|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
23 Oct 2006, 17:52 (Ref:1746544) | #126 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,699
|
Quote:
You don't think the Audi boys never turned down the R8 boost (or up) when it suited their cause? |
|||
__________________
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." Albert Einstein |
23 Oct 2006, 18:32 (Ref:1746587) | #127 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
Just to add, I do hope Pescarolo are successful and win more perfromance breaks for petrol cars, just don't expect the result to be any different, particualrly at Le Mans.
But if Pescarolo are the only ones to speak out what hope is there of change. A joint statement, particualrly from engine manufactuers, is needed. |
|
|
23 Oct 2006, 20:24 (Ref:1746724) | #128 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,812
|
I.M.H.O. As long as the ACO rules are made by people that are more interrested in being politically correct(silencers and noise restrictions,socalled clean fuels,an envirement friendly awards) then in organising a spectacullar race event,we will have to wait a long time before the big marques like Porsche or Ferrari will come with a pukka petrol powered sportscar...
And for those who really think that the Audi's are having fair competition but the rest is just not good enough...get out of here! Honestly,with budgets like Audi and Peugeot "the rest" will never make a decent chance. Don't forget,to make a fast sportscar is expensive but to make a fast sportscar that lasts the distance is on a financially different planet alltogether... I heard Audi has offered M.Schumacher 12,5 million euro's to join in their Le Mans team. Kind a sums it up really... |
||
|
24 Oct 2006, 00:10 (Ref:1746916) | #129 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 626
|
Ok, so we know about the supposed 57 horsepower difference (per Pescarolo)
But here is what we should take a look at. For this example let's look at the BMW 3 series coupes, one with diesel the other with gasoline engine. Both have inline 6 cylinder engines with twin turbos. The diesel one is 2993cc and the gasoline twin turbo displaces 2979cc. http://www.bmw.co.uk/bmwuk/pricesand...-bmwuk,00.html The diesel makes 286 horsepower @ 4400 RPM and 580 NM torque @ 1750 RPM. 0-62 acceleration is in 6.1 seconds, combined fuel economy of 37.7 (British) mpg. The gasoline engine makes 306 horsepower @ 5800 RPM and 400 NM of torque @ 1300 RPM. 0-62 acceleration in 5.7 seconds (with automatic like the diesel engine) Combined fuel economy of 29.7 (British) mpg. The diesel 3 series coupe is 30 kg heavier and probably runs more boost. |
|
|
24 Oct 2006, 07:47 (Ref:1747134) | #130 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,045
|
Quote:
Let me just add to the figures you have presented: BMW 330 petrol 50-75 mph in 4th gear 6.5 seconds BMW 330 diesel 50-75 mph in 4th gear 4.9 seconds |
||
|
24 Oct 2006, 08:00 (Ref:1747145) | #131 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Quote:
BMW 335i SE 50-75 mph in 4th gear 5.2 seconds (manual) BMW 335d SE automatic so impossible to select 4th gear Of course very body knows you have to shift down with a petrol car to accelerate more quickly |
||
|
24 Oct 2006, 08:17 (Ref:1747170) | #132 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,045
|
Quote:
|
||
|
24 Oct 2006, 08:28 (Ref:1747186) | #133 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,045
|
Quote:
|
||
|
24 Oct 2006, 08:30 (Ref:1747187) | #134 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,976
|
Quote:
More to the point, in the post Laguna Seca awards banquet the Executive VP of Audi North America went clearly on record stating he believed that he was "still convinced that if someone is doing a proper sports prototype with a non-diesel engine we're in trouble." It does rather boil down to the question as to whether the 2006 Pescarolo that appeared at Le Mans in June was the ultimate expression of what a petrol powered new-regs LMP1 can do. I don't think it is, and I don't think Henri thinks so either. Professional as his outfit is, the fact that they do all their aero work on a runway rather than a windtunnel sums up the disparity in resources quite neatly. Given the debate so far, my feeling is that the rules are skewed in favour of diesels at present, but as I've said before in this thread - has the sky fallen in? Probably not... |
|||
|
24 Oct 2006, 08:50 (Ref:1747206) | #135 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,045
|
Quote:
Those post Laguna comments must surely be taken in the context of Audi having to compete under current IMSA performance adjustments, 65kg heavier than the petrol P1's. |
||
|
24 Oct 2006, 09:57 (Ref:1747290) | #136 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,007
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
24 Oct 2006, 10:03 (Ref:1747299) | #137 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,007
|
[quote=isynge]
More to the point, in the post Laguna Seca awards banquet the Executive VP of Audi North America went clearly on record stating he believed that he was "still convinced that if someone is doing a proper sports prototype with a non-diesel engine we're in trouble." He would say! No point spending all that money with nobody to beat, he needs Hanri and a few others to make the whole thing worthwhile. Peugeot will give him a run for his money but whoever heard of a class with 4 cars getting good coverage? ....what did you say love?..... oh yes, I forgot that |
||
|
24 Oct 2006, 10:36 (Ref:1747346) | #138 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 160
|
Quote:
The nice thing with Henri's runway testing though, is a) it's real scale (with real downforce/speed/drag data; and b) has a real person in the car who can provide feedback (like the inlet between the headrests buffets the drivers head too much). The Radical too never saw a wind-tunnel, but was pretty good out the box. I think Peter's quotes in relation to the Bentley were "it was 95% off the drawing board and then 98% once it had been in the tunnel". I suspect that the '07 Pesca will be faster, especially with the new Evo 5.5 Judd, but the disparity will still be there. The dataset that was originally presented to the ACO was "skewed" because of a potential engine contract that might have happened However, Audi need to sell cars, I don't begrudge them or Peugeot from their activities. Personally, I still would rather hear engines scream and have David challenge Goliath - LeMans will still be a magic place. |
|||
|
24 Oct 2006, 10:53 (Ref:1747357) | #139 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,007
|
How about taking the restrictors out of GT2 engines and seeing how they do against GT1, any expert opionions?
|
||
|
24 Oct 2006, 11:17 (Ref:1747390) | #140 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,976
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
|
24 Oct 2006, 12:01 (Ref:1747439) | #141 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
What do you mean with "skewed" dataset?
Henri gave the ACO the numbers of the Judd GV5 S2 (so 640 hp) hoping that the ACO would decrease the diesel power (around 700 hp)? If he would then pick another engine (with more power) for the 2007 car (say AER or Cosworth), he could have a small advantage? The Audi V8 FSI produced 659 hp in 2002 (with the same restrictor size) and the AER P32 T V8 claims to produce 650+ hp as well. The Judd GV5 S2 just is not a state of the art petrol engine. |
|
|
24 Oct 2006, 12:01 (Ref:1747441) | #142 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,007
|
Open Racing Prospect
Excellent engineers summary of diesel position on dsc, well done Malcolm, a bit depressing though!
We are left wondering what the ACO are up to? Perhaps nothing, just do not have the savvy to realise how far Audi will go to win and gain a lot of publicity on the others who are concentrating on F1 and so cannot compete at Le Mans. Why should Henri and the others bother to turn up when we now know they have no chance, even if the diesels break down it would be a hollow victory, It is Audi or Peugeot otherwise Why should we all turn up when we know the result, I suppose the other classes are still open, AM or GM in GT1, Porsche or Ferrari in GT2 and then whoever lasts in LMP2, Good eh? |
||
|
24 Oct 2006, 12:12 (Ref:1747466) | #143 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,007
|
Oh, I just remebered, LMP2, perhaps a Porsche will win that!
|
||
|
24 Oct 2006, 14:05 (Ref:1747620) | #144 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
From the latest DSC article:-
'Do they expect Pescarolo or anyone else to gain that much by June next year? On his budget?' Why focus on Pescarolo, surely the question should be, 'Could a Porsche, Honda, Totyta etc. petrol car compete with Audi next year?' Lets face it, in the DSC article, the unamed engineer claims Peugeit haven't a chance to win next year, a manufactuer with diesel power, so why would a privateer have a chance, petrol or not?' Diesels may well be out of reach for privateers, at this time, I won't say forever as I remmeber back in the day teams claiming customers could never afford to run F1 derived engines in Cat 1 Group C, these days dervivatives of those engines (Judd etc.) appear to be the most reliable and cost effectve. Judds and the like always struggled against the turbo Audi, Toyota and Nissan, both in absolute power, torque and fuel economy, so I am amased so few have gone down the AER or Cosworth turbo route. Again, not saying diesel does not have an advantage, just putting some alternative views forward. Last edited by JAG; 24 Oct 2006 at 14:08. |
|
|
24 Oct 2006, 14:23 (Ref:1747640) | #145 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
Quote:
Absolutely, and complaints of petrol teams must be taken in the context of Dyson, and Porsche, being beaten by a heavily restricted R8 earlier this season. I have read that depite running a 15% smaller restrictor (than 2002 and new reg LMP1s) the R8's V8 FSI turbo was still producing around 580-600bhp ('official' figures for 2002 were 610bhp), so perhaps the turbo V8 had something in hand all these years, and a new factory turbo FSI V8 would have a very significant advantage over a Judd or Mugen atmo engine? |
||
|
24 Oct 2006, 14:35 (Ref:1747653) | #146 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
'I suppose the other classes are still open, AM or GM in GT1'
A FACTORY Aston or Corvette, no one seriously expects a privateer, with similar equipment, to stand a chance. But we expect Pescarolo et al to compete, with their own chassis and non turbo engine, against Peugeot and Audi? At Silverstone, Spa, Laguna, Road Atlanta etc. I'd expect top privateers to give the factory teams hell, I've never held similar expectations at Le Mans. Last edited by JAG; 24 Oct 2006 at 14:38. |
|
|
24 Oct 2006, 14:46 (Ref:1747671) | #147 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,147
|
Quote:
The engineer is saying that Peugeot is behind the eight ball, and that - particularly with the level of technical detail required to run the diesel efficiently, they're not going to catch Audi - this year. Next year, who knows? He's also saying that, no matter what you throw at a petrol engine, it's just not going to beat a diesel under the current rules regimen. Ever. I'm going to suggest - right now - that, with Peugeot pushing Audi next year, someone is going to set a 3:26 race lap. |
|||
__________________
... 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 |
24 Oct 2006, 14:52 (Ref:1747681) | #148 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Quote:
580*1.15 = 667 and 600*1.15 = 690 So it is safe to assume that a factory turbo petrol engine could produce in the 670-680 region. But this is still at least 30 hp less than what the Audi TDI will produce next year (with some further development); and Audi will manage to get the weight of the R10 down to the minimum. |
||
|
24 Oct 2006, 15:06 (Ref:1747698) | #149 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
Quote:
Aren't we making assumptions the regs will never change, even Henri acknoweldges in his statement the ACO now realise there is an issue and will deal with it, though this may only be in 2008. No one could ever have imagined Audi could do such a great job with diesel technology, they haven't missed a beat. Diesels have enourmous potential, but there were big question marks over reliabilty this year, maybe in 2007, if pushed. But we didn't see a factory petrol car push the Audis, the closest we got was a Penske P2 car. A diesel run to its full potential in 2006 , to beat a factory petrol car, may have had reliabilty issues. By 2008 these could have been resolved, but by that time diesel regs will be more restrictive than today. |
||
|
24 Oct 2006, 16:18 (Ref:1747786) | #150 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,976
|
A couple of genuinely interesting further takes on the issue on DSC from Serge Saulnier and Phil Bennett. Saulnier's comments come across as being a touch corporately loyal to Peugeot and smack of pre-emptive self defence re any performance expectations, however Bennett makes the very fair point that without the manufacturers you run the very real risk of an LMP1 implosion much like we often get in LMP2. From this light it's fair to argue that the ACO needs Audi (and Peugeot) and encouraging diesel and having reasonable rules stability is important.
I'm not sure I 100% agree (which actually could go for all the formal team statements so far) but it's a genuinely interesting and thought provoking piece. |
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ACO regulations for 2006 released | Alistair_Ryder | ACO Regulated Series | 96 | 14 Nov 2006 08:10 |
Official: 2007 Sporting regulations | Marbot | Formula One | 19 | 19 Oct 2006 09:46 |
[FIA GT] FIA/ACO GT regulations | ger80 | Sportscar & GT Racing | 4 | 14 Jul 2006 23:23 |
P1 top speeds with new ACO rules and regulations??? | Garrett | ACO Regulated Series | 7 | 18 Jul 2004 23:33 |
[FIA GT] ACO & FIA 2004 Regulations. Help! | sebring1971 | ACO Regulated Series | 6 | 6 Sep 2003 19:27 |