|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
13 Oct 2011, 09:56 (Ref:2970376) | #1476 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,129
|
|||
__________________
pieter melissen |
13 Oct 2011, 10:31 (Ref:2970394) | #1477 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,353
|
I don't think that response is appropriate.
The ACO's plan of a giving the teams a bucket of joules and seeing what they can do is a great one that will promote efficient technology and lead to the most efficient power source winning. Lets hope they dont dilute or twist it too much in its execution. |
||
|
13 Oct 2011, 10:36 (Ref:2970398) | #1478 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,261
|
And I don't like twisting my words in a useless post is appropriate either....
The joules idea for fuel seems the best way to go IMO as it promotes the team with the best development to win, not some low key affair. |
||
__________________
MBL - SpeedyMouse Race House |
13 Oct 2011, 10:39 (Ref:2970401) | #1479 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,353
|
|||
|
13 Oct 2011, 10:41 (Ref:2970404) | #1480 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,261
|
Quote:
Maybe the ALMS should try to woo Audi back by allowing them to let their engines breathe as much as they want (within some reason I suppose). It could be a way to snatch back some of the power they have lost to the WEC/ILMC. It would be a political nightmare in some sense, but hey, at least we'd get to see power. |
||
|
13 Oct 2011, 10:44 (Ref:2970406) | #1481 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,129
|
Quote:
Rules are there to make apples and pears race in one series, so letting loose all the restrictions and regulations will get rid of either the apples or the pears. (Canam died partly because of the 917-30, so absence of rules is not a guarantee for survival of a raceseries) And yes, the energy formula is the right way to go, in a way it also resulted in the epic Mazda win 20 years ago with non-conventional technology. |
|||
__________________
pieter melissen |
13 Oct 2011, 10:51 (Ref:2970413) | #1482 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,353
|
...but it shouldn't be a struggle to get to the end of the race like it was sometimes in the group C era - what it should be is that the most efficient car is the fastest and/or has less pitstops thereby winning the race.
|
||
|
13 Oct 2011, 10:53 (Ref:2970415) | #1483 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 278
|
I think he meant even out the rules between petrol/diesel. Either 3.4l for everyone or 3.7l for everyone.
|
||
|
13 Oct 2011, 10:54 (Ref:2970417) | #1484 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,261
|
Yes...3.7L Turbo diesel or 3.7L Turbo Petrol.
|
||
__________________
MBL - SpeedyMouse Race House |
13 Oct 2011, 10:56 (Ref:2970418) | #1485 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,129
|
|
||
__________________
pieter melissen |
13 Oct 2011, 11:30 (Ref:2970434) | #1486 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 508
|
Quote:
I think some form of energy flow measurement is probably the fairest way, but even the I think the technology is tough. AFAIK they don't want fuel volume restrictions like Group C because you could end up with running out of fuel or excessive fuel saving maps at the end of the 24 hours. So the only option is unlimited refuelling during the race, but a fixed flow rate in the fuel system - that is the technical challenge they need to overcome. Ben Last edited by ubrben; 13 Oct 2011 at 11:35. |
|||
|
13 Oct 2011, 11:37 (Ref:2970437) | #1487 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
A brilliant proposal You focus on a single parameter, namely the displacement, and ignore all the others (e.g., rev limiter, air restrictor size, maximum turbo boost pressure, fuel flow restrictor, allocated energy/fuel volume, ...).
Last edited by gwyllion; 13 Oct 2011 at 11:43. |
|
|
13 Oct 2011, 11:43 (Ref:2970442) | #1488 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
13 Oct 2011, 11:58 (Ref:2970450) | #1489 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,261
|
Quote:
So you don't see anything wrong with a smaller displacement N/A petrol engine having to rev hard to still make less HP and torque than a lower revving larger displacement diesel? Make capacity and aspiration even and then we can really judge which is the better powerplant....Hell even a 3.4L petrol with a pair of turbos would seem more fair than the backward rules we currently have. |
|||
__________________
MBL - SpeedyMouse Race House |
13 Oct 2011, 13:07 (Ref:2970494) | #1490 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The petrol engine must breath through a tiny air restrictor such that it can only rev as high as a diesel engine (maybe even lower); or a rev limiter must be in place to achieve the same effect; or the diesel engine must run with a huge turbo boost pressure such that it can produce massive torque (to compensate for a lack of revs); or alternatively the energy/fuel flow must be rate limited (again limiting the maximum engine power); or the total allocated fuel volume that can be used during the course of the race must be defined; etc. Why impose a maximum engine displacement at all? In the proposed 2014 rules the engine configuration will be completely free. |
||||
|
13 Oct 2011, 19:40 (Ref:2970663) | #1491 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,348
|
Quote:
|
||
|
13 Oct 2011, 20:23 (Ref:2970683) | #1492 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,129
|
Quote:
If there will be a fixed amount of fuel/energy supplied over a race (take Le Mans as example) why not allow 1/24 of that for the first hour and the next 1/24 for the second hour and so on. If a car runs conservative and frugal it may be able to not fully use its hourly allotment in the first of part the race, which may be used towards the end (after twenty hours?) supplementary to the normal 1/24 portion. So what you get is that in the first part of race cars will drive carefully and they may go all out at the end thereby avoiding the dreadful Group C effect of all cars slowing down to even reach the end. Shoot me if you want... |
|||
__________________
pieter melissen |
13 Oct 2011, 20:44 (Ref:2970692) | #1493 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,648
|
I'm not so sure you'll have cars coasting around all the time at the end of the race. Safety Cars during the race will slow the pace way down, so at the end, they can go as fast as they want.
Of course, the teams may factor in a safety car into the fuel strategy, but they could only really factory in one, because there was only one safety car period in the 2008 race. So you get a couple safety cars, especially long ones like this year, and it should be full throttle to the end. |
|
|
13 Oct 2011, 20:53 (Ref:2970696) | #1494 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,228
|
You'd think engine management and computer simulations might have improved a bit from GrC years. Not sure about risk management though...
|
|
|
13 Oct 2011, 21:29 (Ref:2970717) | #1495 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,648
|
Lets say the engine rules are completely free for 2014. Peugeot and Audi decide to basically run their 2008 engines (but more efficient), but they coast around at the beginning of the race to save fuel.
Then you get a couple of massive safety car periods like this year's race for about 4 hours. Now they've saved enough fuel to make their fuel allotment while being able to run full speed. I doubt the ACO is going to be happy with laptimes of 3:10 or below considering their 3:30 lap time obsession nor will they be happy with speeds 230mph+ on the straights. Okay maybe Audi or Peugeot won't do this, but lets say you are Rellion or Pescaralo. You know you can't beat these guys heads up, so you rely on this strategy and if it plays into your favor, you could win. |
|
|
13 Oct 2011, 22:55 (Ref:2970768) | #1496 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Quote:
Quote:
Any engine configuration (i.e., displacement, number of cilinders, turbo boost pressure, etc.) can be used and may the best win. |
|||
|
13 Oct 2011, 23:17 (Ref:2970776) | #1497 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,348
|
Quote:
|
||
|
13 Oct 2011, 23:39 (Ref:2970782) | #1498 | |||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,150
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
14 Oct 2011, 00:11 (Ref:2970789) | #1499 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,261
|
Quote:
It would be nice to see factory teams split their fuel strategy. It may lead to a different type of racing than what we have now, but that is fine I guess. It is endurance racing after all. Maybe we'll see more split strategies of team cars. The other question is if IMSA/ALMS will diverge from the consumption formula again. That's a whole different matter I suppose. |
||
|
14 Oct 2011, 00:36 (Ref:2970797) | #1500 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,327
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[WEC] Glickenhaus Hypercar | Akrapovic | ACO Regulated Series | 1603 | 12 Apr 2024 21:24 |
[WEC] Aston Martin Hypercar Discussion | deggis | ACO Regulated Series | 175 | 23 Feb 2020 03:37 |
[WEC] SCG 007: Glickenhaus Le Mans LMP1 Hypercar | Bentley03 | ACO Regulated Series | 26 | 16 Nov 2018 02:35 |
ALMS Extends LMP Regulations | tblincoe | North American Racing | 33 | 26 Aug 2005 15:03 |
[LM24] Whats the future of LMP's at Le Mans?? | Garrett | 24 Heures du Mans | 59 | 8 Jul 2004 15:15 |