Goodwood Revival - 2009

[John Turner]

Most of the last 150 odd posts on this thread were not about Goodwood that I have moved them to another thread:-

http://tentenths.com/forum/showthread.php?t=118888

I havent't finished chopping this thread up, either, but am 'unsticking' it from the top now as Revival discussion has all but dried up.

[CUT 7]

apprapo of nothing on this thread and thus off topic but ...
I posted this on 'fastest laps .com ' to more or less zero response.And no data to disprove the theory.
But I thought it was interesting so here goes.
I do understand this is a grown up site and the post is a bit childish but heh..

This waffle was first enflamed by an article I read comparing Mac Hulberts 1933 ERA, a 1966 Brabham F 1(i think) and a Porsche 911 GT3 road car round a race track. Might have been in 'Evo'?
So supercars. Are they that fast?
My thesis is that they're not.
We can compare lap times with racing cars on circuits that are still used or have not changed over time..
Lets use Goodwood a circuit thats still used to race on, in the same layout as the lap times for road cars.

Also Goodwood stipulate, and this is usefull for us, that the cars that race there have to use 'in era' rubber compounds.(!!)So the times there are not using super sticky modern racing rubber.

I'd very much appreciate info on other circuits that are the same for road and race cars both in the UK and elsewhere.

So some data.
Fastest road car at Goodwood is 1.27.7 - Nissan GTR
At Top gears track its 2 ish secs off the fastest -Gumpert.

So lets say the Gumpert is 3 secs quicker at goodwood thats 1.24.7.
Now a quick look on Goodwoods site is very revieling to how slow that is.
Its barely a second quicker that the narrow tyred Listers of 1958 - 1,26.
Or the D Type Jags , some have managed into 1.27's.
Or the quickest Cobras, GTO's and LT /WT E - Types the GT 1 of 45 years ago. They can get into the 1.26,s.

Around Clarksons track we can guess they would be lapping at roughly 1.18.7, thats Veyron fast.
And these are only the closed wheel cars.

Opened wheeled and its even more startling.
ERA's lap in the 1.30.0's.
Or the Ferrarri Dinos (and Maser 250F's) of the 50's at 1.24.
Front engined, 6 pots, less then 7" rims ,55 years old
So for a million quid we can buy a Veyron and go round Goodwood at the same speed as a 1950's F1 car or a bit quicker than a front engined GT from the 60's....
Or the same speed - more or less - as a rear engined GT of post 66, GT40 (Ferrari P4 etc) at 1.25.00.
So thats how quick or slow supercars are, in track terms.

A bit of extrapolation.
Ferrari ran Daytonas (365 GTB) at Le Mans in the 70's.They finished 4th.
Presumably they were quicker than the 60's Ferrari & Jag GTs.
So if they were only say a second a lap quicker round Goodwood that puts them into Gumpert teriitory, 1.25.0's

Another of my thoeries is that as soon as you put an engine in the back of a racing car its impossable to replicate that performance in a road car.
Hence why all the post 1961 F1 & post 67 sports protypes would completley trounce any supercar round a track.

Supercars have to be set up for slow speed work. Thats what most road driving is after all.
The clever bit about todays supercars is that they can go slowly, and give the buyer a useable, safe , farely comfortable fascimile of race car speeds.
Fools like me who cant drive well, have to be able to negotiate them to our track days , thrash them whilst we think we're Schumacker, not write them off and still be able to talk to the impressed lady friend on the way back home.

But realy quick they're not.
One explanation maybe race rubber, even if its not of the modern era.
Or role cage chassis stifness?
One more thing
brighton speed trials 2008.
Gumpert - 2008 supercar - 12.01.
(His excuse for not doing a ten, what he thought it could do ? "..erm it bogged down mate....")

E R A - 1933 race car - 12.01
(driven by brilliant Mac Hulbert) .

And a question tat has nothing to do with the above.
after the war why didnt the single seater fraturity replicated the autp unions success of putting the engine at the back?Why did they wait till Mr Cooper? Was it engine size regs that made it untenable? Or


Hope this wasnt too boring.
thanks for your patience.
cheers

[Henrik Pedersen]

Not all waited for mr.Cooper. Bugatti did build their 251 of 1956, rear engined car. But it had little succes.
I am not sure when construction started, a Bugatti buff, might know.

[MGDavid]

are your 'old car' lap times quoted from results sheets 'back then' or what they achieve today? If the latter , then perhaps this fits better in one of the other threads on 'develoment of historics' and 'hooky / bent cars'

[John Turner]

Well, let's see where this goes. I can always move it to a new or different thread.

Originally Posted by CUT 7

I do understand this is a grown up site and the post is a bit childish but heh..

Debatable. I don't think we are all that grown up .... sometimes!

Originally Posted by CUT 7

Also Goodwood stipulate, and this is usefull for us, that the cars that race there have to use 'in era' rubber compounds.

Is this actually true though? I can accept that the tyres may physically, in tread pattern and dimensions, appear like the originals, but surely the rubber compound is unlikely to be so. What tyre manufacturer would continue to use 40 odd year old rubber technology just to produce a few hundred covers each year? I'm betting that however original these tyres look, they provide better grip/sidewall integrity etc, now.

[rogerwills]

Originally Posted by CUT 7

Hope this wasnt too boring.
thanks for your patience.
cheers

Fascinating thoughts, certainly not boring. Well done!

I don't remember who, but someone famous was asked once what was the fastest car he had ever driven. "A rental car" was the reply. Brilliant.

[rogerwills]

Originally Posted by John Turner

Is this actually true though? I can accept that the tyres may physically, in tread pattern and dimensions, appear like the originals, but surely the rubber compound is unlikely to be so. What tyre manufacturer would continue to use 40 odd year old rubber technology just to produce a few hundred covers each year? I'm betting that however original these tyres look, they provide better grip/sidewall integrity etc, now.

Dunlop!

And they also have the cheek to charge us through the nose for them!

[John Turner]

Yes, but is it really to the original rubber compound? I think we should be told!

[terence]

I was once told that the 204 compound we now use is in fact slightly softer than the original John.

[rogerwills]

The cost of them would suggest it is made of something extremely rare!

[terence]

If I remember correctly,there was a sudden influx of price increase's just after Dunlop was bought out by the Japanese.I think there were same lame excuse saying the increase's were due to Developement! Apparently people were complaining that they did not last long enough so the compound was altered into the present 204,this then made the tyre slightly better for wet use but also gave a bit more life.
I still think that the 2hr rule should be abolished and everyone run's on them as a control tyre.I'm sure Dunlop would be thrilled!

[henk4]

Originally Posted by rogerwills

Fascinating thoughts, certainly not boring. Well done!

I don't remember who, but someone famous was asked once what was the fastest car he had ever driven. "A rental car" was the reply. Brilliant.

not one of these young F1-(would be) Gods that need to pay for their seats?????

[Henrik Pedersen]

Dunlop is the sole supplier to some historic series, because it is the only tyretype/pattern allowed.
I don´t think that any other tyresupplier would be interested in making tyres in the same pattern as FIA wants.
But the argument that developementcost push the price up is a joke. They must not develope on that tyre=the price on those tyres should be cheeper and cheeper by the years. Or am I completely wrong

It´s there something about being a monopolysupplier in the EU, that they must be very open in their pricepolitic?

[jamesholland]

Surely it's about economy of scale? Dunlop would need to sell a certain number of tyres per year to cover the cost of production and while a monopoly supply situation isn't necessarily desirable that has to be taken into account.

Presumably Michelin lost money on their Englebert racing tyres as they are no longer made and I suspect Dunlop have felt the impact made by Blockley's inroads into the market considerably, particularly for pre war cars.

[terence]

Its a great shame there are no other Historic type tyre manufacturer's on the market. The original Goodyear Blue Streak was fantastic in the wet.
I think that Dunlop are taking the pee a bit with their pricing though,as they have the world market sewn up for the tyre supply to Historic Motorsport plus there are many other tyre types from them that are control tyres to other series.

[PeterMorley]

Originally Posted by John Turner

Is this actually true though? I can accept that the tyres may physically, in tread pattern and dimensions, appear like the originals, but surely the rubber compound is unlikely to be so. What tyre manufacturer would continue to use 40 odd year old rubber technology just to produce a few hundred covers each year? I'm betting that however original these tyres look, they provide better grip/sidewall integrity etc, now.

Are they really dimensionally similar.
Original tyres I've had seem to be smaller than the new version - but they have all been in terrible condition and might have shrunk?
Rim widths do seem to have increased though, the suggested rim width for Dunlop historic tyres seem to be wider than those used in period.

I think the price is simply down to the small numbers involved.

[jamesholland]

Originally Posted by PeterMorley

Are they really dimensionally similar.
Original tyres I've had seem to be smaller than the new version - but they have all been in terrible condition and might have shrunk?
Rim widths do seem to have increased though, the suggested rim width for Dunlop historic tyres seem to be wider than those used in period.

I think the price is simply down to the small numbers involved.

I would agree with that. Look at any Cooper Bristol for example and the tyre size is very different from that used in period. I'm not sure whether the cart came before the horse as they all use new wheels which are smaller and wider.
Sometimes we don't have a choice; for example F3 500s ran 4.00 x 15 on the front in period but we have to run 4.50 x 15 now as Dunlop say they no longer have a mould. Having said that they miraculously found the mould for the pre war 3 stud pattern after Blockley introduced theirs.

[PeterMorley]

Originally Posted by jamesholland

I would agree with that. Look at any Cooper Bristol for example and the tyre size is very different from that used in period. I'm not sure whether the cart came before the horse as they all use new wheels which are smaller and wider.
Sometimes we don't have a choice; for example F3 500s ran 4.00 x 15 on the front in period but we have to run 4.50 x 15 now as Dunlop say they no longer have a mould. Having said that they miraculously found the mould for the pre war 3 stud pattern after Blockley introduced theirs.

Same with rears, most early 50s small sports racers used 5.25 x 15 and now you have the choice of 5.00 or 5.50, of course those who can get them under the bodywork prefer 5.50s!
Presumably if they are using the original moulds the tyres must be the same size as original, unless the lettering on them has got mixed up!

Given that Blockley are starting to make postwar sizes there must be a case for the FIA allowing other makes, as they used to - if not who fancies contacting the monopolies commission (who will presumably say it outside their remit because the FIA is basically a private club)??

[Simon Hadfield]

Whatever the tyre costs are now will, I guarantee, pale into insignificance with the costs of a free tyre formula. There will always be a more suitable tyre for a particular venue so that means more wheels, yet more tyres, more testing, need I go on? Any sensible organiser stipulates one tyre and lets us get on with it. This may not be perfect but a lot better than the alternatives.

[Marcus Mussa]

I don't think its a good idea to have several manufacturers - much better if everybody runs on the same tyres, otherwise it will be a race to find the best tyre. The insistance on 204 compound is relatively recent. When I started FJ in 1988 we were allowed to run on Dunlop FV tyres - my big rival Phoebe Rolt used those and ran rings around me (driving the car that Benn the Ratracer drives now). I ended up trying those tyres and they were 5" a lap quicker at Paul Ricard! But no fun at all. In fact the first time I fitted them on to my Lotus 18 I blew a rear tyre as the tyre wall was flexing so much it rubbed the upright! Had to fit spacers. I think in period there were several compounds available and the wet compound (green spot?) could be used in the dry particularly in cold England, and was probably much quicker than 204.

[Marcus Mussa]

Originally Posted by PeterMorley

...because the FIA is basically a private club)??

It's a dictatorship in which dictators elect other dictators!

[CUT 7]

The lap time data was from recent revival timesheets .
As a non driver i was merely stating the goodwood line on rubber. I know nothing...
Just like i never got a decent explanation from them on why the have disallowed the Tim Samways ferrari P4 from the whitsun trophy.Some old thing about non original wheel rim widths . I phoned, e mailed but nothing that realy made sense.The car races in FIA historic events all over Europe.
And how many E Types realy did have 7.5 inch rims an 1965?
As someone mentioned , god forbid anyone might build a car specificly for the revival that might not be exactly as they were in the 50's..
So anyone got any quick supercar data then ??
Or some of your own historic racers compared to the supercars on the lists?
Thanks for the Bugatti info.
Cheers

[eamonn ledwidge]

Originally Posted by Derwent Motorsp

Going back to the racing. Where did all the Minis come from?
In recent years if there have been five Minis out in any historic saloon record that would be the most, so where the rest appear from? Were they built for the event!?

The one currently advertised for sale on Pistonheads claims to be exactly that!

Curiously it is advertised as having 1961 registration papers, on a 1963 shell and with FIA papers.

I cut my teeth on these cars, starting with a 997 Cooper in 1963 and am at some considerable loss to establish how this car could predate its production run by 3 years.

Anyone out there who can please help?

[Alan Morgan]

Just out of interest, Peter Arundell did a 1:25.6 in a 110bhp(?) Formula Junior in 1963, and Denny Hulme got pole on 1:25.4 at the same meeting.

A certain Roy James did practice, but was a DNS...

[Al Weyman]

Well if Dunlop changed the compound to make them last a bit longer I think they over egged it somewhat as I find it almost impossible to wear the things out but at £150 back to me per 225 x 15 tyre its just as well!