I'm sure the cars of today have more downforce. The big advantage to the 2004 cars were the horsepower/torque numbers, TC and ABS.Ogami musashi wrote:2004: More downforce, More power/weight ratio, Sticky tyres.
Progresses in downforce stability and gearbox has still enabled to claw back a bit of that, but 2004 cars were the fastest ever F1 cars.
scuderiafan wrote:I'm sure the cars of today have more downforce. The big advantage to the 2004 cars were the horsepower/torque numbers, TC and ABS.Ogami musashi wrote:2004: More downforce, More power/weight ratio, Sticky tyres.
Progresses in downforce stability and gearbox has still enabled to claw back a bit of that, but 2004 cars were the fastest ever F1 cars.
Of course i have no wind tunnel/race track data, but back then, it was said the cars produced more than 3tons of downforce at 320km/h, and it was coincidently the year when drivers started to complain about G forces, going up to 6g's in certain corners.scuderiafan wrote:I'm sure the cars of today have more downforce. The big advantage to the 2004 cars were the horsepower/torque numbers, TC and ABS.Ogami musashi wrote:2004: More downforce, More power/weight ratio, Sticky tyres.
Progresses in downforce stability and gearbox has still enabled to claw back a bit of that, but 2004 cars were the fastest ever F1 cars.
I am not sure about that. Today we have more complex downforce. Back then they had alot more freedom and was more about creating "downforce en masse". The diffuser for instance had 60% less height in 2005 then in 2004.scuderiafan wrote:I'm sure the cars of today have more downforce. The big advantage to the 2004 cars were the horsepower/torque numbers, TC and ABS.Ogami musashi wrote:2004: More downforce, More power/weight ratio, Sticky tyres.
Progresses in downforce stability and gearbox has still enabled to claw back a bit of that, but 2004 cars were the fastest ever F1 cars.
Source? link plz.Ogami musashi wrote:according to newey, 2010 cars were the closest to those levels.
Except you forget they had to use grooved tyres. If they had slick tyres back then, corners like eau rouge would have been as easy as now the case is.SiLo wrote:Just because it was flat through corners now and not back then doesn't mean they have more downforce, the cars were a lot faster in a straight line because of the higher powered and higher revving V10's back then, so they were likely going faster into the corner and having to break.
True. It's funny though now to hear Massa complaining how easy it is now, while if they had back in 2004 slicks they would probably have said the same.MadMatt wrote:Last time Eau Rouge was not taken flat out by everyone was 2000. I remember in a magazine looking at the speed trap values at the top and see Häkkinen and Schumacher being the fastest. 2001 was taken flat out, thanks to traction control as well (useful at the top!).
No, what means they're faster through the corners is that we know for a fact that they're slower down the straights, but they're setting the same lap times. There's no question. The current cars corner better than the 2004 ones, if they didn't, they wouldn't be even close to the same lap times.SiLo wrote:Just because it was flat through corners now and not back then doesn't mean they have more downforce, the cars were a lot faster in a straight line because of the higher powered and higher revving V10's back then, so they were likely going faster into the corner and having to break.
Sure, I didn't claim that the cars have more downforce (though they probably have pretty close to the same amount). Only that they corner better (which they do).turbof1 wrote:Again: grooved tyres verses slick tyres. Back in 2009 cars the biggest clampdown on downforce since perhaps the ban of ground effect running cars, didn't result in slower cars, because slick tyres got reintroduced.
