Dome LMP Discussion

[CTD]

Originally Posted by TF110

That's what I'm getting at. Audi don't need an outside partner, neither do Peugeot. But they'd best be partnered with them to take advantage of their experience in pit-stops and strategy calls etc. This is what Toyota did with Oreca, they didn't leave the car building to them. That's how your comment came off. Like Toyota would be lost without them.

Well, If Toyota wants success next year, well then they NEED Oreca!
Your point is very true!, and if you want quick success you need an experienced team, and that is why Toyota NEED Oreca.

Originally Posted by TF110

@CTD; About DOME- Mike further says that they anticipated a long-term involvement with Toyota, but that fell apart. So there goes the subject. The specifics aren't that important. Toyota could do well with them, or without them. And now it's the latter DOME seems disappointed and claims 'revenge'. But they never spoke those words. So this seems to be blown out of proportion. They don't even intend to challenge for the win, just to show off their pace.

Toyota has never build a LMP car (mind that TS020 was a GT1 and TS010 was Grp. C), therefor hiring a company with a lot of experience with LMP cars can give you experience without having to face it with our own Brand on the car.
What Toyota did with the Dome.

In the way of business there is nothing wrong with the way Toyota have treated Dome. But there is no doubt in my mind that Dome wants to shove something in Toyotas (ei. revenge). It might not be overall victory, but beating them in Qualification is enough. (remember the Japanese always went for pole in the 80's).
The whole discussion is very vague, and comes down to how you define their "need", and what deal there was between Toyota and Dome.

I, personally, is a fan of manufactures joining in openly, like Peugeot did, and even Audi. The way Toyota has done, by starting with several partners, and ending up with a surprisingly third, is not something i enjoy, as you risk ruining teams (fx Dome). If they at least had done like Audi did, and chosen an open route where they know it was do-or-die. (R8C vs. R8R)

[DeathOrGlory]

Did RTN develop the R8C and Audi Sport and Joest develop the R8R?

[The Badger]

Richard Lloyd developed the C , under Audi Sport UK banner . Joest did the R8R .

[isynge]

Originally Posted by CTD

Well, If Toyota wants success next year, well then they NEED Oreca!
Your point is very true!, and if you want quick success you need an experienced team, and that is why Toyota NEED Oreca.

Toyota has never build a LMP car (mind that TS020 was a GT1 and TS010 was Grp. C), therefor hiring a company with a lot of experience with LMP cars can give you experience without having to face it with our own Brand on the car.
What Toyota did with the Dome.

In the way of business there is nothing wrong with the way Toyota have treated Dome. But there is no doubt in my mind that Dome wants to shove something in Toyotas (ei. revenge). It might not be overall victory, but beating them in Qualification is enough. (remember the Japanese always went for pole in the 80's).
The whole discussion is very vague, and comes down to how you define their "need", and what deal there was between Toyota and Dome.

I, personally, is a fan of manufactures joining in openly, like Peugeot did, and even Audi. The way Toyota has done, by starting with several partners, and ending up with a surprisingly third, is not something i enjoy, as you risk ruining teams (fx Dome). If they at least had done like Audi did, and chosen an open route where they know it was do-or-die. (R8C vs. R8R)

I think to get to the bottom of this we probably need to think about the slightly unusual nature of Dome as an organisation. My understanding is that they're an automotive consultancy first and foremost, and a "race team" only as an adjunct to this when it makes sense for them.

In this light I can see it as quite likely that they had some work from Toyota over the past months in carrying out design studies and providing the expertise that comes from more recent experience at Le Mans. It's clear that this consulting engagement has now come to an end, and Dome, having made statements that their Le Mans involvement was over (suspect there may be a considerable back story behind this slightly unusual tale), now wants something to re-establish their credentials as top line consultants with particular expertise in Le Mans prototypes.

Is this revenge in mind? I prefer to see it as Dome having a point to prove, with more than half an eye on 2014.

Either way, it's great that it's catalysed another appearance from the S102 - rescuing it from the melancholy list of "sportscars that just raced once".

[TF110]

Wow, that doesn't make much sense, CTD. They never built an LMP before so they needed outside consultants? lol, nah... They never built an F1 car either but achieved that. Vasselon even states the F1 experience helped them with their LMP project. They don't need Dome nor Oreca to tell them how to make an LMP. Dome, good luck, hope you're fast and reliable. What they have to do with Toyota is done. Lets just move on to their project.

[Dead-Eye]

Originally Posted by TF110

Wow, that doesn't make much sense, CTD. They never built an LMP before so they needed outside consultants? lol, nah... They never built an F1 car either but achieved that.

They did, but not a good one. That took a couple of years.

[aneesh99]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

They did, but not a good one. That took a couple of years.

On the money. The fact of the matter is that Toyota have not built a car to LMP regs, and if they want to be running near the front in such a short space of time then they do need Oreca. Not a bad thing though, it's not as if Audi jumped in without help, and look where they are now!

[gwyllion]

The latest edition of Autohebdo has some updates from Pescarolo. http://endurance-info.com/version2/f...207802#p207802 gives a short summary.

The following test sessions are planned for the Dome:

• March 7: shakedown on aerodrome of Châteauroux
• April 3-4: test at Navarra
• April 10: test at Motorland Aragon

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by Japanese Samurai

S102.5's new front fender

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but this picture highlights the differences between the S102 and the S102.5.


You can clearly see that the Judd V8 is 10 cm shorter than the V10 and perhaps a tiny bit wider because of its larger V angle (90° vs 72°).

Also note that the front fenders are not only wider, but also a bit higher! One of the Audi drivers already pointed out that this will make the visibility issues even worse:

We sit quite low and the chassis is quite large, so it’s hard. I’ll give you an example: last year, to see a right-hand apex, I had to look through the louvres on the wheel arches; but this year the rules mandate a higher wheel arch, so it’s going to be worse. So I don’t really agree with the rules.

source: http://www.dailysportscar.com/viewAr...39A784A2F4EC73

[TF110]

Most of the dimensions are basically the same. The new rear wing, front fenders, and engine look to be the biggest differences.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but this picture highlights the differences between the S102 and the S102.5.


You can clearly see that the Judd V8 is 10 cm shorter than the V10 and perhaps a tiny bit wider because of its larger V angle (90° vs 72°).

Also note that the front fenders are not only wider, but also a bit higher! One of the Audi drivers already pointed out that this will make the visibility issues even worse:
source: http://www.dailysportscar.com/viewAr...39A784A2F4EC73

Very confused about the comment stating the front fenders are higher because of regulations! They are not, no dimensional regulation governs the fenders.

[kober]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

Very confused about the comment stating the front fenders are higher because of regulations! They are not, no dimensional regulation governs the fenders.

It looks like all the 2012 LMP designs have the top/peak of the front fender curve/arc moved, if not up, slightly to the forepart of the car (i.e. ahead of the front axle), thus making the front visibility angle a little bit narrower. I'd blame the BHH, because it seems that the designers tried to hide the front BHH in the "slipstream" of the top/peak of the fender arc/curve. So, even if it's not in the regulations, it might be due to them.

PS. Sorry for my vocabulary, but hopefully you guys got the idea

[cmk]

In this case it seems simply to do with the greater front tyre diameter in the 102.5 vs. the 102.

[Aysedasi]

I don't want to take this too far O/T, but humour someone whose knowledge of the technical side of things has always been limited - what is the reason for mandating higher arches?

[Wims]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

They did, but not a good one. That took a couple of years.

They did build a very good car in 2009, and with competent drivers they would have won races. I'm confident that somebody like Alonso would have won multiple races for Toyota in 2009. Trulli and Glock isnt exactly championship material, but the car itself was excellent. Toyota did of course spend a lot of time before they reached that level, but then again the competition in F1 is far, far higher than the competition in sportscars. And they would certainly be able to build off the F1 expertise and experience when they designed an LMP and a race team. But I dont know if they would be able to challenge for LM win in their first year. I dont think many organisations would be able to do that, not even somebody like Red Bull Racing

[TF110]

Red Bull spends huge amounts of money. Their owner is a billionaire and drops lots cash into F1. It's good though for marketing anyway. I don't know how newey would fare in modern LMP's. Probably pretty well. I think he's way too hyped up though. I don't know what this has to do with DOME tbh.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by cmk

In this case it seems simply to do with the greater front tyre diameter in the 102.5 vs. the 102.

You are right. The front tyres of the S102 (2008) were 31/68-18, whereas the new Michelin fronts are now 36/71-18. That means an increase in diameter of 3 cm and in width of 5 cm.

[TF110]

So a larger profile tire?

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by TF110

So a larger profile tire?

Yes, the same rim size (18 inch) but a bigger tyre diameter (71 cm = 68 cm + 3 cm) and a larger tyre width (36 cm = 31 cm + 5 cm).

[TF110]

I realize the wide fronts are on the 102.5 but the larger tire profile is news to me. Wonder why this is? New tire compound or design? More durable? I also wonder if the tire size (diameter) is the same on the other P1's?

[templer]

The car is built up but still not featuring the new bodywork - no honking holes and no new front fenders

twitter.com/#!/dome_hayashi/status/177265137370136577/photo/1

[templer]

http://www.twitter.com/#!/dome_hayas...136577/photo/1

[NelisB]

Originally Posted by templer

The car is built up but still not featuring the new bodywork - no honking holes and no new front fenders

twitter.com/#!/dome_hayashi/status/177265137370136577/photo/1

[NelisB]

Is there a reason Dome isn't using the fin with a swanneck build in instead of 2 independent swannecks and the fin?

[gwyllion]

The rear of the car is probably not designed for a single wing mount. Peugeot also had this problem with last years 908. See http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/pic/4...ot-908_27.html