LeMans cars vs. F1

[anonymous-user]

Which would be faster round the same track?

Are they so similar that the type of track would matter? My thinking is in most cases lm would be faster due to masses more downforce and fewer regulations to slow it down...

only asking cos we just had a wonder round canary wharf and saw an audi lm and a bmw f1.... mmmm and new amv8 is gorgeous

[tuscan_thunder]

wouldn't matter where, F1 car would pull down a Le Mans car's pants.

wet or dry monaco or spa or le mans, the F1 car would be WAY ahead

::edited:: Le mans car has much less downforce, less power, less good brakes, is heavier, has to have some kind of nod to economy

>> Edited by tuscan_thunder on Friday 17th June 13:34

[Vee-X]

so assuming that reliability is not a concern, but allowing for tyre changes, refueling etc,

which would be faster around a circuit for the 24 hours?

hmm i suppose first weak point on the F1 would be the brakes and as each is bulked up so the next link snaps, until hmm you have a le mans car without a roof, is that what that the prototype class is?

[alexkp]

Yes, Tuscan Thunder is right.

There is nothing faster on a track than an F1 car.

But you'd never keep one running for 24hrs.

[dinkel]

Le Mans cars are made to last a good days hard work . . . and they would eat the F1s pants after a few hours . . . when the puff is out and the F1s lump is all over . . .

[tuscan_thunder]

ah but screw the revs down to 15,000 max and the F1 engine reliability goes way up.

a friend has a hilclimb car with late 90s Arrows F1 engine (carbon gearbox) and it SHOULD go two years without rebuild. that's running full chat including all testing.

I think F1 car engines are stronger than many think especially if the max revs are turned down a bit - it'd still have more power than Le Mans car and have much more downforce etc.

round Le Mans, the F1 car could probably build up so much of a lead that it could pit, change tyres and brakes and still easily rejoin in the lead.

[groomi]

I'm pretty sure in the late 1980s, the Group C cars were quicker than F1s. For a start, they were topping out at over 250mph (more than F1) and running tyres just as big, with similar if not more downforce.

[FourWheelDrift]

groomi said:

I'm pretty sure in the late 1980s, the Group C cars were quicker than F1s. For a start, they were topping out at over 250mph (more than F1) and running tyres just as big, with similar if not more downforce.

Compare 1989 Mexico City (track both F1's and Group C cars raced on)

GpC Pole Position - Sauber C9, Mauro Baldi - 1m22.571s
F1 Pole Position - McLaren-Honda, Ayrton Senna - 1m17.876s

Group C cars weren't and never have been quicker than their contemporary Formula One rivals. In 1988, at a fast track like Monza the GpC cars were 7secs slower in qualifying.

[Pulsatingstar]

Thats pretty close though, would certainly stick it into an F1 grid. I think a coupleof years later the gap was even closer too, but then Group C was dying out as well.

[scuffham]

groomi said:

I'm pretty sure in the late 1980s, the Group C cars were quicker than F1s. For a start, they were topping out at over 250mph (more than F1) and running tyres just as big, with similar if not more downforce.

F1 car in a low-downforce config would easily exceed 250Mph, you have to remeber that the cct's are all much shorter these days, so top speeds are capped.

last of the group C cars were ~1,000-1,200Bhp and >900Kg's, massively fast in straight lines but the F1 car would murder it on acceleration, brakes, and corners

[anonymous-user]

tuscan_thunder said:

I think F1 car engines are stronger than many think especially if the max revs are turned down a bit - it'd still have more power than Le Mans car and have much more downforce etc.

thanks chaps...

tt why do you say f1 has more downforce than a lm car. i dont know but i'd be amazed if thats true. the lm car rear wing has about 4x the surface area of f1 wing and underbody venturis are massive, also with such a bigger frontal area the front downforce on the splitter must be huge too...

[racefan_uk]

tuscan_thunder said:

ah but screw the revs down to 15,000 max and the F1 engine reliability goes way up. a friend has a hilclimb car with late 90s Arrows F1 engine (carbon gearbox) and it SHOULD go two years without rebuild. that's running full chat including all testing.

Yes, but if he adds up all of the runs he does, race and testing, see if that adds up to anywhere near 24 hours...

I don't think it would. Hillclimbs aren't known for their endurance. I shouldn't think that engine is doing much over 5 hours runng a year, if that.

I'd be incredibly surprised to see an F1 engine ever get near 24 hours running time.

As for down force. An F1 car generates it at the front and the rear, as well as across the body area of the car. A Le Mans LMP doesn't produce as much and weighs a good deal more than an F1 chassis.

As has been said before, you can ride an F1 car upside with the amount of downforce it creates. I wouldn't want to try that in an LMP...

[dieseljohn]

Ok, so so far we've established that to start with the F1 would pull down the LM's pants, then after a while the LM would eat the F1's pants. But what happens next when neither has any pants?

[groomi]

dieseljohn said:

Ok, so so far we've established that to start with the F1 would pull down the LM's pants, then after a while the LM would eat the F1's pants. But what happens next when neither has any pants?

They're both fd?

[wizzpig]

dieseljohn said:

Ok, so so far we've established that to start with the F1 would pull down the LM's pants, then after a while the LM would eat the F1's pants. But what happens next when neither has any pants?

Then, i'm guessing, it would come down to which driver has the most balls

[groomi]

scuffham said:

groomi said: I'm pretty sure in the late 1980s, the Group C cars were quicker than F1s. For a start, they were topping out at over 250mph (more than F1) and running tyres just as big, with similar if not more downforce. F1 car in a low-downforce config would easily exceed 250Mph, you have to remeber that the cct's are all much shorter these days, so top speeds are capped. last of the group C cars were ~1,000-1,200Bhp and >900Kg's, massively fast in straight lines but the F1 car would murder it on acceleration, brakes, and corners

Sticking with my late 80s comparison, F1 cars use open wheels and big wings causing masses of drag in contrast to an ultra-slippery long tailed 962. In that era there is no way that F1 cars could have got close to 250mph.

Granted, as proven above, F1 cars were faster around a lap, but not on the straights. Put that theory to the test around Le Mans including the 3 minute flat out stretch of the Mulsanne (as it was then) and the results would be much closer, if not reversed.

As I remember it, part of the reason for the death of Group C was because it was threatening F1 as the pinnacle of the sport. All the manufacturers wanted it, the speeds were similar (and closing), the costs were lower (relatively) and there was a direct link to road cars (engine block).

Group C was

>> Edited by groomi on Friday 17th June 16:57

[DJ111S]

If it's a 2 hr race the F1 car will win.
More than 2hrs and the LM car will win. F1 cars are designed to last 2 hours (allowing for this year's rule changes on engines which makes them last 4). If most of the parts last more than 2 hours it is likely to be over engineered and therefore unneccessarily heavy. F1 cars are designed on the very limit of what they need to do.

[groomi]

or




One of each please!

[groomi]

racefan_uk said:

As has been said before, you can ride an F1 car upside with the amount of downforce it creates. I wouldn't want to try that in an LMP...

Not in an LMP, but in a Group C

[scuffham]

DJ111S said:

If it's a 2 hr race the F1 car will win. More than 2hrs and the LM car will win. F1 cars are designed to last 2 hours (allowing for this year's rule changes on engines which makes them last 4). If most of the parts last more than 2 hours it is likely to be over engineered and therefore unneccessarily heavy. F1 cars are designed on the very limit of what they need to do.

true, but remeber F1 cars are all balasted to hell to make the min weight (600Kg's including the driver)

the bit about drag is correct to a point, but if you were going to run an F1 car on the old Le-Mans cct (with no chicanes) you would not run the same levels of wings that they did for short cct running, and in that trim, they would be capable of well over 250Mph.

Group C cars generated MASSIVE downforce in period, they had just figured out chassis tunnels etc, they could generate >4000Lbs of downforce at 200Mph, probably more than F1 of the same era, then again, they had more power to use...

if you go back to the last of the GT-1 cars (not the current ones) they banned tonnel floors and went flat bottomed, the effects of this was shown when the merc's fliped on the striaght....