|
Originally Posted by crayzayjay
Heavy steering and wooden brakes is something i've read /heard many times regarding the F1.
|
Can't say i've heard that.
|
As for the Cd not meaning anything, i remember reading an article where Gordon Murray estimated the Cd Koenigsegg would have to achieve if it were to reach a certain top speed with a certain amount of power. So i think that it does tell you something...
|
Yes you can work out theoretical top speed with it but it doesen't tell you anything about how it will handle. For example, the same cd for one car could mean it just produces a lot of drag, for another with the same cd it could mean a lot of downforce. Eg. a BMW X5 has a cd of 0.38... does that mean it produces more downforce than most supercars?
|
I know Murray wasn't going for top speed, but given that the car achieved the magic 240mph mark (at the expense of stability), the newcomers' inability to approach these speeds is perceived as a failure to 'move the game on'. Which i think is wrong.
|
I wasn't getting at that - but alot of people think the macca is just a pure top speed car but its infact the complete opposite of that. It has more relation to a Lotus Elise than most other supercars.
|
The only thing in the F1 which i wish the current crop of hypercars would replicate is the weight, or lack of it i suppose. But then it did cost a fuck of a lot more.
|
I'm not saying the newer supercars are bad cars (see my sig
) but taking into account age - there's nothing that can compare to the macca F1. Not only weight is a big issue in new supercars, but size and lack of a manual for me is too
Threaded Mode
