[Racer Duck]

Despite not finishing the city street race in Detroit, the two German Audi "factory" drivers Lucas Luhr and Marco Werner have already clinched the Drivers’ title in the LM P1 class of the American Le Mans Series.

The title chase was decided as their teammates Marcel Fässler and Emanuele Pirro, who had originally won the LM P1 class on the "Belle Isle Street Circuit", were excluded after the race. At Technical Scrutineering, the #1 Audi R10 TDI was found to be 2.5 kilograms under the requested 925-kilogram weight limit. Following contact with another car during the morning warm-up session, a spare nose had been fitted which was prepared for both cars, not specifically set-up for the #1 car.

This is the third LM P1 title in the American Le Mans Series for Marco Werner (42) following his Championship wins in 2003 and 2004. It is the fourth win for Lucas Luhr (29) following his successes in 2002, 2003 and 2006 – however it is his first in the LM P1 category. Luhr has also become the first driver ever in the history of the U.S. sportscar series to clinch the title in three different categories: GT2, LM P2 and now LM P1.

"Of course we would have prefered to have won the title under different circumstances," said Luhr and Werner. "But with seven consecutive victories already this season we certainly feel we have earned the title."

Before the last two races at Road Atlanta (4 October) and Laguna Seca (18 October) the two Germans hold a 66-point lead over Emanuele Pirro and are 68 points clear of Clint and Jon Field who were awarded the LM P1 class victory in Detroit. Only 55 points remain available in the final two races.

Source: PaddockTalk

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

The title chase was decided as their teammates Marcel Fässler and Emanuele Pirro, who had originally won the LM P1 class on the "Belle Isle Street Circuit", were excluded after the race. At Technical Scrutineering, the #1 Audi R10 TDI was found to be 2.5 kilograms under the requested 925-kilogram weight limit. Following contact with another car during the morning warm-up session, a spare nose had been fitted which was prepared for both cars, not specifically set-up for the #1 car.

I have a stupid question so please indulge me.

As I read the above the replacement nose piece was illegal because it added 2.5 kg.'s to the car's weight, right? This was caused because the nose piece wasn't designed specifically for the #1 Audi R10 TDI but rather for another Audi R10 TDI. Is that correct?

If those two assumption are correct, then riddle me this, Batman; isn't a 5½ pound difference in pieces which I would assume to be almost identical, a bit much? (by my calculations, 2.5 kg.'s equal a shade over 5½ US pounds.) That seems like a big difference for one piece.

The only explanation I can think of is that it is weight to compensate for a driver's weight and the ALMS pre-and post-race weights its cars with the driver in the seat. Is this right?

Signed:
Confused in Alabama

[DOF_power]

Well yes sort of, it could be that and/or a different balance between the 2 cars to suit the different driving styles.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by DOF_power

Well yes sort of, it could be that and/or a different balance between the 2 cars to suit the different driving styles.

Thanks. But the nose seems like an odd place to have large weight differences? But then my knowledge of these type of cars is negligible so I'll chalk this one up as a learning experience.

[DOF_power]

These days they put ballast on the nose too.

It surprised me too when I found out, because these are mid-rear engined cars and whole the purpose of this layout was to concentrate the weight between the wheels with a rear bias for a achieving a low polar moment of inertia and good rear wheel traction.

But today tires, driving techniques and/or an unforseen design "flaw" (a too short wheelbase for further weight balance changes) results in this new technique of nose ballast.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by DOF_power

These days they put ballast on the nose too.

It surprised me too when I found out, because these are mid-rear engined cars and whole the purpose of this layout was to concentrate the weight between the wheels with a rear bias for a achieving a low polar moment of inertia and good rear wheel traction.

But today tires, driving techniques and/or an unforseen design "flaw" (a too short wheelbase for further weight balance changes) results in this new technique of nose ballast.

Thanks. The weight between the axles was what I thought the major advantage of the mid-engined car was also. Right and left weight I can understand but this concept of nose weight to compensate for driving techniques and tires? I thought that was what the forward wings were for?

These new engineers are dealing with a different brand of physics than I learned in school. I am becoming hopelessly an antique.

[DOF_power]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

Thanks. The weight between the axles was what I thought the major advantage of the mid-engined car was also. Right and left weight I can understand but this concept of nose weight to compensate for driving techniques and tires? I thought that was what the forward wings were for?

These new engineers are dealing with a different brand of physics than I learned in school. I am becoming hopelessly an antique.

Well it isn't just that, the drivers also have to deal with the different realities.
I found today's most successful driving techniques in F1 are completely different, downright opposed to the old ones.
The smooth and consistent style of the likes of Clark/Stewart/Prost would never work today, as the current tires demand a very aggressive and varied driving style to build up and maintain enough heat/pressure (= grip = speed).

As to the mid-rear engined layout (not to be confused with the rear engined layout), there are several advantages besides the mentioned ones such a slim nose meaning better aerodynamics, the lack of a drive-shaft meaning less weight (= less inertia) and a lower center of gravity, and with the truncated monocoque the engine and gearbox become a stressed part of the chassis meaning better structural stiffness.

Everything is just better if things go well, and everything is (a lot) worse if they don't (the early 1930s mid engined cars where only mastered by Bernd Rosemeyer almost every other driver considered them undrivable).





Here's a point about the weight distribution, the closer the weight is concentrated to the center the better the steering/responsivity/agility/handling.
The downsize of this is less stabilty to downright almost no stability-driveabilty whatsoever if things go wrong.