60 replies to this topic

[ViMaMo]

Has anyone measured the acceleration of an F1 car? There hasnt been an official statement or a test by some magazine that measured it.

We have the on board shot, we can see the kmph reading on the steering wheel. I dont know how to do it though. Maybe we need a high precision stop watch alongside the video and both the video and stop watch recorded at once.

Wonder how fast is it to 300 kmph?

Did the cars from V10 era have digital readouts on their steering? It would be nice to compare it to the V8s. Or compare two different cars.

Edited by vivian, 25 November 2010 - 07:46.

[Ross Stonefeld]

It's going to be affected massively by drag numbers.

You could do 0-100kph times but they won't be that impressive because they can't put all their power down. More impressive than a road car sure, but an F3 and F1 car accelerate from a stop the same.

100-200kph, now that's a number I'd like to see. Or 100-250-100.

[Blue]

Here are some related discussions:

http://www.f1technic...c...?f=4&t=7844
http://forums.autosp...showtopic=82441

[JdB]

In 2001 the Arrows of Jos Verstappen could do 0 - 100 mph - 0 in 4.2 seconds.

Is that impressive enough ?

gr.Jeroen

[WhiteBlue]

Has anyone measured the acceleration of an F1 car? There hasnt been an official statement or a test by some magazine that measured it.

All F1 cars have accelerometers. You can see the signal on the FOM transmission when they show the Gs for braking and cornering. Nothing on 4 wheels beats an F1 in terms of acceleration. The power/weight ratio beats any road going spec by a factor of two. 750 hp/620kg. I'm not even sure that a motoGP can beat an F1 in high speed acceleration because they lack downforce which increases the grip for the F1.

Edited by WhiteBlue, 25 November 2010 - 10:06.

[Ross Stonefeld]

An F1 car isn't traction limited above a certain speed, at top end a MotoGP will out-accelerate them. They have a good power to weight ratio and minimal drag.

[WhiteBlue]

An F1 car isn't traction limited above a certain speed, at top end a MotoGP will out-accelerate them. They have a good power to weight ratio and minimal drag.

I would have thought it is the other way around. At low speed the motoGP can cope but at higher speed the F1 would pull away because it gets more traction from the downforce.

[Ross Stonefeld]

It needs traction in the slow corners. Above 150mph or so, assuming you're going in a straight line, you aren't getting wheelspin. So the downforce is just a big air brake.

[Adie]

Fifth Gear Did This Test A While Back for a F1 car Vs Bike Vs Boat. It has a tenuous link to the thread!

[WhiteBlue]

Fifth Gear Did This Test A While Back for a F1 car Vs Bike Vs Boat. It has a tenuous link to the thread!

Yep, the MotoGP simply lacks traction in the acceleration match.

[Ross Stonefeld]

That's not a MotoGP bike though.

Yes an F1 car will beat a motorcycle in a drag race, but there are certain speed ranges where a bike will be better.

[nomeg1]

Has anyone measured the acceleration of an F1 car? There hasnt been an official statement or a test by some magazine that measured it.

We have the on board shot, we can see the kmph reading on the steering wheel. I dont know how to do it though. Maybe we need a high precision stop watch alongside the video and both the video and stop watch recorded at once.

Wonder how fast is it to 300 kmph?

Did the cars from V10 era have digital readouts on their steering? It would be nice to compare it to the V8s. Or compare two different cars.

No clue, but check this one out, it's awesome the acceleration...

[wonk123]

How many wheels does a top fueler have?
How fast can an F1 accelerate to 330MPH?

Yeah I know that this is being a bit silly
but F1 really isnt about straight line acceleration.

[harrypotteringaround]

That's not a MotoGP bike though.

Yes an F1 car will beat a motorcycle in a drag race, but there are certain speed ranges where a bike will be better.

On what do you base your statement, or is this simply your opinion?
As you correctly state, it´s not a MGP machine. It´s just a standard road machine. A MGP machine would beat a F1 car IMO.

[Scotracer]

F1 cars do 0-60mph in 2.6 seconds, 0-100mph in 3.8 seconds and then 0-186mph in varying times depending on aero config.

Those are just numbers I've seen from official sources over the years.

I believe in 2006 the Renault R26 could do 0-60mph in 2.1 seconds - the fastest of any F1 car ever but that was due to mega-sticky tyres and the crazy launch control systems Renault had.

[WhiteBlue]

It´s just a standard road machine. A MGP machine would beat a F1 car IMO.

Rubbish, the video says its a hand build British Superbike Championship Fireblade worth a million pounds. It should be comparable with a MOtoGP. If you use a current Ducati and a Ferrari the F1 would still win.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Win what? You have to define the test before you can predict an outcome. A standing start drag race yeah an F1 car will win.

[Scotracer]

Rubbish, the video says its a hand build British Superbike Championship Fireblade worth a million pounds. It should be comparable with a MOtoGP. If you use a current Ducati and a Ferrari the F1 would still win.

MotoGP bikes have more power, less weight, launch control and better tyres...

It depends on the length of the race but for comparison, F1 cars come out of the final turn at Catalunya faster than MotoGP bikes but by the end of the straight the MotoGPs are doing over 200mph and the cars are doing around 190mph. MotoGP bikes do accelerate faster after they get out of the traction-limited zone.

Edited by Scotracer, 25 November 2010 - 11:38.

[ViMaMo]

Im not focusing on the Gs right now. Just want to see the 0-100-200-300 kmph (make ur combo) times.

Ofcourse Monaco would be the best place to measure.

Also the braking figures would be stunning. 300-100 kmph x.xx sec

Any high quality videos onboard videos would help.

[Morbus]

That's not a MotoGP bike though.

Yes an F1 car will beat a motorcycle in a drag race, but there are certain speed ranges where a bike will be better.

Lol. At high speed, what counts is horspower.

[sosidge]

I always had the impression that the best of the Rallycross cars were quicker to 60 than an F1 car... 500+ bhp and 4wd is a big advantage off the line. But those cars are geared for not much more than 100mph, and F1 car keeps pulling to 190 at most tracks.

Of course, I can't find any figures to prove it!

[Snuggie]

I always had the impression that the best of the Rallycross cars were quicker to 60 than an F1 car... 500+ bhp and 4wd is a big advantage off the line. But those cars are geared for not much more than 100mph, and F1 car keeps pulling to 190 at most tracks.

Of course, I can't find any figures to prove it!

Reminds me of 80's Lancia S4 Group B rally car:

Independent figures show the S4 could accelerate from 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph) on gravel in under 2.3 seconds.[citation needed]

Source: wikipedia

EDIT: http://www.youtube.c...feature=related
The sound of that car just makes me happy.

Edited by Snuggie, 25 November 2010 - 12:56.

[gm914]

Im not focusing on the Gs right now. Just want to see the 0-100-200-300 kmph (make ur combo) times.

Ofcourse Monaco would be the best place to measure.

Also the braking figures would be stunning. 300-100 kmph x.xx sec

Any high quality videos onboard videos would help.

Nope. Too many inclines/declines. What you need is a Tilkedrome.

(I can't believe I just typed that...)

[primer]

AFAIK F1 cars do not go over ~2g while accelerating. In fact the best I've seen is around 1 to 1.4g. I am basing this on the g-ball/dot OSD we get sometimes during the qualifying and races. Braking is another matter altogether!

Edited by primer, 25 November 2010 - 13:08.

[primer]

Lol. At high speed, what counts is horspower.

Or drag.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Lol. At high speed, what counts is horspower.

No, drag does. It increases at a geometric rate.

[F1Johnny]

That's not a MotoGP bike though.

Yes an F1 car will beat a motorcycle in a drag race, but there are certain speed ranges where a bike will be better.

I remember reading that when the MotoGp bikes were at Suzuka they were reaching higher top speeds than F1 cars on the run down to 130R.

[wingwalker]

A few different F1 tests:


2001 Jaguar F1 car:

Road & Track Magazine of March 2001 - Road test for 2000 Jaguar R1 Formula One car

Horsepower 800 bhp @ 17,500

0-60 mph @ 2.7 sec (100 kph)

0-100 mph @ 4.2 sec (160 kph)

0-160 mph @ 6.2 sec (255 kph)

0-180 mph @ 9.4 sec (290 kph)

Quarter mile run @ 9.4 sec @ 181 mph

Stopping distance from 60 mph (100 kph) @ 72 ft (22 meters)

Maximum lateral acceleration on skidpad 4.30g+


Test of a 2005 Renault F1 car:

0 to 100 km/h: 1.9 seconds

0 to 200 km/h: 3.9 seconds

0 to 300 km/h: 8.4 seconds



Test of a 2006 Renault F1 car:

0 to 100 km/h (62 mph): 1.7 seconds

0 to 200 km/h (124 mph): 3.8 seconds

0 to 300 km/h (186 mph): 8.6 seconds


Test of a 2007 Honda F1 car:

0-60 mph @ 2.8 sec (100 kph)

0-100 mph @ 4.1 sec (160 kph)

Quarter mile run @ 9.0 sec @ 161 mph

http://forums.autosp...mp;qpid=4022874

[David1976]

2005/2006 Renault was insane!!

[cheapracer]

Lol. At high speed, what counts is horspower.

So if a Moto GP does 200 mph with 200hp then a F1 car with 800hp should go 400 mph with rough math.

Oops, did we forget a little thing called aerodynamic drag?

Oh and F1 cars have been running 9 second 1/4's for a long, long time.

Edited by cheapracer, 25 November 2010 - 14:03.

[Sardukar]

The whole argument is stupid though, what aero package is the F1 car running? i can guarentee you that a motogp bike and an F1 car will do the same top speeds at a track like monza.

[Adie]

How many wheels does a top fueler have?
How fast can an F1 accelerate to 330MPH?

Yeah I know that this is being a bit silly
but F1 really isnt about straight line acceleration.

The easiest way to measure would be a like for like test. Say on the new loop at Silverstone where both series raced this year:

Jorge Lorenzo's pole time: 2'03.308

Seb V's pole time: 1:29.615

Which puts the F1 car at what....32 seconds a lap quicker??!

[primer]

The easiest way to measure would be a like for like test.

Measure what?

[Requiem84]

The easiest way to measure would be a like for like test. Say on the new loop at Silverstone where both series raced this year:

Jorge Lorenzo's pole time: 2'03.308

Seb V's pole time: 1:29.615

Which puts the F1 car at what....32 seconds a lap quicker??!

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. The other day though, someone came to me and started murmuring about something like downforce? Supposedly it gives those racecars a bit more grip in the corners or something?

[ViMaMo]

The whole argument is stupid though, what aero package is the F1 car running? i can guarentee you that a motogp bike and an F1 car will do the same top speeds at a track like monza.

Lap times are not about top speeds.

F1 car can lap faster than a MotoGP bike. Higher grip and downforce.

[Dunder]

In a straight line race an F1 car would beat a Moto GP bike over any distance assuming wings and gear ratios can be adjusted.

For a short race it has much superior traction, for longer races they are capable of running straight with lower downforce (drag) wings than those run at Monza. If I am not mistaken BAR managed to get one of their cars over 400kmh (about 250mph) a few years ago.

Edited by Dunder, 25 November 2010 - 15:58.

[ViMaMo]

A MotoGP bike is weaker over the entire circuit. It has very limited aero grip, it has contact patch thats a mouse, the superior power to weight ratio only help it get to a better top speed. Poor out of corners, poor under braking. It cant match F1 car on any circuit.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Lap times are not about top speeds.

F1 car can lap faster than a MotoGP bike. Higher grip and downforce.

Exactly. An F3 car has less horsepower than a MotoGP, but does a faster laptime. Just having four wheels is a bit advantage. Guess which one has better trap speeds?

[Mayur]

Jenson Button vs Dani Pedrosa.


Pretty equal, but looks like Pedrosa got a slight jump and Button was reeling him in

MotoGP bikes are fast and do reach higher top speeds on the same tracks but I don't think they can outgun F1 cars with minimum wing at any speed

Edited by Mayur, 25 November 2010 - 16:28.

[PNSD]

F1 cars do 0-60mph in 2.6 seconds, 0-100mph in 3.8 seconds and then 0-186mph in varying times depending on aero config.

Those are just numbers I've seen from official sources over the years.

I believe in 2006 the Renault R26 could do 0-60mph in 2.1 seconds - the fastest of any F1 car ever but that was due to mega-sticky tyres and the crazy launch control systems Renault had.

Learned the other day that Renaults crazy starts in 2001/2002 was down to an illegal system of detecting when the 5th start light was activated and turned off... Ferrari later found out and copied before the FIA made it illegal (or confirmed its legality )

[Scotracer]

In a straight line race an F1 car would beat a Moto GP bike over any distance assuming wings and gear ratios can be adjusted.

For a short race it has much superior traction, for longer races they are capable of running straight with lower downforce (drag) wings than those run at Monza. If I am not mistaken BAR managed to get one of their cars over 400kmh (about 250mph) a few years ago.

Yes but their 400km/h car didn't have a rear wing. Not exactly brilliant for elsewhere.

[PNSD]

What would be interesting for those with a spare F1 car, spare airfield and some unleaded would be to test the difference from 100km/h to Vmax with shrouded tyres and without... I would say well designed tyre shrouds would push that BAR to at least 280mph, probably higher in fact.

edit - with the right gearing of course

Edited by PNSD, 25 November 2010 - 19:40.

[Requiem84]

What would be interesting for those with a spare F1 car, spare airfield and some unleaded would be to test the difference from 100km/h to Vmax with shrouded tyres and without... I would say well designed tyre shrouds would push that BAR to at least 280mph, probably higher in fact.

edit - with the right gearing of course

I recall some crazy experiment on the Old Hockenheim by a backmarker team. Back then the fronts were smaller than the rears. One team put front tires on the rear as well to minimize drag

Needless to say that they were deadslow.

[Willow Rosenberg]

That was Tyrrell in 1996. I'm not sure they were any slower than normal.

[Villes Gilleneuve]

All F1 cars have accelerometers. You can see the signal on the FOM transmission when they show the Gs for braking and cornering. Nothing on 4 wheels beats an F1 in terms of acceleration.

[Villes Gilleneuve]

I recall some crazy experiment on the Old Hockenheim by a backmarker team. Back then the fronts were smaller than the rears. One team put front tires on the rear as well to minimize drag

Needless to say that they were deadslow.

It was Williams. The idea was to allow more space for ground effects between the rear wheels, not reduce drag. It wasn't dead slow, it was banned.

The Tyrell idea was to reduce drag, but the problem was that Goodyear would not support tyre development after the second season.

[Christian Szymczak]

They should have done a roll on contest. This is a more accurate way of determining which thing accelerates faster because it takes wheelspin out of the equation.

Anyway it's still an apples / oranges comparison because of how the affects of wind resistance varies for each as the speed varies. It think tho that in a roll on contest of say 70-170, where wheelspin and drag may play a role but not a huge one, that a motogp bike would win. If you take the variables of wind and wheelspin out of the equation, then the pure math of power to weight will win.

[Christian Szymczak]

Jenson Button vs Dani Pedrosa.


Pretty equal, but looks like Pedrosa got a slight jump and Button was reeling him in

MotoGP bikes are fast and do reach higher top speeds on the same tracks but I don't think they can outgun F1 cars with minimum wing at any speed

Wow I was surprised to see that! I was pretty certain the bike would be better in a contest like this. Has to be wind resistance that determined the outcome here. The bike must have been more affected by drag.

[Dunder]

They should have done a roll on contest. This is a more accurate way of determining which thing accelerates faster because it takes wheelspin out of the equation.

Anyway it's still an apples / oranges comparison because of how the affects of wind resistance varies for each as the speed varies. It think tho that in a roll on contest of say 70-170, where wheelspin and drag may play a role but not a huge one, that a motogp bike would win. If you take the variables of wind and wheelspin out of the equation, then the pure math of power to weight will win.

Power to weight governs the maximum rate of acceleration, yes.
I am not sure how you reach the conclusion that this is "more accurate" however. These are racing machines and traction is a big part of racing.

My back of the envelope calculation suggests that the MotoGP bike has a power to weight ratio which is only about 5% higher than an F1 car (based on current regulations) and I would be seriously surprised if the F1 car did not have a considerably lower drag coefficient in low downforce configuration.

Edited by Dunder, 25 November 2010 - 20:58.

[Bloggsworth]

Spending time arguing apples and oranges is well worthwhile - Wake me up when you fail to find a definitive answer....