F1 MERCENARY wrote:The reason F1 cars go faster than anything else isn't because of their massive wings. It''s because of their superior aero across the board coupled with power to weight ratio and phenomenal engineering.
Just a second; either you didn't understand what I wrote, or you are simply mistaken. F1 isn't fastest, it laps tracks fastest. That means it takes corners faster than other cars, and it does that because of its wings. "Superior aero across the board" is impossible, simply because of the open wheel formula. Superior power to weight ratio is important, but that takes it away from "all else being equal". Remember the streamline Mercedes cars in Fangio's day? That's because superior aero without "downforce" simply means "streamlining" (lowest possible drag not due to the production of lift/downforce). Which is the reason for:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:Porsche proved with its 919 that LMP1 cars can lap just as fast, if not faster than the current F1 cars, and set the lap record at Spa, though that's not really worthy of braggin' rights over F1 cars, as F1 cars are also heavily stifled in terms of what they can do by just as much, if not to a greater degree
The Honda car that was taken to the salt flats for a maximum speed run illustrates this; just as the F1 configuration on the proper Hockenheim-Ring used to do. Hardly any wing at all, which compromised the car performance in the stadium section, but out and out low-drag speed on the straights.
F1 MERCENARY wrote:unleashing an F1 car to its full potential would certainly lead to the driver blacking out as it would obliterate any record held by any car on the same track.
That would be true for any car with high downforce and the power needed to overcome the drag all this downforce creates. That's because you don't need downforce on the straights, only for superior cornering.
Whether blacking out would actually occur is something I don't know. The difference between a car and a fighter/aerobatic/racing aircraft is that the g-forces take the blood down from the head due to the bank angle of an aircraft. In a car, the blood goes left or right in the corners, and that might make a difference between left and right eye. So perhaps perception of depth might be affected, rather than blacking out.
F1 MERCENARY wrote:In the 90's C.A.R.T. Cars were not too far off F1 in overall performance and speed, though due to the nature of the series, they didn't accelerate as quickly as F1 cars and were a tad heavier, but over a distance go faster than F1 cars which were running V10's and 12's at the time. I always wondered how one of those CART cars would have done if fitted with a V10.
I bet quite impressive.
Well if the weight and tyres would have become equal with those engines fitted, and acceleration would be similar (deceleration might have remained different if they were still fitted with steel brake disks), then the remaining difference would have been in the downforce, and therefore the wings. Provided that is, if you would have taken the underbody wing shape out of the equation (usually mistakenly called "ground effect"). I believe that was the case in the '80s, but I'm not sure for the '90s. The reason is simple; underbody wing shapes produces less drag for the same amount of downforce.
Superior cornering time means downforce. And downforce means drag. Which you have overcome with superior engine power.
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.
Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi