LMP1 engines (from 2014 to current)

[Steve McQ]

I understand that the engine has no direct fuel injection since it's the same cylinder head as the P2 powerplant. Add to this the relatively modest thermal efficiency of a normally aspirated engine vs a turbocharged one and I am not optimistic for the performances of the Gibson cars. Let's hope they are reliable !

[knighty]

^^^^ +1 .......you took the words right out of my mouth.......I'm getting the wrong vibe from Gibson about this engine.....like you say if they are using the same cylinder head, it therefore cannot be direct fuel injection, therefore they cannot gain a 5% fuel efficiency advantage, which can stretch the fuel stops to another lap at LeMans.......lightweight - who cares......its a V8 and light enough already........low-cost - again who cares, the teams running are wealthy enough to afford a direct injection system.........timescale - it was conceived far too late, and to me has elements of a rush-job about it........I still feel this engine will get trounced by the NISMO-Cosworth-V6, the Mechachrome V6 and the AER turbo engines in terms of outright pace and performance.........the Gibson engine will have a serious torque deficit to these engines and it will show on track........but yes, perhaps it will be more reliable and go the distance, time will tell I guess.

[BRG]

Originally Posted by knighty

^^^^ +1 .......you took the words right out of my mouth.......I'm getting the wrong vibe from Gibson about this engine.....like you say if they are using the same cylinder head, it therefore cannot be direct fuel injection, therefore they cannot gain a 5% fuel efficiency advantage, which can stretch the fuel stops to another lap at LeMans.......lightweight - who cares......its a V8 and light enough already........low-cost - again who cares, the teams running are wealthy enough to afford a direct injection system.........timescale - it was conceived far too late, and to me has elements of a rush-job about it........I still feel this engine will get trounced by the NISMO-Cosworth-V6, the Mechachrome V6 and the AER turbo engines in terms of outright pace and performance.........the Gibson engine will have a serious torque deficit to these engines and it will show on track........but yes, perhaps it will be more reliable and go the distance, time will tell I guess.

I keep bringing up this same point and I wish someone who has looked at the regs will confirm this or not.
The AOC have said they will BPO between different types of technology, so they will BOP the fastest most efficient, powerful Turbo engine against the fastest most powerful NA engine. If the Gibson is the only NA engine then it will have a very favorable BOP whilst also being Simpler to package and most likely more reliable .

[knighty]

I'm sure the ACO will try to BOP, but it will just create a never ending whinging match between teams, just like it did between Audi running a Diesel and Toyota running a Gasoline motor......

Whenever Audi were on the back-foot they always blamed the deficit on the generous rules break the gasoline cars got from the ACO.......PMSL.......Audi didnt complain when they effectively wrote the diesel regs for themselves and handed them to the ACO.......the privateer gasoline cars couldnt hold a candle to the subsequent diesel performance.......... I subsequently worked for one of the powertrain consulting companies that designed and developed one of the V12 diesel LMP1 engines.......over 800hp and over 1400NM of torque......Jesus, gasoline engines didnt stand a chance.

and now look at BOP in IMSA.......compared to the Gibson engine, the factory teams are down the road, its become an open farce there too........even when they tried to BOP the Caddy motor, air restrictors could not limit the whopping low-torque from the 6.2L motor, now 5.5L, hence they were forced to change the gear ratios.

[Bentley03]

Originally Posted by BRG

I keep bringing up this same point and I wish someone who has looked at the regs will confirm this or not.
The AOC have said they will BPO between different types of technology, so they will BOP the fastest most efficient, powerful Turbo engine against the fastest most powerful NA engine. If the Gibson is the only NA engine then it will have a very favorable BOP whilst also being Simpler to package and most likely more reliable .

These are the relevant regs, but they don't answer your question:

7.4 Equivalence systems (performance and technologies)

7.4.1 Equivalence systems between the different LMP1
propulsion technologies.

In order to limit the differences between the hybrid and nonhybrid
cars, the Endurance Committee will be able to adapt
the performance of the non-hybrid cars in accordance with the
following conditions:

a) The reference will be the calculation of the average lap time
of the fastest car in each technology. The average lap time will
be calculated over the number of laps corresponding to 20%
of the distance of the races (average of the best laps).

The models of the cars with the slowest technologies must
have participated in at least two races and must have been
properly classified in order to be able to benefit from the
application of the rule.
The first adjustment of performance may be applied at any
time by the Endurance Committee.
The Committee will have the right to request any necessary
information from the manufacturers and/or the competitors, in
order to the shed light on the issue at hand. Any such
information will be treated in a strictly confidential manner.

Any competitor having deliberately provided false information
or having attempted to influence an adjustment by hiding its
true level of performance will be penalised by the FIA.

b) Equivalence of Technology of the LMP1 cars
The principles of the EoT, calculated on the basis of the data
collected from the "best in class" of each technology, will be
applied up to the 2018 Le Mans event inclusive, based on the
values specified in Appendix B to the 2018 Technical
Regulations.

It will be up to the Endurance Committee to settle any
questions that might arise concerning the application and/or
interpretation of these elements in the last resort.

d) The competitors and manufacturers are responsible for
providing valid data on request to help the FIA/ACO with the
EoT process.
All competitors and manufacturers that deliberately provided
misinformation, tried to influence the EoT process, or whose
level of performance is higher than the expected result may be
sanctioned with a penalty before, during or after a race.

Minimum penalty: 5-minute stop and go, at the Stewards’
discretion.


Maybe the answer was in part c), which appears to have been omitted...?

[Bentley03]

Originally Posted by Bentley03

Maybe the answer was in part c), which appears to have been omitted...?

Found it, the answer's in this Daily Sportscar article: Link

[BRG]

Originally Posted by Bentley03

Found it, the answer's in this Daily Sportscar article: Link

Good find,

so The simpler non direct injection non turbo Gibson will get the fuel and fuel flow to run with the best turbo's

[knighty]

Originally Posted by BRG

Good find,

so The simpler non direct injection non turbo Gibson will get the fuel and fuel flow to run with the best turbo's

The ACO are dreaming if they think a bit of fuel flow will equalize things......all the turbo LMP1 teams will play all sorts of sand-bagging and shenanigans in order to keep their cards close to their chests.....the GT class is a classic example.

[Mike E]

Here is a little puff piece for Mecachrome. It doesn't contain any new info but does emphasise that the drivers have to somehow manage their per-lap fuel consumption without the car doing it for them, a la Toyota. Sounds a bit tricky. I hope it doesn't ruin anyone's race.

https://www.lemans.org/en/news/24-ho...the-race/49182

[Yuri G.]

Originally Posted by knighty

The ACO are dreaming if they think a bit of fuel flow will equalize things......all the turbo LMP1 teams will play all sorts of sand-bagging and shenanigans in order to keep their cards close to their chests.....the GT class is a classic example.

Do you think SMP could have a sensible advantage in race pace over Rebellion?

[knighty]

Originally Posted by Yuri G.

Do you think SMP could have a sensible advantage in race pace over Rebellion?

I doubt it......it appears the Gibson 4.5 is a very quick and eficient engine, so there's a slice of humble pie for me!.....I have always harboured a belief that the AER v6 is too small on capacity, creating quite a peaky engine with a narrow performance band which needs to be thrashed, so their fuel consumption will not be great.....and I belive the 4.5 has simply exposed it on both fronts....and the nismo 3.0 V6 in the Kolles will probably fly and sip fuel too....it will be fascinating to see how it all pans out on race day, but spa kinda said most of it already.

For the ginetta-mechachrome.....it's having a tough time in GP2 at the moment with all sorts of issues causing race retirements, so one can only hope this does not affect ginetta.