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

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Pandamasque

Incognito? There was a list of parties invited, it consisted representatives of various motorsport governing bodies and Audi. And where did I state that manufacturers shouldn't expect marketing return from their racing campaigns? What's the point in posting such nonsense? You know what I'm talking about and it has been discussed at length on this forum.

Some of them tend to make sure nobody else will have a shot at winning before joining in. Audi have done very well in first part of the 00's, the problem is that ACO felt the need to reward that with the rest of the decade's trophies free of charge.

don't get overexcited, as long as ACO is French and Peugeot is French, the voice of Peugeot will definitely be heard. And yes, there is an interdependence of what the main factories want and what the regulators may propose. Nobody wants the main manufacturers to step out of the circus, as a race between Pescarolos and Rebellions is not going to be a crowd puller. (and whether it has been discussed on THIS forum can be hardly considered the end of all arguments)

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by Pandamasque

Incognito? There was a list of parties invited, it consisted representatives of various motorsport governing bodies and Audi.

Can you provide a link to that list? In other ACO meetings a large number of the manufacturers are represented. For instance, in the video interview Vincent Beaumesil states that 5 manufacturers were involved in the safety study.

[deggis]

He is referring to the new Endurance Commission:

http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/artic...ssion-members/

Ullrich is the manufacturer representative. I don't think this commission is really going to literally write the rules (more sporting side stuff I think), so I'm not sure how relevant it is to this subject...

[AGD]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

He really stresses that they tried to balance the performance potential of diesel and petrol engines...

I have not watched the video and I don't want to watch the video. Still, what is this? So the ACO thinks the diesel teams will make some technological progress and they think the petrols will continue to suck as usual so they are going to strangle the diesels? Yeah, I can see the discussion now from the ACO to Audi/Peugeot: "How dare you try to bring innovation into auto racing! Don't you know the whole philosophy and motivation of auto racing is to keep things stagnant! And how dare you not pull over on the side of the road to let the petrols win some races? Jean Todt says it is a great thing!"

Then again, these silly regulations just keep the motivation high for Audi and Peugeot to find further gains with the diesel engine and the whole car/team in general. In a way, the ACO is just making their situation worse and we'll be right back where we are now this time next year. Maybe this is an effect of these silly rules that is actually enticing. In a small way at least. It should not happen to begin with.

Originally Posted by Pandamasque

Some of them tend to make sure nobody else will have a shot at winning before joining in. Audi have done very well in first part of the 00's, the problem is that ACO felt the need to reward that with the rest of the decade's trophies free of charge.

I don't know about that. Audi practically spotted the competition a few lap advantage in 2005 with the rules and Audi continuing to use an old car. The privateers still managed to fumble away near certain victory. The privateers can't even win when the races are practically handed to them.

[NelisB]

Originally Posted by AGD

I have not watched the video and I don't want to watch the video. Still, what is this? So the ACO thinks the diesel teams will make some technological progress and they think the petrols will continue to suck as usual so they are going to strangle the diesels? Yeah, I can see the discussion now from the ACO to Audi/Peugeot: "How dare you try to bring innovation into auto racing! Don't you know the whole philosophy and motivation of auto racing is to keep things stagnant! And how dare you not pull over on the side of the road to let the petrols win some races? Jean Todt says it is a great thing!"

Then again, these silly regulations just keep the motivation high for Audi and Peugeot to find further gains with the diesel engine and the whole car/team in general. In a way, the ACO is just making their situation worse and we'll be right back where we are now this time next year. Maybe this is an effect of these silly rules that is actually enticing. In a small way at least. It should not happen to begin with.



I don't know about that. Audi practically spotted the competition a few lap advantage in 2005 with the rules and Audi continuing to use an old car. The privateers still managed to fumble away near certain victory. The privateers can't even win when the races are practically handed to them.

The point is that diesels are only interesting as a development because they get the breaks that they have been enjoying. If the ACO hadn't written the rules in favor of the diesels Audi probably would've continued racing the R8 or a development there of. So I don't see the problem in them trying to get the balance even again. When you compare a 3,4liter single or twin turbo petrol with an equivalent diesel. The petrol will be more powerful and I think it should be able to get a equivalent mileage as a diesel.
I see this as reigning in some of the breaks the diesels always have had in the regulations.
I do think that even if the Audi's and Peugeot's had been petrols they always would be on the top of the field just because they have access to more technology and budget.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by AGD

As to why Audi and Peugeot would still pick diesel, both know all they have to beat is each other. They might as well go for the marketing angle. The privateer jalopies are not a threat even with the new regulation (much to the chagrin to equalization zealots). Audi and Peugeots will do their homework and find more speed.

Explanation not accepted.

Didn't Audi say that petrol has the advantage as it is? Granted, they would say that, but the same could be said about anything the petrol guys say. Dave Richards talking the truth? Please!

Yes, unofficially (http://tentenths.com/forum/showpost....&postcount=129). I wish someone would have then asked the same thing I asked you (why choose diesel then). Really two-faced claim.

Of course Richards bullshatting. AMR-One luckily has silenced him. Other people from private teams has said smarter things, like Hayden from Rebellion.

Originally Posted by AGD

I really don't understand the public dissonance on this subject.

You don't and won't understand as long as you reject all differing views about the equivalence...

Everyone gets excited about factory programs and want lots of them, but then when they come in and kick butt, it's all whining and moaning about how they own the rulebooks and dominate. What gives? Factories aren't going to go racing unless they have a shot at winning and factories like Audi, Peugeot, Porsche, Toyota, Honda, and so forth spare no money to go for the win if they are involved in a series especially when they are challenged by other factories. Either accept factory teams and their potential to crush the competition or ban them totally and make something LMP2ish be the top class. You can't have it both ways.

My opinions have nothing to do with manufacturer hate. Peugeot is the sole reason why I got interested in LMP racing in the first place. If Audi and Peugeot would both quit today, I would pretty much loose all interest.

Originally Posted by henk4

The explanation of what you don't understand is the diesel engine. Many people here simply don't want to have that around. Subsequently all comments are being affected by that sitting in the back of their minds.

(proud PSA diesel driver since 1985...)

I have nothing against diesels on the road. But I am against them on the race track when it's not all genuine advantage. Sound is not irrelevant but it's not about it.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by deggis

I have nothing against diesels on the road. But I am against them on the race track when it's not all genuine advantage. Sound is not irrelevant but it's not about it.

Perhaps you want to rephrase your second sentence.....I think I understand but I am not sure.
And I am still not convinced that the advantage is in the diesel regulation only and not in the combination of a huge budget and the current regs. We will never know whether Peugoet and Audi could have made a petrol car under the current regulations but with their budgets, that could have been match for the diesels. (Apparently HPD was quite close already but only once).

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Pandamasque

IMO, they are guilty of turning Le Mans 24h hours into their marketing playground ever since 2006. The sole reason that no factory petrol cars entered Le Mans ever since is that Audi Sport write the rules. Quite literally too, they were the only manufacturer invited into WEC working group or whatever it is called. The current changes could well be blessed by them as well.

Audi dominanted with a petrol car for five years with little serious competition, rules weren't keeping manufactuers away, the structure of the sport was.

The options were an excellent series based in the US or the European equivalent with limited media and fan interest. Nevermind attracting new manufactuers, Audi and Peugeot both cut their full-time campaigns before the arrival of the ILMC, the rest considered F1, WRC, WTCC etc. better options.

In effect the sport was expecting manufacturers to spend tens of millions on one race per year which isn't sustainable.

The ACO have LMP and GT working groups were interested parties can take part, those not in the sport like the Renault F1 team and Riley/Dodge were at recent LMP/GT meetings respectively.

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by JAG

In effect the sport was expecting manufacturers to spend tens of millions on one race per year which isn't sustainable.

Their solution wasn't sustainable either....

[JAG]

Originally Posted by AGD

Of course Audi and Peugeot would win! Now maybe the Little Sisters of the Poor would have a shot if it was the 24 Seconds of Le Mans. Well, 24 seconds without a pace lap. Let's not push it here!

First, I don't think that neither engine type has an advantage. I think the petrols have an advantage. Yeah, I said it! And if they don't now, there's a good chance they will next year.

I really think some of you are dreaming of an all LMPC 24 Hours of Le Mans. Seriously. There's no..............

Your missing a simple point, this is restrictor racing, if the equivalence isn't correct it would be impossible to develop a competitive petrol engine regardless of resources.

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

Their solution wasn't sustainable either....

What solution, a World Championship?

There's been a sportscar World Championship of some form for fifty of the last sixty or so years, a series that only ended after being purposefully manipulated to benefit F1.

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by JAG

There's been a sportscar World Championship of some form for fifty of the last sixty or so years, a series that only ended after being purposefully manipulated to benefit F1.

And it also went through several technical formula changes in a few boom-bust cycles of manufacturer interest.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by JAG

Your missing a simple point, this is restrictor racing, if the equivalence isn't correct it would be impossible to develop a competitive petrol engine regardless of resources.

I am sure you mean monetary equivalence here

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by JAG

There's been a sportscar World Championship of some form for fifty of the last sixty or so years, a series that only ended after being purposefully manipulated to benefit F1.

When was the last time that there was a world championship, and how has corporate governance changed since then? How does this World Championship give great ROI to it's participants?

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

When was the last time that there was a world championship, and how has corporate governance changed since then? How does this World Championship give great ROI to it's participants?

do you know Audi's or Peugeot's ROI?

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by henk4

do you know Audi's or Peugeot's ROI?

I'm not certain what you are asking.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

I'm not certain what you are asking.

well, you started using the acronym ROI, so I suppose you know what it means...so I am wondering whether you know that value is for Audi and Peugeot based on their current involvements. Otherwise you cannot say anything about the ROIs for the upcoming WEC, isn't it? (for non-economists: ROI means Return on Investment)

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by henk4

well, you started using the acronym ROI, so I suppose you know what it means...so I am wondering whether you know that value is for Audi and Peugeot based on their current involvements. Otherwise you cannot say anything about the ROIs for the upcoming WEC, isn't it? (for non-economists: ROI means Return on Investment)

ROI at the best of times is difficult as it isn't a really tangible item, despite best attempts. That being said, Audi and Peugeot had already budgeted to run LM as a stand alone, and decided that running in that race alone was enough ROI for them. The addition of the WEC is a marginal cost for them, given the investment to begin with.

I wasn't seeking a number, just comments with regards to how marketing demands are met. You take a look at the Asian rounds, with relatively few in attendance, and no TV deal to speak of. I don't know what coverage the rest of ILMC gets in Europe, or Asia, but the non-North American rounds don't get much of anything here. Until you can get great attendance at these races, and some type of extensive media and TV coverage there won't be much of a return at all.

Substantially weaken the status of LMS and ALMS, and you've cutoff your future as well.

This just isn't going to last more than a few years, leaving the rest of the scene in shambles.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

ROI at the best of times is difficult as it isn't a really tangible item, despite best attempts. That being said, Audi and Peugeot had already budgeted to run LM as a stand alone, and decided that running in that race alone was enough ROI for them. The addition of the WEC is a marginal cost for them, given the investment to begin with.

I wasn't seeking a number, just comments with regards to how marketing demands are met. You take a look at the Asian rounds, with relatively few in attendance, and no TV deal to speak of. I don't know what coverage the rest of ILMC gets in Europe, or Asia, but the non-North American rounds don't get much of anything here. Until you can get great attendance at these races, and some type of extensive media and TV coverage there won't be much of a return at all.

Substantially weaken the status of LMS and ALMS, and you've cutoff your future as well.

This just isn't going to last more than a few years, leaving the rest of the scene in shambles.

as far as LMES is concerned, the LMP1 class for next year has already been abolished. How that will work out is difficult to say. For us (www.ultimatecarpage.com) it will probably mean that it will get less coverage, if that means anything, but as it may be held in combination with the thriving Classic Endurance Races (CER) there might be enough attention for it and I suppose that the participants may still have a chance to participate in the 24 Hours.
But yes, if the WEC falters, than it will be difficult to begin something new again. However, if WEC can live up to its promise, with manufacturers from Japan involved (again), it could be a success in Asia. Do you think that US people might have little interest in WEC even if Corvette Racing will field a two car team?

[Fogelhund]

In recent interviews, Corvette has stated they will stay in the ALMS.

[Coach Ep]

Labre is rumoured to enter 2 cars (evenly split over Pro and Am categories) in GT with ´some undefined support´ from P&M (could be as much as lending some drivers). No official announcement yet though.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by deggis

Explanation not accepted.

Why is it not accepted? Where is the flaw? Are Peugeot and Audi "running scared" from the petrol jalopies that they have to cheat to win? Ha, no. They know they are in a class of their own on the basis of their performance. I'm also quite sure that both have petrol engine designs on their hard drives. Petrol engines that would smash any of the "Oooh, I hope we can sell these to Barazi" Judds and Zyteks. They would use those engines if one decided to switch to petrol (assuming the board would approve), but Peugeot and Audi are big on marketing diesel so that is what they have both chosen. Either way, petrol or diesel, they both know all they have to beat is each other at the moment.

What I still have not received answers on is how it is fine that the HPDs can inflict a butt whooping on the 3.4L V8 Judds and Zyteks, but it's a travesty of the rules that Audi and Peugeot can put a less severe butt whooping on those same engines. Strakka put 7.5 seconds on the fastest non-HPD (Amaral's Zytek). The gap was ~8.3 seconds to the fastest Judd (OAK). It wasn't just the ARX-01s that were faster, even Mike Newton's Lola was faster than all the non-HPD powered cars. Ok, there was a gap between Newton and Strakka as well, but that was the case this year when they had the same cars too. Anyway, why was that difference perfectly acceptable? And why is a lesser difference just absolutely horrible now? It's real double speak. I think some people have convinced themselves that the old bargain basement Judds and Zyteks turned from crap to gold overnight!

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

I wasn't seeking a number, just comments with regards to how marketing demands are met. You take a look at the Asian rounds, with relatively few in attendance, and no TV deal to speak of. I don't know what coverage the rest of ILMC gets in Europe, or Asia, but the non-North American rounds don't get much of anything here. Until you can get great attendance at these races, and some type of extensive media and TV coverage there won't be much of a return at all.

Oh, but they have live streaming web coverage! Which is apparently the greatest thing ever. Even though it is the worst thing ever for the ALMS. Again, I don't get the dissonance. I'm not calling anyone out specifically on this point, but the vibe I pick up from the fans is that somehow web streaming on DailyMotion is going to propel the WEC to F1 levels of popularity.

What I am seeing is that the WEC is already making desperation moves to try to secure sufficient car counts. These proposed LMP2 rules are real head scratching moves. Moves of senility I would say if the rules are being interpreted correctly. They're forcing charity rules upon LMP1 in the hopes of keeping Rebellion from joining the ALMS. Who knows what BS they will pull to try to keep GTE cars from going to the ALMS/LMS instead of the WEC.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by AGD

Why is it not accepted? Where is the flaw?

Flaw is that you're seriously claiming marketing is a bigger factor than choosing a route that gives the best chance at winning.

That I still have not received answers on is how it is fine that the HPDs can inflict a butt whooping on the 3.4L V8 Judds and Zyteks, but it's a travesty of the rules that Audi and Peugeot can put a less severe butt whooping on those same engines.

There's really no point explaining this once more when you keep rejecting all differing views on the equivalence.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by deggis

Flaw is that you're seriously claiming marketing is a bigger factor than choosing a route that gives the best chance at winning.

Of course I am claiming that. Marketing is the #1 reason why a factory goes to race. Winning helps the marketing angle obviously, but that's not the only thing. Mazda would be just another winner if they won with a traditional engine, but it is what they won with that made the story. Audi won several times with the R8. Ok, there has to be a winner for every race, but the fact that they won with a diesel is what got newspapers to cover Le Mans here who normally could care less. It's a big deal.

Besides, if Peugeot went petrol for some odd reason, Audi would probably follow if the board approved and vice versa. Nobody is going to get one step ahead.

There's really no point explaining this once more when you keep rejecting all differing views on the equivalence.

The only explanation I got was that the HPD powered cars (including the Lola I suppose) out-handled the non-HPD powered cars and that is why there was such a massive difference in lap time (a massive difference that is greater than the difference between diesels and these same petrol engines). Well, maybe so! But in that case, I better go write my list of wishes and demands to the Great Pumpkin in the sky!

I just don't understand this ideology that seems to imply that it is impossible, simply impossible, that Audi and Peugeot can build better engines (and everything else) than Judd, Zytek, and anyone else with all things being equal except for money. 7 seconds may be a lot, but at Le Mans it isn't all that much and I would think that it is perfectly reasonable that Audi and Peugeot could build a product that goes 7 seconds faster than what much, much, much smaller privateers can do. Then again, I don't want Le Mans to turn into Talladega so I must be some sort of fascist! Boogity, boogity, boogity!

[deggis]

Originally Posted by AGD

Of course I am claiming that. Marketing is the #1 reason why a factory goes to race. Winning helps the marketing angle obviously, but that's not the only thing. Mazda would be just another winner if they won with a traditional engine, but it is what they won with that made the story. Audi won several times with the R8. Ok, there has to be a winner for every race, but the fact that they won with a diesel is what got newspapers to cover Le Mans here who normally could care less. It's a big deal.

The reason to go racing - I wasn't denying that but are you saying it's the #1 reason to build a car that they know is going to be handicapped because of the decision dictated purely by marketing reasons? In GT racing maybe, but this is not GT racing. It's now very different than in 2006 for example because "diesel wins LM" is no longer a big headline. And rotary engines have little to do with this subject since Group C wasn't restrictor racing in the first place.

Besides, if Peugeot went petrol for some odd reason, Audi would probably follow if the board approved and vice versa. Nobody is going to get one step ahead.

You're missing something. You're assuming Audi & Pug has a crystal ball so that they can be sure no other manufacturer is coming in certain period, hence allowing them to take the risk with a tech route that they know wouldn't ultimately to be faster route.

Boogity, boogity, boogity!

I have ignored these mostly but I think you are watering down this discussion with this kind of humor.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by deggis

You're missing something. You're assuming Audi & Pug has a crystal ball so that they can be sure no other manufacturer is coming in certain period, hence allowing them to take the risk with a tech route that they know wouldn't ultimately to be faster route.

Does it even matter? Maybe for a race or two, but the precedent is already set that the rules will be adjusted if anyone gets too much of an advantage. ACO LMP1 is already starting to look like ALMS LMP1 or GT in terms of constant rule reevaluations on the basis of results. If Toyota comes in and dominates, well, it'll only be for a little while because either the rules will change by themselves or Audi/Peugeot will make them change the rules. I may not blame them in this case specifically, but in general it seems that the rulebook is written purely with TV (web streaming?) in mind.

I apologize if you don't like the NASCAR humor, but if you don't like NASCAR culture, perhaps you should question the ACO rulebook and whether it represents something NASCAR would smile upon. At least NASCAR makes their intentions very clear. There's a real facade in the ACO world that this is a type of racing where teams can come in and innovate relatively freely and allow the results of their ideas and execution to be judged purely on the race track exclusively. It may not be explicit in the rulebook, but there is definitely an implicit rule that teams are not allowed to become too good. That is forbidden no matter how legal the effort is otherwise. Ok, I guess that is the new set of norms and rules the ACO is operating under these days, but I have a major issue with that ideology.