wrx_sti_22b
Senior Member
Are the F1 cars 720bhp?
2008 Singapore F1 Grand Prix (Day 3 - Final)
- Thread starter lifestyle1881
- Start date
- Status
lifestyle1881
New Member
Hey ClipperSG, that sure is a great collections there :thumbsup: and bring back many memories of famous names when i was teenager in Oz. Used to watch most F1 race very late at night live due to time difference.
i have heard the name alan prost many a time when i was a toddler, however the biggest connection for me from the photos you shared are the tamiya decals
Ahaha..Tamiya was a sponsor of the Team Lotus team, hence they have the stickers for it.
Alain Prost is the famous French driver who has won the F1 World Championship title 4 times in 85, 86, 89 and 93. He is probably the most successful French driver in the history of F1.
He started his career with McLaren (80), Renault (81-83), McLaren (84-89), Ferrari (90-91) and Williams (93). If you think the Lewis-Alonso rivalry is bad, you ain't seen nothing yet between Prost and Senna. Car blocking, delibrate collisions, name-calling..it's been done between the two.
Despite all that, they both mutually highly repsected each other. A few days before Senna died in 94 Imola, he did a in-car lap for the TV cameras, and he said "I would like to welcome back my friend Alain, we all miss you!". Prost was then a commentator for a French sports channel. When Senna died a few days later, Prost was one of the pallbearer at his funeral service.
Both of them have admitted that their lives and careers were so interlinked, that a part of them died when the other was not around.
The nickname for Prost is "The Professor". Prost's skill is the ability to set up a car for any track condition in the world. His ability to also stalk his prey and use technical driving skills to overtake them or plan a racing strategy is legendary.
In 97, Prost bought the Ligier team and formed his own F1 team, Prost Grand Prix. Unfortunately it ran out of money at the start of 2002, and it was history. Just a sidenote, in 2000, a very young driver drove for the Prost GP team. His name was Nick Heidfeld.
He has also taken part in French cycling competitions and finishing in the top 5. He currently races in the Andros Trophy, and was champion for 2007 and 2008 with Toyota.
I'm glad it has enabled you to relive happier times as a youngster.
Are u still in Oz or in Singapore?
wrx_sti_22b
Senior Member
During the Michael Schmacher era, is he really very fast, or also becoz the Ferrari then was really much faster than other cars? I think i read before, on paper spec, most car had 860bhp... But the Ferrari engine could harbour as much as 960bhp to 1050bhp somewhere... tat's why so fast... is it true? :bsmilie: (or just rumours?)
Oh, Nick Heidfeld... it seems even those drivers tat usually doesn't make it to the Podium, they also have been around for a long time...
wrx_sti_22b
Senior Member
All my questions on the engine spec is actually answered here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_One_engines
Oh, from 2006 onwards. Variable Valve Timing is banned from engine. They will still be too powerful if they have VTEC. They will still end up 900bhp++ if got VTEC.
So currently 2400cc V8 normally aspirated engine making around 720bhp - 740bhp.
For production car engine. The most powerful non turbo engine / car is Honda S2000, making 123bhp per litre. It's 2000cc engine makes 246bhp. More powerful per litre than Ferrari 430 Scuderia (118bhp/litre) & BMW M5 (101.5bhp/litre).
If Ferrrari & BMW can do it, the 430 Scuderia will be having 530bhp & the M5/M6 having 615bhp! M3 will have 490bhp! BMW have ever hinted if Audi comes out with a 570bhp RS6, which they did, BMW will give the M5/M6 a power hike of 575bhp from it's 5000cc V10 engine... still below Honda's 123bhp/litre...
If Honda so power, how come their current F1 car just doesn't have the pace to match Ferrari / Mercedes?
Perharps Ferrari can match the 123bhp per litre figure for road car... i suddenly remember i read somewhere, Ferrari says the nxt limited edition (after F40, F50 & Enzo) is not going to have a new engine block, the 6000cc V12 in the Enzo still will be used & have no problem making 700bhp-730bhp or so. :think: Tat will be close to Honda's figure of 123bhp/litre.
Oh, from 2006 onwards. Variable Valve Timing is banned from engine. They will still be too powerful if they have VTEC. They will still end up 900bhp++ if got VTEC.
So currently 2400cc V8 normally aspirated engine making around 720bhp - 740bhp.
For production car engine. The most powerful non turbo engine / car is Honda S2000, making 123bhp per litre. It's 2000cc engine makes 246bhp. More powerful per litre than Ferrari 430 Scuderia (118bhp/litre) & BMW M5 (101.5bhp/litre).
If Ferrrari & BMW can do it, the 430 Scuderia will be having 530bhp & the M5/M6 having 615bhp! M3 will have 490bhp! BMW have ever hinted if Audi comes out with a 570bhp RS6, which they did, BMW will give the M5/M6 a power hike of 575bhp from it's 5000cc V10 engine... still below Honda's 123bhp/litre...
If Honda so power, how come their current F1 car just doesn't have the pace to match Ferrari / Mercedes?
Perharps Ferrari can match the 123bhp per litre figure for road car... i suddenly remember i read somewhere, Ferrari says the nxt limited edition (after F40, F50 & Enzo) is not going to have a new engine block, the 6000cc V12 in the Enzo still will be used & have no problem making 700bhp-730bhp or so. :think: Tat will be close to Honda's figure of 123bhp/litre.
A F1 car is sum of the whole, and not the specs of a single element. While on paper, the engine may look absolutely powerful, putting it into a chassies where 1/100th of a second makes a difference is an altogether different kettle of fish.
The aerodynamics that affect the car can be very subtle, yet having a major impact. Even a piece of leave blocking the airlets of a F1 car will substantially slow down their lap times by half a second.
While Honda may have an experience as an engine supplier, its different from them when they have to design and build a car around the engine. Winglets, bargeboards, sidepods, diffuser...these all have an effect on the car. The physics of ground effects and drag coefficient are also very dynamic and changes from track to track, day to day. Therefore the trick of a successful F1 car is the setup to take full advantage of uncontrollable natural factors.
Speak to, or study any F1 car designer, and you will find that the principle consideration for them is acceleration..not top speed. They are focused on 3 main types: acceleration, decceleration and cetripetal.
Therefore having the fastest engine of the pack does not guarantee the team the championship. Its far more dynamic than that.
wrx_sti_22b
Senior Member
Well said... i loves such discussions... i dun really know a lot abt F1. I only know more abt road cars & more familiar with WRC. ;p I enjoy this thread that is a discussion & doesn't end up into quarrelling thread. :bsmilie: I hate that...
And sometimes, the simplest solution can be so apparent and simple that it eludes most of them.
In F1, downforce (be it high or low) continues to be something teams try to perfect. High downforce for tracks that are twisty with short straights (think Monaco), low downforce for tracks with less twists and long straights (think Monza). Then it's a matter of finding the right balance between straight-line speed and downforce grip for the corners.
Ferrari came up with an interesting solution for downforce - literally cutting a hole in the top of the chassis just behind the nose-wing cone. Some of the air that travels below the front wings passes out of the hole, over the car, creating a further suction effect on the front end of the car, effectively increasing downforce with relatively little compensation elsewhere. On low downforce circuits, they simple use a chassis without said hole.
So, it's not always about the latest technology or latest discovery. It can be extremely simple too
In F1, downforce (be it high or low) continues to be something teams try to perfect. High downforce for tracks that are twisty with short straights (think Monaco), low downforce for tracks with less twists and long straights (think Monza). Then it's a matter of finding the right balance between straight-line speed and downforce grip for the corners.
Ferrari came up with an interesting solution for downforce - literally cutting a hole in the top of the chassis just behind the nose-wing cone. Some of the air that travels below the front wings passes out of the hole, over the car, creating a further suction effect on the front end of the car, effectively increasing downforce with relatively little compensation elsewhere. On low downforce circuits, they simple use a chassis without said hole.
So, it's not always about the latest technology or latest discovery. It can be extremely simple too
I'm more than happy to share what I know about F1, as in return, I also learn about other disciplines. This is particularly for myself, when I don't even own a driving license.
But when I sit in other's cars, I actually pay a great deal of attention to the nuances and procedures of the driver, to try and analyse what the car technology actually brings, in a practical sense, to the driver.
Its more of a curiosity habit of mine, I guess...
I'm still reading about the 2009 technical changes required by FIA for the teams. Hope to finish and bring it up for discussion here soon. Look forward to your input and presence!
And sometimes, the simplest solution can be so apparent and simple that it eludes most of them.
In F1, downforce (be it high or low) continues to be something teams try to perfect. High downforce for tracks that are twisty with short straights (think Monaco), low downforce for tracks with less twists and long straights (think Monza). Then it's a matter of finding the right balance between straight-line speed and downforce grip for the corners.
Ferrari came up with an interesting solution for downforce - literally cutting a hole in the top of the chassis just behind the nose-wing cone. Some of the air that travels below the front wings passes out of the hole, over the car, creating a further suction effect on the front end of the car, effectively increasing downforce with relatively little compensation elsewhere. On low downforce circuits, they simple use a chassis without said hole.
So, it's not always about the latest technology or latest discovery. It can be extremely simple too
Yup, I remember when the "hole" made its appearance, everybody was like "WTF?". Most thought it was a weight reduction exercise. :bsmilie:
- Status
Similar threads
