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

[Pierce89]

All the fudged figures in the world mean nothing. We have no real numbers for any of the numbers you claim, but I promise you 130r at Suzuka will see peaks well over 3.2g, and I also promise you that the top f1 cars have more df than a gp2 car.

I never claimed f1 is great at the moment, but I also don't believe your claimed figures are correct because lap time difference for hp or df neither one is a linear relationship which renders your numbers pretty close to pure speculation.

Edit: I also noticed you claimed f1 and gp2 to be the same weight. Totally false. F1 has a higher minumum weight and much more fuel.

fudged figures? please...

Of course the correlations are not exactly accurate. The relations of laptimes variation with DF or HP variation is indeed not linear but my calculations are the best approximations I have.

I would like to have the wind tunnel data of the Dallara GP2 car and that of Mercedes' or Red Bull' car to know for sure, but your claim in bold is 100% guess based in absolutely nothing.

My numbers are far better speculation/guess than yours, simply because your's is based on nothing.

They will reach higher lateral acceleration in faster corners like Copse, but Campsa is already quite quick so the max G is not far from that, maybe they will achieve 3.5 or 3.7G in a top speed corner, and that's it.

about their weight, GP2 weights 688kg versus F1's 691kg
http://www.gp2series.com/Guide-to/The-car-and-engine/

It's basically the same. I'm sorry but, please, search before posting wrong things(like their mass).

Btw, on the same page, you can see "Max. lateral acceleration +/- 3.9 G ".

How can you say I posted something incorrect when your own post says the f1 car is heavier.You still neglected fuel weight. As far as the df of gp2 vs f1, you say your assumtion is better because you guessed at some numbers. Personally, I believe a well judged assumption is better than totally guessed at math with figures that are also guessed at.

I'm in no way defending the current formula. I just don't like it when someone incorrectly uses math to prove their incorrect theory. Just adding BS numbers doesn't make it a valid assumption.

[Richard]

I moved the technical conversation about homolgation to its own thread in the engine section http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... =4&t=19286

[Artur Craft]

How can you say I posted something incorrect when your own post says the f1 car is heavier.You still neglected fuel weight. As far as the df of gp2 vs f1, you say your assumtion is better because you guessed at some numbers. Personally, I believe a well judged assumption is better than totally guessed at math with figures that are also guessed at.

I'm in no way defending the current formula. I just don't like it when someone incorrectly uses math to prove their incorrect theory. Just adding BS numbers doesn't make it a valid assumption.

What are you doing in a technical forum? nitpicking on a 3kg difference is pathetic

I neglected fuel weight because I was only comparing their qualifying laptimes. OMG, can you get anything right?

"well judged assumption"

Your make believe is useless and have no place in a forum like this. You have no capability to evaluate if someone has posted an "incorrect theory" judging by the level of your posts in this thread.

[GitanesBlondes]

That means there was a time when seeing cars perform at current F1 levels typically meant you were actually watching a support series like GP2 or Formula Masters, and no one ever bought a ticket to a grand prix just to watch those opening acts. No, the major draw was something else entirely, a series guaranteed to blow the doors off of anything else that came before it.

Incorrect assumption. The major draw was not that, as evidence by the fact that circuits are still pulling in the crowds. The major draw instead is that people get to watch their favourite famous drivers doing their thing.

That is, F1 is about the peak of driving ability, not about the peak of technological advancement.

If F1 were about the peak of driving ability, they would still be using H pattern gearboxes, and 3 pedals to name one thing, among a litany of things.

Relative to the various eras, grand prix racing was very much dependent on technological advancement. Maybe not the peak per se, but technology is an inescapable fact of motor racing dating back to before the war....both wars. I suppose though the problem is more about coming up with a set of rules that balances technological considerations. I have ideas about that, but I also don't think they are a silver bullet. It's the nature of the beast.

What F1, and much of motor racing in general has been getting quite wrong --for quite some time now-- is their adherence to the belief that trying to stringently define a racing series to spec considerations will grow it long-term. This silly belief that has become promiscuous in recent times regarding racing not being interesting unless there is overtaking, has been absolutely killer. The object of grand prix racing has always been to simply cover the allotted distance on set course/circuit in the shortest amount of time possible. Were it to be about overtaking, it would have been called grand prix overtaking instead of grand prix racing. But unfortunately for us, it has already been decided that the best motor sport product to field under the Formula 1 name is that of overtaking. The rules have been rigged in favor of trying to encourage such rank stupidity. The 2014 technical regulations are (to use a favorite phrase of Max Mosley!) bringing the sport into disrepute as it no longer resembles a sport, but a carnival sideshow attraction.

In my life, we've gone from the DFV Cosworth, to the unrestricted turbocharged engine, to the 3.5L engine formula, to the 3.0L formula, to 3.0L V10's, to highly restricted 2.4L V8's, and finally to highly restricted turbocharged hybrid engines. It's a sad state of affairs, and the current product is --- as it offers zero redeeming quality whatsoever. Yes the races in the old days were not always exciting, but that's the nature of racing. Not every race can be a memorable slugfest.

[beelsebob]

That means there was a time when seeing cars perform at current F1 levels typically meant you were actually watching a support series like GP2 or Formula Masters, and no one ever bought a ticket to a grand prix just to watch those opening acts. No, the major draw was something else entirely, a series guaranteed to blow the doors off of anything else that came before it.

Incorrect assumption. The major draw was not that, as evidence by the fact that circuits are still pulling in the crowds. The major draw instead is that people get to watch their favourite famous drivers doing their thing.

That is, F1 is about the peak of driving ability, not about the peak of technological advancement.

If F1 were about the peak of driving ability, they would still be using H pattern gearboxes, and 3 pedals to name one thing, among a litany of things.

What makes you think that a particular control mechanism is associated with driving ability?

[GitanesBlondes]

What makes you think that a particular control mechanism is associated with driving ability?

Because it is Bob.

Talk to any of the guys who drove before the advent of the semi-automatic gearbox in F1, and they will tell you being able to do it well was a driving skill. Try heel-toe-downshifting, rev matching, and so on when driving on the limit. It's an extremely difficult thing to get right...it was an often an underappreciated skill set that was never remarked on enough. Drive any of the grand prix cars that say Fangio won grands prix with, and you'll see that it separated the men from the boys quite easily.

[bhall]

I tend to look at it like this: the best driver in the world can't win with a bad car, but a bad driver can win with the best car in the world. Because of that, I think it's always about the car.

In terms of performance, I'm not sure the step backwards will ever make sense to me.

The top nine qualifiers for last year's World Series by Renault race in Barcelona were faster than the tail-end of the grid at this year's F1 grand prix. (Those cars only have 530bhp, by the way.)

The top 24 qualifiers for last year's GP2 race (612bhp) were faster than the tail-end of the grid at this year's F1 grand prix, and the top ten GP2 qualifiers were faster this year.

It wasn't that long ago when F1 had as much as a 10s advantage over those series.

[Juzh]

What makes you think that a particular control mechanism is associated with driving ability?

OH PLEASE, as if you really don't know what he's talking about.
It certainly requires more skill and work to get it right as opposed to pulling a paddle on a semi-auto.

[beelsebob]

What makes you think that a particular control mechanism is associated with driving ability?

Because it is Bob.

Talk to any of the guys who drove before the advent of the semi-automatic gearbox in F1, and they will tell you being able to do it well was a driving skill. Try heel-toe-downshifting, rev matching, and so on when driving on the limit. It's an extremely difficult thing to get right...it was an often an underappreciated skill set that was never remarked on enough. Drive any of the grand prix cars that say Fangio won grands prix with, and you'll see that it separated the men from the boys quite easily.

The fact that the drivers are not performing those skills does not mean that the drivers are not performing any skills at all. By contrast, the heal and toe/double de-clutching/manual shifting drivers were not adjusting all kinds of power unit/braking/... parameters continuously. Again - we're not talking about "more skill" we're simply talking about different controls.

The driver has limited time and ability, and the team will always get them doing the maximum amount they can to make the car faster with that time. If you make something easier, the team will always find an extra thing that they can be doing with the time they now have spare.

[bhall]

Some perspective.

A season of GP2 costs roughly €1,800,000 ($2,468,880). Last year, Mercedes AMG Petronas spent at least £160,000,000 ($268.656,064).

GP2 driver Stéphane Richelmi of DAMS took P1 with a time of 1:29.293 in Barcelona. Hamilton took P1 with a time of 1:25.232.

If we know €1,800,000 ($2,468,880) "buys" a 1:29.293 laptime, Mercedes essentially spent £158,200,000 ($265,633,684) to gain a little over four seconds.



EDIT: currencies

[beelsebob]

Some perspective.

A season of GP2 costs roughly €1,800,000 ($2,468,880). Last year, Mercedes AMG Petronas spent at least €160,000,000 ($219,456,000).

GP2 driver Stéphane Richelmi of DAMS took P1 with a time of 1:29.293 in Barcelona. Hamilton took P1 with a time of 1:25.232.

If we know €1,800,000 ($2,468,880) "buys" a 1:29.293 laptime, Mercedes essentially spent €158,200,000 ($216,987,120) to gain a little over four seconds.

That's not surprising at all. It was "well known" a decade or more ago that 0.1 seconds cost a million pounds. We're now much further into development, so it's not entirely surprising to see it now costing 3 times as much to gain 0.1 seconds.

[bhall]

Given the performance overlap with two junior formulae and F1's historic best of 1:19.995 on the current layout (Webber, 2010), I think it's absurd.

[beelsebob]

Given the performance overlap with two junior formulae and F1's historic best of 1:19.995 on the current layout (Webber, 2010), I think it's absurd.

I think it's somewhat incredible actually. That it now takes so much work to get even 0.1 second a lap faster.

[bhall]

That's fair enough, I guess?

By the same standards, Caterham spent £63,200,000 ($106,074,796) to go just over a second slower than the best GP2 time. That's probably why they're not likely to be around next year.

(And I just realized those figures are listed in pounds sterling, not euros.)

[beelsebob]

That's fair enough, I guess?

By the same standards, Caterham spent £63,200,000 ($106,074,796) to go just over a second slower than the best GP2 time. That's probably why they're not likely to be around next year.

(And I just realized those figures are listed in pounds sterling, not euros.)

To be a second slower than the best GP2 time, but also capable of running much longer on much less fuel.