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

[EffectiveSprinkles]

https://twitter.com/dsceditor/status...995244032?s=19

See, this seems to me much more believable. And read on below that to see true colors revealed. I don't feel good about this, makes me a little ashamed to see this kind of tribal crap in our otherwise lovable sportscar world.

[deggis]

"Seismic shift"(!!!)... and even @specutainment it/himself then adds that it was already shut down/blocked by some OEMs. :facepalm:

https://twitter.com/specutainment/st...69928002506757

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

https://twitter.com/dsceditor/status...995244032?s=19

See, this seems to me much more believable. And read on below that to see true colors revealed. I don't feel good about this, makes me a little ashamed to see this kind of tribal crap in our otherwise lovable sportscar world.

So says the guy who has chosen sides and will ONLY listen to his chosen press people??

[Bentley03]

I'm guessing this was new news to Hindy (as it was to me too), and he was unaware that this had previously been proposed and discussed in the meetings. Knee jerk reaction from him by posting that tweet, he clearly believed he had a scoop.

Anyway, Graham put the record straight very quickly, time to move on...

[EffectiveSprinkles]

December is getting ever closer so we'll soon see what's decided!

[joeb]

Originally Posted by Bentley03

I'm guessing this was new news to Hindy (as it was to me too), and he was unaware that this had previously been proposed and discussed in the meetings. Knee jerk reaction from him by posting that tweet, he clearly believed he had a scoop.

Anyway, Graham put the record straight very quickly, time to move on...

Speculation about the future rules is fun. Lots of directions things could go, and the timeline is getting shorter by the day. I have no idea how many OEM's will be there with new cars on day 1, but i'd guess 2, Toyota and Glick. Biggest question for me is what cars the privateers will be allowed to bring. Will they be required to have the "hypercars" or will they get a carryover of the current machinery? I favor the latter for a year or 2.

[TF110]

I think they'll have to grandfather in the current lmp1s for the private teams unless they have one ready to go, or they allow customer cars. For me, I see Toyota and maybe Aston Martin. I think Glickenhaus is optimistic to be there for the first year of the new rules. I'd like to be proven wrong though!

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by TF110

I think Glickenhaus is optimistic to be there for the first year of the new rules. I'd like to be proven wrong though!

Considering they'll have well over a year to do it, I don't think it's optimistic at all - sounds quite reasonable.

Whether or not it's competitive will certainly depend on the competition, though.

[Bentley03]

Well, something for the technically minded on here to get their teeth into, the LMP 2020 Technical Regulations have been published. Link here under 'Latest Documents'.

Good luck deciphering them!

[gsmith2424]

Originally Posted by Bentley03

Well, something for the technically minded on here to get their teeth into, the LMP 2020 Technical Regulations have been published. Link here under 'Latest Documents'.

Good luck deciphering them!

Found a good break down of it. 25 Street Cars by end of 2021 and 100 by end of 2022 season. Cars also have to have same drivetrain systems as race car ($$$$$$). Min weight at 1040 kg. I don't see this happening especially the production numbers.

https://sportscar365.com/lemans/wec/...echnical-regs/

[Irie]

What i got from a quick skimming:
Enforced maximum downforce and aerodynamic efficiency, minimum drag
Minimum weight 1040kg
Maximum power and engine effiiency is regulated (BSFC)
Fuel flow also still regulated
MGU-K limited to ~4.9 MJ ( 13.629*0.36) at Le Mans
Engine weight and cog regulated


Not a fan of this...

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Nothing too surprising except the production numbers. We've been told over and over this class was not going to use homologated road cars. Looking at the documents myself, they make a difference between an 'engine' and an 'engine of the make'. The rules say this:

In all cases, the engine must be in conformity: • either with the rules imposed to the engine of the make; • or entirely with the rest of these regulations.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it seems like this actually means that manufacturers ('makes') can use production engines in this class but are not required to. Could someone else read article 5 of this document and give their view to see if I might be correct in this?

The SC365 article is wrong as always, please don't use any information from it. There is nothing in the rules about having to actually homologate a car or chassis, it only ever speaks about engines in this regard. Edit: They have edited the original article to rectify that mistake at least.

[Bentley03]

Daily Sportscar's initial observations are here.

There's a link to an 'explainer' on the regs at the bottom of the article. Success ballast to be introduced (apart from Le Mans) and a theoretical 3:22 qualifying lap time at Le Mans, 3:27 for the race.

[broadrun96]

Is it now OEM engine builders, and whatever chassis they like or build themselves, and then chassis builders have to integrate customer engines in to their chassis? It seems like you'll end up with one engine in each chassis again as the chassis are so optimized that a change can throw off the entire design.

It also does not seem like the engine and ERS must be homologated from the same car? They are in two sections but nothing appears to link them to one street chassis, unless I missed something.

I have not read the regulations fully, just a skim and couple articles about them but have not seen that clarified either way but it seems like the cars will be named (chassis builder)(engine builder) on the entry lists.

Also, expanding success ballast to all classes now?? DSC says GTE-Am but then references cars must be built to accept success ballast up to 50kg under the new regs. Plus side it does say we go back to fuel then tires pit stops, like racing should be.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

3:22 in qualifying is not too bad, in reality that will definitely mean 3:18s at least.

[broadrun96]

And how was this not mentioned? Only one tire manufacturer and 3 specs of slicks and 2 wets allowed. Or did I miss this earlier, and was a tender offered for this supply yet?

Page 12 of the slides posted on the DSC/ACO regs link.

[chernaudi]

I wonder what the ACO plan on doing about slowing down LMP2s, and the knock on effect on GT cars.

It has to be remembered that the LMP2 cars are getting close to qualifying at the ACO's recommended pace for the new LMP1 class (3:22) and their race pace, at least with pro drivers, is faster (3:27).

At least 2000mm wide LMP1s will be back, as well as longer (max length of 5000mm).

[RedSquirrel]

1040 kg.


One thousand and forty kilograms.


160 kg more than the current hybrids. Why? The engines will be a similar to the current ones, the hybrid batteries will be lighter, the cars will be restricted to just one MGU-K (the TS050 has two). I don't understand. Is it just that the dimensions have gone up? That surely couldn't make that much of a difference.



As for the positives, the dual MAD is nice. I hope it won't be restricted like Super Mario Flap in F1.
The engine lease rules are great. The wheels have gone back up to pre-2014, massive 14 inches wide, so lots of mechanical grip.
As for that 3:22 target time, yeah, that'll be blown into the weeds in the very first year.
Edit: Look at this:
"Weight and centre of gravity
5.8.1 The weight of the engine must be a minimum of 180 kg.
...
5.8.3 The weight of the MGU-K and associated inverter and mechanical differential may not be less than 50 kg.
...
5.8.4 The total weight of the ES must be no less than 70 kg."
I remember I think it was Japanese Samurai posting here a few years ago that the TS030's engine was ~100 kg in its final iteration and the energy store was ~70 kg. We haven't even stayed constant, we've actually regressed from 2013.

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by RedSquirrel

As for the positives, the dual MAD is nice. I hope it won't be restricted like Super Mario Flap in F1.

It seems like the restriction is the driver must activate the changes and it's a 2 position setting. I believe the way I read it there are 2 movable areas but they must move in concert between only 2 settings. It does appear the devices can be separate left and right sections as long as they are symmetrical along FR centerline. Unless specified elsewhere it seems like activation is free as the driver desires but must be manual

[RedSquirrel]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

It seems like the restriction is the driver must activate the changes and it's a 2 position setting. I believe the way I read it there are 2 movable areas but they must move in concert between only 2 settings. It does appear the devices can be separate left and right sections as long as they are symmetrical along FR centerline. Unless specified elsewhere it seems like activation is free as the driver desires but must be manual

Here's the rule:
"3.6 Movable aerodynamic device - MAD
A MAD is a bodywork element which incidence can vary whilst the car is in motion.
A MAD device formed by two parts symmetrical by the car centreline will be considered as a single device; their positions
must remain symmetrical at all time.
A front and a rear MAD are permitted, provided that:..."

To me, that says that the device is symmetrical about the centreline in the same way that the current front wings are. So at the front of the car, the bit between the front right wheel and the centeline is half of the device and the bit on the other side of the centreline is the other half.
And there can be one device at each end of the car.
You're right about the operation of it.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

MAD already sounds awesome, even the acronym is cool. One of the best things about the proposed regs in my opinion.

[carbsmith]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

Also, expanding success ballast to all classes now?? DSC says GTE-Am but then references cars must be built to accept success ballast up to 50kg under the new regs. Plus side it does say we go back to fuel then tires pit stops, like racing should be.

The technical regulations have the provision for 50kg, but the sporting regulations that would specify that being used for ballast don't exist yet. It's stated in the presentation though (although there's some small differences in details there, the slide says 520kW while the regulations say 508kW)

Pretty sad state when you regulate the cars to be practically identical but still decide to success ballast it anyways. Really is a laughably overpriced version of DTM.

Originally Posted by RedSquirrel

The wheels have gone back up to pre-2014, massive 14 inches wide, so lots of mechanical grip.

No, the current regulations are 14"x28" as well. The pre-2014 regulations were 16"x28.5"

Originally Posted by RedSquirrel

We haven't even stayed constant, we've actually regressed from 2013.

Everything about the technical regulations is about a decade in the past besides maybe the hybrid output.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Is that unexpected? Manufacturers at the moment want cheap. You can discuss the way in which these regulations try to be cheap but there is no way these were in any way going to be innovative or bleeding edge. Active aero is the most innovative thing about it I reckon.

[pablocomics]

So....., the idea from ACO to cut the enormous budget is..... Make the engine and frame constructors redesign every single bolt from zero (and now the engines too).



Bravo, magnificent idea. The market for those cars will be extremelly tiny, just WEC. How on earth are the constructors like Ligier, Gibson, AER, Oreca or Dallara to recover the money spent on the frames/engines/technology development? Because everything must be redesigned literally from zero and they barely will sell 2 or 3 cars considering the current championship. Oh, yeah, they can get back to the old Judd V10, it was installed on the GTA Spano.


The only point of salvation might be the IMSA, but they are avoiding the bullet for now.

[carbsmith]

The rules are only good for 5 years again either, which is pretty pathetic when the previous generations ran around a decade each and were about 90% similar to each other besides. Then again it's not like you'd want to commit that far with these anyways...