|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
14 Sep 2008, 08:43 (Ref:2289530) | #176 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
Quote:
|
||
|
14 Sep 2008, 09:04 (Ref:2289547) | #177 | ||
Racer
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 296
|
Quote:
|
||
|
14 Sep 2008, 20:28 (Ref:2290261) | #178 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,244
|
Quote:
Audi and Peugeot are big money full works teams, they have deeper pockets and resources than any privateer could ever have. As Marshall Pruett pointed out a couple of days ago, if a Pescarolo won at Le Mans because the diesels were pegged back in a big way then Peugeot and Audi would leave very quickly. IMO what they need to do is restrict manufacturer involvement in P1 to engine supply; with the idea of P1 being for high level privateers and P2 for low level privateers, both with a spec KERS system. For the manufacturers I would propose a new class which I would call GTP -as it would evoke the open-ended nature of the old IMSA GTP cars. The chassis would remain the same as they currently are in P1 but would have to be closed top; in terms of drivetrain anything would go as long as it didn't exceed 750bhp (measured at the wheels). There would be no spec KERS or equalisation/performance balancing within the class or between it and other classes. |
|||
__________________
"On a given day, a given circumstance, you think you have a limit. And you then go for this limit and you touch this limit, and you think, 'Okay, this is the limit.' And so you touch this limit, something happens and you suddenly can go a little bit further. With your mind power, your determination, your instinct, and the experience as well, you can fly very high." -Ayrton Senna |
14 Sep 2008, 21:51 (Ref:2290343) | #179 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newssept08.html has a good summary of the rule changes for 2009. Apparently the rear wing reduction caught people by surprise:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
14 Sep 2008, 22:24 (Ref:2290381) | #180 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,793
|
Quote:
I'm starting to wonder how much time the ACO really spent in discourse with the manufacturers before issuing this ruleset. Given their import to the strength of ACO series, you should not wind up in a situation where Acura is able to get well into the late stages of their P1 design and have the rules changed on them. Similarly, the move from P1s with large engines to P1s with P2 engines seems to be working directly against trying to get the manufacturers out of P2 in the short-term. If I were Porsche, why would I go and develop a P1 block for 1-2 years at this juncture? Given that Penske does not seem to be a lost cause after all, I think this question is very relevant. Furthermore, why would Acura want to go develop the block to go in their P1 chassis when sooner or later they would be encouraged to shove the current P2 block back in the car? It all seems a little bit crossed up to me. Audi is similarly in an awkward position if the R15 is to have a new engine. Only Peugeot may not be caught out completely by this change, if indeed they intend to persist - and even their hybrid plan boat is not completely rocked. Hmm... |
|||
|
14 Sep 2008, 22:29 (Ref:2290386) | #181 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 544
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
Louise: Is the track Slippery when Wet? DC: I didn't know you were a Bon Jovi fan |
14 Sep 2008, 22:37 (Ref:2290390) | #182 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,232
|
Quote:
The press release doesn't actually mention "KERS" (neither kinetic recovery systems). It does say "hybrids" and "electric systems". Maybe this means nothing... but a lot more freedom and not just copying F1 would be a Joker card in ACO's pocket. |
||
|
14 Sep 2008, 22:48 (Ref:2290398) | #183 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 785
|
Last time the ACO mandated a specific displacement in top prototypes, we know how long it was 'till they realized how great that move was... I'm just wondering what manufacturers (say Aston with their big V12s) are supposed to want to showcase in a Formula where everybody has the same engine size. And turbo engines are not mentioned either. Seriously I don't see that many manufacturers interested in that; and there were so many rumoured.
I also wonder how they expect P2 cars to pass GT1 cars at Le Mans. Maybe on the outside in the Porsche curves? And narrow wings are gonna look so bad! I hope the ALMS keeps in making wise choices on their own. For the time being, people designing their 2009 car still don't have the complete rules and those who were waiting for 2010 know they've been screwed and should be expecting more bad news from the next amateurish decisions and announcements from the ACO. |
||
|
15 Sep 2008, 00:34 (Ref:2290450) | #184 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,831
|
Quote:
|
||
|
15 Sep 2008, 14:10 (Ref:2290925) | #185 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
Quote:
|
||
|
15 Sep 2008, 21:02 (Ref:2291258) | #186 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 555
|
To answer question your Jag, I don't know. If the engine is only producing 550 hp then it's likely that it's displacement isn't too great. Which would mean that it would probably be a more peaky smaller engine. The electric motor(s) would certainly be a big help to it under acceleration, especially out of slower corners. I would imagine that the 680 hp Aston would be able to pass on a straight though. The Aston would still have a 50 peak hp advantage, most likely more displacement and possibly a little less weight.
|
|
|
15 Sep 2008, 22:33 (Ref:2291329) | #187 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 813
|
Quote:
The ACO new exactly what they were doing with the Diesel regs, if it was otherwise why did it take 3 years for them to take serious action? I think 2009-2010 is going to be no different from 2005 when Pescarolo had their one big chance to win Le Mans and fluffed it before some new rules kicked in. When the 2011 regs arrive it'll once again be a Manufacturer show, as only they will be able to afford to run them effectively. If thats what they want then fine, but I'm sure only Manufacturers running Energy recovery systems will be favoured to win. Last edited by Flat12-Aircool; 15 Sep 2008 at 22:41. |
|||
|
15 Sep 2008, 22:41 (Ref:2291337) | #188 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,232
|
Quote:
|
||
|
16 Sep 2008, 10:15 (Ref:2291641) | #189 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,738
|
According http://www.racecar-engineering.com/n...alse-dawn.html ACO only allows electronic hybrid systems, but no hydraulic and flywheel based devices for 2009. What a pitty!
|
|
|
16 Sep 2008, 10:16 (Ref:2291644) | #190 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,244
|
Quote:
I don't share Felix's concern about the switch to P2 engines in P1, in the next few years there are not going to be many new large capacity engines coming up and the ACO are making a good decision by anticpating whats going to happen in the automotive industry and providing the with the arena to test and develop such engines. |
|||
__________________
"On a given day, a given circumstance, you think you have a limit. And you then go for this limit and you touch this limit, and you think, 'Okay, this is the limit.' And so you touch this limit, something happens and you suddenly can go a little bit further. With your mind power, your determination, your instinct, and the experience as well, you can fly very high." -Ayrton Senna |
16 Sep 2008, 11:48 (Ref:2291726) | #191 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,418
|
Quote:
Need to start someplace and having one only hybrid system will be easier to regulate |
|||
__________________
"When the fear of death out weighs the thrill of speed, brake." LG |
16 Sep 2008, 11:50 (Ref:2291727) | #192 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,348
|
Isn't the electric system also the most relevant to road car development?
|
|
|
16 Sep 2008, 12:29 (Ref:2291754) | #193 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,336
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
16 Sep 2008, 13:41 (Ref:2291816) | #194 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,232
|
Quote:
Where this info is from? Notice that it says 2009 regs. Might not be the case with 2010. I already got my hopes up that upcoming rules would be more open minded than in F1. |
||
|
16 Sep 2008, 14:12 (Ref:2291835) | #195 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
Quote:
Last edited by JAG; 16 Sep 2008 at 14:14. |
||
|
16 Sep 2008, 20:50 (Ref:2292080) | #196 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 555
|
Toyota have already raced and won with a hybrid powered Supra. It used capacitors to store energy instead of batteries. This is not logical on a road car though, and would probably not be a very good testbed for road going technologies. Great for a race car though. Lithium Polymer (LiPo) batteries are actually not bad for the environment. There are also Lithium Ion which is what the Peugeot is using. And newer Lithium Iron (LiFe). These are not as light and lack the capacity of LiPo but they can discharge at greater currents, and are much safer, as they will not puff or explode if abused or damaged. Both very likely in a race car.
|
|
|
17 Sep 2008, 16:17 (Ref:2292635) | #197 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,600
|
2011 regulation(P2 engine for P1) is very interesting.
Because the new engine will be used in Super GT(GT500) and Formula Nippon in 09 season. This engine is 3.4 liter V8 engine! In Super GT, this engine is used with the air restrictor. In Formula Nippon, this engine is used with the rotational speed limiter. |
|
|
17 Sep 2008, 16:23 (Ref:2292637) | #198 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,500
|
Lots of factory backed V8's doing the rounds, the GT500 motors, DTM V8's, the 430 based V8 in the new A1 GP car etc.
|
|
|
17 Sep 2008, 16:54 (Ref:2292663) | #199 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,710
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
17 Sep 2008, 20:52 (Ref:2292798) | #200 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 555
|
I know. That's why I said it's great for a race car but would not make sense to develop such a technology on the race track for a road car.
|
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[WEC] Glickenhaus Hypercar | Akrapovic | ACO Regulated Series | 1603 | 12 Apr 2024 21:24 |
[WEC] Aston Martin Hypercar Discussion | deggis | ACO Regulated Series | 175 | 23 Feb 2020 03:37 |
[WEC] SCG 007: Glickenhaus Le Mans LMP1 Hypercar | Bentley03 | ACO Regulated Series | 26 | 16 Nov 2018 02:35 |
ALMS Extends LMP Regulations | tblincoe | North American Racing | 33 | 26 Aug 2005 15:03 |
[LM24] Whats the future of LMP's at Le Mans?? | Garrett | 24 Heures du Mans | 59 | 8 Jul 2004 15:15 |