound in my opinion
I agree.It highlights a big performance differential between top and bottom and has the right scale to demonstrate the relative positions of the other teams.
Starting the axis at anything less than that is madness as you just have all the teams filling the space, which is not helpful or meaningful.
The fact that the performance differential is a tiny percentage is irrelevant as a tiny percenatge can be huge in F1......the chart is sound in my opinion
Car-Matt said:
tertius said:
Car-Matt said:
The chart doesnt need any extra data........its nice and clean and simple and tells the story...the bottom car is way slower than the top car in a straight line and it shows the others relative with absolute numbers.
Given my job is Head of Data and data viz is a large part of my departments output i'd be happy reporting those numbers that way, it tells the story and contextualises the significance of the gaps.
So, and this is a serious question, where would you choose to start the graph (i.e. what would be the left most value of the X axis) and why?Given my job is Head of Data and data viz is a large part of my departments output i'd be happy reporting those numbers that way, it tells the story and contextualises the significance of the gaps.
It highlights a big performance differential between top and bottom and has the right scale to demonstrate the relative positions of the other teams.
Starting the axis at anything less than that is madness as you just have all the teams filling the space, which is not helpful or meaningful.
The fact that the performance differential is a tiny percentage is irrelevant as a tiny percenatge can be huge in F1......the chart is sound in my opinion
Put simply, Mercedes have a 5% margin over McLaren and a handy margin over Ferrari - assuming everything re tyres, fuel, aero, and engine mode and scrutinised weight are the same. And there is no sandbagging by any team.
In other words, it is testing and totally meaningless unless you are a journalist trying to overstate a simple point.
In other words, it is testing and totally meaningless unless you are a journalist trying to overstate a simple point.
tertius said:
Car-Matt said:
tertius said:
Car-Matt said:
The chart doesnt need any extra data........its nice and clean and simple and tells the story...the bottom car is way slower than the top car in a straight line and it shows the others relative with absolute numbers.
Given my job is Head of Data and data viz is a large part of my departments output i'd be happy reporting those numbers that way, it tells the story and contextualises the significance of the gaps.
So, and this is a serious question, where would you choose to start the graph (i.e. what would be the left most value of the X axis) and why?Given my job is Head of Data and data viz is a large part of my departments output i'd be happy reporting those numbers that way, it tells the story and contextualises the significance of the gaps.
It highlights a big performance differential between top and bottom and has the right scale to demonstrate the relative positions of the other teams.
Starting the axis at anything less than that is madness as you just have all the teams filling the space, which is not helpful or meaningful.
The fact that the performance differential is a tiny percentage is irrelevant as a tiny percenatge can be huge in F1......the chart is sound in my opinion
When you look at something you process 80% of information you retain from the non text/numerical part of it followed by the last 20% from the text/numbers, so the shape of the chart is important. But yes a little off topic
Back on topic, McLaren look to have some pace if not reliability at present, not the worst place to be, don’t write them off just yet
Dr Z said:
Some of the completed race sims this test;
2nd stint seems the most revealing...not sure the 3rd stints by Vettel and Max are representative, looks like driving to a delta to me as the pace plateaus out.
Vandoorne's started on super soft, then on Soft and finished on Medium.
Hulk started on Medium, then on Soft and ended on Medium.
Mediums look like the best tyre of the lot for pushing hard throughout, so trying to read pace difference can be problematic. McLaren's 3rd stint pace looks solid but still a second off Merc.
Feeling more hopeful for some competition at the front.
OK then, I am stunned that this informative piece from DrZ on Thursday did not provoke more discussion. It is perhaps the most relevant thing that happened during 7-days of testing. 2nd stint seems the most revealing...not sure the 3rd stints by Vettel and Max are representative, looks like driving to a delta to me as the pace plateaus out.
Vandoorne's started on super soft, then on Soft and finished on Medium.
Hulk started on Medium, then on Soft and ended on Medium.
Mediums look like the best tyre of the lot for pushing hard throughout, so trying to read pace difference can be problematic. McLaren's 3rd stint pace looks solid but still a second off Merc.
Feeling more hopeful for some competition at the front.
Perhaps the graphic is too complex because it show Botas at the bottom
Another meaningless stat 
So if the time gain from the resurfaced track is somewhere in the middle (1.5-2 seconds?), McLaren have gained the most, which wouldn't be hard compared to the 2017 McHonda. Williams have definitely lost out, whether that's because of the drivers, the car, or both.
So if the time gain from the resurfaced track is somewhere in the middle (1.5-2 seconds?), McLaren have gained the most, which wouldn't be hard compared to the 2017 McHonda. Williams have definitely lost out, whether that's because of the drivers, the car, or both.
rdjohn said:
OK then, I am stunned that this informative piece from DrZ on Thursday did not provoke more discussion. It is perhaps the most relevant thing that happened during 7-days of testing.
Perhaps the graphic is too complex because it show Botas at the bottom
I'm colour blind so it's far too difficult for me to decipher. Perhaps the graphic is too complex because it show Botas at the bottom
Bradgate said:
Ted Kravitz is reporting that Honda are putting a brand new engine in the Toro Rosso every night, which may explain their apparent reliability. The other teams are re-using their engines.
Just to finally put this one to bed.https://www.motorsportweek.com/news/id/17251
Perhaps Honda have finally entered the end phase of their development. I really hope that some positive results come from the TR partnership.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff