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

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by TF110

I think somewhat like you Richard. Imo, Audi do just enough to reach a certain level and they let the rule makers do the rest. If the rules say they want diesel to be 12% more efficient, but Audi are 'only' 11% vs the best Petrol, the EOT kicks in. I dont think Audi sat still but I also feel they have the ability to go further with their efficiency but keep their cards close to chest. Possibly for reliability and negative bop.

There isn't pie in the sky but yeah! and not only Audi and diesel but everybody else... problem is the rules, and the tactic is to dribble the gods!...

for example 'free engine' is a ruse, a nice marketing slogan... matter of fact gasoline engines due to the characteristics of fast combustion would be much better with rotary kind of engines, not wankel type necessarily, there are already plenty of other type of rotaries much better than the famous Mazda ones.

Other examples of 'free engine' ruse, would be variable valve lifting (continuous or not) electromagnetic valve actuation, cylinder deactivation etc... all this inside the very old obsolete all reciprocating model. why are this techs banned (when already appearing in road cars) ?

This old model constraints petrol more because a whole lot of things have already been tried (diesel doesn't have *yet* an electric combustion mechanism for start, control and enhancement- petrol has spark plugs that can produce what we can call a plasma-, so can have much more room to evolve), and because the model is prone to high levels of friction, natural ground for the diesel variant, so diesel can have a future clear advantage with development (already has, fuel MJ/lap can't be the same for the 2 variants of the same obsolete model, if it were diesel advantage would be quite high and quite visible on track(as once was)).

But since the gods are so nice in *trying best they can artificially balancing things* why bother to introduce *radical* petrol evolutions (the less the expense the merrier) ?

[MyNameIsNigel]

IMHO the new EoT at least has the merit of reducing the rather unfair advantage that bigger hybrids had over smaller ones, i.e. by reducing the practical impact of the so-called ERS incentive. I have already expressed my opinion in the past on this forum as to why I believed that the ACO-FIA screwed the whole EoT system by artificially creating imbalance between the various ERS classes. Under the previous iterations of the EoT, the impact of the ERS incentive was simply too substantial, and I believe that the ACO-FIA are now trying to correct this. By their own admission, they were not expecting manufacturers (like Porsche) to be in a position to fully exploit the regulations and run in the 8MJ class so quickly after the introduction of the new fuel-flow rules.

As highlighted a few posts above, the reduction of the fuel energy allocation and of the maximum instantaneous fuel flow in the newly revised Appendix B follows a pattern where the higher ERS classes are now more substantially impacted than the lower ERS classes. This impacts Porsche most, Toyota to a lesser extent and puts Audi in a slightly better position. While this may appear to be somewhat suspicious at first sight, this is in effect the logical result of a reduction of the ERS incentive.

As for the balance between the two fuel technologies, I believe that we have to trust that the ACO-FIA have all the objective measurements necessary to properly balance the "best-in-class" ICEs in both fuel categories. The reduction of the FTF under the new EoT is the result of what should be considered as an objective assessment of the current situation by the ACO-FIA.

So ultimately it boils down to two very simple questions:
1. Was it justified for the ACO-FIA to review the practical impact of the ERS incentive under the new EoT ?
2. Is the balance between the "best-in-class" ICEs in both fuel categories, as reflected in the new FTF, objectively and appropriately reflecting the current situation ?

[Giba]

Could the other reason that they have reduced the practical impact of the ERS incentive be because of how reliable the cars are, even with all the hybrid technology? Because if the cars are more reliable than the FIA-ACO expected at the higher MJ classes then a negative effect of going to a higher MJ classes is reduced and to compensate the practical impact of the ERS incentive is reduced.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by Giba

Could the other reason that they have reduced the practical impact of the ERS incentive be because of how reliable the cars are, even with all the hybrid technology? Because if the cars are more reliable than the FIA-ACO expected at the higher MJ classes then a negative effect of going to a higher MJ classes is reduced and to compensate the practical impact of the ERS incentive is reduced.

That could be part of the motivation to review the matter.

However, the ERS incentive is still defined as "-0.5 s/lap/MJ Hybrid" at LM, i.e. a theoretical performance advantage of 1 s/lap at LM for each step up the ERS ladder. This has not changed as such - unless I have missed something - but the ACO-FIA appear to have reviewed the matter and have ultimately opted to reduce the additional amount of fuel allocation that is supposed to translate in practice the effect of the ERS incentive. This may suggest that the ACO-FIA previously got their numbers wrong or that they are simply trying to rebalance the field across the ERS scale.

Either way, Porsche are impacted most and Audi gain slightly as a result of these adjustments.

[hondafan37]

In my point of view , I think that ACO could have differnt EoT for the gasoline aspirates and turbo engines, because the aspirates is clearly at a disadvantage compared to the turbos.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

As for the balance between the two fuel technologies, I believe that we have to trust that the ACO-FIA have all the objective measurements necessary to properly balance the "best-in-class" ICEs in both fuel categories. The reduction of the FTF under the new EoT is the result of what should be considered as an objective assessment of the current situation by the ACO-FIA.

Unfortunately *trust* has nothing to do with it... this is not a love affair, neither a corruption scandal... they can have all the measurement they want, they will never going to be able to balance anything but for a limited amount of time.

The "best-in-class" ICEs in both fuel categories is only temporary... someone can always introduce something that surpasses anything previous(still hope in diesel too)... as example if Porsche were not in it, then the current EoT would have to be in reverse of actual, Audi would had got the axe heavily(which can happen in future contrary to now) instead of a tiny room to breath... which by necessity and consequence makes Audi against everybody else...

So the questions are; does it sound natural, balanced... and why not fair ? ... or does it make it schizophrenic, with constant meddling and changes, highly prone to some corrections being the contrary of previous ones, and so on and on !??

With it, only hope the 'slogan' of budget restriction doesn't appear again ever... because its a big lie... if you are in WEC you got to have an *extraordinary budget* only to deal with the constant changing... and the psychotic is that this budget is not really for normal development, you never know how hard and in what ways the axe can come for something or allowed and reversed again by wimp, you will never try to develop anything new and innovative under such conditions, or at least nothing that takes relative high time to develop even if you get caught behind the competition best techs... seems like a mad scientist approach...

[ or you do but only introduce the innovations under the right conditions... keep your cards close to chest, which makes your extraordinary budget part of an even bigger *black budget*... ]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

So ultimately it boils down to two very simple questions:
1. Was it justified for the ACO-FIA to review the practical impact of the ERS incentive under the new EoT ?
2. Is the balance between the "best-in-class" ICEs in both fuel categories, as reflected in the new FTF, objectively and appropriately reflecting the current situation ?

That it reflects the current situation i can even agree, but it will be short lived...

About *justification* !?... since the world has gone insane (with EU cannibalizing itself... a new cold war) perhaps!... but since the rules methodology and logic are such awkward i don't think FIA-ACO has much of a choice.

[TF110]

The hybrid incentive is now an obsolete idea if the eot is to keep going in this direction. Whats the point in going 8mj petrol now if youre going to be no better than a diesel at 4mj? The future is less reliance on fuel and more on 'clean' energy. This ruling looks like a slap in the face to Nissan, Toyota and Porsche. Unless another manufacturer has shown interest in running a diesel, this decision is not good for competition imo.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

The hybrid incentive is now an obsolete idea if the eot is to keep going in this direction. Whats the point in going 8mj petrol now if youre going to be no better than a diesel at 4mj? The future is less reliance on fuel and more on 'clean' energy. This ruling looks like a slap in the face to Nissan, Toyota and Porsche. Unless another manufacturer has shown interest in running a diesel, this decision is not good for competition imo.

I have to disagree.

Two things should once again be distinguished:
1. the practical translation of the ERS incentive across the ERS scale in each fuel category; and
2. the equivalence between petrol and diesel.

1. and 2. are very much uncorrelated from one another.

1. aims to ensure that a reasonable performance incentive exists to push manufacturers to opt for the bigger hybrid solutions. Under the new EoT, this ERS incentive is still very much there. It's simply less important than before. And this applies in both fuel categories. Diesel is not treated differently than petrol in that respect.

2. is at the core of the EoT. The ACO-FIA balance, once a year, the "best-in-class" ICEs in both fuel categories based on objective fuel efficiency measurements. While this may not be the most transparent process (as we do not have access to the relevant data) we have to trust that the ACO-FIA are doing this properly. They do have the appropriate tools to objectively balance the "best-in-class" ICEs and the new EoT should be read as an attempt to rebalance the "best-in-class" ICEs. Nothing more than that.

Suggesting otherwise would mean that the whole fuel-flow formula and fuel efficiency balancing is crap and should be thrown to the dustbin. So far the ACO-FIA have successfully demonstrated that the concept works and guarantees a great level of entertainement. Petrol is in a position to beat diesel and diesel is in a position to challenge for victory as well. That looks good to me.

[TF110]

Of course it looks good for one who supports Audi. No offence to you or Audi fans. To everyone else, it looks bad.

The ers incentive was presented before this current generation of rules was in place. The sad part is the eot process includes lap times, but its being ignored because Audi didnt win LM? Well, they did win Silverstone and Spa. Did Toyota get a better relative eot after winning the same races but losing LM last year? If the equality was so good before and the ACO/FIA have done such a good job, why change? Just because they have a history of doing a 'good job' at eot (thats actually questionable since they have only made 2 previous revisions) does that mean they cant make a not so good job?

Porsche are fast when they can use all their boost. Audi dont need anything but half as much boost to be as fast and faster. Thats not equality. Thats forcing one team to go to the max allowed hybrid power to be only nearly as quick as some other team running nowhere near as much hybrid as you. But Audi can get away with running 2mj if they want, since theres no reason to try for more hybrid power with the eot trying to 'equalise' everything. That goes against what the initial proposed hybrid idea was for. Now that this is incentive is evidently the new norm, what reason is there for a hybrid? This is what rulings like this will be looked at. Teams will think "why do 8mj? 6, 4...2mj?" Its not autonomy, because the fuel tank size just got reduced! This is a backwards move imo.

[Pandemonium]

Yes non taken... I do not know about this one... Weird.

[Articus]

Originally Posted by TF110

Of course it looks good for one who supports Audi. No offence to you or Audi fans. To everyone else, it looks bad.

The ers incentive was presented before this current generation of rules was in place. The sad part is the eot process includes lap times, but its being ignored because Audi didnt win LM? Well, they did win Silverstone and Spa. Did Toyota get a better relative eot after winning the same races but losing LM last year? If the equality was so good before and the ACO/FIA have done such a good job, why change? Just because they have a history of doing a 'good job' at eot (thats actually questionable since they have only made 2 previous revisions) does that mean they cant make a not so good job?

Porsche are fast when they can use all their boost. Audi dont need anything but half as much boost to be as fast and faster. Thats not equality. Thats forcing one team to go to the max allowed hybrid power to be only nearly as quick as some other team running nowhere near as much hybrid as you. But Audi can get away with running 2mj if they want, since theres no reason to try for more hybrid power with the eot trying to 'equalise' everything. That goes against what the initial proposed hybrid idea was for. Now that this is incentive is evidently the new norm, what reason is there for a hybrid? This is what rulings like this will be looked at. Teams will think "why do 8mj? 6, 4...2mj?" Its not autonomy, because the fuel tank size just got reduced! This is a backwards move imo.

Oh come on. It goes both ways and you are playing with fire here...

[chernaudi]

Any thoughts on the possible aero changes for '16? Might we be back to the 1600mm rear wings? Of course, that worked so well last time the ACO tried that to reduce cornering speeds. Then we also have to wonder how the ACO will word the technical regs regarding rear wing endplates/"wheel arch extensions" to ban or restrict the endplate extensions that Toyota introduced at Silverstone in '12.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by Chiana

Good sumup Richard, totally agree.

Also I rather have this than 2013 when new spec Toyota's petrol got bopped up according to one (partial) race's performance ahead of LM, at least now it's (supposedly) not just lap time performance/politics based, and also it's from much wider range of collected data.

You said this before about Toyota in 2013. The ACO didnt "bop up" the Toyota on just a half race worth of performance. And the only bop they gave Toyota was a few liters extra fuel tank size. it wasn't even enough to go one more lap at Le Mans. How is that worse than giving the fastest car this year a higher total energy per lap plus more fuel flow AND cutting back the other two competitors? I dont get your point with that comment. Can you explain how this eot is any better or really any different than a 3L max fuel bop break in 2013?

Originally Posted by Articus

Oh come on. It goes both ways and you are playing with fire here...

Not sure I get what you mean. Only putting out facts... If were talking about being 'fair', Audi dont need any breaks and Porsche/Toyota dont need any cuts.

[J Jay]

Define "fair"....

You seem to be making the same mistake that a few others have earlier in this thread. EoT is not about slowing down the fastest car; that would be BoP, and surely nobody wants to see BoP in LMP1?. It is about equalizing the effective (useful) energy available for each type of fuel+hybrid combination when the incentive for higher energy classes is factored in. How the teams use that energy to get the best lap times isn't the remit of the EoT process.

Forgive me for being blunt, but the ACO have the actual figures and I'm willing to believe them over anybody here. The same will apply next year if Audi do a much better job on the powertrain and the EoT subsequently penalizes diesel classes.

If you want to wail about why the ERS incentive was effectively reduced, be my guest. I would guess that in the ACO's rush to adopt "the new hotness" of high levels of hybridization they put very attractive figures on the highest (8MJ) petrol class and were caught out by how quickly Porsche got there. A knee-jerk reaction followed by a another jerk in the opposite direction.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by TF110

I dont think Audi sat still but I also feel they have the ability to go further with their efficiency but keep their cards close to chest. Possibly for reliability and negative bop.

Well what you're suggesting is that they are sand bagging. So are you suggesting they sand bagged and cost themselves a Le Mans victory, so they can have a better chance of winning the smaller events? This seems to be very odd logic.

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Well what you're suggesting is that they are sand bagging. So are you suggesting they sand bagged and cost themselves a Le Mans victory, so they can have a better chance of winning the smaller events? This seems to be very odd logic.

I think TF110 is suggesting the same thing as Richard Castro did earlier - that Audi can choose not to develop certain aspects of the ICE/MGU if they think it will be detrimental in other areas (e.g. reliability), but Porsche & Toyota have to develop and apply these upgrades because if they don't then they risk losing out by not being "best-in-class" and therefore not being used for the EoT calculations.

But again, there is nothing that can be done for this as part of the EoT process. You can't penalize a manufacturer for not putting a potential upgrade on their car. The only way to combat this would be to have +1/-1 entrants in the diesel class, so either Audi has a diesel competitor which it must produce better numbers than to not lose out on being the "best-in-class," or Audi abandon diesel and join the petrol fray (where again they would have to join in the powertrain race and compete with Porsche & Toyota directly in aspect).

[TF110]

Originally Posted by J Jay

Define "fair"....

You seem to be making the same mistake that a few others have earlier in this thread. EoT is not about slowing down the fastest car; that would be BoP, and surely nobody wants to see BoP in LMP1?. It is about equalizing the effective (useful) energy available for each type of fuel+hybrid combination when the incentive for higher energy classes is factored in. How the teams use that energy to get the best lap times isn't the remit of the EoT process.

Forgive me for being blunt, but the ACO have the actual figures and I'm willing to believe them over anybody here. The same will apply next year if Audi do a much better job on the powertrain and the EoT subsequently penalizes diesel classes.

If you want to wail about why the ERS incentive was effectively reduced, be my guest. I would guess that in the ACO's rush to adopt "the new hotness" of high levels of hybridization they put very attractive figures on the highest (8MJ) petrol class and were caught out by how quickly Porsche got there. A knee-jerk reaction followed by a another jerk in the opposite direction.

Youre taking my usage of "fair" out of context. Other users said the EOT was 'fair' before, and now some others say its 'fair' now. But if youre going to claim things are fair before and now, thats kind of being... unfair Like you said in the last post, there is no reason for Audi to push the envelope so much as Porsche Toyota and Nissan. So why are they rewarding Audi more fuel flow and total energy per lap now? If lap time is part of eot process, they must have some hard evidence that Porsche was the one sandbagging (for lack of better term). But that doesnt make sense, does it.

I think its funny you say the eot isnt about slowing down the fastest car. Well, obviously! Its about speeding it up even more. You can trust their science. To me, the results speak for themselves. I can only assume they expect Porsche Toyota and Nissan to make even more strides than Audi and figure they all go 8mj next year with Porsche maybe gaining even more during this season and next. But the puzzling thing is why cut the fuel alowance across the board but increase flow for only one car?

By dropping the amount of fuel it reduces the # of laps per stint, but then dropping the mj/lap reduces power on top of that. So its an attempt to slow down petrol and limit its stint advantage all while giving more power to diesel. What kind of eot is that? Looks near the same as bop to me, only under a new name with supposed data to back it up. Equivalence of technology, balance of performance. Two names but imo not two different

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by TF110

Other users said the EOT was 'fair' before, and now some others say its 'fair' now. But if you're going to claim things are fair before and now, that's kind of being... unfair

Actually I agree with you here. It is at the very least incredibly frustrating that for the last year we've - teams, reporters and fans alike - all thought that the EoT was fair, only to suddenly find out that apparently it wasn't. But there isn't a more elegant solution that I can think of. The process can only be reviewed after Le Mans because that's when there definitely isn't any funny business going on (on the powertrain side at least!), and the manufacturers will never let such sensitive data be made public so we'll never be able to look at the numbers and judge for ourselves.

We are therefore left with the curious case of an equalization process that will likely flip-flop between "favouring" petrol and diesel. In fact the best we can hope for is that exactly this happens (in an analogous way to a lightly damped oscillating system) and that the adjustments become smaller and tend to a set of "fair" values we can all agree on.

Originally Posted by TF110

Like you said in the last post, there is no reason for Audi to push the envelope so much as Porsche Toyota and Nissan. So why are they rewarding Audi more fuel flow and total energy per lap now?

Let me clarify something here. While I agree that Audi have the possibility to hold back on the development if they think the risks outweigh the benefits that does not mean that I think they are automatically doing so. There is still one significant reason for Audi to push as much as they can - so they can go faster.

Furthermore, if we take this EoT adjustment at face value then for the past year they've had to play catchup to Porsche. What better incentives to push the envelope than to beat the sister marque, and to just make the fastest car that you can?

Originally Posted by TF110

If lap time is part of eot process, they must have some hard evidence that Porsche was the one sandbagging (for lack of better term). But that doesnt make sense, does it.

Errr, the assertion that I have been arguing for is that the lap time is definitely not part of the EoT process. Again, because that would be a performance balancing process (i.e. taking the total performance of the car into account) whereas EoT only looks at the raw numbers the ICE + ERS are outputting and ignores the aerodynamics, chassis, suspension, geartrains, brakes, etc.

Originally Posted by TF110

Equivalence of technology, balance of performance. Two names but imo not two different

Well now we fundamentally disagree, so there's no point going round in circles anymore - let's leave that to the cars and (hopefully) enjoy the ride!

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by J Jay

Actually I agree with you here. It is at the very least incredibly frustrating that for the last year we've - teams, reporters and fans alike - all thought that the EoT was fair, only to suddenly find out that apparently it wasn't. But there isn't a more elegant solution that I can think of. The process can only be reviewed after Le Mans because that's when there definitely isn't any funny business going on (on the powertrain side at least!), and the manufacturers will never let such sensitive data be made public so we'll never be able to look at the numbers and judge for ourselves.

We are therefore left with the curious case of an equalization process that will likely flip-flop between "favouring" petrol and diesel. In fact the best we can hope for is that exactly this happens (in an analogous way to a lightly damped oscillating system) and that the adjustments become smaller and tend to a set of "fair" values we can all agree on.

I see what you are saying. At time of publication the EoT is, based on the information available to the ACO, fair. As time goes on more information, research and analysis can happen, which means this viewpoint can change.

People struggle to understand the concept that views can change. Research can develop, theories evolve.

So I don't find it frustrating. It would be more frustrating is they dogmatically stuck to the same viewpoint. For an example how that can be frustrating see here.

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I see what you are saying. At time of publication the EoT is, based on the information available to the ACO, fair. As time goes on more information, research and analysis can happen, which means this viewpoint can change.

There is one added complication to this rather neat analogy of mine, albeit one that everyone will gladly accept. The manufacturers obviously will be improving the efficiencies and therefore the power/torque/mileage they can get from their power units. One factory could make such a massive leap forward that the required equalization to its car's fuel type might require multiple EoT cycles. Unlikely I know, but the possibility is there.

Originally Posted by Adam43

So I don't find it frustrating. It would be more frustrating is they dogmatically stuck to the same viewpoint. For an example how that can be frustrating see here.

I think we can be more precise about this. I hope you don't mind the correction!

[Adam43]

I don't mind at all

Yes, it is conceivable that the 'fair' position may change. Which the ACO admits that it can't know, so it compares the best of both. Fuels and Engine, not overall car.

[TF110]

The ACO has a tough job, it has to be. But I dont think they make decisions that are always best, or right. I think theyve done a decent job, but then you see a decision like this and it makes me scratch my head. Maybe they did get it right. It has to be more than just lap time. So other aspects of pure performance that justifies this change must be the predominant factor.

[Félix]

Diesel engines and Audi in particular are being pegged back all the time since 2006. They entered because they were given a massive break and I'm convinced we're still far from a truly level playing field. And all that time the ACO and diesel entrants have been telling us it's fair, and so unfair when it's in fact so obvious that the emperor has no clothes. Even when they had 90 liter tanks just like other LMPs taken from then in late 2006. Even when they kept winning despite being gradually given air restrictor and boost advantages 20+% less than what was in the original rulebook.

Excuses abound: the reason for their domination used to be inferior privateers; they're of course winning despite the extra weight of their engines and NO they don't benefit at all from coincidentally conservative minimum weight regulations and massively superior torque everywhere around the track (giving them massive acceleration advantage, if you remember Pescarolo's detailed measurements all those years ago).

I know, I drive a diesel and I love that it's a superior technology in several ways endurance racing showcases rather well... They've been rewriting the equivalence rules all along the way because, realistically, it seems the development potential for new racing diesel engines with modern technology was too high or hard to predict - especially compared to ancient traditional racing engines.The governing body has never known how to restrict them enough to ensure they wouldn't gain it all back with new development the following year. And it certainly doesn't hurt that Audi is the entrant with the most political weight and closest ties with the ACO. Politics in racing; it never gets old...

[MyNameIsNigel]

The ACO-FIA are doing a pretty decent job at balancing diesel and petrol technology under the existing fuel-flow formula. Toyota was the dominant force last year. We have experienced very close and highly entertaining racing so far this year and Porsche won the Big One in June. What better demonstration that this ?

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by TF110

The hybrid incentive is now an obsolete idea if the eot is to keep going in this direction. Whats the point in going 8mj petrol now if youre going to be no better than a diesel at 4mj? The future is less reliance on fuel and more on 'clean' energy. This ruling looks like a slap in the face to Nissan, Toyota and Porsche. Unless another manufacturer has shown interest in running a diesel, this decision is not good for competition imo.

There isn't such thing as a 'scientific approach to an idea to incentivate'.... besides what may suggest a particular trend may be completely reversed by the flick of a pen sometime after...

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Suggesting otherwise would mean that the whole fuel-flow formula and fuel efficiency balancing is crap and should be thrown to the dustbin. So far the ACO-FIA have successfully demonstrated that the concept works and guarantees a great level of entertainement. Petrol is in a position to beat diesel and diesel is in a position to challenge for victory as well. That looks good to me.

Thats the general idea : 'entertainment'...

The concept or the formula is just a crude map that may not be followed completely if at all... measures, factors and corrections can be as arbitrary as the need to provide entertainment.