how quick 0-60 ect for a f1 car?

[tangoed sparky]

Its probely been asked but is there any figures for an f1 cars performance. I know that it depends on the circuit and a lot of other things but to solve an argument what is the quickest a f1 car can get to 60mph? sorry to waste thead space but I need to know. Thanks

[Adam43]

Well it does depend on set-up. I suppose the main thing is gear ratios and to a lesser effect aero (the aero drag isn't that much <60mph). Don't know what the figure is, but it'll be be just over 1s I guess.

I'm sure we'll find out soon around here...

[pirenzo]

i remember something about 5 seconds 0-100 and back to 0 again...

[ATF]

Puts my Fiesta to shame!

[Russfeld]

40-100 or 60-120 would be better, once the car is up to speed and has some 'bite'. They're not going to get much power down from a stop.

[neilap]

Originally posted by pirenzo
i remember something about 5 seconds 0-100 and back to 0 again...

I saw a demo with a Ferrari road car and and F1 car doing 0-100-0 tests. By the time the road car had gotten to 100 the F1 car had already stopped. The road car did 100 in something like 10 seconds! The F1 car did 0-100-0 in about 7 seconds. This is without traction control. Last year I am sure the Renaults would have taken a chunk of time off that.

[GTV27]

1987 Williams FW11B did it in 1.5 seconds (on a cold track with John Watson driving, but it did have 1000bhp)

Current cars with less power, narrower tyres but better compound, better gear changes and better mech grip would prob better than by a few tenths, say 1.2 to 1.3 seconds.

[pplater]

Better mech grip?
with 40cm wide slicks, 80s Turbo F1 cars were dragsters. I don't think a modern F1 would be much quicker, now that they've lost launch control.

[GTV27]

I'd better explain why I said "better mech grip"

My guess is that improved damper technology and active differentials would yield better traction (ignoring the impact from tyres).

However, regarding the tyres, I'd not be surprised if today's narrow grooved tyres had more grip than the wide slicks used in the mid eighties.

However, I'll make one concession, the gearchange improvement is irrelevant 'cause I think they'd still be in first gear at 60mph.

I'm not putting down the 80's turbo cars (they were great) but time and technology marches on and the current one's would leave 'em standing.

[Adam43]

Originally posted by neilap
The road car did 100 in something like 10 seconds! The F1 car did 0-100-0 in about 7 seconds.

I think the Autocar 0-100-0 mph record is held by a Caterham (with a decent engine) and is about 11s? (?)

[Mattracer]

The handicap races at the Australian GP an on various videos of McLaren paint a much better picture of the performance when compared with a road car, a fast road car or non-F1 race car and an F1 car.

[garcon]

Yeah, I think that's about right for the Autocar record.

A couple of years back one of the mags did a similar test, and got figures from a Jaguar F1 car. Can't remember the figures, but suffice to say it was quite a bit quicker!

[Rennen]

Originally posted by tangoed sparky
Its probely been asked but is there any figures for an f1 cars performance. I know that it depends on the circuit and a lot of other things but to solve an argument what is the quickest a f1 car can get to 60mph? sorry to waste thead space but I need to know. Thanks

Not as quick as people think!...it's only 2.6 seconds 0 to 60! in 2003 with launch control!

(The Renault is the only one that was faster with it's amazing electronics L/C).

[Adam43]

2.6, that is suprising. Although thinking about it maybe not too much.

I think a road McLaren F1 GTR is 2.9s (?)

[Rennen]

I can believe it...what capacity is an GTR? Drag racing fans at Santa Pod chuckle when they watch the F1s there

Standing starts isn't what F1s about when you think about it, it's all about aero, cornering and decelleration.

[Red]

0-60 is not that impressive.. it's the 60-0 part that's astonishing..

[Russfeld]

From the 2004 Mclaren media pack
0-60mph 2.3
0-100 3.6
0-100-0 6.6
185-0 3.5

[BertMk2]

I thought they'd be quicker than that, rallycross supercars get to 60 in under 2 seconds and they're set up for mixed surface driving!

[Adam43]

Originally posted by Russfeld
185-0 3.5

Mighty.

[Rennen]

"Horses for courses" Bert!

As Russfelds McLaren stats show standing starts are poor to 60...but then the really get it on after that...and that decelleration is the impressive figure!

[Red]

Someone with fresh physics knowledge (and bored enough) can translate that in meters/feet? Please? I mean 185mph-0 in 3.5 seconds.

[BertMk2]

Originally posted by Rennen
"Horses for courses" Bert!

As Russfelds McLaren stats show standing starts are poor to 60...but then the really get it on after that...and that decelleration is the impressive figure!

It's definitely the stopping bit that's impressive (also goes some way to showing why overtaking under braking is so difficult these days).

[Adam43]

Originally posted by Red
Someone with fresh physics knowledge (and bored enough) can translate that in meters/feet? Please? I mean 185mph-0 in 3.5 seconds.

How many m/ft that takes would depend on how the deceleration worked. It might take 3s for 185mph to 120mph, but then only 0.5s to 0mph. I exaggerate, but you see what I mean. It is easy to do if it is linear (you can use the intuitive constant acceleration equations from basic mechanics). I'm a bit busy and not bored enough at the moment!

As for horses for courses all of F1 is like that. That is why there top speed is relatively poor. Those huge wings! :rotate

[Red]

Consider a linear decceleration (and yes, I'm still too lazy to do it myself )

[Russfeld]

Yeah, the 185-90 is probably a hell of a lot quicker than the 90-0 because you've got so much more aero assistance.

An F1 car seems to exist between 60 and 160, over-under that and its in an area its not optimised for (too much drag at 170, not enough grip at 45)