ALMS: Pruett's Thursday Mosport Blog: Rumors & Rumblings

[Kitdy]

I caught a local TV station interviewing Jon Fogarty on their AM news show in advance of the IRL/Grand Am race this weekend, and just about fell out of my chair as she described his DP Riley as 'The Ultimate Sportscar.'

To say that the local media at most races have no clue and are totally reliant on the help and PR info from a series (and then run whatever they tell like ala the 'Ultimate Sportscar' comment) is just reality.

I'm not familiar with Grand Am but I know enough about it to know that describing it as the "The Ultimate Sportscar" is pretty hilarious.

What in your view these days is the ultimate sportscar if you had to choose one? I'd imagine the two front runners are the R10 and 908.

I'm personally divided - the R10 has proven itself at the big dance, but the 908 is faster and more of a technological tour de force but less reliable.

[MPME]

the 908 is unlike anything else on the planet right now. what it does while cornering is unlike anything i've seen in a long time.

the chevy intrepids and toyota eagle mk3's are the closest sportscars I can recall seeing that cornered so fast they looked like you had them on X1.5 with your remote control.

[RacingManiac]

thats how I feel about F1 cars.....watching them on track was unreal....

Most prototypes I've seen at Mosport is pretty awesome too...I don't know if the IMSA GTP cars ever ran on that track, I think that will be a sight to behold....

[Kitdy]

I'm pretty sure that IMSA GTP ran at Mosport.

And MPME, the 908 is probably unlike anything in sportscar racing - let's not forget those boys in F1.

Outta curiosity, does anyone know the average viewing figures for ALMS races?

[MPME]

I'm pretty sure that IMSA GTP ran at Mosport.

And MPME, the 908 is probably unlike anything in sportscar racing - let's not forget those boys in F1.

Outta curiosity, does anyone know the average viewing figures for ALMS races?

Modern F1 cars don't impress me one bit. For what $250M-$350M a year gets the big teams I'm simply not impressed. For the comparative budgets, resources, weights, and dimensions, I'm far more impressed with what a Peugeot has done than what Ferrari or McLaren produce with their budget and resources.

[RacingManiac]

I'm pretty sure that IMSA GTP ran at Mosport.

And MPME, the 908 is probably unlike anything in sportscar racing - let's not forget those boys in F1.

Outta curiosity, does anyone know the average viewing figures for ALMS races?

I am not so sure, as the lap record before the current LMPs were held by a 956, which predates the later, really monstrous, IMSA GTP cars...

[Dino Scuderia]

I've seen a lot of different types of motor racing in person...F1 and Super Bikes are the most impressive to me.

[Kitdy]

Modern F1 cars don't impress me one bit. For what $250M-$350M a year gets the big teams I'm simply not impressed. For the comparative budgets, resources, weights, and dimensions, I'm far more impressed with what a Peugeot has done than what Ferrari or McLaren produce with their budget and resources.

What about what Force India and Super Aguri do for 50 mill a year or less?

If we're talking just about speed here, I think that almost definitely the returns on speed become exponentially more difficult as you get higher and higher - you start to see diminishing returns. I mean you spend 50 million a year in F1 to make a car 4 seconds off the pace, but it takes almost an order of magnitude more to make the car a title contender. Also consider the size of the engines etc etc but you probably considered this already.

I'm no technical expert, but it seems to me that a lot of people view the 908 as being such a tour de force directly because it's inclusion of F1 technology - the nose, the aero in general and the usage of a J-damper - correct me if I am wrong. In this aspect I see the 908 not as a leader, but a follower of technology that has been employed in F1 for several years. What impresses me most about the car as a casual fan is the engine.

All in all however it's apples and oranges and I'd think direct comparison of resource and budget and results would be difficult simply due to the vast differences in the series.

[Kitdy]

I am not so sure, as the lap record before the current LMPs were held by a 956, which predates the later, really monstrous, IMSA GTP cars...

Looked into it - for a period of time starting in the late 80s at latest to the mid 90s protos didn't run at Mosport.

In 1995 Riley and Scott's ran as well as 333SPs - were these cars slower than the Eagles and the like then?

1995 also had a race in Halifax which I find kinda interesting.

[RacingManiac]

Most definitely slower....The 333SP and R&S MKIIIs were what I'd consider the starting point of the modern LMP cars. Then the the designs changed a bit from 1998/1999 onward with more input from F1-style design features moved to LMP cars. 2000+'s rule were then written pretty much with those stuff inmind to better control the development. I think Panoz, as with all things of current ALMS, revived Mosport by fixing it up to the state that you can race modern cars on it(without butchering the track). Then steadily every year made it a little bit better and slightly more modern(paved infield, washrooms, catch fences)....

I also agree with Kitdy, a lot of the people who made cars like 908/R10 possible were migrated from F1. Money were spent and they just carried the knowhow with them. And using something is significantly cheaper than developing something, and F1 is all about chasing the diminishing returns. Which is silly, but thats just how the state of the sport is right now. Things like the Diesel race motor and clean fuel will be the strength of a LMP program, where they are pursuing relavence to road cars, but a lot of the stuff that makes a modern LMP1 like R10 and 908 ticks are direct results of "someone's" experience in F1....the design features now are so similar that really the powerplant and the bodywork are the only relavent differences....

[MPME]

Most definitely slower....The 333SP and R&S MKIIIs were what I'd consider the starting point of the modern LMP cars. Then the the designs changed a bit from 1998/1999 onward with more input from F1-style design features moved to LMP cars. 2000+'s rule were then written pretty much with those stuff inmind to better control the development. I think Panoz, as with all things of current ALMS, revived Mosport by fixing it up to the state that you can race modern cars on it(without butchering the track). Then steadily every year made it a little bit better and slightly more modern(paved infield, washrooms, catch fences)....

I also agree with Kitdy, a lot of the people who made cars like 908/R10 possible were migrated from F1. Money were spent and they just carried the knowhow with them. And using something is significantly cheaper than developing something, and F1 is all about chasing the diminishing returns. Which is silly, but thats just how the state of the sport is right now. Things like the Diesel race motor and clean fuel will be the strength of a LMP program, where they are pursuing relavence to road cars, but a lot of the stuff that makes a modern LMP1 like R10 and 908 ticks are direct results of "someone's" experience in F1....the design features now are so similar that really the powerplant and the bodywork are the only relavent differences....

Barring the J-Damper (which was invented and patented by Cambridge University, THEN found and implemented by F1 teams, BTW), what other elements of the R10 and 908 are copied from F1?

Even better, tell me what main personnel at Audi or Peugeot are direct from F1?

[RacingManiac]

Wheel packaging(brake disc cover, upright mounted brake duct), the use of torsion spring to better control suspension hystersis, paddle shifting, composite roll-over structure, bodywork integrated structural assemblies...

I don't know the people who worked on those teams, but I am sure there exists people who are migrater from F1. Looking at Peugeot, their half of the their driving line-up come from F1, and there are a hell of a lot less drivers than engineers and designers in F1.....

[Kitdy]

Barring the J-Damper (which was invented and patented by Cambridge University, THEN found and implemented by F1 teams, BTW), what other elements of the R10 and 908 are copied from F1?

Isn't the Pug's nose F1 inspired?

Anyways, I don't know how much these cars share with one another but in general I tend to regard F1 cars as being more technologically advanced.

[MPME]

Wheel packaging(brake disc cover, upright mounted brake duct), the use of torsion spring to better control suspension hystersis, paddle shifting, composite roll-over structure, bodywork integrated structural assemblies...

I don't know the people who worked on those teams, but I am sure there exists people who are migrater from F1. Looking at Peugeot, their half of the their driving line-up come from F1, and there are a hell of a lot less drivers than engineers and designers in F1.....

How far back does your F1 knowledge go? I don't mean to be mean, but most everything you've mentioned have been around for decades, and many came out of sportscars first.

Torsion bars have been used in road cars dating back to the '50's. The father of paddle shifting was the Porsche PDK transmission that ran in Group C well before Barnard brought it to F1 in '89. Wheel covers, fairlings, and mounted brake ducts were on Le Mans cars in the '60's, etc.

We can go line-by-line if you like and you'll find that little of what you see on a modern sportscar was first developed in F1. The advancement of electronics is the greatest area of F1 pioneering that we see applied in sportscars, but you can thank the work of many different Can-Am teams for a lot of the tech concepts F1 employs today.

I'm not saying F1 isn't an incredible technical exercize--it's been a favorite of mine since the late '70's, but I'm not impressed with the state of the series today.

[RacingManiac]

IMO stuff are used and then stuff used for a reason are not one and the same. Yes torsion bar are used on cars(and horse drawn carriages), but they are used today for better control of characteristic, not because its cheaper or easier. Covering the actual brake disc, not wheels, is something I think is relatively recent. And that's not before the advent of ridiculous of amount of CFD and windtunnel work done in F1 that made them realise there are gains to be made there.

Fundementally nothing rarely is new in racing, there all stem from other industry and got applied here. The thing I don't agree with is that F1 teams do not just spend their money for nothing. It may be irrelavent to us, but to them because of the level of competition they have to make all the gains they can. As a result the usage of those technology that I think brought by what I termed as "F1", is because they spend their millions of dollars to understand down to the system level that gains can be made in those area. As with everything KISS principle is the first and foremost in designing anything, but because the competition demends that they find something to beat the other guys, they start look for the ridiculous. Sportscar racing rarely becomes that competitive that people really start to look for diminishing return, most era ended up being dominated by a particular solution, and then the rule changes Because of the nature of the tight competition that F1 teams tend to tryout new stuff to gain that advantage. There were always exceptions obviously, stuff that Charparrel(I really don't know how to spell that) does was really to understand something. Backed by GM(who has lots of money at that time), they tried all sorts of different stuff, as such they were driven by different purpose as most racers(that program does bring about the beginning of trying to make vehicle dynamic into a real science, backed by people like Bill Miliken who literally wrote the book on the subject). Stuff like J-Dampers(or as the Cambridge guy calls it, the "inerter"), its unlikely that someone would've given it a second glance if it weren't for McLaren to pay the guy to let them use the technology on their F1 car, because I doubt there were many people who can see the benefit to be gained of having something to control the undamped tire spring being excited by road undulation. But as the nature of the competition that drives them now everyone is looking at it. And its a lot easier for someone else to look at that and say, "ah, how come I never thought of that" and try to incorporate that...

I like sportscar more because the stuff that gives them the "Eureka" moment now is a lot more relavent to making cars, where as F1 does that to find the next tenth of a second. But when the competition demends it, as in the case of the diesel battle now, they look across to find what the other side are using that might give them the edge....