The Group C Club!

  • Thread starter superfast
  • 298 comments
  • 54,122 views
Got to also remember that most of us are nothing like pro drivers! The fastest mod my car could have would be a really good driver; I'm afraid I just can't seem to menatally go beyond 1.5G in the corners, I have never found the limit. Some of these cars can apparently do 3.5G + But maybe this is why my old car is not the fastest!
 
amsoil
Got to also remember that most of us are nothing like pro drivers! The fastest mod my car could have would be a really good driver; I'm afraid I just can't seem to menatally go beyond 1.5G in the corners, I have never found the limit. Some of these cars can apparently do 3.5G + But maybe this is why my old car is not the fastest!
Click to expand...

What do you drive?
 
Ok first of all, anyone who drives a group c car gets hats off from me.So good on ya amsoil.
Real clutces & 5 speed dog boxes.800bhp, 3 G in the corners .These cars do not have the modern electronic aids that the LMP's have.
Its , I've been told ,not for the faint hearted.If your in the European Gp c series , then c u at Silverstone in a few days.
This forum is based around the GTP game? If so maybe im wasting my time.If not and its a motorsport forum then maybe someones interested
So ,Gp C cars speeds as opposed to the current crop of endurence racers.
This debate raged on 'ten-tenths' UK motorsprt forum last year.(this years LMP's are a bit quicker)
And the answer after meeting some group C drivers at F O S(goodwood festival of speed) and trawling the motor sport archives online is... Spa.
That & maybe one curcuit in the states are the only tracks that havent changed in 25 years & are still used for endurence racing.
If one checks it out one'll find that (pre atmo, they are quicker by far)Gp C cars over a single lap are on par with the LMP's.(One can calculate the times at say LM & 'Stone by estimating track changes effect also.)The quickest practice times from that era are quicker.Turbo boosts etc.
But over a race the current crop are easier to drive & therefor quicker.By quite a long shot
If youre not convinced , check it put for yourself.
The reasons that the historic Gp c is slower is as stated , drivers & rev limits, unfamiliar curcuits.At Le Mans they had to be quite sparing with the fuel.They have 100 litre tanks which was just about enough for the amount of laps they had to complete.8 was it ?Race not long enough to pit.
(After seeing Mr Law go up the hill at Goodwood F O S only 2.5 seconds than Nick Heidfields 1999 F 1 car I'm not so sure how slow he is...)
cheers C 7


EDIT:

Nice little clip BTW .Check out youtube for some good stuff.
Cheers C 7
 
Spa has actually been rebuilt several times over the years, the last time last year IIRC.

These are just fun facts, and since they come from Wikipedia I can´t vouch for their genuinity, but none the less:
Le Mans 1989, pre-chicances
Pole Position - #62 Team Sauber Mercedes - 3:15.040
Fastest Lap - #4 Silk Cut Jaguar - 3:21.093
Distance - 5265.115km (389 laps)
Average Speed - 219.990km/h
Highest Trap Speed - Jaguar XJR-9 - 389 km/h (race), Sauber Mercedes C9 - 401 km/h (qualifying)

Le Mans 2008
Pole Position - #8 Team Peugeot Total - 3:18.513
Fastest Lap - #8 Team Peugeot Total - under 3:20.000
Distance - 381 laps, don´t know current tracklength
Average Speed - Unknown
The speedtraps are debated currently, so I wont post any speeds.

So basically the Peugeot lost 3 seconds through two chicanes, wich IMO is pretty amazing! Tyres have come a pretty long way in 20 years...
 
OK it aint SPA.
As i wrote it i realised that my poor old memory is not reliable.
there is however two cuircuts one in the states at least that are the same as they were.I spent ages trawling the Le Mans site & 'racing sports cars' which has the results of all international races since the 50's. It makes interesting reading.But ages too corralate it all.
I kept the results but have now got a new computer so ...
Anyway as you found out the performance differencial is slim.
This is how i interprate it.
We can surmise that the 2 chicanes add what 5 secs a lap?Lets be silly buggers & say 8.(one can work it out by comparing on the RSC site the lap times from the years either side of the chicane additions,But I aint got time now).So over 20 years & with new rubber tech the current crop are only at most 5 secs quicker on a single lap at Le Mans.
Thats how fast G P C was.On the shorter curcuits the differnece is obviuosy less., somtimes not at all.
But then again also the F1 (turbo era) cars were quicker then too...

hers a link to the RSC sute

Brands Hatch 1000km 1988:

http://www.racingsportscars.com/photo/Brands_Hatch-1988-07-24-photo.html

I think the next year was quicker(Jags/Mercs at 1.12) & makes interesting comparisons next to Mansels curcuit record.(1.09)Its got results photos & qualifying times from the 50's on.Amazing recource
Enjoy it
cheers C 7
 
The current Le Mans configeration is around 2-3 seconds slower than the Group C years (post chicane).

2008

Qualifying

3.18.513 (Diesel) (Peugeot)

3.25.158 (Petrol Prodution) (Charouz Lola Aston Martin)

3.26.928 (Petrol Race) (Dome Judd)

Race

3.19.394 (Diesel) (Peugeot)

3.28.131 (Petrol Prduction) (Charouz Lola Aston Martin)

3.29.504 (Petrol Race) (Dome Judd)


2007

Qualifying

3.26.344 (Diesel) (Peugeot)

3.28.574 (Petrol Race) (Test Day) (Pescarolo Judd)

Race

3.27.176 (Diesel) (Audi)

3.32.945 (Petrol Race) (Charouz Lola Judd)


2006

Qualifying 3.30.466 (Audi)

Race

3.31.211 (Audi)

2005

Qualifying

3.34.715 (Pescarolo Judd)

Race

3:34.968 (Pescarolo Judd)


2004

Qualifying 3.32.838 (Audi)

Race 3.34.264 (Audi)


2003

Qualifying 3.32.843 (Bentley)

Race 3.35.529 (Bentley)


2002

Qualifying 3.29.905 (Audi)

Race

3.33.483 (Audi)


2001

Qualifying

3.32.429 (Audi)


2000

Qualifying

3.36.124 (Audi)

Race

3.37.359 (Audi)


1999

Qualifying

3.29.930 (Toyota)

Race

3.35.032 (Toyota)


1998

Qualifying

3.35.544 (Mercedes)

Race

3.41.809 (Toyota)


1997

Qualifying

3.41.581 (Joest Porsche)

Race

3.45.068 (Joest Porsche)


1996

Qualifying

3.46.682 (Joest Porsche)

Race

3.46.958 (Ferrari)


1995

Qualifying

3.46.050 (WR)

Race

3.51.410 (WR)


1994

Qualifying

3.51.05 (Courage Porsche)

Race

3.52.54 (Dauer Porsche)


1993 (Group C 3.5l)

Qualifying

3.24.940 (Peugeot)

Race

3.27.47 (Toyota)


1992 (Group C3.5l)

Qualifying

3.21.209 (Peugeot)

3.26.411 (Toyota)

Race

3.32.295 (Toyota)


1991 (Group C Turbo)

Qualifying

3.31.270 (Mercedes)

Race

3.35.564 (Mercedes)


1990 (Group C Turbo)

Qualifying

3.27.020 (Nissan)

Race

3.40.030 (Nissan)
 
My interpretation is that only a handful of Group C cars could live with current cars during qualifying, none could live with them during the race.

Like the old, very powerful, Group B rally cars, Group C's are quick over a single lap, but so much effort is needed to extract that pace, in addition to reliability issues, they wouldn't be competitive over anything more than a one hour sprint. Even then we are only talking about the top half dozen quickest Group C cars.
 
I agree with you JAGUAR1977. There is also another factor to account for, and that is how Le Mans is raced today - and has been for at least 6 years - wich is more in the veins of a sprintrace. 20 years ago it was all up to the drivers ability to save the material, whereas today, the drives hammer it down to the last minute. Look at the P1 and the GT1 fights this year and you´ll know what I mean.
The sheer durability of todays machines would most likely give them the win.
 
Absolutely true.The current cars are much much tougher.But we all seem to agree.That the fastest GP C cars are just about on par with our current endurence racers, in pure speed terms.
.
In case theres still any doubt.
The answer is as i said SPA .Had this conversation with GP C drivers and they put me onto it.
Its the curcuit altered the least since GP C times.I've done the old RSC archives and.(cant copy n paste ,dunno why..)
Pole 1987; Sauber 2.04. Curcuit length 6.9 kms
We can surmise that if GP C had raced there is 1990, the last pre atmo era year, they'ed have been doing high 1.50's.Lets say 1.57.At the average 2.5 secs a year improvement in lap times.
Pole 2008: Puegeot 1.58. Curcuit length 7.4 kms.
The half KM difference is worth about 9 secs time(0.5 km is a 14th of 7km-a 14th of 2 mins/120 secs is 8/9secs.And yes I know none of this is exact but heh...Its realistic estimation)
So the hypothetical 1.57 in 1989/90 plus the 8 secs and you get 2.05.
Thats puts a 1990 Gp c car qualifying in the top 10 in 2008 & 7th in 2007 .
Or on pole in the last dry race, in 2004 when the pole was exactly 8 secs slower than today.
Eeeh oop.

And thats why im off to Silverstone on Sunday. I missed them when they were current, so its a priveledge to be able to watch & hear them today even if they are not quite as
quick as they were

If anyone lives in the UK, I urge you to go .Its a good historic event, lots to look at in the infield too as the classic car clubs of the UK gather there.
If you like GP C , Gp 4 -Lola T70's 512's maybe a 917,- Cobras n Lt/Wt ETypes and DB3 S n D types(that are quicker now...) plus some older F1 machines,then you'll have a good time.
cheers C 7

Edit: just to prove meself wrong;
I was chatting to (i think ) Don Law, boss of the outfit that runs the front running Jag XJR and he reckons that the times they were posting at Le mans(quicker in the race) were reflective of performence & therefor they would have qualified half way down the 2008 grid.At 3.45 they would have in Lmp 2 territory, just ahead of the GT 1 class.
My self I think he's wrong !As even with a team of his stature & a driver as good as (his son) Justin the hisorics must be a good 10/15 secs minimum slower at LM, than the originals.
At 3.30 that puts them just outside the top ten , which is about right as far as I can make out.
EG:
Silverstone LMP 1 2007. Best lap 1.31.
Silverstone GP C 2008. best lap 1.38.
Slightly different curcuits, about 1/1.5 secs slower for the LMP cars .
GP C ;9 secs a lap slower at the 'Stone in historics , is about 5 slower than the originals.
So 4 secs a lap at the 'Stone is about 12/ 15 secs at LM.
Take your pick.
Eeh oop
 
Last edited:
its a discussion about how much faster LMP cars are than Gp C cars .
My post is about how to work that out.Hard to follow but go slowly & it does , i think , make sense...
 
Last edited:
Those Jaguar V12's never qualified all that well, the best times I recall in qualifying were around 3.36 in 1990.

The turbo cars turned up the boost, that's why you often saw relatively elderly 962's running close to 3.30 in qualifying, while other 962 teams, who just put in a banker qualifying lap rather than risking it all, were closer to the V12 Jaguar's pace.

These days the cars have very high cornering speeds, the Group C cars were more agricultural, they used brute power and/or low drag for high top speeds, but were lacking around the twisty bits. The Peugeot 908 is one of the first modern era cars to have Group C like power, i.e. well over 700bhp, so add that to the increased grip, and it's easy to understand why they went 10+ second quicker than the best Turbo Group C cars.
 
Last edited:
yep , still only 10 + secs in 20 years .
Aint too bad.
Can we imagine if we went back 20 years from 1988 to the Ferrari P4 & GT 40 era , to find they were only 10 secs slower at LM that the Gp C cars?
Or even 20 years previous to that , to the (pre) C Type Jag era to find they were only 10 secs slower than a GT 40 ?
It would be madness !!
One love.
C 7
 
cut 7
yep , still only 10 + secs in 20 years .
Aint too bad.
Can we imagine if we went back 20 years from 1988 to the Ferrari P4 & GT 40 era , to find they were only 10 secs slower at LM that the Gp C cars?
Or even 20 years previous to that , to the (pre) C Type Jag era to find they were only 10 secs slower than a GT 40 ?
It would be madness !!
One love.
C 7
Click to expand...

That's only due to safety concerns, by the mid 80's cars were close to the accepted safety limits in terms of speed, Group C, Group B rally, Turbo F1 etc. Now the goal is similar performance levels from ever smaller engines , wings, tyres, reliability, consistency, ease to drive etc.

Build a current P1 car with 80's Group C technology, and you'd struggle to break 3.50, i.e. GT1 pace. Likewise a current car built to Group C regs would be running under 3m.
 
thats a good & interesting point.The LM organisers have said thet this years cars were - again- too fast.
So we can hope for a future of tiny engined , fuel efficiant LM cars going about the same speed as they are now ...
oh well
 
A handful of cars were deemed too fast, but any changes made for Le Mans will have little to no effect at regular tracks. Look how P2's have handled smaller restrictors and more weight, they are quicker than ever.

Regulation changes will slow diesels at Le Mans due to the long straights, but elswere you'll see them lap at similar speeds as this year, the difference will be petrol cars closing the gap.

Fuel efficiency and more power from ever smaller engines is in the spirit of Group C.

That being said, many LMP1 teams seem going the 7l GT1 engined route due to big power, torque, reliability and good mpg from these highly developed factory engines.
 
Last edited:
Ur absolutely right.
And in the true spirit of GP C we have a Lola Aston.With 12 cylinders!
If i'd been paying attention i might have have popped over to The stone just to see that.
If ur right about more GT1 engines being used then it could be more interesting, for me at least, in the future.
And in the true spirit of GP C,Lola Aston laps the stone just 4 secs quicker than the oldens.
However,Justin Laws(or any quick GP C) lap times would have put him 20/25th on the grid for the 1000kms .Ouch
And about safety.Yeah i understood why they banned GP B, though i wish they hadnt, as the cars kept killing people.
But the turbo era in F 1 was brilliant .They could have kept that.
And as regards GP C , we know that the atmo cars were much quicker so it wasnt the safety issue that stopped the turbos.It was bernie the bastard ecclestone .He realised all the top manufacturers were in in sports car racing, not in single seaters.So they made it a formula series, the atmo engines were F1 engines, so expensive to race in that it died.
Had GP C been allowed to continued it could have been as safe.Cant see why endurence cars lapping LM 20 secs qicker or Stone 7 secs quicker would make them any more unsafe.
I know the FIA says its about safety but as u said each year times creep up.And hey no loss of life.I firmly believe that they dont want a situation where endurence racing becomes as spectacular as single seaters so its all kept down a bit.
every librerian has a theory...
cheers C 7
(edit having siad all that , the cost of keeping an endurence racer safe for the driver on impact at those speeds may make it too expensive for the priveteeers.I dunno )
 
Last edited:
Hmmm, I don´t think you´ll be happy with the future regs of P1 and P2 cars then...
P1 will take over the P2 regs for the engines in 2011, and P2 will run solely on GT2 powerplants. So any current GT1 powerplants will be obsolete by 2011.
Already for next year, powerdecreases throughout the field (P1, P2, GT1, GT2) will take place, smaller rear wings and overall less of just about everything.
 
youre right there.Lordy...
But i dont get it.
It means that P1 will most likely have mingin' 2 litre turbo six's or audi 4.4 litre atmo diesels whilst P2 will be allowed to run 5.5 litre chevy V8's or any other big stock block? current GT 2 having way bigger engines than P2.I know size aint everthing but. . .
daft.
Its berni the basterd at work here again. . .
 
Last edited:
This may be a dead post, but after 5 years of silence, I would love to be worthy as a member of the Group-C club.

WSPC is my blood.
 

Latest Posts

Back