 |
|
13 Sep 2008, 18:06 (Ref:2289086)
|
#152
|
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,812
|
|
|
|
13 Sep 2008, 18:42 (Ref:2289104)
|
#153
|
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,308
|
Love that car!.
The 908Hy is so pretty!
|
|
__________________
Hvil i Fred Allan. (Rest in Peace Allan)
|
13 Sep 2008, 18:50 (Ref:2289112)
|
#154
|
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,418
|
|
|
__________________
"When the fear of death out weighs the thrill of speed, brake." LG
|
13 Sep 2008, 19:14 (Ref:2289127)
|
#155
|
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,914
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwyllion
Only 2 mechanics during tyre changes and tyre warmers are banned 
|
I do not know if I agree with the new pit stop rule or not, yet. It seems pretty clear to me that this is a Peugeot based rule, or more rightly, a coupe based rules equalizer. And there does seem to be an influx of coupes on the horizon so it may very well be a good rule.(?) They equalize fuel time, so why not driver change-over time, by manipulating the tire changing time to afford more time to accomplish the driver change-over?
The warmers???
L.P.
|
|
__________________
Probae esti in segetem sunt deteriorem datae fruges, tamen ipsae suaptae enitent
|
13 Sep 2008, 19:43 (Ref:2289145)
|
#156
|
Veteran
Join Date: May 2005
|
Stoke-on-Trent (The Potteries) |
Posts: 813
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taxi645
And another thing, if LMP1 are targetted for 3.42 laptimes in 2011, how slow do they want LMP2 and the GT's? LMP2 were 13.8s slower then LMP1 so they'll end up 3.55-4.00. That's pretty close to the fastest GT2 car of this year (4.00min).
|
I'm not sure that's exactly what they mean.
I think that on their own a 2011 car would indeed be around 3.42, but with added introduction of energy recovery systems that would bring the cars back upto closer 3:30.
|
|
|
13 Sep 2008, 19:45 (Ref:2289147)
|
#157
|
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 555
|
They say it's to discourage tire changes. Requiring the tire manufacturers to make longer lasting tires. This is supposed to save money because the teams won't need to buy as many tires. That's what I read. Who know's the true motivation?
|
|
|
13 Sep 2008, 19:49 (Ref:2289149)
|
#158
|
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,914
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRuss
They say it's to discourage tire changes. Requiring the tire manufacturers to make longer lasting tires. This is supposed to save money because the teams won't need to buy as many tires. That's what I read. Who know's the true motivation?
|
I think that is mostly a smoke screen. Tires on a semi-regular basis have been double and triple stinted already! So the tires can already do the distances.
L.P.
|
|
__________________
Probae esti in segetem sunt deteriorem datae fruges, tamen ipsae suaptae enitent
|
13 Sep 2008, 19:57 (Ref:2289153)
|
#159
|
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 311
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat12-Aircool
I'm not sure that's exactly what they mean.
I think that on their own a 2011 car would indeed be around 3.42, but with added introduction of energy recovery systems that would bring the cars back upto closer 3:30.
|
That could indeed be the case, but if so then they really need to state it more clearly. Guess their is plenty of time till 2011, so I guess all will become clear in due time.
|
|
|
13 Sep 2008, 19:58 (Ref:2289154)
|
#160
|
Veteran
Join Date: May 2005
|
Stoke-on-Trent (The Potteries) |
Posts: 813
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwyllion
The rear wing is significantly reduced:
Compared to current rules:
40 cm smaller in width and 5 cm in depth.
|
I'm really against this particular change, it's going to alter the whole look of the cars.
I probably would have settled for the depth reduction, but I really do like the full width aspect of the wings.
|
|
|
13 Sep 2008, 20:05 (Ref:2289160)
|
#161
|
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 555
|
We'll get used to it. I absolutely hated the champhered sides when they first came about. Now I don't even notice them anymore.
|
|
|
13 Sep 2008, 20:18 (Ref:2289168)
|
#162
|
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,793
|
My first impression of these rules, without much time spent contemplating them, is that they are almost uniformly nested somewhere between bland and stupid. I can only hope that all this effort on the part of the rulemakers to slow things down will be counterbalanced by technological development to the point where the pace is about equivalent to where it was, if not this year, in 2006. I recognize that ACO-rules prototypes are getting scarily fast, particularly apparent in person at Mosport this year, but I don't want to see a snail parade either.
The hybrid thing really really surprised me. With both Peugeot and Zytek having cars in the late stages of development, I was sure the equivalency work would be done over the winter to allow them to be classified next year. Seriously, no points I could understand, but pretending they are invisible is a slap in the face. I can only hope there is an IMSA exemption to this for Corsa next year. Peugeot can afford to run a technology demonstrator around - privateers can't. Their sponsors and investors need results.
|
|
|
13 Sep 2008, 20:31 (Ref:2289187)
|
#163
|
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,831
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmk
My first impression of these rules, without much time spent contemplating them, is that they are almost uniformly nested somewhere between bland and stupid. I can only hope that all this effort on the part of the rulemakers to slow things down will be counterbalanced by technological development to the point where the pace is about equivalent to where it was, if not this year, in 2006. I recognize that ACO-rules prototypes are getting scarily fast, particularly apparent in person at Mosport this year, but I don't want to see a snail parade either.
The hybrid thing really really surprised me. With both Peugeot and Zytek having cars in the late stages of development, I was sure the equivalency work would be done over the winter to allow them to be classified next year. Seriously, no points I could understand, but pretending they are invisible is a slap in the face. I can only hope there is an IMSA exemption to this for Corsa next year. Peugeot can afford to run a technology demonstrator around - privateers can't. Their sponsors and investors need results.
|
Regarding hybrids, would seem the ACO learned their lesson from the diesels. They blew the equivalency with those now they are simply being super cautious.
|
|
|
13 Sep 2008, 20:34 (Ref:2289190)
|
#164
|
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,308
|
Hmm, the new rear wing, wouldn't that improve the top speed, because of the lower down force it produce!?.
And will the mountings change to then?, perhaps the same style as this:

Found on:
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com
Last edited by CTD; 13 Sep 2008 at 20:40.
|
|
__________________
Hvil i Fred Allan. (Rest in Peace Allan)
|
13 Sep 2008, 20:35 (Ref:2289191)
|
#165
|
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,418
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmk
M
The hybrid thing really really surprised me.
|
Why should it surprise you? No one really knows what this kind of engine / motor or power plant can really do?
|
|
__________________
"When the fear of death out weighs the thrill of speed, brake." LG
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|