Driving it: https://twitter.com/giulyduchessa/status/1622654540716580864?s=46&t=sT8kFLDZXRAUlwoIQqCX7A
Again goosebumps with this video ! Can someone explain to me how today’s Formula One is more exciting? High revving NA engines are head and shoulders above in everything.
The sound adds a level of excitement to processional races. They were boring then-- we just forget that clear and overt point.
Between 2014 and 2021 only one exciting season, a true Mercedes borefest. I loved seeing a boring season dominated by a glorious Ferrari NA engine (2002-2004).
I don't think so, yes there where boring races but overall it was much more exciting back then if you ask me. The cars sounded great, looked faster despite the laptimes not supporting that (the fact that they weren't completely glued to the track like today has a lot to do with that), the lightweight made them much more nimble...They had aero issues too but not nearly as bad as it was from the mid 2010s onwards, and that worsened in 2017. It's better now but the cars' extreme weight and sizes doesn't help matters.
I used to keep spreadsheets for every team/driver every season. I stopped doing that 2013. I think I have seen maybe a dozen complete races since then.
Tough question to quantify, but for the 2004 regs: 4 grooves per tyre at 14mm wide on a 270mm wide front tyre. That's effectively 20% tyre contact loss (56mm) on the fronts. FWIW, the 2017 fat tyre move was effectively the same: a roughly 20% gain in tyre width. Unfortunately we can't really make any comparisons on this regulation change as many other things changed as well such as wider front and rear wings, larger floors etc much increasing the downforce. Same goes for 2010 really, tyres shrunk roughly 10% but also DRS changes + bigger fuel tanks leading to longer cars...too many changes. So we can't put a real time gain on it but 20% is nothing to sneer at. Ralf Schumachers' demonstration last year at Austria was quite interesting though. He was 1.1 seconds behind the slowest quali time of the Astons, BUT, lets keep in mind that Ralf is now a fat old man, driving a car he hasn't driven in YEARS, only had a handful of laps, in a car that wasn't driven in years by anyone...a car that was 100hp down because they had to preserve the engine...a car that was on pirelli demo tyres and not the tyres it was set up for. And that was a 2003 car. The 2004's that followed where MUCH quicker once again.
3.5 liter V10 with a minimum weight of 90kg, 17000rpm limiter, on zero carbon fuel. Engine cap cost of $500K per unit. Keeps cost down, weight low, entertainment high, and appeases the eco mentalists and manufacturers (well, some of them). Win/win. Yes, I know it's not an advancement in car technology(hybrids and batteries and thermal efficiency), but with zero carbon fuel and zero emissions.......who freakin cares!!!! Then the zero carbon fuel transcends into the fuel stations already existing and it's a win-win for the global population and the world.
If its all about "advancement" then pretty soon it will just be AI drivers with AI cars. I think they are starting to miss the soul of racing.
When you leave Ferrari and go to RedBull possibly you will gain that understanding lol Leclerc: Ferrari must understand why Red Bull is on "another planet" Charles Leclerc says that the Red Bull Formula 1 team is "on another planet", citing the "crazy difference" in race pace with that of Ferrari seen in Bahrain.
naw, otherwise, they would have anti-lock breaks or traction control. Really the only concern I have is sound, which admittedly has taken a hit.
Perhaps RB does not have Italian management and Italian business politics. Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play ??
This "magic formula" is constantly repeated on this forum, but has very little chance to get any traction at the FIA of Liberty. The reason is that the car manufacturers don't want it, and they would probably depart F1 like a shot if it was adopted. They would take with them all the investment in teams, their financial support and look elsewhere. They see F1 as a technological challenge and if one takes that away from them, their involvement makes no sense. F1 could well divorce itself from the manufacturers and grow its own power source, like it existed before with independent engine builders working as a cottage industry. It will mean going back to the 60s and 70s with companies similar to Cosworth, Hart Nicholson, BRM, Zakspeed, Judd, etc .. churning out simpler, and cheaper engines, but more enjoyable for some. Ferrari would still be around, of course, and racing could even get better out of a simplified formula. It's money that pushed the FIA to please the manufacturers with the complex hybrid formula. Without manufacturers F1 could take a step back though ...
