By John Considine

Earlier this week, as I was grading summer examination papers, Seamus Coffey sent me the following statistical output on the Cork - Waterford, Munster Senior Hurling Championship game.  The output was produced by Ray Boyne (here).  It is an example of what inter-county teams use to examine their performance (Ray was involved with the Dublin senior footballers for a number of years).  Of course, the statistical and video analysis that is conducted by teams goes much deeper than what is presented below.  Last January, I attended a presentation organised by Avenir Sports on the type of work they do with inter-county teams.  In the presentation, Sean O'Donnell outlined the extensive work done analysing the playing and training performances of the Cork senior hurling team.  I was left pondering the gap between the statistical analysis on academic performance and those of sporting performance.  While academic assessment practices are improving, they could benefit from a look at the sporting world.

At a minimum GAA teams would have the above type of material to them before their next training session (usually two days later).  Timely and detailed feedback is followed by planned performance improvement.  A pretty good system.  Unfortunately, a portion of academic assessment falls short of timely and detailed feedback.  Sometime this is a function of student numbers and the lack of technological supports.  However, there are some technological developments helping to facilitate academic performance improvement.  For example, in economics there are systems like MyEconLab and Aplia.  The latter was developed by Paul Romer.

Romer's thinking about the crossover between performance assessment in sport, and that in the study of economics, is discussed by David Warsh in his book Knowledge and The Wealth of Nations.  Romer believes that students need a coach, and that as a coach what he "needed was the equivalent of a stopwatch, or a heart-rate monitor - some way of gauging their performance and discovering which areas needed work".  As a result, Romer developed an online assessment system for students of economics that allows them to assess their knowledge and receive immediate feedback.  Aplia is limited in its application and is far from providing a silver bullet for students of economics (see an evaluation of its potential here is a piece by Brendan Kennelly, Darragh Flannery and myself).  However, Aplia and MyEconLab do provide another support mechanism in evaluating student performance and providing timely feedback.

The above sporting statistics and assessment systems are only scratching the surface when compared to the way such data is used in other settings.  An example of how F1 use an almost unimaginable amount of performances statistics is explained in a TED talk by Peter van Manen (here).  The skills involved have been put to good use outside of F1.  Van Manen explains how they used their expertise in data analysis to help monitor the health of babies in life and death situations.

As time passes, we can expect the the use of sporting statistics to increase.  However, they are unlikely to prove a short-cut to success on the field.  They can be a useful supplement to hard work rather than a substitute for it.  In my experience, individuals who seek out new methods as a means of reducing their effort come unstuck.  It is those that use new method to improve their performance that accumulate the benefits.

I hope that not too much time will pass before we can see further improvements in the assessment systems in academia.

By Ed Valentine

                                                Sebastian Vettel: “Which tyres is he on”
                                                Race Engineer: “Primes - but he (Daniel Ricciardo) stopped later than you”
                                                Sebastian Vettle: “Tough luck!”
 
The Chinese GP didn’t give fans anything to shout about but it did provide the type of set up economists love by throwing up a mix of strategies, gains and losses based on the constantly evolving track and tyre conditions. The circuit comprises two 270° right hand corners which caused all to suffer from left front graining and it proved to be a limiting factor during the race.

Generally the trend this season compared to last is to pit one less time in race conditions. Last year, the soft and more grip-giving tyre (which is 0.6 - 0.8 of a second faster over 1 lap when used as a new set) gave optimum performance over 5 – 6 laps during a three stop strategy. This year the majority of leading runners have been aiming for two stops in race conditions as they can eek more life out of the softer rubber without falling off a performance cliff as quickly.  Eight laps into a stint in Shanghai the medium tyre became quicker as graining caused the soft compound to lose performance which essentially means that 0.6 - 0.8 of a second advantage gets whittled down and then becomes slower after those eight laps.
 
Pre-race models demonstrated that a two stop strategy would be about six seconds quicker than a three stop strategy but care would be needed to enable than to happen. The graph below shows that Fernando Alonso went for a three stop strategy.  He took the life out of soft tyres and dumped them after 12 laps. Ricciardo went for a two stop strategy.  He managed to squeeze 17 laps out of his tyres and produce competitive lap times. So why did Alonso rather than Ricciardo finish on the podium?  Because Ricciardo he could not get past his team-mate Sebastian Vettel (despite implied team orders).

Ricciardo managed to stay out for three laps longer in order to have less race laps to do during the final stint. This tactic is known as offsetting. Alonso pitted sooner than Ricciardo and offset him by four laps which gave the Spaniard more pace in the middle stint but would cause him to suffer from older tyres towards the end. This really came home to roost as Ricciardo was closing in on the Ferrari at about one second per lap.  Unfortunately the chequered flag came too soon and Ricciardo was left to rue what happened in the middle of the race.

Vettel was initially on a three stop plan but by lap 25 everyone had decided a two stopper was the optimum strategy. If Vettel had let Ricciardo through on lap 23 then Ricciardo would have caught Alonso with four laps to go. Alonso was forced into a 23 lap final stint in a bid to outwit Rosberg in the Mercedes. The Mercedes driver sailed past Alonso during the final stint as the offset didn’t work out the way of the Ferrari number 1.

This move by Alonso ultimately cost him time on the road relative to Ricciardo but Ricciardo lost out by being behind Vettel. The graphic below shows how much quicker he was than his team mate prior to being allowed past.

This cost the best part of five seconds.

Nico Rosberg's Mercedes spent much of the race catching up after a poor start but good economics got him into 2nd.

Can Mercedes be caught? The silver arrows had a 22kp/h advantage over the Red Bull on the kilometre long straight at the Shanghai International circuit. That equates to almost 100 meters or 2 seconds on average. Development through the season would allow for the better teams to find about 1.5 – 2 seconds overall. The technology is very immature and so bigger gains can be made by the teams who have more to learn from their overall package.
 
Mercedes will win the championship but their massive advantage should narrow substantially in the second half of the season.

By Ed Valentine

Competitive balance has long been a problem in the world’s premier category of motorsport which is due largely to the spending power of the big teams such as Red Bull and Ferrari. In a previous post here. I eluded to the huge differences in spending between the smaller and larger constructors. 

One result of low competitive balance is a fall in the number of global fans tuning in. Formula One Management published a media report in January confirming that viewing figures have fallen by 50 million to 450 million viewers. The drop is due to F1’s unattractiveness to the casual viewer. In seasons of close racing casual TV audience members boost up the numbers, but those viewers will tune in only if the show is exciting. It would be akin to the prawn sandwich brigade staying away from Old Trafford during a prolonged period of mid table finishes.

In TV audience terms Formula One doesn't get anywhere near the Premier League. The reason for this is because the teams are very unbalanced due to their spending capabilities. This financial difference, if compared to football, would equate to a Premier League made up of Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, Arsenal, Leeds United, MK Dons, Gillingham and Walsall. Efforts are underway with the FIA to try to limit how much money teams can spend in one season with a planned resource restriction agreement; however, this is unlikely to reach unanimous consent among F1’s heavyweights.

The Barclays’ Premier League has more global viewers than any other domestic league in the world, broadcasting to 212 territories with 80 different broadcasters. The TV audience for Premier League games over a season is 4.7 billion and the broadcasting contracts for 2013-16 will be worth £5.5 billion. F1 TV rights, in comparison, bring in £300 million per season – about as much as the Turkish Premier League.

What attracts viewers to the Premier League is the propensity for teams to be relatively evenly matched. On a far greater scale than in F1 any team can potentially beat any other team on any given match day. Norwichcan be demolished 7-0 by ManCity, but then hold them to a goalless draw at home, as happened recently. Some F1 teams have been competing for four seasons and have never scored a point in an era when points are awarded to the
top 10 drivers instead of the top six. The chances of an F1 'giant killing' are not on the cards.

F1 has enjoyed large audiences in Germany which is due in part to the dominance of Vettel, Schumacher and Mercedes. What is striking, however, is that during these periods of dominance viewing figures had an upward trend. The graph shows that between 1992 and 2009 German audiences were highest when Schumacher was most dominant. More fans tuned in to watch him pick up his 7th World Title than watched the dramatic climax of the 2008 season when Massa lost out to Hamiltonin the final corner of the final lap of the championship.

Globally, it seems there is the desire to see a close duel at the top of the standings but within individual territories a
high level of competitive balance is not the priority for the viewers. Formula 1 needs to be more competitive, the FIA needs to turn up the heat to put the fans in a spin!

By Ed Valentine

Among the many rule changes for the 2014 F1 season is the decision to award double points for the final race of the 19 round championship. The idea, put forward in a response to Red Bull’s dominance over the last four years, is intended to give a greater chance for the driver’s championship to remain undecided heading into the final weekend in the hope of retaining TV audiences for the entire duration of the calendar. 
 
The FIA have thrown a dart rather than attempting to find a credible solution but claim that the alteration to the points on offer for the final GP would “maximise focus on the championship until the end of the campaign”. Only three of the previous 20 championships would have had a different outcome had the double points rule been in force. One of Schumacher’s seven titles and one of Vettel’s four would have ended up going to another driver but hindsight doesn’t count in this scenario as the rules were the rules on those days in history.
 
By attempting to make the final race a prized commodity there are a number of unintended consequences and perverse incentives which may result.

As F1 teams, like all rational economic agents respond to costs, benefits and incentives a change in the approach to the championship from those lower down the rankings is likely to take place. 53 points separated the 7th and 11th placed teams going into the final round of the 2013 championship. With 86 points on offer for a one two finish instead of 43 the smaller teams will almost certainly alter their design process and pour resources into a specific chassis construction for the Abu Dhabi circuit in order to secure those points. This will heavily compromise their competitiveness in the preceding 18 rounds of the championship. Although it is unlikely for the minnows of Williams and Caterham to be tussling for a podium finish there is a high value in creating a 1 race championship as the difference between 8th and 11th place in the standings could be as much as $35 million.

The new regulations state that engines and gear boxes must last 4,000km before being replaced. If there is a mechanical failure a team can make a change but cannot replace a unit if they want fresh equipment without taking a penalty. This essentially means that the smaller teams will keep 1 unused gear box and engine per car in order to limit the risks of mechanical failure going into Abu Dhabi. Everyone finishing outside the points scoring positions for the penultimate race in Brazilwill register a DNF in order to take a penalty free gear box and engine change. Some drivers running well inside the top 10 may also forsake their points finish if they feel there is a chance of scoring more than double that amount in the last race. We may see only four or five finishers. Honda F1 received a reprimand in 2005 for purposely “retiring” Jenson Button on the last lap in Australia in order to take a free engine change as they felt they had a chance of winning the following GP. If Button had crossed the line and not registered a DNF then a 10 place grid penalty would have been awarded for the next race had they elected to maximise their chances with a fresh engine.
 
The new engine and power-train rules are likely to cause a shakeup in the pecking order. Until the lights go out in Melbourne nobody will truly know where each team stands. This coupled with the certainty of engine reliability issues (some teams, Red Bull included, have voiced concern over engine reliability across the entire season) means there is a strong chance that the wrong driver could win the championship from external circumstances arising
from the double points scenario during the final race.  
 
It has not been a popular idea with the teams or most purists but for the upcoming F1 season the FIA’s dart will keep double top!

By Ed Valentine

It’s very hard to get into Formula 1 and it’s even harder to stay there. There are only 22 men in the world that can claim to be an F1 driver during any given season. However, the scarcity power is with the teams and not with the drivers as the business model for mid and lower grid teams has a pay as you go contract system. It’s a mechanism which is akin to an average footballer at an average Premier League team, say Scott Parker, having to find €5 million of sponsorship money to gain a place in the Fulham squad. It would certainly avoid a repeat of a Winston Bogarde situation but realistically would never happen in top flight football. It has been common practice in F1 for years. Our very own Eddie Jordan signed Michael Schumacher and gave him his F1 debut in 1991 over more experienced drivers because the German’s $150,000 in sponsorship money was too good an offer for the Irish team to turn down.

The drivers of the top 4-5 teams in the championship will generally command huge salaries as can be seen in the table beside. The top 9 drivers on the list will have had a large amount of bargaining power with their agents pushing to get the highest salaries possible before putting pen to paper. But for the drivers below there is a different approach entirely. The race seats at the mid to back of the grid will be auctioned off to the highest bidder i.e. the driver who can bring the most sponsorship money to the table. It isn’t a question of being quick enough for F1 it’s more about being rich enough or having the wealthiest sponsorship backing. Pastor Maldonado, who scored just 1 point in 2013, managed to bring $8 million in Venezuelan government oil sponsorship to the Williams F1 team (the driver receiving $1million of that as salary). Without that cash it would have been difficult for the team to keep its doors open.

Liquidity is becoming a problem that is racing its way through the grid at an alarming rate. As previously mentioned in an earlier article there are mechanisms in place to ensure no F1 will get into debt, however, to enable a stable liquidity flow a lower ranked team may opt to compromise on out and out speed by selling its seats for anything between $5-8 million rather than selecting the most talented available driver. The end result is that the overall product to fans, F1 being a spectator driven sport, is of a lower quality. It will create a talent bottle neck in about 5 years ’time when the most experienced drivers in F1 will have spent the large part of their careers as payers rather than payees who were not necessarily the best of their generation.

One solution is for teams at the back end to receive a parachute payment similar to the NFL draft which gives the lowest placed squad the first pick of emerging talent for the next season. If the FIA are looking to keep the grid populated and help finances then the bottom five F1 outfits could be given a prize fund which enables them to buy the best of new driver talent rather than selling a contract to the highest bidder.
 
Until this takes place a quick driver will be worth maybe a tenth of a second over a rival but a wealthy driver truly is worth his weight in gold.

By Ed Valentine

It is interesting looking back at the Brazilian GP that attention has already been focused onto next year’s season. The 2014 rule adjustments promise to give the grid a shakeup as Formula 1 changes lanes somewhat with the introduction of less powerful engines and stricter fuel management. Much of the focus towards next year will be partly due to how this season panned out. Vettel took his 9th straight win in Sao Paolo and had the title wrapped up months ago.
 
In a recent post I demonstrated how other drivers, namely Alonso, were better overall performers and had points been awarded differently over recent seasons the outcome of those championships would have been rather different. The 2013 title fight, though not much of a scrap was made, could not have been less competitive so any alteration of weighting would have made little difference.

But if drivers were given an incentive (in the form of points) to make more overtaking manoeuvres the championship would have more chance of remaining an open contest. Formula 1 would certainly be less predictable. Races where the lead doesn’t change would be no more. If competitors were incentivised to overtake up until the chequered flag passes for the lead would occur more often and races would become less processional as drivers would look to maximise overtaking right up until the final corner. 

Attempts to boost overtaking have already been designed. The graph below highlights that overtaking has radically increased since 2010. The spike from 2011 when DRS, a system which aides overtaking, was introduced highlights how the entertainment factor through wheel to wheel competition needed to be addressed. If point scoring for overtaking was to be brought in this high frequency of passing and having cars with faster race pace than qualifying pace, like the Ferrari, the championship would be more of a contest as drivers would gain points for coming through the pack. 
 
This year the Abu  Dhabi, US and Brazilian GPs contained 66, 22 and 42 overtakes respectively yet they were all lights to flag victories for Vettel. The German led every lap of those races. Nobody had a look in. 

If the FIA are to stop the race for the championship becoming a race for 2nd place then more needs to be done to
reward on track overtaking. A possible solution could be, for example, 2 points being awarded for every car passed on track during the race after lap 1. Many perverse incentives may occur as team mates may swap places every other lap a bit like high speed ‘tag you’re it’. These could be policed and rules to deter such activity may be set. If driver’s are clever they would aim to gauge the optimum position in which to start the race as a driver choosing to qualify badly in order to be out of position at the start before moving through the field would add to the excitement. Perhaps the driver who set the fastest time on Saturday could have the first pick for grid position.
 
Alonso made 68 on track passes this year to Vettel’s 33 by virtue of starting in a worse grid slot. If 2 bonus points were awarded per pass the Spaniard would have amassed 70 extra points over Vettel. Such a predicament may cause the rival contender to choose to start in just as low a grid position and then we would have a race on our hands.
 
Formula 1 needs to adapt and reward drivers for creating excitement. Otherwise through boredom fans might pass by.

Overtaking statistics do not include: Position changes on the first lap, lapping of backmarkers, positions gained in the pits, positions gained through damage or punctures or mechanical breakdowns etc.

By Ed Valentine
 
Formula 1 has received some negative flack over the years as some believe there is a lack of competition at the sharp end of the grid. With the Ferrari/Schumacher era of dominance during the early to mid 2000s long gone, many fans and critics thought that the championship battle would become a more open affair and that a number of drivers, albeit within the top three or four teams, would have an equal chance of taking the championship crown. This sadly has not been the case.
 
What is striking about a particular driver’s domination is that it usually causes a change in the points scoring system, as fans may be driven away, in an attempt to level the playing field. During the Schumacher era the points scoring system was altered to close the gap between first, second and third places. For most of the 1990s until 2003; 10 points were awarded to the winner with 6 going to second place. From 2003 until the end of 2009; 10 were award for a win but 8 points went the way of the second place finisher. The points allocation shifted back to add weight to the winner by awarding 25 for a win and 18 for second for the start of 2010. 

There is a high level of competitive balance if a competitor has the same or similar chance at winning as each of the other competitors. For Formula One, this means that all of the participating teams and drivers have an equal chance at winning a Grand Prix and the Championship. The opposite is therefore true if there is a lower level of competitive balance. Formula 1 is a technical sport and with 22 or so cars, engines, aero packages, gearboxes and drivers, the assumption of equal or even near equal chances to win has to be doubted. This would also detract from the spectacle as an “unlikely” winner would not have a surprise element given the chances would be equal among all of the drivers. 

The point’s allocations of the previous 20 seasons have created a number of anomalies as it appears to reward drivers who are in bursts of form more than it does those drivers who are the most consistent over the year. Last season over the course of 20 races, Alonso and Vettel saw 18 chequered flags. Remarkably, despite finishing in a better position on average, Alonso failed to lift the F1 crown. Alonso’s average finishing position was 3.28. Vettel's was slightly worse at 3.44 yet Vettel won the title by 3 points. In 2010 Alonso’s average was 5.5 while title winner Vettel had an average finish of 6.8. Both drivers had 5 wins. In 2009 Vettel had an average position of 10.4 (points were awarded to the top 8 drivers in 2009) yet finished 2nd in the standings. Webber who finished the season in 4th had an average position of 6.2. In 2007 Kimi Raikkonen clinched the championship at the last race by 1 point and although he won 6 races to Alonso’s 4 he managed to end the year with a 4.8 average to the Spaniard’s 4.0.

In which other sport would this occur? Perhaps in tennis a player, over a five set match, may win more games but lose due to how those games fall within each of the sets. This does not happen often and the scoring system has been consistent for decades. A parallel may be drawn to yhe Premier League where only once in the last 10 seasons has a team with a better goal difference finished runner up in the title race. It happened in 2008-09 when Liverpool had a +50 goal difference to Man Utd’s +44. In 2011-12 the title was decided on goal difference. Alonso, who himself has claimed he is the most consistent driver of the current crop, has been the victim of ignorance towards averages and the central tendency. Formula 1, after all, is a sport where the driver with the highest average speed wins the race.

Bernie Ecclestone has been pushing to bring in a “medals system” which would result in the driver who won the most races in a season lifting the championship. It’s a move which would generally see the title being decided three or four races from the end of the season thus rendering the final stint of the championship a non event. 21 times has the championship been clinched at the final race in 61 seasons with the most dramatic being in 2008 when it was wrapped up in the final quarter mile in Sao Paolo, Brazil.

The points distribution method helps ensure the championship can go down to the wire but, in terms of fairness, however we slice it the system needs to change its mode.

By Ed Valentine

Formula 1 teams are heading for a major crash. Within the next 18 months the “smaller” independent teams who make up the midfield and back of the grid will face serious challenges to continue to compete as costs will rise significantly. With the introduction to a new set of technical regulations from 2014 onwards more expensive machinery (in the form of different power-trains and engines) will need to be developed. F1 team owners and investors will be tightening their seat belts at the prospects of having to fork out up to an extra $25 million next season to cover the increases. "We have made some mistakes with introducing the new power-trains, we didn't control the costs enough, and the sport may well pay the price of that very soon," says Martin Whitmarsh boss of McLaren.
 
Last month Marussia, the team who finished last in the 2012 championship, announced record losses of $56 million. Though Marussia F1 is not in debt, it’s not a widely held belief in the paddock that such a trend can continue for much longer, especially with the new prize money structure that was put in place in 2004. Prize money is differed for three years, in order to encourage commitment to go racing; Marussia received nothing last season and so had to raise money from sponsors and road car sales from the parent company thus treating Formula 1 as a very expensive form of advertising. 

The prize money is divided up based on championship position (previously it was divided up based on the amount of points scored in the championship where the amount won was a ratio of the top championship winning team’s total) which means that 1st place in the table will have a pre assigned amount and so once the championship positions have been decided, usually with a number of races remaining, there is little incentive to ramp up a greater points hall.

Currently, 10 of the 11 teams get a share of 60% of the profits but 70% of that is divided among the top 5 teams with the next 5 sharing 30%. The 11th place team gets nothing. The teams receive no money for the driver winning the championship nor does the driver receive any financial reward. Don’t feel sorry for them however as they command large sponsorship endorsements and salaries far greater than any footballer.
 
The average team budget has been reduced from $282 million per team in 2009 to $161 million in 2010 and $150 million in 2011 – in-line with a cost-cutting drive – that figure is skewed somewhat by the arrival of newcomers Lotus and Marussia. However this figure is likely to increase dramatically over the coming seasons and it is expected that some constructors will have to put the brakes on going racing. Ferrari spent $240 million in 2012 which left Marussia’s $51 million budget at the side of the road.

Despite massive bills and relatively little prize money no F1 team has ever registered as going into debt. Debt doesn’t exist in F1 like it does in football. This is due to the mechanisms in place for gaining entry and being permitted to continue in the franchise. Access to the Formula 1 roulette wheel requires financial guarantees from the moment an entry enquiry is made. A prospective team must fulfil strict monetary criteria that are designed to ensure that a competitor has enough cash to survive for at least two seasons. 

Part of this requirement is that the prospective team lodges about $60 million dollars into a locked bank account 3 months before the start of the season. This account can not be touched and therefore acts as a threshold or cushion of
capital. If a team ever attempts to access these funds it is deemed that financial credentials are not strong enough to grant further access to the franchise and the team must fold.  It happened to Super Aguri Honda midway through 2008, the last time a team has checked out before the season’s end, when the team had a liquidity problem and so folded rather than borrow money. It’s a mechanism that has seen 124 teams enter and leave the F1 World Championship with Ferrari being the only ever present since the championship began in 1950. It  also highlights how financially strong the business end of the Formula 1 franchise is. In 2007 McLaren were forced to pay a $100 million fine for spying on another team. They remained in contention for the championship that season and won the driver’s title with Lewis Hamilton a year later. It sends out a strong message that a team can let go of $100 million and carry on competing in an industry with stringent financial controls and massive outgoings. It’s a tight policy but it has ensured that there are no “cut price” attempts to go racing resulting in large arrears.

By Ed Valentine

Motor racing is dangerous. It’s a point that is written on every Grand Prix ticket. Some purists will argue with the ultra high safety standards of the current era that F1 is not the spectacle it once was while Lloyds’ Insurers, who provide insurance packages for Formula One Management, continue to maintain high premiums to cover off the high risk factor of something going wrong.  
  
"I accept every time I get in my car there's 20% chance I could die," exclaims actor Daniel Bruhl, who portrays Niki Lauda in Rush, a new film about F1.
 
A recent insight by the BBC’s More Or Less programme (podcast available here) questioned the statistics behind the risks of a F1 driver in the 1970s. The study reports that the correct figure, during an era when fatality and serious injury happened at least twice per season, is difficult to pinpoint. Kevin McConway, Professor of Applied Statistics at the Open University, points out that “in the decade preceding 1976 drivers had a 0.35% chance of mortality every time they raced at a Grand Prix weekend”. He then continues to show that the figure rose to 4.4% across a F1 season and increased again if a driver took part at every Grand Prix weekend for five years. In this scenario his chance of death did approach the 20% mark. To give some kind of perspective - the risk to a Formula 1 driver fatality per GP event was equivalent to travelling 1.5 million miles by car today. 

Since the death of Ayrton Senna in 1994, the last time a fatality has occurred during a Grand Prix, 339 races have taken place. Though there have been a couple of near misses (Massain Hungary in 2009 and Kubica in Canada in 2007) F1 has had an impeccable safety record. With last season having the highest ever average speed, clocked at 137.7 mph, it’s a testament to modern safety standards and risk management that the safest place to be during a race is in the cockpit.
 
The numbers will put it into perspective. A Grand Prix (Sunday Race only) is held over a distance of 305km or thereabouts. Monacois 260km due to the nature of the lower average speeds achieved on the tight and twisty circuit layout. Since Senna’s death in ‘94 a cumulative figure of about 140,610km would have been travelled had a single driver completed every race lap up until the 2013 Singapore GP. Of course no single driver has achieved this total but an average of 14 cars per race per season has completed every lap of a Grand Prix over that  19 year period which totals 1,968,540km. That’s1,223,194 miles without a fatality on circuits with large braking zones and high g-forces which rip the necks of the drivers

Straight line speeds are increasing all the time which heightens the burden on achieving safe corner entry speeds. Alonso achieved a speed of 210mph in the speed trap at Monza last September which is a significant amount more in energy and momentum terms than the 193mph reached by the fastest cars back in 1994. The FIA crash tests, which every constructor has to pass before the start of a season, involve running each chassis into a concrete block at 180mph. There is no test performed in excess of this speed. For every 1mph over 200mph the chance of serious injury in a  collision increases by 0.31%, a figure which is determined in accordance with the principles of kinetic energy and made valid by empirical data from the FIA. The following formula was developed to assist the risks  involved: 

This essentially highlights that the number of accidents where injury occurs after the change in speed (A2) equals the number of accidents before the change (A1) multiplied by the new average speed (v2) divided by the former average speed (v1),raised to the square power. 

If the safest place to be during an event is in the cockpit then what are the risks involved for a mechanic or a spectator? Even with stringent risk management accidents do happen and have happened. Earlier this season a loose wheel during a pit stop hit a cameraman stationed in the Red Bull pit box knocking him to the ground with rib injuries. Although a full recovery was made efforts to reduce pit lane speeds have been put in place to lower the chances of an accident even further. 
 
With the 1.5 million miles by car figure mentioned above some perspective can be given to the tyre event at the German GP. Examining detailed figures from the UK, which has been consistently the top nation in the world in terms of road safety, comparisons can be made. The most recent comparable survey (conducted in 2009) states that there are 3.8 deaths on the road per 100,000 people. Malaysia has a figure of 23.8 per 100,000. The last time a renegade wheel caused injury to pit lane personnel was in 2010. It’s close to 60 races since that incident in which an injury has occurred. In this time there have been a staggering 12,236 tyre changes during 3059 pit stops in race conditions. Using the model for road deaths above we can see a result of 8.17 pit lane injuries per 100,000 tyre changes in F1 or 32.69 pit lane injuries per car stopped. Factor in practice and qualifying session where stops at racing speed take place and the number is almost halved (teams generally practice as many stops during a practice or qualifying session as they would during a race) to 4.8 pit lane injuries per 100,000 tyre changes. 

Although comparing F1 incidents to road car usage is like comparing chalk and cheese the approach to risk management is the same. It’s all about reducing the micro mortality rate to as low a figure as possible. Statistics from a 2011 UK road  injury survey show that there were 37.29 serious road injuries per 100,000 population and 288.59 slight road injuries per 100,000 population. The injuries suffered by the cameraman at the German GP would be placed in the safety statistics towards the upper end of ‘slight injuries’ and the lower end of serious injuries.
 
It’s difficult to draw major conclusions from these figures however it can be said that on the road in the safest country with the safest record in road traffic statistics in the world each year about 288.59 injury events will take place. In the pit lane of F1, for every 100,000 pit stops (which would take about 98 years) 32.69 will be injured under current trends.
 
In a sport where so many are drawn to be on the edge of their seat the FIA are ensuring we’re all strapped in safely.

Ed Valentine has worked for Honda Formula One. He is a former student of Univeristy College Cork and graduated with a BComm (European) Degree in 2010.

By Ed Valentine

The release of the draft calendar for the 2014 F1 championship last month brought with it a number of surprises. The appearance of the Mexican GP for the first time since 1992 was a shock but makes sense since Carlos Slim’s (the former world’s richest man) Telmex corporation has become increasingly associated through sponsorship involvement in the sport and provides personal funding to Sergio Perez, a driver with championship contenders McLaren. Perhaps the biggest bombshell was the omission of the much talked about New Jersey GP, a race planned to be held on the streets of Weehawken, West New York. Sadly, organisers could not guarantee the cash in time to secure a place on the world championship tour. With countries such as Thailand and South Africa queuing up to host a round of the F1 championship and the calendar now growing to a record 21 races in 2014, just what is the attraction of staging an event?

Hosting a race is certainly not cheap nor arguably is it value for money. The Adelaide GP (a circuit not on the calendar since 1995) made a profit once - a euro equivalent figure of around €28,500 back in 1994. Figures available from Formula Money highlight that in 2012 the Australian GP’s running costs reached €69.6 million. This sum is likely to increase as it’s predicted that F1 revenues will more than double to €3.5 billion by 2016. For a sport with a global television audience of over 515 million unique viewers per race and a turnover of €1.15 billion from just the teams, drivers, on-site sponsorship, TV broadcasts and paddock club revenues, how is it that the F1 circus drains finances from 20 of the world’s most glamorous locations and still manages to have venues lining up to get on the merry go
round?

Motorsport is different to football or stadia-based sporting events as it’s possible to host the action on a street facility within a country’s major city. Given that a circuit will generally be about 4-5km in length it is quite an attractive
proposition to have a route which encompasses the delights of a cityscape together with national landmarks and tourist hotspots. An F1 streetrace, with 22 bespoke high speed toys whizzing through, seems to be an ideal advertising opportunity. However with disruption to major traffic arteries for up to 4 weeks prior to the chequered flag falling the cost of hosting a round has consequences beyond the local taxpayer’s funds. It also costs a region significantly more money to host a race on a temporary street facility than it does on a permanent circuit.

The next round on the 2013 calendar takes place in Singapore which, since its inception in 2008, is F1’s only night race. It is run on a postage stamp sized piece of road in Singapore’s business district and takes in the EsplanadeBridge and Fullerton Hotel en route. In return for this high speed tourism advert the city state has to cough up about 90 million US dollars per year and needs to put up with circuit installation processes which often cause major disruption several weeks prior to the event.

A street race is especially expensive because temporary grandstands need to be constructed and  upgrades to the road surface need to  be undertaken to comply with high safety standards. To the organisers the largest single cost is staffing at about $16 million. Temporary grandstands, enough to cover the distance of the circuit and accommodate up to 100,000 fans, come to around $13 million while safety barriers and catch fencing amount to near $8 million. The operating costs chalk up to roughly $58 million before toll road charge in the form a hosting fee, paid to the F1 commercial rights holder, is applied. The average fee in 2012 was about $30 million but for a street race of the nature of Singapore there wouldn’t have been much change left from $35 million. It’s a compound effect too as there is an annual increase in fees of about 10%. Singapore signed a 10 year contract in 2008 so the escalator clause will ramp the
cost up to well over $80 million by 2018. This means that the total cost of a 10 year contract, just for the
commercial fees, is in the region of $550 million. This figure, combined with a  conservative $560 million estimate for operating costs, highlights the high
expense of hosting an event – an event which has 3 hours of track broadcasting time on the Friday, 1.75 hours for practice 3 and qualifying on the Saturday and 2 hours maximum for the main event on the Sunday. So for the 4,050 or so minutes of track time over those 10 years the government of Singapore will have splashed out a ball park (or race track) figure of about $274,075 per minute.

One wonders if Bernie has agreed to chip in for the petrol.

Ed Valentine has worked for Honda Formula One. He is a former student of Univeristy College Cork and graduated with a BComm (European) Degree in 2010.