The cars that destroyed GT racing last time

[Adam43]

This thread has been split from the The new GTx class structure 2009-thread. That is the thread for the discussion on the new changes.

However the genesis '90s GT racing cars seemed to catch a few peoples imagination. Despite requests to start a new thread if this topic was interesting everyone was too scared of the start new thread button and preferred to stifle other discussion.

This thread now starts, somewhat controversially, by dj4monie wondering why the 911 GT1 was made...

[dj4monie]

New GTx cars -

They might be a "proper" GT cars but I thought the main reason for scrapping the current rule set is to make racing more affordable and I keep saying you can't regulate money spent, so how are you suppose to accomplish that goal???

The whole reason the Porsche 911 GT1 even came into being was because McLaren built a car outside the spirit of the rules.

At the time BPR was made up of upscale sport cars like the Venturi, F40 and 911 GT2 Turbo, which was designed by Porsche to be competitive to that rule set.

When the McLaren came along it totally changed the BPR series forever. It was a purpose built racecar dressed in daily driver duds. All the other cars were based on the current production car, it wasn't fair. That's why if your going to have cars like the Mosler and Saleen, you need a different rule set for companies that don't produce thousands of cars every year for sale.

Its a nice idea, but you would still see many of the same tricks racing teams use to make cars competitive and ask manufacturers to change the production car to meet their needs.

For this to work you will need to regulate spending and that's illegal you can't do that, you can not tell people how to spend their money. This is not a stick and ball sport, people will just take their toys elsewhere.

Benz, BMW and Toyota all left Sportcars to run F1 programs, that is a perfect example.

[Graham Goodwin]

Originally Posted by dj4monie

The whole reason the Porsche 911 GT1 even came into being was because McLaren built a car outside the spirit of the rules.

At the time BPR was made up of upscale sport cars like the Venturi, F40 and 911 GT2 Turbo, which was designed by Porsche to be competitive to that rule set.

When the McLaren came along it totally changed the BPR series forever. It was a purpose built racecar dressed in daily driver duds. All the other cars were based on the current production car, it wasn't fair. That's why if your going to have cars like the Mosler and Saleen, you need a different rule set for companies that don't produce thousands of cars every year for sale.

Utterly and entirely wrong - The Mclaren was a road car first and was designed exclusively as such. Bear in mind when the car was being designed there would have been nowhere to race it anyway.

The Porsche 911 GT1 was the very first of the cars to take GT1 down the 'racecar first, roadcar yeah right!' route.

From the very moment the Porsche took to the track it was blindingly obvious that everything else was obselete, that wasn't the case with the Mclaren, the distance between the F1 and its initial competition was mainly about reliability, and also of course about pace.

[Mike_Wooshy]

Originally Posted by dj4monie

The whole reason the Porsche 911 GT1 even came into being was because McLaren built a car outside the spirit of the rules.

At the time BPR was made up of upscale sport cars like the Venturi, F40 and 911 GT2 Turbo, which was designed by Porsche to be competitive to that rule set.

When the McLaren came along it totally changed the BPR series forever. It was a purpose built racecar dressed in daily driver duds. All the other cars were based on the current production car, it wasn't fair. That's why if your going to have cars like the Mosler and Saleen, you need a different rule set for companies that don't produce thousands of cars every year for sale.

Totally wrong as stated by Graham, The Real Mac was created as the ultimate road car, that was then adapted at short notice for the rules. Well thats how Gordon Murray tells it, and he is bound to know better than anyone.

Again as Graham said it was the Porsche who went down the racecar no road car route, which in turn was then followed by Merc and Toyota IIRC.

[Adam43]

The 911 GT1 was built to beat the McLaren, however the McLaren was not a purpose built race car (as said above). It took some persuasion to get the factory to make a race version; they demonstrated the demand and some even threaten to do it themselves anyway. To say that it is a race car for the road actually misses the fundamental design and beauty of the F1.

Or course the Le Mans win cemented its place in history.

[KA]

Originally Posted by Graham Goodwin

Utterly and entirely wrong - The Mclaren was a road car first and was designed exclusively as such. Bear in mind when the car was being designed there would have been nowhere to race it anyway.

The Porsche 911 GT1 was the very first of the cars to take GT1 down the 'racecar first, roadcar yeah right!' route.

From the very moment the Porsche took to the track it was blindingly obvious that everything else was obselete, that wasn't the case with the Mclaren, the distance between the F1 and its initial competition was mainly about reliability, and also of course about pace.

In fact, wasn't the initial decision to build the GTR race versions of the McLaren driven by demand for a race version from Ray Bellm and other customers?

[dj4monie]

Graham I will give you benefit of the doubt on that, but $100 says Gordon Murry has designs to make the SLR a race car sitting in a file cabinet or on a CD-ROM.

After all the man designed RACING CARS not Street Cars and who in their right mind would put the seat in the center position? This isn't a street legal F1 car or IS IT???

Yes the buyers loved them so much they wanted to race them, hence the GTR "mod"

That's because when people tried to race them without any benefits of wings they were unstable.

Ummm by the time I actually picked up BPR races in 1994, James Weaver and Ray Bellum were whoopin ass if they didn't crash it or breakdown.

So if you want to blame Porsche go right ahead I support you. They always moved the bar forward, but Ratel et-all are guilty of letting them get away with it.

That forced Murray to do what he always wanted to do with the F1, make it a long tail GT racer and you know that.

The house of card came down with Mercedes but honestly they took existing ITC/DTM technology and came away with the CLK-GTR in 3 months.

Ratel being in control of the series with FIA blessing should have put the BRAKES on that and let's not forget that Don/Danny Panoz are just as gulity...

Watching the last 2 FIA races, ummm the stands were quite EMPTY. Same with the last 2 LMES rounds.

The whole thing is almost not even worth arguing over.

Just a handful of hands fans on both sides of the Atlantic bickering about the State of Sportscar racing while 85,000 fans showed up at Watkins Glen and another 90 thou at the Bush Race in Canada.

Something sportscar racing is doing is tragically WRONG and its not the fact we race on road courses ONLY, I think its BIGGER than that...

We have much larger problems than trying to figure out how to save the owners a few dollars....

[Graham Goodwin]

Originally Posted by dj4monie

Graham I will give you benefit of the doubt on that, but $100 says Gordon Murry has designs to make the SLR a race car sitting in a file cabinet or on a CD-ROM...

Firstly there's no doubt, secondly Gordon Murray hasn't worked for Mclaren since 2004

Originally Posted by dj4monie

After all the man designed RACING CARS not Street Cars and who in their right mind would put the seat in the center position? This isn't a street legal F1 car or IS IT???...

And he has repeatedly made it very clear that he wanted to design road cars which is exactly what he has been doing for more than a decade.

Originally Posted by dj4monie

Ummm by the time I actually picked up BPR races in 1994, James Weaver and Ray Bellum were whoopin ass if they didn't crash it or breakdown.

So if you want to blame Porsche go right ahead I support you. They always moved the bar forward, but Ratel et-all are guilty of letting them get away with it....

The Mclaren didn't race in the BPR in 1994, Three different Mclarens (plus and F40) won BPR races in 1995 and James Weaver wasn't driving any of them.

Nobody is "blaming Porsche" the 911GT1 took advantage of the regs available to them, but the fact that they were able to do that was the beginning of the end, a point recognised by Stephane himself.

Originally Posted by dj4monie

That forced Murray to do what he always wanted to do with the F1, make it a long tail GT racer and you know that....

I don't "know that" and neither do you, principally because it isn't true.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by dj4monie

Graham I will give you benefit of the doubt on that, but $100 says Gordon Murry has designs to make the SLR a race car sitting in a file cabinet or on a CD-ROM.

I actually doubt that, he knows as well as anyone that this was never meant to be a race (it has a long way to go to become a race car, from my experience of it ). At least the McLaren F1 was designed to be a drivers (road) car. His new venture is allows for one racing project, but IIRC that is most likely to be prototype. There are no (little) links with Mercedes or McLaren now. New Smart roadster, maybe, SLR racer, I doubt it.

After all the man designed RACING CARS not Street Cars and who in their right mind would put the seat in the center position? This isn't a street legal F1 car or IS IT???

The centre seat was the best packaging for the road car. It works so well, there are no issues when it comes to LHD/RHD and you can nip over to the continent and overtake just as easily. His race background might have made it easier for a man to make that connection, but he was designing his idea of the ultimate road car, not racer.

Yes the buyers loved them so much they wanted to race them, hence the GTR "mod"

That's because when people tried to race them without any benefits of wings they were unstable.

Did anyone race it before the GTR?

The 911 GT1 was built to beat the McLaren, however the McLaren was not a purpose built race car (as said by others). It took some persuasion to get the factory to make a race version; they demonstrated the demand and some even threaten to do it themselves anyway. To say that it is a race car for the road actually misses the fundamental design and beauty of the F1.

Or course the Le Mans win cemented its place in history.

Ummm by the time I actually picked up BPR races in 1994, James Weaver and Ray Bellum were whoopin ass if they didn't crash it or breakdown.

It did destroy them, but that doesn't mean it was principally a race car!

So if you want to blame Porsche go right ahead I support you. They always moved the bar forward, but Ratel et-all are guilty of letting them get away with it.

Well I don't 'blame' Porsche for anything. I also don't blame Ratel for allowing the F1, it was exactly what the championship was designed for - ultimate road cars. The fact that it was more ultimate than other road cars did translate on to the track.

That forced Murray to do what he always wanted to do with the F1, make it a long tail GT racer and you know that.

Always wanted to do? He convieced the F1 to have short overhangs, for the advantages on the road. It is a small car and very practical for the road. This was achieved by its clever packaging (inc. seats). A 220 it isn't!

Back to topic (almost):

We have much larger problems than trying to figure out how to save the owners a few dollars....

I dare say the owners would disagree! Besides the new specifications may not be that different to the old ones. If that manages to save the people running these cars some cash, then why not?

In addition, why tackle only one problem?

[Svierge]

Originally Posted by dj4monie

New GTx cars -

They might be a "proper" GT cars but I thought the main reason for scrapping the current rule set is to make racing more affordable and I keep saying you can't regulate money spent, so how are you suppose to accomplish that goal???

The whole reason the Porsche 911 GT1 even came into being was because McLaren built a car outside the spirit of the rules.

At the time BPR was made up of upscale sport cars like the Venturi, F40 and 911 GT2 Turbo, which was designed by Porsche to be competitive to that rule set.

When the McLaren came along it totally changed the BPR series forever. It was a purpose built racecar dressed in daily driver duds. All the other cars were based on the current production car, it wasn't fair. That's why if your going to have cars like the Mosler and Saleen, you need a different rule set for companies that don't produce thousands of cars every year for sale.

Someone will have undoubtedly replied to this already, but I've only read this far and I have to reply. The bits I've highlighted in bold are utter, utter rubbish! The F1 was built as a road car, that's why it was so compromised as a racecar. Ray Bellm convinced RD to make a race version, which was developed in no time at all.

Do you honestly think that if Gordon Murray had wanted to design a purpose-built GT1 to the letter of the rules he would have built a car like the '95 GT F1? This is the man who gave us the Brabham BT46 fan car and the McLaren MP4/4 (which won 15 of 16 races in '88). I think you need to do a little research on the F1.

The 911 GT1 was the car that started the rot. But that's not the discussion here. I'm just very surprised anyone could think the F1 was built just to go racing. It was designed long before the BPR series was even conceived.

[dj4monie]

Dates mixed up, but Weaver was driving the Gulf car, maybe it was 95-96.

The rest it is based on opinion, not fact, ummm I don't live in Europe.

Plus you know more than many people care to remember but that's a compliment...

I didn't mean Blame in the sense that its all their fault and they only wanted to win. The GT2 wasn't cutting it, when they increased the power, the car was unstable as seen by the appearance in the US with Thierry Boutsen and Struck at the wheel.

Ratel just should have said NO

Cause in the end Porsche ended up screwing the customer teams over by showing up to Le Mans with a EVO version of the car...

That was the beginning of the end and plops us into the current "mess" that we are in.

[PorscheFanNo1]

Originally Posted by dj4monie

Cause in the end Porsche ended up screwing the customer teams over by showing up to Le Mans with a EVO version of the car...

That was the beginning of the end and plops us into the current "mess" that we are in.

Hum, well. The EVO was basicly only made cause in 97 FIA decided to use smaller air restrictors to the Turbo cars in GT1 which lost the 993 GT1 about 60 HP or so at the same time Merc entered. They decided to make a new car to stay competetive in FIA-GT, so the EVO got a hugely more advanced aerodynamic body and a compleatly new front end that was much wider (also the rear track was wider) which also ment they had to build new homoligation specials to be able to race, keep in mind the original 993 GT1 of 96 still had a lot in common with the 993 GT2 such as the whole front section of the car and the aero was basicly just put together rather quickly to produce a fair amount of downforce and got quite a lot of drag at the same time, something the EVO sorted out.
However, at LeMans they didnt have the same aero restictors as in FIA-GT so they gained those 60 HP or so back and was by that a whole lot faster compared to non turbo cars which had the advantage in FIA-GT. And only cause the EVO made its debue at LeMans does not mean they only made it to mess with the privateers, that is not at all true.
However, you cant blame Porsche for taking advantage of the rules in this way, they could have done a lot more to the 993 GT1 and the 996 GT1 EVO then they did, both of those where made rather quickly and most important they where on a tight budget at the time! Hench why the cars had a lot in common with the GT2. Porsche simply did enough to beat the rest, wich didnt really work in 97 however. You can only blame this on poor organizing from FIA, they where the ones letting it happend, and they where the ones that really didnt care too much and didnt bother solving the problem so they took the easy way out and saying in 98 we race with no homoligations what so ever! There, everyones happy, no one have any advantage with homoligations and everyone can build whatever they want! And really everyone knew that would never work, which it didnt...
There, now stop debating on weather its Porsche foult or not, it doenst matter, thats not even ont he topic, and I feel this post if very off topic (in true 10-tenths spirit by the looks of it). Anyway, had to post it.

[The359]

Was JB Racing a Porsche-supported team, because they ended up with a GT1 Evo before the end of the 1997 season.

[courageous]

McLaren and Porsche only pushed the envelope (excluding the GT1-98), it was cars like the Mercedes, Toyota, Nissan and Panoz (even if the latter wasn't quite as successful) that were out and out prototypes.

[Adam43]

McLaren F1 Race Car? I've just started reading September's Octane magazine (always get them late as they are fathers hand downs).

Gordon Murray on designing it: The performance cars of the time were too big for the road. He wanted a foot rest for the clutch foot, dials that were visible, room for passengers, good forward vision. He took ages under a blanket perfecting the interior dials and switches. He set design targets - 4.3m long, 1.8m wide, 1000kg (not met) - he did not set any performance targets. He didn't want a turbo (nasty lag). Took two years of work with Kenwood to get the sound system right. Air Con was perfected for the passengers - no defrost that was done by plasma-sprayed laminated glass.

The car needed to be "small enough and practical enough to use as an everyday car".

He chose 17inch wheels, not 18 or 19 as other supercars, "to avoid the teeth-rattling secondary ride". He played with the suspension settings himself and ended up with a car "that rode well enough to use on most road surfaces every day, but was a little too soft for track use. That didn't worry me particularly as I had started right from day one thathtis wouldbe a road car only and if I began thinking race car I would comprimise areas of design..."

Bloody brilliant road car is what it is.

The Octane article is long and great. It has indepth pieces by Nick Mason (brilliant!), Gordon Murray, Mark Hales, Brian Laben and Dean Lanzante. If you can get your hands on a copy read it. From the intro:

To own one, or just to aspire to one, marks you out as an enthusiast of the first order.

[Purist]

In structure, the F1 is basically a formula car with fenders; I don't think even the Enzo goes to some of the extremes the McLaren did. I have Murray's book (though with school, I don't really have time to read it through). But basically, trying to tell me the McLaren F1 is just a road car, or even just another road-going supercar, is as pointless as arguing with my father that the Ferrari 166MM is truly a road car in any meaningful sense.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Purist

But basically, trying to tell me the McLaren F1 is just a road car,

Road car, but not just another road car.

...or even just another road-going supercar,

Supercar, but not just another supercar.

It is above and beyond any other road car. I'm not saying it isn't different to other road or super cars. I am saying it wasn't designed to be a race car.

I'm not saying it is an ordinary road car. I am saying that it was designed to be the perfect drivers road car. It was not designed to be a race car. Achieving that goal involves using carbon techniques, or other methods derived from a racing background, is irrelevant to what I am saying.

The Ferrari 166MM was primarily designed to be a race car, wasn't it?
And the Enzo, didn't go to the extremes as the McLaren, I agree. Again it is irrelevant, the Enzo didn't go to the extremes and isn't as good a road car!
Formula Car with Fenders, I'm not sure I agree, but it is irrelevant, all the changes from the formula car adapt it to be a road car. When Jaguar started putting discs on their road cars, they took something from racing and adapted it for a better road car.

Whatever, the McLaren F1 was not designed to win Le Mans or any championships, that came afterwards. It was designed to be the ultimate road car.

[The Badger]

So , the 911 GT1 is remembered for destroying the BPR ..... Crap !!!

Porsche can hardly be blamed for designing a car to the rules ..... who should be blamed is the persons who wrote the rules ..... Porsche just understood them properly .

It was said at the time ..... that the 911 GT1 was legal , but just not in the spirit of the rules .

My question for you folks is ..... Was the 911 GT1 legal or not ?

[Aysedasi]

Good job I came to this late.......

The Mac was one of the most glorious cars I've ever had the privilege to see and hear on a race track and we would all have been massively the poorer had it not become a race car - as others have said, it certainly wasn't intended to be by its designer. As for the 911GT1 - yep, I loved watching that too, plus the R390 and the sublime GT One - better than another dozen porker GT2s and the (somewhat less than sublime) Venturi........

Can we really blame these cars that raced at least 8-12 years ago for the state of GT racing right now..... I don't. And I'd welcome back the likes of them again tomorrow.

[old man]

When it was made public that McLaren were to make a road car that would sell for $1million I remember thinking they were mad, never sell enough to make a profit. By the time it became reality the supercar market went mad, Nigel Mansell advertised his GT40 second hand for a million£ as I recall and Mclaren sold out their production run

My recollection of the racer was that it was produced reluctantly and only sold to people who Ron Dennis thought could do it justice. A story I heard was that Steve O'Rourke rang Ron Dennis after EMKA won the BGT outright in 1997 (Porsche 911 GT2 T) and said "now will you sell me one".

To suggest that GT1 was killed off in 97 is strange, the 98 Le Mans race had 5 works teams in GT1 as I recall and another 2 in LMP1 (3 if you count Courage) so there must have been other factors than the 911GT1 or the McLaren

[Nordic]

Originally Posted by The Badger

So , the 911 GT1 is remembered for destroying the BPR ..... Crap !!!

Porsche can hardly be blamed for designing a car to the rules ..... who should be blamed is the persons who wrote the rules ..... Porsche just understood them properly .

It was said at the time ..... that the 911 GT1 was legal , but just not in the spirit of the rules .

My question for you folks is ..... Was the 911 GT1 legal or not ?

The BPR rules were devised to encourge cars such as the F40 and F1 onto the track. ie the F1, F40, Venturi etc were designed before the rules were devised and adpted to the track.

Porsche then came along and made a car designed around the regs, Merc and Toyota took it even further away from the original concept of the BPR, again still within the rules but maybe not in the spirt.

When you create a successful series it is only natrual that people will want to win it, The BPR was a very good concept and it filled a void left by the demise of the Group C. Unless you had a cutoff date and said you would not allow cars desiged after a certain date it is inevitable that newer and better cars will come along.

Did the F1 kill GT racing, no it started an era that burned brightly and then withered as almost every incarnation of GT racing has done in the past.

[geeteeone]

Originally Posted by old man

To suggest that GT1 was killed off in 97 is strange, the 98 Le Mans race had 5 works teams in GT1 as I recall and another 2 in LMP1 (3 if you count Courage) so there must have been other factors than the 911GT1 or the McLaren

I think the point is that the privateers had been priced completely out of the market. Here you had a category with big works teams throwing huge amounts of money in, and a privateer in a year old McLaren or Porsche GT1 just could not compete any more.

There was talk of an 'FIA Prototype Championship' for 1999, which would have featured both the closed coupe GT1 cars (but without the need for homologation) and the open top LMP1 cars of the day. Mercedes was ready to commit, but Porsche wouldn't, and without them the series did not have enough entrants to go ahead. GT1 morphed into the GTP class at Le Mans, but with little interest apart from Bentley.

BMW moved on from working with McLaren on the GTR to working with Williams on the LM and LMR prototypes, Panoz developed the GTR-1 into the open-top LMP, and the ALMS started up at just the right time to catch this new generation of prototypes.

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by Nordic

Porsche then came along and made a car designed around the regs, Merc and Toyota took it even further away from the original concept of the BPR, again still within the rules but maybe not in the spirt.

Ok Nordic , i see your point ..... but was the 911 GT1 legal or not ?

Can Porsche be blamed for building a car to the currant (at the time) set of rules ?

I think not

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Good job I came to this late.......

The Mac was one of the most glorious cars I've ever had the privilege to see and hear on a race track and we would all have been massively the poorer had it not become a race car - as others have said, it certainly wasn't intended to be by its designer. As for the 911GT1 - yep, I loved watching that too, plus the R390 and the sublime GT One - better than another dozen porker GT2s and the (somewhat less than sublime) Venturi........

Can we really blame these cars that raced at least 8-12 years ago for the state of GT racing right now..... I don't. And I'd welcome back the likes of them again tomorrow.

I agree. My stance here was that the McLaren was foremost a road car. On the more general topic, I loved them all. None of them destroyed GT, they made GT great. Often the best periods come just before the series implodes I guess. If having cars can only be achieved by having boom and bust then it is probably a price worth paying. Hopefully the one doesn't always come with the other.

[Nordic]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Ok Nordic , i see your point ..... but was the 911 GT1 legal or not ?

Can Porsche be blamed for building a car to the currant (at the time) set of rules ?

I think not

It was fully legal, otherwise it could not have raced, mind you so was the Dauer Porsche

And no, I do not blame Porsche, neither do I blame the people that drew up the regs at the time, neither do I blame Audi and Pug for using the breaks given to Oil burners. It is the designers duty to take full advantage of any regs and exploit any loopholes.

The GT1 cars evolved into the regs, maybe they should have imposed higher production numbers, but we have seen in the past that would not stop those that want to win at all costs.

IMHO I think all series are doomed to suffer the same way and once they have died, its up to those that make the regs to be creative and encourage new ideas. The key is not to let them wither away to a shadow of thier greatness but be bold and plan ahead.