Acura/HPD's future plans

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Stefvh

Weight distribution is better with a lower engine, for sure.

Plus it gives Nick more latitude for aero, especially with the smaller rear wing.



L.P.

[TRuss]

It lowers the center of gravity, but really has nothing to do with weight distribution. And why do people continue to think that they can look at an external photo of an engine and be able to tell that it's based on this engine or that engine?

[skycafe]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

And what engine deficeit is that?


L.P.

Sorry, at work earlier and not much time to spend, but I can pull up the old toadstool and sit a spell now.

So, in the context of the car having started development two years ago, during the reign of the Audi R10, you would not perceive an engine deficit in the Acura? Please explain why, I am very interested to know.

[Ultimo]

Are not the new LMP1 regs planned for a max engine of 4L? Maybe Acura/Honda are thinking ahead and are gonna keep this unit until after the rule change? I could be way off - I'm nowhere near as hardcore as most of you here.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by skycafe

Sorry, at work earlier and not much time to spend, but I can pull up the old toadstool and sit a spell now.

So, in the context of the car having started development two years ago, during the reign of the Audi R10, you would not perceive an engine deficit in the Acura? Please explain why, I am very interested to know.

So in the same light: Audi designed a car, the R-15, with an engine deficit also??


L.P.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Ultimo

Are not the new LMP1 regs planned for a max engine of 4L? Maybe Acura/Honda are thinking ahead and are gonna keep this unit until after the rule change? I could be way off - I'm nowhere near as hardcore as most of you here.

No, 3.4L NA and 3.7L diesel for P-1 in 2011.



L.P.

[skycafe]

Indeed, I see what you are saying, that Acura knew what Audi was going to do so came up with something equivalent, and came up with a 900 kilo 4.0 litre normally aspirated gasoline car in order to deal with (somewhat unknown by some of us smaller capacity diesel from Audi), in a game of nimble one-ups-manship?

Now, I am not as in tune, but doesn't a smaller capacity turbo diesel still have a torque advantage over a smaller capacity normally aspirated gasoline engine?

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by skycafe

Indeed, I see what you are saying, that Acura knew what Audi was going to do so came up with something equivalent, and came up with a 900 kilo 4.0 litre normally aspirated gasoline car in order to deal with (somewhat unknown by some of us smaller capacity diesel from Audi), in a game of nimble one-ups-manship?

Now, I am not as in tune, but doesn't a smaller capacity turbo diesel still have a torque advantage over a smaller capacity normally aspirated gasoline engine?

Apples and oranges, or two means to the same end. I do not think that either knew exactly what the other was doing or where the ACO would land exactly, but had a very good idea. That being said, I think that Acura has just expanded their 3.4L ahead of the 2011 rules to try to be competitive with the diesels and develope the chassis. After all the 3.4L gave Audi fits in the ALMS last year and with the varying adjustments to restrictors (diesel vs petrol) the 4.0L should be more competitive even with the extra weight.

L.P.

[skycafe]

I certainly agree that the P2 cars showed advantages in speed with their 'nimbleness,' that was an advantage, but their fuel use and pit stop stratagies also put them on different races then the Audis, and often that put them in a position of being ahead. The 4 litre engine of the Acura however starts to put them in between the two stratagies (last year's P1 vs. P2) on fuel runs. I am not sure that is an advantage, is it? Moot anyway, since the R15 apparently only comes to Sebring, and the Acura doesn't go to France.

The nimble factor is part of the equation as evidenced by Audi going that route when presented with the Peugeot's peformance. I guess it will all become clearer in mid-March when the Audi, Acura and Peugeot are on track at Sebring.

[chewymonster]

Originally Posted by skycafe

I certainly agree that the P2 cars showed advantages in speed with their 'nimbleness,' that was an advantage, but their fuel use and pit stop stratagies also put them on different races then the Audis, and often that put them in a position of being ahead. The 4 litre engine of the Acura however starts to put them in between the two stratagies (last year's P1 vs. P2) on fuel runs. I am not sure that is an advantage, is it? Moot anyway, since the R15 apparently only comes to Sebring, and the Acura doesn't go to France.

The nimble factor is part of the equation as evidenced by Audi going that route when presented with the Peugeot's peformance. I guess it will all become clearer in mid-March when the Audi, Acura and Peugeot are on track at Sebring.

The P2 used less fuel than the R10 because they had to haul a lot less weight and were able to be as quick with quite a bit less horsepower. The P1 Acura will weigh the same, and make the same power as the R15.

It's harder to tell the pace of the Acura. So far their best time is 1:44.8. Slower than what P1s did last year, but it's unknown what the 908 and R15 can do with the new aero/diesel restrictors.

[the real Stig]

Originally Posted by chewymonster

...and make the same power as the R15.

Not likely m8.

4.0: Probably just the best ballance of power, consumption and drivability.

[Lazy]

Originally Posted by flyingsquirrel

I don't think HPD would go to battle with an underpowered car. Note that the figures from Acura say 620 PLUS horsepower. That sounds ridiculously low.

Isn't this "plus" self-evident, since it is so called official figure.

[flyingsquirrel]

There is another element to the design which may have been missed. The head of HPD said yesterday on the ALMS web site that the aero and the use of rear tires on the front of the car were designed to allow the Acura to run much softer tires than the competition and to be able to double or triple stint them with the idea of saving significant time on pit stops. Perhaps tire changes would be limited to driver changes?

[WMUCarGuy]

Originally Posted by flyingsquirrel

There is another element to the design which may have been missed. The head of HPD said yesterday on the ALMS web site that the aero and the use of rear tires on the front of the car were designed to allow the Acura to run much softer tires than the competition and to be able to double or triple stint them with the idea of saving significant time on pit stops. Perhaps tire changes would be limited to driver changes?

I don't think that would happen. I just think they're referring to the fact that they won't have to change tires as much as the competition.

[Japanese Samurai]

Sports-carracing.net reported on a detailed technology of ACURA ARX-02a.
The size of a front tire of ARX-02a is equal to a rear tire.
This was not to have seen in the current prototype car.
ARX-02a has the power steering of the oil pressure type (Audi and Dome have an electric power steering).
This is because the weight put on a front tire is so large.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by Japanese Samurai

Sports-carracing.net reported on a detailed technology of ACURA ARX-02a.
The size of a front tire of ARX-02a is equal to a rear tire.
This was not to have seen in the current prototype car.
ARX-02a has the power steering of the oil pressure type (Audi and Dome have an electric power steering).
This is because the weight put on a front tire is so large.

A weird choice with the power steering. An electric type, doesn't weight very much, but an oil pressure do!.
The Acura is a very very special car!

[Aslak Vind]

The hydraulic powersteering tends to give a lot more feel with the frontwheels, the eletric often feel numb.

[The Badger]

Brabs was complaining of too much grip at the front end !!!

Question ..... is there such a thing as too much grip ?

[Aslak Vind]

If you have too much front grip, it affects the overall balance of the car. Making the rear loose, in tight corners.

[Japanese Samurai]

Dome S102 applies a big load to a front tire by adjusting the engine mount to the front side.
Nevertheless, a front tire of S102 is smaller than a rear tire.

I think that the weight balance of ARX-02a is equivalent good.

[Valker]

Originally Posted by Aslak Vind

If you have too much front grip, it affects the overall balance of the car. Making the rear loose, in tight corners.

But isn't bad balance caused by not enough grip in rear, not because too much grip in front? And isn't "too much grip" in general just another word for lack of power.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by Valker

But isn't bad balance caused by not enough grip in rear, not because too much grip in front? And isn't "too much grip" in general just another word for lack of power.

To much grip in one place can be compared to an uneven weight balance. So yes to much grip in the front can mean to little in the rear, but it's going to be hard to make the Acura evenly balanced with grip (without removing front end grip) , because of the new rear wing, and the risk of losing to much speed!

[Kiki]

I was wondering about that... those front tires are MASSIVE! That combined with the high downforce front end and smaller rear wing are sure to affect handling balance.

No, too much grip on the front end doesn't mean not enough power. I wonder if they'll have to take a set of dive planes off?

[CTD]

Dont know why i didn't noticed this before, but just came to think of it!
The Acura Lmp1 reminds a lot of the Embassy from last year!

[Dead-Eye]

It does, doesn't it?

The only thing I'm slightly disappointed about is that they didn't keep the LMP2's taillights