Banned stuff?

In reply to fidelity101:

and

In reply to tuna55:

Damn, I can't even instil a riot anymore

OK here's another. For 1994 traction control was banned in F1. Everyone was convinced Benetton was still running it including Senna and other drivers who walked out to corners on the circuit and could hear it in action as Schumacher and Lehto etc. cars 'missing' on corner exit. The FIA investigated and found the traction control software still present in the ECU's but Benetton 'promised' they hadn't been using it so didn't get in trouble. So, software present, cars can be heard to miss on corner exit and rocket out of corners with no hint of wheel spin. Senna and other drivers believe they are using TC but they promise they're not. You decide.

BTW, some of you know my next rant. Even with an illegal car Shumi still had to punt Hill of the track to win the WDC that year. Hence my claim Shumi is a 6 times Champ and Hill is a 2 time champ.

Keith Tanner wrote: I have a hard time believing a rally car could beat an F1 car - but the Can-Am monsters were quicker for sure. They sometimes raced on the same track only a few weeks apart so it was a pretty direct comparison. Their races were longer too. Talk about banned, pretty much any of the interesting tech from that series is illegal everywhere. Although it did certainly answer the question: "Is it better to have all the power in the world at the expense of weight, or have a lighter/smaller car with less power?".

I’m absolutely sure that at the height of Can-Am the cars were faster than F1. Again look at the basic facts. In 1973 an F1 car weighed 1,270lb’s and a Cosworth DFV had only approx. 450hp so had a power to weight ratio of 2.8 lbs/hp. That year Donohue’s 917 had 850hp-1,100hp in race tune and weighed 1,800lb’s so had a power to weight ratio of 1.6-2.1 lb’s/hp. So right there you have a big advantage to the Can-Am cars. But then look at aerodynamics of the period.
Jackie Stewarts championship winning Tyrrell 007

Donohue's 917

People hadn't started to get into underbody aero much at this point and I'll bet the F1 car had a lot more drag being open wheel than the closed wheel Can-Am cars. Also looking at the shovel noses and rear wings I bet the Can-Am cars were at least as good as the F1 cars from a downforce point of view.

My daughter gotten banned from riding her Razor Scooter at Road America's Vintage races in the paddock. That's all I got - does that count?

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

fidelity101 wrote: After mazda won, the FIA banned the rotary engine due to its "unfair weight advantage" something something reliability something fuel economy something something powa! something.... victory!

The International Rotard Mafia may take out a hit on me for this and I may need to go into hiding, but I've always thought that Rotary engines were cheating in motorsport to start with. Not the fact that they are rotary, but due to the farcical capacity definitions. You have a nominal 13b for instance based off of two rotors, each with a theoretical volume of around 0.65L for a total of a theoretical 1.3L. The thing is while the rotor turns at 1/3 crank speed, you get three firings per revolution of the rotor so one firing per revolution of the crank. In a 4 cycle Piston engine you get one firing every second revolution. So I think to make it fair a 13B should be classed as a 2.6L and a 12A classed as a 2.4L. This also makes their pathetic fuel economy slightly more understandable. Note, I'm not anti Wankel. I used to own an FC and miss it dearly. I strongly considered an Rx8 until I saw the pathetic fuel econ. Wankels make great toys, but are useless as DD's to me because of the gallons per inch fuel econ.

2 things...

Most series (if not all) DO classify the rotary as double the actual volume.

2nd, The rotary was not outlawed or banned. It just had specific rules restricting its power capability. You were still allowed to run one. In fact, it could still have done well. The problem is: Who is going to run one other than Mazda?

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

fidelity101 wrote: After mazda won, the FIA banned the rotary engine due to its "unfair weight advantage" something something reliability something fuel economy something something powa! something.... victory!

The International Rotard Mafia may take out a hit on me for this and I may need to go into hiding, but I've always thought that Rotary engines were cheating in motorsport to start with. Not the fact that they are rotary, but due to the farcical capacity definitions. You have a nominal 13b for instance based off of two rotors, each with a theoretical volume of around 0.65L for a total of a theoretical 1.3L. The thing is while the rotor turns at 1/3 crank speed, you get three firings per revolution of the rotor so one firing per revolution of the crank. In a 4 cycle Piston engine you get one firing every second revolution. So I think to make it fair a 13B should be classed as a 2.6L and a 12A classed as a 2.4L. This also makes their pathetic fuel economy slightly more understandable. Note, I'm not anti Wankel. I used to own an FC and miss it dearly. I strongly considered an Rx8 until I saw the pathetic fuel econ. Wankels make great toys, but are useless as DD's to me because of the gallons per inch fuel econ.

i understand the argument that the rotary displacement should be double what it is. but i look at it as the area that is used to create your power stroke, or one fire, which to me is just one side of the rotor. so bottom dead center to top dead center (or whatever you call that on a rotary), then multiplied by the number of pistons/rotors. just because it is a different engine design that gets more fires per rpm doesn't mean that its total displacement it takes to make one fire should have to become doubled due to a piston engine having less fires per rpm.

thats just my thinking, and ive never claimed to be a smart man

My Dad told me that there were rumors of an automated throttle for bracket drag cars. If you think about it in terms of math, it's a really easy problem to solve and hardly detectable. I'd never do it, and neither would he, but you'd be damn near unbeatable.

Datsun310Guy wrote: My daughter gotten banned from riding her Razor Scooter at Road America's Vintage races in the paddock. That's all I got - does that count?

I'm sure it does to her!

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

Keith Tanner wrote: I have a hard time believing a rally car could beat an F1 car - but the Can-Am monsters were quicker for sure. They sometimes raced on the same track only a few weeks apart so it was a pretty direct comparison. Their races were longer too. Talk about banned, pretty much any of the interesting tech from that series is illegal everywhere. Although it did certainly answer the question: "Is it better to have all the power in the world at the expense of weight, or have a lighter/smaller car with less power?".

I’m absolutely sure that at the height of Can-Am the cars were faster than F1. Again look at the basic facts. In 1973 an F1 car weighed 1,270lb’s and a Cosworth DFV had only approx. 450hp so had a power to weight ratio of 2.8 lbs/hp. That year Donohue’s 917 had 850hp-1,100hp in race tune and weighed 1,800lb’s so had a power to weight ratio of 1.6-2.1 lb’s/hp. So right there you have a big advantage to the Can-Am cars. But then look at aerodynamics of the period. Jackie Stewarts championship winning Tyrrell 007 Donohue's 917 People hadn't started to get into underbody aero much at this point and I'll bet the F1 car had a lot more drag being open wheel than the closed wheel Can-Am cars. Also looking at the shovel noses and rear wings I bet the Can-Am cars were at least as good as the F1 cars from a downforce point of view.

I think it was actually pre-Panzer as well, with the McLarens being the fastest. I'll have to go back to my books to tell for sure. Open wheels sure are dirty from an aero standpoint. I remember reading an analysis recently comparing LMP1 to F1 at Spa, and they'd be pretty competitive over a race distance in large part due to pit stops and tires. Can't find it again, wish I could.

Still can't find that article comparing the F1 vs WEC, it was broken down into segments of the track at Spa. Anyhow, looks like the average lap time of the F1 race this year was 1:54.5, while the average lap time of the WEC 6-hour race was 2.06 - but it was at least partially wet. It would be interesting to pull out an 84 minute dry window from the WEC race to see how it compares.

edizzle89 wrote:

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

fidelity101 wrote: After mazda won, the FIA banned the rotary engine due to its "unfair weight advantage" something something reliability something fuel economy something something powa! something.... victory!

The International Rotard Mafia may take out a hit on me for this and I may need to go into hiding, but I've always thought that Rotary engines were cheating in motorsport to start with. Not the fact that they are rotary, but due to the farcical capacity definitions. You have a nominal 13b for instance based off of two rotors, each with a theoretical volume of around 0.65L for a total of a theoretical 1.3L. The thing is while the rotor turns at 1/3 crank speed, you get three firings per revolution of the rotor so one firing per revolution of the crank. In a 4 cycle Piston engine you get one firing every second revolution. So I think to make it fair a 13B should be classed as a 2.6L and a 12A classed as a 2.4L. This also makes their pathetic fuel economy slightly more understandable. Note, I'm not anti Wankel. I used to own an FC and miss it dearly. I strongly considered an Rx8 until I saw the pathetic fuel econ. Wankels make great toys, but are useless as DD's to me because of the gallons per inch fuel econ.

i understand the argument that the rotary displacement should be double what it is. but i look at it as the area that is used to create your power stroke, or one fire, which to me is just one side of the rotor. so bottom dead center to top dead center (or whatever you call that on a rotary), then multiplied by the number of pistons/rotors. just because it is a different engine design that gets more fires per rpm doesn't mean that its total displacement it takes to make one fire should have to become doubled due to a piston engine having less fires per rpm. thats just my thinking, and ive never claimed to be a smart man

1) The rotary having a "doubling" of displacement is really semantics. No matter whether you consider one face, two faces, or all three faces of the rotor in the displacement, a "1.3L" rotary should be considered equivalent to a 2.6L 4-stroke piston engine in the same way a 1.3L 2-stroke piston engine would.

2) That high-downforce setup 787 looks even better (IMO) that the LM car! Like it was warmed up and let to melt down towards the pavement a bit. Really hunkered down

To stay on topic: F-ducts were banned after they were allowed for a little bit

wvumtnbkr wrote: Most series (if not all) DO classify the rotary as double the actual volume. 2nd, The rotary was not outlawed or banned. It just had specific rules restricting its power capability. You were still allowed to run one. In fact, it could still have done well. The problem is: Who is going to run one other than Mazda?

1st, SCCA and others go by 1.7 because while the displacement is double, the engine is rather inefficient. A built 13B makes power like a similar 2.0l four cylinder, so 1.7 is still a little bit optimistic (in 2014).

2nd, oh my yes rotaries get banninated. Try running one in a Midget sometime. You can run pushrod, SOHC, DOHC, with specific displacements allowed for each, but no rotaries. Oddly enough a built SOHC will probably make more power than a similar 13B.

Mezzanine wrote: I remember reading one in NASCAR or circle track racing where they used two cylinders of a V8 as a pump to help extract exhaust air from the other cylinders, and didn't allow the intake valve of those two pumping cylinders to open. Or something like that. Anyone know what legend I'm vaguely referring to?

It's mentioned earlier in the thread. It was a restrictor plate motor that was choked to a point where it made the same power on 7 cylinders. They slit the header tube on the backside, blocked it off at the collector, and reversed the cam lobes for that cylinder so it pumped more air into the intake manifold.

Smokey also used the air moved by the flywheel as a low pressure supercharger on one of his cars.

jsquared wrote: To stay on topic: F-ducts were banned after they were allowed for a little bit

No F duct!!!! What do we do now??? In vitro???

Keith Tanner wrote: Smokey also used the air moved by the flywheel as a low pressure supercharger on one of his cars.

That is AWESOME

That's not what the tech inspector said...

Smokey did a lot of things that tech inspectors didn't like.

Remember when NASCAR hired Gary Nelson as their tech director? How do you catch "creative" rule interpretation? Put a "creative" guy in charge of catching it!!!

icaneat50eggs wrote:

Keith Tanner wrote: Smokey also used the air moved by the flywheel as a low pressure supercharger on one of his cars.

That is AWESOME

YES! Impeller fins on the clutch plate. The snail shaped bell housing gave it away ...

What, it's just like the insides of a torque converter, are you saying those are not allowed?

After seeing pictures of a huge aircraft engine's centripetal supercharger (yes, centripetal - apparently the compression was internal to the cmpressor wheel, which is neat in itself) I started wondering about doing that to a clutch cover. Or using one as the flywheel/flexplate with one of those 2-gear internally clutched circle track transmissions. That way there's no clutch dust or throwout bearing or anything to get in the way.

Absolutely no use for something like that, mind you, but it's a cool thought exercise.

In reply to NGTD:

I like creative cheating as much as anyone but Gary Nelson should have never been allowed near another race car after he had Bobby Allison's bumper fall off at Daytona. The thought that someone would set up a car so that a large chunk of steel would fall off in traffic is practically criminal.

In reply to Wally:

I hadn't heard that story. Yikes . . . . .

my two are vague, but i remember enough to share. please correct me if misrepresent any of this:

first, someone in nascar put that broom like shrouding around their car on the nose and sides. cut the wind under the car to zero, without limiting ground clearance. he won one race by a lap or two, then it was ban hammered.

the other is my favorite of all time. talladega. fuel tank size restricted to XX gallons. so (i think it was mark martin) ran a 1 inch fuel line. he won, but i don't think he got to keep that victory.

ive also heard rumors of fuel inside the roll cage (there's a great friggin plan...), thin wall roll cage tubes filled with foam to make them test denser, and tweaking the axle housings of solid axle cars to create camber.

my dad said they used to fill tires with all kinds of exotic gas mixtures to change tire pressures with heat, and of course the best way to bypass a restrictor plate/CFM regulator was to install so much PCV venting that the car would idle at two grand with the throttle shut.

i love the idea of nuking the motor on the cool down lap to prevent dynoing/chamber CC-ing. thats a new one to me.

-J0N

I wanna say this was another smokey trick (seriously, the guy is a genius) he used to take his shells and paint them with acid to thin the metal to make them lighter. NASCAR naturally, did not approve. Then there was the 7/8 scale chevelle, the basketball in the gas tank inflated at inspection to pass spec, deflated at race time for more.room.

He denies the 7/8 scale car. Acid dipping is actually pretty normal practice. Basketball is true.

For those who love this stuff, you need to read Smokey's autobiography.

You have to have a minimum left side weight at many circle track races.In the 80's some Midwest stock car guys were putting mercury in one of the roll cage tubes on the right side,weigh the car at tech,then pump it over to the left side.