28 replies to this topic

[Poz85]

Would the current hyper cars like the Koenigsegg One:1 and the Bugatti Chiron beat current F1 cars in a 0-320kmph sprint race?

[gruntguru]

Lots of variables to consider. Tyres, aero setup, use of DRS . . 

 

AWD is a big advantage at low speeds, enclosed wheels at high speed. If power/ weight and rubber are similar I would back an AWD hypercar.

[AlexPrime]

I'd love to see such a race...

[BRG]

If there are corners, then it would be a walkover for any pure racing car.

[Charlieman]

Using Nurburgring lap times as a measure, a hyper car is almost as fast as a 1980's F2 car on 1980's tyres. If you put modern tyres on a Group 6 2 litre sports prototype from Chevron/Lola/Osella, no production car would get near it.

 

BTW in competitive straight-line sprints, the car has to accelerate and then brake. 

[MatsNorway]

I believe todays F1 cars probably do the quarter mile on a regular race track around 8 seconds? We have had speculations on it before by using google maps and onboard footage.

I doubt any mega car is in that territory.

 

https://www.koenigse...-speed-records/

"Whilst not a record, it should also be noted that the Agera RS also recorded a time of 9.96 seconds for the Quarter Mile during this run, which is extremely fast for a production car on a public road"

And

"As we expected, the improved surface and fresher tires made a significant difference. Where we had wheel slip up to 180 km/h on our previous run, we had much better grip this time around."

 

Someone else can speculate on quarter mile times

 

Koenigsegg coined the term mega car because all the other sports car manufacturers called their gimps for hyper cars too. so mega is for megawatt or 1341hp

 

I suspect that modern F1 cars will beat any street car up to any but the most extreme speeds. It is only when you go from 200km\h to 450km\h that a koenigsegg or chiron might stand a chance due to less drag

[gruntguru]

Mats, don't forget the launch advantage of AWD. With slicks, a Tesla model S would probably beat a F1 to 100 km/hr.

[thegforcemaybewithyou]

Let's see. From https://streamable.com/13yh0 , I got some speed data for the section from T2 through Curva Grande.

 

From the speed data, I could then estimate the acceleration as in the picture below. The blue points show the acceleration out of the corner, yellow the traction limited zone in a straight line and the red part is power limited. The black line is the profile I used for the simulation, starting at 10m/s², rising to ~17m/s² at 140km/h and then falling constantly.

 

The time slip for a Monza F1 car then looks like this:

	dist[m]	t[s]	v[km/h]	v[mph]
60 ft	18,288	1,887	71,808	44,620
108ft   32,842  2,497   100,000 62,137
330 ft	100,584	4,175	189,789	117,930
1/8 mi	201,170	5,818	245,763	152,710
1000 ft	304,800	7,244	275,638	171,274
1/4 mi	402,340	8,476	293,226	182,203
2284 ft	696,008	11,903	320,000	198,839

According to this video, one heavy Montoya needs ~1060m and 16,5s to reach 320km/h, the F1 car seems to win this race.

[gruntguru]

Nice work g force.

[thegforcemaybewithyou]

The Koenigsegg does better and might have a real chance in a 0-320 km/ h race, it takes about 680m and ~ 13,5s in this vid.

 

[gruntguru]

So the K'egg gets to 320 in a shorter distance but longer time so the F1 is well ahead on the track. Looks like the F1 advantage is the racing slicks and the downforce. Put the same rubber on the K'egg and it would be much closer - AWD, traction control and soft slicks should produce 1.5g acceleration at traction-limited speeds. At 1000 hp/ton not quite as good as the F1.

[kikiturbo2]

no 4WD on the Koenigsegg...

[Hati]

A Finnish magazine published measurements of an F1 car quarter mile long ago, I'm pretty sure it was Arrows from turbo era, I don't remember time or if it was faster than Ricciardos 10.8, I only remember that you could see grip problems from the fact that 100km/h to 200km/h was faster than 0 to 100km/h and that article said the car having gearing for Monza or Hockenheim which will affect quarter mile time. I have a faint memory of 0 to 100km/h being just over four seconds and 100km/h to 200km/ under four seconds from what I would guess that quarter mile was under 10 seconds.

 

Oh, what Ricciardos time, you probably ask. This:

https://www.news.com...236cc032459a6b1

[BRG]

So the K'egg gets to 320 in a shorter distance but longer time so the F1 is well ahead on the track. Looks like the F1 advantage is the racing slicks and the downforce. Put the same rubber on the K'egg and it would be much closer - AWD, traction control and soft slicks should produce 1.5g acceleration at traction-limited speeds. At 1000 hp/ton not quite as good as the F1.

That's not like for like though, is it?  If you are allowing modifications and improvements for one of the competitors, then what changes are to be allowed for the other?  Increased fuel flow, higher boost?

[MatsNorway]

Mats, don't forget the launch advantage of AWD. With slicks, a Tesla model S would probably beat a F1 to 100 km/hr.

Model S 2.2sec currently.  Probably close to or faster than a F1 car. I know the rallycross cars once where faster than F1 up to 100k. They do it at 1.9 sec or so. Koenigsegg claim 2.9 with 2WD

 

0-100 is irrelevant. Look at 100-200+ and up to whatever.

 

edit:Nice work G man

Edited by MatsNorway, 12 September 2018 - 15:52.

[blkirk]

The Koenigsegg does better and might have a real chance in a 0-320 km/ h race, it takes about 680m and ~ 13,5s in this vid.

 

If you notice the G meter at the bottom, the driver doesn't give it WOT until he gets to 300 km/h.  I'm sure he could set a much better 0-320 time if he wasn't saving the engine for higher speeds.

[Poz85]

[DogEarred]

Another one to throw in the mix.

 

www.venomgt.com 

 

 

"The Venom GT is powered by a twin-turbo 7.0L V8 engine producing 1,451 bhp @ 7,200 rpm and 1,287 lb-ft of torque @ 4,200 rpm and puts its power down to the rear Michelin Pilot Super Sport tires via a 6-speed manual gearbox by Ricardo.  The Venom GT is capable of 0-60 mph in less than 2.4 seconds and has been tested from 0-200 mph (320kph) in less than 13 seconds."

[thegforcemaybewithyou]

If you notice the G meter at the bottom, the driver doesn't give it WOT until he gets to 300 km/h.  I'm sure he could set a much better 0-320 time if he wasn't saving the engine for higher speeds.

 

I think the car is simply traction limited at those "low" speeds. More throttle application would only spin the tyres and not add tractive force.

[MatsNorway]

They are not traction limited at 300. The new Regera is stated however to be able to spin the wheels at 200. I do not see any funky with the G measurement.

[thegforcemaybewithyou]

186mph according to this bit https://www.roadandt...res-at-186-mph/ . Let's just say the traction limit is very different to a normal (race)car.

[MatsNorway]

Well damn.. Time to put on some real wings and tunnels then.

[Greg Locock]

Many modern cars have torque mitigation. This limits the torque in some gears so you don't blow the driveline up. I suppose it also makes it easier to program the TC.

[pierrre]

does the center shock absorber used by koenigsegg also has rebound or is it just compression to prevent squat?

[Tenmantaylor]

Many modern cars have torque mitigation. This limits the torque in some gears so you don't blow the driveline up. I suppose it also makes it easier to program the TC.

 

This was very noticeable in my e92 330d 6 speed auto vc zf box. The car therefore felt fastest in 3rd gear. Ie the acceleration felt greater in 3rd than 2nd.

[Wuzak]

I posted this some years ago:

 

The performance of the McLaren MP4/4

 

Standing Start Distance elapsed time 

km/h m (s) 
0-10 0.7m 0.5s 
0-20 2.3m 0.8s 
0-30 4.1m 1.0s 
0-40 6.6m 1.3s 
0-50 10.0m 1.5s 
0-60 14.3m 1.8s 
0-70 19.5m 2.0s 
0-80 25.3m 2.3s 
0-90 31.5m 2.6s 
0-100 38.9m 2.8s 
0-120 52.6m 3.3s 
0-140 77.7m 3.9s 
0-150 86.4m 4.2s 
0-160 98.8m 4.4s 
0-180 125.2m 5.0s 
0-200 159.4m 5.6s 

Second Gear 
60-70 11.4m 0.6s 
60-80 25.9m 1.2s 
60-90 35.6m 1.7s 
60-100 46.8m 2.1s 
60-120 64.6m 2.7s 
60-140 85.3m 3.2s 
60-150 95.5m 3.5s 
60-160 105.6m 3.6s 
60-180 160.1m 4.8s 
60-200 200.4m 5.7s 

Thrid Gear 
80-90 18.1m 0.8s 
80-100 34.2m 1.4s 
80-120 66.1m 2.4s 
80-140 88.6m 3.0s 
80-150 99.2m 3.3s 
80-160 189.6m 3.5s 
80-180 135.1m 4.0s 
80-200 167.1m 4.6s 

Fourth Gear 
100-110 21.2m 0.7s 
100-120 39.2m 1.3s 
100-130 55.6m 1.7s 
100-140 70.0m 2.1s 
100-150 83.2m 2.4s 
100-160 95.5m 2.7s 
100-170 106.9m 3.0s 
100-180 123.5m 3.3s 
100-190 148.7m 3.6s 
100-200 158.3m 3.9s 
100-210 175.4m 4.2s 
100-220 196.9m 4.6s 


The test was reported in the April 1989 issue of wheels magazine, in the article "The Last Turbo-Charge", by Mike Doodson. 

The performance figures were run at Suzuka in cool, overcast conditions. 

[Wuzak]

It should be noted that the MP4/4 had less weight (540kg, not including driver) and less power (685hp) than current cars.

[Supervly]

I know its electric  , but the Rimac concept 2  is quite impressive spec  wise  , 0 - 60 mph  in 1.85 sec

On pure acceleration I am sure it will give F1  a run for its  money

https://www.digitalt...wo-geneva-news/

[blkirk]

I think the car is simply traction limited at those "low" speeds. More throttle application would only spin the tyres and not add tractive force.

 

I got the 0-400-0 video confused with the 457kph top speed run video (see below).  In the 0-400-0 run, the driver is clearly on the limits of traction right from the start.  It's the top speed run where the driver takes it easy up to 320 kph.