Snobeck, Rapier LM3000 and Lindsay..

[Tim Northcutt]

On the Lindsay:

The resemblance to the Harrier is obvious, but the subtle changes in the Lindsay's lines are probably due to what the designer learned the first time around with the Harrier in the tunnel, etc...

The general lines also remind me a lot of the Riley & Scott MkIIIc with the Robinson Racing change to the front end air intakes instead of the one center opening on the nose...

[KA]

Originally posted by Tim Northcutt
Note to Team Bucknum, Team Jota and PiR:

Take a flyer on the Snobeck...

Le the Pilbeams gather dust...

What do you have to lose???

It can't be any worse than the turds you're strapping yourselves into right now....

For Jota and PiR it's going to be a matter of cost -the Pilbeam's perfectly capable of doing a decent enough job for them in SR2 in the FIASSC (it's actually got a reasonably good record in the class in Europe), but the Snobeck, as a purpose-designed LMP675 would mean them having to step up to SR1- which is probably beyond their budget

Weren't most of Bucknum's troubles with the 'new' Pilbeam at Sebring engine-related anyway?

[BSchneiderFan]

Originally posted by danhx
I know that there were a couple 911 GT-1s kicking around in North America for a little while, but they were run off by rule changes and reclassification. Last time i saw one was in GTS class in Grand-Am a couple years ago and it was getting spanked by a Saleen.

But these were the original 1996/1997 cars, not the carbon-fibre chassis GT1-98s, which won Le Mans in 1998 (but failed to win any GT rounds). Would these still be eligible for the LMP/GTP900 class, and would they be competitive? They'd surely be more so than a customer Lola or Riley & Scott. But Porsche seems to be hanging on to them. They should remember what happened when they gave Reinhold Joest a car from the museum - it won Le Mans two years on the trot...

And then the Toyota GT-One, perhaps the fastest car of its generation, but one which never won a race. Why didn't anyone run those in 2000 (or now, for that matter)?

[KA]

Originally posted by BSchneiderFan
And then the Toyota GT-One, perhaps the fastest car of its generation, but one which never won a race. Why didn't anyone run those in 2000 (or now, for that matter)?

Didn't Toyota use one of them as a test car for some aspect of their F1 car

[Tim Northcutt]

Toyota serves as an example in more ways than one...

Not only do you have the GT-One, but the open-cockpit LMP prototype I referred to earlier (see it on Mulsanne Mike's site) in this thread...

The LMP never got off the ground because Toyota TRD division was focused on developing their CART engine....they spent $500,000 to build and test the LMP, then it just went away....

Now their focus is F-1, their IRL engine program, plus the new plan to run NASCAR Trucks next season and the Winston Cup circuit by 2005...


My ultimate question:

Why would a factory let something like these cars collect dust when a privateer would buy it and run it????

[FIRE]

What happened to the Ascari's. I think these cars are better than the Durango.

[FIRE]

Why would a factory let something like these cars collect dust when a privateer would buy it and run it????

Have they something to hide?
Is Mercedes afraid of other backflips?

[Tim Northcutt]

They were on the "Rumors" list right up until the invite list came out...thee was even talk of a "Girl Power" all-female drving team...

Had to be $$$$

On another note to KA:

I don't know how much an SR2 program costs vs. an SR1, but I would like to know...just for my own edification...

For 2004, the rules differences will become somewhat moot for the SR-2 vs. 675 categories, won't it??? I thought that the FIA and ACO rules for next year are fairly close...

I don't hear much on the FIA series as a whole, but what I do know is that when the Pilbeam runs against what are considered top-flite chassis in its classification, it is not even close to being in the hunt....

I also am not sure how indicative their success really is in Europe when that classification had five cars running last Sunday -- two Pilbeams, and they didn't make the podium out of the five -- a 1-2-3 Lucchini sweep....They might have had better luck last year, but what were they racing against???

If a team is going to spend what I would call big bucks on a prototype chassis and a race-purpose engine package, I would rather take my chances with the Snobeck and spend this year taking my lumps in SR-1 to develop it, so that when the rules come around to me for 2004, I have the DBA and the MG as my competition in that class and a year of testing to work from to compete with them....whether I'm running FIA or ACO races...

The Pilbeam is not in the same league with the MG-Lola or the DBA...not even close...and spending a multi-million $$$ budget for a full race season campaign on a chassis that is just flat-out non-competitive seems like a total waste of that budget...

Right or wrong, that is my opinion...for whatever it is worth...

[dretceterini]

I think LM675 is actually a lot more expensive than LM900, but SR2 is quite a bit cheaper than SR1. The new LM750/LM2 category seems about half way in between.

[Tim Northcutt]

I don't want to change the focus of this thread, but what is a ballpark figure to run:

LMP900 or SR-1???

LMP675???

SR-2???

I know what an IRL and a CART program Cost, and I also know that F-1 is outrageously prohibitive on cost...

I'd just like to know so that IF I ever win the lottery, I could do some cost factoring

[BSchneiderFan]

It is worrying that factories now seem to hoard their ex-works cars. Audi are, to some extent, an exception, though, as has been remarked elsewhere, the degree of control which they insist on exercising is a shame, as it has certainly deterred Rob Dyson from running an R8 - imagine, a 'Dysoned' R8 in Thetford colours - cool... And when one thinks of the 956/962s which Erwin Kremer and Richard Lloyd bought and developed, it makes it even more of a shame. But, at least Audi have provided customer cars, unlike Cadillac, BMW or Bentley. Panoz, of course, did sell some customer cars, but John Nielsen was never able to make much impact in the SRWC (the car wouldn't work with a double roll-hoop), and the Japanese-owned cars disappeared after an unsuccessful Le Mans. What happened to the Panoz that Kevin Jeanette had, I wonder?

If manufacturers were just a little bit more creative - like both Porsche and Mercedes-Benz were in 1998 - we could have, say, PTG running BMW V12 LMRs, perhaps Cadillacs still on the grid as privateers, maybe a TOM's-run Toyota GT-One... It would make things more interesting, is my point.

And how competitive would a Mercedes CLK-LM still be? We'll never know.

[dretceterini]

It would take a budget of at least 100 million, and perhaps 200 million to design, construct, and develop a LM900 car that is competitive with the Audis or Bentleys. The MGs probibly don't have as much invested, but than again, they are no where near as tested and developed. Audi was probibly spending at least 10 million, and perhaps as much as 30 million to run it's team in ALMS and at Le Mans each year.

[danhx]

Originally posted by BSchneiderFan
But these were the original 1996/1997 cars, not the carbon-fibre chassis GT1-98s, which won Le Mans in 1998 (but failed to win any GT rounds). Would these still be eligible for the LMP/GTP900 class, and would they be competitive?

I had thought that Champion ran the carbon-chassis version in '99 in at least a few races of the ALMS, but i looked back through some old reports and found myself in the wrong. It was indeed the older one.