The phrase Racing Improves the Breed has been used for decades, and has for just as long been a truism when it comes to production cars. But that’s not always the case, and sometimes a tech that seems promising on the track never makes it to the street. Sometimes in fact, it never makes much of a splash in competition.
That’s what we’re looking for today, failed tech that was tried, but proved not to be true. Some of it was pretty obvious, but other times not so much. What do you think was the most surprising failed racing technology attempt?
Image: retrobike.co.uk
Hooniverse Asks: What Was The Most Surprising Racing Technology Failure?
By Robert Emslie
Aug 11, 2015
Jeff Glucker
The 1970 Chaparral 2J “Vacuum Car”. Not only was the rear suction unit not very reliable, but it also aroused the ire of competing teams to the point that it was soon banned.
The Brabham BT46B F1 car worked fine, and won its only race.
Gas turbine engine. Nearly won Indy (twice, I think) and raced at LeMans.
The Rover-BRM gas turbine came seventh in the prototype class in 1965 at Le Mans, driven by Graham Hill And Jackie Stewart
http://8w.forix.com/ghill/gh-rover-brm.jpg
There’s a piece in the new Octane magazine about overhauling the Rover-BRM engine and taking the car back to Le Mans. Apparently, it was damaged before that race even started, and hadn’t been repaired til now.
Thanks for that, I must get a copy. To me it does look like one of William Town’s finer efforts at styling, up with the DBS and better than the AM Lagonda. Apparently if they’d continued racing, it was to be classed as a 2 litre. I like the flush glass all those years before Audi did it.
Suction technology and gas turbines don’t qualify, IMO, because they were banned, not because they don’t work.
It’s hard to think of a cool technology like driver-adjustable wings, that was dropped because it was a loser, not because it was banned.
I’ve read here about a car for oval courses that had three wheels on the outside. Obviously it never trickled down to the mass market, as one would need two cars: one for turning left, the second for turning right.
The “three-wheel” supermodified worked fine in testing with Tim Richmond. Banned before it ever raced.
Thanks, using the driver’s name I could find a picture for general information and entertainment:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KAphjfG6XNY/UknWuwb3QLI/AAAAAAAAGV8/2vJgaS-lH9w/s1600/kenny-reece-2.jpg
Four wheel drive in F1. It worked at Indy (both of the gas turbines that led Indy at 450 miles had 4WD), but the 1969 F1 cars with 4WD were reviled by the drivers. They probably didn’t have the differential technology to work. Most of the interest in 4WD was for dry races, because teams wanted to use the front tires for acceleration. Advances in tires were coming so fast in the late 60s that everyone lost interest in 4WD. Introducing huge rear slicks made 4WD mostly superfluous, and no one cared when it was banned later.
Stirling Moss LOVES the 1961 Ferguson P99 4WD F1 car (and this is a man who’s won races with the opposite approach, a Lotus 20 at Monaco and Spa). He won a non-Championship F1 race in it. Cost no object, he says he’d have had both the P99 in the truck for wet races and a lightweight 2WD car for dry races, and he’d choose at the track.
Nurburgring, not Spa.
Lotus 18, not 20. I suck.
Personally I was surprised to learn just after turn nine that SAAB made two types of steel wheel for the 95/96/97. I was less surprised to learn later that their Sport & Rally division used to offer reinforcing tabs for the weaker of the two designs.
http://www.murileemartin.com/UG/LWA13/400-UG-Pacific_Northworst_24_Hours_of_LeMons.jpg
It’s good to learn new things, although the timing is generally tricky.
Just after turn nine was far better than in the middle of turn nine.
Streamlined top fuel dragsters. Aside from amateur aerodynamics that made them unstable or made them fly, the extra weight was too much of a disadvantage in a race that starts from a dead stop and spends little time at top speed.
How about Rhys Millen dropping a 9:07.222 up Pikes Peak this year in an electric car? That’s so damn cool.
Pretty much anything ever conceived of by the man behind this logo.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0d/Life_logo_F1.png
For the benefit of us ignorant fools, who is the man behind the logo?
Ernesto Vita. The Wikipedia page does a good job of covering this, particularly the unfortunate table of results at the end:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Racing_Engines
I see. Another one of those ideas that sound good, but just don’t work, or work good enough. A rather expensive lesson to learn in his case.
Sorry. I posted this and then got really busy and couldn’t come back. I’m glad to see Mr. Harrell clarified things.
I love that the whole thing started with a money-making scheme to build the W16 engines and sell them to race teams.
At least the engine was cool-looking.
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/life_l190_2009-2.jpg
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2477/3707008770_5c0d6b6af3_b.jpg
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/life_l190_2009-4.jpg
H-16. Twice the pistons, twice the power. Right?
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33773868
Oooh. One of those things that shoulda worked, too.
“We have a super little 1.5 liter V8. A 3.0 liter 16-cylinder should put out twice the power with combustion chambers we’ve already perfected, and it shouldn’t be any heavier than two 1.5 V8s, and probably a bit lighter. It’ll be a touch complicated, but nothing we can’t handle.”
Wrong, wronger, and wrongest.
Colin Chapman’s biggest surprise was when he looked at it (Lotus was the only team to win a race with the H16).
“You know that you’ve put the wrong halves of the clutch on the engine and the transmission, don’t you?”
The “wind brake” Mercedes use on the 300SLR was effective but not worth the complexity especially when disc brake technology was coming into its own.
http://www.letrabe.es/Clasp/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/fangio-le-mans-1955-airbreak.jpg
The complexity and redundant weight may have put people off, but they never got the hang of disc brake technology at Le Mans on big cars in the period. On top of pad changes, no one ever figured out how to make a metal disc rotor durable on a fast, heavy car at Le Mans until carbon/carbon brakes came in the 80s. They still change rotors routinely during the race as a precaution, if there’s time.
The 1967 STP Turbine came within 10 miles of winning the Indy 500 doing this.
The long straights at Le Mans, Indy, etc, were the best applications for air brakes, because you didn’t use the brakes daintily at the end of the long straights to slightly adjust your speed. You wanted to slow the hell down so you could a) get around the corner somehow and b) not die. Air brakes are bulky and add redundant weight, which usually is bad for a racing car, but they’re light for what they do and powerful, which is very good in some cases.
The FIA banned driver-operated wings and flaps, which made it a moot issue by the end of the 60s.
When Bloodhound SSC goes for 1000mph, you’ll see the most effective air braking ever on a car. From 1000mph to 800, it will slow down at 3g just from air drag over the regular shape. At 800mph, Andy deploys flaps to increase drags so the car keeps slowing at 3g. At 600mph, he deploys the first of two parachutes. Wheel brakes come into play at 250mph and below.
I still miss the Tyrell P34. Such a wonderful vehicle.
Is it a failure when your race machine is sooooo badass that it scares everyone around it including the driver ? the TZ750 aka ” satan’s chainsaw “
Well the Tyrrell did lead to a production 6 wheeler car.
The Panther Six with it’s mid engine turbo Cadillac 8 litre V8. They made two.
http://onlytruecars.com/data_images/models/panther-six/panther-six-01.jpg
http://www.ridelust.com/wp-content/uploads/93_6-500×333.jpg
http://www.panthercarclub.com/images/history/p6/no1/f.jpg
Early examples of the Abarth SE013 3000 V8 had the radiator that also acted as a spoiler. To my ignorant eyes this seems like a great idea, not sure what was wrong with it.
http://www.bernimotori.com/images/cars/SE013/SE013_3.jpg
http://www.bernimotori.com/images/cars/SE013/SE013_4.jpg
When racers started experimenting with wings and spoilers, very few people had an accurate concept of what they did and how they worked. (For example, you’ll see a few midship placed wing sections like this in the 60s, esp in Italy. It disappeared pretty quickly.) Basically, a heat exchanger and a wing section have fundamentally different functions, and go together like peanuts and bubble gum. That there is basically an air brake that also cools stuff.
However, in modern racecar aerodynamics, the radiators are an integrated part of the airflow through and around a car. In this classical illustration of a Lotus 79 style ground effect car, the radiators form part of the forward side of the venturi, and bleed some air through for cooling.
The Wankel rotary engine.
http://cdn.playbuzz.com/cdn/8df2fe81-ab48-40e1-81fb-0a80bc3771a4/a692b69e-fae1-4122-8496-a04f35225c29.gif
Wankel engines worked fine in racing, where they were allowed. Mazda won Le Mans with one. I don’t know about other countries, but rotary-powered Mazdas cleaned up in small sports cars in the US.
Right, they survive and do well under race use, but those engines earned a reputation for poor fuel consumption and frequent rebuilds under street use. The problem is that, when driven gently, they don’t get enough oil and wear out fast. So they’re terrible for street cars. When raced, they still suck on fuel, but they’re reliable and long-lasting.
(The “run away” gif was meant in anticipation of a flame war from rotary fanatics.)
So why are they being mentioned in a discussion of failed racing technology, except for the specific purpose of riling up the people who know perfectly well that rotary engines aren’t an example of failed racing technology?
There are few successful racing engines that would actually be good street engines (acceptable low-speed drivability, fuel economy, oil consumption, service life, etc).
Precisely to rile up rotary fanatics, but also because the question in the post says, “sometimes a tech that seems promising on the track never makes it to the street.” I thought the rotary was close enough to a good example of this. Sure, most race engines aren’t suitable for street use, but most car companies don’t put race engines in production cars. The rotary is an engine that does well in race use, was use in many production cars over decades, but might be considered a failure as a street engine. It’s a valid response to the question.
For me the most surprising racing technology failure was Honda’s 1979 oval-pistoned Grand Prix race engines. Class rules limited engines to four cylinders, but nothing said the pistons had to be round .
Everyone said it was crazy, and couldn’t possibly work, and they were right.
However, Honda came Damn Close to making it work.
http://world.honda.com/history/challenge/1979pistonengine/
Those people are like to drive racing care they found more enjoy this see this new car. These are well technologies and looks so well. I love this racing car.