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

[gwyllion]

At this stage the different manufacturers have already committed to a specific propulsion technology (combination of combustion engine and energy recovery system(s)). It is anticipated that the changes to the draft rules will only be minor.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

You asked wheres the coherence on new regs that aren't finalised compared to current bop. What would be the coherence if they aren't even set?

The fact that the rules are not final does not prevent us from looking at the coherence between the figures that are mentioned in draft 5 and the recent AoP, does it ?

In version 4 of the draft regulations, the fuel tank capacity ratio was already of the same order, namely 1.21 (64.4/53.3).

In any event, as mentioned by gwyllion, the final changes in the 2014 regulations can expected to be minor. I would be quite surprised if the fuel tank capacity figures are substantially changed.

[TF110]

The 3 liters change currently is "substantial"? I don't think its big. In fact the fuel tank size could be smaller because the change to the smaller capacity engine and the smaller fuel usage. Plus the increase of hybrid power that youre going to have to take into account and the effect that has on consumption.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

The 3 liters change currently is "substantial"? I don't think its big. In fact the fuel tank size could be smaller because the change to the smaller capacity engine or the smaller fuel usage. Plus the increase of hybrid power that youre going to have to take into account.

I am not talking about the 3-litre adjustment as such. I am just highlighting the fact that, if (draft 5 of) the 2014 regulations were to be applied as of today, consistency between the figures indicated in the draft should normally lead to a fuel tank capacity of 70 litres for petrol engines (assuming a 58-litre fuel tank capacity for diesel engines).

So, yes, a 6-litre difference appears to be "substantial". The 13-litre difference for petrol non-hybrids even more.

Next year, all competitors will have to live with the same fuel tank capacity (65.6 litres for petrol engines / 54.3 litres for diesel engines according to draft 5), i.e. the same amount of (fuel) energy, irrespective of the hybrid option. The hybrid option will not impact the fuel tank capacity as such, but the ability to use the available fuel.

[deggis]

What is the point making so direct comparison to current regs as the current regs are much bigger mess involving a lot more parameters?

I would expect some announcements too. Typically the regulation annoincements have been made at the pre-LM press conference. And then at the end of June there is the FIA WMSC meeting, which will rubber stamp them.

[Sodemo]

Do they still plan on making the cars narrower? That's a big mistake in my view.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Do they still plan on making the cars narrower? That's a big mistake in my view.

Yes, along with smaller tyres and higher cockpit. But from the Perrinn LMP1 you can see that it won't much change the overall look.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by deggis

What is the point making so direct comparison to current regs as the current regs are much bigger mess involving a lot more parameters?

There is value in putting the recent AoP in the context of the expected 2014 regulations.

The whole point I am making is that the latest AoP in LMP1 are not in any way consistent with what the ACO are contemplating to introduce in 2014. By increasing fuel tank capacity for the petrol-powered LMPs, the ACO are actually moving even further away from what is (apparently) going to become the rule in 2014.

How can the ACO "explain", let alone make it believable, that increasing the fuel tank capacity for the petrol-powered LMPs in 2013 improves the "balance" between the diesel-powered and petrol-powered LMPs ? The 2014 regulations evidently go the opposite way, namely provide that each LMP1 car, irrespective of the type of fuel and hybrid option, will carry the same amount of (fuel) energy.

As a result of the latest AoP, the petrol-powered LMPs will definitely carry a lot more (fuel) energy than the diesel-powered LMPs.

I am asking again this very simple question: Where is the coherence ?

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by deggis

Yes, along with smaller tyres and higher cockpit. But from the Perrinn LMP1 you can see that it won't much change the overall look.

What's the reasoning behind narrower cars?

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

What's the reasoning behind narrower cars?

Reduction in aero drag, ACO is pushing efficiency through drag reduction.

[nkoske]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

Reduction in aero drag, ACO is pushing efficiency through drag reduction.

Wait a second...are you telling me that punching a smaller hole in the air reduces drag? Wow them folks at the ACO are so innovative.

The whole ALMS/ACO need to be 'green' is so entertaining and sad at the same time.

**NEWSFLASH**

Racing has always been about efficiency and will always be about efficiency

No need to create BS rules to try and con people that hug to many trees to come watch. You want true innovation in efficiency...we need less rules not more.

[gwyllion]

Not completely true. For this year Audi decided to trade in efficiency for performance. Faster performance on track (by burning more diesel) outweighs the advantage of doing longer stints and fewer pitstops

When refueling was still allowed in F1, often it was a better strategy to do use more tyres and fuel and go faster on track.

[nkoske]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Not completely true. For this year Audi decided to trade in efficiency for performance. Faster performance on track (by burning more diesel) outweighs the advantage of doing longer stints and fewer pitstops

When refueling was still allowed in F1, often it was a better strategy to do use more tyres and fuel and go faster on track.

That's still efficiency. The goal at Le Mans is to go the furthest distance in 24 hours. Audi did the math and it told them the most efficient way to go the furthest distance in 24 hours was to make their car go faster. Just because they used more fuel doesn't mean they're less efficient, they're just using the other variables in the most efficient way. The equation is time and distance, not energy used and distance (which would be really boring to watch) or a myriad of other combinations.

You can't have a sport with more that two main variables (well you can but you're and idiot if you do). Soccer (number of goals in a time period), American Football (number of points in a time period), Running (time and distance), Archery (distance and number of shots), Skeet (number of hits and attempts), Golf (number of shots over 18 holes), etc...

Things like the green X challenge are BS (Time, distance and energy used). What team gets out of bed and says I want to win the Green X championship...zero. If it happens great, but the important thing for every race team on the planet is time and distance and the goal is to find the most efficient way to accomplish that.

[Maelochs]

Monetary costs and environmental costs are factors n affecting the future of racing. Factories market “Green,” and marketing greener racing gives racing more PR clout—and PR is the only reason factories race.

It is not the teams pushing for “Green-X”-type rules. ALMS decided that “green” was a good hook, particularly with so much attention being paid to carbon emission (compared to any time previously.)

Manufacturers comply because “green” is their new big selling point as well. Nobody is actually doing the math on all those hybrids, whether the electricity from a coal plant is worse or better than the total waste produced in drilling, refining, transporting and burning petrochemicals.

But every manufacturer mentions “green” or “clean” or efficient” in the majority of ads because it is the new marketing buzzword—it is “Buy our enormous overweight overpowered cars because they are clean and efficient.”

So, manufacturers don’t mind pseudo-greener racing because it helps keep them racing.

The Green-X Challenge is a side-show—no one cars, no one alters strategy or anything else to win it. If they do, whoopee, and if not, whoopee. But the other energy- and resource-efficiency rules are actually not bad things. How they are done makes the difference.

Racers are not trying to be energy- or resource-efficient in any context except winning the race. They will gladly burn more tires and fuel for a win, so the idea that resource conservation can be achieved through fewer rulers is flatly false.

Remember, the audience for racing is not that big. Most consumers relate better to a few more mpg, or better bragging rights about how “clean” their new SUVs are. (The ease of integrating iPhones and iPads, and self-drive options, are going to wipe away any hint of “performance” in terms of speed an handling, over the next few years, and manufacturers know this.)

Cost control is also a serious issue—most factories no longer have the freedom to spend unlimited sums in a quest to beat the opposition, because most factories realize that they get better PR RoI from a non-racing commercial.

Rules limiting how many sets of tires a team can use at a given event doesn’t hurt the racing—it changes the racing, certainly, just like rules banning short-life, super-power qualifying engines change racing without hurting it. Just like rules defining the dimensions of a chassis or the displacement of an engine change racing.

Fuel economy rules will change racing too—just as displacement rules were used to do everything from balancing classes and different induction types within classes, to limiting top speeds for safety reasons, fuel economy rules (or “Fuel Flow Rules” might be a more marketable term) need not hurt the on-track action.

Done poorly, any rule can hurt the racing, and dome well, it is just another rule.

Also, the idea that sports can only have two variables … in soccer you cannot use your hands or arms. In hockey, you must skate. In baseball, you cannot tackle runners, and in football, you cannot swing a wooden club. What is a “main variable” and what is a defining characteristic?

Even more, every sport has a complex rulebook. In racing the main variables might be distance covered or time raced (so that’s only one, and there is room for a second? ) but there are plenty of other variables that are equally as important in defining how that one variable is determined.

In soccer you can’t do an NFL-style tackle, and in baseball you have to drop the bat while in hockey you never drop your stick unless you want to fight. These “sub-variables,” if you will, define the sport.

In racing you have to go the furthest in a set time or be the first to cover a set distance, but you have to use a certain number of tires, or a certain size engine with a certain sized intake and a defined intake pressure, etc. So adding a limit on total fuel used is just one more of the many “sub-variables” that shape a particular racing series.

The whole discussion really comes down to two things:

First and foremost, is there Any value at all in making racing more resource-efficient.

I would argue yes, because fo the marketing advantage for the manufacturers, because of the PR advantage when trying to justify a sport which is all about conspicuous consumption of fossil fuels, because doing less harm is Always a good idea (our grandkids won’t care who went how fast at Le Mans, but they will likely care about the health problems their children face because of the stupidity of the past few generations in resource consumption and waste disposal.)

Second, are the rules written wisely so that the necessary limits allow for an interesting and exciting (and thus financially sustainable) sport?

Either displacement, weight, intake area, intake pressure, fuel flow or some other aspect of auto design and engineering will be limited to define the cars in a class, the classes in a race, and to balance the cars and classes. Fuel flow is not evil while displacement limit or air intake area are good. It is the application.

Efficiency as defined by winning the race (“The goal at Le Mans is to go the furthest distance in 24 hours. Audi did the math and it told them the most efficient way to go the furthest distance in 24 hours was to make their car go faster. Just because they used more fuel doesn't mean they're less efficient, they're just using the other variables in the most efficient way.”) is Not the only or even the most important meaning of “efficiency” when it comes to modern racing.

The goal at Le Mans ro any other race is to get there first Within the Rules. If the rules help define a series with more appeal to fans and manufacturers (because of cost controls, marketing potential, lowered guilt for watching a sport that is pure resource destruction, while still offering the kind of competition which can stir the fans) than those are good rules.

Hey, the Green-X Challenge has never one Hindered a race. It is purely a marketing tool and it has never once interfered with racing. Pointing out that it is a joke in terms of competition is fine, but if it helps the series attract dollars and eyeballs, what’s the downside?

Fuel efficiency rules need not hinder racing either. Sure, in the Group C days they produced some slo-mo processions, but I would say, those were badly-written rules.

Racing can be primarily time to distance, and still lower its environmental impact. And racing can still be Racing and lower its environmental impact.
I have never heard a good argument for not doing less environmental damage when less damage can be done, without damaging the product. We can have great racing that is greener. Why not?

[Maelochs]

Don't make me use the "R' word ...

[TRuss]

These green tree hugging regs are getting us fewer rules nkoske.

[nkoske]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

Racers are not trying to be energy- or resource-efficient in any context except winning the race. They will gladly burn more tires and fuel for a win, so the idea that...

The definition of efficient is, achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense. I'm not sure why this is so hard for people to wrap their heads around. Audi could average faster fast laps by using more tires, but it's more efficient to make less pitstops so they double stint. All I'm saying is the whole idea of racing is, achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense, within a given rule set. Racing is inherently 'green', what was so great about the R10? it went what 2 or 3 laps more per tank of fuel than the petrol cars? How is that not better? How much do they spend trying to lower drag? Lower drag equals faster speeds with less fuel. I could go on.

Originally Posted by Maelochs

...resource conservation can be achieved through fewer rulers is flatly false.

My point here is that the car is nearly fully defined by the rules set, so it takes increasingly more cash to to find the fraction of a second. By opening up rule sets it lets engineers find other solutions. The tighter the specification the less likelihood any makes a break through. The biggest efficiency in racing lately IMO, is diesel. guess what rules had to be opened up for that to happen. Hybrids...not allowed in 2006. Allowed now...hey the potential for break through. Want another? Let's open up the amount of energy stored by the system, so we can have a break through in energy storage/release.

The BS about the Deltawing is it's a car looking for a class...how about define a class that weights what the DW weighs....has the power that the DW has...then say go...see what the engineers come up with. As has been stated elsewhere the DW has higher a higher power to weight ratio than all of the prototypes...yet is slower...how does that make any sense.

Originally Posted by Maelochs

Cost control is also a serious issue—most factories no longer have the freedom to spend unlimited sums in a quest to beat the opposition, because most factories realize that they get better PR RoI from a non-racing commercial.

No doubt...if that's an issue lets tackle it head on. Cost caps. Football does it. It's possible, someone just has to grow a pair to tackle that one. solutions exist. I'm tired of all of these half assed attempts to control cost, that do nothing to control costs. The teams that spend more win more, how's that for controlling costs.

Originally Posted by Maelochs

lowered guilt for watching a sport that is pure resource destruction

People feel guilty about watching racing...really? who? Come on. Politicians are flying coast to coast on private jets wasting more fuel than I use in my truck all year, because they can't be bother to fly first class are people not concerned about that? And I should be concerned about the carbon footprint of my series? Stick and ball sports probably have a much larger carbon footprint than all race series put together. At least our sport drives automotive innovation. How much efficiency has come from racing over the years?

In the end entertainment in general is resource destruction...shall we get rid of all of it?

Originally Posted by Maelochs

Racing can be primarily time to distance, and still lower its environmental impact. And racing can still be Racing and lower its environmental impact.
I have never heard a good argument for not doing less environmental damage when less damage can be done, without damaging the product. We can have great racing that is greener. Why not?

Racing as is aims to lower environmental impact inherently as I explained above. Using less fuel means less stops, which racing series isn't looking for better fuel economy? Being easier on tires means less stops, which series isn't looking to get more out of their tires? Racing is more 'green' today than is was a decade ago because of the innovation that occurs everyday.

I went to Le Mans in 2010, what special about 2010 you may ask? Well it was the further distance covered since 1971 and on a track that's much slower. Guess what the cars in 2010 used their resources much better than in 1971. I'd venture to guess less fuel was used, less tires were used, etc... Wouldn't that be more 'green'?

My point...racing is already 'green' there's no need for gimmicks just market what already is.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by nkoske

The definition of efficient is, achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense. I'm not sure why this is so hard for people to wrap their heads around. Audi could average faster fast laps by using more tires, but it's more efficient to make less pitstops so they double stint. All I'm saying is the whole idea of racing is, achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense, within a given rule set. Racing is inherently 'green', what was so great about the R10? it went what 2 or 3 laps more per tank of fuel than the petrol cars? How is that not better? How much do they spend trying to lower drag? Lower drag equals faster speeds with less fuel. I could go on.



My point here is that the car is nearly fully defined by the rules set, so it takes increasingly more cash to to find the fraction of a second. By opening up rule sets it lets engineers find other solutions. The tighter the specification the less likelihood any makes a break through. The biggest efficiency in racing lately IMO, is diesel. guess what rules had to be opened up for that to happen. Hybrids...not allowed in 2006. Allowed now...hey the potential for break through. Want another? Let's open up the amount of energy stored by the system, so we can have a break through in energy storage/release.

The BS about the Deltawing is it's a car looking for a class...how about define a class that weights what the DW weighs....has the power that the DW has...then say go...see what the engineers come up with. As has been stated elsewhere the DW has higher a higher power to weight ratio than all of the prototypes...yet is slower...how does that make any sense.



No doubt...if that's an issue lets tackle it head on. Cost caps. Football does it. It's possible, someone just has to grow a pair to tackle that one. solutions exist. I'm tired of all of these half assed attempts to control cost, that do nothing to control costs. The teams that spend more win more, how's that for controlling costs.



People feel guilty about watching racing...really? who? Come on. Politicians are flying coast to coast on private jets wasting more fuel than I use in my truck all year, because they can't be bother to fly first class are people not concerned about that? And I should be concerned about the carbon footprint of my series? Stick and ball sports probably have a much larger carbon footprint than all race series put together. At least our sport drives automotive innovation. How much efficiency has come from racing over the years?

In the end entertainment in general is resource destruction...shall we get rid of all of it?



Racing as is aims to lower environmental impact inherently as I explained above. Using less fuel means less stops, which racing series isn't looking for better fuel economy? Being easier on tires means less stops, which series isn't looking to get more out of their tires? Racing is more 'green' today than is was a decade ago because of the innovation that occurs everyday.

I went to Le Mans in 2010, what special about 2010 you may ask? Well it was the further distance covered since 1971 and on a track that's much slower. Guess what the cars in 2010 used their resources much better than in 1971. I'd venture to guess less fuel was used, less tires were used, etc... Wouldn't that be more 'green'?

My point...racing is already 'green' there's no need for gimmicks just market what already is.

A brilliant post Nkoske.
I agree with everything except the cost caps (I hate price controls of any sort on principle. Regulators should not have the power to determine how much I am willing to spend). However, I understand that there may be no other alternative, so I would have to learn to live with it.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by nkoske

In the end entertainment in general is resource destruction...shall we get rid of all of it?

Boiled down to it's essence.

Richard

[Pandamasque]

I disagree. Since creation is often quite entertaining, there has to be some other definition of entertainment.

[helgi]

All that "green" stories is a one piece of a bad joke. Of course, humanity add some CO into the atmosphere, but a usual volcano pollute air 5-10 times more than all that technocracy. Not mentioning that all green сhlorophyllcells are alive thanks to the carbon oxide.
They'd better work on real problems, such as carcinogenic soot which all the Europe now breathing with. CO is a pure nonsense with that in mind.

[Maelochs]

“All I'm saying is the whole idea of racing is, achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense,”

WRONG.

The whole idea of racing is to get to the end first.

Efficiency means doing the most with the least, which Does Not Matter in racing. If the team which winds uses more fuel, more tires, more anything, So What? All that matters is who is first to the checkered flag.

Audi proved that perfectly—being less fuel-efficient earned them the win at Spa. In other races, being more fuel efficient was a better strategy, but it was never about Efficiency, it was about choosing which strategy suited a specific track and a specific opponent.

As you mentioned earlier, racing is about time to distance and distance to time. The only “Efficiency” is using the least time to complete the specified distance, or traveling a greater distance in the specified time. Resources used in either case are irrelevant.

“Racing is inherently 'green'…

Put down the pipe.

“My point here is that the car is nearly fully defined by the rules set, so it takes increasingly more cash to to find the fraction of a second."

Yes, but since racing has nothing to do with Resource efficiency, there is no way that opening up the rules guarantees using fewer resources.

Hybrids were Added to the rules—More rules were made, to balance hybrid vs. non-hybrid cars. More rules, and rules specifically to demand Resource efficiency, which otherwise has no part in racing.

Open rules emphasize pure performance. Rules demanding a certain maximum fuel usage focus on performance in two parameters—time/distance, and fuel over time/distance.

“Let's open up the amount of energy stored by the system, so we can have a break through in energy storage/release.”

More rules? Changed rules, but just as many?

No problem with opening up the amount of energy the system can store—But we would then need more rules to make sure a car with a huge hybrid system was balanced with a car without one, or the rule would effectively mandate a huge hybrid system and thus reduce freedom in design.

The problem isn’t too many rules. Like the Republicans’ hatred of regulation, that is a narrow view which is self-defeating. Fewer but Better rules, or even More but Better rules, is what is needed. The Quality of the rules, not the quantity, is key. Oh, and here we have abandoned any discussion of efficiency, or environmental protection …

“Run what you brung” sounds good, but what it means is the team with the biggest budget can churn out the most different designs and wins all the time, it means we would be back to the days where one car won by 30 laps and the next ten who finally finished hadn’t been in contention since the green flag waved.

“Cost caps.”

Here we agree wholeheartedly. My question with cost caps is, how will they be enforced? Would cost caps be more financially efficient? If a firm like Audi unleashes a legion of lawyers and accountants to obfuscate its cash transfers … if the new “Hybrid Division” does all the hybrid work off budget, claiming it is R&D for street cars, and then “transfers” the technology to the racing division …

And how do you balance the cost between a firm which does ground-up design and construction versus one which farms out the the monocoque construction (as I believe Audi used to) versus one which modifies an existing design (the numerous cars based ultimately on a Courage L75 monocoque)?

And what do you do when Audi says, “Our board of directors refuses your call to open our books to an FIA audit. We will withdraw from racing before we give away proprietary information.”?

I agree cost caps make a lot of sense if they can be implemented in a way in which they actually cut costs.

To combine two ideas … Cost Caps with a more open rule book would really force some creativity. Some folks would refine the tried-and-true; some would go way outside the box and build pure weirdness like the DWing; big factories would have their (off the books) R&D teams coming up with all kinds of innovation.

But … the Automotive Industry wants “Green” to be part of the image, and Energy and Resource Efficiency to play some part, so they can use it for Promotions. So the rules Have to include energy and resource utilization limits.

“People feel guilty about watching racing...really?”

Put words in my mouth … Really?

Race Fans don’t feel guilty about watching racing. However, people who don’t care about racing … say, corporate executives, environmental activists, and general consumers who have had the “Green” message drilled into their heads since the first Earth day 40-odd years ago, don’t see any benefit to burning up tires and fuel driving in a circle.

Car manufacturers have been pushing the “Green” angle for a while now … and they have to somehow make racing look “green” to make it useful as a PR tool. Try not deliberately distorting what I actually say, and we will have a much more productive exchange.

“Racing as is aims to lower environmental impact inherently as I explained above.”

No, you claimed it, but never explained it, because it isn’t true.

“Using less fuel means less stops, which racing series isn't looking for better fuel economy?”

Oh, I don’t know, Audi at Spa? Where they won by using more speed to make up for the extra time lost in the pits? Toyota all through the end of 2012, when they used more speed to compensate for less fuel efficiency?

Let me quote our esteemed forum brother, NKoske: “Audi did the math and it told them the most efficient way to go the furthest distance in 24 hours was to make their car go faster.” Seems NKoske admits Audi wasn’t looking for fuel efficiency, but rather decided to burn More fuel because winning the race, not saving resources, was what mattered. I guess I will go with NKoske’s take on this matter.

“My point...racing is already 'green' there's no need for gimmicks just market what already is.”

The facts: Racing is in no way Interested in environmental impact or resource consumption. The Only goal in racing is winning. Everything else is defined in terms of winning. If a car burns more fuel and more tires and still wins, it Wins. No one cares if it burns more fuel and tires.

As you yourself noted, Audio chose to burn More fuel to win, because Winning was all that mattered. They did the math and decided they could go fast enough to make up for a late splash-and-dash, and they therefore decided, “Burn more fuel, Win.” Fuel efficiency made No difference, only winning.

Efficiency is always a goal in engineering. Getting more for a given unit of energy is always a goal. Lowering friction and wear, using less material to do a specific job … in that sense, efficiency is a core concept in engineering. I fully understand that.

But resource usage and environmental impact is not a part of the engineering in racing. Audi is completely willing to dump particulates into the air (contravening the rule about no visible smoke from diesels,) because Audi doesn’t care about air quality. Audi cares about winning races.

If there were no urea system no particle filters (all mandated by the Rules) the cars would be more efficient in terms of racing (lighter, simpler) but FIA cars about Image—They don’t want huge plumes of black smoke coming out of the diesels, because it would raise outcries about how dirty and environmentally damaging racing is. So the FIA mandates exhaust scrubbers.

Not efficient in terms of racing Whatsoever—Audi would never design them in if the rules didn’t demand it—because Efficiency isn’t Racing has nothing to do with lowering resource use or lowering environmental impact.

Racing is the Opposite of “Green.” Racing is about burning up resources for entertainment purposes. Racing is not inherently “green” any more than war is … in war the same “efficiencies” prevail. Use to achieve victory—So napalming forests in “green”? Trying to get two gallons er mile instead of one gallon per mile for the tanks which are tearing up the countryside is “green”?

Racing is not “green.” It defines everything through the lens of Winning Races, and everything is subordinate to that. Burning up a set of tires every 90 minutes is not an issue; burning 70 liters of gas in 45 minutes is not an issue—or even burning 65 liters in 40 minutes, which Audi opted to do.

“Efficiency” in racing is not synonymous with “low environmental impact” or even “resource use efficiency,” because efficiency in racing is defines as “Using what it takes to win;” not using the Least of everything it takes to win (as in Audi burning more fuel.)

“Green” means having the least environmental impact, using the least resources … winning a race has no part in that equation. Racing can be made more green, but it is essentially the destroying of natural resources for the sake of entertainment. Racing is Not inherently concerned with being environmentally friendly—which is part of why no one cares a whit for the Michelin Green-X Challenge.

[Maelochs]

“In the end entertainment in general is resource destruction...shall we get rid of all of it?”

And as for this crap … I don’t want to get rid of racing or entertainment. You made up that straw man argument because you couldn’t support the real debate, which is about what “Green” means.

I love racing. Burn up that fuel and those tires, go for it.

Burt don’t try to tell me it’s inherently “green.” That’s just a lie.

Every part of human existence uses resources. The point of the “green” movement is to more wisely manage our resource use and to eliminate wasteful and unnecessary destruction and pollution.

Racing is unnecessary destruction and pollution, but I want to save it. I compromise my “green” principles for what I love.

But that is despite racing not being green, not because it is.

Racing is great, to me. I really love it. But that doesn’t make it green. Let’s keep things honest and clear.

Racing is the equivalent of me taking a tire into my back yard, filling it with gasoline, and lighting it on fire. It might be entertaining, but it sure ain‘t green—even if I use a smaller tire and the smallest possible amount of gasoline.

[gregtummer]

Racing should focus on being a sport and not on being entertainment.

The entertainment should come from following the natural flow of the race.

[nkoske]

I will address a couple things as in the end it seems we see the world through different colored lenses.

Originally Posted by Maelochs

The whole idea of racing is to get to the end first.

And if you do it more efficiently than the next guy you beat him

Originally Posted by Maelochs

Hybrids were Added to the rules—More rules were made, to balance hybrid vs. non-hybrid cars. More rules, and rules specifically to demand Resource efficiency, which otherwise has no part in racing.

...

“Let's open up the amount of energy stored by the system, so we can have a break through in energy storage/release.”

More rules? Changed rules, but just as many?

No problem with opening up the amount of energy the system can store—But we would then need more rules to make sure a car with a huge hybrid system was balanced with a car without one, or the rule would effectively mandate a huge hybrid system and thus reduce freedom in design.

You see it as adding rules...I see it as opening up rules. Giving engineers more options in drive is opening up rules in my view. Yes the rule book gets bigger, but you're defining the final car less that's what I mean by less rules.

I think it would be fun to say give a budget of $10 Mil (maybe it's more I'm not sure $20 Million), give a weight limit, some crash test regs, unit of energy allowed, 4 wheels must be covered. Now go...let's get back to true prototype racing. May make for less close racing, but will probably create some spectacular things.

Originally Posted by Maelochs

Here we agree wholeheartedly. My question with cost caps is, how will they be enforced? Would cost caps be more financially efficient?

That's for the bean counters to figure out. There's a way to do it, just need to put some smart people in a room to figure it out.

Originally Posted by Maelochs

Oh, I don’t know, Audi at Spa? Where they won by using more speed to make up for the extra time lost in the pits? Toyota all through the end of 2012, when they used more speed to compensate for less fuel efficiency?

Efficiency is always a goal in engineering. Getting more for a given unit of energy is always a goal. Lowering friction and wear, using less material to do a specific job … in that sense, efficiency is a core concept in engineering. I fully understand that.

Yes there always the balance between speed and resource utilization. looking at it day by day/race by race is not how one should be looking at it. Maybe longer periods of time.

From http://www.audiusanews.com/newsrelea...&id=3408&mid=1

- Right in the first decade of its program, Audi achieved impressive progress: From 2000 to 2010, fuel consumption dropped by more than ten percent although the average speed in the race increased from 208.6 to 225.2 km/h.

- The milestone of the first hybrid victory in 2012 was linked to another significant efficiency increase: Consumption dropped to 33.34 liters which – so Audi reduced it by another 10 percent when compared to the victory achieved a year before.

Originally Posted by Maelochs

But resource usage and environmental impact is not a part of the engineering in racing. Audi is completely willing to dump particulates into the air (contravening the rule about no visible smoke from diesels,) because Audi doesn’t care about air quality. Audi cares about winning races.

If there were no urea system no particle filters (all mandated by the Rules) the cars would be more efficient in terms of racing (lighter, simpler) but FIA cars about Image—They don’t want huge plumes of black smoke coming out of the diesels, because it would raise outcries about how dirty and environmentally damaging racing is. So the FIA mandates exhaust scrubbers.

I personally don't think they should be getting away with the amount of smoke they're currently producing. I saw the R10 many time in real life never saw any smoke out of it (when it started yes, on track no), but the R15/18 smoke like chimneys. Maybe the diesel and petrol rules would have more balance if diesels weren't allowed to smoke.

Originally Posted by Maelochs

Racing is the Opposite of “Green.” Racing is about burning up resources for entertainment purposes. Racing is not inherently “green” any more than war is … in war the same “efficiencies” prevail. Use to achieve victory—So napalming forests in “green”? Trying to get two gallons er mile instead of one gallon per mile for the tanks which are tearing up the countryside is “green”?

Racing is about being efficient and being efficient is 'green'. More efficient than the next guy and year over year. Even if you burn the same amount of fuel if you cars goes faster YoY, you're being more 'green', IMO. Why? you went further with less. Isn't that the goal of every hybrid car on the planet. There doesn't have to be a reduction in environmental impact to come up with 'green' innovations. Maybe my definition of 'green' is a bit more expanded than most.