Late Sixties F1 cars : performance figures?
ric zito
looked it up and found this link :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E7DkaoCtHA
I have to admit I sometimes tend to imagine that the cars 40 years ago
were underpowered and pretty slow, certainly compared to todays F1 cars.
I wanted to know more, so I'm looking discover what their actual
performance was, in terms of 0-60 acceleration and top speed. If anyone
can come to the rescue here, I'd be grateful.
I haven't found anything definitive yet, but I thought that in the
meantime it was interesting to compare them to a modern pocket rocket
like today's Ariel Atom :
Lotus 49 : 530Kg / 410bhp
Power-to-weight : 770bhp/ton
Acceleration : 0-60 = ??
Top speed : ??
Atom : 456Kg / 300bhp supercharged
Power-to-weight : 657bhp/ton
Acceleration : 0-60 = 2.9s
Top speed : around140mph
So a quick look at those figures suggests that the Lotus 49 should be a
very quick car indeed, even by today's standards. It ought to destroy
the Atom. 0-60 sub-2secs? What about top speed?
Can anyone inform? Doc?
Thx!
--
ric
ric at pixelligence dot com
Dave Baker
"ric zito" <add...@in.sig> wrote in message
news:1japkmn.3yr4qqnx6y05N%add...@in.sig...
Common sense ought to tell you that a few extra percent on the bhp per ton
isn't going to knock a third off the 0-60 time. However acceleration off the
line is about grip not power once you reach a certain bhp/ton. Anything
extra just gets wasted in wheelspin. Even modern F1 cars only just manage 2
seconds to 60 on slicks that generate 1.35g and with lots of downforce. I
don't know how grippy 1960s race tyres were but it sure as hell won't be
anything like today's ones. Maybe not much better than modern road tyres
which generate about 1g.
So probably not much faster off the line than the Atom although if you
fitted modern slicks it would be just as quick as a current F1 car until the
power started to run out at 60 mph plus.
Top speed is totally dependant on aero drag, another unknown, although
there's certainly not much frontal area and it'll be much more slippery than
the Atom. Suitably geared there's probably enough power there for close to
200 mph with a long run up and 180 mph on a real race track.
Putting some reasonable guesstimates of drag and downforce into my
simulation programme I get the following with the Lotus on 1g tyres.
............Lotus.......Modern F1
0-60.....2.6.............1.9
0-100...4.7.............3.2
0-180...15.0...........9.5
The Lotus actually has almost identical times to a Bugatti Veyron to put its
performance into context.
Putting modern slicks on the Lotus I get 2.0s, 4.2s and 14.5s respectively.
Depending on just how grippy 1960s tyres were that at least gives you some
limits to work with and an idea of its potential performance. Round a race
track it would be quicker than any modern road supercar but lacking the
ultimate power and massive downforce of a modern F1 car it wouldn't get
close to one of those. With 3000 lbs of downforce, 4g cornering and 5g
braking no none downforce car can approach that sort of performance.
Would be nice to see one on the Top Gear test track though. I suspect though
that if you tried to run modern slicks it would just break its clutch and
driveshafts unless they were uprated to take the loads.
--
Dave Baker
Puma Race Engines
Doc Knutsen
"ric zito" <add...@in.sig> skrev i melding
news:1japkmn.3yr4qqnx6y05N%add...@in.sig...
Both top speeds and acceleration would be subject to the choice of cogs
inside one of Mr Hewland's cartons (or ZF, in the case of the 1967 Lotii).
They had a pretty good power to weight ratio, and no aero aids at all, hence
pretty awesome top speeds when geared for Reims, Spa of Monza. A modern F1
car slows at around 1G just by the lifting off of the loud pedal, such is
the magnitude of its aerodynamic "barn door".
Traction away from the start would be poor by modern standards, despite 15"
wide rear tyres, so acceleration from a standing start would suffer,
obviously, compared to modern machinery. But their dynamics, once up to
speed, were pretty startling. Even by modern standards.
But they had no brakes and wooden tyres, relatively speaking :o)
Doc
Doc Knutsen
"Dave Baker" <Nu...@null.com> skrev i melding
news:hg5ih6$nl4$1...@news.datemas.de...
...and once you uprated their clutches and driveshafts, the spindly CWP
assembly would be shot :o)
(Chunky Chapman had to have cast iron side plates made up and bolted to the
diff of the ZF after one or two races with the DFV in its original, 400+ BHP
guise. And that was with Firestone YB11s, rubber compound mahogany plus)
Doc
ric zito
Thanks, both of you. Very interesting, and very impressive figures
indeed! I share Dave's view about the Top Gear track : they should
really try it. In fact it'd be interesting to compare an F1 car from
each decade to the present day.
How about the following cars?
50s : Maserati 250F
60s : Lotus 49
70s : Lotus 79
80s : McLaren MP4/4
90s : Williams FW14B
00s : Ferrari F2002
I think the Renault R25 did it in 59 secs, so I'm guessing the F2002
will be thereabouts too, but I'd be fascinated to see the spread of
times for the other decades. Ahh, one can but dream... :-)
OTOH, perhaps I should write in to Top Gear and suggest the idea to
Chavson...it might do the program some good - and it would make a
welcome change from the current lowbrow crap.
Bob Dubery
> OTOH, perhaps I should write in to Top Gear and suggest the idea to
> Chavson...it might do the program some good - and it would make a
> welcome change from the current lowbrow crap.
Yes. It would be a refreshing change for them to do something like
seeing how many caravans a Lotus 49 can destroy.
Dave Baker
"Dave Baker" <Nu...@null.com> wrote in message
news:hg5ih6$nl4$1...@news.datemas.de...
> Putting modern slicks on the Lotus I get 2.0s, 4.2s and 14.5s
> respectively. Depending on just how grippy 1960s tyres were that at least
> gives you some limits to work with and an idea of its potential
> performance. Round a race track it would be quicker than any modern road
> supercar but lacking the ultimate power and massive downforce of a modern
> F1 car it wouldn't get close to one of those. With 3000 lbs of downforce,
> 4g cornering and 5g braking no none downforce car can approach that sort
> of performance.
>
> Would be nice to see one on the Top Gear test track though. I suspect
> though that if you tried to run modern slicks it would just break its
> clutch and driveshafts unless they were uprated to take the loads.
I've tried to make some sense of lap times back in the 60s compared to
today's but as most of the circuits (all of them?) have changed over the
years it's very difficult. Monaco seemed to be the best bet although the
current circuit is slightly longer than it was back then.
My best guesstimates make the Lotus about 25% slower than a modern F1 car in
its early configuration before all the wings got added on and about 20%
slower with them. That would put a lap of the Top Gear track at between 1:11
and 1:14 minutes which is actually about what I would have guessed anyway
strangely enough given I'd already said it would be quicker than any modern
supercar and those are lapping at about 1:17 at best.
That means a Lotus 49 would probably give a modern GT1 or Le Mans type car a
run for its money on decent tyres and with modern brakes. The Cosworth DFV
also ended up with over 500 bhp later in its life and with carbon fibre for
aerofoils instead of the materials they had back then which couldn't take
the loads and led to the wings being banned I reckon you could fairly easily
modify a 49 to get within maybe 10% of a modern F1 car's lap times.
You'd need slicks, uprated power transmission components, a bit of wind
tunnel time to design a decent front and rear wing, carbon brakes and Bob's
your aunty's husband. I also reckon the racing would be much better than it
is now with more overtaking which current aero designs pretty much rule out
when you get close to the car in front.
The cars would also look a million times nicer. In fact it almost sounds
like a plan. If you could design the tub with modern materials and safety
features so it was slightly less than an absolute certainty that a driver
would die in a high speed crash as they tended to do back in the day it
might even work.
Show of hands?
--
Dave Baker
ric zito
Bigbird
<trying not to imagine what Ric is typing with>
--
Bigbird
#
You'll be laughing when I'm dead!
Sir Tim
>I share Dave's view about the Top Gear track : they should
>really try it. In fact it'd be interesting to compare an F1 car from
>each decade to the present day.
>
>How about the following cars?
>50s : Maserati 250F
>60s : Lotus 49
>70s : Lotus 79
>80s : McLaren MP4/4
>90s : Williams FW14B
>00s : Ferrari F2002
Mrtin Brundle did assess six GP cars from six different decades around
Silverstone during the ITV F1 coverage in 2008.
--
Henry Birkin Bt.
Sir Tim
wrote:
Here's the link:
http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?Type=Martin_Brundle&id=42387
--
Henry Birkin Bt.
ric zito
Wow! Fantastic! I've never seen that before. Am watching it now...
Some of the cars are the ones I chose! Super - thanks for that link.
Doc Knutsen
"ric zito" <add...@in.sig> skrev i melding
Just out of interest, I looked up on the 196o Reims French GP, when they
used some newfangled device called "radar" to time the cars on the loooong
straights.
Apparently, Jack Brabham's Cooper T53 "Lowline" was
timed at 192 mph...using the venerable 2.5 liter Coventry Climax of maybe
250BHP.
In 1985, Keke Rosberg did the same speed in qualifying at Brands Hatch, on
the uphill towards Paddock Hill Bend, after the short, somewhat curving pit
straight...and with the roller-coaster Paddock looming, out of sight.
Doc
Bob Dubery
> I've tried to make some sense of lap times back in the 60s compared to
> today's but as most of the circuits (all of them?) have changed over the
> years it's very difficult. Monaco seemed to be the best bet although the
> current circuit is slightly longer than it was back then.
>
> My best guesstimates make the Lotus about 25% slower than a modern F1 car in
> its early configuration before all the wings got added on and about 20%
> slower with them. That would put a lap of the Top Gear track at between 1:11
> and 1:14 minutes which is actually about what I would have guessed anyway
> strangely enough given I'd already said it would be quicker than any modern
> supercar and those are lapping at about 1:17 at best.
Fascinating. Thanks.
Doc Knutsen
Big thumbs up from moi!
Doc
> --
> Dave Baker
>
