# I may know Penske's "unfair advantage"(bodes well for Audi at PLM)



## chernaudi (Oct 6, 2006)

For those who haven't watched the Detroit ALMS race or didn't see/hear about it, Penske has a horsepower advantage over the other LMP2 cars. The thing is, it's entirely legal. If you saw the telemetry, the Acuras were redlining at about 93-9400 rpm. Penske's RS Spyders were redlining at about 10,500 rpm. 
In reality, it's simple, especally if one does the math, which anyone who knows a lot about engines will know. Horsepower=Torque times RPM divided by 5252. The 3.4 V8 in the Porsche RS Spyder doesn't make a lot of torque(about 270 at about 8000), so it needs to rev very high to make a lot of power. So I bet you that's why Penske's cars not only have been stomping the other LMP2s into the ground most of this year, but also have been able to challenge Audi.
Problem is, you try to even rev up to 9000 for a 10 hour race, your car probably won't make it. Hopefully, Porsche has an endurance version of that engine ready for October. The fact that the Porsche and Acura 3.4 V8s use flatplane cranks(and the inherent vibration problems) makes matters worse. That's why the Panoz LMP07 was a failure-it's Ford/Zytec 4.0 V8(and enlarged version of Zytec's 3.4 V8 LMP2 engine, and an older version of their current LMP1 engine) vibrated so bad that is shook the whole car apart.
One may say, "well, Gulf Mirage and Rondeau used Cosworth/Ford DFV engines, and won Le Mans in '75 and '80". Well, they detuned the engines to run at about 8500 rpm for most of the race, and in '75, the cars had to run about 20 laps a stint, and in '80, the race was run mostly in the rain. Even Matra-Simca's 3.0 V12 was rev limited to 8400 for LM, though it would run about 10,000-10,500 unresticted.
Also, the Audi R8's 3.6 TFSI V8 used a flatplane crank, but it was rev limited to 7000. Because of trubocharging, it didn't have to rev very high to make power. In 2000, the R8's engine was rated for 610-620 [email protected] 6250 rpm, and 516 ft/lbs of [email protected] 5500 rpm. FSI slightly boosted both figures from 2001 on. So the rev limit of the R8's engine was well below where harmonic vibrations become a problem for flat crank engines.
And, for reference, the Audi R10's TDI V12 diesel makes about 640-700 hp @ about 4500-5500 rpm, and 811-885+ ft/lbs of [email protected] 2500-3000 rpm.
So I think that Penske(and the other LMP2s) are in deep crap as far as winning PLM. Road Atlanta suits the Audis(long straights, fast corners), and the race is 10 hours/1000miles. 
So, the ACO will probably brow beat IMSA into making the LMP2 cars weight 110 lbs than they do now. But that might not be neccesary. Just take away another 5% of air restictor, or better yet, rev limit the LMP2's to 9250 rpm. And maybe dyno test the engines, using like a Cosworth DFV, Matra 3.0 V12, or a Ferrari 3.0 Flat V12 in '70s F1 spec as control engines, as they made just as much power(and maybe slightly more torque) than the current LMP2 engines do(btw, if you read this RDriver, sorry for the long-a** post, but I'm trying to prove a point: that Porsche did what they should've done in the past, which is instead of subverting the rules and looking for loopholes, just try to build a better vehicle).


_Modified by chernaudi at 11:42 PM 9-3-2007_


----------



## .:RDriver (Oct 4, 1999)

*Re: I may know Penske's "unfair advantage"(bodes well for Audi at PLM) (chernaudi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *chernaudi* »_For those who haven't watched the Detroit ALMS race or didn't see/hear about it, Penske has a horsepower advantage over the other LMP2 cars. The thing is, it's entirely legal. If you saw the telemetry, the Acuras were redlining at about 93-9400 rpm. Penske's RS Spyders were redlining at about 10,500 rpm. 
In reality, it's simple, especally if one does the math, which anyone who knows a lot about engines will know. Horsepower=Torque times RPM divided by 5252. The 3.4 V8 in the Porsche RS Spyder doesn't make a lot of torque(about 270 at about 8000), so it needs to rev very high to make a lot of power. So I bet you that's why Penske's cars not only have been stomping the other LMP2s into the ground most of this year, but also have been able to challenge Audi.


Thats all well and good, but without knowing the exact specs for the Porsche and Acura powerplants, you cant say that with any certainty.
The Acura and the Porsche engines could be tuned differently to make power in different ways. You dont know the torque of the Acura engines therefore you can just make a HP assumption based on redline.
What if the Acura engine produces more torque and is designed to run at a lower rpm? It could be producing the exact same amount of hp as the Porsche unit just in a different way.
Also different gearing plays a big part into it as well.
Beyond that, I think its more of a Penske thing than Porsche dominance. It shows what the car can do in the right hands, however, you dont see the Dyson cars dominating quite like the Penske cars are. Penske runs an unbelievable program and generally dominates what he runs. He also doesnt keep the cars stock for long. Remember his CART and IRL cars quickly become "Penske" chassis instead of a Lola or whatever they began life as.
You see that Sachs logo on the side of the Syders, do you really think that Penske is running Sachs shocks instead of his own Penske Racing Shocks? We all know that those are just Sachs bodies on that car.
There are a lot of reasons that Penske's cars could be dominating, but I dont think you can just say they are producing more hp based on some telemetry showing rev limits on the cars.


----------



## chernaudi (Oct 6, 2006)

*Re: I may know Penske's "unfair advantage"(bodes well for Audi at PLM) (.:RDriver)*

Granted, Penske runs a lot of his own stuff on his cars that's usually of his own or his organization's design. As for the Sachs stickers, both Porsche and Audi use Sachs clutches and driveline parts.
I'll give you a couple of examples without going into too much detail. For the Audi R8, Ricardo was an asscotiate sponsor, as the built the gearboxes for Audi at the time. Same deal with XTrac for the R10. But in both cases, Audi designed the transaxles, and built the casings for them, with Ricardo or XTrac building the internals *to Audi Sport specifications*. The emphasis being on to Audi specs.
On top of that, there's the Roger Penske factor. The guy's just friggin' brilliant. Roger could run Trabants in GT2 and win







. Ok, that might be taking it too far. But he can take crap and garbage and turn it into gold and platnum. That's a quality that Audi has. A bad day for Audi or Penske would be an excellent day by everyone else's standards.
As for the specs, Porsche does say that the RS Spyder makes 503 hp at 10,300 rpm with the '06 air restictor. Torque is 273 ft/lbs at 7500 rpm(link to info: http://www.ultimatecarpage.com....html ).
The fact that Acura says on their site that the ARX-01/Lola B06/43 engine can rev to about 10,000 rpm may support you theory that they may be making more low end torque(or more torque period). Maybe, with this being a learing year, Acura is being a little conservative with the engine tuning.
Granted, this is all press relase stuff, and it's often seen that the figures disclosed are close, but not quite, what is actually possible, even with the rules being the way that they are.


----------



## 16v (Aug 4, 1999)

*Re: I may know Penske's "unfair advantage"(bodes well for Audi at PLM) (chernaudi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *chernaudi* »_Granted, Penske runs a lot of his own stuff on his cars that's usually of his own or his organization's design. As for the Sachs stickers, both Porsche and Audi use Sachs clutches and driveline parts.
I'll give you a couple of examples without going into too much detail. For the Audi R8, Ricardo was an asscotiate sponsor, as the built the gearboxes for Audi at the time. Same deal with XTrac for the R10. But in both cases, Audi designed the transaxles, and built the casings for them, with Ricardo or XTrac building the internals *to Audi Sport specifications*. The emphasis being on to Audi specs.
On top of that, there's the Roger Penske factor. The guy's just friggin' brilliant. Roger could run Trabants in GT2 and win







. Ok, that might be taking it too far. But he can take crap and garbage and turn it into gold and platnum. That's a quality that Audi has. A bad day for Audi or Penske would be an excellent day by everyone else's standards.
As for the specs, Porsche does say that the RS Spyder makes 503 hp at 10,300 rpm with the '06 air restictor. Torque is 273 ft/lbs at 7500 rpm(link to info: http://www.ultimatecarpage.com....html ).
The fact that Acura says on their site that the ARX-01/Lola B06/43 engine can rev to about 10,000 rpm may support you theory that they may be making more low end torque(or more torque period). Maybe, with this being a learing year, Acura is being a little conservative with the engine tuning.
Granted, this is all press relase stuff, and it's often seen that the figures disclosed are close, but not quite, what is actually possible, even with the rules being the way that they are.

I'm totally confused on how any of this bears witness to the title or original post


----------



## chernaudi (Oct 6, 2006)

*Re: I may know Penske's "unfair advantage"(bodes well for Audi at PLM) (16v)*

The info about the Porsche was intended to back up the fact that because the RS Spyder's engine tends to rev much higher than the Acura engines may lead to them making more power. 
And the stuff about Penske and his team/organization has a two fold purpose:
1) Penske being in LMP2 is like unleashing Audi in LMP2 from a dominance/professionalism standpoint, and...
2) as Jimmy said, Penske probably develops a lot of his own stuff for his cars, as well as trying out new stuff from Porsche before anyone else. 
Of course, Penske can get away with the latter, as Porsche tends to give you a race car to do what you wish with it from an R&D standpoint if one is so inclined. And Dyson can as well if they wish. Audi generally doesn't let the teams tinker with their cars like Porsche does. Everything needs to be to Audi's specs, because that's what Audi want's.
And of course, although their dominance in LMP2 is kinda stale(except for Audi giving them hell in most of the ALMS races this year),as far as Penske and Porsche, as well as the Acura teams go, the devil needs to be given his due. They've massively professionalized the LMP2 class, and turned it from the last man standing class of attriciton, to one of hard, close racing, which is what LMP675 should've been.
Penske's cars have an advantage over the other LMP2 cars, but is it the cars, or is it the team, and the guys running it/driving the cars? Same can be asked of Audi in LMP1.
Dyson has pretty much the same car as Penske, and there's not much between the driver lineups, so it's the professionalism of the team that's mostly to answer for here. Again, the same can be said of Audi in LMP1-just ask(or observe) Peugeot.
And I don't know if this has much if any bearing on this thread(aside from the professionalism issue), but at the Ten-Tenths.com forum, there's talk about what might happen if Ryan Briscoe gets picked up by Penske for an Indy Car ride. But then it goes off to an alleged gentlemans' agreement between the LMS' LMP2 teams and the ACO/FIA over a limit on professional drivers per car.
As I said, this may or may not have much(if any) bearing on this thead in and of itself, but it does seem kinda weird to me.
Link(read from post #4): http://www.ten-tenths.com/foru...99856


----------



## grmncarfan (Jul 21, 2003)

*Re: I may know Penske's "unfair advantage"(bodes well for Audi at PLM) (chernaudi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *chernaudi* »_and there's not much between the driver lineups, 

I'm only gonna comment on this, as there's simply so much info in this thread that it's actually quite confusing. 
There is a difference between Penske's and Dyson's driver lineup. The Penske guys are straight Porsche factory drivers with the exception of Ryan Briscoe, whose CV looks even better than a factory driver's. Dyson might have 1 or 2 big names, but James Weaver is retired, Andy Wallace hasn't exactly excited anyone in recent years, and Guy Smith and Butch Leitzinger are not exactly top tier drivers in ALMS. IMO Penske have the upper hand as far as driver lineup goes.


----------



## 16v (Aug 4, 1999)

once again there's a LOT being overlooked in your generalizations.


----------



## chernaudi (Oct 6, 2006)

*Re: (16v)*

The jist of what I'm trying to say is the reasons that Penske has done so well is that:
1) the skill and professionalism of the team,
2) their ability to develop their equipment, both of which lead to...
3) their ties to Porsche as far as R&D and their factory drivers(which, at least currently, includes Briscoe, but that might change if Ryan takes the Penske Indy Car ride, as the IRL's spec engine suppler is the "enemy", ie Honda).
In the broadest terms, that's why(shall we say?)Roger's rabbits aren't dying, but are thriving. I can go into detail about this whole thing, but it could probably fill a whole book(I'm trying to keep my post as short as possible nowadays). 
In the LMP2 battle, it's the team that's making much of the difference. Dyson, for example(as they too run Porsches) have struggled with their car. 
Part of it is typical new car blues. But Rob and Chris don't have the same exact resources as Penske right now(they probably could, but it'll cost them!), despite having almost the same exact car. They can't test as often(finances probably play a part here), they have their own pro driver lineup(which may or may not match Penske's lineup yet), and they don't have quite the same factory support Roger does.
The team with the best package(car, drivers, over-the-wall guys, organizational abiltites and attention to detail/abiltiy to R&D their equipment)should win the most often. Why has Audi dominated LMP900/LMP1, and overall in the ALMS until recently? They have for much the same reasons. That, and they have the technical and financial resources to do so, but that's another story for another time.


----------



## .:RDriver (Oct 4, 1999)

*Re: (chernaudi)*

I'm going to be a bit of a butt here though and say that your story has changed from the first to the last post.
In the first post you start off saying that the Penske Spyder makes more power than the rest through your generalization and knowledge of the hp formula.
Now in the last post you are saying its the skill of the team and their ability to develop the car through resources and access to the factory.
Which is it man?








BTW, the ALMS has restrictions on testing once a team enters the first race. So Penske should have no advantage when it comes to the amount of testing they can do over Dyson short of Dyson simply not wanting to test as much as Penske if that is even the case (which I do not know how often they have tested or not tested).


----------



## toomuchtoplaywith (Dec 21, 2006)

How would the old R8 compare to the Porsches? Would the old "gas" audi have compared better? Did audi just get so tired of beating everyone, and learning as much from turbo/fsi, that they GAVE themselves a challenge?


----------



## chernaudi (Oct 6, 2006)

*Re: (.:RDriver)*

In short, it would have to be both. As I've said, Penske does have some R&D advantages-some from Porsche, and some probably of his own making. What I'm trying to say as far as having more power is that maybe the Penske engines are right now dedicated sprint race motors. And Dyson may be using endurance or enduro/sprint hybrid engines. It may come down to Dyson trying to save some money by having engines that they know won't go kaboom on them, or are cheaper to maintain or repair. 
Or Penske may be testing to see if the sprint engines are worth detuning slightly for endurance purposes(RS Spyders will run in the LMS with Euro teams next year, and all LMS races are 6 hr/1000km affairs).
Is Penske favored by Porsche? As their lead team, there's probably some truth to it. The lead/factory team is usually favored somewhat by the factory, as they represent the factory.
But it does kind of interwine. Porsche wouldn't have been interested in Penske if Roger couldn't get the job done, which history will tell us that he can, to say the very least. And Porsche obviously would want to give their factory cars a slight edge over the private semi factory cars, let alone their direct competitors. So it melts together, and you have a dominant team.
And as far as the R8 vs RS Spyder goes, that would be intersting, but isn't gonna happen. Granted, the R8 tounced the RS Spyder somewhat easily at Lime Rock and Houston(espcally Houston, where the R8 was fastest in all practice sessions, was fastest in pre-race warm up, and lead half the race, set fastest race lap, and won-the only thing it didn't do was win the pole). 
But that was against the '06 RS Spyder, which, though a good car, had it shortcomings. Reliabilty was the big one, with gearbox, engine, and electrical failures off and on during the season. That, and the fact that the '06 RS Spyder was a "learning year" car, made it in someways barely adequate against the R8, let alone the R10.
Maybe the R8 would have as good(or maybe a slightly better)a chance as the R10 if the R8 was allowed to use the '02 IMSA/ACO air restictors, and was allowed to weigh in at 880-900 kgs instead ot 935(the '06 R8 used the '03 ACO/IMSA restictors, and was ballasted to 935 kgs from 900). Would be neat to see an R8 out on a racetrack again, but atleast Audi's put out a book on it now, so I can't be angry.


----------



## .:RDriver (Oct 4, 1999)

*Re: (chernaudi)*

You cant compare the R8 since it was built do a different rules package than the current cars. However, I would bet that a current R8, built to the current rules package for P1 cars would take the Porsche.
The problem with the R10 is that it was built with one track mainly in mind....Le Mans. Its built for speed, straight lines and gas mileage. The car is noticeably less nimble on the US tracks. It struggles through corners where the P2 cars are quick and look it. The R10 looks like a truck among compacts out on track with its long wheelbase and you can see the drivers struggling with it through the tight parts of a course.
A smaller and more nimble gas powered car, or even diesel, just designed more for tighter courses, would probably do much better than what you are seeing the R10 do.
The R10 has plenty of speed, but loses it in the corners, Detroit was a perfect example of that.
Its a shame that some of the Euro P1 teams havent taken the opportunity to come over here, especially Pesco. I think those cars would have a VERY VERY good chance of winning over here on these tighter courses with their smaller and more nimble gas powered cars. I think even the Peugeot would do well over here and its a shame they havent tried. Their car is not quite as big as the Audi though didnt have it for Le Mans, would probably do really well on these shorter and tighter tracks and races.
I think some Euro teams really missed out on an opportunity this year. Hopefully they watched this year and maybe take a chance next year.


----------



## toomuchtoplaywith (Dec 21, 2006)

I think Audi will run this r10 for a bit, until they can get as much new diesel technology as possible, then build a new car... What will it run on? who knows. But even though Audi would like to win all the races, they are in it mostly for technological improvements in their automobiles (saying that, makes me feel better about them getting beaten bby porsches


----------



## chernaudi (Oct 6, 2006)

*Re: (toomuchtoplaywith)*

Sorry to say it Jimmy, but the Peugeot 908 is every bit as big as the R10-weights about the same, has about the same wheelbase, and is just as long and wide. This is based on someone compairing photos of the R10 and 908 on an autocad program by scaling the photos.
The reason why the 908 has been so dominant is because the Euro tracks have more flat out sections, with slower corners where all cars go through at the same speed. American tracks are faster and tighter. And none of the LMP1 or LMP2 gas cars have been able to really challenge the Pugs, which the 908s would probably still be faster, but their reliabilty problems would become more pervalent(especailly the wheel bearing problems).
It's also hard to remember that the Audi R8 was originally designed as a Le Mans special, but it's more compact demensions ment that it had to have less done to it to adapt it to the shorter courses. It also helped that the BMW LMR was a LM special too, and the Panoz had too much aero drag to keep up with the R8 on a straight, dispite the fact that the Panoz and Audi were equal in cornering.


----------



## .:RDriver (Oct 4, 1999)

*Re: (chernaudi)*

I'd like to see the specific wheelbase of the Peugeot. You cant really scale photos unless you know the photos are taken with the exact same focal length, from the exact same distance and on the exact same type of camera. Without that, you cant make any assumptions based on photos and scaling.
All I can say is that seeing both in person, standing next to both, photographing both, the Peugeot did not seem as large and seemed to be more nimble than the R10 when cornering. Whether that is actually true or not I dont know, just basing my opinion on standing next to the cars and seeing them both perform in person.


----------



## chernaudi (Oct 6, 2006)

*Re: (.:RDriver)*

Well, I watched the race at Le Mans in June. I know that Le Mans is probably a bad circuit to make this compairson, but Le Mans has at least 38 corners on it-and of about every type imaginable. During the event, both the R10 and the 908 were clocked at 210 down the Mulsanne straight. But the Audis were 3-4 seconds a lap faster than the Peugeots. 
So the Audis had to find the extra time somewhere, likely in cornering. Maybe the Peugeots missed the setup, or they intentionally messed with the car's handling to get the drivers to slow down(pretty farfetched). It maybe that a big part of it was that the drivers were ordered to go slow to try to finish. Or it might be as simple as Audi running a little more downforce on their cars.
Maybe racing in the ALMS gave Audi an advantage, as the ALMS' and LMS' tracks are so different(ALMS tracks-built for road racing/stock car/bike racing, generally tighter and bumpier, ALMS schedule includes several street circuits-which is what 3/4 of Le Mans is. LMS circuits-mostly F1 tracks, smoother, with more chicanes/slow corners-not much like Le Mans as far as punishing the cars, which might help explain Peugeot's reliablity problems, and improvements built into the new RS Spyders).
But both the R10 and 908 were built around V12 turbodiesel engines, which aren't particulary compact, and it seems to me that if the 908 was as long as the R10, and the engines' demensions were about the same, then most other demensions will probably be similar, just like how (except for length due to rear overhang) the major demensions of the Audi R8 and the Lola B07/10 that used the Audi engine were the roughtly the same.


----------



## .:RDriver (Oct 4, 1999)

*Re: (chernaudi)*

Le Mans has very fast and sweeping turns and is nothing like the tracks in the US, hence the reason the R10 is having such a difficult time over here.
Its obvious the drivers fight with the R10 over here, it would be interesting to see what the Peugeot could do. As I said, it was an observation that the car did not seem as big and as much of a handful as the R10 is and I wonder if its really the case or not. I'd like to see it.


----------



## chernaudi (Oct 6, 2006)

*Re: (.:RDriver)*

Well, the length and width of the 908 and the R10 is the same:
Length: 4650mm Width: 2000mm. Source: http://www.supercars.net/cars/3773.html and http://www.supercars.net/cars/3335.html
I'd bet, that if one scales side profile photos of both cars(since both are the same exact length), both cars will have similar wheelbases.
As I've said, Peugeot isn't really pushing their cars, so it's hard to tell if their cars are as much of a hand full as the R10 or not. And the Peugeot would have a hard time here just based on reliabilty, as American circuits are bumpier and nastier than Euro circuits, which is the thing that American circuits have in common with Le Mans the most.
The Pug might not seem as big, because its closed cockpit. Look at the Bentley Speed 8, then the Audi R8. The demensions of both are similar overall(Speed 8=4640-4650mm vs R8=4640-4650), but the Bentley has a shorter front overhang(818-839mm vs 900mm), longer rear overhang(1080-1090mm vs 1010-1020), and above else is much shorter in height(990 vs 1080). Just what I've noticed.
I also wonder what the Penske Porsche RS Spyders could do in the LMS.


_Modified by chernaudi at 9:38 PM 9-10-2007_


----------



## .:RDriver (Oct 4, 1999)

*Re: (chernaudi)*

Those dimensions are simply the dimensions of any prototype car as stated by the ACO.

_Quote »_3.1 - Dimensions :
Except what is permitted by Art. 3.6 below, inside and outside measurements (length, width, overhangs, wheelbase, windscreen, windows, etc.) and the general shape of the bodywork elements must be maintained as in the A.C.O. homologation form.
3.1.1 - Dimensions :
a/ Wheelbase : Free but it must be identical to that registered in the A.C.O. homologation form.
b/ Overall length : 4650 mm maximum (rear wing included) 
c/ Overall width : 2000 mm maximum
d/ Height : no part of the bodywork is permitted to be more than 1030 mm above the reference surface 

Now, I'm not sure if thats a max, min, or if its specific that all cars must be that size. Again, by observation the R10 just looks larger and more lumbering on course. Watching it go through the Audi turn at Detroit it just looked noticeably slower and less nimble than the other prototypes and again, watching it go through the chicane before the Dunlop bridge at Le Mans, it just did not look as easy to drive as the Peugeot did. 
Again, its all perception and I'm not sure if I'm right or not, just what I observed. I would like to know what those ACO specs are though if anyone knows. Are they specific that all cars must be that exact size or is it a max or min size?
And even if its a specific size, the wheelbase and overhangs are free, so the R10 could still have a significantly longer wheelbase than the other cars, thereby making it less of a quick handler. But without Audi or Peugeot disclosing the exact specs, we can just speculate.


----------



## chernaudi (Oct 6, 2006)

*Re: (.:RDriver)*

Those are the specs that have been either gathered from Audi and Peugeot press releases, or they simply could be pulled from the air-the links are to a general sportscar/supercar site. And if they're from offical press releases, could Audi and Pug be fudging a little? Possibly.
And the front overhang(from the front wheel centerline to the very front of the car ie front splitter/diffuser) and rear overhang(from the rear wheel centerline to the very rear of the rear bodywork/rear wing) is free within certian conditions(front overhang-1000mm max, rear overhang-750mm max). It's estimated that the rear overhang on both cars to be about 750mm, and the front overhang is estimated to be about 910-920mm. But then again, these are fairly crude estimates. It could be longer or shorter-by how far, I certianly don't know, not seeing the cars in person, but the R10's front overhang seems(again, the operative word being seems) to be compairable to the R8, which is 900mm.
(Warning: Pretty important stuff here):
But there are also a lot of variables as far as the racing itself, let alone the tech stuff. As mentioned, Peugeot doesn't seem to really be pushing(except maybe in qualifying) their cars yet. The winning Pug at Spa coasted through the race, as it's teammate fell out(wheel bearing), and to reduce strain on their car, as it seemed to be suffering the same problem. Maybe if Audi, or even Penske Porsche(and maybe if Swiss Spirt can sort out the Audi R8 powered Lola), ran in the LMS, Peugeot would have some serious competiton, and maybe the DNF's would pile up. 
Audi's strategy at Le Mans seemed to be to go fast enough to break the Pugs. Whether or not it lead to both of the R10s that DNF'ed having their problems or not is seemingly a matter of opinion. But one Peugeot had a late race engine meltdown, and the other nearly did-and Peugoet took it relatively easy, just to try to finish the race.
Also, is the RS Spyder a good 1000km car? Petit Le Mans might answer that to some extent-if the RS Spyders are within about 1-2, maybe 3 laps of the leading cars(likely the R10s) at the 6 hour mark, they might have a shot at overall gold in the LMS if Penske was running the cars.
I mean, one can compare the R8 to the R10 and 908, but they're cars that were built to different aero/bodywork/chassis regulations, let alone to take advantage of different engine regulations. 
Or the R8 to the '06 RS Spyder. Not only do the former point of the previouls comparison apply(the R8 was a LMP900 car, the RS Spyder was built to the post '03 LMP2 regs), but they ran in different classes.
The same can even be said about the '06 and '07 RS Spyders. The were built to the same rules, by the same people, but the cars are as different as night and day.
So it to a degree doesn't really make since to compare a lot of this stuff, aside from the fact that past experiences usually point us in the right direction. All we can do right now is use that, and what the press releases tell us, whether or not they're 100% truthful all the time.
(PS, the ACO's Le Mans site usually has the demensions/weights/powertrain/performance figures at their site somewhere, but I don't know if the have the '07 stuff up yet).


_Modified by chernaudi at 10:32 PM 9-11-2007_


----------



## Le Mans Champ (Dec 14, 2005)

*Re: (chernaudi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *chernaudi* »_
...Granted, the R8 tounced the RS Spyder somewhat easily at Lime Rock ...

I don't know what race you watched, but from the pits, this was NOT the case. When Allan made the final pass it was because of the way they got tangled with a GT (Aston I believe) coming out of the diving turn and the R8 was simply in a better position then the Spyder. Now, the only reason that pass happened and that final victory was had was because of talent, patience, and a hell of a lot of determination. 
I was witness to several different conversations that weekend where Audi employees claimed they felt it was Porsches race to lose, and statistically it was. If it hadn't been the last race for the old girl, I believe we wouldn't have won.


----------



## chernaudi (Oct 6, 2006)

*Re: (Le Mans Champ)*

Well, explain the 11+second winning margin? The LMP2 cars(even in tracks like Lime Rock, and against the R8, or any decent LMP1 car) is crippled in traffic, and everyone knows it. Also, Penske were having problems setting up their cars that all LMP2s had at the time, which was repeatabilty of laptimes(the LMP2 fell off badly after 5-10 or so laps).
The Audi was clearly better in traffic, and after it's tires warmed up, was better on a long run, which is why the Audi pulled away easily when it got in front.


----------

