WRC vs F1 comparison
Ted Palmer
!!!!!!!
What a surprise!
: World Rally Championship vs Formula One Championship Comparison
I'd rather watch rallies any day. Used to take time off school to watch
the Southern Cross Rallies and the Castrol Internationals.
Sadly, logistics makes the coverage of these types of events enormously
more expensive than any F1 Sunday drive. The way rallies tend to wind their
way over the countryside makes the deployment of cameras a difficult
business. The F1 travelling circus is a far more marketable and media
friendly form of entertainment.
The 2 litre WTCC and the Indy Cars are better TV entertainment than F1.
I still hire a few rally videos occaisionally, and crank the volume way up.
I won't start flaming F1 drivers and make the rally champs look like
superheroes, but the element of the unknown and the teamwork of the rally
crews makes the challenge of rally that much greater.
$0.02 courtesy of:
Mister_T.
Lars Peter Riishoejgaard
and I (an on and off F1 fan for more than 20 years) respond:
No intention to flame, just wanting to give my opinion on
a couple of the points that you raise.
><...>
>The WRC championship is more competitive than F1 at the moment, as in 10
>events this season, 9 different drivers have taken away the winners
>trophy and done the crowd pleasing "doughnuts". This is unlike the
>monotonous tone of the F1 season <...>
Arguably true. For me the domination of one driver of the season does
not deduct that much interest from the F1 circus, though. The interesting
thing this season is to see how the other teams and drivers fight back, and
not so much whether Hill or Schumacher will eventually get the title. To
most people it is clear that Schumacher deserves it anyway.
>The WRC is more representative of the cars that you will see on the roads
>of the world (which you can by in a slightly tamer version from dealers
>then the crowd-scattering beasts of the forest) than those of F1 <...>
The Renault Clio ELF Championship race that was put between the warmup and
the F1 race at Monza last Sunday should also be more interesting then. I saw
it, and in my opinion it wasn't. The cars (I was told) are identical in set-up,
and are unmistakeably close relatives of the Clios of which we have about
one million too many here on the roads of France. Very competitive it was,
also, but to compare it in interest to the F1 race would be preposterous.
Just pointing at a flaw in your argumentation...
>The driver skill involved in rally I believe is a lot higher than those
>in F1 <...>
OK so do you think that if, say, Jean Todt or Ron Dennis approached one of
your rally drivers with an offer of an F1 seat that he
would say 'No thanks, it just isn't competitive enough ?' Or do you think
that they for some obscure reason hang on to their second-rate F1 drivers
even though they know that there are more skilled drivers around ?
>Rally is a cleaner form of motorsport, where competitors race against the
>clock, but the times achieved in stages are compared to the other drivers
<...>
a bit like qualifying in F1, although even there you have to deal with
the other drivers in an unpredictable way. To me the presence of the other
cars is a fundamental ingredient in the sport, and this is one of the
reasons why I was never much interested in watching rally, even though
I respect the skill and courage that goes into it.
><...>
Regards, Lars Peter
Hammond / Owen Lawrence (SCI)
I am posting this article to start some interesting discussions (which
might include flaming) on a comparison between the No 1 and No 3
ranked television audience drawing sports worldwide. If you wish to flame
me go ahead as long as you have something constructive to add to the
discussion.
It has often been said that the WRC Rally cars are the Formula One's of the
forest, but i believe that that statement is dragging the reputation of
rally cars down.
The WRC championship is more competitive than F1 at the moment, as in 10
events this season, 9 different drivers have taken away the winners
trophy and done the crowd pleasing "doughnuts". This is unlike the
monotonous tone of the F1 season where Michael Schumacher has more or
less walked away with the season winning the first five races and
amassed an unassailable lead in the championship before the FIA had to
step in and 'even' the season up by penalising the Benetton Team and
disqualifying them for some races.
The WRC is more representative of the cars that you will see on the roads
of the world (which you can by in a slightly tamer version from dealers
then the crowd-scattering beasts of the forest) than those of F1 and
therefore people can relate to them better when they see them sliding
about in the forests, at almost attainable speed, unlike the
technology-gone-beserk sport of F1 where what you see on television is
nothing like what you see on the roads.
The driver skill involved in rally I believe is a lot higher than those
in F1. Naturally in F1 you are doing frightenly quick speeds (350kph) and
the idea of passing other cars makes for more exciting viewing on
television but only when close racing is on hand. In WRC the driver is
not going as quick (speeds 240kph) but they are doing it on dirt roads,
with little knowledge of what is coming up around the next corner or over
the next crest until the co-driver yells out the next pace-note, unlike
the monotonous sport of F1 where they go around and around on the same
circuit. Also in rally the competitors are expected to race on all types
of road surfaces (dirt, bitumen, ice, snow, and mud etc.) at most times
of the day (4:30am till 1:30am) and can spend as much as 14 hours in the
car in one day, whereas F1 has a nice little slot of between 2-2.5 hours
usually in the afternoon where the main variable would be whether it rains
or not. Rally drivers are expected to cope with a lot more variables at
short notice.
Rally is a cleaner form of motorsport, where competitors race against the
clock, but the times achieved in stages are compared to the other drivers
at the end of the day. You can not blame another driver for your mistakes
or for ruining an opportunity for you, it is just you, the car, the
navigator and the road. In F1 you always here the driver whinge about how
such and such did this, but in rally the driver usually admits to driver
error.
Granted F1 does have some good points over rally, like when you get to
the race you don't have to drive to the next spectator point, you see the
cars for a lot longer then a spectator point, it is exciting when the
racing is close (an aspect that rally only has in super-special stages),
and some of the hi-tech developments tend to trickle down to the consumer.
It is hard to say whether or not F1 is safer for the competitors or not,
because the requirements are vastly different for the equipment, but
generally being in a full roll cage would have to offer more protection
than the monocoque and roll bar, but not many people have ever died with
the current system in use. F1 also has run off areas for the drivers when
they stuff up, but rally drivers can not afford this luxury and are
sometimes presented with a 400 ft drop down the side of a hill full of
trees for a runoff area, but that is an integral part of rally and where
driver skill comes in.
Anyhow, that is my comparison of 2 of the major types of worldwide motorsport
currently running world championships. The main reason I have written
this is to get some valid points of rallying circulating around the net
and boost the sports profile to the F1/Indy/Nascar/Tourer dominated
newsgroups around the Internet and to start some fair arguments of this
comparison.
As i said before, if you wish to flame the living shit out of me (mainly
the F1 fans) I don't mind if it is constructive or if you post it to me
direct but could you also post it here to to let other rally fans ( the
few of us that exist) to see your opinions as well.
Thanks
Owen "Norbert" Hammond
PS: ATTENTION ALL RALLY FANS
PLEASE back me up on this one, as i need all the help i can get
to fend off the hoardes of F1 and other forms of motorsport fans who do
not agree with my opinion on the GREATEST form of motorsport worldwide.
I am going to need it. And happy rallying!
______________________________________________________________________________
|Owen Hammond | u93...@student.canberra.edu.au |
|17 Australia Ave |----------------------------------|
|Callala Bay | poster of ARC,WRC,APRC,RAID,ATCC|
|NSW Australia 2540 | results to Rec.autos.sport.info |
|_________________________________________|__________________________________|
________________
_-- |æ| xx --_
_ __--- |æ| X### -- /|
| \---- ____________|æ|___XXX________-------/ |
| || \
/ ____ | 1 1 | ____ |
\_ /@@@@\ | 1 1 | /@@@@\ _/
\-__|@@ @@|_______|_____________||@@ @@|___/
@@ @@ @@ @@
@@@@ @@@@
CCC EEEE L III CCC AAAA GGGG TTTTT 4 4
C E L I C A A G T 4 4
C EEE L I C AAAA G GG T --- 4444
C E L I C A A G G T 4
CCC EEEE LLLL III CCC A A GGGG T 4
Nick Fitton
: Rally is a cleaner form of motorsport, where competitors race against the
: clock, but the times achieved in stages are compared to the other drivers
: at the end of the day. You can not blame another driver for your mistakes
: or for ruining an opportunity for you, it is just you, the car, the
: navigator and the road. In F1 you always here the driver whinge about how
: such and such did this, but in rally the driver usually admits to driver
: error.
Tell that to Carl! :-) They're only two minutes apart, but i guess if
you're talking about the top level of the sport they wouldnt often
catch each other ;)
Anyway, as a cage driver you've made the typical mistake of ignoring
the other form of motored road user. Motorbikes!! Motorcross and
Enduro are great to watch, but any form of track racing with bikes
wins hands down over any form of cage racing :-)
Bye!
Nick.
--
Nick Fitton \\ _\\-@)
fit...@artemis.earth.monash.edu.au \\________________( /_/( )
"http://artemis.earth.monash.edu.au:8080/People/nick/home.html"
Bill Johnson
|> Ted Palmer (te...@server.melbpc.org.au) wrote:
|> : Sadly, logistics makes the coverage of these types of events enormously
|> : more expensive than any F1 Sunday drive. The way rallies tend to wind their
|> : way over the countryside makes the deployment of cameras a difficult
|> : business. The F1 travelling circus is a far more marketable and media
|> : friendly form of entertainment.
|>
|> : The 2 litre WTCC and the Indy Cars are better TV entertainment than F1.
|> : I still hire a few rally videos occaisionally, and crank the volume way up.
|>
|> : I won't start flaming F1 drivers and make the rally champs look like
|> : superheroes, but the element of the unknown and the teamwork of the rally
|> : crews makes the challenge of rally that much greater.
|>
|> that of an F1 team.
...
Really? I had no idea! Any idea of the approximate budgets for the top
teams in WRC? I had somehow pictured WRC as being significantly cheaper
than F1...
--
Bill Johnson 10U-178 w...@mti.sgi.com
Silicon Graphics, Inc. Office:(415) 390-4283
SGI Compilers Fax:(415) 390-6175
Bob Benson
(Bob Tufts) wrote:
> The racing I like, but it always amazed me the total lack of concern for
> crowd safety. (I know, watch at your own risk). The drivers always seemed to
> have faith that the person in the middle of the road taking pictures will be
> out of his way by the time he gets there in a few seconds. If not, too bad!
> (I know the drivers didn't want this, but the organizers didn't seem to be
> able to control the crowds).
>
> Has this gotten better too? I sure hope so. (It's lunacy otherwise)
Lunacy on the spectator's part only - not the organizers or drivers. Put
the "blame" where it belongs.
The U.S. seems to be the only place where I as an organizer or driver am
expected to take some active responsibility for making sure you as a
spectator don't do something totally dumb and get your toe stubbed. Yes,
spectators on the road would slow me down some, by altering my line. But
more to minimize bent sheet metal than anything else.
Bob Benson
bob_b...@qmail.ssc.gov
Dennis Grant
My $0.02 CAN
I'd rather watch F1, IC, or NASCAR than rally.
However, *driving* in a rally is a cat of a different color. Given the choice
between driving an entry level rally car, Formula Ford, or Street Stock, I'd
probably take the rally car.
(Now what I _really_ want to do is pavement rally my T/A! Cannonball run anyone?)
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Grant Amiga 4000/030/6/120/40Mhz '882/IDEK 17" monitor
dgr...@bud.peinet.pe.ca 1977 Trans Am SE 6.6l Slalom and drag king
Charlottetown, PEI, Canada There ain't no replacement for cubic displacement
Salman Shami
points. They are both very wathcable with rallying having a slight edge because
the scenery keeps on changing.
Salman SHAMI
Tim Warner
: Sadly, logistics makes the coverage of these types of events enormously
: more expensive than any F1 Sunday drive. The way rallies tend to wind their
: way over the countryside makes the deployment of cameras a difficult
: business. The F1 travelling circus is a far more marketable and media
: friendly form of entertainment.
: The 2 litre WTCC and the Indy Cars are better TV entertainment than F1.
: I still hire a few rally videos occaisionally, and crank the volume way up.
: I won't start flaming F1 drivers and make the rally champs look like
: superheroes, but the element of the unknown and the teamwork of the rally
: crews makes the challenge of rally that much greater.
ALso, if you look at the budget of a Rally team, it is *vastly greater than
that of an F1 team. It is for this reason, and also that Touring Cars are
much more 'personal' that Ford have pulled out of the Rally World Champ...
Anyway, if you want close, fun racing, watch the BTCC (as we Brits can).
Cheers
Tim.
Graham Sewell
Better still, Formula Ford, F3 or almost any of the single make formulae
(such as Rover Turbos (based on coupes), TVR Tuscans or Minis (just for
a total laugh - six going around Luffield side by side).
Just my own thoughts on this matter.
--
Graham Sewell Tel +44 71 728 4851
Unix TP and Database Unit Fax +44 71 728 4883
PP506, Lion House, 72-75 Red Lion St, LONDON. WC1R 4RT
g...@btcase.bt.co.uk
Bill Johnson
|> World Rally Championship vs Formula One Championship Comparison
|>
|> I am posting this article to start some interesting discussions (which
|> might include flaming) on a comparison between the No 1 and No 3
|> ranked television audience drawing sports worldwide. If you wish to flame
|> me go ahead as long as you have something constructive to add to the
|> discussion.
No flame here -- just a question. Is WRC really the no. 1 ranked
world-wide sport as far as television audiences go? With F1 no. 3?
Does anyone have approximate figures for the top 5 or so?
Just curious,
Bill
Bob Tufts
>World Rally Championship vs Formula One Championship Comparison
>
>
>in F1. Naturally in F1 you are doing frightenly quick speeds (350kph) and
>the idea of passing other cars makes for more exciting viewing on
>television but only when close racing is on hand. In WRC the driver is
>not going as quick (speeds 240kph) but they are doing it on dirt roads,
>with little knowledge of what is coming up around the next corner or over
>the next crest until the co-driver yells out the next pace-note, unlike
>the monotonous sport of F1 where they go around and around on the same
>circuit. Also in rally the competitors are expected to race on all types
>of road surfaces (dirt, bitumen, ice, snow, and mud etc.) at most times
>of the day (4:30am till 1:30am) and can spend as much as 14 hours in the
>car in one day, whereas F1 has a nice little slot of between 2-2.5 hours
>usually in the afternoon where the main variable would be whether it rains
>or not. Rally drivers are expected to cope with a lot more variables at
>short notice.
Amen to that last sentence!
First off, I agree about the excitement factor. It is not boring. I have
not seen a rally on TV for a few years but I do remember one common thread
of insanity shared between F1 and rally driving: In rally driving the drivers
making "bat turns" on roads lined with spectators and in F1 the drivers navi-
gating the hoardes in the pit lane. I know F1 has gotten much better in this
respect, but do they still allow the crowds along the sides of the road in
WRC? Supposidly the crowds were one contributing factor to the outlawing of
the "Killer B"(Group-B) rally cars.
The racing I like, but it always amazed me the total lack of concern for
crowd safety. (I know, watch at your own risk). The drivers always seemed to
have faith that the person in the middle of the road taking pictures will be
out of his way by the time he gets there in a few seconds. If not, too bad!
(I know the drivers didn't want this, but the organizers didn't seem to be
able to control the crowds).
Has this gotten better too? I sure hope so. (It's lunacy otherwise)
-Bob T.
Alex Danilo
driving and the WRC are 'better' than F1.
Very nice. Now, maybe I should compare horse racing with greyhound racing,
as that is precisely what you have done.
Fact is, both forms of motor sport are exciting, but they are DIFFERENT.
They do not pretend to compete with each other, rather they complement each
other.
Firstly, half-baked arguments like: 'Rally drivers spend 14 hours... but F1
guys are only going for a little while...' are mute. Did you know that an F1
driver experiences corners at 2.5 - 3g, braking at up to 5g or so, acceleration
at a couple of g as well. Fact is heart rates are around 200+ during an F1 race.
If you did that for 14 hours in a rally car you would be dead.
As far as full roll-cage vs monocoque with roll bar go, you need to give a full
analysis of materials and construction used - no way a 300 km/h stack with
flames would be survivable in a rally car - yet that's what happened to Gerhard
Berger last year.
F1 is also about state of the art technology, if you want closer racing with
more restrictive rules, go to Indy cars.
I enjoy watching rally cars, and F1, but I expect to see different things
happen. Like the macho gung-ho rally drivers that slam into the crowds, kill
some poor unsuspecting spectator, reverse, and continue in the stage - now
that's brave, isn't it!
Alex
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Danilo <al...@research.canon.oz.au>
Canon Information Systems Research Australia Ph: +61 2 805 2940
P.O. Box 313 North Ryde, NSW, Australia 2113 Fax: +61 2 805 2929
Stephen Scott
|> <1994Sep14.1...@csc.canberra.edu.au> gives us a treatise on why rally
|> Fact is, both forms of motor sport are exciting, but they are DIFFERENT.
|> They do not pretend to compete with each other, rather they complement each
|> other.
YES, I fully agree with this. But lets not discount either. Both work very
hard and both are competitive in differing ways.
|>
|> Firstly, half-baked arguments like: 'Rally drivers spend 14 hours... but F1
|> guys are only going for a little while...' are mute. Did you know that an F1
|> driver experiences corners at 2.5 - 3g, braking at up to 5g or so, acceleration
|> at a couple of g as well. Fact is heart rates are around 200+ during an F1 race.
|> If you did that for 14 hours in a rally car you would be dead.
I have spent some time in a rally car over the past few years (SCCA group A and
open class). I can tell you from my experience that our pulse rates are over
200 at times - I don't know the g's pulled, but sliding through the dirt while
making turns on forest trails causes ones body to take much punishment - don't
forget changing tires at 3am along a dark road while other cars pass by....
Although, I do have to admit that while navigating I have taken short "mental"
naps during stages - the driver was still working very hard though.
|>
|> As far as full roll-cage vs monocoque with roll bar go, you need to give a full
|> analysis of materials and construction used - no way a 300 km/h stack with
|> flames would be survivable in a rally car - yet that's what happened to Gerhard
|> Berger last year.
Well, I have done 150 km/h off an 8m embankment while the car spun upside down
into a tree (I was navigating - it was a driver error :^) Thank god for roll-
cages, seat harneses, and a well built car. We hit the tree about 5m off the
ground. So I would say that rally cars are very sturdy for their type of driving
and expected accidents. However, with respect to fire - yes most would be in
great trouble here. In the US it is not required to have auto-fire systems and
driver/co-driver only need wear a single-layer fire-proof suit and helmet. This
will give you about 5-seconds - not to mention that hands, feet, and neck are not
protected.
|>
|> F1 is also about state of the art technology, if you want closer racing with
|> more restrictive rules, go to Indy cars.
|>
This is true, since the death of the group B cars. Rally cars have become
much closer to their showroom counterpart.
The rally car is the best thrill ride I have ever been in - and this is from
a person that will not ride roller-costers (they are too dangerous!)
stephen
{ still looking for an Eclips GSX or a Celica All-Track }
Tommi Vartiainen
>World Rally Championship vs Formula One Championship Comparison
>The driver skill involved in rally I believe is a lot higher than those
>in F1. Naturally in F1 you are doing frightenly quick speeds (350kph) and
>the idea of passing other cars makes for more exciting viewing on
>television but only when close racing is on hand. In WRC the driver is
>not going as quick (speeds 240kph) but they are doing it on dirt roads,
Speeds over 200km/h are very rare in rally. I think they go about
80-140km/h most of the time.
>Rally is a cleaner form of motorsport, where competitors race against the
>clock, but the times achieved in stages are compared to the other drivers
>at the end of the day.
That's why I found rally a bit boring. In my opinion it's much more
interesting when drivers race against each others, not against clock.
Although I think F1 qualification session are very exciting.
>PS: ATTENTION ALL RALLY FANS
> PLEASE back me up on this one, as i need all the help i can get
>to fend off the hoardes of F1 and other forms of motorsport fans who do
>not agree with my opinion on the GREATEST form of motorsport worldwide.
>I am going to need it. And happy rallying!
Well, I think F1 is the greatest form of racing, but I also watch
rally and it's #2 after F1. Actually I follow 4 series of motorsport
more or less closely. Those are in the order of interest:
1.Formula 1 (head and shoulders above others)
2.Rally
3.DTM (mainly because of Keke Rosberg)
4.Indycars
--Tommi
Brett Paulin
My opinion is that F1 is too much of an "Ivory Tower" sport to _really_
interest the average bloke.. It's fast, competitive racing alright, but
the "cars" resemble an ordinary car about as far as having 4 wheels and
an engine.. They all look practically identical apart from minor paint
scheme changes, they all cost ridiculous amounts of money for what they
do, and the argument that they "advance normal car technology" is 90% BS
IMO.. _some_ things have trickled out of the sport, like ABS and
electronic engine controls, but active suspension, semi-auto gearbox's,
carbon fibre disc brake rotors, etc are all specific to those types of
cars only and would be little use on a road car..
Another beef is that most of the drivers in F1 are so far up their own
arses, it's a wonder they can see out to drive.. Sure they're good
drivers, but that doesn't mean they're supermen worthy of adulation
and awe of a "lesser" driver. They tend to act like spoilt 9 year olds
in most cases and are always squabbling with not only their opposition,
but also their own team mates
F1 drivers employ security people to keep the fans away and leave the
track in heavily guarded cars or private helicopters.. The only place
they are interested in seeing their fans is in their seats in the
grandstand or on the other end of a television camera..
Personally, my favourite spectator motorsport is drag racing, but I Also
like rally, touring cars and Indy
Some people might think that Indy is pretty close to F1 type stuff..
after all, the cars look similair.. But.. they cost nowhere near as much
as F1 cars, are based (nominally) on passenger car engines and makes. and
they are driven by Americans who appreciate their fans, and can be found
in the pits, talked to, and so on.. They tend to exhibit sportsmanship
and fair play on the track and so on...
Rally cars IMO are more a competitor sport than a spectator sport..
Television makes rallys watchable, but as a live spectator sport, they're
not much chop.. you drive to a spectator point to get a 30 second
glimpse of a car as it roars past in a cloud of dust and you have no idea
as to who's winning or progress of the race, or even if the driver
finished that stage OK. It's much more interesting for the driver and
nav in the car..
Drag Racing is the other way.. definitely a spectator sport.. The
speccie can sit back in his seat, see the whole track, who won and lost,
and watch race aftger race after race of widely varying types of cars,
with most being based on the sort of car he drove to the track, see who
won right now, while the competitors spend hours and hours working on
their cars, hundreds and thousands of dollars, wait in line for an hour
for a race, and maybe get put out in the first round and be back on the
trailer with total track time of maybe 1 minute.. if you're really good
and get through to the finals, you might get 5 minutes of track time..
I forget the exact statistics, but I'm sure I've heard it said that Drag
Racing draws bigger spectator crowds that _all_ other forms of motorsport
_put together_ do..
Now I'll sit back and wait for the flames from the senna and prost lovers
B-)
--
Brett Paulin : Ra...@zikzak.apana.org.au : Finger for PGP Key
Zikzak UNIX, Melbourne, Australia : < This space for rent >
Tim Warner
: |> ALso, if you look at the budget of a Rally team, it is *vastly greater than
: ...
: Really? I had no idea! Any idea of the approximate budgets for the top
: teams in WRC? I had somehow pictured WRC as being significantly cheaper
: than F1...
I think the budget for Williams was a couple of years ago something like
30 million pounds (for all 16 races). Now, I don't know how many races
there are in the Rally Championship, but I'd heard that its probably about
50% more expensive. This is of course for the big teams. I don't think
a driver in Class N could 'quite' afford that :)
Cheers
Tim.
Volker Rehbock
came from other countries? Are you guys all
ex-pats or what? No flames intended, I'm just
amazed at how widely this group is being read...
Volker.
Michael Burdack
We are really talking about two completely different forms of motorsport
here - It is like comparing apples & oranges & saying which is the better
fruit! I am very interested in all forms of motor sport & each has its
special attraction. I really don't think it is a better/worse question..
For example - some days I feel like wotching f1 & othhhers drag racing.
This does not mean that one is better than the other.
Internet Email Addresses:
Bl...@werple.apana.org.au
bl...@empire.apana.org.au
Scott Fisher
>Hey, why not.. I'll chip in with my thoughts on this one as well.. B-)
>My opinion is that F1 is too much of an "Ivory Tower" sport to _really_
>interest the average bloke.. It's fast, competitive racing alright, but
>the "cars" resemble an ordinary car about as far as having 4 wheels and
>an engine.. They all look practically identical apart from minor paint
>scheme changes, they all cost ridiculous amounts of money for what they
>do, and the argument that they "advance normal car technology" is 90% BS
>IMO.. _some_ things have trickled out of the sport, like ABS and
Came from aircraft not F1.
>electronic engine controls, but active suspension, semi-auto gearbox's,
Not first used in from F1 either.
>Rally cars IMO are more a competitor sport than a spectator sport..
>Television makes rallys watchable, but as a live spectator sport, they're
>not much chop.. you drive to a spectator point to get a 30 second
>glimpse of a car as it roars past in a cloud of dust and you have no idea
>as to who's winning or progress of the race, or even if the driver
>finished that stage OK. It's much more interesting for the driver and
>nav in the car..
Depends on the stages....here in Perth they have a "track" they build around the
city which is a mixture of dirt and bitumin...most likely you have seen it.
Scot.tt.t.t.t.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Scott Fisher [sc...@psy.uwa.oz.au] PH: Aus [61] Perth (09) Local (380 3272).
_--_|\ N
Department of Psychology / \ W + E
University of Western Australia. Perth [32S, 116E]--> *_.--._/ S
Nedlands, 6009. PERTH, W.A. v
Joy is a Jaguar XJ6 with a flat battery, a blown oil seal and an unsympathetic
wife, 9km outside of a small remote town, 3:15am on a cold wet winters morning.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Paulin
>I enjoy watching rally cars, and F1, but I expect to see different things
>happen. Like the macho gung-ho rally drivers that slam into the crowds, kill
>some poor unsuspecting spectator, reverse, and continue in the stage - now
>that's brave, isn't it!
Hey, I dont think you can blame the rally drivers for this.. It's the
spectators fault.. I reckon rally spectators in general would have to be
the most brainless mob I have _ever_ seen.. The stand inches away from
the track, on the _outside_ of a bend, when it would be just as easy to
stand on the inside and have no concerns about getting hit.. They stand
in front of oncoming cars and leap out of the way at the last second..
But I think the best demonstration of the idiocy they often exhibit was a
piece I saw of TV showing a spectator who _lay in the middle of the road_
just beyond a hill that the cars were all doing jumps over, and took a
photo as the car went over him !! I couldn't believe it.. if the next
car had decided to go a bit slower he would've been mulched..
Oh well.. dont blame the drivers for the speccies stupidity though..
Niclas Lindblom
>ALso, if you look at the budget of a Rally team, it is *vastly greater than
>that of an F1 team. It is for this reason, and also that Touring Cars are
>much more 'personal' that Ford have pulled out of the Rally World Champ...
Vastly?? Do you mean that TTE, the biggest, has a much bigger budget than, say
McLaren? TTE has less staff, build cars that, per year, costs roughly half,
and uses cheaper transports to get to fewer events. I cant see them having a
VASTLY greater budget....
>Anyway, if you want close, fun racing, watch the BTCC (as we Brits can).
It would be the best racing, if it wasn't for all those (deliberate)
unpeenalised pushing. In every other way, it's GREAT!! Goddammit, you can even
race a Volvo...
LAURENCE JANUS
>Personally, my favourite spectator motorsport is drag racing, but I Also
>like rally, touring cars and Indy
>
>Some people might think that Indy is pretty close to F1 type stuff..
>after all, the cars look similair.. But.. they cost nowhere near as much
>as F1 cars, are based (nominally) on passenger car engines and makes. and
>they are driven by Americans who appreciate their fans, and can be found
>in the pits, talked to, and so on.. They tend to exhibit sportsmanship
>and fair play on the track and so on...
I seems to me that indy car racing is a big "old boys (and their sons) club"
even more so than the Australian Touring Car Champs. At last count there
were three Andrettis, countless Unsers and a Mansell in a pear tree.
The only thing that they have going for them is the big ol' turbos hanging
off those big ol' V8's.
lj.
Graham Sewell
>My opinion is that F1 is too much of an "Ivory Tower" sport to _really_
>interest the average bloke.. It's fast, competitive racing alright, but
>the "cars" resemble an ordinary car about as far as having 4 wheels and
>an engine.. They all look practically identical apart from minor paint
>scheme changes, they all cost ridiculous amounts of money for what they
>do, and the argument that they "advance normal car technology" is 90% BS
>IMO.. _some_ things have trickled out of the sport, like ABS and
>electronic engine controls, but active suspension, semi-auto gearbox's,
>carbon fibre disc brake rotors, etc are all specific to those types of
>cars only and would be little use on a road car..
With the exception of certain supercars - like the Tiptronic gearbox in
Porsche 911s.
>Personally, my favourite spectator motorsport is drag racing, but I Also
>like rally, touring cars and Indy
>Some people might think that Indy is pretty close to F1 type stuff..
>after all, the cars look similair.. But.. they cost nowhere near as much
>as F1 cars, are based (nominally) on passenger car engines and makes. and
>they are driven by Americans who appreciate their fans, and can be found
>in the pits, talked to, and so on.. They tend to exhibit sportsmanship
>and fair play on the track and so on...
>Rally cars IMO are more a competitor sport than a spectator sport..
>Television makes rallys watchable, but as a live spectator sport, they're
>not much chop.. you drive to a spectator point to get a 30 second
>glimpse of a car as it roars past in a cloud of dust and you have no idea
>as to who's winning or progress of the race, or even if the driver
>finished that stage OK. It's much more interesting for the driver and
>nav in the car..
This depends on whether you can get to a good vantage point to see, hear
and smell the cars. Only two senses are missing, for I have no ambition
to taste or touch a rally car whilst it is moving!
>Drag Racing is the other way.. definitely a spectator sport.. The
>speccie can sit back in his seat, see the whole track, who won and lost,
>and watch race aftger race after race of widely varying types of cars,
>with most being based on the sort of car he drove to the track, see who
>won right now, while the competitors spend hours and hours working on
>their cars, hundreds and thousands of dollars, wait in line for an hour
>for a race, and maybe get put out in the first round and be back on the
>trailer with total track time of maybe 1 minute.. if you're really good
>and get through to the finals, you might get 5 minutes of track time..
>Now I'll sit back and wait for the flames from the senna and prost lovers
I was a great fan of Senna (RIP) and believe that he was one of the
greatest drivers to have graced motorsport. However, I also enjoy most
other forms of motorsport including rallies, hillclimbs, saloon car and
so on. They all have merits and drawbacks. F1 tends to be too
processional. Barring incidents, the car that gets to the first corner
first is going to win. THerefore, I normally watch the first lap and
then switch off:-)
Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats
: |>
: |> ALso, if you look at the budget of a Rally team, it is *vastly greater than
: ...
: Really? I had no idea! Any idea of the approximate budgets for the top
: teams in WRC? I had somehow pictured WRC as being significantly cheaper
: than F1...
I would have thought so too. I don't know much about either sport but
having a think about it, I would have thought rally cars were production
models with improved engines and body strengthening. Aren't F1 cars
specially fabricated to damn near perfect aerodynamic spec's with
ultra-high perfomance engines, prima donna drivers with fat pay cheques
and enough support crew/car designers to fill Wembley?
--
"Leeds are losing, Nigel" | Rugby League WWW Home Page
"How do you know, Peter?" | http://www.brad.ac.uk/~cgrussel/
"It's five minutes since they | finger cgru...@muser.brad.ac.uk for more
kicked off" | details, it's long so redirect it to a file
Graham Sewell
>Bill Johnson (w...@triton.mti.sgi.com) wrote:
>: |>
>: |> ALso, if you look at the budget of a Rally team, it is *vastly greater than
>: |> that of an F1 team.
>: ...
>: Really? I had no idea! Any idea of the approximate budgets for the top
>: teams in WRC? I had somehow pictured WRC as being significantly cheaper
>: than F1...
>I would have thought so too. I don't know much about either sport but
>having a think about it, I would have thought rally cars were production
>models with improved engines and body strengthening.
The cost of a hand build, perfect WRC Group A car such as a Subaru,
Toyota, Lancia etc is about half a million pounds (sterling). The body
shells are not taken from a production line but a fabricated seperately
so that suspension mounting points are perfect, etc. The the cost per
event is significant (even assuming that the driver does not try to do
any landscape gardening while he is there!)
>Aren't F1 cars
>specially fabricated to damn near perfect aerodynamic spec's with
>ultra-high perfomance engines, prima donna drivers with fat pay cheques
>and enough support crew/car designers to fill Wembley?
Apart from the aerodynamics, the same applies to WORKS teams in
rallying. How else do you get 300+ bhp from a "standard" production
engine normally used to 150-200 bhp.
In the days of group B rallying, the Rover 6R4 produced over 500bhp
putting it onto the ground using a purpose built 4.W.D. system. the same
applied to the Ford RS200.
However, if you see rallying as Group N, then yes it is a lot cheaper.
But that is like comparing F1 to F3 (2 litre production engines in a
single seater)
Bill Johnson
Someone posted on the net last year that Williams' '93 budget was about
170 million dollars (about 110 million pounds at the current exchange
rate). I doubt it was official, though -- I don't think Williams gives
out that kind of information.
And someone posted recently that Ferrari spent 300 million pounds for
the last four years ('90-'93, inclusive), or about 120 million dollars
a year on average...
0200
>like rally, touring cars and Indy
>
>
>Racing draws bigger spectator crowds that _all_ other forms of motorsport
>_put together_ do..
>
>Now I'll sit back and wait for the flames from the senna and prost lovers
>B-)
>
seen a Nitromethane burning Top Fuel Dragster make a quarter mile pass
in less than 5 seconds, producing more than 5000 HP!!! Who could ever
forget the smell of Nitro burning your nose, makeing your eyes water...
I guess you have to be there...
Chris Demke
Sun Microsystems
chris...@west.sun.com
Henry C. Ma
>first is going to win. THerefore, I normally watch the first lap and
>then switch off:-)
I agree. In the old days, Niki Lauda was able to win a race in his
McLaren even when he started from the very end of the grid; this is the
piece of excitment F1 lacks nowadays.
--
Henry Ma
Oracle Corporation
h...@us.oracle.com
Bob Gilbert
In article 3...@zikzak.apana.org.au, ra...@zikzak.apana.org.au (Brett Paulin) writes:
->Hey, why not.. I'll chip in with my thoughts on this one as well.. B-)
->
->My opinion is that F1 is too much of an "Ivory Tower" sport to _really_
->interest the average bloke.. It's fast, competitive racing alright, but
->the "cars" resemble an ordinary car about as far as having 4 wheels and
->an engine..
I don't think F1 makes any pretense to attempt to resemble production cars.
There race cars, not road cars.
-> They all look practically identical apart from minor paint
->scheme changes,
Since you probably have little interest in F1, of course they all look
alike. Actually, since F1 requires each team to develop its own chassis,
I find quite substantial differences in the cars, esp. as compared to
Indycars.
-> they all cost ridiculous amounts of money for what they
->do,
Yes they do. So what? Don't think you were planning on buy one.
->and the argument that they "advance normal car technology" is 90% BS
->IMO..
Probably somewhat true.
-> _some_ things have trickled out of the sport, like ABS and
->electronic engine controls, but active suspension, semi-auto gearbox's,
->carbon fibre disc brake rotors, etc are all specific to those types of
->cars only and would be little use on a road car..
Don't write off active suspension so fast, it probably has substaintial
application in road cars.
->Another beef is that most of the drivers in F1 are so far up their own
->arses, it's a wonder they can see out to drive.. Sure they're good
->drivers, but that doesn't mean they're supermen worthy of adulation
->and awe of a "lesser" driver.
Well, you can make this arguement about any sports stars. So what if
Michael Jordan can play basketball very well, it's just a game.
-> They tend to act like spoilt 9 year olds
->in most cases and are always squabbling with not only their opposition,
->but also their own team mates
Yes, F1 has a lot of intensity, and a lot of it comes from the pressure
put on the sport by the fans. There may be some spoiled brats in F1, but
there are also many display wonderful sportmanship.
->F1 drivers employ security people to keep the fans away and leave the
->track in heavily guarded cars or private helicopters.. The only place
->they are interested in seeing their fans is in their seats in the
->grandstand or on the other end of a television camera..
Yeah, F1 in general could probably open up to the fans a little more.
->Personally, my favourite spectator motorsport is drag racing, but I Also
->like rally, touring cars and Indy
->
->Some people might think that Indy is pretty close to F1 type stuff..
->after all, the cars look similair.. But.. they cost nowhere near as much
->as F1 cars, are based (nominally) on passenger car engines and makes. and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Probably a lot less so than F1. At least F1 uses fuel that is similar to
what you put in your car, and most of the engines come from passenger car
makers (Renault, Peugeot, Ferarri, Honda, etc.) rather than specialty
race engine builders (Cosworth, Ilmore).
->they are driven by Americans who appreciate their fans, and can be found
->in the pits, talked to, and so on..
Looks like about 1/3 of the current Indycar drivers are not American. And
yes, they do tend to be a little more accessable than F1 drivers.
-> They tend to exhibit sportsmanship and fair play on the track and so on...
Any tendancy toward this is probably a function of the large stakes in F1.
->Rally cars IMO are more a competitor sport than a spectator sport..
->Television makes rallys watchable, but as a live spectator sport, they're
->not much chop.. you drive to a spectator point to get a 30 second
->glimpse of a car as it roars past in a cloud of dust and you have no idea
->as to who's winning or progress of the race, or even if the driver
->finished that stage OK. It's much more interesting for the driver and
->nav in the car..
Your last statement is true for all forms of motorsport (anything for that
matter), it's always more interesting to do than to watch.
->Drag Racing is the other way.. definitely a spectator sport..
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There's a lot Sunday racers that would disagree with this for sure.
-> The
->speccie can sit back in his seat, see the whole track, who won and lost,
->and watch race aftger race after race of widely varying types of cars,
->with most being based on the sort of car he drove to the track, see who
->won right now, while the competitors spend hours and hours working on
->their cars, hundreds and thousands of dollars, wait in line for an hour
->for a race, and maybe get put out in the first round and be back on the
->trailer with total track time of maybe 1 minute.. if you're really good
->and get through to the finals, you might get 5 minutes of track time..
Yeah, and a top fuel dragster sure resembles a road car too :-).
->I forget the exact statistics, but I'm sure I've heard it said that Drag
->Racing draws bigger spectator crowds that _all_ other forms of motorsport
->_put together_ do..
If true, it's probably due to the fact that it is the largest participant
auto sport there is. Half the spectators probably compete from time to
time too.
->Now I'll sit back and wait for the flames from the senna and prost lovers
->B-)
I wouldn't want to flame and argue that F1 is better other forms of racing,
because they ARE JUST PLAIN DIFFERENT. What I will flame is the notion that
one form of motorsport is somehow superior to other forms.
-Bob
Brendan McFarlane
Brett Paulin <ra...@zikzak.apana.org.au> wrote:
> I forget the exact statistics, but I'm sure I've heard it said that Drag
> Racing draws bigger spectator crowds that _all_ other forms of motorsport
> _put together_ do..
No, it's Nascar.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan McFarlane _Note_: Private mail over 5k will be
bre...@azimuth.werries.de defered. I have to pay....
Compuserve : 70630,1573 (No problem with News)
## CrossPoint v3.0 ##
Tim Warner
: In <Cw4FH...@info.bris.ac.uk> cs2036@titus (Tim Warner) writes:
: >Anyway, if you want close, fun racing, watch the BTCC (as we Brits can).
: It would be the best racing, if it wasn't for all those (deliberate)
: unpeenalised pushing. In every other way, it's GREAT!! Goddammit, you can even
: race a Volvo...
Unpenalised? Well, half the fun watching the Alfas fly off the track, and
then instantly realising that the car is in itself inherintally unsafe, by
the door being just a skin!!
No wonder Alfa had been winning......
Doubt we'll see them win next year...
Cheers
TIm.
David Crooke
I have had a go at both circuit driving (in a road car admittedly) and
rallying at an amateur level. They involve different skills; circuit
racing is about building up a level of perfection at taking all the
corners on the circuit, and getting the overtaking right, and then
sustaining it for a whole race, while rallying is about living by your
wits and instincts pedalling the car on unfamiliar roads. An analogy can
be drawn with the difference between fine sculpture and quick sketching.
For amateur competition I prefer rallying to other forms of motor sport,
largely on the value for money aspects, but I also think it is more
entertaining. Sprint and Hill-Climb (taking several runs at a twisty,
tarmac course about a mile long) is nice as you can compete at any level -
I have seen a standard Lada Riva 1200 (small Russian family saloon) and an
ex-F1 car in the same event, though in different classes!
I have to argue with one contributor's comments on safety. I have
marshalled on a number of national and international stage rally events,
once working a stage finish control but more often in course maintenance
and crowd control. In the UK at least, spectator safety is maintained to
the highest standards by the volunteer marshalls, with danger and run-off
areas being taped off and a team of marshalls at every corner. British
spectators are usually well behaved and prepared to obey marshall's
instructions. The Monte Carlo and the Tour de Corse, on the other hand,
are famous for cars driving through crowds parting like the Red Sea in
front of them, and for spectator traditions like shovelling snow onto the
corners!
Someone claimed NASCAR was the biggest crowd pulling form of motor sport.
This may be true ***in the USA***, but as far as crowd pulling world wide
is concerned, international stage rallies are among the biggest events of
_any_ kind. Here in the UK, where rallying isn't very popular, the RAC
regularly attracts 2-3 million *live* spectators over its 4 day period;
this is 3-4% of the UK population.
Dave
--
David Crooke, Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh
Janet d...@ed.dcs : Internet d...@dcs.ed.ac.uk : IP talk d...@129.215.160.29
Work: JCMB Rm 1408, King's Bldgs, W Mains Rd., Edinburgh EH9 3JZ. 031 650 5164
Home: 12 (GFR) West Savile Tr, Edinburgh, SCOTLAND EH9 3DZ. 031 667 4854
Glenn Durden
>>I watch Drag Racing occasionally, and I've been meaning to ask this question
>>for a while. Do any technology (are there any? :) come out of Drag Racing
>Reliability is put to the extreme test. Extracting 5000 hp from an
>engine without blowing it up is no easy task.
Since we're talking about drag racing, I'll ask about the big wing they
have at the back.
It appears that since the wing generates downforce, and is way behind the
rear wheels, its effect would be to lift the front wheels off the ground.
I suppose this ISNT what it is intended to do... so what does it do?
(or is it that it does lift the front wheels slightly, but not enough
to be a problem, yet still generate downforce over the rear wheels?)
Tony Craven
>>Some people might think that Indy is pretty close to F1 type stuff..
>>after all, the cars look similair.. But.. they cost nowhere near as much
>>as F1 cars, are based (nominally) on passenger car engines and makes. and
>>they are driven by Americans who appreciate their fans, and can be found
>>in the pits, talked to, and so on.. They tend to exhibit sportsmanship
>>and fair play on the track and so on...
I had to reply to this one because the comments are way off the mark and no thought seems to have gone into them.
Indy close to F1 in that they occasionally race on tracks that you have to turn a corner, and that's the only reason that they've got a stearing wheel. There is no real further comparison.
Granted, Indy cars cost nowhere near as much as F1 cars, but then again they're nothing like F1 cars. However, to say that they are based on passenger car engines and makes is way off the mark. I've yet to see a passenger car that runs on methanol and only gives 1.8 mpg (If one exists it must be expensive to run and a bugger to fill up at your local petrol station). F1 cars do have custom built chasis, but Indy cars also have custom built chasis, it's just that they're built by Penske, Lola, Reynard etc... If you look at the engines, Indy are built by Ford, chevvy etc... F1 are built by Ford, Renault, Peugot, Honda etc... (which give 5.5 mpg) Do the names sound familiar?
Now onto comment about american drivers appreciating there fans. There are quite a few of them who are arrogant ar%$£*&es. Its the same in all sports, and it's not only americans who drive Indy cars. Take a look at the nationalities at the next race, Canadian, French, British to name but a few. F1 tends not to allow fans into the pits for safety reasons etc...
Finally, to say that Indy drivers exhibit more fair play and sportsmanship than F1 is total BS. How many times do you get F1 drivers fined for ramming up to 11 cars in a single race. This happened at Vancouver to both Paul Tracey and Michael Andretti, who appeared to think he could do the same thing in F1 and then kept finding himself in the gravel traps.
I could go on but I'd still be hear in two hours time.....
****** FLAME MODE OFF ******
Tony.....
Michael Burdack
: >
: >I watch Drag Racing occasionally, and I've been meaning to ask this question
: >for a while. Do any technology (are there any? :) come out of Drag Racing
: >have huge motors, and incredible blowers, and makes gobs of raw power...
: >
: >Am I missing something?
: Reliability is put to the extreme test. Extracting 5000 hp from an
: engine without blowing it up is no easy task.
Even the big boys don't seem to have it right.... A "good" run usually
means the motor made it to the other end of the 1/4 mile with more than 4
cyl or so intact!!!
(I am of course refering to the "top fuelers")
Pasi P Ahopelto
<stuff deleted>
: Since we're talking about drag racing, I'll ask about the big wing they
: have at the back.
: It appears that since the wing generates downforce, and is way behind the
: rear wheels, its effect would be to lift the front wheels off the ground.
: I suppose this ISNT what it is intended to do... so what does it do?
: (or is it that it does lift the front wheels slightly, but not enough
: to be a problem, yet still generate downforce over the rear wheels?)
My quess: (Top fuel) dragsters have lots of weight in front of rear
wheels (driver, long nose and if I remember correctly, the engine).
Wing, which is mounted way behind rear wheel transfers weight from front
to rear, bringing most of cars weight to rear wheel and improving grip.
Because of long distance between wings and rear wheels, small wings with
small downforce are needed. Torsion moment (I hope this is the correct
term, "distance*force") is the thing that matters in this case.
Small wing = less drag.
Pasi.
Lars Peter Riishoejgaard
>I agree. In the old days, Niki Lauda was able to win a race in his
>McLaren even when he started from the very end of the grid; this is the
>piece of excitment F1 lacks nowadays.
Didn't Damon Hill come relatively close to doing something like that
when he started from the back of the grid last year, after having
stalled his engine on the formation lap ? I don't remember when and where,
ands maybe hed didn't even finish, but I seem to remember that he drove
up through quie a bit of the field.
Lars Peter
Brendan McFarlane
Graham Sewell <g...@btcase.bt.co.uk> wrote:
> Apart from the aerodynamics, the same applies to WORKS teams in
> rallying. How else do you get 300+ bhp from a "standard" production
> engine normally used to 150-200 bhp.
The old Group A Touring Cars did it _without_ turbos, using the same
regulations...
Brendan McFarlane
A few years ago, after a few beers and much discussion, several of us came
up with the conclusion that there wasn't a lot of difference between top
rally and racing drivers, in terms of actual ability. It was just after a
wonderful piece in CCC magazine by Russell Bulgin when they let Ayrton
loose in a Metro 6R4 on some welsh(?) forest roads. (A splendid article
which won Bulgin several awards as I recall). Bulgin reckoned that given a
little more time with the car, he would have been as quick as any of the
top rally guys of the time.
Anyway, our conclusion was that main difference was what we termed the
"bag of tricks" which each driver can call upon in any given situation.
Rally drivers have an enormous "bag of tricks", developed over years of
having to deal with the unknown hazards which lurks around every corner.
They can dip into the bag, and come up with a tried and tested response to
most circumstances.
Racing drivers, by way of contrast, have a much smaller "bag of tricks",
because they do not need to develop such skills of recovery. However, some
exceptional drivers, Gilles for example, have managed to extend the normal
boundaries imposed by the nature of the sport, by consistantly driving
over the limits of the car. In Gilles' case, this was largely due to his
snowmobile experience, and his unshakeable belief in his ability to
recover from any situation.
I would propose that given enough time, and experience in the cars, the
top drivers from each sport would be able to compete strongly in either
series.
Brendan McFarlane
David Crooke <d...@dcs.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Someone claimed NASCAR was the biggest crowd pulling form of motor sport.
> This may be true ***in the USA***, but as far as crowd pulling world wide
> is concerned, international stage rallies are among the biggest events of
> _any_ kind. Here in the UK, where rallying isn't very popular, the RAC
> regularly attracts 2-3 million *live* spectators over its 4 day period;
> this is 3-4% of the UK population.
Just for the record, those 2-3 million include an awful lot of people who
visit more than one stage. Whenever I followed the RAC, we spectated on at
least 3 stages each day, and you only had to listen to the other
spectators to realise that this is far from unusual.
Brendan.
Frank M. Lin
Brett Paulin <ra...@zikzak.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
>Personally, my favourite spectator motorsport is drag racing, but I Also
I watch Drag Racing occasionally, and I've been meaning to ask this question
for a while. Do any technology (are there any? :) come out of Drag Racing
that is of any benefits to the automotive industry? Seems like they just
have huge motors, and incredible blowers, and makes gobs of raw power...
Am I missing something?
--
Frank M. Lin
fm...@netcom.com
Olivier Grandjean
that runs o
>n methanol and only gives 1.8 mpg (If one exists it must be expensive
to run an
>d a bugger to fill up at your local petrol station). F1 cars do have
custom bui
BTW, I read many times that F1 engines were more efficient than
passenger car engines if one uses specific consumption in grams/hp/hour.
Does anyone have any figures for both F1 (or any other series) and
passenger cars ?
Olivier
Dennis Grant
A theoretically perfect dragster would lift the front wheels *just* off the
ground and carry them the whole run, thus achiving 100% weight transfer to the
rear and the maximum amount of traction on the rear tires - thus producing max
acceleration. (Discounting areo effects)
However, in the real world, people have to steer occasionally. :)
So a Top Fuel is set up to just about lift the wheels on takeoff. A small wing
on the front helps keep the wheels on the ground, and a huge wing on the back
drives the rears into the pavement for the rest of the run. The extra cantilever
on the rear wing helps produce more downforce. The front wing can be small,
because it has a lot more leverage. At the speeds these guys run, aero produces
greater effects than weight transfer.
Once again, I've oversimplified, but you should be able to see the gist of it.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Grant Amiga 4000/030/6/120/40Mhz '882/IDEK 17" monitor
dgr...@bud.peinet.pe.ca 1977 Trans Am SE 6.6l Slalom and drag king
Charlottetown, PEI, Canada There ain't no replacement for cubic displacement
Sonny Van Hook
Reliability is put to the extreme test. Extracting 5000 hp from an
engine without blowing it up is no easy task.
--
Sonny Van Hook so...@tfs.com
---<---<---{@ Ayrton Senna da Silva, 3/21/60-5/1/94, Rest in Peace @}--->--->---
Olivier Grandjean
>->electronic engine controls, but active suspension, semi-auto gearbox's,
>->carbon fibre disc brake rotors, etc are all specific to those types of
>->cars only and would be little use on a road car..
>
>Don't write off active suspension so fast, it probably has substaintial
>application in road cars.
Citroen actually has an active suspension, called Hydractive, on its
Zantia and XM models. Although it's tuned more towards comfort than
roadholding, it's still pretty impressive.
Olivier
A H Henry
>In <Cw4FH...@info.bris.ac.uk> cs2036@titus (Tim Warner) writes:
>>ALso, if you look at the budget of a Rally team, it is *vastly greater than
>>that of an F1 team. It is for this reason, and also that Touring Cars are
>>much more 'personal' that Ford have pulled out of the Rally World Champ...
>Vastly?? Do you mean that TTE, the biggest, has a much bigger budget than, say
>McLaren? TTE has less staff, build cars that, per year, costs roughly half,
>and uses cheaper transports to get to fewer events. I cant see them having a
>VASTLY greater budget....
Putting a number on the budget is difficult. McLaren will spend more
on hospitality for guests than Toyota, but they don't have to homologate
5000 road cars every time they want to make a major change to their car.
Servicing a WRC rally costs a fortune. The works teams have
about a dozen service vans for the "easy" rallies. The big
teams may use more. I read somewhere or other that the second
rank teams would use 50 people to cover one rally. Teams like
TTE and Ford can have over a hundred. They also have people
working at the factory and a test team. I remember a number of
US$ 45 million to cover the team's running costs. This wouldn't
include the cost of homologating the car.
I doubt whether a top WRC rally team has a VASTLY bigger budget
than a top F1 team, but they are comparable.
A.H. Henry
>In article <5X1ju...@azimuth.werries.de> Brendan McFarlane wrote:
>; A few years ago, after a few beers and much discussion, several of us came
>; up with the conclusion that there wasn't a lot of difference between top
>; rally and racing drivers, in terms of actual ability. It was just after a
>; wonderful piece in CCC magazine by Russell Bulgin when they let Ayrton
>; loose in a Metro 6R4 on some welsh(?) forest roads. (A splendid article
>; which won Bulgin several awards as I recall). Bulgin reckoned that given a
>; little more time with the car, he would have been as quick as any of the
>; top rally guys of the time.
>The CCC article was reprinted a few months ago as a tribute to Senna -- the
>first time I've bought CCC for _ages_ (Racecar Engineering is generally so
>much more informative!) It was excellent as an insight into Senna's character,
>his driving skills and the differences between rallying and racing technique.
It was in the winter of 1985/6 when they took Senna in his
black and gold JPS overalls to a Welsh forest with a selection
of rally cars. These included a 2WD Sierra Cosworth, a
Vauxhall Nova, a VW Golf and an 400-500 bhp Xtrac 4WD Escort.
He nearly had a big accident on the first corner he tried.
My favourite bit in the article came at the end. Senna At
the end was driving a Sierra Cosworth through a fast
sweeping corner with the throttle nailed to the floor,
spinning the steering wheel from one lock to the other
"like a rally driver, a _brave_ rally driver".
--
Read the rec.autos.sport list of Andrew Henry
Frequently Asked Questions v1.1 at: A.H....@bath.ac.uk
http://www.bath.ac.uk/~bspahh/rasfaq.html University of Bath, UK
ftp://mgu.bath.ac.uk/pub/rec.autos.sport Sempre Gilles
Janne Anttila
Olivier> Citroen actually has an active suspension, called Hydractive, on its
Olivier> Zantia and XM models. Although it's tuned more towards comfort than
Olivier> roadholding, it's still pretty impressive.
Mitsubishi also has a kind of active suspension in the Galant Dynamic
Four, but I think that the only road car with a REAL active suspension
is Toyota's Lexus Coupe LS800 (?). I don't know if this active
suspension is available outside Japan.
--
Janne Anttila, pihalla kuin lipputanko.
Brett Paulin
>>Television makes rallys watchable, but as a live spectator sport, they're
>Depends on the stages....here in Perth they have a "track" they build around the
>city which is a mixture of dirt and bitumin...most likely you have seen it.
Or maybe not.. I'm in Vic, and havent got around to touring over to
perth yet.. But yeah, I have seen a couple of "track" rally stages, but
they're the exception rather than the norm..
--
Brett Paulin : Ra...@zikzak.apana.org.au : Finger for PGP Key
Zikzak UNIX, Melbourne, Australia : < This space for rent >
Brett Paulin
>> I forget the exact statistics, but I'm sure I've heard it said that Drag
>> Racing draws bigger spectator crowds that _all_ other forms of motorsport
>> _put together_ do..
>No, it's Nascar.
Wrong country I think.. This is Australia.. Bob Jane might be plugging
it, but NASCAR hasn't really taken off here..
Brett Paulin
>YES!!! I love Drag Racing!! Most of these blokes have probably never
>seen a Nitromethane burning Top Fuel Dragster make a quarter mile pass
>in less than 5 seconds, producing more than 5000 HP!!!
It's surprising how many people have failed to experience this unique
event.. I was at Bathurst a few years ago when Jim Read did a
demonstration Burnout and short-pass down pit straight before the race..
Youd expect bathurst-goers to be reasonable sort of petrolheads eh ?
Well, Jim fired her up, rolled a few feet and nailed it, with the usual
results, and 3/4 of the crowd _ran away_ from the fence at full tilt !
B-)
They slowly trickled back to the fenceline, until he started backing up
for a second go, upon which most of them ran away again !
A mate and I were killing ourselves laughing watching these supposed
petrolheads milling about like sheep that have just been frightened..
Aparrently there was quite a bit of jockeying on the grid at the start of
the race to get wheels lined up the strips of rubber he left so the cars
could get a good launch.. B-)
> Who could ever forget the smell of Nitro burning your nose, makeing your
> eyes water... I guess you have to be there...
A pity Heathcote Park raceway doesn't seem to get any Grade A events
anymore.. If you bought a pit pass, you could stand on the other side of
a wire fence no higher or more substantial than that around your average
school yard, while a Top Fueler did a burnout 4 feet away.. B-)
To any petrolhead Drag-racing neophytes reading this, do yourself a favour
and check out a race.. Especially if there's nitro cars about.. Find out
what "The Earth moving" is _really_ all about. I'm not kidding.. just
dont leave your car alarm switched on.. It's not uncommon for the carpark
to be a cacophony of car alarms that have been tripped by the ground
shaking after a hard fueler pass..
Brett Paulin
>I watch Drag Racing occasionally, and I've been meaning to ask this question
>for a while. Do any technology (are there any? :) come out of Drag Racing
>that is of any benefits to the automotive industry? Seems like they just
>have huge motors, and incredible blowers, and makes gobs of raw power...
Ummm.. As a whole, no, probably not.. Drag racers in general are a
pretty lo-tech bunch.. A lot of them still run points ignition systems
becuase they understand how they work, rather than electronic..
Probably a few small refinements may come from it.. but like Formula 1 I
suppose, becuase it is a push-it-to-the-limit type of sport, there's not
really much developed that would be of use on a daily driver..
Brett Paulin
>>I watch Drag Racing occasionally, and I've been meaning to ask this question
>>for a while. Do any technology (are there any? :) come out of Drag Racing
>>that is of any benefits to the automotive industry?
>Reliability is put to the extreme test. Extracting 5000 hp from an
>engine without blowing it up is no easy task.
Dunno about that either.. I think incredible strength would probably be
more accurate.. a top-fuel motor (the 5000Hp ones) has a life expectancy
of around 20 seconds at full power.. I dont know if the word
"reliability" can really be applied over that period of time.. B-)
Brett Paulin
>Since we're talking about drag racing, I'll ask about the big wing they
>have at the back. It appears that since the wing generates downforce, and
>is way behind the rear wheels, its effect would be to lift the front
>wheels off the ground.
Interesting point actually, I've never though of it like that.. I think
you'll find though that the wing is actually sitting above the wheels..
(or close to it).. I might be wrong though.. Downforce is what it's
there for, although I think it's more for stability purposes than
traction.. seeing as how there are no corners, you dont really need all
that much high speed traction (in Drag racing, you need your most
traction as you launch off the line, High speed wheelspin isn't all that
common, althogh it does happen in Nitro cars..) I think the wing is just
to keep the car glued to the track as it touches 300Mph and the tyres
grown nearly a foot in diameter..
Actually here's an interesting thing most people dont realise.. Did you
know that a top fuel engine only fires a couple of hundred times on it's
way down the track ? Sure, it might peak out at 6000Rpm (Top Fuel
engines dont rev that hard, nitro burns slow), but thats 6000 revolutions
per _minute_, and the engine is only on full song for 5 seconds !.. If
you hi-speed film a pass, and play it back slow with sound, you can
actually hear the individual bangs..
> (or is it that it does lift the front wheels slightly, but not enough
> to be a problem, yet still generate downforce over the rear wheels?)
Well, it definitely generates downforce that would try to lift the front
wheels, but probably nowhere near the amount that the engine is creating
by trying to accelerate the car that fast.. If they weren't so long,
then the cars would instantly do a back flip when you planted it.. B-)
I heard it described once (for those of you who know what the inside of a
Diff looks like) as "When the pinion climbs up the crownwheel" B-)
Ron Natalie
pretty lo-tech bunch..
That's kind of rough. I'm no great fan of drag racing, but these guys
seem to invest all kinds of stuff in high tech clutches and tramissions.
What's the advantage of an electronic ignition here anyhow? They only
run the thing a one power setting and then only for a few seconds anyhow.
-Ron
Frank M. Lin
>In article <fmlinCw...@netcom.com> fm...@netcom.com (Frank M. Lin) writes:
>>
>>I watch Drag Racing occasionally, and I've been meaning to ask this question
>>for a while. Do any technology (are there any? :) come out of Drag Racing
>>that is of any benefits to the automotive industry? Seems like they just
>>have huge motors, and incredible blowers, and makes gobs of raw power...
>>
>>Am I missing something?
>
>Reliability is put to the extreme test. Extracting 5000 hp from an
>engine without blowing it up is no easy task.
So these 5000 HP engines aren't taken apart after a 5 second race? :)
Scott Fisher
>In article <fmlinCw...@netcom.com> fm...@netcom.com (Frank M. Lin) writes:
>>
>>I watch Drag Racing occasionally, and I've been meaning to ask this question
>>for a while. Do any technology (are there any? :) come out of Drag Racing
>>that is of any benefits to the automotive industry? Seems like they just
>>have huge motors, and incredible blowers, and makes gobs of raw power...
>>
>>Am I missing something?
>Reliability is put to the extreme test. Extracting 5000 hp from an
>engine without blowing it up is no easy task.
Ummmm....seems to be impossible actually, the top teams design their engines
so that by the end of the final run, the engine is in need of a rebuild...or
is in the process of blowing-up as they cross the line :-)
Regards Scott.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Scott Fisher [sc...@psy.uwa.oz.au] PH: Aus [61] Perth (09) Local (380 3272).
_--_|\ N
Department of Psychology / \ W + E
University of Western Australia. Perth [32S, 116E]--> *_.--._/ S
Nedlands, 6009. PERTH, W.A. v
Joy is a Jaguar XJ6 with a flat battery, a blown oil seal and an unsympathetic
wife, 9km outside of a small remote town, 3:15am on a cold wet winters morning.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Scott
|> so...@tfs.com (Sonny Van Hook) writes:
|>
|> >In article <fmlinCw...@netcom.com> fm...@netcom.com (Frank M. Lin) writes:
|> >>
|> >>I watch Drag Racing occasionally, and I've been meaning to ask this question
|> >>for a while. Do any technology (are there any? :) come out of Drag Racing
|> >>that is of any benefits to the automotive industry? Seems like they just
|> >>have huge motors, and incredible blowers, and makes gobs of raw power...
|> >>
|> >>Am I missing something?
|>
|> >Reliability is put to the extreme test. Extracting 5000 hp from an
|> >engine without blowing it up is no easy task.
|>
|> Ummmm....seems to be impossible actually, the top teams design their engines
|> so that by the end of the final run, the engine is in need of a rebuild...or
|> is in the process of blowing-up as they cross the line :-)
I am sure that if F1 teams (or any other race class) had the opportunity, they
would also replace or retune their engine between laps (runs). It is just part
of drag-racing that you run the engine to the edge - as you know that you will
have the opportunity to rebuild or replace. If you consider each drag run as an
"event", then they are simply doing what all racers do - which is rebuild or
replace between events.
no real difference!
stephen
Marty Bose
Scott) wrote:
> I am sure that if F1 teams (or any other race class) had the opportunity, they
> would also replace or retune their engine between laps (runs). It is
just part
> of drag-racing that you run the engine to the edge - as you know that you will
> have the opportunity to rebuild or replace. If you consider each drag
run as an
> "event", then they are simply doing what all racers do - which is rebuild or
> replace between events.
>
qualifying engine was 2-3 laps; it would seem that drag racing is not the
only series that builds to the ragged edge. Besides, I thought that the
definition of the perfectly constructed race car (regardless of series)
was one that ran at 100% until just past the finish line and then
completely fell apart. Anything else is over-engineered! 8-)
Marty
--
not clever enough to have a signature
Fons Rademakers
> World Rally Championship vs Formula One Championship Comparison
>
Schumacher's response to the question who he considers the best driver in the
world was "All rallye drivers" (he probably didn't want to give credit to any
other F1 driver -:)).
Anyhow, as a fan of both F1 and Rallye, I think in Rallye the skils
and adaptive qualities of the drivers are higher. Blasting over
small, tree lined, forest roads with over 200 km/h (like in the 1000 lakes
rallye) without escape lanes and tyre walls requires quite strong nerves.
Having said that, a F1 standing start is also not for the faint hearted.
Concerning the physical factor, I think F1 beats Rallye. Special stages
take at most 30 mins after which a driver can take a rest and settle down
again. In F1 races last up to 2.5 hours and the steering is in general
much heavier, since not at all or very weakly assisted.
Personally I try to emulate both forms of sport. I drive a 125cc 6 gear sprint
kart for the F1 feeling and a Lancia Delta Integrale tuned to 280 hp for the
rallye feeling. I must admit that I am much more tense driving my Lancia fast
up small mountain roads than driving my kart on the circuit. Probably this is
related to the cost involved in case I would crash my car.
Cheers, Fons Rademakers.
--
Org: CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research.
Mail: 1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland Phone: +41 22 7674886 or 7675049
E-Mail: f.rade...@cern.ch Fax: +41 22 7677155
David Ernst
Janne....@lut.fi (Janne Anttila) wrote:
> Janne Anttila, pihalla kuin lipputanko.
The Lexus LS400 does not have active suspension. The only car I know of that has real active suspension is the Infinity (Nissan) Q45A Sedan (the A stands for active) and I not sure if they still make it (the active suspension part). The other possibility is the Lotus Esprit as I know Lotus has built prototypes of this car with active suspension but do not know if they ever put it into production.
--
David Ernst
david....@den.mmc.com
"If you're in control, you are going too slow" - Parnelli Jones
Bob Gilbert
->
->Concerning the physical factor, I think F1 beats Rallye. Special stages
->take at most 30 mins after which a driver can take a rest and settle down
->again. In F1 races last up to 2.5 hours and the steering is in general
->much heavier, since not at all or very weakly assisted.
A few minor corrections:
First, F1 races have a 2 hour time limit. Most races finish the distance
with time to spare.
Second, it's not that the steering is heavy, if fact I don't believe
that the steering of an F1 car at requires any spectactular strength.
What does require strength is trying to make all those delicate steering
inputs required while undertaking massive g forces. I think most people
could drive an F1 car around a track all day as long as they kept the
cornering, braking, and acceleration forces low.
-Bob
Brendan McFarlane
Brett Paulin <ra...@zikzak.apana.org.au> wrote:
> >No, it's Nascar.
>
> Wrong country I think.. This is Australia.. Bob Jane might be plugging
> it, but NASCAR hasn't really taken off here..
Sorry, but Nascar has the biggest spectator attendance figures of all
motor sports series in the world. We were talking on a global scale here,
I think...?
Lawrence Wilkinson
pe...@minster.york.ac.uk "Pete Fenelon" writes:
> The Tuscans are _amazing_... _real_ sports cars in fairly vigorous racing;
> I am very impressed by them! Wonder if TVR are ever going to have a go at
> building a GT suitable for international competition...?
There is a GT project underway for Le Mans next year; a car is being built
by Tech-Speed (actually, I think this was in Autosport). Start saving for
the TVR "Le Mans Special" road car too :-)
Yes, they are fun, aren't they. Honest 400hp and 940kg all-up. Just hope
it doesn't rain. I am impressed with their engine, it's no mean feat to
develop something from scratch like that.
--
Lawrence Wilkinson --- l...@formula1.demon.co.uk --- 72070...@compuserve.com
William Turner
>In article <779675...@formula1.demon.co.uk> Lawrence Wilkinson wrote:
>; In article <1994Sep14....@zippy.dct.ac.uk>
>; pe...@minster.york.ac.uk "Pete Fenelon" writes:
>; > The Tuscans are _amazing_... _real_ sports cars in fairly vigorous racing;
>; > I am very impressed by them! Wonder if TVR are ever going to have a go at
>; > building a GT suitable for international competition...?
Yup, fantastic stuff - I get cable TV at home & WireTV covers lower formulae
racing, including TVR Tuscan & Caterham-Vauxhall. Excellent stuff!
>I thought the Tuscans still ran the Rover V8 -- I wasn't aware that the
Yup, they do.
>AJP8 (TVR's own new engine) had actually been raced yet... (evidence
Now, from what I've heard, this is a formidable beast! I've got an article on
its development somewhere (can't remember where though...). The thing about
TVRs is that _WONDERFUL_ sound they make - anyone care to post a .wav? (to a
binaries newsgroup, we wouldn't want to upset people...)
<rest deleted>
>pete
>--
>Peter Fenelon - Research Associate - High Integrity Systems Engineering Group,
>Dept. of Computer Science, University of York, York, YO1 5DD +44 (0)904 433388
>pe...@minster.york.ac.uk WWWpage http://dcpu1.cs.york.ac.uk:6666/pete/pete.html
William
----------------------------------------------------------------
|\ _,,,---,,_ Software Engineer,
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Acorn Computers Ltd,
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Cambridge, England.
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) Email: wtu...@acorn.co.uk
Janne Anttila
The Lexus LS400 does not have active suspension. The only car I
know of that has real active suspension is the Infinity (Nissan)
Q45A Sedan (the A stands for active) and I not sure if they still
make it (the active suspension part). The other possibility is the
Lotus Esprit as I know Lotus has built prototypes of this car with
active suspension but do not know if they ever put it into production.
No, LS400 doesn't have an active suspension (it's pneumatic though,
isn't it?). What I meant is the Lexus coupe (LS800 or whatever) that
had an active option at least in Japan.
I remember that Esprit, too. It was in the early eighties, right? I
read an article about it back then, Nigel Mansell test driving it. The
circuit boards of the suspension were a fine example of British
microelectronics ;)
--
Carl Brewer
Brett Paulin <ra...@zikzak.apana.org.au> wrote:
>sc...@psy.uwa.edu.au (Scott Fisher) writes:
>>>Television makes rallys watchable, but as a live spectator sport, they're
>>>not much chop.. you drive to a spectator point to get a 30 second
>>>glimpse of a car as it roars past in a cloud of dust and you have no idea
>
>>Depends on the stages....here in Perth they have a "track" they build around the
>>city which is a mixture of dirt and bitumin...most likely you have seen it.
>
>Or maybe not.. I'm in Vic, and havent got around to touring over to
>perth yet.. But yeah, I have seen a couple of "track" rally stages, but
>they're the exception rather than the norm..
Very much the exeption.
Rally Aust used the Langley Park "mickey mouse" stage 3 times, for a total
distance of about 6km competitive.
There was approx 550km Competitive stage distance in total, that's um,
1.09% of the rally distance. When Rally Aust is a full round of the WRC
next year, it'll be even less, as there'll be more stages on real
roads.
It was sold out on the friday night opening stage, and was full again on
Sat evening, and it's fun to watch, but it's not really rallying, just a
bit of a giggle to get the plebs to have a look.
BTW, I just got back from leave (to watch the rally, of course :) )
and am putting the results up on the WWW.
For those of you interested in a quick stat :
McRae won by 9 seconds, from Kankunnen, with Eriksson 3rd about 2 mins
behind them.
McRae won 12 stages (of 30) and Kankunnen won 16, but as Kankunnen was
debuting the new Celica, and it had a few teething problems, on the stages
where McRae won, Kankunnen was often more than 10 seconds behind.
The last stages were _very_ exiting, as Kankunnen chopped a 29 second lead
down to a 9 second lead in 5 stages, he needed 2 more stages to win it!
I'm putting the results up on my WWW server (if I can get the OCR
code working, or it'll be hand-typed or GIF's of the press releases)
on http://oversteer.library.uwa.edu.au/rallyaust94.html
I love the smell of AvGas in the morning, it smells like ... Victory ....
--
Carl Brewer Ph :61-9-380-1893 | #include \
Systems/Network Officer, Reid Library Fax:61-9-380-1012 | <std_disclaimer.h>
University of Western Australia ca...@oversteer.library.uwa.edu.au
Woooo, speed hump cat .... beable
Alan Moore - Sun SMCC - Madrid
"active" car when they release the Xantia Activa which has
the next generation hydractive suspension. Computer controlled
hydropneumatic system with sensors liberally sprinkled around
the car giving it among other qualities the capability to "lean"
into a corner like a motorcycle.
regards
Alan
0200
>>>Let's just do a little math here:
>
>>>7000 RPM * 8 pistons * 2 cc/piston / 2 RPM per stroke = 56 litres/second
>
>>Too bad you forgot to divide by 60 seconds per minute, which would give you
>>an answer of about 1 liter/second.
>
>Oops! You're right, I apologize to Mr. Johnson.
>
>>Now are we to assume that he (Mark Johnson) does know what he's talking
>>about? Sounded knowledgable to me, anyway.
>
>I guess I'm the one who doesn't know what he's talking about.
>
Believe it!! I pit crew for a Top Alcohol Dragster. Our Engine typically
consumes 11.8 gallons/minute from a pump flowing 15 gal/min. Top Fuel
Dragsters (The fastest ones, at least) use TWO fuel pumps flowing nearly
SIXTY gal/minute!!!! Granted, some percentage of that is returned back
to the fuel tank, but those motors still consume around 10 gallons of nitro
in a quarter mile. F**KING incredible!!!
Chris Demke
crew member
'Peen-Rite' Top Alcohol Dragster
chris...@west.sun.com
Bob Tufts
>In article 94Sep2...@taipaani.cc.lut.fi, Janne....@lut.fi (Janne Anttila) writes:
>->
>->I remember that Esprit, too. It was in the early eighties, right? I
>->read an article about it back then, Nigel Mansell test driving it. The
>->circuit boards of the suspension were a fine example of British
>->microelectronics ;)
>
>Just a minor correction, but I beleive the Lotus platform used for the
>active prototype was an Elite (the late '70's, early 80's version).
I've never heard of Elite active cars, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
My sources confirm the "Mansell Esprit" as the early test vehicle with some
Excels (decendent of Elite/Eclat) as later test vehicles. There was an inter-
esting video on the TV Program "Beyond 2000" showing two Excels (one with/one
without active) going around a test course/slalom. The spinning out of the
non-active car at the end (due to implied inferior control) I found a little
over-dramatic for the benefit of the camera, but the outside camera shot aimed
at the wheelwell as the car went over bumps was VERY impressive.
-Bob T.
Bob Gilbert
->
->I've never heard of Elite active cars, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
->My sources confirm the "Mansell Esprit" as the early test vehicle with some
->Excels (decendent of Elite/Eclat) as later test vehicles. There was an inter-
->esting video on the TV Program "Beyond 2000" showing two Excels (one with/one
->without active) going around a test course/slalom. The spinning out of the
->non-active car at the end (due to implied inferior control) I found a little
->over-dramatic for the benefit of the camera, but the outside camera shot aimed
->at the wheelwell as the car went over bumps was VERY impressive.
->
->-Bob T.
Now that I think about it more, I think you're right about the car used being
an Elite/Eclat. I remembered this because I was a little surprized to see
a model that was either no longer being made or about to no longer be made,
although it sort of made sense as there would be extra room for equipment.
Thought I remembered it a being the Elite (I think from a Road and Track
article), but you're probably right. BTW - I never heard of the "Mansell
Esprit" though. Was the Etna to be active?
-Bob
Peter Martin Contractor
remember correctly, sometime last year or before on the top fuel rails.
Being a low power type of guy and a road racer at that, I started reading it
and was REALLY IMPRESSED!
If you can find that article, read it. Going 300MPH in a quarter mile is
serious business.
--
==============================================================================
Peter Martin UPS Danbury, CT (203) 731-6324 nrd...@nrd.ups.com
Real Life Home: Kent, WA (206) 631-5478 Northwest Region SCCA
#24 ITA '83 Mazda RX7 == '91 RX-7 ragtop == '95 SSC Neon == WD9HAD == SCUBA
Brian Huntley
>A theoretically perfect dragster would lift the front wheels *just* off the
>ground and carry them the whole run, thus achiving 100% weight transfer to the
>rear and the maximum amount of traction on the rear tires - thus producing max
>acceleration. (Discounting areo effects)
>However, in the real world, people have to steer occasionally. :)
So, has anyone ever considered computer assisted variable torque control
steering? I hear they use computer shifting, or did last year.
--
Brian Huntley "Merely to kill the killer of his
The Toronto Stock Exchange child did not kill the killing.
Toronto, Ontario, Canada It extended it." Timothy Findley,
bhun...@tse.com _Famous Last Words_
Brian Huntley
>BTW, I read many times that F1 engines were more efficient than
>passenger car engines if one uses specific consumption in grams/hp/hour.
>Does anyone have any figures for both F1 (or any other series) and
>passenger cars ?
Does anyone have figures one what the ICs get while the pace car is out?
And what fuel milage would an F1 car get at a steady 100-120 kph?
tsmit@nclvax
crossposted to rec.auto.*.*.*. If possible can we all move followups
to this thread to rec.autos.sport.misc? Keeps my kill file simpler :).
(I'm trying to keep up with way too much net.traffic already :)
Theo Smit
NovAtel Communications Ltd.
Dennis Grant
In article <CwLEL...@tsegw.tse.com> bhun...@tsegw.tse.com (Brian Huntley) writes:
> dgr...@bud.peinet.pe.ca (Dennis Grant) writes:
>
> >A theoretically perfect dragster would lift the front wheels *just* off the
> >ground and carry them the whole run, thus achiving 100% weight transfer to the
> >rear and the maximum amount of traction on the rear tires - thus producing max
> >acceleration. (Discounting areo effects)
>
> >However, in the real world, people have to steer occasionally. :)
>
> So, has anyone ever considered computer assisted variable torque control
> steering? I hear they use computer shifting, or did last year.
For which class?
In Top Fuel, they have those huge wings which are producing _way_ more
downforce than they need, so weight transfer is only an issue at launch.
A lower, slower class that doesn't get to use aero for rules reasons or not
enough speed to make aero worthwhile might be able to make use of this, but
the cost involved wouldn't be worth it. The money would be better spent
elsewhere.
If you watch the middle classes, you'll see that they lift the wheels at launch,
(for max initial traction) then they drop the wheels and aero effects take over.
> --
> Brian Huntley "Merely to kill the killer of his
> The Toronto Stock Exchange child did not kill the killing.
> Toronto, Ontario, Canada It extended it." Timothy Findley,
> bhun...@tse.com _Famous Last Words_
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Grant Amiga 4000/030/6/120/40Mhz '882/IDEK 17" monitor
dgr...@bud.peinet.pe.ca 1977 Trans Am SE 6.6l Slalom and drag king
Charlottetown, PEI, Canada There ain't no replacement for cubic displacement
Robert Small
Engineering's Structures, Isolation and Dynamics research vehicle. Clad
in an Esprit shape, it actually shares nothing with the current
production car. Lotus has equipped SID with full active suspension not
just to develop the active system itself, but to allow it to simulate
passive vehicles, making changes by modifying the control parameters and
algorithms rather than making time-consuming physical changes to the
suspension itself.
It uses the 4wd drivtrain lifted straight from the Rover 6R4 rally car.
Bob
Bob Tufts
>>
>Not sure if I am discussing the same vehicle, but the car is SID, Lotus
>Engineering's Structures, Isolation and Dynamics research vehicle. Clad
>in an Esprit shape, it actually shares nothing with the current
>production car. Lotus has equipped SID with full active suspension not
>just to develop the active system itself, but to allow it to simulate
>passive vehicles, making changes by modifying the control parameters and
>algorithms rather than making time-consuming physical changes to the
>suspension itself.
>It uses the 4wd drivtrain lifted straight from the Rover 6R4 rally car.
>
>Bob
>
No, it's not the same vehicle. I had forgotten about the SID vehicle, which
came much later. The "Mansell" active Esprit was a stock early turbo Esprit
that was modified with active components. If I really went searching through
all my Lotus books and back issues of the Lotus LTD ReMarque I'm sure I could
come up with some specific dates, but suffice to say the "Mansell Esprit" dates
back to when he was with Lotus and when they were working on earlier versions
of F1 active. (Mansell went back sometime with Lotus as a test driver. There
was a brief period where he and Mario Andretti overlapped as team drivers
(in races). It's too bad they're parting ways from the NH Indy team on such a
sour note...that's racing!)
-Bob T.