Ah, the cheating Le Mans winner. An odd choice, except the 956/962 chassis will fit directly I guess.
I say cheating, but maybe opportunist would be better. They used a bit of a loophole to enter this car as a GT version of a road car (you see them all the time in the supermarket car park) which was supposedly sold by Dauer based on the 962 race car.
The Dauer and the Moby Dick cheats are the two reasons I don't care for Porsche. I also think that they (and others in fairness) did for GT-1 with their interpretation of the rules whilst the likes of Honda and Nissan were playing it fairer.
QUOTE (Ecurie Ecosse 9-5 @ 5 Feb 2004, 08:24 PM)Specifically with an extra inlet on the turbo, why Toyota of course.
Has anyone read the article in Racecar Engineering (could have been Race tech) about this 'restrictor bypass'...?? A very clever bit of engineering... but not clever enough... they got caught!
QUOTE (Ecurie Ecosse 9-5 @ 5 Feb 2004, 06:52 PM)(you see them all the time in the supermarket car park)
I wish. That would do the job of scaring the old biddies in their Nissan Micras on a Saturday morning
Oh yes.... Sorry I'm stereotyping. Must avoid.
"Loud pipes save lives" according to bikers - holds true for cars too
Porsche has always used every possible loophole in the rules they could, all the way to stealing a world championship that did not belong to them in 1982. The Group-C Rondeau-Ford was effectively beating Porsche that year in points, the first year of the 956, because of the early results gained by the French tiny manufacturer, with a notable a win at Monza and good other placings.
So the crafty krauts fished some points gained by a privately entered GT entry at the Nurburgring to fatten their total. The thing is, this nearly stock 930 had a few infractions to the GT rules regarding what was allowed or not, so it got classified as a "Prototype", or...Group-C. Hence the "available" points for the 956's.
The FIA did not want to tell Porsche to go fish because their pond was not so big, so the little Rondeau team was robbed of a well-deserved title, by a single point.
Personally, my favourite was Porsche's argument for inclusion in the '69 (I think- where's me damn book... thanks, and the little pink pills) Le Mans with an illegal 'movable aerodynamic device'.
If I remember right, it went along the lines of 'We designed the car to run this way. It's unsafe without the wing, so we'll withdraw our entry if you don't let us use it'
Which seems to my cynically post-Hutton report mind to mean- 'We designed, built and entered an illegal car so that we could win this pifflingling little race of yours. But you can't throw us out because we'll withdraw if you do.'
Does that sound about right to you experts out there?
I find this sort of thing odd, criticising a racing car manufacturer for building the best car they could, within the rules...
If the rules allow such huge loopholes, then surely it's the fault of those who framed the regs in the first place. If you write the rules so badly that you can drive moby dick or a 962 staight through them, you can hardly start complaining when someone turns up with the white whale.
Diddling rondeau out of a championship seems a little underhanded, though.
Wasn't the thing with the 917 in 69 that the cars were built, then between the Le Mans test and the race, the ruling body changed the rules?
QUOTE I daresay there never really was a period of genuine 'gentlemanly' sport.
Not when there was/is big bucks on the line.
I hope with all my heart that this resurgence of the Slot Hobby does not begin to attract big money race series (even if big money in the true sense does not and never did apply). Seeing elsewhere that someone reputedly got paid in the thousands for a weekends slotwork a couple of decades ago helps me begin to understand why the hobby declined.
there's a good section in peter morgan's "the enduring champions" about the dauer car- whatit shared and what it didn't share with the 962.
as I remeber it, the mechanicals were similar, but not identical, and the aero was very different. all the bodywork was different and the big venturis the group C car had were gone because of the GT rules. basically it was a 962 with a fraction of the downforce and narrower tyres. From what I remember of the book, the drivers quite liked it, because it wasn't as physically demanding as the group C car...
It seems the regulators thought that having to get a car through a country's approval process would rule out too extreme a car, but you only have to think of the sort of stuff people have managed to road-register (such as a 917) to realise how much of a bad idea this was...
A forum community dedicated to slot car owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about collections, racing, displays, models, track layouts, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!