Straight line speed

[Nando]

nevermind, read wrong.

[markp]

It's how fast you complete a straight for laptime. In roadcar tests when measurung a standing mile some cars do the mile faster but have a lower top speed during the run. This was in an autocar article a few months back.

Due to poor traction could Ferrari be losing more time on the straight than the speed traps indicate ie the 1st portion of a straight?

[MIKEY_!]

The best gearing gives you the highest average speed over the straight. If that means hitting the limiter half way along it or right at the end then that's what you do.

[Crucial_Xtreme]

The best gearing gives you the highest average speed over the straight. If that means hitting the limiter half way along it or right at the end then that's what you do.

+1


We won't really know if Ferrari improved their top speed issues until Montmelo.

[.poz]

Anyway is better to gain 5km/h on a slow corner that on a straight. Top speed can be an useful indication of a car aerodynamic efficiency and traction but is quite irrelevant to win a race in DRS days.

[raymondu999]

Unless of course you're a slower car and you're lacking 5kph on the straight.

[f1316]

I think the point is that many were saying that the lack of top speed was due, in part, to a lack of traction coming out of the corners. With any luck, that (as well as the drag caused by the acer ducts) is what's been improved. How they then choose to gear for the best effect is something else, but hopefully they're now better able to put the power down.

As has been said though, we will not know this for sure until Barcelona.

[HIEQS]

The best gearing gives you the highest average speed over the straight. If that means hitting the limiter half way along it or right at the end then that's what you do.

You are right, hitting the limiter sooner or later on a straight is purely based on the trade off w.r.t to car balance and set up. Simple physics states that the faster you get to your top speed the faster you will complete the straight. so what vettel did in monza was the best set up for his car. They already had the best downforce set up, hence RB could compromise and compensate for their lack of top speed by shortening the time it takes to travel the straight, this gave vettel a good set up for the fastest lap time he could. for example low traction would mean compromising the torque, hence acceleration rate as a high torque would cause wheel spin round corners and make the car dance around and lose time. So best set up would be to trade off torque for better balance and lap time. i guess what we saw in mugello was a hint that ferrari may have sloved the issue but remember mugello is for high speed corners and not low speed... so we need to wait for barcelona to see how f2012 cope with low speed corners and if there top speed is reached well before the straight compared to others then we could say that f2012 has found some good DF and balance...

[bhallg2k]

Anyway is better to gain 5km/h on a slow corner that on a straight [...]

I disagree. It's generally better to be fast on faster parts of a circuit than it is to be fast on slower parts, simply because a car covers more ground on the faster parts of a circuit. That's why the F2012's lack of top-speed is (was?) such a problem.

[motobaleno]

Anyway is better to gain 5km/h on a slow corner that on a straight [...]

I disagree. It's generally better to be fast on faster parts of a circuit than it is to be fast on slower parts, simply because a car covers more ground on the faster parts of a circuit. That's why the F2012's lack of top-speed is (was?) such a problem.

it's exactly the opposite.
it'rather easy to understand it by reasoning but if you want an authoritative confirm you can read this

http://www.blogf1.it/2012/05/07/gp-barcellona-impostare-lassetto-per-il-circuito-di-catalunya/

[TheRMVR]

Anyway is better to gain 5km/h on a slow corner that on a straight [...]

I disagree. It's generally better to be fast on faster parts of a circuit than it is to be fast on slower parts, simply because a car covers more ground on the faster parts of a circuit. That's why the F2012's lack of top-speed is (was?) such a problem.

That's ridiculous, its exactly the other way around.

[kebab]

Anyway is better to gain 5km/h on a slow corner that on a straight [...]

I disagree. It's generally better to be fast on faster parts of a circuit than it is to be fast on slower parts, simply because a car covers more ground on the faster parts of a circuit. That's why the F2012's lack of top-speed is (was?) such a problem.

Wasn't RBR gave away top speed in exchange of more DF in order to be faster in slow corner and that helped them win big time last year?

[MIKEY_!]

Being faster in the slow corners is only useful if you aren't too much slower in the straights.
Equally another team might have won if they were very fast on the straights and only a bit slower in tight corners.

[kebab]

For sure teams will need to compromise this but the starting point is key. Do they want to be fast on slow coner then compromise or the other way around.

[radosav]

i don't see the point arguing about this when all teams have softwares and know how to find best balance between straight line speed and corner speed for their car characheristics and track condition