Optimizing F1 Tyre Performance Prediction with SVC, XGBoost, and Optuna For Dutch GP 2022

Authors

  • Dimas Haydar Anandatama Universitas Dian Nuswantoro
  • Indra Gamayanto Universitas Dian Nuswantoro

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30871/jaic.v9i6.11452

Keywords:

Formula 1, Machine Learning, Race Strategy, Telemetry, XGBoost

Abstract

Formula 1 has evolved into a data-centric sport where strategic decisions, particularly tire compound selection (Soft, Medium, Hard), are critical for success. The ability to accurately identify a competitor's compound from observable telemetry data offers a significant strategic advantage, yet the predictive signals are subtle and difficult to distinguish. This study implements and compares two distinct machine learning methodologies to classify F1 tyre compounds using telemetry data from the 2022 Dutch Grand Prix. First, a baseline model was established using standard dynamic features (e.g., avg_speed, avg_rpm). While this approach confirmed the superiority of XGBoost over SVC, it yielded a modest accuracy of 67.99% and revealed a critical deficiency: a failure to reliably identify the HARD compound, registering a poor F1-score of 0.57. To address these limitations, an advanced methodology was developed, integrating hybrid feature engineering (e.g., LapTime, SectorTime, TyreLife) with deep hyperparameter optimization via Optuna. This enhanced approach resulted in a significantly more robust XGBoost model, achieving a final, stable accuracy of 77.34%. More importantly, it solved the baseline's primary flaw, increasing the F1-score for the critical HARD compound by 36.8% to 0.78. A feature importance analysis confirmed this methodological shift, as the most dominant predictors changed from the baseline's generalized avg_speed to the advanced model's outcome-based features (LapTime, Sector3Time). The findings definitively conclude that while algorithm selection is important, the most critical factor for this task is the quality of feature engineering. Integrating outcome-based and strategic-context features is essential to successfully extracting the subtle performance signatures that differentiate F1 tyre compounds.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Indra Gamayanto, Universitas Dian Nuswantoro

Information Systems Department

References

[1] A. Heilmeier, A. Thomaser, M. Graf, and J. Betz, “Virtual strategy engineer: Using artificial neural networks for making race strategy decisions in circuit motorsport,” Applied Sciences (Switzerland), vol. 10, no. 21, pp. 1–32, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.3390/app10217805.

[2] D. Piccinotti, A. Likmeta, N. Brunello, and M. Restelli, “Online Planning for F1 Race Strategy Identification,” 2021. [Online]. Available: www.aaai.org

[3] N. Kumar, “Using AI to enhance performance in Formula 1.”

[4] “Deep-Racing: An Embedded Deep Neural Network (EDNN) Model to Predict the Winning Strategy in Formula One Racing,” International Journal of Machine Learning, vol. 13, no. 3, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.18178/ijml.2023.13.3.1135.

[5] A. M. Rao, “Predictive Model for Pitstop Strategy in Formula 1 using Ensemble Learning MSc Research Project Masters of Science in Data Analytics.”

[6] C. Longo and L. O’reilly, “ULRR A machine learning approach for modeling and analyzing of driver performance in simulated racing Item Type Meetings and Proceedings A Machine Learning Approach for Modeling and Analyzing of Driver Performance in Simulated Racing,” Communications in Computer and Information Science, p. 1662, 2025, doi: 10.34961/researchrepository-ul.25213067.

[7] S. Garlick and A. Bradley, “Real-time optimal trajectory planning for autonomous vehicles and lap time simulation using machine learning,” Vehicle System Dynamics, vol. 60, no. 12, pp. 4269–4289, 2022, doi: 10.1080/00423114.2021.2011929.

[8] A. Jafri, “Predicting Formula 1 Race Outcomes: A Machine Learning Approach,” 2024.

[9] M. Erkamim, S. Suswadi, M. Z. Subarkah, and E. Widarti, “Komparasi Algoritme Random Forest dan XGBoosting dalam Klasifikasi Performa UMKM,” Jurnal Sistem Informasi Bisnis, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 127–134, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.21456/vol13iss2pp127-134.

[10] C. Molnar, V. Von, and C. Molnar Aus München, “Model-Agnostic Interpretable Machine Learning.”

[11] O.-A. Cheteles, “Feature Importance versus Feature Selection in Predictive Modeling for Formula 1 Race Standings,” 2022.

[12] Y. Religia, A. Nugroho, and W. Hadikristanto, “Comparative Analysis of Optimization Algorithms in Random Forest for Classification of Bank Marketing Data,” Jurnal RESTI, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 187–192, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.29207/resti.v5i1.2813.

[13] A. Tousi and M. Lujan, “Comparative Analysis of Machine Learning Models for Performance Prediction of the SPEC Benchmarks,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 11994–12011, 2022, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3142240.

[14] A. S. Iffadah, Trimono, and Dwi Arman Prasetya, “Shapley Additive Explanations Interpretation of the XGBoost Model in Predicting Air Quality in Jakarta,” Jurnal Riset Informatika, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 119–127, Jun. 2025, doi: 10.34288/jri.v7i3.366.

[15] “Penerapan Metode Support Vector Machine Dalam Klasifikasi Bunga Iris”.

[16] A. Alharthi, M. Alaryani, and S. Kaddoura, “A comparative study of machine learning and deep learning models in binary and multiclass classification for intrusion detection systems,” Array, vol. 26, Jul. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.array.2025.100406.

[17] P. Srinivas and R. Katarya, “hyOPTXg: OPTUNA hyper-parameter optimization framework for predicting cardiovascular disease using XGBoost,” Biomed Signal Process Control, vol. 73, p. 103456, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.1016/J.BSPC.2021.103456.

Downloads

Published

2025-12-05

How to Cite

[1]
D. H. Anandatama and I. Gamayanto, “Optimizing F1 Tyre Performance Prediction with SVC, XGBoost, and Optuna For Dutch GP 2022”, JAIC, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 3110–3117, Dec. 2025.

Similar Articles

<< < 24 25 26 27 28 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.