Peugeot 2010-2011 (Temporarily Closed)

[Senna-F1God]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Wouldnt bother me in the least if it stayed like that , apart from that hideous centre wing .

Its still a diesel though , shame .

It´s not a shame... half of worldwide diesels are build by both VAG and PSA: they spend money in racing to sell cars: endurance is becoming greener and most car manufacturers are making their bits to show their technology in the diferent classes: even Ferrari.

The central fin is black because its just awful, and Pug didn´t wanted to spoil a nice livery.


Q: Or the 90X features rear tyres on all four corners, or the front suspension is shorter than the 908.

[Audi Racer]

In case you were wondering that front end is completely diffferent from the old 908. i can see all the differences but can't really explain. Its enough to say that that is the front end of the 90X not 908. The fenders are fatter. The front end aft the f1 nose is completely different. The sculpting is noticably different. The windshield has a different flatter slope to feed the engine air intake. the two triangular vents that used to be right under the windshield that fed air inside the cockpit have vanished well not vanished but their more curvy shaped along the body edge of the windshield. Also look at the area in front of the brake intakes. The fender has been carved out a little to flow air towards it

[knighty]

Originally Posted by Bentley03

Guys, can we please keep the petrol vs diesel balance of performance argument out of this thread and stick to discussing Peugeot 2010-2011. I understand that discussion has some relevance to Peugeot's decision making, but frankly, it's been discussed to death on here, has bored the majority of forum members senseless, and only really becomes relevant again when the new season kicks off at Sebring next March. Roll on March......

Hi Bentley I do respect you mate but on this occasion I think you should allow a bit of freedom of speech and all that......this is the time of the LMP history that its hugely relevant to the diesel/petrol choice and I for one am VERY keen to see who goes which way etc......... admittedley I wasnt about to start the "argument" as you put it, as its been done to death like you say, I'm quite happy to agree to disagree...... but we all have our favourite subjects, admittedley mine is engines, while others like to discuss drivers, aero, chassis or whatever.............I dont see anyone else complaning when its non-engine related conversations.

[Audi Racer]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

I'm betting that, for now at least, it's a straight 4 gasoline engine, the single exhaust pipe points that direction. But that could be a smokescreen to, as well as the fact that the 90X t-car looks a lot like the 908--Audi has done the same with their road cars by fitting older bodywork on them before their public launch. Peugeot may be doing the same here.

Either way, I think--and Peugeot in their PR admits it--that were far from the final product.

Originally Posted by Simmi

Visually it is disappointing to see so few differences. To the man in the street it just looks like the old car with a numb fin added on. It's not inconceivable that Peugeot are trying new aero out in a windtunnel somewhere. Or as others have said they are playing games. Or like I said before if you have a front end package that works, why fix it.

As for Famin saying no decision has been made on a powerplant. I find that incredible if he is telling the truth. Which I highly doubt.

Originally Posted by vyselegend

I'm puzzled by that statement from Famin, that this is the 90X.

The front end is so 908ish (actually I still can't find any of the differences you seem to have found, for me it's 100% a 908 front cover). I want to believe that the front end will change a lot before march, but if indeed it's the 90X tub, it probably won't.

I mean, a tub is made to be safe with a certain crash structure, any changes made to the crash structure would need new tub as well (or am I wrong?). As I don't think Peugeot would risk driver safety in order to hide some aero stuff, I guess the car lapping Monza has a tub made for the 908 front crash structure (with the F1 style crashbox and the horrible struts).

I fear if this is the 90X tub we will have to live with those terrible pillars for some more years, with the addition now of the terrible fin as well. sigh...

Thinking more about it, the Le Mans package since 2009 seems awkward, with the pillars hindering the concept (or so it feels). I've always thought the only reason the pillars stayed was because they had no choice, as ditching them would have meant need for a new crash test/ homologation.
Now they have an occasion to rethink it, I can't believe they won't!

I'm pleased they choose to raise the rear lights up, R10 style. It seems they are done with rear lights being reaped off at every slight contact from behind. Top position is safer.

Originally Posted by merlot brougham

You guys COULD wait for actual people associated with actual programs to confirm what the heck is going on, or you could continue the rampant speculation disguised by "I am certain..." and then flip out when someone disagrees. Of course, everyone seems to only be concerned with whether they are "right" or not. I don't think anyone wins a prize if they are right though. Sigh.

Anyway, to me it looks like a series of small optimizations at each area to create an overall different package. Which is what should be expected in this day and age. No one is going to start with a completely clean slate because of cost and time.

Originally Posted by Laurent

It's not a 908 front cover.

On this image, you can clearly see that there is not anymore this sort of chamfer on each side of the nose, there was on 908. Just to make sure, look at the "Total" sticker and you will see that there is less blue on each side of it on 90X than on 908.

Originally Posted by Acid09

That's exactly the point, even though the 908 design is more than four years old, the car is still top of the crop... so I don't see the need for drastic changes other than those dictated by the new rules.

Audi has gone into the aerodynamic extremes with the first R15 and it completely backfired so more innovation isn't always leading to better results. Plus, like I said before, Peugeot seems to have a rather conservative approach when it comes to aerodynamics so I´m not exactly surprised that this first impression of the 90X isn't letting everyone's head explode in that regard...

Originally Posted by Félix

Definitely a 908 tub and front aero package. Some change to the wheel pod extension and the back of the car is completely new. The real 90X part on the car is the gearbox, and attached to the back of that gearbox is a new rear wing. That new bellhousing-gearbox is needed for a new engine but also to add/experiment with an electric motor. Sidepods are lower because 500-550 hp needs less cooling than 700, and they have improved the flow over the rear deck by downsizing stuff behind the tub.

Peugeot don't even know whether the 90X will be hybrid or not, and they are even open to running cars of both types at LM if they feel that's better (publicity on one side, chances of victory on the other?). The roof intake is certainly there to cool something new behind the engine; maybe a KERS system. It looks oversized and its legality could be questionable (size, distance to top) but it doesn't look temporary either since it's well finished/wrapped in reflective silver. The two snorkels could be for brakes only or left there as a decoy; but if they are for turbos, then there are two and that rules out the atmospheric engine option. A 2-liter I4 derived from the WRC engine always seemed possible to me, but I guess they comissioned a new smaller diesel.

Nope

[Audi Racer]

Does anyone else think the tires on the 90X look thicker. Also you know theres no v12 under that engine cover. Rubbish.
The exhaust are moved. the turbos are moved.
Why on this planet would they modify the V12 to fit under all that.
Pish Posh from Famin if you ask me.
They obviously dont want audi to know whats cooking.

[CTD]

I agree that this is the 90X tub, and almost everything is the 90X, but there is still a lot of the parts which will be changed before Sebring.
Peugeot can easily change the Front "lift-off" area (ei. the front fenders, start of the nose) on a month. This part can me adapted, so this 90X chassis might just run 908 Front piece, when the rest of the body is 90X.

Any way, only the engineering parts of the car is hard to modify. The shell(aerodynamics) and Tub is something which is likely to be modified heavily before Sebring. This 90X is only the Test Car, and will probably never see a real race, and as long Peugeot don't Crash Test this chassis, they can make a new one, before Sebring whit no one stopping them (and going thru all the paper work again)

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by Senna-F1God

It´s not a shame

Have you even heard an Audi or Pug Proto diesel ?

Yes ..... It is a shame . Tell you what , hold a vote and see what general opinion is .

[Joe Taylor]

Originally Posted by hcl123

PETROL IS OBSOLETE... its time for you to face it.
Those differences in efficiency that everywhere is well knowned from a long time, petrol up to 25%, diesel up to 35% and possibly more in Carnot cycle... ITS NOT SEMANTICS... its not noise that is indicative of power potential its efficiency... and 10% or more has been quite an hard ball for regulations to overcome.

I apologise for derailing the thread once again, but I felt that not answering this would cause my brain to collapse in on itself.

If anything, diesel has a limited future, why do you think that manufacturers are looking towards small capacity turbo-GDI? The main reason for diesel's increased efficiency over petrol is due to the greater compression ratio that can be reached due to knock in petrol engines. However, GDI goes some way towards alleviating this. Additionally, diesel has several disadvantages, notably emissions of NOx and particulates, plus the fact that in order to cope with the increased compression ratios, diesel engines have to be built stronger and therefore are heavier. Another thing against diesels is that as the fuel injectors are very expensive as they have to be able to inject into the cylinder at maximum pressure, whereas with GDI, the fuel is injected during the compression stroke.

Overall, I think both types of engine have a future, diesel for it's better torque characteristics and higher efficiency, petrol for the fact that the engine is cheaper to manufacture, lighter, less polluting and not that far away from diesel in terms of efficiency thanks to GDI.

Once again, I apologise for derailing the thread to go on a personal rant.

Back on topic, I'm having second thoughts on thinking that the 90X is petrol. The intake on the roof is far larger than any other engine intake on an NA car, leading me to believe that this intake is for KERS cooling. The intakes just before the rear wheels do look smaller, but they're feeding a smaller engine if the engine in this car is the 2011 engine (which you would guess would be the case given that the rear of the car is much lower than the 908)

[vyselegend]

Originally Posted by Laurent

It's not a 908 front cover.

On this image, you can clearly see that there is not anymore this sort of chamfer on each side of the nose, there was on 908. Just to make sure, look at the "Total" sticker and you will see that there is less blue on each side of it on 90X than on 908.

Thanks for claryfying that Laurent. ok, I understand that's a different front package from the regular 908, but I still hope it's just a tweaked version for the tests, and not a definitive one.

In my prophane view, I can't understand how those nose pillars are doing anything else than messing with the flow and adding drag, wherehas sleek solutions like Audi R10, Oreca01 or Acura ARx01c are obviously more edge-shaped, so they must have a reduced frontal area.
What's the point of the raised nose, why are Peugeot so attached to it's concept, and more importantly, why is it succesfull? Think of the area under the raised nose, between the two pillars, it logically can't produce anything else than unecessary lift and drag!

Anyway, even if they keep that front end on the definitive 90X, I'd be glad that they make some efforts to reshape the lights, and tweak the livery, in order to give the car it's own visual identity.
Right now it looks there's more visual differences between the 2009 R15 and 2010 R15+ than between the 2006 908 and 2010 90X, which is really disapointing. I understand look isn't making a race car faster, but it does have a weight on the way people percieve the brand...

[CTD]

Just did a negative comparison of the 90X, 908 at Spa this year, and the 908 Hy:
The 90X:

The 908 from Spa:

The 908 Hy:


To me it's clear that it's really only the nose cone which has been changed and made narrower and a bit higher. This could just as well be a 908 Aero pack.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by deggis

Thread after thread you continue to be blind to the massive advantage that was given in the original 2006 regulations.

Have you ever seen a sport where Team A is allowed couple of more players on the field compared to Team B because Team A comes from a bigger city?

Actually the 2006 regulations had indeed a theoretical advantage to diesel... NOT BY INTENTION.. but because it was felt that diesel would only stand a chance by being much more economical in fuel consumption, not by pulverizing top speeds and not by pulverizing in acceleration power the petrol counterparts....

Actually 5.5l turbo is a too BIG engine to begin with... far far away from the sweet spot. And it was launched so because diesel only has less than a decade in motorsport... petrol has over a century.

Actually 5.5l turbo is an DISADVANTAGE because very big engines "consume" too much for the higher rates of performance they provide.. because an ICE takes an horrendous amount of energy only to move itself.

I follow motorsport for over 20 years, and the only place that turbodiesel first appear as a real solution was in off-shore power boats(over a decade now), primarily as a safety concern because of the high volatility of petrol.. then because of performance and efficiency issues. Then turbodiesel climbed a very steep wall against everybody and everything... gaining dominance in WTCC, Dakar series, and endurance... It hasn't yet spilled to F1 because those are motorbikes with 4 wheels, and diesel hasn't a so real advantage there to impose torque with 500kg moto 4... and in WRC because constructors have a kind of gentleman agreement and rallies address a completely different segment of market where diesel promotion is not so profitable.

As to the number of "players" you are completely of base. What has that anything to do with distorting rules, for favoring a tech over the other.. and in an anti-sport fashion whit several amendments in the same season There are more petrol engines in endurance... because endurance was a forgotten sport, where privateers still has a strong influence, and they swarm to cheaper knowned solutions nowadays, mostly because of budget concerns... sometimes with religious fervor (real "private" innovators, the Collin Chapmans, are gone and marginalized by rules and not wanted in fact).

Big players left endurance a long time ago.. because of lack of commercial projection of the sport due to too much fragmentation(too many championships). ILMS could bring some back, and if we don't rule ourselfs by centralized dictatorships ala communism, where one tech (petrol) is so privileged over the rest (including electric), you can bet that sooner or later some of those big players could very well return on diesel hybrids in one way or another.

Look what "forced" centralized ruling as done to F1 in an attempt to leverage everything in a "communistic" view. Would you pay a ticked to see a car race where 80% of the passes of one car over the other is done upon pit stops ???

Who is blind ???

Originally Posted by deggis

Please leave road car applications out of this.

See above... i'm talking only of motorsport... endurance, WTCC, Dakar series... etc

Originally Posted by deggis

If status quo remains (what comes to the regulations), that would be only logical since they surely can make their conclusions from the rulebook.

I'm not sure what you expect me to reply here. I only mentioned Autosport's spy photo...

In a way constructors don't care about tech really... what they care is to win no matter what tech the rules allow. But to be a "sport" it must be overly "fair" and somehow independent of external forces. If ACO is smart they should allow more rule openness and new innovative techs to enter in a much more freely way than the current drafts seem to project. Then endurance "would" be much more popular FOR SURE, than the "taliban" oriented "sacred ruling" F1...

Get it clear.. OVERRULING is only there to PROTECT established dominance interests that fear to lose their advantages... NOT TO PROTECT "SPORT"... where there is overruling there isn't sport for sure.

About Autosport's spy photo.. if its a diesel no surprise at all... if it isn't not much of a surprise either... Peugeot don't care about our discussions, their moto and purpose is to win.. if they think they have a very good chance of doing it with a petrol, then they will do it(and its cheaper)... but it doesn't depend only on ruling and themselfs, in large part it depends on the competition...

If Audi stays on diesel and if that logically, inspite of all the rules penalizing it, proves to be superior, then Peugeot petrol choice would have been a bad choice... not because of aesthetic, of nostalgic preference with engine noise, not because they aren't in love after all with one tech over the other... but because of "profit"(=winning)

[chernaudi]

Right now, the only reason why the 908's front tires/wheels look wider is because maybe of the front fender louvers (or lack there of) and the different front wheels-the inner section has been moved inboard of the rim, which suggest that the hub/stub axle has been moved inboard.

Audi did the same thing with the R15 comapred to the R10 and R8. The R15 had it's front hubs moved inboard to control unsprung weight and move the weight closer to the center of the car. But the R15 and the R8 otherwise shared the 13.5x18in wheels, but those dimensions are the only thing that they shared.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by Joe Taylor

I apologise for derailing the thread once again, but I felt that not answering this would cause my brain to collapse in on itself.

If anything, diesel has a limited future, why do you think that manufacturers are looking towards small capacity turbo-GDI? The main reason for diesel's increased efficiency over petrol is due to the greater compression ratio that can be reached due to knock in petrol engines. However, GDI goes some way towards alleviating this. Additionally, diesel has several disadvantages, notably emissions of NOx and particulates, plus the fact that in order to cope with the increased compression ratios, diesel engines have to be built stronger and therefore are heavier. Another thing against diesels is that as the fuel injectors are very expensive as they have to be able to inject into the cylinder at maximum pressure, whereas with GDI, the fuel is injected during the compression stroke.

Overall, I think both types of engine have a future, diesel for it's better torque characteristics and higher efficiency, petrol for the fact that the engine is cheaper to manufacture, lighter, less polluting and not that far away from diesel in terms of efficiency thanks to GDI.

You only have an headache, because you are in the very strong BELIEVE that diesel has been only having an advantage because of the size of the engine and its turbo capacity... WTCC seems clearly to be against your faith... don't be surprised if an equally speced 4 cylinder 2l turbo diesel would beat the same of GDI anyday with a 900+Kg car.. of course if we go to motorbikes with half the weight(loads) its clear that GDI might have an advantage( this is not religion its science)...

The future of diesel in motorsport seems grim only because of ruling... there must be everyday messages and suggestions to ACO to banish diesel once for all.

Petrol is only cheaper to develop because it has a century of development.. its only less polluting in particulate matter, it can be in other parameters, but because petrol revs much higher and consumes much more fuel, it is IN FACT more polluting by UNITS OF TIME OF FUNCTIONING... not by strict volume as those measures are made now( petrol is less polluting in one firing of a cylinder with the same volume, but in 1 hour of functioning there are much more firings on a petrol engine than on a diesel engine, reverting completely around the first assumption).. as for weight, V12 audi block was only 20Kg heavier than a similar sized petrol with 200+Kg(ridicule small percentage). and stronger parts ARE GOOD because they LAST LONGER.

Originally Posted by Joe Taylor

Once again, I apologise for derailing the thread to go on a personal rant.

Back on topic, I'm having second thoughts on thinking that the 90X is petrol. The intake on the roof is far larger than any other engine intake on an NA car, leading me to believe that this intake is for KERS cooling. The intakes just before the rear wheels do look smaller, but they're feeding a smaller engine if the engine in this car is the 2011 engine (which you would guess would be the case given that the rear of the car is much lower than the 908)

Kers would only be there because of marketing propaganda, now that the whole world is going "green"... but i have my doubts. Batteries are too heavy yet, but a good electric motor "CAN BE" already a very efficient electric generator also (>90%)...

So it depends on how much you are willing to spend in the electric side... since electric will be only for heavy accelerations (reducing drastically consumption by reducing engine pressure loads in order to rev higher).. I wonder if in this ACO conditions a very small battery pack would not be sufficient, only to absorb peak demands and store energy enough for a single acceleration period(not much more than this)...

and then there is the innovative side... an electric motor like this would require very small batteries indeed... its about back-EMF recovery... chiuuu! quiet!... "they" don't want anyone to know its possible... its a "COMMERCIAL" company with a "REAL PRODUCT", but this kind of companies tend to disappear like ice in the summer... 85% recovered !!!... it would be a revolution!
http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/trinity_motor.html

The company says , “this new technology has predictable room to expand as engineers and scientists globally get involved in the design to increase both 'torque under load' and 'charge back potential.' At its current levels, the PowerMax system returns up to 85% of energy required to run the motor---under full load---to run an electric car. This performance is expected to increase as professionals become immersed in this exciting new form of power delivery and charge back.

scientific reasoning here
http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2009/...y-free-energy/

More in here
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Electromagnetic

http://www.thor-power.com/applications/ (commercial)

Thor Power TREZIUM® electric motor systems are ideal for use in a wide range of industries from aerospace to power tools. Our ultra-efficient, cost-saving, highly reliable and supremely durable electric motor technology not only cuts energy loss by up to one-half, but it is also twice as powerful and half the weight of conventional electric motors up to 5kw/6.7HP. Rigorous testing has proven our TREZIUM® electric motor systems to be dramatically more efficient than existing power systems.

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directo...Electric_Motor
http://www.inpex.com/merit-awards-2004.aspx
REAL but not commercial yet (and back EMF)

Bottom line neither kers or large batteries are needed "TODAY".

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by Senna-F1God

Actually Peugeot Sport said this is the 90X, but that the engine config won´t be the definitive. And nope it´s not petrol but a V8 HDI DIESEL.

From where do you have that information ?... for sure ?

Then its not only V8 HDI DIESEL... its V8 HDI Hybrid DIESEL. If it where a V6 i would bet on no hybrid solution per see, with a V8 i can't see the advantage with fuel tanks reduced by so much... without the help of a good hybrid solution.

[Senna-F1God]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Have you even heard an Audi or Pug Proto diesel ?

Yes ..... It is a shame . Tell you what , hold a vote and see what general opinion is .

I know perfectly how they sound...or don´t actually.

And I like the wooshing sound, more since Petit where pugs run without the Fap filters

Definitively I loved it.

Petrols are just crap recently: have you ever heard F1 crap?

Just taste this sound:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS8f-KSAJnw

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by Senna-F1God

Petrols are just crap recently

Off topic comment alert I have to type this or my brain will explode! Ahem... Aston Martin V12? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCbZJ...eature=related Thanks for reading, you've been a wonderful audience. Don't forget to try the veal and tip your waitress. We now return you to the topic

[Senna-F1God]

Originally Posted by Victor_RO

It sounds just like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rztm0HM9XzE

[chernaudi]

Marshall Pruett offers his observation of the 90X: http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/artic...0x-comparison/

Among the highlights are the rumors that the 908's design is clearly a good point for Peugeot to work from, it's been modernized with elements from the Audi R15 and Acura ARX-02 on the aero side, and may have a diesel V6, possibly with KERS.

It also refers to the Audi R18 maybe using wide front wheels and tires, as is rumored to be a possibility with the 90X, and even makes reference to a 2011 variant of the Audi R15, nicknamked the R15 plus-plus, which has been modified to use wide front wheels and tires. I don't know why that is, as the R15's likely to be mothballed unless something revives Audi's ALMS plans.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Senna-F1God

Petrols are just crap recently: have you ever heard F1 crap?

Probably not - that's why we come to Sportscar/GT.......

And, at risk of prolonging the OT diesel issue - as Dario Franchiti remarked on RLM this year, all prototypes should sound like the petrol Aston Martin. Amen brother.

[hcl123]

ummm!... it seems that one innovation that the 90x might bring its an electric sound generator... if an hybrid more easily done then... and speed would still be there... and everybody happy!

Wait a minute!... that is exactly what constructors do by several methods, including Ferrari and Porsche. The sound that we ear from cars is the sound that they want us to ear, not the exact sound of the engine...

OTOH i must agree... the sound from "inside" a 908(also 90x for sure) is much more "appealing" than from the outside...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeCsa...eature=related

The R15 was definitely worst
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGqI00DOe9k&NR=1

The R10 had a much more appealing sound
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gxNc...eature=related

Well... nothing that good sound generators can't fix.

[EDIT: this from "inside / outside" sound can be very misleading also... the loudest outside sounding ever by far... the mazda 787B.. had a surprisingly quiet one inside, to the point we can ear a very annoying sound from the breaks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceKix...eature=related ]

[Simmi]

Why is it relevant to any spectator what a car sounds like from inside?

I don't see how you can argue anything from onboard cameras. You have things like soundproofing and the quality of the recording equipment and the recording level to take into account. Pointless discussion. The people who are going to Le Mans next year would like to be able to actually hear a car accelerating off down the Mulsanne. Simple as that.

EDIT: The Aston does sound great though.

[Bentley03]

Originally Posted by knighty

Hi Bentley I do respect you mate but on this occasion I think you should allow a bit of freedom of speech and all that......this is the time of the LMP history that its hugely relevant to the diesel/petrol choice and I for one am VERY keen to see who goes which way etc......... admittedley I wasnt about to start the "argument" as you put it, as its been done to death like you say, I'm quite happy to agree to disagree...... but we all have our favourite subjects, admittedley mine is engines, while others like to discuss drivers, aero, chassis or whatever.............I dont see anyone else complaning when its non-engine related conversations.

Knighty, I agree entirely. I also stand by what I said. If the discussion is relevant to the thread title, no problem. If the discussion is broader and more relevant to a different thread, take it there. If there is something someone particularly wants to discuss, but there is no obvious thread for that discussion, start a new thread. Simples!

For the record, my post was aimed at nobody in particular (although having seen how the thread has since developed, I may have to have a word in hcl 123's shell-like ). I had a gut feeling we were heading off topic into a discussion where any link to the thread title was likely to be tenuous, at best. Let's just call it a shot across the bows.........

[CTD]

Just edited some pictures to get a better comparison of the front of the 90X:

908:

908 Hy:

To me the only real difference is the narrower nose and that the louvers has been placed further behind. This might just be a high speed 908 package instead of a real 90X front.

[doughboy1013]

Is there anything in the rules prohibiting the large roof scoop from feeding the rear diffuser? Might explain the size...

[Tim the Grey]

"Honest! It's primary purpose is cooling..."
Shades of Fan Car if it does anything other than feed the engine intake?
Whatever the power plant, it's TINY, judging by that rear deck.