|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
31 Jul 2020, 01:24 (Ref:3991768) | #1076 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
Interesting, I guess despite AER's questionable reliability history they've still been one of the very few LMP engine providers from the booming 2000's which have somehow managed to survive until here in small pockets (without exclusive spec contracts like Zytek and Oreca-Nissan). Meanwhile once more popular providers like Judd have disappeared to oblivion despite theoretically having offered options even for 2014 nonhybrid LMP1 and onwards
Last edited by Deleted; 31 Jul 2020 at 01:31. |
|
|
31 Jul 2020, 08:46 (Ref:3991798) | #1077 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,920
|
if am I not wrong, judd was the one who tuned the bmw m3 derivated engine for lmp2 up to 2016. Anyway no surprise that none is judd engines anymore, a high revving and poor efficient V10 is not a big deal and would require a huge work on rear subframe to fit it.
|
|
|
2 Aug 2020, 13:37 (Ref:3992318) | #1078 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 525
|
We think you wan't a very small low revving engine with a very flat torque curve which is why our Pipo Motor will be a 3.5L TT V8 with a 6K red line.
|
|
|
2 Aug 2020, 17:26 (Ref:3992473) | #1079 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,920
|
performances aside, guess it's a real pain to fit a long and bulky engine like a V10.
About performances and efficiency; well, much depens also how well tuned is the engine... recall old lmp2/lmp1 NA 3.4L V8 were really low on torque and power (barely 550hp) requiring 75L a 40-45m stint, while the NA zytek/gibson 4.5L V8 powering rebellion has the same fuel/stint ratio but has much more power (about 700hp according rumors). Anyway no doubts that turbo engines fit better. |
|
|
17 Aug 2020, 09:58 (Ref:3995926) | #1080 | |
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 176
|
My guess is that normally aspirated engine are really dependent on displacement regarding efficiency. Remember in 2011 when we had two Pescarolo Judd in LMP1 : one powered by the DB 3.4L V8, the other by the GV 5.0L V10 with smaller air restrictors. The two cars were more or less equally fast on track, but the big engined one was far more consistent (thank you torque) and could run longer on its fuel tank (thank you low revs).
And clearly, to get more than 550hp from a 3.4L normally aspirated engine was way beyond what privateer engine makers could achieve on the long run. That 2011 ACO engine rules was what effectively burried Judd and Zytek as LMP1 engine providers after the costly failures of their tuned-up LMP2 engines that year. Only factory engine efforts could compete reliably, as showed Acura/HPD or Toyota powerplants. |
|
|
17 Aug 2020, 12:15 (Ref:3995951) | #1081 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,920
|
Quote:
big displacement: high torque release / peak of power reached before a lower revlimit / better fuel mileage small displacement: low torque release / peak of power reached close to a higher revlimit / worse fuel mileage no doubt that for endurance, a NA larger engine will be however better than a NA smaller engine. Guess the only clear advantage of a smaller engine is that being lighter, it can give a better balance and weight distribution to the car, but also this isn't entirely true since larger and heavier engines are usually used as full stressed member that helps to make the whole chassis stiffer. Anyway, we need to consider that 2011-2013 lmp1 3.4L engines ruleset were made due a transition period aiming to be more costs saving as possible. |
||
|
18 Aug 2020, 14:51 (Ref:3996234) | #1082 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
Judd engines were still perfectly fine in the 6 hour races in 2011, as were Aston Martins (not AMR-One but older on Lolas). But I would agree that we can trace the start of the collapse around those times, in addition to places of participating starting to drastically shrink and thus effecting markets
|
|
|
11 Sep 2020, 18:38 (Ref:4001725) | #1083 | |
Rookie
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 54
|
||
|
11 Sep 2020, 18:43 (Ref:4001726) | #1084 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 295
|
https://sportscar365.com/lemans/wec/...-to-five-cars/
Something happened what was expected by everyone which has followed the team announcements during the last months and weeks. As the team reduced their LM effort to one single car they mentioned they will be soon out for testing further upgrades on their car. Since that time nothing was communicated and the car seems to be not on any test track, so it was pretty clear it will not make it. Nice to remember the boasted words of Ginetta during the presentation of their project. "We don't see any reason why the car should not be able to beat the Toyota right out of the box". Nice joke - the most ill-fated project since the Nissan LMP. Sad for all the great guys involved in this project which did a great job. The Ginetta was for sure the most advanced LMP1 privateer car but the team managed it to show nearly nothing. Well done |
||
|
11 Sep 2020, 18:55 (Ref:4001728) | #1085 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,471
|
Ginetta's ACO adventure really has been a bit of a farce. A real shame as that LMP1 is clearly a good car.
|
||
|
11 Sep 2020, 19:07 (Ref:4001732) | #1086 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
"The factory will instead focus on testing and refining the cars in preparation for the 2020/2021 season.”
What does that even mean, "testing and refining the cars" when they've already said they aren't going to bother with neutered P1 next year (not unless Chris Dyson pays them I guess). And "2020/2021 season", what's that |
|
|
11 Sep 2020, 19:18 (Ref:4001734) | #1087 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,920
|
after first ginetta withdraw, was just a matter of time for the second one too.
Doing it exactly one week before the race is almost trolling btw. |
|
|
11 Sep 2020, 19:20 (Ref:4001735) | #1088 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,920
|
Quote:
infact has always scored highest top speeds because is basically a car with almost 0 downforce. |
||
|
11 Sep 2020, 19:22 (Ref:4001736) | #1089 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
With the loss of AER this also means we have grand total of two engine manufacturers across two LMP classes, and five in the entire field of 59 lol
|
|
|
11 Sep 2020, 19:36 (Ref:4001737) | #1090 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 11,110
|
Quote:
I also don't agree it's a good car. It's a massively mismanaged project from the off. All those confirmed sold cars. Falling out with engine manufacturers. Not producing a low downforce kit for a Le Mans car. Switching the engine and blaming the ACO for admin rules stopping them racing...and then not turning up to a single race after that. Similar to the LMP3 project. By the end of it, it's just "lol" with excuses of "You don't know what happened behind the scenes". Well no, we don't - but it keeps happening to Ginetta, so what's the common denominator there? It is sad the car never got a proper showing. |
||
|
11 Sep 2020, 19:48 (Ref:4001740) | #1091 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 295
|
Disagree guys that the car was not good.
I know some of the guys involved into the development and was able to talk to them at Spa 2018 and where also able to have a look at the car in detail at the pits. The design even in details was very good, also on the aero side. The car run one of the highest front footboxes eve designed in LMP ( beside the latest Audi RP6 and the stillborn RP7) giving them plenty of room to manage the air travelling over the front splitter and coming from the front diffusor. Toyota has a major drawback in this area. The problem is that the aerodynamic guys have had further developments for a high downforce package ( higher rear deck, larger dive-planes, shuttered turning vanes in the front diffusor exit) and a LM package with low rear deck, changed rear wing and more bulbous, vertical front fenders ready developed. They needed only to produce the parts which never happened. If a car nearly don't run you could not develop it |
||
|
11 Sep 2020, 20:02 (Ref:4001743) | #1092 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 11,110
|
Quote:
It ran 1 race, qualified last in its class, with 1 car being in the LMP2 pack and the lead car being 1 second ahead of the LMP2 pole, and 8 seconds off of pole (or 4 seconds off of the lead privateer LMP1). It almost certainly had the potential to be good - but the car which raced was not, unfortunately. |
||
|
11 Sep 2020, 20:13 (Ref:4001744) | #1093 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 295
|
Quote:
That's was the strong point of Porsche in the Group C . Some latter car's were better and even the early Lancia was better in several points but on track the Porsche was the car to beat. The Ginetta nearly never run and did not much testing. Despite all they changed the engine supplier.Already developed aero parts never made it on the car and important people left the team pretty early. The car was good but it had no chance to prove it for several different reasons. |
|||
|
11 Sep 2020, 22:15 (Ref:4001770) | #1094 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,166
|
It’s a shame, but unfortunately I too find it very predictable.
|
||
__________________
Brum brum |
12 Sep 2020, 07:04 (Ref:4001810) | #1095 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 8,611
|
Considering the reasons they have connected to quarantine etc I don’t blame them. People forget that the people in the LMP1 team actually work in production in other areas of the company thus any quarantine on these members as part of such a small company would have a significant impact on the company’s day to day operations.
Shame to see but understandable. |
||
__________________
Somebody asked if the McLaren F1 was going to be like the Ferrari F40, Gordon Murray replied, "I don't think so, there's no one at McLaren who can weld that badly." |
12 Sep 2020, 08:43 (Ref:4001817) | #1096 | ||
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
|
Quote:
Same goes for chassis as we have 5 different in LMP (6 if we count the P1-P2 Oreca difference) and 3 in GTE Anyway AER was interesting, even if sketchy and fire prone, and sounded good Last edited by Deleted; 12 Sep 2020 at 08:54. |
||
|
12 Sep 2020, 09:25 (Ref:4001818) | #1097 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,750
|
Shame they won't be competing, but not really too surprised either. We really didn't need to lose another one out of the top class though.
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
12 Sep 2020, 09:53 (Ref:4001829) | #1098 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,920
|
Quote:
|
||
|
12 Sep 2020, 10:21 (Ref:4001836) | #1099 | ||
Team Crouton
20KPINAL
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 39,955
|
I don't have any doubt that money is the root cause of the withdrawal.... It has been the downfall of that team/car since the very start....
|
||
__________________
280 days...... |
12 Sep 2020, 10:55 (Ref:4001848) | #1100 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 468
|
It was always on the cards when they didn't enter prior rounds, but were testing away from WEC on their own....
A real shame as they will struggle to get the ACO onside if they pull out like this. |
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ginetta G8 F3 car from 1964 | Sprint | Motorsport History | 11 | 29 Sep 2014 20:28 |
How about a LMP1 Pro & LMP1 Privateer class | Holt | Sportscar & GT Racing | 35 | 6 Jun 2012 13:44 |
Ginetta Racing | Redlake27 | National & Club Racing | 9 | 29 Oct 2003 12:23 |
Ginetta G12P | tonyabacus | Motorsport History | 2 | 2 Aug 2002 07:44 |