|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
12 Jun 2010, 07:32 (Ref:2709610) | #526 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Some interesting comments of David Floury on the 2011 regulations: http://www.endurance-info.com/versio...ance-4623.html
Quote:
|
||
|
12 Jun 2010, 11:32 (Ref:2709694) | #527 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
I'm not sure how much of an advantage 4wd would be as KERS can only be used in short bursts.
Better packaging seems to be the greatest benefit of fitting the KERS system to the front axle. |
|
|
12 Jun 2010, 11:48 (Ref:2709702) | #528 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,831
|
Quote:
|
||
|
12 Jun 2010, 11:50 (Ref:2709703) | #529 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Perhaps the front wheel drive can be used to counter the tendency of oversteer at corner exit.
I guess it can be work in combination with the traction control system: if the rear wheels lose traction, put a burst of power on the front. That could help in the wet. |
|
|
12 Jun 2010, 12:00 (Ref:2709708) | #530 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
@MulsanneMike: So corner speeds will go down and straight line speed will stay comparable? That will improve safety.
What is your opinion on closed vs open for the new rules? Will the aero advantage of closed car increase with the power reduction? Most Lola customers have switched to the closed version. So Lola clearly believes this is the better package at the moment. However, in the current LMP2 the Wirth chassis is clearly faster than the Lola chassis with the same engine. Is this just a case of Wirth have done a better job? |
|
|
12 Jun 2010, 12:01 (Ref:2709709) | #531 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,831
|
I think 4WD would be a huge advantage. Unless the regs dissallow it, its a pretty easy matter of being able to electronically control the transfer of torque where and when you need it front to rear side to side. The only issue will be how to package a 4WD system around contemporary aerodynamics.
|
|
|
12 Jun 2010, 12:05 (Ref:2709711) | #532 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,831
|
Quote:
So with the fundamental change in power levels the closed top car becomes really the only route I think. Well, at least from an aerodynamic standpoint. |
||
|
12 Jun 2010, 12:13 (Ref:2709718) | #533 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
There is another vague sentence in the ACO announcement, which might suggest that the hybrid system can not be used as traction control. It is totally unclear how the ACO can enforce that rule...
Quote:
|
||
|
13 Jun 2010, 07:33 (Ref:2710644) | #534 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,710
|
So with the LMP2 budget cap, who do you expect to supply chassis?
- Oreca FLM for sure - Pesca? - Norma was designed for this - Radical was a cheap chassis in the past - Lola? Will we see the open top back? |
||
|
13 Jun 2010, 07:57 (Ref:2710675) | #535 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
According to http://www.racecar-engineering.com/n...-for-2011.html
Quote:
|
||
|
13 Jun 2010, 08:18 (Ref:2710689) | #536 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
David Richards was just on the air with Radio Le Mans. He said that they modelled that the previous hybrid rule (1000 kJ instead of 500 kJ) is worth 3 sec. They suggested to the ACO to add +50 kg for hybrid cars and Audi agreed with them. In general, AMR/Prodrive is more in favor of a lower minimum weight, because hybrid is not of interest to them.
|
|
|
13 Jun 2010, 13:17 (Ref:2711038) | #537 | |
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 18,831
|
||
|
13 Jun 2010, 13:22 (Ref:2711045) | #538 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,654
|
|||
__________________
Hvil i Fred Allan. (Rest in Peace Allan) |
13 Jun 2010, 13:54 (Ref:2711073) | #539 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
||
|
13 Jun 2010, 14:02 (Ref:2711078) | #540 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,654
|
|||
__________________
Hvil i Fred Allan. (Rest in Peace Allan) |
13 Jun 2010, 21:50 (Ref:2711497) | #541 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Not according to http://mariantic.co.uk/lmp/
Quote:
Last edited by gwyllion; 13 Jun 2010 at 22:04. |
||
|
13 Jun 2010, 22:13 (Ref:2711518) | #542 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Quote:
|
||
|
13 Jun 2010, 23:06 (Ref:2711537) | #543 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
P2 is going to be a budget formula so it follows manufactuers will have to build budget chassis.
IMO the decision of current P2 teams to step upto P1 will come down as much to the quality of their driving squad as budget. What's the point of a pair of slower amateurs running in P1 when they can be far more competitive in a lower budget P2. |
|
|
15 Jun 2010, 19:39 (Ref:2712774) | #544 | |
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 254
|
Wasn't the final version of the 2011 rules supposed to be released on race sunday? I haven't seen anything about it, I'm curious to see if the shark fins are still included (hope not!!).
Also, it would be very, very nice to see the # of cylinders not maxed at 8; although I don't know how realistic a 3.4 litre V12 would be, I think a V10 might still be manageable? that's 340 cc per cylinder, still more than current F1 engines (300 cc/cylinder) |
|
|
15 Jun 2010, 20:39 (Ref:2712815) | #545 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Quote:
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/RCELeMans2010.html has a draft version of the rules that describes the dimensions of the shark fin. Quote:
A small cylinder capacity is good if you want to rev very high, like in Formula 1 (18k rpm) or the Superleague Formula V12 engine (12k rpm). I am not sure that is the way to go in these days of endurance racing where fuel economy is very important. |
|||
|
15 Jun 2010, 20:47 (Ref:2712820) | #546 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,270
|
The 3.5 liter prototypes had similar (perhaps slightly worse) economy to the old turbo Group C cars, so if someone wants to slot in a 3.4 V10 and rev it to 10-11k rpm, and it is reliable (and Le Mans '92 and '93 showed it can be)... why not? It would probably match the V8s in economy and power with some development. (I wonder if Judd are thinking of de-mothballing the old Group C engine... yeah, joking)
|
||
__________________
When in doubt? C4. |
15 Jun 2010, 21:29 (Ref:2712842) | #547 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Sorry, but all this completely hypothetical. On 9/6/2010 http://www.mulsannescorner.com/RCELeMans2010.html wrote
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
15 Jun 2010, 21:35 (Ref:2712845) | #548 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,232
|
||
|
15 Jun 2010, 21:53 (Ref:2712857) | #549 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Good point. My mistake.
I still think that a V8 configuration will be preferred because less cilinders means lower weight and less friction losses and because a shorter engine is good for weight balance, leaves more room for the gearbox and hybrid system, gives more freedom for the aerodynamics, ... For these reasons the R15 got a V10 instead of a V12. There are also serious indications that the Audi R18 will use a 3.7 V6 TDI, while 8 cilinders are allowed in the 2011 rules. |
|
|
15 Jun 2010, 21:56 (Ref:2712858) | #550 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,654
|
Quote:
For a diesel a 3,7 V6 is probably the optimal power unit! But the Peugeot petrol is going to be even more interesting!, will it be a 2.0 Turbo? |
|||
__________________
Hvil i Fred Allan. (Rest in Peace Allan) |
|
|
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 |