Impressive yes, but still 17% lower than the 2017 F1. That gave a power to weight ratio of 0.85kW/kg. Add seven time MotoGP World Champion Valentino Rossi to the mix at 67kg and the 2017 Yamaha tipped the scales at 224kg. VELOCITY V DOWNFORCE – MOTOGP & FORMULA 1 COMPAREDĪ MotoGP bike is an impressive machine – in 2017 the bikes produced 170kW with a minimum weight of 157kg (without rider). One way to get a feel for the impact of aero on an F1 car is to compare them to a MotoGP bike, which has very little in the way of aerodynamic downforce. Cornering speed is critical to lap time and this is significantly enhanced by aerodynamic downforce, in addition to mechanical grip. Somehow the drivers managed to drag those weighty 2017 beasts around the racetrack in record times last year. But clearly it’s not the only thing that counts. The power to weight ratio is a key factor in the performance of a racecar. So while the overall power generated by a 2017 Mercedes powertrain is 12% higher than the MP4/4 – 750kW compared to 670kW respectively – the power to weight ratio is actually 17% lower than what was achieved nearly 30 years ago. For comparison this is almost 35% heavier than the iconic 1988 McLaren MP4/4. The 2017 cars tipped the scales at 728kg (minimum weight including driver). HOW TO IMPROVE LAP TIMES FURTHER – A WEIGHTY ISSUE…Īn unfortunate side effect of the new technologically advanced hybrid power trains is weight. The cars looked spectacularly quick through the corners confirmed that F1’s top corners were taken at 30kmh faster in 2017 compared to 2016!Īs a consequence the G-forces experienced by the drivers have also increased significantly requiring the drivers to work extra hard in the gym pre-season to beef up their neck muscles. Out of the 20 races held over the course of 2017 there were 11 new lap records set. So while they may not have achieved a full five seconds per lap improvement on average, the 2017 cars were certainly quicker. We compare the times for 2017 with those achieved on the same tracks in 2016.įor each metric we exclude tracks where wet conditions in either or both years prevented a reasonable like for like comparison. In order to assess the speed improvement achieved in 2017 we’ve chosen three different measures of lap time: fastest qualifying time, fastest lap time during a race, and the median lap time of the winning driver. A change was required – there was a need for speed.Įmbed from Getty Images SO JUST HOW FAST WERE THE 2017 CARS? But it was commonly agreed that the pinnacle of motorsport needed to be significantly quicker than other categories. It is debatable whether faster lap times alone actually improve the F1 spectacle or the quality of wheel to wheel racing. One overriding goal of these changes was to improve lap times by a full 5 seconds a lap. The pole time for the 2015 Spanish Grand Prix was nominated as a specific target reference. More powerful engines, fatter tyres, wider chassis, lower and larger rear wings – the cars re-acquired many of the characteristics associated with Formula 1 in the late ’70s and ’80s – the “Golden Era” of F1 as we discussed in The Best Season in Formula 1 History. They came amid growing dissatisfaction among viewers with the direction F1 was taking in the hybrid era, while also acknowledging the significant improvements in driver safety that have been achieved over the years. The rule changes for the 2017 season were designed very much with the fans in mind. For this reason the FIA has on many occasions introduced rule changes designed to counter the inexorable rise in speed.Ģ017 was different… THE 2017 RULE CHANGES Increased speeds inevitably also increase the risks faced by drivers in the event of an accident. Greater speeds are certainly thrilling for fans watching their heroes do battle. As a result, in the absence of rule changes speeds tend to creep up and lap times reduce year by year. The teams continually strive to improve the performance of their cars subject to the constraints dictated by the existing rule regime. Formula 1 is a perpetual engineering and technological arms race.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |