Perspective on how stagnant road racing performance levels have become (closed)

[Mal]

The improvement in acceleration and conering of modern racing cars in highlighted by the fact that the F1 cars of today have now run faster round Monza after the addition of 3 slow chicanes than they did in the early '70's when the track was all long straights and fast corners

[X-Guy]

Originally posted by jhansen
This is obviously flame bait from someone who wants to insight argument on the stated topic.

Sir, you obviously really do not grasp the concept of racing, especially in the sense of sportscars and endurance racing. Over a single lap these cars are amazing. The times they make given their RESTRICTED horsepower is mind boggeling. Furthermore, the fact that they can more or less match their qualifying pace for 24 hours is even more staggering. The great Group C cars couldn't even match that feat. The modern cars spend less time in the pits and are as reliable as ever.

Let's see a drag bike run its top speed for even an hour. Of course it wouldn't, it's not made for it. Sportscars are not about pure horsepower. But you probably already knew that, or did you?

One further point you are obviously missing, and which I hinted at earlier. These cars are restricted by a set of rules. The rules are intended to emphasize safety and to promote competition. Drag racing is clearly a different kind of competition. Furthermore, regarding the safety issue, these are CLOSED course race tracks. That will always limit what you can do in terms of speed. F1 is perhaps one of the few formulas that pushes the circuits to be safer. Adding chicanes etc. Le Mans did the same thing. You either alter the circuits, slow the cars, or both. It's not a difficult concept. The IRL has slowed speeds (clearly a case of a type of car that has outgrown the racetracks). It hasn't diminished their series either. F1 is looking at doing the same.

But through all of this, the specticle of road racing, and certainly sportscar racing has not been lost. It remains an amazing form of racing and quite luckily is like no other.

For almost forty years now "major league" motorsports has been a retreat from performance and innovation while motorsports fans delude themselves with rationalizations to justify this. For example, after 30 years, the Porsche 917-30 is STILL the most powerful road racing car ever built. F1 cars barely run over 200 mph, while last year on the land speed trials track at Maxton, North Carolina a turbocharged Hayabusa clocked 250 mph at the end of a standing mile. F1 drivers now complain about going "too fast" while Top Fuel bike riders are riding 1,000+ horsepower 1,000 lb bikes hitting 230 to 240 mph in the quarter.

[jhansen]

X-Guy, since you brought up the Can-Am Porsche, I decided to check the numbers. 1973 Can-Am vs. 2003 ALMS. Here's what I found:

1973 Mosport
Top qualifier, 917/30 - 1:14.100

2003 Mosport
Top qualifier, Lola EX257 - 1:07.906 (a four banger!)

1973 Road Atlanta
Top qualifier, 917/30 - 1:12.950

2003 Road Atlanta (Petit)
Top qualifier, R8 - 1:11.738

1973 Road America
Top qualifier, 917/30 - 1:57.518

2003 Road America
Top qualifier, R8 - 1:52.265

1973 Mid-Ohio
Top qualifier, 917/30 - 1:20.335

2002 Mid-Ohio (no race in '03)
Top qualifier, R8 - 1:14.169

Now in all fairness I have no idea what the differences in track conditions were, track changes over time if any, etc. But it was a nice comparison. I find Mosport particullary interesting.

And you're wrong about the F1 guys complaining about speed. Several of the drivers spoke out saying they did not want the cars slowed!

Tim, sorry, didn't mean to belittle you on the drag racing thing. Just wanted to give it the benefit of the doubt.

[X-Guy]

Originally posted by jhansen
X-Guy, since you brought up the Can-Am Porsche, I decided to check the numbers. 1973 Can-Am vs. 2003 ALMS. Here's what I found:

1973 Mosport
Top qualifier, 917/30 - 1:14.100

2003 Mosport
Top qualifier, Lola EX257 - 1:07.906 (a four banger!)

1973 Road Atlanta
Top qualifier, 917/30 - 1:12.950

2003 Road Atlanta (Petit)
Top qualifier, R8 - 1:11.738

1973 Road America
Top qualifier, 917/30 - 1:57.518

2003 Road America
Top qualifier, R8 - 1:52.265

1973 Mid-Ohio
Top qualifier, 917/30 - 1:20.335

2002 Mid-Ohio (no race in '03)
Top qualifier, R8 - 1:14.169

Now in all fairness I have no idea what the differences in track conditions were, track changes over time if any, etc. But it was a nice comparison. I find Mosport particullary interesting.

The Porsche 917-30 had a magnesium spaceframe. It would be interesting to see what could be in a car that was otherwise identical but equipped with modern brakes and an ultrarigid carbon fiber tub replacing the spaceframe.

[jhansen]

But it wasn't equiped with that stuff. That's the point! Engine regs have changed, but the manufacturers have made the cars quicker. That's the point of racing. It's not dumbed down. The fans are not dumbed down. And the racing is great!

[pounetbf]

Originally posted by X-Guy
For almost forty years now "major league" motorsports has been a retreat from performance and innovation while motorsports fans delude themselves with rationalizations to justify this. For example, after 30 years, the Porsche 917-30 is STILL the most powerful road racing car ever built. F1 cars barely run over 200 mph, while last year on the land speed trials track at Maxton, North Carolina a turbocharged Hayabusa clocked 250 mph at the end of a standing mile. F1 drivers now complain about going "too fast" while Top Fuel bike riders are riding 1,000+ horsepower 1,000 lb bikes hitting 230 to 240 mph in the quarter.

Such a good example of de-information !!!
comparing totally un-comparable subjects...

We have some data about F1 running on a straight : on 1/4 mile it is faster than a military jet. and can do 100 miles of staight !!
what is the speed of your Hayabusa (no idea of what it is) on a corner? and after 100 miles of straight ? if even able to do it ...

Gentlemen, we are loosing our time.
"The bigger the better" is not my way !

[X-Guy]

Originally posted by Jeffrey-Lee
I wonder what the public would think about cars crashing together at 300mhp on a road track, driver's killed, debris flying into the grandstands etc etc. great action...

I think a lot of the drag racing drivers who've gone 300 mph would love the length and width available on the straights of many road racing tracks.

That Mercedes coupe at Le Mans was only going about 180 mph when it took off. The fact 300 mph Funny Cars haven't had the same problem says more about rules mandating flat bottom cars than it does about speed in and of itself being the issue.

[jhansen]

Totally agree, the bigger is better concept would ruin sportscar racing. Can-Am ultimately suffered for it. F1 is seeing the light and is seriously looking at ways to cut costs. What's the point of cars designed to the edge if there is no one to race them or aford them? Return on investment is what pushes manufacturers these days. Let the straight line, short run guys build all the horsepower they want.

[X-Guy]

Originally posted by pounetbf
Such a good example of de-information !!!
comparing totally un-comparable subjects...

We have some data about F1 running on a straight : on 1/4 mile it is faster than a military jet. and can do 100 miles of staight !!
what is the speed of your Hayabusa (no idea of what it is) on a corner? and after 100 miles of straight ? if even able to do it ...

Gentlemen, we are loosing our time.
"The bigger the better" is not my way !

I'd like to see how well that F1 car does running against an 1,100 lb jet dragster (or, for that matter, Bob Motz 8,000 lb J-79 jet truck) instead of an 18,000 lb jet fighter.

[Aysedasi]

Sorry, my first visit to this thread (belated, considerably so). Interesting debate in parts, with various people approaching it from completely different angles.

May I pose the question though - where is this thread going and has it served it's usefulness? Current sportscars are neither dragsters or streamliners from the late 30's. Times change and racing is not just about extracting maximum speed from any particular vehicle. People care just a tad more these days about the safety of drivers and spectators. The fact that a car might be made capable of going 300 mph plus down the Mulsanne, for instance, whilst probably true, is wholly irrelevant, in my submission. Most forms of racing involve more than a timed quarter mile. So it could be done - so what......


So guys, persuade me I shouldn't close this thread. You have thirty minutes, starting now.........

[jhansen]

I'd close it, basically it's an agree to disagree situation. Top speed/horepower vs. organized racing under a set of rules made to promote competition and safety. Two different worlds with their own tastes and appeal. Neither side will convince the other. I've made my attempt and I'm done with it.

[X-Guy]

Originally posted by jhansen
Totally agree, the bigger is better concept would ruin sportscar racing. Can-Am ultimately suffered for it. F1 is seeing the light and is seriously looking at ways to cut costs. What's the point of cars designed to the edge if there is no one to race them or aford them? Return on investment is what pushes manufacturers these days. Let the straight line, short run guys build all the horsepower they want.

Performance isn't what is killing F1.

What is killing F1 is spending MILLIONS of dollars to get tiny incremental almost inperceptible improvements in performance because the rules don't allow you to do anything else.

I wonder how close in performance to an F1 car an F3 car would be for not even a fraction of the cost if the rules allowed a team to replace its engine with a military surplus 1,500 horsepower gas turbine and slap on bigger wings since it'd now have the horsepower to push the extra drag?

[X-Guy]

Originally posted by Aysedasi
Sorry, my first visit to this thread (belated, considerably so). Interesting debate in parts, with various people approaching it from completely different angles.

May I pose the question though - where is this thread going and has it served it's usefulness? Current sportscars are neither dragsters or streamliners from the late 30's. Times change and racing is not just about extracting maximum speed from any particular vehicle. People care just a tad more these days about the safety of drivers and spectators. The fact that a car might be made capable of going 300 mph plus down the Mulsanne, for instance, whilst probably true, is wholly irrelevant, in my submission. Most forms of racing involve more than a timed quarter mile. So it could be done - so what......


So guys, persuade me I shouldn't close this thread. You have thirty minutes, starting now.........

Funny how "safety conscious" Indy car and F1 over the last 10 years have killed far more spectators and track marshalls than "dangerous" drag racing.

[Aysedasi]

Well, I'm with you there X-Guy as far as F1 is concerned. I haven't even bothered to watch the last two GPs (I had a great deal more fun on Sunday watching my son and his team win the local NIRHA (inline hockey) under-14's tournament at Weymouth. (I've only just about got my voice back )

But the argument is otiose, because what you're suggesting will never happen.

[jhansen]

Case in point.

[X-Guy]

Originally posted by jhansen
I'd close it, basically it's an agree to disagree situation. Top speed/horepower vs. organized racing under a set of rules made to promote competition and safety. Two different worlds with their own tastes and appeal. Neither side will convince the other. I've made my attempt and I'm done with it.

The "top speed/horsepower" racing hasn't killed nearly as many spectators and track marshalls over the last ten years as the "organized racing under a set of rules made to promote competition and safety." Maybe because as performance levels have increased in drag racing the sanctioning bodies instead of running from the problem have stepped up with regulations and procedures to accomodate it.

[Aysedasi]

Again, at the risk of repeating myself, the comparison remains as unhelpful as other have indicated.

Lets just face it, your on the sportcar forum here and you obviously have a clear (and very valid) interest in other forms of racing. But we're not about to be converted to agree with you.

One last chance for reply, if you wish to have it, then I close the thread as point made, understood, but opinions expressed as necessary.......

[X-Guy]

Originally posted by jhansen
Totally agree, the bigger is better concept would ruin sportscar racing. Can-Am ultimately suffered for it. F1 is seeing the light and is seriously looking at ways to cut costs. What's the point of cars designed to the edge if there is no one to race them or aford them? Return on investment is what pushes manufacturers these days. Let the straight line, short run guys build all the horsepower they want.

For virtually no cost at all, an F1 car could gain several seconds a lap simply by taking out the couple of hundred pounds of tungsten ballast they put in to meet the minimum weight. I would know many millions it costs otherwise to get the same improvement in performance?

[Cadete]

And regarding what you said about F1, X-Guy, remmember that the main complain about speed (from those who believe it is too much) is not straight-line speed, it's cornering speed. Can those bikes you mentioned do the cornering speeds of a F1 car or of a LMP1?

[Aysedasi]

If speed was the only issue - which it isn't.

I'm closing the thread now. Those who wish to have had their say and X-Guy has certainly got his point of view across. But, to avoid this thread doing a reasonable impression of that well known (but slightly harder to spell) oosalum bird, its time to bring down the curtain.......