Home  
Site Partners: SpotterGuides Veloce Books  
Related Sites: Your Link Here  

Go Back   TenTenths Motorsport Forum > Saloon & Sportscar Racing > Sportscar & GT Racing > ACO Regulated Series

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 2 May 2016, 16:32 (Ref:3637886)   #10351
Artur
Veteran
 
Artur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 825
Artur should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
I agree with you that, because there is no competition in the Diesel "category", Audi automatically get's granted equality in engine power(in terms of FTF). The problem is not that, didn't you read my other post?! They get the total energy, per lap, equalised by the regulations but they end up with less room for ballast and less flexibility to manage that energy as they are lower in the ERS classes.

Does anybody have any idea of how much weight the extra batteries, on the 8MJ cars, adds on the 919 and TS050? Whatever the battery pack weights on the R18, the rivals have 33% more of that. Would it add up to 50kg and make all cars even in terms of ballast available?! If so, then the Petrols would only have, as advantage, a little bit of better flexibility concerning the management of their power release.

It must be said, though, that I doubt the handicap that Audi has is big. I would guess it to be around 0.5s
Artur is offline  
Quote
Old 2 May 2016, 16:35 (Ref:3637887)   #10352
chernaudi
Veteran
 
chernaudi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
United States
Mansfield, Ohio
Posts: 8,827
chernaudi has a real shot at the championship!chernaudi has a real shot at the championship!chernaudi has a real shot at the championship!chernaudi has a real shot at the championship!chernaudi has a real shot at the championship!chernaudi has a real shot at the championship!
Like everything in life it seems, it's a trade off. If there was another diesel manufacturer, then Audi would have to battle them to be the pace setter for the fuel type, though the diesel teams could have more political pull. Audi aside from supporting the ACO for longer than Porsche and Toyota have since 1999 to present can be argued to have less political power (or at least haven't completely exercised it), but they only have to race themselves in the diesel category.

It's a trade off and it's not 100% perfect on anyone's end unless they have a clear advantage over the field.
chernaudi is offline  
Quote
Old 2 May 2016, 17:51 (Ref:3637904)   #10353
GasperG
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Slovenia
Posts: 612
GasperG has a lot of promise if they can keep it on the circuit!
Again look at the "handikap" the Audi had in 2014 (FTF & KTF) and what they have today.

The way rules are adjusted was writen long ago and aparently Audi is playing them very nicely.
GasperG is offline  
Quote
Old 2 May 2016, 20:33 (Ref:3637941)   #10354
TF110
Veteran
 
TF110's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
United States
Posts: 15,377
TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!
The ACO and FIA made it so that Toyota, Mercedes and Porsche couldn't race their cars after 1999 aside LM (unless they went to America). Then hybrids came into play in 2012 then Toyota joined, followed by Porsche. Where was the ACO's support?
TF110 is offline  
Quote
Old 3 May 2016, 13:55 (Ref:3638137)   #10355
Deleted
Registered User
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
Deleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Fame
Quote:
Originally Posted by TF110 View Post
The ACO and FIA made it so that Toyota, Mercedes and Porsche couldn't race their cars after 1999 aside LM (unless they went to America). Then hybrids came into play in 2012 then Toyota joined, followed by Porsche. Where was the ACO's support?
I've read these couple of sentences multiple times, and still unsure what was the message here?? Rephrase please
Deleted is offline  
Quote
Old 3 May 2016, 20:01 (Ref:3638231)   #10356
TF110
Veteran
 
TF110's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
United States
Posts: 15,377
TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!
The talk was of Audi supporting the ACO since 99. But you had Mercedes, BMW, Toyota, Nissan and Porsche with factory efforts that year at LM. But where else could they run those cars aside ALMS? That's why I said where was the ACO's support.
TF110 is offline  
Quote
Old 3 May 2016, 20:12 (Ref:3638237)   #10357
Deleted
Registered User
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10,744
Deleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameDeleted will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Fame
It wasn't ACO's fault that GT1 succumbed to it's death, and that FIA GT banned them after 1998. As for 1999, true there wasn't anything but the brand-new ALMS in offer (which though IMO was the world sportscar championship of it's day), except the oneoff Fuji 1000km held in autumn.

But, but, for 2000 the ALMS and ACO attempted to establish European based Le Mans Series, as well as Asia-Pacific Championship for 00-01. They ultimately didn't succeed due lack of entries and whatnot, but the point is, it wasn't the lack of trying. The broader prototype manufacturer interest just wasn't there.

The Great Manufacturer Escape at the turn of the century had nothing to do with where they where eligible. Most of those efforts wouldn't exist without LM, the other races were just bonus and practice on side.

Btw Porsche folded after 1998 already, nothing besides some old GTS and GT 911s was left for 1999 (except the lone privateer Champion GT1 in the ALMS)

Last edited by Deleted; 3 May 2016 at 20:17.
Deleted is offline  
Quote
Old 3 May 2016, 20:20 (Ref:3638240)   #10358
chernaudi
Veteran
 
chernaudi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
United States
Mansfield, Ohio
Posts: 8,827
chernaudi has a real shot at the championship!chernaudi has a real shot at the championship!chernaudi has a real shot at the championship!chernaudi has a real shot at the championship!chernaudi has a real shot at the championship!chernaudi has a real shot at the championship!
BMW and Nissan still had open cars that were ACO legal. Nissan bailed due to a financial crunch and BMW ditched the LMR program aside from an ALMS run for F1. Bad PR and prioritizing F1 and DTM killed the Mercedes program, but Toyota still had one year under contract for the GT-One program.

Problem there was that the ACO (and also probably the ALMS by proxy) introduced new rules that limited all LMP cars, including LMGTPs to 4650mm long instead of the old 4900mm max. That meant that Toyota would've had to have rebodied the GT-One with new front and rear clips to meet the 4650mm max length. They decided that it was time and money better spent on getting their F1 program ready than have TMG design a car that was probably one and done since Toyota only committed the GT-One program to essentially LM only and never did a full racing season anywhere, which might have justified such an investment.

Fact is that Audi have constantly been at LM and in an ACO sanction racing series prototype classes in some form since 1999. Many others have come and gone in the same period--and most have stayed away except for Toyota and Porsche. Even Porsche didn't have a consistent presence in prototypes until the current program, which is due to run in some form until at least 2020.

On to Spa: Any word on Audi's aero package yet?
chernaudi is offline  
Quote
Old 3 May 2016, 20:22 (Ref:3638241)   #10359
TF110
Veteran
 
TF110's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
United States
Posts: 15,377
TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!
Yeah I should have put 1998. After that there was nowhere to run for a few years since FIA GT had no GT1's (Mercedes domination). Not like Toyota Audi or BMW ran there anyway. Other manufacturers left for other greener pastures, but it wasn't just Audi running LM. They were the only consistent manufacturer but that shouldn't mean anything for how they write the rules.
TF110 is offline  
Quote
Old 3 May 2016, 20:39 (Ref:3638245)   #10360
chernaudi
Veteran
 
chernaudi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
United States
Mansfield, Ohio
Posts: 8,827
chernaudi has a real shot at the championship!chernaudi has a real shot at the championship!chernaudi has a real shot at the championship!chernaudi has a real shot at the championship!chernaudi has a real shot at the championship!chernaudi has a real shot at the championship!
Well, in F1 that's happened with Ferrari due to their seniority among teams and constant presence in the series, just ask FOM, who implemented such benefits for Ferrari.
chernaudi is offline  
Quote
Old 4 May 2016, 10:00 (Ref:3638407)   #10361
MyNameIsNigel
Veteran
 
MyNameIsNigel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Switzerland
Lake Geneva Area
Posts: 2,132
MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!
The 2016 Audi Sport Factbook is out.

This schematic diagram on pages 30-31 suggests that the battery cells are distributed longitudinally in a forward section of the monocoque, next to the driver, likely in an attempt to achieve proper weight distribution.


Porsche 919 hybrid diagram for comparison:
MyNameIsNigel is offline  
__________________
In order to finish first, first you have to finish
Quote
Old 4 May 2016, 10:32 (Ref:3638411)   #10362
MyNameIsNigel
Veteran
 
MyNameIsNigel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Switzerland
Lake Geneva Area
Posts: 2,132
MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artur View Post
It must be said, though, that I doubt the handicap that Audi has is big. I would guess it to be around 0.5s
In theory, the current performance "deficit" should be much less than that considering that the EoT is supposed to balance the 8MJ petrol class with the 6MJ petrol class. How good this balance is can be debated.

The real handicap is the "inability" for Audi to opt for the 8MJ option as they already seem to be at the limit in terms of the weight implications. This handicap will only get worse for Audi if or when the rules are revised to open up the ERS possibilities to 10MJ (or more) hybrid systems.

I am still very much of the opinion that the ACO-FIA should get rid of the KTF altogether, while keeping the FTF. This KTF only impacts the fuel energy allocation that Audi gets in order to compensate for the diesel engine overweight. This KTF does not affect the efficiency target that the guys running in the petrol class have to meet and is an unnecessary complication.

IMHO, the ACO-FIA should contemplate to truly balance the petrol and diesel classes within each and the same ERS category (i.e. 8MJ petrol vs. 8MJ diesel) from an overall energy allocation perspective (using a similar approach as with the current FTF) and ensure that all players basically have the same flexibility, from a weight perspective, to integrate whatever hybrid technology they deem adequate, namely by balancing the nominal weight of the best-in-class petrol engine with the nominal weight of the best-in-class diesel engine. In essence, this enable to get the ERS factor out of the equation and concentrate on balancing only the best-in-class engine technologies in terms of efficiency and weight.

The current EoT is not very transparent and somewhat confusing. It currently combines too many considerations: fuel efficiency, ERS incentive, diesel engine overweight compensation, balancing of different technologies in different ERS classes, ...
MyNameIsNigel is offline  
__________________
In order to finish first, first you have to finish
Quote
Old 4 May 2016, 10:49 (Ref:3638415)   #10363
GasperG
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Slovenia
Posts: 612
GasperG has a lot of promise if they can keep it on the circuit!
When 10 MJ petrol class is introduced KTF for 8MJ diesel will be adjusted so that Audi will benefit just as much as petrol 10 MJ, don't worry.

MJ Classes are there just so the ACO has control, the big picture is "make as much hybrid power as min weight allows you to" or "make faster car for less fuel". In that spirit introducing any dead weight ballast for petrol is a complete no-go, because it hurts the direction the rules are going.

There, I hope I managed to explain what I was trying for so long.
GasperG is offline  
Quote
Old 4 May 2016, 13:18 (Ref:3638461)   #10364
MyNameIsNigel
Veteran
 
MyNameIsNigel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Switzerland
Lake Geneva Area
Posts: 2,132
MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!
Quote:
Originally Posted by GasperG View Post
In that spirit introducing any dead weight ballast for petrol is a complete no-go, because it hurts the direction the rules are going.
It's a question of perspective.

I do maintain - and that's just my personal opinion and belief - that it makes more sense to compensate for the diesel engine overweight by imposing a mandatory ballast, rather than artificially compensating this overweight by allowing a more favorable fuel energy allocation to diesel cars, which is the purpose/function of the current KTF.

I find it actually strange that the current rules try to compensate a weight handicap via a more favorable fuel energy allocation. THIS hurts the direction the rules are supposed to go IMHO, because the whole message is improving fuel efficiency, and the KTF fundamentally goes against this message.

Compensating overweight via ballast is far more straightforward, simple and transparent, isn't it ? The KTF actually creates an unnecessary dependence between two elements that are fundamentally unrelated by essence: overweight and fuel energy allocation. There is no connection, so why bother creating one ?

I know that I won't convince you, but you have to admit that there is not only one solution available to the rule-makers when it comes to compensating the overweight of the diesel engine.
MyNameIsNigel is offline  
__________________
In order to finish first, first you have to finish
Quote
Old 4 May 2016, 15:40 (Ref:3638481)   #10365
GasperG
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Slovenia
Posts: 612
GasperG has a lot of promise if they can keep it on the circuit!
When it comes to racing, weight is efficiency advantage no matter how you look at it and when rules favor efficiency then KTF was chosen to preserve that gain.

This way we can have petrol hybrid at 875 kg competing with only 2.7% more fuel energy against diesel hybrid. Your "ballast" way would mean petrol hybrid would need 6.9% more fuel energy to be competitive against diesel hybrid.

This logic would be also true if there would be no MJ classes (unrestricted ERS).
GasperG is offline  
Quote
Old 4 May 2016, 16:25 (Ref:3638489)   #10366
TF110
Veteran
 
TF110's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
United States
Posts: 15,377
TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!
I see were back on the engine weight talk. Audi don't have to use a big 4L engine. They can invest in a smaller lighter diesel (or they can't with the dieselgate?). Downsizing is the trend among the field. What happens if they make a 4 cylinder turbo that weighs 120-130kg? Does that weight factor in the rules still apply?
TF110 is offline  
Quote
Old 4 May 2016, 16:39 (Ref:3638494)   #10367
chernaudi
Veteran
 
chernaudi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
United States
Mansfield, Ohio
Posts: 8,827
chernaudi has a real shot at the championship!chernaudi has a real shot at the championship!chernaudi has a real shot at the championship!chernaudi has a real shot at the championship!chernaudi has a real shot at the championship!chernaudi has a real shot at the championship!
I'm betting that the Toyota engine isn't a relative light weight because of it being both forced induction and twin turbo. Also, combined with going with batteries, the TS050 is over the 875kg limit, while Audi isn't. How is that explained.

It's also been shown that bigger engines that rev slowly are just as if not more efficient than smaller, higher revving engines.

The problem with diesel engines is that because they're compression ignition, they have to be stronger (and hence, likely heavier) to handle the extra compression. Also, the increased displacement is a view to overcome the biggest single deficit that a performance diesel has--that diesels can't rev. While Toyota and Porsche can pull 8000rpm, Audi are stuck to about 4500rpm due to the nature of diesel engines not being capable of running at very high rpm.

Diesels aren't known for making huge top end power, even with forced induction.
chernaudi is offline  
Quote
Old 4 May 2016, 16:52 (Ref:3638498)   #10368
TF110
Veteran
 
TF110's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
United States
Posts: 15,377
TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!TF110 is going for a new world record!
I doubt the Toyota is heavier. Where do you get your info from? You have any insider friends or you pick that up in an article? We don't even know the weight of the Audi engine officially.
TF110 is offline  
Quote
Old 4 May 2016, 18:46 (Ref:3638519)   #10369
Creep89
Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Germany
Herne
Posts: 723
Creep89 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
What will our Audi R18 cars look like at Spa? Here is the new low downforce aero config #WEC #LeagueofPerformance

https://twitter.com/audi__sport/stat...31211230920704


Looks like maybe Audi will be running a low downforce kit?

Last edited by Creep89; 4 May 2016 at 18:54.
Creep89 is offline  
Quote
Old 4 May 2016, 19:27 (Ref:3638527)   #10370
MyNameIsNigel
Veteran
 
MyNameIsNigel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Switzerland
Lake Geneva Area
Posts: 2,132
MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!
Quote:
Originally Posted by GasperG View Post
When it comes to racing, weight is efficiency advantage no matter how you look at it and when rules favor efficiency then KTF was chosen to preserve that gain.

This way we can have petrol hybrid at 875 kg competing with only 2.7% more fuel energy against diesel hybrid. Your "ballast" way would mean petrol hybrid would need 6.9% more fuel energy to be competitive against diesel hybrid.

This logic would be also true if there would be no MJ classes (unrestricted ERS).
The figures your are quoting are however based on the current EoT which assumes an equivalence between the 8MJ petrol and 6MJ diesel. So, yes, Audi artificially get a more favorable fuel allocation due to the KTF, but this in effect is also meant to partly compensate the 2MJ deficit in energy releasable by the ERS. You have to take this into account. The 2.7% figure you are quoting is somewhat misleading because this does not directly reflect the true difference in efficiency between the petrol and diesel technologies.

In terms of pure engine efficiency, the current EoT is based on the assumption that the best-in-class diesel engine is 6.9% more efficient than the best-in-class petrol engine (hence the FTF of 1.069).

In summary, one either sticks with the current EoT principle which balances the 8MJ petrol vs. the 6MJ diesel, in which case the fuel energy allocation for diesel has to take into account the 2MJ deficit in ERS energy (the 6MJ diesel getting a more favorable energy allocation as a result) or one opts for a different EoT principle which truly balances petrol vs. diesel within one and a same ERS class, which implies getting rid of the KTF (and therefore the more favorable fuel energy allocation awarded to diesel) and imposing compensation ballast.

If one were to apply this principle in e.g. the 6MJ class, that would mean that diesel would get a little more than 128MJ (instead of 131.2MJ as per the current EoT) thus imposing more stringent efficiency targets to the diesel competitor.

The compensation ballast would only be an issue in terms of performance if the minimum car weight is exceeded as a result. This at least ensures that all competitors are faced with more or less the same challenge when it comes to packaging the hybrid system within the minimum car weight. If the petrol guys have e.g. 100-150kg to play with to integrate the ERS, why is it that Audi cannot benefit from the same flexibility/freedom ?
MyNameIsNigel is offline  
Quote
Old 4 May 2016, 20:17 (Ref:3638546)   #10371
MyNameIsNigel
Veteran
 
MyNameIsNigel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Switzerland
Lake Geneva Area
Posts: 2,132
MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Creep89 View Post
What will our Audi R18 cars look like at Spa? Here is the new low downforce aero config #WEC #LeagueofPerformance

https://twitter.com/audi__sport/stat...31211230920704


Looks like maybe Audi will be running a low downforce kit?
Definitely:

(source: e-i)
MyNameIsNigel is offline  
Quote
Old 4 May 2016, 20:20 (Ref:3638549)   #10372
gustavobamba
Veteran
 
gustavobamba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Portugal
Viana do Castelo
Posts: 1,222
gustavobamba should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridgustavobamba should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
Audi is really serious about "Low Drag"
gustavobamba is offline  
Quote
Old 4 May 2016, 20:37 (Ref:3638557)   #10373
Adam43
14th
1% Club
 
Adam43's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
European Union
New Orleans
Posts: 42,425
Adam43 is the undisputed Champion of the World!Adam43 is the undisputed Champion of the World!Adam43 is the undisputed Champion of the World!Adam43 is the undisputed Champion of the World!Adam43 is the undisputed Champion of the World!Adam43 is the undisputed Champion of the World!Adam43 is the undisputed Champion of the World!Adam43 is the undisputed Champion of the World!Adam43 is the undisputed Champion of the World!Adam43 is the undisputed Champion of the World!Adam43 is the undisputed Champion of the World!
Ouch, awful and great at the same time.
Adam43 is offline  
__________________
Seriously not taking motorsport too seriously.
Quote
Old 4 May 2016, 20:49 (Ref:3638560)   #10374
MyNameIsNigel
Veteran
 
MyNameIsNigel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Switzerland
Lake Geneva Area
Posts: 2,132
MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!MyNameIsNigel has a real shot at the podium!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam43 View Post
Ouch, awful and great at the same time.
Indeed

I find it interesting to see how the front fenders have evolved since the car launch:


I must admit that I am not in love with the look of this LM package
MyNameIsNigel is offline  
Quote
Old 4 May 2016, 21:08 (Ref:3638568)   #10375
GasperG
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Slovenia
Posts: 612
GasperG has a lot of promise if they can keep it on the circuit!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel View Post
In terms of pure engine efficiency, the current EoT is based on the assumption that the best-in-class diesel engine is 6.9% more efficient than the best-in-class petrol engine (hence the FTF of 1.069).
This is not an assumption but a real world value measured real time in every LMP car. True it's a past value from the last time the rules have changed (post LeMans?).

Quote:
Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel View Post
In summary, one either sticks with the current EoT principle which balances the 8MJ petrol vs. the 6MJ diesel, in which case the fuel energy allocation for diesel has to take into account the 2MJ deficit in ERS energy (the 6MJ diesel getting a more favorable energy allocation as a result) or one opts for a different EoT principle which truly balances petrol vs. diesel within one and a same ERS class, which implies getting rid of the KTF (and therefore the more favorable fuel energy allocation awarded to diesel) and imposing compensation ballast.

If one were to apply this principle in e.g. the 6MJ class, that would mean that diesel would get a little more than 128MJ (instead of 131.2MJ as per the current EoT) thus imposing more stringent efficiency targets to the diesel competitor.

The compensation ballast would only be an issue in terms of performance if the minimum car weight is exceeded as a result. This at least ensures that all competitors are faced with more or less the same challenge when it comes to packaging the hybrid system within the minimum car weight. If the petrol guys have e.g. 100-150kg to play with to integrate the ERS, why is it that Audi cannot benefit from the same flexibility/freedom ?
Every one has total freedom to put anything they like in 875 kg min weight package, don't look at what MJ classes exist but what is physically possible to put in the car to be in the weight limit and to sip the amount of fuel allowed.

The rules are written to the cars that exist, but behind those rules it should be really simple general rule: as equal fuel energy too all the competitors as possible. (currently we are at only 2.7% difference).

If petrol competitor would choose heavy engine with miller cycle and HCCI with equal to diesel thermal efficiency, then they would have to completely rewrite the rules. And again that concept would benefit from more powerful ICE (just as Audi) but would not have enough spare weight for heavy hybrid system (just as Audi). It's simple physics.

And don't forget, according to fuel flow and engine thermal efficiency Audi has >4% more engine power in 6 MJ class.
GasperG is offline  
Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[WEC] Porsche Prototype Discussion Simmi North American Racing 9260 5 Mar 2024 20:32
[WEC] Toyota LMP1 Discussion Gingers4Justice ACO Regulated Series 6771 18 Aug 2020 09:37
Nissan LMP1 Discussion Gingers4Justice Sportscar & GT Racing 5568 17 Feb 2016 23:22
How about a LMP1 Pro & LMP1 Privateer class Holt Sportscar & GT Racing 35 6 Jun 2012 13:44
[LM24 Race] Audi LMP1 Poster all art deco'd. blackohio ACO Regulated Series 2 27 Oct 2011 06:30


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:12.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Original Website Copyright © 1998-2003 Craig Antil. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2004-2021 Royalridge Computing. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2021-2022 Grant MacDonald. All Rights Reserved.