Jump to content


Photo

Lowest Race Car Ever


  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

#1 Ericoz

Ericoz
  • New Member

  • 20 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 05 January 2012 - 12:09

When the GT40 was built in the 60's, the 40 signified 40 inches but I honestly think that 40 inches is way too high for a race car and I like the idea of a GT30!!! I think that it would be possible to build something on the lines of a LUGE, where the drivers head is 600mm above the floor. This plus 50mm for the thickness of the helmet and 50mm+ for safety clearance keeps you well within 750mm (Formula750 should grab this!!).
I remember Brabham F1 built a long wheel base car where the driver layed down in the car but it never got to race. I'm looking at a very simple live axle rear end with a 600cc Yamaha R6 engine , the driver is seated in the centre with the engine alongside his chest. The whole thing will come in under 200kgs, so it will be quick but who would drive it?

Advertisement

#2 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 05 January 2012 - 13:01

Posted Image
Why bother with four wheels.

Edited by 24gerrard, 05 January 2012 - 13:15.


#3 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 05 January 2012 - 13:02

When the GT40 was built in the 60's, the 40 signified 40 inches but I honestly think that 40 inches is way too high for a race car and I like the idea of a GT30!!! I think that it would be possible to build something on the lines of a LUGE, where the drivers head is 600mm above the floor. This plus 50mm for the thickness of the helmet and 50mm+ for safety clearance keeps you well within 750mm (Formula750 should grab this!!).
I remember Brabham F1 built a long wheel base car where the driver layed down in the car but it never got to race. I'm looking at a very simple live axle rear end with a 600cc Yamaha R6 engine , the driver is seated in the centre with the engine alongside his chest. The whole thing will come in under 200kgs, so it will be quick but who would drive it?


There have been many lower race cars than a GT40.

You probably mean the Brabham F1 concept that went on to win half a dozen World titles.

As the American single cylinder/CVT F500 race car is about 220kgs with their very basic and unusual suspension that doesn't carry the weight of shocks and springs, I doubt you can achieve 200kgs with a multiple cylinder, gearboxed engine (legal to race speaking).

The biggest problem with something so low is when you crash it you snap your back so no thanks.


#4 Woody3says

Woody3says
  • Member

  • 424 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 05 January 2012 - 15:02

Posted Image
Why bother with four wheels.

Has anyone ever told you that you are definately off the beaten path? :lol:

#5 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 11,501 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 05 January 2012 - 20:50

You probably mean the Brabham F1 concept that went on to win half a dozen World titles.

Hardly. The BT55 of 1986 was the 'lowline' concept and it didn't work. They scored 2 points all year. It's successor was better and they managed 10 points in 1987, withdrew in 1988, returned in 1989 scoring 8 points. By 1992, the team was dead.

So that F1 concept was the one that went on to kill off Brabham.

#6 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,919 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 05 January 2012 - 22:04

http://www.vicelford...lery/6large.jpg

#7 Engineguy

Engineguy
  • Member

  • 989 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 05 January 2012 - 23:02

Hardly. The BT55 of 1986 was the 'lowline' concept and it didn't work. They scored 2 points all year. It's successor was better and they managed 10 points in 1987, withdrew in 1988, returned in 1989 scoring 8 points. By 1992, the team was dead.

So that F1 concept was the one that went on to kill off Brabham.


I imagine Cheapracer was referring to the fact that Gordon Murray took the concept with him to McLaren while Brabham returned to a more conventional car. Although the MP4/4 design was said to be already underway before Murray arrived, it was a copy of the BT55 concept... and it WAS wildly successful. The constant engine and gearbox problems destroyed the BT55 season, not the reclined driver/low tub/unblocked wing. The lying down driver position became the standard in Formula One since about 1988.

Hard to blame the BT55 concept for the end of Brabham: The concept went on to be successful at McLaren while Brabham's new conventional car was not anything special and the team lingered another half decade to its end as Ecclestone lost interest and got busy with the bigger picture of running the whole series.

#8 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 850 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 06 January 2012 - 01:57

When the GT40 was built in the 60's, the 40 signified 40 inches but I honestly think that 40 inches is way too high for a race car and I like the idea of a GT30!!! I think that it would be possible to build something on the lines of a LUGE, where the drivers head is 600mm above the floor. This plus 50mm for the thickness of the helmet and 50mm+ for safety clearance keeps you well within 750mm (Formula750 should grab this!!).
I remember Brabham F1 built a long wheel base car where the driver layed down in the car but it never got to race. I'm looking at a very simple live axle rear end with a 600cc Yamaha R6 engine , the driver is seated in the centre with the engine alongside his chest. The whole thing will come in under 200kgs, so it will be quick but who would drive it?


I think the driver needs to be sitting in at least a reasonably upright position just for vision and to feel comfortable in the car. But I suppose it depends on personal preference.

Even the very low seating position of the driver in a V8 Supercar looks awkward to me.

#9 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,755 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 06 January 2012 - 02:58

I think the driver needs to be sitting in at least a reasonably upright position just for vision and to feel comfortable in the car. But I suppose it depends on personal preference.

Even the very low seating position of the driver in a V8 Supercar looks awkward to me.

I really do not know how they drive those things these days..In the 90s they were not too bad. A decent seat mounted lowish on the standard floor but then they started putting the seat it seems on the floor!

Mark Poole had back troubles with the ex Lowndes HRT VT. I tried and I could not even sit in the thing with any comfort at all,, in the workshop. It just killed my back, as it did for Mark. The old ex Perkins VP/VS was ok. I feel that was probably why he quit.

I have driven a Vee and a FF in private sessions, while not great for my then 90k 6,1 body they were far better then the VT. [and in both the normal drivers were smaller than me]

Both of those cars were 'semi' upright. The upright driving position though is far better for the body in ergodynamics, and the seat and belts hold you far better in a crash

#10 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 850 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 06 January 2012 - 06:43

I really do not know how they drive those things these days..In the 90s they were not too bad. A decent seat mounted lowish on the standard floor but then they started putting the seat it seems on the floor!

Mark Poole had back troubles with the ex Lowndes HRT VT. I tried and I could not even sit in the thing with any comfort at all,, in the workshop. It just killed my back, as it did for Mark. The old ex Perkins VP/VS was ok. I feel that was probably why he quit.

I have driven a Vee and a FF in private sessions, while not great for my then 90k 6,1 body they were far better then the VT. [and in both the normal drivers were smaller than me]

Both of those cars were 'semi' upright. The upright driving position though is far better for the body in ergodynamics, and the seat and belts hold you far better in a crash


I think John Bowe was one driver who never liked the low seating idea and never used it - sat very upright to the end of his Supercar career.

F1 is another awkward one - the driver can just manage to peek over the edge of the cockpit and his feet are much higher than his bum.

#11 jatwarks

jatwarks
  • Member

  • 202 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 06 January 2012 - 08:10

If there was a significant advantage in a laydown seating position then I'm sure kart builders would have been doing it for years, unless regulations forbade it of course.

The controlling factor must be adequate vision through a full face crash helmet; forward and to the side. That would suggest a curved spine from horizontal hips to near-upright neck.

Driving "by the seat of the pants" would cease to exist !

To continue the luge comparison, it would be useful to replace the steering wheel with twin controls at the hips.

Can you image the effects of wearing a crotch strap in an impact with a reclined seating position !!!

Or, are we back to the "kneeler car" ?

#12 Engineguy

Engineguy
  • Member

  • 989 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 06 January 2012 - 08:35

If there was a significant advantage in a laydown seating position then I'm sure kart builders would have been doing it for years, unless regulations forbade it of course.

The controlling factor must be adequate vision through a full face crash helmet; forward and to the side. That would suggest a curved spine from horizontal hips to near-upright neck.


Posted Image Posted Image
.
Posted Image Posted Image

#13 kikiturbo2

kikiturbo2
  • Member

  • 627 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 06 January 2012 - 19:01

it must be said, that with a lay down position in a cart, you loose the ability to influence weight transfer with your upper body, which is used quite a lot in karts...

#14 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,498 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 06 January 2012 - 19:23

it must be said, that with a lay down position in a cart, you loose the ability to influence weight transfer with your upper body, which is used quite a lot in karts...

That's an interesting one, there's a tradeoff between having a very low cg, hence little weight transfer, and having a higher cg, with some unavoidable weight transfer, and some controllable weight transfer. Slightly too many variables to come up with a one size fits all answer.

#15 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 06 January 2012 - 21:37

That's an interesting one, there's a tradeoff between having a very low cg, hence little weight transfer, and having a higher cg, with some unavoidable weight transfer, and some controllable weight transfer. Slightly too many variables to come up with a one size fits all answer.


:up:
It is very interesting to me at the moment Greg.
I am looking at a range of possible vehicles using three wheels and very light weight.

I know I posted a two wheeled LSR vehicle we looked into in the 80s, it showed that no weight transfer and a low layback driver position required gyros and aero aids to keep it under control in roll and that it was only good for strait line performance.

I am interested in finding out if three wheels can be designed to corner faster than four.

#16 Engineguy

Engineguy
  • Member

  • 989 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 06 January 2012 - 22:25

I am interested in finding out if three wheels can be designed to corner faster than four.


No.



#17 Ben Wilson

Ben Wilson
  • Member

  • 134 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 06 January 2012 - 23:34

I a interested in finding out if three wheels can be designed to corner faster than four.


Not corner faster, but a 3 wheeler in tadpole (2 front 1 rear) naturally lends itself to a much lower drag configuration. Have a look at some velomobiles...

#18 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 07 January 2012 - 12:37

No.


Why?

#19 jatwarks

jatwarks
  • Member

  • 202 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 07 January 2012 - 22:02

Not corner faster, but a 3 wheeler in tadpole (2 front 1 rear) naturally lends itself to a much lower drag configuration. Have a look at some velomobiles...

Have a look at Owen Greenwood's Mini-based 3-wheeler with which he dominated 3-wheeler events at motorcycle meetings (in the 20th century). The vehicle actually had twin rear wheels which were closely spaced in the centre.

http://www.mig-weldi...mp;d=1212273845

See also the vintage Morgan 3-wheelers that punch above their weight in VSCC events.

With equivalent tyre performance 4 corners faster than 3 which corner faster than 2.

I don't remember how Greenwood's lap times in his trike compared with period Mini saloon times, but I suspect that they may have been close.

Edited by jatwarks, 07 January 2012 - 22:10.


Advertisement

#20 Engineguy

Engineguy
  • Member

  • 989 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 07 January 2012 - 22:09

Why?


Well, first assuming you're not cheating comparing some 90" track width 700 lb trike with a laydown driver and F1 slicks to a 4000 lb 1959 Chevy pickup truck...

The outboard tire at one end is not very outboard. So the center of mass of the vehicle wants to jack itself right on over the tire patch at that end (tip). If the single tire is at the rear, the tip situation is aggravated if you accelerate while turning. If the single tire is at the front, the tip situation is aggravated if you brake while turning (the reason you no longer see 3-wheel ATVs). If you move all the mass toward the 2-wheel end where you have some track width, you are cornering on one outboard and one inboard tire patch (the single tire end has no weight on it). A conventional 4-wheel vehicle corners on 2 outboard plus 2 inboard tire patches.

Etc. etc. ... I get bored with trike enthusiasts. The only good reason to build a 3-wheel vehicle is to avoid classification as a car... and the US government, for one, is standing by ready to slam that door, worried about the instability of 3-wheeled "cars" (not to mention the lack of car safety features resulting from classification as a MC). As I recall, a rash of people talking about building high-MPG commuter vehicles superlight by gaming the MC classification triggered the worry. They don't want masses of people using unstable AND unprotected vehicles for their daily transportation.
.

#21 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 07 January 2012 - 22:23

Well, first assuming you're not cheating comparing some 90" track width 700 lb trike with a laydown driver and F1 slicks to a 4000 lb 1959 Chevy pickup truck...

The outboard tire at one end is not very outboard. So the center of mass of the vehicle wants to jack itself right on over the tire patch at that end (tip). If the single tire is at the rear, the tip situation is aggravated if you accelerate while turning. If the single tire is at the front, the tip situation is aggravated if you brake while turning (the reason you no longer see 3-wheel ATVs). If you move all the mass toward the 2-wheel end where you have some track width, you are cornering on one outboard and one inboard tire patch (the single tire end has no weight on it). A conventional 4-wheel vehicle corners on 2 outboard plus 2 inboard tire patches.

Etc. etc. ... I get bored with trike enthusiasts. The only good reason to build a 3-wheel vehicle is to avoid classification as a car... and the US government, for one, is standing by ready to slam that door, worried about the instability of 3-wheeled "cars" (not to mention the lack of car safety features resulting from classification as a MC). As I recall, a rash of people talking about building high-MPG commuter vehicles superlight by gaming the MC classification triggered the worry. They don't want masses of people using unstable AND unprotected vehicles for their daily transportation.
.


Sad attitude.
Non of your post can explain how a three wheeler would corner if the footprint of the single rear wheel moved over to the outside of the vehicle during cornering. Might be better than two at the back then plus the better aero.
Guess what, your to tired, so I wont tell you how I do it now.
Sorry your bored not tired. I will have to take more interest in posts from the narrow status quo mind set in the future.
From the country that has a racing class seriously considering a three wheeled racing car with the narrow track at the front Hahahaha
I raced Minis and you could tell a good fast mini driver from two things.
One the steering wheel was large (no power steering) and two, hard cornering would always have the rear inside wheel off the ground.
(three wheels buddy) and faster through sharp corners than practicaly any other saloon.
I am not a green three wheeled freak either old son having drag raced 600 bhp Mustangs.
You had better go back to the drawing board with your computer software there is a big bit missing.

Edited by 24gerrard, 07 January 2012 - 22:35.


#22 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,498 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 07 January 2012 - 22:25

They don't want masses of people using unstable AND unprotected vehicles for their daily transportation.
.

Like bicycles. :)

#23 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 07 January 2012 - 22:45

Etc. etc. ... I get bored with trike enthusiasts. The only good reason to build a 3-wheel vehicle is to avoid classification as a car... and the US government, for one, is standing by ready to slam that door, worried about the instability of 3-wheeled "cars" (not to mention the lack of car safety features resulting from classification as a MC). As I recall, a rash of people talking about building high-MPG commuter vehicles superlight by gaming the MC classification triggered the worry. They don't want masses of people using unstable AND unprotected vehicles for their daily transportation.
.


The American government is interested in revenue from oil not vehicle safety.
It is against any incentive to reduce the reliance on gas guzzling large vehicles.
It is why it also promotes over eating to make sure the population is to large for sensible vehicles.

#24 Engineguy

Engineguy
  • Member

  • 989 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 07 January 2012 - 23:29

The American government is interested in revenue from oil not vehicle safety.
It is against any incentive to reduce the reliance on gas guzzling large vehicles.
It is why it also promotes over eating to make sure the population is to large for sensible vehicles.


Did an American do something bad to your mommy? Get some psychological help for this obsession you have.
Meanwhile, make sure you get that dancing wheel thing patented.
'Cause I'm sure the massive British car industry, being so much smarter than the stupid and evil Americans, is going to jump right on the chance to gain 0.001 MPG from aero (see Kamm) by adding the cost and complexity (weight) of a dancing wheel, and losing all the trunk space (sorry... boot space) in the process.
Sigh. Sir Alec Issigonis you're not.


#25 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,755 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 07 January 2012 - 23:34

Sad attitude.
Non of your post can explain how a three wheeler would corner if the footprint of the single rear wheel moved over to the outside of the vehicle during cornering. Might be better than two at the back then plus the better aero.
Guess what, your to tired, so I wont tell you how I do it now.
Sorry your bored not tired. I will have to take more interest in posts from the narrow status quo mind set in the future.
From the country that has a racing class seriously considering a three wheeled racing car with the narrow track at the front Hahahaha
I raced Minis and you could tell a good fast mini driver from two things.
One the steering wheel was large (no power steering) and two, hard cornering would always have the rear inside wheel off the ground.
(three wheels buddy) and faster through sharp corners than practicaly any other saloon.
I am not a green three wheeled freak either old son having drag raced 600 bhp Mustangs.
You had better go back to the drawing board with your computer software there is a big bit missing.


Minis and handling really are anomoly. Minis, and a lot of front drivers 3 wheel everywhere because really they do not handle. In fact at hi speed are bloody dangerous. I have had the misfortune to race against rotary powered Minis, and turbo Nissan Exas. Plus watching Laser Series, Suzuki GTi series. More HARD crashes per pap than any other racing I have ever seen. Apart from maybe 3 wheeling FWD BTCC cars

#26 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,498 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 08 January 2012 - 00:12

Can someone dig out the laptimes for 3 wheelers vs equivalent power to weight 4 wheelers? I've seen this claim about Morgans a few times, it seems a bit dodgy to me, if nothing else they should be slow out of turns.




#27 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,755 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 08 January 2012 - 01:44

Can someone dig out the laptimes for 3 wheelers vs equivalent power to weight 4 wheelers? I've seen this claim about Morgans a few times, it seems a bit dodgy to me, if nothing else they should be slow out of turns.

Mogs only make up the numbers at the odd historic meeting. Not fast because they are unstable and with one tiny tyre do not get off the corners well at all.In fact that whole experience is a large WHY?

#28 Wolf

Wolf
  • Member

  • 7,881 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 08 January 2012 - 02:43

Why? You mean then or now? Now: it's simple- they're piece of nostalgia and I dare say heritage... Then? It's also simple- ISTR that even Sir Stirling Moss owned one because age requirement for driving three-wheeler was lower than for normal car (sort of like is for scooters nowadays, but you had an extra wheel that made it almost a car). One does tend to want to get his driving licence at earliest possible time. Back then it was fast track to driving, and in a sense they still retain that vintage 'charm'.

If one looks from an engineering perspective, it may seem straightforward but other considerations make it less so (but I fear that even within engineering perspective, things are rarely straightforward). As a friend of mine would say- cars would be OK if they didn't have those extra two wheels (which remin ds me of a motto long forgotten- four legs good, two legs bad).

#29 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 08 January 2012 - 10:27

Can someone dig out the laptimes for 3 wheelers vs equivalent power to weight 4 wheelers? I've seen this claim about Morgans a few times, it seems a bit dodgy to me, if nothing else they should be slow out of turns.


This is about the best you will get and it's not real good apparently ...




#30 kikiturbo2

kikiturbo2
  • Member

  • 627 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 08 January 2012 - 13:03

and two, hard cornering would always have the rear inside wheel off the ground.
(three wheels buddy) and faster through sharp corners than practicaly any other saloon.



khhm, almost all FWD race cars, and quite a few stock hot hatches corner with the inside rear wheel in the air as do all Karts... Also, quite a few race RWD cars, and some stock ones corner with the inside FRONT in the air.. This has nothing to do with the superiority of three wheelers over four, but with optimum weight transfer to driven wheels... There is a really nice explanation of it in Milliken.. :)

#31 jatwarks

jatwarks
  • Member

  • 202 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 08 January 2012 - 13:23

khhm, almost all FWD race cars, and quite a few stock hot hatches corner with the inside rear wheel in the air as do all Karts... Also, quite a few race RWD cars, and some stock ones corner with the inside FRONT in the air.. This has nothing to do with the superiority of three wheelers over four, but with optimum weight transfer to driven wheels... There is a really nice explanation of it in Milliken

I loved watching the works Minis & Lotus Cortinas 3-wheeling through Bottom Bend at Brands, waving to us with their rear & front wheels respectively.

It was also fun to watch the Minis braking heavily into corners (when they braked at all) with their lifted wheels stationary.

#32 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 08 January 2012 - 15:42

I loved watching the works Minis & Lotus Cortinas 3-wheeling through Bottom Bend at Brands, waving to us with their rear & front wheels respectively.

It was also fun to watch the Minis braking heavily into corners (when they braked at all) with their lifted wheels stationary.


Yea it used to be great fun.
So if a FWD three wheeler had the rear wheel footprint as wide as that of two conventional rear tyres of a four wheeler set at the outside of the chassis during cornering it might be as good if not better at cornering with other benefits?
Still not telling how its done.

#33 kikiturbo2

kikiturbo2
  • Member

  • 627 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 08 January 2012 - 16:14

somehow I doubt that a FWD car will have trouble with rear end traction.. :)

#34 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 08 January 2012 - 17:31

somehow I doubt that a FWD car will have trouble with rear end traction.. :)


True on a mini racer there is little need for either brakes or major grip from the rear tyres.
There is another purpose the single rear wheel can be used for however. (if in tadpole form)

#35 JtP1

JtP1
  • Member

  • 753 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 10 January 2012 - 23:45

I would have thought the lay down driver concept really arrived with the Lotus 25 in 62. It must be in there with the lowest ever F1 car. Only Clark seemed totally happy with the position and I notice that all the 25/33s in Historic racing have the driving position adjusted to a more normal setup. Looks really odd with the driver sticking out the top of a 25.

#36 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,755 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 11 January 2012 - 09:48

I think John Bowe was one driver who never liked the low seating idea and never used it - sat very upright to the end of his Supercar career.

F1 is another awkward one - the driver can just manage to peek over the edge of the cockpit and his feet are much higher than his bum.

John is not very big so he is lucky that he can do so without any real penalty.

#37 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 850 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 11 January 2012 - 10:32

John is not very big so he is lucky that he can do so without any real penalty.


It always surprised me a little that the low seating position in a Supercar made any measureable difference to the lap time - as it must have otherwise they wouldn't do it.

#38 Woody3says

Woody3says
  • Member

  • 424 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 11 January 2012 - 17:04

It always surprised me a little that the low seating position in a Supercar made any measureable difference to the lap time - as it must have otherwise they wouldn't do it.

A bit like the end flaps on a F1 front wing being knocked off yet the car keeps the same lap time........... :drunk:

#39 jatwarks

jatwarks
  • Member

  • 202 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 12 January 2012 - 08:50

If the car being considered is a modern GT40 then the controlling issues, other than regulations, would appear to be the driver's ability to control it and see, properly, what's ahead.

A major part of that is refraction caused by the windscreen glass.

So, perhaps a low slung car with narrow, upright seating positions, and individual flyscreens that have the same centre of radius as the driver’s helmet visor?

This wouldn't result in the lowest car overall, but would meet the requirements for being low in the first place; to give CoG and aerodynamic performance.

For a 2 seater sports, the driver & passenger positions would have to be in individual narrow pods!

For a single seater, the cockpit would be narrow and upright, topped with a wrap around screen.

As mentioned previously, in a lightweight machine the need for the driver to be able to move around to transfer weight shouldn’t be underestimated.

My conclusion to this discussion is; why bother; it's a design challenge for its own sake rather than being useful.

I'd stick with a GT40 given the choice. Some of the proposed solutions don’t sound like they would be much fun to drive !

Advertisement

#40 Spa65

Spa65
  • Member

  • 34 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 23 January 2012 - 19:33

I have often considered what driver position would be needed to allow the lowest car/smallest frontal area. I am surprised that no-one has mentioned the possibility of a prone driver, i.e. lying flat on his belly looking through a perspex nose on the car, with a flat (or aerodynamically curved) top surface. Please note I am talking theoretically, not advocating such a dramatic challenge to 'elf 'n safety, or Bernies cronies.

Back (I believe in the 1930s) an aircaft designer was propounding such a solution to reduce airfame drag. In the 50s this was practically tried in a Gloster meteor jet. Should anyone doubt this, the said jet is now on view in the aviation museum at Cosford. It retained a conventional seated position for a second pilot, just in case.

I suspect that such an F1 car could be made much safer than the overpowered beer cans of the late 60s, given the survivability of todays structures - even with the see-through nose that would be needed. I am sure that adequate powered steering and other inputs could be relatively easily contrived.

Which designer and driver from the past might be willing to try for such an advantage?

How about Chapman and Rodriguez?

Des.

#41 NeilR

NeilR
  • Member

  • 455 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 23 January 2012 - 22:31

You know in a past life I used to like going down long steep hills on a long skatebaord, lying on my back (I think street luge is what they call it now). Very fast and seemingly low risk...perhaps due to my age at the time I cared little for risk. Now I tried it twice head first - it was much harder to control, but the perception of speed etc was much greater - I did not care to do it again and I suspect few drivers of any car would.

#42 kikiturbo2

kikiturbo2
  • Member

  • 627 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 23 January 2012 - 23:36

Back (I believe in the 1930s) an aircaft designer was propounding such a solution to reduce airfame drag. In the 50s this was practically tried in a Gloster meteor jet. Should anyone doubt this, the said jet is now on view in the aviation museum at Cosford. It retained a conventional seated position for a second pilot, just in case.



I think one additional benefit was less problems with pilots blacking out in high G turns..

However, for cars, it is easy to overlook the importance of lower back in driver sensing what the car is doing below him..

#43 GreenMachine

GreenMachine
  • Member

  • 763 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 24 January 2012 - 00:57

...

Back (I believe in the 1930s) an aircaft designer was propounding such a solution to reduce airfame drag. In the 50s this was practically tried in a Gloster meteor jet. Should anyone doubt this, the said jet is now on view in the aviation museum at Cosford. It retained a conventional seated position for a second pilot, just in case.

...

Des.


There was another, IIRC.

However, the fact that the only(?) example of such a configuration sits in a museum probably tells us all we need to know ...

#44 24gerrard

24gerrard
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 24 January 2012 - 10:15

There was another, IIRC.

However, the fact that the only(?) example of such a configuration sits in a museum probably tells us all we need to know ...


I think the Horton brothers and some others did it in Germany both before and during WW2, mainly in experimental deltas.
Development that resulted in a fully operational rocket flying wing the ME 163.

Probably my most favourite aircraft of all time.

Edited by 24gerrard, 24 January 2012 - 10:19.


#45 JtP1

JtP1
  • Member

  • 753 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 24 January 2012 - 11:51

The original prone seating position aircraft in the UK was the Reid & Sigrist SR4 Bobsliegh, flown July 45 as a test aircraft to see how it worked. It eventually ended up in Strathallan aircraft museum in the 70s. It must still exist, but I don't know where.

There as also the Blohm+Voss BV 140 glider fighter here the pilot lay prone on his stomach to reduce the frontal area of the aircraft. The average USAAF gunner could hit a normal fighter frontal area at 1000yds and this as an attempt to reduce the frontal area. The 140 as to be towed to a position above the bomver box and the released to dive through it. This idea probably ended with P51s escorting all the way to the target and thus the towing aircraft being unable to get into position ithout being shot down.

After looking at it at the racing car show, the Ford racing sports car(A3CL?) of 68 looks pretty low. but for an enclosed sports car, surely the original Shadow CanAm car has to be a contender

#46 jatwarks

jatwarks
  • Member

  • 202 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 24 January 2012 - 12:32

There was another, IIRC.

However, the fact that the only(?) example of such a configuration sits in a museum probably tells us all we need to know ...

A bit of a history of prone pilots.

http://www.nurflugel..._d/weird_07.htm

#47 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 850 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 24 January 2012 - 12:38

The original prone seating position aircraft in the UK was the Reid & Sigrist SR4 Bobsliegh, flown July 45 as a test aircraft to see how it worked. It eventually ended up in Strathallan aircraft museum in the 70s. It must still exist, but I don't know where.

There as also the Blohm+Voss BV 140 glider fighter here the pilot lay prone on his stomach to reduce the frontal area of the aircraft. The average USAAF gunner could hit a normal fighter frontal area at 1000yds and this as an attempt to reduce the frontal area. The 140 as to be towed to a position above the bomver box and the released to dive through it. This idea probably ended with P51s escorting all the way to the target and thus the towing aircraft being unable to get into position ithout being shot down.

After looking at it at the racing car show, the Ford racing sports car(A3CL?) of 68 looks pretty low. but for an enclosed sports car, surely the original Shadow CanAm car has to be a contender


There was very recently on a thread here somewhere a picture of a three-wheeled drag car with the driver lying flat down travelling head first.

Strangely, I can't find it now but I thought when I saw it that you wouldn't need to be a total dickead to drive it - but it would certainly help.

But he is certainly a brave dickhead.

#48 GreenMachine

GreenMachine
  • Member

  • 763 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 24 January 2012 - 21:28

Thanks Jatwarks, that is interesting reading.

#49 Wolf

Wolf
  • Member

  • 7,881 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 25 January 2012 - 01:41

A bit of a history of prone pilots.

http://www.nurflugel..._d/weird_07.htm


He did mention DFS 228 on that page, but here's the link mentioned (including photos): http://www.luft46.co...typ/dfs228.html . (there is even a motorsport connection: I've seen those pictures in a book on German WWII rocket powered planes published by Paul Pietsch Verlag- and gents at TNF will tell you he was a Mercedes GP driver in '30ies, and might even mention a juicy bit of his career which earned him certain distinction in Neubauer's biography)

#50 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,755 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 25 January 2012 - 07:35

It always surprised me a little that the low seating position in a Supercar made any measureable difference to the lap time - as it must have otherwise they wouldn't do it.

Most of it is wank really.Monkey see monkey do. It may make 1/10 over 5 laps and make the tyres last 1/2 a lap more. A little bloke will achieve more than sitting on the floor. So much what they do is not very clever. A few years ago they had the brake rotors with about SIXTY grooves in them,, they were supposed to bite better. But pad life was halved as 60 grooves acted as a file!!
And you had to get a fan heater on the oiltank before you started the engine. Why? Maybe in freezing conditions which do not happen in Oz.
Though the fact that the tank is 12 feet from the motor and lower than the pump could be a real problem.Dry sump schematics 101.
Plus the lightweight diff housings they are/ were using @ 20k a pop. Why? A bit less unsprung weight ofcourse but not very durable and bend when hit by another car or have an off track excursion.
And the lightweight rod ends used as tierod ends that break when you hit a kerb hard.Which they do lap after lap. But every other class at the same racemeeting gets black flagged for doing it regularly!
These are 1300+kilo tanks not a lightweight Sports Sedan or open wheeler.