Printable View
unfortunatly thats true. its a shame, a real shame, ferrari, porsche, ford, jaguar, nissan etc-all names that belong in sportscar racing. i for one would love to see a world championship with all those big names, its the ultimate dream of any sportscar enthusiast. mind you, theres nothing wrong with smaller non-car-manufacturer independent constructors like pescarolo, courage, creation etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Actually I'm not ignoring it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Nobody really knows how OEM level engineered N/A powered car will run vs the Diesels. We have an idea, but that's comparing, Audi's 2nd brand new Diesel car with an constantly improved 908 that had an aero and power advantage. All to a first year AMR effort and they had pretty much had to throw out much of what they learned last year since the ACO changed the rear wings.
In 2010 they are demanding teams close in the rear bodywork.
Petit will be the first time a fully sorted Acura will be able to race vs the two dominate Diesel cars.
Gale Banks has been working hard on trying to lighten diesel engines to run at high speeds and improve fuel delivery.
Audi has built a 2nd generation PURE Racing Diesel engine, they haven't released a ton of info about the engine but I think its safe to say rev limit is around 7,000rpm, not 5k.
It likely just has iron or high steel liners in the cylinders and specialized multi-valve overhead cam heads. But outside of all the things you need for a diesel engine, I'm pretty sure its build much like a current F1 V10 engine.
Where is it a fact that diesels cannot rev above 5200 rpm?
Direct port fuel injection with High Pressure pumps solves the fueling issue. Then strength of materials determines what the limit is, and air available for combustion.
Risi Competizione isn't?Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateDanGTR
:p
Chemistry of fuel-
Gasoline has approximately 20,000 btu/lbm of high octane gasoline. YMMV, depending on how ACO and ALMS control the mix.
DF2 has 19,673 btu/lbm.
The absolute difference is that a gallon of DF weighs about 8% more (7.08 versus 6.5 lbs/gall) than gasoline, so a 'tank' of a certain volume has mre stored energy. Hence the recent restrictions of tank size, etc for DF2 burners.
My point: diesel isn't faster because of chemistry, but it does have the capability to go further for each gallon burned. That alone is a huge advantage, and why the diesels have a few more restrictions in the attempt to set parity on-track.
That's correct, I don't know if Bob has been following modern Turbo-Diesel technology. Audi and "The Lion" have built this first modern PURE racing diesel engines that use strong yet high tech and highly expensive parts.Quote:
Originally Posted by InTTruder
This is the reason why others specialty engine builders have NO Racing Turbo-Diesel Engines even if they enjoyed an advantage in the rules. Both John Judd and AEM have said that they do not have the resources of the OEM.
This is why AEM does not have Direct Injection when Audi sported that on the R8 years earlier. Judd does not have to money to develop a Direct Injection system and Acura felt they'll keep that for when they actually need it. A 5-10% jump in power and 20-25% in fuel economy is nothing to laugh at and combined with the larger restrictor given to N/A cars by the ACO for 2010, its very possible N/A cars by AMR and Acura can in FACT be on complete pace with the Turbo-Diesels.
You will see a 908 next year with a electric motor. I promise you without even knowing, unlike Corsa and Zytex the electric motor will power the car down pit lane. From pit in to pit out, the diesel motor will be off and since they have the resources to develop the ECU software needed for supreme control via throttle input.
A Hybrid car can work, but only the OEM's have the resources to develop it from start to finish and not a middling project in progress like the Corsa effort.
When I found out Corsa was running a Group 92 Mercedes Benz street car battery to power the electric motor, I knew this is a program lacking in funding, not desire, knowledge or effort.
This is why I feel sorry for Zytek and Corsa because I think they'll be eclipsed by a properly ran and fund Toyota effort who just like Audi has all the reasons to push Diesel, Toyota will have to make its Hybrids appeal to more than the well-healed and tree huggers. They'll be able to prove that having a electric motor in tandem with a high powered IC engine, as the Ford Fusion runs up to 47mph on just electric power alone; adds economy and performance for a modest weight gain.
This is an interesting time for Sportscar Racing, there things that can work vs Diesels. Let's not forget both Porsche and Acura have beaten Audi STRAIGHT UP (This would be 2007 and 2008). The ACO tried to slow the P2's down, all Acura did was turn up the downforce and improved the suspension on the car and Porsche countered with direct injection and aero improvements.
DJ:
When I speak of diesel I mean one that uses what is "street" diesel fuel, and no fifty-two hundred is not a magic number but a common one. (At least one commercial diesel has a fuel shut-off at fifty-five hundred.
High pressure, direct injection is NOT a new idea.
Racing (will not run on street fuel,) "diesels" are said to have theoretical limits, and just like gasoline engines, that limit exists because of the ability to get fuel and air in without a part going pffft,.(I have heard the current ones are rumored to hit the six thousand range)
These engines are using a fuel closer to a fuel in the AA/F category than diesel fuel, much less the unleaded crap racing gasoline engines are forced to use.
At the same time if a gasoline engine had no more restrictions on fuel than the diesel engines do, they could brew a oxygenated fuel that would embarrass the diesels.(but again as fuel flow governs the diesels, the ACO, who wins restrictions, would be adjusted again to make sure the gasoline engines were crippled again.)
Which then leads to transmissions and gearing which could make the diesel delivery more--efficient, but as top line trannies now are six figure items, it makes the diesel verses gasoline comparison a bigger farce withWHO WINS rules now encompassing engine design, fuel design, and transmission design. All created by the ACO, not physics or which company produces the best product.
I.e. who is allowed to apply what, to what, and how, is STRICTLY the ONLY thing that determines who wins (with the pocket book, being a major aside).
I guess it is how the GARRA rules would look if Roger Peske wrote them.
As I said, if these two engine types were to go head to head without the ACO forced slow down items, the diesels would not stand a snowballs chance in hell.
The reason racing vehicles have not used diesels up to the this point is based on physics and chemistry, now it is contrived ACO rules that let the ignorant huddled masses think other wise.
So Bob, Basically if the ACO went "Bring what you want, we don't care" you would be a fan. For a year or two It might work...then a car or two might end up in the stands. Or the parade would be boring and only the 4 or 5 factory cars would be worth watching.
Racing organizations have handicapped technology and racing since the end of the old CanAM where it may be the last series that had rules that basically allowed the freedom you want.
Bob, you have bashed GARRA and ACO for handicapping gas cars, any cars, diesel cars or anything else but the truth has always been they do this for a reason. Two actually. Cost control, and safety. Add in they don't want one team mopping the floor year after year spending millions to do it. We saw how that works in f1, and it is the greatest spectacle and yet the most boring racing. F1 gets away with it...Sportscars wont....
No major series in the U.S. has EVER SAID, without exception, "Bring what you want, we don't care" so that point is vacuous but to the rest;Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Your first point: Paranoia based on --nothing,-- but fear, for the sake of fear.
Your second point: Already exists and always has and always will without regard to the rules.
This is why close races used to be so well remembered. They were exceptions based on different teams efforts and desire to win, not a contrived farce.
---The exception, to the latter, being, before IMSA, ACO-inspired restrictor mania, many tracks had fields of forty some cars,(in one to two classes) with the big one at Daytona reaching the sixties.
Many cars creates much interest, WITHOUT regard to how many of those have a chance to win the race.( these are cars that made the race, not counting entries that did not make it.)
Even before the current IMSA, as the old one made the rules more and more restrictive, the size of fields shrank.
The current IMSA seems to be arrogant or asininely ignorant to that fact, as they have followed the same path that destroyed the original IMSA.
The CAN-AM was in fact run whatever you could come up with as long as it was safe...
Given what little they knew about active suspension, active aero, ground effects or fluid dynamics back in the Can Am's heyday, they still did pretty well with little alum chassis and big block Alum Chevy power (Chevy wasn't building Alum blocks in-house, Alcoa was)
Mark is right a modern Can Am series would be too dangerous.
18,000rpm 3.0L V8 or V10 engines with twin turbos and electric hybrid start motors they double as "Push to Pass" and Pit Lane power.
My guess with no limitations on boost - 2,000hp off the electric motor, maybe 2,200-2,300hp with the electric assist.
Active Aero and Suspension, it would be insanely fast. F1 wouldn't stand a chance, once you open the can of Whoop Ass with the throttle, only a Top Fuel Dragster might be faster...
Modern Tilke designed tracks might have a chance, but yep Mark is right at Mosport, Road Atlanta, Road America, its only a matter of time before the car would launch itself and kill not only the driver but a few fans as well.
Though it would be seriously interesting until then...