Formula 1: top speeds to be way higher in '14

[spyrrari]

Monza 390 kph

With Pirelli tyres?...not a wise idea ...




Spy.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Reduced by a tenth? Did you mean annihilated?

Supposedly all the Renault units will be allowed to run at full power in T3, I don't think they're doing any private testing between the sessions.

Ferrari ran one yesterday from what I can gather, they seem to quite happily have their heads down.

Remember that over the course of the race the drivers only have a limited amount of fuel, and therefore a limited amount of kinetic energy available*. Obviously they'll recover a huge amount of that with this year's incredible PUs, but you have to remember that qualifying runs (such as Rosberg's super-run in Bahrain) won't be the norm in races.

Being quick in a straight line is a start (if low-drag is more your friend than top-end torque) but you have to be able to achieve that economically lap after lap. That's going to be a challenge with these peaky engines.

*EDIT: Yes yes, schoolboy error. And the pads-and-tyres

What are you talking about? I was poking fun so not sure why you quoted me.

Also I'd say come Aussie GP, Renault will have the engine issue sorted not sure if RBR will have it though since it is both an issue of themselves and Renault.

 

[TenEightyOne]

What are you talking about? I was poking fun so not sure why you quoted me.

Also I'd say come Aussie GP, Renault will have the engine issue sorted not sure if RBR will have it though since it is both an issue of themselves and Renault.

Haha, you said 'decimated' but it seemed out of context, a very accurate measurement of the predicted performance. I just wondered if you actually meant 'annihilated'?

You're right about Red Bull, and it seems that the Renault problems have hurt them the most because they've had the greatest number of other problems to sort out, Renault's inconsistency has made a tough schedule even tougher. Test 3 will be real make-or-break for them.

In respect of Rosberg's time, I was pointing out that it was an energy-unlimited run. In races the race time will be determined by the efficiency of the conversion of the fuel, pads and tyres, that's why quali runs won't mean as much in terms of the overall race pace. Still, I can't argue that the Merc looks very good all round!

EDIT: And all in the same spirit of fun - I wasn't disagreeing with you, in fact I think I rarely disagree with you

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Haha, you said 'decimated' but it seemed out of context, a very accurate measurement of the predicted performance. I just wondered if you actually meant 'annihilated'?

You're right about Red Bull, and it seems that the Renault problems have hurt them the most because they've had the greatest number of other problems to sort out, Renault's inconsistency has made a tough schedule even tougher. Test 3 will be real make-or-break for them.

In respect of Rosberg's time, I was pointing out that it was an energy-unlimited run. In races the race time will be determined by the efficiency of the conversion of the fuel, pads and tyres, that's why quali runs won't mean as much in terms of the overall race pace. Still, I can't argue that the Merc looks very good all round!

EDIT: And all in the same spirit of fun - I wasn't disagreeing with you, in fact I think I rarely disagree with you

I didn't say you were I was just not sure of what you were getting at, I think my use of decimate after reading the post again was vague, sorry for that. It was suppose to play off the other post since the Merc engine cars will be going so fast the poor Renault won't see it coming.

I still say they are probably making up lost ground with simulations of the engines and working with each team, and though it isn't as solid as track time it makes up for it a bit while they sort of the problems.

 

[IceMan PJN]

I hated the fact they tried to slow the cars down.

They've been slowing the cars down for years. That's why the engines keep getting smaller, why downforce keeps being reduced, and why for eleven years we weren't allowed to have an actual slick tire. I really don't see them ever letting up on slowing the cars down.

 

[TenEightyOne]

They've been slowing the cars down for years. That's why the engines keep getting smaller, why downforce keeps being reduced, and why for eleven years we weren't allowed to have an actual slick tire. I really don't see them ever letting up on slowing the cars down.

Why wouldn't they slow the cars down? There's a point where existing tracks simply aren't safe to race. Motorsport's dangerous but noone wants killer tracks on the calendars.

And do they really slow the cars down? Overall the teams seem to be able to claw the advantage back year-on-year, I expect that at tomorrow's test we may see Merc very close to matching last year's pace.

 

[Ganon83]

I like slowing cars down. It helps with safety and it helps the smaller teams catching up to the Red Bulls and the Ferraris. More cars being able to compete for points week in and week out is never bad.

 

[joetruckv8]

 

[0zzy]

I like slowing cars down. It helps with safety and it helps the smaller teams catching up to the Red Bulls and the Ferraris. More cars being able to compete for points week in and week out is never bad.

It's been over 20 years since a driver has died in an F1 race. Yes, more safety is I guess a good thing - but its in Formula 1's nature to be an 'extreme' sport, it's what gives the drivers adrenaline or the viewers the excitement. We've reached a good level of safety now, no need to compromise the cars any further.

This isn't a communist sport, its about real competition - artificially meddling with the regs to create equality is penalising those who could have done a better job. Besides, even if they didn't artificially meddle - history shows its quite rare for one team to dominate. Obviously, there are exceptions (Schumacher etc).

Mansell's 1992, 22 year old, Williams F1 car is faster than today's cars. F1 is meant to be the pinnacle of automotive and auto-racing technology, how can they claim that when they're slower than we were 20 years ago?

If the teams would have kept up the trend of speeding the cars up from the 90 to now it would take 56 seconds to lap Monaco, and Monza would be done in sub 1 minute time.

Now of course, I'm not saying the above should be done - that's too dangerous - but what I am saying is that they should have kept up some form of getting faster, at least faster than the V12 or Mansell days.

P.S @joetruckv8 Thanks for the vid mate, interesting (y)

 

[starknight97]

-

 

[05XR8]

Where is the general F1 thread? Bernie Ecclestone says a deal with the Melbourne GP is almost done. Doesnt say for how long the contract is.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Mansell's 1992, 22 year old, Williams F1 car is faster than today's cars. F1 is meant to be the pinnacle of automotive and auto-racing technology, how can they claim that when they're slower than we were 20 years ago?

Yes, Mansell's Monaco pole with no fuel and quali tyres was 1:19.

Rosberg's time last year on race tyres and fuel was 1:13 on a track with more complex, slower chicanes.

Mansell was much faster, the numbers are confusing.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Well apparently Rosberg is on record saying that they will be reaching speeds close to, or around, 370kp/h (230 mph) in China.

 

[mister dog]

Well apparently Rosberg is on record saying that they will be reaching speeds close to, or around, 370kp/h (230 mph) in China.

Aah the good old days of Hockenheim before Tilke came and raped it... They got close to those speeds also then.

 

[Azure Flare]

Where is the general F1 thread?

In The Infield.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Aah the good old days of Hockenheim before Tilke came and raped it... They got close to those speeds also then.

I can't quite agree with the wording but I agree with your sentiment.

Here's the thing though; look at a track like Montreal, Circuit de Gilles Villeneuve. I love that place, I love to drive it on sims, I love to watch any racing I can find there on YouTube, I love to read about the history and the people... yeah, I quite like it.

I want it to be an international racing venue for ever but development in sports like F1 actually threatens its survival in its current form.

The problem with it is (as I know from my sim efforts) a small mistake leads to a departure at very high speed, and there is simply nowhere to go. Look at Kubica's accident, his car could easily make the turn (as all the others did) but he clipped Trulli (I think?), departed and dissipated his momentum across the walls at both sides of the track.

Panis's accident was a quick departure with a 1m run-off, as I recall his legs were quite badly injured.

What I'm establishing is that Montreal represents all the risks of travel under control at high speed, then quickly losing control for any reason without areas to escape. The risk of a dramatic crash is high, as is the risk of being injured.

Article 10 of the F1 Sporting Regs says "The promoter of an Event must procure that all competitors, their personnel and drivers are covered by third party insurance in accordance with the FIA requirements". That includes insurance against the death of a driver, officials at the circuit and the public. How much do you think a single death might cost?

The harsh reality is that during the infamous Montreal stoppage the future of F1 was in the balance. Let the drivers race? They will naturally build up to the limit allowed by the conditions and the risk of a departure is massively increased. The lack of the ability to airlift the injured after a crash could be critical to life, any medic will tell you about the Golden Hour. Getting a road ambulance out of an F1 circuit to a hospital isn't quick even with a police escort.

Therefore the organisers aren't just looking at the human cost of continuing with an event, they're looking at the risk to the business. A death or serious injury found to be the result of the organiser's actions could bankrupt them or the circuit owners and prevent them from being able to insure future events.

In the wider view every track has to consider this and one of the factors is the speed of the vehicles that they allow to race there.

I'm no fan of Tilke tracks which is why I support the limiting of F1's top speeds, the physical safety requirements will lead to 100ft-wide tracks in deserts with the spectators watching through binoculars from reinforced bunkers. Except Monaco, that will still run

 

[mister dog]

I can't quite agree with the wording but I agree with your sentiment.

Here's the thing though; look at a track like Montreal, Circuit de Gilles Villeneuve. I love that place, I love to drive it on sims, I love to watch any racing I can find there on YouTube, I love to read about the history and the people... yeah, I quite like it.

I want it to be an international racing venue for ever but development in sports like F1 actually threatens its survival in its current form.

The problem with it is (as I know from my sim efforts) a small mistake leads to a departure at very high speed, and there is simply nowhere to go. Look at Kubica's accident, his car could easily make the turn (as all the others did) but he clipped Trulli (I think?), departed and dissipated his momentum across the walls at both sides of the track.

Panis's accident was a quick departure with a 1m run-off, as I recall his legs were quite badly injured.

What I'm establishing is that Montreal represents all the risks of travel under control at high speed, then quickly losing control for any reason without areas to escape. The risk of a dramatic crash is high, as is the risk of being injured.

Article 10 of the F1 Sporting Regs says "The promoter of an Event must procure that all competitors, their personnel and drivers are covered by third party insurance in accordance with the FIA requirements". That includes insurance against the death of a driver, officials at the circuit and the public. How much do you think a single death might cost?

The harsh reality is that during the infamous Montreal stoppage the future of F1 was in the balance. Let the drivers race? They will naturally build up to the limit allowed by the conditions and the risk of a departure is massively increased. The lack of the ability to airlift the injured after a crash could be critical to life, any medic will tell you about the Golden Hour. Getting a road ambulance out of an F1 circuit to a hospital isn't quick even with a police escort.

Therefore the organisers aren't just looking at the human cost of continuing with an event, they're looking at the risk to the business. A death or serious injury found to be the result of the organiser's actions could bankrupt them or the circuit owners and prevent them from being able to insure future events.

In the wider view every track has to consider this and one of the factors is the speed of the vehicles that they allow to race there.

I'm no fan of Tilke tracks which is why I support the limiting of F1's top speeds, the physical safety requirements will lead to 100ft-wide tracks in deserts with the spectators watching through binoculars from reinforced bunkers. Except Monaco, that will still run

I'm reading Jackie Stewart's biography now, and his were the days that F1 was ridiculously dangerous. Walls near a circuit are indeed more dangerous than huge run off zones but even still almost any straight has the barriers quite close to the circuit. Give me the old circuits from the 80's- 90's above Tilke's safe but boring parking lots with slow mickey mouse corners any day

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'm reading Jackie Stewart's biography now, and his were the days that F1 was ridiculously dangerous. Walls near a circuit are indeed more dangerous than huge run off zones but even still almost any straight has the barriers quite close to the circuit. Give me the old circuits from the 80's- 90's above Tilke's safe but boring parking lots with slow mickey mouse corners any day

Absolutely, but that was from a completely unlegislated time; and enjoy the book... Jackie Stewart is as good with words as he is in a car. Which is bloody good

And you can keep a track as close to life-safe as you can without turning it into a parking lot... but eventually some series might become too fast for that to continue to be true.

 

[mister dog]

Absolutely, but that was from a completely unlegislated time; and enjoy the book... Jackie Stewart is as good with words as he is in a car. Which is bloody good

And you can keep a track as close to life-safe as you can without turning it into a parking lot... but eventually some series might become too fast for that to continue to be true.

Cheers it's not an auto biography though, but as I've seen "weekend of a champion" last week i know Jackie is a fun man to listen to .

Horsepower restrictions solve everything IMO, not turning the tracks and cars in circus attractions. Let say you make design rules a bit more liberal, but implement spec engines that max 600-700HP and F1's wouldnt have to turn into red bull X2010's for that matter.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Cheers it's not an auto biography though, but as I've seen "weekend of a champion" last week i know Jackie is a fun man to listen to .

Horsepower restrictions solve everything IMO, not turning the tracks and cars in circus attractions. Let say you make design rules a bit more liberal, but implement spec engines that max 600-700HP and F1's wouldnt have to turn into red bull X2010's for that matter.

As you pointed out though; cars come off the road on corners mostly. I accept my Kubica example was a poor one, I could have picked any number of Champions from the Wall

If you liberate the regulations then you get more downforce and more lateral grip. An 80 mph corner becomes 90, 100, 120, 140... where do you stop? In departure your de-accellaration is an inverse square, you don't just need an extra 50% runoff to stop a car doing 120 mph through a corner designed for 80mph.

That's one of the reasons that aero efficiency is so limited, cornering speeds are much more dangerous than straight line speed. High-speed straight-line departures are more likely to cause injury (because you travel the furthest) but are much less likely to occur. Increasing corner speed increases both risk of injury and departure.

That's before you get to needing clean air to run in and the effects of following another car, a disadvantage negated a little by the ambient nature of Tilke circuits. Yuck.

 

[Jimlaad43]

Yes, Mansell's Monaco pole with no fuel and quali tyres was 1:19.

Rosberg's time last year on race tyres and fuel was 1:13 on a track with more complex, slower chicanes.

Mansell was much faster, the numbers are confusing.

I disagree, the new chicanes are faster than they were in 1992. However, they are not 6 seconds faster, the cars have got quicker.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I disagree, the new chicanes are faster than they were in 1992. However, they are not 6 seconds faster, the cars have got quicker.

I looked again, I have to agree. Looking at some video the kerbs are avoided much more nowadays but overall the lines are faster. As you say, not 6 seconds faster though.

 

[Jimlaad43]

I looked again, I have to agree. Looking at some video the kerbs are avoided much more nowadays but overall the lines are faster. As you say, not 6 seconds faster though.

Rascasse used to be a tight left followed by a 180 degree hairpin. Now it is a slight left kink which leads to a double apex 45 right followed immediately by a 90 left.