[WEC] LMP Future Regulations (was Le Mans EVO rules - now hypercar rules)

[Mike_Wooshy]

I would like to say it was my own work, but someone written that poem about Le mans 24 hour after watching it at the track. I cant for the life remember me where I read it but I always think its quite a true little poem about many aspects of Le mans (and motor racing as a whole)...... no confusion ment

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by gucom

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/85402

don't know what their source is, and I quite liked the idea of open-top LMP2's and closed-top LMP1's...

anyway, that fin is pretty darn fugly

I believe Wirth did the research that concluded that the larger the fin, the better the roll-over resistance. But still, I'll have to see it to believe it...

Delta Motorsports did the work.

[gucom]

offtopic, but I like the poem its just that Le Mans is on 2 of the longest days of the year, so dunno what the writer is on about with the winter chill :P

[dj choc ice]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

I suggest you have a look at, around, post #497.






L.P.

Thanks.

Seem the ACO nipped that one in the bud rather quickly then. I'm not sure if I like the new fin on the 2011 Lola or not, I have a feeling it will be one of those things that will grow on me like the narrower rear wings. In the end I will probably think "It does'nt look that bad" but hey, it will probably suit some cars better than others.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by dj choc ice

So in effect the ever changing LMP rules are now proposing a Group C style fuel formula?

Sounds pretty damn good to me, however I worry that the championship will just fill up with diesel LMP's which is not a good thing. I do however though hope we get to see some more production derived engines, not just in LMP2 but in LMP1 as well. So with the proposed free displacement limit we should still get the big banger cars with V10's, V12's and hopefully big turbo V8's.

That bold statement embodies exactly what is incomprehensible in a "sport" perspective...

doesn't a sport perspective above all include the notion of "fairness"... why this psychoses against diesel ?? ... serves who but Oil companies ? ...not sport for sure, because the faster and efficiently a car goes i give *** what the fuel is !... "fairness" MANDATES that no one should be prevented to have it, not the contrary.

Seems like a 200 years old "rethoric" came to live again... horse against steam locomotive also have many of the same "arguments" that i ear now... and the analogie is perfectly suitable IMHO ... there were many at its time that wanted to abolish the steam locomotive, that started to be only a little faster than a horse gallop, and acted vigorously in that sense.

Seems more than obvious that diesel tech have a tremendous advantage NOW... and potentially much more in the future, because they have 4 year of development in motorsport and petrol a century... If its the rules, make the rules the same for all engines... no interest in any, but i bet diesel will win by a large margin even in a perfect equal scenario...

So in a sport perspective to be fair to all... is advisable for all teams to prepare for a more advanced tech... instead of beating a dead horse...

[Spyderman]

Will you STOP with the "oil companies" already!
They make and sell your God-damned diesel that you are so in love with. ENOUGH!

[LeMans.pt]

Originally Posted by hcl123

why this psychoses against diesel ?? ... serves who but Oil companies ? ...not sport for sure, because the faster and efficiently a car goes i give *** what the fuel is !... "fairness" MANDATES that no one should be prevented to have it, not the contrary.

I've been reading with some interest, and you have presented some good arguments in your recent posts, but you are failing when you put Diesel and the "Oil Companies" in confrontation with Petrol. Petrol and Diesel comes from the same 'Oil Companies' and for them is the same thing if motorsports runs on diesel or petrol since the money keeps flowing to their pockets!

If this is an eco-opinion, that is even a bigger mistake. Diesel is less eco-friendly than Petrol...

For me, it's very good to see new technologies coming to Le Mans, because IMHO, that always was it's spirit: the development in race for new technologies. we have seen developments on tyres, engines, aerodinamics, passive and active security, etc... but little more than zero on fuel, and researching new and radical different kinds of fuel, will come with new and radically different engines and other technologies.

Now... putting diesel side-by-side with electricity, hydrogen, gas... in confrontation with Petrol (or the "Oil Companies"), it's completely dumb!

By the way... i have nothing against Diesel on motorsports.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by LeMans.pt

If this is an eco-opinion, that is even a bigger mistake. Diesel is less eco-friendly than Petrol

Says who!?

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by CTD

Says who!?

Diesel cars emit more NOx and fine particles, which causes e.g. lung cancer (see here).

[veeten]

Originally Posted by hcl123

instead of beating a dead horse...

awww, c'mon... this is way more fun.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Diesel cars emit more NOx and fine particles, which causes e.g. lung cancer (see here).

I believe to have read reports about this matter, which deemed it untrue!?.

But still, the only true green argument there exist, is the lower fuel consumptions, and no CO2 emissions. (remember, the environmentalist don't give a damn about humans, what they fight for is the nature, so there for the Diesel is more "green")

[HORNDAWG]

And back on subject..........................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!






L.P.

[johntt]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Diesel cars emit more NOx and fine particles, which causes e.g. lung cancer (see here).

Hence these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_particulate_filter which feature prominently in the Peugeot (they're the FAP in the 908 HDI FAP) and the Audi.

Also they are using GTL diesel which burns a lot cleaner than regular diesel.

[dj choc ice]

Originally Posted by hcl123

That bold statement embodies exactly what is incomprehensible in a "sport" perspective...

doesn't a sport perspective above all include the notion of "fairness"... why this psychoses against diesel ?? ... serves who but Oil companies ? ...not sport for sure, because the faster and efficiently a car goes i give *** what the fuel is !... "fairness" MANDATES that no one should be prevented to have it, not the contrary.

Seems like a 200 years old "rethoric" came to live again... horse against steam locomotive also have many of the same "arguments" that i ear now... and the analogie is perfectly suitable IMHO ... there were many at its time that wanted to abolish the steam locomotive, that started to be only a little faster than a horse gallop, and acted vigorously in that sense.

Seems more than obvious that diesel tech have a tremendous advantage NOW... and potentially much more in the future, because they have 4 year of development in motorsport and petrol a century... If its the rules, make the rules the same for all engines... no interest in any, but i bet diesel will win by a large margin even in a perfect equal scenario...

So in a sport perspective to be fair to all... is advisable for all teams to prepare for a more advanced tech... instead of beating a dead horse...

I'm not quite sure I follow.

My post was in regard to the fact that although it's old and been said umpteen times. The diesel cars are boring and dull. I'm looking forward to seeing the 908 at Silverstone because it is now apparently a lot louder than it was, not a bad thing IMO.

As far as oil companies go, where does petrol come from and where does diesel come from? the same place. Diesels also only have an advantage for two reasons.

a) The rules from the outset gave them a huge advantage, and not so much now but comparitavely a petrol car should be able to match a diesel over a single lap at least.

b) Most important is that the diesels are developed by BIG constructors. Audi and Peugeot have thrown money at their cars. The Judd V10 is a old engine now, no one will use anything else because no one has bothered to build a "new" customer engine since 2007.

The simple fact is that a grid full of silent race cars is not going to draw the crowds in and captivate them. It will also do a pretty good job of turning away established fans, Me included. It is one reason why I follow the FIA GT1 Championship a lot more than LMS now. The GT1 boys and girls know how to put on a show, the ACO seem to have forgotten how to do it over the past few years. Things IMO in that respect have been on a downhill slide since 2006 with regards to the spectacle with a brief spike in 2008.

Now back on topic.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by johntt

Hence these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_particulate_filter which feature prominently in the Peugeot (they're the FAP in the 908 HDI FAP) and the Audi.

You mean the Dow filters that stop soot: http://www.racecar-engineering.com/n...l-illegal.html

[chernaudi]

Peugeot didn't run the filters at PLM last year in qualifying to try and gain an edge over Audi. If so, neither Peugeot nor Audi ran them this year at Le Mans, inspite of the Dow Automotive branding on the Audis(!). Bot the Audis(not counting the Kolles R10s) and especially the Pugs were noted as being noticealby louder than last year. Another sign that they both ditched the filters for LM?

Besides, why the smoke and flames out of the 908s when they went up like a Parlament that Kristen Stewart lit up? The DPF probably wouldn't have stopped the flames, but would've stopped a lot of the oil smoke.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by dj choc ice

I'm not quite sure I follow.

My post was in regard to the fact that although it's old and been said umpteen times. The diesel cars are boring and dull. I'm looking forward to seeing the 908 at Silverstone because it is now apparently a lot louder than it was, not a bad thing IMO.

Boring and annoying are those very loud petrol cars, that have a tremendous disproportionate noise for their speed... GT cars are the worst... reminds me of a stupid kid in my town that use to drive a 50cc small bike without tail pipe, awaking everybody at 2 oclock in the morning

For peugeot a bad thing alright... but they can always use a siren of some sort... if you are so upset about the "silent dead" of petrol

Originally Posted by dj choc ice

As far as oil companies go, where does petrol come from and where does diesel come from? the same place. Diesels also only have an advantage for two reasons.

You can bet your fortune that they are concerned... first diesel is much more easy to do from other sources than "fossil fuel"... though "crude" is not fossil in anyway... second 95% of all world cars on diesel( modern engines) could mean 20-30% less business volume for them, and combine that with synthetic sources... maybe we are talking about a trillion $ ( yes trillion with a T) of their estimate 5 trillion $ annually for all crude oil business globally

Originally Posted by dj choc ice

b) Most important is that the diesels are developed by BIG constructors. Audi and Peugeot have thrown money at their cars. The Judd V10 is a old engine now, no one will use anything else because no one has bothered to build a "new" customer engine since 2007.

Who owns Aston Martin... and Mazda ... and Judd ??
Those are not mom an pop shops for sure

Originally Posted by dj choc ice

The simple fact is that a grid full of silent race cars is not going to draw the crowds in and captivate them. It will also do a pretty good job of turning away established fans, Me included. It is one reason why I follow the FIA GT1 Championship a lot more than LMS now. The GT1 boys and girls know how to put on a show, the ACO seem to have forgotten how to do it over the past few years. Things IMO in that respect have been on a downhill slide since 2006 with regards to the spectacle with a brief spike in 2008.

Now back on topic.

There is a way to see it... i respect... but those "trophy" kind of races tend to be to boring, and slow... with the cars so identical that a "passage by" seems to difficult... not my kind... i don't like WTCC, i don't watch it regularly, though its a Seat diesel that wins most of times. But if its "being identical" the concern, than the conclusion is everybody should be on diesel, including GT... everybody the same on the next tech evolution, diesel is being proven to be this... the contrary, abolishing diesel, is going by horse instead of locomotive

So right on topic. Its the excess rules, put in place for preventing innovators, and those tend to be the smaller companies wanting to make a dent, not the big boys... Bureaucratic awkward technicalities put in place exactly to prevent innovation that is the cause of lack of competitiveness, special because petrol engines are so close now after a century of development, making people to get away ( F1 is SOOO BORING today) from motorsport.... and making budgets to go higher than they should.

What attracts crowds is innovation and competitiveness, not noise (absurd)... make simpler rules allowing much more freedom of innovation, with rotary engines as example, and electric and energy recovery as much as you want the way you want... and perhaps a new team innovating on a bet, the kind of team more associated with privateers, could all of a sudden appear winning very important races, and that for several years a different team after another... that will bring crowds that you can't imagine.

[TRuss]

There's noway that I'm going to be able to cope with four to five more years of this. I say we ban everything and make them run on rubberbands:http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/s...d.php?t=290406

[Speed-King]

not noise (absurd)

If you don't think noise is an important part of the attraction of motor racing, you don't understand the sport. If it wasn't for the noise, one could just watch it at home, with better camera angles, potential view of the whole track and T&S running on the laptop. Yet, I'll always prefer the experience at the track and the glorious noise plays a huge role in that...

[dj choc ice]

Originally Posted by hcl123

What attracts crowds is innovation and competitiveness, not noise (absurd)...

You could not be more wrong in this statement if you even tried. I took a group of friends to a British GT race and another group of friends to the FIA GT1. All of them had never been to a race before and they all remarked and were amazed by one thing more than anything. The noise. The casual fan is 9 times out of 10 not going to give a monkeys about engineering and technology.

They want to be entertained, they want to be amazed and dazzled in the metaphorical sense of the word. Noisy spectacular cars give that. My brother came with to the 2007 Silverstone 1000km and he is a massive car geek. He liked the technical side of things but he said that the Peugeot's were dull as ditch water. In his words "Technically it's f*cking awesome, but it makes no noise and is horribly boring." The car he remarked upon the most were the Aston Martin DBR9's and Pescarolos. You know, those loud, boring and un necessary cars which no one likes.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by dj choc ice

You could not be more wrong in this statement if you even tried. I took a group of friends to a British GT race and another group of friends to the FIA GT1. All of them had never been to a race before and they all remarked and were amazed by one thing more than anything. The noise. The casual fan is 9 times out of 10 not going to give a monkeys about engineering and technology.

Like going to a disco the first time, the kind you can't ear anyone even he speaks at your ear... "kids" just love that kind of thing, its understandable... the the NOISE is the ILLUSION of SPEED, youngsters are prone to go by illusions and don't care about details...

If you could make the circuits larger and more save... and the cars much more quick.. the kind of car that just accelerates faster than you can move your head... they will love much better...

Originally Posted by dj choc ice

They want to be entertained, they want to be amazed and dazzled in the metaphorical sense of the word. Noisy spectacular cars give that. My brother came with to the 2007 Silverstone 1000km and he is a massive car geek. He liked the technical side of things but he said that the Peugeot's were dull as ditch water. In his words "Technically it's f*cking awesome, but it makes no noise and is horribly boring." The car he remarked upon the most were the Aston Martin DBR9's and Pescarolos. You know, those loud, boring and un necessary cars which no one likes.

Esthetically specular fast cars is the real deal... but you can't please everybody for sure. Me for instance always found when Audi R10 came to be spectacular above all ... "SILENT DEAD"... and i'm not the only one, many veterans also remarked many times, "look how fast... and the sound !?... amazing!!!... others around me puzzled "winning on a truck fuel !?"... believe me, in favor or disliking, be it a tech a team or a pilot( there are people that don't like a particular driver even if he rides a bicycle and wins... is always boring) it was the novelty and the innovation that attracted the "rethoric" and the people to the sport.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by hcl123

You can bet your fortune that they are concerned... first diesel is much more easy to do from other sources than "fossil fuel"... though "crude" is not fossil in anyway... second 95% of all world cars on diesel( modern engines) could mean 20-30% less business volume for them, and combine that with synthetic sources... maybe we are talking about a trillion $ ( yes trillion with a T) of their estimate 5 trillion $ annually for all crude oil business globally

I realize that trying to argue with a green demagogue such as yourself is pretty pointless, but.... just who do you think has the capacity to make your "diesel from other sources" and more importantly, who do you think has the infrastructure to be able to deliver that diesel to the end consumer in an efficient manner? Jeez!

[Splendid Cat]

[QUOTE=hcl123;2731493].., not noise (absurd)...[QUOTE]


The most astonishing post i've ever read on this forum.

[dj4monie]

Originally Posted by joeb

They may have prevented some flips in nascar, but flips still occured with the flaps. I don't think the fins were the best solution for lmp's, but if I recall there was an independant study done before the rule was announced, so maybe it is the safest way to go. But as many have said before, racing has some inherant danger, that is one of the draws

I think its an overreaction to Gene's accident. You can't prevent all accidents like you can't prevent all deaths. They may be overly sensitive because of 1955 however.

[HORNDAWG]

Huh? There were multiple incidents of flight that occured. Which is what prompted the ACO to try and find a solution to yaw induced flight.






L.P.