Porsche has taken victory at the Le Mans 24 hours race with the #19 car driven across the finish line by current Formula One driver Nico Hulkenberg. He was joint driving the car with Earl Bamber and Nick Tandy.
Fairly little changes for the Toyota, I don't think they are showing their full package just yet.Morteza wrote:2015 TS040 HYBRID
http://www.toyotahybridracing.com/wp-co ... Studio.jpg
http://www.toyotahybridracing.com/wp-co ... o_0001.jpg
http://www.toyotahybridracing.com/wp-co ... dio_01.jpg
http://www.toyotahybridracing.com/wp-co ... dio_02.jpg
http://www.toyotahybridracing.com/wp-co ... dio_03.jpg
http://www.toyotahybridracing.com/wp-co ... dio_04.jpg
http://www.toyotahybridracing.com/wp-co ... dio_05.jpg
http://www.toyotahybridracing.com/wp-co ... dio_07.jpg
As for i know Nissan dosnt annouce the officiall MJ class yet...kooleracer wrote:Nissan GT-R Nismo 2MJ
Audi R-18 4MJ
Toyota TS040 6MJ
Porsche 919 8MJ
Talking about variety, also they all use different technique to recover kinetic energy. Like last year i will be watching the races on TV. We got some great and dramatic racing last year. Can't wait for Le Mans.
This is what Autosport reported:wesley123 wrote: Fairly little changes for the Toyota, I don't think they are showing their full package just yet.
Toyota will remain in the six megajoule class in its bid to defend its World Endurance Championship titles with a revised version of last year's TS040 HYBRID.
The Japanese manufacturer had evaluated moving up to the top hybrid sub-class of 8MJ, but has opted to stay in the lower division with what it describes as "enhanced" versions of its energy-retrieval systems.
Gallery: Toyota launches 2015 LMP1 contender
This includes an uprated version of its supercapacitor energy-storage system, which Toyota has retained rather than swapping to batteries.
Toyota's Hisatake Murata, who leads development of the hybrid systems in Japan, explained that the revised Toyota would "achieve the maximum hybrid energy more consistently than last season.
"We fully expect to see a performance improvement from the hybrid system, especially over race distances, and at every circuit," he said.
The 2015-specification TS040 has been significantly reworked, according to Toyota Motorsport GmbH technical director Pascal Vasselon.
"The update car is no revolution, but it's an evolution almost everywhere," he said.
"It looks like it is from the same family; nevertheless we have redesigned roughly 80 per cent of the parts."
The second-generation TS040 has updated aerodynamics and a new front end including the crash structure, as well as revised suspension to optimise tyre usage and additional weight saving.
Toyota has again produced high and low-downforce aerodynamic packages for the TS040 and will run both during this week's two-day official WEC test at Paul Ricard.
New to WEC, what do you mean by BHH?joseff wrote:Interesting how Toyota chooses the inboard rear BHH option. Last year's 919 started with that BHH position, but they found the top position more efficient, and switched accordingly.
RicME85 wrote:
New to WEC, what do you mean by BHH?
If you are new to WEC check this site out. http://www.mulsannescorner.com/ Lots of info there.10.19.11
Bulletin 11-19, issued back in August, called for an 60% increase in the front fender louver area as well as a 100 cm^2 louver patch over each rear fender. With a little investigating we now understand 11-19 has been superseded by 11-22 which is calling for openings of 1000 cm^2 over each front and rear fender. Yes, that's 1000 cm^2 for each fender. We've also been told that a minimum opening of 20 cm x 25 cm must be positioned over the each wheel centerline, with the area difference placed as needed.
Now the purpose of the 1000 cm^2 openings is to reduce lift in sudden yaw incidents, and by all accounts they do work in that situation. But we're also told that the immediate effect of the openings is an approximately 2.5% forward balance shift coupled with a large increase in pitch sensitivity. In essence the opening up of the bodywork allows the front diffuser to work better, which sounds like a positive thing on the face of it. But a properly designed diffuser manages its downforce generation and mitigates pitch sensitivity. Downforce gains are seen across all ride heights, but are said to be "huge" at lower ride heights. And what gains the rear openings make in reducing lift over the fenders are offset by the airflow disruption to the rear wing. There's also a net increase in drag. The 2.5% forward balance shift can be rebalanced with more rear wing, but with the added effect of increasing drag further. Thus the cumulative effects of the openings is to reduce aero efficiency with the unintended consequence of a large increase in pitch sensitivity.
Furthermore, we've been told that Bulletin 11-22 isn't a proposal, but a done deal for 2012. So, I think it appropriate to christen the holes as...naturally, Big Honking Holes.
It begs the question of why would they bother testing voiding the fuel flow limit?TzeiTzei wrote:Porsche 4 secs a lap faster than last year in testing. Of course in testing they can forget the fuel flow regulations if they want to.
They probably wouldn't. Just thought it was worth remembering.Cold Fussion wrote:It begs the question of why would they bother testing voiding the fuel flow limit?TzeiTzei wrote:Porsche 4 secs a lap faster than last year in testing. Of course in testing they can forget the fuel flow regulations if they want to.
if it means they can push the car harder and beat the sh*t out of it more for durability testing, they'd do it.Cold Fussion wrote:It begs the question of why would they bother testing voiding the fuel flow limit?TzeiTzei wrote:Porsche 4 secs a lap faster than last year in testing. Of course in testing they can forget the fuel flow regulations if they want to.
Indeed!ian_s wrote:if it means they can push the car harder and beat the sh*t out of it more for durability testing, they'd do it.Cold Fussion wrote:It begs the question of why would they bother testing voiding the fuel flow limit?TzeiTzei wrote:Porsche 4 secs a lap faster than last year in testing. Of course in testing they can forget the fuel flow regulations if they want to.
Porsche had already done almost 30 000km of testing before the Prologue. They have probably tested those things already. But anyway, those were some seriously fast laptimes. If they take 4 seconds out of laptimes in Silverstone that would mean a pole time in 1.38s. Getting closer to the tail end of F1.WaikeCU wrote:Indeed!
1) Start testing with a strong pace and make miles until the car breaks. Then analyze what has caused the car to break.
2) Start testing with Quali pace and keep on pushing until the car breaks. Then analyze what has caused the car to break.
3) Repeat the previous 2 scenario's until the quality has reached the acceptance rate.
