F1 closeness of racing through the years

[Schummy]

Sometimes arise the debate about if nowadays F1 car's perfomance are closer (between them) now than decades ago or if the gap between cars are bigger than in 70s, etc.

In order to put a little light on this issue (for my own use) I have done a bit of "research" in "Forixland". I have measured percentage of grid difference between 1st(pole) and 6th position in the even years (to save some effort) between 1970 and 2002. I have used the two most constant circuits: Montecarlo and Monza. In fact in 1980 there was not Monza and I've averaged data from 79 and 81.

In the graph I have put Monaco (red), Monza (green), average of those two (black) and an moving average of this black line (gray). also, Ive put two little vertical lines on Monza line pointing at the introduction of two chicanes in 72 and one more chicane in 76, what somehow changed the nature of the track.

It can be seen that between 1980 and 1995 cars were less close than before or after. Actually in the 85-95 period there was more gap than ever. A sharp decline of that gap happened after 1994 with the introduction of the (in?)famous FIA safety measures.

In fact, from 95 to today the gaps are practically the same as in the "golden" 70s.

As a comparison, I think in CART is typical a gap of about 0.6 or 0.7, well below any F1 epoch, but I have not done any real calculation about it (yet).

[DNQ]

Ah yes, but can you drive faster than the machinery you have underneath you, and can you overtake? In the 70s, yes, you could put a **** car on the front row and pass the bloke in front of you, alas now you can not. Sure the times are close, but we still see the top few cars usually accelarating away from each other at fixed rates

Thanks for the stats though, most interesting.

[DNQ]

I'd like to see these stats from 1st to 20th, that'd really show the depth of the field.

[Armco Bender]

I don't think the grid times proves wether the racing was closer.The number of different drivers and makes on the podium over a season would be more conclusive.

[Gore]

That’s some good work, Schummy!

There are a number of interesting points here. The closing up of the grid following the ’94 reg changes is the opposite of what I would have expected to see: one would expect the grandee teams with better financial and technical resources to adapt better. Perhaps the observed effect is down to the disruption of the advantages held by the top teams, but I would have expected the only changes I can remember (The removal of ram air and the introduction of stepped floors and the plank) to have affected all cars roughly equally. Possibly the effect was proportional, ie. Williams lost 10% of a higher downforce level than Ferrari, who consequently closed up as their 10% loss was smaller in absolute terms.

The increase in gaps in the early 1980s and the decline in the early ‘90s are, I imagine, a result of the increasing R&D applied to the cars in a bid to exploit the relative technical freedom, and the FIA’s subsequent attempts to curb this freedom. For example, I think the turbo cars of the ‘80s were probably responsible for the initial increase in qualifying gaps, hence the large dip in the gap at Monza following the move to the normally aspirated formula in ’89.

There does seem to be little correlation however between these data and (my subjective) opinion of the quality of racing. In particular, the decline in time difference observed since 1994 appears to have been matched with a decline in quality of racing. My opinion is that this is due to the changing nature of Grand Prix racing over time. In the ‘70s cars raced non-stop, and a driver qualifying 2 seconds behind another would have little hope of staying with him in the race, although the non-stop nature of the races did, however, offer some opportunity for cars and drivers able to conserve their tyres/run consistently on changing fuel loads to beat rivals quicker over a lap. Closely matched cars and, by implication, a close grid were thus, to some extent, necessary for good racing. In the ‘80s, strategy played a more significant role: drivers set up their cars according to their choice of tyre compound and number of stops, whilst running boost levels that would allow the race to be covered within the permissible fuel load. In this era, the race was a different animal to qualifying and so large differences in qualifying times did not prevent good racing. Now to jump on my hobby horse… since the re-introduction of re-fuelling in 1994, the cars have been pretty much running flat out at their uncompromised maximum throughout both qualifying and the race. Hence, although the relative lack of technical freedom has led to close grids, qualifying times in recent years have represented almost exactly the relative performance the cars will exhibit in the GP. Combined with the lack of overtaking opportunities this leads to the races we tend to see a lot of nowadays: Pole man pulls away from second, who pulls away from third etc, while Coulthard and the second Ferrari driver (Irvine, Barrichello) try unsuccessfully to pass slower cars after a poor qualifying…

Still, it must be less soul destroying to be a back of the field driver in F1 nowadays—it’s not so long since the tail-end Charlies would be losing 7 seconds a lap to pole…

[Glen]

Originally posted by Gore
...the cars have been pretty much running flat out at their uncompromised maximum throughout both qualifying and the race. Hence, although the relative lack of technical freedom has led to close grids, qualifying times in recent years have represented almost exactly the relative performance the cars will exhibit in the GP. Combined with the lack of overtaking opportunities this leads to the races we tend to see a lot of nowadays: Pole man pulls away from second, who pulls away from third etc, while Coulthard and the second Ferrari driver (Irvine, Barrichello) try unsuccessfully to pass slower cars after a poor qualifying…

Precisely the reason for limited overtaking - well put, I totally agree. Cars are going flat out for all of the race now, and the standard of driving as well as engineering is such that they operate for the whole race distance in a very narrow window of maximum performance.

[Adam43]

I love it.

And Gore and Glen. I agree. Another reason I'm not keen on the end Q-start race with the same car rule and also refueling. Both go against having a different car between the Q and race. Meaning there is less chance of having a quicker car behind a slower one in the race.

"Narrow window of maximum performance" - I like that. What would be nice is that they had to compromise the car (say with lots of fuel) and work outside that window. The team/driver who could best copr with this would do well. this would introduce a great and interesting new aspect and skill back into the sport.

[Redlake27]

I'm sure if this was extended to 20th place then we would see that the present era is a golden era.

In the 80's and early 90's there were some gloroius stragglers.....Osellas being lapped after a few laps, and it was quite common in the mid 80s to find the top 6 after the race to be some 2 laps apart!

[Adam43]

Depends what you class as 'golden era'. Close lap times? Or good racing, or exciting variety in cars, or four wheel drifts, etc...

[Schummy]

My particular golden era (and I think I agree with no few people in this) is around 1970. What tracks, what slides, what gorgeous cars! Obviously this a subjective issue, though.

What I have for "sure" is nowadays is *not* any golden era! Racing is so devoid of "racing" that I sometimes cannot believe people doesn't cry asking for changes.