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

[canaglia]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

First spy pics of the Toyota LMH. Looks very LMP1-evo-ish to me.

http://www.dailysportscar.com/2020/1...829ng92TgN9iys

don't know why but looking from this side pics, it reminds me a bit a gumpert apollo with a lmp style coupè shape. Wonder how will appear peugeot LMH...
a friend of mine totally unused to sportscars racing, watched by chance the toyota spyshot and guess because of extra lenght and the fin/rearwheel arches bodywork deceptive perspective, he thought was some kind of racing station wagon

[Pandamasque]

Originally Posted by canaglia

[...] he thought was some kind of racing station wagon

I hope Volvo enters LMDh and then draws on the dorsal fin some fake windows with a full family in them including dog

[chernaudi]

I'm actually wondering what areas of both LMH/LMDH should be opened up as far as the rules go. Trends and more restrictive rules on aero and chassis have kinda pushed everyone into the same alley IMO. And IMO, it's counter intuitive as well. You make things more spec, teams will have to spend more for fewer returns.

It's kinda like FRIC in F1. FRIC was an attempt to replicate the advantages of active suspension without actual active suspension (other examples include the interter/J-Damper, etc). Things got so bad in terms of expense that the FIA even though of introducing cost capped active suspension systems to cut cost and R&D for teams.

Are there similar areas where the ACO and/or IMSA should loosen their grip, given that BOP can be used to keep any advantage from getting too big?

[Pandamasque]

There's one thing I don't get about LMH cars.

When rules and performance limits were outlined, many in-the-know said that aero efficiency figures (drag/df) were very conservative. Ok, makes sense if you want to allow for roadcar-like bodywork.

Fast-forward to 2020, all cars look like LMPs and effectively are LMPs. The only roadcar-based project was stillborn, and even that had rather extreme aero.
What gives? Will they have a galleon sail hidden in the diffuser to bring aero efficiency down to the regulated limit?

When manufacturers really want to have fans on their side, it turns out they can "unlearn" about egg-shaped roofs and ultra-low sidepods that make the "egg" stand out even more, beak noses and wheels sitting in separate floor-mounted pods, and make a handsome well proportioned prototype. Look, it turns out you can even a make a safe car with no fin!! Why didn't this happen with LMH?

[chernaudi]

IMO, seems like the ACO may've dropped that (or most of it), maybe on account of LMDH?

[Pandamasque]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

IMO, seems like the ACO may've dropped that (or most of it), maybe on account of LMDH?

But have the basic rules really changed since then? I know that active aero was considered, but that was early on (good riddance). I think the last change happened when Aston pulled out so weight and power were readjusted. But I can't imagine ACO could change basic monocoque and aero concept rules that late in the game, right?

[Napolis]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

IMO, seems like the ACO may've dropped that (or most of it), maybe on account of LMDH?

Within the LMH aero limits there is LOT one can do to make
your car a lot faster. You may find our final design, especially the wing interesting.

[chernaudi]

As far as I'm aware, the ACO kept the frontal area limits, but they may've done away with the hard L/D limits. Not sure if that's the case, though.

[Pandamasque]

I'm also curious how those are going to be policed. And even the power restrictions. It's not like they're going to have a dyno ready for random testing at every track?

[carbsmith]

Driveshaft torque sensors. Which is why they can do the hybrid cars having 500kW at all times thing.

The tub dimensions for LMH are still from what was meant to be next generation LMP1. Complaining the cars look like prototypes makes no sense to me, the class is PROTOTYPES WITH ROAD CAR STYLING ELEMENTS and the cars we've seen are not anymore blatantly prototypes with styling elements than the majority of GT1 cars everyone apparently loves. Go look at an R390 or CLK-GTR beside the F50 and tell me the former actually look like a road cars. Yes the Toyota looks particularly like an existing prototype, but Toyota did not enter LMH because they were attracted by the new regulations, they entered because it was the only place they could continue to race something similar to their current LMP1 car.

[Pandamasque]

R390, CLK-GTR and GT-One were literally homologated road cars, with seating for two (3 with McLaren) and smooth bodywork. And they are a world apart from modern LMP cars, they look rather like some of today's supercars. Less LMP-ish than, say, a 2016 Ford GT.

If by "road car styling elements" you mean a "plank" above the nose cone like DPi cars have, I don't think that counts, because when the likes of McLaren criticized ACO for not being able to race "something that looks like what they sell" for overall honours, an option to stick a plank between the front fenders was already there, and Porsche used it on the 919.

[Napolis]

Originally Posted by Pandamasque

I'm also curious how those are going to be policed. And even the power restrictions. It's not like they're going to have a dyno ready for random testing at every track?

All LMH's will be put in the same tunnel and measured before homologation.
A huge number of sensors will measure engine compliance.

[Pandamasque]

Originally Posted by Napolis

All LMH's will be put in the same tunnel and measured before homologation.
A huge number of sensors will measure engine compliance.

Thanks!

[carbsmith]

Originally Posted by Pandamasque

they are a world apart from modern LMP cars

No crap, it's been 23 damn years. Did you think "road car styling elements" meant a time machine? The TS020 was the absolute cutting edge of sports racing car aerodynamics and was made with 0 consideration for road use or brand styling.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by carbsmith

No crap, it's been 23 damn years. Did you think "road car styling elements" meant a time machine? The TS020 was the absolute cutting edge of sports racing car aerodynamics and was made with 0 consideration for road use or brand styling.

Exactly so. But it's still my all time favourite Le Mans car......

[Pandamasque]

Originally Posted by carbsmith

Did you think "road car styling elements" meant a time machine?

No, I thought it meant exactly what it says. An LMP parked near a supercar would look about as strikingly different as a piece of farming equipment or a boat. Would it suddenly make sense for Ferrari to race boats or do some tractor pulling if the vehicles in question had Ferrari-like headlights? Because, this extent of "road car styling elements" was always available in LMP classes, which MG, Cadillac, Aston Martin, Audi and Porsche utilized, but it wasn't enough for most OEMs.

There's a reason no road car looks anything like a modern LMP. They're pig ugly and have no space for passengers and luggage. The one time a road car adopted some of the same cutting edge aerodynamic concepts (high leading edge of fenders and the "shitting dog" silhouette at the rear) it got booed for its incongruous proportions, rightly so. I'm talking about McLaren Senna.

The likes of TS020 set the benchmark for supercar design that still stands.

Every top-ranking series with free-ish development over the past two decades proved that at some point cutting edge aerodynamics become detrimental to everything else: the racing, the aesthetics, the brand recognition, the advertising space on cars, the safety, the budgets... the only ones gaining from this are actual people paid to do CFD, modelling, wind tunnel work etc.
I don't see why the current level of aero should be prioritized over all those things. We're no longer talking about banning pure unlimited aero development, that ship has sailed, we're talking about somewhat redrawing the existing arbitrarily set limits, that's all.

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by Pandamasque

Every top-ranking series with free-ish development over the past two decades proved that at some point cutting edge aerodynamics become detrimental to everything else: the racing, the aesthetics, the brand recognition, the advertising space on cars, the safety, the budgets... the only ones gaining from this are actual people paid to do CFD, modelling, wind tunnel work etc.
I don't see why the current level of aero should be prioritized over all those things.

I have a hard time seeing how one would have to set their regulations to avoid this priorization of aerodynamics.

The example of Grand Am's Daytona Prototypes is highly instructive. The initial ruleset was designed to achieve cars that would aesthetically resemble a Ford GT40 or other cars of that era. What the series ended up with was a field overwhelmingly made up of the Riley MK.XX, which even among the DPs was one of the ugliest cars around. Doran, and to a degree Fabcar and Crawford had shown that you could build a car that did not look like a complete dog's breakfast under these rules, but their cars were outclassed by the ruthlessly effective Riley.

I think the only sure-fire way to make top-class cars aesthetically pleasing would be to either mandate that at least their silhouette is based on a roadcar or to have the silhouette designed by the ruling body themselves with only limited areas reserved for brand-specific design.

[chernaudi]

You also have to remember that power reductions pushed a lot of the aero trends. I do think that if the ACO kept engine power to 650-700hp (like they're basically reverting to under LMH/LMDH rules), that could've delayed or produced less reliance on that, or encouraging a single main body kit like what LMP900s and early LMP1s relied on.

Also, I do have a point to raise when Jim said that how is a quasi-spec hybrid in LMDH green? I agree with him, but I don't see LMH as much different, since their hybrid is limited to 230 bhp. Audi and Toyota did that in 2012/13 with their 3.5MJ hybrid systems. Even Audi managed as much or more power with a 2MJ hybrid system in '14.

And, ironically, I do fault the "greening" of racing as both jacking up costs and killing some of the thrill factor. I mean, at Yaz Marina, Alonso's 2005 championship winning car thrilled the fans and response to it was enthusiastic, though it was slower, but it looked and certainly sounded faster. Sometimes, the old Audi R10 and even the R8 seem faster than the current cars even though they're not in reality (they could be on modern tires, but that's not withstanding). Maybe the ACO are answering the call by giving the cars more power and opening up variety with power plants and such.

Not that all of this talk about power and hybrid vs hybrid vs non-hybrid will matter much with BOP being in force in both classes to make the car's average power output equal.

[Pandamasque]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

I have a hard time seeing how one would have to set their regulations to avoid this priorization of aerodynamics.

First of all, LMP cars look the way they do not because they're ultimate expression of aerodynamic freedom. They are defined by the design "boxes" with different limitations. The awkward and generic tail end on all cars is definitely the result maximum overhang limitation and other bodywork rules like the need for "legality panels" and so on.

Even the necessity for dorsal fin is dictated by the overall flat floor aero concept mandated by the rules. Why not prescribe a certain spec shape underbody tunnels that no one can see instead of spec shape barn door that defines every car's silhouette?

Certain unwanted holes and sharp angles can be eliminated. In 2009 F1 cracked down of apertures and winglets without prescribing any spec bodywork. Sadly, the same ruleset mandated very unfortunate wing proportions that made all cars look like lobsters in front/top view, but there are some good lessons to be learned.


The most obvious step is to increase minimum cockpit width to something like TS020 had. LMP3 vs. LMP2 comparison shows how cockpit width vs. overall car width ratio changes perception, even with the marginal difference between P2 and P3.

Originally Posted by Speed-King

... or to have the silhouette designed by the ruling body themselves with only limited areas reserved for brand-specific design.

You're literally describing DPi/LMDh here

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Not that all of this talk about power and hybrid vs hybrid vs non-hybrid will matter much with BOP being in force in both classes to make the car's average power output equal.

...but not the consumption, right? I suspect LMH HY cars may have a hefty advantage in the pits.

[chernaudi]

Not if they run the same size fuel tanks (as far as range) or that's balanced out though BOP, which I suspect is what will happen due to pressure from OEMs that favor LMDH.

And I must point out that the LMP1 cars don't have flat floors like what the LMP900s had between the front and rear wheels. They have angled up outboard sections and a tunnel type rear diffuser (that's mostly spec), both of which were geared towards reducing the chance of cars flipping. Though that's negated by the fact that race cars aren't designed to go sideways at over 150mph.

[Napolis]

Originally Posted by Pandamasque

First of all, LMP cars look the way they do not because they're ultimate expression of aerodynamic freedom. They are defined by the design "boxes" with different limitations. The awkward and generic tail end on all cars is definitely the result maximum overhang limitation and other bodywork rules like the need for "legality panels" and so on.

Even the necessity for dorsal fin is dictated by the overall flat floor aero concept mandated by the rules. Why not prescribe a certain spec shape underbody tunnels that no one can see instead of spec shape barn door that defines every car's silhouette?

Certain unwanted holes and sharp angles can be eliminated. In 2009 F1 cracked down of apertures and winglets without prescribing any spec bodywork. Sadly, the same ruleset mandated very unfortunate wing proportions that made all cars look like lobsters in front/top view, but there are some good lessons to be learned.


The most obvious step is to increase minimum cockpit width to something like TS020 had. LMP3 vs. LMP2 comparison shows how cockpit width vs. overall car width ratio changes perception, even with the marginal difference between P2 and P3.


You're literally describing DPi/LMDh here

...but not the consumption, right? I suspect LMH HY cars may have a hefty advantage in the pits.

That will be BOP'd
You're right LMH hybrid will be faster without BOP.

[carbsmith]

Originally Posted by Pandamasque

Even the necessity for dorsal fin is dictated by the overall flat floor aero concept mandated by the rules. Why not prescribe a certain spec shape underbody tunnels that no one can see instead of spec shape barn door that defines every car's silhouette?

You're about 15 years late on this one, they'd already been using chamfered floors with spec tunnels for quite a while before the fins were added because they were still flying (and they were flying long before flat floors too). Group C cars had more flat floor than LMPs ever since they dropped the weight classes.

Even in NASCAR they have to cut big holes in the car and put fins on them.

LMH does have relaxed overhang rules. It doesn't require a fin or fender holes, although they're still going to be common to some extent because there's no other easy way around the problem. These things along with BoP crap mean you don't need the ridiculous looking front fenders that are the real aesthetic problem with modern LMPs, and by and large the new cars don't have them. The Toyota still has a bit of a blunt fender concept, which is something that's been around in various forms since the late 90s, but it's nowhere near the disastrous high point being in front of the tire entirely madness we've seen on low drag kits in the last 5 years.

I've never seen a supercar remotely styled like the TS020 because that would be madness.

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by Pandamasque

You're literally describing DPi/LMDh here

No, because the base LMP2 chassis that the DPis are based on still need to conform to the rules of aerodynamics first and foremost.

My idea* would be to take a generic, yet reasonably pleasing swooping body, e.g. something not too far away from a 911 GT1 '98, and then tell manufacturers that they can design the internals however they see fit, but that they have to leave the external shape the same with the exception of some areas at the front and the back that can be used as a canvas for manufacturer specific styling clues.

*though it's not one I am fully onboard with myself. I'm mostly just spitballing here...

[helgi]

If there are any token based or time based restrictions on development (like in F1) what should stop teams to use "outsourcing" in CFD and other restricted areas? If it's all about money and you can control the spendings, then governing body should just impose a sum which can be operated during the season and some safety regulations (like standard safety cell). Everything else should be totally upon teams to decide. That could force brains to work. Maybe they would have invented new cost efficient manufacturing processes. It would be more useful for the economy than EV political crap. And we could have talked about tech, and not that politically correct nonsense which is in line with media frightened to death by loosing contacts with Marketing Departments if any word of them would be noted as tiny bit of anti-advertising.

[Pandamasque]

Originally Posted by helgi

If there are any token based or time based restrictions on development (like in F1) what should stop teams to use "outsourcing" in CFD and other restricted areas? If it's all about money and you can control the spendings, then governing body should just impose a sum which can be operated during the season and some safety regulations (like standard safety cell). Everything else should be totally upon teams to decide. That could force brains to work. Maybe they would have invented new cost efficient manufacturing processes. It would be more useful for the economy than EV political crap. And we could have talked about tech, and not that politically correct nonsense which is in line with media frightened to death by loosing contacts with Marketing Departments if any word of them would be noted as tiny bit of anti-advertising.

It is quite clear that big manufacturers (in any series) don't want that. Where there's design freedom there's a risk of big failure. No matter the rewards, the typical corporate approval process that racing programmes have to go through is increasingly unlikely to allow such brave ventures. Instead they most readily opt for risk-averse options like LMDh, TCR or GT3/4 where a decent outfit will guarantee an OEM they won't embarrass themselves.

Of course it doesn't help that the last mad adventure by Nissan wasn't exactly a raging success. Not a lot of good precedents lately.

And at the same time racing organisers also prefer more and more artificially close competition over pure competition. More design freedom gives you bigger gaps, more strategic racing and less reliability, as opposed to a guarantee of having a big group of cars on the same pace, trading paint in a flag-to-flag sprint.