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

[JAG]

Originally Posted by lms

the aerodynamics/car dimensions too? I thought that various safety structures must be FIA approved, and thats where the FIA "involvment" ends (rules regarding the "survival cell" for instance - from the 2010 LMS rulebook)

The ACO, FIA, manufactuers and constructors work together on current and future regs, the FIA helped with the investigation into cars getting air and led to shorter overhangs and different floors.

For all we know a 2014 car may look like a Group C with a short rear, outboard rear wing and wider cockpit. Whatever the case these regs are due to be published before the end of the year and interested parties like Porsche will have known what they where buying into back in June.

[lms]

i see. thanks for the info

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by JAG

Supercars race each weekend in the UK with one man and his dog watching, uninspiring family cars in the BTCC draw the crowds. It's manufactuers and sponsors who draw the eyeballs, or rather tell people what they should be watching. Bring manufactuers to sportscars and you'll attract more media and fan interest.

Good point.
Only mildly related, but it strikes me that the fans the manufacturers want to attract aren't us. We're here already. So our wants and suggestions are precisely those that they shouldn't listen too.

[Aysedasi]

Almost certainly so - a bit like loyal sportscar fan readers of motorsport magazines....

[Adam43]

Good point, they can alienate what they already have. Took me years to cancel the subscription though!
Still, we should be careful what we wish for? Do we want it more popular, that might mean more like TC or F1 or football or X-factor. Not that fundamentally thre is anything wrong with TC, F1 or NFL. However Sportscar shouldn't be like that.

This is all a little off topic, I'll split if this line of discussion takes off. To be fair it probably doesn't need to.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by deggis

With that logic Audi is doing nothing significantly different from Peugoet with diesel engines...

Maybe, maybe not. Peugeot and Audi have taken different philosophies in terms of engine size. Audi's choice is actually consistent with their Audi Ultra marketing strategy. They are definitely rumored to have a very different hybrid system than Peugeot, but I don't know if we'll see it in 2012. Audi does not seem very happy about the hybrid regs.

Originally Posted by Adam43

Good point, they can alienate what they already have. Took me years to cancel the subscription though!
Still, we should be careful what we wish for? Do we want it more popular, that might mean more like TC or F1 or football or X-factor. Not that fundamentally thre is anything wrong with TC, F1 or NFL. However Sportscar shouldn't be like that.

This is all a little off topic, I'll split if this line of discussion takes off. To be fair it probably doesn't need to.

I think this is relevant to the topic. I think there is an opinion amongst some that sports car racing is too "boring" and that it can be spiced up with closer racing. This can be altered in many ways. Change race procedures (more FCYs), use more performance balancing amongst the teams, and balance of technologies can all be used to close the field. The latter point is a big question when it comes to the 2014 regulations. If there is a consumption formula, how will the fuels be balanced? That is probably the easy part. How the hybrid regulations are written and stuff like that could be more contentious. My hope is that the regs allow for open competition and not for some sort of controlled competition.

I know this is a touchy subject particularly right now, but there has to be some questions about how much impact "safety" has on car design regulations. There is debate about how risky a formula of racing should be, but beyond that, what happens when the new safety regulations actually make racing less safe? That seems to be what Audi is accusing the ACO of doing with the 2012 regulations. I wonder what Lola, Oreca, and other chassis makers feel. Also, look at the IRL. Nobody will deny that 220 mph is safer for those cars than 260 or whatever they could do with much lesser rules, but what happens when the speeds are controlled and held so that everyone runs just about the same speed? It makes passing difficult and makes the cars run closer. That isn't always safe. That could potentially be a problem both within classes and between classes.

As far as popularity goes, I sincerely hope that sports car racing never becomes popular on a general scale. This should not be racing for the masses. Trying to make endurance racing into something satisfying for today's short attention span can only lead to disaster. I do hope it is popular amongst the gearhead crowd though. That's what is important. To that extent, I hope automakers are trying to woo that crowd and not the coveted 30-60 year old female sedan, van, and SUV buying demographic. If car guys and gals approve of what automakers are doing, it will trickle down to what mainstream buyers buy. There is no need to address it directly through sports car racing.

[JAG]

OAKS already tested the holes according to Autosport and say they don't have a great effect on drag/downforce. A 250mm x 200mm template has to fit inside, teams also have until 1st April to update their cars, they'll run with a weight penalty until the change is made.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by JAG

OAKS already tested the holes according to Autosport and say they don't have a great effect on drag/downforce. A 250mm x 200mm template has to fit inside, teams also have until 1st April to update their cars, they'll run with a weight penalty until the change is made.

This is VERY hard to believe. Louvers on their own have a powerful effect. These are holes nearly 3 times the surface area.

[kober]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

This is VERY hard to believe. Louvers on their own have a powerful effect. These are holes nearly 3 times the surface area.

I'm not an aero expert by any means, but I could bet that the effect is not linear. The difference between no and small holes (louvers) can be huge, but between small and (three times as) large might be negligible.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by kober

I'm not an aero expert by any means, but I could bet that the effect is not linear. The difference between no and small holes (louvers) can be huge, but between small and (three times as) large might be negligible.

The 2012 1000 cm^2 holes are uncovered. There should be expectation of a large change, and this has been verified: 2.5% forward balance shift and an increase in drag. The balance shift can be rebalanced with more rear aero, but this simply increases drag further.

[deggis]

=> http://tentenths.com/forum/showpost....postcount=1657

"The rule change will only lead to slight reductions and increases in downforce and drag respectively, according to OAK Racing boss Francois Sicard."

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

This is VERY hard to believe. Louvers on their own have a powerful effect. These are holes nearly 3 times the surface area.

Will they increase downforce , by relieving the pressure in the wheel well and make the front diffuser more efficient Mike please ?

I really dont think they look all that bad . As a spectator they should be fairly invisible from my standpoint ..... and they could also be a lot worse too .

Still detest that vertical slab they call a good idea though .

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by deggis

=> http://tentenths.com/forum/showpost....postcount=1657

"The rule change will only lead to slight reductions and increases in downforce and drag respectively, according to OAK Racing boss Francois Sicard."

As one rival told me just this morning, "If Oak did not measure any effect, well, good luck to them!"

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Will they increase downforce , by relieving the pressure in the wheel well and make the front diffuser more efficient Mike please ?

I really dont think they look all that bad . As a spectator they should be fairly invisible from my standpoint ..... and they could also be a lot worse too .

Still detest that vertical slab they call a good idea though .

Yes, it causes a bit of havoc with the splitter. And I inquired about rebalancing by reducing front and was told that unloading the splitter would make the car even more pitch sensitive (big loss @ high RHs, little/no loss at low) and that L/D would suffer further as the splitter is the most efficient aero device on the car.

[NelisB]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

As one rival told me just this morning, "If Oak did not measure any effect, well, good luck to them!"

Well that sounds good then. OAK running one of the better cars next year. No negative impact on performance with the holes.

[CTD]

Could this increase in front downforce have an effect on the new "wide fronts" trend?

[Pandamasque]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

Yes, it causes a bit of havoc with the splitter. And I inquired about rebalancing by reducing front and was told that unloading the splitter would make the car even more pitch sensitive (big loss @ high RHs, little/no loss at low) and that L/D would suffer further as the splitter is the most efficient aero device on the car.

I'm I right in making a conclusion that the best reaction would be to balance it out with more rear DF instead of reducing from DF? So the result of the whole rule change is MORE overall DF and drag? That means lower top speeds and acceleration, but faster cornering = and yet more troubles in traffic for P1. Just what they needed... least.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

This is VERY hard to believe. Louvers on their own have a powerful effect. These are holes nearly 3 times the surface area.

Francios Sicard of OAK says the downforce/drag differences are slight and they've gained some back in the wind tunnel.

The 908 is used to illustrate the change and the template over the front wheel covers approximately half of the front louver (a little larger than the car number sticker). Is there anything prevent the use of louvers fore and aft of the hole?

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by JAG

Francios Sicard of OAK says the downforce/drag differences are slight and they've gained some back in the wind tunnel.

The 908 is used to illustrate the change and the template over the front wheel covers approximately half of the front louver (a little larger than the car number sticker). Is there anything prevent the use of louvers fore and aft of the hole?

I'm going to go out on a limb and state those efforts that were getting maximum performance out of their splitter are going to be the ones suffering. As to fore and aft louverage, don't know. It was initially described that the entire 1000 cm^2 was open.

[chernaudi]

When Audi was testing at Estroil a few days ago, they ran the R18 with what seemed to be 2011 LM bodywork. I wonder if that bares any relevance as Audi will have to update their bodywork to the new specs eventually anyways, and they were testing 2012 spec tires?

Of course, it should be noted with the R10 and especially the R8 that Audi was one of the biggest offenders of blowing out the fender louvers in the endurance races, namely PLM, and the Audi guys, especially at Champion, rarely bothered to fix the damage as there was no rule in play at the time, and it gave more front downforce. So Audi undoubtedly know something of what the holes will do at the front, but I think that having similar holes over the rear will be the big variable, as I don't think that many if anyone has any real experience with that, certainly with this generation of LMP car.

[gregtummer]

Why don't we just take the drivers out of the cars and let them steer them with radio controlled devices in the pits?

That will make everything 100% safe.

This is getting beyond ridiculous.

[Félix]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

I'm going to go out on a limb and state those efforts that were getting maximum performance out of their splitter are going to be the ones suffering. As to fore and aft louverage, don't know. It was initially described that the entire 1000 cm^2 was open.

That's what I thought: It seems that car development will start anew with the big shift in balance that comes with the 2012 louver rules. They supercharge the front diffuser AND spoil airflow to the rear wing, therefore moving the center of pressure towards the front by what I imagine is a massive amount. This changes everything because in the last 10-15 years, a lot of development resources have been spent on getting more downforce from the front diffuser. We've seen raised footboxes, complex surface treatment on windtunnel model diffusers and advanced pontoon-like air management around and downstream of the front wheels to extract precious pounds of downforce that would always be easily balanced by efficient rear wings. Now, it seems that the front can easily generate more downforce than the rear for a change. Pescarolo have always been very good at tuning their chassis and they never benefited from the expensive research programs richer teams had to extract more front downforce from their cars, so this is making me optimistic. Twitchier cars might also be good for spectacle and should give something more interesting to watch to spectators who are used to train-like Audis and Peugeots.
--
The next interesting bit of info will be how they comply with these new hole rules. They are most probably loosely written and will surely allow punching holes inside of the wheels - where it might be more aerodynamically advantageous - to fit the template. I think that's what I saw on the Aragon R18 pics: daylight in the wheel-well looking from behind.

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by gregtummer

Why don't we just take the drivers out of the cars and let them steer them with radio controlled devices in the pits?

That will make everything 100% safe.

This is getting beyond ridiculous.

Yep ..... its a laugh to be honest . Motorsport has never been so safe . You cant make anything 100% safe , ever .

[deggis]

Originally Posted by gregtummer

Why don't we just take the drivers out of the cars and let them steer them with radio controlled devices in the pits?

That will make everything 100% safe.

This is getting beyond ridiculous.

I don't think it's stupidy, but ACO must be just really scared of a worst case scenario and for a good reason. Just look at the sh!tstorm after Wheldon's death. Perhaps not so good comparison, but there is sort of a pattern. Imagine if one of the airborne crashes from past years had not ended in a happy way. I could imagine extreme comments like "La Sarthe is 20 years behind in safety" and so on. When some dies, suddenly everybody cares and that must create huge pressure.

[AGD]

Safety regulations, at least in other forms of racing, have not always exactly had "safe" consequences all of the time. A big reason why the IRL has the aero regulations they have is to keep speeds down. The same could be said about NASCAR restrictor plates. Ok, entertainment has certainly helped keep those rules packages around as well, but neither have exactly created a safe environment even if they have created a safer environment. I guess you could say it is two steps forward and one back.

Anyway, I'm not saying these new ACO regulations are going to be like that, but there are issues that must be considered. Just generally speaking, the rules have to allow for the different classes to pass each other safely. I can't really say what kind of impact the rules will have on car stability, but that may or may not be a fair trade off when it comes to safety.

I don't know the proper way to deal with the situation, but racing leagues have to find a proper balance between racing and safety. If we look at the the IRL again, the lack of speed from the cars has helped reduce interest in the sport. Track records at Indy qualifying were a big deal, but obviously it would not be a good idea to allow those cars to do 250mph averages or whatever else they could do with easing of the regulations. Too much safety or a lack of safety can kill a series, but finding the right balance isn't always easy.