Winning gap

[Brogan]

The database is no longer active - I retired the code when we upgraded to new software a few years ago.

It wouldn't take much to recreate the tables and query them though.

 

[Galahad]

The other thing to bear in mind is that races in the 1950s were of considerably longer duration, which theoretically would suggest greater field spread.

Although many of those races were, in truth, over by half-distance, and the leader(s) only needed to pace themselves to the finish and preserve their cars. So possibly those factors cancel out a bit.

There's no doubt whatsoever that pre-1970, differences in both car and driver performance were much greater than subsequently. As Fenderman has said, budget constraints meant that winning cars were difficult to copy, and one design would often see service for several years with limited development. As for the drivers, well. Some were wealthy and of limited talent - plus ca change - but those generally weren't top 10 runners. Maybe those cars were just harder to drive...

It seems likely to me that we will see a bigger field spread in 2014, at least in the early races, as the differentials in new car performance are likely to be at their greatest, while reliability is also rumoured to be an issue. Interestingly that wasn't the case at the last major regulation change in 2009, though. Although there was diversity in designs - double-diffusers and KERS being adopted by some but not all - they translated overall into a close, competitive field.

 

[ZakspeedYakspeed]

Updated to the end of 2013 season (for the period 1984 to 2013) ... % laps completed (incl. racing laps) each season ...

Huge (as expected) improvement in reliability ... delta between racing laps and completed laps are primarily safety car related ... but also include any disqualifications and lap times which clearly slower than a lap with a pit stop (outliers) ...

 

[ZakspeedYakspeed]

Galahad ... re. the 2009 regulations change ... there was a drop off (seen above) in completed laps and racing laps ... retirements (I don't have the driver error vs mechanical retirements split to hand)... 2009 => 2010 also coincided with another ban on re-fueling as well ... but 2010 ended up being a mere blip as the march onwards and upwards towards inconceivably better reliability continued ...

 

[Galahad]

The new regs came in for the start of 2009, so given that the reliability continued to improve in that season, I don't know whether the 2010 blip can really be attributed to that (my post was thinking more about performance than reliability).

Also there were 4 wet races in 2010 compared to 2 in 2009; not sure without checking, but some of the extra retirements and missed laps may have been weather-related?

 

[ZakspeedYakspeed]

Ah yes ... good point ...

 

[Fenderman]

Interestingly that wasn't the case at the last major regulation change in 2009, though. Although there was diversity in designs - double-diffusers and KERS being adopted by some but not all - they translated overall into a close, competitive field.

Indeed, and the 2009 season may be a good illustration of what I was getting at with regard to the speed at which top tier and wealthier teams can respond to the innovations and advantages of their opposition. in the first half of the season Brawn looked set to run away with the championship. However, once the opposition accepted that the DD wasn't going to be banned and that they had to copy it they quickly closed the performance gap. Hence by the end of the season it was a much harder fought and tighter competition with Brawn effectively losing the development battle to Red Bull.

 

[ramilas1]

Although many of those (1950's) races were, in truth, over by half-distance, and the leader(s) only needed to pace themselves to the finish and preserve their cars.

As opposed to currently, when Seb the winner is more likely to have got the race sorted by the first corner!