ACO Press Conference tommorow

[kingkai]

They have two guns right now, why one. (ps For is in F1)

[mattcat]

Originally Posted by kingkai

One gun... Well throwing it from side to side with one mechanic on each side doesn't seem save to me instead of one gun on each side. What is the problem with the current way?....

I agree...that doesn't make sense to me...seems like a pointless rule.

[minimangler]

Reading Knighty's translation, it makes me giggle that restrictor translates as "bride"

What is an appendix airport??? I realise this is bad translation, so what should it be?

[gwyllion]

In French it says "appendice aéro", so aerodynamic elements. And "We want to reduce support" actually means reduce downforce

[cdsvg]

The translator I'm using also reads "FIA" in French as being "TRUSTED" in English...doesn't recognize acronyms.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by FIRE

Whats your problem with this EE car? I get the impression you prefer 54 cars on the grid instead of 55.

Absolutely no problem at all - in fact I'm absolutely delighted to see it - in all respects. Another LMP1 with a roof - manna from heaven as far as I'm concerned. But something seriously stinks about the way this happened - and the way in which EE clearly knew (or strongly believed) it would happen. There should have been no additions to the field after the end of May cut-off. That there is an extra EE is a blessing, but the ACO need to be careful they haven't set a precedent for the future, because you can be sure the teams will remember......

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by mattcat

I agree...that doesn't make sense to me...seems like a pointless rule.

and maybe a rule that is thown out to get another rule.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by mattcat

I agree...that doesn't make sense to me...seems like a pointless rule.

It makes perfect sense.

More time for driver changes, seatbelt safety.

Fewer pit crew exposed in the pitlane.

The most cruicila statement from the press confernce is as follows (Courtesy of DSC):-

The determination of how that re-casting will work will not though be based on the cars qualifying pace but rather on race times across the Le Mans series, 12 Hours of Sebring and the Le Mans 24 Hours.

This is interesting two fold.

Firstly ALMS pace will be taken into consideration, potentially closer the gap between ACO/IMSA regulations.

Secondly, the spectacly of blazing qualifying laps will not be diminished. Peugeots 3.18 may have shocked everyone, but if they run similar race pace to Audi, they (the manufactuer) and the diesel technology will not be penalised as much as the qualifying pace suggests it should be.

Likewise Pescaolos current policy of not pushing in qualifying, therefore increasing the gap between th diesel pole and head of the petrol P1 field, will not be taken into consideration. If Peugeot run 3.26 race laps and Pescaolo run 3.32, that is the gap that will be used to balance the cars, not the 10+ second qualifying differnce.

It's also good to here the ACO aims to have stable regs, reducing engine performance in 2009, plus smaller aero changes, then a bigger aero change in 2010.

Re. P1 Evo regs, again courtesy of DSC:-

In a move which put smiles on faces of those wearing GM yellow the ACO also announced that current GT1 engines up to 7 litres in capacity will be permitted for use in LMP1 in the future. “There was nothing I heard here today which was a major surprise,” said a smiling Doug Fehan later.

Further indications that GM are still looking at a P1, plus confirmation P1 Evo will run alongside current P1's.

All in all, not much to complain about!
.

[Purist]

JAG, other series make 8-16 pit crewman work, and Le Mans regs currently call for just five, I think. I don't see an unreasonable risk here, or anything that will cut costs meaningfully.

The two things that are going to be real issues on pit lane are how well the crews are drilled and the relative congestion based on how many cars bunched together come in at one time. Sportscar crews are pretty well drilled in general from what I've seen, and we're not likely to ever see the level of congestion that occurs under caution at a NASCAR race; so yes, the one air gun rule is pretty stupid and pointless.

[SebringMG]

If anything i suspect that the one air gun rule would lead to teams running longer on worn tyres than they would normally leading to potentially serious accidents.....bad idea imo.

Other cars will be quicker than the Pescarolos so his sandbagging will hopefully be ignored when the rules are made

[alwayswatching]

The one tire gun rule seems totally stupid to me with no valid reason or what they think it will achieve, other than make pit stops more hectic.

I agree with the ACO internal cost cutting someone suggested.......let's face it, during Le Mans week, there are so many useless & unnecessary officials strutting around like little Napoleans, whose cost of being there, every entrant pays for.

Otherwise I guess we'll have to wait and see as to which manufacturer has more sway & influence with the ACO to get what they want..........

[deggis]

More rushing (and possibly more mistakes) during the tyre change. Reminder from last year...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BSJc1nsU5Cw

[deggis]

Originally Posted by JAG

Re. P1 Evo regs, again courtesy of DSC:-

Further indications that GM are still looking at a P1, plus confirmation P1 Evo will run alongside current P1's.

All in all, not much to complain about!
.

Funny comment from Fehan. Also I think instead of blaming ACO bending the rules in favour of getting GM in, maybe the question should be why the GT1-homologated engines rule was limited to 6 L in the first place. That was kind of slap in the face for GM. To "exploit" that by building some 10 litre engine would be quite unlikely, as first the engine would need to be GT1-homologated which means quite a few engines needs to be built...

[bastc]

The one-airgun-rule and the ban on pre-heating tires will cut costs by using less tires in a race. Pitstops will take longer and cold-tire outlaps will be slower, taking away the advantage of changing tires.

I'm sure tire suppliers will develop new compounds to allow for longer stints without increasing the risk of crashes.

Just compare tire usage with brake usage. If brakedisks and -pads could be changed in seconds, I'm sure most teams would use more efficient brakes that only last 1 or 2 stints, and change them often during a race. But since changing brakes takes a long time, they are made to last at least half a race. This doesn't make them more dangerous, just less efficient than they could be. Actually the long lifespan of a set of brakes makes them less prone to malfunctions than the 45 to 90 minute lifespan of a set of tires.

Under the new rules, tire compounds will be much harder, leading to lower cornering speeds, longer braking distances and therefore lower topspeeds. The firmer structure will also make them less likely to blow as a result of overdriving them.

I don't think using just one airgun will lead to more accidents due to pitstop mess-ups. These have happened while using two airguns and they also happen in F1 with four airguns.

[Speed-King]

I think the one-gun-rule will also help the coupes. As it is now, I think Peugeot lose a few seconds every stop due to longer driver changes. With longer stops this should be a non-issue.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by bastc

The one-airgun-rule and the ban on pre-heating tires will cut costs by using less tires in a race. Pitstops will take longer and cold-tire outlaps will be slower, taking away the advantage of changing tires.

I'm sure tire suppliers will develop new compounds to allow for longer stints without increasing the risk of crashes.

Just compare tire usage with brake usage. If brakedisks and -pads could be changed in seconds, I'm sure most teams would use more efficient brakes that only last 1 or 2 stints, and change them often during a race. But since changing brakes takes a long time, they are made to last at least half a race. This doesn't make them more dangerous, just less efficient than they could be. Actually the long lifespan of a set of brakes makes them less prone to malfunctions than the 45 to 90 minute lifespan of a set of tires.

Under the new rules, tire compounds will be much harder, leading to lower cornering speeds, longer braking distances and therefore lower topspeeds. The firmer structure will also make them less likely to blow as a result of overdriving them.

I don't think using just one airgun will lead to more accidents due to pitstop mess-ups. These have happened while using two airguns and they also happen in F1 with four airguns.

That's a great point, if it plays out that way. We don't want spec tyres, but harder compound, less grippy tyres would be preferable.

[Nordic]

Originally Posted by SebringMG

If anything i suspect that the one air gun rule would lead to teams running longer on worn tyres than they would normally leading to potentially serious accidents.....bad idea imo.

Maybe the ACO want the teams to be forced to use harder, therefore slower tyres?

I dont think its a rule that is really needed, it seems to work well with a pair, I can see why you dont want 4 as that would double the number of team members a team would need to field, ok for the Pro teams but some of the smaller ones would struggle over a 24 hour period.

Like the idea of a 7 litre GM powered Lola, was the engine of choice in the
T70 not a chevy for most teams?

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by bastc

Under the new rules, tire compounds will be much harder, leading to lower cornering speeds, longer braking distances and therefore lower topspeeds. The firmer structure will also make them less likely to blow as a result of overdriving them.

Hay bastc welcome to 10-Tenths


Well lets see, each year Rules makes have said cars will be slower do to air restructors, or wt increases. Or that was the idea

What really happened? Engineer, Adapt, test and over come. Those same cars which rule makers wanted to slow down are faster, in some cases much faster.

So IMO No they will not be slower.

If you want longer brake distances, get rid of the carbon carbon brakes, and go back to streel . iron brake rotors.

[ger80]

Steel brakes? And whats with the nice night photos with the red brake disc?

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by ger80

Steel brakes? And whats with the nice night photos with the red brake disc?

GT-2 are the only class that run ferrous rotors.
And even carbon gets hot and glows in the dark!

L.P.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

Hay bastc welcome to 10-Tenths


Well lets see, each year Rules makes have said cars will be slower do to air restructors, or wt increases. Or that was the idea

What really happened? Engineer, Adapt, test and over come. Those same cars which rule makers wanted to slow down are faster, in some cases much faster.

So IMO No they will not be slower.

If you want longer brake distances, get rid of the carbon carbon brakes, and go back to streel . iron brake rotors.

It's all about standing still rather than slowing cars as such, at least only slowing the cars a small amount, to give some development room.

As for steel brakes, Willimas tested them a few years back, not much differnce. Making braking worse doesn't really fit in with the ACO's safety stance, I'd prefare to cut cornering speeds and rely less on huge wings and extreme shapes to generate downforce, focusing more on mechanical grip.

Who knows, a 4wd prototype!!!!

[Holt]

1 gun per pit stop equals slower pits so that should help slower hybrids that may appear in 2010 who need fuel mileage to be more advantageous then it is now

Even the no tire warmers rule helps a hybrid that relys on fuel mileage

Again, the ACO is trying to encourage manufacturer particpation

The above rule change is for a Toyota LMP1 Hybrid, the 7.0 liter GT1 engine rule is for a LMP1 Corvette

Anyways, a 7.0 liter Chevrolet prototype would sound nice

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by ger80

Steel brakes? And whats with the nice night photos with the red brake disc?

Carbon rotors and carbon brake pads - glowing white hot at 1600-1700*F

[HORNDAWG]

Still do not see a verbatum (non summarization) English translation anywhere in the free zones!



L.P.

[deggis]

http://www.lemans.org/24heuresdumans..._notoriete.pdf

Survey made in France, UK, Germany, USA and Japan.

"Which of the following car races are you interested in?"

F1 31,2%
Le Mans 19,4%
Dakar 18,2%
WRC 14,4%
Indianapolis 11,2%
NASCAR11,0%
Other 3,2%