49 replies to this topic

[Pingguest]

I've two questions about the former Group C.

1. I know that Group C cars were allowed to use ground effects. But in what way were the venturis restricted? As far as I'm told, flexibel skirts were banned and the undertray had to flat between the front wheels and the middle part.

2. What were the maximum dimensions allowed for the chassis and tyres?

Thanks!

[sblick]

I think it depends on what year of Group C if you were allowed side skirts and the restrictions on the undertray.

[Rexx Havoc]

sorry to ask but can someone point me towards some info on the group C wreck in Montreal with the man hole being dislodged
thank you

[GPLEagle]

I remember watching that race!
It was Jesus Pareja in a 956 or 962 I think. He was off-line (overtaking, I think), on the straight heading towards the chicane at the back of the circuit, when he found this manhole cover had been blown open by another car - a result of the ground effect.
It punctured the chassis, and the fuel tank. The car crashed heavily into the runoff at the chicane, and he was very lucky to walk away from that one.
I remember him walking back to the pits - very angry!!

Small about of info on http://en.wikipedia....i/Manhole_cover

[canon1753]

I was at that race. (Me and about 23 other people...) I think it was Bailey's Nissan that dislodged the manhole cover. The factory Spice-Cosworth was written off, (I remember reading that) probably by the rim of the manhole cover. Then Pareja had his shunt. And that was the race...

The Nissan pitted off sequence and led much of the race. It was Keke and Jabouille's first run in the Peugeot. Keke retired the Pug right in front of us in the hairpin. That was a fun race, until the manhole cover wrecked it.

[Supercar]

Originally posted by Pingguest
I've two questions about the former Group C.

1. I know that Group C cars were allowed to use ground effects. But in what way were the venturis restricted? As far as I'm told, flexibel skirts were banned and the undertray had to flat between the front wheels and the middle part.

2. What were the maximum dimensions allowed for the chassis and tyres?

Thanks!

I am very interested in this subject too. It is sad that the development of the underbody virtually stopped in all formulae due to all the restrictions and regulations. This is what I was able to get from some credible sources about the Group C and IMSA GTP:

"The IMSA GTP car's underbody was free from a regulations stand point. Teams could run Group C spec tunnels for a 100 lb weight reduction if they wanted though most GTP runners (Nissan, Toyota, etc.) opted for the IMSA regulations. Group C regulations limited the exit height at the trailing edge to something like 280 mm and mandated a flat bottom area ahead of the tunnel leading edge essentially moving the start of the tunnels to just aft of the end of the tub. IMSA GTP regulations didn't have a flat bottom area regulation and often the tunnels started such that the underside of the monocoque was molded to just clear the tunnel leading edge. Most GTP cars didn't have a front diffuser as we know it today. In the early 90s the idea began to be developed and the Toyota Eagle MkIII had the beginnings of a front diffuser. And the Nissan NPT93, the turbo development of the P35, was incorporating a raised front tub to allow for larger scope of front aero development. Though as the car never made it beyond the wind tunnel model phase it is somewhat academic. So the ideas of the front diffuser originated in the late generation IMSA GTP cars."

http://www.mulsannes...oryphoto-3.html

http://www.mulsannes...ryphoto-27.html
-------------

I have my own question. Why were they called "ground tunnels". Did they have a raised leading edge to make them work like venturis? Or were they merely long diffusers with a flat section before them that was going all the way to the nose of the car, or to the front of the monocoque if a front diffuser was used?

[phantom II]

I don't know the answers to your questions. The rules changed from year to year. Group C history here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_C
I think you can find the rule changes and dimensions on Mulsannecorner.com.
Anyway Group C lasted 'till 94, but the winning Peugeot 905B in '92 was the height of Group C development. The Nissan R90CK in the same race had 1000hp in Qualie against the Peugeot 750 hp both in Qualie and the race. The 905 did 254 MPH down the Mulsanne which no car has done before or since especially with a 3.5 liter detuned V10 F1 engine.
Jean Totd was race director and Dissault designed the aero package. The P905B may be the most expensive race car ever. It lapped much faster than the Nissan and won the race because of a superior aero package. What killed the Group C package was the restrictions on the rear wing envelope and short overhang rule changes. It also cost much more to develop, hence Dassault's involvement. See current aero rules here http://www.mulsannes...m/2006LMP12.pdf
and the emphasis on overhangs.




It is interesting that Supercar would compare the Nissan P35 and the Lola 810 because the Nissan stuck with the IMSA package from the beginning.
I have sketched the main differences between the Group C and IMSA aero packages. Group C being the Tunnel and IMSA, the Wedge.

The biggest problem with LMP cars is having the C of P too far forward of the Cof G. The Lola package was worse but had a lot less drag. The total Cof P would move aft at speed whereas the Nissan would move forward. See movement arrows on my dwg. Both never arrived at the CG as do F1 cars. The tunnel cars also had an addition problem by not been able to optimize suspension pick up points.
The IMSA aero package on the Nissan P35 needed soft front springs to create the wedge effectively making it a long diffuser. The underfloor Cof P moves forward at speed. The fine tuning was in the splitter and the rear wing. The tunnel cars floor would not have a C of P shift with speed just a different value therefore the total lift moves aft. It needs an intake also. It is more like an inverted wing and although it is in ground effect, it is not as sensitive to ride height as the wedge design is and is easier to pass at speed.
A case in point would be the Ferrari 360 and 430 cars. They come with tunnels that produce about 500lbs at 180 mph and 800lbs drag stock. The challenge series closes off the intake and flattens the floor from the splitter to the diffuser. They add a rear wing. The L/D ratio gets worse but is easy to tune for each track. You gotta have more power with the wedge.

The top drawing shows a wing section (A) and wing section (B). (A) would be the optimum section but (B) is used because of dimensional restraints. All the wing sections on race cars are the wrong shape for this reason. Group C reached the limit of the imposition of wrong shapes.

Originally posted by Pingguest
I've two questions about the former Group C.

1. I know that Group C cars were allowed to use ground effects. But in what way were the venturis restricted? As far as I'm told, flexibel skirts were banned and the undertray had to flat between the front wheels and the middle part.

2. What were the maximum dimensions allowed for the chassis and tyres?

Thanks!

[mulsannemike]

There are a number of misnomers here. But to first answer the questions asked initially as best I can.

1. Group C cars did have a mandated flat bottom area ahead of the leading edge of the tunnels. That flat bottom area was essentially the same area as the plan of the monocoque. I don't have the dimensions here in front of me but I beleive it was at least 900 mm long, I can't recall the width. So that flat bottom area could be placed as needed (forward and aft). Group C regulations also controlled the tunnel exit height. This was enacted in 1988 (was free previously) and restricted the height at the trailing edge to 280 mm.

2. Somewhere in my stash of FIA bulletins are the full Group C regulations. If I have some time I'll dig through and find the segment on chassis dimensions. Off the top of my head I believe the max length was in the region of 4800 mm, different than today's 4650 mm. Width would have been 2000 mm. That's a number that has never changed. Can't recall minimum height. Again, I'll try and remember to have a look tonight if possible.

Regarding some of the misnomers. Just a correction, the Peugeot that touched 254 mph was the WM P88, not the 905. The WM was a privateer effort that utilized a turbo Peugeot engine. This effort had nothing to do with the 905, primarily because the 905 came along 2 years later...There's some info here:

http://en.wikipedia....i/Welter_Racing

Picture of the P88 here:

http://www.racingspo...8-06-12-052.jpg

Group C died in '92, not '94. What killed Group C was economics! And the FIA insisting on the screw ball 3.5 liter formula!

Regarding the P35 and Lola 810 comparison. The Lola 810 had what was called a bubble between the front wheels. The bubble created a localized low pressure area though its effectiveness was questionable to a degree. Consider Yoshi Suzuka did away with the 810's bubble as the car evolved into the Nissan GTP-ZXT. In the drawing above the bubble is well over emphasized. Think of it as a subtle undulation with a flat lead in and a flat exit transitioning to the primary tunnel which, unlike the P35, didn't have a 'S' curve plan section shape to it.

And I'm a bit confused over the assertions regarding the P35's "soft springs" and its "wedge design". Certainly a car like the P35 ran in some static rake...all downforce generating cars do and that is a function ride height fore/aft, not spring rate. Considering the downforce that GTP/Group C cars carried during this era and I don't think anyone would say they ran soft springs!

[phantom II]

http://en.wikipedia....ours_of_Le_Mans
The car that I describe with pictures, P905b EvoIB with a NA V10, drivers Warwick,Dallmas,Blundell won Le Mans 92. Race speed 254 mph. Group C stopped 94 in LeMans. I was there. It is also on the Peogoet web site.
The drawings are not accurate, but the front had to compress to get the diffuser to work. The reference line closest to the ideal C of P line( shortest arrow) should extend to the Nissan Chassis which shows Cof P movement forward at speed when front suspension is under compression.The rake was not static. The level car ran better on the slow parts.
It would be nice if you coud find that stuff on GC.

Originally posted by mulsannemike
There are a number of misnomers here. But to first answer the questions asked initially as best I can.

1. Group C cars did have a mandated flat bottom area ahead of the leading edge of the tunnels. That flat bottom area was essentially the same area as the plan of the monocoque. I don't have the dimensions here in front of me but I beleive it was at least 900 mm long, I can't recall the width. So that flat bottom area could be placed as needed (forward and aft). Group C regulations also controlled the tunnel exit height. This was enacted in 1988 (was free previously) and restricted the height at the trailing edge to 280 mm.

2. Somewhere in my stash of FIA bulletins are the full Group C regulations. If I have some time I'll dig through and find the segment on chassis dimensions. Off the top of my head I believe the max length was in the region of 4800 mm, different than today's 4650 mm. Width would have been 2000 mm. That's a number that has never changed. Can't recall minimum height. Again, I'll try and remember to have a look tonight if possible.

Regarding some of the misnomers. Just a correction, the Peugeot that touched 254 mph was the WM P88, not the 905. The WM was a privateer effort that utilized a turbo Peugeot engine. This effort had nothing to do with the 905, primarily because the 905 came along 2 years later...There's some info here:

http://en.wikipedia....i/Welter_Racing

Picture of the P88 here:

http://www.racingspo...8-06-12-052.jpg

Group C died in '92, not '94. What killed Group C was economics! And the FIA insisting on the screw ball 3.5 liter formula!

Regarding the P35 and Lola 810 comparison. The Lola 810 had what was called a bubble between the front wheels. The bubble created a localized low pressure area though its effectiveness was questionable to a degree. Consider Yoshi Suzuka did away with the 810's bubble as the car evolved into the Nissan GTP-ZXT. In the drawing above the bubble is well over emphasized. Think of it as a subtle undulation with a flat lead in and a flat exit transitioning to the primary tunnel which, unlike the P35, didn't have a 'S' curve plan section shape to it.

And I'm a bit confused over the assertions regarding the P35's "soft springs" and its "wedge design". Certainly a car like the P35 ran in some static rake...all downforce generating cars do and that is a function ride height fore/aft, not spring rate. Considering the downforce that GTP/Group C cars carried during this era and I don't think anyone would say they ran soft springs!

[mulsannemike]

Sorry, but you're mistaken about the 905B. If you look at the official trap speeds from the years the 905 ran you can see, that with the chicanes, the top speeds acheived:

1992

Peugeot Talbot Sport Team

#1 Peugeot 905-EV17
Prac Time: 3:22.512, Avg Speed 241.763 kph, Max Speed 351 kph
Race Time: 3:37.403, Avg Speed 225.204 kph, Max Speed 327 kph

#2 Peugeot 905-EV16
Prac Time: 3:21.209, Avg Speed 243.329 kph, Max Speed 338 kph
Race Time: 3:35.177, Avg Speed 227.534 kph, Max Speed 329 kph

#31 Peugeot 905-EV12
Prac Time: 3:31.250, Avg Speed 231.763 kph, Max Speed 348 kph
Race Time: 3:40.891, Avg Speed 221.648 kph, Max Speed not measured


1993

#1 Peugeot 905-EV17
Prac Time 3:27.30, Max Speed 353 kph
Race Max Speed 333kph

#2 Peugeot 905-EV11
Prac Time 3:24.94, Max Speed 348 kph
Race Max Speed 332kph

#3 Peugeot 905-EV12
Prac Time 3:32.08, Max Speed 343 kph
Race Max Speed 332kph


Group C, as a series, stopped in '92. The last race at Le Mans that ran to the 3.5 liter regulations was in '93, but there was no supporting series, the race was stand alone that year. By '94 the GTs had moved in at Le Mans and that was the year the Dauer 962 won. The Group C cars that ran that year were emasculated at that point (fuel and aero cut back) and bore little relation to their previous iteration.

[Fat Boy]

Originally posted by mulsannemike
Sorry, but you're mistaken about the 905B.

The facts rarely get in the way of a Phantom post. Keep in mind that the technical description is coming from a person who has little if any connection with an actual racecar.

He has a technical background and can (kind of) sound like he knows what he's talking about, but in the end there is precious little actual firsthand experience, certainly nothing along the lines of a Group C or Lemans prototype of any era. In fact, unless I'm mistaken, I don't think that he has really had a connection with a professional racecar of any type. Take those drawings lightly salted.

[phantom II]

I notice your very educated contribution to this thread. Where are your drawings? Are those the correct numbers for the 905? Did it win in '92? Did GrC end 92 or 94? What is specifically wrong with my aero-presentation? Your sorry comment doesn't help anybody. Did I tell you that my wife is a shrink? Ill ask her if she will trade your therapy sessions for my driving lessons. I'll be at Road Atlanta this weekend, maybe we can meet and you can tell me what's going on. You can be right or your can be happy, my friend. Hope your day improves.

Originally posted by Fat Boy


The facts rarely get in the way of a Phantom post. Keep in mind that the technical description is coming from a person who has little if any connection with an actual racecar.

He has a technical background and can (kind of) sound like he knows what he's talking about, but in the end there is precious little actual firsthand experience, certainly nothing along the lines of a Group C or Lemans prototype of any era. In fact, unless I'm mistaken, I don't think that he has really had a connection with a professional racecar of any type. Take those drawings lightly salted.

[Fat Boy]

Take it easy, Francis.

You're like a freakin' politician. You never actually address the subject at hand, you just get all defensive, puff your chest out, and rattle on about driving instructions or your shrink wife. Yes, you're wife's a shrink. We get that. If she wasn't, she'd obviously be your ex-wife. Yes, you need driving instructions, we get that, too.

[phantom II]

What is the subject? Your mental condition or Group C?

Originally posted by Fat Boy
Take it easy, Francis.

You never actually address the subject at hand,

[Fat Boy]

Originally posted by phantom II
What is the subject? Your mental condition or Group C?

The fact that you have no actual professional racing experience and your aerodynamic drawings have no basis is reality. It's what you've thought about and 'think' is right, but you have no actual data to back it up.

[Fat Boy]

Back to the original subject. Just to be honest, I have no experience with a Group C car. My sportscar experience began after that era.

PII's drawing of a P35 Nissan and what he calls 'the wedge' just ain't so. You don't run a flat-bottomed car with the tail down. At least not if you're trying to get any sort of downforce out of the thing. In general, the higher you run the tail of a flat-bottom car (or flat bottom with a diffuser) the more downforce you'll make. PII has spent some time 'thinking' about this and decided that if you run the nose up and tail down that you will make a venturi and that will make a low pressure area. Well, nice idea, but it doesn't work that way. What it actually does, is make a relatively high pressure area. This high pressure area produces lift and it acts as a throttle which limits the total amount of air that can get underneath the car. One only has to watch a couple Lemans prototypes flip ass-over-applecart to realize that 'nose up' is not the way to make downforce.

You make downforce with a flat bottom by putting positive rake in the thing. It doesn't matter if we're talking about a Lemans prototype or a NASCAR Nextel Cup car. They all need the nose down and tail in the air. There is a certain point on most cars where lowering the front starts choking the amount of air that you can get under the car and will actually lose downforce (Massive chunks of it front and rear), this is usually along the lines of a 1/4" or less. A flat bottom car doesn't tend to be super sensitive to drag as a product of rake. A tunnel car will often have a big drag/rake interaction. I really don't know if a Group C acted more like a flat bottom/diffuser or tunnel.

The 'bubble' between the front tires was on the order of a couple inches deep. The 'flat floor' rule started at the front axle centerline, so the 'bubble' was completed by that point (as opposed to PII's picture which shows it back by the cockpit). Nissan had used this idea in their earlier cars (R89C), but for whatever reason went away from it. I actually think the 'bubble' was a way to get the air travelling laterally and exit the wheel well, but I can't say for sure. The 'bubble' had a fairly abrupt beginning and ending, also unlike the drawing, so whatever they were doing I don't think it was to get downforce out of strictly longitudinal flow.

Here's the deal with aerodynamics, there is only 1 universal truth. Anyone who claims to have all the answers if full of ****. To really figure out what a car is doing (or even more important, why it's doing what it's doing) you have to take a lot of time and do tunnel testing. Things that work one way on car A will work another way on car B. You can make some really cool looking bits, but chances are, only about 1 in 10 is going to produce any positive results and 5 out of the other 9 are probably going to actually hurt performance. Often there are some easy monkey-see / monkey-do things that you can do if you're really out of the window, but to get a car strong aerodynamcially takes a lot of time and a bunch of really tedious work.

[phantom II]

I feel privileged that I converse with so a wise and brave race car driver, an aerodynamics, an engineer of the highest order and an all round great guy. Pray tell, oh wise one, what the **** is wrong with my post? Most of the members have no professional racing experience.
What's wrong with my drawings? Be specific. The usual response on this BB, is not to get personal, but to respond to a questionable post in a way that is both polite and informative. You have done neither. I think what I have posted is fairly accurate based on years of aviation experience and 6 years in the airforce. It may be a mistake to try compare the two disciplines but I think it is informative and it gets some members to respond in a manor that will not only educate me but all of us. Now, out with it. What's wrong with my comparison and understanding of the two aero packages? Heh? Out with it. Out with it. It still does not answer the initial query, but you have not either.

Originally posted by Fat Boy


The fact that you have no actual professional racing experience and your aerodynamic drawings have no basis is reality. It's what you've thought about and 'think' is right, but you have no actual data to back it up.

[Fat Boy]

See above.

[phantom II]

I guess we posted at the same time, but you being a profesional race car driver, beat me to it. The soft springs are there to lower the front and give the car a positive rake. How can you not see it in my nice drawings? Maybe you are a better artist than I am also. It turns out that you don't know anything either by your own admitance below..
I have 18th scale models of these cars and copied what I saw. I have been offred $1500 for my 905.
http://www.mulsannes...oryphoto-3.html
The flip up by the Porsche and Sauber Mecedes was determined to be caused by the shape of the roof but that is another story..

Originally posted by Fat Boy
Back to the original subject. Just to be honest, I have no experience with a Group C car. My sportscar experience began after that era.

PII's drawing of a P35 Nissan and what he calls 'the wedge' just ain't so. You don't run a flat-bottomed car with the tail down. At least not if you're trying to get any sort of downforce out of the thing. In general, the higher you run the tail of a flat-bottom car (or flat bottom with a diffuser) the more downforce you'll make. PII has spent some time 'thinking' about this and decided that if you run the nose up and tail down that you will make a venturi and that will make a low pressure area. Well, nice idea, but it doesn't work that way. What it actually does, is make a relatively high pressure area. This high pressure area produces lift and it acts as a throttle which limits the total amount of air that can get underneath the car. One only has to watch a couple Lemans prototypes flip ass-over-applecart to realize that 'nose up' is not the way to make downforce.

You make downforce with a flat bottom by putting positive rake in the thing. It doesn't matter if we're talking about a Lemans prototype or a NASCAR Nextel Cup car. They all need the nose down and tail in the air. There is a certain point on most cars where lowering the front starts choking the amount of air that you can get under the car and will actually lose downforce (Massive chunks of it front and rear), this is usually along the lines of a 1/4" or less. A flat bottom car doesn't tend to be super sensitive to drag as a product of rake. A tunnel car will often have a big drag/rake interaction. I really don't know if a Group C acted more like a flat bottom/diffuser or tunnel.

The 'bubble' between the front tires was on the order of a couple inches deep. The 'flat floor' rule started at the front axle centerline, so the 'bubble' was completed by that point (as opposed to PII's picture which shows it back by the cockpit). Nissan had used this idea in their earlier cars (R89C), but for whatever reason went away from it. I actually think the 'bubble' was a way to get the air travelling laterally and exit the wheel well, but I can't say for sure. The 'bubble' had a fairly abrupt beginning and ending, also unlike the drawing, so whatever they were doing I don't think it was to get downforce out of strictly longitudinal flow.

Here's the deal with aerodynamics, there is only 1 universal truth. Anyone who claims to have all the answers if full of ****. To really figure out what a car is doing (or even more important, why it's doing what it's doing) you have to take a lot of time and do tunnel testing. Things that work one way on car A will work another way on car B. You can make some really cool looking bits, but chances are, only about 1 in 10 is going to produce any positive results and 5 out of the other 9 are probably going to actually hurt performance. Often there are some easy monkey-see / monkey-do things that you can do if you're really out of the window, but to get a car strong aerodynamcially takes a lot of time and a bunch of really tedious work.

[Fat Boy]

Originally posted by phantom II
I feel privileged that I converse with so a wise and brave race car driver, an aerodynamics, an engineer of the highest order and an all round great guy. Pray tell, oh wise one, what the **** is wrong with my post? Most of the members have no professional racing experience.

Here's the deal. There are people with all sorts of varied experience on this board. Most stick to what they know. I don't post a bunch on engine stuff, because that isn't my gig. I might have a little bit to add here and there, but certainly no particulars. Greg doesn't have a bunch of racing experience, but his vehicle dynamics experience is first rate, and his insight there is always worthwhile.

People like RDV and CFDdude have a lot of actual experience, but you tend to shout them down. RDV has more time on these types of car than I do. I think he'd probably have better insight than I do on a Group C car, but he's not apt to join in a conversation with you on the matter. I'd like to hear what he has to say, though.

You love to get into a shouting match and get away from any meaningful discussion. The topic that you actually had really good information about was the one on jets. That's your deal. You know your **** there and have good insight. On a lot of other stuff, though, you're out to lunch. You like act like you know what you're talking about, but you don't. You give out wrong information and portray yourself as an expert in a field which you don't know **** from apple butter. Then, when corrected, have the audacity to get uber defensive and want to fight about it.

Look at your posts to me. Do you really think you're the one taking the high road? You're still have your feelings hurt from over a year ago when I told you I could go to a racetrack with you and make you a better driver. Here's the truth, if you would listen, I could. You're such a know-it-all, though, that I doubt anyone could help you. You have some buttons that are all out in the open and really easy to push. Every once in a while I'll give them a jab just to see the response. In the end, I really don't care if I piss you off. It's fun to see the dancing monkey do his thing.

[Powersteer]

I thought when PhantomII mentioned soft front suspension and wedge (Nissan), he meant the front to dive a little under downforce from the soft suspension so as to angle the flat bottom and create a very shallow diffuser with it thats why he said the center of pressure would move forward?

[Powersteer]

Originally posted by Fat Boy
You give out wrong information and portray yourself as an expert in a field which you don't know **** from apple butter. Then, when corrected, have the audacity to get uber defensive and want to fight about it.

Must be a big Russell Crow fan.

[phantom II]

Here is a better deal. Stick to what you know. What is that exactly in your case? It doesn't stop you from talking about Aerodynamics and other things, does it? Quote:

"I actually think the 'bubble' was a way to get the air travelling laterally and exit the wheel well, but I can't say for sure. The 'bubble' had a fairly abrupt beginning and ending, also unlike the drawing, so whatever they were doing I don't think it was to get downforce out of strictly longitudinal flow." and....

"One only has to watch a couple Lemans prototypes flip ass-over-applecart to realize that 'nose up' is not the way to make downforce."

From what I know, the above statements are completely wrong, but this is not the point of this BB. Everybody is entitled to make contributions here. First, we are enthusiasts. I actually enjoy your posts because of your passion even thought the above quotes are utter crap.
How do you know that I have good insights into jets? How can you make such a judgement.
Now you have delved into two areas that you know nothing about. How many more topics will you comment on? See my point? Who cares.

Anyway, here is a story on the Sauber flip. I actually stood right at the point where the Porsche flipped at Road Atlanta.
http://www.mulsannes...echarticle1.htm
Here is a comment from this article. Is it accurate?

"The center of lift for the bottom of the car when at a nose up attitude can be estimated to be at less than 50% of the length of the bottom of the car. This puts the center of lift for the bottom of the car in front of the c.g. To make things worse the car has a wing on the back side generating downforce behind the rear tires and well behind the c.g. which naturally tends to lift the nose. Since the lift on top of the car increases with nose up pitch , we do not expect our car to glide like a well balanced balsa airplane. Instead, we would expect that once the nose starts up it will continue to go up as the top side aerodynamic forces increase, which is exactly what we saw in both the flip of the Mercedes at Le Mans and of the Porsche at Petite Le Mans."


Here is also the story of the 905 top speed at Lemans and the last Group C car at Le Mans.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_C

http://en.wikipedia....ours_of_Le_Mans


Mulsannsecorner.com has many inaccuracies. So who's right? You can be right or you cn be happy.

Originally posted by Fat Boy


Here's the deal. There are people with all sorts of varied experience on this board. Most stick to what they know. I don't post a bunch on engine stuff, because that isn't my gig. I might have a little bit to add here and there, but certainly no particulars. Greg doesn't have a bunch of racing experience, but his vehicle dynamics experience is first rate, and his insight there is always worthwhile.

People like RDV and CFDdude have a lot of actual experience, but you tend to shout them down. RDV has more time on these types of car than I do. I think he'd probably have better insight than I do on a Group C car, but he's not apt to join in a conversation with you on the matter. I'd like to hear what he has to say, though.

You love to get into a shouting match and get away from any meaningful discussion. The topic that you actually had really good information about was the one on jets. That's your deal. You know your **** there and have good insight. On a lot of other stuff, though, you're out to lunch. You like act like you know what you're talking about, but you don't. You give out wrong information and portray yourself as an expert in a field which you don't know **** from apple butter. Then, when corrected, have the audacity to get uber defensive and want to fight about it.

Look at your posts to me. Do you really think you're the one taking the high road? You're still have your feelings hurt from over a year ago when I told you I could go to a racetrack with you and make you a better driver. Here's the truth, if you would listen, I could. You're such a know-it-all, though, that I doubt anyone could help you. You have some buttons that are all out in the open and really easy to push. Every once in a while I'll give them a jab just to see the response. In the end, I really don't care if I piss you off. It's fun to see the dancing monkey do his thing.

[Fat Boy]

Don't you have a SuperModified to be working on?

[mulsannemike]

Frankly I'm curious about my "many inaccuracies". I certianly won't claim to be perfect but I bristly at the "many" aspect. Please enligthen me.

And the Mercedes that flipped...that wasn't a Sauber...and frankly I don't see what is inaccurate the statement highlighted in David Hansen's article.

That you continue to dispute whether or not the 905 went 254 mph...tell me your source for that...where did it touch that speed? My source is the ACO, who's yours? I find it odd that you claim that Peugeot 905 hit the exact same speed the WM did. I'll suggest its obstenate disregard on your behalf...and this Wikipedia link, the one you put in your post above:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_C

Has this quote, "As C1 cars were found to be breaking over the 240 miles per hour mark at Le Mans' Mulsanne Straight, with the WM Peugeot being the highest at 254mph"

So your own link, that you sight as proof of the 905 touching 254, actually says what I've been saying all along. That it was the WM Peugeot, this car:

http://www.racingspo...8-06-12-052.jpg

And that's not a 905...plus, the "Project 400" was a pretty well known attempt to break the 400 kph barrier on the unrestricted Mulsanne. The 905 never racaed on the unrestricted Mulsanne.

I'm also curious who you spoke with about the Lola 810 and Nissan P35 setup...I'll tell you who I've spoken to about the car...the car's aerodynamicist (Yoshi Suzuka) and the team manager (Ashley Page) at Electramotive...and lets not forget Andy Galloway (Head of Aero).

My comment regarding when Group C ended was based on your lack of stipualation "at Le Mans". You didn't indicate that. Group C, as a series, ended in '92:

"A lack of entries meant the 1993 WEC was cancelled before the start of the first race"

If in hindsight you add "at Le Mans", sure you're right.

[Fat Boy]

Originally posted by mulsannemike
Frankly I'm curious about my "many inaccuracies". I certianly won't claim to be perfect but I bristly at the "many" aspect. Please enligthen me.

Well, Mike, I'd say your information looks pretty good to me. I love it when PII claims stuff like 'soft front springs'. WTF does that even mean? As opposed to the rear? As opposed the the previous car? As opposed to the compeititon? Or maybe it means that they had a lot of rocker in the car and got the necessary ride rate from physically small spring. To lend any credence to these types of comments would be silly. Of course, there is never any references, just outlandish statements and then the will to fight to the death over them.

Yoshi Suzuka, Ashley Page, and Andy Galloway? I'm sorry, that's not good enough. PII was in the Air Force for 6 years. We all know that the Air Force is the pinnacle of motorracing.

PII, the reason I think you have good information to offer on jets is that you aren't defensive about it. The tone in your aircraft posts are 180 degrees from a thread like this. I do think you've been relatively truthful about your background (which doesn't involve racing). Why is it that you feel the need to fight over stuff that you really don't know about? You might want to talk to your wife on this one, Jack, 'cause you've got some issues that you really need to sort out.

My background is a race engineer on many different types of cars (open wheel, sedan, & various prototypes). I have a mechanical engineering degree, not aerodynamics. When I was in school I knew what I wanted to do, though, and took as many fluids and heat transfer classes as I could (which was not the easy way out, BTW). I've done a fair bit of aerodynamic testing including wind tunnel and on track testing. Am I an aerodynamicist? No. Can I find my way around? Yes. If I were more sure about each particular car, I'd give more direct answers. The truth is that it is _so_ difficult to give blanket statements on a subject as broad as racecar aerodynamics that direct answers are nigh on impossible. Last year I worked with 3 aerodynamicists on seperate projects. 1 was a lunatic, 1 was an con-artist, and the last was really, really good. The first 2 gave me all sorts of very direct answers, but when tested, they were all wrong. The last guy gave very few direct answers, but could lead me in the right directions and between the 2 of us, we could find what we were looking for. I guess it's no coincedence that he works for an OEM specifically as a racecar aerodynamicist.

[Supercar]

Yeah, that detail about soft front springs was so very gross. It sucks that comments like that can really stick in someone's head for a while. Then it would take many factual and empirical evidences to reverse the facts and undo the damage. I am still mad at several people, including my teachers, friends, and even family members, who made ignorant and overconfident statements like that, which I blindly believed in because I did not know any better at that time and did not question them right away because I trusted them.

PII, please contemplate outloud but do not state imagination as facts.

[phantom II]

Thanks for the corrections and the additional information. I really appreciate it. Your website is a marvelous effort and I don't discount it in the least. Infact, I'm grateful for it as well as this BB.
I quoted Hanson's 'correct' statement in response to FB's comment asking him if he thinks it is accurate in view of his comment about 'Flips". His comment clearly indicates to me that he doesn't understand what took place when the 'Mercedes' and the Porsche became airborne.
Now when a car becomes airborne, then it becomes an airplane which is something I know something about. Even then, some clever members have straightened me out on a thing or two about how a plane flies also.

FB,"One only has to watch a couple Lemans prototypes flip ass-over-applecart to realize that 'nose up' is not the way to make downforce."

Hanson,"....Since the lift on top of the car increases with nose up pitch"


Hanson's explanation in this sentence is the difference between a car wing creating lift whilst on the ground compared to how a car or airplane wing creates lift when it is airborne and the two very different aerodynamic principles that come into play. Few know the difference, FB being one. It was all in the shape of the roof and the introduction of an A of A.
My dwgs? Well, I think that there is some truth to my uneducated conjecture.
There is no need to bristle.

I was at Lemans that year of the 905 win. The Porsche loop took place right in front of me at Road Atalnta and I hope to see the Corvettes thrash the Aston Martin on Saturday at the same place. I'll be the one flipping if it does.

Originally posted by mulsannemike
Frankly I'm curious about my "many inaccuracies". I certianly won't claim to be perfect but I bristly at the "many" aspect. Please enligthen me.

And the Mercedes that flipped...that wasn't a Sauber...and frankly I don't see what is inaccurate the statement highlighted in David Hansen's article.

And that's not a 905...plus, the "Project 400" was a pretty well known attempt to break the 400 kph barrier on the unrestricted Mulsanne. The 905 never racaed on the unrestricted Mulsanne.

I'm also curious who you spoke with about the Lola 810 and Nissan P35 setup...I'll tell you who I've spoken to about the car...the car's aerodynamicist (Yoshi Suzuka) and the team manager (Ashley Page) at Electramotive...and lets not forget Andy Galloway (Head of Aero).

My comment regarding when Group C ended was based on your lack of stipualation "at Le Mans". You didn't indicate that. Group C, as a series, ended in '92:

"A lack of entries meant the 1993 WEC was cancelled before the start of the first race"

If in hindsight you add "at Le Mans", sure you're right.

[phantom II]

You shouldn't let thing get to you like that, friends. Its really not good for you. Supercar is grossed out and FB wants to fight to the death. Nice to see some male bonding going on here.
The trigger words seems to be 'Soft Springs'. Look, my wife is all booked up thru the month but maybe I can help you guys in the mean time.
You will each have to go within and seek the truth. It will set you free.
See, you not really mad at me, you are really mad at yourselves. Now on the other hand, Mike is a self assured fellah. He is a gentleman and a scholar and a good judge of bad whiskey. Now you don't see him crying to his mama because I mention the words,"Soft Springs', do you? He is firm and polite not to mention correct.
FB actually likes me. He tells me about himself and asks me about my projects. I think he is OK in my book also. Funny too and probably we would have a blast over a few beers..

Now, I did kinda mention that I don't know what I'm talking about if you read my posts carefully. Poor old Pingquest simply asked two questions. Very interesting questions I might add. Supercar responded to the query in a very satisfactory manor and like him, I am very interested in this subject also.
Like I said, it may be a mistake to compare planes to cars and I apologize for the misinformation. I'm grateful to Mike for pointing out some discrepancies in my posts..
My recall is not what it should be and I suppose I should take more care in researching my posts. I read somewhere that the pitch of the car changed with speed and the diffuser became more efficient. I thought that I was being helpful with my nice drawings. I think that there is some good information there.
S..P..s, I can't say the words, because I don't want Supercar to gross out again, but the spring rates were different in the front than they were in the back.
NASCAR uses softer springs on the right than the left to get the CG lower and to get the aero package to work in the turns. Honest, I'm not making that up.

"Do the thing and you will have the power" Voltaire. This is how I have lead a very successful life, SC and FB. When I begin a project, I just go for it with very little thought to planning. I know that I will receive guidance and therefore course corrections along the way. It is the American way or the Anglo way.
That's how we won our independence, That's how we fort at the Siegfreid Line. That's how we learned on the job fighting Japs in the Jungles of SE Asia. That's how we fight in Iraq today. That's how we would have fought the commies in Vietnam if we didnt have commies leading us.
In short, we learn on the job.
One of the most interesting stories in auto racing was Honda's involvement with McLaren in the 80s. Senna understood the functioning's of the two cultures even though he made up a third. The Anglos in the team resolved problems on the spot, the Japs took their problems to Tokyo while Senna knocked his competitors off the track. My point????

I notice that some threads have one opening post and remain that way. Like this thread, Pingguest asked a legitimate question that has yet to be answered.
I asked a long time ago what made a good engine a good engine. I learned today that it might be the tfmep rather than the imep.
Merely by responding, energy will be created to complete the mission in most cases. It is a wonderful philosophy of life and all it takes is faith. Action and not thought is Kharma.
I guarantee that my posts provoke thought and bring out the truth. I ran a large corporation exactly the same way. I showed young pilots how to make it back home alive.
I know that there is some semblance of truth, experience and gut feel in my posts. I have learned stuff from this thread, but will keep you off balance if you let me and I may take chances to achieve results.
Above all, it is not malicious. I come here for information and pleasure and hang around with mighty fine gear heads such as yourselves.

Excuse me, I must have some words with Mike now. Lets hope we hear from the real aero guys.

Originally posted by Fat Boy



Well, Mike, I'd say your information looks pretty good to me. I love it when PII claims stuff like 'soft front springs'.

[Fat Boy]

This last post kinda reminds me of this:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

POINT DUME -- DAY

It is a high, wind-swept bluff. Walter and the Dude walk
towards the lip of the bluff. Parked in the background is
one lonely car, Walter's.

Walter is carrying a bright red coffee can with a blue plastic
lid. When they reach the edge the two men stand awkwardly
for a beat. Finally:

WALTER
I'll say a few words.

The Dude clasps his hands in front of him. Walter clears
his throat.

WALTER
Donny was a good bowler, and a good
man. He was. . . He was one of us.
He was a man who loved the outdoors,
and bowling, and as a surfer explored
the beaches of southern California
from Redondo to Calabassos. And he
was an avid bowler. And a good
friend. He died--he died as so many
of his generation, before his time.
In your wisdom you took him, Lord.
As you took so many bright flowering
young men, at Khe San and Lan Doc
and Hill 364. These young men gave
their lives. And Donny too. Donny
who. . . who loved bowling.

Walter clears his throat.

WALTER
And so, Theodore--Donald--Karabotsos,
in accordance with what we think
your dying wishes might well have
been, we commit your mortal remains
to the bosom of.

Walter is peeling the plastic lid off the coffee can.

WALTER
the Pacific Ocean, which you loved
so well.

AS HE SHAKES OUT THE ASHES:

WALTER
Goodnight, sweet prince.

[phantom II]

This last post kinda reminds me of this:

---------------------------------
The men that don't fit in
-------------------------------------------
There's a race of men that don't fit in,
A race that can't stay still;
So they break the hearts of kith and kin,
And they roam the world at will.
They range the field and they rove the flood,
And they climb the mountain's crest;
Theirs is the curse of the gypsy blood,
And they don't know how to rest.

If they just went straight they might go far;
They are strong and brave and true;
But they're always tired of the things that are,
And they want the strange and new.
They say: "Could I find my proper groove,
What a deep mark I would make!"
So they chop and change, and each fresh move
Is only a fresh mistake.

And each forgets, as he strips and runs
With a brilliant, fitful pace,
It's the steady, quiet, plodding ones
Who win in the lifelong race.
And each forgets that his youth has fled,
Forgets that his prime is past,
Till he stands one day, with a hope that's dead,
In the glare of the truth at last.

He has failed, he has failed; he has missed his chance;
He has just done things by half.
Life's been a jolly good joke on him,
And now is the time to laugh.
Ha, ha! He is one of the Legion Lost;
He was never meant to win;
He's a rolling stone, and it's bred in the bone;
He's a man who doesn't fit in.

Robert Service: Songs from a Sourdough.

[Supercar]

Originally posted by phantom II
Now, I did kinda mention that I don't know what I'm talking about if you read my posts carefully.

I never thought I would want to put someone's words of wisdom in my signature, but I might just frame this and put it up one day.

I read somewhere that the pitch of the car changed with speed and the diffuser became more efficient.

Yes, it it true, but you got it backwards. Usually it is the rear that goes down at speed and not the front. The diffuser becomes more efficient because it seals do the ground better when it is low. The car is likely to get more rear downforce, less front and overall downforce and less drag. That's a more efficient rear diffuser.

[mulsannemike]

Hey phantom, understand there's no hard feelings at all and I can be somewhat pedantic at times. I have already been at the track today...some very interesting Porsche RS Spyder updates on the way apparently...hopefully the Porsche press conference Friday will make public this rather agressive update...if not we'll have to wait utill Saturday apparently (Paris Auto Show). Will be pounding around the paddock naturally, if you see a guy in a Mulsanne's Corner T-Shirt that is more than likely me (and if its not me, try the next guy, that's gotta be me), please do say hello.

Mike

Originally posted by phantom II
Thanks for the corrections and the additional information. I really appreciate it. Your website is a marvelous effort and I don't discount it in the least. Infact, I'm grateful for it as well as this BB.
I quoted Hanson's 'correct' statement in response to FB's comment asking him if he thinks it is accurate in view of his comment about 'Flips". His comment clearly indicates to me that he doesn't understand what took place when the 'Mercedes' and the Porsche became airborne.
Now when a car becomes airborne, then it becomes an airplane which is something I know something about. Even then, some clever members have straightened me out on a thing or two about how a plane flies also.

FB,"One only has to watch a couple Lemans prototypes flip ass-over-applecart to realize that 'nose up' is not the way to make downforce."

Hanson,"....Since the lift on top of the car increases with nose up pitch"


Hanson's explanation in this sentence is the difference between a car wing creating lift whilst on the ground compared to how a car or airplane wing creates lift when it is airborne and the two very different aerodynamic principles that come into play. Few know the difference, FB being one. It was all in the shape of the roof and the introduction of an A of A.
My dwgs? Well, I think that there is some truth to my uneducated conjecture.
There is no need to bristle.

I was at Lemans that year of the 905 win. The Porsche loop took place right in front of me at Road Atalnta and I hope to see the Corvettes thrash the Aston Martin on Saturday at the same place. I'll be the one flipping if it does.

[Ben]

Originally posted by Fat Boy
This last post kinda reminds me of this:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

POINT DUME -- DAY

It is a high, wind-swept bluff. Walter and the Dude walk
towards the lip of the bluff. Parked in the background is
one lonely car, Walter's.

Walter is carrying a bright red coffee can with a blue plastic
lid. When they reach the edge the two men stand awkwardly
for a beat. Finally:

WALTER
I'll say a few words.

The Dude clasps his hands in front of him. Walter clears
his throat.

WALTER
Donny was a good bowler, and a good
man. He was. . . He was one of us.
He was a man who loved the outdoors,
and bowling, and as a surfer explored
the beaches of southern California
from Redondo to Calabassos. And he
was an avid bowler. And a good
friend. He died--he died as so many
of his generation, before his time.
In your wisdom you took him, Lord.
As you took so many bright flowering
young men, at Khe San and Lan Doc
and Hill 364. These young men gave
their lives. And Donny too. Donny
who. . . who loved bowling.

Walter clears his throat.

WALTER
And so, Theodore--Donald--Karabotsos,
in accordance with what we think
your dying wishes might well have
been, we commit your mortal remains
to the bosom of.

Walter is peeling the plastic lid off the coffee can.

WALTER
the Pacific Ocean, which you loved
so well.

AS HE SHAKES OUT THE ASHES:

WALTER
Goodnight, sweet prince.

Not the rug!

Ben

[Powersteer]

Didn't Williams naughty active suspension pitched the car in a way to adjust downforce relate to some of the arguments here?

[Fat Boy]

Originally posted by Ben


Not the rug!

Ben

At least _someone_ gets it! God, I was trying to be humorous and get another shpeal. ****, if I wanted that I'd call my mother.

[desmo]

[RacerAlexUK]

Back to the original topic, does anybody have any idea on what sort of downforce percentage split between the underbody and the upperbody/wings Group C cars had? Statistics would be nice if possible.

[Supercar]

Originally posted by RacerAlexUK
Back to the original topic, does anybody have any idea on what sort of downforce percentage split between the underbody and the upperbody/wings Group C cars had? Statistics would be nice if possible.

That's a great question! Something is telling me that nobody here has that statistics about Group C cars, but I would like to hear this information about similar cars too, if it's available.

[mulsannemike]

Yes, to a degree...Yoshi Suzuka sent me a wind tunnel report that detailed similar, what the contibution of the rear wing was in its interaction with the underfloor and what was lost when the wing was taken out of the equation. The reults were:

1986 Nissan GTP ZX-T:

1. Standard car: 5408 lbs, 4.32:1
2. Wing isolated to tunnel, no rear wing loading through model: 3575 lbs, 3.22:1
3. Underfloor in isolation (wing removed): 2000 lbs., 2.72:1

Test #2 shows the rear wing's effect on the underfloor while removing the wing's loading. From this Yoshi calculated:

Wing in isolation (difference between test 1 and test 2): 1833 lbs. for 143 lbs. drag
Wing's influnce on underbody (difference between test 2 and test 3): 1575 lbs. for 375 lbs. drag

Total wing contribution: 3408 lbs. for 518 lbs. drag

[J.Lowe]

Originally posted by Pingguest
I've two questions about the former Group C.

1. I know that Group C cars were allowed to use ground effects. But in what way were the venturis restricted? As far as I'm told, flexibel skirts were banned and the undertray had to flat between the front wheels and the middle part.

2. What were the maximum dimensions allowed for the chassis and tyres?

Thanks!

Here ya go…



This is from the FIA Sporting Code for 1991. Coincidently, this was the book I used during the design of P35 (mentioned above). Along side Yoshi Suzuka, Trevor Harris, et al.

[AdamLarnachJr]

Holy crap... its Mulsanne Mike? You made it over here too huh? I've been on the IMSA and ALMS forums since the beginning of time, good to see another sportscar guy here.

[mulsannemike]

Oh I'm everywhere...;)

[benrapp]

Originally posted by mulsannemike
Yes, to a degree...Yoshi Suzuka sent me a wind tunnel report that detailed similar, what the contibution of the rear wing was in its interaction with the underfloor and what was lost when the wing was taken out of the equation. The reults were:

1986 Nissan GTP ZX-T:

1. Standard car: 5408 lbs, 4.32:1
2. Wing isolated to tunnel, no rear wing loading through model: 3575 lbs, 3.22:1
3. Underfloor in isolation (wing removed): 2000 lbs., 2.72:1

Test #2 shows the rear wing's effect on the underfloor while removing the wing's loading. From this Yoshi calculated:

Wing in isolation (difference between test 1 and test 2): 1833 lbs. for 143 lbs. drag
Wing's influnce on underbody (difference between test 2 and test 3): 1575 lbs. for 375 lbs. drag

Total wing contribution: 3408 lbs. for 518 lbs. drag

If there's no wing loading through the model in test 2, surely the car isn't pitching to the rear under the influence of the rear wing? In fact, wouldn't it be diving a little (assuming the front aero was unchanged) so reducing the efficiency of the diffuser vs how it could have performed if the suspension and front aero had been set up for a wingless configuration? Any idea if in tests 2 and 3 they pitched the model to the rear to get the maximum from the diffuser? I realise that a) you didn't run the tests and b) I have almost no idea what I'm talking about when it comes to aero, so may either be asking an unanswerable question or a stupid one.

[jpf]

Just had to chime in to thank J. Lowe for dropping in with the regs. Cool to have one of the designers come in. Welcome!

[no-clue]

Originally posted by benrapp
If there's no wing loading through the model in test 2, surely the car isn't pitching to the rear under the influence of the rear wing? In fact, wouldn't it be diving a little (assuming the front aero was unchanged) so reducing the efficiency of the diffuser vs how it could have performed if the suspension and front aero had been set up for a wingless configuration? Any idea if in tests 2 and 3 they pitched the model to the rear to get the maximum from the diffuser? I realise that a) you didn't run the tests and b) I have almost no idea what I'm talking about when it comes to aero, so may either be asking an unanswerable question or a stupid one.

Only guessing, but to enable a fairly accurate figure, the car attitude could've been controlled by an active ride height system (full scale car). If it was a scale model, then the model motion system would adjust the ride height to where it was in test 1 & 2. Usually nowadays it's done with a ride height laser feedback loop to control the attitude, but before these were used a deflection compensation would've been built into the actuation geometry to achieve a representative ride height.
By keeping the attitude constant, then the front aero would only be changed by playing with the configuration of the rear of the car, thus giving a pretty good representation of the overall rear wing contribution.

[J.Lowe]

Originally posted by jpf
Just had to chime in to thank J. Lowe for dropping in with the regs. Cool to have one of the designers come in. Welcome!

Thanks for the kind words.

Don't stop by very often, but when I do, I find the dialog thoughtfull and engaging...even with the ocasional inane banter mixed in.

With regard to NPTI, I was just a small fish in a big pond. But, I learned a lot and managed to leverage that success in to success in CART and F1.

Those were good times.

Cheers.

[cnrandall]

Originally posted by J.Lowe


Thanks for the kind words.

Don't stop by very often, but when I do, I find the dialog thoughtfull and engaging...even with the ocasional inane banter mixed in.

With regard to NPTI, I was just a small fish in a big pond. But, I learned a lot and managed to leverage that success in to success in CART and F1.

Those were good times.

Cheers.

Hi there. Thought I would say hi because I currently own the P-35. Would be great to have a chat about the car at some stage. I've spoken to Trevor Harris and had some communication with Yoshi Suzuka but always interesting to hear more. The car really is a fantastic bit of kit.

[J.Lowe]

Originally posted by cnrandall


Hi there. Thought I would say hi because I currently own the P-35. Would be great to have a chat about the car at some stage. I've spoken to Trevor Harris and had some communication with Yoshi Suzuka but always interesting to hear more. The car really is a fantastic bit of kit.

I’d love to chat. I still have a lot of drawings, pic’s, cad files, etc...not to mention a few parts. I even have an illustrated parts catalog, which, is rather rare for a one-off race car. I’ll send you a PM with my contact info.

Cheers.

[cnrandall]

Originally posted by J.Lowe


I’d love to chat. I still have a lot of drawings, pic’s, cad files, etc...not to mention a few parts. I even have an illustrated parts catalog, which, is rather rare for a one-off race car. I’ll send you a PM with my contact info.

Cheers.

WOW! Would be great to chat, I've pm'ed you with my details.