What I mean is that I don't think you could look at a car without checking any timing information and see a very noticeable difference between one that takes 90 seconds to complete a lap and one that takes 95 seconds to complete a lap. That difference is actually smaller than the variations we see from qualifying to the start of the races anyway. Upon direct comparison it is of course possible to tell the difference if you study videos carefully, but I doubt that direct comparisons to 2004 are made during the races by the majority of TV viewers. I also doubt that people find the end of the races more interesting than the start of the races because the lap times have droped a few seconds. The fact that anyone can study results and lap times and find a numerical difference is a different matter.SectorOne wrote:http://i.imgur.com/ZEzhzd8.gifStradivarius wrote:F1 could well be 5 seconds slower than GP2 without it being very noticable to the audience.
My point is that the speed is not directly important because it doesn't impact the visual impression when looking at the car to a large extent. But it may be of importance indirectly because people know that the cars they are watching are not fastest cars in the world anymore, but significantly slower than the cars used a decade ago. I think this could potentially serve to dilute some of the factors that make formula 1 special.