Re: The most acrobatic car ever.

Discussion in '1999 Mercedes-Benz CLR' started by McLaren_Man, Aug 10, 2002.

  1. I must say that I have quite a bit of repsect for RacingManiac. I agree with almost everything that he has said, and his facts ARE concise. I only have one qualm with his comments--calling the MB team "stupid". The Porsche 911 GT1 had the same thing happen to it when coming over the hill on the Mulsanne. After '99, GT1 was toast, and for good reason. Cars were simply getting too powerful and too light--nothing can fool the world of physics.
  2. #27 RacingManiac, Aug 10, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    They had the flip at Road Atlanta's hump following traffic.....

    and on the Peter Dumbrek thing:

    No.5 AMG Mercedes, D
    Mercedes CLR
    Christophe Bouchut, F
    Nick Heidfeld, D
    Peter Dumbreck, GB

    source: <!-- Signature -->
  3. Part of it was a setup problem, part was the track, and part was the aero of LMP-GTP design. First the rear springs were set too soft, second, the car went over a very slight hump, third the GTP design creates more lift with the closed cockpit than open cars and also the closed cockpit actually reconnects the airflow that hits the front to the air flow hitting the back wing. So this is how i think it happened. The car hit a small hump, the front diffuser stalled and lost downforce. But the rear wing kept downforce and pushed the back end of the car down. So the rear wing kept pressing down on the back tires, which pushed the front up. Then the front of the car blocked the rear wing of the car from the air and the rear lost its downforce. So now none of the tires had downforce and the flat bottom of the car deflected more air under the car then over and the car lifted into the air.
  4. It also caught a lot of air from the Toyota GT1 in front of it... <!-- Signature -->
  5. Its still an awesome machine. I'd love to own the surviving one if it's still around. Won't happen though.
  6. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from MB_CLK-GTR</i>
    <b>It flopped... 3 times!</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->??????????????!!!!!!!!!!!<!-- Signature -->
  7. I got a crappy flick somewhere in my collection where a 935 flipped 18 times and blew away part of the track where it hit (might be my imagination, but imagine it)<!-- Signature -->
  8. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from RacingManiac</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from F50 Koenig</i>
    <b>It seems 'eggy' doesn't know a god damn thing about cars. How can you expect a car that weight less than a ton, has 600+ horses and runs at an average 185 MPH to be perfect? At some point there had to be a screw up. In Le Mans the car that wins is the one that makes the least mistakes. Period. Now you keep saying the same stupid things, the cars sucks and you talk about planes and a whole bunch of bull, but what you don't know is that the car flipped because of its rear torque, which was obviously set to a very high amount, big screw up yeah but that doesn't mean the car is no racer. When you set too much power on the rear tire, to get impulse something gonna happen. I can imagine the MB team trying to get better cornering speed by setting the torque higher so that the car would get better reaction time from the engine after coming out of a corner, this I believe and the aerodynamics, the downforce were too much of an issue for such a light car. To me Mercedes will always be Mercedes, and you can't insult a 100 years of history for a couple of errors.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Rear torque? Now that's about the most ridiculus thing I've heard so far.....ALL of the prototype class car running at Le Mans that year have tremandous amount of torque and weight 900kg, how come only one car have that problem? The downforce is there to keep all the power under control. If it's simply a setup problem, you would think the team would have learned something from the 2 other flips before the race if it's simply a setup problem. But no, the problem is fondamental, the car IS flawed aerodynamically. Simple as that. The car took off even after the correction measure is made, that says something about how much a problem the original design has.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
  9. It flipped over 3 times and Audi R8s win 3 consecutive years
  10. It's part of the shame history of Mercedes-Benz
  11. After reading some posts that downgraded this car.... I still love this car veeeeeery much!
  12. how can u say this sucks? those flips were awesome!
  13. and think of poor old mark webber who was in it both times it flipped, wouldn't that be fun.

    this car looks so cool, but is it just me or r race cars supposed to be designed for aerodynamics rather than looks, especially aerodynamics that keep the car on the road.
  14. didn't mercedes get banned following the crashes from competing in those races.
  15. i don't think so, but they lost alot of pride, face or whatever u want to call it when the CLR flipped, so thats y they probably won't show up at Le Mans again. <A BORDER="0" HREF=""><IMG BORDER="0" SRC=""></A>
  16. A 115 million dollar budget and they couldn't get it right. It must have been a case of pride that they kept pushing and needed TWO flips to finally withdraw. Strange.

    And why has nobody corrected Racing-God? Waste of time I guess.
  17. I just watched the video of the flip. It's unbelievable the driver walked away from that.

Share This Page