Home Mobile Forum News Cookbook FaceBook Us T-Shirts etc.: Europe/Worldwide. eBay Motorsport Links Advertising  
Site Partners: SpotterGuides Veloce Books  
Related Sites: Your Link Here  

Go Back   TenTenths Motorsport Forum > Saloon & Sportscar Racing > Sportscar & GT Racing > ACO Regulated Series


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 19 Oct 2006, 17:19 (Ref:1742292)   #16
jhansen
Veteran
 
jhansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
United States
California
Posts: 6,699
jhansen should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridjhansen should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridjhansen should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
To those of you that are partaking in the diesel conspiracy punch...show me the evidence that the diesel cars have a true speed advantage.

The R8s were spanking the Pescarolos in terms of outright pace at Le Mans in 2004 (I'm excluding '05 for obvious reasons even though they won regardless). The R10s then spanked the Pescarolos in terms of outright pace at Le Mans in 2006 and this surprises people? Not to mention, the Pescarolo is only a hybrid at this point and not even a true P1 car.

Are you honestly telling me that if a manufacturer came into the picture with a petrol car that was engineered on the scale of the R8 that it would not be competitive? I call B.S. on that.
jhansen is offline  
__________________
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein
Quote
Old 19 Oct 2006, 18:52 (Ref:1742356)   #17
JAG
Veteran
 
JAG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
England
Posts: 10,500
JAG should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridJAG should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridJAG should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silk Cut Jaguar
Why would anyone bother to run a petrol P1 any more? The only place to be competitive is for them all to pack up and enter the ALMS as the LMS is bound to be an Audi/Peugeot white wash.

It's a shame the Audi domination has scared the other companies into going the P2 route, which is only going to end up hurting the dedicated privateers with Acura and Porsche duking it out in 2007. It's curious that the ACO still thinks P2 is for private teams yet does nothing to protect them from getting whomped by a richly backed factory outfit.
Because the only time a factory petrol car has been up against the R10, the Porsche RS Spyder, it's been a match all down the line.

65kg ballast in favour of petrol cars in the ALMS is not insignificant by any means, but I am 100% convinced Dysons increased competitiveness is 70/30 car development/performance breaks. FIA GT has shown cars with upto 100kg success ballast are very competitive.

Zytek and Creation both flew away from the R10's at PLM, with the extra weight I'm quessing they would have be toe to toe with the R10's, which lets not forget is a massive achievment being privater vs factory, diesel or not.

I'm extremely pleased the ACO have shown they are happy with 2006 Le Mans speeds/times, seeing as they were very quick, even into the 3.32s during the race. Apparently it will only be when cars dip below 3.30, consistently, during the race that speeds will be brought back.
JAG is offline  
Quote
Old 19 Oct 2006, 18:55 (Ref:1742358)   #18
JAG
Veteran
 
JAG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
England
Posts: 10,500
JAG should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridJAG should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridJAG should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddsc
Very. Quote: "None of us will say anything because we want an entry next year."
If teams matched Audi at their pitstops and reliabilty the R10 would have been beaten at least twice, possibly three times this season already.
JAG is offline  
Quote
Old 19 Oct 2006, 19:00 (Ref:1742360)   #19
JAG
Veteran
 
JAG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
England
Posts: 10,500
JAG should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridJAG should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridJAG should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fogelhund
I hope that Audi paid well for these regulations.
I hope Creation, Dyson and Zytek spend a little more cash improving reliabilty and pitstops, maybe then they can turn proven speed into race wins.

Races have been handed to each team on a plate this season, each time a factor other than pace has denied them victory.

It's too easy to blame increased diesel power for the R10's dominance, a horrendously restricted R8 embarrased Dyson and Porsche earlier in the season.
JAG is offline  
Quote
Old 19 Oct 2006, 20:00 (Ref:1742403)   #20
jhansen
Veteran
 
jhansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
United States
California
Posts: 6,699
jhansen should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridjhansen should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridjhansen should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
It's too easy to blame increased diesel power for the R10's dominance, a horrendously restricted R8 embarrased Dyson and Porsche earlier in the season.
Not to mention a win at Le Mans in 2005 against the hybrid Pescarolos.

Audi could have easily engineered the R10 around the petrol FSI bi-turbo and been just as fast. I'm with you on this one JAG.

The ACO have it right. Instead of doing performance adjustments at the drop of a hat (ahem, IMSA/ALMS), they're taking a measured stance. The diesel's fuel capacity was the only real choice given the available petrol P1 data in terms of pace.

Last edited by jhansen; 19 Oct 2006 at 20:02.
jhansen is offline  
__________________
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein
Quote
Old 19 Oct 2006, 21:11 (Ref:1742450)   #21
JAG
Veteran
 
JAG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
England
Posts: 10,500
JAG should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridJAG should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridJAG should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
Lets see what the petrol opposition have in their locker.

If they lose because they're massively off the pace, the season adjustments twice a season will kick in.

If they lose due to poor pitstops, reliabilty and accidents, hard luck.
JAG is offline  
Quote
Old 19 Oct 2006, 21:34 (Ref:1742470)   #22
AU N EGL
Veteran
 
AU N EGL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
United States
Raleigh, North Carolina
Posts: 4,418
AU N EGL should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridAU N EGL should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Isn't the diesel fuel that the R10 runs and possiblly the new Pegeut will run much different then the diesel fuel that cars and trucks run in Europe??

Not all diesel fuels are the same. Same as race fuel, not the same as normal fuel.

European diesel fuel is much cleaner the diesel fuel on the western side of the Atlantic.

Plus when ever the Audi R10 races in the states they Shell or Audie must bring the diesel fuel from europe. The states does not have that specialty blend.

Maybe the FIA and ACO should say the diesel fuel must be the same grade as what cars and trucks use. and the normal fuel must also be the same grade as the high octane normal fuels.
AU N EGL is offline  
__________________
"When the fear of death out weighs the thrill of speed, brake." LG
Quote
Old 19 Oct 2006, 22:08 (Ref:1742493)   #23
Bentley03
Race Official
Veteran
 
Bentley03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
United Kingdom
Posts: 5,757
Bentley03 will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameBentley03 will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameBentley03 will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameBentley03 will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameBentley03 will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameBentley03 will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameBentley03 will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameBentley03 will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameBentley03 will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Fame
Sorry, I'm just not buying the 'wait and see' line of thinking on this matter any more. We learnt ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING we needed to know about the differences in performance between petrol and diesel LMP1's at Le Mans this year. It was a complete mismatch. Audi blatantly sandbagging at the Test Day, and again in qualifying. They actually turned up the boost for the race itself, not down. God only knows what they could have achieved in qualifying had they actually bothered to try. The incredible amount of downforce they applied to their setup was easily compensated for by the massive amount of torque produced by the engine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
Lets see what the petrol opposition have in their locker.
The petrol P1's have NOTHING left in their locker. The question we should be asking is what have Audi got left in their locker?

I find this announcement to be utterly scandalous. It's a very, very sad day for ACO rules racing and I feel incredibly sorry for Henri, Shorty, Jankowski/Bicks and all of our passionate, dedicated LMP1 teams who invest so much time, money and effort whilst providing us with such gripping entertainment.

I'm utterly, utterly gobsmacked by such blatant bias towards Audi and Peugeot. Monsieur Poissenot and his henchmen should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
Bentley03 is offline  
Quote
Old 19 Oct 2006, 22:43 (Ref:1742526)   #24
jhansen
Veteran
 
jhansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
United States
California
Posts: 6,699
jhansen should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridjhansen should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridjhansen should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bentley03
The petrol P1's have NOTHING left in their locker. The question we should be asking is what have Audi got left in their locker?
You're kidding right? Let's run through Audi's opposition from Le Mans:

2 Pescarolo Hydrids w/ Judd Power
2 Courage LC70s w/ Mugen Power
1 Courage LC70 w/ Judd Power
1 Dome Hybrid w/ Judd Power
1 Creation Hybrid w/ Judd Power
1 Zytek Hybrid w/ Zytek Power
1 Lola B06/10 w/ AER Power
1 Lister Hybrid w/ Chevy Power

Out of those ten only four are real P1 cars. Out of those ten, only one is a petrol turbo car. With the exception of Pescarolo, all are very small teams, and even Pescarolo is small by comparison to Audi.

Some other factors to consider. We have not seen a well developed turbo car face the R10. I don't know if Dyson's AER is up to snuff yet, but then again we can't tell because it's running very light. And that's another thing, thanks to IMSA/ALMS the data gathered in North America is worthless because they've altered the rules.

So, back to Le Mans. As I pointed out earlier, Pescarolo lost out to Audi before, no surprise that they'd lose out to Audi again. The atmo V8s and V10s will always have trouble against a well sorted turbo car despite the fuel it uses given the current restrictor rules. Not to mention, the consumption aint there. And the Zytek car wasn't quick at Le Mans prior to becoming a hybrid, so why would it be now?

Has anyone considered that Lola got it wrong? Maybe the new LC70 aint that hot either. Maybe the AER turbo isn't great. Some of you are asking the ACO to make rules interpretations based on laughable data at best.
jhansen is offline  
__________________
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein
Quote
Old 19 Oct 2006, 22:55 (Ref:1742534)   #25
JAG
Veteran
 
JAG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
England
Posts: 10,500
JAG should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridJAG should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridJAG should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bentley03
Sorry, I'm just not buying the 'wait and see' line of thinking on this matter any more. We learnt ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING we needed to know about the differences in performance between petrol and diesel LMP1's at Le Mans this year. It was a complete mismatch. Audi blatantly sandbagging at the Test Day, and again in qualifying. They actually turned up the boost for the race itself, not down. God only knows what they could have achieved in qualifying had they actually bothered to try. The incredible amount of downforce they applied to their setup was easily compensated for by the massive amount of torque produced by the engine.

The petrol P1's have NOTHING left in their locker. The question we should be asking is what have Audi got left in their locker?

I find this announcement to be utterly scandalous. It's a very, very sad day for ACO rules racing and I feel incredibly sorry for Henri, Shorty, Jankowski/Bicks and all of our passionate, dedicated LMP1 teams who invest so much time, money and effort whilst providing us with such gripping entertainment.

I'm utterly, utterly gobsmacked by such blatant bias towards Audi and Peugeot. Monsieur Poissenot and his henchmen should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
Dyson, Creation and Zytek should all have beaten Audi at PLM, but failed for reasons other than performance.

Dyson should also have won at least one previous round.

I know I'm being harsh, but how can we take seriously *****ing from teams who lose 15-20 seconds to Audi at pitstops, have to change tyres every stop because they miscalculated how many stints they could do, or run cars that simply breakdown?

If an Audi wins Laguna it will be down to a problem from the petrol cars.

All this with only 65kg ballast, which is little when you consider how competitive Corvette (saddled with huge ballast and restrictor cuts) has been against Aston, and how the top FIA GT cars always compete at the head of the field, even when they have 100kg ballast.

Audi may well have more in their locker, but until someone pushes them regularly, we won't know.

It's telling when Audi have been pushed in recent races, they haven't stepped up a gear and responded.

Unfortunately the opposition took themselves out of the race before Audi were threatened!

Last edited by JAG; 19 Oct 2006 at 23:02.
JAG is offline  
Quote
Old 19 Oct 2006, 22:59 (Ref:1742536)   #26
Aerodynamic
Rookie
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 83
Aerodynamic should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhansen
And the Zytek car wasn't quick at Le Mans prior to becoming a hybrid, so why would it be now?
Ahem, cough cough splutter splutter

anyone here remember 2004......a really highdownforce Zytek 04s - ummmm............. P3 anybody........cough cough -

3:33.923 at Le Mans.

Not fast at all was it Hansen? - get your facts right.

These regs are literally laughable - We need to create new classes, those with Mr P and the ACO on their paylist and those without...........
Aerodynamic is offline  
Quote
Old 19 Oct 2006, 23:05 (Ref:1742537)   #27
JAG
Veteran
 
JAG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
England
Posts: 10,500
JAG should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridJAG should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridJAG should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
The regs are undeniably in favour of petrol cars in the ALMS, but no one has taken advantage.

Maybe that tells you all you need to know about the quality of the teams and what is really required to beat Audi, i.e. much more than a quick car.
JAG is offline  
Quote
Old 19 Oct 2006, 23:07 (Ref:1742539)   #28
JAG
Veteran
 
JAG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
England
Posts: 10,500
JAG should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridJAG should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridJAG should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerodynamic
Ahem, cough cough splutter splutter

anyone here remember 2004......a really highdownforce Zytek 04s - ummmm............. P3 anybody........cough cough -

3:33.923 at Le Mans.

Not fast at all was it Hansen? - get your facts right.

These regs are literally laughable - We need to create new classes, those with Mr P and the ACO on their paylist and those without...........

Is that the car that went backwards once the race started?

Again, not a serious Le Mans challenger.

The new reg, full P1 may well be, put they only gained real pace post Le Mans.
JAG is offline  
Quote
Old 19 Oct 2006, 23:07 (Ref:1742540)   #29
jhansen
Veteran
 
jhansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
United States
California
Posts: 6,699
jhansen should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridjhansen should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridjhansen should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
Let me further underline my point. I just don't see how you can look at engine rule changes based on the competition between a sportscar giant like Audi and a handful of privateers, some with new cars. Now, if it had been Porsche and Penske entering a P1 car this year instead of a P2 car, and they had been soundly beat like a drum, then I can see how the rules might need to be adjusted.
jhansen is offline  
__________________
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein
Quote
Old 19 Oct 2006, 23:08 (Ref:1742541)   #30
jhansen
Veteran
 
jhansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
United States
California
Posts: 6,699
jhansen should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridjhansen should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridjhansen should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerodynamic
Ahem, cough cough splutter splutter

anyone here remember 2004......a really highdownforce Zytek 04s - ummmm............. P3 anybody........cough cough -

3:33.923 at Le Mans.

Not fast at all was it Hansen? - get your facts right.

These regs are literally laughable - We need to create new classes, those with Mr P and the ACO on their paylist and those without...........
What place was the Zytek in by the end of Lap 1 hmmm??? Answer, please?
jhansen is offline  
__________________
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein
Quote
Reply

Bookmarks




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ACO regulations for 2006 released Alistair_Ryder ACO Regulated Series 96 14 Nov 2006 07:10
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


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:04.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Original Website Copyright © 1998-2003 Craig Antil. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2004-2018 Royalridge Computing. All Rights Reserved.