26 replies to this topic

[Flyhigh]

I have been wondering this. Specially, since I read an interview with Schumacher a while ago, saying that he is adapting to this "slower F1" watching specially the onboards, believe since 2009, you can notice the car reaction is slower and softer. If you watch the older onboards when the driver got the corners right, it was sharper and mistakes seemed rougher. When putting the power down it rocked out of the corner. Nowdays, seems the car is almost like a cruise ship at times, doesn't react as swiftly and drivers makes several corrections without meaning much over the course of a lap, even badly locking up the tyres. Where before locking up tyres, like Hamilton routinely does it, cost you quite a lot.

I initially thought it was due to the V8s, problably partially is. But even in watching the 2008 the cars seemed crispies than now. So what has been the changes that made the car "softer" to drive? Not that I dislike the current technical rules, but I do wish at times that the car were more agressive and less forgiven. I like the corrections and the TC off.

[Andrew Hope]

If you're asking why it seems slower watching onboards now than in years past then a lot of it would be the fact the tracks keep getting wider and smoother, making the onboard cams look slower and bounce around and shake a lot less.

[pingu666]

the weights gone up alot, was 605kg? in 2008 and now its 640kg, plus 2-3 times the amount of fuel. the cars are longer too than the last era, thanks to the fuel tank and kers. the tyre wear is also alot more important now with the new tyre design, the old tyres you had the good compound all the to the fabric cords, with these tyres theres only a few mm's of good compound and then your onto lolnogrip belt compound, so the setups now are to minimise tyre wear, so a more smooth style driving / setup is better

[Flyhigh]

the weights gone up alot, was 605kg? in 2008 and now its 640kg, plus 2-3 times the amount of fuel. the cars are longer too than the last era, thanks to the fuel tank and kers. the tyre wear is also alot more important now with the new tyre design, the old tyres you had the good compound all the to the fabric cords, with these tyres theres only a few mm's of good compound and then your onto lolnogrip belt compound, so the setups now are to minimise tyre wear, so a more smooth style driving / setup is better

Smoother and more forgiven, I would say. If you watch nowdays, even pole laps you can see several "meaningless" corrections during the lap. Where before, the drivers corrected when they really meant it. Today car corrections seem almost cosmetic, much less violent.

[Flyhigh]

Look at this onboard, every 2 seconds it seems Schummy is micro correcting the car, almost like the wheel of a Bus.


Now look at this 2006 same V8 engine yet, much more crispier reactions from the car and less wheel input. No funny business, only correcting the car when really necessary, car seems edgier:

Edited by Flyhigh, 02 October 2011 - 04:33.

[goldenboy]

these days at some tracks at the start of a grand prix I can't believe how much slower they look!

[baddog]

Its primarily better quality video, better mounted cameras, less vibration, shake, blur.. all of this adds up to less sense of 'speed', even though they arent any slower. Its the downside of modern high quality video, you can see much more but it can look sterile and dull.

[cheapracer]

Less torque, longer wheelbases, better tyres, more refined aero, better shocks, stiffer chassis - it all adds up.

[justin14100]

I think its due to wide angle lenses (harder to gauge speed and distances) and image stabilization mounts or lenses.

^This.
changed in 2009 I think

[Crossmax]

Look at this onboard, every 2 seconds it seems Schummy is micro correcting the car, almost like the wheel of a Bus.


Now look at this 2006 same V8 engine yet, much more crispier reactions from the car and less wheel input. No funny business, only correcting the car when really necessary, car seems edgier:

You can't just compare laps like that. For a start, Suzuka almost only contains high speed corners, whereas Shanghai has a lot of low speed, traction corners. Of course the car will look more twitchy in slower corners. Also, no TC provokes more corrections when looking for traction out of the slower corners. The fact that the Suzuka clip is from Q3, when the track has rubbered in, versus FP2, means that Schumi would have had more grip on his qualy lap. Fuel loads are unknown and certainly impact the way the car behaves. Also, remember that in 2006, Schumi had arguably the best car at Suzuka, but nowhere near the best car in Shanghai in 2010.

If you compare these laps, it looks much more similar.

Edited by Crossmax, 02 October 2011 - 08:52.

[stevewf1]

I think it's a wider-angle lens, mounted higher (except Alonso had one lower down recently). Also, for some reason, the engine sound isn't as impressive on camera as it was say, in the early 90s. Back then, there was a narrower field of view I suppose, but it was much more impressive, IMO.

[Meanstreak]

I wonder what kind of advances there has been in powersteering systems (only in the 2000s). If you compare and try to concentrate not on the controlling movements itself but just how "heavy" or "hard" it looks like to turn the steering wheel, there is big difference even if only comparing to mid-2000s. Of course this varies hugely from car to car and even from driver to driver.

[DrProzac]

Its primarily better quality video, better mounted cameras, less vibration, shake, blur.. all of this adds up to less sense of 'speed', even though they arent any slower. Its the downside of modern high quality video, you can see much more but it can look sterile and dull.

[Andy865]

^This.
changed in 2009 I think

Agreed.



Wierd AR camera, looks cool if you ask me.

[King Six]

Yeah, definitely the cameras. They sterilise it massively.

Same with the outboard cameras, they do pan shots that follow the car rather than more static shots of the car going around the circuit. Main reason for this is that it makes the sponsors much more readable if the camera follows the car, rather than the track (which is static). This makes the racing also seem very slow as you can't get any sense of speed whatsoever.

The cars are billboards. FOM will do whatever it can to make sure the billboards can be read.

[PayasYouRace]

I'm surprised no one's mentioned slick tyres. The grooved tyres where known for not having as much range in slip angles as slicks. Basically the grooves worked really well when going straight (the tyre not the car) but the grip would be lost quite fast when they went sideways. OTOH the slicks don't drop off as much, making the car more compliant.

It might not be the whole reason, but I'm sure it's a factor.

[engel]

More and Better And More efficient aero. Aka underbody. Plus EBD (and overrun) makes the car a lot more stable on entry/exit. Stable car looks slower.

[sharo]

Its primarily better quality video, better mounted cameras, less vibration, shake, blur.. all of this adds up to less sense of 'speed', even though they arent any slower. Its the downside of modern high quality video, you can see much more but it can look sterile and dull.

Thinking just the same. Maybe the wider camera angles also - the narrower the view, the higher the sense of speed.

[teejay]

The cars are designed to be better to drive, thus requiring less work. Good mapping, blown difusers, good aero, mandated weight distribution.

There is no monster turbo 800hp 1.5l v6 that comes onto boost hard and wheelspins etc.

The tyres are better than they used to be

etc etc.

[Andy865]

The cars are designed to be better to drive, thus requiring less work. Good mapping, blown difusers, good aero, mandated weight distribution.

There is no monster turbo 800hp 1.5l v6 that comes onto boost hard and wheelspins etc.

The tyres are better than they used to be

etc etc.

DUDE! That bmw was so like 2800bhp!

[Louis Siefert]

could it be the image stabilization compression?

[primer]

Its primarily better quality video, better mounted cameras, less vibration, shake, blur.. all of this adds up to less sense of 'speed', even though they arent any slower.

+1.

[Ferrari_F1_fan_2001]

The V8's also sound 'duller' than the V8's which could also be a contributing factor.

[Ferrari_F1_fan_2001]

The V8's also sound 'duller' than the V8's which could also be a contributing factor.

[Flyhigh]

could it be the image stabilization compression?

Yeah, I agree Camera technology plays a big part in it. But why does Schumacher brought up that F1 feels slower nowdays than a little while ago. I am trying to find the interview I read this, if anyone knows.

[Flyhigh]

Found it,

The interview was orginally in Portuguese, I used the translator.


Michael Schumacher today, at age 42 would do the same success it did at Ferrari by winning five titles in a row, from 2000 to 2004?
In 2002 without a doubt. Our advantage was huge and I do not question my ability. If you ask me if I am as capable as in 2002, the answer is probably not. As I'm different, as I can compensate this experience with the Formula 1 today, much slower than from that time, that it is difficult to answer. It is fair to say that the success we've had is because I was exceptional and perhaps still is. How would I do at 42? And after I stopped three years? I am very happy with my work. If Formula 1 was 10 seconds faster, maybe not. This is not the case. Ask the trainers and they say, unanimously, that I am still in full swing. Already some television commentators, former pilots, journalists, who do not know the details of my real state, say the opposite (in 2010, Nico Rosberg added 142 points in the World and Michael Schumacher, 72. In this league, after three steps, is 10-6).

http://www.estadao.c...er,715649,0.htm