Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 203.0.77.240 (talk) at 06:13, 8 July 2008 (→tone?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Sports Car Racing Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports Car Racing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sports Car Racing on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sports Car RacingWikipedia:WikiProject Sports Car RacingTemplate:WikiProject Sports Car RacingSports Car Racing ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Weight restriction confusion

In the 'Weight' section, the article reads:

'At the beginning of the 2006 season, homologation rules for LMP cars were changed, for the LMP1 class, an increase in minimum weight from 900 kg to 925 kg was mandated. While officially this is to allow closed top prototypes to run with air-conditioning (as this would have added weight over open tops cars), some have speculated that this done at the behest of Audi to allow the R10 to be competitive.'

Should this be 'an increase in the maximum weight from 900 kg to 925 kg'? I think that he way it's currently worded doesn't make sense, consider both interpretations:

If the R10 hadn't originally met the criteria because it weighed less than the minimum weight of 900 kg, then raising this cut-off point to 925 kg certainly wouldn't fix the problem.

Or, if the R10 hadn't originally met the criteria because it exceeded 900 kg.. well that doesn't make sense either, since we're talking about a minimum..

The way the original text is worded is correct. The ACO regulates minimum weight and in this case the number was raised from 900 to 925. The speculation was that Audi was struggling to meet 900 kgs, and this was somewhat born out when it showed up at Sebring and weighed in at 935 kgs. Had the ACO not raised the minumum to 925 kgs, the Audi could have possibly been 35 kgs over minimum, not meerly 10 kgs, and therefore at a substantial disadvantage compared to those running at 900. But as the regulation was changed (at last minute ACO annouced the reg change in Decemeber without consulting any of the constructors), the Audi was at less of a disadvantage and of course by now they are on the minimum and aiming for under 900 kgs in order to ballst up to that number when LMP1 regs are altered again for '08 and the minumum becomes 900 kgs. Mulsannescorner (talk) 05:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hall of Fame

Please note that there is no single "motorsports hall of fame", and that the halls of fame that do exist in motorsports are populated by people and not cars. As such, I've deleted a claim that this car's wins at Lemans and Sebring directly place it "in the hall of fame". -- Mikeblas 19:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"Restrictor Plate"

I am debating what to do with the link to the article "Restrictor Plate" that appears in the sentence regarding the R8 and its intake restrictors. The Restrictor plate article is not particularly relevant, since it deals expressly with the carburetor restrictor plates used in NASCAR racing, rather than the type of restrictor generally found on sportscars. Would anybody object to removing this link, or is it better than nothing, since the linked article does at least explain the basic principle involved?

Well, I just epanded the article to list other types of racing, too. --Matthead 04:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Racing car template

I've had a stab at a template for racing cars (see template:Racing car) to summarise the usual data. I've used the F1 templates as a starting point and applied it to the Brabham BT46 article. If anyone's got an interest in this, please have a look at the template and modify or suggest changes as appropriate. After a few people have had a go at it and we have something we're happy with we could start to use it more widely. Note that it's not meant to be specific to F1, by the way. Cheers. 4u1e 10:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

E70 million/year R10 costs

I highly dispute this number. I'll suggest this is the running cost and the initial development cost. As the development costs would be pro-rated throughout the car's racing lifespan it certainly shouldn't be lumped into year one's total cost. The numbers simply don't add up to the costs to run the car for a year. $90+ million for a year of racing the R10? What's it spent on, gold and caviar encrusted steering wheels? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mulsannescorner (talk • contribs) 18:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

It seems right, I kept only the $15M/year sourced figure; here is the previous statement :

€70 Million,<ref>''Sport Auto'' (German car magazine), ISSN 1158-2111, April 2006 issue</ref>

--Marc Lacoste 21:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Cost?

Now you know how much it is worth to manufactures to win at racing. This puts the private team at a disadvantage. An acquaintance, from where I live, races in several classes at this level and they have little hope in beating the factory teams. This has been the bane of racing since it began, "the guy with the most money wins". Most of the time. I was at the GP of Houston last weekend and in the first few laps the P1 Audi diesel quietly pulled away from the P2 Porsche. In the end the lower class Porsche won. To me the important aspect of this is to show Americans that the diesel is a viable way to power a car. The common rail turbo diesel can provide economical power for the kind of vehicles Americans want to drive. While the plug-in hybrid is limited by the cost of the battery, the diesel can be built now and save 40% on fuel usage and more on CO₂ emissions.

Wind tunnel development

Some contention as to where that actually occured. One source tells me Fondmetal, another says Dallara. I'm tending to favor Dallara at this time given what I've been told about non-disclosure agreements and a culture of denial at Audi, putting heavily into question the Fondmetal claim. Mulsannescorner (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Picture

I have changed the picture of the car in the description. The front 3 quarter view is the standard picture and gives a much better overview of the car than the full frontal. Let me know if you disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunkshrestha (talk • contribs) 15:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

language

I've had a quick read through and I don't think some of it reads particularly like an encyclopedic entry. "The restrictor is larger than necessary, the car is rumoured to produce 700 hp (522 kW/710 PS) in qualification, limited by the fuel combustion quality. This value couldn't be maintained in race because it could clog the particulate filter. The peak pressure in the cylinder is probably around about 200 bar, compared with 85 bar for an atmospheric petrol engine." 203.0.77.240 (talk) 05:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)drew8112

tone?

I've marked it for tone improvements, there are a few areas that could be generically improved. Comments?

• Unassessed Sports Car Racing articles
• WikiProject Sports Car Racing articles