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

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

It certainly looks apparent on circuit. Everybody has commented on how rapid the Porsche is out of the corners. And since both Audi and Toyota are looking at moving towards battery hybrid systems, they clearly both feel that the Porsche system is superior too.

They are looking to go to battery systems because of weight (mainly due to evolution of battery tech). It has become apparent that if one wants to go up the MJ scale , then the battery option is the best. This has nothing to do with outright performance.
Any way - doesn't fuel flow alterations effect engine power?

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

And you cannot rubbish the maths people have done by saying "some possible theoretical calculations". Maths is maths.

Completely agree!! Seems to me the ACO has their math wrong if they come to the conclusion that Audi need help. Look at the real world results: then check your math. If it is still not apparent, then check again, and again. Reality is what counts.

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

But you've clearly made up your mind on this one and will not be swayed, so I won't argue about it until the end of time. But just so they don't get forgotten on the last page, here's the lap time numbers - .

Here are the race lap times : http://fiawec.alkamelsystems.com/

[Akrapovic]

There seems to be a completely misunderstanding about the EoT is trying to do. It is not trying to balance lap times which are effected by strategy (such as race lap times), it is not attempting to balance team performance, and it's not attempting to neutralise an advantage gained in areas outside of the power train (aerodynamics, for example). It is simply trying to balance the power train options, whilst the technology is in its infancy.

If the real world results are that Team A produces slower lap times, but won races due to performing better during race conditions (such as working with the tyres better, for example), then the EoT is still unbalanced against Team A. Just because they overcame that by being a better team, doesn't mean that the power trains are balanced. Toyota are not receiving a boost because they are not struggling due to a power train disadvantage - they are struggling because their car is not as good.

The EoT is not balancing teams. It is balancing power units. And weight is included in that, obviously. To discount weight in a discussion about motorsport technology is silly. If we discount the weight of batteries, then lets just give Audi the same size of fuel tank as Porsche (currently around a 14 litre difference), and discount the advantage they'd gain through diesel use. After all, that's not directly related to outright performance...

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

There seems to be a completely misunderstanding about the EoT is trying to do. It is not trying to balance lap times which are effected by strategy (such as race lap times), it is not attempting to balance team performance, and it's not attempting to neutralise an advantage gained in areas outside of the power train (aerodynamics, for example). It is simply trying to balance the power train options, whilst the technology is in its infancy.

If the real world results are that Team A produces slower lap times, but won races due to performing better during race conditions (such as working with the tyres better, for example), then the EoT is still unbalanced against Team A. Just because they overcame that by being a better team, doesn't mean that the power trains are balanced. Toyota are not receiving a boost because they are not struggling due to a power train disadvantage - they are struggling because their car is not as good.

The EoT is not balancing teams. It is balancing power units. And weight is included in that, obviously. To discount weight in a discussion about motorsport technology is silly. If we discount the weight of batteries, then lets just give Audi the same size of fuel tank as Porsche (currently around a 14 litre difference), and discount the advantage they'd gain through diesel use. After all, that's not directly related to outright performance...

But what is the end purpose of the "balancing act" ? Is it not to provide equal opportunity so that good racing is achieved? Is the ACO's function just to carry out an experiment in order to prove one theory or another; one math calculation or another?
The point I'm trying to make , is that the ends had already been achieved (assuming that was in fact the ACO's main objective). This EoT adjustment is extemporaneous at the very least.

[Akrapovic]

No, it is not to achieve good racing. That would be achieved in a much cheaper way by using weight penalties, reverse grids, or even single make (or limited choice) chassis. So no, the EoT is not here to produce good racing. If it was, then Toyota would've been given a large performance increase and Nissan would've been told they could stick a V12 in in the car and give it huge Can-Am wings. The EoT has never been about balancing the teams, otherwise it would operate on a team level, not a fuel and hybrid level.

EoT is about allowing the car manufacturers to explore alternate technology without the fear of wasting huge amounts of money developing an inferior technology. Technology which may one day make its way to road cars*. This is inherently interesting to car manufacturers. However what is not interesting to car manufacturers is the prospect of developing technology at huge huge costs, only to find themselves miles behind due to technology advances in different areas not being linear. The ACO is removing this inherent problem by balancing the technology, to allow companies to develop them without fear of falling behind. It encourages different routes and solutions to the same problem, which is why we've ended up with 4 different engine configurations, 2 different fuels, 2 different aspirations, and 3 different power storage systems, and god knows how many types of harvesting systems. The EoT is the only reason we have such amazing diversity in the WEC.

*I've seen many people say that this technology won't make its way to road cars and that its silly. And it won't make its way to regular road saloons within a couple of years no, but when they first invented petrol, the only thing they could think of using it for was stain removal. Times change and we should encourage progression.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

Audi won at Silverstone and at Spa. They had the quickest race pace at Silverstone, Spa and at Le Mans. They were substantially quicker than Porsche in sectors 1 and 3 at Le Mans.Why do they need a helping hand?

Didn't we already go through this million times before?

[J Jay]

Yep. I thought there was an amicable disagreement in place but that bump with KWC's comments has stirred the hornet's nest again. I guess this will roll on in some form right up until the end of the season.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

No, it is not to achieve good racing. That would be achieved in a much cheaper way by using weight penalties, reverse grids, or even single make (or limited choice) chassis. So no, the EoT is not here to produce good racing. If it was, then Toyota would've been given a large performance increase and Nissan would've been told they could stick a V12 in in the car and give it huge Can-Am wings. The EoT has never been about balancing the teams, otherwise it would operate on a team level, not a fuel and hybrid level..

BoP is even worse! Reverse grids and other fakery is not good racing in my book.
I was under the impression that EoT was essentially a tool to guarantee that no one manufacturer gained a huge performance advantage over the others as there are 3 manufacturers using three different tech solutions and it was not clear if the rules had correctly accounted for this. It was not supposed to be used as commonly as the BoP tool, but it was there to "correct" rule deficiencies as the tech was new. I could be wrong, but I distinctly remember reading this at the time.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by Chiana

Didn't we already go through this million times before?

No harm in going through it one million and one.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by J Jay

Yep. I thought there was an amicable disagreement in place but that bump with KWC's comments has stirred the hornet's nest again. I guess this will roll on in some form right up until the end of the season.

There is nothing bellicose in the current discussion. Just different points of view (I know that this is not tolerated these days, but I'm from another time).
Actually, there is nothing much to discuss: The rule has been changed. The results are predictable under normal circumstances (here the math will in fact resemble reality), some will rejoice; others will be sadden and others will loose interest. Tomorrow is another day.

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

There is nothing bellicose in the current discussion. Just different points of view (I know that this is not tolerated these days, but I'm from another time).

I wasn't suggesting any aggressive intent from either side of this debate, but when everyone acknowledges the different points of view why would you go over exactly the same arguments?* At this point it feels less like constructive discussion and more like two sides trying to drown each other out, which serves no good purpose and would only drive people who want to contribute away from the thread. Ultimately I'm afraid that this thread will resemble the Nissan LMP1 thread in style, if not quite matching it in intensity, with people eager to "get their point across," regardless of how many times it's been done before or whether it adds any new insight or information.

*Look back a few pages to when TF110 & I talked about this. If you replaced his avatar with yours and mine with Akrapovic's you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference between the two discussions. And you'll see in my last post that I acknowledged the different opinions we had and bowed out, so I can tolerate somebody not agreeing with me

[Spyderman]

I suppose that we can be divided as follows: Audi fans agree with the EoT change. All others don't. (Yes, I know TF110 also said this, but there is no rule about repeating a truism is there?)

[Deleted]

Lol what an absurd generalization

I'm not an Audi fan. Yet I don't have issues with this.

How about I say every Porsche fan disagrees with it and everybody else agrees? Equally absurd, and equally wrong.

[MyNameIsNigel]

I don't have issues with this either, but I have to admit my preference for Audi. So I guess Spyderman could be right

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by Chiana

Lol what an absurd generalization

I'm not an Audi fan. Yet I don't have issues with this.

How about I say every Porsche fan disagrees with it and everybody else agrees? Equally absurd, and equally wrong.

It's a generalization (I'll give you that) but there is nothing absurd about it. At least not to many reasonable folk.
You are not everyone. There are always exceptions. Rest easy and take pride that you are exceptional. If you are truly not an Audi fan, lets discuss this again in 3 or 4 races time and see how you like it then.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

I don't have issues with this either, but I have to admit my preference for Audi. So I guess Spyderman could be right

Thank you for your honesty.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

It's a generalization (I'll give you that) but there is nothing absurd about it. At least not to many reasonable folk.
You are not everyone. There are always exceptions. Rest easy and take pride that you are exceptional. If you are truly not an Audi fan, lets discuss this again in 3 or 4 races time and see how you like it then.

The suggestion you've made here is that if you're not an Audi fan then in 3 or 4 races you'll be unhappy because Audi are winning. It's an extremely narrow view to suggest that you will not be happy unless your team wins. Some of us just love the racing.

For the record, I was supporting the #18 Porsche for the Le Mans win. If there more exceptions to the rule than people who adhere to it, then it's no longer a rule - it's just nonsense.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

The suggestion you've made here is that if you're not an Audi fan then in 3 or 4 races you'll be unhappy because Audi are winning. It's an extremely narrow view to suggest that you will not be happy unless your team wins. Some of us just love the racing..

This is not what I'm suggesting at all. What I'm suggesting is that unbiased racing fans (of which I'm not one) will perhaps enjoy seeing a battle for the win; not predefined victories (barring sand bags and unforeseeable events)

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

For the record, I was supporting the #18 Porsche for the Le Mans win. If there more exceptions to the rule than people who adhere to it, then it's no longer a rule - it's just nonsense.

Please don't be silly! Many, many non Audi fans were enquiring why this was undertaken now. 10/10tenths is not the universe, Go out . Live a little!

[Deleted]

The only team in LMP1 I'm actually actively supporting and showing allegiance is Rebellion - and even there I'm not all uber fanboy biased, as evidenced by my rants for organizers handing out separate trophies for hollowly separated sub classes and how I feel almost embarrassed by them standing out on top podium step for 8th or 17th place finishes, seemingly happy about it.

The other guys in class, I'm fairly neutral. Audi and Porsche, I'm happy if either wins for different reasons, and Toyota too nowadays that the regulations have been fixed for more stability, even though their eternal Scrooge McDuck attitude is still counterproductive. But I guess cheap yen becomes top dollar if they were to make superior car to win Le Mans. Even Nissan I'd like to succeed in theory, it's only their awfully horrible PR that completely puts them to the bottom drawer, but that could be fixed it they cleared their act and swiped all that crap in the bin concentrating on actual business at hand (not holding my breath on that though). Finally Kolles is super easy to make cheap jokes of and I do practice that a lot because of plain obvious reasons, but in reality I'd like them to succeed, not only because they actually support the sparsely attended part of racing in current climate.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Some of us just love the racing.

I would extend that to say that some of us love the racing when it is fair. However... I am not saying the new EoT values are unfair. But I am also a Porsche fan so I am suspicious. Currently I am giving the ACO/FIA the benefit of doubt and am accepting the change at face value. I can be of two minds and have conflicting thoughts!

As to EoT in general... My limited understanding is that for the most part the core is about setting a level playing field with respect to extracting energy from a given fuel (diesel and petrol). However what bothers me about the calculations is that it adds in the "K Technology Factor" (KTF) which IMHO really is a BoP style value to adjust for the fact that diesel engines are heavier than petrol. Normally that fact would put a diesel at a disadvantage "in a race car" in that weight optimization (ability to place it where you want it) impacts performance and being forced to carry more weight in your engine reduces your overall flexibility. But KTF adjusts (handicaps) the final EoT values to compensate for the diesel engine weight disadvantage. I view that as unfair "to the goal of the energy based equivalency", but I am sure Audi fought to include it in the formula.

But.. EoT is "Equivalence of Technology" and not "Equivalence of Fuel" so it lumps the power plant and fuel together. We just have to understand that BoP is part of this given we are otherwise in an "energy" based series. Thankfully at least it is not supposed to be done at the team level. But with Audi being the only diesel team, it somewhat plays out that way.

Richard

[Spyderman]

As usual Richard, you say it so much better than most. A true gentleman.

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I would extend that to say that some of us love the racing when it is fair. However... I am not saying the new EoT values are unfair. But I am also a Porsche fan so I am suspicious. Currently I am giving the ACO/FIA the benefit of doubt and am accepting the change at face value. I can be of two minds and have conflicting thoughts!

As to EoT in general... My limited understanding is that for the most part the core is about setting a level playing field with respect to extracting energy from a given fuel (diesel and petrol). However what bothers me about the calculations is that it adds in the "K Technology Factor" (KTF) which IMHO really is a BoP style value to adjust for the fact that diesel engines are heavier than petrol. Normally that fact would put a diesel at a disadvantage "in a race car" in that weight optimization (ability to place it where you want it) impacts performance and being forced to carry more weight in your engine reduces your overall flexibility. But KTF adjusts (handicaps) the final EoT values to compensate for the diesel engine weight disadvantage. I view that as unfair "to the goal of the energy based equivalency", but I am sure Audi fought to include it in the formula.

But.. EoT is "Equivalence of Technology" and not "Equivalence of Fuel" so it lumps the power plant and fuel together. We just have to understand that BoP is part of this given we are otherwise in an "energy" based series. Thankfully at least it is not supposed to be done at the team level. But with Audi being the only diesel team, it somewhat plays out that way.

Richard

Now this post I like, even though I agree with almost none of it! Let's get started...

You are right to mention the obvious disadvantage of diesel in a racing application - weight. However, there are advantages as well and in your scenario these aren't accounted for. For instance why not give diesel and petrol cars the same size fuel tanks? That would match the real life scenario, where people choose diesel despite its disadvantages over petrol in some situations because per unit volume there is more extractable energy (road relevance - check!). I would suggest that this is more fair than your proposal, where you only remove the KTF and then declare things balanced. Petrol goes faster, diesel goes longer

It is a complicated situation and to be honest removing diesel from the equation (pun intended) would make things a lot simpler for everyone - perhaps if the ACO weren't so gung-ho to get Peugeot involved they could have seen off this problem. But a whole host of factors come into play when balancing two fundamentally different ICE technologies and you either account for (equalize) all of them or none of them.

In the interest of clarity, I should state that I'm not arguing for or against any fuel type or team, but I am assuming that whatever decision the ACO has taken for EoT purposes is correct (given the information they have from the factories) and going from there.

[MyNameIsNigel]

I have posted this before, but why not imposing a weight handicap to the petrol cars to directly compensate for the additional weight of the diesel engine and get rid of the KTF altogether ? Wouldn't this be fairer or at least more transparent ?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

As usual Richard, you say it so much better than most. A true gentleman.

Originally Posted by J Jay

Now this post I like, even though I agree with almost none of it!

Thank you.

Originally Posted by J Jay

It is a complicated situation and to be honest removing diesel from the equation (pun intended) would make things a lot simpler for everyone - perhaps if the ACO weren't so gung-ho to get Peugeot involved they could have seen off this problem. But a whole host of factors come into play when balancing two fundamentally different ICE technologies and you either account for (equalize) all of them or none of them.

So I like your entire post, but wanted to highlight the part above as I really agree with it. I do understand that my simple scenario is... overly simple. I fixed all variables and adjusted only one when I know there are many variables at play. It is complex problem to solve/balance. The solution is also a mixture of science and politics (which is not good IMHO) and the introduction of politics allows for these conversations and disagreements to exist.

I admit I would like to have a single fuel and lean toward petrol out of tradition even though you will commonly find me railing against the use of tradition to justify things like this. I can be a hypocrite at times just like most everyone else.

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

I have posted this before, but why not imposing a weight handicap to the petrol cars to directly compensate for the additional weight of the diesel engine and get rid of the KTF altogether ? Wouldn't this be fairer or at least more transparent ?

Ignoring the issue of fuel tank size for moment...

Would this be extra weight added after the car is able to make minimum weight? I think that is what you are saying?

Part of the KTF calculations is to use the best in class (based upon BSFC) engine to determine the weights of a petrol and diesel engine. That could be the basis for your weight penalty to be applied to the petrol car. But... if this is to end up adding weight beyond the minimum weight of the car, petrol teams would just increase the weight of the petrol engine to make it heavier so that the delta is zero and you get no extra weight penalty. And they would do this by adding weight in a way that might increase reliability vs. just ballasting up the engine.

Even then, to really do what you say, I think a better way is to define a minimum weight (with specific center of gravity) for the power unit. Teams could either ballast the unit to get to that spec, or a combo of ballast plus distributing the weight to help with reliability and maybe performance. I may not be remembering this correctly, but doesn't F1 specify a minimum weight and specific CG for their power units as way to try to keep teams from using extraordinary measures to reduce engine weight (such as exotic materials and expensive light weight ancillary components)???

Richard

PS: It should be said that this type of regulations is IMHO putting a box around designers along the path that has caused problems in F1, but has not in WEC.

[deggis]

For Spyderman:

http://www.fia.com/sites/default/fil...2014%20EoT.pdf

Some of the formulas include lap times as parameters, but they're not the main thing.