Re: The most acrobatic car ever.

Discussion in '1999 Mercedes-Benz CLR' started by tiger005, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. 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 -->
     
  2. <!-- 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 -->
     
  3. It flipped over 3 times and Audi R8s win 3 consecutive years
     
  4. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from eggy87</i>
    <b>Mercedes didn't trust their cars enough to re-enter the last remaining CLR with appropriate adjustments. Also look at the CLK GTR LM, it sucked at LM but did good in all it's other races. Mercedes just isn't good at racing at LM.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    CLK LM raced at Le Mans, qualified on pole, retired with fuel pump belt failure on all 3 cars with in first 3 hours. But it won every single FIA GT Championship race that year. The car is an excellent sprinter, not a good endurance car.....

    CLK GTR on the other hand, never raced at Le Mans.<!-- Signature -->
     
  5. 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.
     
  6. The rear torque didn't have much to do with it at all. It was pretty much all aerodynamics being adjusted wrong. I didn't mean that the car sucks completely (it did win all the FIA races except one or two) just at endurance racing.
     
  7. The most acrobatic car ever.

    This car sucks. It may look sweet but if you don't already know the cars all flipped over backwards at LM. One even went completely flying and landed in the woods. Maybe Mercedes should have compared this car to an airplane's wing before they raced it. It's pretty embarrising when you are the largest car company in the world and your racecars would be better airplanes than cars.
     
  8. Actually, wise guy, you're wrong. The car itself is a very sound racing car. It's performance is great and it's victories are many. The cause of the accident was an error on the part of the team. The appropriate adjustments were made and their cars started winning. All in all, it's actually quite impressive to realize that modern day Le Mans cars are so light and so powerful that they can actually be flipped about like toys. It could've happened to any of the cars on the track. Sadly, guys like you don't realize that.
     
  9. That's just because no other races are as demanding as LM. When your car is shaped like an airplane wing it doesn't matter how much you adjust the undercarriage you will still flip on the Mulsanne straight.
     
  10. Mercedes didn't trust their cars enough to re-enter the last remaining CLR with appropriate adjustments. Also look at the CLK GTR LM, it sucked at LM but did good in all it's other races. Mercedes just isn't good at racing at LM.
     
  11. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Oliver Peck</i>
    <b>Actually, wise guy, you're wrong. The car itself is a very sound racing car. It's performance is great and it's victories are many. The cause of the accident was an error on the part of the team. The appropriate adjustments were made and their cars started winning. All in all, it's actually quite impressive to realize that modern day Le Mans cars are so light and so powerful that they can actually be flipped about like toys. It could've happened to any of the cars on the track. Sadly, guys like you don't realize that.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Actually "wise guy", you are wrong. CLR's one and only race it entered was the 1999 Le Mans 24 hours. After the class change between the 98 and 99 season with the abolishment of GT1 in FIA GT Championship, cars like the CLK GTR and CLK LM became obsolete. ACO still wanted these closed top car to compete at Le Mans, so they opened up a new LM-GTP class. CLR is designed under the new regulation just to compete at the one race it was eligible to compete, the Le Mans 24 hours. The car had aerodynamic defect since the first time it ran at Le Mans, and it became apparent it is not simply a setup problem, but with the fundamental design itself. Totally, CLR flipped 3 times during the whole event. 1st time on the race week testing with Mark Webber driving, then during qualifying again with Mark Webber driving, then in the race with Peter Dumbrek. Afterwards Mercedes immediately pulled out the sole CLR in the race with Bernd Schneider to prevent another chance for disaster(no doubt with that 1950s accident in mind). <!-- Signature -->
     
  12. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from RacingManiac</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Oliver Peck</i>
    <b>Actually, wise guy, you're wrong. The car itself is a very sound racing car. It's performance is great and it's victories are many. The cause of the accident was an error on the part of the team. The appropriate adjustments were made and their cars started winning. All in all, it's actually quite impressive to realize that modern day Le Mans cars are so light and so powerful that they can actually be flipped about like toys. It could've happened to any of the cars on the track. Sadly, guys like you don't realize that.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Actually "wise guy", you are wrong. CLR's one and only race it entered was the 1999 Le Mans 24 hours. After the class change between the 98 and 99 season with the abolishment of GT1 in FIA GT Championship, cars like the CLK GTR and CLK LM became obsolete. ACO still wanted these closed top car to compete at Le Mans, so they opened up a new LM-GTP class. CLR is designed under the new regulation just to compete at the one race it was eligible to compete, the Le Mans 24 hours. The car had aerodynamic defect since the first time it ran at Le Mans, and it became apparent it is not simply a setup problem, but with the fundamental design itself. Totally, CLR flipped 3 times during the whole event. 1st time on the race week testing with Mark Webber driving, then during qualifying again with Mark Webber driving, then in the race with Peter Dumbrek. Afterwards Mercedes immediately pulled out the sole CLR in the race with Bernd Schneider to prevent another chance for disaster(no doubt with that 1950s accident in mind). </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Not entirely right. Peter Dumbreck was driving the same car as Bernd Schneider. In fact Peter had only been in the car for like 2 or 3 laps, sinds Bernd just completed the first stind, and gave the wheel to Peter.
     
  13. 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.
     
  14. #14 RacingManiac, Aug 9, 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
    Drivers:
    Christophe Bouchut, F
    Nick Heidfeld, D
    Peter Dumbreck, GB

    source: http://user.tninet.se/~aiq291w/1999.htm <!-- Signature -->
     
  15. <!-- 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.<!-- Signature -->
     
  16. It flopped... 3 times!<!-- Signature -->
     
  17. Well the CLR is truly a great car, when ran in California, the cars seems better on the flat surfaces, powerful engine pushes hard on accelerations.

    At LeMans the CLRs have a problem going over long downhill sections, the back end struts lower than the front when pulling hard on acceleration going downhill. The front fenders were longer than any other LeMans car on the grid, which is the cause of all three incidents, the long fenders seems to catch and build up air after a slip stream of another car in front, and let air took into the underbody, and lets the car flip over like a paper in the wind.

    To let you guys know, the CLRs are really great cars, the only problem it had on race tracks are the downhill sections, and slip streams from another car. But overall it is a great car.
     
  18. For a car that's solely design to run Le Mans, to make those mistake in design is quite stupid since those are the characteristic of Le Mans.<!-- Signature -->
     
  19. anyways... it wouldn't hurt if I ever had one!<!-- Signature -->
     
  20. It flipped because it hit a minute bump...<!-- Signature -->
     
  21. gay looking.
     
  22. It's just a HOLY FAIL in aerodynamics.
     
  23. anyways... it redifines the term: "How Low Can You GO?!"<!-- Signature -->
     
  24. does anyone know if the driver lived through that? I have that on video, it's a little wet and the car just takes a back flip in mid air, it looked amazing though<!-- Signature -->
     
  25. Peter Dumbrek was the man, he walked away without a scratch.....it might not be a good race car, but they did a heck of a job on driver safety....<!-- Signature -->
     

Share This Page