Motorsport OMG / WTF moments - Racing Funnies, Fails, Crashes, And Randomness

[SlipZtrEm]

I remember the last kart-kid who thought that he would have a leg up at Thunder Hill. He was giving out a lot of advise to the newbies at the beginning, and asking for a lot of advise at the end.

Karting skills do not translate to road racing skills. Karting skills translate to karting skills.

In before people mention Senna or Schumacher as some sort of proof that karting experience = automatic racer driver godliness.

In fact, that Porsche, though notoriously difficult to drive fast, is not that hard to drive. That's the point I'm trying to make.

Phew, glad I've received a new verdict on the Porsche, not by a seasoned journalist or race driver, but a kid who's taken their automatic Impreza wagon to a track once, and started karting about a decade later than all those people who've gone far with racing careers. Decades of documented information on the widow-maker status of old 911's, erased just like that.

 

[Clark]

I just emailed Walter Rohrl and he says whenever he sets a lap time for a new 911 round the 'Ring he always reads a newspaper while doing the lap, that's with an auto'911. With a manual he said it's a lot harder, he can only check the football scores on those laps.

 

[R5]

I just emailed Walter Rohrl and he says whenever he sets a lap time for a new 911 round the 'Ring he always reads a newspaper while doing the lap, that's with an auto'911. With a manual he said it's a lot harder, he can only check the football scores on those laps.

Wait. The Walter Rohrl? The rally driver who dominated Pikes Peak? That one?

Nice nugget of info too

 

[Clark]

Wait. The Walter Rohrl? The rally driver who dominated Pikes Peak? That one?

Nice nugget of info too

Don't know if you knew I was being sarcastic or not...

:s

 

[Danny]

Dear God...

 

[Accro2008]

Some footage of the FWD king



from 1:20

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

I'm afraid I have to agree with the others, drifters do not do it better. I have done a couple of drifting sessions in the past and have to say that once you get the technique right it is not too difficult to do on a track surface, whereas rally drivers have to deal with constantly changing track surfaces. In fact I am looking to go to a nearby rally school soon to give it a go.

I was only referring to drifters vs. Porsche drivers. They're vaguely similar, anyways.

 

[niky]

A Drifter is driving around a car with a massive amount of front-end camber, a special steering rack with extra lock and a suspension set specifically so they can hold long, lurid slides. The weight of the engine is up-front, so the light back end can swing around easily and under control.

A classic Porsche driver is driving around a car that wants to understeer under power, but which has a gigantic counterweight hanging out back that wants to overtake the front end any time you get frisky with it. You can't lean on it like a front-engined car, instead, you dance around that hammer sitting behind your skull.

Vaguely is an entirely appropriate term. Both take a lot of skill, but the technique is not identical.

 

[Samus]

I was only referring to drifters vs. Porsche drivers. They're vaguely similar, anyways.

You make some really bizarre statements.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

You make some really bizarre statements.

You make almost no statements. I'm saying that the Porsche driver can't "afford" to push the car hard, that most "widowmaker" drivers don't drive the car to its full potential, because it's so hard to drive.

Drifters, and a few others, have to push beyond the limit of adhesion, push well beyond the car's full potential, in order to put on a bigger show.


I know, for a fact, I would not enjoy driving that Porsche, because it's such a poor attempt at a race car. No one's going to drive it overly uncontrollably. It's not the same, in my opinion, because no one will feel brave enough to drive it beyond the limit, in order to learn to drive it at the limit.

Edit: I prefer rally, anyways. Driving 200+ km/h through trees on narrow roads seems more hair-raising than driving a Porsche on an F1 track with F1 safety features.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Why in the living hell did he get excluded from the sprint race?! The guy in front was the one who messed up, if anyone...

Because it was a rookie error at Abbey, one of the fastest corners on the circuit. And also because Fumanelli didn't make a msitake - Kujala tapped him, which is why he went slightly sideways, and although he caught it in time to make the corner, Kujala then drove over him.

 

[TheCracker]

You make almost no statements. I'm saying that the Porsche driver can't "afford" to push the car hard, that most "widowmaker" drivers don't drive the car to its full potential, because it's so hard to drive.

Drifters, and a few others, have to push beyond the limit of adhesion, push well beyond the car's full potential, in order to put on a bigger show.


I know, for a fact, I would not enjoy driving that Porsche, because it's such a poor attempt at a race car. No one's going to drive it overly uncontrollably. It's not the same, in my opinion, because no one will feel brave enough to drive it beyond the limit, in order to learn to drive it at the limit.

Edit: I prefer rally, anyways. Driving 200+ km/h through trees on narrow roads seems more hair-raising than driving a Porsche on an F1 track with F1 safety features.

Have you actually watched the video?

The guy has talent. He's pushing that car well over it's limits in all the quick corners. To get the best out of those tyres (i expect Dunlop CR65's) you have to push them over their low limits of adhesion. Backing a car into a corner like that, even if it's largely a symptom of historic racing tyre construction, is proper MotoGP Alien stuff. This is a guy who know how to get the best out of his car with the limits of it weight distribution.

 

[Bopop4]

Have you actually watched the video?

The guy has talent. He's pushing that car well over it's limits in all the quick corners. To get the best out of those tyres (i expect Dunlop CR65's) you have to push them over their low limits of adhesion. Backing a car into a corner like that, even if it's largely a symptom of historic racing tyre construction, is proper MotoGP Alien stuff. This is a guy who know how to get the best out of his car with the limits of it weight distribution.

I agree with all that, expect the MotoGP part.

Driving a vintage Porsche like that doesn't take half the skill that riding a GP bike does.

 

[TheCracker]

I agree with all that, expect the MotoGP part.

Driving a vintage Porsche like that doesn't take half the skill that riding a GP bike does.

Not saying it does. Just making the point that that level of control shows a superior understanding of what the vehicle is doing under you.

 

[Furinkazen]

You make almost no statements. I'm saying that the Porsche driver can't "afford" to push the car hard, that most "widowmaker" drivers don't drive the car to its full potential, because it's so hard to drive.

Drifters, and a few others, have to push beyond the limit of adhesion, push well beyond the car's full potential, in order to put on a bigger show.

I know, for a fact, I would not enjoy driving that Porsche, because it's such a poor attempt at a race car. No one's going to drive it overly uncontrollably. It's not the same, in my opinion, because no one will feel brave enough to drive it beyond the limit, in order to learn to drive it at the limit.

Edit: I prefer rally, anyways. Driving 200+ km/h through trees on narrow roads seems more hair-raising than driving a Porsche on an F1 track with F1 safety features.

Possibly one of the poorest posts I have read in while. The 911 is a tail happy car. In the case of any car, some people will find the limit. I would like to see you in that Porsche driving that thing.

Your point about drifting is meaningless. Drifting is about going sideways for a show in a car set up for it. Racing is about going fastest, these things ideally should not happen so should be applauded when they happen, a driver is trying get round as fast as possible, not as sideways.

And what does rallying have to do with anything?

 

[Bopop4]

Not saying it does. Just making the point that that level of control shows a superior understanding of what the vehicle is doing under you.

Ah ok. 👍
I just interpreted it as a direct comparison.

 

[FordMKIVJ5]

You make almost no statements. I'm saying that the Porsche driver can't "afford" to push the car hard, that most "widowmaker" drivers don't drive the car to its full potential, because it's so hard to drive.

Drifters, and a few others, have to push beyond the limit of adhesion, push well beyond the car's full potential, in order to put on a bigger show.


I know, for a fact, I would not enjoy driving that Porsche, because it's such a poor attempt at a race car. No one's going to drive it overly uncontrollably. It's not the same, in my opinion, because no one will feel brave enough to drive it beyond the limit, in order to learn to drive it at the limit.

Edit: I prefer rally, anyways. Driving 200+ km/h through trees on narrow roads seems more hair-raising than driving a Porsche on an F1 track with F1 safety features.

You do realise the Porsche 911 is one of the most successful racing cars of all time and formed the base for, arguably, the greatest 4th gen. group 5 car of all time right?


Oh, and it was (and still is) a great rally car:

 

[Samus]

You make almost no statements. I'm saying that the Porsche driver can't "afford" to push the car hard, that most "widowmaker" drivers don't drive the car to its full potential, because it's so hard to drive.

Drifters, and a few others, have to push beyond the limit of adhesion, push well beyond the car's full potential, in order to put on a bigger show.

Purposely driving beyond the limit of adhesion to initiate drifts and driving to a cars limit of adhesion without going over it are two very differnt things and the former is much easier than the latter. Maybe not to master but in general anyone can push a car enough to start a drift.

I know, for a fact, I would not enjoy driving that Porsche, because it's such a poor attempt at a race car. No one's going to drive it overly uncontrollably. It's not the same, in my opinion, because no one will feel brave enough to drive it beyond the limit, in order to learn to drive it at the limit.

Have you watched any motorsport in say, the last 50 years? A Porsche 911 a poor attempt at a race car that nobody has driving to it's limits? Seriously?

Edit: I prefer rally, anyways. Driving 200+ km/h through trees on narrow roads seems more hair-raising than driving a Porsche on an F1 track with F1 safety features.

Good for you. Not really got anything to do with your drifting and Porsche driving quote.

 

[Cano]

Fact 1: at least one Porsche 911 has been entered in Le Mans since 1966.

Fact 2: The 911 is one of like three production-based cars in the modern (read: prototype) era that can bragg about outright winning the 24 Hours of Le Mans.

Yup it sucks.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

I agree with all that, expect the MotoGP part.

Driving a vintage Porsche like that doesn't take half the skill that riding a GP bike does.

Though this reminds me: I've driven a scooter, so I'll see you all at Isle of Man next year.

 

[Bopop4]

Though this reminds me: I've driven a scooter, so I'll see you all at Isle of Man next year.

I don't quite understand this statement.

 

[TheCracker]

Though this reminds me: I've driven a scooter, so I'll see you all at Isle of Man next year.

Do it. Bet you can't beat my 2h 20min lap record. (Orion diesel class)

 

[Ranman20]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_911_GT1

Read and learn.

 

[Tornado]

Well, to be fair, there wasn't a lot of 911 in the 911 GT1. Especially not after 1996 when they redid most of it and what little was there became "it has the same headlights as the 996."

Though this reminds me: I've driven a scooter, so I'll see you all at Isle of Man next year.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

I'm only talking about the 1973 911. Sure, Porsche has fixed the handling in the years since, but the 1973 generation was hard to drive. Fact is, cars that are hard to drive are normally faster when they're not driven beyond the limit of adhesion, and who wants to crash?

Seriously, it's not all that great of a video because it's clearly not the fastest driver in that car. He's skidding too much, it seems like a show-boaty driving style, and I can't help but think that he's a slow driver.

 

[Furinkazen]

I'm only talking about the 1973 911. Sure, Porsche has fixed the handling in the year since, but the 1973 generation was hard to drive. Fact is, cars that are hard to drive are normally faster when they're not driven beyond the limit of adhesion, and who wants to crash?

What was the difference between a 1972, 73, and 74 then? Take it you drove them all?

And no, on the limit is always the fastest. You mention rallying. The one sport were you have to be on the very limit every time.

Seriously, it's not all that great of a video because it's clearly not the fastest driver in that car. He's skidding too much, it seems like a show-boaty driving style, and I can't help but think that he's a slow driver.

Sure, you can do better no doubt 👍 Show boating on a racetrack... right...

 

[Danny]

I know, for a fact, I would not enjoy driving that Porsche, because it's such a poor attempt at a race car.

I almost feel bad addressing dumb posts you make because it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Here, educate yourself for a while before you sound even more idiotic. That 'poor attempt at a race car' is by far and away one of the most successful race cars ever made. And no, driving it is not in the least like the skills a drifter requires.

Mind you, I don't know why I'm taking anything you say seriously. You seem to think you're a professional racing driver. No, driving a Go Kart does not automatically qualify you to make either sweeping generalisations or pretend-informed decisions. Do yourself a favour and quit while you're only moderately behind.

 

[Clark]

I really wish Walter Rohrl wasn't such a show off, he should concentrate on going fast instead of sliding loads.

And for those who aren't sure, that was sarcasm.

 

[Wolfe]

If you're keeping things tidy in a '70s Porsche 911, you're going too slow.

 

[McLaren]

Doesn't mean that the talent required to be fast in one is different from the talent needed to control the other. If we're going to talk about car control, drifters do it better, then rally drivers. In fact, that Porsche, though notoriously difficult to drive fast, is not that hard to drive. That's the point I'm trying to make.

You make almost no statements. I'm saying that the Porsche driver can't "afford" to push the car hard, that most "widowmaker" drivers don't drive the car to its full potential, because it's so hard to drive.

Wait, so is it not hard to drive, or is it?

I know, for a fact, I would not enjoy driving that Porsche, because it's such a poor attempt at a race car. No one's going to drive it overly uncontrollably. It's not the same, in my opinion, because no one will feel brave enough to drive it beyond the limit, in order to learn to drive it at the limit.

Wait, you mean to tell me the most dominating manufacturer of Le Mans & arguably, in sports car racing altogether, can't build a proper race car?

I'm only talking about the 1973 911. Sure, Porsche has fixed the handling in the years since, but the 1973 generation was hard to drive. Fact is, cars that are hard to drive are normally faster when they're not driven beyond the limit of adhesion, and who wants to crash?

How did we get on the topic of the '73 911 when the one in the video that spawned this debate is a '65 model?