|
| Site Partners: | SpotterGuides | Veloce Books |
| Related Sites: | Your Link Here |
|
|
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
|
27 Feb 2003, 22:24 (Ref:519766)
|
#1 | |
|
Racer
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 285
 |
If one is asked to be "innovaitve" to design a DP, then perhaps...
The rules mandate that the radiators be in the front of the car. Most people have selected the typical middle. Why not put two smaller radiators just below the headlights? If you then made a low COG frontal area, instead of the ones that stick out like a broken nose right now, you could have an advantage.
|
|
|
|
|
28 Feb 2003, 14:16 (Ref:520450)
|
#2 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 1998
Posts: 2,762
|
Very poossible, but I think they look at the corners of the car taking more damage than a radiator that is between the tires in the event of contact or a crash. We've all seen sportscar circulating with a front headlamp missing along with a portion of the fender.
I don't know, just a thought. |
||
|
|
__________________
Never forget #99
|
|
28 Feb 2003, 16:48 (Ref:520588)
|
#3 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 4,936
|
Yeah. Probably won't make much of a difference, I'm afraid... Riley & Scott have made a great LeMans prototype with the radiator stuck right in front.
The fastest way to get a Daytona Prototype around a race track? Tie it to the bumper of a GT-class Porsche. |
||
|
|
__________________
"Put a ****ing wheel on there! Let me go out again!" -Gilles Villeneuve, Zandvoort, 1979
|
|
28 Feb 2003, 18:16 (Ref:520658)
|
#4 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 10,241
|
The problem with the DP's is that they aren't cost cutting, they're technology cutting, and a huge step back in time.
|
||
|
|
|
|
2 Mar 2003, 19:10 (Ref:522590)
|
#5 | ||
|
Rookie
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 78
|
So a step back intime *might* be necessary. Tube frames? Front mounted radiators? Interesting...
So drop back to about the mid to late 60's...lift the plans from..Oh...I dunno...a GT40? Or perhaps a 917, or even one of the Ferrari 512's? Those all seem to me (with some *mild* modifications) to fit the bill. *chuckles*. Time travel IS possible..and Grand-Am is proving it!! (insert maniacal laughter here) It's a good laugh, folks...but I'm not totally kidding about the idea of an "updated" 917. Couldn't you imagine the look of one rounding Daytona? Again? (woohoo!!) Later, all... |
||
|
|
__________________
If at first you don't succeed Get a bigger hammer
|
|
2 Mar 2003, 19:23 (Ref:522598)
|
#6 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,580
|
The 917 probably doesn't offer the mandated headroom. Also, would we want to see one with a GT3 engine?
|
||
|
|
__________________
Oops
|
|
3 Mar 2003, 14:28 (Ref:523493)
|
#7 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 1998
Posts: 2,762
|
Basically they are rebodied Trans Am cars with a few carbon fiber panels. The premier class should not get smoked by the GTS class leader Corvette on the straight liek they regularly did.
|
||
|
|
__________________
Never forget #99
|
|
3 Mar 2003, 16:08 (Ref:523559)
|
#8 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 4,936
|
Trans Am cars have the engine in front, KC... I'm sure you knew that, though.
The 917 and GT40 were already more advanced than these crappy cars! Especially the magnesium-frame, twin-turbo V-12 917/30! It'd run circles around the best Daytona Prototypes! I would have been fine with a bit of a step back in technology for the sake of competition. But why so ugly, why so slow?! They should be wide and low-slung, and packing big-block V8s like in the Cam-Am days! Imagine a closed-top prototype with an 8.0L pushrod engine rumbling around Daytona, or down the Mulsanne straight! But no... They went with these miserable excuses for powerplants, and overgrown Sports2000 cars with roofs.
Last edited by Lee Janotta; 3 Mar 2003 at 16:09. |
||
|
|
__________________
"Put a ****ing wheel on there! Let me go out again!" -Gilles Villeneuve, Zandvoort, 1979
|
|
3 Mar 2003, 17:11 (Ref:523620)
|
#9 | ||
|
Rookie
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 78
|
Actually, that was a *flat* 12 in the 917/30 which cranked out around 1100 bhp.
|
||
|
|
__________________
If at first you don't succeed Get a bigger hammer
|
|
3 Mar 2003, 17:35 (Ref:523634)
|
#10 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 5,402
|
Quote:
What I don't get is how they managed to come up with what we've actually got- surely it wouldn't have taken much more thought about the regs to come up with something that makes it possible to build a car that looks good..... |
||
|
|
|
|
3 Mar 2003, 19:59 (Ref:523746)
|
#11 | |||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 4,936
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
|
__________________
"Put a ****ing wheel on there! Let me go out again!" -Gilles Villeneuve, Zandvoort, 1979
|
|
3 Mar 2003, 22:00 (Ref:523879)
|
#12 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,215
|
Looks arre one thing, but perormance is where the action really is...
You can set up rules to control costs, yet still build cars that are fast and exciting to watch.... The 24 at Daytona was awful.... If Grand Am stays this course, they are going to crash on the rocks and sink...big time... |
||
|
|
__________________
Finally... One American Open Wheel Series!
|
|
4 Mar 2003, 00:06 (Ref:524010)
|
#13 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 10,241
|
The GT4's as these cars ought to be called, are so restrictive that you can't even use powerplants not sanctioned as being sh*te.
Plus GT40 isn't in production anymore, so that's a no-no. It's a shame. It looks like a good thing, until you read there rules carefully, then you realise that they're no better than something we could throw together. You could almost do it. Get a scrap engine, some steel tube, a glass fibre kit, and then mould the bodywork on an elephant, and then attach Lee's tow hook and you're ready.. |
||
|
|
|
|
4 Mar 2003, 00:08 (Ref:524012)
|
#14 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 10,241
|
I think we all know that we could better those rules very easily, and still be cost cutting...
|
||
|
|
|
|
4 Mar 2003, 04:39 (Ref:524125)
|
#15 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 521
|
I have no problem with a cost controlled formula, but not when a new $400,000 prototype can't beat a somewhat used $150,000 GTS or GT car....Plus teh fact the AMC Pacer size mandated cockpit just looks stupid...
|
||
|
|
__________________
I specialize in the history of small displacement sports racers from France and Italy, circa 1930-1960.
|
|
4 Mar 2003, 13:04 (Ref:524442)
|
#16 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,707
|
im sure this must had been tried or though about,
i can't see the designer missing what looks like an ovious area to make improvements, i don't know, maybe their just not thinking strait. |
||
|
|
__________________
"If there's anything more important than my ego around, I want it caught and shot now" Douglas Adams. 1952-2001
|
 |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Adjustable "Blade Type" Anti-Roll Bars Design Questions | rabieng | Racing Technology | 5 | 5 Mar 2006 13:06 |
| Forum's 2005 "Indy 500" RACE "Pick 'Em" Contest | Tim Northcutt | IRL Indycar Series | 26 | 31 May 2005 08:36 |
| Circuit in "Victory by Design"? | Lee Janotta | Motorsport History | 26 | 28 Apr 2003 13:16 |
| Has "Ford" asked to be taken off the cam covers? | H16 | Sportscar & GT Racing | 9 | 14 Mar 2003 20:26 |
| Jos "Dead Loss" Verstappen & Enrique "Not Piquet" Bernoldi | I Ate Yoko Ono | Formula One | 16 | 9 Oct 2001 14:44 |
Linear Mode
