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

[Akrapovic]

Stupid question from me here, because my knowledge really only goes back to the 90s - but hasn't there been balancing of cars at Le Mans, IMSA, etc, for decades? didn't they balance GTP and things, and balance classes together and restrict cars etc?

From my (very uninformed) view, is the key difference between now and then, that they do more fine tuning of balance, and it actually has a name now - "BoP". So now that it has a name, it's a real thing and there's something to point anger towards?

[bentley speed 8]

There are also things that BoP can't fix, like the Aston that ate its tires at Le Mans, or fixing the dodgy reliability of a new car...

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Chiana

The one and only reason to build cars in bop class is marketing. There is no other element, because what's underneath the hood is irrelevant and nobody cares about the impact of technology.

To raise a question against this point, and please excuse the off-topic series', but how do you explain the motivation of the following:

Team Dynamics, Motorbase and Laser Tools building cars for BTCC.
Vukovic, Cyan and Saxon building cars for TCR.

There are many BOP series where cars are built to race, not to market.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Stupid question from me here, because my knowledge really only goes back to the 90s - but hasn't there been balancing of cars at Le Mans, IMSA, etc, for decades? didn't they balance GTP and things, and balance classes together and restrict cars etc?

From my (very uninformed) view, is the key difference between now and then, that they do more fine tuning of balance, and it actually has a name now - "BoP". So now that it has a name, it's a real thing and there's something to point anger towards?

Balance between different classes and minor things here and there is different to full BoP, invented by Step Ratel's organisation for FIA GT in 2004, and fully implemented by the launch of FIA GT3 in 2005.

By the way

http://archive.dailysportscar.com/su.../dougfehan.htm
“-- But the fans are smart. They don’t want to see contrived competition. If you go overboard on regulation changes, the fans will figure it out. Relying on regulations to make teams competitive is a slippery slope to be on. It’s like a tube of toothpaste. Once you’ve squeezed the paste out, it’s tough to get it back into the tube. Decisions like this can affect much more than appears on the surface.”

https://tentenths.com/forum/showpost...&postcount=424
“When I saw what was happening, the direction that we were headed, I warned the officials that they had better watch out. They were setting a precedent that could bite them in the future."

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

To raise a question against this point, and please excuse the off-topic series', but how do you explain the motivation of the following:

Team Dynamics, Motorbase and Laser Tools building cars for BTCC.
Vukovic, Cyan and Saxon building cars for TCR.

There are many BOP series where cars are built to race, not to market.

I don't know anything about BTCC or TCR (that's touring car's version of GT3 right) to really comment on that but someone needs to build the things, yes?

[chernaudi]

As much as I don't like how frequently BOP gets used/changed in racing, some form of it is going to be a reality. Hypercar LMP1 is supposed to be less expensive than current LMP1 or even 2006-13 LMP1. That does mean compromises.

That means heavier cars, which should drive cost down. That means less powerful hybrid systems and the option to not have to run one. That also means performance balancing. That genie got let out of the bottle in LMP1 in 2006, and it's never going to fully go back into the bottle. As long as the ACO are reasonable with application of it, I can't really complain too much.

One thing that I don't get is basically going to a spec tire, at least initially. We know that Michelin will probably get the nod, due to French nationalism and the fact that all the current LMP1 and GTE teams have alliances with Michelin. AMR even uses Michelin tires on the Vulcan and Valkyrie hyper car road/track day cars as original equipment.

However, the ACO have said that up to 5 different constructions of tires may be authorized for various machinery. If the ACO want to go that route, why not keep it open tire? Isn't the point of a spec tire to make BOP easier? Either this is the ACO handing Michelin a tire contract (since they're unlikely to be in F1 anytime very soon), or the ACO messing about with stuff again.

[carbsmith]

The purpose of BoP is to allow for customer/privateer teams in lower championships to just show up with the car they have rather than needing to go out and buy the current preferred car or spend a bunch on R&D. It's for teams championships, not manufacturer championships, but was forced into the latter because of desperate organizers catering to half-assed manufacturers to fill fields through poor economic times then exploited into the mess we have now where corporate execs directly influence results instead of needing better designers and engineers and all the power is collected at the top creating a corrupt self-sustaining system.

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Stupid question from me here, because my knowledge really only goes back to the 90s - but hasn't there been balancing of cars at Le Mans, IMSA, etc, for decades? didn't they balance GTP and things, and balance classes together and restrict cars etc?

From my (very uninformed) view, is the key difference between now and then, that they do more fine tuning of balance, and it actually has a name now - "BoP". So now that it has a name, it's a real thing and there's something to point anger towards?

In the past balancing applied to broad categories of cars at least in theory. At times changes between those categories would really only affect one car, which tended to result in large amounts of outrage if they had meaningful affects (nobody cares if rotaries are just slow instead of really slow obviously). In modern times you get completely different rules for a Corvette and Viper even though they are extremely similar cars with extremely similar performance purely for the sake of manipulating results. Like sure you can't say it never happened before but it was not well accepted.

Originally Posted by broadrun96

We get it, you don't understand the requirements of racing and that is has ALWAYS been marketing.

That is utter horse ****. Why are you even watching if you think this crap?
And stop with this RULES=BOP nonsense garbage, for f's sake. Especially if you're going to complain about other people discussing things wrong, you can't just turn around and be intentionally obtuse and try to shut down conversation that way.


Unlike the BS we're fed about a 911 and a Corvette being so different they couldn't possibly compete fairly even though the road cars perform near identically and they've raced competitively for eons, hypercar really is casting its net so wide to try to fill a class that a restyled TS050, a Valkyrie, and whatever road focused hypercar are legitimately impossible to fit under a single set of rules at least. You're looking at like a 700kg range of base vehicle weights there just to start. It will be a struggle to get two cars that are even similar enough to apply any equivalency that wouldn't immediately be the same as BoP anyways.

[chernaudi]

Anyone even have an idea as far as the what the ACO/FIA have published as far as what is/could be legal or not under hypercar LMP1 regs? For instance, will we still have the chamfered floors and tunnel type rear diffusers? Or will we revert to GTE-type front and rear diffusers and flat floors?

And, clearly, the big volume tunnels and F1-style front wing on the Valkyrie can't be legal, right?

I doubt that the ACO's or FIA's sites have detailed regs, and the best I've been able to find are some generic renders of what the ACO envision LMP1 "hypercars" maybe looking like, as well as renders of the AM Valkyrie and TGR Super Sport concept cars.

[carbsmith]

The prototype cars have similar floors to the current cars. It's a complete mystery for road based cars.

[Deleted]

If you have a GT3 clone class my guess is "whatever" gets accepted. Or then they have theoretically strict regulations but not a single car conforms to them thanks to GTE esq waivers

Anyway lots of people on youtube touting this as the rebirth of GT1... Ehmm

[TF110]

Japanese Autosport has an article up talking about the new rules. I don't know if the translation is good or not but Google does a decent job with it... they say that the under aero is more open than before (current) when talking about the Valkyrie and it's unique aero design being allowed.

https://www.as-web.jp/sports-car/493384?all

[chernaudi]

I've already read about this in the non-ACO specific AMR thread, and I also mentioned it in the AMR Hypercar LMP1 thread, but Graham from DSC has written that the Valhalla was supposed to form the basis or at least inspiration for the AMR LMP1 before the Valkyrie got selected.

As far as just the regs, is there a possible reason why the Valkyrie got the nod ahead of the Valhalla? Could it have been a sign that the ACO/FIA were leaning either towards GTE+ or maybe even DPI influenced rules from that stand point?

[deggis]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Stupid question from me here, because my knowledge really only goes back to the 90s - but hasn't there been balancing of cars at Le Mans, IMSA, etc, for decades? didn't they balance GTP and things, and balance classes together and restrict cars etc?

A simple min weight-max displacement table was common in various FIA categories. Altough in principle this attemps to negate inherit advantages of certain type of engines, it is hard to call it BoP because tables did not frequently change, and weight and engine displacment were pretty much the only parameters at play.

IMSA GTP went a bit further with this idea:



The type of engines (including some with restrictors) are listed on page 39 (pdf page 48): http://www.mulsannescorner.com/1990IMSAGTP.pdf

This is not that far from a current situation where you balance individual engines. In earlier (1981, 1984) IMSA regs this was a bit simpler weight-displacement table and categorization was based on various production limits, so it is as if they just kept adding specific type of engines into this scale whenever someone started using them in competition...

Check the bottom of the page for more old regs: http://www.mulsannescorner.com

[deggis]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Anyone even have an idea as far as the what the ACO/FIA have published as far as what is/could be legal or not under hypercar LMP1 regs? For instance, will we still have the chamfered floors and tunnel type rear diffusers? Or will we revert to GTE-type front and rear diffusers and flat floors?

And, clearly, the big volume tunnels and F1-style front wing on the Valkyrie can't be legal, right?

I doubt that the ACO's or FIA's sites have detailed regs, and the best I've been able to find are some generic renders of what the ACO envision LMP1 "hypercars" maybe looking like, as well as renders of the AM Valkyrie and TGR Super Sport concept cars.

They do (or did, likely now removed) have the original hyper-LMP-car technical regs published in December:

https://endurance24.fr/wp-content/up...egulations.pdf

Neveu said that what was submitted last Friday to FIA WMSC approval was this (with modifications) + separate document regarding the hyper-production-cars. This was for practical reasons and in the end they will be all in the same document.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by deggis

A simple min weight-max displacement table was common in various FIA categories. Altough in principle this attemps to negate inherit advantages of certain type of engines, it is hard to call it BoP because tables did not frequently change, and weight and engine displacment were pretty much the only parameters at play.

IMSA GTP went a bit further with this idea:



The type of engines (including some with restrictors) are listed on page 39 (pdf page 48): http://www.mulsannescorner.com/1990IMSAGTP.pdf

This is not that far from a current situation where you balance individual engines. In earlier (1981, 1984) IMSA regs this was a bit simpler weight-displacement table and categorization was based on various production limits, so it is as if they just kept adding specific type of engines into this scale whenever someone started using them in competition...

Check the bottom of the page for more old regs: http://www.mulsannescorner.com

Great link and info.
As you say it is not really BoP, perhaps more EoT. Although perhaps not always trying to make equivalent

It does remind us of the good old days.

[deggis]

Koenigsegg (again) getting some free headlines with this statement merely stating that there is nothing to state.

https://www.roadandtrack.com/motorsp...ce-at-le-mans/

The first set of regulations really excluded any possibility for us to go racing. So we put our efforts on ice. The new regulations [announced last week] look much more feasible on the surface—but we have not yet had time to fully evaluate them. The interest from our side persists, but for the time being we have no announcement.

You'd think if they were so interested they would have participated in the meetings too.

[Deleted]

The old GT1 and GT2 regs also had standard weight and air restrictor according to set-in displacement table, and that was it for most of the time, working very well.

2006 LMGT1 Regulations:
"It is out of the question to make adjustments after or in accordance with each race. If adaptations are necessary, they will be imposed by the ACO preferably at the end of the race season."
http://lemans-history.com/regulament...MGT1_fr_gb.pdf

Now they not only make adjustments after or in accordance with each race, but seemingly also between single on track sessions...

[joeb]

Originally Posted by deggis

Koenigsegg (again) getting some free headlines with this statement merely stating that there is nothing to state.

https://www.roadandtrack.com/motorsp...ce-at-le-mans/



You'd think if they were so interested they would have participated in the meetings too.

Would be great to see another production based hypercar signup, but as you said, this was the least convincing sign of interest I've seen on the topic.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by deggis

Koenigsegg (again) getting some free headlines with this statement merely stating that there is nothing to state.

https://www.roadandtrack.com/motorsp...ce-at-le-mans/



You'd think if they were so interested they would have participated in the meetings too.

They seem content selling overpriced street 'hypercars'. I doubt they'll be racing anywhere anytime soon. The closest we got was their never-raced GT1.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Chiana

The old GT1 and GT2 regs also had standard weight and air restrictor according to set-in displacement table, and that was it for most of the time, working very well.

2006 LMGT1 Regulations:
"It is out of the question to make adjustments after or in accordance with each race. If adaptations are necessary, they will be imposed by the ACO preferably at the end of the race season."
http://lemans-history.com/regulament...MGT1_fr_gb.pdf

Now they not only make adjustments after or in accordance with each race, but seemingly also between single on track sessions...

This is a very good point. The rule makers have taken what worked for them and over the years refined it to be even better.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by TF110

They seem content selling overpriced street 'hypercars'. I doubt they'll be racing anywhere anytime soon. The closest we got was their never-raced GT1.

It never made sense to me why the CCGT was not allowed into GT1 when MC12 was already there

At the very least SRO could've had a "GTN" or whatever class for them at Spa 24h and other events

[Maelochs]

“Balance of performance” can mean many things.

There have always been formulae to allow a variety of engineering solutions---different weights for different-displacement motors, different displacements for forced induction versus natural induction ….. I don’t call that “BoP” as it is used today.

Today BoP seems to mean a race-by-race tweaking to balance not cars but performance …. So building a better car really is no longer an issue.

The reason for the current style of BoP is not simply “marketing …. “ It is designed to encourage manufacturers to participate, because everyone theoretically gets a shot at a win, no matter whether they build a car suited to the job or not.

Pretending that racing today is the same as it has ever been is simply dishonest. Manufacturers and even independents used to race to prove their cars were better …. Which nowadays is meaningless.

Manufacturers also used to race to create an image of their products as being cutting-edge, competitive, manly (sorry, but back in the day it was a male-dominated sport even more than today.) Those images matter a lot less to a lot fewer customers nowadays—cupholders and connectivity sell more cars than competition.

Nowadays manufacturers are not able to justify the cost of racing as purely “promotion,” because it really doesn’t work that way anymore. And the would-be racers cannot justify racing to the bean-counters by encouraging the company to build a better car—the bean-counters want a guarantee.

BoP provides that guarantee. Even the slowest, heaviest car will get to win the pole and have a chance to win the race …. No matter if every other car has to be crippled.

Innovation is Not desired. Unique engineering solutions no longer exist (Jim Hall wouldn't be welcome anywhere.) … Development used to be the key to racing and winning … . nowadays, race organizers have Banned “development.” Builders can make one change a year, or one change every couple of years … it used to be that most cars had new parts at every race, as teams tried everything to get an edge.

That’s just how it is. If people would stop denying it, we’d all be a lot better off.

There is another side to all this.

This Is How Racing Is Now.

Those of us who don’t like it can watch historics or watch old races on grainy video, or we can do something else. Or we can watch the show that is currently available and take responsibility for our choices.

I really don’t like “racing” as it is nowadays. It is "compe-tainment,” not competition. It is auto-based entertainment. But that is Not going to change because I complain about it all the time.

I think one reason it bothers me is because some people keep refusing to admit that reality is reality.

In this regard, I offer a compromise:

I won’t say more than, “Well, you know … BoP,” and let it go …. And the people who take the opposite side stop telling me that it is raining while I watch sanctioning bodies urinate on my legs.

Deal? You guys stop denying it is real, and I will stop harping on how terrible it is.

[canaglia]

Originally Posted by Chiana

It never made sense to me why the CCGT was not allowed into GT1 when MC12 was already there

At the very least SRO could've had a "GTN" or whatever class for them at Spa 24h and other events

Because MC12 was a work Ferrari Enzo with a different bodywork, while small manufacturers simply have not any influence....

mosler MT900 never got a FIA gt3 homologation, or speaking about nowadays just look at glickenhaus, they are yelling here and there they're going to make ACO hypercars but ACO and FIA tend to ignore them


BTW recall GT1 bop was a bit different before 2009; usually private and work teams could choice between 2 kind of bop set

option A: lighter car but shorter restrictors
option B: heavier car but larger restrictors

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by canaglia

Because MC12 was a work Ferrari Enzo with a different bodywork, while small manufacturers simply have not any influence....

mosler MT900 never got a FIA gt3 homologation, or speaking about nowadays just look at glickenhaus, they are yelling here and there they're going to make ACO hypercars but ACO and FIA tend to ignore them


BTW recall GT1 bop was a bit different before 2009; usually private and work teams could choice between 2 kind of bop set

option A: lighter car but shorter restrictors
option B: heavier car but larger restrictors

Meh I consider the actual Prodrive GTS Ferraris to have been the works cars, after all MC12 never got eligibility for ACO racing, only SRO and occassional show-up in IMSA detuned... they didn't have THAT much influence. Then again, ACO still had rules those days...

If Maserati had been launched in the GTE era, obviously they'd just given it giant set of waivers and let it into Le Mans

As for MT900, it didn't get the homologation but SRO still let it run in their 'special classes'

[canaglia]

There has been a misunderstanding perhaps... you wrote about CCGT that never got fia gt1 homologation while MC12 did.

I just reported that despite not being 100% gt1 rulestech legal, MC12 got FIA gt1 homologation, winning 4 or 5 fia gt in a row with work backed vitaphone racing, because ferrari is just that kind of manufacturer who FIA can't say no.


MC12 never got ACO elegibility, not because of carbon monocoque or because few street models, but mainly because was too wide (about 2.1m) when 2m was the max. width; infact saleen s7r, corvette c6r gt1, aston dbr9 were about 195-199cm wide.
Yeah, that time ACO still used to follow the rules....


BTW MC12 was in theory elegible for LM2010 since new ford gt and lambo murcielago R-SV were wider than 2m as well, but however vitaphone didn't take part (wise move since 2010 GT1 was the closest thing to a pro-am class that year).


Disagree abot prodrive 550 gts that was a complete private program.... their only sin was to have been much better than italtecnica's ferrari backed 550 gt1 cars lol.

MT900 got gtN homologation indeed, weird stuff since there were 3 different mosler companies (USA, UK, germany) who were building the same street and racing car lol.


If memory helps me in 2001 or 2002, there has been a pagani zonda GT1 that ran a few laps at le mans.... of course that car never got a real fia gt1 homologation.