Acura/HPD's future plans

[WMUCarGuy]

Originally Posted by Audi Racer

i just realized that Aston Martin is creating a 3.4l V8 for P1 racing how exciting

I don't think we can just assume they'll make an NA V8 although it's probably the most likely choice.

[HORNDAWG]

Hmm, I really do not see Aston Martin, building their racing program around a 2.0L turbo! Seems a little bit far removed from their niche of elegance to me.




L.P.

[The Badger]

Yeah ..... and Ferrari is famous for its V12 ..... I'd believe anything can happen now .

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Yeah ..... and Ferrari is famous for its V12 ..... I'd believe anything can happen now .

'Ferrari' have not raced with a V-12 since 1995, '96 was a V-10, and have not used a V-10 since 2006. This is not some spontaneous out of left field move! The new F-70 Millechili is even purported to be getting a twin turbo V-8.

The 'Momo' 333SP used the '92 F-1 engine reworked (bored), had some success. But even the 333SP, at the end, had the engine transplanted with a Judd.





L.P.

[Mal]

See the last paragraph on this interview -

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/81587

It clearly indicates that there is a Lemans 'package' being tested for the Acura (HPD) cars presumably for this year.

[HORNDAWG]

Nice to see Nick put it out there. I was/am sure there would be one, but the recent photos of the Strakka car are quite the opposite as it is fully louvered and dumping all the air out from underneath the nose. Although it does seem to be an ARX-01c Here





L.P.

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by TWK

It's just dawning on y'all now that the song of V10's and 12's will be gone after this season?

Not at all , Ive been seriously dissapointed about this for a long time now .

I just dont understand banning everything above a V8 !!!

Why ?

If someone could explain the logic behind it , maybe I might understand then .

Maybe its more inline with currant manufacturer products , but it isnt with others possibily .

[Hugewally]

Logic - French. French - logic.

Nope, they don't go together...

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Nice to see Nick put it out there. I was/am sure there would be one, but the recent photos of the Strakka car are quite the opposite as it is fully louvered and dumping all the air out from underneath the nose. Although it does seem to be an ARX-01c Here





L.P.

It seems a ARX-01b with a ARX-02a rear wing makes a ARX-01c?

[HORNDAWG]

Hmm, doesn't it?





L.P.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

It seems a ARX-01b with a ARX-02a rear wing makes a ARX-01c?

If Strakka already had the wing, I wonder why Highcroft didn't at their recent test at Sebring?

[Matra-simca]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

'Ferrari' have not raced with a V-12 since 1995, '96 was a V-10, and have not used a V-10 since 2006. This is not some spontaneous out of left field move! The new F-70 Millechili is even purported to be getting a twin turbo V-8.

The 'Momo' 333SP used the '92 F-1 engine reworked (bored), had some success. But even the 333SP, at the end, had the engine transplanted with a Judd.





L.P.

Perhaps you forgot about Prodrive's Ferrari 550 V-12 winning GT1 at Le Mans 2003

Todd

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by joeb

If Strakka already had the wing, I wonder why Highcroft didn't at their recent test at Sebring?

Well you can imagine that it isn't a simple bolt on and go. I can imagine a balance change that would require a different mount. Thus it is "ARX-02a" wing in mainplane, flap, and endplates only.

[Dead-Eye]

Originally Posted by Matra-simca

Perhaps you forgot about Prodrive's Ferrari 550 V-12 winning GT1 at Le Mans 2003

Todd

In fairness that was more Prodrive than Ferrari...however, you could cite the F575 GT1.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

In fairness that was more Prodrive than Ferrari...however, you could cite the F575 GT1.

Getting a bit far afield from Acura/HPD.
I am sure that Ferrari would wish you not cite it.
From about 1970 on, my recollection of Ferrari Racing includes the 512M, Dino 246 Tasmania, 365 GTB4 Competizione, 308GTB, 333SP and the assorted F-1s.

Back to the subject at hand. Are we sure that the ALMS will mandate the narrow wing for the P-2 chassis this year? Both Highcroft and Dyson ran the wide one this month.




L.P.

[HJJ]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Back to the subject at hand. Are we sure that the ALMS will mandate the narrow wing for the P-2 chassis this year? Both Highcroft and Dyson ran the wide one this month.




L.P.

Both Sebring and Petit are run under the ACO rules this year with a LMP1 & P2 classes as well as the LMPC cars. SO yes, they will have to run the narrow wing. All other races will be run under ALMS rules with LMP and LMPC classes.

[Zurbert82]

Originally Posted by HJJ

Both Sebring and Petit are run under the ACO rules this year with a LMP1 & P2 classes as well as the LMPC cars. SO yes, they will have to run the narrow wing. All other races will be run under ALMS rules with LMP and LMPC classes.

Correct, but it's yet to be known if the narrow rear wing will be mandated by IMSA for the other 7 races.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by HJJ

Both Sebring and Petit are run under the ACO rules this year with a LMP1 & P2 classes as well as the LMPC cars. SO yes, they will have to run the narrow wing. All other races will be run under ALMS rules with LMP and LMPC classes.

Run to ACO rules, just like last year right? Where the wide wing was used on the P-2s.





L.P.

[HJJ]

This is what I got from the IMSA "draft" rule book. I don't know if it's the wide or the narrow one.

3.6.3 Rear wing : It is made up of the following elements: Wing, vertical supports and end plates and
must comply with the following criteria:
a/ Wing : The primary device inducing down force (negative lift) shall be a single aerodynamic
device, adjustable, mounted at the rear of the car, with two wing profiles as a maximum
(main wing and flap). It must:
a.1 - Be framed by a volume measuring 250mm horizontally x 150mm vertically x 1600mm
transversally;
a.2 - Be mounted so that no part of the wing:
- is situated more than 965 mm above the reference plane,
a.3 - Not be adjustable from within the cockpit;
a.4 - A rigid trim tab/gurney is mandatory. It must be:
- 20 mm high as a minimum above the wing plane;
- At right angle to the plane defined by the top of the main wing or the flap (see
the FIA drawing 258-5 below);
- Solidly fixed all along the wing by means of tools if the gurney is not an integral
part of the main wing or the flap. A locking system at each end is not enough.
a.5 - The section of the rear wing must be symmetrical in relation to the longitudinal
centreline of the car.

[Cypher09]

For what it's worth.

http://americanlemans.com/index_news.php?n=14375

[HORNDAWG]

"Draft" rule! That rule last year was the same. Yet there was this little thing called Competitor Bulletin #09-01: 2009 American Le Mans Rules Information Summary which changed things abit. Hence my original question from the observation that both Highcroft and Dyson were using the old wing!





L.P.

[HJJ]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

"Draft" rule! That rule last year was the same. Yet there was this little thing called Competitor Bulletin #09-01: 2009 American Le Mans Rules Information Summary which changed things abit. Hence my original question from the observation that both Highcroft and Dyson were using the old wing!





L.P.

You got me on that one, Mr. Horndawg.

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by HJJ

This is what I got from the IMSA "draft" rule book. I don't know if it's the wide or the narrow one.

1600mm transversally = narrow one, the big one is 2000mm.

[Mal]

As pointed out on Mariantic the cars are now entered as HPD ARX 01c's and not Acura's

http://www.imsaracing.net/2010/event...ing%20Test.pdf

[HJJ]

Originally Posted by Victor_RO

1600mm transversally = narrow one, the big one is 2000mm.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.