One race per year, Wide open rules

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by TRuss

The dedicated tracks would be needed more for the safety of spectactors and drivers. Remember, we are talking about huge top speeds and black out inducing cornering speeds.

Would not happen, partly because the cars HAVE to fit the tracks and , yes I read the article, the laws of physics have a way of taking rag writers and engineers dreams and breaking them into little bits of reality.

Remember there might be some teams with an egg-head techno geek who actually try something like the article described, but the rest would be more concerned with winning the race.

[AU N EGL]

[quote=The Badger][quote=AU N EGL]careful with the wording and not even being Politically correct, which I never am.

Crap ..... i forgot about that but , I am over here !!! sweetheart

If your door swings that way.

Back to our regular scheduled thread.

[Purist]

I'll admit I'm biased, having two aerodynamicists in the family, but, Bob, you still haven't made a convincing case that aerodynamics are "gimmicks".

So here, here's a list of racing sports cars that have used significant aerodynamics. Which ones are "gimmicks"? Where do you draw the line?

1. 2007 Audi R10
2. 2005 Maserati MC12
3. 2003 Corvette C5-R
4. 2003 Bentley EXP Speed 8
5. 1998 Porsche 911-GT1-98
6. 1998 Panoz GTR-1
7. 1995 McLaren F1 GTR/BMW
8. 1994 Ferrari 333SP
10. 1993 Eagle Toyota MkIII GTP
11. 1993 Jaguar XJ-220C
12. 1988 Sauber-Mercedes C9
13. 1986 Porsche 961
14. 1986 Porsche 962C
15. 1981 Porsche 936/81
16. 1978 Porsche 935/78 "Moby Dick"
17. 1973 Porsche 917/30
18. 1972 McLaren M20/Chevrolet
19. 1968 Lola T70 MkIII
20. 1967 Ford GT40 MkIV
21. 1966 Chapparal 2E
22. 1965 Ferrari 330 P3
23. 1960 Maserati Type 61 "Birdcage"
24. 1955 Jaguar D-Type
25. 1955 Mercedes-Benz 300SLR (with the rear deck airbrake)
26. 1940 BMW 328 MM Touring Coupe
27. 1938 Alfa Romeo 8C 2900B Le Mans Speciale
28. 1937 Auto Union C-Type Streamliner "Avusrennen"
29. 1936 Bugatti Type 57G "Tank"
30. 1923 Bugatti Type 32 "Tank"

[Bob Riebe]

[QUOTE=Purist]I'll admit I'm biased, having two aerodynamicists in the family, but, Bob, you still haven't made a convincing case that aerodynamics are "gimmicks".

So here, here's a list of racing sports cars that have used significant aerodynamics. Which ones are "gimmicks"? Where do you draw the line?

1. 2007 Audi R10
2. 2005 Maserati MC12
3. 2003 Corvette C5-R
4. 2003 Bentley EXP Speed 8
5. 1998 Porsche 911-GT1-98
6. 1998 Panoz GTR-1
7. 1995 McLaren F1 GTR/BMW
8. 1994 Ferrari 333SP
10. 1993 Eagle Toyota MkIII GTP
11. 1993 Jaguar XJ-220C
12. 1988 Sauber-Mercedes C9
13. 1986 Porsche 961
14. 1986 Porsche 962C
15. 1981 Porsche 936/81
16. 1978 Porsche 935/78 "Moby Dick"

This would be a good place to start, I am NOT now nor EVER going go into a thesis on this, but you can take the gimmick level as one at the bottom and have it increases till as of now the Audi and Corvette C6 being the worst.
The Chevy boys tried to do the C5 in the normal mod. prod. method but learned the ACO's idea of mod. prod. is more closely related to a bad high, and adjusted accordingly.
NO one will spend the bucks to do it, but a way to see how this pans out would be: take a 1977 Porsche 934 or even early 935, & a top Corvette & Camaro from that same year; take a C5 and C6 racer, remove the diffuser and aero enhansing rocker panels, then make adjustments to the missing parts.
Give them all the best rubber out there, and have the engines prepared by top engine tuners to what ever level they want and have all the cars run five or ten lap sessions and then see how times come out.

Bob

[Bob Riebe]

[QUOTE=AU N EGL][quote=The Badger]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

careful with the wording and not even being Politically correct, which I never am.



If your door swings that way.

Back to our regular scheduled thread.

Tom:
I think you read Hot Rod; did you see the new BB Chevy based Dart engine a racer had manufactured.
It has 5.20 inch bore centers.
Now it would be capable of a five inch stroke, and with a-short-four point nine inch stroke would be a hair under 770 inches cubed.
Put that in a C5 or C6 for an outlaw race, tune it to nowadays mild level of two horse power per inch and you still get 1,540 hp. I do not want to think of the torque.
I wonder if they still make tires big enough for that kind power, but it would be spectacular.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Give them all the best rubber out there, and have the engines prepared by top engine tuners to what ever level they want and have all the cars run five or ten lap sessions and then see how times come out.

Bob

Bob

I can give you a good estimate right now. Your looking at 3 to 5 sec a lap slower ( depeding on the track) with the aero ( especially the underbody diffusers) removed. ( I know this one personally from my talk with many aerodynamic engineers and my own testing on my car. ) The time differences are a big difference, and can really be felt in cornering. Top speed hurts with aero parts added.)

Most of the aero parts are for high speed cornering downforce. Remove the aero parts and the top speeds will go up too and corning speeds drop dramiticly.

The Mich tires are the best on the market now.

[AU N EGL]

[quote=Bob Riebe][quote=AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Tom:
I think you read Hot Rod; did you see the new BB Chevy based Dart engine a racer had manufactured.
It has 5.20 inch bore centers.
Now it would be capable of a five inch stroke, and with a-short-four point nine inch stroke would be a hair under 770 inches cubed.
Put that in a C5 or C6 for an outlaw race, tune it to nowadays mild level of two horse power per inch and you still get 1,540 hp. I do not want to think of the torque.
I wonder if they still make tires big enough for that kind power, but it would be spectacular.

wholy ****** I would break my car apart into little pieces with that kind of power. I have enough of a challenge holding my vette together with new parts every so often as it is. and I only have 400 RWHP and 405 RWTQ

I was looking at a Warhawk with the larger bore, but keep the stroke shorter so still about a 427, 428 ci but cant find a transmission that I can afford to hold it all together.

On an aero note: I do run a 2" front splitter with undertray, flat bottom up to the trans, 1" rear spoiler and am building a rear diffuser to close off the reaming under carriage. Plus my rear fenders are 1" wider then stock to cover 18x13" tires. No wing

[Bob Riebe]

[QUOTE=Bob Riebe][QUOTE=AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Tom:
I think you read Hot Rod; did you see the new BB Chevy based Dart engine a racer had manufactured.
It has 5.20 inch bore centers.
Now it would be capable of a five inch stroke, and with a-short-four point nine inch stroke would be a hair under 770 inches cubed.
Put that in a C5 or C6 for an outlaw race, tune it to nowadays mild level of two horse power per inch and you still get 1,540 hp. I do not want to think of the torque.
I wonder if they still make tires big enough for that kind power, but it would be spectacular.

ARRR, my fumble fingers, that should be a five inch bore.
The gent who allowed them to look at his engine, runs it now it with 4.80 inch bore x 6.00 inch stroke for 870 in. cubed.
He keeps the bore small so he can keep the cyl. liners thick to avoid distortion from nitrous oxide.

[The Badger]

I never posted the above reply to this or any thread !!!

[AU N EGL]

Sorry Badger. My fat fingers got in the way of editting. again

[The Badger]

Thats ok sweetheart .....

[dj4monie]

It would be flat dangerous not only to the drivers but to the fans as well....

But would be INTERESTING!

You have to have some rules, it can't be totally "lawless"

For Production based cars. Leave the aero rules as-is, just take off the restrictions on the engines and set 8.0L max for displacement and 5.0L max 30psi for boosted engines and no more than 6 cylinders. That would set the effective limit for GT1 to around 800-900hp because you have too have durabilty and everybody runs on E85....

In GT2, same as above just smaller and no turbos at all and limit displacement to 5.0L for V8's, 4.5L for 6 cylinders with bit less weight.

Min weight for GT1 - 2800lbs

Min weight for GT2 - 2500lbs

P1/P2

Anything goes and I do mean anything.

But you get 30 gallon fuel cell and 4 fuel stops worth of fuel and if you run out that's just TOO BAD.

Hybrids Electrics and Diesels get a weight break over Petrol cars and you would be foolish to disagree with this if things were truly unlimited. Diesels have larger parts and Hybirds have batteries.

But yes I fully expect output to exceed 1,000hp

Group C had it right, just open it up a bit and it would out draw F1, Bernie is too old to do anything about it really now.

Sportscar racing is really the only place where OEM's can strut their stuff to see who is really the best at automotive technology.

[dj4monie]

[QUOTE=Bob Riebe][QUOTE=AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Tom:
I think you read Hot Rod; did you see the new BB Chevy based Dart engine a racer had manufactured.
It has 5.20 inch bore centers.
Now it would be capable of a five inch stroke, and with a-short-four point nine inch stroke would be a hair under 770 inches cubed.
Put that in a C5 or C6 for an outlaw race, tune it to nowadays mild level of two horse power per inch and you still get 1,540 hp. I do not want to think of the torque.
I wonder if they still make tires big enough for that kind power, but it would be spectacular.

Just call "Sheriff" Jon Kaase he's been building engines over 700 cubes for a minute.

1200-1300hp is the norm for NHRA Pro Stockers and incredible when you think they have spec'ed carbs at 1100cfm and run on gasoline. 6.80's in the 1/4 is something Funny Car's did in the late 60's with nitro and superchargers for crying out loud!

Boosted it would be just nasty, maybe 2,000-2,200hp and slow turning (maybe 7,000rpm) would keep the bottom end's together.

Our course that's looking at it at from an America's point of view.

The Europeans and Japanese would show up with whiz-bang V10's displacing maybe 7-8L because they would still want to turn it at 9-10K RPM if not more.

If you just double the displacement on an F1 engine and run the same RPM, I wouldn't be shocked if it came out to around 1,500-1,600hp@17-18K, you couldn't turn them as tightly as they do at 3.5L of course.

I love talking ENGINES its fun, the strides made in the aftermarket are just crazy in 30 years. The 60's were nice, but getting MORE out of LESS and getting a TON out of MORE is just what the doctor ordered.

It was impressive for BMW to get 1,500hp out of the 1.5L engine, shhh GM Racing is getting 1,400hp/1,500hp out of a 2.0L, production block and head and off the shelf VP Alky....

That's how far we have come and unlike the old F1 engine, all the parts are readily available from GM Racing, Jeg's and Summit Racing.

The future is even brighter getting a TON out of less and breathing easier in the process.

Sorry a bit off topic but NOT REALLY

[AU N EGL]

Wait. Limited rules? any displacement? Wasn't that race serieces call Can-AM?

Now those were some mighty fine race cars.

[GTfour]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

Wait. Limited rules? any displacement? Wasn't that race serieces call Can-AM?

Now those were some mighty fine race cars.

A classic race of 26 Can Am cars at Zandvoort was my first introduction in seeing live racing. I was hooked instantly!

This whole thread reminds me of the Nissan group C at LM in '90,driven by Mark Blundell,which had the boostcontrollers on his turbo's going out of control during qualifying,causing the engine to preduce close to 1400 bhp for a (literally) flying lap which slingshot him in to pole position in a time over six(!) seconds faster then the nr. 2...
It's said that he reached near 380km/h before braking for the first chicane...wow

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

Wait. Limited rules? any displacement? Wasn't that race serieces call Can-AM?

Now those were some mighty fine race cars.

Does not have to be Can-Am; in the last years of of T-A Cat.II and AAGT/GTX, engine size was limited by what ever stroke and bore one could squeeze out of the US push-rod blocks, including the linerless ex-Can-Am blockx.
But as I said Chebby and Fiord drive train parts tweren't near as good as the engines or engine builders.
Greg Picketts Corvette that won the Trans-Am Cat. II title started with a 500 plus inch engine and it is said close to nine hundred horsepower, then they backed off size and how radical the tuning was til lthey had something that might live and still run with a Porsche 935.
It has been too long but I believe it was apprx. 454 inches and 750 plus or minus HP.

Bob

[jross427]

Originally Posted by GTfour

A classic race of 26 Can Am cars at Zandvoort was my first introduction in seeing live racing. I was hooked instantly!

This whole thread reminds me of the Nissan group C at LM in '90,driven by Mark Blundell,which had the boostcontrollers on his turbo's going out of control during qualifying,causing the engine to preduce close to 1400 bhp for a (literally) flying lap which slingshot him in to pole position in a time over six(!) seconds faster then the nr. 2...
It's said that he reached near 380km/h before braking for the first chicane...wow

really, the boost controllers were acting up official. i think they had a virus or something we didnt turn them off or up. no way.... haha

if i had money (which i don't) rotary would be the way to go. remember the 787B. 2.6 4rotor turning 700+ hp on motor, add a turbo and have some fun with a body and chassis built by today engineers. 4 rotor = only 5 moving parts in the engine.

[David]

On the subject of unlimited race cars, my favorite story involves the reported speculations of the gentleman in the picture above, notorious for his tuning and driving of untaxed whiskey delivery vehicles. After running a NASCAR team for many years, he opined that it sure would be fun to build a race car using all that he had learned but without the rules. WOW!!

[Bob Riebe]

[QUOTE=AU N EGL][quote=Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

wholy ****** I would break my car apart into little pieces with that kind of power. I have enough of a challenge holding my vette together with new parts every so often as it is. and I only have 400 RWHP and 405 RWTQ

I was looking at a Warhawk with the larger bore, but keep the stroke shorter so still about a 427, 428 ci but cant find a transmission that I can afford to hold it all together.

On an aero note: I do run a 2" front splitter with undertray, flat bottom up to the trans, 1" rear spoiler and am building a rear diffuser to close off the reaming under carriage. Plus my rear fenders are 1" wider then stock to cover 18x13" tires. No wing

This is as good a place as any for this, but anyway, Tom if the 5.20 bore spacing was not big enough for you Sonny Leonard is now producing one with 5.30 bore spacing.
Now they are doing this to keep minimum wall thickness to point where survivability is more secure whilst using nitrous and rather a rather large number of inches cubed, but just think, if you could shoe-horn THIS one into your Vette, you could bore it out another ten thousandths or so and you could use a 5.13 bore and 5.00 stroke for 827 inches cubed, and then when the scrutineers ask you for engine size say " It has harruphack twenty seven. Excuse me I have a sore throat." you being an out-standing citizen they would simply take your word for it.
Then you could go out an stomp em whilst never taking the car out of high.

If they catch you, tell em Smokey Yunick was your distant uncle.
Bob

[AU N EGL]

:lol: dang that is big


Remember Bob I like in NC. EVERY down here is a distant relative

and Smokey was my uncle

[chewymonster]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

An outlaw IMSA race with existing cars would be great though, the Audi would no show as they would nto stand a chance, but those who did would put on a great show.

Bob

Of course the 1,000+++ hp R10 would be so uncompetatvie.

[chewymonster]

I doubt you will make 1,540 hp out of a 12.61 liter V8. No way will it spin up to 7,000 RPM to 8,000 RPM to make such power. You are talking about a cylinder double that of ones in NASCAR making almost the same power per volume.

The diesel would do fine with fuel capacity restrictions.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by chewymonster

Of course the 1,000+++ hp R10 would be so uncompetatvie.

Yes it would.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by chewymonster

I doubt you will make 1,540 hp out of a 12.61 liter V8. No way will it spin up to 7,000 RPM to 8,000 RPM to make such power. You are talking about a cylinder double that of ones in NASCAR making almost the same power per volume.

NASCAR engine are making "offcial" 850+ horse power.

They are already spinning the 800+ inch engines a goodly ways into the 8,000 range, and the 500 inch pro stock engines go into the 9,000 range and are said to touch ten thousand.
I have little doubt the mountain motors could run at conservative 7,500 rpm redlin and touch the 8,000 rpm range in road racing trim.

If such an engine were to run at LeMans, I imagine they would know a thousand rpm off of both of the above.

[chewymonster]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

NASCAR engine are making "offcial" 850+ horse power.

They are already spinning the 800+ inch engines a goodly ways into the 8,000 range, and the 500 inch pro stock engines go into the 9,000 range and are said to touch ten thousand.
I have little doubt the mountain motors could run at conservative 7,500 rpm redlin and touch the 8,000 rpm range in road racing trim.

If such an engine were to run at LeMans, I imagine they would know a thousand rpm off of both of the above.

I looked up Pro Stock. I am not sure if they rebuilt the engine each run, but still they only run full throttle for less than 10 seconds at a time. Unless this imaginary race would only have a few laps (would that make it a race?) they would have to run less rpm and have much less power.

And without rules the Audi team can up the boost to infinity and make crazy power. They could probably easily double or triple the boost that they are running now. And have more displacement also, as your rules don't have displacement limits.

Europeans race real semis. Those have 732 cubic inch diesels that make 1,050 horsepower and 3,000 lb-ft of torque. And those are modified big rig engines making almost the same power per liter as the rule limited R10. I think there is plenty of potential without rules.

But there is no racing without rules for obvious reasons.

As for tires, get Bridgestone to come from F1 and fight out Michelin. The two companies did so in F1 couple of years back making crazy progress. Competition made grooved tires that were better than slicks form just a couple of years back.