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

[MagVanisher]

Wait, so Judd is basically losing money?

[Speed-King]

I don't know about that - maybe they are just making the most out of very limited resources and it just isn't enough.

Also, they might have other business areas outside motor racing that are more profitable.

But neither their LMP nor their Indycar engines seem to be anywhere near rthe top of the pile this year.

[Gingers4Justice]

Originally Posted by Victor_RO

In theory, the 2014 regs mean that the GV5 and GV5.5 are once again legal, but not sure how the engine behaves with a fuel flow restrictor instead of air restrictors.

Thanks, I suspected that.

But - presumably - they'll be more options available to privateers in 2014 if F1 engines are allowed.

I'm beginning to feel that 2013 may be Judd's last Le Mans in the top class.

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

Thanks, I suspected that.

But - presumably - they'll be more options available to privateers in 2014 if F1 engines are allowed.

I'm beginning to feel that 2013 may be Judd's last Le Mans in the top class.

They aren't the engine to have in P2 either...

[deggis]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

But - presumably - they'll be more options available to privateers in 2014 if F1 engines are allowed.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/101562

[Pandamasque]

Originally Posted by deggis

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/101562

Did anyone take that seriously in the first place?

[pablocomics]

We need a Nissan LMP1 engine, with a pink lasso

[Machin]

I'd love it if the AcO brought beauty back to Le Mans and adopted LMP body rules similar to the current Daytona Prototypes (i.e make sportscars look like sportscars!)

Until that happens here's what an Audi, Peugeot and Mercedes Daytona Prototype might look like:-

[TF110]

Just, no! LMP isn't meant to be some special sportscar class, they're PROTOTYPE's. Sportscars should be GT's, unless they allow silhouettes which would be basically going back to homologation specials.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by Machin

I'd love it if the AcO brought beauty back to Le Mans and adopted LMP body rules similar to the current Daytona Prototypes (i.e make sportscars look like sportscars!)

Until that happens here's what an Audi, Peugeot and Mercedes Daytona Prototype might look like:-

Originally Posted by TF110

Just, no! LMP isn't meant to be some special sportscar class, they're PROTOTYPE's. Sportscars should be GT's, unless they allow silhouettes which would be basically going back to homologation specials.

Agree with you TF110.
In LMP1 the manufactures must be able to persue the designs they want. A Spec chassis with different lights and grills would remove what is special about Lmp cars.
Besides, the photo exampels are outdated, as both Peugeot and Mercedes is using different designs than the 206 and C-Class

[TF110]

Same with the Audi design, that looks like Audi TT headlights from a few years ago.

[Puzzle]

however pretty some of the DPs might look they are the result of rules in-placed to prevent the use of the most efficient effective solution in aerodynamic terms from being used. i like pretty cars as much as the next person but if form doesn't follow function than thats a step away from going faster and doing it better which to me is at the heart of motorsport and more important than aesthetic considerations. to put it simply if you try and mandate cars to be sexy looking you're just going to wind up with a bunch of average looking racecars that are compromised in terms of being the pinnacle of what is possible.

[Machin]

however pretty some of the DPs might look they are the result of rules in-placed to prevent the use of the most efficient effective solution in aerodynamic terms from being used.

Part of the AcO's plan for the future regs is to improve road relevency.... whats road relevent about "F1 car with fenders" aerodynamic research and development?

[CTD]

Originally Posted by Machin

Part of the AcO's plan for the future regs is to improve road relevency.... whats road relevent about "F1 car with fenders" aerodynamic research and development?

The road relevancy is about tech being almost transferable into road cars, or aiding its development.
A "beauty" chassie has less road relevancy than a LMP with actual aero developmet.
You can ask yourself how much road relevancy DTM and SGT has...

[Machin]

Originally Posted by TF110

Just, no! LMP isn't meant to be some special sportscar class, they're PROTOTYPE's.

Oxford Dictionary definition of "Prototype":-

a first or preliminary version of a device or vehicle from which other forms are developed

I'd say my version of a Le Mans prototype follows this definition of a prototype better than the current cars... ;EDIT: Any lessons/techniques learnt on cars with these shapes would be directly transferrable to road cars... I can't see an F1 car nose being used on your family hatch any day soon....

Remember, this is what a Le Mans "prototype" looked like in the 1960's...

[CTD]

Originally Posted by Machin

Oxford Dictionary definition of "Prototype":-


I'd say my version of a Le Mans prototype follows this definition of a prototype better than the current cars... ;EDIT: Any lessons/techniques learnt on cars with these shapes would be directly transferrable to road cars... I can't see an F1 car nose being used on your family hatch any day soon....

Remember, this is what a Le Mans "prototype" looked like in the 1960's...

The name: "Le Mans Prototype" isn't modeled after the Oxford Dictionary, it's an ongoing development over many decades, where the most fitting name was calling them Prototypes, as they are "one off's" (sort of..)

Again, SGT, DTM, Daytona cars aren't road relevant. They might have a few shared looks with there road counterpart, but the aero isn't transferable. However on a current LMP there is a lot of research into aerodynamics, which IS actually used on road cars.

[Machin]

... Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that aerodynamics should be "standardised" only that it would be nice if the development went directly into "road car type" shapes as opposed to "F1 with fender" shapes.

Serious Question; has a Daytona Prototype ever been known to "fly" or "flip" like the current LMP's have a tendancy to do (even with the fin and holes)? (I really don't know as I don't follow American racing...)

[CTD]

Originally Posted by Machin

... Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that aerodynamics should be "standardised" only that it would be nice if the development went directly into "road car type" shapes as opposed to "F1 with fender" shapes.

The closest you can get to that is with GT rules like in '97-'99. But even that didn't work probably, as the push for the upper hand just made the manufactures find loopholes, so we got cars like the CLR, TS020 and 911 GT1.
If cars like that should return, it would require a pretty limiting rulebook, and aerodynamic development is halted pretty much.

But all in all, it's a personal opinion, as some favor GT cars, some early prototypes (917 and 512), some Gr. C, some GT1 ('97-'99) and finally some LMP's.

Personally i favor the cutting edge machines with little limitation from the rules.

[Speed-King]

There have been a few cases of DPs getting airborne, suppossedly a really spectacular one at Daytona in practise that wasn't caught by any cameras for once, but even when they've caught air they didn't blow over.

Joao Barbosa came mightl close to that at New Jersey a couple of years ago, though, before they added the chicane. DPs being flat bottomed race cars, a blowover would probably be like the GT1 flips from the late 90s - but all in all they are too heavy and slow to really get into any kind of major trouble.

however pretty some of the DPs might look they are the result of rules in-placed to prevent the use of the most efficient effective solution in aerodynamic terms from being used.

Oh, LMP rules do the same if to a somewhat lesser degree... take the ban on rear wheel spats for once. The Delta-Wing has shown that current LMPs are far from close to the most efficient possible solution, and even if one were mandating that there has to be a traditional four wheel configuration a really efficient car would look quite different from what we have right now.

[Machin]

Originally Posted by CTD

Personally i favor the cutting edge machines with little limitation from the rules.

What cars were they then? certainly not today's cars that's for sure...

Under my rules I'd free up road relevent technology such as opening/closing radiator/brake ducts, air brakes, movable spoilers, etc, not the fixed bodywork of today's cars.

[MagVanisher]

Um, will it be nice if the ACO could create rules for LMPs to combine beauty, road-relevancy, and aerodynamics?

[CTD]

Originally Posted by Machin

What cars were they then? certainly not today's cars that's for sure...

Under my rules I'd free up road relevent technology such as opening/closing radiator/brake ducts, air brakes, movable spoilers, etc, not the fixed bodywork of today's cars.

Gr. C and todays LMP's .
Theres only one of your suggestions which will find it's way to ordinary cars, and that's the moveable radiator ducts, which Ford utilizes on one of the Focus models. All other is only relevant for high performance vehicles.
Research in fixed bodywork aerodynamics is therefor in my mind more road relevant than movable bodywork.

Originally Posted by MagVanisher

Um, will it be nice if the ACO could create rules for LMPs to combine beauty, road-relevancy, and aerodynamics?

Impossible .
First of, Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some think the edge of technology is beautiful, some the lines of a designer.
Secondly, as you can see Road-relevancy is a "funny" subject which there is many different opinions in. But to get Road-Relevancy into the bodywork of the cars would result in less aerodynamically freedom. A good example is the winglets that F1 cars used to be covered in. This got banned, to lower expenses and make the cars more beautiful.

[Machin]

Its interesting to note what makes a high performance road car look like a road car rather the current LMPs, since both are (supposedly) 2 seater, 4-wheel vehicles:-

• The biggest difference of course is that a road car like the McLaren MP4 12c is a proper two seater, seating two people in a relatively upright comfortable position... not a one and a half seater with a fire extinguisher/battery/KERS system in the passenger seat and a "green house" that is too big for one and too small for two.
• The other difference is that a road car, even a high performance one, needs to have at least a little luggage space (generally at the front of a mid or rear engine vehicle).
• The final area for main differences is related to safety legislation; bumpers and lights must be at or above a certain height above the road, and sharp edges must not present themselves in case of collision with pedetrians.

The issues above would set the basis for my "Prototype Sportscar" chassis rules, the rules governing the bodywork itself would be relatively free, but of course it would have to wrap itself around the larger passenger area that would be mandated. Fire extinguisers/batteries/KERS systems would need to be either in the engine bay area or in the "luggage" area; not the driver/passenger area.

Given those simple "road car" rules it would be interesting to see what aerodynamic solutions would be achieved; solutions that would be directly related, and applicable, to the challenges faced by road car designers....

[MagVanisher]

So with that kind of rule provisions, it is possible to create a LMP car Machin?

[CTD]

Originally Posted by Machin

Its interesting to note what makes a high performance road car look like a road car rather the current LMPs, since both are (supposedly) 2 seater, 4-wheel vehicles:-

• The biggest difference of course is that a road car like the McLaren MP4 12c is a proper two seater, seating two people in a relatively upright comfortable position... not a one and a half seater with a fire extinguisher/battery/KERS system in the passenger seat and a "green house" that is too big for one and too small for two.
• The other difference is that a road car, even a high performance one, needs to have at least a little luggage space (generally at the front of a mid or rear engine vehicle).
• The final area for main differences is related to safety legislation; bumpers and lights must be at or above a certain height above the road, and sharp edges must not present themselves in case of collision with pedetrians.

The issues above would set the basis for my "Prototype Sportscar" chassis rules, the rules governing the bodywork itself would be relatively free, but of course it would have to wrap itself around the larger passenger area that would be mandated. Fire extinguisers/batteries/KERS systems would need to be either in the engine bay area or in the "luggage" area; not the driver/passenger area.

Given those simple "road car" rules it would be interesting to see what aerodynamic solutions would be achieved; solutions that would be directly related, and applicable, to the challenges faced by road car designers....

I personally wouldn't like to see those regulation, for the reason that the cars would most likely look like GT cars, or some sort of mutant GT. Those regulations would eliminate pretty much every single Le Mans winner since the pre war days, with the exception of the Ford GT40 and McLaren F1.
But you are entitled to your preferences