this is the most retarded argument i've heard. keeps praising the senna era and he died racing
cars nowadays are better and would beat all the past ones even with a fraction of the power. it's called progress, look it up.
You dont know much about senna i take.
Watch the top gear tribute, it gives an excellent perspective on exactly how he was so damn good.
As for the cars, eighter your logical fallacy is strawman, or you actually didnt understood it.
I'll try explain :
In the 80ties, Group C cars had the highest downforce ever seen in racing. They had nearly unrestricted engines. Just needed to last 24h
Formula 1 was extreme in a diffrent way, since the cars had the disadvantage of open top and wheels, but only needed to last ~90minutes in a race.
Back then, Group C was much faster thanks to ground tunnel effect, wich gave them the massive downforce they needed to "reliably" boost up engines to 400km/h
Formula one had nearly no downforce in comparison, yet put simularly big engines in the cars.
THE biggest issue of that time was not the engine. In fact, the fastest formula 1 car in a straight line ever build, the 2004 BAR Honda, has a simular power to weight ratio then the 89'-91' group C cars who managed 400km/h on worse road (le sarthe main straight original 6 kilometer section)
It was downforce, and grip.
Downforce wasent a problem for group C. They had ground tunnel effect. They could brake from high 300's speed to 0 in astonishing times.
Their BIG problem was suspension, tires, constant downforce.
You see, ground effects are better the faster you go. Just like the tires and brakes of a modern F1 are better at certain speeds, its why they take diffrent racing lines to go faster around a corner compared to any other motorspord.
Suspension however, was pretty bad and cars lost quite a bit of power in corners. The tires were pretty bad and slowed cornering down, where the constant downforce would have partially solved this.
Formula ones were even worse, as they had all those issues, no cover over the tire, and nearly no ground effects.
This is why you see those 80ties/early 90ties 1k HP F1's "dance" around, as they constantly lost traction.
Since 1991, engines were more restricted by the year, but massive progress with constant downforce, suspension and tires were made.
Even with the restrictions on those , innovation kept beating restriction untill 2004.
The 2004 bar honda is the fastest formula 1 in a straight line ever build.
The 2004 ferrari is the fastest car around the track ever build
Ever since, F1 were slower.
Current day, tires have massive grip, suspension is rocksolid, and the downforce is immense with hardly any ground effects.
Is their engine beter?
The fastest F1 ever made, was the 2004 Bar honda.
The fastest group C racer was the Sauber C9 (the peugeot doesnt count)
The Bar Honda, on salt flats, reached a simular top speed as the Sauber C9, with simular power to weight ratio.
Thing is, the Sauber did that on a bumpy 6 km le sarthre straight
Buy on AliExpress.com
