|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
4 Aug 2017, 19:00 (Ref:3757439) | #151 | ||
Racer
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 253
|
After reading the tech article in the Caddie V8 its clear isn't a stock block. The article said they used a special cast..in other words they melted it down. Oh sure it keeps the same dimensions and bore spacing (so it can pass for stock) but if I had to guess, the cooling passages and the rigidity of the block is strenghthened for higher outputs. A billet crankshaft? Both those modifications I have heard of in drag racing and only the big money teams can afford. Indeed not the same block shared in the road car. And as the BoP changes suggest the motor was likely in the 650-700 horsepower region at the beginning of the season.
|
||
|
4 Aug 2017, 19:21 (Ref:3757445) | #152 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,827
|
So it's basically a LMP1 engine already in all but name?
Even the aluminum Ford 351 SVO block retains all the stock dimensions and other items that the steel block did, seemingly so hot rodders who are sitting on boxes of 351 Windsor parts can use them to build up a light weight engine: https://performanceparts.ford.com/part/M-6010-Z351 This is basically the engine block that Panoz used in their LMP1 roadsters, cut down to have a 302/5.0 deck height. Basically the same stuff that Nissan did to the VK45 to make it into a Super GT engine was done to the Caddy engine. Only more extreme example was the Ford small block Indy Car engines: iron to aluminum block, wet sump to dry sump, and ultimately OHV pushrod 16 valve to DOHC 32 valve. I think that the discussion on the Cadillac engine should also be taking place in the DPI thread, because it should be of interest there. But it does seem that the Caddy V8 is the most LMP1-like of the current DPI engines. |
||
|
4 Aug 2017, 19:31 (Ref:3757447) | #153 | ||
Racer
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 253
|
No arguement from me in what you're saying. I just found it funny when the article mentioned (paraphrasing) "the caddilac is a production engine going up against pure race engines". We know the AER is. I am curious about the Nissan.
Is it an LMP1 motor? The basis is there. But as mentioned previously, it has to be rengineered and optimised for fuel restricted racing, per the current regulations |
||
|
4 Aug 2017, 20:17 (Ref:3757452) | #154 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,827
|
That's if the ACO don't revert back to air restrictors for LMP1 privateer. The fuel flow stuff to me has been a red herring in both the WEC and F1. It doesn't add anything but cost, and it basically in the end is a speed/performance limiter like the air restrictor.
Big difference is that an air restrictor is a $5-10 piece of metal, fuel flow meter itself is a $2000+ electronic gizmo that requires thousands of dollars more electronics to function right. It's also "little" things like that which can make a big difference at the end of the season as far as budgets. I mean, air restrictors worked fine in LMP900 and LMP1 for nearly 20 years, and LMP2s and GT cars still use them. And of course for the Cadillac engine, when you consider that GM has pumped millions more into their DPI program than anyone else, what else did we expect. I know that all stock block engines are modified for racing, but GM almost built an entirely new engine almost from scratch using LS block castings. If someone wants to do that, why shouldn't they also be looking at engine supply for LMP1 if there's a demand? |
||
|
4 Aug 2017, 20:25 (Ref:3757453) | #155 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,644
|
I like it. A much more elegant way to equalise different engine configuration and sizes. At worse it's the same as restrictors. At best it means a level playing field that still allows development!
Yes expense is important, but those prices aren't significant. It's a red herring to cite the cost as a reason here. The advantages of removing the whinging about restictor size and reducing the lobbying budget is worth it. |
||
__________________
Seriously not taking motorsport too seriously. |
4 Aug 2017, 20:53 (Ref:3757460) | #156 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,827
|
Then why outside of LMP2 (spec engine) are they still being used on GT cars and in DPI. I know that human errors have been made, but they can be made with the flow meters.
Only way to fix it is to have BOP fully automated, like what the ACO have done with GTE pro. Granted, this is where rose tinted glasses come back in, but I never heard of a lot of BOP whining back in LMP900. Everybody was using the same 100 octane gasoline back then, and also development was looser (no factory homolgation crap like we have today). IMO, BOP became a cop out to complain about different fuels and factory vs privateer. Do I think that privateers deserve a chance against a factory team, even if only on paper? Yes, should the planets and stars align. But I don't think they should automatically be given a hand out. Same thing for factory teams that are unable or unwilling to invest in their efforts. Unfortunately, that genie's been let out of the bottle, and we have to deal with the consequences, both positive and negative. As you've said, the hope at least is that it's harder to game the system, but the ERS Incentive was effectively a way to game the system in LMP1, at least in my opinion. Hence the ERS Incentive should've have been there in the first place. Give factory teams any excuse to take an inch, they'll take a mile. We've seen that with some of the aero trickery in LMP1 the past couple of years, too. I don't like the fuel flow meters. IMO, they're just an expensive way to slow down the cars and keep them from going faster. Same as the air restrictors, but air restrictors are a lot cheaper, and plus there's no lift and coast. And I don't think that the automated BOP stuff is anywhere near as expensive as the fuel flow equipment. And yes, I get the argument that these are million plus dollar race cars, and that a $2000 part shouldn't make a big difference. But the whole system adds probably $10 grand to the cost of the car easily. We have to remember that F1 are simplifying their engine regs for 2021. Twin turbochargers, no more ERS-H, among others. I think that LMP1 might have to follow the same lead. Especially to make it appealing for car makers who don't want to spend the big out of control budgets, or privateers. That might run contradictory to an earlier statement, but we have to look at what we have now vs then, and consider that the landscape has changed. |
||
|
4 Aug 2017, 21:01 (Ref:3757461) | #157 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,644
|
Air restrictors are part of the levers used to balance performance of the whole car. The flow restrictors are not used for that.
The genie is out of the bottle, the elephant is in the room and taking a mile when given an inch and there is no smoke without fire. The rest of the post is nowt to do with the point I was making. The privateers have the same fuel and they can use it at the same rate. These are not the reason why the privateers aren't there or can't compete. It is equally a good way to allow different privateer engines to compete too. |
||
__________________
Seriously not taking motorsport too seriously. |
4 Aug 2017, 21:30 (Ref:3757467) | #158 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,397
|
About the only bad thing we heard was it cost more and it may have had some issues in reading the flow accurately. But that was when it was first (re)introduced.
|
|
|
4 Aug 2017, 21:45 (Ref:3757473) | #159 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,827
|
If that's so, then why aren't we seeing that? I'd bet that if you took the hybrid systems off the Porsche and Toyota, they'd still be faster. We have to also remember that the ACO opened up a lot of aero stuff on LMP1 cars in 2014--stuff that the private teams haven't been able to take advantage of.
My points are cost control and the fact that it's actually going to take a lot of concessions--basically to the point of BOP--to get privateers competitive with a modern factory effort. The 15mm higher front diffuser lips and narrower/shorter rear diffusers on LMP1 factory cars are effectively BOP to try and slow them down and help LMP1 privateers catch up, as their cars are unaltered in the tech regs. And as we've seen, it's going to take a lot more than that to get them to catch up. So they're going to get fuel flow meters probably the size of 30 inch water pipes relative to what Toyota will have next year (if Toyota are still around). May as well go back to running air restrictors on the privateer cars and give them ones the size of a drainage pipe (like what IMSA did with Intersport in the ALMS). I though that the point of the fuel flow meters was to encourage fuel saving. If you're just going to give larger allowances of fuel flow and burn to privateer teams, what's the point if that's the point that the ACO and FIA were trying to make? Privateers already should be given under the technical regs unlimited engine use (no 5 engines a season limit like for the factory cars), unlimited engine size, and being allowed to do more things with the aero on their cars. None of which even when combined will eliminate the gap up front I fear. And how much could Toyota get pegged back next year if the ACO want to pull a 2007-08 and 2010 ALMS style of manufactured inter-class racing? Because like it or not, the ACO might have to go to such extremes to put on competitive races. I don't think that fans, or even Toyota, would put up with the one-sided sprint race results that sometimes happened in the ALMS in 2000-2002. It's undeniable that almost everyone here thinks that LMP1 as it is has peaked, and it's time for a shake up/reset. Unfortunately, the forward looking views that lead to the current package if anything were ahead of their time, and now we have to go "backwards" to find a happy medium. |
||
|
4 Aug 2017, 21:51 (Ref:3757477) | #160 | ||||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,644
|
Quote:
Quote:
To be clear I am not talking about how LMP1 is dead, ruined forever by,well, whatever. I'm just talking about fuel flow restrictors. Last edited by Adam43; 4 Aug 2017 at 22:06. |
||||
__________________
Seriously not taking motorsport too seriously. |
4 Aug 2017, 22:28 (Ref:3757483) | #161 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,827
|
And I'm trying to talk about how we got here. If you just want me to say that I don't like the fuel flow meters and why I don't like them, I'll do that, and, actually, have done that.
Now, to your point and my counter-point. If they were to ensure closer competition between engine types, I have to ask why that hasn't happened, and why everyone gravitated to a similar solution? Stating out, we had a 4 liter V6 turbo diesel, a 2 liter turbo V4, and a 3.7 liter NA V8. Now, we have a 2 liter V4 turbo, a 2.4 liter V6, had another 2.4 liter V6, had a 3.0 V6, and even Audi were looking into running a forced induction gasoline engine again. Everyone is running 6 cylinders or less, small displacement forced induction engines. Obviously, there's a bias in favor of such engines. Not really the variety that you suggest that the flow meters were supposed to encourage through balancing different engine types. Mind you, the LMP900 and LMP1 rules have long favored forced induction engines. But we had a better variety anyways before the present era. Also, the flow meters have done little, if anything, to address the balance between factory and privateer. Let me remind you of Fuji in 2016. For the brief amount of time that a hybridless Audi was going around the track, it was still out-running the Rebellions and the Kolles cars by a good couple of seconds a lap. That's another point I'm making when arguing against the flow meters. Granted, the point of them was to encourage fuel saving strategies and to try and balance different engine concepts as far as power. In my honest opinion, they failed in the latter goal. The LMP1 aero regs and the factory teams having better cars and chassis plays a part, but could it still be argued that they have better engines, even with the flow meters? I don't see how the engine balance was made any better by the presence of the fuel flow meters. Maybe if everything was down to the engine, I can see that working. But nevertheless a preferred solution was gravitated towards anyways. And it's not just a simple as in IMSA where we can point to the Riley chassis being a dog as to why VFR has done so bad all season. Or that one's engine is solely the problem for their struggles. Granted, I'm also not a big fan of teams drifting to the same solutions, especially when the rules are supposed to at least in theory balance things out, be it EOT or BOP. Last edited by chernaudi; 4 Aug 2017 at 22:34. |
||
|
4 Aug 2017, 22:40 (Ref:3757484) | #162 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,644
|
The flow meters weren't introduced to balance performance between privateers and factory teams.
Lots of things in your post. To be clear I am not talking about how LMP1 is dead because privateers aren't there or competitive, or ruined forever by, well, whatever. I'm just talking about fuel flow restrictors. It is equally a good way to allow different privateer engines to compete too. It's not about balancing the engines, it's about giving them all the same energy to work with. That's why it is preferable. Last edited by Adam43; 4 Aug 2017 at 22:47. |
||
__________________
Seriously not taking motorsport too seriously. |
4 Aug 2017, 22:59 (Ref:3757487) | #163 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,308
|
Quote:
Cadillac engine is not something anyone would seriously want to use in a current LMP1 car because it can't be used as a fully stressed member. Engine weight aside that subframe is a killer for hitting the weight limit. |
||
|
5 Aug 2017, 00:44 (Ref:3757499) | #164 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,827
|
But if we're gonna play the game of "let's give everyone the same energy", why not just go back to Group C where you're allotted a certain amount of fuel, and it was up to the teams to use it the best way it suited them? IMO, it's just an over-complicated way of doing things.
As to the future of LMP1, there's a push to reduce costs to get more teams in, both privateers and factory teams. Do we favor a total re-write of the rules to reset the whole class, and even "wind back the clock" to how things were a few years ago? Or do we favor a piece-meal, chip-away deal where we see certain things restricted or brought back in line to reduce costs? One main aero package is one way, but we already sort of had that back prior to 2011. The opening up the front of the floor between and just aft the front wheels was IMO a slight pandora's box. The bigger one was setting such lofty goals for hybrid systems so quickly. As I've pointed out, the Peugeot proposals seem to aim for a "turning back of the clock" to some of the stuff they actually got their way on in 2012 (and, of course, didn't race that year or since in LMP1). Also, might I point out that from 1999-2008, the only changes that happened really were the introduction of diesel and ethanol blended gasoline, and the LMP1/LMP2 aero regs that replaced LMP900 and LMP675. We've had a lot more changes than that the past decade since. In 2009, we had the rear wing span reduction. 2011, engine downsizing. 2014, the fuel flow/big hybrids/narrow car regs. And that's not accounting for smaller changes made between seasons. I understand that change is inevitable and is healthy when done right. But I don't think that making major changes every 3 or so years, as I've mentioned several times before, is the way to get things done. Ideally, factory teams would probably like to get 3-4 years of use out of their cars. I think that's a healthy number of seasons before they have to design a new car. I personally think that pressing though with rapid changes that are pretty sweeping just drives the price tag up. This goes hand and hand with my point on rules stability. Ironically, for the most part, LMP1 privateer rules are largely frozen until 2022. But a lot of that infrastructure is gone as companies making LMP1 privateer spec cars have gone out of business or moved onto other ventures. I also don't think that some have committed yet because they're not sure if anyone will pull the trigger, and how things will look on the LMP1 factory team front. But I'll suggest this: If they feel that they have a chance at winning LM or even some sprint races, I think that you might see quite a few Ginettas, SMP Dallaras and maybe Onroak and Orecas get ordered if they make LMP1s (Oreca and Onroak are part way there since LMP1 and LMP2 share chassis regs). I'm actually more worried about the engine front there, if I'm honest. Only engine I've heard bandied about is the Mechachrome turbo V6. Yet Gibson and Judd have engines (4.5 liter V8 and 5.5 liter V10) that they're ready and willing to sell, but no one seems to be biting. |
||
|
5 Aug 2017, 01:38 (Ref:3757502) | #165 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,308
|
The fuel limit in a vacuum has a lot of flaws that are even more pronounced today than they were in the 80s. If you give them enough fuel to run x pace for 24 hours under theoretical ideal conditions, every guard rail that gets replaced means the optimal green flag pace goes up a ton (you both save fuel for those laps and need to do fewer laps), and if you give them less fuel then you're going to get races where teams run a normal pace for 5 hours then have to go into massive fuel save mode in the last hour because they didn't get yellow flags. Plus if you have no fuel flow limit nothing is stopping you from bringing a car that can do 2:55s and 260mph trap speeds in qualifying to run an average lap time of 3:25 in the race (it's the ideal solution for the first scenario after all) It's all just messy and stupid, and that's why F1 has a hard fuel cap of 100kg which is the serious intent of the rule but still has a fuel flow limit that lets them burn only a bit more than that on a per lap basis.
There isn't going to be any wholesale changes to the cars, just tweaks to what differentiates the different LMP categories. |
|
|
5 Aug 2017, 02:07 (Ref:3757505) | #166 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,507
|
Quote:
- I agree all manufactures moved to the same architecture in 2007. But they had already arrived at the same answer to the formula anyway. That spec was tight. The distributors were at different ends, but that's about the only difference. - Nascar engines have not used a stock block in my lifetime. The architecture is different from anything Ford or Chevy put on the street. They have all used a small block Chevy firing order since I can remember. - Toyota came in and built an engine to the new spec. Is that what you are trying to say? That's true. Because Ford stopped putting pushrod V8s in cars in 1990. Chevy didn't put an iron block in cars after 1997. Oldsmobile and Pontiac didn't have V8s when they pulled out and Dodge didn't have one in a car when they rejoined. |
|||
|
6 Aug 2017, 15:06 (Ref:3757729) | #167 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,827
|
To follow up on this post I found in the Porsche thread:
http://tentenths.com/forum/showpost....postcount=8166 First of all, my rebuttal to that is if you wanna pick on a sanctioning body, pick on the ACO, who will still be fat and happy even if the WEC crashes and burns because they'll still have Le Mans. But as to the post itself, valid points, but it also needs to be said that DPIs would need to be sped up to LMP1 privateer levels. But if you want to speed up DPIs, it's also not a big jump in making (in theory) a LMP2 into a LMP1. They share chassis regs, and all it should take is opening up aero regs, fitting more powerful engines, and dropping weight, since almost all LMP2s (except for the crap-tastic Riley) carry a lot of ballast to meet 930kg. And other than hybrids and fuel flow regs, a lot of other things had knock-on costs. Going from 2000mm to 1900mm wide cars, opening up the front underbody rules, and dropping weight from 900kg (915 hybrids) to 875kg. All of that has knock-on costs. Narrower cars have packaging issues, front underbody tuning vanes cost a lot of money for something relatively marginal and can get damaged. And as we saw with the Porsche RS Spyder LMP2 cars, light weight and fully optimized cars cost money (it retailed for more than an Audi R8 did at about the same time). I have nothing against change, unless it's excessive. The ACO should've implemented all these changes incrementally. Or if they wanted to push for hybrids, they should've left the chassis regs alone for a few years. The biggest thing that they probably should've left alone was weight. One of the reasons (other than BOP and trying to discourage manufacturer teams from entering like in the ALMS) for the weight increases for LMP2 was to try and reduce costs, since most everyone else were running converted LMP1 cars (so their makers could save costs by only doing one series of crash tests). Ironically, we're there now in that LMP1 and LMP2 have to pass the same crash tests standards and are built to the same technical regs for chassis design. But LMP2s are now ballasted to be 55kg (about 120lbs) heavier than LMP1s. Even though there's a push for lightweight technology, maybe we should look at adding weight to LMP1s to maybe BOP hybrids and reduce costs. 900kg is still IMO plenty light for a LMP1 car, especially a factory car. And of course, even "lightweight tech" road cars aren't a ton lighter than older cars, mostly because they're getting packed with electronic stuff and luxury features. |
||
|
6 Aug 2017, 17:40 (Ref:3757742) | #168 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,920
|
Like chernaudi I think this should be posted on this thread following of the Porsche thread:
http://tentenths.com/forum/showpost....postcount=8166 I like the DPI and I am happy that thanks to them we will have a resurgence of the ALMS next year in IMSA. I have the feeling that these are going to be alone in Le Mans and not in the WEC. In this case, I do not think DPIs are the solution for Le Mans. Le Mans always had the highest technology of the time as F1 and DPI do not represent that. I think the ACO should try to reach an agreement with Liverty Media and bring F1 to Le Mans. I know the relationship is good since Chase Carey had a great presence in the last 24 hours. I would love to see variants of wheels covered by the current F1, somewhat like the LM spyders but single-seater similar to the WR Peugeot LM95. In the 50's these covered-wheelers F1 were called Streamliner and the most famous of that was the Mercedes w196 that had the 2 variants open wheel and streamliner. I think any F1 team could make these aerodynamic changes without major problems and these should be balanced in terms of weight and fuel flow with the LMP1 to have a hand-to-hand fighting for the overall victory. In this way we could have Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault, Red Bull, Mc Laren, Honda, Williams and if some rumors are made Porsche, Alfa Romeo, Aston Martin and Cosworth. In addition to super stars such as Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel, Verstappen, Ricciardo and Raikkonen. All this together with Toyota and maybe Peugeot which could be really incredible !! |
||
|
7 Aug 2017, 00:57 (Ref:3757893) | #169 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 914
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
7 Aug 2017, 01:06 (Ref:3757894) | #170 | ||||||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 906
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
__________________
. . . but I'm not a traditionalist so maybe my opinion doesn't count! -TF110 |
7 Aug 2017, 01:30 (Ref:3757898) | #171 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,827
|
Honda would probably still hand grenade engines even with the fuel flow turned down. I'd also doubt that a F1 engine could last a 24 hour race? 1000km/6 hours? Maybe. But any longer than that might be a crap shoot, especially with near-continuous running. Honda's and GM's Indy Car engines might be a safer bet.
If someone wants to run a four cylinder other than Porsche, why not run a Super GT GT500 engine? Those are designed for sprint races, but so originally were GT3 cars. |
||
|
7 Aug 2017, 03:10 (Ref:3757910) | #172 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 906
|
Quote:
Further, isn't the rumor that Toyota's GT500 will be at LM in the next couple years (SARD?)? |
||
__________________
. . . but I'm not a traditionalist so maybe my opinion doesn't count! -TF110 |
7 Aug 2017, 03:23 (Ref:3757912) | #173 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,827
|
Wouldn't both Indy Car and Super GT engines need to be reworked/remapped around the fuel flow meters? I'm not sure how Indy Car limits engine power outside of turbocharger boost and air inlet area, but aren't GT500 engines still running air restrictors?
|
||
|
7 Aug 2017, 03:34 (Ref:3757914) | #174 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,920
|
Quote:
This year each driver has available 4 PU (Power Units) for all season. The next year each driver has available 3 PU (Power Units) for all season. The 2018 Formula 1 calendar have 21 races. The distance of each race is 310 KM more or less. Also each race has Practice 1, Practice 2, Practice 3 and Qualy (Usually each driver done about a GP and a half between all these practices and qualy) What gives a total of approximately 750 km for GP. Then 750 X 21= 15750 Km for Season. Therefore 15750/3 = 5250 KM for Power Units. The Le Mans 24 hours distance is about 5000 KM, then each Power Unit should be designed to be able to do the 24 Hours. http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2016/05/0...f-second-2018/ |
|||
|
7 Aug 2017, 06:14 (Ref:3757918) | #175 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,308
|
No, they even use fuel flow restrictions in place of ballast after a point. IndyCar is still using rev limits.
|
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How about a LMP1 Pro & LMP1 Privateer class | Holt | Sportscar & GT Racing | 35 | 6 Jun 2012 13:44 |
Joest Porsche LMP1 | Megatron | Sportscar & GT Racing | 6 | 31 Oct 2003 10:28 |
2004 Riley & Scott LMP1???? | Tim Northcutt | Sportscar & GT Racing | 8 | 12 Oct 2003 10:48 |
To clear up the 675/LMP2/LMP1 for next year... | Megatron | Sportscar & GT Racing | 14 | 11 Aug 2003 21:38 |