The Big honking holes question

[Acid09]

Originally Posted by Articus

The holes are ugly. This is not the 24 hours of LeMons.

I don't get all the drama, you basically have to know they´re there to even see them from this angle.

The HPD is pretty ugly but that has nothing to do with the holes or the fin but rather with the weird headlights.

It's always the same, when new regs are introduced everybody goes crazy about the looks and 20 minutes later everyone has adjusted. I remember how odd the first LMP2s build to the 2005 regs looked with the higher ground clearance...you don't even notice that today anymore. Same goes for the fin, it has simply become part of the car.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

If you substitute Daytona for Sebring, that's what Grand Am said in 2003...

Bingo!

Originally Posted by Simmi

People will be used to them within literally 30 minutes of racing at Sebring. Who cares!

I don't think so. I'm not used to the BHFs. At least I'm not used to them on all the cars. The one car that I thought had a pretty well integrated BHF (all things relative) is gone now. The BHHs can be seen from certain angles. Those who go to the track and take an up close look will probably feel the pain of BHHs more than people looking at magazines, but I guess it depends on the angle.

But, yeah, I had a look at some LMPs from 2008ish the other day. I almost cried at the current sad state of affairs in terms of looks. Yikes!

[Félix]

Originally Posted by AGD

But, yeah, I had a look at some LMPs from 2008ish the other day. I almost cried at the current sad state of affairs in terms of looks. Yikes!

And Stéphane Ortelli probably cries when he thinks of his Monza flight. Stop criticizing everything and enjoy life!

[Acid09]

Indeed, with the crashes we had in recent years I can't see how anybody can be against safety features.

And honestly, I rather have cars with these kind of aerodynamic features that go 330kph+ instead of "good looking" cars that won't go faster than GTs.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by Félix

And Stéphane Ortelli probably cries when he thinks of his Monza flight. Stop criticizing everything and enjoy life!

And this woman claims that her size 38KKK breasts saved her life in a car accident this past weekend. No, I'm not talking about Milka Duno. Maybe this woman is right, I don't know. If so, should all drivers be required to have BHBs (Big Honkin' Boobs)? It's for safety after all! At what point does "cosmetic surgery" become just a bit too much? Do you want to go under the knife in order to renew your driver's license?

Besides, the ACO and FIA seem so eager to fix a problem that hasn't been super widespread while they let teams race cars in the fastest class with seemingly very little visibility. The issues caused by that seem to have consequences in almost every race. Where's the consistency? Where's the call to immediate action? All the ACO seems to do is blame the drivers who get run over. Go figure.

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by Acid09

Indeed, with the crashes we had in recent years I can't see how anybody can be against safety features.

And honestly, I rather have cars with these kind of aerodynamic features that go 330kph+ instead of "good looking" cars that won't go faster than GTs.

Was LM really less spectacular 15 years ago when the top cars 'only' got into the 3.40s?

And even Daytona Prototypes go 200mph/320kph at Daytona these days, so outright speed isn't really an issue. In fact the problem with cars going airborne only came about with an increasing reliance on corner speeds as the cars were getting more and more reigned in on the straights.

You don't have to like DPs and they'll never make it to LM, but would prototypes that are fast on the straights and slow through the corners truely be an issue? IMHO it might actually make for more spectacular racing.

[gregtummer]

If they are going to make the cars look ugly for safety reasons, then 3:20 (200 seconds) lap times should be the new benchmark.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by AGD

And this woman claims that her size 38KKK breasts saved her life in a car accident this past weekend. No, I'm not talking about Milka Duno. Maybe this woman is right, I don't know. If so, should all drivers be required to have BHBs (Big Honkin' Boobs)? It's for safety after all! At what point does "cosmetic surgery" become just a bit too much? Do you want to go under the knife in order to renew your driver's license?

Besides, the ACO and FIA seem so eager to fix a problem that hasn't been super widespread while they let teams race cars in the fastest class with seemingly very little visibility. The issues caused by that seem to have consequences in almost every race. Where's the consistency? Where's the call to immediate action? All the ACO seems to do is blame the drivers who get run over. Go figure.

With all due respect, I think you ought to turn off whinge-mode - just for a day or two......

[FordCosworthPanoz]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

Was LM really less spectacular 15 years ago when the top cars 'only' got into the 3.40s?

And even Daytona Prototypes go 200mph/320kph at Daytona these days, so outright speed isn't really an issue. In fact the problem with cars going airborne only came about with an increasing reliance on corner speeds as the cars were getting more and more reigned in on the straights.

You don't have to like DPs and they'll never make it to LM, but would prototypes that are fast on the straights and slow through the corners truely be an issue? IMHO it might actually make for more spectacular racing.

I still think that 1995-1999 as well as BPR produced some of the best races and showed what Sports Car Racing is really all about. As far as I'm concerned, Le Mans is "The Grand Prix of Endurance" and if I want to watch lightning-quick fast cars that look like ugly University Science Projects I'll watch Formula 1.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

Was LM really less spectacular 15 years ago when the top cars 'only' got into the 3.40s?

And even Daytona Prototypes go 200mph/320kph at Daytona these days, so outright speed isn't really an issue. In fact the problem with cars going airborne only came about with an increasing reliance on corner speeds as the cars were getting more and more reigned in on the straights.

You don't have to like DPs and they'll never make it to LM, but would prototypes that are fast on the straights and slow through the corners truely be an issue? IMHO it might actually make for more spectacular racing.

Yaw flip has all to do with the relationship of the critical take off speed to the maximum speed achieved. So if you spend a preponderance of the time well above the critical take off speed* you will statistically have issues. Say the critical take off speed is 150 but your top speeds are typically only 170 mph, statistically you'll appear to have fewer issues. But say you're regularly in the 185-200 mph range with the same critical take off speed, yes the cars will appear to be "less" safe. Don't change a thing on a DP but add 250 hp and those cars would have severe problems as they have a DF deficit compared to a modern LMP.

The ACO has taken a multi-pronged approach to reducing the issue which includes power reduction, direct safety devices (Big Honking Fins, chamferred floors, and stepped splitters), and reducing the car's L/D (narrow span wings, Big Honking Holes, underfloor planks). Don't get me wrong, I hate all the crap, but I recognize the necessity. And ultimately the ACO is preparing us for a world of 300 hp sports prototype racing cars...they can justify it from a "relevance" standpoint and it slows the cars down.

The days of faster and faster are over. No longer will we wait with baited breath to see if the latest hero has bested the old track record. With the invasion of motorsport as pure entertainment (not as human or engineering achievement) the insurance adjustors took note and took over accordingly. FML.

*and we're defining the critical take off speed as the speed in which flight occurs when a yaw incident is initiated.

[lms]

why is there a step on the splitter on many protos? how could that be a safety device? and why is there an undulating splitter on the hpds? Thanks.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by lms

why is there a step on the splitter on many protos? how could that be a safety device? and why is there an undulating splitter on the hpds? Thanks.

The step in the splitter was to prevent blow overs such as occurred to the CLR in '99. The idea is to allow adequate airflow into the underbody even in cases of extreme dive where the splitter touches the ground plane and otherwise would effectively choke off the underfloor.

HPD simply optimized theirs. Rules only say that the notch has to be at least 50 mm above the reference plane across 1000 mm of width. Doesn't say it has to be an extrusion. Therefore you can guess sections of HPD's undulation are above 50 mm with the low points just at 50 mm.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

With all due respect, I think you ought to turn off whinge-mode - just for a day or two......

Ok, I gave you guys a rant-free weekend. Now it's back to regularly scheduled programming!

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

Don't get me wrong, I hate all the crap, but I recognize the necessity. And ultimately the ACO is preparing us for a world of 300 hp sports prototype racing cars...they can justify it from a "relevance" standpoint and it slows the cars down.

The days of faster and faster are over. No longer will we wait with baited breath to see if the latest hero has bested the old track record. With the invasion of motorsport as pure entertainment (not as human or engineering achievement) the insurance adjustors took note and took over accordingly. FML.

The ACO can try to justify 300 hp LMPs, but I don't know if anyone will buy it if the ACO starts spreading a bunch of "relevance" BS. There's a saying in American stick-and-ball sports, "People don't buy tickets to see the refs." It's a very true statement. The NFL has been much maligned about some of their new rules (which were designed for safety), so what did they do during the conference championship games and the Super Bowl? They had the refs swallow their whistles. I think most people enjoyed the games even more because of that.

I think most people have given up on seeing times significantly below 3:30 for any prolonged period of time. We know that reset button is going to be pushed periodically. If they want to slow the cars down even more, well, ok. Don't make the cars ugly then and don't make the track ugly either if the cars are slowed down. The ACO kind of has to pick one and leave the rest alone. Slowing the cars down might be the least painful option given the available options. You might lose some fans in the process, but trying to greenwash things and continuing to make the cars hideous looking to show that they are "doing something" about safety (while ignoring several other more obvious safety issues that are probably more easily fixable because they may insult the factory teams) is probably going to have an even greater negative impact.

[ACER76]

Is it really the end of the world to put some almost unoticeable holes into the wheel arches of cars in return for greater safety. Teams want a good few years use out of their new cars, the more asthetically pleasing safety changes can be left for the next generation of cars.

It also goes without saying if the weight of cars is reduced dramatically power will come down correspondingly.

As for the general look of cars to my eyes they are still the best looking race cars in any series by quite some distance, some look better than others but thats always been the case. I really don't get the attractiveness some see in the new generation Daytona Prototypes to me they still look almost home built.

[JHamilton]

Wouldn't further development and allowance of proper ground effects, like the stepped splitter, be a better and more relavent solution? Either better ground effects or these holes will increase downforce and therefore corner speed. Isn't this what we are trying to avoid?

[AGD]

Originally Posted by ACER76

Is it really the end of the world to put some almost unoticeable holes into the wheel arches of cars in return for greater safety.

Just the holes aren't a huge problem. Combine the holes with the BHF (the biggest problem) and the continuing reduction of power and it's a less than inspiring formula.

People can say safety this and safety that, but perhaps the ACO should follow obvious safety steps like punishing teams and their drivers for building cars that cannot be seen out of. Instead, those Mr. Magoos are going around causing massive damage and near catastrophes and the people getting the blame for it are the innocent teams and drivers who get run over. Then there are the issues of slowing the prototypes so much that passing GT and other slower cars becomes quite a bit more challenging. Drivers have to take more risks and we've seen how that works out too. Maybe I could take the ACO's safety initiatives seriously if they actually took safety seriously in every major way.

As for the general look of cars to my eyes they are still the best looking race cars in any series by quite some distance, some look better than others but thats always been the case. I really don't get the attractiveness some see in the new generation Daytona Prototypes to me they still look almost home built.

I think if you took a bunch of non-sports car fans who are interested in racing and showed them a new DP and a current gen P2 car and had them pick the car they'd rather watch, I'm quite sure the majority would pick the DP. Ok, there are problems with DPs beyond the skin, but looks are a factor. I think it's especially a factor when many F1, Indycar, and other series fans are disgusted with the direction of their series and looks is a big factor there.

[The Badger]

Im interested in seeing how these holes stand up to debris damage . I can see a whole lot of edge feathering going on here , leading to black flags and nose section changes .

What do you think about that Mike ?

[AGD]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Im interested in seeing how these holes stand up to debris damage . I can see a whole lot of edge feathering going on here , leading to black flags and nose section changes .

I don't know the context of the comment, but Dagys said during the last Speed chat that there were "mixed reviews" of the BHHs at the Sebring test and some less than happy people about them. I'm guessing the disappointment from the teams isn't about aesthetics, but I don't know if it's about damage potential, setup problems, or what.

[The Badger]

Well , we already have had occaissions where too much debris damage has caused a hole in the wheel arch ..... now there will be a hole there already , so the edges will have to be reinforced or the hole will get bigger .

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Well , we already have had occaissions where too much debris damage has caused a hole in the wheel arch ..... now there will be a hole there already , so the edges will have to be reinforced or the hole will get bigger .

I'm not sure I see this being a big problem. I think the damage to louvers has been over stated. So you reinforce the edge of the hole with Kevlar under a couple plies of carbon and get on with it. I don't think we'll see drifting setups during the race because of ever expanding BHHs...

[The Badger]

Thank you

[AGD]

I came across a picture of a FLM09 LMPC with the BHHs at the recent Oreca test at Paul Ricard. Are LMPCs going to have BHHs now too? I don't see any of the BHF and splitter stuff on the test car, but I don't know if those may be in the pipeline as well.

[TF110]

Good catch. The holes aren't nearly as bad as the fin. If they could just go with the holes and no fin, it sure would be great.

[gwyllion]

I just noticed that the front fender holes, or "air extractors" to use official ACO/FIA terminology, on the Lola B12/60 are huge!


So did Lola go for the maximum size (950 cm²) instead of the minimum size (750 cm²)?

I expected that everybody would go for the minimum size because the holes add drag.

[The Badger]

If you look closely , you will see 2 little silver rivet heads , which Im sure hold an anchor nut , which will be used to bolt on some sort of louvre making the BHH smaller .