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

Go Back   TenTenths Motorsport Forum > Saloon & Sportscar Racing > Sportscar & GT Racing > ACO Regulated Series

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10 Feb 2016, 02:11 (Ref:3613539)   #51
Coach Ep
Veteran
 
Coach Ep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,447
Coach Ep has a real shot at the championship!Coach Ep has a real shot at the championship!Coach Ep has a real shot at the championship!Coach Ep has a real shot at the championship!Coach Ep has a real shot at the championship!Coach Ep has a real shot at the championship!
I was thinking maybe you like one of those SGR003s as a new toy?
Coach Ep is offline  
Quote
Old 10 Feb 2016, 05:23 (Ref:3613567)   #52
Mike Hedlund
Veteran
 
Mike Hedlund's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
United States
Redwood City, CA
Posts: 704
Mike Hedlund has a real shot at the podium!Mike Hedlund has a real shot at the podium!Mike Hedlund has a real shot at the podium!Mike Hedlund has a real shot at the podium!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach Ep View Post
I was thinking maybe you like one of those SGR003s as a new toy?
You must be confusing me with Scott Tucker... I don't have that kind of scratch. :-)

-mike
Mike Hedlund is offline  
Quote
Old 10 Feb 2016, 15:16 (Ref:3613674)   #53
truebeliever
Racer
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 207
truebeliever should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridtruebeliever should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Hedlund View Post
You must be confusing me with Scott Tucker... I don't have that kind of scratch. :-)

-mike
Which bit, the not the same illegally, defrauded, stolen off hard working people money?

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
truebeliever is offline  
Quote
Old 10 Feb 2016, 15:37 (Ref:3613678)   #54
Dyson Mazda
Veteran
 
Dyson Mazda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
United States
Charlotte, NC
Posts: 914
Dyson Mazda should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridDyson Mazda should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
Mike,

As a major stakeholder in the series, what direction would you like to see IMSA PC head in moving forwards?

Thanks
Dyson Mazda is offline  
Quote
Old 10 Feb 2016, 16:09 (Ref:3613683)   #55
Coach Ep
Veteran
 
Coach Ep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,447
Coach Ep has a real shot at the championship!Coach Ep has a real shot at the championship!Coach Ep has a real shot at the championship!Coach Ep has a real shot at the championship!Coach Ep has a real shot at the championship!Coach Ep has a real shot at the championship!
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:
Originally Posted by WR designer
“But the new LMP1 rules are written for 2014 and and we can use the chassis longer. With LMP2, we don’t know what the ACO and FIA want to do for the future.”
So late 2013 it was already known the ACO was moving towards a spec P2 class by 2017?

And

Quote:
WR joins OnRoak Automotive (OAK Racing), ORECA (Rebellion R-One), Perrinn Ltd, Dome, ADESS AG and Wirth Research (HPD coupe) as constructors that have all either announced or committed to customer-based LMP1 designs.
Seeing that 2,5 years down the route, only 1 constructor (Oreca) actually managed to bring their P1 to the track, it doesn't bode well for all the current prospects... Anyway, I've added all of the above to the potential list (+ the 10/10s crowd favorite!), as unrealistic as they may seem at this point.

B|tch on please!
Coach Ep is offline  
Quote
Old 7 Jun 2016, 11:59 (Ref:3647932)   #56
Deleted
Registered User
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
Deleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Fame
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.
Deleted is offline  
Quote
Old 7 Jun 2016, 13:05 (Ref:3647949)   #57
TzeiTzei
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Finland
Posts: 1,157
TzeiTzei should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridTzeiTzei should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridTzeiTzei should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chiana View Post

Likely:
- Less weight (a bit)
- Bigger rear wing
- "Minor cost saving measures"
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!!
TzeiTzei is offline  
Quote
Old 7 Jun 2016, 14:26 (Ref:3647970)   #58
Deleted
Registered User
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
Deleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Fame
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
Deleted is offline  
Quote
Old 7 Jun 2016, 20:54 (Ref:3648074)   #59
skycafe
Race Official
Veteran
 
skycafe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
United States
Water on three sides
Posts: 4,123
skycafe is going for a new lap record!skycafe is going for a new lap record!skycafe is going for a new lap record!skycafe is going for a new lap record!skycafe is going for a new lap record!skycafe is going for a new lap record!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chiana View Post
- "Minor cost saving measures"
Mandatory reduction of catering staff?
skycafe is offline  
__________________
You live and learn. At any rate, you live.
Douglas Adams
Quote
Old 8 Jun 2016, 06:00 (Ref:3648135)   #60
GasperG
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Slovenia
Posts: 612
GasperG has a lot of promise if they can keep it on the circuit!
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.
GasperG is offline  
Quote
Old 8 Jun 2016, 06:06 (Ref:3648136)   #61
TF110
Veteran
 
TF110's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
United States
Posts: 15,376
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!
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.
TF110 is online now  
Quote
Old 8 Jun 2016, 06:43 (Ref:3648145)   #62
GasperG
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Slovenia
Posts: 612
GasperG has a lot of promise if they can keep it on the circuit!
OK, one fuel flow sensor cost £4,500, how many do you need?

Is that really too much for privater to take?
GasperG is offline  
Quote
Old 8 Jun 2016, 07:18 (Ref:3648152)   #63
Akrapovic
Veteran
 
Akrapovic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Scotland
Posts: 10,912
Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!Akrapovic is the undisputed Champion of the World!
Quote:
Originally Posted by GasperG View Post
OK, one fuel flow sensor cost £4,500, how many do you need?

Is that really too much for privater to take?
You could argue it's too much when they're faulty. IIRC, wasn't it said that the fuel flow sensors were so inaccurate and varied so much, that Audi, Toyota and Porsche were buying massive batches of them and then testing them all, and choosing the best of the batch? And don't you have to fit several of them to the car as redundancy or something?

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.
Akrapovic is offline  
Quote
Old 8 Jun 2016, 12:31 (Ref:3648196)   #64
Deleted
Registered User
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
Deleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Fame
Quote:
Originally Posted by skycafe View Post
Mandatory reduction of catering staff?
Coupons for Smoking Dog
Deleted is offline  
Quote
Old 8 Jun 2016, 12:54 (Ref:3648204)   #65
Mike E
Veteran
 
Mike E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location:
Leeds
Posts: 4,342
Mike E will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameMike E will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameMike E will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameMike E will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameMike E will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameMike E will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameMike E will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameMike E will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameMike E will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Fame
Quote:
Originally Posted by TF110 View Post
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.
It's pointless, really. To be competitive they would need to double their power, vastly improve their traction to handle it, and hugely increase downforce to increase cornering speeds.

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.
Mike E is offline  
Quote
Old 8 Jun 2016, 13:02 (Ref:3648208)   #66
Deleted
Registered User
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
Deleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Fame
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.
Deleted is offline  
Quote
Old 8 Jun 2016, 13:20 (Ref:3648219)   #67
PorscheFanNo1
Veteran
 
PorscheFanNo1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Sweden
Winner's Circle
Posts: 1,484
PorscheFanNo1 should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridPorscheFanNo1 should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by GasperG View Post
OK, one fuel flow sensor cost £4,500, how many do you need?

Is that really too much for privater to take?
Its not just the cost to buy the sensor, its also a big task to make everything around the sensor work, making the engine run to max fuelflow and staying within the allocated fuel/3 laps. During the race they have a few people whos only task is monitoring this.

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
PorscheFanNo1 is offline  
Quote
Old 8 Jun 2016, 14:01 (Ref:3648232)   #68
GasperG
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Slovenia
Posts: 612
GasperG has a lot of promise if they can keep it on the circuit!
Other simple solution could be engine power restriction, no need for developing engine efficiency, a simple torque sensor will do.
GasperG is offline  
Quote
Old 8 Jun 2016, 21:36 (Ref:3648339)   #69
chernaudi
Veteran
 
chernaudi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
United States
Mansfield, Ohio
Posts: 8,827
chernaudi has a real shot at the championship!chernaudi has a real shot at the championship!chernaudi has a real shot at the championship!chernaudi has a real shot at the championship!chernaudi has a real shot at the championship!chernaudi has a real shot at the championship!
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.
chernaudi is offline  
Quote
Old 8 Jun 2016, 21:55 (Ref:3648345)   #70
carbsmith
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,308
carbsmith is going for a new lap record!carbsmith is going for a new lap record!carbsmith is going for a new lap record!carbsmith is going for a new lap record!carbsmith is going for a new lap record!carbsmith is going for a new lap record!
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.
carbsmith is offline  
Quote
Old 9 Jun 2016, 04:45 (Ref:3648366)   #71
TF110
Veteran
 
TF110's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
United States
Posts: 15,376
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!
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!
TF110 is online now  
Quote
Old 9 Jun 2016, 05:19 (Ref:3648374)   #72
carbsmith
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,308
carbsmith is going for a new lap record!carbsmith is going for a new lap record!carbsmith is going for a new lap record!carbsmith is going for a new lap record!carbsmith is going for a new lap record!carbsmith is going for a new lap record!
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.
carbsmith is offline  
Quote
Old 9 Jun 2016, 14:47 (Ref:3648488)   #73
Mitchi_S
Racer
 
Join Date: May 2011
Germany
LG
Posts: 298
Mitchi_S should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by TF110 View Post
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!
True, this was so weird seeing it in Spa. I never recalled any GT car being lower than a prototype.
Mitchi_S is offline  
Quote
Old 10 Jun 2016, 06:07 (Ref:3648634)   #74
TF110
Veteran
 
TF110's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
United States
Posts: 15,376
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 carbsmith View Post
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.
I know it was for safety reasons. But they could move to driver towards the center of the car and it'd be safe without having to increase the height. But maybe that might not sit well with traditionalists. Imo, they're prototypes, so the 'room for a passenger' rule is kinda silly.
TF110 is online now  
Quote
Old 10 Jun 2016, 06:18 (Ref:3648637)   #75
TzeiTzei
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Finland
Posts: 1,157
TzeiTzei should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridTzeiTzei should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridTzeiTzei should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by TF110 View Post
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!
Maybe we should question what the Ford is doing in a GT class?
TzeiTzei is offline  
Quote
Reply

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
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


All times are GMT. The time now is 17:02.


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.