the_widebody

check out the statement of the fourmula one expert in the following video.

http://youtu.be/7mDMGZ94uFc

Saijin_Naib

Again? A sufficiently heavy car will have more mass than the Work the engine is capable of performing. In this condition, the given engine will only be able to move the mass of the car at a lower rate, never reaching its aerodynamic top-speed.

Saying that ONLY aerodynamics impacts topspeed is overly simplistic and is ignoring the other physical variables that are present in real life.

For a car where the mass does not exceed the Work ability of the engine, yes, the topspeed will be governed mostly by aerodynamics as well as friction of mechanical components, gearing, etc.

Brav

In real life, it IS only Aero drag (and some rolling resistance from tires)/hp that affects top speed. Last I checked we weren't running 1HP motors with 10,000 lb cars around. As long as you can get the car rolling, although extremely low rate of acceleration, the math will work out in the end. I haven't seen anyone try to run an engine in a car that couldn't move it based on weight. In the real world ranges one can assume we are discussing, he is correct.

the_widebody

brav, you are correct, he is correct. he is an expert and a f1 team boss.

there are, however, an awful load of knowalls and so called experts on hear who will sware blind that lightening their cars will make them have a faster top speed, and attack you if you doubt it.

Saijin_Naib

Here, swear.

Aside from that, I merely want to point out the fact that physics doesn't lie: by saying ONLY aerodynamics has an impact, you're oversimplifying and ignoring the other variables. That is just patently false. If you have to say "Yes, but" you're not telling the whole story.

All I said is that realistically, there are other variables that you can't just write off, weight being one of them. Is it a major concern when you have an engine that can perform large amounts of Work? No, not really. Re-read my post and take careful note of the example I lead with. That explains the point I'm making.

However, as with the last 5 times or so you fought this battle, you'll be deaf to anyone's voice that doesn't agree with your own and you'll argue down to others. I honestly could give a ****, but the laws of Physics needed representation here.

ptoro01

In the video, at 1:45 to 2:00, it is said, verbatim, "for every 10 kilo you remove, you'll go 4 tenths of a second faster around the lap, every kilo matters."

Anything you say, can and will be used against you in the courtyard of MBworld.


Ok, check this out, if,

F=.5 M V^2

Which is spelled as <Half the mass times the velocity squared equals the force>

So, my algebra would say, <Velocity is equal to the square root of force divided by half the mass>

It is scary to be wrong.
Plug in your numbers, I dare you, I double dare you, I triple dog dare you.

Brav

FYI - all the Redbull cars in F1 are 10mph slower on long straights on average than the rest of the pack but they win races. Top speed =hp vs aero drag, period. nothing else really matters. There are 2 curves for acceleration (torque) /weight and top speed (horsepower)/drag.. separate almost completely. My noble will destroy anything from 40-120mph. After 140, it has the cD of a brick. all the downforce slows me, and it takes forever to get from 140-170 compared to other cars with same power. And I am at least 1000-1500 lbs lighter than most other cars. 4000lb M5 can pull on me at those speeds

ptoro01

Brav, there you introduce gearing, both of those curves are dependent on rpm.

Brav

Close ratio gears..

ptoro01

Not just the rear end, every single transmission gear has to be the same as well.

the_widebody

lol. talk about not understanding the point being made, fancy quoting part of the narrative, about weight reduction and lap times, which nobody ever doubted, and missing the fact that he also categorically states that weight reduction doesn’t increase top speed...

in the video, the narrative also says

‘I’ve taken everything off, dashboard, wings, roof, side panels ...'

And the reply is, from a formula one chief no less

‘well done but you should also remove the battery and reduce the fluids, but it won’t affect the top speed, that is purely aerodynamics...'

And

using simple formula to 'prove a formula one chief is also wrong' won’t work either, because all the Newtonian methods of calculating work, or speed, or acceleration assume no other losses, i.e. only hold true IN A VACUUM, last time I knew, the earth has AIR which causes massive drag which is why aerodynamics is the king of speed.

p.s spellinck misakes dunt make wot ur saying incorct

ptoro01

The kinematics formula can have all your components in it. You can add friction, mechanical losses, gravitational differences and so on. Just get creative, kinda like with your spelling.

What you're arguing is terminal velocity in free fall situation, buoyant force. Which yes it is a part of the problem as air resistance grows bigger and bigger, BUT the magnitude of everything else factors in significantly as well.

Show me numbers, its not intuitive.