Honda sets land speed record for F1 car
07-18-2006, 07:13 PM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Collingwood
Posts: 742
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Purple_sky,Jul 18 2006, 12:07 PM
P.S. F1 cars have HORRIBLE Cd (aerodynamics). Veyron is more powerful and its Cd is much better too, hence higher too speed.
Not like just grabbing an F1 configured for a low downforce high speed race (Indy?) and just letting it rip to see what she'll do.
07-18-2006, 07:36 PM
#12
Originally Posted by tafka TMB,Jul 18 2006, 07:13 PM
They were modifying the rear wing, other aero, different bearings in the wheels for the grittier surface. I assume they did gearing, etc. From memory this was an F1 car that was tweaked to go as quick as possible on the flats (without going nuts).
Not like just grabbing an F1 configured for a low downforce high speed race (Indy?) and just letting it rip to see what she'll do.
Not like just grabbing an F1 configured for a low downforce high speed race (Indy?) and just letting it rip to see what she'll do.
07-19-2006, 05:28 AM
#14
[QUOTE=JsAP1,Jul 19 2006, 01:08 AM]Try seeing that car next to the fastest car on land.
07-19-2006, 06:10 AM
#15
Registered User
Originally Posted by JonBoy,Jul 19 2006, 05:28 AM
Oh man, I'm glad you filled me in on that. I had no clue. 
The post wasn't meant to infer that it was some great thing they'd accomplished. It was of general interest for a group of people that are usually interested in something newsworthy that has to do with cars of any sort. Perhaps if you'd have read more closely, you'd see that I inferred it wasn't necessarily a big deal (since a Veyron is faster, for now).
The post wasn't meant to infer that it was some great thing they'd accomplished. It was of general interest for a group of people that are usually interested in something newsworthy that has to do with cars of any sort. Perhaps if you'd have read more closely, you'd see that I inferred it wasn't necessarily a big deal (since a Veyron is faster, for now).
. I said I was bored so I posted a small comparison. So next time you may want to take a closer look before you hit send kiddo. Thanks.
07-19-2006, 08:21 AM
#16
[QUOTE=JsAP1,Jul 19 2006, 09:10 AM]Well you obviously didnt read my post then did you?
07-19-2006, 08:31 AM
#17
Registered User
Originally Posted by JonBoy,Jul 19 2006, 08:21 AM
Errr. Okay. Let's see what you said:
1. "Still a good post but that car is not that fast in the grander scheme of land cars"
Really? Wow. I didn't know that. Oh wait, yes I did. I actually said there is a ROAD car that is still faster in my original post, which would imply that there are absolutely faster cars that are not road legal. Heck, a top fuel dragster is faster and it only accelerates for 1/4 mile.
Did I say anywhere that this car was insanely fast? Did I say that it would beat a missile? Did I say "OMG, Honda rockz my face off FTW - they are the absolute best and no one can top this"? Did I say that this is the fastest car, period, ever?
The answer to all of the above is "no". I honestly don't care about the other car(s) - they're old news, this is new news, and that's the only reason I posted.
2. "I know I am not playing fair but this is a good FYI...plus I am bored"
Okay, so you're making an "unfair" post in response to a question never asked and a statement never made (or implied). And you're bored. Seems straightforward to me - you admit yourself that your post really has nothing to do with what I posted and isn't really following the intent of the thread/OP.
I read it. I comprehended it. But it didn't really add much to the thread. And your trend continues...
1. "Still a good post but that car is not that fast in the grander scheme of land cars"
Really? Wow. I didn't know that. Oh wait, yes I did. I actually said there is a ROAD car that is still faster in my original post, which would imply that there are absolutely faster cars that are not road legal. Heck, a top fuel dragster is faster and it only accelerates for 1/4 mile.
Did I say anywhere that this car was insanely fast? Did I say that it would beat a missile? Did I say "OMG, Honda rockz my face off FTW - they are the absolute best and no one can top this"? Did I say that this is the fastest car, period, ever?
The answer to all of the above is "no". I honestly don't care about the other car(s) - they're old news, this is new news, and that's the only reason I posted.
2. "I know I am not playing fair but this is a good FYI...plus I am bored"
Okay, so you're making an "unfair" post in response to a question never asked and a statement never made (or implied). And you're bored. Seems straightforward to me - you admit yourself that your post really has nothing to do with what I posted and isn't really following the intent of the thread/OP.
I read it. I comprehended it. But it didn't really add much to the thread. And your trend continues...
You dont so please dont assume. Get over yourself. You have a history of that. This site and all websites are a form of entertainment. Nothing more, nothing less. I am not here to argue. You pointed out a car going 228MPH, big fricken deal and I basically posted a car that goes 500 mph faster. So what, I can post what I want and when I want regardless of what you or others think.
07-19-2006, 10:09 AM
#18
[QUOTE=JsAP1,Jul 19 2006, 11:31 AM]You pointed out a car going 228MPH, big fricken deal and I basically posted a car that goes 500 mph faster.
07-21-2006, 05:43 AM
#19
Update:
http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=36732
They just missed a 400 kph average - they hit an average of 397 kph over the standing mile (both ways).
http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=36732
They just missed a 400 kph average - they hit an average of 397 kph over the standing mile (both ways).
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post