Delta Data

Six years ago, two classmates scribbled their thoughts about the weekend’s Formula 1 race on a piece of paper, just for fun. Today, that small idea has turned into an account with 10.000 followers. Thanks for joining the ride! 🏎️📊 - Hace seis años, dos compañeros de clase escribían en un pequeño trozo de papel sus notas sobre la carrera de Fórmula 1 del fin de semana, solo por diversión. Hoy, esa pequeña idea se ha convertido en una cuenta con 10.000 seguidores. Gracias a todos por acompañarnos en este viaje! 🏎️📊

@FormulAnalyst Our ratings say that Max put in some outstanding performances but also made more mistakes

@DeltaData_ It's not just the fact that Norris and Ocon lost to more experienced drivers while Max beat a rookie, it's the about how they did it And yes, Max started the season with a lot of DNFs, but also ended with 8 points finishes and 2x P4s in the last 10 races x.com/FormulAnalyst/…

1º 🇫🇷 Ocon 2017 — (7,882) 2º 🇬🇧 Norris 2019 — (7,834) 3º 🇲🇨 Leclerc 2018 — (7,816) 4º 🇫🇷 Gasly 2018 — (7,675) 5º 🇬🇧 Bearman 2025 — (7,595) 6º 🇬🇧 Russell 2019 — (7,467) 7º 🇦🇺 Piastri 2023 — (7,372) 8º 🇳🇱 Verstappen 2015 — (7,289) 9º 🇪🇸 Sainz 2015 — (7,235) 10º 🇮🇹 Antonelli 2025 — (6,449)

👉 #ChineseGP 🇨🇳 Notes: The ratings for Norris, Piastri, Albon and Bortoleto are marked with an * as they are not particularly representative, having competed only in the Sprint format. Furthermore, Bortoleto’s rating was lowered due to his crash in qualifying Verstappen: Having listened to the statements from the team and the driver, it is considered that the poor start was mainly due to electrical problems Antonelli’s rating may come as a surprise, but one must take into account his poor performance in the Sprint format and the weight this carries in the final score --------------------------------------------------------- 🔎 General explanation: Since the 2004 season, we have developed a driver rating system aimed at contextualising performance in each Grand Prix, taking into account the potential of each car and the position a driver could have realistically achieved without external factors affecting their performance. To do so, we have established a set of criteria which, although they may vary slightly depending on the circumstances, can be broadly summarised as follows: Base potential rating: 8.5 Gap to teammate: every 0.1s → -0.4 in rating Crash: the pre-incident rating is halved Penalties / mistakes: every second lost → -0.1 The base potential rating is set at 8.5, meaning that even a “perfect” performance does not automatically equate to a 10. This approach allows us to distinguish between solid, expected performances and those that represent genuine overperformance or exceptional execution. These Rankings are built upon an extensive analytical process, in which each driver is assessed individually and in detail. A wide range of factors is considered, including detailed reviews of race starts to evaluate positions gained or lost, differences in technical specifications between cars (for instance, when one driver has upgrades and another does not), as well as all pace analyses and comparisons conducted throughout the race weekend. No “rookie factor” is applied, meaning all drivers are evaluated under the same criteria regardless of experience or circumstances. Qualifying performance is also included in the overall weekend rating. For Sprint weekends, both formats are assessed separately, with a weighting of 26.3% assigned to the Sprint and 73.7% to the conventional format, in line with Formula 1’s official points distribution. Ratings may be subject to minor adjustments in the days following publication, should further review or additional information allow for a more refined assessment. In cases where a rating is marked with an (*), this indicates that its contribution to the final season rating will be reduced, due to insufficient data from that particular Grand Prix to consider it as representative as a standard race weekend. Naturally, despite being based on a structured methodology, these ratings retain a degree of subjectivity. As such, they do not represent any absolute truth, but rather an engaging way of attempting to assess driver performance in an extremely complex sport shaped by countless variables beyond the driver’s control—many of which are difficult, if not impossible, to quantify. With these Rankings, we also aim to challenge common narratives that tend to undervalue drivers competing in uncompetitive machinery, whose official results may not accurately reflect their true performance. As a result, some of our conclusions may differ from, or even contradict, the official standings. We understand that this type of content can generate debate and criticism. However, we have been aware of this since the very beginning of the project. While we recognise that focusing solely on pace analysis might yield greater reach, we will continue to publish these ratings, as this project is ultimately driven by passion and enjoyment. Constructive feedback is always welcome; insults or disrespectful behaviour will result in an immediate block without further engagement. Finally, I’d like to thank @Overtake_GP for their help with the design, which made it possible to bring these ideas to life

R2 / 🇨🇳 CHINESE GP RANKINGS 🔻

R2 / 🇨🇳 CHINESE GP RANKINGS 🏅

@tonovila17 Nada! no me lo tomé a malas ni mucho menos 😅

@DeltaData_ Obvio, no era una crítica, que conste, sino mi opinión con los recuerdos que me causaron en las temporadas de rookie.

Si lo hiciera de cabeza seria totalmente diferente. Leclerc y Max los que mas me impactaron. George y Lando los que mas me sorprendieron. Pero viendo esto me replanteo ver las temporadas de nuevo jajajaja

@albertomuroo @dani_liro Como en todas las valoraciones. Ser 1 décima más rápido te da 1 o 2 posiciones por delante de tu compi, cometer un error grave te deja último 🤷‍♂️ Igualmente, estamos hablamdo de igualar el ritmo de Sainz o Pérez en tu primer año y cometer 0 errores graves

@dani_liro @DeltaData_ El problema que yo veo es que en sus valoraciones los findes buenos de Leclerc son igual de buenos que los de Norris. Y pesan más los errores que la supuesta superioridad de ritmo. Por eso pilotos mid están delante de pilotos top.

@carlosingapore Me equivoqué, te dije los malos GP´s de Carloss De Max serían Baréin, Mónaco y Silverstone. 2 de ellos errores graves

@DeltaData_ en barein y en austria rompió motor tf. obviamente creo que verstappen fue mejor en esa temporada pero carlos le igualó el h2h. no me parece para ser la penúltima considerando la mala suerte que tuvo, pero well

carlos’ rookie season is so underrated. not his fault he had 7 mechanical DNFs and 4 of them IN A ROW brother

@dani_liro No me encuentras un solo finde malo de Norris en aquella temporada, y salvo España y Brasil, todos son como mínimo buenos sino buenísimos. 10-8 en Quali contra Sainz en su primer año A 69 milésimas de media global en ritmo contra Carlos

@DeltaData_ Norris delante de Leclerc es un crimen de lesa humanidad

@FormulAnalyst Verstappen had a run of poor weekends that season, which is why his ranking is so low, and yes, Max won, but Sainz was also a rookie. Ocon and Norris lost out to two highly experienced, top-class drivers; that’s just as commendable, if not more so.

@DeltaData_ With all due respect Ocon lost to Perez Norris lost to Sainz (by a lot) Piastri lost to Norris (by a lot) But somehow they are all above Verstappen who absolutely demolished Sainz 49-18 in points

Having analysed this situation in depth, I think I’ve been able to reach a conclusion. Verstappen has always been one of the drivers with the best starts; it’s impossible for a driver of his calibre to have three poor starts in a row due to his own mistakes. Furthermore, if you check his onboard, you can clearly see that the start itself is good and his reaction time is among the best, but suddenly the engine stops delivering power. It’s also a fault we’ve seen with several drivers in these races. Therefore, I’m certain we can say that this is more of a mechanical issue than a driving error, and if that’s the case, his weekend can only be described as really good.

Hace unos cuantos años escribí un artículo sobre cómo Crivi cambió la historia de España. Por si gustáis. Álex Crivillé y el último Río del motociclismo: motociclismo.es/mundial-motogp…

@Swinxy Se le ve ilusionado

Marco Bezzecchi: “La moto está mejorando, Aprilia ha trabajado muchísimo” motociclismo.es/mundial-motogp…

📊 | These were the Yamaha riders' pace in Thailand 🇹🇭 #MotoGP

📊 | These were the Honda riders' pace in Thailand 🇹🇭 #MotoGP

Home hero Diogo Moreira explains what it means to have Ayrton Senna as a special helmet tribute this weekend. More from him 👉️ crash.net/motogp/news/10…

📊 | These were the Aprilia riders' pace in Thailand 🇹🇭 #MotoGP

@FormulAnalyst 4th is the lowest and 3rd is the highest too, and I finished less than a second behind Lec 😅

@DeltaData_ - 0.151s behind in qualifying (and Leclerc almost didn't even improve in Q3, although I don't count that) - qualified P7 in the 2nd fastest car (basically as low as he could since P8 and P9 were the Racing Bulls on used tyres) - P4 in the race (again, as low as he could...

Updated Driver Ratings! Made some tweaks in the formula and applied the following multipliers Leclerc: 1.05x Norris: 1.05x Piastri: 1.05x HAMILTON: 1.10x Example: if Hamilton had a 8.0, with the multiplier he has a 8.8 I hope everyone is happy now!! (you probably won't still)