Dry track and slick tyres, versus damp track and grooved tyres, and the F2004 was ahead all the way until the chicane. One of these cars was definitely much better than the other.
In 2004, they had to do their only qualifying lap with fuel on bord and the tire for the first pit stop! So schumi has only one lap with about 13-15 lap of fuel in cars compare to rosberg with no fuel onboard (3-4 laps maybe...?) and a fresh set of tire for only that lap...... in 2004 they were quicker in the race than in qualy. Even the 2017 car are slower on lap time in race configuration...
+mark rossi ... ok so not a F1 follower I see. Those where teh ries of the time, Not wet just grooved, and those are Bridgestone Tires, I take those even with grooves over any Pirelli {wannbe} tire of today.
Of course if Schummi drove the 2015 car he would beat the time of Rosberg with a second. If Rosberg drove Schummi his car in 2004 he would not be near his time.
The thing is past 10 years fia did f1 cars aerodynamic grip worst, and mechanical grip better. F2004 eats alive todays f1 cars fast corners. But at slow corners, with turbo engines and slick tires todays f1 cars faster than 2004 cars. I watched entire season of 2004, and miss that days.. F1 never be the same again
2015 Mercedes has DRS and ERS and the last chicane was a bit earlier than in 2004, so Schumi has a longer way to go With all that the 2004 Ferrari is only a second slower than in 2015. Imagine the F 2004 has DRS and ERS, the Mercedes would look like a piece of shit...
+TheFelix1703 Yes in 2004 the cars generated more downforce with their wings, which is also why the races were boring as shit, because they couldn't drive close to each other. It is true, that they used grooved tyres in 2004, but the amount of mechanical grip, that is gained through the slightly bigger surface area of the 2015 slicks does not make up for the difference in downforce generated through the wings. Yes, what about the wings? How can a system in your car, which enables you to floor it out of every apex with zero wheelspin make the car slower?
sjmzeldaavgnfan Todays cars create more downforce than 2004. Corners like Eau Rouge are not even a challenge anymore. Todays cars have more spare wings, and those wings are even lower. The wider front wing also makes a difference here. Also, electronic driver aids make the car slower. You are not getting full power from the engine. Its just there to save wheelspin, and you would have had a lot of wheelspin with 900 hp engines and grooved tyres.
No they dont. At 240 km/h the cars in 2004 generated 1600lbs of downforce. Todays cars only manage around 966lbs. This is due to the restriction in aerodynamic developments. Back in 04, teams had much more freedom in that aspect. The amount of spare wings is unrelated to the the amount of downforce generated through them. The actual position of the wings have also not changed much, only the nose position. I'm aware that EDAs prevent the engine from exerting its full power. However they don't do this constantly. Aids like TC are only active at low-speeds, when accelerating out of a corner for instance. It cuts the power until the car has reached a speed, where its generated downforce exceeds its own weight. At this point no wheelspin with no sort pf tyre is possible anymore and TC is inactive an the engine can harness its full power again. It also only cuts the power just enough to prevent wheelspin. Its the same thing drivers are doing today, when accelerating out of a corner. Drivers are doing a similar thing today when accelerating out of a corner, but they can't do it even remotley as good as a computer programm of course. So with aids like TC the drivers could accelerate out of a corner faster. In other words they were faster because of driver aids.
Those V10's sound superb! While I doubt they ever will bring them back, a sure fire way to generate interest back into the sport would be to open the formula to allow teams to run whatever motor/power unit they wanted granted power was equalized.
They should limit power and fuel flow while letting every variable such as cylinder count, bank angle, na/turbo, and displacement be open to see where innovation would take us into the most optimal configuration.
***** Capping the horsepower instead of the displacement lets manufacturers find what the best amount of cylinders, and overall displacement is for the required amount power.
+joe salazar Actually no, that's not true. You have to remember that the current cars are equipped with DRS. And since this is a qualifying lap, Nico can use this system on every straight. That's where the time is being made up.
+Jamie Gamie 320 kmh man, that obviosly was drs. besides the 2004 car was ahead at the beginning of the lap, over the s curves zone. you can notice taking a reference point.
but make no mistake about how rosberg destroyed schumi between 2010-2012. No question, schumi is the greatest of all time, but at that time rosberg was the better driver.
@@nicoeissing1310 but yeah coming back out of a retirement of 4 year's at a age of 41. Not driving a oversteercar but a understeercar what Rosberg preferred more, and Nico was in his prime(but when Lewis came, the mind game started, because he never won from him) . Also look at Kimi now how he is racing now, age does a lot with people. You can't race on the edge for a whole season anymore.
Schumacher had worse track conditions than Rosberg who was also allowed pure slick tyres, KERS and DRS. The lap record is still held by Kimi Raikkonen from over a decade ago. The fastest era of F1 is long gone.
possibly worse compound, heavier car, safer car and better engine. Not bad keeping up with the F2004 despite the F2004 is possibly on worse weather condition.
With traction control... lol the most boring era in history once haikkinen retired. 2002-2005 rip F1 2006 was okay same with 2007 08 and 09 2010 was excellent and it's gone slowly down hill since then 15 at times was good this years been shit
Slightly different track layouts too... The track in 2004 is a bit longer than the current layout of the track, which was updated in 2009. So the 2015 track is slightly (marginally) shorter.
for that reason that 2004 the car full of electronic driver aids is michael have a lot to do to hold the car in the lane and 2015 without all that electronic shit nico is really chilled
no wonder 2015 are way faster on straight line. This car developed over 900bhp (with fuel-restriction) due to its turbo, hcci "diesel like combustion" (thermal efficiency up near 50%), instantaneous torque output from ers (160bhp linear power curve), drs, slick tyres....on and on and on...
its not the V6T the problem. If they could make them 1000hp and make them revv at 18000rpm i'm preaty sure the V6T would sound great and much louder. Similar to the V8s in terms of Decibels
Don't forget that in 2004 they had to qualify with race fuel due to Bernie trying everything in the book to slow Ferrari/Schumacher down. If the F2004 had only qualifying levels of fuel, slick tyres & DRS he could well have been a couple of seconds faster. That stupid qualifying gimmick is why Schumacher didn't have many, many more pole positions due to qualifying not being the be-all and end-all.
Michael was faster everywhere (despite the track being damp)...until the last section heading to the flat out 130R onwards where the higher top speed of the Turbo Mercedes just claws back the lead Michael built in the twistier sections. 11 years older then the Merc, but that F2004 is still a beast.
Is very difficoult decode the lap. To much stuff are changed,.anyway in the last chigane Nico pass easy and without any problem on the sconnection (the border delimitations), as the car don't suffered. Michael while ... , there MS loose 7-8 thents. About the guide style Michael rest inimitable, as Agnelli told before his come in Ferrari: "..i like this guy.., he drive with the 'ass'..". Michael was very live inside the cockpit, not stand like a mummy. I don't know how say but was different by everyone else and in my opinion in complex the best driver ever. Ayrton was more extreme, awesome under this aspect, but 'take thecrisk' to win in the 2006 the his 8th title after 15 years by the debut is not stuff for all. His extraordinary resistance in race was almost superhuman that's the my opinion..
Much more tire grip and also more downforce, no engine token system. Today in Austria they've already broken the records again and still getting better.
The F2004 was significantly faster through corners than the W06, even without slicks, but the W06's greater torque (and maybe horsepower) combined with less drag made it faster in a straight line than the F2004, and better under braking because of its slicks.
Did the 2004 cars really generate more downforce than the 2015 cars? Look at the sophisticated front wings, rear wings, aero devices on the bodywork of the later cars....I'm not so convinced that the 2004 cars had more downforce personally....
Back in traction control days the cars could be set up more oversteering to make the car more agile, without TC the driver must have a very good rely to the car to give throttle, so the rear must be more stable.
wet vs dry slicks vs grooved and look how magnificent that schumi drives look how much harder to drive 04' car instead 15' and what makes Ferrari faster is definately not kers and top speed even though it did not have kers drs and those bullshit its almost as fast as 15' car and the thing which is way cooler is that Ferrari is faster in the corners god damn boy it was way more intense back then
They would be slower, the V10 had 960 hp at their peak in 2005 (Honda) but only 300nm. The hybrids also has around 960 hp but more importantly 700nm of torque.
The current engines are ridiculously fast and the cars would be even faster if FIA hadn't put a restriction on the amount of downforce they can generate AND if they allow Pirelli to build a tire that would actually last instead of the current degrading tires that requires tire management.
the hybrid systems is nonsense. They weigh 100kg more and gain only 161 hp. Does it make sense to you? The V6 engine without ERS would be faster. And by the way, torque doesn't mean anything. Power = torque *rpm The only difference in driving between V10 and V6 hybrid is, that you have to drive the v10 in high revs for full power, but it doesn't mean the v6 hybrid is quicker because of more torque. Espacially not out of corners when you need uniform force unfolding.
They gain 160 hp from the ERS, but much more importantly, they gain over the double amount of torque, 700nm in the hybrids compared to only 300nm in the V10s as I said before. Your comment is completely ignorant. Do you even know what torque is? Its a force meassured over distance hence the term "newton meters" or "foot pounds". Sure its more difficult to put the power down, but that's just a good thing and shows the skill of the drivers more. But 400nm of extra torque is a crazy amount and makes for better acceleration and top speed.
Rottensteam You don't get the point. RPM * torque = power. The hybrid has more torque but therefore less rpm. V10 is the other way around. Important to know is that both engines has less or more 950 hPOWER. (same level of power) We could now discuss what is more important for a race car. Torque or rpm. ;) And by the way, higher topspeed with a 1,6 ltr. engine? ;) What was best top speed in Monza with DRS this year against v10? I don't say the engine i shit, but it is complete nonsense. A turbo (1.6 ltr.) without ERS would have had more torque as a v10 too, but with 100kg less weight as a current car and only 161 less hp. Torque doesn't matter. It is about weight/power ratio.
They would be 2-3 seconds slower without ERS and DRS...The 1 second improvement is the result of DRS on the straight line and a more open chicane. Before that Michael was way ahead.
They went to less cylinders in the engine, and a larger and consequently heavier fuel load so that they could remove fuel from the pit stops because of so many fires. Granted, in qualifying the fuel load would be less, but the Pirelli tires have more mechanical grip because of the the grooves in the Micheline tires were grooved so they didnt have a large surface area in contact with the track and slowed the cars down in the corners for safety. The 2017 tires will bring even more grip and the wider front wing will bring more downforce as well.
The Ferrari had much more downforce thats why it looks so fast around corners and so agressive, but whats amazing to me is the Ferrari had V10, 3L, 19 000 RPM, no fuel limitations, more downforce and yet mercedes is faster!
just because the enigine is bigger and peak power is higher doesn't mean its faster. A turbo engine has its torque across the (whole)rev band, the power band is also a lot wider on a turbo engine. so let say the v10 has 900 horses on the peak of 18000rpm en it builds up this power linear from 6000rpm. the turbo engine has 700 horses but almost from 6000rpm trought out the 12000rpm rev limit. so the average power that hits the wheels is a lot higher on a turbo engine!!!
+Bloody RUclips Naming Nonsense But he was driving car around 100 kg lighter, with traction control to boot. Plus the tyres may have had grooves in them but they were developed during the tyre war and had enormous amounts of grip. The track was only slightly damp in the first sector, but it got worse in the latter stages of the lap which is also where the 2015 car caught up.
you pretend you know f1 but you dont. you justify nico's time because of drs. in fact you are all wrong. suzuka is the only trck along with monaco that has only one drs zone and that is in the straight finish line. there no help from drs here its pure engine power. the only thing debatable is whether the track was damp in 2004 or not. still yet the modern cars never cease to amaze me considering their weight and aero. well done to human kind.
+magicalrobster wrong, Rosberg was carrying maybe 1 lap of fuel, because he was on his flying lap on Q3, while the Ferrari had to qualify with the same amount of fuel it was going to have at the start of the race. So no, the F2004 is a hell of a lot faster than this hybrid crap.
+andarax8 good point I forgot they had to carry race fuel. for me it's not the hybrid engine that's the problem, it's bhp is quite similar to the v10 they both get about 950. It's just the racing's not as close. Mercedes have done too good a job. but then fair play to them
+taylan bozkaya I'm not saying that Schumi was slow in the corners, he was just slower than Nico. He was even quicker in the straight line at the beginning.
Did nobody notice that schumacher started the lap about 0.5s before rosberg? I used the start lights as a marker and I've rewatched it many times to confirm. Looks like rosberg was equal all the way until the back straight when the mighty mercedes v6 stretched its legs to pull ahead. Great stuff.
Uuhmmmm... V10 traction control? And of course it's limited on engine power, it's a friggin v6, but a v6 turbo without traction control. Yes drs hybrid, but weighs 700 kg don't forget, but remember, this is still a misrepresentation, back then they had a lot of fuel on qualifying, not today though, so it would have weighed a lot more than if it did qualifying today, todays cars remove the fuel for qualifying so they are lighter than normal. Yes 2015 cars have drs but 2004 had traction control, and no doubt that's better So kinda equal. Yes V10 is sweeter, but I would be happy if someone gave me an opportunity to drive one of the f1 v6 turbo, i would probably cry, and so would you and don't lie, so stop moaning about v6 engines everybody, i know i got you there. Things could be worse, Formula E...
The entire lap until the final chicane the F2004 was ahead...
Dry track and slick tyres, versus damp track and grooved tyres, and the F2004 was ahead all the way until the chicane. One of these cars was definitely much better than the other.
Tu as tout dis !et la f2004 c était la bombe et son pilote surtout !😢
2004 not dry
High speed corners and steering-wheel "struggle" and fucking GOD engine sound
what a awesome grip on f2004 and engine sound 😍 F1 please be back in those years
In 2004, they had to do their only qualifying lap with fuel on bord and the tire for the first pit stop! So schumi has only one lap with about 13-15 lap of fuel in cars compare to rosberg with no fuel onboard (3-4 laps maybe...?) and a fresh set of tire for only that lap...... in 2004 they were quicker in the race than in qualy. Even the 2017 car are slower on lap time in race configuration...
On one side we have a F1 can on the other side ve have a loud vacuum cleaner with fancy aerodynamics and open wheels.
The 130R is bigger in 2004 ..
wet vs dry, slicks vs grooved.
+Julian I had assumed these are qualifying laps, they arent? if they are then fuel would be the same.
+mark rossi yup low fuel for both!
+mark rossi +mark rossi In 2004 all cars had grooved tyres. It's basically dry vs dry.
+MichaSpielt he said that the track was slightly wet in the 2004 part and tyres were grooved, so less grip in both ways
+mark rossi ... ok so not a F1 follower I see. Those where teh ries of the time, Not wet just grooved, and those are Bridgestone Tires, I take those even with grooves over any Pirelli {wannbe} tire of today.
Schumacher is way ahead in corners.
Of course if Schummi drove the 2015 car he would beat the time of Rosberg with a second. If Rosberg drove Schummi his car in 2004 he would not be near his time.
look at the legend...u will love the f1 because of him
Great comparison. Great video. I would be keen of seeing another comparing Michael and Sebastian.
where is the sound of nico's car? i can't hear it
The thing is past 10 years fia did f1 cars aerodynamic grip worst, and mechanical grip better. F2004 eats alive todays f1 cars fast corners. But at slow corners, with turbo engines and slick tires todays f1 cars faster than 2004 cars. I watched entire season of 2004, and miss that days.. F1 never be the same again
Imagine the f2004 on slicks
Michael was ahead until 130R
fuck a 6 cylinder turbo.. no matter what the lap times are it sounds like my weed eater on high octane fuel! bring back the v10's!
V10 BEST! .... this v6 engines sounds like vacum cleaner
The sound is unused power. Contemporary v6 is a masterpiece.
@@YurySigolaev no
F2004 IS THE BEST CAR EVER.
Schumacker is also a better driver than Rosburg
2015 more power... 2004 more emotion, more sound, more pilot, more car, more...
Nothing will ever beat 1000 naturally aspirated horses.
RIP F1
Unbelivable how fast MSC trough the Corner Section is. And on the Long Flat Out Back Strait ROS came back.
2015 Mercedes has DRS and ERS and the last chicane was a bit earlier than in 2004, so Schumi has a longer way to go
With all that the 2004 Ferrari is only a second slower than in 2015. Imagine the F 2004 has DRS and ERS, the Mercedes would look like a piece of shit...
But the 2004 car is much lighter, has much more downforce and electronic driver aids. Yet it is slower. Progress.
Much more downforce? What about slicks? Or the wings? Or the fact that electronic driver aids make the car slower?
+TheFelix1703 Yes in 2004 the cars generated more downforce with their wings, which is also why the races were boring as shit, because they couldn't drive close to each other.
It is true, that they used grooved tyres in 2004, but the amount of mechanical grip, that is gained through the slightly bigger surface area of the 2015 slicks does not make up for the difference in downforce generated through the wings.
Yes, what about the wings?
How can a system in your car, which enables you to floor it out of every apex with zero wheelspin make the car slower?
sjmzeldaavgnfan
Todays cars create more downforce than 2004. Corners like Eau Rouge are not even a challenge anymore. Todays cars have more spare wings, and those wings are even lower. The wider front wing also makes a difference here.
Also, electronic driver aids make the car slower. You are not getting full power from the engine. Its just there to save wheelspin, and you would have had a lot of wheelspin with 900 hp engines and grooved tyres.
No they dont. At 240 km/h the cars in 2004 generated 1600lbs of downforce. Todays cars only manage around 966lbs. This is due to the restriction in aerodynamic developments. Back in 04, teams had much more freedom in that aspect. The amount of spare wings is unrelated to the the amount of downforce generated through them. The actual position of the wings have also not changed much, only the nose position. I'm aware that EDAs prevent the engine from exerting its full power. However they don't do this constantly. Aids like TC are only active at low-speeds, when accelerating out of a corner for instance. It cuts the power until the car has reached a speed, where its generated downforce exceeds its own weight. At this point no wheelspin with no sort pf tyre is possible anymore and TC is inactive an the engine can harness its full power again. It also only cuts the power just enough to prevent wheelspin. Its the same thing drivers are doing today, when accelerating out of a corner. Drivers are doing a similar thing today when accelerating out of a corner, but they can't do it even remotley as good as a computer programm of course. So with aids like TC the drivers could accelerate out of a corner faster. In other words they were faster because of driver aids.
omg the engine noises together sounds like a trumpet
音の高揚感は完全にシューマッハ
てかタイムもシューマッハの方が速いな
It's amazing that the hybrids can run the speeds that they do
True fastest lap at Suzuka is Schumi's 1:28.954 ,set at Q2 in 2006
Now it´s Vettel´s 1:27.064
Do you have a video clip on that run?
cameras got better, engine sound got worse.
Michael Schumacher:
1:33.542 Ferrari 2004
Nico Rosberg:
1:32.584 Mercedes 2015
Those V10's sound superb! While I doubt they ever will bring them back, a sure fire way to generate interest back into the sport would be to open the formula to allow teams to run whatever motor/power unit they wanted granted power was equalized.
They should limit power and fuel flow while letting every variable such as cylinder count, bank angle, na/turbo, and displacement be open to see where innovation would take us into the most optimal configuration.
like in le mans, it works very well there
VH 2507 Except the fact that diesels have 12.6 less liters fuel tank capacity than the gasoline/petrols.
***** Forget the displacement cap, just cap the horsepower, and we'll see were technology takes us.
***** Capping the horsepower instead of the displacement lets manufacturers find what the best amount of cylinders, and overall displacement is for the required amount power.
2004 car is on a damp track. Schumi set the lap record in 2006 in a slower car, imagine what the 04 car could do on a dry track.
moreover, schumi's tyres had treads, rosberg was on slicks
what's the differences between schumi tyre and rosberg tyre? on dry road?
+Yansen Haryanto (yansenharyanto) Slicks Have more Contact Area than Grooved Tyres, So Rosberg also has around 20% More Grip on Tyre Level
LimburgGaming that's what i need. thanks
2006 cars were very fast in their own right, and got close to or surpassed 2004 pace on most of the circuits they shared.
the older cars are much more agile in corners
While this maybe true the 2015 car made up its time through 130r and had the optimal mechanical grip and torque too beat the 2004 car...
+joe salazar dry vs partly wet lap helps the new car a lot too.
+joe salazar Actually no, that's not true. You have to remember that the current cars are equipped with DRS. And since this is a qualifying lap, Nico can use this system on every straight. That's where the time is being made up.
+Nortius Maximus that was before, but when the v6 engine era started, they can only use drs on the drs straights and its on qualifying
+Jamie Gamie 320 kmh man, that obviosly was drs. besides the 2004 car was ahead at the beginning of the lap, over the s curves zone. you can notice taking a reference point.
Schumacher is faster than you xD
EutassKid Mv rosberg was, not schumi
Dat engine noise doe :'D
You could have muted the video on the left and no one would have cared.
There's a lot differences between a lap in a dry circuit (Rosberg), and a lap in a drying track like Suzuka 2004 was... Incomparable.
comparison between dry track (Rosberg) vs wet (Schumacher) Hahahahahahaha
but make no mistake about how rosberg destroyed schumi between 2010-2012. No question, schumi is the greatest of all time, but at that time rosberg was the better driver.
@@nicoeissing1310 but yeah coming back out of a retirement of 4 year's at a age of 41. Not driving a oversteercar but a understeercar what Rosberg preferred more, and Nico was in his prime(but when Lewis came, the mind game started, because he never won from him) . Also look at Kimi now how he is racing now, age does a lot with people. You can't race on the edge for a whole season anymore.
Schumacher had worse track conditions than Rosberg who was also allowed pure slick tyres, KERS and DRS.
The lap record is still held by Kimi Raikkonen from over a decade ago.
The fastest era of F1 is long gone.
Clearly you haven't been following F1 this year's cars are going to shatter so many records.
possibly worse compound, heavier car, safer car and better engine. Not bad keeping up with the F2004 despite the F2004 is possibly on worse weather condition.
LOL. Drying wet track and 04 Cars shat all over the new ones until the last chicane under brakes..... Fuck me F1 has turned to shit.
xD
With traction control... lol the most boring era in history once haikkinen retired. 2002-2005 rip F1 2006 was okay same with 2007 08 and 09 2010 was excellent and it's gone slowly down hill since then 15 at times was good this years been shit
Jin Kazama
not really 2002-2005 was the fastest its ever been
just the last corner +1sec
Slightly different track layouts too... The track in 2004 is a bit longer than the current layout of the track, which was updated in 2009. So the 2015 track is slightly (marginally) shorter.
q2 2006 Michael Schumacher 1:28
never back
2004 in the qualyfing you drive with the fuel of the star and ist wet
Arada drs farki var ve yıl farki var ..drs açılmadığı zaman tur basina saniyeler çoğalır shumi her daim önde👍
What's the point of comparing a dry track lap and a damp track lap??
F1 2004, trying to ride a raging, fire-breathing dragon.
F1 2015, riding a moderately annoyed sheep.
2004 driving a car full of electronic driver aids.
2015 and this year, no driver aids and alot more powerful engine.
for that reason that 2004 the car full of electronic driver aids is michael have a lot to do to hold the car in the lane
and 2015 without all that electronic shit nico is really chilled
Kobrilan That's just a difference in driving style lol! Look up fx Jenson Buttons onboard videos from the V10s, he drives just as smooth and chilled.
no wonder 2015 are way faster on straight line. This car developed over 900bhp (with fuel-restriction) due to its turbo, hcci "diesel like combustion" (thermal efficiency up near 50%), instantaneous torque output from ers (160bhp linear power curve), drs, slick tyres....on and on and on...
its not the V6T the problem. If they could make them 1000hp and make them revv at 18000rpm i'm preaty sure the V6T would sound great and much louder. Similar to the V8s in terms of Decibels
Insane how much stiffer Michaels car was.
Don't forget that in 2004 they had to qualify with race fuel due to Bernie trying everything in the book to slow Ferrari/Schumacher down. If the F2004 had only qualifying levels of fuel, slick tyres & DRS he could well have been a couple of seconds faster. That stupid qualifying gimmick is why Schumacher didn't have many, many more pole positions due to qualifying not being the be-all and end-all.
Bernoulli+Venturi+Magnus+Coanda=F1 2016.
I want to cry
Michael was faster everywhere (despite the track being damp)...until the last section heading to the flat out 130R onwards where the higher top speed of the Turbo Mercedes just claws back the lead Michael built in the twistier sections. 11 years older then the Merc, but that F2004 is still a beast.
Is very difficoult decode the lap. To much stuff are changed,.anyway in the last chigane Nico pass easy and without any problem on the sconnection (the border delimitations), as the car don't suffered. Michael while ... , there MS loose 7-8 thents. About the guide style Michael rest inimitable, as Agnelli told before his come in Ferrari: "..i like this guy.., he drive with the 'ass'..". Michael was very live inside the cockpit, not stand like a mummy. I don't know how say but was different by everyone else and in my opinion in complex the best driver ever. Ayrton was more extreme, awesome under this aspect, but 'take thecrisk' to win in the 2006 the his 8th title after 15 years by the debut is not stuff for all. His extraordinary resistance in race was almost superhuman that's the my opinion..
2nd last chicane was sharper in 2004 compared to 2015, still an awesome video
v6 in stright line is much faster than v10
because DRS was open, it was qualy
rosberg has slick tyres
2016 with hard tyres, 2004 with semi-wet tyres. Gg
It's groovy tyre at 2004
2016 will be faster still, but next year we will have to rewrite the record books
why?
Much more tire grip and also more downforce, no engine token system. Today in Austria they've already broken the records again and still getting better.
sounds cool :)
havn't had the time to keep up with f1 news this year.
Wonder if montoya's lap record round monza 2004 will be beat
Monza probably won't be around to beat. :(
The 2019 cars are gonna decimate the lap records this year.
Yeah and it will revert back to crap again in 2022. Go figure.
The F2004 was significantly faster through corners than the W06, even without slicks, but the W06's greater torque (and maybe horsepower) combined with less drag made it faster in a straight line than the F2004, and better under braking because of its slicks.
Those grooved tires had more grip than the 2015 slicks, its a totally different compound.
Como recorta el V6 en recta
DRS?
Did the 2004 cars really generate more downforce than the 2015 cars? Look at the sophisticated front wings, rear wings, aero devices on the bodywork of the later cars....I'm not so convinced that the 2004 cars had more downforce personally....
The steering wheel is much more stable in 2015, in 2004 it was more shaky.
Schumacher set up his car to be twitchy.
Back in traction control days the cars could be set up more oversteering to make the car more agile, without TC the driver must have a very good rely to the car to give throttle, so the rear must be more stable.
wet vs dry slicks vs grooved and look how magnificent that schumi drives look how much harder to drive 04' car instead 15' and what makes Ferrari faster is definately not kers and top speed even though it did not have kers drs and those bullshit its almost as fast as 15' car and the thing which is way cooler is that Ferrari is faster in the corners god damn boy it was way more intense back then
Thanks
+taylan bozkaya 2004 had traction controll , much easier to drive
imagine if the 2016 cars use the v10 engine...
They would be slower, the V10 had 960 hp at their peak in 2005 (Honda) but only 300nm. The hybrids also has around 960 hp but more importantly 700nm of torque.
The current engines are ridiculously fast and the cars would be even faster if FIA hadn't put a restriction on the amount of downforce they can generate AND if they allow Pirelli to build a tire that would actually last instead of the current degrading tires that requires tire management.
the hybrid systems is nonsense. They weigh 100kg more and gain only 161 hp. Does it make sense to you?
The V6 engine without ERS would be faster.
And by the way, torque doesn't mean anything.
Power = torque *rpm
The only difference in driving between V10 and V6 hybrid is, that you have to drive the v10 in high revs for full power, but it doesn't mean the v6 hybrid is quicker because of more torque. Espacially not out of corners when you need uniform force unfolding.
They gain 160 hp from the ERS, but much more importantly, they gain over the double amount of torque, 700nm in the hybrids compared to only 300nm in the V10s as I said before. Your comment is completely ignorant. Do you even know what torque is? Its a force meassured over distance hence the term "newton meters" or "foot pounds". Sure its more difficult to put the power down, but that's just a good thing and shows the skill of the drivers more. But 400nm of extra torque is a crazy amount and makes for better acceleration and top speed.
Rottensteam
You don't get the point. RPM * torque = power. The hybrid has more torque but therefore less rpm. V10 is the other way around.
Important to know is that both engines has less or more 950 hPOWER. (same level of power)
We could now discuss what is more important for a race car. Torque or rpm. ;)
And by the way, higher topspeed with a 1,6 ltr. engine? ;)
What was best top speed in Monza with DRS this year against v10?
I don't say the engine i shit, but it is complete nonsense. A turbo (1.6 ltr.) without ERS would have had more torque as a v10 too, but with 100kg less weight as a current car and only 161 less hp. Torque doesn't matter. It is about weight/power ratio.
Aguante Schumacher el mejor
Something weird, 2004 lost like a second at the 130R and not sure about the straight after it but it looks a bit longer than 2016.
modern F1 has better straight line speed
spicyasian Duh, stupid drs :)
Those two straights aren't DRS. Also the track was damp in 2004 so Schumacher had to lift a big deal. Plus the new cars are also beasts on straights.
@@elpredistinanatotv 😂 2004 F1 was faster on straights dym😊
Rosberg is on slicks and Schumi is not.
+Nas Naseer No slicks in 2004
@@FRMarsu92 that's exactly what the comment says
So basically in 11 years they have improved 1 second.
Nah not really its cuz FIA banned heaps stuff for safety
the last chicane is more open than it was 2004. that's where he made up the time.
+sultanabran1 exactly
They would be 2-3 seconds slower without ERS and DRS...The 1 second improvement is the result of DRS on the straight line and a more open chicane. Before that Michael was way ahead.
They went to less cylinders in the engine, and a larger and consequently heavier fuel load so that they could remove fuel from the pit stops because of so many fires. Granted, in qualifying the fuel load would be less, but the Pirelli tires have more mechanical grip because of the the grooves in the Micheline tires were grooved so they didnt have a large surface area in contact with the track and slowed the cars down in the corners for safety. The 2017 tires will bring even more grip and the wider front wing will bring more downforce as well.
The Ferrari had much more downforce thats why it looks so fast around corners and so agressive, but whats amazing to me is the Ferrari had V10, 3L, 19 000 RPM, no fuel limitations, more downforce and yet mercedes is faster!
+Samuel Kovac In 2004 in Suzuka it is damp so all the cars are slower than usual...
just because the enigine is bigger and peak power is higher doesn't mean its faster. A turbo engine has its torque across the (whole)rev band, the power band is also a lot wider on a turbo engine. so let say the v10 has 900 horses on the peak of 18000rpm en it builds up this power linear from 6000rpm. the turbo engine has 700 horses but almost from 6000rpm trought out the 12000rpm rev limit. so the average power that hits the wheels is a lot higher on a turbo engine!!!
+Samuel Kovac The track was damp for Michaels lap, if it was dry he would probably have set the lap record.
+Samuel Kovac In addition to the other comments, you will note that MSC was not driving on slicks.
+Bloody RUclips Naming Nonsense
But he was driving car around 100 kg lighter, with traction control to boot. Plus the tyres may have had grooves in them but they were developed during the tyre war and had enormous amounts of grip. The track was only slightly damp in the first sector, but it got worse in the latter stages of the lap which is also where the 2015 car caught up.
you pretend you know f1 but you dont. you justify nico's time because of drs. in fact you are all wrong. suzuka is the only trck along with monaco that has only one drs zone and that is in the straight finish line. there no help from drs here its pure engine power. the only thing debatable is whether the track was damp in 2004 or not. still yet the modern cars never cease to amaze me considering their weight and aero. well done to human kind.
amazing, rosberg is carrying more fuel and has much less downforce on his rear wheels . technology has developed so much
+magicalrobster Amazing what you can do in the dry and on slicks compared to in the wet and on grooved tyres, eh?
+magicalrobster wrong, Rosberg was carrying maybe 1 lap of fuel, because he was on his flying lap on Q3, while the Ferrari had to qualify with the same amount of fuel it was going to have at the start of the race.
So no, the F2004 is a hell of a lot faster than this hybrid crap.
+andarax8 good point I forgot they had to carry race fuel. for me it's not the hybrid engine that's the problem, it's bhp is quite similar to the v10 they both get about 950. It's just the racing's not as close. Mercedes have done too good a job. but then fair play to them
Those are dry tires for ferrari
New cars are harder to handle
So much insecurity in the comment section. Sad
1:23 but how?
The run down to the chicane is shorter
A
if it was a wet track rosberg will be in 1 min 40s..
If it was a wet track, Rosberg would be in the 2 min ;)
+LimburgGaming yes dude i think he would not even conplete the lap he would have crashed😂😛
Watch his Q3 lap in Austin 2015 or go back to watch cricket.
Schumi was ahead until the last corner
+Adrian Sotropa its drs that makes rosberg faster
+taylan bozkaya Nope, it's the slow cornering Michael takes. He simply had less downforce.
TavalineGamer are you stupid or what Michael is ahead til the last corner roserg catches up at drs zone
+taylan bozkaya I'm not saying that Schumi was slow in the corners, he was just slower than Nico. He was even quicker in the straight line at the beginning.
+TavalineGamer +there wasn't a DRS zone in the second straight that Nico could've used so who's stupid now?
Did nobody notice that schumacher started the lap about 0.5s before rosberg? I used the start lights as a marker and I've rewatched it many times to confirm. Looks like rosberg was equal all the way until the back straight when the mighty mercedes v6 stretched its legs to pull ahead. Great stuff.
With no sound,formula is dead!
SHUMI WET TRACK COME ON.... F1 2016 is suck
2016 is faster than 2004
Uuhmmmm... V10 traction control? And of course it's limited on engine power, it's a friggin v6, but a v6 turbo without traction control. Yes drs hybrid, but weighs 700 kg don't forget, but remember, this is still a misrepresentation, back then they had a lot of fuel on qualifying, not today though, so it would have weighed a lot more than if it did qualifying today, todays cars remove the fuel for qualifying so they are lighter than normal. Yes 2015 cars have drs but 2004 had traction control, and no doubt that's better So kinda equal. Yes V10 is sweeter, but I would be happy if someone gave me an opportunity to drive one of the f1 v6 turbo, i would probably cry, and so would you and don't lie, so stop moaning about v6 engines everybody, i know i got you there. Things could be worse, Formula E...
year by year f1 becomes worse.. they dont care about fans
The ferrari was also on race fuel. The merc was on vapours off a rag
Michael Schumacher:
1:33.542 Ferrari 2004
Nico Rosberg:
1:32.584 Mercedes 2015