Home  
Site Partners: SpotterGuides Veloce Books  
Related Sites: Your Link Here  

Go Back   TenTenths Motorsport Forum > Saloon & Sportscar Racing > Sportscar & GT Racing

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 31 Dec 2014, 23:35 (Ref:3489040)   #1251
TF110
Veteran
 
TF110's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
United States
Posts: 15,377
TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!
Youre taking things too literally. I posted the picture for illustration purposes, not to show rear fender extensions. And then the interpretation of the rules in terms of "parallel" and "flat" are up for debate. Obviously teams will find solutions based on vague wording.
TF110 is offline  
Old 1 Jan 2015, 08:26 (Ref:3489138)   #1252
MyNameIsNigel
Veteran
 
MyNameIsNigel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Switzerland
Lake Geneva Area
Posts: 2,132
MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TF110 View Post
Youre taking things too literally. I posted the picture for illustration purposes, not to show rear fender extensions. And then the interpretation of the rules in terms of "parallel" and "flat" are up for debate. Obviously teams will find solutions based on vague wording.
I am not sure that there should be much debate about what the terms "flat" and "parallel" should mean

Evidently, the ACO-FIA are and have been taking steps to precisely define and limit rear wing specifications in order to avoid "extreme" interpretations like Toyota's recent rear wing solutions.

I don't mind seeing Nissan stretching the limits of what the rules allow, to the contrary, but I honestly doubt that a "no rear wing" LMP1 concept will ultimately see the light. They had the freedom to try such an avenue with the DeltaWing/ZEOD concept thanks to the G56 entry, but now it's a different story. They have to abide to certain rules. Once again, the new "peripheral" provision that mandates the integration of the "rain" or "fog" lights into the trailing edge of the rear wing endplates is one provision that may ultimately force Nissan to run a complete rear wing (including wing, vertical supports and endplates), even if this means running a very minimalistic one.
MyNameIsNigel is offline  
__________________
In order to finish first, first you have to finish
Old 1 Jan 2015, 21:12 (Ref:3489286)   #1253
miatanut
Veteran
 
miatanut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
United States
Seattle
Posts: 1,229
miatanut should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridmiatanut should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridmiatanut should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel View Post
I don't mind seeing Nissan stretching the limits of what the rules allow, to the contrary, but I honestly doubt that a "no rear wing" LMP1 concept will ultimately see the light. ...that may ultimately force Nissan to run a complete rear wing (including wing, vertical supports and endplates), even if this means running a very minimalistic one.
As you know, you don't run any more wing than you need. The '90's CART Indycars didn't need much wing on superspeedways. The wings were there for trim only. The downforce was made under the car.

Note that the rear wing appears to have a slightly negative angle of attack at the leading edge, matching air flow over the car. The little flaps in front of the rear wheels are as much about reducing drag from the wheels as downforce generation.
miatanut is offline  
__________________
Just give them some safety rules, limit the fuel (to control the speeds), drop the green flag, and see what happens.
Old 2 Jan 2015, 02:29 (Ref:3489383)   #1254
TF110
Veteran
 
TF110's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
United States
Posts: 15,377
TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!
The rules are words. Words can have more than one meaning. They can be interpreted or implemented differently, thats why the cars have different shaped fenders, endplates etc. There is no rule that says definitively "you must run a rear wing". There is no rule that says "the endplates must hold a rear wing". I personally dont care if theres a wing or not. The point is the words give you an outline but not a predetermined 'only route' to take. Its up to Nissan. Just like the "rear gearbox" that has been rumored to have a work-around. If they want to do something, theyll find a way to do it within the wording. Lets see what they come up with.
TF110 is offline  
Old 2 Jan 2015, 10:38 (Ref:3489473)   #1255
MyNameIsNigel
Veteran
 
MyNameIsNigel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Switzerland
Lake Geneva Area
Posts: 2,132
MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!
Words have their importance and it is not so much the meaning of the relevant words which is at issue, but the manner in which those words are used to specify what is allowed or not. In that respect, one has to admit that the ACO-FIA rule makers could be more rigorous and consistent in the manner they draft their own technical regulations

For instance, in the latest revisions of Article 3.6.1, the ACO-FIA have added clarifications regarding the allowable deflection of the "rearmost engine cover element", which clarifications are evidently a response to Porsche's questionable engine cover solution spotted during last year's LM Test Day. How can this make sense in the case of a front-engined car where the "rearmost engine cover element" would be sitting in front of the driver ? Evidently it would not, and it would be reasonable to expect that this provision should apply to the relevant rearmost bodywork/cover element (or "rear bonnet") irrespective of whether this bodywork element covers an engine or not.

I am looking forward to seeing which interpretation of the rules Nissan have come up with. It will be "refreshing" to see a constructor come up with an "unconventional" solution that fits within the rules.
MyNameIsNigel is offline  
__________________
In order to finish first, first you have to finish
Old 2 Jan 2015, 16:48 (Ref:3489539)   #1256
hondafan37
Veteran
 
hondafan37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Argentina
Buenos Aires, Argentine
Posts: 1,919
hondafan37 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridhondafan37 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Darren Cox retweet
http://mariantic.co.uk/lmp/
https://twitter.com/IamDarrenCox
hondafan37 is offline  
Old 3 Jan 2015, 00:53 (Ref:3489637)   #1257
TF110
Veteran
 
TF110's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
United States
Posts: 15,377
TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!
Quote:
Originally Posted by hondafan37 View Post
Only mike's drawing looks like a prototype imo. The white one is especially bad. Looks like a really bad GT.
TF110 is offline  
Old 3 Jan 2015, 13:06 (Ref:3489713)   #1258
lms
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 750
lms should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
abruzzi abruzzi!!!
lms is offline  
Old 3 Jan 2015, 15:43 (Ref:3489730)   #1259
MyNameIsNigel
Veteran
 
MyNameIsNigel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Switzerland
Lake Geneva Area
Posts: 2,132
MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!
I'm still reading through the LMP1 Technical Regulations and trying to understand how a front-engined concept can fit in there. I am especially curious to understand how such a concept could comply with relevant safety provisions, including in particular the relevant provision regarding the frontal impact absorbing structure.

Article 18.3.1 provides that a "special impact absorbing structure must be fitted in front of the survival cell". Actually, the French wording is a bit more specific in that it requires that the structure must be "secured" to the front of the survival cell ("Une structure spéciale doit être fixée Ã* l'avant de la cellule de survie.").

I read that as requiring the frontal impact absorbing structure to be directly provided and secured onto the front part of the survival cell. This interpretation is at least consistent with the clarification that follows under Article 18.3.1:
This structure need not be an integral part of the survival cell but it must be securely attached to it.

A configuration wherein the frontal impact absorbing structure would be provided in front of the engine (as speculated by Mike in his latest update on the matter) does not seem to be entirely consistent with the aforementioned requirement IMHO. Is it possible to guarantee that the structure is "securely attached to the survival cell" with an engine sitting between the structure and the survival cell ? Maybe.

By way of an alternative, would it be satisfactory from a safety perspective to locate the engine in front of the frontal impact absorbing structure ? Probably not.

Could the survival cell itself encase the engine ?

And what about the fuel lines ? With the fuel tank included in the survival cell (Article 18.3.1) and - normally - located behind the driver's position, combined with the impossibility to have fuel lines pass - understandably - through the cockpit (Article 6.4.4), wouldn't feeding of fuel to the engine located at the front be a safety concern as the fuel lines would have to run under or to the side of the cockpit area ?

And what if the speculation about a front-engined configuration was simply wrong ?
MyNameIsNigel is offline  
__________________
In order to finish first, first you have to finish
Old 3 Jan 2015, 16:56 (Ref:3489738)   #1260
templer
Racer
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location:
Augsburg in germany
Posts: 295
templer should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridtempler should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel View Post
I'm still reading through the LMP1 Technical Regulations and trying to understand how a front-engined concept can fit in there. I am especially curious to understand how such a concept could comply with relevant safety provisions, including in particular the relevant provision regarding the frontal impact absorbing structure.

Article 18.3.1 provides that a "special impact absorbing structure must be fitted in front of the survival cell". Actually, the French wording is a bit more specific in that it requires that the structure must be "secured" to the front of the survival cell ("Une structure spéciale doit être fixée Ã* l'avant de la cellule de survie.").

I read that as requiring the frontal impact absorbing structure to be directly provided and secured onto the front part of the survival cell. This interpretation is at least consistent with the clarification that follows under Article 18.3.1:
This structure need not be an integral part of the survival cell but it must be securely attached to it.

A configuration wherein the frontal impact absorbing structure would be provided in front of the engine (as speculated by Mike in his latest update on the matter) does not seem to be entirely consistent with the aforementioned requirement IMHO. Is it possible to guarantee that the structure is "securely attached to the survival cell" with an engine sitting between the structure and the survival cell ? Maybe.

By way of an alternative, would it be satisfactory from a safety perspective to locate the engine in front of the frontal impact absorbing structure ? Probably not.

Could the survival cell itself encase the engine ?

And what about the fuel lines ? With the fuel tank included in the survival cell (Article 18.3.1) and - normally - located behind the driver's position, combined with the impossibility to have fuel lines pass - understandably - through the cockpit (Article 6.4.4), wouldn't feeding of fuel to the engine located at the front be a safety concern as the fuel lines would have to run under or to the side of the cockpit area ?

And what if the speculation about a front-engined configuration was simply wrong ?
For the survival cell I don't see your problems. If I remember correctly Andy Thorby's Panoz LMP07 showed a possible solution. You have the monocoque as survival cell, the engine attached to front bulkhead and followed by second carbon structure in front of the engine. At this you can attach the crasbox in a secure way. So no problem.

We all don't know if Nissan will really build a front engined LMP1. All rumours say yes.
But I also think a front engined design will be too complicated in terms of packaging and aero and I can't see how a LMP without a rear wing will produce enough downforce. Nissan will run against Porsche, Audi and Toyota and not against Rebellion or Lotus so if it is a good idea for experiments?
templer is offline  
Old 3 Jan 2015, 17:11 (Ref:3489739)   #1261
CTD
Veteran
 
CTD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Denmark
Aarhus, Jylland, Denmark
Posts: 6,654
CTD will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameCTD will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameCTD will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameCTD will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameCTD will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameCTD will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameCTD will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameCTD will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameCTD will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameCTD will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Fame
Some very good points there, MyNameIsNigel.

Also, with the engine in front of the cockpit, the cockpit will need to be pushed back, compared to a rear mounted engine. Will there be enough room to secure the needed size of 3000cm2 for the fin?, as stated in Article 3.6.3:
Quote:
With the car on its wheels, the visible area (in lateral view) of the fin must be greater than 3000cm2 from both sides.
CTD is offline  
__________________
Hvil i Fred Allan. (Rest in Peace Allan)
Old 3 Jan 2015, 19:03 (Ref:3489761)   #1262
miatanut
Veteran
 
miatanut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
United States
Seattle
Posts: 1,229
miatanut should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridmiatanut should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridmiatanut should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel View Post
Could the survival cell itself encase the engine ?
I would think this is how you would do it.

Most of the discussion has been that it's really a front-mid concept.

Quote:
Originally Posted by templer View Post
But I also think a front engined design will be too complicated in terms of packaging and aero and I can't see how a LMP without a rear wing will produce enough downforce. Nissan will run against Porsche, Audi and Toyota and not against Rebellion or Lotus so if it is a good idea for experiments?
Innovation comes from a willingness to go down what most people think are blind alleys and pass by. Occasionally they turn out to NOT be a blind alley, and then you've gained a considerable advantage over the competition.

Given the people involved and that Nissan has been behind it from the start, I expect the initial CFD showed a major advantage to the concept, to the point they could lose some advantage as some packaging compromises occurred while doing the detailed design, and still have an advantage. Without that, they probably wouldn't have gotten the go-ahead from the Nissan Board of Directors.
miatanut is offline  
__________________
Just give them some safety rules, limit the fuel (to control the speeds), drop the green flag, and see what happens.
Old 3 Jan 2015, 19:21 (Ref:3489767)   #1263
Mt. Lynx
Racer
 
Mt. Lynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Sweden
Stockholm
Posts: 278
Mt. Lynx should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
This may seem illogical (but what isn't with all these rumours?), but what if the ICE is offset from the driver? That could make for a tighter package. Batteries could be placed under the drivers legs as counter balance to the offset engine.
Mt. Lynx is offline  
Old 3 Jan 2015, 19:21 (Ref:3489768)   #1264
templer
Racer
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location:
Augsburg in germany
Posts: 295
templer should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridtempler should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by miatanut View Post
I would think this is how you would do it.

Most of the discussion has been that it's really a front-mid concept.



Innovation comes from a willingness to go down what most people think are blind alleys and pass by. Occasionally they turn out to NOT be a blind alley, and then you've gained a considerable advantage over the competition.

Given the people involved and that Nissan has been behind it from the start, I expect the initial CFD showed a major advantage to the concept, to the point they could lose some advantage as some packaging compromises occurred while doing the detailed design, and still have an advantage. Without that, they probably wouldn't have gotten the go-ahead from the Nissan Board of Directors.
You are absolutely right and I like to see any guys to try to go a different route. I was a fan of the Panoz LMP07 and also of the Lister Storm LMP and why? Because they tried a very different layout.
So I would like to see Nissan with a front engined car if they think there is an advantage.
On the other side both designers who have ever tried a front engined prototype told me a closed front-engined LMP1 is not the way to match its rivals. So don't they know from what they are speaking. I think not.

( We are talking about Nigel Stroud ( Panoz GTR-1) and Andy Thorby (Panoz LMP07)
templer is offline  
Old 3 Jan 2015, 21:28 (Ref:3489781)   #1265
TF110
Veteran
 
TF110's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
United States
Posts: 15,377
TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!
I dont think the cockpit will need to go that far back. If theyre using an f1 engine, its quite small. The issue would be if the 'front gearbox' takes up much space. But theres workarounds for these issues in the rules. Like Mr. Fuller said, the carbon gearbox casing could have another use/purpose. So it doubles as both a crash structure and the gearbox casing. That might not happen but it seems an option.
TF110 is offline  
Old 3 Jan 2015, 23:26 (Ref:3489794)   #1266
miatanut
Veteran
 
miatanut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
United States
Seattle
Posts: 1,229
miatanut should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridmiatanut should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridmiatanut should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by templer View Post
On the other side both designers who have ever tried a front engined prototype told me a closed front-engined LMP1 is not the way to match its rivals. So don't they know from what they are speaking. I think not.

( We are talking about Nigel Stroud ( Panoz GTR-1) and Andy Thorby (Panoz LMP07)
But they were doing front engine, rear drive. Now, the cars can have part time AWD, so you could drive the front wheels full time and have the electric drive on the back to help push it out of corners, until the front is no longer traction-limited. That's a huge change in the rules from when the Panoz cars ran.

The other thing is they were primarily running on US tracks, which are typically more point and squirt type tracks than European tracks. The European tracks mean less time the front is traction-limited.

They may be thinking a bit 'We tried that and it didn't work.' Sometimes changes in technology or rules mean something that didn't work before can work now. "Flying Wing" airplane designs are an example that comes to mind. No changes to the laws of physics since WWII, but now there are powerful electronic control systems available that make them viable.
miatanut is offline  
__________________
Just give them some safety rules, limit the fuel (to control the speeds), drop the green flag, and see what happens.
Old 5 Jan 2015, 01:12 (Ref:3489967)   #1267
Articus
Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,755
Articus should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridArticus should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridArticus should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid


? from a post on Mulsanne Mikes facebook page. which is supposedly from here http://lemansprototypes.over-blog.it/? Not sure what to make of this. I guess this is what a front engined proto could look like in the new ruleset.

I think it has the green house of the electric thing they ran at Le Mans this year with a lmp style nose grafted on top. photoshop?
Articus is offline  
Old 5 Jan 2015, 01:12 (Ref:3489968)   #1268
TF110
Veteran
 
TF110's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
United States
Posts: 15,377
TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!
With enough electric power, they could have 4wd out of any corner. Every turn eventually leads to a straight, so it wont be a disadvantage, but an advantage because theyll always have that 'pull'. Being a "GTR" theres plenty experience with front engine, awd. I think their gt500 experience would count also!
TF110 is offline  
Old 5 Jan 2015, 09:43 (Ref:3490021)   #1269
pablocomics
Racer
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Spain
Madrid
Posts: 393
pablocomics should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
I remember another front engined car, the not very succesful Ardex S80. It looked more conventional than the Panoz and the engine was a 6l BMW, probably much, much bigger than the Nissan engine. The engine was partialy placed at the side of the driver.
I'm just saying that it may be less batmovil than those recreations.

pablocomics is offline  
Old 5 Jan 2015, 11:40 (Ref:3490043)   #1270
GasperG
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Slovenia
Posts: 612
GasperG has a lot of promise if they can keep it on the circuit!
True, current prototypes have hybrid systems as a "passenger", it could be that Nissan will have ICE as the passenger (or some parts of it) and hybrid system (battery) in the back.

But still front electric motor is IMO still a must.
GasperG is offline  
Old 5 Jan 2015, 18:21 (Ref:3490124)   #1271
CTD
Veteran
 
CTD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Denmark
Aarhus, Jylland, Denmark
Posts: 6,654
CTD will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameCTD will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameCTD will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameCTD will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameCTD will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameCTD will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameCTD will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameCTD will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameCTD will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameCTD will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Fame
Quote:
Originally Posted by Articus View Post


? from a post on Mulsanne Mikes facebook page. which is supposedly from here http://lemansprototypes.over-blog.it/? Not sure what to make of this. I guess this is what a front engined proto could look like in the new ruleset.

I think it has the green house of the electric thing they ran at Le Mans this year with a lmp style nose grafted on top. photoshop?
I can't see that, that fin will meet regulations of 3000cm2.
CTD is offline  
__________________
Hvil i Fred Allan. (Rest in Peace Allan)
Old 5 Jan 2015, 18:25 (Ref:3490126)   #1272
MyNameIsNigel
Veteran
 
MyNameIsNigel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Switzerland
Lake Geneva Area
Posts: 2,132
MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!
Quote:
Originally Posted by pablocomics View Post
I remember another front engined car, the not very succesful Ardex S80. It looked more conventional than the Panoz and the engine was a 6l BMW, probably much, much bigger than the Nissan engine. The engine was partialy placed at the side of the driver.
I'm just saying that it may be less batmovil than those recreations.

Very interesting. Thanks for posting
MyNameIsNigel is offline  
__________________
In order to finish first, first you have to finish
Old 5 Jan 2015, 21:15 (Ref:3490162)   #1273
TF110
Veteran
 
TF110's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
United States
Posts: 15,377
TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!
If it looks anything like these recent renders, it will be illegal. Especially since the cockpit height/length rules and the minimum fin area means you need room behind the driver to meet those regs.
TF110 is offline  
Old 7 Jan 2015, 00:46 (Ref:3490514)   #1274
yamato
Racer
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 247
yamato should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
I loved the design study to fruition of the DP1,....

It was more of an old SCAA SR type of car with motorcycle power:















Note the distinct lack of rear wing.
yamato is offline  
Old 7 Jan 2015, 03:05 (Ref:3490538)   #1275
MagVanisher
Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,396
MagVanisher should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridMagVanisher should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
@yamato

I was thinking of that too, but unfortunately it won't work as per ACO rules. But nice find there anyway!
MagVanisher is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[WEC] Porsche Prototype Discussion Simmi North American Racing 9260 5 Mar 2024 20:32
[WEC] Toyota LMP1 Discussion Gingers4Justice ACO Regulated Series 6771 18 Aug 2020 09:37
Audi LMP1 Discussion gwyllion ACO Regulated Series 11685 16 Feb 2017 10:42
"We were pleased with Nissan Motorsport's performance in 2013,"- Nissan GTRMagic Australasian Touring Cars. 8 16 Dec 2013 09:20
How about a LMP1 Pro & LMP1 Privateer class Holt Sportscar & GT Racing 35 6 Jun 2012 13:44


All times are GMT. The time now is 14:21.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Original Website Copyright © 1998-2003 Craig Antil. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2004-2021 Royalridge Computing. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2021-2022 Grant MacDonald. All Rights Reserved.