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

[Simmi]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

Ortelli in the Oreca at Monza 2008 springs to mind.

That was still an accident where the safety of the cars really shone through. To walk away from that with, if I remember correctly, a broken ankle was miraculous.

[gwyllion]

Henri Pescarolo's comments on the 2012 rules: http://www.86400.fr/articles/194-hen...vec-curiositeq

As always he makes some interesting points:

• The first proposal of the ACO was a 10% performance reduction for the diesels, but it turned to be only 7%. However, the 5 liter tank reduction of diesels was introduced as an additional restriction.
• An increase in performance for NA petrol engines by going from 3.4 to 4.0 liter was also on the table. Judd and HPD agreed with this change, and Toyota was a maybe. We know from this interview that Toyota and Rebellion did not support this proposal. Judd had two option for a 4.0 liter engine: increase in displacement of the V8 or return to GV4 V10.
• It is a big mystery how much the performance of the diesel engines will be reduced by the 7% reduction in restrictor area and turbo boost, in part because there are no restrictions on the injector pressure. In the past Audi and Peugeot have demonstrated that they can overcome the rule changes with more engine development.
• The fuel flow restrictor will be the same for diesel and petrol. In combination with the smaller fuel tank, this has the very funny effect that fuel stops will be shorter for diesel cars. So in fact, this gives an advantage to diesel cars! Remember how the ACO completely misjudged the effect of the fuel flow restrictor this year: diesel stops were supposed to take 22 sec longer, but in practice the difference was only 3 sec.
• The performance equivalance of petrol and diesel engines is already very difficult to get right. The arrival of hybrid systems will make the balance of performance almost impossible to manage.
• When Pescarolo realized that diesel engines had such a big advantage, they were ready, together with Judd and Ricardo, to develop a diesel engine themselves. However, the development was never started because they were assured that the performance balance would be addressed in the short term.
• If a hybrid system turns out to be an advantage, private teams also need to go this route. Solutions exist, such as the flybrid solution that Hope Racing is using, but they need to be developed further. It seem that Henri prefers a mechanical flywheel solution because for a small team it is less complex than an electric system with batteries.
• Based on acceleration data, Henri estimates that the diesel engines produced between 600 and 620 hp this year.
• The rule of thumb is that a reduction of 20-25 hp results in 1 sec a lap in Le Mans. So (in theory) the 7% reduction for diesel engines is good for an increase in lap time of 2 secs.
• He states that direct fuel injection can not be used to increase the power of petrol engines, but that it will only result in better fuel consumption.
• He also points out that in 2012 the rule still exists that the ACO can re-evaluate the performance balance after the first 3 races.

[Félix]

Pescarolo also has interesting observations about the gap between diesels and petrol cars:
-The restrictor reduction went from 10% to 7% and a reduction in tank size was given in exchange. Based on their calculations, the faster pitstops are actually more advantageous (compared to 10% reduction?) for the diesels. He compares it to this year's "adjustment" that was supposed to give back 22 seconds in a stint to petrol cars... and in the end only gave them back 3!
-Henri says the real test should be whether or not the diesels can completely overtake a petrol P1 car on the pit straight at Le Mans. It's 390 meters long and something has to be very wrong with the engine rules if that can happen. I was there this year and I concur that something was VERY wrong.
-Pescarolo also states that neither during the 962 era, neither during the R8 TSFI era such overtaking within the same class was possible. He even says that he believes the Judd was ultimately slightly more powerful but lost to the R8 engine because it was less fuel efficient - which is more right and is how it should happen now.
-When asked whether state of the art engines and older customer engines should be given equal performance, he confirms that no power advantage can be gained from direct injection (he seems to have a very good contact with Judd - who are working on a TFSI engine for Lotus Indycar). The equivalence rule that states things can be adjusted after the 3rd race if there's a 2% gap should therefore say 0% instead. To him, the "équivalence" should be based on a straightline acceleration test to take out all other variables. I can't see how anyone could disagree with that.

And finally, maybe some good news for Pescarolo: http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newssept11.html

It seems that car development will start anew with the big shift in balance that comes with the 2012 louver rules. They supercharge the front diffuser AND spoil airflow to the rear wing, therefore moving the center of pressure towards the front by what I imagine is a massive amount. This changes everything because in the last 10-15 years, a lot of development resources have been spent on getting more downforce from the front diffuser. We've seen raised footboxes, complex surface treatment on windtunnel model diffusers and advanced pontoon-like air management around and downstream of the front wheels to extract precious pounds of downforce that would always be easily balanced by efficient rear wings. Now, it seems that the front can easily generate more downforce than the rear for a change. Pescarolo have always been very good at tuning their chassis and they never benefited from the expensive research programs richer teams had to extract more front downforce from their cars, so this is making me optimistic. Twitchier cars might also be good for spectacle and should give something more interesting to watch to spectators who are used to train-like Audis and Peugeots.

[DeutschRenn]

i dont particulary like the idea of the louvers in the lmps. and really hope the petrol toyota has a power advantage over the diesels so that the ACO can see what they've done which is catered to privateers....Didnt Baretzky say he could have built an R18 petrol engine that was just as good....but diesel was only because of marketing...

[Canada ALMS fan]

Apparently the new rules in LMP1 are appealing the manufacturers. Today on MWM Graham Goodwin (feel free to chime in) sounded like he expects Audi, Peugeot, Toyota, Porsche, Honda (likely), Nissan (likely), Jaguar (possibly), to all be present in the top class at Le Mans with works efforts in the not too distant future.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by DeutschRenn

and really hope the petrol toyota has a power advantage over the diesels so that the ACO can see what they've done which is catered to privateers....Didnt Baretzky say he could have built an R18 petrol engine that was just as good....but diesel was only because of marketing...

Are you slightly scared? Scared of losing the "manufacturer vs. privateer" argument.

[DeutschRenn]

Originally Posted by deggis

Are you slightly scared? Scared of losing the "manufacturer vs. privateer" argument.

is it really an argument? Audi>Pescarolo. Audi>Rebellion. Audi>Lola
Peugeot>Pescarolo. Peugeot>Rebellion. Puegeot>Lola....and soon to be complemented by Toyota>Pescarolo etc....

[AGD]

Originally Posted by DeutschRenn

is it really an argument? Audi>Pescarolo. Audi>Rebellion. Audi>Lola
Peugeot>Pescarolo. Peugeot>Rebellion. Puegeot>Lola....and soon to be complemented by Toyota>Pescarolo etc....

I see that you're some kind of firebrand with all your crazy talk! There are a number of undeniable truths in sports car racing today if the rules were just "fair":

Autocon ≥ Audi & Peugeot

Guess Racing Europ > Audi & Peugeot

AMR-One ≫ R18/908 (I heard a rumor that Audi and Peugeot secretly paid
AMR off to keep the AMR-One off the race track since they were "running scared" of the awesome power and reliability of "THE One." But shhhh! This is top secret information!)

Deborah > Any thing Audi and Peugeot could make

Judd ≫ Any thing Audi and Peugeot could make. Like duuuuhhhhh.


I know it is difficult to tell, but this post is a joke.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by DeutschRenn

is it really an argument?

It can not be a fact and an argument? My point was that soon you can no longer backup everything with the fact that there hasn't been a manufacturer with petrol engine. Funnily people who believe there is nothing wrong with the equivalency and has not been in the first place seems to be the most confident about Toyota's performance... or least they want to be and I can understand why.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by Félix

And finally, maybe some good news for Pescarolo: http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newssept11.html

It seems that car development will start anew with the big shift in balance that comes with the 2012 louver rules. They supercharge the front diffuser AND spoil airflow to the rear wing, therefore moving the center of pressure towards the front by what I imagine is a massive amount.

I can understand why Audi so upset by those "Big Honking Holes": more drag and increased pitch sensitivity are bad. A lot of the aero development that they have do for the next version of the R18 will be useless.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

I can understand why Audi so upset by those "Big Honking Holes": more drag and increased pitch sensitivity are bad. A lot of the aero development that they have do for the next version of the R18 will be useless.

Will the "big honking holes" be expensive for teams to implement? and what will the impact be to the privateers?

[JAG]

Lola ad from today's Autosport.

http://twitpic.com/7301pi

[chernaudi]

And that's the issue I have with the ACO's constant rules tinkering--unless it's a pressing safety concern for the whole field, no major technical rules changes should be made for at least 2-3 years and they should let their "3 year plan" formulas play out, which I feel even 3 years is playing it short for private teams who can't always shoulder the cost of buying all new equipment every couple of years.

Of course, I don't know where to place a team like Rebellion, who have basically just wasted a crapload of money on their new aero package, but then again has made 4 unforced car or engine changes the past 4 years...? Pescarolo, though, is much more clear cut on were to put them on the budget front.

[gregtummer]

Anyone have a picture of what these "big honking holes" are going to look like?

[TF110]

The new 2012 lola looks MUCH lower in terms of the roof height.

[gustavobamba]

The car will look the same ,the only cnange will be the dorsal Fin, IMO.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by gustavobamba

The car will look the same ,the only cnange will be the dorsal Fin, IMO.

Tucker's cars already had those.

[Livininthinair]

The "big honkin holes" will not be hard to impement - cordless drill...

Actually I am unable to envision what this will look like and what artistic expression will come into play.

I had gotten a response from Mike (from Toyota thread) about the mandated holes being not by # but by overall opening coverage - "As for the holes, my understanding they are just as they sound, uncovered holes adding up to the area prescribed (1000 cm^2 per fender, front and rear)." - quote from other thread from MM

+ I guess this will be mandatory like the "big honkin fin" for LMPs.

As far as the cost capped coupe from Lola I wonder if they are using the traditional Lola nose or integrated the Rebellion style nose...

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by Livininthinair

The "big honkin holes" will not be hard to impement - cordless drill...

Actually I am unable to envision what this will look like and what artistic expression will come into play.

I had gotten a response from Mike (from Toyota thread) about the mandated holes being not by # but by overall opening coverage - "As for the holes, my understanding they are just as they sound, uncovered holes adding up to the area prescribed (1000 cm^2 per fender, front and rear)." - quote from other thread from MM

+ I guess this will be mandatory like the "big honkin fin" for LMPs.

As far as the cost capped coupe from Lola I wonder if they are using the traditional Lola nose or integrated the Rebellion style nose...

And I've confirmed they are holes: the tire MUST be visible.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

And I've confirmed they are holes: the tire MUST be visible.

I'm having a hard time imaging this!
It will change the looks of LMPs a lot.

[Livininthinair]

Thank you Mike!

I guess if the correct coverage is not found they will have a fully charged drill at scrutineering to "add" holes to any non compliant chassis - free of charge...


Weird - that is going to kill the new style Audi louvers that point straight backwards and no longer break like the old "panel of fins" style of louvers.

+ something I just thought about, the rule about having to replace broken fender louvers... if there are holes in the fenders, and they begin to break apart during a race for what ever reason - these teams will need to figure out how to replace a whole rear fender... - if in fact that rule will be carried over to this new "big honkin holes" setup... yet another possible modular piece that will need to be engineered to be replaced during a race... more $$$???

[DeutschRenn]

Seems like the holes wil ruin the structural integrity if the already fragile noses and rear fenders. A small hole would actually increase the integrity....the big holes go the other way.

[cdsvg]

Ive already posted some of this in the toyota thread, but this is how I think the fender holes will look. They dont look particularly big, but I've double checked, and the area of each fender hole is indeed slightly over 1000cm^3 as stated in the new regs.







The dimensions of the whole car from above are 200cm by 464cm.

[gwyllion]

According to Mike's tweets the FIA plans to change the dimensions of the cars in 2014:

ACO2014, still in discussions: Hearing "narrow width, short wheelbase, long greenhouse," also efforts being made to reduce 9 m^2 floor area.

FIA get involvd and sudden the 1 issue w/ LMPs is the plan area: Mr. Wright, Prototypes have historic. been 2 m x ~5 m long since late 60s.

Let us hope that we do not end up with Daytone Prototype like cars...

[AGD]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Let us hope that we do not end up with Daytone Prototype like cars...

Big honking fins, big honking holes, and big honking greenhouses. All on smaller cars. Hmm. Yeah. I guess all Toyota will have to do is roll this out in 2014 for their new LMP1. All it needs is a BHF and BFHs. Otherwise, it is a FIA wet dream!

I can see the ACO's newest slogan: "LMPs. They're boxy, but good! We know they're not sexy. This is not a smart time to be sexy anyway, with so many new diseases around."

Oh, and in other news, Toyota will be building their engines in Japan because caucasians are too damn tall.

Bonus points to anyone who knows what I am talking about!