[WEC] Alpine Sportscar Discussion

[Tique]

It will be good if they can adjust the tank capacity otherwise, it will be too easy for Toyota. I wonder if we will see one or two Alpine A480

[joeb]

Originally Posted by Tique

It will be good if they can adjust the tank capacity otherwise, it will be too easy for Toyota. I wonder if we will see one or two Alpine A480

I think they have 2 chassis, but acquired the 2nd one for spares.

[Tique]

They have two chassis. One ex-Rebellion and a brand new one

[seanyb505]

With my tinfoil hat on, I don't think the rules would allow the car to be truly competitive against a true factory effort even without the tank size conundrum.

Aco hasn't cared about that for a long time.

[Adam43]

ll they probably realise the fuel tank size is not their fault. The only thing that they could do is compensate for Alpines inability to make a suitable car by ruining the balance elsewhere. Sorry you don’t have enough fuel to compete with Toyota so we will allow you to have less weight or more power or whatever. That is a mugs game and the sort of thing that will vary more by track and likely get long.

Keeping the alignment of stint lengths from speed separate is probably something the ACO are keen to do. Otherwise people will just whinge about something else.

Also let’s remember Alipne did manage to increase their tank ACO did also tweak the energy per stint for them too. Not really sure how that will pan out at places other than Le Mans.

[greenmachinets040]

Between the lines Alpine should be punished further now that they have been allowed to compete one more year...come on, this is ridiculous.

[Adam43]

The car is pretty much on the pace. It’s the stint length that’s the problem. I presume that is still limited by the physical size of the tank not the energy allowed in the regs.

Ridiculous they are using an old car that they can’t make fit the new regs?

I’m all for them fitting the right tank and having the parity there.

[GingerPixel]

Giving them another year is a bit of a nonsense, although I appreciate that it's good to have more cars on the grid. I wonder if an American or British team would have been given the same leeway. Someone get the Ginetta bloke on the phone!

[Simmi]

I think the ACO knows they've got to be prepared for the fact that Peugeot might bottle it and not enter much of the '22 season. There's a danger next season could end up leaner than this one in the top class if things don't fall right. So I can see why they made the decision.

[greenmachinets040]

Originally Posted by Adam43

The car is pretty much on the pace. It’s the stint length that’s the problem. I presume that is still limited by the physical size of the tank not the energy allowed in the regs.

Ridiculous they are using an old car that they can’t make fit the new regs?

I’m all for them fitting the right tank and having the parity there.

You expressed yourself in the right way: "ridiculous they are using an old car" - Ridiculous and a shame. They should not be given a real chance to win...

[Mike E]

Indeed. Not impossible to imagine Hypercar next year being two Toyotas if Alpine weren't allowed back.

[greenmachinets040]

Originally Posted by Mike E

Indeed. Not impossible to imagine Hypercar next year being two Toyotas if Alpine weren't allowed back.

I honestly do not know what is Glickenhaus s problem. Instead of improving their cars, they began to complain about the fairness and threatening the ACO to withdraw for next year. Did they think they would be privileged to win from the get-go? Sorry, but this is a typical american thinking, with all respect to James.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by greenmachinets040

You expressed yourself in the right way: "ridiculous they are using an old car" - Ridiculous and a shame. They should not be given a real chance to win...

Ah, I misunderstood what you were annoyed about!

It would be nice for the class to be only the new cars, but I think ACO’s pragmatic approach is suitable for these few years.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Adam43

The car is pretty much on the pace. It’s the stint length that’s the problem. I presume that is still limited by the physical size of the tank not the energy allowed in the regs.

Ridiculous they are using an old car that they can’t make fit the new regs?

I’m all for them fitting the right tank and having the parity there.

I thought that they already had a larger tank following a dispensation?

'Alpine boss Philippe Sinault has revealed that the marque competed in the 24 Hours of Le Mans with an increased fuel tank.'

Sinault was pressed on the changes made after race by reporters in the Le Mans paddock, at which point he unveiled that the team had its fuel tank capacity increased.

“With a hard job from Gibson [engine supplier], with a hard job with my power management and so on, and with the fuel tank,” he said.

When he was asked the follow-up questions to confirm it the team had its fuel tank size increased, Sinault replied: “Yes.”

[Adam43]

Yes.

Originally Posted by Adam43

Also let’s remember Alipne did manage to increase their tank. ACO did also tweak the energy per stint for them too. Not really sure how that will pan out at places other than Le Mans.

Although don’t know exactly where that leaves them. I presume it is still physical fuel tank limited rather than rules limited as Toyota and Glickenhaus are.

Based on the stint lengths it left them 1 lap short (IIRC) at Le Mans. Don’t know what that will mean elsewhere. Was it an entire lap behind, just part of a lap, or more than a lap.

[chernaudi]

Probably leaves them like Audi in the ALMS vs Porsche in 2007--they had the performance to win most of the races they lost, but they lost quite a few that year due to often needing a splash of fuel when the Porsche's didn't.


That of course was due to trying to equal the Audi R10 to roughly the same stint lenghts at other LMP1 cars (hence the R10 getting nurfed from 90 liters to 81 liters) and the ACO maybe not expecting the then ALMS exclusive RS Spyder 2007 upgrades bringing that car into LMP1 laptime territory at several ALMS tracks (not to mention that Penske ran all pro driver lineups with mostly Porsche factory drivers).


So sort of apples and oranges for the reasons, though the outcome is very much the same.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Yes.

Although don’t know exactly where that leaves them. I presume it is still physical fuel tank limited rather than rules limited as Toyota and Glickenhaus are.

Based on the stint lengths it left them 1 lap short (IIRC) at Le Mans. Don’t know what that will mean elsewhere. Was it an entire lap behind, just part of a lap, or more than a lap.

Missed your post in my first read through -

Yes - I suspect the may be on the cusp of being tank size or energy limited depending on the circuit layouts...

[greenmachinets040]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I thought that they already had a larger tank following a dispensation?

'Alpine boss Philippe Sinault has revealed that the marque competed in the 24 Hours of Le Mans with an increased fuel tank.'

Sinault was pressed on the changes made after race by reporters in the Le Mans paddock, at which point he unveiled that the team had its fuel tank capacity increased.

“With a hard job from Gibson [engine supplier], with a hard job with my power management and so on, and with the fuel tank,” he said.

When he was asked the follow-up questions to confirm it the team had its fuel tank size increased, Sinault replied: “Yes.”

Now that is called dirty tactics. They left the whole World wondering how could they stretch they fuei mileage further to promote the knowledge and the "Renault Magic" that they made so efficient changes ...a Shame.

What is going on with the homologation then??

If they were beaten to this extent by the bleeding Toyotas with a larger fuel tank, what are they hoping for the next year?

[J Jay]

To be on the starting grid, and make the finish.

All the effort is going to go into the LMDh, so as long as BoP keeps their car vaguely competitive, that will do.

After all, that is one of the main reasons in the interest in Hypercar/LMDh.

Did I say the quiet part out loud ...?

[Mike E]

Maybe not news but official confirmation that Alpine will continue with the A480 next year.

https://sportscar365.com/lemans/wec/...1-car-in-2022/

[joeb]

Originally Posted by Mike E

Maybe not news but official confirmation that Alpine will continue with the A480 next year.

https://sportscar365.com/lemans/wec/...1-car-in-2022/

The article does confirm the same driver squad will be retained. Also a strange mention of possibly going back to P2 for '23 just to keep the team together and well rehearsed. That would require a driver shuffle though.

[Mike E]

Alpine are targeting a 2 car entry in LMP2 for 2023. The plan is to maintain momentum with the team and also have a second squad of mechanics and engineers ready for a two car Hypercar program in 2024.

Their request for a third season with the A480 was turned down.

https://sportscar365.com/lemans/wec/...ram-next-year/

[S griffin]

Can they manage it alongside their F1 program? I suppose it's possible, although it won't be easy. Running one car is hard enough, but upgrading to two cars isn't as easy as it sounds. It's a shame they can't run their A480 for another season, although I understand why

[canaglia]

Renault is pushing to give a fresh new sport identity to the alpine brand, a 2 lmdh program is all about how much budget signatech and oreca will receive. But in general, managment and operative cost of lmdhs should be much lower than the ones of a lmp1 car. Probably there will be nothing to actually invest in development if alpine lmdh will keep on using the 4.5L gibson.

[peetleouf]

Alpine will develop his own motor in Viry-Chatillon :

Le moteur Alpine sera développé ?* Viry-Châtillon. Il recevra toute l’expertise de l’équipe présente en Formule 1. La carrosserie sera quant ?* elle conçue en partenariat avec Enstone.

The Alpine engine will be developed at Viry-Châtillon. It will receive all the expertise of the team present in Formula 1. The bodywork will be designed in partnership with Enstone.