Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2002 Audi R8' started by 944turb0, Aug 9, 2002.
lol my car can beat a NASCRAP Taurus<!-- Signature -->
It depends on the length of the race.
They dont compare they are all different machines made for different races.<!-- Signature -->
i think it would be close between the f1 and cart cars most people look at the weight and say f1 is lighter therefore faster but f1 mandates a flat bottom chassis whereas cart has ground effects which create more down force basically nullifying the weight advantage of the f1 car around corners and even now the cart cars are puching 900 hp and due to the larger engine size more torque which allows it to match the f1 car in acceleration. top speed the cart would win.in the early 90's there was a test conducted by a car magazine in which a nascar beat a porsche le mans car in top speed 220 to 240.now the nascars are capable of more speed probably close to 260 mph. and they are ideally suited to road courses because although 34 of the 36 races are ovals they are not purpose builtoval cars like the silver bullit series.watkins glen and sears point are the road courses they do indy car are heavier than f1 and have less power thus they aren't as fast despite thear superior aerodynamics.thus it is my belief that the finishing order would be the following.
nascar is probably the safest since the death of one of the greatest drivers ever died at the daytona 500 Dale Earnhardt he actually raced in the 24 hours of daytona and his team was leading overall befor the corvette they were driving had a problem they still finished second overall with his co drivers dale earnhardt jr and andy pilgrim. the other corvette won.<!-- Signature -->
nice way of showing the forums your positive attitude, dubcast.
don't you think there are more constructive things to do with your first post than just starting to flame other people? remember, we are here because we all like cars, and having a discussion or even an argument about them is perfectly fine by me, but your post made no sense whatsoever. i can understand that you may want to criticize other peoples' views, but please do so in a civilized manner.<!-- Signature -->
Please go easy on calling drivers athletes... especially NASCAR drivers... but we should have a race on the ceiling and see who wins... news flash F1 would!
The F1 cars create so much downforce that at 100mph, they produce more downforce than the cars weigh, so theoretically if you could get a F1 car going 100mph on the ceiling, it would stay on the ceiling... let's see some trailer trash in a NASCAR do that.<!-- Signature -->
Oh nascar is very athletic. Its a real test of endurence to be fighting that wheel for such a long time in hot temperatures and at high speed.
Don't get me wrong, i HATE nascar, i think its the most boring/worthless drivel shown on TV today. But don't diss the drivers for it. They are very accomplished atheletes and work very hard at what they do.
if it was long-12 hours:
F1<!-- Signature -->
NASCAR, are you joking! As for the others, the F1 would kick ass. I'm not too sure about Indy/CART and the R8 but i think the Indy/CART would come second then R8.
Rednecks<!-- Signature -->
When I first read this...considering performance in raw terms only, I came up with a list similar to other posts (F1 first....Nascar Last). But I thought about it for it bit. IF you assume that the race is to be run the full 24 hours then the most important factor is reliabilty over pure acceleration, cornering braking ect.
Now...look at it this way.
Formula 1 has an engine cycle time often as small as a couple of years (time until an entirely new engine design is introduced). This means that effectively you only have a few years worth of testing to increase reliability. This is further compounded by the fact that the engine is only designed to last, say 6 hours before overhaul (including qualifying, testing). Considering you have a 3L engine producing 850 HP, this is easy to believe. Aside from the engine, the next biggest problem would likely be the brakes, which are also not designed to last considerably longer than a typical race length.
Nascar has a 5.7L engine which has remained unchanged for many many years. On top of this, it is a very simple, durable and well tested design. So it is pretty easy to conclude that it would likely have the highest engine reliability of all of the cars. What is doesn't have going for it is braking, which, considering the car's weight with respect to open wheeled cars put's it in last place for brak wear. Obviously, it will be a close tie for chassis durability with the audi.
CART runs a 1.5L turbocharged engine. In order to generate the same horsepower as the F1 engine you would need to boost at 1 bar. Unfortunately, turbocharging is nowhere near 100% efficient so the actual boost would be 30% higher or so. On top of this, the formula 1 cars rev higher so even more boost would be needed to level out the horsepower. The result is that the CART engine has much higher in cylinder pressure and greatly increased wear which should put it's engine reliability in last place.
IRL runs a 3.5L naturally aspirated (I may be mistaken here...don't follow IRL) which should give it average to above average reliability.
There is little question of the Audi's reliability...here you have a car that is designed from the ground up to win a 24 hour endurance race, and arguably all round, is the best example of a purpose built LeMans car ever made. The other cars in this comparison can't compete in this respect.
Now...if you disregard the all out performance and concentrate on which cars are actually likely to even FINISH the race... you'd get something like this:
1. Audi R8 Highest overall reliability, fuel economy, quickest repair time. It is designed to be the perfect 24 hour race car, that should be all the explanation required.
2. Nascar (!) Doesn't turn very well...or brake very well, but it benefits from an extremely robust powertrain which is stressed the least of all the other cars listed here. Remember...that the Nascar powertrain is not unlike the Corvette's when you consider durability and the Corvette's were the best of class...even over the superior Saleen SR-7. And then there's the added advantage that they can pretty much hit anything they want and keep on racing. While the engine would run fine...I'm sure the typically lightning fast nascar pitstop would be completely negated by the need to change brake pads every gasstop.
3. IRL The chassis of an IRL car is cheaper and more robust that CART or F1, it's powertrain is the least stressed of the open wheel carts and it is likely the best on fuel economy (of CART, F1 and Nascar).
4. Formula 1 The downfall here would be engine durability...it would likely embarass the other vehicles for the first few hours...until the engine overheats and parts wear. They are simply designed to close to the margin of victory and destruction.
5. CART Biggest problem here: Engine durability, it's small, extremely high pressurized turbo engine simply will not last 24 hours. And you need an engine to cross the finish line. Also...worst fuel economy of F1, CART and IRL
Performance wise...don't doubt the R8. It's can't compete head to head with F1 or CART, but it sure comes close. An F1 car can corner as high as 4.5 g's (at very high speed and downforce)...the R8 was consistently pulling 3 g corners at LeMans. Seing as how my car can't break .85, I'm sure impressed. Also, aerodynamically, the R8 chassis is far superior to all of the other cars here. The open wheels of a champ car are huge sources of aerodynamic drag. This is why the Can-AM closed wheel cars were so close to the performance of todays F1 cars way back in the 70's (owing to unrestricted developement, 1000 HP engines didn't hurt either). Aerodynamically, an F1 car is extremely inefficient, due mainly to regulations aimed at slowing the cars.
Disclaimer: Facts here are best estimates using common sense...I may be off a bit in a couple of places...like ABC having higher fuel economy that DEF for instance. It is not meant to be taken too critically.
i think in a long race the nascar would finish second since f1 cart and indy are not really built for reliability (especially true with f1)the can am cars were the pinnacle of racing they should start running those cars were capable of 230+ in race trim with some of the cars pumping out 1000+ hp. f1 cars are fast but the racing sucks they usually pull a insurmountable lead. winston cup cars are at least second most reliable behind the r8 their races usually last about 4 hours and there is always a good fight for the lead thruoghout the race. that is why they have only full course cautions to keep the racing close. cart and indy cars usually run 2 to 2 1/2 hours so they don't need to be as relible as nascar or lemans.
also in nascar they really don't try to reck each other it just happens like at bristol they have had as many as 20 wrecks in 500 laps but that is because they squeeze 43 cars into a 1/2 mile track. going into corners running 15 second laps (that is not a typo)one minuscule mistake runs you into the back of the car in front of youor slows you up and the car behind you hits you. now occasionally some one gets angry with another driver and pushes him out of the way for instance slow cars that don't want to be lapped will hold up the leader or some of the other faster cars they usually get bushed out of the way that is why tony stuart ran his car into jeff gordons car in pit lane after a race and i believe it was robby gordon did the same to kevin harvick.but intentionally wrecking other cars is not only happening in nascar it has happened in every other race series including f1 and lemans.<!-- Signature -->
The F1 car could beat the R8 at le mans... more powerful and lighter, i dont see where the R8 has an advantage.
Of course, the NASCAR could destroy them all. Literally destroy them, one hit to a CART or F1 car and there goes one of your wheels and the race. I would be a NASCAR could hit the R8 hard enough to end it's race without hurting the NASCAR too much. Just have to make sure it can't limp back to the pits, because if it gets there they will just replace whatever got broken.
Of course, I don't think driving like that is fair or good or anything, but that seems to be how they drive in NASCAR <IMG SRC="http://www.supercars.net/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif">
NASCAR SUCKS WHAT REDNECK SH!T!!!
And thats tha truth!<!-- Signature -->
the first three would actuallly have a chance (audi-f1-indy) but the nascar would not<!-- Signature -->
Torres, good points, but...
todays 3000cc engines have more power than the old pre-94 3500cc engines ever did, so thats a mute point
they do run on slicks, they just have grooves in them, this is the equivalent of running on slightly narrower proper slicks, as the grooves merely reduce the width of rubber touching the ground, and since they run on scrubbed tyres most of the time and usually finish a race with totally 'slick' rubber, its not really that important
my point was that a Can-Am or group C sports prototype could beat an F1 car from the same era
the Can-Am challenge cup was the true pinnacle of motorsport from the golden era 1965-1974, never to be seen again, pure racecars in the true sense of the term, no rules, total innovation, massive performance...nowhere else could rolling experiments from the legendary Chaparral team be allowed 2 race, nowhere else would a McLaren M20 be allowed to run a 790hp 9.3-litre V8, every major revolutionary step forward in automotive design came the Can-Am series...formula 1 merely followed suit
Well ch1c4n3 lets break down some points for you...
1st: the F1 reduce the engines from 3500cc to 3000cc if they hadnt they would pull 1000hp+
2nd: They dont run on slicks like everyone else does (its a rule)
3rd: Their aerodynamics have lots of restrictions, flat bottom... they had to raise the front wing 20mm, their wings get smaller every year.
So you can see... rules can work both ways!! And yes F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport... in a short race (up to 2 hours) in a 'normal' circuit its very dificult to beat one, in straight line it could be beat... its a horsepower problem the one that has the most wins and some years ago (i dont follow cart that much) CART cars were pulling 1200HP+ (i think) so it would easilly win a straight line contest against F1.
of more importance perhaps, is this....
in 1973 Mark Donohue qualified his Porsche 917/30K Can-Am racer around Watkins Glen over 1sec quicker than Ronnie Petersons Formula 1 pole time that same year
in 1991 Martin Brundle qualified his Jaguar XJR-14 Group C car around the Nurburgring only 0.5sec slower than David Coulthards Formula 1 pole time *FIVE* years later
Formula 1 isnt quite the pinnacle of motorsport that most ppl think it is, if development had continued of the Can-Am and Group C cars as it has done in F1, theyd be much much quicker....conceptually, an opel wheeled 'formula' car will never be able 2 compete with a closed body sports-prototype racecar, that much is a fact
the only thing stopping an R8 from embarassing an F1 car is the rulebook, it MUST be heavier, they MUST be less powerful etc etc
The longer the race, obviously the more favor to the R8. The Nascar cars weren't designed to take the turns and all that on a regular track. Nascar cars can take damage, but not as much as the Le Mans cars. Christ, I was watching a ALMS race a month ago, and the R8 crashed into a wall; the whole back of car except for the chasis and wheels was gone. 20 minutes later, the car was all fixed up again, and finished the race 3rd I think. In the race, I think it would be f1-r8-indy-nascar. On a longer race, r8-f1-indy-nascar.<!-- Signature -->
It all depends what kind of race it is. (oval, Road course... etc) The rules of the series also matter. Cart Cars in the mid-90's were a faster then they are now (there turbo's were pushing 60 PSI, which i still find hard to believe) and if stock cars didn't have to use restricter plates they could use a higher gear ratio which would make them accelrate faster and run at higher RPM's. Stock cars push a lot more horsepower then these cars, but also there engines are not as reliable. But overall F1 are the quickest race cars (next to top-fuel dragsters) in the world.
The F1 cars would SMOKE the rest for SURE!! Maybe an American CART or NASCAR can reach higher top speeds, but the f1 has way superior power to weight Ratios, so it can achieve breathtaking cornering speeds. The comparison is pretty easy to figure out...<!-- Signature -->
TownshipRebellion, you are a moron <IMG SRC="http://www.supercars.net/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif"> , have a nice poor life.
Well it depends if you are talking irl cars or cart cars when you say "indy". The order would be Formula 1, Cart Car, R8, IRL car, and the Nascar would undoubtedly finish way at the back as it is not optimised for turning right as well as left. However if Alex Yoong was driving his Minardi F-1 i think he would finish between IRL and Nascar. That's just my opinion.
well, a 2000 spec panoz ran to 60 in 2.3 seconds, and did the 1/4 mile in 9.3 @ 148 mph in a recent road and track magazine test, so i think that it would be closer than you think. That's assuming the estimate of a 0-60 in 2 seconds by an F1 caris correct.
methinks the F1 would come in first, then the Indy and the R8 would be duking it out. them cart cars nowadays... they're kinda slow!
One a really twisty track, the R8 would beat the indy cars, but the F1 would be miles ahead. I wouldn't bother putting the nascars in there, they wouldn't be able to handle a proper track.
Which just proves my point: american cars are worth dick all.
good evening. hurray for the grad class of 2002.<!-- Signature -->