|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
20 Dec 2007, 23:08 (Ref:2093040) | #51 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,699
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." Albert Einstein |
20 Dec 2007, 23:10 (Ref:2093041) | #52 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
Quote:
Haven't IMSA been given all the help and freehand they need? Despite little being said in public, IMSA have been lobbying equally as hard as the ACO to ease Porsche and Acura into P1, without rocking the boat. |
||
|
20 Dec 2007, 23:25 (Ref:2093048) | #53 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
Quote:
The free're technology, P1 vs P2 performance gap, and greater efforts to performance balance and restrict P2 costs will see a natural balancing of the field. |
||
|
20 Dec 2007, 23:56 (Ref:2093058) | #54 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,919
|
Quote:
Quote:
They made it clear that they know that everything does not come in the same neat little box and they will retain the ability, as is their right, to oversee and manage what is "LeMans" and make sure of its health and continued longevity on its storied quest to preserve Sports Car racing. L.P. |
||||
|
20 Dec 2007, 23:59 (Ref:2093060) | #55 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,306
|
If IMSA too abruptly follows the ACO lead, they'll lose the competition at the front that they had in 2007, and lose the gains in fans they got as a consequence. They know they can't do that.
ALMS draws more fans than any other sports car racing in the world, and by a lot. They'd be pretty stupid not to tread softly, particularly since their grids are, ah, let's say tenuous, at best. "Long term interests" of the ACO, IMSA and the manufacturers may, in fact, converge. Just not in 2008. Since ACO ignored any mention of the LMP1 "evo" coupe rules, I'll hope they're smart enough to be communicating "back channel" with GM/Corvette. |
|
|
21 Dec 2007, 01:12 (Ref:2093078) | #56 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,418
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
"When the fear of death out weighs the thrill of speed, brake." LG |
21 Dec 2007, 12:43 (Ref:2093302) | #57 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 107
|
Quote:
Of course, that car doesn't have a restrictor and is made for sprint races. |
||
__________________
Europa Bambaataa I like electronic boom-boom-boom sounds. So what? |
21 Dec 2007, 14:13 (Ref:2093362) | #58 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Quote:
|
||
|
21 Dec 2007, 16:05 (Ref:2093395) | #59 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 2,529
|
So, these "production GT1 engines in LMP1" then...
It seems you can have a bespoke 6.0 race engine running 32.5mm restrictors, or a 4 valve per cylinder homologated engine (eg. Aston V12) using 33mm restrictors, or a 2-valve lump (eg. Chevy C6R based engine) using 34mm holes. Is this likely to make a Chevy engine a cheaper (yet as powerful) option than an off-the-shelf lump from Judd, Zytek or AER? |
||
__________________
"Not the pronoun but a player with the unlikely name of Who is on first." |
21 Dec 2007, 16:08 (Ref:2093396) | #60 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
The C6R engine is 7 liter and the LMP1 rules only allows 6 liter
|
|
|
21 Dec 2007, 16:10 (Ref:2093398) | #61 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,147
|
Yes, that's probably a hint, isn't it?
I see that dailysportscar has picked up on my thoughts regarding Pesca / Rollcentre / RML / etc being gently guided (er, shoved?) to P2... |
||
__________________
... Since all men live in darkness, who believes something is not a test of whether it is true or false. I have spent years trying to get people to ask simple questions: What is the evidence, and what does it mean? -Bill James |
21 Dec 2007, 16:14 (Ref:2093401) | #62 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,831
|
Quote:
|
||
|
21 Dec 2007, 16:44 (Ref:2093412) | #63 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,147
|
Sheesh, the worst of both worlds - instability because of suggested changes/improvements, and then no improvements after all.
|
||
__________________
... Since all men live in darkness, who believes something is not a test of whether it is true or false. I have spent years trying to get people to ask simple questions: What is the evidence, and what does it mean? -Bill James |
21 Dec 2007, 16:45 (Ref:2093413) | #64 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
So you thinik that because Lola, Dome and Epsilon Euskadi are coming with a LMP1 coupe, the LMP1 Evo rules are delayed/canned.
Last edited by gwyllion; 21 Dec 2007 at 16:55. |
|
|
21 Dec 2007, 16:55 (Ref:2093420) | #65 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,147
|
... except they're not manufacturers?
|
||
__________________
... Since all men live in darkness, who believes something is not a test of whether it is true or false. I have spent years trying to get people to ask simple questions: What is the evidence, and what does it mean? -Bill James |
21 Dec 2007, 17:03 (Ref:2093422) | #66 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
Quote:
Regardless of P1 Evo rules, current cars can compete upto, and including, 2010. In that timeframe manufactuers will have changed their chassis at least once. The underpinnings and engine regs are unchanged, any change would be to the bodywork only, which may ultimately require a new tub due to the wider cockpit. All we've seen are snippets in the press, Evo regs are intended to attract manufactuers, the ACO will have been in discussions with manufactuers from day one, it's their influence that may have pushed the ACO to keep current P1 chassis, seeing as the trend is to coupes anyhow, while enouraging GM/Aston etc. with favourable production engine regs. If DSC are correct, manufactuers have persuaded the ACO to slowly modify current cars, so both parties are happy. Last edited by JAG; 21 Dec 2007 at 17:10. |
||
|
21 Dec 2007, 17:08 (Ref:2093428) | #67 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
Quote:
DSC:- Quote:
Add to this Acura's stated intent to push ahead with a 2009 P1, despite their worry about 'Evo' regs, and recent discussions with the ACO. It all points to a delay or gradual move to EVO type cars, rather than a complete switch. Last edited by JAG; 21 Dec 2007 at 17:13. |
|||
|
21 Dec 2007, 17:14 (Ref:2093430) | #68 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 402
|
Quote:
For an engine having more than 8 cylinders, the restrictors’ diameter above must be increased by: - 0.6 mm for 1 restrictor, - 0.4 mm for 2 restrictors; For closed cars equipped with an air conditioning system, the restrictors diameter above must be increased by : - 0.5 mm for 1 restrictor, - 0.3 mm for 2 restrictors; which would mean the Aston can use 34mm holes, a 9.4% increase in area over the GT1 engine, giving maybe 655hp. Nice, but still no Diesel! |
|||
|
21 Dec 2007, 17:25 (Ref:2093436) | #69 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
Quote:
|
||
|
21 Dec 2007, 17:52 (Ref:2093445) | #70 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,919
|
Quote:
L.P. |
|||
|
21 Dec 2007, 18:09 (Ref:2093449) | #71 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,147
|
I'm actually not saddened at all that this seems to be the end of the Evo rules. And, frankly, from a practical perspective, I think you're right, Jag, about both the need to update chassis between now and 2010 and the apparent fact that manufacturers have dissuaded the ACO from making any rash moves. (I think your reading of a possible need for a new tub is wrong, because that would kind of rule out the "only bodywork and restrictors" phrase, but that's a minor quibble.)
However, the one thing that I think you're overlooking is that this was done out in the open, played to the press, rather than using quiet negotiations with the manufacturers. That's where my main quibble lies. It gives the appearance of poor management IMO. (The ACO are hardly unique though.) The amount of public resistance shown by the existing competitors both times around (remember how the original image had Corvette livery, and that fairly quickly disappeared?) should give you an idea of what I'm talking about. I thought the Evo rules idea was not without merit, but the ACO should never have found themselves in the position of making a pronouncement ("All P1s will be coupes by 2010") that they ultimately had to withdraw. Poor PR, not poor rulesmaking. |
||
__________________
... Since all men live in darkness, who believes something is not a test of whether it is true or false. I have spent years trying to get people to ask simple questions: What is the evidence, and what does it mean? -Bill James |
21 Dec 2007, 18:27 (Ref:2093461) | #72 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,418
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
"When the fear of death out weighs the thrill of speed, brake." LG |
21 Dec 2007, 18:29 (Ref:2093463) | #73 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,919
|
Quote:
L.P. |
|||
|
21 Dec 2007, 18:31 (Ref:2093465) | #74 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,418
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
__________________
"When the fear of death out weighs the thrill of speed, brake." LG |
21 Dec 2007, 19:06 (Ref:2093482) | #75 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 6,958
|
Quote:
That's most certainly how I would read it. Lola etc. mostly build cars for privateer entry, not manufacturers. If they build cars for manufacturers, that is a different story. |
|||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
2008 sporting and technical regulations updated | Marbot | Formula One | 31 | 3 Jan 2008 03:21 |
ACO Regulations for 2007 | AU N EGL | ACO Regulated Series | 83 | 30 Dec 2006 06:05 |
2007 ACO Supplementary Regulations | AU N EGL | ACO Regulated Series | 2 | 23 Dec 2006 00:04 |
ACO regulations for 2006 released | Alistair_Ryder | ACO Regulated Series | 96 | 14 Nov 2006 08:10 |
Evolution of the ACO regulations in 2007 | Bentley03 | ACO Regulated Series | 177 | 27 Oct 2006 17:17 |