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

[JoestForEver]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

The motivation is pretty clear: "very costly systems" are banned for cost reasons

The rules do allow some new technologies: variable intake manifold and trumpets, plasma or laser ignition, ...

Isn't VVT in the variable admission category?

[chernaudi]

Problem with VVT is that it's a road worthy system that's very widespread now. Even OHV pushrod engines use it now.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

This "late change" was announced in June 2012.
source: http://www.24h-lemans.com/wpphpFichi...ation_2014.pdf

Indeed. This was also rather explicit in draft V04 of the regulations:

Tank Volumes and Fuel technology factor are calculated with the following values and could be adjusted should the fuel characteristics and engine actual performance be modified ( For Petrol (2014 20% bio) : 220g/kwh, 0.756 kg/l and 39.55 MJ/kg// For Diesel (2014 10% bio) : 195 g/kwh, 0.832 kg/l and 42.31 MJ/kg).

[TF110]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

The Fuel Technology Factor computed by the ACO-FIA on the basis of the actual data provided by the manufacturers does take into account both (i) the different BSFCs of the best-in-class petrol and diesel ICEs and (ii) the different properties of both fuels. The K Technology Factor further takes into account the fact that a diesel ICE weighs more than a comparable petrol ICE. All relevant parameters necessary to balance the petrol and diesel power-trains are therefore duly taken into consideration in Appendix B.

There is absolutely no ground to believe that any manufacturer is sandbagging, as far as the BSFC figures are concerned. Once again, the EoT process is a fully transparent process and a dissuasive penalty will be applied if any manufacturer has not been fully transparent and has tried to hide its true strength. In particular, if the actual BSFC figures measured in race conditions exceeds 2% of the BSFC figures communicated to the ACO-FIA, the dissuasive penalty will apply:

(source: EoT document, section I)

Key word is race conditions. Nothing about testing, which is all we have to go on. 2% is still a lot of performance. Imagine a 2% faster car than expected. A 1:43 @Silverstone would be within 2% of a 1:41. You get what I'm saying? Not literally stating thats what will happen, but don't be surprised to see cars all of a sudden doing lap times no one expected with cars being about the same speed as 2013. A 2% leeway with power would be a good bit more than say 237g/kwh, it would be 241.7. Thats the sensor's "margin of error". We will see soon!

[Félix]

I used to be a fan of the technical side of prototype racing, back when it meant chassis and engine diversity. Now we have 3 similar closed coupés and all the discussions are about MJ/kg/hr/W and equivalency debates that make no sense to me. What happened?

[aneesh99]

Originally Posted by Félix

I used to be a fan of the technical side of prototype racing, back when it meant chassis and engine diversity. Now we have 3 similar closed coupés and all the discussions are about MJ/kg/hr/W and equivalency debates that make no sense to me. What happened?

There is chassis and engine diversity, as well as difference in application of ERS.

Awareness and importance placed on efficiency and being 'green' happened. And I'm don't really mind, I find that the technology that it's ushered in is quite interesting!

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by Félix

I used to be a fan of the technical side of prototype racing, back when it meant chassis and engine diversity. Now we have 3 similar closed coupés and all the discussions are about MJ/kg/hr/W and equivalency debates that make no sense to me. What happened?

You have a point. It was often said that sportscar racing was too confusing to attract the masses with its multi-class system. Now one requires a PhD in physics or math just to understand the rules.

[GasperG]

Sorry but I find the rules simpler then before with all the boost pressure, air restriction and diameters.

Now you have fuel flow and from that alone you can conclude (ok, with 5% error) what power these engines can produce, without even looking at the cars specs. I think it's a simpler restriction than anything before.

I normally don't watch races, but this tech thing is really interesting for me.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Félix

I used to be a fan of the technical side of prototype racing, back when it meant chassis and engine diversity. Now we have 3 similar closed coupés and all the discussions are about MJ/kg/hr/W and equivalency debates that make no sense to me. What happened?

Putting the complexity aside for just a moment, given time teams will gravitate toward similar solutions. Especially if trying something radical and getting it wrong can be outright costly or potentially fatal to the team. My point being that if we had a world of extremely open rules, within a year or two most cars would end up looking the same again.

We currently have a good amount of diversity. Especially on the engine front. The top three teams are generally speaking running pretty different configurations. However to my point above, that might change depending upon the outcome of 2014.

Back to the complexity, I think that is just a sign of the times. Unless extremely restictive rules are used to ban innovation, cars are likely to continue to get more and more complex and it will result in a smaller percentage of fans who are able to really understand all of the technical details.

Richard

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by GasperG

Sorry but I find the rules simpler then before with all the boost pressure, air restriction and diameters.

Now you have fuel flow and from that alone you can conclude (ok, with 5% error) what power these engines can produce, without even looking at the cars specs. I think it's a simpler restriction than anything before.

I normally don't watch races, but this tech thing is really interesting for me.

Yes, but is it that interesting to the man in the street?

[MagVanisher]

Originally Posted by GasperG

Why would any engine technology be banned? You have fuel flow limit, do with it whatever you can

By the way, I was wondering if ACO will banned future engines that are in the experimental stage currently? I always wanted to see and hear a Bourke engines and the LiquidPiston engine in future Le Mans.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Back to the complexity, I think that is just a sign of the times. Unless extremely restictive rules are used to ban innovation, cars are likely to continue to get more and more complex and it will result in a smaller percentage of fans who are able to really understand all of the technical details.

Richard

I'm not in favor of extremely restrictive anything. Restriction, especially if it is extreme, is only recommended in a few dire situations (Severe droughts, illness, etc). I do however see some validity to parts of your argument, and I think that like almost everything, a balance must be found. Finding that balance is a real art, and it sometimes helps to have people from opposing philosophical schools of thought working on achieving it.

[GasperG]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

Yes, but is it that interesting to the man in the street?

A man on the street will read in some magazine that Audi uses a lot les liters of fuel and will argue that it's not fair

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by GasperG

A man on the street will read in some magazine that Audi uses a lot les liters of fuel and will argue that it's not fair

Indeed! That's why I think the KISS principle must be applied to rule making.

[Richard C]

I was in a rush this morning when I posted. I had also meant to mention that I don't particularly enjoy not being able to keep up on all of the details myself (I feel the OPs pain). Maybe Aristotle was the last person to know everything. I don't know who was the last person to know everything about race car design. I think that was likely a long time ago. I don't think anyone these days can keep up on everything.

For example, recently I (and I expect many others) have to rely upon the analysis provided by gwyllion and others to understand the implication of the current regulations. Given that the ACO is trying to find ways to provide equality from different technologies, I find it all to just be part of the cost associated with that specific goal.

Richard

[wewantourdarbyback]

http://www.24h-lemans.com/en/news/le...746_14726.html

[JoestForEver]

So not only does diesel car has smaller fuel tanks but also smaller refueling systems to balance their pitstop times I believe. But should it? The advantage of shorter refueling time cannot even compensate the deficit in stint distances. This really annoys me.

[TF110]

Will they have shorter stints? I'm not so sure.

[JoestForEver]

Originally Posted by TF110

Will they have shorter stints? I'm not so sure.

Numbers speak louder than wild guessing.

Originally Posted by 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.

[TF110]

I will wait until Silverstone to see who goes how far.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by JoestForEver

Numbers speak louder than wild guessing.

With these figures, the minimum fuel autonomy for Porsche and Toyota at LM would increase to more than 15 laps (assuming that all the fuel energy allocation is consumed at each lap):
(32.43 MJ/l * 68.3 l) / 139.5 MJ/lap = 15.88 laps
They could potentially stretch the stints to 16 laps at LM.

As for Audi, the minimum fuel autonomy would increase to more than 14 laps:
(27.83 MJ/l * 54.3 l) / 138.7 MJ/lap = 14.81 laps
That is still one lap less than Porsche and Toyota, but Audi could likewise try to stretch the stints to 15 laps at LM.

It is however far from being an ideal situation for Rebellion Racing (and Lotus, if they ever make it to the race track...) which would end up with a minimum fuel autonomy of slightly more than 14 laps at LM:
(32.43 MJ/l * 68.3 l) / 157.2 MJ/lap = 14.09 laps

In that respect, I am a bit surprised that the Endurance Committee did not increase the fuel tank capacity in the LMP1-L class.

Obviously, the above is only based on revised assumptions concerning the relevant fuel specifications. Aren't Shell going to make those specifications public BTW ?

[Deleted]

So I was wondering, if there's a situation at LM where P1 team has exceeded BSFC by more than 2% and refuses to take the in-race penalty as said below:

"If the competitor refuses the penalty, the final classification will be published subject to further investigations, with possible exclusion following the race, further to detailed analysis between the FIA and the competitor: “dissuasive penalty”. The detailed post race analysis could involve tests and inspections with the competitor or elsewhere (calibration sensor check), and will include an analysis of the other data at the disposal of the FIA (reverse engineering)"

but then goes to win the race - do we really think that FIA and ACO would later disqualify the winner of the largest motor race in the world? It would be one of the biggest farces in decades, whichever stand they take (whether they disqualify the team in question OR not). Just utterly terrible PR.

Why did they leave the door open for teams not to accept the in-race penalties (stop and gos)? What exactly was the thought process in this...

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by Chiana

So I was wondering, if there's a situation at LM where P1 team has exceeded BSFC by more than 2% and refuses to take the in-race penalty as said below:

"If the competitor refuses the penalty, the final classification will be published subject to further investigations, with possible exclusion following the race, further to detailed analysis between the FIA and the competitor: “dissuasive penalty”. The detailed post race analysis could involve tests and inspections with the competitor or elsewhere (calibration sensor check), and will include an analysis of the other data at the disposal of the FIA (reverse engineering)"

but then goes to win the race - do we really think that FIA and ACO would later disqualify the winner of the largest motor race in the world? It would be one of the biggest farces in decades, whichever stand they take (whether they disqualify the team in question OR not). Just utterly terrible PR.

Why did they leave the door open for teams not to accept the in-race penalties (stop and gos)? What exactly was the thought process in this...

Disqualification may indeed be the likely outcome, but this at least leaves a chance to appeal the decision if the relevant manufacturer believes that this is not justified. You cannot appeal a stop-and-go penalty, nor any other penalty imposed during the race.

I am keeping my fingers crossed and hope that we shall not experience such a mess.

[Deleted]

Missed this before, why is the petrol refuelling restrictor 0,2mm larger at Le Mans than elsewhere??
http://www.fia.com/sites/default/fil...20diameter.pdf

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by Chiana

Missed this before, why is the petrol refuelling restrictor 0,2mm larger at Le Mans than elsewhere??
http://www.fia.com/sites/default/fil...20diameter.pdf

Different fuel specification for Le Mans? Or different refuelling pump supplier?