Congo

Well, it isn't 1970 and to offer insight on the flipping LMP cars...

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/a...types-fly.html

MTosi

Good point, if you factor in population growth it seems rather pathetic how many people follow sportscar racing. I don't buy that american fans aren't interested in it, same deal with F1, I think if you provide them a good series they will come. No one seems to step up to the plate, market it correctly and realy sell it to the general public.

That article is pretty good but I don't buy the fact they can't prevent these cars from taking flight. Apparently its going to take someone getting hurt before anything happens.

On a side note, here is a Nissan R90 flipping at Fuji, at least it was caused by a tire blowing not just a slide.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2e-Zad4mFb0

DrJupeman

I think racing fans have gone to NASCAR. I wasn't alive or conscious in the times you are referring back to, but my perception is that NASCAR was not nearly as big a deal in the '60's and '70s. Ironically, one of the racing aspects that attracts some NASCAR fans is what you're asking to get ride of: wrecks!

As for Congo's recent link, first it is ironic that the previous research was called the "Piper" study. Here's a Piper:


or


But I lost all respect for the article when they said this: "to put it into perspective, the top speeds at Monza are sufficient for a light aircraft to take off and fly!" Um, hello, we drive down the highway in speeds that are sufficient for a light aircraft to take off and fly. What sensationalist and ignorant writing.

38D

I don't see why everyone is basing the diesels. Audi found a loophole in the rules, and built a great car. And when they first built it, no one was sure it would even work. If Porsche built a class killer and then the ACO changed the rules, we'd all be bitterly complaining. Porsche should suck it up and build a diesel engine for a P1 car (and for the Cayenne, rather than some absurd heavy hybrid).

MTosi

It wasn't a "loophole" it was an open invitation by ACO for Audi and Peugeot to make a diesel. The company that found the loophole was Porsche, they realized that they could make a LMP2 car to beat the Audi's on North American tracks, and ACO is trying to close that loophole by adding weight to the P2 cars, because Porsche wouldn't play there stupid little game and beat them at their own set of rules. Porsche shouldn't be forced to build a diesel because of a sanctioning bodies personal agenda..... the manufs. are the ones spending the money and taking the hit so the rules should be fair for all......

38D

They should if they want to win. There are always "personal agendas"...closed cockpit cars for 2010, AC in race cars, diesels. I think that having diesels racing is good, as it will help to develop that technology even more. Racing AC may finally move that technology forward as well. You can either evolve, or bitch an whine about the rules.

Bull

And no surprise there.......the guy who fostered Audi's efforts had more than a little bit to do with those revered 917s, and many other Porsche racing efforts in the day!

2BWise

I'm not trying to bash the diesels. Not blaming them for using the rules to help them win if it was my decision I'd do the same. My issue is with the ACO. Due to budget issues, unless a major manufacture offers a diesel engine for privateers they will never be even slightly competitive. The privateers are going to get fed up and leave if they're ruled out of contention and they're the backbone of any series as the manufacturers will leave after they've come and won enough.

FlyingDog

Uh, YES they are.

CART in the 90s was exciting great racing. After the split, IRL cars had far less downforce and crashed MORE while going slower. You might want to rethink your safety or performance arguments.

38D

MTosi was what, 5 years old during that time, so I'm sure he'll have another well formed opinion

Congo

56th Mobil 1 Twelve Hours of Sebring presented by Fresh from Florida

"The 56th Mobil 1 Twelve Hours of Sebring welcomed a record crowd of 170,500 racing fans."

Roundel (BMW CCA magazine)

June, 2008

MTosi

Could you please direct me to the rules/test for roof first impacts, or where you backup is for that statment? I would be happy to be proven wrong, I have no doubt it is a consideration, especially for roll overs, but not roof first impacts at over 120mph.......

IRL ran just ovals, which downforce wise/vs saftey/crashes are a totally different story, I hope I don't have to explain why....... plus at the time IRL had a pretty rag tag line up of drivers, with TG trying to scrape together a full field....



Can we stop just insisting I'm wrong/uninformed because I'm not 50 years old.... debate me with facts and arguments, not just ohh hes young, he must know nothing......

and I'll have you know I was 7 at the time , and as a matter of fact had already started reading autoweek (not sure you could say "reading" more like flipping through, looking at the pictures and reading the caption, but thats besides the point) and was aware of the split at the time....



that was the attendance for the entire weekend over 4 days......not to belittle it, thats still an impressive turn out

DrJupeman

How about you backing up your comment that they are NOT built for rollover and show FlyingDog some documentation. The call for documentation can work both ways so be careful using that as a defense.

So far the evidence is on the side of the cars being safe in that no one got hurt. Could be luck, but it does somewhat shift the burden of proof to you.

MTosi

ACO vows to make changes

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/68235

Le Mans organiser the ACO has vowed to make changes to the car regulations for 2009 following the number of aerial crashes that have occurred in recent months.

Hideki Noda suffered the sixth aerial accident for a prototype car since March during Wednesday's qualifying session, and the ACO believes that reducing corner speeds will solve the problem.

"(Aerial accidents) are a new phenomenon, as the regulations have not changed for this year," said ACO sporting director Daniel Poissenot.

"But I think we will have a different position for next year given the urgency of this. We will examine it.

"We need to look at the performance of the cars. We want to reduce downforce, which in turn will reduce corner speeds. All aero devices on the bottom of the cars will be banned for 2009."

The organisers of the race also outlined more plans to reduce the speed of the cars over the next couple of years with further aerodynamics reductions for 2010.

Poissenot added: "We saw in qualifying a 3:18 lap (by Peugeot). We are going to restrict the performance of the cars, but we will take the race times into account as qualifying can be inaccurate.

"We will do a lot of work for 2010 over the winter, but we want stability of three or four years, so there are no bad surprises for anyone. Current cars will still be allowed, but we will work to balance their performance with the new ones."

Plans for the future regulations also include the use of energy recovery systems, and increased lateral protection for drivers to improve the safety of the cars.

FlyingDog

http://www.lemans.org/sport/sport/re...fr_gb_2008.pdf
Section 16 and Appendix 2

Have fun reading. When shall I expect your evidence?