Evolution of the ACO regulations in 2007

[jhansen]

Originally Posted by eddsc

No, apparently you don't.
But if the Audi still produces great gobs of torque at lower boost, then it can be run for economy and still run quickly.
Why would a petrol turbo be turned down - so it can drop further behind?

Isn't that one of the great things about sportscar racing though? Different ways to do things? Each advantage will sort itself out at different times.

You don't think the Audi boys never turned down the R8 boost (or up) when it suited their cause?

[JAG]

Just to add, I do hope Pescarolo are successful and win more perfromance breaks for petrol cars, just don't expect the result to be any different, particualrly at Le Mans.

But if Pescarolo are the only ones to speak out what hope is there of change.

A joint statement, particualrly from engine manufactuers, is needed.

[GTfour]

I.M.H.O. As long as the ACO rules are made by people that are more interrested in being politically correct(silencers and noise restrictions,socalled clean fuels,an envirement friendly awards) then in organising a spectacullar race event,we will have to wait a long time before the big marques like Porsche or Ferrari will come with a pukka petrol powered sportscar...

And for those who really think that the Audi's are having fair competition but the rest is just not good enough...get out of here!
Honestly,with budgets like Audi and Peugeot "the rest" will never make a decent chance. Don't forget,to make a fast sportscar is expensive but to make a fast sportscar that lasts the distance is on a financially different planet alltogether...

I heard Audi has offered M.Schumacher 12,5 million euro's to join in their Le Mans team. Kind a sums it up really...

[chewymonster]

Ok, so we know about the supposed 57 horsepower difference (per Pescarolo)

But here is what we should take a look at. For this example let's look at the BMW 3 series coupes, one with diesel the other with gasoline engine. Both have inline 6 cylinder engines with twin turbos. The diesel one is 2993cc and the gasoline twin turbo displaces 2979cc. http://www.bmw.co.uk/bmwuk/pricesand...-bmwuk,00.html

The diesel makes 286 horsepower @ 4400 RPM and 580 NM torque @ 1750 RPM. 0-62 acceleration is in 6.1 seconds, combined fuel economy of 37.7 (British) mpg.

The gasoline engine makes 306 horsepower @ 5800 RPM and 400 NM of torque @ 1300 RPM. 0-62 acceleration in 5.7 seconds (with automatic like the diesel engine) Combined fuel economy of 29.7 (British) mpg.

The diesel 3 series coupe is 30 kg heavier and probably runs more boost.

[Bentley03]

Originally Posted by chewymonster

Ok, so we know about the supposed 57 horsepower difference (per Pescarolo)

But here is what we should take a look at. For this example let's look at the BMW 3 series coupes, one with diesel the other with gasoline engine. Both have inline 6 cylinder engines with twin turbos. The diesel one is 2993cc and the gasoline twin turbo displaces 2979cc. http://www.bmw.co.uk/bmwuk/pricesand...-bmwuk,00.html

The diesel makes 286 horsepower @ 4400 RPM and 580 NM torque @ 1750 RPM. 0-62 acceleration is in 6.1 seconds, combined fuel economy of 37.7 (British) mpg.

The gasoline engine makes 306 horsepower @ 5800 RPM and 400 NM of torque @ 1300 RPM. 0-62 acceleration in 5.7 seconds (with automatic like the diesel engine) Combined fuel economy of 29.7 (British) mpg.

The diesel 3 series coupe is 30 kg heavier and probably runs more boost.

I'm honestly not quite sure what you are trying to say here, or what this proves. But maybe it's just me and I've missed your point (so forgive me if that's the case).

Let me just add to the figures you have presented:

BMW 330 petrol 50-75 mph in 4th gear 6.5 seconds
BMW 330 diesel 50-75 mph in 4th gear 4.9 seconds

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by Bentley03

Let me just add to the figures you have presented:

BMW 330 petrol 50-75 mph in 4th gear 6.5 seconds
BMW 330 diesel 50-75 mph in 4th gear 4.9 seconds

That is not correct.

BMW 335i SE 50-75 mph in 4th gear 5.2 seconds (manual)
BMW 335d SE automatic so impossible to select 4th gear

Of course very body knows you have to shift down with a petrol car to accelerate more quickly

[Bentley03]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

That is not correct.

BMW 335i SE 50-75 mph in 4th gear 5.2 seconds (manual)
BMW 335d SE automatic so impossible to select 4th gear

Of course very body knows you have to shift down with a petrol car to accelerate more quickly

I just knew I was wrong to get involved with that.........

[Bentley03]

Originally Posted by Bentley03

I just knew I was wrong to get involved with that.........

This is the page I was looking at.

[isynge]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

That is not correct.

BMW 335i SE 50-75 mph in 4th gear 5.2 seconds (manual)
BMW 335d SE automatic so impossible to select 4th gear

Of course very body knows you have to shift down with a petrol car to accelerate more quickly

This is so off topic as to be ridiculious - I genuinely don't know that a comparison between petrol and diesel road BMWs brings a huge amount to the debate, but just to put things to rest, the 335d has a "flappy paddle" gearshift system so holding it in fourth is utterly straightforward...

More to the point, in the post Laguna Seca awards banquet the Executive VP of Audi North America went clearly on record stating he believed that he was "still convinced that if someone is doing a proper sports prototype with a non-diesel engine we're in trouble."

It does rather boil down to the question as to whether the 2006 Pescarolo that appeared at Le Mans in June was the ultimate expression of what a petrol powered new-regs LMP1 can do. I don't think it is, and I don't think Henri thinks so either. Professional as his outfit is, the fact that they do all their aero work on a runway rather than a windtunnel sums up the disparity in resources quite neatly.

Given the debate so far, my feeling is that the rules are skewed in favour of diesels at present, but as I've said before in this thread - has the sky fallen in? Probably not...

[Bentley03]

Originally Posted by isynge

This is so off topic as to be ridiculious.....

More to the point, in the post Laguna Seca awards banquet the Executive VP of Audi North America went clearly on record stating he believed that he was "still convinced that if someone is doing a proper sports prototype with a non-diesel engine we're in trouble."

I'd agree with 'off topic' comment, but ho hum........

Those post Laguna comments must surely be taken in the context of Audi having to compete under current IMSA performance adjustments, 65kg heavier than the petrol P1's.

[old man]

Originally Posted by isynge

More to the point, in the post Laguna Seca awards banquet the Executive VP of Audi North America went clearly on record stating he believed that he was "still convinced that if someone is doing a proper sports prototype with a non-diesel engine we're in trouble."

.

He would say that, no point spending all that money and not actually beating antbody and I doubt we will see other manufacturers back at LM when they are all spending their development budgets in F1 so he needs Henri to be there with a few others just to look good. Peugeot will give him a run for his money but whoevere heard of a class with just 4 cars that gat any coverage? ..... what do say love, oh yes, sorry, I forgot that

[old man]

[quote=isynge]
More to the point, in the post Laguna Seca awards banquet the Executive VP of Audi North America went clearly on record stating he believed that he was "still convinced that if someone is doing a proper sports prototype with a non-diesel engine we're in trouble."


He would say! No point spending all that money with nobody to beat, he needs Hanri and a few others to make the whole thing worthwhile. Peugeot will give him a run for his money but whoever heard of a class with 4 cars getting good coverage? ....what did you say love?..... oh yes, I forgot that

[Fieldgate]

Originally Posted by isynge

It does rather boil down to the question as to whether the 2006 Pescarolo that appeared at Le Mans in June was the ultimate expression of what a petrol powered new-regs LMP1 can do. I don't think it is, and I don't think Henri thinks so either. Professional as his outfit is, the fact that they do all their aero work on a runway rather than a windtunnel sums up the disparity in resources quite neatly.

Given the debate so far, my feeling is that the rules are skewed in favour of diesels at present, but as I've said before in this thread - has the sky fallen in? Probably not...

The nice thing with Henri's runway testing though, is a) it's real scale (with real downforce/speed/drag data; and b) has a real person in the car who can provide feedback (like the inlet between the headrests buffets the drivers head too much).

The Radical too never saw a wind-tunnel, but was pretty good out the box. I think Peter's quotes in relation to the Bentley were "it was 95% off the drawing board and then 98% once it had been in the tunnel".

I suspect that the '07 Pesca will be faster, especially with the new Evo 5.5 Judd, but the disparity will still be there. The dataset that was originally presented to the ACO was "skewed" because of a potential engine contract that might have happened

However, Audi need to sell cars, I don't begrudge them or Peugeot from their activities. Personally, I still would rather hear engines scream and have David challenge Goliath - LeMans will still be a magic place.

[old man]

How about taking the restrictors out of GT2 engines and seeing how they do against GT1, any expert opionions?

[isynge]

Originally Posted by Fieldgate

The nice thing with Henri's runway testing though, is a) it's real scale (with real downforce/speed/drag data; and b) has a real person in the car who can provide feedback (like the inlet between the headrests buffets the drivers head too much).

The Radical too never saw a wind-tunnel, but was pretty good out the box. I think Peter's quotes in relation to the Bentley were "it was 95% off the drawing board and then 98% once it had been in the tunnel".

Fair, and personally I think Pescarolos approach adds tremedously to the romance of his campaign. Equally, a talented designer without a wind tunnel is always going to be preferable to an amateur with one. That said, would the extra three percent (to take Peter E's comment about the Bentley) go a long way towards making Pescarolo even more like a works outfit (as McNish described them this year). Point remains, Pescarolo were closest to the Audis this time round, they would have been closer had they had more budget to test and experiment.

Originally Posted by Fieldgate

The dataset that was originally presented to the ACO was "skewed" because of a potential engine contract that might have happened

Now things get interesting - you can't just cast something like this out there and not expect me to rise to it! Go on - where are the bodies buried!!??

[gwyllion]

What do you mean with "skewed" dataset?

Henri gave the ACO the numbers of the Judd GV5 S2 (so 640 hp) hoping that the ACO would decrease the diesel power (around 700 hp)? If he would then pick another engine (with more power) for the 2007 car (say AER or Cosworth), he could have a small advantage? The Audi V8 FSI produced 659 hp in 2002 (with the same restrictor size) and the AER P32 T V8 claims to produce 650+ hp as well. The Judd GV5 S2 just is not a state of the art petrol engine.

[old man]

Excellent engineers summary of diesel position on dsc, well done Malcolm, a bit depressing though!

We are left wondering what the ACO are up to? Perhaps nothing, just do not have the savvy to realise how far Audi will go to win and gain a lot of publicity on the others who are concentrating on F1 and so cannot compete at Le Mans.

Why should Henri and the others bother to turn up when we now know they have no chance, even if the diesels break down it would be a hollow victory, It is Audi or Peugeot otherwise

Why should we all turn up when we know the result, I suppose the other classes are still open, AM or GM in GT1, Porsche or Ferrari in GT2 and then whoever lasts in LMP2,

Good eh?

[old man]

Oh, I just remebered, LMP2, perhaps a Porsche will win that!

[JAG]

From the latest DSC article:-

'Do they expect Pescarolo or anyone else to gain that much by June next year? On his budget?'

Why focus on Pescarolo, surely the question should be, 'Could a Porsche, Honda, Totyta etc. petrol car compete with Audi next year?'

Lets face it, in the DSC article, the unamed engineer claims Peugeit haven't a chance to win next year, a manufactuer with diesel power, so why would a privateer have a chance, petrol or not?'

Diesels may well be out of reach for privateers, at this time, I won't say forever as I remmeber back in the day teams claiming customers could never afford to run F1 derived engines in Cat 1 Group C, these days dervivatives of those engines (Judd etc.) appear to be the most reliable and cost effectve.

Judds and the like always struggled against the turbo Audi, Toyota and Nissan, both in absolute power, torque and fuel economy, so I am amased so few have gone down the AER or Cosworth turbo route.

Again, not saying diesel does not have an advantage, just putting some alternative views forward.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Bentley03

I'd agree with 'off topic' comment, but ho hum........

Those post Laguna comments must surely be taken in the context of Audi having to compete under current IMSA performance adjustments, 65kg heavier than the petrol P1's.

Absolutely, and complaints of petrol teams must be taken in the context of Dyson, and Porsche, being beaten by a heavily restricted R8 earlier this season.

I have read that depite running a 15% smaller restrictor (than 2002 and new reg LMP1s) the R8's V8 FSI turbo was still producing around 580-600bhp ('official' figures for 2002 were 610bhp), so perhaps the turbo V8 had something in hand all these years, and a new factory turbo FSI V8 would have a very significant advantage over a Judd or Mugen atmo engine?

[JAG]

'I suppose the other classes are still open, AM or GM in GT1'

A FACTORY Aston or Corvette, no one seriously expects a privateer, with similar equipment, to stand a chance.

But we expect Pescarolo et al to compete, with their own chassis and non turbo engine, against Peugeot and Audi?

At Silverstone, Spa, Laguna, Road Atlanta etc. I'd expect top privateers to give the factory teams hell, I've never held similar expectations at Le Mans.

[paul-collins]

Originally Posted by JAG

From the latest DSC article:-

'Do they expect Pescarolo or anyone else to gain that much by June next year? On his budget?'

Why focus on Pescarolo, surely the question should be, 'Could a Porsche, Honda, Totyta etc. petrol car compete with Audi next year?'

Lets face it, in the DSC article, the unamed engineer claims Peugeit haven't a chance to win next year, a manufactuer with diesel power, so why would a privateer have a chance, petrol or not?'

Don't mix up a comparison between a new team and an advanced team (Peugeot vs Audi) with a comparison between a favoured and non-favoured technology (diesel vs petrol).

The engineer is saying that Peugeot is behind the eight ball, and that - particularly with the level of technical detail required to run the diesel efficiently, they're not going to catch Audi - this year. Next year, who knows?

He's also saying that, no matter what you throw at a petrol engine, it's just not going to beat a diesel under the current rules regimen. Ever.

I'm going to suggest - right now - that, with Peugeot pushing Audi next year, someone is going to set a 3:26 race lap.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by JAG

I have read that depite running a 15% smaller restrictor (than 2002 and new reg LMP1s) the R8's V8 FSI turbo was still producing around 580-600bhp ('official' figures for 2002 were 610bhp), so perhaps the turbo V8 had something in hand all these years, and a new factory turbo FSI V8 would have a very significant advantage over a Judd or Mugen atmo engine?

According to http://www.mulsannescorner.com/audir8-01.html the power output of the V8 FSI turbo officially was 625 hp in 2002 and 520 hp in 2005.

580*1.15 = 667 and 600*1.15 = 690 So it is safe to assume that a factory turbo petrol engine could produce in the 670-680 region. But this is still at least 30 hp less than what the Audi TDI will produce next year (with some further development); and Audi will manage to get the weight of the R10 down to the minimum.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by paul-collins

Don't mix up a comparison between a new team and an advanced team (Peugeot vs Audi) with a comparison between a favoured and non-favoured technology (diesel vs petrol).

The engineer is saying that Peugeot is behind the eight ball, and that - particularly with the level of technical detail required to run the diesel efficiently, they're not going to catch Audi - this year. Next year, who knows?

He's also saying that, no matter what you throw at a petrol engine, it's just not going to beat a diesel under the current rules regimen. Ever.

I'm going to suggest - right now - that, with Peugeot pushing Audi next year, someone is going to set a 3:26 race lap.

Aren't we making assumptions the regs will never change, even Henri acknoweldges in his statement the ACO now realise there is an issue and will deal with it, though this may only be in 2008.

No one could ever have imagined Audi could do such a great job with diesel technology, they haven't missed a beat.

Diesels have enourmous potential, but there were big question marks over reliabilty this year, maybe in 2007, if pushed. But we didn't see a factory petrol car push the Audis, the closest we got was a Penske P2 car.

A diesel run to its full potential in 2006 , to beat a factory petrol car, may have had reliabilty issues. By 2008 these could have been resolved, but by that time diesel regs will be more restrictive than today.

[isynge]

A couple of genuinely interesting further takes on the issue on DSC from Serge Saulnier and Phil Bennett. Saulnier's comments come across as being a touch corporately loyal to Peugeot and smack of pre-emptive self defence re any performance expectations, however Bennett makes the very fair point that without the manufacturers you run the very real risk of an LMP1 implosion much like we often get in LMP2. From this light it's fair to argue that the ACO needs Audi (and Peugeot) and encouraging diesel and having reasonable rules stability is important.

I'm not sure I 100% agree (which actually could go for all the formal team statements so far) but it's a genuinely interesting and thought provoking piece.