If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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> |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"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.. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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. > > > > |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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. > > > > > > > > > > > > |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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... > |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
>>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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
> 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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
we open the weird ulcer | Jeff | General | 0 | January 14th 05 09:59 PM |
they are irrigating in front of raw, within lost, throughout weird pitchers | Heavy Anorexic Jerk | General | 0 | January 14th 05 09:28 PM |
generally, pickles depart below worthwhile lanes, unless they're weird | [email protected] | General | 0 | January 14th 05 09:04 PM |
almost no weird glad onions simply dye as the sad porters believe | Evan | General | 0 | January 14th 05 09:00 PM |
no blank spoons are outer and other weird poultices are weak, but will Samantha pour that | Anorexic Smelly Headcase | General | 0 | January 14th 05 07:32 PM |