27 replies to this topic

[Eric]

World Speed Record Set in Dodge Charger: Russ Wicks, who holds World Speed Records of more than 200 miles per hour on both land and water, has set a stock car world record of 244.9 miles per hour, which has been confirmed by Guinness World Records. Wick successfully achieved the record on Tuesday, October 9 at the Bonneville Salt Flats in Northwestern Utah while driving a 2007 Dodge Charger built to NASCAR specifications. The new mark shatters Wicks� previous stock car world speed record of 222 miles per hour. Wicks� vehicle was developed with the backing of the Dodge Motorsports Engineering Group and Arrington Engines.(Dodge Motorsports PR)(10-14-2007)

Source

Now, you may be wondering why I post this...a stock car did 244.9 mph average...the Honda F1 did 246.983 mph average.  Yes, the Honda was faster, but look at it this way...

The stock car was "built to NASCAR specifications."  The Honda was not built to F1 specs, I don't believe:

Note the rear wing.

So please do remember that bashing stock cars is pointless, as they are just as capable as F1 cars.

And I'm a crazed stock car fan with no life so this makes me laugh.

[Rainmaster]

It may be pointless, but it's fun.

[Eric]

rainmaster, on Oct 14 2007, 10:29 AM, said:

It may be pointless, but it's fun.

Yeah!  That's why I bash F1.  No good reason, it's just nice happy childish fun!

[Quiet One]

You will get better soon, don't worry

[Jean Todt]

Get well soon!

[Eric]

Question of the day:
How does an 800-hp, 3600-lb stock car run times almost as fast as an 800-hp, 1200-lb F1 car?  That does not make sense to me.

BUT OUR STOCK CARS ARE BETTER ANYWAY!  THEY DEFY THE LAWS OF POWER-TO-WEIGHT RATIOS!  THEY'RE MAGICAL!  LIKE UNICORNS!  AND UNICORNS ARE RAD!

Okay.  I'm good.  But please, still answer my question.

[ykickamoocow]

Eric, on Oct 15 2007, 01:01 AM, said:

Question of the day:
How does an 800-hp, 3600-lb stock car run times almost as fast as an 800-hp, 1200-lb F1 car?  That does not make sense to me.

BUT OUR STOCK CARS ARE BETTER ANYWAY!  THEY DEFY THE LAWS OF POWER-TO-WEIGHT RATIOS!  THEY'RE MAGICAL!  LIKE UNICORNS!  AND UNICORNS ARE RAD!

Okay.  I'm good.  But please, still answer my question.

My guess would be they tweaked the Nascar engine so it would produce more than 800 horsepower. Still would be legal in Nascar but the engine wouldnt last race distance so nobody would do it. Its easy to modify a engine to produce alot more power if the engine only has to do afew miles.

[Eric]

ykickamoocow, on Oct 14 2007, 11:15 AM, said:

My guess would be they tweaked the Nascar engine so it would produce more than 800 horsepower. Still would be legal in Nascar but the engine wouldnt last race distance so nobody would do it. Its easy to modify a engine to produce alot more power if the engine only has to do afew miles.

No, not the case, actually...

At Talladega and Daytona (2.66 and 2.5 mile ovals), they run restrictor plates to limit the hp to around 450.  However, Rusty Wallace tested at one of those tracks without the restrictor plate using a legal 800hp engine and did a lap with an average of 235 hp.

Also, to tweak, the engine would need to produce 2400 hp to have an equal power:weight ratio as an F1 car, and that'd be impossible to do.

[Jean Todt]

Eric, on Oct 14 2007, 03:42 PM, said:

No, not the case, actually...

At Talladega and Daytona (2.66 and 2.5 mile ovals), they run restrictor plates to limit the hp to around 450.  However, Rusty Wallace tested at one of those tracks without the restrictor plate using a legal 800hp engine and did a lap with an average of 235 hp.

Also, to tweak, the engine would need to produce 2400 hp to have an equal power:weight ratio as an F1 car, and that'd be impossible to do.

AAH! Then someone forgot to change it to Kmph from Mph on his speedometer!  

[Eric]

abbas_gear, on Oct 14 2007, 03:02 PM, said:

AAH! Then someone forgot to change it to Kmph from Mph on his speedometer!  

You wish.

Stock cars don't have speedometers, sorry...

And we're American, we don't do kmph.

[Rainmaster]

Eric, on Oct 14 2007, 04:01 PM, said:

Question of the day:
How does an 800-hp, 3600-lb stock car run times almost as fast as an 800-hp, 1200-lb F1 car? That does not make sense to me.

BUT OUR STOCK CARS ARE BETTER ANYWAY! THEY DEFY THE LAWS OF POWER-TO-WEIGHT RATIOS! THEY'RE MAGICAL! LIKE UNICORNS! AND UNICORNS ARE RAD!

Okay. I'm good. But please, still answer my question.

I don't know. Here is my attempt at an answer (it's another question).

Is it because the power to weight ratio doesn't really affect the top speed, just other aspects of performance? How long did each car take to to reach these top speeds?

Maybe DOF can clear it up.

[Rainmaster]

Eric, on Oct 14 2007, 08:29 PM, said:

You wish.

Stock cars don't have speedometers, sorry...

And we're American, we don't do kmph.

That's because they suck!

[Yoda McFly]

IIRC, Bonneville cars have a certain distance to build up speed before the start line ... But, as rainmaster said, power-to-weight doesn't affect top speed, it affects handling and acceleration ... Top speed is all about gearing and RPM, and having enough torque to maintain that ...

It's still pretty impressive, however ...

[Eric]

rainmaster, on Oct 14 2007, 04:31 PM, said:

I don't know. Here is my attempt at an answer (it's another question).

Is it because the power to weight ratio doesn't really affect the top speed, just other aspects of performance? How long did each car take to to reach these top speeds?

Maybe DOF can clear it up.

Yeah, I do know that an F1 car would be faster on a closed circuit because it can corner faster because it is lighter, and therefore it can accelerate faster as carrying more speeds out of the corner equates to more speed down the straights...

rainmaster, on Oct 14 2007, 04:33 PM, said:

That's because they suck!

No, it's because our driver's are so ballsy they don't need no nothing tellin' them what they is doin cuz they dont give no Sh#t cuz they just wanna go fast.

No, that didn't make sense.

But your maternal instinct Gay Parade drivers need to know just how fast they are going to comply with speed limits and personal limits or else they will cry   

Yoda McFly, on Oct 14 2007, 06:23 PM, said:

IIRC, Bonneville cars have a certain distance to build up speed before the start line ... But, as rainmaster said, power-to-weight doesn't affect top speed, it affects handling and acceleration ... Top speed is all about gearing and RPM, and having enough torque to maintain that ...

It's still pretty impressive, however ...

I don't think they'd give them more time to a certain class over another, though...

And yeah, but RPM...19,000 RPM in an F1 car, 10,000 in a stock car...?

[Vegetableman]

It's a simple answer.
Look at this years Honda, it's the modern day tortise.

[Jean Todt]

Eric, on Oct 14 2007, 07:29 PM, said:

You wish.

Stock cars don't have speedometers, sorry...

And we're American, we don't do kmph.

Bah!  


Indian drivers are more ballsy than anyone else, because here they drive like that to keep their family alive.

[Rainmaster]

Eric, on Oct 15 2007, 01:08 AM, said:

Yeah, I do know that an F1 car would be faster on a closed circuit because it can corner faster because it is lighter, and therefore it can accelerate faster as carrying more speeds out of the corner equates to more speed down the straights...


No, it's because our driver's are so ballsy they don't need no nothing tellin' them what they is doin cuz they dont give no Sh#t cuz they just wanna go fast.

No, that didn't make sense.

But your maternal instinct Gay Parade drivers need to know just how fast they are going to comply with speed limits and personal limits or else they will cry


I don't think they'd give them more time to a certain class over another, though...

And yeah, but RPM...19,000 RPM in an F1 car, 10,000 in a stock car...?

Or be sick like Webber!

[Max Mosley]

Yoda McFly, on Oct 14 2007, 11:23 PM, said:

IIRC, Bonneville cars have a certain distance to build up speed before the start line ... But, as rainmaster said, power-to-weight doesn't affect top speed, it affects handling and acceleration ... Top speed is all about gearing and RPM, and having enough torque to maintain that ...

It's still pretty impressive, however ...

Yup good explanation thanks!  F1 cars aren't designed to go 240mph in any case.  The rules are so tight that they will give up any advantage in performance in that regime (which is totally irrelevant to F1!) in favour of better performance at lower speeds (ones that they will actually reach in races!).

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer]

Mind you, given that they are designed with ovals in mind, as I understand the wheels are cambered, so it must have done one great big doughnut!!! At least the F1 car would keep going in straight line

And why, can you tell me do they paint headlamps on them???

Actually I watched the odd Nascar race and they are OK, the commentators were annoying though....

[Eric]

Murray Walker, on Oct 15 2007, 04:56 PM, said:

Yup good explanation thanks!  F1 cars aren't designed to go 240mph in any case.  The rules are so tight that they will give up any advantage in performance in that regime (which is totally irrelevant to F1!) in favour of better performance at lower speeds (ones that they will actually reach in races!).

Well, a NASCAR stock car COULD go 240mph in a race...if NASCAR let them run the real car at Dega they'd go 240mph, but cuz NASCAR restricts the engine for safety, they only go up to 210...

Meanioni, on Oct 15 2007, 05:05 PM, said:

Mind you, given that they are designed with ovals in mind, as I understand the wheels are cambered, so it must have done one great big doughnut!!! At least the F1 car would keep going in straight line

And why, can you tell me do they paint headlamps on them???

Actually I watched the odd Nascar race and they are OK, the commentators were annoying though....

I actually quite like the tendancy to go to the left on the straights and not wanna turn...makes it harder to drive and more demanding on the drivers...always been a fan of making it hard on the drivers.

They aren't "painted"...they are decals.  So why are they decals and not real?  My guess is it's less expensive to have decals than it is to put on real working headlights.  Also, I'd imagine it's a little lighter?  And, there's no real point to having real headlights since they'd never be used.

Today's NASCAR, you can catch a rare good one and now and then.  Older NASCAR (as recent as 2003, actually) was usually superb, saw the 90s and early 2000s and I loved it.  Now it's much more tedious...too long, too many cautions, not enough action, etc.  And the commentators...there was a time when the commentators were great...how many old NASCAR watchers miss CBS or the old ESPN/ABC?  I know I do.  Now, the commentators act like they are the show and not the race, and it makes for really Sh#tty TV.

[DOF_power]

Easy answer, too much drag on the F1 cars. Even without gremlins the profile of an F1 generates downforce witch also implies drag penalty.
The older IRLs have reached over 260 mph BTW.

And is that a COT car (witch has extra drag, less downforce and less gripy tires) ?!
And if it was build to specifications it would have had a restrictor plate.

[Eric]

DOF_Renault_BMW, on Oct 26 2007, 01:10 PM, said:

Easy answer, too much drag on the F1 cars. Even without gremlins the profile of an F1 generates downforce witch also implies drag penalty.
The older IRLs have reached over 260 mph BTW.

And is that a COT car (witch has extra drag, less downforce and less gripy tires) ?!
And if it was build to specifications it would have had a restrictor plate.

Yes, the Renske did 260 at Indy, IIRC, and one of the Renske's did a lap in excess of 250 mph at California in the late 90s, I believe.  (Renske is a Reynard-Penske for those of you who never watched CART)

And I'm not sure if it was a COT or not.

[Autumnpuma]

Eric, on Oct 26 2007, 11:47 AM, said:

Yes, the Renske did 260 at Indy, IIRC, and one of the Renske's did a lap in excess of 250 mph at California in the late 90s, I believe.  (Renske is a Reynard-Penske for those of you who never watched CART)

And I'm not sure if it was a COT or not.

What you're thinking of was Cristiano DaMatta in practice running his Newman/Haas around Fontana at 242mph. I don't remember the year (2000 or so) or the speed (242 sounds right).

[Eric]

Autumnpuma, on Oct 26 2007, 03:10 PM, said:

What you're thinking of was Cristiano DaMatta in practice running his Newman/Haas around Fontana at 242mph. I don't remember the year (2000 or so) or the speed (242 sounds right).

No, it was definately Gil de Ferran at Fontana in a Renske.  Doing 240+ or 250+, I forget, and it was in qualifying.  And I recall a Renske doing 260 at Indy with an illegal engine.

And DOF, it wasn't a COT, it said a 2007 Dodge Charger, and the COT is a Dodge Avenger...just noticed that.

[Eric]

There's De Ferran's 241 mph lap.

[Yoda McFly]

Eric, on Oct 26 2007, 12:16 PM, said:

There's De Ferran's 241 mph lap.

I was there that weekend.  That was when at ChampCar (CART) pit pass still meant you could get into the pits, all over in the garage and paddock ... Good stuff.

The race was rained out on Sunday; I ended up "watching" it on live timing and scoring from work.

[Argento Reloaded]

"So please do remember that bashing stock cars is pointless, as they are just as capable as F1 cars."

As far as you want to corner the beast... But never mind farmacology is very strong and bring new development to us every week... maybe they�ll find a cure!

[raw]

Eric, on Oct 14 2007, 03:01 PM, said:

Question of the day:
How does an 800-hp, 3600-lb stock car run times almost as fast as an 800-hp, 1200-lb F1 car?  That does not make sense to me.

The answer to that question lies in aerodynamics.
F1 car has got really big downforce even without the rear wing, but when you create downforce you also get turbulence and that means really big drag coefiicient. For example regular road car has drag coefficient od about 0,3 , big bus or truck has about 0,9, F1 car about 0,9- 1,0 (it creates less drag than a bus because of it's smaller frontal area but still huge). So that's why F1 car is deaccelerating faster from high speeds (without use of brakes) than normal road car that is braking and that's why it can't really go faster than that dodge in a straight line.