|
| Site Partners: | SpotterGuides | Veloce Books |
| Related Sites: | Your Link Here |
|
|
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
|
3 Dec 2003, 14:48 (Ref:802677)
|
#1 | ||
|
Rookie
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 54
 |
2004 Regulations just released
|
||
|
|
|
3 Dec 2003, 15:32 (Ref:802723)
|
#2 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 6,958
|
Grandfathered "LMP" GTP, P900, P675 are eligible until the end 2006.
Sporting regulations Prototype categories. 1.1 a) "LM" P1 (Open and closed cars) plus "LM" P 900, "LM" GTP and "LM" P 675 carbon fibre. b) "LM" P2 (Open and closed cars) plus "LM" P 675 aluminum or tube frame chassis. So there is the questions answered. |
||
|
|
|
|
3 Dec 2003, 15:55 (Ref:802748)
|
#3 | ||
|
Rookie
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 76
|
So the Lola B04/40 will be a LMP1?
|
||
|
|
__________________
Gonna write me up a 125 Post my face wanted dead or alive Take my license, all that jive I can't drive 55!
|
|
3 Dec 2003, 16:07 (Ref:802758)
|
#4 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,215
|
No....
It is going to have all of its dimensions, diffusers, etc. at 2004 specs...not the 2003 specs like the "grandffathered" 675s.... an LMP2 designed to 2004 specs can be made out of carbon fiber... My first thought: The Courage C65 is a Carbon-Fiber car designed to 2003 specs...correct??? If that is correct, then the C65 and the C60 chassis will be in the same class... The key to this: Is the C65's diffusers, overhangs, etc., to the 2003 specs... I believe it is because it raced last year and was built last year before the first release of the 2004 regs.. Please correct me if I'm wrong... |
||
|
|
__________________
Finally... One American Open Wheel Series!
|
|
3 Dec 2003, 18:20 (Ref:802878)
|
#5 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,215
|
Sorry on the above post...Mulsanne Mike's site seems to indicate that the C65 is built to LMP2 specs....and notes that it will have a "long shelf life"
But I also looked up the WR on his site....it is carbon fiber, so it will be an LMP1.... Note to Mr. Downing: Since your WR chassis weighs 855 kg. with that Mazda engine and you're going to have to race as an LMP1 next year, you might as well figure out a way to change the engine cowling and drop a 6.0 L V-8 in it to make the car over 900 kg. At least you'll have the horsepower to haul the extra 120 lbs. or so, and it might make you more competitive.... Here is another Question: Since the DBA chassis was crash tested for both the 675 and the 900 categories, would it be worth considering running a turbo engine in that car that would either be about the same size as the Zytek engine or maybe a little bigger and just revise its cowling and intake systems? Your thoughts???? |
||
|
|
__________________
Finally... One American Open Wheel Series!
|
|
3 Dec 2003, 18:35 (Ref:802894)
|
#6 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,147
|
Downing = Mazda Rotary.
Better to suggest a new chassis. |
||
|
|
__________________
... Since all men live in darkness, who believes something is not a test of whether it is true or false. I have spent years trying to get people to ask simple questions: What is the evidence, and what does it mean? -Bill James
|
|
3 Dec 2003, 18:48 (Ref:802914)
|
#7 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,215
|
I would agree to a degree...but an engine would be cheaper than a chassis for a lower budget team...and horsepower can help to make up for aero deficiencies...
As I read through the newest set of 2004 regs, I want to make sure that I understand what they are saying about the "Hybrid" cars on Page 14: The way I read that, if someone owns a 2003 specs car, they must convert the roll hoop set-up to the 2004 regulations to be "grandfathered" in until 2006.... Is that correct???? If it is, what happens if you don't??? You don't race??? Sorry if this is a stupid question....but only a bureaucrat could write something with that kind of langauge that would make me have to ask that question.... At least that is the way that I interpreted it...because it says that you MUST make the secondary roll over apparatus change.... If this is wrong, PLEASE straighten it out for me so that I can understand how this will work for the "grandfathered" cars...especially since there will probably be quite a fw of them next year... Thanks! |
||
|
|
__________________
Finally... One American Open Wheel Series!
|
|
3 Dec 2003, 19:52 (Ref:802967)
|
#8 | ||
|
Rookie
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 71
|
Read in the French press, Courage will have to create a new monocoque to put his C65 totally in the LMP2 specs. (As I said, the car wou=ld be convertable but it wouldn't be as good as if he made a new one....)
We can be shure that the C65 will be in LMP2 nekt year because that's the main objectiv of this car to be sold for this category. |
||
|
|
__________________
2005 the year of victory for COURAGE!!
|
|
3 Dec 2003, 19:58 (Ref:802976)
|
#9 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,147
|
Tim, it looks to me like 2003 cars can be run as either 2003 cars or hybrid cars. Hybrid cars are eligible until the end of 2006, while the 2003 cars are eligible until the end of 2005. (Since carbon 675s really can't be converted to hybrid LMP1s due to engine and weight issues, they're dead as of the end of 2005.)
I wonder where the Lola B04/40 (and now the C65, seeing the above post) fits in, if the hybrid and the new are indistiguishable. (Although on reflection is the build date of the car related to the running gear, the body work or the tub?) As far as rollhoops are concerned, the single rollhoop is still ok for 2003-spec cars. http://www.lemans.org/sport/ressourc...pe_2003_gb.pdf Tim, wrt Downing abandoning the Wankel, forget it. It's beyond reason and into loyalty (I'm not saying it's stupid, mind; just that that's the way he wants to race. He's a Mazda guy.). Last edited by paul-collins; 3 Dec 2003 at 20:01. |
||
|
|
__________________
... Since all men live in darkness, who believes something is not a test of whether it is true or false. I have spent years trying to get people to ask simple questions: What is the evidence, and what does it mean? -Bill James
|
|
3 Dec 2003, 20:00 (Ref:802979)
|
#10 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,215
|
Thank you, courage.....
I knew that this was the Factory's intent when they came up with the C65, but I didn't know if it was strictly 2003 specs, aprt 2003 and part 2004, or like the Piper design car, a straight up 2004.... But I couldn't see how it could be a strict 2004 spec car, because those initial regs cam out in February and they were giving the chassis its maiden shakedown runs in April before the LM Test Days... Prototypes that work just don't come together that quickly... |
||
|
|
__________________
Finally... One American Open Wheel Series!
|
|
3 Dec 2003, 23:10 (Ref:803151)
|
#11 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,404
 |
Creation have no intention currently of running the DBA as a 900 but are fully aware that they could if they wished.
|
||
|
|
|
|
4 Dec 2003, 00:15 (Ref:803206)
|
#12 | |
|
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 378
|
The catch for running a grandfathered car....
"Art. 19 - CONDITIONS FOR THE ELIGIBILITY OF CARS BUILT ACCORDING TO THE ACO TECHNICAL REGULATIONS FOR LMP AND LMGTP ABOVE Cars built before 01/01/2004 and completely complying with the ACO technical regulations for LMP and LM GTP cars above, are admitted until 31/12/2005. However, the ACO wish to ensure the competitiveness of the cars built in compliance with the 2004 ACO technical regulations for Prototype. Consequently, the ACO, in addition to the measures already applied and after the first results of the new cars in racing conditions, will enforce in 2005 for the car built before 01/01/2004 a part or all the following modifications : − Minimum weight : 950 kg (LMP900), 720 kg (LMP675) ; − Addition of a skid block : thickness 10 mm ; − Reduction of the restrictor area by 5% ; If necessary, additional measures could be applied." Other things I noticed, if you were to build a closed car in LMP1 you can run 16" width wheel, but if you were a grandfathered GTP, you'll be sticking with 14". The thing that limits the new car to have a full width rollover bar is that it has to be symmetrical when viewed from the front? |
|
|
|
|
|
4 Dec 2003, 01:12 (Ref:803236)
|
#13 | ||
|
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 242
|
What does it say about the enignes? Diesel?
|
||
|
|
|
|
4 Dec 2003, 04:29 (Ref:803362)
|
#14 | |
|
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 378
|
For LMP1 only, 4 liter gas turbo, 6 liter gas N/A , and 5.5 liter diesel....
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 Dec 2003, 05:39 (Ref:803382)
|
#15 | ||
|
Ten-Tenths Hall of Fame
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 9,482
|
Other things to spot on in the 2004 specs :
- fuel tanks : 80 liters for LM(GT)P900 and LMP675, but 90 liters for LMP1 and LMP2 --> strong advantage for GTs and 2004 specs cars - rear wing : 180 cm for LM(GT)P900 and LMP675, 200 cm for LMP1 and LMP2 Those specs were noticed by David Legangneux on Jérôme Mugnier's site. He insists on the fact that those elements could let the GTs more time on the track than 2003's specs prototypes, and push the GTs cloesr to the lead, as in 1995, especially under wet race... Last edited by Fab; 4 Dec 2003 at 05:39. |
||
|
|
|
|
4 Dec 2003, 05:43 (Ref:803386)
|
#16 | |||
|
Ten-Tenths Hall of Fame
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 9,482
|
Quote:
And as Courage is in the area, you can imagine how easy it is to visit the factory for ACO's staff... |
|||
|
|
|
|
4 Dec 2003, 06:58 (Ref:803419)
|
#17 | |||
|
Racer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 496
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
|
__________________
nulla tenaci invia est via
|
|
4 Dec 2003, 09:49 (Ref:803518)
|
#18 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,366
|
One thing I have noticed on the regulations for GTS cars, the fuel tanks are a maximum of 100 (same applies for LM GT) litres, not 90 litres like this year and in previous years. This means that they will have the biggest fuel tanks unless Im mistaken, oh and sequential gearboxes are now allowed too, unlike in previous years. Other than that I cant see any other changes for the GTS cars. This really should make GTS cars competitve for 2004, especially when u consider the regulations for the LMP900/675 cars.
|
||
|
|
__________________
Sportscar Racing fans of the world Unite!
|
|
4 Dec 2003, 12:33 (Ref:803628)
|
#19 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,247
|
So in theory the whole field should be more bunched together. Can't be a bad thing can it?
|
||
|
|
__________________
You're either at Le Mans, or waiting for Le Mans. ('86, '87, '88, '89, '90, '91, '93, '94, '95, '97, '98, '00, '01, '02, '03, '04, '05, '06, '07, '08, '09, '10, '11, '12, '13, '14, '15, '16, '17, '24)
|
|
4 Dec 2003, 13:13 (Ref:803678)
|
#20 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,366
|
Im seeing a Prodrive Ferrari 550 1,2 overall at Le Mans 2004!
 
|
||
|
|
__________________
Sportscar Racing fans of the world Unite!
|
|
4 Dec 2003, 14:02 (Ref:803747)
|
#21 | |||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,247
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
|
__________________
You're either at Le Mans, or waiting for Le Mans. ('86, '87, '88, '89, '90, '91, '93, '94, '95, '97, '98, '00, '01, '02, '03, '04, '05, '06, '07, '08, '09, '10, '11, '12, '13, '14, '15, '16, '17, '24)
|
|
4 Dec 2003, 14:09 (Ref:803754)
|
#22 | |||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 13,763
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
|
|
|
4 Dec 2003, 14:52 (Ref:803793)
|
#23 | |||
|
Veteran
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,147
|
Quote:
Panoz (5th place) spent 42.5 minutes in the pits. Assuming all of them relate to fueling, the smaller tank will require approximately 10% more time in the pits, 4.25 minutes, about 1.3 laps. Prodrive (1st GTS) spent 65 minutes in the pits. Same assumption (other direction) means 6.5 minutes less in the pits, about 2 laps. So the fuel cell change will mean 3+ laps over 24 hours. The gap was 24 laps. Do you think the smaller rear wing (which is trimmed out for the Mulsanne) and the quicker gearbox on the 550 will make up 24 laps? I don't. So the GTS winner likely won't even beat the best non-Audi. (For perspective, the Audis were another 10-12 laps ahead.) |
|||
|
|
__________________
... Since all men live in darkness, who believes something is not a test of whether it is true or false. I have spent years trying to get people to ask simple questions: What is the evidence, and what does it mean? -Bill James
|
|
4 Dec 2003, 14:58 (Ref:803796)
|
#24 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,366
|
Yes but Paul, LMP900 and LMP675 cars will have 80 litre fuel tanks. GTS cars will have 100 litres, also worth remembering is the rear wings as u have mentioned. Remember in 2004 GTS cars have 2002 spec restrictors too, LMP 900/675 cars have this years restrictors. GTS cars will be a lot closer to the LMP900 and top 675 cars than they are now, expect the Prodrive Ferrari 550's to dip into the 3:48's or 3:49's. Oh and by the way if I remember rightly the Prodrive crew sat the car in the garage for 40 minutes cleaning it before the end of the race, so u can take off some of the time it was in the pits overall.
Now a new LMP1 or LMP2 is a differnt story, but where are they? Last edited by SALEEN S7R; 4 Dec 2003 at 15:02. |
||
|
|
__________________
Sportscar Racing fans of the world Unite!
|
|
4 Dec 2003, 15:40 (Ref:803829)
|
#25 | ||
|
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,215
|
Thanks to Fab and RacingManiac for answering my queries above....
|
||
|
|
__________________
Finally... One American Open Wheel Series!
|
 |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| ACO regulations for 2006 released | Alistair_Ryder | ACO Regulated Series | 96 | 14 Nov 2006 08:10 |
| 2004 King of Kents FF1600 Calendar Released | JustinDawkins | Club Level Single Seaters | 24 | 20 Jan 2004 15:07 |
| 2004 Procar Schedual Released | Zinger | Australasian Touring Cars. | 31 | 21 Nov 2003 09:44 |
| 2004 rear wing regulations... | Sodemo | Formula One | 18 | 21 Oct 2003 09:29 |
| [FIA GT] ACO & FIA 2004 Regulations. Help! | sebring1971 | ACO Regulated Series | 6 | 6 Sep 2003 19:27 |
Linear Mode
