|
| Site Partners: | SpotterGuides | Veloce Books |
| Related Sites: | Your Link Here |
|
|
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
|
17 Feb 2003, 17:11 (Ref:509695)
|
#1 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,721
  |
2004 Prototype Regs
Does anyone know what shape these are likely to take? I haven't heard much.
|
||
|
|
|
17 Feb 2003, 17:58 (Ref:509726)
|
#2 | |
|
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newsoct02.html
The red Piper is a proposed 2004 car. It seems most new cars may well be coupes as they will not be penalised againt the open top cars. Listers LMP may be converted to a coupe in 2004 as the new cockpit regs allow easy conversion. Power levels in 2004 will be returned to there 2002 level (10% more than in 2003), as new chassis regs will slow the cars down enough without cutting power. The new cars will also be less liable to flip at high speed (another reason why power was cut in 2003). Last edited by JAG; 17 Feb 2003 at 18:01. |
|
|
|
|
|
18 Feb 2003, 00:36 (Ref:510083)
|
#3 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,721
|
Few radical changes, then, though if it encourages a few more coupes, that's fine by me. What does this mean for current-spec cars, though? Are they automatically obsolete?
|
||
|
|
__________________
Interviewer: "Will the McLaren F1 be your answer to the Ferrari F40?" Gordon Murray: "Hmm... I don't think we have anyone at McLaren who can weld that badly..."
|
|
18 Feb 2003, 06:19 (Ref:510234)
|
#4 | |||
|
Ten-Tenths Hall of Fame
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 9,482
|
Quote:
 ...
|
|||
|
|
|
|
18 Feb 2003, 06:33 (Ref:510243)
|
#5 | |
|
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 157
|
What bently problem?!?! Do tell.
|
|
|
|
__________________
-
|
|
18 Feb 2003, 08:34 (Ref:510299)
|
#6 | ||||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 517
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
|
|
__________________
A trip to Le Mans was indeed a trip to Mecca for many - until it was undertaken thier lives somehow incomplete.
|
|
18 Feb 2003, 09:35 (Ref:510342)
|
#7 | ||
|
Ten-Tenths Hall of Fame
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 9,482
|
The french report doesn't give precisions about the crash... we're waiting. The main cause of the problems is usualy the flat bottom, but in this case, it could be a completely different problem : nothing says the car left off...
I have to apologize on my comments about JAG post (see above): he speaks about 2004 specs, and I do comment the 2003' Bentley - silly me !
Last edited by Fab; 18 Feb 2003 at 09:36. |
||
|
|
|
|
18 Feb 2003, 11:35 (Ref:510406)
|
#8 | |||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,721
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
|
|
|
18 Feb 2003, 13:34 (Ref:510500)
|
#9 | |
|
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,840
|
did herbert "only" crash or did he flip?
|
|
|
|
|
|
18 Feb 2003, 13:53 (Ref:510511)
|
#10 | ||
|
Team Crouton
20KPINAL
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 39,702
|
I've heard no mention of a flip anywhere. Why are we suggesting a flip?
|
||
|
__________________
0 days. Back there again..... :-)
|
|
18 Feb 2003, 18:14 (Ref:510745)
|
#11 | |
|
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,840
|
Originally posted by JAG
The new cars will also be less liable to flip at high speed (another reason why power was cut in 2003). ------------------------------------------------------------ Originally posted by Fab Seeing the Bentley problem at Jerez, we could have doubt about the efficiency of the thing... well, actually, I don't know what happend to the car, I speak without knowing ... ------------------------------------------------------------ Thought maybe the two were related |
|
|
|
|
|
18 Feb 2003, 23:58 (Ref:511083)
|
#12 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,580
|
2004 regs are out:
http://www.fia.com/regle/REG_TEC/Ann.../258A-2004.pdf |
||
|
|
__________________
Oops
|
|
19 Feb 2003, 00:04 (Ref:511087)
|
#13 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 4,936
|
Damn, this diffuser setup is dumb, just let them go to full ground effects!
|
||
|
|
__________________
"Put a ****ing wheel on there! Let me go out again!" -Gilles Villeneuve, Zandvoort, 1979
|
|
19 Feb 2003, 00:44 (Ref:511128)
|
#14 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 10,241
|
Is there an english version? I can read a bit of french but it's late and i cannot be bothered.
|
||
|
|
|
|
19 Feb 2003, 00:47 (Ref:511131)
|
#15 | |
|
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
Further down
|
|
|
|
|
|
19 Feb 2003, 01:02 (Ref:511140)
|
#16 | |||
|
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 204
|
Quote:
The overhang rules are odd, as are the bodywork opening details. That's some complicated prose! Good to see them mandate a secondary roll-over structure behind the driver in case the main structure fails. |
|||
|
|
|
|
19 Feb 2003, 03:22 (Ref:511219)
|
#17 | |
|
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,831
|
The bodywork opening mumbo-jumbo seems to simply mean that if you are going to vent air in the area behind the front wheel, you can't have a pure separate fender, you must attach it to the sidepod (ala Cadillac LMP02, Audi R8) and meet their plan view off set dimensions.
Also note the side splitter detailing of the underbody (see the sectional views in drawing 1, A and B), how it is angled up 7 degrees from the horizontal. That should help the car in yaw conditions. |
|
|
|
|
|
19 Feb 2003, 04:08 (Ref:511245)
|
#18 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 550
|
This reminds me of what happened during on of the Le Mans qualifying sessions this past year...
|
||
|
|
|
|
19 Feb 2003, 06:21 (Ref:511310)
|
#19 | |||
|
Ten-Tenths Hall of Fame
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 9,482
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
|
|
|
19 Feb 2003, 14:02 (Ref:511590)
|
#20 | |||
|
Veteran
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,147
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
|
__________________
... 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
|
|
19 Feb 2003, 16:53 (Ref:511704)
|
#21 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 769
|
They won't as far as Le Mans is concerned!!! According to last week's Autosporthe ACO have confirmed that weight limits for what is currently the LMP675 class will be increased to 765kg's. Can't really see a four-pot turbo being competitive if power limits are going down.
|
||
|
|
__________________
The Romans didn't build an empire by having meetings... They did it by killing all who opposed them.
|
|
19 Feb 2003, 18:26 (Ref:511792)
|
#22 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,580
|
The weight limit for the current 675 cars was always going to be raised - question whas when. At least it was avoided for this year.
|
||
|
|
__________________
Oops
|
|
19 Feb 2003, 18:39 (Ref:511807)
|
#23 | ||
|
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 204
|
The bigger issue than the raised weight (675 to 750kg) is the restriction on allowed motors. Basically, SR2 motors are allowed, or motors allowed in the N-GT category cars up to 4.2L or 2.7L turbocharged. These cars will weigh more, but more importantly, they will have significantly less power, probably on the order of 100bhp less.
No longer will the secondary prototype class have the chance for overall wins. I wonder how the current LMP675 class will be grandfathered in for 2004. Will the specs remain the same? The same can be asked about the current LMP900 cars I think. It is interesting how Ulrich has not ruled out running the current R8 in 2004, as opposed to a brand-new design based on the new rules. |
||
|
|
|
|
19 Feb 2003, 20:31 (Ref:511893)
|
#24 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,215
|
To Mulsanne Mike:
On your site, you make a reference to "limiting Formula Type Pontoon Fenders" via section 3.4-1... Is the explanation you gave above about attaching the fender to the side pod like Audi & Cadillac did last year the answer to this "limiting Formula-Style Fenders" noted in your site? If not, please explain what you mean by that reference so that I will understand it... Thanks! |
||
|
|
__________________
Finally... One American Open Wheel Series!
|
|
19 Feb 2003, 21:05 (Ref:511923)
|
#25 | |||
|
Veteran
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,147
|
Quote:
Also, reducing the normally aspirated motor from 3.4 to 3.0L will hurt some teams, like Bucknum, who just upgraded. No 2.0L turbocharged free-design motor? Rob Dyson would definitely be furious. Last edited by paul-collins; 19 Feb 2003 at 21:14. |
|||
|
|
__________________
... 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
|
 |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| 2004 rear wing regs | Dan_Lowe | Sportscar & GT Racing | 32 | 30 Apr 2004 14:58 |
| 2004 Restrictor Regs | JAG | Sportscar & GT Racing | 2 | 23 Oct 2003 16:49 |
| Poll 1600ff Regs 2004 | jadlamracing | National & International Single Seaters | 18 | 15 Oct 2003 08:34 |
| 2004 Protototype regs. | JAG | Sportscar & GT Racing | 1 | 10 Oct 2002 18:03 |
Linear Mode
