|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
5 Oct 2017, 23:56 (Ref:3772204) | #76 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,561
|
Quote:
|
||
|
13 Oct 2017, 16:21 (Ref:3774043) | #77 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,485
|
Another engine option breaks cover:
http://sportscar365.com/lemans/wec/a...teer-programs/ But will there be any takers? |
||
|
13 Oct 2017, 16:58 (Ref:3774048) | #78 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,920
|
Honestly?
5 or <6L displacement is the worst for a NA racing engine. Too small to work as a dyno, and because of that it needs to rev higher to achieve target power, so consumes can't be optimized. Considering that in 2010-2011 seasons the judd 5.5 that powered lola rebellion, dyson and oreca 01 had a revlimit to 7500rpm to push 600hp, how much high has to rev now to reach >700? 9000rpm? almost the same of a sprint cup engine figures. |
|
|
13 Oct 2017, 17:12 (Ref:3774051) | #79 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,925
|
In '08 Judd claimed that they were doing close to 700bhp and that was measured at close to 7000rpm. Gibson also claim that their 4.5 liter V8 also was making 700bhp at the same time (though at significantly higher rpm).
The problem is that back then power was limited by air restrictors, while now they're dealing with fuel flow. They might be easily able to make well over 700bhp, but it won't be as consistent as it would be with air restrictors and no lift and coast. |
||
|
13 Oct 2017, 21:51 (Ref:3774082) | #80 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,561
|
Quote:
|
||
|
14 Oct 2017, 08:12 (Ref:3774144) | #81 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,920
|
Quote:
About judd V10, to reach 700hp @7000rpm the engine has to develope 710Nm! Giving for genuine these figures: Judd GV5.5 S2, V10 (72o) cyl, 4 stroke, petrol - Ethanol E10 engine. 5496cc, 94 x 79.2 mm 2006-2009: 650 bhp / 485 KW @ 7000 rpm, 657 Nm / 485 ft lbs @ 6500 rpm 2010: 700 bhp @ 8000 rpm, 550 ft lbs @ 6500 rpm aluminium block and head forged steel crankshaft with 6 main bearings DOHC, 4 valves/cyl, 40 valves total aspiration, natural with multipoint electronic Fuel Injection. 1 x 45.5mm inlet restrictor dry sump It's quite likely that 700hp are reached at about 8000rpm. But just think about how much fuel will be required to keep the torque curve so high at 6500rpm as these values suggest. Repeat, these are basically the power/torque figures of a nascar engine like. Can this kind of engine be reliable enough to be used in endurance races? |
||
|
14 Oct 2017, 12:06 (Ref:3774173) | #82 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,925
|
Those are the figures that Judd themselves gave, but now the website says 800+bhp without air restrictors.
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/juddgv510.html And with the fuel flow meters, the point is to lift and coast. They're there for the same reason air restrictors are, to limit the performance of the cars. If you're going to give them enough fuel so they don't have to lift and coast, then why run the flow meters? May as well go back to air restrictors if you're going to do that. |
||
|
14 Oct 2017, 18:11 (Ref:3774195) | #83 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,561
|
Quote:
|
||
|
14 Oct 2017, 18:23 (Ref:3774197) | #84 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,920
|
lmp1-l are allowed to use more than 100kg/h, am I right?
basically they are already running unrestricted.... anyway I am not complaining about figures or power quotes released by judd, just saying that you can power up a NA engine as you like, because basically it's all about how high you want make it rev; but it simply won't last 24hours! and what about consumes? the 45 minutes pit window will require 100L.... But honestly, do lmp1-L need all that power? what do you get with 800hp if your car has a so awful aero that can't let you have a good cornering speed and can't let you exit fast from corners as well? basically you need 800hp only to hit 350km/h at the end of mulsanne.... using DRS is a cheaper and safer way to do that. |
|
|
15 Oct 2017, 23:40 (Ref:3774395) | #85 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 906
|
||
__________________
. . . but I'm not a traditionalist so maybe my opinion doesn't count! -TF110 |
16 Oct 2017, 07:59 (Ref:3774439) | #86 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,450
|
V10s rule.
That's my contribution. |
||
|
16 Oct 2017, 10:31 (Ref:3774450) | #87 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,406
|
I think some of you doubters of the Judd engine are missing the point......running a turbo engine is a nightmare in terms of weight, packaging, aerodynamics and reliability......its the reliability factor that Judd are majoring on in their sales pitch
But I think they may have shot themselves in the foot with the move from 90 degrees over to a 72 degree......the incumbent customer engines from AER and Mechachrome are all 90 degree........so the carbon chassis engine fixing points have been manufactured for 90 degree engines.......hope Judd have realized this????....the Nissan-cosworth V6 is a lot narrower, no angle numbers released but it looks 60 degree. Otherwise, if I was starting an LMP1 team this engine would be well towards to top of my list.......a proper piece of kit. |
||
|
16 Oct 2017, 13:00 (Ref:3774486) | #88 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,925
|
I think that none of the customer LMP1s will use fully stress mounted engines. It's not like Audi Sport, Porsche and Toyota who designed their cars and engines to be stress mounted and as a single cohesive unit.
Even though it was designed as a F1 engine, I don't think that anyone ever stress mounted a Judd V10, not Pescarolo, not Courage, not Dome, anyone as far as I know. I think that all LMP1 privateers will use some adapter to semi-stress mount the engines in their cars. |
||
|
16 Oct 2017, 19:59 (Ref:3774562) | #89 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,450
|
Quote:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_GT-R_LM_Nismo |
|||
|
16 Oct 2017, 23:07 (Ref:3774577) | #90 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,308
|
Quote:
Rebellion's Toyota engines were always fully stressed, so was any Zytek or Mugen installation besides the Panoz. Champ Cars used to run four different engines as stressed members. It's not that hard. The GV has always been 72deg. That's the normal bank angle for a V10 otherwise you get some crazy vibrations that are worthwhile for F1 but pretty stupid in endurance racing. |
||
|
16 Oct 2017, 23:15 (Ref:3774578) | #91 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,561
|
72 degrees I thought was the no-brainer for V10's?
|
|
|
16 Oct 2017, 23:51 (Ref:3774579) | #92 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 906
|
||
__________________
. . . but I'm not a traditionalist so maybe my opinion doesn't count! -TF110 |
17 Oct 2017, 13:40 (Ref:3774666) | #93 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,406
|
Quote:
Yes the Nissan V6 was 60 degrees Overall my point is Judd are creating a problem for themselves which will force an un-needed chassis interface change, which could scare off either the chassis manufacturers or the teams.....not the best starting point. |
||
|
17 Oct 2017, 13:44 (Ref:3774667) | #94 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,406
|
check this link for images of the 90 degree AIM V10 version last raced a few years back
http://juddpower.com/our-engines/aim-lmp1-engine/ |
||
|
17 Oct 2017, 15:32 (Ref:3774678) | #95 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,925
|
And even with the "stress mounted" Indy Car engines, they were about the same bank angle, and "adaptor" doesn't mean a tube frame. Indy Cars used to use a "sheer plate" that was designed to allow dimensionally different engines to fit the same tub as well as to break the engine away with minimal damage to the tub.
You have to remember that a lot of the cars that used Judd engines (like Courage and Lola) were customer cars that had to take various engines that could be stipulated by the customer. |
||
|
17 Oct 2017, 21:42 (Ref:3774747) | #96 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,920
|
Quote:
Don't think it is a surmontable engineering hurdle for dallara and ginetta. |
||
|
18 Oct 2017, 00:57 (Ref:3774769) | #97 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 1,179
|
The Oreca 05 tub, was able to fit the Nissan NA v8, HDP turbo v6, Toyota NA v8, AER turbo v6, the new Acura turbo v6 (I'm not sure if it's the old HDP) and they are ofering the same tub as Oreca 09 for LMP1.
|
||
|
18 Oct 2017, 01:29 (Ref:3774776) | #98 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 906
|
||
__________________
. . . but I'm not a traditionalist so maybe my opinion doesn't count! -TF110 |
18 Oct 2017, 01:32 (Ref:3774778) | #99 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 1,179
|
Ohh I'm wrong, the Oreca tub never have had a HPD v6 turbo before, it was the Ligier, sorry. However, the Oreca tub is able to accomodate the current Acura.
|
||
|
18 Oct 2017, 01:46 (Ref:3774779) | #100 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 906
|
||
__________________
. . . but I'm not a traditionalist so maybe my opinion doesn't count! -TF110 |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ginetta G8 F3 car from 1964 | Sprint | Motorsport History | 11 | 29 Sep 2014 20:28 |
How about a LMP1 Pro & LMP1 Privateer class | Holt | Sportscar & GT Racing | 35 | 6 Jun 2012 13:44 |
Ginetta Racing | Redlake27 | National & Club Racing | 9 | 29 Oct 2003 12:23 |
Ginetta G12P | tonyabacus | Motorsport History | 2 | 2 Aug 2002 07:44 |