Weird, or unusual racing cars

[jimclark]

Bottom post of the previous page:

During the 1992 season, Enrique Scalabroni left Team Lotus to focus on his own “futuristic” F1 design. The car was futuristic indeed; the car had one wheel in the front, two wheels on the side of the car and one wheel attached to the back wing. The wheel in the back would also be the steering.

How, pray tell, exactly would.....nay.....could.....that work?

(Mayhaps that's why it's only a drawing. The Speed Racer Mach V is more believable.... )

[SBan83]

Slightly bigger front wing endplates and you've got a giant lobster.

[jimclark]

Already 'had some that did run in IMSA......Dave Cowart and Kenper Miller's Red Lobster (restaurant chain) March 83G (and 84G....'don't 'member if they got an '85).....



edit: I'm a liar.....well.....mistaken.
'Did some research and they actually had an 82G and the 83G (above photo). No 84 or 85.

[oldtom]

Now for something completely different-Owner-built rear-engine sprint car,always ran on dirt!!Was from the Minot ,North Dakota area and ran throughout the 1970's.Builder/driver was Bruce Jorgensen,won a few heat races despite being underpowered,ran the small aluminun block Oldsmobile engine against cars with up to 150 more cubic inches.Last I heard,the car was being restored in the Minot area

[Lor Bet]

Bruce McLaren testing the car owned by Shelby Racing Company at Indianapolis Motor Speedway in 1968

[FedBet57]

Voisin C6 Laboratoire (1923)
In 1923 Gabriel Voisin decided to create a new Grand Prix racing car. He had tried the previous year and because he had rather creatively interpreted the rules his cars finished up being banned. Gabriel Voisin put his imagination to work to create a car that would fit into the new rules of 1923 and produce the best possible results. He got together with French designer Andre Lefevbre.
The C6 Laboratoire was built using aluminium alloys wherever possible and was created in the shape of an aircraft wing.
The front of the car is shaped to create a down-force by directing air upwards. This has the effect of creating a low pressure area under the car helping to keep it from any tendency to lift. Similarly the rear treatment of the car has a wing shape to nicely close out the air-flow at the rear but has a slightly up-swept under-section which enhances the creation of a low pressure area under the car. The car might be fabricated of flat sheet aluminium alloy but the aerodynamics are superbly thought out. Voisin and Lefevbre had in fact created what might be thought of as the first rudimentary ground effect Grand Prix racing car. The C6 was powered by a 2litre engine that needed more research and development in order for Voisin to achieve competition success. Of the four cars entered in the C6’s first competition only one finished. It managed to finish in a respectable fifth place however.

[Cheeveer]

Here's a rare bird:

a group 1 Saab 99, built for the Swedish touring car championship 1976. One of a kind, I believe, driven by Gösta Pettersson.

[jimclark]

Bruce McLaren testing the car owned by Shelby Racing Company at Indianapolis Motor Speedway in 1967

Two thangs.....

1) Did it really test in '67....or was it actually '68? I ask......
2) ......as it wasn't so unusual having been beaten to the punch by Wallis' first design, Granatelli's '67 Indy (should have been...) "winner"
(Take that Parnelli..... "Karma" for "stealing" Jim's '63 (also should have been...) "win" perhaps??? )......



Edit: Another not so usual Indy car, and third "should have".....Chapman's 56....

[MonteCristo]

I wonder why they put the driver on the right of the car. I guess they didn't really care about crumple.

[Everso Biggyballies]

I wonder why they put the driver on the right of the car. I guess they didn't really care about crumple.

Thats why they have longer wishbones on the drivers side.... they are the crumply bits.

Seriously though, I think the oily bits ( actual turbine itself) sat alongside the driver (on the 'passenger' side) if that makes sense.
So call it weight distribution, or more like the driver has to fit somewhere.



Edit: Found a photo which seems to confirm just that ....

[Michael Ferner]

Yes, weight was the consideration. The driver? Oh, we can get a new one if he's done...

[jimclark]

I wonder why they put the driver on the right of the car. I guess they didn't really care about crumple.

Of course they cared!!! That's why they put the driver twixt the wall and the precious turbine....to protect it.....

[erwin greven]

I wonder why they put the driver on the right of the car. I guess they didn't really care about crumple.

Weight distribution.

[jimclark]

A stroke of genius by Colin Chapman to exploit the American racing scene who still thought lots of power and huge, front-engined beasts were the way to go!

Wrong on both counts.

Jack got the idea of an F1 style Indy car first; finishing 9th in the 1961 '500 with his Cooper Climax.

Though Lotus/Chapman was my team/principal, it was Dan Gurney that enticed Colin, and put the Ford/Lotus deal together for (finally) the '63 rear engined win (Milwaukee; the week after the 500, Jim 1st, Dan 3rd).......

[Everso Biggyballies]

A stroke of genius by Colin Chapman to exploit the American racing scene who still thought lots of power and huge, front-engined beasts were the way to go!

Wrong on both counts.

Jack got the idea of an F1 style Indy car first; finishing 9th in the 1961 '500 with his Cooper Climax.

Though Lotus/Chapman was my team/principal, it was Dan Gurney that enticed Colin, and put the Ford/Lotus deal together for (finally) the '63 rear engined win (Milwaukee; the week after the 500, Jim 1st, Dan 3rd).......

And then in 1964 we had the last front engined actual Indy 500 winner..... with the first rear engined Indy 500 win (Clark's) in 65 I think.

[jimclark]

Yup.
@Everso Biggyballies
I still contend the first rear engine 500 win should have been in '63. At least two cars spun on Jones' leaking oil which should have seen him black flagged, as per the rules, allowing Jim to take the win. USAC didn't wave it.

USAC was comprised of dinosaurs that resented change. The turbines of '67 and '68 confirmed that (as Art Pollard acknowledged to me at Trenton in '68).....they too were not allowed to win the race. All three '67, lap 197, Jones a "gear box bearing failure"; '68, (Graham crashed just past half-way) Pollard, and Leonard who was leading, both having "fuel pump shaft failures" laps 188 and 191.....what a cincidence........

1969, the Lear steam car never showed due to "insufficient engine development".......not what I was told by insider. USAC said it would be allowed in the race unless it was "too slow" (duhhh, of course) and even though it met the rules, "if it was too fast".......(no, they didn't have BoPing twixt practice and the race back then.....like the ACO, they just ruled as they wished......