Nissan LMP1 Discussion

[Simmi]

Originally Posted by wdave0

The misplaced priorities continue - car doesn't work but make it pretty. This whole project seems backwards.

I know it doesn't look great considering the timing. But do you think everyone in the race shop dropped everything to wrap this car? Is it even in the same country? I doubt it.

[Acid09]

Originally Posted by wdave0

The misplaced priorities continue - car doesn't work but make it pretty. This whole project seems backwards.

Just like with the Zeod & Deltawing before, Nissan cares most about getting their PR worth out of this effort.

I don't think there's another big manufacturer in racing where the percentage between on-track accomplishments and PR is that off than with them.

You'd think that the embarrassing WEC withdrawal would have humbled them and at least stopped the PR machine for a few weeks but no...they act like nothing happened.

[Gingers4Justice]

I absolutely love football. I love motorsport. But there is just something horrible about the two linking up, and I'm not sure why.

[Simmi]

Hopefully there will be a big honking hole in City's defense on Saturday

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

I absolutely love football. I love motorsport. But there is just something horrible about the two linking up, and I'm not sure why.

£££, perhaps? It is a sizeable problem for both sports, and for different reasons those in charge do not want to tackle the problems head-on.

Originally Posted by Simmi

Hopefully there will be a big honking hole in City's defense on Saturday

As much as I can't see WBA posing a problem for them, I would love it (love it!) if it happened. The outside chance of City not making it into the CL next year would be worthy of Crystanbul comparisons.

[bjohnsonsmith]

They tried this Football/Motorsport match up before with the Superleague Formula, which ran from 2008 - 2011. Indycar has done similar, with a team occasionally fielding a car in a NFL team's colours. I personally don't think it works.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

They tried this Football/Motorsport match up before with the Superleague Formula, which ran from 2008 - 2011. Indycar has done similar, with a team occasionally fielding a car in a NFL team's colours. I personally don't think it works.

The car looks good though!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by joeb

The car looks good though!

I'm not sure about that.

[TF110]

Just a marketing thing. Who cares about the colors as long as they get the car together?

[joeb]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I'm not sure about that.

to each his own.

I'm just happy to see some color in lmp1.

[carbsmith]

Just shut up until you're actually ready to race, for crying out loud.

[wdave0]

Let's face it - at this point it isn't a race car so why should it have to look like one???

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by jswarde

Whilst I have declared an interest in Torotrak/Flybrid I think it is unfair to suggest that the Kers is the source of the problem Nissan has in developing the Car. I have not seen any reports that the Kers system does not do what is intended. Apart from being short of development and testing time the issues are mainly in the overall car and weight - not specific KERS issues. Every component in the car needs examined for weight saving; thus far the biggest weight saving identified is to hold back on fitting/testing the rear transmission from the Kers to give the AWD capability. The other main issue is structural integrity of the body and the attachment of the drive train including the Kers unit. Apparently the crash test failure should be easily fixed - we wait to hear next week!

If Nissan initially decide to go with a single flywheel Kers it is more likely to be entered in the 4mJ category rather than 2mJ(quote from Darren Cox Autoline telephone interview); one never knows but the twin flywheel system could still be used in 8mJ FWD mode, if necessary, with some limits on power but not energy category; e.g. 4-500hp Kers for 6 or 7 seconds rather than 750-1000hp for 3 or 4 seconds. The advantage of twin flywheel Kers in FWD only would be especially in braking and total energy recovery/ flywheel storage capacity.

Bottom line is lets wait and see if Nissan can get this whole package to perform; I certainly want to see the Flybrid deliver its hp punch from a lower cost system that does not require high voltages or nasty (hard to dispose of) battery materials.

If you look at the KERS system, it's mostly flywheel geartrain, with a little bit of flywheel stuck on the end. With those proportions, the power to weight ratio must be comparable to a battery system. It's hard to imagine all that metal can't be part of the reason the car is over weight.

Mulsanne Mike said his sources indicated the problem at Sebring was the KERS mount, undoubtedly related to the weight of the system.

We get additional rumors they testing has been mostly without the KERS installed. Since the KERS is a key part of the car's concept, that's going to impact its performance as far as testing lap times.

The power figures Nissan originally described pointed to an 8MJ system, but now we he have rumors they are going to run a 2MJ system. The RWD is gone because if you aren't running at least 6MJ, you don't really need AWD. The rear tires pushing the car out of corners until the front was no longer traction-limited was a key part of the original concept.

All we have is rumors at this point, but most of them keep pointing to one innovative but key system that isn't performing as needed. The KERS.

I think the Torotrak CVT is a great piece of hardware. Compact, efficient, light weight. The CFT, not so much. If the CFT was the only way to do it because ACO/FIA are stuck in the past and don't want to allow CVT, even though they are increasingly used on road cars, then it means people need to lobby ACO/FIA to let go of the past to allow developing this very promising technology.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by miatanut

The power figures Nissan originally described pointed to an 8MJ system, but now we he have rumors they are going to run a 2MJ system. The RWD is gone because if you aren't running at least 6MJ, you don't really need AWD. The rear tires pushing the car out of corners until the front was no longer traction-limited was a key part of the original concept.

All we have is rumors at this point, but most of them keep pointing to one innovative but key system that isn't performing as needed. The KERS.

I think the Torotrak CVT is a great piece of hardware. Compact, efficient, light weight. The CFT, not so much. If the CFT was the only way to do it because ACO/FIA are stuck in the past and don't want to allow CVT, even though they are increasingly used on road cars, then it means people need to lobby ACO/FIA to let go of the past to allow developing this very promising technology.

* YES if they are running 2MJ doesn't mean definitely that are problems with the KERS system... it could be FUEL FLOWS.

1) one problem i see is that the KERS system (mechanical) doesn't have that kind of 'high very high instantaneous deliverance of torque' as an electric system is capable of(is much more smood)... most probably quite unappropriated to use it as a pure 'slingshot' mechanism(yet probably not exactly the idea in the first place, only the shorts are much higher than anticipated)... the same with Audi (but for Audi, the diesel engine has been proven trough the years more than enough for slingshooting), yet Audi never used and still don't, the hybrid system, as a pure slingshot mechanism.

2) Nissan engine is engineered for as lower rever higher torquer for a petrol engine ( not that is inherently as limited as a diesel engine, but...), meaning compared with Toyota, the difference of engine rpm upping is abysmal only by the sound (pick some videos and see/hear)...

3) The choice of only 5 gear ratios to conserve momentum between changes(less changes) seems to me a measure to save some fuel, since for a petrol high torquer plenty of fuel flow is needed

well... it may be the accounts and simulations came out short... the torque is a little to low... fuel consumption to overcame that a little too high (the 2015 rule change of more fuel flow and tank capacity, might be a *gift*, since everybody wants Nissan in, not prematurely out).

The concept might work, but they have to considerably tweak the engine not only the KERS system. So one transitory solution might be to run in a lower MJ class to have more fuel flow, and have the KERS system helping the engine going higher revs faster...

The other solution would had been to have the KERS system 'burst' nicely, but this seems much more difficult, its a pure mechanically thing, and there is that much you can decelerate the flywheels fast... putting some small capacitor in between could pick a lot of slack (the same for Audi) , but then you have to have a electric motor, and in the end for the Nissan case change from a purely mechanical contraption, which is to late in the project, and besides just introducing an electric motor for the rear axle probably would balloon weight considerably.

So... back to the drawing board...

a) change Hybrid system altogether, imitate Porsche more than Toyota if the engine config will be identical (not that the KERS is flawed, only it has its natural limitations)...

b) or maintain the same mechanical KERS system but change to a diesel engine ( much more millions in R&D, aggravated as Audi as suffered, from the regulators heavy hand)...

c) expect ACO/FIA to change the rules and give petrol even more fuel flows...

d) drop off !...
..............................................................

a) can't be for 2015 ...

b) or a considerable diesel development is already in place or there is a considerable $ barrier(Renault/Nissan seem to have good civilian developments... but perhaps not enough...)

c) is the more easy and much less expensive... lot of marketing and a LOT of LOBBYING...

d) the *Ace up the sleeve* to play in order to have c) implemented in your way...

[isynge]

Originally Posted by Simmi

I know it doesn't look great considering the timing. But do you think everyone in the race shop dropped everything to wrap this car? Is it even in the same country? I doubt it.

No problem with Nissan's marketing team working on keeping the profile of the brand high, and ultimately they've presumably got a bit of idle time given they're not going to be at Prologue / Silverstone / Spa, nor indeed are those people likely to have much to contribute to making the car fast or reliable.

Can't help thinking that putting Man City colours on it constitute something of a two rods up to Sunderland, which given where Nissan make most of their cars in the UK doesn't seem like a massively solid idea...

[J Jay]

I'm slightly embarrassed to ask, but could you please explain that to me isynge? What particular bad blood do the Mackems have with MCFC?

[isynge]

Originally Posted by J Jay

You're going to have to explain that to me isynge. What particular bad blood do the Mackems have with MCFC?

More thinking that Sunderland (which has a Premiership football club) is the location for Nissan's vast car plant - and one can't help thinking the workforce there don't have massively fond thoughts for pretty much any football club other than Sunderland.

If Nissan want to go and do a football related publicity stunt why not paint it red and white and talk about the efficiency of their car plant rather than pale blue and no real relationship between the two concepts.

[J Jay]

Ah, I thought it was something specific between the teams. Honestly I wouldn't imagine many fans being fussed about it. My only experience of Sunderland and Man City was being at the Stadium of Light on May 13th 2012 ... the less said on that matter the better.

Putting it that way it does seem like a lost opportunity however. Then again putting my cynical hat on I'd say that the PR department want to be associated with a winning team rather than an efficient or local one.

Then there's the business of already-established sponsorships (if Sunderland FC have an automotive partner I doubt they would give permission for something like this) which seems to have been the driving force behind this particular wrap.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by hcl123

* YES if they are running 2MJ doesn't mean definitely that are problems with the KERS system... it could be FUEL FLOWS.

1) one problem i see is that the KERS system (mechanical) doesn't have that kind of 'high very high instantaneous deliverance of torque' as an electric system is capable of(is much more smood)... most probably quite unappropriated to use it as a pure 'slingshot' mechanism(yet probably not exactly the idea in the first place, only the shorts are much higher than anticipated)... the same with Audi (but for Audi, the diesel engine has been proven trough the years more than enough for slingshooting), yet Audi never used and still don't, the hybrid system, as a pure slingshot mechanism.

I don't see how you can say that. Anybody who's played around with a heavy flywheel spinning fast know they can kick your butt. Actually they can shred you into little pieces and not even notice. Electric motors have a maximum torque they can deliver. A flywheel, given sufficient mass and speed is limited only by the mechanism receiving its output. The faster you take the power out of it, the higher the torque you get. Just not for very long.

Originally Posted by hcl123

2) Nissan engine is engineered for as lower rever higher torquer for a petrol engine ( not that is inherently as limited as a diesel engine, but...), meaning compared with Toyota, the difference of engine rpm upping is abysmal only by the sound (pick some videos and see/hear)...well... it may be the accounts and simulations came out short... the torque is a little to low... fuel consumption to overcame that a little too high (the 2015 rule change of more fuel flow and tank capacity, might be a *gift*, since everybody wants Nissan in, not prematurely out).

It's a Cosworth engine, and they've built a few racing engines over the years. Certainly they were building to Nissan's spec, which was minimum fuel consumption, which led to this rather oddly large turbocharged engine turning low revs. The engine is a little smaller than the Toyota engine, but certainly there is a weight penalty running such a large engine (OK the Audi is also larger, but it's a diesel which is a whole different deal). They would only have gone with that big, turbocharged, low-revving lump if they thought there was considerable efficiency advantage coming from it. Certainly Cosworth could have delivered something that didn't meet expectations, but low-revving turbocharged IC engines aren't cutting edge technology and Cosworth has built lots of successful racing engines, so it's hard to imagine problems on this sector, but there also haven't been any rumors I'm aware of indicating problems with the engine. KERS problems, over weight problems, failed crash test (minor item) problems, but no rumors of engine problems.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by miatanut

I don't see how you can say that. Anybody who's played around with a heavy flywheel spinning fast know they can kick your butt. Actually they can shred you into little pieces and not even notice. Electric motors have a maximum torque they can deliver. A flywheel, given sufficient mass and speed is limited only by the mechanism receiving its output. The faster you take the power out of it, the higher the torque you get. Just not for very long.

Every system has a max of performance... and of course different systems different performances...

Nevertheless electric motors are the champions of torque bare none.. used in train locomotives and in naval applications... i think its enough examples for the saying...

Not saying flywheels are utter crap and can't be powerful, only electric motors are way much better for traction... Toyota's electric motor(s), essentially small boxes, quite smaller than the flybrid, put out almost as much torque as the engine itself at its peak torque regime, but can do it instantly if needed ... and so one principal characteristic of that 'electric' advantage is this instantaneous operation (very important for slingshooting).

Lets see, take the same amount of energy in a flywheel and a capacitor/battery bank, both engineered for the fast as possible release of the same amount of energy, lets say 8MJ... a proper sized and engineered electric motor could do it in a couple of seconds (specially coupled to a capacitor) to the point of braking transmissions and suspensions and bend a 'chassis'... a flywheel would take a whole lot of more time, because you can't decelerate a flywheel from 60K rpm to a couple of K rpm, in 2 or 3 seconds, without the danger of breaking the flywheel itself apart, and on top of it you have to take in account the load inertia( accelerate the flywheel is more easier)... worse a mechanical contraption of rotating nature is very prone to torque ripples... and the slower it revs the lower is the torque outputs... hard to engineer long enough stable plateaus of output (that is why the gearing)...

That was the notion i was trying to impart.

Originally Posted by miatanut

It's a Cosworth engine, and they've built a few racing engines over the years. Certainly they were building to Nissan's spec, which was minimum fuel consumption, which led to this rather oddly large turbocharged engine turning low revs. The engine is a little smaller than the Toyota engine, but certainly there is a weight penalty running such a large engine (OK the Audi is also larger, but it's a diesel which is a whole different deal). They would only have gone with that big, turbocharged, low-revving lump if they thought there was considerable efficiency advantage coming from it. Certainly Cosworth could have delivered something that didn't meet expectations, but low-revving turbocharged IC engines aren't cutting edge technology and Cosworth has built lots of successful racing engines, so it's hard to imagine problems on this sector, but there also haven't been any rumors I'm aware of indicating problems with the engine. KERS problems, over weight problems, failed crash test (minor item) problems, but no rumors of engine problems.

I like Nissan engine, its on the right principals no matter if petrol... matter of fact there are already many experiments of direct injection compression ignition petrol engines, the same of diesel, which could be the next footstep... you don't need to rev quite high to be tremendously powerful (enough suffice)...

An so i have to disagree... this principals for petrol are quite cutting-edge technology... specially for motosports... so we must give them more time.

[ if on torque front they could not out-pass diesel because diesel fuel is more energetic and more proper for compression ignition... imparting some of the principles of diesel can only improve petrol engines in my view... then if ACO/FIA allows differential valve timing we could have even a petrol *mix hybrid*, lower revs goes compression ignition higher revs goes spark ignition(Mercedes i think has a prototype)]

[wdave0]

Nobody has mentioned gyro effect. The flywheels appear to be vertical which seemingly could have very "interesting" effects on direction change behavior. I think Audi uses a horizontal one which would have much less of this effect.

[jswarde]

Originally Posted by wdave0

Nobody has mentioned gyro effect. The flywheels appear to be vertical which seemingly could have very "interesting" effects on direction change behavior. I think Audi uses a horizontal one which would have much less of this effect.

In the photos we have seen the Nissan has 2 flywheels; I expect that the flywheels will be arranged to rotate in opposite directions but at the same rpm and the gyro effect will be zero.

[QUOTE=hcl123] Nevertheless electric motors are the champions of torque bare none.. used in train locomotives and in naval applications... i think its enough examples for the saying...

Agree that, ordinarily, Electric motors may be said to be champions of torque; but at low rpm. However Nissan intent is to use the Kers on the straights after exit of corners from about 70mph upwards. As very little of a Le Mans lap is run below 70 mph this is not much of a draw back. The Nissan Flywheel Kers was conceived to deliver 700hp +, even as much as 1500hp; given that Power = Torque x rpm I do not think that the mechanical flywheel will be short of torque in it's application on a Le Mans lap! In fact I doubt if the electric Kers will match it's torque and power at speed. That is certainly Nissan's idea; we will just have to wait and see how it delivers.

[hcl123]

I don't know numbers, but if true those numbers up to 1500 hp, 2 things seems obvious.. 1) the system is larger and heavier than meets the eye... 2) it plays a heavy burden on the engine, since its 'mechanically' connected to it, meaning to release 1500hp worth of energy, first it must recuperate it...

[ the best system in this respect is the Porsche one, pays no parasitic torque whatsoever on the engine because there is no mechanic link to it whatsoever... and in Le Mans they were over-regen, meaning easely it could have those 1500hp worth of energy to release(if they wanted) without any of the shorts of a KERS and all the advantages of electric-> where most of the 'energy loss' of the engine goes is out of the exhaust pipes!... so Porsche system is brilliant... and simple!! ... ]

[ simple is just beautiful !!... ]

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by hcl123

Not saying flywheels are utter crap and can't be powerful, only electric motors are way much better for traction... Toyota's electric motor(s), essentially small boxes, quite smaller than the flybrid, put out almost as much torque as the engine itself at its peak torque regime, but can do it instantly if needed ... and so one principal characteristic of that 'electric' advantage is this instantaneous operation (very important for slingshooting).
Not saying flywheels are utter crap and can't be powerful, only electric motors are way much better for traction... Toyota's electric motor(s), essentially small boxes, quite smaller than the flybrid, put out almost as much torque as the engine itself at its peak torque regime, but can do it instantly if needed ... and so one principal characteristic of that 'electric' advantage is this instantaneous operation (very important for slingshooting).
Lets see, take the same amount of energy in a flywheel and a capacitor/battery bank, both engineered for the fast as possible release of the same amount of energy, lets say 8MJ... a proper sized and engineered electric motor could do it in a couple of seconds (specially coupled to a capacitor) to the point of braking transmissions and suspensions and bend a 'chassis'... a flywheel would take a whole lot of more time, because you can't decelerate a flywheel from 60K rpm to a couple of K rpm, in 2 or 3 seconds, without the danger of breaking the flywheel itself apart, and on top of it you have to take in account the load inertia( accelerate the flywheel is more easier)... worse a mechanical contraption of rotating nature is very prone to torque ripples... and the slower it revs the lower is the torque outputs... hard to engineer long enough stable plateaus of output (that is why the gearing)...

If you want something cranking out torque for hours on end, there is no doubt and electric motor can do it in less space than anything else. That's the reason locomotive traction engines are electric and not gas turbine or something else. If you only need torque for two or three seconds, a flywheel can do that a lot better (depending on its geartrain) than an electric motor. Anybody who's killed an engine trying to get a vehicle up to speed knows a flywheel can give up all its energy in a fraction of a second. These are racing flywheels and they are trying to make them as light as possible, so virtually all the mass is in the rim and the middle is made as light as possible, which means if you tried to take the energy out of it in a fraction of a second, the hub would fracture. They are designing it to give up its energy over the period of time they plan to use. It's a little academic, because the real limit is tire traction, and the electric motors are probably designed so they can deliver a little more torque than the tires can handle, as will the Nissan flywheel system.

Originally Posted by hcl123

I like Nissan engine, its on the right principals no matter if petrol... matter of fact there are already many experiments of direct injection compression ignition petrol engines, the same of diesel, which could be the next footstep... you don't need to rev quite high to be tremendously powerful (enough suffice)...

An so i have to disagree... this principals for petrol are quite cutting-edge technology... specially for motosports... so we must give them more time.

Maybe they are pushing some technology with the engine. We just haven't heard rumors of any problems with the engine.

[hcl123]

Then there are the 'controls' ... electric can have 'digital controls', probably 'computerized' in some form... a pure mechanically driver apparatus is much much more harder to control in all the possible variations of functioning, and 'computerize' it in any form makes little sense!...

Strange the builders o f the most sold BEV (pure electric vehicle) chose a tech that is kind of foreign to them.