tdf360

That definitely explains a lot...I was having a hard time believing the road McLaren generated that kind of downforce.

Gary

500

The source where the downforce data was quoted showed that photo. Do you know which particular set-up corresponds to the downforce numbers quoted? I do not know myself, but numbers that high would suggest some pretty serious wing (as well as the other spoilers shown on the car's flanks at the fron and rear).

jaymtford

As far as I know, all GT-R McLarens have wings. The GT-R is the racing version of the road car. The longtail was used during the 1997 season in an attempt to gain more downforce and increase stability. The photo posted previously was probably from a FIA GT sprint race. Here are a few pics from Le Mans where downforce is at less of a premium, and will actually cost you on the Mulsanne. While not as large a wing as the previous picture you'll see the wings are still quite substantial.

1AS

I think it makes Michael's point. To drive a car with 600+hp on a track at racing speeds, McLaren provided a huge wing for it's professional drivers. Who knows what they would have provided for rank amateurs.
The reason for the big wing is stability- cars driven at high speed on a track need to slow down and turn hard. You can't do it consistently at high speed with the tail skating around. Obviously, with the wing, they don't have to slow down as much, so it's easier and safer to go fast.
The CGT in its current configuration is fine for moderately fast driving, I would surmise. But, that isn't where the problems seem to be. It seems that McLaren customers who wanted to drive at high speeds on a track had an available assist package. A wing that size is a big help, particularly when it's set for max downforce. By my recollection of published road tests, the McLaren also understeered at lower speeds- without the wing. AS

jaymtford

Jeff, I never said the GT-R came without the long tail, only that all GT-R's had wings. That pic looks like it was photoshopped and the wing was masked out. I believe that was the factory test car for the models that would race at Le Mans in 1995.

Also Mike's comparison is not so crazy. It is interesting to note that the street versions of the McLaren F1 actually have more horsepower than the GT-R race cars, due to the inlet restrictors required by GT1 class rules at that time. Road car = 627 bhp, GT-R = 600 bhp. Of course the McLaren F1 GT-R only weighs about 1050kg. Quite a bit less than the CGT.

I know we are discussing minutia here, but I hope someone else finds it interesting

Mikey

“This doesn't mean a CGT might be difficult or dangerous in all circumstances, it implies it may be more difficult than a casual buyer or passenger suspects, particularly at speed.”

There seems to be a trend established already that points to the CGT being a problem car. These don’t seem to be random incidents, but rising from conflicting requirements placed on this vehicle. The idea of a “daily driver super car” is simply flawed (most likely originating from PCNA not Stuttgart) and a perfect execution does not correct the conceptual flaw. Consider the contradicting definitions:

Daily driver: Massive, Low interior noise, disconnected soft ride, good road clearance, form that pleases the eye (and not frowned on at the country club)
Supercar: Super light, CF chassis, 600hp+, open exhaust, directly connected to the driver nervous system, low ground clearance, low COG, every aerodynamic trick

Presumably Porsche under guidance from marketing proceeded to bastardize the GT1 LeMans racer. They suppressed noise, softened the ride, numbed down driver connections to the road, and finished it with a body that screamed “Porsche DNA” and pleaseed the country club crowd. Had they not forgotten the automatic tranny it would have been a marketing success. The result seems to be a deadly machine instead (when operated at its intended capacity) in the hands of anyone except the pros.


”Credit goes to the CGT for having downforce (since in the pre-wing era, all cars had lift), but compared to the aids other similiarly fast cars have had for track driving, CGT downforce is modest. The absence of huge rear slicks is the second main factor.”

The McLaren F1 set the bar for the supercar, and the CGT is inferior in every category including value retention compared to a 20 year old car.


“you have indulged in selective data cribbing to go along with your melodramatic hyperbole, sir.
your same source lists a 2000 Porsche 911 (996) @ 150 mph with 600 lbs of net LIFT(228#F/372#R).
Are fast 911 drivers consigned to die from this well-known handicap? Many on this board think nothing of high speeds in ordinary 911s. Yet, the Carrera GT has nearly 1000 pounds more downforce at 150 mph than an ordinary 911 and you see fit to pronounce it an executioner”

The standard 996 “floats” over 150MPH, however the GT3 is rock solid to 195MPH, so picky your weapon. Things happen so much slower in all 996’s that it is like slow motion compared to the CGT. You would have to be pretty novice to get killed in a 911 of any kind, I would think.


“The same source lists the 1971 Porsche 917K race car as having 293 lbs of downforce at 150 mph. The Carrera GT exceeds that figure from an older race car. Even a Ferrari 360 has less downforce than a CGT @ 150.”

You have to check the rules for the class 917 was racing in. May be there were limits to maximum downforce allowed. The Ferrari 360 bests the 2002 911 as Enzo does CGT in their respective classes aerodynamically.


“Ben wasn't going 200 at the time, and his driving an F360 in place of the CGT would have been worse in the downforce department. At 150, it seems like only the McLaren has more downforce. Your biased analysis is showing.”

Just to show you I am not biased, I will complete the analysis. The CGT weighs roughly 500KG more than than the F1, so it already has 300KG extra downforce on the rears even still. However at any given speed the CGT requires 33% more stopping power, because of excess kinetic energy. No doubt, Ben and Cory would have walked away in an F1 or a 360. The 360 would have never achieved the kind of speed the CGT attains on the straights, and the F1 would NOT have floated away like a kite as the CGT did.

Driving a CGT can be best compared to operating a 600hp blade saw, blindfolded. Quoting Nick, “it is NOT a question of IF, but a question of WHEN someone will get hurt in this car if driven fast. Even Walter Rhorl crashed a few CGTs.

PogueMoHone

Porsche demonstrated this car at Leipzig in capable hands at track speeds, over and over again, lap after lap, day after day, event after event. Albeit the drivers were professional. Even turning off traction control in the middle of corners to demonstrate the effect.

There were no incidents( that I'm aware aware of) related to handling.

Now at California Speedway, the car was the same, the only variable was the driver!

The CGT didn't kill Ben, he did it to himself (IMO). Sad to say, but the realities are what they are.

Oh, and by the way, did Ben have traction control on or off?.

W8MM

Excuse me, Mikey.

"Floated away like a kite"?

"Quoting Nick"?

This is not analysis.

This is a polemic rant dressed up as pseudoscience. It seems quite anti-intellectual to me.

I'm afraid your lack of seat time in a Carrera GT has not prepared you well for your chosen pose as a "truth teller" on this subject. In fact, your slippery technical distortions lead me to distrust any other observations you may wish to post.

Bob Rouleau

Mikey - Obviously, you have some strong feelings on the subject.

I believe that there are two characxteristics of the CGT which can make it a bit tricky to handle under certain circumstances. The engine has very high compression and the flywheel is very light. Lifting off abruptly transfers weight to the front of the car more quickly than in some others I can think of. I'm guessing that there was an abrupt lift (maybe even brakes) and an abrupt swerve leading to a slide/spin witht the back end already light due to weight transfer.

If my hypothesis is correct, a Ferrari 430 would have spun too. I will get a chance to test this out when our club goes back to the big skidpad north of here. I am going to get up to about 80 MPH, lift and yank the wheel. I expect a lurid slide/spin in spite of electronic assists. I'll report in June.

Regards,

38D

600+ hp is not to be triffled with. There are probably 20-25 people in all of PCA club racing that could safely pilot that kind of car, be it a 935 or a CGT. Learning how to handle that kind of speed takes years of experience, which is why F1 drviers have to start so young. Ben was just driving too fast for his ability. It can happen to anyone and no amount of downforce or magic gizmos is going change that. Just because you can afford a 600hp CGT doesn't mean you should be driving at speed on a track. It's a tragic accident.

Mikey

Sorry Mike, we would have instrumented the CGT with sensors if we had foreseen you needing this data. From my vantage point on the track side, the CGT floated away on a cushion of air. It went at nearly constant speed into the wall and shattered into a million pieces like glass. This was my observation, not a rant, and not distorted by the trauma of witnessing a good friend killed. In terms of seat time, zero as a driver, but countless hours as passenger including with Porsches’ top drivers. Next time you visit San Diego, we should get together with Nick. He is a brilliant attorney and pleasant in person actually. I was quoting his wisdom not technical knowledge cuz he has none Enjoy your car, it is the finest “daily driver supercar” ever made, but please don’t race it.


I agree 100%, the F430 would behave exactly the same in that scenario, just not likely to ever put you in that position (too slow.) Look at the Enzo, and you can see to what extent they went to deal with the extra capability. This is where Porsche failed IMO.

PogueMoHone

Here! Here!

The problem is that a lot of people (human nature) want to find someone or something to blame.

Politics being what they are, always follow the financial motives, either for themselves or their friends, and you can can begin to understand the situation.

The hard questions have to start with the driver, and casting aspertions on the design of the car is nothing but an old lawyer trick.

Some of the naysayers (CGT) on this thread were friends of the deceased so their motives (no matter how objective they think they might be) are jaundiced. No matter what they thought they saw, their eyes couldn't be in two places at once.

If you review Ben's posts (as the Attorneys for all parties will do, you will find that he was no neophyte (Cory either for that matter))

But the prospect of big money is ever beckoning, so, on and on it goes!

JBH

Nice! Additionally, I doubt many of those drivers would go out on the track with 600 hp without more safety equipment.

Honestly, the one thing that bothers me more than anything else is the design of the concrete barrier - I just don't understand why anyone would do that.

Les Quam

When cars leave the track and travel over grass from my experiences they tend to pick up speed not lose it. In fact I have spun myself off the track at the California speedway at the very end of the straight where Ben crashed and never lost an once of speed or momentum before hitting a water barrier. Gravel and sand will slow a car but not grass. Grass is about the worst thing to place around a track for a runoff area IMHO.

Interesting how Mike who is an accomplished and very experienced racer/driver has not observed the CGT on a track or street to be tail happy. Mike also has probably logged more track time in a CGT then most any other owner on this forum and has yet to find it to be unstable? I too have yet to experience the "kite" "tail happy" sensation some would have us believe to be inherent in a CGT. In fact I have not found another CGT owner to agree with that analysis.

I love my family and have no death wish neither does Mike. If either of us thought for a second the CGT was tail happy or in any way dangerous we would sell the car and buy another supercar instantly and without hesitation.

Nordschleife

I believe that the problem with the CGT, and it one that is shared by a number of other mid-engined cars, is not that it is tail happy, but that it goes very fast when it goes. That it goes at higher forces than most cars only compounds the problem.

As has been said of some girls 'she goes, she goes, she goes...'

Certain tyres exagerate these characteristics. Those tyres which get very 'cheesy, noisy, yo-yo-ey' as you approach the limit probably warn drivers to back off a bit. Those tyres which don't protest until the last moment, may not give enough warning of what is about to happen.

R+C