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

[HORNDAWG]

2016 P-2?













L.P.

[chernaudi]

Originally Posted by TF110

You're wrong. The GT500 cars use air restrictors as well. Super GT just has better aero, and according to Nakajima they run softer tires.

I read that when Toyota was preparing the engine that Super GT used rev limiters to restrict power in favor of air restrictiors when they switched from the 4.5 V8s to the 3.4 V8s, and that Toyota had to do engine remapping to accommodate the restrictor.

But none the less, LMP2s are restricted to about 430bhp, while an LMP1/GT500 engine makes about 530-550bhp, so the Super GT cars still have a 100bhp edge on the current LMP2s, and more power is still more power if you have a long enough straightaway. That's why LMP1s had problems passing the Corvettes and Astons when they ran in GT1, because the 7.0 V8 and the 6.0 V12 made as much power as the LMP1 spec engines, and the GT1s had virtually identical top speed to most LMP1's.

I don't think that Super GTs have better aero as far as downforce, but they probably have less drag because of the closed bodywork and lacking a lot of the "kit" of an LMP2 (diveplanes and barge boards), more power, and, as suggested, softer tires that are very different to what LMP2s run, both in construction, compound, and also dimension (GT500s run wider wheels, though most teams run like 13x17 rims instead of the 12.5x18/13x18 LMP2 rims)

[TF110]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

I read that when Toyota was preparing the engine that Super GT used rev limiters to restrict power in favor of air restrictiors when they switched from the 4.5 V8s to the 3.4 V8s, and that Toyota had to do engine remapping to accommodate the restrictor.

But none the less, LMP2s are restricted to about 430bhp, while an LMP1/GT500 engine makes about 530-550bhp, so the Super GT cars still have a 100bhp edge on the current LMP2s, and more power is still more power if you have a long enough straightaway. That's why LMP1s had problems passing the Corvettes and Astons when they ran in GT1, because the 7.0 V8 and the 6.0 V12 made as much power as the LMP1 spec engines, and the GT1s had virtually identical top speed to most LMP1's.

I don't think that Super GTs have better aero as far as downforce, but they probably have less drag because of the closed bodywork and lacking a lot of the "kit" of an LMP2 (diveplanes and barge boards), more power, and, as suggested, softer tires that are very different to what LMP2s run, both in construction, compound, and also dimension (GT500s run wider wheels, though most teams run like 13x17 rims instead of the 12.5x18/13x18 LMP2 rims)

As for GT500 vs LMP2, your quoted power levels are way off. They have ran the same type of engine as their LMP2 counterparts for years. Just recently have they had an increase in restrictor size thanks to GT3 cars joining GT300. And Super GT500 cars have been faster than LMP2 for some time. They produce more downforce obviously. The lap records for their cars date back to 2006, this is 2013. You can't seriously expect them to be faster than LMP2 cars for the past half decade without making more downforce especially with the engine specs relatively the same in power level.

[gwyllion]

This discussion is useless, because the restrictor size can easily be found in the technical regulations of the respective series.

These are the restrictor sizes for a 3.4 liter NA engine in the different classes:

• GT500: 2 x 30.3 mm -> 1442 mm2 (base line)
• LMP1 2012/2013 hybrid: 2 x 30.6 mm -> 1471 mm2 (+2%)
• LMP1 2013 non-hybrid: 2 x 31 mm -> 1510 mm2 (+5%)
• LMP2 (3.5-3.6 liter): 2 x 29.6 mm -> 1376 mm2 (-5%)

The quoted power number for the Nissan VRH34B (GT-R) engine is "over 530 hp". That puts the 2012 LMP1 engines at 530 + 2% = 540 hp and the LMP2 engines at 530 - 5% = 504 hp.

We must not forget that LMP2 engines are production based, whereas LMP1 and GT500 engines are bespoke race engines. So the LMP2 engines probably produce below 500 hp. The official power number for the Judd HK is 475 hp.

[TF110]

Don't forget that those restrictor sizes are now a higher value for the '2012 post' GT500 cars, and that they were only expanded last year. These cars were still faster than LMP2 cars before the power increase. So even when making the same amount of power and being 200kg heavier they are on the same pace at least. That's quite an achievement.

[hondafan37]

[QUOTE=HORNDAWG;3220987]2016 P-2?




I like your idea!!! And will be the main class in USCR

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by hondafan37

I like your idea!!! And will be the main class in USCR

Yep.





L.P.

[hondafan37]

Originally Posted by TF110

Don't forget that those restrictor sizes are now a higher value for the '2012 post' GT500 cars, and that they were only expanded last year. These cars were still faster than LMP2 cars before the power increase. So even when making the same amount of power and being 200kg heavier they are on the same pace at least. That's quite an achievement.

Also suppose that next year the GT 500 will be slower when adopting the DTM regulation. Grand Am should include the DTM USA within USCR and not in a separate series.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by hondafan37

Grand Am should include the DTM USA within USCR and not in a separate series.

No.








L.P.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by hondafan37

Also suppose that next year the GT 500 will be slower when adopting the DTM regulation. Grand Am should include the DTM USA within USCR and not in a separate series.

I don't think they will be much slower, if at all. DTM's have good downforce, and I'm sure the GT500's will have equal if not more. On top of it they're running the turbo 4 engine from Super Formula. If they follow DTM, they may drop vehicle weight to 1000kg as well. That will definitely help keep speeds up.

[MagVanisher]

Originally Posted by TF110

I don't think they will be much slower, if at all. DTM's have good downforce, and I'm sure the GT500's will have equal if not more. On top of it they're running the turbo 4 engine from Super Formula. If they follow DTM, they may drop vehicle weight to 1000kg as well. That will definitely help keep speeds up.

Yes, but we're talking about the future of LMP. If supposedly, GTA and ITR dictate on the engine regs for LMP2 (plus DP), the privateers would boycott the class. Not only there's no variety on engines, but it would be slower with less than 500HP.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by MagVanisher

Yes, but we're talking about the future of LMP. If supposedly, GTA and ITR dictate on the engine regs for LMP2 (plus DP), the privateers would boycott the class. Not only there's no variety on engines, but it would be slower with less than 500HP.

I don't know where you get the quoted power figure from, but a turbo 4 can be just as powerful as the 3.4 V8s they're currently running. And a turbo 4 engine will fit nicely into future LMP regs. You never know how this will play out. But if Super Formula, Super GT and DTM will use the same engine, they may make that engine available for LMP teams to use.

[MagVanisher]

Originally Posted by TF110

I don't know where you get the quoted power figure from, but a turbo 4 can be just as powerful as the 3.4 V8s they're currently running. And a turbo 4 engine will fit nicely into future LMP regs. You never know how this will play out. But if Super Formula, Super GT and DTM will use the same engine, they may make that engine available for LMP teams to use.

I understand but if they stick to turbo 4-cylinder engine to most of the privateers after it is available, both LMP2 and DP, I think the problem for the organizers is engine variety. They don't need to stick to a 4-cylinder all the time.

[Starfish Primer]

The Toyota 88C Group C used a 2.1 inline four and was above 600 bhp, this was 20 years ago.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by MagVanisher

I understand but if they stick to turbo 4-cylinder engine to most of the privateers after it is available, both LMP2 and DP, I think the problem for the organizers is engine variety. They don't need to stick to a 4-cylinder all the time.

That's the Japanese makes using these engines for their 2 most popular series. They still use the 3.4 V8s but those engines may be obsolete. And who says they will or wont? Plus there are other makers of engines for LMP's. So they may keep these engines, switch to other makers or they may ask them to make an engine based on those turbo 4s?

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

I decided to redo my earlier calcuations, with the updated numbers from Appendix B.

• no ERS
  • petrol: 148.0 * 0.41375 = 61.2 MJ
  • diesel: 140.3 * 0.43634 = 61.2 MJ
• 2 MJ ERS
  • petrol: 143.5 * 0.41375 + 2 = 61.4 MJ
  • diesel: 138.4 * 0.43634 + 2 = 62.4 MJ
• 4 MJ ERS
  • petrol: 139.0 * 0.41375 + 4 = 61.5 MJ
  • diesel: 134.0 * 0.43634 + 4 = 62.5 MJ
• 6 MJ ERS
  • petrol: 134.5 * 0.41375 + 6 = 61.6 MJ
  • diesel: 129.7 * 0.43634 + 6 = 62.6 MJ
• 8 MJ ERS:
  • petrol: 132.2 * 0.41375 + 8 = 62.7 MJ
  • diesel: 125.4 * 0.43634 + 8 = 62.7 MJ

Note that the more powerful hybrids appear to get slightly more energy per lap. However, if we assume that only 95% of the hybrid energy can converted into mechanical energy, this is no longer the case:

• no ERS
  • petrol: 148.0 * 0.41375 = 61.2 MJ
  • diesel: 140.3 * 0.43634 = 61.2 MJ
• 2 MJ ERS
  • petrol: 143.5 * 0.41375 + 0.95 * 2 = 61.3 MJ
  • diesel: 138.4 * 0.43634 + 0.95 * 2 = 62.3 MJ
• 4 MJ ERS
  • petrol: 139.0 * 0.41375 + 0.95 * 4 = 61.3 MJ
  • diesel: 134.0 * 0.43634 + 0.95 * 4 = 62.3 MJ
• 6 MJ ERS
  • petrol: 134.5 * 0.41375 + 0.95 * 6 = 61.3 MJ
  • diesel: 129.7 * 0.43634 + 0.95 * 6 = 62.3 MJ
• 8 MJ ERS:
  • petrol: 132.2 * 0.41375 + 0.95 * 8 = 62.3 MJ
  • diesel: 125.4 * 0.43634 + 0.95 * 8 = 62.3 MJ

Some observations:

1. Non-hybrid cars get exactly the same amount of mechanical energy per lap (i.e., 61.2 MJ) independent of the engine type.
2. The same holds for the 8 MJ hybrids. These hybrid cars probably get a bit more energy than the non-hybrids because they weigh 20kg more (850 vs 830 kg).
3. For the other options there is the strange situation that diesel cars get 1 MJ more mechanical energy than their petrol counterparts. This is the consequence of the mysterious "k technology factor".

Draft v5 has slightly different numbers in Appendix B.

• no ERS
  • petrol: 150.5 * 0.41375 = 62.3 MJ
  • diesel: 142.7 * 0.43634 = 62.3 MJ
• 2 MJ ERS
  • petrol: 146.0 * 0.41375 + 2 = 62.4 MJ
  • diesel: 140.8 * 0.43634 + 2 = 63.4 MJ
• 4 MJ ERS
  • petrol: 141.5 * 0.41375 + 4 = 62.5 MJ
  • diesel: 136.5 * 0.43634 + 4 = 63.6 MJ
• 6 MJ ERS
  • petrol: 137.0 * 0.41375 + 6 = 62.6 MJ
  • diesel: 132.1 * 0.43634 + 6 = 63.6 MJ
• 8 MJ ERS:
  • petrol: 134.7 * 0.41375 + 8 = 63.7 MJ
  • diesel: 127.7 * 0.43634 + 8 = 63.7 MJ

Every configuration gets 1 MJ extra per lap, probably because the minimum weight has gone up with 20 kg.

[TF110]

8MJ gets a 1.4MJ per lap increase, while the others get 1.3MJ increase. Perhaps they realize that it will be a heavier car with the more hybrid equipment.

[gwyllion]

I think that you are looking at the wrong numbers:

• draft v4:
  • petrol, 8M ERS: 132.2 * 0.41375 + 8 = 62.7 MJ
  • diesel, 8M ERS: 125.4 * 0.43634 + 8 = 62.7 MJ
• draft v5
  • petrol, 8M ERS: 134.7 * 0.41375 + 8 = 63.7 MJ
  • diesel, 8M ERS: 127.7 * 0.43634 + 8 = 63.7 MJ

1 MJ extra, like all the other power train configurations.

[TF110]

Going by your calculations. But that means there's not a 95% efficiency rate and you're quoting 100% efficiency. That was your numbers throwing me off, should have seen you weren't saying 95% again

[ger80]

A lot of talk in F1 about FRIC - hydraulic systems that link front & rear suspension but are not active suspension according to the regs. Reminds me about the system Racing for Holland used on the Dome
http://archive.dailysportscar.com/su...suspension.htm
Is something similar used on LMP's right now?

[TF110]

I thought about this same thing when hearing about this on mercedes car earlier this year. Would be interesting but perhaps expensive. If its allowed? I haven't gone through the ruling on suspension systems for 2014s cars.

[MyNameIsNigel]

We haven't heard much about the status of the 2014-regulations recently, have we ? I suspect we may get some news at some point in June.

It is interesting to note that the recent adjustments regarding the fuel tank capacity in LMP1 are totally inconsistent with what is being contemplated in draft 5 of the 2014 regulations. Annex B of the draft indicates a fuel tank capacity of 65.6 litres for petrol engines and 54.3 litres for diesel engines (irrespective of the hybrid option).

A similar ratio, considering a fuel tank capacity of 58 litres for diesel engines, would lead to a fuel tank capacity of 70 litres for petrol engines. Under the current rules, the petrol-hybrids can now carry 76 litres of fuel and the petrol-non-hybrids 83 litres.

Where is the coherence ?

[TF110]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

We haven't heard much about the status of the 2014-regulations recently, have we ? I suspect we may get some news at some point in June.

It is interesting to note that the recent adjustments regarding the fuel tank capacity in LMP1 are totally inconsistent with what is being contemplated in draft 5 of the 2014 regulations. Annex B of the draft indicates a fuel tank capacity of 65.6 litres for petrol engines and 54.3 litres for diesel engines (irrespective of the hybrid option).

A similar ratio, considering a fuel tank capacity of 58 litres for diesel engines, would lead to a fuel tank capacity of 70 litres for petrol engines. Under the current rules, the petrol-hybrids can now carry 76 litres of fuel and the petrol-non-hybrids 83 litres.

Where is the coherence ?

Wasn't aware those were final rules.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

Wasn't aware those were final rules.

Didn't I use the word "draft" ?

[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?