|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
20 Oct 2006, 21:59 (Ref:1743616) | #76 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
Quote:
Just as Penske Porsche run to the same regs, chassis AND engine, as Intersport, yet are much quicker! I'll stick my neck out, Fernadez Racings Lola WILL be quicker than Intersports near indentical Lola, because they have factory support. This debate seems focused entirely on Le Mans, yet the R10 has been racing for the second half of the season in the ALMS, and should have been beaten more than once, with effectively 65kg ballast, a siginifcant amount, but not insermountable (sp) |
||
|
20 Oct 2006, 22:13 (Ref:1743627) | #77 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,041
|
Quote:
Another quick question. Is the purpose of the engine equivalency formulae used by the ACO (for air restrictor sizes etc) to attain equal performance between engines powering cars in the same class, regardless of differing specifications (displacement/atmo/turbo etc.)? |
||
|
20 Oct 2006, 22:25 (Ref:1743640) | #78 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 757
|
Oh why oh why can't we go back to the "fuel-formula"????? Instead of this stupid air and boost restrictors?
And how to peg back horsepower without restrictors? Simple, limit the amount of energy , n'est-ce pas? Say, 40 littres of fuel (irrelevant if it is gasoline or diesel) per 100 km (50l/100km in the latter Group C days) et voilĂ*... This in turn, would see us, simple mortals, gain also "something" out of this "boring and pointless sport ": less fuel hungry engines! PS: let's do some maths please: Audi R10: 15 laps per stint (Tom K did a 16 lap one it seems!) LM: 13.650m Per stint: 15*13.650=205 Per 100km= 90l*100km/205km = 44l/100km (simple 5th-grade maths!) Now, let's do the same for the Pescas: 13 laps per stint LM: 13.650m Per stint: 13*13.650=177 km Per 100 km = 90l*100km/177km = 51l/100km Remember the late Group C days? The fuel was restricted to 50l per 100 km! Yet, with more power (I don't believe they had less than 700bhp on race conditions!!!!), 15 years ago, they had better fuel consumption (I know, the Regs were different back then, but by know technology should have taken as well massive leaps forward!!!!!!) What to prove? Hardly nothing was done to improve the MPG in 15 years (I hope no "greenie" is reading this!!) BTW: Wasn't the R8 able to squeeze 15 laps per stint at LM (prior to 2005)? Maybe they (AUDI) were sandbagging this year |
||
|
20 Oct 2006, 22:28 (Ref:1743641) | #79 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,041
|
Quote:
|
||
|
20 Oct 2006, 23:10 (Ref:1743659) | #80 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,418
|
Restrictors are very easy to change and computer retune the car.
Boost is also easy to change. fuel mixtures make last minute changes or <koff> competition adjustments are bit harder to change. |
||
__________________
"When the fear of death out weighs the thrill of speed, brake." LG |
21 Oct 2006, 00:04 (Ref:1743686) | #81 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 537
|
The scary thought about the new rules is for the ALMS as the Vette's are already running in a spec that has less power than the 2007 rules. This will actually make having a P2 car in the ALMS possibly a bad thing as the Vette's or Aston's(depending if they get Michelin's for 2007) have a very good chance at running down the P2 cars in some races.
|
||
|
21 Oct 2006, 00:27 (Ref:1743695) | #82 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,975
|
A look at Laguna Seca's qualifying times struck me as interesting in this light. Even with performance balancing the Creation and Zytek look genuinely quick, and remember, they weren't the fastest cars in the LMS this year either. A well driven LC70 (a fully new rules car - which I think is significant) was often clearly ahead in qualifying trim.
Sure, Laguna Seca's very different to Le Mans, but the principle that a well sorted petrol car is still - whisper it - just about out there. So. Doom and gloom? As Malcolm says the 2006 Pescarolo is immeasurably different to the first C60s, but compare it to an R10, or even a B06/10 and it looks like it's from a different era. In itself it's clear proof that a well sorted and developed LMP900 hybrid can run a new regs diesel close, based on that, surely with more modern design principles applied surely there's a hope for petrol? The only tocsin of caution that keeps sounding for me is the vision of the Audis shortly after a pace car on Sunday last year effortlessly pulling away from the Pescarolos out of one of the Mulsanne chicanes. I'm an optimist (or certainly have seemed to be the last couple of days) but that image keeps haunting me. Personally I just really hope Henri (and Martin, Mike, and Trevor and the rest) sets my mind to rest and shows that a new chassis, a new Judd, and a never ending commitment to beating the odds pulls it off and does a Joest. |
||
|
21 Oct 2006, 01:08 (Ref:1743720) | #83 | |
Racer
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 317
|
Another equation to add into all of this which somehow I think a lot of people have overlooked: A car is only as good as its driver. Simple fact; some drivers are quicker than others therefore give a different rep'n of a car/chassis performance.
Audi have some of, if not THE best drivers and pit crews in the sportscar world. - Fact The same drivers and crews in the best of the petrol powered world, would = very good times & race pace. Put Audi's drivers in a Zytek (they are the my example of a team who have really suffered this season from not having the fastest drivers, esp at Le Mans - until SJ came along!), and I think you would find that Le Mans pace is something that falls into the lap of the driver more than the car. Brabham's qualifying lap in 2004 in the 04s, followed by Wallace's opening stint is testament to this. Don't get me wrong, AW is a great and extremely reliable driver but for outright pace? Are the R10s too fast at the moment, no - it's that the top petrol powered car's pit stops/drivers are not good enough and it is creating an illusion that Audi are wrongfully paying for. |
|
|
21 Oct 2006, 01:50 (Ref:1743735) | #84 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
Quote:
Except that the pole winning P2 was some 7 seconds quicker than GT1 pole, on a short circuit. A 5% restrictor cut is neither here nore there, but shows intent on the ACO's part that P2 will not be allowed to challenge overall. |
||
|
21 Oct 2006, 07:34 (Ref:1743915) | #85 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,041
|
Quote:
(Not playing? ) |
||
|
21 Oct 2006, 10:19 (Ref:1743998) | #86 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 13,763
|
Quote:
Im not sure we ever can have a happy mediem ..... its always been an issue in sportscars . |
|||
|
21 Oct 2006, 12:31 (Ref:1744069) | #87 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,418
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
"When the fear of death out weighs the thrill of speed, brake." LG |
21 Oct 2006, 12:34 (Ref:1744073) | #88 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,418
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
"When the fear of death out weighs the thrill of speed, brake." LG |
21 Oct 2006, 14:42 (Ref:1744139) | #89 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,351
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
21 Oct 2006, 14:42 (Ref:1744140) | #90 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
Quote:
Oh sorry, I was busy listening to Audi have their butts handed to them by Zytek, Creation and Porsche |
||
|
21 Oct 2006, 14:42 (Ref:1744141) | #91 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 240
|
Quote:
Laguna Seca does not suit the R10 - but it's still within four tenths of pole, despite the weight handicap, an unsuitable track and running for economy. |
||
|
21 Oct 2006, 14:44 (Ref:1744143) | #92 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
Quote:
So Corvette will have more power at Le Mans and in the LMS next year, than they currently run in the ALMS, plus they'll be lighter. |
||
|
21 Oct 2006, 14:47 (Ref:1744146) | #93 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
Quote:
Just as the Audis unsuited to Laguna, the Zytek and Creation have similar problems on the long straights of Le Mans. I'll judge performance on the regular LMS/ALMS circuits. |
||
|
21 Oct 2006, 19:14 (Ref:1744289) | #94 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 402
|
Hi Guys
Newbie here, so this works OK. Thanks for a fascinating discussion over the last few days. Now for my twopennyworth: Strikes me that if the ACO frame diesel regs that allow for a 10% power advantage and a 50% torque advantage, then the weight should be adjusted accordingly. That would be my interpretation of an even playing field. I think the ALMS has worked out pretty well this year and they've got the weight-breaks just about right. 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? |
||
|
21 Oct 2006, 19:20 (Ref:1744293) | #95 | |
Racer
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 317
|
Just to clear a fact up that some may have misunderstood from my last post.
I am not saying that the likes of Minassian, Johansson, Weaver and Smith are inferior at all - qualifying usually shows this. Its the fact that the Audis have got 2 or 3 exceptional drivers in each car, some of the other teams this season have partenered a hair with a "non hair"(!) and it has showed in their race pace! Sorry for any confusion! |
|
|
21 Oct 2006, 20:20 (Ref:1744332) | #96 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 402
|
Point taken
|
||
|
21 Oct 2006, 20:50 (Ref:1744348) | #97 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 530
|
Quote:
The R10 has power between 3000-5000rpm, that's 40% of the rev range. A gas engine revving to 10000rpm should be on the power band from 6000 onwards to have a similar range. |
|||
|
22 Oct 2006, 06:31 (Ref:1744621) | #98 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,041
|
Quote:
I was extremely revved up on this issue a couple of nights ago. This is a very toned down version of what I wanted to say. Firstly, I don’t have a problem with the majority of what you and jhansen have had to say on this thread. It’s just that it’s been mainly irrelevant. If Audi had applied a similar amount of time, effort, science and money into producing a petrol powered replacement for the R8, it’s not beyond the realms of imagination that it would have been as quick, if not quicker than the R10. Would anybody in their right mind protest against such a vehicle, provided it was built to the letter of the rules? Of course not. Plenty of frustration for those trying to compete with it, but no grounds for complaint. So, I’ve hopefully addressed any misconceptions you may have about exactly where I stand on that subject, one which has been regularly used on this thread as a reason to support (or give the benefit of the doubt to) the stance of the ACO in the relevant section of the title document. Except it doesn’t, does it........ We have already established that the chassis/aero regs for petrol and diesel LMP1’s are identical. Nobody can call foul on that score, so we can dismiss chassis/aero regs as being totally irrelevant in the context of this thread. The key to this discussion, and the only point of relevance, is the engine equivalency formulae used by the ACO to balance engine performance. If the ACO have got it right, it should be possible to manufacture a petrol engine under the current regs which has equivalency to the R10’s diesel unit, shouldn’t it. Hopefully jhansen will consider this to be 'hard evidence', the actual figures have been well documented elsewhere; Cosworth claim to have bettered the output of the old R8 powerplant with their new contender. They have used the best technology available to them, but the figures they present for this rather handy piece of kit still fall way short of the figures being used by Audi and Peugeot in reference to their diesel equivalents. Despite the units inability to compare favourably with the diesels, Cosworth have made it clear that the cost will be prohibitive to most privateers and are targeting works/factory/manufacturer teams in order to sell it. AER’s LMP1 contender is a clean sheet, purpose built unit. Even with direct injection, the projected output figures for this engine fall way short of the Audi and Peugeot diesels. Audi are just playing with the opposition. The chassis is compromised, the gearbox is compromised (just five gears), yet they can still just drive away from a Pescarolo ‘built for Le Mans special’. 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. |
||
|
22 Oct 2006, 12:24 (Ref:1744927) | #99 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,418
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
"When the fear of death out weighs the thrill of speed, brake." LG |
22 Oct 2006, 12:28 (Ref:1744930) | #100 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,418
|
Quote:
a friend of mine emailed them this question Quote:
|
||||
__________________
"When the fear of death out weighs the thrill of speed, brake." LG |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |