|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
20 Jul 2011, 10:10 (Ref:2928897) | #1226 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
I think that the proposal does exactly what Mal says. There will be no limitation on the instantaneous amount of energy that is generated by the engine or the energy recovery system, for instance in the form of an air restrictor (like in the current rules) or a fuel flow restrictor (like in the F1 2014 rules).
This could lead to interesting situations in the race. After a very long safety car period the engine will be turned up a lot to burn the extra fuel that was saved |
|
|
20 Jul 2011, 10:21 (Ref:2928902) | #1227 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,642
|
Brilliant! Thanks for posting Gwyllion.
It sounds very promising. Lets just hope that they don't start "complicating" things when they try and put it into practice. |
||
|
20 Jul 2011, 11:07 (Ref:2928914) | #1228 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,880
|
Why not just do Group C regs with other technologies incorporated in to the rules?
Those regs seem to work out just fine last time... |
||
|
20 Jul 2011, 11:30 (Ref:2928926) | #1229 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
20 Jul 2011, 11:47 (Ref:2928938) | #1230 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,834
|
I've argued that this is the way to go, for a while now. X number of ergs, or Joules, or whatever, and run whatever you like that meets safety regs.
Run out of juice, you are out of the race. Simples. I cannot wait to see a battery swap pit stop! Should be 'interesting'... |
||
__________________
Tim Yorath Ecurie Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch Fan of "the sacred monster Christophe Bouchut"... |
20 Jul 2011, 11:54 (Ref:2928941) | #1231 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 54
|
Freed up engine regulations, you don't here that very often these days, bring it on.
There's no way that they'll run without some sort of instanaeous performance limit though, as mentioned in previous posts I'd expect a fuel flow limit to be implemented. Now that the ACO & FIA are friends again it makes a lot of sense to have the fuel flow set at the same level as F1, in 2014 there will be at least 3 new 1.6litre V6s out there designed around the new fuel limited f1 regs & they'll have to be last 4-5 grand prix so should be pretty durable too. When engine manufacturers are spending millions designing new engines it can only help if they've got more than one formular to sell them to. I'm not suggesting that the ACO regs are written identical to F1, but that the new F1 engines will be able to compete against the variety that the ACO will allow. Only down side is that with fuel consumption regulated we'll never see a rotary ay Le Mans again |
||
|
20 Jul 2011, 12:37 (Ref:2928961) | #1232 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,353
|
|||
|
20 Jul 2011, 12:40 (Ref:2928965) | #1233 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Quote:
Quote:
In case people are wondering how 1500 liters of petrol compares to the last editions of Le Mans:
Last edited by gwyllion; 20 Jul 2011 at 12:48. |
|||
|
20 Jul 2011, 12:41 (Ref:2928966) | #1234 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
||
|
20 Jul 2011, 13:06 (Ref:2928979) | #1235 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,831
|
But with freed up engine rules we won't be seeing a carbon copy of what we saw in Group C; the proposed 1500 liters will drive engine capacities down big time. But it will remove the cookie cutter limitations the current rules have on engine regulations and it will allow a few years before "The" solution is derived.
Also understand this is a proposal and early days at that even. We're 3 years away from anything being implemented and I can imagine a lot will change. |
|
|
20 Jul 2011, 14:02 (Ref:2929012) | #1236 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 15,910
|
|||
|
20 Jul 2011, 16:40 (Ref:2929056) | #1237 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
The fuel consumpltion of a 2010 P2, like the winning Strakka Acura, seems more comparable to the 2014 proposals.
|
|
|
20 Jul 2011, 16:45 (Ref:2929057) | #1238 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,269
|
|||
__________________
When in doubt? C4. |
20 Jul 2011, 16:54 (Ref:2929061) | #1239 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
2014 cars will be 775kg.
|
|
|
20 Jul 2011, 16:57 (Ref:2929062) | #1240 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
The LMP2 restrictors were smaller and the cars weighed 75 kg less (825 kg vs 900 kg). However, I don't think that those 2 differences are enough for a more than 30% lower fuel consumption.
|
|
|
20 Jul 2011, 17:01 (Ref:2929064) | #1241 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 15,910
|
And I think that will help reduce consumption. The combination of lighter weight and hybrids will allow teams to use the allotted fuel and finish 24hours. The ACO wouldn't propose, and teams wouldn't accept a formula that nobody could use to finish the race.
|
||
|
20 Jul 2011, 20:50 (Ref:2929150) | #1242 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,203
|
If C2 cars could finish using just 1600l in the 80-s, then doing it with 1500l today at around 3:30 should be a piece of cake even w/o any hybrid tech. A piece of cake for the likes of Porsche at least
|
||
|
20 Jul 2011, 20:55 (Ref:2929154) | #1243 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,527
|
We already know cars can be designed to go faster than drivers can cope with & reliability is pretty damn solid these days - so the technological challenge has to be in fuel economy / battery range.
|
||
__________________
There's an old F1 adage, 'If you want to finish first, first you have to be a duplicitous little moaning git' |
8 Sep 2011, 11:51 (Ref:2952650) | #1244 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
According to Autosport manufactuers were asked their views on only allowing coupes in P1 from 2014, this is driven from a safety perspective.
It's not know what will happen with P2, though it's already been stated these cars will be eligable for the next five years. |
|
|
15 Sep 2011, 17:58 (Ref:2956036) | #1245 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
In todays Autosport it states there are plans in place to reduce diesel power levels by 40bhp, the ACO had secret timing loops at Spa to monitor performance, and are working with Singer and the FIA. Ulrich says he's aware of the plan and is worried diesels won't be competitive, OAK say it's a step in the right direction.
|
|
|
15 Sep 2011, 19:44 (Ref:2956078) | #1246 | ||
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
Quote:
Even further moves are needed, diesels will do everything they can to preserve their unfair advantage |
||
|
15 Sep 2011, 21:04 (Ref:2956104) | #1247 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,648
|
Quote:
Speed up the otherr cars! Yeah, I know they have to do engine remapping and stuff, but speed up everyone else! |
||
|
15 Sep 2011, 21:14 (Ref:2956108) | #1248 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,016
|
|||
|
15 Sep 2011, 22:10 (Ref:2956128) | #1249 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,880
|
It's a lot more expensive to speed up the petrol cars for the petrol teams. Not all of them can afford to do that. It's much better to make the manufacturers meet the rest of the field in terms of performance, they can afford it.
|
||
|
15 Sep 2011, 22:52 (Ref:2956146) | #1250 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,261
|
I know I have the minority opinion on this, but I'm not so sure that the diesels have some sort of "unfair advantage." Ok, they have tons more money than everyone else, but that is not a problem with the rules. I don't know if the rules right now are right, but as I have always said, I know the rules will be wrong if teams like Rebellion and OAK are running equal lap times (assuming they are running their current equipment) to the diesel giants.
I do have some sympathy towards Pickett, Dyson, and others who do not have access to top line equipment even if they are willing to pay to buy some. Maybe top teams should make their stuff available to independent bidders. Aside from that though, I don't think their points are valid. Audi and Peugeot have spent A LOT of money to win. Their quests to win this year has been almost uncompromising. Considering that they have done tons of testing and have all new equipment, it is not surprising to me that they are a handful of seconds faster (and more reliable) than the teams running older and/or less proven equipment like what is being run by AMR, Cytosport, Dyson, Rebellion, OAK, Pescarolo, MIK Corse, and so forth. I understand AMR has spent $25 million, but so what really. It would not surprise me if Audi and Peugeot are spending $100-$200 million. And they were able to commit that money earlier which allowed them to do the testing necessary to run well out of the gate. That's what has given them the edge. The Florida Marlins baseball club may spend $25 million on players, which sounds like a lot of money, but teams like the Phillies, Yankees, and Red Sox are spending 4 to 5 times that amount. Is it any surprise then that those big spenders have a better shot at winning the championship? It blows my mind when people enter the most competitive forms of sport and then cry poverty when they lose and want everything that the successful competitors have. It's even more mind blowing when the people doing the crying are successful capitalists. What would Pickett think if Biff from the gym's nutritional shake was guaranteed the same shelf space as Muscle Milk products at Wal-Mart just because it is "fair" or equal? I understand that it would be great if every race is a barn-burner amongst every competitor in the field, but that can't happen all the time. I understand that the results on the track occur not just because of what happens on the track on a given race weekend, but what happened in wind tunnels, design rooms, engine shops, dyno rooms, simulators, and test tracks months or even years before the race weekend. Money obviously helps teams prepare and make their dreams come true, but that's why we as fans can understand and interpret the results accordingly. To that extent, a team like OAK can be very proud of their results. Also, they can compete in a class that is more in line with their budget. Some of these LMP1 teams probably have budgets that are more in line with LMP2. That's great if they want to fortify the LMP1 car counts, but they can't expect to compete for wins if their entries are field filler material. It's as simple as that, right? I understand that there are people whose ideology on this topic is different from mine, but they good news is that there are sports car series (and other types of racing) who have adopted a "lets balance every car" type mentality. That's why I'm not really in favor of some sort of merger of series whether it be SRO or Grand-Am. Those of us who want to see what ingenuity can do (and it generally takes money to get that ingenuity to the track), even if that leads to a "less exciting" battle for the lead, have very few options these days. Le Mans style racing is just about all we have left and even then it is not perfect, but allow us to keep what we have at the very least! I'm sure I am not the only racing fan that is on the verge of giving up on big league racing totally if another series goes the spec or spec in all but appearance route. |
|
|
|
|
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 |