Theoretical comparison between F1, GP2, P1 and P2

As the poll suggest we are here (theoretically) discussing how the Formula 1, GP2, Le Mans Prototype 1 and Le Mans Prototype 2 machinery would finish in a joint multi class race at Spa-Franchorchamps, in various distances. The cars in question would be run by the top level teams in their own series (RBR in F1, Audi in P1 etc etc) and the drivers could be whoever, so what we are looking at here is purely the differences between the category ideologies.

If you think that the cars of category X would DNF and fall back (ie normally slower GP2 would finish ahead of F1 or whatever) choose the last option

Edited by SonnyViceR, 02 November 2013 - 10:35.

Think as the F1 cars are about 10-15 seconds faster than the P1's they would win at Spa no matter what the race length. The longer the race the closer they would get as they can go for longer stints on tyres etc. and this is what would put them ahead the GP2 car which is much closer in pace but is a sprint vehicle.

Think as the F1 cars are about 10-15 seconds faster than the P1's they would win at Spa no matter what the race length. The longer the race the closer they would get as they can go for longer stints on tyres etc. and this is what would put them ahead the GP2 car which is much closer in pace but is a sprint vehicle.

Yes but can the current F1 and GP2 engines (along other mechanics) last such a long time of non-stop racing? Also the crappy Pirelli F1 tires require infinitely more pitstops than the ultra durable P1 tires that can do triple and quattro stins.

Edited by SonnyViceR, 02 November 2013 - 10:40.

So for pure lap time comparison:

F1 - 2012 pole (dry qualifying) was 1.47.573 - Jenson Button (McLaren)

WEC - P1 Pole this year was 1.59.961 (#1 Audi R18 e-quattro)

P2 pole was 2.08.540 (Pecom Racing Oreca-Nissan)

GP2 pole this year (track had dried by that point) was 1.56.957 - Sam Bird (Russian Time)

I think the F1/GP2 cars would break after about 2 or 3 hours. F1 cars would also come in to stop two or three times every hour, Whereas the P1 and (I think) P2 cars can last like a couple of hours on one set.

Yes but can the current F1 and GP2 engines (along other mechanics) last such a long time of non-stop racing? Also the crappy Pirelli F1 tires require infinitely more pitstops than the ultra durable P1 tires that can do triple and quattro stins.

F1 engines are designed to last a few race distances (8 for the season across 18-20 races). Didn't think about the tyres too much but if Pirelli brought the harder compounds they would last about as long as a fuel stint for the P1's I reckon so pitstops would be quite evenly matched.

What would bring the P1's back into play as the race went on past 3+ hours is that the F1 cars would have to run a bit further off their usual race pace to keep the car in good nick.

Edited by DanardiF1, 02 November 2013 - 10:49.

I think the F1/GP2 cars would break after about 2 or 3 hours. F1 cars would also come in to stop two or three times every hour, Whereas the P1 and (I think) P2 cars can last like a couple of hours on one set.

P1 cars have to refuel though.

F1 engines are designed to last a few race distances (8 for the season across 18-20 races).

Maybe but they haven't been designed to last 4-6 hours in a row.

Of course, if it was LM we wouldn't even have this conversation.

Edited by SonnyViceR, 02 November 2013 - 11:02.

The F1 cars would have a free pit stop in 2 laps. Over a 20 lap stint on the mediums they'd be a lap ahead

P1 cars have to refuel though.

Fair Point. Pitstops in WEC are also longer than in F1.

Fair Point. Pitstops in WEC are also longer than in F1.

That's because they do fuel and tires separately, and waaaay less people are allowed to work on the car than in F1. If this format was the same for both categories in this theoretical race, the difference would be smaller

Edited by SonnyViceR, 02 November 2013 - 11:09.

Comparing LeMans with F1 is like comparing a submarine with a truck.

You can, but what's the point if they are made for different things?

Naturally the longer the race the more it plays into the hands of the P1 cars, but if it's possible to eke out the cars over that distance at even 75% of their pace, the F1 cars are just faster and could do it.

Now the Spa weather could make a massive difference, as if they timed it right the P1's could swap to the Michelin treadless inters (or 'slinters' as I like to call them) and run through a range of different weather phases. The F1 and GP2 guys would have to pick and choose their tyres based on the exact weather conditions which could delay their progress.

Comparing LeMans with F1 is like comparing a submarine with a truck.

You can, but what's the point if they are made for different things?

It's an interesting topic to consider, especially if the race was on the median length, not quite a full enduro, but longer than a Grand Prix... that's where things might start to crossover.

Now the Spa weather could make a massive difference, as if they timed it right the P1's could swap to the Michelin treadless inters (or 'slinters' as I like to call them) and run through a range of different weather phases. The F1 and GP2 guys would have to pick and choose their tyres based on the exact weather conditions which could delay their progress.

LMP1s also have traction control which one would think would be beneficial in wet conditions. The cars are also heavier to move around

Edited by SonnyViceR, 02 November 2013 - 12:00.

So with the Jason Statham voice on... 'it always rains at Spa', the P1's are looking more and more nailed on for that 2nd spot.

I know it'd be a pain to find out, but we could look back at the 6 hours and see how long roughly it took the Audi's to complete 45 laps, the Grand Prix distance. It wouldn't be accurate obviously as the GT grid and lapping others makes for more inconsistent lap times, but it might be worth looking.

Might have to consult some of the Mulsanne's Corner or Midweek Motorsport boffins on that one...

Might have to consult some of the Mulsanne's Corner or Midweek Motorsport boffins on that one...

Trussers could probably calculate that in minutes

I know it'd be a pain to find out, but we could look back at the 6 hours and see how long roughly it took the Audi's to complete 45 laps, the Grand Prix distance. It wouldn't be accurate obviously as the GT grid and lapping others makes for more inconsistent lap times, but it might be worth looking.

 

Might have to consult some of the Mulsanne's Corner or Midweek Motorsport boffins on that one...

Full timing data for the WEC races is freely available on http://fiawec.alkamelsystems.com/, I'm trying to do the calculations for that as we speak.

EDIT: The 2013 Spa race is not a good indicator if we use the first 45 laps of the WEC race, as there was a 5-lap Safety Car period during that period. The winning #1 Audi did the first 45 laps, including a SC period and two pitstops, in 1:42:01.560. Finding the fastest 45 laps for the car during the whole 6 hours is going to take a bit more time.

Okay if we just take the times as they are, Vettel won this year's Grand Prix in 1:23.42.196, so with the SC period included the WEC Audi's were 20 minutes slower over 45 laps. Looking at the SC period it seems like it added around 12 or so minutes to the absolute pace, so really we're looking at around 10 minutes difference between an F1 car over a GP distance and a P1 car.

How many laps of SC were there at Silverstone in the F1 race? First 52 SC-uninterrupted laps of the WEC race were done in 1:34:05.703, around 1m06sec slower than a 52-lap GP that had two SC interventions.

How many laps of SC were there at Silverstone in the F1 race? First 52 SC-uninterrupted laps of the WEC race were done in 1:34:05.703, around 1m06sec slower than a 52-lap GP that had two SC interventions.

12 of the 52 laps were behind the Safety Car.

http://www.fia.com/c...-prix-lap-chart

Edited by DanardiF1, 02 November 2013 - 13:14.

12 of the 52 laps were behind the Safety Car.

 

http://www.fia.com/c...-prix-lap-chart

So that would make the difference something around 15 minutes over an uninterrupted Silverstone F1 race distance.

So if we extrapolate that over 6 hours where the F1 cars can keep up that pace (not really that likely, but for the purpose of this idea), they would have an hour's worth of laps in hand over the P1's come the race end. Lots of time in hand then for extra tyre stops, slower stops to make extra checks/fill up with fuel etc. 

So that would make the difference something around 15 minutes over an uninterrupted Silverstone F1 race distance.

We can probably take 5-10 minutes off from that when we take the longer pitstops (by rule) and lap-by-lap GT / P2 traffic slowdowns into consideration.

Edited by SonnyViceR, 02 November 2013 - 14:32.

Agreed. So now we're looking at an estimated 5 or so minutes difference between the pair once we equalize the scenarios a bit.

Not bad for P1 cars weighing 250kg more and supposedly (Audi the dastards are very sneaky with reported horsepower figures, Baretzky is secretive about his babies) 150-200bhp or so less...

Edited by DanardiF1, 02 November 2013 - 14:23.

A Formula One car could pit every 2 laps, and still be ahead of the LMP1. Between those two, it's a no-brainer.

I'd say short distance, GP2 would beat out LMP1, long distance, LMP1 will beat GP2.

LMP2 won't have a chance either way.

A Formula One car could pit every 2 laps, and still be ahead of the LMP1.

This thread is all about assumptions (by its nature), but this gotta be the least accurate so far.

Edited by SonnyViceR, 02 November 2013 - 14:37.

Agreed. So now we're looking at an estimated 5 or so minutes difference between the pair once we equalize the scenarios a bit.

 

Not bad for P1 cars weighing 250kg more and supposedly (Audi the dastards are very sneaky with reported horsepower figures, Baretzky is secretive about his babies) 150-200bhp or so less...

Yes, it is quite interesting. Next year with the more complex regulations, even more so.

This thread is all about assumptions (by its nature), but this gotta be the least accurate so far.

So maybe 3 laps? Given the pole times, it wouldn't take many for them to build up the gap.

The sportscars only have a chance in the longer races, and only because they have long-life parts. Which the F1 car doesn't have access to.

Very interesting comparison, thanks for the hard work

I doubt F1 engines would last 4-6 hours without maintenance.  Although the engines last multiple events, the ancillaries won't

I doubt F1 engines would last 4-6 hours without maintenance.  Although the engines last multiple events, the ancillaries won't

And F1 cars aren't designed for on-the-fly serviceability either, so you can't change out failing or broken components on a F1 car as fast as you can on a LMP car.

If an F1 car designed for a race of 2 hours max lasts for 4-6 hours there is something wrong with it.

F1 cars would dominate in any lenght. IF they can make small adjustments and make the car last for 6 hour race. + have enough fresh tires.

At Spa they could pit every 5 laps and still win easily.

Though with the speed advantage the F1 car could cruise along and keep the parts happy.

For 1.5 hours - F1, GP2, P1, P2

For 4 hours - F1, GP2, P1, P2 (brakes would be at their limit in the F1 car)

For 6 hours - P1, P2, GP2, F1 (F1 couldn't last that long on engine and brakes)

is the delta between wec qualy and race pace less?

at le mans they gone faster in the race and qualy, f1 the gap is really big

is the delta between wec qualy and race pace less?

at le mans they gone faster in the race and qualy, f1 the gap is really big

This year at Silverstone:

The fastest F1 lap in the race was 4 seconds slower than the F1 pole time (1:33.401 vs 1:29.607).

The fastest LMP1 lap in the race was 0.5 seconds faster than the fastest LMP1 qualifying lap (not taking into account the actual time used to determine the grid positions, as that is an average of 4 laptimes) (1:42.767 vs 1:43.281).

If an F1 car designed for a race of 2 hours max lasts for 4-6 hours there is something wrong with it.

No there isn't. You said it yourself. It is designed for max 2h races, not 4-6h races. It's not a rally car, it's not a drag car and it's not an endurance car. 

For 1.5 hours - F1, GP2, P1, P2

For 4 hours - F1, GP2, P1, P2 (brakes would be at their limit in the F1 car)

For 6 hours - P1, P2, GP2, F1 (F1 couldn't last that long on engine and brakes)

Why wouldn't the engine last that long? The brakes, OTOH, almost certainly wouldn't last. How long does it take to change the brake discs and pads?

F1 cars easy... if they had to back off slightly and multi stop for tyres, with 6 to 10 secs per lap advantage, they gain a stop in 3 laps!

GP2 second

P1 3rd

P2 4th

The modern single seaters are quite reliable but if you had a 24 hour race and they had to use the car lights ti light up the road, it would be fun!

I've wondered if F1 could ever hold an exhibition 24 hour race. Get 2 or 3 young drivers in alongside the established driver for that car number and see how you go round an un-lit track

I know we wouldn't have GP2 or P2 cars to consider, but it might be an interesting exercise to reschedule this discussion back to the "old" Spa in 1970 or '71 

F1 cars are superior machines and F1 teams are a lot more professional and organized as well. 

F1 cars are superior machines and F1 teams are a lot more professional and organized as well. 

Than Audi? I doubt it. They are probably the best team in all of motorsport.

F1 cars are superior machines and F1 teams are a lot more professional and organized as well. 

The first argument is true in a sense that they're definitely faster as they're designed for ultimate speed and not endurance (technical aspects of the F1 cars are becoming wayyyy less sophicated and relevant than the LMP1s though) but the second has absolutely no backing behind it whatsoever! Yes the P1 teams have smaller budgets but that doesn't make them any less professional or organized. The F1 media has created such an image that everything below it is inferior by law, but that's not the case at all.

Edited by SonnyViceR, 03 November 2013 - 08:00.

The modern single seaters are quite reliable but if you had a 24 hour race and they had to use the car lights ti light up the road, it would be fun!

I've wondered if F1 could ever hold an exhibition 24 hour race. Get 2 or 3 young drivers in alongside the established driver for that car number and see how you go round an un-lit track

We can go back to a bit of history for that, cars like the Peugeot 905 and Toyota TS010 were thinly-disguised and detuned early-1990s F1-style cars (at least in terms of the powertrain). On modern tires, the 905 that won Le Mans in '92 and '93 is probably just as fast, if not faster than today's LMP1 cars, but getting an early-1990s F1 engine to go through a 24h race meant capping the revs at about 12k rpm.

As long as the F1 car can be made to run, I think it will win. I have no clue how long an F1 car could run for, but don't think >6 hours would be too much. Thats easily within 3 race weekends worth, if that car is kept cool I don't see why the car couldn't run continously for that long.

I think G2 v P1 would be a very interesting battle. I'd have to go with P1 over distance but it would be fascinating.

It'll be intriguing just to see how long an F1 car can continuously run. They are obviously not designed to go for longer than two hours, nor to have anything other than tyres or front wings changed mid-race, but the sheer speed advantage would build up a considerable distance. F1 cars will obviously have to run slower however to keep the machinery running, and refuelling will be a headache unless in this theoretical race we allow cars from the refuelling era.

Why wouldn't the engine last that long? The brakes, OTOH, almost certainly wouldn't last. How long does it take to change the brake discs and pads?

Well, the Mercedes guys gave us just an indication of that with Lewis' car on the starting grid today in Abu Dhabi