Jump to content


Photo

FIA scrap 2014 bodywork changes [split]


  • Please log in to reply
200 replies to this topic

#51 BetaVersion

BetaVersion
  • Member

  • 689 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 05 December 2012 - 23:30

My point is the significance of the change for teams. The originally proposed changes were massive and you could argue it was another chance to reset the field (like in 2009). But it now looks like the 2013 aero will carry over into 2014, with changes to accommodate and take advantage of the new 2014 gearbox-ERS-engine package.

Good news for all teams or more beneficial to some teams? At least there will be less of a strain on aero development resources next year.


yes. This made Lewis move to Mercedes even more regretfull

EDIT:

Yeah, frigging wide FW causing the majority of first corner incidents, making wheel-to-to wheel racing a rare specialty. And yes, it is just abnormally ugly.

Have a feeling that this here is the point and the date when Mecedes' chances for 2014 are starting to fade considerably. It sounds like Mateschitz has two teams, on the grid, and now they have the FIA in the pocket too. Brace yourselves for another three Vettel WDC's, the next few year's will be a walk in the park for Red Bull. They mihght even reward Mar Webber with an in-between WDC just for the fun of it. 630 mill, and more. Impressive, really.


we thought the same here. I also believe this is very bad particularly for Mercedes. The 2014 changes were where their bigger chances/hopes would be.

Edited by BetaVersion, 05 December 2012 - 23:36.


Advertisement

#52 BetaVersion

BetaVersion
  • Member

  • 689 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 05 December 2012 - 23:48

I'm still all in for six-wheelers and ground-effect without any wings.

+1

I want 1000hp engines, is it too much? :drunk:


These muppets should've never dropped the 990HP V10's of 2005

#53 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:46

V10's and 1,000 hp.

That's F1.

How can F1 be so full of "smart" people, but apparently doesn't have a clue when it comes to the entertainment side of things? 600 hp, small 6 cylinder motors, and they can't figure out how to get the aero/mechanical ratio sorted?

WTF?




#54 Kelateboy

Kelateboy
  • Member

  • 5,797 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 06 December 2012 - 02:08

No, fortunately, FIA confirmed the cars can have a "structurally irrelevant" cover for the step.

The cover is optional right for 2013?

#55 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,542 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 06 December 2012 - 03:23

I propose: Go back to the 1990-1992 regulations and have any combination of engines, (Ferrari V12 would return). Imagine a 1000 BHP V12 engine with Alonso driving it?

But, the money would be quite high, I guess.

Edited by George Costanza, 06 December 2012 - 03:24.


#56 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,542 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 06 December 2012 - 03:24

...or just allow more powerful engines! 600HP... wtf? we had more in late 90s/early 00s :/

Yes, 2000 Ferrari had, I believe, 730 to 770 HP depending on the race...

#57 ClubmanGT

ClubmanGT
  • Member

  • 1,279 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 06 December 2012 - 04:19

Formula One is perhaps the only series in which the cars look like cheap knock-off versions of themselves. It's quite a feat.

If these current rules were locked in when Ferrari were winning titles on the trot, people would be screaming bloody murder. But since it's Red Bull at the top during a now massively long period of rule stability, no one says a thing. Typical.

#58 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 18,443 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:59

:down:

I was really, really looking forward to a return to low noses and possibly beautiful cars.


I bet that, that non structural cover will be deemed dangerous as they'll tear off during accidents and we'll be back to stepped noses.

#59 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 18,443 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:01

+1

I wish they've sicked to the original idea of reintroducing (full) ground effects.


They were never going to allow full ground effect. Prob two limited sized venturi tunnels. But yes, this would have been a good idea.

Advertisement

#60 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,953 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:25

yes. This made Lewis move to Mercedes even more regretfull

Not necessarily.
As someone has already pointed out, many teams are now very close to the limit of what can be done with the 2012 spec aero rules. Some, like Mercedes, need to catch up a bit, but it's not a large gap they have to close (at least I don't believe the gap is that large). This means that the new engine's power, efficiency, and installation will be the big performance differentiatior, rather than a team interpreting radically different aero rules right. Given that Redbull are the strongest in aerodynamics, they would be the favourites to get new aero right anyway.

#61 BackmarkerUK

BackmarkerUK
  • Member

  • 346 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 06 December 2012 - 10:06

I keep reading 'FW' as 'Frank Williams' and am getting confused by complaints about his width.

#62 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,479 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 06 December 2012 - 10:48

I want 1000hp engines, is it too much? :drunk:

It seems road cars will be much more powerful than Formula 1 cars, what a shame.


There have been road cars more powerful than Formula One cars for years now. An F1 car will still beat then all around a circuit though.

#63 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 06 December 2012 - 11:30

They could have found mechanical laptime with a change to low-profile tyres. Trouble is the teams with the most influence are always the ones doing well under the status quo.

As long as it's a development competition, refining details to the Nth degree, the rich teams will always have the advantage. It's the so-called 'expensive' big changes that the midfield need, to give them a chance to out-talent the others.

#64 Don_Humpador

Don_Humpador
  • Member

  • 2,223 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:30

I wonder why Autosport don't have this on the site yet.

#65 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 1,658 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:39

Great... not.

I was putting high hopes in the change of aero rules to get some nice looking cars back. These rules were set a year ago for 2014 and now they just bin them.

Just in anyway, on F1Racing an article where Pirelli wants even faster wearing tires to get the beginning of the 2012 season back. Yay... one overtake offline and you can change tires. When you have tires with less grip and no hard cliff, you can dare an overtake. In conjunction with the SDS (Sitting Duck System - DRS) I hardly can be bothered to religiously follow the F1 circus anymore.

And to put insult to injury: F1 is moving to payTV (Canal+, Sport1) in the Netherlands, so I can watch races when I follow three different channels:
1. Veronica (Dutch) only the 3 'dinner' GP's in Canada, USA and Brazil. It should be without ad breaks because the Dutch law forbids commercial breaks in live sporting events. The Dutch RTL group is officialy seated in Luxembourg, so they circumvented this law.
2. BBC 10 GP's
3. RTL (German) 7-10 GP's in German with ad breaks.
I'm not shelling out additional cash to watch ugly cars, poor information for viewers (Live timing), nasty stewarding and fake rules 'for the show'.




#66 peroa

peroa
  • Member

  • 8,985 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:56

According to AMuS, the reason they scrapped the 2014 aero changes is because the cars would have become an average of 5 seconds per lap slower.

heh, if there was a proper tyre manufacturer in F1 he cars could be 5 sec quicker.

#67 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,654 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 06 December 2012 - 13:03

all those people (mostly Red fans) jumping in the idea that a major aero tweak will somehow reduce the dominance of RB must be trippin on something powerfull.

Mostly red fans? Nope, sorry. I see just as many, if not more, Mclaren fans saying something similar.

And dont think that aero tweak automatically equals Newey brilliance. He's not infallible by any means.

Edited by Seanspeed, 06 December 2012 - 13:04.


#68 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 06 December 2012 - 13:10

Yes, 2000 Ferrari had, I believe, 730 to 770 HP depending on the race...


Furthermore the cars were almost 100kg lighter than they will be in 2014 - the power to weight-ratio would drop below 1:1 without the ERS...pathetic.

#69 David1976

David1976
  • Member

  • 935 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 06 December 2012 - 13:28

I think this is a good move by the FIA. It will help with the development costs for teams and potentially tighten up the grid.

What is a concern is the lack of power output - although hopefully torque will make up for some of that...

Fingers crossed they have variable boost so that they can up it to 800bhp to facilitate overtaking at the expense of fuel saving. That would make teh end of races pretty exciting!

#70 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 1,658 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 06 December 2012 - 15:31

Newsflash: not a penny will be saved. It will just be spend on making the car 0,0001s faster.

#71 Boing Ball

Boing Ball
  • Member

  • 118 posts
  • Joined: July 00

Posted 06 December 2012 - 16:19

Fingers crossed they have variable boost so that they can up it to 800bhp to facilitate overtaking at the expense of fuel saving. That would make teh end of races pretty exciting!


You can stop crossing your fingers, because they won't. The engines have a fuel flow limit, not a boost limit.


#72 SealTheDiffuser

SealTheDiffuser
  • Member

  • 991 posts
  • Joined: June 12

Posted 06 December 2012 - 16:32

I propose: Go back to the 1990-1992 regulations and have any combination of engines, (Ferrari V12 would return). Imagine a 1000 BHP V12 engine with Alonso driving it?

But, the money would be quite high, I guess.


:rotfl:

#73 stanga

stanga
  • Member

  • 1,124 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 06 December 2012 - 16:40

I wonder why Autosport don't have this on the site yet.


Too busy writing non-news articles about something Hamilton said two weeks ago.

#74 stanga

stanga
  • Member

  • 1,124 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 06 December 2012 - 16:44

V10's and 1,000 hp.

That's F1.

How can F1 be so full of "smart" people, but apparently doesn't have a clue when it comes to the entertainment side of things? 600 hp, small 6 cylinder motors, and they can't figure out how to get the aero/mechanical ratio sorted?

WTF?


Road. Car. Relevance.

Seems to me that without that, F1 will not get the financial stability it so sorely craves. I'd love 1000 hp V10s or V12s for that matter, but Brawn pointed out in one of the press conferences why that can't be.

#75 DrProzac

DrProzac
  • Member

  • 1,922 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 06 December 2012 - 18:42

According to AMuS, the reason they scrapped the 2014 aero changes is because the cars would have become an average of 5 seconds per lap slower.

I was saying exactly the same thing since those changes (along with the engine regs) were proposed. That the cars will be as slow or slower than current GP2 cars. They will be slow anyway, given the big power loss.

I agree with Ferrari that we need less aero and more mechanical. To compensate for the 5 seconds per lap, they could have considered re-introducing active suspension.

I'm a big fan of the idea to reintroduce proper ground effects with reduction of wing dependent downforce (paired with engines capable of delivering V10 era power levels and relaxing a bit the reliability regulations so the drivers wouldn't need to nurse the cars too much).
But I must say that reducing aero while reintroducing active suspensions sounds like a interesting idea. This paired with downforce coming almost solely from ground effects could provide a very good formula. The only problem is that it would probably be too expensive.

In 2014, exhaust blown floors will not be possible or worthwile I think, so some downforce will be lost as a result.

AFAIK the EBD effect was more potent with turbo engines. But it will mostly be down to other regulations.

So, in 2014 the cars will have loads of downforce and LESS power than what we have now.

Ugly, on-rails cars that generate 0 excitement.

I very much would want them to have MORE power. But I think you have this a bit wrong - due to less power they will want to cut drag, so they'll probably race lower DF levels on most tracks. Though not necessary much lower and we can expect the power to downforce ratio to be lower (and much lower when (K)ERS will be inactive).

Yes it is. Removing these silly wide front wings would reduce the occurrence of punctures resulting from marginal racing incidents, e.g Perez and Ricciardo in India.

The wings also just happen to make the cars look like silly toys.

That's a good point, but I wouldn't lay a trip solely on the wide wings. And as far as looks are concerned, I got used to them and IMO they don't look that bad. It would be better if the rear wings were more proportional (like pre-2009).

5 seconds a lap slower? How the **** would a lower nose and different RW/FW make them five seconds a lap slower? Oh yeah, probaly partly due to these weak new engines.

I don't know it that estimate includes the engine power loss, but the noses are high for a reason. High noses allow the splitter and the diffuser to be feed with more air. The floor provides a big portion of car's downforce. That's the reason why lower noses began to be replaces by higher ones in the 90s. Lower noses are better aerodynamics-wise by themselves, but higher noses are better if you look at the whole package.
As for the FW, having it closer to the ground improves downforce. Wide wings allow the endplates and winglets to interact with the front wheels in a different way than before (probably more beneficial)
Maybe without the aero changes the cars will be "only" three seconds per lap slower?:)

@up: road car relevance is mostly a myth. Though it may affect funding..

Edited by DrProzac, 06 December 2012 - 18:43.


#76 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,881 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 06 December 2012 - 19:42

:(

#77 Dolph

Dolph
  • Member

  • 5,096 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 06 December 2012 - 21:18

So are we gonna have the lower noses in 2014 or not? Anybody got it?

#78 BetaVersion

BetaVersion
  • Member

  • 689 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 07 December 2012 - 01:14

Yes, 2000 Ferrari had, I believe, 730 to 770 HP depending on the race...

Furthermore the cars were almost 100kg lighter than they will be in 2014 - the power to weight-ratio would drop below 1:1 without the ERS...pathetic.


I read it had more than 800HP, actually. :well:

But the 2004-2005 engines had 900HP and now we'll be stuck with crappy 600HPs ):

So are we gonna have the lower noses in 2014 or not? Anybody got it?


I think you would do better to forget it because low noses won't be used with the current regulations.

When F1 had low nose and 900HP:
Posted Image

:love:



#79 Lemans

Lemans
  • Member

  • 1,419 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 07 December 2012 - 01:41

It really hit me this year how slow and lethargic the current generation of cars are especially at the beginning of a race with full tanks. Not to mention really ugly cars that in profile look the same length of a battleship, and engines that all sound identical and nowhere near as good as the v-10 and v-12 days and a serious lack of fire and brimstone.

F1 is kind of...shit.



Advertisement

#80 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,869 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 07 December 2012 - 03:30

I watched those eras, what we have now is far better.

#81 sheepgobba

sheepgobba
  • Member

  • 1,121 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 07 December 2012 - 06:49

This is pretty bad! I don't know how the FIA can not at least reintroduce or increase the horsepower...

Seriously the way F1 is going with all these environment bullshit is annoying. The teams and FIA should look at transport costs, emissions than 22 F1 cars and in my opinion F1 cars do not really pass on their technology to road cars. Teams like Ferrari, McLaren, Mercedes do not make cars that can be purchased by everyone, they make exotic and supercars so I don't see how these rules help companies like them. Also the noise with the new engines is a concern as well. Partly one of the main reasons I was bought into F1 was due to the noise and the menacing look of the cars. I know the environment is a big concern it should look at other areas of F1 and not the cars itself. Nonetheless, like i said the way F1 is going, especially with more pay-tv it's digging its own grave.

#82 Rentta

Rentta
  • Member

  • 295 posts
  • Joined: August 11

Posted 07 December 2012 - 10:43

the reason we had all these punctures can be attributed 80% to only a handful of drivers (grosjean/perez/maldonado i.e the GP2 bunch) and in some cases experienced drivers taking silly risks (i.e alonso-raikkonen suzuka)

the reason RW was reduced was to reduce the wake and front wing increased to give more DF to overtake ... or atleast that was the intention. i admit the endplates are causing more punctures than previous years, but it's not only due to the FW alone, brundle seemed to comment that the tire-walls have become thinner compared to early 2000's and causing more punctures with mere touch. i really have to problem if they shorten/widen FW or do without it cause when watching a race, i tend to concentrate on race, not the FW :smoking:


If i remember correctly they are going to make tire sidewalls stronger for next year so that should help a bit with punctures.

#83 D.M.N.

D.M.N.
  • RC Forum Host

  • 7,256 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:20

Andrew Benson's done a bit of digging: http://www.bbc.co.uk...rmula1/20640255

The choice of wording was perhaps a touch misleading, but it refers to ongoing attempts to ensure the new rules meet their original targets - which were to ensure the new cars in 2014 are no more than five seconds slower than they were in 2010 as well as being much more efficient.

But the key point is this - the main visual and philosophical changes that were planned for the cars in 2014 have been retained.



#84 Boing Ball

Boing Ball
  • Member

  • 118 posts
  • Joined: July 00

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:35

Andrew Benson's done a bit of digging: http://www.bbc.co.uk...rmula1/20640255


How much lower will the noses be? In 2012, F1 cars had a maximum front nose height of 550mm above the floor of the car. In 2014, that is being reduced to 185mm - a reduction in height of 365mm.
Likewise, although the wide front wings will stay, they will be reduced in overall width from 1800mm (the same as the maximum width of the car) to 1650mm.
This will almost certainly fundamentally alter the overall aerodynamics of the cars.


This is confusing. So, they are going to lower the noses and narrow the front wings? What plans they did scrap then?

#85 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,953 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:46

So the big changes are going ahead (apart from barge boards and turning vanes being retained).
Confusing wording in the WMSC statement.

What's still going ahead:
-Low front bulkhead
-No beam wing
-Exhausts have to exit further to the back near the car's center line (removing the possibility to blow the edges of the floor)
-Reduced width of the front wing
-Simplified frontwing endplates


Edited by Timstr11, 07 December 2012 - 11:53.


#86 Anderis

Anderis
  • Member

  • 2,671 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:58

Andrew Benson's done a bit of digging: http://www.bbc.co.uk...rmula1/20640255

Wow. I was visiting this thread regularly only because I was hoping to read something like this and it has actually happened!

#87 sailor

sailor
  • Member

  • 585 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 07 December 2012 - 12:00

Another lame attempt to stop Vettel from dominating F1.

Dont think it will succeed though

#88 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,479 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 07 December 2012 - 12:14

Narrower front wings sound like a very good idea. By moving it in from the edge of the front wheels, that should help stop the constant clashing of wheel and wing that result in endplates flying over the track and risking punctures. Good rule change.

#89 BillBald

BillBald
  • Member

  • 3,860 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 07 December 2012 - 16:41

It really hit me this year how slow and lethargic the current generation of cars are especially at the beginning of a race with full tanks. Not to mention really ugly cars that in profile look the same length of a battleship, and engines that all sound identical and nowhere near as good as the v-10 and v-12 days and a serious lack of fire and brimstone.

F1 is kind of...shit.


In that case, you should be happy about the fuel restriction which means they will carry less fuel...



#90 stanga

stanga
  • Member

  • 1,124 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 07 December 2012 - 16:55

Excellent news. The cars will at least look a bit more balanced without the stupidly big front wing.

#91 TifosiUSA

TifosiUSA
  • Member

  • 142 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 07 December 2012 - 17:27

Looks like the cars are going to be 7+ seconds a lap slower than cars a decade old. What a joke!

#92 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,869 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 07 December 2012 - 17:51

If the racing is better, I'm all for it. They're still the fastest cars in the world so the laptime itself is meaningless.

#93 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 9,856 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 07 December 2012 - 18:13

If the racing is better, I'm all for it. They're still the fastest cars in the world so the laptime itself is meaningless.


I'm not sure I'm that comfortable with slower laptimes, if it's a second or two fine no big deal, if it's several seconds they'd better phone Dallara and tell them to make a shittier GP2, and don't forget telling the IRL too.

I do know meeting and improving on the record 2004 times is lunacy, because of cost G-forces safety overtaking etc etc, but there's a sweet spot somewhere.

#94 TifosiUSA

TifosiUSA
  • Member

  • 142 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 07 December 2012 - 18:15

If the racing is better, I'm all for it. They're still the fastest cars in the world so the laptime itself is meaningless.

How to you figure.

Yep guys, looks like laptimes are meaningless now.

#95 DrProzac

DrProzac
  • Member

  • 1,922 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 07 December 2012 - 18:17

So they are aiming to make cars 5 seconds slower than now and they have problems to achieve this goal? This is ridiculous, F1 cars are already quite a lot slower then they were a few years ago.

This ecology BS will eventually hurt F1 badly.

I wonder what will they do to the lower series cars to lessen the embarrassment for F1. I can see GP2 cars suddenly loosing a lot of downforce and engine power :lol:

When F1 had low nose and 900HP:

And was 40 kg lighter..
I wonder how heavy the minimum weight will get in few years thanks to (K)ERS.

Edited by DrProzac, 07 December 2012 - 18:18.


#96 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,391 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 07 December 2012 - 18:20

I´d be happy if they went back to lower and wider rear wings to match the narrower front wing.

Cars without twisty bodywork, but with the old wings dimensions would be really cool.

#97 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,479 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 07 December 2012 - 19:15

How to you figure.

Yep guys, looks like laptimes are meaningless now.


As long as the cars are quicker than other racing series, the times themselves are meaningless. They've been slower than 2004 and frankly no one cares, the racing has been better.

#98 BetaVersion

BetaVersion
  • Member

  • 689 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 07 December 2012 - 20:35

I watched those eras, what we have now is far better.


is really better, for racing, because of the aero package(large FW and small RW and diffuser which leads to teams all going for high noses) or because crappy tires and DRS are masking it?

In the 2000's we had some low nose cars which were hard to overtake but low noses worked great in early 90's and overtaking was not as difficult as it was 10 years later.

Andrew Benson's done a bit of digging: http://www.bbc.co.uk...rmula1/20640255


thanks D.M.N :up:

Now I'm more reliefed :D

Some of these changes I don't like that much, though:

Likewise, although the wide front wings will stay, they will be reduced in overall width from 1800mm (the same as the maximum width of the car) to 1650mm.


Untill 98, the car's track was 2 meters, right? We had nice and wide cars that had more handling.

With such short track, I can see why times will drop as it will lose quite some performance in corners. But I guess this is good as it will balance the reduction in engine power

Edited by BetaVersion, 07 December 2012 - 20:46.


#99 BetaVersion

BetaVersion
  • Member

  • 689 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 07 December 2012 - 21:09

I'm not sure I'm that comfortable with slower laptimes, if it's a second or two fine no big deal, if it's several seconds they'd better phone Dallara and tell them to make a shittier GP2, and don't forget telling the IRL too.

I do know meeting and improving on the record 2004 times is lunacy, because of cost G-forces safety overtaking etc etc, but there's a sweet spot somewhere.


Not only that:

Shanghai

F1 2012 fastest race lap :
1 Kamui Kobayashi Sauber-Ferrari 1:39.960

WEC 2012 fastest race lap :
Alexander Wurz, Nicolas Lapierre, Toyota TS030 - Hybrid 1'48.815

9 seconds gap

--------------------------------------------
Bahrain
F1 2012 fastest race lap
1 Sebastian Vettel Red Bull Racing-Renault 1:36.379

WEC 2012 fastest race lap
Tom Kristensen, Allan McNish, Audi R18 e-tron quattro 1'47.140

11 seconds gap
---------------------------------------------
Interlagos
F1 2012 fastest race lap
1 Lewis Hamilton McLaren-Mercedes 1:18.069

WEC 2012 fastest race lap
Tom Kristensen, Allan McNish, Lucas Di Grassi Audi R18 ultra 1'23.070

5 seconds gap (ok, it was a bit wet in the end of the race when cars had low fuel on it)
----------------------------------------------
Silverstone
F1 2012 fastest race lap
1 Kimi Räikkönen Lotus-Renault 1:34.661

WEC 2012 fastest race lap
Alexander Wurz, Nicolas Lapierre, Kazuki Nakajima Toyota TS030 - Hybrid 1'44.059

10 seconds gap
-----------------------------------------------
Spa
F1 2012 fastest race lap
1 Bruno Senna Williams-Renault 1:52.822

WEC 2012 fastest race lap
Marcel Fässler, André Lotterer, Benoit Tréluyer Audi R18 e-tron quattro 2'01.851

9 seconds gap (WEC's race had lot's of moments in wet and track had no rubber in)


How much will ACO's 2014 rules impacton LMP1's pace? Will they get faster or slower?

If they somehow get about 3 s faster while F1s become 7s slower, then LMP1s will become faster than F1s


Advertisement

#100 BigCHrome

BigCHrome
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 08 December 2012 - 00:47

Cars won't be 7 sec slower unless they get rid of diffuser. These changes will decrease lap times by 3-4 sec at most, which will be regained in the next 2-3 years of development.