2004 - Speed was at maximim ?

[Kirk]

With new rules on the way to slow these babies down, I'd venture to say that 2004 could go down as the year we hit the maximum speed in F1 cars. Yesterday's race demonstrated to me that we have reached that pinnacle. The g-forces are close to being too much too endure over a full race and and safety is obviously an issue. Besides slower cars, introduced thoughtfully, could result in better competition. Comments?

[Tweed]

I think yesterday may have made it look a bit worse because of the nature of the circuit, ie. it's anti-clockwise. However, yes, they seemed to have reached the reasonable 'maximum'. Only when the drivers start getting dizzy like the ChampCars in Texas will they have gone too far!

I can't see them being slowed down significantly though, 2 -3 seconds maximum. Doesn't really matter how fast they're going as long as the racing's good, but a 25% reduction in aero won't really be enough.

[Peter Mallett]

Interesting point. I noticed poor old Sato's head was wobbling around towards the end of the race.

[Peter Mallett]

Should have said the it was probably due to the direction.

As to the max speed? I suspect we'll see these speeds exceeded in a yaer's time when the technology gets up to er, speed.

[Super Tourer]

Martin Brundle was saying the regs would peg cars back to 2001/02 level of performance.

To put that into figures - the fastest lap at Monza 2001 was 1:25.073 set by Ralf Schumacher. The 2004 FL was set by Barrichello with a 1:21.046.

So on a quick circuit, we are looking at about a 4 second reduction initially, no doubt plenty will be clawed back over the season.

Looking at Interlagos, the 2002 FL was a 1:16.079 set by JPM, the FL this year was 1.11.473 - although the track has been resurfaced.

To put the speed gains into perspective, the 2004 Q time set by Baumgartner's Minardi of 1:13.550 was quicker than the 2003 pole time by 3 tenths.

[Super Tourer]

Actually that Baumgartner stat is a good snapshot of F1.

For a team like Minardi with their resources, to turn up and set a time quicker than the previous years pole, and still be dead last on the grid 3 seconds off the pace is a graphic demonstration of the pace of F1.

Their best Q time in 2003 at Brazil was 1:16.542. so they have found 3 seconds in a year, a lot of which must be in the tyres, yet they are still the same gap from pole - they were 3 secs off last year as well.

[Tweed]

They'll only ever be 2-3 seconds slower than this year, they can't really drop 5 or 6 seconds because we don't yet know how fast the GP2 and Superfund cars will be next year.

[Super Tourer]

True, but the Superfund/GP2 cars will be in a relatively static performance envelope. The teams will find some more time in them as they get used to setting them up, etc but unlike F1 - the cars, engines and tyres will not be developed.

[pirenzo]

To be honest I hardly feel like watching them next year. I mean the BTCC has good racing but I still find it boring, they're just stupid little toy cars in comparison to what they used to be a few years ago...

[BootsOntheSide]

I think you're over-reacting Pirenzo. If the racing's closer and more exciting, with overtaking made easier as planned, then I don't mind them losing 3-4 seconds a lap - it also makes for longer races of course.

Fair to say that Minardi have gained that time in 1 1/2 years, not one year, although it's still impressive for them on so little money. Really, when you can achieve 95% of the speed on 10% of the budget, it sums up how inefficient F1 is.

[Super Tourer]

Correct, I meant year on year, but as you say the Brazilian GP was early in the season in 2003 - so the effective timescale is longer.

[Kirk]

Originally posted by Super Tourer
Correct, I meant year on year, but as you say the Brazilian GP was early in the season in 2003 - so the effective timescale is longer.

Good point ST. Those speeds were truly astounding.

As for the point of the Brazilian circuit running counter clockwise, yes drivers are more prone to exhaustion, however, these guys are in top shape. To see guys like Rubino give up and let his head go to one side like that is an indication that they're maxxed out.
Anyone who says they may not watch if the cars are 3 or 4 seconds slower ... well, what can I say, are these the same "fans" who watch racing for the crashes?

[Super Tourer]

It's like the end of the ground effect days back in '82, Piquet had to be lifted out of his car at the end of one race (may well have been Brazil at the Rio circuit), having spent the last 10 laps or so resting his head on the cockpit side.

Arguably ther drivers weren't as fitness led in those days, but it still bears comparison.

Speeds need to be curtailed, if left unchecked the tyre makers and aero boffins will find another 2 seconds a lap or more.

Making cars faster doesn't make the racing any better, it's fair comment that the shorter braking distance, higher cornering speeds and extra aero effciency make overtaking even harder and turn more tracks into a borathon with 'no where' to pass in the entire lap.

The FIA know that the new rules will only be a starting point for more development, it has been ever thus in F1, but at least the designers will be starting from a lower baseline.

[pirenzo]

Originally posted by BootsOntheSide
I think you're over-reacting Pirenzo. If the racing's closer and more exciting, with overtaking made easier as planned, then I don't mind them losing 3-4 seconds a lap - it also makes for longer races of course.

Fair to say that Minardi have gained that time in 1 1/2 years, not one year, although it's still impressive for them on so little money. Really, when you can achieve 95% of the speed on 10% of the budget, it sums up how inefficient F1 is.

It might be better, but not so much better it'll make up for the loss in spectacle of the speed. I guess since I'm more fascinated by the speed these things can go over a race distance than how much overtaking there is I'm bound to say that anyway. In reality, Ferrari will probably still have the best car, so they'll win everything regardless...
Just because they can make the cars easier to overtake in doesn't mean the situation of two cars being close together at the front of the pack will be any more frequent.

[Kirk]

Poor attitude there pirenzo. Tell me, do you enjoy the crashes even more than the speed? Without looking at the clock, can you honestly tell me you can see the difference in lap times at that level?

[Peter Mallett]

Originally posted by Super Tourer
It's like the end of the ground effect days back in '82, Piquet had to be lifted out of his car at the end of one race (may well have been Brazil at the Rio circuit), having spent the last 10 laps or so resting his head on the cockpit side.

I think that was Las Vegas.

[Super Tourer]

I'm still going for Brazil, Piquet retired early in Las Vegas (lap 12) with engine failure.

All Piquet's effort was in vain in Brazil, he was disqualified from the win for having illegal water tanks, as was Rosberg!

[Peter Mallett]

Hmm.

Where was it he won the championship and couldn't get out of the car?

[ASCII Man]

Originally posted by Kirk
Tell me, do you enjoy the crashes even more than the speed?

Cheap shot....

[Kirk]

Yes, you're right. I apologize pirenzo.

[Super Tourer]

Well done!

[Glen]

Pirenzo, I don't think what you are saying makes any sense. You won't be able to see the difference in 4,5, even 6 seconds a lap slower. But you will easily see: longer braking areas; a more generous racing line; less sensitive aerodynamics; and a generally larger "envelope" to carry out overtaking within. The cars are so finely balanced, and the drivers are so close to the maximum (that they can maintain over a full race distance), that there isn't very much left over for driving that isn't just purely for keeping the car on the road.

[Kicking-back]

Slightly reduced speeds is a positive.

The speeds this year pretty much mitigate against racing

[BootsOntheSide]

In a way KB. If the engines were faster but the brakes less efficient and the grip more mechanical and less areodynamic, speed wouldn't be lost (costs would rise though, and that's another element which needs to be kept under control)

[pirenzo]

Originally posted by Glen
Pirenzo, I don't think what you are saying makes any sense. You won't be able to see the difference in 4,5, even 6 seconds a lap slower. But you will easily see: longer braking areas; a more generous racing line; less sensitive aerodynamics; and a generally larger "envelope" to carry out overtaking within. The cars are so finely balanced, and the drivers are so close to the maximum (that they can maintain over a full race distance), that there isn't very much left over for driving that isn't just purely for keeping the car on the road.

with 6 seconds you're talking almost as slow as F3000, which is easily visible as being miles slower than F1.
We'll see over the next few years, but I bet people will be complaining every bit as much as they are now...