Author Topic: Chrysler prototype goes 0-60 in 2.9 seconds (Read 1603 times)

Staga · « **Reply #45 on:** January 06, 2004, 05:06:02 PM »

Well I could buy a '75 BMW320 and by doing so have a same block which was used in F1 cars in eighties but I really can't see why the heck should I do it???

btw F1 car can stay on the track with +3G side forces but that's also the reason for its limited top speed; with just lifting the foot from accelerator the F1 decelerates faster than with brakes at slower speeds (2g IIRC).

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #46 on:** January 06, 2004, 05:09:22 PM »

Staga, get it through your head, it was a new engine that you could buy on new cars which the company would profit from, not on a 15 year old used car. That's why they were trying to hype it.

Your second sentence has about as much to do with this topic as "My cat's breath smells like cat food."

I wager you are mad at NanoD*** for reasons we can't discuss, or you are drunk, or both.

Staga · « **Reply #47 on:** January 06, 2004, 05:14:07 PM »

Who pee'd in your cheerios ?

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #48 on:** January 06, 2004, 05:25:42 PM »

Hahah I struck a nerve. Who filled your Cheerios with vodka?

I didn't know they had Cheerios in Finland.
AMREEKA IS TEH CONTROL J00!!! ALL YOUR CEREAL ARE BELONG TO US!!!

I'm just busting your balls dude, have a good evening errr morning.

I mean if you can't treat your friends like ****, who CAN you treat like ****?

Staga · « **Reply #49 on:** January 06, 2004, 05:31:48 PM »

Well we don't have cheerios in here but that quotation is well known around the world.

Anyway real men use beer with their cheerios; not vodka.

Oh well; gotta hit the sack but before that I gotta look This one again

.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #50 on:** January 06, 2004, 05:32:03 PM »

PS email me: creamo6969@hotmail.com

Naso · « **Reply #51 on:** January 07, 2004, 03:57:02 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MrCoffee
Also full bodied prototype cars can generate alot more downforce than formula cars.

If I understand correctly what you are saying... you are wrong.

The F1 cars have the higher downforce needed to corner in those curvy circuits.

The usual road cars, even the apex ones need to compromize the downforce with the CX, for many reasons.

I've read somewhere that a F1 car (and I guess an indy car too), can, with the normal settings used in a race, and at above 200Km/h, mantain the grip on a roof of a gallery.... inverted

Amaizing, an possible.

The top speed record, in race, by a F1 is 362 Km/h (IIRC), (225mph, Montoya??).

Anyway comparing the F1s with a road car is a useless exercize, those things are built for different purposes, with different rules.

A case of oranges and apples, clearly.

Monk · « **Reply #52 on:** January 07, 2004, 04:11:18 AM »

If he is talking about Racing Prototypes, he could be right.

I believe the Grp C and IMSA GTP cars produced more downforce then F1 cars.

Naso · « **Reply #53 on:** January 07, 2004, 04:49:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Monk
If he is talking about Racing Prototypes, he could be right.

I believe the Grp C and IMSA GTP cars produced more downforce then F1 cars.

Well, will be surprising, for me.

I wonder if there are numbers somewhere in the web.

Asking mr. google.

Naso · « **Reply #54 on:** January 07, 2004, 05:18:10 AM »

Found some link:

http://wings.avkids.com/Book/Sports/advanced/racecar-01.html

http://engrwp.usc.edu/illumin/article.php?articleID=7&page=2

http://www.techtv.com/thetechof/story/0,24330,3378206,00.html

Oh oh!!!

Found something interesting!! Numbers!!!

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/data.htm

Others links

http://www.scitech.org.au/speed/brainfuel.html

http://www.formula1.com/insight/technicalinfo/11/468.html

http://media.gm.com/news/releases/020418_irl.html

Enough.

The amaizing thing is the Indy car numbers:

5084 lbs. @ 200 mph, with 1924 lbs. of drag

A lot of drag, indeed

Lister Storm 2003

4622 lbs. @ 200 mph, with 960 lbs. drag

Looking at theese numbres seem that the Lister is more efficient than the Indycar, it's a pity I have'nt found numbers for the F1s.
(more efficient than indycars: rules different).

Monk · « **Reply #55 on:** January 07, 2004, 05:24:25 AM »

Very nice.

Naso · « **Reply #56 on:** January 07, 2004, 05:28:29 AM »

Monk, I guess you are right about the downforce.

F1 cars cannot use (by rules) tunnel effect anymore, and it's a very important effect to maximize downforce and minimize drag.

Monk · « **Reply #57 on:** January 07, 2004, 05:32:34 AM »

I believe they stopped because of safety issues, trying to slow the cars down.

I wonder what numbers the Turbo cars of the 80's had......hmmm.

Naso · « **Reply #58 on:** January 07, 2004, 05:37:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Monk
I believe they stopped because of safety issues, trying to slow the cars down.

I wonder what numbers the Turbo cars of the 80's had......hmmm.

Yep, Villeneuve sr. death, and others

Car lost tunnel effect... and take off.

About the 80's cars, those records set have begun to "fall" to modern cars only in the last couple years, IIRC.

Staga · « **Reply #59 on:** January 07, 2004, 05:58:01 AM »

IIRC at 200kmh F1 has enough downforce to drive thru the Cote De'Azur tunnel at Monaco by hanging at the ceiling.