DSP VS Audi R8

[H16]

Did anyone see the quote from Dave Klym at Fabcar on Motorsport.com?

"I've built (GTO and IMSA Lights cars), I've built GTP cars, and of course I'm building these. I defy you to look at this car and tell me anything it doesn't have that the Audi (R8) has. All of the suspension components are fabricated. We didn't go to NAPA and buy anything. Everything on this car is custom made for the car. We tried to make it a lot less expensive, we're not using any exotic materials, no exotic techniques that can't be done here in the United States. People that look at the car and say it's not a sophisticated car, it looks like a go-kart, or a dune buggy or something like that, they don't know what they're looking at. If you take an R8 and take the bodywork off, it would look just like this one would."

Does he really want an answer from this question? Perhaps the fiasco regarding the name of the car for Brumos or something has gotten to his head.

I have seen the DSP without it's body, and it looks like NASCAR with a rear engine. From my knowledge, the Audi has the following that I doubt the DSP has:

Semi Automatic Gearbox
Streesed engine
Air exits on the sides
Diffuser
Air Scoops
Carbon tub as opposed to tubeframe
Purpose built, not spec, rear wing
Side radiators as opposed to front mandated
Crash testing
Saftey
Speed
Purpose built, as opposed to spec tires

What a crazy comment. Its one thing to defend your series, its another to simply blurt out bogus PR.

[Aysedasi]

Incredible isn't it? Makes you wonder if the guy has ever seen an R8

[Fogelhund]

Well the DSP's might be competitive racers, and the looks might one day grow on up... but the comparison to the R8 is ridiculous.

[H16]

And just to be correct, the contemporary LMP such as the Audi or MG looks virtually like a Formula One car underneath, while the DSP is structured like a NASCAR machine.

Notice the Bentley?

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/bentleylmgtp5.html

Do the DSPs even have impact structures?

[Inside_Info]

Originally posted by H16
If you take an R8 and take the bodywork off, it would look just like this one would."

...

What a crazy comment. Its one thing to defend your series, its another to simply blurt out bogus PR.

Yes, totally crazy, not to mention false...

If that were the case, I hope he has a good lawyer... because I'm sure the Audi lawyers would take a look at whether the 'Design Rights' (Manufacturers use these to stop toy makers from selling toys or models without the manufacturers having a cut) or any other form of copyright have been infringed!

[cybersdorf]

Maybe it's an imperfect clone.

[cybersdorf]

An R7, so to speak.

[Dauntless]

I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill, H16. You quote Klym out of context and then imply that he is a dunce for claiming (by inference) that a DSP is everything that an R8 is. And then several others put on snooty airs by piling on H16's insipid comments.

Klym was responding to assertions that DSP were not *real* race cars and claims (rightfully so!) that they contain all the major elements of the premier sports racing car of our time...the R8. Let's take H16's items one-by-one:

Semi Automatic Gearbox: All of the DSP approved grearboxes are purpose built sequential shift gearboxes that allow shift-without-lift. (I assume that's what you mean since you don't specify.) What's your point? That it's MECHANICAL semi-automatic? Get real.

Streesed engine: A stressed engine is an advantage only when competing engines aren't stressed, and then only due to CG and roll center considerations. Stressed engines do not by themselves confer any torsional regidity advantage, and drive up the cost of both the engine and the gearbox.

Air exits on the sides: So? Tell us why you think this handicaps the DSPs.

Diffuser: Show me in the rules where a diffuser is not allowed.

Air Scoops: Um, what?

Carbon tub as opposed to tubeframe: True, but Klym's point was that DSPs have purpose designed and built, dedicated racing chassis, not some compromised OEM unibody stamping. The fact that the Grand Am's chassis specification precludes load bearing composite chassis elements is nothing new. AFAIK, GA has never allowed autoclaved carbon tubs.

Purpose built, not spec, rear wing: So what if all must run the specified wing? The purpose designed DSP rear wing is made to standards just as high as that of the R8, and like that of the R8, it is a true racing wing, not some plexiglass or aluminum "spoiler" tacked onto the rear deck lid.

Side radiators as opposed to front mandated: And your point is?

Crash testing: You are just flat wrong here. The roll cage design standards and specified Crawford front and side impact structures are thoroughly engineered and tested. In fact, if we could get GA to publish the figures, H16, 10'll get you 100 that GA's components meet or exceed the ACO's requirements.

Saftey: See my comment above. You're either trolling or grossly ignorant.

Speed: I doubt there's 10 MPH difference in top speed between the winning Daytona 24 DSP and an R8. Besides, the R8 looks like a slug next to Le Mans cars of the late 80's, when they tooled down the Mulsanne Straight at 240 MPH...

Purpose built, as opposed to spec tires: Um, yeah. The DSPs are running around Daytona on 30-dollar "may-pops"...NOT! Gee, I guess F1 cars having to run on "spec" tires, not to mention "spec" fuel, makes that a second-rate series, too, eh?

But you know, there ARE some critical differences between the R8 and DSPs, H16. For one, the R8 is so expensive (at ~$50 MILLION a year) that not even the combined financial might of VW/Audi can afford to run them any more. Second, the car was so expensive to build that Audi never made more than what, half a dozen? And third, the cars were so expensive that ACO have effectively outlawed them after '03 in an effort to save their own butts. Do you see a pattern developing here? I do. Over the past 40+ years, I have watched manufacturers repeatedly drive the cost of endurance racing through the roof what, 4 or 5 times? Finally, someone has come along with a formula that stands a chance of surviving, and I applaud GA for its efforts.

Troll away, H16, but now that *Chris* is no longer among us don't expect many of us here to take you seriously.

Regards, Stan

[BobN]

Dauntless/fritzenhauser,

I think you have mistaken H16 as someone that is Chris. I know Chris very well and I assure you that they are not the same person.

Now, as to your characterization of Dave Kylm's intent, unless you are Dave Kylm or he personally told you, you can't possibly know what he intended by his comments. His comments as they stand were off base and disingenous at a minimum. His car would more closely resemble a Winston Cup car in construction whereas an R8 is closer to a F1 car in construction. Aside from the fact that one is closed cockpit and tube frame and the other is open cockpit and contructed of carbon fiber, there are many other differences between the two. You imply that the R8 would only be 10 miles per hour faster than a DSP, with 660 HP and much superior aero vs. 500 HP and a shape like a brick, where do you get your data to make this comparison?

Before you go attacking folks here (H16 w/120+ posts) with your 2 posts, you should be careful in your use of "us" when you say many of "us" won't take you seriously.

Bob

[cybersdorf]

16 paragraphs.
Feelings have been hurt.

Originally posted by Dauntless
Gee, I guess F1 cars having to run on "spec" tires, not to mention "spec" fuel, makes that a second-rate series, too, eh?

Gee, guess it does, eh.

Originally posted by Dauntless
And your point is?

[H16]

What a wonderful post! Accusing me of trolling because of his comments.

You "really" showed me up good there. I mean, your answers like "Purpose built, not spec, rear wing: So what if all must run the specified wing? The purpose designed DSP rear wing is made to standards just as high as that of the R8, and like that of the R8, it is a true racing wing, not some plexiglass or aluminum "spoiler" tacked onto the rear deck lid. Or "Side radiators as opposed to front mandated: And your point is?"

F1 has two tire companies. F1 fuel and lubricant suppliers submit a sample of their own fuel to the FIA at the start of the year for which each sample must match. Each team has a different fuel. Williams supposedly had 10 more HP than Benetton in 1997 because of different lubricant suppliers. The last time F1 ran on "spec" fuel was in the 1970s, before the demands of turbo engines.

It must hurt to be so clueless. Whos the troll now?

Man, I am so humbled. I am such a troll. I see so clearly now.

I registered in July of 2001. You registered this month.

The semi automatic means it has pretty buttons on the wheel. The DSPs use a squential, which means its a lever which goes up and down. See, this is something it doesn't have. The Audi does...

He made a crazy comment, and I called him on it. If thats trolling, oh no.

Your second post. That seems like two too-many.

By the way, the rules of Grand Am stated that there is to be no diffuser. If you had bothered to read them you might know what your talking about.

No air exits and no air scoops only take away even more inovattion. If you like cars that handicapped by rules and ditacted by the rule makers to the last degree, go watch NASCAR.

[Aysedasi]

Oh dear - here we go again....

Why is it that I've been the moderator here for a year or so and have had virtually no problems at all until the last couple of weeks. I have no idea who you are dauntless, but I welcome you to this particular forum at 10/10ths. What I don't welcome is the suggestion that a member and regular visitor is "trolling", whatever that's supposed to mean. Clearly, not a compliment.....

H16 his entitled to is opinion and we (including me) are entitled to comment upon it, without being labelled as "snooty", a label I don't much care for. To be brutally honest, I haven't got a vast amount of interest in what Mr. Klym had to say, but, in the same way as it occurred to others, the comparison between the two cars mentioned seemed pretty daft to me. To compare Mr. Klym's cars with the all-conquering Audi R8 is frankly absurd (and I don't care who you are, unless you can actually prove we're wrong ).

So, it would be nice to see you back with some more useful observations, but a little lest of the insults. We're all entitled to our opinions - if we get them wrong and someone can show we have, I think most people here (and I certainly include myself) are prepared to eat their share of humble pie.

[RacingManiac]

"Diffuser: Show me in the rules where a diffuser is not allowed."

Like Carbon Tub, diffuser was not allowed in GARRA since its existance....take a look at MulsannMike's page on Dallara's diffuser comparing Grand Am spec and ALMS spec car(http://www.mulsannescorner.com/dallaralmp02.html).

Another thing is carbon brake, GARRA require their car to run cast iron brake.....

Spec wing would be quite a step back as well, since wing are not tailor made to the airflow of individual car, but then again, with the car shape and dimension being so tightly regulated, they might as well end up at the same shape for each team....

[RacingManiac]

"MY COMMENTS ABOUT THE COMPARISON TO THE AUDI WAS MISQUOTED. IT WAS MADE IN RESPONSE TO PEOPLE SAYING THAT THESE CARS WERE SPEC/KIT CARS.

WHAT I DID SAY WAS THAT WE HAD ALL OF THE BASIC BITS AND PIECES THAT ANY CURRENT WSC CAR MIGHT HAVE.PUSHROD SUSPENSION ETC.NOTHING WAS SAID ABOUT CHASSIS CONSTRUCTION. "

Dave Klym's own word, I wrote an E-mail to him regarding the subject(dkylm@aol.com), and this was part of the reply.

[Aysedasi]

Ah, misquoted.

But by Motorsport.com and not H16, I assume.....

Thanks for that Maniac, very grateful.

[BobN]

That sure was one hell of a misquote. Perhaps Mr. Kylm should ask Motorsport.com for a retraction/correction to set the record straight.

Bob

[Dauntless]

Gee, this is what I call a target rich environment.

Gentlemen, I stand by my comment that H16 (whomever he is) engaged in trolling by quoting Dave Klym out of context and inferring Mr. Klym claimed something which he did not. Instead of reading H16's post critically, several of you immediately jumped on the insult bandwagon (you know who you are), and I called you out. If you consider my "insult" to be inappropriate at two posts, Aysedasi, it should be unforgivable after 120...

BTW, Aysedasi, here's my quick definition of "trolling": the posting of false or half-true claims with the deliberate intent of sowing discord or provoking argument...an agent provocateur.

But you want me to stick to facts, so let's start with this one...

H16 asks, "Do the DSPs even have impact structures?"

Yes, you can see the left side impact structure in this photo of the Fabcar at an early stage of construction. The structure is constructed of multiple alternating layers of honeycomb and cloth, just as is the side of the Audi's tub, only it's about 10 times as thick.



You do have on one point, though, H16. I started to write the sentence about the rear wing one way, and then incompletely edited it when I rewrote it. You harping on it is about as useful as me pointing out your spelling of "streesed". But I guess if you can't argue on the facts, you can always resort to the same old tactic of insult.

Even your one serious attempt at refuting one of my points falls short of the mark. FYI, for the past several years, tire companies have been limited to 2 dry compounds at F1 races (plus wets) -- ALL competitors who race on those tires must use those same tires, irrespective of which team the tires are engineered for (Ferrari in the case of Bridgestone - a compromise between Williams and McLaren for those on Michellins). Jordan, et al, are stuck with what ever tire their chosen tire manufacturer brings to the venue. They are NOT free to engineer a tire optimised for their chassis (but will be from 2003). To wit, they are stuck with a spec tire. And thank you for filling in the details about fuel. Since the teams are not free to develop the fuel during the course of a competitive season, as they are the aerodynamics and most other areas of the cars, they are stuck, in effect, with a spec fuel for the duration of the season. QED

Sorry, H16, but "semi-automatic" means that the driver doesn't have to depress the clutch for each shift, not that you have pretty bottons on the steering wheel. One way to accomplish the gear shift is to ratchet the lever fore or aft (not up and down, H16). Another, vastly more expensive, way is to have the pretty little buttons on the steering wheel. Each system requires the driver effect each individual gear change and hence are functionally equivilent.

H16 claims that the GA rules forbid diffusers, and I challenged him to show me where it states that in the rules. He can't, because the word "diffuser" does not appear in the rules. Instead, paragraph 2-1.1 states:

The bottom of the car must be flat from the front bulkhead to the rear axle centerline and the full width of the bodywork, side to side.


Is this the basis for your claim, H16? If it is, I suggest you read Toyota's answer to a very similar ACO rule. See especially http://www.mulsannescorner.com/GTOne.htm I, for one, will be astounded if no DSPs show up at Daytona without some form of a diffuser. Will GA aggressively control how broadly the rule is interpreted? Sure. Will teams seek to maximize their downforce? Most assuredly!

BTW, H16, I have read the rules. Most carefully. And I could drive my tow rig through that particular section. In case you aren't familiar with them, GA's DSP rules can be found at http://www.grand-am.com/daytona_prototype/rules.html Take your pick of formats.

Speaking of rules, H16, please also take notice of ACO's injunction against air entering the car's body for any purpose other than cooling. This is essentially the same position as in GA. You seem to think of GA precluding ducting along the sides as some sort of shortcoming on their part. The fact of the matter is that GA reserves the area on the sides between the wheels from the reference plane upward for 20" to cover the side impact structure. Teams are essentially free to intake and exhaust coolant air outside this reserved area, with minor caveats.

The rest of H16's reply doesn't warrant a response. Likewise cybersdorf.

BobN makes a couple of good points, though. First, go to the head of the class for correctly identifying me. Fritzenhauser is the knick-name I have had for 40 years, and Dauntless is the name of the new CSR I am designing. No mystery, I also go by Stan and by 54Ford on other forums, and my email is always the same (and available in my profile - hint, H16). And while I may have only a few posts here, I have around racing for more than 35 years, and recently engineered my son to a Bronze at the Runoffs (in a carbon tub Rt-41), so I know a little bit about racing. Furthermore, I recognise a provocation when
it lands like a thud. H16 can weasel all he wants, but the fact remains that he made several claims about Klym and about DPS that don't stand up, and IMO he deserves the come-uppance he's getting.

OTOH, I am not confusing H16 with Chris. H16 doesn't use the same sentence structure and mispellings. So not to worry.

I have no data yet on the DSP's top speed, but since the Audis could just touch 200 on the Mulsanne Straight (like I said, sluggos compared to "back in the day"... ), I am comfortable that the fastest DSPs will be within striking distance of that speed at Daytona.

But Bob, I can interpret Klym's comments without being him or being told something in person by him, because I can read his comments within the context that they were given. Dave doesn't compare his car to an R8 - but he does claim quite rightly that his car is every bit as much a bespoke design and uncompromised pure race car as is the R8. To imply that Klym is suggesting otherwise, as H16 tried to do above, is not only disingenous and an insult to Klym's accomplishments, but an insult to this forum as well.

Okay, Aysedasi, you wanted it "on the facts". There you have it. The ball is back in H16's court. Will he argue on the facts or will he continue to resort to the tired old standbys of insult and invective. And I don't care how many posts he's made!

Cheers! Stan

[Russfeld]

DSP sucks dude, get over it.

[Aysedasi]

I've no problem with your latest post Dauntless, but I do tend to agree with Russfield.

If Mr. Klym believes he was misquoted there does seem to be some basis for misunderstanding here, doesn't there? I'm happy that you've responded as you have, however, and I leave it to others to comment on your points, if they wish to do so. The fact is that I found your original post in this thread, whilst a useful response on one hand, to be unnecessarily provoking and insulting. That's my opinion and I'm just as entitled to that as you are to yours.

And as for the Audis "just touching 200 on the Mulsanne Straight", you know (I'm sure) as well as I do, that if the Mulsanne didn't have chicanes, the Audi's would have been going a great deal faster..... Le Mans cars are now designed in a completely different way to the cars that ran on the old chicane-less circuit.

So there you go people, anyone want to respond?

[Aysedasi]

Originally posted by Dauntless
Gee, this is what I call a target rich environment.

By the way, yes, it probably is! This is a forum, amongst other things, a debating facility. Use it for what it is. There are plenty of things written here that I disagree with - and if I can argue a case against what the poster is saying, I will. Its not worth getting hot under the collar about it. Unless you have some kind of personal interest, I guess.

[H16]

It is terrible when no one agrees with you, then you use the word "us" to make it look like it.

You have assumed everything and anything, used more propoganda, and tried your best to trash me for a comment that I felt was nowhere. Do you work for Fabcar or something? For only three posts, and two of which were all out flames, you have really made yourself welcome.

I have been here for a while, but you are the first person I have ever had any problems with. Your flames thinly disguised as words of "knowledge" put yourself and those who may agree with you in a bad light. It is so much easier to flame someone, then blame them for the same thing your guilty of.

It is my opinion that you are a troll, or simply interested in starting arguments. 2 out of 3 posts are controversial and hurtful, and while I would love to respond to each and every one of your words, I care too much for the integrity of this fine board and the people on it to simply turn this topic into a name calling chat room, which is what you really want anyway. So, respond all you want, flame the board, and count the friends you have made on one hand, because in reality, you have not shown that you have what it takes to be in a public form and should be considered a flaming pest.

[RoyRobbins]

Originally posted by Dauntless
Gee, this is what I call a target rich environment.

Only one target here.

[Fab]

Lots of very very interresting news in those posts... could you please use a "friendly tone" to express them ? I love (and moved 18 months ago to) this forum because the tone was "smooth", well, mild-manered (is this the accurate word ? Sorry again for my missuse of English tongue)... I left a french forum for the expressions used to say that people were not agree... I entirely support Ayse here for the behavioral (??? ) way of the forum...

For the thread : sorry, I'm not qualified !

[Aysedasi]

Thank you very much Fab.

Lets make this quite clear. No more name-calling by anyone please (whether established members or not ). Lets have a debate on Mr. Klym's controversial (but perhaps misquoted) thoughts if people want it (I'm easy on it - I know where I stand).

I don't want to put you off Dauntless, you clearly have a lot of experience to contribute, but as the mod here I'm not prepared for anyone to start trashing anyone else for the sake of it.

The whole thing started with a quote, the accuracy of which doesn't seem to have been called into question. Racing Maniac kindly checked the thing out with Mr. Klym himself and you can all see his response. Wholly understandable.

I wonder what there is left here to debate?

[Fab]

Originally posted by Aysedasi
I wonder what there is left here to debate?

... I thought... huh... ... is there a sporstcar to be compared to the R8 Audi ? ... so sorry Ayse