Bad bad comparison

[Ray]

Well done:

"And PNSD is right. NASCAR took a car out to the Salt Flats and went 244 MPH. Yes in a straight line, but for a series that get almost no respect even here in the States by most people, it's pretty badass to me."

And that with the aerodynamics of a slightly rounded brick. (Full disclosure: I can not watch NASCAR)

Anyone recall what the slightly modified Honda F1 did in a straight line in that special run a year or two ago?

http://www.autoblog.com/2006/07/21/hond ... onneville/

They did it without a rear wing. Technically not illegal according to the rules, I don't believe it is required but ill advised. And hence not really, to me anyway, in the same vein as to what they did with that Dodge. The Dodge they used for the NASCAR record was completely legal for racing in the series without removing anything and was only 2 MPH slower. Yet still no respect for that accomplishment.

[Saribro]

Anyone recall what the slightly modified Honda F1 did in a straight line in that special run a year or two ago?

~255-260 mph during a test on an runway.

[Carlos]

The Honda did 246.983MPH/397.481KPH at Bonneville on a flying mile run averaged over 2 passes:
http://www.autoblog.com/2006/07/21/hond ... onneville/

[donskar]

A comment on this, posted by Belatti:

"- Tom: Torque to wheels can be the same (F1 engines may have less torque but higher RPM, when reduced through the gearbox you get torque)"

Not exactly. As a general statement, high rpm produces HP, and is a fucntion of bore as opposed to torque, which is a function of stroke. (repeat: GENERAL STATEMENT: there are a number of other factors at play as well)

Think of the converse: gearing can NOT produce performance independent of the HP and torque being passed into that gearing. For example, you can't achieve incredibly high speeds simply by changing the gearing to some penny/farthing bicycle extreme. (I can't exchange my 200SX's 4.4:1 final drive for a 1:4.4 and get incredible speed - the engine can't turn those gears effectively.

Sorry that's not elegant, but it's been a long time since I flunked out of Mechanical Engineering! I hope someone else can re-state it more clearly.

[Belatti]

Power = Torque * RPM
KW = N.m * 1/s

If an F1 engine has the same power with less torque but higher RPM, its just a matter of gearing and torque and power badwidth.

Donksar: you can´t reach 300 Mph with your bicycle because your legs
can´t provide enough power.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IMPORTANT:
PLEASE AMERICAN FRIENDS STOP THE PARANOIA! I DID NOT SAY THAT CHAMP CARS ARE CRAP, I DID NOT SAY THEY ARE "overweight, underpowered, slow pieces of junk unable to remotely come close to F1 in performace" I JUST MEANT TO SAY THAT 2.2 secs SEEMS A BIT TOO MUCH FOR ME. IN MY HUMBLE OPINION ITS A BIG EXAGERATION. Why such a comparison if not?

Its a fact that Champ cars are 6-8 secs slower than F1 (only proved in montreal circuit) but also its a fact that champ cars evolution is from year to year (not week to week like F1s -there you have got the $300 million budget difference-) and that rules are more restrictive in F1 than in Champ cars.

I would like to see some constructor competition in Champs to see if performance increases (like those years where Penske - Lola - Reynard and Toyota - Ford - Honda - Mercedes where in the fight).

[NumberTwo]

Power = Torque * RPM

Power=Torque*RPM/5252

[ackzsel]

Power = Torque * RPM

Power=Torque*RPM/5252

Depends on what units you are working with. The relation stays the same.

[Jersey Tom]

And why do you think 2.2 seconds isn't possible, Belatti? You still haven't explained this.

Doesn't matter how outrageous the engines are if they're already traction limited. The 0-60 time then becomes a function of the driver and the tires.

You're right, Power, Torque, and RPM's are all related. But youre still only looking at PEAK power. PEAK is not as important as the total area under the curve. I would gladly give up 50 horsepower peak to gain more overall area under the torque curve.

[Belatti]

FIRST

its just a matter of gearing and torque and power badwidth.

SECOND

You're right, Power, Torque, and RPM's are all related. But youre still only looking at PEAK power. PEAK is not as important as the total area under the curve. I would gladly give up 50 horsepower peak to gain more overall area under the torque curve.

THEN, MY FRIEND, YOU LACK READING COMPREHENSION!

Torque bandwidth is totally related with what you call "torque curve" wich is right.

[Belatti]

And why do you think 2.2 seconds isn't possible, Belatti? You still haven't explained this.

Doesn't matter how outrageous the engines are if they're already traction limited. The 0-60 time then becomes a function of the driver and the tires.
....

Lets put enphasis here: The 0-60 time then becomes a function of the driver and the tires.

I doubt the same tyres manufacturer (even when tyres are totally different) would have technology to achieve that performance and use it only in CART and not in F1.

I doubt CART drivers are better than F1 drivers, some (like Bourdais) can be as good as the best F1 drivers but not better and even if they are they couldn´t make a car accelerate that faster.

I don´t have to explain anything, its explains for itself, its ridiculous.

And its my last post about this topic

[Ray]

You my friend, are horribly biased. You have no proof of what you say to be true, just speculation. It is entirely possible that a ChampCar is faster 0-60 than an F1 car, we don't know for sure. You can calculate all you want, but until you actually see it for yourself, you won't know. So please, get over your bias that F1 cars are the fastest open wheel car at everything, and open your mind. It's pretty childish the way you are acting about this.

[DaveKillens]

Ray, if the mind is closed to ideas that threaten his happy world, it's still a closed mind.

[dumrick]

The 0-60mph exercise is only laterally related with circuit performance. I can very well consider a F1 gaining 1s/lap within a season without gaining, or even losing any time in pure acceleration. This discussion is a bit nonsensical...

[nae]

f1 cars only do 0-60 at the start the rest of the time the lowest start speed it the pit lane limit or say a 40 mph hairpin they are probably stunning at 60- 150 times or some such. untill both car race round the same circuit you never can tell. canada maybe?

and when designing a car you design it to beat your opposition not another forumla's car. that is you only have to be faster than the fastest competitor regardless of how theoretically fast you package may or may not go

[Belatti]

http://www.autoracing1.com/MarkC/2001/0 ... ormula.htm

jeje, read issue number 3

Champ cars are slow in tight tracks...
Mexico City track:
2007 champ cars: 1m24s
1992 F1 cars: 1m16s

Dave, Ray, believe me, I´m not biased, a heavier car with no better tires wont accelerate faster.
Why did someone in Wikipedia write that acceleration is 3.1 and not 2.2 like CART webpage?