New F1 up to 10 seconds slower?

…that is, slower than GP2.

 

That would be crazy, no ?  Well, apparently that is what some in the F1 circles fear for next season.

 

An analysis by Enrique Scalabroni (http://www.omnicorse...econdi-nel-2014) shows how such outcome is actually possible.  Some of the things he mentions are indeed pretty sad.  Now, I have no idea who this guy is and how much his analysis is valid.  I am skeptical nonetheless because such results would be ridiculous at best.

 

Thoughts ?

 

 

PS:  and bravo on error in subject line !!!  can a moderator change that "lower" to "slower" please, I don't think I can edit that.

Edited by caccamolle, 28 November 2013 - 18:46.

Now, I have no idea who this guy is and how much his analysis is valid.

 

 

Better wait till the tests. If it's anything like Indycar's new open engine formula they'll be finding more horsepower every month. Hopefully it'll prompt teams to do some really interesting things with their ERS units.

 

Anyone who knows Italian want to do a little summary job?

Edited by Risil, 28 November 2013 - 18:45.

I would expect 4-5 seconds max. 

I think Betteridge's law of headlines applies here.

The new rules are fairly radical, so comparing it to GP2, or any other single seater series, is a bad idea. The fuel limit is going to be a big penalty for laptime.

I think Betteridge's law of headlines applies here.

 

It seems apt.

 

The time loss will be slowly made up over the succeeding years.

PS:  and bravo on error in subject line !!!  can a moderator change that "lower" to "slower" please, I don't think I can edit that.

No problem. As it's disputed, I stuck a question mark on the end of it too.

thx Sophie.

1. Scalabroni is an experienced engineer who has worked with F1 teams such as Ferrari and Williams, was technical chief for the failed mid-90s Ikuzawa F1 project, directed Asiatech and BCN Competición.

2. He recently published a couple of articles about new F1 rules in Spanish here: http://granpremioweb...e-del-resto.php, and here: http://www.granpremi...rar-en-2014.php. My Italian is too bad as to do a faithful translation of the Omnicorse article, so I summarize some of the points he made in the in-Spanish articles:

a.More pushing in acceleration due to more torque because of the new and more powerful energy recovering systems. This means more strain on the structure and compound of the rear tyres.

b.Increased radiating surface due to the increase of the thermical energy to dissipate by the engine+turbo+air entrance to the engine's 'plenum'+energy recovering systems+electronic control systems set--> this will require bigger side-pods.

c.Removal of downforce generating elements such as 'flow correctors', 'vortex generators', 'flux deflectors', 'lateral blowing from the exhausts and the consequent Coanda effect', 'inferior wings from the rear wing', 'reduction in the angle of incidence on the superior rear wing'-->Consequence: downforce reduction of 30% which means losing 10 seconds a lap. This diffrence will be reduced with work but it will take some years to return to the current lap times.

 

Sorry about the possible mistranslation of some technical terms, I'm not professional translator.

Edited by ezequiel, 28 November 2013 - 19:10.

It seems apt.

 

The time loss will be slowly made up over the succeeding years.

Yes of course, or regulations will need some adjustments.  It would really sux though.  I remember reading about some concerns just on fuel consumption with drivers forced to slow down significantly in order to make it to the end, well that was enough to make me sick !  This guy brings a number of other arguments to the table it gets scary.  I still hope he is simply wrong  I have to hope that !!!

Teams won't lose 6 seconds in the aerodynamic department next year. As Williams showed, non-exhaust blowing could still have been competitive even this year. Probably 1-2 seconds lost in Aero.

On the other hand, I expect the Pirelli tires to be at least a second quicker than this year. So all in all it would be about 4 seconds slower than the 2013 cars.

I don't care.

https://twitter.com/...534133326024705

It would be great if the cars were that much slower because than Sauber or Lotus can enter a GP2 car to save costs

... not sure how different next season is going to be in F1, but one of the key questions, is how much slower things are going to be, how close the back of the grid will be to the front runners .. and how easy overtaking will be!!

Hopefully this isn't true, because the 2013 cars are slow enough as it is.

Sorry, but I keep hearing this torque (ha ha) about how the 2014 power trains are going to put more stress through the tyres, and wonder if I'm missing something here -> Sure, they may develop more torque at the crank than the V8s, but at *SIGNIFICANTLY* lower revs, right? As a result there will be *SIGNIFICANTLY* less torque multiplication through the gearbox. Granted these engines will have more bottom end than the V8s, but the current gen cars were still grip limited in traction zones (thanks to the 7 speed seamless box), so I don't see what difference it makes at all.

Hopefully this isn't true, because the 2013 cars are slow enough as it is.

 

Exactly. I remember in Monaco this year someone posted certain gp2 race times and they were faster than certain f1 race times. And it shouldn't be like that. It's due to the full regulations and fragile tyres. I also think f1 cars are too long nowadays compared to the "old" cars. That is really the worst thing about F1; knowing drivers don't push 100 % and drives much slower than qualy. But I guess that is partly why we see so many overtakes these years and "improved" spectacle. But Austin wasn't much fun either so it's a delicate balance. There will always be complaints but in the end, the most intriguing and exiting F1 is a level playing field at the front (like first half of 2012).

 

Some day, I hope f1 cars will go faster than 2004-2005 levels. That would be epic.

F1 really doesn‘t have much more scope to get slower. We‘ve already had the embarassment of Monaco 2 years ago whem HRT set best times in Q1 that wouldn‘t have troubled the front row in the GP2 support race. It‘s not right. F1 is in danger of not exciting or capturing the imagination of young boys and girls, and its audience will become aged and disillusioned and eventually lose interest or die off. Or turn their attention to other categories where the racing is better.

Non-problem.  Unless they amalgamate F1 and GP2, they two series will never be on track together.

 

In the early 1970s, F5000 cars were as fast as F1.  In teh early 1960s, the 1.5 litre F1 was slower than the top sports cars of the day.  Not to mention slower than Indy cars most of the time.

 

So what?

F1 really doesn‘t have much more scope to get slower. We‘ve already had the embarassment of Monaco 2 years ago whem HRT set best times in Q1 that wouldn‘t have troubled the front row in the GP2 support race. It‘s not right. F1 is in danger of not exciting or capturing the imagination of young boys and girls, and its audience will become aged and disillusioned and eventually lose interest or die off. Or turn their attention to other categories where the racing is better.

Back in the day the F2 cars raced alongside, and beat, many of the F1 entries. F1 somehow survived.

Non-problem.  Unless they amalgamate F1 and GP2, they two series will never be on track together.

 

In the early 1970s, F5000 cars were as fast as F1.  In teh early 1960s, the 1.5 litre F1 was slower than the top sports cars of the day.  Not to mention slower than Indy cars most of the time.

 

So what?

 

Which is why they brought in larger engines, the cars were very underpowered.

lets wait and see.

 

I doubt F1 teams will allow GP2 cars to be faster then F1 next year.

 

It wouldn't make sense for 'pinnacle of racing' to be slower then second tier series. 

 

Its stupid already with race pace being 6-8 seconds slower from qualifying.

What would the slower lap times be a product of?

 

-Less grip

-Lower aero efficiency

-Less power

 

???

March, with Ivan Capelli, entered in 1987 one race (Brazil?) with a F3000 chassis because their F1 chassis wasn't ready yet.

Edited by William Hunt, 28 November 2013 - 22:47.

Hopefully this isn't true, because the 2013 cars are slow enough as it is.

In qualifying they are amongst the fastest in the history of F1...

It's okay as long as the racing is good.

What would the slower lap times be a product of?

 

-Less grip

-Lower aero efficiency

-Less power

 

???

 

https://twitter.com/...534133326024705

Back in the day the F2 cars raced alongside, and beat, many of the F1 entries. F1 somehow survived.

 

Quite common at the Nurburgring IIRC. I think in '67 Jackie Oliver came 5th overall in the GP in his F2 car, and that was against 3 litre F1 cars.

In qualifying they are amongst the fastest in the history of F1...

Grooved tyres

Maybe next season, but give it a year or 2 and they cars will be back up to speed. Anyway, the ultimate speed of the 2013 are some of the fastest F1 cars there have ever been. Comparing race lap times between F1 and GP2 is literally like comparing apples and oranges.

How severe will the fuel saving be next year? The purists are going to be even angrier if the drivers have to save fuel as well as tyres..

Edited by Spillage, 28 November 2013 - 23:44.

Sorry, but I keep hearing this torque (ha ha) about how the 2014 power trains are going to put more stress through the tyres, and wonder if I'm missing something here -> Sure, they may develop more torque at the crank than the V8s, but at *SIGNIFICANTLY* lower revs, right? As a result there will be *SIGNIFICANTLY* less torque multiplication through the gearbox. Granted these engines will have more bottom end than the V8s, but the current gen cars were still grip limited in traction zones (thanks to the 7 speed seamless box), so I don't see what difference it makes at all.

But we will have fixed gear ratios next year, and those will be tuned for the races with the long straights, so won't be that much of a problem (still, it will be a problem).

How severe will the fuel saving be next year? The purists are going to be even angrier if the drivers have to save fuel as well as tyres..

 

I'm sure many of them will conveniently forget fuel saving was a vital part of the refuelling era, not to mention running on vapours at the end of the race was a regular occurrence before that.  

I think Betteridge's law of headlines applies here.

Interesting.  There may be a law where forumers create topic statements disguised as questions, such as:

"Why does everyone hate driver X?"  When in fact the owner of the topic hates driver X -- and is inviting you to 'pile on'.

Personally, if I had to choose, I'd pick fuel saving over tyre saving. If you're saving fuel and still faster than someone and get stuck behind them for a couple of laps, your fuel isn't suddenly completely screwed!

I thought it's the weight issue that will lower speeds...

Along with, as Ross said, enforced fuel savings.

 

I can hear it now...'I'm going as slow as I can...slower than last year even"

Jp

How severe will the fuel saving be next year? The purists are going to be even angrier if the drivers have to save fuel as well as tyres..

Saving fuel is no problem. The problem is having a supplier, Pirelli, feel somehow entitled to interfere with the competitive order and dictate strategy.

I am hopeful because the new fuel demands might mean it will become harder for anyone to take the lead and controle the pace so easily. We might even see some teams put one driver to drive faster earlier simply to mess with a competitors pace/strategy.

Edited by Atreiu, 29 November 2013 - 00:41.

Fuel saving isn't so shabby, I assume they'll turn the engine down, and then lift and coast before the braking zone. They'll still then brake on that new limit, and be able to lean on the cars through the corner and exit which is all I'm after. Of course, the tyres need to be able to handle that, and being in dirty air for more than 7 seconds.

Driving with fuel saving in mind, still means they'll have to push the cars through the corners. 

Was the 2004 F1 cars faster or slower than this year's cars?

 

I recall how everyone was saying that the the drop to V8s, and aero limitations will really slow the cars down. But i think that's hardly the case. 

 

Having said so, i used to remember how the 130R and Eau Rouge was flat out pedal to the metal only for brave drivers. Today, every car does that.

Was the 2004 F1 cars faster or slower than this year's cars?

 

In 2004, the pole position around Monza was a 1:20.089 (with heavy tanks of fuel)

In 2013, the pole position around Monza was a 1:23.755 (empty tank of fuel)

 

In 2004, the pole lap around Hungary was a 1:19.146 (again, with heavy tanks of fuel)

In 2013, the pole lap around Hungary was a 1:19.388 (empty tanks of fuel)

 

The 2004 cars were 4-5 seconds a lap faster than modern cars around power circuits like Monza, and 1 second/lap faster than modern cars around twisty circuits like Hungaroring.

 

Which is why they brought in larger engines, the cars were very underpowered.

And, how courious, there were more fatalities and fiery accidents instantly and ever since for quite a while......

Henri

 

It's okay as long as the racing is good.

If we can get rid of DRS to enable cars passing another in only a designated zone at the track and see real racing again, with possibilities for drivers to avertake all over the track, it is more than fine with me.

Henri

How severe will the fuel saving be next year? The purists are going to be even angrier if the drivers have to save fuel as well as tyres..

 

Nowhere near as severe as people are making out. As soon as refuelling was ended in 2010 F1 became a fuel saving formula. The engine manufacturers now have a set fuel flow limit but that really is no different to underfilling the tanks as they do now.

I wouldn't be too optimistic.

 

There will be circuits where there is full usage of the available power, but there will be another circuits where we will see drivers trying to stay behind other cars in order to save fuel and to strike back in the final turns.

 

To me, this is not about F1.

F1 has to be the most difficult beast to drive, the fastes cars, and definitely not fuel saving formula. There are other formulae with this aim, but please not F1.

One thing which will massively impact lap time is minimum weight. The cars will be considerably heavier.

 

Add this to the lost aero downforce (smaller front wing, less air under the car due to lower nose -> less efficient diffusor, bigger side pods with worse flow to the rear wing, no beam wing, ....), and there is a recipe for quite considerâbly slower cars.

 

Btw, why can be stated that Pirelli will bring quicker tyres?

In 2004, the pole position around Monza was a 1:20.089 (with heavy tanks of fuel)

In 2013, the pole position around Monza was a 1:23.755 (empty tank of fuel)

 

In 2004, the pole lap around Hungary was a 1:19.146 (again, with heavy tanks of fuel)

In 2013, the pole lap around Hungary was a 1:19.388 (empty tanks of fuel)

 

The 2004 cars were 4-5 seconds a lap faster than modern cars around power circuits like Monza, and 1 second/lap faster than modern cars around twisty circuits like Hungaroring.

 

Thanks mate!

I wouldn't be too optimistic.

 

There will be circuits where there is full usage of the available power, but there will be another circuits where we will see drivers trying to stay behind other cars in order to save fuel and to strike back in the final turns.

 

To me, this is not about F1.

F1 has to be the most difficult beast to drive, the fastes cars, and definitely not fuel saving formula. There are other formulae with this aim, but please not F1.

 

Well the 'golden' era of the 1980's was just as much a fuel saving formula. I don't get the negativity of people towards a fuel limit and turbo engines when they spend half their time saying 'it was better in my day'...

 

Watch any race from 1985-88 and see drivers holding back to attack later, some drivers bolting early to build a lead, cars running out of fuel etc. etc. This is nothing new and frankly is something that most people seem to pine for.

 

To me, this is not about F1.
F1 has to be the most difficult beast to drive, the fastes cars, and definitely not fuel saving formula. There are other formulae with this aim, but please not F1.

Why that constant hammering on F1 needing to be the fastest cars?
The current cars are so fast that without DRS and a DRS zone you can hardly overtake anywhere on the track. Without pit stops and DRS the races turn out into a procession of cars that follow the leader. Is that racing? If I wanna see speed then I go to a drag strip or to indianapolis or other oval tracks.

As for the most difficult beast to drive. Don't you think drivers skills will be tested to quite an extend when they drive cars that have nowhere near the aerodynamic enhanced grip levels they are used to nowadays and more dependent on their buttocks to sense if a car looses control already instead of feeling confident that they can rely on near endless grip to keep them on the road?
Such cars are also difficult beasts to deal with, yet an entirely different animal then the highspeed things of today. And low downforce cars still permit high top speeds, even higher then a car loaded with wings, flaps, fins, diffusers etc just to generate downforce to increase corner speeds. So you still see what you're asking about: speed.
Unless you are taliokg about average lap speeds needing to be high and remaining high because it is F1?
In case of decent, real genuine racing with no artificial things to enable variety within what otherwise will become a procession, I don't mind if average lap speeds go up with 4 to 5 second. The teams will make up for that in time to come....




Henri 

Edited by Henri Greuter, 29 November 2013 - 08:29.