Perspective on how stagnant road racing performance levels have become (closed)

[X-Guy]

Top Fuel drag bike riders are running 1,000+ horsepower bikes and hitting 240+ mph in the quarter.

Last year a rider with a 400 horsepower Hayabusa hit 250 mph at the end of the standing mile on the land speed trials track at Maxton, North Carolina.

In 1995 I watched a 3,000 pound 1,200 horsepower lakester (dragster style car) with skinny land speed tires and Bonneville gearing clock 255 mph at the end of the standing mile during land speed trials at Spence Field, Georgia.

In 1938, both the Auto Union and Mercedes Benz streamliners clocked over 270 mph on the autobahn. This remains the highest speed ever reached on a public road in Europe.

[cybersdorf]

But then, that's not really racing is it.

[independent]

So, what is the price of tea in China then?

[X-Guy]

Originally posted by cybersdorf
But then, that's not really racing is it.

Speed scares Europeans. The only ones with any guts have been British and German.

[Cadete]

Maybe the top speeds have been stagnant, but look at aceleration and cornering figures, there should be sensible advance.

[Jeffrey-Lee]

I think we might have a "moster" on board.

I'm not even gonna comment on the subject put forward.

[X-Guy]

Originally posted by Jeffrey-Lee
I think we might have a "moster" on board.

I'm not even gonna comment on the subject put forward.

I think we have someone onboard who resorts to name calling because he doesn't have the background to respond to the subject of the thread.

Why is it, for example, that horsepower levels of current racing sportscars are no greater than what the Auto Union and Mercedes Benz teams were running in 1937 and 1938? Why do current racing sportscars have top speeds SLOWER than what the Mercedes Benz and Auto Union streamliners were hitting at the 1937 Berlin Grand Prix? Have not construction methods, brakes and aerodynamics evolved in 70 years to handle higher speeds?

[Jeffrey-Lee]

Because if we'd put a compressor/turbo on 3.0 litre engines like those teams ran back then we'd have cars which would pose a HUGE safety risk for everyone involved in the sport, including spectators.

It's one of the reasons racecar regulations are put in place, to slow down the cars. Confronting a designer with these restrictions alse pushes them to inovate which is very interesting.

[X-Guy]

Originally posted by Jeffrey-Lee
Because if we'd put a compressor/turbo on 3.0 litre engines like those teams ran back then we'd have cars which would pose a HUGE safety risk for everyone involved in the sport, including spectators.

It's one of the reasons racecar regulations are put in place, to slow down the cars. Confronting a designer with these restrictions alse pushes them to inovate which is very interesting.

There are vehicles running with exotic fuels and superchargers right now not on 3.0 liter engines but on 7.0 liter enginess. Both the open wheel and coupe versions are running over 330 mph. So far not that big a hazard to spectators (I guess because FIA wasn't writing the rules).

[KA]

Originally posted by X-Guy
Why is it, for example, that horsepower levels of current racing sportscars are no greater than what the Auto Union and Mercedes Benz teams were running in 1937 and 1938? Why do current racing sportscars have top speeds SLOWER than what the Mercedes Benz and Auto Union streamliners were hitting at the 1937 Berlin Grand Prix? Have not construction methods, brakes and aerodynamics evolved in 70 years to handle higher speeds?

How relevant are top speeds and horsepower levels though, when the overall package in terms of aerodynamics and handling has progressed so much that actual lap times and peeds are way in advance of those 30's streamliners?

[X-Guy]

Originally posted by independent
So, what is the price of tea in China then?

For one thing, those Auto Union and Mercedes streamliners of 1937/38 managed to go about 90 mph faster than that Mercedes Le Mans coupe of a few years back without flying.

[X-Guy]

Originally posted by KA
How relevant are top speeds and horsepower levels though, when the overall package in terms of aerodynamics and handling has progressed so much that actual lap times and peeds are way in advance of those 30's streamliners?

It would be interesting to see how close to contemporary performance a 1937/38 Mercedes or Auto Union Grand Prix car would come after being fitted with modern brakes and tires.

[Tim Northcutt]

Originally posted by KA
How relevant are top speeds and horsepower levels though, when the overall package in terms of aerodynamics and handling has progressed so much that actual lap times and peeds are way in advance of those 30's streamliners?

A Case In Point:

In 1996 at the Indy 500, the race cars had reached their pinnacle of speed by setting one-lap and 4-lap records that many thought would not be broken...both are around 235 mph...I can look up the actual speeds if you wish, but let me get to the point:

Those cars had turbos running at 45 lbs. of boost and created about 750-800 horsepower....

Starting in 1997, the IRL mandated new engine and chassis packages that had larger wings, more downforce, and engines with reduced hosrepower to slow the cars down...and they made additional changes since by reducing engine displacement and rpm to reduce speeds even more...

Last year, teams were running within 2 mph of those records in a car that was not as trimmed out, had more downforce and drag, and had nornally-aspirated engines that had somethwere between 100-125 less horsepower than those turbos that set the record....

That's advancement in aero design, engines, torque multiplication, and gearing.....

despite the restrictions, they were nearly as fast, and if they would have had decent weather on "Pole Day" last year, those records would have been in serious jeopardy....

So I agree with KA....I would not judge how much horsepower or how fast a given car runs to determine "stagnation".....

One must look at the context in which the race times are set and the rules which are in place to govern a given series....


and given that context, sportscars have advanced by leaps and bounds technologically and aerodynamically....and speed has not suffered because of it...

[pirenzo]

Originally posted by X-Guy
I think we have someone onboard who resorts to name calling because he doesn't have the background to respond to the subject of the thread.

Why is it, for example, that horsepower levels of current racing sportscars are no greater than what the Auto Union and Mercedes Benz teams were running in 1937 and 1938? Why do current racing sportscars have top speeds SLOWER than what the Mercedes Benz and Auto Union streamliners were hitting at the 1937 Berlin Grand Prix? Have not construction methods, brakes and aerodynamics evolved in 70 years to handle higher speeds?

Well, they are greater horsepower levels if you think about it...

The most powerful pre-war cars had about 650bhp from monster 5.7 litre supercharged engines.
Now we have 850+bhp from naturally aspirated 3 litre cars.
If BMW put their mind to it, they could build a supercharged 5.7 litre engine with 1500bhp...

[X-Guy]

Originally posted by Tim Northcutt
A Case In Point:

In 1996 at the Indy 500, the race cars had reached their pinnacle of speed by setting one-lap and 4-lap records that many thought would not be broken...both are around 235 mph...I can look up the actual speeds if you wish, but let me get to the point:

Those cars had turbos running at 45 lbs. of boost and created about 750-800 horsepower....

Starting in 1997, the IRL mandated new engine and chassis packages that had larger wings, more downforce, and engines with reduced hosrepower to slow the cars down...and they made additional changes since by reducing engine displacement and rpm to reduce speeds even more...

Last year, teams were running within 2 mph of those records in a car that was not as trimmed out, had more downforce and drag, and had nornally-aspirated engines that had somethwere between 100-125 less horsepower than those turbos that set the record....

That's advancement in aero design, engines, torque multiplication, and gearing.....

despite the restrictions, they were nearly as fast, and if they would have had decent weather on "Pole Day" last year, those records would have been in serious jeopardy....

So I agree with KA....I would not judge how much horsepower or how fast a given car runs to determine "stagnation".....

One must look at the context in which the race times are set and the rules which are in place to govern a given series....


and given that context, sportscars have advanced by leaps and bounds technologically and aerodynamically....and speed has not suffered because of it...

If sportsracing cars were running 250 mph or 300 mph down the straights I wonder if spectators would be complaining half so much about lack of passing due to shortened braking distances. I also wonder how present lap times compare to what is really possible as opposed to what the rules allow.

[jhansen]

This is obviously flame bait from someone who wants to insight argument on the stated topic.

Sir, you obviously really do not grasp the concept of racing, especially in the sense of sportscars and endurance racing. Over a single lap these cars are amazing. The times they make given their RESTRICTED horsepower is mind boggeling. Furthermore, the fact that they can more or less match their qualifying pace for 24 hours is even more staggering. The great Group C cars couldn't even match that feat. The modern cars spend less time in the pits and are as reliable as ever.

Let's see a drag bike run its top speed for even an hour. Of course it wouldn't, it's not made for it. Sportscars are not about pure horsepower. But you probably already knew that, or did you?

One further point you are obviously missing, and which I hinted at earlier. These cars are restricted by a set of rules. The rules are intended to emphasize safety and to promote competition. Drag racing is clearly a different kind of competition. Furthermore, regarding the safety issue, these are CLOSED course race tracks. That will always limit what you can do in terms of speed. F1 is perhaps one of the few formulas that pushes the circuits to be safer. Adding chicanes etc. Le Mans did the same thing. You either alter the circuits, slow the cars, or both. It's not a difficult concept. The IRL has slowed speeds (clearly a case of a type of car that has outgrown the racetracks). It hasn't diminished their series either. F1 is looking at doing the same.

But through all of this, the specticle of road racing, and certainly sportscar racing has not been lost. It remains an amazing form of racing and quite luckily is like no other.

[Jeffrey-Lee]

I wonder what the public would think about cars crashing together at 300mhp on a road track, driver's killed, debris flying into the grandstands etc etc. great action...

[pirenzo]

Originally posted by X-Guy
Have not construction methods, brakes and aerodynamics evolved in 70 years to handle higher speeds?

Yeah, they have. But the human body won't stretch much further...
Those stream liners did 270mph in a straight line.
But if they were to negotiate a fast corner like Eau Rouge at Spa at half that speed they would have gone straight off the road.
A modern grand prix car will do it with ease at 180mph.
And the driver will pull 4g lateral in the process.
The pressure that puts on a drivers brain and internal organs is massive. My point is that if cars were much faster, drivers would start dying at the wheel from having their brains squashed against the inside of their skull.

[Tim Northcutt]

Originally posted by X-Guy
If sportsracing cars were running 250 mph or 300 mph down the straights I wonder if spectators would be complaining half so much about lack of passing due to shortened braking distances. I also wonder how present lap times compare to what is really possible as opposed to what the rules allow.

Everyone has his or her own opinion concerning what they enjoy about racing....

For me, if there isn't any passing or close racing action that requires both speed and driver skills over a sustained period of time, plus the need to adjust to changing conditions, it is not racing...

it is a turd....

I enjoy speed....but to be honest, I was born in Indianapolis and have lived here most of my life...

But you couldn't "pay me the price of the ticket" (whatever they sell for) to attend one session of the U.S. Nationals Drag Racing Championship at Raceway Park over Labor Day weekend....one of the biggest, and most prestigious drag racing events on the planet Earth...

Why....It's a quick shot down a straight piece of pavement that lasts just a few seconds....no strategy, no factors involving sustained driving skills over a period of time....no passing or exchanges of position.....

Kinda like premature ejaculation....with loud sounds and something flashy to watch for a few seconds of "thrill"....

To give you an analogy, racing based on one factor...speed in a 1/4 mile...is like playing checkers...you jump the other guy's pieces to win....

racing based on many factors, speed plus sustained driving skills, pit strategy, adjustments to a cars handling based on changing conductions, etc., is like chess......a lot more variables and different factors based on the pieces involved on the board that has a much higher degree of sophisitcation....

and when it comes to sportscar endurance racing...and a long race like Le Mans or Sebring.....that's like the multi-tiered chess boards like you see them playing on "Star Trek".....the many variables of normal chess multiplied exponentially....


So to answer the question you asked:

"If sportsracing cars were running 250 mph or 300 mph down the straights I wonder if spectators would be complaining half so much about lack of passing due to shortened braking distances."


I'd be *****ing up a storm.....because it would suck....it would be a 300 mph "street parade".....

But like I said...everyone has his or her own tastes when it comes to racing...

Yours seems to be different than mine...

I don't have a problem with that....you're entitled to it...and I respect that...

[jhansen]

Well to be fair Tim, I think you're selling drag racing a bit short. I do not profess to be a great fan of this sport, but the cars involve a lot more tuning then you are giving them credit for. To hook up the power a top fuel car has is a science unto itself. The amount of adjustments made to tire pressure, the clutch, and I suppose the top wing is quite impressive. It's not my cup of tea, but to each their own. I've been a few times, and it has its own special quality. I think you're under-rating the driving ability to. Their reaction time to the tree is quite a special skill. Again though, it doesn't turn me on. But it does impress me to watch that car hook up off the line with all that power. The sound is wonderful to. But the only "racing" I've seen on the quarter has come from the pro-stock class. They definitely run side by side, albeit briefly.

But again, the point of this argument for me is that outright horsepower/or top speed really is not the be all and end all of sportscar racing. The Audi at Le Mans is a great case in point. It never has had the top speed advantage at Le Mans. But over the entire lap, that car does beautifully. And as you can see when there in person, the car is on rails. It is reliable and very fuel efficient. All that with over 600bhp. A wonderful technical achievment. I for one can't wait for the new wave of LMP1 machinery. The bar will be raised yet again. Unfortunately we havn't seen those new cars yet, which has nothing to do with this thread. But they will come and I will marvel at them.

[pounetbf]

Just to remind :
The top speed in Le Mans is actally 405 km/h (252mph);
with a 2 liters L4 turbo engine and standard fuel
and this car was able to run this way 24 on le Mans track.
Certainly none of the dragsters and other named here.
Those pre-war cars (MB and Auto union were able of a top speed on a straight, but braking and cornering was a desastre.

For safety reasons 700 or 800 HP seems to be a maximum.

[X-Guy]

Originally posted by pirenzo
Well, they are greater horsepower levels if you think about it...

The most powerful pre-war cars had about 650bhp from monster 5.7 litre supercharged engines.
Now we have 850+bhp from naturally aspirated 3 litre cars.
If BMW put their mind to it, they could build a supercharged 5.7 litre engine with 1500bhp...

If they put their mind to it, BMW could probably build a 5.7 liter supercharged road racing engine developing 2,000 or 2,500 horsepower. Porsche was building a 1,500 horsepower supercharged 5.7 liter road racing engine 30 years ago.

[Tim Northcutt]

Originally posted by jhansen
Well to be fair Tim, I think you're selling drag racing a bit short. I do not profess to be a great fan of this sport, but the cars involve a lot more tuning then you are giving them credit for. To hook up the power a top fuel car has is a science unto itself. The amount of adjustments made to tire pressure, the clutch, and I suppose the top wing is quite impressive. It's not my cup of tea, but to each their own. I've been a few times, and it has its own special quality. I think you're under-rating the driving ability to. Their reaction time to the tree is quite a special skill. Again though, it doesn't turn me on. But it does impress me to watch that car hook up off the line with all that power. The sound is wonderful to. But the only "racing" I've seen on the quarter has come from the pro-stock class. They definitely run side by side, albeit briefly.

But again, the point of this argument for me is that outright horsepower/or top speed really is not the be all and end all of sportscar racing. The Audi at Le Mans is a great case in point. It never has had the top speed advantage at Le Mans. But over the entire lap, that car does beautifully. And as you can see when there in person, the car is on rails. It is reliable and very fuel efficient. All that with over 600bhp. A wonderful technical achievment. I for one can't wait for the new wave of LMP1 machinery. The bar will be raised yet again. Unfortunately we havn't seen those new cars yet, which has nothing to do with this thread. But they will come and I will marvel at them.

I do understand the specifics, of drag racing, jhansen....

I was trying to condense it into the raw aspects of what different aspects of racing provide without submitting a post that rivals "War & Peace" in length and detail....

and your second paragraph is exactly why I am attracted to a race like Le Mans, too...

There's so much more to racing than horsepower & top speed....

[pounetbf]

Originally posted by pirenzo
Well, they are greater horsepower levels if you think about it...

The most powerful pre-war cars had about 650bhp from monster 5.7 litre supercharged engines.
Now we have 850+bhp from naturally aspirated 3 litre cars.
If BMW put their mind to it, they could build a supercharged 5.7 litre engine with 1500bhp...

certainly not : the turbo F 20 years ago already had 1200Cv for 1.5 l.

We can easely imagine now more than 5000 bhp in a 5.7 turbocharged engine and standard fuel.

(without going to the 7 bars (100psi) of overpressure already existng in some military engines...)

[pounetbf]

sorry, I was speaking of formula 1 turbo