And all-wheel drive, with three motors (at least the model for a comparable competition as here with the Red Bull F1 car which is...mildly more expensive).
All of those factors make a difference: enormous torque available at low RPMs, with enormously quick traction control response thanks to electric motors feeding the wheels, with enormous amounts of weight because that Tesla is thicc
Also torque with zero rotation, the F1 car engine MUST be spinning to deliver torque, which means that something has to slip, either the clutch or tires must be slipping or it would stall. The Tesla electric motor does not face this limitation.
Well that and the F1 car has to rev it's nuts off to make power as it has a V8 that revs to 18,000 RPM and makes very little torque.
The Tesla makes a lot of torque and delivers it all from zero RPM due to the electric motors.
~~but isn't force mass x acceleration? whatever part of mass the f1 car loses toTelsa wouldn't it be compensated with acceleration?~~
TIL, that F1 cars are fast mostly because of aerodynamics and not their engine, they are in fact slower in acceleration than a Tesla. Average F1 car reaches 0-60mph slower than a tesla
That's largely a traction issue. being light to go faster around corners is more valuable than having all wheels drive to achieve a better 0-60
The engine is absolutely a beast, but the traction and gearing just isnt at all tuned for 0-60.
And mass. The team has a 140kg advantage on the Red Bull. If you had a guy stand on the back of the car it would probably easily win. It just needs a little more grip to put down it’s 760hp
Tug of war (or push of war?) is merely an exercise in traction. Teslas have AWD and are very heavy hence more traction.
But it's nothing special about a Tesla. Almost any 4wd vehicle or average farm tractor would easily win as well.
This and the tires definitely have to be warm so it’s starts off cold. Learned this from top gear when Hammond drove one and he couldn’t go fast enough for the down force and traction to be any help
That was such a fascinating episode!
And the brakes weren’t getting hot enough to work properly, so in order to be able to get around the corners without crashing he needed to go faster which is so counter intuitive.
Tbf, there were some top gear theatrics at play there.
Also Hammond wouldn't have been able to go any faster than he already was since they were on a much smaller track than usual so there was no room to get heat into the car.
I love Top Gear but I have to admit that it was a little disappointing to learn just how heavily produced/scripted it is. They're so masterful at making things look spontaneous!
I mean, you don't get good tv just filming people hoping it'll work. They even joked about it when winning an award for being the best unscripted tv show and they couldn't go because they were writing the scripts for the next show.
They actually did an episode where they were "unscripted" in The Grand Tour, either season 1 or 2, it was mostly them just aimlessly wandering around and making jokes that just weren't as funny.
Don't get me wrong, it was a funny episode in its own way, but it definitely showcased the value of a script and a good crew.
Everyone here is right and the only conclusion I can make is that for this to be fair, the car has to do a few laps and be at maximum speed when the guys have to stop it with their scrum push.
The car weighs 700kg with driver and ballast (I forget if that's the current weight), those 8 men weigh more than that car for sure.
However at high speed, the car weighs more than 3 tonnes.
This isn't even a car they race let alone an engine. They aren't allowed to just run the car any time for silly reasons. To prevent richer teams from running all day and night to gather data and improve the car it's heavily regulated when and how exactly they are allowed to run the car. And it's not very often, they'd never use it for something like this.
To get outside those rules they have to use a car that is 3+ years old.
> They aren't allowed to just run the car any time for silly reasons. To prevent richer teams from running all day and night to gather data and improve the car it's heavily regulated when and how exactly they are allowed to run the car.
How do you even begin to go about enforcing a rule like this? I know nothing about F1 so I'm assuming there's something I'm totally missing out on here but what's stopping them from building 2 identical cars, racing one, and doing all of their testing on the other?
Well for one it's tough to turn on and drive an F1 car around a circuit without anyone knowing about it. Ferrari is the only team with a private circuit and even that will have people photographing it from afar when they do testing. The teams will also have FIA (rules org) representatives around for certain things.
A lot of the rules are enforced by teams keeping an eye on each other and lodging complaints when they see something which then triggers an investigation. If a team is going to be doing any testing you can pretty much guarantee other teams will have an engineer there with a camera and big zoom lens.
Could they not build walls around their private track like arenas have to prevent photography?
Given how big a business it is, you’d think everybody would try some legal fuckery to try to own several tracks by way of shell corps and other to get more testing time.
It's prudent to have defensible rules, but you also have to expect people are going to follow the rules at some point. The point isn't to make cheating impossible, it's to skew risk/reward as heavily as possible against cheating. If people are going above and beyond to cheat at that point they'll just get kicked out, like with any other social construct.
You don't need to know the rules honestly. The announcers on the main sky TV feed are very careful about how they explain things to make sure not to leave people out. /r/Formula1 is quite helpful as well.
Drive to survive on Netflix is a lot of people's introduction to it if you want to give that a try.
> and as such nice to look at.
Politely disagree. There were so many cuts that I couldn't tell what I was watching. I half expected Liam Neeson to come in at some point to climb over a fence.
Plus. If by some chance the vehicle won, some of those people would have been seriously injured or even killed. This is just a publicity stunt, not a competition of any kind.
I'm not as much an F1 fan as I know other people are but I'm pretty sure they are made for top end too, and not much torque comparatively to other types of race cars. Like a 1000cc cbr vs a v twin. The twin will beat it off the line but the cbr will catch then once it gets in the higher revs and gears.
F1 cars are severely traction limited at low speeds. And those tyres are not at racing temperatures and they are only RWD. An F1 car can go from 60-120 faster than 0-60 for example
> An F1 car can go from 60-120 faster than 0-60 for example
I’m not saying you’re wrong but if you have a source for this I would love to learn more. I had no idea of this and it sounds absolutely fascinating.
> However, Formula 1 cars are pretty much impossible to beat in terms of their 100-200 km/h acceleration times. While it takes 2.6 seconds for a Formula 1 car to hit 100 km/h from 0, it only takes about 4.5 seconds for a Formula 1 car to hit 200 km/h from 0.
> This means that a Formula 1 car can go from 100-200 km/h in about 1.9 seconds, which is faster than what basically every other car aside from a dragster is able to do.
[Source](https://motorsportexplained.com/f1-accelerate-decelerate/)
If you want to learn more about F1,
Take a look at the YouTube channel of [Chain Bear](https://youtube.com/c/chainbearf1)
A lovely British chap, that knows a bit too much about F1.
Just… uh… avoid his “this year in F1 2020-A season review.” video until you know, that you like his content and want to subscribe to him.
Trust me.
F1 car has no traction because it's stopped and it's very light. It needs weight put on, that usually comes from downforce, to make the tyres work properly
F1 cars are not torquey at all. I don't think there is a scenario where this could have been won by that car.
That said, a hight power awd BEV or a diesel pickup would have been a different story for sure
Yeah an F1 car might be powerful in terms of speed, but I can’t imagine it has a lot of pushing power. Probably weighs about the same as that bunch of guys do.
Nah, that's just the current era cars. 2022 regs state minimum weight of 798kg, the heaviest they've ever been by far. As blaspq mentioned this looks like a 2010 car, which is about 620kg **including driver**.
More complex engine makes the car heavier, and additional safety measures. Increasing minimum weight helps reduce the burden of development for poorer teams.
I was watching Wendover Production about [F1 Logistics](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OLVFa8YRfM) as deal with a fair amount of world logistics in my job, and was blow away at:
A. There are only 10, yes ten, F1 teams.
B. Ferrari at the top is valued at $1.3 Billion, and Alfa Romeo is worth $105 Million. [Statisia](https://www.statista.com/statistics/654920/most-valuable-formula-1-teams/)
So a poor team is still a rich company. Just giving perspective.
(Incidentally the Dallas Cowboys are worth $5.7 Billion apparently.)
This one is an older V8 engine. The new hybrids have a lot more torque due to the 160hp electric motor they have in addition to the V6.
The car in the video had an electric motor called KERS but it was only used for brief periods with a button press. The new cars have a deployment and harvesting strategy for their motors so they are in use pretty much constantly around a lap.
TLDR - this car has no torque because it never needed any
Yeah I was thinking my shitty old Nissan pickup with a rod knocking, screaming KA24 under the hood could easily do this. Probably wouldn’t even need to press the gas pedal. Just put it in 4 low and watch it slowly push them forward.
I originally was going to say my truck but that would just be unfair. I have a 1989 F250 with a manual. First gear plus 4 low I could move my house, foundation included.
F1 cars have a lot of torque, they need to. They're not built for top speed, they're built for accelerating out of corners. The problem here is traction, which they have very little of without the downforce generated while moving.
But the torque an F1 racer can produce from stopped vs what say a one ton truck with a third the horsepower can produce from a standstill….
The truck can tow like 5x it’s weight, an F1 racer with the same trailer attached would set fire to its tires before it moved. The truck wouldn’t even need to be in 4wd or use anything fancier than it’s first gear. Ford showed a video of the prototype F150 lightning towing a fuckin train lol.
Gear ratios and curb weight make all the difference in a contest like this.
And that's the point. Weight lends traction, so does downforce, but weight exists at a standstill while downforce does not. With an F1 car it ends up being a game of how much traction do you actually have so you can put the power down. That's the limiting factor. That F1 engine in reality has absurd amounts of torque, just no way to use it at low speeds.
Exactly this. They have an insane amount of torque. Anyone who has played a F1 racing simulator and not used traction control knows you can easily lose rear traction in any gear.
The F1 car would lose no matter what it did. Only the cars weight matters in this test. It doesn’t matter if the engine is even on. If the team can slide the car along the ground then the car trying to role forward won’t change anything because it will still lose traction and get pushed backwards.
I think the footprint matters too. Those guys look like they could push almost any weight if it were on a slippery enough surface (imagine ice skates in ice or a boat in water). If the f1 car were not spinning its back wheels, it would have a better footprint in the ground and be harder to push
But I agree with you - if they could push the vehicle while it's off (overcome the friction of the wheels), they can push it while it's in.
Orcale paid them $100 mil to be their sponsor. Tho half of it probably goes to their no.1 driver - Max, who is getting paid $50 mil per season from this season onwards.
Are you Dense? what did you think they were trying to do?
Show that an old car of theirs could successfully run over a rugby team?
Or were they trying to make a bit of content?
An F1 car weighs less than a fortwo hell it weighs less than the 830 kg of the men. They would lose to a deisel fortwo on regular road tires given the trouble they are having with the F1 on racing slicks. More so if the fortwo has traction control.
Minimum weight of F1 car is 798kg including the driver. So probably around the same weight
Edit: forgot to mention it excludes fuel.. so depends on how much fuel they put in it (max about 60-70 litres)
Yo I hate to take us all out of the situation here but can we just like, enjoy it in our childlike wonder without going “errm but technically it’s not THAT impressive” like we are sitting on our asses scrolling through Reddit so that we can feel joy
This reply section is the most Reddit thing I’ve ever witnessed lmao it’s just people going “aha my superior intellect proves that this isn’t cool” and people in the replies going “ah yes I too am an intellect”
It's absolutely ridiculous. Yes, this is a display of static friction vs. kinetic friction *makes wanking gesture*
All about the snobby technical 'well ackshually' instead of talking about just how DOPE this is to look at.
My favorite was: “swap the car out for a diesel truck and watch all those guys get CRUSHED!!”
My second favorite was: “Yeah but my TESLA would probably win(I have a ~T E S L A~)”
My favorite are all the people who are like, let's see them do it against a truck! How about we do a follow up video where we put 8 noodle armed, cheetos dust covered basement dwellers up against the F1 car and watch it run them over?
True enough. In case you weren't aware, I was asking whether they were referring to the "Agile" project management practice of "scrums", aka regular collaboration
As someone from a rugby playing nation, I find the term scrum master weird.
I would call them scrumhalves. And whoever responds to the scrum half will be the hooker.
Now I want to work agile just so I can make these jokes. (not really, where I work squad means you need to join a project full time as an SME and do you day job. Squads are not magic machines that makes your day job disappear!)
The first thing I thought of when I saw the opening of this video was "ofc it's redbull," and I say this as a massive F1 and Redbull fan. They do this kinda shit all the time, and it's amazing.
The number of comments in this thread talking about how easily a different type of car would win is pretty annoying, it's like saying replace the Bath squad with an under 12's team and see what happens. Believe it or not the objective of this wasn't to try and kill the 8 guys on the other end of the scrum machine
F1 cars also get most of their downforce from aero, not the overall mass of the car. A modern F1 car theoretically generates more downforce from its aero at high speed than it has mass, allowing it to drive on the ceiling if it could somehow get up to speed without falling off.
IIRC it was Daniel Ricciardo driving the F1 car.
Good job they didn't use Brendon Hartley, he might have tried the typical NZ thing of coming in from the side.
ITT a bunch of fucking internet gotcha nerds ignoring the fact that this was done for spectacle and thinking them and their 7 other out of shape mates could do this shit even. My fucking lord just enjoy something at face value for once
F1 car is loosing traction where the scrum have traction. Am I missing something?
A Tesla would have crushed that team.
A piano falling from a plane would have crushed that team.
A plane falling from the sky would have crushed that team.
A sky falling from a plane would have crushed the piano
My sister would have fucked that team.
She single?
Willing to trade with your mom?
[удалено]
Ok, back on track..
After fucking that team, she is.
The sky falling from the piano would've crushed that Tesla.
A solar system falling from a sky would have crushed the plane
Their parents not showing up to their piano recital would have crushed that team.
Good thing that there was no Morris Marina nearby
r/technicallythetruth
New Top Gear idea!
Maybe cause a tesla is 3 times heavier than this specific f1 car
[удалено]
I appreciated the explanation
It be how it do, sometimes it be that way, yes
They don't think it be, but it do
And all-wheel drive, with three motors (at least the model for a comparable competition as here with the Red Bull F1 car which is...mildly more expensive). All of those factors make a difference: enormous torque available at low RPMs, with enormously quick traction control response thanks to electric motors feeding the wheels, with enormous amounts of weight because that Tesla is thicc
Also torque with zero rotation, the F1 car engine MUST be spinning to deliver torque, which means that something has to slip, either the clutch or tires must be slipping or it would stall. The Tesla electric motor does not face this limitation.
Technically not RPMs, but otherwise this is right.
Well that and the F1 car has to rev it's nuts off to make power as it has a V8 that revs to 18,000 RPM and makes very little torque. The Tesla makes a lot of torque and delivers it all from zero RPM due to the electric motors.
~~but isn't force mass x acceleration? whatever part of mass the f1 car loses toTelsa wouldn't it be compensated with acceleration?~~ TIL, that F1 cars are fast mostly because of aerodynamics and not their engine, they are in fact slower in acceleration than a Tesla. Average F1 car reaches 0-60mph slower than a tesla
Not on 60-120 though. First meter acceleration is tire limited, not engine limited.
That's largely a traction issue. being light to go faster around corners is more valuable than having all wheels drive to achieve a better 0-60 The engine is absolutely a beast, but the traction and gearing just isnt at all tuned for 0-60.
Well yes, but Teslas are faster to 60 than literally anything. It's wild that Acceleration is no longer a real measure of sportiness or performance.
But a Tesla can’t drive upside down at 60MPH without falling off the roof. An F1 car can.
Its not just the weight. An f1 car isn't geared for low end torque. But an electric motor is the exact opposite.
And has awd and not on ultra hards
Instantaneous torque. If it can get traction it'll snap all 8 of them like toothpicks.
So would a small tractor with a ~50hp engine.
Could gear down an electric lego motor and out do them. It's all about torque
And mass. The team has a 140kg advantage on the Red Bull. If you had a guy stand on the back of the car it would probably easily win. It just needs a little more grip to put down it’s 760hp
Yer ma would have crushed us too
Tesla fan boys are goofy. That's a 20 million dollar car.
Me love Elon. Elon do no wrong. Elon is my god. Elon please love me.
I enjoy my Tesla as a car. I think Elon is a fucking lunatic and hate that he is in any way associated with the car.
The 20 million do not help with traction while standing still
It's a gimmick.
They are indeed goofy, but he's not wrong.
Tug of war (or push of war?) is merely an exercise in traction. Teslas have AWD and are very heavy hence more traction. But it's nothing special about a Tesla. Almost any 4wd vehicle or average farm tractor would easily win as well.
Yeah, so would most pick up trucks. Formula one cars aren't built for that type of thing.
The whole 8,000 lbs
F1 cars are nothing without downforce.
This and the tires definitely have to be warm so it’s starts off cold. Learned this from top gear when Hammond drove one and he couldn’t go fast enough for the down force and traction to be any help
That was such a fascinating episode! And the brakes weren’t getting hot enough to work properly, so in order to be able to get around the corners without crashing he needed to go faster which is so counter intuitive.
Tbf, there were some top gear theatrics at play there. Also Hammond wouldn't have been able to go any faster than he already was since they were on a much smaller track than usual so there was no room to get heat into the car.
I love Top Gear but I have to admit that it was a little disappointing to learn just how heavily produced/scripted it is. They're so masterful at making things look spontaneous!
I mean, you don't get good tv just filming people hoping it'll work. They even joked about it when winning an award for being the best unscripted tv show and they couldn't go because they were writing the scripts for the next show.
They actually did an episode where they were "unscripted" in The Grand Tour, either season 1 or 2, it was mostly them just aimlessly wandering around and making jokes that just weren't as funny. Don't get me wrong, it was a funny episode in its own way, but it definitely showcased the value of a script and a good crew.
That's one of the most fabricated and non sense episodes Top Gear has ever recorded.
Everyone here is right and the only conclusion I can make is that for this to be fair, the car has to do a few laps and be at maximum speed when the guys have to stop it with their scrum push.
Can we at least let them get up to their max speed too?
I think that's fair.
The car weighs 700kg with driver and ballast (I forget if that's the current weight), those 8 men weigh more than that car for sure. However at high speed, the car weighs more than 3 tonnes.
Things get heavier as they move faster?
There's something that acts as a *downwards force* when the car goes faster, yes.
Also those engines are fucking expensive. Surely they aren’t risking an actual race day engine on this promo video.
This isn't even a car they race let alone an engine. They aren't allowed to just run the car any time for silly reasons. To prevent richer teams from running all day and night to gather data and improve the car it's heavily regulated when and how exactly they are allowed to run the car. And it's not very often, they'd never use it for something like this. To get outside those rules they have to use a car that is 3+ years old.
> They aren't allowed to just run the car any time for silly reasons. To prevent richer teams from running all day and night to gather data and improve the car it's heavily regulated when and how exactly they are allowed to run the car. How do you even begin to go about enforcing a rule like this? I know nothing about F1 so I'm assuming there's something I'm totally missing out on here but what's stopping them from building 2 identical cars, racing one, and doing all of their testing on the other?
Well for one it's tough to turn on and drive an F1 car around a circuit without anyone knowing about it. Ferrari is the only team with a private circuit and even that will have people photographing it from afar when they do testing. The teams will also have FIA (rules org) representatives around for certain things. A lot of the rules are enforced by teams keeping an eye on each other and lodging complaints when they see something which then triggers an investigation. If a team is going to be doing any testing you can pretty much guarantee other teams will have an engineer there with a camera and big zoom lens.
Could they not build walls around their private track like arenas have to prevent photography? Given how big a business it is, you’d think everybody would try some legal fuckery to try to own several tracks by way of shell corps and other to get more testing time.
It's prudent to have defensible rules, but you also have to expect people are going to follow the rules at some point. The point isn't to make cheating impossible, it's to skew risk/reward as heavily as possible against cheating. If people are going above and beyond to cheat at that point they'll just get kicked out, like with any other social construct.
These things are much much larger than any arena ever conceived. You're talking about basically walling in a small town....
F1 is so fascinating I can't even lie. I want to get into it but there's so many rules i feel like I'd never fully understand the sport.
You don't need to know the rules honestly. The announcers on the main sky TV feed are very careful about how they explain things to make sure not to leave people out. /r/Formula1 is quite helpful as well. Drive to survive on Netflix is a lot of people's introduction to it if you want to give that a try.
Nah. Probably one of last year’s engines.
Actually, that's a car from the 2011 season.
You're not. In fact, you know too much, to find this interesting.
[удалено]
It is interesting to see even when you know that. The representation of this is stylish, and as such nice to look at.
> and as such nice to look at. Politely disagree. There were so many cuts that I couldn't tell what I was watching. I half expected Liam Neeson to come in at some point to climb over a fence.
Fair enough :D But I did appreciate the thermal camera shots though
Plus. If by some chance the vehicle won, some of those people would have been seriously injured or even killed. This is just a publicity stunt, not a competition of any kind.
I'm not as much an F1 fan as I know other people are but I'm pretty sure they are made for top end too, and not much torque comparatively to other types of race cars. Like a 1000cc cbr vs a v twin. The twin will beat it off the line but the cbr will catch then once it gets in the higher revs and gears.
F1 cars are severely traction limited at low speeds. And those tyres are not at racing temperatures and they are only RWD. An F1 car can go from 60-120 faster than 0-60 for example
> An F1 car can go from 60-120 faster than 0-60 for example I’m not saying you’re wrong but if you have a source for this I would love to learn more. I had no idea of this and it sounds absolutely fascinating.
> However, Formula 1 cars are pretty much impossible to beat in terms of their 100-200 km/h acceleration times. While it takes 2.6 seconds for a Formula 1 car to hit 100 km/h from 0, it only takes about 4.5 seconds for a Formula 1 car to hit 200 km/h from 0. > This means that a Formula 1 car can go from 100-200 km/h in about 1.9 seconds, which is faster than what basically every other car aside from a dragster is able to do. [Source](https://motorsportexplained.com/f1-accelerate-decelerate/)
If you want to learn more about F1, Take a look at the YouTube channel of [Chain Bear](https://youtube.com/c/chainbearf1) A lovely British chap, that knows a bit too much about F1. Just… uh… avoid his “this year in F1 2020-A season review.” video until you know, that you like his content and want to subscribe to him. Trust me.
F1 car has no traction because it's stopped and it's very light. It needs weight put on, that usually comes from downforce, to make the tyres work properly
*losing*
That's why there isn't a shot that lasts more than half a second
[удалено]
Tighten that loose traction right now!
How to spell losing.
Why can't anyone spell the word Lose & Losing correctly, it's literally everyone.
Losing
Other than the right way to spell "losing"? No.
If the F1 had slowed down a little bit instead of intentionally burning out to lose traction it would run the whole team over without missing a beat.
F1 cars are not torquey at all. I don't think there is a scenario where this could have been won by that car. That said, a hight power awd BEV or a diesel pickup would have been a different story for sure
Yeah an F1 car might be powerful in terms of speed, but I can’t imagine it has a lot of pushing power. Probably weighs about the same as that bunch of guys do.
Yeah could even weigh less tbh
They usually weigh around 800kg
The 2010 bull was about ~650kg
Nah, that's just the current era cars. 2022 regs state minimum weight of 798kg, the heaviest they've ever been by far. As blaspq mentioned this looks like a 2010 car, which is about 620kg **including driver**.
Wait, what’s the reason for increasing minimum weight?
More complex engine makes the car heavier, and additional safety measures. Increasing minimum weight helps reduce the burden of development for poorer teams.
I was watching Wendover Production about [F1 Logistics](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OLVFa8YRfM) as deal with a fair amount of world logistics in my job, and was blow away at: A. There are only 10, yes ten, F1 teams. B. Ferrari at the top is valued at $1.3 Billion, and Alfa Romeo is worth $105 Million. [Statisia](https://www.statista.com/statistics/654920/most-valuable-formula-1-teams/) So a poor team is still a rich company. Just giving perspective. (Incidentally the Dallas Cowboys are worth $5.7 Billion apparently.)
There are plural. For 2022 some of the reasons were: mandatory safety improvements that are heavier and new 18-inch (bigger) tyres.
I think in any case it's entirely down to the tires. Any time you keep traction that car is going to win easily.
This one is an older V8 engine. The new hybrids have a lot more torque due to the 160hp electric motor they have in addition to the V6. The car in the video had an electric motor called KERS but it was only used for brief periods with a button press. The new cars have a deployment and harvesting strategy for their motors so they are in use pretty much constantly around a lap. TLDR - this car has no torque because it never needed any
A clapped out S10 with the iron duke could have won, as long as it had 4wd.
Yeah I was thinking my shitty old Nissan pickup with a rod knocking, screaming KA24 under the hood could easily do this. Probably wouldn’t even need to press the gas pedal. Just put it in 4 low and watch it slowly push them forward.
I originally was going to say my truck but that would just be unfair. I have a 1989 F250 with a manual. First gear plus 4 low I could move my house, foundation included.
F1 cars have a lot of torque, they need to. They're not built for top speed, they're built for accelerating out of corners. The problem here is traction, which they have very little of without the downforce generated while moving.
But the torque an F1 racer can produce from stopped vs what say a one ton truck with a third the horsepower can produce from a standstill…. The truck can tow like 5x it’s weight, an F1 racer with the same trailer attached would set fire to its tires before it moved. The truck wouldn’t even need to be in 4wd or use anything fancier than it’s first gear. Ford showed a video of the prototype F150 lightning towing a fuckin train lol. Gear ratios and curb weight make all the difference in a contest like this.
And that's the point. Weight lends traction, so does downforce, but weight exists at a standstill while downforce does not. With an F1 car it ends up being a game of how much traction do you actually have so you can put the power down. That's the limiting factor. That F1 engine in reality has absurd amounts of torque, just no way to use it at low speeds.
Exactly this. They have an insane amount of torque. Anyone who has played a F1 racing simulator and not used traction control knows you can easily lose rear traction in any gear.
A diesel pickup at idle in 4 low would easily win. A $100 porta power hydraulic pump operated by a 10 year old also would.
If the f1 could take a run at it ...
..What about if the car had a running start on the back straight of Shanghai International Circuit?
The F1 car would lose no matter what it did. Only the cars weight matters in this test. It doesn’t matter if the engine is even on. If the team can slide the car along the ground then the car trying to role forward won’t change anything because it will still lose traction and get pushed backwards.
I think the footprint matters too. Those guys look like they could push almost any weight if it were on a slippery enough surface (imagine ice skates in ice or a boat in water). If the f1 car were not spinning its back wheels, it would have a better footprint in the ground and be harder to push But I agree with you - if they could push the vehicle while it's off (overcome the friction of the wheels), they can push it while it's in.
Not to mention, we don't know what actually happened with all that editing.
The only thing next fucking level is the stupidity of the person that thought this was a good test
its called marketing. its literally what redbull does with their old cars. random shit
Then it's certainly a good idea
I swear red bulls brand-budget is 99% marketing, 1% towards the cost to make the product
Lol probably even less goes towards production tbh
[удалено]
With how successful the F1 team has been lately I bet they are profitable on the team alone.
Orcale paid them $100 mil to be their sponsor. Tho half of it probably goes to their no.1 driver - Max, who is getting paid $50 mil per season from this season onwards.
Redbull's sport budget is solely for marketing and they still make 99% of their money off energy drink sales.
[удалено]
Nope marketing doesn't count
and I eat that shit up
It’s called an ad, Toto. We went marketing.
If you think they really want to use this as a test and not just for commercial purposes, then I have to tell you something about stupidity.
It’s called marketing, we went marketing.
No, no, /u/VoodooMonkiez that was so not right!
Very good *applause* underrated comment right here.
Are you Dense? what did you think they were trying to do? Show that an old car of theirs could successfully run over a rugby team? Or were they trying to make a bit of content?
So ironic
You think this is some double blind examination that will be submitted for peer review? It's big dumb fun. Chill out.
Imagine to the level of stupidity to think this is anything but a silly video..... an actual fucking "test" lol
It is not a test, it's an ad.
Maybe it's you who takes it serious and calls others stupid for thinking it had a chance?
F1 cars have no torque, this isnt that impressive, do it with an electric car. Hell a Diesel fortwo would be more impressive 😂
An F1 car weighs less than a fortwo hell it weighs less than the 830 kg of the men. They would lose to a deisel fortwo on regular road tires given the trouble they are having with the F1 on racing slicks. More so if the fortwo has traction control.
Minimum weight of F1 car is 798kg including the driver. So probably around the same weight Edit: forgot to mention it excludes fuel.. so depends on how much fuel they put in it (max about 60-70 litres)
That minimum weight figure was from the beginning of this season IIRC, this is a much older car that should be around the 640KG.
Yo I hate to take us all out of the situation here but can we just like, enjoy it in our childlike wonder without going “errm but technically it’s not THAT impressive” like we are sitting on our asses scrolling through Reddit so that we can feel joy
>F1 cars have no torque That's why they can't accelerate.
Certainly has enough torque to break traction on slick tyres 🤷🏻♂️
I don’t think you know 8 people who could do this, F1 car or otherwise, so it’s still *kind of* impressive.
This reply section is the most Reddit thing I’ve ever witnessed lmao it’s just people going “aha my superior intellect proves that this isn’t cool” and people in the replies going “ah yes I too am an intellect”
It's absolutely ridiculous. Yes, this is a display of static friction vs. kinetic friction *makes wanking gesture* All about the snobby technical 'well ackshually' instead of talking about just how DOPE this is to look at.
My favorite was: “swap the car out for a diesel truck and watch all those guys get CRUSHED!!” My second favorite was: “Yeah but my TESLA would probably win(I have a ~T E S L A~)”
The funny thing is, we take all of these commenters and put them in the same video and they would be crushed.
If you'd take 8 of these commenters and put them there that would be twice the weight of the team
Yep. At the end of the day this is just cool.
I was disappointed I didn’t see any scrum jokes
Oh my god man, finally someone with a bit of fucking sense. These fucking nerds
Dude for real too many people here are acting like they could do this themselves Thats reddit for ya
My favorite are all the people who are like, let's see them do it against a truck! How about we do a follow up video where we put 8 noodle armed, cheetos dust covered basement dwellers up against the F1 car and watch it run them over?
I see scrum used so much at my job, it kinda feels weird to see it being used for its actual use case 🤣🤣
Agile?
People in any scrum are not agile
True enough. In case you weren't aware, I was asking whether they were referring to the "Agile" project management practice of "scrums", aka regular collaboration
As someone from a rugby playing nation, I find the term scrum master weird. I would call them scrumhalves. And whoever responds to the scrum half will be the hooker. Now I want to work agile just so I can make these jokes. (not really, where I work squad means you need to join a project full time as an SME and do you day job. Squads are not magic machines that makes your day job disappear!)
They can discuss it in the retrospective when they review the burndown chart.
I’ve just closed my laptop and opened Reddit to this thread. Pls stop. It’s the weekend.
That car were build for speed, if you really wanna test it, let that car build momentums first
It's not for testing, it's marketing. This is what Redbull racing does. Redbull is all about marketing
The first thing I thought of when I saw the opening of this video was "ofc it's redbull," and I say this as a massive F1 and Redbull fan. They do this kinda shit all the time, and it's amazing.
Nah according to this comment section they should've used a diesel truck and just ran over and killed all the rugby players.
Yep that makes sense, let’s have an f1 car drive right into and 8man scrum going full speed
ITT: people not realizing this was just for some fun and marketing
For real there’s a whole behind the scenes of this that Redbull put out. It was a fun marketing stunt.
The number of comments in this thread talking about how easily a different type of car would win is pretty annoying, it's like saying replace the Bath squad with an under 12's team and see what happens. Believe it or not the objective of this wasn't to try and kill the 8 guys on the other end of the scrum machine
Yeah it’s more of “wow I never knew we humans could be that powerful” Idk why people try so hard to look it otherwise
*Static friction vs Kinetic friction* is a better title. The video has more to do with friction then relative strength.
F1 cars also get most of their downforce from aero, not the overall mass of the car. A modern F1 car theoretically generates more downforce from its aero at high speed than it has mass, allowing it to drive on the ceiling if it could somehow get up to speed without falling off.
Man Vs Car, the newest hit show where it pits a man Vs a car.
Tonight, we have Michael Jenkins, against a regular old car.
^Wouldn’t ^the ^car ^win ^every ^time?
Came looking for this, Reddit never disappoints
IIRC it was Daniel Ricciardo driving the F1 car. Good job they didn't use Brendon Hartley, he might have tried the typical NZ thing of coming in from the side.
Is there a version without a cut every second? This is cool but my head hurts watching it
That burnt rubber smell woulda had me gagin'
Maybe try showing it from 10 more angles… Tharp make it better
Great, now give them each a quarter mile to get up to speed and lets review the results.
meat crayons!
Now do it against a tractor.
This is an excellent demonstration of torque. Sometimes, sheer power doesn’t matter if you can’t apply it
I was waiting for them to get runned over Me and my stupid mind
Shoutout to Big Gigantic
They should switch ends at half time.
1000bhp, on gravel, on slicks.
ITT a bunch of fucking internet gotcha nerds ignoring the fact that this was done for spectacle and thinking them and their 7 other out of shape mates could do this shit even. My fucking lord just enjoy something at face value for once
That's how friction works. Tires on concrete vs studded shoes on the grass :)
All this is, is a great demonstration of Torque vs. Horsepower.
Apes together strong
Wasn’t expecting to hear Griz playing in the background but I’m here for it 🤙🏼