25 replies to this topic

[lumepo03]

Every year the cars get faster and faster, but I have noticed that this trend is not all due to the car. With two tyre manufacturers now involved we ha seen that tyres have a huge impact on the performance of a F1 car. Now what got me thinking was the fact that the decrease in lap times does not seem to be coming from different all areas of the car. Engine HP is up but the acceleration of a F1 car is worse then that of a F3000 car. Now that the F3000 teams compete on the same circuits as the F1 cars, while they do their European tour, it would be interesting to see the DATA on performance as the cars tour the circuit and compare them. I know that as an overall package nothing can approach the performance of a F1 car but how close can they get. Looking at the tests performed in monthly automobile magazines, a given set of parametres is set for the car to perform. How does a F1 car compare to a F3000, F3, and Sport Prototype car? The results may amaze you. Does the FIA realise the problem as the lesser formulae snap at F1's heels?


Peter

[The Fazz]

Pete,

So, what were the results?

[Gemini]

Originally posted by lumepo03
Engine HP is up but the acceleration of a F1 car is worse then that of a F3000 car.

Peter

Do you have any data that supports this opinion?

[palmas]

In San Marino, F3000 will do the best lap in about 1m40s and F1 1m25s.

15s (17,6%) is a lot! If they accelerate more than F1, then they certainly brake less.

[Clatter]

What acceleration are you talking about?

Initial acceleration from the start, or from a slow corner could be better in F3000 because they dont have grooved tyres., buts whats their 0-60, 0-100, 60-100 figures?

[Amadeus]

F1 cars 0 - 60 times are surprisingly poor (relative to other aspects of thier performance), I think I heard a figure of 0 - 60mph in around 3.5 secs quoted. A TVR Griffith 500 can do the same 0 - 60 in a fraction over 4 seconds so yes, it is possible that F3000 cars can 'accelerate faster than F1 cars'. A Suzuki Hayabusa (ugly, but damn quick) can do 0 - 100kph in 3 to 3.5 secs, so braodly simaler to an F1 car.

But you gun from a standing start to top speed once in a race, so just as 0 - 60 is a totally pointless measure of a street cars performance so it is with race cars. Instead look at 'in gear' acceleration. 30 - 60, 30 - 90, 30 - 120, 60 - 90, 60 - 120 etc. F1 cars, with thier flat torque curves and high reving engines will out accelerate just about anything else. Grooves make the cars harder to drive at the limit, but once you have the car pointing in the right direction the aero:mech grip ratio on on F1 car is so heavily aero biased that the grooves become irrelevant (they were introduced to lower cornering speed remember?). Acceleration is about transfering your particular combination of gearing and power to the ground without exceeding traction, and F1 is the pinnicle of that - but they are not optimised to accelerate from a standing start.

As to your other point F1 cars are still streets ahead of anything else in terms of any relevant performance measure - absolute (track lap times), speed (top speed or acceleration, given certain config restraints), braking, etc. The increasingly stringent regulations simply mean that other areas (such as tyres) that are not as tightly policed sho the greatest gains.

[917k]

Misinformed rubbish.

An F1 will outaccelerate any other form of racing car[apart from a dragster],From rest,mid-range,etc. an F1 is the fastest accelerating racecar on the planet.

To say a F3000 will outaccelerate it,at any time,is either nonsense or a weak troll.

[Andre]

It's hard to believe an F3000 will outacelerate an F1 car in any circunstances. I was watching a tape of the last F3000 round in Brasil and the F3000 cars seemed incredibly slow acelerating out of the bico the pato haipin(the slowest part of the track) compared to a F1 car.
The minimum permitted weight of a F3000 car is 660 kilograms, 60 kilograms more than a F1 car. With the Zytek engine delivering about 470 bhp at 8750 rpms. The F3000 cars don't stand any chance against a Minardi.
Tyre wise, F3000 cars use slicks, but it's a control tyre whereas in F1 we have a tyre war going on. Avon has no need to develope its compounds. If the tyres last till the end of the races, that good enough. No need to make them faster. Michelin and Bridgestone don't have this privelage.I'm quite sure the grip levels achieved by a modern grooved f1 tyre are far higher than the grip levels of an Avon tyre

[jetsetjim]

917k... Sorry.... but you are the only one spouting "misinformed rubbish". Try looking at some real data, and you might have a bit more appreciation.

To inform the mis-informed...

Initially, an F3000 car will accelerate as quickly as an F1 car, but what everyone seems to forget is that an F1 car has another 7-8000 rpm to play with, and hence accelerates for longer in each gear. When you look at the data, this really becomes apparant in the higher gears, when the extra power and revs make a big difference.

For example, at places like Silverstone, an F1 car is about 30kph quicker at the end of the hanger straight than an F3000 (data never lies...). Where the acceleration becomes really apparent is places like Monza and Hockenheim, where chicane exit speeds are identical for both F3000 and F1 cars, but by the next braking zone, and F1 car will be as much as 40kph quicker. F3000 cars reach a point where the aerodynamics "stall" and the car does not physically have enough power to drag it through the air. In 5th gear last year, the speed traces from F3000 were very flat, whereas the F1 cars continue to climb steeply.

For reference.. Pole time in F3000 is on average 10-15 seconds away from F1 pole times. Expect it to be around 8-10 seconds this year, given the improvements in tyres, aero etc on the F3000 cars. (This has been the case in testing anyway)

I just wish people would stop comparing them to road cars..... Road cars are not torque limited off the line.... while F1 cars are with Launch control..... it's not until 2nd or 3rd gear before all the power and torque is avialable from a standing start.


At the end of the day, F1 cars are and always will be the ultimate track cars. Just remember that the cars are lapping quicker now than when they had 1500Bhp qualifying engines!

[Ali_G]

Amadeus: you must have go quoted the wrogn figure.

The real figure for a 0 - 60 of an F1 car is about 2.4 seconds.

There is no way in hell an F3000 would accelerate an F1 car. This thread is bullsh*t.

Niall

[Rene]

Originally posted by Ali_G
Amadeus: you must have go quoted the wrogn figure.

The real figure for a 0 - 60 of an F1 car is about 2.4 seconds.

There is no way in hell an F3000 would accelerate an F1 car. This thread is bullsh*t.

Niall

Agreed, the 0-100Km/h (0-60Mph) is most certainly in the 2.2 - 2.4 second range....the really impressive number is the 100 - 0 in 1.5 secs...

[DOHC]

An F1 car is typically faster in wet conditions than an F3000 in the dry. That is pretty impressive.

[SeanValen]

Originally posted by DOHC
An F1 car is typically faster in wet conditions than an F3000 in the dry. That is pretty impressive.

Agreed, add Michael Schumacher into the equation in the wet conditions, and f1 car is even faster.

[Vrba]

Initial acceleration of a Formula 1 car is not determined by its engine power but by its weight, friction and position of center of gravity.
The point is that all F1 engines have several times more power and therefore can produce as much driving force, than it's possible to transfer to ground during initial acceleration. For that stage it is better that center of gravity is located higher because it helps transfer more weight to rear wheels which in turn enhances friction (= driving) force between wheels and tarmac. However, higher CoG has disadvantages in cornering and braking and these are bigger than benefit in acceleration so consequently cars that produce best lap times doesn't have optimal acceleration. Formula 3000 has more than enough power for initial acceleration and probably higher CoG as well as presumably higher friction coefficient (because of slicks. However, this is not necesseraly true because of tyre component difference. I don't know). Therefore, it is quite probable that in first second or so after standing start Formula 3000 accelerates faster than Formula 1. But that's not a problem :-)


Hrvoje

[Math Soucy]

I'm always fascinated with the times reported on Grand Prix cars. I am probably mistaken but I'm almost certain I heard David Hobbs declare that a Grand Prix racing car can hit 100mph in a little over 4 seconds. Is that inaccurate? Also, does anybody know the zero to 100mph back to zero time for an F1 racing car? I read the statistic long ago, and it was a staggering figure. Thanks.

[Viktor]

Originally posted by Math Soucy
I'm always fascinated with the times reported on Grand Prix cars. I am probably mistaken but I'm almost certain I heard David Hobbs declare that a Grand Prix racing car can hit 100mph in a little over 4 seconds. Is that inaccurate? Also, does anybody know the zero to 100mph back to zero time for an F1 racing car? I read the statistic long ago, and it was a staggering figure. Thanks.

I think it was 6 seconds for 0->100mph->0 (0->160kph->0)

/Viktor

[GasPed]

Originally posted by Amadeus
A Suzuki Hayabusa (ugly, but damn quick) can do 0 - 100kph in 3 to 3.5 secs, so braodly simaler to an F1 car.

Hayabusa is 0 - 100 in 2.5 to 2.9 seconds depending on the magazine, reviewer, etc.

[AD]

I think Damon Hill once said that a F1 car could accelerate from 0-100mph-0 in 4 seconds.

[Jhope]

I rememebr reading the acceleration numbers from a Jordan news report. this was when they were testingout their launch control systems last year. They did side by side comparisons with and without LC. What they found was that the car accelerated from 0 to 100mph in 3.6 with LC, and 3.7 without LC. So saying that an F1 car goes from 0-60mph in 3.5 seconds is a little misleading in my opinion.

Ali_G: please be constructive in your arguments.

[slipstream]

Last year on the McLaren websight they listed performance data for the 1999 McLaren Mercedes . They had the Mclaren going from 0 to 100 mph in 3.6 seconds and 0 to 100 to 0 in 5 seconds. I heard that the 1992 Williams with TC and wide slick tires was timed from 0 to 100 mph in 2.1 seconds, but that sounds way to quick to me.

[berge]

above 100-125 MPH, a 'full-bodied' race car with 650+BHP should be able to easily out-accelerate a current F1 car due to the huge drag of the 'open-wheel' concept.

[lumepojo]

Test results


60 100 1/4 mile@mph 80-0 60-0 100-0

1)Benetton B186 BMW 3.0 4.8 9.4@169 123 77

2)Ferrari 312B3 2.4 4.3 9.0@153 258

3)Ferrari 333sp 3.6 6.7 11.3@133 105 185

4)Cobra 427 S/C 5.0 11.2 13.4@109 148 276

5)Lancia M/C G5 Turbo 3.6 7.2 11.3@123

6)McLaren F1 3.4 7.7 11.6@125 127 215

7)Mercedes CLK-GTR 3.4 5.7 9.4@137

8)Porsche 935 3.3 6.1 8.9@135 92 164

9)Porsche GT1 3.4 6.2 10.9@139 98 154

10)Riley & Scott MK3 3.1 6.4 10.9@133 91 162

11)Swift FF 4.6 10.3 12.6@110 84 141

12)BTCC touring car 5.0 9.98 13.09@114

13)Dallara Renault F3 3.2 6.9 11.3@124

14)Stewart F1 (1997) 3.0 4.6 8.6@147

15)Lola F3000 (1991) 2.2 4.2 8.4@148

16) Top Fuel Dragster .68 1.5 5@299

17) Jaguar R1 F1 (2000) 2.7 4.2 9.4@181 72 118

F1 Boats are even faster, but that is another story!

ACME Brick

[RDV]

Postulate 1=

Looking at the tests performed in in monthly automobile magazines , a given set of parametres is set for the car to perform. How does a F1 car compare to a F3000, F3, and Sport Prototype car?

Postulate 2=

2)Ferrari 312B3 2.4 4.3 9.0@153 258
14)Stewart F1 (1997) 3.0 4.6 8.6@147
17) Jaguar R1 F1 (2000) 2.7 4.2 9.4@181 72 118
15)Lola F3000 (1991) 2.2 4.2 8.4@148

Postulate 3=

Data quoted should be with specified Aero setup/ gearing tyres for given test (my own)

in the last 3 years have been involved in F1, F3000 and LMP`s , will forthwith drag up same track data for all of them (I have Monza ,Magny Cours and Barcelona for them) and try to overlay, unfortunately different logging systems , but can state from memory F3000 is the slowest one , it runs on brick hard control tyres , has 450 hp at best ( although times qouted above for Lola was in 91 when they used to pump out @ 490hp) and the 99/50 f3000 Lola had appaling aero. Cest toi Ludo ? Je reconnais le ton... faut pas exagerer...

[100cc]

I remember after Suzuka 1999 Ron mentioned that it was Mika's fastets start EVER from the line.

I can't remember the figure, but it was FAST!! He stated either the 0-100kph or 0-200kph figure. I've been trying to find the quote but haven't been successful.

[Amadeus]

I have been digging to try and find the original source for the 0 - 60 time I quoted, and I think it may have been the 0 - 60 - 0, so apologies. Either way I can't find the source, so you can pretty much ignore it

I still contend that 0 - 60 times are pretty pointless - as has been pointed out a top line, off the shelf sports bike can hit 60mph in around 3 secs, and the fastest cars off the line are drag racers, so any focus on a sigle performance parameter is meaningless.

What is an undeniable fact is that on a given track an F1 car will be faster around that anything else. Therfore it is fair to say that F1 cars are the 'fastest' cars on the planet...

[Frank Tuesday]

This whole argument reminds me of a toy commercial from a few years ago. They "raced" a Testarossa against a wind up car. Guess which car won. That right, the toy. Turns out it was a drag race just a few meters long. With that info, I could argue that the toy was superior because it accelarates faster. Hell, I bet I could beat any car on foot for at least a short period of time from a dead stop.

Frank