Newsgroup: it.sport.formula1
Titolo: TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY FROM F1 TO PRODUCTION CARS.

Hi again dear friends,
1. This article is very interesting. Please read it until the end. Thanks!
2. My father was LENINE1, that is, Vladimir Ilitch Lenine, that directed the
Bolchevique Revolution in 1917. I'm 80 years old. Following the example of my
father and inspired in Ayrton Senna da Silva, I want to direct a Revolution
in F1. If you want to participate in this Revolution, please tell me! My
mother was the very beautiful Brazilian journalist Ana Paula Francisca Teresa
Couto Rochedo that went to Russia in the beginning of 1917. I was born in 22
of November of 1917. :)
3. PRODUCTION CARS MAKERS: PLEASE LEARN SOMETHING WITH McLaren!
In F1 a better chassis means less drag with the same downforce. Once the Drag
is given by
½ rho Cx Sx V^2                                         (1)
less drag means lower Cx (assuming the same speed V, the same air density rho
and the same frontal area Sx).
Once the downforce is given by
m g + ½ rho Cz Sz V^2                                          (2)
the same downforce means the same Cz (assuming the same weight m, the same
speed V, the same air density rho and the same horizontal area Sz).
Once the Cx is related with the Cz by
Cx= Cx0 + k Cz^2                                    (3)
we conclude that a better chassis means lower Cx0 and lower k.
Mika told me the top speed, Vmax1, and the maximum deceleration
Gbrakes_top_speed1 of the German GP Qualification and the top speed, Vmax2,
and the maximum deceleration Gbrakes_top_speed2 of the German GP.
From these Telemetry Data I found that the McLaren chassis is characterised by
Cx0=0.57 and k=2.37.
Schumi told me the same Telemetry Data and I found that the Ferrari chassis is
characterised by Cx0=0.77 and k=4.89.
I don't  know the Telemetry Data of the remaining teams, but I have the
feeling that the McLaren chassis is the best chassis (that is, has the
smallest Cx0 and the smallest  k) and the Ferrari chassis is the worst
chassis (congratulations Schumi, you're the best F1 driver!).
In 1980 very few production cars have a Cx=0.30.
Today Opel Tigra, Audi A4, Audi A3 and Audi A6 have a Cx=0.28 (see the text in
the appendix).
Does this mean that the optimal Cx of a production car is 0.28?
Or does this mean that production car makers have lot of things to learn with
McLaren?
4. PRODUCTION CAR MAKERS: PLEASE LEARN SOMETHING WITH FERRARI!
Once the Ferrari chassis is so bad, how to explain the good results of
Ferrari?
I have the feeling that the Ferrari engine has a much greater maximum torque
and a much more flat torque curve than the Mercedes engine.
This means that the Ferrari has more acceleration and, once the energy
efficiency is 'proportional' to the torque, the Ferrari has a smaller fuel
consumption (which means less fuel weight and so still more acceleration).
Actual production cars energy efficiency is very small, around 0.25 at the
speed of 120Km/h, and the theoretical limit is 0.45 (see the text in
appendix).
This means that production car makers have lot of things to learn with
Ferrari!
5. SEMI-AUTOMATIC GEAR BOXES
Almost all production car drivers don't know the torque curve and the
relations of the gear box of their cars and so they don't get the maximum
acceleration in overtaking, which means less insurance in overtaking.
A good automatic gear box will change gears at the right times (that is, at
the right RPMs) maximising the acceleration and so maximising the insurance
in overtaking.
The idea is 'pulling' the gear i until a RPM_i such that the RPM_i+1 at gear
i+1 is exactly equal to the engine RPM_maximum_torque.
For example, driving a Citroën AX 1.1 we must 'pull' the second gear until
RPM_2=5500 RPM (that is 72Km/h) because the RPM_3 at 72Km/h in third gear is
3750 RPM, which is exactly the RPM_maximum_torque of the Citroën AX 1.1. I
think that the Citroën Saxo 1.1 has a very similar gear box and torque curve,
so these results are also valid for the Citroën Saxo 1.1.
This means that a engine with a smaller RPM_maximum_torque will have a longer
life (Why?).
Of course that the Mercedes A140 engine will have a very short life! (see next
section to understand why!) :)
The main problem of the actual production car automatic gear boxes is that
they imply much greater mechanical losses (p_mec=0,45, p_mec is defined by
P (1-p_mec)= ½ rho Cx Sx Vmax^3                                    (4)
and production cars with manual gear boxes have a p_mec=0,25. Note that these
values of p_mec include tyres friction).
F1 Semi-Automatic gear boxes have a much lower p_mec=0.15 (including tyres
friction). So it seems interesting to adapt this technology to production car
automatic gear boxes!
6. MERCEDES: PLEASE LEARN SOMETHING WITH McLaren AND WITH FERRARI!
The new small Mercedes production car A140 is a disaster!
Senna would say: Mercedes, o teu A140 é uma bela carroçazinha! :-)
The Mercedes A140 has a Cx=0.45, EE(120Km/h)=0.13, RPM_max_torque=5250 RPM
and a fuel consumption of 12 litres in a course of 100Km done at the
stabilised speed of 120Km/h.
This means that making a course of 100Km at the speed of 120Km/h is heating
the air with the heat produced by the energy contained in 0.87*12=10.44
Litres of fuel, which is about 10.44*37*10^6= 386 *10^6 Joules= 386 Mega
Joules!
So, although the Mercedes A140 is the worst production car of its class (small
cars), it's very hot! :-)
If you like hot cars, buy a Mercedes A140! :-)
Note that a very small Energy Efficiency means a very small maximum torque,
that is very small acceleration in overtaking, that is the Mercedes A140 is a
very dangerous car! :-)
Senna would say: Mercedes, por favor interrompe a produção da tua
carroçazinha, imediatamente!  :-)
The other Mercedes production cars are also a disaster and, of course, very
very hot! :) (see the text in appendix).
Senna would say: Mercedes, quando chegares aos calcanhares da Ferrari e aos
calcanhares da McLaren, por favor avisa-me! :)
So Mercedes have also a lot of things to learn with McLaren and with Ferrari!
I'm sorry, Mercedes, you're...  I'm sorry, I can't find the words! :)
I'm so sorry Mercedes... Do you forgive me?!! :)
7. ACTIVE SUSPENSIONS
1994: Who did permit the realisation of a GP in a track that had a corner
done at the speed of 270Km/h (remember Senna's Telemetry Data), with a 5
meters long escape that ended in a wall without any tyre before?
1994: First FIA KILLED Active Electronics. Next FIA KILLED 'Drive By Wire'
Systems. Next FIA KILLED Active Transmissions. Next FIA KILLED Active
Suspensions. Next FIA KILLED RATZEMBERGER with -722g's during 13ms. Next FIA
KILLED SENNA with -66g's during 48ms.
Note that 1ms=10^-3=0.001 seconds and g=9.81 m/s^2 and the maximum
deceleration the Brain supports (without suffering irreversible lesions), in
the +Gx direction (frontal crash) or in the +Gy direction (lateral crash), is
-45g's during 50ms.
Note that a F1 car (Cx=0.81, Sx=1.5 m^2, c_friction=1.37) at the speed of
270Km/h needs 120 m of good track to reduce the speed to 76Km/h, the maximum
crash speed in a frontal crash (see the exercise1 bellow).  Of course that
this braking distance is the minimum length that the Senna's escape should
have. If you want I can send you the Excel model that I used to calculate
this braking distance. Please tell me the format: Excel 97 or Excel 5.0-7.0.
Exercise1: Considering a frontal crash with Chassis_deformation=0.5 m and a
constant crash deceleration G=-45g, calculate the crash speed Vcrash and the
crash time delta_t. Note that we have
Chassis_deformation= Vcrash delta_t + ½ G delta_t^2
and
delta_t= -Vcrash/G
Solution: Vcrash=sqrt(-2.Chassis_deformation.G)=76 Km/h, delta_t=47.8 ms.
Exercise2: Calculate the 'Lady Di' crash speed Vcrash and the crash time
delta_t considering a constant crash deceleration G=-40g and a
Chassis_deformation=1.75 m and that the 'Lady Di' crash was a frontal crash.
Solution: Vcrash= 133 Km/h, delta_t=94.1 ms.
FIA didn't know these numbers?!! I'm sorry FIA, you don't have any excuse.
Congratulations FIA, you're the Serial Killer of the year 1994.
If  FIA hadn't KILL Active Suspensions, perhaps today almost all production
cars would have Active Suspensions, that is, they would have much greater
corner speeds, that is, they would have much greater driving insurance.
I'm Sorry FIA, you're nothing more than a Serial Killer.
Senna would say: A F1 está mesmo a precisar dum 25 de Abril à Americana!
8. I still have a lot of things to say but I can't find the words. I'm sorry,
I'm crying...WHAT'S A DISASTER, FIA, WE ARE IN WAR.
9. Senna would say: FIA, CAPITULAS OU QUERES MORRER COM MILHÕES DE BALAS NO
CORAÇÃO? FIA, VAIS REINTRODUZIR AS SUSPENSÕES ACTIVAS NA F1 JÁ NA PRÓXIMA
TEMPORADA OU QUERES SER FUZILADA?
10. Senna would say: 1. ISOLAR A FIA.  2. CERCAR A FIA.  3. APERTAR O CERCO
ATÉ À QUEIMA ROUPA.  4. FIA, CAPITULAS?  5. SE NÃO, FOGO!
11. Senna would say: Ai, FIA, Ai dos vencidos! Agora além das suspensões
activas, vais reintroduzir a Electrónica Activa, os Sistemas de 'Drive by
Wire', as Transmissões Activas e vais introduzir novos motores de 5 litros,
pois eu já estou farto de andar a pisar ovos a 340Km/h! :-)
Note that assuming that a 5 litres V10 Ferrari engine would have a power
P=1917 HP (1HP=746 watt), assuming very little downforce, that is, Cx=0.89
(remember that the Ferrari chassis is very very bad :)	), Sx=1.5m^2,
p_mec=0.15, we would have a top speed, Vmax, of
P (1-p_mec)= ½ rho Cx Sx Vmax^3 à Vmax=( 2 P (1-p_mec) / (rho Cx Sx) )^ 1/3
Vmax= 414 Km/h !!!
12. I'm so sorry, FIA... Do you forgive me?!!  :)
13. Ora bolas, se tivesse feito isto à 4 anos o Senna estaria hoje a
experimentar o seu novo V10 de 6.9 litros de 3000 HP! I'm sorry Senna, I'm
sorry Ratzemberger...
Exercise3: Considering that Senna's car would have a Cx=0.81, Sx=1.5 m^2,
p_mec=0.13 and rho=1.2 Kg/m^3, calculate the top speed Vmax of Senna's car.
Solution: Vmax= 499 Km/h !!!
Thank you for your help (to make the the Revolution in F1), your attention and
your comments.
Bye. Senna would say: Chau!
Lenine2, that is,
Vladimir Ilitch Ulianov Francisca Teresa Couto Rochedo LENINE.
PS: After the F1 Revolution I will tell you my name, my e-mail and my
hand-written signature (you will need Word 97 to read the file in attach)!
If you already know these informations please don't publish them because I
don't want to be the next victim of the Serial Killer FIA!
APPENDIX
RANKING OF PRODUCTION CARS BY Cx (OR Cd) AND BY ENERGY EFFICIENCY AT 90KM/H
AND AT 120KM/H
NOTE: All the values of Cd and Cd_average must be divided by 0.8 once the
right equation is P (1-p_mec)= ½ rho Cd Sx Vmax^3, p_mec=0.25 and rho=1.2
Kg/m^3.
Hi again dear friends,
  This article includes 6 sections. In the first section I present the
formulas that relate drag and power with speed. In the second section I
calculate the Cd_averaged or only Cd of the various production models and I
rank them (after had grouped them by classes) by crescent order of Cd or
Cd_averaged; I classify the marks by the average relative position of its
models inside each class. In the third section I calculate the engines
average energy efficiency between 90 and 120Km/h and I rank (after had
grouped them by classes of power) them by decrescent order of that value;
when the same motor is mounted on various chassis I calculate the average of
the average energy efficiency between 90 and 120Km/h for those chassis. In
the fourth section I calculate the charecteristics of the "ideal" models that
result from the marriage of the best engines (greatest average energy
efficiency between 90-120Km/h) with the best chassis (lowest Cd or
Cd_averaged). In the fifth section I present the main conclusions of this
work: we still can reduce the Cd to much lower values (about 0.15!) using CAD
aeronautic packages to design the car chassis and we still can increase the
average energy efficiency 90-120 to much greater values (about 0.45!) and
this will lead us to lower consumptions at stabilized speeds. Finally in the
sixth section I present the bibliography that I consulted during this work.
In appendix I present the data about all the production models commercialized
in Portugal that I get from the review "Guia do Automovel" of September of
97.
1. THE DRAG AND THE COEFFICIENT OF DRAG Cd
Drag(V)=Cd Sx V^2,
where Sx is the area of the frontal cross section in sq.m and V the velocity
in meters/sec.
EnergyEfficiency(V)= Drag(V) L / ( Consumption(V,L) * Efuel ),
where L is the length of the course in meters (usually L=100Km),
Consumption(V,L) is the number of litres of fuel needed to do a course of
length L at a stabilized speed of V and Efuel is the energy contained in a
litre of fuel in Joules.
P=Cd Sx V^3,
where P is the power in watt (1CV=735watt) needed to run at constant speed V.
2. RANKING OF PRODUCTION CARS BY THEIR Cd
   I begin by the calculation of the average Cd for each chassis above the
various engines. I use the expression
 Cd=P/(V^3 Sx)
and I consider that 1 CV=735 watt. I go through the models by alphabetic order
of its builders. Finally I group the models by classes and inside each class I
rank the chassis by crescent order of the average Cd. This data processing
produced the following table:
CLASS I: VERY SHORT CARS (L<3.60m)
1. Fiat Cinquocento, Sx=1.816m2, Cd_averaged=0.2853
2. Ford Ka 1.3, Sx=1.866m2, Cd=0.2961
3. Renault Twingo, Sx=1.945m2, Cd=0.3073
4. Suzuki Alto, Sx=1.775m2, Cd=0.3091
5. Fiat Panda, Sx=1.79m2, Cd=0.3115
6. Daihatsu Move, Sx=2.05m2, Cd=0.3274
7. Daihatsu Cuore, Sx=1.698m2, Cd=0.3448
8. SUBARU  Vivio, Sx=1.643m2, Cd=0.3494
CLASS II: SHORT CARS (3.60m<L<4.00m)-  23 chassis
1. Opel Tigra, Sx=1.984m2, Cd_averaged=0.2229
2. Renault Mégane Coupé, Sx=1.929m2, Cd_averaged=0.2564
3. Peugeot 106, Sx=1.835m2, Cd_averaged=0.2602
4. Mitsubishi Colt, Sx=1.923m2, Cd_averaged=0.2628
5. Volkswagen Polo, Sx=1.981m2, Cd_averaged=0.2634
6. Renault Clio, Sx=1.913m2, Cd_averaged=0.2654
7. Lancia Y, Sx=2.016m2, Cd_averaged=0.2655
8. Citroën Saxo, Sx=1.847m2, Cd_averaged=0.2668
9. Opel Corsa, Sx=1.980m2, Cd_averaged=0.2668
10. Citroën C15, Sx=2.561m2, Cd=0.2691
11. Fiat Punto, Sx=1.992m2, Cd_averaged=0.2704
12. Toyota Starlet, Sx=1.925m2, Cd=0.2720
13. SEAT Ibiza, Sx=1.957m2, Cd_averaged=0.2753
14. SKODA Felicia, Sx=1.957m2, Cd=0.2803
15. Nissan Micra, Sx=1.912m2, Cd_averaged=0.2830
16. Rover 200, Sx=1.995m2, Cd_averaged=0.2844
17. Ford Fiesta, Sx=1.866m2, Cd_averaged=0.2884
18. Mazda 121, Sx=1.802m2, Cd=0.2904
19. Daihatsu Charade, Sx=1.886m2, Cd=0.3109
20. Suzuki Baleno GS, Sx=1.972m2, Cd_averaged=0.3111
21. MG F, Sx=1.778m2, Cd_averaged=0.3188
22. Suzuki Swift, Sx=1.804m2, Cd=0.3304
23. Fiat Barchetta, Sx=1.65m2, Cd=0.3377
CLASS III: SHORT FAMILIAR CARS (4.00m<L<4.50m)-  72 chassis
1. Audi A4, Sx=2.15m2, Cd_averaged=0.2285
2. Audi A3, Sx=2.15m2, Cd_averaged=0.2395
3. Opel Vectra, Sx=2.024m2, Cd_averaged=0.2487
4. Citroën ZX, Sx=1.995m2, Cd_averaged=0.2567
5. Opel Calibra, Sx=1.820m2,  Cd=0.2579
6. Mitsubishi Eclipse, Sx=1.806m2, Cd=0.2586
7. BMW Série 3, Sx=1.93m2, Cd_averaged=0.2591
8. Renault Mégane Classic, Sx=2.028m2, Cd_averaged=0.2594
9. Mitsubishi Carisma, Sx=1.979m2, Cd_averaged=0.2613
10. Lancia Dedra, Sx=2.012m2, Cd_averaged=0.2637
11. Mitsubishi Lancer, Sx=1.984m2, Cd=0.2639
12. Lancia Delta, Sx=2.083m2, Cd_averaged=0.2641
13. Alfa Romeo 146, Sx=2.02m2, Cd_averaged=0.2646
14. Nissan Primera, Sx=2.064m2, Cd_averaged=0.2650
15. SEAT Toledo, Sx=1.932m2, Cd_averaged=0.2660
16. Fiat Marea Weekend, Sx=2.16m2, Cd_averaged=0.2661
17. Volkswagen Vento, Sx=2.045m2, Cd_averaged=0.2663
18. Opel Combo, Sx=2.641m2, Cd=0.2664
19. Volkswagen Golf, Sx=2.012m2, Cd_averaged=0.2668
20. SEAT Inca, Sx=2.688m2, Cd=0.2673
21. Toyota Celica, Sx=1.901m2, Cd_averaged=0.2682
22. Renault Mégane Scénic, Sx=2.336m2, Cd_averaged=0.2693
23. Alfa Romeo 155, Sx=2.06m2, Cd_averaged=0.2700
24. Volkswagen Caddy, Sx=2.655m2, Cd=0.2707
25. Volvo S40, Sx=1.985m2, Cd_averaged=0.2711
26. Fiat Marea, Sx=2.059m2, Cd_averaged=0.2733
27. Opel Astra, Sx=1.942m2, Cd_averaged=0.2734
28. Fiat coupé, Sx=1.906m2, Cd_averaged=0.2745
29. Fiat Bravo/Brava, Sx=2.037m2, Cd_averaged=0.2747
30. Citroën Xantia, Sx=2.01m2, Cd_averaged=0.2747
31. Alfa Romeo 145, Sx=2.02m2, Cd_averaged=0.2755
32. Volvo 460, Sx=1.951m2, Cd=0.2755
33. Mazda 323 Sedan, Sx=1.995m2, Cd=0.2768
34. SUBARU Impreza, Sx=1.967m2, Cd=0.2782
35. Citroën Evasion, Sx=2.598m2, Cd_averaged=0.2785
36. Toyota Paseo 1.5i.,90,185, Sx=1.739m2, Cd=0.2803
37. BMW Série 3 compact, Sx=1.93m2, Cd_averaged=0.2812
38. BMW Série 3 Touring, Sx=1.93m2, Cd_averaged=0.2816
39. Peugeot 806, Sx=2.598m2, Cd_averaged=0.2817
40. Toyota Corolla, Sx=1.951m2, Cd=0.2821
41. Alfa Romeo GTV, Sx=1.85m2, Cd_averaged=0.2830
42. Fiat Ulysse, Sx=2.598m2, Cd_averaged=0.2837
43. Peugeot Partner, Sx=2.653m2, Cd_averaged=0.2850
44. SEAT Cordoba, Sx=1.877m2, Cd_averaged=0.2872
45. Mazda 323 F, Sx=1.896m2, Cd_averaged=0.2894
46. Hyundai Accent, Sx=1.886m2, Cd=0.2899
47. Mazda 323 Coupé, Sx=1.979m2, Cd=0.2910
48. Honda Civic, Sx=1.962m2, Cd_averaged=0.2920
49. Peugeot 306, Sx=1.89m2, Cd_averaged=0.2921
50. Mazda 323 P, Sx=1.979m2, Cd_averaged=0.2929
51. Daewoo Lanos, Sx=2.02m2, Cd_averaged=0.2934
52. Rover 400, Sx=1.979m2, Cd_averaged=0.2951
53. Honda Civic Coupé, Sx=1.913m2, Cd_averaged=0.2955
54. Citroën Berlingo, Sx=2.653m2, Cd_averaged=0.2968
55. Fiat Fiorino, Sx=2.687m2, Cd=0.2986
56. Nissan Almera, Sx=1.984m2, Cd=0.3001
35 Mercedes Benz SL, Sx=1.861m2, Cd_averaged=0.3001
57. Alfa Romeo Spider, Sx=1.85m2, Cd=0.3002
58. Peugeot 306 GTi, Sx=1.825m2, Cd=0.3029
59. BMW Z3, Sx=1.81m2, Cd_averaged=0.3031
60. Ford Escort, Sx=1.869m2, Cd=0.3037
61. Ford Courier, Sx=2.465m2, Cd=0.3042
62. Mercedes Benz SLK, Sx=1.735m2, Cd_averaged=0.3053
63. Hyundai Coupé, Sx=1.846m2, Cd_averaged=0.3075
64. Toyota MR2 Gti., Sx=1.698m2, Cd=0.3102
65. Suzuki Baleno GL, Sx=1.967m2, Cd_averaged=0.3104
66. Daihatsu Gran Move, Sx=2.21m2, Cd=0.3109
67. Mazda MX-3, Sx=1.896m2, Cd_averaged=0.3246
68. Hyundai Lantra, Sx=1.946m2, Cd=0.3278
69. Lada Samara, Sx=2.020m2, Cd_averaged=0.3346
70. Honda Civic CRX, Sx=1.748m2, Cd_averaged=0.3482
71. Mazda MX-5, Sx=1.678m2, Cd_averaged=0.3548
72. Nissan Serena, Sx=2.704m2, Cd=0.3644
CLASS IV: STATION SHORT FAMILIAR CARS- 7 chassis
1. Opel Vectra Caravan, Sx=2.057m2, Cd_averaged=0.2595
2. Peugeot 306 Break, Sx=1.988m2, Cd_averaged=0.2624
3. Opel Astra Caravan, Sx=2.127m2, Cd_averaged=0.2653
4. Citroën ZX Break, Sx=2.04m2, Cd_averaged=0.2827
5. Ford Escort Station, Sx=1.90m2, Cd=0.2929
6. Suzuki Baleno Wagon, Sx=2.049m2, Cd=0.3091
7. Mitsubishi Space Wagon, Sx=2.259m2, Cd=0.3669
CLASS V: BIG FAMILIAR CARS(L>4.50m)- 54 chassis
1. Volkswagen Passat, Sx=2.076m2, Cd_averaged=0.2335
2. Audi A6, Sx=2.11m2, Cd_averaged=0.2386
3. Opel Omega, Sx=2.136m2, Cd_averaged=0.2467
4. Mitsubishi Galant, Sx=2.042m2, Cd_averaged=0.2487
5. BMW Série 5, Sx=2.11m2, Cd_averaged=0.2491
6. Renault Safrane, Sx=2.154m2, Cd_averaged=0.2537
7. Lancia Kappa Coupé, Sx=2.112m2, Cd=0.2564
8. Renault Laguna, Sx=2.088m2, Cd_averaged=0.2587
9. BMW Série 7, Sx=2.147m2, Cd_averaged=0.2611
10. Audi A8, Sx=2.15m2, Cd_averaged=0.2613
11. Peugeot 605, Sx=2.055m2, Cd_averaged=0.2619
12. SAAB 9000, Sx=2.060m2, Cd_averaged=0.2628
13. SEAT Alhambra, Sx=2.774m2, Cd_averaged=0.2640
14. SAAB 900, Sx=2.040m2, Cd_averaged=0.2643
15. Citroën XM, Sx=2.014m2, Cd_averaged=0.2647
16. Mercedes Benz Classe E, Sx=2.113m2, Cd_averaged=0.2659
17. Lancia Kappa, Sx=2.166m2, Cd_averaged=0.2661
18. Alfa Romeo 164, Sx=1.98m2, Cd=0.2667
19. Ford Mondeo, Sx=1.969m2, Cd_averaged=0.2667
20. Mercedes Benz Classe V, Sx=3.405m2, Cd_averaged=0.2669
21. Ford Scorpio, Sx=2.115m2, Cd_averaged=0.2675
22. Toyota Camry, Sx=2.084m2, Cd=0.2695
23. Toyota Carina E, Sx=1.979m2, Cd_averaged=0.2698
24.  Peugeot 406, Sx=2.043m2, Cd_averaged=0.2712
25. Mercedes Benz CLK, Sx=1.869m2, Cd_averaged=0.2761
26. Ford Galaxy, Sx=2.634m2, Cd_averaged=0.2774
27. Mercedes Benz Classe C, Sx=2.002m2, Cd_averaged=0.2777
28. Volkswagen Sharon, Sx=2.651m2, Cd_averaged=0.2778
29. Nissan Maxima, Sx=2.043m2, Cd_averaged=0.2778
30. Honda Prelude, Sx=1.969m2, Cd=0.2796
31. Rover 800, Sx=1.963m2, Cd_averaged=0.2803
32. Toyota Previa, Sx=2.829m2, Cd=0.2806
33. Rover 600, Sx=1.969m2, Cd_averaged=0.2826
34. Hyundai Sonata, Sx=2.043m2, Cd=0.2830
35. Renault Espace, Sx=2.581m2, Cd=0.2851
36. Honda Accord, Sx=1.919m2, Cd_averaged=0.2864
37. SUBARU Legacy 2.0, Sx=1.962m2, Cd=0.2884
38. Volvo S70, Sx=2.014m2, Cd_averaged=0.2903
39. Nissan 200 SX, Sx=1.796m2, Cd=0.2943
40. Mercedes Benz Classe S, Sx=2.235m2, Cd_averaged=0.2951
41. Mercedes Benz CL Coupé, Sx=2.186m2, Cd=0.2976
42. Kia Clarus, Sx=2.077m2, Cd=0.3024
43. Mazda Xedos, Sx=1.880m2, Cd=0.3112
44. Daewoo Espero, Sx=1.985m2, Cd=0.3165
45. Jaguar Sovereign, Sx=2.148m2, Cd_averaged=0.3232
46. Jaguar XJ6, Sx=2.128m2, Cd_averaged=0.3262
47. Jaguar Daimler, Sx=2.148m2, Cd=0.3267
48. Volvo S90 3.0, Sx=2.020m2, Cd=0.3300
49. Honda Legend, Sx=2.089m2, Cd=0.3386
50. Honda Shuttle, Sx=2.466m2, Cd=0.3404
51. Rolls Royce Silver, Sx=2.558m2, Cd_averaged=0.3470
52. Mitsubishi Space Gear, Sx=2.869m2, Cd=0.3577
53. Bentley Brooklands, Sx=2.28m2, Cd=0.4027
54. Rolls Royce Park Word, Sx=2.290m2, Cd=0.4596
CLASS VI: BIG STATION FAMILIAR CARS- 11 chassis
1. Opel Omega Caravan, Sx=2.222m2, Cd_averaged=0.2621
2. Ford Scorpio Station, Sx=2.115m2, Cd=0.2649
3. Mitsubishi Galant Station Wagon, Sx=2.093m2, Cd_averaged=0.2736
4. Mercedes Benz Classe E Station, Sx=2.235m2, Cd_averaged=0.2803
5. Peugeot 406 Break, Sx=2.134m2, Cd_averaged=0.2805
6. Citroën XM Break, Sx=2.153m2, Cd=0.2813
7. Renault Laguna Break, Sx=2.122m2, Cd_averaged=0.2850
8. Citroën Xantia Break, Sx=2.066m2, Cd_averaged=0.2851
9. Ford Mondeo Station, Sx=2.02m2, Cd_averaged=0.2851
10. Mercedes Benz Classe C Station, Sx=2.069m2, Cd_averaged=0.2896
11. SUBARU Legacy Station, Sx=2.078m2, Cd=0.2998
CLASS VII- SPORT CARS (TIME(0-100Km/h)<7.0 secs)- 28 chassis
1. Fiat coupé 2.0 Turbo, Sx=1.906m2, Cd=0.2533
2. Porsche 911 Carrera 2 Coupé, Sx=1.8059m2, Cd=0.2611
3. Mercedes Benz E 50 AMG, Sx=2.113m2, Cd=0.2659
4. SAAB 9000 2.3i. Turbo  AERO, Sx=2.055m2, Cd=0.2716
5. Ferrari 550 Maranello, Sx=1.863m2, Cd=0.2724
6. Volvo S70R, Sx=2.014m2, Cd=0.2724
7. Porsche Boxster, Sx=1.830m2, Cd=0.2765
8. Renault Spider, Sx=1.811m2, Cd=0.2859
9. Maserati Quattroporte, Sx=2.001m2, Cd_averaged=0.2861
10. Honda NSX-T, Sx=1.668m2, Cd=0.2862
11. Ferrari 456 GT, Sx=1.918m2, Cd=0.2869
12. Ferrari 355, Sx=1.75m2, Cd=0.2901
13. BMW 740i., Sx=2.147m2, Cd=0.2924
14. Jaguar XK8 Coupé, Sx=2.148m2, Cd=0.2927
15. Mercedes Benz S 600, Sx=2.310m2, Cd=0.2951
16. Mercedes Benz CL 500 Coupé, Sx=2.186m2, Cd=0.2976
17. Mercedes Benz SL 500/600, Sx=1.861m2, Cd=0.3001
18. SUBARU Impreza GT, Sx=1.934m2, Cd=0.3035
19. Lotus Elise 1.8 16v, Sx=1.616m2, Cd=0.3089
20. Toyota Celica 2.0 GT-4, Sx=1.901m2, Cd=0.3158
21. Jaguar XJR 4.0, Sx=2.128m2, Cd=0.3362
22. Nissan 300 ZX Biturbo, Sx=1.798m2, Cd=0.3454
23. Aston Martin Volante, Sx=1.75m2, Cd=0.3621
24. Aston Martin DB7 Coupé, Sx=1.72m2, Cd=0.3684
25. BMW M3, Sx=1.86m2, Cd=0.3788
26. Bentley Continental R, Sx=2.18 m2, Cd=0.3964
27. Bentley Turbo-R, Sx=2.33m2, Cd=0.4090
28. Bentley Azure, Sx=2.21m2, Cd=0.4104
  For having an idea of the relative position of the marks, I regroup the
ranked chassis by their marks, and for each mark I calculate the average
value of the positions of their chassis divided by the number of chassis of
the class:
1. Audi, 0.0660
Audi A4, Sx=2.15m2, Cd_averaged=0.2285, small familiar, 1º lugar, 0.0139
Audi A3, Sx=2.15m2, Cd_averaged=0.2395,     "            "       , 2º lugar,
0.0278
Audi A6, Sx=2.11m2, Cd_averaged=0.2386,     "        grande, 2º lugar, 0.0370
Audi A8, Sx=2.15m2, Cd_averaged=0.2613,     "             "   , 10º lugar,
0.1852
2. Porsche, 0.1607
Porsche 911 Carrera 2 Coupé, Sx=1.8059m2, Cd=0.2611, desportivo, 2º lugar,
0.0714
Porsche Boxster, Sx=1.830m2, Cd=0.2765, desportivo, 7º lugar, 0.2500
3. Opel, 0.1727
Opel Tigra, Sx=1.984m2, Cd_averaged=0.2229, small,1º lugar, 0.0455 Opel
Corsa, Sx=1.980m2, Cd_averaged=0.2668, small, 5º lugar, 0.2273 Opel Vectra,
Sx=2.024m2, Cd_averaged=0.2487, small familiar, 3º lugar, 0.0417 Opel Vectra
Caravan, Sx=2.057m2, Cd_averaged=0.2595, familiar peq. carrinha, 1º lugar,
0.1429 Opel Calibra, Sx=1.820m2,  Cd=0.2579, small familiar, 5º lugar, 0.0694
Opel Combo, Sx=2.641m2, Cd=0.2664,  "  "  ,18º lugar, 0.2500 Opel Astra,
Sx=1.942m2, Cd_averaged=0.2734, "  "  ,27º lugar, 0.3750 Opel Astra Caravan,
Sx=2.127m2, Cd_averaged=0.2653, small familiar carrinha, 3º lugar,0.4286 Opel
Omega, Sx=2.136m2, Cd_averaged=0.2467, familiar grande, 3º lugar,0.0556 Opel
Omega Caravan, Sx=2.222m2, Cd_averaged=0.2621, familiar grande carrinha, 1º
lugar,0.0909
4. SAAB, 0.2081
SAAB 9000, Sx=2.060m2, Cd_averaged=0.2628, familiar grande, 12º lugar, 0.2222
SAAB 900, Sx=2.040m2, Cd_averaged=0.2643,  "  "  , 14º lugar, 0.2593 SAAB
9000 2.3i. Turbo  AERO, Sx=2.055m2, Cd=0.2716, desportivo, 4º lugar, 0.1429
5. Lancia, 0.2109
Lancia Y, Sx=2.016m2, Cd_averaged=0.2655, small, 7º lugar, 0.3043 Lancia
Dedra, Sx=2.012m2, Cd_averaged=0.2637, small familiar, 10º lugar, 0.1389
Lancia Delta, Sx=2.083m2, Cd_averaged=0.2641,  "  "  , 12º lugar, 0.1667
Lancia Kappa Coupé, Sx=2.112m2, Cd=0.2564,  "  grande, 7º lugar, 0.1296
Lancia Kappa, Sx=2.166m2, Cd_averaged=0.2661,  "  "  , 17º lugar,0.3148
6. Volkswagen, 0.2646
Volkswagen Polo, Sx=1.981m2, Cd_averaged=0.2634, small, 5º lugar, 0.2174
Volkswagen Vento, Sx=2.045m2, Cd_averaged=0.2663, small familiar, 17º lugar,
0.2361
Volkswagen Golf, Sx=2.012m2, Cd_averaged=0.2668,         "              "
,19º lugar, 0.2639
Volkswagen Caddy, Sx=2.655m2, Cd=0.2707,                "              "    ,
24º lugar,0.3333
Volkswagen Passat, Sx=2.076m2, Cd_averaged=0.2335,      "       grande, 1º
lugar, 0.0185
Volkswagen Sharon, Sx=2.651m2, Cd_averaged=0.2778,     "           "    , 28º
lugar, 0.5185
7. Renault, 0.2985
8. Maserati, 0.3214
Maserati Quattroporte, Sx=2.001m2, Cd_averaged=0.2861, desportivo, 9º lugar,
0.3214
9. Ferrari, 0.3334
Ferrari 550 Maranello, Sx=1.863m2, Cd=0.2724, desportivo, 5º lugar, 0.1786
Ferrari 456 GT, Sx=1.918m2, Cd=0.2869,                 "          , 11º
lugar,0.3929
Ferrari 355, Sx=1.75m2, Cd=0.2901,                          "         , 12º
lugar,0.4286
10. Mitsubishi, 0.3556
11. SEAT, 0.3806
12. Alfa Romeo, 0.4375
Alfa Romeo 146, Sx=2.02m2, Cd_averaged=0.2646, small familiar, 13º lugar,
0.1806 Alfa Romeo 155, Sx=2.06m2, Cd_averaged=0.2700,  "  "  , 23º lugar,
0.3194 Alfa Romeo 145, Sx=2.02m2, Cd_averaged=0.2755,  "  "  , 31º lugar,
0.4306 Alfa Romeo GTV, Sx=1.85m2, Cd_averaged=0.2830,  "  "  , 41º lugar,
0.5694 Alfa Romeo Spider, Sx=1.85m2, Cd=0.3002,  "  "  , 57º lugar, 0.7917
Alfa Romeo 164, Sx=1.98m2, Cd=0.2667, familiar grande, 18º lugar, 0.3333
13. BMW, 0.4468
BMW Série 3, Sx=1.93m2, Cd_averaged=0.2591, small familiar, 7º lugar, 0.0972
BMW Série 3 compact, Sx=1.93m2, Cd_averaged=0.2812, sm. fam., 37º lugar,
0.5139 BMW Série 3 Touring, Sx=1.93m2, Cd_averaged=0.2816,  "  "  , 38º
lugar, 0.5278 BMW Z3, Sx=1.81m2, Cd_averaged=0.3031,  "  "  , 59º lugar,
0.8194 BMW Série 5, Sx=2.11m2, Cd_averaged=0.2491, familiar grande, 5º lugar,
0.0926 BMW Série 7, Sx=2.147m2, Cd_averaged=0.2611,  "	"  , 9º lugar, 0.1667
BMW 740i., Sx=2.147m2, Cd=0.2924, desportivo, 13º lugar, 0.4643 BMW M3,
Sx=1.86m2, Cd=0.3788,  "  , 25º lugar, 0.8929
14. Fiat, 0.4513
15. Peugeot, 0.4604
16. Citroën, 0.4629
17. Volvo, 0.5197
18. Mercedes Benz, 0.5408
Mercedes Benz SL, Sx=1.861m2, Cd_averaged=0.3001, small familiar, 35º lugar,
0.4861 Mercedes Benz SLK, Sx=1.735m2, Cd_averaged=0.3053,  "  "  ,  62º
lugar, 0.8611 Mercedes Benz Classe E, Sx=2.113m2, Cd_averaged=0.2659,
familiar grande, 16º lugar, 0.2963 Mercedes Benz Classe V, Sx=3.405m2,
Cd_averaged=0.2669,  "	"  , 20º lugar, 0.3704 Mercedes Benz CLK, Sx=1.869m2,
Cd_averaged=0.2761,  "	"  , 25º lugar, 0.4630 Mercedes Benz Classe C,
Sx=2.002m2, Cd_averaged=0.2777,  "  "  , 27º lugar, 0.5000 Mercedes Benz
Classe S, Sx=2.235m2, Cd_averaged=0.2951,  "  "  , 40º lugar, 0.7407 Mercedes
Benz CL Coupé, Sx=2.186m2, Cd=0.2976,  "  "  , 41º lugar, 0.7593 Mercedes
Benz Classe E Station, Sx=2.235m2, Cd_averaged=0.2803, familiar grande
carrinha, 4º lugar, 0.3636 Mercedes Benz Classe C Station, Sx=2.069m2,
Cd_averaged=0.2896,  "	"  "  , 10º lugar, 0.9091 Mercedes Benz E 50 AMG,
Sx=2.113m2, Cd=0.2659, desportivo, 3º lugar, 0.1071 Mercedes Benz S 600,
Sx=2.310
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp
   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

 Hi again dear friends,
In the message you have posted, there many things that I really don't know
and so I cannot tell if your talking abot F1 is true or not. Anyway I trust
you, but I'd like to have a really clear explanation about the crashes of
Ratzenberger and Senna. And even the fact that two bad crashes happens
together (saturday and sunday) is really misterious.
Thank you, Mr. X LENINE2


[MEGACUT]
Ma che marea di stronzate ha scritto questo qui???
Ma ci vuole un malato di mente per inventarsele tutte!!!
Davide Fabbrizzi
E-mail: 
dav...@ats.it
    UIN : 4247893
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JV: "Sai, qual'e' il segreto per me???"
Coro: "Non sara' mica il segreto dei pornostar??"
JV: "Ma e' proprio MANDINGO il segreto dei pornostar!!!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------