Is TC really worth 3 seconds a lap?

[schead]

With Ferrari setting a time in Jerez yesterday that was 3 seconds off the pace, and Renault also setting a time 3 seconds down when using the 2008 ECU, it would seem the loss of TC will make races considerably slower next year. Don't get me wrong, I am happy to see the drivers have to work more for their money, but at this rate F1 cars will be only fractionally quicker than GP2.

At Spa, the difference in the pole GP2 laptime, and the slowest F1 quali time was 6 seconds. The new 2008 GP2 car is supposed to be 1-2 seconds quicker. So if it goes like this it could be that the slowest F1 car is about the same as a GP2 car. Surely the leap from Formula 2 to Formula 1 should be bigger? As such why don't they now remove the rediculous rev limit to make the cars go faster and improve overtaking possibility?

[Nicholosophy]

Originally Posted by schead

Surely the leap from Formula 2 to Formula 1 should be bigger?

It is pretty darn big - the Formula 2 regs haven't been reviewed for many many many a year (at least 1985).

Originally Posted by schead

As such why don't they now remove the rediculous rev limit to make the cars go faster and improve overtaking possibility?

They want cars to go slower for safety reasons. They won't remove the rev limit in order to increase speeds. I'm sure that after a full winter testing program the cars will be well up on current speeds. Remember that the chassis being used now were designed for use with Traction Control. They will tweak the new chassis to work better without Traction Control for sure.

[schead]

Originally Posted by NickoGP

They want cars to go slower for safety reasons. They won't remove the rev limit in order to increase speeds. I'm sure that after a full winter testing program the cars will be well up on current speeds. Remember that the chassis being used now were designed for use with Traction Control. They will tweak the new chassis to work better without Traction Control for sure.

The tyre regulations and the drop to V8's already make the cars go slower. Why make them EVEN slower. What the rev limit has put in place is an inability to overtake due to not being able to up the revs when someone wants to overtake. This is what has made 2007 so processional, and created a quali race.

[FPV GTHO]

The gap will be different from track to track. When the '06 cars first used the '07 tyres, they were alot slower but the teams all claimed that they got some of that back with the '07 cars as they used the tyres better. It'll be the same as already stated.

There'll also be different levels of performance obviously as the tyre degrades. Worn tyres are more likely to spin than green tyres, and might infact make a good qualifying lap worth more depending on how the teams change their cars to nurture the tyres. They'll have some data from '05 to go back on that'll probably be relevant.

[pirenzo]

I doubt that it will be 3 seconds in the end. There's a lot of work that needs to be done besides TC with the standard ECU, engine mapping etc will be important. I'm sure you can afford to set the car up much more aggressively when you know you have TC to rely on, once it's taken away it requires a total rethink.
The gap will be more like 1.5 seconds in the end I suspect, or even less...

[Knowlesy]

Yeah, it won't make that much time over a lap I don't think. Over a race distance it will make a big difference though as it helps consistency, tyre wear etc...

[Kirk]

And of course it will not be the same for all drivers. Those that are smooth and/or like loose cars should do well, in theory.

If someone could figure when this dumb rule was introduced, perhaps we couuld compare the lap times from the previous year. When was it anyway? It seems like ages ago?

[Knowlesy]

Well it was introduced in 2001.

The cars were already four or five seconds a lap quicker thanks to the tyre war so it'd be hard to tell the difference really.

[Leighton Irwin]

It will also take the drivers a little time to get used to no traction control. That will probably account for about a second on most tracks.

[BootsOntheSide]

Anything that makes the cars slide more has to be a good thing - more chances to overtake, and more difference between good and bad drivers in performance (so hopefully no Noah's Ark championship order). The speed difference due to the ECUs would probably be down to 1-1.5 seconds once the races get underway, more in the wet. Time will be made up in other areas anyway - even in years with big limitations introduced the cars are usually slightly faster at most tracks, as the rate of improvement is otherwise so fast. Without any changes in regulations you'd probably see the 2002 pole times roughly equal to what Spyker are doing this year.

[f1manoz]

It's early days yet. Doubt it would be three seconds by next year, if anything they'll be quicker once again.

[Sodemo]

They should bring in slick tyres then if they want to be quicker than the GP2 boys. Get rid of those horrid grooved monstrosities forever.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

They should bring in slick tyres then if they want to be quicker than the GP2 boys. Get rid of those horrid grooved monstrosities forever.

A "pipe dream" all the while Max stays in charge i reckon.

Ferrari, i believe it was, tested on the GP2 rubber a season or 2 ago and went 2 seconds a lap quicker without any tweaks, shame we're not likely to see that for a long time.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

They should bring in slick tyres then if they want to be quicker than the GP2 boys. Get rid of those horrid grooved monstrosities forever.

They really are terrible aren't they..

[Oldtony]

It would seem to me that every time a restriction is introduced on the design of F1 cars the engineers and aero people overcome that to produce a negligible change in lap times. The trade off always seems to be in driveability and thus in the ability to actually RACE.
I would be willing to take a little wager that a lot of those who have agitated for the ban on TC "because it will make passing easier" will be back here complaining next year. Some are probably the same people who wanted slicks, underbody ground effects and active suspension banned "to make passing easier".
Go back over F1 history and the usual thing is that the less things banned, the better the racing.
At a guess i'd say next year we will see about a 0.5% increase in quallifying lap times and around 2% increase in total race times with some circuits like Monaco even slower.

[Dutton]

This test would've been testing electronic compliance.

There would be no need to batter it like something insane to fulfill the test parameters.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by Oldtony

It would seem to me that every time a restriction is introduced on the design of F1 cars the engineers and aero people overcome that to produce a negligible change in lap times. The trade off always seems to be in driveability and thus in the ability to actually RACE.
I would be willing to take a little wager that a lot of those who have agitated for the ban on TC "because it will make passing easier" will be back here complaining next year. Some are probably the same people who wanted slicks, underbody ground effects and active suspension banned "to make passing easier".
Go back over F1 history and the usual thing is that the less things banned, the better the racing.
At a guess i'd say next year we will see about a 0.5% increase in quallifying lap times and around 2% increase in total race times with some circuits like Monaco even slower.

I don't believe anyone called for slicks to be banned, let alone banned to make passing easier - where is the logic in that?

Its common knowledge that more mechanical grip and less aero grip is the general key for "good racing".

This view is convoluted somewhat by the fact that you CAN have aero without damaging the racing, underbody aero would do just that, yet its implementation is not at all widespread in F1.

I for one am glad that drivers will have to look after their tyres more in 2008, and that at the end of the race we *may* see drivers struggling on worn rears.

[schead]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I don't believe anyone called for slicks to be banned, let alone banned to make passing easier - where is the logic in that?

Its common knowledge that more mechanical grip and less aero grip is the general key for "good racing".

This view is convoluted somewhat by the fact that you CAN have aero without damaging the racing, underbody aero would do just that, yet its implementation is not at all widespread in F1.

I for one am glad that drivers will have to look after their tyres more in 2008, and that at the end of the race we *may* see drivers struggling on worn rears.

It certainly was suggested that grooved tyres would increase overtaking because they would punish mistakes more.

Here is an article in support of grooves.

http://atlasf1.autosport.com/99/feb10/keeble.html

And a case for slicks

http://atlasf1.autosport.com/99/feb10/tytler.html

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by schead

It certainly was suggested that grooved tyres would increase overtaking because they would punish mistakes more.

Here is an article in support of grooves.

http://atlasf1.autosport.com/99/feb10/keeble.html

And a case for slicks

http://atlasf1.autosport.com/99/feb10/tytler.html

Interesting articles.

Though I do struggle to see the case for grooves.

Even when they were being introduced, I recall thinking, "won't the teams simply increase the downforce ??%-fold to make up for the lack of mechanical grip, compounding the problem?" Which by in large, is what happened.

[FPV GTHO]

I think they increased the downforce moreso because the reduction in car width meant for the same level of drag they could get more downforce. The grooved tyres became faster simply because of tyre development IIRC.

[Notso Swift]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

This view is convoluted somewhat by the fact that you CAN have aero without damaging the racing, underbody aero would do just that, yet its implementation is not at all widespread in F1.

Quite the opposite, the rules effectively minimise the opportunities, but it is something the aero guys try to maximise because it makes the car more stable.
But what can you do when you have a regulated floor, generally flat with a 20mm step in it? ... get it as good as you can then work on the top of the car.

[runshaw]

The time TC makes up over a lap is roughly 0.5 seconds or just under. Nowhere near 3 seconds.

[Oldtony]

I think you might be right about the 0.5 sec loss without TC on a qually lap with new tyres where the driver gets everything right.
I also think the 3sec is more probable over the course of a race due to variation in car balance with fuel load, changing track surface, tyre degradation and minor driving errors.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I for one am glad that drivers will have to look after their tyres more in 2008, and that at the end of the race we *may* see drivers struggling on worn rears.

Didn't we have that in 2005 ? Ah yes,one of the teams didn't like it!

I understand that Bridgestone are not going to change anything with the tyres,so lap times are likely to remain pretty much as they are if not a little slower.