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

[deggis]

Was the fuel allocation per lap calculated from an average of 3 laps? I can't find it either from technical or sporting regs. Or maybe I just used wrong words (quick Ctrl+F method).

[TF110]

-10mj in fuel energy per lap at Le Mans? Mat Fernandez @Matlemans speaks of AutoHebdo reporting the drop of energy for next year.

[hondafan37]

Originally Posted by TF110

-10mj in fuel energy per lap at Le Mans? Mat Fernandez @Matlemans speaks of AutoHebdo reporting the drop of energy for next year.

How many Hp is this 10 mj? 40 or 50? Is this 2 or 3 seconds in LM?

[carbon_titanium]

Originally Posted by hondafan37

How many Hp is this 10 mj? 40 or 50? Is this 2 or 3 seconds in LM?

from 138MJ to 128MJ (for a petrol 8MJ lmp1) there is a loss of about 7.2%... I don't know if there will be the same % power loss, but if it is, 600hp will turn in 557hp. It's hard to predict how much seconds will be lost, because in 2015 surely there will be aero and ERS improvements; engines efficency somehow will improve too... a pole in 3.19 would be quite acceptable to me

[cokata]

Porsche way be able to actually retain the same ICE power. Since they are already capped to 8MJ class, they may do some improvements and rely less on the GU-H. Maybe also they can bump up the displacement to further improve the efficiency.

Audi will have a big loss of power though as they plan to step up to 6MJ. Toyota and Nissan will have a missive change for next year so it is hard to predict how they will end up.

[Damian Baldi]

The second seat, it was used for TV many times.

Toyota TS-010
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03osem8VRs

Nissan R90
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nXEFpjX2I0

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by carbon_titanium

from 138MJ to 128MJ (for a petrol 8MJ lmp1) there is a loss of about 7.2%... I don't know if there will be the same % power loss, but if it is, 600hp will turn in 557hp. It's hard to predict how much seconds will be lost, because in 2015 surely there will be aero and ERS improvements; engines efficency somehow will improve too... a pole in 3.19 would be quite acceptable to me

If they don't change minimal weights... 2 to 3 secs for first year(2016)... next year will be gained back again(2017)

Engines are going to be more complex.. and efficient.

I was expecting less fuel drop... around the ~4% (6MJ) and weight increase to 900 to 915 kg another ~4% ... those LMP are too fast in the corners, weight would cut them nicely... if there is no weight increase i see the same bias rational as ever, which is a pity, teams could use the extra weight for somethings very useful with the all hybrid systems

[deggis]

Increasing weight might have an adverse effect if is enough to make a difference between extracting more performance out of the ERS or not and weight increase might benefit different teams unevenly.

Since 2017 is supposed to be a new regs cycle, they can do bigger changes then but I'd really like as minimal changes as possible.

[carbon_titanium]

Originally Posted by deggis

Increasing weight might have an adverse effect if is enough to make a difference between extracting more performance out of the ERS or not and weight increase might benefit different teams unevenly.

Since 2017 is supposed to be a new regs cycle, they can do bigger changes then but I'd really like as minimal changes as possible.

agree... if a 2015 870kg audi/porsche was able to run in 3.17; a >900kg 2016 porsche/audi and hopefully toyota will keep on running at the same pace... more ballast = more possibilities to use heavier and more powerfull hybrid hardware

[TF110]

No indication they want to increase weight. The Mat Fernandez guy on twitter is quoting Auto Hebdo, so maybe someone can search through their publications.

[hcl123]

Since the 'astonishing' race lap record is with diesel... it might be that even the fuel allocation reduction will be minimal, negligible really, less than 2% perhaps... they can take care of those pesky 'trucks' in the BOP/ETOs, and leave a change enough for possible gains allowing the *old* traditional (obsolete really) take home everything (nostalgia is a sort of disease lol )

This rules and this championship as spurred the advance of advanced engine combustion chamber coatings and combustion chamber designs... and injection systems are better and more precise than ever... i think if there wouldn't be any rule change, next year we could reach at LM the most talked about 3:15, but as in race lap... problem being how ppl at those decision levels would react if its a truck again...

If there isn't weight increase then the will to alter rules is not much, and there are reasons for it... OTOH the scared security freaks might start to complain louder (the ones of the 3:30 LOL )

[hcl123]

Yet even 7.2% in fuel allocation might not be enough for slowing down the cars, specially diesel..

This is significant (better coatings)
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015...50611-tac.html

If those numbers are truth... they reached on the test car for 'electric compressor' (e-supercharger, which most probably is going for next year WEC, since they are already in for the Passat I4 2L diesel 236hp http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014...1-vw.html#more http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014...04-passat.html ) >12% in power... most probably almost all out of efficiency gains (~same amount of fuel)

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015...chsenring.html

Then perhaps even with less 8% fuel allocation (BOP/ETOs), and less 2,5% fuel allocation derived from jumping to 6MJ class... it will be possible to have a tiny bit more TOP power than in 2015 by the engine part (perhaps a 12% efficiency gain-> 1,5% more engine power)... and have the 6MJ of electric power( 50% more power)...

Don't know, its speculation... but i feel since the ERS-H (an electro-turbo ala F1) that was to be in 2014 and then wasn’t, that something significant is cooking... news from VAG show great gains in power and efficiency for most of diesel versions... Audi has been too conservative (Dr. Ullrich style), its used to be the contrary, a *new* tech is first tested and developed in motorsports and then apllied to road cars, but in case of 'electric compressor' i think the Passat will have it first.

Then those ~7.5% less fuel allocation as in that article, if its the only thing that goes, wont be enough to slow down Audi for 2016.

[ Volkswagen suggested that “an intelligent advanced development” of this TDI might take the following form: the power of the two-liter engine could be increased to 200 kW / 272 PS by the use of a variable valve train, further optimized gas exchange cycles and an electric booster. (This would result in power density of 136 PS/liter (134 hp/liter).) ...

in motorsport usually the hp/liter is way more than double of official road cars(without post-market tuning)... at least for petrol it has been so... in these new developments it takes a bit less than double the hp/liter of that pushed Passat TDI, for the WEC V6 to have 1000hp(only i don't think possible with the present fuel allocations)]

[MyNameIsNigel]

Any word on the new EoT that is supposed to be revised post LM ? Are the FIA-ACO actually going to wait until the end of the year before revising the fuel allocation figures ?

[Deleted]

IIRC last year they came out (or rather were made public) on week 30, so they probably come out in few days if they are to come. Manufacturers should have the data already in bank

The chances of not touching anything are surely pretty dim. I also don't think they are allowed to mess around too much (other than the privateers + little touches) afterwards

[deggis]

Latest regs are dated 10.07.2015 and published 14.07.2015, but the appendix B table has not changed (the red color means March changes).

http://www.fia.com/regulations/regul...ampionship-118

[Deleted]

http://www.fia.com/file/31787/download?token=bTkf8fwq
http://www.fia.com/file/31788/download?token=r0pszO-u

[deggis]

Why are the non-ERS values in the Nurburging table different between those two docs? Or what part I don't get? Were the first released ones wrong (genuine mistake)?

Quickly looking at the values, not huge changes but looks like higher classes of petrol are hurt while diesel gains a little.

/ninjaedit

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by deggis

Why is the Nurburging table different between those two? Or what part I don't get?

Quickly looking at the values, not huge changes but looks like diesel gains little while petrol looses little.

One tiny thing I noticed there: a 10 MJ subclass is scheduled to be introduced next year, but if I understand correctly, it's not included in the document because the figures are not finalized and the document only covers the rest of the 2015 season.

Initially I thought the minimum weight was also pushed up by 20 kg for the rest of the season, but looking back through old regulation documents I may have remembered wrongly.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by deggis

Why are the non-ERS values in the Nurburging table different between those two docs? Or what part I don't get? Were the first released ones wrong (genuine mistake)?

The only thing that gets changed in the race-specific ERS documents is the non-hybrid. I suspect for the 15-D0030-LMP1 they had to write in some specs for the 0ERS class beforehand that are somewhat in line with the actual regulations (even the petrol capacity is the same as with hybrids), but they and we all know in advance that none of those specs are actually gonna be used for the class, since it is bopped separately against the hybrids on race by race basis. So while no mistake, it's still irrelevant table row.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by Victor_RO

One tiny thing I noticed there: a 10 MJ subclass is scheduled to be introduced next year, but if I understand correctly, it's not included in the document because the figures are not finalized and the document only covers the rest of the 2015 season.

Initially I thought the minimum weight was also pushed up by 20 kg for the rest of the season, but looking back through old regulation documents I may have remembered wrongly.

The first document says the 2016 10mj/lap reduction (at Le Mans) is not included. Not seeing anything about a 10mj class. Could you point it out?

[deggis]

We are talking about the same part. I also wondered about that "reduction" wording...

please find on the pages below the updated basic Appendix B to be included in the 2016 LMP1 Technical Regulations (without reduction of 10MJ/lap scheduled in 2016 at this stage):

So does this basically confirm these values will not be in effect for a full year (should be the same percentual reduction to all values so balance wise shoudn't make any difference)

[MyNameIsNigel]

A quick comparison between the 2014 EoT and 2015 EoT fuel allocation figures highlights interesting patterns:

Petrol

ERS class	2014 EoT	2015 EoT	Difference
<2 MJ/lap	147.0 MJ/lap	146.3 MJ/lap	-0.7 MJ/lap
<4 MJ/lap	143.3 MJ/lap	141.7 MJ/lap	-1.6 MJ/lap
<6 MJ/lap	139.5 MJ/lap	137.2 MJ/lap	-2.3 MJ/lap
<8 MJ/lap	138.0 MJ/lap	134.9 MJ/lap	-3.1 MJ/lap

Diesel

ERS class	2014 EoT	2015 EoT	Difference
<2 MJ/lap	138.3 MJ/lap	139.6 MJ/lap	+1.3 MJ/lap
<4 MJ/lap	134.8 MJ/lap	135.4 MJ/lap	+0.6 MJ/lap
<6 MJ/lap	131.3 MJ/lap	131.2 MJ/lap	-0.1 MJ/lap
<8 MJ/lap	128.1 MJ/lap	126.3 MJ/lap	-1.8 MJ/lap

It seems that the adjustments of the max fuel flow figures follow a similar trend.

One can at least note the following:
1. These EoT adjustments look to be more in favor of diesel than petrol
2. The higher ERS classes are becoming less attractive compared to the 2014 EoT (i.e. the ERS incentive appears to have been adjusted)

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by deggis

Why are the non-ERS values in the Nurburging table different between those two docs? Or what part I don't get? Were the first released ones wrong (genuine mistake)?

As mentioned in document 15-D0030-LMP1, the values indicated for the "no ERS" class are subject to application of Article 17 of the Sporting Regulations, i.e. specific adjustments made with a view to reduce the gap between the privateers competing in that class and those competing in any of the 2-8 MJ/lap ERS classes.

The values indicated in document 15-D0031-LMP1 take into account those adjustments.

This adjustment mechanism is specific to the "no ERS" class and allows the ACO-FIA to make adjustments in that particular "privateer" class on a race-by-race basis, rather than only once a year.

[Deleted]

I think I already said that in post 3994 even if my word placements might get confusing looking sometimes.

But thanks for the 14-15 difference graph!

The diesel situation is interesting. And slightly buzzling. But it's not necessarily bad as technically speaking it is the more efficient of the two, and last few years with others going to petrol it has lost quite bit of it's 'edge', it shouldn't be totally drained.

[TF110]

Diesels dont need any help This adjustment seems illogical and rewards less hybrid power.