|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
25 Oct 2011, 19:46 (Ref:2976740) | #1651 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
Quote:
For all we know a 2014 car may look like a Group C with a short rear, outboard rear wing and wider cockpit. Whatever the case these regs are due to be published before the end of the year and interested parties like Porsche will have known what they where buying into back in June. |
||
|
25 Oct 2011, 19:48 (Ref:2976741) | #1652 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 750
|
i see. thanks for the info
|
|
|
25 Oct 2011, 20:16 (Ref:2976756) | #1653 | |||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,022
|
Quote:
Only mildly related, but it strikes me that the fans the manufacturers want to attract aren't us. We're here already. So our wants and suggestions are precisely those that they shouldn't listen too. |
|||
__________________
Brum brum |
25 Oct 2011, 21:05 (Ref:2976785) | #1654 | ||
Team Crouton
20KPINAL
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 39,934
|
Almost certainly so - a bit like loyal sportscar fan readers of motorsport magazines....
|
||
__________________
280 days...... |
25 Oct 2011, 22:08 (Ref:2976812) | #1655 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,022
|
Good point, they can alienate what they already have. Took me years to cancel the subscription though!
Still, we should be careful what we wish for? Do we want it more popular, that might mean more like TC or F1 or football or X-factor. Not that fundamentally thre is anything wrong with TC, F1 or NFL. However Sportscar shouldn't be like that. This is all a little off topic, I'll split if this line of discussion takes off. To be fair it probably doesn't need to. |
||
__________________
Brum brum |
25 Oct 2011, 23:10 (Ref:2976833) | #1656 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,261
|
Quote:
Quote:
I know this is a touchy subject particularly right now, but there has to be some questions about how much impact "safety" has on car design regulations. There is debate about how risky a formula of racing should be, but beyond that, what happens when the new safety regulations actually make racing less safe? That seems to be what Audi is accusing the ACO of doing with the 2012 regulations. I wonder what Lola, Oreca, and other chassis makers feel. Also, look at the IRL. Nobody will deny that 220 mph is safer for those cars than 260 or whatever they could do with much lesser rules, but what happens when the speeds are controlled and held so that everyone runs just about the same speed? It makes passing difficult and makes the cars run closer. That isn't always safe. That could potentially be a problem both within classes and between classes. As far as popularity goes, I sincerely hope that sports car racing never becomes popular on a general scale. This should not be racing for the masses. Trying to make endurance racing into something satisfying for today's short attention span can only lead to disaster. I do hope it is popular amongst the gearhead crowd though. That's what is important. To that extent, I hope automakers are trying to woo that crowd and not the coveted 30-60 year old female sedan, van, and SUV buying demographic. If car guys and gals approve of what automakers are doing, it will trickle down to what mainstream buyers buy. There is no need to address it directly through sports car racing. |
|||
|
27 Oct 2011, 01:06 (Ref:2977450) | #1657 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
OAKS already tested the holes according to Autosport and say they don't have a great effect on drag/downforce. A 250mm x 200mm template has to fit inside, teams also have until 1st April to update their cars, they'll run with a weight penalty until the change is made.
|
|
|
27 Oct 2011, 01:28 (Ref:2977453) | #1658 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,831
|
Quote:
|
||
|
27 Oct 2011, 04:00 (Ref:2977477) | #1659 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 432
|
I'm not an aero expert by any means, but I could bet that the effect is not linear. The difference between no and small holes (louvers) can be huge, but between small and (three times as) large might be negligible.
|
||
|
27 Oct 2011, 10:17 (Ref:2977587) | #1660 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,831
|
The 2012 1000 cm^2 holes are uncovered. There should be expectation of a large change, and this has been verified: 2.5% forward balance shift and an increase in drag. The balance shift can be rebalanced with more rear aero, but this simply increases drag further.
|
|
|
27 Oct 2011, 10:27 (Ref:2977592) | #1661 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,232
|
=> http://tentenths.com/forum/showpost....postcount=1657
"The rule change will only lead to slight reductions and increases in downforce and drag respectively, according to OAK Racing boss Francois Sicard." |
|
|
27 Oct 2011, 11:12 (Ref:2977618) | #1662 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 13,763
|
Quote:
I really dont think they look all that bad . As a spectator they should be fairly invisible from my standpoint ..... and they could also be a lot worse too . Still detest that vertical slab they call a good idea though . |
|||
|
27 Oct 2011, 11:19 (Ref:2977623) | #1663 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,831
|
Quote:
|
||
|
27 Oct 2011, 11:23 (Ref:2977626) | #1664 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,831
|
Quote:
Yes, it causes a bit of havoc with the splitter. And I inquired about rebalancing by reducing front and was told that unloading the splitter would make the car even more pitch sensitive (big loss @ high RHs, little/no loss at low) and that L/D would suffer further as the splitter is the most efficient aero device on the car. |
||
|
27 Oct 2011, 11:27 (Ref:2977630) | #1665 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 824
|
|||
|
27 Oct 2011, 13:46 (Ref:2977713) | #1666 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,654
|
Could this increase in front downforce have an effect on the new "wide fronts" trend?
|
||
__________________
Hvil i Fred Allan. (Rest in Peace Allan) |
27 Oct 2011, 15:21 (Ref:2977751) | #1667 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,203
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
27 Oct 2011, 15:30 (Ref:2977756) | #1668 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
Quote:
The 908 is used to illustrate the change and the template over the front wheel covers approximately half of the front louver (a little larger than the car number sticker). Is there anything prevent the use of louvers fore and aft of the hole? |
||
|
27 Oct 2011, 23:08 (Ref:2977962) | #1669 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,831
|
Quote:
|
|
|
27 Oct 2011, 23:10 (Ref:2977963) | #1670 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,926
|
When Audi was testing at Estroil a few days ago, they ran the R18 with what seemed to be 2011 LM bodywork. I wonder if that bares any relevance as Audi will have to update their bodywork to the new specs eventually anyways, and they were testing 2012 spec tires?
Of course, it should be noted with the R10 and especially the R8 that Audi was one of the biggest offenders of blowing out the fender louvers in the endurance races, namely PLM, and the Audi guys, especially at Champion, rarely bothered to fix the damage as there was no rule in play at the time, and it gave more front downforce. So Audi undoubtedly know something of what the holes will do at the front, but I think that having similar holes over the rear will be the big variable, as I don't think that many if anyone has any real experience with that, certainly with this generation of LMP car. |
||
|
28 Oct 2011, 00:01 (Ref:2977979) | #1671 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,648
|
Why don't we just take the drivers out of the cars and let them steer them with radio controlled devices in the pits?
That will make everything 100% safe. This is getting beyond ridiculous. |
|
|
28 Oct 2011, 01:51 (Ref:2977991) | #1672 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 785
|
Quote:
-- The next interesting bit of info will be how they comply with these new hole rules. They are most probably loosely written and will surely allow punching holes inside of the wheels - where it might be more aerodynamically advantageous - to fit the template. I think that's what I saw on the Aragon R18 pics: daylight in the wheel-well looking from behind. |
|||
|
28 Oct 2011, 08:45 (Ref:2978066) | #1673 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 13,763
|
Yep ..... its a laugh to be honest . Motorsport has never been so safe . You cant make anything 100% safe , ever .
|
||
|
28 Oct 2011, 08:48 (Ref:2978068) | #1674 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,232
|
I don't think it's stupidy, but ACO must be just really scared of a worst case scenario and for a good reason. Just look at the sh!tstorm after Wheldon's death. Perhaps not so good comparison, but there is sort of a pattern. Imagine if one of the airborne crashes from past years had not ended in a happy way. I could imagine extreme comments like "La Sarthe is 20 years behind in safety" and so on. When some dies, suddenly everybody cares and that must create huge pressure.
Last edited by deggis; 28 Oct 2011 at 09:11. |
|
|
28 Oct 2011, 09:33 (Ref:2978092) | #1675 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,261
|
Safety regulations, at least in other forms of racing, have not always exactly had "safe" consequences all of the time. A big reason why the IRL has the aero regulations they have is to keep speeds down. The same could be said about NASCAR restrictor plates. Ok, entertainment has certainly helped keep those rules packages around as well, but neither have exactly created a safe environment even if they have created a safer environment. I guess you could say it is two steps forward and one back.
Anyway, I'm not saying these new ACO regulations are going to be like that, but there are issues that must be considered. Just generally speaking, the rules have to allow for the different classes to pass each other safely. I can't really say what kind of impact the rules will have on car stability, but that may or may not be a fair trade off when it comes to safety. I don't know the proper way to deal with the situation, but racing leagues have to find a proper balance between racing and safety. If we look at the the IRL again, the lack of speed from the cars has helped reduce interest in the sport. Track records at Indy qualifying were a big deal, but obviously it would not be a good idea to allow those cars to do 250mph averages or whatever else they could do with easing of the regulations. Too much safety or a lack of safety can kill a series, but finding the right balance isn't always easy. |
|
|
|
|
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 |