New Judd engine for LMP1/what about LMP2?

[Bentley03]

I've just read an article on DSC which reveals that Engine Developments will debut a new Judd 5.5 litre engine in 2007 based on the (new for 2006!) GV5 S2.

I have no doubts whatsoever that this will be a superb LMP1 powerplant continuing the trend of class leading power and reliability. The new lump will benefit from a 10% increase in torque and improved fuel consumption, perfect for Le Mans.

Meanwhile the old 3.4 litre unit currently used by a number of LMP2 teams labours on in it's current guise.

My questions are these:
Why are the majority of LMP2 teams choosing AER over Judd?
Is there any significant development work being undertaken on the 3.4 LMP2 engine?
Is there any desire to compete with AER in LMP2?
Has the company all but abandoned it's LMP2 customers?

AER currently dominate LMP2 and I see no signs of Engine Developments (Judd) fighting back. My fears may be unfounded, but I have very real concerns for Judd customers in LMP2.

[isynge]

It may well be a case of Judd making choices regarding what's economically most viable. In LMP1 a Judd powerplant is the engine of choice with a significant number of established, successful customers, all of which will want something that offers them at least a glimmer of hope against a diesel.

Contrast that with LMP2 where realistically the AER is the powerplant to have, and the market's about to change - looking to next year, there's Acura coming in, wealthy teams are going to be thinking about RS Spyders, Belmondo's going down the bioethanol route, and Judd would still be in the tricky (and expensive) position of trying to unseat a proven market leader.

In an ideal world I'm sure Judd would have front line offerings in both spaces, but pragmatically LMP1's where I'd put in the effort right now.

[Adam43]

This may not be correct, but with companies like Engine Developments I guess it has to be "one thing at a time"? Whatever the point still stands that at the moment LMP1 is the priority. Superficially you can see the desire to compete in the higher class. However it may be more of a business decision. They have more customers lined up or they can see a bigger market for the LMP1 engine? This is, of course, pure conjecture.

However I think you may be right that the LMP2 engine is to remain static.

I have no real feel for the relative merits of the AER and Judd engines? Cheaper, more powerful, lighter. The latter could be relatively more significant in this class.

[gwyllion]

I have to agree that the LMP1 engine is so successful because lots of well funded teams are using it. Engine Developments has made a big step forward with the S2 spec of the Judd GV5 (20 kg weight saving and improved reliability). I have the impression that the Playstation money of Pescarolo must have something to do with this improvement.

In 2005 a big number of teams were using the Judd XV V8 (Creation, RML, Horag Lista, Kruse, G-Force, Lucchini) and it was quite successfull. This year however AER seems the engine to have: it is more powerfull, develops more torque (nice acceralation out of corners) and in Le Mans it was more reliable. I find it strange that things have changed so rapidly. Why did RML switch engine even though they won Le Mans with the Judd?

When Engine Developments announced the GV5 S2 they also stated the XV engine would gets some further development.

In addition to this major program Engine Developments is also making some significant performance improvements to the XV V8 engine that won the LMP2 class for the company again at Le Mans in 2005. The updates are a result of an extensive winter development program, and will be available to all XV customers in 2006. “Although we already know the XV has class leading performance, you can’t afford to stand still in this business so we looked very closely at all our data from 2005 and felt there were specific areas we could improve on, and the results are extremely encouraging. We have made some very significant power improvements,” says John Judd.

It appears this was mainly marketing speaking

[knighty]

When RML went from the Judd to the AER they quite publically said its because the AER has better fuel consumption......last year I would have said that neither power plant is particularly reliable, but it now seems that AER have ironed out all the reliability issues with the 4-pot, hence the AER-Lola-RML LMP2 win at lemans this year.

As for the 5.5 Judd - thats absolutley no surprise whatsoever - I hinted this in another thread........I dare say the engine is stretched to its limits now, as its derived from an old Judd-Yamaha 3.5 F1 motor.......I'm assuming thats why they didnt go to 6.0 Litres, as that to me would be the ideal set-up for max torque and low revs and reliablitiy for 24hr racing.......

Does anyone know how the Ricardo-Judd-Diesel thing is coming along? - the last I heard was they were granted cash from the gouvernment in order to actually get an engine running on a dyno???.......

[KA]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

I have to agree that the LMP1 engine is so successful because lots of well funded teams are using it. Engine Developments has made a big step forward with the S2 spec of the Judd GV5 (20 kg weight saving and improved reliability). I have the impression that the Playstation money of Pescarolo must have something to do with this improvement.

In 2005 a big number of teams were using the Judd XV V8 (Creation, RML, Horag Lista, Kruse, G-Force, Lucchini) and it was quite successfull. This year however AER seems the engine to have: it is more powerfull, develops more torque (nice acceralation out of corners) and in Le Mans it was more reliable. I find it strange that things have changed so rapidly. Why did RML switch engine even though they won Le Mans with the Judd?

When Engine Developments announced the GV5 S2 they also stated the XV engine would gets some further development.It appears this was mainly marketing speaking

What intrugues me is the Radical- if I remember correctly, the 'standard' factory offering uses the AER, but Rollcentre opted to go the Judd route for their car, which seems to fly in the face of the general trend towards using the AER- I wonder if they'll stick with it, or change to AER, depending on how the Bruichladdich car goes?

there are also still teams going a totally different route, such as Binnie with the Zytek and Belmondo using the Mecachrome...

[Nick49]

Hello

With Audi being so dominant on power and fuel consumption at Le Mans this year it makes you wonder what future there is for a petrol engine in sportscar racing.

Nick

[isynge]

Originally Posted by Nick49

Hello

With Audi being so dominant on power and fuel consumption at Le Mans this year it makes you wonder what future there is for a petrol engine in sportscar racing.

Nick

As has been speculated elsewhere diesels aren't going to have the regulations advantage of this year forever - indeed I see today the ACO have pegged back the fuel tank size. I'd have thought by the middle/end of 2007 we'll have a situation whereby diesels and petrols will be a lot closer, and the R10s chassis advantage will be somewhat eroded by other new LMP1 becoming fundamentally more mature packages.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by KA

What intrugues me is the Radical- if I remember correctly, the 'standard' factory offering uses the AER, but Rollcentre opted to go the Judd route for their car, which seems to fly in the face of the general trend towards using the AER- I wonder if they'll stick with it, or change to AER, depending on how the Bruichladdich car goes?

Rollcentre choose Judd because they already know Engine Developments well and thought this would be the most reliable engine in a 24 hour race (knowing the AER engine had a power advantage). I think they must be really disappointed as they realise now they made the wrong choice. The rest of the package (Radical chassis and Ricardo LMP1 gearbox) was superb and worked flawless.

It would be nice if Cosworth developped a LMP2 engine with all their V8 experience from F1 this year. They had plans for V8 turbo LMP1 engine ...

[Bentley03]

Originally Posted by isynge

As has been speculated elsewhere diesels aren't going to have the regulations advantage of this year forever - indeed I see today the ACO have pegged back the fuel tank size.

OFF TOPIC and probably deserving of it's own thread, but where did this very interesting piece of news come from?

Reckon the ACO will be widely praised for reacting so quickly to diminish the advantage the regulations offer the big budget diesel projects. Great news!

[Adam43]

The fuel tank news is here http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/53090
Yes it does deserve a thread of its own, so as not to destract from this one. I'll start one.

[WouterM]

Originally Posted by Bentley03

OFF TOPIC and probably deserving of it's own thread, but where did this very interesting piece of news come from?

From the ACO. They sent out a press release today. It does not sound like the performance will be restricted though.

[Adam43]

See new thread away from this Judd one http://tentenths.com/forum/showthread.php?t=85858

[FIRE]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

It would be nice if Cosworth developped a LMP2 engine with all their V8 experience from F1 this year. They had plans for V8 turbo LMP1 engine ...

Why is nobody using this Cosworth 3.6L twin turbo LMP1 engine?

[Flat12-Aircool]

Originally Posted by Bentley03

OFF TOPIC and probably deserving of it's own thread, but where did this very interesting piece of news come from?

Reckon the ACO will be widely praised for reacting so quickly to diminish the advantage the regulations offer the big budget diesel projects. Great news!

Praised what for?

What's so great about changing rules which loads of people (including myself) we're saying are far too biased toward Diesel cars?

The horse has already bolted and the ACO did not listen first time around, they deserve NO credit at all.

[dj choc ice]

Originally Posted by Flat12-Aircool

Praised what for?

What's so great about changing rules which loads of people (including myself) we're saying are far too biased toward Diesel cars?

The horse has already bolted and the ACO did not listen first time around, they deserve NO credit at all.

exactly my thinking the ACO dont deserve any credit since they have now gotten the diesel win they wanted and they gave audi a bigger restrictor and so on so the audi didnt just have more torque but also had more power these changes have come far too late and i think its about time the ACO allowed the petrol cars a bigger restrictor say bring the max petrol LMP1 bhp up from 630bhp to around 640 or 650bhp to give them a extra bit of straight line bite and i would be surprised if the judd V8 XV engine does not get any more development the engine comes across as being a bit more reliable than the AER 4 pot turbo but the AER would inevitably being a turbo engine with lower revs have more torque which i think would help at the faster tracks and if the engine is more efficient then hey ho to the teams choosing that engine but i think the engines in LMP2 are pretty balanced you have the judd V8, AER turbo, mecachrome V8 and the zytek V8 while i think the zytek V8 would be the most reliablt choice and if i was running a team i would choose either the AER turbo or the zytek lump since the zytek engine has seen a lot of development with the zytek LMP1 and LMP2 machine's since 2002 and also the development carried over from the engine being used in A1GP

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Flat12-Aircool

Praised what for?

What's so great about changing rules which loads of people (including myself) we're saying are far too biased toward Diesel cars?

The horse has already bolted and the ACO did not listen first time around, they deserve NO credit at all.

I seem to recall a diesel competed before the R10, and was so off the pace it was untrue!

A competitive diesel LMP is obviously not as easy as you are suggesting.

I'm guessing an Audi R10 petrol car would have been a touch slower than the diesel car, and far less expensive and complicated to develop.

I'm also guessing Audi would have made the decision to pull out of sportscar racing and not develop ANOTHER petrol Audi LMP, Peugeot would have chosen the WTCC rather than a diesel LMP, while Honda/Mugen, Toyota etc. wouldn't be considering Le Mans with alternative powered LMP cars.

Just the bigger picture for you all

[gwyllion]

Please to the diesel discussion in the other thread http://tentenths.com/forum/showthread.php?t=85858

@dj choc ice: please use interpunction

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by dj choc ice

I think the engines in LMP2 are pretty balanced. You have the judd V8, AER turbo, mecachrome V8 and the zytek V8 while I think the zytek V8 would be the most reliable choice. If I was running a team I would choose either the AER turbo or the zytek lump since the zytek engine has seen a lot of development with the zytek LMP1 and LMP2 machine's since 2002 and also the development carried over from the engine being used in A1GP.

(edited your text for readablity)

The Zytek V8 would appear a good choice for LMP2, but before this year their engine did not succeed in running 24 hours. It seems reliablity came add a high price. The Binnie Lola was way of pace compared to the AER powered Lolas.

[Bentley03]

Originally Posted by Flat12-Aircool

Praised what for?

What's so great about changing rules which loads of people (including myself) we're saying are far too biased toward Diesel cars?

The horse has already bolted and the ACO did not listen first time around, they deserve NO credit at all.

I've replied to your post on the 'Diesel tank size to be reduced' thread...........

[Bentley03]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

The Zytek V8 would appear a good choice for LMP2, but before this year their engine did not succeed in running 24 hours. It seems reliablity came add a high price. The Binnie Lola was way of pace compared to the AER powered Lolas.

It'll be interesting to see how the Binnie Lola compares to AER powered examples at the Nurburgring with Sam Hancock at the wheel.