[WEC] Peugeot Sport returning to WEC

[Gerard C]

Reliability being the key of a 24 hour race is not new. Bright side is they've only one second a lap to find. Remaining reliable too…

[Adam43]

In any other era 1s would probably be second row. Now it is miles away.

[Steve McQ]

A very quick glance at the timing data (some turns are timed with their own standalone loop) : the 9X8 is fast in straight lines but lacks aerdynamic and mechanical grip. It is slow un Porsche curve and at the Ford chicane.
Good news is, this can be improved with hardwork on the setup. Bad news is, the other competitors will not rest, and they are already faster. Including Lamborghini.

[Adam43]

Ooo, can you provide a link to the data with the individual turn data.

I know of the sector times, but not the individual turns.


Sent from Le Mans

[deggis]

Probably "BEST SPECIFIC SECTORS".
http://fiawec.alkamelsystems.com/Res..._Hour%2024.PDF

[Plex]

https://www.motorsport.com/lemans/ne...mans/10624202/

Race pace is much needed as rivals will be improving. Reliability is there.

[Articus]

The new 9X8 does not appear to have retained it's wet weather advantage from last year. One would think that this largely came from the larger front tire and the 150km/h (compared to 190km/h for others) front deployment speed that the old car ran with.

[flatlandsman]

I would also suggest that under car aero helps a lot more in the wet than simple wings as the speed is reduced and the car being put under load is less so under car aero probably helps equally well in the wet as dry. But yes obviously tyres help too

[Adam43]

Can you explain the under body aero theory more? Both under body and wings downforce both increase with speed. Unless it’s a fan car! So I must be missing what you mean?

[flatlandsman]

I mean with underfloor aero, it remains efficient and is not affected as much I would guess by speed, whereas pure wing aero is, especially at higher speed when at LM the rear wing is very effective. less so presumably at low speed. Lower the speed reduce the aero from the wing.

It was noticeable in the wet last year that the Peugeot was very quick, it was able to overtake off line and be seconds a lap quicker, this is likely a combo of the ground effect and wider tyres, rather than one inhibiting the other.

It was fairly useless everywhere other than Qatar with its billiard table surface for GP bikes, even Bahrain it was average. so the car was clearly hugely upset by bumps, maybe even that helped at LM in the wet, the bumps would be there yes but would they affect the car as much at lower speed? Not sure. This is where the theory falls apart as LM is very bumpy in places, so maybe it was just tyres

[Adam43]

Aero, however it is produced, is dependent on speed. It’s basically how it works. Lower speed reduces the downforce wherever it is produced. Including for “underfloor” aero. It’s not like it was a fan car.

Why do you think it would be less so for underfloor aero?

There are a great many factors. It could be better, it could be worse, dependent on the design.

Admittedly it’s a long time since I did fluid dynamics, but if you have a source to the different velocity dependences of designs I’m up for it.

Further, under these rules, the aero performance is defined within parameters. Now that doesn’t mean you can’t have cars that have higher downforce, or lower drag (we tackled that misunderstanding in the BoP thread), but that isn’t inherently anything to do with where it is produced.

As for the requirement of smooth track surface, that is clearly known for the old car. Not sure it is relevant to the wet surface performance.

[flatlandsman]

The fact remains, that in the wet at LM last year that car was very fast, I do not have data a nor remotely interested in it, but the facts remain

[Adam43]

Sorry. I thought you had a reason. I was totally up for learning something there. It’s great to have your mind changed or learn knew things.
Unfortunately there isn’t actually anything behind it. Like other musings. The internet eh?!

So the leading theory is the mechanical grip theory - that has something behind it.

FWIW it also achieved leading Le Mans after they painted it a new color scheme. Didn’t lead this year. Fact.

We have causation, correlation, coincidence - I’m interested in understanding which and how it works. Thought you had something.

[tomcug]

Whatever it was (tyres, hybrid activation speed, mechanical grip, whatever) it seems the new car doesn't have that wet weather strength that the old one had. Still, it's brand new pretty much and next year might perform significantly different.

Originally Posted by tomcug

Adding a rear wing also means re-design (of aero approach). Whatever they chose, it's significant work with no guarantee of success. Also means throwing away current two years of development of wingless car.

Sad for them but true, they have so much to work on with the new car.

[Adam43]

Didn’t do as well this year. Well, it didn’t lead to any timing screen selfies. But we had a million more cars this year to beat it.

Wrong color scheme.

[TF110]

I'm guessing here, but with smaller diameter front tires and a higher activation speed for the fwd, the new car might not perform as well in the wet. Seems logical. I don't know about the aerodynamic properties. But I do hope this newer version gets faster.

[Sodemo]

I think as a general rule you would wind on more rear wing in the wet (if you can do so) so an aero profile which is more rearward should actually help in the wet.