Please discuss here all your remarks and pose your questions about all racing series, except Formula One. Both technical and other questions about GP2, Touring cars, IRL, LMS, ...
wesley123 wrote:As Ultimate racing car I just prefer Group C cars,
GroupC were cool... but better can be done.... for example the cockpit on GroupC car's was wide enough for two people... if the "ultimate" race car only had to house one person (the driver) then the cockpit could be much narrower... reducing frontal area and a bit of weight.
It would be interesting to see if Grooup C were around today whether they'd have the "simple" front ends of the cars back then like the TWR Jags, or something more F1-inspired like today's Peugeot LMP1's? I think the "Batmobile" look might be inevitable.....
GrpC were great. I think they would have, given the chance, developed much more involved front end aero packages. They already had simple front end diffusers so it's not unreasonable that these would have become front wing type diffusers as with current cars.
For example, the XJR-14 which followed the true earlier GrpC series cars had a nose wing. The front end of the car was designed around it: (from mulsanne's corner)
The ultimate car would almost certainly be a blend of F1 and Grp C-style aero and mechanicals.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.
Wonder if we would see high or low noses. High nose means rear biased downforce and low nose means front biased. A car with a high nose might have to run more wing at the front to compensate. This could inhibit flow to venturi tunnels while a low nose would allow less front wing but the flow from directly under the nose would not be as strong.
Just_a_fan wrote:GrpC were great. I think they would have, given the chance, developed much more involved front end aero packages. They already had simple front end diffusers so it's not unreasonable that these would have become front wing type diffusers as with current cars.
You mean like this? These are more or less the evolution of Group C cars, just nerfed like hell before they hit the track.
I would say the F1's cornering speeds are way higher.
IIC an huge problem of these Group C cars was balance, the front was always lacking downforce. Then the teams started thinking about front diffusers and wings, this reduced the problem, mostly the front diffuser on the Eagle Mk. III was pretty succesful. the wing was an more sensitive an less efficient solution. The 'Wing' was imo more driven around the idea to allow to set the car up better and ultimate downforce, overall it is an less efficient solution.
For example the XJR-14 had this front wing, but with the Bi-plane wing the problem the front wing reduced was back again really quickly. The XJR-14 still had an huge understeer problem. Lter solutions of the wing had not, but were incredibly draggy, for example the 905 Evo2 and Allaard J2X-c. The latter even had the problem of when the lower tier of the rear wing its angle was increased the front downforce increased too, on paper this sounds good, on track it is not as it makes setting the car up more difficult.
To come back on the mix of an F1 car and Group C car, the Peugeot 905 Evo2 and allard J2X-c were an real mix of F1 and Group C, with the front wing ad raised nose. The wheelcovers where only there as required by regulations(although they are useful)
Oh yes great and relevant innovations but just look at the back of that chaparral 2J, general lack of an air box on the mclaren, exposed tubing, lack of endplates on the second car and too high wings. Not exactly advanced aero compared to modern stuff.
(from mulsanne's corner)
