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

[gregtummer]

I know you weren't referring to me, but I really enjoyed the 2008-2011 races.

My jaw about hit the floor when Peugeot took the pole in 2008 at a 3:18.5. Just to give you an idea of how fast the cars were, Peugeot ran the opening lap of the race at a 3:26.

The 2010 race was also incredible as the Peugeots and Audis were constantly running race lap times at 3:22 or below.

[gregtummer]

Originally Posted by Victor_RO

With 2013 cars being a development of 2012 cars, if the pole time is a 3:20 then the race pace will be somewhere in the 3:23s, which is still insane. But then again, maybe they'll let them have that before the rules change for 2014.

They may run at few laps at 3:23 or below, but that will not be average lap speed, as the LMP1s can easily lose 5-10 seconds getting held up by the GTs in the Porsche Curves alone.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by gustavobamba

You said right, "OLD problem", now the GT cars have different issues´s.

In 2012, Le Mans,we have the follow figure´s:

Slow GT Car (Corvete C6 ZR1) 286 km/h
Fastest GT Car (Ferrari 458) 300.2 Km/h

Slow LMP2 Car (Norma MP 2000) 296,9 km/h
Fastest LMP2 Car (Oreca 03 Nissan) 320.4 Km/h

Slow LMP1 Car (Pescarolo 03) 310,4 km/h
Fastest LMP1 Car (Toyota TS 03) 335.2 Km/h

I know the Norma is under developed but only 1 GT car was faster then all the LMP2 car´s (Ferrari AF corse - 300,2 km/h) and the LMP2 car´s are better handling in corners ( faster´s than GT car´s). This is not an issue like the old GT1 / LMP 2 "battle".

One question? Do you enjoy the 2009 Le Mans Race?

I loved it...

I loved the 2009 race!, i think we all did.
But it was a bigger safety issue with GT1's almost faster than LMP2's, therefor this 20-30km/h difference is better, if the issues with rearward sight in the 458's is fixed.

And don't get me wrong, i would love faster cars, but we must also accept that the speed needs to be restricted to keep the cars from killing drivers, press and spectators. If we get cars capable of doing 3:20's and even sub. then i fear the security measures won't be enough to keep the cars from the spectators! (Just see the McNish 2011 crash and Davidson 2012).
If there is any track which knows the importance of keeping the cars out of the spectator lines - it's Le Mans (referring to the 1955 accident which almost killed motorsport)

[gustavobamba]

Originally Posted by CTD

I loved the 2009 race!, i think we all did.
But it was a bigger safety issue with GT1's almost faster than LMP2's, therefor this 20-30km/h difference is better, if the issues with rearward sight in the 458's is fixed.

And don't get me wrong, i would love faster cars, but we must also accept that the speed needs to be restricted to keep the cars from killing drivers, press and spectators. If we get cars capable of doing 3:20's and even sub. then i fear the security measures won't be enough to keep the cars from the spectators! (Just see the McNish 2011 crash and Davidson 2012).
If there is any track which knows the importance of keeping the cars out of the spectator lines - it's Le Mans (referring to the 1955 accident which almost killed motorsport)

Ok , I see your point, it´s fair enough, but please he all know what causes the 2011 and 2012 crashes, and the lower lap times have nothing to do with that, iMO.
The problems are not in the straight´s, the cars are cornering faster and faster so the average top speed in Le mans this year compare to 3/4 years ago is about 20-30km/h lower. The 908 HDI run at 350 km/k, now Audi is doing 330 km/h and the big accidents happened in lower top speed ( except Rockenfeller ).

Thats ok, we all have our opinions . let´s hope the next years bring more fun at this sport, with 3:30 or below that. Audi is there Toyota also, Porsche is coming and maybe more will come.

I believe that 2014 will be a great year.

[Maelochs]

Added to this problem is that P1s and P2s are not fast enough to pass on the straights so they have to pass in corners which means cars on the limit, at much higher speeds and forces in more directions, and thus more chance for disaster.

Passing a car on a straight should be (driver stupidity aside) a Lot safer than passing in a corner where the tires are dealing with braking or accelerating, and cornering forces. Also visibility is more of an issue, and also driver judgement.

Theoretically a P1 which cornered like a GTE but accelerated a lot quicker and had a much higher top end would be a lot safer than the current cars, which have to pass when cornering art several G.

[gregtummer]

Yeah, the LMP1s make so much time in the corners now that they can't afford to get held up and lose their momentum. I remember seeing the Audis and Toyotas run a few laps in the 3:37s this year due to traffic (not in and out laps either).

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by gustavobamba

The ACO...

Is hard for me understand why ACO want a goal in Lap time!!!

Fuel efficiency, ok but lap times for god sake... but that is just my opinion...

I think it basically boils down to the fact that with currant aero rules , above certain speeds can be deemed more dangerous for lift off ..... plus public opinion and the greenies .

Fast and furious is what I want , and what most drivers want too .

New rules is whats needed , and not farsical aero screw ups like that vert fin and ride height .....

Bring back ground effects , full width rear wing , allow the use of a nose wing for front downforce like the XJR-14 and 962 ran .....

AND ABOVE ALL CONSULT THE BLOODY DRIVERS FOR A CHANGE !!!

[TF110]

If they had a flat front floor and lowered the side height I think that would help. Do away with the fins and fender holes.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by TF110

If they had a flat front floor and lowered the side height I think that would help. Do away with the fins and fender holes.

A flat floor would only increase the speed the blow-overs happen at.
Remember a Flat floor increases suction which allows the cars to corner faster, but if the suction is broken, the downforce isn't sufficient to keep the car on track, and the car would become airborne.

But i agree with you, other solutions to the "blow-over" crashes should be presented so we can deal away with the fin, holes and the slim rearwing. (I know the rearwing slimming wast because of the blow-overs, but it's not right)

[TF110]

With more downforce, you're less likely to flip. Unless you suddenly lose it. But that can happen anywhere, so it makes little difference. Group C/lmp 900 had the flat front floor without the rise in the middle, you didn't often see them flipping.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by CTD

Setting a goal lap time is a good way of making sure the cars don't go uncontrollable fast.

What makes it stupid is that the circuit has been made mainly (a bit) faster without adjusting this goal lap time and secondly the circuit is only one of the circuits on the calendar.

Originally Posted by Maelochs

Added to this problem is that P1s and P2s are not fast enough to pass on the straights so they have to pass in corners which means cars on the limit, at much higher speeds and forces in more directions, and thus more chance for disaster.

Passing a car on a straight should be (driver stupidity aside) a Lot safer than passing in a corner where the tires are dealing with braking or accelerating, and cornering forces. Also visibility is more of an issue, and also driver judgement.

I was also about to point out this. Ironically, slower cars resulted in more dangerous racing.

Altough I like that they have to try to keep the momemtum in corners. Should give more emphasis to driver skill and cars should be closer to the limit more of the time.

[gregtummer]

If you have the chance, watch a bit of the 2008-2010 Le Mans races and watch how much torque and horsepower the Peugeots and Audis have back then.

The regulation changes the past two years have made it easy to forget how much launch and straight-line speed those things had.

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by CTD

A flat floor would only increase the speed the blow-overs happen at.
Remember a Flat floor increases suction which allows the cars to corner faster, but if the suction is broken, the downforce isn't sufficient to keep the car on track, and the car would become airborne.

Flat bottom with ground effect ..... didnt have as many big accidents as we have seen with these regs in a shorter time frame .

[Lorenzo S]

Is there a website somewhere, or does someone know exactly how many prototypes have actually flipped since the Group C days? Is it more than any other type of racing formula?

I can personally only remember a few flips from the IMSA/Gp C days, the flawed GT Merc and a couple of more recent Peugeots. I don't really consider the Toyota flip this year. A real statistical breakdown might actually be quite useful. Are the remedies even really necessary?

I quite firmly believe there has to be a better way of decreasing the likelihood of a car flipping than cutting four holes in the bodywork and attaching a barn door to the rear deck.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by Lorenzo S

Is there a website somewhere, or does someone know exactly how many prototypes have actually flipped since the Group C days? Is it more than any other type of racing formula?

I can personally only remember a few flips from the IMSA/Gp C days, the flawed GT Merc and a couple of more recent Peugeots. I don't really consider the Toyota flip this year. A real statistical breakdown might actually be quite useful. Are the remedies even really necessary?

I quite firmly believe there has to be a better way of decreasing the likelihood of a car flipping than cutting four holes in the bodywork and attaching a barn door to the rear deck.

I don't remember cars flipping in the imsa gt days being that rare of an occurrence. There are lots of crash videos online that show cars of the period flipping. Riverside had a few nasty ones, so has Road Atlanta. I think I was at a race at road America in the 80's where a car ended up in the trees. Not saying cars flip more or less now, just saying it happened in the past.

[The Badger]

A lot of those flips , hit something very structural before they flipped , there is no amount of aero or planning that will stop that in any formula , unless your racing Terex Titans !!!

[Lorenzo S]

Yes, I don't consider a car turning over because it hit something is quite the same thing as flipping like Dumbreck, Webber or Dalmas did in the CLK/GT1 days. These were abnormal accidents that should and probably could have been prevented. However, tyre blowouts or being twated by Perrazzini are something else. Or at least should be treated differently by the rule makers.

[Livininthinair]

Does it stand to reason that in the "old days" cars flipped due to high top end speeds related to aero that was on the edge of holding the car to the ground. Now in the "new era" the cars are having more problems not on the straights, but because of higher cornering speeds coupled with interference with slower cars - McNish/Rocky and Davidson all had spectacular crashes due to impacts with slower cars first, then flipped - (the cause of the initial impact may have been due to blind spots or otherwise but the driver was still put in that position due to needing to corner as fast as possible)...If they had had more power they wouldn't have to go 110% through every corner and could more safely pass on a straight....


One thing I have wondered since this years LeMans - anyone every hear what the overall height Davidson was at? The car was vertical in the air and still higher off the ground than the Ferrari he made contact with...

[GT3.14]

One also has to consider the flips that have occurred during private testing. One of the Peugeots cleared the fence at Aragon if I remember correctly.

[TF110]

Anthony was at least 4 or 5 feet off the ground when the nose was down. He did a complete flip with a half twist. Amazing the chassis was intact.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by Lorenzo S

Is there a website somewhere, or does someone know exactly how many prototypes have actually flipped since the Group C days? Is it more than any other type of racing formula?

You need to register to view: http://www.tbk-light.com/phpBB3/view...php?f=36&t=133

There are topics listing flips for almost every type of category. Altough in these lists "flip" is literally any kind of flip.

Here is the list for prototypes: http://codepad.org/uCi1R5EL

[Lorenzo S]

Thanks for those links. That is quite some list. It would be very interesting to see them broken down with more background information per accident, as it even lists Perrazini as having flipped even though he only ended on his roof after contact with the barrier. If I'm approved I'll have a look through the forum as I'm quite intrigued by this phenomenon.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by The Badger

A lot of those flips , hit something very structural before they flipped , there is no amount of aero or planning that will stop that in any formula , unless your racing Terex Titans !!!

Originally Posted by Lorenzo S

Yes, I don't consider a car turning over because it hit something is quite the same thing as flipping like Dumbreck, Webber or Dalmas did in the CLK/GT1 days. These were abnormal accidents that should and probably could have been prevented. However, tyre blowouts or being twated by Perrazzini are something else. Or at least should be treated differently by the rule makers.

The whole impetus for implementing rules to prevent flip overs was because of either contact induced or mechanical/tire failure induced fying cars over the past 4 years. The fia/aco don't want the cars airborne, regardless of the cause.

[repa]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

The fuel efficiency numbers that are quoted by Kinoshlta make very little sense.

The density of the Shell racing fuel for Le Mans is 0.754 kg/liter for petrol (source) and 0.8338 kg/liter for diesel (source). And according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heating...bustion_tables the (high) heating value is 47.3 MJ/kg for petrol and 44.8 MJ/kg for diesel.

In the 2014 rules petrol cars get 4.95 liter per lap and diesel cars get 3.99 liter per lap. This corresponds with 4.95 * 0.754 * 47.3 = 176.5 MJ and 3.99 * 0.8338 * 44.8 = 149 MJ respectively.

Toyota claims that the target fuel efficiency for diesel engines will need to be 42.5% in 2014. This means that 149 * 0.425 = 63.3 MJ useful mechanical energy is available per lap. In order to produce the same amount of mechanical energy with a petrol engine, the fuel efficiency must be 63.3 / 176.5 = 35.9%! I do not understand where Toyota gets this 41.5%

If you start from a fuel efficiency of 41.5% for petrol engines, the target fuel efficiency for diesel engines will be 41.5 * 176.5 / 149 = 49.2%. That is a lot more than the 42.5% claim by Toyota

Some pages earlier i promised, that more things will come from me... (and finally i found the very old regulations also).

But now... Gwyllion made these calculations at the page 152, and i do them also but a little bit in another way. If you take a look at the new regs, you can see that the difference between 0-2-4-6 MJ hybrids is always 0,15 litres (not the same for 8 MJ hybrid, so i ignored it). That means, that for the ACO calculations:
- useful energy of 0,15 litres of gasoline equals to 2 MJ energy
From this:
- 1 litre equals to 13,33 MJ useful energy
Unfortunately, we don't know the Shell petrol's heat of combustion exactly but with the higher end (47,3 MJ/kg, or 35,7 MJ/l, with the density of 754 kg/m3) you get 37,4 % efficiency. With a bit more real numbers (34,8 MJ/l 46,15 MJ/kg) you get 38,3%. If you want to reach the Toyota number (41,5%) than you need 42,6 MJ/kg or 32,1 MJ/l, which seems even more realistic because we talk about an E20 gasoline, and ethanol has less heat of combustion.
But i guess, the other teams (Pesca, Oak...), and constructors would not be happy with the new regs, if 41,5% efficiency should be achieved...

The same for diesels (ignored the 0 MJ hybrid), the average difference is 0,1233 litres. With higher heating value (44,8 MJ/kg or 37,35 MJ/l with 833 kg/m3), 43,4% efficiency needed, but with more realistic numbers (43 MJ/kg or 35,86 MJ/l) you get 45,2%.

With 38,3% for petrol, and 45,2% for diesel, in both cases you have 66 MJ/lap, so calculations look ok for me.
What worry me, that you still won't have real equal in performances, as you putted the efficiency numbers into the calculations at the very beginning. I don't want to pretend the diesels, because i'm rather a petrol hearted man, but if we talk about "the same energy" than if you have a more efficient solution -in this case the diesel- than you should be in an advantage. Now we have "the same energy" with the help of some retouch factors. Ok, will have some energy at the wheel, but we should have that at the tank i think.

I find worrying also that aco engineers do the calculations from the data of the earlier years, but they can not really keep up with the new developments. They can not really know what is the potential in diesel engines or what is that in the petrol engines.

Which is interesting that in the august issue of the Racecar Engineering, they write that these numbers are not the same numbers what the constructors saw earlier... And also there is an interesting quote from Pescarolo: "Bruno Famin told me i had to congratulate my technical team because every time we said their power we were right!"
So if Henri is happy with the new regs, than it looks for me that ACO has written them in the right way!

Still more to come as i'm going to do some engine simulation...

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by repa

Unfortunately, we don't know the Shell petrol's heat of combustion exactly but with the higher end (47,3 MJ/kg, or 35,7 MJ/l, with the density of 754 kg/m3) you get 37,4 % efficiency. With a bit more real numbers (34,8 MJ/l 46,15 MJ/kg) you get 38,3%. If you want to reach the Toyota number (41,5%) than you need 42,6 MJ/kg or 32,1 MJ/l, which seems even more realistic because we talk about an E20 gasoline, and ethanol has less heat of combustion.

Thanks for pointing out my mistake. I overlooked the fact that the ACO rules use biofuel.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heating...bustion_tables petrol the heating value of ethanol is only 29.7 MJ/kg, compared to 47.3 MJ/kg for petrol. E20 biofuel is a mixture of 20% ethanol and 80% petrol, so it will have a heating value of 0.8 * 47.3 + 0.2 * 29.7 = 43.8 MJ/kg.

That explains why the Toyota calculations give a much higher efficiency target (i.e., 41.5%) for petrol engines than my calculations (i.e., 35.9%).

Originally Posted by repa

The same for diesels (ignored the 0 MJ hybrid), the average difference is 0,1233 litres. With higher heating value (44,8 MJ/kg or 37,35 MJ/l with 833 kg/m3), 43,4% efficiency needed, but with more realistic numbers (43 MJ/kg or 35,86 MJ/l) you get 45,2%.

With 38,3% for petrol, and 45,2% for diesel, in both cases you have 66 MJ/lap, so calculations look ok for me.

That does not explain why Toyota claims that the efficiency target for diesel engines is only 42.5%. Your calculations suggest that it should be above 45%, exactly what Toyota is asking for.

Remember the original criticism from Toyota.

He explained that the current petrol engines have a fuel efficiency rating of around 38 per cent, but will have to reach 41.5 to race in 2014. "Above 40 or above 41.5 per cent for the gasoline engines is a dream, nobody can achieve it. If you categorise the diesels the target is 42.5 per cent and this number they already achieved 22 years before in diesel."

"It looks fair... It looks like it opens windows, but [the] windows are so small you cannot go into [them]," insisted Kinoshlta.

"The diesel engines target should be more than 45 or 45 per cent, then it's a very fair target. Our target, I cannot reach. Their [diesel] target is under the table."