[WEC] LMP Future Regulations (was Le Mans EVO rules - now hypercar rules)

[Deleted]

So this is no real news, but FIA-ACO are bringing new LMP1 regs for 2017 (and Toyota is sticking around for year 1 of that at least). I don't understand why they need the feel to fool around with everything every couple of years, why cannot the rules just stay as they are for a while? It's not F1, even if they want it to be. Even if it's just evolution rather than revolution like 2014 and 2011 were, we've seen that the current regs are stable and popular, why change again? Do they have to change things every three years now by law?

Well at least in P1 it's more understable than P2 which they've obviously ruined.

[TF110]

The current rules are still too restrictive imo. No torque vectoring involved with the hybrids, no in-wheel motors, no vvt, tight aero rules etc. Little things can change thatd open up the class even more.

[Deleted]

Opening up things
FIA starting cost saving restrictions

Doesn't seem likely to mix the two.

[TF110]

5 engines per year that they didnt even use. 50 testing days which they didnt fully use. This aint F1 where millions are spent on front wing flaps.

[Deleted]

If Audi were to test all three cars every day, that would only be around 16 allocated testing days. And in any case, I don't think we really know what the figures have been for big works teams.

But no, what was imposed for this year wasn't too bad. However if you really think that this is gonna be the end of restrictions, I think that's a bit naive.

The mess that's been planned in LMP2 has been labeled under 'cost cutting' crap. Also what I said up there

[TF110]

Cost cuts dont mean innovation has to be stifled. Things that I mentioned are on 30k prius' and Subaru wrx's. It shouldnt be bank breaking to develop a race engine with tech you can find in family cars.

[J Jay]

In my (limited, reactionary, ill-informed) opinion it's about keeping broad avenues of development open. If you restrict the workable areas of the car prohibitively then the resources are guaranteed to be spent disproportionately on the bits left over as the teams are forced to chase the smallest of margins.

[TF110]

Thats an issue in F1 imo. Theres little room for freedom and teams chase the tiniest of margins with stuff like elaborate front wings.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by TF110

Thats an issue in F1 imo. Theres little room for freedom and teams chase the tiniest of margins with stuff like elaborate front wings.

Yes..that's the paradox. These supposed "cost-cutting" measures tend to be very expensive indeed. Teams want to win, and if there is no room to come up with innovative (and often more affordable) solutions to problems, then they will spend what ever is necessary to gain an advantage within the tight space they have to maneuver. If only regulators understood this!

[deggis]

Originally Posted by Chiana

If Audi were to test all three cars every day, that would only be around 16 allocated testing days. And in any case, I don't think we really know what the figures have been for big works teams.

FIA/ACO knows (would know even without asking, since there were already day allocations for the open vs. private testing) and contrary to popular belief, teams were probably asked and wouldn't be surprised if the teams came up with these numbers by themselves.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Some last-minute changes to the LMP1 Technical Regulations.

The adaptations in Article 3.4 caught my eye (emphasis added):

3.4 Bodywork
As viewed from above (plan view), in side elevation, from the front and from the rear, the bodywork must not allow mechanical components to be seen, unless explicitly authorised by the present regulations.
Movable bodywork parts/elements are forbidden when the car is in motion.
Any system operated automatically and/or controlled by the driver to modify any airflow when the car is in motion is forbidden, unless explicitly authorized by the present regulations.

Unless I am mistaken, the rules currently contain no such explicit authorization. Is that a move to open the door in the future to DRS-type systems ?

[Deleted]

How did you locate the file on FIA site, someone gave you link?

I still haven't found out where they will be hiding out new committee decision memos.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by Chiana

How did you locate the file on FIA site, someone gave you link?

I still haven't found out where they will be hiding out new committee decision memos.

The regulations are still accessible in the "Regulations" section (obvious isn't it ? )

This being said, I still haven't found where they have hidden the Endurance Commitee decisions since the revamp of the FIA website. This new website is a bit of a mess I must admit.

[Deleted]

Oh right, of course. I didn't actually check how the pdf looked, just assumed it was one of those quicky LMP1 updates/clarifications from the committee, but it was the whole thing with revisions.

The new FIA site is rather terrible to navigate indeed. Said it before, but it's gonna SUCK ASS if they're gonna start hiding out those decisions to the same style as waiver lists.

Oh and I hope what you speculated about DRS never comes to fruition.

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Unless I am mistaken, the rules currently contain no such explicit authorization. Is that a move to open the door in the future to DRS-type systems ?

Hopefully not. If it's a move to active aero (within limits of adjustability, but without limits on usage) in the vein of the McLaren P1 or the Pagani Huayra, then I'd be fine with it though.

[Deleted]

If I'm not mistaken, these are the top 10 fastest circuit racing categories on the planet right now and bolded ones have all DRS

F1
GP2
SF
FR3.5
LMP1
LMP2
GT500
DTM
ICS (has P2P)
AutoGP

It could just be a matter of time...

[J Jay]

I think we've had this discussion before, and IIRC I started it ...

I don't think Nigel (or the regs) are referring to a carbon-copy of the F1 DRS, push-button/receive overtake system, but rather the rear-wing stalling mechanism by which that is achieved. It's simple, well-understood and a good starting point for adjustable aerodynamics - give it to every car but don't impose any limits on its use (except for SC and slow zones). Hopefully such a system would pave the way for more complex systems that cover more of the car.

Although with the seemingly desperate need for the WEC to follow F1's footsteps it's still an outside possibility that DRS will be brought in wholesale.

[TF110]

I dont see wec following F1 on things except for tracks (and at least they want to race at the Nurburgring) and safety. DRS in F1 is dumb because a stipulation of being <1 second behind the car you're following. If the wec can do a 'drs' system but make it so it is driver controlled without goofy stipulations like following a leading car, it could lead to some cool modifications on the cars. This is something that has road relevance. Cars like the Ford Focus have slats that close in the front grille to reduce aero drag and add fuel efficiency.

[Matt]

GT500 cars are quicker than LMP2 cars now, iirc.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by Matt

GT500 cars are quicker than LMP2 cars now, iirc.

They sure are. Have been for a few years too, even though they were slowed up post 2009.

[Spyderman]

Excellent review :https://translate.google.com/transla...-15040102.html

[FxL]

The last sentence is interesting (" The only practical measure the ACO / FIA could apply would be an increase of the minimum weight"). Slowing the cars down by changing the fuel flow rate or eletrical power indeed doesn't seem to be that easy and fair, given the different concepts of the manufacturers.

[Deleted]

Yeah the placing of classes in that list is not in order of speed.

I'm not sure if Indy and AutoGP (or whatever it's called) even belong there, but couldn't think of any faster categories.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by FxL

The last sentence is interesting (" The only practical measure the ACO / FIA could apply would be an increase of the minimum weight"). Slowing the cars down by changing the fuel flow rate or eletrical power indeed doesn't seem to be that easy and fair, given the different concepts of the manufacturers.

Introducing a restriction on the hybrid power would already be a starting point as well.

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by FxL

The last sentence is interesting (" The only practical measure the ACO / FIA could apply would be an increase of the minimum weight"). Slowing the cars down by changing the fuel flow rate or eletrical power indeed doesn't seem to be that easy and fair, given the different concepts of the manufacturers.

I don't think Enzinger, Ulrich and Vasselon would mind this actually. It would slow the cars in general but the larger minimum weight - unless it's comprised solely of extra ballast - will give the freedom to put larger ERS systems in the car. An RCE editor article from last year (October I think?) spelled out as much with quotes from all three factories.

Edit - As gwyllion says, restricting the hybrid power would be a more effective way of slowing the car down.