Countach LP500 Prototype Replica.

Precisely so

 

It was a steel platform chassis. Have a look at Raymond's webpage...
http://www.countach.ch/History/LP500/index.html

 

This Picture on my Website is the only one which is known, I think it's from Borel Countach Book.

 

That's a great question Steven, I wish I knew the answer to that one

 

The closest car to the LP500 prototype is the Green one (LP400 #1). All that yellow car has resembling the LP500 is the gills on the sides, even they aren't the correct shape etc. I think they just thought it would look good and so do I. Would especially look good from the rear!
The exterior differences between the LP500 and the LP400 are:
Front trunk has a big seam close to the windshield and opens from the front. The lid falls short before the badge
Thinner front bumper/grille area
No Foglights, instead it has more grilles and the text COUNTACH on the right side
No underside brake cooling scoops
The parking lights (frosted) as well as the pop up lights seem to be narrower
No indicators
No side scoop
Window frames
Bertone Badge
harder crease along the round belly
No air boxes, instead has 6 slats
No rear quarter window
No air vent over the rear wheel well (behind hte Air boxes)
Very little is seen of the muffler or shield
Different taillights
Tailight bodywork is a lot thinner, doesn't have as many chamfers as the final Countach
Periscope sticks out of the roof
Engine lid i think is similar same as the LP400 though.
Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login





Good to know where the car is and a little more about it's history though, i'd like to see more pictures.

 

The MIRA film taken on super 8 was subsequently used by the factory for type approval of the 25th Anniversary Countach to avoid another crash test...

 

of course this makes zero sense... semi monocoque typical absorbs energy more consistently and predictably than a tube frame chassis. in the early 70's especially in europe, i gather the requirements weren't as strict.

for the 25th did they had some sort of exemption for crash test for the low volumes. i wonder how much cheaper they could have made CT if they did do proper tooling on the sheet metal chassis?

porsche didnt even want to replace the power windows with wind up manual windows on their 964 RS america's since they would have to crash test half a dozen vehicles for this tiny modification.

 

My guess is that the choice made between the tube frame with aluminium skin vs all steel semi monocoque was driven by weight...

 

Looking at the tub would be fairly straight forward to build one up, do not see a huge amount of complexity in it, basically stock sections and folded parts, no major pressings

 

the tub looks almost like a maserati bora to me which was pretty advanced for its day but without the removable subframe. the modern F360 430 are similar too but with alloy castings for the pick up points and nodes.

countach is old school since most of the contemporary sports car racers were moving away from tube frames and in to semi monocoques. but a least its beautifully design and constructed with proper triangulation unlike the boxer or 308.

by intuition the CT tube frame looks to be immensely rigidity. there are figures all over the internet that the torsion deflection per degree is a soft 2600 Nm/deg which is laughable. I dont believe this figure for one second. anyone know if there was any factory data released for the CT in this regard?

there was a wonder mag spread of gordon murray's analysis of various test drives of competitors which included the F40, 959 , M1 , bug EB110 etc... during the time he was building the mac F1. he was most impressed by the CT character and driving dynamics along the NSX usability if memory serves. he was poignant to the F40. though effective, he mentioned its an outdated chassis racecar design was cosmetically dress up with carbon fiber to look like a modern tub.

 

Would you happen to know where his analysis could be found?

I’ve only seen it quoted in snippets, mostly for the NSX.

Thanks

 

Agreed, that, rigidity & production cost

LOL!

I love that about the Countach, and I agree with you, the Countach's chassis is very rigid, I don't have any original data to offer and can only base my thoughts on my experience with different Countach variants and many other 60s, 70s & 80s sports cars in comparison.

 

i dont know, i had the mag years ago. i will take a stab at it saying its something like Car, FastLane, Autocar perhaps? it was a UK publication.

 

I believe at the time the Countach was around probably one of the stiffest cars around was the stratos this was something like 9000Nm/deg that has massive box section chassis, built in cage etc.

 

yes all the old sports cars in the day could benefit from a stiffer chassis, gee look at all the extensive work michelloto took to stiffen up the Gr 4 308 ...a massive amount of tubes added.

stratos like the 911 have short sub 90inch wheelbases and have good rigidity without the need to add excess weight... think of it as building a long vs short bridge. both cars were exceptional in this respect compare to the contemporaries.

at 9000Nm/deg its just the price of entry for modern day for the cheap econo box. newer cars are fantastically stiff and strong as a necessity to pass various crash requirements. the by product is a rigidity platform for fantastic handling, good ride quality and less NVH. too bad it adds ;lots of excess weight. sedans, mini vans and suv all handle well these days. modern sedans and sports cars are now about 20000NM to 30000Nm. dont take on that mundane looking camary at an autocross with your 308 gts ...

 

After the much flexing Miura the Countach chassis was a big step forward. Driving a Miura fast in tight corners is no fun at all. I loved the chassis in my ol`LP400 but always felt it was "under-powered" due to the XWX-tires - and that was the weak point of ths type.

 

Thanks, I’ll do some digging.

 

Here you go
https://www.germancarforum.com/threads/the-list-torsional-rigidity.12334/

 

cool list but its somewhat dated... more recent cars has amped up the numbers even more due to the current for offset and side impact requirements. whats interesting is many of high rigidity vehicles are not sportscars like in the past but 4door sedans and suv with longer wheelbases. in order to keep the pair of side doors from collapsing and protecting the occupants, they need immensely strong and rigid.