New ACO rules - bad calls?

[knighty]

Ultra low sulphur diesel (ULSD) was not pioneered by motorsport. It was a requirement of the tree huggers in our gouvernments and the EEC......and good on them I say, someone needs to dictate to these oil companies, otherwise they would never have done it.

bio diesel and ethanol DO NOT solve global warming, forget marketing tittle-tattle.......all they do is solve the fact that nearly all oil comes from saudi arabia, this removes the worlds, and particularly US's addiction to oil from Saudi.......

by burning any fuel, it will create emissions.......this is why hydrogen fuel cell cars are considered as the holy grail of saving the planet.......zero emissions

its already been worked out that if every farmer in the US maxed out his fields for growing rape seed, it would only contribute 10% to the US's fuel addiction.....I bet the saudis are really worried - not........but its a step in the right direction in reducing fuel prices.

as far as ethanol is concerned, remember the reynard -Judd V10 run by John McNeils mob....forget the high octane.....it needed bigger tanks as the ethanol is less dense than gasoline (lighter), therefore to get comparable distance, you need more of it, hence much bigger fuel tanks.......

the industry has realised that ethanol is not that ideal.......bio diesel is now recognised as the better of the two, but it still causes grief to the fuel system wear, seal life and oil dilution etc.......bio diesel causes me a lot of grief in my job, i can tell you that!

[ss_collins]

Knighty - i wasn't saying it wasn't relevant to engine design just the stuff about the exact make up of Audi's fuel - we simply don't know.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by knighty

so shell have labs at the races......sounds like pump fuel to me.......going racing benefits the customer eh......

Yes, it takes more money out of our pockets.

[knighty]

Originally Posted by ss_collins

Knighty - i wasn't saying it wasn't relevant to engine design just the stuff about the exact make up of Audi's fuel - we simply don't know.

no problem ;-)........by the way I subscribed to 2 years worth of your race engine magazine the other day....... well someone needs to keep you boys employed!........ I was handed 4 old issues and lets say the DIY jobs suffered a tad of a delay, some heavy techy race engine stuff, right up my street!.....I have ordered a couple of back issues too.......cant wait to recieve them, deffo a good mag

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by knighty

Ultra low sulphur diesel (ULSD) was not pioneered by motorsport. It was a requirement of the tree huggers in our gouvernments and the EEC......and good on them I say, someone needs to dictate to these oil companies, otherwise they would never have done it.

bio diesel and ethanol DO NOT solve global warming, forget marketing tittle-tattle.......all they do is solve the fact that nearly all oil comes from saudi arabia, this removes the worlds, and particularly US's addiction to oil from Saudi.......

by burning any fuel, it will create emissions.......this is why hydrogen fuel cell cars are considered as the holy grail of saving the planet.......zero emissions

its already been worked out that if every farmer in the US maxed out his fields for growing rape seed, it would only contribute 10% to the US's fuel addiction.....I bet the saudis are really worried - not........but its a step in the right direction in reducing fuel prices.

The US and Canada have a lot of known petroleum reserves, just a bit too deep in the ground for current technologies to pump it out.

Let alone the coal deposits of the US and Canada, plus the coal in India and Australia. Turning coal into fuel is excellent technologies for the future. Buy stock in these companies.

Plus if all the land was planted for rape seed and fuel production, food prices would sky rocket.

Again I believe diesel fuels for racing are more politically and market driven then actually a better fuel.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

Plus if all the land was planted for rape seed and fuel production, food prices would sky rocket.

The tortilla price already rose a lot because of demand for bioethanol

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

Again I believe diesel fuels for racing are more politically and market driven then actually a better fuel.

Every fuel is as good as the rules allow it to be. Period.

[knighty]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

The US and Canada have a lot of known petroleum reserves, just a bit too deep in the ground for current technologies to pump it out.

Let alone the coal deposits of the US and Canada, plus the coal in India and Australia. Turning coal into fuel is excellent technologies for the future. Buy stock in these companies.

Plus if all the land was planted for rape seed and fuel production, food prices would sky rocket.

.

are you familiar with the phrase......."if your auntie had balls, she would be your uncle"......"if" is a big word.........

I agree with speed kings last statement completley.........yet another bent technical regulation to favour diesels.

[paul-collins]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

The tortilla price already rose a lot because of demand for bioethanol

Not to mention, tequila is going to go up as all the agave farms are plowed under to plant corn...

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by knighty

I agree with speed kings last statement completley.........yet another bent technical regulation to favour diesels.

Yes they are.

I am a single malt scotch and bourbon drinker myself.

[TWK]

My point, in part, has been, "How is it a good deal to go from GTL-based fuels to bio-fuels?" GTL diesel, in my opinion, is a much better idea than bio-diesel, and will remain so until there is economically viable technology to produce fuel from bio-mass that does not compete with food production.

And yes this is now way off topic, isn't it?

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

No the proposed direction that the ACO is going with their rules is just fine IMO. They seem to be addressing the rules to reflect the 4 class set that they have in place at the moment. My largest concern and hope now is that they give P-1 petrol cars some leeway to catch the diesels. What I think I see and hear is some people who do not like the 4 class set and want just 1 class of proto's with varying rules to acheive the same end (been there done that) and think that GT racing is an afterthought. I also think that there will be a sloughing off of GT-1 with it being replaced by GT-2 and GT-3 moving up with the adjustments necessary to keep performance in a range that is suitable for all 4 classes running together. But all just in my opinion of course!

L.P.

Not sure that the 3% will be enough to close the gap in P-1 at the moment. link If/when there is a "works" petrol P-1 then it might be. With all the P-1's being dropped to 900 kg it might(?) be to some advantage to the petrol cars as it might decrease the forward bite ( weight vs. torque) and slow them in acceleration. (?)

L.P.

[paul-collins]

The combination of a 3% gain in restrictor area (-> 3% gain in power) and reduction of weight of the car gets the gasoline cars pretty close to last year's configuration that Dyson ran, from a power-to-weight ratio perspective. They ran the ACO mandated restrictors but at 860 kg - this would be equivalent to running at near 875 kg. (For reference, Petit Le Mans P1 cars will run at 880 kg, so we'll see an equivalent test of the theory next weekend.)

I do think, however, that the Audis will be in the 915 kg range next year, negating some of the advantage set out in these new rules.

I also don't disagree with the ACO's P2 weight addition, from a Le Mans perspective. I think IMSA should implement the rule in 2009, though.

[Spyderman]

Paul - don't you think that the ACO should be concentrating on taking real steps to make the gasoline powered P1's faster, rather than going "guns blaring" after the P2's?
After all , the P2's could possibly threaten a slow gasoline powered P1 car at Le Mans,but it would be no danger what so ever, to a diesel.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

Paul - don't you think that the ACO should be concentrating on taking real steps to make the gasoline powered P1's faster, rather than going "guns blaring" after the P2's?
After all , the P2's could possibly threaten a slow gasoline powered P1 car at Le Mans,but it would be no danger what so ever, to a diesel.

Why should it make a difference if it is a diesel or petrol P-1? The ACO's stated objective since the restrictor change, article 19, has been to have the 4 classes seperated by at least 1.5% respectively. And with the 3% restrictor allowance for the petrol P-1's they are moving to close the gap in P-1. IMO it is also a way in which to encourage the "works" efforts to move out of P-2 and leave a class that is winnable for Privateer prototype teams.

L.P.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Why should it make a difference if it is a diesel or petrol P-1? The ACO's stated objective since the restrictor change, article 19, has been to have the 4 classes seperated by at least 1.5% respectively. And with the 3% restrictor allowance for the petrol P-1's they are moving to close the gap in P-1. IMO it is also a way in which to encourage the "works" efforts to move out of P-2 and leave a class that is winnable for Privateer prototype teams.

L.P.

Well they can accomplish the same thing by speeding up the petrol P1's.
What they have done in essence is to create a "fifth" class. It’s the diesels (a type of PD1 and heavily protected by the ACO) still ahead (unless you seriously believe that these alterations are going to have an effect), followed by the slower petrol P1’s (despite the new regulations) then the future obese P2’s and then the very expensive (for the ACO) GT1’s and lastly, the castrated GT2’s that will be a type of GT3’s on steroids.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

Well they can accomplish the same thing by speeding up the petrol P1's.
What they have done in essence is to create a "fifth" class. It’s the diesels (a type of PD1 and heavily protected by the ACO) still ahead (unless you seriously believe that these alterations are going to have an effect), followed by the slower petrol P1’s (despite the new regulations) then the future obese P2’s and then the very expensive (for the ACO) GT1’s and lastly, the castrated GT2’s that will be a type of GT3’s on steroids.

They are speeding up the petrol P-1's; -3% restrictor. You may think that as not enough, but it is in the right direction. Also there is the weight reduction for the P-1's as a whole with the most likely scenario of the diesels not making the minimum.
The creation of a fifth class is pure fiction as there are steps being taken to close the gap in P-1 without creating a rule set that would conversely affect the class with the introduction of a "works" petrol car.
As to the 'obese' P-2's; maybe with the weight the can engineer some reliability into the class.
As to GT we have no idea yet what the ACO has in mind specifically, or do you have something you wish to share in that vein.(?) And if there is a wholesale change of equipment in the GT classes then why would the ACO not try to maintain the pace of the P-2's and keep their 1.5% margin with the stated convoluted new GT's (castrated, yet on steroids??).

And this ahead of the full rule set yet to be released. Maybe more P-1 equalization to come (?) with the performance to be seen at Petit.

L.P.

[Spyderman]

Fair enough.
We will wait and see if you optimism bares fruit.
I hope that those that are so uplifted and buoyant with these changes have the character to recognize their errors when next season we have an almost identical repetition of this season (in relation to P1's).
I will certainly admit I'm wrong if a P1 petrol engined car wins one race under normal conditions next year.

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

Fair enough.
We will wait and see if you optimism bares fruit.
I hope that those that are so uplifted and buoyant with these changes have the character to recognize their errors when next season we have an almost identical repetition of this season (in relation to P1's).
I will certainly admit I'm wrong if a P1 petrol engined car wins one race under normal conditions next year.

Mute point really. We really wouldn't know if this adjustment is correct, until such time as a factory Petrol P1 joins in.

The only way for a privateer to win, would be if the rules were skewed against the Diesels, or some amount of luck. Being within historical deviations will be good enough. From 2000-05', the average difference in time (qualifying) between the factories and privateers has been 1.5%.

During the race and qualifying (this year), the difference was 3.0%... but if you include the test days times, the difference is already less than 1.0%.

We shouldn't expect privateers to be on the pace of factories, nor should we use it as a barometer of measurement. I would agree that they should be within a range of historical differences though.

[Spyderman]

That is nonsense!
You can't (or shouldn't) make rules based on some hypothetical factory entry.
They need to make rules with the cars they currently have, and if (and this is a big IF) a factory P1 comes in and wipes the floor off the politically correct diesels, then they can always adjust the rules later.

Furthermore, I'll admit I'm wrong if a factory gasoline P1 wins one event under normal circumstances.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

That is nonsense!
You can't (or shouldn't) make rules based on some hypothetical factory entry.
They need to make rules with the cars they currently have, and if (and this is a big IF) a factory P1 comes in and wipes the floor off the politically correct diesels, then they can always adjust the rules later.

Furthermore, I'll admit I'm wrong if a factory gasoline P1 wins one event under normal circumstances.

Factories come and go, you can't taylor rules to a particular grid of privateer cars, them change them competely if a factory turns up!

[Spyderman]

Why? The ACO did when the diesels turned up.

[SebringMG]

The original equivalency was based on the FIA equivalency as used in touring cars (where it works fairly well). Audi and Pug have shown that a full racing diesel can be better than previously thought so the ACO are tweaking to try to get it right!

Have they got it right yet? Who knows - wait till the cars have run before bashing the ACO!

[Justin Moran]

Maybe when Acura enter the P1 class we will see how the difference is affected, I think they are using the ALMS P2 class to see which team to back in a P1 effort and be the first "Factory" P1? I'm only guessing and I maybe way of mark here but I feel we have to give the ACO the benefit of the doubt and allow these proposed breaks to come into force to see where the equivalency is going?

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

Why? The ACO did when the diesels turned up.

Wrong!!!!! They made the rules, then the diesels showed up. And lest you forget, even if you disagree, that even though it is not in print the ACO holds P-1 as a factory or "works" class: With the opportunity for Privateers to participate with the chance of an occasional win but not the expectation of said win as due to the disparity of resources available to produce a winning effort.

L.P.