Have NASCAR got it wrong?

Oh right. So HP made through displacement is pure and other kinds are, well, we don't talk about that.

Oh right. So HP made through displacement is pure and other kinds are, well, we don't talk about that.

As I said where better than NASCAR to keep the old rule there ain't no substitute for cubic inches alive.But no one is saying that a small engine won't make HP it just won't make so much of it assuming that all the bullcrap rules,that have been imposed over the years,to try to prove otherwise are removed.But in general HP made by running a smaller engine at higher revs is a lot less reliable and a lot more expensive than HP made by taking in the same amount of air for less revolutions using a larger engine.Which is probably why the average F1 engine cost for the year is probably a lot more expensive than that of using a big capacity production based V8.

Edited by Vanishing Point, 03 March 2012 - 21:34.

No one wants to watch an F1 car that sounds like a stock car.

No one wants to watch an F1 car that sounds like a stock car.

But there's plenty of people that would like to see an F1 car get it's engine blown to bits by making it try to beat a production AMG supercharged V8 powered LMP car over 24 hours of Le Mans if only the rule makers would allow the point to be proven.

Edited by Vanishing Point, 03 March 2012 - 21:42.

Under that scenario why wouldn't the F1 car run an engine to maximise the rules it's presented with? They're not running their current configuration out of loyalty.

Under that scenario why wouldn't the F1 car run an engine to maximise the rules it's presented with? They're not running their current configuration out of loyalty.

If,as you're saying,all HP is pure and equal,regardless of wether it's produced by a smaller engine or a bigger one,what would be the problem of running the F1 car under the rules it's got against that 6 litre + supercharged V8 powered LMP car over a 24 hour race ??.

It isn't equal.

A 6 litre superchared V8 will make a different amount of HP and torque than the current F1 regs. It may be more, it may be less. It will definitely have a different performance curve.

Ignoring the practical issues like the F1 car being quite a bit faster, it could be competitive with a vastly detuned engine.

It isn't equal.

A 6 litre superchared V8 will make a different amount of HP and torque than the current F1 regs. It may be more, it may be less. It will definitely have a different performance curve.

Ignoring the practical issues like the F1 car being quite a bit faster, it could be competitive with a vastly detuned engine.

Do you understand exactly by how much you're going to need to de tune your F1 screamer to make it survive a 24 hour race and how much HP you'll be left with when you've done it compared to how much I've got.

But you've mentioned the word torque so now you're starting to get it.

HP is just torque multiplied by engine speed and my Merc LMP car makes a similar amount of HP,BUT,the difference is it does it by multiplying a lot more torque by a lot less rpm as your F1 screamer did before you had to de tune it.So are you ready to admit yet that HP made by displacement is more 'pure' than HP made by a small engined screamer yet??.

But as for your F1 car ever being 'faster' than my 6 litre + forced induction LMP car you really must be joking.

Edited by Vanishing Point, 03 March 2012 - 23:09.

No. Because this is engineering not religion.

No. Because this is engineering not religion.

Religion based on fact in this case.

I'm not sure how competitive that car would be if we ran it in 2012.

I'm not sure how competitive that car would be if we ran it in 2012.

It wouldn't be that car because that car only has a 5 Litre engine so 'only' 250 mph flat out on the Mulsanne.But of course the rule makers wouldn't allow the continuation of it's development because they knew that it would make an F1 car look like the mickey mouse Kart that it really is.

Do you by any chance like drag racing?

Follow-up question. Does 'propster' mean anything to you?

If anyone thinks that they can make a production saloon fitted with something much smaller go much faster there'd be nothing in the rules to stop them.But I thought it was all because of the fact that there really ain't no substitute for cubic inches that created all the whingeing from competitors getting beat by bigger engined opposition that created all the bullcrap rules over the years related to 'equalisation' by way of restrictors,capacity limits,and weight penalties in most types of so called 'racing'.

You need to separate various racing concepts. The chassis rules are one concept. Performance controls like BoP and spec are a different concept.

There are at least a dozen different groups and tuning standards at various national and international levels so "production cars" is not very descriptive. What do you want? Group N? Group A? S2000 chassis? FIA GT3? ACO GT2? What homologation quantities will you require? If there are no homologation quantities, you won't be racing production street cars for long. After homologation quantities you must create dimensional restrictions or homologation clauses to define "sedan" so that someone doesn't show up in a Lamborghini Aventador and ruin your fun. You'll also have to homologate electronics.

Then you have to figure out how to make it safe since the cars will probably have 1000hp engines. Performance controls of some kind will be required whether you like it or not. Either homologation standards for the circuits to eliminate tracks with high trap speeds, or hard control tires, or air-restriction, or something. Aero standards and testing will be necessary. You'll also have to figure out how to fuel 2mpg-racecars without creating rolling firebombs or an ecological crisis.

After you get the tuning standards set, which will include a license to borrow homologation papers from another sanctioning body, you have to convince the TV companies to buy your show, and you have to have a business model for private teams. If one car is better than all the rest, you'll end up with a one make series. No TV companies will buy it, the manufacturers will stop trying, and private teams won't race b/c they won't have any funding. The fans might not even watch if the racing is weak. You'll need an unconventional business/entertainment model to glue it all together, and someone important who thinks it will work. You have an interesting idea, but you refer to the rules as bullcrap, which indicates that you do not understand sanctioning. BoP and spec racing are mainly bullcrap, but they are only a small part of the rules.

Do you by any chance like drag racing?

Follow-up question. Does 'propster' mean anything to you?

(1) Yes

(2) Only having checked it out and as far as I've found from the info can't see any connection with it and the future of NASCAR whatsoever in the sense that there seems to be plenty of potential left in the idea of big unrestricted,forced induction engine powered,production saloons,in racing if only the rule makers allowed them just as would be the case in LMP cars ??.

You need to separate various racing concepts. The chassis rules are one concept. Performance controls like BoP and spec are a different concept.

There are at least a dozen different groups and tuning standards at various national and international levels so "production cars" is not very descriptive. What do you want? Group N? Group A? S2000 chassis? FIA GT3? ACO GT2? What homologation quantities will you require? If there are no homologation quantities, you won't be racing production street cars for long. After homologation quantities you must create dimensional restrictions or homologation clauses to define "sedan" so that someone doesn't show up in a Lamborghini Aventador and ruin your fun. You'll also have to homologate electronics.

Then you have to figure out how to make it safe since the cars will probably have 1000hp engines. Performance controls of some kind will be required whether you like it or not. Either homologation standards for the circuits to eliminate tracks with high trap speeds, or hard control tires, or air-restriction, or something. Aero standards and testing will be necessary. You'll also have to figure out how to fuel 2mpg-racecars without creating rolling firebombs or an ecological crisis.

After you get the tuning standards set, which will include a license to borrow homologation papers from another sanctioning body, you have to convince the TV companies to buy your show, and you have to have a business model for private teams. If one car is better than all the rest, you'll end up with a one make series. No TV companies will buy it, the manufacturers will stop trying, and private teams won't race b/c they won't have any funding. The fans might not even watch if the racing is weak. You'll need an unconventional business/entertainment model to glue it all together, and someone important who thinks it will work. You have an interesting idea, but you refer to the rules as bullcrap, which indicates that you do not understand sanctioning. BoP and spec racing are mainly bullcrap, but they are only a small part of the rules.

Keep it simple is usually the best form of rule making.Homologation would just be a case of must be four door production car with no parts used except those available on the customer options list in the sales brochure except for free choice of tyres and usual safety equipment and if Group C could manage during the pre Mulsanne chicane years,or even those 1960's NASCAR cars for that matter,without turning cars into bombs or causing an ecological crisis then I'm sure that racing some production saloons now wouldn't either.Although I'd doubt that even with the incentive of unrestricted engines I'd doubt that figure of 1,000 hp cars being a realistic figure if they want to keep the product reliable and affordable.

However assuming all of those rules that you've listed above applied during the 1960's it just makes the type of racing which they eventually ended up with even more surprising in that they seemed to have reached a very similar conclusion to what I've been saying despite everything in the rule book being against them.

Edited by Vanishing Point, 04 March 2012 - 00:44.

Follow-up question. Does 'propster' mean anything to you?

The correct answer is of course "BEAM AXLE".

[edit] Early chariot racing

It is unknown exactly when chariot racing began, but it may have been as old as chariots themselves. It is known from artistic evidence on pottery that the sport existed in the Mycenaean world,[1] but the first literary reference to a chariot race is the one described by Homer, at the funeral games of Patroclus.[2] The participants in this race were Diomedes, Eumelus, Antilochus, Menelaus, and Meriones. The race, which was one lap around the stump of a tree, was won by Diomedes, who received a slave woman and a cauldron as his prize. A chariot race was also said to be the event that founded the Olympic Games; according to one legend, mentioned by Pindar, King Oenomaus challenged his daughter Hippodamia's suitors to a race, but was defeated by Pelops, who founded the Games in honour of his victory.[3]

[edit] Olympic Games





Chariot racing on a black-figure hydria from Attica, ca. 510 BC
In the ancient Olympic Games, as well as the other Panhellenic Games, there were both four-horse (tethrippon, Greek: τέθριππον) and two-horse (synoris, Greek: ξυνωρὶς) chariot races, which were essentially the same aside from the number of horses.[4] The chariot racing event was first added to the Olympics in 680 BC with the games expanding from a one day to a two day event to accommodate the new event (but was not, in reality, the founding event).[5] The chariot race was not as prestigious as the stadion (the foot race), but it was more important than other equestrian events such as racing on horseback, which were dropped from the Olympic Games very early on.[6]

The races themselves were held in the hippodrome, which held both chariot races and riding races.[7] The hippodrome was situated at the south-east corner of the sanctuary of Olympia, on the large flat area south of the stadium and ran almost parallel to the latter. Until recently, its exact location was unknown, since it is buried by several meters of sedimentary material from the Alfeios River. In 2008, however, Norbert Muller and staff of the German Archeological Institute used radar to locate a large, rectangular structure similar to Pausanias's description. Pausanias, who visited Olympia in the second century BC, describes the monument as a large, elongated, flat space, approximately 780 meters long and 320 meters wide (four stadia long and one stadefour plethra wide). The elongated racecourse was divided longitudinally into two tracks by a stone or wooden barrier, the embolon. All the horses or chariots ran on one track towards the east, then turned around the embolon and headed back west. Distances varied according to the event. The racecourse was surrounded by natural (to the north) and artificial (to the south and east) banks for the spectators; a special place was reserved for the judges on the west side of the north bank.[8]





The Charioteer of Delphi, one of the most famous statues surviving from Ancient Greece. Like modern jockeys, chariot racers were chosen for their lightness, but also needed to be tall, so they were frequently teenagers.
The race was begun by a procession into the hippodrome, while a herald announced the names of the drivers and owners. The tethrippon consisted of twelve laps around the hippodrome,[9] with sharp turns around the posts at either end. Various mechanical devices were used, including the starting gates (hyspleges, singular: hysplex, Greek: ὕσπληγξ-ὕσπληγγες) which were lowered to start the race.[10] According to Pausanias, these were invented by the architect Cleoitas, and staggered so that the chariots on the outside began the race earlier than those on the inside. The race did not actually begin properly until the final gate was opened, at which point each chariot would be more or less lined up alongside each other, although the ones that had started on the outside would have been travelling faster than the ones in the middle. Other mechanical devices known as the "eagle" and the "dolphin" were raised to signify that the race had begun, and were lowered as the race went on to signify the number of laps remaining. These were probably bronze carvings of those animals, set up on posts at starting line.[11]

In most cases, the owner and the driver of the chariot were different persons. In 416 BC, the Athenian general Alcibiades had seven chariots in the race, and came in first, second and fourth; obviously, he could not have been racing all seven chariots himself.[12] Philip II of Macedon also won an Olympic chariot race in an attempt to prove he was not a barbarian, though if he had driven the chariot himself he would likely have been considered even lower than a barbarian. However, the poet Pindar did praise the courage of Herodotos of Thebes for driving his own chariot.[13] This rule also meant that women could technically win the race, despite the fact that women were not allowed to participate in or even watch the Games.[14] This happened rarely, but a notable example is the Spartan Cynisca, daughter of Archidamus II, who won the chariot race twice.[15] Chariot racing was a way for Greeks to demonstrate their prosperity at the games. The case of Alcibiades indicates also that chariot racing was an alternative route to public exposure and fame for the wealthy.[16]

The charioteer was usually a family member of the owner of the chariot or, in most cases, a slave[17] or a hired professional (driving a racing chariot required unusual strength, skill, and courage). Yet, we know the names of very few charioteers,[18] and victory songs and statues regularly contrive to leave them out of account.[19] Unlike the other Olympic events, charioteers did not perform in the nude, probably for safety reasons because of the dust kicked up by the horses and chariots, and the likelihood of bloody crashes. Racers wore a sleeved garment called a xystis. It fell to the ankles and was fastened high at the waist with a plain belt. Two straps that crossed high at the upper back prevented the xystis from "ballooning" during the race.[20]

The chariots themselves were modified war chariots, essentially wooden carts with two wheels and an open back,[21] although chariots were by this time no longer used in battle. The charioteer's feet were held in place, but the cart rested on the axle, so the ride was bumpy. The most exciting part of the chariot race, at least for the spectators, was the turns at the ends of the hippodrome. These turns were very dangerous and often deadly. If a chariot had not already been knocked over by an opponent before the turn, it might be overturned or crushed (along with the horses and driver) by the other chariots as they went around the post. Deliberately running into an opponent to cause him to crash was technically illegal, but nothing could be done about it (at Patroclus' funeral games, Antilochus in fact causes Menelaus to crash in this way[22]), and crashes were likely to happen by accident anyway.

[edit] Other great festivals

As a result of the rise of the Greek cities of the classic period, other great festivals emerged in Asia Minor, Magna Graecia, and the mainland providing the opportunity for athletes to gain fame and riches. Apart from the Olympics, the best respected were the Isthmia in Corinth, the Nemean Games, the Pythian Games in Delphi, and the Panathenaic Games in Athens, where the winner of the four-horse chariot race was given 140 amphorae of olive oil (much sought after and precious in ancient times). Prizes at other competitions included corn in Eleusis, bronze shields in Argos and silver vessels in Marathon.[23] Another form of chariot racing at the Panathenaic Games was known as the apobatai, in which the contestant wore armor and periodically leapt off a moving chariot and ran alongside it before leaping back on again.[24] In these races, there was a second charioteer (a "rein-holder") while the apobates jumped out; in the catalogues with the winners both the names of the apobates and of the rein-holder are mentioned.[25] Images of this contest show warriors, armed with helmets and shields, perched on the back of their racing chariots.[26] Some scholars believe that the event preserved traditions of Homeric warfare.[27]

[edit] Roman era





The plan of the Circus Maximus.
The Romans probably borrowed chariot racing[28] from the Etruscans, who themselves borrowed it from the Greeks, but the Romans were also influenced directly by the Greeks.[29] According to Roman legend, chariot racing was used by Romulus just after he founded Rome in 753 BC as a way of distracting the Sabine men. Romulus sent out invitations to the neighboring towns to celebrate the festival of the Consualia, which included both horse races and chariot races. Whilst the Sabines were enjoying the spectacle, Romulus and his men seized and carried off the Sabine women, who became wives of the Romans.[30] Chariot races were a part of several Roman religious festivals, and on these occasions were preceded by a parade (pompa circensis) that featured the charioteers, music, costumed dancers, and images of the gods. While the entertainment value of chariot races tended to overshadow any sacred purpose, in late antiquity the Church Fathers still saw them as a traditional "pagan" practice, and advised Christians not to participate.[31]





Bas-relief of a quadriga race in the Circus Maximus (2nd-3rd century).
In ancient Rome, chariot races commonly took place in a circus.[32] The main centre of chariot racing was the Circus Maximus in the valley between Palatine Hill and Aventine Hill,[33] which could seat 250,000 people.[34] It was the earliest circus in the city of Rome.[32] The Circus was supposed to date to the city's earliest times,[35] but it was rebuilt by Julius Caesar around 50 BC so that it had a length of about 650 metres (2,130 ft) and a width of about 125 metres (410 ft).[36] One end of the track was more open than the other, as this was where the chariots lined up to begin the race. The Romans used a series of gates known as carceres, an equivalent to the Greek hysplex. These were staggered in the same way as the hysplex, but they were slightly different because Roman racing tracks also had a median (the spina) in the centre of the track.[37] The carceres took up the angled end of the track,[38] and the chariots were loaded into spring-loaded gates. When the chariots were ready, the emperor (or whoever was hosting the races, if they were not in Rome) dropped a cloth known as a mappa, signalling the beginning of the race.[39] The gates would spring open, creating a perfectly fair beginning for all participants.

Once the race had begun, the chariots could move in front of each other in an attempt to cause their opponents to crash into the spinae (singular spina). On the top of the spinae stood small tables or frames supported on pillars, and also small pieces of marble in the shape of eggs or dolphins.[40] The spina eventually became very elaborate, with statues and obelisks and other forms of art, but the multiplication of the adornments of the spina had one unfortunate result: They became so numerous that they obstructed the view of spectators on lower seats.[41] At either end of the spina was a meta, or turning point, in the form of large gilded columns.[42] Spectacular crashes took place there, as in the Greek races, in which the chariot was destroyed and the charioteer and horses incapacitated were known as naufragia, also the Latin word for shipwrecks.[43]





A white charioteer; part of a mosaic of the third century AD, showing four leading charioteers from the different colors, all in their distinctive gear.
The race itself was much like its Greek counterpart, although there were usually 24 races every day that, during the fourth century, took place on 66 days each year.[44] However, a race consisted of only 7 laps (and later 5 laps, so that there could be even more races per day), instead of the 12 laps of the Greek race.[38] The Roman style was also more money-oriented; racers were professionals and there was widespread betting among spectators.[45] There were four-horse chariots (quadrigae) and two-horse chariots (bigae), but the four-horse races were more important.[38] In rare cases, if a driver wanted to show off his skill, he could use up to 10 horses, although this was extremely impractical.

The technique and clothing of Roman charioteers differed significantly from those used by the Greeks. Roman drivers wrapped the reins round their waist, while the Greeks held the reins in their hands.[46] Because of this, the Romans could not let go of the reins in a crash, so they would be dragged around the circus until they were killed or they freed themselves. In order to cut the reins and keep from being dragged in case of accident, they carried a falx, a curved knife. They also wore helmets and other protective gear.[47] In any given race, there might be a number of teams put up by each faction, who would cooperate to maximize their chances of victory by ganging up on opponents, forcing them out of the preferred inside track or making them lose concentration and expose themselves to accident and injury.[47] Spectators could also play a part as there is evidence they threw lead "curse" amulets studded with nails at teams opposing their favourite.[48]





A winner of a Roman chariot race, from the Red team.
Another important difference was that the charioteers themselves, the aurigae, were considered to be the winners, although they were usually also slaves (as in the Greek world). They received a wreath of laurel leaves, and probably some money; if they won enough races they could buy their freedom.[19] Drivers could become celebrities throughout the Empire simply by surviving, as the life expectancy of a charioteer was not very high. One such celebrity driver was Scorpus, who won over 2000 races[49] before being killed in a collision at the meta when he was about 27 years old. The most famous of all was Gaius Appuleius Diocles who won 1,462 out of 4,257 races. When Diocles retired at the age of 42 after a 24 year career his winnings reportedly totalled 35,863,120 sesterces ($US 15 billion), making him the highest paid sports star in history.[50] The horses, too, could become celebrities, but their life expectancy was also low. The Romans kept detailed statistics of the names, breeds, and pedigrees of famous horses.

Seats in the Circus were free for the poor, who by the time of the Empire had little else to do, as they were no longer involved in political or military affairs as they had been in the Republic. The wealthy could pay for shaded seats where they had a better view, and they probably also spent much of their times betting on the races. The circus was the only place where the emperor showed himself before a populace assembled in vast numbers, and where the latter could manifest their affection or anger. The imperial box, called the pulvinar in the Circus Maximus, was directly connected to the imperial palace.[51]





Mosaic from Lyon illustrating a chariot race with the four factions: Blue, Green, Red and White.
The driver's clothing was color-coded in accordance with his faction, which would help distant spectators to keep track of the race's progress.[52] According to the disapproving Tertullian, there were originally just two factions, White and Red, sacred to winter and summer respectively.[53] As fully developed, there were four factions, the Red, White, Green, and Blue.[54] Each team could have up to three chariots each in a race. Members of the same team often collaborated with each other against the other teams, for example to force them to crash into the spina (a legal and encouraged tactic).[38] Drivers could switch teams, much like athletes can be traded to different teams today.

By 77 BC, the rivalry between the Red and the Whites was already developed, when a funeral for a Red driver involved a Red supporter throwing himself on the funeral pyre. No writer of the time, however, refers to these as factions such as came into existence later, with the factions being official organizations.[38] Writing near the beginning of the third century, he wrote that the Reds were dedicated to Mars, the Whites to the Zephyrs, the Greens to Mother Earth or spring, and the Blues to the sky and sea or autumn.[53] Domitian created two new factions, the Purples and Golds, which disappeared soon after he died.[38] The Blues and the Greens gradually became the most prestigious factions, supported by emperor and populace alike. Numerous occasions occurred when a Blue vs. Green would break out during a race. Indeed, Reds and Whites are only rarely mentioned in the surviving literature, although their continued activity is documented in inscriptions and in curse-tablets.[55]

[edit] Byzantine era





The Hippodrome today, with the Walled Obelisk in the foreground and Thutmose's Obelisk on the right.
Like many other aspects of the Roman world, chariot racing continued in the Byzantine Empire, although the Byzantines did not keep as many records and statistics as the Romans did. Constantine I preferred chariot racing to gladiatorial combat, which he considered a vestige of paganism.[56] The Olympic Games were eventually ended by the emperor Theodosius I in 393, in a move to suppress paganism and promote Christianity, but chariot racing remained popular. The fact that chariot racing became linked to the imperial majesty meant that the Church did not prevent it, although gradually prominent Christian writers, such as Tertullian, began attacking the sport.[57] The Hippodrome of Constantinople (really a Roman circus, not the open space that the original Greek hippodromes were) was connected to the emperor's palace and the Church of Hagia Sophia, allowing spectators to view the emperor as they had in Rome.[58]

There is not much evidence that the chariot races were subject to bribes or other forms of cheating in the Roman Empire. In the Byzantine Empire there seems to have been more cheating; Justinian I's reformed legal code prohibits drivers from placing curses on their opponents, but otherwise there does not seem to have been any mechanical tampering or bribery. Wearing the colours of your team became an important aspect of Byzantine dress.





The Triumphal Quadriga is a set of Roman or Greek bronze statues of four horses, originally part of a monument depicting a quadriga. They date from late Classical Antiquity and were long displayed at the Hippodrome of Constantinople. In 1204 AD Doge Enrico Dandolo sent them to Venice as part of the loot sacked from Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade.
Chariot racing in the Byzantine Empire also included the Roman racing clubs, which continued to play a prominent role in these public exhibitions. By this time, the Blues (Vénetoi) and the Greens (Prásinoi) had come to overshadow the other two factions of the Whites (Leukoí) and Reds (Roúsioi), while still maintaining the paired alliances, although these were now fixed as Blue and White vs. Green and Red.[59] The Emperor himself belonged to one of the four factions, and supported the interests of either the Blues or the Greens.[60]

The Blues and the Greens were now more than simply sports teams. They gained influence in military, political,[61] and theological matters, although the hypothesis that the Greens tended towards Monophysitism and the Blues represented Orthodoxy is disputed. It is now widely believed that neither of the factions had any consistent religious bias or allegiance, in spite of the fact that they operated in an environment fraught with religious controversy.[62] According to some scholars, the Blue-Green rivalry contributed to the conditions that underlay the rise of Islam, while factional enmities were exploited by the Sassanid Empire in its conflicts with the Byzantines during the century preceding Islam's advent.[63]

The Blue-Green rivalry often erupted into gang warfare, and street violence had been on the rise in the reign of Justin I, who took measures to restore order, when the gangs murdered a citizen in the Hagia Sophia.[64] Riots culminated in the Nika riots of 532 AD during the reign of Justinian, which began when the two main factions united and attempted unsuccessfully to overthrow the emperor.[65] Chariot racing seems to have declined in the course of the seventh century, with the losses the Empire suffered at the hands of the Arabs and the decline of the population and economy.[66] The Blues and Greens, deprived of any political power, were relegated to a purely ceremonial role. The Hippodrome in Constantinople remained in use for races, games and public ceremonies up to the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204. In the 12th century, Emperor Manuel I Komnenos even staged Western-style jousting matches in the Hippodrome. During the sack of 1204, the Crusaders looted the city and, among other things, removed the copper quadriga that stood above the carceres; it is now displayed at St. Mark's Cathedral in Venice.[67] Thereafter, the Hippodrome was neglected, although still occasionally used for spectacles. A print of the Hippodrome from the fifteenth century shows a derelict site, a few walls still standing, and the spina, the central reservation, robbed of its splendor. Today, only the obelisks and the Serpent Column stand where for centuries the spectators gathered.[49] In the West, the games had ended much sooner; by the end of the fourth century public entertainments in Italy had come to an end in all but a few towns.[68] The last recorded chariot race in Rome itself took place in the Circus Maximus in 549 AD.[69]

Keep it simple is usually the best form of rule making.Homologation would just be a case of must be four door production car with no parts used except those available on the customer options list in the sales brochure except for free choice of tyres and usual safety equipment and if Group C could manage during the pre Mulsanne chicane years,or even those 1960's NASCAR cars for that matter,without turning cars into bombs or causing an ecological crisis then I'm sure that racing some production saloons now wouldn't either.Although I'd doubt that even with the incentive of unrestricted engines I'd doubt that figure of 1,000 hp cars being a realistic figure if they want to keep the product reliable and affordable.

However assuming all of those rules that you've listed above applied during the 1960's it just makes the type of racing which they eventually ended up with even more surprising in that they seemed to have reached a very similar conclusion to what I've been saying despite everything in the rule book being against them.

Group C were prototypes with a specialized fuel cell built directly behind the two-seat cockpit. Group C had a 100L fuel cell capacity limit, and a limited amount of fuel for the entire race. Group C also had decent economy, all things considered, b/c they were lightweight, high-downforce, high-mechanical-grip vehicles with good cornering speed. The formula you have suggested does not resemble Group C.

You have proposed Formula Libre engine rules. 1000hp will be child's play, even for production engines. Cooling will be the only thing keeping power output down. You'll have to figure out how to keep the driver from being baked alive. In LMP they actually have temperature rules for the cockpit. Maybe you could race convertibles. In NASCAR they have to take the windows off.

Group C were prototypes with a specialized fuel cell built directly behind the two-seat cockpit. Group C had a 100L fuel cell capacity limit, and a limited amount of fuel for the entire race. Group C also had decent economy, all things considered, b/c they were lightweight, high-downforce, high-mechanical-grip vehicles with good cornering speed. The formula you have suggested does not resemble Group C.

You have proposed Formula Libre engine rules. 1000hp will be child's play, even for production engines. Cooling will be the only thing keeping power output down. You'll have to figure out how to keep the driver from being baked alive. In LMP they actually have temperature rules for the cockpit. Maybe you could race convertibles. In NASCAR they have to take the windows off.

I'm sure that if they could manage with those old 426 Hemi powered production saloons during the Southern summers of the 1960's they'll be just fine with no windows but don't forget we're already starting from a point of around 200 mph potential road cars with standard fit air conditioning anyway in this case in 2012. .

However I really can't believe that just because they'd have open engine rules they'd then go nuts by going for expensive thirsty 1,000 hp + engines fitted in production saloons for the road.I think it would be the practicalities of just too many fuel stops v getting a reasonable range between them that would eventually be the limiting factor without any need to apply overall fuel limits for the race.I'm thinking that one of the main benefits of such a series is that it would provide a good incentive for development in finding more power,from big engined forced induction saloon cars,without burning unviable amounts of fuel doing it.Not because of the issue of politically correct rules for their own sake ,as is the case now,but because of the need to make the thing go as fast as possible without either blowing up or running out of fuel,assuming fuel stops are to be kept within reasonable limits and in that regard there would be (some small) connection with (some of) the aims of the design of cars like the Mercedes Sauber C9/11 Group C cars in the days before the Mulsanne chicanes .If only the rule makers hadn't applied overall fuel limits and then shut the series down by calling for lower speeds instead of just finding out how far the idea of balancing the need for range between pit stops with the need for unrestricted power outputs and high speeds could have been taken.

Which all seems to be just a case of let the engineers get on with their job,as in the 1960's,instead of keeping on hindering them with ridiculous overegulation.

If tech development hadn't advanced beyond 1960s understanding, we could still use 1960s rules.

If tech development hadn't advanced beyond 1960s understanding, we could still use 1960s rules.

There is a theory that the rules which caused the reduction in speeds and killed off cars like the C 11 at Le Mans had more to do with making sure that F1 didn't sart looking stupid and a bit mickey mouse in comparison.In other words retro grade rule making which sent tech development backwards not forwards.

However,in the context of (what would/could/should be) production saloon car racing tech development has certainly reached the stage where a four door saloon car can be driven in reasonable safety and air conditioned comfort,on the autobahn,at speeds which are around as high as most of those found in present day NASCAR racing.Which seems to suggest to me that we've got 2012 tech development stuck with 1970's rules and thinking.

Edited by Vanishing Point, 04 March 2012 - 15:40.

No one wants to watch an F1 car that sounds like a stock car.

Err, well actually it wouldn't be the worst thing to happen....

I mentioned this in TNF just recently, all the favourite engines of many fall below 10,000rpm - I think there's a Hz limit somewhere around there that nice turns to "scream" which of course is still a wow factor for some.

I still prefer the sound of the safety car Benz over the F1's when it comes out.

The race .. was won by Diomedes, who received a slave woman and a cauldron as his prize.

....and yet some say we live in better times now.

Err, well actually it wouldn't be the worst thing to happen....

I mentioned this in TNF just recently, all the favourite engines of many fall below 10,000rpm - I think there's a Hz limit somewhere around there that nice turns to "scream" which of course is still a wow factor for some.

I still prefer the sound of the safety car Benz over the F1's when it comes out.




....and yet some say we live in better times now.

^ + 1

And the Benz engine would probably costs a lot less over the course of a racing season too if they used that in F1 cars instead like a modern day F 5000 idea.

Edited by Vanishing Point, 04 March 2012 - 15:47.

There is a theory that the rules which caused the reduction in speeds and killed off cars like the C 11 at Le Mans had more to do with making sure that F1 didn't sart looking stupid and a bit mickey mouse in comparison.In other words retro grade rule making which sent tech development backwards not forwards.

250mph makes people very nervous, regardless of what F1 is doing at the time.

However,in the context of (what would/could/should be) production saloon car racing tech development has certainly reached the stage where a four door saloon car can be driven in reasonable safety and air conditioned comfort,on the autobahn,at speeds which are around as high as most of those found in present day NASCAR racing.Which seems to suggest to me that we've got 2012 tech development stuck with 1970's rules and thinking.

Road cars do 200mph about as often as you make sense. Occasionally. Under the right circumstances.

250mph makes people very nervous, regardless of what F1 is doing at the time.



Road cars do 200mph about as often as you make sense. Occasionally. Under the right circumstances.

The fear of 250 mph in a C 11 at Le Mans v 190 mph in an F1 Kart screamer at Monza is a bit like having a fear of a parachute failing to open when jumping from 15,000 feet but not when jumping from 10,000 feet.

I'll take a 2% survival rate over 1%.

I'll take a 2% survival rate over 1%.

So crashing an F1 car at 190 mph means double the chance of survival compared to crashing a Group C car at 250 mph.I wouldn't want to be crash test dummy given the job of testing that claim.

I dunno, you're all supposed to be tech people, what's the calculation on that?

Just for the simplicity of this absurd scenario, how much worse is an impact speed of 250 vs 190? Assuming that at 250 all the safety stuff still works as designed.

I dunno, you're all supposed to be tech people, what's the calculation on that?

Just for the simplicity of this absurd scenario, how much worse is an impact speed of 250 vs 190? Assuming that at 250 all the safety stuff still works as designed.

Common sense says no chance in either scenario barring a miracle.

I'm pretty sure we've had oval hits at Indy close to 190.

Oh right. So HP made through displacement is pure and other kinds are, well, we don't talk about that.

Horse power made through displacement is cheaper in both the short and long run.

250mph makes people very nervous, regardless of what F1 is doing at the time.



Road cars do 200mph about as often as you make sense. Occasionally. Under the right circumstances.

Sadly this is true but I believe it is partly they use it as an excuse to gain more control over the racers who up to the eighties had goodly amount of say-so, at least in the U.S.

When John Greenwoods Corvette was officialy unoffficially clocked at over 250 mph on Daytona's back straight, that was the reason they started using the chicane put in for motorcycles.
The only car that year that came close to Greenwoods top speed was the Woods Brothers Mercury that was running under IMSA/LeMans NASCAR class they created when Bill France had a talk with Bishop and the boys at LeMans.

Sadly events prevented the Mercury from runninng at LeMans as it was a more fully developed car that the ones that made the trip.

I doubt that the rulemakers are worried that much about the driver crashing at 180 or 250mph. They are probably more worried about the insurance premiums to cover the spectators against a car crashing at those speeds.

Paying spectators, pfft.

I think the 2-litre SuperTourers tried paying spectators but they still wouldn't turn up.

Horse power made through displacement is cheaper in both the short and long run.

^+1

Which is why there's been plenty of road and race large capacity V8's sold over the years but no one with any sense would have ever bothered to fit a 3 litre 400 + Cosworth DFV V8 engine in a car instead.

Of course not. When it comes to engine configuration, road cars don't have anywhere near the rules to follow.

Of course not. When it comes to engine configuration, road cars don't have anywhere near the rules to follow.

The 'rules' are just the result of the difference in thinking of those who believe in the less effective and more expensive idea of using small engined screamers to make similar on paper horsepower figures that are just the result of taking miniscule amounts of torque up to stratospheric engine speeds.

It's racing. You need a rulebook to keep it from eating itself.