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

[deggis]

Originally Posted by AGD

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.

Will be adjusted - in theory. The previous adjustments have set a pretty good precedent of not doing much... so they'd still need a crystal ball.

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.

Lets add another "if": even if Toyota dominates with a diesel?

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.

Nice idea and so on, but unfortunately that just isn't bound to work with the type of restrictor plate regs we have right now. Last time regulations allowed true innovation was during Group C. It didn't need equivalence because it had a sort of natural selection.

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.

Looks like we're going to hit another deadend since you think the equivalence has been right from day 1 (and during pre-2011 regs too?) so I don't really see this ideology you're talking about.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by deggis

Lets add another "if": even if Toyota dominates with a diesel?

So you're saying what if a Toyota diesel dominates against Audi and Peugeot diesels? My guess is that there would be calls to choke the Toyota (or whoever is dominating) somehow. I don't know how they would do it. The convenient excuse the petrol runners have would not exist. I would not put it past the ACO to find something though. It seems that is the direction we are heading towards. It would be like GTE.

Nice idea and so on, but unfortunately that just isn't bound to work with the type of restrictor plate regs we have right now. Last time regulations allowed true innovation was during Group C. It didn't need equivalence because it had a sort of natural selection.

It's exactly the facade I'm talking about. I don't think the LMP1 "problem" has anything to do with fuel equivalence and instead is purely a matter of Audi and Peugeot just being better. Anyway, why even allow different types of fuels if difference in performance isn't even allowed? It sounds like the geniuses that came up with "Separate but equal." If you want to portray the series as being open, fine, be open. If not, restrict it to just one fuel. I'd prefer the former over the latter, but both are better than the fake sense of pure, open competition the ACO would like people to believe the current racing is at the moment.

Looks like we're going to hit another deadend since you think the equivalence has been right from day 1 (and during pre-2011 regs too?) so I don't really see this ideology you're talking about.

The idea is that there is a constant chase to either A) prevent the diesels runners (as in the teams running them, not the fuel itself) from having a result advantage over the rest of LMP1 or B) prevent the result gap from getting any bigger than it is. Their attempts to equalize are done though silly rules and silly rule wordings that portray the ACO's efforts as equalizing technology when they are really trying to do a pure BoP on the pure basis of lap times instead. Some fans would get concerned if the ACO came right out and said "We're regulating/controlling the performance gaps between Audi/Peugeot and Rebellion/Pescarolo/whoever." That's basically what the ALMS does with P1 as well as other series like Grand-Am. Instead, they are making it out to be a diesel-petrol issue. It's a lot easier to hide behind that and pretend your intentions are noble.

[TF110]

Diesel Toyota? I doubt that. Make a new technology that's not used in most parts of the world (in Toyota's market)? I see the argument here, but I mostly agree with the fact companies make race cars to sell road cars. There's other things involved like research, technology etc. But comparing a factory Audi or Peugeot to a Lola with some old engine in the back is kinda far out there. Why would they expect someone spending 20million to touch someone spending 100million? That's like saying Virgin can match McLaren and RedBull in F1. It's not going to happen. You need money to buy talent, recruit talent, put that talent to the track. Audi etc. have the budget to do so. Rebellion, Oak etc. don't.

[Félix]

Originally Posted by AGD

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,

You don't understand how restrictors affect maximum engine power. Spending millions (many many of them) will barely get a double-digit increase in horsepower over a decent customer engine like the Judd or Zytek. And whatever you say, Judd and Zytek know what they are doing and are not "crap" at all.

In fact keep saying that and all your arguments fall apart automatically. They turn to crap. Crap engines are engines that are not reliable or are seriously underdeveloped. Crap engines are no longer present in endurance racing (although Zytek's record in 2011 could mean they fit the bill). Crap engines were the GP2 Mecachrome Noel del Bello tried in 2006(?). It was the AER I4 when it couldn't last with the fuel issue - solved. It was the privately-tuned Ford V8s found in the Norma and Lavaggi. It was the Mader V8 also found in the Norma. Apart from that, please show me credible people seriously claiming an engine power benefit is costing them time on track. If you can't, you'll have to stop using that baseless argument.

Acura and Porsche traded punches in the LMP2 days but were they ever more than 10hp apart? Can we say the Rebellion "Toyota" engine has a significant advantage over the Judd found in the OAKs? If you say yes to that, that would mean the ancient Pescarolo is superior enough to the recently overhauled Lola to make up a power deficit... not gonna happen.

The biggest factor in how fast an LMP is is aero. The diesels will still win even if the ACO goes as far as putting them at a disadvantage because they have superior chassis and resources to figure them out. The races will just be more interesting. Before claiming the HPD engine is worth 7 seconds around LM, you have to look at how well the engine did in the Fernandez Lola. Then think about how much worst the historically-weaker-on-fast-tracks-than-on-street-tracks Lola roadster would have been on a European track like LM. Oh yeah, it's not the HPD engine, it's mostly the HPD chassis! And conviniently, no one else ran an HPD or anything nearly that advanced. Another baseless argument.

One can't gain a big power advantage with balanced restrictor rules. The only to achieve that is when the equivalency between different engine types is skewed. (That's how Porsche went from going nowhere in FIA GT to being in contention for pole and winning LM in 1998)

[henk4]

Re the discussion above regarding engines.
Bear in mind that it is not only the engine that makes a car go fast(er). Peugeot and Audi have the money to develop and test state of the art chassis, while the Lola and Pescarolo stuff is basically five to six years old. You may say that Oak is still racing with a Courage based tub.

[TF110]

That's the truth. A new car, versus cars modified? How long have those tubs been around? There's nothing that AGD said that was wrong IMO. It's engines, chassis, aero etc. But that's because the big Manufacturers have the money to do this. Privateers don't. Which is why you don't see them winning. The HPD@ Sebring early this year never tested at all, yet placed 2nd to a proven race winning chassis/engine combination in the Oreca 908. How is that so? When time is taken, and when serious skill and technical know-how is put to something, it will perform. I'm betting Toyota will be on the mark. Porsche as well. And they won't be using diesel.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by Félix

And whatever you say, Judd and Zytek know what they are doing and are not "crap" at all.

It's not a case of them knowing what they are doing. And saying they are crap engines is a bit of hyperbole, but the crap designation may realistically describe the Zytek and almost certainly describes the AER MZR-R. Look how many performance adjustments it took to get that AER lump competitive with the grandfathered Aston V12 and even then Dyson had a significant weight break. Maybe I should blame the MZR-R's lack of pace on the isobutanol-petrol balance. Why not, right?

The problem with the Judd is that it is an older engine designed to sell to lower budget LMP2 teams. It may be reliable, but it probably does not have nearly the type of development as something Audi and Peugeot would build. The HPD is something that has had factory program development and I think that shows on the track. Forget about the ARX-01 chassis, even the RML Lola-HPD from last year outqualified the fastest 3.4L Judd by 2-2.5 seconds at Le Mans if I remember correctly.

Of course, when you add a well-polished chassis like an ARX-01, R18, or 908 to the mix, these ultra-quick lap times start to look more feasible. Add to that better tires and all the other stuff the factory teams have. Look at the drivers even. We have discussions on this forum about Audi and Peugeot drivers who are slower than their teammates by a noticeable margin. These "slow" drivers are some of the biggest names in auto racing like TK, Wurz, Lamy, Gene, and so forth. These Audi and Peugeot guys aren't just rolling something off the truck and sleepwalking their way to laps that are 7 seconds faster. The type of commitment and push they are bringing to the track is tremendous. Everyone on those teams is feeling the pressure to perform while running at 100%.

I think one of the issues right now with LMP1 is the lack of quality privateer options. The ARX-03a will run next year. That is a positive step. There is word that the TMG Toyota should be improved for next year. That is another step. OAK made some nice gains since their troubled period around Le Mans. Still, a lot of the privateer stuff just seem like old relics. It would be nice if Wirth or Oreca could come out with a new customer coupe that has something to compete with the factory teams. I guess the interest isn't there for that at the moment though.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by AGD

I think one of the issues right now with LMP1 is the lack of quality privateer options.

LMP2 was set up for privateers, LMP1 as a factory class. So this can hardly be an issue.

[ubrben]

I'm cautiously optimistic about these changes. I can see merit on both sides of the discussion. Clearly an OEM programme should beat a privateer programme in terms of resources alone if the tech regs are equal.

Looking at Judd alone you'd say the regs are unfair, but the HPD and Toyota petrol engines are clearly better - making it easier to argue the OEM vs. Privateer position.

Having said that it is clear that (ignore torque) the diesels have enjoyed a theoretical and practical horsepower advantage since they arrived on the scene. This is the marketing reality of getting Audi and Peugeot involved. The ACO made a calculation that these two OEMs going toe-to-toe was better value than keeping the petrol privateers happy.

It's now reached the stage that a viable world championship needs more than Audi and Peugeot so other OEMs have come to the table; Toyota, Jaguar, Porsche, etc. I think it's got to the point where ****ing off Audi and Peugeot by reducing the diesel advantage is more than offset by bringing in other OEMs.

Ben

[AGD]

Originally Posted by henk4

LMP2 was set up for privateers, LMP1 as a factory class. So this can hardly be an issue.

Well, there is that angle as well. Then again, what has not gotten much attention the last two days are the new LMP2 rules. I don't quite understand them, but if what Dagys is saying is correct, the ACO may have just killed off the LMP2 class. Anyway, I think it's great if privateers want to give LMP1 a shot, but they can't expect to compete for wins just for showing up. That's not the way this business works.

Originally Posted by ubrben

The ACO made a calculation that these two OEMs going toe-to-toe was better value than keeping the petrol privateers happy.

Did they seriously have to do calculations to come to that conclusion? For all the whining and moaning over Audi and Peugeot, the races they compete in get many times more attention from the fans than the ones where they don't compete. How much interest was there in ALMS P1 this year? Ha. Heck, there wasn't even an Estoril event thread here until after the race weekend started. ALMS and LMS had great battles in P1 amongst some fan favorite teams, but who cared really? I was one of the few it seemed.

I think it's got to the point where ****ing off Audi and Peugeot by reducing the diesel advantage is more than offset by bringing in other OEMs.

It's hard to say, but I think the biggest thing that might prevent a factory from joining in isn't the rules, but the fact that Peugeot and Audi seem very committed to staying and competing in LMP1. Often companies will join for 2-3 years, get their win, and then leave. I don't think that is going to happen with these two. In fact, VAG might bring Audi's sisters and brothers to join Audi. One of them is already assured.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by AGD

So you're saying what if a Toyota diesel dominates against Audi and Peugeot diesels? My guess is that there would be calls to choke the Toyota (or whoever is dominating) somehow. I don't know how they would do it. The convenient excuse the petrol runners have would not exist. I would not put it past the ACO to find something though. It seems that is the direction we are heading towards. It would be like GTE.

My guess is that absolutely nothing would be done. It's a bit like in 2008 when Pug was quite clearly a lot faster than Audi and a lot of that difference came from the engine. What was done then? Exactly. There was nothing to be done since both engines were built to the technical regulations. I was trying to force you to admit that it's not about the teams.

It's exactly the facade I'm talking about. I don't think the LMP1 "problem" has anything to do with fuel equivalence and instead is purely a matter of Audi and Peugeot just being better. Anyway, why even allow different types of fuels if difference in performance isn't even allowed? It sounds like the geniuses that came up with "Separate but equal." If you want to portray the series as being open, fine, be open. If not, restrict it to just one fuel. I'd prefer the former over the latter, but both are better than the fake sense of pure, open competition the ACO would like people to believe the current racing is at the moment.

I agree, but for entirely opposite reasons.

The idea is that there is a constant chase to either A) prevent the diesels runners (as in the teams running them, not the fuel itself) from having a result advantage over the rest of LMP1 or B) prevent the result gap from getting any bigger than it is.

I completely understood what you meant but because I have different view I don't see how this ideology actually exists.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by TF110

Diesel Toyota? I doubt that. Make a new technology that's not used in most parts of the world (in Toyota's market)? I see the argument here, but I mostly agree with the fact companies make race cars to sell road cars.

That was just a thought experiment. I too doubt that's going to happen, but it is interesting that especially the pro-diesel people are so confident about it...

Why would they expect someone spending 20million to touch someone spending 100million?

Lets turn this upside down (another what if sceneario): manufacturer D spends 20m on diesel engine. Regs limit the engine to 600 hp. Manufacturer P spends 100m on petrol engine. Regs limit the engine to <600 hp. Quality of the engineering is otherwise fixed. Is manufacturer D's engine really the better engine?

Originally Posted by ubrben

Having said that it is clear that (ignore torque) the diesels have enjoyed a theoretical and practical horsepower advantage since they arrived on the scene. This is the marketing reality of getting Audi and Peugeot involved. The ACO made a calculation that these two OEMs going toe-to-toe was better value than keeping the petrol privateers happy.

It's now reached the stage that a viable world championship needs more than Audi and Peugeot so other OEMs have come to the table; Toyota, Jaguar, Porsche, etc. I think it's got to the point where ****ing off Audi and Peugeot by reducing the diesel advantage is more than offset by bringing in other OEMs.

Agreed.

[Félix]

We're making progress, but there's still a lot of crap about "majorly inferior" privateer teams not having what it takes to lap as fast as Audi and Peugeot in the first place.

I suggest that you take a look at OAK's performance at PLM. With a budget not even in the 8-figures, a "lowly" Judd engine and an ancient chassis that was only given some key updates this year, they were at the forefront of the petrol class and could keep up with - and even gain time on - the diesels everywhere on track but on the front and back long straights. That is based on quotes from Olivier Pla and Alex Prémat - two men of factory driver quality - and it sure seems to echo the results of the timing loop measurements the ACO mentions in their last release. It's also a performance that's on par - at the very least - with Rebellion and their TMG Toyota engine that people seem to agree is clearly superior.

To me, one has to be blind to fail to see the speed advantage on straight lines. And if you really want to see something interesting, look at the first lap at this year's PLM. OAK overtook the Oreca Peugeot and was right on P4's tail... until they came to the back straight.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by deggis

My guess is that absolutely nothing would be done. It's a bit like in 2008 when Pug was quite clearly a lot faster than Audi and a lot of that difference came from the engine. What was done then? Exactly. There was nothing to be done since both engines were built to the technical regulations. I was trying to force you to admit that it's not about the teams.

This isn't even a good example though. Ok, Peugeot had the pace in 2008, but Audi was capable of and did win races with the old R10. Plus, Audi had a new car in the pipeline so what was the ACO going to do?

Anyway, the "need" to performance balance is always relative. In 2008, the fact that there were even two legitimate factory teams was still a bit shocking compared to the previous years. The fact that someone had bettered Audi in a way was even more shocking. The natives weren't itching to see 3-4 teams at the top because 2 was still more than they were used to. Attitudes have changed in 2011-12. 2 is old news now and fans want more. There is more pressure to close the gap or at least to make sure it does not get any bigger.

Also, to a previous point about marketing vs. winning, it's not inconceivable that a company picks marketing over an absolute conquest to win. Look at Porsche and the 911 as an example. I realize GT is a bit of a different story with it having a more obvious (although not obvious enough) system of BoP, but we've also seen that the regulators (IMSA, I'm looking at you) are very fickle about what they think needs to be done. If a factory wanted to win at all costs, they would not rely on BoP especially when the only roadblock is the desire of marketers. So, yes, marketing can trump winning even with competitive companies.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by Félix

We're making progress, but there's still a lot of crap about "majorly inferior" privateer teams not having what it takes to lap as fast as Audi and Peugeot in the first place.

I suggest that you take a look at OAK's performance at PLM. With a budget not even in the 8-figures, a "lowly" Judd engine and an ancient chassis that was only given some key updates this year, they were at the forefront of the petrol class and could keep up with - and even gain time on - the diesels everywhere on track but on the front and back long straights. That is based on quotes from Olivier Pla and Alex Prémat - two men of factory driver quality - and it sure seems to echo the results of the timing loop measurements the ACO mentions in their last release. It's also a performance that's on par - at the very least - with Rebellion and their TMG Toyota engine that people seem to agree is clearly superior.

To me, one has to be blind to fail to see the speed advantage on straight lines. And if you really want to see something interesting, look at the first lap at this year's PLM. OAK overtook the Oreca Peugeot and was right on P4's tail... until they came to the back straight.

OAK has made progress, but even if everything you write is true, that does not mean the rules are wrong. Look at what Mike said about the AMR-One. It handled well and did reasonably well timewise in the twisty bits if I remember correctly, but that did not mean the chassis was great. It was not and apparently that may have been a big reason why the program was scrapped. We'd know more if the engine was more mature, but that is a totally different story.

The diesel cars have coupes, OAK does not. That's only going to lead to a small difference, but there are other things as well. Perhaps OAK went more conservative with the setup in order to finish whereas Audi and Peugeot went for less downforce to keep up with one another. Maybe OAK had to tune down the engines to get reliability. There's a lot of possibilities.

The Highcroft ARX-01e was able to race with the factory Peugeots at Sebring. Yes, the Peugeots were still new at the time and maybe they were sandbagging a bit, but Highcroft had not even tested the new bodywork before the race weekend so they weren't at full capability either.

[ubrben]

Sebring was maximum BS because you had grandfathered Audis against 2011 Pugs, plus a grandfathered Pug.

Top speeds on the back straight in Q:

#10 Oreca Pug - 169.5
#1 Audi - 166.4
#8 pug - 164
#2 Audi - 163.4
#01 HPD - 162.4
#7 Pug - 156 ???

The HPD lost 0.3 sec in just turn 1 to Dumas. This means that they had less downforce.

http://www.imsatiming.com/Results/2011/ALMS/01_Sebring/

So basically you have a car that's trimmed out so much that it looses 0.3sec in 1300 feet of turn 1 and is still 4km/h slower on the straight.

The HPD did a great race at Sebring in strategy terms but don't pretend the regs were even close to a level playing field.

EDIT: Also safety cars mean that the chances of the HPD loosing a lap are much lower than in a European based race

Ben

[henk4]

Originally Posted by ubrben

EDIT: Also safety cars mean that the chances of the HPD loosing a lap are much lower than in a European based race

Ben

Ha, Ha, you never give up...why didn't you also add: We need more safety cars

[ubrben]

Originally Posted by henk4

Ha, Ha, you never give up...why didn't you also add: We need more safety cars

Just a statement of fact. If you can use safety cars to stay on the lead lap you have a better chance of taking advantage of having a cleaner race than faster cars. If I hated safety cars that would still be true...

Ben

[JAG]

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.

The WEC is the single most important development in sportscar racing since 1992, the end of the old World Championship.

The intervening period has seen national and regional sportscar racing develop temendously, GT racing didn't exist in Europe from the early 80's until '92. There wasn't any national sportscar racing higher than club level, touring cars and single seaters dominated which resulted in sportscar racing and Le Mans itself almost being wiped out completely when the World Championship and Group C crashed.

While I acknowledge the ALMS will face competition from the WEC (though I would say GA is a far greater threat), the LMS, despite hopes, has changed little since the day it formed. There was a period in 2007-8 when it looked like it could emulate the ALMS, but for various reasons the series regressed and we were faced with the prospect of Audi/Peugeot only showing up at Le Mans, with few if any manufactuers looking to enter the sport.

All this has been played out to a backdrop of F1, WRC, WTCC, even national series like DTM , Super GT and Aussie V8's, expanding their horizons to new markets like China, India and the US.

As for track attendance and media coverage that can only be judged when the WEC is up and running, the occasional Asian LMS races can't be used as a barometer, we need to see what happens when Toyota turn up at their home track, we know what they brought when the Group C series and current Super GT series arrives in town.

In '92 the World Championship raced predominantly in Europe, you could watch the odd race highlights and read news and reports once a week in Autosport. Today the fastet growing markets are outside Europe, every second of track time can be followed online, and fans from the four corners of the world can communicate instantly, IMO it's never been more timely to launch the WEC.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by AGD

It's not a case of them knowing what they are doing. And saying they are crap engines is a bit of hyperbole, but the crap designation may realistically describe the Zytek and almost certainly describes the AER MZR-R. Look how many performance adjustments it took to get that AER lump competitive with the grandfathered Aston V12 and even then Dyson had a significant weight break. Maybe I should blame the MZR-R's lack of pace on the isobutanol-petrol balance. Why not, right?

The problem with the Judd is that it is an older engine designed to sell to lower budget LMP2 teams. It may be reliable, but it probably does not have nearly the type of development as something Audi and Peugeot would build. The HPD is something that has had factory program development and I think that shows on the track. Forget about the ARX-01 chassis, even the RML Lola-HPD from last year outqualified the fastest 3.4L Judd by 2-2.5 seconds at Le Mans if I remember correctly.

Of course, when you add a well-polished chassis like an ARX-01, R18, or 908 to the mix, these ultra-quick lap times start to look more feasible. Add to that better tires and all the other stuff the factory teams have. Look at the drivers even. We have discussions on this forum about Audi and Peugeot drivers who are slower than their teammates by a noticeable margin. These "slow" drivers are some of the biggest names in auto racing like TK, Wurz, Lamy, Gene, and so forth. These Audi and Peugeot guys aren't just rolling something off the truck and sleepwalking their way to laps that are 7 seconds faster. The type of commitment and push they are bringing to the track is tremendous. Everyone on those teams is feeling the pressure to perform while running at 100%.

I think one of the issues right now with LMP1 is the lack of quality privateer options. The ARX-03a will run next year. That is a positive step. There is word that the TMG Toyota should be improved for next year. That is another step. OAK made some nice gains since their troubled period around Le Mans. Still, a lot of the privateer stuff just seem like old relics. It would be nice if Wirth or Oreca could come out with a new customer coupe that has something to compete with the factory teams. I guess the interest isn't there for that at the moment though.

Diesels have only been pegged back 7%, it's not the end of the world for them, and it won't make a crap chassis/engine competitive.

What it will do is hopefully push those privateers with quality equipment like Strakka, OAK and Rebellion that bit closer to the ultimate pace, and allow petrol factories to be bang on the pace of the diesels.

If the calculations are drastically wrong I doubt for one Audi and Peugeot would show up, and there's no sigh of that. Secondly all it takes is a reajustment the other way to put things right.

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by JAG

What it will do is hopefully push those privateers with quality equipment like Strakka, OAK and Rebellion that bit closer to the ultimate pace, and allow petrol factories to be bang on the pace of the diesels

Now ..... that would be something . The series needs it . I think everybody is cheesed off with the way the diesels are cleaning up . Hope your right Jag .

[gwyllion]

Apparently there was a rumor (reported by AUTOhebdo) that in 2012 the displacement of NA petrol engines would be allowed to be increased from 3.4 to 4.0 liter. This rumor made a lot of sense because this would give the petrol cars a bit more torque and Zytek and HPD already have a 4.0 liter version of their V8. With the recent press release of the ACO, we now know that this rule change has not been approved.

In Petit Le Mans, Laurent Chauveau asked Stephan Gervais of Rebellion Racing about this rumor.

Stephan, can you shed some light on the possible arrival of a 4 liter engine?

"There has been a proposal from the joint FIA-ACO commission to reduce the power of diesel engines, but it appears to have been rejected by the manufacturers, at least in part. To compensate, they did propose us the idea to move to a 4 liter engine so that we can actually gain a little in torque, or even in power. However that does not interest us and we are not in favor. Why is it still up to us to make the financial effort? Even before Le Mans, we were awarded larger air restrictors at the last minute. It were not the diesels that they slowed down, but the petrol engines that they wanted to boost. However we did not use these restrictors because we did not have the time to use them without risk.

Toyota does have a 4-liter engine. This is the one used in Super GT. However to fit in the car, we still need to make changes to the chassis because it is not the same block as the 3.4 liter. So actually, we may gain some power, but the manufacturers will also make great progress this winter. And the gap between them and us will perhaps not changed much. The money will have been invested in this engine change at the expense of other areas. All this for two years, since a new regulation is expected in 2014 ... We can not accept that. Besides we're already in October and it is perhaps a little late to make such changes on our cars."

translated from http://www.86400.fr/articles/192-reb...teur-4-litres-

[deggis]

Originally Posted by AGD

This isn't even a good example though. Ok, Peugeot had the pace in 2008, but Audi was capable of and did win races with the old R10. Plus, Audi had a new car in the pipeline so what was the ACO going to do?

You don't see the forest for the trees...? Audi's wins in 2008 pretty much required Peugeot to screwup things by themselves or have other technical mishaps due the performance difference. Besides maybe Petit they were never really on par lap time wise. Even a GTC car is "capable" of winning overall if every car before that DNFs.

Also, to a previous point about marketing vs. winning, it's not inconceivable that a company picks marketing over an absolute conquest to win. Look at Porsche and the 911 as an example. I realize GT is a bit of a different story with it having a more obvious (although not obvious enough) system of BoP, but we've also seen that the regulators (IMSA, I'm looking at you) are very fickle about what they think needs to be done. If a factory wanted to win at all costs, they would not rely on BoP especially when the only roadblock is the desire of marketers. So, yes, marketing can trump winning even with competitive companies.

Not only because of the aggressive BoP but because road-going vs. purpose-built. I won't accept that as an example.

[JAG]

Has anyone done calculations as to what 7% less power would relate to in track time at Le Mans.

On the face of it, it seems quite a chunk of time but in reality it's unlikey to amount to more than a couple of seconds.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by JAG

Has anyone done calculations as to what 7% less power would relate to in track time at Le Mans.

In http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newsmay11.html Mike reported the following:

What's more important on the drag strip, power or acceleration from torque? So check this out, our Expert tells us a 10% increase in torque can amount to, wait for it...upwards of a 3.7 second decrease in lap time. A similar percentage increase in power only drops lap times at Le Mans by around 2.6 seconds.