Lando Norris, McLaren, Albert Park, 2019

Rookies ‘should be terrified’ by first experience of F1

2020 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

The days of “awe-inspiring” Formula 1 cars are behind us because of the rapid rise in the minimum weight limit, Karun Chandhok believes.

The former F1 racer, who has driven over 20 grand prix cars, was speaking to RaceFans in an exclusive interview for a future instalment of our My F1 Cars series. He said today’s turbo-hybrid machines are much less nimble than their predecessors because they weigh so much more.

Chandhok made his F1 debut in 2010, when the minimum weight limit was 610 kilograms. “We’re at 745 now,” he said. “So 100 kilos, it’s five seconds of lap time that’s been added.

“Obviously we’ve got the hybrid and the bigger tyres and the downforce. Personally I’m not a big fan of the way F1 has gone in that direction.

“Actually in some ways I sympathise with Pirelli because the more weight you put on the car, the more stress you’re putting on the tyres and you know that that often gets glossed over, the impact that’s had on Pirelli when we talk about the tyre deg that we have in this era.”

Karun Chandhok, HRT, Bahrain, 2010
Chandhok made his F1 debut in 2010
Although today’s cars are the quickest the sport has ever seen, Chandhok says the fact they are so much heavier makes the racing less spectacular.

“We have a strange situation where the cars have got bigger, fatter and heavier and therefore, in theory, the lap times would be slower. But to compensate, they added a tonne of downforce and bigger tyres so the lap time’s faster, but the racing is obviously worse.

“In many ways if you take a step back and look at it holistically you’re going ‘hang on a second, there’s something wrong here with the direction it’s gone’.”

New regulations originally planned for next year, which will now arrive no earlier than 2022, were intended to address this.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

George Russell, Mercedes, Yas Marina
Current F1 rookies adapt quickly to the cars
“I was optimistic [for] 2021, but now it could be ’22, ’23 with the new rules coming in. They can’t come soon enough for me. I think F1 is ready for a reset and we need to get back to cars that can race better.

“The 2011 cars were so agile. The drivers, they were on edge. The drivers really had to be on top of it because they darted around and they moved around, they were skittish and edgy to drive.

“Whereas now… I have driven the Williams from 2017 and the Mercedes from 2019. And particularly the W10 was a great car, won the world championship and dominated last year.

“But you can feel the weight, you’re edging towards sportscar territory. Compared to 2004 which was, I still believe, the peak of F1 performance, they were 605. So that’s now a 140 kilos lighter. That’s pushing seven seconds.”

The weight limit will rise again when the new technical regulations make their belated appearance in 2022. The latest rise is being introduced to allow teams to further strengthen the cars’ safety structures. Formula 1 technical director Ross Brawn has said he is “frustrated” by calls to reduce the weight limit.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Juan Pablo Montoya, Williams, Monza, 2004
Montoya’s fastest lap record stood for 14 years
However Chandhok believes the sport should look to the lighter machines of the mid-noughties for an example of how its cars should perform. He described the 2004 Williams FW26 – which held the record for the fastest outright F1 lap for 14 years – as “the most awe-inspiring experience of driving a racecar.”

“I think that’s what F1 should be,” he said. “With all due respect, I think George Russell and Lando [Norris] and Alex Albon, they’re all great drivers and great rookies. But they shouldn’t be able to get into a Formula 1 car and be within three tenths of the pace on their first day.

“It should be a scary, terrifying experience like it used to be. The first day that you drive a car should be utterly terrifying in F1.”

Look out for our in-depth interview with Chandhok coming soon on RaceFans and on our YouTube channel.

Go ad-free for just £1 per month

>> Find out more and sign up

2020 F1 season

Browse all 2020 F1 season articles

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

47 comments on “Rookies ‘should be terrified’ by first experience of F1”

  1. Hard to disagree, really – watched the 1986 Australian GP on Youtube recently. The field was even less close on performance than they are today, very few cars on the lead lap but it was still exciting to watch.

    Why? Because the cars looked alive and the drivers were fighting them. The 1996 Monaco GP, also the same.

    There may have been only 2 teams realistically in with a chance (if they finished) but it was still exciting, it was raw.

    And this is what I remember loving the most about F1. Since the rules changed at the end of 2008, and particularly since the hybrid era began, the cars are not exciting to watch. I’m very surprised, and sad, to say that I’m not missing F1 so far this year at all.

    1. Exactly what I was thinking. Yes F1 is now faster than ever but that’s it. I’m not really sure if this all is just about safety or why they are making them heavier. If they keep on doing this they will end up doing a Formula WEC series where cars weight too much. I don’t know when they are going to reduce weight but if F1 car is nimble it is fun to watch and even fun to drive but if you take that aspect away it’s not an F1 or a singleseater. You don’t put safety gears for all players just because of the safety. It’s the thing that makes it what it is even though it is dangerous.

      1. ….football players

    2. I am very much in agreement, watched the full 1999 European grand prix the other day. Although todays cars are I think much faster than in 1999, they just looked so much alive and even quicker! (Probably in part due to the change in cameras over the years but it was certainly more excited to watch. And honestly, the lack of drs was nice too.

      Its interesting, because although during that race there was cases of a driver being “stuck” behind another for laps on end, it was still more exciting than the same scenario today, I think due to the fact that the chasing driver was able to stay very close. Perhaps due to the difference in tyres.. donwforce yes but I’m sure mainly down to the tyres..

      And then the sound was certainly better too.. imo they should have kept these hybrid engines revving to atleast 16000 rpm..

      It’s sad to say but I think F1 it stuck in a paradox, or cycle, where it may never break free..

      And I also think drs, if it remains should automatically shut off when the chasing car comes within 2 tenths of the lead car.

      Would love to hear responses to this comment..

      1. Ah sorry for the errors in my above comment

      2. Kasim, the thing is, you have picked what was considered to be the most unusual race of the 1999 season, such that you are comparing an extreme event for its time and one that is unrepresentative of normal races of that era.

        That is, after all, a race where there was a fairly significant change in weather conditions across the course of the race – for example, you had Hakkinen lapping around 7 seconds off the pace because he switched to wet weather tyres, only for the track to dry out more quickly than expected – such that differences in tyre choice and the variability of the track surface makes a comparison with any other race a very unrepresentative comparison.

        1. Fair enough, it did seem even as I wrote it, one of those exceptional races.

          I’ll need to watch another race from that era to get a better idea. Though it does seem they were able to push harder, and race closer than nowadays..

          Being pretty young when it was introduced, drs seemed very cool and intriguing. It’s easy to think it would be better how it was without drs, but I just think it needs a total rethink, a balance between the two.

          We want it to help create battles. Not just one car going past another. Looking forward to the new regs…

  2. One good thing that has been done is to make it possible for drivers of different sizes to compete fairly. Recently you could be several tenths behind your team mate just because of body weight (if the team couldnt get down to minimum weight, which was the case for many mid-low teams at least).

    Bu I agree, the “going like a train on rails ” dynamics the current cars have isnt that exiting to watch..

  3. The quality of racing has been what it has been because of the aero, not the minimum overall car+driver weight, which BTW, in 2010 was 620 kg actually, and rose by 20 kg (thus becoming 640) for the following season due to the return of KERS. Nevertheless, I agree that is should be at least somewhat lower, and not just keep on increasing and increasing forever. The same strengthened safety structures should also be achievable without increasing the overall car+driver weight, as well as, keeping the costs down for standard parts handed out by a third-party vs parts designed in-house by the teams, and lighter batteries, Halo, etc.

    1. I agree that ‘it’ should be at least somewhat lower

  4. Completely agree… but it’s not just the weight, it’s the long wheelbase making them less nimble rotationally. The cars are too long.

    1. I believe that a number of former engineers have pointed out that the suspension geometry is far more influential – noting that the 2019 Mercedes had one of the longest wheelbases that year, but was also extremely quick in slow corners, for example.

      1. antony obrien
        8th April 2020, 13:34

        The cars are visibly more sluggish. That the class of the field is still quick is not proof that wheelbase is irrelevant.

        1. antony obrien, I would prefer a quantitative and more objective assessment than the rather subjective “visibly more sluggish” – especially when it’s very vague as to what it is more sluggish than – because there have been those demonstrating how the perception of speed can vary quite wildly depending on framing of the shot, shutter speeds and how the footage is presented to people.

          I’ve seen individuals demonstrate how the perception of speed through a corner can be noticeably altered by taking a modern piece of footage and then altering it in such a way that it looks more akin to the way that the footage appeared in the 2000s. I have seen some individuals note that Liberty Media has actually begun altering some of the camera settings in a way that seems to be deliberately trying to invoke that era, such as dropping the shutter speeds closer to that of the 2000s – human perceptions of the external world are not always as reliable as they think they are, and I would want a more scientific argument to be put forward.

  5. 610kg incl. driver vs 745kg excl. driver and still the cars are faster with the weight.

    For meself i am glad that the ultra light and small drivers don’t have a advantage anymore. for example Massa he was so small he couldn’t see down next to him. but he was fast due his weight compared with Bottas back in Williams.

    1. @macleod Without the driver, it’s, of course, lower than 745 kg which is the one measured with the driver, but yes, still faster.

    2. 610kg incl. driver vs 745kg excl. driver

      The current minimum weight also includes the driver, @macleod.

      Still a huge increase and I think F1 should work towards lowering this.

  6. Too big, too long, too wide, too heavy, and too boring. No sound, no blown up engines, no oversteer.
    And then to top it off the worse competitive measures we have seen in F1, like tokens, count down qualification, permanent car regulation tinkering, and silly excuses to make the sport “cheaper” (like choosing the most expensive and complicated engine ever).

    They are currently racing a car that is as long and wide as an F150 pickup truck.

    And the future is no development, no unique cars, spec parts.

    As a purist it is a damn shame, the direction they have taken and will take.
    I hope that atleast the dirty air problem will get adjusted through the new regs, it would be welcome after 30 years of struggle.

    1. antony obrien
      8th April 2020, 8:58

      There’s plenty of oversteer moments. I agree with the rest of your post but these land yachts aren’t as twitchy so you can get them sideways without spinning. You just shouldn’t because you’ll kill your tyres, but it ever was so.

      Its the worst formula they’ve ever cooked up for grand prix racing. The manufacturers wanted hybrid or they were out and so F1 kowtowed and we are left with this mess.

      Ross Brawn and Liberty are left with the task of getting a donkey fit to run when what they need to do is shoot it and get a racehorse. The way they have decided to go, you just end up racing a donkey with a haircut

      1. JR Love (@dermechaniker)
        8th April 2020, 17:00

        VET seems to do a fine job of spinning his land yacht.

    2. As a purist …

      I’m not sure that you can define yourself as a purist when lamenting the lack of sound, SadF1fan.
      F1 has always been about technological advances and innovations; the super-efficient PU’s fit that remit perfectly.

      To me, complainers who miss the noise are nostalgics rather than purists.

  7. “Any past time was better”…

    I remember, for example, Lauda, complaining about how easy to drive were the cars in 2002 (I was on the track the day Lauda tested the car). Now we see those cars and we think “they were much more difficult to drive, beautiful and spectacular than those of now”. Probably in the 90’s people were saying that the cars of the eighties were better than those of that years. And the same in the 80’s with the cars of the 70’s…

    Nostalgia kicks… probably in 10 years we are going to be swearing about how good the racing was in the 2010s and how boring is “now”.

    I agree disliking the rise of the minimum weight, but I think there are other persons that have not the same view, and one thing that F1 have good is that it changes, and sometimes changes so much, I was very surprised with the reintroduction of the slicks, for example. I think that the current cars have very appeal, although you probably have to pay attention to things other than what you did 10 or 15 years ago. But in 10 or 15 years, the same will surely happen in other direction.

    1. antony obrien
      8th April 2020, 11:49

      The route f1 went down in the 80s was to make the cars easier to driver to allow the driver to concentrate on racing but it was a wrong turn. I can assure you people were saying exactly the same thing in the 80s about the 60s and 70s cars and the quality of racing in the 80s and 90s is overplayed, the tracks were increasingly chicaned, the camera work was appalling and albeit he is now sainted, Murrays commentary was infuriating a lot of the time.

      But f1 also become much more high profile in those 2 decades. Reading about Jim Clarks death this week it was mentioned that most newspapers didn’t even cover motor racing so it took a while to filter through to the general public that he’d died. The internet has done F1 no favours but its not all just wistful nostalgia, there is a fundamental problem and Bernie for all his faults would’ve kicked these vacuum cleaner land yachts into touch long ago.

    2. @esmiz I remember in the early 90s when I was a new fan always hearing about how the 1970’s were the best because modern cars were too easy & the 70’s with less downforce & big fat rear tyres were harder.

      Then by the mid/late 90’s it was the 1980’s that were best because the turbo’s were beasts to drive with proper gearboxes etc… & that modern cars were too easy to drive. And in the mid 2000’s it was the 90’s you heard the same stuff about & now in the 2010’s it’s the early/mid 2000’s.

      Every since I became an F1 fan it always seems to be that it was better 10-15 years prior & that the modern cars can’t race well, Are too easy to drive, Less spectacular etc…

    3. I don’t think a lot of fans have this issue. I don’t have a favourite era, and I enjoy watching a great variety of racing. It just seems that the drivers of today’s F1 cars are operating within their own and the cars abilities – and that this want the case years ago.
      I can’t remember the last time I watched a qualifying lap that really looked on the edge – even one of Hamiltons mega laps looks controlled from outside the car these days.

    4. @esmiz you do have a rather strong point that the past is almost always held up as being a fantastical “golden era” compared to the current era, because you can see examples of such sentiments being expressed in the press, both by the journalists writing articles about that era and in the letters of those writing in to magazines and other publications.

      Even if you go back to the 1950s, you’ll see those complaining that the generation of drivers then and the cars they drove were a pale imitation of those who’d driven in the pre-war era, such as Caracciola, Rosemeyer, Varzi or Nuvolari – Enzo Ferrari himself always maintaining for the whole of his life that he always considered Nuvolari the greatest driver of all time, and that part of the reason he hired Gilles Villeneuve was because he seemed to share so many of the qualities that Nuvolari did.

      Those sentiments would come up again and again – you have those who wrote in the 1960s and 1970s hailing the virtues of the 1950s, with those calls becoming especially vicious and vindictive when Stewart pushed for reforms in the late 1960s and 1970s and faced those who stated they outright hated him for supposedly removing the “purity” of the sport and harking back to the era before him as an apparent era of virtue and glory (even if, quite often, the sport was in a rather more precarious financial and political state at the time than those later writers would claim).

      When you get to the 1980s, you’ll see people bemoaning the commercialism of the sport and complaining about its excesses, or ranting about what they saw as excessive fuel saving for much of the turbo era and how it made the races boring because drivers were more focussed on saving fuel than racing (sound familiar as a complaint?).

      The early 1990s were criticised for the flood of electronic driver aids that supposedly made the cars “too easy” to drive, “too expensive”, “too complex” and apparently took away too much from driver skill. As for the latter part of that era and the early 2000s, complaints about major teams having too much political clout, skyrocketing costs that were driving out smaller long standing privateers, too many boring races due to dirty air and cars that were, again, “too easy” to drive because of the proliferation of other driver aids (such as traction control, with the FIA eventually legalising it because they admitted that pretty much the entire grid were cheating and already using traction control by then) were – you guessed it – devaluing driver skill.

      Indeed, it’s not too hard to find on this very site itself contemporary comments about the quality of the races that were rather more disparaging about the apparent quality of the races at the time, only for those races to now be remembered in a much fonder light and most of the rather bitter background politicking being forgotten about (events such as the beryllium alloys ban or the 2003 Michelin tyre changes).

      I am willing to agree with you that the perceptions of the current era of the sport, like so many of the eras before it, will be recast and reshaped to fit with whatever view of the sport holds sway then, with troublesome details forgotten or, alternatively, changed so as to fit with the narrative that we want to project back onto those years from that future viewpoint.

  8. He’s only right, but it’s not going to get better with current battery technology. We can only hope that some revolutionary progress on the field of hydrogen cells (not electricity, dear kids) will completely change dynamics of F1 and motoracing, but currently it’s nearly impossible to demand a reasonable change. The narrative of “fastest cars in history” (who cares for monstruous amounts of downforce and grip, right) apparently sells well.

    1. hydrogen cells (not electricity, dear kids)

      You lost me there, @pironitheprovocateur.
      What does a hydrogen cell produce (besides water)?

  9. Simply put hybrid = weight.

    1. @socksolid That only had the impact in 2014. The increases after that have happened due to other factors.

      1. One could argue that KERS (2010/2011) was also a weight increase linked to hybrid (check this chart to break it down).
        @jerejj, @socksolid

        Between KERS and full hybrid the minimum weight increase was probably some 63kg.
        But if you were to run a 2009 PU without refuelling you would need more than that in extra weight in fuel and fuel tank.
        Of course the car would get lighter over a race distance when burning up the fuel, but on average the net weight increase of hybrid is not that big (max 20kg).

        1. @coldfly
          You are totally wrong about the 20kg increase of hybrids. The increase in minimum weight is already huge and almost all of it is caused by the hybrid engines. I can once again quote the part that I’ve quote a hundred times and I’m sure you have read it too. I don’t get why there are people who simply refuse to accept facts. This stuff is so easy to check… Anyways, here we go again…

          In 2013 the engine weight was 95kg +5kg for mgu. Add 20kg for ancillaries and radiators. Total 120kg max. The hybrids from 2014 onwards weigh 145kg for the engine, 35kg for the battery and let’s add 20kg of ancillaries as well. I’ll let you do the math problem for the total weight.

          The minimum weight changes don’t tell the full situation. Before 2014 teams used to run a ton of ballast. Let’s say 20kg. Try to google a smaller number! 2014 and onwards teams could not even get to the new heavier minimum weight. It is undeniable fact that hybrids are the main cause for the weight increase. The hybrid has added 80kg minimum to the car weight. Let’s make another math comparison. A v10 engine weighs 90kg (the later ones, not one from early 90s). A hybrid weighs 200kg. Now let’s add 110kg fuel which makes that package total 310kg.

          1. How much fuel can you add to the v10 engine car to make it equal in weight. And 2. how much lighter is the v10 with 10kg of fuel compared to hybrid with 5kg of fuel? And 3. Let’s say 10kg adds 0.3s to lap time. How much slower is the hybrid weight disadvantage at these fuel levels?

          Answers below, right answers qualify for massive imaginary prizes including a picture of f1 engine you have to google yourself! As a bonus you’ll also get a post from anon placed below explaining why these official numbers from renault are wrong. He won’t tell you why but he’ll imply I have a mental disorder. Maybe I do, it doesn’t disprove me tho.

          1. @socksolid, you are arguing between the 63kg I mention and the 80kg you assume???
            The point I made doesn’t really change. You need that 80kg (including larger/heavier fuel tank) to cover the lower thermal efficiency. Thus the conclusion will be similar; at the start the hybrid is lighter or at best around the same weight, and will get lighter as it consumes the fuel.
            And a car which changes in weight only 110kg (hybrid) will be easier to set up than the car that sheds 180-190kg in weight over the length of a race.
            In the end not a big difference as I argued above.

          2. @coldfly probably because those assumptions help him get the answer he wants, which is to apparently claim that hybrid engines are the root of all evil and wants to claim that every supposed sin of the sport is their fault.

            That said, I get the impression that all he really wants is to provoke arguments, judging by the way that he is deliberately trying to goad people into reacting to him by proclaiming that his statements are apparently inviolable fact and quite clearly just wanting me to say something so he can then throw insult my way.

            As an aside, the assertion that the V10 engines only weighed 90kg does seem to have passed by Mario Illien in his interviews with Auto Motor und Sport, who quoted a range for engine weights in the order of 100-110kg for the era in which socksolid is talking about – but, apparently, an unsourced claim of 90kg is apparently more authoritative than that of the engineer who spent more than a decade actually building engines for use in F1. It’s almost as bad as socksolid’s recitation of the myths of the 1980s turbo era…

          3. @coldfly I have researched my numbers. I don’t think F1 cars need to be easier to set up either. I see bigger weight difference at start of race and at last lap a positive. Not a negative. The source:
            Racecar engineering 2013 engines special issue, page 11 (you have seen this already more than once)

            And as usual anon comes in with his fake accusations. Last we had a discussion about those 1980s turbos I proved him wrong but he simply refuses to accept any facts I provide him. The v10, sure we can all google a number. The number I provided is in the ballpark inside 5kg depending what is included and what is not. I can also prove my hybrid numbers as they come directly from: Racecar engineering 2013 engines special issue, page 11 and those same numbers are in the technical rules anybody can download from fia site… not good enough for anon, he knows I’m wrong so fia must be wrong as well! And renault too. Probably why their engine sucked so bad, they made it weigh too much!

          4. Racecar engineering 2013 engines special issue, page 11

            I’m extremely disappointed @socksolid; you base your estimate of 2020 hybrid PU’s on a 2013 article issued before the first hybrid PU was built into a car.
            You should at least google a reference from an engine builder (or customer team) after that date.
            And even you can’t be that myopic that you missed the many stories about weight savings since 2014 in the engines, MGU’s, turbo.

            It seems anon is probably not that far of the truth.

          5. @coldfly or, for that matter, being so bull headed so as to seemingly ignore the total amount of weight added to the cars for other factors (the Halo, enlarged wheels, standardised crash structures) – not to mention that he has overlooked the explicit statements from the suppliers and from the FIA that the future planned weight increases are due to factors such as the increase in wheel rim size to 18 inches.

            @socksolid no, you did not prove me wrong on the 1980s turbos – you made a few unsubstantiated claims, then promptly stormed off as soon as people started pointing out that your claims were wrong (I wasn’t the only one pointing out that your claims about the power output or the way in which those engines were constructed were based on myths written in later decades when the contemporary evidence pointed in a different way). Next you’ll be claiming that those M12 engine blocks came from used road cars…

            It seems you are still determined to take a Trumpian attitude to anything that doesn’t conform to your preconceptions by denouncing any assertion to the contrary as “fake news”. You contemptuously claim “sure we can all google a number” – even though I am actually citing a published article by a former engine designer, whereas you’re citing an unsubstantiated number pulled out of thin air – yet still want to claim it somehow substantiates your figures?

            Well, as the phrase goes, OK boomer – go ahead and waste your time pointlessly trying to start a fight for a war that you lost nearly two decades ago. Your V10s are gone and all your screaming on this site will not make them come back – do you really think that insulting and abusing me is somehow magically going to make your V10s come back, or achieves anything of any substance whatsoever?

            All it is going to do is make you regret wasting your life with futile efforts pointlessly screaming at others for a past that never existed and will never exist again, no matter how much you beg for it.

          6. @coldfly
            For your pleasure I went and looked through the fia rules and what they say about engine weights. But here are the numbers I presented earlier:
            145kg for the engine, 35kg for the battery and let’s add 20k
            You say:
            You should at least google a reference from an engine builder (or customer team) after that date.

            So what do the 2020 technical rules say:
            Engine weight, article 5.4.1:
            The overall weight of the power unit must be a minimum of 145kg

            ERS minimum weight, article 5.12.8:
            Minimum weight : 30.6kg

            Battery is listed in 5.4.5 but to my understanding this is included in the ERS
            The total weight of the part of the ES that stores energy, i.e. the cells (including any clamping
            plates) and electrical connections between cells, must be no less than 20kg and must not
            exceed 25kg.

            mgu-k and mgu-h I assume are included in the engine weight but I’ll put them here as well:
            5.2.4: The weight of the MGU‐H (as defined in line 14 of Appendix 2 to these regulations) may not be
            less than 4kg

            5.2.3: The weight of the MGU‐K (as defined in line 12 of Appendix 2 to these regulations) may not be
            less than 7kg

            So from the rules which should give pretty good idea what the minimum weights are we get engine+ERS = 145kg+30.6= 175.6kg. I was wrong by 4.4kg. Totally wrong. Ancillaries I assumed 20kg but those are not part of rules as far as minimumm weights are defined. But everybody knows the hybrids need more cooling, more coolers simply because the amount of stuff has increased over the v8s so from that it follows that hybrid engine’s ancillaries should weight more then those of the v8 which are assumed to also be 20kg. But you got me! 4.4kg wrong. Over 2.5% wrong. Embarassing!

        2. @coldfly – nice chart, thanks for sharing that.

          1. You’re welcome, @phylyp.
            Always good to hear from people who appreciate when you share sources.
            Others (see above) just shout their own made-up numbers and claim that all others are wrong.

          2. @coldfly You are talking about yourself.

          3. Another poor assessment, @socksolid. Am I getting under your skin?
            You got close enough to the number I originally mentioned (63kg). But I doubt you will ever accept any truth contradicting your beliefs; hence I left to at that.

          4. @coldfly
            What you mean you’ll never accept facts. I’ve proven that the engine weight went up more than the minimum weight of the car when f1 went from hybrids to v8. I proved your guess wrong that the hybrids have gotten lighter. I can’t prove without doubt that no team made it to the minimum weight in 2014 because the actual measured weights of the cars were and will never released. It is common knowledge and one more easy thing to google if you’d be willing to check any of your numbers:
            I can prove everything I have said. I have proven you wrong. I am not just saying that. I have listed my sources. I’ve done all I can. Yet it is my “beliefs” that is wrong. Yeah right, you left because nothing you said is true. At best it is misleading.

  10. What he is hinting at is that F1 also needs to bring back proper engines, but he can’t say that because the global warming loonies in the UK report you to the police for that sort of speech.

  11. Karun is spot on but unfortunately there is no feasible solution.

    The proposed 2021 regs, with a further reduction in downforce and car weight back to 2004 levels would be so tantalising, but it’s never going to happen…

    1. That’s ok, because 2021 is never going to happen. Until 2023, if at all.

  12. Many F1 drivers from the mid naughties era have come out and said the 2004 spec cars would have been even more mega if they had the fat slicks we have now.

    2004-2005 will always be my favourite era.

Comments are closed.