28 replies to this topic

[T0NT0]

Found a interesting Mac artical. the most interesting fact was about a F1 cars acceleration and deacceleration.

Competes with a Formula One car that is typically capable of the following performance:
0-60mph 2.3 seconds
0-100mph 3.6 seconds
0-100-0mph 6.6 seconds

the rest of the artical had some other cool facts. the link is

http://www.planet-f1...f1/ENG?ref=4920

[Chris G.]

Tonto, that was a cool article.

I remember seeing the stat of an F1 car going from 0-100 and then back to 0 again. I think it was in like 10 seconds, but cannot find the stat....

[Ross Stonefeld]

I heard 7 seconds on 0-100-0

[DangerMouse]

Well it says 0-100-0 6.6 secs above!

pretty impressive stuff! 0-100 mph and back in the a shade over how long it takes my bike to hit 100mph! (with me riding - I suppose lightweight pros would be much quicker!)

[Steve]

I have an official Mac poster(1998) which claims 0-200kph in 4.1 seconds! Impressive.

[tony]

Ever heard of drag racing guys....F1 is not impressive because of the cars linear acceleration and deceleration but becuase of it's centripetal acceleration(CA). CA is given by the formula CA = (speed)^2/(radius of turn). Most F1 cars can pull about 3.5 g's in a high speed sweeping turn....not as much in low speed turns becuase they lose aerodynamic downforce. A top fuel dragster can do 0 to 320 mph(525 kph) in about 4.6 sec...

525 kph= 525,000 meters/hour = 146 meters/sec. So that's
(146 meters/sec)/4.6 sec = 31.7 meter/sec^2.
1g = 9.8 meters/sec^2 so a top fueler's linear acceleration is about 31.7/9.8 = 3.2 g's !!!! Pretty interesting that the centripetal acceleration of an F1 car is about the same as the linear acceleration of a top fuel dragster.

The linear acceleration of an F1 car is about 0 to 100 kph in 2.3 secs....so that's 100,000 meters/hour= 27.7 meters/sec....this speed is reached in about 2.3 secs so that's about 12 meters/sec^2 or only 1.2g's....about what a very very good commercially available sports car can do in centripetal accelertion(cornering)....or what the average American Hot Rod can do linearly. American Hot Rod meaning highly modified car specicially made to have great linear acceleration.

I am not trying to put down F1...It's by far my favortie motorsport....but I was just pointing out that if you like linear accelearation and seeing something amazing...I would hihgly recommend professional drag racing...even some of the slowler cars can lift the front wheels off the ground and turn 7 or 8 sec elapsed times in the 1/4 mile. Top fuelers do the quarter mile in about 4.6-4.8 sec.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Whilst drag racers are impressive, they dont do much other than go straight, so for me its impressive to see a car that can get a pretty decent launch and an even more decent cornering phase

[HartleyHare]

That is the point: for a car designed to go round turns with great constraints on engine size, vehicle weight and configuration, those figures are amazing.

0-200kph in 4.1sec?!

For a car covered in draggy wings that is stunning. Not surprised at 100-0mph in 3 sec for the same reason.

I just wish Toyota had been allowed to build the V12 and we had more challenging, quick circuits. I used to love seeing the Brabham-BMW hurtling down the straights with Piquet at the wheel in Kyalami....

[Force Ten]

Originally posted by HartleyHare
That is the point: for a car designed to go round turns with great constraints on engine size, vehicle weight and configuration, those figures are amazing.

0-200kph in 4.1sec?!

For a car covered in draggy wings that is stunning. Not surprised at 100-0mph in 3 sec for the same reason.

HartleyHare, at one car magazine there was an in-depth review of Jordan F1 car and there were some facts and figures:

0-100 km/h 2,8 seconds
100-0 km/h 1,8 seconds.

I was in fact more impressed with the second figure.

[HartleyHare]

I'd expect exceptional deceleration from a car with huge tyres and huge wings. The whole aero package (and the big front wheeels) act like a big air-brake. That is why the acceleration figures impress me more than the braking figures (although they are pretty mind boggling too!). Having to shovel all that air aside is pretty hard work even for a light car.

Of course the figures really need to be accompanied by an explanation of what aero's and gearing the car was running. Short circuit gearing with long circuit aero's would obviously give flattering times.

[Force Ten]

Yeah, if you look at it this way, I can understand it. Still amazes me what kind of forces the drivers actually face when deccelerating...

[Matt Davis]

I read that frenzen acheived 7g under breaking at hocenhyme (yes I know I cant spell) and the average human will black out at about 5g. IMPRESIVE!

[Ali_G]

The most I have ever heard of G under braking is 4g. Anyway human tollerence is much higher. A fighter poilet is expected to go at least 9 G

I expierienced 3 G on a Roller Coaster and it didn't seem at all that bad.

Niall

[david_martin]

Originally posted by Ali_G
The most I have ever heard of G under braking is 4g. Anyway human tollerence is much higher. A fighter poilet is expected to go at least 9 G

I expierienced 3 G on a Roller Coaster and it didn't seem at all that bad.

Niall

Yes, but fighter pilots wear G-suits which prevent all of their blood winding up in their legs and causing them to black out. Almost nobody can withstand 5G sustained centripedal acceleration unaided without blacking out.

[Caveman]

The mentioned G-forces are peak values. The human body can sustain accelerations of up to 20g, provided they only last for tenths (or even hundredths(S?)of seconds).
Look at the figures: 100-0 kmh in 1.8 sec.

This equals [v=a.t]=>(100/3.6)/1.8= 15.43 ms^-2, a mere 1,6 g on average. The 7g was an infinately short peak.

[MrAerodynamicist]

Originally posted by Ali_G
I expierienced 3 G on a Roller Coaster and it didn't seem at all that bad.

Unfortunately, rollercosters have to be designed with the average Joe "coach potato who'll die before he's fifty from a heart attack" blog in mind so safety regulations have a big impact on rollercoster g limits. Particually when it comes to sustained g, I think theres a bit more freedom with peak g. However, apprently negative g's aren't allowed at all [not that F1 drivers ever experience negative g either ]

http://www.rollercoaster.com

[MoMurray]

I recently had the chance to fly in a soviet built L39 jet fighter. The pilot did a loop and on the downside we pulled over 5G for about 4 seconds. I was not wearing a G suit but the pilot told me to contract my leg muscles and hold my breath. No blackouts, not even close. It was pretty cool though...

[aross]

The issue of G-forces and time is an intersting one. I remember an article on data acquisition that registered something like 50G for a fraction of a second in a crash. Not sure about the driver (they wouldn't say). That's the kind of thing they can get on an oval with the walls. Pretty impressive stat, if you live.

[Damop]

An F1 car is well-suited to braking because of its rearward weight bias. Same reason a 911 is so amazing. With less weight transferred tot he fron tof the car (added by stiff springing, the rear wheels can contribute more to braking, resulting in way better braking.

[T0NT0]

about the g's (also in the artical)

"Mika, David and Alex experience severe g-forces under acceleration/braking (longitudinal g-force), and through cornering (lateral g-force). Under braking and accelerating out of a corner, the drivers can experience loads that can peak at nearly 5g. This effectively means that the driver's neck has to support nearly five times the combined weight of his head and helmet when braking and cornering during racing - that's up to 25kg. This is the equivalent of having 25 bags of sugar being applied to your head instantaneously"

[Mellon]

From 'The Guinness Book of Records 1999' (p.107):

On 13 July 1977 British racing driver David Purley survived a deceleration from 173km/h (108mph) to zero within a distance of 66cm (2ft 2in) during a crash at Silverstone racetrack, Northants, UK. He endured 179.8 G, suffered 29 fractures, three dislocations, and his heart stopped six times.
The highest voluntarily endured G value was 82.6 G, for a time of 0.04 seconds, by Eli Beeding Jr. on a water-braked rocket sled at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico, USA, on 16 May 1958. Beeding was subsequently hospitalized for three days

[Dimo]

Originally posted by Caveman
This equals [v=a.t]=>(100/3.6)/1.8= 15.43 ms^-2, a mere 1,6 g on average.

What's wrong with this picture?

While your post seems to make sense, it just doesn't match up to your name. The two look funny together...

[100cc]

When I watched a cart oval race they said that bobby rahal(at least I think it was him), experienced around 80g's when he hit the wall.

[Brent]

I posted this first in another thread, but it's probably more suited to this one on acceleration/decceleration. And this coming from a guy who has worked in F1 for years.

"Talking about carbon brakes, a friend was lucky enough to get 3 laps in the twin seater Mac. (he has worked for Mac for years).

Well he said the acceleration was as he expected, as was the cornering but what really blew him away was the braking!
He said that as they were flying down a straight (around 180mph) towards a bend he thought he was going to die! Then the thing just stopped, did'nt slow down he said, just stopped. This really blew him away."

Wish i could have a go

From Tony

Ever heard of drag racing guys

That's excellent Tony.

[P1 Senna]

Originally posted by tony
Ever heard of drag racing guys....

Heard of it, yes. Seen it live too. An astounding mix of sights, sounds and smells. Ah, I love the smell of nitromethane in the morning.... I digress - sorry.

But as amazing as Top Fuel e.t.s are, they ought to be with six thousand horsepower on tap. The quarter mile times I have seen for F1 cars are in the neighborhood of 7.7 seconds. One would think that an extra 5,200 horsepower over an F1 car would buy more than 3 seconds e.t. improvement. I think that illustrates how capable and efficient F1 machines are with their 800 horsepower.

[colejk]

Originally posted by Steve
I have an official Mac poster(1998) which claims 0-200kph in 4.1 seconds! Impressive.

No f**king way! If the Mac hits 100kms in say 2.3 seconds (which I doubt, probably more like 2.7 - 2.8) than in less than 2 seconds they hit 200? Impossible!

I remember the Road and Track article in which they tested the Benneton Ford Turbo. It hit 60mph in 3 seconds and 120mph in 5.6. The 60-120 was faster than the 0-60 due to increased downforce helping traction and the time it took for the turbo to wind up.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but that kind of acceleration on a F1 car with grooved and narrow tires, with no traction control just doesn't add up.

As far as G forces go, the amazing part about F1 is that the drivers are always under incredible G forces. A fighter pilot rarely undergoes large G forces, they are only for short periods. Drag racers for just a few seconds. That's why you see many old pilots (which is necessary due to their battle experience) and the odd female pilot.(no knock against women). But F1 drivers are extremely fit. No yellow flags, no breaks (exception of safety car and pit stops).

Think about it, for almost 2 hours straight an F1 driver is constantly accelerating, cornering or braking. 90% of 2 hours over 1g. there's very few people on the planet that can withstand this. Awesome. Plus they also have to worry about passing, getting passed, braking points within a metre or 2, communicating with the pit, checking the guages etc... all this at high speed. (my argument for F1 drivers being so much better than rally drivers)

F1 is the ultimate test of human engineering, mental and physical limits.

[DangerMouse]

No f**king way! If the Mac hits 100kms in say 2.3 seconds (which I doubt, probably more like 2.7 - 2.8) than in less than 2 seconds they hit 200? Impossible!

While I understand F1 cars aren’t designed to excel at standing starts, first gear is geared usually for the slowest corner – not for optimum pull away, but they are still extremely light and powerful.
Tyre technology slicks or not has come a long way since the Benetton Turbo days
And don’t forget the delay before the Benetton came on boost.

My standard road bike hits 0-100Kmhs in 3 secs dead (in professional hands) and has achieved a recorded 200Kmh in just under 8 secs. (Magazine article) It has a relatively tiny tyre footprint (road tyre at that) and a power to weight ratio of about 0.6BHP per Kg including a jockey-sized rider.
F1 cars double that power to weight ratio, exceeding 1.4BHP per Kg – think about it!!
Those figures are entirely believable – and some!

The TVR speed Twelve hits 100Kmh in under 3 seconds, it weighs 400Kgs more than an F1 car and has 800-850 BHP depending on what you read!

[Bluehair]

Let's not forget that SEVERAL over the counter motorcycles hit 100kph in under 3 seconds with tiny contact patches, no downforce, restricted exhaust, etc. with a best power to weight so far is around 3lbs/hp, far poorer than an F1 car with WAY more contact patch/lb. 0-100kph in 2.3? Easy to believe!!!

[aross]

Actually, I'd find it interesting to know what the 100 kph to 200 kph time is, or 200 kph to 300 kph since that's when the downforce would be at play.