A Question that Might Impact Nasamax....

[Tim Northcutt]

In one of the threads (maybe the "LMES Entry?") there was mention that Team Nasamax is creating a "Hybrid" conversion of their Reynard chassis to 2004 specs...

My Questions:

Since the 2004 regs specifically state on the front page that any changes have to be done "by the manufacturer" or if done by someone else, "approved" by the manufacturer, who would then file a detailed "Homologation Form" that the team must have (after ACO approval of the homologation change)when it goes to each race and submit it at scrutineering...

1. How will Team Nasamax accomplish this, since Reynard is now a defunct company that is no longer in business???

and

2. Will those changes be extensive enough (and it sounds like they will) to warrant a new FIA Crash test???

I'm very inteested in reading the rsponses to this one....hope they have thought this one through....

Other "Hybrid" teasm would have the manufacturer to take care of these things...Team Nasamax doesn't...

[Duffacus]

They stated that it would be quite a new car didn't they so would end up being their own design?

Or maybe if that is not the case their is a loop hole in the rules?

[KA]

Apparently they're working with a company called KW Motorsport who will act as the 'official Reynard representative'- one of KWM's founders, Kieron Salter was formerly Technical Manager for Reynard Special Projects.

[Tim Northcutt]

Thank you, KA...that would, indeed, satisfy the ACO's Homologation requirement....

To Duffacus:

There really isn't a "Loop Hole" to this...the rule seems very clear that changes to the car must be approved or done by the original manufacturer...

[Duffacus]

But if the original manufacture doesn't exist anymore then surly it can't be approved by them?

Regardless if there is an 'official Reynard representative' or not?

There is no company called Reynard so you can't call it official, can you?

[JAG]

I'm sure the ACO will accept an 'official', in the know, representitive if there is no company still operating.

[cybersdorf]

Originally posted by Duffacus
But if the original manufacture doesn't exist anymore then surly it can't be approved by them?

Regardless if there is an 'official Reynard representative' or not?

There is no company called Reynard so you can't call it official, can you?

When the original manufacturer doesn't exist anymore they will have to give their rule a rethink, no? In thiscase, one of the people originally involved with the project from new (K.Salter) is involved in the redesign. Without meaning to pre-empt the ACO (if that'spossible ), I'd say that's good enough.

[Tim Northcutt]

If he was the the Techical Manager for Reynard Special Projects, he was certainly involved in the creation of the chassis, and probably signed the original Holologation papers submitted to the ACO when the car was completed to get it certified....

Even if he didn't sign those original papers, if his credentails were submitted to the ACO documenting his involvement with the project, that should satisfy their criteria...

Now I'll raise the same question I raised last April, but never really got answered...

because a more vaguely-worded provision of this Homologation rule existed in the 2003 regs....

How did the Pescarolo changes to the Courage go through, unless Courage ultimately looked at the results, conferred with the designer who did them (de Constanze?) and filed the papers with the ACO stating that they approve those changes?

and if those changes slipped through a loophole that existed last year, have they conferred with Courage to submit the revised Homologation form with those changes and put their approval on it???

When the new revised 2004 regs were released and we discussed this issue, Mulsanne Mike said that "ultimately, Courage would have to do this" under this newly-worded provision in the 2004 regs....his exact words were that they would need "Courage's Blessing" on those changes.

[cybersdorf]

God knows.
Maybe Courage helped.
Maybe the ACO didn't care.

[Tim Northcutt]

Maybe they didn't then...what about now????

Those changes to the aero package were significant, and Fab confirmed that they were done by a different designer and not by the Courage factory...

Gotta admit...it's an interesting question...

[cybersdorf]

The redesign was done by André de Cortanze.
Courage is a Le Mans local.
Pescarolo is a Le Mans icon.
All parties involved are French.

.........any further questions?

[Tim Northcutt]

Sounds like some solid links, or at least some lineage to me....

I'll buy that explanation, cybersdorf...thanks!!!

[Duffacus]

Norma are French and they got a Le Mans entry last year

[Fab]

Originally posted by cybersdorf
The redesign was done by André de Cortanze.
Courage is a Le Mans local.
Pescarolo is a Le Mans icon.
All parties involved are French.

.........any further questions?

a real maffia, he ?

Yves Courage approved Courage Evo's modifications.

[Chevyguy]

Tim, your question about crash testing is kind of an if, no? Even so, if the car was tested back when Reynard was still in business, would that not be enough info for the ACO to base it's decision off of? I think if they wanted to make a chassis modification, they would be S O L, but the primary of focus Nasamax is to test the green fuel. Depending on the cash however, they could run down a dormant Reynard and smash that. That's my well thought out response. LOL

[cybersdorf]

Originally posted by Fab
a real maffia, he ?

Hey it works for Daytona, why shouldn't it work for Le Mans

[Tim Northcutt]

To ChevyGuy:

It hinges entirely on exactly how extensive the alterations are to the original structure in order to convert it to the 2004 regs...

Somewhere in the LMES entry Thread, the description of the changes Nasamax has to make to get the car to be 2004 compliant sounds like they would have to crash test it...

Some of the changes that were described in that thread included:

Changes to the footbox area, the front undertray, which might also require changes to the front-end structure or tub itself in that area to accommodate the new diffuser dimensions....different overhang measurements front and back...

remember, Robinson's modifications to their R&S, because it changed many aspects of the front end of the car, could not be raced in ALMS because those modifications warranted a new FIA crash test....

It could be a legitimate issue that they will have to deal with....

Anyone else want to weigh in on this???

Note to Fab:

THanks for the confirmation of the Courage approval on the Pesca changes....that answers the question I had for months...

[Tim Northcutt]

As a Follow-Up on my previous post

This is what KA shared with us in the LMES Thread:

"More news of Nasamax on DSC as well- Given the amount of discussion in several threads recently of the feasibility of converting existing LMPs to the new 2004 regs, it's interesting that they'll be doing just that- sounds like they're in for a lot of work- front end, footbox, bodywork and rollhoop changes, new underbody, new rear wing, new transmission and rear suspension changes etc- in fact, according to John McNeil, so much that when they've finished 'the car effectively won't be a Reynard any more' and may be renamed."

That description, plus the fact that it will be "so much that when they've finished, 'the car effeictively won't be a Reynard any more' and may be renamed..."

If it is THAT different and is "renamed," no homologation papers exist on it....thus it would REQUIRE a crash test....

And even if it keeps the Reynard name, safety elements like the roll hoops, etc., also would warrant a new crash test....

If Robinson's changes to the front end required them, certainly changes this extensive would also require a new crash test...

[KA]

Originally posted by Tim Northcutt
- in fact, according to John McNeil, so much that when they've finished 'the car effectively won't be a Reynard any more' and may be renamed."

From memory, without going back to the piece on DSC where McNeil described the work, I think he said they were either already talking to the ACO about this, or were about to- wonder if this means they're already looking at the crash-testing question? I'd certainly hope so....

[Tim Northcutt]

That quote was actually posted from your own post in the LMES thread, KA...

I don't want others to think that was my thought when in fact it was your good work to come across this and to share it with us....

It gave me the contaxt to ask what I consider to be a very big question regarding this issue...

Personally, if the changes are that extensive, I don't see how they can avoid crash testing...but maybe if they outline exactly what they are doing the ACO may only require the revised Homlogation form...

I don't see how they could find the latter....we're talking roll hoop safety structure changes here, as well as major structural changes to the tub with the underbody work, etc...

But I would be cutting up and revising at least two chassis, just to be safe....and would do it for two reasons:

1. You will have one to trash in the crash test, and equally important

2. The changes to the chassis also means that there are no "spare" parts for you to use in case of accidents, etc...granted...you will be making molds of all of the bodywork, etc., that you are revising, but the underbody changes are a different matter....

You mangle the central tub in a bad accident, you're SOL....

[LC2guy]

Good News for Nasamax, they are being allowed to have a 135 litre fuel tank for this season thanks to ACO.

[LC2guy]

I have put this post in the LMES thread aswll, sorry

[Tim Northcutt]

That makes perfect sense....gasoline is physically more dense than methanol or ethanol...an engine will consume alocohol fuels much faster to get the same power, even though they burn more efficiently....

[gttouring]

I have heard rumors of a v10 diesel being built (5.5litres) I am not sure who is behind it judd?
but a bio-diesel entry may work for nasamax if they can't get Ethanol to work- and they can still be 'green' and play that spin.
unless they are the ethanol producers, and are tyring to market that product..?

[Graham Goodwin]

There's a Ricardo development programme for a diesel engine based on a Judd V10 - coincidentally there was a really good interview with Ricardo's Dave morrison who described the programme in detail, posted on DSC yesterday.