How much slower next year?

[Adam43]

Which gives a great sensation of rapid acceleration

Overall I agree, top speed irrelevant. Although I'd take Andydickens point a bit further. I think it is nice they hit 200mph and some corners aren't flat at 150mph

[muzza4ever]

Aren't the v8's lighter than the v10s? I suppose the keypoint will be the combination of engine weight and loss of bhp.

I'm guessing at around the same. Certainly by 3/4 of way through the season

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by muzza4ever

Aren't the v8's lighter than the v10s? I suppose the keypoint will be the combination of engine weight and loss of bhp.

I'm guessing at around the same. Certainly by 3/4 of way through the season

The V8s must weigh a minimum of 95Kgs,many of the V10s already weigh less than that.When you think that the last Yamaha engine to be used in F1 weighed well under 100Kgs it gives you some idea of the progress made since then.

[Knowlesy]

I think they'll be about two to three seconds slower, but no more.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was less.

[Suze]

I reckon it'll be +3 by the start of the season, and obv getting quicker from thereon in.

[Pingguest]

The fuel consumption will be different. The V8's use far less fuel, resulting in slightly lighter cars.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

The fuel consumption will be better for the pace. The V8's use far less fuel, resulting in slightly lighter cars.

They can go 2 ways.

Opt for a shorter car with a smaller (or about the same as this season) capacity fuel tank or stay the same and go for increased fuel capacity.If qually stays the same then the latter will be the better bet but the car will be heavier if the tank is filled as there is no reduction in engine weight to compensate.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by martyn bott

They can go 2 ways.

Opt for a shorter car with a smaller (or about the same as this season) capacity fuel tank or stay the same and go for increased fuel capacity.If qually stays the same then the latter will be the better bet but the car will be heavier if the tank is filled as there is no reduction in engine weight to compensate.

If qualifying stays as it is now, a smaller fuel tank is the better bet. In fact, with the current qualifying system it is better to do at least two pitstops and to have a smaller fuel tank.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

If qualifying stays as it is now, a smaller fuel tank is the better bet. In fact, with the current qualifying system it is better to do at least two pitstops and to have a smaller fuel tank.

It's better to have a larger fuel tank as this gives more options for strategy.The ability to one-stop as got to be a possibility for any team.As we have seen in recent GPs,the car that pits last is usually at an advantage later on in the race.Cars that go for a short first stint are usually disadvantaged.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by martyn bott

It's better to have a larger fuel tank as this gives more options for strategy.The ability to one-stop as got to be a possibility for any team.As we have seen in recent GPs,the car that pits last is usually at an advantage later on in the race.Cars that go for a short first stint are usually disadvantaged.

Fuel tank capacity is also determined by the number of pitstops. Since the introduction of the 2003 qualifying regulations, we see more pitstops and thus smaller fuel tanks. Ferrari struggled in 2003 with a relatively too large fuel tank, causing an aerodynamic inefficiency. The maximum capacity was never used, because of the parc fermé-regulations. In 2004 all teams adapted their fuel tanks to the new qualifying regulations.

[Louis B.]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

The fuel consumption will be different. The V8's use far less fuel, resulting in slightly lighter cars.

I am not an expert but I have major doubts at to whether the above is accurate. I would expect the fuel consumption to be the same or even higher for the V8 as it will have to be run at much more revs. At 120 km/h, my current V6 car is far more economical that my former V4. May anyone of the more knowledgeable members of this forum enlighten me on this point?

[Joe Taylor]

I reckon it will be 3 seconds, but nearer 5 at Monza

[KaiserSose]

It's hard to say. Everyone has heard before how much slower the cars will be next year after changes from turbos to nonrmally aspirated cars, and from slicks to grooved tires. So far, they haven't been very successful at slowing the cars. Making the races less interesting, yes, but not slower.

I'd guess about 2 seconds initially, but I'd be surprised if they don't eventually get some or all of it back. New aerdynamics, changes to tire composition, who knows........these guys are good at finding speed.

[f1manoz]

It'll end up an average of 3 or so seconds.

[emjaya]

As fast if not faster.

Back in the days when F1 was swapping from turbo-charged to the 3.5 Lt,a driver whilst testing in a turbo car came up behind a 3.5Lt car.He pushed his "push to pass" boost button to pass said car and found he was unable to,the engineers having already made up the horsepower difference between the two much different engines.By the time we get to Melbourne they will have done the same.
That is my fearless prediction.

[Silk Cut Jaguar]

I'd be very surprised if they were anything more than a second or two slower than the current machines.

Now the teams have the V8s on the test mules we'll see the times tumble.

[Rennen]

There were two V8s running at the Silverstone test on Tuesday. de la Rosa's Mac wasn't running as fast as it could go was my observation, I timed it at 1.24.6.
The Toyota V8 was about a second slower than the V10 Jordan.

I voted 3 seconds.

These V8s sounded a lot better than the old Cosworth DFVs used to...I guess it's the high RPM that takes away that crude V8 rumble?

[Rennen]

I dont quite follow how a larger fuel tank causes aerodynamic inefficency?...One would have thought with the cost of aero development the extra spaced gained by the shorter V8s would be best used as a tank rather than a spacer or a shorter wheelbase!?

[Glen]

The V8s being tested currently are all in mule cars not designed for that engine. A chassis designed and built specifically for the new packaging (and fuel, weight distribution, everything else...) will knock a big chunck of time out of these numbers. Performance will vary according to circuit, obviously - I voted three seconds for Melbourne - it may well be less than that.

[Rennen]

Further to my point...with the importance of race stratege the opportunity to carry more fuel (or less at a lower CofG?) would allow more options available to the strategists.

[Glen]

You can do all sorts of clever stuff with big fuel tank - just ask BAR!

To be serious - I think they will favour pace over flexibility, even if the extra pace is pretty scant. Even these new one-race tyres seem very sensitive to overloading, so now teams are fuelling light and doing shorter stints so that the car can be in an ever narrowing sweet spot and flat-out at all times. I don't see why that trend would not continue - especially with less horsepower, when you want to be as light as possible at all times to maximise braking and acceleration performance as well as minimise tyre wear.

[Inigo Montoya]

I went for +3. By the end of the year (when the teams that got it wrong release their B cars) , it will be more like +1.5. The tyres will be, as usual, a big factor. I am betting Bridgestone will be working round the clock during the winter to figure out how to stop the Michelin dominance... And with the added possibility of a near future single tyre manufacturer F1, the pressure will be on to be "the one."

[Tec-Mec 60]

this years mclaren with the V8 was 5 seconds off this years mclaren with the V10 at silverstone on wednesday. this was only the 2nd day of running the engine so surely those times will come down. but if there are lots more aero changes for next year, ones that won't allow them to make it all back up again like they did this year, then surely the times will drop by even more?
as far as champ cars go at montreal, their pole this year was 1:20.396, compared to raikkonens 1:14.232 in a car full of fuel.
when it all comes down to it i can still only expect it to be a couple of seconds and possibly quicker in time, these men are genuises after all arent they?