51 replies to this topic

[Doug Nye]

Quite interesting material now being posted regularly on the Watkins Glen IMMRC website...

 

Take a look, for example, at their latest, re Porsche 917-001.

 

https://www.racingar...17-chassis-001/

 

DCN

 

 

[sabrejet]

Many thanks for that link Doug: I was lucky to get up-close and personal with 001 at the Goodwood MM this year and for me it was car of the meeting.

 

It's also nominated for Octane magazine's 'car of the year'.

[Glengavel]

The picture of the 917 between the RSK and the 914 at Château de Courtanvaux is a reminder of its true size. I always used to imagine it as a massive brute of a thing until I saw it in the flesh at Goodwood FoS one year.

[Henri Greuter]

The picture of the 917 between the RSK and the 914 at Château de Courtanvaux is a reminder of its true size. I always used to imagine it as a massive brute of a thing until I saw it in the flesh at Goodwood FoS one year.

Shocking enough, even while it still looks as a massive car in this longtail trim: a current F1 car from nose to tail in longer!!!

[Doug Nye]

Just in wheelbase alone the current F1 Mecedes-Benz is substantially longer than a 1930 Bentley Speed Six... (Although in mitigation it does make considerably better use of the underfloor area created within that wheelbase).  

 

DCN

[Henri Greuter]

Just in wheelbase alone the current F1 Mecedes-Benz is substantially longer than a 1930 Bentley Speed Six... (Although in mitigation it does make considerably better use of the underfloor area created within that wheelbase).  
 
DCN

HM,

Am I permitted to differ with this opinion?
Last weekend I saw a few Bentleys and was shocked to see what a whales of cars they are. I understand why they are clled `lorries` by now.
I can't believe that any of those is shorter from end to end than the wheelbase of Lewis Hamilton's `carpetride`
Or did you mean the wheelbase of a Bentley compared with that of the Mercedes F1 car? I can go along with that.

[Glengavel]

A quick look on line gives the following wheelbases (overall lengths harder to come by):

 

Porsche 917 91"

Bentley Speed Six 132" for the Le Mans cars

Mercedes F1 W10 147"

 

The 917 has almost exactly the same wheelbase as my wife's MX5.

The Merc's wheelbase is just a few inches shorter than the overall length of my Audi A4.

[Henri Greuter]

A quick look on line gives the following wheelbases (overall lengths harder to come by):
 
Porsche 917 91"
Bentley Speed Six 132" for the Le Mans cars
Mercedes F1 W10 147"
 
The 917 has almost exactly the same wheelbase as my wife's MX5.
The Merc's wheelbase is just a few inches shorter than the overall length of my Audi A4.

I do know that the Lancia Stratos has an overall length nose to rear from 3.71 meters, which is in the ballpark of the wheelbases of the current F1 cars.

[sabrejet]

The 917 also has very little in the way of front overhang. They were brave fellows.

[Henri Greuter]

The 917 also has very little in the way of front overhang. They were brave fellows.

The only things that were part of the car in front of their feet apart from bodywork were a few small tubes and an oil cooler.
And their feet ahead of the front axle line....

The stories about driving that car in the first year, 1969, before the aero problem was diagnosed correctly....

[sabrejet]

Incidentally I note an error in the Watkins Glen article: 917 001 posed not with Concorde 002 at Yeovilton, but with 216/G-BOAF, which is displayed in the rather excellent Aerospace Bristol museum at Filton airfield.

[Doug Nye]

HM,

Am I permitted to differ with this opinion?
Last weekend I saw a few Bentleys and was shocked to see what a whales of cars they are. I understand why they are clled `lorries` by now.
I can't believe that any of those is shorter from end to end than the wheelbase of Lewis Hamilton's `carpetride`
Or did you mean the wheelbase of a Bentley compared with that of the Mercedes F1 car? I can go along with that.

 

The last of course.  And it was not "an opinion".

 

DCN

[Charlieman]

The original Audi Quattro had a wheelbase of 99.4" (2.5m) which made it a handful at hairpins on narrow roads. It reduced Quattro performance further at events when 4WD provided no advantage. The evolution model shrunk down a bit to 86.8" (2.2m) -- similar to a Lancia Stratos but still a bit wider, of course. 

 

Many people seem unaware of how large cars have become until they look for a parking space.

[2F-001]

Is it just me (my brain might be still in holiday mode...), or is there some confusion here over the current Mercedes F1 car, a particular Bentley, and the relative dimensions thereof?

 

As far as I can determine from available information, the current Merc Grand Prix car has a wheelbase of 3.73m (very close to 147") and does indeed have an overall length of a whopping 5.7m... (and longer than the LWB S-class road car).

 

Discussed here by Peter Windsor and Craig Scarborough:
https://www.motorspo...974680/1376623/

 

(By my reckoning, the current F1 car is, thus, roughly 60 precent larger in both dimensions than Lotus 25 - but happy to have my maths checked in any particular...!)

Edited by 2F-001, 27 August 2019 - 16:12.

[Henri Greuter]

The last of course.  And it was not "an opinion".
 
DCN

OK,

and sorry ....

[BRG]

The original Audi Quattro had a wheelbase of 99.4" (2.5m) which made it a handful at hairpins on narrow roads. 

The Quattro was a big lump certainly, but the initial issue with hairpins was the inability to use the handbrake because of the permanent 4WD.  Heaving on the handbrake just locked the back wheels which in turn locked the front wheels.  They had to address this problem with changes to the transmission.  Whilst effective compared to the RWD rallycars of the day, the Audi 4WD system was pretty primitive at first and as the GpB cars came along with much more sophisticated AWD set-ups with variable power splits and so on, and ultimately in GpA days, mappable electronic differentials, Audi looked like something agricultural.  

[PhantomRaspberryBlower]

Which chassis does the Porsche museum have standing in for 023 now that 001 has been unmasked?

[Henri Greuter]

The Quattro was a big lump certainly, but the initial issue with hairpins was the inability to use the handbrake because of the permanent 4WD.  Heaving on the handbrake just locked the back wheels which in turn locked the front wheels.  They had to address this problem with changes to the transmission.  Whilst effective compared to the RWD rallycars of the day, the Audi 4WD system was pretty primitive at first and as the GpB cars came along with much more sophisticated AWD set-ups with variable power splits and so on, and ultimately in GpA days, mappable electronic differentials, Audi looked like something agricultural.

And with all of that knowledge pretty well available to everyone, Citroën then built the BX 4TC in the hope to win rallies and a title or two, three.....

[BRG]

And with all of that knowledge pretty well available to everyone, Citroën then built the BX 4TC in the hope to win rallies and a title or two, three.....

Ah yes, the illustrious BX4TC.  Another leading entry in the 'What the Hell were they thinking?' Hall of Infamy alongside such wonders as the original BRM & its later offspring the H16, the Deltawing. the Nissan GTR LMP1, the Aston Martin AMR1 and so many other wastes of space.  Feel free to submit your own candidates!

 

Citroen did get it right later though!

Edited by BRG, 28 August 2019 - 22:07.

[Henri Greuter]

Ah yes, the illustrious BX4TC.  Another leading entry in the 'What the Hell were they thinking?' Hall of Infamy alongside such wonders as the original BRM & its later offspring the H16, the Deltawing. the Nissan GTR LMP1, the Aston Martin AMR1 and so many other wastes of space.  Feel free to submit your own candidates!
 
Citroen did get it right later though!

Since we talked Stratos and Audi, I focussed on Rallies. But I think that if it comes to rally failures of the kind "What were they thinking" The Gp A Nissan Sunny with its "Interwarmer" arrangement is another one....
Os for the category in general???
Talk about an interesting topic for a thread, if not opened yet....

[small block]

The BRM H16, the Delta Wing and the NIssan GTR LMP1 might also be filed under 'Just because you can, it doesn't mean that you should'

[Ristin]

The BRM H16, the Delta Wing and the NIssan GTR LMP1 might also be filed under 'Just because you can, it doesn't mean that you should'

I had almost forgotten each and every thread can do with a bit of Delta Wing and Nissan bashing, no matter what the topic is.

The ideas behind both projects were reasonable and well explained. I'm not saying I bought them, but that's not the point. I'd say "if you can do it and really want to do it, by all means do it!" We mourn the days when a designer still could stick a fan or a second set of front wheels to a car and have a go. But we ridicule the few examples of out-of-the-box thinking that actually make it to a racetrack in the recent era of lookalike cars?

[BRG]

But we ridicule the few examples of out-of-the-box thinking that actually make it to a racetrack in the recent era of lookalike cars?

Only when they are outright failures that even a 6 year old could see were never going to work.  If you are going to stick your head above the parapet and go with a maverick off-the-wall idea, you should really make sure that it works before you go public with it.  

[sabrejet]

Only when they are outright failures that even a 6 year old could see were never going to work.  If you are going to stick your head above the parapet and go with a maverick off-the-wall idea, you should really make sure that it works before you go public with it.  

 

Mmm. Except that memory and evidence doesn't support it. 2012 Le Mans: DeltaWing did pretty well in terms of qualifying with the LMP2s and proving many doubters wrong:

 

28^th - # 41 Greaves Motorsport Zytek Z11SN-Nissan (LMP2) 3:42.292

29^th - # 0 Highcroft Racing DeltaWing-Nissan (Garage 56) 3:42.612

30^th - # 40 Race Performance Oreca 03-Judd (LMP2) 3:43.619

 

I recall that the DW's retirement (accident) was due only to its diminutive size making it difficult to sight for other cars. At the 2012 Petit Le Mans the DW finished fifth overall. I could go on, but you get the idea!

[Henri Greuter]

Mmm. Except that memory and evidence doesn't support it. 2012 Le Mans: DeltaWing did pretty well in terms of qualifying with the LMP2s and proving many doubters wrong:
 
28^th - # 41 Greaves Motorsport Zytek Z11SN-Nissan (LMP2) 3:42.292
29^th - # 0 Highcroft Racing DeltaWing-Nissan (Garage 56) 3:42.612
30^th - # 40 Race Performance Oreca 03-Judd (LMP2) 3:43.619
 
I recall that the DW's retirement (accident) was due only to its diminutive size making it difficult to sight for other cars. At the 2012 Petit Le Mans the DW finished fifth overall. I could go on, but you get the idea!

got to say I'm glad that the Deltawing never made it, despite some promise. The thing looked way too off to my liking.
As for the Nissan, I am not sure I would have liked to see as whole starting field at Le Mans of cars like it. But I do regret that the project never could be carried out with the car in all the specifications it was envisioned. Weird but it had some interesting thoughts behind it. If it owould have worked, I don't know but for sure it could have been interesting to see what it had been capable off had it ever appeared as designed and envisioned.

Edited by Henri Greuter, 30 August 2019 - 07:17.

[sabrejet]

The Nissan GTR-LM will always be one of motor sport's 'what ifs'. It showed promise, didn't get any development based on race experience and might well have proved the doubters wrong like the DeltaWing.

 

Not so sure about the Aston Martin AMR-One; but now I'm thinking about it the AMR-1 showed a great deal of potential and might well have gone on to greater things. Interesting that we started off discussing one of my favourite race cars and have ended talking about another!

[Ristin]

If you are going to stick your head above the parapet and go with a maverick off-the-wall idea, you should really make sure that it works before you go public with it.

I disagree. This is the dreaded corporate thinking that doesn't appeal to me. I adore maverick engineering.

[Henri Greuter]

The Nissan GTR-LM will always be one of motor sport's 'what ifs'. It showed promise, didn't get any development based on race experience and might well have proved the doubters wrong like the DeltaWing.
 
Not so sure about the Aston Martin AMR-One; but now I'm thinking about it the AMR-1 showed a great deal of potential and might well have gone on to greater things. Interesting that we started off discussing one of my favourite race cars and have ended talking about another!

The only thing in which the AMR-One, or at least a component of it, delivered is the fact the the monocoque of that things was later used to be the foundation of, of all things, the Deltawing (!!!!) and a later Dome.

But other then that: All the bile and damnation about the Nissan is totally uncalled for if we remember that every one of all three unsorted Nissans that started the Le Mans race in 2015 managed to do many laps more laps than the two AMR-One's did COMBINED!!!!
And that thing (does that rolling eggshell deserve to be named a car?) was nowhere near as experimental and way more according proven principles.
If the Nissan can be questioned for its concept, it was at least better sorted out and more race ready that the proven concept based AMR-One ever was. Now who should be more ashamed of themselves for having done a lousy job and builing an utter embarrasment?




Adding:

Hm, in a thread about what is likely the most legendary car at Le Mans ever, we eventually end up with two of the three biggest embarrasments of them all at le Mans!
"Only on the Nostagia Forum ....."

Edited by Henri Greuter, 30 August 2019 - 12:16.

[Duc-Man]

Going back on topic:

 

Me beside 917-001 at the Porsche Museum. I am 5'9'' tall.

 

[BRG]

Mmm. Except that memory and evidence doesn't support it. 2012 Le Mans: DeltaWing did pretty well in terms of qualifying with the LMP2s and proving many doubters wrong:

 

28^th - # 41 Greaves Motorsport Zytek Z11SN-Nissan (LMP2) 3:42.292

29^th - # 0 Highcroft Racing DeltaWing-Nissan (Garage 56) 3:42.612

30^th - # 40 Race Performance Oreca 03-Judd (LMP2) 3:43.619

 

I recall that the DW's retirement (accident) was due only to its diminutive size making it difficult to sight for other cars. At the 2012 Petit Le Mans the DW finished fifth overall. I could go on, but you get the idea!

Mmmm NO.  The evidence is only partial, and as usual, you are ignoring the key point.

l

As I have repeatedly pointed out, the DW ran at HALF the weight of its supposed class competitors.  HALF.   Its power to weight ratio was BETTER than any of the LMP1s.  BETTER.  Yet it was still too slow to even beat some of the LMP2s.   So it proved this doubter right.  Later on in the US, it continued to be allowed to run massively underweight  compared to its class competitors and still couldn't beat them, or even barely stay on their pace.

[Henri Greuter]

Going back on topic:

 

Me beside 917-001 at the Porsche Museum. I am 5'9'' tall.

 

 

 

Nice shot, must be a tremendous location too

[SKL]

Fitting that we're talking about all this the week we lost Ferdinand Piech himself...

[Bikr7549]

Yes, a quote of his about the 917 is on the wall behind Duc-Man.

[Bikr7549]

Seeing how this thread is already off onto another tangent I am curious about the AMR One engine. A 2 liter normally aspirated 4 cylinder F2 engine 40 plus years ago put out well over 300 hp. What was the issue with the AMR that limited it to this same output but with a turbo?

[Henri Greuter]

Seeing how this thread is already off onto another tangent I am curious about the AMR One engine. A 2 liter normally aspirated 4 cylinder F2 engine 40 plus years ago put out well over 300 hp. What was the issue with the AMR that limited it to this same output but with a turbo?

 

 

 

Bikr7549, you're misinformed I'm afraid. The Aston engine was rated at 540 hp, I have found a website listing this figure.

 

Now there is indeed the question if, because of its appaling reliability if it ever produced that kinds of power. But it should have been capable of 500+ hp.

[Bikr7549]

Thanks Henri. I read somewhere about the 300 hp level but must have misread it.

[2F-001]

500-plus horsepower might have been the claimed potential of that Aston's engine, but I don't know whether or not there is evidence that it was run with that output. However, I, too, have read of one at least being raced in a de-tuned form (presumably in search of some reliability, economy or tractability - or whatever other property was deemed to be missing) and giving around 300bhp.

 

So I don't think you misread it, Bikr7549 (though I've no idea if such info has any greater veracity that Henri's internet source).

Edited by 2F-001, 02 September 2019 - 20:14.

[Henri Greuter]

500-plus horsepower might have been the claimed potential of that Aston's engine, but I don't know whether or not there is evidence that it was run with that output. However, I, too, have read of one at least being raced in a de-tuned form (presumably in search of some reliability, economy or tractability - or whatever other property was deemed to be missing) and giving around 300bhp.
 
So I don't think you misread it, Bikr7549 (though I've no idea if such info has any greater veracity that Henri's internet source).

With two people recalling this, then it wouldn't surprise me if true. But with some 300 hp the engine would even be less powerful than an LMP2 engine of the day.

[2F-001]

Indeed; if true, then it wasn't Aston's finest hour...

[Duc-Man]

Nice shot, must be a tremendous location too

 

It is. Guys, if anybody wants to make the trip to the Porsche museum, you got 10 days left for the 917 display. I just read that the 917 display got extended until the 8th of december.

If you have the possibility to visit the Porsche museum...do it. I've been there already 3 times.

 

Edited to add: I have a public photo album of the 917 display on my fb page. https://www.facebook...26455272&type=3

Edited by Duc-Man, 04 September 2019 - 09:08.

[guiporsche]

With two people recalling this, then it wouldn't surprise me if true. But with some 300 hp the engine would even be less powerful than an LMP2 engine of the day.

 

Mulsanne's Corner debunked back in the day the 300bhp hypothesis (advanced firstly by RaceCar Magazine) and advanced instead a 460-540hp range.

 

See http://www.mulsannes...ewsmarch11.html And particularly the last entry in : http://www.mulsannes.../newsmay11.html

 

The car seemed to have a plethora of problems, though, which were not due to simply lack of development but wrong conceptual choices: draggy and outdated aero (the high-waist body tunnels), subpar engine with the wrong configuration to act as a stress member (i6, not a V6). Most definitely not Aston's Prodrive's finest hour (Amr-One & Mini WRC, both developped simultaneously, both off the mark). In terms of contemporary factory LMP efforts only Nissan's (unfortunately, but I think that with electric motors the concept can definitely be successful) was direr.

Edited by guiporsche, 04 September 2019 - 09:52.

[d j fox]

Now that were back on the 917 " track" the News d'Anciennes site has this

 

 https://newsdancienn...devenu-legende/

 

I personally wonder at the reasoning behind the re-creation of the unfortunate John Wolfe 917...what do others think?

 

DJF

[Henri Greuter]

Now that were back on the 917 " track" the News d'Anciennes site has this

 

 https://newsdancienn...devenu-legende/

 

I personally wonder at the reasoning behind the re-creation of the unfortunate John Wolfe 917...what do others think?

 

DJF

 

 

It can always be even worse....

 

Personally, I don't think I need that particular 917 to be recreated. But if it is based around parts of the original car?

Anyway, that car is past of the 917 legend, the bad, bad questionable early part.

 

But when I was at Indianapolis in May 1991, I went into the Motel and in the lobby I saw, of all things, a recreation of Eddie Sachs' 1964 Shrike-Ford, the car he was killed in in the 2nd lap diaster of that year. I have heard, don't know if true, that the car was in fact based around what is left of the original car.

If true, than it explains it since the car was never used in another but that particular configuration. But still, it felt awkward, knowing what kind of inferno the original car with Eddie driving it got into....

 

 

And this being written by someone who had a field day at Indy in May 2011 when he was permitted to crank up the engine in the restored 1946 Novi FWD, brought back in the trim it had in 1953 when Chet Miller got killed in it....

 

 

BTW: THANKS for that link! I need to work out a translation of it into English but it looks as being a fantastic article.

[Bikr7549]

On my PC an option comes up presumably via the dreaded windows 10 to do an auto translate, which actually worked pretty well despite some cute wording. The translate option doesn't show up when I view it on my iphone. I was not familiar with this website before, and there are some other interesting articles there-thank you dj for posting. 

 

Rebuilding, restoring or re-creating cars or planes with tragic histories is always an issue. I've visited a number of plane crash sites (with some of the aircraft remains still there) and it is a sobering sight. To each his (or her) own I suppose but I am not sure I'd value seeing the John Woolfe 917 on track.

[Bikr7549]

 

And this being written by someone who had a field day at Indy in May 2011 when he was permitted to crank up the engine in the restored 1946 Novi FWD

 

When I was 17 or 18 I got to push start a Bugatti type 35 at Lime Rock Park which was way cool. Was just sitting on the pitwall armco at a VSCC event (virtually no spectators then) and the Bug driver came over and asked my buddy and I if we would help him get it going, what a thrill that was!

[Emery0323]

It can always be even worse....

 

Personally, I don't think I need that particular 917 to be recreated. But if it is based around parts of the original car?

Anyway, that car is past of the 917 legend, the bad, bad questionable early part.

 

I'd seen recent pictures of Willi Kauhsen with this car.   I did think it was puzzling that this one, of all the 917s, would be the one to restore.

 

However, according to this story on Yahoo news, Willi Kauhsen bought the wreck from Woolfe's estate, so apparently it has some parts from the original car (917-005):

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/why-dream-team-restoring-porsche-150214233.html

Derek Bell tested it for Kauhsen

 

After 50 years, it's remarkable that there are now two restored 917LH examples in 1969 Longtail trim.

 

As was mentioned above, 917-005 crashed during practice at the 2018 LeMans classic, the extent of the damage isn't made clear.

https://www.loveforp...cord-edition/2/

[Jon Petersen]

Hi!

After some years off this great forum, I searched and found this thread because I was looking at some gorgeous Bührer-drawings, and on the 917-one, the wheelbase of 90.4" was stated.

The Tyrrell 006, known to be a very short and pretty twitchy car, demanding utmost precision of its driver, is stated as having a 94" wheelbase - and the Surtees TS14A one of a whopping 102".


So - why did Porsche give the ultra-highspeed 917 such a short wheelbase? And why did they persevere with the wheelbase, when the car showed alarming instability?


Regards

Jon

[BRG]

Hi!

After some years off this great forum, I searched and found this thread because I was looking at some gorgeous Bührer-drawings, and on the 917-one, the wheelbase of 90.4" was stated.

The Tyrrell 006, known to be a very short and pretty twitchy car, demanding utmost precision of its driver, is stated as having a 94" wheelbase - and the Surtees TS14A one of a whopping 102".


So - why did Porsche give the ultra-highspeed 917 such a short wheelbase? And why did they persevere with the wheelbase, when the car showed alarming instability?


Regards

Jon

It was not unusual for Porsche.  The 907, 908 and 910 all had a 2,300mm (90.6") wheelbase.  I think they all used the same basic frame which was also used for the 917.  It was subsequently used yet again for the 936 (Porsche's last space-frame car, I believe) which had a similar wheelbase.  All these were highly successful cars so it cannot have been a much of a problem.  With the 917, the real issue was aerodynamic, surely?

[Jon Petersen]

It was not unusual for Porsche.  The 907, 908 and 910 all had a 2,300mm (90.6") wheelbase.  I think they all used the same basic frame which was also used for the 917.  It was subsequently used yet again for the 936 (Porsche's last space-frame car, I believe) which had a similar wheelbase.  All these were highly successful cars so it cannot have been a much of a problem.  With the 917, the real issue was aerodynamic, surely?

Yes - and the solution was at least aerodynamic.

Still, a longer wheelbase would also have had a stabilizing effect, and as the topspeed of the 917 must have been quite a lot higher than the 3-litre 908 - why didn´t they go in that direction? It wouldn´t have cost much.....at least to try it.

Maybe wheelbase means less than I think?


Jon

[Glengavel]

Hi!

After some years off this great forum, I searched and found this thread because I was looking at some gorgeous Bührer-drawings, and on the 917-one, the wheelbase of 90.4" was stated.

The Tyrrell 006, known to be a very short and pretty twitchy car, demanding utmost precision of its driver, is stated as having a 94" wheelbase - and the Surtees TS14A one of a whopping 102".


So - why did Porsche give the ultra-highspeed 917 such a short wheelbase? And why did they persevere with the wheelbase, when the car showed alarming instability?


Regards

Jon

 

The 917's wheelbase is only half an inch longer than the Lotus 25's!