24 Heures du Mans 2011
Posted by DaveEllis
Shame about Mcnish! best driver out there but was it a silly mistake?
Also big shame for Davidson. Ironic that despite all efforts to reduce the flips, he still has one. Toyota showed ok though, no more or less than expected really.
Delta wing... well good riddance! Waste of time and money.
?
I'd like to see a real innovative car next year, with a purpose... As for delta wing, what was so great about it? Why did it deserve the 56th entry? Low drag, low weight, half the power? Ok. But I have no doubt's a conventional chassis architecture with no regulations could achieve low weight, and low drag whilst being quicker than the delta wing. IMO it was just a huge marketing exercise living off it's radical looks.
Also, once again GT battle was awesome, as was LMP2.
I think Toyota also proved that diesel is not always the winning factor. This is the first year we have had a petrol engine developed for a factory team with factory money behind it. It was impressive. Sure, the Audi unit was better but you'd expect that after Audi's know-how. The diesel does have potential to perform better yes, but Toyota did prove IMO they can take the fight with petrol power.
Again, watching the Audi's through the porsche curves was amazing. Never seen anything like it before!!
Good to see the Dome racing too, albeit not a great deal. The short battle with the JRM car was interesting, the JRM had the straight line speed but you could visually see the Dome had more downforce, and through porsche curves and chicanes the Dome just closed right up!
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
Also big shame for Davidson. Ironic that despite all efforts to reduce the flips, he still has one. Toyota showed ok though, no more or less than expected really.
Delta wing... well good riddance! Waste of time and money.
?
I'd like to see a real innovative car next year, with a purpose... As for delta wing, what was so great about it? Why did it deserve the 56th entry? Low drag, low weight, half the power? Ok. But I have no doubt's a conventional chassis architecture with no regulations could achieve low weight, and low drag whilst being quicker than the delta wing. IMO it was just a huge marketing exercise living off it's radical looks.
Also, once again GT battle was awesome, as was LMP2.
I think Toyota also proved that diesel is not always the winning factor. This is the first year we have had a petrol engine developed for a factory team with factory money behind it. It was impressive. Sure, the Audi unit was better but you'd expect that after Audi's know-how. The diesel does have potential to perform better yes, but Toyota did prove IMO they can take the fight with petrol power.
Again, watching the Audi's through the porsche curves was amazing. Never seen anything like it before!!
Good to see the Dome racing too, albeit not a great deal. The short battle with the JRM car was interesting, the JRM had the straight line speed but you could visually see the Dome had more downforce, and through porsche curves and chicanes the Dome just closed right up!
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
chet Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Delta wing... well good riddance! Waste of time
> and money.
> ?
> I'd like to see a real innovative car next year,
> with a purpose... As for delta wing, what was so
> great about it? Why did it deserve the 56th entry?
> Low drag, low weight, half the power? Ok. But I
> have no doubt's a conventional chassis
> architecture with no regulations could achieve low
> weight, and low drag whilst being quicker than the
> delta wing. IMO it was just a huge marketing
> exercise living off it's radical looks.
Maybe I'm biased because I really like the Deltawing, but there is some merit behind it. As an engineering student I can tell you that 'best' way to design a car is far from what you'd think looked normal. Keeping up as well as it did with half the power is a massive achievement, and just goes to show how flawed the current conventional cars are. Even some of the F1 bosses have been saying that the only reason we stick to familiar looking cars, is that people think they look better than what is the best engineering solution. Practicality comes into it aswell, you can't have a road car that has no room for passengers etc.
So many people have hated the Deltawing, even my fellow engineering students. I don't get it! I think it looks fantastic and it has incredible performance compared to other cars given it's power. Seems to me that the only reason they don't like it is the usual arguement that "it's engine is tiny" and "it's different to what I'm used to". People say "why isn't there any innovation in motorsport anymore", well here it is and yet people STILL moan about it! Yet again it's just another case of people being unhappy no matteer what they are given.
Oh, and it reminds me of the Red Gazelle, aswell
when I was 7 and playing F Zero X, I dreamed that cars would look like the FZero cars in the future, and guess what? We seem pretty close to it with the Deltawing :D
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know you want to. [judgegrudge.mybrute.com]
-------------------------------------------------------
> Delta wing... well good riddance! Waste of time
> and money.
> ?
> I'd like to see a real innovative car next year,
> with a purpose... As for delta wing, what was so
> great about it? Why did it deserve the 56th entry?
> Low drag, low weight, half the power? Ok. But I
> have no doubt's a conventional chassis
> architecture with no regulations could achieve low
> weight, and low drag whilst being quicker than the
> delta wing. IMO it was just a huge marketing
> exercise living off it's radical looks.
Maybe I'm biased because I really like the Deltawing, but there is some merit behind it. As an engineering student I can tell you that 'best' way to design a car is far from what you'd think looked normal. Keeping up as well as it did with half the power is a massive achievement, and just goes to show how flawed the current conventional cars are. Even some of the F1 bosses have been saying that the only reason we stick to familiar looking cars, is that people think they look better than what is the best engineering solution. Practicality comes into it aswell, you can't have a road car that has no room for passengers etc.
So many people have hated the Deltawing, even my fellow engineering students. I don't get it! I think it looks fantastic and it has incredible performance compared to other cars given it's power. Seems to me that the only reason they don't like it is the usual arguement that "it's engine is tiny" and "it's different to what I'm used to". People say "why isn't there any innovation in motorsport anymore", well here it is and yet people STILL moan about it! Yet again it's just another case of people being unhappy no matteer what they are given.
Oh, and it reminds me of the Red Gazelle, aswell
when I was 7 and playing F Zero X, I dreamed that cars would look like the FZero cars in the future, and guess what? We seem pretty close to it with the Deltawing :D--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know you want to. [judgegrudge.mybrute.com]
I don't have an issue with the engine. I was impressed with the unit, but one of the reasons it kept up was because it had almost half the drag, and it weighed a lot less because it was not bound by regulations!
Where was the innovation? If anything the best things about the car were the front tyres made my Michelin, and the engine made by Nissan. Overall the car had nothing new, or nothing striking as to think I could see that being used in the future, or was relevant to road going vehicles. It looked different.... so what? I would put a million pounds on Wirth (for example) being able to design and build a conventional chassis design with half the power, and half the drag with less weight than the LMP2,s AND be quicker than the delta wing. What merits did the car have?
As an engineering feat, getting it to the track and racing it for as long as they did was fairly impressive, I agree but I just do not see what innovation the car had to deserve the 56th entry. Ok, it looked a bit different, but it was only just quicker than the GT pro's right?!
Look at next year's entry, the WR Hydrogen car. Now that is innovation! That at least has some sort of road relevance and is completely new! Look at Toyota's and Audi's hybrid systems? Impressive! Though I believe we need to thank Williams for Audi's
!
I liked the way it looked, but I just believe it was a case of Nissan, and the ACO trying to pull in more viewers being showing something radical looking. It was just a marketing ploy IMO. Let's say there was a car with half the drag, power and less weight yet looke like a standard LMP2. Who would even care? This was all a ploy to attract a couple more fans / keep other fans still interested in the Pug's absence.
I will be looking to be proven wrong though...
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
Where was the innovation? If anything the best things about the car were the front tyres made my Michelin, and the engine made by Nissan. Overall the car had nothing new, or nothing striking as to think I could see that being used in the future, or was relevant to road going vehicles. It looked different.... so what? I would put a million pounds on Wirth (for example) being able to design and build a conventional chassis design with half the power, and half the drag with less weight than the LMP2,s AND be quicker than the delta wing. What merits did the car have?
As an engineering feat, getting it to the track and racing it for as long as they did was fairly impressive, I agree but I just do not see what innovation the car had to deserve the 56th entry. Ok, it looked a bit different, but it was only just quicker than the GT pro's right?!
Look at next year's entry, the WR Hydrogen car. Now that is innovation! That at least has some sort of road relevance and is completely new! Look at Toyota's and Audi's hybrid systems? Impressive! Though I believe we need to thank Williams for Audi's
!I liked the way it looked, but I just believe it was a case of Nissan, and the ACO trying to pull in more viewers being showing something radical looking. It was just a marketing ploy IMO. Let's say there was a car with half the drag, power and less weight yet looke like a standard LMP2. Who would even care? This was all a ploy to attract a couple more fans / keep other fans still interested in the Pug's absence.
I will be looking to be proven wrong though...
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
But that's what's so innovative about it - it is a completely different concept for the layout of a car. The key is in the name - an 'experimental' slot, it's for trying out new concepts... it doesn't have to be quicker (although of course that is the aim), but at the end of the day they're using that slot to try out things that might not be tried anywhere else.
Also bear in mind that it is a new born idea it could still have a long way to go in terms of improvements.
If you ask me - although they both deserve their slots in the Le Mans, a car with a completely different layout philosophy is a lot more experimental than a conventionally shaped car with a different engine... and hybrids have been around for a while now, as much as I like them, they don't really belong in the experimental slot.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know you want to. [judgegrudge.mybrute.com]
Also bear in mind that it is a new born idea it could still have a long way to go in terms of improvements.
If you ask me - although they both deserve their slots in the Le Mans, a car with a completely different layout philosophy is a lot more experimental than a conventionally shaped car with a different engine... and hybrids have been around for a while now, as much as I like them, they don't really belong in the experimental slot.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know you want to. [judgegrudge.mybrute.com]
flat tyre Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But that's what's so innovative about it - it is a
> completely different concept for the layout of a
> car. The key is in the name - an 'experimental'
> slot, it's for trying out new concepts... it
> doesn't have to be quicker (although of course
> that is the aim), but at the end of the day
> they're using that slot to try out things that
> might not be tried anywhere else.
>
I just feel given a regulation-less entry slot, an entry that was more relevant to future technologies would have been far more innovative, and when I say innovative, I mean technology and design with a purpose of better performance.
Aside from low drag what performance benefits does the car have?
> Also bear in mind that it is a new born idea it
> could still have a long way to go in terms of
> improvements.
>
> If you ask me - although they both deserve their
> slots in the Le Mans, a car with a completely
> different layout philosophy is a lot more
> experimental than a conventionally shaped car with
> a different engine... and hybrids have been around
> for a while now, as much as I like them, they
> don't really belong in the experimental slot.
I am not saying the hybrids deserve the slot, but WR's hydrogen car certainly does! Or maybe even a fully electric racing vehicle?
My point comes down to one single question, what technology, or innovation is there on the Delta wing that could pave a way for future vehicle design, and/or has future road vehicle technology.
Also, same pace as LMP2? Barely! It was not achieving the target lap times either. Fuel economy might an important issue, and of course have relevance to the race itself but the car achieved low drag and good fuel economy because it was not bound by regulations. That is my point. If they achieved the same figures with a car that was LMP2 legal then I would be amazed. The WR of course is not regulated either but hydrogen is a never before tried technology which does have possible future relevance.
Look, I admire what highcroft did, and I admire its looks, or at least have come to! But I can only see a marketing ploy for getting Nissan some cash, and ACO and Le mans better coverage....
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
-------------------------------------------------------
> But that's what's so innovative about it - it is a
> completely different concept for the layout of a
> car. The key is in the name - an 'experimental'
> slot, it's for trying out new concepts... it
> doesn't have to be quicker (although of course
> that is the aim), but at the end of the day
> they're using that slot to try out things that
> might not be tried anywhere else.
>
I just feel given a regulation-less entry slot, an entry that was more relevant to future technologies would have been far more innovative, and when I say innovative, I mean technology and design with a purpose of better performance.
Aside from low drag what performance benefits does the car have?
> Also bear in mind that it is a new born idea it
> could still have a long way to go in terms of
> improvements.
>
> If you ask me - although they both deserve their
> slots in the Le Mans, a car with a completely
> different layout philosophy is a lot more
> experimental than a conventionally shaped car with
> a different engine... and hybrids have been around
> for a while now, as much as I like them, they
> don't really belong in the experimental slot.
I am not saying the hybrids deserve the slot, but WR's hydrogen car certainly does! Or maybe even a fully electric racing vehicle?
My point comes down to one single question, what technology, or innovation is there on the Delta wing that could pave a way for future vehicle design, and/or has future road vehicle technology.
Also, same pace as LMP2? Barely! It was not achieving the target lap times either. Fuel economy might an important issue, and of course have relevance to the race itself but the car achieved low drag and good fuel economy because it was not bound by regulations. That is my point. If they achieved the same figures with a car that was LMP2 legal then I would be amazed. The WR of course is not regulated either but hydrogen is a never before tried technology which does have possible future relevance.
Look, I admire what highcroft did, and I admire its looks, or at least have come to! But I can only see a marketing ploy for getting Nissan some cash, and ACO and Le mans better coverage....
"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.