The fastest F1 car of all time?

[jonathan189]

We should keep our definitions in line with F1:

Fastest = fastest at lapping a circuit

That was what I meant in starting the thread anyway, although the question of which car had the highest straight-line speed is also interesting.

I think it's quite striking that the F2004 is probably the fastest ever at race laps, despite the countless rule changes over the years to curb the speed of the cars. It makes me wonder if those 2004 lap records will be beaten one day in spite of all the credit crunch cost-cutting.

[Spencifer_Murphy]

And 930 hp for the 3.0 liter V10 in 2004? I doubt that very much actually.

During the last couple years of the 3.0L V10 era there was a lot of speculation about the power output of the BMW engine which was widely regarded as the most powerful engine on the grid. When Juan Pablo Montoya was driving for Williams and set the fastest ever lap of an F1 car (averaging over 161MPH @ Monza 2002 Quali) I remember figures of 900+ HP being quoted. By the 04/05 seasons I remember hearing numbers as high as 950HP being touted.

[xpensive]

Scotracer reminded me, see upstream, of the 2005 Honda "Suzuka special", rumoured to deliver 980 Hp.

O'mama, wonder what revs that was all about?

[Scotracer]

I respectfully disagree, there is no official way to talk about these measures in F1, it's mostly uninformed broadcasters. That's why you never Ant or Brundle call drivers or cars fast, but quick.

Does F1 take the dictionary definition of these terms and flip them around like you just did?

Well it's called the "Fastest Lap" afterall

xpensive, we can work out the minimum revs required for such an output...

"BMW's P83 engine used in 2003 season managed an impressive 19,200 rpm and cleared the 900 bhp (670 kW) mark"





That is of course assuming the same torque figure up there. If the torque declines, the RPM required increases inversely-proportionally.

[xpensive]

You're my man Scot.

[jamsbong]

Reading through all the 4 pages of this thread, I realise BMW had so much power in their engine. That is amazing.

But Honda, having 1000hp v10s? is that possible? I must influenced by the poor results they've got. Maybe the power was very peaky or It was measured without any auxiliary.
But if it is true then those V10 F1s were fast would be a joy to drive... or even just sit inside.

[Giblet]

True about fastest lap, but also true that "quickest in a straight line" is also used. When a fast lap is posted, it also posts the speed, so it's kind of muddy on both sides.

I guess these terms are a lot more swappable and arbitrary than I thought.

But on another similar note, in Kimi's 2005 charge, when he would post a fast lap, he would be a lot quicker in the low and medium speed corners, and purple those sectors, and be far slower than other cars on the high speed turns and straights by a noticeable margin. Montoya to as well in the same hardware.

If the differential between the Mclaren and say the Renault of that year was greater than the difference between their top speeds on the straights, would that not make that the fastest/quickest car?

[jamsbong]

To have a single objective of getting the highest top speed is a lot easier than to consistently be faster than your competitors lap after lap at different circuits.

That I think is what F2004 had achieved. So in a way, I should say F2004 is one of the most successful F1 car in recent times? rather than the fastest car ever.

Ideally, if you can drop a turbo era engine into a aero slick Honda

Then you'll get some really fast top speed.

[ringo]

Reading through all the 4 pages of this thread, I realise BMW had so much power in their engine. That is amazing.

But Honda, having 1000hp v10s? is that possible? I must influenced by the poor results they've got. Maybe the power was very peaky or It was measured without any auxiliary.
But if it is true then those V10 F1s were fast would be a joy to drive... or even just sit inside.

I think the honda was on that power level only for one race. BMW was at 950hp for the whole season. The "BMW POWER" on the wing was no joke.

[ISLAMATRON]

To have a single objective of getting the highest top speed is a lot easier than to consistently be faster than your competitors lap after lap at different circuits.

That I think is what F2004 had achieved. So in a way, I should say F2004 is one of the most successful F1 car in recent times? rather than the fastest car ever.

Ideally, if you can drop a turbo era engine into a aero slick Honda

Then you'll get some really fast top speed.

If it had turbo motor it wouldnt need that huge air scoop on top of the drivers head, making it even more "aero slick"

[xpensive]

As atte,pted to be calculated on another tread, that sccop doesn't cost that much in terms of air-resistance, when most of the air-stream is consumed by the engine, as I can recall 10 Hp at 300 km/h.

[PlatinumZealot]

Didn't the BMW engine have the rpm record? And didn't they say the engine made up for the cars lesser aerodynamics? I thought the BMW was over 1000hp ??

[jamsbong]

As atte,pted to be calculated on another tread, that sccop doesn't cost that much in terms of air-resistance, when most of the air-stream is consumed by the engine, as I can recall 10 Hp at 300 km/h.

You're right xpensive. as long as the scoop is optimised for max speed, it improves the engine power (by a small %) and will not cause any form of drag as the air gets suck into the engine rather than being forced around it.

[xpensive]

This from November 22, 2008;

Imagine that a 2500cc/1900Rpm four-stroke engine, with 100% filling of combustion chambers, would consume 380 liters (0.38 m^3) of air, in an F1 car travelling at a speed of 300 km/h (83.3 m/s). This means a need for an air intake area of 45.6 cm^2 to have the same intake-speed as said travelling speed.

The extra static pressure in the air-intake to force-feed the engine would come from the differencee between travelling-speed and intake-speed. When an intake area of 200 cm^2 seems about right, it makes for a speed difference of 64.3 m/s, which creates an xtra static pressure of 2.07 kPa.
Theoretically translating to some 15.7 extra horsepower if we started out with 760.

But the xtra static pressure acting on the flat intake surface also creates an increase in additional air-resistance on the car. An additional static pressure of 2.07 kPa over 200 cm^2 at 64.3 m/s means a loss of 3.6 Hp.

[megz]

This from November 22, 2008;

Imagine that a 2500cc/1900Rpm four-stroke engine, with 100% filling of combustion chambers, would consume 380 liters (0.38 m^3) of air, in an F1 car travelling at a speed of 300 km/h (83.3 m/s). This means a need for an air intake area of 45.6 cm^2 to have the same intake-speed as said travelling speed.

The extra static pressure in the air-intake to force-feed the engine would come from the differencee between travelling-speed and intake-speed. When an intake area of 200 cm^2 seems about right, it makes for a speed difference of 64.3 m/s, which creates an xtra static pressure of 2.07 kPa.
Theoretically translating to some 15.7 extra horsepower if we started out with 760.

But the xtra static pressure acting on the flat intake surface also creates an increase in additional air-resistance on the car. An additional static pressure of 2.07 kPa over 200 cm^2 at 64.3 m/s means a loss of 3.6 Hp.

Mis-type or are the calculations been thrown off by that?