F1 turbo era top speeds

With the regulations in F1, I really doubt we'll see any speed changes.

Edited by wingwalker, 06 September 2011 - 20:41.

After all, Paul Ricard´s 1.8 km long Mistral straight was perfect place to showcase turbo power.

I don't know if this is relevant, but Montoya was doing 357km/h down the main straight in Monza back in 03, or maybe it was 04...I know thats probably the fastest I've seen an F1 car go in a race.

hmmm, breaks out metric conversion chart...
That's about 221mph, that must of been something to see.

Kinda turbo related. I was at Fontana when Gil de Ferran put down a lap at 388kmh (241.4mph) and I was stunned, he had to be doing 400kmh +/- down the backstretch.
Amazingly they ran a race at the same track where CART had a 400 mile (643km) race that was run with an *average* speed of 333 kmh (207mph), the fastest circuit race in history.

I'm thinking you're thinking of the IRL race at Fontana in '03 I believe that was the 200+ average speed race. No cautions and the only cut in speed was the pit stops.

The 2002 CART race was 500 miles and average 197 mph.

But yeah, CART/IRL had some amazingly quick races in the past decade.

But like mentioned prior, top speeds probably won't change much due to downforce. If anything, acceleration might increase, but that's not until Bernie does his best to slow the cars back down again.

How come? DRS gives a huge boost on the straights and gears adjusted for it for quali stay like that for the race. Top speed at Monza is going to be highest in years, it's almost a given.


edit: if the figures are correct, that gives 46 km/h difference at the end of the straight between two perfectly healthy cars. wowzers.

I just had a look at some images from the 1982 race and I was surprised how much the turbo cars had a flat wing/low drag configuration. Then of course I remembered that the ground effect cars only got cornered by the start of the 1983 season. Which explains why the 1000+ hp Q engined cars of 85/86 never went that much faster on the Ricard, Monza or Hockenheim straights - they had to compromise more for speed over the entire lap.

How do the top speeds of the turbo cars compare to today's cars? Any fairly unaltered track used both now and then?

I think you hit the nail on the head here. In 82 the cars had ground effect and produced more downforce with relatively little drag. Once the rules changed to mandate a flat bottom, in order to maintain the downforce they needed for the corners to achieve a fast laptime, they required large wings that produced a lot of drag compared to the more more efficient underbody aerodynamics of the pre '83 cars.

You don't actually need the highest top speed to be fast somewhere like Monza. With a higher downforce setup, the speed you carry through the corners and onto the straights compensates for your lack of top speed. There is relatively little in it in terms of laptime. However, the downside to it is that you can be a sitting duck on the straights. This probably influences a lot of drivers decision on whether to go high(er) or low downforce.

Interestingly, I wonder if with DRS the balance has maybe changed in the favour of a higher downforce setup, since in qualifying you get the best of both worlds with the wing opening on the straight, and also in the race you can at least use the DRS to aid overtaking.

Edited by Massa, 07 September 2011 - 09:33.

IIRC the turbo cars were approaching Paddock Bend at Brands Hatch at 214 MPH/342 KPH, if you have ever driven Paddock Bend you will have an idea of just how fast that is - For the uninformed, Paddock is like jumping to the right off a cliff while blindfolded.... When you get to the brow of the hill you realise that the track is about 30' down and level with your right shoulder, it gets you interest in a Formula Ford.

IIRC the turbo cars were approaching Paddock Bend at Brands Hatch at 214 MPH/342 KPH, if you have ever driven Paddock Bend you will have an idea of just how fast that is - For the uninformed, Paddock is like jumping to the right off a cliff while blindfolded.... When you get to the brow of the hill you realise that the track is about 30' down and level with your right shoulder, it gets you interest in a Formula Ford.

Edited by PayasYouRace, 07 September 2011 - 12:52.

IIRC the turbo cars were approaching Paddock Bend at Brands Hatch at 214 MPH/342 KPH, if you have ever driven Paddock Bend you will have an idea of just how fast that is - For the uninformed, Paddock is like jumping to the right off a cliff while blindfolded.... When you get to the brow of the hill you realise that the track is about 30' down and level with your right shoulder, it gets you interest in a Formula Ford.

hmmm, breaks out metric conversion chart...
That's about 221mph, that must of been something to see.

Kinda turbo related. I was at Fontana when Gil de Ferran put down a lap at 388kmh (241.4mph) and I was stunned, he had to be doing 400kmh +/- down the backstretch.
Amazingly they ran a race at the same track where CART had a 400 mile (643km) race that was run with an *average* speed of 333 kmh (207mph), the fastest circuit race in history.

Edited by Tenmantaylor, 07 September 2011 - 14:39.

Tell you what is far from staggering, Im watching the Spa race having got back from hols and I saw Rosberg's top speed whilst defending from Hamilton at the run up to Les Combes: He hit a measly 303kmh. That's just pathetic for an F1 car in the race at Spa. Even Alonso's slipstreaming and DRS enabled Ferrari didn't creak 320kmh! It's ****, F1 cars were faster than this at Spa in the 60s.

Smaller wings, smaller tyres, bigger engines please.

Tell you what is far from staggering, Im watching the Spa race having got back from hols and I saw Rosberg's top speed whilst defending from Hamilton at the run up to Les Combes: He hit a measly 303kmh. That's just pathetic for an F1 car in the race at Spa. Even Alonso's slipstreaming and DRS enabled Ferrari didn't creak 320kmh! It's shit, F1 cars were faster than this at Spa in the 60s.

Smaller wings, smaller tyres, bigger engines please.

Edited by Scotracer, 07 September 2011 - 14:40.

You must have seen a glitch then. Every time I saw one of the Merc's defending they topped out at 318km/h and if using DRS they hit the limiter at 321km/h.

The Top speed of the cars gets sacrificed more and more. Apex speed is where the time is made or lost these days. And you don't need the ultimate top speed any more to pass - you have DRS for that.

Edited by Tenmantaylor, 07 September 2011 - 15:42.

Spa in the 60s was a very different circuit though!

Edited by Tenmantaylor, 07 September 2011 - 15:50.

You don't actually need the highest top speed to be fast somewhere like Monza. With a higher downforce setup, the speed you carry through the corners and onto the straights compensates for your lack of top speed. There is relatively little in it in terms of laptime. However, the downside to it is that you can be a sitting duck on the straights. This probably influences a lot of drivers decision on whether to go high(er) or low downforce.

I understand the implications of the DRS and rev limiter and the more I think about the more I'm sure they are a riduclous combination for racing, especially at tracks like Spa and Monza where ultimate top speed should be a very important factor for the race, not how quickly you get there which is all KERS, DRS and slipstreaming are anygood for. Joke! You can't use DRS in clear air in the race so shouldn't be a factor for your race setup if you want to achieve the best race time. If you can't catch the guy in front DRS is no good for you. Setting your gearing for the DRS (so 7th is only used with DRS for example) is a massive compromise to your race time and shouldn't be entertained IMO. The only reason to opt for the higher downforce option at Spa would be to cover the high likelihood of a wet race. I'm fully aware F1 teams have many more intelligent people than myself but no matter how intellectual and versed with the numbers you are you still need a full understanding of driving the car to make these decisions. I used to love when JV would slap on a low DF setup against the wishes of Patrick Head and still go out and win.

Nico must have been in fuel-saving mode or had a bad run from Eau Rouge. I never saw anything that slow at any other time. I mean, the Mercs were fending off cars that were using DRS!

Some top speeds from various years listed here:

http://www.autoparer...rd-old-spa.html

But has Schumacher really topped 375.5 km/h at Monza testing with Ferrari in 2003? Can't recall...

IIRC the turbo cars were approaching Paddock Bend at Brands Hatch at 214 MPH/342 KPH

Speed in a straight line takes no skill. I want to see last second braking and daredevil cornering. If you want straight line speed watch drag racing or go to the salt flats. There are guys in the their sixties doing 300mph in cars they built in their house garage.

How do the top speeds of the turbo cars compare to today's cars? Any fairly unaltered track used both now and then?

This page contains some speed trap figures for the 1986 Italian Grand Prix.

So how fast was Rosberg on the straights when he qualified at Silverstone at 160.9mph in 85?

the only official trap speed was on the finish line : Rosberg was the fastest at 259 Km/h, in front of Johansson with 256 Km/h....223 for Bellof (Tyrrell Cosworth)

Edited by D-Type, 12 September 2011 - 14:45.

What speed did Honda do when they ran a F1 car at Bonneville with basically the standard engine and wings set as flat as possible.

It's a pity that they don't run obsolescent Grand Prix cars at Brighton any more.

IIRC the turbo cars were approaching Paddock Bend at Brands Hatch at 214 MPH/342 KPH, if you have ever driven Paddock Bend you will have an idea of just how fast that is - For the uninformed, Paddock is like jumping to the right off a cliff while blindfolded.... When you get to the brow of the hill you realise that the track is about 30' down and level with your right shoulder, it gets you interest in a Formula Ford.