2014 too slow? (or not, as the case may be)

[SectorOne]

So when the lights go out they will be about 30kg´s heavier and about 100 horses down on average or something like that.

(still faster then a damn HRT)

[beelsebob]

So when the lights go out they will be about 30kg´s heavier and about 100 horses down on average or something like that.

(still faster then a damn HRT)

What makes you think they'll be 100 horses down? More like 10 horses up.

[CHT]

I cant recall when was the last time drivers making such comments after the 1st test. And my guess is that if they are saying this year's car is slow, its most likely they will be slow unless Pirelli change the tyres compound or if some team can find a loophole that is at big as the double diffusers. Gaining a few tenths is always possible, but a few seconds between now at Australia? I think thats too ambitious.

At the moment, I believe the primary focus for the team right now is to make sure the cars are reliable and fuel efficient enough to finish the race instead of pure speed, and we are most unlikely to see drivers pushing their cars at 100% all the time and this could be another step down from last year where drivers had to drive slow to preserve their tyres.

[beelsebob]

I cant recall when was the last time drivers making such comments after the 1st test.

I can, it was a mere 3 years ago, it turned out that the cars were roughly as fast as the previous year's.

[Jersey Tom]

Cars would be faster with computer traction control. Would that make it "better" ?

[CHT]

I cant recall when was the last time drivers making such comments after the 1st test.

I can, it was a mere 3 years ago, it turned out that the cars were roughly as fast as the previous year's.

do you mean slower or GP2 slow?

[beelsebob]

I cant recall when was the last time drivers making such comments after the 1st test.

I can, it was a mere 3 years ago, it turned out that the cars were roughly as fast as the previous year's.

do you mean slower or GP2 slow?

Yes, 3 years ago people were claiming that F1 would be slower than GP2. It turned out to be bollocks, as it will turn out to be bollocks this year too (and in fact already has turned out to be, given that the F1 cars have already lapped faster than GP2, despite having their engines turned down, not pushing, and not having relatively primitive aero).

[theTTshark]

Just because a car is slower that doesn't equate to it being less difficult to drive.

[beelsebob]

Just because a car is slower that doesn't equate to it being less difficult to drive.

No, in fact if the cars are slower, it will be because they are more difficult to drive.

[theTTshark]

Just because a car is slower that doesn't equate to it being less difficult to drive.

No, in fact if the cars are slower, it will be because they are more difficult to drive.

Not necessarily, they ARE lacking downforce. So even a lap sim will show that they are slightly slower despite more engine torque. Cornering is roughly 3-7 times more important to lap time than straightline. Depends on the circuit. But because they have the excess torque and the lack of downforce they will be more difficult to drive. So they are more difficult to drive, but not because they are slower. Being slower is just a byproduct of the downforce loss.

[beelsebob]

Just because a car is slower that doesn't equate to it being less difficult to drive.

No, in fact if the cars are slower, it will be because they are more difficult to drive.

Not necessarily, they ARE lacking downforce.

How do you know?

They certainly have tighter restrictions on the downforce generating surfaces, but that does not imply that they have less downforce. For example, a 2013 car has much tighter restrictions on it's downforce generating surfaces than a 1990 car, but sure as hell generates more downforce.

Cornering is roughly 3-7 times more important to lap time than straight-line.

Where did you get "3-7" from? [citation-needed].

[Lycoming]

No, in fact if the cars are slower, it will be because they are more difficult to drive.

Not necessarily... if you set the car up with loads and loads of understeer, and soften everything up for example, it will certainly be slower and easier to drive. On the extreme end of the scale, road cars are very easy to drive while being much slower.

Not necessarily, they ARE lacking downforce.

How do you know?

They certainly have tighter restrictions on the downforce generating surfaces, but that does not imply that they have less downforce. For example, a 2013 car has much tighter restrictions on it's downforce generating surfaces than a 1990 car, but sure as hell generates more downforce.

They will almost certainly claw it back with time, but this is immediately after losing a good amount of front wing span and the beam wing. Without some trick like the double decker diffuser, which it doesn't seem like any of the teams have, it is almost certain that they are now making less downforce. Or at least, making the same amount of downforce at a much higher drag penalty, since I suspect a 2014 Monaco aero package will make more downforce than a 2013 Monza aero package.

[theTTshark]

Not necessarily, they ARE lacking downforce.

How do you know?

They certainly have tighter restrictions on the downforce generating surfaces, but that does not imply that they have less downforce. For example, a 2013 car has much tighter restrictions on it's downforce generating surfaces than a 1990 car, but sure as hell generates more downforce.

Where did you get "3-7" from? [citation-needed].

Exhaust blown diffusers are gone, lower beam wings are gone (McLaren are attempting to create one, but it will never be AS effective as the beam wing was), Smaller rear wing template. This creates a trifecta of areas where the teams will not of had time to recuperate this downforce. Look at the cars, they are running significantly less rake. With the way those diffusers are, the less rake they have the less downforce they are producing from that specific device. Now with the beam wing missing you have your device, that acted really as a link between the diffuser and rear wing, gone. This is huge as well because once the rear wing and diffuser aren't interacting as well together you cannot run the angles in either of the devices you were before. Yet again, less downforce or same downforce way more drag. The smaller rear wing should be self explanatory because they haven't found a new way to produce the downforce from a wing. They have more or less the same style of aero profiles, yet a smaller area to work in. Just simple aerodynamics there. The big kicker here is that because the rear of the car is lacking downforce you then have to balance the front by reducing the amount of downforce the front of the car is producing. The wing decreasing in size didn't really effect the teams from an overall downforce production standpoint. Front wings are really effective at producing downforce because they have the cleanest air, and they have ground effect to help them. Even last year they didn't have to be aggressive to produce enough downforce. Now they are aggressive in vortices generation to help everything downstream of the wing. The other reason the cars will be running less downforce regardless of the aero restrictions is because of the efficiency rules. In order to meet the regs they are going to have to make sure they are hitting their drag targets. They will be fighting all year to reduce the sidepod sizes and increasing the efficiency of the rear downforce production in order to hit their targets. I know this from personal CFD use, professional CFD use, reading technical articles, fluid classes, talking to people in the industry and some common sense. Can I calculate how much they lost? No. Am I saying they can't recuperate it? No, I think they will given enough time. Regardless they do have an issue with downforce production currently.

Get a lap sim, and you will see it yourself. Or hell do the time calculations, but to make this easier I'll do the simulations myself. This is a simple single point mass simulation, but it tells you the same story as a more advanced sim. This one specifically is Optimum Lap developed by Optimum G. It is a free sim program. So for the purposes of this, I will use an LMP2 (included with the sim) and the track Monaco and Monza to give a good diversity. Now I know LMP2 isn't F1, but regardless of the vehicle you will see roughly the same outcomes. Here is the screen for the vehicle.

I want you to look at the image and see the Lateral and Longitudinal Friction boxes. We will be changing these to experiment with what is more important. We will vary the grip by 10% at each track for both Longitudinal and Lateral grip. By varying these we get the results which are below.

For Monza, increasing Longitudinal Grip by 10% decreases lap times by 0.08%. For Monaco this was 0.4%.
For Monza increasing Lateral Grip by 10% decreases lap times by 2.15%. For Monaco this was 6.11%.
So actually the differences are much bigger than 3 - 7 times more important, but this is mostly because our gearing was bad for both tracks and things like drag and downforce were held constant. And like I said it's 100% accurate, but still it's close enough to give us an idea of what is going on.

So are these good enough reasons?

[hollus]

I guess it all comes down to how one defines "slower"?
With less downforce (at least for a good while initially) they'll corner slower and braking areas should be larger. But they'l have KERS on steroids, with more than enough extra grunt to make up for the extra weight in the acceleration phase, and they'll have it at the beginning of every straight. In that sense 2014 cars are clearly superior to 2013 cars. Add a flatter power curve and they'll accelerate much faster, making up for some of the lost cornering speed. And they'll have less drag so the extra acceleration should extend to all the straight (where it counts less in lap time), and they should have a fair bit higher top speeds, even more in slipstream considering they won't hit the rev limiter.
Plus, at the beginning of the race they'll be lighter, not heavier than in 2013 (from which follows that they'll be in similar weights for most of the race even if they are heavier at the end and in quali).

So how will people perceive cars that corner visibly slower, yet are better in a straight line? As slow? Even with top speeds up by 20Km/h (including slipstreaming) in most circuits?
And how will people perceive the cars once they realize that they can follow closer behind the car in front (less front wing, less updraft from the rear), get closer laterally (front wing ends hidden in the tire footprint), and pass in the straights without any moving wings (no rev limiter, different fuel and electricity use strategies between cars).
My prediction: 2 seconds slower in Melbourne, and 1 second slower than 2013 by the time they get to Germany (Barcelona, being a high downforce circuit, might suffer). And no talk of slow cars past the middle point of the season.

[Juzh]

My prediction: 2 seconds slower in Melbourne, and 1 second slower than 2013 by the time they get to Germany (Barcelona, being a high downforce circuit, might suffer). And no talk of slow cars past the middle point of the season.

2 seconds slower compared to melbourne 2013 will be nothing to write home about as quali was run on drying, less than optimal track.

@bob
2011 cars were in fact pathetically slow in the race compared to DDD 2010 cars.