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

[carbsmith]

I can't say I ever found the 993/962 mongrels especially pretty. They looked like tanks compared to about any other car in the top classes. I also definitely wouldn't expect anything that remotely resembles it, since even then it was out of place compared to the legitimate supercars let alone the other homologation specials.

More likely look to the Mazda DPi. I think they could tighten the rules on the bodywork design to disallow the extra high nosed legality panel jigsaw puzzle of something like the later R18s, new BR, or the Ligier and come up with something more elegant than the current fender holes and it would probably give the manufacturers the room to do what they want in comparison to cars like the LaFerrari, Ford GT, and Aston Martin Valkyrie.

[Articus]

Not sure if intentional but the Acura has uncanny resemblance to La Ferrari.
Mazda has uncanny resemblance to the Aston Valkyrie.

[TheMightyM]

Marshall Pruett has a new column out titled “The fight for DPi’s soul” about talks on the 2020 prototype regulations.

[Damian Baldi]

I totally agree with MP about ACO. IMSA should follow their road as they planned, and only take a decision in the future after some years with the same regulations.

[TF110]

Imo, there's quite a bit of bias in that article. If the manufacturers want to do Le Mans and Daytona, they may be the catalyst to like rules between the WEC and IMSA. It will come down to them imo, not some rule maker's pride.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by TF110

Imo, there's quite a bit of bias in that article. If the manufacturers want to do Le Mans and Daytona, they may be the catalyst to like rules between the WEC and IMSA. It will come down to them imo, not some rule maker's pride.

Right, that's why DPi only runs on one side of the pond now. Out of what was supposed to be a unified ruleset concerning P2 and DPi. No assertion of 'some rule maker's pride' involved in that decision.





L.P.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Right, that's why DPi only runs on one side of the pond now. Out of what was supposed to be a unified ruleset concerning P2 and DPi. No assertion of 'some rule maker's pride' involved in that decision.





L.P.

When DPi runs lmp2-spec electronics like they were intended to, then you can talk about pride being a factor.

[carbsmith]

I don't think anyone has explained to me why the ACO should be falling over themselves to allow LMP2 based IMSA cars at Le Mans when they are turning away LMP2 teams already and there are no privateer DPi teams that would be eligible to enter even anyways.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by carbsmith

I don't think anyone has explained to me why the ACO should be falling over themselves to allow LMP2 based IMSA cars at Le Mans when they are turning away LMP2 teams already and there are no privateer DPi teams that would be eligible to enter even anyways.

Not only P2 teams, but GTE Am teams as well. And one of the big positives of LMP3 was creating security, as that can be transplanted into Le Mans if needed too. And they have a series running GT3 too.

The ACO seriously mismanaged LMP1. But they have setup LMP3 beautifully. As much as I enjoy IMSA, I don't think modifying some LMP2 cars is really what should be the top class at Le Mans. I'm not sure modifying someone else's base and performance balancing the cars to suit is really what should be winning the world's biggest motor race.

Pride is a two way street in this situation as well.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by TF110

When DPi runs lmp2-spec electronics like they were intended to, then you can talk about pride being a factor.

Really, was not the thought put forward that the mfgs wishes would override the 'pride' of the sanctioning bodies involved? Who the hell wanted the electronics that they were already using? The mfgs. Which is representative of the exact scenario put forth!





L.P.

[joeb]

One of the points I took out of Marshalls article was the fact that the manufacturers aren't a third-party versus imsa and the ACO but instead they are multiple parties all trying to get what they want. So what a manufacturer named McLaren might want could be different than what a manufacturer named Ford might want or Porsche, Toyota, or whoever. The sanctioning bodies want manufacturer input but in doing so you can't please everyone.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Really, was not the thought put forward that the mfgs wishes would override the 'pride' of the sanctioning bodies involved? Who the hell wanted the electronics that they were already using? The mfgs. Which is representative of the exact scenario put forth!





L.P.

You're talking about lmp2 and current dpi. Manufacturer's were pushed out of that class for a reason, to sign up for lmp1. The ACO made it clear that there were 4 chassis' and one engine. DPi did their thing and they were open to it, but DPi couldn't run as-is at Le Mans and rightfully so. All the little things like 'pride' and 'ego' are secondary. Cadillac has a nice engine and car, run lmp1. They're allowed to with some minor changes.

What you said, Joeb, I was trying to point out in a way. The manufacturers are seemingly leaning towards the 98, 99 GT1 type prototype. Sure there may be some different objectives by these manufacturers, but his article seemed like there was some huge division between the two series and ACO is trying to hijack DPi. We don't know what the future lmp1 rules are, but we will next month. I just don't get the fanboyish remarks, that's from either side. Both have something to offer imo.

[chernaudi]

I think that the ACO will edge towards LMP1 being more like DPI. They'll probably drop the requirement that factory teams have to run hybrids or alternative fuels. They might even for all we know right now ditch fuel flow in favor of air restrictors for BOP and limiting speeds.

In a way, it does make sense as DPI is growing, but not every car maker will want to race in a top class where you have to choose between four chassis manufacturers and run primarily stock block engines. Great idea and I'd like to see it, but it shouldn't be the only solution. Just like how having to run hybrids/alternative fuels and their associated R&D costs shouldn't be the exclusive solution.

I think that LMP1 should be the cost effective alternative to F1 or even something like NASCAR, not what it has become, where even TMG are spending almost F1 sized budgets (and yes, even if it's a quarter of what they spent on F1, TMG's near 100 million USD budget is big enough for an upstart minnow F1 team) on something with no where near the exposure of F1 or NASCAR on a world scale aside from the LM24.

VAG and TMG are to blame for the big factory budgets as much as anyone or anything (outside of technical requirements and being able to exploit them, no one out and out said they had to spend as much as they did), just as the ACO is for gerrymandering an agenda that appealed only to them and locked out others from even wanting to look in.

[TF110]

I don't see any of the IMSA way rubbing off on the ACO. Why go backwards to a flawed bop system? As far as dpi goes, the rumors from every interview and trusted pundit are pointing towards a late 90's gt1 style of lmp1. The really big budgets were brought about when Porsche joined and Audi had to duke it out with them. The new rules hopefully allow more opportunities for innovation instead of letting big dollar manufacturers sway them to their own liking. A more simple way for speed and better looking cars.

[chernaudi]

Sadly, under the last ACO LMP1 regs, hybrids equaled speed. And as with anything else in racing, speed often costs money and resources.

Biggest problem is that the ACO with their rules prioritized one way almost to exclusivity on how to get speed. It's also one thing to put a hugely powerful hybrid system into a road car, you magnify those difficulties by putting one into a race car whilst using design principals that worked pre-hybrid.

Biggest single problem is weight. Hybrids add weight because you have in effect two engines in one vehicle. That weight isn't dead weight because it's doing something, but it's weight nonetheless. You lower the weight limits while incentivizing power of such a system, that's where you get a lot of costs of developing the cars.

We have to remember that LMP2 had weight increases from 775 to 825 (800 ALMS), and to 900 and now 930kg over the past 10 years or so. The reason for that was to discourage teams from pulling a Porsche RS Spyder and making a LMP2 car sell for LMP1 money because of it having LMP1 tech to make it reach 775 or less kg with ballast.

I know that ditching things like fuel flow and raising weight limits sound like going backwards, but the ACO are now paying for pricing out privateers and smaller manufacturers with rules that either favored one way of doing things, or favored their whims and whims of what handful of carmakers that have made LMP1 cars since the turn of the decade.

IMO, the problem was living in the moment and not having good enough longer term planning.

[Speed-King]

With manufacturer interests being as diverse as they are, maybe they need to go back to a dual ruleset ala late 90s GT1/LMP? Have one class for lightweight hybrid science projects and one for DPi 2.0 where there's no need for self-developed hybrids (maybe a spec unit for all cars) but where cars can have styling cues like the GT1s had in 97/98?

Make both of them competitive for the overall win and let series decide if they want to allow one or both halves of the rule set, e.g. IMSA could elect to do what FIA GT did in the late 90s and only run the GT-Protos whereas WEC could be open to both or just the mad science projects.

Gesendet von meinem HTC Desire 526G dual sim mit Tapatalk

[chernaudi]

Also, another problem is aero rules. The ACO have pretty well clamped down on what teams can or can't do. That means that teams (like in F1) are spending tons of money and resources for IMO marginal returns on investment.

Stuff like the splitter feet and this or that flap or gurney probably only produce results in a wind tunnel and may or may not make any big difference on the track.

The ACO IMO can do with opening up development on the chassis and aero front, since that's cheaper than pigeon holing on the whole hybrid/alternative fuels/powertrain stuff. Some active or more adjustable aero can help with that.

[carbsmith]

F1 budgets pretty much start at 150m these days. Sauber is under at the moment but it's not viable on an ongoing basis.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Sadly, under the last ACO LMP1 regs, hybrids equaled speed. And as with anything else in racing, speed often costs money and resources.

Biggest problem is that the ACO with their rules prioritized one way almost to exclusivity on how to get speed. It's also one thing to put a hugely powerful hybrid system into a road car, you magnify those difficulties by putting one into a race car whilst using design principals that worked pre-hybrid.

Biggest single problem is weight. Hybrids add weight because you have in effect two engines in one vehicle. That weight isn't dead weight because it's doing something, but it's weight nonetheless. You lower the weight limits while incentivizing power of such a system, that's where you get a lot of costs of developing the cars.

We have to remember that LMP2 had weight increases from 775 to 825 (800 ALMS), and to 900 and now 930kg over the past 10 years or so. The reason for that was to discourage teams from pulling a Porsche RS Spyder and making a LMP2 car sell for LMP1 money because of it having LMP1 tech to make it reach 775 or less kg with ballast.

I know that ditching things like fuel flow and raising weight limits sound like going backwards, but the ACO are now paying for pricing out privateers and smaller manufacturers with rules that either favored one way of doing things, or favored their whims and whims of what handful of carmakers that have made LMP1 cars since the turn of the decade.

IMO, the problem was living in the moment and not having good enough longer term planning.

I was pretty sure they increased the weight so there wasn't an lmp2 challenging lmp1's for wins. So this is news to me.

[chernaudi]

The increase to 900 came in 2011 with the first cost cap regs. Then went up to 930 when the power was increased this year.

[AoB Special Stage]

Originally Posted by joeb

So what a manufacturer named McLaren might want could be different than what a manufacturer named Ford might want or Porsche, Toyota, or whoever.

What still shocks me is that this isn't just common sense by now.

[FormulaFox]

Interesting rumor dropped in my inbox today: A claim that the ACO has been in talks with the manufacturer of the DTM tubs about a spec tub for the 2020 LMP1 cars.

A spec tub could be a great way to get the manufacturer interest(if they go the "late 90s GT1" route) without the costs getting too high, but the DTM would not be a good design for LMP1 - it's a fair bit on the expensive side, and it's meant for front-engine cars only(go to the Super GT threads and you'll see a lot of talk about how much of a headache it's been to make the mid-engine Honda NSX work with that tub). But if they can get DTM and Super GT in the talks, they could certainly come up with a tub that could work for all three. And with the impending loss of Mercedes and questions as to whether Audi and BMW will remain, DTM could certainly use something new to keep them around.

Imagine if they could even make it work in a way that you could have Class One cars run alongside the dedicated LMP1 cars. I know of at least three manufacturers that would appeal to.

With that said... I doubt this is happening. This sounds like too good of an idea to have any chance of happening - in particular, I don't think the ACO would want to go the spec tub route.

Anyone else want to add their thoughts, extrapolations, etc?

[Victor_RO]

If they had it alongside a number of other constructors (see the GT300 mother chassis concept too), then I'd be fine with it. Have a ready-made chassis built to the regs and the teams only need to develop bodywork and fit an engine. If they had it as the ONLY allowable chassis, then I'd have to retort with a big fat shouty NO.

[hondafan37]

I like the idea that more first line series adopt similar rules or use common platforms, and I really like the idea of the ACO to take your TOP class to GTproto or GT1 style. However I can see that this does not fit with the DTM philosophy, which makes me think that the chassis will allow enough freedom to design a GT1 or a Touring Car around this chassis.
Therefore a DTM will have to go through major modifications to go to Le Mans.
On the other hand, I have the feeling that the SuperGT could admit GTproto or GT1, many cars of this style were in GT500 throughout its history (Porsche 962, McLaren P1 GTR, Ferrari F40, Maserati MC12 .......) And of course the Japanese brands want to go to Le Mans.

[TF110]

Unless all these series align in some sort of super rules that can be shared and altered, I'd rather not go down the spec route.