Jump to content


Photo

LMP1 versus F1


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#1 HistoryFan

HistoryFan
  • Member

  • 2,565 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 19 June 2011 - 21:02

In former days, F1 drivers and teams also raced in Le Mans, because the cars were very similar. How is that today? What have F1 cars and LMP1 cars together and what are the main differences? How easy would it be to make a F1 car from a LMP1 car or the other way round. How many F1 technics would be adopted in LMP1 (F-duct, ...)?

How is the budget in comparison to F1?


Advertisement

#2 doombug11

doombug11
  • Member

  • 40 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 19 June 2011 - 21:47

well a LMP1 car would fall outside the 107% rule, in lap times there more comparable to GP2

Lifted from another forum-

Silverstone
(2007) LMP1 Peugeot 908 - 1:30.935
(2007) GP2 - 1:28.043
(2007) F1 - 1:19.152 (Q2)


#3 MadYarpen

MadYarpen
  • Member

  • 3,877 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 19 June 2011 - 21:59

and how would it be on Monza? Are they very draggy in comparison to F1? Cause downforce levels looking at rear wings could be similar

#4 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,723 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 19 June 2011 - 22:17

slower, 100hp down, and they weigh more (900kg base weight). there still pretty fun to drive and pretty quick :)

#5 doombug11

doombug11
  • Member

  • 40 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 20 June 2011 - 00:54

here you go I'll knick the rest of the times from his post :)

--

Interlagos
(2007) LMP1 Peugeot 908 - 1:18.787 (FL)
(2007) F1 - 1:11.931

Nürburgring
(2007) LMP1 Peugeot 908 - 1:41.867
(2007) GP2 - 1:40.977
(2007) F1 - 1:30.912 (Q2)

Spa
(2008) LMP1 Peugeot 908 - 1:58.069
(2008) LMP1 Audi R10 - 1:58.705
(2007) GP2 - 1:56.885
(2007) F1 - 1:45.070 (Q2)

Barcelona
(2008) LMP1 Peugeot 908 - 1:31.875
(2008) LMP1 Audi R10 - 1:33.250
(2008) GP2 - 1:27.547
(2008) F1 - 1:20.584 (Q2)

Silverstone
(2007) LMP1 Peugeot 908 - 1:30.935
(2007) GP2 - 1:28.043
(2007) F1 - 1:19.152 (Q2)

Monza
(2008) LMP1 Peugeot 908 - 1:31.470
(2008) LMP1 Audi R10 - 1:33.193
(2007) GP2 - 1:30.546
(2007) F1 - 1:21.356 (Q2)

--

As for comparisons of general stats this website has loads of info on sportscars..

for general specs http://www.mulsannescorner.com/ and for aerodynamics http://www.mulsannes...r.com/data.html

This is the downforce levels of the Dome S102i
Downforce:
2737 lbs. @ 150 mph, with 666 lbs. of drag
3941 lbs. @ 180 mph, with 960 lbs. of drag
4865 lbs. @ 200 mph, with 1185 lbs. drag.

Lift-to-drag ratio: 4.10:1
Map average balance: 45.50%

I can't find any specific data for an f1 car but that site does have a Panoz DP01 2008 champ car levels..

Downforce:
3208 lbs. @ 150 mph, with 983 lbs. of drag
4619 lbs. @ 180 mph, with 1416 lbs. of drag
5703 lbs. @ 200 mph, with 1748 lbs. drag

Lift-to-drag ratio: 3.26:1

So LMP1 cars dont produce as much downforce but appear to be more efficient in regard to drag. Both cars are mid-rear engine carbon fibre monocoques but i dont know much else about the technical side of sports car racing, or F1 actually! The budgets of both series are huge, Audi don't really like to say how much they spend a year on it but I found an estimate from the 2001 season at $160mil, f1 when it was getting a wee bit silly in 2008 had toyota spending $445mil! Basically they both spend a lot, but the general development goals of both series are quite different i think, don't a lot of people reckon prototype racing has become a lot more relevant to road cars than f1 in terms of the technology they produce? Personally i wouldn't mind having a go in either really :)

#6 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 20 June 2011 - 02:35

F1 drivers used to drive whatever they could get their hands on, not because it was similar to F1, because they needed the prize money and there weren't bound by 20 different contracts to specific manufacturers, sponsors etc etc.

#7 BigCHrome

BigCHrome
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 20 June 2011 - 02:50

Audi are supposedly spending 70M euros on sports cars. Prototypes are much cheaper than F1 but they also don't have anywhere near the same publicity.



#8 redbroccoli

redbroccoli
  • Member

  • 129 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 20 June 2011 - 04:11

Because LMP1 cars have closed wheels, I'd assume they would have better drag properties than open wheel F1 cars.

#9 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,417 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 20 June 2011 - 05:46

and how would it be on Monza? Are they very draggy in comparison to F1? Cause downforce levels looking at rear wings could be similar

Of course they are far less draggy with the closed wheels. :)
Big round rotating wheels are big sources of wake of course.

http://flowgallery.s...l_vort_edit.jpg

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 20 June 2011 - 05:49.


#10 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,417 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 20 June 2011 - 05:58

In former days, F1 drivers and teams also raced in Le Mans, because the cars were very similar. How is that today? What have F1 cars and LMP1 cars together and what are the main differences? How easy would it be to make a F1 car from a LMP1 car or the other way round. How many F1 technics would be adopted in LMP1 (F-duct, ...)?

How is the budget in comparison to F1?


You could make an F1 car by an LMP team with LMP spec technology and budget.
But you will be going at Hispania type speeds IMO...

Just like Prodrive could build a brand new 6cyl 2L turbo open top prototype in record time on a GT-class budget. Oh dear...

The LMP car is more basic in some areas compared to F1 car I think (no carbon wishbones, no seamless shift gearbox etc). Do they have carbon brakes? Given the high base weight and need for the car to run reliably for 24 hrs, the requirements are obviously different.

#11 ArnageWRC

ArnageWRC
  • Member

  • 1,081 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 20 June 2011 - 07:18

LMP cars are more relevant to road car technology - which is why Audi are in there, and not F1.

#12 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,723 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 20 June 2011 - 09:28

lmps deffo have carbon brakes, and i think they have carbon suspension too, atleast on the diesels. dont know if the gearboxes have seamless shift but they did cope with the loltoque on the last gen diesels fine


#13 Ben

Ben
  • Member

  • 3,181 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 20 June 2011 - 09:37

lmps deffo have carbon brakes, and i think they have carbon suspension too, atleast on the diesels. dont know if the gearboxes have seamless shift but they did cope with the loltoque on the last gen diesels fine


No carbon wishbones in LMP.

Ben

#14 Frans

Frans
  • Member

  • 7,701 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 20 June 2011 - 09:39

Would love to see an F1 car adjusted for a 24 hours race..... is it possible?

#15 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 18,157 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 20 June 2011 - 09:56

No carbon wishbones in LMP.

Ben


It's just a small bit extra unsprung weight. It's hardly that much of a performance disadvantage compared to the less power engine and weight ?

#16 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 20 June 2011 - 10:13

lmps deffo have carbon brakes, and i think they have carbon suspension too, atleast on the diesels. dont know if the gearboxes have seamless shift but they did cope with the loltoque on the last gen diesels fine



I'm pretty sure F1 brakes are carbon-carbon whereas LMPs use carbon-ceramic (similar to breaks found on road going ferraris for example)

#17 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,088 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 20 June 2011 - 10:24

Would love to see an F1 car adjusted for a 24 hours race..... is it possible?


Sure, beef up all the parts enough and it will run forever. Just like any race car. You design for the rules and races you have to run.

#18 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,723 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 20 June 2011 - 13:37

they would be a different compound carbon, but there good for 24+hours, while a f1 brake would be 2hours 30ish? (im thinking qualy and race)

bens right on the suspension, i looked at mcnish crash pics and the rear suspension is bent and broken, carbon would just be broken xD

endurance cars are built in subsections aswell, that are quick to replace

#19 Dunder

Dunder
  • Member

  • 6,784 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 20 June 2011 - 14:11

Because LMP1 cars have closed wheels, I'd assume they would have better drag properties than open wheel F1 cars.


They do. Even on a 'point and squirt' circuit though the additional weight more than offsets this.


Advertisement

#20 Palmero

Palmero
  • Member

  • 296 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 20 June 2011 - 14:17

Would love to see an F1 car adjusted for a 24 hours race..... is it possible?


Engine life would be the biggest problem I can envisage without the revs severely limited or something else changed accordingly.

Reminds me of the video of McLaren fitting headlights to one of their F1 cars :yawnface:

#21 ferruccio

ferruccio
  • Member

  • 446 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 20 June 2011 - 14:18

I'm pretty sure F1 brakes are carbon-carbon whereas LMPs use carbon-ceramic (similar to breaks found on road going ferraris for example)


No. LMPs use carbon-carbon as well.

Generally speaking an LMP1 is just like an F1 car but with more bodywork, wider, longer with space technically for 2 drivers rather than 1.

The finer details defer because the objectives are different. I suspect they don't use 'seamless shift' feature and again would such a system be able to last 24hrs? The engines are closer in relation to road engines. Steel wishbones rather than carbon not because they don't have access to the tech but probably because it's more cost effective given the durability needs.

LMP cars are driven by durability and economy objectives. F1 cars by outright pace mostly derived from downforce generation

Really interesting to see the varied technical approaches to the same set of rules. For instance Peugeot using a 3.7L twin turbo V8 while Audi went with a 3.7L V6 with a single turbo nestled between the banks.

Also since the regs require the closed cockpits to maintain a certain temperature level, Peugeot I believe runs an air-conditioning system while Audi relies only on clever ambient air ventilation system to keep temps legal. Also both cars run with diesel particulate filters.

Edited by ferruccio, 20 June 2011 - 14:21.


#22 King Six

King Six
  • Member

  • 3,230 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 20 June 2011 - 14:36

Wiper blade technology is one of them, especially now that both top factory teams are closed cockpit. I'm sure they can drive in the rain too. Although that's more of a mentality/mindset thing.

#23 Victor_RO

Victor_RO
  • RC Forum Host

  • 2,782 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 20 June 2011 - 14:42

Would love to see an F1 car adjusted for a 24 hours race..... is it possible?


An F1 car adjusted for 24-hour racing is pretty much called either a Peugeot 905 or a Toyota TS010.;)

#24 MattPete

MattPete
  • Member

  • 1,443 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 20 June 2011 - 15:00

...
I can't find any specific data for an f1 car but that site does have a Panoz DP01 2008 champ car levels..

Downforce:
3208 lbs. @ 150 mph, with 983 lbs. of drag
4619 lbs. @ 180 mph, with 1416 lbs. of drag
5703 lbs. @ 200 mph, with 1748 lbs. drag

Lift-to-drag ratio: 3.26:1


I'd imagine that the lift:drag ratio would be lower for an F1 car, seeing as how they don't have the underbody Venturi tunnels to produce downforce and must rely more on wings.

#25 Bunchies

Bunchies
  • Member

  • 1,500 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 20 June 2011 - 15:03

here you go I'll knick the rest of the times from his post :)

<snip>

to road cars than f1 in terms of the technology they produce? Personally i wouldn't mind having a go in either really :)


Doombug11, you win the thread. I hope you continue to post stuff like this, cuz DAMN that's a lot of info.

#26 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,417 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 21 June 2011 - 01:19

LMP cars are more relevant to road car technology - which is why Audi are in there, and not F1.

Not because they don't want to get beaten by Force India, you say...;)

#27 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,417 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 21 June 2011 - 01:21

they would be a different compound carbon, but there good for 24+hours, while a f1 brake would be 2hours 30ish? (im thinking qualy and race)

Surely they change the pads and rotors (many times) during the race?

A quick change brake rotor is a pretty straight forward bit of racing kit.

#28 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,417 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 21 June 2011 - 01:25

they would be a different compound carbon, but there good for 24+hours, while a f1 brake would be 2hours 30ish? (im thinking qualy and race)

bens right on the suspension, i looked at mcnish crash pics and the rear suspension is bent and broken, carbon would just be broken xD

endurance cars are built in subsections aswell, that are quick to replace

USF1 were planning to use steel wishbones after all (hmmm...) but I don't think it's a major advantage.


I wonder how much heavier the near enough 4L diesel engine is compared to an F1 engine? Would that be a fair chunk of your extra 270 kg already right there?

#29 F1Insider

F1Insider
  • New Member

  • 9 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 21 June 2011 - 02:38

You could make an F1 car by an LMP team with LMP spec technology and budget.


I think Nick Wirth tried this.

#30 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,417 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 21 June 2011 - 03:12

I think Nick Wirth tried this.

Yup. You'd think he would pop a bigger fuel tank in the thing though. How are you gonna get that sled round the track for 24 hours? :cool:

#31 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,417 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 21 June 2011 - 05:20

Actually, is there a reason for the roughly ~50 kg fuel tank rule in the LMP1 car? It seems odd for such cars to be forced to a very very small fuel tank, almost as small as a road car fuel tank.

I imagine it's purely a parity measure to hold them back from running away from the other classes, but in principle a 150-200 kg fuel tank as used in F1 would be perfectly safe, wouldn't it?

#32 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 21 June 2011 - 05:43

Actually, is there a reason for the roughly ~50 kg fuel tank rule in the LMP1 car? It seems odd for such cars to be forced to a very very small fuel tank, almost as small as a road car fuel tank.

I imagine it's purely a parity measure to hold them back from running away from the other classes, but in principle a 150-200 kg fuel tank as used in F1 would be perfectly safe, wouldn't it?


it's the only way to attempt to give parity among the various possible engine configurations (petrol/hybrids/diesel)

#33 Victor_RO

Victor_RO
  • RC Forum Host

  • 2,782 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 21 June 2011 - 07:37

Surely they change the pads and rotors (many times) during the race?

A quick change brake rotor is a pretty straight forward bit of racing kit.


No they don't. GTE cars use steel brake discs and they only have a single change of pads and discs throughout the race if all goes well, LMP cars with carbon brakes don't even bother with changing them. I think it was 1999 when a LMP car did the whole race on one set of discs and pads for the first time.

#34 ferruccio

ferruccio
  • Member

  • 446 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 21 June 2011 - 14:51

Actually, is there a reason for the roughly ~50 kg fuel tank rule in the LMP1 car? It seems odd for such cars to be forced to a very very small fuel tank, almost as small as a road car fuel tank.

I imagine it's purely a parity measure to hold them back from running away from the other classes, but in principle a 150-200 kg fuel tank as used in F1 would be perfectly safe, wouldn't it?


It's 65L for the diesels. For parity as the diesels tend to last longer between fuel stints.. in addition to being faster than everything else. They also run smaller fuel rig flow restrictors. Flow rate is actually now slower than at station pumps. Simultaneously, ACO allowed petrol to run higher flow rates than previous. Yet the big diesel advantage still exists.

#35 ferruccio

ferruccio
  • Member

  • 446 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 21 June 2011 - 14:57

USF1 were planning to use steel wishbones after all (hmmm...) but I don't think it's a major advantage.


I wonder how much heavier the near enough 4L diesel engine is compared to an F1 engine? Would that be a fair chunk of your extra 270 kg already right there?


I know Lotus Racing used steel wishbones in the early part of the season last year.

As for the diesel LMP engines, they're not 95kg light like F1 engines but probably not 200kg either, I'm guessing. We know it's all aluminum and has to withstand higher internal loads. However they rev only to about 6000 rpm. Probably Audis V6 turbo is lighter than Peugeots V8 twin turbo


#36 dc21

dc21
  • Member

  • 144 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 21 June 2011 - 15:10

No they don't. GTE cars use steel brake discs and they only have a single change of pads and discs throughout the race if all goes well, LMP cars with carbon brakes don't even bother with changing them. I think it was 1999 when a LMP car did the whole race on one set of discs and pads for the first time.


If I recall correctly, GT cars used to undergo multiple pad changes but none (or one) disc change. As pad and disc technology improved, I'm pretty sure that calipers, discs and pads were all changed in one hit (it being quicker to change the whole assembly than parts within that assembly)?

#37 Victor_RO

Victor_RO
  • RC Forum Host

  • 2,782 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 21 June 2011 - 15:16

If I recall correctly, GT cars used to undergo multiple pad changes but none (or one) disc change. As pad and disc technology improved, I'm pretty sure that calipers, discs and pads were all changed in one hit (it being quicker to change the whole assembly than parts within that assembly)?


Yes, Corvette for example have a system on their GTE car that allows them to change the whole assembly in one go, and apparently that cuts brake change times from 6-ish minutes to something like 2-3. No idea whether any other of the teams have adopted this kind of system, although I suspect the new-for-2011 GTE cars have this kind of system.

#38 ferruccio

ferruccio
  • Member

  • 446 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 21 June 2011 - 15:35

Yes, Corvette for example have a system on their GTE car that allows them to change the whole assembly in one go, and apparently that cuts brake change times from 6-ish minutes to something like 2-3. No idea whether any other of the teams have adopted this kind of system, although I suspect the new-for-2011 GTE cars have this kind of system.


What was seen on the Corvette is quite normal practice these days

#39 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,723 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 22 June 2011 - 04:37

I think all the gt teams changed the pads (plus anything else i guess) under rockys saftey car marathon.

i *think* the audi that won just had tyres and fuel, and once a new nose as the driver damaged it on a bollard. That it is pretty amazing if its true, specialy as it was run so hard all race.

the diesels are 50% more than f1 capacity too


Advertisement

#40 ferruccio

ferruccio
  • Member

  • 446 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 22 June 2011 - 07:04

i *think* the audi that won just had tyres and fuel, and once a new nose as the driver damaged it on a bollard. That it is pretty amazing if its true, specialy as it was run so hard all race.


yes, quite amazing. I don't recall seeing the Audi being wheeled into the garage. So it only had fuel and tyre changes and that quick nose change. Don't even recall seeing pad and rotor change. Audi certainly nailed reliability.

The GT cars I think certainly needed one scheduled pad and rotor change

#41 Victor_RO

Victor_RO
  • RC Forum Host

  • 2,782 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 22 June 2011 - 07:58

i *think* the audi that won just had tyres and fuel, and once a new nose as the driver damaged it on a bollard. That it is pretty amazing if its true, specialy as it was run so hard all race.


Just tires and fuel, the nose change was on the #1 Audi about 3 hours into the race. None of the top three cars visited the garage at any point during the race, the #8 Peugeot that finished third lost about 3 minutes in unscheduled stops: one to fix a brake balance issue about an hour in (done in the pitlane), and then a 1-minute stop-go due to a pitstop procedure irregularity.