What was the quickest/fastest period in F1?

Indeed - Apparently, that's one of the reasons they won't allow active suspension - They could *sustain* over 5-6G's (with suitable rubber) - The guys would have to wear g-suits!....

We're also deep in the land of diminishing returns wrt to aero (which has come a long way in just a few years) - I forget the details, but you need a *huge* amount more power to go from 200 to 250 than from 150-200.

So, even going from ~800 to ~1500hp isn't going to make you a lot faster on the straights - But you're going to be quicker (over a lap) 'cos you can get to the top speed in less time.

Cheers,
Ian

 

Sort of explains it a bit here.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk1t6S737Cs[/ame]

 

Even if they did allow active suspension, the tire technology to really take advantage of it is just not there. Or maybe it is but a set of tires would last 8 laps.

 

The F2002-2004 are the fastest cars F1 has ever seen. The improved aerodynamics and V10 engines are a devastating combo. If you want to talk the most fun to watch and drive, thats another story entirely. For that it goes to the turbo cars of the 80's. Theres a clip somewhere, I think top gear featured it, of Piquet overtaking senna on the outside on full opposite lock. You aren't going to see anything like that today.

 

No argument from me there - But, given the incentive I reckon those 8 lap tires would become 30 laps real fast......

OK [It's debatable, but we'll go with it ]

The V10's made ~1000 at their peak, right?

Put a 1400 turbo together with todays aero, and kick some ass!.....

Show me the link

Cheers,
Ian

 

You put a V10 in today's cars and they would be the fastest.

 

This is not correct.

When 1400HP is quoted, its only stating the peak power. Also, 1400 to 1500bhp was in qualifying trims only, race distance boost pressures achieved ranged from anything between 500 to 900HP.

As I'm sure you know, peak power is only a very small statistical measurement of an engine's overall ability and performance. These 80's turbos were very peaky by nature, with crud engine mapping and combustion, in comparison to modern turbo technology.
They had extremely uneven power and torque graphs, with extensive lag and narrow peak power bands only available at very limited rev ranges. They were also terribly inefficient and unreliable when running on high boosts.

The last of the F1 V10's were extremely efficient, flexible and light weight for combustion engines. With the last of the breed topping 19'000rpm, 900bhp and weighing less then 200lbs.

And when you talk about modern F1 engine performance, you have to also take into account there Seamless shift Transmissions, Electronics and Hydraulics systems and a whole host of other components, as modern F1 cars are designed as a complete package, with every part being custom deigned to work in complete harmony with every other. The engine its self is also an integral load bearing part of the chassis, so to introduce a primitive 80s turbo engine into one of these finely honed packages like the F2004, and to presume it would be make the car faster is simply ridiculous.

 

I don't understand how you can say that;

- The V10's reached ~1000HP at their best.
- The turbos reached ~1400 - *And*, they're smaller than the V10's so "packaging" is easier.

My money is on todays car (& the best tires) with 1400HP every time.

My 02c, cheers,
Ian

 

Skip to 3:20 (piquet overtaking senna on full opposite lock)
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC9ZeCr5bEA[/ame]

 

Agree with everything you said.

OK - My bad - I should have said "the modern equivalent of" the 1400hp turbos.

I'll stick with the premise that (all else being equal, as already noted) more power = reduced lap times though.

Cheers,
Ian

 

It all about useable horse power.

 

*Sweet* - Thanks for posting.

Yep, those days are gone - "Aero" is the God now - Go sideways, go off.......

Cheers,
Ian

 

Indeed.

"Horsepower sells engines, torque wins motor races." [Dunno who said that first?]

I remember the *brutal* power delivery of the turbos - "on" & "off" seemed to be criteria. But, the boys figured 'em out and went pretty quick - Give 'em modern electronics & fancy ass turbos coupled with todays cars and look out..... [Won't be allowed as "they" want around 750-900hp in order to remain "safe" of course.]

Cheers,
Ian

 

A quick and simple way to compare various early 2000's Ferrari F1's can be done by looking at the ultimate lap times for each car achieved around the Fiorano during 1000s of km done during testing.


Ferrari F2004 0'55.999 Michael Schumacher 2004
Ferrari F2003-GA 0'56.33 Michael Schumacher 2003
Ferrari 248 F1 0'57.099 Felipe Massa 2006
Ferrari F2005 0'57.146 Michael Schumacher 2005
Ferrari F2002 0'57.476 Michael Schumacher 2002
Ferrari F2007 0'58.366 Felipe Massa 2007
Ferrari F310B 0'59.00 Michael Schumacher 1997
Ferrari F2008 0'59.111 Mirko Bortolotti 2008
Ferrari F399 1'00.226 Luca Badoer 1999
Ferrari 412T 1'00.31 Jean Alesi 1994


You can also look at the fastest laps for various circuits that were mostly unchanged through out that period, and many are the still the same too this day, and you will see in most cases cars from 2004 broke the records, which still stand.

Magny-Cours - 1:15.377 - Michael Schumacher, Ferrari F2004
Nürburgring GP - 1:29.468 - Michael Schumacher, Ferrari F2004
Monza - 1:21.046 - Rubens Barrichello, Ferrari F2004
Melbourne - 1:24.125 - Michael Schumacher, Ferrari F2004
Interlagos - 1:11.473 - Juan Pablo Montoya, Williams BMW, 2004
Sepang - 1:34.223 - Pablo Montoya, Williams-BMW FW26, 2004
Bahrain - 1:30.252 - Michael Schumacher Ferrari - F2004 ( GP Circuit)
Montreal - 1:13.622 - Rubens Barrichello, Ferrari F2004
Silverstone - 1:18.739 - Michael Schumacher, Ferrari, F2004. (Bridge Circuit)
Hockenheimring- 1:13.780 - Kimi Räikkönen, McLaren, 2004
Hungaroring - 1:19.071 - Michael Schumacher, Ferrari F2004,
Shanghai - 1:32.238 - Michael Schumacher, Ferrari F2004
San Marino - 1:20.411 - Michael Schumacher, Ferrari, F2004,
Monaco - 1:14.439 - Michael Schumacher, Ferrari F2004
Catalunya - 1:17.450 - Michael Schumacher, Ferrari F2004 ( Pre Chicane)

I could not find a lap record for the Indy F1 Gp circuit??

The other notable tracks absent from this list, Spa and Suzuka, which were wet weekends during the 2004 season.

So since all the evidence points too the 2004 cars being quickest of there era, and have still yet to be bettered (80's turbo cars are simply not even close in terms of ultimate lap time), i think its has to be said that the 2004 cars are the fastest of all time, with the Ferrari F2004 being the fastest of them all..

 

The F2004 is a direct evolution of the F2002 as the rules where stable and did not change much during this period. If the F2002 was quicker then the F2004, why would Ferrari not just race the older car?

I could be wrong, and I have also not read the article you mention, but it sounds like the Motorsport Magazine writer has it wrong, as all the evidence points to the F2004 package being faster.

 

The one set of tires per race rule was a huge change for 2005, and was the main reason for the slower lap times. And as we know this rule effected the Bridgestone runners the most.

And they also introduced a rule that engines were required to last two Grands Prix without being changed, so as a whole, the car's were down on power compared to 2004 as the emphasis was on reliability.

 

My first answer. Always

 

I do have to clarify that I didn't mean an 80s car with the last V10 running gear would be quicker than todays car...

I think that, because of the far more efficient power of these cars, that if the 80's turbo cars had todays V10's, they would be quicker in their era.

 

What's the winning ratio of the F2002 vs the F2004?

 

F2002 - 17 races - 15 wins ( MS 11 wins, 0 DNF - RB 4 wins, 5 DNF )

F2004 - 18 races - 15 wins ( MS 13 wins, 1 DNF - RB 2 wins, 1 DNF )

F2002 won 88.2% of the races it entered.

F2004 won 83.2% of the races it entered.