The exaggerations some people make.

[group c n b man]

Many nostalgic people on the internet claim that race cars are getting slower, quieter, more boring etc. The truth is (although this is hard to believe) that the opposite is happening. Good example : Some claim that GTP cars were faster, louder, more exciting than present cars. Wrong. Turns out that IMSA had a 108db noise limit. This doesn't sound like much does it? ALMS cars are allowed 113db which will sound far far louder than GTP cars ever could have done because of the way decibels work. Has anyone been a witness for this?

[LeonOfTheDead]

What I think about modern (now) motorsports in general is that it is:

- safer (interpret this as you like)

- more about sponsors than racing (that's something more general, making money with collateral activities rather than with the core business, digressing)

It may have been more exiting back in the days from our point of view, but honestly, F1 races were boring even 14 years ago (when I started bothering about F1).

Now the cars are surely faster (just considering lap times), and maybe they just look less exiting to drive or even to watch, but I still see drivers almost relieved when and endurance race finishes.

[PRC777]

I'm somewhat in the middle in this case...between "yes" and "no" for the exaggerations people make, especially for F1. Yes, the f1 racers of today are lighter and a hell of a lot safer than the f1 cars of the past. BUT, the contemporary f1 race cars are said to to be slower around corner and straights compared to the f1 cars of previous generations. Some people think that the f1 cars will only get slower year after year (you can blame the FIA for that); aerodynamic appliances can only play so much of a major role in improving the cars' speed. Now, its obvious where NASCAR is going, but as for the rather boring (thanks, Dancia Patrick) Indy 500...

[blackcat77]

The loudest race cars I ever heard were the Can Am cars. You could FEEL the sound of those cars vibrating in your chest.

[LeonOfTheDead]

996 GT3 RS weren't silent at all.
the tower of the Imola circuit all at once seemed made of paper fo as much as it was vibrating, and I was at the fourth floor.
Not to consider the Murciealgo GT1...

[csl177]

+1 to Leon's first post.

A lot of some old-timers nostalgia (I'm one) is based on the vibe racing had at one time. Hay bales or snow fencing, or no fencing at all, waiting for a corner worker to let you cross the track when the hot sesson ended. Like LeMans starts at Sebring, walking into a barracks/garage and chatting with Jackie Icxk and Andretti, or standing inside the hanger as Chinetti's Alfa's were being prepped
after open practice. That kind of access is long gone.

But I remember F1 races in the '60s and '70s that were as exciting as watching paint dry.

Trans Am, Can Am and F5000 were exciting as hell, but neither series lasted long... another reason for some nostalgia. The other reasons for me are sensory, the sounds and smells. The sounds of Matra or Ferrari V-12s and 1000, 1500, and 2000 CC sportscars weren't louder, but all running together can't be described. Nor can the smell of racing fuel and burned Castrol. The vegetable kind.

But IMO modern racing is emphatically not less demanding or exciting. Anyone that follows BTCC, DTM, WRC or Aussie Supercars knows this.
Too bad Speed declined to provide any coverage for us American fans the past few years.

[Wouter Melissen]

Many nostalgic people on the internet claim that race cars are getting slower, quieter, more boring etc. The truth is (although this is hard to believe) that the opposite is happening. Good example : Some claim that GTP cars were faster, louder, more exciting than present cars. Wrong. Turns out that IMSA had a 108db noise limit. This doesn't sound like much does it? ALMS cars are allowed 113db which will sound far far louder than GTP cars ever could have done because of the way decibels work. Has anyone been a witness for this?

Not to be pedantic or anything but you state three qualifications and only 'disprove' one. Even that is arguable as the RX-792P we featured this week definitely did not produce less that 108 db. Whether a car is exciting is subjective, so there is no definitive answer to that. I do think a Toyota-Eagle on modern rubber will still beat any modern car due to the ridiculous levels of downforce these cars produce.

[lightweight]

The speed of cars is dictated by the rules of the specific category. Let's not forget that in this discussion.

I will make a comment while referring F1 as an example.

- Engine rev limit (Reason: Cost)
- Limited number of engines / gearboxes used per season (Reason: Cost)
- Minimum engine weight & center of gravity (Reason: Cost / closer racing)
- Maximum chassis torsional stiffness (Reason: Cost)
- Single tyre (Reason: Cost)
- Testing mileage restriction (Reason: Cost)
- Windtunnel use restriction (Reason: Cost)
- Aero restrictions on diffuser, floor, front & rear wings (Reason: closer racing)

According to the above, the main reason for regulatory restrictions is cost reduction. As a side effect, cars might slow down at the beginning of each season. Nevertheless, the rate of development in F1 is such that at the end of the season most of it is clawed back. But the important thing is that stable rules mean that after a period of 2-3 years, gaining time is getting more and more expensive, as most aero / chassis refinements are already implemented, leaving room for ever more radical / expensive solutions.

It is worth mentioning that most rules are more restrictive to the previous ones, because of the effect described above: The rate of development is so relentless, that if the rules remained the same, cars would get too quick to handle.

For example the ground effect cars had probably double the downforce of today's cars, but because of inferior tyres, they weren't THAT quick. Had today's cars been allowed to run ground effects and unrestricted diffusers, the drivers would require a G-suit like the pilots of fighter planes...

CONCLUSION
- The rules restrict car speeds to a certain window of performance so as to be safe for drivers / spectators and cost/effective for teams & sponsors.

FURTHER RESEARCH
Maybe someone would have the time to search tracks such as Suzuka / Interlagos / Malaysia their pole time each year. This time on can have a specific idea concerning the fluctuations of the times per year

[wstander]

Many nostalgic people on the internet claim that race cars are getting slower,

Uhh, a lot of the claims for 'slower race cars' go directly to race track changes over the years in the guise of safety....

In spite of rules changes designed to slow cars down, we still see terminal speeds increase each year, or at least near the year's end.

Compared to the 1950s and early 1960s, how many racetracks survive today in the same configuration? My guess is none; most are really sanitized in the twin interests of safety and cost.

Example: How long is the current Nurburgring(sp?) compared to the 'early years'; how about changes to Ciircuit Sarthe and Le Mans? Adding kinks and chicanes and shortening circuits down to what some call 'cartdromes' certainly does not allow much terminal speed. I recall some of the 7 liter cars at Le Mans hitting in excess 270, or so it was reported. Now we see 'showcase' runs of maybe 253...

Conversely, recall that in the USGP at Indianapolis, all of the Michelin equipped teams experienced problems at speed in the high banking; a problem that would have surfaced at Monza if its banked section was still in use. Bridgestone survived possibly because it had access to Firestone race engineers (a subsidiary of Bridgestone) and built tires that could handle the banking.

Just some thoughts.....

[MPME]

Many nostalgic people on the internet claim that race cars are getting slower, quieter, more boring etc. The truth is (although this is hard to believe) that the opposite is happening. Good example : Some claim that GTP cars were faster, louder, more exciting than present cars. Wrong. Turns out that IMSA had a 108db noise limit. This doesn't sound like much does it? ALMS cars are allowed 113db which will sound far far louder than GTP cars ever could have done because of the way decibels work. Has anyone been a witness for this?

You might want to check your facts. Sound limits weren't even in the IMSA rule books for much of the '80s -- I just looked. 1988 was the first season the series started to take a hard look at them, and some were as high as 118db.

Many of the GTP cars, particularly (and obviously) the non-turbos, were ear-splittingly loud.

As for the cars not being faster/louder/etc, I assume you're speaking from firsthand experience of watching GTP races in person?

And as an aside, try speaking with the ALMS drivers that also raced in GTP, and they'll tell you right away which cars were faster, and it isn't their current prototypes.

[csl177]

In 1992 when Fangio & Wallace won for Gurney in the Toyota Eagle, Mazda withdrew the RX792 as they couldn't satisfy the sound restrictions. During practice they added discs to the exhaust, which ultimately caused so much heat the bodywork caught fire... we saw it. Sound issues that year were largely because a new subdivision was built near the track. Always thought it was BS; it's an airport AND a racetrack... what did home buyers think it was gonna be like?

Wouldn't it be interesting to compare today's LMP cars with GTP, Can Am and Prototypes?
Put 'em all on modern rubber at a place that hasn't changed much like Road Atlanta or Laguna and see what happens.

[LeonOfTheDead]

I don't know if just putting modern rubber would to the trick, as they compounds adopted had and have a great part int he design of the car. You just can't design a winning car ignoring which shoes it is going to wear. Each category of car, from their suspension to th aerodynamics, were designed to work with the tires used in that year, so I don't think there is a way to recreate a fair situation.

Just to bring a simple an stupid example, consider rally cars, when racing on tarmac. When there is a tight corner the only thing to do to spend the less possible time there is with hand brake turn and a lot of oversteering.
Now put on that car the best slicks you have with 10x the grip.
Surely the oversteering will be gone without an even extremer setup, but it isn't sure if the additional grip at the front will allow for a quicker turn without a massive understeer.

One way or the other, tires can make the difference, that's for sure.

[RacingManiac]

And as an aside, try speaking with the ALMS drivers that also raced in GTP, and they'll tell you right away which cars were faster, and it isn't their current prototypes.

Laptime tells a different story though no? Most cars now are as fast as they ever was laptime wise around a given track. Look at Le Mans, for example, one could argue the track is slower now, but laptime has never been lower(chicaned), even compare the the 3.5 liter car like the 905. Sure I'd probably attribute most of that to the rate which the tire has progressed, but the car today is faster compare to their older counterpart in their days....

What's more amazing is how much more reliable the cars have become. In F1 now with cars pulling 4-5 Gs in braking and cornering they still have engine and gearbox that lasts multiple races, and tires than can hold their laptime within 3-5% from beginning to end of life. Back in the days engine can last less than a session and tires lasts less than 5 laps to extract the ultimate speed out of a car. And the DNF in races have become much rarer. And then in endurance races we have car that runs within 2-3 % of the qualifying pace for the duration of the endurance race, and not be DNF, thats also near impossible in the old days....

[TheScrutineer]

F1 cars are approaching the fastest they have ever been. If you are looking at the fastest F1 car ever, that has to be the Ferrari F2004.

I can only imagine the old 80s turbo cars pulling slightly clear in acceleration on a straight. But once in the corners the modern car would obiterate any era (especially the 80s).

In terms of excitement, the slower the racing generally the closer the racing. However, the faster the cars the greater the gap between the able and unable. Faster is better for the skilled.

RacingManiac, I have to agree with you on how amazing modern reliability is. I think when there is a big rule change in F1 there is a lot of moaning, but once money and intelligence is invested within a year or two the lap times get equal or faster.

[LeonOfTheDead]

As Lighweight said, much of what goes into a modern F1 car is strongly limited by rules.
We have now V8 cars being faster than V10 cars, just imagine the present best car with 200 addional bhp, or active suspensions, and more freedom in the aerodynamics department, or even qualifying tires (just look at MotoGP) and engines.

I think cars now are obviously faster in certain cases, and in other they could be even faster if it wasn't for rules limitation. The point is that back in the days controlling even 500 bhp with the same rubber I have on my bicycle and a downforce near to zero (if not even a bit of lift I'd dare to say) makes them looking much "cooler".

It isn't easier to drive as fast as you can a Peugeot 908 than a Porsche 917K, it's just saner.

Today "cars" like the Trust SSC topped the Mach 1, but I'd dare to say it takes a lot less balls to do that then topping th 300 km/h mark in the thirties. Or maybe not, possibly because they didn't know what they were doing and how bad it was going to end.

After a few months I had my license, I covered about 2 kilometers without my safe belts. When I realized that waiting at the light crossing, I almost felt naked.
I just can't imagine racing an F1 cars, 40 years ago, without them and with a leather "helmet".

Props to you, Sir Moss.