iamcal.com Since May 2000

• Happy new year!
• Newbie topic - May 2016
• Newbie topic - April 2016
• Newbie topic - March 2016
• Newbie topic - February 2016
• Newbie topic - January 2016
• Newbie topic - November 2015
• Newbie topic - August 2015
• Newbie topic - July 2015
• Newbie topic - May 2015
• Newbie topic - April 2015
• Newbie topic - March 2015
• Newbie topic - September 2014
• Newbie topic - December 2014
• Newbie topic - October 2014
• Newbie topic - August 2014
• Newbie topic - July 2014
• Newbie topic - June 2014
• Newbie topic - May 2014
• Hello!

I told you so.

(A clue, for others)

oh there you go again, with the whole "facts" thing

Hmmm. I saw that on the BBC website some time ago, actually, and was keeping my head down. However, it doesn't make me wrong. The car DID do over 250 mph, just not as a 2 way average on the day they did the official timing. Bugatti's top speed isn't a two way average:

"With minimal downforce wing settings, BAR Honda managed to run their FIA race-spec F1 car at 421 km/h on 6 Nov, 2005 during a shakedown leading to their 'Bonneville 400' attempt.".

(look under the top speed section).

421=261.6mph, although in the 6th November 2005 press release on the Bonneville 400 site you link to, they say 265mph (but 412km/h, which is only 256 - either way, it's faster than the Bugatti).

Even without this, the Bugatti is still only the fastest road car:

Indy cars used to go over 250mph some years ago, and the Peugeot Le Mans car of 1988 went over 250 down the 5 mile straight. So that is at least one type of car (Reynard Ilmor, I think for the Indy car) that is faster than that road car. And some time ago, too.

forums.autosport.com/printt...

www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/f1/top_s...

Interestingly, the F1 numbers of a few years ago (with the cars reaching 220 odd with full race/qual downforce and the massive resulting drag) suggests that they would easily top 250 with all that cranked off. It appears that the move to slow down F1 cars over the last ten years has been more successful than I realised. I didn't expect the BAR Honda to struggle as much as it did to crack the 400kph on the two way average. The power losses must be fairly large, then...

So, Grim. No you DIDN'T tell me so.

And from the same thread:

Fact remains it's faster than an F1 car - until you change the F1 car so it isn't an F1 car any more

It specifically states that the car used for the record attempt would be eligible for the grid of an F1 race. So they haven't even modified it past the regulations, so that fact very much doesn't remain...

But basically, although this hasn't actually proven me wrong, the fact that it is so close does mean that they are nowhere near as much faster than the circuits they are on as they used to be. Presumably they are nowhere near as frightening as they were, either. That'd probably be why the racing is so shit dull, then...

:/

nah, F1 --and most car racing-- is shit dull because the vehicles are so wide relative to the racing line (and available variation space). passing becomes a biblical event as opposed to something reasonably achievable 3 or 4 times a lap.

races won in the workshop and in qualifying are tedious to watch play-out on the track, come "race"-time. essentially, the race is about people turning up/tuning in to see if the driver stuffs up the hard work done in prep by both himself and the guys actually putting together the phenomenal machine he gets to sit in.

It specifically states that the car used for the record attempt would be eligible for the grid of an F1 race. So they haven't even modified it past the regulations, so that fact very much doesn't remain...

You might as well stop reading whatever site had that written on it right now - the fact that the vertical rear 'wing' is dubious is completely blown away by the fact that the car had a parachute in it.
/clicks
Wikipedia, I might have known. Good work, Sir.

Fact still remains that you have to turn an F1 car into something else to make it achieve those speeds, and the Bugatti is limited to 253mph.

I'm quite intrigued to see how long you'll argue about something that's clearly wrong.

Told you so.

No, it was on the site YOU linked to, as I said. The BAR Honda site. The one that attempted the record and know more about the regs than either of us.


It is not a legal requirement to have a rear wing, just that the aerodynamic surfaces must be within a dimensioned 'box' in relation to the rear wheel centreline and the car centreline. The fin is legal in that regard.

A parachute is irrelevant - not only does it have nothing at all to do with going 250+ mph (it is only for stopping in an emergency anyway and is a result of the lack of traction on the salt flats for decent braking) but as far as I am aware there is no regulation stopping you fitting one to an F1 car. It's just that no-one would, as a once only stopping device is pointless. Either way, taking the parachute off only reduces the safety factor, not the speed.

The car was stated (by BAR Honda) as being eligible for the grid at a race. They wouldn't make that claim lightly. So it has NOT been modified past being an F1 car (using the regs as a definition).

So a summary:

The Bugatti does 253mph. You said that makes it the fastest car.

I said that an F1 car would go faster. You supplied the website that proved that one did.

So where exactly am I wrong? The fact that it was not as much faster as I thought still doesn't stop the fact that it did go faster. The fact that the Bugatti has a limiter is irrelevant, as it IS limited so only goes 253mph. The F1 car went faster than that, so QED.

Not only did I not link to the BAR Honda site, but on the BAR Honda site, if you click on 'the car' and then 'rear wing' you get to listen to a lovely man called Gary Savage telling you that the rear wing isn't legal under FIA rules.

Really, how long are you going to keep this up?

Actually the movable rudder (movable aerodynamic devices are illegal in F1, so it is only the fact that it moves that is illegal, as he says) was only used at the actual Salt Flats - again for safety reasons, due to the lack of traction producing directional stability issues for the car at high speeds. At the earlier shakedown in November last year (where the car went fastest) they hadn't fitted the moving fin that made it illegal - the run was done on tarmac. It doesn't look like they ran the parachute then, either.

He also says in the same video that they intended to try without it for the final run if possible - I can't find out if they did or not from the site.

So in fact, the only modifications that change it from being an F1 car were because of the Salt Flats and it's characteristics, rather than because the car wouldn't go fast enough without them. A moving vertical rear fin and a parachute aren't going to make it faster, are they? I fail to see how adding minor modifications that allow the car to be controlled in the event of an incident/problem on the slippery surface are 'modifying the car from what being an F1 car' in any way relevant to the speed it attained. Adding stuff to make it stop/o crash is hardly cheating at making it go faster, is it?

Regardless, it beat the Veyron on Tarmac (at the shakedown) without these and was still a legal F1 car at that stage, so again, you haven't proven me wrong. They didn't need to go to Bonneville to go faster than 250mph, but they did to get the record, because that is where the record attempts are made. The car is actually slower there (because it is not modified to suit the surface significantly) but that is where they do the official timing - timing that the Veyron's top speed has not been subjected to, incidently.

Also, remember that the Veyron is limited to 253 not because it won't go any faster, but because it will crash if it did. This aero instability was the reason that it took them a fair while to get the top speed up from the initial 249mph testing up to over the 250 mark. The F1 car goes quicker on tarmac without any stability elements added, it only needs them when running on Salt flats.

*shrugs*

I'm happy to admit, once again, that I thought F1 cars were *much* quicker than the circuits, rather than just 'faster', but looking at the evidence, I am not actually wrong on the initial statement. The F1 car is definitely faster, it just can't go faster when it's on salt, than a Veyron can on Tarmac. Hardly a victory for Audi, is it?

I must remember this trick : when losing an argument : waffle. Just admit you were wrong Brockles!

Read the fucking post, dumb arse. That's the whole point. The F1 car went faster than the fucking Bugatti. That is the point when I am NOT wrong, actually. When the original statement that I made is proven to be correct.

This is about cars. You are a girl. Get back in the fucking kitchen where you might have a chance of understanding things.

Subtle.

Hold on, something isnt right here. Salty, you've normally got a verbose opinion and knowledge on just about anything - why aren't you in on this ongoing debate?

arrr

well, i will just say that i agree with both grim and brock 's key points: which are respectively that the default veyron is faster in a straight line than a default F1 car, and that you can tweak a F1 car up to be essentially the same or slightly better (which, given the relative costs of same, would bloody well want to be expected).

one oddity of brock's arguments here i will point out though, is that: brock, you are using "quick" as kind of a synonym for racetrack laptimes. ie, top-end speed is involved but it's mostly a blanket word for "acceleration" and "turning capability/maxGforce".
this is not the normal usage of the word "quick", which most people interpret as simply "fast" or "speed", and i think this idiosyncratic usage (or rather industrysyncratic usage) relative to normal usage has contributed to the heat in this nonargument.


i can't be arsed digging into either party's links deep enough, but if what both have asserted here is correct, then i think both are correct. a default veyron beats a default F1 car in straight line top speed on road-style conditions. a F1 car fettled for top speed rather than lap time CAN match the veyron for straight line top speed, even while staying within the rather arbitrary F1 construction constraints.

i don't regard these two facts as mutually exclusive, though.

CAN match the veyron for straight line top speed, even while staying within the rather arbitrary F1 construction constraints.

Arbritary? They are some of the most stringent regulations in sport. Possibly the MOST stringent. But staying 'within', is still staying legal as the definition of a Formula 1 car stands. Being as most proper racing cars change massively (in terms of settings/gear ratios/aerodynamic packages/Engine specs/Springs/Dampers/Suspension Geometry etc., etc) then changing a few settings in this case is not really anything new or that far from the norm. They are probably making no more (in terms of quantity) changes to the car than when they go from Silverstone to (for example) Monaco.

And it is not 'match', it is beat the straight line speed.

Just a clarification. :)

And I do use 'quick' in an 'industrysyncratic' (spot on) way, but the definition in that regard is slightly different. Quick means more 'getting the job done quickly', if it is lap time, then it is the lowest, if it is acceration - the most rapid, the speed - the fastest. It is a weird usage of the word, I imagine, to outsiders. I don't see how it was causing an issue, though. An F1 car is 'quicker' in a straight line. We were both pretty much always discussing straight line speed.

This is about cars. You are a girl. Get back in the fucking kitchen where you might have a chance of understanding things.

I do cook rather well.

I'm happy to admit, once again, that I thought F1 cars were *much* quicker than the circuits, rather than just 'faster', but looking at the evidence, I am not actually wrong on the initial statement. The F1 car is definitely faster, it just can't go faster when it's on salt, than a Veyron can on Tarmac. Hardly a victory for Audi, is it?

With aero adjustments, I thought the F1 car (that wasn't an F1 car any more) would fucking eat the Veyron - how can a €10,000,000 car not comfortably outrun a €1,000,000 car (It's the wheels, I reckon - cover the F1 cars wheels and it'll go much better)?
It's not really a victory for Audi, but I'd imagine that Bugatti would be quite impressed =]

I still think, however, that with some tinkering, you could get the Veyron to outrun a FIA spec F1 car.

LOOK! BOOBS!

now quit yer fightin.

CAN match the veyron for straight line top speed, even while staying within the rather arbitrary F1 construction constraints.

Arbritary? They are some of the most stringent regulations in sport. Possibly the MOST stringent.

look up the word "arbitrary", doofus. it does NOT mean "lax".

(non)tangential aside: a rather odd human oddity is that the more arbitrary a particular rule, the more rabidly precisely it tends to be enforced. briss, anyone?

re "quick...I don't see how it was causing an issue, though. An F1 car is 'quicker' in a straight line. We were both pretty much always discussing straight line speed.", i suggest you take off your industryspecific-vocab hat and reread the thread -- jumbling the words was clearly jumbling the discussion by introducing unwonted extraneities for everyone but you. just something you need to be aware of.
come to think of it, it was even jumbling YOU -- you kept talking acceleration as synonymous with top end speed.

language really does tend to affect thought patterns, doesn't it? we should send this thread to noam chomsky to piss him off.

heh. nice crossed-in-net moment there

Haha =- I'm such a shit stirrer.

In related news, it turns out the best F1 driver of all time (no, not him, he's dead) is going to retire after he wins this years world championship.

He fucking better win, I've got a ton on him. Was I ever a happy bunny on Sunday =]

"Arguably" the best driver of all time, surely.

There are many that have a call to be considered better. I'll accept he is far the superior driver of his time, but look at the number of races that Senna won (and poles and fastest laps) and the number of races he got them in. Also, Mansell (despite being a wingeing twat) and Prost (french. Nuff said) had brilliant stats. Especially when you consider that Schumacher only did about 2 races in a non-competitive car. Senna, for example, had too tool around in right old heaps of shit (toleman springs to mind) before getting into a car capable of winning races, never mind a championship. Schui was in a mega quick Benetton onside 3 weeks... He has had, for the majority of his career, a far superior car and a team working solely around one driver. Him. None of the others have, as they were driving for teams like Williams and McLaren, who believe in a two car team, even if they do have a No.1 driver in some seasons, although not all.

Also, Fangio has awesome stats:

Grands Prix 52
Championships 5
Wins 24
Podium finishes 31
Pole positions 29
Fastest laps 23

Schui, by contrast:

Grands Prix 247
World Championships 7
Wins 90
Podium finishes 153
Pole positions 68
Fastest laps 75

He has won something like 36% of his races, where Fangio won nearly 50%. Schui is a great driver, no doubt, but his achievements need to be put into perspective and he has very much had the best of luck/circumstances and is probably the first driver to have had that for so much of his career. NO-ONE has had the strength of cars and hype that has allowed such amazing focus on him personally as a driver at the expense of all others. And I'm not sure it is even possible to quantify the differences in the racing styles/cars/competition. That is why F1 pundits still constantly argue over Schumacher vs Prost Vs Fangio vs Ascari vs Hakinnen etc., etc...

Of course. I am biased because I don't like him, but the argument still stands on it's own.

The Stig!

Haha

Why don't you like Schumi Brock? I mean, I don't either but..

'cos he's racist, innit?

Oh.

Heh, this black guy working next to me says "German, Italian, French, British .. those aren't races .. you're all white."

Why did you have to bring up skin colour? That's racist that is.

Hahahaha!

Any sign of your parcel yet?

Nope :( I think you're a lying S African who's going to say you need money to release it soon.

You're going to be embarrassed when the damn thing shows up!
I painted it and everything...

Ooh. Ooh. I have a racist joke for you : What's the difference between a tourist and a racist in South Africa?

About 5 minutes.

/runs

I've got the slip from the post office .. going to try and trace the parcel. There's a website one's meant to go to to trace stuff. I bet some bastard postal person has eaten the goodies. I hope he/she gets CHRONIC INDIGESTION, IRRITABLE BOWL SYNDROME, FLATULENCE and CROHNS DISEASE.

ULCERS, DIABETES and MORBID OBESITY.

Heh, this black guy working next to me says "German, Italian, French, British .. those aren't races .. you're all white."

That's correct, is it not?
My nationality is 'British', but my race is 'white'.
It's the difference between xenophobic and racist.

So if I dislike Americans for example* I'm not a racist unless I dislike the black ones? And what about Asian people? They're "white" ?

*please let it be noted that i do not dislike any Americans

No, they're Asian.

I'm not too sure that is entirely correct. Aren't the current political correct race terms "African-American" or "Asian-British" or something like that? I'm sure you're not saying that race is based on skin-tone alone but where do the boundaries end? I'm not too sure Italians would be put into the 'white' category as they tend to be olive skinned. So are people from the med area outside of the white boundaries, as I think, or not? Similarly people tend to use Eastern-European as a term of race, but they can be whiter than me which is a feat.

You know. What we need is great big melting pot. Big enough to take the world and all it's got. Keep it stirring for a hundred years or more. And turn out coffee coloured people by the score. Then it'll get confusing.