| I agree with Rockhopper, it might have been a fairer comparison to run a MotoGP bike against an F1 car, but the car would still have won. The simple physics of power to weight ratio is what does it.
However, there is only one thing that allows the car to do this, and it's not brute horsepower, it's aerodynamics. The car couldn't use all it's power until it got up to about 100 mph and generated enough downforce to keep it's traction. Any attempt to nail it before then and it would just light the tyres up.
It's also aerodynamics, and that alone, that allow the massive braking effects and corner speed that a car can produce - hence the faster lap times. IMHO it's also aerodynamics that make F1 the most incredibly boring rubbish 'sport'. Take the wings off, that's what I say. If you did that you would get cornering that was more down to the drivers car control than being clamped to the track (these things could run upside down you know), but the biggest effect would be in making the braking distances far, far longer and where do most overtakes occur...in the braking zone. Without the stupendous stopping power of aerodynamics mashing the tyres into the track the braking distances would be 3 or 4 times longer, you might actually see some overtaking, the racing might be closer and who knows, you might find you could be ****d to watch it again.  |