79 replies to this topic

[mariner]

By now I guess you have all seen the new Nissan WEC car. Front engine and front wheel drive!

 

So the WEC now has diesel and  petrol engines , mid engine and front engined chassis ,with  rear drive, all wheel drive and FWD cars .

 

Not to mention V4 and V8 engine configurations.

 

My vote is that the WEC has been a lot smarter , and less perscripitve, at enforcing hybrids to be " green" by  writing rules which give much more design flexibility than F1.

 

[DogEarred]

Undoubtedly so.

 

Hopefully it will all help to increase the interest in races, with different strategies & a greater number of competitive LMP cars.

Lets face it, the actual racing in long distance events can be a trifle tedious, so trying to read the race can often be of more interest in those circumstances.

 

As for the Nissan - well, there's some interesting philosophy in it but only track time will tell if it's competitive. They can harvest more energy from the front brakes but can they get it back into useful performance?

And the aero? That's another question.

 

Nissan have obviously given Ben Bowlby relatively free rein. They stand to look foolish & 'lose face' if it doesn't perform. Which won't go down well in Japan.

[MatsNorway]

http://blackflag.jal...e-ma-1680363700

[desmo]

Yes, obviously, and by miles. Whoever has been penning the WEC regs is far brighter (or less constrained by dimmer higher-ups) than the team F1 is using.

[Nonesuch]

No doubt. That doesn't mean WEC is a designer's heaven and a complete free-for-all, it's absolutely not, but their take on hybrids has at least resulted in much more variety and perhaps also more development and innovation than F1's restrictive regulations allow for.

 

With all the talk of F1 looking at 1000 bhp engines, yesterday's news on the 2015 Toyota was interesting:

 

 

Toyota will again field two TS040 Hybrid LMP1 racers, with just a few modifications. It will still be powered by the same 3.7-liter V8 it used previously, coupled to front and rear-mounted electric generators to power all four wheels. This adds 473 horsepower to the V8’s 513, giving the racer a total output of 986 hp.

Edited by Nonesuch, 04 February 2015 - 16:37.

[carlt]

As an aside, why has F1 gone with a fuel flow restriction And a max fuel allowance.

I could never understand why they don't just have a max fuel allowance and let them get on with it.

 

It would be easy to reduce the fuel allowance incrementally each year, forcing PU manufacturers to exploit efficiency to the max,

but it would give the opportunity for use of more fuel/boost for overtaking , drivers really leaning on the cars for a few laps to get the jump in pitstops etc

 

The really good drivers could exploit spectacular gobs of power from these systems , but then have to fight off the pack as they conserved their dwindling 

fuel allowance, much like the masters of tyre management did pre modern pitstop era

[Nonesuch]

I could never understand why they don't just have a max fuel allowance and let them get on with it.

 

Fabrice Lom (FIA) talked about that last year, as reported by ESPN:
 

"Engineers are engineers, so if you have 100kg for the race, you try to be the fastest for the race. Let's keep it simple and say you have a 50 lap race, that's 2kg [of fuel] per lap to start with. With this 2kg you want to do the best lap time, you don't want to be slow, you don't want to please the FIA, you want to be fastest. If you have no fuel flow limit, the fastest thing is to use a huge boost at the beginning of the straight and then lift off.

 

We know with the 1.5-litre turbo charged engine 25 years ago they were able to do 1,500bhp, so they will be easily there. Then you can also do 3kg on one lap and 1kg on another lap and so at one point one car will be accelerating very quickly and another will not. There will be huge and, we think, very dangerous difference of speed on the same lap, with a driving style that is not really F1. It was even for us not Le Mans-style, which is why we also put a limit on it for Le Mans because we were really afraid of this type of driving, which can be very, very dangerous."

[Fat Boy]

It's such a shame we don't have someone on this board with first hand knowledge of such a car.

 

 

 

 

 

Ahem.....

 

 

 

 

 

I said......oh, nevermind....

[MNader]

It's such a shame we don't have someone on this board with first hand knowledge of such a car.

 

 

 

 

 

Ahem.....

 

 

 

 

 

I said......oh, nevermind....

 

We do? who?!

[BRG]

 

Nissan have obviously given Ben Bowlby relatively free rein. They stand to look foolish & 'lose face' if it doesn't perform. Which won't go down well in Japan.

They must have been persuaded by the stunning success that was his radical Deltawing design.  Look how many races that car won...I mean, finished...I mean, entered.  Based on that, I wouldn't let Ben design a new wheel barrow for me.

[imaginesix]

They must have been persuaded by the stunning success that was his radical Deltawing design.  Look how many races that car won...I mean, finished...I mean, entered.  Based on that, I wouldn't let Ben design a new wheel barrow for me.

What, are you rehearsing for the Bitter Old Man role at your community theatre? Any brand new design, even of conventional ideas, would never be expected to do well in a serious racing series within so little time. I'm sorry you believe that everything should look like a squashed Model T, but for the rest of us, the fact that such a radical concept made it to the track at all is already a victory.

 

Repeat after me:

 

"Git yer darn pets outta mah yard, kids!"

 

"Dagnabit, did you hear wut Limbaugh jus said?"

 

"I'd a been in tha majors if it's weren't for all 'em damn Cuban commies stealin' our jobs!"

 

There, now you're ready for your role and you can leave good things alone.

[jpf]

Yes, obviously, and by miles. Whoever has been penning the WEC regs is far brighter (or less constrained by dimmer higher-ups) than the team F1 is using.

 

I don't think this is quite fair — they have definitely produced a rules package that has produced more variety in in hybrid powertrains, but they are dealing with a different realm of budgets and politics.  Let's not forget that there has really only been two manufacturers competing at any given time in top level LMP for a long while, and one of them has walked away with almost all the silverware — this on the back of performance-balancing equivalencies between diesels and gasoline engines, too.  We now have a third manufacturer in Nissan, which is super exciting, with a really interesting design.  But I don't think it's fair to look at the ACO regs and the way the related series have played out, and suggest that similar decisions could have worked for F1.

 

The ACO engine regs are really admirably open, it's great.  I would love to think it would work for F1, but I feel like it would have exploded budgets even more than the '14 PUs.

[RogerGraham]

The ACO engine regs are really admirably open, it's great.  I would love to think it would work for F1, but I feel like it would have exploded budgets even more than the '14 PUs.

 

I'm sure that's true, but why isn't the obverse true, i.e. why is it apparently so much cheaper to run a WEC team than an F1 team?

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

It is no contest. In comparison to the ACO and WEC, Formula One is the inbred spawn of motor racing.

 

 

We have the ACO to thank for this, they are always open to fresh ideas and innovation. In fact, LeMans is sometimes referred to as the Grand Prix of Endurance and Efficiency. Colin Chapman and Lotus first made a name for themselves when they won the Index of Performance in 1957. While Formula One has started to address efficiency, the ACO has been doing this since 1926. Where did the custom of spraying Champagne begin? LeMans.

 

 

 

They must have been persuaded by the stunning success that was his radical Deltawing design.  Look how many races that car won...I mean, finished...I mean, entered.  Based on that, I wouldn't let Ben design a new wheel barrow for me.

Are you aware how many years it took for the rear-engine concept to establish itself? Oh ye, of little faith.

[Fat Boy]

They must have been persuaded by the stunning success that was his radical Deltawing design.  Look how many races that car won...I mean, finished...I mean, entered.  Based on that, I wouldn't let Ben design a new wheel barrow for me.

 

Completely out of line. It's fine to like or dislike the Delta, but at least understand that the rules makers don't know how to classify the car. It will only be as fast as it's legislated to be. I'm impressed as hell at the thing. Think about the chutzpah it took to not only propose this car, but build and race it. If you do a sector analysis of the car, you quickly find out it's pretty damned fast and in a straight-line, it's an absolute bullet.

 

It would have been very, very interesting to have had the Delta as the new Indycar. It might have been a disaster, but it may well have been brilliant. We'll never know.

 

What I'm sure of is that BB has some very good reasons why he's chosen the layout he has. I'm sure the numbers work in his favor. The real question is whether or not reality works in his favor. Having someone with the ingenuity to come up with this craziness and a company to back it in this racing climate is probably the biggest head-scratcher of all. I, for one, am glad to see it.

[chunder27]

I dont really think the WEC makes have done a better job.

 

What they have been able to do is work within in a much wider framework of rules, shapes, aerodynamics.

 

They hvae a far freer hand.

 

You could never get away with some of the radical things done there in F1. It's that simple.

 

I think the F1 engine and car guys do a staggering job considering their lack of testing mileage.

 

But I also think the development of cars in WEC is similarly amazing, but should be treated entirely seperately, as thye are chalk and cheese in terms of budget, races and designs.

[BRG]

I see that the Deltawing/Bowlby Fan Club are in full force here.  Despite all the evidence on track that it doesn't work.  

 

Are you aware how many years it took for the rear-engine concept to establish itself? Oh ye, of little faith.

No time at all, since the very earliest cars were rear engined.  Then some clot who thought he knew better tried front engines.....

 

Completely out of line. It's fine to like or dislike the Delta, but at least understand that the rules makers don't know how to classify the car. 

Totally in line, actually. It is generally reckoned that you design a car to fit the rules, not design one and expect the rule makers to accommodate you.

 

I will go out on a limb here and say that I expect the new Nissan LMP car to be a flop also.  How many maverick designs have we seen in racing?  And most proved failures.  Some proved disasters.

Edited by BRG, 05 February 2015 - 19:45.

[imaginesix]

I see that the Deltawing/Bowlby Fan Club are in full force here.  Despite all the evidence on track that it doesn't work.  

 

No time at all, since the very earliest cars were rear engined.  Then some clot who thought he knew better tried front engines.....

 

Totally in line, actually. It is generally reckoned that you design a car to fit the rules, not design one and expect the rule makers to accommodate you.

 

I will go out on a limb here and say that I expect the new Nissan LMP car to be a flop also.  How many maverick designs have we seen in racing?  And most proved failures.  Some proved disasters.

It's strange that when someone reveals himself as a hater, everybody else all of a sudden belongs to some fan club.

 

Because you couldn't be irrational, everyone else must be.

 

Though I can't see how the car can be a success, what is it's advantage? Unless it's low drag that allows for longer stints? But can the transmission be swapped easily? And how good will it be on tires? I'm expecting it to do poorly but I still give them credit for trying something new. It doesn't only have to be about winning according to other people's standards. If they can take these lessons and apply them to their road cars, or just put on a hell of a good show and get marketing points out of it, then good for them. I'll enjoy watching how they do just because it's so odd.

 

Maybe you can't appreciate that, but I'm sure that's everyone else's problem too.

Edited by imaginesix, 05 February 2015 - 20:25.

[Fat Boy]

 

Totally in line, actually. It is generally reckoned that you design a car to fit the rules, not design one and expect the rule makers to accommodate you.

 

 

It was originally conceived as a design for a one-make series. It was not originally meant for endurance events. After seeing it run, the rules makers wanted the car in their series and agreed to accommodate them. Not quite what you've laid out, is it?

 

Honestly, this is just another one of those people I need to ignore.

[MatsNorway]

At least the Delta wing had rear wheel drive and the weight over the tires... I mean.. last time i checked the touring cars had different weight rules for FWD and RWD. favoring the rodent. And in addition they got less drivetrain loses.

 

So im assuming the Nissan LMP car got main power on the front to save some fuel.. meaning a V6 mounted transverse. So they have to have some big gains elsewhere because no way this thing goes out of the corners as hard as the others.

 

Anyway it will be interesting read about the race for sure. Le Mans is all about going long on the fuel, brakes and wheels right. So that has to be their thing. spreading out the wear on the tires or something and going longer on fuel as well as harvesting more energy than the others.

 

I believe you if you say it will be fast on the straights. But it wont take Pole.

Edited by MatsNorway, 05 February 2015 - 20:38.

[Fat Boy]

It's strange that when someone reveals himself as a hater, everybody else all of a sudden belongs to some fan club.

 

Because you couldn't be irrational, everyone else must be.

 

Though I can't see how the car can be a success, what is it's advantage? Unless it's low drag that allows for longer stints? But can the transmission be swapped easily? And how good will it be on tires? I'm expecting it to do poorly but I still give them credit for trying something new. It doesn't only have to be about winning according to other people's standards. If they can take these lessons and apply them to their road cars, or just put on a hell of a good show and get marketing points out of it, then good for them. I'll enjoy watching how they do just because it's so odd.

 

Maybe you can't appreciate that, but I'm sure that's everyone else's problem too.

 

I personally don't care for the looks of the Delta. It reminds me of the car in the SNL sketch 'Ambiguously Gay Duo'. You know who does like it? My kids. They think it's great. That means it gets the attention of people who aren't normally interested in racing. Getting people to the racetrack is incredibly important if we want to keep doing what we're doing, and this is one mechanism to do it. That alone gives it my approval.

 

[gruntguru]

Are you aware how many years it took for the rear-engine concept to establish itself? Oh ye, of little faith.

No time at all, since the very earliest cars were rear engined.  Then some clot who thought he knew better tried front engines.....

You just proved the point actually. It took from "the very earliest cars" to say 1968 (last front engine car to qualify at Indy) for the rear engine concept to take over.

Edited by gruntguru, 05 February 2015 - 22:37.

[jpf]

I'm sure that's true, but why isn't the obverse true, i.e. why is it apparently so much cheaper to run a WEC team than an F1 team?

 

I'm not sure it is, if you design and build your own car.  My understanding is that Audi, Toyota, Porsche, and Peugeot spent somewhere in the $50M - $100M/yr ballpark, which puts them right in the F1 midfield.  Why only midfield money?  Ultimately I'd say it's the size of the audience and the resulting money pool, which has lead to a spending race in F1 and more highly optimized cars and powertrains — they are farther into diminishing returns.

 

If you're not a manufacturer, it's cheaper because in buying a car you are spared huge investments in infrastructure.  A handful of chassis/platform designers amortize costs by selling across multiple teams (and series!), and then we have seen those concerns (Lola, Dallara, Dome, etc.) struggle, fold, or be transformed by bankruptcy cycles.

 

So the series survives because ACO/WEC midfield teams have lower capital costs, and can switch chassis and engine suppliers as needed.  I'd also argue, again, that they are in an engineering climate that is still getting more performance per dollar, but I don't really know about that.

 

Meanwhile at the front the big players spend big money, and sure enough they rotate out as their efforts fail to live up to expectations (or they stick around, as they win a lot).  I forgot about Porsche (oops!) so we were at 3 and now 4 manufacturers.

 

Anyway I agree that the ACO/WEC regs are better for hybrid innovation but I think it's because they can (literally) afford to be, vs F1.

[gruntguru]

Moving beyond the limits of the term "hybrid innovation" - as far as overall powerplant and drivetrain efficiency is concerned, the instantaneous fuel flow limit is king. There is no doubt in my mind this is driving real gains in ICE efficiency beyond anything achieved in WEC.

[desmo]

I believe you if you say it will be fast on the straights. But it wont take Pole.

Pole position and a few euro will get you a trackside morning cappuccino and pain chocolat at a 24 hour race.

[desmo]

I expect the Nismo guys have done their homework and once it gets a bit of development in, it'll be competitive. Racers and fans can be really quite surprisingly conservative. Well, old ones are at any rate.

[Disgrace]

Surely we can only answer this question ex post facto, even if the WEC is already clearly miles ahead in both implementation and marketing.

 

Mariner's original post laid out heterogeneity as a criterion that the WEC has got it right. However, isn't it also true that designs converge over time as the engineers inch closer to the optimal interpretation? As Fat Boy said, cars "will only be as fast as [they're] legislated to be". Failing that, you end up with BoP.

 

Unless the parameters of the rules remain fluid, heterogeneity can become homogeneity remarkably quickly - just look at how Moto2 has become a Kalex spec series only five years after it's debut in which 15 different chassis manufacturers competed, of which six scored victories. We don't even know whether the Nissan will be competitive yet.

[Wuzak]

I think the size, weight and shape of WEC cars allows for larger hybrid systems to be utilised.

 

 

Moving beyond the limits of the term "hybrid innovation" - as far as overall powerplant and drivetrain efficiency is concerned, the instantaneous fuel flow limit is king. There is no doubt in my mind this is driving real gains in ICE efficiency beyond anything achieved in WEC.

 

I believe that FIA/ACO WEC rules also have fuel flow limits. These are varied according to the fuel used, the amount of ERS used (of several different options) and whether the ERS is on front wheels, rear wheels or all wheels.

[Wuzak]

The current power unit rules for F1 were essentially written by the three incumbents plus interested parties (ie VW-Audi). When VW-Audi said they had no intention of entering teh rules were changed to V6s from I4s.

[Fat Boy]

I expect the Nismo guys have done their homework and once it gets a bit of development in, it'll be competitive. Racers and fans can be really quite surprisingly conservative. Well, old ones are at any rate.

 

Let's just say I have a lot of faith in the people involved.

[BRG]

Let's just say I have a lot of faith in the people involved.

Why?  What do they know about LMP technology that all those dunces at Audi, Porsche, Toyota (and even Peugeot) don't?  What's their track record?  Nissan are not one of the great motor racing names are they?

 

Why do people see something different and novel and immediately assume that it is must right and that all the current accepted technological answers are wrong?  

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

Why?  What do they know about LMP technology that all those dunces at Audi, Porsche, Toyota (and even Peugeot) don't?  What's their track record?  Nissan are not one of the great motor racing names are they?

 

Why do people see something different and novel and immediately assume that it is must right and that all the current accepted technological answers are wrong?  

I must challenge you on your knowledge of racing, whether you get it just by reading the headlines. Nissan is pervasive in the world of motorsports, from Aussie V-8's to leMans to SCCA to IMSA to Dakar to BTCC. Just check the entrants for last year's LeMans LM P2 class, 13 of the 17 entrants were powered by Nissan. They have been steadily involved in motorsport for many decades.

 

 

 

I agree that just because something is innovative and novel that is no guarantee for success. But when Ray Harroun decided to controversially ditch the riding mechanic and instead was the first to use a rear view mirror (and he won the very first Indy 500), to when someone decided to stick wings on a Formula One car, if we did not have innovation then just where would we be?

[jpf]

Mariner's original post laid out heterogeneity as a criterion that the WEC has got it right. However, isn't it also true that designs converge over time as the engineers inch closer to the optimal interpretation? As Fat Boy said, cars "will only be as fast as [they're] legislated to be". Failing that, you end up with BoP.

 

Why?  What do they know about LMP technology that all those dunces at Audi, Porsche, Toyota (and even Peugeot) don't?  What's their track record?  Nissan are not one of the great motor racing names are they?

 

Why do people see something different and novel and immediately assume that it is must right and that all the current accepted technological answers are wrong?  

 

It's not about right or wrong, it's about better or worse given a very specific regulatory landscape.

 

LMP designs have converged around a relatively consistent aerodynamic and powertrain concept; the variation so far has been in how the manufacturers are ordering off the powertrain menu (engine size and type, hybrid implementation).  I think it's fair to say that this concept is the "best" one from a basic, minimally regulated point of view.

 

What I think happens though is that the rules converge around convergent designs, too — they become focused on reigning in the development down certain avenues, so you get things like shadow plate rules for faired in wheel pods and so forth, regulations around wheel sizes, weight distributions, etc. that manage the detailed implementation of a given general concept.

 

I see the Nissan effort as capitalizing on a blind spot in the rule book — the ACO has been so focused on mid engine RWD layouts and the attending aero concepts that it has left a gap that can be exploited in a totally different way.  

 

Thinking that Nissan may be on to something doesn't mean you think Audi, Porsche, Toyota, and Peugeot are dunces, it just means you think there's a possibility that the rule book has left a gap — a funny shaped, front-engined gap — that is worth exploring, but was not obvious because you can't see it from the "best" starting point.

 

Whatever you think of the DeltaWing, this is a team of experienced engineers with access to state of the art simulation and analysis tools.  It might not work — even well-funded, relatively conventional designs can fail.  But I think it's unfair to say it can't work because it's different, or it can't work because it's Nissan.

[imaginesix]

 

Why do people see something different and novel and immediately assume that it is must right and that all the current accepted technological answers are wrong?  

Nobody has even suggested that.

[Fat Boy]

Why?  What do they know about LMP technology that all those dunces at Audi, Porsche, Toyota (and even Peugeot) don't?  What's their track record?  Nissan are not one of the great motor racing names are they?

 

Why do people see something different and novel and immediately assume that it is must right and that all the current accepted technological answers are wrong?  

 

Honestly, guy, piss off. You want to argue about something that we all have precious little information on and will soon enough be laid bare for all to see.

 

I know guys involved in the Nissan project on the mechanical and technical sides and I have a very high opinion of them. I wish them well.

 

Having said that, I'm also friends with one of the Porsche drivers. He does brilliant work and says they have a very strong program for 2015. I wish them well, also.

 

I haven't said that that Nissan is going to come in and blow everyone's doors off. I have just said that I think they'll show well for themselves. It could be that they've gotten it all wrong and won't be competitive. If you've raced long enough, then at one point in time or another, you've been there. I hope for their sake as competitors and all of our sakes as fans, they're running at the top. I couldn't give 2 shits if you agree.

[Fat Boy]

But when Ray Harroun decided to controversially ditch the riding mechanic and instead was the first to use a rear view mirror (and he won the very first Indy 500)....

 

Maybe. He was awarded the win. The truth is that no one really knows who won that race. There's a good book about the beginnings of IMS. The IMS party line crosses the real history here and there, but they certainly don't agree on all accounts.

[chunder27]

Owned, hilarious!

 

I have a lot of time for bold design, a few years back a guy built a tilted chassis car for oval racing and it was a nighmare, soon be cut up, really annoyed me, I applaud innovation, radical design. Others thought it was about time as it was so ugly.

 

My only criticism of this kind of design is that if it runs off and hides and has some sort of massive advantage, it might force Audi, Toyota, Porsche into a radical redesign and an increase in budget, something that really isnt needed in these times.

[Canuck]

Sorry - this is racing, not feeding the population or housing the cold.  Nobody will be forced into anything.They may choose to spend more money, but there's no gun to their head.

[Disgrace]

It's not about right or wrong, it's about better or worse given a very specific regulatory landscape.

 

LMP designs have converged around a relatively consistent aerodynamic and powertrain concept; the variation so far has been in how the manufacturers are ordering off the powertrain menu (engine size and type, hybrid implementation).  I think it's fair to say that this concept is the "best" one from a basic, minimally regulated point of view.

 

What I think happens though is that the rules converge around convergent designs, too — they become focused on reigning in the development down certain avenues, so you get things like shadow plate rules for faired in wheel pods and so forth, regulations around wheel sizes, weight distributions, etc. that manage the detailed implementation of a given general concept.

 

I see the Nissan effort as capitalizing on a blind spot in the rule book — the ACO has been so focused on mid engine RWD layouts and the attending aero concepts that it has left a gap that can be exploited in a totally different way.  

 

Thinking that Nissan may be on to something doesn't mean you think Audi, Porsche, Toyota, and Peugeot are dunces, it just means you think there's a possibility that the rule book has left a gap — a funny shaped, front-engined gap — that is worth exploring, but was not obvious because you can't see it from the "best" starting point.

 

Whatever you think of the DeltaWing, this is a team of experienced engineers with access to state of the art simulation and analysis tools.  It might not work — even well-funded, relatively conventional designs can fail.  But I think it's unfair to say it can't work because it's different, or it can't work because it's Nissan.

 

Convincingly argued.

 

If the GT-R LM is a product of a regulatory blind spot, surely that infers regarding the regulatory role in promoting hybrid innovation, the WEC have somewhat fluked their advantage over F1. Of course the powertrain menu was already in place, and more importantly it has succeeded in creating variation, but would we be having this thread without the stir the Nissan has created?

 

This is part of why we can't judge just yet - assuming the manufacturers can all build cars of dramatically varying specifications near or at their ultimate potential, if the WEC can keep them all within the same realm of competitiveness, that would be a seriously remarkable achievement. Even more so if the regulations are prone to producing unforeseen flukes.

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

Maybe. He was awarded the win. The truth is that no one really knows who won that race. There's a good book about the beginnings of IMS. The IMS party line crosses the real history here and there, but they certainly don't agree on all accounts.

I think you are missing the point by being focusing on one specific incident. What I was attempting to convey was that innovation and taking risks drives motor racing. For each era, there is the conservative and traditional mind-set, and the ones who are willing to try something different and take risks. I will give just a very few examples. Back in the early 1960's the belief at that time was to have huge individual cylinders and pursue volumetric efficiency. For example, the Norton Manx. Then this little company out of Japan showed up with a completely new approach. They went after RPM and lots of cylinders. In just a few years Honda revolutionized motorcycle racing, and in fact the entire racing universe. In 1967 Colin Chapman decided to eliminate the traditional method of building a structure to embrace the engine, and instead had this guy named Duckworth design a V-8 that was constructed to carry the loads of the chassis to the rear suspension. It was bold, it was a risk, and it could have failed. But that car, the Lotus 49 and the Cosworth DFV are now recognized as landmarks in the history of motor racing, and incredibly successful.

[Fat Boy]

This clearly wasn't the best engineering solution, but it made a better show having it around. Someone like Don Panoz having the moxie to commission a front-engined roadster is wildly lacking in modern racing. At the very least, the Nissan will accomplish the same.

 

[Fat Boy]

I think you are missing the point by being focusing on one specific incident.

 

No, I got the point, and it was a good one. I was just making a somewhat meandering side comment.

[MattPete]

Why?  What do they know about LMP technology that all those dunces at Audi, Porsche, Toyota (and even Peugeot) don't?  What's their track record?  Nissan are not one of the great motor racing names are they?

Edited by MattPete, 07 February 2015 - 02:40.

[BRG]

Honestly, guy, piss off. 

Well, that's a powerful argument.  I am now completely convinced that you know best. 

 

Instead of abuse, try actually thinking a little if it doesn't overtax your intellect.

 

I must challenge you on your knowledge of racing, whether you get it just by reading the headlines. Nissan is pervasive in the world of motorsports, from Aussie V-8's to leMans to SCCA to IMSA to Dakar to BTCC. Just check the entrants for last year's LeMans LM P2 class, 13 of the 17 entrants were powered by Nissan. They have been steadily involved in motorsport for many decades.

Challenge away.  Most of the things you mention are not Nissan factory efforts.  They never had a works car in BTCC for instance - it was a privateer team.  Their Le Mans efforts at the top end were factory entries true but they never won and indeed gave up rather easily. Not sure about the SCCA/IMSA efforts, but I suspect they were at best Nissan USA, rather than Nissan proper.  The LMP2s that you mention just use Nissan engines and have no real factory involvement.  

 

As I said, compared to, say, Renault or Mercedes or BMW or Peugeot or Citroen or Toyota, Nissan are bit players.  Not a major racing force. So I have limited confidence that they can simply rock up with a totally different solution and be successful.  Maybe they will - certainly there have been many radical ideas on the past that have proved to be the way forward.  But there have been many more that have proved dead ends.  I am happy to wait and see, whilst expressing the view that I think Nissan are mistaken.  Others seem ready to go wildly overboard about a completely unproven concept.  I'm not.  Apparently that makes me a 'hater'. 

[jpf]

As I said, compared to, say, Renault or Mercedes or BMW or Peugeot or Citroen or Toyota, Nissan are bit players.  Not a major racing force. So I have limited confidence that they can simply rock up with a totally different solution and be successful.  Maybe they will - certainly there have been many radical ideas on the past that have proved to be the way forward.  But there have been many more that have proved dead ends.  I am happy to wait and see, whilst expressing the view that I think Nissan are mistaken.  Others seem ready to go wildly overboard about a completely unproven concept.  I'm not.  Apparently that makes me a 'hater'. 

 

Thinking Nissan won't succeed doesn't make you a hater, and even considering them B-list players in top-tier racing doesn't.  What makes you sound like a hater is your apparent stance that their design is the product of pure contrarianism, or some unconsidered stunt engineering, and not the result of reading the rule book.

 

Again, they may fail.  Even the best design concept needs a ton of skill, money, and some luck to come to fruition.  I think you're mistaking people's enthusiasm for seeing something new and different for them saying the status quo is wrong.

[bigleagueslider]

Why?  What do they know about LMP technology that all those dunces at Audi, Porsche, Toyota (and even Peugeot) don't?  What's their track record?  Nissan are not one of the great motor racing names are they?

 

Why do people see something different and novel and immediately assume that it is must right and that all the current accepted technological answers are wrong?  

From '88 to '91 Nissan dominated IMSA GTP racing against Toyota, Porsche, Jaguar, etc.

[Fat Boy]

Well, that's a powerful argument.  I am now completely convinced that you know best. 

 

.... Apparently that makes me a 'hater'. 

 

 

Wait a minute, I see the problem here. It's really a fundamental misunderstanding. I'm not in an argument, having a debate or even a discussion (at least not with you). I just think that you're adding nothing to the conversation and should piss-off (as the English say). It's really a completely different concept.

 

Your internet persona does have some 'hater' traits, but it's really the douche-baggery that's less endearing.

[gruntguru]

Let's just say I have a lot of faith in the people involved.

 

Why?  What do they know about LMP technology that all those dunces at Audi, Porsche, Toyota (and even Peugeot) don't?  What's their track record?  Nissan are not one of the great motor racing names are they?

 

Why do people see something different and novel and immediately assume that it is must right and that all the current accepted technological answers are wrong?  

 

Actually I see the problem here. One guy says he has a lot of faith in certain people and the other guy assumes that means the first guy has just said that said "certain people" know more about LMP technology than Audi et al, that "said people" don't have a racing track record because they have always been at Nissan (who don't have a track record). Also that the first guy has a lot of faith in "said people" simply because they have produced something novel etc etc.

 

Actually the first guy didn't say any of that.

[mariner]

The evolution of WEC/LM regulations is about as byzantine as it gets and I know from an acquaintance with 25 years of Le Mans/Endurance experience as an entrant that it can get frustrating at times.

 

However I think there is one thing which helps in the WEC - the races need large fields to put on a  show for 12 -24 hours so the organisers have to respect varying budgets. Hence LM1 and LM2 etc. Also the category has to sustain commercial chassis builders so compromises are esential. Even where diferent series conflct like TUSC vs European LM budgets enforce some compromises.

 

Similarly a much larger driver and sponsor pool is needed so listening to just 2 or 3 top level vested intrests wont work long term

 

I wonder if that different background just gives the WEC/LM/TUSC rule makers a broader mindset than the F1 world?

[desmo]

Well any car with a solidly mounted engine can be said to use it as a stressed member can it not? The Lotus 43 (and others too I suspect) I believe were similar in concept, although both had struts running from the rear uprights to the rear bulkheads so not all the forces from the rear axle were transmitted via the engine/gearbox.