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

[deggis]

Beaumesnil: "Our main objective was not to put everybody on an equal footing in terms of performance (lap times), but to define the true potential of each of the competing technologies"

Requoted (also for AGD ). I think the 2% lap time difference BoP rule has been a bit misunderstood (the wording could be clearer though?) because now it sounds like with the data they've got they've taken a much more theoretical approach to this. If the goal is to make better balance between powertrains then it makes sense to ignore everything but the powertrains.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by The Badger

And , these rules are not the end result , yet . Another meeting on the 21 November . So , dont lets get too excited .

Note that there is a difference between the technical regulations (dealing with the cars) and the sporting regulations (dealing with the races and the championship). The technical regulations, including performance equivalence and safety improvements, are fixed.

The sporting regulations and the race calendar have to be refined.

This extract is taken from a document called “Sporting guidelines 2012 FIA World Endurance Championship.” The complete sporting regulations will not be announced before the 30th November 2011 after the next meeting of the Endurance Commission scheduled for 21st November 2011.

deggis commented earlier that there might be "limits on private testing and the number of engines used during a season". Such rule could be part of the sporting regulations...

[AGD]

Originally Posted by JAG

B. If a team requires a major media profile they need to be in the WEC/ALMS.

Well, I don't think many LMP2 teams need a major media profile. The LMP2 grid sizes in the ALMS/ILMC showed that. I believe they had 4 entries combined. The LMS had way more than that. Anyway, there's really no point in not having LMP2s in the WEC races. On top of that, the WEC will need as many cars as it can get at many of these races.

The new LMP2 WEC rule is a whole different story. I don't know who came up with that "gem."

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Okay, again you seem to know more that other forum members. So the experts did not get any technical information of the engines from TMG, HPD, AER (Mazda) and Prodive (Aston Martin). That was not mentioned in ACO press article.
Please explain how the tires and the chassis make a difference in straightline acceleration. Acceleration is all about the engine. Yes, better aero (less drag) also has a role, but that only comes in play at high speed (terminal velocity).
For the same reason that the Strakka and RML ARX-01d could do those great qualifying laps this year, even though they were highly down on power with the HPD V6 turbo engine: the cars were phenomenal in corners because of superior chassis and aero

Aero makes a big difference. Look at the AMR-One and what Mulsanne Mike had to say about it. As for tires, I guess they don't make such a huge difference for straight line speed, but there can be advantages in handling that can allow a car to get on the throttle sooner and perhaps there are rolling resistance advantages too. Anyway, there are a lot of little advantages that Audi and Peugeot have that may not mean much, but they are advantages. Better electronics, better shifting technology, so on and so forth. Do you think Audi and Peugeot are running Bazari Epsilon quality gear?

And anyway, what difference does it make if Audi and Peugeot are going faster in a straightline? Isn't that why they are spending hundreds of millions of dollars?

So, yes, I want to know why there wasn't the shock and horror rule changes when the HPDs and RS Spyders were putting up bigger margins on the same crap Zyteks and Judds that there is now. It just seems like some people woke up yesterday and realized that money buys speed. I don't have a problem with it and I don't see it as a rules problem.

Perhaps the ACO should just hand the sanctioning of Le Mans over to Grand-Am or SRO. The ACO's rules are just poor imitations of what the SRO or Grand-Am can do.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by deggis

Requoted (also for AGD ). I think the 2% lap time difference BoP rule has been a bit misunderstood (the wording could be clearer though?) because now it sounds like with the data they've got they've taken a much more theoretical approach to this. If the goal is to make better balance between powertrains then it makes sense to ignore everything but the powertrains.

Well, they can say that and everything else they have said, but the reality is that there is an attempt to equalize the gap between the factory cars and the customer cars. That's easy to do at the moment since they have the convenient excuse that the factory cars are diesel and the customer cars are petrol. Let's see what happens when Toyota and Porsche come to play. All of a sudden a new excuse will have to be made to close the gap between factory and customer. Of course, if there are 4+ legitimate factory teams, the ACO may stop caring what the privateer teams think or what the gaps are.

The funny thing is that Audi and Peugeot probably roll their eyes at these regulations and will just get to work and have the difference made up by the start of next year. Assuming there is no Toyota to keep the rules honest, what will the ACO's excuse be next year? "Oops, we still did not get it right, so off goes another ~7%...." Ha. And I bet people will eat it up too. Just deal with reality. The diesel teams are just better.

If nothing else, the ARX-03a should be better than the other petrol runners. That could potentially ruin some of the excuses that the petrol teams have. It'll be interesting to see if Strakka and whoever else runs an ARX-03a sandbag to the point that they are just better than the other petrol runners even if they are capable of being better than that if they think they can't compete with the diesels. All of these rules adjustments and stuff just breed political games.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by deggis

Requoted (also for AGD ). I think the 2% lap time difference BoP rule has been a bit misunderstood (the wording could be clearer though?) because now it sounds like with the data they've got they've taken a much more theoretical approach to this. If the goal is to make better balance between powertrains then it makes sense to ignore everything but the powertrains.

I agree, the aco shouldn't give one propulsion system an outright advantage, but if the team/manufacturer can gain an advantage thru better chassis, suspension, aero, etc then so be it. One solution I would have always liked to see was a common engine capacity and turbo pressure rule, then the teams could decide if the diesel was the stronger choice or not.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by The Badger

We will see speeds increasing with hybrid . The porpose is to get to top end as fast as possible which will have the car at top end for longer . And then their trying to drop the speeds ..... Im confused .

Hybrids are intended to increase efficiency, if speeds increase engine performance will be decreased.

Originally Posted by AGD

It's 9 classes actually. WEC P1, ALMS P1, WEC P2, ALMS P2, WEC GTE-Pro, ALMS GT, WEC GTE-Am, ALMS GTC, ALMS LMPC. It's confusing and I'm not saying that I agree with it, but that is what Atherton said will happen. Maybe LMP2 and GTE-P/GT rules can be harmonized so they can run together, but I don't know. Each series will get 30 entries for a total max of 60. Of course, what Plassart says contradicts what Atherton said. I don't know what to make of all of this.

Oh, and read my previous post!

It's been mentioned there will be more entries accepted with the final grid determined by qualifying.

Originally Posted by AGD

Well, I don't think many LMP2 teams need a major media profile. The LMP2 grid sizes in the ALMS/ILMC showed that. I believe they had 4 entries combined. The LMS had way more than that. Anyway, there's really no point in not having LMP2s in the WEC races. On top of that, the WEC will need as many cars as it can get at many of these races.

Outside of the factories the Signatech Nissan has probably had the largest media profile of any team thanks to the Playstation connection, they even sponsored RLM. I believe Nissan UK even claimed the two weeks surrounding Le Mans generated more publicity than two years of FIA GT1 competition.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by AGD

Aero makes a big difference. Look at the AMR-One and what Mulsanne Mike had to say about it.

Not at low speeds, exiting a chicane. We all saw that the Audi and Peugeot pulled away from the petrol cars on the long straights of Le Mans. That is the advantage of unfair engine rules...

Originally Posted by AGD

As for tires, I guess they don't make such a huge difference for straight line speed, but there can be advantages in handling that can allow a car to get on the throttle sooner and perhaps there are rolling resistance advantages too. Anyway, there are a lot of little advantages that Audi and Peugeot have that may not mean much, but they are advantages.

These small differences can easily be accounted by the experts in their analysis. They had the telemetry data and hence know the corner exit speeds, gearshift times, etc.

Originally Posted by AGD

Better electronics, better shifting technology, so on and so forth. Do you think Audi and Peugeot are running Bazari Epsilon quality gear?

I don't think that there is huge difference between the gearbox that Xtrac supplies to Audi and Peugeot and to smaller teams (e.g., Rebellion, Oak, Pescarolo, ...). Drive train loss might be slighty smaller and shifting times a bit shorter, but not dramatically; a lighter gearbox casing will not make a car go faster in a straightline.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

These small differences can easily be accounted by the experts in their analysis. They had the telemetry data and hence know the corner exit speeds, gearshift times, etc.

We could argue about this all night so I'll make this easy. I don't think the ACO gives a damn about reality or any data. They can say what they want to say and come up with excuses. These adjustments are to either A) close the gap between Audi & Peugeot vs. everyone else or to B) keep the gaps as they currently are with the assumption that Audi and Peugeot will make gains next year.

It's a Grand-Am type move. It's an SRO type move. It's an ALMS GT type move. It's all of that with a lame cover story that we will see repeated again and again until a legitimate petrol runner arrives. That's what I think it is.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by AGD

Well, they can say that and everything else they have said, but the reality is that there is an attempt to equalize the gap between the factory cars and the customer cars. That's easy to do at the moment since they have the convenient excuse that the factory cars are diesel and the customer cars are petrol. Let's see what happens when Toyota and Porsche come to play. All of a sudden a new excuse will have to be made to close the gap between factory and customer.

In your opinion reality. Easy? ACO has failed at it year after year. What's your excuse if Toyota finds out no matter how much money it pours to petrol engine it won't be able to create the same power (especially torque) than the diesels? Or is this scenario a non-starter?

Porsche is 2014 stuff, with vastly better base for equivalence.

The funny thing is that Audi and Peugeot probably roll their eyes at these regulations

There can not be parties more aware of the situation than Audi and Peugeot themselves but obviously they have to play the PR game (Ulrich's comments about the changes in Autoweek for example).

If nothing else, the ARX-03a should be better than the other petrol runners. That could potentially ruin some of the excuses that the petrol teams have. It'll be interesting to see if Strakka and whoever else runs an ARX-03a sandbag to the point that they are just better than the other petrol runners even if they are capable of being better than that if they think they can't compete with the diesels.

ARX-03a is not an engine.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by JAG

Outside of the factories the Signatech Nissan has probably had the largest media profile of any team thanks to the Playstation connection, they even sponsored RLM. I believe Nissan UK even claimed the two weeks surrounding Le Mans generated more publicity than two years of FIA GT1 competition.

Yeah, but Signatech's program seems to be the only LMP2 program with a large media profile. OAK maybe, but I'm thinking they are in the ILMC and not LMS simply because they want to be in the ILMC. Level 5 would be like that.

Originally Posted by deggis

In your opinion reality. Easy? ACO has failed at it year after year. What's your excuse if Toyota finds out no matter how much money it pours to petrol engine it won't be able to create the same power (especially torque) than the diesels? Or is this scenario a non-starter?

I'm sure a Toyota factory program would find more more success than any of the privateer programs. Obviously there would be issues with torque and stuff, but what do you expect? Diesel vs. petrol. Duh? Still, I think the regulations will not only allow them to compete fairly, but I think they may even have an advantage going into 2012. If they don't, well, reconsider the rules at that point. It would be more fair to compare equal programs than vastly unequal programs.

Oh, and the ARX-03a may not be an engine, but it is a potential charity regulation killer. Not so much as a factory Toyota granted, but we'll see. My guess is all these people crying that the rules are unfair would not be doing so if there was a petrol team running with the diesel runners. These discussions would not even be taking place. Even if they were, the proposed adjustments would not be nearly as significant.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by joeb

One solution I would have always liked to see was a common engine capacity and turbo pressure rule, then the teams could decide if the diesel was the stronger choice or not.

Such rules would result in everyone running identical engine configerations.

You need to take into account different engines strengths and weakeness' and produce rules to suit. Family road cars for example use petrol 2.0 NA, 1.6T and diesel 2.0T and are direct rivals with similar bhp/mpg.

[FordCosworthPanoz]

Screw these rules, lets give the Autocon Lola AER and AMR One an 8.0 L, 1000 BHP Turbo engine with jet fuel, a 400 kg weight break and F1 bodywork. Also, force Audi and Peugeot to have engines from a Chevrolet Aveo. Then perhaps the diesel vs petrol whiners would be happy.

The sad part is that if you did what I just said, Audi and Peugeot would still win.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by AGD

I'm sure a Toyota factory program would find more more success than any of the privateer programs. Obviously there would be issues with torque and stuff, but what do you expect? Diesel vs. petrol. Duh? Still, I think the regulations will not only allow them to compete fairly, but I think they may even have an advantage going into 2012. If they don't, well, reconsider the rules at that point. It would be more fair to compare equal programs than vastly unequal programs.

Definitely would find more success but I was asking if it would find "enough" success (regarding the engine). To this point you kept saying neither engine type has advantage... An issue means advantage in something. Clearly petrol is not the advantageous one currently, so that leaves only one option.

Oh, and the ARX-03a may not be an engine, but it is a potential charity regulation killer. Not so much as a factory Toyota granted, but we'll see. My guess is all these people crying that the rules are unfair would not be doing so if there was a petrol team running with the diesel runners. These discussions would not even be taking place. Even if they were, the proposed adjustments would not be nearly as significant.

That "if" assumes the equivalence is already correct. Obviously we disagree on that.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by FordCosworthPanoz

Screw these rules, lets give the Autocon Lola AER and AMR One an 8.0 L, 1000 BHP Turbo engine with jet fuel, a 400 kg weight break and F1 bodywork. Also, force Audi and Peugeot to have engines from a Chevrolet Aveo. Then perhaps the diesel vs petrol whiners would be happy.

The sad part is that if you did what I just said, Audi and Peugeot would still win.

Of course Audi and Peugeot would win! Now maybe the Little Sisters of the Poor would have a shot if it was the 24 Seconds of Le Mans. Well, 24 seconds without a pace lap. Let's not push it here!

Originally Posted by deggis

I was asking if Toyota would find "enough" success (regarding the engine). To this point you kept saying neither engine type has advantage... An issue means advantage in something. Clearly petrol is not the advantageous one currently, so that leaves only one option.

First, I don't think that neither engine type has an advantage. I think the petrols have an advantage. Yeah, I said it! And if they don't now, there's a good chance they will next year.

I really think some of you are dreaming of an all LMPC 24 Hours of Le Mans. Seriously. There's no respect for the fact that some teams are spending a lot of money to develop an advantage (a legal advantage) over other teams. If that isn't racing, what is? Ok, there is bush league racing with spec. cars and stuff. It seems like all you guys want are spec cars that look and sound different. Ok, so here is a proposal. We build LM-COTPs. Le Mans Car of Tomorrow Prototypes. They all have the same engines (even more spec. than NASCAR! Wahooooo! If you ain't first in spec, you're last!), bodies and tires. But in order to assure the "purity" of Le Mans, we'll give them all different headlight stickers, body cladding, and whatever other kind of ornaments that don't impact performance. Oh, and they'll all have speakers making the noise of cars that ran at Le Mans back when it wasn't a "travesty" of monumental proportions when a car did a lap around Le Mans 7 seconds faster than another!

There was a time when running 7 seconds faster than the competition was celebrated. Those teams were considered heroes and were cherished for decades. What's happened? Am I that out of touch to today's racing world? Oh, and get of my lawn!

[Pandamasque]

Originally Posted by JAG

You need to take into account different engines strengths and weakeness' and produce rules to suit.

So what are the secret strengths of petrol engines ACO kept finding since 2006 that justified allowing diesels to have 2-3 times more torque than the rest?

[deggis]

Originally Posted by AGD

First, I don't think that neither engine type has an advantage. I think the petrols have an advantage. Yeah, I said it!

How can both be equally good when there are some clear, undeniable differences? E.g. torque. And if you seriosly said that petrol has advantage: new regs, clean-sheet designs and both (Audi & Pug) end up choosing "disadvantageous" diesel... I'd like to ask you to explain it but I don't think you can.

There was a time when running 7 seconds faster than the competition was celebrated. Those teams were considered heroes and were cherished for decades. What's happened?

What happened is that ACO created a market niche for manufacturers wanting to sell a lot of diesel cars and while doing that flushed part of genuine advantage down the toilet. That's my summary of the state of things.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by deggis

How can both be equally good when there are some clear, undeniable differences? E.g. torque. And if you seriosly said that petrol has advantage: new regs, clean-sheet designs and both (Audi & Pug) end up choosing "disadvantageous" diesel... I'd like to ask you to explain it but I don't think you can.

An engine can have some low-end torque and still be weak on the top-end, yes? As to why Audi and Peugeot would still pick diesel, both know all they have to beat is each other. They might as well go for the marketing angle. The privateer jalopies are not a threat even with the new regulation (much to the chagrin to equalization zealots). Audi and Peugeots will do their homework and find more speed. And then this same cycle will begin again...and again...and again. And not once will someone think "Gee, maybe Audi and Peugeot have better engines than the several year old bargain basement Judds. What a revelation!"

Didn't Audi say that petrol has the advantage as it is? Granted, they would say that, but the same could be said about anything the petrol guys say. Dave Richards talking the truth? Please!

If you guys want to harm the diesels by using the rulebook, do so in a way that is actually consistent with the rules instead of inventing things. Penalize them for showing smoke when they least expect it. They are actually guilty of breaking those rules.

[Pandamasque]

Originally Posted by AGD

They are actually guilty of breaking those rules.

IMO, they are guilty of turning Le Mans 24h hours into their marketing playground ever since 2006. The sole reason that no factory petrol cars entered Le Mans ever since is that Audi Sport write the rules. Quite literally too, they were the only manufacturer invited into WEC working group or whatever it is called. The current changes could well be blessed by them as well.
Similar behavior is evident elsewhere (N24, Spa 24h). Audi tend to try and win races by negotiating all the necessary conditions in advance.
Also look at the decisions by the stewards. Audi have been running into GTE cars the whole season ever since Kristensen's adventures in Sebring. Guess who got all the penalties.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Pandamasque

IMO, they are guilty of turning Le Mans 24h hours into their marketing playground ever since 2006. The sole reason that no factory petrol cars entered Le Mans ever since is that Audi Sport write the rules. Quite literally too, they were the only manufacturer invited into WEC working group or whatever it is called. The current changes could well be blessed by them as well.
Similar behavior is evident elsewhere (N24, Spa 24h). Audi tend to try and win races by negotiating all the necessary conditions in advance.
Also look at the decisions by the stewards. Audi have been running into GTE cars the whole season ever since Kristensen's adventures in Sebring. Guess who got all the penalties.

You seem to be of the romantic opinion that factories want to spent 100s of millions of dollars without getting any marketing return from it?
And be assusred that Peugeot is invited to the ACO table as well.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by Pandamasque

IMO, they are guilty of turning Le Mans 24h hours into their marketing playground ever since 2006. The sole reason that no factory petrol cars entered Le Mans ever since is that Audi Sport write the rules.

Manufacturers have had opportunities to come to Le Mans and knock Audi off ever since Audi arrived. Audi was vulnerable in the mid-00s with their old car running in the hands of privateers. They could have been knocked off. Nobody wanted to join. Peugeot came in and has taken the sport to a new level. There's renewed interest in LMP1 that wasn't there a few years back.

As far as Audi making Le Mans their marketing playground, yeah of course they have. Nobody seriously challenged them for years. Those who dominate control the headlines. They knew they could take the risk of developing a diesel for marketing reasons because nobody else would come close to beating them as long as they did their homework. And that's what happened. Obviously Peugeot has put an end to this, but Audi and Peugeot are in a class of their own. Nobody is challenging them. And when you consider the vast differences in budget, nobody really should be challenging them aside from other manufacturers. Their domination isn't a rules issue, it's that they can spend more on development than all privateer teams combined.

Audi sleepwalked their way through sports car racing for a few years and still dominated. What was the excuse then? The diesel regulations prevented someone from beating them in 2005? The regulations in general prevented someone from beating them in 2005?

I really don't understand the public dissonance on this subject. Everyone gets excited about factory programs and want lots of them, but then when they come in and kick butt, it's all whining and moaning about how they own the rulebooks and dominate. What gives? Factories aren't going to go racing unless they have a shot at winning and factories like Audi, Peugeot, Porsche, Toyota, Honda, and so forth spare no money to go for the win if they are involved in a series especially when they are challenged by other factories. Either accept factory teams and their potential to crush the competition or ban them totally and make something LMP2ish be the top class. You can't have it both ways.

As for the lack of penalties, you have a point. Then again, the ACO has disqualified driver(s) (perhaps unfairly) lately for running into privateers too. Anyway, companies like Audi and Peugeot spend a lot of money marketing the series and giving the series money (the ILMC/WEC could not happen without companies like Audi/Peugeot) so they may get a longer leash. At some point though their needs to be consequences. Of course, Audi's silly driving has cost them far more than it has cost anyone else so maybe that is justice in a way. I think the biggest pressure is on Audi to make changes internally to stop these mistakes.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by AGD

I really don't understand the public dissonance on this subject. Everyone gets excited about factory programs and want lots of them, but then when they come in and kick butt, it's all whining and moaning about how they own the rulebooks and dominate.

The explanation of what you don't understand is the diesel engine. Many people here simply don't want to have that around. Subsequently all comments are being affected by that sitting in the back of their minds.

(proud PSA diesel driver since 1985...)

[AGD]

Originally Posted by henk4

The explanation of what you don't understand is the diesel engine. Many people here simply don't want to have that around. Subsequently all comments are being affected by that sitting in the back of their minds.

(proud PSA diesel driver since 1985...)

Diesels in racing isn't sexy so there is that aspect, but the dissonance over factory programs predates the diesel era. Maybe not in sports car racing so much, but in racing in general.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by AGD

Diesels in racing isn't sexy so there is that aspect, but the dissonance over factory programs predates the diesel era. Maybe not in sports car racing so much, but in racing in general.

well, let's face it: Money can buy you things.....

[gwyllion]

Interview with Vincent Beaumesil (in French): http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xll...eaumesnil_auto

He really stresses that they tried to balance the performance potential of diesel and petrol engines and that the mandated louvers above all 4 wheels greatly decrease the chance of cars getting airborne.

[Pandamasque]

Originally Posted by henk4

You seem to be of the romantic opinion that factories want to spent 100s of millions of dollars without getting any marketing return from it?
And be assusred that Peugeot is invited to the ACO table as well.

Incognito? There was a list of parties invited, it consisted representatives of various motorsport governing bodies and Audi. And where did I state that manufacturers shouldn't expect marketing return from their racing campaigns? What's the point in posting such nonsense? You know what I'm talking about and it has been discussed at length on this forum.

Factories aren't going to go racing unless they have a shot at winning ...

Some of them tend to make sure nobody else will have a shot at winning before joining in. Audi have done very well in first part of the 00's, the problem is that ACO felt the need to reward that with the rest of the decade's trophies free of charge.