28 replies to this topic

[slipstream]

A friend of mine has a Drag racing computer program that can predict 1/4 mile times by entering the HP ,Weight, gearing, and Drag of the Car you want to race. The program seems Accurate as it comes out with 1/4 times that are very close to real thing. For fun I entered all the data I could find about the Williams BMW and the program said the Williams would do the 1/4 mile in 8.75 seconds at 185 MPH. How Accurate do you think a 8.75 Second 1/4 time is for a F1 car with Grooved Tires and a full load of fuel ?

[mp4]

In 1975, Phil Hill tested Niki Lauda's 1974 Ferrari 312 B3. Road and Track published a quarter mile time of about 9 seconds flat. This car had about 510 bhp, enourmous Goodyear slicks and no traction control.
I'm guessing today's cars could do the quarter in about 7.8. 845 bhp and traction control would more than cover the fact that the tires are narrower and have grooves.
I believe Car and Driver tested the Jaguar a few years back but I don't have the article...
Does anyone know the true numbers?

[jpf]

mp4, I would tend to agree with you. Car and Driver apparently does not take our side, though:

We'd brought along our C/D electronic testing equipment and asked if we could measure the R1's performance. Turns out this is like asking for the blueprints of the Cosworth V-10. But by comparing the R1's power and weight with other race cars we've tested and incorporating off-the-record tidbits of information, we estimate that the R1 could cover the standing quarter-mile in about nine seconds at 181 mph with appropriate gearing.

I'm sort of surprised. Maybe they should have tried Monza trim. You're only grip limited at the lower speeds when the wings don't make any downforce anyway...

[Mark Beckman]

Over the years I have seen various tests and they mostly came up with low 9's pre Turbo era, mostly Cosworths of course.

Pretty irellevant though as F1 cars use their design parameters to brake and turn as well with an appreciable loss to forward traction.

Drag cars do things like raise their center of mass to transfer all the vehicle weight to the driving wheels, something that would seriously upset the handling of an F1 car.

About 10 years ago an English mag did acceleration tests of various race vehicles including an F1, Martin Schanka's (spelling?) Escort Rallycross car with 4 wheel drive and a reputed 1000 hp whipped all of them.

[mp4]

It has been alleged that the 1984 Brabham had something in the order of 1180 bhp for qualifying and 870 in race trim.
If this is the case, I'm pretty sure it could do the quarter in about 7.5.
The Porsche 917-10/30 from the CanAm days was supposed to have something like 1100 bhp at it's disposal. Heaven only knows how quick it was. I also belive they built an experimental flat 16 motor based on that 12. I wonder if the dyno could even record an accurate measurement, if the story is true.

[Mark Beckman]

Originally posted by mp4
The Porsche 917-10/30 from the CanAm days was supposed to have something like 1100 bhp at it's disposal. Heaven only knows how quick it was. I also belive they built an experimental flat 16 motor based on that 12. I wonder if the dyno could even record an accurate measurement, if the story is true.

If you look hard enough and long enough there is a famous picture of the 917 engine on the Porsche engine dyno showing 1000 hp.

[MortenF1]

Originally posted by Mark Beckman


About 10 years ago an English mag did acceleration tests of various race vehicles including an F1, Martin Schanka's (spelling?) Escort Rallycross car with 4 wheel drive and a reputed 1000 hp whipped all of them.

It's Martin Schanche I think. But, these rallycross cars doesn't produce 1000bhp do they? It's more like 600.

[Mark Beckman]

Well I did say "reputed" and I am talking about the unlimited cars of the late 80's, not todays rallycross cars which are around 500-520 aprox I think.

[kikiturbo]

There was a test of a Citroen Rallycross car a few years back in Car magazine I believe... they said something on the order of 700 bhp. The only 1000 bhp rally/rallycross car I can remember is a prototype Audi from grup B days that was said to have 1000 bhp and was totally undrivable.
I will find it and post some figures from Citroen if you like, but I remember the car doing 1.3 G accelerating from standstill.
Speaking about grp B, those could lap F1 tracks at a pace verry close to that managed by F1 cars at the time. If my memory serves me well, there was a test of a Lancia S4 (or was it Peugeot 205 T16) on one of the F1 tracks, and the time they managed would have put them on the 12 place on that year's F1 Grand Prix...

cheers

vlado

[AndreasNystrom]

yes. I think the Group S audi had around 1000hp.

The Lancia Group B rallycar had a kompressor on low-revs and on high revs a turbo took over and the car made 0-100km/h in 2.8secs(!). Not sure how fast it would be after 403metre..but shouldnt be too shabby

[Schummy]

The famous GrB test on a F1 track was on Estoril. I think there was a thread here discussing about it. I think real data about it was dim and cloudy and maybe it is one of those stories that go and go without a known reliable source (about timming and layout used).

If someone knows about that test and the subsequent F1-GrB comparison, I'd be glad to hear about it, it is a very interesting issue.

[WGD706]

In the 1986 season Henri Toivonen made two laps around the Estoril circuit, during a stage of the Portuguese rally, the fastest of which, in 1 minute and 18,1 seconds, would have qualified him in the sixth position of the F1 Grand Prix that same season. Ayrton Senna had the Pole Position in the 1986 Portuguese Grand Prix in 1 minute and 16,7 seconds...Toivonen was using the Lancia Delta S4 and was accompanied by his usual co-driver Sergio Cresto. Keep in mind, however, that current GroupA cars are faster yet than GroupB cars used to be. This is mainly due to technology advances in tire formulations and suspension technology leading to GroupA cars being faster around corners but losing on straights as compared to GroupB cars.
http://www.rallycars...ackground2.html

[JForce]

It would depend though. The biggest problem would be drag im guessing. If they put a minimum DF setup, and lessened drag, i see no reason they would be that slow. Dont forget they could make gearing changes to maximise acceleration, and they have launch control to get them off the line. And they could make suspension changes that would suck for cornering, but maximise traction in a straight line. And they could run an engine designed for 400m of running...a BMW at 20,000 RPM?

It would be interesting

[stuartbrs]

Those BMW turbo`s developed closer to 1300 HP at the height of the Turbo `madness`, in fact they were never really 100% sure what they put out becuase the dyno`s didnt go up high enough! Not bad for a 3 series block ( although the `luftwaffe` fuel certainly helped ) without an intercooler.

Also, in reguard to mark`s coment about drag cars placing all their weight over the rear wheels, its interesting to note Gordon Murray`s comments about the 83 brabham ( the one that won the championship for Piquet and BMW ) in which he states that his aim for that car was to place as much weight over the rear wheels as possible and that the rear wing was fixed to maximum position all the time. he called it the least adjustable car in F1 history, and as Nelson pointed out " I dont drive the car, i just aim it " which leads me to think that those turbo`s from the 82-84 era must have been totally beserk when it comes to acceleration and would surly post quicker times ( in qualifying trim ) than 8-9 sec for the quarter mile.

And Im sure it was Nelson Piquet who said,when asked what the acceleration of the Turbo was like," imagine sitting in your favourite armchair in the middle of a railwayline,then getting hit full bore in the back by a speeding freight train"....that would explain the dinner plate sized pupils all those drivers had when they got out of the car after a qualifying run...

[Scoots]

I've driven a roadable Mazda MX-5 that did 0-100km/h in 3.0 and was just into the 9s in a 1/4 mile with the stock gearing ... I would hope that a modern F1 car could beat that by a significant margin.

[slipstream]

Road & Track Tested the 1986 Benetton BMW Turbo and it did the 1/4 mile in 9.4 seconds. However I think they tested the Benetton on less than full Turbo Boost so it only had about 800 HP. I can Imagine that on full boost with over 1,000 HP it would have been able to do a 8 second 1/4 mile time. I have question about the 1/4 ET compared to the 1/4 MPH time. Would a low Drag setup lower the 1/4 mile ET ? I know that drag effects the the 1/4 mile trap speed but I have read the 1/4 mile ET is a product of power,weight, and gearing and not Drag but I could be wrong.

[AdamLarnachJr]

Guys... Pro Stock cars which weigh in the low 2000lbs and crank out over 1400hp are running 6.9's... that is with a four link suspension, huge a$$ slicks and all the proper damper settings for drag racing. I strongly doubt any Formula One car would approach the 7.5 or even 8 second mark.

There suspensions are not built around a drag type launch, they do have the top end... but its all about 60 foot times and a Formula One car isn't setup for that. I would say they would run high 8's if not low 9's in today's trim.

[DuaneW]

Formula 1 acceleration has always interested me.

In 1986 Road and Track tested the Benetton B186 BMW formula 1 car.

The car was driven by Teo Fabi, and R&T used special test equipment to get the figures.
The car was tested at Siverstone with appropriate gearing. The turbocharged engine used race boost - 3.7 bar 850 bhp at 11,000 rpm

The following figures were obtain:

Top speed
194 mph at 11, 300 rpm

Acceleration
0 - 60 3.0
0 - 100 4.8
0 - 120 5.6
0 - 140 6.8
0 - 160 8.4
0 - 175 10.0
SS 1/4 9.4 at 169 mph

The top timed top speed for the car in 1986 was
218.238 mph at Monza (5.4 bar boost was observed)

[12.9:1]

While the comparative performance of an F1 race car is naturally fascinating, I'd love to know the relative quickness between cars - year to year, make to make, turbo vs V10, and exactly how good is lanch control ?

But, to seriously attempt to compare F1 with Drag racers, is to ignore the extreme specialization inherent in both.

That said, lets make a dragster out of a F2002 ! As the Quick start is - most of the game, we'll need to fit proper tires.

The term "slicks" is used for both road-race and drag-race tires and gives no clue to thair almost opposite properties (actyally 90deg)! With the road-racer the primary need is a footprint that is hooked-up and stable while producing 5g of lateral acceleration, the drag-racer needs the same 5g performance only in a linear direction. These properties are undoubtable mutually exclusive, so once the Ferrari is properly shod - no more twisty stuff.

Lets suppose that the clutch and trans are up to the task

Now just rev her up and "drop" the clutch !!!! woops - big wheelie, we smash down and break the front wing.
So we'll need some wheelie bars, they help a lot, but we then find that as we lean harder on the wheelie bars weight comes off the slicks, resulting in a strange proposing action !

Someone suggests taking all the movable ballast, and taping it on the front wing ! ! Now we're really moving,- and starting to look at the chassi - "now if we could just cut it here and add a few more ft" . . . . . . . . . ... . .. . . ...

.

[DuaneW]

F1 Racing in their 9/02 issue published the official Williams read-out of Nigel Mansell's pole lap for the 1992 British GP. This represented an all-out lap that put him on the pole some 2 seconds better than Aryton Senna in the MCLaren Honda.
From that read-out you can interpolate and graph an acceleration curve.

Top speed
6th 182 mph at (14,400 rpm)

Acceleration
0 - 60 2.2
0 - 100 4.0
0 - 120 5.2
0 - 140 6.5
0 - 160 8.4
0 - 170 10.4

Braking
Max. at Stowe 4.5 G

Cornering
4.5 G at 175 mph (Bridge)
3.5 G at 125 mph (Club)
2.8 G at 80 mph (complex)

Acceleration
1.5 G at 75 mph
1.0 G at 120 mph
0.5 G at 150 mph

Engine:
Renault RS4 3.5 liter
800 bhp at 14,000 rpm (special fuel still allowed)

Weight:
515kg curb no fuel


I would estimate a quarter mile time of around 9.0 at 165 mph

The FW14 B was clearly the fastest F1 car of 1992

[VAR1016]

Today's Autocar has a series of tests: 0-100-0.

A bit off-topic I know, but the Jaguar-Cosworth R3 (Irvine's Monza car) did 0-100-0 in 5.9 secs which is pretty good I think.

PdeRL

[Bluehair]

I'm always fascinated by acceleration figures, but this is a more complicated comparison than most. While it's true that 850hp per 1320lbs is better than a 6.8 second Pro Stock car's 1325 hp per 2350lbs (all estimates of course), there is a nasty domino effect that would hurt the F1 car. It goes something like this: The F1 car is fitted with drag slicks, gear ratios, and is taken to a super sticky drag strip. After burning up some clutches, the clutch is then beefed up and the car breaks a few gearboxes. The gearboxes are beefed up and then numerous pieces of the engine suddenly see breakage. Once the engine block and components are reinforced, (and the size and weight of all these parts have forced a complete design change), the suspension and rear end components must also be strengthed, further adding weight and size. By the time all of this is accomplished, we will have something that is no longer a Formula One car, but more of a short, carbon fiber dragster.

There is something to note from all this. That is, that gearbox and rear end failures can very well indicate an increase in engine output, traction, or both. The only way to increase acceleration without further stressing these parts is to become more aerodynamically efficient (unless the vehicle can lose weight and still be legal, which is not likely with today's cars).

For the sake of a practical comparison I'll say that from 100mph - 150mph an F1 car accelerates as hard as something expecting to run low 7 second 1/4 miles. From 0 to 100 and from 150+, the F1 car would not be quite as impressive.

Hope I didn't spoil ALL the fun in this one.

[DuaneW]

In my opinion, a far more important acceleration figure for a formula 1 car is from 60 or 80 miles per hour up. The 0 - 60 is very dependent and gearing, traction, and the track surface.

The real test is from 60 - 170 miles per hour.

1986 Benetton B186 BMW 60 - 170 6.5

1987 Williams FWllB Honda 60 - 170 6.4

1992 Williams FW14B 60 - 170 7.2

1993 Williams FW15C 60 - 170 6.6

1994 Benetton B194 60 - 170 6.5

1996 Jordan B196 60 - 170 7.0

1997 Stewart SF1 60 - 170 6.5

2000 Jag R1 60 - 170 5.9

These figures are interpolated from road tests and telemetry readouts.

[slipstream]

I have a basic Question. Is the 1/4 mile ET or the 1/4 mile trap speed more important for performance ? Or is it a combination of Both ? A well Known Motorcycle Author and racer would always say that the speed at the end of the 1/4 mile was more important than the ET and that the 1/4 mile mph trap speed was a better Indicator of performance . Anytime he was comparing the performance of race or street Bikes he would always use the 1/4 mile speed rather than the ET.

[DuaneW]

I believe that the 1/4 mile trap speed is more indicative of the power of the car. ET is more dependant on gearing, traction, and driver skill. Formula 1 cars are obviously not set up for the 1/4 mile. With typical race gearing most F1 cars probably reach their top speed by the 1/4 mile marker.

When tested in a quarter mile, testers are probably quite careful not to abuse the car with a banzai standing start.

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by slipstream
I have a basic Question. Is the 1/4 mile ET or the 1/4 mile trap speed more important for performance ? Or is it a combination of Both ? A well Known Motorcycle Author and racer would always say that the speed at the end of the 1/4 mile was more important than the ET and that the 1/4 mile mph trap speed was a better Indicator of performance . Anytime he was comparing the performance of race or street Bikes he would always use the 1/4 mile speed rather than the ET.

In a nutshell, the E.T. demonstrates the torgue available (thereby including the torque curve and choice of gear ratios) whilst the terminal speed is related to horsepower.

I know that it's probably more complicated than this(!)

PdeRL

[biercemountain]

Does anyone else remember a segment that ESPN did a number of years ago on the performance differences between CART and IRL cars? One of the tests was a quarter mile run, and although I don't remember who was piloting the IRL car I do know that Zanardi was driving a Target/Reynard/Honda/Firestone car.

I wish I could remember the times acheived, but I do know that the CART car beat the IRL "crapwagon" with relative ease in the 1/4 mile. Zanardi's biggest complaint was that no matter how many burnouts he did, the Firestones just were not up to the task of putting in a really solid run. He basically had to nurse it off the line after realizing that wheelspin was his biggest enemy.

[Jykä]

Popular Mechanics piece on CART v. IRL quarter miles etc. from '98
http://popularmechan...9806AUTKAM.html

[DuaneW]

Clearly a CART car outperforms an IRL car.

"Car @ Driver" has tested CART cars over the years:

Car & Driver 1996

Reynard 961 Mercedes/CART

Laguna Seca gears and configuration
900 bhp at 14,200 rpm
1550 lbs curb

Top speed
168 mph at 14,000 rpm

Acceleration
0 - 60 2,9
0 - 100 4.6
0 - 120 5.5
0 - 140 6.8
0 - 160 8.6
SS 1/4 9.5 at 167 mph

60 - 160 5.7

Motor Trend 1999

Cobb Racing G-Force/Infiniti IRL car

Texas International Speedway gears and configuration
730 bhp at 10,300 rpm
1585 lbs curb

Top speed
223 mph at 10,300 rpm

Acceleration
0 - 60 3.8
0 - 100 5.9
0 - 120 7.3
0 - 140 9.0
0 - 160 11.2
0 - 180 14.0
SS 1/4 10.6 at 153.7 mph

60 - 160 7.4

The g earing on the two cars are very different, but even with the same gears, the CART car
would be faster.