Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 1K3 on October 03, 2006, 01:56:25 AM
-
What cars were banned from racing in events (such as LeMans) just because that particular car pwned?
-
The Aussie touring car championship use to be open to foreign cars until the Nissan Skyline GTR came on the scene about 15 years ago and pissed all over the locally produced Holden and Ford V8s which had dominated the racing up until then. The problem was fixed when the Skyline was banned, but they couldn't just ban the Skyline, that wouldn't look right, and besides another wonder ricer would probably only turn up at some stage and make the locals look bad again... so they banned all foreign cars, which has left the championship a boring two nag race- Holden and Ford.
-
Ilmor engined Mercedes Benz in 1994, mainly because they exploited a loop hole in the engine rules. IIRC it entered only one race and dominated it; the Indy 500.
-
Also, the Mopar Superbirds in NASCAR in the early 70's.
-
Wasn't the Audi Quattro banned because of AWD?
-
KITT:noid
-
Metro 6R4
-
LeMans:
Mazda 787B Wankel rotary
Ferrari 330 P4
and I think the Porsche 917's?
F1:
Tyrell P34
Lotus Type 88
Tronsky
-
I think they banned the Williams 6-wheeler due to potential pwnage. Could be wrong though. IIRC Jackie Stewart raced the Tyrell 6-wheeler - don't know how he did with it or whether it was banned.
Didn't Brabham at one point have an ultra-low "roller skate" which the F1 fellows turned down?
-
Williams FW14C...
well saying that, the car wasnt banned, but everything in it was banned. TC, ABS, Active supension and even CVT gearbox (CVT never got to the track)
-
Originally posted by rpm
Wasn't the Audi Quattro banned because of AWD?
Yes it was banned. dunno if it was because of the AWD or because it was designed for rally and wasnt sold to the public for road use.
I think it was the first car eer designed purly for rally.
-
Audi raced the quattro in several leagues, but I don't remember the Quattro being banned. It was sold as a production car from it's release in 1980. Maybe it couldn't race in the U.S. since it wasn't released there until 1983 (I remember the C&D reveiw: "$20,000 just for AWD?"). The Quattro Sport might have been banned since I don't really remember it being released as a full production car. Either that or the groupe B racing league was just disbanded because the cars were too fast for ralley and it was too dangerous.
No matter what league they were in, the Audi Quattros drove rule changes (as a minimum).
-
all racing classes have rules, it is the job of builder/designers to try to cheat the rules. Some unique features that give a advantage may be baned because if everyone used them it would drive up the cost of racing.
-
you are correct Mini.
I was thinking of another rally car. Cant remember the name, only how it looked. Got banned pretty quickly cause it was so super. Had a really short wheelbase and a funny shape.
-edit- lancia stratos?
-
hemi was banned from nascar as was the sohc ford motor and the first 427 chevy big block.
racing is a history of banning or restricting cars that perform too well. There is no race I know of that does not place some restrictions on performance items.
lazs
-
Back in the '60s, Indy banned the turbine car, and
CanAm banned the Chapparals with active ground effects.
-
Originally posted by Bluefish
Back in the '60s, Indy banned the turbine car, and
CanAm banned the Chapparals with active ground effects.
the turbine was not baned back then , indy piston engines had a maximum displacement, there was no way to equate piston displacement with a turbine, so the race org. started to restrict the air intake of the turbine.
after 2-3 years the power was reduced to where there was no advantage so the builder went back to piston engines.
as for the chapparals, see my last post about cost.
-
Group B in rallying was terminated after 1986 season. The Audi Quattro among others was a group B car.
-
Two come to mind, at least in the US racing arena. The Trabant and the Yugo.
:p
-
didnt NASCAR ban or attempt to ban the new Ford Thunderbird back in the 80's when Bill Elliot starting racing them? something about its new shape out performed aerodynamically or something? NASCAR maybe made the race team change the body shape?
-
The Chapparals were banned because others could not duplicate Jim Hall's innovations and remain safe. The car with two fans and ground effects shrouds brought on cheap copies that had failures. The car that had an adjustable wing brought on copies that had catastrophic wing failures.
The Ford Thunderbird was allowed IN because Ford didn't have anything that WAS legal. Take a 1984 Monte Carlo SS (fit the rules), and park it between a 1984 Thunderbird and a 1984 Camaro, then see which two cars are the same approximate size and which one is a good bit larger. That was the end of NASCAR having bodies that lookied like real cars. After that we got what we have now, amorphous blobs that cannot be recognized outside of having the name brand on the front air dam.
The Chrysler Hemi ran NASCAR for years. The Ford SOHC was never allowed, the Chrysler (Chrysler built some prototype SOHC and DOHC Hemi based engines) answer was never fully developed, and the Ford Shotgun Hemi was allowed briefly. The Chevy 427 "mystery engine" wasn't banned, Chevy withdrew it because it wasn't ready, it was replaced with the Mark IV Rat motor.
One big reason the Mercedes Ilmore Indy engine was banned was because Roger Penske used Chevy money and development time and data to develop it, he basically stole from GM and gave it to Mercedes. That's why the great Roger had to leave Pontiac so suddenly and go to Ford. Smokey Yunick told the head of GM racing that the next time he (the head of GM racing) wanted to deal with Penske to let him know, and Smokey would send him a case of Vaseline.
-
First year she was racing, wasn't rumors floating around about unfair advantages?
(http://www.rsportscars.com/foto/05/ctsvrace04_04.jpg)
-
Ilmor engined Mercedes Benz in 1994, mainly because they exploited a loop hole in the engine rules. IIRC it entered only one race and dominated it; the Indy 500.
I was at that race :) It was dominant. So was my hangover, and later my sunburn, as I recall.
Charon
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
First year she was racing, wasn't rumors floating around about unfair advantages?
(http://www.rsportscars.com/foto/05/ctsvrace04_04.jpg)
All i know is that the CTS was track tested @ Nurburgring :noid
-
Frenchy,
The first release of the CTS-V race car at Sebring. Had its 6speed gearbox changed, to one out of a production car.
It used to have a dog-gear tranny. But Speed GT officals said it had to go after its first race at Sebring.
But, it hasn't stopped the Mighty CTS-V from winning!!
-
i can make a list a mile long from the stuff we've had banned in top fuel.
the majors were...
our 3 valve hemi heads .... they got us the AAFA record which held for 10yrs,
they got banned the next yr .. . but now there legal again and were using them on the fuel Harleys .
other major was the full belly pan w/ ground effects under our Funny car
They screamed we were to low amoung other stuff .
another was when we set the left front wheel ahead 6 inches over the right to trip the timing lites faster . were now only allowed 2 .
then there was the fuel altered with rear suspension ...
there been alot of other stuff to .. assorted torsional chassis, fuel systems, and such.
"if its not in the rules you can get away with it" or at least until they get mad cause your stuff is way faster .
-
A "vacuum car" was banned in 1978 after winning the Swedish GP. though the designers claimed the fan was primarily for cooling purposes.
http://www.forix.com/8w/fancar.html (http://www.forix.com/8w/fancar.html)
Terror
-
Regarding the Indy turbines, I've seen articles regarding the restriction on the air intake but also seen at least three websites that say they were outright banned:
http://www.ddavid.com/formula1/chap_bio.htm:
"Lotus did break new ground in 1968 with a turbine powered car. It showed such promise in that race that turbine cars were promptly banned by USAC."
http://www.motorsportshalloffame.com/halloffame/1992/Andy_Granatelli_main.htm
"Granatelli went to Indianapolis with the Turbine car with Parnelli Jones as his driver. Jones led 197 laps of the 200-lap race until a gear bearing failed. Afterward, USAC banned the car."
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/frame.php?file=car.php&carnum=2036
"At the end of the season the innovative cars were left obsolete when the sport's governing body (USAC) banned both turbine engines and four wheel drive."
-
Originally posted by Excel1
The Aussie touring car championship use to be open to foreign cars until the Nissan Skyline GTR came on the scene about 15 years ago and pissed all over the locally produced Holden and Ford V8s which had dominated the racing up until then. The problem was fixed when the Skyline was banned, but they couldn't just ban the Skyline, that wouldn't look right, and besides another wonder ricer would probably only turn up at some stage and make the locals look bad again... so they banned all foreign cars, which has left the championship a boring two nag race- Holden and Ford.
At Down from down under it earned its name "Godzilla". This car completed the Nurburgring (http://youtube.com/watch?v=KQ--ciht0C0) in under 8 mins. That's THE fastest for a mass production car.
Yes that car is so uber that it should be banned:D
-
http://www.automotivearticles.com/123/motorsports_legend_nissan_skyline_gtr.shtml
...The car was built for the purpose of racing in the JTC Group A in Japan. It never lost a race - winning 27 races in a row from its debut, causing the series to be dissolved. The same essentially happened in the Australian Group A. It was the heaviest car in the series, yet it dominated through brute force paired with technology. The car was flat out banned from some endurance races in Australia.
The GT-R's history is filled with dominance in motorsports at every step to the point of being the cause of dissolving entire series and being banned from racing. No manufacturer in the world at that time could touch the GT-R. The technology of the R32 GT-R only saw minor improvements through the R33 and R34 generations, yet it is still considered to be "high-tech" today - this is Nissan's mid-eighties technology.
The GT-R is a great paradox. The shape is boxy and not aerodynamic, yet its performance is at supercar level. The GT-R is extremely heavy, yet its engine is only 2.6 liters. The 6 tiny 433ml cylinders are somehow capable of producing in excess of 1000 horsepower. The GT-R's core technology was developed nearly 20 years ago, yet it is still one of the most high-tech cars today. But that incredible power that is produced by this tiny engine is then somehow kept under control - fully delivering the power to the ground with barely any tire-spin. It's bulletproof.
-
Regarding the Lotus turbines, the rules were changed by the USAC to such an extent that turbines were effectively banned which I think is were the confusion lies.
The USAC pushed through changes in legislation which reduced the air intake by 25% to 15.999 inches so the turbine only developed 480bhp compared to the piston engines 700bhp. Couple of years later they reduced it again to 11.999 inches so it produced little more horsepower than a Volkswagen beetle.
They also banned the side by side installation of driver and engine, air brakes and four wheel drive citing that it was ‘extremely expensive’.
I think they just hated them personally.
-
Ford GT 40 Mk. IV. Kicked so much butt at Le Mans that they lowered the displacement limit to 5 litres to ban it.
Porsche 917, twice. First they banned it at Le Mans with a 3 litre displacment limit. Then the SCCA banned the 917/30 with a fuel consumption rule.
Somebody already mentioned the Chaparral 2J. Crybabies had it banned before it even won a race. Scary thing is that it was nowhere near optimized. It was based on a test rig from GM R&D. If Jim Hall had been able to put that concept into one of his composite monocoque chassis, it would have been amazing.
Before that, they had banned his 2E/2G with its driver controlled wing/airbrake.
I realize there are safety and cost considerations but all the rulemaking of the last 30 years has really taken the technical interest out of racing. Other than sponsor logos the cars are almost identical now.
I'd love to see a true free formula again. Unlimited boost, toluene/heptane fuel, giant slick tires, ground effects tunnels, downforce fans, movable aerodynamic devices for downforce/braking/stability, AWD with full active diffs, full active suspension, full fly by wire system for steering/braking/shifting/engine, and probably a bunch of stuff that would be invented through competition.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
I'd love to see a true free formula again. Unlimited boost, toluene/heptane fuel, giant slick tires, ground effects tunnels, downforce fans, movable aerodynamic devices for downforce/braking/stability, AWD with full active diffs, full active suspension, full fly by wire system for steering/braking/shifting/engine, and probably a bunch of stuff that would be invented through competition.
and who is going to pay for all that?
i'd like to see real "stock" cars racing again.
-
SCCA has quite some events where pros race stock cars on roadtracks. Shows on Speed chanel. Some cool runoff club racing in the "showroom stock" cathegory.
-
Originally posted by john9001
and who is going to pay for all that?
i'd like to see real "stock" cars racing again.
"stock" as in NASCAR? eeew! I'd rather pay to see LeMans, DTM, JGTC, etc.
-
Originally posted by tikky
"stock" as in NASCAR? eeew! I'd rather pay to see LeMans, DTM, JGTC, etc.
by "pay" i meant who is going to pay to build the cars, not who would pay to watch them.
no, i meant "stock" as in the SCCA showroom stock and nascar when they ran real stock cars, like when the daytona race was run on the beach.
at least the open wheeled race cars don't pretend to be cars that you and i can buy and actually drive on the street.
-
Originally posted by john9001
and who is going to pay for all that?
I doubt it would cost any more than F1 costs now. $100M/year is now a minimum figure to run a team. The top teams spend up to 5 times that amount. Any cost savings from restricted technology have been wiped out by increased costs of constant rules changes. For example, they tried to cut costs by allowing only one engine per race weekend and one set of tires per race... which resulted in vast expenditures to engineer completely new engines and tires which met the life requirements while maintaining performance.