F1 getting slower?!

[Ogami musashi]

The source for 2010 (Double diffuser year) is Race Car engineering issue with the RB7 were newey says that 2010 cars had enormous downforce and that blown diffuser 11' cars where able to almost claw back all downforce lost.

As for lap times, please pay attention that in 2004 qualifying lap times were done with fuel for a full stint. So save for maybe a few ones, the 2004 qualyfing times are still unbeaten.

Just have to look at G's rating now..Turn 8 in instabul used to be a 5,5G+ corner in 2006 and is "only" 4,7G's this year.


But no doubt seamless transmission and all suspension progress as well as throttle and engine maps are more efficient now.

I also reckon downforce vs attitude (braking, accelerating, with yaw etc..) is much more constant now.

Still if i recall correctly the 2005 downforce clampdown was following complains of drivers having to endure too high g's.

[beelsebob]

Frankly, every time a thread like this comes up, my reaction is this:


F1 has been maintaining itself at roughly the same speed for a significant period now. We're currently at a fairly mid-range point, and are likely to go slightly slower next year. Over the 2015-2016 you can expect the cars to get significantly quicker as there will once again be "easy" gains in the design of the new cars.

[Juzh]

The source for 2010 (Double diffuser year) is Race Car engineering issue with the RB7 were newey says that 2010 cars had enormous downforce and that blown diffuser 11' cars where able to almost claw back all downforce lost.

Is this a joke? 2010 cars had so much more downforce than 2011 cars its not even funny. How do you explain RB6 being faster by a second than RB7 on a high downforce tracks like hungary and barcelona despite 2011 kers + unlimited drs?

[turbof1]

The source for 2010 (Double diffuser year) is Race Car engineering issue with the RB7 were newey says that 2010 cars had enormous downforce and that blown diffuser 11' cars where able to almost claw back all downforce lost.

Is this a joke? 2010 cars had so much more downforce than 2011 cars its not even funny. How do you explain RB6 being faster by a second than RB7 on a high downforce tracks like hungary and barcelona despite 2011 kers + unlimited drs?

2011 cars had more downforce. EBD's brought far more then double diffusers. The difference? Could be anything. Different temperatures, perhaps pirelli tyres, maybe the weather (it did rain that weekend).

[beelsebob]

The source for 2010 (Double diffuser year) is Race Car engineering issue with the RB7 were newey says that 2010 cars had enormous downforce and that blown diffuser 11' cars where able to almost claw back all downforce lost.

Is this a joke? 2010 cars had so much more downforce than 2011 cars its not even funny.

No, it's not a joke. At the start of the year, the cars were only about half a second slower than the 2010 ones. By the end of the season they were about half a second faster. The 2011 cars were not really down on downforce compared to the 2010 ones, except at the beginning of the year.

How do you explain RB6 being faster by a second than RB7 on a high downforce tracks like hungary and barcelona despite 2011 kers + unlimited drs?

The same way you explain the qualifying times at circuits like Turkey and Japan, both of which are high downforce, being significantly faster in 2011.

[Ogami musashi]

The source for 2010 (Double diffuser year) is Race Car engineering issue with the RB7 were newey says that 2010 cars had enormous downforce and that blown diffuser 11' cars where able to almost claw back all downforce lost.

Is this a joke? 2010 cars had so much more downforce than 2011 cars its not even funny. How do you explain RB6 being faster by a second than RB7 on a high downforce tracks like hungary and barcelona despite 2011 kers + unlimited drs?

Go and buy the RCE issue...It's all Adrian Newey words...

[Juzh]

No, it's not a joke. At the start of the year, the cars were only about half a second slower than the 2010 ones. By the end of the season they were about half a second faster. The 2011 cars were not really down on downforce compared to the 2010 ones, except at the beginning of the year.

They weren't. Fact! Even if 2011 were faster on a few (few!!) tracks in quali, all their fastest laps during races are miles of 2010 times. We are talking downforce anyway, not fastest lap time.

The same way you explain the qualifying times at circuits like Turkey and Japan, both of which are high downforce, being significantly faster in 2011.

Turkey is a bit of a 1 of. Still T8 was flat in 2010, it wasnt in 2011.
Suzuka had a monsoon on saturday, hence quali was held on a completely green track on cold sunday morning. 2011 cars barely beat 2010 by a mere 3 tenths. First sector time for 2010 which is all DF related: 31.670, 2011: 32.111.
Apex speed trough copse 295kmh in 2010, 270kmh in 2011. pole time 0.8s faster with no drs & kers.
T9 in barcelona was flat in 2010 for RB6, yet both red bulls had to lift in 2011 despite cerbs being moved to prevent corner cutting in T8 which led to even slower aproach to T9.
2010 cars had more downforce, no matter how you spin it. Evidence is all there and RB6 would run rings round RB7 during the race even if we had 2010 like enduring tyres in 2011. 2012 was a bit of a joke year in terms of raw pace.

[Websta]

They weren't. Fact! Even if 2011 were faster on a few (few!!) tracks in quali, all their fastest laps during races are miles of 2010 times. We are talking downforce anyway, not fastest lap time.

It's almost as though in 2011 they didn't go 100% flat-out in the races like they did in 2010. Was there some rule change that I missed? Hmm....

[Lycoming]

Go and buy the RCE issue...It's all Adrian Newey words...

Adrian Newey could also say that he's a green dragon named puff, but that doesn't make it true. A comment in RCE is not exactly word of god.

Even if 2011 were faster on a few (few!!) tracks in quali, all their fastest laps during races are miles of 2010 times. We are talking downforce anyway, not fastest lap time.

quali times are incomparable, in 2011 they could use DRS anywhere they wanted.

Actually, 2011 and 2010 times are incomparable either way. Even setting aside issues with track condition and weather, 2010 was on Bridgestones, 2011 were on Pirellis. Fact: the 2011 Pirelli line is very different from the 2010 Bridgestone line. Unless you have intimate knowledge (read: test data) of these tires performance at various vertical loads, comparing downforce by comparing lap times is a waste of time. Well, actually, it isn't, it's just circle-jerking, which I suppose has some entertainment value.

[Richard]

This thread needs numbers. Its quite simple to get the laptimes and evidence that cars were faster or slower.

[Jersey Tom]

If it is indeed getting a little slower - what difference does it make? I'd say... none.

[Tommy Cookers]

Just have to look at G's rating now..Turn 8 in instabul used to be a 5,5G+ corner in 2006 and is "only" 4,7G's this year.

we know that accelerometer readings are at source not corrected for overshoot, noise and car attitude
and that even after correction may not be a true measure of max cornering 'g' under neutral conditions ie level road
when eg as at Silverstone there is vertical acceleration ('compression') due to changes in track slope
(and many high speed corners are not grip-limited in the V8 cars, due to their lack of power)

are the above 5.5g and 4.7g true values for neutral conditions ?

[turbof1]

This thread needs numbers. Its quite simple to get the laptimes and evidence that cars were faster or slower.

Most certainly. Here are all qualy times:

Australian GP:
-2010: 1:23.919
-2011: 1:23.529

Malaysian GP
-2010: 1:49.327
-2011: 1:34.870
(2010 was wet qualifying)

Chinese GP
-2010: 1:34.558
-2011: 1:33.706

Turkish GP
-2010: 1:26.295
-2011: 1:25.049

Spanish GP
-2010: 1:19.995
-2011: 1:20.981

Monaco GP
-2010: 1:13.826
-2011: 1:13.556

Canadian GP
-2010: 1:15.105
-2011: 1:13.014
(2010 was cold, and just before qualy rain washed away the rubber layed down up to that moment)

European GP
-2010: 1:37.587
-2011: 1:36.975

British GP
-2010: 1:29.615
-2011: 1:30.399
(2011 got hit by a temporary ban on off throttle blowing. Hard to say how much that costed, but some say around a second a lap)

Hungarian GP
-2010: 1:18.773
-2011: 1:19.815

Belgian GP
-2010: 1:45.778
-2011: 1:48.298
(both years got hit by rain, but 2011 more then 2010)

Italian GP
-2010: 1:21.962
-2011: 1:22.275

Singapore GP
-2010: 1:45.390
-2011: 1:44.381

Japanese GP
-2010: 1:30.785
-2011: 1:30.466

Korean GP
-2010: 1:35.585
-2011: 1:35.820

Brazilian GP
-2010: 1:14.470
-2011: 1:11.918
(2010 got hit by rain)

Aby Dhabi GP
-2010: 1:39.394
-2011: 1:38.481

[Kiril Varbanov]

...

Great summation. Quick look at the numbers tells us that there's nothing to worry about. Even if it was one second slower - so what? Different rules, different spec, weather conditions, all into account.
That puts the end of that thread for me.

[turbof1]

The essential part is that in 2010 they used the exhaust to blow inside the diffuser, while in 2011 Red Bull found (and all the rest copied) it was better to blow both inside and on the edges of the diffuser, sealing the sides and running more rake. Generally the simplified (but more raked) diffuser with EBD and off throttle blowing, was better then the complex multideck diffusers with simple blowing. Of course one can only wonder what the best of 2 worlds would have brought.

The above data clearly shows 2011 cars were faster then the 2010 ones. Counting only the races were no special external factors played out, 2011 cars were faster 8 out of 12 times. We can run a discussion about smaller details like temperature differences, how much rubber was on the track before qualy, etc etc, but I think a ratio of 2 to 1 is sufficient enough to safely say 2010 cars were slower and had less downforce. Both the Hungarian and Spanish GP had slower times, but at Singapore and Monaco, similar tracks, they were faster.