Help Whats Faster to 60mph F1 car or Focus WRC?

[mad.butcher2]

:eek: Can you help? What is faster to 60 mph from a standing start a Focus WRC or a F1 car? We have been arguing at work about this for months after some one went to a Maxpower show and someone there stated that the focus was quicker to 60 mph ! Can this be true?

[TMorel]

Doesn't answer your question, but this is an interesting comparison
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=top+gear+focus

F1 vs Focus vs Cougar

[ioan]

Don't think that the Ford is either lighter than the F1, nor has a 700+HP engine.

I don't know about the new V8 F1's but the V10 ones could reach 100kmh in under 2 seconds.

Maybe the older group B rally cars with 1000HP engines could do it, but the 2007 WRC cars I have some doubts that they can beat an F1.

[Mark]

A 300bhp car weighing over a tonne vs a 900bhp car weighing 600kg. Do you even need to ask?!

[AJP]

Doesn't answer your question, but this is an interesting comparison
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=top+gear+focus

F1 vs Focus vs Cougar
I love watching that stuff...
at the Australian GP, they did this in recent years with a BMW road car, a Castrol V8 Supercar and the BMW Williams F1 car...it was always so much fun to watch....

[Crypt]

WRC can get to 100kph in 3.5 seconds, an F1 car can get there in 2 seconds.

[Valve Bounce]

On a gravel road, I'd pick the Focus. :eek:

[wmcot]

On a gravel road, I'd pick the Focus. :eek:

Unless there is a crane there!! :)

[Ranger]

A MotoGP bike is faster than both (to 100km/h) - there's a speed comparison in autosport (I think) last year. Pretty sure F1 is faster than a WRC car to 100km/h though.

[Josti]

Maybe the older group B rally cars with 1000HP engines could do it, but the 2007 WRC cars I have some doubts that they can beat an F1.

Group B reached about 450 to 600 hp. Don't know F1's exact accelaration, but late Group B did 0 / 60 mph in about 2,5 or 3 seconds (though rumours say 2,3 s on a gravel road).

[fan-veteran]

The answer here is - the tyres (and more exatly - the rubber). In F1 they have the-state-of-the-art high friction tyres (which last a hundred miles). Aerodynamics (as a downforce to support the traction) is important over 50-60 mph.

Another consideration - the weight balance on the driving wheels. In F1 we have a rear driven axle and low center of gravity. In WRC - 4WD, but the tyres don't have so great grip. In bykes - rear, but under acceleration almost all of a weight is distributed to the rear wheel (higher center of gravity), so bykes can accelerate a little faster than F1 from 0 to 50mph provided the power is enough and grip is great. :)

[unendos]

WRC can get to 100kph in 3.5 seconds, an F1 car can get there in 2 seconds.

thats quiet correct although there is something on a Wrc car called launch control that takes it from 0-60 spectaculary.I mean not to have wheel spin on gravel and reach 60 in about 3 seconds is something else.

[Ari]

F1 car. Question really doesn't even need to be asked.

[markabilly]

A MotoGP bike is faster than both (to 100km/h) - there's a speed comparison in autosport (I think) last year. Pretty sure F1 is faster than a WRC car to 100km/h though.


From 0 to 100, put the money on the motogp bike---and that is without the special clutch of F1 cars to eliminate wheel spin

On the other hand what limits the motogp bikes when over 100 and even their top speed, is rear wheel spin, due to the tire does not have enough contact area to overcome the air friction or drag from the bike so that the rear wheel ends up going 10 or more faster than the front.....

And guess what? Gasp!!the laptimes of the bike is far more dependant on rider skill than are F1...and they frequently pass each other during the race, but we all know that their races are very very boring, because there is no pit stops..... :D

[ioan]

Group B reached about 450 to 600 hp. Don't know F1's exact accelaration, but late Group B did 0 / 60 mph in about 2,5 or 3 seconds (though rumours say 2,3 s on a gravel road).

Why is that I thought that there was an Audi Quatro some 20 years ago that had around 1000 HP? I must be my memory! :(

[ShiftingGears]

Why is that I thought that there was an Audi Quatro some 20 years ago that had around 1000 HP? I must be my memory! :(

Pikes Peak Hillclimb cars had closer to 1000HP, and I know that Quattros did compete in that. I'm not sure on the exact horsepower though.

[ioan]

Pikes Peak Hillclimb cars had closer to 1000HP, and I know that Quattros did compete in that. I'm not sure on the exact horsepower though.

Thanks, I was starting to get worried.

[555-04Q2]

There is a new lightweight car that has just been developed and almost ready for production that gets to 60mph in under 2,5 seconds. Anyone remember the name :?: Its supposed to be the future of supercars.

[ChrisS]

A MotoGP bike is faster than both (to 100km/h) - there's a speed comparison in autosport (I think) last year. Pretty sure F1 is faster than a WRC car to 100km/h though.

check this video

Honda F1 vs Honda Superbike vs Honda Powerboat

superbikes have 40-50bhp less than the old 990cc MotoGPs and weight about 20kg more

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=F1+Car+v+Powerboat+v+Superbik e&search=Search

[Valve Bounce]

There is a new lightweight car that has just been developed and almost ready for production that gets to 60mph in under 2,5 seconds. Anyone remember the name :?: Its supposed to be the future of supercars.


Volvo Cross Country?

[Garry Walker]

A 300bhp car weighing over a tonne vs a 900bhp car weighing 600kg. Do you even need to ask?!

Exactly.
Research would have taken the topic author less time than posting this topic.

[markabilly]

check this video

Honda F1 vs Honda Superbike vs Honda Powerboat

superbikes have 40-50bhp less than the old 990cc MotoGPs and weight about 20kg more

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=F1+Car+v+Powerboat+v+Superbik e&search=Search
fun stuff--like I said, what keeps them from blasting ahead at even higher speeds is the tire centrifugal force makes the contact area even smaller, and there is not enough rear grip to overcome the aero drag....or else....zoom zoom zoom

[555-04Q2]

Volvo Cross Country?

Close but no cigar :p :

[tinchote]

I'm sure an F1 car would be the fastest, but most interestingly, an F1 car is faster doing 100-200 than doing 0-100. In fact, it's possible to see that in the video posted above against the boat and the motorcycle. They start more or less the same and by half the 1/4-mile the F1 car starts pulling off.

[markabilly]

I'm sure an F1 car would be the fastest, but most interestingly, an F1 car is faster doing 100-200 than doing 0-100. In fact, it's possible to see that in the video posted above against the boat and the motorcycle. They start more or less the same and by half the 1/4-mile the F1 car starts pulling off.

As to the motorcyle, the advantage becomes more for the car, the higher the speed, because of larger tire contact area permits the car to have better grip against the aerodynamic drag, and with the motorcycle, the rear tire literally starts spinning!!! At 220, the rear is spinning much faster than the front in order to push the bike through the wind--indeed, the motogp used to have rev limiters/mapping for top speed to keep the rear tire from spinning too fast that it tore off the rubber too fast...etc...around 100 the rear tire is starting to lose grip against the wind and by 220, it just is barely there enough to maintain speed but at a big cost to rear tire life

[ioan]

As to the motorcyle, the advantage becomes more for the car, the higher the speed, because of larger tire contact area permits the car to have better grip against the aerodynamic drag, and with the motorcycle, the rear tire literally starts spinning!!! At 220, the rear is spinning much faster than the front in order to push the bike through the wind--indeed, the motogp used to have rev limiters/mapping for top speed to keep the rear tire from spinning too fast that it tore off the rubber too fast...etc...around 100 the rear tire is starting to lose grip against the wind and by 220, it just is barely there enough to maintain speed but at a big cost to rear tire life

They should go the F1 way and use a rear spoiler! :D

[fan-veteran]

Put a soft, F1-like rubber on the WRC and it would possibly overtake F1 from 0 to lets say about 20, 30, 40 mph .... ?
Aerodynamics + soft tyres - these are part of the trump-cards of F1.

[ioan]

Put a soft, F1-like rubber on the WRC and it would possibly overtake F1 from 0 to lets say about 20, 30, 40 mph .... ?
Aerodynamics + soft tyres - these are part of the trump-cards of F1.

I'll disagree on that one. Have pretty high aerodynamic coefficients and that doesn't help under acceleration.

F1's trump card compared to other sport cars is power/weight ratio.

[mad.butcher2]

Exactly.
Research would have taken the topic author less time than posting this topic.

I did try to research this using ask.com and google but knowing the wealth of knowledge on this site I thought i would ask on here to start a interesting debate. ( No such videos etc comparrisons on either) I dont think that this has been tried but wouldnt it be nice to find out in the flesh? (No smart arse remarks please as I am a new member and snotty remarks can offend!)

[ioan]

I did try to research this using ask.com and google but knowing the wealth of knowledge on this site I thought i would ask on here to start a interesting debate. ( No such videos etc comparrisons on either) I dont think that this has been tried but wouldnt it be nice to find out in the flesh? (No smart arse remarks please as I am a new member and snotty remarks can offend!)

You did well to ask, at least it gave us something else to talk that all this political bullsh!t we were going through lately.

[fan-veteran]

The weight of F1 is approximately 53 to 47 % distributed to the rear axle at rest. A F1 car has a low center of gravity (CG), so at acceleration the weight on rear axle is maybe no more 65-70% (at quite low speeds). By contrast, WRC is 4WD, so all 100% of weight can be used. By contrast, a motorbyke has high CG and when accelerating, if the front tyre is in the air it is obvious that also 100% of weight is used.
But - the pure mechanical grip of the tyres is different in these 3 cases, the F1 being the greatest (very soft dry tyres which last 20-25 laps) and in WRC - the lowest. Also the aerodynamic downforce is negligible up to about 30mph, and very low to about 50mph. The huge downforce in F1 (due to the sopfisticated aerodynamics) combined with a lot of power is responsible for better acceleration from 100 to 200kph than from rest to 100kph.

So, one question is - what is the ratio of mechanical grip the typical tyres for WRC vs F1 tyre.

[tinchote]

Put a soft, F1-like rubber on the WRC and it would possibly overtake F1 from 0 to lets say about 20, 30, 40 mph .... ?
Aerodynamics + soft tyres - these are part of the trump-cards of F1.


Deal, but then remove all the aero from the F1 car. An F1 car has way more drag than a rally car.

[airshifter]

A real drag boat would kill the bikes and the F1 cars. Drag boats are complete monsters out of the hole on the start.

On the video Buttons F1 car can somewhere around a 9 second quarter mile time. It didn't give top speed, but a boat running a 9 second quarter mile can do it with a top speed of about 100 mph. They get off the line that fast. ;)

[SubaruNorway]

First post at the F1 forum and it had to be about rally. Norwegain Anders Gröndal did it in 2.45sec and they can see that on the data log so thats pretty acurate, but thats in a S10 2004. Todays cars in optimal conditions would be very close to 2 sec i think. His car 35sec into this video, this is not the 2.45sec. The tarmac was like 5degrees celsius here so not very gripy as you also can see by the Audi S1 right after it ;)

http://videos.streetfire.net/video/773bee92-e2ae-41e0-aae2-99b90056b740.htm

[tinchote]

A real drag boat would kill the bikes and the F1 cars. Drag boats are complete monsters out of the hole on the start.

On the video Buttons F1 car can somewhere around a 9 second quarter mile time. It didn't give top speed, but a boat running a 9 second quarter mile can do it with a top speed of about 100 mph. They get off the line that fast. ;)

Assuming a constant acceleration (to simplify computations, although not very realistic), if you cover 400m in 9 sec from a still start, your speed at the 400m mark is around 315km/h (=197mph).

[ioan]

The weight of F1 is approximately 53 to 47 % distributed to the rear axle at rest. A F1 car has a low center of gravity (CG), so at acceleration the weight on rear axle is maybe no more 65-70% (at quite low speeds). By contrast, WRC is 4WD, so all 100% of weight can be used. By contrast, a motorbyke has high CG and when accelerating, if the front tyre is in the air it is obvious that also 100% of weight is used.
But - the pure mechanical grip of the tyres is different in these 3 cases, the F1 being the greatest (very soft dry tyres which last 20-25 laps) and in WRC - the lowest. Also the aerodynamic downforce is negligible up to about 30mph, and very low to about 50mph. The huge downforce in F1 (due to the sopfisticated aerodynamics) combined with a lot of power is responsible for better acceleration from 100 to 200kph than from rest to 100kph.

So, one question is - what is the ratio of mechanical grip the typical tyres for WRC vs F1 tyre.

How long does last a WRC tire, one for asphalt roads?
Do they change tires between stages?
I ask this because I have a serious doubt that an F1 car is accelerating faster than a rally car because of the tire compounds.

Even a soft F1 tire can go half a race, that's 150 and something kms.

[janneppi]

Usually in WRC, tyres get changed after every two stages, maybe 40-70km's of full on driving plus distance from service park to first stage, to the next stage and back to service park, anythin from 30 to 100km's easily on normal roads on normal traffic speeds.

I still would be inclined to believe F1 tyre has more grip than a WRC tyre, it is designed to cope on a smooth track and a light car, where as the wrc tyre has to withstand more abuse on a heavier car.

[fan-veteran]

If we assume that F1 goes to 100kph in 2sec, than this means an average acceleration of 13,8 m/s2. If we assume a 70% of load on the rear axle (and take aerodynamic downforce to be not great), that means that the pure mechanical grip of tyres in these circumstances should be 1,7-1,8 - quite an impressive figure, normal on-the-shelf tyres are around 0,9-1!

The kinetic energy of a WRC at 50 kph - approximately 1400kg x 0,5 x 14sq yelds 138KJ. The useful power of the engine is around 230KW (312hp). So in theory a WRC should be able to reach 50kph in about a second.

[Zico]

Put a soft, F1-like rubber on the WRC and it would possibly overtake F1 from 0 to lets say about 20, 30, 40 mph .... ?
Aerodynamics + soft tyres - these are part of the trump-cards of F1.

No.. Aerodynamics dont have any effect coming off the startline..

RWD soft rubber vs 4wd on slicks? I thinking your looking at it from the wrong angle... Power to weight is the key, even then a WRC car would gain a head start on the 1st 20-30 ft due to the traction of 4wd off the line... until the F1 car could fully use its power to weight advantage... incidently a 4wd transmission saps aprox 25-30% power as opposed to say 10-15% for an F1 car?

A 750bhp 4wd Rallycross car will achieve 0-60 in less than 2.5 secs for a more interesting comparison. ;)

[aryan]

There is a new lightweight car that has just been developed and almost ready for production that gets to 60mph in under 2,5 seconds. Anyone remember the name :?: Its supposed to be the future of supercars.

The Caparo T1?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caparo_T1
It is being built by many of the engineers involved in McLaren F1. It sounds promising (it's the anti-veyron in everything) but reports from evo magazine have said that the initial test runs haven't been very successful.


Koenigsegg CCX isn't far off this idealogy either, though it's 0-100 km/h is about 3.2 sec. It's the car Stig had that big accident in.

Personally, I'll have a 911 Carrera 2, thank you very much, and get an Ariel Atom for my track days ;-)

[aryan]

thats quiet correct although there is something on a Wrc car called launch control that takes it from 0-60 spectaculary.I mean not to have wheel spin on gravel and reach 60 in about 3 seconds is something else.

Launch control is no Ford WRC invention. Formula 1 cars (and many road legal race cars) have had them since the '90s.

[SteveA]

A real drag boat would kill the bikes and the F1 cars. Drag boats are complete monsters out of the hole on the start.

On the video Buttons F1 car can somewhere around a 9 second quarter mile time. It didn't give top speed, but a boat running a 9 second quarter mile can do it with a top speed of about 100 mph. They get off the line that fast. ;)

Top Fuel makes them all look silly. 1/4 mile in 4.4 seconds at over 330MPH. 0-60, well that's not officially measured, but its about half a second.

[airshifter]

Assuming a constant acceleration (to simplify computations, although not very realistic), if you cover 400m in 9 sec from a still start, your speed at the 400m mark is around 315km/h (=197mph).

Tinchote,

The drag boats are so biased in off the line acceleration that they often use only 55-60% of total elapsed time in the first 1/8 mile. 1/8 mile speeds can be 80% or more of 1/4 mile trap speeds sometimes.

The fastest top fuel hyrdo boats are about 3/10 of a second slower in the 1/4 mile than the top fuel cars are, but their trap speed at the end of the 1/4 mile is somewhere around 70 mph slower.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think a top fuel boat would probably actually be faster 0-60 than a top fuel drag car is. Considering that a top fuel car can do 0-100 in just about a second, that's fairly amazing to say the least.