13 replies to this topic

[ViMaMo]

IS the F2002 better or F2004 better? Both are just out and out superior cars. Competition took a whacking at the hands of the F2002 and now the F2004 won 5/5. No wonder it will be very very hard to match the F2004 this season.

BS was clearly superior in 2002 and again is the better tyre in 2004. Thats one thing that can be overlooked and makes the decision an easier one.

Aerodynamically, both of them are great. Very balanced chassis, easy to set-up. They have very few weakness.

Getting back to the question, which do you think is better?

[onepablo]

The better car is the one that wins more races; if you go by that criterion, the F2004 is the better car, with 5 wins out of 5 races so far. The F2002 had 14 wins out of 17 starts. Also, the F2002 was not debuted until round 3, apparently because of reliability concerns.

Then again, 2004 has been a bit different; Williams and McLarens gambled on radical design philosophies, and have really underperformed in comparison to the 2002 season.

[vapaokie]

I know single car qualifying throws a wrinkle in it, but which one has been faster on the five tracks? I'd say that is the better car. Or are you asking which is better relative to the competition?

I'm guessing the '04, but that's exactly what it is, a guess.

[onepablo]

Qualifying times, F2002 (position) / F2004 (position):

San Marino 1:21.091 (P1) / 1:20.011 (P2)

Spain 1:16.364 (P1) / 1:15.022 (P1)

Can't compare the other GPs because of various reasons (Bahrain not on schedule, Brazil pushed back this year, etc).

[onepablo]

Then again, the faster car is not necessarily the "better" car if it doesn't win races. The Williams FW24 was extremely quick during qualifying in 2002, setting many poles at the hands of JPM. However, this was rarely (read, never) translated to wins that season.

[riffola]

As Ross said in #AtlasF1, Michael's dominating this season far more than he did in '02, the difference this time is that it's Michael that's doing the dominating and not Ferrari as a whole. Despite the Rubens factor, I think the F2004 is by far a better car. It seems very quick over one lap, and incredibly quick in the race.

[BuonoBruttoCattivo]

Originally posted by vivian

Getting back to the question, which do you think is better?

Well...going by what Ross, Rory, Paolo, Michael, Badoer and Rubens have said 'till now, the F655 is better. Anyways, it is afterall an evolution of the F653 concept.

[ViMaMo]

NOTE:May i remind that its not a wise thing to compare the lap times. Its a general tendency to improve lap times every year. In my view F2003 was faster than the F2002 but not necessarily the best design by Rory. So although F2004 is clearly faster than the F2002, we have not taken into the account the developement in tyres. Lets leave out the lap times. Its a very difficult thing to compare after leaving out the lap times but we can see if the car handles well in fast corners, slow corners, how it rides the kerbs, how good is it in the straight line, is it easier on tyres, etc.

[joriswouters]

On looks, the F2002, I just can't stand those new engine hoods. There just awfull. It should be like the F2002 with a bend in it. Combine that with grills of the F2003, and the narrow bottom of the sidepods on the F2004 and F2003.

[wawawa]

Originally posted by riffola
As Ross said in #AtlasF1, Michael's dominating this season far more than he did in '02, the difference this time is that it's Michael that's doing the dominating and not Ferrari as a whole. Despite the Rubens factor, I think the F2004 is by far a better car. It seems very quick over one lap, and incredibly quick in the race.

Malaysia and Imola this year were races where poor qualifying cost Rubens badly. In 2002, with the old style qualifying, he had a much better chance of putting the car where it belonged on the grid. So using Rubens to determine the quality is tricky.

If you accept the theory that the closeness of MS's team-mate indicates the quality of the car, I guess the F2002 was better.

[Amir_S]

I'm shocked at how good MS is driving this year. He seems to have found his old self pre 2002. He is fast but also the ruthless hard approach is back (Imola) and he qualifies better than he did in 2002. In 2002 I got the feeling that he was "Prost" driving. This year although the car is the best he is just as aggresive as in the old days. I like that. I think Michael is driving as good as ever and thís Ferrari seems just as good as the 2002 in races and but just as good in qualifying. I think sometimes they had problems getting the 2002 up to pace for that 1 hot lap.

[dick]

The '04 version might be better, but it has to be the ugliest car on the grid. Kind of destroys the old airplane notion that if it looks right, it flys right. That thing just looks wrong. Man, I wish they'd get rid of that stupid narrow track regulation.

[Ricardo F1]

By a squeak the F2004. It's hard to say though. The F2002 didn't pole all the time because Michelin had a nice soft tyre, BMW a powerful engine that was then detuned and DC and Montoya put absolute blinders in at times that made the difference. The F2004 seems to work even better with its tyres than the F2002, though still a bit harder to warm than the Michelin (witness Button's disappearing act at Imola).

Trouble is the competition is probably not as close in 04 as it was in 02. :

[FuscaBala]

The F2004 is F2002 on a diet.
The nose and main body are the same, but the rear-end is really tight and down.
F2003 was a little deviation from the formula but they found the path back to success.

Nr. of victories doen't mean much to me, bcs you have to analyse the competition.
In 2004, the opposition is really sucking.