Which would be faster? (pub chat)

[Kong]

- A Range Rover shaped car that weighs as much as an F1 car.

or

- An F1 shaped car that weighs as much as a Range Rover.

Around Silverstone, each with the same power.



EDIT to help calculations

F1 car - weighing as much as a base spec RR, retaining all F1 handing chatacteristis and adjustable aero but hypotetically assuming it is built to carry it's 2 ton + weight without falling apart!

Range Rover - retains standard RR handling, CoG and aerodynamics.

Both cars with tyres and brakes optimised for the application. Power the same as a current F1 car but lets assume torque to match

Edited by Kong on Sunday 16th September 15:44

[cheddar]

You got a lock-in then.

[Kong]

Just got home but this was never settled

[mattshiz]

With the same power then it would be the F1 car with the weight. It would still have a tremendous amount of downforce which would help with the corners. The light range rover is still shaped like a brick.

[Moobs]

depends on how much power. But over all the infinate power(bhp) classes available the Lighter car will win more often.

Edited by Moobs on Saturday 15th September 01:23

[percymk4]

I'm going with the light Range Rover shaped one. Just because I think lightness beats streamlined(ness?) and time is made in the corners.

[intrepid44]

The F1 shaped car, weight has no bearing on speed (mostly).

[cheddar]

intrepid44 said:

The F1 shaped car, weight has no bearing on top speed (mostly).

EFA

It has an enormous effect on acceleration though and OP's query was 'quickest around Slilverstone'

[percymk4]

cheddar said:

intrepid44 said:

The F1 shaped car, weight has no bearing on top speed (mostly).

EFA

It has an enormous effect on acceleration though and OP's query was 'quickest around Slilverstone'

Maybe on the long straights you'll get an advantage but you'd have to brake much much earlier plus everything else that comes with a heavy car, I don't think the increased aerodynamics of the heavy car would offset that around Silverstone.

[mattshiz]

Copse, maggots/beckets would be a lot faster with the ridiculous amount of aero that the f1 car would produce. Although it does depend on what engine is in there for the aerodynamics to work fully.

[intrepid44]

Didn't see the Silverstone bit, ah well. Thought it was just in reference to top speed.

[sodslaw]

I think some people are thinking about the chassis too..

Personally I think the light weight one.. Although there will be a point where aerodynamics becomes more important

[DukeDickson]

F1 shaped, no contest IMHO. The acceleration of the feather brick might be handy up until somewhere near the second corner.

As I can't remember maths/physics in my relative dotage (cba stupidity), does enough happen to the CoG and the like to make things interesting?

[e8_pack]

My ax is shaped like a range rover but beats most things because it is so light, of course 318bhp helps, but power to weight is king.

[Liquid Knight]

Due to the conservation of momentum the F1 shaped heavy car should be quicker depending on the drivers ability. When you consider the down force generated an F1 car would weigh more than a Range Rover anyway.

[Mr Sparkle]

DukeDickson said:

F1 shaped, no contest IMHO. The acceleration of the feather brick might be handy up until somewhere near the second corner.

Problem is an F1 car that weighed 2.5 tones wouldn't be able to corner anything like a normal F1 car since the down force would have relativity less benefit given the massive additional lateral force it has to resist in corners.

ie. at say 150mph an F1 car produced 1500kg of down-force that is only trying to restrain a 700kg car so the down-force is double the weight of the car. However if the car weight was 2500kg then the down-force would be just more than half the cars weight so would not be as effective during cornering or braking.

Also consider tyres, a super heavy F1 car would have to use a much harder and less grippy compound to stop the tyres overheating / being ruined after one lap, and you would need massive brakes that wouldn't fit under in the wheels as well as much harder suspension and anti-roll bars.

That being said I really don't know what would be faster.

[FisiP1]

The light one.

Range Rover weighs say 2600kg ish.

F1 car 630kg ish.

Assuming same tyres.

Assume F1 levels of power(700bhp)

You'd end up with the power to weight ratio of a quick Lotus Exige for the F1-shaped car, and a power/weight 15% better than a Caparo T1 for the Range Rover shaped car.

The aero benefit(1600kg or so of downforce) of the F1 shape in the corners would be cancelled out by the lateral momentum of the weight I feel, yet the drag from the Range Rover shape wouldn't really bother a car with so much power around a racetrack. Likewise CoG of the Range Rover shape wouldn't be too much of a problem because the overall weight is so low.

I'd say the Range Rover shaped car would win by a fair bit.

[vrsmxtb]

e8_pack said:

My ax is shaped like a range rover but beats most things because it is so light, of course 318bhp helps, but power to weight is king.

A Citroen AX?? With 318bhp- and you're still alive?

Got a member's cars thread? Sounds mental!

[Contigo]

Just look at the Bowler wildcat. Surely this shows that a 4x4 sized/shaped Vehicle with power can really get from A to B very quickly. The point to look at is if we assume stock suspension, brakes etc then that has a big bearing on the outcome.

[balls-out]

I suspect drag might be similar. Cd of the f1 about 3 times the range rover, but frontal area on the range rover 3 time bigger, so drag comparable.
So f1 will have lower centre of gravity and more downforce.

So f1 wins?