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

[Pierce89]

But did you watch Dijon 79 live, or maybe just the highlight reels?
I agree than Bahrain 2014 might have been something of a one off, but the lap times where there, the top speed was there (and just wait 10 days!) and this highlight reel will need to be like 30 minutes long.

I didn't watch it live but the old man had the entire race on VHS and I spent my teen years wearing that tape out.

[strad]

No team really fuel saved

Then explain the message to HAmilton.
They ALL are driving to save fuel.

[WhiteBlue]

That's all motor. Given an equal motor, these three teams would be clearly behind Red Bull and Ferrari. So why is it a positive that lucky teams beat better faster chassis on a regular basis?

Because we want to watch motor sport and not chassis or aerodynamic sport. Aero tweaks are boring. But if you manage to design and program a propulsion system that gives you the power to put 2 s lap time on the oppo you have done a great job in my view. Plus the technology you have developed is useful and the money isn't wasted willy nilly just on the sport. As a car user I can expect some of the stuff they develop at Merc to show up in future cars.

[Stradivarius]

No team really fuel saved

Then explain the message to HAmilton.
They ALL are driving to save fuel.

As far as I understand, they are managing their fuel load more or less as before. They need to make sure they can finish the race, but they also don't want to carry more fuel than they need. During the safety car, with 15 laps to go, Rosberg asked if he needed to burn fuel behind safety car and his team replied that he could use low gear, high revs to burn fuel. After 35 laps, Hamilton was told that he was safe on fuel, so no more lift and coast. Hamilton replied that he was looking after his tires. I think this indicates that even though there is some fuel saving going on, they are not limited much by fuel saving, as tire saving is still part of the game and this also saves fuel. If you need to save fuel, it normally doesn't make sense to do that before the end of the race, as late as possible, because early fuel saving will leave you racing with a heavier car.

[bhall]

[...]
Plus the technology you have developed is useful and the money isn't wasted willy nilly just on the sport. As a car user I can expect some of the stuff they develop at Merc to show up in future cars.

[hollus]

I hear that the temperatures were colder in 2014 than in 2013, and some slow corners and long straights might flatter the 2014 formula (Barcelona should be a very different story), but here go some facts:

Average lap times in 2013 around 1:45 near the start and around 1:40 near the end of the race.
Average lap times in 2014 around 1:45 near the start and around 1:42 near the end of the race.
2013 required mostly 3 stops, 2014 only two stops.
Race time in 2013: 1:36:26.945
Race time in 2014: 1:36:52 (after adding two extra 1:42 laps to Hamilton's official result)

So 25 seconds slower over the race distance or about 0.5 seconds per lap.

Details in
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2013/04/14/2 ... test-laps/
and
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2014/04/20/2 ... test-laps/

[siskue2005]

some slow corners and long straights might flatter the 2014 formula (Barcelona should be a very different story)

We take the current formula wrongly
The current formula is low downforce and high top speed
Where are 2013 was high downforce and low top speed

So defentily the cars will be faster in circuits with long straights and slower in circuits where downforce is required

Whereas last year it is exact opposite.....so no one is flattering anything, what they lost in corners they gained back on straights.....Which means they are almost near to their performance from last year

[strad]

They are not as quick.
Do y'all understand the difference between quick and fast?
My first pass in a dragster in 65 was 178 MPH..my last pass in 80 was about 178 MPH
the difference,,,how quick,,,in 65 it was 10.75,,,in 80 it was 7.5 seconds.
Same fast,,,much quicker.
These cars are not as quick as in the past.

[Andres125sx]

They are not as quick.
Do y'all understand the difference between quick and fast?
My first pass in a dragster in 65 was 178 MPH..my last pass in 80 was about 178 MPH
the difference,,,how quick,,,in 65 it was 10.75,,,in 80 it was 7.5 seconds.
Same fast,,,much quicker.
These cars are not as quick as in the past.

And the problem is....


Do you think there shouldn´t be any restriction?

Do you think ground effect, electronic suspensions, double diffusers, blown difussers, rear fans, etc should all be allowed?



My point is, limiting F1 development is not new, like someone said (autgyro?) from the 70-80´s F1 has always been limited by the rules because of safety reasons. This is another step in the same direction. Now they´re slower? Of course, that´s the point of almost any new rule, but at least now they can develop the engines, what IMHO was a must for the supposed pinacle of motorsports. To me the problem was investing billions on wind tunnels but with 7 years old engines... F1 with 7 years old parts? And the engine! That was a joke, not today´s F1. They´re slower, of course, but using 30% less fuel, to me the small difference in times compared to the big difference in fuel used makes current F1 darmn quick. And they´re using today´s engines with today´s technology, not an engine designed at the same time that my old megane

[MadMatt]

They are not as quick.
Do y'all understand the difference between quick and fast?
My first pass in a dragster in 65 was 178 MPH..my last pass in 80 was about 178 MPH
the difference,,,how quick,,,in 65 it was 10.75,,,in 80 it was 7.5 seconds.
Same fast,,,much quicker.
These cars are not as quick as in the past.

And the problem is....


Do you think there shouldn´t be any restriction?

Do you think ground effect, electronic suspensions, double diffusers, blown difussers, rear fans, etc should all be allowed?



My point is, limiting F1 development is not new, like someone said (autgyro?) from the 70-80´s F1 has always been limited by the rules because of safety reasons. This is another step in the same direction. Now they´re slower? Of course, that´s the point of almost any new rule, but at least now they can develop the engines, what IMHO was a must for the supposed pinacle of motorsports. To me the problem was investing billions on wind tunnels but with 7 years old engines... F1 with 7 years old parts? And the engine! That was a joke, not today´s F1. They´re slower, of course, but using 30% less fuel, to me the small difference in times compared to the big difference in fuel used makes current F1 darmn quick. And they´re using today´s engines with today´s technology, not an engine designed at the same time that my old megane

Sh*t engines, sh*t tyres, who cares really, its been long time F1 is not the pinnacle of motorsport. They are using the same engine designs as ever (engine with liners, pneumatic valving, etc). Where is VVT, variable compression ratio, variable intake/exhaust manifolds, and so on. This is the future but FIA doesn't want it.

[Artur Craft]

Agree with you MadMatt, btw GREAT blog you have there!

The 2004 Chinese GP had way more real battles and overtakings than what was seen last weekend. Yet, they were lapping 10s faster

And again, F1 doesn't need to be innovative or adopt innovative technologies, they only have to look innovative

In Barcelona I think they will be at least some 3,5s slower, possibly more than 4s

[strad]

6 seconds

[mrluke]

Who cares if for a couple of tracks the cars are slower? So what?

We seem to have moved from "the new cars will be soo down on power" to "they are only faster on the tracks with straights" gah.

Without change, progress is impossible.

[bhall]

Regression is also change.

[beelsebob]

Regression is also change.

I agree, which is why I'm very glad that we're back to the 80s formula with lots of power and not so much downforce. The 90s one naughties formula was a big regression on that.