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

[gregtummer]

I don't see how hard it is to create a successful SportsCar series. Just take the 2008-2010 cars and run them.

Don't drill holes in the cars, don't cut the car's balls (horsepower) off, and don't make them run shark fins.

It isn't too hard.

I'm afraid the FIA/ACO is going to destroy the only racing series I follow anymore.

*facepalm

[deggis]

You're making quite accurate conclusions from a very vague description. I'm all for a bigger change if it's a more complete solution to the flying cars issue. 2014 is probably the right time to do it. At least then ACO (indeed, ACO) can stop tinkering the aero regs every three months.

[lms]

Originally Posted by gregtummer

I don't see how hard it is to create a successful SportsCar series. Just take the 2008-2010 cars and run them.

agreed. what the f**k was so wrong with those regs????? (except for diesel imbalance) If something works, dont change it. But i bet they didnt even considered that option.
Screwing with those beautiful prototypes... they were the most impressive racing machines ever created imho. (lmp1, lmp2)

[alexkiller8]

Originally Posted by lms

agreed. what the f**k was so wrong with those regs????? (except for diesel imbalance) If something works, dont change it. But i bet they didnt even considered that option.
Screwing with those beautiful prototypes... they were the most impressive racing machines ever created imho. (lmp1, lmp2)

costs too much high maybe ?
it's not a coincidence if since 2008-2009 and on almost all motorsport disciplines have lowered their performances level because of economic crisis. Ex. f1, fia gt, dtm etc....

[JAG]

Originally Posted by lms

agreed. what the f**k was so wrong with those regs????? (except for diesel imbalance) If something works, dont change it. But i bet they didnt even considered that option.
Screwing with those beautiful prototypes... they were the most impressive racing machines ever created imho. (lmp1, lmp2)

When this generation of cars were launched they were almost universally despised, what with the increased right hight and claims they'd be dog slow etc. When the Nasamax showed up feelings hardened further, years down the line they developed into the quickest and some of the most impressive prototypes ever.

The only predictable thing in motor racing is change, no matter how small, will be greeted as the end of the world.............until everyone gets used to it a couple of races into the season!

The other more serious point is it's unacceptable to have cars take flight as easily as they had, a fin here, few holes there is a small price to pay compared to the consequences if a car took flight in a spectator area.

Lastly, let's not forget it's manufactuers and constructors themselves who lead the direction of regs. They are expected to recieve the 2014 set by the end of the year, Porsche will have only commited to a 2014 P1 if they were aware what the cars would be like, Pescarolo, OAK, Wirth etc. are holding their new cars for the 2014 season as they too are aware changes are coming on stream.

The sport is heading into a new golden era, this article highlights the current state of play better than I ever could.

http://www.doubledeclutch.com/?p=2186

[deggis]

Is it possible this isn't actually a new development? Since the minimum weight was already to be reduced.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by deggis

Is it possible this isn't actually a new development? Since the minimum weight was already to be reduced.

Teams are meant to be getting the 2014 regs by the end of the year.

[CTD]

I must say I'm much more a fan of a liberal regulation form like the energy use maximum.
These rules seem only to limit and not create space for new ideas or designs.

[vyselegend]

Sorry guys, I'm certainly not giving lessons to the experts (especially considering my poor maths skills...) but I think you might have goten something wrong with your units.

Because you're all speaking about 1000cm² area above each wheels, but you know 100cm=1m, so you're speaking there about a 10m² surface (per fender)!? The total car superficy is 9m² I think, so it would mean scraping the whole bodywork wouldn't yet be enough to comply with the rule, which is probably excessive.

I think even if it's 100cm² (so 1m²) it's still unrealistic because the holes from both side would meat, so the car would yet again be a giant hole. They must have meant 100mm² and made a typo somewhere... I certainly hope so!

Sorry if I'm just as wrong with math as usual, but then please enlighten me.

[lms]

Originally Posted by JAG

Sorry but I have laugh, when this generation of cars were launched they were almost universally despised, what with the increased right hight, claims they'd be do slow etc. When the Nasmax was shown feelings hardened against them yet here we are, years down the line having watched the quickest prototypes ever and saying they are the most impressive machines ever.

The only predictable thing in motor racing is change, no matter how small, will be greeted as the end of the world.............until everything gets used to it a couple of races into the season!

The other more serious point is it's absolutely unacceptable to have cars that took flight as easily as they had been, a fin here, few holes there is a small price to pay compared to the consequences if a car took flight in an a spectator area.

Lastly, let's not forget it's the manufactuers and constructors themselves who lead the direction of new regs. They are expected to recieve the 2014 set by the end of the year, Porsche will have only commited to a 2014 P1 if they were aware what the cars would be like, Pescarolo, OAK, Wirth etc. are holding their new cars for the 2014 season because they too are aware of what changes will be comin on stream.

i wouldnt exactly call these changes small (p1, p2). They will significantly alter the look of the cars I believe. short wheelbase, holes, fins... (also NARROW cars wtf - previous page)

Dont know exactly what parties were involved when creating the new regs, but i believe audi was concerned about these "holes" (read it on mulsannes). Making the car unstable or something like that.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by vyselegend

Sorry guys, I'm certainly not giving lessons to the experts (especially considering my poor maths skills...) but I think you might have goten something wrong with your units.

Because you're all speaking about 1000cm² area above each wheels, but you know 100cm=1m, so you're speaking there about a 10m² surface (per fender)!? The total car superficy is 9m² I think, so it would mean scraping the whole bodywork wouldn't yet be enough to comply with the rule, which is probably excessive.

I think even if it's 100cm² (so 1m²) it's still unrealistic because the holes from both side would meat, so the car would yet again be a giant hole. They must have meant 100mm² and made a typo somewhere... I certainly hope so!

Sorry if I'm just as wrong with math as usual, but then please enlighten me.

Yup, your math is wrong! An area 10cm by 100cm would be 1000cm^2 for example.

[vyselegend]

Ah! Sorry then!

For some reason I remember being told a 1m² square was a square with 1m sides. I know I should have been more focused at school lol.

Thanks.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by CTD

I must say I'm much more a fan of a liberal regulation form like the energy use maximum.
These rules seem only to limit and not create space for new ideas or designs.

Energy formula and this new chassis plan are exclusive how?

Originally Posted by lms

i wouldnt exactly call these changes small (p1, p2). They will significantly alter the look of the cars I believe. short wheelbase, holes, fins... (also NARROW cars wtf)

Dont know exactly what parties were involved when creating the new regs, but i believe audi was concerned about these "holes" (read it on mulsannes). Making the car unstable or something like that.

Confused? Holes = 2012. Shorter, narrower = 2014.

Maybe there's actually a chance to get rid off these half-assed solutions (fins, holes) with a completely revamped floor design?

[JohnMiller]

Originally Posted by vyselegend

Ah! Sorry then!

For some reason I remember being told a 1m² square was a square with 1m sides. I know I should have been more focused at school lol.

Thanks.

Of course, it is. And the same as 10,000 sq cm.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by deggis

Energy formula and this new chassis plan are exclusive how?


Confused? Holes = 2012. Shorter, narrower = 2014.

Maybe there's actually a chance to get rid off these half-assed solutions (fins, holes) with a completely revamped floor design?

No i like the energy formula is this liberates engine choice.

But i do not like the "Shorter, narrower, bigger greenhouse" design as it will limit the space of creative designs and we could end up with something like the Grand Am Prototypes.

[cdsvg]

Originally Posted by JAG

When this generation of cars were launched they were almost universally despised, what with the increased right hight and claims they'd be dog slow etc. When the Nasamax showed up feelings hardened further, years down the line they developed into the quickest and some of the most impressive prototypes ever.

The only predictable thing in motor racing is change, no matter how small, will be greeted as the end of the world.............until everyone gets used to it a couple of races into the season!

This is a good point, a new set of regs comes in every few years and people moan about them, but we end up with some great cars after a year or two of development. The cycle repeats itself.

HOWEVER, this isnt really how it works the way I see it. The problem is that with each successive rules change, its not just a *different* set of rules, but a *more restrictive* set of rules. So we get confined by progressively tighter and tighter regs. Look at group C, compared to LMP900, compared to 2006-2008 LMP1, compared to 2011, and then to 2014+. It just seems inevitable that we'll end up down the same path as F1, where every car is essentially identical except for extremely minute details that are basically invisible to the casual fan.

One caveat to this would seem to be the ACO's stance on drivetrains, on that front at least they seem keen to keep some freedom, or even open things up a little.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by CTD

No i like the energy formula is this liberates engine choice.

But i do not like the "Shorter, narrower, bigger greenhouse" design as it will limit the space of creative designs and we could end up with something like the Grand Am Prototypes.

Making stuff smaller doesn't require creative design? (I thought smaller was in line with the road cars industry, and I don't like making that pretense connection.)

[Speed-King]

Making stuff smaller limits the space for creative design... you can't really make the driver smaller, so the driver compartment will take up a relatively larger portion of the whole car and - so far - the driver compartment wasn't really an area of great variation apart perhaps from the windshield design.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by cdsvg

This is a good point, a new set of regs comes in every few years and people moan about them, but we end up with some great cars after a year or two of development. The cycle repeats itself.

HOWEVER, this isnt really how it works the way I see it. The problem is that with each successive rules change, its not just a *different* set of rules, but a *more restrictive* set of rules. So we get confined by progressively tighter and tighter regs. Look at group C, compared to LMP900, compared to 2006-2008 LMP1, compared to 2011, and then to 2014+. It just seems inevitable that we'll end up down the same path as F1, where every car is essentially identical except for extremely minute details that are basically invisible to the casual fan.

One caveat to this would seem to be the ACO's stance on drivetrains, on that front at least they seem keen to keep some freedom, or even open things up a little.

I Agree.

Originally Posted by deggis

Making stuff smaller doesn't require creative design? (I thought smaller was in line with the road cars industry, and I don't like making that pretense connection.)

Yes it does, but when you decrease the overall area of body, and increase a mandatory design element (greenhouse) you make the space where you can design freely smaller.

And see what "Speed-King" posted just before i did .

[deggis]

Originally Posted by CTD

Yes it does, but when you decrease the overall area of body, and increase a mandatory design element (greenhouse) you make the space where you can design freely smaller.

Then the challenge is to freely design things to be compact enough. Or is that somehow insuperable task? What do I know really, but I doubt currently the engineers are short of space especially since the engines just became smaller but dimensions stayed the same.

I'm curious in what kind of context Mike heard this rumor. I.e. is the question only about the dimensios or a result of complete chassis revamp induced by the fear of another flying car.

[Flat12-Aircool]

These holes are the most ridiculous thing I've heard so far, I'm sorry but I like LMP's because they are not an open wheel formula.

Why is the ACO trying to fix a problem last seen in the late 1990's? Even open wheel Formula 1 cars are somersaulting nowadays.

Instead of this, why don't they perhaps go for a compromise and take the approach of the old Toyota Gt-One with its exposed inner wheels?

[Simmi]

Just wondering - will the works cars next year bear the 'HY' ahead of the race number as seen on the Polevision car at LM?

[AGD]

Originally Posted by JAG

The sport is heading into a new golden era,

How can we say this is going to happen for sure? Just because there will be more manufacturers involved? That does not mean anything. There may be more manufacturer involvement in NASCAR, F1, or the IRL next year than in ALMS P1, but I'd rather watch a two car privateer battle in the ALMS than a race in any of those other series even if I don't really like all of the ALMS' rules.

The possibility of technology battles are intriguing for sure and there is some hope that we may have truly open competition, but I'm not confident that the rulesmakers will allow those battles to take place unfettered. I definitely can see burdensome "balance" rules put in place to make for close races. Well, that makes the whole notion of "open technology" pointless. The only thing worse than a spec series is a series that acts spec while maintaining a facade of openness. It really is insulting to the audience IMO. To this point, Grand-Am may start to look more attractive than ACO style racing even with their mega warts and abscesses. At least it is [painfully] obvious what the Daytona bunch is going to put on the track.

You can say that changes have been made to the formula before without negative consequences. I don't know if that is even true, but even if it is, that does not automatically mean that additional changes will not have negative consequences. All we have to do is look at numerous other racing series to see that play out.

One of the great things about this type of racing is that you can go to Mike's website, Ultimate Car Page, or any number of similar websites and look at pictures of the cars and the car spec. sheets. One can tell that this is good racing worthy of following just from that. That isn't true of a lot of other types of racing. I'm not so sure if these rules will allow that to continue.

Anyway, ugly (uglier) racing cars aren't the end of the world. A lot of us have just accepted that fact over the years. However, there comes a point in time where enough is enough. Combine ugly cars with ugly rules and that time comes quicker and quicker.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by deggis

Then the challenge is to freely design things to be compact enough. Or is that somehow insuperable task? What do I know really, but I doubt currently the engineers are short of space especially since the engines just became smaller but dimensions stayed the same.

I'm curious in what kind of context Mike heard this rumor. I.e. is the question only about the dimensios or a result of complete chassis revamp induced by the fear of another flying car.

The context was to address the yaw flip issue. There seems to be a school of thought that the plan area is the overriding factor, though I tend to completely disagree. There's a long history of cars with 9 m^2 plan area and the yaw flip thing is only a recent phenomenon. We only started to see these issues with the implementation of the heavily regulated underfloors while the total downforce numbers started to approach the GTP/Group C era.

[Flat12-Aircool]

What irritates me is how the ACO continually bring out new rules to make LMP's more ugly and yet post pictures like this on their website...

http://www.lemans.org/fr/actualites/...%92F_5473.html