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

[gwyllion]

In his column in the latest RCE edition, Andrew Cotton discusses the 2014 rules: http://be.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue...t&prev=si&p=98

The whole plan of an energy allocation for the race appears to be abolished

Audi originally wanted a light weight car and hoped for a minimium weight of 650 kg without a hybrid system. It would use a smaller engine with thermal energy recovery system.

The rule book that was circulated at Sebring is a lot less innovative: 850 kg minimum weight and 5.0 liter maximum displacement.

Coupes will become mandatory and performance will be restricted with a fuel flow meter (instead of air restrictors).

There will be three classes: one with 8 MJ hybrid system in which manufacturers have to compete, one at 4 MJ and one without hybrid system for privateers.

The plans for a GTE hybrid class or to replace GTE with GT3 cars have been opposed by major manufacturers.

[TF110]

Forgive my ignorance, but the article says Dunlop and Michelin were against a 'narrow tire wall'. What is the meaning of this? The tire wall being profile from the rim edge to the tire height? Or is this width?

[gwyllion]

The tyre width is said to be reduced to 14 inch (currently 16 inch).

It would also appear that maximum tire widths will be reduced to 14" for 2014; the era of the wide fronts would thus be over.

source: http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newsnov11.html

Tyre wall indeed refers to the height of the tyre. The problem is that tyre manufacturers have repeatedly increased the tyre wall of the front tyres, which means that the diameter of the wheel gets bigger while the diameter of the rim stays the same. This trend has lead to the higher wheel arches (and worse visibility), which is clearly visible on the drawing that illustrates the difference in dimension of the Dome S102 and S102.5:

[deggis]

I think that column is just drawing too many conclusions, for example that 5.0L point was already mentioned in the earlier (post-Sebring) Autosport article which was based on the private consultation doc they had seen (same one than Cotton is talking about?). The details mentioned in these two stories are not actually contradictory at all, except that Cotton just thinks the fuel allocation has been dropped. Watkins in Autosport didn't understand so.

[alexkiller8]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

In his column in the latest RCE edition, Andrew Cotton discusses the 2014 rules: http://be.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue...t&prev=si&p=98

The whole plan of an energy allocation for the race appears to be abolished

Audi originally wanted a light weight car and hoped for a minimium weight of 650 kg without a hybrid system. It would use a smaller engine with thermal energy recovery system.

The rule book that was circulated at Sebring is a lot less innovative: 850 kg minimum weight and 5.0 liter maximum displacement.

Coupes will become mandatory and performance will be restricted with a fuel flow meter (instead of air restrictors).

There will be three classes: one with 8 MJ hybrid system in which manufacturers have to compete, one at 4 MJ and one without hybrid system for privateers.

The plans for a GTE hybrid class or to replace GTE with GT3 cars have been opposed by major manufacturers.

if a lmp1/lmp2/lmp3 class will be decided just by the hybrid system will a really sad thing... BTW as always has happened in the past ACO and FIA first will make the rules, but then will do what manufacters want.
So if audi and some other manufacter will push for a lighter and hybrid/nothybrid prototypes, for sure the regulamentation will take this way. Same idea about GTE cars. Afterall in my opinion a gt3 entries in the competition won't be so bad; GTE cars will be like the old GT1, will be run just by the official/factory team and some important private team, while small but competitive private team will be able to join in the competition with STANDARDIZED gt3 spec cars to avoid bop issues.

[TF110]

So basically the wide fronts aren't causing the issue, it's the height of the tires. There has to be a way for the tire makes to decrease the height of the tire without sacrificing too much performance. Perhaps a 17" wheel. That probably wouldn't help much with aesthetics IMO. I'd prefer they stay 18" but have the height of the tire less.

[Deleted]

The only, the ONLY thing I find even remotely positive from those changes would be the mandatory coupe rule... but then it would be ideal to have LMP2(/LMP3) as open tops, to make the classes stand out more. But of course, this would be far too logical!

GTE Hybrid? What has FIA been smoking, money? No wonder everyone's against it, hopefully they can keep GT3 away, too...

Originally Posted by alexkiller8

while small but competitive private team will be able to join in the competition with STANDARDIZED gt3 spec cars to avoid bop issues.

Yeah like's that's ever gonna happen...

[arakis]

Originally Posted by alexkiller8

while small but competitive private team will be able to join in the competition with STANDARDIZED gt3 spec cars to avoid bop issues.

what do you mean standardized gt3 cars, their BoP is all over the place and is continually tweeted... It's like a feedback amplifier with a huge capacitive load...the friking thing is self oscillating

[Simmi]

What to do with the GT class is an absolute minefield.

If you stick with the current regs you risk the class dying out as with GT1.

I don't know what the answer is to be honest.

[Deleted]

Unfortunately the top GT class of Le Mans always seems to be destined to die horribly in the end, while the other classes stay... old GT1, new GT1, GTE perhaps

I mean if you look at '99 race
GT1 - died the same year
GTS - died a decade later
GT - starting to look a bit grey atm

[alexkiller8]

for standardized gt3 i mean basicly what are now gte cars, min. weight the same for all cars (1300kg), a limit to lenght of dimensions of the car and rear wing, free ride height, and restrictor size applied as ALMS bop style. The better aero developed car will be ever faster than the others, as always has happened.
In my opinion a scenario like this GTE + GT3 is better than what happens now with gtpro and gtam

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by alexkiller8

for standardized gt3 i mean basicly what are now gte cars, min. weight the same for all cars (1300kg), a limit to lenght of dimensions of the car and rear wing, free ride height, and restrictor size applied as ALMS bop style. The better aero developed car will be ever faster than the others, as always has happened.
In my opinion a scenario like this GTE + GT3 is better than what happens now with gtpro and gtam

I'd rather see them going back to the rulebook that was in place up to 2009/10 with a fixed chart saying if somebody has a car of this weight and with an engine this big, they have to run restrictors of a certain size and this is not going to change over a season.

Every manufacturer could thus develop the car to a certain weight and put the engine in he wants to, KNOWING what restrictor he's gonna have all season long.

I'm not a technician so I don't really know if it would work that simple, but if they made that amendment to GT3 rules this class would become acceptable to me (for Le Mans and in general).

[alexkiller8]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I'd rather see them going back to the rulebook that was in place up to 2009/10 with a fixed chart saying if somebody has a car of this weight and with an engine this big, they have to run restrictors of a certain size and this is not going to change over a season.

this is just what i meant, in ALMS in theory is still used this rule.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by alexkiller8

this is just what i meant, in ALMS in theory is still used this rule.

Thanks for the hint, I just checked the IMSA regulations. I thought they were using the 2012 ACO regs, but apparently they don't.

Still the ALMS is only partly using this 'old' system. For NA engines there is a fixed minimum weight for everyone with restrictors depending on engine capacity, while for turbo engines, the restrictor size is determined by weight and the number of restrictors (while ACO/FIA/WEC rules also use the minimum weight for turbo cars).

In the 2009/10 rules they had both factors combined for NA cars + the turbo rules that are still in use in the ALMS. I would love to know if this concept could be applied to cars built to the GT3 "non-rules" set. Because that might be the way to go for the ACO sometime in the near future to have the GT3s running at Le Mans but without an ever changing BoP, instead running to a "standardized" formula as alexkiller8 called it.

[gwyllion]

According to http://www.lemanslive.com/en/2012/05...ss-conference/ Audi and Toyota are both lobbying for powerful energy recovery systems.

The amount of energy that can be delivered between two braking points is limited by the regulations to 0.5 megajoules, and this is monitored by new electronic control units developed especially by the ACO. Audi and Toyota have asked for this upper limit be removed in the new regulations that are being prepared for 2014/2015. It is important to note that drivers cannot select when the additional power is made available since the cars are not equipped with the push-to-pass systems seen in other forms of racing.

[Mal]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

According to http://www.lemanslive.com/en/2012/05...ss-conference/ Audi and Toyota are both lobbying for powerful energy recovery systems.

If we are truly going to push the Technology boundaries there should be no limit in the top class - lets see what the engineers can do.

[wolfhound]

Both Toyota & Audi would like to see energy recovery being used by private teams. However at the moment the technology is too expensive and is outside the financial reach of privateers.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/99329

[CTD]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Both Toyota & Audi would like to see energy recovery being used by private teams. However at the moment the technology is too expensive and is outside the financial reach of privateers.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/99329

A proper system is, but Zyteck do have a Buyable solution.

[Simmi]

I think it was the super capacitor tech which is the one seen as far too expensive or 'niche' for the moment.

[deggis]

A bit weird considering that the regs are supposed to be released in less than 1½ month.

[gwyllion]

The leaked ACO/FIA document suggests that energy limit for hybrid system will be increased considerably.

Originally Posted by deggis

They have realized that privateers can't afford energy recovery systems, so non-hybrid cars will have larger energy/fuel allocations. Also cars will be distinguished between "large ERS" (= Energy Recovery System), "intermediate ERS" and "non-ERS". 2xKERS (front & rear) would be a large one for example. Energy limit could go up to 8 MJ (remember, currently 0.5 MJ).

Originally Posted by gwyllion

In his column in the latest RCE edition, Andrew Cotton discusses the 2014 rules: http://be.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue...t&prev=si&p=98
...
There will be three classes: one with 8 MJ hybrid system in which manufacturers have to compete, one at 4 MJ and one without hybrid system for privateers.

In his recent interview with Laurent Chauveau, Pascal Vasselon talks about doubling the energy storage capacity. So that would going back to only 1 MJ.

[TF110]

That's a lot of power still. 1MJ of energy is enough to make a big difference, especially if coupled with the power of today's engines.

[gwyllion]

1 MJ is not that much if you know that F1 is going to 4 MJ (per lap) in 2014.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

1 MJ is not that much if you know that F1 is going to 4 MJ (per lap) in 2014.

Regarding F1 it needs to said the V6 engines are planned to output only 600 hp, and the KERSes are supposed to make up the deficit to get the overall output close to current levels (750 hp).

[hondafan37]

How many MJ per lap have the F1 in this moment?