LMP1 diesel performance adjustment

[canam]

Originally Posted by cmk

The Pugs are truly the class of the LMP1 field. Not even the lead Pesca and the Charouz Lola seem to be able to match them on pace. And if, as competitors report, the advantage is in braking and mid-corner downforce rather than slipperiness on the straights thanks to the coupe shape, then it's not liable to get more competitive once Monza's straights are traded for Valencia's twistiness.

Looking at the Pug, through the Ascari chicane, the downforce was immense (similar to the R10 through the Porshe curves last year at LM) and also suggests that the drivers were hardly pushing. They had two seconds or more in the bag if they needed it. You can only run that level of downfore if you have the power and torque to pull it down the straights.

Pug have decided to 'hide' their power advantage by running higher levels of downforce and (slightly) lower levels of straightline speed.

Hopefully, the ACO will give this diesel charade only one more year before engaging in a major re-jig.

...and what was it with all the Pug fuel stops If they were empty every time they came in (apart from closing the passenger door), that engine is hugely uneconomic. If you are going to sandbag, do it with some level of credibility.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by chewymonster

Again, it all comes down to the fact that there is no factory gasoline P1. The P2 winning Horag Lista was 3 second slower per lap than the factory Porsches/Acura at Sebring.

....and you won't get any until these rediculously biased pro-diesel rules are changed.

As for the ACO, I don't for a minute, believe that this is not exactly what they wanted. I have little faith in any substantial regulation changes until Peugeot wins Le Mans.

[henk4]

The performance of the Peugeot was certainly worrying, if not for the petrol cars, but also for Audi. They started to lap in tandem, just fast enough to run away, but when the Sarrazin car experienced some, as yet, unexplained problems, and had to be rolled into the box for about 4 laps, the real potential was shown in full force. The car started to go flat out and at the finish was only one lap behind the first Pesca. While the winning car continued to cruise to the finish without being asked serious questions, the fact that the second car could run for about 100 laps flat-out without breaking down is a tell-tale sign.
The only silly problem both cars had was the failure of the door closure system on the left (non-driver) side, for which both cars had to make an unscheduled pitstop. Surprisingly is also the fact that in spite of making 2 stops less, the Pescas never came close.
So I think we can look ahead for a particularly exciting 24 Hours, which is what ACO is aiming at after all.....
The Audi powered Lola was not yet on track in Monza and will be launched in Valencia. That will be recealing also, as the Charouz Lola in Monza was faster than the Pescas.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by henk4

the Sarrazin car experienced some, as yet, unexplained problems

"gear linkage issue"

[Truckosaurus]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

I have little faith in any substantial regulation changes until Peugeot wins Le Mans.

A cynical, but probably accurate view....

It wouldn't surprise me that if the ACO had made a gentlemen's agreement with Audi and Pug to keep the current regs in favour of oil-burners for a season or two to allow them both to generate some decent results on their investment.

[Flat12-Aircool]

I'd like to emphasise that I think the ACO should approach the problem by making the Petrol LMP's faster and not necessarily reducing the speed of the Diesels.

Ok, so the Pescarolo might also be a new car and is perhaps not 100% on it's full pace, but I don't expect them to find more than 0.5 secs a lap before Le Mans. But going by the amount of time the 2nd Peugeot spent in the pits, the fact that they could still come back and finish 3rd is very worrying.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Truckosaurus

A cynical, but probably accurate view....

It wouldn't surprise me that if the ACO had made a gentlemen's agreement with Audi and Pug to keep the current regs in favour of oil-burners for a season or two to allow them both to generate some decent results on their investment.

and rightly so, otherwise it would be a constant move of goalposts. We now have at least two names on track that the general public can directly relate to. (Pescarolo?Zytek?Courage?Lavaggi?Lola? are not very appealing names...)

[JAG]

If it takes 'pro' diesel regs to attract major manufactuers to the sport, then so be it.

I'm sure other fuels will be given favourable breaks to attract them.

But looking at Monza, let's not go over the top about the pace of the Peugeots.

Monza is the absolute ideal circuit for diesel power and the low drag coupe body.

Tha Charouz Lola did a 1.38 dead in the first half hour on full tanks, I believe they would have been capable of mid 1.37's at least, much quicker than any other petrol car.

The Pescarolo's were not running their 2007 updates, were overheating, and the second car was off the pace of Collard's.

Arguably the three quickest petrol cars this season, Zytek, Creation and Swiss Spirit's Lola were not at Monza.

Basically only the Charouz Lola reached anywhere near the performance potential of a petrol car.

I'd expect Peugeot to have far tougher competition at ever other race.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by Purist

The diesel that Audi uses in the R10 is NOTHING like what road machinery uses, so that makes comparisons there very difficult. And frankly, I have a VERY hard time rationalizing that the diesel turbos need 37.5% more displacement than the petrol turbos (5.5-litres for diesels vs. 4.0-litres for petrol turbos).

Just look at two VAG engines:

• 6.0 V12 TDI (Audi Q7): 500 bhp
• 5.0 V10 (Lambo Gallardo): 500/520 bhp (530 in Superleggera)

Diesels really need a turbo to produce comparable power as normal aspired petrol engines.

[canam]

As much as I would like to see it happen, the Peugeot did not win through top speeds at Monza, it trounced the field through the level of downforce it was able to pull through the corners. Consequently, the car will be very good everywhere. Its abilities at LM are unknown as Paul Ricard is quite different in nature than LM but everywhere else, the car ought to be a winner.

As a point, Minassian and Collard were of similar lap times in the Pesca at LM last year--although Collard was more familiar with the Pesca. Now, the gap is 2 seconds plus (as Minassian was pulled in on a qualifiying lap that was even quicker than his pole time) on a much shorter lap. At that level, a two plus second gap ain't the driver. It is the car. Can anyone prove, however, that it is the engine?

The good thing is that Audi and Pug will hopefully race each other hard at LM and show the true advantage that the 'oilers' have.

The regs truly need changing.

[JAG]

Fact is Pescarolo are off the pace and at least 1.5 seconds slower than the Charouz Lola, which was capable of dipping into the 1.37's in the race.

The quickest Pescarolo was a late 1.38, the second car 1.40.

To put this into perspective the Lavaggi did a 1.42!!!!

If Pescarolo's updates are not on the money, they'll struggle to break into the top six in qualifying.

I'm not saying diesels don't have an advantage, but how much, I'd say it's split 50/50 chassis/engine.

Factory P2's compete with Audi in the ALMS, petrol P1's run to a similar level should be within touching distance of the diesels, but only Charouz showed their potential.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by canam

As much as I would like to see it happen, the Peugeot did not win through top speeds at Monza, it trounced the field through the level of downforce it was able to pull through the corners. Consequently, the car will be very good everywhere. Its abilities at LM are unknown as Paul Ricard is quite different in nature than LM but everywhere else, the car ought to be a winner.

As a point, Minassian and Collard were of similar lap times in the Pesca at LM last year--although Collard was more familiar with the Pesca. Now, the gap is 2 seconds plus (as Minassian was pulled in on a qualifiying lap that was even quicker than his pole time) on a much shorter lap. At that level, a two plus second gap ain't the driver. It is the car. Can anyone prove, however, that it is the engine?

The good thing is that Audi and Pug will hopefully race each other hard at LM and show the true advantage that the 'oilers' have.

The regs truly need changing.

I agree with much of what you say, it is indeed the car, and it is difficult to prove that it is the engine. But then, I am puzzled with your closing remark that the rules need to be changed. Do you want to change the Peugeot chassis?

BTW it is the first ever sportcarrace won by Minassian. (And after qualifying the Peugeot team leader came up to Marc Gene and congratulated him with the words: What a life do you have, doing nothing and you are on pole......(I think it was said in good spirit, but it sounded a bit cynical)

[Matra-simca]

Audi's 2 sec per lap advantage at Le Mans was over a course 8+ miles long. Peugeot's already got a 2 sec advantage on a circuit less than half the length. Not looking for gasoline..... Henri still insists, and PLM and Laguna Seca proved, you've got to add weight to the oil burners - at the very least reduce weight on the octane brigade.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Just look at two VAG engines:

• 6.0 V12 TDI (Audi Q7): 500 bhp
• 5.0 V10 (Lambo Gallardo): 500/520 bhp (530 in Superleggera)

Diesels really need a turbo to produce comparable power as normal aspired petrol engines.

yep and as a bonus you get 50% more torque....

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Matra-simca

Audi's 2 sec per lap advantage at Le Mans was over a course 8+ miles long. Peugeot's already got a 2 sec advantage on a circuit less than half the length. Not looking for gasoline..... Henri still insists, and PLM and Laguna Seca proved, you've got to add weight to the oil burners - at the very least reduce weight on the octane brigade.

Longbridge is a sort of Mickey Mouse track. And the LMP2s in ALMS have larger restrictors than the LMS ones, which run according to ACO rules. Strange that ALMS is allowed to use the LeMans, but still deviates from the ACO rules...

[AU N EGL]

Dont forget the Diesels produce a lot of torque down low in the rpm range

[canam]

Granted the Charouz Lola was quick but I would not say that there is a huge difference with the Pesca. Pescarolo would have known that he can't truly race the Pug. At two seconds a lap gap, there is really no point. Score points, stay ahead of the oppostion and go as slow as you need/dare. If the Charouz car had been around later in the race, I think we would have seen a better picture of its pace. I do believe, however, that its pre-eminence will come under pressure from the likes of Lola, Zytek and Creation. It must be remembered that they had relatively strong driver line-up (with two pros) while all other teams had pro-am lineups.

[JAG]

Collard himself said on Motors TV they did not have their 2007 updates at Monza and were overheating, so ran at a slower pace to collect the points.

History shows Zytek and Creation have the beating of Pescarolo over a single lap, the pace of the Charouz Lola could indicate their advantage will be even more pronounced this season.

Maybe after a couple of good years Pescarolo have dropped back a little?

[henk4]

Originally Posted by JAG

Collard himself said on Motors TV they did not have their 2007 updates at Monza and were overheating, so ran at a slower pace to collect the points.

Would that imply that Martin Short bought a 2006 spec car????

[JAG]

Originally Posted by henk4

Would that imply that Martin Short bought a 2006 spec car????

He did, they both had the same spec car.

Pecarolo will get the updates at Valencia, Rollcentre later.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by JAG

He did, they both had the same spec car.

Pecarolo will get the updates at Valencia, Rollcentre later.

one race later?

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

Dont forget the Diesels produce a lot of torque down low in the rpm range

This means petrol cars have to down shift while diesels do not. For this reason the R10 can use 1 gear less and hence win some time with shifting less.

[Purist]

I wish I could get some bore and stroke figures for the R10 and 908, and compare those to other machines. Obviously, the diesel in the Q7 is not maxed out by any means. The figures for the Audi R10, calculated out for a 6.0-litre engine would be 710hp and 885ft-lbs of torque. The augmented figures for the Peugeot 908 would be 765hp and 965ft-lbs of torque.

If you look back at Group C, the only major, competitive player with an atmospheric engine was Jaguar with their 7.0 and 7.5-litre V12s (giving roughly 100hp per litre). You just aren't going to reliably get much more than 100hp per litre out of an atmospheric, petrol engine it appears. That puts the best petrol performers, so far, around 10-15% behind the Peugeots in terms of horspower (according to "official" figures), which the diesels produce at lower revs. Then you have to take into account that the diesels are giving 30-50% more torque, also at lower revs.

IIRC, for reference, the figures I saw for the turbo diesel gives max power and torque coming in at 3000-4000rpm, whereas the Panoz LMP-1 roadsters reached their peak around 5500rpm. Having power and torque sooner and for more of the rev range is significant. Also, turning lower revs helps substantially with reliability. In addition, the Audi R10 is running a 5-speed sequential from the specs I've seen, not a 6-speed like the Peugeot has.

Finally, when I mentioned the diesel not being close to what is commercially available, I was thinking particularly of the fuel, though the competition engines would be quite different as well.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by henk4

and rightly so, otherwise it would be a constant move of goalposts. We now have at least two names on track that the general public can directly relate to. (Pescarolo?Zytek?Courage?Lavaggi?Lola? are not very appealing names...)

well... as long as the original goal posts were placed in the same field that all the players are playing on. These goal posts have been placed on the field next door that is limited only to players that play in diesel coloured uniforms.
All I wan't is for the ACO to bring the goal posts back on to the same field that everyone else is playing on.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

well... as long as the original goal posts were placed in the same field that all the players are playing on. These goal posts have been placed on the field next door that is limited only to players that play in diesel coloured uniforms.
All I wan't is for the ACO to bring the goal posts back on to the same field that everyone else is playing on.

and promote the sport by enthusiastic reports that a pescarolo beats a creation at LeMans? Everybody is complaining about a lack of coverage and public attraction so here they have something back to talk about.

And where were you when the rules got introduced? Where you among those who immediately said that diesels were favoured? Or where you in the camp of those who said that diesels would never make it in spite of any regulation?