F1technical.net

Judging by the numbers on those links above. Both the Honda and Renault have seen a significant improvement in power and I would suggest usability. The main difference between 2015 and 16 is that both Honda and Renault powered cars have enough power this year to be able to use DRS successfully, especially if they are on a softer tyre. This was not the case in 2015 when opening the DRS often did nothing at all and a Williams would just power away.

Force India look in desperate straights and the new car looks exactly like the old one. I don't think it has evolved in any measure other then the fact it has a 2016 Mercedes engine. The FW38 Williams was designed around this new front wing they have and just like Red Bull at the start of 2015, it affects your performance if you don't have the correct front wing in use. The FW38 should get better.

The Manor is enjoying that Mercedes engine, look at the difference in Manor's top speeds between 2015 and 2016. 317.8 for Stevens vs 333.2 for Wehrlein . Paddy may well say that they are closer in 2016 but they still aren't anywhere close enough to Mercedes and one can only imagine how fast the RB12 would be if it had a Mercedes engine in it.

Hopefully the Renault upgrade will provide an extra 50hp for Canada. That would makes thing much nicer for anybody with a Renault built engine.

Something else has just occurred to me while watching a youtube video of the early 2000's F1. The v10's did those amazing laps on grooved tyres. That is something to consider when someone from Mercedes tells us the current cars are as fast as the V10's. The current cars are doing these fast lap times on what used to be the softest pirelli compound and are full slicks.

carisi2k wrote:Something else has just occurred to me while watching a youtube video of the early 2000's F1. The v10's did those amazing laps on grooved tyres. That is something to consider when someone from Mercedes tells us the current cars are as fast as the V10's. The current cars are doing these fast lap times on what used to be the softest pirelli compound and are full slicks.

But those 2000s tires were wider and a tire war was in full effect.

Juzh wrote:

carisi2k wrote:Something else has just occurred to me while watching a youtube video of the early 2000's F1. The v10's did those amazing laps on grooved tyres. That is something to consider when someone from Mercedes tells us the current cars are as fast as the V10's. The current cars are doing these fast lap times on what used to be the softest pirelli compound and are full slicks.

But those 2000s tires were wider and a tire war was in full effect.

not when they were running on grooves.. that was the whole point of having the grooves... the contact patch is much smaller so the actual width of the tire doesnt really matter

Those earlier cars may have had slicks, but they also had larger rear wings, diffusers, had a beam wing, were lighter etc. I don't understand the 'but they had grooves' comparison.

Blaze1 wrote:Those earlier cars may have had slicks, but they also had larger rear wings, diffusers, had a beam wing, were lighter etc. I don't understand the 'but they had grooves' comparison.

the grooves point is to illustrate that the cars of today have more mechanical grip than the cars of the early 2000s that ran grooved tires thats all. i personally just miss the sound of those V10s with traction control... i'll be ok though lol

Juzh wrote:

carisi2k wrote:Something else has just occurred to me while watching a youtube video of the early 2000's F1. The v10's did those amazing laps on grooved tyres. That is something to consider when someone from Mercedes tells us the current cars are as fast as the V10's. The current cars are doing these fast lap times on what used to be the softest pirelli compound and are full slicks.

But those 2000s tires were wider and a tire war was in full effect.

I don't think the tyres were wider. Maybe the front was an inch wider but considering half the tyre was missing in grooves those cars would still have gone a lot faster on a proper slick.

carisi2k wrote:

Juzh wrote:

carisi2k wrote:Something else has just occurred to me while watching a youtube video of the early 2000's F1. The v10's did those amazing laps on grooved tyres. That is something to consider when someone from Mercedes tells us the current cars are as fast as the V10's. The current cars are doing these fast lap times on what used to be the softest pirelli compound and are full slicks.

But those 2000s tires were wider and a tire war was in full effect.

I don't think the tyres were wider. Maybe the front was an inch wider but considering half the tyre was missing in grooves those cars would still have gone a lot faster on a proper slick.

Fronts were 25mm wider.

giantfan10 wrote:

Blaze1 wrote:Those earlier cars may have had slicks, but they also had larger rear wings, diffusers, had a beam wing, were lighter etc. I don't understand the 'but they had grooves' comparison.

the grooves point is to illustrate that the cars of today have more mechanical grip than the cars of the early 2000s that ran grooved tires thats all. i personally just miss the sound of those V10s with traction control... i'll be ok though lol

I understand.

giantfan10 wrote:

Blaze1 wrote:Those earlier cars may have had slicks, but they also had larger rear wings, diffusers, had a beam wing, were lighter etc. I don't understand the 'but they had grooves' comparison.

the grooves point is to illustrate that the cars of today have more mechanical grip than the cars of the early 2000s that ran grooved tires thats all. i personally just miss the sound of those V10s with traction control... i'll be ok though lol

Current cars are like 200kg heavier.

giantfan10 wrote:

Blaze1 wrote:Those earlier cars may have had slicks, but they also had larger rear wings, diffusers, had a beam wing, were lighter etc. I don't understand the 'but they had grooves' comparison.

the grooves point is to illustrate that the cars of today have more mechanical grip than the cars of the early 2000s that ran grooved tires thats all. i personally just miss the sound of those V10s with traction control... i'll be ok though lol

I wouldn't bet on it.

Cars gained 2-3s a lap between 2003 and 2004 and most of that was due to tyre development.

mrluke wrote:

giantfan10 wrote:

Blaze1 wrote:Those earlier cars may have had slicks, but they also had larger rear wings, diffusers, had a beam wing, were lighter etc. I don't understand the 'but they had grooves' comparison.

the grooves point is to illustrate that the cars of today have more mechanical grip than the cars of the early 2000s that ran grooved tires thats all. i personally just miss the sound of those V10s with traction control... i'll be ok though lol

Current cars are like 200kg heavier.

100kg, actually.

wuzak wrote:

giantfan10 wrote:

Blaze1 wrote:Those earlier cars may have had slicks, but they also had larger rear wings, diffusers, had a beam wing, were lighter etc. I don't understand the 'but they had grooves' comparison.

the grooves point is to illustrate that the cars of today have more mechanical grip than the cars of the early 2000s that ran grooved tires thats all. i personally just miss the sound of those V10s with traction control... i'll be ok though lol

I wouldn't bet on it.

Cars gained 2-3s a lap between 2003 and 2004 and most of that was due to tyre development.

2006 tyres (michelins especially) were on a completely different level. Last year of tire war and no longer required to last a whole race distance certainly made an impact.

I remember drivers saying 2007 bridgestones to be a much more relaxed tire with a lot less grip compared to previous year.

wuzak wrote:

mrluke wrote:

giantfan10 wrote: the grooves point is to illustrate that the cars of today have more mechanical grip than the cars of the early 2000s that ran grooved tires thats all. i personally just miss the sound of those V10s with traction control... i'll be ok though lol

Current cars are like 200kg heavier.

100kg, actually.

Correct, my bad.

Still makes a big difference.

mrluke wrote:

giantfan10 wrote:

Blaze1 wrote:Those earlier cars may have had slicks, but they also had larger rear wings, diffusers, had a beam wing, were lighter etc. I don't understand the 'but they had grooves' comparison.

the grooves point is to illustrate that the cars of today have more mechanical grip than the cars of the early 2000s that ran grooved tires thats all. i personally just miss the sound of those V10s with traction control... i'll be ok though lol

Current cars are like 200kg heavier.

No they aren't. The cars in 2013 were 640kg and the current cars are 702kg. The cars in the early 2000's might have been about 600kg.

Please note that is the weight including driver. In the 90's the minimum car weight of 540kg did not include the driver.