|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
24 Oct 2011, 05:12 (Ref:2975833) | #1626 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,793
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
24 Oct 2011, 07:58 (Ref:2975881) | #1627 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,263
|
|||
__________________
MBL - SpeedyMouse Race House |
24 Oct 2011, 08:55 (Ref:2975904) | #1628 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,648
|
No more rules until 2014!
|
|
|
24 Oct 2011, 10:07 (Ref:2975928) | #1629 | ||
Racer
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 296
|
Quote:
As an aside, it really amazes me to hear that the total downforce numbers of the 08 LMP1s were approaching GTP levels with the bodywork regs as they were. I mean, where is the downforce produced? Front diffuser, floor + rear diffuser, and rear wing. How were they managing to get those sorts of DF levels with just those elements, when you look at the enormous tunnels and twin deck rear wings of the GTP cars? EDIT: Mike, we need to get you into a role in the ACO/FIA LMP regs committee to bring some well-needed common sense |
||
|
24 Oct 2011, 10:21 (Ref:2975930) | #1630 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 750
|
||
|
24 Oct 2011, 11:06 (Ref:2975951) | #1631 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 13,763
|
|||
|
24 Oct 2011, 11:07 (Ref:2975953) | #1632 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 13,763
|
|||
|
24 Oct 2011, 11:35 (Ref:2975970) | #1633 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,263
|
|||
__________________
MBL - SpeedyMouse Race House |
24 Oct 2011, 13:05 (Ref:2976020) | #1634 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,831
|
||
|
24 Oct 2011, 13:07 (Ref:2976022) | #1635 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 13,763
|
|||
|
24 Oct 2011, 13:12 (Ref:2976026) | #1636 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,831
|
Quote:
Figure Group C (thinking non-3.5 cars) was in the 7000-8000 lb DF region and I'm pretty certain current cars are heading towards 7000 if still in the 6000 total range. That's my guess. Dunno, maybe I'm a bit off. Figure 5:1 L/D in LM trim, 6:1 in high DF? Don't know what is needed, but you hear intelligent people bark back what the direction is and you wonder, who's the person in the room saying, "wait a minute!" There just seems to be a lot of head nodding. I felt that way about the big honking fin. But I bet that came down to, "Well, come up with something better." And as a racer you just want to get one with it, thus we have big honking fins. Though in fairness, none of us have the body of evidence, so it's VERY easy to sit back and criticize. |
||
|
24 Oct 2011, 15:44 (Ref:2976090) | #1637 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
Quote:
To do that you have to encourage the development of technology which is relevant to the road, racing purely for entertianment purposes is no longer a compelling reason for the bean counters, when these manufactuers day to day business is under threat unless they adapt. In addition the sport has a strong privateer base throughout the ranks that didn't exist during during the height of Group C, as important the media landscape has seen a revolution, it won't be long before each team has some form of online video and social media coverage. The likes of the ACO need to make strategic decisions that may not always be popular, one example is downsizing engines and encouraging hybrid technology. Le Mans consistently produces the most exciting cars, I think the upcoming models will go down with Can-Am and Group C as the best the sport has seen. By comparison I look at Indycar and GA and wonder why they think continuing with the same failed concepts is going to work second time around, their conservatism will be their undoing. Last edited by JAG; 24 Oct 2011 at 16:03. |
||
|
24 Oct 2011, 21:08 (Ref:2976239) | #1638 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,261
|
Quote:
The point is that car companies have no problem pouring money into racing purely for advertising purposes. And by advertising it seems like they are trying to sell a "lifestyle" and not any form of automotive technology or anything that has relevance to the cars themselves. Sports car racing has the opportunity to provide a difference here. Car companies can build hybrid systems (for example) and show off their technology and display how it compares to others. That would be great and I think a lot of us are hopeful for that, but this won't happen if the rules don't allow for it. If they balance the technology, well, so much for using racing as a competitive yardstick. The car companies may or may not like that on the basis that they may never lose badly, but they may never win big either. It's hard to say. Then there are the "safety" rules. I think if you combine crappy "competitive balance" rules that stifle true competition with ugly Swiss cheese DPs, well, you're going to lose that hardcore audience that makes this form of racing different than NASCAR, F1, 0.1ndycar, and any other number of series. We've all heard about the KISS principle before. Keep It Simple, Stupid. We know about that and I think the FIA and ACO should follow that when making the rulebook. Second, as far as picking a marketing direction, I say IACS. It's About the Cars, Stupid. Who watches this form of racing mainly for the championships and pomp? Who watches to see races in glitzy places around the world? Who watches to see mega close door-to-door racing? It's nice if it happens, but I doubt that is what gives people sports car racing fever. It's about the cars. Period! Stop making them have the personality of a Toyota Corolla with "speed holes." |
||
|
25 Oct 2011, 05:07 (Ref:2976373) | #1639 | ||
Racer
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 296
|
^^^
I totally agree with all of this. Its not about improving the breed or being a 'rolling laboratory' as the marketing speak would have us believe. its about advertising. Or, to put it in a less cynical way, its about showcasing what *already* exists in a manufacturer's road cars. Quote:
|
||
|
25 Oct 2011, 09:02 (Ref:2976419) | #1640 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,232
|
Quote:
A large manufacturer's combined R&D budget must be in... billions? Racing is a drop in the ocean. Maybe it's slightly different situation for small exclusively sportscar manufacturers, but then again how efficiently a Ferrari accelerates is not relevant for most normal people. If anything the "breeding" seems to go now the other way around: Audi's LED lights (lol), diesels engines weren't exactly invented at La Sarthe either and certain kind of energy recovery systems are already somewhat proven technology. Last edited by deggis; 25 Oct 2011 at 09:17. |
||
|
25 Oct 2011, 09:53 (Ref:2976434) | #1641 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,654
|
Quote:
Just think of how much stress you put a technology under in racing it flat out in 24 hours. To make it last that you develop it, and under this development you could find ways to make the system work better when put in mass production. Disc Brakes, direct injection and lightweight four wheel drive are good examples of racing refining technologies for the masses. |
|||
__________________
Hvil i Fred Allan. (Rest in Peace Allan) |
25 Oct 2011, 11:07 (Ref:2976461) | #1642 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,261
|
Quote:
|
||
|
25 Oct 2011, 11:22 (Ref:2976466) | #1643 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,232
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
|
25 Oct 2011, 11:39 (Ref:2976477) | #1644 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,261
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
25 Oct 2011, 12:11 (Ref:2976498) | #1645 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,232
|
Quote:
|
||
|
25 Oct 2011, 17:07 (Ref:2976660) | #1646 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
Quote:
Quote:
I would say you don't draft regs to purposefully produce great looking cars, GA tried such things and ended up in all sorts of trouble. Give manufactuers a free hand within the basic dimensions and they'll produce great looking cars.............and the occasional dog. Last edited by JAG; 25 Oct 2011 at 17:19. |
|||
|
25 Oct 2011, 18:07 (Ref:2976699) | #1647 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 750
|
Quote:
this may be total bs, but I dont understand a few things: do we know who came up with those crazy ideas? Namely, reducing the size of the cars. It doesnt sound like the ACO would come up with such an idea, and judging from Mike's tweets it just sounded like the ACO is actually developing the new rules (for 2014) TOGETHER with the FIA, is that correct? IF thats the case i do not understand why the hell would it happen that way, I mean I thought that Le Mans, LMS etc rules were created by the ACO or whoever and not by the FIA is that correct? Then, I ask why on earth would they let the FIA guys have any part of rule creation, which is not their job (lot of "head nodding" what does it mean exactly). Who is in charge there? Also: relatively stable rules for several years might be important for smaller teams so they dont have to design a brand new car every 2 years. IMHO the ACO should focus on how to bring in more manufacturers to lmp1 and more contructors to lmp2 (vdev chassis manufacturers for example) Last edited by lms; 25 Oct 2011 at 18:35. |
||
|
25 Oct 2011, 18:36 (Ref:2976713) | #1648 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
Quote:
Silly rules like the fin quite possibly stopped McNish's R18 flying into a packed grandstand and Rockenfella's car spearing into a forest, an all new chassis may negate the need for a fin at all. As for a smaller floorpan, todays cars are smaller than the longtails of the late '90, in fact the smallest sportscars are probably the 3.5 Group C 's, wheels at each corner with a huge wing. As for stability, the R10 debuted in 2005, Audi built three new cars for the last set of regs, Peugeot got by with one. In P2 the new cars have run for one season, they have another four years stability before major changes. Last edited by JAG; 25 Oct 2011 at 18:42. |
||
|
25 Oct 2011, 18:59 (Ref:2976724) | #1649 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 750
|
the aerodynamics/car dimensions too? I thought that various safety structures must be FIA approved, and thats where the FIA "involvment" ends (rules regarding the "survival cell" for instance - from the 2010 LMS rulebook)
Last edited by lms; 25 Oct 2011 at 19:24. |
|
|
25 Oct 2011, 19:46 (Ref:2976739) | #1650 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,232
|
I think ACO basically asked for FIA's help after/in 2008 (due the numerous flying cars). Much bigger resources and knowledge etc.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |