|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
25 Sep 2007, 10:35 (Ref:2022466) | #76 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,406
|
Ultra low sulphur diesel (ULSD) was not pioneered by motorsport. It was a requirement of the tree huggers in our gouvernments and the EEC......and good on them I say, someone needs to dictate to these oil companies, otherwise they would never have done it.
bio diesel and ethanol DO NOT solve global warming, forget marketing tittle-tattle.......all they do is solve the fact that nearly all oil comes from saudi arabia, this removes the worlds, and particularly US's addiction to oil from Saudi....... by burning any fuel, it will create emissions.......this is why hydrogen fuel cell cars are considered as the holy grail of saving the planet.......zero emissions its already been worked out that if every farmer in the US maxed out his fields for growing rape seed, it would only contribute 10% to the US's fuel addiction.....I bet the saudis are really worried - not........but its a step in the right direction in reducing fuel prices. as far as ethanol is concerned, remember the reynard -Judd V10 run by John McNeils mob....forget the high octane.....it needed bigger tanks as the ethanol is less dense than gasoline (lighter), therefore to get comparable distance, you need more of it, hence much bigger fuel tanks....... the industry has realised that ethanol is not that ideal.......bio diesel is now recognised as the better of the two, but it still causes grief to the fuel system wear, seal life and oil dilution etc.......bio diesel causes me a lot of grief in my job, i can tell you that! |
||
|
25 Sep 2007, 11:29 (Ref:2022496) | #77 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,704
|
Knighty - i wasn't saying it wasn't relevant to engine design just the stuff about the exact make up of Audi's fuel - we simply don't know.
|
||
__________________
Chase the horizon |
25 Sep 2007, 12:29 (Ref:2022557) | #78 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,418
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
"When the fear of death out weighs the thrill of speed, brake." LG |
25 Sep 2007, 12:35 (Ref:2022562) | #79 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,406
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
25 Sep 2007, 12:39 (Ref:2022563) | #80 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,418
|
Quote:
Let alone the coal deposits of the US and Canada, plus the coal in India and Australia. Turning coal into fuel is excellent technologies for the future. Buy stock in these companies. Plus if all the land was planted for rape seed and fuel production, food prices would sky rocket. Again I believe diesel fuels for racing are more politically and market driven then actually a better fuel. |
|||
__________________
"When the fear of death out weighs the thrill of speed, brake." LG |
25 Sep 2007, 12:45 (Ref:2022568) | #81 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Quote:
|
||
|
25 Sep 2007, 12:45 (Ref:2022569) | #82 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,335
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
25 Sep 2007, 13:10 (Ref:2022589) | #83 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,406
|
Quote:
I agree with speed kings last statement completley.........yet another bent technical regulation to favour diesels. |
|||
|
25 Sep 2007, 13:28 (Ref:2022604) | #84 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,147
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
... Since all men live in darkness, who believes something is not a test of whether it is true or false. I have spent years trying to get people to ask simple questions: What is the evidence, and what does it mean? -Bill James |
25 Sep 2007, 13:42 (Ref:2022616) | #85 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,418
|
Quote:
I am a single malt scotch and bourbon drinker myself. |
|||
__________________
"When the fear of death out weighs the thrill of speed, brake." LG |
25 Sep 2007, 17:22 (Ref:2022805) | #86 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,306
|
My point, in part, has been, "How is it a good deal to go from GTL-based fuels to bio-fuels?" GTL diesel, in my opinion, is a much better idea than bio-diesel, and will remain so until there is economically viable technology to produce fuel from bio-mass that does not compete with food production.
And yes this is now way off topic, isn't it? |
|
|
28 Sep 2007, 17:31 (Ref:2025289) | #87 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,919
|
Quote:
Not sure that the 3% will be enough to close the gap in P-1 at the moment. link If/when there is a "works" petrol P-1 then it might be. With all the P-1's being dropped to 900 kg it might(?) be to some advantage to the petrol cars as it might decrease the forward bite ( weight vs. torque) and slow them in acceleration. (?) L.P. |
|||
|
28 Sep 2007, 17:43 (Ref:2025295) | #88 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,147
|
The combination of a 3% gain in restrictor area (-> 3% gain in power) and reduction of weight of the car gets the gasoline cars pretty close to last year's configuration that Dyson ran, from a power-to-weight ratio perspective. They ran the ACO mandated restrictors but at 860 kg - this would be equivalent to running at near 875 kg. (For reference, Petit Le Mans P1 cars will run at 880 kg, so we'll see an equivalent test of the theory next weekend.)
I do think, however, that the Audis will be in the 915 kg range next year, negating some of the advantage set out in these new rules. I also don't disagree with the ACO's P2 weight addition, from a Le Mans perspective. I think IMSA should implement the rule in 2009, though. |
||
__________________
... Since all men live in darkness, who believes something is not a test of whether it is true or false. I have spent years trying to get people to ask simple questions: What is the evidence, and what does it mean? -Bill James |
29 Sep 2007, 08:52 (Ref:2025574) | #89 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,642
|
Paul - don't you think that the ACO should be concentrating on taking real steps to make the gasoline powered P1's faster, rather than going "guns blaring" after the P2's?
After all , the P2's could possibly threaten a slow gasoline powered P1 car at Le Mans,but it would be no danger what so ever, to a diesel. |
||
|
29 Sep 2007, 14:54 (Ref:2025754) | #90 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,919
|
Quote:
L.P. |
|||
|
29 Sep 2007, 16:16 (Ref:2025815) | #91 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,642
|
Quote:
What they have done in essence is to create a "fifth" class. It’s the diesels (a type of PD1 and heavily protected by the ACO) still ahead (unless you seriously believe that these alterations are going to have an effect), followed by the slower petrol P1’s (despite the new regulations) then the future obese P2’s and then the very expensive (for the ACO) GT1’s and lastly, the castrated GT2’s that will be a type of GT3’s on steroids. |
|||
|
29 Sep 2007, 17:10 (Ref:2025855) | #92 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,919
|
Quote:
The creation of a fifth class is pure fiction as there are steps being taken to close the gap in P-1 without creating a rule set that would conversely affect the class with the introduction of a "works" petrol car. As to the 'obese' P-2's; maybe with the weight the can engineer some reliability into the class. As to GT we have no idea yet what the ACO has in mind specifically, or do you have something you wish to share in that vein.(?) And if there is a wholesale change of equipment in the GT classes then why would the ACO not try to maintain the pace of the P-2's and keep their 1.5% margin with the stated convoluted new GT's (castrated, yet on steroids??). And this ahead of the full rule set yet to be released. Maybe more P-1 equalization to come (?) with the performance to be seen at Petit. L.P. |
|||
|
29 Sep 2007, 17:51 (Ref:2025884) | #93 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,642
|
Fair enough.
We will wait and see if you optimism bares fruit. I hope that those that are so uplifted and buoyant with these changes have the character to recognize their errors when next season we have an almost identical repetition of this season (in relation to P1's). I will certainly admit I'm wrong if a P1 petrol engined car wins one race under normal conditions next year. |
||
|
29 Sep 2007, 18:07 (Ref:2025892) | #94 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 6,958
|
Quote:
The only way for a privateer to win, would be if the rules were skewed against the Diesels, or some amount of luck. Being within historical deviations will be good enough. From 2000-05', the average difference in time (qualifying) between the factories and privateers has been 1.5%. During the race and qualifying (this year), the difference was 3.0%... but if you include the test days times, the difference is already less than 1.0%. We shouldn't expect privateers to be on the pace of factories, nor should we use it as a barometer of measurement. I would agree that they should be within a range of historical differences though. |
|||
|
29 Sep 2007, 18:26 (Ref:2025907) | #95 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,642
|
That is nonsense!
You can't (or shouldn't) make rules based on some hypothetical factory entry. They need to make rules with the cars they currently have, and if (and this is a big IF) a factory P1 comes in and wipes the floor off the politically correct diesels, then they can always adjust the rules later. Furthermore, I'll admit I'm wrong if a factory gasoline P1 wins one event under normal circumstances. Last edited by Spyderman; 29 Sep 2007 at 18:29. |
||
|
29 Sep 2007, 19:35 (Ref:2025954) | #96 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
Quote:
|
||
|
30 Sep 2007, 06:47 (Ref:2026503) | #97 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,642
|
Why? The ACO did when the diesels turned up.
|
||
|
30 Sep 2007, 08:11 (Ref:2026573) | #98 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 613
|
The original equivalency was based on the FIA equivalency as used in touring cars (where it works fairly well). Audi and Pug have shown that a full racing diesel can be better than previously thought so the ACO are tweaking to try to get it right!
Have they got it right yet? Who knows - wait till the cars have run before bashing the ACO! |
|
|
30 Sep 2007, 09:05 (Ref:2026606) | #99 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,356
|
Maybe when Acura enter the P1 class we will see how the difference is affected, I think they are using the ALMS P2 class to see which team to back in a P1 effort and be the first "Factory" P1? I'm only guessing and I maybe way of mark here but I feel we have to give the ACO the benefit of the doubt and allow these proposed breaks to come into force to see where the equivalency is going?
|
||
|
30 Sep 2007, 16:22 (Ref:2027039) | #100 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,919
|
Quote:
L.P. |
|||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
P1 top speeds with new ACO rules and regulations??? | Garrett | ACO Regulated Series | 7 | 18 Jul 2004 23:33 |
New ACO rules | Nordic | ACO Regulated Series | 14 | 11 Jul 2004 16:41 |
Just make the DPs faster (why the "new" GTS rules will make DPs look bad again) | Megatron | Sportscar & GT Racing | 14 | 8 Aug 2003 18:15 |
New ACO rules announced | Brian W Keske | ACO Regulated Series | 12 | 6 Mar 2003 00:13 |
Sportscars Rules - ACO vs FIA | NME | Sportscar & GT Racing | 4 | 28 Oct 2002 02:00 |