My analysis is a slightly different viewpoint from your analysis, but I think we are trying to show the same thing, “consistency” coupled with speed.

Although yours focusses more on numbers of fast laps and mine more on consistency.

It’s instructive to look at the differences.

My analysis puts Webber, Raikkonen, Rosberg and Button a lot higher on consistency. They each pushed at some point during the race, taking more risk and thus setting a few fast laps that were further outside their normal lap time range.

On the other hand, Barrichello and Nakajima end up a lot lower. They drive laptimes that are often within close range of their fastest laptime, but they are driving a lot more “choppy” laptimes. Barrichello was complaining of poor handling (so he might have made many mistakes) and Nakajima doesn’t strike me as a model of consistency.

Each analysis has it’s flaws. Looking at “1%” is hindered by strategies (both tyre strategy and fuel strategy) and by drivers taking extra risk pushing to get ahead after a pitstop. Looking at “laps within 0.2s” doesn’t show if a driver had a bad stint.

I guess best would be to look at both. “Laps within 1% of fastest” shows if they are keeping up the pace through the whole race and “laps within 0.2s of each other” shows if they are driving a “smooth” race.

The best would be to calculate how a perfectly executed strategy would look like and then calculate how far the drivers are off that strategy. I’d say that’s impossible to do though

A large gap between “Top5″ and “Median” indicates that the driver has good speed for 5 of the laps set on fresh tyres / light fuel but suffers quite a lot when on worn tyres / heavy fuel.

Those two situations don’t occur though.

They ten to set the fastest times on light/fuel worn tyres just before their pitstop

If you look at a race chart based on average lap times (when there is no safety car period), then you usually see the lap times curve down. They go down fastest just before the pit stop.

You on the other hand are only looking at relative gaps between 2 consecutive laps without considering the actual lap times.

Well, the list is ordered by “median laptime”, but you could order it by fastest lap or top5 too of course.

I felt that fastest lap time distorts too much. Sometimes a driver pushes to get ahead after a pitstop (ie Raikkonen and Button).

(If someone had done all his laps in exactly 100 seconds, he would have been top-ranked in your list!!!)

No. The main list is ordered by median laptime. It’s quite similar to Keith’s

So in fact even Keiths analysis doesn’t show how close they were to the car’s potential. Vettel probably could have set a faster lap if he had needed too. Then his laps within 1% would have dropped accordingly.

Still, indeed my analysis shows only consistency. A driver like Barrichello who often has a poor middle stint could still look prefect in “consistency” even if his middle stint was a second per lap slower.

With the different tyres, different strategies and different pressures to set fastest laps, I think looking at (and comparing to) fastest laps is a bad idea though.

On the other hand, Fisichella probably drives like a rookie in that Ferrari. He’s obviously not comfortable in the car. Webber was busy with his test session. He might simply have had less laps counted (something to add. maybe even a ratio of “laps within 0.2s” divide by “normal”)

Barrichello isn’t even at the bottom. Funny thing with Barrichello though since he’s doing pretty well if you look at the laptimes within 0.1s or 0.3s, then he’s much higher up the list. Guess his case is an anomaly.

Also funny is that Alguersuari is the first rookie on the list and in his port race statement he says:

I was pushing every lap and running consistently, in terms of my lap times being almost always within the same tenth.

So, it is something the drivers themselves look at too.

Maybe the term “smooth” is the wrong word. I’m Dutch so you’ll have to forgive me for lack of finesse in the use of the language.

The point I was trying to make is that Hamilton, Raikkonen and Alonso are drivers who are able to execute strategies to perfection. They will drive to the limit of the car lap after lap. That’s what scores high in this kind of consistency analysis. Their laptimes look like a “smooth” curve.

But I am more interested in the “Top5″ and “Median” columns since IMO, they showcase the real consistency.

A large gap between “Top5″ and “Median” indicates that the driver has good speed for 5 of the laps set on fresh tyres / light fuel but suffers quite a lot when on worn tyres / heavy fuel.

For instance, Raikkonen with the 2nd best “Median” time still finishes 5th. Button and Barrichello also outscore Rosberg inspite of slower “Top5″.

Infact, from your list I would conclude that Barrichello has probably driven the best. He has kept plenty of quick drivers behind him without having done a blindingly quick lap.

Keith is trying to find out the number of laps done by a driver closest to the potential of the driver/car combination. It works best when compared between 2 drivers on similar strategy, and not on drivers with different strategies. You on the other hand are only looking at relative gaps between 2 consecutive laps without considering the actual lap times. (If someone had done all his laps in exactly 100 seconds, he would have been top-ranked in your list!!!)

Kimi and Rosberg may have half their laps within 0.2 seconds of each other, but in all probability all these “consistent” laps are significantly slower than what could have been achieved.

And surely, you cannot argue that Rosberg and Raikkonnen were in traffic for half of the race distance!!!