[saltysenior]

i asked over in the other room about how the 3 series cars would perform in the 1/4 mile and 0 to 60... still can not find a answer....but it probably can be found in the answer to my next question......in all 3 series what does a single car cost,,,what does it cost to run a team for a year,,,,and what does a avg.driver get played???? rahal mentioned some figures when he came back from f1 ,but i have no recall of the amounts.....

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by salysenior

i asked over in the other room about how the 3 series cars would perform in the 1/4 mile and 0 to 60... still can not find a answer....but it probably can be found in the answer to my next question......in all 3 series what does a single car cost,,,what does it cost to run a team for a year,,,,and what does a avg.driver get played???? rahal mentioned some figures when he came back from f1 ,but i have no recall of the amounts.....

I bet DOF will shed a lot of light on this, especially from an F1 perspective.

I can't give figures but I'm gonna make a SWAG here and let DOF correct me if I'm waay off base. My feeling is that when it comes to driver salaries and cost of racing, F1 wins, hands down.

Whatever the exact figure F1 happens to be I'd guess that NASCAR is second at approximately 1/2 to 1/3 of the F1 number.

I'd put IRL third with cost of the car about equal with NASCAR but the drivers getting less than half of a NASCAR salary.

For those interested in only numbers:

IF F1 has a total yearly cost of $150 million (I think this figure would probably be a bargain), then NASCAR's total cost would be around $75 million and IRL would probably be around $40 million.

[WestCoast]

That comparison is about as fair as Hulk vs Grandma.
Here are some stats from Wiki....

Performance
Grand Prix cars and the cutting edge technology that constitute them produce an unprecedented combination of outright speed and quickness for the drivers. Every F1 car on the grid is capable of going from 0 to 160 km/h (100 mph) and back to 0 in less than five seconds. During a demonstration at the Silverstone circuit in Britain, an F1 McLaren-Mercedes car driven by David Coulthard gave a pair of Mercedes-Benz street cars a head start of seventy seconds, and was able to beat the cars to the finish line from a standing start.
As well as being fast in a straight line, F1 cars also have incredible cornering ability. Grand Prix cars can negotiate corners at significantly higher speeds than other racing cars because of the intense levels of grip and downforce. Cornering speed is so high that Formula One drivers have strength training routines just for the neck muscles . Former F1 driver Juan Pablo Montoya claims to be able to perform 300 reps of 50 pounds with his neck. Since most tracks are clockwise, most drivers have the neck muscles built up on one side of their neck[citation needed], thus making counter-clockwise tracks (such as Imola, Istanbul Park and Interlagos) a much more testing race than even the high speed Monza or the tight and narrow Monaco.
The combination of light weight (605 kg in race trim), power (950 bhp with the 3.0 L V10, 730 bhp (544 kW) with the 2007 regulation 2.4 L V8), aerodynamics, and ultra-high performance tyres is what gives the F1 car its performance figures. The principal consideration for F1 designers is acceleration, and not simply top speed. Acceleration is not just linear forward acceleration, but three types of acceleration can be considered for an F1 car's, and all cars' in general, performance:

• Forward acceleration
• Forward deceleration (under braking)
• Turning acceleration (centripetal acceleration)

Unless a car is to be raced solely on high-speed ovals (where only top speed matters), all three accelerations should be maximised. The way these three accelerations are obtained and their values are:

[edit] Forward acceleration

The 2006 F1 cars have a power-to-weight ratio of 1,250 hp (932 kW)/tonne (0.9 kW/kg). Theoretically this would allow the car to reach 100 km/h (62 mph) in less than 1 second. However the massive power cannot be converted to motion at low speeds due to traction loss, and the usual figure is 2 seconds to reach 100 km/h(62 mph). After about 130 km/h (81 mph) traction loss is minimal due to the combined effect of the car moving faster and the downforce, hence the car continues accelerating at a very high rate. The figures are (for the 2006 Renault R26):
0 to 100 km/h (62 mph): 2.0 seconds
0 to 200 km/h (124 mph): 3.9 seconds
0 to 300 km/h (186 mph): 8.6 seconds

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by WestCoast

[/color][/url]] Forward acceleration[/b]

The 2006 F1 cars have a power-to-weight ratio of 1,250 hp (932 kW)/tonne (0.9 kW/kg). Theoretically this would allow the car to reach 100 km/h (62 mph) in less than 1 second. However the massive power cannot be converted to motion at low speeds due to traction loss, and the usual figure is 2 seconds to reach 100 km/h(62 mph). After about 130 km/h (81 mph) traction loss is minimal due to the combined effect of the car moving faster and the downforce, hence the car continues accelerating at a very high rate. The figures are (for the 2006 Renault R26):
0 to 100 km/h (62 mph): 2.0 seconds
0 to 200 km/h (124 mph): 3.9 seconds
0 to 300 km/h (186 mph): 8.6 seconds

Mindwarp posted the following awhile back, over in the NASCAR Forum. It relates a test done on a Cup car by Road&Driver:
That one good run was decent but below expectation. Mayfield's car hit 60 in 4.5 seconds and the quarter-mile in 11.9 seconds at 137 mph. A Viper reaches 60 in 3.9 seconds and turns the quarter in 11.9 at 121 mph.

To back that up, I did some historical checking. Though it's a bit aged it shows a couple things I think are relevant.

Back in 1964, in a factory-designed for drag competition Ford Thunderbolt, Butch Leal set a AA/S record of 11.76 seconds 118.32 MPH . The car had a 427 engine. That same year Mick Thompson, running the same car but with an experimental Ford 427 Hemi engine (How many out there knew that Ford once made a Hemi?) turned 10.6 with a 126 speed.

I think that when you throw in the difference in car weight and engine size, the R&D test looks valid. Plus it shows that not a lot of progress in performance has been made in forty years, even though the R&D test was on a car 72 fewer cubic inches.

When it comes to acceleration it appears to me, as a layman, that F1 has it all over the stock cars. Plus it looks as though the F1 technology has progressed at warp speed, compared to that of the American stock car.

[Racer Duck]

Originally Posted by salysenior

i asked over in the other room about how the 3 series cars would perform in the 1/4 mile and 0 to 60... still can not find a answer....but it probably can be found in the answer to my next question......in all 3 series what does a single car cost,,,what does it cost to run a team for a year,,,,and what does a avg.driver get played???? rahal mentioned some figures when he came back from f1 ,but i have no recall of the amounts.....

Not sure what the "average" driver gets paid, but here's some figures:
Fernando Alonso (F1) $46M
Kimi Raikkonin (F1) $27.9M
Lewis Hamilton (F1) $27.6M
Dale Earnhardt Jr (NASCAR) $27.2M
Jeff Gordon (NASCAR) $25.9M
Jimmy Johnson (NASCAR) $18.6)

These figures do not include endorsements or "outside" interests. I didn't find any IRL drivers on any "top" list, so I imagine their income is substantially less.

[WestCoast]

In 2004 Michael Schumacher's Salary with Ferrari was $80 Million a year + souvenir sales.
At that time he was the Highest paid athlete, today of course T. Woods makes over $100 M.

I used to play baseball on my company team for beer and nachos after the game.

[Racer Duck]

Originally Posted by WestCoast

In 2004 Michael Schumacher's Salary with Ferrari was $80 Million a year + souvenir sales.
At that time he was the Highest paid athlete, today of course T. Woods makes over $100 M.

I used to play baseball on my company team for beer and nachos after the game.

and that would put you closer to the bottom of the list of top paid athletes, but much happier than Mike & Tiger, right?

[WestCoast]

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

and that would put you closer to the bottom of the list of top paid athletes, but much happier than Mike & Tiger, right?

These days I get the most pleasure out of getting a great capture on my DSLR Camera.

[Racer Duck]

Originally Posted by WestCoast

These days I get the most pleasure out of getting a great capture on my DSLR Camera.

I was looking at one of those recently .. figured my 30 year old Minolta SLR might ought to be retired... but, it's cheaper to buy a boat!

[WestCoast]

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

I was looking at one of those recently .. figured my 30 year old Minolta SLR might ought to be retired... but, it's cheaper to buy a boat!

If you like taking photos, than you will LOVE the new DSLR's.
Interesting enough, Sony bought Minolta in 2006 and has taken it into the next level.
If you want to see the "quality" of the shots, look at my website photos in full screen, but make sure it's a "dark" environment when viewing for full effect.
My gun...
Sony Alpha DSLR-A200 review Cameralabs introduction

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

I was looking at one of those recently .. figured my 30 year old Minolta SLR might ought to be retired... but, it's cheaper to buy a boat!

This is off topic but what the Hell...

Duck, go to a DSLR! Don't even think about it. I toted around an old Minolta SR7 SLR since I won it in a poker game in Nam back in 1969. I had all the lenses, filters, light meters and gadgets I could get my hands on. The light seals finally gave up the ghost and it just cost too much to fix so a couple years ago I broke down and got a DSLR.

This thing is so powerful it's absolutely scary! Zoom and a decent wide angle is built in, as is a variety of filters. I can shoot 1/2000 and open it to .7. Plus, if you like to play with editing your picture there are a bunch of professional quality programs you can buy, or Google has a program you can D/L for free which exceeds any on my normal snapshot needs.

Picture taking has become fun again since I git my new camera. Plus, I don't have a 25# bag of crap to tote around.

If you want to really look like a combat photographer there are all sorts of gizmo's you can get but, believe me (and I think West Coast'll back me up here), the basic camera is probably twice what you had with your Minolta SLR.

Just one consumer's opinion.

[WestCoast]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

If you want to really look like a combat photographer there are all sorts of gizmo's you can get but, believe me (and I think West Coast'll back me up here), the basic camera is probably twice what you had with your Minolta SLR.

Here Here, lots of fun. It only gets expensive if you go crazy on the lenses.
Bob get you pics on Flickr and share.

[saltysenior]

good luck w/ your cameras, BUT what does a car cost????

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by salysenior

good luck w/ your cameras, BUT what does a car cost????

Dun'no. However, if you want a SWAG...

Figuring in the cost of material, cost of running the shop where it's built, chassis and engine technology, cost per hour of the hands-on work bending tin and just generally putting things together and misc. My guess is that without the driver, when the car is pushed on the hauler the first time you are looking at a gross expense of somewhere north of $250K.

I've heard figures of around $150K but I don't see how that could possibly take in the salaries and hourly cost involved.

Duck and some others here know much, much, much more about this than do I. I'll wait for them to set me straight.

[Racer Duck]

Originally Posted by salysenior

good luck w/ your cameras, BUT what does a car cost????

Thanks.

I suspect you mean a car in each of the series, right?

I haven't found anything that says $X, but I've found lots of speculation. So, lets start with some basics.

As in most areas of life, technology is expensive. And the more leading edge the technology, the more it will cost.

For instance, NASCAR Cup cars are made with full metal frames and roll cages. The suspension and drivelines are very similar to what you can find on the street. The bodies are full metal (no plastic, carbon fiber, or fiberglass), however the windows are made of Lexan so they won't shatter like glass. Technology-wise, they are about a 6-7 on a scale of 1-10. Most of the technology is in the suspension and engine on the car, but the most of the money spent getting the car ready to race is in the tools and equipment used to setup and test the car.

The IndyCar ups the ante on technology to about an 8 or 8.5. Aero is much more important. Everyone runs the same engine and chassis, so the costs are standard, but, remember: the cost is in the technology.

For instance, you can build a performance engine to turn 7000 RPM for around $6K-$7K. Raise the RPM to 8000 and the cost triples. Raise the RPM to 9000 (what the NASCAR cars turn) and the cost triples again. Raise the RPM to 11000 rpm and it at least doubles (this is where the IndyCars are). Now, raise the RPM to 19000 RPM (where the F1 car is) and you're into serious money. And, unlike the other two series, in F1 they are required to run their engines in multiple races, i.e., the very same engine run in last week's Grand Prix will be required to be in the car for the next Grand Prix. (The NASCAR and IndyCar guys will pull their engine and send it to the engine shop for a refresh, but the F1 guys are prohibited from doing that: the engine is sealed by F! and they must show up with that engine and run it in the race or suffer a penalty! What that translates into is cubic $$$ (to use an autoracing phrase.)

In a NASCAR car the steering wheel is pretty routine, and might cost up to a couple hundred dollars. But the steering wheels for IndyCar and F1 are much more elaborate and carry most of the instrumentation plus all switches/buttons the driver has to manipulate. I've heard numbers in the $40K range for these steering wheels. That's just the steering wheel!

I believe a competitive car can be purchased in NASCAR for around $200K. That's what we call a ready to race roller. Put on your number and decals and go race (oh yeah, there's a pretty hefty license fee for everyone in the pits, entry fees for each race and other "incidental" expenses. But that's over and above the cost of the car.

In IRL, I think we're closer to double the cost of a Sprint Cup car, possibly reaching to the half-mil mark. Add another 50% onto that for an F1 car, at the minimum.

While you may be able to walk into most any NASCAR shop who builds their own (not all do, many buy from Hendrick, Roush, Gibbs, Childres, DEI, or other shops that are also "builders") and buy a car, there's only one engine provider and one chassis provider in IRL. So you have to deal directly with them. (Single source means no competition, which means higher prices.)

Now, imagine you have a couple billion dollars laying around and you decide ya wanna go F1 racing. It ain't gonna happen. First, you now have teams, sponsored by automotive companies (Mercedes, Ferarri, etc.) who are very jealous of their "intellectual property" and are not inclined to sell it to anyone who walks in the door with the proper number of zeroes in their bank account. Then there's the "trust" factor that must be included or, Sorry Chuckie, you leave the same way you got there (without a race car.) And you don't just mix and match chassis and engines 'cause every one is custom built using the latest in technologies (lots of carbon fiber, lots of telementry and lots of super trick metals and other materials.) And just because you might have passed to the inner sanctum of car buyers, doesn't mean you're done with "paying" for the car. There's support personell (all sorts of "engineers" who are specially trained by the car "constructor") that must be "rented" from the constructor, or who must be "trained" in the constructor's factory (for a healthy fee.)

Well, that's a quick review. Basically a Cup Car is the least expensive and easiest to purchase (any one can have one!) Then the IndyCar in next on the cost rung. And, finally the F1 car is the most desirable and most expnsive race car on earth.

There was a famous NASCAR builder by the name of Cotton Owens who had a sign in his garage that said something along the lines "The faster you go, the more it costs. How fast do you want to go?"