|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
31 Dec 2014, 23:35 (Ref:3489040) | #1251 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,392
|
Youre taking things too literally. I posted the picture for illustration purposes, not to show rear fender extensions. And then the interpretation of the rules in terms of "parallel" and "flat" are up for debate. Obviously teams will find solutions based on vague wording.
|
|
|
1 Jan 2015, 08:26 (Ref:3489138) | #1252 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,132
|
Quote:
Evidently, the ACO-FIA are and have been taking steps to precisely define and limit rear wing specifications in order to avoid "extreme" interpretations like Toyota's recent rear wing solutions. I don't mind seeing Nissan stretching the limits of what the rules allow, to the contrary, but I honestly doubt that a "no rear wing" LMP1 concept will ultimately see the light. They had the freedom to try such an avenue with the DeltaWing/ZEOD concept thanks to the G56 entry, but now it's a different story. They have to abide to certain rules. Once again, the new "peripheral" provision that mandates the integration of the "rain" or "fog" lights into the trailing edge of the rear wing endplates is one provision that may ultimately force Nissan to run a complete rear wing (including wing, vertical supports and endplates), even if this means running a very minimalistic one. |
|||
__________________
In order to finish first, first you have to finish |
1 Jan 2015, 21:12 (Ref:3489286) | #1253 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,229
|
Quote:
Note that the rear wing appears to have a slightly negative angle of attack at the leading edge, matching air flow over the car. The little flaps in front of the rear wheels are as much about reducing drag from the wheels as downforce generation. |
|||
__________________
Just give them some safety rules, limit the fuel (to control the speeds), drop the green flag, and see what happens. |
2 Jan 2015, 02:29 (Ref:3489383) | #1254 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,392
|
The rules are words. Words can have more than one meaning. They can be interpreted or implemented differently, thats why the cars have different shaped fenders, endplates etc. There is no rule that says definitively "you must run a rear wing". There is no rule that says "the endplates must hold a rear wing". I personally dont care if theres a wing or not. The point is the words give you an outline but not a predetermined 'only route' to take. Its up to Nissan. Just like the "rear gearbox" that has been rumored to have a work-around. If they want to do something, theyll find a way to do it within the wording. Lets see what they come up with.
|
|
|
2 Jan 2015, 10:38 (Ref:3489473) | #1255 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,132
|
Words have their importance and it is not so much the meaning of the relevant words which is at issue, but the manner in which those words are used to specify what is allowed or not. In that respect, one has to admit that the ACO-FIA rule makers could be more rigorous and consistent in the manner they draft their own technical regulations
For instance, in the latest revisions of Article 3.6.1, the ACO-FIA have added clarifications regarding the allowable deflection of the "rearmost engine cover element", which clarifications are evidently a response to Porsche's questionable engine cover solution spotted during last year's LM Test Day. How can this make sense in the case of a front-engined car where the "rearmost engine cover element" would be sitting in front of the driver ? Evidently it would not, and it would be reasonable to expect that this provision should apply to the relevant rearmost bodywork/cover element (or "rear bonnet") irrespective of whether this bodywork element covers an engine or not. I am looking forward to seeing which interpretation of the rules Nissan have come up with. It will be "refreshing" to see a constructor come up with an "unconventional" solution that fits within the rules. |
||
__________________
In order to finish first, first you have to finish |
2 Jan 2015, 16:48 (Ref:3489539) | #1256 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,920
|
|||
|
3 Jan 2015, 00:53 (Ref:3489637) | #1257 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,392
|
Quote:
|
||
|
3 Jan 2015, 13:06 (Ref:3489713) | #1258 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 750
|
abruzzi abruzzi!!!
|
|
|
3 Jan 2015, 15:43 (Ref:3489730) | #1259 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,132
|
I'm still reading through the LMP1 Technical Regulations and trying to understand how a front-engined concept can fit in there. I am especially curious to understand how such a concept could comply with relevant safety provisions, including in particular the relevant provision regarding the frontal impact absorbing structure.
Article 18.3.1 provides that a "special impact absorbing structure must be fitted in front of the survival cell". Actually, the French wording is a bit more specific in that it requires that the structure must be "secured" to the front of the survival cell ("Une structure spéciale doit être fixée Ã* l'avant de la cellule de survie."). I read that as requiring the frontal impact absorbing structure to be directly provided and secured onto the front part of the survival cell. This interpretation is at least consistent with the clarification that follows under Article 18.3.1: This structure need not be an integral part of the survival cell but it must be securely attached to it. A configuration wherein the frontal impact absorbing structure would be provided in front of the engine (as speculated by Mike in his latest update on the matter) does not seem to be entirely consistent with the aforementioned requirement IMHO. Is it possible to guarantee that the structure is "securely attached to the survival cell" with an engine sitting between the structure and the survival cell ? Maybe. By way of an alternative, would it be satisfactory from a safety perspective to locate the engine in front of the frontal impact absorbing structure ? Probably not. Could the survival cell itself encase the engine ? And what about the fuel lines ? With the fuel tank included in the survival cell (Article 18.3.1) and - normally - located behind the driver's position, combined with the impossibility to have fuel lines pass - understandably - through the cockpit (Article 6.4.4), wouldn't feeding of fuel to the engine located at the front be a safety concern as the fuel lines would have to run under or to the side of the cockpit area ? And what if the speculation about a front-engined configuration was simply wrong ? |
||
__________________
In order to finish first, first you have to finish |
3 Jan 2015, 16:56 (Ref:3489738) | #1260 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 295
|
Quote:
We all don't know if Nissan will really build a front engined LMP1. All rumours say yes. But I also think a front engined design will be too complicated in terms of packaging and aero and I can't see how a LMP without a rear wing will produce enough downforce. Nissan will run against Porsche, Audi and Toyota and not against Rebellion or Lotus so if it is a good idea for experiments? |
|||
|
3 Jan 2015, 17:11 (Ref:3489739) | #1261 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,654
|
Some very good points there, MyNameIsNigel.
Also, with the engine in front of the cockpit, the cockpit will need to be pushed back, compared to a rear mounted engine. Will there be enough room to secure the needed size of 3000cm2 for the fin?, as stated in Article 3.6.3: Quote:
|
|||
__________________
Hvil i Fred Allan. (Rest in Peace Allan) |
3 Jan 2015, 19:03 (Ref:3489761) | #1262 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,229
|
I would think this is how you would do it.
Most of the discussion has been that it's really a front-mid concept. Quote:
Given the people involved and that Nissan has been behind it from the start, I expect the initial CFD showed a major advantage to the concept, to the point they could lose some advantage as some packaging compromises occurred while doing the detailed design, and still have an advantage. Without that, they probably wouldn't have gotten the go-ahead from the Nissan Board of Directors. |
|||
__________________
Just give them some safety rules, limit the fuel (to control the speeds), drop the green flag, and see what happens. |
3 Jan 2015, 19:21 (Ref:3489767) | #1263 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 278
|
This may seem illogical (but what isn't with all these rumours?), but what if the ICE is offset from the driver? That could make for a tighter package. Batteries could be placed under the drivers legs as counter balance to the offset engine.
|
||
|
3 Jan 2015, 19:21 (Ref:3489768) | #1264 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 295
|
Quote:
So I would like to see Nissan with a front engined car if they think there is an advantage. On the other side both designers who have ever tried a front engined prototype told me a closed front-engined LMP1 is not the way to match its rivals. So don't they know from what they are speaking. I think not. ( We are talking about Nigel Stroud ( Panoz GTR-1) and Andy Thorby (Panoz LMP07) |
|||
|
3 Jan 2015, 21:28 (Ref:3489781) | #1265 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,392
|
I dont think the cockpit will need to go that far back. If theyre using an f1 engine, its quite small. The issue would be if the 'front gearbox' takes up much space. But theres workarounds for these issues in the rules. Like Mr. Fuller said, the carbon gearbox casing could have another use/purpose. So it doubles as both a crash structure and the gearbox casing. That might not happen but it seems an option.
|
|
|
3 Jan 2015, 23:26 (Ref:3489794) | #1266 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,229
|
Quote:
The other thing is they were primarily running on US tracks, which are typically more point and squirt type tracks than European tracks. The European tracks mean less time the front is traction-limited. They may be thinking a bit 'We tried that and it didn't work.' Sometimes changes in technology or rules mean something that didn't work before can work now. "Flying Wing" airplane designs are an example that comes to mind. No changes to the laws of physics since WWII, but now there are powerful electronic control systems available that make them viable. |
|||
__________________
Just give them some safety rules, limit the fuel (to control the speeds), drop the green flag, and see what happens. |
5 Jan 2015, 01:12 (Ref:3489967) | #1267 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,755
|
? from a post on Mulsanne Mikes facebook page. which is supposedly from here http://lemansprototypes.over-blog.it/? Not sure what to make of this. I guess this is what a front engined proto could look like in the new ruleset. I think it has the green house of the electric thing they ran at Le Mans this year with a lmp style nose grafted on top. photoshop? |
|
|
5 Jan 2015, 01:12 (Ref:3489968) | #1268 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,392
|
With enough electric power, they could have 4wd out of any corner. Every turn eventually leads to a straight, so it wont be a disadvantage, but an advantage because theyll always have that 'pull'. Being a "GTR" theres plenty experience with front engine, awd. I think their gt500 experience would count also!
|
|
|
5 Jan 2015, 09:43 (Ref:3490021) | #1269 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 393
|
I remember another front engined car, the not very succesful Ardex S80. It looked more conventional than the Panoz and the engine was a 6l BMW, probably much, much bigger than the Nissan engine. The engine was partialy placed at the side of the driver.
I'm just saying that it may be less batmovil than those recreations. |
||
|
5 Jan 2015, 11:40 (Ref:3490043) | #1270 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 612
|
True, current prototypes have hybrid systems as a "passenger", it could be that Nissan will have ICE as the passenger (or some parts of it) and hybrid system (battery) in the back.
But still front electric motor is IMO still a must. |
|
|
5 Jan 2015, 18:21 (Ref:3490124) | #1271 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,654
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
Hvil i Fred Allan. (Rest in Peace Allan) |
5 Jan 2015, 18:25 (Ref:3490126) | #1272 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,132
|
Quote:
|
||
__________________
In order to finish first, first you have to finish |
5 Jan 2015, 21:15 (Ref:3490162) | #1273 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 15,392
|
If it looks anything like these recent renders, it will be illegal. Especially since the cockpit height/length rules and the minimum fin area means you need room behind the driver to meet those regs.
|
|
|
7 Jan 2015, 00:46 (Ref:3490514) | #1274 | |
Racer
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 247
|
||
|
7 Jan 2015, 03:05 (Ref:3490538) | #1275 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,396
|
@yamato
I was thinking of that too, but unfortunately it won't work as per ACO rules. But nice find there anyway! |
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[WEC] Porsche Prototype Discussion | Simmi | North American Racing | 9260 | 5 Mar 2024 20:32 |
[WEC] Toyota LMP1 Discussion | Gingers4Justice | ACO Regulated Series | 6771 | 18 Aug 2020 09:37 |
Audi LMP1 Discussion | gwyllion | ACO Regulated Series | 11685 | 16 Feb 2017 10:42 |
"We were pleased with Nissan Motorsport's performance in 2013,"- Nissan | GTRMagic | Australasian Touring Cars. | 8 | 16 Dec 2013 09:20 |
How about a LMP1 Pro & LMP1 Privateer class | Holt | Sportscar & GT Racing | 35 | 6 Jun 2012 13:44 |