20 replies to this topic

[slipstream]

A friend of mine says that the 1993 Williams-Renault FW15C was timed from 0 to 100 MPH in less than 3 seconds, this sounds unbelievable to me. 0 to 60 MPH in 3 seconds, but not to 100 MPH. Has anyone Else heard of this test or any F-1 car going from o to 100 MPH in 3 seconds ?

[goGoGene]

What about deceleration, I heard somewhere that 100-0 in something like 0.4 sec!

(though that might have been 60-0, I don't recall the referance, still the decel is far more stunning, massive g-forces)

[bigblue]

I've heard 0-100-0 in 4 seconds--sounds consistant with above figures. Anybody got some facts?

[mono-posto]

I've always heard that a modern F1 car can go from 0-60-0 in around 3.0 sec or less?

Anyone have official numbers?

[goGoGene]

my car can do it (0-100-0) in about 30 seconds(maybe 25)! Scooby Impreza RS, TOP THAT!

[Ricardo F1]

My old Griffith 500 would beat that. Standing on its head!

[goGoGene]

I wuz just joking, sheesh!

I have know idea about the numbers, and there's no place around here that I'd risk the ticket (lives) to try it. I know it'll get up to 115mph (done in no-where Alberta so I was only risking myself, oh and tanja, which isn't cool at all), but the acceleration above 90 is a bit weak.

[Yelnats]

A mid seventies F1 McLaren was tested by a British Mag at zero to 100 mph to zero in 9 secs. This was with about 450 hp and geared for 175 mph top speed. R&T tested a 1987 Benneton at zero to 100 in 4.8 secs with 900 hp when geared for 196 mph. The first 100 mph only used about 1 and 1/2 gears so proper gearing could improve this a bit but traction limited acceleration for most of this test so theres no way a modern car on grooved tires could outdo this. looks like 0-100-0 is going to take around 7 secs considering the lack of traction with grooved tires.

Zero to 100 mph is not a good test of acceleration with a F1 car because of the lack of down force and traction. The steepest part of the acceleration graph on the 87 Benneton was between 100 and 130 and 100 and 150 took the same time as from 50 to 100. The Benneton's stopping distances were about half that of the best road cars, 75 ft from 60 mph and 123 ft from 80. And it got a miserly 4 mpg with the 4 cylinder turbo BMW engine which is surprisingly good but with no pit stops and 51 gallons on board it must have been a bit of a pig at the start of the race.

[This message has been edited by Yelnats (edited 04-28-2000).]

[Ricardo F1]

goGoGene - me too! Had the Griff up to 155+mph on the Hangar Straight at Silverstone though!

[Steve]

For something slightly different I read that the 98 Mclaren could accelerate from 0-200km/h in 4.1 seconds.

[Salofan #99]

Todays Formula 3 cars powered by the normal 2 litres opel spiess, honda mugen, renault etc etc will do 0-100 km/h in just under 3 seconds. 0-200 km/h in something like 12 seconds depending on gear ratios. That's with around 230 bhp. And that's nothing compared to todays F1 cars.

[Toxicant]

I was reading through some old mags one day and saw that the 66 Cobra with a 427 could go from 0-100-0 in 10 seconds. That car was geared for around a 165mph.

Tox!

[Cosworth_Power]

I think that the Cobra record was beaten by the McLaren F1.


Not bad for a -66 Cobra

[Damop]

The other problem with standing starts is that the tires can't buildup and hold the required temperature for such tests. Zanardi tested his ChampCar in Popular Mechanics over the 1/4-mile. They reported that the rear wheels were spinning and smoking for the entire 1/4-mile, and that was using all six gears and short-shifting at about 12,000 to 13,000 rpm, well out of the meat of the power band. I'm sure the lighter F1 cars could get a better hole-shot, but without special tires they aren't going to do any better.

Car and Driver tested Moore's Mercedes-Reyanrd a few years back, and they found that the acceleration really poured on after 60 mph. In fact, the car was geared for 168 mph top speed, and it hit that in the 1/4-mile.

The other thing is that the suspension settings and geometry of an F1 car are not well-suited for maximum standing starts, since they actually have to turn.

BTW, there is an amusing commercial for some tire that is running over here. It shows a top-fuel drag car ripping off the line and blasting down the road. Then the driver sees a warning sign for twisty road ahead, and his eyes go really wide in panic. It's funny because it's true.

[Damop]

OK, assuming simple linear constant acceleration (easiest for my head to work on at this time in the morning), and assuming a starting velocity of 0 mph, then the acceleration of the car will be a=v/t where a is acceleration, v is velocity, and t is time.

Using some of the numbers from above:
Slipstream: 0-100mph in 3 secs --> a=(44.7m/s)/3s=14.9m/s^2=1.5 g

That seems a little unreasonable, so your friend's numbers are probably wrong.

Yelnats: 0-100mph in 4.8 secs --> a=(44.7m/s)/4.8s=9.3m/s^2=0.95 g

Much more reasonable.

goGoGene: 100-0mph in 0.4 secs --> a=(-44.7m/s)/0.4s=-111.75m/s^2=11.4 g

Not bloody likely without a g-suit! Heck, just the reaction time to activate the brake and the response of the hydraulics will take more 0.4 secs!

[This message has been edited by Damop (edited 04-28-2000).]

[Yelnats]

The R&T Benneton test clocked a 9.4 sec quarter at 169 mph just at the upshift to 6th (top) gear for an average aceleration of .81 G's.

The braking was 120 ft from 80 mph or 1.80 g's. Assume 1.90 G's from 100 mph so thats 2.5 secs to stop + 4.8 to acellerate = 7.3 secs for 0-100mph-0. Not bad for a car that can do this for 90 mins straight!

[goGoGene]

Damop, as a M.S. in physics, I shed a tear, well done, I didn't even think to do the math.

But why do you doubt the 1.5g number. Are you under the (false) impression that these cars are limited to a=1g? With downforce (I'd guess starting to come on strong at approx. 50 mph, the increased d.f. will allow for accelerations greater than 1g. And for (misnomer) deceleration, I'd guess approx 4g's of deceleration at a 100mph, decreasing to 1g as the car approaches 0mph.

1.5g <average> acceleration sounds low to me.

[MN]

1988 Mclaren-Honda MP4/4 did it in 4.3 sec.
(0-160km/h, 0-100mph)

There were some discussions on 1.5 liter turbo vs 3.0 V10 N/A performance issue in the Technical BB.
I put MP4/4 acceleration data in there. http://www.atlasf1.c...TML/000137.html

I just revisited there and noticed that thread was also started by you slipstream


[This message has been edited by MN (edited 04-28-2000).]

[Damop]

Sorry goGo - didn't mean to make you cry Your understanding of physics is likely so advance that your mind can't be bothered with simple concepts anymore. Take TBone for instance - he's a sharp guy (in spite of being Quebecois) and has a PhD in some pretty whacked out statistics (I think he has invented new symbols) but he can't add small numbers to save his life!

Well, I have no problem believing that an F1 car can deliver enough tractive force to accelerate at more than 1 g at higher speeds, but drag also then starts to play a role. I'm sure it does indeed reach 1.5 g at higher speeds, but then again, that figure could be considered an average value, and with less than that value at lower speeds, it would have to be considerably higher than 1.5 g at other points in the curve. I don't have a backup for that, just doesn't "feel" right from an engineering sense.

[goGoGene]

Damop, I've hear that F1 cars could, at full speed drive upside down (therefore greater than 2g's of downforce). And they can corner, currently, at upwards of 4g's, so I would also assume that they could be decelerating at about that amount at 100mph.

And interesting quote (which again I don't remember the source) said that one of the limiting factors on taking a corner well is learning how to deal with your eye's bluring, due to the excessive g-forces.

Just imagine if F1 technology were allowed to do as they wish. g-suits would become quite nessisary, cornings at 7-g's would be nothing out of the ordinary. Eddie Irvine would be spilling his drinks constantly

It would be quite spectacular, as would the horrible accidents when things went wrong. Glad that things are held in check, it is after all just a sport.

[Damop]

In the most recent issue of Road and Track, they list 1/4-mile times for Team Rahal's Reynard/Ford and the Jaguar. If I recall correctly, the ChampCar runs 9.4 secs @ 167 mph and the F1 car runs at 9.8 secs @ 188 mph. The ChampCar has a lower ET but is also slower through the traps. That may all come down to gearing - the C/D test of the Player's Reynard/Ford two years ago had the car running through the traps at it's top speed - the car was geared for Road America - with taller gearing the car would probably run a higher trap speed. The article does not indicate how the two cars were geared (i.e. for what track), so the numbers are still not directly comparable.