I recently had a discussion about why the stopping distance on F1s has shortened that much lately.
Is it the tyres or downforce? Or does it come down to the brakes.

My thoughts on it were that its got largely to do with the carbon brakes used in todays cars. From my undestanding of the issue steel brakes should be able to supply enough braking torque to lock wheels even on an F1 but suffer form fading with constant braking a lot more. If my trail of thought is correct older F1s should have been able to brake as much as todays but had to hold back to brake consistently over the duration of an entire race.
This could also be part of the reason why F1 has gotten so boring.

So... am I remotely correct or way off?

How long ago do you mean by lately? Because F1 has been using carbon brakes for years!

I thought the reason it's got so boring/not much overtaking is because of the reliance on the aerodynamics and the problems it causes to following cars.

My thinking would be tyres. There is only so much braking force a tyre can give before passing the optimum slip (does it become negative slip for braking ) so no matter how good your brakes are the tyres are the limit i would of thought.

Edit: bad wording - The tyre slips producing a force, in this case a braking force, around 10 - 15% slip iirc is optimum. The tyre and road surface both effect the braking force generated. Therefore i would think the the limiting factor to braking in a formula 1 car are these two factors, not the brakes they use.

Tires and downforce are the limiting factor in most big single seaters atm.

Quote from ajp71 :

Tires and downforce are the limiting factor in most big single seaters atm.

agreed but the question was more about what it was like in the days of steel brakes

It wasn't really fluid fade that gives steel brakes a disadvantage, and nor is it the coefficient of friction as carbon/carbon and steel/pad material (which may or may not be carbon) is fairly similar. But the heat generated by the braking causes metallurgical changes within the steel discs, poor friction of the pads (though this would be solvable using modern materials), and a LOT of wear.

Obviously outright braking is limited by the tyres, as F1 cars have been able to lock wheels at speed for a long time.

Changing to steel discs wouldn't change braking distances much, but would required redesign of braking systems to combat wear, weight and cracking of the discs. It wouldn't add much to the racing really.

Quote from tristancliffe :

But the heat generated by the braking causes metallurgical changes within the steel discs, poor friction of the pads (though this would be solvable using modern materials), and a LOT of wear.

i know so my trail of thought was that maybe just maybe they didnt use the cars full stopping potential to keep temperatures in check over the course of a race
this is also the only scenario i could think of in which the words 'outbraking someone' make sense

Quote :

Obviously outright braking is limited by the tyres, as F1 cars have been able to lock wheels at speed for a long time.

well yes of course i never doubted that

Quote from Shotglass :

this is also the only scenario i could think of in which the words 'outbraking someone' make sense

That's just a term for passing someone by braking later than them.

Quote from ajp71 :

That's just a term for passing someone by braking later than them.

or yourself when it goes wrong

An F1 carbon disc takes about five months to manufacture. Carbon fibre is more abrasive than steel and dissipates heat better than steel. Technically they do stop better than steel and don't suffer from distortion like steel brakes do (as Tristan eluded to in his post).

Apart from materials, technology has improved as well over the years, though F1 brake construction still must adhere to the rules of the formula. Brake ducting is a more recent development in F1 (introduced in 2001 by Ferrari). The ducts help to control the flow of air by use of a fan device that sucks air in towards the brakes. Older systems like passive venting meant the need for a much larger hole in the bodywork and therefore more aerodynamic drag. So the development of more advanced braking systems (like many advances in F1) has helped to prompt other changes to the cars as in the above example.

Downforce is probably the largest factor in reducing braking distances. Lift off the throttle at 200mph in a F1 car and it is like slamming the brakes on in any other car due to the drag created. Also, the downforce pushes the tyres into the ground meaning much larger braking force can be applied before wheel lockups occur.

According to Peter Wright's book, an F1 car's braking is limited by driver strength at high speeds. I'll take a look tonight and see if he offers more specifics.

Quote from Storm_Cloud :

Also, the downforce pushes the tyres into the ground meaning much larger braking force can be applied before wheel lockups occur.

I don't believe that's represented too well in the BF1 (little off topic there:tilt

The effect is present in all downforced cars, but it's not very pronounced at the moment. You can use n amount of brake pressures at the end of a long straight and the same force applied in a slower entry will result in locked wheels.