Wallio wrote:mario wrote:the ACO has had some strange rules about those over the years - bear in mind that, in recent years, Audi's gearbox has technically been classed as part of the suspension system of the car because of the way the ACO defines a gearbox...
Wait....what? lol
Sorry, I need to make a slight correction as I'd partially misremembered the article - it did involve Audi taking a rather liberal interpretation of what a gearbox casing actually was though, and its relationship with the suspension system.
On the Mulsannecorner website, it explains that it was a trick that Audi had with the R18 that turned on some rather loose wording from the ACO. The ACO's regulations, back in 2011, defined the gearbox casing as "Casings that receive or transmit loads from/to the chassis or from/to mechanical elements other than those which are part of the gearbox or the differential."
What Audi did was they developed a carbon fibre housing that went around the gearbox and withstood the loads from the suspension system - with no suspension loads going through the gearbox casing, therefore, under the ACO's definition of a gearbox casing, the gearbox casing, and by implication the entire gearbox, of the R18 ceased to be a gearbox, which in theory should have allowed Audi to change their gearbox without penalty.
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/RCELeMans2011.htmlWallio wrote:mario wrote:A slight clarification on the engine point - an F1 spec engine would, in theory, be eligible for the LMP1 category, but it would probably require a fair amount of modification first in order to operate in those conditions. That doesn't mean that everything can carry over however - there are some features that are allowed by the ACO that aren't allowed, or are much more strictly controlled, in F1 (such as the energy flow rates from the energy recovery systems), and some developments are allowed in F1 but not at Le Mans (variable intake systems are being allowed, albeit strictly monitored, in F1 but are not currently allowed in sportscar racing).
Obviously there won't be 100% carryover, but the potential must be huge for Ferrari to be thinking about Le Mans again. And Renault has said they will consider selling F1 engines to WEC teams too. Surely there must be huge overlap there. And hey why not? VW tried to ram the World Engine down our throats. This WEC/F1 crossover would at least develop the motors, unlike the WE.
There is some crossover between the two, but the ACO has structured its regulations in such a way that it would make it much more inconvenient to go from the WEC to F1 than the other way, indicating that it has learned from the Group C days and intends to make it harder for manufacturers to jump from the WEC to F1. Engine development is ostensibly more open in the WEC, but it is open in areas where you wouldn't be able to easily transfer that technology over to F1, so there would only be a limited number of areas in which you could develop the engines for both series.
As for engine sales, Renault have indeed said that they would consider selling their engine to WEC teams, although it looks like their main aim at the moment is their partnership with Caterham to promote the revived Alpine brand, but it looks like they are aiming to make some fairly large changes to the engine first (both in terms of reliability and fuel consumption, amongst other things). There is also the problem that Renault might struggle for customers given that their engines are not expected to be cheap - they will be competing against established manufacturers like Toyota and Nissan, both of whom have customer engine programs for 2014 (Toyota have linked up with Rebellion Racing), as well as privateers like Judd.
Ferrari have also indicated an interest in the WEC, although some have suggested that it might also be a ploy from Ferrari to push the FIA towards relaxing their plans to slow down and eventually freeze engine development from 2015 onwards. Whilst the ACO would allow engine development, it looks like their main aim is to promote energy recovery systems - they have a similar fuel flow limit but much more liberal energy recovery rules.
