Really?
I thought open LMP's were forbidden now?
I thought open LMP's were forbidden now?
Was just about to post 
Never thought it would be a open one aswell^^ Apparently it has a straight-6 engine which is not that usual 
Looks nice though, but dont think it will have a chance against pug and audi
Never thought it would be a open one aswell^^ Apparently it has a straight-6 engine which is not that usual Looks nice though, but dont think it will have a chance against pug and audiClosed cockpits are faster, it hasn't got a chance lol and the fin is pointless, it isn't even an extension of the rear of the cockpit, it's just a piece of sheet metal sticking up outta nowhere... odd...
i6
As usual, you're talking utter bollocks. Closed cockpit cars and open cockpit are quite close on the whole. Talk to a real LMP designer and that's what they'll tell you; they both have their pros and cons. Also, that 'pointless fin' is a mandatory detail, they don't have a choice.
As usual you're missing the point, closed cockpit cars are faster, it's a fact regardless of pros and cons and I said it light-heartidly. Eitherway, regardless that Aston were force to put the sponsor billboard there, they should of told the rulemakers to go **** themselves and actually keep a hold of their balls instead of folding. I imagine that thing is going to flap around like crazy too.
Just by looking at the thing, you can tell it ain't going to win races. Unless it runs in LMP2 or it's own class. (which it probably will)
Nope. You just don't understand physics.
No, it's not a fact. Closed cockpit cars have a larger frontal area. Closed cockpit cars, by their very nature, result in slightly more lift being generated atop the roof. Closed cockpit cars tend to be more difficult to get down to minimum weights due to the fact that the lower tub can quite often stand on its own as a safety unit, with the top portion being an additional piece bonded to it, making the whole monocoque unit heavier than that of an open-cockpit car. Add to that the current regulations (IIRC) mandate an air conditioning unit for closed cockpit cars, which draws some of the engine power. Minor loss, mostly, but the nature of racing is to reduce or eliminate all parasitic losses whenever possible.
In short, closed cockpit cars may have slightly less drag, despite frontal area, but at the cost of a small amount of downforce. Closed cockpit cars also have a higher centre of gravity. Combined with the potential of added weight, this affects cornering speeds and characteristics (race tracks aren't all drag strips, remember). We're talking minute differences, though. Open top and closed top are very close, to say one or the other is faster is a gross over-simplification; it's about much, much more than just the roof; the decision affects the design and aerodynamics of the entire car.
I'm sure Aston, like all major companies, would rather not waste millions on a racing program to simply be told they are not allowed to compete because they refuse to abide by one rule. The rules mandate that fin, so Aston must use it. Simple as.
Right, because they would use flimsy materials for this.
As usual, you've proved your lack of knowledge.For once, you might actually be right about something. Maybe.
It doesn't matter what it's made out of , the lack of thickness will mean it's gonna flap around, we saw the same thing in F1 when going over chicane kerbs. And you're telling me that THING on the Aston, isn't gonna flop around when it's joined ONLY by the bottom? Granted it's not as tall as I first thought.
You fail to understand my point because closed cockpit cars are FASTER. Fast meaning, top speed. And why you are talking about lift over the roof I have no idea, close cockpit cars are designed to gift downforce on the windscreen section (aswell as everywhere else that an open cockpit car generates downforce from).
Using your logic, Thrust SSC would be a good car if it was an open cockpit with a lower centre of gravity.
The difference in top speed this year between open and closed cars should be smaller than last year because cars are less powerfull.
For now we can't say how effective it will be... just wait for the Paul Ricard race
For now we can't say how effective it will be... just wait for the Paul Ricard race
hum...interresting
Anyway I prefer that :
http://www.endurance-info.com/ ... s/news/11_LM_00_908HY.JPG
908 Hybrid 4
Anyway I prefer that :
http://www.endurance-info.com/ ... s/news/11_LM_00_908HY.JPG
908 Hybrid 4
That livery is nicee
I like that livery too, also they plan to run that car at the Le Mans Test Day. PR blah blah and two more pics: http://www.peugeot-sport.com/e ... for-the-908-hybrid4-.html
And hi-res pics of the AMR-One: http://www.astonmartinracing.c ... agegallery2011/amronelmp1
Mulsanne Mike's appraisal: http://www.dailysportscar.com/ ... 143-FDC9-3555EC8DEBDFEA7B
And hi-res pics of the AMR-One: http://www.astonmartinracing.c ... agegallery2011/amronelmp1
Mulsanne Mike's appraisal: http://www.dailysportscar.com/ ... 143-FDC9-3555EC8DEBDFEA7B
Yes, that thing won't flap around. It may flex a tiny amount in cornering, but this is not necessarily bad, and it will not "flap around"
Then you should have said "has a higher top speed". faster on a racing circuit generally means lap times. He is talking about lift over the roof, because the air has to travel longer over the top of the car, which causes lift. That's the general principle airplane wings work on.
WTF
Thrust SSC is a landspeed car. it doesn't need downforce like that, nor does it need a low center of gravity for cornering... it does however need the lowest possible drag coefficient possible for top speed.Blueflame, somethings your grasp on common knowledge surprises even me.
Let me see you bend a piece of carbon bonnet.
btw. that zebra stripe is just soooooo muccchhhhh winnnnnnnnn
Let me see you bend a piece of carbon bonnet.
btw. that zebra stripe is just soooooo muccchhhhh winnnnnnnnn
Which you continue to prove over and over again.
They were your words, not mine.
That "thing" you're talking about is at least a centimetre thick piece of carbon fibre/honeycomb. It also has a large aspect ratio. Even a few plies on either side would be enough to make it extremely stiff. You are never going to see that wobble in the wind. One reason it's there is to stop the cars from taking off when going sideways, it's got to support a huge amount of pressure.
it's there to help them not go sideways in the first place. Once they get sideways, it very probably HELPS the car take off.
It's there to stop rolling when a car is skidding sideways, the air drags that fin and stops the far side of the car leaving the ground. I doubt it will give any benefit in that sense though. It will probably be alot easier to go sideways, wind on the mulsanne straight will play a big issue too, there will be a fine like between a little bit of oversteer, and spinning. Infact, thinking about it, that thing might create devestating understeer on the faster corners. You'll probably see a wreck this year at le-mans due to those fins.
Actually, it acts as a large barge-board or rudder, helping to reduce the probablility of yaw - Or, in simpler BlueFlame appropriate terms, it helps keep you from getting sideways.
In theory, it is also supposed to help keep the cars from lifting off when sideways be creating a high pressure zone that, in conjunction with the new domed skidplate on the bottom of the car, is supposed to prevent take-offs. Unfortunately this high pressure zone is quite high up and in many situations will result in a high rolling moment, in which the chassis will roll in the opposite direction it is sliding, lifting the leading side of the car enough to cause a blow-over. You do correctly identify cross-winds as a hazard.
It's pretty clear that this 'device' was implemented hastily without a proper examination of the causes for the rollover or other solutions. It only mildly helps one aspect of the problem while making another aspect substantially worse.
Which is my conclusion, if they are supposed to actively reduce YAW, then the cars will understeer alot. They will have to increase rear anti roll bar tension to balance the car, which remains to be seen, but it could mean the cars are faster this way, if there is now an aerodynamical element to reduce oversteer, it means the rear of the car can be setup more stiffly. Interesting, I'd say if they don't pose a hazard they will stay. Might help some cars with a smaller wheelbase stay stable in the faster corners.
I don't think it will have a understeering effect normally because the rear end is basically travelling parallel to the airflow unless you are going sideways, the effect will only show when the car starts to slide.
Change of direction on a fast bend means the rear is trailing the front, hence the car is traveling sideways for a small moment, the air hitting the front of the car is now hitting the side too, this ithe moment when I think the cars will have understeer issues, though I don't think the closed cockpit cars will suffer with this.
HPD ARX-01e
No fin required because it is not completely new chassis.
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newsmarch11.html
http://www.highcroftracing.com/news/
It's a shame only Sebring seems to be confirmed... I wonder if they lack sponsorship, looking at the render and from the PR I understood that Michelin deal is only for Sebring.
Le Mans/ILMC/ALMS 2011
(690 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG