Formula 1 Strategy with ML.NET – Part 4 – Monaco Grand Prix

Disclaimer: The F1 FORMULA 1 logo, F1 logo, FORMULA 1, F1, FIA FORMULA ONE WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP, GRAND PRIX and related marks are trademarks of Formula One Licensing BV, a Formula 1 company. All rights reserved. I’m just a dude in a basement with too much time on my hands.

This post is the fourth part of my approach to use ML.NET to make some predictions for strategies that teams will approach in Formula1. I highly suggest reading the first part, where I explain the approach I took.

Monaco Grand Prix is all about tradition and prestige.

The first race on the streets of Monaco took place in 1929, although not as a part of Formula 1. The track changes a bit over time, but in general stayed the same, as the street layout didn’t change. It is narrow with tight corners and nearly no run-off areas. There’s no room for error. It is the most prestigious race, and even though there are no extra points for winning it, it has a special place in many drivers hearts. The racing is not fascinating as overtaking is hard and usually order doesn’t change much from qualification, unless some accidents happen (which is quite possible on the tight circuit). The real charm is not in racing in Monaco but in the spectacular views, accompanying events and overall glamour of the race weekend.

In terms of tyres, the streets are resurfaced every year and the surface is not very abrasive compared to other races. Traditionally the three softest tyres are used for the grand prix, so the hardest tyre here (C3) is the same as the softest one in Spain. And it’s nearly never used as it’s simply not grippy enough.

Tyre choices for Spanish Grand Prix…
versus choices for Monaco Grand Prix. Source:

Changes in dataset

For reasons mentioned below, I decided to add the “Distance” column (by calculating Track Length times number of laps) to the dataset physically. I also added data on all new races in 2021 since previous post (Spanish Grand Prix) and data from Monaco Grand Prix from 2017-2019 period (2020 was initially postponed and eventually cancelled). This give us around 200 new rows and brings the total up to around 950.

Changes in code

I continued on top of the previous post experiment with AutoML. The problem I had is I couldn’t pass a pipeline to the AutoML to make use of the additional information I have about the dataset to make training easier. But I found a way to pass information about which columns are categories and which are numerical using the ColumnInformation object:

var experimentResult = mlContext.Auto()
        columnInformation: new ColumnInformation()
        CategoricalColumnNames =
                NumericColumnNames =
                LabelColumnName = nameof(DistanceTyreStint.Distance)
          preFeaturizer: customTransformer

I also experimented with using PreFeaturizer to pass information about converting the Laps feature into covered Distance feature (check out part 2 for details on that). This didn’t work out so well. It seems that it works OK for features that are not used as labels, but in this case looks like the model gets confused as it’s fitting for a feature that’s not in the input dataset. For more information on using custom transformers with AutoML checkout information in this repository.

So instead I decided to add that calculated feature (Distance = TrackLength * Laps) directly into the dataset and use it as our training label. So I dropped the PreFeaturizer, but kept the ColumnInformation as it looks like it increased the performance of the model.

Let’s look at those metrics after those changes:

=============== Training the model ===============
Running AutoML regression experiment for 600 seconds...

Top models ranked by R-Squared --
|     Trainer                         RSquared Absolute-loss Squared-loss RMS-loss Duration     |
|1   FastTreeTweedieRegression         0,4342     26005,21 1059975156,71 32557,26       0,9     |
|2   FastTreeTweedieRegression         0,4337     26270,96 1061084915,03 32574,30       0,6     |
|3   FastTreeTweedieRegression         0,4245     26281,03 1078213169,63 32836,16       0,8     |

===== Evaluating model's accuracy with test data =====
*       Metrics for FastTreeTweedieRegression regression model
*       LossFn:       1059975153,93
*       R2 Score:     0,43
*       Absolute loss: 26005,21
*       Squared loss: 1059975156,71
*       RMS loss:     32557,26

0,43 on the R-squared is another step up from 0,31 from last week and negative in the first two weeks. I’m happy with that progress!

The version of the code used in this post can be found here.

Predictions for Spanish Grand Prix

So here are the predictions for the first stint on the soft tyres for the top 10 on the starting grid. I’ll update actual values after the race.

Charles LeclercC521,30 (DNS)
Max VerstappenC522,035
Valtteri BottasC522,129
Carlos SainzC521,333
Lando NorrisC519,431
Pierre GaslyC522,832
Lewis HamiltonC522,231
Sebastian VettelC514,933
Sergio PérezC522,036
Antonio GiovinazziC523,835
Esteban OconC527,337

They seem pretty consistent with prediction from the official Formula 1 website (they predict 19-26 laps for the first stint). Let’s see how it will match the reality.

Updated: Updated the prediction using the actual temperatures at the beginning of the race instead of forecast. Added actual values.
The results are a bit away. Monaco is a tricky and unpredictable track and looks like this year’s resurface is much less violent to the tyres. Let’s count it as a failure :)

What’s next

Although we’ve made some progress, I think I’m reaching the limit of the current model. In the next part I’ll reorganize the code a bit. Split the training and inference and add some visualization. All to that to support future support for multiple models and easier visualization of how they differ in performance. My goal is to be able to make automated graphics similar to what you can find in post like this and this.

Formula 1 strategy with ML.NET – Spanish Grand Prix

Disclaimer: The F1 FORMULA 1 logo, F1 logo, FORMULA 1, F1, FIA FORMULA ONE WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP, GRAND PRIX and related marks are trademarks of Formula One Licensing BV, a Formula 1 company. All rights reserved. I’m just a dude in a basement with too much time on my hands.

This post is the third part of my approach to use ML.NET to make some predictions for strategies that teams will approach in Formula1. I highly suggest reading the first part, where I explain the approach I took.

Spanish Grand Prix is probably the most predictible one

Usually at the beginning of each season teams spend a few days at the Catalunya racetrack testing. This year was exception with Bahrain due to the Covid-19 restrictions. Just to give you an example – over the whole of his career, Kimi Räikkönen did 5983 laps in testing and only 843 while racing around this track. Nearly 90% of laps he’s done at this track where while testing. Teams have a lot of data on this track and know it very well. This makes racing here predictable and to be honest quite boring. But Boring is good for predictions.

Changes in the dataset

The overall data structure stayed the same. As previously, I added data on all new races in 2021 since previous post (Portimão and Imola) and data from Spanish Grand Prix from 2017-2020 period. This give us 250 new rows and brings the total up to around 750.

Changes in the code

In the previous part I used the default regression model for training, and it didn’t perform very well. So I decided to give the AutoML a try. AutoML dos what the name suggests – automatically looks for the best model. You declare how much time you want to spend on an experiment and let the ML.NET try out multiple algorithms with different parameters:

uint experimentTime = 600;

ExperimentResult<RegressionMetrics> experimentResult = mlContext.Auto()
.Execute(trainingData, progressHandler: null, labelColumnName: "Laps");

Then you can pick up the best model out of that experiment, and you can run predictions using it:

RunDetail<RegressionMetrics> best = experimentResult.BestRun;
ITransformer trainedModel = best.Model;

var predictionEngine = mlContext.Model.CreatePredictionEngine<TyreStint, TyreStintPrediction>(trainedModel);

var lh = new TyreStint() { Track = "Bahrain International Circuit", TrackLength = 5412f, Team = "Mercedes", Car = "W12", Driver = "Lewis Hamilton", Compound = "C3", AirTemperature = 20.5f, TrackTemperature = 28.3f, Reason = "Pit Stop" };
var lhPred = predictionEngine.Predict(lh);

The downside is, I haven’t figured out yet how to actually feed all that feature transformations we did in previous posts into the AutoML flow. So we cannot mark manually which data columns are categories or add new features like we did with distance. And predicting number of laps on tracks with different lap length makes me feel the results may be not so reliable. But let’s roll with it, and see where that leads us.

And the metrics look quite promising. The best algorithm after 10 minute experiment ended up being Fast Tree Regression. And for the first time we have non-negative R-squared. That’s the best performing model on test data we had so far, even though we took a step back with the laps instead of distance.

=============== Training the model ===============
Running AutoML regression experiment for 600 seconds...

Top models ranked by R-Squared --
|     Trainer                     RSquared Absolute-loss Squared-loss RMS-loss Duration   |
|1   FastTreeRegression         0,3971         5,49       52,55     7,21       2,2     |
|2   FastTreeRegression         0,3880         5,53       53,86     7,28       3,6     |
|3   FastTreeRegression         0,3731         5,50       54,11     7,32   18,0     |

===== Evaluating model's accuracy with test data =====
*       Metrics for FastTreeRegression regression model
*       LossFn:       51,19
*       R2 Score:     0,31
*       Absolute loss: 5,29
*       Squared loss: 51,19
*       RMS loss:     7,15

Check out tha latest version of the code in the repository.

Predictions for Spanish Grand Prix

Without further ado, let’s do predictions for the Spanish Grand Prix. All the first 10 drivers will start on the soft tyres, which are C3 compound in Spain.

Tyre choices for 2021 Spanish Grand Prix. Source:

In the table below I put my predictions and the actual first stints (since it’s already after the GP). What’s very suspicious is that each of the teammates got the same scores, which makes me think that the model gave a lot of weight to the team, and not much to the driver. I was also surprised with those results being so high for soft tyres. But C3 is actually pretty hard compound for “soft tyre” (read the first post for more details on tyre compounds) and they ended up being quite reasonable. Similarly to the previous post, I bolded out the results that ended up within 10% of the actual value. Half of them were pretty close, which is consistent with metrics suggesting this is our best model yet.

Max VerstappenC326,724
Valtteri BottasC326,923
Lewis HamiltonC326,928
Carlos SainzC326,722
Sergio PérezC326,727
Lando NorrisC326,523
Charles LeclercC326,728
Daniel RicciardoC327,225
Esteban OconC326,823
Fernando AlonsoC326,821

What’s next

For the next post that will be in conjunction with the Monaco Grand Prix, I’ll try to feed that feature information we engineered in the first two posts into the AutoML and see if that helps that model get even better. But generally I feel we’re getting to limits what’s possible with that approach. We have a lot of categorical data and not so much numeric data, which makes it a bit hard for regression. I have a few ideas for new models, and we’ll explore them in future parts.

Predicting F1 race strategy using ML.NET – Part 2 – Imola / Portimão

Disclaimer: The F1 FORMULA 1 logo, F1 logo, FORMULA 1, F1, FIA FORMULA ONE WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP, GRAND PRIX and related marks are trademarks of Formula One Licensing BV, a Formula 1 company. All rights reserved. I’m just a dude in a basement with too much time on my hands.

This post is the second part of my approach to use ML.NET to make some useful predictions about strategies that teams will approach in Formula1. I highly suggest reading the first part, where I explain the approach I took.

And yes, this episode is also too late to make predictions for Imola and Portimão, but hopefully by Spanish Grand Prix will be all caught up.

We’re not gonna get great results here

If you read the previous part you’re aware that I didn’t get spectacular results in the first run. Unfortunately, we won’t improve much here, because we don’t have much data for those tracks. In the period I focus on (2017-2020) there was only one race on each of those tracks. Imola, although a legendary track and hallowed ground for Formula1, is quite outdated and fell out of grace in recent years. Portimão is a very new track, and Portugal GP promoters were unable to attract Formula 1. Last time we raced in Portugal it was in 1996 on a different track – Estoril. But 2020 was a weird year because of COVID-19, and due to travel restrictions F1 needed to find more tracks in Europe. And so we went to Imola and Portimão.

But there are opportunities!

So even though we don’t expect dramatic improvement adding new tracks gives some new view into the data. Previously, since we only used data from one track, I used the number of laps as our Label – a number we were predicting. Since now, we have one than more track with different lengths we have to find a new feature/label to use. That’s how Distance was added to the model – I calculate the TrackLength times Laps covered.

Changes in dataset

I haven’t added any new columns to the dataset and the feature describe above is calculated in code. But I added a lot of rows. My approach is that for each race I’ll be adding previous 2021 races, and all the races since 2017 on the current track. So by applying this rule, I’ve added Bahrain 2021 (previous race) and Imola and Portimão 2020 (previous races on the current track).

Changes in code

There are two major changes in the code since last iteration. With the 4 new races added, we nearly doubled our data row count (from 250ish to nearly 500). Now I can be a bit more selective which rows I take into calculation. In the first approach, we want to predict strategy in situations where everything goes well, since we cannot predict unpredictable (rain, accidents, mechanical failures).

Removing unnaturally shortened stints

That’s why I decided to filter out all the rows with stints that end with something else than “Pit Stop” (which is regular unforced change of tyres) or “Race Finish”.

This is the piece of code that does it:

// Load data
var data = mlContext.Data.LoadFromTextFile<TyreStint>(DatasetsLocation, ';', true);

// Filtering data
var filtered = mlContext.Data.FilterByCustomPredicate(data, (TyreStint row) => !(row.Reason.Equals("Pit Stop") || row.Reason.Equals("Race Finish")) );
var debugCount = mlContext.Data.CreateEnumerable<TyreStint>(filtered, reuseRowObject: false).Count(); //396

// Divide dataset into training and testing data
var split = mlContext.Data.TrainTestSplit(filtered, testFraction: 0.1);
var trainingData = split.TrainSet;
var testingData = split.TestSet;

I use FilterByCustomPredicate method from the mlContext.Data. It takes a function which returns true for the rows we want to remove from the data.

The function itself is this small iniline piece of code:

(TyreStint row) => !(row.Reason.Equals("Pit Stop") || row.Reason.Equals("Race Finish"))

I inserted this in between loading the data from files, and splitting the data, because I want both test and training data to be consistent. This leaves us with 396 rows of data. Nice, that makes me happy.

Using distance instead of laps as a feature

The second change was connected to using Distance instead of Laps as our new Label. I had to create a new feature Distance, by multiplying two other features – Laps and Track Length. ML.NET has a long list of Transforms to support different operations, but what I had in mind was not supported. Fortunately you can also use Custom Mapping and provide it a function that will perform the transformation. I added at the beginning of our calculation pipeline.

var pipeline = mlContext.Transforms.CustomMapping((TyreStint input, CustomDistanceMapping output) => output.Distance = input.Laps * input.TrackLength, contractName: null)
              .Append(mlContext.Transforms.CopyColumns(outputColumnName: "Label", inputColumnName: nameof(TransformedTyreStint.Distance)))

That needed also some boiler-plate code in the TyreSting object. Feel free to check the current version of the code and Microsoft examples for CustomMapping transform.

I also needed to recalculate distance back to laps at the end. I do it by again dividing the prediction by the distance of the current track.

prediction.Distance / race.Track.Distance

While looking at the code you’ll also notice that I refactored it a bit. I moved some classes into separate files. I also isolated some data and magic strings. Just general clean up, so step by step we move from one-file script mess into serious working application.

Newest predictions

Just for the sake of showing progress of lack of, let’s look at some predictions. I’m not going to predict all tyres for all the drivers. Let’s just take the first 10 qualifiers from the both races and predict how long can they go on the tyres they’ve chosen to start on and compare it to what happened in reality.


The predictions for Imola ended up being pointless. On the morning of the race it rained and all the assigned tyres are cancelled in a situation like that. Teams have to start on either Intermediate or Wet compounds. In the track conditions on that day Wet tyres were a mistake. The track was dump, but there was no standing water. If you look at the table, you will notice that all drivers on Intermediates change tyres around lap 27/28. This is because teams wait for a perfect moment when the track is ready for dry tyres and usually first person blinking and changing to dries will trigger all the other teams to react.

Lewis HamiltonC323,1728Intermediate
Sergio PérezC414,0328Intermediate
Max VerstappenC324,2327Intermediate
Charles LeclercC411,9628Intermediate
Pierre GaslyC416,5414Wet
Daniel RicciardoC413,9827Intermediate
Lando NorrisC415,7728Intermediate
Valtteri BottasC326,9628Intermediate
Esteban OconC415,041Wet
Lance StrollC413,6727Intermediate

The Portuguese Grand Prix didn’t provide any weather surprises. We had a dry race and could finally test our model. On some rows predictions were quite good. I marked in bold those, where we landed within 10% difference. Sergio’s result is an obvious outlier – he was used by the team to slow down Mercedes drivers to give a better chance to his teammate Max Verstappen. But he was the right man for the job. Sergio’s tyre management is excellent, definitely one of the best in the paddock.

Valtteri BottasC338,4736
Lewis HamiltonC234,4837
Max VerstappenC235,6035
Sergio PérezC232,4051Sergio is a know “tyre whisperer” ;)
Carlos SainzC329,5821
Esteban OconC324,9422
Lando NorrisC325,7122
Charles LeclercC230,2225
Pierre GaslyC326,5324
Sebastian VettelC330,4522

What’s next?

Next up on the calendar is the Spanish Grand Prix. It’s a well known track to Formula 1 teams. They spend a week there near every year for pre-season testing. Teams like this track for its predictable surface and weather conditions. They know every inch of it and have it perfectly modelled in simulators. All that data makes racing here pathetically boring. But boring is good for predictions, right?

We’ll also take a stab at our model and for the first time try to improve it on top of just adding more data.

Until next time!

Predicting F1 race strategy using ML.NET – Part 1 – Bahrain

Disclaimer: The F1 FORMULA 1 logo, F1 logo, FORMULA 1, F1, FIA FORMULA ONE WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP, GRAND PRIX and related marks are trademarks of Formula One Licensing BV, a Formula 1 company. All rights reserved. I’m just a dude in a basement with too much time on my hands.

This is a multi-part series.

Part 1 – this article
Part 2 – Imola / Portimão

Let’s take out the first issue out of the way – I know it’s way too late to make predictions about the Bahrain race. I’ve been sitting on this blog post for quite some time, so I’m way behind. There is one more about Imola and Portimão incoming and hopefully by the Spanish Grand Prix will be all caught up.

Why am I gonna focus on tyres? (for now)

For the start, I will focus on the tyre strategy. Since refuelling was banned in 2009, choice of tyres and when to stop to change them has been a crucial part of the race strategy. In modern Formula 1 there’s only one tyre supplier – Pirelli. There are 5 compounds for dry condition (C1 is the hardest, and C5 the softest) and two types of tyres for wet conditions – “Wet” for heavy standing water on the track and Intermediate for the track that’s drying. For each race Pirelli picks three dry compounds for the teams and assign them more human-readable names – Hard (marked with white stripes), Medium (marked with yellow stripes) and Soft (marked with red stripes). So for example for Bahrain this year C2 was marked Hard, C3 – Medium and C4 – Soft. C1 and C5 were not used during that race.

Tyre choices for 2021 Bahrain Grand Prix. Source:

For different races, those options may be different (for example in Portimão last week C1 was Hard, C2 – Medium, C3 – Soft). Pirelli makes that decision depending on how abrasive and destructive for tyres is the particular track. For each racing weekend in 2021 teams receive 8 red (Soft) sets of tyres, 3 yellow (Medium) and 2 white (Hard) sets for each card and are free to use them as they wish, but they need to use at least two compounds in the race. This rule is not enforced if there are wet conditions. For those occasion the team receives 4 sets of Intermediate and 3 sets of Full Wet tyres for each car.

Generally softer tyres have better grip (and hence cars can go through corners at higher sped → lower lap times), but lower durability and hard tyres have good durability but worse grip. They also have different operating temperatures, so it’s easier to overheat the soft tyres and more difficult to put the hard tyres into good operating temperatures. Harder tyres usually provide slower lap times, but you can cover longer distance in the race. It’s a balancing act – you can use three sets of softer tyres and hope that with better lap times you can cover the 20-30 seconds time you needed for additional tyre change. Or do only one stop on slower/harder compounds. This usually works better on tracks where it’s harder to overtake – even if you’re slower because of the harder compound, the faster car may not be able to overtake you. We could talk about it for hours, but I’ll introduce more nuances as we go along. This is enough nerd talk about rubber for now.


I’m going to use ML.NET in this series of posts. I have some experience with it, but I want to learn more about the whole ecosystem while doing some fun project. Training, inference, deploying models, visualizing data – basically making a working “product” and seeing what tools we can use along the way. For context, I generally have experience building machine learning – powered products in Python frameworks, and I also have years of knowledge working in .NET projects. I want to connect those worlds. And even though I have some previous knowledge, I’m going to try to jump into it like I know nothing and make it a learning experience for you and me.

ML.NET is an open-source cross-platform machine learning library built on .Net. It implements several type of ML algorithms for solving few most common problems. It doesn’t have the flexibility of TensorFlow, but the learning curve is much more approachable, and it allows you to be fairly productive pretty quickly without investing a lot of maths knowledge. Is it the responsible approach? Probably not in all cases. You should always have a good understanding of tools you use to not hurt yourself or others.

We’re solving a regression problem

ML.NET approach is: start first with what kind of problem you’re solving. When trying to predict a specific numeric values (number of laps that tyre will be used), based on past observed data (tyre stint information from previous races), in machine learning this type of prediction method is called regression.

Linear regression is a type of regression, where we try to match a linear function to our dataset and use that function to predict new values based on input data. A classic example of linear regression is predicting prices of a flat based on its area. It’s a fairly logical approach – the bigger the flat the more it costs.

Example of linear regression.

So on the image above you can see a simple chart with input data (green dots), the linear function that we matched to the data. And the red dot is our prediction for a new data point. Matching that function to the data set is the “learning” part, sometimes also called “fitting”. Predicting new value from that function is “inference”.

The input values are called “features”, and the outputs we have in our learning data sets are called “labels”. With one feature we can visualize that data in two dimensions, but the more features the visualizations gets a bit out of control of our 3-dimensional minds. Fortunately maths much more flexible. Initially I’ll be using 11 features for our dataset to solve this problem.

My dataset

So where do I get the data? I’m using what’s publicly available, and hence my results will be much less precise than what teams can do. But let’s see where that will lead us.

I decided, as a first task, to predict a “stint” length for each driver on each type of tyre. Stint is basically a number of laps driver did on a single set of tires. If we have one change of tyres in the race, we have two stints – one from the start to the tyre change, and the second from the tyre change to the race finish. Two tyre changes – three stints. You get the grips of it. Sometimes a stint is finished with less positive outcome, like accident, or retirement because of technical issues. Sometimes it extends too much and finish with a tyre puncture. Usually teams will try to get max out of the tyres, but not overdo it.

I took data from charts like this and then watched race highlights or in some cases full races to figure out why some stints were shorter than expected. On the image below from this year’s Bahrain GP you can see that most drivers were doing 3 stints, or to use Formula1 lingo – they were on “two stop strategy”. And for some drivers the lines are shorter, because their races finished with one of those less-favourable outcomes.

Tyre stints for each driver in 2021 Bahrain Grand Prix. Source:

To make reasonable predictions, I focus only the period from 2017 to 2020. Why this period? 2017 was the last time we had major changes in aerodynamics and tyre constructions. And even though there were some minor modifications since then, the cars are in principle similar, and they abuse the tyres similarly. We also have many drivers overlapping, so we can find some consistency in their style of driving.

I also picked only races on the same track for this first approach. There are few reasons. I’m removing the variable of different track surfaces. The races are the same length in this period, so I can focus on predicting stint lent in “laps” and don’t need to worry about calculating it from distance covered.

Each row in the dataset is one stint. I collected features as listed below:

  • Date – mostly for accounting reasons, but maybe in future we could extract time of year for some purpose.
  • Track – different track, different surface properties impact tyre wear (although for now it’s only Bahrain)
  • Layout – sometimes racing uses different layout on the same track (for example Bahrain has 6 layouts, out of them 3 were used in Formula 1 since 2004, but mostly irrelevant for the 2017-2020)
  • Track length – will be useful when predicting covered distance instead of laps for future races
  • Team – different teams approach strategy a bit differently (for example priority for different drivers) – may be relevant in future
  • Car – different cars have different aero properties and “eat-up” tyres differently
  • Drivers – different driving styles, different levels of tyre abuse – for example Lewis Hamilton owes several of his victories to great tyre management
  • Tyre Compound – which tyre compounds were used during that sting. I use the C1-C5 nomenclature as on different races “Soft” can mean different things, and C1-C5 range is universal (apart from year 2017, but I mapped it to current convention)
  • Track Temperature – warmer surface allows quicker activation of tyres, but also quicker wear; too cold is not good either, because tyres can be susceptible to graining, which also lowers their lifespan.
  • Air Temperature – not sure, but I had access to data, so decided to keep it
  • Reason – why the stint ended – for example Just regular Pit-stop, End of Race, Red Flag, Accident, DNF
  • Number of laps covered in a stint – this will be my “label”, so what we’re training to be able to predict

The code

The code, minus the dataset, is available on my GitHub.

As I mentioned, my approach will be like I’m completely new to ML.NET. We already established that we’re solving a regression problem. So I copied the sample regression project that predicts rental bikes demand and made minimal changes to the code.

First, I have a single dataset. In machine learning you generally want to have a training set – to train, and a testing set to test your hypothesis on data. Testing data shouldn’t be process by algorithm. It’s a bit like taking a test knowing sample questions, but not having the exact question that will be on the test. Bike rental example has already those datasets divided, but I had to add that bit in my case.

// Load data
var data = mlContext.Data.LoadFromTextFile<TyreStint>(DatasetsLocation, ';', true);

// Divide dataset into training and testing data
var split = mlContext.Data.TrainTestSplit(data, testFraction: 0.1);
var trainingData = split.TrainSet;
var testingData = split.TestSet;

Next I build the calculation pipeline. It’s basically the order of transformation we want to do on the data. I just replaced field names from the example code with the fields I use in my dataset. You can notice quite a lot of “OneHotEncoding”. This is an operation that indicates this field is a categorical data. So for example, we don’t want to assume that “Alfa Romeo” is better than “Red Bull” because it sits higher in alphabetical order. We also normalize the values for Numerical data, so they’re easier computationally for the fitting algorithm.

// Build data pipeline
var pipeline = mlContext.Transforms.CopyColumns(outputColumnName: "Label", inputColumnName: nameof(TyreStint.Laps))
(outputColumnName: "TeamEncoded", inputColumnName: nameof(TyreStint.Team)))
(outputColumnName: "CarEncoded", inputColumnName: nameof(TyreStint.Car)))
(outputColumnName: "DriverEncoded", inputColumnName: nameof(TyreStint.Driver)))
(outputColumnName: "CompoundEncoded", inputColumnName: nameof(TyreStint.Compound)))
(outputColumnName: nameof(TyreStint.AirTemperature)))
(outputColumnName: nameof(TyreStint.TrackTemperature)))
(outputColumnName: "ReasonEncoded", inputColumnName: nameof(TyreStint.Reason)))
("Features", "TeamEncoded", "CarEncoded", "DriverEncoded", "CompoundEncoded",
nameof(TyreStint.AirTemperature), nameof(TyreStint.TrackTemperature)));

So far so good, let’s now train that pipeline with our test data. It looks surprisingly simple. I didn’t mess with the algorithm or the parameters of it. Just took the same regression algorithm used in Bike Rental examples. There will be time for some optimizations later.

var trainer = mlContext.Regression.Trainers.Sdca(labelColumnName: "Label", featureColumnName: "Features");
var trainingPipeline = pipeline.Append(trainer);

// Training the model
var trainedModel = trainingPipeline.Fit(trainingData);

So is our model good to make some predictions? Let’s try it out:

var predictionEngine = mlContext.Model.CreatePredictionEngine<TyreStint, TyreStintPrediction>(trainedModel);

var lh1 = new TyreStint() {
Team = "Mercedes", Car = "W12", Driver = "Lewis Hamilton",
Compound = "C3", AirTemperature = 20.5f, TrackTemperature = 28.3f, Reason = "Pit Stop"};
var lh1_pred = predictionEngine.Predict(lh1);

var mv1 = new TyreStint() {
Team = "Red Bull", Car = "RB16B", Driver = "Max Verstappen",
Compound = "C3", AirTemperature = 20.5f, TrackTemperature = 28.3f, Reason = "Pit Stop" };
var mv1_pred = predictionEngine.Predict(mv1);

I run two example runs for top drivers. Lewis Hamilton got 19.46 laps on C3 tyre (“Medium” for Bahrain) and Max Verstappen – 14.96 lap. First of all values are reasonable – they’re not outrageously low or high. They also show what’s generally tends to be true – that Lewis Hamilton is better at tyre management than Max Verstappen. But they most likely include the fact, that Max was doing very poorly in recent years in Bahrain and on average had shorter stints because of DNFs.

So how good did we do?

So here are our predictions vs real stints of drivers. If the drivers took more than one stint on the compound, I listed all of them. If the driver didn’t use that tyre, the Actual column will be empty.

Lewis HamiltonC226,7815; 28
Lewis HamiltonC319,8113
Lewis HamiltonC416,18
Valtteri BottasC228,5314; 24
Valtteri BottasC321,5616; 2
Valtteri BottasC417,92
Max VerstappenC222,2717
Max VerstappenC315,3117; 22
Max VerstappenC411,67
Sergio PérezC226,3719
Sergio PérezC319,412; 17; 18
Sergio PérezC415,77
Lando NorrisC225,6223
Lando NorrisC318,6521
Lando NorrisC415,0112
Daniel RicciardoC229,1924
Daniel RicciardoC322,2219
Daniel RicciardoC418,5813
Lance StrollC223,3528
Lance StrollC316,3916
Lance StrollC412,7512
Sebastian VettelC223,1531
Sebastian VettelC316,1824
Sebastian VettelC412,54
Fernando AlonsoC232,523
Fernando AlonsoC325,5518
Fernando AlonsoC421,9111
Esteban OconC232,1124
Esteban OconC325,1418
Esteban OconC421,5013
Charles LeclercC229,2824
Charles LeclercC322,3120
Charles LeclercC418,6712
Carlos SainzC226,9719
Carlos SainzC320,0122
Carlos SainzC416,3715
Pierre GaslyC232,9315; 13
Pierre GaslyC325,964; 20
Pierre GaslyC422,32
Yuki TsunodaC230,8818; 23
Yuki TsunodaC323,9115
Yuki TsunodaC420,27
Antonio GiovinazziC226,4118
Antonio GiovinazziC319,4412; 25
Antonio GiovinazziC415,806
Kimi RäikkönenC225,6516
Kimi RäikkönenC318,6813; 27
Kimi RäikkönenC415,04
Nikita MazepinC225,92
Nikita MazepinC318,95
Nikita MazepinC415,31
Mick SchumacherC225,9222
Mick SchumacherC318,9514; 19
Mick SchumacherC415,31
George RussellC221,46
George RussellC314,4923; 19
George RussellC410,8513
Nicholas LatifiC222,00
Nicholas LatifiC315,0418; 19
Nicholas LatifiC411,4014

So predictions are actually relatively reasonable. Those are not numbers that do not make sense. The model figured out that the C2 (Hard) tyres are lasting longer than C3 (Medium) and C4 (Soft). The numbers seem to be higher for drivers with better tyre management skills. They of course do not match the real numbers from the race, because there’s a lot of other things happening in the race. Crashes, retirements, reacting to strategy of other teams. Those are all things that we’ll need to somehow include in the future, but that’s not a problem for today. Overall I feel good about it. I think we have a decent model.

What does the metrics say?

But do we? Running some metrics that ML.NET have built in…

var predictions = trainedModel.Transform(testingData);
var metrics = mlContext.Regression.Evaluate(predictions, labelColumnName: "Label", scoreColumnName: "Score");

Console.WriteLine($"*       Metrics for {trainer.ToString()} regression model     ");
Console.WriteLine($"*       LossFn:       {metrics.LossFunction:0.##}");
Console.WriteLine($"*       R2 Score:     {metrics.RSquared:0.##}");
Console.WriteLine($"*       Absolute loss: {metrics.MeanAbsoluteError:#.##}");
Console.WriteLine($"*       Squared loss: {metrics.MeanSquaredError:#.##}");
Console.WriteLine($"*       RMS loss:     {metrics.RootMeanSquaredError:#.##}");

…gives following output:

*       Metrics for Microsoft.ML.Trainers.SdcaRegressionTrainer regression model
*       LossFn:       103,16
*       R2 Score:     -0,26
*       Absolute loss: 7,99
*       Squared loss: 103,16
*       RMS loss:     10,16

I’m not going to dig into what all of those metrics mean and just focus on the R2 Score, also known as Coefficient of determination. The better our function fits the testing data, the closer that value is to 1. 0 is bad. Negative is catastrophically bad. So even though some of our values looks reasonable, it’s probably accidental at this point. We’ll explore possible reasons for that and other metrics in future posts. Tyres vs Michał 1:0.

What’s next?

In the next instalment we’ll look at two races of Imola and Portimão. They will be tricky to get any reasonable results, because both of them will be running for the second time in recent years. But this will be a good occasion to extend our model and dataset to include other tracks. We’ll no longer be using laps as our label, because different tracks have different lengths. We’ll use total distance covered and calculate the number of laps out of it.

We should also look into removing some irrelevant data, like stints ended with crashes or done purely to beat the fastest lap (it’s a thing, but a long story to explain).

At some point we’ll also have to take a crack and why those metrics are so bad, and try different regression optimizers and different hyperparameters.

Until next time!

Part 2 – Imola / Portimão