|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
3 Nov 2011, 21:00 (Ref:2981246) | #1701 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 620
|
Quote:
Acording to Porsches's website: Porsche 962C 4800 mm / 2000 mm / 1030 mm / 820kg |
|||
|
5 Nov 2011, 08:33 (Ref:2981793) | #1702 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,232
|
Holes (but nothing new): http://www.autoweek.com/article/20111103/ALMS/111109930
|
|
|
7 Nov 2011, 22:53 (Ref:2982945) | #1703 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
||
|
7 Nov 2011, 23:39 (Ref:2982971) | #1704 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,232
|
^ Considering the reactions here... most people seemed to expect the proposal being 1000mm x 3000mm or something.
|
|
|
8 Nov 2011, 00:14 (Ref:2982980) | #1705 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 9,044
|
Yep all too easy to get wrapped up in the doomsday prophecies before anyone has even seen the proposed regs. Hopefully this should put people's minds at rest for a bit. People would be used to the new dimensions by about two hours into Sebring.
|
|
|
8 Nov 2011, 00:27 (Ref:2982986) | #1706 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,261
|
We'll see, even small differences in the rules can lead to odd sights. The dually Porsche GTE would be an example of that, although I guess there is more going on there than just the width. Anyway, I think it is the combination of the BHFs, BHHs, and size reduction that is making for a potential cringe-worthy situation rather than just the size reduction alone. I guess the greenhouses staying mostly the same would help ease the visual fears. We'll see. The BHFs have been around for a year and I'm not totally used to it on all of the cars. It does not look too bad on the Peugeot, but it's worse on other cars. It looks quite bad on the Lola for example.
|
|
|
8 Nov 2011, 00:52 (Ref:2982989) | #1707 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,232
|
I don't want to exclude possibility that the chassis revamp is so thorough that the fins and holes would be no longer needed...
I'm not used to the fins, but it helps that on tv feed you see the car from the least favourable angle only part of the time (from the sides). How good the fin looks like directly correlates with how developed the car is - i.e. how well the desing is integrated to the car. So it's not a surprise that on Audi & Peugeot (and soon Toyota) it looks the least horrible. On rest of the cars, a cardboard is pretty good description. The pre-2009 rear wings then again - when you see them in photos, they look so huge and just weird now. |
|
|
8 Nov 2011, 14:52 (Ref:2983166) | #1708 | ||||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,491
|
Quote:
Quote:
I am also hoping for the 2014 rules to address the holes and fins and maybe make them unnecessary. |
||||
|
8 Nov 2011, 19:30 (Ref:2983246) | #1709 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 750
|
Quote:
About "aesthetics": bodywork around the wheel is one of the distinctive features of the classes (lmp1, lmp2) that set them apart from open wheelers, I think they should leave this one alone. Cant they just come up with some underbody structure that prevents the car from becoming airborne? Something that sucks the car to the ground? I have to admit that although the fin looks fugly (on current cars at least) its probably the cheapest and most effective way to prevent barrel-roll crashes and it can be installed with little modification to an already existing chassis. But I hope its gone for 2014. Wide rear wings sounds awesome, that smaller wing looked so weird on those big prototypes, it was horrible. Also, im sure the designers will be happy to have some more df at the rear. This "aero efficiency" thing could be either good or bad: maybe they could allow some more aero devices on the cars (wings etc that doesnt mess up the cars too much like f1 2008). But.... i heard that crap DW is said to be extremely "aero efficient" and runs longer with less fuel - I hope its an evolutionary dead end... Dont want lmps to look like that Last edited by lms; 8 Nov 2011 at 19:51. |
||
|
8 Nov 2011, 20:05 (Ref:2983260) | #1710 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 750
|
narrower protos with the same height or even higher - now that sounds like crap. The cars sould be like smaller versions of the current ones so all dimensions should be decreased. Dont want to see cars like that hillclimb pile of scrap on the previous page.
|
|
|
8 Nov 2011, 21:35 (Ref:2983286) | #1711 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,567
|
10cm isn't a HUGE difference. So, the cars won't be that narrow. And they'll have less weight plus less area, that'll equal less drag.
|
|
|
8 Nov 2011, 22:09 (Ref:2983300) | #1712 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
Reduced weight's the biggest deal for me, every area of a cars performance improves, power-to-weight's only part of the story, heavier cars need larger engines, brakes, components etc. which reduces braking and cornering performance.
Future cars will be even more suited to drivers brought up in single-seaters. |
|
|
8 Nov 2011, 22:41 (Ref:2983316) | #1713 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 813
|
Going by data from Mikes own website, compared to the current crop of Prototypes the tire widths will be 0.5 inch narrower. Hardly a big deal and probably inevitable if the overall Car width is shrunk by 10cm.
|
||
|
8 Nov 2011, 23:58 (Ref:2983339) | #1714 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,261
|
||
|
9 Nov 2011, 00:34 (Ref:2983350) | #1715 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
Quote:
Back to the regs, the increasing weight of road and race cars over the past twenty years has been my biggest annoyance, we were edging away from pure driving machines and using technology to overcome physics. Thankfully that trend is reversing, rather than extra weight being seen as a means to slow cars, or an inevitability in the pursuit of improved safety, shedding extra kilo's is the key to performance, environmental compliance and driving enjoyment. |
||
|
9 Nov 2011, 00:57 (Ref:2983355) | #1716 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,261
|
Quote:
Anyway, some distant F3 experience along with a lot of sports car experience is one thing, but I have my doubts that guys running at the back of F1 grids are the "best drivers." In some cases they may be, but there are great drivers to be found elsewhere including within sports car racing itself. |
||
|
9 Nov 2011, 07:05 (Ref:2983427) | #1717 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,203
|
Quote:
Last edited by Pandamasque; 9 Nov 2011 at 07:11. |
|||
|
14 Nov 2011, 15:36 (Ref:2986201) | #1718 | |
Racer
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 296
|
From mulsannescorner:
-front hole area must be from 750cm^2 to 950cm^2 -rear hole area must be from 1000cm^2 to 1200cm^2 -each hole must be at least 20cm wide (as I interpret the 20x25 template thing) So here is a worst-case scenario, ie the front holes are 950cm^2 each and the rears 1200cm^2 each. I also did the same thing for the minimum area case, if anybody is interested in seeing that, but there isnt a huge visual difference. One thing to note: I have measured area as the area of the hole in 3d space (indicated by the curve + angle of the longer dimension lines). The regs might require that the holes meet the specified area when viewed from straight above, in which case the holes would need to be slightly larger. Also I assume that they will want to place the holes as far back on the fenders as possible, so as not to directly present any of the front of the tyre to the oncoming airflow. They might also get clever with non-rectangular holes, Im not sure where the rules stand on that. |
|
|
14 Nov 2011, 16:45 (Ref:2986220) | #1719 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,831
|
Quote:
|
|
|
14 Nov 2011, 16:54 (Ref:2986223) | #1720 | |
Racer
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 296
|
Yeah, I had a feeling they'd measure it that way. I'll see if the end product looks significantly different doing it that way. One thing to keep in mind is that the back of the rear fender on my model has a fairly pronounced downward slope, so that would exaggerate the effect of measuring different ways. Most of the current cars seem to have fairly flat fender tops so there would be less of a difference on those cars.
|
|
|
14 Nov 2011, 20:53 (Ref:2986358) | #1721 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,654
|
Quote:
That just doesn't seem to be in spirit of the rules. |
|||
__________________
Hvil i Fred Allan. (Rest in Peace Allan) |
15 Nov 2011, 03:54 (Ref:2986535) | #1722 | |
Racer
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 296
|
Well theres no way they could make the holes smaller than the allowed minimim. But I suppose technically if the fender had a really steep slope to it, then a 1200cm^2 hole when viewed from above would become a much larger hole if measured in 3d space. I'm not sure that would be advantageous though.
|
|
|
15 Nov 2011, 17:44 (Ref:2986805) | #1723 | |
Racer
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 296
|
Sorry for the barrage of images, but I think this represents the rules pretty well now. The holes meet the *maximum* allowed area (ie, they can run with smaller holes but I went for the maximum size) when viewed from straight above.
Also I've made the holes non-rectangular, which I assume is legal as long as the 20x25 template still fits, which it does. |
|
|
15 Nov 2011, 19:11 (Ref:2986837) | #1724 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 750
|
louvres will still be allowed on the protos, yes?
|
|
|
15 Nov 2011, 19:16 (Ref:2986841) | #1725 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,654
|
|||
__________________
Hvil i Fred Allan. (Rest in Peace Allan) |
|
|
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 |