|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Yesterday, 19:31 (Ref:4211690) | #926 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 10,195
|
|||
|
Yesterday, 19:43 (Ref:4211692) | #927 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,133
|
The best part is that the power/weight is more balanced, both with the cars and across the board. Of course, we'll have to see how it works out by Test Day this weekend. Definitely, Peugeot needed that weight reduction, which should give the new rear design better response.
|
||
__________________
Here's to the new age of Sports car/Prototypes... |
Yesterday, 20:12 (Ref:4211694) | #928 | |||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,907
|
Quote:
Yes. It works just like we have now. They define a max power now. They introduced this so they could define different max powers above and below 250km/h. A neat solution to compensate for potential variations in performance across different cars for low and high speed. |
|||
__________________
Seriously not taking motorsport too seriously. |
Today, 00:40 (Ref:4211712) | #929 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,907
|
An update on BoP for Le Mans.
The performance stuff: Weight (Kg)
Max Power (kW)
Power gain after 250 kph
Or have they just done analysis that shows it is better at 250km/h and we will stay there for the foreseeable? More on this in my next post. The stint stuff: Energy Allocation (MJ)
A quick glance seems to indicate that it isn't as correlated as normal. Is this a reset with more data, or a Le Mans specific thing? Other Stuff: There is no change to FWD activation speed or docking time. Power/Weight charts. Includes a comparison to IMSA. The Lamborghini sticks out, but that is probably related to the power over 250km/h adjustment. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
__________________
Seriously not taking motorsport too seriously. |
Today, 01:20 (Ref:4211718) | #930 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,907
|
Power change over 250km/h
250 not 210km/h
This was previously communicated as 210km/h. Does that mean they will change the cut off as well as the adjustment? Interesting. Could be by track? Or have they just done analysis that shows it is better at 250km/h and we will stay there for the foreseeable? The adjustment is just automatic and is easily implemented / measured. Dead simple. Certainly compared to energy usage. Gain and Loss Some cars gain energy and some lose power over 250km/h. I thought this interesting - it doesn't really matter as everything is relative, but I had (for no reason) assumed everyone would gain. So here they are adding to top speed and taking away. Which now I think about it makes sense. The ACO probably didn't want to push top speed higher, especially at Le Mans. Pedantic point The spec. sheet tells the teams what the power is below 250km/h and what it is above 250km/h, but what about at 250km/h. Interesting how that is programmed. What has changed since Spa I looked at the change in Power specifically for >250km/h. So this allowed for the general BoP changes and this new parameter.
I then compared this to the maximum speeds from Spa, the most recent race. For this I took the average top speed from the race of all the cars. I then averaged across the manufactures. I compared the change in power to these maximum speeds from Spa to see if the ACO were simply correcting for top speed. I think to a certain extend they are. Generally the higher you top speed at Le Mans the greater the combined drop in power at >250km/h. Makes sense. The correlation is pretty good, except for two cars. Lamborghini It gets a reduction in >250km/h power despite being the slowest top speed. I think there are potentially two things here. Firstly the data from Spa is rubbish. There is only one car and it didn't have that many competitive laps. If you look at the overall event though it still doesn't look good. If you look at Imola it was much nearer the top. Qatar near the bottom. So inconclusive here - you could argue anything. I wonder if there is a subtlety here. Overall all it got the biggest bump in power from Spa to Le Mans (<250km/h). Maybe the ACO wanted to give it a little more acceleration, but that needed offsetting at high speed. Well, it's a theory. Toyota They also received a relative drop in power >250km/h (yes, a + adjustment, but they lost power overall). They've been a little up and down through the year, but generally lower than most. It seems to be working the opposite way to Lamborghini as they seem to want to cut acceleration (they have AWD unlike Lambo). They returned some of that for top speed, but didn't quite offset that from a top speed. Perhaps the ACO didn't want to give more than the +0.9% as that is the max anyone got. Another theory. As always, if you spot anything; a typo, an error in the calculation, let me know. The chart shows the relationship between Spa Max Speed and the total adjustment to >250km/h power between Spa and Le Mans: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
__________________
Seriously not taking motorsport too seriously. |
Today, 07:30 (Ref:4211746) | #931 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 2,513
|
How much time do we think cars spend over 250kmh (150mph) at Le Mans?
Certainly during both halves of the Mulsanne/Hunaudieres straight, and the run to Indianapolis. Arnage to the Porsche Curves as well. But anywhere else? End of the grandstand straight into Dunlop? The run up to the Ford Chicane? The end of the grandstand straight into Dunlop? |
||
__________________
"Not the pronoun but a player with the unlikely name of Who is on first." |
Today, 09:06 (Ref:4211763) | #932 | |
Racer
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 482
|
Honestly, the BoP doesn't seem too bad at all. Remains to be seen how well the power gain works, it will be interesting to see for sure.
I'm surprised that Ferrari lost so much weight, as well as Alpine (I think next to Porsche and Caddy they have the most advantageous specification). Perhaps their power gain loss would do well to offset that. Some pressure still clearly being applied to Toyota as they are still the heaviest, but at least they aren't completely overweight. Test day won't show much, the bags will truly be thrown out come the 15th. Lamborghini is quite curious as well, but one thing is for sure I do believe that overall this will be a Titanic battle. I hope that any delays/retirements aren't LMP2/GT3 delivered (or overzealous competitor hypercar driver for that matter), can't wait for next weekend. |
|
|
Today, 12:14 (Ref:4211781) | #933 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,225
|
One thing to note, the lightest car is still carrying 6kg more than the base weight. Why don’t they just lower all the weights by 6kg? Doesn’t look very efficient or eco friendly if all the cars are carrying 6kg more than necessary?
|
||
|
Today, 12:24 (Ref:4211783) | #934 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2023
Posts: 602
|
So you are saying there is not going to be an on screen graphic to let us know when the drivers are on the power boost?
|
|
|
Today, 13:12 (Ref:4211792) | #935 | |
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 156
|
It is not a power boost. It is a power allocation that is greater or lower above 250kph, depending of the car. You have to think about it as a tweak in the power curve of the engine. Nothing more.
|
|
|
Today, 14:02 (Ref:4211795) | #936 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,907
|
Every time any hypercar is over 250km/h it will be there.
|
||
__________________
Seriously not taking motorsport too seriously. |
Today, 14:19 (Ref:4211797) | #937 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2022
Posts: 784
|
For some cars it is
Excellent find. So how about a little conspiracy theory that the ACO knows those 2 manufacturers were sandbagging? |
|
|
Today, 14:34 (Ref:4211798) | #938 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,907
|
BoP. Brilliant or Pants.
Power boost as in something similar to push to pass that is optional and driver selected, or as in the previous LMH category where EV boost we optional and driver selected.
While I know you get that it is clear there is confusion with v8 about this. It just happens at that speed. |
||
__________________
Seriously not taking motorsport too seriously. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The one and only official 10/10ths BOP thread | Great Dane | Sportscar & GT Racing | 32 | 7 Apr 2017 01:13 |
[FIA GT] FIA BoP Sheets | CS21476895 | Sportscar & GT Racing | 1 | 18 May 2015 14:10 |
P1 BOP in 2014? | Christian Mogami | Sportscar & GT Racing | 2 | 8 Jun 2013 07:08 |
ESM Ferrari 458 restrictor team BoP vote . | The Badger | Sportscar & GT Racing | 22 | 25 Oct 2012 06:03 |
Brilliant brilliant MotoGP | gfm | Bike Racing | 18 | 7 Jun 2005 12:48 |