[Chenry135]

Originally Posted by BrokenVert

Im saying its more advanced because it takes more engineering and technology to make a fast car reliable for over 24 hours than it does to make a faster car run for 2 hours.

Yeah I get that but some of your posts started to sound like this was one of your arguments. I just don't think you can say endurance is the reason they are more advanced. If that's the case than the 24 Lemons is more advanced than F1. But I think just about everyone else on here agrees with me.

[BrokenVert]

Originally Posted by Poleposition

You dont know this firsthand. How many hours of R&D do you think a top F1 team puts into their cars? I say more than an ALMS team.

Can you explain that argument a bit better?

[Poleposition]

Well im not really arguing as you do have some valid points. What Im saying is this: A Lemans teams budget pales in comparison to an F1 teams budget and that is due to all of the R&D that goes into an F1 car. Every single bit of an F1 car is engineered and re-engineered several times over. This fact is one of the reasons they've achieved the moniker: "most advanced racing series in the world". Everything about the car, the team, their shops, its all the best of the best. Plenty of road car technology is derived from F1. Yes, a little from ALMS like the Audi program which is extremely impressive but doesnt compare to F1. The engine and gearbox from an F1 car are some of the most highly stressed pieces of machinery on the planet. Th amount of money a top team spends just on the wind tunnel research surpasses some ALMS teams entire budget. I do agree that to get those ALMS cars to perform at the levels they do for 24 hours is very impressive and worthy of many accolades but I still think an F1 car is more technologically advanced as a whole.

[BrokenVert]

You can say the F1 budget is larger but I dont understand how you can seriously say that any advanced form of motorracing doesnt involve parts being designed and redesigned several times over.


And how does it not compare to F1? The same car was designed in 2006 won lemans 3 years in a row. It was so advanced that it took 4 seasons for it to have competition. How many F1 cars can say the same thing?

[Poleposition]

Originally Posted by BrokenVert

You can say the F1 budget is larger but I dont understand how you can seriously say that any advanced form of motorracing doesnt involve parts being designed and redesigned several times over.

Not only cant I say it but I didnt say it. To the contrary, I know these parts are designed and redesigned. Thats exactly what I am saying. I know they do that in ALMS, Im just saying they do it in F1 to much more of an extreme.

[Poleposition]

BrokenVert, we should watch an F1 race together sometime. It would be much more enjoyable watching it with another racefan as opposed to my 6 year old.

[Poleposition]

Or an ALMS race for that matter. I dont want to discriminate against a lower class series

[KingOfJericho]

Originally Posted by BrokenVert

And how does it not compare to F1? The same car was designed in 2006 won lemans 3 years in a row. It was so advanced that it took 4 seasons for it to have competition. How many F1 cars can say the same thing?

That actually shows a lack of technological innovation to me. In F1, if you have some trick piece of technology you can bet your ass every team on the grid will have at least some version of that in the next race or shortly after.

[BrokenVert]

Originally Posted by KingOfJericho

That actually shows a lack of technological innovation to me. In F1, if you have some trick piece of technology you can bet your ass every team on the grid will have at least some version of that in the next race or shortly after.

It took Peugeot 2 years to come out with the 908 and Audi only won that last le mans with the R10 because the Audi had a better team/their car was better in the rain.

Shouldve said that better.

[E90SLAM]

Originally Posted by BrokenVert

You can say the F1 budget is larger but I dont understand how you can seriously say that any advanced form of motorracing doesnt involve parts being designed and redesigned several times over.


And how does it not compare to F1? The same car was designed in 2006 won lemans 3 years in a row. It was so advanced that it took 4 seasons for it to have competition. How many F1 cars can say the same thing?

But that just saying the its advanced compare to other Le Mans competitors, and other teams are slow in development to catch up. I don't know the development rate of Le Mans teams, their test allocations and resources etc...

I'm just saying development in F1 cars are so fast, like Brawn GP last year, they kicked everyone's arse in the first half of the season. Then within half season into the race calender, RedBull, Ferrari, and McLaren already caught up with a competitive car.

I've heard Steve Matchett said something like, if you bring the season ending F1 car and compare to the "same" chassis in the season opening. The development throughout the year will make the car about half a second a lap (?) quicker?

[MontegoblueE92]

Originally Posted by BrokenVert

They make ideas other than lets make a high revving petrol car faster than 23 other nearly identical high revving petrol powered cars. I think thats mostly the FIAs fault but the fact of the matter is that LMS is has more freedom to push the envelope in different directions and come up with new ideas rather than making more advanced versions of the same car for the last 50 years as F1 has.

That's the exact reasons F1 cars are so advanced. The FIA has been trying to slow the cars down for a few years now and the engineers at the teams are pushing the boundaries so far that the changes makes no difference. That was the reason for the rule changes in 2009. Overtaking was a problem due to the cars aerodynamic efficiency which caused trailing cars to lose grip. So the FIA mandated new rules on wings and winglets. All aero-aiding parts were banned besides the front and rear wings. The rear wing was sized down and the front wing was widened with a center section that could have no elements on it. This, theoretically, should have lowered aerodynamic grip considerably as their was less total wing area to provide downforce. By the end of last season teams had already caught back up to the same downforce levels as 2008. That is due to technological advancement. How else can you explain how F1 cars lap within 2 seconds of cars from 5 years ago which had 3L V10s compared to 2.4L V8s and the added downforce from a larger wing area?

[BrokenVert]

I completely understand your arguments. tweaking aerodynamics is inspired but I feel that because of the sheer amount of different technologies that can the applied to Le mans cars because of less stringent rules makes the series inherently more advanced because different teams will bring new and untested technologies to their cars.

Also don't diminish how strong the chassis have to be and all ofthe hardware has to be designed to last a long time while still pushing envelop to be faster than your competion.

It's a balancing act that makes lms cars advanced. Balancing stress, wear, and raw speed and if you have any flaws your design they become apparent over 24 hours. Just ask the Peugeot team after this years run on the mulsanne. The stress add up and can cause fatigue of parts. So new and advanced ways to make the cars for longer and harder are designed. And teams have the freedom to solve the issues with endurance racing in many different ways.

More freedom with design allows more freedom in advancement. In all areas...not just aerodynamics.

[JB135MDCT]

Highest paid drivers? F1
24 hr drivers come from? F1
First carbon fiber car? F1
First carbon fiber anything on a car? F1
Most watched? F1
Biggest motor sport budget? F1
Most money spent on car? F1
Most money spent on tires? F1
Most watched? F1
Highest rpm? F1
Highest G turn? F1
Highest G crashes? F1
Hottest Chicks? MotoGP, F1 2nd

F1 is at the limit. Any Questions?

[MontegoblueE92]

Originally Posted by BrokenVert

More freedom with design allows more freedom in advancement. In all areas...not just aerodynamics.

Not necessarily. F1 rules are pretty strict but designers and engineers keep finding ways to make cars faster around those rules. Double-decker diffusers, the F-duct, blown diffusers...all pretty advanced ideas. Like the picture somebody posted of the LMP car with the F-duct. I don't see F1 cars taking anything from Le Mans cars. Why? They're more advanced.

[Chenry135]

this thread is like beating a dead horse...

[JCtx]

Originally Posted by Chenry135

this thread is like beating a dead horse...

Indeed. The poll speaks for itself. You lost BrokenVert .

[O-cha]

Originally Posted by Zoli007

Of course there is nothing advanced about a 2.4l V8 producing around 800 HP and revving reliably to 18k RPM. Quite basic really, it just spins fast, no biggie.

And they dont have advanced metallurgy, exotic materials have been banned from the blocks for quite a few years now. Im not even going to address your comment on how F1 as a whole is not advanced.

They are basic engines, they don't even have variable timing, they just have good flow and are designed to rev out, that's not actually that advanced. Advanced metallurgy does not necessarily mean SUPER exotic materials. They still use exotic materials by engine standards, its just they banned the super crazy stuff the big pocket companies were developing, we're talking combinations no one had ever seen or thought of before in any industry.

They also banned all other engine technology, again, an n52 has way more technology like variable timing and variable lift, a lot of BMWs have had variable manifolds, n54s have turbos and so on, all of this is banned from an f1 engine, f1 engines essentially are very well honed BASIC oversquare engines.

[MontegoblueE92]

Originally Posted by O-cha

They are basic engines, they don't even have variable timing, they just have good flow and are designed to rev out, that's not actually that advanced. Advanced metallurgy does not necessarily mean SUPER exotic materials. They still use exotic materials by engine standards, its just they banned the super crazy stuff the big pocket companies were developing, we're talking combinations no one had ever seen or thought of before in any industry.

They also banned all other engine technology, again, an n52 has way more technology like variable timing and variable lift, a lot of BMWs have had variable manifolds, n54s have turbos and so on, all of this is banned from an f1 engine, f1 engines essentially are very well honed BASIC oversquare engines.

You sir, are a moron and need to GTFO. Why would an engine need VVT when it is in each gear for less then a second? They are revving so fast that none of that stuff is necessary. F1 cars aren't cruising just above idle to go get groceries. They drive flat out at all times. Why would they need a variable manifold?

Please explain with your great knowledge of engineering how an engine that produces in the vicinity of 300 hp/L without forced induction is basic.

[BrokenVert]

It's not a basic design but F1 engines live by the mantra of simple is better...in a relative sense. They are a block heads and valves, etc the basic components of a piston internal combustion engine. They dont have the tech such as direct injection, turbos, variable cam timing, variable lift, etc.
They are simple oversquare, well balanced engines with fantastic intake and exhaust manifolds.

The V10 TFSI of the Audi R10 is a more complicated engine than an F1 engine. As it is turbocharged direct injected and runs on diesel. It's a more intricate design that's packed with more tech and you can't really argue that.

[MontegoblueE92]

Originally Posted by BrokenVert

It's not a basic design but F1 engines live by the mantra of simple is better...in a relative sense. They are a block heads and valves, etc the basic components of a piston internal combustion engine. They dont have the tech such as direct injection, turbos, variable cam timing, variable lift, etc.
They are simple oversquare, well balanced engines with fantastic intake and exhaust manifolds.

The V10 TFSI of the Audi R10 is a more complicated engine than an F1 engine. As it is turbocharged direct injected and runs on diesel. It's a more intricate design that's packed with more tech and you can't really argue that.

You do realize there is an engine freeze in place and that the powers that be have been trying to slow F1 cars down for a decade right? F1 cars moved away from turbos twenty years ago, and even those produced more power with less displacement than the R10 engine. In 1986, Brabham used a 1.5 L BMW engine that produced 1300hp. The R10 uses a 5.5 L which is good for about 700hp. So, for your sake, I don't think you want to debate turbo-power when it comes to LMP vs. F1.

And direct injection is rumoured to become legal again when they mandate the new engine specs for the 2013 season, when, oddly enough, they're going back to turbos.

[BrokenVert]

You are comparing bhp in a petrol car to bhp in a diesel of course the diesel will be lower.

It's apparent that you guys are set in your ways but you aren't going to change my mind

[TK-421]

Originally Posted by KingOfJericho

You actually have to dial back the technological innovation to enhance reliability so I think you're starting to argue against your own point. This is why a Toyota Camry runs to 300k without issue and a 335i doesn't.

THIS

(again)