New LMP Category...

[Tim Northcutt]

Since 2004 rules will change a lot of things, how about a "new LMP category", with the following:

"LMP 1000 Kg. or 1050kg."

- Open cockpit only prototype with same general LMP rules for bodywork, cockpits, wings, etc....

- Engines
-- 6.5 Litre - 8 Litre normally aspirated V8, V10 or V12

or just for fun, an added engine option (although I don't know if it would be needed):

-- 4 litre to 5 litre V8 or V10 with "Supercharger (no turbo)""
-- 5 litre to 6 litre V-8 only with "Supercharger (no turbo)"

Why???

Shove a Viper V-10 or a Corvette engine in a prototype for some loud, fast, and fun cars to watch that would add a new twist to the mix on the prototype level...

The "Supercharged" rules (if actually adopted -- but I'd lean toward just the big blocks normally aspirated) would let someone put the engine that will go into the Ford GT into a prototype to race it...other makers also build V-8s with superchargers and could get those engines and manufacturers into the endurance racing mix...

These would obviosuly be heavier than the 900s, but bigger engine displacement, and lighter than the GTS cars...an in-between with a lot of displacement for power...


Keep an open mind, imagine the possibilities, and have some fun with it...

What kind of "LMP1000 or "LMP 1050" would you field at Le Mans???

[Edmonton]

Perhaps run an old canam motor.

[Tim Northcutt]

That's the ticket...

Also, think about 21st century, endurance racing tuned vesions of:

- the 413 or 426 "Hemi"
- the 440 Magnum
- the GM 454 or 455
- the Lincoln 460
- the 427s (Ford or Chevy)
- the Ford "Torino Talladega" engine...
- a tight-winding MOPAR 383

Yes....fire-breathing, deep-throated, raw horsepower....

Now...waht kind of chassis would you drop one of these into???

[Edmonton]

Originally posted by Tim Northcutt
That's the ticket...

Also, think about 21st century, endurance racing tuned vesions of:

- the 413 or 426 "Hemi"
- the 440 Magnum
- the GM 454 or 455
- the Lincoln 460
- the 427s (Ford or Chevy)
- the Ford "Torino Talladega" engine...
- a tight-winding MOPAR 383

Yes....fire-breathing, deep-throated, raw horsepower....

Now...waht kind of chassis would you drop one of these into???

Probaly an open cockpit prototype

[danhx]

A pilbeam!!! HAHAHA Of course you would have to ballast the **** out of the thing.

[Tim Northcutt]

In general, I would think that one could run a car with a lot of downforce (even an older R&S MkIIIa, as an example) because the horsepower of the big motor would be able to overcome the drag in the straights, but the downforce would help hold the speed through the corners....

Something low profile in the main body area, however, would be tough to fit a big engine into....

[Tim Northcutt]

That's the ONLY way you would make a Pilbeam fast!!!

[danhx]

And oh what a sight it would be. Like a top fuel dragster made out of a shriner car!

[veeten]

Unfortunately, it would also be THIRSTY as hell, and in the end counterproductive. The other cars would beat you on aggregate time & fuel economy. Remember, that was how the MG/Lola had taken the measure of the LMP900s.

[cybersdorf]

How about simply reverting to the Gp.C engine rules.

[Tim Northcutt]

What about the 4-6 L supercharged engines...doesn't Mercedes have one with a "Kompressor" that they put in one of their roadsters?

The Japanese makers also have some engines with blowers on them....but I don't know if they are V-8s...

This category could be the saving grace for both Pilbeam and Debora....

Horsepower will make up for lots of sins when it comes to aero design...

Or better yet....

you could make this a "Privateer" category like they will do with the proposed 750 Kg. class....an obsolete chassis could come cheap...then buy a Vette engine that some Grand Am team is getting rid of once the Series folds next year and voila...you're runnin' like a rocket down the Mulsanne for a lot less $$$ than someone who is paying top $$$ for a state-of-the-art chassis and high tech engine package....

Kinda Like "Gomer goes to Le Mans"

[Tim Northcutt]

Good point, cybersdorf...I think i would be interesting, one way or another...

[ZXKawboy]

Open engine rules? Hm...I like the idea of a blown 'vette or just a rip-roaring Viper V-10 engine in an "LMP1000" car. Maybe some judicious shoe-horning into a Panoz LMP chassis and then *finally* have a whoop-ass car?

On a side note..who thinks the upcomong Ford GT project might be a contender for the GTS title at Le Mans in a few years?

[Tim Northcutt]

If Ford will place its racing head someplace besides where the sun doesn't shine...yes, I think the Ford GT could make a run like that in a few years at LM

Another thought on the LMP1000....

There are trade-offs with any of the LMP categories....

Sure...the engines in this class would chug fuel, but they would sure be fast and great to watch....

The horsepower could be dropped a little for reliability, and at least they would probably be both fast and finish the 24 hrs....can the 675s claim that and still be competitive???

And the 150-200 extra lbs. that a 750 kg would push with a 4-banger or a v-6, will they be able to run the pace that their lighter counterparts are running now before they break???

Personally, I like variety, and there are many ways to skin a cat when it comes to this form of racing....

I'd love to see an LMP 1000 category....

[Fab]

I think the C Group were 1000 kg... or am I wrong ? I may, I can't remember...

Considering the recent performances, I think the progress is more in leight weight than in big engines, but I'm not a specialist...

[Tim Northcutt]

To Fab:

Concerning engine development, the trend since the early 1970s was for smaller, lighter engines and in the last decade, finding ways to maximize their performance....

However, now that people (at least Americans)are looking at higher performance, more horsepower and getting a better driving experience, engines are increasing in size to power "retro-styled" cars, sports roadsters, and high performance SUVs -- engines with a lot of horsepower and torque that are no longer built out of cast iron, but stronger, lighter aluminum alloys with many of the modern computerized fueling systems and, in some cases, twin-screw superchargers that improve the power and torque throughout the rpm range...

Big Engines built for the "Super Cars", like the Aston Martin Vanquish, the Saleen, the Viper and the Corvette, may not remain as the exception when you look at various concept cars that are being unveiled at the major Auto Shows in recent years...

My suggested engine formula for this new class takes in both options -- the Big Blocks as well as the 4-6 L engines with a blower -- to provide a wider range of options not only to race teams, but also would give the manufacturers (with a good business pitch) a way to develop their high performance engines on the race track under the two most crucial criteria by which they judge their products of this nature:

Power/Speed plus Reliability

Endurance racing is the ultimate test of both...

[Lee Janotta]

The weights and displacements being discussed seem a bit unrealistic, guys. You're actually talking 7.0L for a Corvette C5R, 8.0L for a Viper V-10... Chevrolet has an 8.2L crate motor, Ford has an 8.4L, Mopar has an 8.6L crate Hemi... I won't even get into the 10.5L behemoths the aftermarket has developed for drag racers. Earth-shaking giants with paint cans for pistons!

So 6.5L is really a drop in the bucket when you're talking BIG engines.

[Karl Kling]

Wasn't the old Spitfire motor a 24 litre V12..........

[Tim Northcutt]

To Lee:

I'm open to any and all ideas on this one...that is what this site is all about...

However, for whatever it is worth...

6.5 Liters is about 396 cubic inches...just about the same size engine that ran in the 2002 Corvettes at Le Mans last summer (just a couple of cc's unde 6.6, according to last year's ACO official entry list)...a displacement widely accepted as a "Big Block" in any car enthusiast's book...whether it is a racer, a classic car nut, or a manufacturer...

The only reason why I didn't suggest higher displacements is that an even bigger engine might give the LMP 1000 a little more of an advantage than maybe it should receive in power just to overcome 200 extra lbs. of weight that they would carry....

I also took a look at what might be a realistic, accepted powerplant range by the ACO for this proposed category....

I proposed this engine range to marry the rough equivalent displacement and horsepower capabilities of the "Super Car" engines we see in GTS with the aero and lighter chassis weight advantages enjoyed by the LMP categories (GTS roughly ranges from 1100-1300 or 1400 kg, doesn't it? -- please verify...I'm not sure)

The aero advantages would make them faster than a GTS, while giving this new category the choice between "More Power vs. a little extra weight & less fuel mileage" as their trade-off in the prototype category in general...

I thought the trade-off would be worth a risk for some race teams as an option...

However, I'm wide open on running any size power in this theoretical category...I'd love to watch and listen to a sleek prototype roar by with an 8.6 Hemi, or an even bigger behemoth (you're right - 10.5 is a behemoth!), pushing it down the track....

Thanks for your thoughts...even bigger might make this new category that much more interesting...

[Lee Janotta]

Sorry Tim, but check the specs, the C5-R runs with a 7.0L Gen III small-block (siamesed-bore race block, mind you). http://www.c5rmotorsports.com/engine.htm

Big-block and small-block aren't based on displacement, but on the external dimensions of the engine. For instance, a Pontiac 350 is still a big block because it shares the same external dimensions as the 400, 421, 428, and 455. So while it's "small" in displacement, it's still a massive engine. Which means it's probably best used as a boat anchor and replaced with one of the higher-displacement engines, or a smaller and lighter Chevy small-block.

But yeah, it's an idea at least worth considering.

[veeten]

Wishful thinking desguised as technical racing design... wonderful.

Sorry Tim, but this experiment was tried long ago, it was called the Can-Am Challenge.

The other side of this is that all the attention has been paid to the powerplant, with none to the other side of the equasion; putting that mass of hp to the ground. This would entail a massive amount of time, energy, and resources into designing a Transaxle/Traction Control combination that will harness that amount of Hp, without the massive losses in heat, thermal & metalurgical breakdown, and other very nasty surprises common to powertrains. There is a reason why most engines are running between 650-750 hp, with sizes between 4-6L. It has to do with the idea of "usable Horsepower", where you're not trying to overpower the chassis, and thus getting yourself into a constantly upwards-moving spiral. It gets crazy, frustrating, and mostly expensive, and no-one wants that.

Always do a full look at the car, and not just the sections one fancies, whenever considering any changes. It saves one the embarrassment of being wrong with an idea. Trust me on this.

[IanGrohse]

Concerning the supercharging idea........This would provide an unlimited number of problems for teams in long races. The reason superchargers are never used in road racing situations, is excessive heat, heat soak, declining efficiancy, and inferior reliability to turbochargers.
Firstly, your refering to roots type blowers(as in the new GT40, Mercs, and others).....Whilst these provide wonderful throttle responce, they create MASSIVE amounts of heat. Because of the rotor design of the SC, they create ALOT of heat at high RPM.....As a road car, a car has periods of high SC RPM and low RPM(slowing down speeding up, etc), allowing time for cooling. However, when driving hard, as in a road race, there is a excesive heat, and heat soak. Not only does this lead to reliability problems, it also leads to heat soak, soaking even an efficiant intercooler, and leading to significant drops in power and problems curing pre-detonation in highly tuned engines.
Aditionaly, we all know supercharged engines make ALOT less power per PSI than an efficiant turbocharger. Rotor design, and inherent drag on crankshaft lead to significantly less power.
Also, like I said, heat leads to less reliability in long road racing situations like this......But also, in highly tuned engines, with large blowers.....the wear it puts on crankshaft and main bearings is HUGE in race engines. Leading often to significantly shorter engine life.

As far as heat, centrifical superchargers cure some of that heat, as their compressor is akin to a turbocharger.....but they are still not efficiant like a turbo.

I have alot of experience with supercharged engines and turbocharged engines, with my own Mr2(which I have a jspec supercharged 4agze engine), supercharged miatas, and turbocharged miatas, as well as my experience working with various factory turbocharged cars.

[IanGrohse]

I also question wheather that much power would make a pre-existing chassis any faster in the cource of a circute.......The precision that the chassis have been engineered to the specific power and power deliver is pretty finite. 850HP and a huge jump in torque, and power deliver that is moved significantly lower would most likely really throw off the pace of a car......however, it might make up for it on the straits, but IMO thats not the way to go about speed.

[Tim Northcutt]

To IanGrohse;

I would agree that supercharging is certainly less efficient than a turbo, but would a turbo on the 4-6 L engine give it an unfair power advantage against the LMP 900s? Because a turbo is more efficient, I restricted it to superchargers for that reason...

I also put that option in there since manufacturers seem to be going that direction with their larger displacement engines....an exisitng comodity that would at least be available to build upon....

If you look at the beginning of this thread, the supercharging option would probably not be a route that I would lean toward in the engine options, but I put it out there for the exact kind of input you gave on the subject...

I knew a little about supercharging, but now I know a lot more from someone with a lot of experience with both Turbos and superchargers in a variety of applications...thanks!

I also know that thee would be issues with dropping a big crate motor in an existing chassis...the "Gomer Goes to Le Mans" bit was a joke...but the R&S MkIIIa did seem to be an adaptable chassis to a wide variety of engines, so I tossed that out merely as an example
in case somebody wants to call Dyson to buy a couple of those cars he ran in Grand-Am last year...I'll bet he could use the $$$ to test his new MGs :-)

It certainly would take an engineer to figure out the dynamics between the added horses and its impact on chassis design for a prototype...

A Note to Veteen:

I remember watching Can-Am Challenge when I was a kid....it was pretty fast and exciting to watch....I also remember that prominent racing builders like McLaren were involved, and (relatively speaking) you didn't have to have a Formula One-sized budget to be competitive....Didn't it go away about the time of the Oil/Gas Crises???...when the auto industry totally dumped the bigger high horsepower approach and started building Pintos and vegas???...not because it wasn't good racing????

They had mid and rear-engined cars, and didn't seem to be going through half shafts, trans-axles, etc. like water through a seive...maybe a page from their playbook would give someone a starting point...

Either way, I do know yhis:

1. The growing pains for this proposed category couldn't be any worse (at least in reliability) that the 675s are now, and

If nothing else, I'd like to see variety, because that is how the sport will grow....right now, unless you set out to spend a Formula One-sized budget like Audi did and Bentley is doing, you don't seem to even be in the ballpark....and only a select few (racing For Holland, the Panoz group, R&S, and two 675 makes - if they can ever finish a llong race intact) are even stanfding in line to try to get into the ballpark...

[Lee Janotta]

Originally posted by Tim Northcutt
Didn't it go away about the time of the Oil/Gas Crises???...when the auto industry totally dumped the bigger high horsepower approach and started building Pintos and vegas???...not because it wasn't good racing????

Nah, it's mostly because the Penske/Donahue/Porsche combination was so dominant that it killed any and all interest in the class from other teams/manufacturers.

Of course, there was the second Can-Am period... But that was nothing but F5000 with full bodywork.

But veeten... I know how you love V-10s and traction control and all that other carp that makes F1 so much fun to sleep through, but if they could harness 1100hp during the Can-Am period, and during the turbo era in F1, that can certainly do it now.