Veyron numbers, even Chiron numbers, in cars weighing no more than two porky journalists. Bloody hell Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat
The BMW M12/13 engine was spectacular for the crowd being an inline 1.5-Litre 4-cylinder, but not that successful in racing with only nine wins. 1982 - 1985: 8 wins with Brabham-BMW 1986: 1 win with Benetton-BMW A more successful 1.5-Litre car was the Williams-Honda FW11 Turbo V6, with 6.96 bars boost pushing out 1400 BHP @ 12000 RPM and achieving 23 wins during 1984 - 1987.
No, BMW - Paul Rocher stated in Motorsport that they could produce reliably 1400BHP for Qualifying, and that they could run the engine up to 1600BHP, but it severely damaged the valve seats. Renault when they went with pneumatic valves could go well beyond 1700bhp before valve float occurred. Nelson Piquet stated several times that he could increase boost pressure for 1 lap or even 1/2 lap to 1500 - 1600 bhp. the limiting factor was oil flow for the turbos and heat dissipation, the seals would blow quickly... and you would have a huge fire. Honda stated that they did not know how much power the engine made in 1986 - as they did not have a dyno that could measure it..... Osamu Goto
1986 was the height of the Turbo power years. after that they implemented a pop off valve and fuel limits to control power. but un restrained the Turbo units could produce truly amazing out put. I think Ferrari got theirs to about 1250BHP max. Honda and Renault would usually limit a race engine to about 900 -1000 hp. at places like Monaco 850 -& run smaller turbos. Paul Ricard where you had max Power for about 3 sec - they would run at 1100 - same for Kylami. 1300 - 1500 was for qualifying only - if you remember that was the time of one lap qualifying engines and tires. & even chassis..
so in other words, they weren't 1600 HP so lets not say they were 1600 HP because no one did it or youd destroy your engine. 1400 qualifying (BMW, other teams less), 1100 or less in the races were the numbers ive always heard
ok - what ever. If I run past the article again in Autocourse I'll post it here... 1600 bhp was a routine figure noted... particularly at South Africa, Paul Ricard and Hockenheim...
I know that in 1988, the honda could deliver 1200 in qualifying..but i guess 86 was the top power year...
There is something that I've got to know....... During the 1989 Japanese Grand Prix, when Senna and Prost crashed, Senna's car stalled. It appears that the stewarts gave him a push to basically "bump start" the car. If this is true, then how the heck is this possible from such a slow moving coast. If it takes a massive starter from the rear of the car before the GP starts to turn the engine over then how could an old fashion "bump start" to a contemporary F1 car(the pinnacle of engineering at the time) work. ......then again. The cars were a lot simpler back then and it was only a little 1.6L V6 to crank over not a V12. Anyways, just curious.
Power is a relationship of force and velocity. Each of those corner workers pushing on the car is building velocity to the car that has a force required to get to or lose velocity.(The mass of the car + drag). The starter is trying to provide both force and velocity at once. The bump start is "charging" up potential energy by pushing the car faster. Once the engine is re-engaged to the drive train that stored momentum is released as force at the velocity the car is moving. Take the mass of the car + velocity. In WWII, to save on the size of electric motors they would use inertial starters, an electric motor would spin a geared fly wheel, that fly wheel would release to start the engine. Using a fly wheel means that it evens out the load of peak torque required from your source. Essentially the bump start is like"using the car as a fly wheel and the corner workers to spin it. Compare how hard it is to hammer an object if you lift a weight and drop it, vs just pushing down with the hammer. The starter on the grid is trying to do the latter, the corner workers are doing the former.
I've been watching F1 since the 80's. Senna was not racing for money. He had a passion for the sport. Hard thing to find those days and also today. He was competing with himself and no one else. Prost always saw Senna as a threat and didn't treat him with respect and that's a fact. However, towards the end he realized that Senna was not a threat to anyone but only to himself.
I've been "watching" going on sixty years......oh, well, you have spoken. I guess that's that, eh? Only pro'lem is, I remember it differently. So I don't see the "fact" as you do. I saw a man (Senna) who's only respect was for himself....
Been following F1 since 1960 - my interest had waned somewhat in the 80s but stirred again when I heard of this new sensation, Ayrton Senna. Back then, you didn't have the extensive coverage of the sport that you have now - no cable TV or internet. Just sporadic TV coverage and magazines, but somehow you heard about him. In addition to his talent and ruthless competitive nature, he had a unique personality that evoked an emotional response. As a motorsports enthusiast, you either loved him or hated him, but it was impossible to ignore him. Finally got to see him race in person at Phoenix in '90 and '91. He won convincingly both times - really no contest. Was sad and shocking when he died at Imola in 1994. My wife was a fan too, and we were watching the race live on TV. Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Ive been watching the 1988,1989 and currently the 1990 season recaps on Youtube. They are about 3 hours long per season and very well put together considering the age of the videos. The start go race by race from beginning to end. There is something that I am noticing, however. If you only ever watched the "Senna" movie you would think Senna was flawless yet he made quite a few mistakes throughout the seasons. Also, Prost overtook him on MANY occasions and the battles between them were actually few and far between as most races were plagued by unreliability or crashes from either Prost or Senna. In fact, during the 1988 season it was the fifth race before fans actually got to see Senna and Prost battle it out. Prost had many horrible starts that kept him from fighting it out with Senna as well. The MP4/4 was unbeatable because other cars were using naturally aspirated engines that could not compete with the Turbo power and Ferraris turbo engines just kept going BOOM!! Here is something very interesting: I always thought that if I had to take sides for the 88 Japanese GP crash then Senna was at fault but its tough to say. Many people think Prost was at fault but both Murray Walker and James Hunt agree that it was Senna's fault and should have been disqualified for receiving a push start. (12:25 in video) I'm currently watching the 1990 season and I'm half way thru. There has been very few duals so far between Prost and Senna. I understand documentaries/ movies have a way of stretching the truth but I'm actually surprised by the actually truth of the Senna Prost dual. Whats your opinion on all of this???
As long as I've been following, "duels" have been far and few between. As they should be. The expectation by so many these days, in all forms of racing, that they take place every single race escapes me. What then is the value of them if they're "manufactured" by BoPing, spec'ing, caution flagging, or what have you? Then they're meaningless no? If one expects cars and drivers to be performing exactly the same (creating said duels), methinks they live in some fantasy world and have no clue as to what auto racing (not driver racing) is all about. I digress.
If you were able to have watched the full races, including the qualifying and practices even, you would have a measure of the both of them. Prost, the professor, who would plan meticulously and drive to it, soulless but efficient and successful. Then you had Ayrton, who simply used ‘the force’ to push his car as far, and then past, as its limits allowed. Inclement weather brought out the major differences and they were obvious, where Prost wanted to park it, Senna relished in them, and drove circles around the rest. There were times when he was up against the Williams Renault in 1991 where his car was a second or more slower, yet he went out and grabbed pole, or went on and won an impossible race....... he was something special there’s no doubt about it. He had an aura around him that made him stand out, and his car control OVER the limit was exceptional. Schumi came along and was his only challenger, and Michael seemed to have senna’s car control, and Prost’s race intelligence, which made him the best of all worlds..... had they been able to race properly together for a length of time, I’m sure we would be looking back on that period as one of the most challenging and entertaining periods of modern formula one, we were robbed of this. Of today’s drivers, maybe only Alonso, Vettel on a very good day, ricciardo and lil Maxine have the potential to have been a true match for either Senna or Michael in the pomp. Alonso demonstrated he was at a level almost as high as Michael in 2005/2006 (but was helped by the tyre regulations and car changes that were put in to try to end michaels dominance), the others dare to show us flashes these days, but are hampered by the dissolution of the drivers role in these technological, undevelopable slot cars.
