Glock Forum - GlockTalk banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Values. Can't be bought.
Joined
·
13,048 Posts
I forgot about this car that Andy Granatelli developed.

You may have also forgot that they put on in a 1978 Corvette. It idled at 60 MPH.



943191
 

·
...
Joined
·
18,950 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
You may have also forgot that they put on in a 1978 Corvette. It idled at 60 MPH.



View attachment 943191
I never knew that. Thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,221 Posts
I remember reading that article in the waiting room of a doctors office.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pittpa

·
Values. Can't be bought.
Joined
·
13,048 Posts
I remember reading that article in the waiting room of a doctors office.
I remember where I was when John F Kennedy was shot, the Challenger exploded, and 9/11. But not where I read that article. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Uncle Mark

·
...
Joined
·
18,950 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
And the most radical F1 car?

Tyrrell P34:


Unfortunately it didn't do too well...
Looking at it, you might ask yourself WHY? but there were good reasons for it.

For the mid-1970s, F1 stipulated that the maximum width of the front wing was 1.5 m. Considering the needed room for the driver's feet, the steering mechanism, suspension and the normal front tire size, this meant the front tires projected above and out to the sides of the wing. P34's basic concept was to use a tire that would be small enough to fit entirely behind the wing. This would have two effects; one would be to lower overall drag and thus improve speed on straights and the other was to clean up overall aerodynamics so the rear wing would receive cleaner airflow.

However, given the space limitations such a tire would have to be quite small, eventually settling on a 10 inch diameter. This had too small a contact patch to offer reasonable cornering performance, which led to the use of four wheels instead of two. Adding more wheels also had the advantage of offering greater total brake area. The downside was increased complexity of the steering system and a physically larger suspension system. The steering complexity was solved by connecting only the front pair of wheels to the steering wheel and connecting the rear set to the front with a bell crank. Initially considered to be a potential problem, someone who had driven the car claimed that the steering was so gentle and absolutely free of reaction that you might have thought it was power-assisted.

The car did win one major race, however. The 1976 Swedish Gran Prix where two of the cars took both first and second place so the car wasn't a total failure but it wasn't a major design breakthrough either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
741 Posts
Since we have deviated from indy cars to radical racecars.........

I will nominate the Chaparral 2J aka Vacuum car.


It generated so much down force, that it was said to be able to drive through a tunnel totally inverted.

It was banned primarily because none of the other drivers could follow it. The vacuum swept the track so clean that all of the debris was exhausted out the back of the car and into the direct path of anyone who could get close enough.



As to the F1 cars, the Lotus active suspension cars did not have a very long life until they werre banned.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
741 Posts
Now if we want to talk about nascar........The wizard of stealth technology was Smokey Yunich.

Any car that had Smokey Yunich's name on it was immediately inspected many times, and quite often they could not find out how he was cheating.

Everyone knew was cheating and they could not prove it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
741 Posts
Two of Smokey Yunick's indy cars

The "Reverse Torque Special" used a reverse rotating chev v8 to get more traction to the inside tires:



And the sidecar, which rearranged the weight of both the engine and driver for more traction:

 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top