Nosey
|
| posted on 29/12/06 at 03:27 PM |
|
|
Settle a Bet
Right, here's a pointless question that's caused a heated debate with a friend...
Take a state of the art F1 car (eg Renault R26) and a state of the art rally car (eg Ford Focus WRC) and suspend them from two cranes. Drop them so
that they land perfectly squarely on a dead smooth piece of tarmac. Which one could be dropped from the greatest height and still drive off?
(I won't say just yet which I went for, just in case I'm way off)
|
|
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 29/12/06 at 03:32 PM |
|
|
still drive off... Assuming nothing internal breaks, we're talking about wheels falling off. Now, balancing weight against suspension travel,
the rally car has a 2x advantage (twice the weight and maybe 4 times the travel). Assuming you could pick springs and dampers for the specific fall, i
would say the rally car would be better off. However, the F1 car does have the advantage of stiffer materials. I would still be suprised if the rally
car didnt win though. They are, after all, meant to be dropped from heights onto their wheels!
|
|
|
stevebubs
|
| posted on 29/12/06 at 03:33 PM |
|
|
F1 suspension components are designed to shear off in an accident....but the driver cell is bloody strong.
Assuming there's enough suspension travel to mean the car bottoms out, I would hazard a guest that the F1 car would look in better shape.
Interesting conundrum....have you got enough $$ to buy one of each and test your theory?
|
|
|
ChrisJLW
|
| posted on 29/12/06 at 03:33 PM |
|
|
The rally car because it's designed to take those kind of impacts. Don't see many F1 cars getting airborne.
I've lived a life that's full.
I've traveled each and ev'ry highway.
But more, much more than this,
I did it side-ah-ways.
|
|
|
Nosey
|
| posted on 29/12/06 at 03:45 PM |
|
|
Not what Ron Dennis had in mind, but it survived
Click Here
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 29/12/06 at 03:47 PM |
|
|
The rally car without a doubt. The F1 car has almost no suspension travel and it's rock hard anyway. The shock loads on landing would be huge.
Couple that with relatively brittle suspension components designed to be no stronger than needed for smooth circuit racing and the F1 car is gonna
smash to bits.
The rally car on the other hand has probably in the region of 10 times the suspension travel, has tough metal suspension components that will bend
before snapping, and is designed to survive just the type of impact we're considering. No contest.
Liam
|
|
|
stevec
|
| posted on 29/12/06 at 03:52 PM |
|
|
Rally car is my first thought, But the F1 car may fall slower due to its flat bottom shape therefore survive the impact better.
You may ask if I have ever fell off the fence
Steve.
[Edited on 29/12/06 by stevec]
|
|
|
thunderace
|
| posted on 29/12/06 at 04:08 PM |
|
|
will let you know ok lol
(not )
it dont look good in that big w £30
gazebo
 
Rescued attachment DSCF0826.JPG
|
|
|
James
|
| posted on 29/12/06 at 04:10 PM |
|
|
I'd go with the rally car surviving over the F1 any day.
F1 car is just too stiff, the CF pushrods would shatter as just the start of the damage!
Cheers,
James
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The fight is won or lost far away from witnesses, behind the lines, in the gym and out there on the road, long before I dance under those lights."
- Muhammad Ali
|
|
|
shades
|
| posted on 29/12/06 at 04:26 PM |
|
|
Rally car...
Thanks
Adrian
|
|
|
Ivan
|
| posted on 29/12/06 at 04:31 PM |
|
|
Interesting question
My gut says the rally car.
But it may well be that the F1 would win with its light mass giving much less inertia and its large surface area compared to mass giving much higher
air resistance hence lower terminal speed and the fact that it is designed to withstand extremly high aerodynamic downforce and the fact that the tub
is extremely strong and the vehicle will bottom out delivering most of the shock to said uber strong tub.
So maybe the smart money should be on the F1.
Don't forget airborne F! come down 2 to 3 times as hard in real life compared to rally cars due to downforce.
[Edited on 29/12/06 by Ivan]
|
|
|
donut
|
| posted on 29/12/06 at 04:43 PM |
|
|
Rally car as it has much more suspension travel. The F1 will just brake as soon as it hits the floor.
Andy
When I die, I want to go peacefully like my Grandfather did, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andywest1/
|
|
|
rusty nuts
|
| posted on 29/12/06 at 05:28 PM |
|
|
Have to go with the rally car , but would it fall any further than the Top Gear pick up?
|
|
|
stevebubs
|
| posted on 29/12/06 at 06:46 PM |
|
|
Having seen an F1 car suspension disintegrate before my eyes (see attached pic taken by me) I'd be inclined to agree with the rally car winning
this argumentImage deleted by owner
|
|
|
martyn_16v
|
| posted on 29/12/06 at 10:23 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ivan
and its large surface area compared to mass giving much higher air resistance hence lower terminal speed
Terminal speed isn't really a factor though. We're not talking about dropping them from a Herc at 20,000 feet, a few metres will kill them
both off easily and over that distance they'll both fall as near as dammit at the same speed.
Rally car all day, F1 just isn't designed for that kind of loading 
|
|
|
greggors84
|
| posted on 30/12/06 at 01:32 AM |
|
|
Rally car, I doubt you would see many f1 cars drive off from this!
Chris
The Magnificent 7!
|
|
|
907
|
| posted on 30/12/06 at 08:08 AM |
|
|
He's not got his seat belts jammed in the door again has he ?
Paul G
|
|
|
Nosey
|
| posted on 30/12/06 at 11:57 AM |
|
|
OK, so I think I win the bet, rally car all the way.
My friend reckoned on an F1 car cos it's so strong, but, while he's a good mate, he thinks Nadine Coyle is the best looking one in Girls
Aloud, so he's clearly an idiot.
|
|
|
.jpg)
