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

[dxk1]

Originally Posted by JAG

I don't believe closed cars have had a restrictor advantage for a season or two, so no change there.

As for coupes competitiveness, the 4 year old 908 is still bang on the pace.

Wasn't there some type of requirement for Air Conditioning in closed cars and a restrictor break to go with it? I know there was a year in which GT1s could use AC and get a restrictor break and then the next year they all had to have it so maybe something similar gave the closed P1s a break over the open cars.

DK

[gwyllion]

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/RCELeMans2010.html has an update on the 2011 regulations. The sharkfin is really coming. Compared to the current regulations diesel gets a relatively smaller fuel tank: 13% smaller than petrol (65 vs 75 liter) instead of 10% smaller (81 vs 90 liter).

A lot of cost control in LMP2: homologated gearbox and diff, price cap for chassis and engine, only one bodywork configuration, ...

On Radio Le Mans George Howard Chappell of Aston Martin said that the regulations explicitely state that the engine power will be measured and balanced. I don't see this mentioned on Mike's website.

[höller]

AUTOSPORT says closed prototypes could disappear from the scene because of the regularies concerning the air-conditioning for 2011:

http://www.racer.com/new-le-mans-rul...rticle/152328/

"LMP1 and LMP2 coupes are afforded larger diameter air restrictors than their open top counterparts because they are forced to run air conditioning. This reflects the fact that an air-con system saps engine power." (and this is planned to be abolished by ACO).

I think this is Dr. Ulrich´s lobbying, as a tit for tat against Peugeot and to create an advantage for Audi. I am disappointed the ACO plays along.

Admittedly, Peugeot has run on equal terms in the LMS, but the real problem is that a closed LMP needs much more work than an open one-additional weight because of the doors, windscreen cleaning, driver exchange and of course the cooling issue. I think it would be fair to adjust these disadvantages with slightly increased power. Otherwise there would be no incentive for the constructors to build them.

So the closed LMP should be conveyed, not only because many spectators like them but also in safety terms: Alboreto died in an open car and what happened if Dumbreck would have sat in an open one?

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by höller

AUTOSPORT says closed prototypes could disappear from the scene because of the regularies concerning the air-conditioning for 2011:

http://www.racer.com/new-le-mans-rul...rticle/152328/

That is a very old article. I totally agree with Mike on this:

Aston Martin's George Howard-Chappell is doing what he does best, whinging. An article on Autosport.com quotes Howard-Chappell as signaling the death knell for coupes at Le Mans with the elimination of the increased inlet air restrictor diameter alloted to the closed top cars. "There will be no incentive to do a closed car, and you need that because a coupe is more work." That said, Howard-Chappell seems to impishly add, "There is a small aerodynamic advantage in running a closed car," only to hammer in, "but there are so many negatives." Woe is me. Let's say the "small" aerodynamic advantage is on the order of 5% increased L/D, this would equate to about a 50 lb. drag reduction, or conversely, a 200 lb. increase in downforce. Just in looking at the drag figures, you're looking at a 3 mph advantage in straight line. So with that said, I'm sure the "disadvantages" of engineering doors, a windscreen wiper and defogging system, as well as the additional weight higher up (so many disadvantages after all) is well worth the aerodynamic advantage for just showing up with a roof on the car.

source: http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newssept09.html

Just compare the lap times of Audi and Peugeot last night. Both have similar top speed on the straights, but the Peugeot is so much quicker in the corners. So for the same drag, a coupe can run with more downforce than an open car.

You list driver changes as a disadvantages for coupes. There is no longer a handicap for coupes since ACO introduced the one air gun rule. In fact, you could argue that that rule was introduced thanks to lobbying by Peugeot

[gwyllion]

A bit of news about Le Mans 2011, unrelated to the LMP rule changes:

• return of the test day
• no more of GT1 in 2011: within GT2 two classes, one for professional drivers and one for amateurs
• International Le Mans Cup 2011: 12 hours of Sebring, 1000 km of Spa, 24 hours of Le Mans (double points), 1000km of Silverstone, 10 hours of Petit Le Mans, 1000 km of Mont Fuji, and 1000 km somewhere in China

[Spyderman]

I like it!

Do you have any details on the Hybrid rules? Any changes?

[gwyllion]

The official press release has all the details: http://www.lemans.org/en/news/2011-L...TIONS_628.html

The ACO has seen the light: there is a one year transition period.

The 2011 regulations for the Le Mans 24 Hours, the ILMC, ALMS, LMS and the Asian Le Mans series have been revised to take into account the current economic situation and ensure a transition period. It gives the 2010 LM P1 prototypes an extra year with their performance adjusted in relation to the new 2011 cars. The development of the current chassis will be frozen on 31/12/2010.

...

The current LM P2s can, still race in 2011 on 3 conditions :
1. Installation a of a new engine derived from series production.
2. Chassis development frozen on 31/12/2010.
3. Performance adjusted in relation to the new 2011 models.

[Spyderman]

Thanks!

[gwyllion]

Analysis of the announcement: http://www.endurance-info.com/versio...ance-4614.html

[Victor_RO]

Yay, so this is not the last year of the screaming V12s!

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by Victor_RO

Yay, so this is not the last year of the screaming V12s!

The press release has this vague sentence:

2010 LM P1's eligible in 2011 provided that as announced two years ago, the cubic capacity of the LM P1 prototypes will be reduced.

I think this means no more Aston Martin V12. Aston Martin already said they plan to be build a new car.

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

The press release has this vague sentence:
I think this means no more Aston Martin V12. Aston Martin already said they plan to be build a new car.

The car might still run as a privateer entry, because they said the following:

It gives the 2010 LM P1 prototypes an extra year with their performance adjusted in relation to the new 2011 cars

So restrictors and weight are used to equalize them to the new P1s, but that means that 2010 P1s, frozen in development at the end of the year, can run in 2011.

[gwyllion]

Okay, http://www.endurance-info.com/versio...ance-4614.html suggests something different:

La grande surprise, c’est l’acceptation des LMP1 2010 aux côtés des LMP1 2011. Comme annoncé ultérieurement, ces protos verront la puissance et la cylindrée de leur moteur réduites. Les LMP1 2010, châssis plus moteur, seront donc acceptés. Un ajustement des performances sera effectué par rapports au package 2011. Un choix qui peut se comprendre économiquement parlant et qui devrait satisfaire des constructeurs comme Aston Martin ou Zytek.

translated:

The big surprise is the acceptance of LMP1 2010 alongside LMP1 2011. As reported later, these prototypes will have the power and capacity of their engine reduced. The LMP1 2010 car, chassis plus engine, will therefore be accepted. Their performance will be balanced to the 2011 package. A choice that can be understood economically and should meet manufacturers like Aston Martin or Zytek.

[Victor_RO]

What I understand from that one is that the 2011 P1s are the ones with power and engine capacity reduced, since we know that 3.4/2 l engines will be mandated for the new breed of cars.

But anyway, it's a statement from the French, so there's room for a lot of interpretation.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by Victor_RO

So restrictors and weight are used to equalize them to the new P1s, but that means that 2010 P1s, frozen in development at the end of the year, can run in 2011.

I am not sure how they will slow down the Aston Martin Lola which has an engine with around 700 bhp to target power level of 520 bhp That will be a huge restrictor cut or a lot of ballast weight

It will be a mess to match petrol, petrol turbo and diesel engines of 2010 with the petrol, petrol turbo and diesel engines with or without hybrid of 2011.

[Victor_RO]

Maybe they're currently thinking about a certain restrictor for the new P1 cars and, considering this issue, might give larger restrictor trumpets to the new P1s for more power only for 2011.

[deggis]

By eliminating GT1 (which I support) they also might have solved one problem... especially the new P2s battling with GT cars on the long straights.

[gwyllion]

owever, 2011 will be a transition year for P1 teams, as existing prototypes will also be allowed to compete. The ACO made the decision to grandfather current-spec machines in for one year due to the current economic conditions. This comes as welcome news for many of the sport’s privateers, while still allowing many factory squads to introduce all-new cars. Audi, Peugeot, Aston Martin and ORECA are all believed to be building new prototypes for next year.

The ACO also confirmed that current P2 machines could be easily moved up to P1. Defending Le Mans Series P2 champions Quifel-ASM Team is one squad that will take advantage of the regulations with its Ginetta-Zytek 09S. Others are also believed to be in serious consideration.

source: http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/artic...1-regulations/

[Félix]

One of the trends for better fuel economy in road cars is to make bigger engines rev slower so they work in their optimal efficiency range and make more usable torque instead of revving ever higher to get to power figures that only look good on paper. I say tune the Aston V12 (and Judds) to make max power around 6000rpm with optimally tuned direct injection and you will have an engine that will make almost as much sense environmentally as a diesel... and way more than a 3.4 V8 revving past 10000rpm to make the same 500 horses and laughable torque.

A good way to force the atmo manufacturers this way would be to restrict fuel flow and overall fuel consumption so revving higher would become counter-productive. When Porsche or Ferrari design a new engine for more power, they don't downsize it! They make it bigger to put some torque on the table and then tune it for good fuel consumption and emissions within everyday rev range...

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by deggis

By eliminating GT1 (which I support) they also might have solved one problem... especially the new P2s battling with GT cars on the long straights.

... and they will decrease the top speed of GT(2).

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by Félix

One of the trends for better fuel economy in road cars is to make bigger engines rev slower so they work in their optimal efficiency range and make more usable torque instead of revving ever higher to get to power figures that only look good on paper.

Can you give an example of this? In Europe all road car manufacturers are decreasing the displacement and adding turbocharging. It is even a trend in sportscars: the future BMW M5 will have a turbocharged V8 (instead of a high rev V10), the McLaren MP4-12C has a turbocharged 3.8 V8, the next Ferrari Enzo will have a turbocharged V8 (instead of a V12), ...

Originally Posted by Félix

I say tune the Aston V12 (and Judds) to make max power around 6000 rpm with optimally tuned direct injection and you will have an engine that will make almost as much sense environmentally as a diesel...

According to http://www.mulsannescorner.com/juddgv510.html the Judd V10 currently produces its max power at 7000 rpm. If you can go from 650 bhp (LMP1 2010) to 520 bhp (2011), you end up with only 5600 rpm.

Originally Posted by Félix

and way more than a 3.4 V8 revving past 10000rpm to make the same 500 horses and laughable torque.

Of course, you can always pick a 2 liter turbocharged petrol if you want more torque

Originally Posted by Félix

A good way to force the atmo manufacturers this way would be to restrict fuel flow and overall fuel consumption so revving higher would become counter-productive. When Porsche or Ferrari design a new engine for more power, they don't downsize it! They make it bigger to put some torque on the table and then tune it for good fuel consumption and emissions within everyday rev range...

Again, the current evolution in road cars suggest a different trend.

For instance, Porsche is adding direct injection and variable geometry turbos in their 911 series. And there are rumors that the entry level Cayman/Boxster will get the 4 cilinder turbo FSI from Audi/VW.

[WMUCarGuy]

Originally Posted by deggis

By eliminating GT1 (which I support) they also might have solved one problem... especially the new P2s battling with GT cars on the long straights.

Although it says LMP2s will be able to use GT2 spec motors, so I'd expect them to be a bit quicker than the FLM cars are now.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by WMUCarGuy

Although it says LMP2s will be able to use GT2 spec motors, so I'd expect them to be a bit quicker than the FLM cars are now.

So LMP2 will have the same power as GT2, but weigh 300+ kg less (900 vs 1200+ kg) and have more downforce.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

I am not sure how they will slow down the Aston Martin Lola which has an engine with around 700 bhp to target power level of 520 bhp That will be a huge restrictor cut or a lot of ballast weight

It will be a mess to match petrol, petrol turbo and diesel engines of 2010 with the petrol, petrol turbo and diesel engines with or without hybrid of 2011.

Peugeot can run under 3.20 with a current spec car and a privateer P2 can run under 3.35, so I would think a 2011 manufactuer P1 would run under 3.30.

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

So LMP2 will have the same power as GT2, but weigh 300+ kg less (900 vs 1200+ kg) and have more downforce.

It has been suggested by Mulsanne Mike, that the LMP2 cars will have engines "based" on GT2 powerplants, but with substantial work on the inside. I think you'll find they should have more power.