Acura/HPD's future plans

[isynge]

What troubles me about a lot of the HPD comment is that there was no indication of serious problems when Highcroft tested the LMP2 engine over the winter break - if there were profound restrictor related issues in terms of the engine running out of grunt surely this should have been picked up in the testing - and thus would have allowed HPD to raise things with the ACO well in advance of where we are now.

So - does this perhaps indicate that at some point HPD went down a blind alley in their engine development? I know it seems unlikely - but by the same token - who would have thought Porsche could have built such a dog of an F1 engine in 1991?

[gwyllion]

Maybe it is also worth mentioning that Mountune claims "a power output of 440 bhp at 7000 rpm and 580 Nm torque at 5750 rpm" for their Ford 2.0 turbo engine: http://www.mountune.com/racing/news/aat.

So perhaps HPD has not done the best they can under the current regulations. Of course the Mountune could be with the cost cap restrictor: 440 bph - 5% = 420 bhp.

[Graham Goodwin]

Originally Posted by isynge

What troubles me about a lot of the HPD comment is that there was no indication of serious problems when Highcroft tested the LMP2 engine over the winter break - if there were profound restrictor related issues in terms of the engine running out of grunt surely this should have been picked up in the testing - and thus would have allowed HPD to raise things with the ACO well in advance of where we are now.

So - does this perhaps indicate that at some point HPD went down a blind alley in their engine development? I know it seems unlikely - but by the same token - who would have thought Porsche could have built such a dog of an F1 engine in 1991?

No, sources were already suggesting that the restrictor sized were likely to be a problem - but there were still discussions underway and, often, a public debate doesn't help - Perhaps on this occasion it might have!

[JAG]

5% down on power is a problem, 10% a disaster, 20% farsical.

Politics is one thing but HPD have nothing to lose unless they are partly at fault, it would be interesting to see what other engine manufactuers say.

[knighty]

The Motors TV commentator mentioned the HPD unit is supposed to be making 0.95Bar (gauge) of boost, but could anly achieve 0.8Bar (gauge).....or something along those lines, which appears to be a gem of information from a commentator!!!.......I will have a look at the rules tomorrow and see if that makes sense, if thats true it really does appear that there is a big mis-match between the boost & restrictor regs.

I dont think its a big factor in this whole sage, but I seem t remember that this V6 base engine is only 2 valve per cylinder......can anyone verify that of am I talking cobblers again???

yes there is a big discrepancy in the power figures, well in the region of 50bhp or more.

[Mike_Wooshy]

My understand is the engine on is based the Honda J series engine which is SOHC but 4 valves per cylinder.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by knighty

The Motors TV commentator mentioned the HPD unit is supposed to be making 0.95Bar (gauge) of boost, but could anly achieve 0.8Bar (gauge).....or something along those lines, which appears to be a gem of information from a commentator!!!.......I will have a look at the rules tomorrow and see if that makes sense, if thats true it really does appear that there is a big mis-match between the boost & restrictor regs.

I dont think its a big factor in this whole sage, but I seem t remember that this V6 base engine is only 2 valve per cylinder......can anyone verify that of am I talking cobblers again???

yes there is a big discrepancy in the power figures, well in the region of 50bhp or more.

Hindy said the difference is 40-45bhp while another source says 90bhp.

[ger80]

isnt actual boost vs. air restrictor depending on the size of the turbo, e.g. wouldnt they get higher boost with same restrictor using a smaller turbo?

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by knighty

The Motors TV commentator mentioned the HPD unit is supposed to be making 0.95Bar (gauge) of boost, but could anly achieve 0.8Bar (gauge).....or something along those lines, which appears to be a gem of information from a commentator!!!.......I will have a look at the rules tomorrow and see if that makes sense, if thats true it really does appear that there is a big mis-match between the boost & restrictor regs.

I posted the restrictor size/boost pressure earlier in this topic: http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...20#post2856820

The number reported on Motors TV is correct. The rules limit the absolute turbocharging pressure to 1950 mbar.

I wonder. If a 2.8 liter engine sucks in air with an absolute pressure of 1.95 bar, doesn't it act (at least in theory) as a NA engine with a 5.5 liter displacement?

[knighty]

Originally Posted by Mike_Wooshy

My understand is the engine on is based the Honda J series engine which is SOHC but 4 valves per cylinder.

thats the fella, I remembered there was something antiquated about it.......just found this image below, based on previous experience I cant say I would be relishing turning that valve train into a race engine, but I think the NASCAR boys have really pushed high-speed rocker technology a long way over the past 10 years, I also thnk this is the same as Hondas normal VTES system which is now very "tuner friendly"........ but being a turbo engine it will not rev very high, anyway, I dont think their problems are valvetrain related.

I would also be interested to hear how well Wurth understands the intercooler flow requirements, if I was a betting man I'd say they have trimmed it down to the smallest amount of drag, which is not great from an aero pespective, obviously NA engines dont have these!........if this situation continues I can well imagine HPD will start to consider a NA V8 LMP2 engine.......do honda have such a V8 road car base engine in their range???

http://www.insightcentral.net/_images/envtece.jpg

.

[AGD]

I don't believe that Honda has a V8 road engine. There have been rumors for more than a decade that the Acura RL/Honda Legend would get a V8, but that has never turned out to be true so far.

[Thumper]

Originally Posted by AGD

Interesting stuff, but the fastest HPD is still almost four seconds off the Greaves Zytek.

That would be because Zytek has managed to get the Greaves car entered under the "cost capped" regulations, thereby benefitting from the 20 kilo advantage and the larger restrictor size.

Can anyone explain how a chassis that set LMP2 pole in the Silverstone 1000 Kms in 2007 (coincidentally, in the hands of Tom Kimber-Smith) can suddenly become eligible for cost-capped status four years later?

Actually, I can probably answer my own question, but I would be interested in your thoughts.

[AGD]

Your guess is as good as mine considering that the RLR MG Lola Judd is not considered a cost capped car. Of course, even the MG Lola Judd outqualified the fastest HPD. Not by much, but something has to be up with the engine when you consider the differences in chassis development and drivers. I'm sure RLR is a good team, but I can't imagine them being up to par with Strakka.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by Thumper

Can anyone explain how a chassis that set LMP2 pole in the Silverstone 1000 Kms in 2007 (coincidentally, in the hands of Tom Kimber-Smith) can suddenly become eligible for cost-capped status four years later?

Very simple:

The selling price of the complete new car without the engine as described in article 5.6.1. below, but with all available options must not exceed €345 000.

If Zytek sells the chassis to customers under that price, they are fine.

[AGD]

What is the reasoning for not allowing the RLR MG Lola to be considered cost capped. Lola obviously has a cost capped car. Is the MG considered to be too different? Is it just because of the badging?

[gwyllion]

For LMP2, the manufacturer must provide the ACO with all the elements so as to be able to establish the price of the car or the engine. This price and the price of the spare parts will be available on the ACO website reserved for competitors.

Maybe Lola has only done this for the (cost-capped) B11/40.

[gwyllion]

RML hits back a forum gossip: http://www.rml-adgroup.com/racing/LM...qualifying.htm

The team's frustration is not helped by suggestions that they are "sandbagging". "Despite rumours in blogs and on-line forums that we're running a high downforce setting in order to appear slower than we really are, that's simply not true," insists Mike Newton, CEO of AD Group. "Simple observation shows that the wing is at its lowest setting, and we cannot fit the lower downforce front aero kit except at Le Mans." The HPD chassis is homologated with two aerodynamic packages, and the lower-downforce set-up is only homologated by the ACO for use at Le Mans.

I think that many of us did not realize that they could only use low drag aero at Le Mans.

for the record. In http://www.rml-adgroup.com/racing/LM...d2011_race.htm RML states that power disadvantage is "believed to be in excess of 50 horsepower".

[knighty]

very interesting links and information........there is now a big part of me that thinks 50bhp is not the sole reason why strakka and RML are so slow......... I wonder if Strakka and RML are now doing some serious soul searching and realising that the ACO basically dont want them in the LMP2 category.......I'm sure they will be right on the LMP1 gasoline pace if they were to go back to the original 3.4 V8 from last year with bigger restrictors for this year.

[Thumper]

Originally Posted by knighty

I wonder if Strakka and RML are now doing some serious soul searching and realising that the ACO basically dont want them in the LMP2 category..

But surely, the likes of Nick Leventis and Mike Newton, each of whom basically funds Strakka and RML's participation in the sport, are exactly the kind of "gentlemen drivers" that the ACO stipulated had to be included in an LMP2 driver line-up for 2011?

Does having an unpaid, paying driver in the squad mean that a team can't prepare and run their cars professionally and to a very high standard?

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

RML hits back a forum gossip: http://www.rml-adgroup.com/racing/LM...qualifying.htm

I think that many of us did not realize that they could only use low drag aero at Le Mans.

for the record. In http://www.rml-adgroup.com/racing/LM...d2011_race.htm RML states that power disadvantage is "believed to be in excess of 50 horsepower".

Yes, I must admit I did my share to add fuel to that fire unfortunately. I've corrected the entry now. We all need to refresh our knowledge of the 2011 non-cost capped LMP2 regulations:

LMP2 2010 :The models of LMP2 cars homologated before 31/03/2010 which do not meet the above-mentioned price criteria may run in 2011, 2012 and 2013 with the following conditions:
• A new homologation form identical to the 2011 LMP2 one must be completed. The specifications listed in this homologation form cannot be changed except for safety or
reliability reasons.
• No bodywork variation is permitted. The only aerodynamic elements that may be added or removed are the 2 flaps in front of the car described in article 3.6.2. above.
• Only for the “24 Heures du Mans”, a low drag kit may be homologated by the ACO. It must not exceed €5 000
• The weight of the car must be 920 kg minimum.
• The restrictor diameter must be the one specified in appendix 1-D.
• The only changes allowed are those required to replace the race engine by a production engine.
• Other units of these models can be built provided they meet the above conditions.

[MulsanneMike]

I've corrected the March 17 entry:

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newsmarch11.html

>>On the same day, RML AD Group Racing were shaking down their upgraded HPD ARX-01d LMP2 at Paul Ricard. This car utilizes the new 2.8 liter, twin-turbo, V6, Honda LMP2 engine.

RML's pres release spoke of a concern about the speed differential between the new, lower power LMP2s and top GT cars and the Formula Le Mans cars, noting, "The HPD appears to have suffered even more under the new regulations than the rest, and the speed trap figures cannot hide the fact that the car is significantly disadvantaged along the straights."

RML did indicate the ARX-01d was not in low-drag configuration at the Paul Ricard test last month. But recall starting this season, LMP2s are allowed only two bodywork configurations; a standard kit and a low drag kit. But the rub is this, the low-drag kit is only allowed for Le Mans. And the "standard" kit is the best guess average as to what the manufacturer thinks will work on most circuits. Thus the standard kit is a compromise across the season. But additionally, the ARX-01ds are racing to 920 kgs compared to 900 kgs as they are running outside the cost-capped LMP2 classification. And remember, the LMP2s ran at 825 kgs last year, so 920 kgs is a full 95 kgs over design intent weight of the -01d.

Appologies to HPD, RML, and Strakka for mucking that up. Clearly something is amiss regarding the LMP2 restrictors.

All that being said for the HPD ARX-01d, one wonders who determines what car is or is not under the cost-capped LMP2 classification. Could a manufacturer decide to take a loss on the car but sell it under the cost-capping classification?

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

No bodywork variation is permitted. The only aerodynamic elements that may be added or removed are the 2 flaps in front of the car described in article 3.6.2. above.

I find it strange that dive planes can be added and removed, but it is not allowed to use different sized gurney flaps. Of course the rear wing position can be used to balance out the aero.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

I find it strange that dive planes can be added and removed, but it is not allowed to use different sized gurney flaps. Of course the rear wing position can be used to balance out the aero.

Yeah, TE body gurneys are just another way to balance the car. Don't understand it either. Frankly they should do as they've done and let them homologate only two kits, but then allow them to mix and match as desired between the bits of each kit. Doesn't make any sense to only allow the low DF kit @ Le Mans. That seems counter to the cost reduction premise of LMP2.

[chernaudi]

Well, we have to remember that the ACO considers louvers to be a homologated part of the car that has to be fixed if damaged, but dive planes (which generate more downforce/drag than louvers do) get a by if damaged.

And I don't buy the factory deal, as Nissan is involved with Zytek and BMW have allowed Judd/Engine Developments work over a 3.6 liter version of the 4.0 M3 V8. Only thing there is that HPD sell and distribute the engine, while Zytek and Judd do the distribution work, but that should be irrelevant.

I sense a lot of politicing that has lead to this for whatever reason, and the ACO has blown it this time. Maybe the Audi R8 being a factory developled turbocharged gasoline LMP1 shaded their view, as in LMP900/LMP1 since 1999 turbo engines--be it gas or diesel--have been the engines to have, as it seems that the forced induction engine has been the way to go for a while now, at least as far as brute power goes, in both LMP1 and LMP2

[JAG]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

All that being said for the HPD ARX-01d, one wonders who determines what car is or is not under the cost-capped LMP2 classification. Could a manufacturer decide to take a loss on the car but sell it under the cost-capping classification?

I read component prices need to be costed.

Level 5 ran a cost-capped open Lola and grandfathered coupe but both were uncompetitive.