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)

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!

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?

The rally car because it's designed to take those kind of impacts. Don't see many F1 cars getting airborne.

Not what Ron Dennis had in mind, but it survived

Click Here

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

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]

will let you know ok lol
(not )
it dont look good in that big w £30
gazebo
Rescued attachment DSCF0826.JPG

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

Rally car...

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]

Rally car as it has much more suspension travel. The F1 will just brake as soon as it hits the floor.

Have to go with the rally car , but would it fall any further than the Top Gear pick up?

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ivan
and its large surface area compared to mass giving much higher air resistance hence lower terminal speed

---

Rally car, I doubt you would see many f1 cars drive off from this!

He's not got his seat belts jammed in the door again has he ?




Paul G

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.