Listen to 0:07 he says that remember he is carying a race fuel, in 2015 the cars have almost no fuel in tank to be fast, but in 2008 they had to use the same fuel for both Q and race, the 2008 car was much heavier
DanyFox they still are not too far off the track records, on majority of tracks they are about 1-2 sec slower (with all these changes that made the cars slower). In Q1 at that race the fastest was at 25.1, without fuel race. I think it's comparable, next year they will be a bit faster and probably about there with the fastest years...
Adrian Bacea Melbourne Q2 2004: 1.24.4. They have a good way to go still. The problem is they can't attack consistently without tyres falling out of temperature range plus tyre and fuel conservation. In race conditions anything from 2004/2010 will slaughter the new cars in the first half of the race because of that.
Jejking In race conditions the situation is a whole lot different, starting from refueling, tyres etc. I think the landmark remains the speed in qualy, where it's revealed the potential of the car. And like I said at the moment the average it's about 1-2 sec slower than the fastest years (2004, 2006...). I don't think it's bad, in those years they were sick fast-many of the corners being taken flat...And they will soon get closer to that.
Agree with you there mate, the cars and drivers are living up as soon as the fuel is down. The absolute potential is quite good (but still a lot of downforce is missing, partly a good thing since drivers have to work harder, but also the tyres are fluctuating still too much). About 1 year to enjoy that before they throw it upside down again..
Don't forget that 2008 cars used grooved tires.
+Francesco Cherubini They weren't shit temperature sensitive tires though...
That had the same contact patch as the 2015 specs
though no DRS in 2008
so, these new cars aren't that slow
Listen to 0:07 he says that remember he is carying a race fuel, in 2015 the cars have almost no fuel in tank to be fast, but in 2008 they had to use the same fuel for both Q and race, the 2008 car was much heavier
DanyFox they still are not too far off the track records, on majority of tracks they are about 1-2 sec slower (with all these changes that made the cars slower). In Q1 at that race the fastest was at 25.1, without fuel race. I think it's comparable, next year they will be a bit faster and probably about there with the fastest years...
Adrian Bacea Melbourne Q2 2004: 1.24.4. They have a good way to go still. The problem is they can't attack consistently without tyres falling out of temperature range plus tyre and fuel conservation. In race conditions anything from 2004/2010 will slaughter the new cars in the first half of the race because of that.
Jejking In race conditions the situation is a whole lot different, starting from refueling, tyres etc. I think the landmark remains the speed in qualy, where it's revealed the potential of the car. And like I said at the moment the average it's about 1-2 sec slower than the fastest years (2004, 2006...). I don't think it's bad, in those years they were sick fast-many of the corners being taken flat...And they will soon get closer to that.
Agree with you there mate, the cars and drivers are living up as soon as the fuel is down. The absolute potential is quite good (but still a lot of downforce is missing, partly a good thing since drivers have to work harder, but also the tyres are fluctuating still too much). About 1 year to enjoy that before they throw it upside down again..
Why no v8 sound 😢
I think 2015 won
The 2011 cars were the fastest ever done because of the blow diffuser
+Thomas Galli Wrong...
+Thomas Galli 2004 was the year most of the lap records was done
2010 dude.
2004!
@@Danteright 2019 is when everyone shattered those records