RC F in a drag race
08-05-16 | 03:03 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Driver School Candidate
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
From: Arizona
RC F in a drag race
http://www.musclecarszone.com/this-i...vs-nissan-gtr/
Saw a thread below about people wanting to race the RC F, and remembered this article. Sharing this just so people can see how good this car actually is.
Saw a thread below about people wanting to race the RC F, and remembered this article. Sharing this just so people can see how good this car actually is.
08-05-16 | 07:45 PM
#2
Lead Lap
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 750
Likes: 59
From: Naples, FL
There are some flaws within the video.
The reported 1/4 mile times in the video are 12.4 for the M4 and 13.0 for the RC F. That's a difference of .6 seconds.
When travelling at 100 mph a vehicle traverses a distance of 147 feet in 1 second. They are actually trapping speeds over 100 mph in the 1/4 but I don't need to get that exact to make my point.
Anyhow, with .6 seconds difference in the 1/4 mile time the M4 should have been at least 88 feet in front of the RC F. But the video shows them nearly neck and neck. So either the video is wrong, the times posted are wrong, or both are wrong. We know the RC F is actually capable of at least a 12.8, so that would narrow the gap a little more. But still not neck and neck with a car running 12.4.
The reason I even looked into this was because I knew as soon as I seen .6 seconds of spread when the video showed them as neck and neck that it was wrong. Rule of thumb in drag racing with streetable cars is .1 seconds is roughly a car length. So sorry guys, in a stock vs stock race with equal drivers the RC F isn't going to finish a 1/4 mile drag race that close to a M4.
The reported 1/4 mile times in the video are 12.4 for the M4 and 13.0 for the RC F. That's a difference of .6 seconds.
When travelling at 100 mph a vehicle traverses a distance of 147 feet in 1 second. They are actually trapping speeds over 100 mph in the 1/4 but I don't need to get that exact to make my point.
Anyhow, with .6 seconds difference in the 1/4 mile time the M4 should have been at least 88 feet in front of the RC F. But the video shows them nearly neck and neck. So either the video is wrong, the times posted are wrong, or both are wrong. We know the RC F is actually capable of at least a 12.8, so that would narrow the gap a little more. But still not neck and neck with a car running 12.4.
The reason I even looked into this was because I knew as soon as I seen .6 seconds of spread when the video showed them as neck and neck that it was wrong. Rule of thumb in drag racing with streetable cars is .1 seconds is roughly a car length. So sorry guys, in a stock vs stock race with equal drivers the RC F isn't going to finish a 1/4 mile drag race that close to a M4.
08-08-16 | 09:48 AM
#3
Lexus Champion
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,083
Likes: 3
From: PA
The RC F is capable of a 12.5. This is a stock run RCF with a great driver running a 12.5.
The video is nonsense: the F pulled away from the BMW for the first 1/8 mile and finished neck to neck with the German rival. There was not a .6 second difference.
I just love how Top Gear goes after the RC F.
As for stock to stock, I will beat the M4 8 out of 10 times off the line to 60 mph with the RCF carbon set to S+ and TVD in track--been there and done that. The torque-induced, oversteering M4 can barely put the power down to the pavement. In the tough corners, the RC F TVD destroys the M4--been here too.
The M4 will pick up some speed in the straights. The RC F is a remarkable machine, and it disgraces the M4 when it comes to overall performance.
The video is nonsense: the F pulled away from the BMW for the first 1/8 mile and finished neck to neck with the German rival. There was not a .6 second difference.
I just love how Top Gear goes after the RC F.
As for stock to stock, I will beat the M4 8 out of 10 times off the line to 60 mph with the RCF carbon set to S+ and TVD in track--been there and done that. The torque-induced, oversteering M4 can barely put the power down to the pavement. In the tough corners, the RC F TVD destroys the M4--been here too.
The M4 will pick up some speed in the straights. The RC F is a remarkable machine, and it disgraces the M4 when it comes to overall performance.
There are some flaws within the video.
The reported 1/4 mile times in the video are 12.4 for the M4 and 13.0 for the RC F. That's a difference of .6 seconds.
When travelling at 100 mph a vehicle traverses a distance of 147 feet in 1 second. They are actually trapping speeds over 100 mph in the 1/4 but I don't need to get that exact to make my point.
Anyhow, with .6 seconds difference in the 1/4 mile time the M4 should have been at least 88 feet in front of the RC F. But the video shows them nearly neck and neck. So either the video is wrong, the times posted are wrong, or both are wrong. We know the RC F is actually capable of at least a 12.8, so that would narrow the gap a little more. But still not neck and neck with a car running 12.4.
The reason I even looked into this was because I knew as soon as I seen .6 seconds of spread when the video showed them as neck and neck that it was wrong. Rule of thumb in drag racing with streetable cars is .1 seconds is roughly a car length. So sorry guys, in a stock vs stock race with equal drivers the RC F isn't going to finish a 1/4 mile drag race that close to a M4.
The reported 1/4 mile times in the video are 12.4 for the M4 and 13.0 for the RC F. That's a difference of .6 seconds.
When travelling at 100 mph a vehicle traverses a distance of 147 feet in 1 second. They are actually trapping speeds over 100 mph in the 1/4 but I don't need to get that exact to make my point.
Anyhow, with .6 seconds difference in the 1/4 mile time the M4 should have been at least 88 feet in front of the RC F. But the video shows them nearly neck and neck. So either the video is wrong, the times posted are wrong, or both are wrong. We know the RC F is actually capable of at least a 12.8, so that would narrow the gap a little more. But still not neck and neck with a car running 12.4.
The reason I even looked into this was because I knew as soon as I seen .6 seconds of spread when the video showed them as neck and neck that it was wrong. Rule of thumb in drag racing with streetable cars is .1 seconds is roughly a car length. So sorry guys, in a stock vs stock race with equal drivers the RC F isn't going to finish a 1/4 mile drag race that close to a M4.
Last edited by ISF001; 08-08-16 at 09:56 AM.
08-08-16 | 10:44 AM
#4
Lead Lap
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 750
Likes: 59
From: Naples, FL
The RC F is capable of a 12.5. This is a stock run RCF with a great driver running a 12.5.
EKANOORACING's 2015 RCF Runs 12.58@ 181KM/H (113MPH) - YouTube
The video is nonsense: the F pulled away from the BMW for the first 1/8 mile and finished neck to neck with the German rival. There was not a .6 second difference.
I just love how Top Gear goes after the RC F.
As for stock to stock, I will beat the M4 8 out of 10 times off the line to 60 mph with the RCF carbon set to S+ and TVD in track--been there and done that. The torque-induced, oversteering M4 can barely put the power down to the pavement. In the tough corners, the RC F TVD destroys the M4--been here too.
The M4 will pick up some speed in the straights. The RC F is a remarkable machine, and it disgraces the M4 when it comes to overall performance.
EKANOORACING's 2015 RCF Runs 12.58@ 181KM/H (113MPH) - YouTube
The video is nonsense: the F pulled away from the BMW for the first 1/8 mile and finished neck to neck with the German rival. There was not a .6 second difference.
I just love how Top Gear goes after the RC F.
As for stock to stock, I will beat the M4 8 out of 10 times off the line to 60 mph with the RCF carbon set to S+ and TVD in track--been there and done that. The torque-induced, oversteering M4 can barely put the power down to the pavement. In the tough corners, the RC F TVD destroys the M4--been here too.
The M4 will pick up some speed in the straights. The RC F is a remarkable machine, and it disgraces the M4 when it comes to overall performance.
I only knew that the video in the first post was wrong. A .6 second difference is like 6 car lengths.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post