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

[Christian Mogami]

^
Thats were I would put my money on for the 2014 Porsche and the 2015 HPD P1 engines will have.

HPD already gave hints by stating their engine is going to be single turbo(that engine is going to the better twin turbo lay-out next year) and Porsche did too by only one exhaust outlet from a V4 engine.

And because of the fuel meter this system could make alot of e-power(when they don't need the boost/save fuel(top-end and over-boost situations) the turbine will be turning the electric motor/generator and that will slow the compressor(less boost).

And coming out of slow corner the electric motor would spin the compressor so there will be no lag and great power and torque from low revs(saves fuel).

[TF110]

This must be a part of the "clever hybrid" system Pascal Vasselon speaks of for next year's car. I can think of a few things that electrical power could help with.

[MyNameIsNigel]

So, an internal combustion engine supplemented by an hybrid system comprising one or two ERSAs could in theory be provided with an electric supercharger powered by the excess energy recovered by the ERSA(s) and which cannot be used to power the MGU(s) to propel the car.

[TF110]

Plenty of other uses for it as well. Alternator, Air Conditioning, braking, battery, starter etc. It could be used as a system backup for all we know.

[Machin]

I thought I would look into the Petrol vs Diesel equivalency debate as it is obviously a hot topic at the moment.

For the study I started out with a 900kg 550bhp Petrol engine LMP with enough fuel to do 12 laps of Le Mans. I then swapped the engine transmission and fuel tank for a diesel engine installation, and "equalised" it to the Petrol engine-car based on 10 different scenarios, using performance figures based on current diesel technology. The info-graphic below displays the results:-



Traditionally motorsport has been based on equal engine capacity, and in this regard the diesel-engined car would be slower, as seen by scenario 1.

If we were to "equalise" the cars based on fuel quantity/energy content we see that the Diesel engine car would triumph. (Scenarios 3 to 6)

It is interesting to see that If we "equalise" based on CO2 tail pipe emissions the Diesel would still be quicker (scenario 7), but if we were to account for the total life-cycle CO2 emissions associated with each fuel's use (i.e. including drilling, refining, distribution etc), the two performances are pretty much equal, due to the higher CO2 emissions associated with the production of diesel vs. petrol, despite the lower tailpipe emissions from the diesel engine-car (scenario 9)

Another interesting scenario would be if the car's were "equalised" based on tailpipe NOx emissions. NOx is associated with various lung diseases and smog formation. In this case the petrol engine car would be considerably quicker (petrol emitting fewer g of NOx per kW of power output than Diesel).

Finally, my least favoured scenario; equalised based on power (scenario 10). In this case the two cars would have equal performance: the engine installation of the petrol car would be lighter than the diesel one but this would be offset by the additional weight of fuel required to cover the same distance. I personally don't like this scenario: if we wanted to equalise the car's performance shouldn't we just make the driver's all use the same cars?! Le Mans should be about the best engineering solution, the question then is what "problem" are we trying to solve?

Personally I like scenario 9 (total life-cycle CO2 emissions), as this opens up the opportunity to "equalise" the performance of electric vehicles: taking into account the energy required to recharge their batteries. It also just happens that under this scenario the petrol and diesel cars would be very similarly matched...

[Spyderman]

My personal preference would go to scenarios 1 and 2.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Two new decisions by the Endurance Committee have been published on the FIA website. One relates to a clarification of the "MGU" definition and the other to the wheel tethers.

Decision No. 13-D0029-LMP1 apparently clarifies Article 1.21 of the 2014 Regulations as follows:

The Endurance Committee considers necessary to clarify art 1.21 of 2014 Technical Regulations.

MGU has to be considered as drive machine mechanically linked to one of the drive trains.
It is considered that a drive machine is a machine which, when connected to a shaft, increases the torque applied at this shaft.

I must admit I find this clarification... well... a bit confusing...

[Maelochs]

This "clarification" doesn't say whether the MGU has to directly increase torque. A turbo accelerator would increase torque under certain circumstances, but then, a throttle pedal would increase torque when pressed.

I think the intent is to define an MGU as a power source acting on the drive train and not a component of another power source: i.e an electric motor. as opposed to a turbine accelerator.

[TF110]

Thats my take. It clears up some of the loopholes teams can find by saying this and this aren't part of the mgu... but they still aid performance to the driven wheels.

[JoestForEver]

Originally Posted by Machin

I thought I would look into the Petrol vs Diesel equivalency debate as it is obviously a hot topic at the moment.

For the study I started out with a 900kg 550bhp Petrol engine LMP with enough fuel to do 12 laps of Le Mans. I then swapped the engine transmission and fuel tank for a diesel engine installation, and "equalised" it to the Petrol engine-car based on 10 different scenarios, using performance figures based on current diesel technology. The info-graphic below displays the results:-



Traditionally motorsport has been based on equal engine capacity, and in this regard the diesel-engined car would be slower, as seen by scenario 1.

If we were to "equalise" the cars based on fuel quantity/energy content we see that the Diesel engine car would triumph. (Scenarios 3 to 6)

It is interesting to see that If we "equalise" based on CO2 tail pipe emissions the Diesel would still be quicker (scenario 7), but if we were to account for the total life-cycle CO2 emissions associated with each fuel's use (i.e. including drilling, refining, distribution etc), the two performances are pretty much equal, due to the higher CO2 emissions associated with the production of diesel vs. petrol, despite the lower tailpipe emissions from the diesel engine-car (scenario 9)

Another interesting scenario would be if the car's were "equalised" based on tailpipe NOx emissions. NOx is associated with various lung diseases and smog formation. In this case the petrol engine car would be considerably quicker (petrol emitting fewer g of NOx per kW of power output than Diesel).

Finally, my least favoured scenario; equalised based on power (scenario 10). In this case the two cars would have equal performance: the engine installation of the petrol car would be lighter than the diesel one but this would be offset by the additional weight of fuel required to cover the same distance. I personally don't like this scenario: if we wanted to equalise the car's performance shouldn't we just make the driver's all use the same cars?! Le Mans should be about the best engineering solution, the question then is what "problem" are we trying to solve?

Personally I like scenario 9 (total life-cycle CO2 emissions), as this opens up the opportunity to "equalise" the performance of electric vehicles: taking into account the energy required to recharge their batteries. It also just happens that under this scenario the petrol and diesel cars would be very similarly matched...

Questions about the engine volume scenario, currently the diesel LMP1 engine is 3.4L turbo while the petrol is 3.7 L naturally aspirated, right? Then currently the R18 isn't favored by the rules at all. Or do you mean in the scenario that diesels are also NA machines?

[ThatGuy]

You mixed up the two, it's 3.7L turbo diesel and 3.4L petrol NA.

[TF110]

Had a thought come to my mind about the new cockpit height rules when looking at the new Porsche. The area thats raised seems like an opportunity to put the air intake like the dome s103 cfd model below instead of the solution Porsche currently has.

[Machin]

Originally Posted by JoestForEver

Questions about the engine volume scenario, currently the diesel LMP1 engine is 3.4L turbo while the petrol is 3.7 L naturally aspirated, right? Then currently the R18 isn't favored by the rules at all. Or do you mean in the scenario that diesels are also NA machines?

Yeah, should be the same displacement and boost pressure (if any).

[MyNameIsNigel]

I am having a look at the other Decision recently issued by the Endurance Committee, namely Decision No. 13-D0030-LMP1 which relates to a "Clarification on Art 15.9.6 of 2014 LMP1 Technical Regulations - Tether".

I am really starting to wonder what the Endurance Committee is doing.

First of all, as explicitly mentioned in the 2014 Technical Regulations for Prototype LMP1 (draft V08), "the French version is the only one valid regarding the implementation and interpretation of the regulations" (Article 20.1). So, why on earth is the Endurance Committee attempting to "clarify" the regulations by issuing Decisions in the English language. As such, I don't mind, but it does not make sense to draft rules that are - "legally-speaking" - to be interpreted on the basis of the French version and to "clarify" those regulations by issuing Decisions in the English language. The English version of the rules is basically only there for the sake of information.

Secondly, the Decisions issued by the Endurance Committee are typically issued in rather approximate English language. It really does not help if the Endurance Committee issues Decisions that attempt to clarify rules that are only valid in the French version by means of poorly drafted "clarifications" in the English language...

Thirdly, looking at the particular example of the aforementioned Decision No. 13-D0030-LMP1, I am quite confused about the approach taken by the Endurance Committee. In the particular case, Article 15.9.6 simply states:

15.9 Wheel Tethers
(...)
15.9.6 Chaque câble doit avoir une longeur comprise entre 400 et 600 mm.

15.9.6 Each tether must have a length in between 400 and 600 mm.

Everybody can pretty much understand what the provision is about. Now the Endurance Committee attempts to "clarify" the above provision by stating (you can judge the "drafting skills" by yourself):

Following FIA Institute statement about Specification for wheelrestraint cables ‘’LMP1 2014’’ the mandatory maximum length (600mm) is judge too restrictive as it could unnecessary restrict the general principle to allow teams to fit tethers with appropriate form-fitted length.

If the mandatory maximum length (i.e. 600 mm) of each tether is judged to be "too restrictive", wouldn't the logical and necessary result be to amend Article 15.9.6 ?

In the particular case, the Endurance Committee is basically turning a provision that is crystal clear into something that is... well... not clear any more.

[JoestForEver]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

I am having a look at the other Decision recently issued by the Endurance Committee, namely Decision No. 13-D0030-LMP1 which relates to a "Clarification on Art 15.9.6 of 2014 LMP1 Technical Regulations - Tether".

I am really starting to wonder what the Endurance Committee is doing.

First of all, as explicitly mentioned in the 2014 Technical Regulations for Prototype LMP1 (draft V08), "the French version is the only one valid regarding the implementation and interpretation of the regulations" (Article 20.1). So, why on earth is the Endurance Committee attempting to "clarify" the regulations by issuing Decisions in the English language. As such, I don't mind, but it does not make sense to draft rules that are - "legally-speaking" - to be interpreted on the basis of the French version and to "clarify" those regulations by issuing Decisions in the English language. The English version of the rules is basically only there for the sake of information.

Secondly, the Decisions issued by the Endurance Committee are typically issued in rather approximate English language. It really does not help if the Endurance Committee issues Decisions that attempt to clarify rules that are only valid in the French version by means of poorly drafted "clarifications" in the English language...

Thirdly, looking at the particular example of the aforementioned Decision No. 13-D0030-LMP1, I am quite confused about the approach taken by the Endurance Committee. In the particular case, Article 15.9.6 simply states:


Everybody can pretty much understand what the provision is about. Now the Endurance Committee attempts to "clarify" the above provision by stating (you can judge the "drafting skills" by yourself):


If the mandatory maximum length (i.e. 600 mm) of each tether is judged to be "too restrictive", wouldn't the logical and necessary result be to amend Article 15.9.6 ?

In the particular case, the Endurance Committee is basically turning a provision that is crystal clear into something that is... well... not clear any more.

Good job for the intervention from FIA :P or we should say just mind your own business, a shrinking WTCC grid and a lack of world gt series.

[deggis]

That almost reads like a notification about an upcoming change. Ironically isn't that a bit bad English?

From major FIA series F1 and WTCC do not even have French versions of the regs, WRC does though.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by JoestForEver

Good job for the intervention from FIA :P or we should say just mind your own business, a shrinking WTCC grid and a lack of world gt series.

I think you didn't understand the point. The point was that clarification is confusing, not that an intervention was made in the first place.

Besides, the other signer (Beaumesnil) is an ACO guy. I think technically the regulations are controlled by FIA but in practice by ACO.

[JoestForEver]

Originally Posted by deggis

I think you didn't understand the point. The point was that clarification is confusing, not that an intervention was made in the first place.

Besides, the other signer (Beaumesnil) is an ACO guy. I think technically the regulations are controlled by FIA but in practice by ACO.

No idea about the current regulation. But in the past for the prototype and gt racing,ACO and FIA has totally different regs, the GT1/2/3 and LMP1/2 was written by ACO and adopted by FIA who abandoned its own which no one likes.(i.e. the NGT and SR classes) So this time I believe it's still ACO writing and FIA supervising.

[Maelochs]

I work with a lot of multi-lingual people, and one thing I see a lot is people who have worked hard to learn a language thinking they know it better than native speakers, because the native speakers didn't work hard to learn it.

That's how this "clarification" reads to me: someone (or some group) who all think they know better,d absolutely unwilling and unable to admit otherwise, making complete fools of themselves and also causing much trouble for many others because of all the human motivations, presenting and protecting the swollen ego is the most powerful.

If I were building a car, I would make sure the wheel tethers were no more than 600 mm regardless of what else I needed to change int he design---but i still wouldn't feel safe.

[FstrthnU]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

I work with a lot of multi-lingual people, and one thing I see a lot is people who have worked hard to learn a language thinking they know it better than native speakers, because the native speakers didn't work hard to learn it.

That's how this "clarification" reads to me: someone (or some group) who all think they know better,d absolutely unwilling and unable to admit otherwise, making complete fools of themselves and also causing much trouble for many others because of all the human motivations, presenting and protecting the swollen ego is the most powerful.

If I were building a car, I would make sure the wheel tethers were no more than 600 mm regardless of what else I needed to change int he design---but i still wouldn't feel safe.

Where's Socrates when you need him?

[MyNameIsNigel]

Don't know if this is the right thread to post this in, but DSC are reporting interesting possible changes to the SC rules, possibly for 2014 already:

Perhaps even more significant though was Mr Fillon’s answer to the question about the number and length of Safety Car periods.
“Here we will have a surprise for you I think. I share the concerns about this and we have been working hard to find a better safety management solution."
“To make the change we want to move towards would require an in-car marshaling system, to neutralise not the whole circuit but simply a section of the circuit directly affected by an incident. That kind of system requires a high level of accuracy from a GPS based system and I hope and believe that this will be in place for 2014.”

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Don't know if this is the right thread to post this in, but DSC are reporting interesting possible changes to the SC rules, possibly for 2014 already:

http://tentenths.com/forum/showthread.php?t=140119

[deggis]

WMSC:

http://www.fia.com/news/world-motor-sport-council-3

Following the adoption of the 2014 LMP1 technical regulations, a system of “Equivalence of Technology (EoT)” between the LMP1 technologies will be implemented. Two periods of adjustment of the technical parameters have been set in place. A first transitional period of adjustment will run until the 2014 Le Mans 24 Hours. During this period, the manufacturers will be asked to send data to the FIA (in December 2013 and February 2014) projecting what they will be capable of implementing during the 2014 Le Mans 24 Hours. During a second period, after the first three events following the 2014 Le Mans, the data will be measured again and adjusted for one year, until the 2015 Le Mans event. The EoT rules and system of penalties in case of infringement will be managed by the Endurance Committee.

The sporting regulations will be amended in order to incorporate any modifications resulting from the introduction of the new LMP1 technical regulations, such as a new scale of penalties in order to introduce penalties which are consistent and graded to the severity of the technical infringement.

Autosport also had some quotes from Beaumesnil:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/111764

ACO sporting manager Vincent Beaumesnil explained that the move was designed to ensure that the manufacturers - Audi, Toyota and Porsche - supply the correct information ahead of the start of the season.

"The will be no adjustment before Le Mans because if someone is shown by our measurements to have a brake specific consumption that is different from what has been declared previously, there will be a sanction," he said.

"There can be no possibility to cheat by giving incorrect figures before Silverstone, and because there is no adjustment between Spa and Le Mans, there can be no reason to sandbag in the first two races."

---

"I am pretty sure that we will not change anything, but if it is necessary, we will," Beaumesnil continued.

"We will go for 12 months without moving anything until after Le Mans the following year because we do not want to punish development — if someone makes progress in those 12 months, that is fine."

[Japanese Samurai]

EoT is not Equivalence of Technology.
EoT is End of Toyota. or Exclusion of Toyota.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by Japanese Samurai

EoT is not Equivalence of Technology.
EoT is End of Toyota. or Exclusion of Toyota.

Why do you say so ?