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

[chernaudi]

Not according to stuff mentioned in the R18 thread. Already in theory, Rebellion is 3 seconds in the hole on paper compared to Toyota and Porsche.

It's not like they'd be a major factor in the battle at the front, but if this is true, it's just another anchor for them to deal with.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

John Dagys has said that April 1st won't be a good day for sportscar racing.

Perhaps he is referring to DSC getting exclusive rights on release sportscar news on February 29th

“We have moved to acquire the domain name www.sportscar366.com and will act with ruthlessness if any other media attempt to infringe our copyright by reporting on anything sportscar-related on 29 February 2016, or on any recurrent occurrence of this four yearly phenomenon,” said DSC and Sportscar 366 legal affairs director Howard Canitbe.

“I have already drafted the required ‘cease and desist’ letters should anyone be tempted to report anything at all, and particularly under an ‘Exclusive’ or ‘Breaking’ banner headline,” continued Canitbe. “It covers foreign language media too so trying to get away with publishing it first ‘en Francais’ is a no no too!”

source: http://www.dailysportscar.com/?p=26194

[The Badger]

Ive come to the conclusion that hybrid and advanced systems should be banned on the ground of being cost prohibitive to privateers

[MagVanisher]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Ive come to the conclusion that hybrid and advanced systems should be banned on the ground of being cost prohibitive to privateers

Banning those systems won't even level the playing field. Heck, it might not become so innovative.

[Bandicoot17]

Originally Posted by PorscheFanNo1

Not sure this is the case, I think it will apply to the LMP1-H category only. LMP1-L are under different fuel allocations anyway, arent they?

This is what I understand, they can adjust the fuel levels for L without touching H.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

I'm about to drop this, but I'd advise you--as then--to read article 3.6.2 of the 2012 ACO technical regulations. As Mike pointed out, because this was a work around of the rules, it was obvious that it was a freebee and only the lack of a serious protest saved Toyota from having to take the hacksaw to their car that weekend.

The problem with energy rule is that the way the rules were written, everyone would have the same amount of energy based on a sliding scale of ICE power vs hybrid power though fuel allocation and fuel flow. As it stands right now, that might not be the case.

Only reason I can see the change is that the ACO got data that Audi, even when complying with the original regs, were still at a speed advantage.

Problem is that the WEC test is highly inconclusive, as everyone was doing something different with their areo, so we have no real indication of what everyone's pace will be at Silverstone, let alone LM.

But as been pointed out, this should be as simple as everyone has this much energy based on the sliding engine power/hybrid power/fuel metering and allocation scale. Chose whatever you want to do, and let the chips fall as they may. Instead, we now have a convoluted BoP scale deal.

And IMO, it's also a big middle finger from the ACO to private teams. If we had any illusions to them doing well this year, if Audi might be hampered by these changes, then the private teams are seriously screwed. At least Audi have the resources to fix an issue, a team like Rebellion doesn't.

Take a hacksaw to their car! Thats a good one. The teams dont show up to races without approval from the FIA/ACO on their cars. Even before the race week, journalists were reporting the Toyota would be sporting the fender extensions without saying exactly what they were. Like I said, Audi could have lodged a protest, but they didn't. Neither did Rebellion. The fuel issue is a non issue. Just people crying foul for no reason but to say its unfair when they have no data to back up these claims. A fuel flow is not hard to adjust. And thats what this is, an adjustment. They called it an incentive. If they worded it differently and called it an equivalence I doubt the same complaints would be around. But maybe they would.

[Mike E]

I'm finding this all a bit depressing. Has there been any comment from Autosport/DSC/E-I/Racer/Dagys/RLM etc on these proposed changes, ie someone who might have actually approached the teams for their take on it?

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by GasperG

A 90% efficient engine it self maybe not (ERS-H) but it would benefit from recuperation. If you had an ideal hybrid with no losses (engine AND BRAKING), you would only need energy to overcome rolling and air resistance. This means that consumption of the same car going 100 MPH on the highway would be the same as a car doing 100 MPH average on the circuit (well not exactly but lets simplify).

The problem with regenerative braking is that if you look at optimal braking power you will find out that you need to brake with a serious amount of more power if you wan't to be quick in a race (maybe 2-3 times the engine power?). Then you have energy conversion losses (at least 20%).

A "small" 383 kW Toyota electric motor will regenerate only a small percent of available braking power (maybe 10-20%?). Obviously every team had to calculate in what class they will participate. Porsche team was first confident that they will participate in 8 MJ class, as they have a li-ion battery that can probably store more than any one here thinks (I'm guessing at least 5 kWh). But li-ion is not that good when it comes to high power and they probably can not be that aggressive to the battery like Toyota or Audi. In 24 hour race I'm guessing they will have serious problems with keeping the heat of that pack low enough. But honestly I have no idea what Porsche really has under the hood, maybe they have a li-ion supercap hybrid.

It's interesting how Porsche and Toyota are keeping their vision in line with the production version of their hybrids (Toyota NA engine, Porsche li-ion battery). I'm just waiting for Toyota/Lexus to get supercap in their next hybrid.

You don't understand... all that is orthogonal...

the problem with "recuperative action and or harvesting" is that in no occasion you would be able to "recuperate or harvest" more than what is in the fuel (energetic terms).

Its dependent of the fuel, i.e, recuperative braking depends on the "momentum" of the car, ERS-H on the "heat"of the engine, the more you want the more "fuel" you have to employ... yes there is an interdependence, simply because all energy comes from the fuel, there is no such thing as "hybrid energy" ( neither by braking or heat, its all about what is *wasted* from the fuel), and in that logic what should count is the energy available for all cars in fuel terms, *EXACTLY EQUAL* to all cars independent of the fuel ( LNG comes to mind).... and independent of the hybrid abilities ( ->should be free since what counts in energetic terms is the "fuel"... so the more efficient is also the more "recuperative".. and it should have an advantage, a premium).

This rules don't premium, don't reward efficiency... they reward petrol (a uber stupidity)... no wonder no one is trying hard to get the max possible hybrid factor.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

I can understand Audi's frustration. It is especially frustrating in view of the fact that the whole EoT provisions have been published by the Endurance Committee only last December by way of decision "13-D0031-LMP1-2014". This decision is neither part of the Technical Regulations, nor part of the Sporting Regulations.

If you read the Sporting Regulations, they contain the following statements regarding the EoT (emphasis added):


While the last statement clearly suggests that the Endurance Committee has the last word, one would have expected some stability in the application of the rules up to and including Le Mans.

If the Endurance Committee really contemplates to give a performance break of 2 seconds at Le Mans to Porsche and Toyota, one would have to wonder where is the fairness in the application of the rules. One may further wonder what the term "Equivalence" is then supposed to mean in that context.

If this substantive change is confirmed, this would literally be a slap in the face for Audi.

The same as above, put the havested energy in equal terms with the fuel energy... meaning the the 2MJ clas would have to have more fuel flow, and more total fuel, and so a fuel tank accordingly -> all total energy equal to everybody, independent of fuel type ( calculated accordingly), and independent of the Hybrid factor which should be "free"... or in alternative counting with hybrid harvesting for the same total equal energy.

[GasperG]

Originally Posted by hcl123

You don't understand... all that is orthogonal...

the problem with "recuperative action and or harvesting" is that in no occasion you would be able to "recuperate or harvest" more than what is in the fuel (energetic terms).

Its dependent of the fuel, i.e, recuperative braking depends on the "momentum" of the car, ERS-H on the "heat"of the engine, the more you want the more "fuel" you have to employ... yes there is an interdependence, simply because all energy comes from the fuel, there is no such thing as "hybrid energy" ( neither by braking or heat, its all about what is *wasted* from the fuel), and in that logic what should count is the energy available for all cars in fuel terms, *EXACTLY EQUAL* to all cars independent of the fuel ( LNG comes to mind).... and independent of the hybrid abilities ( ->should be free since what counts in energetic terms is the "fuel"... so the more efficient is also the more "recuperative".. and it should have an advantage, a premium).

This rules don't premium, don't reward efficiency... they reward petrol (a uber stupidity)... no wonder no one is trying hard to get the max possible hybrid factor.

I agree, I didn't agree with your statement that 90% efficient engine WOULD NOT gain anything with going hybrid or maybe I misunderstood you there?

But still I think there should be at least two classes: hybrid and non-hybrid, for teams with less resources.

It's interesting how they will equalize the competition with all the sensor and calculating BSFC. Did any one think of that maybe they are running their engine a little less efficient on purpose, just to gain a little for LeMans? I think 2-3% would not raise any red flags.

I would really like to see those BSFC numbers, but according to document this data is not public.

[MyNameIsNigel]

The revised Appendix B figures that were decided by the ACO-FIA on the Thursday prior to the Prologue were supposed to be published "soon", weren't they ?

[chernaudi]

I don't know if it means anything nowadays (since most of the "paint" on these cars is a vinyl decal wrap), but aren't neutal colors supposed to be lighter in weight than brighter ones? I heard that in the past.

The R18 this year (like last year) is mostly in matte finish white and greyish silver, and the black is probably mostly bare carbon. The TS040 has more white on it than the TS030 last year, and the 919 is almost all white aside from the Porsche Intelligent Design decals on it. Could that (as well as using such light colors as they tend to reflect heat away from the cockpit) be the reason why there's so many mostly white cars in LMP1? Or is it that Audi, Porsche and TMG are all based in Germany and white and silver are the traditional colors for German based teams?

[MyNameIsNigel]

Decision 14-D0010-LMP1, dated April 7th, 2014 is about to be published with the revised Appendix B figures. Key figures have been revised as follows:
- "FTF average" (which is used for fuel energy allocation computation) is now of 1.074 (formerly 1.061)
- "FTF Pmax" (which is used for max fuel flow computation) is of 1.088 (NB: this "FTF Pmax" was not specifically indicated in the previous Appendix B)
- "KTF" has been revised to 0.987 (instead of 0.983) for the 2-6 MJ/lap ERS options. It stays at 1 for the 0 and 8 MJ/lap ERS options.

The petrol energy allocation for the 6 MJ/lap ERS option (Porsche / Toyota) is now of 139.5 MJ/lap (instead of 137.2 MJ/lap) and the maximum petrol flow rate has been increased to 89.5 kg/h (instead of 87.9 kg/h). Fuel tank capacity for petrol has been increased to 68.3 l (formerly 66.9 l).

In contrast, the diesel energy allocation for the 2 MJ/lap ERS option (Audi) has been decreased to 138.7 MJ/lap (instead of 140.2 MJ/lap) and the maximum diesel flow rate to 80.2 kg/h (instead of 83.3 kg/h). Fuel tank capacity for diesel has also been decreased to 54.3 l (formerly 54.8 l).

The privateers running in the LMP1-L class (Rebellion / Lotus) appear to get some help. The petrol energy allocation is now of 157.2 MJ/lap (instead of 150.8 MJ/lap) and the maximum petrol flow rate has been increased to 100.9 kg/h (instead of 95.6 kg/h). Fuel tank capacity is also 68.3 l.

Quick calculations appear to show that Porsche, Toyota and Audi should all get the same overall energy allocation levels (fuel + hybrid). Privateers in the LMP1-L class do benefit from a comparatively higher energy allocation level, which should help them performance-wise, but will have a possibly negative impact in terms of fuel autonomy.

Corresponding energy allocations are also defined for Silverstone and Spa.

[gwyllion]

What is the source for that?

The decision is not yet on http://www.fia.com/sport/competitors...pionship%3A100. Only the GTE BoP update and the Rebellion Lola waiver have been uploaded on that website.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

What is the source for that?

The decision is not yet on http://www.fia.com/sport/competitors...ee-decisions?f[0]=field_ch_championship%3A100. Only the GTE BoP update and the Rebellion Lola waiver have been uploaded on that website.

Should be published soon

[MyNameIsNigel]

Relevant figures for Silverstone (length: 5.891 km):
- 2 MJ/lap and 6 MJ/lap ERS options @ LM will respectively correspond to 1.34 MJ/lap and 4.02 MJ/lap at Silverstone (this is consistent with the formula given in Appendix B)
- petrol energy allocation for LMP1-L: 75.4 MJ/lap
- petrol energy allocation for LMP1-H (6 MJ/lap ERS option @ LM): 66.9 MJ/lap
- diesel energy allocation for LMP1-H (2 MJ/lap ERS option @ LM): 66.5 MJ/lap

Relevant figures for Spa (length: 7.004 km):
- 2 MJ/lap and 6 MJ/lap ERS options @ LM will respectively correspond to 1.59 MJ/lap and 4.78 MJ/lap at Silverstone (this is again consistent with the formula given in Appendix B)
- petrol energy allocation for LMP1-L: 89.7 MJ/lap
- petrol energy allocation for LMP1-H (6 MJ/lap ERS option @ LM): 79.6 MJ/lap
- diesel energy allocation for LMP1-H (2 MJ/lap ERS option @ LM): 79.1 MJ/lap

[chernaudi]

How does this correspond to the Rebellion Lola, though it should be noted that it's running to a modified 2013 sonic air restrictor BOP formula?

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

How does this correspond to the Rebellion Lola, though it should be noted that it's running to a modified 2013 sonic air restrictor BOP formula?

This does not impact the "grandfathered" Lola-Rebellion which will run under specific conditions defined in Decision 14-D0009-LMP1 of April 2nd, 2014:
- 44.4 mm air restrictors
- 890 kg minimum car weight
- 83 litres fuel tank capacity

[chernaudi]

I meant for comparisons sake for energy allotment (2013 grandfathered vehicle vs 2014 rules cars) or possibly what Audi or Toyota would've done last year if we applied a similar formula for what their energy "usage" was. IE, relatively, how much more efficient are the 2014 cars supposed to be relative to last year.

It seems that on fuel capacity, everyone will be taking about a three-quarter to one US gallon (about 3.0-3.8 liter) hit approximately compared to how Audi and Toyota started out 2013.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Looking at the revised Appendix B figures, there objectively seems to be no reason for any of the manufacturers to complain. The revised figures are supposed to be based on manufacturers' data provided last February and appear to be coherent.

The increased FTF (or "FTF average" as it is now called in the revised Appendix B) has been increased to 1.074, meanining that the data provided by the manufacturers suggests that the actual ratio of the fuel efficiency of the best-in-class diesel engine (i.e. Audi's) over the fuel efficiency of the best-in-class petrol engine (i.e. Porsche's, Toyota's, or... possibly AER's) is higher than it was originally thought to be (that's not a surprise, is it ?). No absolute fuel efficiency figures are indicated for the respective fuels. One can only make assumptions in that respect. Assuming a fuel efficieny for petrol of 41.37% (which corresponds to the original numbers indicated in draft V04 of the regulations), that would mean a fuel efficiency of 44.44% for diesel (44.44%/41.37% = 1.074).

Using these fuel efficiency figures as illustrative examples (and a 95% MGU efficiency), that would mean overall energy allocation levels of:
- LMP1-L (no ERS), petrol: 157.2 * 41.37% = 65.03 MJ/lap (Rebellion Racing / Lotus)
- LMP1-L (no ERS), diesel: 146.4 * 44.44% = 65.06 MJ/lap
- LMP1-H (2 MJ/lap ERS), petrol: 147.0 * 41.37% + 2 * 95% = 62.71 MJ/lap
- LMP1-H (2 MJ/lap ERS), diesel: 138.7 * 44.44% + 2 * 95% = 63.54 MJ/lap (Audi)
- LMP1-H (6 MJ/lap ERS), petrol: 139.5 * 41.37% + 6 * 95% = 63.41 MJ/lap (Porsche / Toyota)
- LMP1-H (6 MJ/lap ERS), diesel: 131.7 * 44.44% + 6 * 95%= 64.23 MJ/lap

Objectively, Audi, Porsche and Toyota all benefit of substantially the same overall energy allocation per lap. Privateers benefit of a comparatively greater energy allocation (approximately 1.5 MJ/lap more than the manufacturers).

[TF110]

No impending doom it seems if this is true! And it appears that the diesel honesty is humbling their original calculations. I think 1.074 is still a little too close. I think its probably closer to 1.10 difference. 44% seems good but 'only' 2.5% more efficient than Petrol is a little disingenous on the performance diesel can produce. At least the energy is pretty even!

[JoestForEver]

In fact, as the sandbagging punishment is in place, the fuel efficiency of best-in-class is a credible one. Still this applies to Silverstone and Spa only isn't it? We have to wait till pre-Le Mans to see how the "incentive" changes the game.
------------------------
What's more, funny to see how KTF is adjusted, as in the formula available in Appendix B 12/24/2013 KTF is positively correlated to E(gasoline) and negatively correlated to FTF and E(additional). Now that both FTF and E(gasoline) has been increased, the explanation for a bigger KTF would be: a) E(gasoline) increases greater than FTF or b) E(additional) decreases due to a decrease in diesel ICE weight or an increase in diesel efficiency or ERS density.

[Bandicoot17]

So any news in this about ers incentive?

[JoestForEver]

Ok, a bit more computing here, hopefully not too scary.
Based on @MyNameIsNigel 's figure, we have
FTFave=1.074
FTFMax=1.088
KTF=0.987
Penergy(allocation)=139.5 MJ/lap
Pflow=89.5 kg/h
Ptank=68.3L
Denergy=138.7 MJ/lap
Dflow=80.2 kg/h
Dtank=54.3L

As published lately, ACO/FIA decides the fuel type should be E20/B10 diesel(base bio 10%). Source:http://www.fia.com/sites/default/fil..._2014_fuel.pdf
For convenience and data availability, we refer to B20 diesel for energy density per kg.
http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/heavyvehic...-biodiesel.pdf shows B20 is 2% down on energy comparing with petroleum diesel at 38.6MJ/L
http://www.biodiesel.org/docs/ffs-ba...5.pdf?sfvrsn=6 shows the density of B20 is 0.856
http://psrcentre.org/images/extraimages/212181.pdf reveals the energy density of E20 at 15 degrees Celsius is 32.43 MJ/L with 0.7541 kg/L.

As a result, the ED(petrol) and ED(diesel) in the formula of FTF should be 43MJ/kg and 44.19 MJ/kg respectively, which allows us to compute the ratio of BSFC(petrol) and BSFC(diesel) average. And the answer is 1.103, bigger than 1.090 previously. As for BSFCmax(petrol)/BSFCmax(diesel), it is 1.12 now. Diesel is still superior at peak power economy.

In terms of E(additional) (a.k.a, additional allocated diesel energy due to technology differences.), we can know easily compute it by maneuvering the formula of KTF. And the result is 1.71 MJ comparing with 2.24 MJ in the past.

So now what? We can compare stint lengths of petrol and diesel class based on BSFC fuel consumption and fuel tank volume. The ratio of petrol and diesel is 1.14 against 1.12 in the past.
However, the final number actually means nothing other than its relative relationship as it is not the fuel consumption per lap or per minute. It only means that although Audi is making progress in fuel economy, it still needs more pitstop than Toyota and Porsche. Thanks to the reduction in fuel tank volume, the more economic diesel engine is forcing Audi to refuel more! Ridiculous I'd say. Unless Audi's pace is better than Toyota and the gap is greater than 2013. There's no way it is going to win anything.

[GasperG]

Why not, I mean max fuel per lap is 3.5L vs 4.3L (from your numbers 38.6MJ/L vs 32.43 MJ/L) or 23% more volume of petrol for roughly the same energy.

Fuel tank size is 54,3L vs 68,3L or 26% more volume for petrol, but this means only 5,6 % more energy content for petrol.

I think that your statement "It's not going to win anything" is a little exaggerated.

I like the fact that all three teams will compete with roughly the same energy per lap, Audi will have more efficient engine, the other two will have to recuperate more from braking to compensate for engine inefficiency. The only problem is that the rules changed a little bit so late, but did they really change so much that Audi would take the different path? I don't think so.