The performance analysis of the 2018 Australian Gp

                             ALWAYS KEEP PUSHING

Written by Gianluca Medeot

Melbourne, March 25, 2018. Exactly one year after, Ferrari surprises us again with an unexpected victory in the atypical street circuit of Albert Park. 

A success maybe not as deserved as last year, given the different variables that determined it. 

However a major success, sign of a strong and united team that believed in it until the end ...

Firstly, in order to have a more effective analysis, it's important to outline the characteristics of the Albert Park circuit.

With its 5.3 km it is one of the longest  circuits of the championship. Due to its many corners and technical sections it requires a medium / high level of downforce.

It's a challenging circuit for the consumption of fuel and very stressful for the brakes.

The first sector is the fastest, and requires a good efficiency in the straight line (the ratio between PU's power and cx), but it also requires a very good traction for the sequence of corner 3/4/5.

In the second sector it's needed a good aerodynamic balance and plenty of downforce  to face the corners and the quick changes of direction.

In the third sector it's required a lot of downforce and traction for the last technical corners.

So let's see what has emerged from the qualyfications. 

% Of detachment from the pole of the three top teams (Mercedes, Red Bull and Ferrari).

% Of detachment from the pole (Mclaren, Haas, Renault, Williams and Force India).

The graphs with the percentages gaps from the pole position are still not significant, but at championship advanced it will be interesting to keep an eye on them to understand the different team's evolution trend.

Comparison between the times marked in Q3 and the ideal times  (the sum of the best time in the each of the three sectors of the circuit)

Analyzing the graph with the comparison between the times signed in Q3 and the "ideal" lap times we can firstly notice that almost all the drivers were able to mark their fastest time in the key moment, not such an easy thing to do in a street circuit.

It's very important to notice that Verstappen could have been qualifyed in the front row alongside Hamilton, bypassing the two Ferraris. The same for Sainz, who had a chance to stand in the sixth position. 
Hamilton inflicted an abissal gap towards his opponents. Common believes wants all the merits of this alien performance given to the famous "magic button", without taking in to consideration the human factor. After a stint on used tires in the second stint Lewis has been really able to make the difference compared to his opponents, unleashing an extremely clean and very aggressive drive.

Specifically Hamilton has gained a lot of time in the braking (noticeable factor in the on-board), and in the first sector.

Comparison between the maximum speed recorded at the speed trap and the position in which the pilot is qualified.

The graph with the comparison between the maximum speed and the qualifying result provides us the first basic elements of analysis. First you may notice that the Ferraris were faster, confirming the much-discussed aerodynamic  lightening.

To confirm the capabilities of Ferrari's PU, Haas is third in the ranking of top speeds, not far from the Mercedes.

Extremely low values ​​for the four Renault motorized, with the French PU that clearly suffers the comparison with the opponents in terms of maximum power.

Let's now analyze the graphs with the percentuage gap, and the maximum speed in the three sectors of the circuit. This time FOM, provided a map with the division of the track in mini sectors, in which it is reported who was the fastest in the comparison with Hamilton (blue) and Raikkonen (red).

Looking at the map of the micro sectors you can immediately notice that in  the straights Ferrari was the leader.

Maranello's team has worked hard on the efficiency in the straights, with excellent results.

This choice seems to have been dictated by the problems related to the high fuel consumption of the PU.

An obvious (numerically speaking) aerodynamic lightening, which was crucial to tackle a race where teams have to use (according to simulations) 104 of the 105kg of fuel on board.

Obviously this has negative consequences that are reflected in the cornering speed and in the braking moment, compelling the drivers to slow down slightly in advance.

Indeed from the analysis of the sectors it emerges that in the most technical section of the circuit (the third intermediate) Ferrari has earned the highest detachment. In particular, from the analysis of on-boards it emerges that between corner 11 and corner 12 Raikkonen has taken almost two tenths. An eternity, right in the fast change of direction, where last year the sf70h use to came out 10 km/h faster than the Mercedes.

One explanation could be the longer wheelbase of the car (although not as long as Mercedes), a technical choice with which the drivers but also the technicians themselves (during the set up choice) can find some initial difficulties.

In general, the car seems to be composed and not tending to oversteer, unlike the Mercedes, which instead makes one of its strengths corner insertion. Drivers can hold much more internal trajectories and cut the curbs without any decomposition of the car. This has historically been one of the advantages of the silver arrows, on which this year has been introduced a further evolution of the third hydraulic element, unlike Ferrari that maintained a more classic spring  set up.

Analyzing the graphics you immediately notices that Hamilton has really made the difference in the first sector. And that was due to his human skills.

Looking at Red Bull datas instead, immediately catches the eye the very low speed marked in each sector, caused by the known PU problems, but also by the team's desire to mantain an high downforce set up (or at least it seems like that looking at the front section of the vehicle).

Rumors speak of a Red Bull with speeds as fast as Mercedes in the corners, but at the moment there are no data to confirm these rumors.

However, looking at the gap in the third sector you can noticed that Red Bull is the team that most approached Mercedes due to its frame qualities and its excellent traction.

Even the RB14 is a car that can deal with the curbs aggressively, a feature that fits perfectly with the driving style of its two young drivers.

Lastly a mention to Haas and Renault, which thanks to a good overall package, have been very competitive in the race and in the qualifying.

Deeper analisys could lead to mistakes so I prefer  to wait  the next Grand Prixs to draw more conclusion!

Lets talk about the race now! 

PU components used by each driver since now

Points in the constructors' championship.

                       RACE'S GRAPHICS ( edited by Niccolò Arnerich)

Since the race simulations on Friday, the fastest strategy seemed to be the one with one pit-stop where it started with the US, the tyre used in Q2, witha pit  on the 21° lap switching to Soft tyres. Other strategies, such as the one experienced by RedBull, SS-S, were a few seconds slower, but in the case of the British team were not effective because of the traffic.

Simulations race strategies with Friday's data.

THE RACE STRATEGY

THE FIRST STINT

The start was linear with the drivers in the front row who kept their positions. Ferrari was found with a very important chance in his hands to play with the strategies of Raikkonen and Vettel to tray to overtake Hamilton. Ferrari's strategists, led by Inaki Rueda, tried an undercut with Raikkonen and an overcut with Vettel.

Raikkonen's undercut failed because the driver has not been able to "copy" Hamilton's laps, as can be seen from the graph below, and then at the time of pit-stop, on lap 18, it has been found to have a gap of 3.8 seconds from Hamilton, not enough to stay ahead.

The team then decided to keep Vettel on track and wait for a SC or a VSC. If nothing had happened, the team would have mounted the SuperSoft and not the Soft as Raikkonen to try something different. 

The VSC caused by the stop Grosjean on lap 26, resulted in the entry of Vettel in the pits. The German was perfect in shaping, during the VSC, those tenths useful to get out ahead of Hamilton because the strategy was on the limit and the overcut, most likely, would not have been successful (Vettel was in front of only 13 seconds and Hamilton had already 1.7 s). During the next laps of SC, Vettel managed to warm up very well the soft tyre.

Race pace in the first stint (Vettel, Hamilton, Raikkonen and Ricciardo) with the fuel  weight correction. Correction made with Magneti Marelli's 2017 data (practically corresponding to 2018 data).

Above the graph of the real race pace considering the Fuel Weight Effect. That's car's weight loss due to fuel consumption during the race. In this way, by removing the fuel consumption variable, you can better understand the real degradation of the tyre during the race.

Evolution of the degradation in the first stint (Vettel, Hamilton, Raikkonen and Ricciardo). The curved lines are the polynomial trend lines, useful to better understand the evolution of degradation.

Here it is instead analyzed the evolution of degradation during the race. The values ​​in the graph are the gap in seconds between a lap and the previous one.

SECOND STINT

In the second stint Vettel had to hold off Hamilton and not to get through. Although the British driver has been many times in the DRS zone and has had permission from the team to use extreme mappings, he failed to surpass the SF71H that proved to be very competitive in terms of maximum speed.

Hamilton then made a mistake probably due to an incorrect setting of the Brake Balance. Then Hamilton's W09 had overheating problems in the power unit, that because it the car was not designed to stay in the wash of another car.
 Raikkonen was asked by his new engineer Carlo Santi if he wanted to do a Free-stop, or pitting without losing its position and mount the SS tyre to make a more aggressive final stint , but the option was discarded because then reputed uncertain.

Race pace in the second stint (Vettel, Hamilton, Raikkonen and Ricciardo) with the fuel  weight correction. Correction made with Magneti Marelli's 2017 data (practically corresponding to 2018 data).

Evolution of the degradation in the first stint (Vettel, Hamilton, Raikkonen and Ricciardo). The curved lines are the polynomial trend lines, useful to better understand the evolution of degradation.

This is the graph of pace with the correction of Fuel Weight Effect. The trend lines shows the actual tire degradation during the stint. The graph shows how the degradation between the SF71H and W09 is very similar. This means that the performance in the race of the two cars is quite similar.

Charts on the complete race:

Evolution of degradation during the race (Vettel, Hamilton, Raikkonen and Ricciardo). The curved lines are the polynomial trend lines, useful to better understand the evolution of degradation.

Race pace (Vettel, Hamilton, Raikkonen and Ricciardo) with the fuel  weight correction. Correction made with Magneti Marelli's 2017 data (practically corresponding to 2018 data).

Race Pass (Vettel, Hamilton, Raikkonen and Ricciardo).

Race pace (Alonso, Perez, Hulkenberg and Grosjean) with the fuel  weight correction. Correction made with Magneti Marelli's 2017 data (practically corresponding to 2018 data).

Evolution of degradation during the race (Alonso, Perez, Hulkenberg and Grosjean). The curved lines are the polynomial trend lines, useful to better understand the evolution of degradation.

That is all for the moment. See you in Bharain !! ;)