Soldato
The top speed record of an F1 car (at an actual event - not that Honda demo run) is, I think, still held by Coulthard from 1999 at Monza - 226mph I think it is.
Brundle is expecting them to get close to that this year.
"Our attempts to make Formula One greener is ruining the sport" - Bernie Ecclestone
- Thread starter Spie
- Start date
The top speed record of an F1 car (at an actual event - not that Honda demo run) is, I think, still held by Coulthard from 1999 at Monza - 226mph I think it is.
Brundle is expecting them to get close to that this year.
Don't know. Can't really see it under all those useless, weight adding 'make it look pretty and hide the oily bits' panels around it.
Soldato
As I say this thread is about the engines not tires. And 2004 looks to be the best year for engines.
I and many other miss the sound and raw speed of the older engines.
Simple test, make a sound now of a old V8 engine...ok
now make the sound of the new V6..ok..yes it sounds like a bunch of farts
back on topic
What were the lap times last year in comparison to this year out of interest?
Its interesting how the fact F1 cars have been going slower for the last 10 years seems to be completely ignored, isn't it
Soldato
Ferrari themselves voluntarily ripped up their rule book and polluted the sacred fountain with V10 power, so it's highly unlikely anyone would be using more than 10 cylinders now. Given the choice no team would even have a NA engine, as the late 1970s and 80s showed.
Going more extreme, if somehow the modern world had somehow completely missed the ICE, if it hadn't happened at all, then there is no way on earth we'd be having this discussion. Really, the ICE alone has no place in top-level motorsport of any kind. This discussion wouldn't be taking place if this hybrid was just launched on us. It's just tradition and some steamy eyes, but really it's been that since F1 started.
what would be the alternative to the ICE? i'm open to the idea's of anything but see the current engine as a reflection of the real worlds choice of ICE in its various guises as a compromise of lots of things for our cars and other vehicles, and if F1 is to be relevant it needs to reflect the real world in order to feed back into it as a form of accelerated learning.
Soldato
Its interesting how the fact F1 cars have been going slower for the last 10 years seems to be completely ignored, isn't it
Some people just like to moan regardless of the topic.
Soldato
The obvious choice is what F1 has just moved to. I don't mean no ICE, just not just the ICE.
Soldato
Going to post them in each thread.
Every so often they change the rules to lower downforce and every few years the teams eventually claw that back by various means so the rules change again to slow the cars down again. The cars would outgrow the circuits otherwise and you would have mile deep run offs and gravel traps and spectators would need binoculars to see the cars at some tracks.
Soldato
I suggest you look at the tracks records from 2004
then come back and say "well I never"
The pole lap for Australia 2004 is 20 seconds(you heard that right) faster than this year
But just for you as you're HOT
Australian race MSC 1:24.125 7 March 2004 (grooved tires)
Australian Race LH 1:44:231 16th March 2014
Soldato
The pole lap for Australia 2004 is 20 seconds(you heard that right) faster than this year
But just for you as you're HOT
Australian race MSC 1:24.125 7 March 2004 (grooved tires)
Australian Race LH 1:44:231 16th March 2014
Do you even bother reading other people's posts?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
So, qualifying was in the wet, and the fastest lap in the race was a 1:32.
At Bahrain fastest lap in race was a 1:37.02 while the fastest qualifying lap was a 1:33.18. So a 4 second difference between qualifying/fastest race lap.
In Australia fastest race lap being 1:32 might have meant a 1:27-28 qualifying lap. A wet qualifying requiring the full wet tire and comparing to dry is beyond ridiculous. The fastest practice session at Aussie this year had a 1:29 lap.
It's 3-4 seconds behind 2004, not even remotely close to 20 seconds.
At Bahrain fastest lap in race was a 1:37.02 while the fastest qualifying lap was a 1:33.18. So a 4 second difference between qualifying/fastest race lap.
In Australia fastest race lap being 1:32 might have meant a 1:27-28 qualifying lap. A wet qualifying requiring the full wet tire and comparing to dry is beyond ridiculous. The fastest practice session at Aussie this year had a 1:29 lap.
It's 3-4 seconds behind 2004, not even remotely close to 20 seconds.
Last edited:
Or checking who they are, as he's clearly thinking of the other MisChief...
Edit: HAHAHA! I hadn't spotted that his whole "20 seconds" argument was based on comparing a wet qualifying with a dry one! LOL!
Soldato
You don't either and welcome to my ignore list.
I'm going by the track record of each track which was done in quali, then see what they do this year.
OK back on topic again.
Soldato
It's horrible when reason comes into the equation, isn't it?
Soldato
The impression I get from this entire topic is that the majority of those who post against the new rules post "statistics" (such as Deuse's complete ******** comparison of qualifying times in Australia vs the qualifying from 2004 (lap record) which was in the wet on brand new regulations vs dry qualifying with known regulations, or the Ferrari 'poll') then go on to either ignore or dismiss the other side's view point, which is usually a lot more realistic.
It says a lot that all that the anti-new-F1 lot can produce is hyperbole and deliberately misleading statistics to try and to reinforce their point. You can be entitled to your opinion that you prefer old F1, that's fine, but to try and turn it into something other than your opinion is laughable.
It says a lot that all that the anti-new-F1 lot can produce is hyperbole and deliberately misleading statistics to try and to reinforce their point. You can be entitled to your opinion that you prefer old F1, that's fine, but to try and turn it into something other than your opinion is laughable.
This.
Its gone beyond being funny to actually being pathetic. There is a very valid and well formed argument to be had against the new rules, but unfortunately your never going to get it in a thread that also contains "omg they are 20 seconds slower!". Resorting to just putting anyone who questions the made up "facts" on ignore just tops it off really.
Last edited: