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

[ernos5]

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.

yer i didn't believe that the V10 reached above 19k, but yer the V8's 0f 2006 for sure reaches even 22k maybe 500 more

[Scotracer]

Just to further this, can anyone find any speed trap data for 2000-2003? I can only find 2004-2008 and I want to see how efficient the aerodynamics were in the early '00s as well as power from the engines.

[ernos5]

oi i got a question.

People say 2004 cars were highly aerodynamic, i dont they were anything special, look at 2008, these cars are the most aerodynamic, they have all these little things added and 2004 can't be more aerodynamic, just look at the 04 cars, they look too basic

[Scotracer]

oi i got a question.

People say 2004 cars were highly aerodynamic, i dont they were anything special, look at 2008, these cars are the most aerodynamic, they have all these little things added and 2004 can't be more aerodynamic, just look at the 04 cars, they look too basic

The reason todays cars have so many appendages, winglets, turning vanes and other uglies is because when the FIA imposed the 2.4 V8 engines, the top speeds of the cars was significantly reduced as they didn't have the grunt to push along the high-downforce/high drag designs. So the designers then started making the cars more aerodynamically efficient, reducing drag to claw some of this speed back. It still isn't enough as the 2004 cars reached 348km/h at the end of the back straight at Montreal whereas the V8 powered cars last year reached 327km/h - even being more aero-efficient.

Now, don't confuse aero-efficiency with out-right downforce produced by the cars themselves.

In 2004, the front wing of the car was much lower, much closer to the tarmac making it much more efficient (the FIA raised the front wing in 2005 to reduce downforce therefore cornering speeds). This picture shows the difference:



The car on the left is the Ferrari F2004 and the one on the right is the current F2008.

Another area where the 2004 cars had much more downforce was in the location of the rear wing:



As you can see, the 2002 and the 2004 cars rear wings were further back, behind the rear wheels. This meant that the moment (torque) around the rear wheels was greater, increasing the effect the rear wing load had on grip. The FIA moved the rear wing forward 150mm in 2005. They moved it, instead of reducing the allowed sizes to keep drag levels the same, but reducing downforce.

The final area where the FIA limited downforce was the rear diffuser. It isn't easy to get pictures of the diffuser (mainly because photographers aren't too interested in the underside of the car) but the one in the current cars is significantly smaller and less efficient than those used in 2004.

Couple all these together and you have a big reduction in downforce.

[ernos5]

ahk thanks, yer that helped a lot. Stupid FIA no one likes them

[Scotracer]

ahk thanks, yer that helped a lot. Stupid FIA no one likes them

Well in 2004 even the drivers were complaining the cars were getting too fast. They were cornering at insane speeds (over 6G at some points) and the drivers really were struggling. To the spectator, you cannot see the difference in speeds between 2004 and now so there really is no point in it. The only thing I miss is the sound of the V10s. Even so, the V8s will suffice (but if the FIA do mandate 1.3 litre 4-cyl turbos I will demand blood).

[ernos5]

ahk thanks, yer that helped a lot. Stupid FIA no one likes them

Well in 2004 even the drivers were complaining the cars were getting too fast. They were cornering at insane speeds (over 6G at some points) and the drivers really were struggling. To the spectator, you cannot see the difference in speeds between 2004 and now so there really is no point in it. The only thing I miss is the sound of the V10s. Even so, the V8s will suffice (but if the FIA do mandate 1.3 litre 4-cyl turbos I will demand blood).

WOW that's unbelivable, wait no i thought that the V8 cars cornered faster, yer apparnetly the V10's had to corner slower or some --- but wer faster on straights, while the V8 were faster through corner :s

[Scotracer]

ahk thanks, yer that helped a lot. Stupid FIA no one likes them

Well in 2004 even the drivers were complaining the cars were getting too fast. They were cornering at insane speeds (over 6G at some points) and the drivers really were struggling. To the spectator, you cannot see the difference in speeds between 2004 and now so there really is no point in it. The only thing I miss is the sound of the V10s. Even so, the V8s will suffice (but if the FIA do mandate 1.3 litre 4-cyl turbos I will demand blood).

WOW that's unbelivable, wait no i thought that the V8 cars cornered faster, yer apparnetly the V10's had to corner slower or some --- but wer faster on straights, while the V8 were faster through corner :s

You can't really describe it that way. The V8 powered cars had no reason to be faster around the corners, inherently. The smaller V8 units actually weigh more than the larger V10s did and have a higher COG. This was imposed by the FIA to reduce costs.

The reason you might have seen V8 cars corner faster is that during 2006 they had much softer tyres than 2005 so cornering speeds were up but these tyres were hardened again for 2007/2008 so speeds are back down again. Even with the softest tyres, the V8 cars have never cornered faster than the V10s from 2004 (although this is somewhat drag related).

[ernos5]

yer that was probably it, the tire war in 2006, i remember reading somewhere that the war between bridgestone and michelin got so intense during winter testing 2006 that the lap times were reduced by almost 3 seconds just due to the tyre, and when i heard that in 2008 there would be on tyre supplier i was happy at first, but then i realised with Bridgestone having no competition they would make the tyres as shitty as they want, when michelin was there they were always competing.

But the bad parts apart tyre war is things like Hungary 2006 when Alonso overtook Schumacher around the outide of Turn 6 i think, just because of the Michelin tyres were superior in the wet, that isn't racing racing is better driver wins, and yes i know that these days is better car wins before better dricer, but bak then it was also better tyres win in better car then better driver first lol bit confusing but yer hope u understand

[Ogami musashi]

The V8 cars did corner faster in some of the 250km/h non flat out (or just flat out) corners because while the engine was heavier and had higher Cog, the placement of the engine was lower, the tyres were really shining also.

Corpse was taken at his max speed in 2006, around 270km/h-280km/h.

Now drag limited corners like Eau rouge, 130R(at suzuka) and some others were taken faster in 2004.

There was also the fact that in most track 2004 ran in high downforce so they could take corners faster, in 2006 they were forced to use medium and low downforce at some tracks, canada being one the track were lap times did suffer the most from that.

[WhiteBlue]

there is no way around the fact that the governing body of a racing series has to make performance related cuts in regulations if development is possible. the more development is free (tyres, engine, aero, chassis, electronics) the more often the cuts will occur. there are limits to what the body can sustain and what is reasonable to impose on a driver.

it is important to have an effective consultation and decision making mechanism to make those cuts in a most neutral and fair way. in my view until very recently the process was flawed. and this isn't entirely the gov bodies fault. the root cause IMO was in the unanimous voting on everything. 99% of the times decisions were not taken when they were necessary. with majority voting on most issues and unanimous voting on constitutional issues only the system could have worked much better. it is very easy to blame everything on the FIA and forget that the people who worked there have worked very hard to let the sport grow and saved many lifes.

[Scotracer]

The V8 cars did corner faster in some of the 250km/h non flat out (or just flat out) corners because while the engine was heavier and had higher Cog, the placement of the engine was lower, the tyres were really shining also.

Corpse was taken at his max speed in 2006, around 270km/h-280km/h.

Now drag limited corners like Eau rouge, 130R(at suzuka) and some others were taken faster in 2004.

There was also the fact that in most track 2004 ran in high downforce so they could take corners faster, in 2006 they were forced to use medium and low downforce at some tracks, canada being one the track were lap times did suffer the most from that.

Ah yes, I forgot about Copse at Silverstone. I believe they were taking it almost flat out in 2006? Either way, that corner is one of the best places to see an F1 car at work. I was there in 2004 for the British Grand Prix and it was astonishing the speeds they took the corner at and commitment the drivers had.

there is no way around the fact that the governing body of a racing series has to make performance related cuts in regulations if development is possible. the more development is free (tyres, engine, aero, chassis, electronics) the more often the cuts will occur. there are limits to what the body can sustain and what is reasonable to impose on a driver.

it is important to have an effective consultation and decision making mechanism to make those cuts in a most neutral and fair way. in my view until very recently the process was flawed. and this isn't entirely the gov bodies fault. the root cause IMO was in the unanimous voting on everything. 99% of the times decisions were not taken when they were necessary. with majority voting on most issues and unanimous voting on constitutional issues only the system could have worked much better. it is very easy to blame everything on the FIA and forget that the people who worked there have worked very hard to let the sport grow and saved many lifes.

Yes. I had been looking at teh decision making in previous years and there seems to have been more conflict then. For instance in 2003 they discussed the chances of Slicks returning and new aero rules for 2004 but it divided those involved so all they did was reduce the number of rear-wing elements from 3 to 2. From what I've seen recently, every proposal gets approved without any backlash. I don't like it.

I feel that the fans should be consulted on more issues as well. This is a sport afterall and it's only function should be entertainment. If they held a public vote (in an area with a good knowledge-base (such as this site) we may get a more balanced input into the new regulations. Of course regular fans can't make technical decisions but they can at least give those involved a direction to take. I am all for the 2009 regulations as the cars do have too much emphasis on aero-grip but I feel there will be public backlash at their implementation because the cars will look very odd to the average fan, turning people away. Aesthetics mean more than the FIA understand.

[WhiteBlue]

... From what I've seen recently, every proposal gets approved without any backlash. I don't like it....

this is because the consultation process works and teams know they can't stall it. so they try to make better imput on the expert level and dedicate some resources to solving the issues. as a result good solutions make it to the final vote and get approved.

... I feel that the fans should be consulted on more issues as well. This is a sport afterall and it's only function should be entertainment. If they held a public vote (in an area with a good knowledge-base (such as this site) we may get a more balanced input into the new regulations. Of course regular fans can't make technical decisions but they can at least give those involved a direction to take...

I agree with more fan input. there should be more wide based quetionaires. on the other hand I thought that F1 has taken some fan input from the AMD/FIA questionaires on board. re: driver aids, saving Spa!! and for 2009 a serious go at improving overtaking.

...I am all for the 2009 regulations as the cars do have too much emphasis on aero-grip but I feel there will be public backlash at their implementation because the cars will look very odd to the average fan, turning people away. Aesthetics mean more than the FIA understand.

this is a good example for the attitude I criticise. the FIA only implements the solution that consultants and the working groups have proposed and the teams decided. why is it that in the end the FIA is to blame for implementing something that was arrived at by a process involving many stake holders. every solution to an issue will always have negative aspects in some regards. this is the way of life. I would criticise the FIA if they implement willy nilly solutions that make things worse over all without participation.

I you say: "Aesthetics should have had a higher priority in the solution that was approved by the decision makers." That would be a very balanced and informed opinion in my view. but then it opens another can of worms. people do not always agree what looks good. so we are now truely on the horns of a dilemma.

[ernos5]

there is no way around the fact that the governing body of a racing series has to make performance related cuts in regulations if development is possible. the more development is free (tyres, engine, aero, chassis, electronics) the more often the cuts will occur. there are limits to what the body can sustain and what is reasonable to impose on a driver.

it is important to have an effective consultation and decision making mechanism to make those cuts in a most neutral and fair way. in my view until very recently the process was flawed. and this isn't entirely the gov bodies fault. the root cause IMO was in the unanimous voting on everything. 99% of the times decisions were not taken when they were necessary. with majority voting on most issues and unanimous voting on constitutional issues only the system could have worked much better. it is very easy to blame everything on the FIA and forget that the people who worked there have worked very hard to let the sport grow and saved many lifes.

oi dude, if ur in Formula 1 there's a risk u will die, it's like saying i wanna be a boxer but i hate fighting and punching, i mean come on, grow some balls, the f1 drivers know there's a risk, and that risk goes into a nice heafty part of their salary, F1 is boring atm, it need so speed up

[Scotracer]

Yes, that is true that the FIA doesn't really make up the regulations but I feel as an over-riding body should take some of the blame. If the FIA went to more fans and realised that the true things we want are: Sound, speed and overtaking I believe they would re-assess their regulations and priorities.

We can only hope that with this Mosley debacle, some good will come out of it.

oi dude, if ur in Formula 1 there's a risk u will die, it's like saying i wanna be a boxer but i hate fighting and punching, i mean come on, grow some balls, the f1 drivers know there's a risk, and that risk goes into a nice heafty part of their salary, F1 is boring atm, it need so speed up

That isn't the issue. F1 cars are only 1 or 2 seconds a lap slower than the fastest racing cars ever (2004 F1 cars). That is mighty quick. The real issue is cost. Look at all the small teams that just can't enter into F1. Even Toyota, with the biggest budget of all can't keep up with Ferrari, Mclaren and BMW. Money isn't everything but you don't want it to even be a factor in a sport. Skill is where it should be. Do we want F1 to become a 1-make formula? Of course not but if it is required to make the racing good, I feel it may be necessary.