LMS Circuits

[Steve Tarrant]

..... and I'm afraid it wasn't JYS or F1 that killed Kyalami!!!!!!!

The land that the circuit was built on was owned by 2 different companies, and the company that owned the main straight and upper section went bust. Therefore the land was sold off and became an industrial estate.

Luckily the land below it was available for purchase and therefore this is why the configuration changed from a clockwise to anti-clockwise direction.

[johntt]

To repeat what I wrote on another thread, the crashes we saw at Monza were three freak accidents that fell on the same weekend. Something on the Oreca broke and he got on the grass and the bumps that are there: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67140

[Purist]

Canam, given how much run-off there is at the two Mulsanne chicanes, Mulsanne itself, and Indianapolis, the ACO would have no grounds to complain about any percieved lack of run-off at the Lesmos at Monza. The Lesmos have as much, if not more, depth to their gravel traps (from the track's edge to the hard barriers) than is present at the four most substantial braking zones at Le Mans. So once again, I don't see a problem there. And actually, the Mulsanne chicanes are worse still in a couple of senses, because if the gravel doesn't fully arrest the car it comes back onto the track at much reduced speed compared to cars on the racing line, and when that happens, the cars bring plenty of gravel with them back onto the track. This eventuality is much more likely at the chicanes than the other corners mentioned here since the initial problem generally stems from overcooking it on the brakes and then deciding to plough straight through to the other side where the straight continues.

[Tim the Grey]

Total and utter misinformation. Leave the power alone, take away the aero, and make them use skinnier tyres.

Then let the bravery of the driver, and the talent, decide how quick a car is in a turn...

After all, they still need to spend the minimum of time in the pits, so that skinny rubber still needs to last?

[Purist]

Tim, I see your point, but unless we cure the insurers of their phobia of high top-end speeds, it ain't gonna happen. Also, drivers aren't going to be too keen on the increased risk of blowouts. Aside from that, it would be nice to leave the cars enough grip that on a very good flyer they can take "the Kink" (Road America) or Eau Rouge flat.

The other problem is that money, more often than not, has a major role to play in who sits behind the wheel.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

That's what I don't get about the ACO increasing the air restictors first to 2002 spec, then beyond that, if they're so concerned about keeping their 3:30 limit for LMP1 cars.

The Audi R10 and Peugeot 908 are atleast as aero efficient as the Audi R8 of days gone by. Just remember at Monza in '04, the pole winning R8 ran a lap of 1:34, the Pug ran a 1:31 4 years later. The Pug had 700hp, and the R8 had only 550, and less downforce(reduced span rear wing). I say give the R8 a full span rear wing, and the '02 air restictor(or for sure the '08 restrictor), and new tires, and the R8 would do at least a very low 1:32, for certian it would be on par with the Peugeot's time-and this is an almost 10 year old car! Imagine what Group C cars could do with modern technology!

The quickest a (grandfathered/restricted) R8 went at Monza in 2004 was 1.38, 7 seconds slower than the 908!

Those cars were lower powered as they were liable to flips, restrictor cuts were th ACO's only option until the new spec cars hit the track, they were also in the process of being replaced, so slowed to encourage adoption of new cars.

Even with large 2002 restrictors, the quickest a P1 petrol car went at Le Mans last year (Race) was a high 3.32, almost 3 seconds slower than the ACO's 3.30 'target' time.

Revised 2010 Evo cars will produce less downforce, so speeds will be kept in check that way.

[Tim the Grey]

I'm not so sure you do get my point?
REDUCE grip, but leave top end around where it is...
Take away enormous mechanical grip from sticky rubber, remove aero grip almost completely, and let DRIVER ability decide who wins...
Look at real historic racing? Next to no fatalities, despite 4 inch wide tyres, iron girder rail chassis, and AERO engines! Drivers KNOW it will hurt, so they drive accordingly. Unlike the cocooned Prima Donna in an F1 car with an immortality complex (Does Freud cover that one???)

Increase spectacle, make overtaking possible, and at the same time, slow cars down...

[Purist]

Sure you're decreasing downforce and mechanical grip, but I think you underestimate just how much you're doing to help top-end speed given how much drag you'll be removing.

Anotther issue is that if you make the changes too drastic, you can make the race cars slower on a lap than the top road-going sports/supercars. In that case, the person on the street is left wondering why you'd do something so daft and pointless as to make a "top tier" racing car slower than a road car. They aren't, at least not initially, going to give a crap about the intricacies of the difficulty of driving such cars as you describe.

That's one of the great problems you're faced with nowadays; the only real advantage serious racing cars have over top performing road cars is their cornering ability. They've added so many chicanes to tracks and restricted the cars such that no current circuit racing car reaches the top-end speed to match a Bugatti Veyron, McLaren F1, or even a 1971 Porsche 917LH (5.0-litre). An F1 Honda (it may have been one of the 3.0-ltre BARs) geared for top-end will only do 257.xxmph, which is barely faster than the low-drag Group C cars could do on the Mulsanne (Sauber-Mercedes 253mph, WM 254mph).

[Stefvh]

Sorry, wrong topic.

[ss_collins]

Tim overtaking in LMP's is plenty possible - just watch an ALMS race!!

[minimangler]

Agree with Sam here.