Which racing series does the fastest lap times?

Lol I think we do.

 

Both F1 & CART have ground effect. I also assume the benefits of the ground effect vastly exceed the benefits of a reduced low pressure area above the car; therefore the priority is to always achieve partial vacuum below the car.
Both F1 & CART have a low pressure zone above the car (I'd assume they would try to minimize this as much as possible, to decrease the lift).

 

How would the Can-Am cars of the 70s compare (the McLarens and Porsche 917s) to todays F1 cars? I know when Porsche went for a record at Talladega they had issues with overheating since the engine and car wasn't designed to be held at WOT for very long. Would that be an issue with F1 cars at all?

 

The 2004 F1 cars are the fastest cars ever produced. Nothing really compares. Of course, if one wanted to you could hypothetically build a car which *decimates* the current F1 cars for a measly ~100M.

On modern F1 cars I think WOT for that long might be a problem, but higher speed generally means better cooling...

 

Not true. Ground effects (the true meaning of the term) was banned in F1 in the late 80's (I think) ... this is why F1 cars have to have flat bottoms.

CART (and IRL?) are still allowed the venturis under the car's side pods which means they can run less wing and still have more down force.

F1 now obtained all it's down force from the cars floor and wings ... no longer the cars side pods.

Now ofcourse in reality F1 has found down force from elsewhere and who has more ... who knows?

If F1 had been allowed to continue to pursue ground effects ... think well over 5 G around corners and drivers that looked like Rugby players

True ... but F1 does not use "ground effects" to achieve that.

Ground effects (er, the use in F1) was invented by Colin Chapman.
Pete

 

Why do you say that?

F1 cars are constrained (as always) by the rules and technology of the time, thus it is perfectly possible to end up with a set of rules where the current F1 car is not the fastest ever produced ... but politically they probably think hard about the rules so this does not happen (ie. it would look pretty embarrassing if F3000 suddenly was faster than F1, or a 10 year old F1 car lapped faster in a demonstration ). The Can Am series had very, very open rules (also why it failed so quickly) and I believe up around 1100hp in cars that probably were superior aerodynamically to a F1 car (ie. enclosed wheels, etc.).

If somebody build a modern Can Am car it would be an absolute rocket ... no whimpy 3 ltr engine limit, etc., no flat bottom rule ... no limiting rules like Le Mans prototypes, etc.

Pete

 

Ummm, I think you didn't even read my message..."Of course, if one wanted to you could hypothetically build a car which *decimates* the current F1 cars for a measly ~100M."

Basically completely encompasses what you just said.

 

I guess my question is this: How is downforce achieved with solely a car floor without some sort of vacuum type effect?

 

Yeah I did ... maybe I did not explain my point very well.

My point was that there is no guarantee that F1 is actually the fastest ever produced as you stated, ie:

You are making the assumption that F1 is > than all other race series ... hmmm, Bernie would like us all to think that way, but those Le Mans cars are pretty clever things, and mega down force, and no grooved tyres, etc.

Thus you assumption that F1 cars are the fastest ever is debateable . It is possible that CART or something else, like the Le Mans cars might actually be faster ... but as they normally do not run on the same tracks we never know (well we have an idea that F1 is faster than CART thanks to Montreal ... but that is just one track).

Pete
ps: And I also thought that we had beaten last years lap times this year at some tracks ??? ... could be wrong here?

 

I haven't the faintest, but assume this is happening:

F1 forces the car down.
CART sucks the car down.

??
Pete

 

And the IRL just SUCKS!

 

Ummm, that makes less than no sense. Even definitionally a ground effect still "forces" the car down.

 

The 2004 F1 cars *are* faster than any Le Mans car ever built. Faster than any Can Am car. There is no doubt.

Fastest laps between this year and last year show that the cars are definitely slower. The only reason qualy times were different earlier in the season was due to the 'low fuel' qualifying.

 

this might help...

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

 

more...

http://www.formula1.com/insight/glossary/

 

I'm a little confused by this thread...

You make it sound like F1 cars don't have significant downforce and thus are unstable at 200+. That's nonsense. Although F1 cars can't use Venturi tunnels to create it, they create significant downforce via their wings. They do not have "lift" at speed. (Unless you remove their wings.)

I not sure I understand your question.

With just Venturi tunnels on the bottom of a car, you can create significant downforce. You start with a small volume of air at the front of car feeding into a much larger volume at the back, resulting in a low pressure zone. But that would be "some sort of vacuum type effect"... any generation of low pressure would be "some sort of vacuum type effect".

 

Does anyone else have some times from different race series on the same tracks? (The proof is in the pudding, after all.)

 

Not really. Quick comparison between two (Chinese GP, Sepang):
S.Gibernau Pole Position time MotoGP 2005: 1:59,710
M.Schumacher Lap Record 2004:1:32,238

-Niko

 

Yes, but previously someone said ground effect had been 'banned' from F1. Venturi tunnels simply seem to be a more advanced form of a diffuser to me. F1 uses diffusers very obviously, ie: ground effect has not been banned.

 

CART, at the closest point, was 4-5 seconds behind F1. The only semi-convincing evidence supporting *anything* being faster than F1 was the time at Seca when Ferrari failed to break the CART lap record on the course.

 

There are some pretty bad misconceptions in this thread.

Firstly, Formula 1 cars do use venturi tunnels: this is exactly what the diffuser is. The air is profiled underneath the flat bottom of the car, and when it reaches the diffuser at the rear of the car (underneath the transmission and differential), expands to fill the increased space, creating an area of low pressure. This area of low pressure results in downforce without any drag penalty, unlike wings on top of the car, which create drag as well as downforce.

The front wing's drag penalty isn't so bad, because it functions much like an aircraft wing in reverse. Dialing in more rear wing, on the other hand, has a very large drag penality. For example, you'd have a higher rear wing setting to improve traction, reduce rear tyre wear and increase speed in slow and medium speed corners. However the most significant downside is reduced top speed.

An F1 car built and set up for top speed only would be able to reach well over 400kmph. Maybe even beyond 500kmph. I think Michael was misquoted in the 60 Minutes interview. What he said was in kmph, not mph (1mph = 1.609kmph). The cars have over 900 horsepower and weigh 600kg: you do the math. Last year at Monza, Pizzonia reached 369kmph at the end of the start straight. And that's in a car which is set up to take into consideration the rest of the circuit!

With the diffuser, an F1 car would be sucked to the ground (have downforce) without the need for much drag inducing (and hence top speed reducing) wings on top of the car, if the aim is to only go in a straight line or around an oval.

I can reach 280kmph in my 250cc Formula E Superkart if geared correctly and set to low downforce. That has 105bhp, weighs 125kg and uses 6 gears. An F1 car, with (on average) 925bhp, 600kg and 7 gears has double the power-to-weight ratio of the Superkart.

Here is a quote from a thread here a few weeks ago:

And in response I posted:

 

At Seca it was Andrea Bertillini SP? doing the driving. He had very limited time with the car on the track, Ferrari had no data on the track, Bridgestone tires were not taylored to the track.

If i recall he was within 1 second of the record driving an F2002 on Sunday, Saturday he drove the F2003-GA.

Also i think his key role as a test driver is for aero testing on track so most of the time he is doing straight line tests with loads of sensors mounted up to the car to see what types of pressures are being created on the car.

 

I'm not saying an F1 car would not be suited to high speeds. What i'm saying is that due to design a champcar might be better suited to the high speeds on an oval. You forget yes, an F1 car would only create lift if you removed their wings but a champcar has the added benefit of the venturi tunnels.The wings are then made smaller, which would produce less drag . The point is an F1 car might be faster but it would be harder to reach a speed comparable to a champcar comfortably. When Gil DeFerran set his closed course recond he said the car was so smooth it felt like a cadillac. That's the name of the game on an oval.

 

It's in the way the floor of the car is designed, It's similar to a carburator's venturis which cause the air to swirl and creats vacuum which pulls the car down to the road if i understand it right. A flat bottom does not and in fact creates the opposite. Wings and diffusers counter this on an F1 car.