Engine power

[pirenzo]

I think that the current generation of Sportscars have too little power.

For the top class in terms of power, the LM-GTP class, the max power outputs are somewhere in the region of 630bhp

next year, all classes will suffer a 10% reduction in power

this will mean that the GTPs will have just 570bhp, and the 900s will have just 550bhp or so.

Andy Wallace commented a while ago (about two years) that the cars didn't have enough power, and said that somewhere around 850bhp would be a good mark.

Realistically, a figure of abot 700-750bhp would be better, because any higher would make it financially unviable for the smaller manufacturers.

What do you think?

[cybersdorf]

I don't quite understand it either, but I guess the rationale behind this reduction is to allow for a longer period of "build-up" until the next major restriction. If you start with Gp.C type engine regs now (something I would like to see!) they'll be "too fast" in 3 years' time.

also, F1 isn't currently such a good show...

[Fogelhund]

The ACO are trying to keep speeds down, and cars on the ground. This is simply for safety reasons.

Despite power reductions, it never takes designers too long to get lap speeds back to where they were before the restrictions anyway.

Just imagine how fast the cars would be if the original Can-Am rules were still in place.

[pirenzo]

and good they would be too

I always say, the way to get the drivers to slow down, is to give them cars they must respect for their potency

If I gave you a 200bhp, fire breathing modern Can-Am monster, with a huge biplane wing, and a snow plough of a front end, you wouldn't be in a hurry to push it over the edge

[RacingManiac]

Doesn't the 2002 Audi have somewhere in the region of 660bhp?

[C_g]

The other way to reduce speeds is to reduce tire grip and aerodynamic grip. Both those have been tried - flat bottoms in '94 along with the narrower tires for GT1 cars, and the grooved tires in F1. Mixed results to be sure.

As it turns out, flat bottoms are not such a good idea for cars that have such a large plan area. Since they rely on the rake angle for ground-effect-enhanced downforce, this downforce can quickly change to upforce. Tunnels should reduce this pitch sensitivity, but they will also increase underbody downforce, speeding the cars up through the corners.

Grooved tires in F1 seem to have worked in slowing the cars down. I'm not sure how these would work in endurance racing. It would require a lot of R&D on the part of the tire companies for sure.

Mandating aerodynamic devices that create drag seems to be the best way to reduce top speeds. Reducing power has the same effect I guess, but drivers seem to like this less.

[MulsanneMike]

Don't agree with the power reduction either. With restrictors there is a theorectical limit simply because only so much air can get into the engine. '04's aero rules will induce more drag and less downforce. But it will only be a matter of time before most of that is gotten back. So the ACO is intent on keeping speeds down. But what should be the upper limit? Last year the top speeds we topping 210 at Le Mans. This year's top speed were about the same though lap times were down (more downforce for same drag as last year). But is 210 too fast? Should that be the upper limit?

[pirenzo]

when I said 200bhp, imeant 2000bhp, and I think that the Audi has about 610bhp, nit-picking I know but i had to say it

[pirenzo]

As for top speeds, 210 is enough, but, the power is more about seeing car that squirm out of corners, things that would be faster if they powersliding
If they did 180mph, you wouldn't know that from 210

[Fogelhund]

As an interim step, this isn't a bad idea, from a safety point only.

I do think that other areas of safety should be explored as the better alternative though, but these aren't short-term fixes. Such as making the HANS mandated; working on survival cells; putting roofs back on cars... and so on.

I too like the speeds, and would love to see Muslanne restored. However, those that make the real decisions, the ACO seem to feel that safety is the most important issue, as is limiting possible liabilities from flying cars.

What is the right speed?? Well whatever the ACO decides I suppose, and then for the designers to find ways around the ACO fixes.

I'd like to see more power, more speed and more safety.

2000bhp Can-Am cars would be something else.. although I disagree with you, as there will always be people who will try and push them to the limits.

[pirenzo]

I read somewhere that the reason the chicanes were put in the Mulsanne was not because the ACO felt it was too unsafe but because the FIA mandated that all tracks wanting to host top level racing, could not have straights longer than 1 mile

As for safety, well, i think that they are safe enough, except maybe in the event that a car should backflip

But, there's nothing like a good hedge to stop crashing cars, and who could be hurt by flying leaves?

There is the small question however of replacing them when they are "removed" and what to do in winter!

[paul-collins]

FWIW, the maximum bhp for Can-Am was a dyno'ed 1500+ for the twin-turbo 917/30.

If power is reduced, so must be grip (both aero and mechanical) to maintain the driver effort. (That's one of the knocks on IRL racing - high downforce, low power means that most anyone can control the cars)

Also, aero must be controlled such that following cars do not experience catastrophic loss of downforce if they get in a draft (a dramatic example would be PLM 2000, the BMW V12LMR going airborne). You could say that F1's lack of overtaking has much owed to such an inability to follow closely through a corner.

[cybersdorf]

Originally posted by paul-collins
FWIW, the maximum bhp for Can-Am was a dyno'ed 1500+ for the twin-turbo 917/30.

But wasn't that the 1975 world record car? For a "common-or-garden" 917/30 it was in the region of 100 to 1100bhp which is still sufficient

[Osella]

what about the suggestion that the only limit should be on the total amount of fuel available?

[cybersdorf]

Originally posted by Osella
what about the suggestion that the only limit should be on the total amount of fuel available?

That's Gp.C.

[Hsaavedra]

As a 17 year old fan of sportscar racing,and a student of motorsport,I have to throw in my two cents on this. I have to agree with Fogelhund on the interim measures, but at the same time would like to see more power, less importance on aerodynamics, more mechanical grip availible for cornering speed, and a return to the "old" style of racetrack(old Road Atlanta, Riverside, Nordeschleife, etc.), but I'm only 17, so what do I know?

[paul-collins]

Originally posted by cybersdorf
But wasn't that the 1975 world record car? For a "common-or-garden" 917/30 it was in the region of 100 to 1100bhp which is still sufficient

The same motor, just more boost. The car ran 1.3 bar in 1973, giving 1100 bhp@7800 rpm. As I said, 1500 was dynoed. But it was the same development engine, circa 1973 (source: Peter Lyons' Can-Am).

[NissanGTP]

From a drivers point of view it is not the power and Aero that determines safety. Whenever I'm in a Group-C car I feel as safe as houses. Not only do you have a proper body around you but a strong tub and substantial roll cage too. The other big aspect is how forgiving the cars are to drive. To put this into perspective, I have been driving Spice Group-C cars for over two years now and I've only ever spun one once. This is not because I drive them like museams pieces, I drive them as hard as they were driven in period... flat out.

I used to race TVR Tuscans. They have half the power and no Aero but they are bloody dangerous. The things feel like they are going to jump off the track at any given opportunity and regularly do.

The other thing I would like to see again in Sportscar racing is more freedom for the designers. When the rule book is open it gives the oportunity for the designers to go down weird and wonderfull routes to get to their goal. We don't want Sportscars looking the same like F1 cars do. Lets have variety.

[Cynic]

Much as I hate the idea personally, I think restrictors and weight penalties are the way forward. If you put too many controls on aerodynamics you ens up with F1 - all the cars look the same and the big teams throw silly money into research to try and find all the loopholes.
Power limits? They need to look at what sort of machinery thay want to attract and pick an average. How about 450bhp for GT, 650 for GTS and 750-800 for prototypes? Oh, and make em' loud! You can stand in Calais and hear the Corvette, but if an R* was about to run you down you probably wouldn't hear it.

[pirenzo]

Hsaavedra, age has nothing to do with it, you have an opinion, and it's a valid one.

I started this thread and so far everyone seems to agree with me and I'm only 15.

[Aysedasi]

Well, absolutely! It's good to have some more young blood on the forum (just like me ).

[TVRfan]

i think that engine power needs to be capped but only to keep reliability. ok so audi and bentley could build a 1000bhp car that would last 24 hours but who else would survive half the race if that. the race would be fun for half an hour but then it would get too F1 like if you just sat and watched the top three cars and last three, going round!

[Aysedasi]

Originally posted by TVRfan
but then it would get too F1 like if you just sat and watched the top three cars and last three, going round!

God forbid.

[paulzinho]

Originally posted by cybersdorf
That's Gp.C.

That'll do for me!

And do you know what the absolute best thing about Group C was?

The fact that it worked up until the FIA started messing around with it.

Not to mention it raced on some decent tracks, had plenty of manufacturers and privateers, stunningly beautiful cars and some half decent drivers (you even had the F1 lot racing in their spare time!), ooh yes and they were FAST!!!!

[cybersdorf]

Originally posted by paulzinho
And do you know what the absolute best thing about Group C was?

The fact that it worked up until the FIA started messing around with it.

Not the roof?