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

[henk4]

Originally Posted by MitchZ06

Ditch the petrol engine rules and make them even with diesel and we'll see who is fastest...

yeah, let's go back to the original Canam type of (non)regulations.....

[Mal]

I don't think that response is appropriate.

The ACO's plan of a giving the teams a bucket of joules and seeing what they can do is a great one that will promote efficient technology and lead to the most efficient power source winning. Lets hope they dont dilute or twist it too much in its execution.

[MitchZ06]

And I don't like twisting my words in a useless post is appropriate either....

The joules idea for fuel seems the best way to go IMO as it promotes the team with the best development to win, not some low key affair.

[Mal]

Originally Posted by MitchZ06

And I don't like twisting my words in a useless post is appropriate either....

Well attacking the poster is against the forum rules and its ethics so I am sure your insult will get deleted in due course....

[AGD]

Originally Posted by MitchZ06

The joules idea for fuel seems the best way to go IMO as it promotes the team with the best development to win, not some low key affair.

I agree with you and the others who suggest this, but I feel there will still be controversy if there are different fuels. Of course, by then there should be factory petrols so the discussion should be more level.

Maybe the ALMS should try to woo Audi back by allowing them to let their engines breathe as much as they want (within some reason I suppose). It could be a way to snatch back some of the power they have lost to the WEC/ILMC. It would be a political nightmare in some sense, but hey, at least we'd get to see power.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Mal

Well attacking the poster is against the forum rules and its ethics so I am sure your insult will get deleted in due course....

perhaps he was referring to my (cynically meant) Canam remark?

Rules are there to make apples and pears race in one series, so letting loose all the restrictions and regulations will get rid of either the apples or the pears. (Canam died partly because of the 917-30, so absence of rules is not a guarantee for survival of a raceseries)

And yes, the energy formula is the right way to go, in a way it also resulted in the epic Mazda win 20 years ago with non-conventional technology.

[Mal]

Originally Posted by henk4

perhaps he was referring to my (cynically meant) Canam remark?

And yes, the energy formula is the right way to go, in a way it also resulted in the epic Mazda win 20 years ago with non-conventional technology.

...but it shouldn't be a struggle to get to the end of the race like it was sometimes in the group C era - what it should be is that the most efficient car is the fastest and/or has less pitstops thereby winning the race.

[Mt. Lynx]

I think he meant even out the rules between petrol/diesel. Either 3.4l for everyone or 3.7l for everyone.

[MitchZ06]

Yes...3.7L Turbo diesel or 3.7L Turbo Petrol.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by MitchZ06

Yes...3.7L Turbo diesel or 3.7L Turbo Petrol.

the apples and the pears. Can we have the petrol cars without sparkplugs please?

[ubrben]

Originally Posted by henk4

the apples and the pears. Can we have the petrol cars without sparkplugs please?

It is to a degree. But all the available evidence suggests that a 3.7 L TDi has more HP than a 3.4L Atmo V8. HPD in California is a full factory OEM level engine development centre that was more than capable in Champ Car of beating the boys at Ilmor Mercedes who dominate F1, so to claim it's privateer development vs. OEM isn't entirely fair.

I think some form of energy flow measurement is probably the fairest way, but even the I think the technology is tough. AFAIK they don't want fuel volume restrictions like Group C because you could end up with running out of fuel or excessive fuel saving maps at the end of the 24 hours. So the only option is unlimited refuelling during the race, but a fixed flow rate in the fuel system - that is the technical challenge they need to overcome.

Ben

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by MitchZ06

Yes...3.7L Turbo diesel or 3.7L Turbo Petrol.

A brilliant proposal You focus on a single parameter, namely the displacement, and ignore all the others (e.g., rev limiter, air restrictor size, maximum turbo boost pressure, fuel flow restrictor, allocated energy/fuel volume, ...).

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by ubrben

I think some form of energy flow measurement is probably the fairest way, but even the I think the technology is tough. AFAIK they don't want fuel volume restrictions like Group C because you could end up with running out of fuel or excessive fuel saving maps at the end of the 24 hours. So the only option is unlimited refuelling during the race, but a fixed flow rate in the fuel system - that is the technical challenge they need to overcome.

Yet, rumor is that a fuel volume restriction is on the table for 2014:

It is our understanding that a outline is being passed amongst the teams and manufacturers that proposes what effectively is a fuel energy content formula to start in 2014. The proposal allots 1500 liters of gasoline, or alternate fuel equivalent (diesel, methanol, etc.), for Le Mans. The energy content equivalency volume would be determined by the ACO.

source: http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newsjuly11.html

[MitchZ06]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

A brilliant proposal You focus on a single parameter, namely the displacement, and ignore all the others (e.g., rev limiter, air restrictor size, maximum turbo boost pressure, fuel flow restrictor, allocated energy/fuel volume, ...).

Why even add that when this rule is not in effect for another 3 years?

So you don't see anything wrong with a smaller displacement N/A petrol engine having to rev hard to still make less HP and torque than a lower revving larger displacement diesel? Make capacity and aspiration even and then we can really judge which is the better powerplant....Hell even a 3.4L petrol with a pair of turbos would seem more fair than the backward rules we currently have.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by MitchZ06

Why even add that when this rule is not in effect for another 3 years?

Because the title of this thread is "LMP Future Regulations". So this discussion covers the 2012 performance (re)balancing as well as the 2014 energy-efficiency based technical rules.

Originally Posted by MitchZ06

So you don't see anything wrong with a smaller displacement N/A petrol engine having to rev hard to still make less HP and torque than a lower revving larger displacement diesel?

The power disadvantage is supposed to be addressed by the 2012 rule tweak.

Originally Posted by MitchZ06

Make capacity and aspiration even and then we can really judge which is the better powerplant....Hell even a 3.4L petrol with a pair of turbos would seem more fair than the backward rules we currently have.

I still don't understand your proposal. If the goal is to have equal power given equal displacement for both fuel types, you must define additional restrictions.

The petrol engine must breath through a tiny air restrictor such that it can only rev as high as a diesel engine (maybe even lower); or a rev limiter must be in place to achieve the same effect; or the diesel engine must run with a huge turbo boost pressure such that it can produce massive torque (to compensate for a lack of revs); or alternatively the energy/fuel flow must be rate limited (again limiting the maximum engine power); or the total allocated fuel volume that can be used during the course of the race must be defined; etc.

Why impose a maximum engine displacement at all? In the proposed 2014 rules the engine configuration will be completely free.

[Dead-Eye]

Originally Posted by ubrben

It is to a degree. But all the available evidence suggests that a 3.7 L TDi has more HP than a 3.4L Atmo V8. HPD in California is a full factory OEM level engine development centre that was more than capable in Champ Car of beating the boys at Ilmor Mercedes who dominate F1, so to claim it's privateer development vs. OEM isn't entirely fair.

I think if we have to have displacement limits, anything with a turbo should be below the maximum allowed for naturally aspirated engines. Maybe something like 2.0l petrol turbo, or 2.8l diesel turbo, or 3.4l petrol NA.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Mal

...but it shouldn't be a struggle to get to the end of the race like it was sometimes in the group C era - what it should be is that the most efficient car is the fastest and/or has less pitstops thereby winning the race.

I was on my bicycle this afternoon for over 80 kms, the sun was shining and that is a good time to think.

If there will be a fixed amount of fuel/energy supplied over a race (take Le Mans as example) why not allow 1/24 of that for the first hour and the next 1/24 for the second hour and so on. If a car runs conservative and frugal it may be able to not fully use its hourly allotment in the first of part the race, which may be used towards the end (after twenty hours?) supplementary to the normal 1/24 portion. So what you get is that in the first part of race cars will drive carefully and they may go all out at the end thereby avoiding the dreadful Group C effect of all cars slowing down to even reach the end.

Shoot me if you want...

[gregtummer]

I'm not so sure you'll have cars coasting around all the time at the end of the race. Safety Cars during the race will slow the pace way down, so at the end, they can go as fast as they want.

Of course, the teams may factor in a safety car into the fuel strategy, but they could only really factory in one, because there was only one safety car period in the 2008 race.

So you get a couple safety cars, especially long ones like this year, and it should be full throttle to the end.

[deggis]

You'd think engine management and computer simulations might have improved a bit from GrC years. Not sure about risk management though...

[gregtummer]

Lets say the engine rules are completely free for 2014. Peugeot and Audi decide to basically run their 2008 engines (but more efficient), but they coast around at the beginning of the race to save fuel.

Then you get a couple of massive safety car periods like this year's race for about 4 hours.

Now they've saved enough fuel to make their fuel allotment while being able to run full speed. I doubt the ACO is going to be happy with laptimes of 3:10 or below considering their 3:30 lap time obsession nor will they be happy with speeds 230mph+ on the straights.

Okay maybe Audi or Peugeot won't do this, but lets say you are Rellion or Pescaralo. You know you can't beat these guys heads up, so you rely on this strategy and if it plays into your favor, you could win.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

I think if we have to have displacement limits, anything with a turbo should be below the maximum allowed for naturally aspirated engines. Maybe something like 2.0l petrol turbo, or 2.8l diesel turbo, or 3.4l petrol NA.

I don't understand why you would restrict the engine displacement.

But most interestingly, the 2014 proposal allows for the complete freeing up of the engine regulations.

source: http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newsjuly11.html

Any engine configuration (i.e., displacement, number of cilinders, turbo boost pressure, etc.) can be used and may the best win.

[Dead-Eye]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

I don't understand why you would restrict the engine displacement.

source: http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newsjuly11.html

Any engine configuration (i.e., displacement, number of cilinders, turbo boost pressure, etc.) can be used and may the best win.

I probably could have been more clear, but I was talking about the current regulations and what always struck me as odd about them - that a turbo engine was allowed to be bigger than an NA one. I'm very much in favor of freeing the regs up as much as possible.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by gregtummer

I'm not so sure you'll have cars coasting around all the time at the end of the race. Safety Cars during the race will slow the pace way down, so at the end, they can go as fast as they want.

Of course, the teams may factor in a safety car into the fuel strategy, but they could only really factory in one, because there was only one safety car period in the 2008 race.

So you get a couple safety cars, especially long ones like this year, and it should be full throttle to the end.

The potential different strategies you could see in a single race really makes an energy allotment rule appealing to me. This works especially well if you have different engines and such, lots of different ways to go.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by joeb

The potential different strategies you could see in a single race really makes an energy allotment rule appealing to me. This works especially well if you have different engines and such, lots of different ways to go.

It's a very intriguing option. I like it better than the current rules. How much controversy would their be in determining the energy content of each fuel? Also, could the goalposts be moved in regard to hybrid utilization rules that could be used as a BoP of sorts between factory teams and privateers? The whole previous discussion about marketing leading to odd track choices could be an issue. Let's say Porsche (for example) goes with one type of hybrid system and Toyota (for example) uses another. Do you try to balance the difference or is it tough cookies if you do something dumb for marketing purposes? Also, what if privateers have hybrid systems that aren't very good or aren't available in time? Tough luck again?

It would be nice to see factory teams split their fuel strategy. It may lead to a different type of racing than what we have now, but that is fine I guess. It is endurance racing after all. Maybe we'll see more split strategies of team cars.

The other question is if IMSA/ALMS will diverge from the consumption formula again. That's a whole different matter I suppose.

[Speed-King]

The other question is if IMSA/ALMS will diverge from the consumption formula again.

Not if tree-hugger in chief Scott Atherton has anything to say about it....