What would the 0-60 etc be of an F1 car?
Discussion
BMW A6 said:
kiseca said:
I also recall McLaren, or at least some or other magazine, claiming that the McLaren F1 road car accelerates faster than a formula 1 car above 150mph, due to the enormous drag an F1 car has to overcome as well as the McLaren F1's (this is getting confusing) ridiculous pace.
Rubbish. At all speeds below 200 mph a McLaren F1 gets destroyed by an F1 car. The McLaren is geared for 230-240 mph top speeds, so it could pass an F1 car there, but it'll never reach even 200 mph on most tracks. The F1 car however gets up to 200 mph quite easily.Edited by kiseca on Friday 15th November 16:34
It takes the McLaren F1 12.8 s to reach 150mph. It takes a further 15.2 seconds to hit 200mph, which for arguments sake is approx the top speed most F1 cars will see on most circuits. An F1 car is closer to 9 seconds 0-200mph, under ideal conditions. However, back when the McLaren F1 launched... I think they were closer to around 8 seconds to 200mph (courtesy of 1250+ bhp).
I think the claimed stat, which I have heard repeated before, was simply an unjustified bragging right for McLaren F1 owners - back when the internet was in it's infancy it was possible for such BS stats to circulate and become accepted. The numbers above however tell a very different story
CanAm said:
LimaDelta said:
Though two of the biggest aerodynamic benefits of that design go completely against not only the rules but the spirit of F1/Gran Prix racing, i.e. open wheeled and open cockpit.
Grand Prix and F1 cars were allowed to be open wheeled but it hasn't always been compulsory. Pre-war Mercedes and Auto Union and 1950s Mercedes and Vanwall streamliners for example.RichB said:
Pre-war was not F1 racing, different rules.
Interesting point though.. as of the start of F1 official, did they have to have fully open wheels, or were simply allowed to go that route and chose to do so?There are a multitude of reasons open wheels would have been the obvious choice back then - they probably would have considered the idea of a wheel enclosed in an aero shell entirely useless, and just going make maintenance and brake cooling tougher.
TheDeuce said:
Interesting point though.. as of the start of F1 official, did they have to have fully open wheels, or were simply allowed to go that route and chose to do so?
There are a multitude of reasons open wheels would have been the obvious choice back then - they probably would have considered the idea of a wheel enclosed in an aero shell entirely useless, and just going make maintenance and brake cooling tougher.
There was no rule either way.There are a multitude of reasons open wheels would have been the obvious choice back then - they probably would have considered the idea of a wheel enclosed in an aero shell entirely useless, and just going make maintenance and brake cooling tougher.
This is the start of the 1954 French GP:
RichB said:
Pre-war was not F1 racing, different rules.
That was why I specifically said Grand Prix and F1 (as did LimaDelta in the post I was replying to). Both sets of rules allowed open wheels but didn't insist on it. F1 rules only required open wheels some time after the late 1950s.1957 Vanwall
Edited by CanAm on Saturday 16th November 11:53
TheDeuce said:
BMW A6 said:
kiseca said:
I also recall McLaren, or at least some or other magazine, claiming that the McLaren F1 road car accelerates faster than a formula 1 car above 150mph, due to the enormous drag an F1 car has to overcome as well as the McLaren F1's (this is getting confusing) ridiculous pace.
Rubbish. At all speeds below 200 mph a McLaren F1 gets destroyed by an F1 car. The McLaren is geared for 230-240 mph top speeds, so it could pass an F1 car there, but it'll never reach even 200 mph on most tracks. The F1 car however gets up to 200 mph quite easily.Edited by kiseca on Friday 15th November 16:34
It takes the McLaren F1 12.8 s to reach 150mph. It takes a further 15.2 seconds to hit 200mph, which for arguments sake is approx the top speed most F1 cars will see on most circuits. An F1 car is closer to 9 seconds 0-200mph, under ideal conditions. However, back when the McLaren F1 launched... I think they were closer to around 8 seconds to 200mph (courtesy of 1250+ bhp).
I think the claimed stat, which I have heard repeated before, was simply an unjustified bragging right for McLaren F1 owners - back when the internet was in it's infancy it was possible for such BS stats to circulate and become accepted. The numbers above however tell a very different story
Like I said, the McLaren claim was a claim, I've never seen anyone publish numbers to back it up, but they weren't internet claims, I read those in magazine articles about the car.
Where did the 9 seconds come from. I see Top Gear ran Schumacher's Merc W03 and that took about 15 seconds to get to 185ish.. it wasn't on grippy tyres but still managed 60 in under 3 so.. sorry guys I am still not convinced either way.
Edit: Here is the Top Gear link.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.topgear.com/car-n...
Edited by kiseca on Saturday 16th November 13:33
F1 cars are just purely traction limited to 60, there's the video of Ken Block in his rallycross car going head to head with Hamilton in his Mercedes and the rallycross car utterly mullers it off the line, as soon as traction isn't an issue the Mercedes looks like it's on a different planet in terms of speed.
kiseca said:
On a circuit, absolutely the Formula 1 car will hit a higher top speed, but it will also have a massive head start coming out of the previous corner compared to a McLaren F1 which has road tyres and hardly any downforce.
Like I said, the McLaren claim was a claim, I've never seen anyone publish numbers to back it up, but they weren't internet claims, I read those in magazine articles about the car.
Where did the 9 seconds come from. I see Top Gear ran Schumacher's Merc W03 and that took about 15 seconds to get to 185ish.. it wasn't on grippy tyres but still managed 60 in under 3 so.. sorry guys I am still not convinced either way.
Edit: Here is the Top Gear link.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.topgear.com/car-n...
I gave you the link for the McLaren F1 timings. You can see that is takes 15 seconds to get from 150 to 200mph. Even in your own TG link you have proven that clearly the F1 car will get there far, far quicker. An F1 car will very easily reach 200+mph starting at zero within the same 15 seconds. What bit are you not convinced about!?Like I said, the McLaren claim was a claim, I've never seen anyone publish numbers to back it up, but they weren't internet claims, I read those in magazine articles about the car.
Where did the 9 seconds come from. I see Top Gear ran Schumacher's Merc W03 and that took about 15 seconds to get to 185ish.. it wasn't on grippy tyres but still managed 60 in under 3 so.. sorry guys I am still not convinced either way.
Edit: Here is the Top Gear link.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.topgear.com/car-n...
Edited by kiseca on Saturday 16th November 13:33
If you're really struggling just watch any GP with a long run to corner one off the start.
DanielSan said:
F1 cars are just purely traction limited to 60, there's the video of Ken Block in his rallycross car going head to head with Hamilton in his Mercedes and the rallycross car utterly mullers it off the line, as soon as traction isn't an issue the Mercedes looks like it's on a different planet in terms of speed.
Indeed - as a benchmark they've just put a little nugget on the graphics.Leclerc's start today, he did 0-200kph (124mph) in 4.4 seconds. As noted they're pretty limited for grip at low speeds, so think of it as 0-60 in 2s and 60-125 in 2.4s.
TheDeuce said:
I gave you the link for the McLaren F1 timings. You can see that is takes 15 seconds to get from 150 to 200mph. Even in your own TG link you have proven that clearly the F1 car will get there far, far quicker. An F1 car will very easily reach 200+mph starting at zero within the same 15 seconds. What bit are you not convinced about!?
If you're really struggling just watch any GP with a long run to corner one off the start.
I'll put it this way.If you're really struggling just watch any GP with a long run to corner one off the start.
Unless I missed it, they measured the F1 car up to 180mph. While it gives standing start performance to that speed, it doesn't break the performance numbers down to show what the performance above 150mph actually is. Obviously it is still excellent, but then they suggest that to 180mph La Ferrari would not be far behind, and the Hennessey would beat it. To me that definitely suggests that, particularly when considering that drag increases exponentially with speed, La Ferrari could well be falling behind at the start and catching up at high speeds, i,e, it could well be accelerating faster above 150 but still lose the overall drag race.
Substitute an older, slower F1 and an older, maybe slower-but-not-so-sure F1 car from the early 1990s - so not one of those 1200bhp in qualifying turbo beasts for sure - then yes, it still seems plausible that if both are side by side at 150mph and put their feet down, the big Mac could be on the pace.
Then, consider that the W03 in the Top Gear article was on sub-optimal tyres, and losing 80bhp because it wasn't using KERS - though it did have DRS open, an option a 1994 formula 1 car wouldn't have and particularly relevant at higher speeds.
So yeah, if the top hypercars from recent years can get within spitting distance when the speeds are high enough, I find it conceivable that the same was true in 1994 / 5 / whenever.
If we could find acceleration figures for an F1 car from 150 upwards then it's an easy answer. On the other hand, maybe those weren't even available when the original claim was made and it was always hypothetical...
So I don't know. If I find anything either way I'll share it. Unfortunately, while Top Gear may have it, they didn't publish it on that site. It took 21.23 seconds to cover 1500m from a standing start, but doesn't mention the terminal speed. It also says it takes it 14.9 seconds to reach 186mph. Will it take an extra 10 odd seconds to add another 14mph to that? Doubtful, but what if it had no DRS?
They also say F1 cars are getting slower and slower... so who knows....
EDIT: And Wikipedia thinks a 2016 Mercedes can get to 186mph in under 9 seconds, which takes us back to the kinds of numbers posted earlier and I'd agree would give the Mac no chance.
Edited by kiseca on Monday 18th November 17:33
Edited by kiseca on Monday 18th November 17:35
kiseca said:
TheDeuce said:
I gave you the link for the McLaren F1 timings. You can see that is takes 15 seconds to get from 150 to 200mph. Even in your own TG link you have proven that clearly the F1 car will get there far, far quicker. An F1 car will very easily reach 200+mph starting at zero within the same 15 seconds. What bit are you not convinced about!?
If you're really struggling just watch any GP with a long run to corner one off the start.
I'll put it this way.If you're really struggling just watch any GP with a long run to corner one off the start.
Unless I missed it, they measured the F1 car up to 180mph. While it gives standing start performance to that speed, it doesn't break the performance numbers down to show what the performance above 150mph actually is. Obviously it is still excellent, but then they suggest that to 180mph La Ferrari would not be far behind, and the Hennesto me that definitely suggests that, particularly when considering that drag increases exponentially with speed, La Ferrari could well be falling behind at the start and catching up at high speeds, i,e, it could well be accelerating faster above 150 but still lose the overall drag race.
Substitute an older, slower F1 and an older, maybe slower-but-not-so-sure F1 car from the early 1990s - so not one of those 1200bhp in qualifying turbo beasts for sure - then yes, it still seems plausible that if both are side by side at 150mph and put their feet down, the big Mac could be on the pace.
Then, consider that the W03 in the Top Gear article was on sub-optimal tyres, and losing 80bhp because it wasn't using KERS - though it did have DRS open, an option a 1994 formula 1 car wouldn't have.
So yeah, if the top hypercars from recent years can get within spitting distance when the speeds are high enough, I find it conceivable that the same was true in 1994 / 5 / whenever.
If we could find acceleration figures for an F1 car from 150 upwards then it's an easy answer. On the other hand, maybe those weren't even available when the original claim was made and it was always hypothetical...
So I don't know. If I find anything either way I'll share it. Unfortunately, while Top Gear may have it, they didn't publish it on that site. It took 21.23 seconds to cover 1500m from a standing start, but doesn't mention the terminal speed. It also says it takes it 14.9 seconds to reach 186mph. Will it take an extra 10 odd seconds to add another 14mph to that? Doubtful, but what if it had no DRS?
They also say F1 cars are getting slower and slower... so who knows....
The LaFerrari takes 15.7 seconds from rest to hit 186mph, I can't find a stat for 0-200, but it's clearly already well over the time it's taken the F1 car.
The LaFerrari does achieve 150mph to 186mph in an impressive 5.6 seconds. But that's STILL over half the time it takes the F1 car to start at zero and go all the way to 200mph...
There is no road car that will match the F1 car until the F1 car runs out of revs in top gear, depending on the car around 230mph tops these days. Beyond that, the McLaren F1 would eventually catch up and overtake, although you'd need a very long stretch of road and a lot of patience - it's only capable of around 240mph so it's already running out of puff at that point. The LaFerrari would of course do better.
An F1 car is literally an engine with a token 'car' bolted on to it. there is nothing peripheral in it's design. Hence, no road car will beat it, not in any trial other than extreme and impractical top speed runs, above 230mph.
Thankyou4calling said:
And 0-100mph
Standing quarter
How would they compare to an Aventador or Veyron for instance.
And say on a track.
If Lewis Hamilton lapped in his Mercedes in day 1min 10 what would a comparable time be in a Golf R?
I know it’s random but I was just wondering.
I believe even a 2.0 litre Formula Renault is quicker to 100 than a Veyron!Standing quarter
How would they compare to an Aventador or Veyron for instance.
And say on a track.
If Lewis Hamilton lapped in his Mercedes in day 1min 10 what would a comparable time be in a Golf R?
I know it’s random but I was just wondering.
37chevy said:
Fun fact though if you think that’s quick.
In a race between an F1 and Top Fuel dragster, the F1 car can start the 1/4 mile flying at 220mph but the top fuel car will still beat it to the finish line from a standing start.... now that’s acceleration.
Corners, well yeh not so good
A staggering statistic I read about a top fuel car, not sure it if is true, but sounds plausible, by the time the rear wheels of a top fuel car pass where the front wheels were, it is already doing 100mph.In a race between an F1 and Top Fuel dragster, the F1 car can start the 1/4 mile flying at 220mph but the top fuel car will still beat it to the finish line from a standing start.... now that’s acceleration.
Corners, well yeh not so good
0-100mph in your own car length!
Megaflow said:
A staggering statistic I read about a top fuel car, not sure it if is true, but sounds plausible, by the time the rear wheels of a top fuel car pass where the front wheels were, it is already doing 100mph.
0-100mph in your own car length!
Not true.0-100mph in your own car length!
To achieve that with linear acceleration would require 0-100 in about 0.3 seconds at 14 G.
Google suggests the fastest dragsters can do 0-100 in 0.8 seconds at 6 G in the first 60 feet. Still quite impressive.
thegreenhell said:
Megaflow said:
A staggering statistic I read about a top fuel car, not sure it if is true, but sounds plausible, by the time the rear wheels of a top fuel car pass where the front wheels were, it is already doing 100mph.
0-100mph in your own car length!
Not true.0-100mph in your own car length!
To achieve that with linear acceleration would require 0-100 in about 0.3 seconds at 14 G.
Google suggests the fastest dragsters can do 0-100 in 0.8 seconds at 6 G in the first 60 feet. Still quite impressive.
It's not so much gut shaking as heart stopping.
They are ridiculous machines though. One tiny run and they're useless! Makes an F1 car look almost practical!
Krikkit said:
DanielSan said:
F1 cars are just purely traction limited to 60, there's the video of Ken Block in his rallycross car going head to head with Hamilton in his Mercedes and the rallycross car utterly mullers it off the line, as soon as traction isn't an issue the Mercedes looks like it's on a different planet in terms of speed.
Indeed - as a benchmark they've just put a little nugget on the graphics.Leclerc's start today, he did 0-200kph (124mph) in 4.4 seconds. As noted they're pretty limited for grip at low speeds, so think of it as 0-60 in 2s and 60-125 in 2.4s.
This video highlights well just how fast an F1 car is from 0-200mph: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkrudXgt3O8
60mph-200mph in about 6 seconds, and he still hit 212mph before the end of the straight despite spinning and no DRS.
Power-to-weight ratio of those 2004 F1 cars was insane. Still the fastest F1 car in history. Absolute monsters
Edited by A44RON on Tuesday 19th November 21:40
A44RON said:
This video highlights well just how fast an F1 car is from 0-200mph: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkrudXgt3O8
God that sound!! I love revs and those things were monsters. You watch that and then look at a McLaren F1 (as per the OP's question) and you just know, that even though the McLaren was a quantum leap, the F1 car is just on a different level.Seriously, each time I listen to those machines touch 19,000 rpm I'm filled with an urge to buy another high revving road car. Currently in my scopes is a V8 M3 (8400rpm). Before now I had a spoon S2000 (10,400rpm), before that a CRX MK2 VTEC (8,400rpm - and my first car!!). There is a theme developing!! Mind you, as my daily driver I've also had a shameful selection of oil burners - currently a chipped 430d Gran Coupe - fun, but not exactly a trouser stiffener..
I'd love the scream to return to F1. I don't need more cylinders or displacement, but the scream needs to return. It's possible, the engines are currently rev limited by regulation and to save fuel. There must be a way though to combine energy deployment and temporarily higher rev limit for over taking. I wish they would do something to bring back even an occasional scream down the straights.
TheDeuce said:
God that sound!! I love revs and those things were monsters. You watch that and then look at a McLaren F1 (as per the OP's question) and you just know, that even though the McLaren was a quantum leap, the F1 car is just on a different level.
Seriously, each time I listen to those machines touch 19,000 rpm I'm filled with an urge to buy another high revving road car. Currently in my scopes is a V8 M3 (8400rpm). Before now I had a spoon S2000 (10,400rpm), before that a CRX MK2 VTEC (8,400rpm - and my first car!!). There is a theme developing!! Mind you, as my daily driver I've also had a shameful selection of oil burners - currently a chipped 430d Gran Coupe - fun, but not exactly a trouser stiffener..
I'd love the scream to return to F1. I don't need more cylinders or displacement, but the scream needs to return. It's possible, the engines are currently rev limited by regulation and to save fuel. There must be a way though to combine energy deployment and temporarily higher rev limit for over taking. I wish they would do something to bring back even an occasional scream down the straights.
I'm with you on that Seriously, each time I listen to those machines touch 19,000 rpm I'm filled with an urge to buy another high revving road car. Currently in my scopes is a V8 M3 (8400rpm). Before now I had a spoon S2000 (10,400rpm), before that a CRX MK2 VTEC (8,400rpm - and my first car!!). There is a theme developing!! Mind you, as my daily driver I've also had a shameful selection of oil burners - currently a chipped 430d Gran Coupe - fun, but not exactly a trouser stiffener..
I'd love the scream to return to F1. I don't need more cylinders or displacement, but the scream needs to return. It's possible, the engines are currently rev limited by regulation and to save fuel. There must be a way though to combine energy deployment and temporarily higher rev limit for over taking. I wish they would do something to bring back even an occasional scream down the straights.
if i have enough funds one day I will purchase an E60 M5/M6 V10 and fit a DCT gearbox. Hubba.Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff