Ok now THIS is weird!

"Biz" > wrote in
:

> Not at all weird really.
>
> Twice as much HP, much better rubber, some downforce as opposed to
> almost none in 67 F1...and 35+ years of technical advances in brakes,
> etc...
.... and only 1.5 seconds of difference.

Though in modern F1 they seem to manage to pull out 1.5 seconds every year
out of nowhere

Alex.

alexti > wrote in message
. 233.52...
> "Biz" > wrote in
> :
>
> > Not at all weird really.
> >
> > Twice as much HP, much better rubber, some downforce as opposed to
> > almost none in 67 F1...and 35+ years of technical advances in brakes,
> > etc...
> ... and only 1.5 seconds of difference.
>
> Though in modern F1 they seem to manage to pull out 1.5 seconds every year
> out of nowhere
>
> Alex.



Hehe, thinking the same thing; 35 years of tech, etc., only results in a
1.5 sec increase ? I don't think thats the answer <g>

"JP" > wrote in message
...
>
> alexti > wrote in message
> . 233.52...
> > "Biz" > wrote in
> > :
> >
> > > Not at all weird really.
> > >
> > > Twice as much HP, much better rubber, some downforce as opposed to
> > > almost none in 67 F1...and 35+ years of technical advances in brakes,
> > > etc...
> > ... and only 1.5 seconds of difference.
> >
> > Though in modern F1 they seem to manage to pull out 1.5 seconds every
year
> > out of nowhere
> >
> > Alex.
>
>
>
> Hehe, thinking the same thing; 35 years of tech, etc., only results in a
> 1.5 sec increase ? I don't think thats the answer <g>
>
>
>

If you read back the OP was actually off by a whole second, he must have
been using that new math..

Biz > wrote in message
...
>
> "JP" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > alexti > wrote in message
> > . 233.52...
> > > "Biz" > wrote in
> > > :
> > >
> > > > Not at all weird really.
> > > >
> > > > Twice as much HP, much better rubber, some downforce as opposed to
> > > > almost none in 67 F1...and 35+ years of technical advances in
brakes,
> > > > etc...
> > > ... and only 1.5 seconds of difference.
> > >
> > > Though in modern F1 they seem to manage to pull out 1.5 seconds every
> year
> > > out of nowhere
> > >
> > > Alex.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hehe, thinking the same thing; 35 years of tech, etc., only results in
a
> > 1.5 sec increase ? I don't think thats the answer <g>
> >
> >
> >
>
> If you read back the OP was actually off by a whole second, he must have
> been using that new math..


Yep, you're right; 2.5. Still not much of an increase re 35 years of
tech, etc., imo.


>
>
>
>

We're talking about completely different technology paths though. If you
want to compare, it would have to be 67 F1, vs 04 F1, or 67 Winston Cup vs
04 Nextel Cup cars....this comnparison is apple to oranges, even if they are
35 years apart...

I'm sure you know that 3400lb cup cars with carburated engines, etc...not
that high tech

Truthfully, I'm surprised WC cars are actually faster, to me it seems about
right. Anyone remember the times Gordon's cup car got around Indy when they
had that Willaims vs Dupont thing last year?

"JP" > wrote in message
...
>
> Biz > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "JP" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > alexti > wrote in message
> > > . 233.52...
> > > > "Biz" > wrote in
> > > > :
> > > >
> > > > > Not at all weird really.
> > > > >
> > > > > Twice as much HP, much better rubber, some downforce as opposed to
> > > > > almost none in 67 F1...and 35+ years of technical advances in
> brakes,
> > > > > etc...
> > > > ... and only 1.5 seconds of difference.
> > > >
> > > > Though in modern F1 they seem to manage to pull out 1.5 seconds
every
> > year
> > > > out of nowhere
> > > >
> > > > Alex.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hehe, thinking the same thing; 35 years of tech, etc., only results
in
> a
> > > 1.5 sec increase ? I don't think thats the answer <g>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > If you read back the OP was actually off by a whole second, he must have
> > been using that new math..
>
>
> Yep, you're right; 2.5. Still not much of an increase re 35 years of
> tech, etc., imo.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

"Biz" > wrote in
:

>
> Truthfully, I'm surprised WC cars are actually faster, to me it seems
> about right. Anyone remember the times Gordon's cup car got around
> Indy when they had that Willaims vs Dupont thing last year?
>

Several seconds slower if I recall.
I also vaguely remember a magazine article in something like Road & Track
that compared a GTP Imsa car, possibly a Porche 962 vs a WC car, the WC was
much more aerodynamic and posted a faster speed on the SS oval. Of course
the magazine did NOT then compare the two on a road course. ;>

dave henrie

That's true, but 35 years is 35 years, no matter what you're talking
about, and with something as techy as even passenger autos, that's a loooong
time <g>

With the very small difference in time of the OP's tests, I just find it
hard to believe it is anything but track modeling, etc., is all.


Biz > wrote in message
...
> We're talking about completely different technology paths though. If you
> want to compare, it would have to be 67 F1, vs 04 F1, or 67 Winston Cup vs
> 04 Nextel Cup cars....this comnparison is apple to oranges, even if they
are
> 35 years apart...
>
> I'm sure you know that 3400lb cup cars with carburated engines, etc...not
> that high tech
>
> Truthfully, I'm surprised WC cars are actually faster, to me it seems
about
> right. Anyone remember the times Gordon's cup car got around Indy when
they
> had that Willaims vs Dupont thing last year?
>
> "JP" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Biz > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "JP" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > alexti > wrote in message
> > > > . 233.52...
> > > > > "Biz" > wrote in
> > > > > :
> > > > >
> > > > > > Not at all weird really.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Twice as much HP, much better rubber, some downforce as opposed
to
> > > > > > almost none in 67 F1...and 35+ years of technical advances in
> > brakes,
> > > > > > etc...
> > > > > ... and only 1.5 seconds of difference.
> > > > >
> > > > > Though in modern F1 they seem to manage to pull out 1.5 seconds
> every
> > > year
> > > > > out of nowhere
> > > > >
> > > > > Alex.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hehe, thinking the same thing; 35 years of tech, etc., only results
> in
> > a
> > > > 1.5 sec increase ? I don't think thats the answer <g>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > If you read back the OP was actually off by a whole second, he must
have
> > > been using that new math..
> >
> >
> > Yep, you're right; 2.5. Still not much of an increase re 35 years of
> > tech, etc., imo.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

True fact: '67 F1 cars were about as fast around any given circuit as '67
Indy cars (Andretti was on the Indy 500 pole @ 169 mph, but Brands Hatch is
where the comparisons are telling), despite the latter having a 50% bigger
alcohol-burning engine and the former being several hundred pounds lighter.
Moreover, the fastest sports cars of the era (Ford, Ferrari, Chaparral) were
also in the same range (again, the comparison at Brands tells), Even
curiouser, latter-day Cup cars are about as fast around any given circuit as
the '67 bolides, thanks to superior aero and rubber, and despite having an
inferior power-to-weight ratio. Perhaps that's why Papy sims--and their
mode--work so well in similar laptime environments.


"John DiFool" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 21:37:53 GMT, "Timmy Ferrell"
> > wrote:
>
> >> might think....my GPL Monza time to date is 1:32.728, and in N2K3 it's
> >> 1:30.200. That's about 1.5 seconds difference there...
> >>
> >> I'd have thought I'd be faster in GPL and not N2K3. I had not run the
> >> track
> >> in N2K3 before either, but obviously knew how to drive the track though
my
> >> GPL experience.
> >>
> >> But I'm still puzzled as to how I am faster on that track in a stock
car
> >> rather then an open wheeler.
> >Try this for an experiment...
> >Get a GPL version of Indianapolis Motor Speedway...
> >The times will probably be in the 1:00 minute area for a 1967 GP car..
> >A good time in N 2003's version of the Brickyard (included in the game...
> >not a converted version) will be in the low .50 sec range.
> >I think that's just the increase in raw horsepower.
> >Timmy
> >
>
> A good time at Indy '67 in a GPL car is around 53 seconds...
>

>>The times will probably be in the 1:00 minute area for a 1967 GP car..
>>A good time in N 2003's version of the Brickyard (included in the game...
>>not a converted version) will be in the low .50 sec range.
> A good time at Indy '67 in a GPL car is around 53 seconds...
Keep in mind my GPL Handicap is is about +65...
1.00 Minute for me IS a good time....
Timmy

> Truthfully, I'm surprised WC cars are actually faster, to me it seems
> about
> right. Anyone remember the times Gordon's cup car got around Indy when
> they
> had that Willaims vs Dupont thing last year?
I don't remember if the made more than a passing comparsion between the Cup
vs. F1 car on the Indy Roadcourse. I mainly remember comparing Gordon and
Montoya's time running the same car. They were of course faster in their
respective rides. Gordon actually surprised some by his performance in
Montoya's ride- he was only about 1 sec to 1.5 sec. slower than Montoya in
the F1 car. It seems the point was made if he had started the previous
years' F1 USGP he would've started about 10th or 12th.