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

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by DeutschRenn

will an energy recover system make it easier on the brakes? since the energy recovery takes the kinetic energy of the wheels. so wil lyou need less and therfore lighter brakes?

Also isnt the 60liters of fuel limit that they gave the diesels just more room to put ballast in the right places which could make them faster?

If the system was able to recover all the energy from braking then you would not need conventional brakes. (They may be required as a safety backup.)

It may also be possible to integrate braking into a generator unit and dump the energy produced but that would waste energy.

If the the generator cannot carry out all the braking then conventional brakes would be needed. They will probably need to be the same size as normal i.e. they will still need to halt a tonne of racing car from 200+ mph but the life of the components should be longer as they will have less work to do over a race distance, at Le Mans this should mean no brake component changes.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by DeutschRenn

i think they thought they would slow the cars bye having less downforce.....but apparently they forgot that less downforce equals less drag.....and more top speed.

And of course less downforce is less downforce, only when it actually is less downforce. Hopefully the article will be in RCE at some point soon (if not, I'll chuck it up on the website), but Simon McBeath and I did a CFD study of the rear wing reductions for 2009 coupled with a look at the evolution of the swan neck and saw a 34% initial DF reduction turn into 18% or thereabouts with only a handful of runs and only looking at the rear wing. If a couple of novices can practically turn around the loss then I'm 100% confident that not only did Audi and Peugeot not have any less DF in 2009, they might have had a tad more. Yes, lap times were 2% down in '09, but then again, drag was slightly higher and diesels took a 10% power cut.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

If the system was able to recover all the energy from braking then you would not need conventional brakes. (They may be required as a safety backup.)

It is probably wise to have a conventional brake system as backup.

On some F1 cars (e.g. Redbull) the KERS has failed in a number of races. When this happens, the driver has to adjust the brake balance because the friction brakes have to do the work.

Moreover, I don't know if you can lock the brakes (e.g., in case of an emergency stop) with regenerative brakes.

[wolfhound]

A lot of people assume energy recovery systems will all use eletricity and batteries.

This may not turn out to be the case especially with higher powered systems.

Other possible methods could be flywheels (has good potential), compressed air, hydraulic and supercapacitors. There may be other methods out there that could also be used or combinations of the above.

In F1 the amount of energy stored is quite small and seems to suit batteries but for more powerful systems they have their limitations.
We are also still close to the bottom of the learning curve for such systems and what we have today will probably not look anything like what will be used in 5 years time.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Other possible methods could be flywheels (has good potential), compressed air, hydraulic and supercapacitors. There may be other methods out there that could also be used or combinations of the above.

We'll probably see the flywheel with Porsche, yes? It'll be interesting to see how the rules fit all the different types of hybrid systems.

We had the debate before whether factory programs choose technology on the basis of marketing or performance, but I think that question will be tested with the different forms of hybrid technology.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

A lot of people assume energy recovery systems will all use eletricity and batteries.

This may not turn out to be the case especially with higher powered systems.

Other possible methods could be flywheels (has good potential), compressed air, hydraulic and supercapacitors. There may be other methods out there that could also be used or combinations of the above.

Most of the braking is done with the front wheels. So if you look at kinetic energy recovery, a system that operates on the front wheels has the largest potential.

The most logical way for me is to convert the kinetic energy into electricity and use some sort of battery (based on lithium polymer cells, supercapacitors, a flywheel, ...).

Connecting a hydraulic pump, a compressor, or a flywheel directly to the front wheels seems like a packaging nightmare.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

The Audi press release from which EI extracted those quotes, can be found (in English): here.

Audi does have a valid point when they say:

In 2010 the hybrid system had to improve the fuel economy by at least 2.5% (= 2/81) for it to make sense. However, in 2012 it has to yield an improvement of at least 3.3% (= 2/60).

Strangly they also don't like the new mandatory louvers on the wheel fenders...
If the aero balance is shifted forward, why not compensate this with more rear downforce. Moreover, the rear fenders are also mandated to get louvers.

Apparently in the latest Bulletin the mandatory front and rear "louvers" for 2012 have evolved into something else entirely. I'm hearing they are now giant "holes" in both the front and rear fenders. Working on getting more information.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

Apparently in the latest Bulletin the mandatory front and rear "louvers" for 2012 have evolved into something else entirely. I'm hearing they are now giant "holes" in both the front and rear fenders. Working on getting more information.

I hope the "holes" don't come to fruition. I can only imagine what that may look like....

[Tim the Grey]

Or not look like. Holes are something, by definition, you cannot see?

[gustavobamba]

Originally Posted by Tim the Grey

Or not look like. Holes are something, by definition, you cannot see?

[kober]

Originally Posted by Tim the Grey

Or not look like. Holes are something, by definition, you cannot see?

That would be true, if we talked about black holes

[gustavobamba]

I would like to discuss an ideia for the WEC and the Factory vs Private team´s.

An Rule that the factory team´s would have 2 cars plus 1 to the private teams.
And that 3rd car scores to the manufactures championship!!!

This should look something like this (introduce your ideas please)

2 Peugeot + 1 Oreca?
2 Audi + 1 Pescarolo?
2 Toyota + 1 Rebbelion?
2 Porsche + 1 IMSA Performance Matmut/Joest?
2 Nissan + 1 Signateck?
1 Honda + 1 Strakka racing?
1 Jaguar + 1 OAK?
1 Aston Martin + 1 Kronos Racing?

P.S. The team´s like OAK; Zytek; Lola; Oreca and other´s continue to produce chassis for the LMP2 class

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

Apparently in the latest Bulletin the mandatory front and rear "louvers" for 2012 have evolved into something else entirely. I'm hearing they are now giant "holes" in both the front and rear fenders. Working on getting more information.

So something different than IMSA bulletin #11-19?

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

So something different than IMSA bulletin #11-19?

Yes.

[DeutschRenn]

At this point i dont care what the cars look like. As longs as its in the name of safety. I dont ever want to see any driver lose his life again.

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by DeutschRenn

I dont ever want to see any driver lose his life again.

Then park the cars.

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

In the light of today's events at Las Vegas, but also all the other close calls the racing world had this year: Is it time to mandate closed cars in all classes?

..and yet it is F1 with the best record over the last 15 years for fewest deaths... More safety is always good though.

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

..and yet it is F1 with the best record over the last 15 years for fewest deaths... More safety is always good though.

They had a close call with Massa in Hungary and what happened to Surtees in F2 could have happened the same way in an F1-car.

Having the most vulnerable part of the human body out there where it can be hit by pieces of flying debris just doesn't make any sense...

[DeutschRenn]

Las Vegas was an isolated incident. i dont think it signifies the state of motorsport. like everyone has said before.....open wheel cars going 225mph for lap after lap three wide rookie style was always going to end in tears.

Lemans cars and F1 cars dont race 3 wide(usually) and not at 225mph.hence being much safer than indy cars on an oval.....

and of course everyone can say things after the terrible incident including me...but what can i say..but i admit I took Indy car racing on ovals for granted....i didnt think the unthinkable would happen...and it did.

[Pandamasque]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

Yes.

So the new LMP cars are going to be 'more openwheel' than the 2012 Indycar Dallara?

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by Pandamasque

So the new LMP cars are going to be 'more openwheel' than the 2012 Indycar Dallara?

Funny that you say that...yes, quite possibly! I'll post something tonight.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by DeutschRenn

Las Vegas was an isolated incident. i dont think it signifies the state of motorsport. like everyone has said before.....open wheel cars going 225mph for lap after lap three wide rookie style was always going to end in tears.

As I don't follow Indycar I was under the impression Las Vegas was a road course as they were inviting rookies from different disciplines. When even experienced drivers were wary of the track it beggers belief they were going to allow the likes of Pastrana to compete.

It's such a specialised skill, like rallying, and we've seen how Raikkonen and Block have got on there.

[Gingers4Justice]

Safety is good, and we don't ever want to see deaths. IndyCar doesn't need to be that dangerous.

But you can take it too far. Would anyone care about motorsport if it was 100% safe? And would it attract personalities like Sir Stirling Moss?

The answer is no and no. No sport is 100% safe anyway. Drivers are paid a lot, and they know the risks. Two drivers have some whopping great big crashes at Le Mans in prototypes and there have been numerous amounts of airborn crashes in the past 4 years or so - has anyone even broken a bone yet?

Rugby's probably more dangerous these days.

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

Funny that you say that...yes, quite possibly! I'll post something tonight.

More open wheel than this ?

http://www.autoblog.com/photos/dalla...ncept-chassis/

I take it your refering to the rear wheel , and not the front ?

[Dead-Eye]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

The answer is no and no. No sport is 100% safe anyway. Drivers are paid a lot, and they know the risks. Two drivers have some whopping great big crashes at Le Mans in prototypes and there have been numerous amounts of airborn crashes in the past 4 years or so - has anyone even broken a bone yet?

Ortelli in the Oreca at Monza 2008 springs to mind.