The Le Mans General Discussion Thread

Furinkazen
I would take an LMP once a Ferrari AM driver was done with it over an early-gen DP.
Click to expand...
I'd still take the early-gen DP over today's LMPs. Hell, I'd rather see a spec Delta Wing class over what's currently raced. But hey, you have your own opinion which is not wrong by any accord 👍
Furinkazen
I'd rather have ugly cars (and FYI I don't think the current cars are bad at all) which give fantastic racing than super sexy looking streamliners which can't compete.
Click to expand...
I don't think they currently produce a good race at all, but then again, I've been spoiled by 15-20 of those ugly earlier gen DPs full season duking it out :P
 
Furinkazen
I would take an LMP once a Ferrari AM driver was done with it over an early-gen DP.

Function > Form. These cars are not created to win beauty contests but to last 24 hours. Is it not ironic that at the dawn of a new golden age for Le Mans racing we are hung up on something as tiny as details.


I'd rather have ugly cars (and FYI I don't think the current cars are bad at all) which give fantastic racing than super sexy looking streamliners which can't compete.
Click to expand...
Lol. :D On twitter when AF corse posted their driver list for this year I comment something like "So whos going to wreck an LMP this year?" And My post got liked by an Aston Martin GT Pro driver. XD XD Did you see the Ferrari driver at the 2015 Daytona 24 hours? lol.
 
cnd01
I think that Oreca 05 looks horrible. And every other LMP1-HY, L, and LMP2 besides maybe the Sky-Activ Lola which still needs the fin removed. All the LMP today look like they were designed by someone who sat a little too long at the CAD desk and another person who spent waaaaay too much time in the wind tunnel at least to me. I understand to maximize performance, they all maximize functionality and I do like that aspect, but I don't think it should be taken to the absolute extreme making them look absurd. (which to answer your question Yes I'm an engineer) I applaud Nissan for getting something out there that's a different look. It's the best looking LMP out there by lightyears. Take the fin off and it gets even better.
Click to expand...

You mean like they did in the 80s and early 90s just instead of a CAD program or a CFD program or both they used a pen and paper and did basic by hand drafting...Those cars saw a wind tunnel and drafting board plenty, it wasn't some miracle of imagination all of a sudden like a light bulb. Um it's racing...and as others said the fin and swan neck serves a purpose which has been proven (even though you tried to disprove it not that long ago as far as the fin goes). But to the racing aspect it's always been on the extreme from six wheel cars, to snowmobile fans, to ground effects, to active suspension, TC, and to even current ideas like internal body aero and coanda effect among other things.

All of this (which depending on what type of engineer you are you'd know) is from as far back as the late 60s/early 70s to now. All of it was or is extreme and all of it was solved with different yet similar methods. Every excuse you've given to being hung up on this modern era could be quantified to past eras because they did the same thing to get success. Extreme is what this type of sport is about and what creates winning, you thinking it's extreme and wrong for that is what's silly. Stick to DP.
 
Guys just found out that JRM who make the GTR GT3 cars is in Daventry, which is ironic because I live in Daventry as well!! How can I not know this!?!
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
You mean like they did in the 80s and early 90s just instead of a CAD program or a CFD program or both they used a pen and paper and did basic by hand drafting...Those cars saw a wind tunnel and drafting board plenty, it wasn't some miracle of imagination all of a sudden like a light bulb. Um it's racing...and as others said the fin and swan neck serves a purpose which has been proven (even though you tried to disprove it not that long ago as far as the fin goes). But to the racing aspect it's always been on the extreme from six wheel cars, to snowmobile fans, to ground effects, to active suspension, TC, and to even current ideas like internal body aero and coanda effect among other things.

All of this (which depending on what type of engineer you are you'd know) is from as far back as the late 60s/early 70s to now. All of it was or is extreme and all of it was solved with different yet similar methods. Every excuse you've given to being hung up on this modern era could be quantified to past eras because they did the same thing to get success. Extreme is what this type of sport is about and what creates winning, you thinking it's extreme and wrong for that is what's silly. Stick to DP.
Click to expand...
And how does that make it wrong for me to dislike the visual appearance of cars? You're having a hard time separating subjective from objective perspective. Of course, the highest categories at Le Mans have been pushing the limits and been cutting edge. Not even going to try and argue that because that's wrong. I don't like seeing spaceships on 4 wheels.

My somewhat objective (but still subjective) premise for not liking the cutting edge stuff is that all the cutting edge tech and development that goes into these programs is not immediately applicable or anywhere close to being practical. It's more/less the theoretical limits of what can be done with pretty much unlimited resources. We don't see any of that until years down the road in any industry not just motorsports. Basically, it's watching R&D on a racetrack. Tight rules and lower budgets are what is more practical and at least to me more applicable to how actual processes have to operate and therefore, I like seeing that style of engineering the best. Outside of racing, as an engineer, you're bounded by so much that making substantial improvements thus saving a considerable amount of $$ is not easy. Both sides are awesome alone because I have the mindset of an engineer. Not saying I would turn down an engineering position in a situation like a factory LMP team or anything.
 
cnd01
And how does that make it wrong for me to dislike the visual appearance of cars? You're having a hard time separating subjective from objective perspective. Of course, the highest categories at Le Mans have been pushing the limits and been cutting edge. Not even going to try and argue that because that's wrong. I don't like seeing spaceships on 4 wheels.
Click to expand...

No your subjective reasoning is what I question. They were space ships then and they're space ships now. What is so ugly now that wasn't ugly then, it seems you're picking and choosing based off other criteria that you aren't saying. But I'll just say it for you, I feel your obvious bias toward DP against P2 and P1 is the heart of the issue. I don't see how a shark fin can make a car exponentially that more ugly to others. Yes to each their own subjective, blah blah blah. Yet it seems like a faulty cumbersome reason.

My somewhat objective (but still subjective) premise for not liking the cutting edge stuff is that all the cutting edge tech and development that goes into these programs is not immediately applicable or anywhere close to being practical. It's more/less the theoretical limits of what can be done with pretty much unlimited resources. We don't see any of that until years down the road in any industry not just motorsports. Basically, it's watching R&D on a racetrack. Tight rules and lower budgets are what is more practical and at least to me more applicable to how actual processes have to operate and therefore, I like seeing that style of engineering the best. Outside of racing, as an engineer, you're bounded by so much that making substantial improvements thus saving a considerable amount of $$ is not easy. Both sides are awesome alone because I have the mindset of an engineer. Not saying I would turn down an engineering position in a situation like a factory LMP team or anything.
Click to expand...

Why would it be or should it be, it's R&D and you can ask any engineer R&D isn't something you just apply overnight. Nor is R&D practical in the moment you create and develop it, R&D for pretty much any field of engineering finds better use when the outside world catches up to the test lab (race track, wind tunnel, computer program so on and so forth). I mean you basically at this point you seem to have a hang up with how engineering processes lifespan out. Also engineering what is already known isn't engineering it's just following a procedure that's already been figured out prior. What we get now is much better, which is why Ford is the only DP program I can respect out of all the others.
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
No your subjective reasoning is what I question. They were space ships then and they're space ships now. What is so ugly now that wasn't ugly then, it seems you're picking and choosing based off other criteria that you aren't saying. But I'll just say it for you, I feel your obvious bias toward DP against P2 and P1 is the heart of the issue. I don't see how a shark fin can make a car exponentially that more ugly to others. Yes to each their own subjective, blah blah blah. Yet it seems like a faulty cumbersome reason.
Click to expand...
Because back then, the cars actually looked good. If you like the cars today, that's cool. I don't; that's cool too.
LMSCorvetteGT2
Why would it be or should it be, it's R&D and you can ask any engineer R&D isn't something you just apply overnight. Nor is R&D practical in the moment you create and develop it, R&D for pretty much any field of engineering finds better use when the outside world catches up to the test lab (race track, wind tunnel, computer program so on and so forth). I mean you basically at this point you seem to have a hang up with how engineering processes lifespan out. Also engineering what is already known isn't engineering it's just following a procedure that's already been figured out prior. What we get now is much better, which is why Ford is the only DP program I can respect out of all the others.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying it's bad engineering. Working in chemical processes, we're always experimenting and developing the process trying to save money or improve the product that goes out the door.
 
cnd01
Because back then, the cars actually looked good. If you like the cars today, that's cool. I don't; that's cool too.

I'm not saying it's bad engineering. Working in chemical processes, we're always experimenting and developing the process trying to save money or improve the product that goes out the door.
Click to expand...

There were as many bad endurance protos around back then and through the ages as there are now, if you'd like I can easily post them up. I don't see an issue between six tires on a car or a shark fin but that's just due to field I pursued most likely and in general before that.
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
There were as many bad endurance protos around back then and through the ages as there are now, if you'd like I can easily post them up. I don't see an issue between six tires on a car or a shark fin but that's just due to field I pursued most likely and in general before that.
Click to expand...

I want to say post them,
 
SCG003S which is hopefully racing at Le Mans next year.
31D477C3-5C4A-4E62-A0E8-49FE3879BD79_zpsbyrtkfhr.jpg


Oh look a shark fin.
 
Ill link the article when I get home, but dailysportscar has written up a great piece on the response regarding the new LMP2 regulations. The best bit was about these regulations diminishing the "prototype" part of the series.

Its honestly ridiculous that this was announced and is clearly meant to reward a few and punish the rest. Either racing is going to be divided as a result, or good manufacturers and people will get out of the business, killing it over the long run.

http://www.dailysportscar.com/2015/...7-lmp2-proposals-spark-major-controversy.html

More than that though there is a very troubling change in philosophy emerging here – ‘Prototypes’ are called that for a reason. If development is regulated out of court then their right to have that title is massively diluted.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I don't even know where these regulations are coming from as I haven't heard much griping about the cost of running LMP2. Granted I don't follow off the track stuff all that closely, but the expanding fields certainly don't hint at any real problem with the current set-up.
 
It makes no sense to me, we have 7 different LMP2 Manufacturers for the 2015 season, and 3 engines. Not to mention Yokohama looking to provide a 3rd option for tires. Plus 3 DP Chassis and engines. That doesn't look like a formula that's struggling to me.
 
aarror
It makes no sense to me, we have 7 different LMP2 Manufacturers for the 2015 season, and 3 engines. Not to mention Yokohama looking to provide a 3rd option for tires. Plus 3 DP Chassis and engines. That doesn't look like a formula that's struggling to me.
Click to expand...
They're trying to make it universal so that they can "faze out DP" and use LMP2, however, I think IMSA wanted the cars to have Car Manufacturer ties and to make them near-spec, So basically they wanted to make DP a worldwide category by changing LMP2 into something similar. This is what I'm seeing at least.
 

Similar threads

Dylan
2025 NASCAR Discussion Thread
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
Eggstor
Eggstor
Famine
2022 Le Mans 24 Hours: Preview, Live Streams, Schedules and Discussion
2 3 4
Replies
110
Views
9K
Coquico
Coquico
Famine
24 Hours of Le Mans 2024 Entry List Announced: Nine Hypercar Marques in Record-Breaking Field
Replies
17
Views
4K
TexHill
TexHill
Famine
Aston Martin Confirms its Valkyrie Hypercar Will Race at Le Mans in 2025
2
Replies
50
Views
6K
Quakebass
Quakebass
Famine
24 Hours of Le Mans 2023 Entry List Revealed for Centenary Race: 16 Hypercars Lead the Way
2
Replies
40
Views
7K
jonoholland29
jonoholland29

Latest Posts

Back