0-60 3.9 by skipping 2nd Gear!!!!
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,282
Likes: 0
From: Melbourne
---------------------------------
Where do you get your information? A modern F1 car has just over 800bhp, not 1000.
I remember a test of a Williams back in the 3.5L days. It did 0 to 100mph (160km/h) and back to zero in just over 4 seconds. I suspect an F1 car can therefore do 0-60 in much less than 2 seconds.
---------------------------------
Car magazines sometimes do an F1 'special' where they print all kinds of stats for F1 .. like:
0 - 100kph = 2.5 secs
0 - 200kph = 4.8 secs
0 - 300kph = ~10 secs
As you can see F1 car goes quicker from 100 - 200kph because that's when it get's some extra traction due to the downforce generated at that speed ... and that is with them 'super glue' tyres. Even then we're talking about 2.3secs for a 100km increment.
0 - 100kph - 0 is somewhere around 4 secs ... more like 4.5. This time is pretty good because the downfoce even at 100kph helps to slow down the car.
F1 'power' is more a speculation as no manufacturer states the exact power. Though, the BMW engine is rumored to be producing in excess of 700kW - that is in excess of 940hp.
Also, kind of on topic, last month they has a 'cool' comparision here - a 911 Turbo vs a 5L V8 race-car (wight 1350kpg and 450+kW). Of course, the V8 race-car had huge racing slicks and the 911 had race tyres but here are the results (911 vs race-car):
0 - 100kph = 4.2 vs 4.5 secs
400m = 12.5 vs 12.5 secs
As you can see the 911 Turbo beat the race-car to 100kph ... simple reason being that the 911 Turbo has a lot more traction becasuse of it's 4WD ... there's maybe 1 - 2 road cars on this planet that can beat the 911 Turbo in the 0-100kph sprint. Fastest 911 Turbo time I've seen is 3.8secs so I seriously doubt that a 2WD Vette will even match that time unless you put 4WD on it or race tyres. Traction is everything in the 0-100kph (or 0-60mph) sprint.
Back to the 911 Turbo vs race-car, one thing that I did not show in the above numbers is the 'terminal' velocity at 400m which tells the story) :
187kph (911 Turbo) vs 215kph (race-car).
Even though the 2 cars do 1/4 mile at the same time, the race-car literally flies past the 911 at the 1/4 mile point.
0-100kph is not about power, yes you need plenty of it (and more the better) but it's about traction and nothing will match F1 car for power, weight and traction. So 3 secs flat is out of reach for road cars at this moment ... mid to high 3s is about as good as it gets.
ps. McLaren F1 can do 0-100kph in 3.5secs at best and that Vette cannot macth the McLaren for weight and traction.
Where do you get your information? A modern F1 car has just over 800bhp, not 1000.
I remember a test of a Williams back in the 3.5L days. It did 0 to 100mph (160km/h) and back to zero in just over 4 seconds. I suspect an F1 car can therefore do 0-60 in much less than 2 seconds.
---------------------------------
Car magazines sometimes do an F1 'special' where they print all kinds of stats for F1 .. like:
0 - 100kph = 2.5 secs
0 - 200kph = 4.8 secs
0 - 300kph = ~10 secs
As you can see F1 car goes quicker from 100 - 200kph because that's when it get's some extra traction due to the downforce generated at that speed ... and that is with them 'super glue' tyres. Even then we're talking about 2.3secs for a 100km increment.
0 - 100kph - 0 is somewhere around 4 secs ... more like 4.5. This time is pretty good because the downfoce even at 100kph helps to slow down the car.
F1 'power' is more a speculation as no manufacturer states the exact power. Though, the BMW engine is rumored to be producing in excess of 700kW - that is in excess of 940hp.
Also, kind of on topic, last month they has a 'cool' comparision here - a 911 Turbo vs a 5L V8 race-car (wight 1350kpg and 450+kW). Of course, the V8 race-car had huge racing slicks and the 911 had race tyres but here are the results (911 vs race-car):
0 - 100kph = 4.2 vs 4.5 secs
400m = 12.5 vs 12.5 secs
As you can see the 911 Turbo beat the race-car to 100kph ... simple reason being that the 911 Turbo has a lot more traction becasuse of it's 4WD ... there's maybe 1 - 2 road cars on this planet that can beat the 911 Turbo in the 0-100kph sprint. Fastest 911 Turbo time I've seen is 3.8secs so I seriously doubt that a 2WD Vette will even match that time unless you put 4WD on it or race tyres. Traction is everything in the 0-100kph (or 0-60mph) sprint.
Back to the 911 Turbo vs race-car, one thing that I did not show in the above numbers is the 'terminal' velocity at 400m which tells the story) :
187kph (911 Turbo) vs 215kph (race-car).
Even though the 2 cars do 1/4 mile at the same time, the race-car literally flies past the 911 at the 1/4 mile point.
0-100kph is not about power, yes you need plenty of it (and more the better) but it's about traction and nothing will match F1 car for power, weight and traction. So 3 secs flat is out of reach for road cars at this moment ... mid to high 3s is about as good as it gets.
ps. McLaren F1 can do 0-100kph in 3.5secs at best and that Vette cannot macth the McLaren for weight and traction.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 8,601
Likes: 1
From: La Habra
Did you guys see the brief article on the Hennessy turbo Viper ("Venom") that is faster than the Ling. TT Vette? There's the street beast for me! If I recall correctly they got 3.4 sec 0-60 on street tires and 2.9 sec on DOT race slicks. Beat that!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post