|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
29 Dec 2006, 01:11 (Ref:1800870) | #1 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,943
|
Long vs short wheelbase.
Much has been made of the Audi R10's wheelbase. At an estimated 2980mm( almost 118 in), it's probably one of the longest since the earliest LM cars. Where as the R8 had a 2740mm(107.9 in) wheelbase. How does this effect handling, as it seems that both cars are among the best handling prototypes out there right now.
|
||
|
29 Dec 2006, 01:21 (Ref:1800872) | #2 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,699
|
Personally, I don't think you can say that either the R8 or R10 are the best handling. Audi always seem to have the best overall package (especially at LeMans). The Zytek would certainly be at or near the top of the list in terms of handling. Largely due to the fabulous aero package.
Wheelbase is a factor I'm sure. Long and short wheelbase each have their merritts. Each has a trade off I would imagine. Edit: The R8 was known to suffer from understeer. I think they tried to correct this in the R10 with the wider front tires. But then, the longer wheelbase may counter that a bit. This is definitely a question for the techies. |
||
__________________
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." Albert Einstein |
29 Dec 2006, 01:41 (Ref:1800877) | #3 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
As for wheelbase - im sure there is a techie here who could answer that one........ |
||
|
29 Dec 2006, 01:44 (Ref:1800878) | #4 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 626
|
In production cars a longer wheelbase is always a good thing as it gives more passanger space and shorter overhangs, in race cars I don't really know.
|
|
|
29 Dec 2006, 02:54 (Ref:1800893) | #5 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,351
|
Quote:
A long wheelbase car would be more stable on high speed straights but would be less easily "flicked" through an esses type of situation. Bob |
|||
|
29 Dec 2006, 03:24 (Ref:1800897) | #6 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,540
|
Altering the wheelbase can also be a tool used to adjust weight distribution, perhaps the TDi engine being heavier than the previous petrol engine has an influence?
|
||
|
29 Dec 2006, 03:35 (Ref:1800899) | #7 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,919
|
Also I would imagine the gear box is quite a bit larger(over all drive package), which also would effect the wheel base.
L.P. |
||
|
29 Dec 2006, 04:18 (Ref:1800910) | #8 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,943
|
I always thought that the Audi's probably had the best mechanical grip of any prototype. As for the Zytec type cars, how much of their grip was mechanical, as opposed to aero grip(Audi's tended to handle well even with minor areo damage, ie dive plane or fender louver damage). I feel that it's better to have mechanical grip as opposed to aero grip, because you don't have to run as much downforce, so you'll have the best of both worlds( straightline and cornering performance).
Indeed, the R8 did have some oversteering issues, but this seemed to be on cold tires and a full fuel load( which may be why we've seen rear tire only changes on the R8 from time to time). But I think that the R10's long wheel base was mostly for weigh distribution(which also may've had a hand in the R8's inital understeering problems). Obvioulsy, the frontend push problems didn't hurt the R8, and I've also heard that sometimes, drivers have used it to their advantage(like going over the bump in turn 17 at Sebring). PS: I've based my assesment on the R8's handling on the fact that it seems so stable and in control, maybe that's because of the understeer. And besides, this isn't NASCAR! In road racing, it's the speed coming through/off the corner that's helpful-and that's probably where the R8/R10's handling excelled. Last edited by chernaudi; 29 Dec 2006 at 04:22. |
||
|
29 Dec 2006, 06:40 (Ref:1800943) | #9 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,699
|
Quote:
You asked about the best handling car. The R8 is certainly up there. But I think the Zytek takes it in that category. Its aero advantage allows for those extra tenths of a second. And no amount of mechanical grip will help you through the fast bits like good aero. It's only hiccup is that maybe it has too much downforce for a track like LeMans. I also wonder about the Pescarolo. The aero package seems good. But again, probably more suited to faster circuits. |
|||
__________________
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." Albert Einstein |
29 Dec 2006, 12:11 (Ref:1801127) | #10 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 402
|
From what I've picked up it sounds like the R10 does understeer, but also has power oversteer due to the colossal torque and the fact that the drivers can't hear the engine note change when the wheels spin. Although I've also heard it said that the R10 has traction control. Maybe it doesn't work very well! I would think that, generally speaking, longer w/b is more likely to understeer, and short oversteer due to weight transfer.
As for the Pesca, it certainly seems to have lemans optimised aero. On the short circuits, the Creation and Zytek can outpace it (on lap times anyway!), but they are nowhere near at LM. |
||
|
29 Dec 2006, 14:25 (Ref:1801228) | #11 | |
Racer
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 317
|
I think Monza LMES Qualifying in 2005 showed the aero performance of the Zytek when they beat Pescarolo to pole on a track that really should have suited Pesca down to the ground.
On the Le Mans note, Brabhams 3.34.xx in the 04s in 04 would suggest that the Zytek is still very quick on a clear lap.....the trouble is that the car relied so much on momentum that as soon as traffic appeared the seconds just flew away.......this is where drivers such as Brabham and Shimoda really showed their worth - they both had the ability to scythe through traffic like it wasnt even there. |
|
|
29 Dec 2006, 15:41 (Ref:1801309) | #12 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
Slightly off topic.
If you cast your minds back to Group B rallying in the 80's Audi were being trounced by the new mid engined 205 T16. To combat this Audi literally cut a chunk out of the middle of the car believing this would improve the handling. In fact the car was almost undrivable with twitchy, unpredictable handling. When Audi went back to the drawing board they discovered the 205's wheelbase was actually the same as the the origninal 'long wheelbase' Quattro. The 205's advatages came from far better weight distribution, from the mid engined layout, and short overhangs, combined with the stable long wheelbase. |
|
|
29 Dec 2006, 17:58 (Ref:1801367) | #13 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,161
|
Interestingly Porsche's prototypes seemed to get longer and longer, over time. Signer mentions this in 24:16 although hasn't really gone into details (upto the chapter I'm on).
Bob Riebe has the general philosophy behind it, but it is also another thing that may have to be compromised. I would imagine that generally a car designed for Le Mans might be longer than one designed for sprints at twister tracks. I wonder how much hat bears out through history. |
||
__________________
Brum brum |
29 Dec 2006, 19:52 (Ref:1801421) | #14 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,161
|
A tangent off topic, but interesting.
While catching up on some reading over Christmas (the car is still in the garage ) I came across a letter to MotorSport from Peter Felder (p28 vol LXXXIII Jan 2007). It refers to the 1974 Interseries 917-20 (sic? 30?) and its adjustable wheelbase! How did this work?
http://www.racingsportscars.com For more pictures see p203 in Porsche 917 The Heroes, the Victories, the Myth.* This book refers to the car having "served for wheelbase tests". It won four times that year. *More reading to catch up on... |
||
__________________
Brum brum |
29 Dec 2006, 20:52 (Ref:1801453) | #15 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,943
|
Wouldn't all LMP cars suffer from understeer to some degree, as I doubt that they have a 50/50 weight disribution, irregardless of wheelbase? The Panoz probably came closest, but it was a areodyamic as a brick due to it using a front mounted engine.
And how much of the Zytec's handling can be atributed to it being(until this year) an LMP 675 car? And I can understand it's problems in traffic(having so much downforce, it seemed to be very areo sensitive) as well as it's engine having so little torque. |
||
|
29 Dec 2006, 21:09 (Ref:1801463) | #16 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,699
|
The Zytek certainly does suffer from some momentum troubles in 925KG form. That little V8 must have to work extra hard. But again, in terms of handling, the car is just a gem. Just look at the driver comments. Stefan Johansson (who has driven an R8) raved about it at Laguna.
Stefan Johansson on the Zytek: “one of the best cars I’ve driven, hands down.” http://www.sportscarpros.com/across-...ng/default.htm Last edited by jhansen; 29 Dec 2006 at 21:11. |
||
__________________
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." Albert Einstein |
29 Dec 2006, 21:56 (Ref:1801498) | #17 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 18,877
|
Quote:
|
||
|
29 Dec 2006, 22:03 (Ref:1801500) | #18 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,161
|
Yes that has become the norm, especially now they have the shorter V8s. It is more than just that as he body work and ancilleries need to be modified to acheive this. How easy a job was it in that Martini 917-30?
In addition you would think that Audi could have had something similar with their removable back-end. Well not quite as it would be best in front of the engine (it saves lengthening propshafts!). Anyway, I am surprised that it isn't more common a change between different circuits, or are the gains relatively small for a practical change? It is a little cloud cookoo here. |
||
__________________
Brum brum |
29 Dec 2006, 22:51 (Ref:1801527) | #19 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,919
|
Quote:
I do not believe the ACO allows it. http://www.lemans.org/sport/sport/re..._ACO_fr_gb.pdf 3.1 and 3.1.1 a/ specifically. L.P. |
|||
|
30 Dec 2006, 03:03 (Ref:1801603) | #20 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,831
|
Quote:
deviation allowed. |
||
|
30 Dec 2006, 09:35 (Ref:1801668) | #21 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,161
|
Ah! Can't you homolgate two cars, two wheelbases? Clearly not worth it.
|
||
__________________
Brum brum |
30 Dec 2006, 13:06 (Ref:1801744) | #22 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 18,877
|
Quote:
|
||
|
30 Dec 2006, 18:09 (Ref:1801878) | #23 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,161
|
True, although I have an extendable shower rail.
|
||
__________________
Brum brum |
31 Dec 2006, 09:02 (Ref:1802089) | #24 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 76
|
I imagine Audi made the R10 long wheelbase because the torque of the engine was always going to make the car tricky to drive. Long wheelbase = stability.
|
||
__________________
You can with a Datsun... |
31 Dec 2006, 10:10 (Ref:1802113) | #25 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,677
|
Quote:
Back on topic ! I believe this was the reason for the R10's long wheel base to counteract the twitchy handling, while also helping with package to help fit everything in between the wheels |
|||
__________________
The race track and the human body, both born of the earth, drive to be one with the earth, and through the earth one with the car, drive to the undiminished dream, single moments of pleasure, an eternity of memories. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Long WheelBase vs Short WheelBase | Skelly | Racing Technology | 18 | 29 Aug 2002 04:45 |
Wheelbase | Flatjack | Racing Technology | 2 | 22 Jun 2001 06:13 |