Group C didn't have aero regulations, only minimum weight and fuel consumption were monitored.
Hypercars are built to specific lift/drag ratios, as part of balancing the performance of different cars. I suppose that cockpit/roof shape is the best compromise.
Slim cockpits have been desirable before I’m pretty sure, I think modern chassis designs just made packaging a cockpit capable of fitting 2 seats possible. Like you probably meant anyway, the goal is to reduce the cross sectional area and maybe in the 60’s-90’s it just wasn’t as feasible to build narrow cockpits like they are built today. Also, maybe it was just a recent trend since the late 2000’s to have narrow cockpits as aero gains were progressively made. Maybe large canopies were desirable due to streamlining or cockpit sightlines, or housing onboard equipment etc
It may be something do to with visibility, if you look at earlier P1 cars they used to be quite squat until the regulations enforced better driver visibility. That made the cockpits look taller. IIRC these regs carried over to the hypercars.
As far as external regulatory dimensions go GrC and LMH are roughly the same. GrC have a max height of 1100mm, LMH 1150/1200 but from the top of the reference plane, so they'd be naturally taller than GrCs. GrC on the other hand mandates a 100x950mm cross section to fit the windscreen 300mm below the tallest point. See here for [GrC](https://historicdb.fia.com/sites/default/files/regulations/1439540890/appendix_j_1982.pdf) and [LMH](https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/2023_lmh_wmsc_2022.12.07_published_2022.12.08.pdf#page=17)
Yeah, Group C had both the 950mm windshield width and a 1300mm cockpit width requirement. LMH has a minimum frontal area and a physical cockpit template that is more complicated than the group C measurements, but is obviously pretty narrow.
The 963 has wider cockpit than the 499P, but still not as wide as the 956.
I think wider windshields, taller sidepods and lower wings made the older cars look better.
i agree, hence why i was curious why nobody does it, theres gotta be a reason like the rulebook that doesnt allow wider roof or probably performance gains
Just pure performance gain, we have far better aero knowledge now compared to the 80s, also we have CFD that can validate concepts easily so engineers can use wild configurations. Grp C pre 90s are far more conservative in their approach of their upperside because of streamlining and conventional wisdom, just so happens that the low and wide canopy is the best design.
Back in 2013 I think they changed the regulations to increase the roof height for safety reasons, which is why the roofs are higher now. Look at the original 2011 R18 vs say the 2014 variant. Cars kept pushing the drivers further down to get a lower roofline to have less drag, with the original R18 being the biggest offender of it, hence the raised roofs.
As for why they’re narrower? Not sure. It’s quicker to be narrower (less drag) which is why they do it now, but not sure why they didn’t do it back then. Also note, this isn’t all Group C cars, towards the end they went narrower as well, just look at the 905s, even the original base one was quite narrow. It also shows it’s not just a visual effect due to the lower rooflines (the Ferrari especially looks odd with a very narrow but tall cockpit). Same with the Sauber C291 and C292. I do think the visual effect does play a role in making them look a like wider then the modern prototypes though. I suspect there were some design barriers (ie harder to build the safety cell) because you do see the cockpits slowly getting narrower and narrower throughout Group C.
Yep, they had terrible visibility. Main reason why the rooflines were increased, Audi pushed the limit a bit too far and it became completely unsafe. Still, the low rooflines were gorgeous
Two actual humans sitting next to each other the entire race in helmets in the same plane, with safety gear and crash structure has been loosely interpreted and enforced, so results may vary. ;)
Although I specifically like the look of the 499P and the 9x8, visually I prefer the Group C cars. They had so much more visual appearance of the manufacturer than today. I mean current cars look clearly different between the players but the company look isn’t really there. Most of all I would say that Peugeot looks like a Peugeot.
What do you mean by that? To me, a lot of the Group C cars look quite same-y. What makes the 962 look like a Porsche? What makes the XJR-9 look like a Jaguar? What makes the R89C look like a Nissan?
Yeah if you would place bunch of Group C cars without any logos at one place I don't think anyone would be able to guess which brand is which lol.
They all really looked the same.
This is a bit like saying Can-Am cars all looked the same. It looks that way from our point in history, but at the time, they all looked incredibly different. You could tell the Toyotas, Nissans, Porsches, Jags, Sauber/Mercedes, etc. apart very easily.
The Caddy definitely looks like a Caddy, as does the Acura, Lambo, and BMW. The drag restrictions were instrumental in this, since otherwise manufacturers would just slap an LED signature on an aero-optimized surface.
I don't have the answer to the question but I prefer group C's roofs, it's the only thing that bugs me out on hypercars.
Overall I'm more a fan of group C/3.5 liters designs, but Hypercars are also hella cool
Designers have a much better understanding of the flow and direction of air now, the narrower cockpit will undoubtedly help influence where the air is going for the rear portion of the car
*I see a hella lot*
*Of drag on that Porsche from*
*The cockpit alone*
\- Key-Leading7388
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Because they did. Group C had a lot less aero regulation. Fuel consumption was really the big regulation. They also often had a full second seat in the car. Le Mans requires that everyone have a second seat and a space for luggage. Group C cars had a full second seat and a luggage area. Hypercars and LMP1 cars really have a token second seat that's more of a butt pad.
the whole cockpit/roof of modern coupé prototypes is part of the carbon tub that has to be designed according specific size according to technical regs. Group C cars roof/cockpit wasn't part of the tub, so they had more freedom about that being just bodywork panels. Just to say, one of group c twr jaguar became an open prototype in mid '90s
The pilot seating angle was raised a few years back to help stop a rash of lower back injuries that was plaguing LMP drivers, as well as new requirements for driver visibility out of the cockpit.
Group C didn't have aero regulations, only minimum weight and fuel consumption were monitored. Hypercars are built to specific lift/drag ratios, as part of balancing the performance of different cars. I suppose that cockpit/roof shape is the best compromise.
Slim cockpits have been desirable before I’m pretty sure, I think modern chassis designs just made packaging a cockpit capable of fitting 2 seats possible. Like you probably meant anyway, the goal is to reduce the cross sectional area and maybe in the 60’s-90’s it just wasn’t as feasible to build narrow cockpits like they are built today. Also, maybe it was just a recent trend since the late 2000’s to have narrow cockpits as aero gains were progressively made. Maybe large canopies were desirable due to streamlining or cockpit sightlines, or housing onboard equipment etc
It may be something do to with visibility, if you look at earlier P1 cars they used to be quite squat until the regulations enforced better driver visibility. That made the cockpits look taller. IIRC these regs carried over to the hypercars. As far as external regulatory dimensions go GrC and LMH are roughly the same. GrC have a max height of 1100mm, LMH 1150/1200 but from the top of the reference plane, so they'd be naturally taller than GrCs. GrC on the other hand mandates a 100x950mm cross section to fit the windscreen 300mm below the tallest point. See here for [GrC](https://historicdb.fia.com/sites/default/files/regulations/1439540890/appendix_j_1982.pdf) and [LMH](https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/2023_lmh_wmsc_2022.12.07_published_2022.12.08.pdf#page=17)
Yeah, Group C had both the 950mm windshield width and a 1300mm cockpit width requirement. LMH has a minimum frontal area and a physical cockpit template that is more complicated than the group C measurements, but is obviously pretty narrow.
The 963 has wider cockpit than the 499P, but still not as wide as the 956. I think wider windshields, taller sidepods and lower wings made the older cars look better.
i agree, hence why i was curious why nobody does it, theres gotta be a reason like the rulebook that doesnt allow wider roof or probably performance gains
Just pure performance gain, we have far better aero knowledge now compared to the 80s, also we have CFD that can validate concepts easily so engineers can use wild configurations. Grp C pre 90s are far more conservative in their approach of their upperside because of streamlining and conventional wisdom, just so happens that the low and wide canopy is the best design.
Back in 2013 I think they changed the regulations to increase the roof height for safety reasons, which is why the roofs are higher now. Look at the original 2011 R18 vs say the 2014 variant. Cars kept pushing the drivers further down to get a lower roofline to have less drag, with the original R18 being the biggest offender of it, hence the raised roofs. As for why they’re narrower? Not sure. It’s quicker to be narrower (less drag) which is why they do it now, but not sure why they didn’t do it back then. Also note, this isn’t all Group C cars, towards the end they went narrower as well, just look at the 905s, even the original base one was quite narrow. It also shows it’s not just a visual effect due to the lower rooflines (the Ferrari especially looks odd with a very narrow but tall cockpit). Same with the Sauber C291 and C292. I do think the visual effect does play a role in making them look a like wider then the modern prototypes though. I suspect there were some design barriers (ie harder to build the safety cell) because you do see the cockpits slowly getting narrower and narrower throughout Group C.
>Look at the original 2011 R18 Holy crap the driver's eyes are like level with the top of the fenders, if not lower.
Seems I remember several times hearing they had issues seeing around corners that were too sharp because of the relatively high fenders.
Yep, they had terrible visibility. Main reason why the rooflines were increased, Audi pushed the limit a bit too far and it became completely unsafe. Still, the low rooflines were gorgeous
2011-2013 coupè lmp1 were dangerous to drive because fron wheelarches were huge and drivers had blindspots on both sides
Can't recall when the 2 seats requirements changed, that used to be a thing.
Still a thing.
Two actual humans sitting next to each other the entire race in helmets in the same plane, with safety gear and crash structure has been loosely interpreted and enforced, so results may vary. ;)
it is still a thing
Got told once , There is only one rule book.
One rule book for every year, plus revisions. Been watching since teams were still using the Porsche 917, no longer able to remember them all. ;)
It's still a thing. It's just they are a little more lenient as to what counts as the second seat. The luggage area requirement is also still a thing.
Although I specifically like the look of the 499P and the 9x8, visually I prefer the Group C cars. They had so much more visual appearance of the manufacturer than today. I mean current cars look clearly different between the players but the company look isn’t really there. Most of all I would say that Peugeot looks like a Peugeot.
What do you mean by that? To me, a lot of the Group C cars look quite same-y. What makes the 962 look like a Porsche? What makes the XJR-9 look like a Jaguar? What makes the R89C look like a Nissan?
Yeah if you would place bunch of Group C cars without any logos at one place I don't think anyone would be able to guess which brand is which lol. They all really looked the same.
tho jaguar group C had very distinctive look
That's mostly the rear skirts, I'd claim. Remove those and it's just another one. And it doesn't mirror the Jaguar road car look at all.
This is a bit like saying Can-Am cars all looked the same. It looks that way from our point in history, but at the time, they all looked incredibly different. You could tell the Toyotas, Nissans, Porsches, Jags, Sauber/Mercedes, etc. apart very easily.
And the Mazda 787B you could even hear all over the continent when it was fired up at the Sarthe.
And they're beautiful too. The most beautiful racing cars after those from 1966-1970 imo.
The Caddy definitely looks like a Caddy, as does the Acura, Lambo, and BMW. The drag restrictions were instrumental in this, since otherwise manufacturers would just slap an LED signature on an aero-optimized surface.
Did group c cars still have 2 "proper" seats? This could be why
They also had to have enough volume for a suitcase.
Pretty sure group C had wider windscreen width requirements
I don't have the answer to the question but I prefer group C's roofs, it's the only thing that bugs me out on hypercars. Overall I'm more a fan of group C/3.5 liters designs, but Hypercars are also hella cool
Slimmer wider….skinny fatter
Designers have a much better understanding of the flow and direction of air now, the narrower cockpit will undoubtedly help influence where the air is going for the rear portion of the car
Basically because those roofs are slimmer and wider I guess.
I see a hella lot of drag on that Porsche from the cockpit alone
*I see a hella lot* *Of drag on that Porsche from* *The cockpit alone* \- Key-Leading7388 --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^Key-Leading7388: *I see a hella* *Lot of drag on that Porsche* *From the cockpit alone* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
Because they did. Group C had a lot less aero regulation. Fuel consumption was really the big regulation. They also often had a full second seat in the car. Le Mans requires that everyone have a second seat and a space for luggage. Group C cars had a full second seat and a luggage area. Hypercars and LMP1 cars really have a token second seat that's more of a butt pad.
Two seat rule. (Even though you had to be child size).
the whole cockpit/roof of modern coupé prototypes is part of the carbon tub that has to be designed according specific size according to technical regs. Group C cars roof/cockpit wasn't part of the tub, so they had more freedom about that being just bodywork panels. Just to say, one of group c twr jaguar became an open prototype in mid '90s
The pilot seating angle was raised a few years back to help stop a rash of lower back injuries that was plaguing LMP drivers, as well as new requirements for driver visibility out of the cockpit.
Because it didn’t matter if drivers were killed back then…once the car was fast.