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

[JAG]

Originally Posted by TRuss

I know I've said this too many times. But hp numbers for electric motors are misleading. That 80hp motor is really producing close to 300+ft lbs of torque at next to no RPM. It could be a huge advantage.

Would you say a 550 bhp P2 engine with this Ker system is more potent than a 680bhp Aston Martin V12?

[cdsvg]

Originally Posted by gucom

sorry but henri pescarolo is a fool... he makes it look as if the entire advantage of the audi and peugeot is down to the more powerful engine and wants to see this entire gap closed by cutting the diesels, but anyone could see that its also chassis, aerodynamics, set-up, possibly faster drivers...

Agreed. He also claims the diesels have over 800hp, which seems pretty unlikely. IMO, its becoming obvious that the Pescarolo chassis is just too long in the tooth to be competing at the front of the field anymore.

[johntt]

Originally Posted by gucom

sorry but henri pescarolo is a fool... he makes it look as if the entire advantage of the audi and peugeot is down to the more powerful engine and wants to see this entire gap closed by cutting the diesels, but anyone could see that its also chassis, aerodynamics, set-up, possibly faster drivers...

I wouldn't say he was a fool, but is occasionally foolish.

Audi and Peugeot are big money full works teams, they have deeper pockets and resources than any privateer could ever have. As Marshall Pruett pointed out a couple of days ago, if a Pescarolo won at Le Mans because the diesels were pegged back in a big way then Peugeot and Audi would leave very quickly.

IMO what they need to do is restrict manufacturer involvement in P1 to engine supply; with the idea of P1 being for high level privateers and P2 for low level privateers, both with a spec KERS system.

For the manufacturers I would propose a new class which I would call GTP -as it would evoke the open-ended nature of the old IMSA GTP cars.

The chassis would remain the same as they currently are in P1 but would have to be closed top; in terms of drivetrain anything would go as long as it didn't exceed 750bhp (measured at the wheels). There would be no spec KERS or equalisation/performance balancing within the class or between it and other classes.

[gwyllion]

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newssept08.html has a good summary of the rule changes for 2009. Apparently the rear wing reduction caught people by surprise:

According to Nick Wirth, Chief of Design for the Acura LMP1 effort, "The ACO told us and all manufacturers some months ago that they were considering a rear wing change and engine restrictor changes - nothing else. So we didn't put a huge effort into a new rear, but I was surprised by the width reduction." Presumably this means back to the wind tunnel in order to optimize the rear wing due to the late implementation of the new rear wing regs and the ACO's lack of communication with the outfits embroiled in 2009 developments.

Another interesting fact:

Cars running air conditioning get a .3 mm inlet restrictor increase. No explanation has been given for this.

[cmk]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Easily. It is all dependant on what the ALMS decides to do. It would give the 1 team that has announced they wish to run a hybrid a chance to win something without disrupting the regular points chase for the rest of the grid with the unproven technology of the hybrid!


L.P.

Sure sounds like an IMSA exemption to me. I don't think we're talking at cross-purposes; the car can score points for whatever it can score points for only under the auspices of IMSA, because the official ACO policy pretends it is not there!

I'm starting to wonder how much time the ACO really spent in discourse with the manufacturers before issuing this ruleset. Given their import to the strength of ACO series, you should not wind up in a situation where Acura is able to get well into the late stages of their P1 design and have the rules changed on them. Similarly, the move from P1s with large engines to P1s with P2 engines seems to be working directly against trying to get the manufacturers out of P2 in the short-term. If I were Porsche, why would I go and develop a P1 block for 1-2 years at this juncture? Given that Penske does not seem to be a lost cause after all, I think this question is very relevant. Furthermore, why would Acura want to go develop the block to go in their P1 chassis when sooner or later they would be encouraged to shove the current P2 block back in the car? It all seems a little bit crossed up to me. Audi is similarly in an awkward position if the R15 is to have a new engine. Only Peugeot may not be caught out completely by this change, if indeed they intend to persist - and even their hybrid plan boat is not completely rocked. Hmm...

[Joe Taylor]

Originally Posted by gucom

sorry but henri pescarolo is a fool... he makes it look as if the entire advantage of the audi and peugeot is down to the more powerful engine and wants to see this entire gap closed by cutting the diesels, but anyone could see that its also chassis, aerodynamics, set-up, possibly faster drivers...

There is some factory vs. privateer features such as chassis and aero, but 10 seconds between the fastest diesel and petrol cars at Le Mans has got to be considerably down to the engine. Even during the peak of manufacturer entries, the manufacturer - petrol gap was never that big.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by johntt

both with a spec KERS system.

If even Williams F1 team is saying KERS is damn expensive, how do you think LM privateers can afford it? And using some kind of off the shelve spec system is a bit against the idea of pioneering such technology.

The press release doesn't actually mention "KERS" (neither kinetic recovery systems). It does say "hybrids" and "electric systems". Maybe this means nothing... but a lot more freedom and not just copying F1 would be a Joker card in ACO's pocket.

[Félix]

Last time the ACO mandated a specific displacement in top prototypes, we know how long it was 'till they realized how great that move was... I'm just wondering what manufacturers (say Aston with their big V12s) are supposed to want to showcase in a Formula where everybody has the same engine size. And turbo engines are not mentioned either. Seriously I don't see that many manufacturers interested in that; and there were so many rumoured.

I also wonder how they expect P2 cars to pass GT1 cars at Le Mans. Maybe on the outside in the Porsche curves?

And narrow wings are gonna look so bad!

I hope the ALMS keeps in making wise choices on their own.

For the time being, people designing their 2009 car still don't have the complete rules and those who were waiting for 2010 know they've been screwed and should be expecting more bad news from the next amateurish decisions and announcements from the ACO.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by Félix

For the time being, people designing their 2009 car still don't have the complete rules and those who were waiting for 2010 know they've been screwed and should be expecting more bad news from the next amateurish decisions and announcements from the ACO.

Yes indeed. I got a brief comment from Nick Wirth regarding these changes. His answer, effectively "news to me". Wirth indicates that the ACO did say a wing change was coming but that he was rather surprised about the width reduction. Back to the wind tunnel.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Félix

Last time the ACO mandated a specific displacement in top prototypes, we know how long it was 'till they realized how great that move was... I'm just wondering what manufacturers (say Aston with their big V12s) are supposed to want to showcase in a Formula where everybody has the same engine size. And turbo engines are not mentioned either. Seriously I don't see that many manufacturers interested in that; and there were so many rumoured.

For the time being, people designing their 2009 car still don't have the complete rules and those who were waiting for 2010 know they've been screwed and should be expecting more bad news from the next amateurish decisions and announcements from the ACO.

All things considered I think these are the most exciting LMP regs for quite some time, P2 engines are a known quantity, downsizing is the way to go long term, making room for hybrid technology. Both Lola and Zytek appeared pleased with the regs when interviewed on Motors TV.

[TRuss]

To answer question your Jag, I don't know. If the engine is only producing 550 hp then it's likely that it's displacement isn't too great. Which would mean that it would probably be a more peaky smaller engine. The electric motor(s) would certainly be a big help to it under acceleration, especially out of slower corners. I would imagine that the 680 hp Aston would be able to pass on a straight though. The Aston would still have a 50 peak hp advantage, most likely more displacement and possibly a little less weight.

[Flat12-Aircool]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

Regarding hybrids, would seem the ACO learned their lesson from the diesels. They blew the equivalency with those now they are simply being super cautious.

I don't think they did learn.

The ACO new exactly what they were doing with the Diesel regs, if it was otherwise why did it take 3 years for them to take serious action?

I think 2009-2010 is going to be no different from 2005 when Pescarolo had their one big chance to win Le Mans and fluffed it before some new rules kicked in.

When the 2011 regs arrive it'll once again be a Manufacturer show, as only they will be able to afford to run them effectively.

If thats what they want then fine, but I'm sure only Manufacturers running Energy recovery systems will be favoured to win.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by Flat12-Aircool

When the 2011 regs arrive it'll once again be a Manufacturer show, as only they will be able to afford to run them effectively.

Natural order.

[gwyllion]

According http://www.racecar-engineering.com/n...alse-dawn.html ACO only allows electronic hybrid systems, but no hydraulic and flywheel based devices for 2009. What a pitty!

[johntt]

Originally Posted by JAG

All things considered I think these are the most exciting LMP regs for quite some time, P2 engines are a known quantity, downsizing is the way to go long term, making room for hybrid technology. Both Lola and Zytek appeared pleased with the regs when interviewed on Motors TV.

True, My only concern would be that what happens to the independent engine builders when P2 switches to GT2 engines (would they be able to build engines to GT2 specs?) and if they get squeezed by the manufacturers in the P1 class when it goes to P2 engines. Otherwise it makes a lot of sense to put GT2 engines into P2 provided they open the restrictorsa bit.

I don't share Felix's concern about the switch to P2 engines in P1, in the next few years there are not going to be many new large capacity engines coming up and the ACO are making a good decision by anticpating whats going to happen in the automotive industry and providing the with the arena to test and develop such engines.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

According http://www.racecar-engineering.com/n...alse-dawn.html ACO only allows electronic hybrid systems, but no hydraulic and flywheel based devices for 2009. What a pitty!

YES and NO

Need to start someplace and having one only hybrid system will be easier to regulate

[Dead-Eye]

Isn't the electric system also the most relevant to road car development?

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

Isn't the electric system also the most relevant to road car development?

Right now it's the most (only?) used, but it somewhat defies the purpose of a hybrid, as mining the -what was it?- Nickel? for the batteries is a pretty dirty and energy-consuming. At least according to one study the eco-balance of a Toyota Prius is worse than that of a Hummer.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

According http://www.racecar-engineering.com/n...alse-dawn.html ACO only allows electronic hybrid systems, but no hydraulic and flywheel based devices for 2009. What a pitty!

"The new 2009 regulations only allow electronic hybrid systems and effectivley outlaw experimental hydraulic and flywheel based devices. No reasoning has yet been given by the ACO."

Where this info is from? Notice that it says 2009 regs. Might not be the case with 2010.

I already got my hopes up that upcoming rules would be more open minded than in F1.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Flat12-Aircool

I don't think they did learn.

The ACO new exactly what they were doing with the Diesel regs, if it was otherwise why did it take 3 years for them to take serious action?

I think 2009-2010 is going to be no different from 2005 when Pescarolo had their one big chance to win Le Mans and fluffed it before some new rules kicked in.

When the 2011 regs arrive it'll once again be a Manufacturer show, as only they will be able to afford to run them effectively.

If thats what they want then fine, but I'm sure only Manufacturers running Energy recovery systems will be favoured to win.

The first such system to hit the track will be Zyteks with Corsa, you would think they are looking for further customers/partners.

[TRuss]

Toyota have already raced and won with a hybrid powered Supra. It used capacitors to store energy instead of batteries. This is not logical on a road car though, and would probably not be a very good testbed for road going technologies. Great for a race car though. Lithium Polymer (LiPo) batteries are actually not bad for the environment. There are also Lithium Ion which is what the Peugeot is using. And newer Lithium Iron (LiFe). These are not as light and lack the capacity of LiPo but they can discharge at greater currents, and are much safer, as they will not puff or explode if abused or damaged. Both very likely in a race car.

[Japanese Samurai]

2011 regulation(P2 engine for P1) is very interesting.
Because the new engine will be used in Super GT(GT500) and Formula Nippon in 09 season.
This engine is 3.4 liter V8 engine!
In Super GT, this engine is used with the air restrictor.
In Formula Nippon, this engine is used with the rotational speed limiter.

[JAG]

Lots of factory backed V8's doing the rounds, the GT500 motors, DTM V8's, the 430 based V8 in the new A1 GP car etc.

[ger80]

Originally Posted by TRuss

Toyota have already raced and won with a hybrid powered Supra. It used capacitors to store energy instead of batteries. This is not logical on a road car though, and would probably not be a very good testbed for road going technologies. Great for a race car though. Lithium Polymer (LiPo) batteries are actually not bad for the environment. There are also Lithium Ion which is what the Peugeot is using. And newer Lithium Iron (LiFe). These are not as light and lack the capacity of LiPo but they can discharge at greater currents, and are much safer, as they will not puff or explode if abused or damaged. Both very likely in a race car.

But capacitors are making sense if you only want to store the brakeing energy infront of a corner and use it when accerlating out of that corner.

[TRuss]

I know. That's why I said it's great for a race car but would not make sense to develop such a technology on the race track for a road car.