F1 2012: (perhaps) Interesting fact

Kennett Ylitalo · Mar 21, 2012

F1 has been in the limits of physics for a while now, they simply can not go much faster. They could easily take 10 seconds of the laptimes but the margins would be paperthin.. One mistake and they're dead is not the way forward. At least they are not slowing the cars excessively.

Ivan Mills · Mar 21, 2012

i was begining to wonder if i had lost the plot in this tread since i was never too sure what it was about in a first place,but its better now. Yes it is great the FIA changed the rules so we can have better racing,and no single car running away with it,absolutely!

Hampus Andersson · Mar 21, 2012

Kennett Ylitalo said:
F1 has been in the limits of physics for a while now, they simply can not go much faster. They could easily take 10 seconds of the laptimes but the margins would be paperthin.. One mistake and they're dead is not the way forward. At least they are not slowing the cars excessively.

I think the philospohy is wrong today.
I think V10 era was perfect. Low downforce, massive power.

1.000bhp should be the norm but with slower corner speeds then today to balance out the danger.

Ho3n3r · Mar 22, 2012

Hampus Andersson said:
I think the philospohy is wrong today.
I think V10 era was perfect. Low downforce, massive power.

1.000bhp should be the norm but with slower corner speeds then today to balance out the danger.

As little as I know about this topic, the reasons AFAIK is firstly to go green, as is the trend, and secondly to cut costs, so it makes sense in a way.

Ho3n3r · Mar 22, 2012

cruyff said:
Ironically, the 2004 season featured some of the fastest cars in the world, if not the fastest. However, I don't remember whether 2005 cars were faster or not.

2004 cars were roughly 1-1.5 seconds faster than 2005 - probably a lot to do with 2005 requiring engines to last 2 races, as opposed to one in 2004.

Hampus Andersson · Mar 22, 2012

Dewald Nel said:
As little as I know about this topic, the reasons AFAIK is firstly to go green, as is the trend, and secondly to cut costs, so it makes sense in a way.

considering that we are now in an engine freeze with very old engines, i think we could get V10´s developed today to be not far of the 3-4 year old engines of today.

Cut costs i can´t argue on

ENDR · Mar 22, 2012

Dewald Nel said:
probably a lot to do with 2005 requiring engines to last 2 races, as opposed to one in 2004.

Weren't the tyres less gripy as well, because of the ban on changing them during the race?

Michael Brown · Mar 22, 2012

ENDR said:
Weren't the tyres less gripy as well, because of the ban on changing them during the race?

Correct. Good thing that rule was removed the following year.

Ho3n3r · Mar 22, 2012

ENDR said:
Weren't the tyres less gripy as well, because of the ban on changing them during the race?

I suppose yes, they will need to compromise grip for tyre life, although those things are much more complicated these days than I at least would know.

Read an interesting statement today of Michelin throwing their toys out their cot in October 2005, when it was announced by the FIA that tire stops will be brought back again for 2006, after being banned for 2005 - interesting argument by Pirelli how they would re-invent tires that would need to last 100km or less, after just a year ago having to develop tires that last 350km+, and that the 2006 rules didn't allow for a straight revert back to the 2004 spec tires.

The FIA duly had a jibe towards Michelin about their tires failing at Indianapolis, almost suggesting that that debacle of a race 'prompted' the rule changing back.

Quite funny to read actually!