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

[cmk]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

The context was to address the yaw flip issue. There seems to be a school of thought that the plan area is the overriding factor, though I tend to completely disagree. There's a long history of cars with 9 m^2 plan area and the yaw flip thing is only a recent phenomenon. We only started to see these issues with the implementation of the heavily regulated underfloors while the total downforce numbers started to approach the GTP/Group C era.

I think this is what really gets me. Obviously, like any spectator with a developed aesthetic sense, I want to see cars that are visually appealing. That said, I will happily waive this for cars that are safer. What I can't abide is a bunch of measures to make cars safer which smack of poor assessment and modeling, or seem suspiciously like someone's just-so story hobby horse. If the rules are going to change, whether or not they make cars prettier or uglier, they need to change for a good reason. Otherwise it's just a lot of good money wasted drawing them up, and more good money wasted designing/re-designing cars for nothing.

[MitchZ06]

Why not just adopt this if the FIA wants to make sportscar racing 'openwheels'?

[gregtummer]

No more rules until 2014!

[cdsvg]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

The context was to address the yaw flip issue. There seems to be a school of thought that the plan area is the overriding factor, though I tend to completely disagree. There's a long history of cars with 9 m^2 plan area and the yaw flip thing is only a recent phenomenon. We only started to see these issues with the implementation of the heavily regulated underfloors while the total downforce numbers started to approach the GTP/Group C era.

Awesome! The solution, quite clearly, is full underbody tunnels. I have solved the problem.

As an aside, it really amazes me to hear that the total downforce numbers of the 08 LMP1s were approaching GTP levels with the bodywork regs as they were. I mean, where is the downforce produced? Front diffuser, floor + rear diffuser, and rear wing. How were they managing to get those sorts of DF levels with just those elements, when you look at the enormous tunnels and twin deck rear wings of the GTP cars?

EDIT: Mike, we need to get you into a role in the ACO/FIA LMP regs committee to bring some well-needed common sense

[lms]

Originally Posted by cdsvg

EDIT: Mike, we need to get you into a role in the ACO/FIA LMP regs committee to bring some well-needed common sense

amen to that

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by MitchZ06

Why not just adopt this if the FIA wants to make sportscar racing 'openwheels'?

Who designed this crap , Mattel or Lego and because , it has a face only a mother could possibily love !!!

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by cdsvg

Awesome! The solution, quite clearly, is full underbody tunnels.

Ive been saying that for years , bring back ground effects .

[MitchZ06]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Who designed this crap , Mattel or Lego and because , it has a face only a mother could possibily love !!!

Former McLaren staff....

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by MitchZ06

Former McLaren staff....

Yes, that's no less that Gordon Murray behind that thing. Goes to show; just because you're an excellent engineer doesn't mean you have an eye for aesthetics. Peter Stevens styled the McLaren after all.

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by MitchZ06

Former McLaren staff....

And thats why their former ..... designing utter crap like that !!!

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by cdsvg

Awesome! The solution, quite clearly, is full underbody tunnels. I have solved the problem.

As an aside, it really amazes me to hear that the total downforce numbers of the 08 LMP1s were approaching GTP levels with the bodywork regs as they were. I mean, where is the downforce produced? Front diffuser, floor + rear diffuser, and rear wing. How were they managing to get those sorts of DF levels with just those elements, when you look at the enormous tunnels and twin deck rear wings of the GTP cars?

EDIT: Mike, we need to get you into a role in the ACO/FIA LMP regs committee to bring some well-needed common sense

Figure Group C (thinking non-3.5 cars) was in the 7000-8000 lb DF region and I'm pretty certain current cars are heading towards 7000 if still in the 6000 total range. That's my guess. Dunno, maybe I'm a bit off. Figure 5:1 L/D in LM trim, 6:1 in high DF?

Don't know what is needed, but you hear intelligent people bark back what the direction is and you wonder, who's the person in the room saying, "wait a minute!" There just seems to be a lot of head nodding. I felt that way about the big honking fin. But I bet that came down to, "Well, come up with something better." And as a racer you just want to get one with it, thus we have big honking fins.

Though in fairness, none of us have the body of evidence, so it's VERY easy to sit back and criticize.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by AGD

How can we say this is going to happen for sure? Just because there will be more manufacturers involved? That does not mean anything. There may be more manufacturer involvement in NASCAR, F1, or the IRL next year than in ALMS P1, but I'd rather watch a two car privateer battle in the ALMS than a race in any of those other series even if I don't really like all of the ALMS' rules.

All you can do is put the pieces in place to give the sport the platform to race in the key markets of the world with a rule set that encourages manufactuers to spend, and spend big.

To do that you have to encourage the development of technology which is relevant to the road, racing purely for entertianment purposes is no longer a compelling reason for the bean counters, when these manufactuers day to day business is under threat unless they adapt.

In addition the sport has a strong privateer base throughout the ranks that didn't exist during during the height of Group C, as important the media landscape has seen a revolution, it won't be long before each team has some form of online video and social media coverage.

The likes of the ACO need to make strategic decisions that may not always be popular, one example is downsizing engines and encouraging hybrid technology. Le Mans consistently produces the most exciting cars, I think the upcoming models will go down with Can-Am and Group C as the best the sport has seen. By comparison I look at Indycar and GA and wonder why they think continuing with the same failed concepts is going to work second time around, their conservatism will be their undoing.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by JAG

All you can do is put the pieces in place to give the sport the platform to race in the key markets of the world with a rule set that encourages manufactuers to spend, and spend big.

To do that you have to encourage the development of technology which is relevant to the road, racing purely for entertianment purposes is no longer a compelling reason for the bean counters, when these manufactuers day to day business is under threat unless they adapt.

In addition the sport has a strong privateer base throughout the ranks that didn't exist during during the height of Group C, as important the media landscape has seen a revolution, it won't be long before each team has some form of online video and social media coverage.

The likes of the ACO need to make strategic decisions that may not always be popular, one example is downsizing engines and encouraging hybrid technology. Le Mans consistently produces the most exciting cars, I think the upcoming models will go down with Can-Am and Group C as the best the sport has seen. By comparison I look at Indycar and GA and wonder why they think continuing with the same failed concepts is going to work second time around, their conservatism will be their undoing.

I don't disagree with anything you're saying except for the part I bolded. Car companies are racing today (for the most part) for entertainment purposes. Maybe that isn't the best definition, but they aren't doing it to improve their road cars. The Big 3 pour money into NASCAR. Where's the road benefit? Indycar is going to have 3 manufacturers next year and I'm sure Honda at the very least will spend a few bucks developing their engines. Where is the road benefit? F1. We know how much that costs. Maybe there is a little road relevance in terms of engine technology, but that connection may be tenuous at best.

The point is that car companies have no problem pouring money into racing purely for advertising purposes. And by advertising it seems like they are trying to sell a "lifestyle" and not any form of automotive technology or anything that has relevance to the cars themselves.

Sports car racing has the opportunity to provide a difference here. Car companies can build hybrid systems (for example) and show off their technology and display how it compares to others. That would be great and I think a lot of us are hopeful for that, but this won't happen if the rules don't allow for it. If they balance the technology, well, so much for using racing as a competitive yardstick. The car companies may or may not like that on the basis that they may never lose badly, but they may never win big either. It's hard to say.

Then there are the "safety" rules. I think if you combine crappy "competitive balance" rules that stifle true competition with ugly Swiss cheese DPs, well, you're going to lose that hardcore audience that makes this form of racing different than NASCAR, F1, 0.1ndycar, and any other number of series.

We've all heard about the KISS principle before. Keep It Simple, Stupid. We know about that and I think the FIA and ACO should follow that when making the rulebook. Second, as far as picking a marketing direction, I say IACS. It's About the Cars, Stupid. Who watches this form of racing mainly for the championships and pomp? Who watches to see races in glitzy places around the world? Who watches to see mega close door-to-door racing? It's nice if it happens, but I doubt that is what gives people sports car racing fever. It's about the cars. Period! Stop making them have the personality of a Toyota Corolla with "speed holes."

[cdsvg]

^^^

I totally agree with all of this.

Its not about improving the breed or being a 'rolling laboratory' as the marketing speak would have us believe. its about advertising. Or, to put it in a less cynical way, its about showcasing what *already* exists in a manufacturer's road cars.

Originally Posted by AGD

We've all heard about the KISS principle before. Keep It Simple, Stupid. We know about that and I think the FIA and ACO should follow that when making the rulebook. Second, as far as picking a marketing direction, I say IACS. It's About the Cars, Stupid. Who watches this form of racing mainly for the championships and pomp? Who watches to see races in glitzy places around the world? Who watches to see mega close door-to-door racing? It's nice if it happens, but I doubt that is what gives people sports car racing fever. It's about the cars. Period! Stop making them have the personality of a Toyota Corolla with "speed holes."

Please somebody send this paragraph of text to the ACO! It is (in my view) vitally important that the cars are visually interesting and varied. That is what brings in eyeballs. Hypothetically, a series using a spec chassis, even if it had wildly liberal drivetrain rules, would just not work, IMO.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by AGD

Sports car racing has the opportunity to provide a difference here. Car companies can build hybrid systems (for example) and show off their technology and display how it compares to others.

Why building efficient combustion engines and showing them off on the race track is so different from this? Otherwise I agree (about racing being mostly advertising), I find this part contradictory because the fundamental difference between race and road use is not going to go away. Perhaps a racing "KERS" is not as distanced from road car usage as a racing combustion engine is from a road car engine, but the direct connection is still weak.

A large manufacturer's combined R&D budget must be in... billions? Racing is a drop in the ocean. Maybe it's slightly different situation for small exclusively sportscar manufacturers, but then again how efficiently a Ferrari accelerates is not relevant for most normal people.

If anything the "breeding" seems to go now the other way around: Audi's LED lights (lol), diesels engines weren't exactly invented at La Sarthe either and certain kind of energy recovery systems are already somewhat proven technology.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by deggis

Why building efficient combustion engines and showing them off on the race track is so different from this? Otherwise I agree (about racing being mostly advertising), I find this part contradictory because the fundamental difference between race and road use is not going to go away. Perhaps a racing "KERS" is not as distanced from road car usage as a racing combustion engine is from a road car engine, but the direct connection is still weak.

A large manufacturer's combined R&D budget must be in... billions? Racing is a drop in the ocean. Maybe it's slightly different situation for small exclusively sportscar manufacturers, but then again how efficiently a Ferrari accelerates is not relevant for most normal people.

If anything the "breeding" seems to go now the other way around: Audi's LED lights (lol), diesels engines weren't exactly invented at La Sarthe either and certain kind of energy recovery systems are already somewhat proven technology.

But i'm certain that there is happening a lot of refinement of technologies in Racing.
Just think of how much stress you put a technology under in racing it flat out in 24 hours. To make it last that you develop it, and under this development you could find ways to make the system work better when put in mass production.

Disc Brakes, direct injection and lightweight four wheel drive are good examples of racing refining technologies for the masses.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by deggis

Why building efficient combustion engines and showing them off on the race track is so different from this? Otherwise I agree (about racing being mostly advertising), I find this part contradictory because the fundamental difference between race and road use is not going to go away. Perhaps a racing "KERS" is not as distanced from road car usage as a racing combustion engine is from a road car engine, but the direct connection is still weak.

A large manufacturer's combined R&D budget must be in... billions? Racing is a drop in the ocean. Maybe it's slightly different situation for small exclusively sportscar manufacturers, but then again how efficiently a Ferrari accelerates is not relevant for most normal people.

If anything the "breeding" seems to go now the other way around: Audi's LED lights (lol), diesels engines weren't exactly invented at La Sarthe either and certain kind of energy recovery systems are already somewhat proven technology.

It's not so much about inventing something in the race shop and then putting it on the street cars. It's about a company centering themselves around a particular technology (lets say electric hybrids for example) and then showing off that technology by realistically comparing it with other similar forms of technology (Flybrid, etc.). I'm using the hybrid example as it is relevant today and it is one area where manufacturers are diverging. So let's see what these things can do under very demanding terms. I would think that the public, particularly the automotive followers, would be interested in the results. From the manufacturers perspective, it helps prove that various hyrbid technologies aren't just something for econoboxes and commercial vans and such. It also may show the durability of the technology even if the application is far different from street car applications. The end result is that it could proliferate the use of hybrids as consumers may want them and want them in a wide array of applications (econoboxes and performance cars) when they were skeptical before. I think diesels benefit from racing in the same manner. Most other forms of racing can't do this for automakers. How is NASCAR and the IRL helping prove technology for GM? So on and so forth.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by AGD

It's not so much about inventing something in the race shop and then putting it on the street cars. It's about a company centering themselves around a particular technology (lets say electric hybrids for example) and then showing off that technology by realistically comparing it with other similar forms of technology (Flybrid, etc.). I'm using the hybrid example as it is relevant today and it is one area where manufacturers are diverging. So let's see what these things can do under very demanding terms. I would think that the public, particularly the automotive followers, would be interested in the results.

I understood this, but I was asking what makes this so different to showing off non-hybrid tech.

From the manufacturers perspective, it helps prove that various hyrbid technologies aren't just something for econoboxes and commercial vans and such. It also may show the durability of the technology even if the application is far different from street car applications. The end result is that it could proliferate the use of hybrids as consumers may want them and want them in a wide array of applications (econoboxes and performance cars) when they were skeptical before. I think diesels benefit from racing in the same manner.

Yeah, but this effects R&D indirectly at best.

Most other forms of racing can't do this for automakers. How is NASCAR and the IRL helping prove technology for GM? So on and so forth.

Nascar obviously very little, but funny that you use GM in IRL as an example and at the same apparently want to ignore the fact that they're going to use low-boost V6 engines or what makes these engines suddenly not "road relevant"? The new IRL regs do not force the engine configuration per se.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by deggis

I understood this, but I was asking what makes this so different to showing off non-hybrid tech.

It depends on what non-hybrid technology you are talking about. Some technology grabs attention and some don't. Of the ones that do, not all have any sort of road application. Some aero bits would fall in that category, but direct injection and some transmission technology do have some visibility and road relevance. Anyway, if the rules promote stagnant or stereotypical technology, there is going to be very little to show off anyway.

Nascar obviously very little, but funny that you use GM in IRL as an example and at the same apparently want to ignore the fact that they're going to use low-boost V6 engines or what makes these engines suddenly not "road relevant"? The new IRL regs do not force the engine configuration per se.

I can't say that I have followed the new IRL engine specs that closely, but is there anything very revolutionary about what they are doing? Smaller turbo engines do have road relevance with GM's road car strategy, but c'mon, Turbo Offenhausers 4 bangers were running and winning eons ago at Indy. Ok, those weren't always low boost engines, but what is that going to prove. Is GM Ilmor doing anything significantly different from Honda and Judd? There may be something worth discussing if they are, but I'm not sure.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by AGD

I can't say that I have followed the new IRL engine specs that closely, but is there anything very revolutionary about what they are doing? Smaller turbo engines do have road relevance with GM's road car strategy, but c'mon, Turbo Offenhausers 4 bangers were running and winning eons ago at Indy. Ok, those weren't always low boost engines, but what is that going to prove. Is GM Ilmor doing anything significantly different from Honda and Judd? There may be something worth discussing if they are, but I'm not sure.

With that logic Audi is doing nothing significantly different from Peugoet with diesel engines...

[JAG]

I totally agree with all of this.

Its not about improving the breed or being a 'rolling laboratory' as the marketing speak would have us believe. its about advertising. Or, to put it in a less cynical way, its about showcasing what *already* exists in a manufacturer's road cars.

That was the case, and still plays a large part, but hybrid technology in current road cars is little more than a marketing gimmick/tax avoidance tactic. Manufactuers need to make huge strides to make such systems more efficient, lighter, smaller and cheaper, for the first time in decades motorsport can play a part increasing the pace of development to help real world motoring.

Please somebody send this paragraph of text to the ACO! It is (in my view) vitally important that the cars are visually interesting and varied. That is what brings in eyeballs. Hypothetically, a series using a spec chassis, even if it had wildly liberal drivetrain rules, would just not work, IMO.

Supercars race each weekend in the UK with one man and his dog watching, uninspiring family cars in the BTCC draw the crowds. It's manufactuers and sponsors who draw the eyeballs, or rather tell people what they should be watching. Bring manufactuers to sportscars and you'll attract more media and fan interest.

I would say you don't draft regs to purposefully produce great looking cars, GA tried such things and ended up in all sorts of trouble. Give manufactuers a free hand within the basic dimensions and they'll produce great looking cars.............and the occasional dog.

[lms]

Originally Posted by cdsvg

Please somebody send this paragraph of text to the ACO! It is (in my view) vitally important that the cars are visually interesting and varied. That is what brings in eyeballs. Hypothetically, a series using a spec chassis, even if it had wildly liberal drivetrain rules, would just not work, IMO.

that.
this may be total bs, but I dont understand a few things: do we know who came up with those crazy ideas? Namely, reducing the size of the cars. It doesnt sound like the ACO would come up with such an idea, and judging from Mike's tweets it just sounded like the ACO is actually developing the new rules (for 2014) TOGETHER with the FIA, is that correct? IF thats the case i do not understand why the hell would it happen that way, I mean I thought that Le Mans, LMS etc rules were created by the ACO or whoever and not by the FIA is that correct? Then, I ask why on earth would they let the FIA guys have any part of rule creation, which is not their job (lot of "head nodding" what does it mean exactly). Who is in charge there?

Also: relatively stable rules for several years might be important for smaller teams so they dont have to design a brand new car every 2 years. IMHO the ACO should focus on how to bring in more manufacturers to lmp1 and more contructors to lmp2 (vdev chassis manufacturers for example)

[JAG]

Originally Posted by lms

that.
this may be total bs, but I dont understand a few things: do we know who came up with those crazy ideas? Namely, reducing the size of the cars. It doesnt sound like the ACO would come up with such an idea, and judging from Mike's tweets it just sounded like the ACO is actually developing the new rules (for 2014) TOGETHER with the FIA, is that correct? IF thats the case i do not understand why the hell would it happen that way, I mean I thought that Le Mans, LMS etc rules were created by the ACO or whoever and not by the FIA is that correct? Then, I ask why on earth would they let the FIA guys have any part of rule creation, which is not their job (lot of "head nodding" what the hell is that). Who is in charge there?

Also: relatively stable rules for several years might be important for smaller teams so they dont have to design a brand new car every 2 years. IMHO the ACO should focus on how to bring in more manufacturers to lmp1 and more contructors to lmp2 (vdev chassis manufacturers for example)

The FIA have been working with the ACO on safety for the last decade or two.

Silly rules like the fin quite possibly stopped McNish's R18 flying into a packed grandstand and Rockenfella's car spearing into a forest, an all new chassis may negate the need for a fin at all. As for a smaller floorpan, todays cars are smaller than the longtails of the late '90, in fact the smallest sportscars are probably the 3.5 Group C 's, wheels at each corner with a huge wing.

As for stability, the R10 debuted in 2005, Audi built three new cars for the last set of regs, Peugeot got by with one. In P2 the new cars have run for one season, they have another four years stability before major changes.

[lms]

Originally Posted by JAG

The FIA have been working with the ACO on safety for the last decade or two.

the aerodynamics/car dimensions too? I thought that various safety structures must be FIA approved, and thats where the FIA "involvment" ends (rules regarding the "survival cell" for instance - from the 2010 LMS rulebook)

[deggis]

I think ACO basically asked for FIA's help after/in 2008 (due the numerous flying cars). Much bigger resources and knowledge etc.