|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
19 Oct 2006, 22:59 (Ref:1742536) | #26 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 83
|
Quote:
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........... |
||
|
19 Oct 2006, 23:05 (Ref:1742537) | #27 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
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. |
|
|
19 Oct 2006, 23:07 (Ref:1742539) | #28 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
Quote:
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. |
||
|
19 Oct 2006, 23:07 (Ref:1742540) | #29 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,699
|
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.
|
||
__________________
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." Albert Einstein |
19 Oct 2006, 23:08 (Ref:1742541) | #30 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,699
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." Albert Einstein |
19 Oct 2006, 23:12 (Ref:1742544) | #31 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
Quote:
|
||
|
19 Oct 2006, 23:12 (Ref:1742545) | #32 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,699
|
JAG, I was also thinking about last year when the Zytek smoked the R8s at Laguna Seca, which was tailor made for the 04S. This year the Zytek 06S will be up against the R10s minus 65kgs. Seeing how Laguna suits the Zytek package, I would be interested to see how the Zytek would fair at Laguna at 925kgs. But we wont get to know that answer.
|
||
__________________
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." Albert Einstein |
19 Oct 2006, 23:17 (Ref:1742548) | #33 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
It's frustrating that the 65kg weight break for Dyson concincided with the car finding genuine pace (due to development).
So we don't know how mych pace Dyson gained from the performance breaks, is it 2 seconds, or 2 tenths? The only comparison is Corevette vs Aston, the Corvette has been competitive for most events, despite widely varying weights/restrcitors, so I'd suggest Dysons new found pace is 70/30 in favour of development/performance breaks. |
|
|
20 Oct 2006, 00:24 (Ref:1742581) | #34 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,351
|
Good grief, compared to this farce, the formerly evil, and ridiculed, NASCAR restrictor racing regs. are open competition.
ACO rules and racing, is becoming more like grade school recess, where all games must be FAAAAIRRR, or they are eliminated. Bob |
||
|
20 Oct 2006, 00:36 (Ref:1742590) | #35 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
It's pretty simple, a set of regulations that you build your car to, not unlike F1 and the WRC.
The only question is whether a particualr engine technology has an unfair advantage or not. |
|
|
20 Oct 2006, 02:44 (Ref:1742649) | #36 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,351
|
Quote:
The fact formula one has dropped to that level, makes it OK? Bob |
|||
|
20 Oct 2006, 06:38 (Ref:1742745) | #37 | |
Rookie
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6
|
Come on...who really expected the ACO to do anything more than what they did??? I sure didn't. They want different power sources. And I am sure that if Honda really wanted to win, they could with a petrol engine...And what is stopping people like Judd and AER and Zytek from developing diseal power or hybrid power - the encouragement of such actions is a new fundamental way of thinking from the ACO, to expect anything different is daft - to limit the performance of diseal would go against their business model and chase away the two elements that are bringing more publicity to Le Mans than almost anything else - ie Audi and Peugeot.
And the performance reduction in LMP2 was needed as who would enter LMP1 which is more expensive when heartless car companies with no regard for the 'spirit' of LMP2 come and hijack it...its simple, if you want to win outright, you should be in LMP1 and you should come up with something clever... Simple - I like it. |
|
__________________
feedmesportscars |
20 Oct 2006, 07:36 (Ref:1742769) | #38 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,354
|
I am with the camp that says we need to see a real manuafacurer developed petrol competitor to judge. My guess is that if Audi had put the same money into developing a new regs petrol car it would be faster than the R10 - I dont think the R10 is any faster than an unrestricted R8 would be
|
||
|
20 Oct 2006, 09:45 (Ref:1742863) | #39 | |||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,102
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
20 Oct 2006, 09:59 (Ref:1742869) | #40 | |
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 240
|
No that's fine James. No original copy (in the middle - the important part) - just a translation of the Ouest-France piece.
MC |
|
|
20 Oct 2006, 10:03 (Ref:1742871) | #41 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,714
|
That makes it sound like Henri thinks he is still owed something.
|
|
|
20 Oct 2006, 10:13 (Ref:1742987) | #42 | |
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 240
|
Yes, a reasonable chance to compete...
|
|
|
20 Oct 2006, 10:31 (Ref:1743001) | #43 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 6,958
|
|||
|
20 Oct 2006, 10:57 (Ref:1743024) | #44 | |
Racer
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 317
|
Hello again all,
It does not surprise me that Henri is a little upset - he has a case for being so. However, it occured to me that if so many teams (petrol) anyway are frustrated with the ACO, why not hop the pond next season and compete in the ALMS where, to be honest, the regulations seem to be going the other way and the racing is far healthier than it is the LMES. Just imagine 20 prototypes going through corkscrew - a hell of a sight. The only thing they will miss, and it is a BIG only, could be Le Mans. But honestly, with Peugeot and Audi there with these rule changes, there is little point turning up - who wants a P5 at very best? Perhaps a petrol powered boycott in 2006 would open the ACO's eyes a little............. Vive la revolution! |
|
|
20 Oct 2006, 11:01 (Ref:1743029) | #45 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,418
|
Quote:
Welcome to the world of big dollar sponsorship which gets privialges. Is it fair? Not a chance, but that is reality and racing. |
|||
__________________
"When the fear of death out weighs the thrill of speed, brake." LG |
20 Oct 2006, 12:58 (Ref:1743132) | #46 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,979
|
When I first read Henri's comments I figured he'd something of a point, and I still do greatly sympathise with his point of view. That said, I think we still have to explore what effect chassis difference has. For all the modifications the Pescarolo has had, the 2006 car can probably be seen as the final flowering of a six-year old concept. The R10 and 908 are, understandably, a massive leap forward from that position, and given the resources we can assume they'll be pretty well sorted from the off.
It still remains to be seen what a well sorted petrol powered new-regs car can do up against a diesel around Le Mans. As we've seen in the ALMS, leaving rules changes aside, as Dyson's got to grips with their Lola their times have become more competitive. Equally in Europe the LC70s improved consistently over the course of the season. If I'm honest I probably think the ACO's still being a touch too generous to the diesels (especially looking at Endurance-info's take on it re how shorter stints might allow the diesels to triple stint their tyres more easily) but don't think it's necessarily all doom and gloom - yet... |
||
|
20 Oct 2006, 13:12 (Ref:1743138) | #47 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Mulsanne Mike's view on the subject: http://www.mulsannescorner.com/news.html
And Laurent Chauveau's view: http://www.endurance-info.com/article.php?sid=2761 |
|
|
20 Oct 2006, 13:51 (Ref:1743168) | #48 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 6,958
|
As far as a viewpoint, I believe that this is a difficult proposition. I'll recognize that there are some very capable privateers, such as Pescarolo, yet should we expect them to prepare cars equal to that of Audi and Peugeot? From time to time, that will happen, but the odds do seem heavily stacked against such an occurance.
We have a Catch 22 situation here. There is no factory petrol engine campaign, so we cannot truly judge the on track performance differentials. Yet, there is no factory backed petrol engine campaign, as there is a perception that they cannot compete. While the ACO may feel satisfied in knowing that they've appeased Audi and Peugeot, they'll have eliminated any probability of other manufacturers racing P1 at LM, who aren't interested in diesels. This short-term pandering, is likely to be a long-term headache. October 19th, is a ludicrous time of the year to be introducing new rules, that will affect the competition in LMP1 and between LMP1 and LMP2. The ACO needs to get their act together, and provide competitors, manufacturers, and the racing series, time to prepare how to effectively (or not) race in ACO rules based series. The most reasonable solution, at least to me, is to allow the series to manage things as they see fit, within the basic rules guidelines that the ACO constructs for the LM race. I might think that the ALMS will think long and hard about these new guidelines, and (I hope) ignore them completely (except maybe the fuel tank size) for 2007, and maintain the IMSA performance balancing bulletins of 2006. The ALMS can install the LMP2, GT1, GT2 performance reductions for 2008, which should encourage the LMP2 manufacturers to build LMP1 machinery for 08', but give them time to be somewhat competitive with their LMP2 investments. The continued ALMS message should be to balance out the Petrols and Diesels, through bulletin 06-10. |
||
|
20 Oct 2006, 14:21 (Ref:1743185) | #49 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 18,830
|
Quote:
|
||
|
20 Oct 2006, 14:31 (Ref:1743189) | #50 | |
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 240
|
R8 - different sitn. altogether: it was built to the existing rules. The R10 ('s engine) was built to its own rules.
700 bhp and 1000 Nm torque (or more) versus 600+ bhp and 550 - 700 Nm torque (petrol-powered LMP1s). How can this be fair? |
|
|
|
|
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 |