quote:

Originally posted by petrol_blue:
If diesel and petrol are to be raced together they should be on a level playing field. Same regulations, same restrictions, same engine capacities. I suspect the results may be somewhat different.....

That's the problem with diesels and petrols racing together. If you want to create a "level playing field", you can't do so by making capacity, aspiration etc all the same. If you did that, the petrols would blow the dervs away. So to level the playing field, you need to allow the diesels the blowers, which is how the rules have been for some time. The problem is that in the past, that rule didn't allow dervs to be competitive ... hence there were none but now, with the huge strides in diesel tech that same rule seems to afford the dervs a disproportionate advantage. Its reasonable to assume therefore that if the rule stays the same, all the teams who want to compete at the front would have to switch to derv units and there'd be no petrols.

I just wonder whether the participants (and most of the viewers) care. The manufacturers didn't bleat about the rule being unfair to diesels in the past because no-one bought them, now everybody does I wonder if they'll care that they are unfair to petrols. I could well be they will all follow SEATs lead and switch to the agri-gloop anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by petrol_blue:
If diesel and petrol are to be raced together they should be on a level playing field. Same regulations, same restrictions, same engine capacities. I suspect the results may be somewhat different.....

So how, exactly, would that make for fun racing, if power outputs were far apart?
Bike racing has favoured twins for ages, you need to balance things up.
You can't always have a one-rule for every type of vehicle situation.

the rules do need experimenting with. if i was a policy maker the diesel could be allowed to run out of equal opportunity, but the drivers must have their faces blacked up with makeup, to represent dirty fuel.

No smoke from what I could see....

Actually I think they have more restrictions on what is allowed out of the tailpipe than petrols - they have to have a particulate trap for a start... something that favours the petrols, methinks!

i did see the occasional puff billow out from the leon, but certainly not as much as the road going versions, they must have super duper soot traps, and renew them after every race.

Some here need to see a dieselphobiaist, for help!

Dieselists..two there always are, a master and an apprentice...

there is a significant safety benefit of diesels in motorsport .... less chance of driver incineration after an accident

more chance of lung cancer though.
but that is theoretically true but petrol tanks dont catch fire anymore in a way that harms the driver seriously. just look at the 150mph+ crashes in f1, the fuel tanks are intact.

i wonder if people maybe a little worride about hydrogen tanks in our cars when that happens soon. it worres me a but, but then thats because its new.

Probably.
Look how some here can't accept the emergence of fast diesels.........

basic principle seems to be at work: people don't like change & some folk really hate it

i was familiar with diesels since a young age, i dont care about them getting faster. i care about people liking them. it seems they dont appreciate the reality of how nasty it is as a fuel and they over rate it compared to petrol performance as if somehow it all the rage and think petrol drivers are behind the times and need to catchup.

anyway according to autoexpress diesel is doomed and there is advice that to buy a new diesel car now would be a foolish thing to do due to the exponetial diesel prices .

quote:

Originally posted by beach:
the reality of how nasty it is as a fuel

And you're evidence is???



I thought not, 'cause there is NO eveidence to say that diesel is any worse than petrol, and both can be cleaned up at the tailpipe to a certain extent, but at the end of they day they are both dirty and dangerous....

Stop scaremongering, Beach!

quote:

Originally posted by Boig:

quote:

Originally posted by petrol_blue:
If diesel and petrol are to be raced together they should be on a level playing field. Same regulations, same restrictions, same engine capacities. I suspect the results may be somewhat different.....

That's the problem with diesels and petrols racing together. If you want to create a "level playing field", you can't do so by making capacity, aspiration etc all the same. If you did that, the petrols would blow the dervs away.

Exactly my point. If diesel technology is meant to be so great the rules wouldn't need to be changed for them to be competetive. As it is now the rules give an advantage to dervs due to the abundance of torque and punch out of slow corners. They should have the same engine sizes and turbos and if they are not fast enough they should go away and improve the engine technology until they can compete.

that won't happen because petrol is always going to be the more powerful liquid. i have softened towards diesel now i have driven a few of the best ones but nobody can tell me that a true sports car should have the oily muck. my missus has bought a tuareg v10 diesel and i admit its damn good but i am picking up a nissan 3.8 v6 bi-turbo in july. tell me a derv to match that.

The R8!

Which is already tuned to within an inch of it's life.

Chaz, get the the new 550bhp, 200kg lighter GT-R V-Spec that's coming out...... then tune it. "Haha" to the stinky jumped up Diesel!

PS: I trust your wife's five litre, V10 turbocharged SUV is much quicker than your 2.6 litre straight six?

The Tuareg V10 TDI isn't all that quick on paper, i just checked out the figures.
But i know that they make damn good progress, for something weighing 2.5 tonnes.

I think Jet is getting the std Nissan, Nox.

PPS
Tuners are talking about 600 bhp/900 lbs-ft for the R8, with a little attention.

The point many miss about diesels, unless they have had a very fast one, as i have, is the high performance which is available far more often, than a highly-strung petrol, which needs it's neck wringing to get anywhere fast.
This gets very tiring after a while, especially the naturally aspirated engines.
Obtaining 95% of the possible performance, 90% of the time, is in many ways better, than a car which you get to see the best of one time in 20.

at the monent the fastest production car in the world is the nissan GTR, by the best definition of fast i dont mean top speed, but that around a track. either the R8 is any veyron are nowhere near the nissan in terms of pace or they are too nervous to set a lap time on the nurburgring.
the lap is set to be broken again by the v-spec.

Yes and i respect the Nissan for that very much.

But how, exactly, does that make a blind bit of difference on the road?
None whatsoever!
The quickest car around a racetrack, maybe by 1 second in 8 minutes, isn't going to be the best street car.

If the car is for the track, then even a Nissan GTR is horribly compromised, compared to something like my Westfield.

473 bhp and 1700 kgs.
380 bhp and 612 kgs.

Do the maths, do the acceleration-meter!

i think you have been blinded my power to weight ratios, thats not the whole issue to a fast car. you know the GTR would completely slay the modified westfield around the track. the gtr has extreme technology for road holding and corner taking. and as i have said before it has downforce. of course you could get some spoilers and wings for your westfield.