View Full Version : watched neat show on can-am cars
hmmm what did i see... 7litre 12cyl with huge silly wings...and silly huge tires
pokes pat....
what would we see today... IMO
12.2l v8's (720ci) twin turbo 6 wheel drive , variable aerodynamic cars..with about 3000-4000hp
capable of beating any current cars that are fielded today
yeah, those things were too fast to be safe. Can you imagine crashing in a car at the speeds those things were capable of (or what current technology is capable of)?
Same thing happened in WRC...the cars got too fast to be safe (for both driver and spectators) so they had to start putting some limitations/restrictions on horsepower. Back in the day there were some 500-600 hp rally cars, now they're restricted to something like 300 hp (though they're making tons of torque).
Still, it must have been awesome watching those Can-Am cars go around Mosport!
Shaman
12-23-2003, 12:46 PM
Awesome isn't the word. Unbelievable - literally.
Logan
12-23-2003, 12:52 PM
WRC cars are faster today than in the Group A era where power was unlimited.
Reason being the advances in suspension design, the cars stick so much more than they used to.
Yes, they make "only" 300hp, but also have around 500lb-ft of torque.
4WD monsters indeed. I'll take two.
my point to pat (gr8ride) was that they would NOT be anything like F1 cars of today if there were unlimited rules...
the F1 cars of today would be destroyed by an "unlimited" series car...
and further
the engines would NOT be small displacement high revving engines...
miataboi
12-23-2003, 03:21 PM
(being relatively young) I had a chance to see the can-am cars run at Montreal 2 years ago... they were pavement-pounding around the track so deeply / loudly... that I think I soiled myself...
IT WAS GREAT!
:D :p
haniforama
12-23-2003, 03:33 PM
Miataboi - i've got a good picture of you in your youth :D
Remember Finite Math at Pickering High? I still have the pic...
Hanif
miataboi
12-23-2003, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by haniforama
Miataboi - i've got a good picture of you in your youth :D
Remember Finite Math at Pickering High? I still have the pic...
Hanif
While I remember the class, you and the teacher... (not the curriculum, however) I DO NOT remember posing for any picture with you???
Is this blackmail?
Am I clothed?
Didn't you take a "mini-bus" to school????
I think you DID!!!
:D :p ;)
soloZ
12-23-2003, 05:13 PM
My dad said he took me to Mosport when the were still running the cars, so I never really saw them but I can bet thats one reason my hearing is really bad. Also the old GTP cars like the 962 etc I have a great picture of me standing infront of the Skoal Bandit front end on Mosports old pit lane. Ah I wish I could have been born earlier to be able to really appreciate the old ways of racing.
GR8 Ride
12-24-2003, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by ADAM
the F1 cars of today would be destroyed by an "unlimited" series car...
What kind of a BS statement is that Adam? Of course, if you apply rules to one car (the F1 car) and no rules to the other car, then yes, the unrestricted car will be faster. Not much to debate there.
However, in your endless pursuit of 80 PSI of boost, you're forgetting the one, basic fact of every racing car; MASS IS THE ENEMY. Take a look at Atkinson in the shifter kart....funny how that thing sets FTD, yet has a fraction of the power your car does.
Same thing goes for an F1 car. I'm not saying they wouldn't be blown (quite likely, really), but I highly doubt you'd be running a 6 wheel drive, 720 ci chassis.
You *might* see 4 wheel drive, but even then, I'd doubt it. And I highly doubt you'd see massive displacement V-8s in place. More likely you'd see a moderate displacement V-12 / V-16 (probably not any bigger than 4 or 5 litres). Relatively short stroke as well.
Variable aerodynamics I could see....no dispute there.
You'd probably also see some method of variable braking bias (ala McLaren in '99); multiple pedals, to effectively brake both the left and right side of the car independently.
Minimal mass would still be the key to building a fast car. 3000-4000 HP is effectively useless without the ability to put the power down in various places, or needing to brake a hundred yards before any of your competitors do.
But that's ok....I'll keep watching you trying to squeeze 30, 40, 50 PSI out of your motor.... Any bets on how many laps it's going to last for this year? :D
Pat
" Minimal mass would still be the key to building a fast car. 3000-4000 HP is effectively useless without the ability to put the power down in various places, or needing to brake a hundred yards before any of your competitors do."
you are correct..thats why it will have 6 wheel drive...and with 3000-4000hp it will have to run very silly wings to push hard enough on the tires to keep traction .
light is good...but the extra weight of a multidrive system and larger v8 outweigh the losses of that increased mass IMO
remember....we will have access to almost unlimited downforce :)
why...cause we now will have the power to punch through the air with impunity due to the huge power increases...
they would also go with a lower RPM engine IMO..
GR8 Ride
12-24-2003, 09:05 PM
Well, we can probably surmise that you're not an engineer Adam.... :D
Downforce is a finicky thing....it's not something that is purely linear in direct relation to velocity. A particular wing configuration can create XXX lbs of downforce at one speed, and significantly LESS at higher speeds. Building a race car is ANYTHING but simply throwing the biggest numbers around one car, and expect that it will all balance out in a fast, competent chassis.
Based on your logic, your ideal car would have 3000 lbs of downforce, combined with 3-4000 HP and 6 drive wheels, and probably weigh in about 5,000 lbs overall (plus downforce at speed).
Hate to break it to you, but your *dream* car has already been built, and runs at Mosport (usually on the ALMS weekends). It's called a Super Truck (they run in Europe), and basically meets your requirements for a *dream* car.
Unfortunately, it's also only capable of running mid 1:50s around Mosport. Funny, those 3,000+ lb-ft of torque and multiple drive wheels don't help it go that fast.... Could that be because it WEIGHS 5,000 LBS!!!??
I'll take a lightweight, aerodynamically efficient and sufficiently powered vehicle any day over a monstrously over-powered, heavy pig of a car on the race track. And you know what, I'll win the race with it too.
There are plenty of F-2000 cars that will handily kick your (and mine) car's ass all over Mosport. All with less than 150 HP at the flywheel....
So, when is it you expect to be doing 1:24s around Mosport in your car? :D
Pat
haniforama
12-24-2003, 10:10 PM
Doesn't a full tank of fuel slow an F1 car on average by 2-3 seconds a lap?
Weight is the enemy.
I've heard things like the flex in the suspension arms, and the spring rate of the tires are taken into account when desiging F1 cars. They are true marvels of technology.
Allow them 4-5L, or turbo 3L and let them run full slicks, then let them re-engineer the chassis' for it (brakes, suspension, aerodynamics), then watch them fly :)
Oh yeah and remove the 600kg MINIMUM weight - let them make 'em as light as they want...
Hanif
Greg F
12-25-2003, 03:09 AM
Originally posted by haniforama
Doesn't a full tank of fuel slow an F1 car on average by 2-3 seconds a lap?
Weight is the enemy.
...
Oh yeah and remove the 600kg MINIMUM weight - let them make 'em as light as they want...
Hanif
Hmmm, I think they'd start looking at the most obvious unnecessary mass in the car: the driver. But getting rid of the driver altogether would be an evolutionary process.
Is it really necessary for the driver to have legs? All the controls could be placed on the steering wheel, just like Playstation. And they don't even need to change gears, since they're already preprogrammed. Estimated mass saving: 50 lb to 60 lb. How much does Alex Zanardi weigh now?:rolleyes:
I'm sure most F1 drivers don't use all their fingers either, so eliminating two or three could easily be worth a few hundredths of a second per lap.
Of course a similar argument could be made for other parts, such as ears and so on.
But, having said all that, I fear the real future of F1 is in android drivers.
Assuming FIA in their supreme wisdom deem it absolutely necessary that each car be piloted by some humanoid life form, what's there to stop a manufacturer such as Honda :o from developing an android to occupy a driver's seat? Sound unbelievable?
Honda have already debuted their robot, ASIMO, and Kimi Raikkonen started his F1 career having competed in hardly any car races at all. It's as if Kimi just appeared out of nowhere. Notice how Kimi's facial expressions seem almost non-existant--quite in-keeping with the weight-saving theme of an F1 android driver.
So perhaps the future is already here.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
exST165
12-26-2003, 12:56 AM
Originally posted by Greg F
Honda have already debuted their robot, ASIMO, and Kimi Raikkonen started his F1 career having competed in hardly any car races at all. It's as if Kimi just appeared out of nowhere. Notice how Kimi's facial expressions seem almost non-existant--quite in-keeping with the weight-saving theme of an F1 android driver.
So perhaps the future is already here.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
<joke>
Hey! Don't be disrespecting Kimmi! Just because he has to have a note from his mother to stay out late doesn't mean that he can't kick your butt on or off the track! Lest you forget Finland still has manditory military service.
</joke>
As for F-1 being blown off the track by an 'unlimited' race car ... well duh. What do you think all those rules around F-1 cars are there for but to slow them down? Put full body work around a modern F-1 car and the aerodynamic improvements right there would be significant.
There are bags of other technologies that are commonly available on street cars that are banned in F-1, for example: variable aerodynamics, active suspensions and until last year traction control and ABS braking to name just a few off the top of my head. Exotic materials (certain alloys) and 'rocket fuel' have also been banned for 'safety' or 'health' reasons but the cars are all slower without them.
You want downforce? Why mess with aerodynamic aids like splitters and wings when you could use a fan to suck the car onto the ground? I read (in GRM?) about an SCCA Solo II A-Mod car that was banned before it could be finished that was able to compress it's suspension 2" while in the garage with the sucker-fan on full.
As for the development in a modern F-1 car, I have heard many times that the tire (or is that tyre?) deformes more than the suspension compresses going over a bump. Talk about making you suspension engineers live's difficult trying to model that sort of behaviour before designing a new chassis!
And I'm really sad that I am too young to remeber the CAN-AM era of motorsports, they must have put a beating on the pavement! I've been to a couple of Grand Prix events in Montreal and I nearly wet myself when the first Minardi went by ...
Thomas
You want downforce? Why mess with aerodynamic aids like splitters and wings when you could use a fan to suck the car onto the ground? I read (in GRM?) about an SCCA Solo II A-Mod car that was banned before it could be finished that was able to compress it's suspension 2" while in the garage with the sucker-fan on full.
I believe it was in 1978 that the Brabham - Alfa Romeo F1 team had such a fan installed in the back of their engine that created downforce. Niki Lauda actually won a race with it.
Off course there were complaints from the other teams, not just because Brabham won races, but also because this vacuum cleaner picked up a lot of dirt and propelled it out onto the cars in behind. Nice tactic to keep your competitor way back.
So it was banned the following year.
Klaus
ShaneG
12-26-2003, 10:31 AM
Fi had a version of the Suction Car...1978 Brabham / Alfa Romeo
it had a fan to "suck" the car to the road..I could not find a pic of the actual car ...but this is a pic of the modelhttp://www.alpimodel.com/minichamps/430780002.jpg
I don't remember if it was outlawed or if it was just not reliable.
This thread brought back some memories of the Can-Am cars I watched race at Edmonton International Speedway before it got bulldozed for houses. I've watched all kinds of race cars on all kinds of different tracks, but my benchmark comparator for fast and exciting race cars is still the Can-Am cars. Awesome to watch, and an amazing, wonderful sound. Probably why V8 race cars still sound the best to my tin ears.
Speaking of aero, the leader in aero during the Can-Am era was Jim Hall's Chaparral's. Check out this page:
http://www.motorsportcollector.com/ChaparralPhotos.html
The 2J ran only one season before it was banned. It had a 427 Chevy for motive power, and a 2 stroke engine to drive the "sucker" fans that pulled the air from beneath the car. The rules makers banned the car because the moveable lexan skirts at the bottom of the car were deemed to be "moveable aerodynamice devices". The 2E looks like the car I remember seeing run in Edmonton. What I don't remember is whether the one I saw had the moveable wing or not. Fast as heck anyway.
Gary
exST165
12-26-2003, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by msix
I believe it was in 1978 that the Brabham - Alfa Romeo F1 team had such a fan installed in the back of their engine that created downforce. Niki Lauda actually won a race with it.
Off course there were complaints from the other teams, not just because Brabham won races, but also because this vacuum cleaner picked up a lot of dirt and propelled it out onto the cars in behind. Nice tactic to keep your competitor way back.
So it was banned the following year.
Klaus
The story I heard was that the F-1 car was banned for 'safety' reasons because it kicked up so much dirt/debris. But I do recall hearing about an SCCA Solo II A-mod car that was built in the 90s by some very clever person who realized that their rules did not disallow such sucker-cars, until the SCCA heard that he was building one that is. :(
Thomas
Dave Barker
12-26-2003, 10:47 PM
As a teenager I got to go to a few Can-am races at Mosport. The racing was never great but the cars themselves were spectacular. Had to admit to liking the Mclarens more than Donohue's 917-10 and 917-30. You could feel the huge aluminum V8s in your chest better than the Porsche Turbo but as Adam will remind you. the turbo cars won out in the long run.
nope no engineer :)
hence why i said "variable aerodynamics" who is to say that the wing aerofoil profile would also not be adjustable according to the speed, so the wing would actually have variable stall speeds..that way you could have massive downforce at lower speeds...and at insanely high speeds as well..of course the car would also use air drag for braking as well....
i would imagine that the car i am thinking of would only weigh in maybe 200-300lbs more than a current f1 car....
lets just think about this....it would have as much tire as it needs to grip the road...and as much downforce as required to stick to the road...so whats the issue with cornering? and with over 3000hp more than the current f1 cars would be able to outpower it in every aspect
i am not talking about a 5000lb truck....with water jets to cool the massive brakes :)
ok how does this sound....
take a current f1 car...rip out the crappy little motor...put in a 8l v8 with twin turbo, with about 3000hp, and let the race team have unlimited aerodynamics..and suspension including tires...would it be faster or slower than the current F1 cars even though it would weigh more since the v8 would be slightly heavier?
i would wager it would be faster...and would be nowhere near a 5000lb truck as you envision....
Originally posted by GR8 Ride
Well, we can probably surmise that you're not an engineer Adam.... :D
Downforce is a finicky thing....it's not something that is purely linear in direct relation to velocity. A particular wing configuration can create XXX lbs of downforce at one speed, and significantly LESS at higher speeds. Building a race car is ANYTHING but simply throwing the biggest numbers around one car, and expect that it will all balance out in a fast, competent chassis.
Based on your logic, your ideal car would have 3000 lbs of downforce, combined with 3-4000 HP and 6 drive wheels, and probably weigh in about 5,000 lbs overall (plus downforce at speed).
Hate to break it to you, but your *dream* car has already been built, and runs at Mosport (usually on the ALMS weekends). It's called a Super Truck (they run in Europe), and basically meets your requirements for a *dream* car.
Unfortunately, it's also only capable of running mid 1:50s around Mosport. Funny, those 3,000+ lb-ft of torque and multiple drive wheels don't help it go that fast.... Could that be because it WEIGHS 5,000 LBS!!!??
I'll take a lightweight, aerodynamically efficient and sufficiently powered vehicle any day over a monstrously over-powered, heavy pig of a car on the race track. And you know what, I'll win the race with it too.
There are plenty of F-2000 cars that will handily kick your (and mine) car's ass all over Mosport. All with less than 150 HP at the flywheel....
So, when is it you expect to be doing 1:24s around Mosport in your car? :D
Pat
miataboi
12-29-2003, 10:27 AM
I built one of those.... and it was JUST a BIT slower... :(
Sorry Adam.
Triumphracer
12-31-2003, 10:03 AM
CanAm wasn't always the closest, but was always the most exciting racing I've ever watched!
I used to go to Mosport and to Watkins Glen back in the 70's, right at the end of the series when the Porsche turbos were taking over. A guy I have now known for over 45 years worked with Don Nichol's Shadow team, and when the series was over got a job with the Surtees F1 team in 1975.
You can still enjoy these cars at the Glen, about 5 years ago one was for sale there for $60,000 US, it was a Mckee, a lesser-known car, turbocharged Olds 455 and 4wd. I imagine a pretty high maintenance proposition!
Simon.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.