F1 Car vs Go-kart

[SC04]

I don't know but one thing i do know is i don't agree with you in the slightest and i hate F1 so no FANBOYISM going on ere.

A karts suspension is in its chassis tubing, it flexes so its not actually solid, the metals are carefully chosen to flex and match the tyre compound each season i.e when a new compound comes out you change your chassis.

Tyre technology is naturally behind F1, but dont think technology doesnt get passed quickly around in Motorsport, especially as the F1 parts suppliers are also doing parts for other formulas, to an extent its only the rules holding the lower formulas back from things like carbo brakes etc.
Karting is governed by rules to keep costs down, if it wasnt they would have F1 tyre tech every year maybe sooner.
Heres a a hint, Bridgestone make kart tyres and they only need to last 10 - 30 minutes, what are Bridgestone going to do, set up an old shed outside their old factory using old hard rubber?

The superkarts website quotes "Formula 1 performance for Formula Ford money"

 

[Durzel]

What is there to 'argue'

A go-kart doesnt have downforce and nowhere near the grip of an F1 car. Nor a multi million pound budget with the best engineers in the world.

I take it your a Go karting fan and have some very Rose tinted glasses on?

You're forgetting that most go-karts can be picked up by a person at either end whereas last time I checked F1 cars have to be picked up by a crane. As far as cornering goes less weight will always reap more benefits than aerodynamics.

Unless we're talking tracks where 200mph+ would be possible in several places I think the go-kart (a racing one) would win.

 

[laissez-faire]

You're forgetting that most go-karts can be picked up by a person at either end whereas last time I checked F1 cars have to be picked up by a crane. As far as cornering goes less weight will always reap more benefits than aerodynamics.

Unless we're talking tracks where 200mph+ would be possible in several places I think the go-kart (a racing one) would win.

For every additional kg you add to a car, that is 1 more kg pushing you down to the track to hold you in place in the corner. So that argument doesn't work.

Less weight better than aerodynamics?? What are you talking about?

Something that a lot of stupid people don't realise is that without downforce it is impossible to pull more than 1G in a corner. The more G you pull the faster you go around the corner.

You can't pull more than 1G in a go kart. Once the centripetal force on the go-kart exceeds the force exerted by mavity connecting it to the track, that is it, the kart starts to slide.

In an F1 car the total 'downward' force = mavity + aero downforce. If downforce can equal mavity, you can pull 2G. Often the downforce can be up to 2.5 times mavity, resisting 3.5G of lateral force.

 

[Jonny ///M]

A go kart doesnt sound like an F1 car though does it???

*goes to google video*

 

[SC04]

They are not the best looking things around but still..you cant argue with 140-160MPH depending on circuit



and a link to Eddie Lawsons

.

 

[PikeyPriest]

Not sure if this is a completely fair comparison though. F1 cars have had rules over the last few decades to slow them down, have the super carts had anything similar to reduce mechanical or aero-grip? Arent F1 cars also carrying more fuel in addition to safety and added weight to meet the rules and regs, whereas karts are built to lighter and smaller rules.

If you gave an F1 team no lower limit on size, weight, wheels, aero and engine power (ie turbos) then a kart wont stand a chance in hell. Personally i still think a current F1 car is faster, but i`m not sure its right to compare a sport that is constantly being limited with one that isnt.

 

[SC04]

A go kart doesnt sound like an F1 car though does it???

*goes to google video*

No a 250 GP bike, same engines

 

[SC04]

Not sure if this is a completely fair comparison though. F1 cars have had rules over the last few decades to slow them down, have the super carts had anything similar to reduce mechanical or aero-grip? Arent F1 cars also carrying more fuel in addition to safety and added weight to meet the rules and regs, whereas karts are built to lighter and smaller rules.

If you gave an F1 team no lower limit on size, weight, wheels, aero and engine power (ie turbos) then a kart wont stand a chance in hell. Personally i still think a current F1 car is faster, but i`m not sure its right to compare a sport that is constantly being limited with one that isnt.

karting is very limited too, as I said earlier the last comparison I saw was in the 90's when the superkart cornered quicker on that particular track but was caught and beaten due to the long straights.

its unfair comparing any types of motorsport, I used to hate it when they ran an F1 car at santa pod and it got blown away, then my mate shouts out send em round a corner !

 

[Jonny69]

Hmm, I'm not convinced about this argument.

I'm on the F1 side I'm afraid. If gokarts were a better way to do it then surely this would have become apparent early on in the sport when someone discovered that a tiny weightless vehicle with a powerful engine was to be the way forward. That wasn't the case and I don't think they would be ploughing millions into what is basically a flawed design. F1 pretty much got to where it is today as it had evolved into a best solution. I hate F1 too by the way, can't stand roundy roundy stuff so no fanman here either.

@Jonny/// lol I wasn't going to be quite so harsh on the guy, maybe he doesn't know anything about Lemans

 

[Entai]

Hmm, I'm not convinced about this argument.

I'm on the F1 side I'm afraid. If gokarts were a better way to do it then surely this would have become apparent early on in the sport when someone discovered that a tiny weightless vehicle with a powerful engine was to be the way forward. That wasn't the case and I don't think they would be ploughing millions into what is basically a flawed design. F1 pretty much got to where it is today as it had evolved into a best solution. I hate F1 too by the way, can't stand roundy roundy stuff so no fanman here either.

@Jonny/// lol I wasn't going to be quite so harsh on the guy, maybe he doesn't know anything about Lemans

Maybe stating the obvious here but it seems that it needs to be said

Thing is though F1 have to be minimum weight and certain wheelbase and certain track etc.

So even though all the engineers know that small light wide chassis with huge engine, will conquer all they cannot do it because it is not in the rules.

Not sure if this is a completely fair comparison though. F1 cars have had rules over the last few decades to slow them down, have the super carts had anything similar to reduce mechanical or aero-grip? Arent F1 cars also carrying more fuel in addition to safety and added weight to meet the rules and regs, whereas karts are built to lighter and smaller rules.

If you gave an F1 team no lower limit on size, weight, wheels, aero and engine power (ie turbos) then a kart wont stand a chance in hell. Personally i still think a current F1 car is faster, but i`m not sure its right to compare a sport that is constantly being limited with one that isnt.

Both formulas have their own rules and regulations to which the appropraite vehicles have to be built, so you are right it is very unfair to compare them, as each one is the best design within it's own rules and regs

 

[SC04]

Maybe stating the obvious here but it seems that it needs to be said

Thing is though F1 have to be minimum weight and certain wheelbase and certain track etc.

So even though all the engineers know that small light wide chassis with huge engine, will conquer all they cannot do it because it is not in the rules.

correct, the size of single seaters is stated in the rules to keep them as 'cars'
i imagine an F1 car would have a shorter wheel base if there were no rules and a kart would have a slightly longer one to accomodate a bigger engine.
talk to anyone who owns a mini and tell them a long wheel base car is quicker around corners

 

[Jonny69]

These rules haven't been in place forever though. Car sizes have been in place for what, 20-25 years? I'm talking about back in the early days when innovation was in the sport, anything went. Teams were trying crazy ideas that won them the races like multiple chassis, 6 wheels and fans to suck the car onto the ground. Back then someone would have twigged that all they needed was a tiny car with tiny wheels, no suspension and a huge engine.

 

[SC04]

These rules haven't been in place forever though. Car sizes have been in place for what, 20-25 years? I'm talking about back in the early days when innovation was in the sport, anything went. Teams were trying crazy ideas that won them the races like multiple chassis, 6 wheels and fans to suck the car onto the ground. Back then someone would have twigged that all they needed was a tiny car with tiny wheels, no suspension and a huge engine.

You're describing how F1 evolved from the early 1900's, when they had tall skinny wheels, high off the ground.

Im not sure when things reached an ultimate size, but the tiny F1 chassis of the 60s would have been built just big enough to hold the most powerful engine that could be developed, current karts use GP bike engines, the first 2 stroke bike engine to win a GP was in 1962 so proper kart development would have had to start about there.

 

[Simon]

I used to race, but obviously you know more about the 'Super Karts' than I do.

If you simply read my previous post, youll see I mentioned the fact they do 160MPH and due to the short wheel base and no suspension they can straighten out corners, but still they manage to pull 3g due to the Kart bodywork itself acting like a wing not to mention the spoliers, and the tyres are stickier than an F1 car, they can brake from 100MPH in less than 2 seconds.

I think your comments make you look like a bit of an F1 fanboy TBO

An F1 car can generate up to 5g in faster corners, 4 g is more normal.

Also Grip = mu X R. R being the resultant force on the tyre, a heavier car will have more grip. A short wheel base only helps witj polar moment of intertia and steering response, the latter only really useful on very tight corners. It has little to do with cornering speed.
Also an F1 car can come to a complete stop from 300 km/h in less than 3.5 seconds.

I'm not an F1 fanboy either, just an engineer. But really it's not worth arguing about

 

[SC04]

Ok as i suspected, one of the main reasons an F1 car isnt smaller, I think, is because of the amount of fuel they need to carry to complete a race distance.


Martin Whitmarsh, McLaren Racing managing director.

“I’m sure everyone has done their homework for the 2004 season, building fuel tanks just big enough to run to wherever you think you need to. As soon as you decide to remove 20 liters (5 gallons) of tank capacity, you then look at building a car with a shorter wheelbase, optimizing cooling by making the tank area narrower or making the car lower to reduce the height of its center of mavity. In short, it presents a performance opportunity.”



FYI
austin mini had a 2m wheel base
a lotus 25 2.28 m
a superkart 1.6m

 

[SC04]

An F1 car can generate up to 5g in faster corners, 4 g is more normal.

Also Grip = mu X R. R being the resultant force on the tyre, a heavier car will have more grip. A short wheel base only helps witj polar moment of intertia and steering response, the latter only really useful on very tight corners. It has little to do with cornering speed.

I think its clear from what Martin Whitmarsh says, that if F1 engineers could take out the fuel cell and stick 15 litres of fuel between the drivers legs they would shorten the wheelbase considerably, see post above.

and from tech at grandprix.com

'The other area of the monocoque to come under scrutiny is the fuel tank. The compromise between a short tank, to allow the driver and engine to be placed as close together as possible for a short wheelbase and lower polar inertia, must be weighed against the higher CG of the fuel in a short tank'

 

[Jonny69]

You're describing how F1 evolved from the early 1900's, when they had tall skinny wheels, high off the ground.

Hardly, F1 cars had skinny tyres right into the 60's and the crazy innovation stuff continued into at least the mid 70's.

 

[SC04]

Hardly, F1 cars had skinny tyres right into the 60's and the crazy innovation stuff continued into at least the mid 70's.

this will go round in circles so I'll have to quote you again

If gokarts were a better way to do it then surely this would have become apparent early on in the sport when someone discovered that a tiny weightless vehicle with a powerful engine was to be the way forward. That wasn't the case and I don't think they would be ploughing millions into what is basically a flawed design. F1 pretty much got to where it is today as it had evolved into a best solution

But this was the case, from early on in the sport they became tiny, 1960's F1 cars were tiny, the wheelbase was 20cm more than the mini, I think the point youre trying to make here is OTT about millions into a flawed design, due to most of the innovation on size reaching a peak in the 60's, then you had weight limits and aero technology where you needed a compromise.
Gearboxes and engines are still getting smaller, they are after the highest power from the smallest package.
Karts traditionally use 2-stroke bike engines, and a limit of 250cc was slapped on as they would get too fast, many curently use 250 GP bike engines, and the best place to put that engine however many millions you have is next to the driver.

I'm talking about back in the early days when innovation was in the sport, anything went. Teams were trying crazy ideas that won them the races like multiple chassis, 6 wheels and fans to suck the car onto the ground. Back then someone would have twigged that all they needed was a tiny car with tiny wheels, no suspension and a huge engine.

see my above reply, 'anything went' was before the 60's, and they did indeed 'twig' and make the cars very small from the 40 years previously

A Formula 1 car is still a lot smaller than it looks on TV, and we know from engineer quotes they would make the wheelbase shorter and the Cov lower if it wasnt for the fuel cell, a superkart race is about 20 minutes and the fuel cell is between the drivers legs, but still the 60's F1 car only had a wheelbase 60cm longer than the smallest racing vehicle you can fit a man in.

And as I intially said, a superkart designer would like to put a bigger engine in for higher top speeds so the wheelbase would have grow, and the F1 engineer would like to make it smaller but the car has to race for 90 minutes.

As I said they would probably meet somewhere in the middle for the ultimate design, and I'll stand by that. Even though it doesnt seem the original posters who bashed me for talking b###### will reply.

 

[penski]

Errr.

No way in the world will anythign corner faster than an F1 car.

F1 cars are nowhere near the fastest cars around...

Straight-line a doorslammer street drag car would beat them (to say nothing of the fuel classes).

Around the corners, off the line and around any circuit you care to mention, a Hillclimb/Sprint single seater would be far, far faster.

Remember that F1 cars are built to a very, very stringent set of rules.

For every additional kg you add to a car, that is 1 more kg pushing you down to the track to hold you in place in the corner. So that argument doesn't work.

Less weight better than aerodynamics?? What are you talking about?

The lighter a vehicle is, the easier it is to accelerate. Simple physics. Who said karts lack aerodynamic qualities too?

Something that a lot of stupid people don't realise is that without downforce it is impossible to pull more than 1G in a corner. The more G you pull the faster you go around the corner.

OH MY DEAR SWEET BABY JESUS AND THE ORPHANS. The Hatchback thread instilled a sense of "You have no idea what you're talking about, mate." but you've just confirmed it.

You can't pull more than 1G in a go kart. Once the centripetal force on the go-kart exceeds the force exerted by mavity connecting it to the track, that is it, the kart starts to slide.

Er...Yes you can.

In an F1 car the total 'downward' force = mavity + aero downforce. If downforce can equal mavity, you can pull 2G. Often the downforce can be up to 2.5 times mavity, resisting 3.5G of lateral force.

Reckon this has no downforce:

?

Not only does it have the obvious wing, the entire body itself provides downforce. Unlike F1 cars which must have a flat bottom.

These rules haven't been in place forever though. Car sizes have been in place for what, 20-25 years? I'm talking about back in the early days when innovation was in the sport, anything went. Teams were trying crazy ideas that won them the races like multiple chassis, 6 wheels and fans to suck the car onto the ground. Back then someone would have twigged that all they needed was a tiny car with tiny wheels, no suspension and a huge engine.

Basic rules covering sizes of wheels, tyres, track, wheelbase, engine capacity and so on have been around since the post-war years. Remember that they ran to a 1.5 litre formula for a long time; very, very compact cars.

*n

 

[Jonny69]

Fair enough. I'll listen to you though, you seem to know what you're talking about