UNSUPERVISED LEARNING PROJECT REPORT
1. Main Objective of the Analysis
The main objective of this analysis unsupervised
is to apply learning techniques
, specifically
clustering,
to identify hidden patterns among Formula 1 World Championship–winning seasons. The goal is
group similar championship performances together in order to understand what differentiates hi
dominant seasons from more competitive ones.
This analysis provides value to stakeholders such as motorsport analysts, team strategists, historian
media professionals by offering a structured, data-driven way to interpret championship domina
performance consistency, and historical trends in Formula 1.
2. Description of the Dataset
The dataset used in this project
Formula
is the
1 World Championship Winners dataset
, compiled
from publicly available Formula 1 records and sports analytics sources. The dataset contains sea
level information for drivers who won the Formula 1 World Championship.
The dataset includes information such as the championship year, winning driver, constructor (
number of race wins, total points scored, and driver nationality. Since the dataset focuses on wi
is well suited for analyzing patterns among top-performing seasons rather than overall race participation.
Key Attributes:
• Season: Year of the championship
• Driver: Name of the championship-winning driver
• Constructor: Team of the winning driver
• Wins: Number of races won in the season
• Points: Total points scored in the season
• Nationality: Driver nationality
The objective with this dataset is to uncover natural groupings among championship-winning se
based on performance characteristics.
3. Data Exploration and Preparation
Initial data exploration involved reviewing summary statistics and understanding the distribution
numerical features such as wins and points across seasons. The analysis revealed variation in
lengths and scoring systems across different Formula 1 eras.
1
Key data preparation steps included: - Removing non-numeric identifiers (driver name, team, natio
from the modeling stage - Handling missing or inconsistent values where applicable - Scaling
features using
StandardScaler to ensure fair distance-based clustering - Verifying that no single fea
dominated the clustering process
These steps ensured the dataset was suitable for unsupervised learning and produced stable cl
results.
4. Unsupervised Models Trained
To meet the project requirements, three variations of unsupervised learning models were traine
compared.
Model 1: K-Means Clustering
K-Means clustering was applied using different numbers of clusters (k = 2, 3, and 4). The
Method and Silhouette Score were used to evaluate cluster separation.
• Strengths: Simple, interpretable, and effective for numeric performance data
• Limitations: Sensitive to outliers and requires predefined number of clusters
Model 2: Hierarchical Clustering
Hierarchical clustering using Ward linkage was applied to observe how championship seasons na
group together. A dendrogram was used to identify a meaningful number of clusters.
• Strengths: Does not require predefining cluster count, strong for visualization and storytelling
• Limitations: Less scalable and sensitive to noise
Model 3: DBSCAN
DBSCAN was used to identify dense regions of similar championship performances and detect exce
dominant or unusual seasons as outliers.
• Strengths: Identifies noise and does not require specifying number of clusters
• Limitations: Sensitive to parameter selection and varying data density
5. Recommended Final Model
After comparing all three approaches,
K-Means clustering with three clusters
was selected as the final
model. This model provided the clearest separation between dominant, moderately dominant,
competitive championship seasons.
2
K-Means was chosen because it produced stable clusters, was easy to interpret, and aligned we
main objective of grouping championship-winning seasons based on performance intensity.
6. Key Findings and Insights
The final clustering model revealed three distinct groups of championship-winning seasons:
• Cluster 1 – Dominant Seasons: Characterized by a high number of wins and points, often
associated with technical superiority and strong team performance.
• Cluster 2 – Moderately Dominant Seasons: Seasons with solid performance but fewer wins,
indicating closer competition.
• Cluster 3 – Competitive Seasons: Championships won with relatively fewer wins, suggesting
highly competitive seasons where consistency played a major role.
The analysis also showed that certain constructors appear frequently in dominant clusters, highli
periods of sustained dominance in Formula 1 history.
7. Limitations and Next Steps
While the analysis provided meaningful insights, it has some limitations: - The dataset includ
championship winners, excluding other drivers - Changes in scoring systems and regulations
seasons affect direct comparisons - Limited availability of contextual factors such as team budge
regulations
Suggested Next Steps:
• Expand the dataset to include all drivers and constructors
• Incorporate race-level or qualifying data
• Segment analysis by Formula 1 eras to account for regulation changes
• Combine clustering results with supervised learning models for deeper insights
8. Conclusion
This project demonstrates how unsupervised learning can be used to extract valuable insights from
data. By clustering Formula 1 championship-winning seasons, the analysis highlights patterns of
dominance and competition across different eras.
The final model provides a clear, interpretable framework for understanding championship performa
and offers a strong foundation for further analytical exploration.