|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
26 Jul 2017, 20:45 (Ref:3754571) | #5051 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,559
|
Quote:
What I said before about the location on the track- my point of doing 1km on electric is that you're first coming out the pits merging to traffic at high speed then one of the slowest parts with the dunlop chicane. There's not much speed to be had there because almost as soon as you're out the pits, you're on the brakes to a slow part of the track. This kinda goes into the "lmp2 speeds" claim at the same time... Lmp's seemed to be pretty close through sector 1 this year, only maybe a second and a half or so separated the p1's and p2's. So with all the hybrid power plus the engine, lmp1 wasn't that much faster in the first part of the lap. The best sector 1 by lmp1 was a 31.4, lmp2 was a 32.8. This is why I put little (' ') marks around lmp2 speeds. Because I have a hard time believing they'll be doing lmp2 speeds on electric alone. They'll have to really increase the output of the electric motors because right now it's limited thanks to Sarthe being a grade 2 track. There's the biggest safety part right there, not just from my pov but the FIA's. In order to go that fast/put out more power they'll have to retract the limit on the electric output. That goes against their recent rule change because of safety. To me, it would be fine, because they'll be even faster! Sorry for the long post. I hope I cleared up what I was getting at with the 'safety' thing. |
||
|
1 Aug 2017, 09:52 (Ref:3756636) | #5052 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,923
|
DSC caught something in their Peugeot to LMP1 article about proposed aero regs for 2020.
Peugeot stated that the ACO could enforce a spec underbody on the cars with some zones for development. DSC clarified this as targeting some areas (mostly the tuning vane stuff that got opened up with the 2014 rules) to restrict development. I kinda intrepret this as going back to the 2004-2013 regs where the ACO had a quasi-spec underfloor with a near spec rear diffuser and a spec area between the front and rear diffusers. Only area that was free to any real degree was the front diffuser, and I'd have to think that the prorposed 2020 underbody rules are leaning to going back to the older regs. |
||
|
1 Aug 2017, 10:00 (Ref:3756638) | #5053 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 43,946
|
So Peugeot can just roll out the old 908?
|
||
__________________
Brum brum |
1 Aug 2017, 10:48 (Ref:3756652) | #5054 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,923
|
I know that you're being sarcastic, but no. First off, the 908 was 2000mm wide vs the current 1900mm, and is power limited by air restrictor vs fuel flow.
And unless the ACO change those two parameters, no one can just roll out an "old" car and race it in LMP1. Not to mention that technology has moved on and now the ACO want to introduce movable aero on LMP1 cars in 2020. Which, that point is probably what's driving the ACO to reportedly cut back on stuff like underbody tuning vanes by closing up regs on the area behind the front wheels back to 2013 and earlier levels. And, no, I don't think we'll be going back to LMP900/675 style flat bottoms (though the diffuser exits on factory LMP1s now are what the LMP900s were in terms of height and volume. Also, the tunnels start later on the current cars it seems, too). |
||
|
1 Aug 2017, 14:09 (Ref:3756719) | #5055 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 7,175
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
1 Aug 2017, 16:45 (Ref:3756737) | #5056 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 43,946
|
I'm not being sarcastic, I'm being silly.
Although I have also managed to make a subtle point about posting in multiple threads at the same time. At least in the other thread I got a sensible response from joeb. |
||
__________________
Brum brum |
13 Aug 2017, 22:14 (Ref:3759222) | #5057 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,931
|
This is the LMP1 car concept of Wirth Research of 2012 that never raced.
http://www.endurance-info.com/fr/wir...s-les-cartons/ https://www.wirthresearch.com/concepts/motorsports |
||
|
13 Aug 2017, 22:50 (Ref:3759223) | #5058 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,308
|
Seems to be a Nissan for some reason.
|
|
|
13 Aug 2017, 23:31 (Ref:3759225) | #5059 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,600
|
You are great detective!
|
|
|
14 Aug 2017, 01:52 (Ref:3759229) | #5060 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,559
|
Quote:
|
||
|
14 Aug 2017, 15:01 (Ref:3759361) | #5061 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,232
|
||
|
14 Aug 2017, 21:47 (Ref:3759423) | #5062 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,931
|
As a product of the publication of the Wirth Research concept, DSC will incorporate a new section of the cars that never raced.
http://www.dailysportscar.com/2017/0...ver-raced.html In this article mentions the project of the Audi TT GT2 of which I did not know of its existence, and looking information I found an even more ambitious car that was the R8 GT1. This car looks incredible and shows how wonderful the GT1 were before they become prototypes. This car never raced and was the base for the R8C ,Although Audi gave more support to its LMP1 spyder. http://fourtitude.com/features/Misce...car-proposals/ |
||
|
16 Aug 2017, 01:36 (Ref:3759658) | #5063 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 5,146
|
Lets get that stillborn Lexus LFA, and that Mclaren from '13 or so.
|
|
|
23 Aug 2017, 15:47 (Ref:3761205) | #5064 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,614
|
Mazda motorsport director John Doonan asks for DPi in the FIA WEC.
|
||
__________________
Nitropteron - Fly fast or get crushed! by NaBUrean Prodooktionz naburu38.itch.io |
23 Aug 2017, 16:59 (Ref:3761225) | #5065 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,923
|
Not directly related to LMP1 regs, but it's been posted in the '17 Super GT thread that Super Formula are thinking of reverting to using air restrictors on their engines from 2019 onwards.
Of course, since Super GT and Super Formula share their basic engine formula, I wonder if that would have an impact on Super GT and if it could be a sign of change with the flow of maybe going away from fuel flow to limit car performance, including LMP1? |
||
|
23 Aug 2017, 18:13 (Ref:3761237) | #5066 | ||
Racer
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 253
|
As been mentioned before I could see DPi being a base for a future LMP1 class. Due to the spec and bop nature of the class, some restrictions would have to be lifted in order to fit the nature of what it means to be prototype and the top class in a world renowned race/championship. Not to mention DPi would be slower than the LMP1L's already (except maybe ByKolles). Free tires, drop the requirement of production cues in the aero, freed up engine restrictions, etc.
Something similar happened in 1994. ACO developed the LMP classes while IMSA created the WSC class. Mostly similar however the ACO allowed a little more freedom and if my history is correct IMSA dropped the stock block engine rule to align more towards the ACO regs. How I would love to see that for IMSA if they curtailed some restrictions and checked themselves with the constant BoP |
||
|
23 Aug 2017, 21:08 (Ref:3761259) | #5067 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,559
|
Ginetta showed off a new (computer generated) image of their lmp1 today
https://twitter.com/GinettaCars/stat...97013463527424 They are back in the Williams windtunnel. I think the project is coming along nicely and hope to see a few of them next year. |
|
|
23 Aug 2017, 23:35 (Ref:3761284) | #5068 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,923
|
Quote:
Ultimately, that was proven wrong, and between that and wanting to standardize on ACO regs (with the founding of the Petit Le Mans and the IMSA American Le Mans Series), the air restrictors came in. IMO, the ACO need to dump focusing on marginal--and expensive--aero gains if they're going to open up aero. And DPI definitely can't be top class at LM with the micromanaged levels of performance balancing in my honest opinion. |
|||
|
24 Aug 2017, 22:09 (Ref:3761432) | #5069 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,923
|
Having thought about it, I do wonder if the rumored goings on in Japan (dumping fuel flow in favor of going back to air restirctors in Super Formula and probably also Super GT in a couple of years) is them looking at a contingency plan.
The fuel flow regs have proven to be expensive, because to use an existing engine concept, you have to adapt it, which probably isn't cheap, as Audi Sport and TMG will probably tell you. Or you have to develop a new powertrain concept, which that for sure isn't cheap. Air restrictors, for their failings and simplicity, are cheap to implement and adapt to. The fuel flow stuff has pretty significant knock on costs, running into the thousands of dollars for each engine, and also even for the electronics package for the car itself. Also, IMO, the fuel flow formula on the LMP1 end isn't a privateer friendly format. Due to cost and technical hurdles, I can see private teams not being a fan of the technology. The current LMP1 cars could do with some simplification to make them more appealing to private teams. I know that LMP1 privateer tech regs are supposed to be locked in until 2022, but I know that if you want to grow the field, you have to make it accessible to privateers and OEMs on small budgets. That IMO was the single biggest problem with the current rules. As I said, I don't think we should be lamenting why VAG pulled their teams (they probably would've eventually pulled one due to pressures from the overall Volkswagen Group board over redundancy), but why no one else came in? |
||
|
25 Aug 2017, 01:35 (Ref:3761439) | #5070 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,308
|
Part of the reason Nissan pulled out was because even if they got the car to work like the simulations they felt they couldn't catch up to the pace of the development of the VAG teams.
https://www.autosport.com/wec/news/1...w-from-the-wec Quote:
|
||
|
25 Aug 2017, 01:55 (Ref:3761441) | #5071 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,923
|
If JAF are going back to air restrictors due to cost reasons, it might be down to them trying to make the engines cheaper to get more entries or make SF/SGT more appealing to private teams.
Nowadays, expense is a big problem, especially for regional series like Super GT. Let alone for a world championship and a class like LMP1. In execution, I don't think that DPI is the answer, though the concept for a prototype class that doesn't revolve around heavy OEM dollars and is privateer friendly would do wonders for LMP1. I'm not a fan of a spending cap, but one way to sort of get one is just make it not worth the while to spend $100 million plus a season. As I posted in the Porsche thread, if you have a $20 million program up against a $100 million program and you're slower, the car in that $20 million program is just about useless unless you can spin it as a marketing exercise. But even such deals are motivated by results. But if you can make it so that a $20 million program can compete with a $100 million program, or make a $5 million program relatively competitive with a $20 million one, then that'll make the sport healthier. |
||
|
28 Aug 2017, 22:18 (Ref:3762479) | #5072 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,559
|
I've been reading for the past couple days that Honda in conjunction with DOME is looking to enter lmp1. This website has Jenson Button's name popping up to be a pilot. He said he would have a full time drive in 2018, so they feel he could run a DOME NSX GT500 in the run up to the lmp1 entry. I wonder if there's any truth to this?
|
|
|
29 Aug 2017, 06:31 (Ref:3762526) | #5073 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 522
|
As long as none of the ideas from the previous dome are brought along..
|
|
|
29 Aug 2017, 16:43 (Ref:3762684) | #5074 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,654
|
Quote:
I believe in Dome if they got the proper support from a manufacture, but Honda is currently in such a bad state in F1 that there can't be a lot of ressources which can be diverted into an LMP1 project. |
|||
__________________
Hvil i Fred Allan. (Rest in Peace Allan) |
29 Aug 2017, 17:01 (Ref:3762693) | #5075 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,559
|
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[WEC] Glickenhaus Hypercar | Akrapovic | ACO Regulated Series | 1603 | 12 Apr 2024 21:24 |
[WEC] Aston Martin Hypercar Discussion | deggis | ACO Regulated Series | 175 | 23 Feb 2020 03:37 |
[WEC] SCG 007: Glickenhaus Le Mans LMP1 Hypercar | Bentley03 | ACO Regulated Series | 26 | 16 Nov 2018 02:35 |
ALMS Extends LMP Regulations | tblincoe | North American Racing | 33 | 26 Aug 2005 15:03 |
[LM24] Whats the future of LMP's at Le Mans?? | Garrett | 24 Heures du Mans | 59 | 8 Jul 2004 15:15 |