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

[wolfhound]

Don't forget a car with 8 MJ of energy recovery uses less fuel than one with 4 MJ. So naturally Audi's pitstops should be longer.

The trick is to balance the energy flow rates between diesel and petrol so that you have a level playing field.

[GasperG]

From the regulations 4MJ diesel is more energy efficient than 8MJ petrol (134.8 MJ/lap vs. 138 MJ/lap).

Tank capacity does not tell us much, because we don't know volumetric energy content of the fuels used. We can have an idea of difference if we look at fuel flow restrictions and FTF, from that we can speculate that diesel fuel has a whooping >24% more energy per volume.

If we look at tank capacity petrol has 26.4% bigger tank, but my guess is that energy content is close to equal, it's the only logical explanation.

Only one problem with my guessing, Audi should have 2% more range on a tank compared to Porsche, not the opposite as everyone on this forum is trying to suggest.

[ederss7]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

Not saying it's not anything. Saying it was almost irrelevant. Audi were beaten on track

Irrelevant for the victory, but for second place not. The #8 had overtook the Porsche before pitting. Then it lost its position after the pit stop.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by ederss7

Irrelevant for the victory, but for second place not. The #8 had overtook the Porsche before pitting. Then it lost its position after the pit stop.

Average lap times after each car's last pit stop:
#18 - 1:40.9
#7- 1:41.3
#8- 1:41.4

The Audi's had overtaken the #18 , but it was right on their tale. As the numbers show, the #18 was faster after the last stop.

Also - I didn't say it was irrelevant. I said it was almost irrelevant.

[Stefvh]

The #8 slowed down to let the #7 through. Pace was close to the #18 before that.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by Stefvh

The #8 slowed down to let the #7 through. Pace was close to the #18 before that.

When? Before last pit stop?

[Spyderman]

Looking at outright performance during the entire race - If we look at laps under 1:40 (really fast laps), this is what we find:

#17 did 82 laps under 1:40.0 with an average lap time of 1:39.3
#18 did 57 laps under 1:40.0 with an average lap time of 1:39.4
#7 did 21 laps under 1:40.0 with an average lap time of 1:39.5
#8 did 34 laps under 1:40.0 with an average lap time of 1:39.5

Porsche were not only faster when they were going fast, but were faster more often.

Now - Bring on COTA. Things may be radically different then, but as far as the Nurburgring goes, Porsche had it.

[Spyderman]

Laps over 2:00.0 (Yellows or out laps)
#7 did 16 laps over 2:00 min @ average lap time of 3:00.4
#8 did 16 laps over 2:00 min @ average lap time of 3:01.0
#17 did 15 laps over 2:00 min @ average lap time of 3:04.6 (boxed for one lap under FCY)
#18 did 16 laps over 2:00 min @ average lap time of 3:04.1

[Stefvh]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

When? Before last pit stop?

Nope, after the stop. I was trackside, so maybe i'm wrong, but it seemed to be that the gap was reducing between the two.

[Spyderman]

Not what the numbers indicate.

[ederss7]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

Average lap times after each car's last pit stop:
#18 - 1:40.9
#7- 1:41.3
#8- 1:41.4

The Audi's had overtaken the #18 , but it was right on their tale. As the numbers show, the #18 was faster after the last stop.

Also - I didn't say it was irrelevant. I said it was almost irrelevant.

It seems you are relying only on the numbers from the race. Before the last pit stop, the #8 was faster and overtook both the #7 and #18 and increased the gap a little. After the pit stop, the Porsche overtook both Audis . Then when di Grassi was trying to catch the #18 and he wasn't getting closer, he slowed down and let Lotterer overtake him. That's why the gap was bigger. The #8 had a good advantage and would very likely finish in second place.

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I don't know what to think about that, but I have a related question around EoT adjustments over the long haul. If EoT is to be based upon best in class, that means/implies that it is based upon "whoever is currently racing in the series". So lets say Audi leave and someone else shows up with a different diesel solution. But the new solution is not as efficient or as light weight as the current Audi technology. I believe that would mean the EoT would be reset for the new diesel solution. Personally, I don't agree with that in that assuming the fuel specs and other power unit rules remain the same, that things like BSFC and engine weights should use historic "bests" vs. values that can go up and down if manufactures come and go (a bit of a hypothetical at the moment). In my opinion, EoT should gravitate toward some fixed values (that we just don't know what they are currently). Lastly, initially an EoT value is somewhat of a BoP value in that when you first calculate it, you don't really know what starting values to use, so it may have been calculated in a way that works off an existing status quo (balance best of today... hence my BoP comparison), but over time (maybe such as now) it should move away from an initial "educated guess" value and move toward a "empirical" fixed value.

So I guess to your question above... I can say I hope/expect EoT adjustments to be smaller and smaller in the future? Assuming the efficiency and power unit weight improvements are incremental and not revolutionary.

At the moment you're the only person that has answered, so even if you told me to get lost I would be grateful for your response!

The ideal situation would be for successive adjustments to decrease until they reach this "equalized" set of figures (I've said this earlier on), but even in that case there will be bias one way or the other as the regulators are aiming at a moving target. The obviously tight lips of the factories make it that much tougher to make an educated guess beforehand. Given this inevitability I thought it would be interesting to ask how people would prefer to see this handled, then compare/contrast the answers here to the reaction to next year's EoT.

Your point about manufacturers dropping in and out is a good one, that I must admit I didn't think about. I would model a "manufacturer swap" as an extreme extension to the in-season development that is so difficult to account for. If the ACO-FIA could not do some preliminary analysis to accommodate for the new factory then I would say that they have to race with the EoT set by the outgoing factory, then the next EoT will reflect what the current manufacturer can do. This demonstrates why it would really be a boon for there to be 2+ entrants in each fuel type.

I think the ACO-FIA decided to apply EoT post-Le Mans to mitigate the "best guess" scenario you describe, as well as to ensure that they will definitely get the true figures from the cars. The problem then is that the adjustments are always made after the fact which is at the very least bemusing (and at most, utterly incomprehensible!) to everyone outside of the process. I like the idea of moving towards "empirical" values, but I can see a whole host of arguments about how to get there, again taking place behind closed doors.

[Adam43]

Perhaps the technologies are equalised and all we are seeing is Audi and Porsche developing their cars so that they are, at different stages of the season or races, better than the other.

No, don't be silly.

[TF110]

Maybe, but imo giving a (fuel) break to anyone is a reversal from the aco's intention of having teams use less fuel and rely more on hybrid.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by ederss7

It seems you are relying only on the numbers from the race. Before the last pit stop, the #8 was faster and overtook both the #7 and #18 and increased the gap a little. After the pit stop, the Porsche overtook both Audis . Then when di Grassi was trying to catch the #18 and he wasn't getting closer, he slowed down and let Lotterer overtake him. That's why the gap was bigger. The #8 had a good advantage and would very likely finish in second place.

No - Those are the average lap times after the last pit stop

[Spyderman]

Another interesting fact - These are the average lap times for laps over 2:00 , but that were not "out-laps".(Yellows)

#7 - 3:00.4
#8 - 2:56.5
#17 - 3:11.5
#18 - 3:02.3

[Stefvh]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

No - Those are the average lap times after the last pit stop

But those averages include laps where Di Grrassi slowed on purpose to let the #7 through. Not really informative.

[Spyderman]

Look at the data yourself. Analyze them and draw your conclusions.

I'll just post this:

The first 10 laps after the last pit stop, #8 was doing average lap times of 1:40.5. The #18 was doing 1:40.2.
The next 10 laps (so 11 to 21 laps after the last pit stop) the #8 was doing an average of 1:40.7. The # 18 was doing 1:40.6
For the remaining laps the #8 did 1:43.7 (#7 had overtaken it by then) and #18 was doing 1:41.8

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

Maybe, but imo giving a (fuel) break to anyone is a reversal from the aco's intention of having teams use less fuel and rely more on hybrid.

Who is being given a "fuel break" ? Diesel ?

It should once again be reminded that the diesel fuel allocation is computed from the petrol fuel allocation based on the FTF and KTF. If these factors are reduced following a re-balancing of the two "best-in-class" fuel technologies - like in the recent EoT adjustments - diesel will necessarily get a comparatively more favorable fuel allocation than before. This is entirely consistent with the ACO-FIA's intention as embodied in the rules.

As a matter of fact, don't forget that the rules inherently penalize diesel which is by essence more efficient than petrol. From this perspective, it is the petrol guys that actually get quite a reasonable "fuel break" under the rules, namely something of the order of 6 to 8 MJ/lap depending on the ERS option.

So, who is actually being given a "fuel break" ?

Not that I disagree with this fact (it's the only way to balance the two fuel technologies).

[Stefvh]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

Look at the data yourself. Analyze them and draw your conclusions.

I'll just post this:

The first 10 laps after the last pit stop, #8 was doing average lap times of 1:40.5. The #18 was doing 1:40.2.
The next 10 laps (so 11 to 21 laps after the last pit stop) the #8 was doing an average of 1:40.7. The # 18 was doing 1:40.6
For the remaining laps the #8 did 1:43.7 (#7 had overtaken it by then) and #18 was doing 1:41.8

Closer to what i thought

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

Another interesting fact - These are the average lap times for laps over 2:00 , but that were not "out-laps".(Yellows)

#7 - 3:00.4
#8 - 2:56.5
#17 - 3:11.5
#18 - 3:02.3

That depends on how many partial laps were under yellow and counted towards that average and where the cars were at the beginning and end. Gaps is the best ways compare to potential gain.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Who is being given a "fuel break" ? Diesel ?

It should once again be reminded that the diesel fuel allocation is computed from the petrol fuel allocation based on the FTF and KTF. If these factors are reduced following a re-balancing of the two "best-in-class" fuel technologies - like in the recent EoT adjustments - diesel will necessarily get a comparatively more favorable fuel allocation than before. This is entirely consistent with the ACO-FIA's intention as embodied in the rules.

As a matter of fact, don't forget that the rules inherently penalize diesel which is by essence more efficient than petrol. From this perspective, it is the petrol guys that actually get quite a reasonable "fuel break" under the rules, namely something of the order of 6 to 8 MJ/lap depending on the ERS option.

So, who is actually being given a "fuel break" ?

Not that I disagree with this fact (it's the only way to balance the two fuel technologies).

Come on, youre being too literal. Audi received a break (diesel) from the previous eot scale. Of course they have to run less fuel (flow and total) because its better in energy and efficiency.

The argument about them being slower despite the adjustment is weak imo. They ran the LM package at arguably the highest downforce track on the schedule. I think what they did was tried to keep with Porsche in top speed. We'll see what happens the rest of this season. My opinion is the hybrid makes the difference. Audi's Diesel has huge torque, but its not matching the Porsche's huge battery power.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by Adam43

That depends on how many partial laps were under yellow and counted towards that average and where the cars were at the beginning and end. Gaps is the best ways compare to potential gain.

No doubt, but the fact remains that Audi had a faster average when the race was not under "normal" racing conditions. In other words: It is irrefutable that they made up time when the race was under those conditions. The causes of this phenomenon can be discussed. The numbers: not so much.

[Adam43]

It looks like it is the case, but it isn't irrefutable until you allow for what I said or look at the gaps.

[Spyderman]

https://translate.google.com/transla...2017&edit-text=