Home Mobile Forum News Cookbook FaceBook Us T-Shirts etc.: Europe/Worldwide. eBay Motorsport Links Advertising Live Chat  
Site Partners: SpotterGuides MotorsportAds MotorsTV (Sky 447)  
Related Sites: Your Link Here  

Go Back   TenTenths Motorsport Forum > Saloon & Sportscar Racing > Sportscar & GT Racing


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 28 Jun 2008, 19:59 (Ref:2239394)   #46
JAG
Veteran
 
JAG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
England
Posts: 10,500
JAG should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridJAG should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridJAG should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by HORNDAWG
Huh? I would imagine anything being built from 2010 on will be to new (hinted at) specs, granted the current cars will still be eligible to run but only as long as they last and no new chassis (tubs) will be built to the old specs. The only way I see for lateral protection to be applied to current existing tubs, creating a hybrid per se, is to build the lateral protection into the sidepods with a bigger and better crush zone while trying to incorporate some anti-flight elements of sorts into them also.


L.P.
Take your theory to it's logical conclusion, and single seaters would be banned outright, considering the lack on side impact protection.

The DTM and WRC both run large, wide bodied, saloons/sedans. They are both moving towards regs that cocoon the driver in tight fitting, almost single seater like, tubs. Rally drivers and co-drivers have both been killed in recent years due to side impacts with trees and lamposts, the basic, wide bodied cars with rollcage, provide little protection in such an incident. Only last year Marcus Gronholm was injured on the Rally of Ireland when he hit a wall side on at relativelly low speed, yet single seater drivers escape unscathed from similar side on impacts.

What helps is the aformentioned head protection and cushioning, which works best when the driver is packed tightly in the cockpit, i.e single seaters/908, there is no logical reason to move to wider cockpits for safety reasons, other than easier access to remove the driver.

A regular LMP1 already provides ampl side impact crush zones for a driver, the tub always stands upto the impact with little damage, the question is whether the driver can survie the shock and whiplash of the impact.

Altering chassis to reduce the risk of flight is a totally different proposition.

Last edited by JAG; 28 Jun 2008 at 20:09.
JAG is offline  
Quote
Old 28 Jun 2008, 20:16 (Ref:2239398)   #47
chewymonster
Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 626
chewymonster should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
Think Mercedes CLR, that's the best guess so far.
I agree, it's the best example of what they are trying to achieve. But it doesn't make sense to have CLR looking race cars competing with current P1s. You just end up with rules that will ultimately favor one over the other. The ACO would likely give the Evo cars some extra benefit to get everone to make one.



Didn't it even have a road car based engine? Sounds a lot like the ACO has come full circle.

Last edited by chewymonster; 28 Jun 2008 at 20:25.
chewymonster is offline  
Quote
Old 29 Jun 2008, 03:06 (Ref:2239515)   #48
MulsanneMike
Veteran
 
MulsanneMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
United States
Posts: 1,831
MulsanneMike has a real shot at the podium!MulsanneMike has a real shot at the podium!MulsanneMike has a real shot at the podium!MulsanneMike has a real shot at the podium!
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
Take your theory to it's logical conclusion, and single seaters would be banned outright, considering the lack on side impact protection.

The DTM and WRC both run large, wide bodied, saloons/sedans. They are both moving towards regs that cocoon the driver in tight fitting, almost single seater like, tubs. Rally drivers and co-drivers have both been killed in recent years due to side impacts with trees and lamposts, the basic, wide bodied cars with rollcage, provide little protection in such an incident. Only last year Marcus Gronholm was injured on the Rally of Ireland when he hit a wall side on at relativelly low speed, yet single seater drivers escape unscathed from similar side on impacts.

What helps is the aformentioned head protection and cushioning, which works best when the driver is packed tightly in the cockpit, i.e single seaters/908, there is no logical reason to move to wider cockpits for safety reasons, other than easier access to remove the driver.

A regular LMP1 already provides ampl side impact crush zones for a driver, the tub always stands upto the impact with little damage, the question is whether the driver can survie the shock and whiplash of the impact.

Altering chassis to reduce the risk of flight is a totally different proposition.
My thoughts about widening the tub has nothing to do with safety. Think of it as quick way to eliminate aero development areas, especially if they push the tub out to the edge of the chassis as in the Group C days. That way you have monocoque in the way and it is difficult to loop hole around.
MulsanneMike is offline  
Quote
Old 29 Jun 2008, 04:09 (Ref:2239525)   #49
Matt
Subscriber
Veteran
 
Matt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
United States
Connecticut
Posts: 6,715
Matt has a real shot at the championship!Matt has a real shot at the championship!Matt has a real shot at the championship!Matt has a real shot at the championship!Matt has a real shot at the championship!Matt has a real shot at the championship!
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewymonster
I agree, it's the best example of what they are trying to achieve. But it doesn't make sense to have CLR looking race cars competing with current P1s. You just end up with rules that will ultimately favor one over the other. The ACO would likely give the Evo cars some extra benefit to get everone to make one.



Didn't it even have a road car based engine? Sounds a lot like the ACO has come full circle.
Holy.... I never knew exactly how low that car was, until I saw that picture.
Matt is online now  
Quote
Old 29 Jun 2008, 11:30 (Ref:2239634)   #50
JAG
Veteran
 
JAG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
England
Posts: 10,500
JAG should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridJAG should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridJAG should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by MulsanneMike
My thoughts about widening the tub has nothing to do with safety. Think of it as quick way to eliminate aero development areas, especially if they push the tub out to the edge of the chassis as in the Group C days. That way you have monocoque in the way and it is difficult to loop hole around.
I'd be all for that, with the regular Group C cars they all had wide cockpits, and looked great. It was the 3.5 cars that set the trend for bubble cocklpits and shrink wrapped bodywork, now we see those single seater noses and intergrated 'wings' on the sides of the cars etc.

I always found it interesting you had standard, almost old style Group C looking Mercedes CLR's, competing head to head with the more radical Toyota GT-ONE's back in '99.

Quote:
I agree, it's the best example of what they are trying to achieve. But it doesn't make sense to have CLR looking race cars competing with current P1s. You just end up with rules that will ultimately favor one over the other. The ACO would likely give the Evo cars some extra benefit to get everone to make one.
That's not neccesarily a bad thing, they don't want to chuck out current cars, let them phase out naturally.

Quote:
Didn't it even have a road car based engine? Sounds a lot like the ACO has come full circle.
The orignal CLK-GTR had a production derived V12, I think it was quite an old engine. The CLK-LM and CLR had a V8, it may even have been based on the block from the C9/C11.

Last edited by JAG; 29 Jun 2008 at 11:35.
JAG is offline  
Quote
Old 30 Jun 2008, 00:50 (Ref:2240125)   #51
Félix
Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
MagnetON
Québec
Posts: 776
Félix should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridFélix should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Andy Thorby commented on the LMP2004 regulation discussions and mentioned how they thought about enlarging the tub at first to make the cars real two-seaters. Two of the reasons it did not work were front suspension design issues (very short wishbones) and radiator size/positioning issues.

I like the current LMPs very well the way they are. Raised noses and sculpted shapes reminescent of F1 are just logical design-wise and trying to prevent that takes us that much closer to GA rules. For those who don't understand, if designers knowing what they know today designed a Group C car, it would have all the features you don't like now but also benefit from freer wing rules giving you F1-esque 10-plane rear wings and equally complicated front wings. LMPs are visually striking and most non-hardcore fans are impressed when they see them I think.
Félix is offline  
Quote
Old 30 Jun 2008, 07:12 (Ref:2240209)   #52
chernaudi
Veteran
 
chernaudi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
United States
Mansfield, Ohio
Posts: 6,717
chernaudi has a real shot at the championship!chernaudi has a real shot at the championship!chernaudi has a real shot at the championship!chernaudi has a real shot at the championship!chernaudi has a real shot at the championship!
The Sauber C9/11 used the M119 5.0 V8, and the Mercedes CLM and CLR used a 6 liter(1998) and 5.7('99) versions of that engine.

So it could still classify as a stock block engine, unless MB did what Oldsmoble/Cadillac did with the Aurora/Northstar engine, and redesign the block and heads so the engine could be stress mounted.
chernaudi is online now  
Quote
Old 19 Aug 2008, 00:00 (Ref:2271259)   #53
Taxi645
Racer
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Netherlands
Posts: 223
Taxi645 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
LMS 2009 prototype rules




Here's my take on what roughly should be the LMS prototype rules for 2009:

1. LMP1

1.1 Diesel

1.1.1 For existing engine/chassis combinations and production based engines:
930kg, 2008 -7% air restrictor.

1.1.2 Everything else:
900kg, 2008 -10% air restrictor.

1.2 Petrol

1.2.1 For production/GT1 based engines:
900kg, 2008 -2% air restrictor

1.2.2 Everything else:
870kg, 2008 -5% air restrictor


2. LMP2

2.1 Diesel

2.1.1 For production based engines:
875kg, 2008 air restrictor.

2.1.2 Everything else:
850kg, 2008 -3% air restrictor.

1.2 Petrol

2.2.1 For production/GT2 based engines:
850kg, 2008 air restrictor

2.2.2 Everything else:
825kg, 2008 -3% air restrictor


Goals for the rule adaptions:
1 Make LMP1 petrol more competitive compared to LMP1 diesels and LMP2
2 Get LMP1 cars back above or near the Le Mans 3.30min lap.
3 Differentiate rules for different engine concepts LMP1 vs. LMP2, Petrol vs. diesel and race vs. production in order to stimulate chassis compatibility with different engine concepts which will reduce costs and facilitate more production engines/manufacturers to enter.
4 1.1.1 Keeps Audi and Peugeot on board by allowing them to stay competitive with their powerful but heavy V12's.


PS. Sorry for the cross post, but this thread seems more appropriate.
Taxi645 is offline  
Quote
Old 19 Aug 2008, 00:05 (Ref:2271261)   #54
The Badger
Veteran
 
The Badger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location:
Innsbruck , Austria
Posts: 13,760
The Badger has a real shot at the podium!The Badger has a real shot at the podium!The Badger has a real shot at the podium!The Badger has a real shot at the podium!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MulsanneMike
My thoughts about widening the tub has nothing to do with safety. Think of it as quick way to eliminate aero development areas, especially if they push the tub out to the edge of the chassis as in the Group C days. That way you have monocoque in the way and it is difficult to loop hole around.
And a lot easier to damage or write off as well . Most of the Group C cars were a metal based monocoque , and therefore would be easier and less expensive than having to graft in a composite repair every so often ?
The Badger is offline  
Quote
Old 19 Aug 2008, 01:50 (Ref:2271274)   #55
The Badger
Veteran
 
The Badger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location:
Innsbruck , Austria
Posts: 13,760
The Badger has a real shot at the podium!The Badger has a real shot at the podium!The Badger has a real shot at the podium!The Badger has a real shot at the podium!
From that pic above , I didnt realise that the Benz was "THAT" low . That was an amazing car to watch , just a shame that it didnt last long .
The Badger is offline  
Quote
Old 19 Aug 2008, 11:54 (Ref:2271504)   #56
AU N EGL
Veteran
 
AU N EGL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
United States
Raleigh, North Carolina
Posts: 4,418
AU N EGL should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridAU N EGL should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
It would be nice if the ACO/FIA would use power to wt ratios:


P1 900KG / 700 RWHP


P2 800 KG / 500 RWHP


Rear Wheel Horse Power meased on one specific dyno( DynoJet) using the SAE standards
AU N EGL is offline  
__________________
"When the fear of death out weighs the thrill of speed, brake." LG
Quote
Old 19 Aug 2008, 11:58 (Ref:2271506)   #57
Speed-King
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location:
Wuerzburg,Germany
Posts: 6,827
Speed-King should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridSpeed-King should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridSpeed-King should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridSpeed-King should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by AU N EGL
It would be nice if the ACO/FIA would use power to wt ratios:


P1 900KG / 700 RWHP


P2 800 KG / 500 RWHP


Rear Wheel Horse Power meased on one specific dyno( DynoJet) using the SAE standards
Power to weight ratios is nice for amateur or lower-level-pro-racing, but not for factory battles. Where's the point in improving the engine if every gain in horsepower is "rewarded" with additional weight?
Speed-King is offline  
Quote
Old 19 Aug 2008, 17:21 (Ref:2271667)   #58
Taxi645
Racer
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Netherlands
Posts: 223
Taxi645 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Ok, latest update, but now I should stop:

1. LMP1

1.1 Diesel

1.1.1 For homologated engines or existing race engines:
950kg, 2008 -8% air restrictor (about 651hp, 1,46kg/hp)

1.1.2 Everything else:
900kg, 2008 -13% air restrictor (about 616hp, 1,46kg/hp)

1.2 Petrol

1.2.1 For homologated/GT1 based engines:
900kg, 2008 -4% air restrictor (about 652hp, 1,38kg/hp)

1.2.2 Everything else:
860kg, 2008 -5% air restrictor (about 614hp, 1,4kg/hp)


2. LMP2

2.1 Diesel

2.1.1 For homologated engines:
900kg, 2008 air restrictor (about 559hp, 1,61kg/hp)

2.1.2 Everything else:
860kg, ? air restrictor (about 528hp, 1,63kg/hp)

1.2 Petrol

2.2.1 For homologated/GT2 based engines:
860kg, 2008 air restrictor (about 555hp, 1,55kg/hp)

2.2.2 Everything else:
825kg, 2008 -3% air restrictor (about 525hp, 1,57kg/hp)


Goals for the rule adaptions:
1 Make LMP1 petrol more competitive compared to LMP1 diesels and LMP2
2 Get LMP1 cars back above or near the Le Mans 3.30min lap.
3 Differentiate rules for different engine concepts LMP1 vs. LMP2, Petrol vs. diesel and race vs. production in order to stimulate chassis compatibility with different engine concepts which will reduce costs and facilitate more production engines/manufacturers to enter.
4 1.1.1. Keeps Audi and Peugeot on board by allowing them to stay competitive with their powerful but heavy V12's.
5 Production/GT based LMP get a slight power to weight advantage to compensate for mileage and possible weight balance handicaps.




I know it doesn't look sexy, but I think it is quite well balanced.

Perhaps I should send it to the A.C.O.
Taxi645 is offline  
Quote
Old 19 Aug 2008, 17:50 (Ref:2271684)   #59
ger80
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Germany
Birmingham
Posts: 1,710
ger80 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
who needs LMP2 diesel if its for privatear teams?
ger80 is offline  
Quote
Old 19 Aug 2008, 18:14 (Ref:2271701)   #60
HORNDAWG
Veteran
 
HORNDAWG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
United States
Oregon
Posts: 8,685
HORNDAWG should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridHORNDAWG should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridHORNDAWG should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
Anybody that wishes to run it.


L.P.
HORNDAWG is offline  
__________________
Probae esti in segetem sunt deteriorem datae fruges, tamen ipsae suaptae enitent
Quote
Reply

Bookmarks




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ACO Publish 2010 Le Mans Regulations Gingers4Justice Sportscar & GT Racing 88 10 Dec 2009 03:41
[LM24] Whats the future of LMP's at Le Mans?? Garrett 24 Heures du Mans 59 8 Jul 2004 15:15
[LM24] 2004 Le Mans Rules pirenzo 24 Heures du Mans 6 16 Dec 2002 18:35
[LM24] No Lister LMP 900 for Le Mans. pink69 24 Heures du Mans 1 30 Nov 2001 12:17
[LM24] Entry Rules for le Mans? Liz 24 Heures du Mans 5 5 Nov 2000 22:41


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:12.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Original Website Copyright © 1998-2003 Craig Antil. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2004-2016 Royalridge Computing. All Rights Reserved.