Re: 0-100kph?

Discussion in '2002 Ferrari F2002' started by Clem, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. the f2002 goes 0-150km in 3 seconds
     
  2. ehh...where's that figure from?? 0-93mph in 3 secs??<!-- Signature -->
     
  3. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from alexly</i>
    <b>F1 is the fastest track racing car on earth
    0-100 1.7-2.9s
    0-225 5s
    0-300 10.xs

    5g in skid pad
    2.4-2.6g in race track</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE --> by the way ive heard of over 4.2g's on high speed corners, these things could probaly do under 1 sec 0-60 but there is only a maximum amount of traction, in response to some of these first posts about being pushed out of the pits: they run on such a high octane fuel if the rpms drop to an idle its amazing they dont stall all the time so yes sometimes they do get pushed out of the pits.<!-- Signature -->
     
  4. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from cruisin101</i>
    <b>i agree with cobrahead unless you have accually driven the car dont judge it, you stupid kids have no idea what o-60 in 2 secs acctually feels like, you guys just say oh no its only 0-60 in 6 secs ohh that so slow, well your wrong thats faster then all most all yours or your parents cars. The first time i got inside one the feeling was incredible being sucked to the back of your seat.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE --> ya i mean 0-60 in 3.5 seconds would probably be around 1.2-1.5g's of rearward force. i mean stopping from 60-0 in 120 ft is about 1 g of forward force. and these cars could probably do 60-0 in around 50-60ft<!-- Signature -->
     
  5. Road and Track did a "test" of the 2000 Jaguar R1 in the March '01 issue. 0-60 mph was 2.7 seconds. 0-100 mph was 4.2. 0-160 was an amazing 6.2 (it took less time to go from 100-160 than 0-60). The 1/4 mile was 9.4 at 181 mph. Keep in mind, the "testing" was done during the race at Indy in 2000. It was slick that day and Indy is taller gear track. Given that technology has improved in the last 2 years, and that Jaguar was a middle of the road team in 2000, 0-60 times could be about 2 seconds. Remember though, many say the McLaren F1 LM *could* do 0-60 in 3 seconds. The head test driver at McLaren said the best time he has attained is 3.9 because of wheel spin. This 2.7 for the R1 seems to be real, though.<!-- Signature -->
     
  6. Modena: man, 0-60 in under 1?? gimmie a break! 7000hp Top Fuel dragsters pull 0-60mph in 0.6 so i SERIOUSLY doubt that they could get to 60 in 1 sec! and dont get me wrong, i LOVE F1, hell, i just watched the Monaco race earlier today! but we have to be realistic, u know? i don't mean to disrespect you or anything either, so please dont go biznitching me out =P peace
    <!-- Signature -->
     
  7. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from ShuemyFan</i>
    <b>Modena: man, 0-60 in under 1?? gimmie a break! 7000hp Top Fuel dragsters pull 0-60mph in 0.6 so i SERIOUSLY doubt that they could get to 60 in 1 sec! and dont get me wrong, i LOVE F1, hell, i just watched the Monaco race earlier today! but we have to be realistic, u know? i don't mean to disrespect you or anything either, so please dont go biznitching me out =P peace
    </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->im saying if this had unlimited traction it might get in that region, i know it was a kind of over estimated guess, im just saying their power/weight ratio might let them do that if they had no TCS and unlimited traction.<!-- Signature -->
     
  8. rivers are better than f1. i know the terrain is ruff but if you take ismall tuned engines are always better. but man u cant say that rally dn acount the speed that these cars take corners is mindblowing .

    0.60 in 6 is quick fastest i have gone is 4.9 secsand ill tell u is as fast as hell u have to hold that sterring pretty damn tight cuz it will spin crazy. big engined cars are dumb or should i say cheap and thats why alot of american cars suck or should i say get outperformed by others. its cheap to get a V8 8L but to get a 3L up to this standarts like the f1 is a work of art. My corrado does 0.60 in 4.9 secs is tuned to 280hp and has a 51%-49% weight disrtibution is an inline 4, and i love this car from every side, looks or performance .
    G before they used 1.5L engines and used to get 800+ hp now that is fukin amazing.

    by the way i watched the monaco race was very competitive
    peace<!-- Signature -->
     
  9. look 7000hp yeah yeah i know .6 -100 and f1 800 1.8/1.9-100 it is called logic look a 50hp car could do 20 seconds to 100 a 100 could do 17, 150hp 14 ish, 200 12, 250, 9 do you see what i mean there is a point where the more power you have dont mean your time decreases 2 fold dumb asses<!-- Signature -->
     
  10. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from killaman</i>
    <b>rivers are better than f1. i know the terrain is ruff but if you take ismall tuned engines are always better. but man u cant say that rally dn acount the speed that these cars take corners is mindblowing .

    0.60 in 6 is quick fastest i have gone is 4.9 secsand ill tell u is as fast as hell u have to hold that sterring pretty damn tight cuz it will spin crazy. big engined cars are dumb or should i say cheap and thats why alot of american cars suck or should i say get outperformed by others. its cheap to get a V8 8L but to get a 3L up to this standarts like the f1 is a work of art. My corrado does 0.60 in 4.9 secs is tuned to 280hp and has a 51%-49% weight disrtibution is an inline 4, and i love this car from every side, looks or performance .
    G before they used 1.5L engines and used to get 800+ hp now that is fukin amazing.

    by the way i watched the monaco race was very competitive
    peace</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    what the hell did you say? i could barely understand a word you said with your run-on sentences and rambling. learn how to write and mybe someone could understand you
     
  11. i just downloaded a special on the F1 ferrari that won the championship in 1990 that aired on the BBC. It put the F50 up against it. At the end of the special it said the f1 car got 0-60mph in 3.0 seconds and 0-100mph in 3.4 seconds with a top speed of 206mph. U can download it off of kazaa, it was called simply top gear ferrari f1 vs f50
     
  12. realice : yeah, thanx for the logic lesson....i'm not quite sure who u'r addressin your comments to but if you're trying to disprove mine, try again. top fuelers fun massive drag slicks at around 4-5psi, there is virtually no wheel spin off the line because the slicks' sidewalls are wrinkling like an old-man's forehead to grab the tarmac. if you are trying to say that my argument is flawed, try again, there is no way in hypothetical hell that an F1 car would get to 60mph in a second, sorry! can you say: "power-to-weight ratios"?

    oh and by the way, i hope you were using those figures in your post as pure examples only, b/c those will never happen!<!-- Signature -->
     
  13. Cobrahead ur an idiot.......INDY cars are cool huh...let's drivbe in circles for 4 hours.. F1 cars are much better race cars and more skill is involved in the races even though there isn't alort of passing. INDY is still cool...but F1 cars are still teh ultimate cars.
     
  14. Okay....they do around 0-60 in 2 flat. That is the most likely thing, the F1 teams however aren't concentrating on taht, remember these cars are the best handling cars so 0-60 is a mere stat for them.
     

Share This Page