New ACO regulations
Discussion
Anyone think they will actually make much difference this time? They are a bit more drastic than the ones after Spa. I like the idea of closer races but i'm not sure its fair to slow the diesels down simply because they are works teams with works resources.
Does anyone think that Toyota may have enquired to the ACO about equalising the petrols and diesels, or is that just cynical?
http://www.planetlemans.com/2011/10/10/aco-2012-te...
Does anyone think that Toyota may have enquired to the ACO about equalising the petrols and diesels, or is that just cynical?
http://www.planetlemans.com/2011/10/10/aco-2012-te...
There has been rumblings about the perceived inequality between the petrol and diesel runners for a couple of years. And I have to admit that the rules did favour the oilburners. It has made sense to create some form of parity between them, it was creating different classes P1-P(etrol) P1-D(iesel)
We all want to see the best team/car win, so hopefully this is a step in way of getting that.
We all want to see the best team/car win, so hopefully this is a step in way of getting that.
IN YESTERDAY's press Peugeot were moaning about the "inequality" of the new regs. They said that to combat it they need to do far more aerodynamic testing this winter, especially on the new fin, and also on downforce. in other words, they will be back at square one when race time comes around. Let's face it, the diesels have had the upper hand for nearly ten years and it's time the petrol boys had a chance.
I know they've been trying to "equate" the performance of the diesels to the petrols, by basically slowing the diesels down, and last year, I actually thought that lesser pace, of the oil burners was really evident on track, compared to previous years. But, in the process of a great tussle between themselves, they still mullered the petrols. I still think this'll be the case again this year. But, why, now they've reached this point, with the diesels, dont they allow the petrols to now, up their power to achieve parity, and not loose the power and spectacle, that the LMP 1 class should involve.
I mean, can this be done with the petrols ? Are they restricted in some way in their present form,(I know new engines might not be in the frame), but could the restrictors not be enlarged, turbos turned up, giving the engines more ommpphhh, or are they using all they can just to compete now ? Why are they looking to slow down to equate ?
I mean, can this be done with the petrols ? Are they restricted in some way in their present form,(I know new engines might not be in the frame), but could the restrictors not be enlarged, turbos turned up, giving the engines more ommpphhh, or are they using all they can just to compete now ? Why are they looking to slow down to equate ?
It isn't a question of power outputs per se but a question of consumption. If the diesels fuel 10 times less than the petrols over the course of the race that is one hell of a time advantage. They were fueling every 35 minutes this year because the tank size has been reduced, but the overall calculation of power and consumption and tank size is pretty complicated. It does seem though that the ACO, despite their working hand in hand with Audi (witness all the company cars at the ACO plus the pace cars etc.) are now addressing the diesel dominance.
lowdrag said:
It isn't a question of power outputs per se but a question of consumption. If the diesels fuel 10 times less than the petrols over the course of the race that is one hell of a time advantage. They were fueling every 35 minutes this year because the tank size has been reduced, but the overall calculation of power and consumption and tank size is pretty complicated. It does seem though that the ACO, despite their working hand in hand with Audi (witness all the company cars at the ACO plus the pace cars etc.) are now addressing the diesel dominance.
At least they are being seen to be doing something about it, its not really the ACO's fault that Audi and Pug keep developing their cars at such a rate compared to the private entries. I do think its more than coincidence that they are acting now just as Porsche and Toyota are knocking on the LMP petrol door. It has to be remembered that the previous diesel equivalence was based against the 2011 petrol engines, not ALL the petrol engines (I believe). This means that the comparison was over a very small (and some would say under-performing) section of the petrol P1 class.
Money wins and those who are willing to spend the money will be on the lead pace. It has always been thus.
Money wins and those who are willing to spend the money will be on the lead pace. It has always been thus.
In many ways I don't envy the ACO, as there are *soooo* many factors to consider when trying to equalise performance, and how do you put a value on each element ?
Just off the top of my head the following items could all contribute to quicker lap times for the diesels:
- works drivers - undoubtedly quicker and have more time in the cars / simulators than non-factory teams;
- factory budgets far exceed that of smaller teams - they can afford to prototype and test more parts, try different configuations on track rather than on computer, burn through more tyres in testing, go to Sebring to test for a week, etc., etc.
- calorific output of different fuels - on paper it's possible to calculate it, but very much more difficult to see how that energy translates into real-world performance which isn't influenced by other factors such as aero and the trade off between downforce, drag, top speed, etc.
- engine 'behaviour' - again, on paper you can look at power figures and torque curves, but I understood one of the complications with restricting diesels was that the power is affected more than the torque. There was an interesting article somewhere (sadly I can't remember where
) which spoke about the way that air restrictors impacted diesels less and that their lap time was generated by significantly higher engine torque punching the cars out of the corner rather than peak power and higher speeds down the straights.If there was a manufacturer team who turned up with 9 top drivers, a massive budget, hours of testing and development but with a petrol engine in the back, and they were 3 seconds off the pace of the diesels, well then I could be sympathetic to looking at more aggressive equivalency rules to level the playing field.
But at the moment it seems like Peugeot and Audi are being penalised for doing a good job (well, Audi at least...
) which seems a little short-sighted - you don't want to be annoying a manufacturer who has been around since 1999 by making it impossible for them to be competitive.It's like the analogy of me trying to buy a Ferrari and not having enough money - it's not that the Ferrari is over-priced and they should lower the price so I can buy it, it's simply that I can't afford to buy a Ferrari.... That's *my* problem, not theirs... If I want a Ferrari then I'll just have to work harder to get it.
Eloquently put Nick, and the question of calorific values is one I should have thought of. Now the petrol cars are I believe, still using "pool petrol" controlled by the ACO, but Shell bring special diesel for the Audis and Total for the Peugeots. Is this controlled in its calorific value? An interesting point.
lowdrag said:
...but Shell bring special diesel for the Audis and Total for the Peugeots. Is this controlled in its calorific value? An interesting point.
Indeed, and one I'd forgotten about.It may be a combination of many beneficial effects from 'custom' fuels - the ability to run a more aggressive compression ratio, enabling the fuel to burn in an optimum manner to maximise the extraction of energy, the ability to cope with higher fuel pressures, cleaner burn so you don't need as restrictive a particulate collector, etc., etc., could all contribute to getting the most out of the available energy in the fuel.
That's not to say the 'pool petrol' is bad, but if it can't be optimised then it's not quite as good. I *assume* the petrol engine manufacturers are able to get a supply of the 'pool fuel' to enable them to map the engines as effectively as they can, but that's about making the engine cope with the fuel rather than making the fuel as efficient as it could be.
Just to add to what Nick M said. I was at the Motor Sport evening last weekend with Allan McNish, Tom Kristensen plus Audi engineers Howden Haynes and Leena Gade and this question of the imbalance between petrol and diesel engines came up in the Q&A session. The answer from Howden Haynes was that even if all teams were running petrol engines, Audi and Peugeot would be just as dominant as they are now because of their level of commitment and investment in their race teams.
Big oily man said:
Just to add to what Nick M said. I was at the Motor Sport evening last weekend with Allan McNish, Tom Kristensen plus Audi engineers Howden Haynes and Leena Gade and this question of the imbalance between petrol and diesel engines came up in the Q&A session. The answer from Howden Haynes was that even if all teams were running petrol engines, Audi and Peugeot would be just as dominant as they are now because of their level of commitment and investment in their race teams.
I think thats most peoples opinion on it, at least we will get to find out next year 
Wow, there's alot of calorific values, etc being banded about, but here's a thing, we all know what all diesels generally have, over petrols engines, of the same power, and that's torque.
So rather than restrictors, fuel tank size, none of which seems to work, or even, in the future, excess ballast for the tdi's, a la touring car style, why not reduce the size of the flywheel on the diesel engines in an effort to equalise the torque outputs of the engines.
I'd sooner, rather than strangling potential performance, the ACO let the diesels fly free, other manufacturers can join the club, all welcome, and run LMP 1D, and LMP 1P, and allow each to perform to its max.
As you allude too, bucks speak, so realistically, they are never going to allow the ACO equallise the two formats, are they ?
So rather than restrictors, fuel tank size, none of which seems to work, or even, in the future, excess ballast for the tdi's, a la touring car style, why not reduce the size of the flywheel on the diesel engines in an effort to equalise the torque outputs of the engines.
I'd sooner, rather than strangling potential performance, the ACO let the diesels fly free, other manufacturers can join the club, all welcome, and run LMP 1D, and LMP 1P, and allow each to perform to its max.
As you allude too, bucks speak, so realistically, they are never going to allow the ACO equallise the two formats, are they ?
Edited by icepop on Friday 14th October 23:39
Gassing Station | Le Mans | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff