Home Mobile Forum News Cookbook FaceBook Us T-Shirts etc.: Europe/Worldwide. eBay Motorsport Links Advertising Live Chat  
Site Partners: SpotterGuides  
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 13 Sep 2008, 19:38 (Ref:2289197)   #166
HORNDAWG
Veteran
 
HORNDAWG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
United States
Oregon
Posts: 8,914
HORNDAWG should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridHORNDAWG should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridHORNDAWG should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by MulsanneMike
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.
I would agree. This will give them a full year to evaluate the capabilities of the hybrids and then set some rules for them to run under in '10'.

In the ALMS they will probably be running for the "Green" title.


L.P.
HORNDAWG is offline  
__________________
Probae esti in segetem sunt deteriorem datae fruges, tamen ipsae suaptae enitent
Quote
Old 13 Sep 2008, 20:13 (Ref:2289223)   #167
The359
Veteran
 
The359's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
United States
Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 2,437
The359 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
I do wonder how much of this the ALMS will adopt, especially as LMP1 now has competition and there is no need to have LMP2s fighting at the front anymore.
The359 is offline  
__________________
Nulla Tenaci Invia Est Via
Quote
Old 13 Sep 2008, 21:00 (Ref:2289257)   #168
JAG
Veteran
 
JAG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
England
Posts: 10,500
JAG should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridJAG should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridJAG should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
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.
I agree, you have to take into account yearly development, a cautious 1 second per year x 3, plus the hybrid system.

That will put them around 3.35 race laps.

It looks as if the ACO are taking engine performance out of the equation, LMP2 size puts them around 550bhp with plenty of development room to spare.

That gives the ACO 100bhp to play with for hybrid systems.

The focus for LMP1 production engines could also switch from 7l GT1 motors to 5.5l GT2, unless the ACO want productione engines in LMP2 only.

Last edited by JAG; 13 Sep 2008 at 21:05.
JAG is offline  
Quote
Old 13 Sep 2008, 22:14 (Ref:2289303)   #169
deggis
Veteran
 
deggis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Finland
Posts: 5,761
deggis is going for a new world record!deggis is going for a new world record!deggis is going for a new world record!deggis is going for a new world record!deggis is going for a new world record!deggis is going for a new world record!
"The total power of the electric engines, the storage capacity of energy, and the quantity of energy used over a lap of the circuit, will be defined and controlled."

Despite no exact figures, that does sound pretty close to F1 KERS rules. In F1 2009 regs total amount of energy stored is limited, recovering rate must not exceed a certain limit, maximum power is limited and energy released can not exceed 400kJ in one lap... even Toyota F1 engine chief Luca Marmorini called these rules "primitive" and said Prius already has more advanced technology. Altough FIA is planning to gradually increase the power outputs.

I'd love the idea of "ghost car" (908HY) winning Le Mans. But I guess sandbagging makes more sense.
deggis is offline  
Quote
Old 13 Sep 2008, 22:29 (Ref:2289315)   #170
deggis
Veteran
 
deggis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Finland
Posts: 5,761
deggis is going for a new world record!deggis is going for a new world record!deggis is going for a new world record!deggis is going for a new world record!deggis is going for a new world record!deggis is going for a new world record!
Comments:

http://translate.google.com/translat...-8&sl=fr&tl=en
deggis is offline  
Quote
Old 14 Sep 2008, 00:18 (Ref:2289361)   #171
JAG
Veteran
 
JAG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
England
Posts: 10,500
JAG should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridJAG should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridJAG should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
I didn't realise the Peueot hybrid system put out 80bhp.

If 2011 P1's are essentially 900kg, 550bhp P2's, with the addition of hybrid systems putting out 80bhp+, that should be pretty exciting.

Especially when you consider they can configer the systems to boost performance, use push to pass, or increase fuel efficiency.
JAG is offline  
Quote
Old 14 Sep 2008, 01:13 (Ref:2289379)   #172
cmk
Veteran
 
cmk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Canada
Linköping, Sweden
Posts: 3,793
cmk should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridcmk should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridcmk should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by AU N EGL
Why should it surprise you? No one really knows what this kind of engine / motor or power plant can really do?
Two reasons. One: this has not stopped the ACO before, with respect to diesels in particular as has already been mentioned. Comments from the Zytek camp and IMSA before this announcement seemed to suggest that any equivalency work would be done over the winter, with an eye to allowing hybrids to score points in 2009. Two: Peugeot is clearly keen on this technology, and imagining the ACO and Peugeot out of step is rather unthinkable. However, with the news that the 908HY project will probably not be fully operational until the 2nd half of 2009 at the earliest, perhaps the cart is leading the horse just as we would suspect.

Horndawg, how can something which is not classified or scoring points win the Green Challenge? This would require an IMSA exemption, something which I suggested could and perhaps should happen in 2009 because the series needs to protect its privateers and their investments to some degree if it wants to be reasonably stable in the future.
cmk is offline  
Quote
Old 14 Sep 2008, 01:23 (Ref:2289385)   #173
TRuss
Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 554
TRuss should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridTRuss should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
I know I've said this too many times. But hp numbers for electric motors are misleading. That 80hp motor is really producing close to 300+ft lbs of torque at next to no RPM. It could be a huge advantage.
TRuss is offline  
Quote
Old 14 Sep 2008, 02:22 (Ref:2289404)   #174
HORNDAWG
Veteran
 
HORNDAWG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
United States
Oregon
Posts: 8,914
HORNDAWG should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridHORNDAWG should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridHORNDAWG should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmk
Horndawg, how can something which is not classified or scoring points win the Green Challenge? This would require an IMSA exemption, something which I suggested could and perhaps should happen in 2009 because the series needs to protect its privateers and their investments to some degree if it wants to be reasonably stable in the future.
Easily. It is all dependant on what the ALMS decides to do. It would give the 1 team that has announced they wish to run a hybrid a chance to win something without disrupting the regular points chase for the rest of the grid with the unproven technology of the hybrid!


L.P.
HORNDAWG is offline  
__________________
Probae esti in segetem sunt deteriorem datae fruges, tamen ipsae suaptae enitent
Quote
Old 14 Sep 2008, 05:36 (Ref:2289449)   #175
gucom
Racer
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 254
gucom should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by henri pescarolo
Comments:
We know that 10.5% more power and less for diesel will reduce their performance at Le Mans 4 of the second round. It is far from the gap recorded at Le Mans this year. So I hope that after Sebring and Barcelona, the COA will correct still shooting.
sorry but henri pescarolo is a fool... he makes it look as if the entire advantage of the audi and peugeot is down to the more powerful engine and wants to see this entire gap closed by cutting the diesels, but anyone could see that its also chassis, aerodynamics, set-up, possibly faster drivers...
gucom is offline  
Quote
Old 14 Sep 2008, 08:43 (Ref:2289530)   #176
JAG
Veteran
 
JAG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
England
Posts: 10,500
JAG should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridJAG should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridJAG should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRuss
I know I've said this too many times. But hp numbers for electric motors are misleading. That 80hp motor is really producing close to 300+ft lbs of torque at next to no RPM. It could be a huge advantage.
Would you say a 550 bhp P2 engine with this Ker system is more potent than a 680bhp Aston Martin V12?
JAG is offline  
Quote
Old 14 Sep 2008, 09:04 (Ref:2289547)   #177
cdsvg
Racer
 
Join Date: May 2008
Australia
Posts: 296
cdsvg should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by gucom
sorry but henri pescarolo is a fool... he makes it look as if the entire advantage of the audi and peugeot is down to the more powerful engine and wants to see this entire gap closed by cutting the diesels, but anyone could see that its also chassis, aerodynamics, set-up, possibly faster drivers...
Agreed. He also claims the diesels have over 800hp, which seems pretty unlikely. IMO, its becoming obvious that the Pescarolo chassis is just too long in the tooth to be competing at the front of the field anymore.
cdsvg is offline  
Quote
Old 14 Sep 2008, 20:28 (Ref:2290261)   #178
johntt
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
England
England
Posts: 1,244
johntt should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by gucom
sorry but henri pescarolo is a fool... he makes it look as if the entire advantage of the audi and peugeot is down to the more powerful engine and wants to see this entire gap closed by cutting the diesels, but anyone could see that its also chassis, aerodynamics, set-up, possibly faster drivers...
I wouldn't say he was a fool, but is occasionally foolish.

Audi and Peugeot are big money full works teams, they have deeper pockets and resources than any privateer could ever have. As Marshall Pruett pointed out a couple of days ago, if a Pescarolo won at Le Mans because the diesels were pegged back in a big way then Peugeot and Audi would leave very quickly.

IMO what they need to do is restrict manufacturer involvement in P1 to engine supply; with the idea of P1 being for high level privateers and P2 for low level privateers, both with a spec KERS system.

For the manufacturers I would propose a new class which I would call GTP -as it would evoke the open-ended nature of the old IMSA GTP cars.

The chassis would remain the same as they currently are in P1 but would have to be closed top; in terms of drivetrain anything would go as long as it didn't exceed 750bhp (measured at the wheels). There would be no spec KERS or equalisation/performance balancing within the class or between it and other classes.
johntt is offline  
__________________
"On a given day, a given circumstance, you think you have a limit. And you then go for this limit and you touch this limit, and you think, 'Okay, this is the limit.' And so you touch this limit, something happens and you suddenly can go a little bit further. With your mind power, your determination, your instinct, and the experience as well, you can fly very high." -Ayrton Senna
Quote
Old 14 Sep 2008, 21:51 (Ref:2290343)   #179
gwyllion
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Belgium
Posts: 8,738
gwyllion is going for a new world record!gwyllion is going for a new world record!gwyllion is going for a new world record!gwyllion is going for a new world record!gwyllion is going for a new world record!gwyllion is going for a new world record!gwyllion is going for a new world record!
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newssept08.html has a good summary of the rule changes for 2009. Apparently the rear wing reduction caught people by surprise:
Quote:
According to Nick Wirth, Chief of Design for the Acura LMP1 effort, "The ACO told us and all manufacturers some months ago that they were considering a rear wing change and engine restrictor changes - nothing else. So we didn't put a huge effort into a new rear, but I was surprised by the width reduction." Presumably this means back to the wind tunnel in order to optimize the rear wing due to the late implementation of the new rear wing regs and the ACO's lack of communication with the outfits embroiled in 2009 developments.
Another interesting fact:
Quote:
Cars running air conditioning get a .3 mm inlet restrictor increase. No explanation has been given for this.
gwyllion is offline  
Quote
Old 14 Sep 2008, 22:24 (Ref:2290381)   #180
cmk
Veteran
 
cmk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Canada
Linköping, Sweden
Posts: 3,793
cmk should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridcmk should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridcmk should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by HORNDAWG
Easily. It is all dependant on what the ALMS decides to do. It would give the 1 team that has announced they wish to run a hybrid a chance to win something without disrupting the regular points chase for the rest of the grid with the unproven technology of the hybrid!


L.P.
Sure sounds like an IMSA exemption to me. I don't think we're talking at cross-purposes; the car can score points for whatever it can score points for only under the auspices of IMSA, because the official ACO policy pretends it is not there!

I'm starting to wonder how much time the ACO really spent in discourse with the manufacturers before issuing this ruleset. Given their import to the strength of ACO series, you should not wind up in a situation where Acura is able to get well into the late stages of their P1 design and have the rules changed on them. Similarly, the move from P1s with large engines to P1s with P2 engines seems to be working directly against trying to get the manufacturers out of P2 in the short-term. If I were Porsche, why would I go and develop a P1 block for 1-2 years at this juncture? Given that Penske does not seem to be a lost cause after all, I think this question is very relevant. Furthermore, why would Acura want to go develop the block to go in their P1 chassis when sooner or later they would be encouraged to shove the current P2 block back in the car? It all seems a little bit crossed up to me. Audi is similarly in an awkward position if the R15 is to have a new engine. Only Peugeot may not be caught out completely by this change, if indeed they intend to persist - and even their hybrid plan boat is not completely rocked. Hmm...
cmk is offline  
Quote
Reply

Bookmarks




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
ACO Publish 2010 Le Mans Regulations Gingers4Justice ACO Regulated Series 88 10 Dec 2009 03:41
[LM24] Whats the future of LMP's at Le Mans?? Garrett 24 Heures du Mans 59 8 Jul 2004 15:15
[LM24] 2004 Le Mans Rules pirenzo 24 Heures du Mans 6 16 Dec 2002 18:35
[LM24] No Lister LMP 900 for Le Mans. pink69 24 Heures du Mans 1 30 Nov 2001 12:17
[LM24] Entry Rules for le Mans? Liz 24 Heures du Mans 5 5 Nov 2000 22:41


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:00.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Original Website Copyright © 1998-2003 Craig Antil. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2004-2018 Royalridge Computing. All Rights Reserved.