Pikes Peak

[wesley123]

I would think that the most appropriate car for Pikes Peak would be a hillclimb built prototype like Dumas' Norma:

http://www.endurance-info.com/version2/ ... 1649_n.jpg

If you want to truly attack Pikes PEak and go for the record the Norma isnt a good choice. If I'm correct it is based on the M200 which was the budget capped LMP car. A good car by itself, but already flawed to run Pikes Peak as it was originally built for a different ruleset, and more importantly, for the cost capped rule set.

Fit it with a KERS system to help you drive out of the numerous hairpin, and you have a winner. I think an electric addition is a no-brainer at Pikes Peak considering the elevation and loss of power, eventho you can always boost up the engine or get a VTG system as on the 208 T16.

It adds lots of weight for no obvious power advantage. You're better off just improving the engine, which not only will increase weight in a lesser way, it would also be cheaper.

I would honestly prefer to fall down the ravine than hitting a tree sitting 1meter from the road at 180km/h.

I would prefer staying on the road

So get a car with lots of power, light, very very good slick tyres, a driver who isn't afraid to go 100% (probably a hillclimb racer), race on a dry racecourse, and bang!

Lots of power and a lightweight car are obvious choices. Downforce can bring lots too in higher speed corners. And there is also such a thing as too much power *cough*Dallenbach

[MadMatt]

I would think that the most appropriate car for Pikes Peak would be a hillclimb built prototype like Dumas' Norma:

http://www.endurance-info.com/version2/ ... 1649_n.jpg

If you want to truly attack Pikes PEak and go for the record the Norma isnt a good choice. If I'm correct it is based on the M200 which was the budget capped LMP car. A good car by itself, but already flawed to run Pikes Peak as it was originally built for a different ruleset, and more importantly, for the cost capped rule set.

You don't want a car too wide, so a hillclimb prototype would be my choice and I think the best one. I mentioned the Norma but it wouldn't be my choice anyway. But the Norma is a very good car, a bit wide maybe but a nice basis anyway.

Fit it with a KERS system to help you drive out of the numerous hairpin, and you have a winner. I think an electric addition is a no-brainer at Pikes Peak considering the elevation and loss of power, eventho you can always boost up the engine or get a VTG system as on the 208 T16.

It adds lots of weight for no obvious power advantage. You're better off just improving the engine, which not only will increase weight in a lesser way, it would also be cheaper.

What if your engine is already at its best? And no obvious power advantage? Are you aware of what KERS adds in terms of power? Plus it doesn't suffer from air density loss so a clear advantage at Pikes Peak, even more considering that you can recharge it at every (numerous) big hairpin braking!

I would honestly prefer to fall down the ravine than hitting a tree sitting 1meter from the road at 180km/h.

I would prefer staying on the road

Do you?

So get a car with lots of power, light, very very good slick tyres, a driver who isn't afraid to go 100% (probably a hillclimb racer), race on a dry racecourse, and bang!

Lots of power and a lightweight car are obvious choices. Downforce can bring lots too in higher speed corners. And there is also such a thing as too much power *cough*Dallenbach

The Peugeot 208 T16 isn't really lightweight when you look at pure numbers (870Kg) but yet it still won by a large margin. You are right however with the power thing and Dallenbach. I would personally go for an Osella FA30-like car with a V6 twin-turbo engine producing in the region of 700bhp, and KERS system to add extra boost!

[WhiteBlue]

by your very own statement, you can get within 3% of the lap time for 10% of the cost. If the penalty for their marketing is more than 3%, then it should be possible to go faster for a tenth of the cost, according to your statement.

I can not follow that speculation. F1 cost/performance figures were only an example to illustrate that the last tenths of a second are the most expensive. It is similar to bad project management. 90% of your time and money is gone and you still have more than half the problems unresolved. It happens every day. Actually I'm out of this discussion now because it becomes too much speculative for me.

[langwadt]

snip

The Peugeot 208 T16 isn't really lightweight when you look at pure numbers (870Kg) but yet it still won by a large margin. You are right however with the power thing and Dallenbach. I would personally go for an Osella FA30-like car with a V6 twin-turbo engine producing in the region of 700bhp, and KERS system to add extra boost!

but how much does KERS weight compared to a bigger engine and a bit more fuel? I doubt KERS makes any sense
unless you are limited on fuel

The Peugeot was designed to make 650bhp for a 24hr le mans upped to 875bhp for the 208 T16,
I'm sure an engine of the same size designed to only last for a few <10min runs could make a helluvalot more

[wesley123]

I would think that the most appropriate car for Pikes Peak would be a hillclimb built prototype like Dumas' Norma:

http://www.endurance-info.com/version2/ ... 1649_n.jpg

If you want to truly attack Pikes PEak and go for the record the Norma isnt a good choice. If I'm correct it is based on the M200 which was the budget capped LMP car. A good car by itself, but already flawed to run Pikes Peak as it was originally built for a different ruleset, and more importantly, for the cost capped rule set.

You don't want a car too wide, so a hillclimb prototype would be my choice and I think the best one. I mentioned the Norma but it wouldn't be my choice anyway. But the Norma is a very good car, a bit wide maybe but a nice basis anyway.

It's a good base to be competitive in hillclimb events, however in my view pikes peak takes it a bit further, and with that the Norma becomes limited and needs much more reengineering in my opinion, with that said then you're better off from scratch.

Fit it with a KERS system to help you drive out of the numerous hairpin, and you have a winner. I think an electric addition is a no-brainer at Pikes Peak considering the elevation and loss of power, eventho you can always boost up the engine or get a VTG system as on the 208 T16.

It adds lots of weight for no obvious power advantage. You're better off just improving the engine, which not only will increase weight in a lesser way, it would also be cheaper.

What if your engine is already at its best? And no obvious power advantage? Are you aware of what KERS adds in terms of power? Plus it doesn't suffer from air density loss so a clear advantage at Pikes Peak, even more considering that you can recharge it at every (numerous) big hairpin braking![/quote]

I think that taking weight out would then be a better option to do so.

It is true that it wouldnt suffer from the losses in air density and that is an advantage. However I do feel that such a battery pack would either not be powerful enough to gain something real or too heavy. Plus the costs that come with it are quite large iic, certainly for a privateer effort.

It would be a good base for a promotional effort though. An Audi with the flywheel KERS up the hill for example, or the Toyota.

So get a car with lots of power, light, very very good slick tyres, a driver who isn't afraid to go 100% (probably a hillclimb racer), race on a dry racecourse, and bang!

Lots of power and a lightweight car are obvious choices. Downforce can bring lots too in higher speed corners. And there is also such a thing as too much power *cough*Dallenbach

The Peugeot 208 T16 isn't really lightweight when you look at pure numbers (870Kg) but yet it still won by a large margin. You are right however with the power thing and Dallenbach. I would personally go for an Osella FA30-like car with a V6 twin-turbo engine producing in the region of 700bhp, and KERS system to add extra boost! [/quote]

Indeed, I'd agree that the Peugeot was quite heavy. And it would gain much overal. But a downside is with the winds on pikes, it will blow you off the track(that did happen in 1991 iic, in the last turn). normal hillclimbs mostly are done with cars much lower in weight, but pikes not. Most cars are quite heavy and focus more on lots of engine power and downforce.

On the views of what would be best our views are different, but that's okay since there is no real optimum(at least we're still far from it).

[/quote]

[wesley123]

snip

The Peugeot 208 T16 isn't really lightweight when you look at pure numbers (870Kg) but yet it still won by a large margin. You are right however with the power thing and Dallenbach. I would personally go for an Osella FA30-like car with a V6 twin-turbo engine producing in the region of 700bhp, and KERS system to add extra boost!

but how much does KERS weight compared to a bigger engine and a bit more fuel? I doubt KERS makes any sense
unless you are limited on fuel

The Peugeot was designed to make 650bhp for a 24hr le mans upped to 875bhp for the 208 T16,
I'm sure an engine of the same size designed to only last for a few <10min runs could make a helluvalot more

If you want to spend much more money then you indeed could tune the engine to last just a run up the hill, and after that swap the engine after every training run.

[Cold Fussion]

I would think something like a Porsche RS Spyder (or any other ~2008/2009 LMP2 car) with a high power turbo engine would be a good base for a pikes peak.

[NoDivergence]

Honestly, I think that would be too long for the hairpins. You ideally want something with plenty of aero but still short wheelbase (and 4WD). A low roof, singer seater version (narrow cockpit) of the 208 that Loeb drove would do dividends to the rear end downforce.

[andylaurence]

I'd suggest the best way to settle this would be to find some data and run some simulations. There's lots of people who competed at Pikes Peak last weekend - someone must have run a data logger and be willing to share. Take that data, generate a track map and put some of these ideas to the test. It doesn't take long to see trends.

[MadMatt]

I'd suggest the best way to settle this would be to find some data and run some simulations. There's lots of people who competed at Pikes Peak last weekend - someone must have run a data logger and be willing to share. Take that data, generate a track map and put some of these ideas to the test. It doesn't take long to see trends.

Completely agree! If anyone got data, feel free to share!

[Blanchimont]

I tried to simulate the 208 with the help of OptimumLap, as it's available for free. I designed a rough map of the Pikes Peak track and defined the 208.

The dyno test shows the power at the rear wheel (in addition in the car setup i choose a drive train efficiency of 90% to inlude engine power loss at altitude, although i have no numbers on how much the power of a turbo engine decreases):



This video gave me the rough gear ratios:
http://www.redbull.com/en/motorsports/s ... eak-record

The setup of the car in OptimumLap (i choose to set the engine torque to 430 Nm below 4400 rpm as the dyno picture is limited to this rpm, air density 1,1 kg/m³ because of the lower density at the top):



This setup resulted in a time of 484,95 s. The change from AWD to 2WD increased the time to 514,44 s, a massive change!

Then i told the programm to calculate the overall time depending on weight in connection with AWD. It shows weight reduction is a point to think about.



Next step was to increase the engine power, again AWD. A further increase doesn't seem to be have a high influence, as more power only would slip the driven wheels more easily.



Drag influence, i decrease doesn't seem to improve the time very much:



Downforce, looks like there's a heavy influence on lap time:



From this simulations it seems that AWD, weight reduction and high downforce is what improves the Pikes Peak lap time the most, if a powerful engine is installed. Of course, AWD and a powerful engine will also add some weight.

More to come, stay tuned!

[P.S.]

Great work! =D>
Lots of information in this few graphs.
I was looking for such software since some time.
Thanks alot!

[MadMatt]

Good job Blanchimont! Could you show a picture of your track? I remember that in OptimumLap you cannot include elevation which is a real shame because it is responsible for a lot of losses in the car acceleration.

[machin]

double post

[machin]

This setup resulted in a time of 484,95 s. The change from AWD to 2WD increased the time to 514,44 s, a massive change!

My own program also suggests a similar difference; in the range of 25 to 30 seconds difference between AWD and 2WD for an 875kg car with 875bhp...

But, sticking with the graphs above rather than post my own which would only be slightly different, 25 to 30 seconds is approximately equivalent to a weight difference of 250 to 300kg.... so if the hillclimb singleseater weighs no more than 625kg (and everything else being equal), it would be quicker according to those graphs... and, as Andy says, its likely that the aero figures for the singleseater would be better too....