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

[gwyllion]

I think that the proposal does exactly what Mal says. There will be no limitation on the instantaneous amount of energy that is generated by the engine or the energy recovery system, for instance in the form of an air restrictor (like in the current rules) or a fuel flow restrictor (like in the F1 2014 rules).

This could lead to interesting situations in the race. After a very long safety car period the engine will be turned up a lot to burn the extra fuel that was saved

[Spyderman]

Brilliant! Thanks for posting Gwyllion.
It sounds very promising. Lets just hope that they don't start "complicating" things when they try and put it into practice.

[Gingers4Justice]

Why not just do Group C regs with other technologies incorporated in to the rules?

Those regs seem to work out just fine last time...

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

Why not just do Group C regs with other technologies incorporated in to the rules?

Mike made the reference to Group C as well:

The proposal allots 1500 liters of gasoline, or alternate fuel equivalent (diesel, methanol, etc.), for Le Mans. The energy content equivalency volume would be determined by the ACO. For a historical reference, in 1990, Group C1 cars were alloted 2450 liters for Le Mans. C2 cars were allowed 1650 liters.

[Tim the Grey]

I've argued that this is the way to go, for a while now. X number of ergs, or Joules, or whatever, and run whatever you like that meets safety regs.
Run out of juice, you are out of the race.
Simples.
I cannot wait to see a battery swap pit stop! Should be 'interesting'...

[Crazy_Pigal]

Freed up engine regulations, you don't here that very often these days, bring it on.

There's no way that they'll run without some sort of instanaeous performance limit though, as mentioned in previous posts I'd expect a fuel flow limit to be implemented.
Now that the ACO & FIA are friends again it makes a lot of sense to have the fuel flow set at the same level as F1, in 2014 there will be at least 3 new 1.6litre V6s out there designed around the new fuel limited f1 regs & they'll have to be last 4-5 grand prix so should be pretty durable too.
When engine manufacturers are spending millions designing new engines it can only help if they've got more than one formular to sell them to.

I'm not suggesting that the ACO regs are written identical to F1, but that the new F1 engines will be able to compete against the variety that the ACO will allow.

Only down side is that with fuel consumption regulated we'll never see a rotary ay Le Mans again

[Mal]

Originally Posted by Crazy_Pigal

Only down side is that with fuel consumption regulated we'll never see a rotary ay Le Mans again

They could still be allowed in P2

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by Crazy_Pigal

There's no way that they'll run without some sort of instanaeous performance limit though, as mentioned in previous posts I'd expect a fuel flow limit to be implemented.

The minutes of the ACO meeting last year gave more details: http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newsjuly10.html

Power: limited by a maximum instantaneous amount of energy that can be used. The control will be made with a mandatory common box that will drive the injectors.
Precision and application of such equipment raised as being very challenging.

Other proposal: control could be achieved by allocation of fuel quantity. Such quantity for race refueling being directly linked to the amount of laps done and policed by ACO.

For electrical energy, instead of allocation, the control of the used energy seems presently the only possibility. It must be policed by ACO. They could lead to a particular category: experimental

Still need to find a solution for qualifying conditions.

That suggests either a total fuel quantity allocation or a fuel flow limitation (which according to the manufacturers is challenging to measure).

In case people are wondering how 1500 liters of petrol compares to the last editions of Le Mans:

• In 2011 the R18 consumed 37.08 liter/100 km x 4838.295 km = 1794 liters of diesel (see here). The ACO gives petrol cars a 15% bigger fuel tank (75 liter vs 65 liter). So that means an equivalent of 2070 liters of petrol.
• In 2010 the R15+ consumed 43.43 liter/100 km x 5410.713 km = 2350 liters of diesel (see here). The ACO gave petrol cars a 11% bigger fuel tank (90 liter vs 81 liter). So that means an equivalent of 2610 liters of petrol.
• In 2008 the R10 consumed 45.56 liter/100 km x 5192.649 km = 2365 liters of diesel (see here). That means an equivalent of 2630 liters of petrol.
• In 2007 the R10 consumed 42.19 liter/100 km x 5029.11 km = 2122 liters of diesel (see here). That means an equivalent of 2360 liters of petrol.

It should be noted that this year there were two very long cautions and in 2010 the distance record was broken. Anyway the proposal that lays on the table is a serious reduction in fuel consumption.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by Mal

They could still be allowed in P2

LMP2 engines must be derived for production engines. The whole point of the future rules is to show case or develop energy efficient technology for road cars. If a rotary engine can not do that, it rightfully has little future.

[MulsanneMike]

But with freed up engine rules we won't be seeing a carbon copy of what we saw in Group C; the proposed 1500 liters will drive engine capacities down big time. But it will remove the cookie cutter limitations the current rules have on engine regulations and it will allow a few years before "The" solution is derived.

Also understand this is a proposal and early days at that even. We're 3 years away from anything being implemented and I can imagine a lot will change.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Anyway the proposal that lays on the table is a serious reduction in fuel consumption.

I was wondering what the current consumption rates were, Thanks! I would think lightening the cars will decrease fuel consumption somewhat, so that will help.

[JAG]

The fuel consumpltion of a 2010 P2, like the winning Strakka Acura, seems more comparable to the 2014 proposals.

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by JAG

The fuel consumpltion of a 2010 P2, like the winning Strakka Acura, seems more comparable to the 2014 proposals.

Not exactly, bear in mind that the 2010 P2 engines are basically this year's P1 engines.

[JAG]

2014 cars will be 775kg.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by Victor_RO

Not exactly, bear in mind that the 2010 P2 engines are basically this year's P1 engines.

The LMP2 restrictors were smaller and the cars weighed 75 kg less (825 kg vs 900 kg). However, I don't think that those 2 differences are enough for a more than 30% lower fuel consumption.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by JAG

2014 cars will be 775kg.

And I think that will help reduce consumption. The combination of lighter weight and hybrids will allow teams to use the allotted fuel and finish 24hours. The ACO wouldn't propose, and teams wouldn't accept a formula that nobody could use to finish the race.

[Pandamasque]

If C2 cars could finish using just 1600l in the 80-s, then doing it with 1500l today at around 3:30 should be a piece of cake even w/o any hybrid tech. A piece of cake for the likes of Porsche at least

[courageous]

We already know cars can be designed to go faster than drivers can cope with & reliability is pretty damn solid these days - so the technological challenge has to be in fuel economy / battery range.

[JAG]

According to Autosport manufactuers were asked their views on only allowing coupes in P1 from 2014, this is driven from a safety perspective.

It's not know what will happen with P2, though it's already been stated these cars will be eligable for the next five years.

[JAG]

In todays Autosport it states there are plans in place to reduce diesel power levels by 40bhp, the ACO had secret timing loops at Spa to monitor performance, and are working with Singer and the FIA. Ulrich says he's aware of the plan and is worried diesels won't be competitive, OAK say it's a step in the right direction.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by JAG

Ulrich says he's aware of the plan and is worried diesels won't be competitive

Sorry but I just bursted into laughter when I read that, what a load of rubbish from dear Doctor.

Even further moves are needed, diesels will do everything they can to preserve their unfair advantage

[gregtummer]

Originally Posted by JAG

In todays Autosport it states there are plans in place to reduce diesel power levels by 40bhp, the ACO had secret timing loops at Spa to monitor performance, and are working with Singer and the FIA. Ulrich says he's aware of the plan and is worried diesels won't be competitive, OAK say it's a step in the right direction.

Stop neutering the cars!

Speed up the otherr cars! Yeah, I know they have to do engine remapping and stuff, but speed up everyone else!

[FordCosworthPanoz]

Originally Posted by Chiana

Sorry but I just bursted into laughter when I read that, what a load of rubbish from dear Doctor.

Even further moves are needed, diesels will do everything they can to preserve their unfair advantage

Did you really expect any less from Ullrich and Audi?

[Gingers4Justice]

Originally Posted by gregtummer

Stop neutering the cars!

Speed up the otherr cars! Yeah, I know they have to do engine remapping and stuff, but speed up everyone else!

It's a lot more expensive to speed up the petrol cars for the petrol teams. Not all of them can afford to do that. It's much better to make the manufacturers meet the rest of the field in terms of performance, they can afford it.

[AGD]

I know I have the minority opinion on this, but I'm not so sure that the diesels have some sort of "unfair advantage." Ok, they have tons more money than everyone else, but that is not a problem with the rules. I don't know if the rules right now are right, but as I have always said, I know the rules will be wrong if teams like Rebellion and OAK are running equal lap times (assuming they are running their current equipment) to the diesel giants.

I do have some sympathy towards Pickett, Dyson, and others who do not have access to top line equipment even if they are willing to pay to buy some. Maybe top teams should make their stuff available to independent bidders. Aside from that though, I don't think their points are valid. Audi and Peugeot have spent A LOT of money to win. Their quests to win this year has been almost uncompromising. Considering that they have done tons of testing and have all new equipment, it is not surprising to me that they are a handful of seconds faster (and more reliable) than the teams running older and/or less proven equipment like what is being run by AMR, Cytosport, Dyson, Rebellion, OAK, Pescarolo, MIK Corse, and so forth.

I understand AMR has spent $25 million, but so what really. It would not surprise me if Audi and Peugeot are spending $100-$200 million. And they were able to commit that money earlier which allowed them to do the testing necessary to run well out of the gate. That's what has given them the edge. The Florida Marlins baseball club may spend $25 million on players, which sounds like a lot of money, but teams like the Phillies, Yankees, and Red Sox are spending 4 to 5 times that amount. Is it any surprise then that those big spenders have a better shot at winning the championship?

It blows my mind when people enter the most competitive forms of sport and then cry poverty when they lose and want everything that the successful competitors have. It's even more mind blowing when the people doing the crying are successful capitalists. What would Pickett think if Biff from the gym's nutritional shake was guaranteed the same shelf space as Muscle Milk products at Wal-Mart just because it is "fair" or equal?

I understand that it would be great if every race is a barn-burner amongst every competitor in the field, but that can't happen all the time. I understand that the results on the track occur not just because of what happens on the track on a given race weekend, but what happened in wind tunnels, design rooms, engine shops, dyno rooms, simulators, and test tracks months or even years before the race weekend.

Money obviously helps teams prepare and make their dreams come true, but that's why we as fans can understand and interpret the results accordingly. To that extent, a team like OAK can be very proud of their results. Also, they can compete in a class that is more in line with their budget. Some of these LMP1 teams probably have budgets that are more in line with LMP2. That's great if they want to fortify the LMP1 car counts, but they can't expect to compete for wins if their entries are field filler material. It's as simple as that, right?

I understand that there are people whose ideology on this topic is different from mine, but they good news is that there are sports car series (and other types of racing) who have adopted a "lets balance every car" type mentality. That's why I'm not really in favor of some sort of merger of series whether it be SRO or Grand-Am. Those of us who want to see what ingenuity can do (and it generally takes money to get that ingenuity to the track), even if that leads to a "less exciting" battle for the lead, have very few options these days. Le Mans style racing is just about all we have left and even then it is not perfect, but allow us to keep what we have at the very least! I'm sure I am not the only racing fan that is on the verge of giving up on big league racing totally if another series goes the spec or spec in all but appearance route.