Pescarolo Vs. Factory Courage

Tim Northcutt · 4 Jun 2003, 22:15 (Ref:621194)

Somehow this ended up in the "LM Weather Thread when I tried to post it as a new thread for your input..

Here's trying again...

I was looking at the Official Le Mans site, especiall the photos of the cars, and I noticed many differences between the Pescarolo Courage and the Factory Courage that go beyond the obvious items such as endplates and th changes on the front of the front fenders...

1. The rear deck on the Pescarolo below the wing looks like the lip and the slope are much more pronounced.

2. The Factory chassis has a ledge or lip along the bottom oportion of the sidepods that is not present on the Pescarolo

3. The front tray below the noses look different

4. The openiing in the center of the Pescarolo nose for air has a much mor pronounced overhang, and the center part of the nose as it goes back toward the cockpit looks much flatter than the factor car..

5. Behind the front fender, there is an air evacuation opening (I assume it is for the diffuser) that is not present on the Factory car

6. The Pescarolo car has F-1 style cockpit sides surrounding the driver's shoulders, but the Factor car does not...

7. The shape and configuration at the bottom of the front fenders is different as well, with a disitnctive ledge forward on the factor car, but a consistent slope on the Pescarolo car...

Questions abound.....

The Pescarolo changes all seem to be upgrades or improvements to the chassis..why wouldn't the factory car have them???

Does Pescarolo have a working agreement or a "test" agreement with the factory that allows them to make these changes, without crossing the "substantive changes to an approved manufacturer's car" (like Robinson did to the R&S MkIIIc) that would call for a re-crash test of the chassis???

What light cna anyone shed on the Pescarolo arrangement with Courage...the cars lot different in many ways when you rally look closely...

Your thoughts would be appreciated

19dodge · 4 Jun 2003, 22:16 (Ref:621196)

the designer of the Toyota GTP car from 99 is designing the updates for them. they are not factory updates. Pescarolo is doing it themselves

Tim Northcutt · 4 Jun 2003, 22:29 (Ref:621212)

Thanks, 19dodge....

However, how does that affect the "substantial changes to the original manufacturer's chassis" rule, and the possible need for the car to be re-tested???

Or are those changes Pesca made considered to be less than substantial concerning the stress-impact factors that would require a re-crash test of a chassis???

The Pescarolo chassis looks MUCH different than the factory Courage at this stage....

Fogelhund · 4 Jun 2003, 23:21 (Ref:621256)

Tim either the ACO was consulted in order to ensure the car was still eligible, or Henri being French made it a mute point.

SALEEN S7R · 5 Jun 2003, 00:16 (Ref:621292)

I hate to change the subject so early on but does anyone apart from me think that the 1999 livery on the Pescarolet courage, here http://users.cybercity.dk/~cfs7800/l.../cour14-sc.jpg looks like their new livery for the Le Mans race? Personally I think its very similar I knew Id seen it before just took me a while to remember where.

19dodge · 5 Jun 2003, 01:44 (Ref:621331)

SALEEN S7R,

yes i agree! when i saw the 03 scheme, the 99 scheme came right to mind!

Fab · 5 Jun 2003, 05:13 (Ref:621396)

Quote:

Originally posted by SALEEN S7R
the 1999 livery on the Pescarolet courage looks like their new livery for the Le Mans race? Personally I think its very similar I knew Id seen it before just took me a while to remember where.

Well spoted !

Fab · 5 Jun 2003, 05:16 (Ref:621399)

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim Northcutt
However, how does that affect the "substantial changes to the original manufacturer's chassis" rule, and the possible need for the car to be re-tested???

I don't think Henri and André de Cortanze did something on the chassis : they worked on the shape...

And don't think that ACO could be lenient because Pescarlo team is french : it's simply easier to ask to the technical board to come and check if the car respects the rules (ACO board do it all year long, when teams ask)...

Fab · 5 Jun 2003, 05:26 (Ref:621405)

This is Pirenzo answer, I moved from the 'weather' thread :

___________________________
hehe.

To answer Tim's question anyway, i think Andre de Cortanze worked for pescarolo, not Courage. The bodywork only has been tampered with. The C60JX (the factory car) retains the original fenders at the front, but i think they've gone for proven aero stuff, than radical, and lesser known aero on the Pescarolo car. The C60 retains elements from previous cars, like the C41, and also takes quite a few design cues from the BMW LMR.
I reall don't know why they stay so cautious. I reckon that it's not really a focused factory effort, they just felt like making their presence known. I don't see any major updates to the factory car coming, especially since they are concentrating on the C65 right now..
____________________________

Tim Northcutt · 5 Jun 2003, 13:38 (Ref:621793)

To Pirenzo:

Unless Courage is gahering data for creating an LMP2 in the 2004 specs to sell to privateers, I think that focusing on the C65 is kinda pointless....the 675 kg class seems to be going away in favor of the 750 kg. rregs for 2004, and I don't see the Grandfather Clause going past 2005...but I could be wrong...

Your thoughts????

dretceterini · 5 Jun 2003, 13:49 (Ref:621816)

It appears to me the main reason the Pesca car is different and "more modern" is that he is getting more money from the sponsors than the "factory" team!

Tim Northcutt · 5 Jun 2003, 13:55 (Ref:621827)

Excellent point, but one would think that the Factory would want to be on top of changes and updates, since they are the ones selling the cars....they have the most at stake, and would have to have an R&D budget to pursue such "moderinzation"...at leaast hose are my thoughts...I see the points made above, but I just have to question where the Factory is coming from on this, and more important, where they plan to go...

pirenzo · 5 Jun 2003, 14:20 (Ref:621871)

About that C65...

Well, as i see it, they'll have to turn to the C65 into an LMP2.
IMO it would be exeedingly foolish to build a car that can only be used for one year. If it is right on the 675kg limit now, then come 2005, they will have had plenty of experience with it, and whilst they cannot move ballast, they'll have a pretty good idea as to where to put it in order for the CG to be in the right place in 05. Then they can updated the bodywork if necessary, to the 04/5 rules.

Tim Northcutt · 5 Jun 2003, 14:49 (Ref:621903)

That is the only thing that makes sense to me, too, Pirenzo....

The new prototype trend has seemed to be tilted toward the 675s in the past few years anyway...maybe it is because teams may not want to buy a car that they will race to finish as the "Best Non-VAG" in every outing...just a guess....

But I don't know how the LMP2 rule that wil not include them as part of the "Overall Win" scheme of things will sit with the competitive teams who will be spending decent $$$$ on a prototype....if you know you won't be eligible for the win, why not run GT or GTS and save some money????

Just playing Devil's Advocate on this one....for the most part, I like the direction everything is heading in the future, with the exception of that one clause for the "Overall Win" consideration...

Dani Filth · 5 Jun 2003, 14:52 (Ref:621908)

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/couragec65.html .there's always Mike ..

**PascaLM** · 5 Jun 2003, 19:46 (Ref:622157)

Quote:

Originally posted by Fab
I don't think Henri and André de Cortanze did something on the chassis : they worked on the shape...

When André De Cortanze, who designed the 905 and the GT One,arrived in the Pescarolo Team in 2001, he decided to improve the shape of the new C60.
But he had no venturi tunnel to test it. So he had to use plasticine, his memory and his experience.

The result was spectacular but the speed was not high enough at LM 2002 : 312km/h for n°17, 307km/h for n°18 (326 for Audi n°1, 335 for Bentley and 337 for Dome).

New works had been made on the shape for this year.

**skycafe** · 6 Jun 2003, 01:37 (Ref:622430)

What did the factory cars do under Judd power?

Fab · 6 Jun 2003, 05:21 (Ref:622498)

Quote:

Originally posted by skycafe
What did the factory cars do under Judd power?

The car seems faster than the Evo, but less efficient in the curves... at least, the first Evo was 2 tenths faster than the Courage at the PQ...

Chevyguy · 6 Jun 2003, 07:47 (Ref:622579)

The ACO rules state that any modifications to chassis must be approved by the constructor, thus Courage is giving them the nod. I'm sure Courage themselves are expecting more from the Pesca cars than their own, as they are a very strong team.

In related info, this rule was one of the reasons why Dyson ditched the R&S, as they didn't want their own development to be used on the Matthews car.

Tim Northcutt · 6 Jun 2003, 21:21 (Ref:623263)

That's the way I understood it, too, ChevyGuy...

It may not be a "we're waving this banner' deal, but they had to give the "go" on it somehow to change the car in as many ways as they have...

pirenzo · 6 Jun 2003, 21:34 (Ref:623284)

If they change the chassis, it is regarded under the ACO rules as constituting a new chassis, and thus must undergo all crash tests once more, which will be expensive in both time and money. As i remember it, Pescarolo had neither at the time really.

Tim Northcutt · 6 Jun 2003, 21:43 (Ref:623294)

But the way I understand it, the "out" on that is the factory approval, provided that they bring those changes to the ACO for their input on whether or not it would require it....

dretceterini · 6 Jun 2003, 21:48 (Ref:623304)

I think the body and chassis are considered 2 different things, and all that was changed on the Pescarolo cars was the body...

Tim Northcutt · 6 Jun 2003, 21:54 (Ref:623314)

Corrrect me if I'm wrong, but the Robinson changes to the R&S MkIIIC didn't look like chassis changes to me (air intake on the front opened up and split by a nose piece, and the f-1 style vent stacks on the sidepods like Courage has added), but they would have been required to crash test it, becuase they were done without Factory approval...

And for Courage, the car is a carbon monococque chassis, isn't it????, unlike an R& S, that has a steel chassis with carbon composite panels...

Maybe I'm splitting hairs on this...enlighten me...

Tim Northcutt · 7 Jun 2003, 00:53 (Ref:623497)

Sorry, Guys...strike the Robinson changes comparison up above...been a while since I've read Mike's spec sheets on the R&S MkIIIC...

Robinson's changes to that chassis was like the Texas Chainsaw massacre...cut off everything in front of the front suspension...different diffuser, moved the radiators to the side pods...srious changes...definitely requiring a new crash test....

The only thing I can't figure is why Grand Am let him race it without crash testing the chassis first...

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pescarolo/Courage hybrids: The same(almost)?	Bentley03	Sportscar & GT Racing	24	14 Mar 2005 07:51
a Factory PANOZ-Courage in alms 2005?	19dodge	North American Racing	44	5 Oct 2004 16:26
Miracle Motorsports to run Courage C65 factory chassis at RA	Shady#30	Sportscar & GT Racing	16	20 Aug 2004 13:24
Pescarolo Courage C60Evo or C60 next year?	pirenzo	Sportscar & GT Racing	20	17 Feb 2003 06:40
Factory Courage	FastJoel31	Sportscar & GT Racing	2	26 Apr 2002 07:33