[LM24] Le Mans Trap Speeds

[sssssssss]

yup for the second one there was nothing about downforce for sure. but in the first case, it might have been...i mean, yeah, he pushed too hard for the conditions, but with higher downforce, it might not have been too hard...just maybe. and like i said, one of the drivers said the 2007 r10 is a bit harder to control in a low fuel situation, which isn't quite normal and which they aren't really accustomed to...it sounded like a bit of a delicate complaint about the car's handling basically.

[dj choc ice]

Originally Posted by Alex Hodgkinson

Not if you factor in 14 years worth of tyre development - the 905 on the latest tyres would be a quicker car than it was in 1993 surely!

it was in the back of my mind about tyre development over the best part of 14 years but im still posotive that the 905 on new spec tyre's would not be much quicker than a current car, as i said looking in hindsight the 905 probably only has a bit more downforce than the 908 or R10, but i would believe the manual gearbox would slow things down a fair bit particularly when it comes to braking and accelaration up to say 150mph.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by dj choc ice

...but i would believe the manual gearbox would slow things down a fair bit particularly when it comes to braking and accelaration up to say 150mph.

I thought it was a sequential change? Although, undoubtedly the current 'boxes are better.

[Alex Hodgkinson]

I always wonder how quick Group C cars would've been if the 3.5l formula was not introduced, and instead the 905 ended up at 800kg with a turbo motor instead.

Futhermore I tend to wonder what Group C cars would be like now if the series not been killed off...

Going back to the Jag topic, what were TWR's reasons for the shelfing of the XJR11 endurance car? I'm guessing most people will want to tell me that it was because the turbo era was coming to a close.

However, on the IMSA side of things the XJR-/11 and the XJR-12 continuted to be raced & developed up until 1993. That's 3 years worth of racing in which the XJR-11's could've been changed into a formidable endurance car. Why did it never happen? Even the Toyota Eagles got to the point of being able to finish 12 hour races!

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by Alex Hodgkinson

I always wonder how quick Group C cars would've been if the 3.5l formula was not introduced, and instead the 905 ended up at 800kg with a turbo motor instead.

Futhermore I tend to wonder what Group C cars would be like now if the series not been killed off...

Going back to the Jag topic, what were TWR's reasons for the shelfing of the XJR11 endurance car? I'm guessing most people will want to tell me that it was because the turbo era was coming to a close.

However, on the IMSA side of things the XJR-/11 and the XJR-12 continuted to be raced & developed up until 1993. That's 3 years worth of racing in which the XJR-11's could've been changed into a formidable endurance car. Why did it never happen? Even the Toyota Eagles got to the point of being able to finish 12 hour races!

The reuglations changed in Europe, the 3.5 liter normally aspirated formula came into effect for 1990, therefore the XJR-11 was out, XJR-14 in. The XJR-10 (what the XJR-11 was called over here, basically the same car but with a 3.0 liter [instead of 3.5 liter as the -11 had] twin turbo V6 and GTP tunnels) continued in the US and evolved into the XJR-16 ('91). In '92 the XJR-14 was brought over to the US as Jaguar's European commitment was done and the IMSA program was funded through 1993.

And the Toyota Eagle MkIIIs did one better than that, they won the Daytona 24 in 1993 and indeed both actually finished in '92.

[CUT 7]

"Futhermore I tend to wonder what Group C cars would be like now if the series not been killed off..."
Brilliant ones mind boggles, but too quick to have not been killed off on the over-regulated world we now live in.
As for gear boxes, definatly manual then, though a decent driver only loses 100dths to a sequential.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Alex Hodgkinson

I always wonder how quick Group C cars would've been if the 3.5l formula was not introduced, and instead the 905 ended up at 800kg with a turbo motor instead.

Futhermore I tend to wonder what Group C cars would be like now if the series not been killed off...

Going back to the Jag topic, what were TWR's reasons for the shelfing of the XJR11 endurance car? I'm guessing most people will want to tell me that it was because the turbo era was coming to a close.

However, on the IMSA side of things the XJR-/11 and the XJR-12 continuted to be raced & developed up until 1993. That's 3 years worth of racing in which the XJR-11's could've been changed into a formidable endurance car. Why did it never happen? Even the Toyota Eagles got to the point of being able to finish 12 hour races!

You may be interested in this, videos of the 2007 Group C/GTP series.

Go to the Sportscar & GT section.

http://www.raceworld.tv/

[JAG]

The 905 and TS010 both had F1 style paddle shifts in '92 and '93, you can see it on the in-car camera.

[maximus]

Originally Posted by JAG

2011 F1 regs:-

1.3-1.5 litre 4-cylinder engines!

heavily turbocharged.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by maximus

heavily turbocharged.

Targets about 450bhp-550bhp apparently, to compensate for the movable aero parts.

[Adam43]

The F1 forum
The Gand Plan thread.
The "Armchair Max" thread.

[CUT 7]

Originally Posted by JAG

The 905 and TS010 both had F1 style paddle shifts in '92 and '93, you can see it on the in-car camera.

True enough but me being a purist , dont count them as Gp C, seeing it was the atmo regs that destroyed it.
Havent seen any of the turbo GP C cars with sequential.Although to be honest i havent been looking. I've been so facsinated by where the drivers legs are in relation to the front axle.And angle to the steering column.Wild
If folk are interested in watching Gp C then get to the Silverstone Classic.
C U there.
And as for daft(er) F1 regs. Who cares? Never liked single seaters realy.Compare any era single seaters with Sports/protos and the GT's are just more intertesting bits of kit(with the poss exeption of the 1930's, Alfa bi-motore auto unions mercs etc)

[sssssssss]

And because this forum was originally about LM trap speeds (which i'm kind of obsessed about - I know, it shows!)...

I'm looking for somebody who has the official ACO data (which I don't) to confirm or infirm this:
I recently read that the qualifying speeds at Le Mans in the years 1994, 1996, 1998, 1999 and 2002 were as follows:
1994
335 km/h – Dauer Porsche 962 LM (365 km/h in practice session!)
330 km/h – Toyota
1996
335 km/h – Courage C36
330 km/h – TWR Porsche LMP
330 km/h – Porsche GT1
320 km/h – Ferrari 333SP
1998
345 km/h – Toyota GT-One
330/340 km/h – Porsche GT1
330 km/h – Mercedes CLK-LM
329 km/h – Nissan R390 GT1
325 km/h – Porsche LMP1
1999
351 km/h – Toyota GT-One
349 km/h – Audi R8C
349 km/h – Mercedes CLR
2002
340 km/h – Dome Judd S101
338 km/h – Audi R8
338 km/h – Bentley EXP Speed 8
337 km/h – Panoz LM

Is it true?...

[AU N EGL]

CHeck out Mike's web site: http://www.mulsannescorner.com/

down on the bottle left you will find trap speeds.

Oh and Mike does visit here quite frequently.

[sssssssss]

thx...i knew about mike's site and i also know he enters these forums but the idea is there aren't any '94, '96 or '98 trap speeds on mulsannescorner.com. i noticed the '99 are the right ones (as i found them on mike's site too) but the others seem like a little bit too high... i mean... i knew the '98 maximum speed at LM was nissan's 326 km/h... and now i found these numbers... just want to be sure about them

[CUT 7]

interesting stats, those speed traps. I always thought those 917's were hitting almost 250 mph.Maybe thats the rumour those who raced them spread.Or more likely my memory.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by CUT 7

interesting stats, those speed traps. I always thought those 917's were hitting almost 250 mph.Maybe thats the rumour those who raced them spread.Or more likely my memory.

Those speeds were before the two chicanes where put in the Mulsanne straight

[sssssssss]

Originally Posted by CUT 7

interesting stats, those speed traps. I always thought those 917's were hitting almost 250 mph.Maybe thats the rumour those who raced them spread.Or more likely my memory.

it's true about the 917, and later about the 956 and 962C. but those models were racing on the fully open mulsanne straight. these speeds are only from '94 on... the chicanes were already on the mulsanne straight for 4 years and the porsches here aren't 917, 956 or 962, they're the 911 GT1 and 911 GT1-Evo. Oh, and the Dauer 962 LM in '94, which was a GT1 conversion of the 962C (and a slowed-down version of it i must say - although if it hit 365 km/h before the first chicane in practice, as written in these stats, it might not be that slowed down afterall - the highest speed on the mulsanne chicane configuration being the '93 962C at 366 km/h!).

[CUT 7]

Erm yeah , presumably in 1971 when they raced there...
The speed trap info has them at 220 odd, same as the 512's , bizzarly.
Dunno what you guys mean.If u look at the speed traps for pre 94, IE '61-'90 its all there .Or have i missed something??

[sssssssss]

yes in fact the 917 hit a maximum of 362 km/h (225 mph) in that 1971 race. it wasn't as quick in a straight as the 956 (374 km/h - 232 mph) or 962C (391 km/h - 243 mph).

[bubulle2]

Kenny Acheson went 253.5 mph in the 1989 qualifying. The particular C9 he was driving had a special chip that enabled it to develop more than the 850 bhp usually available for qualifying. Apparently, the Nissan R89C just got under 400 kph while Sauber and Toyotas (the latter with 1040 bhp in qualifying) went slightly above the mark.

In 1990, this Nissan R90CK (with at least 1100 bhp) reportedly hit 238 mph.... between chicanes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lMItc4cy8U

[sssssssss]

does anyone have the 1995-1996 trap speeds from the 24 hours of le mans? i'd be a happy person knowing them

[ss_collins]

are they not on Mulsannes corner?

[Adam43]

http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...96#post1958020

merged!

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

I wouldn't read too much into that. Firstly the numbers are unconfirmed and unofficial, but also they could probably do 370kmph if they took the wings off!

I doubt they limited the top speed to play a game.

Adam:
The games they could play with the diesel are many; with the incredible torque they can gear the car down to granny levels, and accelerate like a banshee.
The limits of the a gasoline engine and the chicanes, means they can be running the car at near its misfiring level to put fear of Audi into others, but still have enough low grunt to embarrass any gasoline engine out there n the corners.
No one knows what the exact rpm limit of this diesel is, there are functions of physics that would eliminate its advantage on the old straight, but it is not there, and Audi could be running near the self-destruct level, or have some trick up their sleeve that if any one gets close enough, they might have a few more pounds of torque or ponies to turn loose.
All they have to do is set-up one car at hand-grenade level for "spies" to see make a mockery of the rules, and the psychological damage is done.