Discussion
Not too good.
Although it has the edge on all out power, that's about it.
Modern engines have a for more usable powercurve than the turbo F1's.
Modern tyre technology means the power can be put down on the road more efficiently.
Aerodynamics mean better stability and lift to drag ratio, ultimately meaning the car will be faster round the corners.
Braking performance is in a different league with modern carbon-carbon brakes.
Although it has the edge on all out power, that's about it.
Modern engines have a for more usable powercurve than the turbo F1's.
Modern tyre technology means the power can be put down on the road more efficiently.
Aerodynamics mean better stability and lift to drag ratio, ultimately meaning the car will be faster round the corners.
Braking performance is in a different league with modern carbon-carbon brakes.
I've just returned from the Renault event at Silverstone, where in 1986 I was lucky enough to see Keke Rosberg score the first 160mph lap of the circuit during qualifying in a Williams Honda which allegedly developed a soft puncture in the last third of the lap.
But my enduring memory of that qualifying event was watching Nelson Piquet trying to qualify his Brabham/BMW (I believe he was 2nd in the end). Standing at Copse, we watched Piquet light up his tyres in 3rd, 4th and 5th gears as he tore up the hill towards Maggots. It really was an amazing sight.
About 2-3 months later I read an article in Autosport stating that the Piquet's BMW qualifying engine for the British GP had been dyno'd in Germany before shipping at 1,370bhp. All from a 1.5 litre engine.
Rosberg allegedly 'only' had 1,200bhp available for qualifying.
Nonetheless modern F1 cars are a lot quicker than those turbo cars were at most circuits, despite 300bhp less and those crappy grooved tyres. It's simply amazing how those guys make them so fast considering the technical constraints which apply now compared to 1986. Just incredible...
But my enduring memory of that qualifying event was watching Nelson Piquet trying to qualify his Brabham/BMW (I believe he was 2nd in the end). Standing at Copse, we watched Piquet light up his tyres in 3rd, 4th and 5th gears as he tore up the hill towards Maggots. It really was an amazing sight.
About 2-3 months later I read an article in Autosport stating that the Piquet's BMW qualifying engine for the British GP had been dyno'd in Germany before shipping at 1,370bhp. All from a 1.5 litre engine.
Rosberg allegedly 'only' had 1,200bhp available for qualifying.
Nonetheless modern F1 cars are a lot quicker than those turbo cars were at most circuits, despite 300bhp less and those crappy grooved tyres. It's simply amazing how those guys make them so fast considering the technical constraints which apply now compared to 1986. Just incredible...
Edited by corozin on Sunday 8th June 18:35
jaf01uk said:
Sheriff JWPepper said:
Bernie was a little prickly about the tarmac. Did Brundle say there were Pikeys out tarmacing the apex?
I wasn't really listening so I thought he said Heiki but yeah that would make sense 
Give them their dues, they didn't do a bad job.
FourWheelDrift said:
jaf01uk said:
Sheriff JWPepper said:
Bernie was a little prickly about the tarmac. Did Brundle say there were Pikeys out tarmacing the apex?
I wasn't really listening so I thought he said Heiki but yeah that would make sense Give them their dues, they didn't do a bad job.
corozin said:
About 2-3 months later I read an article in Autosport stating that the Piquet's BMW qualifying engine for the British GP had been dyno'd in Germany before shipping at 1,370bhp. All from a 1.5 litre engine.
They never knew what power the best BMW turbo engines made, as the factory dyno didn't go above 1100BHP, they calculated the max power they ever produced as 1300BHP based on a flash boost peak reading of 5.5BAR seen on Bergers car.thetrash said:
How long do you reckon those engines would last running 1200bhp fron 1500cc. 10 laps?
1 lap, and they did that lap with the intercoolers being sprayed with 3 litres of water, the fuel was nothing like pump fuel, it was made by BASF from a mixture of chemicals such as Toluene, which is nasty stuff.If they ran those engines today, you would see far more power being developed with the advances in electronics and turbochargers, back in the 80's the ECU's were hopeless at first, but came on fairly well until the turbo cars were banned. The turbochargers were very basic designs by todays standards too, massively laggy compared to a modern roller bearing twin scroll variable geometry item.
The turbo cars brought on a massive step forward in car electronics, without them we wouldn't have seen cars like the Sierra Cosworth pushing out 220BHP out of the factory. It's a real shame we now have engine restrictions in F1, we would be seeing some really interesting advances had they been more adventurous with the reles.
Simpo Two said:
Worth remembering too, before dicarding anything more than 10 years old as 's
t', that the cars of 198x were just as revolutionary, state-of-the-art etc etc as 'today's' cars, which will equally be described as 'st' in 20 years time by current primary school children.
Learn too read...t', that the cars of 198x were just as revolutionary, state-of-the-art etc etc as 'today's' cars, which will equally be described as 'st' in 20 years time by current primary school children.- st as in would not come close, not as in st cars.
Would you fit in the narrow cockpit? LOL
About 15 seconds a lap slower I'd have thought
Modern Carbon brakes would leave it for dead for a start.
Edited by superkartracer on Monday 9th June 10:08
Modern carbon brakes are no better at retardation than bedded carbon metallic pads and iron disks, (they work on the principle of coating the iron in carbon, then the pad is working against a carbon face giving carbon/carbon performance) they have plenty of other advantages, but stopping power isn't one of them.
johnfelstead said:
Modern carbon brakes are no better at retardation than bedded carbon metallic pads and iron disks, (they work on the principle of coating the iron in carbon, then the pad is working against a carbon face giving carbon/carbon performance) they have plenty of other advantages, but stopping power isn't one of them.
Steel discs would wrap tho and fade well before carbon discs even warm up, so you would lose the braking power over steel discs, they also cracked/failed and lasted no time.Someone tried them on Superkarts but could not get them to heat up as karts too light etc.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff