[SGVLUG] [OT] Especially for Tom & his Prius.... [my rebuttal, then I'll shut up]

[Michael Proctor-Smith]

On 7/11/06, Dustin Laurence <dustin at laurences.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 10:30:30AM -0700, Michael Proctor-Smith wrote:
> >
> > I love that I actually know someone else that reads that web site.
>
> I don't--I found it while researching TDI diesels to see if I really
> wanted to own one.  However, Le Mans has always been my favorite race,
> and if I'd grown up in a sporting family I'd probably follow it
> religiously.  I like the GT classes more than prototypes--I prefer cars
> that have some vague resemblance to road cars.  I'd probably like
> Paris-Dakar if I got into it too.

Paris-Dakar is good the coverage is not the best, but like all rally
it is fun to watch. The problem is that like WRC they do not have
enough penetration in the US market to get dedicated US produced
coverage. Instead we get warmed over British coverage and I disslike
british coverage of racing. The annoucers are just way to high energy,
and I can't take it.

> Too bad we didn't think of this earlier--we could have had an SGVLUG
> party at someone's house to watch on cable (I assume it was televised on
> cable).  Oh, wait, it's the TWENTY-FOUR HOURS of Le Mans.... :-)

We only got like 20 hours of coverage on Speed(for all my obsure high
tech racing), but I watched all of it, not live but on MythTV(all most
as good as when speed had 25hours of coverage one year).

> > ...But
> > that problem with the CLR1 would not have happened if the designers
> > were not having to work within Le Mans regulations for the time, the
>
> My point was just that wing-in-ground is a tricky thing and isn't so
> predictable even when you've done your wind-tunnel work.  Notice the
> article's mention of upper body panels flying off from the lift being
> generated.
>
> > ... Just as a comeback to Davids diesels
> > are not that much more efficient.
>
> That isn't a position he can seriously defend from evidence anyway,
> because it's quite wrong.  Diesels have *really* developed since the
> '80s.  Stunningly so.  There seems to be more untapped development
> potential there than in spark ignition.
>
> > ...The Audi TDI achieved approximately
> > 20% better fuel economy then its gas competitor
>
> The main reason it won was in fact fewer pit stops, right?

Yes and no the Audi did spend less time in the pits but was also
faster. The thing is the fuel economy is a factor that the non-diesel
competitors can point at and say they are not on a level playing
field. But the ACO has a history of giving unfair advantages to
interesting technology just becasue they want to, part of playing in
there playground(they did it for rotary engines and lead to Mazda
winning). They also added weight to everybody because they were going
to require air conditioning in closed top cars next year, and recomend
it this year. Audi could not make the minium weight.

> In a race as brutal as Le Mans I guess the greater durability of diesel
> might also help, but I'm not sure they're still more durable under that
> particular type of abuse.  Maybe.  I know the race eats engines, and a
> big factor in Porche's domination of GT racing there is their
> indestructable engines.

Again yes and no. TDI has disadvantages also the main one being the
problem that handing two times the torque of a gas engine can be
tought on the rest of the drivetrain for example Audi could not use
its traction control because using it would brake the rest of the
driveline.
A year or two ago there was a previous TDI prototype, with engine
sposorship but not really engineering from CAT, basically a TDI fitted
into a preexitsting prototype Chassis that broker like five
half-shafts before braking the transmission and retiring.

Also the TDIs are so quiet compared to a high reving gas race engines
that the driver can't even hear when they brake the wheels lose at
speed. Which has lead to several high speed testing crashs of TDI race
cars(the Audi is not the only one out there). Kind of weird to think
of a diesel being quieter then a gas engine:-)

The reason that Porsche have dominated is that the company has built
there name on the fact that they are sports car racing(and spent many
dollars to maintain that image). Also they arguably started with a
better starting point and the fact that until this year any
"privateer" could simple call up Porsha and order a ready made 911rsr
turbo race car from the factory. The fact that any team could order a
proven winner and not have to have all the inhouse skills to build a
car ment that the 911 was the only sensable choice for most teams and
was sometimes the only car in the class. Plus you prove that you are
serious about preparing and racing a car the factory will send you a
professonal driver or two on the factories dime.

> > Back to real life cars you will notice that sport/turbo versions of
> > the new beetle have a wings or spoilers. Beond the looks/cool factor
> > they probable cover the engineers ass and disrupt the laminar flow
> > just enough to prevent liftoff.
>
> Yeah.  I'd want a wing on any car that looks like that too.  Same goes
> for 911's.  Just the shape scares me, because all I see is airfoil.
> That's a bit unfair because almost any shape generates lift close to the
> ground--cats are airfoils in ground effect. :-)

911s have spoilers, even on the models that don't look like they do
when they are parked. They have popup spoilers that automatically
deploy at speed. So did the McClaren F1 which may have finnally been
useated as the fastes production car ever by bugatti 1000bhp monster.
Ford solved the problem on the new GT with diffusers as they did not
want to radically change classic GT40 styling. It is said that GT40
was on the edge of fight every time down the Mulsanne, but that was in
the days before downforce in racing when it was all about low drag.
Speaking of Porsha they are going to going to build a new Super car to
challange to the bugatti.