|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
29 Jul 2010, 16:13 (Ref:2735273) | #701 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,936
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
29 Jul 2010, 16:14 (Ref:2735274) | #702 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 785
|
Quote:
But once again, what looks more interesting to me is older perfectly good cars available for very little money with extensive spare packages that can be upgraded/degraded to current rules. A lot of good cars have been built around the LC70-75 tub... But what will probably be missing is teams to run all these possible and existing solutions. |
|||
|
29 Jul 2010, 17:35 (Ref:2735340) | #703 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 889
|
Quote:
Oh! yes, perhaps starting with you ?... what do you say?... Constant crying posts about what ever, not discussing rules and neither presenting technical arguments( hybrid is in the evo rules) its what is really off topic and annoying. And absence of any politeness, rude arguments and apparent hatred, seems kind of personal (against ppl that never acquainted)... i never posted anything personal either in favor or against anyone... nothing to inflate super egos or ask to delete posts or ban anyone. My stance, as an opinion, its very easy to be summarized. Ditch "most" rules concerning fuel discrimination, augment hybrid potential, allow in the hybrid section the inclusion of hydraulic power. Where is it off topic, in a "evo" rule discussion topic ?? |
||
|
29 Jul 2010, 18:22 (Ref:2735360) | #704 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,654
|
The 2011 P2 field is really going to be interesting with all these manufactures, both Coupes and Spyder cars!
It's quite clever of Lola to build both a Coupe and a Spyder, as the Coupe will speak to all teams with Le Mans as a major goal, and the Spyder will speak to the teams with the championships as goal. Quote:
Please Hcl123, drop the subject and step out of the person aimed mud throwing (not blaming any, and don't care who started), and just join the forum in a normal way and discuss the news and subjects at hand. If there's any subjects you want a deeper discussion about, then simply open a new thread (contact a mod or admin if you are confused, if it's worth a new thread or not) instead of "hi-jacking" the thread, which might be seen as going off-topic. Thank You |
|||
__________________
Hvil i Fred Allan. (Rest in Peace Allan) |
29 Jul 2010, 18:43 (Ref:2735374) | #705 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,919
|
Quote:
The interesting part will be how the conversion to using an engine cradle will be done. I would suspect on the Lolas it will bolt to the bulkhead where the engine used to, and maybe use the P-1 bodywork, as it is longer than the P-2 bodywork to accommodate the added length of using a cradle. L.P. |
|||
__________________
Probae esti in segetem sunt deteriorem datae fruges, tamen ipsae suaptae enitent |
29 Jul 2010, 18:52 (Ref:2735380) | #706 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,654
|
It's interesting that Lola mentions the possibility to mount a Toyota engine in the Lola Coupe!?.
Toyota's name is being mentioned more and more often. |
||
__________________
Hvil i Fred Allan. (Rest in Peace Allan) |
29 Jul 2010, 20:44 (Ref:2735447) | #707 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
It could be a Judd-Toyota.
|
|
|
30 Jul 2010, 01:04 (Ref:2735571) | #708 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,790
|
Is this Judd preparing a Toyota say V6 with Twin Turbo? Judd hasn't built a turbo engine since its CART days (largely uncompetitive).
With HPD crushing LMP2, I expect the request line to be long. Not for just the new V6 but also the now illegal in LMP2 3.4L Racing V8. Other engines will be considered based on team budgets, loyalty overtures and I'm sure limited technical assistance offered by HPD. Surely 5.0L American V8's will largely be affordable as well. |
||
|
30 Jul 2010, 02:23 (Ref:2735586) | #709 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 889
|
Quote:
If there is a thread that i've been more on topic is this... why would i begin a new thread discussing new rules for 2011 forward ( discussing => means what might be wrong what can be improved ) ?? Isn't the name "EVO" in the tittle meaning that the draft presented by ACO is not yet final... not the kind take it or leave it... but that they are open to suggestions ?? What was so bad, and staying on topic means TECHNICAL REASONS, in my opinions that made ppl go berserk ??... where am i wrong ?... i wasn't supposed to present any "suggestion" about changing the present draft ?... is that it ? |
||
|
30 Jul 2010, 08:40 (Ref:2735677) | #710 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,654
|
Quote:
The "EVO" in the title has no reference to the subject of the thread any longer, as i started the thread to get a clarification on the subject of what was the "EVO rules". As the "EVO rules" where abandoned in the form it was originally intended, the thread name was changed to "LMP Future regulation", but kept the "EVO rules" name, as it was a continuation of the old thread, even though it had nothing to do with it. What i think, made people go "berserk" (very wrong term), is the fact that you stubbornly discuss a subject like a sophist, ei. until people have enough of you or until your "right", even though there might be evidence of the opposite. (Not saying this is the case, and that you are wrong, but the way you discus it, make it seem like it). The fact that you respond in the way you do, to my neutral post, proves this, as i offered a peaceful easy way to let the "mud-throwing" die. Instead you decide to almost attack every single thing in my post, instead of just accepting that the subject you discussed is dead. I hope you will understand and accept this, so 10-tenths can continue in it's glorious ways. |
|||
__________________
Hvil i Fred Allan. (Rest in Peace Allan) |
30 Jul 2010, 13:40 (Ref:2735789) | #711 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 889
|
Quote:
Please, since is your thread, maybe it would be wise to change the title then(evo "abandoned" rules...)... and as an informative stance i tank you for the reference about Evo being abandoned, it was news for me, and since i googled for it, it seems to have generated more polemic than anything that we have thrown at it here. |
||
|
30 Jul 2010, 13:54 (Ref:2735793) | #712 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 889
|
Wait a minute!... i entered very late in this discussion, i need help then...
What are then those regulations ? http://www.lemans.org/en/news/2011-L...TIONS_628.html Are those the so called Evo rules that were abandoned, or is it the final draft for 2011, that only add to the 2010 regulations ? |
|
|
30 Jul 2010, 14:19 (Ref:2735800) | #713 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,654
|
Quote:
The "Evo Rules" then got abandoned thru a lot of changes, and is what we have today, know as the "2011 draft rule set". Just for clarification (as it's off topic), it's not "my thread", i just started it. If you are unhappy with the name, then suggest to a mod/admin that it should be changed. Though i do not see a need for a change as there hasn't been any confusion about it before, and it states pretty clear that it's the former "EVO rules" thread (meaning it's no longer). |
|||
__________________
Hvil i Fred Allan. (Rest in Peace Allan) |
30 Jul 2010, 16:45 (Ref:2735901) | #714 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 889
|
Quote:
The draft for which i presented the official site link, is pretty much then the rules for 2011, but not yet final, missing to be determined then, among other things, what penalties about weight and air restrictors the 2010 cars will have in order to compete in 2011 ? ... well summarized i believe in this article http://green.autoblog.com/2010/06/14...ions-now-with/ This draft rules was what resulted from the last TWG on past 30th of June... from http://www.f1technical.net/forum/vie...php?f=5&t=8732 Quote:
If the TWG is supposed to meat in quarterly order, it means that by the 30th of October, then everything must be clarified... set in stone for 2011 !? |
|||
|
30 Jul 2010, 17:15 (Ref:2735914) | #715 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,919
|
Quote:
No, but yes. Draft 4 has been summarily released and believed by many to be the defacto final set with a few minor tweeks coming to them. As evidenced by the context of TWG minutes of June 30. TWG minutes form that meeting are already moving on to a rulset for 2014 and beyond. L.P. |
|||
__________________
Probae esti in segetem sunt deteriorem datae fruges, tamen ipsae suaptae enitent |
30 Jul 2010, 20:40 (Ref:2736049) | #716 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
@hcl123: If you want to learn about the now dead LMP Evo rules, just read the first posts of this thread, run http://www.endurance-info.com/article.php?sid=3767 through your favorite translation site, or look at this artistic impression of what a LMP Evo prototype were supposed to look like:
Draft 4 of the real 2011 rules is available on http://www.mulsannescorner.com/2011ACOLMP12Version4.pdf |
|
|
31 Jul 2010, 19:15 (Ref:2736621) | #717 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 889
|
Quote:
Though concerning hybrids, i still see many reasons for criticism in the whole picture of the idea. "" The ACO wants to give to the manufacturers the greatest possible freedom to develop and use such systems while taking a certain number of measures to control them. o petrol: 73 75 l. o diesel: 63 65 l. The amount of energy used between 2 braking must not exceed + 0.5 MJ. Braking lasting under 1 second will not be taken into account. - The current, voltage and the time of charge and discharge will be measured continuously between the energy storage system and the inverter(s). - Equivalent sensors will be defined for the inertial systems. - Sensors for monitoring the use of the brakes and the wheel speed will equip the car. - Safety rules that will be imposed by the ACO The use of such a system must not be aimed at obtaining additional power but at reducing fuel consumption. "" Reminds of a story with a friend of mine: ... -me: i what to modify my car, how fast do you think it can go -friend: tell me how much money do you have, and i tell you how fast!.. The same goes for hybrid prototypes, tell me how much money do you got, and i'll tell you if you can have an hybrid system... tell ACO how much money an hybrid system costs, and perhaps they will think twice about stratospherically exploding the costs, to the point that it will cost twice or triple or more to run the same 24h distance with 63-73 Liters tanks than with 81-90 liters. Translating to the point that you got to be rich, from an exploitative and environment destroyer business kind, and or stupid in order to be "green" or a "three hugger". And the real irony is in all those controller devices that ACO wants to implement, and others devices for permitting to take good advantages of electric power. Already an advanced control for an electric motor can be more expensive then the motor itself... i'm sure that all control devices, specially including the rule policement ones that ACO wants to impose, will cost way more than the rest of the whole hybrid system including the electric motor. So perhaps ACO can support the costs in its entirety for hybrid control... to avoid redundancies: You don't have to exclude LPM2 from having hybrid systems, and then cap the maximum price of a LPM2 car, and reserve this category mostly for privateers, because even if hybrid systems were free in all categories the privateers couldn't afford them... ELECTRIC MOTORING ONES I MEAN... including in GT endurance classes... With 63-73 Liters tanks obtaining real additional power its out of the question, specially imposing 500KJ between brakes = equivalent to 80HP for 7-8 seconds =, i demonstrated in another post that even 2 liters difference for hydrid vs non-hybrid, non-hydrid systems with 2 liters more will have "up to 149x" (yes 149x) theoretically MORE additional power between 2 brake zones compared with hybrids, according with the energy of "diesel" fuel. This draft version 4 doesn't have yet the fuel tank capacity for non-hybrid LMP1s, but its clear that its reserved for the big houses with deep pockets, not by rule but by cost, and most of them will avoid it considering that without it they will have a much smaller expense and will have a performance advantage. So, if the difference is only 2 liters, that tells a ugly joke about fuel economy mantra, if its more then non-hybrid cars will have a tremendous amount of advantage... not "mud-trowing" a reality... what is ACO thinking ?... Last edited by hcl123; 31 Jul 2010 at 19:20. |
||
|
31 Jul 2010, 21:24 (Ref:2736710) | #718 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,244
|
|||
__________________
"On a given day, a given circumstance, you think you have a limit. And you then go for this limit and you touch this limit, and you think, 'Okay, this is the limit.' And so you touch this limit, something happens and you suddenly can go a little bit further. With your mind power, your determination, your instinct, and the experience as well, you can fly very high." -Ayrton Senna |
31 Jul 2010, 22:13 (Ref:2736742) | #719 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 180
|
Quote:
|
||
|
1 Aug 2010, 07:55 (Ref:2736984) | #720 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,677
|
I doubt that as the block itself is not good for racing, It has Siamesed bores and it has a 60 degree V which from my understanding is not as good for a LMP car compared to a 90 degree V engine..... BUT I could be wrong I have been wrong on these things before.
|
||
__________________
The race track and the human body, both born of the earth, drive to be one with the earth, and through the earth one with the car, drive to the undiminished dream, single moments of pleasure, an eternity of memories. |
1 Aug 2010, 11:45 (Ref:2737175) | #721 | ||
Team Crouton
20KPINAL
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 39,924
|
As a mod who has passed through this thread and has noticed, ahem, some difficulties between posters, I don't want anyone to think I'm not aware of the calls for involvement. As it stands, I can see where everyone is coming from, but editing the posts is really quite difficult (apart from one which was completely off-topic which has now gone). hcl123 - if you'll forgive me for addressing this openly in the thread, I'm not sure your posts are generally sufficiently off-topic for me to randomly delete them, but I do understand why others find them rather stifling. Perhaps it's time to lighten up a little , step away from this thread and come back when we have a few more views?
|
||
__________________
280 days...... |
2 Aug 2010, 00:36 (Ref:2737878) | #722 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 889
|
Quote:
OTOH, its not reasonable as a race spectacle, that GT are nothing more than moving chicanes... so easy to pass that they don't pose any inconvenient now( or very little). EVO could have leveled the playing field, to the point i'm apologist of making GT endurance like a super-GT class, like those in Japan... or since the EVO prototypes would have many resemblances with GTs... make separated races with separated International Championships... prototypes and GTs... In the end its a "flame" bait in any case, because its so hard to please everybody... to the point that a "noise" reduction measure would be indeed to make separated championships, with a few classic races where the circuits allow, like La Sarthe(maybe Spa, Suzuka...), to have both races at the same time(overlap). I'm convinced that would attract more players either in prototypes and GTs. In terms of promotion that could give twice the publicity, and in terms of spectacle the races would be more attractives... many ppl that don't know nothing about endurance, seem amazed why some cars are so fast and others are so slow... confusion and uninterest i've seem quite a lot of times among those... In the end that is what happening not by rules or organization, but by spontaneous evolution... ALMS is the more penalized and the best example... The best P1 only go for Sebring and or Petit Le Mans, ant its confusing for a newbie that starts interest, to see the performance differential and get to be a fun of any other team or car in the other races of the ALMS championship. |
||
|
2 Aug 2010, 00:54 (Ref:2737882) | #723 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 889
|
Quote:
|
||
|
2 Aug 2010, 01:48 (Ref:2737893) | #724 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 180
|
Quote:
|
||
|
2 Aug 2010, 03:56 (Ref:2737924) | #725 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 889
|
Not only that. Its imperative that GT are allowed to "innovate" and improve much their top and average speeds... or since that is much harder to do since GTs are production derived cars, make separated championships.
|
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[WEC] Glickenhaus Hypercar | Akrapovic | ACO Regulated Series | 1603 | 12 Apr 2024 21:24 |
[WEC] Aston Martin Hypercar Discussion | deggis | ACO Regulated Series | 175 | 23 Feb 2020 03:37 |
[WEC] SCG 007: Glickenhaus Le Mans LMP1 Hypercar | Bentley03 | ACO Regulated Series | 26 | 16 Nov 2018 02:35 |
ALMS Extends LMP Regulations | tblincoe | North American Racing | 33 | 26 Aug 2005 15:03 |
[LM24] Whats the future of LMP's at Le Mans?? | Garrett | 24 Heures du Mans | 59 | 8 Jul 2004 15:15 |