[WEC 2015]Nissan GT-R LM NISMO

[machin]

Actual race pace will be interesting; having all the motive power and most of the braking forces through the front wheels surely can't help their tyre longevity... something the other teams have been working hard to improve.... 4WD will allow them to address that issue....

Chief engineer believes they can do 3 stints on the fronts and between 6-10 stints on the rears.

*Jay Leno´s garage.

Yeah, so less than their rivals (on the front).....

[aleks_ader]

Actual race pace will be interesting; having all the motive power and most of the braking forces through the front wheels surely can't help their tyre longevity... something the other teams have been working hard to improve.... 4WD will allow them to address that issue....

Chief engineer believes they can do 3 stints on the fronts and between 6-10 stints on the rears.

*Jay Leno´s garage.

Yeah, so less than their rivals (on the front).....

But then they change all 4 tires no? So it is possible for Nissan to stretch the stint to number 5 for the front and to 10 for the rear and "spare" 5s per pitstop (cuz every 2nd stop is 10s less)? But to make gain from that you need to be very close throw overall stint in lap-time wise...

[machin]

So it is possible for Nissan to stretch the stint to number 5 for the front tyres..

I think they would pretty much have to be going at a snails pace to achieve that.... Webber said the Porsche was struggling after 4 stints last year, and the Porsche's layout is theoretically kinder on the tyres than the Nissan's...

I have no problem sticking my neck on the line and predicting this car won't be truly competitive until they get 4WD and add more downforce; then I think it'll work just fine...

Not long to wait now till we see its race pace in the current configuration though!

[AliMadsen]

Wow - that was a tough race for the Nismo guys... It's clear that they have some work to do before they can challenge the other LMP1s.

Does anyone have some details about the fate of the cars? I saw one of them hitting a tire or a wheel, on Mulsanne Straight during the night. And later I saw another Nismo crawling back on 3 wheels. Did that car drop a wheel which the other car hit? That would be extreme bad luck...

The marshalls tried to stop the car on 3 wheels, as it was beached in a corner, but the driver continued, only to stop 50 meters later. Now requiring a crane and a slow zone to be retrieved. Does any one know the rules of Le Mans: MUST the marshalls decisions re. retirement be followed? And if so - does any one know the consequenses for the driver or the team for continuing in this case?

I find the Nismo concept real, real cool, and I do hope they get their act together and whack the rest in 2016

[machin]

After the lap speed records (qualifying and race) were comprehensively broken this year (by Porsche/Audi) there is talk of slowing the LMP1's... the "easy" way to reduce lap times would simply be to limit the fuel allocation a bit, but the teams have argued this would make overtaking the slower classes harder since lower fuel allocation would impact straightline speed the most (where it is easier to overtake, as opposed to in the corners).

If they want to limit corner speed and maintain top speeds that would suggest that some form of downforce limiting rules might come in to force... (such as single element rear wing with a mandated low incidence angle?)....

...This would play into Nissan's hands: their low downforce approach would effectively be forced on to the other teams...

[acosmichippo]

seems like the easiest way to reduce cornering speed would be to reduce tire width.

[Juzh]

Going down the F1 route? What could possibly go wrong?

[Cold Fussion]

After the lap speed records (qualifying and race) were comprehensively broken this year (by Porsche/Audi) there is talk of slowing the LMP1's... the "easy" way to reduce lap times would simply be to limit the fuel allocation a bit, but the teams have argued this would make overtaking the slower classes harder since lower fuel allocation would impact straightline speed the most (where it is easier to overtake, as opposed to in the corners).

If they want to limit corner speed and maintain top speeds that would suggest that some form of downforce limiting rules might come in to force... (such as single element rear wing with a mandated low incidence angle?)....

...This would play into Nissan's hands: their low downforce approach would effectively be forced on to the other teams...

I've said this before but LMP1 is significantly slower than F1 of 2 years ago, so if the tracks (which lmp1 uses the same tracks) are safe enough for F1 cars which are significantly faster then why isn't it safe for LMP1? If anything the track safety of Le Mans should be brought up to the same standards as the other circuits. I also worry that pegging them back will lessen the spectacle, because seeing the cars as fast as they are now is fantastic to watch.

As for Nissan, the ACO has said a number of times they want Le Mans lap times to be around 3:30, so Nissan are still a long way off even this very low bar.

[RicME85]

The Eurosport commentators said the same thing (F1 tracks etc and that its Le Mans that is letting the side down safety wise)

[machin]

so if the tracks (which lmp1 uses the same tracks) are safe enough for F1 cars which are significantly faster then why isn't it safe for LMP1?

Similar top speed, but more mass, means an LMP1 car has more kinetic energy at full speed than an F1 car....

[Cold Fussion]

so if the tracks (which lmp1 uses the same tracks) are safe enough for F1 cars which are significantly faster then why isn't it safe for LMP1?

Similar top speed, but more mass, means an LMP1 car has more kinetic energy at full speed than an F1 car....

That is true, but if we consider Audi's concerns, they were concerned not with the high top speeds on the straights (the eurosport commentators repeatedly said this throughout their coverage )but with the high speeds in the corners: at which point the large difference in speed will make up for the difference in speed. for example, If we take a corner like Cox for example, the RB6 was traveling at 280 km/h. Now while I can't find an on board video with telemetry from 6 hours of Silverstone, I will assume that the LMP1 cars were as fast as the 2014 F1 cars, in which case they were doing 240 km/h through Cox. 620 kg for the RB6 and 870 kg for the LMP1 car yields virtually the same Kinetic energy.

I find it difficult to reconcile that Audi apparently aren't concerned with a 340 km/h crash on the Mulsanne but are concerned with the 240 km/h speeds in the Porsche curves.

[Sevach]

http://www.motorsport.com/lemans/news/m ... or-nissan/

Mission accomplished???? That's just sad Nissan.

[bill shoe]

This article mentions Nissan ran without any hybrid power at LeMans-

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/119532

The article also says that if Nissan gets a big 8MJ hybrid system running then they could drop 4 seconds per lap at LeMans.

Here is the fastest 2015 race lap by Audi or Porsche--> 3:17

Here is the fastest 2015 lap of any kind by Nissan--> 3:35

Here is the Nissan lap with 4 seconds removed--> 3:31. This is around 7% slower than the fastest lap by Audi or Porsche.

[RicME85]

Also says that it ran 2MJ to the front wheels, so which is it, with or without hybrid?

[langwadt]

so if the tracks (which lmp1 uses the same tracks) are safe enough for F1 cars which are significantly faster then why isn't it safe for LMP1?

Similar top speed, but more mass, means an LMP1 car has more kinetic energy at full speed than an F1 car....

That is true, but if we consider Audi's concerns, they were concerned not with the high top speeds on the straights (the eurosport commentators repeatedly said this throughout their coverage )but with the high speeds in the corners: at which point the large difference in speed will make up for the difference in speed. for example, If we take a corner like Cox for example, the RB6 was traveling at 280 km/h. Now while I can't find an on board video with telemetry from 6 hours of Silverstone, I will assume that the LMP1 cars were as fast as the 2014 F1 cars, in which case they were doing 240 km/h through Cox. 620 kg for the RB6 and 870 kg for the LMP1 car yields virtually the same Kinetic energy.

I find it difficult to reconcile that Audi apparently aren't concerned with a 340 km/h crash on the Mulsanne but are concerned with the 240 km/h speeds in the Porsche curves.

if you go off on Mulsanne you'll mostly likely slide along the rails, if you go off in the Porsche curves you'll hit the rail hard