LMP1 diesel performance adjustment - Page 3

gwyllion · 14 Jul 2006, 08:34 (Ref:1655957)

IMSA had made the decision to refueling restrictor from 38 mm to 33 mm. See http://www.americanlemans.com/News/Article.aspx?ID=2276

Quote:

The current regulations permit the same 90-liter tank on both diesel and gasoline cars but permit the larger restrictor on the refueling rig of diesel cars because of the different viscosities of the fuel.

"The original intent was to permit the full volume of the tanks to be filled in the same time," said Mayer. "However, diesel is a more energy-rich fuel for any given volume. The change that we have implemented means that the energy delivered will be similar, for the diesel versus gasoline, for the same length of refueling. The goal is to ensure that competitors have the opportunity to compete without a quirk in the physics of the fuels creating a particular advantage.

This leaves Audi some room to make tactical decision (more time in the pits refuelling allows more time on the track). And of course the R10 will start the race with a full fuel tank and thus their first stint will be longer

This is an interim solution till ACO and IMSA have measured/calculated the energy content for the different fuels.

**Adam43** · 14 Jul 2006, 13:09 (Ref:1656152)

Which they can do because they have a control fuel supplier. Nice.

paul-collins · 14 Jul 2006, 16:10 (Ref:1656295)

I think it'll be important to factor in the specific energy per tank in the long run, rather than just slowing down the pit stops, because what IMSA won't want to have happen is for the diesel to suddenly be able to go 1h25 without a refuel - think of how that would reduce their need to pit to a single visit to the pits in the sprints! The petrol-powered teams would take exception to that, I'm sure.

I'm sure the nozzle restrictor will be yet another size once they've worked out how much fuel to allow - so that a full tank of "x" kJoules of fuel takes "y" seconds to be delivered. x, y being standard numbers for each team.

Fogelhund · 14 Jul 2006, 20:43 (Ref:1656460)

... and now that we are at Utah, we get to find out exactly how much faster the R10 is... and the envelope please...

Slower than a P2 so far, in the form of the Porsche Spyder.
JUST faster than the Dyson Lola's.

Interesting, and hardly conclusive evidence, but I'm not so certain that Diesel engines need and PERFORMANCE adjustments, but certainly the changes in fuel tank size, and fuel delivery restrictors are wise moves.

We can continue to watch over the next few races, to see where the Audi R10 is, relative to the other cars, but I'm not so certain I conclude it is faster everywhere, and has some unfair advantage. (yet)

gwyllion · 22 Jul 2006, 08:47 (Ref:1662013)

After the smaller refuelling rig diameter petrol cars have been granted another performance adjustment in ALMS: 65 kg lower minimum weight (860 kg vs 925 kg).

The result is instant: Dyson Lolas 1-2 during qualifying.

Quote:

Dr Wolfgang Ullrich: "The team and the drivers did the best they could from this new situation. The decision at short notice to give our toughest competitor in the LM P1 class, Team Dyson-Lola, a further 40-kilogram weight reduction just before qualifying had an immediate influence on the starting grid. The situation is not nice for us. We had to accept a smaller diameter of the refuelling rig last week now we must also accept this measure because we are interested in the health of the American Le Mans Series which has been created with the support of Audi to a large extent. We are sure that IMSA will correct the weights again to make sure there is a balance of performance."

With plans to reduce the tank size of diesel, the restrictor size/turbo boost is the only aspect that has not been changed yet.

henk4 · 22 Jul 2006, 09:47 (Ref:1662054)

just read the thread for the first time:
Some points. Apparently diesel technology has developed so fast that in order to create a level playing field, the it should be arteficially restricted. If anything in motorsport engines will generate a significant spin-off for our normal road vehicles, than it is the further development of diesel technology, so any restrictions to its development will be counterproductive to that.

In some posts, mainly coming from the USA the prejudice against diesel propulsion is still obvious. I particularly loved the comment that the diesel makes "no noise" on TV, which is rather against the communis opinio that diesels are loud....

I did not see it being mentioned, but it might be an idea to stimulate the use of bio-diesel as the future fuel, rather than having Shell develop a very special variant of crude oil derived fuel. If I am not mistaken the Peugeot RC series in France runs on biodiesel, so there is already an example.

The main reason for Audi's success though is not the diesel engine, but the committed factory effort to make it a success. The input of manpower and money for this development has been huge, compared to all other teams and Audi would be the laughing stock of the motorsports world if they had failed. Furthermore, as many said, the R10 would have also won if it had use the R8 engine, but that would have been the easy way out. We have to congratulate Audi for taking this risk, and now that it has been initially very successfull, with 3 wins out of 3 starts, people start already complaining.....

gwyllion · 22 Jul 2006, 10:16 (Ref:1662080)

Quote:

Originally Posted by henk4

We have to congratulate Audi for taking this risk, and now that it has been initially very successfull, with 3 wins out of 3 starts, people start already complaining.....

BTW Audi suffered its first qualifying defeat because of 40 kg less for Dyson this weekend

Lets see if this affects their race pace as well.

henk4 · 22 Jul 2006, 10:33 (Ref:1662095)

Quote:

Originally Posted by gwyllion

BTW Audi suffered its first qualifying defeat because of 40 kg less for Dyson this weekend

Lets see if this affects their race pace as well.

Reliability of the Dysons is not one of their fortes

gwyllion · 23 Jul 2006, 13:35 (Ref:1662727)

Quote:

Originally Posted by gwyllion

BTW Audi suffered its first qualifying defeat because of 40 kg less for Dyson this weekend

Lets see if this affects their race pace as well.

Because the regulation change was not anounced 14 days before the race, Audi filed a complaint. As a compromise the Lolas only ran with 20 kg less during the race. We have to wait till the next ALMS race to see if Dyson can follow the Audi pace during a race with 860 kg.

The Audi R10 toke its first double at Portland and remains undefeated.

JAG · 23 Jul 2006, 18:23 (Ref:1662839)

So Dyson ran at 900kg once again (-25kg) or 880kg (-45kg)?

Whatever they must be pleased, for the first hour there was little between Dyson and Audi, and there problems seemed to be punctures and accident damage.

You can't even say Dyson have been given a break, as the Audi obviously has more power, so this simply evens things up.

Next season we'll probably see diesels with smaller restrictors and Dyson back upto 900-925kg.

gwyllion · 24 Jul 2006, 12:03 (Ref:1663322)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAG

So Dyson ran at 900kg once again (-25kg) or 880kg (-45kg)?

During the race 880 kg and during qualifying 860 kg.

henk4 · 24 Jul 2006, 12:15 (Ref:1663335)

btw, I only just now voted. The choice I wanted to make was not there, so I voted "Other" as the option "nothing" was not part of the poll.

gwyllion · 8 Aug 2006, 09:15 (Ref:1677426)

3th IMSA gasoline-diesel performance adjustment: gasoline cars get 95 litres fuel tank.
source: http://www.imsaracing.net/2006/competitors/CB06-12.pdf

So we now have:

refueling restrictor: both 33 mm (used to be 38 mm for diesel)
weight: 860 kg vs 925 kg
fuel tank: 95 litres vs 90 litres

Flat12-Aircool · 8 Aug 2006, 21:00 (Ref:1677913)

I'm all in favour of equalising the Re-fuelling nozels to even up the "input of energy" into the cars tank.

But I think it's vitally important for the size of the tanks to stay the same so that spectators can see the potential benifets of Diesel engine cars in respect of Fuel efficiency. This way they can see the difference with their own eyes how a Diesel car can stay out a few laps longer, thus make a informed choice of what type of car to buy next for themselves. If there's no variation between fuel types, then whats the point in having a Diesel Race Car in the first place?

Finally, if the current Diesels prove to be consistently quicker than a "Sorted" petrol engined Race Car (which I believe they are) then the resrictors will have to be reduced slightly. But please, let's show fans/spectators the Pro's and Con's of Diesel power out on the track for all to see rather than trimming the tank to Petrol engined performance.

henk4 · 9 Aug 2006, 06:27 (Ref:1678118)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flat12-Aircool

I'm all in favour of equalising the Re-fuelling nozels to even up the "input of energy" into the cars tank.

But I think it's vitally important for the size of the tanks to stay the same so that spectators can see the potential benifets of Diesel engine cars in respect of Fuel efficiency. This way they can see the difference with their own eyes how a Diesel car can stay out a few laps longer, thus make a informed choice of what type of car to buy next for themselves. If there's no variation between fuel types, then whats the point in having a Diesel Race Car in the first place?

Finally, if the current Diesels prove to be consistently quicker than a "Sorted" petrol engined Race Car (which I believe they are) then the resrictors will have to be reduced slightly. But please, let's show fans/spectators the Pro's and Con's of Diesel power out on the track for all to see rather than trimming the tank to Petrol engined performance.

Well said, now that we have had a handful of diesel wins (by the most well sorted out team of the whole lot) people already cry wolf and want to restrict the diesel possibilities. For what, in order to prevent privateers to go for diesel also? I sometimes sense a feeling in these reactions: "Oh no this cannot be true, lets limit the diesel, otherwise the thoroughbred petrol engine is put to shame".
Appreantly we all want a level playing field, but for diesels it should be more level than for petrol engines....

gwyllion · 9 Aug 2006, 08:00 (Ref:1678163)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flat12-Aircool

If there's no variation between fuel types, then whats the point in having a Diesel Race Car in the first place?

Showing that diesel cars can be fast

canam · 9 Aug 2006, 08:31 (Ref:1678193)

When manufacturer involvement makes the promotion and management of sportscar racing viable over the long-term, then there will be a level playing field. As it stands, there are two manufacturers whose collosal budgets dwarf anything other treams can put together collectively while the promoter is relying on gate receipts, sponsorship and race entry fees (from privateers largely). While sportscar racing may be seen by Audi as a marketing platform/testbed for new products,, I am comprehensively uninterested in seeing a car that (entirely owing to the money they can afford to spend on it) can continue to win because the rules were not well framed in the first place--and so are most of the punters who go to the races: awesome--possibly; exciting--no. It it ain't the privateers giving up, then it will be the promoter.

If you want to test tchnology, go to Bernie's circus.

henk4 · 9 Aug 2006, 08:43 (Ref:1678204)

Quote:

Originally Posted by canam

When manufacturer involvement makes the promotion and management of sportscar racing viable over the long-term, then there will be a level playing field. As it stands, there are two manufacturers whose collosal budgets dwarf anything other treams can put together collectively while the promoter is relying on gate receipts, sponsorship and race entry fees (from privateers largely). While sportscar racing may be seen by Audi as a marketing platform/testbed for new products,, I am comprehensively uninterested in seeing a car that (entirely owing to the money they can afford to spend on it) can continue to win because the rules were not well framed in the first place--and so are most of the punters who go to the races: awesome--possibly; exciting--no. It it ain't the privateers giving up, then it will be the promoter.

If you want to test tchnology, go to Bernie's circus.

Are you referring to Audi and Porsche or Peugeot? Anyway, Audi has doiminated the petrol engine class anyway over the past 5 years, so in that respect there is not much of a difference.
I tend to disagree with you last remark, the justification for any motorsport has always been that it helps the development of the every day car. (I have been driving diesel engined cars since 1985 and I can tell first hand about the differences between the first car and the last). I am therefore keenly interested what additional developments will result from Audis and in particular Peugeots involvement. And as far as the promotor are concerned, I think if the Audi-Peugeot battle at LeMans will develop into something like the 1966-1967 F-F battles, than both the promotors and the public are the big winners, in more than one respect.

Flat12-Aircool · 10 Aug 2006, 17:22 (Ref:1679343)

Quote:

Originally Posted by henk4

Well said, now that we have had a handful of diesel wins (by the most well sorted out team of the whole lot) people already cry wolf and want to restrict the diesel possibilities. For what, in order to prevent privateers to go for diesel also? I sometimes sense a feeling in these reactions: "Oh no this cannot be true, lets limit the diesel, otherwise the thoroughbred petrol engine is put to shame".
Appreantly we all want a level playing field, but for diesels it should be more level than for petrol engines....

Don't get me wrong, I believe that before next season the Diesels restrictors will have to be reduced "slightly" as there is plenty of evidence that Audi were somewhat "Sandbagging" at Le Mans. Even against new cars from Pescarola and Creation etc I think the LMS Series will be in danger of being a cake walk, more so than this season with Pescarola unless limited action is taken on the restrictors.

However as I said before this should not include reducing the size of the Fuel tank as people should be able to see how a Diesel LMP can race at the same speed but go longer than a Petrol LMP. Instead just equalize the Re-fuelling nozzels as your average motorist wouldn't mind if he had to Stand at the Petrol Station pump 10 seconds longer than anyone else, safe in the knowledge that he was getting more mileage from it.

henk4 · 10 Aug 2006, 17:37 (Ref:1679353)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flat12-Aircool

Don't get me wrong, I believe that before next season the Diesels restrictors will have to be reduced "slightly" as there is plenty of evidence that Audi were somewhat "Sandbagging" at Le Mans. Even against new cars from Pescarola and Creation etc I think the LMS Series will be in danger of being a cake walk, more so than this season with Pescarola unless limited action is taken on the restrictors.

However as I said before this should not include reducing the size of the Fuel tank as people should be able to see how a Diesel LMP can race at the same speed but go longer than a Petrol LMP. Instead just equalize the Re-fuelling nozzels as your average motorist wouldn't mind if he had to Stand at the Petrol Station pump 10 seconds longer than anyone else, safe in the knowledge that he was getting more mileage from it.

I heard the sandbagging stories about LeMans too, showing their full potential might alarm too many people

However, are they still sandbagging vis-a-vis the nimble Porsche LMP2? The dominance is not really substantial.

As an interesting side note, first images of the Peugeot 908 have just been released, a concept based on the V12 LeMans diesel engine. Either they are bluffing or their engine is a bit closer to real production than Audi's, including the special brew used to propel them.

canam · 10 Aug 2006, 17:51 (Ref:1679361)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flat12-Aircool

Don't get me wrong, I believe that before next season the Diesels restrictors will have to be reduced "slightly" as there is plenty of evidence that Audi were somewhat "Sandbagging" at Le Mans.

Sandbagging...somewhat...more like quarrybagging. The R10 could turn it on at will and was in a completely different league. 'you want 3:30s, I give you 3:30s. you want 3:28s, I give you 3:28s. you want 3:26s, I will have to push a bit for that'.

It could have been different if the R10s monumental torque and power advantage over the rest had to be reined back under wet conditions...but that was not the case.

A tank of diesel has more potential energy than a tank of petrol--equalise it. There must be some smart guy who can analyse the type of fuels used by the R10 and the rest and give us some equalisation formula...or has Audi hired them all.

henk4 · 10 Aug 2006, 18:08 (Ref:1679372)

Quote:

Originally Posted by canam

There must be some smart guy who can analyse the type of fuels used by the R10 and the rest and give us some equalisation formula...or has Audi hired them all.

Maybe he works for Peugeot now...

canam · 10 Aug 2006, 19:59 (Ref:1679434)

...he definitely is not working for Pescarolo, Creation or Dyson--or Porsche for that matter!!

Flat12-Aircool · 10 Aug 2006, 22:03 (Ref:1679542)

Quote:

Originally Posted by canam

Sandbagging...somewhat...more like quarrybagging.

I didn't want to Deflate his souvenier Audi R10 "Balloon", so I put it as nice as I could.

Flat12-Aircool · 10 Aug 2006, 22:08 (Ref:1679547)

Quote:

Originally Posted by henk4

As an interesting side note, first images of the Peugeot 908 have just been released, a concept based on the V12 LeMans diesel engine.

Where?

If your're talking about the Engine Photos, well they're months old.

View Poll Results: What should be changed for diesel cars in the LMP1 technical regulation?
Smaller restrictor and/or lower turbo boost	31	36.05%
Smaller fuel tank (e.g. 80 vs 90 liter)	27	31.40%
Higher minimum weight (e.g. 925 vs 950 kg)	10	11.63%
Small fuel flow restrictor (e.g. 33 mm like petrol instead of 38 mm)	24	27.91%
Other	13	15.12%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 86. You may not vote on this poll

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
BMW diesel LMP1?	JAG	Sportscar & GT Racing	32	5 Jan 2006 14:56
Series Format Adjustment	Snapshot619	ChampCar World Series	8	30 Sep 2003 20:56
BA gets Parity adjustment.	V8 Fan	Australasian Touring Cars.	12	25 May 2003 21:33