Mr Pescarolo personal reflections

[Mirage M6]

Originally Posted by jhansen

Henri had the clear advantage in 2005. It wasn't even close to apples to apples. And he lost.

Yes…

Audi ADT #2 3. 37. 795 (Qualifying) 3. 39. 781 (race, 1st)

Audi Oreca #4 3. 38 281 (Qualifying) 3. 41. 649 (race, 4rd)

Audi ADT #3 3. 38 988 (Qualifying) 3. 40. 208 (race, 3rd)

Pescarolo #16 3. 34. 715 (Qualifying) 3. 34. 968 (race, 2nd)

Pescarolo #17 3. 35. 555 (Qualifying) 3. 36. 852 (race, dnf)

Pesca had a bit advantage because the team adapted the C60 to the 2005 rules (C60 Hybrid), but the main the reason for that difference was work, work…and more work and I think Pescarolo prove that privateers, with effort, have real chances to win LM, so we are allowed to think: if a Pescarolo was 3 seconds faster than an Audi why in 2006 and this year…etc…etc…

When I was watching LM 2005 and saw Boullion and Ayari to pull away from Audis was like a dream…but again, for win you have to finish.

[SebringMG]

Main reason they were in with a shot was the 60-100 bhp advantage they had because of the rules HEAVILY gimping the Audi's - was really hoping they were gonna win that year but unfort

Only good thing to come out of that year is that Henri is doing much better preparation of his cars than they did before.....if someone slips up he will be right there!!!

If he gets on the podium it will be as good as a win IMO

[Liteweight]

I hardly think we can (as yet) use the swiss spirit as an example of a works petrol car. They are a privateer with an old works engine. If anything the Judd engine in Henri's car is a better developed, more powerful engine package. The Audi lump has had very little, if any, development over the last year or two and was built to the regs of the time (3.6L max for a turbo unit?). I'm sure the output is pretty decent but they are hardly making the absolute maximum out of the current regs so an irrelevant comment by canam i beleive.

[Suze]

There's an interesting hour programme on him on Motors TV at the moment as well, also talking about his personal progression and driving career, his work with the Elf scheme, his team now etc - some may want to keep an eye out for it too.

[canam]

I thought it was accepted by many (on these forums) that this Audi petrol unit was supposed to be the basis for proving that there was no gap between petrol and diesels. Dr U. was, apparently going to point at this unit as a shining example, no proof that diesels had not advantage. Now, it is being indicated that that is not the case. Cake and eating it IMO.

It is strange how many of those voices are pretty silent on the issue of the Audi unit in the Swiss Spirit. Why?...'cos they all know it doesn't make the power of the oiler.

[Liteweight]

And it may well prove Audi's point eventually but the car/engine combination has only raced once and is hardly into its package development stage. Audi doesn't have an unlimited budget and can't work miracles overnight. And more to the point i think they are more interested in showing that petrol engines can get a lot closer to the diesels than people (many on this forum it would seem) are currently thinking. But this is a little off topic (there is a thread regarding diesel/petrol equivelency etc). The point is that no the Swiss Spirit car won't match the Deisels for power. It can't due to its displacement, development cycle etc, etc. What it can do is prove that what is essentially an old engine design can compete for pace against the lastest crop of privateer petrol powered teams hence showing the way for a full manufacturer based petrol effort to rival the diesel pace. But i digress again! My apologies. Back to Henri and i hope he does well this year. He does deserve some success at LM mainly for his perserverance in the face of major manufacture dominance!

[jhansen]

Originally Posted by canam

I thought it was accepted by many (on these forums) that this Audi petrol unit was supposed to be the basis for proving that there was no gap between petrol and diesels. Dr U. was, apparently going to point at this unit as a shining example, no proof that diesels had not advantage. Now, it is being indicated that that is not the case. Cake and eating it IMO.

It is strange how many of those voices are pretty silent on the issue of the Audi unit in the Swiss Spirit. Why?...'cos they all know it doesn't make the power of the oiler.

I can't speak for others, but I don't think it's realistic for Swiss Spirit to prove the diesel parity as accurate. Especially with that chassis, their level of experience, etc. Maybe if they had given the engines to Henri. I think he could have made better use of them. But maybe he would have sandbagged...

[jhansen]

Originally Posted by canam

Empirical Data: Looking at the first lap of another race run to a completely different set of regs?? what has that got to do with the present situation.

The empirical data emerges from the fact that the oilers can pull out 150 metres in pretty much each of the five 'straights' and LM and even improve the gap through the Porsche curves. Perhaps when you see it with your own eyes, you may embark on your own 'Road to Damascus'.

It is also amusing to see that it is pretty much generally accepted 'manufacturers' are allowed to have up to 100 horsepower more than privateers (Pug 720-750 and Audi 700-730). Why? Because they are manufacturers of course (and they should be better). What nonsense. Futhermore, we don't see the Swiss Spirt Lola Audi behaving as if it is pushing out more than 700bhp ('cos they can't find that much power with the current set of restrictors and boost pressures in the regs).

As for 2005, we know that Henri lost it--like the time when Mazda won it in the late Group C days. Completely off the pace, but they won. It does happen...but only means that flukes happen.

The data I was referring to was what Fogelhund presented. Your following post resorted to conspiracy theories (ie Audi and Peugeot sandbagging).

And 2004 shows that a factory developed car run by near factory-like teams has a performance advantage over the privateers despite the rules. Just as you suggest the R10 pulls away from the petrol P1s, so did the R8 pull away from the privateer P1s of its era. All this while running under "equitable" rules.

I'll go out on a limb and dare say that had Audi designed a petrol P1 around the FSI bi-turbo it would have been as quick as the diesel R10. Why? The FSI was a great motor. And a new chassis built around it would not have the design sacrifices the present R10 has. That could have been a scary fast race car.

[Mirage M6]

Originally Posted by jhansen

Especially with that chassis

Why you think is a bad chassis?

Originally Posted by jhansen

.Maybe if they had given the engines to Henri. I think he could have made better use of them.

It is not a bad idea...

[canam]

Originally Posted by jhansen

The data I was referring to was what Fogelhund presented. Your following post resorted to conspiracy theories (ie Audi and Peugeot sandbagging).

And 2004 shows that a factory developed car run by near factory-like teams has a performance advantage over the privateers despite the rules. Just as you suggest the R10 pulls away from the petrol P1s, so did the R8 pull away from the privateer P1s of its era. All this while running under "equitable" rules.

I don't know what you mean about conspiracy theories as it is simply a matter of fact the extent to which the oilers pull away--and are the fastest through the Porsche curves. When you see it in front of you, there is absolutely no way you could deny its existence.

I thought that the purpose of restrictors, engine boost levels etc. is to equalise the power characteristics of the engines. If it isn't, then what purpose do they serve?

I did not know that the rules are intentionally structured to stipulate that oilers can have, say, 730bhp and petrol and have 650 bhp. Is this the set of regs you support?

[SebringMG]

The rules were not intentionally set to give diesels a 'leg up'. The ACO followed the FIA rules that have worked in other series, Rally Raid etc....unfort i think those rules were for production based machinery......ACO simply mis-understood how much a full race engine would smash those rules apart, it appears a race diesel engine does not conform to the same rules as a production motor.

But anyway there is a good explanation of it by gwylion in the relevant thread ie. the discussion on diesel performance - Read that i see no point posting it again in a second thread........

[jhansen]

Originally Posted by canam

Forget the numbers (times) as the manufacturers are merely playing with all of us to keep the party going.

That is a conspiracy theory. You are trying to make your assertion as fact when it is not. You are also spouting off as fact that the ACO have deliberately tried to make petrol cars uncompetitive.

As for the R10's being quickest through the Porsche curves, can I see where you obtained this information? A comparison of times would be interesting to see.

[canam]

Originally Posted by jhansen

That is a conspiracy theory. You are trying to make your assertion as fact when it is not. You are also spouting off as fact that the ACO have deliberately tried to make petrol cars uncompetitive.

As for the R10's being quickest through the Porsche curves, can I see where you obtained this information? A comparison of times would be interesting to see.

I have never said that the ACO have done it deliberately although, once the sham is uncovered, it is quite hard to bite the hand that feeds you. (Audi's contribution to this race and endurance racing in general is enormous and should be applauded but....) The ACO have been persuaded by the oilers that that the parity is correct when those manufacturers knew and know it not to be the case. I remember when the R10 was launched and the quote on power was 'more than 600bhp'. Technically correct, yes. When it is generally viewed that they have more 700bhp on tap, the previous statement has to be takena bit more cynically.

As to the porsche curve data, I suggest you look at the ACO's timing data on their website. From a quick glance, it was the #8 Pug followed by the #1 Audi. Again, at a quick glance, the nearest petrol car is six-tenths behind (on a 36 second segment).

[jhansen]

Originally Posted by canam

As to the porsche curve data, I suggest you look at the ACO's timing data on their website. From a quick glance, it was the #8 Pug followed by the #1 Audi. Again, at a quick glance, the nearest petrol car is six-tenths behind (on a 36 second segment).

Thanks. I'll have a look. Out of curiousity, are you suggesting the diesel has something to do with that?

[Mirage M6]

Originally Posted by canam

Audi's contribution to this race and endurance racing in general is enormous and should be applauded but...

I think be grateful with a manufacturer (better to talk about management teams, more specify) is a mistake and we should not applaud any alleged contribution to endurance racing from any manufacturer…because our dear LM and LM series are only a market segment for them (and people too, but this is not the forum to talk about it).

And someone could answer: you like LM but hate the manufacturers and they have made Le Mans 24 hrs, you are crazy!... I love LM and sports cars but, could I be grateful with a company/people that only want my money? Never.

[canam]

Originally Posted by jhansen

Thanks. I'll have a look. Out of curiousity, are you suggesting the diesel has something to do with that?

Fastest through the Porsche curves (on race rubber) suggests strongly that the oilers are running more downforce More downforce equates to more drag. Pulling this (higher level of) drag and still gaining 150+ meters on every straight points to greater power overall (than the Pesca for example).

But we know the oilers have more power already. That no longer seems to be an issue. All Henri is upset about is whether these diesels ought to be allowed to start off with 80-100 bhp more than anyone else. The manufacturers have the budget to tweak everything else and test ad nauseaum to ensure reliability, why give them the added bonus of more power than everyone else? I have considerable sympathy with Henri's position.

Finally, regarding the Swiss Spirit Lola. Lola's collective experience spans more areas of racing at a high level than most manufacturers. They have their own wind tunnel, their own chassis rig etc etc. To suggest that it is grossly inferior to the Audi or Pug chassis is inappropriate. FYI, the Pug was 3.4 seconds faster than this Lola Audi down the Mulsanne.

[chewymonster]

Lap differences between winning Audi (or Bentley) race car and top finishing privateer race car by year.

2006:4
2005:2
2004:18
2003:17
2002:16
2001:23
2000:24

Something tells me that diesel is not at fault.

[Spyderman]

Don't you think that the improved reliability and professionalism of the private teams might have something to do with that?



Also- Audi hasn't been pushed by another manufacturer for sometime now.

[chernaudi]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

Don't you think that the improved reliability and professionalism of the private teams might have something to do with that?



Also- Audi hasn't been pushed by another manufacturer for sometime now.

Well, Yes! Henri has spent plenty of Francs by turning the Courage C60 chassis(which was a good chassis packaged with a ho-hum aero package and unreliable engines) into a potential Le Mans winner. The pace of the Pescarolo 01 doesn't have me concerned. After all, Pescarolo is doing what Dome did with the S101.5-partly re-tubbing the older chassis to save money and not have to develop all new chassis setup notes and not struggle with an all new car.

And as for the Audi R8 vs R10 pull away theories. It should be remembered that the Audi R10s last year pulled about 200-205mph down the Mulsanne(data collected from a video clip from Motors TV from LM last year). And the R8 was quoted as going as fast. And the R8's and R10's lap times have been very close, as well as average speed at Le Mans(the '04 winning R8 ran 379 laps, and the R10 ran 380. But if you discount the trouble that those cars had in their respective races, they could've run 380 and 383 laps respectively. And the '04 secnd place finishing car could've run 381-382 laps if it didn't have trouble). And in qualifying, the R8's fastest was a high 3:29, and the R10's ran mid to high 3:30s. And the R8s were also impessively fast in the Porsche Curves as well. Why, because the R8 also ran more downforce than just about everyone else as well. This should be clear when the R8 ran 3:29s-3:30s in qualifying in '02 but only did 200-205mph on the straight aways, and other cars(I'm using the Dome as an example) ran 210-215mph down the straights, but ran 3:34-3:37 for the average lap.

I don't see much of a difference, but those two cars were built to different rules(aero/chassis regs, let alone engine regs). However, if the R8 was allowed to run in '06 with the '02 air restictor(but ballasted to 925 kgs), it probably could've run 3:27's-maybe even 3:26's faster than what Bourdais did in the Pug!

And the gap would've been the same between factory and privateer.

Pescarolo could've won LM in '06 if more luck were on his side, was a little faster(he admitted to using the R10's tires, which for whatever reason didn't agree with his car), and maybe had this year's areo package on his cars last year. Probably not likely, but it was possible.

[canam]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

However, if the R8 was allowed to run in '06 with the '02 air restictor(but ballasted to 925 kgs), it probably could've run 3:27's-maybe even 3:26's faster than what Bourdais did in the Pug!

If the petrol group were able to run to the '02 restrictors (at 925kg) they would also be running those lower times given that they would be running between 700-750bhp. This is despite the fact the the new (current) regs generate a reduction in efficient downforce (floor) and produce considerable excess drag (+ 10%) than that in 2002. This is why the Lola/Audi is a good representation of the petrol vs diesel argument and it is getting thrashed...like every other petrol chassis.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by canam

If the petrol group were able to run to the '02 restrictors (at 925kg) they would also be running those lower times given that they would be running between 700-750bhp.

I am hugely confussed: in 2002 the LMP900 restrictor rules were the same as the LMP1 rules now

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by canam

This is why the Lola/Audi is a good representation of the petrol vs diesel argument and it is getting thrashed...like every other petrol chassis.

I'm sorry, it isn't a good representation at all.

Does the Lola/Audi team have the organization behind it that Audi Sport does?

Does the Lola/Audi team have the engineers behind it that Audi Sport does?

Does the Lola/Audi team have a chassis specifically designed to handle that engine?

Does the Lola/Audi team have drivers the equal of McNish et al...

Does the Lola/Audi team have the miles of testing the R10 does?

In fact, the Lola/Audi might actually be a rather poor example to use in this case.

Let's be serious here, engine types and restrictors make a difference in performance, but the rest of the "team" package makes a huge difference as well. If the overall lap performance differential of the factory diesels to privateer petrols is relatively similar to the factory petrol vs. privateer petrols of past days... shouldn't we consider that the difference might be due to a factory being involved, instead of just the rules? Are we to reasonably expect, that a privateer is going to challenge the factories, with the differential in budgets, and benefits of same?

[canam]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

I am hugely confussed: in 2002 the LMP900 restrictor rules were the same as the LMP1 rules now

Perhaps my memory is foggy. I knew there were progressive reductions during the interim years and don't remember them coming back to the 2002 levels. If they did and if the R8 was equipped with the aero changes that modern LMP1 posses, then the times suggested would be good times...if those were to be achieved.

[SebringMG]

Originally Posted by canam

Finally, regarding the Swiss Spirit Lola. Lola's collective experience spans more areas of racing at a high level than most manufacturers. They have their own wind tunnel, their own chassis rig etc etc. To suggest that it is grossly inferior to the Audi or Pug chassis is inappropriate. FYI, the Pug was 3.4 seconds faster than this Lola Audi down the Mulsanne.

Unfort not really the case - the lola is built to take a number of different engines (Judd, AER to name a few) - none of which are a stressed component - from my admittedly very basic understanding of chassis design I am given to understand that this is the least effecient way of pachaging the rear suspension and engine components......the aero package is likely to be like the rest of the car....a compromise.

As regards the wind tunnel - i seriously doubt they run it that often - they are VERY expensive to run and for a company like Lola which have to turn profits (Audi can subsidise there costs from marketing etc...). All in all while Lola have the facilities and far greater experience than Audi or Peugeot it is debateable whether they can utilise all this accumulated knowledge effectively given they have to produce a car to a certain cost for customers.

The lola is probably mid-pack in terms of ability (Courage at bottom - maybe Zytek at top) but is without argument the most adaptable in terms of engine config.

[chernaudi]

Courage's cars(from a chassis standpoint) can't be all that bad-Pescarolo rebodied and reengined his C60s. And the current Pescarolo 01 uses the lower tub of the C60/C65.