And the XJR-14

Feeding an awesome Channel ❤

This channel covers what others dont. Well deserved.

Yum yum yum

Oh look me to

What a hungry algorithm!

Thanks!

Yeah. I was thinking the same. C and zehn are just too similar in german. With any less then perfect pronounciation the endproduct would most likely sound like a very dangerous and annoying insect - the tsetse fly.

And if you have wondered how the nomenclature of all of Saubers ever built racecars come from: The "C" stands for "Christine", Peter Saubers wife.

There was also the capacity cut in F1 from 3.5 to 3.0 in 1995 which pushed the V12s over the edge into uncompetetiveness.

Well actually they used the V12 until 1995

Its almost as if F1 style engines weren't meant for endurance...

​@@automobilisticBecause they weren't. In Endurance, durability and predictability is much more important than 20000 RPM and 800 horsepowers. In F1, where the races are much shorter (2-4 hours per race, plus quali), you can exploit the engine's capabilities, and have a peaky and "unreliable" (by endurance standards) engine. In endurance, as the name suggests, the goal is to run many hours without significant amount of stopping, only pitting for fuel, tire and brake change, fastening some bolts, and changing drivers, but no engine swaps or adding nitro. Of course, nowadays F1 is focusing more on durability with these new engine rules.

@@mozeskertesz6398 I dont like being that guy, but the joke truly flew over your head here.

@@automobilistic classic old man balestre

really appreciate it :)

Would love to cover more Can-Am stuff, will look into it!

​@@automobilistic you're a legend Man!

Bernie Ecclestone pretty much killed the WSC to make manufacturers hop into F1.

Two Words: Bernie Ecclestone. More specifically, Bernie Ecclestone wanted WSC to have Engine Parity with F1 (3.5-L naturally-aspirated engines with up to 12 cylinders) to tempt the OEMs competing in WSC to jump ship to F1.

​@@legoferrari14A plan that effectively worked. Mercedes, Jag, Toyota, BMW and Peugeot all joined F1 sooner or later. But in a cruel and poetic justice, the same issues that plagued Group C even before 3.5L regulations, skyrocketing costs, would hit F1 massively hard up the ass in the late 2000s so, perhaps it's good that the WSC didn't at least go through that kind of violent rude awakening

@@legoferrari14 It was basically a cost cutting measure.

The Mercedes GT1 effort didn't really start until 1996/7 - a fair few years after their 1991 WSC departure

The car that flipped was the Mercedes CLR - a GT1 car that competed in 1999

@@automobilistic The Sauber c8 also flipped in 1985 Le mans with John Nielsen at the wheel.

I think Keanu reeves has that one covered

They didnt Exit, they sold. The Mercs of 2010 we're in Essence Brawns.

Sauber-Mercedes ruled for 2 years, 1989 and 1990 - thats what the video is about...

@@automobilistic if you’d been there at Le Mans 1990 I think a British car company came 1st and 2nd. You also forget Mercedes (Hitlers fav car) never even came close at the Daytona 24hrs which said British co. Won in 88 &. 90. Still Schumacher was superb at LeMans he got faster each lap even at night shame car let him down and Dr Johnathan Palmer

@@vernongoodey5096 you didn't say le mans originally, you said WSC. The video tells the story of why mercedes didn't contest le mans in 1990. I didn't "forget" about Daytona either, the video is explicitly about WSC (its literally in the title) Edit: I'd also like to make clear that referring to Hitler in a discussion about 90s sportscar racing is baffling - but does explain your apparent lack of comprehension of the video you've decided to comment on.

Porsche would disagree with you. The 956 and 962 absolutely dominated Group C from its inception to about 1987.

That isn't true. The C8 was predominantly a Sauber with a Mercedes engine, and to an extent the C9 too, but the C11 was very much a joint project. To my knowledge Mercedes not only provided the engine, but were heavily involved in chassis and bodywork design. It was absolutely nothing like Alfa-Romeo's current name only deal in F1. Mercedes steadily increased their involvement in the joint Group C project, to such an extent that the C291 (which had been co-developed with the C11 of course) didn't even carry Sauber chassis codes, rather Mercedes ones.

Mercedes was a bit more than an engine partner, it was a joint partnership (hence why the team ran as Sauber-Mercedes), and by the 291 the Sauber name was dropped completely and the team ran just as Mercedes. It wasn't a tradition engine supply deal the likes of which exist in F1 today for example, Mercedes dedicated design and technical staff to aid chassis development and aerodynamic design as well as engine design and manufacture

@@automobilistic yea makes sense… I didn’t know that the C291 (the c designation in the chassis name was a sauber thing) was an all Mercedes design. You’ve done the research for the video so imma take your word for it… but saw Mercedes in the video title and thought it was misleading a bit since sauber were the team originally… same when sauber entered F1 in ‘93-95 with Mercedes engines… they were just sauber not Mercedes…

@@automobilistic hence even why today even tho sauber is Alfa Romeo on name, the chassis are still labeled C41 bc sauber do the actual building of the car, and Alfa Romeo do the branding

Sauber do use the Cx naming scheme, but Mercedes used C2xx not only for their final Group C car(s), but then for their GT1 cars (CLK GTR and CLK LM) which were designed by Mercedes (as with the C291) and to my knowledge built by Lola. Its fair to say that for the C8 Mercedes was primarily an engine supplier, and the C9 too (though with more involvement), but by the days of the C11, and particularly the C291, Mercedes' design, technical and financial input can't be understated. It was nothing like the name-only deal Sauber currently have with Alfa-Romeo.

@@automobilistic ok cool

I think it was more that F1 wanted to poach Group C manufacturers by forcing them to effectively develop F1 engines or partner with F1 teams. Either way the the effect was the same...

Yes - but reliability is part of the competition, doesn't matter how fast you can go if you don't finish the race. The fact that the 787B was slower than the competition doesn't devalue their win, if anything, it makes it more special.

why does that matter?? they won the biggest motorsport race in the world

@@abyss18 Because it feeds into the still way to persistent "the Madza 787B destroyed the competition and was banned to by jealous Europeans" bs myth. Mazda did win and there is a lot to like about it, the engine sound, the rotary engine, first JP Le Mans win, Herbert's comeback after getting dumped out of F1 and his horrible accident. It's a great underdog story. But there is no denying it profited from circumstances, like being allowed to run under C2 rules and therefore only having to carry 30 kg instead of 200 kg of extra ballast like the C1 cars. And while probably not intentional, even the creators "the C11s were soundly beaten by Madza" feeds into that myth. The Madzdas got destroyed by older cars with 170 kg of extra ballast in qualifying. And a C11 was leading the race until Sunday morning, when the gearbox gave out, and they spend 9 laps fixing it. The Mazda eventually won with 7 laps in advance, do the math. The Sauber-Mercedes C11 was generally the best car from late 1989 to 1991. Le Mans not counting for the WSC in 1990 and the dodgy rules and circumstances from 1991 prevented it from ever competing at Le Mans at its full potential.

Hence greatest?

no, not really

Yeah, nah, not at all.