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

[dj choc ice]

[QUOTE=Splendid Cat;2731584][QUOTE=hcl123;2731493].., not noise (absurd)...

The most astonishing post i've ever read on this forum.

x1000000

I've simply given up with him/her purely on the premise that he/she is so unbelieveably wrong that it hurts.

Back on topic though,

dj4monie in some respect is right but there were multiple blow-overs/flips in 2008. Motorsport is dangerous as well all know but not all accidents can be prevented. What I will never forget is when Hideki Noda flipped the KSM Lola at LM. I was watching it live on t'internet and when his head slumped to one side I felt sick and though I was about to see the death of a racing driver. It was a horrible feeling and one I would'nt like to experience again.

I suppose there is also the thought's of 1955 playing on the mind of the ACO as well, imagine if a car flipped and went into the crowd. In this age of health and safety Le Mans would almost certainly be facing the axe.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by dj choc ice

You could not be more wrong in this statement if you even tried. I took a group of friends to a British GT race and another group of friends to the FIA GT1. All of them had never been to a race before and they all remarked and were amazed by one thing more than anything. The noise. The casual fan is 9 times out of 10 not going to give a monkeys about engineering and technology.

They want to be entertained, they want to be amazed and dazzled in the metaphorical sense of the word. Noisy spectacular cars give that. My brother came with to the 2007 Silverstone 1000km and he is a massive car geek. He liked the technical side of things but he said that the Peugeot's were dull as ditch water. In his words "Technically it's f*cking awesome, but it makes no noise and is horribly boring." The car he remarked upon the most were the Aston Martin DBR9's and Pescarolos. You know, those loud, boring and un necessary cars which no one likes.

IMO sound and variety are important not noise.

There really is nothing more tedious than two dozen ear splitting F1 cars or droning S2000 touring cars.

From my point of view the diesels would be missed as they are now part of the furniture.

Likewise I'm sure future hybrid and all electric cars running at 15k-20krpm and sounding like low flying jets will be a welcome addition.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

I realize that trying to argue with a green demagogue such as yourself is pretty pointless, but.... just who do you think has the capacity to make your "diesel from other sources" and more importantly, who do you think has the infrastructure to be able to deliver that diesel to the end consumer in an efficient manner? Jeez!

Jeez they are doing it everywhere... not now but from a long time ago, coal to liquids, fisher tropcsh processes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer...ropsch_process are older than your granpa... now they do it on natural gas and any other sources of methane(animal drops plant decomposition), biomass, municipal trash as feed stock, plastics, rubber, algae, all kind of greases and waxes etc... get informed... don't call your own ignorance "green demagogue"... educate.

[Spyderman]

I guess your lack of comprehension of what I wrote only reflects your immaturity, demagoguery and ignorance.
I don't have any further time to waste.

[TRuss]

Quiting is losing.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by TRuss

Quiting is losing.

Quitting is a change in Priorities.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

I guess your lack of comprehension of what I wrote only reflects your immaturity, demagoguery and ignorance.
I don't have any further time to waste.

good!... and peace... insulting doesn't make anyone right.

[gucom]

my 2 cents in this discussion:
-for purists, technology is probably a more important draw than noise. for people who aren't familiar with the sport, you're gonna need some spectacle to draw them (and, as we all know, many people get hooked for life and become more knowledgeable), so noise would be good to draw new crowds
-I don't think the major oil companies have much to fear from a change to diesel; besides, they have a habit of buying up small innovative companies that invent new ways of producing fuel (either to take over the tech, or kill it I don't know)

-disregarding some1 personally (green demagogue, giving up on some1 etc) is hardly winning an argument. that's not to say his arguments are always well thought out or presented, but at least support your case with reasoning

-im gonna try and make my next post a bit more on-topic than this1

[Spyderman]

You can not argue with some one that neither understands or wants to comprehend what you are trying to say.
Like you, I also know that oil companies are the only ones that posses the capacity(not to be confused with know-how) to produce the quantities needed for a major shift in fuel from different sources (see case of Sasol in South Africa).
Furthermore, they also have the necessary infrastructure to deliver the product to the end consumer.
Now , if you can't understand that, then there is no point on continuing the discussion adnuseum.

[HORNDAWG]

Then discuss the rules and not a/many constant tangent(s) of BS! Enough already!!!!








L.P.

[hcl123]

But i was, the BS is not mine...

Lets repeat
In this era of hybride system explosion, and with constructors making more and more multi-fuel engines... according to mission statement i purpose;

* An endurance race like the Le Mans 24 Hours must enable entrants to test new technologies.
* The focus of the Le Mans 24 Hours must be aimed even more strongly towards both the reduction of CO2 emissions and fuel consumption.

Let it be at full extent.

HYBRID SYSTEMS
Change rules
* Maximum quantity of energy released between two braking phases: 500 kJ.

* Energy storing: electrical or mechanical systems... OR HYDRAULIC PRESSURE

* Energy recovery systems using brakes COULD (must not=wrong) be active in curves (driver aids banned)... (braking by itself is not driver aid- ABS, stability control, differential control, traction control... are)

* ENERGY RECOVERY IS FREE, UP TO THE MAX STORING CAPACITY OF 500Kj for 1 or the several ways altogether elect. mechan. hydraul.

FUEL ADDITIVES

* Fuel additives are permitted, in a mixture and or micro-emulsion with the fuel, or as a separated substance directly injected in the engine, as long as the fuel mixture or emulsion, doesn't exceed the energetic content stipulated that is the base for the differentiation in fuel tank capacity.

( rule enforced by testing fuel tank content, and or additive tank content)
And is to suspect that "race fuel" may already have it in large extent, because they are carefully engineered... so this rule only makes things much more fair.

In this era of "downsizing", in which many more super/turbocharged engines may very well appear, "water" additive as a fuel emulsion or "injected" directly into cylinders could be an effective way to augment the thermodynamic efficiency of petrol engines, by permitting much higher "compression rates" without adverse effects of self-detonation.

ADDITIONAL

* Weight of the car and engine air restrictors, determined by category and engine volumetric spec, not by the kind of fuel used.

because its to be expected "compression combustion ignition" gasoline engines... as well as plasma or glow or spark controlled diesel engines (as it is... a completely absurd discrimination, making suspect of distorted undue influences )

[hcl123]

Amendements:

* Maximum quantity of energy released between two braking phases: 1000 kJ.
(the equivalent of 135HP for 10 seconds)

* ENERGY RECOVERY IS FREE, UP TO THE MAX STORING CAPACITY OF 50Kw/h for 1 or the several ways altogether elect. mechan. hydraul.
(bet that due to the weight of batteries, that electric method would not be the preferential hybrid method, if ever the only one... batteries packs under 250Kg and 25Kw/h)

* Batteries packs only allowed to be replaced twice in a 24h race, and only "inside" the box

* Weight of the car and engine air restrictors, determined by category and engine volumetric spec, not by the kind of fuel used.
( minimal weight for a LMP1 975Kg, independent of the fuel type = slower on straights and curves/corners,i.e, saver = ... air restrictors the same, varying according to super/turbo charging but not the fuel type).

[arakis]

am i reading the 2010 regulations right, d the diesels in peugeut and audi get 37.5mm restrictors and the 4l judd gets 34.7. if so I a serusly doupt that it would be fair to give restrictors based SOLEY o the volume of the engine, because a petrol 3.4l engine will then get larger restrictors than the 3.7 turbocharged diesel. and that 3.4 liter petrol will have a huge power addvantige

I am of the oppinion the ACO have just made a huge mess of things for 2011.

the rules arenot set yet, there are way to many options for hybrid systems, and alowing 2010 racecars to run with the new ones will be a huge mess off performance balancing. tere are simply too many variables to make everything fair

[arakis]

@hcl123

I used to be pretty Eco friendly, i recycle, try to use less paper, etc,etc,etc!
but listening to your attempts to turn everyone into diesel fan boys has developed in me an irrational hatred toward all things diesel, and not only that but i am starting to hate all things Eco as well!

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by arakis

@hcl123

I used to be pretty Eco friendly, i recycle, try to use less paper, etc,etc,etc!
but listening to your attempts to turn everyone into diesel fan boys has developed in me an irrational hatred toward all things diesel, and not only that but i am starting to hate all things Eco as well!

???
I couldn't care less what type of fuel it is as long its more economical and efficient for the same performance envelope. Neither do/should constructors, they sell cars not fuel.

That bold statement guess gets it right all along... i'm not a fanboy, i'm detached of passions(try hard)... or truth is my only one... guess that doesn't make me a first class sport "afficionado"... you should try it sometime, its very liberating.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by arakis

am i reading the 2010 regulations right, d the diesels in peugeut and audi get 37.5mm restrictors and the 4l judd gets 34.7. if so I a serusly doupt that it would be fair to give restrictors based SOLEY o the volume of the engine, because a petrol 3.4l engine will then get larger restrictors than the 3.7 turbocharged diesel. and that 3.4 liter petrol will have a huge power addvantige

Let it be so... it would be interesting to find out. See!!.. i'm not all for diesel. Fuel shouldn't be the primary concern of rules... motorsport in the technical front sells "performance" not fuels.

Originally Posted by arakis

I am of the oppinion the ACO have just made a huge mess of things for 2011.

the rules arenot set yet, there are way to many options for hybrid systems, and alowing 2010 racecars to run with the new ones will be a huge mess off performance balancing. tere are simply too many variables to make everything fair

A mess i agree. And the principal missing is "hydraulic" power for hybrids. Electric is fine, but current battery packs are way too heavy. Hydraulic pressure tanks (carbon fiber ones that don't explode but jag apart on impact) could complement in a very efficient way, the superheavy weight, less efficient battery/ultracapacitor packs.

As to performance equilibrium, i believe that hybrids can bring that. If you start a race with 50Kw/h stored energy but with less 3/4 liter fuel tank, everything will be more balanced, if you're to free energy recuperation but limit energy release and storage. Smaller engines against bigger ones and petrol and or diesel will all be more equal, because additional 50Kw/h will be 50Kw/h for all without distinction, and release up to 1000Kj the same for all without distinctions.

The more the Hybrid potential, the more performance equilibrium. The "mess" seems to indicate that ACO is not very much interested in equilibrium... but something else!...

[dj choc ice]

Can a mod please clean this thread or do something about HCLs incessant waffling, it's starting to irritate not just myself but probably a lot of other people as well.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by dj choc ice

Can a mod please clean this thread or do something about HCLs incessant waffling, it's starting to irritate not just myself but probably a lot of other people as well.

I support this suggestion.

[arakis]

Originally Posted by CTD

I support this suggestion.

same here,

kill the tree hugger, just kidding, no offense intended

[Bentley03]

Originally Posted by andy_b

renders of Lola's LMP2 open car with the engine cover fin

http://www.microsofttranslator.com/B...ance-4864.html

does that mean the coupe is dead :(

Apparently not, Lola have today unveiled the coupe version - link - stating that new car will be available at the same price as the 2010 P2 coupe. I'm now very confused........should this car not be subject to the price cap? Or does this not qualify as a new car? Or have I fundamentally misunderstood something?

[Bentley03]

Originally Posted by Bentley03

Apparently not, Lola have today unveiled the coupe version - link - stating that new car will be available at the same price as the 2010 P2 coupe. I'm now very confused........should this car not be subject to the price cap? Or does this not qualify as a new car? Or have I fundamentally misunderstood something?

Incidentally, I HATE those mandatory fins.......ugly, ugly, ugly!

[LeMans.pt]

Originally Posted by Bentley03

Incidentally, I HATE those mandatory fins.......ugly, ugly, ugly!

ugly is a very kind word to describe it!

[Félix]

Originally Posted by Bentley03

I'm now very confused........should this car not be subject to the price cap? Or does this not qualify as a new car? Or have I fundamentally misunderstood something?

EI mentions a performance equalization process for such a car that's over the price cap in P2. Of course it could be run in P1 as is.

Confusing rules yeah, and since they don't seem to know what they want for now (because they discovered privateers do matter!), I'm not paying too much attention to the details as it will probably change yet again. Another interesting question will be how older chassis will be threated vs the 340'000 Euro cap: a 2008 Lola Coupé will be available for less than that and will be pretty much legal except for the fin and the engine mounting kit. I can see a few dozen used single chassis that could fall into that category and make financial sense, especially if Lola-Zytek-Pescarolo-Oreca officially reconditioned-recertified them.

[JAG]

Some news in Autosport today is Lotus will build an Evora GTE and then look at entering P2 followed by P1.

ORECA are building a P2 car to the £272k cost cap for a rolling chassis. It is based on the P1 tub and they reportedly have several customers already.

Aren't LMPC cars also based on the P1 tub so presumably they can be upgraded to full 2011 P2 spec.

Oak Racing are also looking to build a P2 car and believe they only need to sell three of four cars to meet the £272k target.

It looks like the P2 grid could be quite plentiful if LMPC teams upgrade and join the new cars.

The same goes for P1 as the new cars from Audi, Peugeot and Aston Martin will be joined by the regular P1 privateers and those steeping up from P2.

[Speed-King]

EI mentions a performance equalization process for such a car that's over the price cap in P2.

So there is a price cap, but the organizers offer the teams ways to get around it??