49 replies to this topic

[Prost1997T]

http://www.motorspor...manthey-830882/

 

 

"The aerodynamics of the cars escalated long ago," he said. "From year to year and from car to car the GT3 race cars have been developed massively and aggressively in terms of aerodynamic performance, a lot beyond what is reasonable"...

The bottom line is: we have to reduce the downforce the cars generate. While downforce itself isn't a bad thing and it even helps to boost safety, too much downforce certainly is counterproductive – especially if generated mostly by the floor. To accomplish this, the cars need to sit low on the track. But on the bumpy Nordschleife this can be dangerous."

 

He does make some good points, especially considering last year's fatal crash and the subsequent restrictions. Have the cars outgrown the track?

[redreni]

GT3 is possibly heading the same way as GT1. I'm not sure you would have been able to race GT1s on the Nordschleife either.

 

It shouldn't be the case that, if a driver pushes just a little bit too hard in a corner and has a normal, foreseeable, non-freak accident, the car flies over the fence. Cars need to be suitable for the tracks on which they run. GT3s are perfectly suitable for most modern tracks but it's questionable whether they're suitable for the Nordschleife these days.

[Nemo1965]

There was a discussion about this a year or so ago, right when Jann Mardenborough flew over the fence at the Ring with his Nissan GT R. Strangely enough, I can't find the thread which heated up considerably back then.

 

You can see the accident here

 

I am quite amazed that the article in the opening post nor anyone else mentioned this, because it is exactly the sort of accident where Manthey is referring to.

[Joseki]

Honestly I can't see anything faster than a Honda Civic racing "safely" on the Nurb.

[Victor_RO]

GT3 cars may be too fast on the Nordschleife nowadays, but considering what the front of the field looks like nowadays and the amount of support poured in by the German brands that are involved in GT3, the only things that they'll do is fiddle with BoP, restrictors and weights to make the cars a teeny-weeny bit slower.

[Dan333SP]

There was a discussion about this a year or so ago, right when Jann Mardenborough flew over the fence at the Ring with his Nissan GT R. Strangely enough, I can't find the thread which heated up considerably back then.

 

You can see the accident here

 

I am quite amazed that the article in the opening post nor anyone else mentioned this, because it is exactly the sort of accident where Manthey is referring to.

 

The OP did reference that crash-

 

"He does make some good points, especially considering last year's fatal crash and the subsequent restrictions."

 

It is odd that the linked article doesn't mention it, though.

[sidewinder26]

Do GT3 cars generate much more downforce than hypercars?

[Victor_RO]

Do GT3 cars generate much more downforce than hypercars?

 

Far more. GT3 aero has gone crazy in recent years in terms of splitter, wing and diffuser sizes.

[V8 Fireworks]

 

In other news, water is wet!

 

These GT3 cars are getting very fast with all their downforce.  Limiting the Nurburgring 24 hour to Production-based class (GT3? production-based? yeah right...) only could be something they ought to consider - perhaps?

 

Honestly I can't see anything faster than a Honda Civic racing "safely" on the Nurb.

 

This is all you need, no need for GT3.  Due to low cost to convert a road car Type R to Super 2000 (it's a very good base), the Civic is one of the most popular cars for countries that still use Super 2000. 

 

 

In other news, 2L turbos like TCR and the similar VLN class, sound just terrible. 

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 28 September 2016 - 16:29.

[Nemo1965]

The OP did reference that crash-

 

"He does make some good points, especially considering last year's fatal crash and the subsequent restrictions."

 

It is odd that the linked article doesn't mention it, though.

 

You are right. I immediately clicked the article to read.

[Dr. Austin]

They could shave a few spots down and that would help a lot. I'de hate to see them put in chicanes or other such silliness. If we want to keep the track's character, move spectators away from the areas where the cars get airborne. Then the drivers either accept the risk or they don't. You can always slow down.

 

Personally I'de like to see the old Nurburgring back on the F1 schedule, but have them race 400 cc shifter karts. Then we would see who has what.

[Victor_RO]

They could shave a few spots down and that would help a lot. I'de hate to see them put in chicanes or other such silliness. If we want to keep the track's character, move spectators away from the areas where the cars get airborne. Then the drivers either accept the risk or they don't. You can always slow down.

 

 

That's what was done over last winter.

[f1paul]

Stupid Safety. F1 used to come here!!!!!!!!

[chunder27]

Regular drivers did not have a problem in that area of the track so it migth have been a number of issues.

 

The track is fien for most cars, but perhaps full blown GT cars are a tad OTT, especially when you are in there with very slow hatches etc, but that is surely what makes the track and the racing such a bigger challange than any other motor race, both for those at the front and those trying to race themselves but keep out the way.

 

Track needs to stay as it is, cars need to change if anything, touch that place too much and you are starting to damage the finest piece of road anywhere in the world. Unchangeable

[Imperial]

Strangely enough, I can't find the thread which heated up considerably back then.

I think this is it: http://forums.autosp...tor-area/page-6

[superden]

OMFG, racing isn't SAFE? Who knew?

Just leave the 'ring alone FFS. Cars should be made to suit the venues, not the other way round. That's a rocky road to crapsville.

[Marklar]

Stupid Safety.

You can't be serious

Just leave the 'ring alone FFS. Cars should be made to suit the venues, not the other way round. That's a rocky road to crapsville.

This

[Imperial]

Cars should be made to suit the venues, not the other way round. That's a rocky road to crapsville.

Isn't that the norm?

The top series in various categories, bikes included, only visit circuits they deem suitable. They don't tone down F1 cars to go to less safe circuits.

[V8 Fireworks]

Isn't that the norm?

The top series in various categories, bikes included, only visit circuits they deem suitable. They don't tone down F1 cars to go to less safe circuits.

 

Isn't that the norm?

The top series in various categories, bikes included, only visit circuits they deem suitable. They don't tone down F1 cars to go to less safe circuits.

 

Bear in mind that GT3 cars were meant to do the same laptimes as Porsche Carrera Cup cars.  However this has gone horribly wrong!? 

[Henri Greuter]

Bear in mind that GT3 cars were meant to do the same laptimes as Porsche Carrera Cup cars.  However this has gone horribly wrong!? 

 

 

How can things not go wrong with cars like 6 liter Merc's and other such big capacitiy cars being allowed in? What is GT3 nowadays has been pre 1995 GT1 stuf and early 2000 GT2 stuff.

Hideously large Bentleys (with the power they need to be fast to begin with) being accepted for racing, BMW replacing their fairly small Z4's and that kind of things for behemothic 6-series derivatives.....

 

And people are surprised about things getting out of control?

 

 

pffff....

 

 

There was a time that a 3.5 liter engine was rated as large, are there any cars GT3 using such capacity engines without the use of turbochargers to increase the power output?

 

 

GT3 goes the same way as what happend back in 1995 when the McLaren f1 was allowed in an event to compete agains cars liket 911Turbo, Lotus Esprit V8, MVS Venturi and other racing verions of genuine production sports cars available at car dealers. In the eager to please and attract the crowds with spectacular cars that you'll rarely, if ever see at the street in a production version, purebred competition cars are allowed in and kill off the spirit of the original Series.

 

And it goes in circles, First GT1 was killed because of the Mclaren and what was built in reaction on that, Then GT2 was created but all kind of loophole cars were let in into that category so that was killed off and with GT3 we'll see exactly the same happening again.

 

Henri

[New Britain]

How can things not go wrong with cars like 6 liter Merc's and other such big capacitiy cars being allowed in? What is GT3 nowadays has been pre 1995 GT1 stuf and early 2000 GT2 stuff.

Hideously large Bentleys (with the power they need to be fast to begin with) being accepted for racing, BMW replacing their fairly small Z4's and that kind of things for behemothic 6-series derivatives.....

 

And people are surprised about things getting out of control?

 

 

pffff....

 

 

There was a time that a 3.5 liter engine was rated as large, are there any cars GT3 using such capacity engines without the use of turbochargers to increase the power output?

 

 

GT3 goes the same way as what happend back in 1995 when the McLaren f1 was allowed in an event to compete agains cars liket 911Turbo, Lotus Esprit V8, MVS Venturi and other racing verions of genuine production sports cars available at car dealers. In the eager to please and attract the crowds with spectacular cars that you'll rarely, if ever see at the street in a production version, purebred competition cars are allowed in and kill off the spirit of the original Series.

 

And it goes in circles, First GT1 was killed because of the Mclaren and what was built in reaction on that, Then GT2 was created but all kind of loophole cars were let in into that category so that was killed off and with GT3 we'll see exactly the same happening again.

 

Henri

 

At Le Mans in 1995, prototypes were competing too. It wasn't only vehicles derived from ordinary road cars. At least McLaren were competing with a car that had genuinely been designed as a road car.

What spoiled the competition was when Porsche and Mercedes reacted to the McLaren win of '95 by producing true racing cars of which they then made a handful of road-legal versions purely in order to homologate the racing cars.

 

On the thread subject of racing at the 'Ring, Olaf Manthey probably has a greater understanding - as a Ringmeister and an engineer - of the feasibility and the risk of racing at the Nordschleife than any other person alive. He also has the balls of an elephant. On the rare occasions when he offers an opinion on risk, it's worth heeding.

[Henri Greuter]

At Le Mans in 1995, prototypes were competing too. It wasn't only vehicles derived from ordinary road cars. At least McLaren were competing with a car that had genuinely been designed as a road car.

What spoiled the competition was when Porsche and Mercedes reacted to the McLaren win of '95 by producing true racing cars of which they then made a handful of road-legal versions purely in order to homologate the racing cars.

 

On the thread subject of racing at the 'Ring, Olaf Manthey probably has a greater understanding - as a Ringmeister and an engineer - of the feasibility and the risk of racing at the Nordschleife than any other person alive. He also has the balls of an elephant. On the rare occasions when he offers an opinion on risk, it's worth heeding.

 

Sorry

 

Do you really think that a car with so many Gp C-like specifications and ( even in street  (cough cough cough) trim ) was more expensive and more of a rarity than a Porsche 962 was an true, serious suitable opponent to be fielded up in GT races like the BPR events against cars like the 911Turbo, MVS Venture and other cars I mentioned? Cars of which at least genuine street versions existed that were obtainable for a much larger audience and nowhere near as a rarity than those Macs?

Do you know which car came the closest to the McLaren F1 if you were looking cor a car with its main features: carbonfiber monocoque and V12? Hint: that car won Le Mans in 1988....

 

Do you really think that first  Porsche and then Mercedes would have built their cars just for the fun of breaking the rules and the spirit of the series?

I'll bet you that if the McLaren had not been admitted in BPR and GT racing to begin with, then Porsche would never built that 911GT1. There was no need for them yet to built anything that extreme yet. But when McLaren (with BMW engines..... ) first found their way into BPR and then at Le Mans as well, that was the reason whythe 911GT1 came into existance and all that foolwed thereafter.

Calling the McLaren a road car.... pffffff.

If the Porsche and Mercs were the cars that spoiled the competition look for the reason why they came into existance and on which, the Porsche in particular) were the reaction.

Blame Porsche and Mercedes, but McLaren F1 started it. Without the McLaren, no 911GT1......

"Road" (cough cough cough) car is was. called but technologywise it was as far removed from a Esprit V8's, Venturis and the like as the 911GT1 was removed from the F1. So in that respect there is enough reason to hold the McLaren just as responsible for the affairs within GT racing as Porsche. Porsche broke the rules but that was easy after them being bent to almost breaking point by McLaren .....

 

Henri

[Dr. Austin]

OMFG, racing isn't SAFE? Who knew?

 

 

Some things are just supposed to be dangerous and we like it that way.

[PayasYouRace]

Henri, the F1 was as pure a road car as any of what came before it. McLaren didn't even originally intend it for racing. Racing versions were modified from the road car spec. I don't know why you have this thing about it being some sort of homologation special like the German cars that came later to beat it. It wasn't at all.

[Henri Greuter]

Henri, the F1 was as pure a road car as any of what came before it. McLaren didn't even originally intend it for racing. Racing versions were modified from the road car spec. I don't know why you have this thing about it being some sort of homologation special like the German cars that came later to beat it. It wasn't at all.

 

 

Call it what you want but it doesn't take away that the car was an an entirely different level of engineering and principles (carbonfiber chassis for example and its power to weight ratio) that it had little in common with any of the pre 1994 gt contenders that had to deal with the car.

In my opinion the rules were bend beyond repairs when it was admitted to BPR racing, The next step was what Porsche did in response and this effectively broke the rules.. As i already stated, i doubt if Porsche would have started the entire GT1 loophole if it wasn' for the fact that a so called streetcar that was at the time the hyper car of its day was put up against far less exotic equipment. 

The BMW engine of the car was yet another factor that stirred Porsche.

 

 

 

I am probably the only race fan who rates the F1 as the reason why Porsche bend the rules but if otherew want to ignore the major differences between pre 1994 GT racing cars and the street versions they were derived off and the McLaren.

So be it, I don't care. Everyone is allowed to have his own opinion in this matter.....

I am not happy with how GT racing went belly up from 1997 on because of those GT1 and follow ups.

But BPR got what it deserved with letting in the F1 first. 

 

 

 

Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 29 September 2016 - 14:46.

[ensign14]

Maybe they should be proper GT cars once again.  I.e. mass-produced for the road rather than homologation specials.

 

The McLaren F1 was at least a pukka road car.  The Dauer 956 was a sick joke.

[Dr. Austin]

I am not happy with how GT racing went belly up from 1997 on because of those GT1 and follow ups.

But BPR got what it deserved with letting in the F1 first. 

 

We went to the 1997 FIA/PSR Oktoberfest event at Sebring in 1997, and the vast array of equipment was thrilling. We had long and short tail McLarens, three of the Mercedes CLK GTR, Lotus', a bunch of Panoz cars and Porsche GT1 and GT1 evo cars. It was more like going to a prototype race because these were the most exotic cars we had seen since the GTP days. The rest of the field was GT2 cars, which were more mass production cars, so it was a teriffic event.

 

We had the FIA event, but also the American PSR event which featured GT1 cars and open top "prototypes, so sportscar racing in the US was actually in good shape and set to grow ....... right up until the FIA pulled the rug out from under us and killed off the GT1s

 

Certainly this was just an out-of-control evolution of the original BPR series, but it was incredibly extincting. In the absence of prototypes, the mega GT1 cars were still pretty stirring to watch. We got one more year out of those cars, and then the FIA killed them off and made GT2 the premier championship.

 

The point is, we were on the verge of another sportscar renaissance, and the FIA just threw it away. Certainly the GT1 cars were not quite in the spirit of true GT racing, but they were fast and cool. Once those were gone, US sportscar racing split into Grand American and ALMS camps and it took 15 years to sort that mess out and we are still suffering.

 

If the FIA has just left the rules alone we would have ended up with something that looked like leMans 1999, which was a really col field of cars. Instead, European sportscar racing and US sportscar racing is merely what it is.

Edited by Dr. Austin, 29 September 2016 - 16:09.

[redreni]

They could shave a few spots down and that would help a lot. I'de hate to see them put in chicanes or other such silliness. If we want to keep the track's character, move spectators away from the areas where the cars get airborne. Then the drivers either accept the risk or they don't. You can always slow down.

 

Personally I'de like to see the old Nurburgring back on the F1 schedule, but have them race 400 cc shifter karts. Then we would see who has what.

 

I'm generally rather opposed to altering race tracks to suit cars. I'd much rather they enforced special BOP, higher minimum ride heights etc for VLN and the N24 to make the cars suitable for the track, or just make GT3s ineligible for those races.

 

I can see the argument that says "it's not the cars because it isn't a problem anywhere else, ergo the track must be at fault" but, frankly, that's the kind of thinking that, if taken to its logical conclusion, leads to bland, standardised race tracks and, actually, what you want is for different tracks to have different characteristics. That way, over the course of a series or championship, the different events ask very different questions of the cars and drivers. Look at the lack of challenge and variety in the F1 calendar, which is half the reason why we know the outcome in advance of most of the races. That's why, for me, the biggest part of the solution to this kind of problem is always to alter the cars rather than the tracks.

[Xentas]

http://www.motorspor...manthey-830882/

 

 

He does make some good points, especially considering last year's fatal crash and the subsequent restrictions. Have the cars outgrown the track?

 

 

enforce a ride height for the teams at the very least, have checks before, during and after racing to make sure the cars comply with directions, the aero debate doesn't mean much after this.

[Stephane]

Hasn't this discussion about the McLaren F1 already happened here some months ago ?

[Henri Greuter]

Hasn't this discussion about the McLaren F1 already happened here some months ago ?

 

Yes.

 

And why not?

 

We keep on seeing the very same faults being made within GT racing categories ever so often again.

It all starts with the best intentions, then factories show their intention to participate but lacking a car that complies entirely to the rules so these are stretched in order to let that very interesting car that definitely will create attention for the series participate at the expence of the competitors up till that moment.

This year we saw such another case of rules stretching/bending resulting in Ford getting away with victory in the GT Pro categorie with a car that isn't for sale yet. (I won't be surprised if Ford bows out of producing the car at the very last moment after all, Le Mans is won in the one year they wanted it the most of all and everyone will remember that.....)

Ford GT's hardly at the streets at all but running away with Le Mans while McLarens and some other cars are out on the street yet not welcome at Le Mans.

We see all that kinds of things that have happened before happen again in GT3 right now. And the best and lasting examples of what when wrong and why are from 1995 on and later,

 

Ok, let's please Ensign14 a bit, Let's make that 1994 so we can include the Dauer as well.

 

 

Henri

[Dr. Austin]

I'm generally rather opposed to altering race tracks to suit cars. I'd much rather they enforced special BOP, higher minimum ride heights etc for VLN and the N24 to make the cars suitable for the track, or just make GT3s ineligible for those races.

 

If you keep dropping down in class until you find something suitable, we'll end up racing really, really slow cars until the track itself becomes irrelevant. The Ring is already in enough financial trouble that they don't need to be losing events.

 

The biggest problem is the elevation changes can lead to blowovers. You simply can't have that, so they are going to have to either shave those a bit or put in slower corners before those to get the speed down. As far as the limited runoff, we've got enough places with unlimited runoff. 

 

As the cars get faster, the blowover problem gets worse. Porsche 907 longtails were blowing over at Daytona (of all places) and in testing at Hockenheim. These were isolated examples because those cars were extremely streamlined and caused more by the cars producing lift than anything..  Later, the 908 "flounder" bodied cars were blowing over at the ring in 1969 and the next year a regular 908/2 blew over and driver Hans Laine was killed. After that more was learned about aerodynamics and we didn't see any blowovers until the 911 GT1 supercars when the Mercedes were flying off into the woods, and later when a 911 GT1 blew over at Road Atlanta. There are a lot more blowovers that are too numerous to mention including Manfred Winklehock at the ring in an F2 car, and Vill Aburlin in a BMW LMP at road Atlanta, but you get the idea. All of these accidents were over elevation changes. Fast, flat bottomerd cars and sharp elevation changes are a bad recipe.

 

We are dealing with the laws of flight. A flat bottomed car has the same aerodynamic profile as a flat bottom airfoil, which is a pretty good airfoil for producing a lot of lift. Once you start coming over rises at a positive angle of attack, it's like an airliner lifting it's front wheel off the ground right before take off.

 

Aside from limited run off and the circuit's sheer length, it's not an inherently dangerous place. That is, until you add in the elevation changes. If we are going to go fast at the ring with flat bottom cars, the elevation changes are always going to be an insurmountable problem.

Edited by Dr. Austin, 29 September 2016 - 20:07.

[Dr. Austin]

(I won't be surprised if Ford bows out of producing the car (Ford GT) at the very last moment after all, Le Mans is won in the one year they wanted it the most of all and everyone will remember that.....)

 

Ford is already road testing the next generation of Ford GT, and in fact, just got popped for doing 110 mph in, I believe, Colorado. 

[V8 Fireworks]

Maybe they should be proper GT cars once again.  I.e. mass-produced for the road rather than homologation specials.

 

If you put homologation production volume at 1000 units per annum, with NO concessions - the complete engine & gearbox, brakes, oil coolers & sump, aerodynamics must be exactly raced as the production vehicle with (the obvious loophole of) active suspension and active aerodynamics prohibited, it should do the trick to mitigate specials.

 

The only freedom would be springs, shocks and swaybars -- conventional type only -- (and of course safety equipment) they are meant to be supercars after all right? 

 

Obviously a displacement and battery capacity to weight formula would still be required.    Or would it?

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 29 September 2016 - 21:12.

[V8 Fireworks]

Yes.

 

 

We see all that kinds of things that have happened before happen again in GT3 right now. 

 

Here is a comparison of production and GT3, Honda NSX:

 

 

The GT3 is so far removed from the road car, it is preposterous.    [It's much more similar to a DTM or Super GT vehicle in fact.]

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 29 September 2016 - 21:15.

[redreni]

If you keep dropping down in class until you find something suitable, we'll end up racing really, really slow cars until the track itself becomes irrelevant. The Ring is already in enough financial trouble that they don't need to be losing events.

 

The biggest problem is the elevation changes can lead to blowovers. You simply can't have that, so they are going to have to either shave those a bit or put in slower corners before those to get the speed down. As far as the limited runoff, we've got enough places with unlimited runoff. 

 

As the cars get faster, the blowover problem gets worse. Porsche 907 longtails were blowing over at Daytona (of all places) and in testing at Hockenheim. These were isolated examples because those cars were extremely streamlined and caused more by the cars producing lift than anything..  Later, the 908 "flounder" bodied cars were blowing over at the ring in 1969 and the next year a regular 908/2 blew over and driver Hans Laine was killed. After that more was learned about aerodynamics and we didn't see any blowovers until the 911 GT1 supercars when the Mercedes were flying off into the woods, and later when a 911 GT1 blew over at Road Atlanta. There are a lot more blowovers that are too numerous to mention including Manfred Winklehock at the ring in an F2 car, and Vill Aburlin in a BMW LMP at road Atlanta, but you get the idea. All of these accidents were over elevation changes. Fast, flat bottomerd cars and sharp elevation changes are a bad recipe.

 

We are dealing with the laws of flight. A flat bottomed car has the same aerodynamic profile as a flat bottom airfoil, which is a pretty good airfoil for producing a lot of lift. Once you start coming over rises at a positive angle of attack, it's like an airliner lifting it's front wheel off the ground right before take off.

 

Aside from limited run off and the circuit's sheer length, it's not an inherently dangerous place. That is, until you add in the elevation changes. If we are going to go fast at the ring with flat bottom cars, the elevation changes are always going to be an insurmountable problem.

 

Well, there you go. That's the lay of the land. I walked most of the way around in 2012 so I'm aware what it's like i.e. absolutely nothing like any other track. I'm not sure what the local residents would make of it if they announced plans to bring bulldozers in to try to get rid of the bumps, though.

 

I agree blowovers are the major issue; it's maybe a tolerable risk for drivers if they understand the dangers and want to do it, but the risk to marshals and spectators from that kind of accident is simply intolerable. It's clear from the onboards what the issue is: there are places where there's a 1m armco with a layer of old car tyres on the outside of the corner, however if a car loses control on the brow of the hill, its trajectory is towards the top of the debris fence, not towards the barrier. Gravity will, of course, bring an out-of-control car to the ground eventually, but as you say, not quickly enough if the car is generating a lot of lift.

 

I'm not sure I agree that the only way to solve it without altering the track is to limit eligibility to "really, really slow cars" (as you put it). I don't recall there being issues with blowovers until relatively recently, i.e. since the GT3 aero arms race began. I know they brought in a stopgap measure to address the specific issue related to the accident mentioned above, i.e. a speed limit/slow zone at that specific part of the track. But even that measure wouldn't be necessary if we could go back to racing cars with similar aero characteristics to the GT3 cars of 5 years ago - and those cars weren't "really slow". They just weren't as fast as now.

 

The fundamental problem is that when a BOP formula becomes competitive, all the gains are made in aero. There's no point making the car lighter because the governing body will weigh the car make you add ballast accordingly. There's no point increasing engine power because the governing body can measure that and react accordingly. You can, however, increase aero performance and nobody's going to know until you decide to show your hand, which of course you won't do until after the BOP for whatever event you're most interested in winning has been determined. Ideally in a BOP formula, the governing body would be able to control the amount of downforce on the cars, but it's not something they've worked out how to measure, and if they want to use BOP to slow a car down, it's just much easier for them to do it by adding ballast or reducing its fuel flow limit or changing the size of a restrictor, or doing something else that has no effect on downforce.

[Dr. Austin]

I'm not sure I agree that the only way to solve it without altering the track is to limit eligibility to "really, really slow cars" (as you put it). I don't recall there being issues with blowovers until relatively recently, i.e. since the GT3 aero arms race began. 

 

 

It's all about the laws of flight. Flat bottomed cars at speed turn into airfoils if you lift the nose. The Group C cars were fast as hell, but they didn't blow over at the reing because they have enormous underbody downforce. The problem is the flat bottoms at high speed. Production cars are mostly flat bottomed, so as soon as the GT cars got to a certain speed, the problem resurfaced.

 

See, that cars were flat bottomed in the 60s and were blowing over all the time. They slowed the cars with the 3 liter limit in 1972, and the cars didn't really get crazy fast again until the Group c era. Ground effects held those cars on the road over elevation changes. My memory fails me and I believe (maybe incorrectly) the last world championship race at the ring was 84 or something, so there were no really huge elevation changes on the calendar. The problem resurfaced with the super fast, flat bottomed GT1 cars, as witnessed by the Mercedes misadventure at lemans, and those weren't even really big elevation changes.

 

You can't change the laws of flight, and it's unlikely we will see a return of ground effects. Now it's simply too dangerous to have cars going so fast over elevation changes, even smaller ones like Lemans. Worth noting is that even a full tilt GTP was capable of blowing over if the elevation change was severe enough, as evidenced by John Morton flying a Nissan GTP (which reportedly made the most downforce in the field) at Lime rock.

 

Maybe the answer is not shaving the hill tops as much as it is slowing them before they get there with (God forbid) chicanes, or S bends or something.

Edited by Dr. Austin, 29 September 2016 - 22:40.

[Myrvold]

If you keep dropping down in class until you find something suitable, we'll end up racing really, really slow cars until the track itself becomes irrelevant. The Ring is already in enough financial trouble that they don't need to be losing events.

That's what made the VLN huge in the first place. Affordable endurance-racing the the ring. The days where they pushed towards 250 entries.

Yes we have GT teams now, but it's not affordable in any way or class anymore and the entry list are getting smaller and smaller for each year.

[chunder27]

I think what ought to happen is GT4 spec cars, rather than any modding of the track, or even a speed limit in certain tricky sections, but that would be last resort stuff.

 

Any time you have a safe spec for years on end, the limits will get pushed, they would in Gt4 if you let them be secure for 10 years. The times now would drop by a minute or 30 seconds a lap in 10 years time, with tyres, ever silly car specs and other improvements.

[Dr. Austin]

They could pack the ring past capacity and name their price for TV coverage if once a year they had a round of the Formula One world championship (drivers points only) with all the Grand Prix drivers racing in 400cc shifter karts. Then we would have something to rival the Isle of Man, almost, maybe.

 

22 karts would be a weak field at a place as big as the ring, so allow any former Grand Prix points scorer to compete. Invite Lemans winners and Indycar race winners.  Put up a million to win and I you can bet people like Wurz and Webber would be there. For a million bucks even Jackie Stewart might show up!

 

The karts probably won't blow over, and if they did it's not like a 3000 lb GT car jumping the fence. The ring would make a bucket of money, and the publicity for the karting industry would go off the charts. Any Formula One driver worth a **** would jump at a chance to do this.

[PayasYouRace]

Because it make perfect sense to have a go kart race count towards the Formula One World Drivers' Championship. 

 

I'm sure many drivers would love to try something like that for a laugh, but it wouldn't be anything other than a curiosity.

[Dr. Austin]

Because it make perfect sense to have a go kart race count towards the Formula One World Drivers' Championship. 

 

I'm sure many drivers would love to try something like that for a laugh, but it wouldn't be anything other than a curiosity.

 

It does make perfect sense. Is it a driver's championship, or not?

 

Just one time I would like to see the world's supposed best drivers line up in equipment that gives more than just the Mercedes drivers a sniff of the win. All we hear about is how noncompetitive formula One is (and it IS, dammit) because of the equipment disparity. Put them in shifters just once and a lot of that goes away. Maybe the same guys will win, maybe not. At least this is the only chance anyone but Lewis or Nico (as long as they don't crash each other) has to win.

 

Shifters are cool because when you put some bite into the consequence, you'll find out who has what  pretty quickly.

 

As far as the drivers laughing, 160mph at the Nurburgring in a kart is something the smart ones would do well to take seriously. It's not like Formula One where you can hardly stub your toe. 

Edited by Dr. Austin, 30 September 2016 - 18:51.

[superden]

Quite often in kart races, it's not the WDC or top team drivers who come out on top.

[Dr. Austin]

Quite often in kart races, it's not the WDC or top team drivers who come out on top.

 

 

At least a privateer has a chance if he executes well. 

 

In Formula One, outside of something freak happening, who has a chance except Lewis and Nico? That's why I'de like to see them all in karts where everyone has the same kind of chance. I want to see it at the ring because you don't dare take that place as some sort of joke. 

[CountDooku]

Here is a comparison of production and GT3, Honda NSX:

https://www.youtube....h?v=Du1ycKBn2cg

The GT3 is so far removed from the road car, it is preposterous. [It's much more similar to a DTM or Super GT vehicle in fact.]

Eh? The GT3 cars are much lower tech than the road equivalents. They just have much more aero and are a bit lighter.

[Marklar]

Here we are

 

Motorsport.com ‏@Motorsport  4m4 minutes ago

Nurburgring 24 Hours organisers announce plans to slow down GT3 cars for the 2017 race: http://www.motorsport.com/endurance/news/gt3-cars-set-to-be-slowed-for-2017-nurburgring-24h-853323/ …
 

[superden]

Good. Make the cars suit the track, not change the track to suit the cars.

[Pierce89]

Eh? The GT3 cars are much lower tech than the road equivalents. They just have much more aero and are a bit lighter.

Talking sense? In this thread? Preposterous!

[Scotracer]

Balance of Performance is already my most-hated thing in motorsport, and it shows it can't even handle the development races 

[FPV GTHO]

Ford is already road testing the next generation of Ford GT, and in fact, just got popped for doing 110 mph in, I believe, Colorado.

Going back a bit, but that car caught speeding is still the 2017 car. There hasn't been anything new since they announced another 2 years worth of preorders IIRC