Jump to content


Photo

Honda F1 goes 400 kph (248 mph) at Bonneville


  • Please log in to reply
155 replies to this topic

#101 le chat noir

le chat noir
  • Member

  • 4,294 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 24 July 2006 - 14:33

I really don't think pulling up close to the pits (did they even have pits?) was a great help.

Anyway, as we're still on speed records, I found the Toyota speed record much more interesting. It wasn't set for an F1 car, but for any car. It is the fastest car. Indoors. It beat some crappy four door thing by about 8mph! Its tyres wouldn't grip to the concrete as well as the compact at the excel centre.

Advertisement

#102 Franklin Ratliff

Franklin Ratliff
  • Member

  • 364 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 24 July 2006 - 14:40

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
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?


The Honda F1 team set a new FIA record for the AII-8 class (special construction, normally aspirated, 2 to 3 liters), breaking the record set nineteen years ago by Jeff Nish's streamliner. Their one-way speed of 400.9 kph equaled the fastest speeds run at Bonneville by an SCTA normally aspirated gas lakester of the same displacement.

#103 le chat noir

le chat noir
  • Member

  • 4,294 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 24 July 2006 - 14:49

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff


The Honda F1 team set a new FIA record for the AII-8 class (special construction, normally aspirated, 2 to 3 liters), breaking the record set nineteen years ago by Jeff Nish's streamliner. Their one-way speed of 400.9 kph equaled the fastest speeds run at Bonneville by an SCTA normally aspirated gas lakester of the same displacement.


Does "equaled the fastest speeds" indicate that they were able to replicate on the return run, while Honda were not?

#104 Spunout

Spunout
  • Member

  • 12,351 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 24 July 2006 - 15:01

The Honda F1 team set a new FIA record for the AII-8 class (special construction, normally aspirated, 2 to 3 liters), breaking the record set nineteen years ago by Jeff Nish's streamliner. Their one-way speed of 400.9 kph equaled the fastest speeds run at Bonneville by an SCTA normally aspirated gas lakester of the same displacement.



What exactly is the point of comparing cars designed for circuit racing to streamliners?

I know you are here for one reason: to how us F1 fans the superiority of (American) speed record "cars", but even you must understand F1 cars aren´t designed for maximum top speed - starting from open wheels, wings, etc.

Once Jeff Nish´s streamliner breaks Monaco lap record, then we will be impressed.

#105 Franklin Ratliff

Franklin Ratliff
  • Member

  • 364 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 24 July 2006 - 15:51

Originally posted by Spunout


What exactly is the point of comparing cars designed for circuit racing to streamliners?

I know you are here for one reason: to how us F1 fans the superiority of (American) speed record "cars", but even you must understand F1 cars aren´t designed for maximum top speed - starting from open wheels, wings, etc.

Once Jeff Nish´s streamliner breaks Monaco lap record, then we will be impressed.


"Spunout" is STILL an apt description of your critical thinking (or lack thereof).

"What exactly is the point of comparing cars designed for circuit racing to streamliners?"

Because, Sherlock, it demonstrates how much horsepower the Honda F1 engine was developing as well as its endurance. With an open wheel open cockpit car using F1 tires, the Honda team was STILL able to break the Nish record by over 40 mph.

#106 Franklin Ratliff

Franklin Ratliff
  • Member

  • 364 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 24 July 2006 - 15:55

Originally posted by le chat noir


Does "equaled the fastest speeds" indicate that they were able to replicate on the return run, while Honda were not?


The SCTA lakester counterpart had narrow LSR tires, an ultranarrow body, an enclosed cockpit and water tank cooling that eliminated radiators, yet STILL the Honda F1 car was able to equal its speeds.

#107 xype

xype
  • Member

  • 3,519 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 24 July 2006 - 16:29

Originally posted by scheivlak
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?



Bonneville just sound better. And if they fail, they can blame it on Bonne Ville Neuve!;)

#108 le chat noir

le chat noir
  • Member

  • 4,294 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 24 July 2006 - 16:35

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff


The SCTA lakester counterpart had narrow LSR tires, an ultranarrow body, an enclosed cockpit and water tank cooling that eliminated radiators, yet STILL the Honda F1 car was able to equal its speeds.


You aren't answering my question. You said the Honda made one run, which equaled the lakester runs. So should we think the lakester could reproduce while the Honda could not?

I don't see why that should be impressive tho. 40 years ago a car was built for out and out speed, now they take a car built for something else and it equals it. Thats not that impressive. Its had 40 years of new technology, even if some of that technology is held back. Every year they reduce the technology in F1 to slow the cars, and every year they equal the speed of the year before STILL as you put it. 40 years is a long time in technology. And I don't see why we should be impressed by Honda going, 'look we've got our hands tied behind our backs because we're kinda complying with F1 rules, yet we still go as fast as they could 40 years ago when they were fully trying'.

Its like some aviation manufacturer going ' look our plane flies and yet we only use one wing, unlike those Wright brothers who needed two. the fools' of course they can do it now, they know so much more. Its a simple marketing exercise, that gives some comparison to performance, but that comparison is meaningless when it comes to the actual record.

Anyway, I'm done with this. I only came into the thread to mention VW auto-driver technology. And I still would be interested in seeing an F1 team utilise that technology and see how close they can get to human times around real f1 circuits.

#109 xype

xype
  • Member

  • 3,519 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 24 July 2006 - 16:36

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff
The SCTA lakester counterpart had narrow LSR tires, an ultranarrow body, an enclosed cockpit and water tank cooling that eliminated radiators, yet STILL the Honda F1 car was able to equal its speeds.


Why does this sound apologetic?

Look. I'D LOVE to see a Formula 1 team build a land speed record type of car. Really. But trying to hype what Honda did as even remotely interesting or an achievement to be proud of just doesn't look right.

Just to clarify, I don't think the engineers are bad, I don't think they did anything less but a very good job on it. I have my utmost respect for sthese guys. I just think they wasted time. :)

#110 Franklin Ratliff

Franklin Ratliff
  • Member

  • 364 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 24 July 2006 - 16:53

Originally posted by xype


Bonneville just sound better. And if they fail, they can blame it on Bonne Ville Neuve!;)


Nice play on names.

#111 Franklin Ratliff

Franklin Ratliff
  • Member

  • 364 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 24 July 2006 - 17:05

Originally posted by le chat noir


You aren't answering my question. You said the Honda made one run, which equaled the lakester runs. So should we think the lakester could reproduce while the Honda could not?

I don't see why that should be impressive tho. 40 years ago a car was built for out and out speed, now they take a car built for something else and it equals it. Thats not that impressive. Its had 40 years of new technology, even if some of that technology is held back. Every year they reduce the technology in F1 to slow the cars, and every year they equal the speed of the year before STILL as you put it. 40 years is a long time in technology. And I don't see why we should be impressed by Honda going, 'look we've got our hands tied behind our backs because we're kinda complying with F1 rules, yet we still go as fast as they could 40 years ago when they were fully trying'.

Its like some aviation manufacturer going ' look our plane flies and yet we only use one wing, unlike those Wright brothers who needed two. the fools' of course they can do it now, they know so much more. Its a simple marketing exercise, that gives some comparison to performance, but that comparison is meaningless when it comes to the actual record.

Anyway, I'm done with this. I only came into the thread to mention VW auto-driver technology. And I still would be interested in seeing an F1 team utilise that technology and see how close they can get to human times around real f1 circuits.


Age of technology can be become much less relevant at the outer edges of physics.

For example, 400 mph piston engine cars have not enjoyed increases in speed anywhere near in proportion to their reductions in size and weight.

The first 400 mph piston engine car, John Cobb's Railton, was built in 1936/37 using engines designed in the late twenties. In 1947, using what was possibly a healthy dose of nitromethane, Cobb made a one-way run of 403.10 mph in the process of setting his 394 mph record.

The best one-way run to date with a supercharged piston engine car is 438 mph through the mile with a 450 mph exit speed by Tom Burkland. Even though Bonneville was about as dry as it gets, Burkland still could not use more than about 60% of his throttle travel.

Where real progress has been is in other forms of propulsion catching up with piston engines. A team at Ohio State has gone over 300 mph with an electric car using batteries and is now looking at approaching 400 mph with a 1,000 horsepower electric car using fuel cells.

#112 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,216 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 25 July 2006 - 05:38

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff
The Honda F1 team set a new FIA record for the AII-8 class (special construction, normally aspirated, 2 to 3 liters), breaking the record set nineteen years ago by Jeff Nish's streamliner. Their one-way speed of 400.9 kph equaled the fastest speeds run at Bonneville by an SCTA normally aspirated gas lakester of the same displacement.


Sorry, but one way means it achieved absolutely nothing. Every speed record run requires an average over both directions, inside a time limit.

#113 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,216 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 25 July 2006 - 06:05

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff


"Spunout" is STILL an apt description of your critical thinking (or lack thereof).

"What exactly is the point of comparing cars designed for circuit racing to streamliners?"

Because, Sherlock, it demonstrates how much horsepower the Honda F1 engine was developing as well as its endurance. With an open wheel open cockpit car using F1 tires, the Honda team was STILL able to break the Nish record by over 40 mph.


You might not be aware of how average the Honda F1 powerplant is this year. For instance in the last GP, both cars had engine failures. To quote Jenson Button:

..."It was good, for where we are at the moment..." he said. "balance was there, it's just a lack of overall speed, and that comes with engine power and downforce, and that's all we're lacking at the moment. And reliability..."

Honda would be better to concentrate on F1 rather than PR stunts like this one.

Incidentally, the Ferrari has had a straight line (speed trap) speed advantage over the Honda F1 car of around 10 KMH at most tracks.

#114 Franklin Ratliff

Franklin Ratliff
  • Member

  • 364 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 25 July 2006 - 12:21

Originally posted by Melbourne Park


Sorry, but one way means it achieved absolutely nothing. Every speed record run requires an average over both directions, inside a time limit.


Which part of...

..."The Honda F1 team set a new FIA record for the AII-8 class"...

...did you not want to understand?

#115 Franklin Ratliff

Franklin Ratliff
  • Member

  • 364 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 25 July 2006 - 12:24

Originally posted by Melbourne Park


You might not be aware of how average the Honda F1 powerplant is this year. For instance in the last GP, both cars had engine failures. To quote Jenson Button: Honda would be better to concentrate on F1 rather than PR stunts like this one.

Incidentally, the Ferrari has had a straight line (speed trap) speed advantage over the Honda F1 car of around 10 KMH at most tracks.


The Ferrari wasn't running on salt, which has half the traction of tarmac, or at an elevation of 4,500 feet.

#116 xype

xype
  • Member

  • 3,519 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 25 July 2006 - 14:57

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff
The Ferrari wasn't running on salt, which has half the traction of tarmac, or at an elevation of 4,500 feet.



I gues sthey rather stay at home making their F1 car generally faster in conditions where it counts?

#117 LB

LB
  • Member

  • 12,629 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 25 July 2006 - 15:10

Its not like Ferrari don't have other projects..

#118 Franklin Ratliff

Franklin Ratliff
  • Member

  • 364 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 25 July 2006 - 15:27

Originally posted by LB
Its not like Ferrari don't have other projects..


Good point.

I guess if Ferrari weren't winning people would be complaining about them still making road cars.

#119 slick1jayj

slick1jayj
  • Member

  • 2,051 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 25 July 2006 - 16:49

Ahhh...now I see how Honda is going to break the 400 KPH barrier. ;)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14025528/

Honda Motor plans to build aircraft

Advertisement

#120 dgsg

dgsg
  • Member

  • 554 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 25 July 2006 - 21:34

Originally posted by slick1jayj
Ahhh...now I see how Honda is going to break the 400 KPH barrier. ;)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14025528/

Honda Motor plans to build aircraft


Hope they don't let the team that designed the Acura CL-S automatic transmissions anywhere near this project! :eek:

#121 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,216 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 26 July 2006 - 00:38

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff
The Ferrari wasn't running on salt, which has half the traction of tarmac, or at an elevation of 4,500 feet.

but running on tarmac, the Ferrari has been a lot faster in a straight line than the Honda. And Honda's drivers publically stated two weeks ago that their engine lacks comparative power, and that its unreliable.

The Ferrari engine has been reliable, and its more powerfull. The Renault too. In fact, the Honda's performance has been woefull. And yet here they are, making predictions about them breaking the 400KMH target, which they failed to get last year, and the come here with world wide publicity, and they fail to achieve it.

Heck ... face it if Renault, Ferrari, McLaren and maybe some others have of come here, they would have broken the 400 return average. But instead, they are spending their resources on F1 racing.

Really, Honda's efforts in F1 deserve praise, they are sure to get better too. But this F1 car with a rudder speed "record" is just ridiculous.

#122 xype

xype
  • Member

  • 3,519 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 26 July 2006 - 10:48

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff
I guess if Ferrari weren't winning people would be complaining about them still making road cars.



Of course. It one thing to toy around with other projects if you are still winning, it's something completely different if you are not. Just look at what happened with McLaren once they gor all smartsy-pants about building some 91 differnt Mercedes sport car models...

#123 Franklin Ratliff

Franklin Ratliff
  • Member

  • 364 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 26 July 2006 - 12:27

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
but running on tarmac, the Ferrari has been a lot faster in a straight line than the Honda. And Honda's drivers publically stated two weeks ago that their engine lacks comparative power, and that its unreliable.

The Ferrari engine has been reliable, and its more powerfull. The Renault too. In fact, the Honda's performance has been woefull. And yet here they are, making predictions about them breaking the 400KMH target, which they failed to get last year, and the come here with world wide publicity, and they fail to achieve it.

Heck ... face it if Renault, Ferrari, McLaren and maybe some others have of come here, they would have broken the 400 return average. But instead, they are spending their resources on F1 racing.

Really, Honda's efforts in F1 deserve praise, they are sure to get better too. But this F1 car with a rudder speed "record" is just ridiculous.


Honda set a legitimate FIA record for their displacement class. They broke a record set with a fully-enclosed purpose-built Bonneville streamliner.

Last year Honda got rained out before they could try.

How many corporations who've said "we'll be back" have turned out to actually mean it?

"Heck ... face it if Renault, Ferrari, McLaren and maybe some others have of come here, they would have broken the 400 return average." How do you know? Lots of cars have broken records ON PAPER. Unfortunately, to make it into the record books a real car with a real driver has to make real runs through the flying mile and kilo.

#124 amardeep

amardeep
  • Member

  • 368 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 26 July 2006 - 13:29

The Ferrari engine has been reliable, and its more powerfull. The Renault too. In fact, the Honda's performance has been woefull. And yet here they are, making predictions about them breaking the 400KMH target, which they failed to get last year, and the come here with world wide publicity, and they fail to achieve it.

The engine used is a derivative of the V10 since the project started in 2005, and so has little to do with this year's V8.

I must say, the level of vitriol directed at Honda is impressive. Must make a nice change from Button-bashing, I guess.

Can't we just leave it at "a slightly nuts thing to do since the car was designed for cornering on tarmac, but kinda cool because it's such a nutty idea" ?

Doing it at Bonneville is a nice touch because of the history.

#125 Ivan

Ivan
  • Member

  • 6,646 posts
  • Joined: March 99

Posted 26 July 2006 - 17:58

Originally posted by saudoso


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

Getting to this rather late...
But are you kidding...
A road car has a point which is funding the race team, ie, this speed run does nothing but burn money that could be put to better use...like fixing a car that was once very close to winning.

#126 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,707 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 26 July 2006 - 23:00

:|

You got it out of context, I was being ironic. I think they have resources enough to pull this stunt without impact on other areas...

;)

#127 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,216 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 27 July 2006 - 00:01

Originally posted by amardeep
The engine used is a derivative of the V10 since the project started in 2005, and so has little to do with this year's V8.

I must say, the level of vitriol directed at Honda is impressive. Must make a nice change from Button-bashing, I guess.

Can't we just leave it at "a slightly nuts thing to do since the car was designed for cornering on tarmac, but kinda cool because it's such a nutty idea" ?

Doing it at Bonneville is a nice touch because of the history.


OK, so its not an F1 car anymore. Its an old car. The V8 would be much slower.

They should have used a 1.5 turbo engine!!

#128 Franklin Ratliff

Franklin Ratliff
  • Member

  • 364 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 27 July 2006 - 01:07

Originally posted by Melbourne Park


OK, so its not an F1 car anymore. Its an old car. The V8 would be much slower.

They should have used a 1.5 turbo engine!!


Aside from the fact F1 hasn't run turbo engines in about 20 years, a supercharged engine would have put them in a different category.

#129 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,216 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 27 July 2006 - 02:11

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff
Aside from the fact F1 hasn't run turbo engines in about 20 years, a supercharged engine would have put them in a different category.

OK, but then an almost F1 car is a funny category isn't it?

Interestingly though, BAR/Honda used to run Bridgestone tyres. For quite a while, the BS tyre had a narrower front profile, its edges were not as square. I imagine that at 397 KMH, that might have made a difference. But then, maybe the tyres were a bit special anyway ... and I wonder about the aero work on the car too, whether it was developed just for the straight ahead speed. Is the car just the same as it was last year?

#130 amardeep

amardeep
  • Member

  • 368 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 27 July 2006 - 13:08

I can't remember which of the BAR's it is based on. It first ran in late 2005. I just found a link that says it is based on the 2005 BAR007 : http://www.formula1.com/news/4656.html

The only non-legal F1 bit is the moveable tail rudder which BAR/Honda decided they needed for safety (to help control the car). It also has a parachute (is that F1 legal ?!). Another interesting bit is that the sidepods were also modified for less drag (intakes rather different to standard). So yes, almost F1 legal, and with a few tweaks to suit the task which are F1 legal.

If you're not averse to Flash web-sites you can find out more at http://www.bonneville400.com e.g. click on "News" and scroll to the bottom and look at the "Technical Challenge" article amongst others, or look at the "Car" section.

#131 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,216 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 27 July 2006 - 21:40

Originally posted by amardeep
I can't remember which of the BAR's it is based on. It first ran in late 2005. I just found a link that says it is based on the 2005 BAR007 : http://www.formula1.com/news/4656.html

The only non-legal F1 bit is the moveable tail rudder which BAR/Honda decided they needed for safety (to help control the car). It also has a parachute (is that F1 legal ?!). Another interesting bit is that the sidepods were also modified for less drag (intakes rather different to standard). So yes, almost F1 legal, and with a few tweaks to suit the task which are F1 legal.

If you're not averse to Flash web-sites you can find out more at http://www.bonneville400.com e.g. click on "News" and scroll to the bottom and look at the "Technical Challenge" article amongst others, or look at the "Car" section.


Thanks for that. Actually the "rudder" would be legal on an F1 car: and it certainly does not restrict visibility. But to set a speed record in 2006 with a 2005 car isn't so impressive, when one notes that its 3 litres compared to 2.4 litres, and that the 2.4 litre engines have a large number of restrictions, the 2006 cars are faster in the corners, use their engines at full power more often, have stickier race tyres, but are on a very long straight are quite a bit slower than a 3 litre package.

In 2005 Juan Montoya set in practice at the Italian GP a speed of 373 KPH. Honda had said their goal was 250MPH, or 403 KPH. So I guess just about the time that JPM left F1, his own "record" has been broken, by about 15 MPH.

#132 Franklin Ratliff

Franklin Ratliff
  • Member

  • 364 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 28 July 2006 - 14:03

Originally posted by Melbourne Park


Thanks for that. Actually the "rudder" would be legal on an F1 car: and it certainly does not restrict visibility. But to set a speed record in 2006 with a 2005 car isn't so impressive, when one notes that its 3 litres compared to 2.4 litres, and that the 2.4 litre engines have a large number of restrictions, the 2006 cars are faster in the corners, use their engines at full power more often, have stickier race tyres, but are on a very long straight are quite a bit slower than a 3 litre package.

In 2005 Juan Montoya set in practice at the Italian GP a speed of 373 KPH. Honda had said their goal was 250MPH, or 403 KPH. So I guess just about the time that JPM left F1, his own "record" has been broken, by about 15 MPH.


Unfortunately, you're comparing speeds run near sea level on pavement to those attained at an elevation of 4,500 feet on a track with half the traction of pavement.

#133 amardeep

amardeep
  • Member

  • 368 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 28 July 2006 - 16:49

You may remember the runs the car made at the Mojave airport after last year's runs were rained off. The web-site doesn't say how long the runs were, but it does say "He managed three runs at over 400, the fastest of which was his last: 413.205kph (265.754mph).".

So it did go a bit faster on tarmac.

P.S. regarding the statement in the forum above "Actually the "rudder" would be legal on an F1 car", I can't see how the rudder can escape being a moveable aerodynamic device, but if the FIA decide a damper is, anything is possible ...


#134 Franklin Ratliff

Franklin Ratliff
  • Member

  • 364 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 28 July 2006 - 17:01

Originally posted by amardeep
You may remember the runs the car made at the Mojave airport after last year's runs were rained off. The web-site doesn't say how long the runs were, but it does say "He managed three runs at over 400, the fastest of which was his last: 413.205kph (265.754mph).".

So it did go a bit faster on tarmac.

P.S. regarding the statement in the forum above "Actually the "rudder" would be legal on an F1 car", I can't see how the rudder can escape being a moveable aerodynamic device, but if the FIA decide a damper is, anything is possible ...


Not only was it going faster on tarmac, it was reaching those speeds in a much shorter distance.

#135 FrankB

FrankB
  • Member

  • 2,602 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 28 July 2006 - 17:14

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff


Not only was it going faster on tarmac, it was reaching those speeds in a much shorter distance.


Perhaps I'm missing something significant in all of this... you have told us about the effects of altitude and reduced traction experienced by cars running at Bonneville. The only reason that I could see for using Bonneville was the fact that very long straight runs were possible, allowing acceleration and deceleration in and out of the timed sector.

What are the other reasons / advantages in using Bonneville for wheel driven record attempts if there are sections of tarmac in existence that permit 400kph+ speeds?

#136 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,216 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 28 July 2006 - 21:43

Originally posted by amardeep
... P.S. regarding the statement in the forum above "Actually the "rudder" would be legal on an F1 car", I can't see how the rudder can escape being a moveable aerodynamic device, but if the FIA decide a damper is, anything is possible ...

Honda claimed the car was FIA approved. The BMW has vertical aero devices on the front, they were legal, but then the FIA said they restricted vision so they banned them. So a vertical fin at the back would be legal. But if part of it moves ie is tied into the steering, then it would not be legal.

#137 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,216 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 28 July 2006 - 21:45

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff
Unfortunately, you're comparing speeds run near sea level on pavement to those attained at an elevation of 4,500 feet on a track with half the traction of pavement.


This is silly: Bonneville is used because it provides the best opportunity for breaking speed records.

Its interesting though that an F1 car has gone faster: but did they do it two ways?

#138 amardeep

amardeep
  • Member

  • 368 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 28 July 2006 - 22:26

The rudder is moveable and hence is not F1 legal. It's all on the web-site ... So the car is almost F1 legal, but not quite.

The car is a bit faster on tarmac than it was over a mile at Bonneville, but I don't think the distance for this run was disclosed.

They probably took the car to Bonneville because it's where all the historic runs with specialised speed record cars run (presumably because of the space available, which isn't such a big deal for running the Honda). Besides which it makes for spectacular pictures (the car looks cool out there in the middle of nowhere), and I bet it was fun ... which probably was part of the reason for doing it, along with the technical challenge, getting some publicity and setting a record. Nothing wrong with any of that, in my opinion, in fact I like the slight craziness of it all.

Sticking 22 cars on a bit of tarmac and making them go round and round for two hours as fast as possible is probably a bit silly too, if you really think about it. I understand that in this case the car wasn't originally designed for this task, which makes it a bit odder, but hey, it adds to the fun. Perhaps someone like McLaren will have a crack at it next, can't wait for Ron's post-run analysis.

I would guess if this project had been proposed right now, Honda would have said no, as they are in the middle of a really bad patch of form, along with personnel changes in the team.

They reached 397kph over two runs of the flying mile, and a best one-way run of 400.5kph - which naturally is also documented on the web-site :-)

There was a great series of three or so programs on the BBC a while back about people who had attempted to get speed records. God, some of that lot must've been mad ! Pretty impressive though.


#139 Peter Perfect

Peter Perfect
  • Member

  • 4,901 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 29 July 2006 - 07:13

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
Honda claimed the car was FIA approved. The BMW has vertical aero devices on the front, they were legal, but then the FIA said they restricted vision so they banned them. So a vertical fin at the back would be legal. But if part of it moves ie is tied into the steering, then it would not be legal.


I think the rudder only moved during the testing runs, until they were sure that the car was stable. The actual timed runs I believe had the 'active' part of the rudder turned off.

Advertisement

#140 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,216 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 29 July 2006 - 08:11

Originally posted by amardeep
The rudder is moveable and hence is not F1 legal. It's all on the web-site ... So the car is almost F1 legal, but not quite.

The car is a bit faster on tarmac than it was over a mile at Bonneville, but I don't think the distance for this run was disclosed.


Physics formula, F=MA. So if you apply force, then you should continue to go faster. I think Bonneville might have grip issues, but grip issues are a "Furphy" with an F1 car, which has enormous grip from its very wide rear tyres. On tarmac an 1 car can accellerate for 0 to 100 MPH and back again in under 4 seconds. Lack of grip might apply to narrow speed record tyres, but not to an F1 car's very wide tyres. And the grooves on an F1 tyre will actually produce grip themselves on salt.

Add the very long Bonneville area, should more than make up for traction issues IMO.

#141 Franklin Ratliff

Franklin Ratliff
  • Member

  • 364 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 29 July 2006 - 18:25

Originally posted by Melbourne Park


Physics formula, F=MA. So if you apply force, then you should continue to go faster. I think Bonneville might have grip issues, but grip issues are a "Furphy" with an F1 car, which has enormous grip from its very wide rear tyres. On tarmac an 1 car can accellerate for 0 to 100 MPH and back again in under 4 seconds. Lack of grip might apply to narrow speed record tyres, but not to an F1 car's very wide tyres. And the grooves on an F1 tyre will actually produce grip themselves on salt.

Add the very long Bonneville area, should more than make up for traction issues IMO.


Salt and physics don't care.

Don't forget four-wheel drive cars run at Bonneville as well as two-wheel drive cars.

The best one-way speed through the mile by a two-wheel drive piston engine car is 425 mph. That's as fast as the best one-way speed by the 8,000 lb four-wheel drive Goldenrod. The best one-way speed by the four-wheel drive Burkland's car, with about half the weight of Goldenrod, is 438 mph.

On salt no more than about 50% of the load on the driven wheels is translated into forward thrust.

Period.

#142 Franklin Ratliff

Franklin Ratliff
  • Member

  • 364 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 29 July 2006 - 18:29

Originally posted by Melbourne Park


Physics formula, F=MA. So if you apply force, then you should continue to go faster. I think Bonneville might have grip issues, but grip issues are a "Furphy" with an F1 car, which has enormous grip from its very wide rear tyres. On tarmac an 1 car can accellerate for 0 to 100 MPH and back again in under 4 seconds. Lack of grip might apply to narrow speed record tyres, but not to an F1 car's very wide tyres. And the grooves on an F1 tyre will actually produce grip themselves on salt.

Add the very long Bonneville area, should more than make up for traction issues IMO.


On pavement several turbo Hayabusas have hit around 260 mph after one mile. That's as fast as they go at Bonneville after four miles.

#143 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,216 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 29 July 2006 - 23:08

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff
On pavement several turbo Hayabusas have hit around 260 mph after one mile. That's as fast as they go at Bonneville after four miles.

Franklin, clearly I am no expert. But that means they got their in four miles: Bonneville has quite a long straight doesn't it? And I'd like to Know the contact patch versus weight and horsepower of an F1 car compared to some of the faster cars to really believe that grip on the F1 car was an issue. I suspect it was aero and horsepower shortcomings.

#144 Franklin Ratliff

Franklin Ratliff
  • Member

  • 364 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 30 July 2006 - 03:35

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
Franklin, clearly I am no expert. But that means they got their in four miles: Bonneville has quite a long straight doesn't it? And I'd like to now the contact patch versus weight and horsepower of an F1 car compared to some of the faster cars to really believe that grip on the F1 car was an issue. I suspect it was aero and horsepower shortcomings.


It was also all aero and horsepower issues.

With a full envelope body enclosing the tires, maybe something like a scaled down Le Mans prototype, that same chassis and engine would probably be a 300 mph car.

#145 xype

xype
  • Member

  • 3,519 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 30 July 2006 - 05:58

So the conclusion is that Honda can't even chose the right track surface for attempting a speed record?

Really, the whole thing is getting boring. It's like attempting a speed run on a very wet surface and than using that as an excuse for failing.

Hone should concentrate on the F1 season and entertain us with their record-setting adventures during off season.

#146 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 7,257 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 30 July 2006 - 10:11

Originally posted by xype
Honda should concentrate on the F1 season and entertain us with their record-setting adventures during off season.


Honda's pointless exercise in time and money wasting went largely unreported by the UK media, not a single mention on TV news, and The Times gave it about five lines in a narrow side column. With one very obvious exception, almost all on this BB are pretty unimpressed also. Just a single question for Honda. Why? Surely they can't be that desperate to sell a car to Franklin Ratcliff?

#147 Franklin Ratliff

Franklin Ratliff
  • Member

  • 364 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 30 July 2006 - 12:42

Originally posted by xype
So the conclusion is that Honda can't even chose the right track surface for attempting a speed record?

Really, the whole thing is getting boring. It's like attempting a speed run on a very wet surface and than using that as an excuse for failing.

Hone should concentrate on the F1 season and entertain us with their record-setting adventures during off season.


If you have no knowledge or comprehension whatsoever of the history associated with Bonneville it's not my problem.

#148 Franklin Ratliff

Franklin Ratliff
  • Member

  • 364 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 30 July 2006 - 12:44

Originally posted by kayemod


Honda's pointless exercise in time and money wasting went largely unreported by the UK media, not a single mention on TV news, and The Times gave it about five lines in a narrow side column. With one very obvious exception, almost all on this BB are pretty unimpressed also. Just a single question for Honda. Why? Surely they can't be that desperate to sell a car to Franklin Ratcliff?


Who the f*** is Franklin "Ratcliff"?

Franklin RATLIFF already owns a Honda.

#149 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 7,257 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 30 July 2006 - 12:58

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff


Who the f*** is Franklin "Ratcliff"?

Franklin RATLIFF already owns a Honda.


Think you got closest with the first line. Misspelling your name was accidental though, so apologies for that.

#150 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,216 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 30 July 2006 - 23:14

Originally posted by Franklin Ratliff
Franklin RATLIFF already owns a Honda.

We guessed that already Franklin!