Cars WSC/90s Group C Cars: Toyota TS010, Jaguar XJR14

[Eric Rowland]

@Eric Rowland Isn't that just the budget-model XJR-14?

It is the XJR-17...it was for the IMSA Camel Lights.

Don't forget this iconic vehicle that really didn't achieve what it should have done.....

and it's evolution....

 

[The-IC]

@Eric Rowland yeah, thats what i meant by it being a budget model XJR-14 haha

Also, the C292 concept certainly looks amazing, and id love to model it, but i dont think there'd be anything at all for mclarenf1papa to work with for physics...

 

[mclarenf1papa]

@Eric Rowland yeah, thats what i meant by it being a budget model XJR-14 haha

Also, the C292 concept certainly looks amazing, and id love to model it, but i dont think there'd be anything at all for mclarenf1papa to work with for physics...

The C292's aero is also kind of missing the point of having two rear wings...the bottom one is too high to really do much with the diffuser, so I doubt the aero numbers would have been close to the other cars of that time period.

 

[The-IC]

It does look a bit high, but I think that 1:43 model has exaggerated it a bit...it doesnt seem quite as drastic in this photo of the real thing...still, maybe we could "fix" it lol

 

[Ryno917]

It does look a bit high, but I think that 1:43 model has exaggerated it a bit...it doesnt seem quite as drastic in this photo of the real thing...still, maybe we could "fix" it lol

If you're looking to do that, I happily volunteer to design a modern day incarnation of a Group C car to "fix" the problems.

 

[Eric Rowland]

Here's a little 3.5L V10 action...

 

[Phimeek]

Here's some onboard action of the Intrepid GTP...

 

[The-IC]

So I am locking in the Nova Engineering Nissan R93CK as the third car, won't be looking at adding anything else to my modelling list until these ones are pretty much done...so don't ask or you'll be disappointed...lol

While I was collecting reference for it, I thought i'd just compare it to the R90CK it was derived from (on the left) to see if I could do both without too much hassle, like the XJR-14 to Mazda MXR-01...turns out hardly anything carries over..basic cabin shape is still the same, but all the panels got heavily modified in the wind tunnel, the R93CK never had headlights, and they also threw out the doors!

Anyway, TAFE studies finish on 23rd of June (day can't come soon enough), so that's when I'll be able to put much more time into producing these.

 

[mclarenf1papa]

So I am locking in the Nova Engineering Nissan R91CK as the third car, won't be looking at adding anything else to my modelling list until these ones are pretty much done...so don't ask or you'll be disappointed...lol

While I was collecting reference for it, I thought i'd just compare it to the R90CK it was derived from (on the left) to see if I could do both without too much hassle, like the XJR-14 to Mazda MXR-01...turns out hardly anything carries over..basic cabin shape is still the same, but all the panels got heavily modified in the wind tunnel, the R91CK never had headlights, and they also threw out the doors!

Anyway, TAFE studies finish on 23rd of June (day can't come soon enough), so that's when I'll be able to put much more time into producing these.

The current Nova car is an R93CK technically speaking. It's designated as the "RC93" in modern historic racing if I recall correctly. Not really clear as to what the differences are between the 91 and the 93 though (probably bodywork)...just something I found when searching for physics info.

They did stick on headlights for Daytona in its 1992 spec, but they're hideous...

 

[The-IC]

@mclarenf1papa Righto, ill correct my previous statement, we're doing the R93CK as thats what I've collected the ref for

Edit: And just to make things more confusing, Nissan still calls that one an R90CK on their heritage page, just with a note in the description of it being dubbed the R91CK
http://www.nissan-global.com/EN/HERITAGE/nissan_r90ck_119.html

 

[mclarenf1papa]

@mclarenf1papa Righto, ill correct my previous statement, we're doing the R93CK as thats what I've collected the ref for

Edit: And just to make things more confusing, Nissan still calls that one an R90CK on their heritage page, just with a note in the description of it being dubbed the R91CK
http://www.nissan-global.com/EN/HERITAGE/nissan_r90ck_119.html

When it was for sale it was up as an R90 as well...to be fair their naming conventions are a little confusing.

 

[Ryno917]

Are you doing the version with the big hole in front of the rear wheels on the side? Don't know why, but I love that hole.

 

[The-IC]

Are you doing the version with the big hole in front of the rear wheels on the side? Don't know why, but I love that hole.

Yeah, I can do it with the big side vents if thats preferred...

 

[Ryno917]

Yeah, I can do it with the big side vents if thats preferred...

I vote 'Yay' on the side vent

 

[mclarenf1papa]

Youth does not necessarily bring speed...the TS010 takes Copse at Silverstone completely flat out.

 

[Deleted member 130869]

The only pretty aspect of the new car is the shade of blue.

 

[mantasisg]

What the.... that bench on the rear must produce enough downforce even from its own weight only D

 

[The-IC]

Alright, Nissan is setup and ready for when I get around to it

 

[mclarenf1papa]

This one got rather complicated...just a few more "wings" than your typical Kunos car.

edit: And those 1:10s at Brands have now turned into high 1:08s with what I think is more accurate aero and tires (which is just more grip from each because it seems as though 9000 lbs of downforce at 200 mph was too conservative of an estimate - ran across a couple of sources citing something more like 9500)

 

[AccAkut]

thats plenty of surfaces does this influence performance in a way multiple entries in the collision.ini would?