48 replies to this topic

[smithy]

Sunday's F1 and Indy double header got me thinking.....

In the USA the rolling start is the norm across most racing whereas in Europe, Australia and elsewhere the standing start is the norm. Is there any reason why the different types of starts became the standard in these regions?

Or.... is it as simple as "that's the way it's always been"

I remember many years ago at Bathurst during the Sierra era they tried a rolling start because of drivetrain concerns. I think they tried it once and then went back to the standing start.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I think its because series here tend to do a mix of ovals and road courses, so its better to have it across the board, and everyone simple does rolling *shrug*

Toyota ATlantics used to do both, was fairly interesting.

[Buford]

Well it came from the fact that open wheel cars didn't have starters I think so they had to be pushed by trucks. Stock cars did not become popular until the 1950s and they had starters of course. Originally the racing was done primarily by cars that could not do standing starts so I think that was why they became the norm in the USA.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Ironically in karting they do standing starts stateside and rollers in Europe

[art anderson]

Originally posted by Buford
Well it came from the fact that open wheel cars didn't have starters I think so they had to be pushed by trucks. Stock cars did not become popular until the 1950s and they had starters of course. Originally the racing was done primarily by cars that could not do standing starts so I think that was why they became the norm in the USA.

In US open-wheel racing, particularly on ovals, most cars early on lacked much in the way of low-gearing to enable them to get away from a stand-still entirely unaided. However, by the middle-30's, many (but not all) AAA Championship cars carried their own on-board starters, while others were hand-cranked. Midgets, sprint cars, and dirt-track championship cars to this day however, almost never use a clutch, merely an in-and-out "dog" system for absolute positive mechanical connection in the driveline--most of these cars also lack the ability to be started by any external means, other than being pushed by another vehicle.

Also, on a high-speed oval, such as in IRL, the speed potential is so great that there is a great safety and performance benefit from having a couple of warm-up "parade" laps, plus at least one pace lap in order for drivers to scrub in tires, thus generating some heat in the treads for the best traction. Hence, the rolling, or flying start.

Where did it all begin though? Well, I would guess that since speedway racing really got its major start in the Midwest United States, in the states of Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnestota, those states also being the heartland of "Sulky" or harness (trotting or pacing horses), that the idea of using a rolling, flying start behind a pace vehicle, as has been the case with harness racing throughout its history, was a natural follow-on.

Either way one looks at it, there is nothing more exciting than the start of a race, be it the old-fashioned "LeMans" start, a rolling field that comes to a stop on a grid at the starting line, then taking off as if it were the drag race out of the company parking lot, or the flying start at Indianapolis--they are all wild and exciting to watch, and each method of starting a race has its benefits, and it's downside.

Art Anderson

[angst]

I was thinking about race starts the other day. Actually I was thinking about race starts after qualifying for the European grand prix. With a nice wide track like Nurburgring lite (nice only in terms of it's width, you understand) I was thinking wouldn't it be good to see the old 3-2-3 (maybe even 4-3-4) grid formation. With a 3-2-3 we would have had Schumacher the elder, Sato and Trulli line astern on the front row, which would have been interesting going into the first corner. It would stop the awful chopping at the start (as practised in particular by a certain red car) and would change the mix a little as far as race strategies etc. go. It would also mean that qualifying further down the field wouldn't be so much of a disadvantage, and some of those lower grid teams could put a bit of a spanner in the works by making a good start and getting themselves ahead of the bigger teams. Jeez, it might even make the drivers think about overtaking!!

Sorry if a little OT. Just a thought.

[smithy]

Originally posted by art anderson


... the speed potential is so great that there is a great safety and performance benefit from having a couple of warm-up "parade" laps, plus at least one pace lap in order for drivers to scrub in tires, thus generating some heat in the treads for the best traction. Hence, the rolling, or flying start.

Granted, although this would not have been the reason for why it was originally that way.

Originally posted by angst


Wouldn't it be good to see the old 3-2-3 (maybe even 4-3-4) grid formation?

Absolutely. Suzuka is another where the grid is wide enough to try this. However I assume it would be considered far too dangerous - driver visibility, much higher speeds, debris into the crowd, etc. For however accurate GPL is as a sim, trying to start on a grid like this is V-E-R-Y difficult - without fail I will tangle with someone as we all duck and weave past slowpoke Honda's and BRM's.

Now completely OT - was Clark ever an exponent of "the chop"? He is on my version of GPL!!!

[McLarenFormula1]

I think that standing starts are far more interesting and exciting than rolling starts. With standings starts, you can still see cars that aren't on pole get a good jump and get ahead of the P1 car rather quickly. With rolling starts, it is far more difficult, and the polesitter usually makes it to the first turn on his own. Standing starts are arguably the most exciting part of all sports, not just motorsports.

[Don Capps]

I have never quite seen the big deal of standing versus rolling starts. I think that drivers have proven quite convincingly that they can screw both of them quite well and that the only possible difference being the speed at which they run into each other. If I had to voice a preference, rolling starts every time.....

[Frank S]

Originally posted by Don Capps
I have never quite seen the big deal of standing versus rolling starts. I think that drivers have proven quite convincingly that they can screw both of them quite well and that the only possible difference being the speed at which they run into each other. If I had to voice a preference, rolling starts every time.....

Amen on screwing up the starts.

I liked standing starts because I was good at them, but for safety reasons I reckoned it was better to have all that mechanical stuff travelling at some similar rate of speed and in relatively the same direction. Barring roadside obstacles, it seems to me that dissipation of energies would be less harmful overall. Plus which, if you have momentum, you have the potential for some evasive action that is just not available when you are sitting pretty close to still.

I always feel a little bit more in control when I am driving at a rate just a bit faster than traffic, for the same reason. It's easier to dissipate than build speed when you need to.

And, actual progress on the track, doing the customary things associated with steering and matching speed focuses and relaxes a driver, something I don't remember experiencing in standing starts. Focus, yes. Relax? Well, no.

Do you remember a few years back when data gathering was new, and Kevin Cogan was telemetered at Indy? After the 200bpm+ of the starting experience his heart rate settled down to a steady 180 or so IIRC. He was cut off and made a monstrous elongated spin and his heart rate went down by 30%, instantly! What the heck is that all about?


Frank S

[Ross Stonefeld]

Standing starst are better because its more even. I have yet to see a proper rolling start short of NASCAR.

[SEdward]

Rolling starts in Europe tend to be shambolic affairs. Whether it be in endurance races or in F5000 (didn't they flirt with rolling starts at the very beginning?), the cars tend to be all over the place and the moment of the "start" seems to be fairly random. The front could be way ahead of the rest, the rest are all over the place and the pole man "starts" a few hundred meters before the start. BTW, when exactly is the "start" of a rolling start given? When the front row crosses the line, when the man with the flag wakes up, or when the drivers feel like it?

Maybe drivers over here are simply not acquainted with this particular discipline.

Edward

[lanciaman]

Originally posted by Frank S
Amen on screwing up the starts.

I liked standing starts because I was good at them,

Frank S

I wasn't and consequently hated them.

With a rolling start, you don't have to be so concerned about running up the rear end of the car ahead of you...and there was always a car ahead of me. :

[Darren Galpin]

I tried to stick to the rules of rolling starts when karting in Brazil once, and not overtake before the startline. No-one else did, and I was swamped. Mind you, it meant that I missed the huge pile-up a couple of corners later, so it had its benefits.

[Vitesse2]

A rolling start was tried in the 1922 GP de l'ACF, "following American practice" according to Autocar. The cars were formed up a few hundred yards down the road from the start line and were to be piloted to the line by a French racing motorcyclist called Naas. He was then to peel off to the right and the field would accelerate away: unfortunately, the drivers took matters into their own hands and Naas had been swallowed up in the pack well before they reached the line ....

[Don Capps]

A factor in the whole standing vs. rolling start business is the very much belated adoption of massed starts as a standard feature of European races, something which was commonplace in America before The Great War. Cars rolled up to the starting point, stopped awaiting the signal to begin, and then motored off into the race.

Even the use of using times from practice as a means for qualifying for positions on the grid did not see use in Europe until the 1930s and it was not a general practice until after WW2.

[Peter Morley]

Originally posted by Buford
Well it came from the fact that open wheel cars didn't have starters I think so they had to be pushed by trucks. Stock cars did not become popular until the 1950s and they had starters of course. Originally the racing was done primarily by cars that could not do standing starts so I think that was why they became the norm in the USA.

That doesn't make sense - how you start the engine has nothing to do with how you start the race.

What you need for a standing start is some form of clutch. (Even current F1 cars don't have (onboard) starters)

Rolling starts seem to be part of the mythology of oval racing - maybe it is felt to be safer if the cars are at racing speed when entering the 1st corner, rather than accelerating through it.
That argument is right up there with you can't have a wet race on an oval - something that has now been proven to be untrue.

[David Birchall]

I have always thought that the reason for standing starts in England was because so many races were handicapped~with varying starting times for the entire grid standing starts were the only way to go.

At Westwood in the eighties we had standing starts for all races at the Historic events; we also were the only group that I am aware of to have handicapped races. Like Frank I enjoyed them because I seemed to be good at them-put 4 grand on the clock and just dump the clutch like flicking a switch-let the tyres do the slipping-great fun

When I do commentating at races I refer to the standing start as the "Borg and Beck Challenge"....

[Ross Stonefeld]

Originally posted by Peter Morley


That argument is right up there with you can't have a wet race on an oval - something that has now been proven to be untrue.

Ive never seen a wet oval race

[lanciaman]

Originally posted by Peter Morley


That doesn't make sense - how you start the engine has nothing to do with how you start the race.

It does when your car has no flywheel, clutch, transmission, battery or starter. Midgets and sprint cars have to keep moving once they are push started; ergo, no standing start.

[D-Type]

It's interesting that [some] historic race organisers are proposing rolling starts to save the machinery.

This thread again confirms that many of the differences between European and US racing go right bacr to their different roots.

[xkssFrankOpalka]

Rolling starts are a safety issue. SCCA had standing starts which I liked because I could get a few places in the first few yards. But during a race at IRP, I was driving a G Mod Elva. It was a standing start, normal at the time. They started all the Modified cars in this race. I was near the back of the pack, When the flag fell, Ron Hissom in a Cooper Monaco in the front row stalled his engine. We at the back of the pack could not see him, when the pack spread out he appeared stopped in frt of me. I didnt have time to lift my foot and hit him full bore. Knocked him out and was hit by 2 other cars. About 5 cars in the pile up. They changed to rolling starts after that.

[lanciaman]

Originally posted by xkssFrankOpalka
But during a race at IRP, I was driving a G Mod Elva. It was a standing start, normal at the time. They started all the Modified cars in this race. I was near the back of the pack, When the flag fell, Ron Hissom in a Cooper Monaco in the front row stalled his engine. We at the back of the pack could not see him, when the pack spread out he appeared stopped in frt of me. I didnt have time to lift my foot and hit him full bore. Knocked him out and was hit by 2 other cars. About 5 cars in the pile up. They changed to rolling starts after that.

Would that be 1969?
Thanks for being the architect of change. I REALLY hated standing starts.

[xkssFrankOpalka]

lancia, it was earlier, 1961 or 62. It was a National race as I remember, Hansgren was there and I think Roger Penske, Ill have to ck my programs.

[Peter Morley]

Originally posted by lanciaman


It does when your car has no flywheel, clutch, transmission, battery or starter. Midgets and sprint cars have to keep moving once they are push started; ergo, no standing start.

As the next line said all you need is a clutch to do a standing start.
The fact they don't fit clutches is a consequence of the rules - the rules say rolling starts so no clutch.
If they fitted clutches they would still push, or pull, start the cars - since you don't need a starter motor to do a standing start (that is what was wrong with the original statement).

To confuse matter further:
Our Connaught does not have a starter motor, or a clutch.
So it is tow started, but it can do standing starts.
The reason for this is the pre-selector gearbox, going into which would confuse people even further.

And my Midget box is In/Out which suggests to me that it has a neutral setting - not that I'm bothered, because I'm fitting a flywheel, with ring gear, and a clutch to my Offenhauser so that it can have a starter motor and run a 4 speed manual gearbox.

[Peter Morley]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld


Ive never seen a wet oval race

After the last US GP it was realised that a car can get round a (mildly) banked track in the rain.

This has been done many times with road cars on various (steeply) banked test tracks in Europe.

I don't think anyone has held a wet banked race, but no one has proven that it wouldn't be possible (there was a thread on this elsewhere), the main argument being that it would be slower hence less interesting!!!
And some worried about the danger - but if the cars are going slower the impact is less!!

[SEdward]

Folks,

I didn't get an answer to my question. Can someone give me the exact procedure that is followed for a rolling start? What are the pre-requisites and exactly when does the race start?

As I said earlier, rolling starts in Europe (and at Le Mans in particular) are a farce. But I guess that if you're racing for 24 hours, then it doesn't matter that much...

With thanks.
Edward

[Don Capps]

Running a corner once a lap and running an entire race on an oval in the rain are two entirely different things. Just like you can make static line jumps in combat at less than 500 feet, one could run a oval race in the rain, I suppose. However, it would not the lack of speed which would be the problem, but the fact that there are solid surfaces to smack at the first oportunity.

No, I don't think there is much of a case for oval racing in the rain.

[xkssFrankOpalka]

SE, In my experience the cars move off the grid and slowly do a lap, they form up in ranks,usually 3 abreast, and roll towards the starter at the S F line, when the starter is satisfied they are in some sort of alignment he will wave the green flag. The race starts when the green flag begins to move. Starters will try not to wave a yellow flag as this can be confused with the green due to all the dust and smoke. The usual procedure is to hold the green behind the yellow flag and if a no start is necessary, DO NOT MOVE. If the race is ready to start, wave the green.

[Peter Morley]

Having seen the outcome of an accident during a rolling start at Spa (one car trying to climb the barrier in front of me) I'm not so sure that they are inherently safer.

Rolling start means the cars are going faster, so any accident tends to be bigger.

Of course there is less chance of there being a stationary car, but there are many potential problems with rolling starts.

As soon as the green flag is shown cars start jostling for position, and given they are going quicker this is more dangerous. I'm not sure that they are meant to overtake before crossing the start line but they certainly do in amateur races.

In standing starts, most drivers try to move off in a straight line (with the noteable exception of the current world champion etc.), so their trajectory tends to be more predictable.

I'm always amazed at the old Le-Mans starts, and how they tended to get away without collision, but I guess that was helped by the wide variety in start times (e.g. time between flag dropping and car moving) and that they tended to be pretty slow away.

[lanciaman]

Once the green flag drops on a rolling start, you really aren't paying attention to where the SF line is or the starter; it's largely a matter of focusing on the car ahead and using your peripheral vision to see if anyone is coming around. The tricky part is watching for the green flag to begin moving, staying at optimum revs-- but not overevving-- and avoiding contact with the car ahead. If the car ahead appears to bog a bit and you drop off the power, you're screwed. Choosing the right gear for a rolling start is Really Important.

And of course the problem with being in the front row is that you don't want to contribute to a false start. Or overcook it into the first several turns with the pack bunched, as when you spin it becomes a billiard game. (So sorry fellas.)

[Lotus23]

Back in the days of string-back driving gloves, standing starts were de rigeur in SCCA. As there was no other choice, I never gave it much thought one way or another.

But that system certainly could lead to some dodgy moments! You did a lot of it by feel: your eyes were on the starter, not on the tach, and with all the other ambient noise, you couldn't hear the sound of your own engine and had to make the first few shifts on instinct alone -- at least I did.

Over the course of several years, I only ever achieved one absolutely perfect start under those conditions. More luck than skill: see "monkeys and typewriters"!

[Ross Stonefeld]

Originally posted by Peter Morley
After the last US GP it was realised that a car can get round a (mildly) banked track in the rain.

Nowhere near their limit, and without an asymetrical setup

This has been done many times with road cars on various (steeply) banked test tracks in Europe.

Road cars only link to race cars is that they both have 5 wheels. Again, the symetry issue.

And some worried about the danger - but if the cars are going slower the impact is less!!

They'd also crash more, and lose less speed before the impact.

[art anderson]

Originally posted by Peter Morley


That doesn't make sense - how you start the engine has nothing to do with how you start the race.

What you need for a standing start is some form of clutch. (Even current F1 cars don't have (onboard) starters)

Rolling starts seem to be part of the mythology of oval racing - maybe it is felt to be safer if the cars are at racing speed when entering the 1st corner, rather than accelerating through it.
That argument is right up there with you can't have a wet race on an oval - something that has now been proven to be untrue.

Oh, but of course it can, and does have a lot to do with how the engine is started! For beginnings, in the US, in nearly ALL circuits, midgets do not have clutches, nor do they have transmissions, merely a direct link between engine, driveshaft, and rear axle by means of a very simple (and light-weight!) in-out box, basically a splined shaft and sleeve that is slid together to engage the driveline. The same is true of sprint cars as well. In point of fact, the Offenhauser midget engine even had no flywheel as such. It all depends on the style (and also the length) of racing.

Midgets and Sprinters, due to the primary focus being on dirt tracks, simply don't have, nor do they need any sort of gearbox. Once up and running, they would simply be in high gear all the way. Transmissions add weight, clutches add both weight and the real possiblity of failure, particularly with the constant shock to the driveline on a rough surface. Since they seldom ever make pit stops, there is no need for either clutch or transmission.

Championship oval track cars, on the other hand, do make pit stops, and have since the beginnings of oval track racing a century ago. Of course, the earliest race cars were largely production-car based, and so utilized the same clutches and transmissions. However, for whatever the reason, Indianapolis used a pace car (as I wrote earlier, perhaps this idea was derived from harness-racing, in which the sulkies are paced to a start by a vehicle having a swing-away gate on each side, that folds forward once the race is to start--and harness racing--trotting horses--was THE sport in much of the eastern and midwestern US back then--ever hear of Dan Patch?). Given the relative dispararity between the 40 cars to start the first 500, and the rudimentary brakes of the day, a flying start certainly made a lot of sense.

By the early 1920's, American race cars, which had become primarily oval track machines, lost their multi-speed gearboxes, in favor of a low gear for getting underway, and high gear for racing speed. That's called going for light weight, and a recognition of the specialized nature of American racing. The extremely light weight of a Miller or Duesenberg race car of the 20's dictated very light flywheels, and small, very delicate clutch assemblies. Not surprisingly, Indianapolis cars (through the 1940's just about the only serious American race cars larger than a midget or sprint car), with their very tall rear end gearing, simply could not easily accelerate away from a pit stop--in fact, pit crewmen helped them get underway from a stop, a practice that continued for decades), to help prevent stalled engines and fried clutches. Also, the Miller and Duesenberg straight 8 engines tended to be built for top-end performance (after all, at Indianapolis, and on the board tracks of the era, that's where the prize money was), so plug-fouling and burned valves would likely have been a concern as well.

With the introduction of the Depression-era "Junk Formula" at Indianapolis, gearboxes did arrive, certainly for rear-drive cars, and behind many Miller and Offenhauser 4-cylinder engines there lurked a transmission that looks very suspiciously like a Ford 3-speed with top-loader shifter. Interestingly, AAA seems to have required that Championship cars also have a reverse gear--I've seen several original cars which had them. At the Miller Race Car Reunion in 1995, an "original condition" 1937 Burd Piston Ring Spl" Indianapolis car showed up, equipped exactly as it had been when it completed that year's 500, down to the tires. Its Offenhauser engine have the 3-speed box with reverse.

However one looks at it, I don't know that it's really necessary to criticise any form of motor racing for its traditions, or the format of its events. European racing of course, is deeply rooted in road circuits (both public and closed-course), for many reasons. American racing has roots just as deep into oval tracks, again for many reasons--not the least of which the political near-impossibility after the very earliest years of getting local officials (and the people who vote for them!) to allow the blocking off of stretches of public roads, and the frightful expense of purchasing enough land near to any population center for a very large road circuit facility (although several do exist, I know), and in recent decades, local authorities have become much more receptive to arranging street circuit racing in cities. If one really looks at it, there is excitement to be had in any form of motorsport, regardless of the level of competition, the size and hp of the cars, and regardless of the type of circuit. Personally, while not primarily a road course fan, I do enjoy (and relish) the spectator experience (Love watching cars in the Esses!), and while the quartermile doesn't really make my hair stand up, the sight of a Top Fuel Dragster going from a standstill to 300+ mph in 1320 feet has its fascination as well. But, as for the thought of watching an oval track event in the rain, well, to me, figure skating belongs on the rink, not on a race track--and given that ovals are all about speed, watching Indy cars circle the track at 50-60 mph wouldn't do much for me either.

Art Anderson

[smithy]

Art,

Great post - thank you.

Originally posted by art anderson


... However, for whatever the reason, Indianapolis used a pace car (as I wrote earlier, perhaps this idea was derived from harness-racing, in which the sulkies are paced to a start by a vehicle having a swing-away gate on each side, that folds forward once the race is to start--and harness racing--trotting horses--was THE sport in much of the eastern and midwestern US back then--ever hear of Dan Patch?). Given the relative dispararity between the 40 cars to start the first 500, and the rudimentary brakes of the day, a flying start certainly made a lot of sense ...

Are you suggesting that the first ever rolling start was at the first Indy 500? Or, was the rolling start already the norm in American racing?

Originally posted by art anderson


... However one looks at it, I don't know that it's really necessary to criticise any form of motor racing for its traditions, or the format of its events ...

That wasn't the point of the original question, nor was it "which one is better." I was merely curious as to why the different traditions had developed the way they did.

Someone said above that the start of a race (no matter which format) can be the most exciting part of the whole event. How true! The sight of the cars hurtling three wide to T1 at Indy is just as interesting as seeing Sato pulling off a 'do-or-die' into T1 at Nurburgring, or Trulli nailing the start and going from 3rd to 1st within 100 meters.

[art anderson]

Originally posted by smithy
Art,

Great post - thank you.



Are you suggesting that the first ever rolling start was at the first Indy 500? Or, was the rolling start already the norm in American racing?



That wasn't the point of the original question, nor was it "which one is better." I was merely curious as to why the different traditions had developed the way they did.

Someone said above that the start of a race (no matter which format) can be the most exciting part of the whole event. How true! The sight of the cars hurtling three wide to T1 at Indy is just as interesting as seeing Sato pulling off a 'do-or-die' into T1 at Nurburgring, or Trulli nailing the start and going from 3rd to 1st within 100 meters.

I have no idea of just where the first flying start in American racing took place, but Indianapolis has to be among the earliest tracks to use it. Likely it was adapted to racing here in the States as a way of ensuring that all cars could get away from the grid with relative safety--after all, it wasn't a sure thing that any car would start promptly back then, and given the tremendously smokey atmosphere at track level (If you've seen the famous picture of the field getting underway at Indianapolis in 1911, well--a modern mosquito fogger should do so well!), and the primitive steering and abysmal brakes of the age, the potential, with a 40 car field, for a massive crash from a standing start surely was a consideration.

But, to digress back to the relationship between horse-racing and motor racing, the use of a pace vehicle of some manner goes back into the middle 19th Century in the rural US. Harness racing, for anyone not familiar, involves horses hitched to two-wheel carts (or sulky's), which are set up very much like any two-wheeled horse, pony, or dog cart. The horses run with a fairly straight-legged gait, for which they must build up speed far more gradually than with saddle racing, in which the horse jumps from a gated stall, at full-gallop, as if in a drag race. In order to accelerate rapidly, a horse goes directly to a gallop, but to race to harness, the horse must not break stride into a gallop, but must maintain the trot (or a pacing gait). At first, a light carriage was used, with folding fences on each side of the body, which folded forward, out of the way, to signify the start of the race itself. Since the advent of the automobile, cars have been used for this function. I would submit that Carl Fisher and the Allison Brothers, when planning racing at Indianapolis Motor Speedway, would have been most familiar with harness-racing, and its tradition, Indiana being in the virtual heartland of that manner of equine sport. However, motor racing was in place, on a much smaller, more local scale, at various fairgrounds harness tracks around the Midwest and Eastern US, but I have no idea if any of them used a pace vehicle, or even a flying start.

Art

[smithy]

Same thing for the 'trots' (as we call it) in Australia

[angst]

'The trots' is something altogether different here.

[Peter Morley]

Originally posted by art anderson


Oh, but of course it can, and does have a lot to do with how the engine is started! For beginnings, in the US, in nearly ALL circuits, midgets do not have clutches, nor do they have transmissions, merely a direct link between engine, driveshaft, and rear axle by means of a very simple (and light-weight!) in-out box, basically a splined shaft and sleeve that is slid together to engage the driveline. The same is true of sprint cars as well. In point of fact, the Offenhauser midget engine even had no flywheel as such. It all depends on the style (and also the length) of racing.

Art Anderson

Art

I understand why cars/formulas developed in the form they developed in - but my original point was that someone said that they used rolling starts because the cars didn't have (onboard) starters.
The point was that cars that don't have starters can perform standing starts (including modern F1).
From that point of view the two items are totally un-related.

Offys aren't alone in having no (or negligible) flywheels - D-type Jags, Bugattis and so on have minimal flywheels (really just a clutch backplate).
Our Connaught flywheel, is hardly any bigger than my Offenhauser one - of course neither have clutches.

If you ever come across a gearbox adaptor (bell-housing) for an Offy 110, I would be most interested, I really need to connect it to a T-type MG box (or similar).
We can easily make an adaptor plate, but it would be nicer to have an original cast bell-housing....

[SEdward]

Someone mentioned "flying starts". Are "flying starts" and "rolling starts" the same? If not, what is a "flying start"?

Edward.

[indysteve]

Originally posted by art anderson
I have no idea of just where the first flying start in American racing took place, but Indianapolis has to be among the earliest tracks to use it. Likely it was adapted to racing here in the States as a way of ensuring that all cars could get away from the grid with relative safety--after all, it wasn't a sure thing that any car would start promptly back then, and given the tremendously smokey atmosphere at track level (If you've seen the famous picture of the field getting underway at Indianapolis in 1911, well--a modern mosquito fogger should do so well!), and the primitive steering and abysmal brakes of the age, the potential, with a 40 car field, for a massive crash from a standing start surely was a consideration.

Art has it right. The 1911 Indianapolis 500 is believed to be the first race with a rolling start, and the first to use a pace car. The original plan was to use a standing start, but it was deemed to be too dangerous given the large field (40 cars), the grid arrangement (five abreast!), and the smoke that was sure to make visibility poor. Carl Fisher decided to go with a rolling start led by a pace car to reduce the likelihood of a huge accident at the beginning of the race.

[art anderson]

Originally posted by SEdward
Someone mentioned "flying starts". Are "flying starts" and "rolling starts" the same? If not, what is a "flying start"?

Edward.

I believe that sportswriters and the radio announcers of years ago coined the term "flying start", which implies at least, that the field is moving at a fairly fast rate of speed, albeit not racing speed.

A rolling start probably is the same thing.

Art

[onepablo]

In a rolling start, the race does not begin until the green flag comes out. Normally, the official will wait until what he feels is the right time (i.e., when no one car is blatantly ahead of another). When I first attended kart racing school, there was one particular driver who kept passing me as we were waiting for the green flag to be waived...as I was on the inside of the front row, we had to repeat our starts about three times, since the instructor would not bring out the green flag, seeing that the other driver was almost a kart-length ahead of me as we crossed the start/finish line. Rolling starts in my opinion are quite difficult to pull off correctly, as all the drivers on the grid are thinking the same thing...getting a good start over the others!
By the way, for the karting class, rolling starts were done so as to equalize the field (no ballasts on the karts). The idea was that rolling starts would minimize any weight advantage some of the younger students had over the older (and more rotund) drivers, as standing starts tend to be more affected by weight.

[Buford]

What I used to do is watch the starter at other races during the day or weekend and see if I could pick up on his body language or anything. Often I could. Often they did something that indicated they were about to throw the green flag and they did it every time. Some starters always started the field about the same place. Others were not so predictable. But many would do some kind of flinch or movement every time just before they threw the green.

I assume I was not the only one who ever figured out to do this, but I never told anybody I was doing it and it had great benifits. I was a killer starter and it often was because I went on the starter's "tell" which was a half second or second before he actually threw the green.

[Lotus23]

Buford, I wouldn't bet against you in high-stakes poker -- I understand that much the same psychology comes into play there as well.

[David Birchall]

Once at Seattle International Raceway because of a problem during qualifying I was put to the back of the grid for the start-in a 35 car field! And I had the fastest car~so what do you do? you guestimate when the lead car is taking the green flag and goose it! At Seattle I was still out of sight of the start/finish line when the flag dropped-I led into the first turn. Following the race the local Alfa Romeo group, who had turned out in force for this race wanted to lynch me.
David B

[angst]

Originally posted by Buford
What I used to do is watch the starter at other races during the day or weekend and see if I could pick up on his body language or anything. Often I could. Often they did something that indicated they were about to throw the green flag and they did it every time. Some starters always started the field about the same place. Others were not so predictable. But many would do some kind of flinch or movement every time just before they threw the green.

I assume I was not the only one who ever figured out to do this, but I never told anybody I was doing it and it had great benifits. I was a killer starter and it often was because I went on the starter's "tell" which was a half second or second before he actually threw the green.

I like it. I suppose because I've grown up with races being started with lights (or maybe just because I'd never thought that deeply about it?) the idea of watching the starter for clues as to when he is likely to drop the flag had never occured to me. It would be interesting to know which other drivers used to do this. Another fantastic insight, thanks Buford.

[Buford]

Originally posted by Lotus23
Buford, I wouldn't bet against you in high-stakes poker -- I understand that much the same psychology comes into play there as well.

Yes very much so. The good players play the other players, not their cards.

[smithy]

Originally posted by angst


... I've grown up with races being started with lights (or maybe just because I'd never thought that deeply about it?) the idea of watching the starter for clues as to when he is likely to drop the flag had never occured to me...

At the MotoGP races all of the riders are out watching the start of the lower classes to get an idea of the timing on the lights - how long does the red stay on before it goes out, etc.