Rotary engines banned from Le Mans following 787B win
Discussion
Why did the FIA elect to ban rotary engines from the LeMans series?
If it was because in the 1991 victory they underestimated the fairness of of what power they could make vs traditional engines.
It’s a shame they were stopped - imagine balance of power enabling these to race which may have resulted in these different technologies becoming more mainstream.
If it was because in the 1991 victory they underestimated the fairness of of what power they could make vs traditional engines.
It’s a shame they were stopped - imagine balance of power enabling these to race which may have resulted in these different technologies becoming more mainstream.
Along the with the banning of Ferrari V12s in F1 the other big myth of the 90s.
For the 1991 season FIA standardised sportscars to run 3.5L engines, along with F1, so as such the 787B was already banned before it ever got near a race track let alone the chequered flag falling. The reliability of the 3.5L engines were so poor that the 'old' Group C cars were eligible for LM.
For the 1991 season FIA standardised sportscars to run 3.5L engines, along with F1, so as such the 787B was already banned before it ever got near a race track let alone the chequered flag falling. The reliability of the 3.5L engines were so poor that the 'old' Group C cars were eligible for LM.
entropy said:
Welshbeef said:
Should the Sauber C9 have really won that year/ not a fair victory for Mazda?
Sauber reverted to the C11 as the NA engine was unreliable!Mazda wasn't even a quick car in standard trim. Unfair/BOP?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_C11
Nearly 800bhp per tonne incredible - hard to imagine what pinning the throttle in that car would feel like apart from when you stop a massive grin that lasts and lasts.
Nearly 800bhp per tonne incredible - hard to imagine what pinning the throttle in that car would feel like apart from when you stop a massive grin that lasts and lasts.
Welshbeef said:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_C11
Nearly 800bhp per tonne incredible - hard to imagine what pinning the throttle in that car would feel like apart from when you stop a massive grin that lasts and lasts.
In 1970 the McLaren M8D with a N/A pushrod V8 had about 1,000bhp/ton!Nearly 800bhp per tonne incredible - hard to imagine what pinning the throttle in that car would feel like apart from when you stop a massive grin that lasts and lasts.
. DanielSan said:
Just a mix of reliability and weirdly fuel economy that got Mazda over the line first wasn't it? A staggering thing to say about any rotary engine.
Rotaries are reasonably efficient when used at full load, it's the low throttle openings where they get mullered in the economy stakes.Also worth understanding that it was decades of racing and development work to get it into that position anyway, not a flash in the pan effort.
They carried on using some of the chassis for the rest of the season, and the following year the 792 came 4th or 5th I think with a conventional engine.
It will always remain one of the finest sounding cars of all time though. (Unless you were Gachot)
They carried on using some of the chassis for the rest of the season, and the following year the 792 came 4th or 5th I think with a conventional engine.
It will always remain one of the finest sounding cars of all time though. (Unless you were Gachot)
It looks like the FIA have let rotaries back in https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/technical_...
Mazda have plans to reintroduce rotaries but sadly the rotary engine looks like it's going to be used as a generator rather than direct drive to the wheels.
Mazda have plans to reintroduce rotaries but sadly the rotary engine looks like it's going to be used as a generator rather than direct drive to the wheels.
untakenname said:
It looks like the FIA have let rotaries back in https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/technical_...
Mazda have plans to reintroduce rotaries but sadly the rotary engine looks like it's going to be used as a generator rather than direct drive to the wheels.
They make sense as a generator power plant, you can run them at the best speed all the time. Mazda have plans to reintroduce rotaries but sadly the rotary engine looks like it's going to be used as a generator rather than direct drive to the wheels.
BrettMRC said:
Also worth understanding that it was decades of racing and development work to get it into that position anyway, not a flash in the pan effort.
They carried on using some of the chassis for the rest of the season, and the following year the 792 came 4th or 5th I think with a conventional engine.
It will always remain one of the finest sounding cars of all time though. (Unless you were Gachot)
The 792 didn't race at Le Mans. The MXR-01, which was a Jaguar XJR14 with a Judd V10, finished 4th at LM.They carried on using some of the chassis for the rest of the season, and the following year the 792 came 4th or 5th I think with a conventional engine.
It will always remain one of the finest sounding cars of all time though. (Unless you were Gachot)
Welshbeef said:
Coatesy351 said:
Mazda also manage to covince the FIA to let them run 170kg lighter than the other group c cars in the 1991 race.
Should the Sauber C9 have really won that year/ not a fair victory for Mazda?All the extra weight hurt the Group C cars in terms of general stress, fuel economy, drivetrain and brake usage etc. 170kg is a huge weight penalty over 24 hours. The GTP category Mazdas weren't affected by this at all.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff