Which is faster than what: ordering different racing series

[Billy Pilgrim]

I was recently using the excellent URD T5 mod and thinking to myself, "Is the modern DTM series as fast as tin tops get?".

What I'm asking is: how are racing series classed in order of which is faster than which? On, say, typical, non-oval race courses.

I know that Formula 1 is faster than Formula 2, ok. I know that GT1 is faster than GT2, which is faster than GT3. Fine.

But, for example, is modern DTM faster than GT3 or GT1? Where do Aussie V8s come in? Is DTM faster than Formula 3? Japanese GT500? LMPs? BTCC? and so on

I believe that some series, like GT1 or Group C, no longer exist in reality. But these series do very much exist in the present for us sim racers so it'd be good to know where these are placed too.

I'd love to know what you know...

 

[Mclaren F1 GTR]

Also please recognize that saying the '96 GTR produces 408kg at 100 mph means you're saying it produces more DF than this LMP2 car:

...which it clearly doesn't.

Also, you can't work out aero loads directly from either corner speeds or g force telemetry....the load sensitivity of the tires plays a huge role in how each kg of downforce affects the grip of the car, and without that data (which you most certainly don't have), you can't produce a genuinely accurate estimate.

On your lateral G force note, Road and Track tested a 1997 Porsche GT1 Evo and it pulled just 1.07 G on a 200 ft skidpad. Of course in all likelihood the tires were not warmed up, but the point stands that we're not looking at cars with massive cornering capabilities...they accelerated well and they stopped well, but that's about it. Regardless, that's not the argument at hand...

Okay,now I get your source.Is it this one for LMP2?But still can't find figures for GTE cars.
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/data.html

About lateral g figure I posted,it was done by autocar on silverstone where 1995 F1 GTR Pulled 2g's at corners.I have attached the scans of the article I have,1996 GTR figure was posted in another edition.

About downforce of 1996 F1 GTR,it states the downforce is 682kg but doesn't mention the speed of the car and then again it was done by purely guesswork and making many assumptions.If the speed is supposed to be 200mph,the it is very low in my opinion because it generates more lateral acceleration than a GTE car so it should atleast have better downforce to weight ratio.

By the way according to a racing team,a GT3 car pulls only 1.8g,so a GTE car may pull around 1.9g.Also there is no mention of Longtail GTR which is stated as the source in mulsanne corner site.

According to data I have 1996 F1 GTR is also faster than GTE car by 2-3s on every track,considering it had old tire technology,it should atleast have same Downforce to weight ratio as the GTE to be able to keep up.

Anyway I conclude by saying 1996 F1 GTR and above would be faster than a modern GTE cars in terms of lap times but in an endurance race it would lose.

 

[mclarenf1papa]

Okay,now I get your source.Is it this one for LMP2?But still can't find figures for GTE cars.
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/data.html

About lateral g figure I posted,it was done by autocar on silverstone where 1995 F1 GTR Pulled 2g's at corners.I have attached the scans of the article I have,1996 GTR figure was posted in another edition.
View attachment 149006

About downforce of 1996 F1 GTR,it states the downforce is 682kg but doesn't mention the speed of the car and then again it was done by purely guesswork and making many assumptions.If the speed is supposed to be 200mph,the it is very low in my opinion because it generates more lateral acceleration than a GTE car so it should atleast have better downforce to weight ratio.
View attachment 149005

By the way according to a racing team,a GT3 car pulls only 1.8g,so a GTE car may pull around 1.9g.Also there is no mention of Longtail GTR which is stated as the source in mulsanne corner site.

According to data I have 1996 F1 GTR is also faster than GTE car by 2-3s on every track,considering it had old tire technology,it should atleast have same Downforce to weight ratio as the GTE to be able to keep up.

Anyway I conclude by saying 1996 F1 GTR and above would be faster than a modern GTE cars in terms of lap times but in an endurance race it would lose.

That is one of my sources, yes, but bear in mind, IER has worked with multiple racing teams, so we have reliable data for quite a few cars.

You're taking a number written in a magazine as fact while there's little to no evidence to prove that it corners better than a current GTE/3 car or has as much downforce (and lots of evidence opposed to the latter - the picture you posted even quotes the DF at 200 mph pretty clearly). Note that you're also saying a car with a flat bottom and a tiny diffuser is producing more DF than an LMPC car, and some older LMP2s, which have two large diffusers...logically it just doesn't make any sense.

The reason that the car was better on a per lap basis is that it had way less drag (0.6 Cd vs. 1.0 Cd), way more power (600+ hp vs. 540 hp), and way less weight (1012 kg vs. 1245 kg)....the reason the Longtail was so fast was that it actually had a bit of downforce but retained the other qualities...at the RBR it's something like 15-20 mph faster than LMP2s on the straights...in most corners it's still slower than current GTEs.

 

[Mclaren F1 GTR]

That is one of my sources, yes, but bear in mind, IER has worked with multiple racing teams, so we have reliable data for quite a few cars.

You're taking a number written in a magazine as fact while there's little to no evidence to prove that it corners better than a current GTE/3 car or has as much downforce (and lots of evidence opposed to the latter - the picture you posted even quotes the DF at 200 mph pretty clearly). Note that you're also saying a car with a flat bottom and a tiny diffuser is producing more DF than an LMPC car, and some older LMP2s, which have two large diffusers...logically it just doesn't make any sense.

The reason that the car was better on a per lap basis is that it had way less drag (0.6 Cd vs. 1.0 Cd), way more power (600+ hp vs. 540 hp), and way less weight (1012 kg vs. 1245 kg)....the reason the Longtail was so fast was that it actually had a bit of downforce but retained the other qualities...at the RBR it's something like 15-20 mph faster than LMP2s on the straights...in most corners it's still slower than current GTEs.

As to my knowledge Longtail hit only 196mph at the long straight,GTE cars today easily acheive near that speed in mulsanne straight like 310-315km/h.Secondly the drag coefficient for GT3 car is actually lower than F1 GTR.Audi R8 LMS Ultra has a cd of 0.4 not 1.As for power,it depends on cars and BOP.SLS AMG GT3 actually has 620hp which is more than that of F1 GTR.

Third,your very own site says that LMP2 produces 1600kg downforce at 200mph and I can't believe for a second that GTE car produces downforce even close to that like 1100kg,then it should be more like 700kg.

I am having a hard time gulping the fact that GTE car with only rear wing of this size

Produces more downforce than Bigazzi F1 GTR which has a rear wing with almost same size and has more angle of attack and more area of curvature than GTE rear wing .

And even more difficulty in believing it produces more downforce than Longtail which had a plenty of aero works.

Also the lateral g I quoted was by Jonathan palmer test in the silverstone.I have other scans of the engineering book which says that F1 GTR produces 1ton of downforce at its topspeed i.e 200mph.

So from this data F1 GTR pulls more lateral g than GTE cars(2.1g vs 1.9g) and like you wanted it is from an engineering book.Besides if it didn't corner as fast as GT3/GTE,it wouldn't be faster at high downforce track like Jarama,Anderstorp.

But I believe that at low speed corners,GTE will corner faster because of better mechanical grip and at medium/high speed corner,F1 GTR corners slightly better.

 

[mclarenf1papa]

As to my knowledge Longtail hit only 196mph at the long straight,GTE cars today easily acheive near that speed in mulsanne straight like 310-315km/h.Secondly the drag coefficient for GT3 car is actually lower than F1 GTR.Audi R8 LMS Ultra has a cd of 0.4 not 1.As for power,it depends on cars and BOP.SLS AMG GT3 actually has 620hp which is more than that of F1 GTR.

Third,your very own site says that LMP2 produces 1600kg downforce at 200mph and I can't believe for a second that GTE car produces downforce even close to that like 1100kg,then it should be more like 700kg.

I am having a hard time gulping the fact that GTE car with only rear wing of this size
View attachment 149097

Produces more downforce than Bigazzi F1 GTR which has a rear wing with almost same size and has more angle of attack and more area of curvature than GTE rear wing .
View attachment 149100
And even more difficulty in believing it produces more downforce than Longtail which had a plenty of aero works.
View attachment 149098
Also the lateral g I quoted was by Jonathan palmer test in the silverstone.I have other scans of the engineering book which says that F1 GTR produces 1ton of downforce at its topspeed i.e 200mph.
View attachment 149101
View attachment 149102
View attachment 149103
So from this data F1 GTR pulls more lateral g than GTE cars(2.1g vs 1.9g) and like you wanted it is from an engineering book.Besides if it didn't corner as fast as GT3/GTE,it wouldn't be faster at high downforce track like Jarama,Anderstorp.

But I believe that at low speed corners,GTE will corner faster because of better mechanical grip and at medium/high speed corner,F1 GTR corners slightly better.

Okay, quite a few of the things you said were simply incorrect:

1. Current GTEs don't even reach 300 kph at Le Mans...the average for GTE-Pro qualifying at LM this year was about 297 kph, 12 mph slower than the Longtail, and 21(!) mph slower than the 1996 short tail.

2. Drag coefficients can be expressed in two ways, as a ratio of drag coefficient to surface area, or the actual coefficient of drag (the latter being the truly relevant one, the former being the one used by car manufacturers for advertising - it distinguishes the efficiency of the shape, which is more relevant from a marketing standpoint). The 1995 GTR had about a 0.65 CDa (CDa=coefficient of drag with a 1m^2 reference area), the '97 car had closer to 0.95, and current GTEs are over 1.0. For more reference, LMP cars are anywhere from 1.0 to 1.6.

3. I can 100% guarantee that the SLS AMG GT3 doesn't have 620 hp...every GT3 car is restricted to around 500 horsepower...Same with GTEs, which is why they're 12 mph slower than the Longtail at LM (even though the drag is fairly close).

4. At this point it's pretty clear that what you believe doesn't necessarily line up with what the actual data shows...in this case, those GT2 downforce levels are quoted from a Chassis Sim article...If you're not familiar with it, hundreds of high-tier racing teams use CS to do laptime analysis for their cars, their data is as good as anyone else's.

5. Also, you do realize the difference between 1100 kg and 1600 kg of DF is massive (2.2 CLa vs. 3.2 CLa)? The latter has nearly 50% more downforce than the former. Even so, LMPs since then have much more downforce, so the figure is no longer strictly relevant.

6. The article you posted gives you a downforce number but you seem to be disregarding it..."400 kg at 149 mph"... that's 700kg at 200 mph for a car with a flat underbody and a small diffuser. The 1997 car had a bit of a front diffuser, a rather large rear one, and a larger chord rear wing, resulting in about a 1100 kg max at 200 mph. Both of those are believable figures.

For the GTEs: for one they have more of their weight over the front axle than any of the F1 GTR variants (allowing them to run more downforce at the front to compensate). If we assume the Longtail had a 40:60 weight distribution and that a given GTE car is at 50:50 (which many currently are), then if the Longtail is producing 660 kg maximum at the rear (@200 mph), it can only run 440 kg or less at the front to have a drivable aero-balance. The GTE car on the other hand, assuming it can produce the same 660 kg figure at the rear (which due to efficiency innovations and a better understanding of aero, it likely can), can now run a larger front diffuser/splitter, and bring the front downforce from 440 kg to closer to 660 kg...if the front diffuser is effective enough to match the rear's downforce, you're left with a car that has over 1300 kg of downforce at 200 mph, which, conveniently, is quite close to what I quoted in my earlier post (which was taken from Chassis Sim's article).

7. The 2.1G quote is stated to be just the G-Force that the stresses on the suspension were calculated for...it has no real relevance to the car's actual cornering capability as it was likely a number for the maximum G that the suspension would ever experience (to eliminate the chance of failure if, e.g., the car were to hit a big bump in the middle of a fast corner). Similarly, the 2G quoted in the other article was also likely a max G value, which would be potentially far greater than any consistent cornering would provide, but would look nicer on paper.

And as for that rear wing comparison:

GT2 wing is rather larger than the standard GTR's...

 

[Jim Layee]

Nowadays isn't the majority of the down force created by the floor and diffuser combo, hence the simplified rear wings ?

 

[Mclaren F1 GTR]

Okay, quite a few of the things you said were simply incorrect:

1. Current GTEs don't even reach 300 kph at Le Mans...the average for GTE-Pro qualifying at LM this year was about 297 kph, 12 mph slower than the Longtail, and 21(!) mph slower than the 1996 short tail.

2. Drag coefficients can be expressed in two ways, as a ratio of drag coefficient to surface area, or the actual coefficient of drag (the latter being the truly relevant one, the former being the one used by car manufacturers for advertising - it distinguishes the efficiency of the shape, which is more relevant from a marketing standpoint). The 1995 GTR had about a 0.65 CDa (CDa=coefficient of drag with a 1m^2 reference area), the '97 car had closer to 0.95, and current GTEs are over 1.0. For more reference, LMP cars are anywhere from 1.0 to 1.6.

3. I can 100% guarantee that the SLS AMG GT3 doesn't have 620 hp...every GT3 car is restricted to around 500 horsepower...Same with GTEs, which is why they're 12 mph slower than the Longtail at LM (even though the drag is fairly close).

4. At this point it's pretty clear that what you believe doesn't necessarily line up with what the actual data shows...in this case, those GT2 downforce levels are quoted from a Chassis Sim article...If you're not familiar with it, hundreds of high-tier racing teams use CS to do laptime analysis for their cars, their data is as good as anyone else's.

5. Also, you do realize the difference between 1100 kg and 1600 kg of DF is massive (2.2 CLa vs. 3.2 CLa)? The latter has nearly 50% more downforce than the former. Even so, LMPs since then have much more downforce, so the figure is no longer strictly relevant.

6. The article you posted gives you a downforce number but you seem to be disregarding it..."400 kg at 149 mph"... that's 700kg at 200 mph for a car with a flat underbody and a small diffuser. The 1997 car had a bit of a front diffuser, a rather large rear one, and a larger chord rear wing, resulting in about a 1100 kg max at 200 mph. Both of those are believable figures.

For the GTEs: for one they have more of their weight over the front axle than any of the F1 GTR variants (allowing them to run more downforce at the front to compensate). If we assume the Longtail had a 40:60 weight distribution and that a given GTE car is at 50:50 (which many currently are), then if the Longtail is producing 660 kg maximum at the rear (@200 mph), it can only run 440 kg or less at the front to have a drivable aero-balance. The GTE car on the other hand, assuming it can produce the same 660 kg figure at the rear (which due to efficiency innovations and a better understanding of aero, it likely can), can now run a larger front diffuser/splitter, and bring the front downforce from 440 kg to closer to 660 kg...if the front diffuser is effective enough to match the rear's downforce, you're left with a car that has over 1300 kg of downforce at 200 mph, which, conveniently, is quite close to what I quoted in my earlier post (which was taken from Chassis Sim's article).

7. The 2.1G quote is stated to be just the G-Force that the stresses on the suspension were calculated for...it has no real relevance to the car's actual cornering capability as it was likely a number for the maximum G that the suspension would ever experience (to eliminate the chance of failure if, e.g., the car were to hit a big bump in the middle of a fast corner). Similarly, the 2G quoted in the other article was also likely a max G value, which would be potentially far greater than any consistent cornering would provide, but would look nicer on paper.

And as for that rear wing comparison:



GT2 wing is rather larger than the standard GTR's...

Looking at the wing from front view isn't reliable,look at the wing from rear view from the photos I uploaded,where does the wing appear smaller than GTE car?

The article I shared stated"Let's take keep this in perspective that we are talking about a ton at maximum speed".The topspeed of F1 GTR at high downforce configuration is only 198mph, 205mph in low downforce config.The 400kg downforce was at the front as the standard F1 creates minor lift at the front not rear.

Also rear wing doesn't look smaller in the photos you showed,even if it is smaller it has higher area than GT2,so I have tough time gulping that.The article also says 2.1G under cornering not suspension load.Gordon Murray said that the 95 suspension was not stiff enough for that force,so he upgraded it for 1996.

As for GTE article,I would like to see the article of real wind tunnel test rather than simulator values.About GTE topspeed,I was not talking about average,I was talking about max speed.The rear wing you showed for F1 GTR was of low downforce configuration at high downforce configuration F1 GTR looks like this

You can also see the mods in the front splitter,GTE rear wing isn't bigger than the above figure except for GTR Nismo.If you are talking about CdA,F1 GTR has 0.96,which may be lower than GTE because of lower frontal area.By the way Longtail had lower drag then shorttail,it was even stated by Gordon Murray.

Also there is no way GTE generates more downforce than the longtail at least when comparing bodywork both the cars have.

Edit:I found out that older versions and some local series SLS AMG GT3 produces 620hp,BES version produces only 500hp.

 

[mclarenf1papa]

Looking at the wing from front view isn't reliable,look at the wing from rear view from the photos I uploaded,where does the wing appear smaller than GTE car?

The article I shared stated"Let's take keep this in perspective that we are talking about a ton at maximum speed".The topspeed of F1 GTR at high downforce configuration is only 198mph, 205mph in low downforce config.The 400kg downforce was at the front as the standard F1 creates minor lift at the front not rear.

Also rear wing doesn't look smaller in the photos you showed,even if it is smaller it has higher area than GT2,so I have tough time gulping that.The article also says 2.1G under cornering not suspension load.Gordon Murray said that the 95 suspension was not stiff enough for that force,so he upgraded it for 1996.

As for GTE article,I would like to see the article of real wind tunnel test rather than simulator values.About GTE topspeed,I was not talking about average,I was talking about max speed.The rear wing you showed for F1 GTR was of low downforce configuration at high downforce configuration F1 GTR looks like this
View attachment 149130
You can also see the mods in the front splitter,GTE rear wing isn't bigger than the above figure except for GTR Nismo.If you are talking about CdA,F1 GTR has 0.96,which may be lower than GTE because of lower frontal area.By the way Longtail had lower drag then shorttail,it was even stated by Gordon Murray.

Also there is no way GTE generates more downforce than the longtail at least when comparing bodywork both the cars have.

Edit:I found out that older versions and some local series SLS AMG GT3 produces 620hp,BES version produces only 500hp.

I know you weren't talking about the average...I gave you the average of the entire class....the maximum still wasn't even over 300 kph. The 1996 car was 21 mph faster on the straight at LM than current GTE cars...I don't see what your argument is here.

The GTE article is simulator values that are used based on the wind tunnel data the teams have access to...

He said he calculated 2.1G under cornering to simulate the suspension loads and see if a suspension redesign was needed.

The bodywork makes little difference as to the overall downforce levels of the car...you can't look at a car and say, "this one looks like it has more downforce, so it does", that's just not how it works; it's way too complicated to even dream of doing that. As Jim said, the majority of downforce is created by the underbody in any regard, which you can't see....on an LMP1 car the rear wing is only worth 15-20% of the total downforce the car generates, the rest is the underbody. The Short Tail GTRs had rudimentary splitters and a small rear diffuser....Longtail had a very small front diffuser element, a larger rear diffuser, and a larger wing. GTE has a more efficient wing (not necessarily bigger, but much more efficient), a fairly serious front diffuser, and now a fairly serious rear diffuser.

Also, the 400kg figure is NOT front downforce....it's clearly stated that it's the total.

 

[Mclaren F1 GTR]

I know you weren't talking about the average...I gave you the average of the entire class....the maximum still wasn't even over 300 kph. The 1996 car was 21 mph faster on the straight at LM than current GTE cars...I don't see what your argument is here.

The GTE article is simulator values that are used based on the wind tunnel data the teams have access to...

He said he calculated 2.1G under cornering to simulate the suspension loads and see if a suspension redesign was needed.

The bodywork makes little difference as to the overall downforce levels of the car...you can't look at a car and say, "this one looks like it has more downforce, so it does", that's just not how it works; it's way too complicated to even dream of doing that. As Jim said, the majority of downforce is created by the underbody in any regard, which you can't see....on an LMP1 car the rear wing is only worth 15-20% of the total downforce the car generates, the rest is the underbody. The Short Tail GTRs had rudimentary splitters and a small rear diffuser....Longtail had a very small front diffuser element, a larger rear diffuser, and a larger wing. GTE has a more efficient wing (not necessarily bigger, but much more efficient), a fairly serious front diffuser, and now a fairly serious rear diffuser.

Also, the 400kg figure is NOT front downforce....it's clearly stated that it's the total.

Okay assuming that 2g was max lateral acceleration(for F1 GTR it was based on Jonathan Palmer's test at silverstone).Show me where in this video does GT3 pull 2g maximum he pulled was only 1.8g from my observation.

Besides if F1 GTR is slower in corners,then how will it lap faster than GTE even at downforce circuits like Jarama(1:30.053 vs 1:31.8) and Brands Hatch with a chicane.Okay the article I shared said that F1 GTR has 1ton of downforce at topspeed if you read it carefully,it is stated at the last line of the article.

Also if LMP2 produces 1600kg at 200mph,then there is no way a GTE will produce 1300kg at that speed.That would mean that at speeds below 100mph they would have almost same downforce and even in a very tight track,LMP2 will beat GTE car.

Also F1 GTR generates downforce from diffusers,skirts,underbody,etc like GTE car,so comparing the rear wing is applicable.About rear wing downforce,it depends on size of the wing,angle of attack,wing span,etc.So if the GTE wing is smaller in size with lesser angle of attack,there is no way the wing will generate more downforce regardless of shape.

Downforce formula is 1/2*(wing span*height*cl*rho*aoa*velocity square),so no way GTE will have more downforce with smaller dimensions.

Also the splitters on 458 Italia GTE you showed looks tiny when compared to LT's and F1 GTR 96 in high downforce configuration.Also the rear diffuser is smaller in the rear in the image I provided.As much as downforce goes,LMP1 generates 1400kg at 280km/h.

Group C cars generated over 9000lbs at 200mph but still slower than LMP1 even when it is faster in straight line.Even 333SP generated 5224lbs at 200mph.

Yet F1 GTR was only 1.4s slower at LM despite being slower in straight(I mean acceleration wise),so they must be similar on downforce.By the way GTE cars are faster in straight line than 1995 version which only reached 281km/h at LM.

 

[mclarenf1papa]

Okay assuming that 2g was max lateral acceleration(for F1 GTR it was based on Jonathan Palmer's test at silverstone).Show me where in this video does GT3 pull 2g maximum he pulled was only 1.8g from my observation.

Besides if F1 GTR is slower in corners,then how will it lap faster than GTE even at downforce circuits like Jarama(1:30.053 vs 1:31.8) and Brands Hatch with a chicane.Okay the article I shared said that F1 GTR has 1ton of downforce at topspeed if you read it carefully,it is stated at the last line of the article.

Also if LMP2 produces 1600kg at 200mph,then there is no way a GTE will produce 1300kg at that speed.That would mean that at speeds below 100mph they would have almost same downforce and even in a very tight track,LMP2 will beat GTE car.

Also F1 GTR generates downforce from diffusers,skirts,underbody,etc like GTE car,so comparing the rear wing is applicable.About rear wing downforce,it depends on size of the wing,angle of attack,wing span,etc.So if the GTE wing is smaller in size with lesser angle of attack,there is no way the wing will generate more downforce regardless of shape.

Downforce formula is 1/2*(wing span*height*cl*rho*aoa*velocity square),so no way GTE will have more downforce with smaller dimensions.

Also the splitters on 458 Italia GTE you showed looks tiny when compared to LT's and F1 GTR 96 in high downforce configuration.Also the rear diffuser is smaller in the rear in the image I provided.As much as downforce goes,LMP1 generates 1400kg at 280km/h.

Group C cars generated over 9000lbs at 200mph but still slower than LMP1 even when it is faster in straight line.Even 333SP generated 5224lbs at 200mph.

Yet F1 GTR was only 1.4s slower at LM despite being slower in straight(I mean acceleration wise),so they must be similar on downforce.By the way GTE cars are faster in straight line than 1995 version which only reached 281km/h at LM.

I read it plenty carefully....the "one ton" statement was generically used by Murray to compare the car to an actual F1 car, the 400kg figure was an exact quote for the downforce at a given speed...The car does not have a front diffuser, GTEs do, there's a large difference in downforce already there.

The reason LMP2 and the F1 are both faster than GTE is that they weigh 200-300kg less, and the F1 has over 100 more horsepower (LMP2 has roughly the same HP at GTE)...that's going to make it faster on pretty much any track you take it to, regardless of configuration. It's going to stop much better, and it's going to accelerate much better...even if its tires are made of stone it's going to be comparably fast.

And LMP1s make a lot more than 1400 kg at that speed.

None of your facts are anywhere close to correct...especially in your last paragraph. The 1995 car did 381 kph (237 mph) in qualifying....That's 52 mph faster than current GTEs....

 

[Mclaren F1 GTR]

I read it plenty carefully....the "one ton" statement was generically used by Murray to compare the car to an actual F1 car, the 400kg figure was an exact quote for the downforce at a given speed...The car does not have a front diffuser, GTEs do, there's a large difference in downforce already there.

The reason LMP2 and the F1 are both faster than GTE is that they weigh 200-300kg less, and the F1 has over 100 more horsepower (LMP2 has roughly the same HP at GTE)...that's going to make it faster on pretty much any track you take it to, regardless of configuration. It's going to stop much better, and it's going to accelerate much better...even if its tires are made of stone it's going to be comparably fast.

And LMP1s make a lot more than 1400 kg at that speed.

None of your facts are anywhere close to correct...especially in your last paragraph. The 1995 car did 381 kph (237 mph) in qualifying....That's 52 mph faster than current GTEs....

1400kg downforce at 289kph was by manufacturer itself,you can't deny manufacturer,can you?About 1ton downforce,it depends on how you interpret the statement.The car has a front diffuser,see the 6r picture,you can see some.

Anyway,if what you said was true then Group C cars should be faster than current LMP1 which it is not inspite of having more downforce.By the way 381km/h by F1 GTR 1995 at mulsanne straight is impossible(even C11 Group C managed that speed).Going by that logic F1 GTR can run upside down at 100mph as said by Andy Wallace in Car Magazine.

Even at their home track like Le Mans Group C cars are slower than modern LMP1.Group C managed best time of 3:21 while modern LMP laps at 3:16.

The source of mulsanne corner showed more downforce for 333sp yet laps slower than LMP2 inspite of more power,less weight,better straight line speed.So F1 GTR 96 being faster due to those attributes is invalid.Its like saying a dragster will beat a formula one car around a track.

It had lower power than standard F1,race car aerodynamics and the standard F1's topspeed is drag limited to 391km/h(373 with limiter),so there is no way it can reach 381km/h,the speed at wikipedia was wrong by 100km/h.Anyway atleast I have shown you my references,can I ask the same for you?Even so wiki says 96 F1 GTR is fastest variant in terms of straight line speed which makes no sense.

Point of my arguement was that different sources show different values for downforce,so unless you know work as a real racecar engineer you should just take the figures with grain of salt.

 

[mclarenf1papa]

1400kg downforce at 289kph was by manufacturer itself,you can't deny manufacturer,can you?About 1ton downforce,it depends on how you interpret the statement.The car has a front diffuser,see the 6r picture,you can see some.

Anyway,if what you said was true then Group C cars should be faster than current LMP1 which it is not inspite of having more downforce.By the way 381km/h by F1 GTR 1995 at mulsanne straight is impossible(even C11 Group C managed that speed).Going by that logic F1 GTR can run upside down at 100mph as said by Andy Wallace in Car Magazine.

Even at their home track like Le Mans Group C cars are slower than modern LMP1.Group C managed best time of 3:21 while modern LMP laps at 3:16.

The source of mulsanne corner showed more downforce for 333sp yet laps slower than LMP2 inspite of more power,less weight,better straight line speed.So F1 GTR 96 being faster due to those attributes is invalid.Its like saying a dragster will beat a formula one car around a track.

It had lower power than standard F1,race car aerodynamics and the standard F1's topspeed is drag limited to 391km/h(373 with limiter),so there is no way it can reach 381km/h,the speed at wikipedia was wrong by 100km/h.Anyway atleast I have shown you my references,can I ask the same for you?Even so wiki says 96 F1 GTR is fastest variant in terms of straight line speed which makes no sense.

Point of my arguement was that different sources show different values for downforce,so unless you know work as a real racecar engineer you should just take the figures with grain of salt.

That's nice that it's from a manufacturer, but the LMP1 I worked on makes far, far more than that at that speed.

And no, it doesn't "depend on how you interpret the statement" at all...

About the 1995 speeds, even if the 381 number isn't correct, the 281 number is equally nonsensical.

By saying the bolded, you're in fact proving my own point....the GTR can't pull 2.1g... if it did it would be miles quicker than current cars. The 333sp has about the same hp, weight, and downforce as the current Daytona Prototypes, which justifies the fact that its laptimes were very close around sebring in 1998 compared to the current speeds of the DPs (but slightly slower due to old tire technology)...

 

[Mclaren F1 GTR]

That's nice that it's from a manufacturer, but the LMP1 I worked on makes far, far more than that at that speed.

And no, it doesn't "depend on how you interpret the statement" at all...

About the 1995 speeds, even if the 381 number isn't correct, the 281 number is equally nonsensical.

By saying the bolded, you're in fact proving my own point....the GTR can't pull 2.1g... if it did it would be miles quicker than current cars. The 333sp has about the same hp, weight, and downforce as the current Daytona Prototypes, which justifies the fact that its laptimes were very close around sebring in 1998 compared to the current speeds of the DPs (but slightly slower due to old tire technology)...

F1 GTR can pull 2.1g even Gordon Murray said that in the scans.The F1 GTR produces 1ton of downforce at it topspeed was also said in the article.And about F1 GTR longtail.It was faster at spa than a 333sp,faster at Le Mans,so logically it should have better aerodynamics.

Its funny on how you believe F1 GTR reaches 381km/h at mulsanne straight,yet say 96 F1 GTR is fastest at the straight line,this invalidates rest of your post with no sources to back up(if you have then why not show me like I did).About LMP1 and LMP2 ofcourse they pull more than 2.1g(3g at some corners).

And finally about lap times.You can't have a fast track car by having only fast straight line speed.And regarding 281km/h at Le Mans,it was raining during the race so logically it will reach lower topspeed at straight.

I have said in my very first post that 1996 F1 GTR lap time isn't decisive as it did not participate in many race series in full spec(except BPR),on the same day it was almost as fast as an LMP of its day which also had more lap times than 96 F1 GTR.So there is no way a GTE will beat short tail let alone coming close to long tail.

By the way 333SP managed 1:17 at Laguna Seca,Daytona Prototype cant even do less than 1:18
F1 GTR LT could have done around 1:16 at that day since in the same day Panoz GTR-1 managed only 1:19 which is 1s slower than GTR LT,Short tail would have done 1:20 in my opinion(considering the le mans lap,you may take it with grain of salt).

So logically speaking 333SP ought to have more downforce than DP,the sebring track is different in 1998(modern one 4s faster as lap times dropped after change in 99) and different today.By the way 333SP is slower than LMP1 not DP which again invalidates rest of your post.

 

[IgnacioK]

When an off topic start, and end complete awesome sauce ^

Plss keep goin guys hehe

 

[mclarenf1papa]

F1 GTR can pull 2.1g even Gordon Murray said that in the scans (no, you've simply misinterpreted the context with which that number was mentioned).The F1 GTR produces 1ton of downforce at it topspeed was also said in the article (you repeat that generically stated figure but are ignoring the more accurate numbers written in the few sentences prior).And about F1 GTR longtail.It was faster at spa than a 333sp (333sp never raced at Spa),faster at Le Mans (by only 1 second),so logically it should have better aerodynamics. (the mulsanne's corner link states that the 333sp wasn't even running more than 2000 lbs at 200 mph at Le Mans...so yeah according to what I've posted, the Longtail would have been running more)

Its funny on how you believe F1 GTR reaches 381km/h at mulsanne straight,yet say 96 F1 GTR is fastest at the straight line (I haven't said that, I've actually stated the opposite quite a few times....maybe you need to work on your reading comprehension),this invalidates rest of your post with no sources to back up(if you have then why not show me like I did).About LMP1 and LMP2 ofcourse they pull more than 2.1g(3g at some corners). (That's irrelevant; I said that the F1 was never pulling 2.1G....which it in all likelihood wasn't....and I would know what LMPs can pull, I've worked on both P1 and P2 for the simulator -with plenty of data-)

And finally about lap times.You can't have a fast track car by having only fast straight line speed.And regarding 281km/h at Le Mans,it was raining during the race so logically it will reach lower topspeed at straight. (It didn't rain for the entire race first of all, and second of all, that 281 number is something you just decided sounded okay after seeing the 381 number and subtracting 100 kph from it...no sources show that to be the top speed reached)

I have said in my very first post that 1996 F1 GTR lap time isn't decisive as it did not participate in many race series in full spec(except BPR),on the same day it was almost as fast as an LMP of its day which also had more lap times than 96 F1 GTR.So there is no way a GTE will beat short tail let alone coming close to long tail. I'm not saying and haven't said that it will....

By the way 333SP managed 1:17 at Laguna Seca,Daytona Prototype cant even do less than 1:20,
F1 GTR LT could have done around 1:16 at that day since in the same day Panoz GTR-1 managed only 1:19 which is 1s slower than GTR LT,Short tail would have done 1:20 in my opinion(considering the le mans lap,you may take it with grain of salt). The Longtail only did around 1:19 in 1997...the Short Tail would have lapped a number of seconds slower than the LT, which would put it around a 1:23...

So logically speaking 333SP ought to have more downforce than DP (And why is that logical? The DP weighs more so even with the same DF, cornering speeds would be lower...I have the DF numbers for it at 200 mph, the 333's numbers are provided on Mulsanne's Corner and are no higher than DP's),the sebring track is different in 1998(modern one 4s faster as lap times dropped after change in 99) and different today (Then that invalidates your own point about the 333sp being barely as fast as LMP2s...if it was 4 seconds faster per lap as you say it would be due to the change in track configuration, it would be on par with the last of the LMP1s that raced at Sebring).By the way 333SP is slower than LMP1 not DP which again invalidates rest of your post. But DPs are on pace with LMP2s...which invalidates the "yet laps slower than LMP2" from your other post....

I've commented within your quote...if you're going to continue to argue like this then I see no point in going on.

 

[Mclaren F1 GTR]

I've commented within your quote...if you're going to continue to argue like this then I see no point in going on.

I thought the same,sorry for late reply,I was very busy in real life.

no, you've simply misinterpreted the context with which that number was mentioned

Anyway you can't deny the 2g as it clearly says that was the g around cornering.

you repeat that generically stated figure but are ignoring the more accurate numbers written in the few sentences prior

That was the downforce provided by the rear wing which does not include underbody,rear diffuser and front splitter.By the way article also states that 96 GTR has double the downforce of 95 version and you said 95 version produces 550kg at 200mph.So double of 550kg is 1100kg which is a bit more than 1ton.

I'm not saying and haven't said that it will....The Longtail only did around 1:19 in 1997...the Short Tail would have lapped a number of seconds slower than the LT, which would put it around a 1:23...

You said here itself that shorttail is slower than GTE cars.Do you know how fast is GTE around laguna seca,well they do around 1:22s.And F1 GTR 's best lap wasn't 1:19 like you said,it was a 1:18.895(reference clearly states it,I like how you pick worse time for F1 GTR to degrade it) and was faster than Panoz GTR with a time of 1:19.860,1:16s was my estimate for the same day time where panoz gtr did 1:17.754 in IMSA.By the way longtail won't be faster than GTR 96 by 4s around that track at Jarama it did 1:28.542(in same weather condition i.e 45c) which is not even 2s faster than 96 versions time of 1:30.053.

And why is that logical? The DP weighs more so even with the same DF, cornering speeds would be lower...I have the DF numbers for it at 200 mph, the 333's numbers are provided on Mulsanne's Corner and are no higher than DP's

Then you are saying that DP produces more downforce than LMP2.DF figure quoted for 333SP was 5224lbs at 200mph and yes it is logical since 333SP was faster at Laguna Seca by 1s but may corner slower due to its old tires if you say it is slower at corners.

Then that invalidates your own point about the 333sp being barely as fast as LMP2s...if it was 4 seconds faster per lap as you say it would be due to the change in track configuration, it would be on par with the last of the LMP1s that raced at Sebring

About the change I was talking about,the best lap time for sebring 12hr in 1998 was 1:55 in 1999 it was around 1:48 assuming the improvement of cars in 1999 it may be 4s faster.
This is sebring for 1997 FIA GT and 1998

And this is the sebring for 1999 where hairpin turn was replaced by sweepers and you say sebring has not changed at all or have been faster.

But DPs are on pace with LMP2s...which invalidates the "yet laps slower than LMP2" from your other post....

DP's are nowhere on par with LMP2 perhaps on par with restricted LMP2's running at IMSA.Here are the lap time comparisions
Traack LMP2 DP
Sebring 1:47.684 1;51.217
Laguna Seca 1:15.846 1:18.143

Above lap times are just a sample,if you want I can show more lap times.

That's irrelevant; I said that the F1 was never pulling 2.1G....which it in all likelihood wasn't....and I would know what LMPs can pull, I've worked on both P1 and P2 for the simulator -with plenty of data-

I mentioned that because you said if it pulled 2.1g it would be way aster than current cars.You may have worked on P1 and P2 which I am not sure but PD,Kunos ,PC,Microsoft,etc which have may more budjet than you have many errors.For eg IN AC F1 GTR is too slow and P1 is too fast.

As for spa, 333sp has raced in that track in where 1996 version only did 2:11 in same configuration.And besides 333sp runs low downforce configuration because le mans is a low downforce track I am pretty sure that longtail's 1100kg downorce was in low downforce configuration.And regarding 281km/h for 1995,why should I show you source when you haven't even shown one of your's,any way here are sources.
https://translate.google.co.in/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-TW&u=http://www.twword.com/wiki/McLaren%20F1&prev=search
Also bear in mind that it was there in official lemans site 10yrs ago.By the way gte reached 304km/h this year not 297
http://www.lemans.org/en/News/the-rundown-on-the-2016-le-mans-24-hours/41699
And 96 F1 GTR reached 330km/h due to slipstreaming in race and hot weather it was not acheived in qualifying or practice and probably low downforce configuration.

 

[mclarenf1papa]

There are so many logical errors in that post that I can't even begin to correct them (along with the same reading comprehension errors over and over again)...sorry, no point in going on for me.

 

[Mclaren F1 GTR]

@mclarenf1papa
Yeah you couldn't have said it better by saying things about yourself(like comprehension errors).
1.Jarama lap time I stated for F1 GTR Longtail was correct.
2.Laguna seca times stated for all cars were correct.
3.LMP2 is faster than DP which is also correct.
4.I don't think you have worked with real P1 or P2 cars to be honest or even an F1 GTR(only 28 cars ever made).(basically every modder claims so).
5.You said 333sp hasn't raced at Spa which was again debunked by me.
6.You said GTE has top speed of 297 at le mans which was again debunked by me with the official source.
7.Your comment indicates that you have not gone through the source of lap time I brought(you can view source by clicking blue words)
So I don't see what is logically wrong in my above posts ,if you can't correct them then it shows your wrongness to begin with.Anyway you may feel free to believe what you want or to spread and keep up your good work.
After all people would believe whatever they want no matter the sources,points and facts.

 

[mclarenf1papa]

@mclarenf1papa
Yeah you couldn't have said it better by saying things about yourself(like comprehension errors).
1.Jarama lap time I stated for F1 GTR Longtail was correct.
With a driver that was consistently 3 seconds off of the pace in 1997...not a good example for you to pick . Also, the downforce numbers I quoted are the maximum the car produces. I'd previously contacted the source of the info and that's the answer I got.
2.Laguna seca times stated for all cars were correct.
3.LMP2 is faster than DP which is also correct.
Not currently...you used old LMP2s for reference. Fastest current reg cars have been at Sebring is 1:51 in 2013, which you'll note is the same as the DPs. 2013 and 2016 times for the LMP2s and DPs at Road America are also practically identical. The only tracks LMP2s would hold a proper advantage at are momentum circuits with fast corners (where they can flaunt their weight advantage and minimize their HP disadvantage).
4.I don't think you have worked with real P1 or P2 cars to be honest or even an F1 GTR(only 28 cars ever made).(basically every modder claims so).
I legally can't show more than this, but since you insist upon being incorrect...

5.You said 333sp hasn't raced at Spa which was again debunked by me.
6.You said GTE has top speed of 297 at le mans which was again debunked by me with the official source.
Or, you know, you could actually check the data from Alkamel that has exact top speeds. These are the absolute fastest speeds of each car following qualifying.

7.Your comment indicates that you have not gone through the source of lap time I brought(you can view source by clicking blue words)
Well the 333sp laptime was pretty obviously done in unfavorable conditions, so it's fairly irrelevant. If you'd have looked at the previous year, it did a 2:08.96...a few hundredths of a second quicker than the Longtail McLaren.
So I don't see what is logically wrong in my above posts (there's the issue) ,if you can't correct them then it shows your wrongness to begin with.Anyway you may feel free to believe what you want or to spread and keep up your good work.
After all people would believe whatever they want no matter the sources,points and facts. Clearly.

 

[Mclaren F1 GTR]

@mclarenf1papa
The 333sp I was referring to was a 1996 version whose data is given in mulsannecorner, the 2:08 was set by 1998 version chassis no #20 or #23.The 1994-96 version of 03 did only 2:13.
But still 98 version was only tenth of second faster inspite of better straightline speed should be noted.I agree on 1998 333sp being faster than LT.
The LMP2 I was referring to wrt 333sp and DP was LMP2 in its prime ,if you compare modern LMP2 it is slower than CLK GTR or LM.
About Jarama time,well the time was done by thomas bscher who set one of the fastestlaps for shorttail gtrs.If you compare by weather conditions,driver etc GTR 96 should be another 1s faster than GT2s at jarama since hot weather reduces downforce essential at that track.Anyway Bscher managed 1;31.153 in 1996 that would put it only 2.5s slower,so 1996 GTR may do in high 1:20s at seca.So like you said that would explain LT being 9s faster at spa,remember 2:17 was set in 1996 in non ideal weather.

About 304km/h by GTe was reached in race as can be viewed from source.Also 2000s GT1 are also faster than GT2 so do you also believe they too have lower downforce than GTEs now?
Well you contacted the source for downforce figure but my question is have you ever verified that info with windtunnel test?

 

[2017 Honda Engine]

LMP1 is the fastest closed wheel category, they have similar downforce, slightly higher weight than F1.

Then in order, for endurance, there's LMP2, GT2(GT,GTE), LMP3*(LMPC), GT3(GTC,GTD, Porsche Cup), GT4. Names in brackets are mostly same regulations with maybe one or two quirks (eg. GTD uses a series spec rear wing and Porsche Cup is a single make series that happens to be similar to GT3). GT2 and LMP3 are similar speeds by nature but GT2 is usually a Pro driver category as the fastest production-based class in multiclass series, and LMP3 is Amateur as the slowest prototype-based class.

1990s GT1 is similar to modern GT2 in speeds, but is based on only nominally production cars (there are supposedly 2 Toyota GT-One road cars but the second one's whereabouts have always been a mystery) so is more like LMP2 in nature, just on 20 year older technology. 2000s GT1 is more restrictive on being production which again means it's similar speed to current GT2 since the less restrictive rules are based on older tech.

this really doesn't answer his question at all