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

[cokata]

Originally Posted by PorscheFanNo1

I actually wan to see the weight increase by 50kg or so, means more room for hybrid technology!

No. I can guarantee you that if Porsche run without the hybrid system (-150kg or so) with the same fuel, they would be a lot quicker. Especially in corners they would probably match or even beat F1 cars.

[PorscheFanNo1]

Originally Posted by cokata

No. I can guarantee you that if Porsche run without the hybrid system (-150kg or so) with the same fuel, they would be a lot quicker. Especially in corners they would probably match or even beat F1 cars.

Thats not the point, more weight gives them more room for technincal inovation, just look at Nissan, that car is way overweight if they were to run their full spec as originally planned.

[cokata]

Originally Posted by PorscheFanNo1

Thats not the point, more weight gives them more room for technincal inovation, just look at Nissan, that car is way overweight if they were to run their full spec as originally planned.

When the whole spirit of the regulations is efficiency the worst thing you can do is increase the weight. They might as well run 2 stroke engines for their superior power/weight ratio.

[PorscheFanNo1]

not entitled to our own opinion here, are we

[cokata]

Originally Posted by PorscheFanNo1

not entitled to our own opinion here, are we

who said that?

[deggis]

I remember when the 2014 regs were only in planning phase a lot lower weight limit was the plan, but then it seemed to gradually increase. When they intend to slow the cars down, lowering weight isn't the thing to do now.

Which P1 is the lightest and how much underweight i.e. how much running ballast?

[cokata]

Originally Posted by deggis

I remember when the 2014 regs were only in planning phase a lot lower weight limit was the plan, but then it seemed to gradually increase. When they intend to slow the cars down, lowering weight isn't the thing to do now.

Which P1 is the lightest and how much underweight i.e. how much running ballast?

Probably Toyota. Just a guess though, there is now way of knowing that.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by cokata

Probably Toyota. Just a guess though, there is now way of knowing that.

Yeah, it was not a real question per se but a thought.

[insane014]

Le Mans and rest of WEC races are still technologically disjointed.

If Le Mans is the priority then its obvious that rules should cater it but what happens when competition grows to 10 or 12 races? LM race wont have much impact on the championship unless they increase the awarding points and simply say "rest of the races don't really matter that much" which is not going to be good or LM race would be the matter of prestige while wining the championship is as important. Question is are they using a championship as a prologue and epilogue to LM race or it really matters something? If it matters then LM cant overtake the rules and harm the rest of the races.

As the time goes by I cant help but feel that ACO/FIA got lucky for gaining traction with WEC and just like with F1 they will go over their had to over-regulate it from year to year and eventually ruin it for everybody. LMP2 is a perfect example of something like that, they have no clue what it should be and where it should go.

In my opinion all classes need to be closer to each other in the race, sure there has to be a separation in speed but gaps we have today are way too big. LMP2 should have a chance to hang on with LMP1 cars if LMP1 driver makes a mistake or has a unscheduled visit to a garage. Allowing SGT or DTM cars to race as GTP would be a nice bridge between LMP and GT gap but at the end of the day maybe GTE/GT3 should have a separate 24h race at LM that starts on Friday and ends on Saturday as LMPs and GTPs take over the grid. That way we can have a production car win Le Mans again, it would be a great marketing tool for manufacturers.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by insane014

If Le Mans is the priority then its obvious that rules should cater it but what happens when competition grows to 10 or 12 races?

I think WEC is pretty from from expanding the calendar that much. Heck, even in the haydays of WSPC it was never that many races.

maybe GTE/GT3 should have a separate 24h race at LM that starts on Friday and ends on Saturday as LMPs and GTPs take over the grid. That way we can have a production car win Le Mans again, it would be a great marketing tool for manufacturers.

Except that it wouldn't be the Le Mans. Not to mention the problems of arranging two races in a row. But at least that's an original idea.

[GT3.14]

On RLM the other day they were discussing that perhaps the new P2 regs are designed so the spec engine could be restricted to the point the spec P2 cars are behind the GTP cars which are going to supposedly be much faster than GTE cars.

This way works GT efforts would be finishing in the top ten instead of perhaps the top twenty. The first half of the grid would be works prototype and GTs and the back half would be privateer spec P2s and GTs. I think their theory makes sense and could very well be what the ACO is trying to do.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by GT3.14

On RLM the other day they were discussing

Was that before yesterday and the P2 details? They plan to up engine power and plan to make P2s faster by 3-4 seconds. So no way they're going to be slower than GTs.

The new rules for LMP2 that will come into force a year later are expected to result in a reduction of lap times at Le Mans by four seconds.

The ACO and the FIA have revealed that the new breed of LMP2 cars to be powered by a one-make engine that will have 600bhp compared with 450bhp at present.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/119419

[GT3.14]

Originally Posted by deggis

Was that before yesterday and the P2 details? They plan to up engine power and plan to make P2s faster by 3-4 seconds. So no way they're going to be slower than GTs.

I believe so, they were doing the pit walk during the press conference if I am not mistaken.

[deggis]

Ninjaedit: found the quotes and link if you didn't notice.

[Giba]

On the journey back from Le Mans, I was thinking about the chassis regs ( it was a long journey ) and thought that the size of the cockpit should be increased so that a passenger could be fitted in again.

Most cars on the road are designed to include passengers and although it would slow the cars down and would require completely new regs (and so will not happen in the near future), I think it would be the right direction for the sport to go in

[deggis]

Originally Posted by Giba

On the journey back from Le Mans, I was thinking about the chassis regs ( it was a long journey ) and thought that the size of the cockpit should be increased so that a passenger could be fitted in again.

Most cars on the road are designed to include passengers and although it would slow the cars down and would require completely new regs (and so will not happen in the near future), I think it would be the right direction for the sport to go in

Sounds... pointless? And if you didn't know:

It must be possible to fit symmetrically about the vertical plane passing through the longitudinal centreline of the car two seats of equal shape and size excluding the shoulder supports and/or the mandatory protections mentioned in Articles 17.6 and 18.3.1

That has been in the rules forever. That probably means some kind of a standard size seat mold and in reality in place of the seat there are electronics and batteries. I'm fine as long as the driver does not sit in the center (to preserve the historical "two-seater" thing), having an actual seat there would have no relevance to real road cars in any way.

Peugeot proved it is also possible in reality (I bet this screwed up weight balance):

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by deggis

Sounds... pointless? And if you didn't know:

It must be possible to fit symmetrically about the vertical plane passing through the longitudinal centreline of the car two seats of equal shape and size excluding the shoulder supports and/or the mandatory protections mentioned in Articles 17.6 and 18.3.1

That has been in the rules forever. That probably means some kind of a standard size seat mold and in reality in place of the seat there are electronics and batteries. I'm fine as long as the driver does not sit in the center (to preserve the historical "two-seater" thing), having an actual seat there would have no relevance to real road cars in any way.

Peugeot proved it is also possible in reality (I bet this screwed up weight balance):

One does not equal the other. Having room to theoretically plant a second posterior into the tub does not equate to actually having room for a passenger to be in the car while under race conditions.






L.P.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

One does not equal the other. Having room to theoretically plant a second posterior into the tub does not equate to actually having room for a passenger to be in the car while under race conditions.

What do you think I was trying to say then? The rule proposal would change little unless the rule says you have to place a co-driver in the car at all times as teams would still circumvent the rule in all possible ways.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Giba

On the journey back from Le Mans, I was thinking about the chassis regs ( it was a long journey ) and thought that the size of the cockpit should be increased so that a passenger could be fitted in again.

Most cars on the road are designed to include passengers and although it would slow the cars down and would require completely new regs (and so will not happen in the near future), I think it would be the right direction for the sport to go in

Originally Posted by deggis

What do you think I was trying to say then? The rule proposal would change little unless the rule says you have to place a co-driver in the car at all times as teams would still circumvent the rule in all possible ways.

.








L.P.

[deggis]

This is getting into semantics but how is "could be fitted" same as "has to be fitted"?

Looks like a passenger could be fitted in the 908. And, didn't the 2014 regs only make the cockpits slightly higher and wider.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by deggis

This is getting into semantics but how is "could be fitted" same as "has to be fitted"?

Looks like a passenger could be fitted in the 908. And, didn't the 2014 regs only make the cockpits slightly higher and wider.

Semantics are not in play! He stated that he thought the rules need to be changed so that the cockpits get BIGGER in order to fit a passenger. RULE > BIGGER > PASSENGER, it is fairly linear in my mind.





L.P.

[TF110]

Theyre prototypes, not rally cars, a new 'passenger' rule would be silly imo. I never liked the wide cockpit look. Gives the cars weird proportions that appear like odd shaped GT's.

[Spyderman]

This is about F1, but what Mark Webber has to say about F1 should be listened to very carefully by the ACO before embarking on a regulatory orgy.
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/we...sappointing-f1

[Giba]

Interesting but everyone had there own opinions and that's what makes a forum interesting. Personally I like the wide cockpit look more and think that the cockpit size relative to the car should look more like the LMP3s

[Mal]

Originally Posted by DS"

Simonsen's fatal accident was down to bad luck and not really due to high speed or a difference between protos and GTs. The bad accidents between the GT and the LMP cars in the past years were also due to some GT drivers screwing up badly. So I for one would like to see the high speed being kept at Le Mans. I for one don't think that human achievements should be restricted and this should also apply at this highest level of racing technology. Or else WEC becomes just another circus like F1 is nowadays.

Whilst I agree with most of this - the result of the accident was not only bad luck, but bad circuit maintenance - there is no way that a deformable barrier should be fitted tight against rigid tree as it defeats the object of the barrier.