Coupes from 2010

[Flat12-Aircool]

Originally Posted by JAG

It's not just tyres, every area of a car develops over time, if anything aero more than most. It's only aero that will change significantly in 2010.

Current P1's lap as quick as the quickest Group C cars, yet build a Group C car using modern knowhow and it would be many seconds quicker than a P1.

If anything endurance cars have more to gain than sprint cars as reliability is ever improving, so designers can push endurance cars to their limits.

Yes but you're doing it again, you're now recalling all the gains that have been made over the past 20 years since Group C. The same gains are not going to be made over the next 20 years as happened in the last 20 years, just face up to it.

Unless in 2010 they enlarge all the restrictor limits then a 2010 Coupe will be slower than an LMP1.

[Mike_Wooshy]

No but the rules allow engineers to explore diffrent areas of car to gain an advantage.
NOW as you say we might be coming to the high of current tyre development, BUT as someone said dont underestimate the engineers, if there is an advantage to be made then engineers will maxiumise it best they can. Advancedments in technology across the Motorsport spectrum WILL bring laptimes down to around the 3.30 mark at Le Mans. to add I have to say Life changes, things evolve and the weak die out. Motorsport is no diffrent.

[Mal]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

So it should be?
P-1 petrol coupes and spyders =2
P-1 alternative coupes and spyders =2
P-2 petrol coupes and spyders =2
P-2 alternative coupes and spyders =_2_
= 8

That should really make the races more fan freindly!

Instead of say?
P-1 coupes petrol and alternative
P-2 spyders petrol and maybe alternative in the future

L.P.

Why do spyders and coupes have to be in separate classes? I see no reason why they shouldnt run in the same class. Also diesels and petrol cars effective run in separate classes now as they run to different rules.

I didnt say anything about alternative fuels in P2.

[Flat12-Aircool]

Originally Posted by Mal

Why do spyders and coupes have to be in separate classes? I see no reason why they shouldnt run in the same class.

Several reasons...

Firstly if Coupe rules are equal to a Spyder as they are now, then almost everyone builds a Spyder because they are cheaper to build and maintain. Also, Coupes look a little more like the cars most people buy and if correctly regulated can contain more "Manufactorer signatures" which in turn attracts more Car companies to the sport which brings more money etc.

So to prevent a situation where a cheaply built privateer LMP1 Spyder can consistently beat a Manufactorer LMP1 Coupe but not create a extra "sub-class", the ACO will make LMP1's Coupe and LMP2's Spyder.

Other reasons are that Coupes simply look a whole lot better, and it makes viewing easier for fans and more importantly potential "New" fans that the LMP1 and LMP2 classes will actually look different to each other.

[duke_toaster]

I know sod all about engineering and LMPs, and this is a stupid and/or nooby question, but here goes.

Is it possible to modify a current LMP to be a closed top? There were closed and open versions of the Audi R8 when it was launched (the R8R and R8C). Maybe this would resolve the situation (to be fair, it wouldn't be too competitive until they tweak it but I guess it could work as a temporary measure).

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Flat12-Aircool

Yes but you're doing it again, you're now recalling all the gains that have been made over the past 20 years since Group C. The same gains are not going to be made over the next 20 years as happened in the last 20 years, just face up to it.

Unless in 2010 they enlarge all the restrictor limits then a 2010 Coupe will be slower than an LMP1.

Build a 2010 coupe today and it will likely be 4 or so seconds slower than an R10. With 3 years development it should be as quick as an R10.

The R10 would see similar gains BUT it is already close to the 3.30 race pace limit (this may be achieved in 2007), so will be subject to further restriction upto 2010 to keep it's race pace at 3.30 or above.

So theorectically a 2010 R10 could have smaller restrictors and more weight than an all new 2010 coupe, so the coupes would gain in these areas, leading to similar lap times.

You only need to look at the Sebing test to see how the RS Spyders have gained 1 second plus a lap in 12 months, despite a 5% smaller restrictor (I doubt it has 5% less power due to development).

[Speed-King]

IMHO they should stick to the width of windshield = width of rear wing formula, they talked about when they first mentioned the coupes.
So no windshield= no wing.

[Flat12-Aircool]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

IMHO they should stick to the width of windshield = width of rear wing formula, they talked about when they first mentioned the coupes.
So no windshield= no wing.

The problem with that rule is it's a recipe for Grand-Am look-a-likes.

[Speed-King]

Ummm... DPs have full-car-width rear wings

[Flat12-Aircool]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

Ummm... DPs have full-car-width rear wings

Thats not what I was getting at.

If the rule is that the rear wing matches the windscreen, then teams will be tempted to max-out their cockpit size in order to get a larger rear wing.

Large cockpits = Grand Am =

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

I know sod all about engineering and LMPs, and this is a stupid and/or nooby question, but here goes.

Is it possible to modify a current LMP to be a closed top? There were closed and open versions of the Audi R8 when it was launched (the R8R and R8C). Maybe this would resolve the situation (to be fair, it wouldn't be too competitive until they tweak it but I guess it could work as a temporary measure).

No. Peter Elleray went into detail in the article he wrote for Race Tech magazine, August issue. Long and short is that given the regulations governing the door opening on a closed top car and the high sided nature of a open top car (driver essentially drops in from the top), you'd need to essentially cut holes in the sides of your open top tub to fit the doors! And given the loads the roof of the closed top car must handle for its crash test, you'd be inclinded to design your closed top tub in a very different way than an open topper. So its no simply matter to drop a roll cage onto the open top tub and viola closed top car. Just wont work like that. Indeed Elleray addresses the R8C saying, essentially, that the R8C's tub wasn't anything like a open top tub, visually or structurally.

[chernaudi]

And, thought not impossible, it's highly unprobable that such a vehicle would exhist. In order to make the change over, you'd need at least a partial re-tub. And the cost of that is about the same as converting an LMP 900 car to a true LMP1-basically an econominc improbabiliy, and you'd probably be better off buying a new car at that rate.

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by Flat12-Aircool

Thats not what I was getting at.

If the rule is that the rear wing matches the windscreen, then teams will be tempted to max-out their cockpit size in order to get a larger rear wing.

Large cockpits = Grand Am =

Or with a mid-90s GT-look. The cockpits of the Porsche 911GT1 for example wasn't that narrow either. I think it would lead to a more GT-like look. The "problem"(I actualy like the Doran and the Crawford) with the DP-cockpits is their heigth not their width....

[isynge]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

No. Peter Elleray went into detail in the article he wrote for Race Tech magazine, August issue. Long and short is that given the regulations governing the door opening on a closed top car and the high sided nature of a open top car (driver essentially drops in from the top), you'd need to essentially cut holes in the sides of your open top tub to fit the doors! And given the loads the roof of the closed top car must handle for its crash test, you'd be inclinded to design your closed top tub in a very different way than an open topper. So its no simply matter to drop a roll cage onto the open top tub and viola closed top car. Just wont work like that. Indeed Elleray addresses the R8C saying, essentially, that the R8C's tub wasn't anything like a open top tub, visually or structurally.

Appreciating that (a) this was a long time ago, (b) the world's very different now, and (c) the car wasn't the most competitive thing out there, does anyone know how did Joest address some of the problems in 1982 with the 936C?

[canam]

Looking at the Pug solution, the tub sides may actually be a bit higher than an open car and the bodywork (if they need to) and 'door' just pull away for the the driver to get out. Appears to be an interesting solution. It would be good to see it in the 'flesh'.

On the other hand, whatever happened in 1982 bears little resemblance to today. The 936 was essentially a space frame (and a frighteningly unprotective one) with none of the 'crash' testing requirements that makes today's cars so safe. Take one look a the front suspension of the 908/3 (the predecessor to the 936) and it would make you shudder. Not only could you touch the front wheels from your seat, a 5 mph shunt could cripple you for life.

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

Or with a mid-90s GT-look. The cockpits of the Porsche 911GT1 for example wasn't that narrow either. I think it would lead to a more GT-like look. The "problem"(I actualy like the Doran and the Crawford) with the DP-cockpits is their heigth not their width....

DEF agree with you there, glad a decent team is running a crawford so they might have a shot again this year. AJR was FLYING last Daytona but got too far behind

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Flat12-Aircool

Thats not what I was getting at.

If the rule is that the rear wing matches the windscreen, then teams will be tempted to max-out their cockpit size in order to get a larger rear wing.

Large cockpits = Grand Am =

Or narrower cockpit to reduce drag.

I actually prefare the wide cockpits of traditinal Group C cars and GT1's such as the R390, CLK-GTR/LM/CLR and 911 GT1's.

[dj choc ice]

Originally Posted by JAG

Or narrower cockpit to reduce drag.

I actually prefare the wide cockpits of traditinal Group C cars and GT1's such as the R390, CLK-GTR/LM/CLR and 911 GT1's.

the same here i loved the looks of the group C cars, the GT1 cars look quite tame compared to today's modern LMP car's but are much more elegant.

personally i think the ACO have set out the rules, now all they need to do is leave them, dont tinker with them and go all pedantic, LEAVE THEM THE WAY THEY WILL BE WHEN THE RULES CHANGE IN 2010!!!

[duke_toaster]

The ideal solution to the future of prototypes is to give the LMP2's bigger holes in their air restrictors and merge them with the LMP1's (now LMP(I) and LMP(II). )

This would cut costs and make some interesting battles between the "big boys" and the smaller 2 litre turbo LMP2's.

[JAG]

The best option would be to get Porsche and Acura out of P2 as soon as possible.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by JAG

The best option would be to get Porsche and Acura out of P2 as soon as possible.

I agree they should move to P-1 as soon as possible.

L.P.

[Flat12-Aircool]

Which will only happen when the R10/908 Oil burners get their wings clipped.

[chewymonster]

Originally Posted by Flat12-Aircool

Which will only happen when the R10/908 Oil burners get their wings clipped.

Or either team actually attempts to make a factory P1. I am sure that either team can make a P1 that is quicker than their P2s. Before that happens everything else is just speculation without any concrete data.

We will see how the Swiss Spirit Audi Lola (Audi R8 gasoline engine) will do compared to the other competition (diesel/especially Peugeot)

[paul-collins]

Per Peter Elleray in this post

http://tentenths.com/forum/showpost....&postcount=103

they are no longer considering mandating coupes.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by paul-collins

Per Peter Elleray in this post

http://tentenths.com/forum/showpost....&postcount=103

they are no longer considering mandating coupes.

Well if that is the case then Pug is sure to be massively P.O.ed!!

L.P.