Why was it outlawed ?Quote:
Originally Posted by rick130
Printable View
Why was it outlawed ?Quote:
Originally Posted by rick130
The cynics would say as it was Japanese and threatened the Eurocentric domination of Sportscar racing, (even though I think the chassis was by either March or Lola ?) but whatever the reason, the rules were changed to only allow reciprocating piston engines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferret
[edit] according to Wiki, Mazdaspeed, Mazda's motorsport arm were the manufacturer, but the chassis and engineering was done in the UK.
well in the 70's when cars were toping out just above 400km/h down the Mulsane straight (ie Porchse 917k30 1500bhp Qual and 1000 in race trim) they brought in a fuel consumption limit.....just when Porchse were about to unlesh a engine twice as big with twice the power.........so making restrictions is the organisers way of controling competition in racing to keep it interesting etc.
IMO CanAm was the pinicle of motor sport!
It is said that this years 1000cc MotoGP machines will top out @ 360km/h at Mugello with a tow and a slight tail wind :eek:
It was outlawed because there is no class or rules for wankel engines,they are smaller in capacity but produce the same Hp as bigger four stroke engines so they fit into a lighter wieght bracket but have the same power as the heavier cars so they have a huge advantage,the reason it won. PatQuote:
Originally Posted by Ferret
It ran in that class quite legally,,
It was outlawed for exactly the same reasons the Nissans were outlawed in Australia,,
It was technically FAR superior to the rest of the field.
cant upset the status quo ,, can we,,
;):oops2::wallbash:
Each class of vehicle runs an engine capacity limit and a wieght/fuel tank capacity limit to suit each class,the wankel is a small capacity engine but has the power of a larger capacity engine so effectively it had the power of the large vehicles but ran in the small capacity engine wieght/fuel tank size class meaning it was lighter and had a bigger tank.The Nissan GTR's that Gibson ran in Oz are the most expensive touring cars there has ever been at 1 million dollars a piece,more exxy than DTM cars.Considering that the Holdens and Fords at the time were worth $250,000 turn key you would expect the GTR's to win,and like the wankel they were a smaller six cylinder engine so had more power but ran in a lighter wieght class.It's well worth reading up on Fred Gibson and how he developed the GTR,and how Nissan stopped supplying parts because he wouldn't hand over all his work to them for free. Pat
None of that refutes the statement that they were technically superior and were banned because they upset the status quo.Quote:
Originally Posted by PAT303
As far as I can recall under FIA rules, wankel's always used a x2 equivalency formula as they are effectively a two stroke, there's no dead exhaust cycle.
There's probably an article on the car in one of my old Race Car Engineering's, but I can't be bothered digging them out :p
The GTR's ran in the same class as the V8's Pat, with the same weight and fuel limits as they were twin turbo'd.
Again, the equivalency formula.
There were lots of things turned off in them too, they were just too sophisticated for a race vehicle at the time as it costs so much to go testing.
Things like the four wheel steering were never, ever tested, it was locked in place.
A mate of mine spannered on the Bob Forbes/GIO car that Mark Gibbs and Rohan Onslow raced.
They are nice cars.
AFAIK Bob still owns it, and it comes out to play sometimes.
Technically superior in what way?,they were lighter and had a bigger fuel tank,how's that ''technically superior''?. PatQuote:
Originally Posted by isuzurover