David Jenkins
|
| posted on 9/12/05 at 10:11 PM |
|
|
I now know the car I'd like to drive...
Watched a programme on Sky the other day - best racing saloon car, or similar rubbish - they decided that the Porsche 917 was best... and they have a
point.
1100BHP in a 850Kg car. 
Apparently, many top-class drivers were terrified by it.
So, reconsidering my topic headline... maybe not!
David
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Allanson
|
| posted on 9/12/05 at 10:22 PM |
|
|
Here are the plans, go build one!
 
Rescued attachment porsche_917.jpg
If you can keep you head, whilst all others around you are losing theirs, you are not fully aware of the situation
|
|
|
andylancaster3000
|
| posted on 9/12/05 at 10:27 PM |
|
|
1973 917:
0-60 mph : 2.1 seconds
0-100mph : 3.9 secs
0-200mph : 13.4
...yes, does sound a tad pokey!
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 9/12/05 at 10:34 PM |
|
|
They interviewed some famous driver who used to pilot this beast in the 70s (as usual I've forgotten the name). Apparently he took his mother
out on the track... after a while she went quiet - she'd fainted! 
David
|
|
|
Viper
|
| posted on 9/12/05 at 10:42 PM |
|
|
Is that the car that Bell used to drive down the mulsane straight at over 200mph steering with his knees to give his hands a rest?
|
|
|
Triton
|
| posted on 9/12/05 at 10:52 PM |
|
|
What's wrong with a good old Mogworth 1000 then.......weird lot
My Daughter has taken over production of the damn fine Triton race seats and her contact email is emmatrs@live.co.uk.
www.tritonraceseats.com
www.hairyhedgehog.com
|
|
|
Volvorsport
|
| posted on 10/12/05 at 12:20 AM |
|
|
and in gulf colours .
i had the privilege of seeing the car in a private collection , that won le mans .
have to say a 917 would be my ultimate choice .
www.dbsmotorsport.co.uk
getting dirty under a bus
|
|
|
cossey
|
| posted on 10/12/05 at 12:40 AM |
|
|
the 1100bhp one was the canam one with the 5.4l twin turbos the european 917/917k only had a max of 630bhp. but the canam is the one with no roof.
the early non k ones supposedly handled like complete pigs and at the 69 lemans one of the privateers british drivers was killed in one iirc. the next
year the brit jwa team swapped the tail for the one of of the canam and the handling became driveable.
personally i wouldnt have picked it.
[Edited on 10/12/05 by cossey]
|
|
|
Browser
|
| posted on 10/12/05 at 08:05 AM |
|
|
I would pick this, just due to the sheer madness of the thing.
As stated above, the Le Mans non-turbo version 'only' had about 630 bhp and, indeed, an early version did kill it's driver:
"1969 - June 14-15
Le Mans - 3 Cars entered. The Rolf Stommelen & Kurt Ahrens car started from pole (with an average speed of 148mph) & went all out to win the
race. But within 1.5 hours they were slowed with clutch problems. Vic Elford & Richard Attwood qualified 2nd (av. 147mph) and agreed to take it
easy and utilise the 917s 30mph straight line speed advantage. They led until early Sunday morning when the same clutch problems took them out aswell.
Privateers John Woolfe & Herbert Linge took the 3rd car (chassis 917.005). Woolfe made a great start until a tricky high speed corner where he
lost control & hit the armco. The highly fuelled car exploed & killed the driver."
These were the early Langheck (longtail) versions. Porsche allegedly took off the rear body work at a test session and the drivers reported it was
already better, so they rivveted on some sheet ali and it was transformed, hey presto they had invented the Kurzheck (short tail) version! Another
Derek Bell quote was that over 200mph on the Mulsanne, if you looked in the rear view mirror the horizon dropped as the tail rose due to the
wet-finger-in-the-air aerodynamics. It was a mad car, the engine oil was contained in the (ali/magnesium alloy) chassis to save weight, at the same
time making it bloody hot for the drivers. THe engine was a 180 degree V12 as they use less crankpins & main bearings than a flat 12 and are thus
more compact, as well as fewer pumping losses due to better piston phasing.
As also stated at the beginning, the mighty 917/10 and 917/30 were built to contest the Canadian American challenge cup. In a raceseries known for
it's extreme cars, such as the Reynolds ali blocked 8+ litre Chevy-powered Mclaren M20 and the various weird and wonderful Chapparals, the
917/10 was something to behold with it'sdyno verified 1000 bhp and was rapidly nicknamed the turbopanzer by other competitors.
The last and maddest of the line was the 917/30, looking gloriously 70's in it's purple Sunoco sponsored colourscheme.
With 1100bhp and an extra 100bhp overboost should regular driver Mark Donohue actually have to race anyone they wiped the floor with the
opposition. You can read all about the 917 here as well as looking at some very nice pictures. As you may have
noticed, I rather like the 917, though, given the chance to actually drive one I'd doubtless kack myself!
When I win the lottery, I want one of these!
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 10/12/05 at 07:41 PM |
|
|
whats the difference between a 180 degree V and a flat engine? surely both would be flat?
|
|
|
Triton
|
| posted on 10/12/05 at 11:50 PM |
|
|
I take it then the rear wing acts as a roll bar...........clever that
My Daughter has taken over production of the damn fine Triton race seats and her contact email is emmatrs@live.co.uk.
www.tritonraceseats.com
www.hairyhedgehog.com
|
|
|
Jasper
|
| posted on 11/12/05 at 02:05 PM |
|
|
Sure I've seen this Car at Goodwood a few time in Gulf colours, it made a hell of a noise
|
|
|
Browser
|
| posted on 11/12/05 at 09:26 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
whats the difference between a 180 degree V and a flat engine? surely both would be flat?
They are both physically flat it's the way the con rods connect to the crank. In a vee engine two con rods share a crank pin, which is why the
layout is so attractive as, for example, a V8 only needs 5 main bearings as there is one at each end of the crank and then one in between each of the
four crank pins. A flat eight engine has eight crank pins (one for each con rod and thus nine main bearings, making it longer and heavier, clever
innit There's a good site here wot tells you about this sort of
stuff. Another mad fact about the 917/10 & /30 is that they were conceived when turbocharging was in it's infancy so there were no
intercoolers, so Porsche must have lost a few bhp just due to idiotic intake charge temperatures. Also, this was before the days of electronic engine
management so fuel injection was all done using mechanical cams. Apparrently, when the development team took the prorotype to the test track for the
first time it took them about an hour to get it to start! The test derivers then rapidly found that it was virtually undriveable as, goin into a
corner they had to floor the throttle and brake so that it (a) slowed for the corner then (b) spooled up enough boost to pull it out the other
side! Mark Donohue eventually hit on making the F.I. sensetive to boost pressure as well as throttle position and engine speed and it finally came
good.
Final trivia, mentioning the word spool reminded me. The ruddy thing was so powerful it ate diffs, open or L.S.D. type so they ran it with a spool
diff, in other words as solid lump of metal between the two axles Imagine the handling in corners
[Edited on 11/12/05 by Browser]
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 11/12/05 at 09:40 PM |
|
|
spit it out man!
|
|
|
Browser
|
| posted on 11/12/05 at 09:41 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
spit it out man!
Awright smarty-pants, I hit enter when I should've tabbed down the page
|
|
|
