[LM24] Pescarolo Sport future plans...?!?!

[alexkiller8]

2 different ways or point of view to confirm that pescarolo tub is born as a courage tub.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by alexkiller8

read above, we can call the pescarolo tub a modified courage tub, but for sure not a pescarolo tub.

Sorry, but it seems that you did not read what Victor_RO and I are trying to say. The Pescarolo/Oak cars do NOT use a Courage C60 monocoque!

Maybe you should read http://www.racecar-engineering.com/cars/pescarolo-01/ if you do not believe us.

The Pescarolo 01 was the first sports prototype racing car built entirely by Pescarolo Sport. It is designed to meet the LMP1 and LMP2 regulations and replace Pescarolo’s previous C60 chassis which had been heavily modified from cars purchased from Courage Compétition. While the 01 chassis have remained largely unchanged in 2009 the take over of Pescarolo Automobiles by Oak Racing saw the cars develop rapidly.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by alexkiller8

read above, we can call the pescarolo tub a modified courage tub, but for sure not a pescarolo tub.

The double roll hoop, means that Pescarolo (re)designed a tub, and got it produced. In all "legal" matters that tub is a Pescarolo, and Pescarolo owns the right for reproduction of that tub. Something which got sold on.
Like the AMR Tub rights, is likely also to have been.

[alexkiller8]

hoping to end this OT (even if is the pescarolo topic, so maybe is not an OT) the things are in this way: the actual tub of pescarolo cars is a modified c60 based tub (c60 + double roll hope as you wrote before).
Well now the whole thing is becoming about when people can decide that a big or little modifying on a thing make this thing become a totally new and different one from the previous status. That's it. In my opinion, knowing the differences from the original c60 tub, i still think that pescarolo 01/01evo tub is a modified c60 more than a new c60 based tub. Semantics vs. Motorsport.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by alexkiller8

hoping to end this OT (even if is the pescarolo topic, so maybe is not an OT) the things are in this way: the actual tub of pescarolo cars is a modified c60 based tub (c60 + double roll hope as you wrote before).
Well now the whole thing is becoming about when people can decide that a big or little modifying on a thing make this thing become a totally new and different one from the previous status. That's it. In my opinion, knowing the differences from the original c60 tub, i still think that pescarolo 01/01evo tub is a modified c60 than a new c60 based tub. Semantics vs. Motorsport.

The original topic you deviated from was not Off Topic, but the discussion of Courage/Pescarolo tub, and how you define a new topic is off the current discussion.
How ever YOU personally define when a tub is new, is pointless, but the Official is that the Pescarolo 01 used a Pescarolo Tub and the Hybrid used a C60 tub. There is no discussion as the definition is made by ACO. You can therefor go see the entry lists (i suggest RacingSportsCars) and see that the name Courage disappears when the change to LMP900 cars is abandoned.
It was the same discussion AMR had with Lola.

But back on topic.
If Pescarolo has bought the rights for the AMR tub, they can reproduce it, if they want to

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by CTD

You can therefor go see the entry lists (i suggest RacingSportsCars) and see that the name Courage disappears when the change to LMP900 cars is abandoned.

On http://www.racingsportscars.com/type/Pescarolo/01.html you can see the history of the 12 Pescarolo 01 chassis that have been produced. Note that chassis 01-03, which was bought by Lister, is missing.

BTW if you compare http://www.racingsportscars.com/type/Acura/ARX-01.html and http://www.racingsportscars.com/type/HPD/ARX-03.html you will see that the chassis designation also officially changed because Wirth Research made its own monocoque, which is slightly different from the original Courage/Oreca LC70, for the 2012 cars.

[alexkiller8]

AMR / lola discussion was less open to interpretations, because prodrive just built the car on the lola tub without do any modify to the tub. The struggle between lola and prodrive was because meanwhile the lola tub, prodrive would to claim the car as a full AMR car without giving any reference to lola.
BTW i guess that pescarolo won't need to buy/produce other AMR-one tubs for the 2012-2013 period, judging by their not rich budget is really unprobable that next year the team will run with 2 cars, so the 2nd chassis surely will be kept as spare tub.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by alexkiller8

AMR / lola discussion was less open to interpretations, because prodrive just built the car on the lola tub without do any modify to the tub. The struggle between lola and prodrive was because meanwhile the lola tub, prodrive would to claim the car as a full AMR car without giving any reference to lola.
BTW i guess that pescarolo won't need to buy/produce other AMR-one tubs for the 2012-2013 period, judging by their not rich budget is really unprobable that next year the team will run with 2 cars, so the 2nd chassis surely will be kept as spare tub.

Why focus on these small things!?
I only mentioned the Lola/AMR case to prove my point of the tub manufacture being mentioned in the name of the car!

[Great Dane]

Someone I know (who is in the know) has told me a few things about henri's new business partners and these currents delays are making me a bit uneasy about the situation... hope I am wrong...

[gwyllion]

That is what the official announcement of Pescarolo says.

The Pescarolo 03 Judd, designed around the Aston Martin AMR-One tub, has faced a holdup in production due to "delayed payment deadlines" from its major partner, which consequently "blocked the delivery of some important elements from suppliers in England," according to a team statement.

source: http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/artic...ed-until-lm24/

I assume that this major partner is Luxury Racing. In http://www.endurance-info.com/versio...ance-9826.html it is explained that Luxury is partially funding the Pescarolo 03 program.

[Simmi]

Interesting. Wonder if Henri is finding out he has chosen the wrong dance partner?

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by Simmi

Interesting. Wonder if Henri is finding out he has chosen the wrong dance partner?

Which wouldn't be for the first time, considering what happened in 2010...

[alexkiller8]

Originally Posted by Simmi

Interesting. Wonder if Henri is finding out he has chosen the wrong dance partner?

or maybe the other dancers don't want to dance with him...

[GT6]

not good news lets hope they get it sorted in time

[KA]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

That is what the official announcement of Pescarolo says.
source: http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/artic...ed-until-lm24/

I assume that this major partner is Luxury Racing. In http://www.endurance-info.com/versio...ance-9826.html it is explained that Luxury is partially funding the Pescarolo 03 program.

...and there seem to be some changes in the pipeline at Luxury-
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pi...19459621397545
#58 is their GTE-Am car, (Ehret/Jakubowski/Farnbacher at Sebring) IIRC.

If Luxury are putting funding into the 03 project, and have lost a sponsor or paying driver, causing changes in their driver lineups, then could this be having a knock-on effect at Pescarolo?

[rich07]

Originally Posted by KA

...and there seem to be some changes in the pipeline at Luxury-
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pi...19459621397545
#58 is their GTE-Am car, (Ehret/Jakubowski/Farnbacher at Sebring) IIRC.

If Luxury are putting funding into the 03 project, and have lost a sponsor or paying driver, causing changes in their driver lineups, then could this be having a knock-on effect at Pescarolo?

Would like to know who Montecalvo is replacing, hope its not Farnbacher.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by KA

...and there seem to be some changes in the pipeline at Luxury-
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pi...19459621397545
#58 is their GTE-Am car, (Ehret/Jakubowski/Farnbacher at Sebring) IIRC.

If Luxury are putting funding into the 03 project, and have lost a sponsor or paying driver, causing changes in their driver lineups, then could this be having a knock-on effect at Pescarolo?

If its only a promise of support, then yes. If the support is already paid, then no.
However, if Luxury dont find new support themselves, the Pescarolo project (luxurys pescarolo project) might be shelved.

[gwyllion]

The French newspaper Ouest-France has a picture of the 03 being assembled in the Pescarolo workshop: http://www.zimagez.com/zimage/articleouestfrance.php

[alexkiller8]

judging by the pic can be noticed that the car will use for sure a swan-neck rear wing like the arx-03a instead than a hooking fin support as used by oak in their 2012 cars. The rear and diffuser zone remembers me a bit the one of the dome s102 if will keep this shape in the final version, or maybe will be added some fenders like oak did with his previous pescarolo version.
I confirm my doubts about P&M involvment in a p1 project, an engineering studio can't improvise as lmp1 designer in so short time.

[gwyllion]

The AMR-One rear wing was supported by a single swan neck integrated in the dorsal fin. I doubt that they will have changed that construction on the Pescarolo 03 given the fact that they will use the same rear end (suspension and gearbox).

[alexkiller8]

when has been said that they will use the same rear end? the will use the same rear end of the same tub but the rear section of the bodykit where is anchored the base of the rear wing is just a bodykit part that can be attached/detached to the rear area of the chassis/tub, is not an integral part of nothing. To explain better, see these 2 holes in the pic where in my opinion will be anchored the 2 supports of the swan neck. If they really used the AMR-one configuration simply there wasn't any exigence to do these suspect holes. Simple no?

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by alexkiller8

when has been said that they will use the same rear end? the will use the same rear end of the same tub but the rear section of the bodykit where is anchored the base of the rear wing is just a bodykit part that can be attached/detached to the rear area of the chassis/tub, is not an integral part of nothing. To explain better, see these 2 holes in the pic where in my opinion will be anchored the 2 supports of the swan neck. If they really used the AMR-one configuration simply there wasn't any exigence to do these suspect holes. Simple no?

Disagree: holes appear to be small latch buckets. The optimum aero is for a single mount. And if the AMR-One already has provisions for such there's no point in double mounts.

[Victor_RO]

Those holes are also on a separation line between two pieces of bodywork, they could be used for bodywork clips. We'll see.

[alexkiller8]

i thought also about latches, but usually the rear part of the bodywork is just a single piece or splitted in the engine hood. Then why to put those latches only in that place and not closer to the wheel arch? btw maybe i'm wrong but for now i think as i said, less than 60 days to reach the truth.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by alexkiller8

i thought also about latches, but usually the rear part of the bodywork is just a single piece or splitted in the engine hood. Then why to put those latches only in that place and not closer to the wheel arch?

Because the other latches are probably on the side of the wheel arch.

Look for instance at the solution of HPD ARX-01e.