Jump to content


Photo

F1 car drag racing performance


  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

#1 TimRTC

TimRTC
  • Member

  • 744 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 05 June 2012 - 15:27

Hi folks,

Was at Santa Pod over the weekend for drag racing and just wondering how a modern F1 car would stack up - does anyone have any relevant stats for a quarter mile straight run from a standing start.

Many Thanks.

Advertisement

#2 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,051 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 05 June 2012 - 17:15

You can by the aid of google earth and some good amount of speculations make a good estimate on the time on this video..



Looking at the video and that it seems to do 0-250 in 7sec .. My guess would be in the high 7sec range. Quite impressive.

Edited by MatsNorway, 05 June 2012 - 17:17.


#3 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 859 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 06 June 2012 - 04:13

You can by the aid of google earth and some good amount of speculations make a good estimate on the time on this video..



Looking at the video and that it seems to do 0-250 in 7sec .. My guess would be in the high 7sec range. Quite impressive.


I suspect F1 cars are probably in the 9's - by drag racing standards they are not notably fast.
The same engine in a chassis/transmission meant for drag racing would probably be in the 7's.

#4 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,051 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 06 June 2012 - 11:42

tuned street cars does nines on a regular basis. 600hp in a well made 1000kg car is able to do 9 sec runs. A F1 car would definitelly do 8 sec runs.

Here is a GXR doing 8 sec runs

And bikes got issues with wheelies to worry about.

620kg? + fuel load. (how much?)
720hp

Picture of Catalunya with 405 meters from slot 4.
http://i1188.photobu...catalunya-1.png



Even on a regular race track it definitely does it in 8 sec.

Give it a setup with low downforce in the front, lots of dive at the back and no fuel on a drag strip i still think 7 sec is what it does.

Edited by MatsNorway, 06 June 2012 - 11:48.


#5 sblick

sblick
  • Member

  • 479 posts
  • Joined: September 01

Posted 06 June 2012 - 14:36

I would give high 7 or low 8s. An old Road and Track had Theo Fabi's(?) Benneton do a 1/4 mile and i think it ran in the low 9s. There was a problem with it in either it was a very high down force set up as for Monaco or it had really long gears in it for Spa. It was a race engine and not a Qualifying engine since it was a turbo motor of the time.

#6 munks

munks
  • Member

  • 344 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 06 June 2012 - 15:05

Yup, a few setup changes could be helpful ...

1) Move the weight distribution as far back as possible (of course that's severely limited now by rule in F1, and I presume any drag racing test would be by a legal F1 setup).
2) I *think* low downforce would win over a quarter mile. IIRC, there's some crossover because downforce can help it get more traction earlier.
3) Jacking up the ride heights would help more weight get to the rear wheels. I don't think any aerodynamic penalty would detract significantly compared to the gain in traction.
4) Throw out the brake ducts, block off the radiators, pump up the front tires for less RR, etc.

#7 TimRTC

TimRTC
  • Member

  • 744 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 06 June 2012 - 19:33

Thanks for the info. I wonder why no-one, at least not in the races I have seen, races an open-wheeler in the sportsman categories, I am sure it could not be a safety issues as they would seem a lot safer than dragsters.

#8 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,462 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 06 June 2012 - 20:38

If you allow modifications of the F1 car to optimize it for drag racing, at what point does it cease to be an F1 car and become a dragster?

For example, if you raise the F1 car's ride height, throw away the brake ducts, reconfigure the downforce package for maximum straightline speed, and install a set of drag slicks on the rear, you will certainly improve the car's quarter-mile performance. However, now you have made the car utterly uncompetitive as an F1 car, which is to say, totally f88king useless at the one thing it was ever designed for and the only thing it can ever be any good at. It sure won't be as quick or consistent on a drag strip as an actual dragster of equivalent weight and horsepower. So what was the point again?



#9 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,051 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 06 June 2012 - 20:41

Dropping the air pressure on the rears would aid significantly. Im guessing since the Current cars probably does sub 8 on a race track that a 2004 spec Ferrari etc with a optimum setup would do mid 7sec.

Oh and a BMW/Mclaren Turbo from the 1985-86 in quali spec would not be too bad either. Did they still do manual transmission back then?

Edited by MatsNorway, 06 June 2012 - 20:42.


#10 OfficeLinebacker

OfficeLinebacker
  • Member

  • 14,019 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 06 June 2012 - 23:17

If you allow modifications of the F1 car to optimize it for drag racing, at what point does it cease to be an F1 car and become a dragster?

For example, if you raise the F1 car's ride height, throw away the brake ducts, reconfigure the downforce package for maximum straightline speed, and install a set of drag slicks on the rear, you will certainly improve the car's quarter-mile performance. However, now you have made the car utterly uncompetitive as an F1 car, which is to say, totally f88king useless at the one thing it was ever designed for and the only thing it can ever be any good at. It sure won't be as quick or consistent on a drag strip as an actual dragster of equivalent weight and horsepower. So what was the point again?

Remember that one time an F1 team took their car to the Bonneville salt flats to do a land speed trial? From the writeup the car was technically legal to the regulations of F1 at the time.

I'm thinking something like that. Optimize it to the extent possible while still being legal to race at Spa.

Alternately, pick an actual race setup that is most optimized for a drag race. I'm guessing the track that has the most long straights after slow speed corners. Montreal maybe?

F1 cars are also optimized to a significant extent for acceleration from a standing start. Starts are essentially a drag race to the first corner. So it's not as far fetched as you're making it out to be.

#11 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,499 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 06 June 2012 - 23:34

F1 cars are also optimized to a significant extent for acceleration from a standing start.

Interesting. What aspect of the car's higher speed performance is compromised in order to gain better acceleration to the first corner? There aren't many knobs to tweak on that one.

#12 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,368 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 07 June 2012 - 00:44

The " F1 car at Bonneville" was a 2005 BAR Honda with V 10 powwr.

It never actually got to a full record run at Bonneville due to Salt flooding but they ran it at Mojave airport and got 265 mph without a rear wing.

All as per Racecar Engineering feb. 2006.

The big Bonneville test run problem was lack of traction of the F1 sized tyrse on the salt so in some ways Mojave airport was better suited to the car.

I would guess ( nothing more) that a 2.4 V-8 car of today with a wing in place would struggle to exceed 210 -220 mph on a quarter mile strip. Top fuel ran about 20 - 30 mph below Vmax in the quarter even with 8,000 bhp I believe.

#13 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,462 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 07 June 2012 - 01:04

F1 cars are also optimized to a significant extent for acceleration from a standing start. Starts are essentially a drag race to the first corner. So it's not as far fetched as you're making it out to be.


An F1 car is not in any way optimized for standing start, straight line acceleration. Look at the wheelbase, rear track width, and front track width of a dragster. Now look at an F1 car. Ever see an F1 car with a 25-ft wheelbase?

#14 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,486 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 07 June 2012 - 04:36

2) I *think* low downforce would win over a quarter mile. IIRC, there's some crossover because downforce can help it get more traction earlier.


They have just the device for that problem.

Run lots of wing, and then hit the DRS button at the appropriate time!


#15 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,051 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 07 June 2012 - 09:36

Considering that they are only traction limited to about 100km`t (ref video above) i would not run any wing at all. A typical drag track got Enough grip to hook that F1 car up really early.

Soft suspension, low pressure in the rear tires and it should hook up extremely well.

How much more grip does a drag strip provide? it must be at least 20% more.

Even the Pro mod dragsters who has about 2000hp or so runs no wing.

Edited by MatsNorway, 07 June 2012 - 09:40.


#16 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,462 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 07 June 2012 - 10:42

I would guess ( nothing more) that a 2.4 V-8 car of today with a wing in place would struggle to exceed 210 -220 mph on a quarter mile strip.


That is at least 60 mph optimistic. All the claims here for the F1 car are laughably exaggerated.

An F1 car is not going to run the quarter-mile in the 7s, and even if it did, that's still a second slower than a purpose-built dragster of the same general power and weight.

There are a number of street cars with license plates and state inspection stickers that can beat an F1 car on a drag strip. Badly.

#17 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,229 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 07 June 2012 - 12:53

Considering that they are only traction limited to about 100km`t (ref video above) i would not run any wing at all. A typical drag track got Enough grip to hook that F1 car up really early.

Nup. You would run all the wing the F1 rules allow. Definitely a benefit on the drag strip - especially with DRS available once the aero-drag cost begins to exceed the benefit.

#18 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,229 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 07 June 2012 - 12:58

There are a number of street cars with license plates and state inspection stickers that can beat an F1 car on a drag strip. Badly.

If you allow modifications of the street car to optimize it for drag racing, at what point does it cease to be a street car and become a dragster?

To beat the F1 car, you would need to raise the street car's ride height, install a set of drag slicks on the rear, and make numerous modifications to the suspension at the very least.

#19 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,462 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 07 June 2012 - 13:41

If you allow modifications of the street car to optimize it for drag racing, at what point does it cease to be a street car and become a dragster?

To beat the F1 car, you would need to raise the street car's ride height, install a set of drag slicks on the rear, and make numerous modifications to the suspension at the very least.


I agree completely. You're making my point for me.

An F1 car makes a lousy dragster. A dragster makes a lousy F1 car. A road car makes a lousy F1 or drag car, etc. and so on.

... although that said, of the three, the road car is certainly the most adaptable to the widest variety of applications. Which only makes sense as both the F1 car and the dragster are highly specialized machines -- laser-focused on their respective design missions, if you will. I hope none of these observations are seen as the least bit controversial. I'm afraid they're terribly obvious, even banal.


Advertisement

#20 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,051 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 07 June 2012 - 14:10

Keep it to the point. He asked "How fast would a F1 car go on the quarter mile"

Spare us for the "im not impressed by F1" stuff.

An F1 car is not going to run the quarter-mile in the 7s,


Did you even watch the video.. it does 8 sec on a race track. And that's on full tanks, full front downforce and race setup. Normal tire pressure, dirty side of the track etc.

Closer eyeballin makes me guess 8.5 sec.

I have shown video and picture evidence that supports me. I suggest you make some proper analysis to convince me and the rest that a F1 car with less dry weight, less fuel, 200-250hp more and the grip of a drag strip. will not make the remaining 0.501 sec for a 7 sec run.

Nup. You would run all the wing the F1 rules allow.


Thats a more open discussion. How much downforce can they generate at say 50km`t?

You only got probably 0-90km`t to gain more than the drag will take away later.



#21 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,462 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 07 June 2012 - 14:55

Did you even watch the video.. it does 8 sec on a race track. And that's on full tanks, full front downforce and race setup. Normal tire pressure, dirty side of the track etc.

Closer eyeballin makes me guess 8.5 sec.

I have shown video and picture evidence that supports me. I suggest you make some proper analysis to convince me and the rest that a F1 car with less dry weight, less fuel, 200-250hp more and the grip of a drag strip. will not make the remaining 0.501 sec for a 7 sec run.


Jeez, make up your mind. Is it 7 seconds or 8 seconds or 8.5 seconds? The difference may not mean anything to you, but in drag racing, one-tenth of a second may as well be ten years.

And are you talking about a grid-legal F1 car with a race day setup, or are you talking about a modified F1 car? And if so, what is the extent of the modifications? You're all over the place.

I know how you could make a F1 car competitive with a dragster in a quarter-mile standing start. It's easy: modify the F1 car until it is in effect a dragster. However, anything less than that will result in a competitive disadvantage versus the dragster. Look at it this way: Would you build a road race car with a 36-inch rear track or two-inch wide front tires?




#22 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,462 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 07 June 2012 - 15:16

Keep it to the point. He asked "How fast would a F1 car go on the quarter mile"

Spare us for the "im not impressed by F1" stuff.


You have me all wrong. F1 cars impress the hell out of me -- but not due to their quarter-mile acceleration. I know guys with cars quicker than that who drive them to the track. No kidding.
From my perspective, the F1 car's straight line performance is one of the less impressive things about it.


#23 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,692 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 07 June 2012 - 15:19

You have me all wrong. F1 cars impress the hell out of me -- but not due to their quarter-mile acceleration. I know guys with cars quicker than that who drive them to the track. No kidding.
From my perspective, the F1 car's straight line performance is one of the less impressive things about it.


Quite. Whilst an F1 car in a straight-line would widen the eyes of most people, it's their breaking and high-speed cornering that is what sets them apart.

I'd be surprised if an F1 car can get under 8 seconds (I hate the whole drag-racing culture where 7.99 counts as a '7 second run'...no it doesn't, it's an 8 second run).



#24 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,081 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 07 June 2012 - 15:22

Formula 1 quarter mile + Google = second post of first link = MATLAB result of 8.28s and 184.6mph trap speed

#25 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,462 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 07 June 2012 - 16:00

Quite. Whilst an F1 car in a straight-line would widen the eyes of most people, it's their breaking and high-speed cornering that is what sets them apart.


Indeed. One of my most memorable moments in motorsports: the inaugural USGP at Indianapolis, testing. I hadn't seen F1 cars running in person for a few years... then here I saw cars braking for Turn 1 off the Speedway front straight onto the infield portion. It was almost like an optical illusion -- the cars appeared to be going from over 150 mph to to a dead stop within their own length. I was tugging on people's arms and ranting like a crazy person: "Do you see that? Do you see that?"


#26 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,081 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 07 June 2012 - 16:10

My first live experience was the first chicane at Monza during a test. Full tire war, V10s, maximum electronics, etc. I went up in the grandstand until I was about even with where they were getting on the brakes. It is like an optical illusion. You want to pan your view with the car but it always stops short.

Though I should also say a late 90s Formula Atlantic braking for Turn 5 at Road America had a similar thing. I was convinced there was some sort of sound distortion and I was hearing the engine at full rpm after they'd started braking. It was just too late otherwise.

Edited by Ross Stonefeld, 07 June 2012 - 16:11.


#27 OfficeLinebacker

OfficeLinebacker
  • Member

  • 14,019 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 07 June 2012 - 16:43

Interesting. What aspect of the car's higher speed performance is compromised in order to gain better acceleration to the first corner? There aren't many knobs to tweak on that one.

Actually there are a lot of knobs.Posted Image

First of all there are ways to optimize that aren't mutually exclusive with cornering performance, such as engine maps, diff settings, etc. which can be changed during a race and the driver changes the settings during the first lap.

As far as settings which cannot be changed during the race, in today's era not as much as before, I'm sure there are compromises made (albeit probably rather small), such as tyre pressures and suspension settings.

Of course I mean within the regulations.


#28 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,692 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 07 June 2012 - 20:52

My first live experience was the first chicane at Monza during a test. Full tire war, V10s, maximum electronics, etc. I went up in the grandstand until I was about even with where they were getting on the brakes. It is like an optical illusion. You want to pan your view with the car but it always stops short.

Though I should also say a late 90s Formula Atlantic braking for Turn 5 at Road America had a similar thing. I was convinced there was some sort of sound distortion and I was hearing the engine at full rpm after they'd started braking. It was just too late otherwise.


What is even more incredible than the breaking is the way they take high-speed corners, in my opinion.

My situation: 2004 - F1 cars at their peak - standing at Copse corner at Silverstone on the Friday morning. Screaming (and I do mean screaming...those were the days) around Woodcote up to Turn 1 at about 190mph came Montoya and he did the smallest of lifts, no brakes, no downshifts and just shot at the apex of the ~90 degree corner at over 170mph. I didn't know what to say.

Edited by Scotracer, 07 June 2012 - 20:53.


#29 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,229 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 07 June 2012 - 22:45

You have me all wrong. F1 cars impress the hell out of me -- but not due to their quarter-mile acceleration. I know guys with cars quicker than that who drive them to the track. No kidding.
From my perspective, the F1 car's straight line performance is one of the less impressive things about it.

Quarter mile ET is heavily biased towards launch performance. It is amazing what can be achieved with high mu, lots of flywheel energy, lots of weight transfer etc. Its the reason 1/4 mile HP calculators use terminal speed as their input - not ET.

For "seat of the pants sensation" of acceleration, ie what happens between 20 and 200 kph there would be few (if any) street cars that could match an F1. (The difference is downforce.)

#30 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 859 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 08 June 2012 - 03:20

Hi folks,

Was at Santa Pod over the weekend for drag racing and just wondering how a modern F1 car would stack up - does anyone have any relevant stats for a quarter mile straight run from a standing start.

Many Thanks.


One thing that does seem to be known about F1 acceleration is their 0 to 60mph times - probably between 2.5 and 3 seconds. A drag car that runs in the 7's probably has a 0 to 60 time more like 1.5 to 2 seconds. A 0 to 60 time of 2.5/3 secs is usually a quarter mile in the 9's (or even 10's).

I always get the impression that F1 cars have very little grip (relative to a drag car) from a standing start.

#31 munks

munks
  • Member

  • 344 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 08 June 2012 - 03:46

Absolutely. And it's largely down to the weight distribution and low CG ... you just can't get near 100% of the weight on the rear tires like you can in a dedicated dragster. Or at least you can't within the normal setup parameters.

Edited by munks, 08 June 2012 - 03:47.


#32 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,769 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 08 June 2012 - 08:23

I agree completely. You're making my point for me.

An F1 car makes a lousy dragster. A dragster makes a lousy F1 car. A road car makes a lousy F1 or drag car, etc. and so on.

... although that said, of the three, the road car is certainly the most adaptable to the widest variety of applications. Which only makes sense as both the F1 car and the dragster are highly specialized machines -- laser-focused on their respective design missions, if you will. I hope none of these observations are seen as the least bit controversial. I'm afraid they're terribly obvious, even banal.

100% agreed.

#33 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,486 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 08 June 2012 - 09:53

Acceleration performance of the McLaren Honda 1988 MP4/4 tested at Suzuka late in 1988.

Standing Start Distance elapsed time

km/h m (s)
0-10 0.7m 0.5s
0-20 2.3m 0.8s
0-30 4.1m 1.0s
0-40 6.6m 1.3s
0-50 10.0m 1.5s
0-60 14.3m 1.8s
0-70 19.5m 2.0s
0-80 25.3m 2.3s
0-90 31.5m 2.6s
0-100 38.9m 2.8s
0-120 52.6m 3.3s
0-140 77.7m 3.9s
0-150 86.4m 4.2s
0-160 98.8m 4.4s
0-180 125.2m 5.0s
0-200 159.4m 5.6s

How much quicker would one of today's cars be. They are heavier but have more power (another 40hp plus 80hp of KERS) and more grip.

The test wasn't able to go for 400m.

#34 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,486 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 08 June 2012 - 09:54

Also, need to add that the test was done after the Japanese GP with Suzuka gearing.

#35 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,051 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 08 June 2012 - 10:13

Jeez, make up your mind. Is it 7 seconds or 8 seconds or 8.5 seconds? blabla attacking rather than bringing something useful



Last guess was 8.5

Lets say it has to pass a FIA inspection, so lets go from that. You can still do modifications. depending on model ofc.

Formula 1 quarter mile + Google = second post of first link = MATLAB result of 8.28s and 184.6mph trap speed


Thats more like it. Thank you Ross.

If the 2011 Ferrari doesn`t manage to squeese out 0.3sec with optimised setup. I bet that there has been made one that does it. (2004 etc)

The extra grip of the track alone could give a 0.3sec for all i know. Does anyone have a clue about the increase in grip expected from a dragstrip?

Edited by MatsNorway, 08 June 2012 - 10:14.


#36 Joe Bosworth

Joe Bosworth
  • Member

  • 519 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 09 June 2012 - 20:44


My self developed software that has evolved proven quite accurate for almost fifty years says that a legally configured F1 car will pass the standing quarter mile in 7.9 to 8.0 seconds while finishing at 180 to 181.5 MPH.

I have the the car fuelled with driver at the start line at 720 kg and assume that the engine is making 720 to 740 HP. This HP range provides the peformance ranges noted above.

If anyone wishes different parameters just post your numbers and I will re-run my programme.

My programme is developed from hundreds of pieces of reliably known real data on many tracks. The corelation between programme and real data is quite tight, say plus/minus 0.1 second at this end of the performance window. When larger discrepancies appear they can usually be explained by strange gearing or wide aero anomalies.

Regards

#37 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,486 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 10 June 2012 - 00:21

Hi Joe,

720kg is about 80kg of fuel.

As it is drag racing you would probably not require much more than 10-15kg of fuel, if that. So, maybe use 655kg as starting weight.

Also, I think 720hp is reasonable. Current F1 cars have another 80hp of KERS for 6.7s, so it could have 800hp available for the majority of the run.

#38 Joe Bosworth

Joe Bosworth
  • Member

  • 519 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 10 June 2012 - 05:56


Wuzak

Using your numbers on 655 Kg:

with 720 HP - 7.8 seconds and 186 MPH
with 800 hp - 7.5 seconds and 192 MPH

Ant other inputs from anybody?

Regards

#39 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,051 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 10 June 2012 - 10:54

Im getting curious about the parameters.

A graph or something with the entire run would be nice for those who can say a thing or two about the values.



Advertisement

#40 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 18,152 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 10 June 2012 - 12:23

Oh and a BMW/Mclaren Turbo from the 1985-86 in quali spec would not be too bad either. Did they still do manual transmission back then?


First semi-auto gearbox was the 1989 Ferrari.

#41 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,051 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 10 June 2012 - 14:17

First semi-auto gearbox was the 1989 Ferrari.


ok. a Second alone lost on a drag strip then?

#42 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,498 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 10 June 2012 - 15:32

It is a well-known fact that a good driver using a manual dog box can change gear just as fast as a semi-auto box.

#43 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,368 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 10 June 2012 - 16:01

To add some more data points you have the Autocar test on the Bugatti Veyron SS.

standing quarter in 10.1 @ 147.9 mph.

That car has 1183 bhp ( yes more than a 917 canam turbo panzer ) but weighs virtually two tonnes ( 1995 kg believe it or not!)

An F1 car must be 1/3rd the weight but have about half the power.

To give some interpolation it does 0 - 60 mph in 2.6 secs ( 1988 McL was slower at 2.8 ses).

It does 0 - 100 mph in 5.0 secs. ( 1988 McL was 4.4 secs )

0 - 125 mph is 7.1 secs for the Veyron versus 5.6 for the 1988 McL.

So the old 1988 F1 car gained 1.7 seconds between 60 mph and 125 mph.

Hope that helps a bit


#44 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 1,045 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 10 June 2012 - 21:35

It is a well-known fact that a good driver using a manual dog box can change gear just as fast as a semi-auto box.


you Really miss him don't you

#45 munks

munks
  • Member

  • 344 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 11 June 2012 - 02:14

It is a well-known fact that a good driver using a manual dog box can change gear just as fast as a semi-auto box.


Somebody somewhere is going to bet his buddy what's faster, so they'll do a Google search for that fact, find your post on this Technical Forum, and declare it to be true. You know that don't you?


#46 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,643 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 11 June 2012 - 02:27

It is a well-known fact that a good driver using a manual dog box can change gear just as fast as a semi-auto box.

But it's NOT seamless!!

#47 Joe Bosworth

Joe Bosworth
  • Member

  • 519 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 11 June 2012 - 03:04


Just to put the Veyron figures of 10.1 seconds - 147.9 mph into perspective:

I have used Mariners data inputs above against my data base. I have accepted the 1183 hp but have added 150 kg to stated weight of 1995 kg. My data set needs weight on the starting line. The 1995 kg sounds too much lke a catalogued curb weight but I might be wrong and do not have the source documents.

Using 1183 hp and 2150 kg as inputs my programme provides outputs of 9.8 seconds and 147.4 mph.

Regards

Needless to say, the speed values are right on the money. I make no apologies for te elapsed time difference given the likely variables of tyre compound and temperatue, track/road surface and driver discrepancy.


#48 GreenMachine

GreenMachine
  • Member

  • 763 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 11 June 2012 - 05:38

It is a well-known fact that a good driver using a manual dog box can change gear just as fast as a semi-auto box.

Somebody somewhere is going to bet his buddy what's faster, so they'll do a Google search for that fact, find your post on this Technical Forum, and declare it to be true. You know that don't you?

Who in their right mind accepts anything that is preceded by 'it is a well known fact that ...' :eek:

... oh wait, this is the internet ... :rotfl:

#49 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,769 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 11 June 2012 - 22:01

To add some more data points you have the Autocar test on the Bugatti Veyron SS.

standing quarter in 10.1 @ 147.9 mph.

That car has 1183 bhp ( yes more than a 917 canam turbo panzer ) but weighs virtually two tonnes ( 1995 kg believe it or not!)

An F1 car must be 1/3rd the weight but have about half the power.

To give some interpolation it does 0 - 60 mph in 2.6 secs ( 1988 McL was slower at 2.8 ses).

It does 0 - 100 mph in 5.0 secs. ( 1988 McL was 4.4 secs )

0 - 125 mph is 7.1 secs for the Veyron versus 5.6 for the 1988 McL.

So the old 1988 F1 car gained 1.7 seconds between 60 mph and 125 mph.

Hope that helps a bit

That makes my 71 Ford Galaxie a light weight @just 1950kg. And that does the quarter in about 16.1!

#50 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,601 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 12 June 2012 - 00:03

That makes my 71 Ford Galaxie a light weight @just 1950kg. And that does the quarter in about 16.1!


Please post a picture... My childhood car, haven't seen one in decades!