Evolution of the ACO regulations in 2007 - Page 3

Bob Riebe · 20 Oct 2006, 14:57 (Ref:1743218)

Quote:

Originally Posted by eddsc

R8 - different sitn. altogether: it was built to the existing rules. The R10 ('s engine) was built to its own rules.
700 bhp and 1000 Nm torque (or more) versus 600+ bhp and 550 - 700 Nm torque (petrol-powered LMP1s).

How can this be fair?

BUT look at the quality!

jhansen · 20 Oct 2006, 15:03 (Ref:1743221)

Quote:

Originally Posted by eddsc

R8 - different sitn. altogether: it was built to the existing rules. The R10 ('s engine) was built to its own rules.
700 bhp and 1000 Nm torque (or more) versus 600+ bhp and 550 - 700 Nm torque (petrol-powered LMP1s).

How can this be fair?

The R8 in P1 form would still be faster than the Pescarolo. Surely you don't dispute that? As isynge pointed out, the Pescarolo originates from the C60, which is how old now? The remaining P1 teams are very small. Should the international tennis tours start demanding that Roger Federer play with a ping pong paddle because he's too good?

vorsprung · 20 Oct 2006, 15:06 (Ref:1743223)

From chassis engineering view the diesel has problems. It's long, heavy and reguires lots of cooling. Now the rules have taken the mileage advantage away, if the diesel also loses its edge in power, running it becomes a disadvantage except for marketing.
I believe that a TT FSI R10 could have raced with the same success as the diesel has. Diesel just got way more media hype than any other sportscar in years.

Look at the only other factory prototype, the Penske Porsches, for comparison. The RS Spyder is almost as fast as the 860kg P1 cars and it has 100-150hp less power and weights only 85kg less.

jhansen · 20 Oct 2006, 15:16 (Ref:1743229)

The RS Spyders drive the point home in my opinion. The pace of that car is impressive. You morph that car into a P1 and you can imagine where it would be. Toe to toe with the R10.

JAG · 20 Oct 2006, 15:35 (Ref:1743245)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mal

I am with the camp that says we need to see a real manuafacurer developed petrol competitor to judge. My guess is that if Audi had put the same money into developing a new regs petrol car it would be faster than the R10 - I dont think the R10 is any faster than an unrestricted R8 would be

The performance gap at Le Mans between the R10 and PRIVATEER petrol cars was 3.2 seconds.

Does anyone seriously doubt the gap would be any less than 2.2 seconds with a turbo petrol R10?

The R10 seemed to be held back in qualifying, not so in the race.

JAG · 20 Oct 2006, 16:01 (Ref:1743265)

Quote:

Originally Posted by eddsc

R8 - different sitn. altogether: it was built to the existing rules. The R10 ('s engine) was built to its own rules.
700 bhp and 1000 Nm torque (or more) versus 600+ bhp and 550 - 700 Nm torque (petrol-powered LMP1s).

How can this be fair?

Or 700bhp vs 650+bhp.

Don't forget, petrol restrictors are back to the larger 2002 size. Even in 2002 it was reported the R8 had 640+bhp.

Consider the diesels packaging issues and smaller fuel tank. We don't even know what kind fuel the diesels will be supplied with.

Consider the RS Spyders pace and current ALMS petrol P1 cars.

They are a match, some would say currently quicker than the R10, this with 'only' 65kg weight advantage.

Look at the comparitive pace of the Corvette and Aston with similar weight/restrictor adjustments.

Will Fernandez Racings Lola Acura be quicker than Intersports similar car, you would think so.

Why?

Factory backing and all that entails, just as Dyson would take a step forward if a manufactuer backed their current Lola/AER.

eddsc · 20 Oct 2006, 16:32 (Ref:1743305)

What more do you think Pescarolo can do to prove his point than set a 3:30.1 at the test day?
The R10s were slower that day.

11 days later and the fastest R10 set a theoretical 3:29.2 (Werner set a slow first sector time on what became his qualifying lap) Meanwhile, Pescarolo, in hotter conditions, couldn't beat 3:32.5.
With the power it was producing in qualifying, what time do you think the Audi would have set in the cooler conditions of the test day?

Look back in the past to see how LMPs could match the R8 at various times.

The Pescarolo tub may be an old C60 thing, but a tub is a tub: I don't believe much else on the Pescarolo hasn't been upgraded - probably several times.

McNish admitted that Pescarolo was to all intents and purposes a factory team. But even 640 against 700 bhp and 700 (AER turbo figure) against 1000Nm, how can any petrol-powered car be expected to compete?

Tell you what, let's see is anyone even thinks of instigating a petrol LMP1 factory programme.... of course they won't, and why not? Cos they can't win. Porsche LMP1 anyone? No?

jhansen · 20 Oct 2006, 16:46 (Ref:1743316)

Quote:

Originally Posted by eddsc

What more do you think Pescarolo can do to prove his point than set a 3:30.1 at the test day?
The R10s were slower that day.

11 days later and the fastest R10 set a theoretical 3:29.2 (Werner set a slow first sector time on what became his qualifying lap) Meanwhile, Pescarolo, in hotter conditions, couldn't beat 3:32.5.
With the power it was producing in qualifying, what time do you think the Audi would have set in the cooler conditions of the test day?

Look back in the past to see how LMPs could match the R8 at various times.

The Pescarolo tub may be an old C60 thing, but a tub is a tub: I don't believe much else on the Pescarolo hasn't been upgraded - probably several times.

McNish admitted that Pescarolo was to all intents and purposes a factory team. But even 640 against 700 bhp and 700 (AER turbo figure) against 1000Nm, how can any petrol-powered car be expected to compete?

Tell you what, let's see is anyone even thinks of instigating a petrol LMP1 factory programme.... of course they won't, and why not? Cos they can't win. Porsche LMP1 anyone? No?

That's a nice comment from McNish, but that's not reality. Pescarolo are a good privateer team and very professional, but the budget is not there by comparison to Audi.

Regarding your statement about petrol being not competitive, you cannot say that for certain. And the absence of a factory petrol team is not evidence enough. Where were the factory teams during the reign of the R8? They were not there! But the R8 was beatable. The problem was the other manufacturers were scared. Oh sure, BMW, Chrysler and Cadillac. Serious efforts. Right... LOL! It took Zytek to show the possibility.

Fieldgate · 20 Oct 2006, 16:46 (Ref:1743317)

Quote:

Originally Posted by eddsc

What more do you think Pescarolo can do to prove his point than set a 3:30.1 at the test day?
The R10s were slower that day.

11 days later and the fastest R10 set a theoretical 3:29.2 (Werner set a slow first sector time on what became his qualifying lap) Meanwhile, Pescarolo, in hotter conditions, couldn't beat 3:32.5.
With the power it was producing in qualifying, what time do you think the Audi would have set in the cooler conditions of the test day?

Look back in the past to see how LMPs could match the R8 at various times.

The Pescarolo tub may be an old C60 thing, but a tub is a tub: I don't believe much else on the Pescarolo hasn't been upgraded - probably several times.

McNish admitted that Pescarolo was to all intents and purposes a factory team. But even 640 against 700 bhp and 700 (AER turbo figure) against 1000Nm, how can any petrol-powered car be expected to compete?

Tell you what, let's see is anyone even thinks of instigating a petrol LMP1 factory programme.... of course they won't, and why not? Cos they can't win. Porsche LMP1 anyone? No?

Hi Malcolm, hope you're well.

Shorty & I have been mailing ourselves trying to work out the consumption issue at LeM. Audi did 15 lap stints with 90 ltrs (so 4l per lap) this yr. With 9ltrs less for '07, will they be handicapped 2 or 3 laps per stint ? and consequently will we have a tortoise and hare of who can stay out the pits most and run at a pace issue ? Does anyone have any greater info/knowledge ?

I think the ACO should see what happens in either test days or early races and then make a decision in time for the big one.

Personally, I'm expecting Audi & Peugeot to "break one another"

, but I'm ever the optimist...

JAG · 20 Oct 2006, 16:54 (Ref:1743325)

Quote:

Originally Posted by eddsc

What more do you think Pescarolo can do to prove his point than set a 3:30.1 at the test day?
The R10s were slower that day.

11 days later and the fastest R10 set a theoretical 3:29.2 (Werner set a slow first sector time on what became his qualifying lap) Meanwhile, Pescarolo, in hotter conditions, couldn't beat 3:32.5.
With the power it was producing in qualifying, what time do you think the Audi would have set in the cooler conditions of the test day?

Look back in the past to see how LMPs could match the R8 at various times.

The Pescarolo tub may be an old C60 thing, but a tub is a tub: I don't believe much else on the Pescarolo hasn't been upgraded - probably several times.

McNish admitted that Pescarolo was to all intents and purposes a factory team. But even 640 against 700 bhp and 700 (AER turbo figure) against 1000Nm, how can any petrol-powered car be expected to compete?

Tell you what, let's see is anyone even thinks of instigating a petrol LMP1 factory programme.... of course they won't, and why not? Cos they can't win. Porsche LMP1 anyone? No?

Zytek and Creation often outpaced the R8 in regular LMS races, come Le Mans, nowhere to be seen.

Does 60bhp amount to 3.2 seconds?

We haven't even seen a privateer turbo petrol engine taking advantage of FSI, wich would improve power and mpg.

Diesel is an advantage, but only one factor in Audis dominance. An R8 down by 60+bhp, plus extra weight, ran a race pace that matched the best of the rest in 2005.

Recent Le Mans history shows factory teams always appear to have a greater advantage at Le Mans.

I'm more interested in regular LMS/ALMS pace rather than the unique specialties of Le Mans.

eddsc · 20 Oct 2006, 17:05 (Ref:1743340)

Quote:

Does 60bhp amount to 3.2 seconds?

No but I expect several hundred Nm does...
You could argue that the R10 chassis is a relatively weak part of the Audi, built as it was as something of a compromise - but it more than makes up for it with its engine.
2005 is irrelevant to this debtae, isn't it? Although....

Quote:

An R8 down by 60+bhp, plus extra weight, ran a race pace that matched the best of the rest in 2005.

Er, no it didn't actually, the Pescarolos were far quicker...

Fuel, Chris. At just under 6 litres a lap, that looks like 13 lap stints doesn't it? I think I emailed Shorty some rubbish!

jhansen · 20 Oct 2006, 17:26 (Ref:1743355)

eddsc, are you being truly unbiased with these observations, opinions, or facts? Do you email Dr. Ulrich as well? Or do you have your journalist hat off at the moment?

Why were so many of you not championing this cause when the R8 was so dominant at Le Mans in comparison to its atmo. competitors? Lets face it, the last serious atmo. powered factory team was the BMW squad.

I will continue to suggest that a petrol powered (turbo anyone?) factory effort would be successful. I think Audi could have made the R10 into a world beater with the FSI engine. This car would not have had chassis consessions and may have been even quicker than the diesel R10. I will once again suggest that the lack of non diesel facoty effort is no different than it was during the R8 years. The two manufacturers that could benefit from a diesel program are now doing so. The other players are off in some other series. The ones playing in LMP2 are in it for the money (ie selling cars/engines/marketing).

I will end with one more request for some hard evidence.

Mike_Wooshy · 20 Oct 2006, 17:52 (Ref:1743371)

what do these rule changes mean for "other fuels" ???
I heard Rumours Mazda are looking at a hydrogen Rotary, where do they stand IF this was true ?

eddsc · 20 Oct 2006, 17:57 (Ref:1743376)

Quote:

eddsc, are you being truly unbiased...

Yes.
The R8 ran to the same rules as everyone else.

I will be contacting Audi's technical staff: some of you will see why next week.

How about putting it like this. Jan Lammers - if you were also given a tranmission that could cope, would you like an extra 300 - 400 Nm of torque at Le Mans next year?

Fieldgate · 20 Oct 2006, 17:58 (Ref:1743379)

Quote:

Originally Posted by eddsc

Fuel, Chris. At just under 6 litres a lap, that looks like 13 lap stints doesn't it? I think I emailed Shorty some rubbish!

Sorry - maths is sh1te, just got back from US this morning - you're right

Bugger - less enthusiastic now - but hopefully they'll still destroy their drivetrain...

jhansen · 20 Oct 2006, 18:00 (Ref:1743383)

Quote:

Originally Posted by eddsc

Yes.
The R8 ran to the same rules as everyone else.

Ok, well I could also argue that the R10 was built to the same rules as everyone else. Just as the R8 ran restrictors based on the turbo rules and Pescarolo and others at the time ran restrictors based on the atmo. rules. Now, Audi is running restrictors based on the turbo diesel rules.

paul-collins · 20 Oct 2006, 18:22 (Ref:1743417)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jhansen

Ok, well I could also argue that the R10 was built to the same rules as everyone else. Just as the R8 ran restrictors based on the turbo rules and Pescarolo and others at the time ran restrictors based on the atmo. rules. Now, Audi is running restrictors based on the turbo diesel rules.

Yes, but the rules for turbo diesels are clean sheet, without any previous data to back them up, whilst gasoline engine data is extensive and current. No one had ever built a diesel to the rules before, and no one has ever used the Shell synthetic fuel prior to Audi. To suggest that ACO nailed the power curves first try is to test credulity.

jhansen · 20 Oct 2006, 18:25 (Ref:1743420)

And to suggest that it's a fair to base rule adjustments on a comparison between a factory backed sportscar team and small privateer teams is illogical at best.

JAG · 20 Oct 2006, 18:28 (Ref:1743424)

Lets agree to disagree and see how it plays out on track.

vorsprung · 20 Oct 2006, 18:50 (Ref:1743443)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAG

Lets agree to disagree and see how it plays out on track.

Hopefully Pug (or some one) will push Audi next year. At least then we woudn't have to suspect sandbagging and we'd get to see the real pace.
Then we could just debate about the speed of the gasoline competition and lack of factory squads.

ger80 · 20 Oct 2006, 19:46 (Ref:1743503)

Pesca was racing with more than 900kg in 2005. They changed a lot over the winter to get down to 900 and after they finished that work the ACO wrote the AC 25kg rule (which was for Audi in reality).
Think Pesca, Creation and all the others should order LMP2 engines for LeMans and race in LMP2 class.
LMP1 is only Audi&Peugeot than and after a few hours we have 2 cars remaining in the top class. That will be the most boring race in LMP1 we ever had and the ACO will learn that they need the privater teams after that

duke_toaster · 20 Oct 2006, 20:03 (Ref:1743520)

Why oh why oh why make the P2 air restrictors smaller when they were designed to comepete against the P1's. I personally would have kept the two tech regulations seperate, given the P2's more air but merge them standingswise.

vorsprung · 20 Oct 2006, 20:41 (Ref:1743549)

Quote:

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

Why oh why oh why make the P2 air restrictors smaller when they were designed to comepete against the P1's. I personally would have kept the two tech regulations seperate, given the P2's more air but merge them standingswise.

No they were not.

The old P675 were designed to compete with the 900s. Or they said so after the MG.
The P2 class was designed for the privateer teams wanting to run prototypes. P1 is for manufacturers or those ambitious privateers who want to go for the overall win.

From the beginning of the P1/P2 -structure ACO has wanted to keep the classes in order and now they're just taking steps to ensure that the correct order remains.

JAG · 20 Oct 2006, 21:02 (Ref:1743565)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ger80

Pesca was racing with more than 900kg in 2005. They changed a lot over the winter to get down to 900 and after they finished that work the ACO wrote the AC 25kg rule (which was for Audi in reality).
Think Pesca, Creation and all the others should order LMP2 engines for LeMans and race in LMP2 class.
LMP1 is only Audi&Peugeot than and after a few hours we have 2 cars remaining in the top class. That will be the most boring race in LMP1 we ever had and the ACO will learn that they need the privater teams after that

You don't have much faith in the privateers or their cars.

Le Mans is so unique I don't like to judge car performance on that, admitedly most important, race.

Watching the R10 against RS Spyders and Dyson (once sorted) has been eye opening.

**Bentley03** · 20 Oct 2006, 21:45 (Ref:1743608)

Jag/jhansen, quick question. Are the chassis/aero regs identical for petrol and diesel powered LMP1's?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
ACO regulations for 2006 released	Alistair_Ryder	ACO Regulated Series	96	14 Nov 2006 08:10
Official: 2007 Sporting regulations	Marbot	Formula One	19	19 Oct 2006 09:46
[FIA GT] FIA/ACO GT regulations	ger80	Sportscar & GT Racing	4	14 Jul 2006 23:23
P1 top speeds with new ACO rules and regulations???	Garrett	ACO Regulated Series	7	18 Jul 2004 23:33
[FIA GT] ACO & FIA 2004 Regulations. Help!	sebring1971	ACO Regulated Series	6	6 Sep 2003 19:27