2226 replies to this topic

[juicy sushi]

True, it's impossible to make a direct comparison, but I think that the numbers do suggest that the difference between F1 and CART in that era was much smaller than many might believe.

[Ogami musashi]

Can-Am cars were faster than F1 cars, but F1 was still the pinnacle.

CAn-Am were not faster than F1 cars. Only one time at watkin glens donohue posted a qualifying lap that was about 6 tenths faster than the F1 (and we don't know the weather conditions) other than that F1 times were still at least 1 second faster. In addition, like during the GTP/Group C area, while one car in Can-am posted such a lap time, the second and third were already 2-3 seconds adrift while the F1 grid was within 1 second for the first 10 places.
And the FISA/FIA had no control on the Can-am pace; When it did have control things were different. When GTP cars (that by 92 did posted comparable qualifying laps to champ cars) and Group C cars( usually within 4 seconds of F1 qualifying laps) started to threaten F1, the FIA did everything to kill it.

More recently, all the changes done to GP2 cars and WSR 3.5L are made to be sure F1 is not threatened.

It does matter that F1 is the fastest series. This is how the FIA/FOM sells it. There's no point in a class ladder in having slower machines. Take champ car, nascar whatever you want when you are in a series format (GT, Prototypes, Stock car etc..) the top level series is the fastest and that's pretty normal since speed brings difficulty.

The 1997-1999 CART machines were probably faster than F1, but no one really cared then either. F1 is about the best talent in the world competing against each other. It's the depth of the talent pool that matters, not the ultimate lap time.

Same, they were not faster than F1 cars and again the FIA did not have control onto it...when it did started to have control on it (champ car/indy car from 2006 onwards) everything was done to preserve F1 as the fastest.


Now i agree racing is not necessarily better with speed; However driving (considering you're into a specifications set) is; The faster you go, the more difficult it is.

Personnaly i don't care about the races only, i also enjoy qualifying a lot (and actually...the current state of F1 makes me enjoy qualifying more than the races...) so speed is important. And even more considering the current state of suspension/Transmission technology.
The whole purpose of all those things is to free the driver from "maintenance" work so that he can concentrate on the track and being aggressive. If you remove speed from it but keep the same technology the challenge is decreased.

Last, F1 is a formula series. And formula car are racing cars built on the sole purpose of being the fastest, else you fall down into prototypes then GT cars.

Edited by Ogami musashi, 31 October 2012 - 16:13.

[juicy sushi]

CAn-Am were not faster than F1 cars. Only one time at watkin glens donohue posted a qualifying lap that was about 6 tenths faster than the F1 (and we don't know the weather conditions) other than that F1 times were still at least 1 second faster. In addition, like during the GTP/Group C area, while one car in Can-am posted such a lap time, the second and third were already 2-3 seconds adrift while the F1 grid was within 1 second for the first 10 places.
And the FISA/FIA had no control on the Can-am pace; When it did have control things were different. When GTP cars (that by 92 did posted comparable qualifying laps to champ cars) and Group C cars( usually within 4 seconds of F1 qualifying laps) started to threaten F1, the FIA did everything to kill it.

Ok, there are three different ideas here. One is the issue of whether it matters that one or more of a grid of cars other than F1 are faster than F1 for racing fans. The other is what a sanctioning body may feel about that. And finally, the idea that nothing is faster than F1.

I think that it matters for some fans, but not all. F1 is generally recognized as having the best drivers, teams and other talent, therefore it is the peak, regardless of the pace of the cars. For some that is enough, for others it isn't.

The FIA feels that F1 must be the peak of their series'. That is true, but the racing world is made up of more than the FIA. Therefore, I don't think that what the FIA feels matters a jot. They say all sorts of stuff to sell F1. It's relative speed to everything else is a part of that, but only a part.

In terms of the idea that something is faster than F1, yes, other cars have been faster. In your Can-Am example, here are the pole times for F1 and then Can-Am between 1969 and 1973 at Watkins Glen:

Year F1 Can-Am
1969: 1:03.62 (Rindt) 1:02.210 (McLaren)
1970: 1:03.07 (Ickx) 1:02.760 (Hulme)
1971: 1:42.642 (Stewart) 1:05.110 (Stewart) (short course)
1972: 1:41.644 (Stewart) 1:39.187 (Revson)
1973: 1:39.657 (Peterson) 1:38.848 (Donahue)

That does not seem like "1 time" to me.

The quality of the total grid is not important. The reality is that under the rules of the day, F1 cars were slower. They have not alway been the fastest. To claim otherwise is just rather silly.

Edited by juicy sushi, 31 October 2012 - 17:02.

[Ogami musashi]

Ok, there are three different ideas here. One is the issue of whether it matters that one or more of a grid of cars other than F1 are faster than F1 for racing fans. The other is what a sanctioning body may feel about that. And finally, the idea that nothing is faster than F1.

I think that it matters for some fans, but not all. F1 is generally recognized as having the best drivers, teams and other talent, therefore it is the peak, regardless of the pace of the cars. For some that is enough, for others it isn't.

The FIA feels that F1 must be the peak of their series'. That is true, but the racing world is made up of more than the FIA. Therefore, I don't think that what the FIA feels matters a jot. They say all sorts of stuff to sell F1. It's relative speed to everything else is a part of that, but only a part.

Of course it matters, the FIA writes the regulations and they are done according to a spirit. There's no point in comparing the skills of nascar drivers and F1 drivers but once you are into a given type of specs the pace does matter because the challenge of driving is set by the type of car and its pace.

In terms of the idea that something is faster than F1, yes, other cars have been faster. In your Can-Am example, here are the pole times for F1 and then Can-Am between 1969 and 1973 at Watkins Glen:

Year F1 Can-Am
1969: 1:03.62 (Rindt) 1:02.210 (McLaren)
1970: 1:03.07 (Ickx) 1:02.760 (Hulme)
1971: 1:42.642 (Stewart) 1:05.110 (Stewart) (short course)
1972: 1:41.644 (Stewart) 1:39.187 (Revson)
1973: 1:39.657 (Peterson) 1:38.848 (Donahue)

That does not seem like "1 time" to me.

Yet at mosport F1 cars were faster, and from 73 on they were faster everywhere. so YES cars have been faster than F1 cars...for what? 1 course over 4 years out of 60 years of existence?

It is a minimal part of F1 history were the cars were 99,9% at least a second faster than everything else and most of time the closest cars were 5-6 seconds slower.

The quality of the total grid is not important. The reality is that under the rules of the day, F1 cars were slower. They have not alway been the fastest. To claim otherwise is just rather silly.

Of course it matters! when you have ONE car being faster (and again, faster at one course for 4 years, slower at mosport during the same years, then slower for the rest of the history of the championship..) it certainly not represent the average pace of a series.

It is just like saying a humans run 100 meters in less than 10 seconds.

But this is small details, the thing to remember is that you had this situation for 4 years, in a championship not controlled by the FIA, that is not under the hierarchy of the FIA nor any unified ladder; And you don't have to go that far to see that speed is important in F1. Look at lmp regs..the ACO explicitely do everything possible to keep the cars above the 3:30 laps at Le mans.. There's no such thing in F1, technical regulations only aim at safety with no pace target.

Edited by Ogami musashi, 31 October 2012 - 17:36.

[juicy sushi]

I don't care that it is not under the FIA ladder. As I said, the FIA is not the sole authority, nor is it the only choice in the marketplace for fans. And it was not just Can-Am, as I said, CART was on par or thereabouts with F1 in the late 1990s. My point is that we did not see a massive migration of fans away from F1 because of this. F1 has appeal beyond just the title of being "the fastest."

I feel that "perceived speed" and "actual speed" may be different, but more particularly, that lap times and entertainment value are not linked. I don't find F1 more entertaining now than the mid-1980s. The cars are faster, but it's not more fun. I think it is possible to create rules that would be more fun, while keeping the cars at about this pace. I find it rather silly to pine for a specific lap time because "it was faster then," even though the actual racing was stunningly dull due to the incompetent technical rules.

[Ogami musashi]

I don't care that it is not under the FIA ladder. As I said, the FIA is not the sole authority, nor is it the only choice in the marketplace for fans. And it was not just Can-Am, as I said, CART was on par or thereabouts with F1 in the late 1990s. My point is that we did not see a massive migration of fans away from F1 because of this. F1 has appeal beyond just the title of being "the fastest."

I feel that "perceived speed" and "actual speed" may be different, but more particularly, that lap times and entertainment value are not linked. I don't find F1 more entertaining now than the mid-1980s. The cars are faster, but it's not more fun. I think it is possible to create rules that would be more fun, while keeping the cars at about this pace. I find it rather silly to pine for a specific lap time because "it was faster then," even though the actual racing was stunningly dull due to the incompetent technical rules.

A racing series is created according to a spirit, that's why you have different type of cars. This is how the series is "sold" to you. Nobody think of F1 as "best races"....it has always been a technological competition to the point it even started as a manufacturer championship before incorporating a drivers championship.

And yes when some series went close to F1 speed there were movements. GTP/Group C and CART started to be more and more popular especially when mansell went on to CART. had mansell go to Touring car the impact wouldn't have been the same. And those movement were sufficiently important so that FIA killed Group C and tried to lure back people towards F1.
And when in 2006 champ car started being popular worldwide they just killed it by preventing them to run on some tracks, forcing them to change date "because it collapsed with FIA events" etc... Nowadays any formula car that is created runs through FIA safety standards...and the FIA has made it so that if you built an F1 like car, you have to homologate it to F1 safety standard...which basically means you'd better run a real F1 in the F1 WC..


Now if you don't see it that way that's fine...this is your vision, but i have enough arguments to think i am as legitimate as you to feel F1 is designed for being the fastest and that this is an important part.

[dau]

[...]
More recently, all the changes done to GP2 cars and WSR 3.5L are made to be sure F1 is not threatened.[...]

What changes do you mean exactly? WSbR 3.5 went from 480bhp V6s to 530bhp V8s, cut the weight by 15kgs and added DRS. The T12 is several seconds faster than its predecessor. The GP2/11 is a bit slower compared to the 08, but the only major change has been the switch from Bridgestone to F1-spec Pirelli tyres.

Last, F1 is a formula series. And formula car are racing cars built on the sole purpose of being the fastest, else you fall down into prototypes then GT cars.

Formula car basically only means open-wheeled single seater cars built to a formula set down by a regulating body. Most of them aren't really that fast.

Btw, if i remember that correctly, F1 was also not particularly fast in the mid-60s. Ickx qualified an F2 car fifth fastest in the 1966 German Grand Prix. Sports cars were also really close - the fastest lap time in the 1967 1000km race was just 5% slower than that of the F1 race in the same year. So, saying that F1 was by far the fastest series "99,9%" of its history is certainly a bold claim.

[Ogami musashi]

What changes do you mean exactly? WSbR 3.5 went from 480bhp V6s to 530bhp V8s, cut the weight by 15kgs and added DRS. The T12 is several seconds faster than its predecessor. The GP2/11 is a bit slower compared to the 08, but the only major change has been the switch from Bridgestone to F1-spec Pirelli tyres.

You forget about the aerodynamics. They changed both venturi channels rear and front wings. According to bossgp drivers who use GP2 cars, the highest downforce producing cars were the 07-08 ones. As for WSR 3.5, yes the power went up but aerodynamics (again) are kept in check so that the cars have not too much downforce and sufficiently high drag.

Formula car basically only means open-wheeled single seater cars built to a formula set down by a regulating body. Most of them aren't really that fast.

The open wheel, single seater is designed to be the most efficient car on a track by:
1/keeping weight down (single seat, no bodywork around wheels and suspensions)
2/Having better Weight distribution (Longitudinal repartition, low CG)
3/Better stability (due to rear and front wing overhang)
4/better cooling and flow conditionning

The only big drawback is drag.

Now of course if you take a formula ford....but if you compare it to a car with about the same power/weight ratio (taking into account the drag), single seater are most of the time faster.

Btw, if i remember that correctly, F1 was also not particularly fast in the mid-60s. Ickx qualified an F2 car fifth fastest in the 1966 German Grand Prix. Sports cars were also really close - the fastest lap time in the 1967 1000km race was just 5% slower than that of the F1 race in the same year. So, saying that F1 was by far the fastest series "99,9%" of its history is certainly a bold claim.

Again..you are talking about the same period (mid sixties) which is very short and where F1 cars were still the fastest to rare exceptions; Formula one spans from 1950 to now, that's more than 60 years of existence! I don't see where my claim is bold...For the vast majority of its history, F1 has been the fastest series. And now i didn't say that F1 was "by far" the fastest series 99,9% of its history, i said 99,9% of its history it was the fastest with at least one second and that most of that time it was with a large margin. Ok ok...It is not 99,9% maybe...and maybe sometimes it was less than Second...yeah..if you want nitpick let's do some rapid calculations and then we can settle that. Then from ground effects to today, 78-2012 that's 34 years of absolute dominance in term of pace which lefts 28 years of not as fast which means more than half of its existence F1 was the fastest. I think that makes the argument "most of the time" valid ...then.

There's no point, nor i have time, to take each race qualifying time, but i'm pretty sure that when you sum this up we end far higher than 55%...
(note that if you find it risible that we are down to % calculations...it is not my initiative...)

[saudoso]

And when in 2006 champ car started being popular worldwide they just killed it by preventing them to run on some tracks, forcing them to change date "because it collapsed with FIA events" etc... Nowadays any formula car that is created runs through FIA safety standards...and the FIA has made it so that if you built an F1 like car, you have to homologate it to F1 safety standard...which basically means you'd better run a real F1 in the F1 WC..

Woa... CART was very popular running races around the world way before 2006, who killed them was TG himself, pulling the Speedway out and creating xenophobe series back in the 90's. By 2003 CART was bankrupt already.

FIA & Bernie just got lucky the Americans couldn't handle their success back then.

Edited by saudoso, 31 October 2012 - 19:57.

[dau]

You forget about the aerodynamics. They changed both venturi channels rear and front wings. According to bossgp drivers who use GP2 cars, the highest downforce producing cars were the 07-08 ones. As for WSR 3.5, yes the power went up but aerodynamics (again) are kept in check so that the cars have not too much downforce and sufficiently high drag.

But in the end, the T12 is still faster. About 2s at Barcelona. If anything, they got closer to F1. You're right about the GP2/11 aero though, i forgot about the venturis. But GP2 is Bernie's racing series after all, it obviously makes sense for him to protect F1. But i don't think FIA cares that much about that.

Of course formula cars are just designed for racing. But this doesn't mean a formula car has to be the fastest overall just because it's a formula car. Anyway, it's not like sports cars or prototypes or whatever are even threatening F1, even with 2014 engine regulations, right? And also i'm not saying that F1 was slower than other series for a considerable part of its history - of course it was the fastest most of the time. But some people are saying it ALWAYS has to be the absolute fastest or it wouldn't be F1 and that's what i object to. Not because i don't want to see F1 as the fastest, but because i think there are more important things than just that.

[juicy sushi]

Again..you are talking about the same period (mid sixties) which is very short and where F1 cars were still the fastest to rare exceptions; Formula one spans from 1950 to now, that's more than 60 years of existence! I don't see where my claim is bold...For the vast majority of its history, F1 has been the fastest series. And now i didn't say that F1 was "by far" the fastest series 99,9% of its history, i said 99,9% of its history it was the fastest with at least one second and that most of that time it was with a large margin. Ok ok...It is not 99,9% maybe...and maybe sometimes it was less than Second...yeah..if you want nitpick let's do some rapid calculations and then we can settle that. Then from ground effects to today, 78-2012 that's 34 years of absolute dominance in term of pace which lefts 28 years of not as fast which means more than half of its existence F1 was the fastest. I think that makes the argument "most of the time" valid ...then.

There's no point, nor i have time, to take each race qualifying time, but i'm pretty sure that when you sum this up we end far higher than 55%...
(note that if you find it risible that we are down to % calculations...it is not my initiative...)

I find it risable that you make the claim without any actual data, and then get offended at counter arguments. F1 was factually slower than IndyCars in the late 1950s and probably the entire period until 1966 at the earliest (the return of the 3.0 litre formula) as shown by the Race of Two Worlds at Monza, no faster than Can-Am in the late 1960s and early 1970s, slower than IndyCars in the mid to late 1970s (see the 1978 Daily Empress Indy Silverstone vs. the 1978 BRDC International Trophy) and no faster (possibly slower) than CART in the late 1990s. Those are pretty substantial periods of time.

You feel that the speed of F1 relative to everything else is important. That's fine. Claiming that it always was faster than everything else is a different matter.

[Rubens Hakkamacher]

They are major parts of what attracts an audience.

Who watches F1 because of the teams and manufacturers, and NOT because they use FAST CARS???

/ you guys are trolling me, aren't you?

[Rubens Hakkamacher]

What's the difference between a 2.4 litre V8 and a 3.4 or 4.0 litre V8 (as used in sports cars and the DTM)?

That's not on the table. The difference is between once having V10's with twice the displacement and revs of what is proposed for 2014.

Why not just run karts?

The current engines aren't really special either.

I agree, not as special as the V10s. That's my point: we are regressing.

[Rubens Hakkamacher]

The 1997-1999 CART machines were probably faster than F1, but no one really cared then either. F1 is about the best talent in the world competing against each other.

I think it was shown they weren't as fast, but the point still remains that they were technologically apples and oranges - F1 engines at the time were all about maximizing a more open engine reg, not some quasi-green initiative and "road car relevance".

F1 isn't about the best talent anymore, is it? That's my point: it's losing it's lustre all the way around. For F1 to be "F1" it has to meet a basic philosophical criteria - that nothing else compares, and that it's progressive. Otherwise it's just another series one way or another.

It's the gestalt of Formula One, not tid bits taken out of context. It's also pretty self-evident philosophically IMO.

[Rubens Hakkamacher]

It does matter that F1 is the fastest series. This is how the FIA/FOM sells it. There's no point in a class ladder in having slower machines.

Is this not self-evident???

"Watch Formula 1 - the Once Pinnacle of Motorsport Racing!" WTF?


/ I don't understand why this is even a debate on this message board? F1 shouldn't have the fastest cars? Shouldn't be loud, lots of hp and technology???

[Zippel]

Who watches F1 because of the teams and manufacturers, and NOT because they use FAST CARS???

/ you guys are trolling me, aren't you?

Racing cars going fast is a given but that doesn't necessary mean the cars require blackout inducing G-forces to be considered pinnacle.

[Ogami musashi]

I find it risable that you make the claim without any actual data, and then get offended at counter arguments. F1 was factually slower than IndyCars in the late 1950s and probably the entire period until 1966 at the earliest (the return of the 3.0 litre formula) as shown by the Race of Two Worlds at Monza, no faster than Can-Am in the late 1960s and early 1970s, slower than IndyCars in the mid to late 1970s (see the 1978 Daily Empress Indy Silverstone vs. the 1978 BRDC International Trophy) and no faster (possibly slower) than CART in the late 1990s. Those are pretty substantial periods of time.

You feel that the speed of F1 relative to everything else is important. That's fine. Claiming that it always was faster than everything else is a different matter.

1/I'm not offended. I think debatting on the "99,9%" is not relevant to the discussion; My point is that F1 has been the fastest category for most of its history and so far that holds true.
2/Your facts are not solid neither:
IndyCars: I only see a silverstone GP in 77 and 79..both in which the pole were 1:18:49 and 1:11:88 vs 1:22 for the indy pole....
Can-am: Already debatted...You have only a small bunch of races were it was true.
Race of two worlds: It was held on the oval at monza...F1 teams did not have specialized cars to run on ovals (only a few bunch did enter with the cars) so that really doesn't hold true...and is therefore absolutely not a fact about the whole championship..you're comparing apples and oranges.
Cart: you don't have any tracks in common with F1 cars of the time! And when it happened in 2002 the pole time in F1 was 1:12...while it was 1:18 in CART...

So my facts are maybe not accurate but at least the general idea that F1 was the fastest most of the time holds true...which is not the case of your arguments except the Can-am watkins glen race..(4 races in all).


So again, i think this is pretty obvious F1 was intented to be as fast as possible and it did so most of the time. The FIA is clear about it and as pointed out, what makes you watch F1 if not the speed?? there're plenty of other series out there with talent and F1 is not the only World Championship.

P.S:I never claimed it was "always" faster...the "99,9%" is of course not a calculated value but an image to say it was mainly the fastest series with some rare exceptions. please do not distort what i said.

Edited by Ogami musashi, 31 October 2012 - 23:17.

[juicy sushi]

1/I'm not offended. I think debatting on the "99,9%" is not relevant to the discussion; My point is that F1 has been the fastest category for most of its history and so far that holds true.
2/Your facts are not solid neither:
IndyCars: I only see a silverstone GP in 77 and 79..both in which the pole were 1:18:49 and 1:11:88 vs 1:22 for the indy pole....

I didn't cite the British GP, I cited the BRDC International Trophy event, which was a non-championship event whose pole sitter was a certain Ronnie Peterson in a Lotus 78. The Indycars of the same era were as fast. They had significantly more power and were using ground effects as well in 1979, the difference is that until the emergence of CART in the early 1980s they didn't run road courses, so direct comparisons outside the example I mentioned were not possible. But, up until the turbo era really go going in earnest, I don't think F1 had a speed advantage over the Indycars of the same era, as their weight was negated by the comparative lack of power.

Can-am: Already debatted...You have only a small bunch of races were it was true.

You have an even smaller sample where it wasn't. It is clear that F1 was not quicker.

Race of two worlds: It was held on the oval at monza...F1 teams did not have specialized cars to run on ovals (only a few bunch did enter with the cars) so that really doesn't hold true...and is therefore absolutely not a fact about the whole championship..you're comparing apples and oranges.

I disagree. It was an open race that the F1 cars lost badly. Also, given the nature of the circuits of the era, which featured extremely fast, flowing circuits (ie the old Spa layout), I think it would hold true on others as well. Indycars had more power and equal grip. From the start of the F1 championship until 1966 I don't think that factually changed as F1 didn't get much quicker (the switch to the 1.5 litre cars saw to that), while Indycar didn't slow things down at all.

Cart: you don't have any tracks in common with F1 cars of the time! And when it happened in 2002 the pole time in F1 was 1:12...while it was 1:18 in CART...

I know, but my point is that the suggestion that F1 cars were subtantially quicker in the late 1990s is false. The only time comparisons could be made CART had slowed the cars down considerably from where they had been, and F1 had done the opposite.

So my facts are maybe not accurate but at least the general idea that F1 was the fastest most of the time holds true...which is not the case of your arguments except the Can-am watkins glen race..(4 races in all).

So again, i think this is pretty obvious F1 was intented to be as fast as possible and it did so most of the time. The FIA is clear about it and as pointed out, what makes you watch F1 if not the speed?? there're plenty of other series out there with talent and F1 is not the only World Championship.

P.S:I never claimed it was "always" faster...the "99,9%" is of course not a calculated value but an image to say it was mainly the fastest series with some rare exceptions. please do not distort what i said.

I am not distorting what you said, I am saying that it was factually incorrect to state it as exceptions are not rare. In the recent past it may be true, but over the history of F1, it has not been the case. The FIA may have made sure F1 was the top of its tree, but the FIA is not the only sanctioning body out there. I watch F1 because it represents the peak in terms of driving and engineering talent. Other series have a lot of talent as well, but the F1 talent pools are deeper in all respects, and the resources committed to it are greater. It currently is also the fastest, but that could change fairly easily.

Going back to the point of this thread, I don't find that the mid-200s rules were very good, and I don't understand the desire to have them back. The cars were faster, yes, but deathly dull to watch. I want an F1 that features creative thinking and hard-to-drive cars. Traction control, massive downforce and bespoke tires beyond the ability of the cars to use the total amount of grip don't provide that. I feel that the cars should always have significantly more power than the amount of grip on offer, and they should make it very hard for drivers. I want to be entertained, and do not find that the mid-2000s provided very much in the way of entertainment, especially in comparison with the old turbo-era, which featured cars with much more power than grip.

[Ogami musashi]

I didn't cite the British GP, I cited the BRDC International Trophy event, which was a non-championship event whose pole sitter was a certain Ronnie Peterson in a Lotus 78. The Indycars of the same era were as fast. They had significantly more power and were using ground effects as well in 1979, the difference is that until the emergence of CART in the early 1980s they didn't run road courses, so direct comparisons outside the example I mentioned were not possible. But, up until the turbo era really go going in earnest, I don't think F1 had a speed advantage over the Indycars of the same era, as their weight was negated by the comparative lack of power.

So how come the pole at the BRDC by peterson was set in 1:16.....against the 1:22 of indycar....This not "as fast". This is "significantly slower".

You have an even smaller sample where it wasn't. It is clear that F1 was not quicker.

You are kidding??? Out of 9 years of similar races held only 5 times did ONE can-am car had less than a second advantage..

I disagree. It was an open race that the F1 cars lost badly. Also, given the nature of the circuits of the era, which featured extremely fast, flowing circuits (ie the old Spa layout), I think it would hold true on others as well. Indycars had more power and equal grip. From the start of the F1 championship until 1966 I don't think that factually changed as F1 didn't get much quicker (the switch to the 1.5 litre cars saw to that), while Indycar didn't slow things down at all.

Man...

The power/weight ratio was the same for both... yet F1 cars weighted about 200kg less, the indy cars had 2 speed gear box...weight distribution for ovals how can you believe those cars would have been a match for F1 cars on road tracks ????

I know, but my point is that the suggestion that F1 cars were subtantially quicker in the late 1990s is false. The only time comparisons could be made CART had slowed the cars down considerably from where they had been, and F1 had done the opposite.

Your point is wrong. First champ cars were not substantly slowed down on road courses between 1995 and 2002 (the year of the first montreal race). There're even a some courses were there were faster in 2002 and thus F1 were significantly quicker...period.

I am not distorting what you said, I am saying that it was factually incorrect to state it as exceptions are not rare.

Let sum it up: The only case you've found:

5 races out of 38 watkins glen+mosport were one can am car was around 1 second faster than F1 car. The rest being slower.
Indycar: wrong
Cart: wrong

So you're left with 5 races over 5 years were some cars were indeed faster and this out of 62 years of existence of F1. That makes it "exceptions" i think.

In the recent past it may be true, but over the history of F1, it has not been the case.

Yes it did to some rare exceptions and thanks to you we could make it clear.

The FIA may have made sure F1 was the top of its tree, but the FIA is not the only sanctioning body out there. I watch F1 because it represents the peak in terms of driving and engineering talent. Other series have a lot of talent as well, but the F1 talent pools are deeper in all respects, and the resources committed to it are greater. It currently is also the fastest, but that could change fairly easily.

You're free to like it the way you want.

Going back to the point of this thread, I don't find that the mid-200s rules were very good, and I don't understand the desire to have them back. The cars were faster, yes, but deathly dull to watch. I want an F1 that features creative thinking and hard-to-drive cars.

Did you ever drive a modern fast racing car?

Traction control, massive downforce and bespoke tires beyond the ability of the cars to use the total amount of grip don't provide that. I feel that the cars should always have significantly more power than the amount of grip on offer, and they should make it very hard for drivers. I want to be entertained, and do not find that the mid-2000s provided very much in the way of entertainment, especially in comparison with the old turbo-era, which featured cars with much more power than grip.

Excuse me but that argument seems to come from someone who doesn't know too much about what is a modern race car...

Edited by Ogami musashi, 01 November 2012 - 15:09.

[Rubens Hakkamacher]

Racing cars going fast is a given but that doesn't necessary mean the cars require blackout inducing G-forces to be considered pinnacle.

Nobody is saying that. What I am saying is that it should maintain a certain distance from "average" - which would be road car/GT performance. Pro Stock acceleration, 5g braking and turning is not "black out inducing", but that's what I expect - and they should deliver for what it costs them, and their audience.

ALMS/WEC is a "nice compromise", save the engine sounds are going away. It's very nice as an F1 surrogate. But when F1 becomes watered down to the point where an LMP is in the ball park of an F1 car, and you've got Allan McNish, Tom Kristenson and Anthony Davidson driving - it kind of makes the cost of F1 look sort of dumb and pointless.

1000 hp, loud exotic V10s, big tires/traction. If IRL or LMPs creep up to that spec, so be it - F1 is in trouble. But conversely, if F1 continues to slide down to that level performance wise - it loses it's elan.
F1 is trying to morph into hyper-expensive LMPs. There is no point to that.

[juicy sushi]

That's not on the table. The difference is between once having V10's with twice the displacement and revs of what is proposed for 2014.

Why not just run karts?



I agree, not as special as the V10s. That's my point: we are regressing.

I prefer 1.5 litre turbos and find them to be more technically interesting than 3 litre V10s. The turbo-compounding will also be very intriguing and I am interested in seeing just how well it works.

[juicy sushi]

So how come the pole at the BRDC by peterson was set in 1:16.....against the 1:22 of indycar....This not "as fast". This is "significantly slower".





You are kidding??? Out of 9 years of similar races held only 5 times did ONE can-am car had less than a second advantage..

One car on what do you base that? The pole time was substantially faster than the pole time of an F1 car on the same track. You provide no data to back up the gap to second, either for F1 or for Can-Am. That's an assertion, not a fact.
Looking at the respective starting grids, I think that the claim that only one car had an advantage is rather silly:

http://www.racingspo...969-06-13c.html
http://www.chicanef1...9...1&type=qual

Can-Am cars, run professionally were as quick as professionally run F1 cars of the same period (the bottom end of the grid was worse, but I think McLaren, Ferrari and Penske were all pretty professional Can-Am teams, don't you?). There is only a limited amount of comparison that can be done, as both series only shared two tracks. Mosport and Watkins Glen. However, I think the comparisons show that F1 was not faster. Equal, I could agree with.

The power/weight ratio was the same for both... yet F1 cars weighted about 200kg less, the indy cars had 2 speed gear box...weight distribution for ovals how can you believe those cars would have been a match for F1 cars on road tracks ????

Well, it's not that hard to remove the off-set used for ovals, and on a fast circuit I think the power would have over come the 2 speed gear box's limitations. Given that Ferrari and Maserati both showed up with cars with engines much more powerful than their F1 versions, I think that is rather instructive about how well a contemporary F1 car would have kept pace.

Your point is wrong. First champ cars were not substantly slowed down on road courses between 1995 and 2002 (the year of the first montreal race). There're even a some courses were there were faster in 2002 and thus F1 were significantly quicker...period.

Boost and tunnel sizes were both reduced between 2000 and 2002. The cars were slower.

Excuse me but that argument seems to come from someone who doesn't know too much about what is a modern race car...

I could say the same about yours. The reality is that we will just have to agree to disagree.

[Ogami musashi]

One car on what do you base that? The pole time was substantially faster than the pole time of an F1 car on the same track. You provide no data to back up the gap to second, either for F1 or for Can-Am. That's an assertion, not a fact.
Looking at the respective starting grids, I think that the claim that only one car had an advantage is rather silly:

Oh excuse me! 69 , not ONE car but TWO cars were faster....that changes a lot. No data? I used chicane F1 and classicars.com Excuse me not to have edited a table for each race...

And by the way YOU provided assumptions that were totally wrong..without providing any data neither..I think we're even then..Except that your whole argument was wrong.

However, I think the comparisons show that F1 was not faster. Equal, I could agree with.

No, i never said F1 was faster then since as we can see at watkins glens the top Can-am were faster, i said those races are exceptions along a 62 years history. That's what i said..

Well, it's not that hard to remove the off-set used for ovals, and on a fast circuit I think the power would have over come the 2 speed gear box's limitations. Given that Ferrari and Maserati both showed up with cars with engines much more powerful than their F1 versions, I think that is rather instructive about how well a contemporary F1 car would have kept pace.

If ferrari showed up with more HP this is because on ovals de drag/power ratio prevails over weight/drag ratio. Physics are the same for everyone lighter cars with same weight/power ratio will be faster on track roads. What you're saying there is that nascar sprint cup cars can essentially be turned into efficient road track cars without any problem...sure ....

Boost and tunnel sizes were both reduced between 2000 and 2002. The cars were slower.

You want data? Right:

Toronto street course pole speeds:
1999:110mph
2002:108 mph > 1 second slower.... at montreal the CART cars were 7 seconds slower than F1 cars.

Surfers paradise pole speed:
1999:109
2002:111 > faster

Laguna Seca pole speed:
1999:117
2002:115 > less than 1 second slower

Mid_ohio pole speed:
1999:124
2002:123W less than 1 second

Vancouver pole speed:
1999:105
202:106 > faster

There's no significant differences.

I could say the same about yours. The reality is that we will just have to agree to disagree.

No i don't think so. But yes we'll agree to disagree.

Edited by Ogami musashi, 01 November 2012 - 17:24.

[Rubens Hakkamacher]

I prefer 1.5 litre turbos and find them to be more technically interesting than 3 litre V10s. The turbo-compounding will also be very intriguing and I am interested in seeing just how well it works.

I might find turbine powered cars more intellectually interesting, or even all-electric cars. That doesn't mean it's a VISCERAL, ENTERTAINING TO EXPERIENCE to watch/hear live. To ignore the importance of the impact of the sound out is being silly. Rock concerts don't have to be loud, movie screens don't have to be big, cars don't have to have lurid paint schemes, on and on - but that's ignoring the gestalt of those things.

It has to be stunningly loud, not just up close but from a distance.

[study]

I wonder if BMW will be tempted to starting looking into supply engines again, on the domestic front they seem to offer the best turbo cars.

[Timstr11]

Apparently Toro Rosso is set to switch to Renault powertrain in 2014.
Obviously for cost reasons as it will bring more synergy between them and sister team RBR.
They can use the same gearbox as RBR.
Force India rumored to be switching to Ferrari.
http://www.auto-moto...l-1-606153.html

Edited by Timstr11, 15 November 2012 - 07:29.

[dau]

Apparently Toro Rosso is set to switch to Renault powertrain in 2014.
Obviously for cost reasons as it will bring more synergy between them and sister team RBR.
They can use the same gearbox as RBR.
Force India rumored to be switching to Ferrari.
http://www.auto-moto...l-1-606153.html

Does make sense for STR, but that would be five Renault-supplied teams then and only two with Mercedes engines. Why would Merc allow that to happen?