For a while, the Formula 1 cars produced in 2004 have held the unofficial title of fastest-ever, with still-standing lap records at 15 of the 18 circuits they visited that year. While other cars since have produced more downforce, the combination of high downforce, unlimited V10s and tyre-war rubber meant the cars racing in Schumacher's final championship year have set the benchmark on outright pace ever since.

Since refuelling was banned at the beginning of 2010, it's been practically impossible for cars to set lap records - they simply aren't quick enough over a single lap in race conditions, thanks to the extra fuel they're carrying around. Yet, comparing their fastest times in qualifying to those of 2004 suggests 2010's cars might actually be faster than the older generation.

Comparing the two seasons, seven qualifying sessions were held at (nearly) identical circuit layouts in comparable conditions: Australia, Monaco, Canada, Germany, Hungary, Italy and China. Comparing pole times, 2004's cars were faster four times; 2010's three. Two of the seven circuits are speed tracks - Monza and Circuit de Gilles Villeneuve - where the additional grunt of uncapped V10s over rev-limited V8s made the result a foregone conclusion. At the other five, which are more representative of the majority of F1 circuits, 2010's cars edge 2004's in ultimate pace, especially at the high-downforce tracks, Monaco and Hungaroring.

With slower Pirelli rubber set to be introduced in 2011, and more changes to the regulations to cut downforce, next year's cars could lose a few seconds in outright pace compared to their predecessors, which will take the engineers a while to claw back. Because of this, it'll be a while before we see cars challenging 2004 for pace again.

2004's cars were faster in a straight line; 2010's round the corners. The question is: which would be faster over the course of a season? Because surely, if the answer is 2010, we have a new fastest generation ever...

I remember when it took a fair while until Mansell's 1992 Williams was beaten by the 'modern F1' cars, IIRC it was around 2001 with the introduction of the tyre war.

2011 cars will be slower but I bet it won't be long till they catch up again.

In 2004 we had qualifyings with race fuel, which explains why the times are so close.

I think you are forgetting in 2004 they qualified with race fuels and just one lap. The track were in slower condition and drivers not so close to limits either. Loss of engine power and extra weight have hurt times a bit. Maybe slicks and aero development have kept slow corners in good speed, but fast corners are clearly slower today.

You wrote ....



..... then asked - Are 2010 cars faster than 2004?

Is this a trick question? Is there candid cameras lurking somewhere?

True, I forgot how Qualifying was in 2004. Was it the same Q1/Q2/Q3 thing they've had mostly (recently). You'd have to compare pole/Q3 times in 2010 with Q2 times of other seasons to get a more realistic comparison. As during the race-fuel era Q2 was the time when the cars were going their fastest on fresh tyres and low fuel/fumes.

Wasn't the revs limited to 19,000 in 2007 or 2008 and then down to 18,000 in 2009 or something. So that also needs to be remembered. If you plonked a V10 into the RB6 and gave it custom tyres it'd easily be the fastest race car ever built I'm sure of that, it was already close to the F2004.

I keep telling myself that surely the cars in the next season will be slower but they always get faster. Maybe not for 2010. But with the banning of the dubious diffusers and upping the minimum weight to 640kg, and having the new Pirelli tyres which are thought to be slower, surely the cars next season won't be faster. Unless the better than 2009 KERS systems and the ARW can make up for it.

I'll be surprised if we see the RB6 pole times being beaten in similar conditions around the racetracks next season.

This is quite an interesting thread, I for one had no idea that the 2010 cars were so close to the 2004 spec in the first place inspite of the cars having significantly lesser power and also having a rev limiter. What superb pace of development.

They may be close but perhaps a more accurate representation would be fastest laps ?? Fastest laps in both 2004 and 2010 would have to be made by cars when they are on low fuel ? There may be a few cases where fastest lap in 2004 was made with fresh tyres AND low fuel but that can be applicable to this season as well. Will be interesting if someone can pull up fastest lap stats in these circuits

In 2004 we had the single lap qualifying format with race fuel http://www.newsonf1.com/2003/news/oct/oct01.htm#16-10-a

So no Q2 comparison....

Well, there were Q1 and Q2 named pre-qualifying and qualifying respectively . If only everyone was flatout in pre-qualifying, we would get some mind blowing times (at Monza in Q1 JPM did 1:19.5, while Ferraris 1:20.5, in Q2 Rubens did 1:20.1 with some 10-15 laps of fuel - just imagine what Reds could do on lowest fuel ).

It really does sum up how arse about the rules are. You now have cars that are slower in a straight line but faster around corners, yeah that's gonna help promote passing.

Pricks.

Me and Ogami had roughly worked out how much faster a 2004 car was than a 2008 car and it was roughly 3-4 seconds in 'ideal' conditions on ultimate pace. I reckon a 2004 car is still a good 2 seconds a lap faster on ultimate pace;

- 200BHP more
- Equal if not more downforce
- Comparable tyres

That 200BHP is basically making all the difference. It was reckoned at the start of 2006 that the cars would be 2.5 seconds a lap slower when they original went to V8 engines from the V10s. Of course they improved due to reintroduction of tyre war and aero development so it's probably on the money.

I wonder what the difference would be if they kept the exact same regulations for over 20 years? I think it's hardly comparable the way it works now, we have had the car-designs change so much by regulation. + Engines have frozen, downforce-science has gone way up but then again testing is banned now etc.

There is no conclusive thing you can say about car speeds except that the people who work in F1 are damn good in making them faster than they are in any given year.

I thought exactly the same thing when the 2.4's were announced before the first year of them started.

How can they be so utterly clueless?

Pricks.

I think many of the top designers and aerodynamicists have stated that this past season's cars produced the most downforce of any F1 cars they'd ever worked on. That obviously doesn't make them the fastest ever, that depends on tyres and horsepower as well, but it is interesting that despite removing all the flip ups and sidepod sculpting, the huge front wing and double diffusers generate more downforce than the best of the 2007-2008 cars. I'd say that a 2010 RB6 on the absolute limit would still be 2 seconds off the pace of an F2004 on a medium downforce track if the Ferrari was running with low fuel and sticky tyres.

also, 2004 cars were running on grooved rubber!

If you check out the fastest laps, the 2004 cars had a couple of seconds or more in hands compared to current cars on all kinds of circuits.
Now, not only have they made the engines weaker, but the cars will also be much heavier in 2011. Bah...

Wern't 2007 cars fastest?

Good point, I completely forgot about that. So doesnt this mean the answer to the OP is a resounding no ?

There's some neat benchmarks though, like how the RB6 was taking Turn 8 at Turkey flat out in qualifying. I don't think that was achieved at any point before 2010, there's still a load of factors involved in that. If it had a V10 I doubt it'd be able to take it flat out like that, but with the extra speed comes even more downforce which something like the RB6 had in buckets. Obviously the slicks are another huge factor.

I think if you had the 2008 aero spec cars (probably the most advanced aero in motorsport history), V10 engines and slick tyres that'd blow everything out of the water!

Flat out means not so much as i go flat out through a corner with a saloon car and and not flat out with a lmp yet i'll go much faster into the corner with it.

The final top speed at the turn in wasn't the same so cars had to lift up and you can indeed lose a bit of time by the simple fact that you have lift but you just have to compare the qualifying times of 2004 and 2009 Q3, 2009 Q3 and Q2 and 2009Q2 with 2010 Q3..you'll end up with the 2004 still being 1,5-2 sec/lap faster.

more power, at least the same downforce, ultra sticky tyres...they were above everything; Already in 2004 some corners were taken at 6G's which was the reason why in 2005 the downforce was cut because it started to put concerns on safety.

AFAIK the faster turn 8 was in 2006 taken average at 5,5 G's (was 4,8 this year); 2006 cars were at the peak of the tyre wars.

The 2008 cars had the most amount of winglets of any F1 car in history, no doubt, but the 2010 cars actually are making more downforce than the best of that era. Just look at the relative size of the front wings... 2008 was high and narrow, 2010 are huge, wide, and low slung. That alone makes up for not having many of the sidepod bits, and the diffusers in 2010, which are responsible for a very large percentage of a car's downforce, were much more efficient with the double decker design. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, several technical gurus like Patrick Head stated that this year's cars produced the most downforce of any car they've ever designed.