budgy

I realize they make their power high....I was also under the impression they has to launch them at ridiculous RPMS or they would just stall. I do watch a little bit of F1 but I don't follow it too closely the last few years as it becomes more and more like a spec series....it looked to me like they are pretty fast off the line....which I suppose 3.7 seconds isn't exactly slow....but I just have a hard time fathoming 1.5 seconds 100~200km/h now that the cars are down on power compared to when they ran 3.0 litre V10's.

Steponme

^ After a quick search, Formula One cars are capable of:

0 to 100 km/h (62 mph): 1.7 seconds
0 to 200 km/h (124 mph): 3.8 seconds
0 to 300 km/h (186 mph): 8.6 seconds

That's more in line with what I had thought. In my previous post, I meant to say soft compound tires.

We can now LOL back at Sparrow.

manuelisfun

Cool post!

sparrow

First let me be clear and say that I did not laugh at your thinking the car is faster. I am laughing that you would think honda would make such a gross mistake on its comapny website about its own "flagship" race car which would have been, at the time, a primary PR tool. Maybe I give honda to much respect in thinking they would not make such a silly mistake as to misrepresent the facts of their car.

Why would the Honda company website grossly underrate the acceleration of an outdated car. What source do you have that is more credible than the factory honda website about their own car. "F1 cars are CAPABLE of" does not = the 2006 HONDA f1 car... In fact the times you quoted are uncited and credited per wikipedia to the Championship winning Renault R26. For reference Honda finished I believe 4th that yr. If you watch the start of most races it appears certain people consistantly have better starts than others. Is it a 1.4 sec difference, I cannot say.

Am I surprised the honda takes 3.7 to 60? yes, until I take into consideration how the car grips pretty much only with downforce and putting 720 hp to the road w/o slicks is near impossible. Not to mention alonso is a much better driver than button and barichello lol. But let me not take issue with the 0-60 b/c even I believe its faster than that.

I believe the short 100km-200km time is a result of the momentum once the car has gripped somewhere under th 100km/h mark. I don't think if you drive at 100km/h and then floor it will you get that 1.5 second time. This where I take issue with both you and budgy and I should have made that clear in my post. I'll concede any 0-60 debate as noted.

It is not inconceivable that the acceleration for the Honda, while admittingly does seem somewhat irrational, is inversely proportional at those speeds from a standing start. If the honda factory website says its car accelerates in that fashion I'll believe them. Do I think its a half second faster to 60? yes at least but I am niether in a position nor an authority on the subject to tell you and budgy w/o a reasonable doubt, that you are wrong and I am right.

I'm not afraid to be wrong and will easily concede that I am wrong once someone gets honda to confess that they have a typo.

Steponme

^ It's a typo. The quoted times were also from a 2006 Renault R26, which should be similar to those of other F1 cars' at the time. Like NASCARs, all the F1 cars of the same year should offer very similar performances; winning and losing depends on the drivers foremost, then other small aspects, but performances should be very very close to each other. Although they didn't use slicks, they used super soft compound tires, which required changing after a short time; as a result, it's not inconceivable to believe F1 cars only take less than 2s to each 60mph. 3.7s is simply ridiculous and UNBELIEVABLE!!! Even the LFA with street tires, while weighing 3500lbs can still reach 62mph in 3.7s. I really don't care what you believe, but F1 cars do NOT require over 3s to reach 60mph.

Even though I don't follow F1 religiously, 3.7s is simply NOT believable, and I'm willing to bet all my savings and possessions on it. You should do a research on F1 cars more thoroughly. Frankly, I don't have the time nor do I care to convince you; I just KNOW that F1 cars do NOT take 3.7s to get to 100kph.

Steponme

Here you go: http://formula1.india-server.com/trivia/car-facts.html

http://www.castrol.com/castrol/genericarti...ntentId=7010132

http://home.tiscali.nl/f1complete.com/fcttech.htm


"An F1 car can accelerate from 0 to 160 kph (100mph) and decelerate back to 0 in just four seconds."

"An F1 car can accelerate from a standstill to 160kph (100mph) in around 3.5 seconds, while the sprint to 100kph (62mph) takes just two seconds."

It wasn't my intention to argue with you, it's just that the posted 3.7s time was not very believable to me.

sparrow

I don't have to be convinced I have stated that even I believe the time is faster than that but I won't tell honda they are wrong if they tell me otherwise. I thought my second post made it clear that I took issue with the car not being able to go from 100-200 from a standing start in 1.5 secs.

Either way I withdraw from the discussion

Mr.E.G.

Sorry Sparrow. He's right. An F1 car is certainly not setup for drag racing but they most certainly can accelerate to 60 faster than 3.7 seconds. In spite of their inability to be good at drag racing, most run 9 second quarter miles.

I should add that lumping all F1 cars into the same category is kind of crazy. There have been several major eras and we've seen all kinds of power figures. Remember when they were 1.5 liter turbo engines making in excess of 1,000 hp?

sparrow

How many times must I state that I believe the car can do 0-100km/h faster than 3.7 secs and take issue with the car not being able to continue from 100km/h to 200 km/h in similar if not inversely proportional fashion.

Thats my final post on the topic.

Steponme

^ Calm down, sparrow. It's just a discussion. At least now, we all have an idea that an F1 is capable of 0-62mph in just 2s (or less, depending on the drivers and track conditions).