They didn't have power steering yet in those days? Damn... .SectorOne wrote:And usability. turbo lag, manual gearbox, no power steering etc. seconds per lap thrown away in that.
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
They didn't have power steering yet in those days? Damn... .SectorOne wrote:And usability. turbo lag, manual gearbox, no power steering etc. seconds per lap thrown away in that.
As a matter of fact I'll take my own, or should I say brawn's word instead of yours on this matter.turbof1 wrote:Raw data from that age is hard to come by. You can't just compare lap times either; different engines, different cars, etc. The only thing reliable you can go from is written text unfortunaly. You'll just have to take my word for it... or not, up to you.
Ok, so lets say 4s, maybe 5s gone right there on those things. Still 4 to go. Which is a lot.SectorOne wrote:And usability. turbo lag, manual gearbox, no power steering etc. seconds per lap thrown away in that.
No the graph doesn't say it. it stops in 2000. We're 2013 now. You can't extrapolate the trend. Espcially since in 2004 the cars were up to 4 sec/faster than in 2003 wich seems to indicate a vast increase in performance and if you look at the graph, a global process is to get a point, lose it due to regulation change but never return to base (except for the post imola panick changes) so if in 2004 we are at a peak of downforce, even with the following 2005-present changes nothing guarantees that you are below the levels of GE cars and i would even assume we are closer to 93 levels.SectorOne wrote:I think the graph just wrapped this up very good.
Early 90´s was the hayday in downforce but the peak in the 80´s is higher then it is today.
spain 1993 pole 1:17.809SectorOne wrote:I think the graph just wrapped this up very good.
Early 90´s was the hayday in downforce but the peak in the 80´s is higher then it is today.
My mistake, i missed the obvious fact that it stopped in 2000.Ogami musashi wrote:No the graph doesn't say it. it stops in 2000.SectorOne wrote:I think the graph just wrapped this up very good.
Early 90´s was the hayday in downforce but the peak in the 80´s is higher then it is today.
They changed the track. There is now a chicane before the high speed turn which leads to the main straight. Your numbers are meaningless.Juzh wrote:spain 1993 pole 1:17.809SectorOne wrote:I think the graph just wrapped this up very good.
Early 90´s was the hayday in downforce but the peak in the 80´s is higher then it is today.
spain 2000 pole 1:20.974
spain 2006 pole 1:14.648
Can't argue numbers.
more numbers: http://www.motorsportsetc.com/info/spd_mon.htmJuzh wrote:spain 1993 pole 1:17.809SectorOne wrote:I think the graph just wrapped this up very good.
Early 90´s was the hayday in downforce but the peak in the 80´s is higher then it is today.
spain 2000 pole 1:20.974
spain 2006 pole 1:14.648
Can't argue numbers.
Track was changed in 2007. That's why I posted 2006 time. Your post is meaningless.flmkane wrote:They changed the track. There is now a chicane before the high speed turn which leads to the main straight. Your numbers are meaningless.Juzh wrote:spain 1993 pole 1:17.809SectorOne wrote:I think the graph just wrapped this up very good.
Early 90´s was the hayday in downforce but the peak in the 80´s is higher then it is today.
spain 2000 pole 1:20.974
spain 2006 pole 1:14.648
Can't argue numbers.
Please do.SectorOne wrote: @Juzh, numbers can be argued. Laptimes do not say how many kilos of downforce the cars has.
Lap times are pretty much the only thing we can go by. Please show me other means to identify car performance from so many different eras, other than "take my word for it" nonsense.SectorOne wrote: Laptimes do not say how many kilos of downforce the cars has.