[WEC] Ginetta LMP1

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by Napolis

We were looking a AER but in the end decided on Pipo.
Endurance test run on 4CYL development engine went very well.
Final 8CYL version will be testing soon.

Interesting, I guess despite AER's questionable reliability history they've still been one of the very few LMP engine providers from the booming 2000's which have somehow managed to survive until here in small pockets (without exclusive spec contracts like Zytek and Oreca-Nissan). Meanwhile once more popular providers like Judd have disappeared to oblivion despite theoretically having offered options even for 2014 nonhybrid LMP1 and onwards

[canaglia]

if am I not wrong, judd was the one who tuned the bmw m3 derivated engine for lmp2 up to 2016. Anyway no surprise that none is judd engines anymore, a high revving and poor efficient V10 is not a big deal and would require a huge work on rear subframe to fit it.

[Napolis]

Originally Posted by canaglia

if am I not wrong, judd was the one who tuned the bmw m3 derivated engine for lmp2 up to 2016. Anyway no surprise that none is judd engines anymore, a high revving and poor efficient V10 is not a big deal and would require a huge work on rear subframe to fit it.

We think you wan't a very small low revving engine with a very flat torque curve which is why our Pipo Motor will be a 3.5L TT V8 with a 6K red line.

[canaglia]

performances aside, guess it's a real pain to fit a long and bulky engine like a V10.
About performances and efficiency; well, much depens also how well tuned is the engine... recall old lmp2/lmp1 NA 3.4L V8 were really low on torque and power (barely 550hp) requiring 75L a 40-45m stint, while the NA zytek/gibson 4.5L V8 powering rebellion has the same fuel/stint ratio but has much more power (about 700hp according rumors).
Anyway no doubts that turbo engines fit better.

[Steve McQ]

My guess is that normally aspirated engine are really dependent on displacement regarding efficiency. Remember in 2011 when we had two Pescarolo Judd in LMP1 : one powered by the DB 3.4L V8, the other by the GV 5.0L V10 with smaller air restrictors. The two cars were more or less equally fast on track, but the big engined one was far more consistent (thank you torque) and could run longer on its fuel tank (thank you low revs).

And clearly, to get more than 550hp from a 3.4L normally aspirated engine was way beyond what privateer engine makers could achieve on the long run. That 2011 ACO engine rules was what effectively burried Judd and Zytek as LMP1 engine providers after the costly failures of their tuned-up LMP2 engines that year. Only factory engine efforts could compete reliably, as showed Acura/HPD or Toyota powerplants.

[canaglia]

Originally Posted by Steve McQ

My guess is that normally aspirated engine are really dependent on displacement regarding efficiency. Remember in 2011 when we had two Pescarolo Judd in LMP1 : one powered by the DB 3.4L V8, the other by the GV 5.0L V10 with smaller air restrictors. The two cars were more or less equally fast on track, but the big engined one was far more consistent (thank you torque) and could run longer on its fuel tank (thank you low revs).

And clearly, to get more than 550hp from a 3.4L normally aspirated engine was way beyond what privateer engine makers could achieve on the long run. That 2011 ACO engine rules was what effectively burried Judd and Zytek as LMP1 engine providers after the costly failures of their tuned-up LMP2 engines that year. Only factory engine efforts could compete reliably, as showed Acura/HPD or Toyota powerplants.

usually NA engines follow these rules:

big displacement: high torque release / peak of power reached before a lower revlimit / better fuel mileage

small displacement: low torque release / peak of power reached close to a higher revlimit / worse fuel mileage

no doubt that for endurance, a NA larger engine will be however better than a NA smaller engine. Guess the only clear advantage of a smaller engine is that being lighter, it can give a better balance and weight distribution to the car, but also this isn't entirely true since larger and heavier engines are usually used as full stressed member that helps to make the whole chassis stiffer.
Anyway, we need to consider that 2011-2013 lmp1 3.4L engines ruleset were made due a transition period aiming to be more costs saving as possible.

[Deleted]

Judd engines were still perfectly fine in the 6 hour races in 2011, as were Aston Martins (not AMR-One but older on Lolas). But I would agree that we can trace the start of the collapse around those times, in addition to places of participating starting to drastically shrink and thus effecting markets

[Turbodcc]

https://sportscar365.com/lemans/wec/...-to-five-cars/

no surprise really

[templer]

https://sportscar365.com/lemans/wec/...-to-five-cars/

Something happened what was expected by everyone which has followed the team announcements during the last months and weeks.
As the team reduced their LM effort to one single car they mentioned they will be soon out for testing further upgrades on their car. Since that time nothing was communicated and the car seems to be not on any test track, so it was pretty clear it will not make it.

Nice to remember the boasted words of Ginetta during the presentation of their project. "We don't see any reason why the car should not be able to beat the Toyota right out of the box". Nice joke - the most ill-fated project since the Nissan LMP.

Sad for all the great guys involved in this project which did a great job. The Ginetta was for sure the most advanced LMP1 privateer car but the team managed it to show nearly nothing. Well done

[Mike E]

Ginetta's ACO adventure really has been a bit of a farce. A real shame as that LMP1 is clearly a good car.

[Deleted]

"The factory will instead focus on testing and refining the cars in preparation for the 2020/2021 season.”

What does that even mean, "testing and refining the cars" when they've already said they aren't going to bother with neutered P1 next year (not unless Chris Dyson pays them I guess). And "2020/2021 season", what's that

[canaglia]

after first ginetta withdraw, was just a matter of time for the second one too.
Doing it exactly one week before the race is almost trolling btw.

[canaglia]

Originally Posted by Mike E

Ginetta's ACO adventure really has been a bit of a farce. A real shame as that LMP1 is clearly a good car.

disagree, ginetta lmp1 basically lacks of any aero development...
infact has always scored highest top speeds because is basically a car with almost 0 downforce.

[Deleted]

With the loss of AER this also means we have grand total of two engine manufacturers across two LMP classes, and five in the entire field of 59 lol

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Chiana

With the loss of AER this also means we have grand total of two engine manufacturers across two LMP classes, and five in the entire field of 59 lol

Questionable if it is a "loss". It never raced with that engine in the first place.

I also don't agree it's a good car. It's a massively mismanaged project from the off. All those confirmed sold cars. Falling out with engine manufacturers. Not producing a low downforce kit for a Le Mans car. Switching the engine and blaming the ACO for admin rules stopping them racing...and then not turning up to a single race after that.

Similar to the LMP3 project. By the end of it, it's just "lol" with excuses of "You don't know what happened behind the scenes". Well no, we don't - but it keeps happening to Ginetta, so what's the common denominator there?

It is sad the car never got a proper showing.

[templer]

Disagree guys that the car was not good.

I know some of the guys involved into the development and was able to talk to them at Spa 2018 and where also able to have a look at the car in detail at the pits. The design even in details was very good, also on the aero side. The car run one of the highest front footboxes eve designed in LMP ( beside the latest Audi RP6 and the stillborn RP7) giving them plenty of room to manage the air travelling over the front splitter and coming from the front diffusor. Toyota has a major drawback in this area.

The problem is that the aerodynamic guys have had further developments for a high downforce package ( higher rear deck, larger dive-planes, shuttered turning vanes in the front diffusor exit) and a LM package with low rear deck, changed rear wing and more bulbous, vertical front fenders ready developed. They needed only to produce the parts which never happened. If a car nearly don't run you could not develop it

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by templer

Disagree guys that the car was not good.

I know some of the guys involved into the development and was able to talk to them at Spa 2018 and where also able to have a look at the car in detail at the pits. The design even in details was very good, also on the aero side. The car run one of the highest front footboxes eve designed in LMP ( beside the latest Audi RP6 and the stillborn RP7) giving them plenty of room to manage the air travelling over the front splitter and coming from the front diffusor. Toyota has a major drawback in this area.

The problem is that the aerodynamic guys have had further developments for a high downforce package ( higher rear deck, larger dive-planes, shuttered turning vanes in the front diffusor exit) and a LM package with low rear deck, changed rear wing and more bulbous, vertical front fenders ready developed. They needed only to produce the parts which never happened. If a car nearly don't run you could not develop it

If the best we can say about a car is "they only needed to build it" then I think we're setting the bar very low for what can be considered "good".

It ran 1 race, qualified last in its class, with 1 car being in the LMP2 pack and the lead car being 1 second ahead of the LMP2 pole, and 8 seconds off of pole (or 4 seconds off of the lead privateer LMP1).

It almost certainly had the potential to be good - but the car which raced was not, unfortunately.

[templer]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

If the best we can say about a car is "they only needed to build it" then I think we're setting the bar very low for what can be considered "good".

It ran 1 race, qualified last in its class, with 1 car being in the LMP2 pack and the lead car being 1 second ahead of the LMP2 pole, and 8 seconds off of pole (or 4 seconds off of the lead privateer LMP1).

It almost certainly had the potential to be good - but the car which raced was not, unfortunately.

True Akrapovic. Okay let's say the base development was pretty good and much better than the Rebellion or the ByKolles. But to show the car's potential you have to go testing and testing and testing. You need to find a good set-up mechanically and on the aero side and you need to make the car bulletproof. During the test work you find all the small or maybe even larger details you have to rework.
That's was the strong point of Porsche in the Group C . Some latter car's were better and even the early Lancia was better in several points but on track the Porsche was the car to beat.

The Ginetta nearly never run and did not much testing. Despite all they changed the engine supplier.Already developed aero parts never made it on the car and important people left the team pretty early. The car was good but it had no chance to prove it for several different reasons.

[Adam43]

It’s a shame, but unfortunately I too find it very predictable.

[rich07]

Considering the reasons they have connected to quarantine etc I don’t blame them. People forget that the people in the LMP1 team actually work in production in other areas of the company thus any quarantine on these members as part of such a small company would have a significant impact on the company’s day to day operations.

Shame to see but understandable.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Questionable if it is a "loss". It never raced with that engine in the first place.

Loss of AER in general I meant. I'm pretty sure 2 engines in the first two lead classes, and 5 (6 if we count the P1-P2 Zytek difference) engines across the entire field is the lowest it's ever been at LM. Even 1992 and 1920's had more in their tiny fields

Same goes for chassis as we have 5 different in LMP (6 if we count the P1-P2 Oreca difference) and 3 in GTE

Anyway AER was interesting, even if sketchy and fire prone, and sounded good

[S griffin]

Shame they won't be competing, but not really too surprised either. We really didn't need to lose another one out of the top class though.

[canaglia]

Originally Posted by rich07

Considering the reasons they have connected to quarantine etc I don’t blame them. People forget that the people in the LMP1 team actually work in production in other areas of the company thus any quarantine on these members as part of such a small company would have a significant impact on the company’s day to day operations.

Shame to see but understandable.

I think that quarantine aside, the reasons of their withdraw is just they couldn't find paying drivers for #5, same for #6 + issues with dyson since it seems LNT didn't pay them for the AER engines supply

[Aysedasi]

I don't have any doubt that money is the root cause of the withdrawal.... It has been the downfall of that team/car since the very start....

[eps]

It was always on the cards when they didn't enter prior rounds, but were testing away from WEC on their own....

A real shame as they will struggle to get the ACO onside if they pull out like this.