[LMS] Audi R18 (including Cake Analysis)

[arakis]

the rule is stupid because as far as i know there is no way in hell anyone would fit a second person into an open top car's therethical second seat!

[CTD]

Originally Posted by arakis

the rule is stupid because as far as i know there is no way in hell anyone would fit a second person into an open top car's therethical second seat!

You actually can with smaller modification.
The rules is as said more for design purposes, than real use.
But believe me, you want that rule to keep the design proper. Besides, there is no point of a second roll hoop also, but we want it there.

[rich07]

Originally Posted by arakis

the rule is stupid because as far as i know there is no way in hell anyone would fit a second person into an open top car's therethical second seat!

Not sure about R10 and R15 but you could fit a passenger into the R8, not sure what modifications were required though.

[6157]

Originally Posted by arakis

the rule is stupid because as far as i know there is no way in hell anyone would fit a second person into an open top car's therethical second seat!

If you take away the "two seat" edict from the rules, you end up with Audi and Peugeot building Formula 1 prototypes. As if spending and factory teams aren't out of control enough, letting teams go down that path would be an astronomical mistake.

To expand on that further, I think the rule should be taken literally and the car should be built with enough room on the opposite side for an average man to actually sit. However, when it comes to closed-top cars, I'm sure some would complain about the size of the cockpit, like they do with DPs.

[Lola T70]

Originally Posted by CTD

Besides, there is no point of a second roll hoop also, but we want it there.

A second roll hoop is there for safety more than visual mirror conformity of the chassis.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by 6157

To expand on that further, I think the rule should be taken literally and the car should be built with enough room on the opposite side for an average man to actually sit. However, when it comes to closed-top cars, I'm sure some would complain about the size of the cockpit, like they do with DPs.

[chernaudi]

Actually, the excuse the ACO gave for the second roll bar was symmetry and to give the appearance of a two seat car, as well as justify the closed cockpit cars' appearance.

In reality, it's just as much for saftey as anything else--the Audi R8 had a supplmentary structure (called the Fish-head) added to the roll bar after Alboreto's accident. That said, the R8 was as safe--if not safer--than an F1 car from a roll-over stand point, as the R8's roll bar could withstand 27 tons of force, nearly 3 times the ACO/FIA's reccomended requirement.

Also, in the R8, R10 and R15, a second seat isn't really practical, because all the cars' electronics are stored where the second seat would be, and I'll bet that the Bentley and the Pug were probably the same for the front-line race cars. Older Bentleys and 908s have been converted into two seaters, but probably have ECU and such mounted under the second seat like the Aston Martin DB7 Vantage of old.

[gucom]

Originally Posted by 6157

To expand on that further, I think the rule should be taken literally and the car should be built with enough room on the opposite side for an average man to actually sit. However, when it comes to closed-top cars, I'm sure some would complain about the size of the cockpit, like they do with DPs.

I couldn't agree more! That would really make the fundamental character of a sportscar obvious, also from a historical point of view.
I think it's really unfortunate that current LMP's derive their "LMP-ness" basically from the bodywork rules (which can seem very random and pointless if you don't know the history of sportscars), rather than from a functional difference to single-seaters.

[TRuss]

I completely don't understand how having a single seat in the center of the cockpit will turn prototype racing into a greater F1 like spending war than it already is. The cars are already based heavily on formula cars with the raised noses and all of that stuff. Having one less "seat" isn't going to change anything. It's doubtful that it would even make a major visual change. And I don't see how it would affect a prototypes road relevance either. They are only relevant in the technology and systems being developed. To me this rule is as archaic as the people who grumble about the raised noses and that stuff. Complaining that's it's too formula like. It doesn't matter. It's a race car and it's only priority is to go faster than the competition within a set of given regulations. F1 cars are fast, so naturally they will influence the design of other cars as long as the regs will allow it. It doesn't matter what it looks like. Besides. Nobody important is asking us what we think about all of this anyway. So why stress it?

The really funny part is, that F1 engineers would kill for the opportunity to run fenders (also an archaic rule) and maybe even closed cockpit. I bet that'd really **** some of you off.

[Aysedasi]

At the risk of finding another thread with more about F1 in it, why do you bet that?

[ptclaus98]

Originally Posted by deggis

That's a liberal interpretation of "normal sized man" isn't it? When they can get Wurz and Webber into one, that'd be fair.

[ptclaus98]

And high noses should be banned because they're ugly. As a matter of fact that should be a rule across all of motorsport. I should say that I'm biased about that, though.

[TRuss]

Cleaner aero. Open wheels cause all kind of problems. The Mercedes W196 sometimes used a more sports car style body work with fenders on higher speed circuits back in 1955 I believe. Closed wheels have been banned in Grand Prix/F1 ever since. Similary fuel injection has been banned in NASCAR since the Black Widow Chevies in '57. All of these rules are archaic but have been around so long that they now somewhat define each of the series mentioned and the machinese within.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by gucom

I couldn't agree more! That would really make the fundamental character of a sportscar obvious, also from a historical point of view.
I think it's really unfortunate that current LMP's derive their "LMP-ness" basically from the bodywork rules (which can seem very random and pointless if you don't know the history of sportscars), rather than from a functional difference to single-seaters.

+1




L.P.

[TRuss]

Sorry Aysedasi. I misunderstood your question. I was going to edit my other post but I'm not sure how.

I was betting that since many sportscar fans are already displeased with the similarities shared with F1 cars, that if they shared even more similarities that they would be would extra upset. Or maybe they would feel flattered that for once an F1 car was taking cues from a prototype instead of the otherway around. Not that the average F1 fan would realise this.