Peugeot 9X8 LMH Hypercar - 2024 with Wing?

[@paulreilly3904]

Peugeot deserve our support because they are prepared to do something different. But there's no escaping reality. All racetracks are not billiard table smooth, so a rear wing seems inevitable. Well done for trying. I hope to see them fighting for the win in 2024 with the evo.

[@IIISPQRIII.]

remember, nothing is impossible

[@dyn9726]

its zero sidepod all over again :P

[@septopus3516]

Savage😂

[@lamatakbertemu8197]

Deja vu.

[@kazefw3834]

LoL 😂

[@AleksisA88]

at least it took them less than one season to admit defeat.

[@LaCassetteF1]

​@@AleksisA88actually it took them 1 and a half season to realise it...

[@Celciusify]

Having no rear wing was a great marketing excercise, it got a lot of attention! But using such a design with regulations forcing a specific downforce/drag number was too risky. It could have worked to their benefit if they could run the car really low, but they were never able to.

[@flammenjc]

It wouldn't matter how low they can run the car. If you want to create more rear downforce like this you would have to increase the rake angle which can lead to unwanted handling in medium and low speed corners. The best strategy is having a rear wing also, to trim your downforce without always needing to change rake angle. That way you don't have to compromise every medium and low speed corner.

[@charliemolda297]

Honestly, I don’t care what they do in order to make their cars more competitive, even if it’s against the interesting concept they started with. As long as we get better racing then I’m happy. Of course it’s a big shame their concept didn’t work, as that would have been revolutionary like the Diesel engines of Audi, but it didn’t work out

[@isaacbarbosa7593]

I would like to see them adjust the car to try and make it work, using a smaller tire on the front, a larger one on the rear and all the other necessary adjustments.

[@domepugliese]

I think Peugeot started designing the 9X8 based on the very first and not definitive Hypercar regulations, and then many things changed and was too late to scrap this and redesign another one from zero (based on the final rules) and so tried to make this work optimising it as much as they could. But still, it's not totally optimal, expecially considering the fixed drag-downforce ratio, that basically deletes all the advantages a concept like this has Hope they become more competitive next year

[@engcorreia]

most beautiful endurance race car EVER!

[@andrecarrato6359]

I find pretty awesome ppl who think outta box, but, if the invention doesn't work properly and make u be competitive, there's no shame in stepping back in ur ideas. I'd love seeing Peugeot winning LM again, as it's a former winner

[@ancre45]

Think that they have to add a rear wing for 2024. Allez, Peugeot!!!

[@lucamini]

I love the concept without wing, but with BOP you are not rewarded for great downforce/drag numbers. I am sorry that they dig not get rewarded for it!

[@X8X8X8X8X8X8X8X8X8X]

I can't help but think of this as a "maximum PR design".

[@SamiKhan-hn3uk]

But as you said, wouldn’t the concept work if they redesigned the car around the 290mm and 340mm tire option since it would give them the rear grip they’re looking for as opposed to the wing? (I love the car because it goes against convention and hope they stay true to it or if they must add the wing, they should keep the ground effect)

[@virtual_GaRy]

I think the bigger wheels don't give that much more grip, but they can deal better with higher downforce and a more rearward loads distribution

[@amytysoe2292]

it's interesting how the last 30 years or so, with heavy restrictions on underfloor aero in most categories, have kind of allowed it to build a reputation well beyond its (apparent) actual utility. While it's a powerful tool, it's clearly much more conditionally sensitive in a way that starts really things back once you get to the level of F1 and hypercars. that's not to say they can;t be fixed but there definitely seemed to be a prevailing sense of 'you know, we could just dump wings and do it all with ground effect' (it's probably worth pointing out that the Nissan LMP1 was considered for a wing delete at stages), but now that's coming to a bit of a bump with reality.

[@James_08_07]

The bump with reality though is largely because of the heavy restrictions preventing things like skirts that would allow you to "seal" the floor.

[@KayJblue]

This concept was fun, it’s a shame that it had all the downsides of ground effect but none of the advantages due to mandated level of drag. I still think it’s great marketing though.

[@septopus3516]

They went with"form over function" and learned one of the most fundamental lessons in design.

[@gamegod7856]

Which part of this did you not understand? 2:08

[@gafrers]

The Irony is so thick, you can cut it with the wing of a race car. When Marketing and styling takes over racing

[@mrgalaxy396]

It was a cool concept and they got a lot of marketing for it, but the best kind of PR for a manufacturer is actually winning. If that means going with a rear wing, that's fine by me. I want as many cars competitive for the win as realistically possible and the sad truth of motoracing prototypes is that not all concepts are born equal. Just look at F1 with the RB philosophy vs the Ferrari/Mercedes ones. Still, kudos for trying and showing us something different, shame it didn't work out.

[@James_08_07]

Is the front tyre width part of the reason they were so much better in wet conditions?

[@stargazeronesixseven]

Yes , as a long time fan of Peugeot ... Bringing back the Rear Wing can do wonders to adjust the rear down force & bringing back the Peugeot Talismatic Silver Stylized Standing Proud Lion Mascot might bring back the Good Luck & the Sportcar Heritage of Peugeot! The new lion face logo looks like an ugly big bandage & belonged to EPL or Proton! Like the Wise said : " Never Mess With a Successful & Long Standing Glamourous Mascot! " ... 🙏🕯🌎🕊🇫🇷

[@NightmareJedi]

It's a shame that ideas like this get pushed to the side. Clearly between theory (and CFD) and reality, there's an eternity of engineering headaches. I hope the wing remains low level and not the enormous things we've seen on the other prototypes, this out of the box thinking is what makes WEC more fun than F1

[@polaxis842]

Also, their low downforce / high top speed concept did not work out. They only had the 3rd highest top speed in the 2023 Le Mans race if I remember correctly. So basically most of the disadvantages of their concept with not really having the proper advantages to compensate for them.

[@v88box21]

I'll have to be honest: I think Peugeot could have choose a different concept for the 9X8 with a wing included, instead of a "we didn't want a rear wing" concept. But here we are, I guess the 9X8 might have a 29/34 tire option. I definitely think they could have heard about the 905 and the 908. Both cars were Le Mans winners at the time and also have success. Fortunately, the 9X8 actually had a podium at the 6 Hours of Monza this year, so it was a great race. But I do hope Peugeot will actually be a serious competitor in the next year's season, probably with a 9X8 Evo 2.

[@petouser]

I really think that Peugeot should not be allowed to change aero right before or maybe 1 race before Le Mans. While all all races count, the 24h of Le Mans are the main attraction. So the FIA and ACO should be able to as much data as possible to get the best possible BoP. I hope they can bring the update to the 1st race or even to the pre-season test.

[@Ivanoskyao]

You should post more videos. Love your channel

[@BSport320]

Thank you, I will

[@budthecyborg4575]

So the entire reason the best looking car didn't work is the FIA kept haphazardly changing the rules. This way LMH is being handled is really shameful.

[@wiegraf9009]

As we've seen in F1, maximizing ground effect requires a very sophisticated suspension combined with an overbody that balances it out. I'm not sure this is possible with the hypercar regs. Even the RB19 has suffered on very bumpy circuits where they've had to raise the ride height.

[@snowtrooper8817]

That’s actually the RB19’s proper weakness. Singapore and tracks like it are horrendous for it. It also only had the 2nd highest downforce levels, with McLaren and their MCL60 actually producing higher DF numbers than RB can produce with the RB19. The RB19s real trick is how kind it is on tires. They can push so much more than their competitors.

[@gerogyzurkov2259]

​@@snowtrooper8817That was the main reason Ferrari 2022 failed. It had the pace to match or even beat RB that year, but the car had issues with tires that made them do so much compromising on the team that didn't help them. Same goes with Ferrari SF71h probably that doomed it despite the base being so good. Tires window are nightmare for F1 teams if u not RB currently.

[@limnbakpoplolyihong8979]

I am by no means a race car design expert or anything but I am *quite* a huge fan of designing race cars, watching them race etc, but I am not the biggest enthusiast you will see around. In my opinion, it was fine not going with a rear wing to experiment different things, once in a while you kinda want to explore your options and learn what works and what does not work. However, frankly speaking, reliable downforce is always the biggest, most important thing that more racing car manufacturers look for, so I would say it is kinda shocking that peugeot wanted to rely only underbody downforce alone to generate the necessary downforce and not use a rear wing to generate the more reliable overbody downforce. While this reduces drag, but at the same time there is a minimum(?) amount of drag that the car must have, which completely makes the drag reduction meaningless. This design could have worked if they have the option to really push the underbody downforce as much as possible, by using things like active adjustable venturi tunnels underneath the body(basically a DRS, but it's not allowed). Either way, I can respect peugeot for doing this but I personally do fail to see the merits of doing this(maybe someone can tell me more about this). However, I must also say, I really feel like the LMH class cars are really super screwed over by the regulations, I really wished that the regulations for LMH isn't so tight and it is more free(similar to LMP1 rules). Basically, I was shocked to find out how much LMH cars weight when compared to LMP1 cars, and the power restriction of the engine is also limited to 500 kW(actually this is still fine because most LMP1 cars were running at slightly lower engine power output than this), but the way they restricted the hybrid power is just kinda too much IMO, making it so that the hybrid power can only be deployed at higher speeds means that you are running at only ICE for quite some time(I would say maybe 30% of the time? since most of the track you can still go at 135 km/h and above), also the fact that they limited the power of the hybrid system to 200 kW is also quite limiting to be honest. LMP1 cars ran at 1000 HP(combining both hybrid and ICE) or more and was much lighter compared to LMH. LMH is running at most 700 kW(940 HP) only. My point is that I hope that they can make it so that the hybrid power can be deployed at lower speeds or at least increase the output of hybrid power(again this is just my opinion).

[@hamishcurtis9455]

With Peugeot doing an Eco version for next year, “if” Glickenhaus were to do an SCG007 Evo (which Jim Glickenhaus said the car needed if they were to compete in the future) what do you reckon it would’ve looked like?

[@flammenjc]

I called it when they released the car that they would eventually use a conventional wing. You limit your setup options so much without the ability to change downforce levels on the rear without having to change rake angle.

[@nicolaslr6881]

Finally, Peugeot is going to bring a car designed by engineers, not by marketing people

[@DavyJonesSimRacing]

During the 8 hours of Bahrain the commentators were hinting that the annoucement of a new car was imminent or something like that...

[@diraziz396]

00:38 - for a moment the big Sign at the Back looked like a wing..

[@JuanAntonEgo]

They finally threw in the towel & realized it just couldn't be done. As we all are learning more & more about Ground effects ( thanx to F1 current era..) not easy creating a racecar with this kind of concept for Aeroeficiency. Specially Peugeot's no wing to top it off.

[@fqeagles21]

Which type of rear wing you think they'll end up using?

[@Alix_Day]

the 9x8 will be ready for the second race of the season how i now don't worry

[@rjung_ch]

Yes, add a wing, it didn't work well without one.

[@CannedMarmalade]

Peugeot finally admitted the 9X8 failed

[@conrad32]

One of their promotion videos, they glossed over a render of the 9x8 with a rear wing a while back

[@slevingaius]

Defintely a wing is on the way. Given that there's more entries next year with the sunsetting of LMP. The lessons and data hopefully will count for something in the development of the EVO version. Random question does brands competting in IMSA have a development advantage in WEC? If so Porsche, Cadillac and BMW would be the ones to look out for in 2024.

[@edoardocasagrande4339]

Pretty sure BMWs are going to be strong with wrt

[@Lego_Huracan_SuperTrofeo]

To answer your question, yes because the LMdH teams that are both in IMSA and WEC they can gather a larger amount of data and use it for future improvements or/and redesigns. You can very easily see this with Porsche especially if you watch IMSA as in the beginning Porsche was terrible having mechanical issues and tire lock-ups. As time progressed mechanical gremlins had stops they were upfront and became competitive to the point of having won a couple of events.

[@dhanu_4539]

I don't really blame them. Plenty experienced F1 teams mucked up the ground effect format. Stuff like this happens

[@schneider3454]

hey padre 👋 3:55

[@antoinev830]

I think Peugeot should ask Adrian Newey about ground effect

[@briland7166]

They chose to center their car around an interesting design to generate buzz but its time to pivot and put a wing on

[@TheBillsMando]

The batmobile dosent exi-

[@Pandamasque]

It's funny, how, when the LMH rules were published, all the experts said that the aero target figures were "extremely conservative" and so easy to reach that manufacturers will be able to have road hypercar-like designs and will further have to come up with draggy features to stay within the rules. But in the end every single LMH car looks like an LMP with some extremely reluctant efforts to introduce non-LMP design features to stand out. Would an Aston-Lola LMP1 look out of place here? Or an LMP2-based Mazda DPi? Worse so in LMDh, where Acura didn't even bother fully covering the nosebox with bodywork (again). The 9X8, the one car that strayed further from the LMP norm-even though it still has the characteristic narrow greenhouse, very low bodywork between the wheels and cockpit, and vented front fenders-was the one to underperform! This peculiar kind of BoP was introduced specifically to bring visual and conceptual variety to the field, to ensure that same cars can race both in WEC and IMSA (convergence) as well as to limit costs and avoid a development race. There's every indication that it has been at best a partial success on all 3 objectives. No LMH manufacturer voiced plans of racing in IMSA in the foreseeable future. Designs are highly convergent. The development race is on, and with a tendency for further uniformity i.e. "Evo" versions are coming soon and will look even more alike. Don't get me started on the engine configurations. ACO, FIA and IMSA had one last shot at these rules and I'm afraid they missed. While I'll very much enjoy this final era of sportscar racing, the last hurrah, there's a lingering feeling of an opportunity missed.

[@liocla2331]

At the end of the day you design the car to the regulations. But I can't help but think these regulations that require a maximum L/D, limited ability to set up a car, impose hybrid powertrains to manufacturers but forbid their use in (essentially) their most useful and impactful phase of a lap are non sensical. In my opinion Peugeot have drawn the short straw by designing what would otherwise be a very smart racecar but cannot utilise the concept to its fullest extent because of the rules in place. They are guilty of designing a car that is off subject that cannot thrive under the present conditions. I believe the success of the current ruleset for LMH has a lot more to do with the tight budgetary restrictions rather than the overbearing rules. And that for the long term, these rules must be loosened if Le Mans is to continue to be a driver for innovation in street cars as it so often has been. As for adding a rear wing or updating the car to better suit the conditions, you can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig. I believe Peugeot need a completely new car that is not so ride height dependent and less reliant on its hybrid powertrain to win, even if it means more dirty downforce and a less efficient powertrain. But I'm just a random guy on the internet.

[@edoardocasagrande4339]

The regs are very free, they simply tried to be different for marketing purpose, like Nissan back in the day. All they says Is bullshit

[@somguy728]

A wing is an advertising billboard, nuff said. That's racing folks! It's not a sport -- it's marketing. Period. Or it wouldn't exist.

[@pmayo7894]

"A wing is an advertising billboard, nuff said." - and yet, why did McLaren ask Piastri to retire the car after his wing went wobbly? To be fair, most of the car's body serve a functional purpose. Usually the higher the category, the less reliant on mechanical grip.

[@slack359]

I could be wrong maybe they’ll have a tiny wing I think they’re gonna try making a spoiler Work

[@padisuromertani]

Why wouldn't you want a wing in a RWD race car?

[@bcsa]

Peugeot thought if they drive opposite on the highway they are gonna be smart... These kind of savage ideas usually never work. Just see some from recently: Nissan LMP1 car, the Merc zero pods, the McLaren zero size concept. You just can't invent the hot water...

[@fabiofatsio]

For sure a great design and one of the nicest looking hypercars but man what a complete marketing disaster... How they couldn' t imagine?

[@proto7688]

This is the same problem as the Nissan program, people who don't have real world racing experience start running marketing exercise level racing programs. They all end up learning the hard way and that is sad considering the manufacturer is know for high quality programs in the past.

[@BSport320]

The Nissan was an impressive design and it was even more impressive that it saw the finish line in Le Mans - given the circumstances. Unfortunately that was mainly a supplier issue but the concept with Hybrid system was great. You can find my video about it…

[@snowtrooper8817]

The Nissan could’ve worked but they had major supplier issues with the hybrid system. The corporate board members pulled the plug before we could actually see what the car performed like.

[@proto7688]

@@BSport320 they used drop gears for I think that zapped a lot of efficiency of power train and the aero balance was not optimized for the regulations. It's impressive that it even came to light but radical things usually need radical budgets for fast prototype levels. Much like the current 9x8 seems cool in concept and hopefully they can recover some positives from this program until the next set of regulation arrive.

[@proto7688]

@@snowtrooper8817 yea would have been entertaining to see it get within striking distance of the top runner.

[@krishjai944]

They should hire newey from f1 to make success without rear wing

[@richleineweber7279]

Park the 9x8 in a deep hole on top of the delta wing.

[@friktionrc]

They say no rear wing..and yes there isn’t but yet the whole rear half of the car body is sculpted /scooped and even the rear lip has an angle to it…not exactly smooth and flat like say the McLaren Longtail

[@jozsefizsak]

It seems that the shortcomings of BOP do not deter enough fans or entrants to kill the series and I find this surprising and interesting. The variables that this idea introduces are so gross that it makes the racing completely uninteresting to me. The degree of arbitrariness in the handicapping, and no ill intentions implied, is a deal breaker but if racing excites you, details be damned, then you're the target audience. Perhaps I'm missing something but I don't know how else to view it. I really like Peugeot and .seeing them in a proper racing series would be wonderful.

[@DefinitelyNotEmma]

Peugeot should borrow the floor from Red Bulls RB19. Maybe then they really could afford not having a wing, lol or perhaps a small spoiler.

[@KayoMichiels]

It would have worked on a smooth race track... but there are almost no smooth ones out there.. the bumps and uneven surface, just stalls and disrupts the groundeffect... Perfect on paper... not so much in real life..

[@1986kojikoji]

they need new turbo

[@alfabethev2.074]

Hmm🤔 I suppose top gear was right about pugut ...😁

[@DekGT5mad]

Until Alpine F1 get their heads around ground effect and Peugeot steal some employee's from them, they should go back to basics with a rear wing using knowledge already available

[@yasumitsunaka6094]

This is a failure EXACTLY like the Lotus 80. The history just repeats itself.

[@v88box21]

I blame on Stellantis who fucked up Peugeot for that, and Linda Jackson too, I guess. Honestly, I think they should hire actual engineers to do an actual LMH car like how the 905 and the 908, which both cars won Le Mans.

[@richleineweber7279]

This thing is so ugly it makes a Pontiac Aztek look like a beauty queen. It was a nice try, but imo they should scrap it and start over.

[@v88box21]

What does the Aztek has to do with it? The Aztek never competed in a WEC, because it is a SUV.

[@RB26N]

I hope engineers knew that no rear wing was trash idea, but couldn't do anything to oppose marketing team. otherwise peugeot just have dumbest engineers team.