ALMS 2011 Discussion

[dj4monie]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

No I doubt that very much!

L.P.

Current 2012 Indy Car Engine is 2.4L and Turbocharged

Why couldn't you cast the block as 2.0L stock bore and bore it out for .4 which is TINY?

You need some additional plumbing for twin turbos but why not?

Why filled with so much doubt? If you scream the Economy again it makes even more sense as you're using engines that are already going to be built regardless, what's building a few more?

Why not have more than ONE use for ONE engine design?

[dj4monie]

Originally Posted by JagtechOhio

The 2012 Honda IndyCar engine is bespoke (not stock block) 2.4 L twin turbo V6 and should be running on the dyno by February, maybe March.

Likely the only major question to resolve is the fuel choice, as E85 is being considered but there are compatability concerns expressed by the fuel cell manufacturers.

Not fully understanding the ACO rules, but if a bespoke engine was acceptable for a particular category, perhaps that engine would be suitable for a sportscar as well. It will be lighter and probably have a lower cg that the stock block Honda 2.8 L V6

I suppose it would make more sense to build the 2.4L and de-stroke it to 2.0L if they wanted to build a bespoke 2.0L V6. Otherwise, there is no overlap between any of the platforms.

Max. projected output for the 2.4 V6 (with overtake assist active) is 750 HP. Durability should not be a concern, as the IRL has tasked Honda to lengthen the current V8 rebuild interval from the current 1400 miles.

You can run a pure racing engine design in LMP1 next season.

The lightest car possible is 875kg I believe, but you're limited to no additional propulsion (No Hybrid) and it has to be N/A (No Turbos). Thus far only Aston Martin is rumored to be going this route.

@900kg your engine options open up, but forced inducted gas engines are limited to 2.0L. As you said, HPD is already dyno-testing the 2012 Indy Car engine which is 2.4L. You can bridge that gap easy and as far as design, the current 3.4L HPD engine is based on a stillborn Honda IRL engine. I don't see any problem with casting the block smaller than the bores needed for 2.4L and building a few LMP1 engines from the same design.

I believe the turbo engine will be the engine to have gas or diesel. An N/A engine will not produce the low speed and mid-range power the turbo engines will, which is why AMR lobbied hard for the weight savings. They are going to build a 3.4L likely V8 engine and spin it to the moon (11-12K) and try to keep their momentum up in the low speed corners, think current LMP2 car.

That might workout okay overall, but I think it will be hard for them to overtake a turbocharged car on the straights without getting through the corners faster, with less weight that's likely what they are aiming for.

All things being equal I think the turbo-diesels will have a fuel economy advantage.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by dj4monie

Current 2012 Indy Car Engine is 2.4L and Turbocharged

Why couldn't you cast the block as 2.0L stock bore and bore it out for .4 which is TINY?

You need some additional plumbing for twin turbos but why not?

Why filled with so much doubt? If you scream the Economy again it makes even more sense as you're using engines that are already going to be built regardless, what's building a few more?

Why not have more than ONE use for ONE engine design?

So? The current P-2 is a single turbo by rule! That will carry over.
And what was my answer for?

They have a pefectly servicable 3.4L V8 already homologated for the class. Why would they build a new/different single application bespoke engine, when they already have it covered? I think not!


L.P.

[JagtechOhio]

That would be the move, to drop the 2.4 to 2.0. Better to use a shorter stroke, less piston speed that way.

But that means a 3.4 V8, 2.8 V6, and a 2.0 V6 as three Honda sportscar programs. Plus the 2.4 Indy program.

Just to clarify, the Indy motor is being drawn (and perhaps cast) but won't be running until Feb/ March. They will also be under no huge rush, as the chassis will be far from complete at that point.

So it wouldn't be the sort of thing they would consider adapting for 2011 ALMS, I shouldn't think. Which means I have to excuse myself for fear of thread piracy.

[JAG]

2010 P2 engines will be P1 motors in 2011, i.e 3.4 V8's and 2.0T's. HPD will continue using their 3.4 V8 and Roush are looking to build a 4 cylinder 2.0T.

2011 P2 will use production derived engines, i.e homologated GT2 engines, engines built to GT2 spec (IES Nissan V8) and 2.8T V6's such as those from HPD and Roush.

[veeten]

Actually, since the rules are still being agreed to, the new revision has been posted.

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/2011ACOLMP12Version4.pdf

Once again, it's the LMP2 Engine Homologation rules ( both in the graphic and under 5.6) that has an impact on future developments. The max is now 5.0L, meaning everyone that has a V8 in their lineup is now a possible entrant.

The odd man out is, as usual, Honda which has never had a V8 in their production line. It's why they are relying so heavily on their V6's.

[Mike_Wooshy]

Intresting to see the Maximum cylinders has been lifted from the LMP1 Category.....

[cmk]

And we finally get back towards some semblance of sensible engine rules for 2011 and beyond, after months of needless detours through various daft...er, draft engine rules. Most of the proposed changes were clearly going to undercut some of the great joys of sportscar racing like different cylinder counts to get to the same performance. Good going ACO, maybe you could try the common sense approach next time? Oh wait, who am I kidding...

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by cmk

And we finally get back towards some semblance of sensible engine rules for 2011 and beyond, after months of needless detours through various daft...er, draft engine rules. Most of the proposed changes were clearly going to undercut some of the great joys of sportscar racing like different cylinder counts to get to the same performance. Good going ACO, maybe you could try the common sense approach next time? Oh wait, who am I kidding...

And who was it that said that the engine rules were not fixed months ago HORNDAWG ???

[ubrben]

Originally Posted by The Badger

And who was it that said that the engine rules were not fixed months ago HORNDAWG ???

Table 5.1 has been in all the versions of the regs.

What's changed for this latest release is the stuff in green and purple I think. Basically it's GT2 engines of the same sizes proposed months ago, but they've removed lots of the permitted mods to make it even more proscriptive.

Ben

[chernaudi]

Of course, one can say that the 2011 rules don't make sense, since the ACO are proposing basically a return to Group C like rules for 2014 which will likely make the small engined cars obsolete within 3 years.

Whatever happened to the LMP900/675 and first generation LMP1/2 days where the rules were fairly stable for 5-6 years? And I wonder how this may screw up the ALMS and complicate what they're doing? Only sensible thing is that the ACO has changed the number of cylinders on an LMP1 to unlimited like it is now, which means if one has the gall, they can run the old Matra V12, which would be compeitive in the new LMP1 if updated to modern standards.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Only sensible thing is that the ACO has changed the number of cylinders on an LMP1 to unlimited like it is now

That is not clear yet.




L.P.

[Duff_44]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Whatever happened to the LMP900/675 and first generation LMP1/2 days where the rules were fairly stable for 5-6 years?

This rules package has been in place since 2006, which would make 2010 it's fifth season.

I'm not sure if the ACO rules omission of a limit on the number of cylinders in P1 is intentional or an oversight, but a super-high revving 10 or 12 cylinder 3.4L engine would have some distinct disadvantages:
- Packaging
- Uses more fuel - fuel capacity is going from 90L to 75L making efficiency very important
- Needs more air, which would have to be sucked through the same air restrictor as V8's - remember how the Ferrari 333SP was hampered when it was fitted with them

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

That is not clear yet.




L.P.

You have changed your tune . A few weeks ago you were telling me that I was wrong when I said "the rules were not cast in stone yet" ..... and now your saying "that is not clear yet" .

So , maybe an appology is warranted for telling me that I was wrong , because clearly I wasnt .

5L for P2 ..... and possibily open cylinders for P1 ..... something certainly has changed ..... or has it not ?

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by The Badger

You have changed your tune . A few weeks ago you were telling me that I was wrong when I said "the rules were not cast in stone yet" ..... and now your saying "that is not clear yet" .

So , maybe an appology is warranted for telling me that I was wrong , because clearly I wasnt .

5L for P2 ..... and possibily open cylinders for P1 ..... something certainly has changed ..... or has it not ?

I am not beyond saying that I have been and will be wrong! When I am I own it. As to the 'not clear yet'. It is not clear whether that is an oversight or not yet! If they have eased off of the rule, then you will have been correct.


L.P.

[chernaudi]

Are any of the 2011 rules set on stone or is the ACO still blowing smoke and maybe setting 2011 up to be a potential disaster by sitting on their hands like last year?

Only thing is that the basic chassis rules are the same, but everyone (namely factory teams) will want to build cars to suit the engine rules and that the grandfather clause for 2006-2010 LMP1s is if the car was homologated by the end of the ALMS/LMS/ILMC seasons and modified to suit fuel capacity/areo/performance ballance regs.

Talk about the ACO lifting the limits on the number of cylinders for the new LMP1 engines has been going on for a while, but the ACO hasn't released an offical rules package--only drafts and proposals, and time is running out on 2010.

And as to stable rules packages, the ACO's 2011 rule will likely only apply for 3 years; after all, the ACO are talking about 2014 when the 2011 rules haven't even been published yet!

[broadrun96]

Am I the only one that noticed the removal of the ban on 4wheel drive LMPs? Was a strike through the line only the rear wheels may power the car. Any chance that's Audi lobbying to build a hybrid with quattro?

[joeb]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

Am I the only one that noticed the removal of the ban on 4wheel drive LMPs? Was a strike through the line only the rear wheels may power the car. Any chance that's Audi lobbying to build a hybrid with quattro?

Perhaps, and Porsche has demonstrated their hybrid 911 with electric power to the front wheels.

[broadrun96]

thats the system I was figuring Audi would try to use in their hybrid LMP project.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

Am I the only one that noticed the removal of the ban on 4wheel drive LMPs? Was a strike through the line only the rear wheels may power the car. Any chance that's Audi lobbying to build a hybrid with quattro?

I do not believe it will allow '4 wheel drive' cars where the engine drives all 4 wheels. It is designed to allow freedom in the ERS/hybrid system, which will allow the electric motor(s) to drive either the front or rear wheels in conjuction with the engine driven rear wheels. A bit of difference between the 2.

But does not this discussion fit better in the 2011 rules thread?



L.P.

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

I am not beyond saying that I have been and will be wrong! When I am I own it. As to the 'not clear yet'. It is not clear whether that is an oversight or not yet! If they have eased off of the rule, then you will have been correct.


L.P.

Excuse me but , the very fact that the regs are being talked about suggests that the regs are "NOT" set yet .

Possible cylinder P1 change , and a change from 4L to 5L in P2 also says that the rules were not set at the time in question .

[The Badger]

Some people didnt believe me when I mentioned a week before Le Mans 2007 (?) about Epsilon Euskadi having a 2nd entry , contrary to ACO rules at the time .

Turned out to be correct to . I do have some well connected friends .

[ubrben]

Originally Posted by The Badger

You have changed your tune . A few weeks ago you were telling me that I was wrong when I said "the rules were not cast in stone yet" ..... and now your saying "that is not clear yet" .

So , maybe an appology is warranted for telling me that I was wrong , because clearly I wasnt .

5L for P2 ..... and possibily open cylinders for P1 ..... something certainly has changed ..... or has it not ?

Table 5.1 has not changed since the original draft from February of this year. 5L stock block atmo engines 8 cylinder maximum has always been the plan.

The red text is the original "new" regs from the first 2011 draft.

The version of table 5.1 in the first draft also doesn't have any cylinder values indicated for P1 either.

Ben

[JAG]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Of course, one can say that the 2011 rules don't make sense, since the ACO are proposing basically a return to Group C like rules for 2014 which will likely make the small engined cars obsolete within 3 years.

Whatever happened to the LMP900/675 and first generation LMP1/2 days where the rules were fairly stable for 5-6 years? And I wonder how this may screw up the ALMS and complicate what they're doing? Only sensible thing is that the ACO has changed the number of cylinders on an LMP1 to unlimited like it is now, which means if one has the gall, they can run the old Matra V12, which would be compeitive in the new LMP1 if updated to modern standards.

Why would someone run a larger engine when the same power can be generated with better fuel mileage from a lower capacity engine?

On the stability front the AER 4 cylinder has been a front runner for a decade in P675, P2 and now 2011 P1.

Chassis wise much of the MG Lola P675 could be carried over to the current P1/2 and onto a 2011 P1/2.

Applying this to the 2011 ALMS field most teams only need ballest up their cars and fit larger tyres while Intersport and Autocon can switch to AER's 4 cylinder engines.

[chernaudi]

Smaller engines only generally get better fuel mileage if they're turbocharged and/or fitted in a light weight car. Smaller engines have to rev more to produce power due to a lack of torque.

The Audi R8 got great fuel mileage due to turbocharging, DFI, and the fact that it made so much torque and had a wide powerband that you didn't have to hammer the engine to make the power.

At Le Mans in 1981, Porsche ran a 2.65 liter turbocharged boxer 6 that was a still born Indy Car engine. Rondeau ran 3.0 and 3.3 liter Cosworth NA V8s. The Porsche made more power, got better fuel mileage, and was more durable without being detuned.

Why do the diesels get better mileage? They ignition process (which the Audi FSI/Porsche DFI systems were derived from) and the fact that diesels don't (and to a large extent can't) rev like a gasoline engine. The Judd V10 got better mileage when it went from a 4.0 to a 5.0 then a 5.5 because the engine had more torque and didn't need to rev to make the same power.

Since LMP1s will be nearly as heavy next year and many will be powered with 3.4 flatcrank V8s, fuel mileage will go down the drain as they have to work harder to move a larger mass.