Facts about the 2009 Season so far

[TomWazzleshaw]

I was bored the other night so I decided to compile a few facts showing just how close the 2009 field is from Australia-Italy:

QUALIFYING:
The average gap between 1st and 20th in Q1 has been 1.84 seconds
All teams have had a Q3 spot atleast once this season
7 drivers from 6 different teams have sat on the pole

RACE:
All teams have scored atleast 5 points.
18 different drivers have scored points
Out of those 18, 11 from 7 different teams have finished on the poduim
Of those, 6 from 4 different teams have won races.
10 drivers from 7 different teams have scored atleast 1 fastest lap so far this season.

Discuss

[Paul Hayes]

Quite a good spread of success. It will be interesting to see whether this continues into next season.

Certainly it takes me back sometimes when watching any of the BBC's "Classic F1" highlights on their website just how much of a field spread there often was in the past - cars several seconds down in qualifying, back-markers being several laps behind, that sort of thing.

[watka]

Just goes to show how much the field has closed up, even Badoer would have been well inside the 107% rule in Q1 at Valencia and Spa. Shame about the lack of overtaking in recent years though.

[shinji]

That's impressive. Now only if the racing was better and the politics calmed down a bit everything would be perfect.

[rffp]

Despite Brawn's early dominance, it has been a very levelled year. In past seasons, 1.84s from P1 would likely mean a position in the top 6. This contradicts some previews made in 2008, even by Mark Webber, that the grid would be more spread out in terms of time. Are all 10 teams approachig technical limits for the F-1 cars? Or will we see a breakthrough in future seasons? The double diffuser was hailed as the technical advantage in the season start, but it was not that advantage such as some seen in the 80s and the 90s. On the other hand, there is KERS now...

In 2010, with 4 new teams coming to F-1, I expect that difference to increase. I don't see USGP or Ripoff Team being less than 2s to pole time. The reject teams are coming back. Actually, with the departure of manufacturers, the number of GP winners should go down, maybe to the number presented in 2000 or 2005.

Another interesting thing about this season is to look at who has won so far. Apart from Hamilton and Raikkonen, the winners have been Button (only 1 previous win in 9 year), Barrichello (5 years without a win), Webber (no win in more than 100 GPs) and Vettel. There was an article on the British media questioning how much the technology influenced F-1 for former midfield and hapless drivers to be launched to the front. A point was made in my opinion.

[Ulfuls]

The two single facts which have made the strongest impression on me about this season have been Brawn's form right out of the box, and Force India's recent surge on the low-downforce circuits. The message, I think, is the same from both, which is that management and engineering brainpower counts for almost everything today -- more than money, more than driving talent, more than strategy.

Look at Force India -- ex-Midland, ex-Spyker, ex- the detritus of Jordan, perennial backmarkers, right? And in the past month, although the budget hasn't changed, and Sutil, Liuzzi and Fisichella are the same competent but not genius-level drivers as ever, they're suddenly challenging for wins and charging up the points. The only thing that can accomplish that is extremely clever engineers working the car, and extremely good managers who know how to let the engineers do their thing and translate it into a car that goes faster.

Same thing with Brawn -- Honda had years of indifferent results on a massive budget, before suddenly surging into contention this year. The only real difference is Ross at the top of the pyramid getting the best out of his people.

And it can't be coincidence that Ferrari, after years of being world-beaters, are now subsiding ever so slightly into a more chaotic, disorganised, emotional, and ineffective way of doing things, following Ross's departure...

[rffp]

Same thing with Brawn -- Honda had years of indifferent results on a massive budget, before suddenly surging into contention this year. The only real difference is Ross at the top of the pyramid getting the best out of his people.

No one can take away the Ross' competence to put on the grid at the 11th hour a winning team, but that car was one of the most expensive ones ever made. According to Wurz, almost 1 billion (sic) were spent in developping the Brawn GP001. Although I question that number, but Brawn would not be able to come with a competitive package if it weren't for the Honda fatcats, Australian GP rejects!

[dresda]

I think it would be interesting to compile the same stats for say, 1992....

The average gap between first and second on the grid would probably have been about 1.84 seconds that season.

[Ben Gilbert]

I think it would be interesting to compile the same stats for say, 1992....

The average gap between first and second on the grid would probably have been about 1.84 seconds that season.

More often than not, that would be between the two Williamses. Then a gap of two years to the rest of the grid.


I do think that this closeness is a double edged sword. Yes, the cars are closer and there's more even opportunity for success, but at the same time, it doesn't equate to overtaking or close finishes on track (except safety cars), as the cars spread out to a minimum of one second betweeen them over the course of a race due to the aerodynamics. The closeness of times in qualifying just overhypes the race, making us expect that there will be an overtaking frenzy.

Take 1992 as an example. There was no doubt after three races who was going to win it, but at least behind the front runners there was good racing.

Another thing about this closeness, from a purely rejects POV: If no-one finishes several laps down anymore, there isn't anyone to cheer when they score a point after finishing two-five laps down every race before!

[rffp]

I think it would be interesting to compile the same stats for say, 1992....

The average gap between first and second on the grid would probably have been about 1.84 seconds that season.

In the Jean-Denis Deletraz forum, there is a comparison between 1983 and 2009.

[Bleu]

Silverstone 1992: gap between 1st and 6th on the grid was 4,5 seconds and it was a dry qualifying.

[shinji]

Silverstone 1992: gap between 1st and 6th on the grid was 4,5 seconds and it was a dry qualifying.

Misleading:

1
N.Mansell
1:18.965

2
R.Patrese
+1.919

3
A.Senna
+2.741

4
M.Schumacher
+3.101

5
G.Berger
+3.331

6
M.Brundle
+4.524
7
J.Herbert
+4.640

8
J.Alesi
+4.758

9
M.Hakkinen
+4.848

10
E.Comas
+4.992

Mansell and the FW14 were just preposterously good.

[DonTirri]

Silverstone 1992: gap between 1st and 6th on the grid was 4,5 seconds and it was a dry qualifying.

the FW14 was just preposterously good.

Fixed it for you

[shinji]

Silverstone 1992: gap between 1st and 6th on the grid was 4,5 seconds and it was a dry qualifying.

the FW14 was just preposterously good.

Fixed it for you

I'm Irish - I'd usually take any opportunity to knock an Engilsh person. But Mansell was 2 seconds ahead of his team-mate, which is impressive, as Patese wasn't great but he wasn't a slouch.

[DonTirri]

the FW14 was just preposterously good.

Fixed it for you

I'm Irish - I'd usually take any opportunity to knock an Engilsh person. But Mansell was 2 seconds ahead of his team-mate, which is impressive, as Patese wasn't great but he wasn't a slouch.

It's called no.1 driver status.
reference to Benetton 94+95, McLaren 91+92, Ferrari 02-04 and you'll catch my drift

[eytl]

Just goes to show how much the field has closed up, even Badoer would have been well inside the 107% rule in Q1 at Valencia and Spa. Shame about the lack of overtaking in recent years though.

Those two comments are actually linked.

Of course, as we all know, aerodynamics plays its part in making it difficult to overtake. But aerodynamics is not a new development ... aero has been around since the late-1960s!

Two things in particular make for overtaking: (1) performance differentials and (2) cars out of 'usual' position. The professionalism of the field these days (look, even Force India have a budget of $100+ million; some teams as late as the early 1990s operated on budgets under $10 million) means that everyone has refined their packages to within a second or two of each other, and it is rare for anyone to break down or slip up such that a huge charge back up the field is required.

It is a fallacy that a close field necessarily makes for good racing. Take V8 Supercars in Australia, for example. The whole field (around 30 cars) is often within 2-3s of each other, but it is entirely processional racing. It is variety - in design and performance - that often causes good racing. To use another touring car example, try British Touring Cars in the mid-1990s - a field consisting of rear-wheel-drive, front-wheel-drive, four-wheel-drive, sedans, hatches, wagons - and overtaking galore!

It is also a fallacy that F1 in the past was necessarily filled with great racing. More positional changes, definitely, but that was also because of more DNFs (cars not bulletproof like they are today), more mistakes (cars more difficult to drive than they are now), more missed gear changes (impossible these days) etc.

Having said that, I think on-track 2009 has been quite good, with the new rules meaning that while the field is close, different teams have been competitive on different weekends, and the fluctuations in performance mean that especially from mid-season onwards every weekend has been unpredictable.

[Mister Fungus]

Then again junior formula like GP2, WSR and F2 are basically spec series but they still offer much more overtaking. And only F2 from those has "boost" IIRC.

[Ross Prawn]

[quote="watka"

It is also a fallacy that F1 in the past was necessarily filled with great racing. More positional changes, definitely, but that was also because of more DNFs (cars not bulletproof like they are today), more mistakes (cars more difficult to drive than they are now), more missed gear changes (impossible these days) etc.

Absolutely, in fact it has been quite normal for one team or another to have a performance advantage in any one year to the detriment of the racing. Most of Stewart's wins were quite sleep inducing, as was the whole Andretti ground effect Lotus championship. Mansell's wins in an obviously superior car would have been boring if they were not livened up by Nigel's infinite ability to cock things up.

The thing that has changed is that the over reliance on detailed aero design has made it more difficult for the cars to run in close proximity. Also the move to refuelling and pitstops, inevitably meant much less on track overtaking.

But the main reason why we think F1 was much greater in the past is that we have forgotten all the forgettable races.

[jonnyeol]

There was lots of overtaking back in the turbo era, but it didn't make the racing more exciting all the time. Take Prost's 1985 championship - he'd let some other driver run off in front and then just use all the fuel he saved earlier on to zip past them later. His manoevres were rarely spectactular, as he'd have enough boost in reserve to zip past them on the straights.

[Pacifics only fan]

It is variety - in design and performance - that often causes good racing. To use another touring car example, try British Touring Cars in the mid-1990s - a field consisting of rear-wheel-drive, front-wheel-drive, four-wheel-drive, sedans, hatches, wagons - and overtaking galore!

I agree fully. The problem in F1 is if a team introduces a major innovation, 1 of 3 things happen, it either is (a) banned by the FIA, (b) copied by the other teams, or (c) doesn't work and is discarded. as a result, all the cars tend to be broadly similar, and the racing can suffer as a result.