Panoz to return to LMP1

[DanJR1]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

But, if Panoz takes the old LMP1 and does what I've heard they're going to do, well, I don't want to add my own commentary to that.

what they going to do then? a rework of the old car?!

[WMUCarGuy]

As much as I LOVE the Panoz LMP-1, and GTR-1, I fear this would only go to hurt it's legacy.

[JAG]

Can Panoz, or anyone, not just build a front engined LMP1, test it back to back with the competition, then go to the ACO and discuss performance balancing.

Afterall different engine types are performance balanced, and in GT2 I beleive there are a few regulation breaks to help cars which due to their road car routes, cannot be competitive if built to the letter of the regs.

Whats more, does Panoz know something everyone else doesn't about production engines being elligable in P1 beyond 2010?

[DanJR1]

could they be reworking the lmp07?!

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by JAG

Whats more, does Panoz know something everyone else doesn't about production engines being elligable in P1 beyond 2010?

Well, production engines will still be elegible in P2, which will have a 900kg weight limit by then as well.

That said, I am not sure if this is really going to happen at all, and if it happens noone knows for how long. Spending money to be a field filler for one season? Ok, but for two?

[TWK]

Originally Posted by DanJR1

what they going to do then? a rework of the old car?!

Yes

[joeb]

Originally Posted by DanJR1

could they be reworking the lmp07?!

Looking at the previous results of that car vs the LMP01 you might think that car has no promise. But in my opinion, either option seems a bit far fetched. and as Speed-King says, what is the expected future for such an old car?

[lukebarcelos]

I Think this new Panoz LMP1 will be a Closed prototype because the ACO 2010/2011 new rules!

[Dead-Eye]

Originally Posted by lukebarcelos

I Think this new Panoz LMP1 will be a Closed prototype because the ACO 2010/2011 new rules!

The new rules allow both closed and open cars.

[JHamilton]

Originally Posted by WMUCarGuy

As much as I LOVE the Panoz LMP-1, and GTR-1, I fear this would only go to hurt it's legacy.

I agree 100%. I would much rather see a few of them on the HSR circuit.

[bjwedgemtu]

I loved the Panoz cars. They were awesome. The front engine design worked too. They managed to beat the bmw, audis and cadillacs. I think a coupe would be the best design though. As for back as the roll hoops would be, a roof would probably give better flow to the rear wing...just my opinion. I could be partial because I think the coupes look sexy.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by bjwedgemtu

I loved the Panoz cars. They were awesome. The front engine design worked too. They managed to beat the bmw, audis and cadillacs. I think a coupe would be the best design though. As for back as the roll hoops would be, a roof would probably give better flow to the rear wing...just my opinion. I could be partial because I think the coupes look sexy.

Problem with the coupe is the structure is so close to the rear wing it robs it of airflow. When Thorby cut the roof off of the Panoz model he immediately saw a gain in downforce. The roll over structures actually allowed airflow to reach the rear wing, unlike the coupe's closed cockpit.

[bjwedgemtu]

very good call mike. I didn't think of that fact. so i was wrong..a spyder would be a much better idea

[JAG]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

Problem with the coupe is the structure is so close to the rear wing it robs it of airflow. When Thorby cut the roof off of the Panoz model he immediately saw a gain in downforce. The roll over structures actually allowed airflow to reach the rear wing, unlike the coupe's closed cockpit.

Back then the Panoz GTR was based on a 'production' car like the competition, and was relatively competitive in late '97-'98 under DAMS.

If they are using just the tub could they not alter the shape dramatically with a narrow cockpit and revised front end?

With the R15, 908 and new Acura there at least appears to be lots of alternative aero approaches to P1 these days, even if it's nothing as radical as a front engined car.

These days there also appears to be the option of going to the ACO to ask for rules breaks if an inherent problem cannot be overcome within the current reglations.

[Ted bennett]

We had the Panoz LMP run for a week in our tunnel and it caused an unusual problem for us. The underbody worked very well, so well infact that it was sucking the rolling road belt up off the platen and striking the model which could have led to a major smash if the model had broken up. I am not certain what the work around was but I guess they skipped the low ride height maps to alleviate the problem.

[The Badger]

People laughed at the Porsche WSC , come Jaguar and Mazda Group car and the 962 GT .

Are they still talking about the LS7 too ?

[Mal]

Originally Posted by Ted bennett

We had the Panoz LMP run for a week in our tunnel and it caused an unusual problem for us. The underbody worked very well, so well infact that it was sucking the rolling road belt up off the platen and striking the model which could have led to a major smash if the model had broken up. I am not certain what the work around was but I guess they skipped the low ride height maps to alleviate the problem.

Was that recently Ted? - or when the original was built

[Ted bennett]

Originally Posted by Mal

Was that recently Ted? - or when the original was built

Ten years ago I'm afraid.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by Ted bennett

Ten years ago I'm afraid.

Big long splitters will do that! And that's the usual workaround, take out the offending ride height and increase belt suction.

[CTD]

Just to get some thing clear in my mind. Is it possible to make an competitive front engined Lmp, for the 2011 regulations!?.
If so, what would it be its advantages and weak points on the track!? (fx. High speed, high cornering speed, good weight balance, good fuel economic?)

[Félix]

The problem with a front-engined LMP, assuming you can get around the rear wing airflow problem with much less overhang than Panoz ever had to play with, is the amount of stuff you have to package up front. Whereas a rear-engined LMP can smoothly transition from a sleek nose to a wide passenger compartment, the front-engined one will have a nosebox similar to the rear-engined car and then an engine that's much bigger (especially if you stick to a big American unit) than the tiny footbox the regs mandate and that's normally the only thing there in a standard prototype. And it gets worst when you compare what's around the front engine (exhaust, Z-frames) because it's in the way of the purely-aerodynamic ducts meant to make the diffuser work on your average LMP. (and I forgot: you can't raise the engine and have air flowing under it like you can under a simple raised footbox)

I'd be very happy to see it tried, but if they had wanted to move closer to the optimum solution for a front-engined car, they'd have stuck with the LMP07 (and redesigned a lot of it) instead of racing their GTR1 to retirement.

[Ted bennett]

The front end packaging on the GTR 1 car was actualy quite impressive at least to my eyes. When I first layed eyes upon it I was struggling to find the engine tucked deep away at the front. I was expecting a huge lump of an engine but in reality it was really quite compact and took up much less room than the BMW unit in the McLaren. Finding a good exit route for the airflow from a front diffuser should present no problem as the widest point in the structure, the crew compartment is now further back from the front diffuser. The problem of packaging is probably more acute at the rear of the car. The old LMP 900 regulations with the simple diffuser aft of the rear wheel centreline could have been written with the Panoz in mind. The current regulations with tunnels ahead of the rear wheels will pose a much greater problem I feel. The Drivers backside is going to be right where the tunnels want to live.

[Flyin Ryan]

Originally Posted by Ted bennett

The front end packaging on the GTR 1 car was actualy quite impressive at least to my eyes. When I first layed eyes upon it I was struggling to find the engine tucked deep away at the front. I was expecting a huge lump of an engine but in reality it was really quite compact and took up much less room than the BMW unit in the McLaren. Finding a good exit route for the airflow from a front diffuser should present no problem as the widest point in the structure, the crew compartment is now further back from the front diffuser. The problem of packaging is probably more acute at the rear of the car. The old LMP 900 regulations with the simple diffuser aft of the rear wheel centreline could have been written with the Panoz in mind. The current regulations with tunnels ahead of the rear wheels will pose a much greater problem I feel. The Drivers backside is going to be right where the tunnels want to live.

What if you had a roadster that if you looked at the car from the front would have a passing resemblance to a catamaran? Couldn't that give you your tunnels to guide the air flow and then some?

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by Ted bennett

The front end packaging on the GTR 1 car was actualy quite impressive at least to my eyes. When I first layed eyes upon it I was struggling to find the engine tucked deep away at the front. I was expecting a huge lump of an engine but in reality it was really quite compact and took up much less room than the BMW unit in the McLaren. Finding a good exit route for the airflow from a front diffuser should present no problem as the widest point in the structure, the crew compartment is now further back from the front diffuser. The problem of packaging is probably more acute at the rear of the car. The old LMP 900 regulations with the simple diffuser aft of the rear wheel centreline could have been written with the Panoz in mind. The current regulations with tunnels ahead of the rear wheels will pose a much greater problem I feel. The Drivers backside is going to be right where the tunnels want to live.

That was actually an area where the LMP1 suffered, front diffuser exit flow. The radiators were positioned right on the front corners of the tub splayed outwards. There didn't seem to be too many places to stick the rads given the GTR-1's tub width--around 1370 mm (I want to say the minimum legal width is around 900 mm for today's cars). So you had less than 300 mm either side of the tub and that's not enough room for a rad. So they went forward of the tub on angle from the left and right corner. Cooling flow was also compromised somewhat given the limited ways air could be exited the radiator. Could this be rectified? Yes, but with a proper bespoke LMP monocoque. The GTR-1 was designed to road car considerations (driver/passenger anthropometrics) which immediately stamped compromise on the tub once it was utilized for LMP. Though with a minimum dimension LMP monocoque you could begin to eliminate some of the aero compromises of the front engine layout.

With a reasonable seatback angle you should be able to scoot the driver's butt forward enough of the rear wheel CL that you will miss the tunnels. Figure the tunnels start 750 mm ahead of RWCL. Naturally it's all dependant on your wheelbase and your driver position, but if that's a design consideration from the beginning it's easy-peasy.

One of the big problems with a front engined car is driver visibility. Figure you have the driver way back and as low as you can get. But then you have this large engine up ahead in his field of view.

Can a competitive front engined LMP be made to 2011 regs? Don't know, don't have any regs in print at the moment so really unsure of what they'll entail. One thing we do know is, large capacity V8s won't be legal if the ACO goes through with their plans. No reason to think other wise at the moment.

[Flyin Ryan]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

One thing we do know is, large capacity V8s won't be legal if the ACO goes through with their plans.

Boo!