A Dallara Judd in Grand Am?

[H16]

I was always under the impression that the Grand Am cars were low tech, but I saw in Daytona where a Dallara Judd was entered, the same Dallara that ran fourth at Le Mans this year with Mopar power. I was suprised such an advanced car would run in that series.

[cybersdorf]

Yes, Doran will run a car in GA, possibly some ALMS rounds, and also two FIASCC rounds. (I believe they will have 2 chassis - the car they have now was the very first one built, and is the only one with mountings for a full hoop; later cars don't have that anymore).

Their GA plans could still come to naught - they have a Yokohama tire deal, and GA have nominated Dunlop and Goodyear as their "spec. tire" suppliers.

[Geva racing]

I heard the second chassis is meant as a reserve chassis.

[KC]

There is a huge misconception about the Grand Am, I had it too. Teams like Audi and Panoz are not denied entry on the basis they are factory efforts. They are denied entry because they will not sell versions of their current cars for the $750,000 price cap placed by Grand Am. If they sell customer cars of their current rce vehicles for that price they are welcome, but Audi and Panoz need more because of their development costs.

[cybersdorf]

Originally posted by Geva racing
I heard the second chassis is meant as a reserve chassis.

The second car will be a strictly single roll hoop one.

[Dr. Austin]

Here is the Dallara double roll hoop. I was unaware that it was still required by the GA, but they wouldn't put it there for nothing. I think it is utterly silly that we have a division in sportscar racing over a roll bar. Just make everyoune run the double hoop and get it over with. The cars will look more symetrical and maybe better looking. This piece of trash looks horrible and tacked on.

Remember the 1998 BMW LMP? It had a ful width hoop and it looked good.

We wouldn't be talking about this if they just put the roofs back on.

[cybersdorf]

Originally posted by Dr. Austin
This piece of trash looks horrible and tacked on.

Well, it is...
Seriously, in this picture the cowling, or cover that is supposed to be on the hoop wasn't on. With that, the whole thing looks a somewhat less "unnatural". They couldn't get it finished in time for practice, and only taped it on for a couple of laps; I don't know if they used it in the race. Some pictures can be found at www.fastdetails.com, and at www.grand-am.com .

[Dr. Austin]

One thing I worry about is the safety of tack-on roll bars. The chassis wasn't designed for it. I am not sure how deep onto the monoque the tubes run. It appears they hacked the original hoop off, so who knows how well this one will protect the driver?

After Alboreto's accident, I am inclined to think a full steel roll cage and roof is the best answer. Sure, I like the coupes alot better, but that doesn't affect my judgment on this. Ok, maybe a little, but I've seen alot of coupes land on their lids and the guys walked away.

A roll bar can dig in and get ripped off, but a roof is more likely to bounce or slide. Plenty of guys got 962's upside down at big speeds, but everyone came out ok. We have seen Laurrari and Bell both go upside down at big Daytona speeds, but they are still with us. And remember the twin flipping Nissans at Road Atlanta in '92? How about the Mercedes aerobatic team?

Nearly everyone wants to see the roofs on, and I think that would not only kill offf the ugly roll bar controversy, but inprove safety too. I was at the historics at Sebring and saw a wheel weight absolutely smash a headlight cover. What theat would do to a visor or helmet doesn't bear thinking about.

Besides that, a good look at the history of sportscar racing shows the cars and crowds are at their biggest and best when they run coupes. LeMans 98 is a good example of a bumper crop of cars and most were coupes. Compare that grid to the seven open topped prototypes at sebring.

I think people tend to identify more with the coupes because it represents something that looks like a road car. The LMP's just don't do it. I don't want to see the spyders banned because the history of sportscar racing is full of great cars like the Ferrari 312pb, Matra 670B and the 936, but when you compare that to the 917, 956 days, well, no comparison.

[cybersdorf]

Originally posted by Dr. Austin
...but when you compare that to the 917, 956 days, well, no comparison.

That is very true, and no, I don't agree with you
I grew up with Gp.C/GTP, I like the open cars much better.

When did the first closed car win Le Mans? The majority of all the winning cars must still be "topless". The people loved the D-Types, they loved the '50s Mercs (although that love ralationship ended rather abruptly), the Matras, the Alpines, the 908, 936,... - easily as much as they loved the Jags, 962s, Saubers, and the rest of the Gp.C brigade.

Sportscar racing is about diversity; it is the mix that makes it so infinitely much more interesting than F1 or NASCAR. I think the rules should not rule out one concept, they shoulf allow both.

One more thing - and yes, this comparison is blatantly unfair - how many people died in Gp.C/GTP cars, and how many in WSC/SR/LMP cars? - The idea is to give the new GTPs a carbon fiber "survival cell" roll ove structure, so let's hope they will make the racing safer.

Alboreto's accident was, imho, not survivable - in any car - because of the high speed at which it happened.

[Dr. Austin]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cybersdorf
[B]

"That is very true, and no, I don't agree with you
I grew up with Gp.C/GTP, I like the open cars much better."

I like both, I just prefer the coupes. But there is little doubt that the crowds were bigger for the days of the coupes. And manufacturer involvement was bigger as well.


"the Matras, the Alpines, the 908, 936,... - easily as much as they loved the Jags, 962s, Saubers, and the rest of the Gp.C brigade."

We all love those cars, but the people stayed away in droves in the '70's when the big 5-litre coupes went away. And when IMSA initiated the WSC concept, well it all fell apart. I think you are right when you say there should be both types. That is when people's interest piqued.

"Sportscar racing is about diversity; it is the mix that makes it so infinitely much more interesting than F1 or NASCAR."

Oh, yeah. 100% agree. Some of my favorite cars are the 936, the 908/2/3 and the Matra 650, but they didn't have those gaudy jungle gym roll bars on them. Sure, there is a real place for open top cars, but I'de like to see the coupes compete on equal footing, which they are discussing. But equalizing cars with completely different aero characteristics will be difficult.

Remember when they ran the 917's and 908's? It was pretty interesting and showed how far Porsche would go to win. Both cars were interesting, but I'm pretty sure we don't want to see a return to completely different cars for different circuits. And I sure don't want to see us go back to the Targa and old N.ring, but I lament their loss.


"I think the rules should not rule out one concept, they shoulf allow both."

Oh, absolutely. But I would like to see them compete to the same set of rules, but with and without roofs.

"One more thing - and yes, this comparison is blatantly unfair - how many people died in Gp.C/GTP cars, and how many in WSC/SR/LMP cars? - "

Yes and no. The only GroupC/GTP deaths that I can recall is Winklehock and Bellof, both massive head on shunts that made no difference to the roll over construction. And Jo Gartner, who tore down a telegraph pole and oak tree in the process, another fatal deal no matter what kind of car. All were very sad.

Alboreto's accident was an upside down deal, and it appears that the roll bar was ripped off. But we have seen plenty of guys walk away from inverted coupes. I didn't see the accident or a really good picture of the car, so I am only speculating that he would have had a better chance with a roof. Personally, I think a roof offers better protection, but I have seen them ripped off too.


"The idea is to give the new GTPs a carbon fiber "survival cell" roll ove structure, so let's hope they will make the racing safer."

Don't you think that would work even better with a roof on the car? Look at the picture i posted of the Mercedes. That puppy landed on it's roof at God knows what speed, but Webber lived to do it again the very next day. Given the choice, I rather risk it in a coupe. I have a great story about what Webber said after his second shunt and was asked if he was going to try the car again, but I can't tell it here. At least I can't quote him, but you can imagine. Problem was he said it in front of about a dozen press people and Norbert Haugg. He has not driven a Mercedes since.



"Alboreto's accident was, imho, not survivable - in any car - because of the high speed at which it happened."

Sadly, the result was what it was. But hopefully Audi has given the car a really good look and can come up with even better ideas for protecting the drivers. Audi claims that the R8's roll bar exceeds the FIA test requirement by EIGHT times, so it must have been a hell of a hit.

One thing for both kinds of car is that a suitable kind of head restraint system should be required. CART has just annonuced that they will require them on all circuits and I am disappointed that ALMS and IRL are not following suit. I think all sanctioning bodies should be embarrased that NASCAR beat them all to the punch on a safety issue.

So, we really don't disagree on much besides our preferences, but that just gives us something to talk about, right?

[cybersdorf]

Originally posted by Dr. Austin
Don't you think that would work even better with a roof on the car?

Actually, that's what I meant - I was referring to the proposed 2004 GTP regs. If the roof offers more protection, then so be it

[Dr. Austin]

Originally posted by cybersdorf

Actually, that's what I meant - I was referring to the proposed 2004 GTP regs. If the roof offers more protection, then so be it

I haven't seen the new regulations, but hopefully it will encourage more manufacturer participation. I also hope they give the coupes a fair shake, same tires and air restrictor and all that. But I want to see some roadsters in the field too. we don't a cookie cutter series.

I can't wait to see Porsche get involved because they always sell customer cars and that is a really good thing. Being able to buy the latest tweaks and having spares available without having to stock them makes it much more feasable for the privateer. I've heard stories that a privateer would wreck a Porsche and the parts would be picked out and waiting for them whhen they got to the Porsche parts truck. Can't beat that kind of service. Somehow I don't think Linhardt's team can't expect to be treated so well.

Any good links for old sportscar photos?

[Aysedasi]

Entertaining exchange of views, guys.

Just on the subject of roof or no roof, from an aesthetic point of view, I started off as a definite "roof" man, having cut my Le Mans and 1000kms teeth on 956/962s, Jags, Nissans, Toyotas, Saubers etc. One of my personal favourites was the Charge/Renown Mazda in that lovely orange and green colour scheme. (And how about the Shell Porsches of 1988 - the best looking 962's ever?).

But by the time the open-topped cars returned to Le Mans, I was so pleased to see them! (I thought the Gulf Kremer K8 of Bell/Laessig/Donovan in 1994 looked sensational). A couple of years later, the same (type of) car was a complete no-hoper. After 5-6 years of open-topped protos (mixed in with the likes of the gorgeous Toyota GT-One), I'd love to see more closed cars back at Le Mans. (And I'm not talking of 911 derivatives!!)

For me, whatever you think of the origins of this year's Bentley, it was something to drool over!

[cybersdorf]

Originally posted by Dr. Austin


I haven't seen the new regulations, but hopefully it will encourage more manufacturer participation. I also hope they give the coupes a fair shake, same tires and air restrictor and all that. But I want to see some roadsters in the field too. we don't a cookie cutter series.

From what I have heard, the 2004 regs will give us GTP - that is: coupés - only. No more roadsters. Because of this triple roll cage structure or whatever they called it.

Any good links for old sportscar photos?

okay, I'm just going to unceremoniously throw these at you:

for misc. older/vintage cars:
http://www.lisa-racing.com/Galerie/DRM/drm.html
http://www.lisa-racing.com/Galerie/G...ruppe_c-1.html
http://dbetts.motorsport.org.uk/brg/
http://www.motorracingretro.i12.com/home.htm
http://autosportsltd.com/sm.html
http://www.oldracingcars.com/default.htm
http://www.tamsoldracecarsite.net/
http://www.evil-photographer.co.uk/cars/
this one's kind of fun too: http://triestemia.com/gallery/index.html#tsopi

some photographers' sites - occasionally with old/vintage pics:
http://www.ashcom.homestead.com/
http://www.garydodds.com/
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=10353&f=0
http://www.axs.to/~skykaitz/index3.html

to name but a few

[cybersdorf]

Originally posted by Aysedasi
(And how about the Shell Porsches of 1988 - the best looking 962's ever?).

I'd have to go for the later Dyson cars - as seen on www.mulsannescorner.com

But by the time the open-topped cars returned to Le Mans, I was so pleased to see them! (I thought the Gulf Kremer K8 of Bell/Laessig/Donovan in 1994 looked sensational).

Still my favourite - the K8 was a very elegant racecar. And strangely enough, it felt good, in a sentimental sort of way, to see the 962 come back for yet another stab at Le Mans - the car that wouldn't die.

[Dr. Austin]

Originally posted by cybersdorf




Still my favourite - the K8 was a very elegant racecar. And strangely enough, it felt good, in a sentimental sort of way, to see the 962 come back for yet another stab at Le Mans - the car that wouldn't die. [/B]

And it came back yet again to win again in 94. Thanks for the great link. I'm putting together a prototype reference library which is a 8,600 photos as of now. PM me you mailing address and I'll send you a copy.

[clk-lm]

hey Dr.Austin, Can you tell me what mark webber said .

[Dr. Austin]

Originally posted by clk-lm
hey Dr.Austin, Can you tell me what mark webber said .

Well, ok, but this is a very loose translation. You will have to use your imagination when you get to the blank.

"You aren't going to see ME get back in that ------- car!"

[clk-lm]

thanx. i cant wait to see Mb back in le mans. whats your theory on the clr flip, do you think it was an aero problem or suspension setup. i recall hearing somewhere that the clr has a rearward CG.

[Dr. Austin]

I hope you don't mind if I quote myself from the "changes to LeMans" thread;

As far as the humps, a little shaving is ok, just leave enough so that the landmark is still there. The only answer here is to find a way to keep the cars on the ground (DOH!! ground effects) or have a bunch of completely flat tracks. The old Nurburgring had massive elevation changes, and Porsche had two (more streamlined) 908/2 spyders fly in 1969, not a great debut for the car. And remember the CanAm 917's flipping at Road Atlanta? Remember the Mercedes aeorbatic team?

The problem is flat bottomed cars going fast enough to generate that kind of lift. When a car comes over a hump, the front end wants to keep going up (helped if downforce is compromised by disturbed air), and it does, if only a little. Once enough air gets under ther nose, the car essentially becomes a flat bottomed airfoil, and like an airliner picking it's nose wheel up off the ground, the car rotates back and the lift exceeds the vehicle weight. Notice none of the ground effects cars ever did that. So i think a return to limited tunnels and slight shaving is the best answer. This isn't hot wheels with a jump ramp!!! "


in addition;

Porsche had seen plenty of this sort of thing before. They were destroying longtails left and right in the 60's. They would fly up in the air in testing at Hockenheim and Wolfsburg. They had two of them fly at Daytona.

Porsche was the first to experience these problems because their head of engineering, the great Ferdinand Piech, wanted the cars to be as streamilined as possible to overcome the smaller displacement engines they were running. When the cars started going at aircraft take off speeds, anything shaped like a wing wasn't going to stay put on the ground. And then they built the 917 which was a whole new twightlight zone as far as speed was conserned.

After 1971, the big 5 litre cars were banned and speeds droped to a level where the problem was not as severe. But when the big flat bottomed "GT" cars started reaching those speeds again, it was the same problem all over again. You will notice that when the Porsche 911GT1 flipped at Road Atlanta, Porsche pulled out of GT1 racing altogether. They had already seen that problem and weren't going to take part in it again.

So, that is my theory. Big flat bottoms are bad news at high speed, excaserbated by elevation changes and distrubed air.

[Dr. Austin]

Since you seem to be a CLK fan, here is a 1/43 scale BBR kit I built. This is the Peter Dumbreck car that flew out into the woods. The kit was typical beautiful BBR quality and easy to build except the glass, which was just a nightmare.

[clk-lm]

wow thats interesting. i thought that the whole gt1 flipping started with porsche in 98 PLM, but it looks like thats not the case.

ive also done a liitle reasearch with that CG. i learned that an airplane with a rearward CG will stall at a lower speed but have more violent characteristics.

a foward CG has a higher stall speed and more predictable stall characteristics.

if the merc had a rar CG, then that may explain its (relatively)low takeoff speed

[Dr. Austin]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by clk-lm
[B]wow thats interesting. i thought that the whole gt1 flipping started with porsche in 98 PLM, but it looks like thats not the case."

No, it's been going on as long as flatbottomed cars have been going fast.

"ive also done a liitle reasearch with that CG. i learned that an airplane with a rearward CG will stall at a lower speed but have more violent characteristics."

When I was flying remote control airplanes, I would deliberately set the planes up a little tail heavy just to make them more responsive. They were a little tricky to handle, but you just had to adapt to it. You could make them sit up and bark like a trained hound like that unless you went to far tail heavy. Then you were digging your motor out of the ground with a shovel.

The theoretical CG of an airfoil, which varies slightly with type, is 33% of the chord (wing measured front to rear) behind the leading edge. That is also the theoretical point for the ideal placement of the thickest(or high point) part of the airfoil. So you can see that in side profile, most flat bottomed cars resemble an airfoil section. Not only that, but the CG is waaaaaaay back (in the 50% region) from the thoeretical idea, in fact, it is waaaaaaaay into the unflyable area. And you will notice that they don't really fly, they just take of and start tumbling.

It is interesting to note that a detatched wing (done it plenty with pylon racers) flutters down just exactly like a stalled CLK. Anybody with the engineering expertise of Mercedes should have known what the problem was immeadiately. It is just baffleing that they couldn't figure it out and let it happen yet again on raceday.

I think if they put maybe a degree or two of rake it the cars, they would have been fine. But that would have been more drag, something Mercedes couldn't afford if they were going to keep pace with the Toyotas. Now, I'm not an engineer, but anyone who was around racing in the late 60's knew exactly what they were seeing happen all over again.

[KC]

Somewhere I had read that there was an unofficial club at RoadAtlanta called the RoadAtlanta Flighht Club. As I remember Mark Donohue was one of the first members. Ever since flat bottom cars were the norm they have literally aeroplaned off the track when conditions came just so.

[cybersdorf]

Originally posted by Dr. Austin
It is interesting to note that a detatched wing (done it plenty with pylon racers) flutters down just exactly like a stalled CLK. Anybody with the engineering expertise of Mercedes should have known what the problem was immeadiately. It is just baffleing that they couldn't figure it out and let it happen yet again on raceday.

They closed their eyes and hoped it would go away.