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

[TzeiTzei]

Originally Posted by TRuss

It may be my friend but, it doesn't seem to be real close with my iPad.

Just copy paste the web address and it will translate the whole page for you.

[TRuss]

I understand what to do. I just can't see anything after the first few sentences. It doesn't seem all that important anyway. No point in continuing with the OT stuff.

[TzeiTzei]

- reduction in fuel consumption by 8% per year
- limitation of emissions
- introduction of fuel cells and biogas
- then some talk about fuel development, and the possibility of reducing the amount of ethanol in fuel so that they could have a smaller fuel tank --> less weight, third ERS to the 10MJ class

[TRuss]

Thanks man.

[Acid09]

I really like the proposed focus on emissions, it's road-relevant aspects of the rules that keep LMP1 regs relevant to the automotive world and allow manufacturers to justify spending big bucks on it.

[TRuss]

I agree and for me it keeps it fresh and stimulating.

[AoB Special Stage]

Originally Posted by ederss7

What about a regulation with no ERS incentive, no weight limit, same fuel tank capacity for everyone, no KTF, etc, with focus on overall efficiency. So if you pick-up a diesel or petrol engine, you're gonna have to deal with the pros and cons. I'm just throwing this ideas out, I have no idea whether they'd fit together, I just would like to see something close to that.

then it's simple, downsized TDI with max hybrid for very deep stints with good enough pace to just jump anything else by cutting out stops.

[TF110]

Audi could run 900kg with ballast in the R15's. They had a big v10 in them. So if the engine is going to be heavy no matter what, maybe try for a lighter hybrid system? I think if there was only one tank size, diesel would definitely win out, no matter the minimum weight limit abolished.

[bhtooefr]

Really, variable valve timing is what'll help a lot for naturally aspirated engines. This isn't even exactly cutting-edge technology (which, isn't the point of the WEC to develop such technology?) - continuously variable valve timing through cam phasing has been a thing since 1992, and there's been plenty of variable valve lift systems, too... and there's even one camless system in production (Fiat MultiAir is camless on the intake side, although the oil pressure used to actuate the intake valves is generated by the exhaust camshaft). And, all of these technologies are available on cars that are under $20k in the US (VVT on damn near everything now, mechanical VVL on a couple cars (Corolla Eco comes to mind), MultiAir on a huge portion of FCA's lineup).

Wasn't Toyota's problem with the TS040 the lack of tunability to variable conditions, where the turbos could instantly respond? VVT would've given them that. Granted, a turbo engine could also benefit from VVT, of course, but the benefit is less I'd suspect.

[sssssssss]

don't you guys think this alone makes current regulations quite ridiculous? i mean, i'm sure the bugatti or any other road car can't beat an lmp1 lap time around the track (yet), but isn't it a bit stupid that they're slowing the cars down as soon as they approach 350 km/h and that 2016 lmp1s barely hit 320 km/h at the same point of the track where a chiron is able to hit 380 km/h? can you imagine a road car in the groupc days going 60 km/h faster down the mulsanne than a nissan r90ck or a sauber c9/c11 or a jaguar xjr-9? especially when a great deal about le mans' uniqueness was the incredible top speeds they used to reach before the chicanes.
http://jalopnik.com/the-bugatti-chir...r-f-1782435705

[Matt]

no

[Victor_RO]

Agreed. Yes, it's faster in a straight line, but in terms of overall performance and laptime it would probably still be around GTE pace. While using a huge amount of fuel. Current regulations are about speed through efficiency, and with shrinking resources efficiency becomes a key element.

Comparing LMP1 cars to a Bugatti Chiron is like comparing an extremely nimble fighter jet with ThrustSSC. Both awesome machines but both built with totally different and diametrically opposite goals in mind.

[chernaudi]

I think that the LMP1 privateer class adopting DPI regs could be a big help to making the class make sense beyond being a two team formula right now.

We know that most carmakers aren't interested in spending Audi or Porsche money on LMP1, or even Toyota money, or even a sizable fraction of that. And we know that with the way things are, private teams won't be competitive with factory teams because of financial and technical gaps.

So I see two solutions: Either "wind back the clock" back to the way things were circa 2000, or allow some limited factory involvement in LMP1 privateer. IMO, it's a win-win. Privateers can have meaningful competition and can get hooked to "customer" manufacturer deals, while carmakers can be involved in LMP1 without having to spend insane amounts of money, and can, like in the GT classes, point to winning their class.

[MagVanisher]

Limited factory backing for privateers in LMP1 is the way to go in my opinion. Honestly, ACO will panic on losing one or two manufacturers leaving the privateers struggling to beat Porsche or Audi if one of those Volkswagen brands decides to leave.

[canaglia]

Originally Posted by sssssssss

don't you guys think this alone makes current regulations quite ridiculous? i mean, i'm sure the bugatti or any other road car can't beat an lmp1 lap time around the track (yet), but isn't it a bit stupid that they're slowing the cars down as soon as they approach 350 km/h and that 2016 lmp1s barely hit 320 km/h at the same point of the track where a chiron is able to hit 380 km/h? can you imagine a road car in the groupc days going 60 km/h faster down the mulsanne than a nissan r90ck or a sauber c9/c11 or a jaguar xjr-9? especially when a great deal about le mans' uniqueness was the incredible top speeds they used to reach before the chicanes.
http://jalopnik.com/the-bugatti-chir...r-f-1782435705

it's quite senseless compare road cars to racing cars. Surely a bugatti veyron would be faster in mulsanne straight than anything else, but a track isn't just long straights. Consider that a bugatti has >1000hp but barely less than 1/10 than the amount of downforce generated by prototypes and GT cars, indeed remaining at le mans, in sector porsche the veyron would be a guinea pig compared to GTLM, wasting the whole latptime.
Unlikely a bugatti would be able to run under 4.10 at le mans. Even if so much powefull, at nordschleife, veyron revealed to be slower than many 500-600hp cars.

[GasperG]

It's not the downforce it's the weight, Veyron weights 1,888 kg, neither masive wing nor 1000 hp can compensate for that.

[Gingers4Justice]

Put this on the Mulssane's Corner facebook page, and thought I'd open up the discussion on here:

With Audi pulling out, where do LMP regulations go from here? Something has to change to either encourage those already flirting, or to start something new altogether - it's not too late to do that. The way I see it, there are three options:

1.) Continue with the evolution hybrid, fuel-flow formula but with substantial cost-cutting measures. This MIGHT entice Peugeot and BMW, but we could lose Toyota or Porsche before they join and F1 has proved such measures aren't easy to enforce.
2.) The 90s retro solution. IMSA bails out the ACO again, and their cheap-and-cheerful prototype regs become the top class.
3.) Something completely and utterly new.

I'd personally be radical go for number 3. If it's hybrids the ACO really want, then there's already a range of fast, technological hybrids cars which cost about the same off the shelf as a privateer LMP1 car. Stick a set of slick tires on a McLaren P1, La Ferrari and a Porsche 918 and all of a sudden you have a race that every single teenage boy on the planet will be desperate to get tickets for.
Why not race cars that stir something up in people?

[Akrapovic]

I'd go for 1. I think hybrids can be done properly, but it's gotten out of hand because nobody seen the rapid progression coming. Restricting fuel in a simpler way (the fuel flow meter is ********, frankly), and massive cost cuts are the way to go if the ACO wants to stay technology relevant.

You can go for DPI top class, but it should never be balanced with something else. We've seen the mess of IMSA for the last few years, and yet people still say they should be allowed into LMP1-L with a BOP, which is just barmy. DPI works as a class so can replace LMP1 if needed, but would need a power boost.

The other issue is safety and backmarkers. We know that everybody was happy with the hybrids because the massive power meant LMP1 drivers didn't have to dive bomb GT cars into breaking zones. We don't want that situation back again.

[Japanese Samurai]

It's still premature to introduce new technology beyond hybrid system.
So I bet on the 2nd choice with spec hybrid system.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

Put this on the Mulssane's Corner facebook page, and thought I'd open up the discussion on here:

With Audi pulling out, where do LMP regulations go from here? Something has to change to either encourage those already flirting, or to start something new altogether - it's not too late to do that. The way I see it, there are three options:

1.) Continue with the evolution hybrid, fuel-flow formula but with substantial cost-cutting measures. This MIGHT entice Peugeot and BMW, but we could lose Toyota or Porsche before they join and F1 has proved such measures aren't easy to enforce.
2.) The 90s retro solution. IMSA bails out the ACO again, and their cheap-and-cheerful prototype regs become the top class.
3.) Something completely and utterly new.

I'd personally be radical go for number 3. If it's hybrids the ACO really want, then there's already a range of fast, technological hybrids cars which cost about the same off the shelf as a privateer LMP1 car. Stick a set of slick tires on a McLaren P1, La Ferrari and a Porsche 918 and all of a sudden you have a race that every single teenage boy on the planet will be desperate to get tickets for.
Why not race cars that stir something up in people?

I was thinking about possible future scenarios earlier and since it seems like the ACO is intent on keeping manufacturer interest alive at Le Mans, I would go with the third option but have it be a GT centric class as the top class. There are already a lot of manufacturers in GTE and if you told them they had the opportunity to go faster and win overall I think it would attract even more. Allow hybrids allow whatever you want but make it road relevant, sexy, and fast!

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I'd go for 1. I think hybrids can be done properly, but it's gotten out of hand because nobody seen the rapid progression coming. Restricting fuel in a simpler way (the fuel flow meter is ********, frankly), and massive cost cuts are the way to go if the ACO wants to stay technology relevant.

I'm beginning to wonder if that whole idea of making P1 so road-relevant that it's possible to pay for it out of the R&D budget (rather than marketing) wasn't a huge pipe dream. I'm sure there's some tech-transfer, but is it really enough to justify $250m budgets? E.g. I can't really see anything road-relevant coming out of the aerodynamics side of things and that's gotta be a rather big chunk of that budget right there. And for the stuff that is transferable: Could the same findings be made in the lab, without the need of a racing program and for less?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

I'm beginning to wonder if that whole idea of making P1 so road-relevant that it's possible to pay for it out of the R&D budget (rather than marketing) wasn't a huge pipe dream. I'm sure there's some tech-transfer, but is it really enough to justify $250m budgets? E.g. I can't really see anything road-relevant coming out of the aerodynamics side of things and that's gotta be a rather big chunk of that budget right there. And for the stuff that is transferable: Could the same findings be made in the lab, without the need of a racing program and for less?

No.

[MoMedic9019]

Most of the quoted 250m budgets is engineering and R&D...

The actual totals are higher...both VAG programs are in the 700 million dollar range when combined

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

I'm beginning to wonder if that whole idea of making P1 so road-relevant that it's possible to pay for it out of the R&D budget (rather than marketing) wasn't a huge pipe dream. I'm sure there's some tech-transfer, but is it really enough to justify $250m budgets? E.g. I can't really see anything road-relevant coming out of the aerodynamics side of things and that's gotta be a rather big chunk of that budget right there. And for the stuff that is transferable: Could the same findings be made in the lab, without the need of a racing program and for less?

No it certainly doesn't justify a $250m budget. It isn't really about current road relevance, but rather about future tech. We've seen it transfer before, and current generation hybrid systems are now appearing on road cars too. So it does work. But not at this price.

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

1.) Continue with the evolution hybrid, fuel-flow formula but with substantial cost-cutting measures. This MIGHT entice Peugeot and BMW, but we could lose Toyota or Porsche before they join and F1 has proved such measures aren't easy to enforce.
2.) The 90s retro solution. IMSA bails out the ACO again, and their cheap-and-cheerful prototype regs become the top class.
3.) Something completely and utterly new.

Let's see ...

1) would be sensible, and it would allow the ACO to save face and keep using the "road relevance" message that they have based the current rules on. But it definitely won't be enticing BMW (full EV prototypes won't be cheap for a long time yet) and I doubt even Peugeot would be guaranteed (I think they want a free shot at Le Mans as well as a cheap one). So I don't see the ACO putting the brakes on the current gravy train with no realistic prospects for LMP1-H entry.

For 2) to happen the ACO would have to admit their error with 2017 WEC LMP2 and actually engage in meaningful dialogue with IMSA as even partners ...



But it would be interesting to see if the ACO's demand for factory dollar overrules their desire to keep themselves alone at the top of the endurance tree.

As for 3), isn't that what FE/WRX are supposed to be to their respective disciplines? They're doing okay but not great, and older (more established?) fans seem to be the ones most turned off by them. It's fine to want to stir something up in people, but if that happens to be indifference or dislike, then it's probably not going to work.

I'd go for the first option out of the three, but I think what will actually happen is that LMP1 will continue as-is until there are no factory cars left, and only then will a DPi-esque top class be established.