💡 Go to brilliant.org/DRIVER61 to get a 30-day free trial + the first 200 people will get 20% off their annual subscription!
We know F1 cars are quick, but how fast are they compared to normal road cars?
Well, I’ve had a fun day watching F1 cars race road cars, race cars, motorbikes, rally cars and even a jet. And… apart from the jet, it’s fascinating to see just how huge the difference is.
We've got several races lined up for you including an F1 vs a road car, F1 vs a rally car, F1 vs a MotoGP bike, F1 vs a race car, and even an F1 vs a jet!
📹 All source footage can be found here 👉 docs.google.com/document/d/1s...
📧 Get in touch with us: hello@driver61.com
👉 Follow Driver61 on:
- Instagram- @official_driver61 - bit.ly/D61Insta
- TikTok - @official_driver61 - bit.ly/D61TikTok
- Twitter - / scottkmansell
🛞 My Sim Kit:
- Fanatec DD2: bit.ly/driver61-fanatec
- SImlabs P1X Pro: simlab.prf.hn/l/ZZ9AkG5
#f1 #F1vsCars #Driver61
I agree F1 should incorporate more static cameras. I remember they once had a camera mounted inside of a curb at Spa, that shot of cars driving over it was so cool even Crofty commented on it.
To be fair, Eau rouge is beautiful no matter where you film it from
We still have the curb cams tho
The static shots at Monaco are glorious you’re spot on
@@crazychimp1324 The one at piscine is the single best angle in all of motorsport
Idk, curb csms were quite overused at some point
"Planes fly and cars really shouldn't." Master of understatement. 😂
Mark Webber didn't get that memo.
The 1999 Mercedes 24 Hours of Le Mans cars have entered the chat.
-Romain Grosjean has entered the chat
Well if cars had active aero, they might be able to bank like planes.
Mr. Travis Pastrana would like to have a word in this discussion I believe
3:15 you forgot to mention that Jacques and Riccardo had a bet to see who could take Eau Rouge/Raidillon flat first. Jacques tried first and brought out the red flag, and then Riccardo got a chance to try and also brought out the red flag!
Who ever was paying the bills at BAR really loved that I'm sure.
@@bennyb.1742 Probably the only fun Jacques ever had while racing for BAR.
@@bennyb.1742That was the tobacco sponsorships era, teams had virtually infinite money. If anything, the drivers got a bonus for getting more screen time.
The F1 car being faster in the corners than the bike is not just about downforce, it’s also about size of contact patch.
The load can be spread laterally relatively evenly, too. Wider footprint and very low centre of mass. I'm not an engineer or anything but that's probably the biggest reason.
Yes, I said pretty much the same thing. In a straight line drag race the bike always wins. It's the minimal contact patch in a turn that makes them slower. But still better to watch IMO
Plus cars don't have to worry about flipping forward under braking
Bikes can accelerate and brake above 1G horizontal force but nothing like that in corners despite race tyres optimised for side grip. The limited grip makes braking limited to corner entry and acceleration limited to corner exit with neither available at the apex. So very different than what downforce makes possible with four contact points on an F1 car. The down rather than across force is key. A bike is balancing both forces with a 45 degree angle of lean but still can't turn all across force into down so the tyre has to provide grip against the force across. That's why you will see a smear of rubber left behind despite the high lean angle. Aerodynamics is helping at MotoGP level but will never be so powerful as on four wheels..
It's all about downforce. Without it contact patch is irrelevant. Bikes defy gravity. Cars just suck.
“Providing precedent for Perez in Monaco” 😂 Savage Scott hahaha 6:51
I came looking for this comment before I made one. No holding back there Scott!
Always remember that Clarkson race round Silverstone. .. Johnny Herbert in a Ford F1 car… Colin McRae in his Focus and Clarkson in a Ford Cougar… Colin does an absolutely epic power slide round the final corner as the F1 car chases him down. Epic!
I'm not surprized about the ford cougar losing badly, I owned one and that thing is front heavy as **** (with the v6) and only goes around corners because of it's oversized tires.
and Johnny has a cuppa and reads the paper. Noteworthy that Stewart were rebranded Jaguar and then became Red Bull
From the kangaroo livery, I'm assuming that's an RAAF Hornet. Also, it looks like he performed a mil power takeoff, probably because afterburners would have been dangerous to the car and the driver's hearing. At mil power, it generates 11,000 lb of thrust per engine. At full AB, it would have generated 18,000 lb of thrust per engine. And airplanes don't have concerns with wheel spin from putting down too much power.
Yes was RAAF Hornet against Ricciardo. Original Video kzhead.info/sun/n9mBXdaHkJuujHA/bejne.html
You just made me picture an airplane doing a burnout...
Which would also make it a Super Hornet, not that it makes much difference in performance here.
@@Hurricayne92 RAAF also operated the legacy hornets, ya can differentiate legacy and super hornets easily by the shape of their intakes, legacy having round intakes while super having square/boxy ones
@@dreadswizzard9142 Mythbusters plane on a conveyor goes into the depths of this.
Back in the late 80’s I drag raced a bone stock 1973 RX-3 on the same night a top fuel dragster was doing a test and tune. My 60 foot time was about the same as his 1/4 mile😂
I did a little research on fighter jets from a standing start. There's not a lot of data because it's not really an important statistic, but from what I CAN find they have a 0-60 of around 2-3 seconds so they're no slouch.
A quick google says you're right, way faster than I thought they'd accelerate from 0
@@kylehagertybanana Yeah I was kind of surprised too, but I suppose it makes sense given the power the jets can put out. Also considering that they often need to take off from relatively short runways on carriers.
@@regimiro4888Western Jets can’t take off from a carrier under their own thrust alone. All carrier launches are catapult assisted.
For those keeping score the 0-60 time for a catapult launch in 0.7 seconds 👍
@@MrSpinkser Interesting! I didn't know that thanks for the info
In 2003 (I don't remember exactly) Micheal Schumacher in the F2003 drag raced an Eurofighter (military jet) on 3 diatances, losing 2-1 by a couple hundreds of a second.
That was the fastest jet ever raced by F1 car and that F1 car was also quickest or fastest Accelerating F1 car ever F2003 hit 400 metres in 7.3 seconds @190 mph on Extremely wet track shumi saw 190 mph at 400 meters finish line He reached 600 meters in 9.4 seconds 900 meters in 13.2 seconds reaching over 225 mph And that was in wet conditions In dry 400 meters 6.5 sec 600 meters 8.4 seconds 900 meters in 12 seconds flat
F2003 was fast but no way 6.5 at 400
@@Smzxea 1/4 mile in 6.5s ??
@@Smzxe 2011 Red Bull RB7 did it in 9.2 secs in good weather. No way any F1 car does it in 6.5.
RIP Ken. A true fucking legend.
There is McLaren F1 Vs Porsche 928 Vs Ford Sierra 1.6 done in about 1982 with same concept of starting on interval and finishing at same time. Drivers were Niki Lauda, John Watson and James Hunt.
The FA-18 was fitted with an auxiliary fuel tank (under the mid-hard point). Hardly optimal for this but the unknown is the massive difference between whether it was empty or full.
The F18's take off speed from a standard runway is about 200mph, so the acceleration would've been pretty aggressive at the start.
I understand that F1 uses dynamic cameras so the liveries and sponsors are more readable but surely a few static shots would do wonders to get new viewers interested in the sport
When was the last time F1 did something for motorsports enthusiasts over sponsors and their money?
@@th3gughy It's short sighted. If they had a better viewing experience they could make even more money
@@lightfeather9953is it short sighted they have probably run the data on how effective it would be.
So that's the reason I have to stare at the cars the same way I would if they weren't even moving.. Dang. I've always thought air shows and race events were recorded poorly. No perspective.
Greatly done! As an Airforce Vet, I've been around these planes. And they still give me the chills. One of my all time favorites, the F-16 and the F-4 Phantom.
I'll go with the Phantom. An old Phantom Phixer here. C&D's.
11:45 Really neat (if only for a second) seeing the exhaust from the F-18 as it goes past the F-1's rear wing, I would love to see an F-1 speeding through fog or something where you could get a really good look at the aero.
7:52 Seems like they were only pointing out major corner complexes on the track (Copse, Maggotts/Becketts, Stowe, Club, Abbey and Bridge/Priory/Brooklands/Luffield)
Early 2000( can't remember the exact year) CF-18 raced against the indy car of Carpentier in Bagotville base. 32 000 lb of trust with a 36 000 lb weight against a turbo charge race car. Plane went flying but the car did pretty good. It was fun to watch.
There was a time, for about 4 years as I recall, that Indianapolis was counted as a F1 race. Ended in 1960, used the standard track. it's part of the history of Jimmy Clark showing up there and being amazingly effective with a rear-engine car. Indy as a F1 track also led to the famed Monza 500 in 1957 and 1958 where Indy cars and teams raced F1 cars and teams and dominated - though 1958 got a lot closer.
Mika was awesome.. So Finnish. He had a shunt in practice at Montreal. During the interview, they asked what happened.. Mika say flatly “I hit a beaver”. It was so Mika.
Very well show set up and interesting too! Thanks a million!
For the rolling start with the F18, planes usually spool up their engines while applying brakes and then release once up to a good rpm. So yes the fighter jet can start moving quickly while engines need to apply work and "slowly" rev up to a nice power.
Thanks for a fun video, nice you incorporated a bit if bike stuff as well 👍
Standing start of the f-18 seems pretty legit. I use numbers of the EF typhoon because I am more familiar. The f18 is less performant but it's sufficient for the explanation. In perfect conditions (no payload, empty tanks) the EF has an acceleration of 2g almost immediately after releasing the brakes without power loss or shifting. ("Almost" only because the brakes can't hold the plane in full reheat) This means a 0-100km/h (62mph) time of ca. 1,5 s. 2,5 s of an F1 car should be possible even under realistic, conservative conditions.
Theres some really high quality simulations that a few KZheadrs have been putting out. You can really see the difference in lap times and cornering that seperate F1 from Indycar, Nascar, GPs, LeMans racers, and so on. They can make the cars go all out, without any safety precautions lol obviously, but they still are able to really exemplify how fast F1 is. I linked the video of Nascar vs. F1 below, taking it all in, is why, in my personal opinion, F1 is the peak of motorsport. Its just unprecedented how much speed, power, downforce and sheer ground-breaking engineering goes into the sport. Its a world-wide sport, raced on tracks of all kinds (yes to be fair, not all kinda of surfaces, but I think the point still stands). I think what supplements that is my opinion that F1 drivers are the most talented drivers in the world. Weve seen F1 drivers go on to have success in Indycar, Nascar, Rallying, GT racing, Formula E, and so on.... But we rarely, if ever, especially in the modern era see drivers from any of those series come over to F1 and have success. To me F1 is the peak of motorsport and F1 drivers are the best of the best drivers in the world. (Give or take a few Mazespins or GOATifi every once in a while) Forgot to add the link lol. kzhead.info/sun/m6qEc9BqrImBaYU/bejne.html
As a NASCAR fan myself, I am willing to concede that F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport engineering. But I think it's disingenuous to say that it's the peak motorsport with the greatest drivers. There are countless motorsport disciplines across a broad range of vehicles. I don't think any 1 of them can claim to be better than the other.
@@south_carolina_man That's fair. I don't intend to say there aren't great drivers in different series and haven't been legendary drivers in other disciplines throughout history......However, F1 is the culmination of peak performance in racing imo. Most of motorsports best drivers as a whole have come from F1. They're the fastest cars, around any track with a paved surface. That fact alone should be enough of a justification. Even the peripherals of the sport are either at the top or near the top of the motorsports world. The pit stops are the fastest, and with the sheer amount of worldwide fans, more people watch an F1 race than the Super Bowl. I totally understand the balls needed to drive a rally circuit (yes, even Michelle Mouton had more balls than most men lol), driving bumper to bumper in Nascar, or Racing at Le Mans..... I get how amazing and worthy those disciplines are, but to me, F1 is just above them. It's alright to be bothered that someone thinks your favorite racing series isn't the best, and I understand that. But the reality is everything about F1 is bigger, faster, and better in most ways. It's of course just my opinion, and in that regard, for me, F1 is just the highest point in racing. Winning in F1 certifies that you are the best in the world at driving the fastest cars in the world..... Kinda implies you're the best to me.
@@Amm17ar Very well. You have permission to think what you like. I don't think I can agree per se, but I will respect your opinion.
@@south_carolina_man Hey, thats the beauty of it all. Were both allowed to love what we love. Theres places in the world where you cant do that, so its nice to be somewhere where its maybe not understood, but accepted. There's a reason Nascar or Indy sells out everywhere they go, because people love it right. Same with F1, and every other discipline. Neither of us need validation for what we love. Have a good day, and for the record, I enjoy watching Indycar and Nascar once in a while too. im a fan of good racing, and both of those supply that in spades. Have a good day, it was nice talking to you!
@@Amm17ar Godspeed
For the jet engine, if it's allowed to spool up first, it can deliver as much thrust as the breaks can hold almost immediately and get to full thrust very quickly. However, if it's starting from idle thrust, it can take a while to spool up from idle. Generally, they create more power the faster they are spinning, which in turn spins them faster and allows them to create more power (sort of like a turbo). However, you're doing that with basically the entire engine, not small components of the engine. I don't know the numbers for military jets, but for commercial, it can take 1-2 seconds to go from idle to full thrust. Considering how slow the acceleration is, I'm guessing it started from idle. Turbofan jets like are in the F-18 also (at least at sub-sonic speed) provide more power the faster they're going through the air. All of this to say that the slow start seen is reasonable for an idle, unassisted start.
Some commercial jets take more like 5 seconds to spool from idle to high thrust. Military fighter jet engines tend to be smaller, and spool up faster.
@@bricefleckenstein9666 Yeah, I realized later that I got the numbers wrong for commercial (at least modern high-bypass). I know there was an aviation accident where the engines were commanded from idle to full thrust too late for it to not stall in an accident, and while I can't remember the aircraft type (I know it's an Airbus, but don't know if it was an A320, A330, A380, or even a neo), the spool-up time on those engines is 6 seconds.
@@bandana_girl6507 There has been more than one such accident. It's the REASON that Navy aircraft on a carrier landing keep the engines spooled up - there isn't enough TIME to respond if the pilot misses all of the arresting cables. Even applied to piston engines, which ALSO take some time to get their revs up at the size of engines aircraft used, though not AS long (the Navy hasn't had any piston aircraft in the carrier inventory for decades though - even the E2 and C2 are turboprops).
V8 Supercars love static cameras they are so cool when they drive over them. F1 needs more of them and to be permanent.
11:50 The F-18 would do that pretty quickly, afterburners are amazing at producing thrust
Are they?
@@caio5987 An F18 with it's two engines produce a total of 98kN of thrust dry (without afterburners) and 158kN with afterburners.
@@andresmartinezramos7513 wow really? I would never tell
Depends on the afterburner. Some produce as much as 80% more thrust, some (Concord) only produced more like 20%.
Best sounding engine I ever heard was Ayrton Senna's V12 F1 car. I was about 2 feet from it when he started it, did a tight donut, the ripped away at full throttle. The sound was literally musical as if the exhaust pipes were trumpets. Unforgettable!
10:22 "And that's all down to downforce" It's definitely a factor, but another (and probably bigger) one is tyres. F1 cars have a lot more rubber touching the tarmac, which makes braking much, much easier. Mick Doohan test drove a Williams car in 1998 on the Catalunya circuit, which he was familiar with from his motorbike racing days. In an interview he said that he was approaching a corner in the Williams, and just instinctively started braking where he would if he were taking the corner on a bike. He stopped the car before it even got to the corner.
The tires have similar enough coefficient of friction, despite the size difference - really the only difference is the normal (down) force. Otherwise, an f1 car with no down force would slip at about the same turn radius and speed (depending on how well the tires for each vehicle dig into the ground, but that brings in tire pressure, camber, and a whole lotta other factors)
Ferrari did a similar video with Eurofighter and schumacher in 2003, the car won 1/4 mile, the efa the mile
As a former 306 owner and current 308 GTi owner (and recently a Porsche owner, etc), the 306 GTi-6 will always be my dream car, it doesn't get more perfect for a B-road than one of those...but yeah, a modern hot hatch is a whole level of performance above it. The static camera really is a great shot, I can't remember seeing anything that shows the speed as well as that side-by-side comparison.
Peugeot 306 S16 right? Great car, love it aswel!
Couldn’t agree more about the camera angles. That view from the front with the telephoto lens makes the cars look like they’re crawling
F/a-18 standing start with full afterburner it will accelerate fast, but it has a lot of inertia to get over at first. So it really depends on how long the track is. Wouldn’t take long to leave any car in its wake.
Yes, afterburners are really powerfull
@@JanTonovski But if used would probably be bad for the F1 car, so did they really use them?
Not really, you could see how early the pilot shut them off@@57thorns
Yeah, its 100% show to let the f1 car ahead. Even without afterburners, jets are just stupid quick.
The F1 car would be quicker off the line. But yeah if they time it wrong you’re going to cook the driver lol.
That W204 C63 is actually my dream sports car. What really makes it for me is that 6.2L NA V8. One of the best sounding road cars ever made imo. Its just so pretty as well.
11:30 "Now this isn't a proper race". You have two things competing to see which comes first, it's as propper as any other just with some extra awesomeness :)
Awesome as always! ❤️
most interesting part about the F1 vs F/A-18 is the size comparison in my opinion, F-1 cars are pretty small, but often it's hard to get a size comparison of two very different things like that.
Something that might help for understanding the bike and the jet thing; bikes, under acceleration, are designed to transfer all weight to the rear wheel, which means that, functionally, they become exactly the same in terms of performance to a well tuned 4 wheel drive vehicle... In practice, bikes are really hard to manage on launch, and car 4wd systems are very hard to tune and to optimise for anything other than a given tested circuit (ie; if conditions vary the drive effectiveness will vary) and as a result, it's always a mixed bag watching bikes and 4wd's launch, but they'll both spank a 2wd anything over the first little bit all of the time. Jets (and I'll caviat this by saying I'm an automotive engineer, so I have less knowledge of jet stuff) have a similar efficiency issue related to exhaust velocity vs disc area/exhaust area as cars and motorbikes do in terms of gearing and tyres driven (think launching the F1 car against motorbikes and 4wds again), but on steroids... This plays out that, at slow speeds, jets both accelerate poorly and have very poor throttle control and responsiveness... If you listen to pilots of the SR71 blackbirds talking about trying to aerial refuel, they're normally working hard to stop from just falling out of the sky, juggling multiple controls and, by some accounts, even using one engine only, with huge rudder on to try and gain some sort of control authority to maintain flight at that slow a speed. Similarly, there are reports of people in F16s and FA18's smashing SR71's in intial full power climbs, solely down to this efficiency thing. That being said, just like in the F1 vs motorbike example you've got in this video, when the faster aircraft gains "traction" (efficiency) and can put all of their power to good use, they just streak away... While the plane in your example is an FA 18 and, while it's got a variable geometry exhaust duct to try and give it something like the best of both worlds in terms of low speed behaviour, you can't beat the laws of physics... A propellor powered aircraft would out perform it on the initial roll, so will the F1, a motorbike and a 4wd car, but when the F1 hits it's aerodynamic speed limit, the FA18 is just starting to get to the "good bit" :D From that point they'll probably be able to sustain nearly 1g acceleration for a bit and cruise on to nearly 2000km/h, whereas if the F1 continued at that pace (over 300km/h) for another 10 seconds or so it would start spitting out conrods :D
@Driver61 I was at that Top Gear show in Barbados and I can confirm from my own cell phone video that the Hamilton vs. Block race happened on May 18th 2014
That jab on Perez was hilarious, great video!
I cant speak for an F-18, but I can for a Boeing 777... If you hold it on the brakes with power on and let go uou do get some fairly significant acceleration, its quite relentless too, it just keeps going and and going. Acceleration gets faster as you go faster, so the 0-60 is slow (but probably sub 15s) but its 100-200 is extremely fast. I cant imagine what a F18 with reheat is like, I imagine the F1 car had very little chance once the aircraft got moving.
I have seen a few F-18 fighters take off with afterburners and it is just amazing how much they accelerate
Once the inertia of the static airplane is overcome, and the compressor spools up while the air is ramming faster and faster into the intake due to the higher and higher speed, the power of those turbofans becomes mighty.
I know someone who flew F16's and asked him that very question, apparently the first time he went to mil power and then engaged reheat he accelerated so fast he nearly exceeded the maximum gear out airspeed before he could retract it.
Once you rotate the aircraft you're clear so no concerns about space constraints, whereas the car at 200mph is running out of road rather soon. Would be interesting to have had telemetry on both to understand who was on full power and for how long...
I hate seeing a Noble get destroyed. Great video as always!!!
I agree with the cameras, too. When Brundle is trackside in Friday practice, some of the angles the cameraman gets make the cars look rapid. The views nowadays seem to be zoomed in to much for some reason. Just a blurry mess.
at 11:55 an F-18 could start rolling very quickly, the pilot would hold the brakes, run up the engines, and then release the brakes, aircraft would already have engines spooled up producing a fair bit of thrust and the plane would start rolling as soon as they overpower the brake pressure. so if the pilot was holding the brakes but pushed the throttles into full after burner, the plane would roll as the engines are producing more power than the brakes can handle. planes can get a very good launch from a stop
I remember Wayne Gardner having a drag race on a road bike with a RAAF F/A-18 in the late 1980s. Although he was quicker off the mark I think the top speed was slightly different…
@@1breematt The late 1980's Fireblade would be around the 150bhp mark and probably 180kg dry whereas the modern day bike is about 220bhp and 200kg wet so has moved on a lot, especially in the traction control (eventually) and anti-wheelie that would be relevant to a standing start. The modern day MotoGP bikes are said to have about 300bhp and 160kg wet so another level up again, though we won't know for sure as that's an HRC secret...
@@1breematt Yes big difference between the CB, CBR and Fireblade specs. Either would be far below the 500 GP bikes that Wayne raced because they are just production road bikes. So not prototype engineering like F1 or GP Bikes. Fireblade of that era would be CBR-900R so lighter, smaller and 100cc less than a CB1000R but possibly more powerful. Not a GP bike.
I recall a Triumph Dolomite Sprint matching Superbikes around a circuit in the late 1970s.
Thanks for such a cool video! Back in the 80's Freddie Spencer did a cool comparison in a video: GP bike Vs Street Bike Vs Car. Freddie's riding 500cc's of 2 stroke insanity. Another cool super comparison is: Ferrari F1 2022 F1-75 vs Ferrari F1 2025 Concept at Silverstone GP. Just 3 years and what an insane difference.
The Superbike is based on a road bike you can buy in a shop and then tricked up to give fantastic performance, the F1 is purpose built to round race tracks. Having said that, I'd love to see Guy Martin take on David Coulthard for a couple of laps of the Isle of Man circuit where the bike would be more at home (the F1 would be in bits after a mile).
i was on track at a Snetterton test day in a single seater the same time as an F2 car. My mirrors were vibrating and i could only hold one of them still on the straights - to get some sight of what was behind. There'd be no sight of the F2 car going into a set of corners, but it would turn up mid corner. I couldn't see it but, despite my crash-hat and the engine behind my head, i could hear it arrive behind me. And when i heard it accelerate to come past me, i had to trust it was going the right side. It lapped me every 2.5 laps - and after i'd watched it disappear down the straight ahead of me, i knew i had about 2 laps before i had to start looking out for it again.
@Driver61 Nikki Lauda did a one lap vs several other vehicles. While the other vehicles started out on the lap, Nikki had a tea, put on his helmet and slowly got into his vehicle, then he took off and caught every vehicle in less than a lap. I've never forgotten that video and have never been able to find it. I would appreciate if someone could find a link to it!
Schumacher did one with Ferrari and started off reading a newspaper before chasing down a fiat and an alfa
The first of these comparison races was in 1990/1991 when Senna was in the MP4/5B against a Honda road car and a Porsche 911 around the Estoril circuit. It was featured in a documentary called Inside and Track - Senna and McLaren. Similar format and outcome to the demos here but great to see the legend driving.
I was at the Australian Grand Prix when they did this in 2012! They tried to stagger the start of them to get them all to cross the start finish line at the same time. ..
They used to do it every year. I think there was a road car, Supercar and rally car in 2022, the last year they did it.
Great breakdown and comparison, only a jet engine can see an f1 car in the rear view😎
I feel like Red Bull is the only Team/Company that can or is willing to take on publicity stunts and challenges like this. Wether it be the F1 car, Cub cadet Planes, just everything you can think of lol. Absolutely love it
The Ultimate Speed Comparison was a staple of the Melbourne race weekend, not Red Bull-run.
Multiple teams have raced jets, and done multi-spec races
They have at least 1 car in most major European-based series with their branding plastered all over it, so 2 of their machines against a road car is a lot easier for them than other teams
"Airplanes Fly but cars , REALLY shouldn't " 🤣
The point of the first race I think you're forgetting to mention and maybe didn't know? The reason they are setting off staggered is an attempt to have old cars cross the finish line at the same time. One of the cool things about that was how long the F1 car had to sit before it could get going because it had such a better lap time than even the V8 supercar.
Lots of humor in this one! 😂👍
1:26 A fellow V10 enjoyer Sometimes i try to imagine the power of the V10 with todays technology in F1
The car wow red bull special was a good set of drag races. F1 Moto gp rally cross and some mad 1000hp van.
Years ago, Martin Brundle did a comparison between a Ferrari road car and an F1 car, going from 0 to 100 mph, back to 0. It was done (I think) on ITV. It was a very impressive demonstration of the massive acceleration and deceleration that F1 cars achieve. He had furry dice hanging in the Ferrari to show the G exerted on the driver firstly accelerating, and the dice flying horizontally backwards as the car sped up, and then banging the windscreen as he braked. Be good to find that piece of film.
My takeaway from the video of all these vs their relative racing series: How fast the racing vehicles are has little to zero impact on how exciting/boring the racing is. Something for the regulation makers for F1 to think about I wonder🤔
I believe F1 regulators have worked with two thing in focus: 1 - safety, no dead drivers please. 2 - even the playing field and lovering the total cost The idea is that driver abilities rather than sponsor money should be the deciding factor, and there should be overtaking opportunities (which is where that flywheel thingy comes into play) But it is still more fun to watch a bunch of maniacs driving banger cars with "campers" in tow around a mixed surface.
Seeing a fighter jet in person is a life changing experience! So much louder than yoyd think! You cam feel the power from a mile away! And hear them way farther than that! Everyone should make it to an air show to see them!
one of the practice routs for a local airshow ran over my house when I was a kid, we had an F-15 clip a branch off of the acacia tree in our back yard edit: they're quieter than you'd think btw: they are LOUD when taking off because the engines aren't meant to run at 0 speed and don't really work correctly until they are up and going, so they're giving it everything it'll take and afterburners to boot when taking off but getting less power than they make at their peak distance/fuel comfortable cruise speed and a LOT of that waste-energy is ending up as sound. intersting sidenote: most jets cruise at pretty much the same speed, there's only something like 15 mph difference between the efficient travel speeds of a boeing 747 and a solid metal lawn dart of an interceptor like a Mig31.
11:50 a lot of fighter jets can overcome their wheel brakes in full afterburner, so if they time it right & release brakes right as the afterburners kick in, the acceleration in the video looks plausible. Then again, it doesn't look like his afterburners are on (although that could be a trick of the lighting/camera filters), & my only actual experience w/ this stuff is in X-Plane 11 simulator, so maybe it did require some editing trickery..
That Hornet was an Australian F-18.
This is a wonderful concept..
All aircraft pretty much do standing starts by starting out at high power output with their brakes on. Then they release brakes and get rolling. Now for commercial aircraft things have changed a bit that they do more rolling starts vs the standing start cause now they’re scheduled to take off as soon as they hit the runway. But smaller aircraft and even military aircraft still perform the standing starts.
The trouble with drag racing modern (ish) F1 cars, is that they're not really designed to go much above 210mph, so even if you put skinny (oval) type wings on etc. to reduce the drag, you'll not be able to extend top gear (without a redesigned gearbox, and who's going to do that for a demo), and so the car will just hit the rev. limiter. Yes, hybrid cars seem to have a bit of headroom in the RPM stakes, but I bet their torque and MGU power nosedive at these higher RPM's.
Daniel Ricciardo also raced the RB7 during Top Gear Festival 2013 in Australia against a race winning Time Attack Evo 9. RB7 obviously won (by over 2 seconds) but was still an interesting comparison. Edit: Race was a staggered start. Actual lap time difference is over 13 seconds.
Having a hard time finding footage of this. Any chance you can point me in the right direction?
There's one where an f1 car raced a jet and a kawasaki h2r (plus others), that an awesome race
The Ultimate Speed Comparison in Melbourne used to be one of the most fun parts of the Melbourne weekend. No time for it now with four support categories.
6:32 HO LEEE SHEEET! that was one OP drifting to beat an F1
I love how easily the F1 car can swerve across the track to go around the slower traffic. It doesn't flinch at that harsh steering at speed. Attempting something similarly aggressive in either of the other cars would likely have resulted in a spin.
11.50, If you are on the brakes and full throttle the plane usually wont move and I think the pilot did that with the F-18 then let off the brakes as soon as they were cleared to go.
Just to fix a point, that's not a US Navy F/A 18, it's an RAAF one. Filmed at RAAF Base East Sale. Was very cool to watch.
4:35 RIP KB4👻3
Oh woww, okay. This really gave me a different perspective. Growing up as a kid, i was kinda a F1 fans especially the era when Ferrari dominate F1 with Michael Schumacher & Rubens Barrichello as drivers. Fast forward, life happens, and time passed... i didn't watched F1 again, but still a cars & bikes enthusiast at heart. Until maybe around a year ago or so, i'd watched Carwow drag race where they raced a F1 car (i think the redbull one, if im not mistaken) against RC toy car and then the F1 car lost the race!! I was so pissed watching what people say as "the fastest, most advanced, most expensive race car" lose to a goddamn toy car, LOL. I understood with the 1/4 mile drag race format, we cannot really gave justice to what a F1 car could do, so your video really gave me the PoV of what a F1 could do in their natural habitat against another sports/race cars & bikes. Crazy!! 👍
The last race with the jet, try a Top Fuel dragster next time. Likely the rail will be at the end of the track by the time the jet leaves the ground.
This is the motorsport equivalent of wanting to put someone from the stands into every professional sport game just to show how good the pro's really are.
Nice review
Thanks for sharing.
What I liked about the comparison race was that they had delayed the starts perfectly so that they would all be seen together right at end
Planes fly and cars shouldn't. Mark Webber has entered the conversation.
…ferrari did a similar stunt where schumi raced against a 550 maranello and a fiat. I remember they showed schumi was still out of his car drinking coffee when the 550 launched (driven by irvine).
There was even a comparison video from ferrari with a fiat bravo, a ferrari 550 maranello (driven by eddie irvine) and Michael Schumacher in his 1996 f1 car. I think it was in imola
Completely agree with static cameras in F1.
jet race: if using afterburner during the takeoff, the FA18, F16, and F15E can jump off the line with racecar "slam you in the seat" g forces, but unlike a car, those jet engines dont let up as you gain speed. the pressure against the seat stays the same
I bet the fighter jet is pretty terrible in the braking zones... Great fun video though!
On an aircraft carrier is will stop pretty quick tho
Some company should sponsors static cameras in F1 and get all the love from F1-fans
@Driver61 did you see the video from kawasaki H2R against a F16?
The Hornet has a switch for full brake, then the pilot goes full throttle for a second then flip the brake switch. This method is used for short runway takeoffs.
Yeah... I "knew" the F1 car was faster, I "saw" that it was faster in those video clips but I didn't REALLY know or see until that static cam shot! 🤯 WOW!!! That really puts the difference into better perspective!
Nice Josh Widdicombe cameo @4:19
Just an FYI the F/A-18-A in the car vs jet is from the Royal Australian Air Force. A21-54
Those Aussie V8 super cars are awesome!!
For context with the Ken block vs Hamilton race for top gear festival, the track was intentionally left unpaved at certain points for the red bull global rallycross that was using the circuit as part of their calendar to that season and the following year it was fully paved for that year's top gear festival and I think race of champions was also held that year or could have been the year after, but I'd pay money to see that race again.
4:07 that "something cool" was probably a koenigsegg
The F18 wasnt spooled up, so it had a slow acceleration due to the engine spool up. If the brakes were locked, engines at full TRT and then release the brakes on go, the jet would peel away faster than a car, with the exception of a top fuel drag car or Funny car.
The f18 blue angel versus the blue devil corvette the f18 was pulling away almost instantly. So the acceleration from a dead stop is nothing to sneeze at.