2014 pace vs. 2004 pace, where, how are they better?

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
User avatar
hollus
Moderator
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 01:21
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

2014 pace vs. 2004 pace, where, how are they better?

Post

I'll start by postulating something that might be fairly controversial:
The 2014 cars are, weight corrected, already almost matching the pace of 2004 (IMHO).

As proposed evidence, the fastest times ever and in 2014 (We can now include Brasil and we know what happened). Many of these records are from 2004, and of course, yes, the tracks have changed in many ways (and we also know that Brasil has new tarmac, yes).
Blanchimont wrote:This table shows the overall lap record, the fastest time during the 2014 weekend and the differences in [s] and [%]. Australia, Malysia, China, Silverstone and Spa were wet qualifyings if i remember right.
Austral	1:23,529   1:29,375	5,846	7,00%
Malays	1:33,074   1:39,008	5,934	6,38%
Bahrain	1:30,139   1:33,185	3,046	3,38%
China	1:32,238   1:38,315	6,077	6,59%
Spain	1:19,995   1:25,232	5,237	6,55%
Monaco	1:13,556   1:15,989	2,433	3,31%
Canada	1:12,275   1:14,874	2,599	3,60%
Austria	1:07,908   1:08,759	0,851	1,25%
GreatBr	1:29,607   1:34,508	4,901	5,47%
Germany	1:13,306   1:16,540	3,234	4,41%
Hungary	1:18,773   1:22,715	3,942	5,00%
Belgium	1:44,503   1:49,189	4,686	4,48%
Italy	1:20,089   1:24,109	4,020	5,02%
Singap	1:42,841   1:45,681	2,840	2,76%
Japan	1:29,599   1:32,506	2,907	3,24%
So, I said weight corrected. An often cited figure is that every 10 Kg of weight cost 0.3s in lap time, so from the current 691kg to the 605kg from 2004, that is about 2.5 seconds, and hence why I say that they are about there now. This last weekend at Interlagos is probably quite skewed by the new tarmac, and yes, the turbo helps in altitude, but I haven't seen any rule that says that tracks have to be at sea level, and next year we'll have a race at much higher altitude, a race that used to be in the F1 calendar not that long ago.

Now I am slowly getting to the question: 2004 cars are often cited as having more downforce than 2014 cars, and in many cases it is quite evident. I think a figure for discussion could be that there is 1g of difference in the fastest corners. The weight difference does not quite account for that much, so more downforce in 2004.
So, the 2004 cars were faster in the corners, could brake later and could in principle accelerate earlier due to the extra downforce. 2004 also had more power than 2014 cars (being generous, peak power in 2014 matches the power available all the times in 2004), so in principle they should have been faster in these straights that they started at a higher speed anyways. To summarize, they should be faster in the corners (downforce) and faster in the straights (power).

So, finally: If 2004 cars had more downforce and more power than 2004 cars, how can it be that they are not much faster, weight corrected?

The most obvious thing to blame is drag. In 2004 they were, weight corrected, faster in the corners, so the 2014 cars must be gaining in the straights, and this with lesser or equal power.
Have they gained that much in drag reduction? Where? How?

Places where I can see this drag reduction coming from:
a) The ultra detailed front wings. They set up the air for the rest of the car.
b) Downforce elements directly in the wheels, AKA brake winglets. This reduces the need to create downforce elsewhere and might help set up the flow too.
c) Very thin brake inlets, when not virtually absent.
d) Smaller wings with less angle of attack.
e) Absence of the beam wing.
f) Flexible aero. Or maybe they just got better at stalling parts of the car at speed?
g) Vortex use, which was very primitive in 2004.
An obvious option is h) a myriad small improvements everywhere.

I'd add a lower center of gravity, but this would help specially in cornering and we have concluded that cornering is still slowed than in 2004, even weight corrected, so while it might help, it can't explain much.

Clearly, the designers or the materials have gotten better, because in principle all of the above was available already in 2004 and could have been exploited back then. Clearly, you just can't unlearn a trick!

What else is there? Where do you think that they are gaining back lap time and where am I completely off key?
Last edited by hollus on 10 Nov 2014, 23:29, edited 3 times in total.
Rivals, not enemies.

User avatar
hollus
Moderator
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 01:21
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: 2014 pace vs. 2004 pace

Post

For reference, a list (probably not complete) of things working in favor of the 2004 cars and in favor of the 2014 cars:

In favor of 2004 cars:
- Lower minimum weight (already factored out above)
- Gears optimized for each track
- Different setups in quali and the race
- Tyre war
- Engine only for 1 race, could be run more aggresively
- Higher fuel flow
- Larger diffuser area, beam wing
- Larger wing legality boxes (am I right in this? My 2005 Renault model has an oddly narrow from wing)
- Three planes allowed in rear wing
- Smaller fuel tanks
- Winglets allowed almost everywhere
- Free exhaust position

In favor of 2014 cars:
- Better power at altitude, although this could be argued about.
- Wider power curve, more gears
- Slick tires, larger contact patch
- Energy recovery, reducing the effective power deficit
- Several teams can afford to run 300+ M$ budgets, versus probably only one in 2004.
- Improved computer power for CFD
- Edit: DRS (a biggie)

I'd be tempted to write less heat to reject in 2004, but do we really know this? In 2014 they are trapping the heat in the car for longer, but they are also generating less heat to start with...
Last edited by hollus on 12 Nov 2014, 22:19, edited 2 times in total.
Rivals, not enemies.

User avatar
Juzh
161
Joined: 06 Oct 2012, 08:45

Re: 2014 pace vs. 2004 pace

Post

Tires were much better in 2004. Also much wider, thus negating some of the contact patch deficit. I believe drag shedding is one of the things 2014 cars excel at, mainly because they're forced to do it by regs. V10s would still accelerate much faster than V6turbos, but cars back then would hit brick walls of air resistance much sooner. In monza where drag setups can actually be compared somewhat 2004-5 V10s are still head and shoulders above the turbos of today.

User avatar
GitanesBlondes
26
Joined: 30 Jul 2013, 20:16

Re: 2014 pace vs. 2004 pace

Post

You cannot compare Silverstone at all.

2004 Silverstone layout

Image

2014 Silverstone layout

Image

2004 Catalunya layout

Image

2014 Catalunya layout

Image

Those two circuits cannot be compared at all.

Singapore was not on the calendar in 2004.

Fastest lap at Belgium was not the pole position lap but a 1:45.108 by Kimi Raikkonen on lap 42. Not sure what the 1:44,503 is from; practice session or something else. Don't forget, the Bus Stop chicane was an altogether different chicane back then, and don't underestimate the psychological aspect of not having endless tarmac runoff through the sweepers at Pouhon, and elsewhere.

You really cannot compare the 2004 times to the 2014 times because one of the biggest differences besides tires widths and tire manufacture methods, is unless you also know what the state of the tarmac at any circuit is today versus 2004, it's impossible to make even an educate guess as to the impact of surface friction on the times without knowing the abrasion level of any given circuit.

bhall correctly pointed out the impact of power levels due to turbocharging versus normally aspirated engines at higher elevations such as Interlagos.

Endless variables out there, that cannot possibly be accounted for from car design, qualifying rules, tire compounds, tire dimensions, surface friction, and so on.

Sure you can say well the times are closer now, but unless you have definitive knowledge on why the times are closer, it's not as simple as saying the percentage gap is down to 3%. Do you guys really have any idea how huge a 3 second gap is in motor racing? It's an eternity. Multiply it over 53 laps in the case of Suzuka, you're looking at over 2:30 minutes assuming no pitstops involved. That's not simply just beating your opponent, that's a case of taking them behind the wood shed and well, you know...
"I don't want to make friends with anybody. I don't give a sh*t for fame. I just want to win." -Nelson Piquet

Lycoming
Lycoming
106
Joined: 25 Aug 2011, 22:58

Re: 2014 pace vs. 2004 pace

Post

Front tires were wider in 2004, but they were also grooved front and rear.

Also, since your main point seems to be centered around your weight corrected lap times, you may want to have a better means of doing it. As I understand it, you're just subtracting 2.5 seconds from the lap time? Well, here's the thing; 0.3 seconds per 10 kg is very approximate. Obviously we have to accept some approximations here, but critically, you don't know what circuit that applies to. 2.5 seconds at monaco is rather different from 2.5 seconds at spa, since each lap is about 30 seconds longer. Also, the effect of mass will be bigger or smaller depending on track speed. I believe James Allen's site used to publish fuel weight impact per lap for each circuit in his pre race strategy briefing, though apparently not this year since everybody's fuel limited anyways.

That aside, there are of course countless other variables that we have not and can not account for that explain the difference. But I suggest you start by refining your mass correction a bit.

User avatar
hollus
Moderator
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 01:21
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: 2014 pace vs. 2004 pace

Post

Thanks for the circuit layouts, Gitanes. Absolutely, many tracks have changed too much.

The times are not from 2004 and not even from quali. They are the best times ever, in any session (often quali), in that track. Many of those come from 2004. Although, yes, many key tracks changed too much to read the numbers. Obviously, for tracks that did not exist in 2004, the times are from later years.

The point I am trying to make is not that 2014 cars are not that slow. That was another thread. I am just claiming that, weight corrected, they are catching up if not already there, but that is only my opinion. And in that case, the question is: is it only from improved drag? And how the hell can drag have improved that much? But if you think that the times have not catched up even when weight corrected, then my point is moot. And it might well be.

As for the state of the tarmac, wouldn't it average out over many races?

I find the point about the power levels in Brazil with turbocharging quite laughable (everthing else bhall says is pretty good in general). By the same token I could claim tha it is not fair to compare an engine with limited fuel flow to one with unlimited fuel flow. But these are the engines we have, and that the cars are designed for. As a one off, I would not say that the 2014 cars are flattered in Brazil. I'd say that the 2004 cars were clippled in Brazil, and nobody seems to ever have complained that it made them too slow.
In any case, I'd like to compare more than just engine performance. For the sake of this thread, I am simply accepting the power levels as lower than in 2004, and, honestly, largely ignoring Brazil.

A 3 second gap is close to the weight corrected gap (86 kg difference). And while one could consider the average weight in the race as more representative (and closer, as are the total race times, BTW), that's not the point I want to raise in this thread. The point I'd like to discuss is: When the cars are this much slower in cornering in 2014, and they are much slower, and when on top they have less power, and they have less power, how can it be that, weight corrected, they are not much slower in lap time.

The weight corrected concept is central to the thread. I not claiming 2014 times to be comparable to 2004 times, I am giving up 2.5 seconds per lap in the second line of the opening post.
Rivals, not enemies.

Blanchimont
Blanchimont
214
Joined: 09 Nov 2012, 23:47

Re: 2014 pace vs. 2004 pace

Post

To complete and correct the table, not all the times are from 2004 and i took the fastest times from all sessions including free practises,pre qualifying, Q1/2/3. I noticed that there are some minor errors where i didn't find the real overall fastest time, this should be sorted out in the new table below. With regard to track changes, i only considered the times at the current track layouts(Silverstone since 2010, Barcelona since 2007, Spa since 2007, Singapore since 2013).

Tell me if you can find any errors!

This table is about the overall fastest laps and those of the 2013 and 2014 weekends. Brazil 2013 was a wet weekend and for this year Australia, Malysia, China, Silverstone and Spa were wet, so the times are slower here.
Track   Record		Year    13 F	        %	14 F	        Delta t	%
AUS	1:23,529	2011	1:25,908	2,85%	1:29,375	5,846	7,00%
MAL	1:32,582	2005	1:36,190	3,90%	1:39,008	6,426	6,94%
BAH	1:29,527	2005	1:32,330	3,13%	1:33,185	3,658	4,09%
CHN	1:32,238	2004	1:34,484	2,44%	1:38,315	6,077	6,59%
ESP	1:19,954	2009	1:20,718	0,96%	1:25,232	5,278	6,60%
MON	1:13,532	2006	1:13,876	0,47%	1:15,989	2,457	3,34%
CAN	1:12,275	2004	1:14,818	3,52%	1:14,874	2,599	3,60%
AUT	1:07,908	2003	                        1:08,759	0,851	1,25%
GBR	1:29,607	2013	1:29,607	0,00%	1:34,508	4,901	5,47%
GER	1:13,306	2004	1:15,693	3,26%	1:16,540	3,234	4,41%
HUN	1:18,436	2004	1:19,388	1,21%	1:22,715	4,279	5,46%
BEL	1:44,503	2009	1:48,296	3,63%	1:49,189	4,686	4,48%
ITA	1:19,525	2004	1:23,755	5,32%	1:24,109	4,584	5,76%
SIN	1:42,841	2013	1:42,841	0,00%	1:45,681	2,840	2,76%
JAP	1:28,954	2006	1:30,915	2,20%	1:32,506	3,552	3,99%
USA	1:35,657	2012	1:36,338	0,71%	1:36,067	0,410	0,43%
BRA	1:09,822	2004	1:15,436	8,04%	1:10,023	0,201	0,29%
Dear FIA, if you read this, please pm me for a redesign of the Technical Regulations to avoid finger nose shapes for 2016! :-)

Blanchimont
Blanchimont
214
Joined: 09 Nov 2012, 23:47

Re: 2014 pace vs. 2004 pace

Post

The same for race fastest laps.
Track	Race Rec	Year	13 R	        Delta %	14 R	        Delta t	Delta %
AUS	1:24,125	2004	1:29,274	6,12%	1:32,478	8,353	9,93%
MAL	1:34,223	2004	1:39,199	5,28%	1:43,066	8,843	9,39%
BAH	1:30,252	2004	1:36,961	7,43%	1:37,020	6,768	7,50%
CHN	1:32,238	2004	1:36,808	4,95%	1:40,402	8,164	8,85%
ESP	1:21,670	2008	1:26,217	5,57%	1:28,918	7,248	8,87%
MON	1:14,439	2004	1:16,577	2,87%	1:18,479	4,040	5,43%
CAN	1:13,622	2004	1:16,182	3,48%	1:18,504	4,882	6,63%
AUT	1:08,337	2003			        1:12,142	3,805	5,57%
GBR	1:30,874	2010	1:33,401	2,78%	1:37,176	6,302	6,93%
GER	1:13,780	2004	1:18,725	6,70%	1:19,908	6,128	8,31%
HUN	1:19,071	2004	1:24,069	6,32%	1:25,724	6,653	8,41%
BEL	1:47,263	2009	1:50,756	3,26%	1:50,511	3,248	3,03%
ITA	1:21,046	2004	1:25,849	5,93%	1:28,004	6,958	8,59%
SIN	1:48,574	2013	1:48,574	0,00%	1:50,417	1,843	1,70%
JAP	1:31,540	2005	1:34,587	3,33%	1:51,600	20,060	21,91%
USA	1:39,347	2012	1:39,856	0,51%	1:41,379	2,032	2,05%
BRA	1:11,473	2004	1:15,436	5,54%	1:13,555	2,082	2,91%

Info on minimum weight:
Year    kg
2003	600
2004    605 during Q, 600 all other times
2010	620
2011	640
2013	642
2014	691
2015	701
Dear FIA, if you read this, please pm me for a redesign of the Technical Regulations to avoid finger nose shapes for 2016! :-)

User avatar
GitanesBlondes
26
Joined: 30 Jul 2013, 20:16

Re: 2014 pace vs. 2004 pace

Post

Hollus, a 2.5 second gap over 71 laps around Interlagos turns into 3 minutes which is nearly 3 laps down.

That is slow!!!

When taking lap times into account, you can't simply say "Well they were only 2.5 seconds down that lap, but that's no big deal."

If grand prix racing were a one lap affair, it wouldn't seem so bad, but you have to consider how the gap translates over a full race distance. Too many people are getting caught up in the one lap affair stuff without considering the overall gap it translates to in 300KM. Look at the forest, not the trees.
"I don't want to make friends with anybody. I don't give a sh*t for fame. I just want to win." -Nelson Piquet

bhall II
bhall II
477
Joined: 19 Jun 2014, 20:15

Re: 2014 pace vs. 2004 pace

Post

hollus wrote:The 2014 cars are, weight corrected, already almost matching the pace of 2004

[...]

I find the point about the power levels in Brazil with turbocharging quite laughable (everthing else bhall says is pretty good in general). By the same token I could claim tha it is not fair to compare an engine with limited fuel flow to one with unlimited fuel flow. But these are the engines we have, and that the cars are designed for.
[...]
Two points:

If a 6.6s burst of 80bhp from the former KERS was worth ~0.3s per lap, then a 10% "turbo gain," also roughly 80bhp, over a full lap is a significant mitigating factor to the claim that the cars are now quicker based upon qualifying times this weekend.

(And thanks for the compliment. :) )

Also, I don't see the point of making weight-corrected comparisons when the regulations don't allow for weight-corrected pace. These are the regulations we have, and that the cars are designed for, right? It is what it is.

Richard
Richard
Moderator
Joined: 15 Apr 2009, 14:41
Location: UK

Re: 2014 pace vs. 2004 pace

Post

bhall II wrote:These are the regulations we have, and that the cars are designed for, right?
I agree. What counts is the lap time regardless of how that is derived... actually what really counts is the time from start to finish because that's how races are won.

Moose
Moose
52
Joined: 03 Oct 2014, 19:41

Re: 2014 pace vs. 2004 pace

Post

I don't really see what's hard to understand here. The fastest ever qualifying lap was set at Interlagos this weekend. Not only that, but modulo weather conditions, the cars have reliably been within 3-4% of the fastest they've ever been, and towards the end of the season that's been more like 2%. There really isn't anything to argue, F1 is pretty much as fast as it has ever been just now.

User avatar
FW17
169
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 10:56

Re: 2014 pace vs. 2004 pace

Post

Blanchimont wrote:
Year    kg
2013	642
2014	691
2015	701
Whats with the 10 kg addition? are they adding more batteries? I would have expected the second generation turbo cars to be 10 kgs lighter than the previous not more.

User avatar
hollus
Moderator
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 01:21
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: 2014 pace vs. 2004 pace

Post

OK, OK. Conceded. 2014 cars are significantly slower than 2004 car. Even in Interlagos, with all the factors favouring this year's challengers, the race was about 2 minutes slower than 2004. No question there.

My point is: in an average track now in the second session of the season, a 2004 car loaded with 90 Kg of fuel or ballast would not leave behind a 2014 car in Q3 trim. The 2004 might win, but won't pull away very fast. It wouldn't be 2 second a lap faster.
Yet, the 2004 car would be cornering faster, presumably braking better, and have more power in the straights. What gives?

It would be nice to stick to the underlined points if at all possible.
Rivals, not enemies.

User avatar
Juzh
161
Joined: 06 Oct 2012, 08:45

Re: 2014 pace vs. 2004 pace

Post

hollus wrote:OK, OK. Conceded. 2014 cars are significantly slower than 2004 car. Even in Interlagos, with all the factors favouring this year's challengers, the race was about 2 minutes slower than 2004. No question there.

My point is: in an average track now in the second session of the season, a 2004 car loaded with 90 Kg of fuel or ballast would not leave behind a 2014 car in Q3 trim. The 2004 might win, but won't pull away very fast. It wouldn't be 2 second a lap faster.
Yet, the 2004 car would be cornering faster, presumably braking better, and have more power in the straights. What gives?

It would be nice to stick to the underlined points if at all possible.
Button on the V6 turbo at altitude and new tarmac:

http://adamcooperf1.com/2014/11/08/butt ... nterlagos/