F1 cars top speed.
Discussion
timbob said:
was quite modified though with a "shark fin" for a rear wing etc. i think there is a video on youtube somewhere with the video of the attempts.TheArchitect said:
timbob said:
was quite modified though with a "shark fin" for a rear wing etc. i think there is a video on youtube somewhere with the video of the attempts.
I was involved in the Honda project, had the chance to go and spend a week on the salt but didn't know until after they got back.
They had to work their nuts off to get the speed they did. Honda even allowed the engine to be run at higher rev's than normal, the engine survived, the diff didn't. The guys were ty-wrapping lumps of tungsten ballast on the rear crash structure to improve the rear grip as the salt flats have about the same grip as wet gravel.
The car was built with the front end of one years race car and the rear end of another and I think ran the last of the V10 engines before the V8 rule change.
If I remember correctly down force level was set at about 30% less than Monza settings. No where in the FIA rules does it say you have to have rear upper wings but there is an area required for the rear wing endplates when viewed from the side hence the central rear fin. Radiator duct openings where tiny
It wasn't FIA legal as the rear fin was moveable for safety reasons, not sure if the car got the official FIA record because of this but it didn't realy matter if it didn't as the main aim was for publicity for BAT.
Simulations estimated top speed on LSR tyres to be way above 300mph. I think due to the SCTA landspeed rules it had to run in a Streamliner class as with the bodywork wider than the inside face of the wheels it wasn't eligible for the slightly slower Lakester class.
They had to work their nuts off to get the speed they did. Honda even allowed the engine to be run at higher rev's than normal, the engine survived, the diff didn't. The guys were ty-wrapping lumps of tungsten ballast on the rear crash structure to improve the rear grip as the salt flats have about the same grip as wet gravel.
The car was built with the front end of one years race car and the rear end of another and I think ran the last of the V10 engines before the V8 rule change.
If I remember correctly down force level was set at about 30% less than Monza settings. No where in the FIA rules does it say you have to have rear upper wings but there is an area required for the rear wing endplates when viewed from the side hence the central rear fin. Radiator duct openings where tiny
It wasn't FIA legal as the rear fin was moveable for safety reasons, not sure if the car got the official FIA record because of this but it didn't realy matter if it didn't as the main aim was for publicity for BAT.
Simulations estimated top speed on LSR tyres to be way above 300mph. I think due to the SCTA landspeed rules it had to run in a Streamliner class as with the bodywork wider than the inside face of the wheels it wasn't eligible for the slightly slower Lakester class.
Edited by marine boy on Friday 27th August 21:24
If it just me who finds that BAR top speed almost, well, slow? I know it ISN'T slow by any means, but looking at oval top speeds from the CART days (Gil de Ferran's 241.426mph lap record at California Speedway), it doesn't seem that much faster given all the extra work involved. Maybe it's just me.
hornet said:
If it just me who finds that BAR top speed almost, well, slow? I know it ISN'T slow by any means, but looking at oval top speeds from the CART days (Gil de Ferran's 241.426mph lap record at California Speedway), it doesn't seem that much faster given all the extra work involved. Maybe it's just me.
not just you...that whole episode had a very cobbled-together look about it, almost embarrassing for Honda at the time....
hornet said:
If it just me who finds that BAR top speed almost, well, slow? I know it ISN'T slow by any means, but looking at oval top speeds from the CART days (Gil de Ferran's 241.426mph lap record at California Speedway), it doesn't seem that much faster given all the extra work involved. Maybe it's just me.
Apples and oranges, isn't it?F1 cars are designed to go around corners, CART designed to go fast in (largely) a straight line - their ability on ovals is more to do with weird off-set suspension / tyre sizes etc, rather than aerodynamics.
ISTR CART cars have significantly more power, too.
It was also one of the last of the cars with a 3L V10 engine IIRC, so significantly more powerful than today's 2.4 V8s
At the time, the rules allowed upto three er... wings... on the rear wing and it also had a maximum width, but there was no minimum iirc. So they took the wings out and stuck the side pieces together
EDLT said:
TheArchitect said:
timbob said:
was quite modified though with a "shark fin" for a rear wing etc. i think there is a video on youtube somewhere with the video of the attempts.Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff