2014 Belgian GP - Spa-Francorchamps

[SectorOne]

You may be right about the RB6, that was certainly the closest a modern car has come,

What makes you think 2004 cars was the peak?
If you said 2008 or something i could understand it but 2004?

On top of that you have Newey saying the RB6 probably generated the most downforce in F1 history.

Edit: pretty interesting,



Schumacher did a 07.9 i think on Friday Quali.
I don´t think 2014 cars are all that far from a 2004 machine. That´s 10 years of aerodynamics to beat.

[beelsebob]

You may be right about the RB6, that was certainly the closest a modern car has come,

What makes you think 2004 cars was the peak?
If you said 2008 or something i could understand it but 2004?

On top of that you have Newey saying the RB6 probably generated the most downforce in F1 history.

Edit: pretty interesting,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Icf6PW64Yw

Schumacher did a 07.9 i think on Friday Quali.
I don´t think 2014 cars are all that far from a 2004 machine. That´s 10 years of aerodynamics to beat.

We already know that the 2014 cars are around 6-7 seconds a lap slower around the high downforce circuits we've been to even than the 2013 cars, which were themselves 1-2 seconds slower than the '08 cars. So we're likely looking at a ~10 seconds per lap deficit at Spa to the RB6 (due to the longer lap). The pole position lap in 1999 (when only half the teams had enough downforce to go flat) was 5 seconds slower than the 2010 one. With that in mind, I'm confident that the 2014 cars are not generating as much downforce as the 1999 ones, and that they will not be flat.

[strad]

They've been takin it flat for a long time before 2000. I think they still can. With the modern telemetry they let us see, it will be interesting to see if they still do. Not trying to start an argument but the best drivers have and still will in my opinion.... course years ago there were guys that claimed to, then when they saw the readout they had indeed lifted slightly.

[iotar__]

We already know that the 2014 cars are around 6-7 seconds a lap slower around the high downforce circuits we've been to even than the 2013 cars, which were themselves 1-2 seconds slower than the '08 cars.

We do? Six to seven seconds compared to 2013? How did you calculate that and which tracks do you consider "high downforce"? Glancing at Monaco, Hungary, Barcelona Q I don't really see that.

[dans79]

as soon as I read about taking Eau Rouge flat, this song came to mind!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W-fIn2QZgg

[Juzh]

We already know that the 2014 cars are around 6-7 seconds a lap slower around the high downforce circuits we've been to even than the 2013 cars, which were themselves 1-2 seconds slower than the '08 cars. So we're likely looking at a ~10 seconds per lap deficit at Spa to the RB6 (due to the longer lap). The pole position lap in 1999 (when only half the teams had enough downforce to go flat) was 5 seconds slower than the 2010 one. With that in mind, I'm confident that the 2014 cars are not generating as much downforce as the 1999 ones, and that they will not be flat.

6-7 is excessive. 5.2s was the maximum in spain. 4s for hungary.

Spa wasn't the same back then. But yeah, 2010 qually was also wet so cars probably had some time in hand.
But 10s deficit? That's too much. Spa is also a power circuit, and there is more of it this year. Also no rev limiters. The longer the straight, the bigger advantage to 2014. If there were 7 km of just corner after corner, then 10s could be possible, but that is not the case.

[Miguel]

I believe Eau Rouge will be full throttle only just in qualifying, and they'll lift during the race. Hopefully this will lead to a better driving challenge. In any case, even if 2014 cars produce a similar amount of downforce to 2003, they still are about 15% heavier. We saw how slow they were in Malaysia. Had Montmelo kept its old layout, it would have also been carnage.

Finally, the real question is: Will Raikkonen finally outrace Alonso?

[mrluke]

It really depends how much downforce they had in hand in previous years.

The RB6 wasnt at the very limits of its grip by taking eau rouge flat so even if the rb10 is 10-20% down on downforce it could still have enough.

Itll be interesting to see either way

[wesley123]

Like said, Villeneuve and Zonta made a bet that they could take Eau Rouge flat out that year. Seeing the crashes that didn't work very well, but seeing the assumption that they could shows that around that year, cars could take Eau rouge flat out.

Since then, aero has become so much better. And even though less and less was allowed, the parts that were allowed became more and more refined.

If we then take Adrian's Newey quote;

The RB6 was probably the car with the most downforce in the history of F1, more even than the legendary spoiler cars of the 1980s. We measured up to 5.5G of lateral acceleration.

The RB6 was Red Bull's 2010 challenger. Assuming 2000 to be the first year that cars could take Eau Rouge flat out, that means 10 years of aero development. In these ten years more and more have been outlawed and what was allowed has been refined and refined.

Since then, aero has continued to improve. Think of what effect the vortices shed by the front wing have. This was at it's early stages in 2010 and have since then been refined.

But that is assumptions, so let's compare qualifying times. What we have to remember is that in 2000 teams were allowed to change the whole car overnight, allowing an optimal qualifying as well as an optimal race setup;
Austrian GP:
2000: Mika Hakkinen 1:10.410
2014: Felipe Massa 1:08.759

As we can see from the Austrian GP, 2014 cars are quicker. What we also have to remember is that they are down on power and have more weight compared to 2000 cars.
Not enough? Let's take Canadian GP times;
2000: Michael Schumacher 1:18.439
2004: Ralf Schumacher 1:12.275
2014: Nico Rosberg 1:14.874

As we can see here, 2014 cars are significantly faster than 2000 cars, although a bit slower than 2004 cars. What we then have to take in consideration is that 2004 cars have a significant power advantage.

So with that said, we can see that 2014 cars are much quicker than the 2000 cars that could take Eau Rouge flat out or close to flat out.

2009 cars, which lost lots of downforce to 2008 cars took it flat out. I'd say it is safe to assume 2014 cars would be able to take Eau rouge flat out with ease.

[Juzh]

2009 cars, which lost lots of downforce to 2008 cars took it flat out. I'd say it is safe to assume 2014 cars would be able to take Eau rouge flat out with ease.

2009 lost minimal, if any DF compared to 2008. Otherwise BGP01 couldn't have set all time track record in barcelona and be generally quicker than 2008 cars on almost all DF heavy tracks. 2009 cars were also much quicker in Spa, despite having less power (-1k revs).
Even some midfield 2012 cars had difficulty taking eau rouge flat, so how could 2014 cars do it with tons less grip and more power is not clear to me.

I think RB could be the only car to maybe do so because we had similar situation trough last turn in barcelona this year. Merc wasn't flat in qually until their car was almost straight, whereas RB was flat from start to finish during the race. This really says it all about renault this year.

[dans79]

I have to say it's not as simple as a lot of people make it out to be. DF is roughly proportional to the velocity squared. Thus while a 2013 car might make more df than a 2014 car at the same speed, if the 2014 car enters the turn at a higher speed the extra speed might produce enough df to keep the car on the track.

[Juzh]

I have to say it's not as simple as a lot of people make it out to be. DF is roughly proportional to the velocity squared. Thus while a 2013 car might make more df than a 2014 car at the same speed, if the 2014 car enters the turn at a higher speed the extra speed might produce enough df to keep the car on the track.

Sorry, but it just doesn't work that way, as l4mbch0ps already said:

Code: Select all

It's not about how much downforce they are generating, it's about the ratio of total grip to the change in direction required... the faster they go through the corner, the more grip they require. Essentially what you are saying is that if you take the two cars (last years and this years) through the corner at the speeds at which they produce the same downforce, they will both make it - even though one car needs to go much faster through with the same amount of grip.

[SectorOne]

Assuming 2000 to be the first year that cars could take Eau Rouge flat out,

If the legend is true, it´s been flat since 91. Two individuals were said to take it flat that weekend.

[SectorOne]

2009 lost minimal, if any DF compared to 2008. Otherwise BGP01 couldn't have set all time track record in barcelona and be generally quicker than 2008 cars on almost all DF heavy tracks. 2009 cars were also much quicker in Spa, despite having less power (-1k revs).

Even the old Williams has a world record i think. Bahrain or something like that.
Can´t remember though if they ran the alternative layout that year.

[langwadt]

I have to say it's not as simple as a lot of people make it out to be. DF is roughly proportional to the velocity squared. Thus while a 2013 car might make more df than a 2014 car at the same speed, if the 2014 car enters the turn at a higher speed the extra speed might produce enough df to keep the car on the track.

the force needed to make the turn ~centrifugal force is also proportional to velocity squared