Is this the end of F1?

This right here is the key. Slower and less efficient! What a deal. I can't believe that some people are knocking efficiency in F1. I get it, they aren't as loud as the old cars, but if you think that fuel management is just now a part of the formula you've been ignoring many key points of seasons past.

 

That's net profit per car btw... I read a while back during production of the 360 Modena that cost of production was $75K USD per unit...So they make big margins on their cars for sure...

 

I don't think there is any point in dissuading anybody, seems to me if folk have made their minds up, F1 is not for them anymore.

It's a sorry state of affairs to have come to this conclusion so early in the season IMO.

I'am not saying folk have no reason to complain, however as long as it is governed the same for all I have no problem, it is what it is.

No doubt Bernie will do a bit of tweaking for the masses anyway.

 

Except they don't make more power, not even close. The current f1 engines make more power than the ones they replaced. They're also faster than gp2 and only a couple of seconds behind last year's cars despite harder tires and less downforce. If you merely put the engines in last years cars and left the aero and tires the same, they'd be a second or two faster, not slower. All while using 30% less fuel. Yet somehow it's the end of f1 because they're using better engines? What kind of logic is that?

 

Exactly.

 

apparently gp2 cars are faster around some tracks on the schedule - yes.

 

I say go less green because I think green has no place in motorsports. The FIA should have revived the old 1.5ltr ,single or TT, turbo era in my opinion. Everything needed to re-instigate this formula has already been done.

 

take away the kers and they make less than 600bhp. with it they make 750. that is not 'way' more than last year since last year without kers they made about 660 and with it about 750.

last year fastest lap 1.29. this year 1.32. the gp2 cars were 10 seconds slower than F1 on average last year, and they have made some advances such that they are likley 2 seconds faster. so formula one vs gp2 will now be about 5 seconds apart over the average f1 track - yippee.

keeping mind that the track record at melbourne was set in 2004 by schumi at 1.24.

i have been watching and attending F1 races since 1973, and this is one of those few times that they seem to have made a great stride backwards.
the cars are ugly, slow, not loud. oh great - they are fuel efficient. its not the end of f1 as long as the masses keep paying to see it. but it is certainly no longer the pinnacle of motor sport in any way imo.

enjoy it guys. i am not impressed.

 

I have long given up trying to persuade folks on here. Too many times people have been factually dead wrong yet carried on their silly argument.

I merely try to get the facts right

 

Name one.

This came up when Button made a comment a while back but factually it is not true. Close in times is not faster.

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jS4Dh_EAfJI]F1 2013 vs 2014 sound comparison - Melbourne - YouTube[/ame]

This says it all really. RIP great sound.

 

One thing I can't figure out is HOW these are so quiet? The first turbo era was not quiet, even a simple flat 6 porsche grand am car is very loud. Just seems odd to me. Perhaps a different exhaust configuration could help immensely?

 

In Oz this year they used harder compound tires which are about a second+ slower going in than last years tires. This is in the interest of having more robust tires. Pole time this year had it been dry was on schedule to be about 1.5 seconds slower than last year which accounts for the slower harder tires making these cars in their current format about half a second to a second slower than 2013. Race pace is confusing as the 2014 starting race pace to about 3/4 through the race is about the same, 2013 final 1/4 of the race pace is indeed quicker but not by tons. Bear in mind Rosberg set the fastest lap of the race (1:32) in lap 19! Then he turned the engine map way down and stopped taking curbs etc, Nico was actually on the radio asking how he could make sure he saved the car as much as possible so he stopped taking curbs! Had Nico kept the power on full whack through the entire race and was on the softer of the two compounds at the end of the race then I have no doubt he would have been within a second of last year's fastest lap which was set on much softer tires and considerably less fuel/weight. Lots of data on this subject has been modeled, 2013 cars on race pace really aren't that much faster once tire choices and alterations to this year's tire compounds are factored. I am extremely pleased the track is not as cluttered by Pirelli Clagg as they were the last couple seasons. A driver literally had to factor if they could survive going off the racing line to make a move. Not so much now.

In China and Monza we will see even faster lap times than 2013. Then by mid to late in the season they will indeed be faster by all accounts than 2013 cars. The significant amount more torque delivered by these engines changes the weight on lap time that aerodynamics supplies, this will allow the cars to be faster but for different reasons.

I knew the rookies would really do well this season, I mentioned quite a whole ago they would adapt best, and adapt they indeed have..... So far.

 

Thanks for all that.

However it is utterly irrelevant whether the cars are any slower than last year's cars. In fact it is desirable to have them slower: If not, then safety concerns come into play and that means destroying tracks with chicanes. A tad slower cars is a good thing. They're still faster than anything else on wheels around a track.

 

Yes absolutely agreed.


I should add that Nico's practice 3 time of 1:29.375 was about 2 seconds off the prior year pole time, on tires that were about a second slower. W05 had another 3/4 second in her had it been dry during qualy vs practice 3, so I don't believe the qualy gap to the prior year would be more a few tenths given like for like tires.

But I digress, your point of them not becoming 'too' overly fast is a good one, although I do not believe that will be an issue until they start nearing 2004 lap times.

 

But still f- ing embarassing from a Formula1 point of view.

But then again, today's Formula 1 doesn't seem to pose a particular challenge for rookies. Even for those that didn't bother with GP2.

 

That made me smile, todays tracks for the most part, are nothing but chicanes. The great tracks, Monza excluded, have already been destroyed. They have to up the power and remove the downforce. Let the cars slide while sounding better.

 

Peak HP is the same, but area under the curve is way higher for this years engines, which is what is important. The 'power units' make more average power, and significantly so, so yeah real big step back. Keep in mind that last year's engines make 750hp for about 6 seconds a lap vs. 33 seconds a lap this year. That's a huge difference and why the 'power units' put down way more average power than last year.

The speed difference is due to harder tires and (significant) lost aero, not the power units. if they're already within 1.5-2 seconds, they will be faster than the 2013 cars by year's end as the learning curve will be a lot steeper on all new cars vs. already extremely mature cars.

 

here you can see how real racing look like:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ojjLLN-30E]The Spectacular TT Crashes IOM. TT (Isle of Man) Motorcycle Road Race - YouTube[/ame]

 

What's up next? Christians vs lions?

21 one deaths alone since 2000 is not really a statistic to be proud of or which gets big sponsors to buy into.
How the Isle of Man TT survives as the world?s deadliest race | Motoramic - Yahoo Autos

List of Snaefell Mountain Course fatal accidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But hey, to each his own.

 

It's ALL about exhaust configuration IMO.

The last turbo cars of the 80s were pretty much the same displacement, and actually revved lower than the current cars. The main difference is those cars back then were twin turbo and dual exhaust. Today's cars are single turbo, single exhaust.

I believe that by combining to a single turbo and exhaust, the harmonics are changed, essentially the exhaust notes canceling each other, or reducing the volume.

 

The sad truth is that F-1 is evolving and those of us around for a long time that know the history of the "sport" are just going to be dissapointed.

So I've just come to the conclusion that - as long as Ferrari is in it I'll watch - and if I can score Paddock invites - i'm going but I'm not going to be as crazy passionate as I once was.

I was lucky to be invited by Lotus to Austin -and frankly the best part to me was all the older F-1 guys you get to meet. sure the cars are interesting to see - but they are not - to me - anywhere as impressive as a 1990 Ferrari 641 or Mclaren MP4/6 etc... those were F-1 CARS... mean and agressive!

 

Oops, the drugs were cheap in the old days

 

Amen!