Jump to content


Photo

What do you consider are currently the 3 fastest cars in the world and why ?


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#1 BDuncan

BDuncan
  • New Member

  • 4 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 12 August 2009 - 14:51

At this point in time, what are your current picks of the 3 fastest
cars (in speed terms) in the world (which can include any F1 car/s)
and please separately say why, for each car named.


Advertisement

#2 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 9,449 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 12 August 2009 - 14:56

Brawn BGP001
Red Bull RB5
Ferrari F60

#3 Gilles4Ever

Gilles4Ever
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 19,954 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 12 August 2009 - 15:01

ThrustSSC - 1227.986km/h
Budweiser Rocket - 1,201 km/h
Thrust2 - 1019.47km/h

#4 Yellowmc

Yellowmc
  • Member

  • 1,916 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 12 August 2009 - 15:03

ThrustSSC - 1227.986km/h
Budweiser Rocket - 1,201 km/h
Thrust2 - 1019.47km/h


:up:


#5 Youichi

Youichi
  • Member

  • 2,994 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 12 August 2009 - 15:37


1. SSC Ultimate Aero: 257 mph
2. Bugatti Veyron: 253 mph
3. Saleen S7 Twin-Turbo: 248 mph



#6 PNSD

PNSD
  • Member

  • 3,276 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 12 August 2009 - 15:47

My car - just because

#7 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,685 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 12 August 2009 - 15:53

Around a track: Red Bull RB5
In a straight line: Thrust SSC
Off-road: Suzuki XL7 Pikes Peak

#8 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,099 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 12 August 2009 - 15:54

Ferrari F2004 around the track...

#9 Alonzo

Alonzo
  • Member

  • 658 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 12 August 2009 - 16:11

Ferrari F2004 around the track...


no, the 2004 aerodynamics is less effective than the aero afterwards.

#10 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,685 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 12 August 2009 - 16:14

no, the 2004 aerodynamics is less effective than the aero afterwards.


Wrong. The 2004 aero regulations permitted the most efficient wings and diffusers. They still hold virtually all the lap records.



#11 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 8,868 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 12 August 2009 - 16:17

ThrustSSC - 1227.986km/h
Budweiser Rocket - 1,201 km/h
Thrust2 - 1019.47km/h


In my view these are the fastest cars in the world - in a straight line.

You'd need a different car to be faster thrrough a stage of the Rally of Finland or a lap of Spa.



#12 Ogami musashi

Ogami musashi
  • Member

  • 787 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 12 August 2009 - 16:22

Wrong. The 2004 aero regulations permitted the most efficient wings and diffusers. They still hold virtually all the lap records.


They hold all lap records considering their qualifying times were done with a 1 stint fuel load which is then to be compared with Q3 times.

Well they were just from another planet.

#13 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,685 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 12 August 2009 - 16:33

They hold all lap records considering their qualifying times were done with a 1 stint fuel load which is then to be compared with Q3 times.

Well they were just from another planet.


I believe we've spoken about this to great lengths in the past Ogami and came to a conclusion that 2004 cars were 3 seconds faster than 2007-2008?



#14 Ogami musashi

Ogami musashi
  • Member

  • 787 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 12 August 2009 - 17:01

I believe we've spoken about this to great lengths in the past Ogami and came to a conclusion that 2004 cars were 3 seconds faster than 2007-2008?


Something like that yes.

Quite amazing that they were also the fastest in straight line of all F1 cars (except the honda run).



#15 nordschleife

nordschleife
  • Member

  • 819 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 12 August 2009 - 18:30

At this point in time, what are your current picks of the 3 fastest
cars (in speed terms) in the world (which can include any F1 car/s)
and please separately say why, for each car named.



I believe Gilles4Ever's 3 nominations in post #3 have accurately and completely answered the question.
Cars by definition remain in contact with the ground. The named vehicles are cars.
"Fastest" in this context means "capable of the highest speed". The speeds achieved by those three cars are documented as the highest recorded "at this point in time". Citing those confirmed measurements answers "why" in each case.
No other criteria is requested.

I'd say we're done here.

Edited by nordschleife, 12 August 2009 - 18:32.


#16 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,230 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 12 August 2009 - 19:19

no, the 2004 aerodynamics is less effective than the aero afterwards.

Well no, thats not right at all.

The cars that year will probably go down as the fastest in F1 history.

#17 highdownforce

highdownforce
  • Member

  • 3,677 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 12 August 2009 - 20:19

I believe Gilles4Ever's 3 nominations in post #3 have accurately and completely answered the question.
Cars by definition remain in contact with the ground. The named vehicles are cars.
"Fastest" in this context means "capable of the highest speed". The speeds achieved by those three cars are documented as the highest recorded "at this point in time". Citing those confirmed measurements answers "why" in each case.
No other criteria is requested.

I'd say we're done here.


We can make it more specific than that.
The named vehicles remain in contact with the ground, but are not wheel driven. They are in the Absolute Land Speed Records, but not in the Wheel-driven land speed records.

The Team Vesco "Turbinator" acheived in 2001 the Wheel-driven land speed record with 737.794 km/h.


#18 Ogami musashi

Ogami musashi
  • Member

  • 787 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 12 August 2009 - 20:44

Well no, thats not right at all.

The cars that year will probably go down as the fastest in F1 history.


(Qualifying 04-09/Fastest lap 04-09)

Australia:

1:24:408-1:26:202 / 1:25:125-1:27:706

Malaysia:

1:33:074-1:35:181/ 1:34:223-1:36:641

China:

1:34:012-1:36:684/ 1:32:238 -1:52:592(RAIN)

Bahrein:

1:30:139-1:33:431/ 1:30:252-1:34:556

Monaco:

1:13:985-1:14:902/ 1:14:439-1:15:154

Silverstone:

1:18:233-1:19:509/ 1:18:739-1:20:735

Germany:

1:28:351-1:32:230/ 1:29:458-1:33:365

Hungary:

1:19:146-1:21:569/ 1:19:071-1:21:931


Not a single time did the 09 cars (neither one since 05) were faster than in 2004 neither in qualifying nor race and the average advantage of 04 cars is more than 2 seconds in qualifying and around 3 in race.



#19 Yellowmc

Yellowmc
  • Member

  • 1,916 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 12 August 2009 - 21:45

Tyre war, anyone?

Advertisement

#20 Victor_RO

Victor_RO
  • RC Forum Host

  • 2,751 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 13 August 2009 - 05:55

(Qualifying 04-09/Fastest lap 04-09)

Australia:

1:24:408-1:26:202 / 1:25:125-1:27:706

Malaysia:

1:33:074-1:35:181/ 1:34:223-1:36:641

China:

1:34:012-1:36:684/ 1:32:238 -1:52:592(RAIN)

Bahrein:

1:30:139-1:33:431/ 1:30:252-1:34:556

Monaco:

1:13:985-1:14:902/ 1:14:439-1:15:154

Silverstone:

1:18:233-1:19:509/ 1:18:739-1:20:735

Germany:

1:28:351-1:32:230/ 1:29:458-1:33:365

Hungary:

1:19:146-1:21:569/ 1:19:071-1:21:931


Not a single time did the 09 cars (neither one since 05) were faster than in 2004 neither in qualifying nor race and the average advantage of 04 cars is more than 2 seconds in qualifying and around 3 in race.


A better comparison would be to put the Q2, or preferably Q1 times for the 2009 cars. The 2004 quali times were generally set (especially early in the season) with a very short first stint in mind, so probably with fuel loads comparable to what they would now run in Q1.

#21 Henrytheeigth

Henrytheeigth
  • Member

  • 4,655 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 13 August 2009 - 06:38

Tyre war, anyone?


No thanks, I'm outa tyre amunition! :rotfl:

#22 FlatOverCrest

FlatOverCrest
  • Member

  • 2,823 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 13 August 2009 - 07:00

Just for fun...

The Will Gollop RallyCross Metro 6R4

0-60 on dry tarmac...2 seconds!!!!!!! from the Bi-Turbo motor that pumped out 850BHP! a MONSTER of a car!

What's even more impressive are the brakes.... This car leaves shoulder harness marks on the driver!!

Here is a picture of Will in the beast!

Posted Image

#23 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,088 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 13 August 2009 - 07:43

The Radical Sportscar's SR8 holds the road legal record for the Nürburgring, done in 2005, so I think that's the fastest car. I reckon the Nürburgring is a real road, where real cars exist.

The next best car is the Chevrolet Corvette C6 ZR1. That car was very fast, and it was claimed to be equipped with standard tyres and tune, but was a fraction behind some super super cars.

The third best I would give to the latest 911 turbo. Still light, always quick, it now goes in the wet. Forget the rest ...

Oh well ... I can't. I must mention Stefan Bellof's unforgettable racing Porsche 956 time around there in 6:11 seconds.

Some said that Quick Nick's BMW F1 car would have travelled it at 6:12, if he hadn't slowed down for photographs ... What a shame we don't have the bumpy carousel at every F1 track.


Edited by Melbourne Park, 13 August 2009 - 08:07.


#24 ViMaMo

ViMaMo
  • Member

  • 5,020 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 13 August 2009 - 07:46

Closed circuit:
Short races: The F2004 or MP4-20 around a closed circuit (they own the fastest laps around any GP circuit)
24 Hr race: Peugeot 908 HDI

Straight line: Dragster or the ThrustSSC ?

Off road:
Group B Porsche 959
Dont know about pikes peak cars, do they handle the variety of terrain that WRC cars do? And the massive jumps !!

#25 Ramses1348

Ramses1348
  • Member

  • 573 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 13 August 2009 - 07:55

Tyre war, anyone?


groove tyres, anyone?  ;)

#26 wingwalker

wingwalker
  • Member

  • 6,326 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 13 August 2009 - 08:36

Some said that Quick Nick's BMW F1 car would have travelled it at 6:12, if he hadn't slowed down for photographs ... What a shame we don't have the bumpy carousel at every F1 track.



For what is worth, my no aids F1 Challenge time for Nordschleiffe is 5:51 and I won't shave much from that. Times on other tracks are always really close to reality so I reckon a full-on lap in an modern F1 car would be somewhere around that mark. Note that it was a GP2 (game) version of the track which I think it was slightly longer than what Nick drove.

#27 CaptnMark

CaptnMark
  • Member

  • 1,011 posts
  • Joined: March 99

Posted 13 August 2009 - 08:53

Fill in:

Top speed:
Fastest acceleration:
Fastest cornering:
Fastest braking:

#28 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 14,197 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 13 August 2009 - 09:38

Well no, thats not right at all.

The cars that year will probably go down as the fastest in F1 history.

Don't think so

http://www.autosport...cle.php/id/2323

In 2002 the BMW P82 was the first F1 engine to breach 19,000rpm, fitted in the back of Juan Pablo Montoya's Williams at Monza as he secured F1's fastest ever pole lap at 161.449mph.


Edited by HP, 13 August 2009 - 09:39.


#29 Victor_RO

Victor_RO
  • RC Forum Host

  • 2,751 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 13 August 2009 - 09:46

Don't think so

http://www.autosport...cle.php/id/2323


In "pre-"qualifying at Monza in 2004 Monty smashed his own record; as far as I know, an average of about 163-164mph.

#30 Ogami musashi

Ogami musashi
  • Member

  • 787 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 13 August 2009 - 10:07

A better comparison would be to put the Q2, or preferably Q1 times for the 2009 cars. The 2004 quali times were generally set (especially early in the season) with a very short first stint in mind, so probably with fuel loads comparable to what they would now run in Q1.



I disagree, Well no, you're right, of course they didn't put 25 laps stint fuel for first stint but you can't compare with Q2 because the times are set when there's nothing left in the tank and neither Q1 where this is exactly the same thing (the only difference being the track that is not rubbered enough) at some exceptions.

Both in Q3 and 2004 the cars had to qualifying with enough fuel to make one stint after the last qualifying lap which means they still had plenty of fuel inside, the total opposite of Q2 and Q1.

THe 2004 cars were faster almost in every aspect including top speeds.

#31 Victor_RO

Victor_RO
  • RC Forum Host

  • 2,751 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 13 August 2009 - 10:14

Both in Q3 and 2004 the cars had to qualifying with enough fuel to make one stint after the last qualifying lap which means they still had plenty of fuel inside, the total opposite of Q2 and Q1.

THe 2004 cars were faster almost in every aspect including top speeds.


As far as I could tell, in general, the first stints in 2004 were regularly about half of the first stints that we have now, many cars used to stop after 10-12 laps. Anyway, the 2004 cars hold the records on ALMOST every track.

#32 Rob

Rob
  • Member

  • 8,136 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 13 August 2009 - 10:24

Budweiser Rocket - 1,201 km/h


It was never that quick.


#33 Ogami musashi

Ogami musashi
  • Member

  • 787 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 13 August 2009 - 10:27

As far as I could tell, in general, the first stints in 2004 were regularly about half of the first stints that we have now, many cars used to stop after 10-12 laps. Anyway, the 2004 cars hold the records on ALMOST every track.



Yeah you're right; in fact they do not hold records were:

-Tracks were not there in 2004
-Races were wet in 2004

The only exception i think is Spa's fastest race lap which was set by KR in 2005.



#34 krapmeister

krapmeister
  • Member

  • 5,536 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 13 August 2009 - 10:39

Fill in:

Top speed:
Fastest acceleration:
Fastest cornering:
Fastest braking:


Shouldn't it be 'quickest' acceleration?...

The quickest/fastest accelerating car would have to be Kitty O'Neil who set the standing start 1/4 mile (approx 400m) record in 1977 using a rocket powered dragster at 3.22secs and 392.54mph. :eek:

The quickest accelerating piston powered car would have to be a Top Fuel dragster - 4.42secs @ 336mph. Will do 0-60 in about 0.8secs and get to half track (200m) in about 3 secs and be travelling at 270mph+...

Edited by krapmeister, 14 August 2009 - 03:44.


#35 Andy35

Andy35
  • Member

  • 3,369 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 13 August 2009 - 10:43

This concept of fast is interesting because velocity is a vector. Therefore which is faster, a Bugatti Veyron doing 250mph in Sweden or a parked Suzuki Swift in Kenya?

Regards

Andy

#36 Victor_RO

Victor_RO
  • RC Forum Host

  • 2,751 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 13 August 2009 - 10:46

This concept of fast is interesting because velocity is a vector. Therefore which is faster, a Bugatti Veyron doing 250mph in Sweden or a parked Suzuki Swift in Kenya?

Regards

Andy


The Swift. The rotational speed of the Earth at the Equator means that, relative to a fixed point in orbit around the Sun on the Earth's orbit, it's moving at some 1500kph. Sweden is only moving at half of that.

Edited by Victor_RO, 13 August 2009 - 10:48.


#37 J. Edlund

J. Edlund
  • Member

  • 1,295 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 16 August 2009 - 22:47

The Swift. The rotational speed of the Earth at the Equator means that, relative to a fixed point in orbit around the Sun on the Earth's orbit, it's moving at some 1500kph. Sweden is only moving at half of that.


Actually, it depends on your point of reference.

Velocity without a point of reference isn't that useful.

#38 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 9,449 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 16 August 2009 - 23:01

For what is worth, my no aids F1 Challenge time for Nordschleiffe is 5:51 and I won't shave much from that. Times on other tracks are always really close to reality so I reckon a full-on lap in an modern F1 car would be somewhere around that mark. Note that it was a GP2 (game) version of the track which I think it was slightly longer than what Nick drove.


Erm, there's no Nordschleiffe for GP2. You must be thinking of some other game.

#39 evo

evo
  • Member

  • 338 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 17 August 2009 - 02:46

it's probably a mod+fan-made track?

Advertisement

#40 Radoye

Radoye
  • Member

  • 822 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 17 August 2009 - 04:08

Erm, there's no Nordschleiffe for GP2. You must be thinking of some other game.


it's probably a mod+fan-made track?


Can't fit Nordschleife full scale into GP2. If there is such a mod it must be a scaled down version.

#41 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 17 August 2009 - 09:50


You Guys wallying on about F1 - what about Indy Cars?

Nothing goes around a race track averagely faster than an Indycar.



#42 Just waiting

Just waiting
  • Member

  • 868 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 17 August 2009 - 10:03

I believe Gilles4Ever's 3 nominations in post #3 have accurately and completely answered the question.
Cars by definition remain in contact with the ground. The named vehicles are cars.
"Fastest" in this context means "capable of the highest speed". The speeds achieved by those three cars are documented as the highest recorded "at this point in time". Citing those confirmed measurements answers "why" in each case.
No other criteria is requested.

I'd say we're done here.


You are obviously wrong.




this thread will continue on for another four pages with discussions about indy cars, rally cars, my old f350 diesel....and more importantly, which direction the earth spins..... :rolleyes:

#43 Beamer

Beamer
  • Member

  • 1,350 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 17 August 2009 - 11:20

You Guys wallying on about F1 - what about Indy Cars?

Nothing goes around a race track averagely faster than an Indycar.


euhh... No. On an oval maybe yes, but as soon as the track includes left & right turns an F1 car beats an IndyCar handsdown, even on highspeed tracks like Montreal or Monza!