Daytona Prototypes....

ZXKawboy · 3 Jan 2003, 22:18 (Ref:463096)

Just wondering if there were any plans on adding information on these fine cars to the site any time soon? I've found the Grand Am page to be somewhat wonky when I try to go to their site, and I've not been able to find more information *anywhere* on them.

Also....

I wonder if they're going to be legal for LeMans? Seems to me that somebody will get the idea (if they haven't already) and build one to ACO rules to run in whatever class will be applicable..or at least *try* to build one.

That's all for now...

laters, folks...

cybersdorf · 4 Jan 2003, 00:27 (Ref:463255)

Build a DSP built to Le Mans rules, and you'll end up with an LMP...

- the regulations are quite different (this has been discussed, with gusto, in another thread called "DSP vs. Audi V8" or something like that).
Info added to "the site" - this board is affiliated with many sites, are you referring to www.mulsannescorner.com?
Over to you Mike!

ZXKawboy · 4 Jan 2003, 00:59 (Ref:463272)

Oh yeah, been a big fan of Mike's work for a while now.

I wasn't sure if anyone else had broached the subject, that's all.

Thanks for the update, though.

MulsanneMike · 4 Jan 2003, 04:19 (Ref:463327)

This is a bit of a sticky subject, but I have posted my personal opinions on DSP once here on the forum. At this time I've judged the DSP to fall outside what we consider a prototype and hence we won't be covering them. There just isn't enough technical interest. Kind of the same reason we don't cover GTS or GT. Add to that very rigid rules, I think you'll find little, if any, variation over the years in DSP, and once the first season is covered, there really would be little reason to continue coverage from a technical standpoint.

Es Nes · 4 Jan 2003, 05:52 (Ref:463336)

how about any of the 3.5l group c cars?

MulsanneMike · 4 Jan 2003, 13:16 (Ref:463512)

Actually we're working on covering two of them at the moment. Only problem with covering the 3.5 liter cars is tracking down the relevant people and that takes time.

Dauntless · 4 Jan 2003, 14:49 (Ref:463565)

MulsanneMike, when you say that "we won't be covering them", do you mean that you won't be building a page on your website, or that we may not discuss them on this forum?

I assume the former, but find it curious that you devote considerable coverage on your website to the Riley & Scotts, which are, after all, essentially "technically uninteresting" tube-frame-chassis cars when compared to the carbon tubbed R8, Courage C60, et al.

I agree with your assessment of the looks of DSPs, but wonder why you've decided to draw the line so arbitrarily? From what I've read, the new R&S DSP is little more than a Mark III with a rear subframe and roll cage tacked on...

On a technical note, I couldn't disagree more with your assessment that GA's tight rules make for uninteresting, "cookie-cutter" cars. While I admit that loose rules and a wide open budget make for sexier and faster cars, GA's tight rules just mean that the teams will have to employ even more subtle and clever tricks to extract the last few pounds of downforce while lowering Cd. Identifying and bringing to light those refinements sounds like it's right up your alley.

I hope you'll reconsider your decision to forego discussion of DSPs...

MulsanneMike · 4 Jan 2003, 15:45 (Ref:463610)

Discuss away on the forum! Its Craig's forum, not mine.

And I wholeheartdely disagree with your assement of the "low-tech" MkIII C as it simply embodies the excitment and deisgn range available in LMPs. That in and of itself is worthy considering its high-brow company in the category. You won't see that in DSP.

I stand by my assement of DSPs potential evolution. So far what I've seen is very underwhelming. Mulsanne's Corner is dedicated to cutting edge design. I see DSPs as a step backwards. We might as well be covering GT40s on the historic circuit. Frankly I've been put off by the rules makers arbitray writing of the rules. Why such large greenhouses? I know thye were approaced by one manufacturer early about the odd proportions it conveyed. Why the elimination of any carbon in the chassis? The R&S MkIII carbon/tube frame hybrid was hardly extravagent. Why mandatory front radiators? Quite frankly, where the air enters the car, how it is managed, is what gives sports cars their unique looks. If you're worried about crash protection, mandate spec structure. They did it for side protection, why not frontal and elimate the need to mandate the radiator up front.

But ultimately I am open to being swayed. So perhaps its more accurate that secretly I have a wait and see attitude though I'm pessimistic? Just being frank and honest here. I don't see the fuss over DSPs, they aren't even close to being WSC equivalents at the same period in their development and they aren't the answer to the escalating costs in sports car racing.

E46 · 4 Jan 2003, 17:15 (Ref:463677)

During one moment I though it was Ekstrom´s TT in Daytona!!

**ghinzani** · 4 Jan 2003, 19:47 (Ref:463761)

Quote:

Originally posted by E46

During one moment I though it was Ekstrom´s TT in Daytona!!

Whose particular car is that Red Bull one? the website wasnt particulary helpful in pointing that out!

E46 · 4 Jan 2003, 19:55 (Ref:463769)

Quote:

Originally posted by ghinzani
Whose particular car is that Red Bull one? the website wasnt particulary helpful in pointing that out!

It´s BMW Picchio Grand Am prototype, with Law/Said/Riccitelli/Quester at wheel.

I don´t like Grand Am prototypes but in this case I have to recognize the car looks beatiful!!

**ghinzani** · 4 Jan 2003, 20:17 (Ref:463784)

aha , thanks for that!

cybersdorf · 4 Jan 2003, 20:50 (Ref:463793)

The DSPs are what they are.
Anyhow, what's much more worrying is the way the SR2 class is so WAAAY off the pace. They are slower than the GTs. GrandAm should really reconsider those restrictions.

E46 · 4 Jan 2003, 20:59 (Ref:463800)

Quote:

Originally posted by cybersdorf
Anyhow, what's much more worrying is the way the SR2 class is so WAAAY off the pace. They are slower than the GTs. GrandAm should really reconsider those restrictions.

I don´t understand the political of restrictions of Grand Am. If I would have money I would run a GT class car, GT cars have the same speed of always but their rivals are more and more slow.

In my opinion they (Grand am chiefs) are in the wrong way.

cybersdorf · 4 Jan 2003, 21:27 (Ref:463834)

Quote:

Originally posted by E46
If I would have money I would run a GT class car

Aha, good point - I would go for a "tubeframer" GTS. Wit hdecent preparation, they are the dark horses this year.

E46 · 4 Jan 2003, 21:34 (Ref:463840)

Quote:

Originally posted by cybersdorf
Aha, good point - I would go for a "tubeframer" GTS. Wit hdecent preparation, they are the dark horses this year.

Good shot

.

About Corvettes in Daytona test, Are they Pratt&Miller cars or developed by private teams???

Speeddemon555 · 4 Jan 2003, 22:14 (Ref:463886)

Looks like there's no AGT class this year.

cybersdorf · 4 Jan 2003, 22:18 (Ref:463889)

I don't think they are P&M cars, they definitely aren't ACO-spec "unibody" cars like the ones that race in ALMS. They are TransAm/AGT style cars that are eligible for GTS this year. P&M also used to build such chassis but they do that anymore. Looks like Derhaag is the team of the hour there - www.derhaag.com

cybersdorf · 4 Jan 2003, 22:19 (Ref:463892)

Quote:

Originally posted by Speeddemon555
Looks like there's no AGT class this year.

No that's part of GTS now.

E46 · 5 Jan 2003, 00:07 (Ref:463986)

Quote:

Originally posted by cybersdorf
I don't think they are P&M cars, they definitely aren't ACO-spec "unibody" cars like the ones that race in ALMS. They are TransAm/AGT style cars that are eligible for GTS this year. P&M also used to build such chassis but they do that anymore. Looks like Derhaag is the team of the hour there - www.derhaag.com

Thanks for the URL Cybers.

cybersdorf · 5 Jan 2003, 00:09 (Ref:463988)

...unfortunately they haven't updated their site since November.

veeten · 5 Jan 2003, 02:04 (Ref:464077)

Quote:

Originally posted by Dauntless
I assume the former, but find it curious that you devote considerable coverage on your website to the Riley & Scotts, which are, after all, essentially "technically uninteresting" tube-frame-chassis cars when compared to the carbon tubbed R8, Courage C60, et al.

I agree with your assessment of the looks of DSPs, but wonder why you've decided to draw the line so arbitrarily? From what I've read, the new R&S DSP is little more than a Mark III with a rear subframe and roll cage tacked on...

In that same coverage there is also the Rafanelli R&S, with the redesign of the rear bodywork to enhance aero direction and downforce, and all the while keeping the essential chassis framework intact.

Then there is the R&S of R&M Racing in FIA SCC. By season's end, there were major body changes in the front and rear, which made for a more competitive car. In the final race of the season, it qualified 3rd, behind only the Dome and the Pescarolo Courage. Not bad for a chassis with only body changes.

This shows that the chassis still has life, unlike the Ferrari 333SP where it was only a lack of exploration of it's potential that ultimately ended it's existance. Doran will find this out, when they contest the Dallara in ALMS this season. With the peices that Oreca had at their disposal last season being used, the drivers will discover the true abilities that were known only to de Chaunac's boys.

cybersdorf · 5 Jan 2003, 02:12 (Ref:464080)

The R&M isn't just an R&S with modified bodywork, though.
http://www.remracing.com

veeten · 5 Jan 2003, 04:24 (Ref:464131)

Yes, I've seen the site and the car. In fact, that's the reason why I included it. The majority of the chassis was kept, but it proves that you can still make a challenger out of it. Which means that the Crawford SSC could also be re-engineered, with similar results.

These are end results of what a more "engineer-friendly" chassis formula can accomplish, an older chassis can gain new life, especially when a team or designer can bring something extra to it. Something that "spec-racing" will never have.

H16 · 5 Jan 2003, 09:53 (Ref:464279)

Grand Am said last year it was "fully commited" to the SRP II cars. With the added weight and reduced fuel tank, those cars will be seriously outclassed. One has to wonder why Grand Am felt the need to effectively kill the class, as it would proabably be wiser to run a GTS or GT car.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
A quick question about the Daytona Prototypes...	DiscoGoober	North American Racing	14	16 Oct 2003 03:01
Daytona Prototypes...mid engine rockets?	H16	North American Racing	19	27 Jun 2003 15:54
Daytona Prototypes	SurfXTC	North American Racing	38	22 Dec 2002 14:15
Daytona Prototypes?	H16	North American Racing	22	18 Feb 2002 05:24
prototypes	moto1	Bike Racing	4	27 Aug 2001 15:41