Nissan LMP1 Discussion

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by EricS

is there any chance this is still a rear engine layout?

No.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by deggis

That time is actually right during the game, but 10 am local (Japanese) time sounds pretty normal for a press conference, so probably a complete coincidence. So, if anything, watching the game sounds like a sure way to miss the reveal aka press conference.

Or the car is released with a viral campaign with the @nismo twitter handle being an outlet? Plus the Japanese market has little Superbowl interest.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by deggis

That time is actually right during the game, but 10 am local (Japanese) time sounds pretty normal for a press conference, so probably a complete coincidence. So, if anything, watching the game sounds like a sure way to miss the reveal aka press conference.

Note the image says MONDAY (February 2)...Super Bowl is tomorrow, Sunday, February 1.

https://www.google.com/search?newwin...89.l3Phby9l0Gw

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

Note the image says MONDAY (February 2)...Super Bowl is tomorrow, Sunday, February 1.

https://www.google.com/search?newwin...89.l3Phby9l0Gw

But Monday morning in Japan is Sunday evening in the US.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by miatanut

But Monday morning in Japan is Sunday evening in the US.

*face palm* well that's clear as mud. So the primary media is located in the western world (being highly biased here), and you say "Monday" but don't specify a date? Sounds like their PR is working as well as their car! Naturally I get the complexities when citing Japan time vs. London, but add a third city like New York to make sure everyone's aligned.

[Mal]

I think its pretty clear the lmp1 will be involved on the ad. But launching the car will not be the sole purpose of the ad in my opinion.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

*face palm* well that's clear as mud. So the primary media is located in the western world (being highly biased here), and you say "Monday" but don't specify a date? Sounds like their PR is working as well as their car! Naturally I get the complexities when citing Japan time vs. London, but add a third city like New York to make sure everyone's aligned.

Monday is still Feb 2, where ever you are in the world, it's just that Monday/Feb 2 rolls around at different times in different places.

My wife is Korean and she takes long business trips there, so I'm used to dealing with this problem. We may all be watching the Superbowl on Sunday afternoon/evening, but it's Monday morning there!

Those of us on the Pacific rim are always having to deal with this date thing after the Brits, upon taking over most of the world, conveniently (for them) located the date line as far as possible from London.

In Nissan's defense, it was clear to me, but maybe instead of 1:00 London, 10:00 Yokohama, they should have just said Monday, 1:00 GMT.

[cokata]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

Have never said that, especially the part about glorified Lolas. Domes maybe, and there was reason for me saying that that has never been revealed even to this day. Though if you're having to dig back 3 years to find me "wrong" I'll suggest you're struggling.

Hey man i'm not taking a dig at you. No need to get defensive. I have huge respect for you and you have been "the scarbs of sporstcars" (don't take that as an insult if you don't like him) for many years. I was just saying that everything that is not an official info, even coming from you should be taken with a pinch of salt. There is no such thing as 100% credible source after all.

[MyNameIsNigel]

"Sorry" for bringing this up again, but I would still love to understand how Nissan will comply with the newly-introduced provision regarding the location of the "rain/fog" lights at the rear if they do run with a no-rear-wing package at LM.

Article 10.3.2 provides that the car must be fitted with:

Two red "Rain" or "Fog" lights located at the rear and the highest possible on each side symmetrically to the longitudinal centreline of the car.

and that

These lights need to be inserted in the trailing edge of the rear wing endplates.

I do agree with the fact that a rear wing is not formally required under the rules, but the above provision somewhat contradicts the absence of a rear wing. I am pretty sure at least that the ACO-FIA did not contemplate the possibility of somebody running without any rear wing when they drafted that provision.

"Rear wing endplates" are an integral part of the rear wing assembly and there are rather strict rules governing the shape and dimensions thereof. Besides, even though the rear wing endplates may be formed in two parts, one being attached to the bodywork, the endplates cannot be attached exclusively to the bodywork.

In that respect, unless the ACO-FIA waive this specific requirement and allow Nissan to run some sort of vertical fins at the rear to allow integration of the rear lights, without these formally acting as "rear wing endplates" - or whatever other solution that the ACO-FIA may allow - I cannot see how Nissan could comply with the provision of Article 10.3.2.

Looking at the issue from a different perspective, how will Toyota, Porsche and/or Audi react if Nissan are allowed to run their own specific solution as far as the integration of the rear "rain/fog" lights is concerned if this allows Nissan to run with no rear wing, and therefore a considerably less draggy solution ? Could we expect any of these other guys ditching the rear wing as well (assuming this would make any sense) ?

[Down F0rce]

Could they possibly put them on the engine cover fin, or would that go for Le Mans as well?

[MyNameIsNigel]

Well, definitely, the Endurance Committee would be well advised to issue a clarification in that respect, better sooner than later.

The main questions are:
Does Article 10.3.2 ultimately require the presence of a rear wing ?

In the negative, what solution would the ACO-FIA consider as complying with Article 10.3.2 in the absence of any rear wing and associated rear wing endplates ?

I am pretty sure that most would agree that it would be ridiculous to see the ACO-FIA "disqualify" Nissan for non-compliance with Article 10.3.2 if they ultimately opt to run without any rear wing at LM.

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Could we expect any of these other guys ditching the rear wing as well (assuming this would make any sense) ?

Well it wouldn't make sense for their current designs, so no. I expect it to be a "we'll deal with it when it happens" type of scenario with the rule being amended closer to the race.

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Well, definitely, the Endurance Committee would be well advised to issue a clarification in that respect, better sooner than later.

If the events post-LM last year taught us anything it's the Endurance Committee like to take their time!

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by cokata

Hey man i'm not taking a dig at you. No need to get defensive. I have huge respect for you and you have been "the scarbs of sporstcars" (don't take that as an insult if you don't like him) for many years. I was just saying that everything that is not an official info, even coming from you should be taken with a pinch of salt. There is no such thing as 100% credible source after all.

I've been pretty clear for the past two months where we are with the information. I've indicated when I'm guessing, speculating, as well as when I've actually confirmed something. When I'm guessing/speculating I let everyone know how I got there. I even put this gem at the bottom of my Nissan GT-R LMP1 tech spec:

Obvious things I've missed, many. Not so obvious things I've missed, many. Things I'm plain wrong about, many.

And there IS such a thing as a 100% credible source. Regarding Nissan, I've spelled out the troubles I've had in finding people willing to chat. And it's not that I'm dealing with people that aren't credible, they most certainly are 100%, but they've only had a glimpse of the car in most cases. It's from those pieces of chum I've put together what we have to chew on.

And the reason I'm defensive about this is because of responses like the above. I've been 100% clear on what we're dealing with, where the information is coming from, yet the response is incredulous so much of the time. Read the logic streams please and debate those instead.

[Mr Pink]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

Domes maybe, and there was reason for me saying that that has never been revealed even to this day..

OT but this got me very curious!

[cokata]

Originally Posted by Mr Pink

OT but this got me very curious!

Probably the first aero package (the one that was tested, pre-spa where the car was shown with the LM package) was poor. At least i remember that it looked pretty basic.

[gustavobamba]

Originally Posted by Mr Pink

OT but this got me very curious!

There was a supposed major failure in the real end of the car. Design flaw...

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by Mr Pink

OT but this got me very curious!

A lot of it is here, 2.3.12 update:

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newsjan12.html

[Mike E]

Originally Posted by Down F0rce

Could they possibly put them on the engine cover fin, or would that go for Le Mans as well?

No chance of running without a fin. It's a safety device. A very, very ugly, inelegant safety device. Sorry, can't help myself...

[Mr Pink]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

A lot of it is here, 2.3.12 update:

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newsjan12.html

Thanks!

[wdave0]

Originally Posted by Down F0rce

Could they possibly put them on the engine cover fin, or would that go for Le Mans as well?

If there's no minimum spacing for the lights why not a small wing/support at the top rear point of the fin.

[chernaudi]

Audi and Porsche already run the brake/running taillights in the rear wing endplates.

So do they allocate the top section of LED to serve as the ACO's warning lights, or might we see them run extra brake lights in the cheese wedges like what Toyota are running and what the 2011 R18 used?

Of course, Toyota have the opposite issue of adding the warning lights to their rear wing endplates.

Not to deflect the subject too far away from Nissan, but everyone else will have to run the warning lights in some form in their rear wing endplates. Audi and Porsche already have running taillights/brake lights there (I also believe they even have turn signal lights wired in there), while Toyota will have to add lights.

I can see Audi and Porsche having a function where rear endplate lights can do all three things without the need for a different appearing light set up.

But to get back to Nissan's end of the equation--aren't they required to run something like rear wing endplates under the rules to begin with?

I thought that under the post 2004 rules that the rear wing endplates were supposed to enduce drag (like a parachute or air brake) in yaw to reduce the chances of a car getting airborne at speed along with things like the chamfered floor, the domed skid (intro 2009), the dorsal fin (intro 2011) and the fender holes (intro 2012)?

I do recall that all rear wings needed endplates, and at minimum they had to have a surface area of a certain minimum value specified by the ACO's rules package.

Of course, if Nissan only expects to run a wing at the shorter tracks, they do need the endplates for obvious reasons, but what about their proposed "no wing" LM package?

[chernaudi]

Originally Posted by wdave0

If there's no minimum spacing for the lights why not a small wing/support at the top rear point of the fin.

I don't know of a minimum light spacing reg, but I know that the furthest they could be spaced was the width of the rear wing as shown by the Audi R18 family and the R15 as well (1600mm from 2009-2013; 1800mm 2014 to present). Porsche also have a similar solution for the 919 (so much so that I repeatedly got confused when looking at the rears of the cars in low light/darkness--at least in the daylight the different coloring and bodywork styling made it very easy to tell the R18 and the 919 apart).

I don't think that anyone wants to attach lights to the area above the rear diffuser (like often was used in the Group C and IMSA GTP days) because of worries that they could impede beneficial engine bay flow-through out the rear of the car.

That leaves the cheese wedges or maybe trying to incorporate them into the rear wing mounts or the rear crash structure.

If the rules allow or it, having thought about it for a moment (unlike my last post where I didn't put a ton of thought into this solution), it could conceivably work.

However, I do also know that under the 2004 era regs for LMP cars--most of which still apply today--that the rules want teams to run "endplates" as part of an anti-flip package to act when the vehicle is in yaw at high speed.

Hence, I wonder what Nissan's work around for their "wingless" LM package will be from that standpoint.

[MyNameIsNigel]

The provision governing the so-called "transverse plates" on either side of the trailing edge of the rear diffuser has also been revised to provide that the surface thereof has to be "impervious" (or "without any hole" in the French version), which I understand now excludes the integration of lights like on the 2014 TS040.

Audi's and Porsche's solutions which combine the functions of brake/warning lights and rain/fog lights in one unit integrated in the trailing edge of the rear wing endplates may ultimately become the standard, provided there are "rear wing endplates" to start with.

If Nissan do run without any rear wing at LM, their interpretation of Article 10.3.2 is indeed going to be interesting to see.

Note that the rules do not specifically say where the "warning" / "brake" lights must be located. The integration of lights in the trailing edge of the rear wing endplates only specifically relates to the so-called "rain" / "fog" lights. As far as the "warning" / "brake" lights are concerned, these must be fitted symmetrically about the longitudinal centerline of the car and separated by a minimum of 1500mm. In theory, they could be located on the bodywork (like on the 2011 Peugeot 908).

[wolfhound]

If they have to have a rear wing I doubt there is a minimum size requirement or profile requirement. So all that you would need is thin piece of material stretched between the wing endplates. Fishing line might do the trick but in race car terms it will have to be carbon fibre.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

If they have to have a rear wing I doubt there is a minimum size requirement or profile requirement. So all that you would need is thin piece of material stretched between the wing endplates. Fishing line might do the trick but in race car terms it will have to be carbon fibre.

Right!

The spy shots are of a version of the car with a rear wing. For Le Mans, they can run some minimalist thing that doesn't do anything.

So, they may still be lobbying ACO to not have to run anything at all, to save the very small additional drag a fake wing would generate, but if ACO doesn't agree, they can run the fake wing at a very small drag penalty.