NASCAR On The Bonneville Salt Flats

and the engine blocks are based on really old 1960's or even older designs.

I know chevy havent used a new engine block for that long, until this year that is anywho.

Big block V8s rock. I mean, they don't... they're @#$%& technically, but so awesome at the same time.

Little puny F1 V8s don't rock. They're very, very impressive, but they're not awesome.

Lazy power for the win, and all that.

Barn door engineering ftw.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

how big are they then ?
do they vary in capacity through the series ?

---

"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL

They're definately more than 2.4L I can tell you that!

chet Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> how big are they then ?
> do they vary in capacity through the series ?


358 cubic inches (5.87 liters). Nextel cars produce between 850 and 900 horse power, whilst Busch ones around 750-800. They have the same engine block, the Busch Series run air restrictors to bring the power down a little. Truck Series has the same spec engines/restrictors as the Busch Series. Other national series vary.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

More than double the capacity of the F1 engines, and slightly more horsepower. No wonder it's faster. But if you had a 3L V10 F1 engine and put it in a 2006 car with 2006 soft tyres, I would hedge my bets on it doing 250+ mph.

---

Everyone knows that million-to-one chances happen 9 times out of 10; indeed, it's a common requirement in fairy tales. If the human didn't have to overcome huge odds, what would be the point? Terry Pratchett - The Science Of Discworld

GPGSL S5 Race driver for IED.

It wouldn't. The F1 V10s didn't produce much more power than the V8s, it's just the range of power that's changed. The F1 cars limiting factor isn't the engine, it's the aerodynamics. The open wheels cause massive amounts of drag. Normally the rear wing would too, but Honda chopped that off, which means the car wasn't even race legal anyway, so the whole run was completely false and pointless.

No wonder it's faster.

Well the NASCAR Spec Stock Car wasn't faster than the Honda run, but as I said, the Honda wasn't race legal.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

Im still confused... The rudder was only placed there for driver saftey in the runs before the official one.. and the idea was that the rear wing would be back on for the official runs.

They got delayed because of weather and went back in 2006 and apparently set the record, but wouldnt the record only count if it was race legal :s

---

"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL

Yeah the rudder was obviously needed for safety reasons, but the car never ran with the rear wing, so it was all pointless eventually.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

I remember Honda/BAR saying that the Bonneville car (with the rudder, changed air entrances etc.) was race legal. I don't know why someone would use a rear-wingless car on a race though.

---

Um dois três quatro cinco seis sete oito nove dez
Eins zwei drei vier fünf sechs sieben acht neun zehn
One two three four five six seven eight nine ten
Один два три четыре пять шесть семь восемь девять десять

Lex Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know why someone would use
> a rear-wingless car on a race though.

Williams tested a car at Monza which had a 'flick' where the rear wing should be, but that's the last about as extreme as it's been in the past 30 odd years.

gav Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lex Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I don't know why someone would use
> > a rear-wingless car on a race though.
>
> Williams tested a car at Monza which had a 'flick'
> where the rear wing should be, but that's the last
> about as extreme as it's been in the past 30 odd
> years.



-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

funnily enough i read about this the other day...

tbh i still think a high nose up rear wing is the best approach for a low df track like monza.

---

"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL

chet Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> funnily enough i read about this the other day...
>
> tbh i still think a high nose up rear wing is the
> best approach for a low df track like monza.


and thats why your paid the big bucks to design Formula one cars.

Oh wait....

lol
i said i think.

also does anyone have any other pics if that williams? bet it looked nice on track!

---

"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL

DaveEllis schrieb:
-------------------------------------------------------
> gav Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Lex Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I don't know why someone would use
> > > a rear-wingless car on a race though.
> >
> > Williams tested a car at Monza which had a
> 'flick'
> > where the rear wing should be, but that's the
> last
> > about as extreme as it's been in the past 30
> odd
> > years.
>
> [img16.imageshack.us]


Yeah, I know that Williams tested this on 1997. But I imagine BAR's rudder would give even less (if any) downforce.

---

Um dois três quatro cinco seis sete oito nove dez
Eins zwei drei vier fünf sechs sieben acht neun zehn
One two three four five six seven eight nine ten
Один два три четыре пять шесть семь восемь девять десять

The rudder wasn't for downforce, it was for stability. The fact that BAR removed the rear wing for the runs to me ruins the whole thing because it just wasn't an F1 car at that point.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

see, if they were gonna just use the rudder, then they could have at least improved on more aspects of the car maybe to make the record at least slightly more meaningful.

i guess the rudder is the equivlent of covering the the tyres!

---

"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL

Is it illegal to run an F1 car without a rear wing though? I always thought the regulations governed what conditions a rear wing must meet if it is infact used on the car, but nothing to say an F1 car must have a rear wing.

Note: I haven't looked into the specifics of the regulations, therefore this is just a query.