go_Rubens wrote:On reflection, I can't wait to see how this turns out. Easily the most unique design of a racing car in the higher echelons of motorsport in a very long time. I have read rumors of an insane amount of horsepower, with some suggesting that the car could have well over 1000 (and I mean a decent bit) all things considered. The acceleration in the video suggested to me that the car is no slouch in that department.
With the idea of the front-mid-engine LMP1, I have to wonder how the car's weight is distributed. We know that mid-engine layouts offer the best overall balance in terms of weight distribution. Is the case being that the engine is in the front, while the energy recovery systems are in the rear to counterbalance the engine's weight (likely helped by the driver's weight as well), which perhaps could mean the use of larger systems? Perhaps this is a way to enable the use of more power which is suggested by few? What regulations on size of the energy recovery systems and items like flywheels and supercapacitors are there? I think the GTR LMP1 could be a completely revolutionary prototype in terms of design philosophy to try and find the extra edge, in particular over more "standard" cars?
Over at Mulsannecorner, the suggestion is that this car would probably have a slightly forward weight bias, with about 55% of the static weight of the car on the front axle (whereas the more conventional LMP1 cars would probably have about 55% of the static weight on the rear axle instead).
As for the type of systems which can be used, technically the ACO doesn't specify the system which can be used, which is why Toyota has traditionally used a supercapacitor system against a battery system for the Porsche 919 (although Toyota are now switching to batteries for their 2015 car) and Audi, I believe, still uses a derivative of the Williams flywheel unit. The main limitations are more in terms of things such as the maximum voltage of the systems (1000V max) and the accumulation and release of energy from the unit.
Wallio wrote:It's been confirmed as being "Front-mid-engined" which is marketing speak for the engine being completely. behind the front axel. Chevy started this malarkey by claiming the layout was "sporty" (for its Vettes). Which means a ''32 Ford Highboy, (or any pre-war American car) is "sporty".
Don't car though, I LOVE this. Best looking LMP1 since the old Panoz.
Well, to be fair to Nissan the suggestion is that the engine position is a significant distance behind the front axle (being slightly under the front of the cockpit of the car). Maybe it is a point of semantics, but it could be argued that the tag is reasonably appropriate in this instance (after all, in a more conventional rear mid engined car, the engine is technically closer to the rear axle than being truly in the middle).