This I wanna see between normal cars...

Wonder how odd it is to drive... I must admit, I was still somewhat skeptical of this actually becoming a thing... but good for them

have to say I'm surprised, what modern 1.6-2.0 turbo does Nissan make? They are in no series with that kind of NGT engine (WRC, WTCC, etcc)

edit: but I don't hear any turbo in that vid ...

maybe they got a tuned version of the 2.0 NA engine from the Nissan Sentra SE-R ?



it also has a real gearbox! no flappy paddles!


EDIT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?f ... mbedded&v=DlLZ3d-X8aY

they mention a 1.6T that is based upon the Nissan Juke

nah, the SR20 is almost 25 years old, pretty unlikely. Some reading on wikipedia makes me think its based on the Nissan HR/Renault H engine, or the Nissan MR from the Juke, up to 1.6 liters, some versions turbo'd and/or supercharged from stock, fits the bill.

Really want to see how that dart turns out

Apprently when they go in the Experimental Class in Le mans they are expecting it to be in between LMP1 and 2 in terms of speed, its only got 300HP but they are aiming the weight at Only 475KG which is like 100kg lighter then a F1 car, its going to be insanely nimble.

Does such a narrow front affects handling?

The narrow front end is also extremely light, so that might be a reason the narrow fronts would work... would be really interested in hearing about it's handling characteristics, and am very curious to watch it perform at Le Mans.

I still have reservations about it's effectiveness, but true innovation doesn't come without ideas that everyone else thinks are crazy.

Horrible. If that's the future or motorsport I better hang myself.

they said it is the next gen of LMP2 Nissan engine, also a Goble Racing Engine spec

I do not really see the benefit from such a design apart from aerodynamics. The narrow front track will not absorb any roll forces so this is all up to the rear. I can imagine this thing will have some traction issues comming out of the corners.

Apexing and passing could be tricky if the driver forgets to think about the actual width of the car aswell.

Presumably that aerodynamic advantage is very significant, and even just looking at it briefly, you can see how it might be.

I'll be interested to see how it performs. I don't expect traction out of corners to be an issue. To me it looks like it would understeer till the cows come home. Those narrow tyres offer a tiny contact patch, but if the front weighs as little as they say then with no actual front wing, I'd be scared to death of a wider tyre if the track was wet. Keeping the front on the road looks like it would be tricky enough what ever the conditions.

Anyway it will be great to see this little insect-like thing on track with the traditional LMP cars.

The biggest problem with that design might be the lack of front downforce and the pitch (and roll!) sensitiveness of the ground effects. With no wings the only things they can adjust to tweak the aero balance is by rake and ground clearence I think. They probably have some other adjustments as well though...

Sebring is brutal for such ground effect car though

"Removing" the front wheels reduces quite a bit of drag and lift and makes the airflow more tidy towards the rear of the car as well.

Quote from Hyperactive :

Sebring is brutal for such ground effect car though

It's only going to do a demo run, in any case it's not racing.

Quote from Joris :

Apexing and passing could be tricky if the driver forgets to think about the actual width of the car aswell.

You mean tricky when other cars are passing it

I heard it yesterday, and it runs some SERIOUSE turbo power.

Quote from Joris :

I do not really see the benefit from such a design apart from aerodynamics. The narrow front track will not absorb any roll forces so this is all up to the rear. I can imagine this thing will have some traction issues comming out of the corners.

Apexing and passing could be tricky if the driver forgets to think about the actual width of the car aswell.

when you have less drag, you can use less engine power, when you need less engine power, power train sizs, mass, & the stiffness of chassic will need less, when they need less, the mass will also decrease, the brake, tire, and suspension can also make smaller, also the radiating neesed will less as less engine power, if you needed lesser radiating, the drag will be decrease again!

Quote from scania :

when you have less drag, you can use less engine power, when you need less engine power, power train sizs, mass, & the stiffness of chassic will need less, when they need less, the mass will also decrease, the brake, tire, and suspension can also make smaller, also the radiating neesed will less as less engine power, if you needed lesser radiating, the drag will be decrease again!

so it is a vicious cycle of green thinking!

I think Scania just invented a perpetual motion machine

Quote from scania :

when you have less drag, you can use less engine power, when you need less engine power, power train sizs, mass, & the stiffness of chassic will need less, when they need less, the mass will also decrease, the brake, tire, and suspension can also make smaller, also the radiating neesed will less as less engine power, if you needed lesser radiating, the drag will be decrease again!

You are thinking backwards, this is just a optimized trike motorcycle.

I seriously want to know how they made it unstable enough to eliminate understeer.

4 inch tires also may be why the narrow front end isn't under steery. But with that wide of a rear wheel base wouldn't the rear end be extremely stable, unless they have downforce that doesnt exist. It must fly on the straights, and maybe thats why the cooky design works. Because it is just enough to get them through the turns. Looks crazy though.