|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
10 Feb 2016, 02:11 (Ref:3613539) | #51 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,449
|
I was thinking maybe you like one of those SGR003s as a new toy?
|
|
|
10 Feb 2016, 05:23 (Ref:3613567) | #52 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 704
|
|||
|
10 Feb 2016, 15:16 (Ref:3613674) | #53 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 207
|
Quote:
Or the bit about being an arrogant, self opinionated, fa*** who can not drive his way out of a wet paper bag, but strutted around as he was God's gift to motorsports, with his fawning entourage of a** kissers? That was not too strong was it? No I did not think so. Last edited by truebeliever; 10 Feb 2016 at 15:17. Reason: spelling |
||
|
10 Feb 2016, 15:37 (Ref:3613678) | #54 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 914
|
Mike,
As a major stakeholder in the series, what direction would you like to see IMSA PC head in moving forwards? Thanks |
||
|
10 Feb 2016, 16:09 (Ref:3613683) | #55 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,449
|
Alpine P1 was suggested by Signatech boss Sinault but no word about the Renault bosses response, http://www.dailysportscar.com/2016/0...expansion.html
Factory BMW Lamborghini Subaru Privateers Alpine-Signatech BR Courage Glickenhaus Greaves? Manor Onroak (OAK) SARD? Strakka Old prospects Adess Brabham DOME HPD-Wirth Perinn Welter Racing Some interesting bits from that Welter (WR) story from almost 2,5 years ago: Quote:
And Quote:
B|tch on please! |
|||
|
7 Jun 2016, 11:59 (Ref:3647932) | #56 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
The "saving plan" will be released on LM race week Thursday, per the usual ACO future press conference.
http://www.dailysportscar.com/2016/0...next-week.html Likely: - Less weight (a bit) - Bigger rear wing - "Minor cost saving measures" That's all they came up with in half a years time? It's like Beaumesnil already wrote the bits in November, half drunk, and then forgot the whole thing until yesterday he panicked to find that memo when somebody asked about the progress. "Let's just use that" Oh well hopefully it's more substantial. Also hopefully that "DPi" crap idea will never be mentioned again in context to LMP1. At least it wasn't brought up by the article, this is cautiously positive sign Last edited by Deleted; 7 Jun 2016 at 12:04. |
|
|
7 Jun 2016, 13:05 (Ref:3647949) | #57 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,157
|
I don't see those making any meaningful difference. LMP2s will be a lot closer once they get a lot more power next year. LMP1 privateer will continue to be sort of a vanity project for those who don't want to use a customer car. Need. Moarrr! Pauwwwaaaah!!
|
|
|
7 Jun 2016, 14:26 (Ref:3647970) | #58 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
Those "proposals" sound more like something that would be casually covered in random ACO tech bulletin over at fia.com, not actual press conference.
Well whatever gets set in motion, the good thing about it being announced on Thursday conference is so that we immediately get Sam Collins going lengthy details about it on RLM's legendary Thursday Pitwalk (or whatever it gets called this year) It's usually the most informative program all year in sportscar racing, in regards to future and tech that is |
|
|
7 Jun 2016, 20:54 (Ref:3648074) | #59 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 4,125
|
|||
__________________
You live and learn. At any rate, you live. Douglas Adams |
8 Jun 2016, 06:00 (Ref:3648135) | #60 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 612
|
I'm for reduced min weight, but not by "a bit", but by a lot. This together with adjusted fuel flow would make those cars faster through corners but give them lower top speed. This would give more similar performance to LPM1 hybrid and would also make them less fuel thirsty for the same lap times.
I think it's a simple solution how to make privater competitive and more efficient without the expensive hybrid system. |
|
|
8 Jun 2016, 06:06 (Ref:3648136) | #61 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,389
|
Drop those expensive fuel flow meters for privateers. Just give them a restrictor size and let them be. I agree on weight, 800kg or below is what they need. Full-width rear wing will help with downforce too.
|
|
|
8 Jun 2016, 06:43 (Ref:3648145) | #62 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 612
|
OK, one fuel flow sensor cost £4,500, how many do you need?
Is that really too much for privater to take? |
|
|
8 Jun 2016, 07:18 (Ref:3648152) | #63 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,934
|
Quote:
It isn't really fair when VAG/Toyota can buy 10 of them and choose the best, spending £45k per car, when Rebellion realistically can't spend that. |
||
|
8 Jun 2016, 12:31 (Ref:3648196) | #64 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
||
|
8 Jun 2016, 12:54 (Ref:3648204) | #65 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,361
|
Quote:
I'm very happy that we have LMP1 privateers, and I sincerely hope one of them can get a decent result at LM, but we are kidding ourselves if we think they will ever be competitive with the hybrids. The small concessions that will apparently be announced should keep them out of the clutches of LMP2 next year. |
|||
|
8 Jun 2016, 13:02 (Ref:3648208) | #66 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
The adjustments aren't meant to bring them up to the pace of factories (nor should them), but give them a chance when the factories get stuck in the pits or whatever and then come back. Currently unless the factories stop for like two hours they're pretty much guaranteed to cruise past the privateer cars again, even if the nonhybrids run qualifying laps all the time. With these changes - well not these specific but if Beaumesnill actually got balls to do something - you could have the privateers likely staying ahead in cases of those mild factory hiccups.
Of course, and as said, the other area is widening the gap to LMP2, especially with the new lamo 2017 regs coming in. |
|
|
8 Jun 2016, 13:20 (Ref:3648219) | #67 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,484
|
Quote:
Its a far more advanced technology then just slap a inletrestrictor on, map the ECU after it, and then run it wihtout further adjustments. I belive (if I remember correct) that someone said it cost around 100k€ more per car per year to run fuel flow in WEC then inletrestrictor. I can however remember wrong, but it should be somewhere on the web if someone wants to search. And that is a big dent in a privateers budget! EDIT: Source: http://www.dailysportscar.com/2015/1...-proposed.html |
|||
|
8 Jun 2016, 14:01 (Ref:3648232) | #68 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 612
|
Other simple solution could be engine power restriction, no need for developing engine efficiency, a simple torque sensor will do.
|
|
|
8 Jun 2016, 21:36 (Ref:3648339) | #69 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,827
|
I haven't been in favor for the fuel flow sensors from the beginning in LMP1. What can they do that much less expensive air restrictors and torque sensors can't?
I know that the ACO and the FIA are pushing a green agenda, one that the factory teams at least in public agree with. But there's more than one way to reach that same goal, and I think that some are better all around for everyone aside from the fuel flow stuff. I wasn't a big fan of narrowing up the LMP1 cars, either. At least being about 4 inches wider would induce drag and limit top speeds. |
||
|
8 Jun 2016, 21:55 (Ref:3648345) | #70 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,308
|
The minimum weight thing is kind of interesting. At certain points in time the class has had a significant "performance adjustment" reduction in minimum weight, but when the cars have to be built to handle the original weight that's hard to do anything with. If you at least make it permanent and official cars can be built around it which should more realistically help. On the other hand lighter cars tend to be more expensive.
Rear wing could also be better than you think if they allow the non-hybrid cars to run more efficient rear wing dimensions. You're effectively giving them more horsepower for the same fuel that way. Whole point of narrowing the cars was a token drag reduction to increase fuel efficiency. |
|
|
9 Jun 2016, 04:45 (Ref:3648366) | #71 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,389
|
They want reduced drag, then they should reconsider the height rules. The cars look so ungainly with the big roofline. Drop them. The Ford GT is as low or lower than the lmp's!
|
|
|
9 Jun 2016, 05:19 (Ref:3648374) | #72 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,308
|
The height rule is a safety thing though. It was caused by a stricter (but not strict enough) implementation of the rear roll hoop to keep it further above the driver's head. The entire roll structure is implemented rather differently on a full width roof GT car and not directly comparable.
Reducing width also had a couple other useful benefits such as being equal to the tire width reduction and keeping the insides of the tires at the same position and reducing the bodywork area available to generate downforce thus theoretically reducing cornering speeds. |
|
|
9 Jun 2016, 14:47 (Ref:3648488) | #73 | ||
Racer
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 298
|
True, this was so weird seeing it in Spa. I never recalled any GT car being lower than a prototype.
|
||
|
10 Jun 2016, 06:07 (Ref:3648634) | #74 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,389
|
Quote:
|
||
|
10 Jun 2016, 06:18 (Ref:3648637) | #75 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,157
|
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
LMP1 and LMP2 question. | duke_toaster | Sportscar & GT Racing | 1 | 10 Apr 2007 17:57 |
Graduating from LMP2 to LMP1 | BSchneiderFan | Sportscar & GT Racing | 13 | 11 Aug 2005 20:31 |
LMP1/LMP2 Question | BSchneiderFan | Sportscar & GT Racing | 1 | 5 Jul 2005 12:52 |
LMP2 to be Faster than LMP1 | Mal | Sportscar & GT Racing | 19 | 11 Jun 2005 13:24 |
Porsche LMP2 but what about a LMP1? | DanJR1 | Sportscar & GT Racing | 11 | 25 Apr 2005 15:59 |