|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
19 May 2011, 19:21 (Ref:2882799) | #976 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Quote:
Quote:
The bottomline seems to be "comply with the cost cap or go away" |
|||
|
19 May 2011, 19:22 (Ref:2882800) | #977 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
Quote:
At Sebring there was an acceptance diesels were holding a little back, but Highcroft kept them honest and you could see the performance of both technologies was in the same ball park, I don't think 3.36 at the Le Mans test day is representative. Factory teams wouldn't pour so many resources into a program if they didn't think it would give them a performance advantage, it's why Audi were dominant with the petrol R8. As a note, Audi's R8R qualified in 3.34.891 on it's Le Mans debut, the quickest R8C did 3.42.155, pole was 3.29.930 by the GT-ONE. http://www.racingsportscars.com/phot...999-06-13.html Last edited by JAG; 19 May 2011 at 19:44. |
||
|
19 May 2011, 19:47 (Ref:2882807) | #978 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
The rules don't state that production engine on which a LMP2 engine is based, should still be on sale.
Quote:
|
||
|
19 May 2011, 20:03 (Ref:2882812) | #979 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Quote:
Quote:
Some people questioned the weight reduction of the grandfathered Oreca 908 (-15 kg). The reduce fuel restrictor also applies for their car. So petrol cars also gain 2 second a lap on the Oreca 908. |
|||
|
19 May 2011, 20:44 (Ref:2882823) | #980 | ||
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
Quote:
Huge break for the Jetalliance Evoras, but I wouldn't expect any miracles from those cars at this early stage of development. Last edited by Deleted; 19 May 2011 at 21:01. |
||
|
19 May 2011, 21:27 (Ref:2882836) | #981 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
The Aston Martin Vantage is the king of performance adjustments
They get a break in every column in the table: -50 kg weight, +1.4 mm restrictor, -10 mm gurney flap and +5 liter fuel tank. Also note that a distinction is made between BMW M3 Europe and BMW M3 USA. What is that about? |
|
|
19 May 2011, 22:22 (Ref:2882859) | #982 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,926
|
The M3 ALMS cars are probably still built to ALMS GT2S specs (the class that was originally intended for sports sedans, but now applies to GT3 cars and other vehicles that don't fully fit in with the ACO's regs).
The GT2S M3s had a transaxle gearbox (now also allowed on the ACO cars since it's now an option on the production M3?) and ditched the MacPherson strut IFS on the production M3 in favor of double wishbone/multi-link IFS. The ACO cars originally had the strut suspension, and, at least at first, normal gearbox. I'm not sure what this has to do with the LMP regs, aside from the BOP discussion, which they're have been some whopping bombs dropped across the board. |
||
|
19 May 2011, 22:26 (Ref:2882861) | #983 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,261
|
I believe the European and American BMWs are the same now. They are probably referring to last year's American M3. They also have the Spyker on there even though it has not run at all this season.
|
|
|
19 May 2011, 23:20 (Ref:2882878) | #984 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Quote:
In Spa the winning Peugeot did 161 laps in 6 hours, while the best petrol (Pescarolo) only did 156 laps. That means an average race lap time of 2:14.9 and 2:19.4 respectively. This puts the petrols within 3.3% of the diesels. During the race the best diesel and best petrol did 6 pitstops. According to the ACO petrol cars will gain 22 sec every pitstop. That means 132 sec or around 1 lap over the whole race. Lets assume that the best diesel only did 160 laps. That means an average race lap time of 2:15.8 for the best diesel. This puts the petrols within 2.6% of the diesels. The expert source of Mike says that 10% more power is worth around 2.6 sec at Le Mans. So a restrictor break of 3% is probably worth around 0.8 sec at Le Mans. Lets assume that means around 0.5 sec in Spa or 80 sec over the whole race. That means an average race lap of 2:18.9 for the best petrol. This puts the petrols with 2.3% of the diesels. That is still outside the 2% rule |
||
|
20 May 2011, 00:10 (Ref:2882889) | #985 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,831
|
Quote:
|
||
|
20 May 2011, 00:46 (Ref:2882897) | #986 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
In case people were wondering, the whole balance of performance methodology is explained in the sporting regulations (released on 17/12/2010). I highlight some sentences of the rule:
Quote:
Aston Martin, Highcroft, and Hope Racing have no participated in 2 races, so they don't benefit from performance adjustments. |
||
|
20 May 2011, 01:05 (Ref:2882902) | #987 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,263
|
|||
__________________
MBL - SpeedyMouse Race House |
20 May 2011, 01:18 (Ref:2882906) | #988 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
My quick calculation was done based on the average lap time over the whole race distance (161 laps). The ACO calculates the average lap times over half the race distance, so the 80 best laps. That could make a small difference.
|
|
|
20 May 2011, 01:46 (Ref:2882913) | #989 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
In http://86400.fr/articles/159-equival...11-suite-a-fin Laurent makes some good points. Will the privateers be able to complete the driver change in time with the super fast refuelling? How much will the bigger restrictor influence the fuel economy?
According to Duncan Dayton (see here) the fuel fill time used to be around 32 sec for petrol cars and around 25-27 sec for Audi and Peugeot. With the new rule, petrol cars will have a 22 sec advantage. It is unclear whether that advantage is absolute or relative to the previous situation (so 15-17 sec). In the former case, we are talking about fuel fill times of around 10 sec (!) for petrol and 32 sec for diesel. In the later, a fuel fill time of around 16 sec for petrol and 32 sec for diesel. |
|
|
20 May 2011, 07:54 (Ref:2882970) | #990 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 913
|
Petrol cars are not the slowest technology, but as long as Audi and Peugeot want to showcase diesel engines then they're going to be made to look that way.
Petrol engines have improved dramatically over the past decade but no major manufacturer has bothered to produce one for Le Mans until these stupid regs give them a chance. I've heard rumours that Peugeot are going to switch to petrol engines in the near future - I bet the ACO make damn sure the petrol rules work then! |
||
|
20 May 2011, 08:09 (Ref:2882976) | #991 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 913
|
PS: I think HPD are waiting for Peugeot to switch to petrol power before they get really serious with their own LMP1 project......................
|
||
|
20 May 2011, 12:02 (Ref:2883076) | #992 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Which dramatic improvements are you referring to? The last big improvement in petrol race engines was direct fuel injection which Audi debutted in 2001.
|
|
|
20 May 2011, 12:39 (Ref:2883096) | #993 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,460
|
||
|
20 May 2011, 13:16 (Ref:2883109) | #994 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 913
|
With the use of modern electronics and lightweight materials, petrol engines are now both more powerful and fuel efficient than ever before.
A 2.4 litre V8 F1 engine can now produce circa 750bhp, with KERS can top 800bhp, can rev to 19,000rpm and above all, are proving to be very reliable. If you were to scale this up to a 3.4 litre petrol engine,tuned to race for 24hrs, then I've no reason to believe the performance figures would be any different.Probably less revs but still the same bhp figures with more torque. Providing the regs don't favour diesels, which they won't when Peugeot switch, then a petrol engine is easily capable of winning Le Mans. |
||
|
20 May 2011, 13:28 (Ref:2883118) | #995 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,270
|
Those engines still don't last more than 2000 km between rebuilds. An engine that wins Le Mans and breaks the distance record does probably about 6500-7000 km during Le Mans week (5500 in the race plus warm-up and at least one quali session).
|
||
__________________
When in doubt? C4. |
20 May 2011, 13:51 (Ref:2883130) | #996 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 913
|
As you say, a modern 2.4 litre F1 petrol engine will run 2,000km before a rebuild is required.By definition then, we already know for starters that a 1000km race wouldn't pose them any reliability issues.
The current F1 engines are producing circa 312bhp per litre so a modern 3.4 litre version would produce circa 1000bhp. A detuned engine, specifically built for Sports Car racing, could produce 750 to 800bhp with its eyes shut! |
||
|
20 May 2011, 13:53 (Ref:2883131) | #997 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Quote:
I fail to see how "modern electronics and lightweight materials" will bring big improvements to the existing LMP1 NA petrol engines that are supplied by HPD, Judd, Toyota and Zytek. As I said earlier, the biggest "recent" improvement in race petrol engines is direct injection. It gave the Porsche MR6 engine a small increase in power and torque and reduction in fuel consumption. If a manufacturer wants to win Le Mans with a petrol engine, they will most likely do it with a turbocharged engine + KERS. |
||
|
20 May 2011, 14:15 (Ref:2883135) | #998 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Quote:
Quote:
In the past a number of persons have stated that unrestricted petrol engines will produce a certain power output that is higher than what the restricted diesel engines produce now. These persons always conveniently forget that the diesel engines will also produce a lot more power without restrictors/boost pressure limitations... Moreover, your hypothetical engine which produces 33% more power than the current petrol engines (800 vs 600 bhp), will also consume 33% more fuel. That means only 8 laps instead of 12 laps on a full fuel tank in Le Mans. BTW I think you shoud talk to hcl123. He considered petrol engine completely obsolete in comparison to diesel engines Last edited by gwyllion; 20 May 2011 at 14:28. |
|||
|
20 May 2011, 14:51 (Ref:2883141) | #999 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,900
|
Quote:
People seem to forget that you are comparing turbo Diesel with NA petrol, how about same capacity same charging same restrictors, I would love to see a manufacturer that would run a diesel then |
|||
__________________
To launch a new FIA GT2 category based on strict technical rules, with limited wavers and ‘balance of performance' limited to success ballast. A category where GT manufacturers will prove through competition they can produce the best road going GT car. |
20 May 2011, 14:57 (Ref:2883145) | #1000 | |||
Rookie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 37
|
Quote:
I find it massively unfair that Diesels are dominating with Forced Induction, yet there are no options to build a decent version in petrol. 2.0ltrs is not enough as Aston Martin are finding out right now, struggling to produce 400bhp. I think 2.5 would be ideal for petrol, would be ideal for a V6. Nissan with their current knowledge with the 350Z/Skyline would be ideal to develop such and engine. |
|||
|
|
|
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 |