Porsche in LMP1!?

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by PorscheFanNo1

Cause turbocharging is such a new invention you mean?

There is still room for improvement in supercharging and turbocharging. Like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variabl...y_turbocharger

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by Dario911

The KERS system will be used in f1 will be prehistoric in confront of the same system will be used in endurance races.

So you call flywheel hybrids, supercaps, lithium ion/polymer, etc. prehistoric

[deggis]

Originally Posted by Dario911

The KERS system will be used in f1 will be prehistoric in confront of the same system will be used in endurance races.

First of all that's untrue and you don't know how the ACO rules will look like.

I'm afraid the rules will be similar if not nearly the same. The press release PDF is not exactly specific about this, but at least there is a difference in wording... ACO is talking about hybrids instead of "KERS". Basicly same thing but big difference if you take it literally. Looks like flywheel systems are already ruled out?

So, turbo is a reality from several years in endurance

It's irrelevant how new technology it is. What matters is that turbos have future and how many manufacturers are involved. Currently there are more (big) manufacturers involved in F1 and they're spending a lot more money on R&D than Audi-Peugeot-Porsche-Acura does. F1 teams are still spending nearly half of their budgets to engines... despite the engine freeze!

I'm actually quite scared. Also IndyCar is going for turbos in the future. Currently sportscars has this joker card called green racing, and once F1 becomes greener with small, efficient turbos, with KERS and HERS (heat recovery, lol with these names), the joker card will be taken away.

So ACO better try to get the best out of these years before 2013 (currently, F1 engines might change sooner too, altough I wouldn't expect with all this talk about budget capping, single make engines etc).

There might be more options on sportscars but F1 will always be the pinnacle of media attention. And that is pretty relevant to a manufacturer.

where technology is higher than in formula 1, from every point of view: aerodynamic, engine, electronic... in Sport and Prototype, all this points are light years ahead in confront of the formula 1.

Ugh.

Have you ever heard something about FSI, DFI, Turbo, Hybrid, TDI or HDI in formula 1? No, obviously!
Today formula 1 is like a trophy challenge: same engines, same aerodynamic, same electronic... same cars!
In protos you can find a real variety of solutions, from diesel to petrol, from closed to open cars, from V12 to V6 engines. All another story.
Formula 1 is just business. Anything else.

More variety doesn't necessarily mean more tech. Money talks and in F1 it talks a lot more.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by deggis

I'm afraid the rules will be similar if not nearly the same. The press release PDF is not exactly specific about this, but at least there is a difference in wording... ACO is talking about hybrids instead of "KERS". Basicly same thing but big difference if you take it literally. Looks like flywheel systems are already ruled out?

According to http://www.racecar-engineering.com/n...alse-dawn.html only electric hybrids will be allowed.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

According to http://www.racecar-engineering.com/n...alse-dawn.html only electric hybrids will be allowed.

Good story. I agree.

[deggis]

http://auto-racing.speedadmin.mindco...-le-mans-blog/

Penske has request their 2008 car numbers for 2009. I’ve gotten credible info that despite Porsche possibly having a change of heart and keeping their Penske/Porsche program going in ’09, much like the financial bailout plan, this has fallen through. Look for Dyson to get a semi-works deal next year, but not to the elevated (and expensive) level Roger’s team enjoyed.

I can only speculate as to what Penske will compete with next season, but with the massive resources he’s dedicated to the ALMS, it should be interesting.

Penske also appears to have a Grand-Am entry on the way – something we’ve been hearing rumors of all Summer, but it’s not known if this is just for Daytona or for an entire season. what's next? Powerboats? Monster Trucks? Drifting?

One thing is for sure: Penske isn’t standing still.

:|

[dxk1]

Roger is a hands on kind of person who delegates very little. Boy is he going to have a busy season if he really does all those series!

DK

[Dario911]

Originally Posted by deggis

First of all that's untrue and you don't know how the ACO rules will look like.

I'm afraid the rules will be similar if not nearly the same. The press release PDF is not exactly specific about this, but at least there is a difference in wording... ACO is talking about hybrids instead of "KERS". Basicly same thing but big difference if you take it literally. Looks like flywheel systems are already ruled out?


It's irrelevant how new technology it is. What matters is that turbos have future and how many manufacturers are involved. Currently there are more (big) manufacturers involved in F1 and they're spending a lot more money on R&D than Audi-Peugeot-Porsche-Acura does. F1 teams are still spending nearly half of their budgets to engines... despite the engine freeze!

I'm actually quite scared. Also IndyCar is going for turbos in the future. Currently sportscars has this joker card called green racing, and once F1 becomes greener with small, efficient turbos, with KERS and HERS (heat recovery, lol with these names), the joker card will be taken away.

So ACO better try to get the best out of these years before 2013 (currently, F1 engines might change sooner too, altough I wouldn't expect with all this talk about budget capping, single make engines etc).

There might be more options on sportscars but F1 will always be the pinnacle of media attention. And that is pretty relevant to a manufacturer.


Ugh.


More variety doesn't necessarily mean more tech. Money talks and in F1 it talks a lot more.

Sorry for you, but I'm not the man who speaks just to speak.
The things about the KERS have been said by Luca Marmorini (former Ferrari) and actual Toyota engine designer, who tested Toyota F1 KERS and the same system will be applied on LMP1 in ACO rules. I've read his interview on Autosprint magazine.

Point two: in the future, turbo will be the answer for all the manifacturer, 'cause only with turbo they'll be able to reduce emissions for new engines, according to the new rules.

Point three: in formula 1 we have same engine (stroke and bore decided by the rules!), same engine weight, same number of cylinders, same material, same distribution system, all n/a engines, undirect fuel injection, and you came here to say formula 1 is the pinnacle of the motorsport?!
Probably you do believe in Ecclestone and Mosley words! It's very sad what you say! Would you know why? Well, because you believe formula 1 is the best expression of motorsport only because it has all the tv and media attention. Is this the system to measure the real technology of this sport? Is the advertising the most important parameter?
No, I don't think that's the true. In formula 1 there's not any experimentation, and all the news in the last years are coming from endurance. Watch the TDI and HDI diesel injection sysems, DFI and FSI systems for petrol, the new hybrid rules and KERS system! This just to remember the main innovations.
So, now I ask you what are the last innovations arrived by formula 1 in the last years?

Point three: many manifacturers are wasting moneys in formula 1, such as Mercedes, BMW, Toyota, Honda. Do you think waste money is synonymous to have innovations? In formula 1 we have no changes since many years. Is this the way to innovate?

Point four: do you think it's easier to build a car designed to go as fast as possible for quite 1h 30m, or to design a car to race 24 hours, quite at the same speed of a formula 1, but capable to resist to a so long race and so hard solicitations?

[Dario911]

Don't forget a large part of the budget, in formula 1, is spent for hospitality and similar stupidities...
Is this technology, too? Now formula 1 is only the most expensive circus of the world. It's all based on the merchandising, on moneys, but there's not much substance.

[Dario911]

Another part of the business is spent for the teams long transfers all around the world for same of the most stupid races I've ever seen (Singapore, Valencia and all the others stupid tracks of Tilke era).
If you consider the engine development has been stopped, only aerodynamic and bodywork improvements are allowed, you can understand clearly how the larger part of the business is spent: 300 mechanics, when 20 would be a reasonable number. Formula 1 is just a monument to the stupid expenses.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by Dario911

Sorry for you, but I'm not the man who speaks just to speak.

You are the man that does not read.

Originally Posted by Dario911

No, I don't think that's the true. In formula 1 there's not any experimentation, and all the news in the last years are coming from endurance. Watch the TDI and HDI diesel injection sysems, DFI and FSI systems for petrol, the new hybrid rules and KERS system! This just to remember the main innovations.

Please read http://www.racecar-engineering.com/n...alse-dawn.html. The F1 KERS rules are restrictive, but at least they allow innovation.

Originally Posted by Dario911

If you consider the engine development has been stopped, only aerodynamic and bodywork improvements are allowed, you can understand clearly how the larger part of the business is spent: 300 mechanics, when 20 would be a reasonable number.

The engine freeze does not mean that development has stopped. Ask Renault.

[Dario911]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

You are the man that does not read.

The engine freeze does not mean that development has stopped. Ask Renault.

Ok, dude. Probably you don't know Toyota is testing a kers system for the Japan GT Challenge, and Marmorini has developed it. Well, he has said in confront of the Japan GT Challenge the F1 system is yet obsolete. Is there a reason or not, for Marmorini, to say this? Oh, maybe you are more competent of him, in this field! In this case, would you excuse me?
Well, but it is ome from incompetent to compare the engine developement with freeze rule, with a free developement. Or don't you think this?

[deggis]

Originally Posted by Dario911

Sorry for you, but I'm not the man who speaks just to speak.

The things about the KERS have been said by Luca Marmorini (former Ferrari) and actual Toyota engine designer, who tested Toyota F1 KERS and the same system will be applied on LMP1 in ACO rules. I've read his interview on Autosprint magazine.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/65226 - did he say same things than in this?

And YOU said: "The KERS system will be used in f1 will be prehistoric in confront of the same system will be used in endurance races"

This is quite contradictory to what you say now. How the F1 system can be prehistoric compared to LMPs if it's same or similar system?

Point two: in the future, turbo will be the answer for all the manifacturer, 'cause only with turbo they'll be able to reduce emissions for new engines, according to the new rules.

Was I disagreeing with this? You were the one who said turbos are nothing new.

and you came here to say formula 1 is the pinnacle of the motorsport?!

Where did I say so? But now that you said it, I could say it. Previously I only said it's the pinnacle of media attention. Again, you're assuming or putting words to my mouth.

Probably you do believe in Ecclestone and Mosley words! It's very sad what you say! Would you know why? Well, because you believe formula 1 is the best expression of motorsport only because it has all the tv and media attention. Is this the system to measure the real technology of this sport? Is the advertising the most important parameter?

I don't know how in the world it's possible to get that idea from my previous post. I'm fan of both, F1 and sportscars. And I'm even one of those who likes to believe there was something very politically suspicious in the Group C 3.5L rules.

So, now I ask you what are the last innovations arrived by formula 1 in the last years?

Why I have to answer this question when I never claimed F1 had produced big innovations in the last 10 years?

Point three: many manifacturers are wasting moneys in formula 1, such as Mercedes, BMW, Toyota, Honda. Do you think waste money is synonymous to have innovations? In formula 1 we have no changes since many years. Is this the way to innovate?

Not a single road car manufacturer starts motorsport program to make innovations. It is a by-product (and also PR). They start motor racing to MARKET their cars and improve sporty/hi-tech/economical image, depending on the series. F1's visibility in the media is obviously and clearly like no other (or maybe comparable to NASCAR in the US, but not worldwide).

Point four: do you think it's easier to build a car designed to go as fast as possible for quite 1h 30m, or to design a car to race 24 hours, quite at the same speed of a formula 1, but capable to resist to a so long race and so hard solicitations?

First of all, about 10 seconds difference in lap time is not quite the same speed. This thread for reference.

And then answer to your question: depends what is the competition. And here is a hypothetic question for you: which is likely to happen sooner, if Audi and Peugeot decided to join F1 and Ferrari and McLaren decided to join sportscars:

1) Audi or Peugeot wins the F1 World Championship?
2) McLaren or Ferrari wins Le Mans?

Before you answer, notice how quickly Honda and Toyota, one of the biggest manufacturers in the world, achieved it when they started as factory teams in F1... oh, wait - it's still pending!

ps. Would be nice if you tried to use QUOTE tags. It's not really that hard to use them and it makes writing and reading much easier.

-edit-

[deggis]

Originally Posted by Dario911

Don't forget a large part of the budget, in formula 1, is spent for hospitality and similar stupidities...
Is this technology, too? Now formula 1 is only the most expensive circus of the world. It's all based on the merchandising, on moneys, but there's not much substance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula...ue_and_Profits

Estimated budget split of an F1 team based on the 2006 season. Adapted from F1 Racing (March 2008 issue). Based on a top team's budget.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by Dario911

Ok, dude. Probably you don't know Toyota is testing a kers system for the Japan GT Challenge, and Marmorini has developed it.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/65226

Originally Posted by Dario911

Well, he has said in confront of the Japan GT Challenge the F1 system is yet obsolete.

Last time I checked Japan GT is not governed by ACO.

Again read http://www.lemans.org/24heuresdumans..._regl09_gb.pdf ACO is pretty clear:

They must comply with the following specifications:

• Electrical systems already fitted or likely to be fitted to series production cars.
• The total power of the electric engines, the storage capacity of energy, and the quantity of energy used over a lap of the circuit, will be defined and controlled.

Only technology used in production cars is allowed. Where is the innovation? Clearly this does not encourage the development of new hybrid technology like flywheel based or hydraulic solutions. On top of that the power and capacity will be limited, like in F1.

Marmorini's main criticism was that F1 only allows rear wheel KERS, hence limiting the efficiency.

The LMP1 hybrids annouced for 2009 also satisfy his definition of "primitive":

• F1: max 60 kW, storage free, rear wheel KERS
• Zytek: 35 kW rear, Li-ion battery, rear wheel KERS
• Peugeot 908HY: 60 kW rear, Li-ion battery, rear wheel KERS
• Toyota Supra HV-R: 150 kW rear (gearbox) + 2 x 10 kW front (in wheels), supercaps (+ Li-ion battery?), 4 wheel KERS

[AU N EGL]

and what are those F1 budgets?


More then some 3rd world Countries GDP

[deggis]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Only technology used in production cars is allowed.

"or likely to be fitted"

[deggis]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

and what are those F1 budgets?

From the same Wikipedia link I gave:

In March 2007 F1 Racing published its annual estimates of spending by Formula One teams. The total spending of all eleven teams in 2006 was estimated at $2.9 billion. This was broken down as follows; Toyota $418.5 million, Ferrari $406.5 m, McLaren $402 m, Honda $380.5 m, BMW Sauber $355 m, Renault $324 m, Red Bull $252 m, Williams $195.5 m, Midland F1/Spyker-MF1 $120 m, Toro Rosso $75 m, and Super Aguri $57 million.

More recent numbers from "Formula Money" publication:

Toyota $445,6 million
McLaren $433,3 million
Ferrari $414,9 million
Honda $398,1 million

No wonder teams wants cost reducement, budgets caps etc.

No idea about Audi's or Peugeot's respective budgets, but nowhere near at these numbers. Some guesses or estimations in this thread.

[dxk1]

Originally Posted by deggis

From the same Wikipedia link I gave:

More recent numbers from "Formula Money" publication:

Toyota $445,6 million
McLaren $433,3 million
Ferrari $414,9 million
Honda $398,1 million

I guess you could say Toyota and Honda are just flushing that money down the WC while at least McLaren, Ferrari and Sauber/BMW are putting it to better use.

DK

[zac510]

Hey Dario, relax, you're only arguing with yourself about how much you don't like F1! Everybody in this forum likes Sportscars too

And you did not comment on my comment about the F1 hybrid system

[Dario911]

ACO Le Mans doesn't rule Japan GT, put the KERS system proposed in Japan GT was quite similar to the ACO's one.
10" difference on a single lap are very very few, if you consider LMP1 is 385 kg heavier than F1 car and has the air restrictors!
You must consider LMP1 could make more than 5000 km with the same engine, at the maximum of its potential. F1 could do the same just for 2 hours (in the best case). I suggest it should be harder to build a car to compete in a modern long distance race.
Toyota tried to win Le Mans befor to join F1, but failed both times. So, I think to win Le Mans is as hard as win F1 title. Peugeot failure shows clearly this point.
Related to the KERS, I think if F1 would be the pinnacle of the motorsport, its system would be the best, compared to LMP. Sorry, that's not the case.
In the best case, they are on the same level.
I find 50% of the budget for engine, considering the freezer rule, is wasting money. They could save all this moneys. This would allow to many other manifacturers to join in F1.

[Dario911]

I'm saying this because I'm tired to hear Eccleston, Mosley and co. to talk in bad terms about Endurance!
Media really things formula 1 is the best of the motorsport. And this is frustrating, specially for the lovers of the real motorsport.

[JAG]

There might be more options on sportscars but F1 will always be the pinnacle of media attention. And that is pretty relevant to a manufacturer.

It's relative, F1 has worked for Ferrari, Mclaren-Mercedes, Renault and BMW.

It's been disastrous for Jaguar, Porsche, Peugeot, Honda (since they re-entered) and Toyota.

Toyota had a long, distinguished history in the WRC, interspersed with Le Mans programs. Their F1 program has made little more than a ripple amongst the general public, and is derided by motorsport fans.

Whatever they may think, manufactuers can't go against their history, some are destined for F1, others Le Mans, WRC, touring cars etc., with a little crossover.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by Dario911

You must consider LMP1 could make more than 5000 km with the same engine, at the maximum of its potential. F1 could do the same just for 2 hours (in the best case). I suggest it should be harder to build a car to compete in a modern long distance race.
Toyota tried to win Le Mans befor to join F1, but failed both times. So, I think to win Le Mans is as hard as win F1 title. Peugeot failure shows clearly this point.

The years of '98-99 when Toyota tried but failed were golden years, there were a lot more manufacturers: BMW, Mercedes, Audi, underdogs Nissan and Panoz = higher competition

Much harder to beat several teams (like in F1) than only beating one rival team (like now in Le Mans) and try to win all 19 rounds in the season than to win one race, despite the length of 24 hours (of course to keep competitive LMP team has to race in ALMS/LMS too), where bad luck can be a huge factor.

Related to the KERS, I think if F1 would be the pinnacle of the motorsport, its system would be the best, compared to LMP. Sorry, that's not the case.

Do you also say F1 can not be regarded as pinnacle of motorsport because it uses grooved tyres?

In the best case, they are on the same level.

You first said it's prehistoric...

I find 50% of the budget for engine, considering the freezer rule, is wasting money. They could save all this moneys. This would allow to many other manifacturers to join in F1.

Diagram is from 2006. Engine freeze came in 2007. But when the new engine concept comes, they can again unleash their engine research and development resources, and then spend less on windtunnels.

Originally Posted by Dario911

I'm saying this because I'm tired to hear Eccleston, Mosley and co. to talk in bad terms about Endurance!

Where and when?

Media really things formula 1 is the best of the motorsport. And this is frustrating, specially for the lovers of the real motorsport.

Real and non-real motorsport? You have naive and pointless antipathy towards F1.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by JAG

It's relative, F1 has worked for Ferrari, Mclaren-Mercedes, Renault and BMW.

It's been disastrous for Jaguar, Porsche, Peugeot, Honda (since they re-entered) and Toyota.

Self-evidently related to success or lack of it...

Honda/Toyota: I wouldn't say disastrous since CEOs still keep writing checks.