Formula 1 Quarter Mile?

[onetoolfan]

Does anyone have actual numbers on what times and how fast the current F1 cars can run in the quarter mile? I did some searching and on some forums it was stated as low 8's on others low 9's and none gave any ideas as to what the trap speed would be. Anyone know for sure?
If not, could someone calculate what this 2002 would do, I think the supplied equations should be enough for someone with more math skills than myself Link . Thanks for your help.

[BjD]

I had MATLAB open so thought, meh, Ill spend 5 minutes not doing coursework . By my rough calculations I get 8.28s for the quarter mile (or 402.336m), with a trap speed of 184.6mph. Sounds about right for the time, not so sure about the speed, but heh they're probably faster than you think.

I actually remember seeing, on TV, Renault testing their launch control at a drag strip a few years ago. Im sure the numbers from that are out there somewhere

[onetoolfan]

Awesome, that sounds very plausible. Thanks for doing the caculations.

[ZeTurbo]

i think it could be faster... if it was specifically tuned for such an event(ie tyres, gears, downforce, etc...) like they do for certain circuits.

[CdocZ]

Yeah, I have to agree with Zeturbo. Especially since the record for a "normal car" is not even a second after that (I believe the exact number is 8.76, but I am sure that it is the Hennessey Venom 1000TT). I think an F1 car can outdo an upgraded Viper by more then half a second.

[fpv_gtho]

I dont think anyone really cares what the Hennessey Vipers can do......

It'd be interesting to compare the high downforce/short gear settings from Monaco to the low downforce/tall gears of Monza though

[Rockefella]

I dont think anyone really cares what the Hennessey Vipers can do......

lol, CdocZ is going to be pissed at that statement.

[CdocZ]

I dont think anyone really cares what the Hennessey Vipers can do......

It'd be interesting to compare the high downforce/short gear settings from Monaco to the low downforce/tall gears of Monza though

That was not the point. The point was that I do not think that time is correct, considering how a "semi-normal" street car can almost keep up in acceleration.
EDIT: No, rock, not pissed, just annoyed that someone thought I was trying to be a Venom fanboy when I was just pointing out some evidence that the 1/4 mile time that guy said might be wrong.

[jcp123]

I"m sure if you really set up the F1 cars for it you could pull some damn impressive times out of them...the suspension and gearbox of an F1 car are definitely not tuned to be favorable on the strip.

[fpv_gtho]

EDIT: No, rock, not pissed, just annoyed that someone thought I was trying to be a Venom fanboy when I was just pointing out some evidence that the 1/4 mile time that guy said might be wrong.

It wouldnt be a problem if those damn Hennessey Vipers werent always brought up by you in a comparison to something.

[lukeh]

i have a technical question why are all the front nose cones about 10cm higher off the ground in 2005. i thought they would try to restrict air from going under.

[Matra et Alpine]

i have a technical question why are all the front nose cones about 10cm higher off the ground in 2005. i thought they would try to restrict air from going under.

Don't know, but I'd guess that with all the font wing sid extensions they were trying last season that they MAY be creating ground-effect downforce in the front wing and so by forcing it higher prevent that.
Not sure tho' - that's a plain guess.
Worth checking what Atlas-F1 etal have on it, The dedicated F1 sites are good for those Qs

[fa22_raptor]

i have a technical question why are all the front nose cones about 10cm higher off the ground in 2005. i thought they would try to restrict air from going under.

Why would they want to restrict the air from going under? Air that goes under the front wing and hence body attributes for a high percentage of the overall downforce. And yes, Matra you're right in saying that the front wing takes advantage of the ground effect and the FIA has thus raised it to reduce downforce, but I don't think this is what lukehow was asking.
The underbody aerodynamics in F1 is possibly one of the most crucial factors in the design of the car and I guess we can't naively assume that what we think about the height of the nose is correct, because the teams obviously know a lot more than us.

[lukeh]

what your saying is ok but what i got told was from an engineer at the unerversity is that if there is less air going underneath the car there is a lower pressure. this creats suction to the ground hence downforce. The rear wing is also aided to reduce the air under neath the car the rear wing also helps suck air out from underneath the car and that also helps create a lower pressure. a perfect example of the oppisite of lower pressure underneath the car is when Mark Webber was racing at the 24 hour race. this is not exact word to word what he told me.

[DasModell]

they raised the front wing to decrease downforce . same thing with the modified difuser and rear wing . they are trying to slow the cars .. they didn't quite got there but at least the cars arent much faster than last year .