Re: F40 Hamann vs Mc Laren F1

Discussion in '1994 Hamann F40' started by F40 Le Mans, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. The fact is that no one is saying the McLaren F1 was not a fast car. It was fast in straight line. On track need also the ability to handle the corners. That's why the F1 road car was not a God. I notice a great incompetence by members. expecially when extolling their favourite cars. The F1 was always the car the people look as a divina, but it was in part smoke on eyes.
    The road car was developed to have a very soft alignment to improve traction, Murray ask for 550 hp for the F1, BMW answer with 627 hp for the definitive power unit. This does explain why the F1 was very fast looking at the standing start from 0 until 200 mph cause also for narrow rear tires. What about corners?
    Provided of push road suspensions anyway the handling had to deal with soft shock absorbers calibrations, high center of gravity and high tires.
    WHY MEMBERS NEVER MENTIONS POINTS LIKE THESE? Maybe because people is usually incompetent at regard?
    Believe to a fast lap time at the Nring NEGLECTING the F1 overall setting is so naive. Also naive is believe at that Bedford track lap time, and compare with it with cars, made by a car with an extreme alignment and bigger wheels? But people. Do you think that there are just idiots behind our PC? Don't think so-LOL
     
  2. Long thread running.
     
  3. #28 mclarenf1gtrlm, Dec 7, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2016
    Yeah I know.But at that time only tires were changed,also by looking at the lap time video,he didn't maintained the lap as smooth as that of Enzo or Carrera GT.Also you must consider that he was not a pro driver,just a journalist.At the hands of a pro driver I think F1 would beat them both.

    Also racing line wasn't maintained as correct as that.As for other lap times F1 is fine at Estoril Circuit when tested by Turbo Magazine in 1994 compared to other cars,plus F1 was tested with 2 passengers,scan is at wiki.Other lap times are from Autofoco magazine.
    http://www.zeperfs.com/en/classement-ci82.htm
    Here is one scan with lap time,unfortunately,it isn't much clear but you can see Nissan GT-R lap time for evidence.
    http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=mbhb1x&s=8
    As you can see Nissan GTR was the record holder in 2012 in 2011 it was ZR1 by autofoco which was slower than F1.And we know that ZR1 is faster than an Enzo or Carrera GT around a track.

    Also its Tsukuba lap is fine considering the amount of lap time and track condition.I have also attached another video for 430 Scuderia which looks in similar condition lap time and amount of lap time.
    F1 Video

    430 Scuderia Video


    Ride height doesn't look different to me for chassis 40 vs other F1's with a single google search.

    Oh,7:45 was the estimate from this video,

    As you can see,it is just the owner driving it, the source of estimate is supercars.net nurburgring lap times forum.

    from all the mclaren books I read,there is no mention of 7:45 lap time like Autocar book,Driving Ambition,etc.If you know the name of the book you are referring to,tell me the name of the book.If you compare cornering speeds of F1 vs sport auto laps,7:23 doesn't look impossible.And if you look carefully the soft suspension is an advantage at the ring as it is very bumpy.

    As for downforce point of view racecar 1996 issue says that F1 roadcar produces 200lbs at 149mph under braking it increases the downforce upto 2 times, which is good for a roadcar since most supercars generate lift,not even downforce if you look at sportauto dyno test.CCR generates only 1kg of total downforce at 200kph,highest figure they obtained was from an Apollo Sport with around 190kg(170 rear 20 or 40front)at same speed.Also distribution of downforce is more important than absolute downforce figures.

    Well,if it really is GTE spec,then I think it may beat Enzo,F1,CCX etc because difference between racecar and roadcar is huge,even P1 GTR gets beaten by a GT3 car which is slower than GT1 cars of the 90s.
     
  4. Blue Devil will destroy both!
     
  5. #30 906, Jan 14, 2017
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2017
    Not exactly. The video said that the F1 was tested at Tsukuba with 92% of air humidity but the track was dry. The Scuderia was tested with the track just 70% dry.

    dryontheroad.JPG
     
  6. #31 906, Jan 14, 2017
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2017
    It's not recommended to compare downforce data provided form different sources. Most of the cars claimed to generate downforce by the factory are just able to generate lift or really lower downforce figures by Sportauto. It need that Sportauto test the Mclaren F1 to know if it generate downforce or lift.
     
  7. #32 mclarenf1gtrlm, Jan 28, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2017
    Yeah because people who say that track is damp/moist are blind when everything can be clearly seen and BM even stated it in their FB page.By the way it should also be noted that they might not have stated how much percentage of the track was dry when moisture in the track is clearly visible.
     
  8. LOL,they actually dynoed the F1 when they stated downforce.

    And by the way aren't you MaxMcqueen/F40 LM in Fchat.Because your comment seems very similar to those guys.
     

Share This Page