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

[chernaudi]

A DPI or privateer LMP1 is no more complex than an Audi R18 from 2011-13 (if it had a gasoline engine) or the old '03 Bentley. If they ran the old R8's engine in the R18, it wouldn't be that much more expensive or complex than the R8 was. Only difference is things that are now common place (a roof, torsion bar suspension--no real advantage over coilovers other than packaging--integrated bodywork and monocoque).

Best thing going forward is no more ERS incentive that partly drove the whole rush for powerful hybrids and smaller but more powerful engines.

These rules and possibly the 2020 rules were just poorly executed and the ACO lacked the more moderate approach that they should've done from the start. IMO, just a mea culpa that they executed things badly.

[chernaudi]

And, overall, it's just a sign that the ACO were living beyond their means for a while. And they're certainly not alone in that regard. Look at NASCAR and the surge of young guys coming in. A lot of that is due to salaries and sponsorship income right-sizing and getting back to "normal" levels. Sponsors aren't willing to chuck out the $20-30 million they were, and the young guys are willing to race for cheaper salaries than the established drivers.

This is just another example of things going that way in the road racing world. DPI is a sign of that. Interest of teams in LMP2 was a sign of that. My and others interest in LMP1 not being so dependent on new--and expensive to develop--technology is a sign of that.

[TF110]

Can't blame the ACO for two teams spending more than everyone else was comfortable with. Streamlining the schedule is just another way to reduce costs but this time it's something they can help with.

[chernaudi]

Why do you keep defending Toyota and going off on VAG? If Toyota didn't get bit in F1 they'd probably be spending well over $100 million a year, and we know even now they're capable of it.

If you want to blame VAG, you're also going to have to blame Toyota for being equally as gung-ho on hybrids and other expensive technology (no hybrids, no Toyota in the WEC and LM). Even the stuff on the TS050's engine probably has little production relevance and probably is also insanely expensive.

I don't see anyone lining up to spend what Toyota are alleged to be spending, which has variously been reported to be $75-100 million dollars this season.

Bash VAG all you want. Toyota have also been part of the problem on the budget front by spending multitudes more than anyone else aside from Audi Sport and Porsche did. The ACO screwed up with their "go big or go home" attitude towards hybrids and other "green image" technology at the expense of what made sense.

Again. Don't ask why VAG are gone and why Toyota might very well be gone soon. Ask why no one else came in? In this thread, I think that Akrapovic several times hit the nail on the head and back up points I already made many times.

Namely that you have a technology still new to motorsport, it was given an (IMO, unnecessarily huge) huge advantage, with huge performance incentives. And everyone wanted to get as close to the top as they could. That takes money and resources to get there fast.

No matter how you slice it, the ACO were sowing the seeds of their own destruction right there.

[carbsmith]

Toyota's budget started at $50m. I don't think Nissan's was supposed to be horrendously lower than that.

[TzeiTzei]

Factory teams will always spend massive amounts of money to get a competitive advantage. The only limiting factor is ROI. The only way to prevent that is to stop anyone from getting a competitive advantage. Which as an idea is kind of lame as we're talking about prototype racing. If the car's competitiveness is based on a technical rule set, then there will always be someone trying to outspend the others. It doesn't matter what that rule set is.

I like what ACO said about balancing the hybrids and non-hybrids. But from the very first race next year, they need to show us that they're serious about it. It can't be the Toyotas formation flying at the front of the field and the rest 5 secs/lap off the pace.

[mariantic]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

DSC article says LMP2 chassis would need to be redesigned to LMP1 regs to be able to run in LMP1. So does that not discount the DPi running at Le Mans thoughts?

Edit: There will be no changes made to the current chassis regulations (only LMP1 chassis will be eligible)

What are the differences between LMP1 chassis regs and LPM2 / DPi?

I thought they were minor...

Anyone got the detail to hand? If not I'll do some digging in the regs later.

Mariantic

[Starfish Primer]

And those requirements can change in a few meetings between ACO, FIA and manufacturers.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by AoB Special Stage

I always wished they'd let the efficiency advantage be the advantage of the hybrids instead of the hideously complicated incentive they'd come up with.

I agree, let us see the benefit of the hybrid on efficiency. Going an extra lap or two with the hybrid is a really easy way to show the general race watching public (is that a thing?) the advantage of the hybrid.

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by mariantic

What are the differences between LMP1 chassis regs and LPM2 / DPi?

I thought they were minor...

Anyone got the detail to hand? If not I'll do some digging in the regs later.

Mariantic

You should be able to find them at the link below.



http://www.fia.com/regulation/category/118

[hondafan37]

Originally Posted by mariantic

What are the differences between LMP1 chassis regs and LPM2 / DPi?

I thought they were minor...

Anyone got the detail to hand? If not I'll do some digging in the regs later.

Mariantic

I think that one of the differences is in the long, the LMP2 have 4.75 and the LMP1 have 4.65 maximum.

[chernaudi]

LMP1 and LMP2/DPI share chassis regs as far as the tubs and crash testing. The 4650mm vs 4750mm is in the wheelbase since both car types share the same max 1000mm front/750mm rear overhangs. Granted, those are maximum lengths, not all cars are necessarily built to them.

And also a point from a post in the Super GT thread. I think that JJay said something about SGT going to DTM-compliant tubs for GT500. The reason he gave was that it was to slow down the arms race between Toyota, Nissan and Honda, but because no one was willing to back out, the rules makers felt they had to take action with the technical regs to make spending huge amounts of money less effective.

That's what the ACO should've done here. You can still spend what you want, but it'll get you less. Audi Sport still spent $50-75 million on the whole R8 program a season and $10-15 million of that was on the ALMS. They weren't outrageously faster than Panoz were, who's budget was a fraction of that. They still spent what they wanted, but they weren't light years ahead of the better privateer teams on speed, certainly not by the standards of the time.

That probably made running a semi-factory privateer program with the R8 appealing for Audi Sport at the time as well, and that for sure drove down cost in the end quite a bit.

When you try and incentivize a relatively new technology with big performance advantages, teams will try and exploit it, which cost money and resources. Putting sensible limits on such things will make such spend less effective, so budgets tend to come down as a result.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Why do you keep defending Toyota and going off on VAG? If Toyota didn't get bit in F1 they'd probably be spending well over $100 million a year, and we know even now they're capable of it.

If you want to blame VAG, you're also going to have to blame Toyota for being equally as gung-ho on hybrids and other expensive technology (no hybrids, no Toyota in the WEC and LM). Even the stuff on the TS050's engine probably has little production relevance and probably is also insanely expensive.

I don't see anyone lining up to spend what Toyota are alleged to be spending, which has variously been reported to be $75-100 million dollars this season.

Bash VAG all you want. Toyota have also been part of the problem on the budget front by spending multitudes more than anyone else aside from Audi Sport and Porsche did. The ACO screwed up with their "go big or go home" attitude towards hybrids and other "green image" technology at the expense of what made sense.

Again. Don't ask why VAG are gone and why Toyota might very well be gone soon. Ask why no one else came in? In this thread, I think that Akrapovic several times hit the nail on the head and back up points I already made many times.

Namely that you have a technology still new to motorsport, it was given an (IMO, unnecessarily huge) huge advantage, with huge performance incentives. And everyone wanted to get as close to the top as they could. That takes money and resources to get there fast.

No matter how you slice it, the ACO were sowing the seeds of their own destruction right there.

I'm not defending anyone. I spoke the truth. Porsche and Audi both spent close to $200 million a season. Toyota don't even spend half that and they know that's still too much. The reason they had to put up that sum is because of the VAG two. If you had the spending a reasonable amount there would be more competition because it wouldn't be an F1-lite in terms of budgets. Their F1 foray has no bearing on the wec program. Akio Toyoda and the financial crisis stopped Toyota's f1 program, not the 300 million they spent. Everyone in F1 spends that much in order to be top 5. That should not be the case here and it never should've been but for VAG. It doesn't matter if you're a fan of them or not, they spent way too much and killed the class. Now they're gone and things are starting to seem more interesting to new teams.

[AoB Special Stage]

Originally Posted by carbsmith

Dangerously high levels of old man telling people to get off his lawn.

Originally Posted by TzeiTzei

Factory teams will always spend massive amounts of money to get a competitive advantage. The only limiting factor is ROI. The only way to prevent that is to stop anyone from getting a competitive advantage. Which as an idea is kind of lame as we're talking about prototype racing. If the car's competitiveness is based on a technical rule set, then there will always be someone trying to outspend the others. It doesn't matter what that rule set is.

I like what ACO said about balancing the hybrids and non-hybrids. But from the very first race next year, they need to show us that they're serious about it. It can't be the Toyotas formation flying at the front of the field and the rest 5 secs/lap off the pace.

________________

How integrated are the hybrid systems into the chassis of the P1-H cars? As in, can they be wholly physically removed without having to break something else to get them out?

[chernaudi]

Well then, if you're going to be fair, will anyone want to come in with Toyota spending the amount of money they spent to try and win LM in '99? I'm calling a spade a spade. When you look at DPI, it's pretty obvious that no one wants to spend even what TMG are spending, or even were.

And you also have to remember that TMG are able to do this for less because of going hog wild in F1. The ACO were responsible for this as much, if not more, than anyone by how they tried to goad factory teams up the hybrid ladder. Not to mention the knock on of new cars built to the new rules and crap like the fuel flow formula which never made sense to me.

We have to be fair here. Toyota did just as much on harping about the hybrid rules as Audi or Porsche did. Hybrids are about the only reason Toyota are even bothering about Le Mans or the WEC. Their whole promotional campaign for their LM program is all about hybrids. They also tried to push to get to the top of the rung of the hybrid ladder as much as Porsche did.

As several others have mentioned, factory teams will spend what they feel like spending if it gives them an edge. And as I mentioned, in Super GT, the rules for GT500 are what they are now because Toyota, Nissan and Honda didn't want to back out of a costly arms race. If the ACO were smart, they would've done the same here.

Now we're left with a program that still spends tons more than any privateer team would. Would you defend that just because they're a factory team up against privateer teams? Do you think that Toyota will spend any less than they are now? I guess they will--only if they do Spa, LM and Fuji next year.

You need to get your blinders off being a Toyota fan and claiming that they've been so disadvantaged because VAG outspent them. No different now to in F1 where Mercedes and Ferrari are at the head of the grid because they dedicated more money and resources to the current formula. And it'll be no different than if Toyota curb stomp everyone next year because their budget is 10-20 times bigger than any other LMP1 team.

If you're gonna argue that it's unfair that VAG spent nearly twice as much as TMG did on their program, how is it fair for them to be in the same position next season? It goes both ways. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

And why should I be making points and arguing my case when no one listens or cares, anyways?

[TF110]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Well then, if you're going to be fair, will anyone want to come in with Toyota spending the amount of money they spent to try and win LM in '99? I'm calling a spade a spade. When you look at DPI, it's pretty obvious that no one wants to spend even what TMG are spending, or even were.

And you also have to remember that TMG are able to do this for less because of going hog wild in F1. The ACO were responsible for this as much, if not more, than anyone by how they tried to goad factory teams up the hybrid ladder. Not to mention the knock on of new cars built to the new rules and crap like the fuel flow formula which never made sense to me.

We have to be fair here. Toyota did just as much on harping about the hybrid rules as Audi or Porsche did. Hybrids are about the only reason Toyota are even bothering about Le Mans or the WEC. Their whole promotional campaign for their LM program is all about hybrids. They also tried to push to get to the top of the rung of the hybrid ladder as much as Porsche did.

As several others have mentioned, factory teams will spend what they feel like spending if it gives them an edge. And as I mentioned, in Super GT, the rules for GT500 are what they are now because Toyota, Nissan and Honda didn't want to back out of a costly arms race. If the ACO were smart, they would've done the same here.

Now we're left with a program that still spends tons more than any privateer team would. Would you defend that just because they're a factory team up against privateer teams? Do you think that Toyota will spend any less than they are now? I guess they will--only if they do Spa, LM and Fuji next year.

You need to get your blinders off being a Toyota fan and claiming that they've been so disadvantaged because VAG outspent them. No different now to in F1 where Mercedes and Ferrari are at the head of the grid because they dedicated more money and resources to the current formula. And it'll be no different than if Toyota curb stomp everyone next year because their budget is 10-20 times bigger than any other LMP1 team.

If you're gonna argue that it's unfair that VAG spent nearly twice as much as TMG did on their program, how is it fair for them to be in the same position next season? It goes both ways. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

And why should I be making points and arguing my case when no one listens or cares, anyways?

It's like you don't read the posts you're replying to. I said Toyota don't want to spend the money they are. The reason they had to increase the budget was to respond to VW's teams. And no one said it was "unfair", you made that up. People have been saying it's unreasonable to be spending F1-level money. The rest of your post is not worth replying to because you're trying to incite a response. Don't care about the guilt trip either. Your points are noted, but don't make sense to me. No one forced them to spend hundreds of millions, that includes the hybrid rules. They did that on their own.

[Aysedasi]

It may just be me but I'm getting a tad bored with the to and fro manner in which both VAG and Toyota are constantly defended - we've heard it all before and it's definitely water under the bridge. Time to move on.....

[chernaudi]

Problem is didn't the ACO have 6 seasons to try and create a reasonable stable championship with stable rules for the top class? Hadn't they also spent a couple of years on the 2014 regs before they were implemented?

Didn't they also ultimately say that they were doing one thing (trying to create a reasonably level playing field while allowing for innovation and different options) but then did something different (shafted privateers even more and pigeon holed everyone down the same basic path)?

That's where I have my biggest problem with these regs. Now the ACO are saying they're now doing what they said they were going to do 4 years ago, but didn't do then. Force majure here? Absolutely. But they allowed it to get to that point.

They put themselves into that position because of corporate greed. Greed, pure and simple. They didn't care how things were going as long as VAG and Toyota were pumping money into the series and putting cars on the grid. It was a slippery slope from the beginning.

As much as I feel they should be admired for sticking it though thick and thin with the ACO as far as the top prototype class, I'm also starting to feel cynical about Audi Sport being involved for nearly 20 years with LM and their various series such as the ALMS and WEC. I say that because I feel genuinely that the ACO took them and other OEMs (Porsche, Toyota, Peugeot) for granted.

One thing my life as taught me is that the only things inevitable are death and taxes, and you're screwed the moment you take anything positive for granted. The ACO should've accepted that having factory teams hang around in LMP1 wasn't a god given right.

They also had a right and a duty to write reasonable rules that could've provided tight competition, innovation, while keeping cost reasonable. As I and others have said many times, factory teams and OEMs will spend whatever they feel it takes to win until ROI for whatever reason takes a hit.

Spending caps are IMO a stupid, unenforceable idea. We saw how daft and bass-akwards the F1 token system was, and it died a much deserved death for treason in my mind. Token systems and IMSA DPI levels of BOP in my mind have no place in LMP1.

What the ACO needed to do was make huge budgets get teams less, and put less of a rush on getting to the top of the hybrid rung. Doing so in a short amount of time was going to inevitably cost money and resources. Only way to discourage run away spending is write it in to the tech regs that things are more equal.

My point is that you can blame car makers for this all you want. After all, these programs are at the mercy of the decisions of corporate boards and account department bean counters.

But the ACO had the opportunity head off this from happening by making rules that were more inclusive. If that meant that the hybrid stuff and engine tech and other stuff had to be "dumbed down", so be it. I'd argue that would probably be better than the ACO now having to make ad-hoc, knee-jerk changes they are now.

They wrote and approved these rules. They could've taken a much more moderate approach that had broader appeal. They didn't, and they largely have themselves to blame.

[Aysedasi]

They may have needed to do it (as you've said many many times) but they didn't. Saying it over and over again won't change history...... Whether what they're now doing (and I don't really know what that is - and I wonder if they themselves do yet?) will change things for the better, we'll have to wait and see....

[TF110]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

It may just be me but I'm getting a tad bored with the to and fro manner in which both VAG and Toyota are constantly defended - we've heard it all before and it's definitely water under the bridge. Time to move on.....

True. Let's move on and see if Toyota stays and spends a reasonable amount of money or if they are the next big spenders. Somehow I feel like this conversation will pop up again and it will be a repeat of who is doing what and if it's enough or too much.

[Aysedasi]

Agreed. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to consider what may be coming, but as one who has massively enjoyed the awesome spectacle of LMP1H, I'm not going to say it shouldn't have been allowed to happen. Let's see what it's replaced with......

[chernaudi]

I fear that it won't, not unless they can convince the privateers and non-hybrid factory teams that they largely shunned to pick up the torch and run with them, not away from them.

We can't change history. The damage has been done. We can only hope the ACO learn from history. But I fear that they haven't. They got too nice and cozy with OEM money and their gerrymandering and now they're a crashing heroin addict.

What is it that's been said about history? That if you don't learn from it we're doomed to repeat it? Far too much of that going on in the real world that I don't feel the need to state examples here. In the context of racing, this feels like when IMSA GTP and Group C died in 1993. I was a little kid back then and I knew very little about it. But I researched what happened and this seems to have many of the same factors going on.

Best I think we can hope for is the ACO taking the milder approach they should have and not screw up again. Hopefully this will be like 1999 when GT1 died and factory interest peaked and we got something decent to replace all of that.

However, I'm pretty skeptical and I have some serious doubts. I don't know how fast privateers can react to take advantage of the ACO finally seemingly throwing them a bone.

If those non-hybrid oriented efforts or privateers come back, then great, we'll get something decent and good to replace LMP1 as we know it. Sadly, only time will tell, and everyone has until next May to get stuff together. Which 8 months may seem like an eternity in racing, but it's also a short amount of time that will go by quickly.

[Aysedasi]

Don't get me wrong, I share your concerns as I still come to grips with losing my Easter rendezvous with my pals at Silverstone... But I lived through the end of Group C and mightily enjoyed the all too brief excitement that was the GT1s and the sheer exciting spectacle of LMP1H's. Life ebbs and flows and we have to remain hopeful, because at my age I have other things (like work) that provide me with enough reason for depression.....

[TF110]

To me, there's no reason a new, proper built lmp1 non hybrid shouldn't be able to compete with 700+hp full time vs a part time 1000hp Toyota. Who knows, maybe the ACO caps the amount of power released by the hybrid to something like 300hp but keeps the 8mj allowance? That way it would be about longevity of the hybrid and stint length instead of pure power.

[AoB Special Stage]

Originally Posted by TF110

To me, there's no reason a new, proper built lmp1 non hybrid shouldn't be able to compete with 700+hp full time vs a part time 1000hp Toyota. Who knows, maybe the ACO caps the amount of power released by the hybrid to something like 300hp but keeps the 8mj allowance? That way it would be about longevity of the hybrid and stint length instead of pure power.

It's more efficient to boost more heavily over a shorter time frame for reasons, of which I don't have the confidence in my ability to explain adequately.