58 replies to this topic

[inox]

I have an Autocourse from 1982 and there is an interesting article about top speeds recorded in French GP at Paul Ricard. Patrick Tambay's Ferrari was fastest at Mistral straight during qualifying. He was apparently using very small rear wing and recorded top speed of 346 km/h. The second fastest man was the other Ferrari driver Didier Pironi at 330 km/h. Keke Rosberg who won championship that year, was fastest non turbo driver managing only 300 km/h. Tambay's speed was so high that I suspect no-one managed as high figures at Monza that year? After all, Paul Ricard´s 1.8 km long Mistral straight was perfect place to showcase turbo power.

I read somewhere that Berger set the fastest top speed of turbo era in 1986 at Monza qualifying, going about 350 km/h. But has anyone better information on top speeds from turbo era? I think there must be huge difference on horsepower between 1982 an 1986. Apparently rear wings were made bigger at the same rate as power was increased, as they seem to have gained only 4 km/h between those years.

[HaydenFan]

With the regulations in F1, I really doubt we'll see any speed changes.

[wingwalker]

With the regulations in F1, I really doubt we'll see any speed changes.

How come? DRS gives a huge boost on the straights and gears adjusted for it for quali stay like that for the race. Top speed at Monza is going to be highest in years, it's almost a given.


edit: if the figures are correct, that gives 46 km/h difference at the end of the straight between two perfectly healthy cars. wowzers.

Edited by wingwalker, 06 September 2011 - 20:41.

[ashnathan]

I don't know if this is relevant, but Montoya was doing 357km/h down the main straight in Monza back in 03, or maybe it was 04...I know thats probably the fastest I've seen an F1 car go in a race.

[byrkus]

According to THIS, he went over 372 in 2005...

[scheivlak]

After all, Paul Ricard´s 1.8 km long Mistral straight was perfect place to showcase turbo power.

Yes, Paul Ricard is a perfect showcase for turbo power. And the 1982 GP certainly showed that.
But there is a twist to this!

The object of any serious F1 team is not to be fastest on long straights but to win races. You do that by being fastest over the entire distance, consisting of a x number of laps.
Paul Ricard is circuit with an immensely long straight but also with a number of corners that scream for downforce.

Since the first GP there in 1971 teams were struggling to find the best answer to two conflicting demands.
I just had a look at some images from the 1982 race and I was surprised how much the turbo cars had a flat wing/low drag configuration. Then of course I remembered that the ground effect cars only got cornered by the start of the 1983 season. Which explains why the 1000+ hp Q engined cars of 85/86 never went that much faster on the Ricard, Monza or Hockenheim straights - they had to compromise more for speed over the entire lap.

[Lennat]

How do the top speeds of the turbo cars compare to today's cars? Any fairly unaltered track used both now and then?

[whitewaterMkII]

I don't know if this is relevant, but Montoya was doing 357km/h down the main straight in Monza back in 03, or maybe it was 04...I know thats probably the fastest I've seen an F1 car go in a race.

hmmm, breaks out metric conversion chart...
That's about 221mph, that must of been something to see.

Kinda turbo related. I was at Fontana when Gil de Ferran put down a lap at 388kmh (241.4mph) and I was stunned, he had to be doing 400kmh +/- down the backstretch.
Amazingly they ran a race at the same track where CART had a 400 mile (643km) race that was run with an *average* speed of 333 kmh (207mph), the fastest circuit race in history.

[pingu666]

top speeds in f1 seem tobe fairly static, as they would rather pile on downforce when they get more power

[HaydenFan]

hmmm, breaks out metric conversion chart...
That's about 221mph, that must of been something to see.

Kinda turbo related. I was at Fontana when Gil de Ferran put down a lap at 388kmh (241.4mph) and I was stunned, he had to be doing 400kmh +/- down the backstretch.
Amazingly they ran a race at the same track where CART had a 400 mile (643km) race that was run with an *average* speed of 333 kmh (207mph), the fastest circuit race in history.

I'm thinking you're thinking of the IRL race at Fontana in '03 I believe that was the 200+ average speed race. No cautions and the only cut in speed was the pit stops.

The 2002 CART race was 500 miles and average 197 mph.

But yeah, CART/IRL had some amazingly quick races in the past decade.

But like mentioned prior, top speeds probably won't change much due to downforce. If anything, acceleration might increase, but that's not until Bernie does his best to slow the cars back down again.

[ashnathan]

I'm thinking you're thinking of the IRL race at Fontana in '03 I believe that was the 200+ average speed race. No cautions and the only cut in speed was the pit stops.

The 2002 CART race was 500 miles and average 197 mph.

But yeah, CART/IRL had some amazingly quick races in the past decade.

But like mentioned prior, top speeds probably won't change much due to downforce. If anything, acceleration might increase, but that's not until Bernie does his best to slow the cars back down again.

Bernie?

[Clatter]

How come? DRS gives a huge boost on the straights and gears adjusted for it for quali stay like that for the race. Top speed at Monza is going to be highest in years, it's almost a given.


edit: if the figures are correct, that gives 46 km/h difference at the end of the straight between two perfectly healthy cars. wowzers.

Because at the end of the day the cars are geared for obtaining the best time around the whole circuit not for absolute top speed.

[marcm]

I just had a look at some images from the 1982 race and I was surprised how much the turbo cars had a flat wing/low drag configuration. Then of course I remembered that the ground effect cars only got cornered by the start of the 1983 season. Which explains why the 1000+ hp Q engined cars of 85/86 never went that much faster on the Ricard, Monza or Hockenheim straights - they had to compromise more for speed over the entire lap.

I think you hit the nail on the head here. In 82 the cars had ground effect and produced more downforce with relatively little drag. Once the rules changed to mandate a flat bottom, in order to maintain the downforce they needed for the corners to achieve a fast laptime, they required large wings that produced a lot of drag compared to the more more efficient underbody aerodynamics of the pre '83 cars.

You don't actually need the highest top speed to be fast somewhere like Monza. With a higher downforce setup, the speed you carry through the corners and onto the straights compensates for your lack of top speed. There is relatively little in it in terms of laptime. However, the downside to it is that you can be a sitting duck on the straights. This probably influences a lot of drivers decision on whether to go high(er) or low downforce.

Interestingly, I wonder if with DRS the balance has maybe changed in the favour of a higher downforce setup, since in qualifying you get the best of both worlds with the wing opening on the straight, and also in the race you can at least use the DRS to aid overtaking.

[PayasYouRace]

How do the top speeds of the turbo cars compare to today's cars? Any fairly unaltered track used both now and then?

Monza is probably the closest. But even then, the first chicane to Lesmos has all changed in some way over the years. From Ascari to the braking to T1 hasn't really changed. I can't really say how much the tighter 1st and 2nd chicanes and tighter Lesmos, with a wider Curva Grande would affect the car setup.

Spa is also quite close, though the end of the lap is different. I'd imagine that the variations on the bus stop won't make a big difference. The rest of the track is the same. They have only changed run-off.

Of course Monaco is very similar then and now, but that's the last track you'd want to compare top speeds on.

Interlagos provides great comparisons because it hasn't changed at all since 1990, but sadly that's too late for the turbo era.

So my suggestion is compare top speeds on the Kemmel Straight at Spa and the Rettifilo at Monza.

[Massa]

I think you hit the nail on the head here. In 82 the cars had ground effect and produced more downforce with relatively little drag. Once the rules changed to mandate a flat bottom, in order to maintain the downforce they needed for the corners to achieve a fast laptime, they required large wings that produced a lot of drag compared to the more more efficient underbody aerodynamics of the pre '83 cars.

You don't actually need the highest top speed to be fast somewhere like Monza. With a higher downforce setup, the speed you carry through the corners and onto the straights compensates for your lack of top speed. There is relatively little in it in terms of laptime. However, the downside to it is that you can be a sitting duck on the straights. This probably influences a lot of drivers decision on whether to go high(er) or low downforce.

Interestingly, I wonder if with DRS the balance has maybe changed in the favour of a higher downforce setup, since in qualifying you get the best of both worlds with the wing opening on the straight, and also in the race you can at least use the DRS to aid overtaking.

Yes, Button show that to us last year

Edited by Massa, 07 September 2011 - 09:33.

[Scotracer]

The Turbo cars might have had the most power, but they dragged along absolutely massive rear wings meaning their top speeds weren't any more than they are today. But of course, if you look at how quickly they GET to those top speeds then you might be startled.

The rate a 1986 Turbo car goes from 200-300km/h on full boost would make your eyes water.

[Bloggsworth]

IIRC the turbo cars were approaching Paddock Bend at Brands Hatch at 214 MPH/342 KPH, if you have ever driven Paddock Bend you will have an idea of just how fast that is - For the uninformed, Paddock is like jumping to the right off a cliff while blindfolded.... When you get to the brow of the hill you realise that the track is about 30' down and level with your right shoulder, it gets you interest in a Formula Ford.

[marcm]

IIRC the turbo cars were approaching Paddock Bend at Brands Hatch at 214 MPH/342 KPH, if you have ever driven Paddock Bend you will have an idea of just how fast that is - For the uninformed, Paddock is like jumping to the right off a cliff while blindfolded.... When you get to the brow of the hill you realise that the track is about 30' down and level with your right shoulder, it gets you interest in a Formula Ford.

Are you sure? That seems far too fast, especially into paddock.

Group C cars hit somewhere in the 160-180mph range there

[PayasYouRace]

IIRC the turbo cars were approaching Paddock Bend at Brands Hatch at 214 MPH/342 KPH, if you have ever driven Paddock Bend you will have an idea of just how fast that is - For the uninformed, Paddock is like jumping to the right off a cliff while blindfolded.... When you get to the brow of the hill you realise that the track is about 30' down and level with your right shoulder, it gets you interest in a Formula Ford.

From the 1986 British Grand Prix report as featured on autosport.com Plus:

"With their 'conventional' BMW engines pumped up, the B186s were prodigiously quick in a straight line – the only cars, indeed, to exceed 190mph on the approach to Hawthorn's in the last session.

Fabi was also fastest over the start/finish line, recording 187.457mph on Saturday afternoon."

I doubt they found another 30mph in the short stretch between the line and Paddock. They were still going mighty fast though.

Edit: While we're at it, from Monza:

"Gerhard, who had been quicker of the two on Friday, went out at the very end of the session, looking to improve on his fourth place. Over the line he went to begin the lap, and the Olivetti speed trap registered 214.391mph, the fastest seen all weekend. On the approach to the first chicane the Benetton was up to 218.238mph (quickest again)."

Edited by PayasYouRace, 07 September 2011 - 12:52.

[krapmeister]

IIRC the turbo cars were approaching Paddock Bend at Brands Hatch at 214 MPH/342 KPH, if you have ever driven Paddock Bend you will have an idea of just how fast that is - For the uninformed, Paddock is like jumping to the right off a cliff while blindfolded.... When you get to the brow of the hill you realise that the track is about 30' down and level with your right shoulder, it gets you interest in a Formula Ford.

I've driven Paddock Bend on a couple of Brand Hatch Experience days - and it certainly had my attention approaching it at less than half the speed!

I've seen Indycars, Touring Cars and Historic F1/Group C's race approaching Paddock Bend as a spectator - and they all looked pretty damn quick but I'm sure nowhere near 214mph. That must've been something to see...

[Alexis*27]

hmmm, breaks out metric conversion chart...
That's about 221mph, that must of been something to see.

Kinda turbo related. I was at Fontana when Gil de Ferran put down a lap at 388kmh (241.4mph) and I was stunned, he had to be doing 400kmh +/- down the backstretch.
Amazingly they ran a race at the same track where CART had a 400 mile (643km) race that was run with an *average* speed of 333 kmh (207mph), the fastest circuit race in history.

I get 231mph.

I know the top speeds at Hockenheim used to be about 222mph

[cheesy poofs]

Barrichello topped 347 kph on Circuit Gilles-Villeneuve`s kilometre long straight back in 2003.
That was just staggering in my opinion!!!

[Tenmantaylor]

Tell you what is far from staggering, Im watching the Spa race having got back from hols and I saw Rosberg's top speed whilst defending from Hamilton at the run up to Les Combes: He hit a measly 303kmh. That's just pathetic for an F1 car in the race at Spa. Even Alonso's slipstreaming and DRS enabled Ferrari didn't crack 320kmh! It's ****, F1 cars were faster than this at Spa in the 60s.

Smaller wings, smaller tyres, bigger engines please.

Edited by Tenmantaylor, 07 September 2011 - 14:39.

[marcm]

Tell you what is far from staggering, Im watching the Spa race having got back from hols and I saw Rosberg's top speed whilst defending from Hamilton at the run up to Les Combes: He hit a measly 303kmh. That's just pathetic for an F1 car in the race at Spa. Even Alonso's slipstreaming and DRS enabled Ferrari didn't creak 320kmh! It's ****, F1 cars were faster than this at Spa in the 60s.

Smaller wings, smaller tyres, bigger engines please.

Spa in the 60s was a very different circuit though!

[Scotracer]

Tell you what is far from staggering, Im watching the Spa race having got back from hols and I saw Rosberg's top speed whilst defending from Hamilton at the run up to Les Combes: He hit a measly 303kmh. That's just pathetic for an F1 car in the race at Spa. Even Alonso's slipstreaming and DRS enabled Ferrari didn't creak 320kmh! It's shit, F1 cars were faster than this at Spa in the 60s.

Smaller wings, smaller tyres, bigger engines please.

You must have seen a glitch then. Every time I saw one of the Merc's defending they topped out at 318km/h and if using DRS they hit the limiter at 321km/h.

The Top speed of the cars gets sacrificed more and more. Apex speed is where the time is made or lost these days. And you don't need the ultimate top speed any more to pass - you have DRS for that.

Edited by Scotracer, 07 September 2011 - 14:40.

[Tenmantaylor]

You must have seen a glitch then. Every time I saw one of the Merc's defending they topped out at 318km/h and if using DRS they hit the limiter at 321km/h.

The Top speed of the cars gets sacrificed more and more. Apex speed is where the time is made or lost these days. And you don't need the ultimate top speed any more to pass - you have DRS for that.

I understand the implications of the DRS and rev limiter and the more I think about the more I'm sure they are a riduclous combination for racing, especially at tracks like Spa and Monza where ultimate top speed should be a very important factor for the race, not how quickly you get there which is all KERS, DRS and slipstreaming are anygood for. Joke! You can't use DRS in clear air in the race so shouldn't be a factor for your race setup if you want to achieve the best race time. If you can't catch the guy in front DRS is no good for you. Setting your gearing for the DRS (so 7th is only used with DRS for example) is a massive compromise to your race time and shouldn't be entertained IMO. The only reason to opt for the higher downforce option at Spa would be to cover the high likelihood of a wet race. I'm fully aware F1 teams have many more intelligent people than myself but no matter how intellectual and versed with the numbers you are you still need a full understanding of driving the car to make these decisions. I used to love when JV would slap on a low DF setup against the wishes of Patrick Head and still go out and win.

Edited by Tenmantaylor, 07 September 2011 - 15:42.

[Tenmantaylor]

Spa in the 60s was a very different circuit though!

I know, I've done thousands of laps on the old track in GPL. A truly amazing track. Masta made Eau Rouge look like a child's corner. Top speed before Les Combes was still massive, if not more so as the old Les Combes made the modern one look like even more of a child's corner. It was a super high speed right kink followed by a medium high speed blind left kink with nothing but hedgerows and earth banks to bash your head on.

http://maps.google.c...p...mp;t=h&z=17

You can still see the shape of the old corner, imagine that in a modern F1 car! Flat into right hander, probably 180mph through the left, it's a similar inner radius to Pouhon.

And this was Masta, imagine approaching this at 200mph without any wings, beggars belief http://maps.google.c...p...mp;t=h&z=17



This clip shows onboards of both corners, they actually had somekind of barrier outside old Les Combes. Doub't it wouldve contained a car though. And Masta, getting that wrong at 180mph doesn't bear thinking about, houses on both sides next the track with nothing to stop you hitting them

PS sorry for the Spa highjacking of this thread!

Edited by Tenmantaylor, 07 September 2011 - 15:50.

[Tenmantaylor]

You don't actually need the highest top speed to be fast somewhere like Monza. With a higher downforce setup, the speed you carry through the corners and onto the straights compensates for your lack of top speed. There is relatively little in it in terms of laptime. However, the downside to it is that you can be a sitting duck on the straights. This probably influences a lot of drivers decision on whether to go high(er) or low downforce.

Higher downforce will also reduce your braking distances so more time to be gained there too. This also reduces the amount of effort required from the brakes so the brake ducts can be smaller and reduce some drag in return It's a totally analogous compromise, it's not a choice of low or high, there will be sweet spots throughout the spectrum that provide the best compromise for lap time. It's not unrealistic, especially at Spa and Monza where the return for high top speed is big, that the same lap time could be achieved with a really low and relatively high downforce level.

[Scotracer]

I understand the implications of the DRS and rev limiter and the more I think about the more I'm sure they are a riduclous combination for racing, especially at tracks like Spa and Monza where ultimate top speed should be a very important factor for the race, not how quickly you get there which is all KERS, DRS and slipstreaming are anygood for. Joke! You can't use DRS in clear air in the race so shouldn't be a factor for your race setup if you want to achieve the best race time. If you can't catch the guy in front DRS is no good for you. Setting your gearing for the DRS (so 7th is only used with DRS for example) is a massive compromise to your race time and shouldn't be entertained IMO. The only reason to opt for the higher downforce option at Spa would be to cover the high likelihood of a wet race. I'm fully aware F1 teams have many more intelligent people than myself but no matter how intellectual and versed with the numbers you are you still need a full understanding of driving the car to make these decisions. I used to love when JV would slap on a low DF setup against the wishes of Patrick Head and still go out and win.

Nico must have been in fuel-saving mode or had a bad run from Eau Rouge. I never saw anything that slow at any other time. I mean, the Mercs were fending off cars that were using DRS!

[Crossmax]

Nico must have been in fuel-saving mode or had a bad run from Eau Rouge. I never saw anything that slow at any other time. I mean, the Mercs were fending off cars that were using DRS!

Except that it's highly unlikely he would have had to save fuel on lap 8.

[inox]

Some top speeds from various years listed here:

http://www.autoparer...rd-old-spa.html

But has Schumacher really topped 375.5 km/h at Monza testing with Ferrari in 2003? Can't recall...

[Crazy Ninja]

No i definitely remember seeing Rosberg hitting 317 a few times especially when Massa was struggling to get by him. Agree that top speeds in f1 cars is crap. I know its a sort of childish view, but i wish they were faster in a long straight. I mean, barely topping 200mph?

[Kraken]

Speed in a straight line takes no skill. I want to see last second braking and daredevil cornering. If you want straight line speed watch drag racing or go to the salt flats. There are guys in the their sixties doing 300mph in cars they built in their house garage.

[midgrid]

This page contains some speed trap figures for the 1986 Italian Grand Prix.

[George Costanza]

Some top speeds from various years listed here:

http://www.autoparer...rd-old-spa.html

But has Schumacher really topped 375.5 km/h at Monza testing with Ferrari in 2003? Can't recall...

Neat list.

I am a little bit surprised too at that.

[Charlieman]

How accurate are F1 top speed recordings? I treat them as fun rather than science. Measurement of a land speed record approaches science. If your measurement equipment is calibrated on the basis of a top speed of 300km/h and a car records a top speed of 330km/h (or 270km/h), can you be sure? Perhaps you measured it wrongly, perhaps up/down curvature of the track distorts the result.

[opplock]

IIRC the turbo cars were approaching Paddock Bend at Brands Hatch at 214 MPH/342 KPH

I was there for most of the turbo era GPs (1982-1986). I'm sure that the highest speed through the speed trap before Paddock, as announced by the commentators, was 196mph recorded by Mansell in the Williams Honda.

[ashnathan]

I hate rev limited Formula 1.

[spa08]

IMO f1 speeds at certain tracks are overated, especially cornering speeds by the likes of Murray Walker, Martin Brundle and other authorities.

[Jazza]

Speed in a straight line takes no skill. I want to see last second braking and daredevil cornering. If you want straight line speed watch drag racing or go to the salt flats. There are guys in the their sixties doing 300mph in cars they built in their house garage.

The two go together. Higher top speeds mean harder braking. There are corners in the V10 era that they had to brake for that they now take flat out with the V8's. There is no last second braking or daredevil cornering in a car that has more grip than power, and can therefor keep the throttle wide open through the entire bend.

[cheapracer]

How do the top speeds of the turbo cars compare to today's cars? Any fairly unaltered track used both now and then?

Monza and todays cars are faster thru better areo.

[nmansellfan]

Somewhere I've got an excel file I put together of the highest recorded speeds from each GP season to the present day, starting from 1950, gleaned from different sources (Magazines, TV broadcasts, books etc). There are some big gaps (particularly through the 1970's, although i've got access to every MotorSport magazine from that decade to look through at some point: sometimes DSJ would quote the highest speed trap figure for a GP in his report), but it makes for interesting reading - there are peaks in speed just before significant rule changes or engine regulations, i.e. Dan Gurney was clocked at 196mph at Spa in 1967, the year before wings appeared, then dropped a fair amount while wings were in their infancy and the power of the DFV rose at a slow rate.

Top speeds didnt really get bak up much over 180mph until Renault turned up with their 1.5L turbo, before climbing at an alarming rate until 1987, then dropping a bit for 1988, then peaking agian in 2004 IIRC. I'll dig out the file and see if I can update it.

Obviously all figures have to be taken with a pinch of salt!

[MODE]

This page contains some speed trap figures for the 1986 Italian Grand Prix.

I also got all 1984 trap speeds :
http://www.gurneyfla...trapspeeds.html

[thirtytwo]

So how fast was Rosberg on the straights when he qualified at Silverstone at 160.9mph in 85?

[MODE]

So how fast was Rosberg on the straights when he qualified at Silverstone at 160.9mph in 85?

the only official trap speed was on the finish line : Rosberg was the fastest at 259 Km/h, in front of Johansson with 256 Km/h....223 for Bellof (Tyrrell Cosworth)

[Charlieman]

My current lunch time reading is the Paul Frere book "Starting Grid to Chequered Flag". In one of his stories, the team couldn't work out why they were pulling 5,200rpm in one session but in the previous one they achieved 5.400rpm. The answer turned out to be that the rev meter became less accurate when the headlights were switched on; the same revs, but different reading.

With current technology, we can believe that top speed reporting is very accurate, for different cars and for different seasons. But it is challenging to compare top speeds in the turbo era to recent F1 because measurement accuracy is so different.

[nmansellfan]

the only official trap speed was on the finish line : Rosberg was the fastest at 259 Km/h, in front of Johansson with 256 Km/h....223 for Bellof (Tyrrell Cosworth)

259Kmh! That proves that the acceleration of a Turbo era GP car was immense, and also that Rosberg was a master of his art - by my (very rough) calculatrions, the exit of Woodcote was about 130 metres from the S/F line. I'm not sure of the speed that GP cars could take the chicane at - maybe 100mph (161Kmh)? Even if it was that fast, Keke piled on at least another 60mph / 100Kmh in a very very short 'straight'!

[D-Type]

What speed did Honda do when they ran a F1 car at Bonneville with basically the standard engine and wings set as flat as possible.

It's a pity that they don't run obsolescent Grand Prix cars at Brighton any more.

Edited by D-Type, 12 September 2011 - 14:45.

[Amphicar]

What speed did Honda do when they ran a F1 car at Bonneville with basically the standard engine and wings set as flat as possible.

It's a pity that they don't run obsolescent Grand Prix cars at Brighton any more.

Honda were aiming to set an official record for an F1 car above 400 kph. They achieved 400.454 kph on one pass of the measured mile at Bonneville but weren't able to repeat it on the return leg. The official records they set were 397.360kph (246.908mph) for the flying mile and 397.481kph (246.983mph) for the flying kilometer.

[Skeggysteve]

IIRC the turbo cars were approaching Paddock Bend at Brands Hatch at 214 MPH/342 KPH, if you have ever driven Paddock Bend you will have an idea of just how fast that is - For the uninformed, Paddock is like jumping to the right off a cliff while blindfolded.... When you get to the brow of the hill you realise that the track is about 30' down and level with your right shoulder, it gets you interest in a Formula Ford.

I can believe that.
British GP 1984 or could be 1985, I was sat in the grandstand on the outside of Paddock and there was a speed display near the start/finish line which showed the speed as the cars went over the start/finish line.
The one I remember was the Williams (Keke, I think) at 184mph and then changing up a gear.
Quite impressive!