Is Formula 1 becoming too slow?

[SectorOne]

Lap times are pretty much the only thing we can go by. Please show me other means to identify car performance from so many different eras, other than "take my word for it" nonsense.

There´s too many variables that goes into laptimes from different eras.

[Juzh]

Lap times are pretty much the only thing we can go by. Please show me other means to identify car performance from so many different eras, other than "take my word for it" nonsense.

There´s too many variables that goes into laptimes from different eras.

In that case, how can you possibly claim ground effect or 93 cars had more DF than 2005+?
And as I already said, this discussion is about cornering speed, not DF itself. Simply looking at the onboards of 93 and 06 on various tracks you can see quite clearly how much quicker 06 cars are. It's not even comparable.

[SectorOne]

In that case, how can you possibly claim ground effect or 93 cars had more DF than 2005+?

Could you point me to the post where i made that claim?

And as I already said, this discussion is about cornering speed, not DF itself. Simply looking at the onboards of 93 and 06 on various tracks you can see quite clearly how much quicker 06 cars are. It's not even comparable.

Is it about cornering speeds or car performance? You have mentioned both.

Also you are confusing things even more by saying "...93 cars had more DF than 2005+?"
And then say we are not talking about downforce. Calm down a bit and choose what the discussion really is about.
Right now you have mentioned three different things.

Lap times are pretty much the only thing we can go by. Please show me other means to identify car performance from so many different eras, other than "take my word for it" nonsense.

Identifying car performance... through one aspect that is minimum speed through the geometrical apex of a slow or fast corner?
Or minimum speeds over a lap comparing race tracks with over 20 years in age?

[Juzh]

In that case, how can you possibly claim ground effect or 93 cars had more DF than 2005+?

Could you point me to the post where i made that claim?

Here you go.

I think the graph just wrapped this up very good.
Early 90´s was the hayday in downforce but the peak in the 80´s is higher then it is today.

How could you possibly know that?

And as I already said, this discussion is about cornering speed, not DF itself. Simply looking at the onboards of 93 and 06 on various tracks you can see quite clearly how much quicker 06 cars are. It's not even comparable.

Is it about cornering speeds or car performance? You have mentioned both.

My original response was to this:

Like I said earlier, we've had much higher cornering speed during the ground effect era.

Also you are confusing things even more by saying "...93 cars had more DF than 2005+?"

I was responding to your unsupported claim regarding peak DF levels.

And then say we are not talking about downforce. Calm down a bit and choose what the discussion really is about.
Right now you have mentioned three different things.

We're talking cornering speeds if somehow I made it unclear. This all came from comments of how f1 drivers were dizzy from all the Gs back in the 80s because they supposedly cornered faster than today with their ground effect cars.

Lap times are pretty much the only thing we can go by. Please show me other means to identify car performance from so many different eras, other than "take my word for it" nonsense.

Identifying car performance... through one aspect that is minimum speed through the geometrical apex of a slow or fast corner?
Or minimum speeds over a lap comparing race tracks with over 20 years in age?

Car performance can be anything of the above.

[turbof1]

I also wouldn't take laptimes for granted. Remember, a performance over one lap is more then just downforce, or cornering speed.

This graph does look correct:


You have to take it into context: ground effect was a method from smaller teams to go heads up with turbo engined teams. Back then the non-turbo engines weren't very powerful, and you couldn't permit to have lots of drag, no matter what the L/D ratio was. Ground effect was in that matter such a good solution that those teams didn't even had to run front wings.

Then it got abolished, but notice at the same time the stark increase in power. With so much more power in excess you can run way more drag. And that is what Ross Brawn is saying in his video: they recovered the downforce, but a much higher drag penalty. I am quite sure they could have run much more downforce back in the early 80's, but they didn't had enough engine power to compensate for the drag. At one point that will even hamper cornering speed. Peaks would have developed towards 2004 and 2008, but it's difficult to tell how high. I certainly don't see 2011 and 2013 being anywhere near those; in the post-2008 era body aero was severely limited.

Anyway, just saying. Bringing in laptimes clearly isn't going to help to prove either point; F1 made much more advancements then just downforce. The best piece I've seen until now is that graph. We do know that between the highest peak, early 90s, and now several bounds of rules have been introduced that limited downforce by a huge amount each time.

[SectorOne]

How could you possibly know that?

If you continue reading just a little bit more you´ll see i thought the graph went further then 2000.
Someone corrected me and that was the end of that.

We're talking cornering speeds if somehow I made it unclear.

Yes it was extremely unclear as you were juggling three different things.
One of them because you did not read the aftermath of it.

Cornering speeds or car performance? Car performance is a very broad statement.

Car performance can be anything of the above.

Ok so now we are not even talking about one specific area anymore.

A couple of more posts and i´m sure we will figure out what you are really talking about.
One down, two to go!

[Juzh]

On a side note, laptime CAN be converted into kg:

@Juzh, numbers can be argued. Laptimes do not say how many kilos of downforce the cars has.

Downforce=0.5*(air density)*(speed)^2*(reference area)*Cl

Usually you don't work with Cl, but with [reference area*Cl], namely SCl.
SCl has the dimension of surface, i.e. m^2 in SI; typical values are between 2 and 5.

1 point corresponds to SCl=0.01m^2:
if your car improves from SCl=4 to SCl=4.30 it has gained 30 points of downforce.

Working with points is easier because you work with numbers like 5, 7, 30 instead of 0.05, 0.07, 0.30.

If in the formula for downforce you substitute air density=1.22 kg/m^3 and take into account dividing by 3.6^2 (conversion for speed from m/s to kph) and by 9.81 (conversion from N to kg) you get

Downforce=0.0048*(speed in kph)^2*SCl

and finally with 1 point corresponding to SCl=0.01m^2

1 point [kg] = 0.000048*(speed [kph])^2

Q: Jenson Button has suggested you were ‘30 points’ behind Red Bull in terms of downforce and that it would take six or seven races to make up that deficit. Do you agree with that analysis and can you explain what ‘30 points’ means?

Paddy Lowe: A point is Formula One code for a hundredth of a fraction of ‘cl’, where ‘cl’ is the downforce coefficient. Physically a Formula One car has a downforce coefficient of let’s say 3 to 3.5. So 30 points would be 30 hundredths which would equate to 0.3. So 30 points might be getting on for 10 percent of the downforce on an F1 car and that could be worth about a second a lap.

This of course can't be taken at full face value but some conclusions can be drawn from it.

[SectorOne]

This of course can't be taken at full face value

Just like laptimes over a 20 year period.

Also if any mathematician is in the house, if you can use Juzh posted calculations there, let´s see some RB9 downforce figures extracted from a laptime of your choice.
Assuming of course you can take a laptime and extract downforce levels of a car that is.

[turbof1]

The formula for downforce isn't made for laptimes; the m/s is for a given moment, not the whole laptime.

It's a great attempt, but inputting a laptime, or average speed, isn't going to give you accurate results . Think about this for an example: running on an oval, does a car without wings but more horsepower have more downforce then a car with wings?

[Juzh]

Car performance can be anything of the above.

Ok so now we are not even talking about one specific area anymore.

We are talking about a specific area. I said it multiple times before. It is high speed cornering. Car perf on the other hand can be all of the thing you mentioned, but we're not talking about them.

[SectorOne]

To tell you the truth you have talked about a gazillion different things all the time and i´m getting more and more confused for every post you make.
It´s also the first time you say it´s high speed cornering. You talk about something then when brought up you claim we are not talking about it.

I´ll look into the thread tomorrow. Maybe there´s some clarity over what really is being discussed as it seems to change for every post made right now.

[Juzh]

First time? High speed cornering = sheer corner speed. I guess that one's pretty obvious.

[flmkane]

spain 1993 pole 1:17.809
spain 2000 pole 1:20.974
spain 2006 pole 1:14.648

Can't argue numbers.

They changed the track. There is now a chicane before the high speed turn which leads to the main straight. Your numbers are meaningless.

Track was changed in 2007. That's why I posted 2006 time. Your post is meaningless.

My mistake I apologize.

However, 1997 pole time was 1:16.525. What's with that anomaly? I think it's changes in regulations making things slower for a few seasons after 1993, which they clawed back by 97. There was another major regulation change in 1998, which slowed things again for a little bit.

What that means for the purpose of your arguments, I dont know. I think the big factors affected cornering speeds in this era were the tyre regs.

[SectorOne]

First time? High speed cornering = sheer corner speed. I guess that one's pretty obvious.

Yes first time and you know that. No corner speed itself does not exclusively mean high speed corners, now it´s getting silly.

[Andres125sx]

for what it's worth:
"Peter Wright's "Formula 1 Technology"

Thanks, that´s a really interesting graph!!

It does stop in 2000, but it´s very helpful to make an idea of how perfomance or downforce has been changing

I think the graph just wrapped this up very good.
Early 90´s was the hayday in downforce but the peak in the 80´s is higher then it is today.

spain 1993 pole 1:17.809
spain 2000 pole 1:20.974
spain 2006 pole 1:14.648

Can't argue numbers.

Agree, numbers are numbers, they can´t be twisted. I agree there are many factors affecting lap times, but....

1993 - slicks, 3.5 v10, active suspension
2006 - grooved, 2.4 v8

1993 had numerous advantages over 2006, yet is still 3s slower. Also, we're not talking DF numbers in case you forgot. We're talking sheer cornering speeds.

Tires, engine and suspension were better/faster in 93, so even when more factors may apply, these three are three big factors that should make 93 laps faster, but they´re slower and by a good margin (3seconds per lap on a short track!! ). So you don´t need a full analisis to say 2006 downforce was close if not higher than it was in 93, it´s obvious.


Looking at the graph, I think what I read about drivers getting dizzy must be in 1993. That´s the highest downforce we will ever see because humans can´t take anymore (at least witout G-suits and while races last almost 2 hours). Since then it´s a continuous fight between engineers improving perfomance, and FIA limiting them to avoid they go beyond human limits. We will never see huge improvements again because of this, sad but true

Anycase the point of the thread (is F1 becoming too slow?) is proved to be false, it´s not slow by any means, lap times are faster than they have ever been, at least in 2006, and they keep improving 06 lap times, so I´d say F1 has never been so fast. They´ve reached human limits when cornering (depending on the track, but it´s the worst case scenario that put the limit), but they can still improve traction, handling, stability, suspension, next year engine and power, braking.... so even when cornering speed will not improve too much, we still will see more improvements