My son asked me a few minutes ago if an F1 car could outrun a Bugatti Veyron, which has a top speed of 267 or so with its fastest model. I suspect one could, but they aren’t really set up for top speed. If they tuned the engine to a suitable rev band and set up the transmission with the proper gearing I’d imagine that they could put out the power, but with the exposed tires, intakes, and protruding wings they might hit an aerodynamic brick wall.
I know that the specifics of their construction outside of the technical requirements are closely-held secrets, but even so one could probably make an educated guess. My guess is yes, the cars could do 270 if they wanted to. The assumption in this is that they stay within the formula, no cheating with enclosed cockpits and fairings.
I remember an anecdote (maybe on Top Gear?) that a super-car manufacturer (maybe Bugatti itself) had sort the assistance of an F1 team for wind tunnel testing at above 400 kph, only to be told that the wind tunnel didn’t have that capability.
Anomie has it. I’ve seen that episode of Top Gear. In a straight line the Veyron has a higher top speed, but not around a track, nor in acceleration. F1 cars have better grip and a better power to weight ratio. And the Veyron will run out of fuel and tyres faster.
The Veyron weighs 1,888 Kg, excluding the driver and fuel; F1 cars weigh a max of 642 Kg - a third - including the driver.
Wikipedia sort of has an answer. Set up for actual formula racing, F1 cars have a lower top speed than a Veyron — even optimized for speed in a way it would never be for a race, a 2006 Honda made 257mph, which is marginally faster than a base Veyron (254mph) but slower than a Veyron Super Sport (267.9mph). And you would never run an F1 car with low downforce — it would crash in the turns. And since F1 has slowed down a bit since 2006, I think we have to give it to the Veyron.
All that makes sense, actually —F1 cars are made for racing around tight turns, so they need downforce more than speed. On top of that, the open wheels inherently damage aerodynamics.
What impresses me the most is that while a Veyron engine is 8 liters, an F1 engine is only 2.4 liters. And, F1 is going to 1.6 litre engines. That’s less displacement than some motorcycle engines.
That’s because they’re turning 20-25,000 RPM. My brain completely freaks out at the tolerances and balance and tech needed to make a large engine (that is, many times the size of micro model engines that turn in that range) hold together and deliver that kind of power. Almost as much as it does at how 4,000HP drag engines, based on tech I am much more familar with, hold together for 3-4 4-second passes.
As for the OP, I wonder if anyone has ever tweaked an F1 ride for maximum speed - gearing and reduction of downforce/drag, and then sent it down a salt-flats run. I’d bet on something a lot closer to 300 than 270.
At first glance that seems very slow to me but I think this comes back to the question of what we mean by an “F1” car.
If you consider that it has to fit within the current regulations then you’d be pretty restricted on what you can do. Tyres are restricted, revs are limited, KERS has to be carried, aero modifications are restricted…etc, etc. Sure you can knock the downforce off as much as possible and push the “quali” button and adjust the gearing but seeing as an F1 car is designed to live with only very minor adjustments you are never going to be able to push it too far without making major engineering changes.
What would be really interesting would be if you said to Red Bull et al… “Start with the engine and monocoque and develop it to be as fast as possible, bugger the F1 regs”
Then we’d see something amazing. In fact…start with the turbo-era cars of the 80’s or a MP4/4. You’d be pushing 3000bhp/ton (and about 1000 bhp/litre) which is about a third of a top fuel dragster so I’d imagine some pretty amazing speeds if you ran it over a measured mile.
Of course that long since ceases to be an F1 car in any meaningful way.
I don’t know but I did see the RAC Rally in 1986 at which all of the big 5 competed and when they were pretty much all turned up to 11. (RS200, T16, Delta, Quattro sport, 6R4).
They scared me shitless. So loud, so *fast *and on the edge every single corner. Astonishing driving skills of course but only ever a hair’s breadth from disaster. This was after the Portugal accident with the RS200 but still you had big crowds and 600hp cars at 130+mph through a forest, at night, on snow. I shudder now to recall it. It couldn’t continue. The Group “B”'s had developed themselves out of existence.
I was thinking in the opposite direction. What if you took the current F1 design regs. and designed a whole new car to meet that spec but optimized for top speed? Maybe eliminate the diffuser, leave off the wings (or fit the lowest drag wings you could manage), shrink the openings of the cooling ducts, etc. I imaging they could pick up a few miles per hour over just modifying a track car. It would still be an F1 car by definition, if not intent.
I was at the last rally ever run with the Group B cars; the Olympus in '86. Those things were monsters. But technology marches on; does anyone know how close the times of the current cars are to the Group B cars over the same stages?
Banning them was the right call, they were just too dangerous to be allowed to continue. I’m jealous you got to see them though.
I can’t find to find the stage records - they may be misleading anyway as I’m sure many stages have been altered over the years.
This list of average speeds the suggests the winning average was back in the same region the Group Bs were reaching by 1993, and since 1999 they’ve been faster.
