Or... what would the bigger challenge be: dealing with huge lateral loads during cornering (group c/gtp) or radial loads of a heavy car at top speed (NASCAR; banked turns help out, surely). (I don't know much about tires, pardon the guess at nomenclature)
A little non-technical insight on an IMSA GTP entrant pushing the limits of tire & suspension:
http://bluntobject.wordpress.com/2009/1 ... epid-rm-1/
Many of the day’s GTP cars were designed to run at fast European tracks like Le Mans (for obvious reasons), or inspired by cars that were. This was before Le Mans introduced two chicanes onto the Mulsanne Straight, and before Ayrton Senna’s fatal crash in 1994 prompted track owners to add chicanes damn near everywhere to slow the cars down — top-end speed was critical to winning in Europe. Riley noted that most of the tracks on the IMSA tour were short, bumpy circuits where downforce was more important than sheer velocity, and designed a light GTP car with maximum aero grip in mind. The Intrepid’s steep nose and three-section wing generated a lot of drag but a phenomenal amount of downforce — so much so that the car subjected its Goodyear GTP tires to more load than they were designed to carry.
Unfortunately, the Intrepid also created more downforce than its rear suspension uprights could handle. At Watkins Glen in 1991, after qualifying half a second off the pole, Tommy Kendall’s #65 Intrepid lost its left rear wheel as the track’s high speed banked corners created more vertical load than the car’s components were ever expected to see. Kendall broke both legs but survived the crash thanks to the carbon-fibre monocoque, and sat out the rest of the season but would race for Jim Miller again in 1992.
