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

[LeMans.pt]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Is that a LM spec long tail 962C ..... remember the 917 had a long tail too .

well.. double cheked my data.
Acording to Porsches's website:

Porsche 962C
4800 mm / 2000 mm / 1030 mm / 820kg

[deggis]

Holes (but nothing new): http://www.autoweek.com/article/20111103/ALMS/111109930

[JAG]

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newsnov11.html

[deggis]

^ Considering the reactions here... most people seemed to expect the proposal being 1000mm x 3000mm or something.

[Simmi]

Originally Posted by deggis

^ Considering the reactions here... most people seemed to expect the proposal being 1000mm x 3000mm or something.

Yep all too easy to get wrapped up in the doomsday prophecies before anyone has even seen the proposed regs. Hopefully this should put people's minds at rest for a bit. People would be used to the new dimensions by about two hours into Sebring.

[AGD]

We'll see, even small differences in the rules can lead to odd sights. The dually Porsche GTE would be an example of that, although I guess there is more going on there than just the width. Anyway, I think it is the combination of the BHFs, BHHs, and size reduction that is making for a potential cringe-worthy situation rather than just the size reduction alone. I guess the greenhouses staying mostly the same would help ease the visual fears. We'll see. The BHFs have been around for a year and I'm not totally used to it on all of the cars. It does not look too bad on the Peugeot, but it's worse on other cars. It looks quite bad on the Lola for example.

[deggis]

I don't want to exclude possibility that the chassis revamp is so thorough that the fins and holes would be no longer needed...

I'm not used to the fins, but it helps that on tv feed you see the car from the least favourable angle only part of the time (from the sides). How good the fin looks like directly correlates with how developed the car is - i.e. how well the desing is integrated to the car. So it's not a surprise that on Audi & Peugeot (and soon Toyota) it looks the least horrible. On rest of the cars, a cardboard is pretty good description.

The pre-2009 rear wings then again - when you see them in photos, they look so huge and just weird now.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by deggis

^ Considering the reactions here... most people seemed to expect the proposal being 1000mm x 3000mm or something.

Originally Posted by deggis

I don't want to exclude possibility that the chassis revamp is so thorough that the fins and holes would be no longer needed...

I don't know what the holes will look like on an LMP, but the way the regs are explained by Mike, it seems that it is ok to see the wheels from either the front or back. To me this is too close to open wheel aesthetics to make me happy. But, we'll have to see what solutions teams come up with, you could see some wheel on the old Toyota GT-One and I liked that...

I am also hoping for the 2014 rules to address the holes and fins and maybe make them unnecessary.

[lms]

Originally Posted by joeb

I don't know what the holes will look like on an LMP, but the way the regs are explained by Mike, it seems that it is ok to see the wheels from either the front or back. To me this is too close to open wheel aesthetics to make me happy. But, we'll have to see what solutions teams come up with, you could see some wheel on the old Toyota GT-One and I liked that...

I am also hoping for the 2014 rules to address the holes and fins and maybe make them unnecessary.

Agreed. The "rule makers" should come up with a solution that doesnt change the cars appearence that much. One note on the holes: they might look worse on future (2014-) protos than on the current cars, because, as Mike wrote it on his site, the era of the big, wide fronts seems to be over with the width reduction (too bad - michelin and teams were just begin to explore this area which resulted in some interesting designs imho - like the r18 said to be a "front heavy" prototype because of the enormous front wheels, and because of the expanded bodywork on that area, it nearly choked the airflow between the cockpit and the rest of the bodywork or something like that....). Or maybe the minimum size of the openings will be reduced when the fronts will become smaller again.
About "aesthetics": bodywork around the wheel is one of the distinctive features of the classes (lmp1, lmp2) that set them apart from open wheelers, I think they should leave this one alone.
Cant they just come up with some underbody structure that prevents the car from becoming airborne? Something that sucks the car to the ground?
I have to admit that although the fin looks fugly (on current cars at least) its probably the cheapest and most effective way to prevent barrel-roll crashes and it can be installed with little modification to an already existing chassis. But I hope its gone for 2014.
Wide rear wings sounds awesome, that smaller wing looked so weird on those big prototypes, it was horrible. Also, im sure the designers will be happy to have some more df at the rear. This "aero efficiency" thing could be either good or bad: maybe they could allow some more aero devices on the cars (wings etc that doesnt mess up the cars too much like f1 2008). But.... i heard that crap DW is said to be extremely "aero efficient" and runs longer with less fuel - I hope its an evolutionary dead end... Dont want lmps to look like that

[lms]

narrower protos with the same height or even higher - now that sounds like crap. The cars sould be like smaller versions of the current ones so all dimensions should be decreased. Dont want to see cars like that hillclimb pile of scrap on the previous page.

[TF110]

10cm isn't a HUGE difference. So, the cars won't be that narrow. And they'll have less weight plus less area, that'll equal less drag.

[JAG]

Reduced weight's the biggest deal for me, every area of a cars performance improves, power-to-weight's only part of the story, heavier cars need larger engines, brakes, components etc. which reduces braking and cornering performance.

Future cars will be even more suited to drivers brought up in single-seaters.

[Flat12-Aircool]

Originally Posted by lms

as Mike wrote it on his site, the era of the big, wide fronts seems to be over with the width reduction

Going by data from Mikes own website, compared to the current crop of Prototypes the tire widths will be 0.5 inch narrower. Hardly a big deal and probably inevitable if the overall Car width is shrunk by 10cm.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by JAG

Future cars will be even more suited to drivers brought up in single-seaters.

Bah. More reason to give the regs a thumbs down! Oh well, F1 rejects are going to get their share of seats anyway.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by AGD

Bah. More reason to give the regs a thumbs down! Oh well, F1 rejects are going to get their share of seats anyway.

I want to see the best drivers, you'll struggle to find a top sportscar driver who hasn't driven at least to F3 level, their progress usually curbed due to lack of opportunities (money!) rather than talent.

Back to the regs, the increasing weight of road and race cars over the past twenty years has been my biggest annoyance, we were edging away from pure driving machines and using technology to overcome physics. Thankfully that trend is reversing, rather than extra weight being seen as a means to slow cars, or an inevitability in the pursuit of improved safety, shedding extra kilo's is the key to performance, environmental compliance and driving enjoyment.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by JAG

I want to see the best drivers, you'll struggle to find a top sportscar driver who hasn't driven at least to F3 level, their progress usually curbed due to lack of opportunities (money!) rather than talent.

Timo Bernhard? Bergmeister? Pat Long? Bleekemolen?

Anyway, some distant F3 experience along with a lot of sports car experience is one thing, but I have my doubts that guys running at the back of F1 grids are the "best drivers." In some cases they may be, but there are great drivers to be found elsewhere including within sports car racing itself.

[Pandamasque]

Originally Posted by JAG

Back to the regs, the increasing weight of road and race cars over the past twenty years has been my biggest annoyance, we were edging away from pure driving machines and using technology to overcome physics. Thankfully that trend is reversing, rather than extra weight being seen as a means to slow cars, or an inevitability in the pursuit of improved safety, shedding extra kilo's is the key to performance, environmental compliance and driving enjoyment.

It's not reversing anywhere outside ACO cabinets so far. BMW M Gmbh engineers' target with M5 was not to decrease but at least match the (enormous) weight of the normal 5-series, and they didn't succeed, so M5 is now 1,945 kg (each generation is heavier than the previous one). Progress *facepalm*

[cdsvg]

From mulsannescorner:
-front hole area must be from 750cm^2 to 950cm^2
-rear hole area must be from 1000cm^2 to 1200cm^2
-each hole must be at least 20cm wide (as I interpret the 20x25 template thing)

So here is a worst-case scenario, ie the front holes are 950cm^2 each and the rears 1200cm^2 each. I also did the same thing for the minimum area case, if anybody is interested in seeing that, but there isnt a huge visual difference.









One thing to note: I have measured area as the area of the hole in 3d space (indicated by the curve + angle of the longer dimension lines). The regs might require that the holes meet the specified area when viewed from straight above, in which case the holes would need to be slightly larger.

Also I assume that they will want to place the holes as far back on the fenders as possible, so as not to directly present any of the front of the tyre to the oncoming airflow. They might also get clever with non-rectangular holes, Im not sure where the rules stand on that.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by cdsvg

From mulsannescorner:
-front hole area must be from 750cm^2 to 950cm^2
-rear hole area must be from 1000cm^2 to 1200cm^2
-each hole must be at least 20cm wide (as I interpret the 20x25 template thing)

So here is a worst-case scenario, ie the front holes are 950cm^2 each and the rears 1200cm^2 each. I also did the same thing for the minimum area case, if anybody is interested in seeing that, but there isnt a huge visual difference.









One thing to note: I have measured area as the area of the hole in 3d space (indicated by the curve + angle of the longer dimension lines). The regs might require that the holes meet the specified area when viewed from straight above, in which case the holes would need to be slightly larger.

Also I assume that they will want to place the holes as far back on the fenders as possible, so as not to directly present any of the front of the tyre to the oncoming airflow. They might also get clever with non-rectangular holes, Im not sure where the rules stand on that.

Thanks for these images. Though it's my understanding the area is the projected area (what you would see in plan view). So measure out your area and project it onto the surface of the fender.

[cdsvg]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

Thanks for these images. Though it's my understanding the area is the projected area (what you would see in plan view). So measure out your area and project it onto the surface of the fender.

Yeah, I had a feeling they'd measure it that way. I'll see if the end product looks significantly different doing it that way. One thing to keep in mind is that the back of the rear fender on my model has a fairly pronounced downward slope, so that would exaggerate the effect of measuring different ways. Most of the current cars seem to have fairly flat fender tops so there would be less of a difference on those cars.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by cdsvg

Yeah, I had a feeling they'd measure it that way. I'll see if the end product looks significantly different doing it that way. One thing to keep in mind is that the back of the rear fender on my model has a fairly pronounced downward slope, so that would exaggerate the effect of measuring different ways. Most of the current cars seem to have fairly flat fender tops so there would be less of a difference on those cars.

So a manufacture could actually design themselves into smaller/larger holes!?.
That just doesn't seem to be in spirit of the rules.

[cdsvg]

Originally Posted by CTD

So a manufacture could actually design themselves into smaller/larger holes!?.
That just doesn't seem to be in spirit of the rules.

Well theres no way they could make the holes smaller than the allowed minimim. But I suppose technically if the fender had a really steep slope to it, then a 1200cm^2 hole when viewed from above would become a much larger hole if measured in 3d space. I'm not sure that would be advantageous though.

[cdsvg]

Sorry for the barrage of images, but I think this represents the rules pretty well now. The holes meet the *maximum* allowed area (ie, they can run with smaller holes but I went for the maximum size) when viewed from straight above.









Also I've made the holes non-rectangular, which I assume is legal as long as the 20x25 template still fits, which it does.

[lms]

louvres will still be allowed on the protos, yes?

[CTD]

Originally Posted by lms

louvres will still be allowed on the protos, yes?

Yes, but they may not cover the holes.