Need. More. Videos! C'mon guys!

I just think with the aero it would stall out before then, the only time an f1 xar broke 400kph was a v10 powered BAR on salt flats and it basically had no wings and needed a lot of flat ground to do it

 

Here's "The Glen" - Unbelievable !

 

Ande here's Cleveland - Unbelievable too !!!

 

Dont' forget to drive the "old" tracks from Racin' USA Pt.1

 

It also had 965 HP - considerably less than what the Turbo era cars did.
And I think you've pretty much made my point for me. Powerful F1 car, with minimal aero on a track where I can stay on full throttle for almost the entire lap (which is pretty long too) = some pretty high top speeds.
I fail to see where the issue is with an older car, with more power, producing a similar top speed.

 

First race at the Glen.

 

Easter Egg at Cleveland ?
Or is AMS2 going to be "Open World" soon ?

 

This is great, you can get together with your friends in a online lobby, cruise around the airport, do some drifting around the planes, maybe somebody will figure out how to fly the planes?

 

The Chase. top 3 of 5 humans + robots
1st Test of the Montana default settings (MV6) after update.
Online, open and ranked
5 humans against AI at 100/100. 10 laps

Recommend giving the Monty a try

 

Cleveland at night looks nice:

 

Gotta say I absoloutely love the two new tracks, very very different, like chalk and cheese, great to have these extremes in approach. The New cars feel great. A.I. at Wakins is a bit of a situation but im not bothered as knowing Reiza, it will be soreted within a week (cause thats what they do, refine, refine,refine!). Also found some other little things that have improved, I say little, but its always those little improvements that turn out to be massive in'it! (like I can now use Silverstone 1991, nice one!) Bravo Reiza, cause some of these little things have put one massive smile on this simracers face! Cheers! Luv Ya!

 

Well, here's a special video for my American friends, a little bit pathetic and not perfect.
But was a big fun and pleasure to create this video.

 

I still stand by my previous comment. I checked the Web and the fastest speed set by the b186 was at Monza at around 352kph. I just ran a test at Monza 91 with that car and got up to 389kph, would have been faster with slightly longer gears. So yes I believe it is unrealistically fast in a straight line.

 

I have no concrete facts here, but maybe the huge amounts of drag aren't fully being catered for? The mid 80s turbo cars had relatively huge rear wings even on the faster tracks(barn doors on tracks like Monaco and Jerez). They needed that downforce, I guess to keep the excess of power(especially in qualifying) in check. This must have resulted in huge amounts of drag as a consequence, until F1 car aerodynamics caught up to the horsepower, in 1990 - where most of the turbo lap records were finally broken.

 

Driving the Penske-skinned Lola T98 Ford CART (Formula USA Gen2) car at the Jacarepagua Emerson Fittipaldi Speedway 'oval' in Rio, for some typically American "Let's get it on" racin' action.

 

If you haven't had a chance yet to run Seca, go for it in the CART's:

 

Your last post literally proved my point.
You provided another F1 car, proven to exceed 400 KPH with very low downforce, but running on a surface much worse than tarmac.
source: Traction
"Over the years, I have heard the traction qualities of the salt variously described as: “about like pavement”, “like wet pavement”, “just like ice”, and pretty much everything in between those extremes. Yet it seems to me that none of those describe it well. I personally think it is much like a good well groomed, hard packed dirt track, or maybe a well packed smooth gravel road. Not like freshly graded loose gravel or dirt, but one that has been packed smooth and hard, maybe wetted and dried a few times. Like your local dirt racing oval, that hard packed surface that gets shiny, and streaked black with rubber in the racing groove. It is pretty good traction, but not like pavement."

I am aware of the speed record you are referring to and perhaps you are overlooking the obvious, but to point it out - it was made with wings set to provide enough downforce to take the corners are Monza at Race pace - i.e. definitely not zero downforce.
So the fact that car A, which is capable of doing 351 KPH with wings set for a course with mixed corners is capable of 410 KPH with zero wings (and some very long straights) is hard for you to accept as being realistic. OK then, but that conclusion seems flawed to me.

Q) How is a test at "Monza 91" relevant to the old banked circuit with much longer straights ?
A) That's rhetorical - as it should be obvious to anyone that it's not relevant at all. Shall we include tests around Brands Hatch in the comparison? You either test on the same circuit or don't bother.
That's Monza Historic 1971 10K.

I don't understand why the maths seems "unrealistic" to you, when I've already provided multiple examples of cars with considerably less power that are capable of 400 KPH. You even provided a real world example yourself of a car with less power on a comparatively poor surface.

So feel free to debate the subject all you like, but I won't be continuing the conversation - to me the subject is done and further conversation serves no point (and I'm not going around circles and have zero interest in convincing anyone of anything).