121 replies to this topic

[jcbc3]

I don't think we necessarily need to go faster... just not slower, either...

If 917s could run together at 240 mph, on crap tires, suspension, terrible aero, and rudimentary everything, then surely a new car is easy to drive by comparison. At Le Mans as noted above, for an old car to run a faster top end than a new car costing much more money, something's amiss. Perhaps our sport's getting a bit soft, and I suspect almost all TNFers liked it much better the way it was. Removing driver aids from F1 cars was a great start.

I still love it, though.

The 917 didn't have to brake down for and accelrate out of two chicanes at the Mulsanne straight.

[E1pix]

The 917 didn't have to brake down for and accelrate out of two chicanes at the Mulsanne straight.

I knew that.

[E1pix]

I did not intend to demean Goodwood, of course. On the contrary, I really hope I will finally make it next year.

EDIT: British weather and all..

Of course not, it is an event I would love as well (entirely regardless of weather, bring it on ).

All my comments were in concern for our sport's future. The fact that we all liked it better before isn't all that promising.

[Henri Greuter]

If true that the Audi's and Toyotas had about 550 hp at best, then a 917 really did not have that much more power than them.
But of course it could use all that power for top speed.

it would be interesting to see what the Audi and Toyota could have done if the straight was without chicanes for them too. For sure they would have had to sacrifice some of the downforce they had, necessary for the rest of the track in order not to be too slow on the straight again and loose out there.
But because of the grip needed in the chicanes they could add all the downforce, knowing it was of use elsewhere too.


Where it had gone wrong in the late eightties, at lteast in my oint of view, was that thanks to the turbocharged engines and the development of them during the eightties the engines of the time became so powerful that, combined with moer efficient ground effect underprofiles to generate enough downforce, the cars became so slippery that the top speeds went beyond control.
It would have been interesting to see what the Saubers, jags, 962's Nissans etc could have done with `only` 550 or so hp on tab.




Henri

[Henri Greuter]

Valid point taken and agreed, Henri.

No doubt this is true with many (most?) series. Same thing with Indy cars, for one... the fastest trap speed ever at Indy was in the '90s presumably, as the fastest practice, qualifying, and race laps there were all set in 1996.

It seems we're going backwards in many areas, in a sport that is solely based on moving forward. Cost has to be the primary reason, and if there's one culprit it's technology IMHO. I guess I find it an antithesis to our sport's future for a young fan to be told "Too bad you missed the fastest days of our sport."

I believe to remember that the highest trap speeds ever were registered in the early 70's, either shortly before the big wings came along (1971) or in 1973 when the turbo Offy was userd in its most powerful configuration ever: which gave about 1200 hp for the best examples.

The top speeds of the 1971 cars was faster then that of the 1972 cars because the large rear wings of the '72s slowed them down on the stragits again. But the corner speeds they enabled were much higher so the overall speed was much higher then ever. Unser qualifying on pole a full 17 mph faster than Revson had done the year before....


Arie's records of 1996 don't differ so much in straightline and maximum corner speed. Don't have the figures at hand right now but he was almost flat out the entire track and had less straighline speeds but compensated massively for that in being a little slower in the turns.


As for the trap speed record: I have been told a figure of which I dearly hope I one that I can see the approval of it. Still working on that.



henri

[E1pix]

Where it had gone wrong in the late eightties, at lteast in my oint of view, was that thanks to the turbocharged engines and the development of them during the eightties the engines of the time became so powerful that, combined with moer efficient ground effect underprofiles to generate enough downforce, the cars became so slippery that the top speeds went beyond control.
It would have been interesting to see what the Saubers, jags, 962's Nissans etc could have done with `only` 550 or so hp on tab.

Henri

I believe that turbos did more to damage road racing than any other single factor I can think of. It seems something might have been learned after what it did to the Can-Am... F1 going back to normally aspirated in '89 brought on a great era, lasting through '95, maybe the last one. Limiting to 10 cylinders in '96 just lost something (beyond just the two cylinders ;) )

I believe to remember that the highest trap speeds ever were registered in the early 70's, either shortly before the big wings came along (1971) or in 1973 when the turbo Offy was userd in its most powerful configuration ever: which gave about 1200 hp for the best examples.

As for the trap speed record: I have been told a figure of which I dearly hope I one that I can see the approval of it. Still working on that.

henri

Very interesting to be reminded of the early-'70s configurations in regards to trap speeds. I recall a figure of 246 but think that was Arie again, either in '90 or more likely later — but it makes perfect sense that 1971 speeds would be huge (as would be driver attachments). I'd love to see if you can find a figure for any of the eras we're discussing.

Thanks for your great recall and knowledge.

[arttidesco]

I don't think we necessarily need to go faster... just not slower, either...

I was at 'dega in 09 when Edwards left the track while probably doing in excess of 180mph and a teenage girl in the crowd caught his carburetor in the jaw. My thoughts then as they are now is would anybody have noticed if the max speeds had been 10mph slower ? Might some one have been spared a trip to hospital ?

I doubt I would have noticed the difference in speed and I believe someone might have been spared a trip to hospital and I am still wondering why the authorities don't slow the dang thing's down a full 10 mph.

Sure raw numbers add an edge, but I really don't believe those numbers are worth spilling a single drop of blood for, the only place for those really big numbers to appear is the salt lake or similar out there only one person gets hurt, the one with his or her foot on the loud pedal.

[E1pix]

Sure raw numbers add an edge, but I really don't believe those numbers are worth spilling a single drop of blood for, the only place for those really big numbers to appear is the salt lake or similar out there only one person gets hurt, the one with his or her foot on the loud pedal.

I understand Artti, but was not speaking about stock cars. Regardless, where is that "bloodless number," and how is it determined? Of course we don't want fans hurt. And in the case of those "race cars" we run here, Yes, they run way too fast on the high-banked tracks (as do Indy cars at places like Texas, it's a ticking time bomb).

We all know it was far more dangerous to spectate in, say, the '60s. The question is "Was the added excitement worth the risk?" My answer is "Absolutely!" If we continually make racing safer for the spectator, by distancing us from the action, what do we lose/trade for that? How safe must life be, in general or at the track? This is not to say that measures to prevent another Levegh tragedy weren't necessary.

One analogy I can use is that I'm a mountaineer, and I do not want anything artificially contrived, beyond proper safety equipment, making it safer. My wife's been injured doing it, and she too wants nothing artificially "safe" coming between her and her sport. If everything exciting becomes safe, then I guess I'll be roped to a ladder on the peaks, tying in to take a shower at home, wearing a helmet driving to market, you get the idea.

No offense please, because none's intended... but what you're saying is exactly what I meant by racing "getting soft." If we keep going in this direction, we will lose much of what's great about our sport — as we've been doing. I personally have no interest in watching race cars from fifty or a hundred yards away, just to prevent the unlikely one-in-a-hundred-thousand chance that otherwise I could be hurt. This is not to suggest that some safety concerns weren't properly addressed, because they were — raising the fences and moving back the closest rows at Indy is a great example — but we've gone way too far IMHO. Insurance liability is the likely culprit, and if I could sign an iron-clad waiver to take the extra, nominal risk and enjoy the sport like in my childhood, I would.

Soon even photographers won't be able to get close anymore. If our goal is to never 'lose a single drop of blood,' then our sport is done.

[arttidesco]

The age of really daring brute force is regrettably gone, I have always thought racing is exiting without the speed, problem as I see it is that I can imagine a slicks wings and carbon fibre everything Formula of 500 cc powered cars being just as entertaining as a 400 hp free engine, no wings, no carbon fibre, grooved 8" road legal tyres formula or whatever, the alternatives that would make the non play mat circuits viable are possible to create but they would be hard sell.

We know vehicles take off at 180 mph so do we really need to be going at those kinds of speeds to make entertaining races, you only have to look at a British Saloon Car Championship race or any non slicks Formula Ford race to see the answer is evidently no and this has been the case for many years but still the powers that be persist in allowing cars which are too big and too fast for anything that even resembles a proper racing circuit be it oval or road.

Yes I like big bangers but they have no future outside a nostalgic context.

I won't take the fence if you don't take the gate ;)

Edited by arttidesco, 02 July 2012 - 21:23.

[E1pix]

Yes I like big bangers but they have no future outside a nostalgic context.

I won't take the fence if you don't take the gate ;)

I fear you're right but hope you're not. What was it that Shakespeare said about lawyers?

I remain confused why a stock-block, 8 cylinder format couldn't work for sports cars like it does for NASCAR — similar to Mercedes' program with Webber, Schu, et al. The Grand-Am Series has it pretty close IMHO, it seems we go the wrong way in allowing highly-tweaked and expensively sophisticated powerplants (though I do indeed love both!). Audi is the latest in financing a competition-proof formulae nobody can touch in the current age.

I also totally agree that the slower classes are still a blast, I'm a lifetime fan of Formula Ford and Formula Vee.

Well said, with any luck the gates will stay open for those far younger than us. Folks of our, say, "advanced experience base" were darned lucky. I'm so glad for that.

Great post, Artti, Thanks.

Edited by E1pix, 02 July 2012 - 21:40.

[Henri Greuter]

I believe that turbos did more to damage road racing than any other single factor I can think of. It seems something might have been learned after what it did to the Can-Am... F1 going back to normally aspirated in '89 brought on a great era, lasting through '95, maybe the last one. Limiting to 10 cylinders in '96 just lost something (beyond just the two cylinders ;) )


Very interesting to be reminded of the early-'70s configurations in regards to trap speeds. I recall a figure of 246 but think that was Arie again, either in '90 or more likely later — but it makes perfect sense that 1971 speeds would be huge (as would be driver attachments). I'd love to see if you can find a figure for any of the eras we're discussing.

Thanks for your great recall and knowledge.

Thanks for your input too. And to others of course as well.

I don't think turbo technology to be wrong at all. in fact I like it way over bigblocks. I have much more respect for a reliable highboost F1 engine the I ever had and will have for bigblock Detroit iron. 5 liters and more is simply not in line with the curent times anymore. And powerwise you don't need it, given the current state of chassis engineering in both F1 and sportscars.

I mentioned things have gone worng because of turbos but let's nor forget that at the end of the true Gp C era we were dealing with 7 liter V12's and 5 liter V8 with turbos. Way more powerful then with what Gp C started back in 1982. It was a bit remeniscent to the 34-37 era in GP racing. One limit was supposed to keep engine power within reasonable limits (750 kg car weight) but improved technology allowed 600 and more HP monsters on motorcyle tires... Something similar happened in GP C thanks to development on engine management controls (motoronic) and turbos. Especially the influences of the developments on these engine management controls must not be overlooked. The late 80's engines were much more fuel efficient that the early 80's engines were, thanks to them.

I think that with, say 5 liter atmo and 3 liter turbo we would have seen decent and reasonable engines. For turbo: restrict them to prevent the out of control situation we had in Indycars in '73 and F1 from 1985 on.
The kind of performances Mclaren Honda achieved with a 1.5 turbo in '88 were neat and challenging too.

For passenger cars, Personally I believe the future is to turbos. a big lump V8 in traffic jam consumes more fuel the a smaller engine with turbo that can produce more power (up to levels of the bigger block) when it is needed thanks to the turbo assisting.
Combine it with hybrid technology for the lower RPM's and you get a decent alternative on Detroit-like dinosaur technology of more than half a century ago.
Using such technology in racing could enhance this technology.

Besides that: For example: NASCAR using 5.8 liter engines but on superspeedways using restrictor plates in order to cut back radically on their power to control speeds: Then you're using a much too large engine to begin with. For what reason? Only just to let these engines be big? And loud?
Now that plea definitely falls on: literally: deaf ears anyway.....

Another rediculous trend: introducing KERS for a `green` image to compensate for the development of blown diffusers: going even so far that even when the cars must slow down the engine is still tuned to burn as much fuel as possible to activate this blown diffuser. Fuel used for enhancing aerodynamics.....
Makes no sense to me in conjunction with using KERS for a more green image....


if I know more about the Indy speed traps, I'll be back with that

Henri

[Duc-Man]

For passenger cars, Personally I believe the future is to turbos. a big lump V8 in traffic jam consumes more fuel the a smaller engine with turbo that can produce more power (up to levels of the bigger block) when it is needed thanks to the turbo assisting.
Combine it with hybrid technology for the lower RPM's and you get a decent alternative on Detroit-like dinosaur technology of more than half a century ago.
Using such technology in racing could enhance this technology.

Henri

Sorry for gettin way OT here.

I totally disagree. Downsizing is just taking the piss for me.

For example: a co-worker of me drives an Opel Corsa 1.6 turbo with 150hp. The norm fuel consumption is at 7.3 l/100km. In reality it's somewhere above 9 l/100km.
If I comepare this with the current Corvette Grand Sport I have a 6.2 litre V8 with 437hp and a norm fuel consumption of 13.4 l/100km.
It's almost twice as much fuel that goes through but it's 4x the engine size and 3x the power output.

A small turbo engine is fine if you have no intention to go faster than 80 mph. Over that it just sucks like a big block.

On hybrids: I'd love to rip the whole hybrid bits out of a Toyota Prius and run it with just the petrol engine to see how much more fuel it would need.

Editing to say: I drive a '99 Opel Astra 1.6 with 75hp with around 6.3 l/100km...old car with 'bad' gas mileage.

Edited by Duc-Man, 03 July 2012 - 10:26.

[Henri Greuter]

if I know more about the Indy speed traps, I'll be back with that

Henri

1995 speeds valid for Arie Luyendyk, Car: 1995 Lola-Menard Average speed: 234+, trap speeds: "close to 240 mph"

Henri

[E1pix]

Hi, Henri:

Oh, I share your respect for making gobs of power from a tiny motor — and for your thought of turbos being proper for street cars also. No doubt, I'm looking at/dreaming of travel vehicles to live in a while, and the ones I like are all Turbo Diesels for mileage and longevity. Quite brilliant, really.

I've always been "mpg conscious" and not a fan of a big-ass V8 unless necessary (and I do consider Duc-Man's love for his 'Vette as 'necessary' in life ). Yes, the configuration is outdated in some ways, though "time-tested" also fits as they are quite reliable as well. But I do think in race applications they're certainly cheaper to operate at equal speeds than any highly-stressed turbo (except for maybe a diesel).

Per Arie's speeds, his record average lap was 237+ so I suspect "well over 240" on the straights seems reasonable. Again, 246 sticks in my mind. I'd love to hear what you find. I found this interesting: http://en.wikipedia....s#Speed_records

Thanks Again.

[Henri Greuter]

Hi, Henri:

Oh, I share your respect for making gobs of power from a tiny motor — and for your thought of turbos being proper for street cars also. No doubt, I'm looking at/dreaming of travel vehicles to live in a while, and the ones I like are all Turbo Diesels for mileage and longevity. Quite brilliant, really.

I've always been "mpg conscious" and not a fan of a big-ass V8 unless necessary (and I do consider Duc-Man's love for his 'Vette as 'necessary' in life ). Yes, the configuration is outdated in some ways, though "time-tested" also fits as they are quite reliable as well. But I do think in race applications they're certainly cheaper to operate at equal speeds than any highly-stressed turbo (except for maybe a diesel).

Per Arie's speeds, his record average lap was 237+ so I suspect "well over 240" on the straights seems reasonable. Again, 246 sticks in my mind. I'd love to hear what you find. I found this interesting: http://en.wikipedia....s#Speed_records

Thanks Again.

My pleasure and thanks as well.

The unofficial record of Arie, the 239.260, that's the one I'm looking for. I once read them and I remember that the trapspeed itself wasn't that much higher that the average speed.
Arie was known to be very good in setting a car up for cornerspeeds and the story goes that in 1996 he uses so little downforce generated by the rear wing that the only thing left to do to reduce rear wing downforse even further was taking it off.... But that was deemed too risky because of the overall balance of the car.
Arie also stated that his record car was so unbelievably good and wel set up that it was almost easier to drive 237 with that car then that it was to drive slower with other cars in the past.
He used an `old` Cossie XB that year, the XD and the Hondas existed already. It makes you wonder what he could ahve achieved if he had one of those (even more powerful) engines in that car; 240+ ?
Treadway Racing had tried to get the Honda but was turned down...

I have read that Fittipaldi, using one of those 94 Penske-Mercedes cars rached a trap speed of app. 245 mph but the lap speed was `only` 230. Now those cars really didn't handle too well in the corners and had to slow down for them.



The highest trap speeds in '71 were not as fast as in the late nineties.



I agree with your opinions about highboost engines vs Bigblocks in endurance racing and what is likely chepaer, etc.



henri

[Henri Greuter]

Trap speed record at Indy. Found it in my notes at last.


Last year I was at Indy and one evening I listened to "the talk of gasoline alley" by Donald Davidson.

Topic of discussion was the 1994 Penske Mercedes and according Donad Davidson, Emerson Fittipaldi has been measured on one occasion doing 247 mph. An this was the fastes speed ever measured officially by IMS any year, No average speed for the lap in which he put that trap speed down given.


About Arie's 239.260 lap at Indy, the all time record fastest lap:
243 MPH going into Turn One, 247 MPH going into Turn 3, tow assisted. Lowest speed 237 MPH in Turn 3.
Cossie XB produced a genuine 950 hp at legel boost levels.


Not because I am also Dutch but somehow I felt that Arie's record card of 1996 deserved to have been on display in the Museum as well last year, No winner but the fastest car ever in those 100 years of "500s".


Link back to the topic: Yes, the 1988 WM-Peugeot was faster....



Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 05 July 2012 - 10:43.

[E1pix]

My pleasure as well, Henri, thanks for all your thoughts and the time you took to write them.

Yep, the Merc Indy motor being quickest makes sense. No mystery why it was banned after their domination in '94. Doing that speed on the Mulsanne is harrowing enough... doing that with a wall-lined turn rushing towards you is quite another matter. Attachments Required for either.

I'm not Dutch but agree with your museum comment 100%. But, I'm glad Arie didn't win in '96 because a longtime friend and client did, wearing a helmet I designed.

Yes, back on topic...

Thanks Again.

[Robin Fairservice]

There was a CART race at Fontana, a two mile banked track, which was very fast. I believe that Maurcio Gugelmin set a very fast (140 mph+) lap in 1997 or 1998. After he said that his technique was to keep his foot hard down and don't breathe!

[Henri Greuter]

My pleasure as well, Henri, thanks for all your thoughts and the time you took to write them.

Yep, the Merc Indy motor being quickest makes sense. No mystery why it was banned after their domination in '94. Doing that speed on the Mulsanne is harrowing enough... doing that with a wall-lined turn rushing towards you is quite another matter. Attachments Required for either.

I'm not Dutch but agree with your museum comment 100%. But, I'm glad Arie didn't win in '96 because a longtime friend and client did, wearing a helmet I designed.

Yes, back on topic...;)

Thanks Again.

Talking Indy '96 would be topo much off topic here.
respect for Buddy given the injuries he had that year, no doubt about it.
But other then that I rather keep my mouth about race day 1996 and what happened that day.
Other then the comment that one driver in particular should have had a black flag for misconduct at at least two times which affected the outcome of the race on two occasions for two drivers

Glad you're fine with the trap speed reports, my pleasure.


Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 07 July 2012 - 11:45.

[stevewf1]

About Arie's 239.260 lap at Indy, the all time record fastest lap:
243 MPH going into Turn One, 247 MPH going into Turn 3, tow assisted. Lowest speed 237 MPH in Turn 3.
Cossie XB produced a genuine 950 hp at legel boost levels.
Henri

This, to me, is still the most amazing feat of speed on any closed circuit ever... Indianapolis is not a high-banked "circle" but a relatively flat track with four distinct corners. And this speed was achieved before the "safe" walls were put up. The only thing to greet you then was hard concrete...

Edited by stevewf1, 09 July 2012 - 09:36.

[Graham Clayton]

There is a very good and amusing article on the WM and their 'never to be broken' speed record, Project 400, in the July 2012 issue of Racecar Engineering ( Page 36).

RJE,
Here is an electronic version of that article - well worth reading:

http://content.yudu....esources/36.htm

[Ray Bell]

How does one get to look at that?

It won't open for me...