|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
29 Oct 2012, 00:37 (Ref:3159281) | #2551 | |||||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
I am not in favor of cancelling the 120 km/h rule, because that would give Audi a traction advantage. The rule should apply to all hybrid cars. Now Toyota has a big advantage in traffic, because they get the boost immediately.
Quote:
In 2010 the hybrid rules were the following: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
|
29 Oct 2012, 00:58 (Ref:3159290) | #2552 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,232
|
+ http://fourtitude.com/news/Audi_News...l-wheel-drive/
Quote:
|
||
|
29 Oct 2012, 07:55 (Ref:3159371) | #2553 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,565
|
Perhaps they should have done what Toyota did and evaluate rear and front drive through the hybrid powertrain. As you say, they started testing the E-Tron in July 2011, which is around the time the 2012 regulations were made. Actually the link you provided shows the regulations dated from June 2011. Knowing the dates helps since they had the knowledge when they started testing that front driven hybrid power would be above 120kmh. So, I think what I stated still remains a fact, That's the direction they chose knowing it's 120kmh+
|
|
|
29 Oct 2012, 09:05 (Ref:3159404) | #2554 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Quote:
It is interesting to you bring up the BoP of the privateers. The easiest way to determine the performance gap between the manfacturers and privateers, is with the 2% rule from the FIA WEC sporting regulations.
|
||
|
29 Oct 2012, 09:25 (Ref:3159412) | #2555 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Quote:
Audi probably did not have the luxury of developing two hybrid solutions and then choosing the best solution based on track testing and the final rule book. Remember that 2012 was planned to be a development year only for Toyota, whereas Audi had to be ready to face Peugeot in a full WEC season. BTW the 120 km/h rule was officially announced on 10/10/2011, but Audi obviously knew this a few months earlier. Last edited by gwyllion; 29 Oct 2012 at 11:58. |
||
|
29 Oct 2012, 14:57 (Ref:3159573) | #2556 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,203
|
But it's not just about relative performance. It's about the philosophy shift of allowing AWD. Arguably RWD cars are way more spectacular and appealing to the fans. I'm all for technology, but at that rate we may quickly arrive from RWD and simple TC to complex stability electronic systems and then ultimately to autonomous race cars, because that would be more efficient and innovative.
Last edited by Pandamasque; 29 Oct 2012 at 15:02. |
||
|
29 Oct 2012, 15:31 (Ref:3159589) | #2557 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,232
|
But the rule isn't about BoPing between manufacturers vs. privateers, but betweeen different different "propulsion technologies". Altough, right now it's the same thing...
|
|
|
29 Oct 2012, 15:34 (Ref:3159591) | #2558 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,232
|
Quote:
At least ABS remains forbidden in the 2014 regs. |
||
|
29 Oct 2012, 15:40 (Ref:3159596) | #2559 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Quote:
When Audi was still racing the non-hybrid R18, it was not that much slower (especially over a single lap). So the FIA could argue that the BoP between the propulsion technologies is correct and hence that the gap between manufacturers and privateers is due to other aspects of the car (aero, suspension, drivers, ...). |
||
|
30 Oct 2012, 09:49 (Ref:3160033) | #2560 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,565
|
Quote:
Quote:
I also don't understand how Toyota could afford to try front and rear but Audi couldn't? I think 4wd 'Quattro' is something they wanted to label and that helped with their decision. But what do I know? |
|||
|
30 Oct 2012, 10:05 (Ref:3160041) | #2561 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,563
|
I suspect the petrol diesel equivalence may also be part of the mix in trying to balance the two types of car.
Audi also have a much greater energy recovery potential in the front axle and the flywheel system offers potentially greater storage capacity than batteries. However batteries offer more flexibility in their location as a number small ones can be placed around the car to give better weight distribution. |
|
|
30 Oct 2012, 13:59 (Ref:3160139) | #2562 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Quote:
The FIA realizes that the privateer don't have the budget to develop an engine with a bigger restrictor for the final year of the current rules. So the break will be in form of a lower minimum weight and a bigger fuel tank. Strangely this reasoning does not apply to the Toyota rear wing solution |
||
|
30 Oct 2012, 15:19 (Ref:3160171) | #2563 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,710
|
Not sure if rear hybrid + diesel might be too much for the rear Michelins?
|
||
|
30 Oct 2012, 15:23 (Ref:3160172) | #2564 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Peugeot did not think that this would be a problem. And the Michelins were able to handle the much bigger torque from the V12 diesel days (in direction of 1500 Nm).
|
|
|
31 Oct 2012, 19:17 (Ref:3160700) | #2565 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
http://endurance-info.com/version2/a...nce-14297.html has some news about the 2013 LMP rules.
There are some minor changes in LMP2 regarding the cost cap and the displacement of diesel engines (i.e., Mazda) is limited to 2500 cc. In LMP1 the hybrid capacity will stay at 500 kJ. So the increase to 1 MJ is not happening. Braking will be defined as 1G deceleration, whereas this year it was defined as 2G. Perhaps this means that there will be more hybrid activation zones on some tracks. |
|
|
31 Oct 2012, 20:24 (Ref:3160726) | #2566 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,926
|
Or to allow the Audi hybrid system to charge up faster, since it doesn't seem to be as efficient at charging up quickly as the Toyota system seems to be. Could also be the ACO's way of helping to get around the 120kmh limit without slapping Toyota with a similar penalty, which won't help privateers that much unless they adopt the Flybrid system themselves.
|
||
|
31 Oct 2012, 21:28 (Ref:3160757) | #2567 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
The new version of the regulations can be found on http://private.fia.com/web/fia-publi...8.09.2012).pdf. The list of changes starts on page 43.
This rule was added to the LMP2 rules, presumably to keep the costs under control: Quote:
Quote:
Article 3.4.5 (air extractors) has been extended: Quote:
It should be noted that there are no performance breaks for non-hybrids (i.e. privateers) in the rules Last edited by gwyllion; 31 Oct 2012 at 21:52. |
||||
|
31 Oct 2012, 21:35 (Ref:3160760) | #2568 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Quote:
Last edited by gwyllion; 31 Oct 2012 at 22:11. |
||
|
31 Oct 2012, 22:08 (Ref:3160766) | #2569 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
A final rule change that is noteworthy, is that the 2014 LMP1 cockpit shape will already be allowed in LMP2 2013.
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
1 Nov 2012, 00:21 (Ref:3160832) | #2570 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,232
|
||
|
1 Nov 2012, 06:50 (Ref:3160898) | #2571 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,565
|
||
|
1 Nov 2012, 07:37 (Ref:3160911) | #2572 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Sloping fins were already illegal in 2012. See article 3.6.4.b of http://www.mulsannescorner.com/2012LMP12.pdf (p. 17).
|
|
|
1 Nov 2012, 11:44 (Ref:3161024) | #2573 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,491
|
I have come to accept the fins and don't think they actually look that bad. But when seeing a picture like this and imagining the car without fin, I realize how good the R18 would look without it.
|
||
|
2 Nov 2012, 02:54 (Ref:3161365) | #2574 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,648
|
2 serious questions:
Why not roof flaps? Works for NASCAR. Why can't they make a tapered fin like F1? They had the full fin for a year or two and now it is the tapered fin. Graham Goodwin said that they are for different purposes, but F1 goes 215mph at Monza and has a tapered fin, so I don't see what the problem is? |
|
|
2 Nov 2012, 02:55 (Ref:3161366) | #2575 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,232
|
Not yet? Nov 1 Autosport, Ullrich (apparently interviewed at Shangai): "Yes, they should get some help and we have agreed this for the good of the championship, but it remains a general discussion. There are no numbers or values at the moment."
|
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[WEC] Glickenhaus Hypercar | Akrapovic | ACO Regulated Series | 1603 | 12 Apr 2024 21:24 |
[WEC] Aston Martin Hypercar Discussion | deggis | ACO Regulated Series | 175 | 23 Feb 2020 03:37 |
[WEC] SCG 007: Glickenhaus Le Mans LMP1 Hypercar | Bentley03 | ACO Regulated Series | 26 | 16 Nov 2018 02:35 |
ALMS Extends LMP Regulations | tblincoe | North American Racing | 33 | 26 Aug 2005 15:03 |
[LM24] Whats the future of LMP's at Le Mans?? | Garrett | 24 Heures du Mans | 59 | 8 Jul 2004 15:15 |