Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 2 votes

Nissan to enter works LMP1 team in 2015 Le Mans 24h and WEC


  • Please log in to reply
823 replies to this topic

#801 paulb

paulb
  • Member

  • 6,953 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 14 August 2015 - 18:40

^ According to your view, Nissan must be a bunch of idiots for letting Bowlby brainwash them with delusions of Le Mans grandure.  They obviously had no idea they would have to deal with the compromises you have gloriously revealed.



Advertisement

#802 chunder27

chunder27
  • Member

  • 5,775 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 14 August 2015 - 18:55

Ford are building a totally boring, unoriginal Sports car.

 

About as interesting as Mercedes or Nisan doing it.

 

Are you even slightly interested in watching that car?  Really? 



#803 Dan333SP

Dan333SP
  • Member

  • 2,975 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 14 August 2015 - 19:23

Clearly BRG is unimpressed by Nissan's efforts, which is fine. I think the rest of us that are at least excited by the potential of Nissan actually making this thing work as intended will continue to enjoy watching things develop, which is a more rewarding position to be in than sitting there hoping they'll fail because they've cheated all of us out of a "real" effort. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, even if it seems unusually harsh.



#804 Wingcommander

Wingcommander
  • Member

  • 1,440 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 15 August 2015 - 04:36

^ According to your view, Nissan must be a bunch of idiots for letting Bowlby brainwash them with delusions of Le Mans grandure.  They obviously had no idea they would have to deal with the compromises you have gloriously revealed.

 

That is probably a quite accurate description of what happened   ;)



#805 Mat13

Mat13
  • Member

  • 1,788 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 15 August 2015 - 09:32

Clearly BRG is unimpressed by Nissan's efforts, which is fine. I think the rest of us that are at least excited by the potential of Nissan actually making this thing work as intended will continue to enjoy watching things develop, which is a more rewarding position to be in than sitting there hoping they'll fail because they've cheated all of us out of a "real" effort. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, even if it seems unusually harsh.


This. I'm just glad to see another manufacturer in WEC, regardless of how they're doing it. I think it's a reflection of just how good the technical regulations are that Nissan can attempt something different- doesn't matter if it's any good or not. For the record, I think it will work. It won't be world beating, but I reckon it could match the others on occasion.

#806 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,769 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 15 August 2015 - 11:59

I am with you BRG.

 

You cannot beat the laws of physics.

 

The designer should know them and he obviously does not.

 

The car was flawed for the following reasons.

 

Engine in the wrong place.

 

Majority of the power through the front wheels.

 

Recovery system from a bus.

 

Tyre contact patch smaller than everyone else.

 

Car too heavy due to engine position/ recovery system.

 

Cooling compromised because of engine position.

 

Weight distribution wrong for mechanical grip due to engine position.

 

Brakes compromised due to weight distribution.

 

Cockpit temperatures above that of a rear engine car.............................................

 

 

I could go on and on and I only design and build race cars for fun.

 

OK, this car didn't have any of those things wrong with it:

 

3AstonMartinRacingAMR-OneLMP1LeManspictu

 

Being so wise, please tell me what was wrong with this car, then? :)

  :p

 

EU1811_750x300c.jpg

PS. My point is that it's not as simple as it seems.  You can say Renaults were fools for ruining a silly turbo F1 car, their pathetic French "Yellow teapot" - so called because it of it's tendency to blow up... they were utter imbeciles weren't they?  Because Turbo engines would always be garbage in F1... oh wait... 



#807 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,750 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 15 August 2015 - 12:07

There is evolution, then revolution. But sometimes it's plain BS.

 

I guess Nissan/Bowlby get a lot of prejudgment from the Dealtwing fiasco by some. Me included.

 

Trying to prove the world wrong twice (and with two completely different arguments while at it) in a couple of years does that.



#808 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 17,098 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 15 August 2015 - 16:33

 

EU1811_750x300c.jpg

PS. My point is that it's not as simple as it seems.  You can say Renaults were fools for ruining a silly turbo F1 car, their pathetic French "Yellow teapot" - so called because it of it's tendency to blow up... they were utter imbeciles weren't they?  Because Turbo engines would always be garbage in F1... oh wait... 

I was at the 1977 British GP when Renault debuted the RS01.  It qualified 21st, and was 1.62 secs off Hunt's pole time.  Absolute rubbish then?  Except that it out-qualified Emerson Fittipaldi's Copersucar and four others, plus four more who DNQ'd and yet a further six that did not pre-qualify. And with a rookie driver in only his fourth GP.  

 

Now that's how a revolutionary and innovative design can show that it is at least credible.  



#809 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 17,098 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 15 August 2015 - 17:19

Even the Deltawing, a freak on the track, did very well in it's last race, finishing 6th against the monster Protoypes. You try taking a 2 liter turbocharged engine putting out 350 HP against a rear engined V-8 pushing 600HP. The winning car's best time was 1:57.775 at Road America, the Deltawing saw a best of 1:58.242 and finishing just one lap down.

 

Ah yes, they finally dragged that heap to a finish.  OF course, you overlook the fact that the Deltawing weighs in at just 544kg against the 1,010-1,032kg weight of the Prototypes.  You can give away a lot of horses if you are allowed to run at half the weight of the other cars in your 'class'.  If they ever finish on the same lap, do you think the other teams are going to allow it go on racing them with such a massive advantage?  It is only tolerated because it isn't competitive.

 

When the Deltawing actually complies with a race series regulations somewhere in the world and competes on equal terms, then it might just start to be interesting.



#810 chunder27

chunder27
  • Member

  • 5,775 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 15 August 2015 - 17:45

Let's look at some other "revolutionary" designs then.

 

Audi Quattro, fair point, no-one argued with them because up til then they had built not much more than industrial and farm cars, they didnt tell the FIA they were going to turbocharge the damn thing so managed to get the 4wd ban lifted, clever blokes these Germans.

 

Honda tried to build a 4 stroke MotoGP bike in 79 when they came back to bike racing, they spent tens of millions on it, it was a disaster and they did not use the tech much anywhere else. That was a waste of time and money.

 

Drag Racing:  Don Garlits nearly blew his foot off driving front engines nitro dragsters in the 60's, while sitting in hospital he decides to build and get a rear engine car. It didnt work initially but eventually did and a year later there were no more quick front engined cars. A success.

 

Colin Chapman, decided to try and seal off the airflow of an F1 car using fabric, it developed so much grip, but it also made the cars horrible to drive. A success for him but a downward move for F1 in some ways.

 

Honda:   Tried to convert their road proven VTEC technology into motorsport use in CART, dismal failure!

 

Ducati, only major manufacturer to use desmodromic valve gear in bike racing, gives them huge benefits in engine performance. Made the company pretty much, but an idea nicked off other people really.  A success.

 

So, a lot of these ideas, some utterly revolutionary, some more evolutions.

 

Running theme is that some changes their sports forever, some were heavily funded, some were stubborn old men.

 

You cant stop ideas, and even though they do not always work, the idea itself and promoting it is surely a success in some form too.


Edited by chunder27, 15 August 2015 - 17:48.


#811 FLB

FLB
  • Member

  • 10,394 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 15 August 2015 - 18:23

Running theme is that some changes their sports forever, some were heavily funded, some were stubborn old men.

 

You cant stop ideas, and even though they do not always work, the idea itself and promoting it is surely a success in some form too.

Agreed, to some extent.

 

The Renault RS01 may have had a turbocharged engine, but the chassis was pretty conventional. They spent a full year testing the car before Silverstone 1977, and even then, they built a completely new chassis because the laboratory car was junk.

 

BTW, the RS01 was also the debut of Michelin in F1.

 

The problem with the Nissan is that there are soooo many theoretical things about it. Everything needs to work perfectly, and perfectly with everything else, which is rarely the case in a racing car. A car is a work of consensus: to get the best of the ensemble, you sometimes need to make compromises. Reality does not always confirm theory. In fact, it often interferes with it.

 

Colin Chapman, for one, did not understand this. For him, if downforce through ground effects (without the theoretical disadvantage of drag) was good, surely more ground effects was the way to go. This line of thinking gave the world the Lotus 80. He did not understand that a stiffer Lotus 79, even if heavier, was the way to go. That car became known as the Williams FW07, essentially a well-constructed and simplified 79... and a World Championship-winning car.

 

In other words, i think Bowlby is trying to revolutionize too many things at the same time. If one, just one, of the elements that make the Nissan doesn't work perfectly, the car is toast.


Edited by FLB, 15 August 2015 - 18:24.


#812 Imateria

Imateria
  • Member

  • 2,087 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 15 August 2015 - 19:37

^I'm not sure there's actually that much revolutionary about the Nissan. Through body aero is nothing new, the Eagle MkIII was pointed out earlier on in this thread (I think it was this thread at least) which successfuly employed the concept, at least to some degree, and we know that a powerful ERS system giving tempory 4 wheel drive is integral to performance in LMP1 these days. Even the "front" engine layout (still effectively mid mounted since the engine is between the axles still) is nothing new as Panoz used the idea with modicum of success in the late 90's/early 2000's. The front wheel drive is the only part of the car that's really an unusual step, everything else is established ideas just pushed further than previously seen and put together in an unusual way.

 

OK, it does seem that the need to get them all working together here is much more critical, but still as we've seen in the last couple of years if you haven't got the ERS working at it's best then you're not going to be fighting for wins often.



#813 Gilles4Ever

Gilles4Ever
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 24,873 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 30 October 2015 - 10:26

You seen the film Jerry Maguire? Well the Fish are coming with me. After 18 years with Renault + Nissan I am leaving the Navy to be a Pirate

 

 

Farewell, then, Darren Cox. Is this the last we'll see of the front-engine NISMO LMP1?



#814 Gilles4Ever

Gilles4Ever
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 24,873 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 30 October 2015 - 10:37

It is understood that Cox made his own decision to leave Nissan, but that it was motivated by his loss of control of the LMP1 programme.

He was increasingly marginalised in the P1 operation by the appointment of a new team principal in Mike Carcamo late in the summer.

 

http://beta.autospor....php/id/121572/



#815 Risil

Risil
  • Administrator

  • 28,941 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 30 October 2015 - 13:14

Darren Cox's role within Nissan did seem a bit strange. He was a marketing guy but he did appear at least on the surface to be the point man for the whole racing operation. 

 

He's clearly extremely ambitious so I guess it might have been a reaction to being asked to accept a smaller -- er, more well-defined -- role.


Edited by Risil, 30 October 2015 - 13:14.


#816 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 17,098 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 30 October 2015 - 17:04

I think that over at Nissan, they may be folding up and stacking away the deckchairs on the Titanic.



#817 Mat13

Mat13
  • Member

  • 1,788 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 30 October 2015 - 19:23

I do hope this isn't the beginning of the end. It'd be good to see another pair of LMP1s on the grid, especially with the differences in design this car has to the others.

#818 Juan Kerr

Juan Kerr
  • Member

  • 3,094 posts
  • Joined: October 05

Posted 31 October 2015 - 02:34

The company, its marketing department and its management are a complete farce. How on earth they managed to come up with the GT-R i'll never know. Maybe they should've stuck with what they knew.



#819 Peter0Scandlyn

Peter0Scandlyn
  • Member

  • 727 posts
  • Joined: September 14

Posted 31 October 2015 - 04:18

I think that over at Nissan, they may be folding up and stacking away the deckchairs on the Titanic.

 

It's all to assist funding Renault - Lotus.....



Advertisement

#820 KingTiger

KingTiger
  • Member

  • 1,895 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 31 October 2015 - 05:08

It's all to assist funding Renault - Lotus.....


:up: Nothing wrong with that, if they're gonna go racing, they should get their money's worth, and endurance racing is awful for marketing.

#821 chunder27

chunder27
  • Member

  • 5,775 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 31 October 2015 - 12:51

I would suggest Audi might disagree with WEC being woeful for marketing.

 

I would suggest for manufacturers F1 is, as it bears no relevance whatsoever to real life.

 

Silly little men holding leaf blowers over a brake duct, for goodness sake could a sport be any less ridiculous really!

 

At least Audi have some semblance of using tech from racing in their road cars, be it a tenuous link to diesel, direct injection, Etron and it is all linked in with the S brand and things like Etron branding.

 

What does Infiniti really have to link F1 with a fleet of overpriced Chelsea tractors or Honda to green motoring or Mercedes to a range of V8 gas guzzling limos? 

 

Pure rot


Edited by chunder27, 31 October 2015 - 20:20.


#822 Peat

Peat
  • Member

  • 4,566 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 31 October 2015 - 18:54

100984d1431451978-slow-clap.gif



#823 Risil

Risil
  • Administrator

  • 28,941 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 31 October 2015 - 20:39

The, er, puddle of Golden Dishwater goes to... :up:



#824 KingTiger

KingTiger
  • Member

  • 1,895 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 31 October 2015 - 20:46

Top level motorsport hasn't been road relevant in over 15-20 years. Audi's R&D program dwarfs anything they've done in racing, which, by the way came up with DI, AWD, and modern diesels before they ever got the idea to participate in LM. Basically, they are spending similar money to Mercedes to market their products to maybe 5% the viewership of F1. :lol: