How important is pole position?

[BrightLampShade]

Before I start I need to flag up that this is mostly stolen from Edd Straw : Analysis: Qualifying still key in 2012 Formula 1 season

Qualifying is no less important a determining factor in who wins races in Formula 1 in 2012 than it has been in previous seasons.

There have been suggestions that the combination of high-degradation Pirelli rubber and the relative ease of overtaking have reduced the impact of Saturday afternoons, but the statistics suggest this not to be the case.

An analysis of the past 10 years of Formula 1, a total of 172 grands prix from the start of the 2003 season to the Hungarian Grand Prix earlier this month, reveals that this year, 55 per cent of races have been won from pole.

By comparison, the mean for the past decade for wins from pole stands at 52 per cent, three per cent lower than this season.

In 2012, 82 per cent of races have been won from the front row, which is seven per cent higher than the average.

The mean average qualifying position for race winners is 2.7, relatively high compared to the previous 10 years, but this is distorted by Fernando Alonso's exceptional wins from 11th at Valencia and eight at Sepang.

There been much talk of lotteries and silly races recently with the the Pirelli tyres that seem to fall apart far earlier than what what we were used to 2 years ago. But when we look at the hard facts this season so far has shown that as far as qualifying goes we're still in the same boat as the last 10 yeas. Even with DRS which gifts drivers overtakes on several tracks being at the front still means you can control the race and therefore most likely stick to the strategy that you want to be on.

Percentage wins from pole by season (*)

1. 2007: 65%
2. 2004: 61%
3. 2003: 56%
4. 2006: 56%
5. 2012: 55%
6. 2009: 53%
7. 2011: 47%
8. 2005: 47%
9. 2008: 44%
10. 2010: 42%

Percentage of races won from the front row by season (*)

2007: 88%
2011: 84%
2004: 84%
2012: 82%
2008: 78%
2010: 74%
2006: 72%
2009: 71%
2005: 63%
2003: 56%

Average starting position of race winners by season (*)

1. 2003: 3.2
2. 2005: 3.2
3. 2012: 2.8
4. 2006: 2.7
5. 2008: 2.6
6. 2009: 2.2
7. 2004: 2.2
8. 2010: 2.0
9. 2011: 1.9
10. 2007: 1.5

* Figures rounded up to nearest whole number. In the case of a tie, the figures are ordered by reference to unrounded number

So there we have have it, F1 is just as predictable as it always has right at the front I guess we should just count ourselves lucky that no team is greedy and has more than two races in a row where they're the best.

 

[BrightLampShade]

Lets have a poll, why not hey!

 

[El_Bando]

I think since the refueling ban came into place, Pole doesnt nessarily mean you have the best car for the race day. Though if you have the skills to ward off those behind and the track doesnt allow much overtaking then the win is yours. If your car doesnt like starting with high fuel loads and the track is easy to overtake on then you may get mugged.

 

[Big Ern]

well it's better than starting at the back.

 

[cosicave]

[Edited for brevity]
…
So there we have have it, F1 is just as predictable as it always has right at the front I guess we should just count ourselves lucky that no team is greedy and has more than two races in a row where they're the best.

Politicians could have a field day with these statistics!

When weighed against each other, as well as the other examples listed by Edd Straw, it should be possible to come up with supporting evidence for all manner of different theories on the current importance of Pole position, relative to previous seasons.

For example:
[This is just for fun and has no bearing on my opinion]
BLS has concluded, "F1 is just as predictable…"; but I think it is highly unusual that whilst 82% of winners started at the front, the average starting position for the winner has been from the row behind, which 'proves' that the best grid slot is actually 3rd, despite more than 4 out of 5 wins coming from the two grid-slots in front!

 

[BrightLampShade]

Politicians could have a field day with these statistics!

When weighed against each other, as well as the other examples listed by Edd Straw, it should be possible to come up with supporting evidence for all manner of different theories on the current importance of Pole position, relative to previous seasons.

For example:
[This is just for fun and has no bearing on my opinion]
BLS has concluded, "F1 is just as predictable…"; but I think it is highly unusual that whilst 82% of winners started at the front, the average starting position for the winner has been from the row behind, which 'proves' that the best grid slot is actually 3rd, despite more than 4 out of 5 wins coming from the two grid-slots in front!

You can't beat a good old fashioned anomaly throwing a spanner into the works, I blame Alonso

 

[cosicave]

Yeah, that's the trouble with statistics – despite their curious purpose to remove the question of curiosity – and thus, their own purpose; there's (nearly?) always an exception to the 'rule' they seek to define.

Mathematics attempts to describe nature but cannot expect more than to trace part of its outline. At best, it becomes a map.
Science approaches its zenith when it morphs into an art; but at that point, it ceases to be science.

Scientific driving is fundamentally important, yet self-limiting. When it transcends into an art-form, the scientific driver is left scratching his head…

Stats are a good base-camp. Base-camps say little about the mountain.

 

[RoadRunner]

You should write fortune cookie messages Cosi

 

[BrightLampShade]

Yeah, that's the trouble with statistics – despite their curious purpose to remove the question of curiosity – and thus, their own purpose; there's (nearly?) always an exception to the 'rule' they seek to define.

Mathematics attempts to describe nature but cannot expect more than to trace part of its outline. At best, it becomes a map.
Science approaches its zenith when it morphs into an art; but at that point, it ceases to be science.

Scientific driving is fundamentally important, yet self-limiting. When it transcends into an art-form, the scientific driver is left scratching his head…

Stats are a good base-camp. Base-camps say little about the mountain.

The danger with stats is one which happens time and time again, taking them at face value. Like a picture good stats can say more than a 1000 words, you just need A) The appropriate stat and B) The ability to interpret them.

I often have to use many a weird and wonderful stat in work but if I gave my boss sheets of stats he'd (rightly) throw something heavy at me. Every stat needs context and an explanation, unless of course you work for the government (An example today of unemployment going down is in fact just the olympics as unemployment has gone up virtually everywhere apart from London... context!)

 

[cosicave]

Quite!

And RRunner: I'll remember that for retirement!

 

[TomTom94]

Less important than it was last season as Vettel was able to use the Red Bull's superior qualifying pace to dominate race weekends, but still important to an extent. However, with DRS and KERS (and to a lesser extent the blown diffuser ban) allowing drivers to run closer together and overtake more easily, overtaking is now more possible and a more key part of race weekends. (Note, for example, that while Maldonado beat Alonso in Valencia from pole, he was overtaken at the first corner and had to do it the hard way.)

 

[SgtBhaji]

If you're struggling on a given day from pole, chances are that you be struggling even more if you started further down the field...

So yes... Pole is important.

 

[Julius Caesar]

With the tyres one of the reason qualy may be even more important this year is how being behind other cars wears them faster. The leader (Whose very likely from the first two rows) doesn't have this problem even if they are not as fast as someone rising through the fielda and so only need to hold them off for a few laps. Raikkonen vs Vettel in Bahrain and Jenson vs Alonso in Germany being the prime examples.

 

[TheModestMatt]

Pole is always the best place to start, but you still need a perfect sunday given how tight the competition is. Very surprised at the 2007 stats, Kimi only took 3 poles that year yet he look the title.

 

[cosicave]

Räikkönen's World title is one of the most astonishing turn-arounds I can ever remember in motor racing. How McLaren (and in particular; Hamilton) managed to hand it to him is equally astonishing. With three races to go, he needed to win at least two of them and score a podium for the other, whilst at the same time requiring at least one retirement from both Mclaren drivers – nether of whom had had a retirement all year – and for Hamilton not to score points in either of his last two races!

Statistically, it seemed he had no chance; but it actually happened!
As a piece of fiction such a tale would have had no credibility. But it wasn't fiction!

Lucky old Kimi that all his wishes came true…

 

[TomTom94]

Räikkönen's World title is one of the most astonishing turn-arounds I can ever remember in motor racing. How McLaren (and in particular; Hamilton) managed to hand it to him is equally astonishing. With three races to go, he needed to win at least two of them and score a podium for the other, whilst at the same time requiring at least one retirement from both Mclaren drivers – nether of whom had had a retirement all year – and for Hamilton not to score points in either of his last two races!

Statistically, it seemed he had no chance; but it actually happened!
As a piece of fiction such a tale would have had no credibility. But it wasn't fiction!

Lucky old Kimi that all his wishes came true…

It almost looks as if you are implying Raikkonen's victory was more to do with Mclaren's failures than his own successes cosi

the astonishing thing is it nearly happened again the next year with Kubica!

 

[SgtBhaji]

Not taking anything away from Kimi, but he kinda needed McLaren to make a total hash of it and they obliged.

Hats off to Kimi though, he still had to capitalize on those failings and he did.

 

[Kyle?]

It almost looks as if you are implying Raikkonen's victory was more to do with Mclaren's failures than his own successes cosi

the astonishing thing is it nearly happened again the next year with Kubica!

I think with Kubica, it was more that the 3 main drivers involved were all taking points from eah other, and we had so many different winners that year that things were likely to be close. I don't think we'll see a season like 2008 again.