Interesting article on future sportscar racecar

[SALEEN S7R]

I gotta admit, a lot of what Bob is saying is true Mr Goodwin. Ive had a careful look through this thread and to the best of my knowledge he has not said any of the things u say he has, or insinuated he has. Thats not to say I agree with Bob on his stance on this issue, merley that he is correct in what he has just said in his previous post.

[Graham Goodwin]

As I understand it you disagree with both the status quo and current direction - Right or Wrong?

So come on then Bob what are you saying? What do YOU want to see happen going forward? What is your preferred solution?

Its easy to take a position against something. It's WAY more difficult to come up with a workable alternative.

Whether or not anyone agrees with your reasoning on the realities of safety considerations it IS a reality. Wishing that it wasn't so IS therefore at best aspirational and I believe in reality idealistic.

Not aggressive here Bob just questioning.

[Regis]

My comment is absurd and inane reflecting what I believe to be the same.

Yea, its just my opinion Bob. We all have opinions; we all have holes.

---

as to he said, she said:

quote:
So your point is Bob that you can't have truly competitive racing unless there are no restrictions at all forced by safety considerations?


Show me where I said this

Okay, two places...

It is about managed-competition, now that is an oxymoron.

Racing can never be about safety first and still be competitive racing

---

To the moderators:
I know its a tough job so I ask with all deserved respect, can more be done to prevent hijacking of threads?

[Bob Riebe]

Originally posted by Graham Goodwin
As I understand it you disagree with both the status quo and current direction - Right or Wrong?

You are correct.

So come on then Bob what are you saying? What do YOU want to see happen going forward? What is your preferred solution?

Its easy to take a position against something. It's WAY more difficult to come up with a workable alternative. [/quote]

I have said many times, that series should return to the minimul rules with weight to displacement. It worked for decades.
The difference now is, they want to force the cars to be equal, and will do what ever it takes, ala NASCAR, which means artificial restrictions.
There is no reason to have the diffusers on the GTs, or the prototypes either.
Removing the running boards from the GTs and forcing the exhaust system to run under the chassis, which was required in GT racing until the tubeys showed up in the late seventies, would mean that ground clearence in infront of the rear tires would be at mimumum 4-5 inches so the exhaust pipe would have ground clearence.
This would eliminate ground-effects and return the feel and control of the car strictly to the driver.
Let them run any engine that is either sold in the car, or offered as a dealer installed option.
Equivalencies could be used for multi-valve, blown engines etc. Once again an approximation leaving it up to the team owner to find enough horse power to run up front.
Let tire size be unlimited but it would be up to them to figure out how to make them fit under the fenders, i.e. any flare would have to be homologated, with the IMSA.

The "prototypes" should be that, if they are going to call them prototypes.
A car such as the Maserati or first version of the Porshce GT1 would be good examples.
Again no ground effects. They are worthless on a street car so why put them on a race car.

As for the sports racers called "prtotoypes".
Take the old Can-Am group 7 rules, adjust what need to be adjusted, i.e. max engine size, if need be, for type of engine. Minimum weights. Maximum vehicle size etc.
Eliminate the ground effects for said same reason above.

Whether or not anyone agrees with your reasoning on the realities of safety considerations it IS a reality. Wishing that it wasn't so IS therefore at best aspirational and I believe in reality idealistic.

Why, Because a driver who was too tired in a race over forty decades ago, crashed into a crowd?
List these many mass killings that have happened in road racing.
People die, no one forces them to be where they are.
If they want to do as the Swiss did, then they ARE actually trying to save everyones life, and that is the ONLY way.

FACT, over two hundred people have been killed by airbags.
GUESS, thousands have been saved by airbages.

Facts prove the former
Hopefullness and "want it to be so" are the only thing
supporting the latter.
I find it amazing that the "airbag rules" were created because, to paraphrase as one politician who so boldly proclaimed,-If it saves even one life it is worth it.
Their response to the fact that it killed a couple of hundred people--Too bad.

IF some one is for safety, he is perceived as a wonderful person, and it matters little to the dullard general public how vile the one's real reasons for making this wonderful proclamation are; which is why these wonderfull people say they are just doing what is best for you, and pop out the cliche' "safety" whenever they want to tell someone else what to do.

I have written something very similar to what I wrote above many times.
I realize there are several boards I post on, but I am sure I have written it here before.(I know I have written it at DSC.)
I try not to write it over and over, because even if it states what I believe, it is not uncommon to hear someting such as " you just keep saying the same thing over and over."
I sure as hell hope I keep saying the same thing over and over. I am not easily influenced or impressed. IF I believe in something, I believe in it until it is proven to be wrong.
I am not a lemming that runs with the crownd because it is the thing to do.
Bob

[Bob Riebe]

Originally posted by Regis
quote:
So your point is Bob that you can't have truly competitive racing unless there are no restrictions at all forced by safety considerations?


Show me where I said this

Okay, two places...

It is about managed-competition, now that is an oxymoron.

And just how does this relate to your quote above?:confused:
The term "managed competiton" had nothing to do with with safety. It was about control.

Racing can never be about safety first and still be competitive racing

I wrote this also to give my opinion on safety-"Safety is a self-serving concept that does not need outside concerns to turn what was once a mode for proving concepts into a device to merely meet the restictions placed on the engineers to detune a car so it is legal."

If you don't know what that means,it is, teams automatically will work within certain perimeters, they decide on.
Safety is not, nor has it EVER been of first concern. Nor should it be or racing will stop, or racing for competitive purposes will stop, because people will always die, be crippled and maimed.
The Swiss found the only way to stop it.

Nowhere did I say that safety should be unresticted, nor attended to.

Quoting out of context is an old trick.
The Bible has been used by politicians to commit horrid things by this little trick.
"Deja Vu all over again."
Bob




---

[XJR14/WSC95]

I think everyone needs to remember that the only reason GTS cars are anywhere near the speed of the LM1s is because they are so heavily restricted. One only has to look back to the 3.5L group c days were the prototypes were qualifying in the mid 3 20s. The prototypes today don’t get anywhere near that and we have the benefit of over ten years of tyre technology. So at the end of the day if we are going to have cars racing together in different classes the GTS class cars should be slowed down also.
Otherwise what’s the point of a manufacturer or private entrant competing in the LMP class if GTS cars are beating them, because the ACO keeps slowing down LMP but not GTS!

[paul-collins]

Originally posted by Bob Riebe
There is no reason to have the diffusers on the GTs, or the prototypes either.
Removing the running boards from the GTs and forcing the exhaust system to run under the chassis, which was required in GT racing until the tubeys showed up in the late seventies, would mean that ground clearence in infront of the rear tires would be at mimumum 4-5 inches so the exhaust pipe would have ground clearence.
This would eliminate ground-effects and return the feel and control of the car strictly to the driver.

...Again no ground effects. They are worthless on a street car so why put them on a race car.

Where does the Ferrari Modena's exhaust go?

I ask because the roadgoing car has ground effects. They are actually hobbled by racing, because they're required to fit a flat bottom to the car, covering the tunnels.

[Fogelhund]

Bob, your suggestions are financially unfeasible in this day and age, and weren't particularly feasible at the end of Can-Am. The current formula is expensive as is, and what you propose would be infinitely moreso. Leaving engine and tire size to entrants seems to be a recipe for an arms race to me, read $. Can-Am and rather loose ruled series were exciting times, but technology and increased sophistication of the sport means you'll never see that again.

Meanwhile, the rest of us have moved past the 50's and 60's, understand why these cars are restricted, and have learned to appreciate what independent thinking there is still allowed, that end up improving the road cars in a real and meaningful way.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally posted by paul-collins
Where does the Ferrari Modena's exhaust go?

I ask because the roadgoing car has ground effects. They are actually hobbled by racing, because they're required to fit a flat bottom to the car, covering the tunnels.

That is a good question.

I realize that some cars have quasi-diffusers, which are more for show than go.(On the road cars. No diffuser will work well, or safely, on a uneven or debris laden surface.)
Should they be left on the car(obviously a rear-engined car does not have to worry about getting the exhaust past the firewall.)
At this point, without anyone have done tests to see how well they work, leave them there but require a mimimum ride height in front of the rear tires.
IT seems to be another version of the debate concerning the Maserati.

Bob

[MulsanneMike]

Hmmm, the "quasi diffusers" on the Carrera GT and Modena seem to work pretty good in my book considering their limiting factor is drag to produce a decent top speed for the road car...

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/aerod...0modena99.html

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/aerod...rreragt04.html

If you want to limit their effectiveness you'd certainly want to require a maximum ride height in front of the rear tires, definetly not a minimum as all ground effect cars work most effectively with some sort of rake angle. That is, smaller ride heights at the front, larger at the rear. But then that begins to smell badly of NASCAR where the rules are aimed at nitpicking details...you seem to advocate a more open formula for only one parameter, engine performance. Is this accurate? Frankly I see little difference in what you advocate and what is going on in Grand-Am.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally posted by Fogelhund
Bob, your suggestions are financially unfeasible in this day and age, and weren't particularly feasible at the end of Can-Am.

Based on what proof.
The panick of the oil embargo was the major factor that affected racing when the Can-Am died.
The death of Formula A and trying to replace the Can-Am with heavy fendered Formula A cars had zero to do with cost, as modifying the cars was not cheap.

[quote] The current formula is expensive as is, and what you propose would be infinitely moreso. Leaving engine and tire size to entrants seems to be a recipe for an arms race to me, read $. Can-Am and rather loose ruled series were exciting times, but technology and increased sophistication of the sport means you'll never see that again.[.quote]

Again, based on what?
Wider tires or simply using an engine as is,(to bore out an engine is a comparativly simple procedure) is incredibly cheap compared to trying to make an engine live, much less be competitive, with less feet per minute cubed of air than designed for.
There is nothing wrong with tire wars, it is from them that the far superior tires we have now descended.
Status quo tires means status quo developement. i.e. zero, they have no reason to improve them.

Can-Am and rather loose ruled series were exciting times, but technology and increased sophistication of the sport means you'll never see that again.

Just how is that possible, because one thinks the cars are going faster than the one would approve of?
"GEE golly Martha, thems cars are so sophicated now we gots to makes them slow and slower."

It has been gone for at most a decade, plus or minus a few years. There is zero reason that the slomobile rules cannot be elimimated.

Meanwhile, the rest of us have moved past the 50's and 60's, understand why these cars are restricted, and have learned to appreciate what independent thinking there is still allowed, that end up improving the road cars in a real and meaningful way.

Well, since the cars did not even start to gain the tech. advances they have now until the mid-seventies, just who are you talking to any way?

improving the road cars in a real and meaningful way.

Such as what?
Do not give me the equivalent of the old Mobil fuel economy run. That is not what racing was made for, or the the Mobil run would never have existed.
Give me some examples that are meaningful AS WELL as what is not meaningful.
Bob

[Fogelhund]

The panic for the oil embargo did not see most of the manufacturers abandon Can-Am, the uber expensive Porsche 917's made them purely uncompetitive, and cost prohibitive.

Your suggestion was to allow manufacturers to use any engine they have, at any horsepower they want. Unless you care to explain how a manufacturer wouldn't be running a 1500 hp motor and spending rather large sums of money on the unlimited tire sizes and other unlimited areas, then this is simply going to be an arms race.

Cars aren't slower and slower. The Audi R8 & Lola is one of the fastest sportscars around a circuit we've seen.

Your talking about rules that might have been applicable in the 50's & 60's. The rules of the 70's became quite a bit more restrictive then they had been previously.

Improve road cars?

How about Audi FSI Injection, perfected in the Audi R8?

[Bob Riebe]

Originally posted by Fogelhund
The panic for the oil embargo did not see most of the manufacturers abandon Can-Am, the uber expensive Porsche 917's made them purely uncompetitive, and cost prohibitive.

Your suggestion was to allow manufacturers to use any engine they have, at any horsepower they want. Unless you care to explain how a manufacturer wouldn't be running a 1500 hp motor and spending rather large sums of money on the unlimited tire sizes and other unlimited areas, then this is simply going to be an arms race.

Cars aren't slower and slower. The Audi R8 & Lola is one of the fastest sportscars around a circuit we've seen.

Your talking about rules that might have been applicable in the 50's & 60's. The rules of the 70's became quite a bit more restrictive then they had been previously.

Improve road cars?

How about Audi FSI Injection, perfected in the Audi R8?

Did this come about only because performance was limited by restrictors?

The oil embargo had the greatest influence on the ruling bodies of all types of racing, ever encountered.
Formula A cars used less gasoline than Can-Am cars, a fact which was taking into account in the death of the Can-Am.
The Porsche had been effectively neutered by 1974 Can-Am fuel limits, it had become just another car.

Even the Can-Am had car width limits.
One can only use so much tire before it begins to adversely affect other parts of performance, i.e. turning radius, top speed.
Even if you can spin 23" tires all the way down a straight, the increased aero drag and rolling resistance increases, reduce possible gains in acceleration and cornering.
I also said cars should have weight to displacement rules, the two hundred pound extra weight that could be imposed on a car capable of developing 1,500 hp, whether 620 inch two-valve or 460 inch multi-valve, would slow down acceleration, cornering and top speed, whilst also forcing the driver to weigh pushing the tires hard or not pushing so hard as to save the tires.
OR one could decide to go with a smaller engine and save hundreds of pounds of weight and the strain it puts on the chassis.
During the super modified GT years, I never heard anyone seriously complaining about tire costs, but I know tire technology advances, and its benefits to street cars was impressive during that era.

Cars aren't slower and slower. The Audi R8 & Lola is one of the fastest sportscars around a circuit we've seen.

It is not as fast on the straights as cars that came before it; therefore it is only in the corners that it is quicker and allowing the quick lap times.
Remove the aero aids, leaving the wing on, and see how fast it goes.
I suppose one could say we must slow them down on the straights so that one has a good reason to increase cornering speeds, even if it means that losing it in a corner, which is far more likely than losing on a straight, increases the chance of a serious boo-boo.
Heck, 250 mph on a straight sounds dangerous, 140 mph around a corner one could not do more than 120 mph on, without the aero aids, aw, that's a drive in the park.

Your talking about rules that might have been applicable in the 50's & 60's. The rules of the 70's became quite a bit more restrictive then they had been previously.

In what racing series?
By the end of the IMSA-SCCA super modified GTs being the top series 1978-1980, Camaros and Corvettes were allowed to use, and used by those who had used after market drive train parts when they were finally allowed, ex-Can-Am engines of up to 515 inches cubed, no limit on tire size (including wheel diameter).
Restrictions became fewer, not greater.
The cars still had more chassis limits than the later GTO total tube frame cars that came with new GTO rules when the GTP cars came, but engine wise they were as close to unlimited as any GT series ever has been.
The Group 7 rules remained the most free, until the Can-Am died and the the Camel GT and the SCCA equivalent took over where the Can-Am left off;up till then GT cars in the US had mimimum basic but absolute rules.
Engine size was an absolute in Trans-Am Over and Under Two Liters.
Mimimum weight was finally set at 2,900 lbs. dry when cars started showing up weighing hundreds of pounds less than any V-8 production car could without bending the rules severely.
Production GT international classes were also strict with absolute limits on weight per engine size.

NEVER was engine performance restricted by artificial restrictions put on an engine by a sanctioning body.
Absolute basic rules were given and the racers were told to stay within them.
How much performance they developed in their engine was up to them; for if they wanted to beat the others, that was their problem.

Racing can be translated in improvements in road cars but restrictions on the racing cars inhibit not increase probability of transferable improvements.

Bob

[paul-collins]

Originally posted by Bob Riebe
The oil embargo had the greatest influence on the ruling bodies of all types of racing, ever encountered.
Formula A cars used less gasoline than Can-Am cars, a fact which was taking into account in the death of the Can-Am.
The Porsche had been effectively neutered by 1974 Can-Am fuel limits, it had become just another car.

In all the external goals of motorsport (ie "improving the breed") why do you discount economy?

I would say that, if you want to look at open rulesets, perhaps something more germaine to our world would be a rebirth of Group C. Again, fairly open, and inspiring great strides in performance. (And with the rise of the Chinese economy, we're going to see oil prices skyrocket in our lifetimes, as it will double the consumption - or more - as the population shifts towards driving rather than biking.)

You don't need rules to be written to encourage car designers to attempt to go faster. Wherever there are open areas, they will develop the cars.

Call it social engineering if you will, but the rules are written partly to help define where the development occurs. You dismiss the FSI turbo development - but, look, Audi has it now in their (unrestricted) road cars. So the rules have allowed the improvement of the breed.

I'm not going to deny that some of the changes for "safety" have neutered great chunks of racing. The chicanes in les Hunadieres, the Dunlop Chicane and now the redone esses are all abominations to me; further afield, the Hockenheimring and anything else touched by Herman Tilke has taken much joy and challenge out of racing wheel-to-wheel.

But to deny that safety as a goal in racing development is inappropriate is to ignore the initial impulse, and to ignore the sport's position within society as a whole. The improvement of road safety is part of why racing is allowed to occur at all.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally posted by Bob Riebe

It is not as fast on the straights as cars that came before it; therefore it is only in the corners that it is quicker and allowing the quick lap times.
Remove the aero aids, leaving the wing on, and see how fast it goes.
I suppose one could say we must slow them down on the straights so that one has a good reason to increase cornering speeds, even if it means that losing it in a corner, which is far more likely than losing on a straight, increases the chance of a serious boo-boo.
Heck, 250 mph on a straight sounds dangerous, 140 mph around a corner one could not do more than 120 mph on, without the aero aids, aw, that's a drive in the park.



Bob

I think you'll find most accidents occur in the braking zone, not in the corners. At 250+ mph, you'd find most drivers wanting downforce to prevent said nasty accident.