|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
19 Oct 2011, 21:01 (Ref:2974007) | #1576 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 9,044
|
||
|
19 Oct 2011, 22:51 (Ref:2974046) | #1577 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Henri Pescarolo's comments on the 2012 rules: http://www.86400.fr/articles/194-hen...vec-curiositeq
As always he makes some interesting points:
|
|
|
20 Oct 2011, 02:01 (Ref:2974090) | #1578 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 785
|
Pescarolo also has interesting observations about the gap between diesels and petrol cars:
-The restrictor reduction went from 10% to 7% and a reduction in tank size was given in exchange. Based on their calculations, the faster pitstops are actually more advantageous (compared to 10% reduction?) for the diesels. He compares it to this year's "adjustment" that was supposed to give back 22 seconds in a stint to petrol cars... and in the end only gave them back 3! -Henri says the real test should be whether or not the diesels can completely overtake a petrol P1 car on the pit straight at Le Mans. It's 390 meters long and something has to be very wrong with the engine rules if that can happen. I was there this year and I concur that something was VERY wrong. -Pescarolo also states that neither during the 962 era, neither during the R8 TSFI era such overtaking within the same class was possible. He even says that he believes the Judd was ultimately slightly more powerful but lost to the R8 engine because it was less fuel efficient - which is more right and is how it should happen now. -When asked whether state of the art engines and older customer engines should be given equal performance, he confirms that no power advantage can be gained from direct injection (he seems to have a very good contact with Judd - who are working on a TFSI engine for Lotus Indycar). The equivalence rule that states things can be adjusted after the 3rd race if there's a 2% gap should therefore say 0% instead. To him, the "équivalence" should be based on a straightline acceleration test to take out all other variables. I can't see how anyone could disagree with that. And finally, maybe some good news for Pescarolo: http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newssept11.html It seems that car development will start anew with the big shift in balance that comes with the 2012 louver rules. They supercharge the front diffuser AND spoil airflow to the rear wing, therefore moving the center of pressure towards the front by what I imagine is a massive amount. This changes everything because in the last 10-15 years, a lot of development resources have been spent on getting more downforce from the front diffuser. We've seen raised footboxes, complex surface treatment on windtunnel model diffusers and advanced pontoon-like air management around and downstream of the front wheels to extract precious pounds of downforce that would always be easily balanced by efficient rear wings. Now, it seems that the front can easily generate more downforce than the rear for a change. Pescarolo have always been very good at tuning their chassis and they never benefited from the expensive research programs richer teams had to extract more front downforce from their cars, so this is making me optimistic. Twitchier cars might also be good for spectacle and should give something more interesting to watch to spectators who are used to train-like Audis and Peugeots. |
||
|
20 Oct 2011, 03:12 (Ref:2974097) | #1579 | |
Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 39
|
i dont particulary like the idea of the louvers in the lmps. and really hope the petrol toyota has a power advantage over the diesels so that the ACO can see what they've done which is catered to privateers....Didnt Baretzky say he could have built an R18 petrol engine that was just as good....but diesel was only because of marketing...
|
|
|
20 Oct 2011, 03:25 (Ref:2974100) | #1580 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,299
|
Apparently the new rules in LMP1 are appealing the manufacturers. Today on MWM Graham Goodwin (feel free to chime in) sounded like he expects Audi, Peugeot, Toyota, Porsche, Honda (likely), Nissan (likely), Jaguar (possibly), to all be present in the top class at Le Mans with works efforts in the not too distant future.
|
||
|
20 Oct 2011, 04:09 (Ref:2974112) | #1581 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,232
|
Quote:
|
||
|
20 Oct 2011, 04:36 (Ref:2974119) | #1582 | |
Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 39
|
||
|
20 Oct 2011, 05:18 (Ref:2974125) | #1583 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,261
|
Quote:
Autocon ≥ Audi & Peugeot Guess Racing Europ > Audi & Peugeot AMR-One ≫ R18/908 (I heard a rumor that Audi and Peugeot secretly paid AMR off to keep the AMR-One off the race track since they were "running scared" of the awesome power and reliability of "THE One." But shhhh! This is top secret information!) Deborah > Any thing Audi and Peugeot could make Judd ≫ Any thing Audi and Peugeot could make. Like duuuuhhhhh. I know it is difficult to tell, but this post is a joke. |
||
|
20 Oct 2011, 05:19 (Ref:2974126) | #1584 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,232
|
It can not be a fact and an argument? My point was that soon you can no longer backup everything with the fact that there hasn't been a manufacturer with petrol engine. Funnily people who believe there is nothing wrong with the equivalency and has not been in the first place seems to be the most confident about Toyota's performance... or least they want to be and I can understand why.
Last edited by deggis; 20 Oct 2011 at 05:25. |
|
|
20 Oct 2011, 06:02 (Ref:2974131) | #1585 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
Quote:
|
||
|
20 Oct 2011, 12:26 (Ref:2974283) | #1586 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,488
|
Will the "big honking holes" be expensive for teams to implement? and what will the impact be to the privateers?
|
||
|
20 Oct 2011, 20:11 (Ref:2974461) | #1587 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
||
|
20 Oct 2011, 20:11 (Ref:2974462) | #1588 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,926
|
And that's the issue I have with the ACO's constant rules tinkering--unless it's a pressing safety concern for the whole field, no major technical rules changes should be made for at least 2-3 years and they should let their "3 year plan" formulas play out, which I feel even 3 years is playing it short for private teams who can't always shoulder the cost of buying all new equipment every couple of years.
Of course, I don't know where to place a team like Rebellion, who have basically just wasted a crapload of money on their new aero package, but then again has made 4 unforced car or engine changes the past 4 years...? Pescarolo, though, is much more clear cut on were to put them on the budget front. |
||
|
20 Oct 2011, 20:27 (Ref:2974471) | #1589 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,648
|
Anyone have a picture of what these "big honking holes" are going to look like?
|
|
|
20 Oct 2011, 20:43 (Ref:2974478) | #1590 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,561
|
The new 2012 lola looks MUCH lower in terms of the roof height.
|
|
|
20 Oct 2011, 20:51 (Ref:2974480) | #1591 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,222
|
The car will look the same ,the only cnange will be the dorsal Fin, IMO.
|
||
|
21 Oct 2011, 06:50 (Ref:2974598) | #1592 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,129
|
|||
__________________
pieter melissen |
21 Oct 2011, 21:37 (Ref:2974943) | #1593 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,099
|
The "big honkin holes" will not be hard to impement - cordless drill...
Actually I am unable to envision what this will look like and what artistic expression will come into play. I had gotten a response from Mike (from Toyota thread) about the mandated holes being not by # but by overall opening coverage - "As for the holes, my understanding they are just as they sound, uncovered holes adding up to the area prescribed (1000 cm^2 per fender, front and rear)." - quote from other thread from MM + I guess this will be mandatory like the "big honkin fin" for LMPs. As far as the cost capped coupe from Lola I wonder if they are using the traditional Lola nose or integrated the Rebellion style nose... Last edited by Livininthinair; 21 Oct 2011 at 22:00. |
||
|
21 Oct 2011, 22:23 (Ref:2974959) | #1594 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,831
|
Quote:
|
||
|
21 Oct 2011, 22:30 (Ref:2974962) | #1595 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,654
|
|||
__________________
Hvil i Fred Allan. (Rest in Peace Allan) |
21 Oct 2011, 22:32 (Ref:2974963) | #1596 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,099
|
Thank you Mike!
I guess if the correct coverage is not found they will have a fully charged drill at scrutineering to "add" holes to any non compliant chassis - free of charge... Weird - that is going to kill the new style Audi louvers that point straight backwards and no longer break like the old "panel of fins" style of louvers. + something I just thought about, the rule about having to replace broken fender louvers... if there are holes in the fenders, and they begin to break apart during a race for what ever reason - these teams will need to figure out how to replace a whole rear fender... - if in fact that rule will be carried over to this new "big honkin holes" setup... yet another possible modular piece that will need to be engineered to be replaced during a race... more $$$??? Last edited by Livininthinair; 21 Oct 2011 at 22:53. |
||
|
21 Oct 2011, 23:01 (Ref:2974972) | #1597 | |
Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 39
|
Seems like the holes wil ruin the structural integrity if the already fragile noses and rear fenders. A small hole would actually increase the integrity....the big holes go the other way.
|
|
|
23 Oct 2011, 07:17 (Ref:2975349) | #1598 | |
Racer
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 296
|
Ive already posted some of this in the toyota thread, but this is how I think the fender holes will look. They dont look particularly big, but I've double checked, and the area of each fender hole is indeed slightly over 1000cm^3 as stated in the new regs.
The dimensions of the whole car from above are 200cm by 464cm. |
|
|
23 Oct 2011, 08:28 (Ref:2975372) | #1599 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
According to Mike's tweets the FIA plans to change the dimensions of the cars in 2014:
Quote:
|
||
|
23 Oct 2011, 08:49 (Ref:2975384) | #1600 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,261
|
Quote:
I can see the ACO's newest slogan: "LMPs. They're boxy, but good! We know they're not sexy. This is not a smart time to be sexy anyway, with so many new diseases around." Oh, and in other news, Toyota will be building their engines in Japan because caucasians are too damn tall. Bonus points to anyone who knows what I am talking about! |
||
|
|
|
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 |