Possible technical outcomes of the '04 regs

[AMT]

In the Lister LMP thread, Try Hard asked what I thought about the effects of the '04 regulations. I thought I'd reply as a new topic.

I foresee a rapid ascent of the aero learning curve by those constructors with the money to fund it, and a clawing back of all the predicted downforce and drag penalties, and more. The aero stability gain should stay, but in reality it's pushed the take-off speeds and angles of attack higher, but not out of range. The only way to do that would probably have been to mandate separate fenders and tunnels, and a big reduction in underbody area. That was never on the FIA's agenda though.

Bearing the above, and the detail of the regs, in mind, it still seems to me that a closed car is the way to go. The concern is that they are quite a bit more expensive to design and build than an open car, and that may reinforce the current "rich-v-poor" inequity in Prototypes.

[SALEEN S7R]

Sorry if I sound dumb but is the tunnels only going to be used on the LMP classess? Or will the GT's have to change the underbody of their cars also?

[paul-collins]

Andy, you've talked about the FIA's agenda elsewhere - that it seems a priority was given to making the cars less F1-like. How do you feel about the LMES and its political underpinnings, based on FIA's F1-worship? I worry about it, personally...

[Try Hard]

Thanks for the reply Andy, very interested to hear the veiws of one of the foremost Prototype designers.
Regards
Ed

[AMT]

AFAIK the GTs retain their pseudo-roadcar bodywork regs.

Regarding the "FIA's F1-worship", I share Paul's worries. I was involved in Group C when the FIA tried to ease the big constructors out and into F1 (which it has to be said, they achieved eventually) and thereby destroyed Group C. Le Mans stood up to them, and Mercedes, Toyota, BMW and Audi all stayed involved in Prototypes purely for that one race. I'm all for universal regulations, and a combined Prototype/GT race series, but I do worry that if the ACO surrender the high ground to the FIA, Sportscar racing will be put through the mincer and fed to the F1 megasaur to try to keep it thriving. I'm actually interested in F1, but it's only one aspect of motorsport and not the whole picture by any means.

Andy

[paul-collins]

Agreed, Andy, motorsport is interesting precisely because it's robust. I also pine for the days of drivers driving everything, but I recognize that with the level of testing required (or, in the case of NASCAR, just simply racin' all the time) drivers don't have the chances to do so even if their contracts allowed it these days.

I wonder if the F360 would be allowed to use their roadgoing undercar tunnels in 2004.

Andy, do you have access to the Piper study?

[skycafe]

Mr. Thorby! Hi there, I have returned after strange computer problems, and hope that you are still in the neighborhood to answer questions. I am curious about your comments regarding the cost of closed versus open prototypes. Why do the closed represent more cost? I would understand materials, although I would guess they aren't that much. Is it aero development? Can you put a percentage to cost differential?

What would you do if given the power to make sports car racing work (which is a question that officials should be asking you, other designers, and team owners RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!)? Short term/long term.

By the way, I too think it is really cool that you are in this little universe of ten tenths.

[AMT]

Originally posted by skycafe
Mr. Thorby! Hi there, I have returned after strange computer problems, and hope that you are still in the neighborhood to answer questions. I am curious about your comments regarding the cost of closed versus open prototypes. Why do the closed represent more cost? I would understand materials, although I would guess they aren't that much. Is it aero development? Can you put a percentage to cost differential?

What would you do if given the power to make sports car racing work.

I'm still around - I've got a few days off! It's not obvious, but adding a windscreen, doors, seals, wipers, demisters etc. adds considerably to the design and engineering load. Additionally, the chassis is more complex to make. I reckon if the Lister had been a closed car it would have added around 15% to the cost of the program. That's peanuts to VW, but when you have a budget of $2.5million to design build and race a prototype at Le Mans it can be a crucial factor in deciding whether to go closed or open.

I don't have access to the full Piper study - only the published conclusions. My own personal "vision" of a prototype would be: Symmetrical cockpits, similar to FIA '04 - these cars should be more-than-nominal 2-seaters. Much freer body regulations, allowing separate fenders, no flat bottom, controlled underbody tunnels & transverse camber (as FIA '04), small front and rear aerofoils. Overall length back to 4800mm (like the old Group C), but a minimum 3000mm wheelbase.

Artificial cost controls just don't work, from limiting technology to single-chassis formulas, because motor racing always costs whatever is available, and often a little bit more. Allow, and encourage, alternative fuels (which they are doing) and energy-recovery systems. That may be attractive to major manufacturers looking to research and/or promote things like hybrid vehicles (e.g. Toyota and Honda).

Someone asked whether I knew Adrian Newey, who was involved in the March GTP program when I was with the Lola T600. The answer's no, because I was home-based: Eric Broadley did the glamorous stuff! So I never got to Lime Rock or any of the other great tracks. Incidentally, the Interscope car - wasn't that Porsche-engined? I remember doing the installation, and particularly the massive oil tank! The Chevy-engined car seemed to be the one to have - Cooke Woods Racing IIRC.

[Aysedasi]

Originally posted by AMT


Artificial cost controls just don't work, from limiting technology to single-chassis formulas, because motor racing always costs whatever is available, and often a little bit more. Allow, and encourage, alternative fuels (which they are doing) and energy-recovery systems. That may be attractive to major manufacturers looking to research and/or promote things like hybrid vehicles (e.g. Toyota and Honda).

Very refreshing. After some of the inane comments we've had (particularly from a member who seemed really hung up on costs issues), its good to hear someone in the know admit the obvious!

[paul-collins]

Originally posted by AMT
Someone asked whether I knew Adrian Newey, who was involved in the March GTP program when I was with the Lola T600. The answer's no, because I was home-based: Eric Broadley did the glamorous stuff! So I never got to Lime Rock or any of the other great tracks. Incidentally, the Interscope car - wasn't that Porsche-engined? I remember doing the installation, and particularly the massive oil tank! The Chevy-engined car seemed to be the one to have - Cooke Woods Racing IIRC.

That was me, pest that I am.

I just looked it up on classicscars.com, and it's Cooke-Woods that had the first two chassis, one being Chevy 6.0L and the other with a Porsche. Interscope appears to have had chassis 6 and 7, both with Chevy 5.7L motors.

http://www.classicscars.com/chassis/...ssisLolaC.html

[pirenzo]

Sorry i'm late.

Possible technical outcomes of the '04 regs?

Damned ugly cars that's what.

I was trying to sketch some the other night. Think 956.

Then raise the roof.
Then lower the sides
Then add some aerodynamically effiicnat Audi-esque nose.
Then just for good measure, chop the back off.

These will the most badly proportioned Le Mans car for some years.

[paul-collins]

Pirenzo, would they look less disturbed if (and Ayse will shoot me for this) they remain open-topped?

[Tim Northcutt]

I hope we see both open-cockpit and closed-cockpit cars....from the very sketchy info we've gotten on the new Audi prototype, it will supposedly be open....

[Dauntless]

Originally posted by AMT
I foresee a rapid ascent of the aero learning curve by those constructors with the money to fund it, and a clawing back of all the predicted downforce and drag penalties, and more. The aero stability gain should stay, but in reality it's pushed the take-off speeds and angles of attack higher, but not out of range. The only way to do that would probably have been to mandate separate fenders and tunnels, and a big reduction in underbody area. That was never on the FIA's agenda though.

I agree that teams will quickly come to grips with the new aero rules, Andy, but remain mystified as to why FIA and ACO are so leery of going back to true tunnels. The major challenges to developing effective tunnels were worked out more than a decade ago, and it's not as if the knowledge has been lost. All the issues you identify are so much easier to address with tunnels than with flat bottoms or the semi-tunnels we see coming that I strongly suspect that the testing money saved can pay for the transition to tunnels. I just don't see a need to go to detached fenders, transverse camber or smaller undertrays to have safer cars.

[Fab]

As Tim, I'm for variety (open and roofed).

Let's not forget that even Group C had a beginning (even if with great cars right from the start) : let's grow the new prototypes, and we'll see in 2005 if they're hopeless or new marvels...

What we could hope (and pray) is for more teams commitments...

[pirenzo]

Originally posted by paul-collins
Pirenzo, would they look less disturbed if (and Ayse will shoot me for this) they remain open-topped?

Yes, sadly.

Though those double roll hoops aren't gonna be pretty.