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

[Acid09]

Originally Posted by ger80

Why dont they leave LMP2 for LMS/ALMS?

Again with this? What`s your problem with the LMP2 class?

It has to be included in the WEC since they race at Le Mans anyways.

[gwyllion]

Another new rule tweak that has not yet been mentioned.

The release of energy is allowed on the front wheels but only above 120 km/h.

This limits the potential abuse of the electric front wheel drive as drivers aid. However, it completely contradicts the requirement that the hybrid system must be able to drive 400 meter through the pit lane at 60 km/h

Note that the mandatory louvers on the rear fenders are also confirmed.

the dorsal element on the engine cover, the shark’s fin, will become mandatory on all LM P1, LM P2 and FLM prototypes and openings will be made above the front and rear wheels.

BTW I did not expect the dorsal fin to be mandated for FLM.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by deggis

Otherwise that's the same as in the WMSC decisions last month, but the part saying "In order to control costs, there will be limits on private testing and the number of engines used during a season" is no longer there. I dunno if it's supposed be if the Comission is still pondering those things.

That WMSC press release suggested that the rearview visibility would only be improved for GTE cars, whereas the ACO article states that the rules apply to all cars except LMP1.

Personally I find it strange that the LMP1 will not get the bigger and electronically adjustable rearview mirrors. The majority of the incidents this year has been caused by Audi drivers

BTW Audi will be happy that they keep their bright LED headlights because the rearview mirrors of slower cars must be "equipped with a night mode".

[chernaudi]

Actually, larger mirrors are possible for LMPs according to this article:

http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/artic...owed-for-2012/

LMP1 diesels will have a theoretical 6-7% power reduction, 5 liters less fuel, and all LMP1, -2, and -C cars will have the dorsal fin next year (as mentioned).

And all LMP(?) and GT cars will have larger rearview mirrors and all GT cars must have a rearview monitor, which is optional for closed LMPs.

It seems that this article only covers general terms, though, and there's probably more specific info elsewhere, but those seem to be the highlights.

[TF110]

So everyone will have the rear-view monitor, some will have bigger mirrors.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by Victor_RO

Sounds like the ACO also know of a factory petrol P1 effort on the very near horizon and want it to have a fighting chance against Audi and Peugeot.

Fighting chance? Ha......double ha.....yeah right. If Toyota has done any sort of homework, they could step right in an waltz away with victory it seems. Typical short sighted regulations by the ACO. Maybe they know Peugeot and Audi are committed so they are trying to shower Toyota with gifts in order to get them to arrive as well.

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see if IMSA gives the ALMS runners favorable regulations at Sebring. The diesel cutbacks plus favorable ALMS regulations means someone like Cytosport (perhaps with an ARX-03a) can go in and give the diesels the business. How would Strakka feel about that if Cytosport have an advantage over them that allows their competitor with the same car to have an advantage? Yeah, it'll be interesting to see how this potentially all fails out!

The LMP2 rule seems silly as well. I don't get it. So if a particular model (not just manufacturer it seems) isn't run in the WEC, it can't run in the LMS/Le Mans (and ALMS?)? Or can't run as cost-capped? What's the deal? Is the WEC trying to screw over the LMS and ALMS? And the chassis companies? Surely there isn't much interest in WEC LMP2 so this may be a way to get interest, but it just does not make a lot of sense. Is this another "Way to blow" ACO regulation?

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

And all LMP(?) and GT cars will have larger rearview mirrors and all GT cars must have a rearview monitor, which is optional for closed LMPs.

Please read the full article on http://www.lemans.org/en/races/inter...ions_5410.html

To improve rearward visibility (with the exception of the LM P1s), the size of the rearview mirrors will be increased, and they must be equipped with a night mode as well as an electrical adjustment system that enables the driver in the cockpit to alter the rearview mirrors to meet his needs.

Originally Posted by TF110

So everyone will have the rear-view monitor, some will have bigger mirrors.

No. The rearview monitor is mandatory for GTE and optional for other classes.

The camera system at the rear will be mandatory on LM GTE cars and allowed on all the others.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by AGD

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see if IMSA gives the ALMS runners favorable regulations at Sebring. The diesel cutbacks plus favorable ALMS regulations means someone like Cytosport (perhaps with an ARX-03a) can go in and give the diesels the business. How would Strakka feel about that if Cytosport have an advantage over them that allows their competitor with the same car to have an advantage? Yeah, it'll be interesting to see how this potentially all fails out!

That question is completely hypothetical. In Sebring the FIA/ACO technical rules will be valid because it is a WEC round.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

That question is completely hypothetical. In Sebring the FIA/ACO technical rules will be valid because it is a WEC round.

There is still some confusion on this, but the ALMS said that the ALMS cars will run in a ALMS P1 class and the WEC cars will run in a WEC P1 class. So, the P1s could run to different rules. We will see how different they will be, but in theory the ALMS could allow their teams to make a charge for the overall win.

[deggis]

Whatever, but Plassart contradicted it => http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...76#post2966676

Different classes or not but it would be the most nonsensical thing ever with LMP regs.

[chernaudi]

And does anyone really think that the diesels will have reduced range or power if they decide to run hybrid systems on their cars? I think that it will do very little, as with the last gen cars the ACO tried to take away 10% power in '09 and the cars were faster than ever at Sebring and in '10 (after another attempt at a 5% power reduction) were faster than ever in race trim at Le Mans.

I think that either the ACO did this to reduce the pace that the factory cars will get faster (making them do R&D work to maintain the current pace vs them being that much faster next year), or they know that the hybrid systems on the diesel will likely open up a different can of worms.

And these rules may favor Audi, because we have to remember why they went with the V10 in the R15--it's lighter and smaller, and was designed knowing about the power cuts that were coming. You'd have to believe that Audi knew that power cuts were coming for '12 without a doubt.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by deggis

=> http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...76#post2966676

Plassart says one thing, Atherton says another thing. I know "Atherton says..." is a running joke, but it did not sound like what he was saying was just wishful speculation.

As far as reducing the speed of the diesels as a preemptive measure, maybe, but then why not slow everyone down the same? It seems like only the diesels are being punished for doing homework if that is the case.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

And does anyone really think that the diesels will have reduced range or power if they decide to run hybrid systems on their cars?

I doubt hybrid cars will get an extra lap on a fuel tank in Le Mans, considering that they have to run with a 2 liter smaller fuel tank and the use of the KERS is limited to the number of braking zones.

I think that it will do very little, as with the last gen cars the ACO tried to take away 10% power in '09 and the cars were faster than ever at Sebring and in '10 (after another attempt at a 5% power reduction) were faster than ever in race trim at Le Mans.

Perhaps, but the rate of development in diesel race engines will eventually decrease. So there is probably less room for big improvements; e.g., Audi is already using a VTG turbo on the R18 engine.

Originally Posted by chernaudi

And these rules may favor Audi, because we have to remember why they went with the V10 in the R15--it's lighter and smaller, and was designed knowing about the power cuts that were coming. You'd have to believe that Audi knew that power cuts were coming for '12 without a doubt.

The choice of a V10 for the R15 was nice in theory, but in practice the Peugeot V12 was still more powerful and more fuel efficient...

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by AGD

As far as reducing the speed of the diesels as a preemptive measure, maybe, but then why not slow everyone down the same? It seems like only the diesels are being punished for doing homework if that is the case.

If you also slow down the petrol powered LMP1s, the speed difference between the different classes will even be smaller.

Diesels had a huge top speed advantage in Le Mans. Remember the highest top speed was around 340 km/h for diesel powered LMP1s, 320 km/h for petrol powered LMP1s and 300 km/h for LMP2s. This discrepancy is being addressed with the 2012 rules.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

If you also slow down the petrol powered LMP1s, the speed difference between the different classes will even be smaller.

Diesels had a huge top speed advantage in Le Mans. Remember the highest top speed was around 340 km/h for diesel powered LMP1s, 320 km/h for petrol powered LMP1s and 300 km/h for LMP2s. This discrepancy is being addressed with the 2012 rules.

If you have LMP1 equipment and you're battling with or getting beaten by LMP2s when other LMP1s are doing just fine, maybe you're in the wrong class if you care about results.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by AGD

There is still some confusion on this, but the ALMS said that the ALMS cars will run in a ALMS P1 class and the WEC cars will run in a WEC P1 class. So, the P1s could run to different rules. We will see how different they will be, but in theory the ALMS could allow their teams to make a charge for the overall win.

I still fail to see how this would happen. The rules for petrol powered LMP1s stay the same, only diesel powered LMP1s are slowed down. For your hypothetical scenario, the IMSA must give extra performance breaks to their petrol powered LMP1s, compared to the 2011 LMP1 rules... Why would they do that?

Originally Posted by AGD

If you have LMP1 equipment and you're battling with or getting beaten by LMP2s when other LMP1s are doing just fine, maybe you're in the wrong class if you care about results.

I don't get your point. The ACO/FIA is addressing the fact that diesel powered cars have an unfair performance advantage.

[deggis]

Judging from the previous discussions on this subject, AGD thinks there is no advantage.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by deggis

Judging from the previous discussions on this subject, AGD thinks there is no advantage.

Okay, so AGD believes that the ACO and FIA experts who had access to detailed telemetry logs (including accelerating times) and the secret real-life power/torque number from the engine manufacturers, are completely incompetent.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by deggis

Judging from the previous discussions on this subject, AGD thinks there is no advantage.

Bingo! I don't see what all the complaining is all about. Ok, Audi and Peugeot are faster than all the Judds and Zyteks 3.4L V8s. So what? The HPDs and RS Spyders were way faster than the Judd and Zytek 3.4L V8s in the past couple of years as well. If I remember correctly (I'm going on memory here because I've looked these numbers up before), the time difference between the pole sitting Audi and the fastest petrol car was ~7 seconds. In 2010, the speed difference in LMP2 between the fastest HPD and the fastest non-HPD was ~7.5 seconds. So explain that. The HPDs had such a massive advantage because of the diesel regulations? Ha.

Originally Posted by gwyllion

I still fail to see how this would happen. The rules for petrol powered LMP1s stay the same, only diesel powered LMP1s are slowed down. For your hypothetical scenario, the IMSA must give extra performance breaks to their petrol powered LMP1s, compared to the 2011 LMP1 rules... Why would they do that?
I don't get your point. The ACO/FIA is addressing the fact that diesel powered cars have an unfair performance advantage.

The ALMS already gave their LMP1s performance breaks over the normal ACO rules. They had to take those advantages off for Petit and Sebring. The teams were not happy about that. So, yes, I could see the ALMS/IMSA giving their teams an advantage over the ACO/WEC petrol runners.

[The Badger]

And , these rules are not the end result , yet . Another meeting on the 21 November . So , dont lets get too excited .

So , with this set of rules , the ACO admit that they made a balls of it for the last few years ?

Dont see the point of a fin on the LMPC cars as they are on a par with GT right now .

We will see speeds increasing with hybrid . The porpose is to get to top end as fast as possible which will have the car at top end for longer . And then their trying to drop the speeds ..... Im confused .

Agree with the monitor in GT .....

I can see Sebring on the list , but maybe not Road Atlanta . But they do say a minimum of 6 races , and that leaves the exact number open at this stage of the game . The world is a big place to justify 2 races in America . Except America is a big market . Not sure what to think about that .

Dont like the double points for Le Mans .

[AGD]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Okay, so AGD believes that the ACO and FIA experts who had access to detailed telemetry logs (including accelerating times) and the secret real-life power/torque number from the engine manufacturers, are completely incompetent.

Data is just data. There's more to the story than the data. The story is that the 3.4L Judds and Zyteks suck. They suck very badly. They are complete rubbish. They are low budget engines designed some years ago for low budget LMP2 teams. And that's just the engines. There are probably big differences in the quality of the Audi/Peugeot chassis and tires as compared to the ones run by the petrol privateers. If you don't believe that, explain why the HPDs and RS Spyders were so much better in previous years. Just look at the numbers I posted in the previous post.

All these complaints are quite silly IMO. Engines designed for the Juan Barazi's of the world aren't good enough to beat $100m programs from Audi and Peugeot? Well no sh!t Sherlock!

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by AGD

The ALMS already gave their LMP1s performance breaks over the normal ACO rules. They had to take those advantages off for Petit and Sebring. The teams were not happy about that. So, yes, I could see the ALMS/IMSA giving their teams an advantage over the ACO/WEC petrol runners.

Think one moment about what you are saying. Your prediction is that Sebring 2012 will be a race with 8 classes (WEC LMP1, WEC LMP2, WEC GTE-Pro, WEC GTE-Am, ALMS LMP, ALMS LMPC, ALMS GT, ALMS GTC) instead of the 6 class race of this year. Try to explain that to the spectators

[AGD]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Think one moment about what you are saying. Your prediction is that Sebring 2012 will be a race with 8 classes (WEC LMP1, WEC LMP2, WEC GTE-Pro, WEC GTE-Am, ALMS LMP, ALMS LMPC, ALMS GT, ALMS GTC) instead of the 6 class race of this year. Try to explain that to the spectators

It's 9 classes actually. WEC P1, ALMS P1, WEC P2, ALMS P2, WEC GTE-Pro, ALMS GT, WEC GTE-Am, ALMS GTC, ALMS LMPC. It's confusing and I'm not saying that I agree with it, but that is what Atherton said will happen. Maybe LMP2 and GTE-P/GT rules can be harmonized so they can run together, but I don't know. Each series will get 30 entries for a total max of 60. Of course, what Plassart says contradicts what Atherton said. I don't know what to make of all of this.

Oh, and read my previous post!

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by AGD

Data is just data. There's more to the story than the data. The story is that the 3.4L Judds and Zyteks suck. They suck very badly. They are complete rubbish. They are low budget engines designed some years ago for low budget LMP2 teams. And that's just the engines.

Okay, again you seem to know more that other forum members. So the experts did not get any technical information of the engines from TMG, HPD, AER (Mazda) and Prodive (Aston Martin). That was not mentioned in ACO press article.

Originally Posted by AGD

There are probably big differences in the quality of the Audi/Peugeot chassis and tires as compared to the ones run by the petrol privateers.

Please explain how the tires and the chassis make a difference in straightline acceleration. Acceleration is all about the engine. Yes, better aero (less drag) also has a role, but that only comes in play at high speed (terminal velocity).

If you don't believe that, explain why the HPDs and RS Spyders were so much better in previous years. Just look at the numbers I posted in the previous post.

For the same reason that the Strakka and RML ARX-01d could do those great qualifying laps this year, even though they were highly down on power with the HPD V6 turbo engine: the cars were phenomenal in corners because of superior chassis and aero

[JAG]

Originally Posted by ger80

Why dont they leave LMP2 for LMS/ALMS?

A. The WEC grid should refelct Le Mans and P2 is an integral part with interesting chassis/engine combinations.

B. If a team requires a major media profile they need to be in the WEC/ALMS. If they need to compete in Europe to fit around the owner/drivers business commitments, for budget reasons, or simply to gain more experience, the LMS is the arena for them.