Nissan LMP1 Discussion

[Alex Langheck]

Originally Posted by rich07

Wow. I'm trying to wrap my non engineer mind around that and its blown. Crazy stuff and I love it. Great to see an LMP that's so different to everything else out there.

Yeah, I just hope it works.

[J Jay]

Mike mentions that the aero balance will have to be monitored relative to the centre of gravity. Apart from that, for this to work the front end of the car would have to be doing most of the work mechanically and aerodynamically.

[MulsanneMike]

Thought about it all night and the advantage has to be the removal of the rear wing, if they can pull that off as an executable concept. Not convinced they're sold on it yet, some suggestion a small wing might appear.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

Not convinced they're sold on it yet, some suggestion a small wing might appear.

As you suggest in your article, no need for traditional rear wing for "large" DF numbers, but maybe something much smaller (low drag configuration) just to allow for track specific balance and setup options. Similar to the tweaks (I.e. dive planes) we see at the fronts of cars today.

Richard

[wdave0]

Gonna take some interesting front tires and f/r power management to get useful grip and tire life with that kind of mass distribution regardless of aero!

[Richard T]

From reading Mike's article. It sounds like they are aiming for a Le Mans-rocket that will struggle for the rest of the year. Nothing wrong with that, it would be quite cool in a way. However it kind of would devaluate the WEC, wouldn't it?

Perhaps a different aero package for the 6hr races that includes a (big(ger)) rear wing.

[wolfhound]

I find it difficult to believe they will be putting all the engine power through the front wheels as both turbo and electric motors tend to be quite torquey. The torque steer is likly to be horendus, although it can probably be dealth with by electronics, a well designed powersteering system and a pretty sophisticated front diff. However there is also the rearward bias to the weight distribution under acceleration to be considered as well.

Going back to my earlier post where I suggested using motor generator units without a mechanical transmission, the rules as I understand it limit energy storage as opposed to energy that is directly transmitted to the wheels.

On the suggestion of using a transverse engine there might be packaging and weight distribution advantages to going that way. Assuming a V6 if one bank of cylinders was to be laid almost horizontal as used by some touring cars in the nineties, it would lower the C of G and also overall engine height. With such a layout it might be desirable to exit the exahusts through the centre of the 'V' and the air inlets to the engine on the outside.

[vodka]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

I find it difficult to believe they will be putting all the engine power through the front wheels as both turbo and electric motors tend to be quite torquey. The torque steer is likly to be horendus, although it can probably be dealth with by electronics, a well designed powersteering system and a pretty sophisticated front diff. However there is also the rearward bias to the weight distribution under acceleration to be considered as well.

Going back to my earlier post where I suggested using motor generator units without a mechanical transmission, the rules as I understand it limit energy storage as opposed to energy that is directly transmitted to the wheels.

On the suggestion of using a transverse engine there might be packaging and weight distribution advantages to going that way. Assuming a V6 if one bank of cylinders was to be laid almost horizontal as used by some touring cars in the nineties, it would lower the C of G and also overall engine height. With such a layout it might be desirable to exit the exahusts through the centre of the 'V' and the air inlets to the engine on the outside.

it will be one stable car though, since the front is dragging the rest of the car. But as you say, weight must be more towards the front

[Adam43]

Pure madness. :-)

[CTD]

We most not forget that much power through the front wheels together with steering will increase the tire degradation of the front tires. Will Nissan be able to do triple or double stints?

[chernaudi]

Fact is, even though there is mounting evidence that Nissan are designing a predominantly FWD variant of the hybrid AWD systems that are legal in LMP1 (The Audi, Porsche, and Toyota hybrid AWD systems are predominantly RWD though the cars being otherwise mid-rear engined/RWD cars), only Nissan Motorsports/Nismo and which ever deity us posters pray to, even if it's just the racing gods, know what is up exactly until the car gets its public launch.

Ironically, if this does come to pass with the hybrid system being used to drive the rear wheels, this is similar to what Audi and other Volkswagen Group companies want to do with a road-going e-tron quattro system, using it in a transverse front engine car to supplement (or in some applications, replace) the Haldex-based quattro system for transverse front engined cars. The Audi 100 Duo (closer to the proposed Nissan LMP1 concept, albeit much, much less powerful) and 100 Duo II also used a very early version of a similar system (though it mostly provided a power boost to the rear axle).

PSA also had that as an intended ability for their Hybrid4 systems on Peugeot and Citroen hybrid cars.

[cokata]

It could work, but only if they have a really good hybrid system, preferably lower power - longer duration a la F1 PU's. But if they have forward weight bias the car will be horrible on braking compared to the other prototypes.

[TME45]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

The ZEOD was not built in accordance with the LMP1 regulations.

Originally Posted by CTD

We most not forget that much power through the front wheels together with steering will increase the tire degradation of the front tires. Will Nissan be able to do triple or double stints?

ZEOD is not just for G56, it is a concept for Nissan's ev base hybrid

For the handling & torque steer, it should not a problem as there are lots of high power FWD production or modify car over 300 hp, BTCC & WTCC are nearly 400hp.

for the tire degradatio, I think the hybrid system is the key of it, that's y I always talking about "ZEOD system",if it could shut down the engine while turn in will have great help for the front tire.

[TF110]

Theyve come a long way since the last front engine lmp. Hey even those gt500 cars shame the Panoz. And theyre ~120kg heavier. Like I speculated before, with fwd front the engine alone, theyre in a better position than the other teams. If all the hybrid power is used specifically on the rear, theyll have the closest thing to permanent awd. Especially if they go 8mj. Not sure how good the storage is on a flyrid system, but if the total system power is 1000hp, you can do the math on how long a 400hp hybrid powertrain would last.

[TME45]

Originally Posted by TF110

Theyve come a long way since the last front engine lmp. Hey even those gt500 cars shame the Panoz. And theyre ~120kg heavier. Like I speculated before, with fwd front the engine alone, theyre in a better position than the other teams. If all the hybrid power is used specifically on the rear, theyll have the closest thing to permanent awd. Especially if they go 8mj. Not sure how good the storage is on a flyrid system, but if the total system power is 1000hp, you can do the math on how long a 400hp hybrid powertrain would last.

high power FWD base 4WD car is not a news, EVO & STi get 800hp easily & controllable.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by TME45

high power FWD base 4WD car is not a news, EVO & STi get 800hp easily & controllable.

True, but they arent lmp1 cars. The car that comes to mind is the Toyota Yaris Hybrid-R concept.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by Articus

Mulsanne Mike's latest updates (mind blowing!):
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newsnov14.html

Two "gearboxes", no rear wing, ... this is starting to look a bit too "crazy"

As far as the gearbox is concerned, it was my firm belief that the gearbox was a drive component that was necessarily associated to the engine, and not to a MGU as such. it seems that the rules are no very specific in that respect. Interestingly, LMP1-L contenders would not benefit from the same design freedom as far as placement of the gearbox is concerned.

As for the rear wing, it was also my firm belief that a rear wing was mandatory on all LMP1 cars. It seems that there is no explicit provision in that respect. This being said, there are "peripheral" provisions that would imply that a rear wing is compulsory, such as the latest revisions regarding the obligation to insert the "rain" or "fog" lights in the trailing edge of the rear wing endplates.

[TF110]

I see no rule says you must run a rear wing. But there are rules for the rear wing. The endplates could still be there but the wing may not run between the two. Is there a rulethat says the rear wing has to connect the uprights? Maybe a solution like the ferrari fxx-k could come up

[TME45]

Mid-Front Engine FF layout with narrow rear end, will it work on <400hp pure FF car? :P

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

I see no rule says you must run a rear wing. But there are rules for the rear wing. The endplates could still be there but the wing may not run between the two. Is there a rulethat says the rear wing has to connect the uprights? Maybe a solution like the ferrari fxx-k could come up

The rear wing endplates are - by definition - part of the rear wing assembly (Art. 3.6.2). The FXXK-esque solution would not fit in this frame.

[TF110]

The endplates are under the rear wing, yes, but the wording on the rear wing is "the primary device inducing downforce shall be a single aerodynamic device..." but under rear wing (3.6.2 d/) endplates, "they may be in two parts, one on the rear wing and one on the bodywork". So it seems they can have endplates attached to the bodywork without having it attached to a wing.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

The endplates are under the rear wing, yes, but the wording on the rear wing is "the primary device inducing downforce shall be a single aerodynamic device..." but under rear wing (3.6.2 d/) endplates, "they may be in two parts, one on the rear wing and one on the bodywork". So it seems they can have endplates attached to the bodywork without having it attached to a wing.

Note that support/mounting of the rear wing is actually ensured by the centrally-located vertical supports. The rear wing endplates may or may not be connected to the bodywork. The rear wing endplates are an integral part of the rear wing assembly which is made up of (at least) three elements (wing, vertical supports, endplates) that must comply with the provisions of Article 3.6.2. I doubt that one can isolate the rear wing endplates and disregard the other elements that are making up the entire rear wing assembly. There is no reason for having "rear wing" endplates if there is no rear wing as such, is there ?

[miatanut]

If it was determined you are REQUIRED to run a rear wing, then they would just run some minimalist thing intended to generate as little drag as possible (and generating no downforce). It's the downforce generation that causes the drag.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Note that support/mounting of the rear wing is actually ensured by the centrally-located vertical supports. The rear wing endplates may or may not be connected to the bodywork. The rear wing endplates are an integral part of the rear wing assembly which is made up of (at least) three elements (wing, vertical supports, endplates) that must comply with the provisions of Article 3.6.2. I doubt that one can isolate the rear wing endplates and disregard the other elements that are making up the entire rear wing assembly. There is no reason for having "rear wing" endplates if there is no rear wing as such, is there ?

Like what miatanut said, plus Im sure theres a benefit in directing air flow with them, like the S shape on the TS030's endplates

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by miatanut

If it was determined you are REQUIRED to run a rear wing, then they would just run some minimalist thing intended to generate as little drag as possible (and generating no downforce). It's the downforce generation that causes the drag.

Indeed.

Originally Posted by TF110

Like what miatanut said, plus Im sure theres a benefit in directing air flow with them, like the S shape on the TS030's endplates

Note that the rules mandate that the surfaces of the rear wing endplates (like those of the vertical supports) must be flat and parallel to the vertical plane passing through the longitudinal centre line of the car. The endplates cannot therfore be shaped to direct air flow. Besides, in the above picture, the arrow points to those famous wheel arch extensions, not to the rear wing endplates that are sitting on the inward section.