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

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

Yes, but there is no indication that the new class will actually be based upon road car models. In fact, what's been stated is closer to LMP1 with road car grills than anything else. To make it sort of look like a hypercar. So closer to GT500 than GTE.

And nobody in this thread insinuated anything about LMP1 becoming a "Super GTE" so why are you making such a stink about it?

[TF110]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

Yes, but there is no indication that the new class will actually be based upon road car models. In fact, what's been stated is closer to LMP1 with road car grills than anything else. To make it sort of look like a hypercar. So closer to GT500 than GTE.

I know. I wasn't saying they'd be road car based. I was confused by your post

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

And nobody in this thread insinuated anything about LMP1 becoming a "Super GTE" so why are you making such a stink about it?

Maybe it was just a misunderstanding. Whatever the cars become, hopefully they're cool and fast.

[Adam43]

I think we’re done on this little point now.

We don’t have the detail and some users are more interested in finding how they can prove others wrong rather than discussing the topic.

[Coach Ep]

At least five manufacturers: Toyota, Ford, McLaren, Aston Martin and Ferrari, have been in roundtable meetings for the new regs, which could also be adopted in the IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship.

Of those 5, 4 are already heavily involved with the ACO so 1 additional manufacturer if McLaren were to join (definitely not a mainstream but a niche one). No word about BMW or one of the French OEM's for example. Do we know if any of them were/are (rumored to be) involved in the talks?

IMSA wise, there's only one of those 5 currently involved in an official factory capacity (Ford, Ferrari is 'semi' at best). I don't see the 'overlap potential' for involved manufacturers simply because they're hardly involved with the two series. And then there's the hybrid issue for IMSA to tackle.

[chernaudi]

The problem is that the ACO have released few details and as of right now everything is just a proposal, not fact yet.

We do know their intentions, but that's it. And with this being only a proposal, it's not static. We also know that the ACO did seemingly try for something somewhat similar back about a decade ago but it went nowhere.

I wish we had more details and more items set in stone, but then again I'm also in favor of the ACO getting a rules package up and running sooner rather than later. I'm also in favor of IMSA and the ACO sharing rules, even if broadly, for the top class so that like GTLM/GTE-Pro the same basic cars can race in either series and the big races in each series.

[Irie]

Absolutely horrible
http://sportscar365.com/lemans/wec/s...h-development/

“Very roughly, it’s where we control the engine performance, the hybrid system performance and the aero performance, and you define the car with which you want to compete but it cannot be more than this horsepower, more than this kilowatts from the electric [motor], more than these aero figures,” he said.

This means that we will not have any Equivalence of Technology – this is, you can make this horsepower with that fuel flow, and the number of cylinders is your choice, the architecture of the engine is your choice etc. “Maybe it’s because you have some brand identification, you want a four-cylinder, 12 cylinder, whatever you want but you have to go to these figures.
“Aero-wise it will be the same, this is the maximum downforce you can reach and that we measure, and this is the limiting factor, then you are free on the design of the car to reach those numbers.”

[TzeiTzei]

Don't like the idea of basing performance of the cars on some kind of maximum numbers, but we'll see how it goes. But if it becomes a massive BoP merry-go-round then I'll be quite disappointed.

We have just got some privateers in to the class, an already they are trying to force them to use hybrids. I don't believe for a second that it would not increase the costs for privateers.

[Deleted]

Simon said hybrid systems will be available “at quite a reasonable price” but has essentially ruled out prospects of a spec unit being adopted class-wide.

That's the only thing that didn't sound like complete crap in that article

[joeb]

Originally Posted by Chiana

Simon said hybrid systems will be available “at quite a reasonable price” but has essentially ruled out prospects of a spec unit being adopted class-wide.

That's the only thing that didn't sound like complete crap in that article

Yes he basically said that the class won't be spec, you can develop things, but you can't be too good at developing things.

I have no idea what this looks like practically. Does the ACO/FIA confiscate motors periodically to check power levels? Mandatory wind tunnel tests? Inspecting the accounting Dept?

[Deleted]

Artificial RPM limits a la Daytona Prototype here we go

[canaglia]

Max power output could be kept under control only if manufacturers will agree all to use turbo engines. Through mandatory pressures is possible to give X Nm @ X rpm and/or Y hp @ Y rpm.
But about NA engines, it's just different.... it would be an endless trial&error with restr. size and rpm limiter.

Beyond that, guess that giving a 90kg/L fuel flow limit and a reasonable small fuel tank (dictating a mandatory min. time a stint like 40 min.) could be the best way to set lowest possible powers

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Ugh. I have no other reaction.

[Deleted]

If this thing turns out to be utter trash, do we still have conventional privateer non-GTP LMP1s eligible for 2021 Le Mans? And not just grandfathered but actual new cars too? I've forgot

If not and all there is left outside GTP is LMP2 with the cartel quasi spec cars... ugh

[deggis]

Either that is cleverly worded to avoid the question of BoPing, or it can be taken too literally. Unless he really means setting exact maximum figures in the regs, it sounds a lot like things are now. The fuel flow limit is a pretty good limiting factor of maximum power and you can't improve the effeciency endlessly during a season or two. Simiarly in current regs nothing forbirds a V12 but it probably wouldn't be a winner.

I was actually worried the fuel flow was being thrown away.

The downforce part sounds a lot more sketchy.

[chernaudi]

IMO, it's almost like they're looking at some loose BOP format rather than EOT. I do wonder if this does mean the end of fuel flow and a reversion to air restrictors since they want to limit engine power.

I just hope that they don't go into Grand Am levels of BOP.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

I do wonder if this does mean the end of fuel flow and

"this is, you can make this horsepower with that fuel flow,"

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

I just hope that they don't go into Grand Am levels of BOP.

You can blame Zak Brown and Aston Martin if that happens, because all they want is cheapness and balance of performance in addition to road car looks

[chernaudi]

Originally Posted by deggis

"this is, you can make this horsepower with that fuel flow,"

If (and that's a big if at this stage) that IMSA and the ACO decide on a common top class platform, I can't see IMSA giving up air restrictors as part of their BOP, and they probably won't adopt fuel meters on cost grounds.

It has to be remembered that flow meters cost many, many times more than an air restrictor.

[FormulaFox]

Honestly, what I'm reading doesn't bother me.

Think about it this way: The ACO has seen how poor the response to the EoT actions have been, so they want to find a way to do away with it. But under current conditions, they need to make drastic changes to keep enough entries in the class long-term while also attracting new manufacturers. They need to keep costs in check to guarantee the former, they need technology and development room to guarantee the latter.

They're trying to balance these issues as best as possible, and there's going to be compromise. In the article they never state there will be no room for development, only that it won't be allowed in certain areas - this is not at all unlike most classes in modern racing. Sure, LMP1 loses some of it's luster with such restrictions, but it's not like it hasn't already lsot most of it with the departure of Audi and Porsche. And I for one would rather see it restricted now and survive for the long term.

After all, they can gradually open up areas for development as time goes on - not unlike how Formula E's been doing things.

This whole thing honestly feels a bit like the previous-generation LMP2, where there was a lot of room to work with but just enough restriction to keep costs down. Whether or not it will work remains to be seen.


With all that said, got a new rumor on future P1 AND P2 reg: Open-top cars may be in the cards for the future - with either a halo, aeroscreen, or some other form of demonstrably sufficient head protection.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

That seems incredibly unlikely.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

or some other form of demonstrably sufficient head protection.

Such as a roof.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

If (and that's a big if at this stage) that IMSA and the ACO decide on a common top class platform, I can't see IMSA giving up air restrictors as part of their BOP, and they probably won't adopt fuel meters on cost grounds.

It has to be remembered that flow meters cost many, many times more than an air restrictor.

If the technical director mentions it by name then there is no reason to believe it is not part of this plan regardless of what IMSA might prefer. Also, there are probably going to be many bigger sticking points in the common platform talks than this.

[TF110]

I'll hold off on outrage until we know specifics. So far it sounds like a mixed bag. I think the fuel flow works good. But it does seem like only turbo's are in fashion. If they relaxed it a little bit we might see bigger engines with more than just 6 cylinders. More V8's or maybe V10's and up would be awesome. If a horsepower limit is set it doesn't sound too bad but that kind of leaves engine development out of the question. Lets see what they really have planned, I'm still optimistic.

[TF110]

Interesting little piece I picked out from this racer.com article-

“We want manufacturers to return. Le Mans must remain a laboratory for new technology. So [future] cars will have hybrid technology and bodywork allowing people to recognize a brand or make… say like Toyota or McLaren!

“We have been working with several manufacturers [including potential new ones] over the past six months. Let’s see on Friday who that could possibly be.”

Is he expecting there to be a manufacturer expressing interest in joining? That's a pretty big statement from Fillon imo.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

If (and that's a big if at this stage) that IMSA and the ACO decide on a common top class platform, I can't see IMSA giving up air restrictors as part of their BOP, and they probably won't adopt fuel meters on cost grounds.

It has to be remembered that flow meters cost many, many times more than an air restrictor.

Having to keep changing the restrictors so often, however, adds up quickly. Fuel flow meters don't have to be replaced until they break - they can be adjusted without being replaced.


At the end of the day, if everything else works out to their satisfaction, IMSA isn't going to make a big deal about how restrictions are applied so long as they can balance everything to their needs.