That is an interesting comparison, from at least 2 different angles.
1. As a performance car: it's not a particularly high-performance OS compared to a lot of much smaller simpler OSes, such as RTOSes, but also including some former contemporaries (e.g. RISC OS, Symbian, or late-era OS/2). Last year I installed, updated and briefly used Windows XP64 as a desktop OS on some fairly late hardware it can support: a Core 2 Duo with 8GB of RAM, a discrete GPU, and an SSD.
https://www.theregister.com/2023/07/24/dangerous_pleasures_w...
It is amazingly fast and responsive compared even to the lightweight end of modern Linux, such as Crunchbang++, Bodhi Linux, or Q4OS. It's also faster and more responsive than OpenBSD or NetBSD.
The only thing that came close was Alpine Linux and XP64 still wins.
So, I think as a model of screaming fast performance vehicle is poor: it's not. As Neal Stephenson put it in _In The Beginning Was The Command Line_
https://web.stanford.edu/class/cs81n/command.txt
... it's a sort of super-efficient amphibious armoured car: big, fat, ugly, but can do anything on anything, will get you there, costs nothing and runs on anything (I am thinking of "Mr Fusion" from Back to the Future here.)
2. So how does it compare to an F1 car? Well, it's fiddly and delicate and complicated and only an expert can drive it.
It can be easy and nigh-on foolproof. Look at Android or ChromeOS. They are barely recognisable as Linux but they're billion-selling consumer OSes.
But it doesn't compare well to the performance aspects at all, IMHO. It's the ultimate Swiss army knife: can be used for anything but as a result it's huge and ugly and complicated and won't fit in any pocket.