F1 getting slower?!

[Juzh]

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.

Why do you so blatantly disregard my previous post? If you read it carefully enough there is a ton of evidence in it to suggest 2011 cars had noweher near as much DF than 2010. I simply do not understand how you can claim otherwise when all the numbers are againt you.
And you forgot some things in your pole position times. Suzuka had a monsoon washout on saturday and Singapore track was changed for 2011 (some kerbs were relocated which allowed wider lines trough corners).

[turbof1]

If you read it carefully enough there is a ton of evidence in it to suggest 2011 cars had noweher near as much DF than 2010.

I didn't. You mentioned both Hungary and Spain that because those times were slower, they had less downforce. I countered your opinion about that saying both singapore and monaco, circuits that also requires max downforce, were faster. To make it even more weird: The 2010 Italian GP was faster then the 2011 one, the circuit that has the least to do with downforce.

2010 Japan qualy was posponed to sunday morning. It was absolutely dry when they they did their qualifying. No excuses.

I simply do not understand how you can claim otherwise when all the numbers are againt you.

You can talk all you want. Fact remains I did the effort to dig up the numbers of each race that was relevant (I left out Bahrain, India and Germany; you can understand why). Next I filtered out races were it was obvious things like weather played a role (no, japan is not one of them). Those numbers are exactly 8 to 4 against you.

Why do you so blatantly disregard my previous post?

To be honest, that is insulting. I did the effort to look up the numbers.

[beelsebob]

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

I agree, in 2010 they had F-ducts which removed far more drag than DRS by the end of the season. That makes the faster qually times in 2011 all the more impressive.

[Ogami musashi]

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 ?

It is turn 8 at istanbul, the longest sustained G's corner. No matter the level road or not, it is the same corner and the vertical compression/release would only vary if lateral speed varies...so that's a fair comparison.

My original comment was for 2004. Just compare the qualifying laps (done with a full stint fuel) times with the post 2006, you'll see that 2004 cars were significantly faster.

[iotar__]

Some copy and pasting becasue I have no opinion on the subject, P. Symonds AMUS interview (google translation & original):

Where in this field Marussia had stood with your people and your budget in 2003, 1993 and 1983?

PS: We could have won it all. Even 2003. Of course in 2003 there were a lot more powerful engines than it is today and other tires. We have to pull off. But I know the differences in output values. Our Marussia has a lot more downforce than the 2003 Renault, although since then the rules have changed to the detriment of aerodynamics. The top cars of today are far ahead in terms of downforce the best 2008-specification vehicles. The aerodynamic regulations at that time were much more liberal. In 2009 alone, 50 output points were stolen from us by the rule changes. In 1983 you would have reputed magical powers, you have produced a Marussia.

Wo im Feld wäre dieser Marussia mit Ihren Leuten und Ihrem Budget 2003, 1993 und 1983 gestanden?

Symonds: Wir hätten alles gewonnen. Sogar 2003. Natürlich gab es 2003 viel stärkere Motoren als heute und andere Reifen. Das müssen wir abziehen. Aber ich kenne die Unterschiede an Abtriebswerten. Unser Marussia hat deutlich mehr Abtrieb als der 2003er Renault, obwohl sich seitdem die Regeln zu Ungunsten der Aerodynamik geändert haben. Die Spitzenautos von heute liegen in Bezug auf Anpressdruck weit vor den besten 2008er-Fahrzeugen. Dabei waren damals die Aerodynamikregeln viel freizügiger. Allein 2009 wurden uns durch die Regeländerungen 50 Punkte Abtrieb gestohlen. 1983 hätte man Ihnen magische Kräfte nachgesagt, hätten Sie einen Marussia produziert.

[roblomas52]

Personally, I think the 2010 cars are faster than the 2012 cars because the 2010 red bull I think had a blown double diffuser and even on my Xbox, I can feel the difference in handling at the rear because of that factor.

[Websta]

Personally, I think the 2010 cars are faster than the 2012 cars because the 2010 red bull I think had a blown double diffuser and even on my Xbox, I can feel the difference in handling at the rear because of that factor.

=D>

[Lycoming]

It is turn 8 at istanbul, the longest sustained G's corner. No matter the level road or not, it is the same corner and the vertical compression/release would only vary if lateral speed varies...so that's a fair comparison.

It's not a true steady state corner; speed varies through it by a small but significant amount, not counting entry/exit. That aside, the road surface condition varies year on year. Temperature, amount of rubber laid down, etc. It's a fair comparison if you take all of that into account, but it's nearly impossible to accurately quantify all of those effects, and the list I have here is by no means exhaustive.

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 2010 tyres were designed to be fast. The 2011 tires are designed to shred themselves. Even if they had the same amount of downforce, their race times should be much slower.

we know that accelerometer readings are at source not corrected for overshoot, noise and car attitude

This is important.

Personally, I think the 2010 cars are faster than the 2012 cars because the 2010 red bull I think had a blown double diffuser and even on my Xbox, I can feel the difference in handling at the rear because of that factor.

I won't doubt whether or not you felt a difference in your game. I will doubt whether or not the real car and the xbox car behave the same.

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

It makes a difference. Just not one that matters. If you ask me, anyways.

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.

None of this is rigorous justification that 2010 had more downforce than 2011. You have not isolated downforce as a variable. Variations in track conditions and very importantly, the change of tires, are not accounted for. Those two effects alone could account for the difference in lap times even if downforce did not change year on year. It's circumstantial evidence, as your argument only stands if the track, weather and tires (among other things I won't bother listing) were identical 1 year later. They quite plainly are not.

Also, bear in mind that downforce works through the tires. In general, tires express a lower friction coefficient as load rises; how much it drops off depends on the tire. What if it drops off much more for the pirellis than for the bridgestones? Then, your lateral cornering ability could be lower even if you have more downforce. Without knowing certain properties of the tires involved, you can't tie together lap times and downforce levels.

In China 2012, between Q2 and Q3 the temperature dropped like 1 degree and suddenly everybody was half a second slower. The Pirellis manage to complicate a lot of things. So no, you don't have a ton of evidence to suggest 2011 did not have as much downforce as 2010.

My original comment was for 2004. Just compare the qualifying laps (done with a full stint fuel) times with the post 2006, you'll see that 2004 cars were significantly faster.

Well of course, significantly different engine formula. That's to be expected.

[Juzh]

@Lycoming
You can spin it however you want. Just by looking at the onboards of pole positions you can clearly see how much more grip 10' cars have over 11'. I supported that claim with some numbers, unlike you. And pirellis actually provided immense grip (supersofts especially) for first few laps (they were good for at least 1 flat out lap) so this argument is invalid.

[turbof1]

@Lycoming
You can spin it however you want. Just by looking at the onboards of pole positions you can clearly see how much more grip 10' cars have over 11'. I supported that claim with some numbers, unlike you. And pirellis actually provided immense grip (supersofts especially) for first few laps (they were good for at least 1 flat out lap) so this argument is invalid.

Oh really? Until now the only numbers you have posted were the years 2010 and 2011. Unless the mayans predicted that 2011 would be the year downforces face extinction, your claims have shown no support at all. Furthermore, you have been disrupting the discussion by constantly discarding others their, very often well argued, opinions, and take yours for granted.

Reported. Richard Leeds asked to solve this with adding data. I did, but you are both discarding those and keep talking about numbers you never showed in the first place. When reasoning fails, a moderator does have to step in .

[Juzh]

Reported. Richard Leeds asked to solve this with adding data. I did, but you are both discarding those and keep talking about numbers you never showed in the first place. When reasoning fails, a moderator does have to step in .

Self entitlement is strong with this one & lots of other folks around here. Funny how people get offended so quickly. I did present numbers in the earlier post which can not be denied because they are facts, just as you did. Feel free to report this as well.

[Jersey Tom]

I'm still not following what difference it makes whether the cars lap a bit slower (or faster) than years previous.

And certainly, the tires being what they are factor into this immensely..

[turbof1]

Reported. Richard Leeds asked to solve this with adding data. I did, but you are both discarding those and keep talking about numbers you never showed in the first place. When reasoning fails, a moderator does have to step in .

Self entitlement is strong with this one & lots of other folks around here. Funny how people get offended so quickly. I did present numbers in the earlier post which can not be denied because they are facts, just as you did. Feel free to report this as well.

Ok lets sum that up:
-one sector of one circuit (turkey).
-2 races (hungary and spain, of which btw you didn't actually posted any laptimes of)

Based on the above you generalised that 2010 cars were faster. Based on one sector and 2 max downforce circuits (conviently forgetting that on the other 2 similar circuits faster times were set).

For the record, nobodies makes a problem of it when based on that you proclaim it as your opinion. But what do you do? Sell it as a fact, and just disregarding others their opinions. That isn't constructive anymore. I have nothing against opposite opinions. What I do find problematic is that you try to force down your opinion on others, proclaiming your 'numbers', a calculation of one sector, don't lie... . Again, nothing against opinion, but I do have a problem when you trying to make that look as a fact.

Just for the record, the turkey laptime got beaten by a full second. Neither of us have data on differences in tyre performance and they did have f-duct in 2010 verses drs in 2011. That 0.8s difference in sector time could just as well be differences in set up.

[Richard]

So let's sum up this thread....

OP asks is F1 cars are getting slower.

For some reason the debate focusses on 2010 and 2011. As far as I recall, F1 existed in other years, but groupthink seems to have ignored that. TurboF1 provided numbers that showed cars were faster in 2011 than 2010. Case closed. That should have been the end of it.

Now lets get back to the OP.

I haven't done to much research on this subject but I did saw this (the laptimes are from the Nurburgring):

1:29.468 Michael Schumacher, Ferrari, 2004 (laprecord)
1:29.398 Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes, 2013 (best qualifying)

So on that basis F1 is getting slower but does anybody know why?

Are F1 cars getting faster/slower in the last 10 years?

ps - The fact that cars were slower in certain sectors is irrelevant because the teams tune the cars for the fastest aggregate of all sectors. The faster overall laptimes infer that cars were deliberately sub-optimal on some sectors in order to make greater gains on the sectors. Same too for speedtraps.

pps - How the cars "look" in on-board footage is irrelevant when we have numbers proving the point.

[bdr529]

I haven't done to much research on this subject but I did saw this (the laptimes are from the Nurburgring):

1:29.468 Michael Schumacher, Ferrari, 2004 (laprecord)
1:29.398 Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes, 2013 (best qualifying)

So on that basis F1 is getting slower but does anybody know why?

The lap times you have give above show that Hamilton's lap was 0.070 seconds faster then Schumacher's lap time ?

I'm sure if you look hard enough you can find some discrepancy between 1 year and another,
2002 Montreal-- Pole 1.12.836 Montoya, Fastest race lap -- 1.15.960 Montoya
2012 Montreal-- Pole 1.13.784 Vettel.... Fastest race lap -- 1.15.752 Vettel

I don't recall in my 40 years of watching F1 that they have ever made a rule change to speed the cars up, just the opposite and still the teams seem to claw back what the rule change took away,
So I will say No F1 is not getting slower.