The Group C Club!

  • Thread starter superfast
  • 298 comments
  • 54,128 views
superfast
Yeah, I really appreciated that :lol:. I'm sorry that I hadn't added your name, I was sure I had done it. Anyways, it's there now. And thanks for the kind words about the thread. :)
Click to expand...

No big deal, it happens to everyone, and no problem. Thanks! :)👍
 
OMG OMg OMG I LOVE LOVE LOVE THESE CARS!!!!
they look stunning
they drive stunning
and win races
i would like to add 3 cars to join but two are from the sixties
firstly i have to add the ford GT40 because it won Le Mans 4 times in a row and beat ferrari and its an amzing car

secondly is the porsche 917. this car broke all the boundries in the 5-litre class at Le Mans. it had a 4.4 litre engine , twin turbo flat 12 which was just 2 porsche 911 engines welded together with 2 turbos bolted on.it was made almost entirley of plastic and it weighed 870KG!!!! it also had 1100 BHP and set the fastest time and most number of laps set around Le Mans. this record still stands today!!

thirdly i would like to pitch the jaguar XJR-9 as it is a very good car and when you stand on the brakes on the corner after the mulsanne straight its like you have hit a wall (i think the corners called errrrm...mulsanne but probably wrong)

and who else agrees theyve ruined le mans putting the chicanes in on the straight?

so what do you say? am i in or out?

happy gaming:)
 
GT4nerd use the Edit button to spare everyone double posts :scared:

And the (17 had 2 flat 6's connected together to make the flat 12 you are talking about, and they each had 4.0 litres I think to make it into the 8.0 litre class (I think, I saw it on some show on the Science Channel). But anyway, that car was AWESOME.

They didn't ruin Le Mans by adding the chicanes, they saved many drivers' lives because an R8 for example could easily hit 240 on Hunaudieres (Mulsanne) and could possibly flip like the CLK-LM a few years back. The brakes would likely explode or catch fire also because of the insurmountale heat of coming from 240 to 30 in about .5 km to save yourself from dieing via ejection from cockpit at 200.
 
no each engine was a 2.2 and each was a flat 6 i said that didnt i? if not sorry and i did say each engine was 2.2

and also i do suppose you are right about saving lives but if you where to somehow forget they where there u coulde die from hitting the tyres at such high speed and dont you agree seeing that CLK-GTR flip was amzing and the driver got out unscathed!

did anybody know that minolta make lots of products like cameras?
 
Try again, GT4nerd. The 917 never made more than 700hp at Le Mans and its engine was a less than 5.0L twin-cam unit based heavily on the 908's eight cylinder piece. The 1100bhp unit was only found in ONE 917 variant, the 1973 Porsche 917-30 campaigned by Mark Donohue for Roger Penske in the SCCA Can Am series, long after the Porsche 917 was pressed into obsolescence by the 3.0L formula rules change.

7060.jpg


http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/frame.php?file=car.php&carnum=418

Research, it never hurt anyone.
 
Just to add, I think the R8, on the non-chicaned Mulsanne, would be capable of far more than just 240, especially with gear-ratios talored to the track.

m.piedgros
 
wow that program lied to me then because i saw all my info on the 917 on a program on discovery channel and it said the 917 with the roof and duck egg blue paint with orange stripe down the center was 870Kg and had 1100 BHP

o well my bad sorry:)
 
samj_13
They didn't ruin Le Mans by adding the chicanes, they saved many drivers' lives because an R8 for example could easily hit 240 on Hunaudieres (Mulsanne) and could possibly flip like the CLK-LM a few years back. The brakes would likely explode or catch fire also because of the insurmountale heat of coming from 240 to 30 in about .5 km to save yourself from dieing via ejection from cockpit at 200.
Click to expand...

A little bit of research would not go unnecessary...

Firstly, it was not the CLK-LM which flew in Le Mans, but the Mercedes CLR (only shared suspensions, gearbox and engine with the 1998 CLK-LM car).

Secondly, the Mercedes flew because of someone as Mercedes was incredibly stupid to design a car which looked like a wing.... from an aeroplane (draw a line over its profile to see what I'm trying to say)... And, they didn't fly at 240 or 250 mph, but at something like 210 (that does not matter, as at Road Atlanta a Porsche 911-GT1 98 and a BMW LMR both flew at around 130 mph).

And, finally, if you can demonstrate how a 600 bhp RACING car can reach 240 mph (let alone 250), i'd be thankfull (the group C cars were reaching those speeds in 1989.... with more then 850 bhp qualifying engines).
 
Sorry, I was unaware that the flipped Mercedes was a CLR , it looked like a CLK-LM (and if it shares an engine, gearbox, and suspension you have to admit they are pretty similar)

And I never said it did flip at 240, I just said it flipped.

The R8 was limited to 580 bhp in the 2001 model, so if you took away the restrictions, power could easily be over 800 bhp, adn if you gear the ratios correctly, the speeds can be 240 mph + and if you don't add some front downforce which the CLR lacked alot of, you could have another flip, with possibly worse consequences because the R8 is an open roofed racer.
 
samj_13
Sorry, I was unaware that the flipped Mercedes was a CLR , it looked like a CLK-LM (and if it shares an engine, gearbox, and suspension you have to admit they are pretty similar)

And I never said it did flip at 240, I just said it flipped.

The R8 was limited to 580 bhp in the 2001 model, so if you took away the restrictions, power could easily be over 800 bhp, adn if you gear the ratios correctly, the speeds can be 240 mph + and if you don't add some front downforce which the CLR lacked alot of, you could have another flip, with possibly worse consequences because the R8 is an open roofed racer.
Click to expand...

The thing is, the closed-coupes were a lot "easier" to flip than open-roadsters, because of the way the cars were designed.

During the Group C days, there was nothing compared with the flips of the CLR, because the cars had underside tunnels, which sucked them to the earth.

Now, if you took out the restrictors and the chicanes waht you'd have? A very different looking Audi R8... Would it flip? Dunno, under the wrong conditions, it might (Alboreto was killed when testing the Audi in Germany, after a tire blew and the car flipped :nervous: :nervous: )...

But, in my opinion, the Mercedes were not "unlucky" (like the Alboreto flip, or the BMW LMR and Porsche 911 GT1-98 at Road Atlanta), they just designed a very poor and dangerous car and then spent time testing it at Fontana and Magny-Cours.... yes, that's right, as smoth as a billiard table, without the ups, down and the humps of a normal country road on the middle of France. :crazy: :crazy: :ouch:
 
Gil Abobeleira
The thing is, the closed-coupes were a lot "easier" to flip than open-roadsters, because of the way the cars were designed.

During the Group C days, there was nothing compared with the flips of the CLR, because the cars had underside tunnels, which sucked them to the earth.

Now, if you took out the restrictors and the chicanes waht you'd have? A very different looking Audi R8... Would it flip? Dunno, under the wrong conditions, it might (Alboreto was killed when testing the Audi in Germany, after a tire blew and the car flipped :nervous: :nervous: )...

But, in my opinion, the Mercedes were not "unlucky" (like the Alboreto flip, or the BMW LMR and Porsche 911 GT1-98 at Road Atlanta), they just designed a very poor and dangerous car and then spent time testing it at Fontana and Magny-Cours.... yes, that's right, as smoth as a billiard table, without the ups, down and the humps of a normal country road on the middle of France. :crazy: :crazy: :ouch:
Click to expand...

Alrighy, now we agree on something. I agree that if the chicanes wern't put in, the R8 might look alot different, and possibly have a larger engine. If only we could use a sucker car like the 2J Can-Am racer, that would be perfect. No worries about flipping there!

@GTR didn't you say on Accel that it cost over 100 pounds or something?
 
Hello there, happy you liked the topic on Peugeot 905 Evo2. I'm also a big fan of Gr C cars, historic Gr C/GTP european championship is great to see cars of that era. After the 905 evo2 I had the chance to shoot an other mysterious Gr C, the Sauber mercedes C292, that never ran. Hope you enjoy, that's here :
http://www.gurneyflap.com
 
But the Group C cars had rather basic aerodynamics in order to provide closer racing. (And tall roofs, right?) Things like the undertray are just useless on a Group C car vs. an R8.
 
My first race car video that I watched was one of the Duke videos covering the 1990 (?) championship and it had in-car footage. They were (and still) my favorite catagory of the late 80's to mid 90's

Can i join?:dopey:
 
m.piedgros
But the Group C cars had rather basic aerodynamics in order to provide closer racing. (And tall roofs, right?) Things like the undertray are just useless on a Group C car vs. an R8.
Click to expand...


Actually, the undertrays on Group C cars were more ADVANCED than that of an R8. Ground effects were the order of the day in Group C, and through ground effects and sleek efficient shapes the Group C cars produced levels of downforce that current LMP and the former GT1 class cars could only dream of.

mazdamono1.gif


This picture shows the monocoque of the Mazda RX-792P GTP car, as built by Daytona Prototype chassis constructor Crawford Composites. In this shot, you can see the radically sculpted ground effects tunnels that were the Group C/GTP secret to aerodynamics. These have since been banned by almost every form of racing.

Most of the trick aerodynamics on a modern LMP car are in place to try and circumvent the rules that mandate flat underbodies without ground effects tunnels. Substantially more development has gone into venturi and channelling research to direct the wind in such a way to try and make up for the lack of ground effects. This has led to cars with substantially more drag and more compromised performance. A Group C car's primary limitation in absolutely rousting modern LMP cars is that period tire technology is no match for today's compounds and constructions.

Given a modern tire (which would produce insane levels of grip when you consider the steamrollers that Group C/GTP cars used) a Group C/GTP car would absolutely decimate an LMP car in every category. Their bodies are tuned for low drag (the RX-792P's engineers quoted a C.D. of 0.7) and their underbodies create all the downforce they need and more. Their engines are considerably more powerful, and their tires have a much bigger footprint.

After the insanity that is the Can Am, the Group C/GTP era is the single most advanced era of sports car racing ever. It's a shame that ridiculous costs led to its downfall.
 
XJR-9, welcome to the club. And of course you can join, GT4Nerd, we don't turn down any Group C fans here. TheBigMan045 and El Jarretto, welcome to the club also.


Sorry for not updating in a while, but don't worry. I didn't forget about you guys.👍
 
Even if you don't usually like high-revving engines, that and a few others (Carrera GT, Ferrari F430, Zonda F) could easily change your mind.:sly:

Though obviously they aren't Group C cars :lol:
 

Latest Posts

Back