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

[beelsebob]

When was F1 ever about people "fighting"? If you're happy watching that, the kart track is for you, enjoy. Meanwhile, some of us want one, just one, Motorsport series where ultimate speed, power, noise and, as a result yes, a complete destruction of all competitors by the perfect package of man and machine, is the focus. You already have dozens of series that fulfill your needs, you want us to have nothing? Those silver arrows back in the day fought no one - smashed all-comers and exemplified F1, for better or worse. Some of us enjoy that, no matter how 'boring' it may seem to others.

The problem is you can't have that. There is simply no track in the world that could deal with the 1500-2000bhp, monsters that could corner at 8-10g that you would get if you got what you wanted.

The bottom line is F1 is not what you think it is, and nor is it trying to be that.

[Artur Craft]

Overall very good analysis, but the FIA onboard G-meter graphics can only go up to 5G maximum imo. It just seems too convenient to always stop just at that number, don't you think? It's likely peak Gs are in fact even higher.

Good example here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H6Iax7tjcM

You're right the G-meter FOM showed back then was indeed limited to showing up to 5G.

Only in 2011 that you could see the G-meter hit over 7Gs, in crashes

Well, this is not adding much but just to throw the numbers I looked: last year WSBR 3.5 pole was 1.29.6 and those cars have 530HP. So, with the same sorts of power F1 currently have, they would be lapping at around 1.21.0. Those cars also have the same mass as 2014 F1 cars but different tyres

But to sums up my view, I would like F1 to be some 10s quicker and I think that still could be combined with good racing(using more ground effects)

[Cam]

When was F1 ever about people "fighting"? If you're happy watching that, the kart track is for you, enjoy. Meanwhile, some of us want one, just one, Motorsport series where ultimate speed, power, noise and, as a result yes, a complete destruction of all competitors by the perfect package of man and machine, is the focus. You already have dozens of series that fulfill your needs, you want us to have nothing? Those silver arrows back in the day fought no one - smashed all-comers and exemplified F1, for better or worse. Some of us enjoy that, no matter how 'boring' it may seem to others.

The problem is you can't have that. There is simply no track in the world that could deal with the 1500-2000bhp, monsters that could corner at 8-10g that you would get if you got what you wanted.

The bottom line is F1 is not what you think it is, and nor is it trying to be that.

Disagree. So car development is stifled because tracks can't handle it? The sport should be developing tracks in line with car performance, same for driver performance. While no one is asking for 600km/he straight speeds, I think we can have an expectation to step up each year, not back.

You're wrong again. F1 is exactly as I think it is, thats the shame. That it's not what I want really doesn't matter, nor does your opinion, nor any fans. MrE has made sure of that. Guess all the fans flocking to races puts me in my place.

[PlatinumZealot]

The fuel flow limit WILL be lifted it is just a matter of time. Right now FIA wants it to be 100kg/hr as a starting point.
The 100kg per race will remain though. KERS energy will go up.

[FoxHound]

You're wrong again. F1 is exactly as I think it is.

Becuase it's contrary to your view it is wrong?
Why should F1 not be about fighting? Its a racing series first and foremost. Technology is part of the whole, not the reason they go racing.
By your measure, you'd be happy watching hyper advanced drones tear up the tarmac.

This is not F1.

[dave34m]

I attended my first F1 race meeting in 2010 after being a fan since the 80s, living in New Zealand I always wanted to see F1 in Europe so I waited until I traveled and managed to see 2 races, firstly at Silverstone and then at Spa. I have to say that the experience of seeing the F1 cars was amazing, especially after watching the other races during the weekend, when the big boys came on track you really knew that the game had changed. Of course there was the noise, when you heard the first cars on track all the kids and casual observers really took notice, I was sitting with a British family on Kemil Sraight when the first F1 cars came screaming up Eau Rouge and tore down the straight, the look on the 2 kids faces said it all. something major had changed at the track, but really it was the speed of the cars through the corners that really stuck with me. The cars in 2010 were so much faster in the corners, amazing to watch them at Becketts and Maggaots in Silverstone and Eau Rouge and Pouhon at Spa
I don't know what it would be like now, the noise isn't there and the cars are not significantly faster than GP2 so I imagine that that might be rather disappointing for the fans, the overall experience must be diminished which I think is very sad. I know the people in control are looking at changes so I am hoping for the best.
Just my 2 cents

[Cam]

Wheel to wheel battles are few and far between in F1. Always have been. The ones that do occur are generally great and replayed endlessly by the masses. Buts it's not a stock series. That's why he is wrong. It's not my opinion, it's history.

[johnsonwax]

Disagree. So car development is stifled because tracks can't handle it? The sport should be developing tracks in line with car performance, same for driver performance. While no one is asking for 600km/he straight speeds, I think we can have an expectation to step up each year, not back.

Drivers start to pass out at 5 lateral Gs. We saw that at Texas in 2001. The car can do things the drivers cannot. Doing what you ask will kill people.

[Lycoming]

How do you pass out from lateral G? it doesn't really pull blood out of the brain.

Considering it's texas, they probably passed out from the heat.

[Cam]

Disagree. So car development is stifled because tracks can't handle it? The sport should be developing tracks in line with car performance, same for driver performance. While no one is asking for 600km/he straight speeds, I think we can have an expectation to step up each year, not back.

Drivers start to pass out at 5 lateral Gs. We saw that at Texas in 2001. The car can do things the drivers cannot. Doing what you ask will kill people.

Top fuel pulls 4g and does over 500kph in a straight line - they seem to survive. Granted that's extreme, but it shows what is technically possible already. Cornering is the issue and yes lateral g force is worse than that in line with the spine. I'm not saying it easy, but I am suggesting we should investigate and push, not only human endurance, but also vehicle safety and track design (banked curves etc.). If you can't find the limits in the 'pinnacle of Motorsport', what's the point?

[johnsonwax]

Top fuel pulls 4g and does over 500kph in a straight line - they seem to survive.

The g-load is pushing the driver into the seat, and it's not in a manner that is significantly causing blood flow out of the brain.

F1 pulls Gs in almost every direction, sometimes reversing directions rapidly (Eau Rouge/Raidillon) and in many cases does cause blackout conditions. It's why the drivers need to be so fit because they need to combat the G loading with their muscles. They're already near their physical limit. The sport isn't interesting for some of us when you start getting casualties like IRL and MotoGP.

[Cam]

They're already near their physical limit.

Not sure if you saw Hamilton, Rosberg and Ricciardo after the race, they looked as though they all came back from a light jog. Fatigue used to play a part in driver error - I rarely see any errors from drivers now (Maldonado notwithstanding). Surely, these guys are not pushed physically in these F1 limos, at least anywhere near what they can do.

The sport isn't interesting for some of us when you start getting casualties like IRL and MotoGP.

No one wants death, but some of us want to see how far we can go. In fact, that would bring the 'sports-person' back into play a lot more, rather than just relying on the car doing all the work and the driver is essentially ballast. We're nowhere near what a driver and car, under the right circumstances, can do.

Finding solutions to those problems is what engineers strive for.

[Pierce89]

Which series is cornering faster than f1? I need non-anecdotal evidence on this one. Also, where did you come up with the idea that gp2 has more down force than f1? We're also seeing peaks well over 3.2g . If you actually look at the numbers, f1 only cornered faster in the 2000-2008 era.

I would request the same and ask you to provide evidence for that claim in bold.

I heard Barrichello say that about the 1997 car on a tv show, once. The 6Gs at Suzuka I read from Mario Theissen:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/54851

If you watch ITV's Suzuka 2003 qualifying coverage, Brundle says that McNish(Toyota's Friday driver back then) told him they were reaching 5Gs on the Esses and those are a much slower corners than 130R, done at about 210kmh.

With Pirellis, the highest lateral G-force I saw on a telemetry(they ones FOM display on screen) was 4,5Gs at entry Copse(+280kmh) but that was a peak value and the sustained figure was around 3,8G. In 2010 with Bridgestones, they had peaks of over 5G midcorner(which means a less speed) and sustained of around 4.7G

If you had read my previous posts on the last few pages of this thread, you would know why I claim GP2s to be cornering faster than F1. But I will repeat the reasoning(this time with fixes because GP2 has 612HP and not 500HP as I believed):

Their tyres are the same and also their mass(F1 and GP2, that is). What differs them is the aerodynamics and power.

Renault already admitted on Red Bulletin that their engine generates at least 640HP, IIRC, so they have a max power of 800HP for 35s(and Mercedes probably much more than that). Meanwhile, GP2s have 612HP and no DRS which makes them significantly slower on straights.

100HP accounts for around 3s of laptime gain, on an average circuit. So we can estimate around 6s advantage of F1 cars over GP2s, on power alone(the 35s probably is close to the full throttle time).

GP2 pole this year was 1.29.3, which converted to the same power region as F1 would bring it down to around 1.23.3. However it was done with Soft compound while F1's pole was done on Mediums(gap according to Pirelli between 1.2 to 1.5s), so the GP2 pole now would be at 1.24.8

This is faster than F1's 2014 pole time and I neglected the DRS effect which might account to another second there.

So, on equal power(and tyre compounds) and considering the DRS effect, GP2 pole would comfortably have a lower laptime. And where would that come from if everything else is adjusted to equal levels? Obviously downforce

Also, my comment that current cars can only corner at 3.2Gs comes from the fact that Lewis' 2014 pole had him cornering Campsa(Barcelona's T9) at 210kmh, while Rosberg's 2013 pole was at 245kmh and Webber's 2010 had him flat out at 260kmh.

I know that the RB6 could corner at 5G@260kmh, so, doing the math, current cars would be cornering Campsa at no more than 3,2Gs

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.

[strad]

Texas, was because of the banking and was about vertical Gs not lateral Gs

[johnsonwax]

Not sure if you saw Hamilton, Rosberg and Ricciardo after the race, they looked as though they all came back from a light jog. Fatigue used to play a part in driver error - I rarely see any errors from drivers now (Maldonado notwithstanding). Surely, these guys are not pushed physically in these F1 limos, at least anywhere near what they can do.

It's not necessarily about fatigue. It's more about strength, and the ability to control your body under that kind of g-load. But somewhere in the 5-10g range you start suffering from temporary vision problems. You lose peripheral vision, or you grey or red-out. It's not that these will necessarily harm the driver, but if your vision is impaired or you get light-headed heading into a turn at 150MPH, thats sufficiently dangerous that you just don't want to go there.

No one wants death, but some of us want to see how far we can go. In fact, that would bring the 'sports-person' back into play a lot more, rather than just relying on the car doing all the work and the driver is essentially ballast.

Ok, but is this supposed to be a test of human durability, or of engineering capability, or of driving skill? You're arguing for human durability. Well, if you want that, go watch free diving. If you want engineering capability, then that will always need to be artificially contained in some way. F1 is now set up so that fuel economy is a key capability to stay clear of the fuel flow limit. Now, that's not very sexy or even relevant to straight-line speed, but it's one of the most important engineering considerations at the 24 hours of Le Mans - moreso than straight-line speed. And I think it's likely that it's part of the Mercedes dominance this season, at least judging by the fact that Lewis is winning while using less fuel than almost any other driver.

As for driving skill, I think we all want to see that, but there needs to be at least enough potential in the car for the driver to exploit. That what we lacked prior to DRS and KERS. That's a difficult problem for F1 to solve without incurring all kinds of other constraints on engineering.