33 replies to this topic

[mono-posto]

I remember someone asking this on this board once. Well, Road and Track has come up with the answear. In the June issue, they brought together 14 different vehicles and compared thier quarter mile times. The exercise is really futile and I think they just wanted to get all these different cars together and have a blast burning the rubber off of them!!!

They didn't have a Formula 1 car on hand for this comparision, but got some figures from Jaguar F1 to help see where it stands.

The abridged results....

Joe Amato Top fuel Dragster...7000bhp...4.51 sec @ 326.67 mph...8128cc
Pro Stock Pontiac Firebird....1300bhp...6.82sec @ 202.36 mph...8194cc
HKS Racing 180SX..............1100bhp...7.72 sec @ 176.48 mph...2772cc
Team Rahal Reynard 2Ki-Ford...900bhp....9.04 sec @ 167.20 mph
Jaguar/Cosworth R1............800bhp....9.4 sec @ 181.0 mph...3000cc
Millen Pikes Peak Tacoma......850bhp....9.52 sec @ 151.76 mph...2131cc
Bergenholtz Honda CRX.........720bhp....9.83 sec @ 152.45 mph...1797cc
Kawasaki ZX-12R...............157bhp....9.91 sec @ 142.71 mph...1198cc
Team Cheever Dallara IRL car..700bhp....10.05 sec @ 152.62 mph
NASCAR Chevrelot Monte Carlo..700bhp....11.05 sec @ 142.5 mph
Hennessey Venom 650R (Viper)..650bhp....11.17 sec @ 130.01 mph...8424cc
Subaru Impreza WRX (WRC)......300bhp....11.78 sec @ 115.89 mph
Gemballa Porsche 911 Turbo....490bhp....12.41 sec @ 115.25 mph...3600cc
Lamborghini Diablo SV.........530bhp....12.70 sec @ 114.05 mph...5707cc
Saleen Mustang S281...........350bhp....12.72 sec @ 110.47 mph...4580cc
Gulstrand Corvette............420bhp....12.99 sec @ 110.09 mph...5666cc


Just thought you might like to know.

[This message has been edited by mono-posto (edited 05-04-2000).]

[This message has been edited by mono-posto (edited 05-04-2000).]

[This message has been edited by mono-posto (edited 05-04-2000).]

[Todd]

You seem to have ommitted the Team Rahal Reynard 2KI-Ford Cosworth. It was an eternal .36 seconds quicker than the Jaguar F1 car, doing the quarter in only 9.04 seconds at 167.20 miles per hour.

[mono-posto]

sorry.

[pa]

Yeah, but how many of those top cars are normally aspirated (including Rahal's) like the Jag?

[mono-posto]

There. I've added the CART, IRL, NASCAR and WRC cars to the list.

It is intresting to note what cars place behind the Subaru WRX! A car hardly designed to be quick on the quarter mile.

[magnum]

fascinating mono - don't suppose u'd be able to give us the (oh gawd am i being anal again?) size of the engines involved?

[Todd]

mono-posto,

Sorry man! I didn't know you were so sensitive.

pa,

The Pontiac Firebird is normally aspirated. It only has 16 valves, 8 pistons and 5 gears too.

[mono-posto]

There's the engine sizes.

Maybe someone who follows CART, IRL, NASCAR or WRC could fill in the blanks as they weren't provided in the article.

I'm in no mood to find out which ones are Normally Aspriated! But we no that the Jaguar is and the Dragster IS NOT!

[Todd]

magnum,

Joe Amato Top fuel Dragster...7000bhp...4.51 sec @ 326.67 mph 8.1 liters *
Pro Stock Pontiac Firebird....1300bhp...6.82sec @ 202.36 mph 8.2 liters
HKS Racing 180SX..............1100bhp...7.72 sec @ 176.48 mph 2.8 liters *
Team Rahal Reynard 2Ki-Ford...900bhp....9.04 sec @ 167.20 mph 2.65 liters *
Jaguar/Cosworth R1............800bhp....9.4 sec @ 181.0 mph 3.0 liters
Millen Pikes Peak Tacoma......850bhp....9.52 sec @ 151.76 mph 2.1 liters *
Bergenholtz Honda CRX.........720bhp....9.83 sec @ 152.45 mph 1.8 liters *
Kawasaki ZX-12R...............157bhp....9.91 sec @ 142.71 mph 1.2 liters
Team Cheever Dallara IRL car..700bhp....10.05 sec @ 152.62 mph 3.5 liters
NASCAR Chevrelot Monte Carlo..700bhp....11.05 sec @ 142.5 mph 5.8 liters
Hennessey Venom 650R (Viper)..650bhp....11.17 sec @ 130.01 mph 8.4 liters
Subaru Impreza WRX (WRC)......300bhp....11.78 sec @ 115.89 mph 2.0 liters *
Gemballa Porsche 911 Turbo....490bhp....12.41 sec @ 115.25 mph 3.6 liters *
Lamborghini Diablo SV.........530bhp....12.70 sec @ 114.05 mph 5.7 liters
Saleen Mustang S281...........350bhp....12.72 sec @ 110.47 mph 4.6 liters *
Gulstrand Corvette............420bhp....12.99 sec @ 110.09 mph 5.7 liters


* = forced induction

[mono-posto]

I'm glad me and Todd subscribe to the same magazine!

[magnum]

LOL!
As I said, Todd, you have a way of pointing out the obvious

[pa]

Yeah, but I'd sure enjoy seeing Amato trying to turn a corner at even 40 m.p.h. in that freak machine.

Bet all the other guys were using slicks (except the bike).

[PDA]

pa - the Subaru WRC car would look pretty silly running on slicks. The Pikes peak Toyota did its runs using off-road tyres as used on the Pikes Peak hillclimb. No doubt he would have been even quicker with racing slicks, and quicker still if he had fitted drag slicks.

For me the most remarkable figure is for the kawasaki motor bike, which was completely standard, including road tyres, and could be bought for a mere US$ 11,000.

Further to your specific comment. I would like to see the Jag F1 compete against the Subaru in Kielder Forest. Silly? Of course, but no more silly than comments about the ability of dragsters to turn corners.

[mono-posto]

Well when you design a car to serve a very specific function, that is exactly what it is going to do. Which is why this whole comparision was very silly, but a whole lotta fun!!!

I'm just surprised that Road & Track didn't include a VW Beetle. Just for completeness.

[pa]

PDA, I said that I'd sure enjoy seeing Amato trying to turn a corner at even 40 m.p.h. in that freak machine.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[Andy]

Hey Mono! You forgot one!...:

Andy's '97 Chevy Venture MiniVan ............192bhp.... 94.89 sec @ 60.01 mph 3.4 liters



------------------
The More People I Meet... The More I Like My Dog
JETPLAST Custom Displays

[stevew]

Just for fun, let's make the 1/4 mile run go thru Eau Rouge.

As a seperate test, let's do the same runs in the rain.

1/4 mile speed comparisons are interesting but for the most part they are meaningless...

[Janzen]

Sorry for the stupid question but why is the the speed faster for the Jaguar compared to the Team Rahal. 13.8 Mph is big considering that all the other on the list follows the same order that the time does. To explain this the team rahal would have needed to accelerate much faster in the beginning, so it is a grip thing then. The R&T times were probobly made on a dragstrip with a lot of rubber on the track at start, and the Jaguar time is a question how it was made.
Equal conditions is always just that.

[SpaRCo]

The F1 car obviosly had major traction problems its terminal speed was good for a 7 second pass.It obviously accelerates harder than most of the cars there including the indy car.

[PDA]

The Jag and Reynard figs were suppl;ied by the teams. The cars were not actually tested on the drag strip.

[Sudsbouy]

I am curious about the difference in speeds between these two also.

Team Rahal..........9.04 sec @ 167.20 mph
Jaguar/Cosworth ....9.40 sec @ 181.0 mph

From what I remember, the F1 car is quicker than the CART car, however, towards the top end the CART car is stronger (JV said one just kept accelerating, while the other dropped off). Traction could be an issue early on, but I'd think the Rahal car would be accelerating faster above atleast 150 mph.

I'm still not comfortable with the difference between these two.

Thank you.

[Yelnats]

The difference between the Rahal and Jaguar would be explained by the reduced traction provided by the grooved tires on the Jag. Until downforce became significant above 100mph the Jag would be severly traction limited. The acceleration graphs published for the 1987 Benneto (9.4 sec and 170 mph) shows similar differences with a relativly low terminal speed compared to the F1 Jag.

At racing speeds (+100mph) the Jag should out-drag the Rahal because the weight is so much lower. A F1 car is 1300 lbs with driver and fluids whereas a CART car is above 1600 without driver and fluids. F1 1330/825 = 1.61 lbs/hp CART = 1800/920hp =1.96 lb/hp.

Therefore the F1 car has about a 20% lower Lb/hp figure which should translate to harder acceleration at racing sppeds but eh first 80 mph would be a problem.

Since I presume these figures quoted were taken under different circumstances, (gearing and track surfaces) it is hard to compare especially if the CART car ran on a rubbered up drag strip and the F1 car on a road track.

Interestingly the Benneton's hardest acceleration was between 100 and 130 mph where downforce finally allowed the driver to floor the accelerator. I assume the Jag would experience even more severe traction problems and do most of it's acceleration twards the end of the quarter above 120 mph.

[This message has been edited by Yelnats (edited 05-05-2000).]

[TBone]

Thanks mono-posto and Todd ... very interesting figures.

And for further comparison,

Michael Johnson runner ... 0.?bhp ... 43.18 sec @ unknown speed (400m, not exactly 1/4 mile, but close )

[Sudsbouy]

Yelnats

I think that when you get over 100 mph, downforce is less of a factor and air resistence is an limitation, especially given that we're talking about straightline acceleration. Weight, given the relatively small difference between F1 and CART, is much less a factor over 100 mph, again, it's more a factor at launch than down the road.

I believe that over 120-130 mph, the CART car should begin accelerating faster than the F1. Admittedly, this is based solely on my highly sophisticated arm chair understanding of physics.

Thank you.

[Alex]

I remember reading some comparison between F1/Indy.

They tested 1/4 mile basically using telemetry. And the figures were:

F1:
7.7 seconds at 188mph

Indy:
8.8 seconds at 177mph

F1 car was driven by Alain Prost ('93 Williams)
Indy car was driven by Michael Andretti (also '93 car).

These numbers are much more believable to me. You can even find those horsepower calculators on the net. They also give substantial advantage to F1 car.

It would be interesting to see the result of 500cc NSR.

[Lantern]

On the downforce issue....

If the cars were truly pitted against each other don't ya think that the F1 and CART car would be set at optimal down force for a straightline fight? So, the argument that the cars would be set against each other like say....a Monaco setup F2000 Vs a Michigan setup CART is a little odd.

[PDA]

For CART and F1 cars, much would also depend on the wing configuration used. If one removed the rear wing, high speed acceration would no doubt be improved enormously. If the Rahal Reynard was tested using the superspeedway wing (pre Handford), then the drag would be far less than that of the Jag if in high downforce configuration. I think the difference between the CART and F1 cars are insignificant, as the configuration is unknown. Overall, the figures are interesting provided one doesn;t try to place too much meaning on them.

[Yelnats]

Sudsbury, Beg to differ but both of these cars have more power than needed to break loose the wheels below 100 mph so traction in that area is friction limited and all the extra power in the world can't make a car acellerate faster than the tire can transfer to the ground.

My post wasn't based on "armchair" results but real acceleration graphs provided by real world road tests published in R&T. The following are the times from that chart showing that a F1 car can accelerate faster above 100 mph than at lower speeds.

30 to 60 mph =1.3 secs 100 to 130 =1.1 secs

And as I posted earlier this is because of downforce generated by areodynamics. Drag does not begin to predominate until over 150 mph. And as acceleration is dependant on power to weigh in this area the F1 car will out accelerate a CART car using the same downforce (same drag) because of the superior power to wt ratio.

A current F1 car has considerably less drag than a CART car (using the same wing setup) because of the much narrower track and lower frontal area so I would expect the F1 car to equal the speed of the CART car and this is confirmed by some recent F1 speeds of over 230 mph on the short straights provided at Hochenheim.

[HartleyHare]

Alex's figures look much more believable to me. A quarter of 9.4 sec is utterly pathetic for a GP car. In the mid 80's they used to run in the mid 6 sec bracket. And despite the loss of turbo power, I find it hard to believe that the numbers are THAT much worse these days. Might I venture that RaT is a little biased?

And the Hayabusa would see off the ZX12, no problem. Eh, DM?

[mono-posto]

Hartley,

R&T is extremely Pro F1. The most of any American main stream publication. I think the fact that the 9.4 figure came straight from Jaguar and not directly from R&T's test is what makes it questionable. I am sure that it is quicker than that.

And where is that figure coming from? Herbert in a Jaguar? What would be the figure for Mika in a Mac!!!? With F1 starting from a standing start at every race, off the line acceleration is crucial to winning. CART has a rolling start, so I too believe that in reality F1 would be much faster in this reguard.

But then again it all comes down to design intent.

[Todd]

mono-posto,

They also talked to Ferrari who told them around 9 seconds flat. It is worth noting that the times for F1 cars are clocked with a full tank of fuel, as that is the condition when they perform acceleration runs from a stop. R&T pointed out that the F1 cars quotes were with a full fuel load, but didn't point out why.

[HartleyHare]

Good point, Todd. Maybe they clocked them in that state because that is how they test them? Did RaT take the figures from a proper test session? After all, it is the performance off the startline that matters, not the theoretical performance on the strip with empty tanks.

BTW, the Benetton BMW in the mid 80's did a 6.7 sec on a less than perfect launch with just the minimum of petrol in the tank.

[slipstream]

In the Road and Track test of the 1986 Benetton Bmw it did the 1/4 mile in 9.4seconds not 6.7 seconds. I would also say that the Trap speed at the end of the 1/4 mile may be a better indicator of performance that the E.T . For instance the BMW was not that fast off the line and that effected its E.T but once it got going it Accelerated very fast.

[DangerMouse]

Confirms what I think about NASCAR I've ran quicker times on my standard bike when it was cutting out!


Girls motorsport!