Discussion
Anyone know the performance differences between a modern F1 car and a Le Mans car such as the Audi R8?
Both are capable of over 200mph.
Be interesting to see comparable lap times around same circuit.
Has one car got an advantage on a tight twisty circuit yet gets wasted on a fast one?
Will the Le Mans car be left for dead on any track?
Both are capable of over 200mph.
Be interesting to see comparable lap times around same circuit.
Has one car got an advantage on a tight twisty circuit yet gets wasted on a fast one?
Will the Le Mans car be left for dead on any track?
At Monza the winning Herbert/Davies Audi's best lap was 1m39.209s, though actually the Wallace/Brabham/Johansson Zytek was a fraction quicker at 1m38.363s (it rained later in the race but these times were set in the dry).
In contrast the best lap at the Italian GP - using the same circuit, I think - was 1m21.832s by You Know Who, so the F1 cars are 17.5s a lap quicker. The Zytek lap would have qualified 19th on the GP grid, ahead of the out-of-position Alonso but 12s behind Kiesa's Minardi.
The difference, of course, is that the sports cars are built to race for 1000km or more (more like 5000km at Le Mans) while the F1 cars are on their last legs after 300km of racing plus a few practice laps.
In contrast the best lap at the Italian GP - using the same circuit, I think - was 1m21.832s by You Know Who, so the F1 cars are 17.5s a lap quicker. The Zytek lap would have qualified 19th on the GP grid, ahead of the out-of-position Alonso but 12s behind Kiesa's Minardi.
The difference, of course, is that the sports cars are built to race for 1000km or more (more like 5000km at Le Mans) while the F1 cars are on their last legs after 300km of racing plus a few practice laps.
So could a Le Mans car be tuned to compete with an F1 car?
After all as you point out Andrew the Audi (eg) is currently tuned for reliability.
Talking of Monza, after a 1000km race 1st & 2nd were less than 30secs apart.
In contrast in an F1 race the cars are this far apart after 5 laps. 
We don't want to go there though, do we.
After all as you point out Andrew the Audi (eg) is currently tuned for reliability.
Talking of Monza, after a 1000km race 1st & 2nd were less than 30secs apart.
In contrast in an F1 race the cars are this far apart after 5 laps. We don't want to go there though, do we.
They are worlds apart. For a start an LMP1 car has around 620bhp, and weighs 900kg. An F1 car has 900bhp, and weighs 550kg. A prototype probably produces a fair bit less downforce than an F1 car as well.
LM rules state an engine can be up to 12 cylinders, with a 6 litre maximum capacity for naturally aspirated engines, and 4 litres for turbo engines. Old LMP675 cars are allowed 2 litre turbo engines, or 3.4 litre NA engines. F1 cars are allowed 3 litre V10's, thats it.
LM rules state an engine can be up to 12 cylinders, with a 6 litre maximum capacity for naturally aspirated engines, and 4 litres for turbo engines. Old LMP675 cars are allowed 2 litre turbo engines, or 3.4 litre NA engines. F1 cars are allowed 3 litre V10's, thats it.
As DJ27 implied it's mainly rules and regulations that are the limiting factor. It's also what makes the cars into what they are today.
At this level (even more so than power and weight) it's mainly aero that makes racecars go fast around a track.
The aero rulebook is VERY strict and comprehensive these days and while it severely limits creativity and performance, without these regulations things would obviously get very,very messy.(Without regs we could just as well be watching mega-power vacuüm cleaners.)
If you give an older '93 group C car modern tires,brakes and a more powerfull engine I think they could be very close,if not beat a contemporary F1 car.
The '93 group C cars where running HUGE downforce compared to both modern Le Mans cars and F1 but got banned from racing very quickly. www.mulsannescorner.com/aerodatabasenissanp3593.html
With a serious amount of "tuning" to power,weight and aero you could probably make even a modern Le Mans car like the R8 lap significantly faster than an F1. It's just a question of how far you want to stretch the rules.
>> Edited by kurz on Thursday 15th July 01:45
At this level (even more so than power and weight) it's mainly aero that makes racecars go fast around a track.
The aero rulebook is VERY strict and comprehensive these days and while it severely limits creativity and performance, without these regulations things would obviously get very,very messy.(Without regs we could just as well be watching mega-power vacuüm cleaners.)
If you give an older '93 group C car modern tires,brakes and a more powerfull engine I think they could be very close,if not beat a contemporary F1 car.
The '93 group C cars where running HUGE downforce compared to both modern Le Mans cars and F1 but got banned from racing very quickly. www.mulsannescorner.com/aerodatabasenissanp3593.html
With a serious amount of "tuning" to power,weight and aero you could probably make even a modern Le Mans car like the R8 lap significantly faster than an F1. It's just a question of how far you want to stretch the rules.
>> Edited by kurz on Thursday 15th July 01:45
I think of recent sportscars of the last 10 years or so there's only the V12 in the Ferrari 333SP, the V10 in the Peugeot 905 and the Judd V10 that have a F1 bloodline (or went on to be an F1 engine in the case of the pug)
In all cases F1 units have to be massivley detuned to cope with 4-24hour events rather than 200 mile GPs. Also, tuning has to sacrifice peak power for torque, for reliability, flexibility over distances and the weight of LMP chassis.
Remember, F1 Cars are use lead ballast deep in the tub to achieve minimum wieght of 600kg, and that is with fluids and driver! It is changing with the new rules for 1 engine per weekend, but in 2003 engines were topping 900bhp and 19,000rpm. From 3 litres atmo, its unthinkable it cvould last for much more than 200 miles.
F1 technology is on too much of a knife edge now. The banning of beryllium (spelling) use in units on grounds of expense and safety has put ilmor/mercedes at a disadvantage for a few years now, its taken Honda, a leading supplier of the 80s and early nineties FOUR years to reproduce an engine worthy of its history. This is the pace of F1 engine technology and why it can't really be applies to sportscars anymore!!
In all cases F1 units have to be massivley detuned to cope with 4-24hour events rather than 200 mile GPs. Also, tuning has to sacrifice peak power for torque, for reliability, flexibility over distances and the weight of LMP chassis.
Remember, F1 Cars are use lead ballast deep in the tub to achieve minimum wieght of 600kg, and that is with fluids and driver! It is changing with the new rules for 1 engine per weekend, but in 2003 engines were topping 900bhp and 19,000rpm. From 3 litres atmo, its unthinkable it cvould last for much more than 200 miles.
F1 technology is on too much of a knife edge now. The banning of beryllium (spelling) use in units on grounds of expense and safety has put ilmor/mercedes at a disadvantage for a few years now, its taken Honda, a leading supplier of the 80s and early nineties FOUR years to reproduce an engine worthy of its history. This is the pace of F1 engine technology and why it can't really be applies to sportscars anymore!!
During the race in '98 when Audi were going through back ends like I was going through cigarettes. Radio le-mans had an interview with a wandering F1 designer on the same subject. Their fag packet claculations showed that if you were allowed to change the bits (i.e. engines) the performance advantage of the F1 car would be sufficient to win even including the length and number of stops required. No idea whether thats true but it made an interesting diversion at the time.
Gassing Station | Engines & Drivetrain | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff