2013 Silly Season (Merged) - Page 101

Mixer · 1 Aug 2013, 06:30 (Ref:3284515)

its never good to make an untested change going into the enduros, I know it might sound like a long shot, but you might just hand someone a cracking advantage without intending to.

RedZedMikey · 1 Aug 2013, 07:55 (Ref:3284539)

Taken from GT-R's link ...

"Nissan, meanwhile, is said to have exhausted the supply of Nismo performance parts delivered from Japan in April and remains unsure whether its engine can make competitive power figures under the current rule package."

As a Nissan owner/enthusiast, they aren't pretty words to see. I guess I'd like to know how and where the 4.5lt and 5.6lt V8 motors run by Nissan in other series such as LMP2 and the now defunct GT1 make their power and torque. Is the V8SC 5lt DOHC motor being hamstrung by the 7500 rev limit? Could they use an extra 500 or 1000 rpm, make more power, become competitive, and still be reliable? It's not going to fix fuel burn, but will help if at least power can be equalised.

Yeah, I know, rules are rules, and Nissan and the Kelly's knew what they were facing going in.

bluesport · 1 Aug 2013, 08:15 (Ref:3284548)

Let them have their changes, a bigger fuel tank is still going to take longer to fill so it's not as if they are getting some huge advantage.

Umai Naa · 1 Aug 2013, 08:50 (Ref:3284560)

They simply need to work harder.

It's the first year. Did they really expect to be on par with the existing engines this soon?

peckstar · 1 Aug 2013, 09:10 (Ref:3284569)

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluesport

Let them have their changes, a bigger fuel tank is still going to take longer to fill so it's not as if they are getting some huge advantage.

wouldnt they adjust the fuel inflow at the same time?

That we we get a full tank taking the same amount of time

fomoco · 1 Aug 2013, 09:39 (Ref:3284578)

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Fuel Tanks To Change Size Depending on Car Brand??

Are they really going to use fuel tank size to paritise the cars for the enduros?

That article suggests that SBRE/Erebus/AMG are still working on their engines, while the Nismo boys and girls have run out of things to try/have given up

Is there a timeframe around when this will not be necessary any more? I mean this year's schedule which has reduced the reliance on fuel stops, isnt going to continue next season hopefully...

Its great that the Mercs are still refining the package, not so goog that it can be seen that the Nissans seem to be waiting for paritisation..

late news, this was out a couple of weeks ago, have a look at
http://tentenths.com/forum/showthread.php?t=138322, cheers

**GTRMagic** · 1 Aug 2013, 09:52 (Ref:3284583)

Interesting then that the article missed what is more likely to be the solution... that the teams running Fords and Holdens, may or may not have a change to the fuel flow rate by a change in the size of the diaphragm used for filling, thus theoretically increasing the length of time taken to achieve the fuel fill

That way, the car's technical regulations can be maintained (and a certain blue cum red team cannot cry & protest...), and all will be well..

Presuming any of this actually happened

fomoco · 1 Aug 2013, 09:55 (Ref:3284588)

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Interesting then that the article missed what is more likely to be the solution... that the teams running Fords and Holdens, may or may not have a change to the fuel flow rate by a change in the size of the diaphragm used for filling, thus theoretically increasing the length of time taken to achieve the fuel fill

That way, the car's technical regulations can be maintained (and a certain blue cum red team cannot cry & protest...), and all will be well..

Presuming any of this actually happened

To true, it will be interesting to see what will come of it have to agree

Mixer · 1 Aug 2013, 10:41 (Ref:3284599)

But then what of cars carrying more fuel being harder on tyres?

peckstar · 1 Aug 2013, 11:00 (Ref:3284606)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mixer

But then what of cars carrying more fuel being harder on tyres?

the difference is about 8 litres or 8 kg. not significant in weight
Neither of the tracks are particular hard on tyres

**GTRMagic** · 1 Aug 2013, 11:19 (Ref:3284614)

There are 3 tracks to consider..

peckstar · 1 Aug 2013, 11:33 (Ref:3284619)

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

There are 3 tracks to consider..

is it less of an issue at GC because of only completing 300km

its less than two full fills

sizzle · 1 Aug 2013, 15:15 (Ref:3284700)

Quote:

Originally Posted by peckstar

the difference is about 8 litres or 8 kg. not significant in weight
Neither of the tracks are particular hard on tyres

It must be significant Pecky, they just went all the trouble of increasing the minimum by 10kg due to the whinging.

peckstar · 1 Aug 2013, 22:05 (Ref:3284811)

Quote:

Originally Posted by sizzle

It must be significant Pecky, they just went all the trouble of increasing the minimum by 10kg due to the whinging.

was that about tyres though? which was the original point

**GTRMagic** · 1 Aug 2013, 22:48 (Ref:3284826)

Quote:

Originally Posted by peckstar

was that about tyres though? which was the original point

No, it was about some teams' inability to hit the weight limit... but if they complain about 10kg in that, surely the teams with the sub-optimal fuel consumption will be at least a fuel stop behind the Holdens & Fords...

We could see a 10 stop B1000 race, based on needs & performance, not on damage or safety car impacts...

Hope #7 put a few more pit lane teev crews in the late at Bathurst... Mr Beretta & Mr Larkham will have blown a kafoofle valve by lunchtime otherwise..

bluesport · 1 Aug 2013, 23:19 (Ref:3284836)

One thing is for sure and that is the chances of Nissan and Erebus having a good day at Bathurst will be zilch if nothing is done.

Racenut · 2 Aug 2013, 00:46 (Ref:3284854)

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluesport

One thing is for sure and that is the chances of Nissan and Erebus having a good day at Bathurst will be zilch if nothing is done.

Ha.. they are sandbagging!!!

eduardo1 · 2 Aug 2013, 01:48 (Ref:3284860)

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedZedMikey

Taken from GT-R's link ...

"Nissan, meanwhile, is said to have exhausted the supply of Nismo performance parts delivered from Japan in April and remains unsure whether its engine can make competitive power figures under the current rule package."

As a Nissan owner/enthusiast, they aren't pretty words to see. I guess I'd like to know how and where the 4.5lt and 5.6lt V8 motors run by Nissan in other series such as LMP2 and the now defunct GT1 make their power and torque. Is the V8SC 5lt DOHC motor being hamstrung by the 7500 rev limit? Could they use an extra 500 or 1000 rpm, make more power, become competitive, and still be reliable? It's not going to fix fuel burn, but will help if at least power can be equalised.

Yeah, I know, rules are rules, and Nissan and the Kelly's knew what they were facing going in.

At Adelaide an engineer with a Holden team said that the Nissan & AMG engines would never make the same power and, eventually, they would have to let them increase capacity to about 5.3L to get parity.

bluesport · 2 Aug 2013, 01:54 (Ref:3284863)

Quote:

Originally Posted by eduardo1

At Adelaide an engineer with a Holden team said that the Nissan & AMG engines would never make the same power and, eventually, they would have to let them increase capacity to about 5.3L to get parity.

Well if that is the case, given that they were eventually expected to produce more power and the intention was to paratise them back when they did, the existing Holden and Ford engines should be fitted with restrictor plates as was likely to happen to Nissan and Erebus.

Go Harder. · 2 Aug 2013, 02:43 (Ref:3284869)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Racenut

Ha.. they are sandbagging!!!

I wouldn't be at all surprised if that is the case.....

eduardo1 · 2 Aug 2013, 03:10 (Ref:3284872)

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluesport

Well if that is the case, given that they were eventually expected to produce more power and the intention was to paratise them back when they did, the existing Holden and Ford engines should be fitted with restrictor plates as was likely to happen to Nissan and Erebus.

Also a possibility. If they're still getting hosed at the end of the year, especially at Bathurst, then we'll probably hear more about it.

ForumNick · 2 Aug 2013, 03:44 (Ref:3284877)

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluesport

....the existing Holden and Ford engines should be fitted with restrictor plates as was likely to happen to Nissan and Erebus.

where would this 'restrictor plate' be fitted ?

bluesport · 2 Aug 2013, 04:09 (Ref:3284880)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForumNick

where would this 'restrictor plate' be fitted ?

The air inlet, similar to NASCAR.

DX20VT · 2 Aug 2013, 07:37 (Ref:3284912)

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluesport

The air inlet, similar to NASCAR.

Easy when you run a 4 barrel carb,

not so easy when you run 8 individual throttles in a not 100% sealed airbox.

touring fan01 · 2 Aug 2013, 07:58 (Ref:3284920)

Quote:

Originally Posted by DX20VT

Easy when you run a 4 barrel carb,

not so easy when you run 8 individual throttles in a not 100% sealed airbox.

NASCAR don't use carbs.
They use fuel injection.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
2013 Nascar Silly Season	HJJ	NASCAR & Stock Car Racing	432	26 Nov 2013 07:50
2011 Silly Season (Merged x5)	GTRMagic	Australasian Touring Cars.	1536	18 Oct 2011 04:29
hypothetical 2013 silly season	simon5574	Australasian Touring Cars.	17	21 Sep 2011 12:08
2010 Silly Season (merged x7)	V8 Fireworks	Australasian Touring Cars.	1763	14 Sep 2010 04:02
Formula 3 - Silly Season (merged)	Shunt the Hunt	National & International Single Seaters	314	5 Apr 2003 06:32