Bug Reports

If you identify any API bugs or errors in the data please record them here.

175 Responses to “Bug Reports”

  1. Eneko Alonso says:

    On driverStandings table there are also some duplicate entries for driverId 128, on races 300, 301, 302, 303 and 304.

    The constructorStandings and driverStandings duplicates can be removed by the following two queries:

    delete from constructorstandings where constructorstandingsid = 24518;
    delete from driverstandings where driverstandingsid in (7118, 7149, 7180, 7211, 7243);

    Finally, on the results table, there are 83 occasions where the same driverId has 2 or more results for the same raceId. This would mean the same driver participated on the same race for different teams. Did those drivers actually switch teams mid-race?

    These entries can be found with this query:

    select driverid, raceid, count(1) c from results group by driverid, raceid having c > 1;

    Thanks!

  2. emkael says:

    “Finally, on the results table, there are 83 occasions where the same driverId has 2 or more results for the same raceId. This would mean the same driver participated on the same race for different teams. Did those drivers actually switch teams mid-race?”

    Not necessarily different “teams”, just different entries, your query does not group by teams (i.e. constructors).

    And yes, shared drives and car switches have long history in F1.

  3. Admin says:

    Thanks Eneko,
    The standings errors have been corrected. I’ll work through the 83 results to find out what the problem is in a few days.
    Chris

  4. emkael says:

    Hi, Chris, I’ve just checked. Nothing’s the problem with these.

    77 of these are just shared drives/car switches.

    The remaining 6 are:
    – two entries for Harald Ertl in the 1978 Italian GP (he DNPQ’d an Ensign and DNQ’d an ETS)
    – two entries for Keith Greene in the 1962 British GP (he was initially entered in car 50, but that didn’t arrive, so he practised in car 48 and DNS’d)
    – two entries for Ron Flockhart in the 1958 Monaco GP (he tried and failed to qualify a Cooper and a BRM)

    It’s just that a unique constraint on (raceId, driverId) is an invalid assumption on Eneko’s behalf as there are genuine multiple entries for the same driver in some races.

  5. Eneko Alonso says:

    Thank you looking into it, emkael. Agreed, a unique index constraint for the races table does not apply, my bad. I updated the gist with the indices last night to reflect that change. The other indices should work well.

    Regards,
    Eneko

  6. Admin says:

    Thanks Emkael – hard to imagine all that car hopping these days!

  7. Alan says:

    Hi Chris,

    Will you update the database image with latest races and drivers? 2017 races are not in the races table yet….

    Thanks

    Alan

  8. Admin says:

    Hi Alan,
    Done – watch out for updates though, as new drivers are announced etc.

  9. Rob says:

    qualifying row with id 409 has strange characters in the q1 column:
    1:36.827†

    qualifying rows with raceid 64 are incorrectly formatted:
    id 998 = 1:15:329
    id 988 = 1:14:862
    id 990 = 1:14:934

  10. Rob says:

    Further to my previous qualifying formatting issues there are some that have the following formatting:

    id 1007 = 1.20.080

  11. Admin says:

    Thanks Rob – all now corrected.

  12. Eneko Alonso says:

    Jean Alesi has grid position 41 on 1998 Australian Grand Prix (result id 3666). The correct grid position is 12. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Australian_Grand_Prix#Race)

  13. emkael says:

    The ’98 Australian GP has incorrect grid position for Jarno Trulli, too. He qualified 15th, Wikipedia lists grid position of 11 (the same as Wurz’s).

  14. Jorge Gonzalez says:

    For the 2017 Season I tried querying http://ergast.com/api/f1/2017/results?limit=1000 and noticed that the displayed number (#2) for Stoffel Vandoorne was coming out at (#47) in one of the columns.

    After poking around i noticed that the “attribute:number” is correctly showing #2 for him but his “driver.permanentnumber” is set to #47

    Can you please fix this?

  15. Jorge Gonzalez says:

    Also, the grid #s shown for Australia-2017 seem to be outdated.

    Daniel Ricciardo shows up #15 after he received a 5-grid penalty but during the formation lap his called stalled and he was forced to start from PitLane moving everyone below him up one spot and having him start from PitLane (i.e. 20).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Australian_Grand_Prix#Race

  16. Admin says:

    Eneko, Emkael,
    Thanks – now fixed.

  17. Admin says:

    Hi Jorge,

    Thanks, now corrected. Note that drivers don’t move up the grid (the vacated space is left unoccupied) and that I use ‘0’ to indicate that a driver started from the pit lane.

  18. emkael says:

    Thanks for the fixes.

    Ricciardo’s case is an odd one – I can’t recall any precedent of a driver “retiring” into the pit lane on formation lap, but not retiring from the race entirely.
    So far, it’s been either a grid drop into the pit lane (due to penalties) – the grid was moved up because that was the new correct grid order, and driver(s) starting from the pit lane were at the back of the grid.
    Or, it’s been a DNS (with either grid position “0” or driver’s initial grid position) if a car didn’t make to the grid.
    All in all, not sure how it should be handled.

    Anyway, speaking of grid position bugs – 1989 Spanish GP, Eddie Cheever (resultId = 8388) has a grid position of 61 (number of laps he covered in that race) – should be 22 🙂

  19. sperry says:

    Will there be an update for the whole VES/VER acronym debacle, resulting in reporting Verstappen as “VER” from 2017 onward?

    He’s currently still turning up as “code=VES” in the Aussie GP results.

  20. koen says:

    Hi, max verstappen is named VER in 2017 ( .. it was VES in 2016 2015 ..)

    thanks Koen

  21. Admin says:

    sperry, koen,
    Thanks for the heads-up. Verstappen is now VER but this can’t be time-dependent due to technical limitations.

  22. koen says:

    Hi, ok, why not just change it to VER so that it is correct now in stead of being correct in the past ?

  23. Admin says:

    Hi koen,
    That is what I’ve done.
    Chris

  24. koen says:

    oki thx

  25. sperry says:

    Thanks a ton, Chris. Not just for the VES->VER update, but for hosting and maintaining this whole API!

Add a Comment: