Panoz to return to LMP1

[joeb]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Is that the latest rumour ?

I thought I read in the Bear a while back that PTG was working on the project. Of course it wasn't said that explicitly, but that was my interpretation.

[Flyin Ryan]

Originally Posted by CTD

You want the transmission before the engine!?. How would you make that work with rear wheel drive.
Besides, with all that empty space, where would you generate downforce for the front?.

Dude, it's essentially an idea drawn on a napkin. You expecting me to do CFD or something? It was a two-line response to Mulsanne Mike of "could this work?"

As far as the tranny, I wanted it to be lined up with the driveshaft because that's what I've always seen with rear-engined prototypes. Since it's a front-engined car, I figured the tranny went to the front driveshaft. I didn't consider it being RWD. Thinking about it now, it could instead be done via U-joints. The reason I put the tranny in front of the engine was because the engine would be taller so the tranny could be in front and have the smaller frontal profile that'd be necessary.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by Flyin Ryan

Dude, it's essentially an idea drawn on a napkin. You expecting me to do CFD or something? It was a two-line response to Mulsanne Mike of "could this work?"

As far as the tranny, I wanted it to be lined up with the driveshaft because that's what I've always seen with rear-engined prototypes. Since it's a front-engined car, I figured the tranny went to the front driveshaft. I didn't consider it being RWD. Thinking about it now, it could instead be done via U-joints. The reason I put the tranny in front of the engine was because the engine would be taller so the tranny could be in front and have the smaller frontal profile that'd be necessary.

Of Course it's a "napkin drawing" but all napkin drawings must keep some sort of realism. I didn't mean to offend you or your idea, but i was just trying to explain why i don't think this idea will work.

I do not have much engineering knowledge, but the U-joints sounds a bit complex, and could be a loss of power from the engine to the wheels, and be a place of unreliability because of all the power they have to handle.. But of course aerodynamical it would be best to have the Transmission in front of the engine, but also since the engine weigh more, it would also give a better weight distribution.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by Flyin Ryan

Dude, it's essentially an idea drawn on a napkin. You expecting me to do CFD or something? It was a two-line response to Mulsanne Mike of "could this work?"

As far as the tranny, I wanted it to be lined up with the driveshaft because that's what I've always seen with rear-engined prototypes. Since it's a front-engined car, I figured the tranny went to the front driveshaft. I didn't consider it being RWD. Thinking about it now, it could instead be done via U-joints. The reason I put the tranny in front of the engine was because the engine would be taller so the tranny could be in front and have the smaller frontal profile that'd be necessary.

''

All the front engined Panoz LMPs were RWD. So too the Mustang GTP. Means they have a drive shaft tunnel running through the bottom of the tub. Panoz had carbon fiber drive shafts, were about 4" in diameter if I recall. Had early issues with getting them to live, but by the end of the program I think they had a good design and suppliers who could make them.

There's no way you'd put both the engine and the transmission in the front of the car if simply for weight distribution. Why take the one potential benefit of the front engined car and then ruin that by now running too much weight at the front?

I must admit I can't make much sense out of the vague "drawing" here. I see drive shafts at the front and the rear (only 2 wheels can be driven) and a roll over structure effectively right on top of the rear wing. You want that structure as far forward as you can get it, which is naturally difficult in a front engined car as suddenly everything goes rearwards.

[Ted bennett]

I think that drive shaft translates into propshaft in my neck of the woods and if I'm right then yes they were a source of problems on the GTR. It was thought that alignement was the issue so a gadget utilising a laser and a mirror was tried to improve the situation.

[Gingers4Justice]

I just (poorly) phototshopped an old Panoz Spyder, an made it silver and look what I made! It is possible after all.

[cmk]

It's hilarious, as you point out, that in 2009 we're talking about rebuilding a closed-top car that existed in 1997 from the old chassis generated by cutting the top off the damn thing in 1999.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by cmk

It's hilarious, as you point out, that in 2009 we're talking about rebuilding a closed-top car that existed in 1997 from the old chassis generated by cutting the top off the damn thing in 1999.

Isn't it? Roof was chopped to get around the deficiencies of it with a roof on...doh!

[GTfour]

Whatever their plans,I'm looking forward to Panoz returning to the top of the sportscar class. I hope it'll be with a caracteristic machine as all the previous Panoz's were.

[CTD]

With the Lola-Rousch (Ford) announcement, a Ford Lmp1 engine might be build for 2012. Does this make a Panoz lmp return more likely!?

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by CTD

With the Lola-Rousch (Ford) announcement, a Ford Lmp1 engine might be build for 2012. Does this make a Panoz lmp return more likely!?

No, I don't see it being any more probable than before.

[Marcel ten Caat]

And considering their Abruzzi launch at Le Mans I'd say...no

[Jonerz]

Add to that the Abruzzi apparently has a bow-tie lump in it.

Chris