The worlds fastets car: Koenigsegg CC-R beats the McLaren F1 at Nardo 2005!

[F1 monster]

Originally Posted by amanichen

No, forces can't be normalized to accelerations. Accelerations can be normalized to accelerations, and you can describe an acceleration in relation to the acceleration of gravity. To a person who's familiar with physics, no, it's not a matter of semantics.

The only people who use "g-force" are the ones who have only a rudimentary understanding of physics -- by this I mean the general public. Combined with your incorrect explanation of what happens around a banked, curved track, I can see that I am correct, and you are incorrect. And this is without even going into a discussion about your qualifications for discussing rigid body dynamics.

After spouting enough nonsense you could convince most of the forum members that you're right in this discussion, but you're not fooling me about who's right and who's wrong. Stop trying to save face by convincing everybody that you're right and just admit your mistake.

What kind of comment is this, and how is it relevant? Instead of admitting your mistake, you must change the subject and try to distract me by trying to insult me? If you're looking to start a flamewar I'll tell you that I'm not. My involvement is ending here because I don't care what anybody else here thinks: I know I'm correct, and that you are incorrect, and that is all that I care about.

I didn't say forces. I said accelerative forces. Acceleration is often measured in relation to g. Here's the quote from my original post:

Originally Posted by F1 monster

Any accelerative or decelerative force, resolved to a percentage of gravitational acceleration (g), can be referred as a g-force.

I love the way you edited my post but quoted it as if I wrote it. I wrote, you are ALMOST right. You quoted me as saying You are right. Very sneaky. Why? You can say you are right. Just don't claim I said it when I didn't.

I still maintain, in the original discussion, in the original context, you were ALMOST right. Not 100% right, but ALMOST. To validate what I wrote, one just has to read what you wrote subsequently, which only supports what I said. Here it is:

Originally Posted by amanichen

Yes, there is a holding speed for a track which is based on the bank of the turn.

Sorry I am not a pushover because you spout some basic 9th grade physics and claim it's college-level stuff. As you said, it's very, very elementary. Well, to be exact, you said it's rudimentary--not trying to put words in your mouth here. You might want to extend me the same courtesy. Don't pretend you are quoting me if you are going to change the text from what I wrote.

You want to compare qualifications for discussing rigid body dynamics? It's easy suff, but mmm okayyy, here ya go: I studied mechanical engineering undergrad as well but switched over to civil engineering because I wanted to command a contrsuction crew and bid on NHTSA contracts for highway improvement. There's big money in that, I thought, blissfully unaware of how corrupt the whole system is. Anyways, my real estate and construction skills have served me well enough, although there's no McLaren in the garage (yet)!

But this statics/dynamics stuff is 9th and 10th standard material, if you took GCSE O-levels. Your sputtering, self-righteous indignation leads me to presume that you're in rainy England, and studied there. I presume you did A-level physics too, to gain admittance to a Mech Engg course. From your tone, I am also beginning to suspect you and McLaren240! share some DNA.

I replied to you point by point in my earlier post, and you zeroed in on the last sentence and lambasted me for it by claiming that that I am trying to change the subject and distract you. Now, I am not going to repeat everything, nor am I going to accuse you of the same tactics. But the evidence is right here in the posts in this thread.

I will end by saying that I have no doubt you undertand it correctly. I just think you expressed it inaccurately. And no, I wasn't starting a flamewar. Glad you are not either. My involvement will stop here too, predicated upon the condition that you don't provoke me further.

Must trot off to the pub for a pint. Toodle oo.


.

[Mclaren240!]

I have read several times that banks slow cars down but not by much. The diffrence hear is so small its not worth worring about also that CCR does not look to standard to me if and then theres the whole thing about weather the F1 actually went faster than officially recognised. The are so many temprature veraibils and outher things the only way you cold tell which was quicker would be a salt flat race. Man would i like to se that! The record has certailnly not been smashed as i have read if 250 is broken even 245 its worth considering but untill then im not convinced.

[F1 monster]

The record *has* been verifiably broken.

Yes, the banking makes a difference. At high speeds, it makes a BIG difference because it varies with the square of the velocity. This means that as the velocity increases from 2 to 3, the force pushing the car outward would change from 4 (square of 2) to 9 (square of 3) ie. for a 50% increase in velocity, the force has increased more than 100%. More realistically, for a car going in a constant radius circle, with no wind, if the centrifugal force acting on it at 120 miles per hour is 14,400 Newtons, then the force pushing it sideways at 240 miles per hour would be 57,600 Newtons, a 4-fold increase.

On a straight, level track, with no wind, the force acting on the car to push it sideways would be... zero.

This is why the tyres get overloaded quicker on a banked turn. Some of their grip is used up in countering the sideways forces.

The McLaren did not go faster. If it did, the higher speed would have been recorded.

And the CCR *was* standard.

[Mrbikerman]

I agree with Gustav, the Koenigg is specifically for racing isnt it? Who buys a McClaren to transport people? I would prefer those extra seats if I had the choice, but I wouldn't care one bit without them. Its about the driving.

[F1 monster]

I don't see where Gustav said the Koenigsegg is specifically for racing?

Both of them are super exotics. Apart from the GTRs the McLarens are roadcars first and foremost.

I agree the number of seats is a secondary consideration, as long as the driver has a place to sit and experience the thrill of driving. But two seats are always going to be twice as useful as one, and three would be better yet (as long as the packaging is good--and in the case of these cars, it's exquisite).

Anyways, what exactly are you trying to say? That these are race cars?

[Gustav]

Niice to hear you guys setted the discussion. So soon it is spring in Sweden and there might be some visits to the Koengisegg factory. The make the worlds fastest car.

[Mclaren240!]

Dont forget to take a camera! The v word is comming so enjoy it while it lasts!

[zx4000]

Originally Posted by maartenvanthek

The topspeed was set on the straight part, he was only accelerating out of the corner as he got on the straight, did you never see the movie? he braked before the corner apparently. the McLaren top speed on Nardo was set with an underpowered (550 bhp) XP3 by Mika Häkkinen.

excuse me if i got you wrong though

Today i watched that movie again. You are right. Top speed of XP5 was made obviously on the straight line.

However, i still doubt that the straight track is better than banked circle one. I feel to need more info' why the fact what i said is right to you guys. In the end, i can be wrong..

[maartenvanthek]

perfectly simple. if you drive a car, and you push a little into a corner, you feel that there is friction building up. friction is the enemy of straight line speed, so if youér in a corner, there's more friction on a tyre than on a straight, so there's less speed, and therefore a banked track, which is a continuous corner, your speed is lower due to the cornering friction on the tyre.

And now you can say that Nardo is a circle with an extremely big radius, like 2.5 km or something, but the higher the speed, the tighter the corner. I have seen a movie once, of a lambo diablo getting taken up to 330 kph, and if you check the in-car cam, you will see that nardo will then become a real corner.

[amanichen]

Originally Posted by maartenvanthek

perfectly simple. if you drive a car, and you push a little into a corner, you feel that there is friction building up. friction is the enemy of straight line speed, so if youér in a corner, there's more friction on a tyre than on a straight, so there's less speed, and therefore a banked track, which is a continuous corner, your speed is lower due to the cornering friction on the tyre.

Read my explanations in the posts above. While there is more friction, the lateral friction doesn't slow down a car on a curve, rather the increased lateral friction force as well as the increased normal force due to driving on a banked curve put a greater load on the tires and limits the pratical speed of the vehicle due to tire deformation, material stress, etc. If a car could roll on steel wheels, this wouldn't be a problem.

Again, in theory if you treat a car as a rigid body, with rigid wheels, and a lateral frictional force, then a banked curve has the same speed as a straight track. In reality, a car is not a rigid body, and does not have rigid wheels.

[zx4000]

Originally Posted by maartenvanthek

perfectly simple. if you drive a car, and you push a little into a corner, you feel that there is friction building up. friction is the enemy of straight line speed, so if youér in a corner, there's more friction on a tyre than on a straight, so there's less speed, and therefore a banked track, which is a continuous corner, your speed is lower due to the cornering friction on the tyre.

And now you can say that Nardo is a circle with an extremely big radius, like 2.5 km or something, but the higher the speed, the tighter the corner. I have seen a movie once, of a lambo diablo getting taken up to 330 kph, and if you check the in-car cam, you will see that nardo will then become a real corner.

Perfectly simple? As you see, In order to improve 1.2kph, it took exactly 9 years, which means that there is more or less difference between in reality and theory. Don't say simple..

[Gustav]

...for a company with no previous knowledge or track record in automotive technology, I think its pretty remarkable. A less than 20 man strong crew from Sweden beats the "almighty" Murray and McLaren. I tink hat is remarkable.

Originally Posted by zx4000

Perfectly simple? As you see, In order to improve 1.2kph, it took exactly 9 years, which means that there is more or less difference between in reality and theory. Don't say simple..

[jcsaleen]

Originally Posted by Gustav

...for a company with no previous knowledge or track record in automotive technology, I think its pretty remarkable. A less than 20 man strong crew from Sweden beats the "almighty" Murray and McLaren. I tink hat is remarkable.

I agree but Track performance is a whole different story.

[Gustav]

Which is on par with the Zonda. Sport Auto test this spring and that is something McLaren never dared to do

Originally Posted by jcsaleen

I agree but Track performance is a whole different story.

[amanichen]

Originally Posted by Gustav

...for a company with no previous knowledge or track record in automotive technology, I think its pretty remarkable. A less than 20 man strong crew from Sweden beats the "almighty" Murray and McLaren. I tink hat is remarkable.

I don't think it's at all remarkable. Computer technology has improved, automotive technology has himproved, and so has the talent of engineers. You can do lots using a small, well-coordinated team of talented engineers. You don't need a company with experience anymore...you just need people with experience at your company. The Koenigsegg design is at least 10 years older than the F1 design and has probably had around 100 times the amount of computer analysis that the F1 did. You'd expect that a newer car would at least match an older one.