F1 cars are 8 seconds slower than 10 years ago.

[Blanchimont]

Moto gp gained 6s in Indianapolis this year on tamrac change alone.

Yes, it is a factor. The 6s you talk about in Moto GP are not only due to the track surface change, the layout was also changed with some corners being wider.

[foxmulder_ms]

Even if they are slower I have zero problem with it. Current engines are work of art. Especially if they lead other big companies to join. I have no romantic feeling for small teams, I really prefer to see clash of the titans. Hope all the top 10 car companies to compete

[McMrocks]

Moto gp gained 6s in Indianapolis this year on tamrac change alone.

Yes, it is a factor. The 6s you talk about in Moto GP are not only due to the track surface change, the layout was also changed with some corners being wider.

plus assymetric front tyre IIRC

[Moose]

So, 0.2 seconds away from the all time fastest ever lap. F1 isn't slow.

[Kingshark]

Today the cars were as fast as they were in 2004 (Rosberg had a 1:09.8 in him). They are also 2.5 seconds faster than they were in 2012, let that one sink in.

Yeah, the "F1 is to slow" critics have been well and truly shut up today.

[McMrocks]

Today the cars were as fast as they were in 2004 (Rosberg had a 1:09.8 in him). They are also 2.5 seconds faster than they were in 2012, let that one sink in.

Yeah, the "F1 is to slow" critics have been well and truly shut up today.

But we don't know how fast an f1 car from 2004 would be on that tarmac. But well, today nobody can complain that the cars look to slow. They looked just as fast as in 2004.

[Juzh]

Moto gp gained 6s in Indianapolis this year on tamrac change alone.

Yes, it is a factor. The 6s you talk about in Moto GP are not only due to the track surface change, the layout was also changed with some corners being wider.

Oops, you're right.

[bhall II]

Today the cars were as fast as they were in 2004 (Rosberg had a 1:09.8 in him). They are also 2.5 seconds faster than they were in 2012, let that one sink in.

Yeah, the "F1 is to slow" critics have been well and truly shut up today.

The previous NA V8s lost as much as 10% of their power at São Paulo because of reduced air density caused by the city's relatively high elevation (~2,500 ft). Turbocharged engines don't suffer that problem.

So, unless the sport starts running races in the Himalayas, it's still slower than previous years.

[Moose]

Today the cars were as fast as they were in 2004 (Rosberg had a 1:09.8 in him). They are also 2.5 seconds faster than they were in 2012, let that one sink in.

Yeah, the "F1 is to slow" critics have been well and truly shut up today.

The previous NA V8s lost as much as 10% of their power at São Paulo because of reduced air density caused by the city's relatively high elevation (~2,500 ft). Turbocharged engines don't suffer that problem.

So, unless the sport starts running races in the Himalayas, it's still slower than previous years.

Actually, in a way, the turbo engines do suffer that. Every bit of exhaust gas that's used to spin up the turbine to throw air into the engine is exhaust gas that isn't used to generate power in the MGU-H.

[bhall II]

The MGU-H typically recovers energy that would ordinarily be lost through a wastegate. So, I don't see a big loss here; certainly not 85bhp. The low laptime also puts a greater emphasis on energy harvested to the ES under braking, because the allowed 33.3s of full ERS use amounts to nearly half the lap.

[Tommy Cookers]

Actually, in a way, the turbo engines do suffer that. Every bit of exhaust gas that's used to spin up the turbine to throw air into the engine is exhaust gas that isn't used to generate power in the MGU-H.

surely not so ?
the pressure difference across the turbine (for a given massflow) is greater and so tends to increase power at the turbine
for this reason compounded aircraft engines actually gave more turbine power and so more efficiency with altitude
eg the Wright TC gave in its later 7.25 CR version 0.37 lb/hp-hr (36% efficiency) at sea level and 0.34 lb (38.5%) at 30000'
(though at these low boosts recovery is small and the uncompounded engine version would be about 34% efficient at sea level)

in our case when the mgu-h is producing power altitude will increase that power (surplus of turbine power over compressor power)
assuming there's no efficiency/rpm pitfalls
if we choose not to take so much mgu-h recovery the exhaust pressure will be lower, so increasing crankshaft power

the real fun should be in Mexico next year
the much higher altitude might help some engines more than others

btw the tv commentator has just said that the NA engines lost 40 hp from the Interlagos altitude

[PlatinumZealot]

So, 0.2 seconds away from the all time fastest ever lap. F1 isn't slow.

Slick tyres, resurfaced track, electric motor to go up the hill, turbo boost at high altitude. So many things helping the cars at interlagos. It is not that the chassis is faster or anything.

[mrluke]

Funny that there is always an excuse why the current cars being pretty damn quick "doesn't count"

[hollus]

Are you suggesting considering lap times in a discussion about car speed? Gimme a break!

[siskue2005]

Funny that there is always an excuse why the current cars being pretty damn quick "doesn't count"

exactly