Why were the 2004 cars so much faster than everything else?

[Scotracer]

This may have been covered before now but looking at lap times over the past few years, the 2004 cars really do stand out compared to the others. For instance, in some tracks (i.e Silverstone) the 2004 cars are almost 4 seconds faster than the 2003 cars. As far as I know the regulations didn't change too much (rear wing elements were reduced for 2004) but still, the cars were so much faster than anything else that'd come before and are still a lot faster than 2008 cars.

In 2008, we're starting to catch up again to the 2004 cars. For instance the 2008 cars are faster than both the 2005 and 2003 cars on many circuits (almost always faster than the latter)...but still, the 2004 cars sit out on their own as the fastest racing cars ever created, and by some margin.

In terms of pace, it's roughly:

2004
2006
2005
2008
2003
2007

It obvious depends on the tack but it's something like that in general for most tracks.

[WhiteBlue]

2004 was the last year with tyre war and tyre changes and V10.

2005 tyre changes were not allowed and V10.

2006 tyred changes allowed again and V8 introduced

2007 standard Bridgestone tyres, reduced RPM 19.000

2008 standard ECU

[Scotracer]

Yes but the regulations were virtually identical in 2003 but the lap times were up to 4 seconds slower. This is unheard of in 1 year, even in F1. Can anyone provide any further insight? I just can't make sense of it. Surely not tyres alone?

[roost89]

Could it have been because they knew so much about the cars they were able to make them that much faster over the winter? Assuming the cars were an evolution of 2003 cars, they could've smoothed out the bad parts of the cars, improved the good parts and make the aero work better.

[Ogami musashi]

Race lap records are bit difficult to judge because of the conditions.
I ran a comparison of qualifying lap times (with the best Qualifying lap time for the KO systems) and most poles are from 2004-2005-2006. I didn't ran prior to this.

ogami:

(/2004/2005/2006/2007/2008)

barhein:
1:30.139 1:29.848* 1:31.215 1:31.359 1:31.188

Malaisie
1:33.074 1:32.582* 1:33.527 1:34.057 1:34.188

Australie:
1:24.408* 1:25.229 1:25.326 1:25.187

Nurburgring:
1:28.351* 1:30.081 1:29.819 1:30.912


Monaco:
1:13.985 1:13.644 1:13.532* 1:15.431 1:15.110

Silverstone:
1:18.233* 1:19.905 1:20.253 1:19.152

Canada:
1:12.275* 1:15.217 1:14.726 1:15.486

Usgp:
1:10.223* 1:10.625 1:10.636 1:11.926

France:
1:13.698* 1:14.412 1:15.111 1:14.795

monza:
1:20.089* 1:20.878 1:21.225 1:21.356



Turquie:

1:26.797 1:25.850* 1:26.841 1:25:994


brazil:

1:10.646 1:11.988 1:10.313* 1:11.931

2004 cars are the one with the highest level of downforce ever.
In addition V10 engines ranged near 1000hp which made that the vast majority of races were run in high downforce configuration.


in 2005, downforce was reduced and tyre had to last the race, however bodywork appendices reclaimed most of the downforce and drag was lowered hence some records are from 2005

in 2006 downforce was again down but tyre war was at his best with tyres running very high grip. In addition the V8 imposed less drag, and while the engine in itself had a higher center of gravity the space aviable made it positioned lower, thus the cars had lower COG.

in 2007/2008 tyre being hardened most of the times are 1-3 seconds off compared to 2004-2006.

[Scotracer]

Thanks Ogami. I had been looking at those times but I was trying to use race laps instead of qualifying. Either way, they are actually fairly close but I am still unsure why 2003 cars are so much slower than 2004-2008.

2003 Qualy times:

Australia
1:27.173

Malaysia
1:37.044

Brazil
1:13.807

Imola
1:22.327

Britain
1:21.209

Monaco
1:15.259

Would it be that the tyres just didn't have the grip they had a year later? It seems such a big jump (the power levels would still be over 900BHP in 2003). I can't wait to compare 2009 times to recent years

[WhiteBlue]

Ferrari were the class of the field in that year and Bridgestone was the tyre to have. It is not unusual in the hiostory of F1 that a team ran away with more than a second per lap on the field. That year Schumacher cruised to the title by round 12 (Germany) in July. With the exception of the freak Monaco won by Trulli he did win all the races to that point. Ferrari won 15 of 18 GPs all together in that year. such huge advantage had not existed since Mansell had his championship year with the active suspension Williams. That year Ferrari had a driver at the top of his game, aerodynamics, tyres, engine and electronics all at the top. Michelin was still catching up and some of their tricks had not worked out. but you could see that Renault was better than McLaren for instance which was due to better use of the tyres and better reliability in my view. so my suspicion is that half of the performance wasn't F1 but Ferrari. they will have to screw the rev limiter tight next year when they run this same car in A1GP.

[megz]

The A1GP cars are not the same, they are BASED on the F2004, for starters the front wing is clearly different. I also doubt they would use the same V10 as was in the F2004 purely from a cost point of view.

[Ogami musashi]

Quite surprisingly, most of the 2004 qualifying times are approached by...2002 cars!
The difference on most track is under one second.

[WhiteBlue]

The A1GP cars are not the same, they are BASED on the F2004, for starters the front wing is clearly different. I also doubt they would use the same V10 as was in the F2004 purely from a cost point of view.

you are right of course, they will have the V8 engine. makes a lot of sense from a logistical point as the V10 are not build anymore.

[Miguel]

Quite surprisingly, most of the 2004 qualifying times are approached by...2002 cars!
The difference on most track is under one second.

That could be because the 2002 cars qualified with a special engine and with an empty tank . We should remember that 2003 saw the introduction of race-fuel qualifying plus single-weekend engine.

My interpretation is that 2003 cars weren't designed with fuel-race qualifying in mind, and had slightly detuned engines for reliability because manufacturers weren't really sure how much they could push. Furthermore, the sprint races that the race fuel qualifying has created didn't really begun until 2004. That year we saw a switch to much more aggressive strategies, coupled with more aggressive tires and probably more aggressive engines. This resulted in extremely fast laptimes, although the total race time may suffer due to additional pitstops.

[ernos5]

Quite surprisingly, most of the 2004 qualifying times are approached by...2002 cars!
The difference on most track is under one second.

That could be because the 2002 cars qualified with a special engine and with an empty tank . We should remember that 2003 saw the introduction of race-fuel qualifying plus single-weekend engine.

My interpretation is that 2003 cars weren't designed with fuel-race qualifying in mind, and had slightly detuned engines for reliability because manufacturers weren't really sure how much they could push. Furthermore, the sprint races that the race fuel qualifying has created didn't really begun until 2004. That year we saw a switch to much more aggressive strategies, coupled with more aggressive tires and probably more aggressive engines. This resulted in extremely fast laptimes, although the total race time may suffer due to additional pitstops.

yer 2004 was an amazing year in f1, some drivers even said themselves to slow the cars down, but i wouldn't have personally, f1 need to progress, not be held up by these stupid FIA laws. Max Mosley is a c#unt bag

[ESPImperium]

Wernt some of the 2004 cars pushing the 22,000rpm mark as well, the Renault engine was rumord to be pushing out 23,000rpm at one point as well.

The cars a year before were pushing out arround 20,500rpm.

Thats what i read from some jurnalist in a paper i was reading arround the time, i wasnt really intrested in F1 arround that time as i didnt like the Schumacher domination of the sport, altho i returned to watching the sport in 2006 after hearing that Alonso had broken Ferarri and Schumacher.

Been watching from then on tho.

[ernos5]

Wernt some of the 2004 cars pushing the 22,000rpm mark as well, the Renault engine was rumord to be pushing out 23,000rpm at one point as well.

The cars a year before were pushing out arround 20,500rpm.

Thats what i read from some jurnalist in a paper i was reading arround the time, i wasnt really intrested in F1 arround that time as i didnt like the Schumacher domination of the sport, altho i returned to watching the sport in 2006 after hearing that Alonso had broken Ferarri and Schumacher.

Been watching from then on tho.

Well just to let u know, Alonso didnt' break Ferrari, the FIA did in 2005 and tried to in 2003 but Ferrari still won and in 2006 Ferrari were to win again but Schumacher's engine failed which is a bit sus to me. ANYWAY lol bak to the topic

Yer i'm really interested to know about how high the V10's of 2004 reved to becuase on the youtube clips n shti the V10's of Ferrari Mclaren etc only get to like 19000 at the most, if they were reving higher, when?

[Miguel]

The V8s from 2006 revved (well, most of them) at well over 20k rpm. The V10's you are referring to, although they have a much nicer sound, didn't rev so high. I recall that in the last 2005 GP Pedro Mtz de la Rosa said (as no V10 was ever going to race again) that the race revs of the Mercedes were 18700. My memory may fail me, though. Please note that these engines had to last two GPs.

I don't think that any V10 went over 20k rpm, at least in race trim, but there are more knowledgeable folks in this forum.