84 replies to this topic

[Gene and Tonic]

According to the Pomeroy index, the F2002 is the fastest F1 car relative to all others, but is the RB6 the fastest outright car? The F2004 still holds many lap records, but the RB6 has dipped under them on a few occasions during qualifying. What are your thoughts? I suppose the F2004 is consistently faster, having blasted those lap records in during an actual race. It would be interesting to see an RB6 pitting for tyres with 10 laps to go and doing a glory run to compare.

Edited by Gene and Tonic, 15 August 2010 - 20:24.

[Brandz07]

According to the Pomerov index, the F2002 is the fastest F1 car relative to all others, but is the RB6 the fastest outright car? The F2004 still holds many lap records, but the RB6 has dipped under them on a few occasions during qualifying. What are your thoughts? I suppose the F2004 is consistently faster, having blasted those lap records in during an actual race. It would be interesting to see an RB6 pitting for tyres with 10 laps to go and doing a glory run to compare.

doubt it

[Ali_G]

According to the Pomerov index, the F2002 is the fastest F1 car relative to all others, but is the RB6 the fastest outright car? The F2004 still holds many lap records, but the RB6 has dipped under them on a few occasions during qualifying. What are your thoughts? I suppose the F2004 is consistently faster, having blasted those lap records in during an actual race. It would be interesting to see an RB6 pitting for tyres with 10 laps to go and doing a glory run to compare.

It's all relative.

That RB6 wouldn't be as fast as previous cars at very fast circuits but has been shown to be faster on circuits where grip is more important.

[phil1993]

Maybe, after all the RB6's advantage in Hungary was phenominal. The F2002 was better though. It had reliability as well.

[Brandz07]

what is the quickest f1 car ever, in terms of out-right pace and not any relative to other cars stuff

[hotstickyslick]

According to the Pomerov index, the F2002 is the fastest F1 car relative to all others, but is the RB6 the fastest outright car? The F2004 still holds many lap records, but the RB6 has dipped under them on a few occasions during qualifying. What are your thoughts? I suppose the F2004 is consistently faster, having blasted those lap records in during an actual race. It would be interesting to see an RB6 pitting for tyres with 10 laps to go and doing a glory run to compare.

Actually the RB6 has even beaten qualifying records of 2004.

[Seanspeed]

Actually the RB6 has even beaten qualifying records of 2004.

Low fuel vs race fuel.

The 2004 cars were a good bit faster.

[hotstickyslick]

Low fuel vs race fuel.

The 2004 cars were a good bit faster.

Yes, but I was talking records.

[King Six]

How was qualifying in 2004 anyway? I'm sure it was race fuel iirc. I still think the F2004 is the fastest F1 car of all time, when you talk about lap records/times and such. 2002 was just because everyone else wasn't as competitive, you can always talk about relative fastness and then you can talk about cars in the 70's and 60's. These 2004 cars had V10 engines and grooved tyres whereas we now have restricted V8's with slicks. Proves though how much a difference the slicks can make if they're catching up with 2004 now.

The RB6 is definitely up there, I'd say it comes in close second to the F2004. Of course one can always do a proper technical analysis to really see.

[Seanspeed]

Yes, but I was talking records.

Records are meaningless without context.

[stevewf1]

What about top speed? I seem to remember Mika Hakkinen topping out around 220-221 mph at Monza in the late 90s or early 00s.

Edited by stevewf1, 14 August 2010 - 12:36.

[King Six]

Records are meaningless without context.

Not really, the rules allowed for the F2004 to be the fastest car, yes. That doesn't change the fact that it was probably the fastest F1 car, close to the RB6. Speaking in terms of lap times and such, which is the only way you can judge a cars speed anyway. Race win's and such don't even count in a topic like this, so the context doesn't matter.

[Seanspeed]

Not really, the rules allowed for the F2004 to be the fastest car, yes. That doesn't change the fact that it was probably the fastest F1 car, close to the RB6. Speaking in terms of lap times and such, which is the only way you can judge a cars speed anyway. Race win's and such don't even count in a topic like this, so the context doesn't matter.

I dont think you're disagreeing with me at all.

I never said anything about race wins or anything like that in any of my posts.

[Nonesuch]

What about top speed? I seem to remember Mika Hakkinen topping out around 220-221 mph at Monza in the late 90s or early 00s.

Just for reference, 220mph would be about 354km/h.

Alonso has said that the fastest he has ever gone was 372km/h at Monza (though he didn't specify in which car, and whether it was during testing, a race or qualifying) in an interview with the Italian La Stampa, posted here.

Various F1-related websites also mention the McLarens (and perhaps some others, as well) reaching the 370km/h mark at Monza 2005, but I couldn't find any 'official' confirmation.

Edited by Nonesuch, 14 August 2010 - 13:01.

[Seanspeed]

I believe Barrichello(in a Ferrari) has the record for fastest speed acheived in an official session, while Montoya(in a Williams) has the record for fastest ever speed acheived, official or not.

Dont remember exactly which years they were, but I'm sure somebody here does.

[F. Scaramanga]

What about top speed? I seem to remember Mika Hakkinen topping out around 220-221 mph at Monza in the late 90s or early 00s.

record driver: Antonio Pizzonia (GB), Williams BMW: 369,9km/h, Monza 2004

[AlainProstX]

The F2004 is the fastest F1 car ever (maybe even the fastest race car of all time).

It still has a V10 engine and -whats more important- the most superior aerodynamics a F1 car ever had.

Yes, the RBR6 topped the F2004`s qualy times. But in 2004 the qualy system was pretty bad (IIRC the drivers were only allowed to do one lap) and the F2004 had grooved tires. I wonder how fast a F2004 would be with today`s slick tires.

[engel]

I wonder how fast a F2004 would be with today`s slick tires.

I wonder how fast the RB6 would be with a 3lt V10.

Get my point? You can only compare cars "as raced"

[eoin]

The F2004 is the fastest F1 car ever (maybe even the fastest race car of all time).

It still has a V10 engine and -whats more important- the most superior aerodynamics a F1 car ever had.

Yes, the RBR6 topped the F2004`s qualy times. But in 2004 the qualy system was pretty bad (IIRC the drivers were only allowed to do one lap) and the F2004 had grooved tires. I wonder how fast a F2004 would be with today`s slick tires.

I doubt that today's gimped slicks are faster than 2004's grooved tyres. Would be interesting to get the question answered by someone inside the sport.

[PNSD]

The 2004 grooves were made at the hieght of the tyre-war. We wont see tyres offering such huge grip for a long time imo.

[Palmero]

Refueling seems to be the biggest barrier to comparison in race trim. Like someone mentioned, you need the RB6 to do a 10 lap glory run at the end of a race, on a totally identical track to the 2004 layout, in similar conditions.

Qualifying wise the F2004 seems to be at a disadvantage from the regs of that season, but the RB6 has, at times, beaten it.

Edited by Palmero, 14 August 2010 - 14:01.

[stevewf1]

I believe Barrichello(in a Ferrari) has the record for fastest speed acheived in an official session, while Montoya(in a Williams) has the record for fastest ever speed acheived, official or not.

Dont remember exactly which years they were, but I'm sure somebody here does.

That was at Monza 2004. According to FORIX, Montoya set a 1:19.525 (262.242 km/h) in the 1st session and Barrichello got pole with a 1:20.089 (260.395 km/h) in the 2nd session.

(Don't remember what the qualifying format was back then).

[scheivlak]

Just for reference, 220mph would be about 354km/h.

Alonso has said that the fastest he has ever gone was 372km/h at Monza (though he didn't specify in which car, and whether it was during testing, a race or qualifying) in an interview with the Italian La Stampa, posted here.

Various F1-related websites also mention the McLarens (and perhaps some others, as well) reaching the 370km/h mark at Monza 2005, but I couldn't find any 'official' confirmation.

This thread mentions 370 km/h for Raikkonen during the 2005 GP: http://forums.autosp...w...70&hl=speed

[hotstickyslick]

I doubt that today's gimped slicks are faster than 2004's grooved tyres. Would be interesting to get the question answered by someone inside the sport.

No, slicks are definitely quicker. And the grooves of 2006 were the quickest I believe. Schumacher's Q2 time at Suzuka that year is the fastest ever around the circuit, sub 89 seconds!

[SimMaker]

http://www.autoblog....-at-bonneville/

[mtknot]

In terms of the chassis, today's cars are the quickest by a long shot, however since they've basically castrated the cars in terms of power that F2004 still is quicker.

Since aero is based off speed, the fact that the F2004 can get into better airspeed quicker, means that the aero deficit is compensated by its acceleration.

[mtknot]

I wonder how fast the RB6 would be with a 3lt V10.

with slicks

and 2008 aero implements

[stevewf1]

http://www.autoblog....-at-bonneville/

That's over 7 mph faster than the average speed Arie Luyendyk did at Indy in practice in 1996 using a year-old CART car...

[AlainProstX]

with slicks

and 2008 aero implements

Actually the 2004 "aeros" are superior to the 2008`s.

[Grundle]

Yes.
But it doesn't have the fastest drivers.

[Seanspeed]

Yes.
But it doesn't have the fastest drivers.

No, its not.

And Vettel and Webber aint no slouches.

[Grundle]

I can only imagine the destruction if Hamilton and Alonso were the drivers in the RB6. Thats why its the fastest car ever. It would be even more dominant than Prost/Senna 1988 if possible.

[King Six]

Actually the 2004 "aeros" are superior to the 2008`s.

Is it...how so? I don't recall any major aero regulations between then, nothing that would make things worse than 2004 surely. I always thought that 2008 was a long (relatively) unbroken line of aero regs going back since I can remember.

Edited by King Six, 14 August 2010 - 19:06.

[engel]

Is it...how so? I don't recall any major aero regulations between then, nothing that would make things worse than 2004 surely. I always thought that 2008 was a long (relatively) unbroken line of aero regs going back since I can remember.

diffusers were changed considerably (for the worst) in 2005

[Baddoer]

MP4/20 can be fastest because of dumb tires (which must last full race distance)
It also holds Suzuka lap record

Edited by Baddoer, 14 August 2010 - 19:24.

[Ferrari2183]

I can only imagine the destruction if Hamilton and Alonso were the drivers in the RB6. Thats why its the fastest car ever. It would be even more dominant than Prost/Senna 1988 if possible.

The field wouldn't stand a chance. They might as well pack up after FP3 and head to the next circuit if the RB6 were as reliable as the F2002. I would love to see both drivers in a really dominant car even at the expense of some close racing. Schumacher had a couple of bites at that cherry during his career.

[Atreiu]

Nobody mentioned the F2003GA? I believe Schumacher won the 2003 Italian GP at a record pace, averaging 247 km/h.

Yes, the F2004 was faster, but it deserves an honerable mention.

[AlainProstX]

diffusers were changed considerably (for the worst) in 2005

+ minor (negative) FW changes IIRC

Experts stated a 15-30% downforce loss figure (I read this somewhere, of course I can be wrong)

[Sausage]

Many lap records don't matter either that much since most tracks from the 80's+90's have gone off the calendar or got altered drasticly.

I find it all apples and oranges really, it isn't comparable. Just like how driver-stats are mostly nonsense. The only thing it's good for is fanboy gushing about what has been or could be, etc. And that is indeed a good thing, a human needs something to imagine and talk about after all, but it's meaningless if you are looking for some sort of scientific conclusion to the ageless "what/who was the best?" question.

[ashnathan]

Not to bring this thread down at all and try and downplay the f2004 cos it was an amazing car, but the advantage that season was flattered alot by the bridgestone tyres, they were miles ahead of the michelins that season so whoever said that it had the most advanced and blah blah aero of all time is false. If you gave the cars of today v10 engines flex wings and the pre 2009 diffuser these cars would be scarily fast around corners, they'd make a mockery of most tracks cos they'd barely need to break at most corners ttheyd have that much grip.

But if you go best car of the era yes. Best car of the early 90's compared to others was the 92 Williams. Best car of the late 80's was the 88 mclaren and best car of the late 90's would be either the mp4/13 mclaren of 98 which I think was, or the f2000 which was a good car but didn't have the dominance of the mclaren in that season

[Madras]

The F2004 is the fastest F1 car ever (maybe even the fastest race car of all time).

It still has a V10 engine and -whats more important- the most superior aerodynamics a F1 car ever had.

Yes, the RBR6 topped the F2004`s qualy times. But in 2004 the qualy system was pretty bad (IIRC the drivers were only allowed to do one lap) and the F2004 had grooved tires. I wonder how fast a F2004 would be with today`s slick tires.

Well not sure that's that's true, today's aero is far superior but there are more restrictions imposed so it is limited compared to 2004.

[flyer121]

I can only imagine the destruction if Hamilton and Alonso were the drivers in the RB6. Thats why its the fastest car ever. It would be even more dominant than Prost/Senna 1988 if possible.

Doubt it !
If anything, FA/LH will be worse off ... atleast over a single Q lap.

[mtknot]

Actually the 2004 "aeros" are superior to the 2008`s.

Nope, the aero regs are fairly similar to 2006-2008, but with the front wing slighly lower and wider. It'd simply be able to generate more downforce due to the lack of rev limiter, allowing for ludicrous amount of acceleration even in slow parts of corners. Furthermore I believe that 2005's cars were actually quicker but hindered by the ridiculous 1 tyre requirement.

F2004's aero is fairly basic when you compare it to 2008's, so i don't know how you've come up with this.

2009/10's aero regs are interesting in that they unintentionally move the reliance on winglets to the reliance on the diffuser. The fact that the central part of the wing is aerodynamically neutral (with the beam) allows for air to flow straight to the splitter. This is supplemented by most team's very high nose design (which the FIA wants on safety grounds). The fact that the wings run so low means that there is a ground effect, and we've seen red bull make use of it. Interestingly the higher rear wing, although narrower should generate about the same amount of downforce, with the higher position meaning more mechanical advantage. The higher diffuser, is the main reason why the current regs will generate more downforce, as well as the fact that the cleaner body allows for so much more air to flow above the diffuser.\

However, today's aero is obviously more advanced not only because of regs, but just the general progression. There are so many new avenues that have been opened as a result of the restrictions. Now, if we were to get newey to travel back to 2002 with his current knowledge then join jaguar, certainly that F2004 would be MUCH quicker than it already is, and with a gazillion aero implements as well as a quadrillion staged front wing and bargeboards.

I don't think the single stage diffuser will mean much next year given that the teams are using EBDs this year as well.

Edited by mtknot, 15 August 2010 - 00:49.

[Dan333SP]

Simple answer- No. The F2004 was a faster car. Yes, Vettel broke the Ferrari's record at Melbourne, but that was a very close thing and the qualifying for 2004 didn't really allow the cars to reach their max so that best time was set in the race, when the cars weren't really being pushed because they were so far ahead of the field. At other tracks that were the same in '04, like Shanghai, the Ferrari was half a second to a second and a half a lap faster, even more at a track like Montreal where the emphasis is on power. Nothing against the RBR, just the facts because of the rule changes. Of course, you can theorize about whether one car would be faster if it had this or that element of this or that car... For my money, I'd take a twin chassis ground effects design (Lotus 88) with the bodywork aero bits of the 2008 Mclaren, the BMW V10 from the 2004 Williams, the gearbox and brakes from the current RBR, and the slicks of today with the stickiness of the 2004 tire wars products. How's that for a hypothetical absurdity? It'd probably make the driver black out the second he entered a fast corner with the g forces...

[F1 Tor.]

Pick a track and race the F2004 and RB6 one day after the season is over. Would make a great Top Gear episode. Michael in the Ferrari, Vettel in the Red Bull. That would be fun.

Edited by F1 Tor., 15 August 2010 - 02:32.

[MattPete]

That's over 7 mph faster than the average speed Arie Luyendyk did at Indy in practice in 1996 using a year-old CART car...

...and 5mphs faster than Gil de Ferran's lap record at Fontana. But it was also less than Paul Tracy's recorded trap speed of 256.948 miles per hour (413.518 km/h) at Michigan International Speedway in 1996.

[krapmeister]

Pick a track and race the F2004 and RB6 one day after the season is over. Would make a great Top Gear episode. Michael in the Ferrari, Vettel in the Red Bull. That would be fun.

And bound to end in tears...

[clipper]

Pick a track and race the F2004 and RB6 one day after the season is over. Would make a great Top Gear episode. Michael in the Ferrari, Vettel in the Red Bull. That would be fun.

and mansell in the 1992 williams

[Simon Says]

Just for reference, 220mph would be about 354km/h.

Alonso has said that the fastest he has ever gone was 372km/h at Monza (though he didn't specify in which car, and whether it was during testing, a race or qualifying) in an interview with the Italian La Stampa, posted here.

Various F1-related websites also mention the McLarens (and perhaps some others, as well) reaching the 370km/h mark at Monza 2005, but I couldn't find any 'official' confirmation.

Highest top speed was over 380 km/h I believe.

[Simon Says]

Many lap records don't matter either that much since most tracks from the 80's+90's have gone off the calendar or got altered drasticly.

I find it all apples and oranges really, it isn't comparable. Just like how driver-stats are mostly nonsense. The only thing it's good for is fanboy gushing about what has been or could be, etc. And that is indeed a good thing, a human needs something to imagine and talk about after all, but it's meaningless if you are looking for some sort of scientific conclusion to the ageless "what/who was the best?" question.

Most tracks have become alot easier to drive due to resurfacing to get rid of all the bumps also.