Evolution of the ACO regulations in 2007 - Page 5

**Bentley03** · 22 Oct 2006, 12:34 (Ref:1744932)

Quote:

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

Cosworth stated that they will may not build an engine for the P1 cars.

Interesting, especially in the context of the considerable speculation surrounding a possible 2007 Courage (LC70) Cosworth effort in the ALMS.

AU N EGL · 22 Oct 2006, 12:48 (Ref:1744940)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bentley03

Interesting, especially in the context of the considerable speculation surrounding a possible 2007 Courage (LC70) Cosworth effort in the ALMS.

It could be a ploy, but my Freind Micro's email from Coswoth below said, "not sure."

Silly season???

Winter speculation will make for very intersting forum dissucsions.

**Bentley03** · 22 Oct 2006, 13:22 (Ref:1744965)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jhansen

To those of you that are partaking in the diesel conspiracy punch...show me the evidence that the diesel cars have a true speed advantage.

I hope you and your young lad had a fantastic day at Laguna yesterday. Thoroughly enjoyed the coverage on the goggle box with the sound turned off and the Globecast radio feed, but it doesn't come close to actually being there!

Just wanted to come back to this since you were there yourself. Despite Laguna (apparently!) not being an 'R10' track, it was in fact an Audi that did the fastest LMP1 lap in the race yesterday, despite a 65kg weight disadvantage to it's far more nimble adversaries. On the other hand, the fastest lap of the race was in fact turned by a Spyder. What we don't know, of course, is how much boost the Audi's were running.

AU N EGL · 22 Oct 2006, 13:32 (Ref:1744972)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bentley03

What we don't know, of course, is how much boost the Audi's were running.

Audis were running very low boost. Most do to the limited diesel fuel the team had for those cars, to keep fuel milage up. Special diesel fuel had to be imported from Europe.

Just cant run down to the local truck stop and get more diesel for these cars.

IMHO diesel fuels need to be standardized for any diesel race cars to get. or refinery to make.

Sunoco makes most of the race fuels ( petrol) in N American race cars. Shell makes for europe and elswere. Very close in formulation between Sunoco and Shell. Not much tuning difference when cars cross the atlantic.

Diesel fuel should be the same. Forget the Bio-fuels until they also can be standardized.

chewymonster · 22 Oct 2006, 20:28 (Ref:1745405)

Quote:

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

Audis were running very low boost. Most do to the limited diesel fuel the team had for those cars, to keep fuel milage up. Special diesel fuel had to be imported from Europe.

Just cant run down to the local truck stop and get more diesel for these cars.

IMHO diesel fuels need to be standardized for any diesel race cars to get. or refinery to make.

Sunoco makes most of the race fuels ( petrol) in N American race cars. Shell makes for europe and elswere. Very close in formulation between Sunoco and Shell. Not much tuning difference when cars cross the atlantic.

Diesel fuel should be the same. Forget the Bio-fuels until they also can be standardized.

I am sure you can just run down to the local fuel station and fill up the R10 with some of the ULSD that was relesead last week in the USA. Of course it won't have very good performance on that, just like pumping some 91 octane gasoline into the other race cars would make them much much slower.

Satorian · 22 Oct 2006, 21:29 (Ref:1745493)

I'd guess that race cars run with pretty high compression, so unless they have knock sensors and some serious active retardation/boost control, I wouldn't fill them up with ordinary gas/diesel.

JAG · 23 Oct 2006, 00:39 (Ref:1745613)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammerdown

Hi Guys
There are times when the petrol P1s should have won but didn't thanks to inferior pitstop work. (Not sure about the inferior drivers argument though - I wouldn't say the likes of Minassian, Johansson, Weaver and Smith are in anyway inferior to the Audi guys.) The racing has been tantalisingly close on occasion, Audi have won everything but the privateers have had a good run and it makes it worth watching (or listening to), hoping for the day (maybe this weekend!) when they can pull it off. Would be very interesting to see a Pesca in there wouldn't it?

How often has a team mate to the No1 driver let the side down, or a slow pitstop, or rookie mistakes resulting in penalties, or needing to change tyres at every stop............

It's no concidence Pescarolo won 5/5 in the LMS with flawless stops and driver stints.

JAG · 23 Oct 2006, 00:45 (Ref:1745617)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bentley03

I’ll take that as a yes then.

.

Just how much further do you think a manufacturer could push the boundaries for petrol engines?

It may well be possible to build a petrol powered R10 beater under the current ACO LMP1 regulations, but that really isn’t the point, is it? It is the imbalance which exists between current petrol and diesel engine regulations. Surely you can see there’s a gulf between them under the current regs which surely the ACO should address.

I can't see a gulf, I see petrol teams who, to put it politely, 'couldn't score in a brothel'.

I'll give you Laguna as an example.

Creation and Zytek would have won comfortably without countless offs and stop and go's.

MulsanneMike · 23 Oct 2006, 01:22 (Ref:1745642)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAG

I can't see a gulf, I see petrol teams who, to put it politely, 'couldn't score in a brothel'.

I'll give you Laguna as an example.

Creation and Zytek would have won comfortably without countless offs and stop and go's.

I'll suggest the Creation and Zytek teams were runing as hard as they were to simply keep up which lead to the offs. There's nothing at all to suggest that they would have won comfortably.

JAG · 23 Oct 2006, 01:35 (Ref:1745652)

Half a dozen spins for Creation on Primats stint and 2-3 minutes of penalties for Zytek?

I struggle to see how they expect to win with such rookie mistakes.

How competitive would a driving team of Johanson/Minassian, and pit crew/strategy from Dyson be?

Is it any conincidence that Audi and Penske always seem tp be the last ones standing, competitively, in the last hour of each race. Misfortunes, often self inflicted, seem to take Creation, Zytek and Dyson out of the running before the 2 hour mark.

Pescarolo seems to be the first privateer to master speed, reliability, pit stops and strategy.

Bob Riebe · 23 Oct 2006, 01:57 (Ref:1745666)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAG

Half a dozen spins for Creation on Primats stint and 2-3 minutes of penalties for Zytek?

I struggle to see how they expect to win with such rookie mistakes.

How competitive would a driving team of Johanson/Minassian, and pit crew/strategy from Dyson be?

Do they have some magic that makes sure the car only needs gas when the pit lane gestapo decide it should be open?

Not that is EVER should be closed.

Bob

chewymonster · 23 Oct 2006, 03:40 (Ref:1745717)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Satorian

I'd guess that race cars run with pretty high compression, so unless they have knock sensors and some serious active retardation/boost control, I wouldn't fill them up with ordinary gas/diesel.

You are probably right, this makes the entire "Shell diesel" debate completely pointless.

jhansen · 23 Oct 2006, 05:25 (Ref:1745750)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bentley03

I hope you and your young lad had a fantastic day at Laguna yesterday. Thoroughly enjoyed the coverage on the goggle box with the sound turned off and the Globecast radio feed, but it doesn't come close to actually being there!

Just wanted to come back to this since you were there yourself. Despite Laguna (apparently!) not being an 'R10' track, it was in fact an Audi that did the fastest LMP1 lap in the race yesterday, despite a 65kg weight disadvantage to it's far more nimble adversaries. On the other hand, the fastest lap of the race was in fact turned by a Spyder. What we don't know, of course, is how much boost the Audi's were running.

We had a blast! Great day and the race was phenominal. I can't say for sure that the R10s would not have won regardless, but Creation and Zytek surely made it easier on them. You just can't hand a factory team any open doors, because they will walk right through. Creation need two good drivers and both squads need to make better decisions. They certainly had the pace to win.

**Bentley03** · 23 Oct 2006, 07:30 (Ref:1745797)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAG

I can't see a gulf, I see petrol teams who, to put it politely, 'couldn't score in a brothel'.

I'll give you Laguna as an example.

Creation and Zytek would have won comfortably without countless offs and stop and go's.

Irrelevant, this has absolutely nothing to do with it!

You're just not seeing this, are you!

**Bentley03** · 23 Oct 2006, 07:47 (Ref:1745806)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jhansen

We had a blast! Great day and the race was phenominal. I can't say for sure that the R10s would not have won regardless, but Creation and Zytek surely made it easier on them. You just can't hand a factory team any open doors, because they will walk right through. Creation need two good drivers and both squads need to make better decisions. They certainly had the pace to win.

Glad you enjoyed it so much, and you've got a lucky lad there, 7 years old and already a regular at the best race series in the world!

Perhaps you could now help Jag out a bit, please..........

isynge · 23 Oct 2006, 11:11 (Ref:1746032)

Having had a quick look at Henri's open letter to the ACO (on endurance-info) I'm struck by how measured it is. I had feared that it could blow up into a disproportionate row between Pescarolo and the ACO but I think he succeeds in getting his point across (that he doesn't think the regs have been changed far enough) but that he's still committed to Le Mans.

Of course it could well be that my somewhat haphazard command of French has led to miss all sorts of nuance in there but at first glance it looks like a sensible contribution to the debate.

MulsanneMike · 23 Oct 2006, 11:24 (Ref:1746051)

Quote:

Originally Posted by isynge

Having had a quick look at Henri's open letter to the ACO (on endurance-info) I'm struck by how measured it is. I had feared that it could blow up into a disproportionate row between Pescarolo and the ACO but I think he succeeds in getting his point across (that he doesn't think the regs have been changed far enough) but that he's still committed to Le Mans.

Of course it could well be that my somewhat haphazard command of French has led to miss all sorts of nuance in there but at first glance it looks like a sensible contribution to the debate.

I'm working on a proper English translation though don't know how long it will take and imagine the robot translations will be public before too long. Won't get posted until this evening at the earliest as I'm off to work (and assuming my translator is checking his email today!).

jhansen · 23 Oct 2006, 13:20 (Ref:1746198)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bentley03

Glad you enjoyed it so much, and you've got a lucky lad there, 7 years old and already a regular at the best race series in the world!

Perhaps you could now help Jag out a bit, please..........

Help JAG out with what?

I can't concede anything yet. All of you could very well be correct and the diesels may have an unfair advantage. But, I am still of the mind that there is not enough significant evidence due to lack of a fair comparison. I would love to see a developed turbo petrol engine in the back of a well sorted chassis. I don't think Dyson are there yet, mainly because of the Lola.

**Bentley03** · 23 Oct 2006, 13:47 (Ref:1746232)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jhansen

I can't concede anything yet. All of you could very well be correct and the diesels may have an unfair advantage. But, I am still of the mind that there is not enough significant evidence due to lack of a fair comparison. I would love to see a developed turbo petrol engine in the back of a well sorted chassis. I don't think Dyson are there yet, mainly because of the Lola.

I don't know if you're a subscriber to DSC or not, I know Jag is. Malcolm has a translation of Henri's letter on there. He offers compelling evidence and makes a very strong, fair and considered case.

rdjones · 23 Oct 2006, 14:21 (Ref:1746273)

I have just read Henri's letter over on DSC and I can see exactly where he is coming from.

Félix · 23 Oct 2006, 14:37 (Ref:1746293)

His letter really exposes the ACO's not-so-straight choices. He's got the data and explains it really clearly; I'd love to see Dr. Ullrich refute that...

The problem is very well outlined, and even if it's not all down to engine performance, the R10 is running with more downforce without being penalised because of it... and they must get special Michelin rubber to put all that power down better than anybody else on the gird. This is unfair; restrictors should at least insure the power outputs are equal or at least close (at maximum Audi boost, not sandbagging boost...) and then maybe let them run away with their enormous torque advantage because they made a bold technical choice.

gwyllion · 23 Oct 2006, 14:49 (Ref:1746307)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Félix

I'd love to see Dr. Ullrich refute that...

It is up to the rule maker, ACO, to respond to this. I don't see why Dr. Ullrich should comment on this open letter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Félix

and they must get special Michelin rubber to put all that power down better than anybody else on the gird.

If I remember correctly Audi did not triple stint their tyres, while one of the Pescarolos did. At least during the first hours of the race.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Félix

restrictors should at least insure the power outputs are equal or at least close (at maximum Audi boost, not sandbagging boost...)

Henri compares the fastest race lap, so the numbers provided are for maximum boost, not testday sandbagging boost. I can imagine Audi did not run at this boost the whole race distance, for reliability reasons.

jhansen · 23 Oct 2006, 14:57 (Ref:1746320)

Any turbo car enjoys the benefit of running at various boost levels. So I don't see why this is part of the equation.

eddsc · 23 Oct 2006, 17:42 (Ref:1746530)

No, apparently you don't.
But if the Audi still produces great gobs of torque at lower boost, then it can be run for economy and still run quickly.
Why would a petrol turbo be turned down - so it can drop further behind?

JAG · 23 Oct 2006, 17:43 (Ref:1746532)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bentley03

Irrelevant, this has absolutely nothing to do with it!

You're just not seeing this, are you!

Obviously not, there was I thinking you needed the whole package to win.

Maybe we can force Audi to use a pro/am driver line-up, change tyres at every stop, or take a 2 minute penalty?

It's widely accepted, all things being equaly, P1's are at least one second quicker than P2's on a regular track.

The RS Spyders fastest lap was three tenths quicker than the R10, would a P1 Spyder be 1 to 1.3 seconds quicker?

Obviously some people made up their minds long ago.

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