Jump to content


Photo

Honda F1 goes 400 kph (248 mph) at Bonneville


  • Please log in to reply
155 replies to this topic

#51 Ivan

Ivan
  • Member

  • 6,646 posts
  • Joined: March 99

Posted 22 July 2006 - 00:10

How much time and effort and money went into this instead of Jenson's and Ruben's cars? :confused:

Advertisement

#52 Leyser

Leyser
  • Member

  • 1,561 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 22 July 2006 - 00:20

Originally posted by Ivan
How much time and effort and money went into this instead of Jenson's and Ruben's cars? :confused:


That's the first thought that went through my mind when I read the headline.

#53 le chat noir

le chat noir
  • Member

  • 4,278 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 22 July 2006 - 02:32

Just saw a BBC News 24 report on this new VW that drives itself. All lasers and computers and stuff. But the exciting part is that it will learn the course and figure out the best/fastest way to drive it. And it can still avoid sudden obstacles. Its times were better than most humans due to it knowing its own limits. Presumably it only needs better software engineers to program its true limitations that some humans might find and it would beat everyone.

So why don't Honda do something interesting. So they took the wings off and opened the throttle over a long stretch. Whoopdedoo. How much more interesting (or frightening if it caught Max's eye) would it be for them to have made a race legal F1 car, driven by computer, housed inside a test dummy in the cockpit. And if it could match Jenson's times..... that would be worth seeing in my book.

http://news.bbc.co.u...e&alreadySeen=1 This should take you to the video clip. Lets hope they don't choose to remove the driver under some safety clause or as a moveable aerodynamic device any time soon. Or ever for that matter.

#54 boost

boost
  • Member

  • 2,192 posts
  • Joined: July 00

Posted 22 July 2006 - 03:33

They failed to set the record. Just like they are failing thier f1 season. :rotfl:

#55 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,672 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 22 July 2006 - 03:45

Originally posted by Ivan
How much time and effort and money went into this instead of Jenson's and Ruben's cars? :confused:


May be Honda should stop developing new street cars for a year and put all the efforts on Jenson's and Ruben's cars. C'mon.

I see this much like Colin Chapman sending a car to Indy 500. Been there, done that.

Ricardo

#56 Hiatt

Hiatt
  • Member

  • 2,086 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 22 July 2006 - 10:02

Originally posted by boost
They failed to set the record. Just like they are failing thier f1 season. :rotfl:

I read that :lol:
Fortunately for Honda, most people will only read the initial reports that said otherwise. This last bit of information will propably not be anywhere than in the dedicated F1 media. So maybe the attempt was a success after all.

I predict that they will accidently leak a "Honda wins at Hockenheim" story quite soon.

#57 Franklin Ratliff

Franklin Ratliff
  • Member

  • 364 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 23 July 2006 - 03:27

Originally posted by boost
They failed to set the record. Just like they are failing thier f1 season. :rotfl:


Whoever said they didn't set a record was at best severely mistaken.

Or just full of crap.

Pending ratification by the FIA, they set flying mile and flying kilo records for A2-8 (specials, normally aspirated, two to three liter engine), in the process breaking a record set nineteen years ago by a fully enclosed purpose-built Bonneville streamliner.

Their last attempt reset the record by over 40 mph.

#58 Franklin Ratliff

Franklin Ratliff
  • Member

  • 364 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 23 July 2006 - 03:35

Originally posted by le chat noir
Just saw a BBC News 24 report on this new VW that drives itself. All lasers and computers and stuff. But the exciting part is that it will learn the course and figure out the best/fastest way to drive it. And it can still avoid sudden obstacles. Its times were better than most humans due to it knowing its own limits. Presumably it only needs better software engineers to program its true limitations that some humans might find and it would beat everyone.

So why don't Honda do something interesting. So they took the wings off and opened the throttle over a long stretch. Whoopdedoo. How much more interesting (or frightening if it caught Max's eye) would it be for them to have made a race legal F1 car, driven by computer, housed inside a test dummy in the cockpit. And if it could match Jenson's times..... that would be worth seeing in my book.

http://news.bbc.co.u...e&alreadySeen=1 This should take you to the video clip. Lets hope they don't choose to remove the driver under some safety clause or as a moveable aerodynamic device any time soon. Or ever for that matter.


A person would have to be an absolute idiot to think record breaking with a 1,200 lb 800 to 900 horsepower car at the Bonneville salt flats is just simply a matter of holding the throttle wide open.

They retained the front wing.

You don't want to even imagine how high that car would have flown had they blown over at 250 mph.

They developed a reactive "fly by wire" rudder to replace the rear wing, in large part because salt has only half the traction of pavement.

#59 Franklin Ratliff

Franklin Ratliff
  • Member

  • 364 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 23 July 2006 - 03:42

Originally posted by scheivlak

To complete the picture we also have to acknowledge that the air resistance at this height is far less than at sea level! A thing of some significance for a car that's aerodynamically less than optimal as this open wheeled F1 car is.

And I guess the traction problem is not as big for a flying mile than for a mile with a standing start?


You guess completely wrong.

The car required an acceleration distance of four miles before going into the flying mile in order to average 400 kph.

By comparison, the Burkland's "Montana Eagle" 450 mph streamliner could hit 325 mph in only two miles.

Bonneville has an elevation of over 4,500 feet. I don't know about normally aspirated engines, but at that altitude supercharged engines lose 10% of their sea level horsepower.

Advertisement

#60 Franklin Ratliff

Franklin Ratliff
  • Member

  • 364 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 23 July 2006 - 04:04

Originally posted by Imperial


That is quite an interesting thread for me. I suppose the points they are raising, body size, fuel type etc, are things I wouldn't have thought of to be honest.

I did actually think they were basically just setting the F1 car up as best as possible, then slapping a tiny wing on the back (a requirement to still make it technically an F1 car?), but the points raised in the discussion are interesting.

I didn't even realise there was a governing body for such record attempts.


FIA doesn't care about the fuel used in record breaking.

SCTA does.

Once upon a time, SCTA assumed all streamliners were running supercharged on fuel (alcohol or nitro).

How SCTA breaks records down according to supercharged versus normally aspirated and fuel versus gas.

#61 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 7,015 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 23 July 2006 - 13:25

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff


Whoever said they didn't set a record was at best severely mistaken.

Or just full of crap.

Pending ratification by the FIA, they set flying mile and flying kilo records for A2-8 (specials, normally aspirated, two to three liter engine), in the process breaking a record set nineteen years ago by a fully enclosed purpose-built Bonneville streamliner.

Their last attempt reset the record by over 40 mph.


Hmmmmm an F1 car with its wide track and fat tyres can't be ideal on the salt flat out.....well done to Honda San for giving it a go :up:

#62 le chat noir

le chat noir
  • Member

  • 4,278 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 23 July 2006 - 14:09

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff


A person would have to be an absolute idiot to think record breaking with a 1,200 lb 800 to 900 horsepower car at the Bonneville salt flats is just simply a matter of holding the throttle wide open.

They retained the front wing.

You don't want to even imagine how high that car would have flown had they blown over at 250 mph.

They developed a reactive "fly by wire" rudder to replace the rear wing, in large part because salt has only half the traction of pavement.


Indeed they would. Stupider still to think that such a poster was fully serious. However to the average punter they've made an F1 car run quickly. What is the excitiement here? They've chosen a random speed to achieve and failed it. Its all arbitrary nonsense that is of very little use. Now this VW thing is practical and exciting with just a little non-necessity. And honda love to make robots, so why not one that drives an F1 car and matches JB in quali.

#63 Franklin Ratliff

Franklin Ratliff
  • Member

  • 364 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 23 July 2006 - 15:05

Originally posted by le chat noir


Indeed they would. Stupider still to think that such a poster was fully serious. However to the average punter they've made an F1 car run quickly. What is the excitiement here? They've chosen a random speed to achieve and failed it. Its all arbitrary nonsense that is of very little use. Now this VW thing is practical and exciting with just a little non-necessity. And honda love to make robots, so why not one that drives an F1 car and matches JB in quali.


Stupid is as stupid does.

Like saying they didn't set a record.

Or picked a record "at random."

Or didn't go 400 kph.

They set a set a record three times.

They picked the FIA record category that an F1 car fits.

They made a one-way run at over 400 kph.

#64 xype

xype
  • Member

  • 3,519 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 23 July 2006 - 15:06

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff
Pending ratification by the FIA, they set flying mile and flying kilo records for A2-8 (specials, normally aspirated, two to three liter engine), in the process breaking a record set nineteen years ago by a fully enclosed purpose-built Bonneville streamliner.



That sounds... very,.. er, interesting. Yeah. I wonder why noone cares.

Some speed world record or the other. So they break it. So a few years or decades later someone else does.

This was news when cars were a novelty and rocket-propelled vehicles even more so. Right now it really looks like a marketing guy together with some mechanics managed to convince Honda to send them to a all-expenses-paid summer trip to Bonneville to goof off.

And 400 kph. Isn't the world record for a production/street legal car at some 380 kph, done in a McLaren F1? How the 20kph more are impressive, for an F1 car, fails me. Edit: The Koenigsegg CCR went 387.something even.

I rate the marketing excercise a meh-worthy 2 out of 10, similiar to their F1 effort's 3/10.

#65 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,749 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 23 July 2006 - 15:37

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff


You guess completely wrong.

The car required an acceleration distance of four miles before going into the flying mile in order to average 400 kph.

By comparison, the Burkland's "Montana Eagle" 450 mph streamliner could hit 325 mph in only two miles.

Bonneville has an elevation of over 4,500 feet. I don't know about normally aspirated engines, but at that altitude supercharged engines lose 10% of their sea level horsepower.

Well, air resistance is about 15% less....
And your other remark isn't an answer to or refutation of what I wrote.

#66 Spunout

Spunout
  • Member

  • 12,351 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 23 July 2006 - 16:13

By comparison, the Burkland's "Montana Eagle" 450 mph streamliner could hit 325 mph in only two miles.



I really don´t know why you keep coming back with this stuff - the last time this topic was discussed, your goal was to show how all those American land speed record cars are superior compared to F1. Maybe your intentions have changed since then, but what hasn´t changed ot F1 cars are purpose-built within tight specifications to go fast on F1 tracks.

Placing F1 cars against "Montana Eagle" streamliner on straight line is the same thing as trying to qualify for Monaco GP with Top Fuel dragster.

#67 Peter Perfect

Peter Perfect
  • Member

  • 4,877 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 23 July 2006 - 16:18

Originally posted by xype

Some speed world record or the other. So they break it. So a few years or decades later someone else does.


Yeah, same as F1 really...you might win a race but someone's sure to win one in the future, so why bother? :rolleyes:

#68 Franklin Ratliff

Franklin Ratliff
  • Member

  • 364 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 23 July 2006 - 16:35

Originally posted by xype


That sounds... very,.. er, interesting. Yeah. I wonder why noone cares.

Some speed world record or the other. So they break it. So a few years or decades later someone else does.

This was news when cars were a novelty and rocket-propelled vehicles even more so. Right now it really looks like a marketing guy together with some mechanics managed to convince Honda to send them to a all-expenses-paid summer trip to Bonneville to goof off.

And 400 kph. Isn't the world record for a production/street legal car at some 380 kph, done in a McLaren F1? How the 20kph more are impressive, for an F1 car, fails me. Edit: The Koenigsegg CCR went 387.something even.

I rate the marketing excercise a meh-worthy 2 out of 10, similiar to their F1 effort's 3/10.


Record breaking is the only frontier left for the innovator.

NHRA, NASCAR, F1, IRL and CART are all spec series filled with homogenized pasteurized cookie cutter clones.

#69 Franklin Ratliff

Franklin Ratliff
  • Member

  • 364 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 23 July 2006 - 16:38

Originally posted by Spunout


I really don´t know why you keep coming back with this stuff - the last time this topic was discussed, your goal was to show how all those American land speed record cars are superior compared to F1. Maybe your intentions have changed since then, but what hasn´t changed ot F1 cars are purpose-built within tight specifications to go fast on F1 tracks.

Placing F1 cars against "Montana Eagle" streamliner on straight line is the same thing as trying to qualify for Monaco GP with Top Fuel dragster.


Because, genius, it shows how hard it was for the Honda F1 car to reach 400 kph at Bonneville.

"Spunout" is an apt description of your thinking processes.

The Honda F1 wasn't running at Monaco.

It was running in a straight line at Bonneville.

#70 Franklin Ratliff

Franklin Ratliff
  • Member

  • 364 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 23 July 2006 - 16:43

Originally posted by xype


That sounds... very,.. er, interesting. Yeah. I wonder why noone cares.

Some speed world record or the other. So they break it. So a few years or decades later someone else does.

This was news when cars were a novelty and rocket-propelled vehicles even more so. Right now it really looks like a marketing guy together with some mechanics managed to convince Honda to send them to a all-expenses-paid summer trip to Bonneville to goof off.

And 400 kph. Isn't the world record for a production/street legal car at some 380 kph, done in a McLaren F1? How the 20kph more are impressive, for an F1 car, fails me. Edit: The Koenigsegg CCR went 387.something even.

I rate the marketing excercise a meh-worthy 2 out of 10, similiar to their F1 effort's 3/10.


Circuit racing no longer represents the true performance potential of cars.

Speed records still do.

#71 Spunout

Spunout
  • Member

  • 12,351 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 23 July 2006 - 16:51

Circuit racing no longer represents the true performance potential of cars.

Speed records still do.



What are you doing here in F1 forum?

To me it looks like you are only interested of speed record "cars", anyway.

I´ll leave it to another day whether speed records in the middle of nowhere is any more meaningful than circuit racing. But in any case, both represent true potential of certain cars in certain circumstances.

#72 Freek987

Freek987
  • New Member

  • 13 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 23 July 2006 - 16:56

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff


Circuit racing no longer represents the true performance potential of cars.

Speed records still do.

I think it`s the opposite.

#73 Franklin Ratliff

Franklin Ratliff
  • Member

  • 364 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 23 July 2006 - 17:24

Originally posted by Freek987

I think it`s the opposite.


The list of innovations and technologies banned in F1 and Le Mans (starting back in the sixties with suspension mounted wings and variable geometry aerodynamics) has gotten so long no one can even keep track of it.

#74 Franklin Ratliff

Franklin Ratliff
  • Member

  • 364 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 23 July 2006 - 18:06

Originally posted by FAUST!!!



Since the project started in 2004 when the team was getting very good results, to cancel it due to bad performance today IMHO would further damage and consolidate HONDA on track results . Since all the press releases are very bullish (as always) and they tend to make more show than go :)


I would very much recommend the film " The World's Fastest Indian" with Sir Anthony Hopkins. It really shows how much determination and confidence these record people have. It also shows that you dont need to question your dreams, not even if your time is running out. And it is about an actual person Burt Munro :clap:


"The World's Fastest Indian"

A great film about what one individual can accomplish.

Sir Hopkins also played another record breaker, Donald Campbell.

#75 le chat noir

le chat noir
  • Member

  • 4,278 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 23 July 2006 - 18:38

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff


The list of innovations and technologies banned in F1 and Le Mans (starting back in the sixties with suspension mounted wings and variable geometry aerodynamics) has gotten so long no one can even keep track of it.


And now they've made such a car run at high speed, when its rules of design are structured not to. So what again is the point? And why is 400 kmh anymore exciting than 399 kmh for such a car? By all means go and set speed records, but when its done with a car designed to corner quickly, there really is very little point, apart from column inches.

#76 Franklin Ratliff

Franklin Ratliff
  • Member

  • 364 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 23 July 2006 - 19:27

Originally posted by le chat noir


And now they've made such a car run at high speed, when its rules of design are structured not to. So what again is the point? And why is 400 kmh anymore exciting than 399 kmh for such a car? By all means go and set speed records, but when its done with a car designed to corner quickly, there really is very little point, apart from column inches.


Honda demonstrated they have a normally aspirated three liter engine capable of so much horsepower an F1 car can break by 40 mph a nineteen year old record set by a purpose-built Bonneville streamliner, in the process going as fast as their SCTA lakester counterpart did with narrow LSR tires, ultranarrow body, no radiators and water tank cooling.

The fact they only made a one-way run above 400 kph shows how hard it is for an F1 car at Bonneville to go that fast even under excellent conditions.

#77 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,548 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 23 July 2006 - 19:28

So in other words, the Honda F1 team cant even go quickly in a straightline without difficulty...

#78 xype

xype
  • Member

  • 3,519 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 23 July 2006 - 20:28

Originally posted by Peter Perfect
Yeah, same as F1 really...you might win a race but someone's sure to win one in the future, so why bother? :rolleyes:



Because in Formula 1 there is not only 1 car at the track at once? There's actually some direct competition there. But then again, Honda probably needs a 1 car race to win.

#79 le chat noir

le chat noir
  • Member

  • 4,278 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 23 July 2006 - 20:30

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff


Honda demonstrated they have a normally aspirated three liter engine capable of so much horsepower an F1 car can break by 40 mph a nineteen year old record set by a purpose-built Bonneville streamliner, in the process going as fast as their SCTA lakester counterpart did with narrow LSR tires, ultranarrow body, no radiators and water tank cooling.

The fact they only made a one-way run above 400 kph shows how hard it is for an F1 car at Bonneville to go that fast even under excellent conditions.


And? They knew all this beforehand.

Advertisement

#80 xype

xype
  • Member

  • 3,519 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 23 July 2006 - 20:31

First off, you're replying to me twice.

Second off:

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff
Circuit racing no longer represents the true performance potential of cars.
Speed records still do.



That's complete bullshit. Strap 4 wheels on a NASA rocket and add a wing to keep it from flying up the air that there you go. Instant speed record shattering.

It's much harder to go quick around a corner than it's to go quick on a straight line. Unless you're BAR-Honda, it seems.

#81 xype

xype
  • Member

  • 3,519 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 23 July 2006 - 20:32

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
So in other words, the Honda F1 team cant even go quickly in a straightline without difficulty...


They're doing their best to make Pollock look good, it seems.

#82 Franklin Ratliff

Franklin Ratliff
  • Member

  • 364 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 24 July 2006 - 03:03

Originally posted by le chat noir


And now they've made such a car run at high speed, when its rules of design are structured not to. So what again is the point? And why is 400 kmh anymore exciting than 399 kmh for such a car? By all means go and set speed records, but when its done with a car designed to corner quickly, there really is very little point, apart from column inches.


Land speed record cars have no rules of design.

The configuration run by the Honda F1 team was self-imposed.

The goal was to reach 400 kph within those self-imposed limitations.

#83 Franklin Ratliff

Franklin Ratliff
  • Member

  • 364 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 24 July 2006 - 03:08

Originally posted by le chat noir


And? They knew all this beforehand.


Who gives a rat's ass about what they "knew"?

Records aren't set on paper or in a computer.

They're set in the real world by a real driver on a real racetrack.

#84 Franklin Ratliff

Franklin Ratliff
  • Member

  • 364 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 24 July 2006 - 03:11

Originally posted by xype
First off, you're replying to me twice.

Second off:



That's complete bullshit. Strap 4 wheels on a NASA rocket and add a wing to keep it from flying up the air that there you go. Instant speed record shattering.

It's much harder to go quick around a corner than it's to go quick on a straight line. Unless you're BAR-Honda, it seems.


Try telling your silly ignorant crap to Andy Green or the rest of the Thrust SSC crew.

You don't have a freaking clue about how complex it was to build and run the first supersonic car.

For example, key to making that car work was its Lotus/F1 derived active suspension system.

#85 novocaine

novocaine
  • Member

  • 148 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 24 July 2006 - 05:37

Whether what Honda is doing is a technically difficult thing isn't really the point; the point is that they are setting records that few people really care about (except for the landspeed enthusiasts) but that sound good in a soundbite. Furthermore, research for the sake of research is a worthwhile pursuit, but a) Honda is mostly doing it for the sake of a marketing exercise, because they are in business to make money, and b) it is possibly a distraction from the main event, f1 racing.

Other posters have alluded to the fact that Honda failed to do what they set out to do, which is flat out TRUE, regardless of what ever else they did succeed to do. Yes it's hard, but so is being competitive in f1 - two things which Honda have failed now in recent memory.

That said, ratliff raises some interesting points which I hadn't previously been aware of, such as the fact that some records were in fact set and the significance of the salt surface. It makes me wonder why they didn't attempt the record on tarmac. I appreciate that it's supposed to be challenging, but surely salt is just making it harder for themselves, and neither I nor many posters here were appreciative of the increased level of difficulty, and from a publicity stunt perspective things seem to have gone pearshaped as a result.

#86 xype

xype
  • Member

  • 3,519 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 24 July 2006 - 05:59

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff
Try telling your silly ignorant crap to Andy Green or the rest of the Thrust SSC crew.

You don't have a freaking clue about how complex it was to build and run the first supersonic car.

For example, key to making that car work was its Lotus/F1 derived active suspension system.



Are you even reading my posts? I said it was interesting back when the whole thing with cars and rocket-propelled vehicles was new. But I really don't see how the stuff Honda did was interesting, and I mean interesting at all.

It would be far more interesting if they actually brought in 50 engineers and let them use the BAR/Honda factory to purpose-build a car with F1 tech that was all about speed records. They just ued the F1 car instead. So meh.

#87 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,197 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 24 July 2006 - 07:50

With all the fuss, Honda didn't make their own imposed 400 KMH two way time, again.

This attempt feels like a flat tyre to me.

I wonder though, how an '80s Turbo era F1 car would do: it likely would easily break the 400KHM barrier, since side grip is not required (which is what makes an F1 car so fast), and the turbo 1.5 litre engines would dance along quite nicely at altitude.

What the heck are Honda bothering with this stuff for?

#88 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,197 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 24 July 2006 - 07:52

And one other question: how many sets of tyres did they use over the weekend? ;)

#89 roadie

roadie
  • Member

  • 1,844 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 24 July 2006 - 10:32

I am a little dissapointed they failed to break 400km/h officially by averaging the two runs but it was an interesting project to watch. The car is to F1 rules, so in theory they could rock up to the next race with it and not have any problems, bar disposing of the rudder and parachute.

I think this was a good engineering exercise and good PR, as they have actually done something that no one else has and sunk a fair amount of resources into it. It's not like Midland getting a woman to take a tyre off!

#90 xype

xype
  • Member

  • 3,519 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 24 July 2006 - 12:23

Originally posted by roadie
It's not like Midland getting a woman to take a tyre off!



But that at least appeals to a wider audience and as such is a better PR ploy.

#91 le chat noir

le chat noir
  • Member

  • 4,278 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 24 July 2006 - 12:29

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff


Land speed record cars have no rules of design.

The configuration run by the Honda F1 team was self-imposed.

The goal was to reach 400 kph within those self-imposed limitations.


Thats exactly what I'm saying. 'Er lets not have the fastest car in a straightline, but make one that corners quickly, and er lets now set a land speed record' 'good idea bob' pointless

#92 Franklin Ratliff

Franklin Ratliff
  • Member

  • 364 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 24 July 2006 - 13:37

Originally posted by le chat noir


Thats exactly what I'm saying. 'Er lets not have the fastest car in a straightline, but make one that corners quickly, and er lets now set a land speed record' 'good idea bob' pointless


One of the things that makes those high average speed laps run by F1 cars possible IS straightline grip, both under braking approaching the turn and under acceleration coming out of the turn. With the radiators and braking capabilities of an F1 car, the Honda team was also able to operate at a much higher tempo than a team running a traditional Bonneville streamliner or lakester.

#93 Paolo

Paolo
  • Member

  • 1,673 posts
  • Joined: May 00

Posted 24 July 2006 - 13:50

Well,
Honda failed the 400 limit they imposed on themselves.
This limit is not much higher than the 360 Km/h attainable at Monza in race spec.
Salt makes things difficult, but there are no separate records for tarmac and salt, and running on salt was Honda's choice.
Worse, the car is NOT track legal : they added a movable rudder.
In my eyes, this spoils the whole thing.
Had they done without a rudder they would have needed a rear wing, adding drag and going even slower.
Not impressed, really: not even 400 Km/h in a car that is not a F1 anyway.

#94 Franklin Ratliff

Franklin Ratliff
  • Member

  • 364 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 24 July 2006 - 13:52

Originally posted by novocaine
Whether what Honda is doing is a technically difficult thing isn't really the point; the point is that they are setting records that few people really care about (except for the landspeed enthusiasts) but that sound good in a soundbite. Furthermore, research for the sake of research is a worthwhile pursuit, but a) Honda is mostly doing it for the sake of a marketing exercise, because they are in business to make money, and b) it is possibly a distraction from the main event, f1 racing.

Other posters have alluded to the fact that Honda failed to do what they set out to do, which is flat out TRUE, regardless of what ever else they did succeed to do. Yes it's hard, but so is being competitive in f1 - two things which Honda have failed now in recent memory.

That said, ratliff raises some interesting points which I hadn't previously been aware of, such as the fact that some records were in fact set and the significance of the salt surface. It makes me wonder why they didn't attempt the record on tarmac. I appreciate that it's supposed to be challenging, but surely salt is just making it harder for themselves, and neither I nor many posters here were appreciative of the increased level of difficulty, and from a publicity stunt perspective things seem to have gone pearshaped as a result.


There are some tarmac tracks, such as Fort Stockton in Texas, which would be suitable for flying mile records. Back in 1987 A.J. Foyt set a flying mile at Fort Stockton with the Oldsmobile Aerotech, an Indy car chassis enclosed in a full envelope body. Foyt came out of the mile and into the turn at 290 mph!

#95 Franklin Ratliff

Franklin Ratliff
  • Member

  • 364 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 24 July 2006 - 13:55

Originally posted by Paolo
Well,
Honda failed the 400 limit they imposed on themselves.
This limit is not much higher than the 360 Km/h attainable at Monza in race spec.
Worse, the car is NOT track legal : they added a movable rudder.
In my eyes, this spoils the whole thing.
Had they done without a rudder they would have needed a rear wing, adding drag and going even slower.
Not impressed, really: not even 400 Km/h in a car that is not a F1 anyway.


360 kph is not remotely close to 400 kph.

Salt has no where near the traction of tarmac.

Monza is close to sea level. Bonneville is at 4,500 feet.

#96 le chat noir

le chat noir
  • Member

  • 4,278 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 24 July 2006 - 14:03

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff


One of the things that makes those high average speed laps run by F1 cars possible IS straightline grip, both under braking approaching the turn and under acceleration coming out of the turn. With the radiators and braking capabilities of an F1 car, the Honda team was also able to operate at a much higher tempo than a team running a traditional Bonneville streamliner or lakester.


Can you explain further how the braking helps in a landspeed record? Do you simply mean they can stop sooner and so turn around and try again sooner?

I still don't understand the relevance of the record. Now all a record is is the historical recording of a certain act. That what annoys me about Blair going on about history. Everything is history.

So here Honda have taken a vehicle designed under certain rules to perform on a certain type of surface, with competition. Further the rules stop the use of certain technologies which would improve its performance.

They have taken this vehicle and used it in a completely different area, where a whole different use of technologies could be used. The idea behind it is to show how fast an F1 car might go, given enough distance. The distance required rules out running on tarmac, and so they go to the salt flats, which in turn reduces the ptoential performance. Then they start changing parts of the car, which they wouldn't use under normal rules. There aim is to run at 400kmh twice within a time frame. They fail.

If you want a speed record, build a speed car. If you want an F1 speed record, set it at an F1 circuit. If you want marketing inches get Simon Fuller to pull his finger out.

I can go and set my own land speed record under my own arbitrary rules, and maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think you'd be interested. It would however, still be as valid a record as Honda's.

#97 caro4u

caro4u
  • Member

  • 144 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 24 July 2006 - 14:10

Originally posted by le chat noir
If you want marketing inches get Simon Fuller to pull his finger out.


just wanted to double that :cool:

#98 Franklin Ratliff

Franklin Ratliff
  • Member

  • 364 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 24 July 2006 - 14:22

Originally posted by le chat noir


Can you explain further how the braking helps in a landspeed record? Do you simply mean they can stop sooner and so turn around and try again sooner?

I still don't understand the relevance of the record. Now all a record is is the historical recording of a certain act. That what annoys me about Blair going on about history. Everything is history.

So here Honda have taken a vehicle designed under certain rules to perform on a certain type of surface, with competition. Further the rules stop the use of certain technologies which would improve its performance.

They have taken this vehicle and used it in a completely different area, where a whole different use of technologies could be used. The idea behind it is to show how fast an F1 car might go, given enough distance. The distance required rules out running on tarmac, and so they go to the salt flats, which in turn reduces the ptoential performance. Then they start changing parts of the car, which they wouldn't use under normal rules. There aim is to run at 400kmh twice within a time frame. They fail.

If you want a speed record, build a speed car. If you want an F1 speed record, set it at an F1 circuit. If you want marketing inches get Simon Fuller to pull his finger out.

I can go and set my own land speed record under my own arbitrary rules, and maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think you'd be interested. It would however, still be as valid a record as Honda's.


On a tarmac track the distance required to reach the same speed would be much less. That's why turbo Hayabusa's running one mile on pavement are able to equal or exceed the speeds achieved at Bonneville by turbo Hayabusa's accelerating for four or five miles. Unfortunately, 132 foot timing traps are not internationally recognized.

The braking capability means an F1 car can either stop as close to the pits as possible, or simply do a U-turn and make another run.

Records set the standard for the present. They're what the next team has to break for official sanction. For example, the fact it was over forty years ago that the Summers brothers set the record for normally aspirated cars is irrelevant. The record they set remains relevant to anyone seeking to break it.

#99 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,749 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 24 July 2006 - 14:24

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff


360 kph is not remotely close to 400 kph.


For the record: top speed at Monza was 372 km/h last year.

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff
Salt has no where near the traction of tarmac.

That salt doesn't have the traction is very relevant for acceleration but this is about flying distance records. Once you're already going 400 the level of traction is much less relevant.

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff
Monza is close to sea level. Bonneville is at 4,500 feet.

Yes, I've read that before ;)
Less power, but also less air resistance.

BTW If trying this at Bonneville is so difficult why doesn't Honda do this at some sea level tarmac?
Or is this Bonneville stuff part of the PR myth process?

Advertisement

#100 Franklin Ratliff

Franklin Ratliff
  • Member

  • 364 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 24 July 2006 - 14:31

Originally posted by scheivlak


For the record: top speed at Monza was 372 km/h last year.

That salt doesn't have the traction is very relevant for acceleration but this is about flying distance records. Once you're already going 400 the level of traction is much less relevant.


Yes, I've read that before ;)
Less power, but also less air resistance.

BTW If trying this at Bonneville is so difficult why doesn't Honda do this at some sea level tarmac?
Or is this Bonneville stuff part of the PR myth process?


When the Honda F1 car was "already going 400 kph" there was no accelerating distance left. That's why it took a perfect run even to make a one-way pass at over 400 kph.