I still state my thought. Which has higher speeds on their track. What is the fastest that a F1 car goes on any of its tracks. You pick the one. Then, what is the fastest speed a COT goes on any of its tracks. Again, you pick the one.
The fastest was in the V10s era at 372 km/h (232 mph) at Monza, these days it's ` 350 km/h (218.5 mph). There are rumors about 380+ km/h in the turbo qualifier specials (the 1500 hp WWII rocket fuel monsters).
The fastest Grand Prix formula cars of all time, by top speed, were the 1937 Auto Union and MB streamliners. They reached 240 mph on the AVUS. http://youtube.com/watch?v=o3pXXIIzvI8
>
^ NASCAR isn't more popular then F1, it's more popular then F1 in the USA. ALMS to my knowledge is more popular than NASCAR in here in Europe.
NASCAR is popular in the USA for the same reason F1 is popular outside of the USA, the popularity of the drivers.
As to the active ride cars, I remember Patrese got trounced badly by Mansell in 92 in the active Williams and then by Schumacher in the 93 active Benetton and was ocasionaly beaten by Schumacher and/or Senna in their 92 vastly inferior equipament; or Michael Andretti getting trounced by Senna in the 93 active McLaren.
So next time when you come up non-sense like "never could put a wheel wrong" just go to youtube and watch some of the stunts of Patrese and/or Andretti.
Figure of speech, I didn't mean that the drivers didn't put wheels wrong but rather at the speed possible with active control and still stay on the racetrack.....
Only a handful of drivers could truly drive those active cars.
Nigel once commented that he disliked driving the active Williams when they started using "drive by wire" steering and the computer took over and corrected the steering on an oversteer slide... . He said if they were going to continue along those lines of engineering in F1 where a computer takes over the steering, he would quit racing....
Only a handful of the cars were "true" active cars...,
How 'bout them mechanical "americans" like Zanardi, Da Matta, S. Speed, who achieved nothing.
Making it to F1, is an achievement in my book, considering the many who try and never get the chance. Pity you think so little of a driver who made it to F1.
BTW what got me hooked to F1 was the technology and speed of my favorite F1 "car" the Williams FW14B.
DEll, HP and Apple racing at over 300 mph over @ 10Gs is my ultimate F1 wet dream.
They have that now, it's called Grand Turismo 5, it all computer controlled... the day they replace the driver with a computer is the day I'll quit watching and working in racing.
Not to mention Bill Elliot in I think 1987 Lapped at Talladega at 212.9 and change. That was a 5 litre, carburated, push-rod engine in a 3500LB BRICK!
Bill
Interesting that Russ tried the LSR in a Ford Taurus in 2006 and only achieved 222 and does 244 in the Dodge, wonder what the Toyota would do uncorked.....
F1 cars are just about 1 third the weight of a cup car but there are also just about 1 third the engine size as well and though much smaller in frontal area are higher in aero drag than a cup car.....
Not to mention Bill Elliot in I think 1987 Lapped at Talladega at 212.9 and change. That was a 5 litre, carburated, push-rod engine in a 3500LB BRICK!
Bill
Interesting that Russ tried the LSR in a Ford Taurus in 2006 and only achieved 222 and does 244 in the Dodge, wonder what the Toyota would do uncorked.....
F1 cars are just about 1 third the weight of a cup car but there are also just about 1 third the engine size as well and though much smaller in frontal area are higher in aero drag than a cup car.....
You know, I wondered the same thing myself, the Toyota body as currently configured is the same, but TRD has the engines making more power. It may be he was trying to use a "STRICTLY AMERICAN" marque, even though Toyota probably builds more cars in the US than Dodge. I still think the more telling record is from Elliott 21 years ago turning a lap at that speed with that technology. It's difficult to imagine what those cars could achieve if EFI and computer controlled engine technology could be used. I would love to see what an F1 car unfettered by so much aero devices could achieve. Setting it up for a straight line run they would be able to lose most of the down-force and clean them up quite a bit.
Thanks Brian, 246MPH with a 2.4L v10 neat stuff. Imagine putting bodywork or fairings over the wheels and having a go at it, I bet they would pick up 20MPH. Thanks for the link.
Figure of speech, I didn't mean that the drivers didn't put wheels wrong but rather at the speed possible with active control and still stay on the racetrack.....
Nigel once commented that he disliked driving the active Williams when they started using "drive by wire" steering and the computer took over and corrected the steering on an oversteer slide... . He said if they were going to continue along those lines of engineering in F1 where a computer takes over the steering, he would quit racing....
Only a handful of the cars were "true" active cars...,
Thank goodness. Mansell was dinosaur who was on his last days and the worst grand prix whinner of all time. If car doesn't understeers or oversteers than the driver should drive it the neutral way.
In late 91 and 1992 there was only one active car. Then in 93 there were quite a lot.
Making it to F1, is an achievement in my book, considering the many who try and never get the chance. Pity you think so little of a driver who made it to F1.
Coming here to get into accidents/wrecks/spins is no merits, it's misplaced dumb luck and/or daddy connections. There could have been better drivers for those seats.
They have that now, it's called Grand Turismo 5, it all computer controlled... the day they replace the driver with a computer is the day I'll quit watching and working in racing.
No, GT5 is nowhere what I have in mind as it's all virtual and not innovative at all. GT5 doesn't push the boundries of real world innovation. It only showcases current cars, it's no a design tool, it's not real.
What I have in mind is something more like DARPA Challenge.
And eliminating "mechanical" dinosaurs/the 50s were so good types is I why I would watch even more racing (as long as they're not spec cars).
Thanks Brian, 246MPH with a 2.4L v10 neat stuff. Imagine putting bodywork or fairings over the wheels and having a go at it, I bet they would pick up 20MPH. Thanks for the link.
Bill
It's 3 liters.
And you guys know that open wheel open top racers carry a higher drag penalty ?!
It's has between 2 to 3 times more drag a normal production car.
Some of the drag of an F1 comes also comes from it's downforce profile, the other is FIA designed to slow them down.
Thanks Brian, 246MPH with a 2.4L v10 neat stuff. Imagine putting bodywork or fairings over the wheels and having a go at it, I bet they would pick up 20MPH. Thanks for the link.
Bill
It's 3 liters.
And you guys know that open wheel open top racers carry a higher drag penalty ?!
It's has between 2 to 3 times more drag a normal production car.
Some of the drag of an F1 comes also comes from it's downforce profile, the other is FIA designed to slow them down.
Yes, we do know. Clearly, the Honda F1 car in the photos has had some of it's downforce/drag producing bits removed. Obviously, said removals helped it to attain the speeds it did in the flying mile.
Please don't lecture so much. Have a care for other people - some of whom know a bit about these subjects. Not as much as you perhaps, but enough to enjoy this part of the board.
