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

[Pandemonium]

I have a question. If engines keep improving their efficiency year by year by say... .5 % Won´t LMP´1s just get faster if the ACO does not touch the fuel consumption rate?

[Flo aus N]

Originally Posted by Pandemonium

I have a question. If engines keep improving their efficiency year by year by say... .5 % Won´t LMP´1s just get faster if the ACO does not touch the fuel consumption rate?

Well, it will depend on the rules, especially the chassis rules. If teams are sill "allowed" to do things like flexing wings or body work, then in 2015 we will have a good chance, that the 3:20 will fall, if engines rules stay the same, because if you look at the rules and the energy which arrives at the wheel, i am sure that Toyota and Porsche will go down the 8 MJ route and that would be good for one second. If they ban all these flexible stuff, than it will be hard to get the same lap times.

[TF110]

They could have did 3:20 this year with a proper low fuel run. Next year theyll more than likely be faster. Especially if the go to 8mj.

[MyNameIsNigel]

New EoT has now been published. Contrary to what was previously announced by sportscar365.com the diesel fuel tank capacity has actually been deceased by 0.1 liter, from 54.3 l to 54.2 l.

As reported by motorsport-total.com, Audi appear to be satisfied by this adjustment.

[chernaudi]

I wondered why Audi would have less diesel engine energy available per stint but an increased fuel tank size.

However, they do have more energy available per lap, so they get a bit more engine power with perhaps a slightly reduced stint. And it was in terms of top speed where Audi have been lacking most of this season.

[TF110]

Because in high downforce trim, they focused on just that- downforce. At LM they werent lacking top speed.

I like they give the ers mj/lap total for circuits. Last year was 4, 500kj zones= 2mj/lap at Austin. vs. 3.76mj/lap this year for 6mj class.

[chernaudi]

Actually, Toyota and Porsche still have a big top speed advantage at LM--Audi never really got close to setting a sector 2 fastest time. It also didn't help that Porsche and Toyota often had to let off before the speed traps to begin harvesting energy.

It wasn't under acceleration that they pulled away from Audi until the cars were running about 150-160mph from the overhead shots. They still had a sizable top speed advantage until it was harvesting time. This was further evidenced that Audi often had a similarly huge advantage in sectors 1&3.

[GasperG]

There is really a small step from 6MJ to 8MJ for petrol, only 1.5 MJ fuel deficit, that would translate in only something like 0.6 MJ actual usable energy. Even if the car is capable only of 6.5 MJ it's worth it. I think we will see all petrol hybrids in 8 MJ class next year.

On the other hand for Audi to go 4MJ they would have to do at least 3.5 MJ to be worth it, but I think they will do it without any changes to the car.

Current balancing is done on the current values in current classes. Are the rules final or will there be another adjustment next year?

[chernaudi]

Unless the ACO/FIA see fit, the current EOT is good though LM next season. Though all teams can make changes to their MJ class at the end of the season.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by GasperG

There is really a small step from 6MJ to 8MJ for petrol, only 1.5 MJ fuel deficit, that would translate in only something like 0.6 MJ actual usable energy. Even if the car is capable only of 6.5 MJ it's worth it. I think we will see all petrol hybrids in 8 MJ class next year.

On the other hand for Audi to go 4MJ they would have to do at least 3.5 MJ to be worth it, but I think they will do it without any changes to the car.

Current balancing is done on the current values in current classes. Are the rules final or will there be another adjustment next year?

From now on, the EoT is only supposed to be revised once a year after LM and be valid up to and including LM the following year. There should not therefore be any change until after LM 2015. The only exception is the LMP1-L class.

As far as Audi are concerned, moving from the 2 MJ to the 4 MJ ERS option (assuming the current ERS architecture is sufficient) would amount to a 2.5% reduction in fuel consumption. I would expect that Audi can achieve this target. Nothing prevents them from beating that target as a matter of fact and improving their engine efficiency by e.g. 5% would be largely sufficient.

It is still a bit surprising that the impact on the reduction of petrol fuel allocation when moving from the 6 MJ to the 8 MJ ERS option is so minimal (1% reduction). ERS weight is likely the issue, but there is evidently a larger ERS incentive for that 8 MJ ERS option in the petrol class, which is not entirely consistent with the concept of the "ERS incentive" that was announced last December.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

There should not therefore be any change until after LM 2015. The only exception is the LMP1-L class..

And the fuel restrictor adjustments which are for some reason independent from EoT
http://www.fia.com/sites/default/fil...14%28dc%29.pdf

* Diesel fuel 25mm for all races until the end of the season
* Petrol fuel : 25,95 mm maximum for all races until the end of the season
Fuel temperature measurements will be made during these 5 events to anticipate an average temperature for the 2015 season.

[GasperG]

Is improving engine efficiency allowed?

I thought that any deviation of more than 3% from the measured BSFC at the test day will be penalised, or was this the case only this season?

[TF110]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

From now on, the EoT is only supposed to be revised once a year after LM and be valid up to and including LM the following year. There should not therefore be any change until after LM 2015. The only exception is the LMP1-L class.

As far as Audi are concerned, moving from the 2 MJ to the 4 MJ ERS option (assuming the current ERS architecture is sufficient) would amount to a 2.5% reduction in fuel consumption. I would expect that Audi can achieve this target. Nothing prevents them from beating that target as a matter of fact and improving their engine efficiency by e.g. 5% would be largely sufficient.

It is still a bit surprising that the impact on the reduction of petrol fuel allocation when moving from the 6 MJ to the 8 MJ ERS option is so minimal (1% reduction). ERS weight is likely the issue, but there is evidently a larger ERS incentive for that 8 MJ ERS option in the petrol class, which is not entirely consistent with the concept of the "ERS incentive" that was announced last December.

Definitely incentive to run 8mj. @Austin "8mj petrol" has 62mj petrol energy but 5.02mj hybrid energy. While "6mj petrol" with 62.6mj petrol energy but 'just' 3.76mj hybrid energy. So 67.02mj total (8mj class) vs. 66.36mj total (6mj class) = .66mj difference. Not so insignificant

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by GasperG

Is improving engine efficiency allowed?

I thought that any deviation of more than 3% from the measured BSFC at the test day will be penalised, or was this the case only this season?

The "dissuasive penalty" was only applicable during the LM 2014 race according to the original EoT-related decision of past December in the event of a BSFC deviation of more than 2%. From now on, no similar "dissuasive penalty" applies and all manufacturers could basically work on beating the BSFC targets currently being contemplated by the ACO-FIA. This could happen as early as at the occasion of the next race at Austin as a matter of fact.

Considering that Audi are basically stuck with their current ERS architecture, I would expect that the main area of development for Audi for next year is going to be improved engine efficiency. Porsche and Toyota could basically follow a similar avenue, but there is probably less incentive for them to "dramatically" improve engine efficiency considering that they are already sitting at the upper part of the ERS scale and only have to slightly improve engine efficiency (i.e. by 1%) to meet the fuel consumption targets in the 8 MJ ERS category.

BTW, if the ACO-FIA were to limit the ability to improve engine efficiency, one would have to wonder if that would be a correct move as this area of development is of substantial and direct interest for road car applications.

[Flo aus N]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

The "dissuasive penalty" was only applicable during the LM 2014 race according to the original EoT-related decision of past December in the event of a BSFC deviation of more than 2%. From now on, no similar "dissuasive penalty" applies and all manufacturers could basically work on beating the BSFC targets currently being contemplated by the ACO-FIA. This could happen as early as at the occasion of the next race at Austin as a matter of fact.

Considering that Audi are basically stuck with their current ERS architecture, I would expect that the main area of development for Audi for next year is going to be improved engine efficiency. Porsche and Toyota could basically follow a similar avenue, but there is probably less incentive for them to "dramatically" improve engine efficiency considering that they are already sitting at the upper part of the ERS scale and only have to slightly improve engine efficiency (i.e. by 1%) to meet the fuel consumption targets in the 8 MJ ERS category.

BTW, if the ACO-FIA were to limit the ability to improve engine efficiency, one would have to wonder if that would be a correct move as this area of development is of substantial and direct interest for road car applications.

Das anybody have the actuall rules of the EoT ? Because if thats right, that the efficiency targets no longer exist, this could give the manufactors an increase in horsepower. It would be interesting who would be able to increase their effeciency and therefore their power output.
Combined with a move in the 8 MJ petrol class, this could lead to same really crazy lap times at Le Mans. Remember: this year pole times was a 3:21.7 and a 3:22 by Audi in the race, without using the hybrid there.

[J Jay]

Are the ACO still (trying to) enforce their 3:30 target average lap time? Even if not, I still think there will still be downward adjustments across the board.

Also if I remember the numbers right, the 8MJ petrol/4MJ diesel discrepancy is actually bigger than 6MJ petrol/2MJ diesel. We'll see if this holds.

[JoestForEver]

Originally Posted by J Jay

Are the ACO still (trying to) enforce their 3:30 target average lap time? Even if not, I still think there will still be downward adjustments across the board.

Also if I remember the numbers right, the 8MJ petrol/4MJ diesel discrepancy is actually bigger than 6MJ petrol/2MJ diesel. We'll see if this holds.

Not in the current rules cycle IMO. You'll need god-knows-how-much of effort to slow down the current generation of P1. Perhaps rules after 2016 might do this. But I'd rather they just change the target to an average of 3.25.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by Flo aus N

Das anybody have the actuall rules of the EoT ? Because if thats right, that the efficiency targets no longer exist, this could give the manufactors an increase in horsepower. It would be interesting who would be able to increase their effeciency and therefore their power output.
Combined with a move in the 8 MJ petrol class, this could lead to same really crazy lap times at Le Mans. Remember: this year pole times was a 3:21.7 and a 3:22 by Audi in the race, without using the hybrid there.

Engine peak power output is still restricted by way of the maximum instantaneous fuel flow limits provided in the Appendix B table for each ERS class. Improved efficiency will only allow competitors to run longer with the same amount of fuel.

[Flo aus N]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Engine peak power output is still restricted by way of the maximum instantaneous fuel flow limits provided in the Appendix B table for each ERS class. Improved efficiency will only allow competitors to run longer with the same amount of fuel.

The amount of fuel per second is limited. But not the power. If you increase your thermal efficiency of you engine, you will be able to produce more power from the same amount of fuel, which flows every second in your combustion engine. Longer stints are only doable by reducing your fuel consumption under the maximum allowed amount. This makes only sense if your time lost due to less consumption / power is less than the time gained in the pits by saving for example 2 stops. This would only make sense, if your normal length of the stint would be at 13.95 or above.

If die petrol cars would go up to the 8 MJ class and would be able to improve their efficiency, theese 2 things would be good for a gain in lap time of about 2.5 secs per lap at Le Mans, plus the ususall gains due to better tyre and suspension management and aero improvement...

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by Flo aus N

The amount of fuel per second is limited. But not the power. If you increase your thermal efficiency of you engine, you will be able to produce more power from the same amount of fuel, which flows every second in your combustion engine.

Indeed, you're correct. My mistake

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by JoestForEver

Not in the current rules cycle IMO. You'll need god-knows-how-much of effort to slow down the current generation of P1. Perhaps rules after 2016 might do this. But I'd rather they just change the target to an average of 3.25.

See, I thought these fuel flow limits gave the ACO a relatively straightforward way of increasing lap times just by reducing the numbers. Doesn't sound like a massive amount of effort to reduce the fuel flows by 10-20%, although I'm sure the factory engineers would be working very hard to recover the loss.

[carbon_titanium]

Now that the min.weight of LMP1-L is 800kg, why don't bring down the LMP1-H to 850kg? fuel efficency will improve for sure.

[J Jay]

It would, but I think it would put too much of a squeeze on the cars to be under weight and at the "ideal" weight distribution. Unless there's some crazy weight saving tricks still to be had, getting to 850kg and 8/4MJ seems like too much of a compromise for the manufacturers, when this season 870kg was restrictive enough to force the petrol cars to go down to 6MJ.

[TF110]

The size of the hybrid systems is one reason. But next year I think Toyota and Porsche will be doing 8mj. That is weight saving or more efficient hybrids allowing that. I think they could hit 850kg, but balance may be a little off. Non hybrids should be 775kg imo. That would mean a hybrid system = ~100kg. I think that would be enticing for more private teams, and would be close to where the p2's from a few years back in alms were at.

[Pandemonium]

I hope that LMP1´s are a bit faster by 2016 rules.