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

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by CTD

With the heavy revising of the LMP2 Regulations, could ACO/FIA have something like this in mind?:

Take the current P2's, give them a few breaks to up their pace, and let them be LMP1-L's.

I doubt it

Originally Posted by CTD

Then reduce the pace of the new stock engine and P2 chassis.
Peg the Hybrid LMP's further back (something we know will happen) so they are very close to the up-paced P2's.

It will be ridiculous if they do this. Its dangerous and I doubt LMP1 manufacturers would be pleased.

Originally Posted by CTD

Slow down the GTE's some there the performance gap between GTE and LMP2 continues to exist.

We know (from a good source) that they will speed up the GTE cars.

Originally Posted by CTD

That way you would get the LMP1-H closer to the wished 3:30 limit.

This limit is ridiculous and we as racing fans, should make this quite clear. A Ford GT40 MKII set a 3:30 lap time in 1967 (albeit without chicanes). Is that where we want our series to be? It is an absurd time that in no way takes into account the leaps and bounds we have had in safety both on the tracks and in the cars. It's pure demagoguery on the part of the FiA/ACO and it (that stupid time) seems to serve as an excuse to cover for unwarranted interference anytime they feel the urge to meddle. It does nothing to project the "progressive" image that the WEC is trying to project.

Originally Posted by CTD

You would get a huge boost in private LMP1's
LMP2 will be restarted as the "cheap" Prototype at Le Mans.

Personally I take much more enjoyment from seeing spectacular manufacturer LMP1's. I get that some don't, but there are other classes that are better suited to private entries.

Originally Posted by CTD

I know a lot of people against the ideal lap time of 3:30 at Le Mans, but is it really that bad an idea, as long as it is done properly?

Let's be honest, is the racing better with cars all doing 3:20, instead of 3:30's?

You bet! It's not just about "racing". There is plenty of good racing in spec series, yet they don't dominate in the popularity stakes. Why is that? It's because they often lack impressiveness. Most race fans want to see spectacular cars; not just close racing. The same FiA that religiously clings to the 3:30 lap for WEC (supposedly for safety reasons) is discussing speeding up the "other series" by 5-6 second a lap! Why? Because they are afraid of loosing the public's interest.

Originally Posted by CTD

If ACO/FIA choses to lower the amount of available energy fuel for Hybrids, this will force the manufactures to slow down, or invent even more efficient hybrid systems (which would be make LMPs more road relevant).

Manufacturers are interested in hybrid tech (in LMP1) because it serves as a experimental lab. They need to push it to the limits. they can always simulate road relevant power levels in their road car testing. They don't need to do that on track.

Originally Posted by CTD

So what I hope is going to happen with the future LMP regulations is:

LMP1-H fuel allowances will be reduced to get closer to the 3:30 ideal lap time.
Current LMP2's will be given a few performance increases and upgraded to be LMP1-L.
The new Stock engined LMP2's will be slowed down relative to keep the performance gap to LMP1-L.
GTE will be will be slowed down relative to keep the performance gap to the new LMP2's.

This is your opinion and there is no point arguing against that. You are entitled to it. All I can say is that I would hate this!

Originally Posted by CTD

All classes should see a boost in teams.
More road relevant technology will be invented, making LMP1-H more interesting for Automotive manufactures.
The racing will remain close and exciting, although slower because of better fuel milage.

I doubt it. I suspect manufacturers (LMP1) are not at all interested in this formula. Also- this is a radical change in the direction of the series. Why? Is it bad now?

[Spyderman]

Incidentally: The pole at Le Mans in 1967 was 3:24.4. The fastest laps was Denis Hulme, NZ, Ford GT Mk IV, (on lap 41) and Mario Andretti, USA, Ford GT Mk IV, 3:23.6 = 237.971 km/h.

[Ephaeton]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

Incidentally: The pole at Le Mans in 1967 was 3:24.4. The fastest laps was Denis Hulme, NZ, Ford GT Mk IV, (on lap 41) and Mario Andretti, USA, Ford GT Mk IV, 3:23.6 = 237.971 km/h.

...without chicanes, in the golden age of
- recklessness (people die... er.. *shrug* let's mourn a minute and continue),
- resources (how many mpg were these gt40s getting? something like 25l/100km aka some 10 miles a gallon),
- and general awesomeness

Imho: one cannot undo the previous fifty years, and one cannot regain innocence once lost, it isn't constructive/productive to look back at better days with a longing mind.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by Ephaeton

...without chicanes, in the golden age of
- recklessness (people die... er.. *shrug* let's mourn a minute and continue),
- resources (how many mpg were these gt40s getting?),
- and general awesomeness

Imho: one cannot undo the previous fifty years, and one cannot regain innocence once lost, it isn't constructive/productive to look back at better days with a longing mind.

Today's safety levels are simply incomparable. Why don't we advocate that the "other series"also retrogresses back to 1967? Are our lives more important than theirs?
Why not just have a spec series with cars limited to 3:30 laps and watch them go around in circles?

[Ephaeton]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

Today's safety levels are simply incomparable. (...)

See, you already found at least one aspect that makes the whole comparison moot, just keep going until the 3:24 of the gt40 just doesn't matter anylonger to today.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by Ephaeton

See, you already found at least one aspect that makes the whole comparison moot, just keep going until the 3:24 of the gt40 just doesn't matter anylonger to today.

Actually the comparison is not moot at all. We had cars going much faster than 3:30 at Le Mans in 1967. (3:30 would have qualified you around 10th-11th on the grid). It was more dangerous because the cars were a lot less safer (aero was virtually non existent) and so was the track. Today's track and cars are light years ahead in both tech and safety. Why do we want them to travel around at 3:30? In fact the last fatal accident we had at Le Mans was from cars doing 3:50's. Should we slow all of them down to say 4:00 to avoid fatalities?

[Ephaeton]

Yeah I'm not going to entertain you with this. You've realized that the safety levels are incomparable. So a very, very important and integral aspect of the racing simply is not comparable. So why would I draw conclusions from the comparison, knowing the comparison is logically invalid? You can draw any conclusion from an unsound basis. So when you realize you're standing on such a basis, it's helpful to stop deducing from that.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by Ephaeton

Yeah I'm not going to entertain you with this. You've realized that the safety levels are incomparable. So a very, very important and integral aspect of the racing simply is not comparable. So why would I draw conclusions from the comparison, knowing the comparison is logically invalid? You can draw any conclusion from an unsound basis. So when you realize you're standing on such a basis, it's helpful to stop deducing from that.

No I wont entertain your baseless refutations either. I was trying to put things into perspective. If you are unable to understand the argument , then so be it.

[Gingers4Justice]

It's not just the chicanes in 1967 - the Porsche Curves add a LOT of lap time in comparison to Maison Blanche. Similar to the the addition of the chicanes. Not only was the Maison Blanche layout shorter, but it had pretty much no slow corners in it.

Spyderman, if you want to make the point that 3:30 is too slow for modern prototypes, then I agree with you. But bringing up lap times from a different circuit layout from 50 years ago isn't helping your point, and it's certainly not putting anything into perspective. No car from the 1967 edition of the race would lap the current layout in under 4 minutes. The 3:30 laptimes and under of the late 60s were set on a circuit well over half a minute faster than the one we race on today.

A better illustration of your point would be that 3:30 were the kind of lap times they were doing in the late 1990s - 3:29.930 put you on pole in 1999 - although again, the circuit was slightly shorter with the old Esses, and the old layout at the Dunlop chicane was faster. However, that was a lap-time set in cars far more likely to get airborne (in fact you were almost guaranteed it if you drove something silver), in cars without the modern safety standards, on a circuit far less forgiving in terms of runoff. If it was acceptable then, surely we can go faster than that now?

All this arguing and anger is still, ultimately, a little premature. Firstly, nothing has actually happened yet and this is all based on conjecture. Secondly, I never really believed that the ACO were actually targeting 3:30 lap times. But if you set the regulations with the intention of 3:30s, the manufacturers will be able to design cars that can do 3:25s. Aim for 3:25s, and you will get cars doing 3:20s. Aim for 3:20s, and cars will do....you get the picture. There is a balance to be struck - I don't really believe the ACO ever expected to have cars doing 3:30 at Le Mans, even if that's what they stated publicly.

It's the life cycle of regulations in our sport, and twas ever thus. Rule-makers slowing cars down is absolutely nothing new and it even happened in 'the good old days'.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

It's not just the chicanes in 1967 - the Porsche Curves add a LOT of lap time in comparison to Maison Blanche. Similar to the the addition of the chicanes. Not only was the Maison Blanche layout shorter, but it had pretty much no slow corners in it.

If you go to my original post you will see that I recognized that there were no chicanes. The track length in 1967 was 13.46 KM. Today it is 13.629 km. That makes it about 200m longer. That's not a huge difference.

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

Spyderman, if you want to make the point that 3:30 is too slow for modern prototypes, then I agree with you. But bringing up lap times from a different circuit layout from 50 years ago isn't helping your point, and it's certainly not putting anything into perspective. No car from the 1967 edition of the race would lap the current layout in under 4 minutes. The 3:30 laptimes and under of the late 60s were set on a circuit well over half a minute faster than the one we race on today.

I am glad to see that you agree with me on the essentials. Personally I cant come to the same conclusions as you. I have no basis to agree that a leading car from 1967 would not do the current track in less than 4 minutes. I suspect it may be the case, but I can't emphatically guarantee that. I also don't agree it does not provide some perspective. Usually the 3:30 time is bandied about, without people really knowing if that is reasonable or not. What I was trying to point out is that we had cars lapping a good deal faster than that in 1967 albeit on a slightly different track. It doesn't look good for our series. We should not have to explain to those non-anoraks that the 3:30 is because the track is now 200m longer, it has two quite quick chicanes and some corners are slightly slower. At least not when the series is trying to promote itself as a progressive series and is in its first throws of growth.

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

A better illustration of your point would be that 3:30 were the kind of lap times they were doing in the late 1990s - 3:29.930 put you on pole in 1999 - although again, the circuit was slightly shorter with the old Esses, and the old layout at the Dunlop chicane was faster. However, that was a lap-time set in cars far more likely to get airborne (in fact you were almost guaranteed it if you drove something silver), in cars without the modern safety standards, on a circuit far less forgiving in terms of runoff. If it was acceptable then, surely we can go faster than that now?

I accept your example. I also understand it is not easy for you to agree with me. I respect that.

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

All this arguing and anger is still, ultimately, a little premature. Firstly, nothing has actually happened yet and this is all based on conjecture. Secondly, I never really believed that the ACO were actually targeting 3:30 lap times. But if you set the regulations with the intention of 3:30s, the manufacturers will be able to design cars that can do 3:25s. Aim for 3:25s, and you will get cars doing 3:20s. Aim for 3:20s, and cars will do....you get the picture. There is a balance to be struck - I don't really believe the ACO ever expected to have cars doing 3:30 at Le Mans, even if that's what they stated publicly.

I was actually trying to have a normal argument. It is when esoteric refutations are made in a pseudo-intellectual manner that things start to get a little hot. People have different opinions. They are all entitled to manifest them. We don't have to agree. Indeed we can refute them, but we should never think or act as if the other is an imbecile.

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

It's the life cycle of regulations in our sport, and twas ever thus. Rule-makers slowing cars down is absolutely nothing new and it even happened in 'the good old days'.

It is a truism. No argument form me on that. My nature does not accept that just because it is common practice it is right. I concede that at some point adjustments must and should be made, but the series under the current configuration has just taken off. The 3:14 lap time that has everyone buckling at the knees hasn't even materialized and yet we are already being told that the cars will be slowed down.
I will try and concisely reiterate my main point:The 3:30 lap is a nonsense. If we are to discuss this and take the ACO/FiA seriously, then they should review that lap time in order to reflect modern safety standards. No one is going to mind if the cars are slowed down a second or two if they remain spectacular.

[Gingers4Justice]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

I am glad to see that you agree with me on the essentials. Personally I cant come to the same conclusions as you. I have no basis to agree that a leading car from 1967 would not do the current track in less than 4 minutes. I suspect it may be the case, but I can't emphatically guarantee that. I also don't agree it does not provide some perspective. Usually the 3:30 time is bandied about, without people really knowing if that is reasonable or not. What I was trying to point out is that we had cars lapping a good deal faster than that in 1967 albeit on a slightly different track. It doesn't look good for our series. We should not have to explain to those non-anoraks that the 3:30 is because the track is now 200m longer, it has two quite quick chicanes and some corners are slightly slower. At least not when the series is trying to promote itself as a progressive series and is in its first throws of growth.

It's not just the length, it's what happens within that length. One of the biggest increases in lap times came with the introduction of the Porsche Curves. The lap record for the layout between '68 and '71 was 3:18.4. Between '72 and '78, when the Porsche Curves were added, no car bettered 3:34.2. That's a difference of over 15 seconds, not even accounting for the gains made in downforce in that period which would have offset some of the time lost in the Porsche curves. The Mulsanne chicanes didn't add as much lap time as that! If you ever have the chance to drive the Maison Blanche section, you'll see how scary it is - they went straight on where it currently flicks right for the start of the Porker curves, and there weren't really any corners at all. It was more a series of kinks. Maison Blanche was more dangerous than the Mulsanne Straight ever was and that's reflected by the huge difference is made to lap times, and the need for cars to find more down-force.

Just scouring the results from Le Mans legends races, and I've yet to find a time under 4:30 from a GT40. I know these cars aren't run in quite the same anger as they were in their hey day, but there's not half a minute to be found there. It's not a slightly different track, the complexion of the circuit has completely changed with the addition of the chicanes and the Porsche curves.

You say we shouldn't have to explain to these non-anoraks that the track is different to the 1960s, but who apart form the anoraks knows the laptimes cars were doing back then anyway? The times set in that period were set on a much, much faster circuit where down force wasn't much of a consideration, and the corners were mainly about mechanical grip.

I accept your example. I also understand it is not easy for you to agree with me. I respect that.

It's easy for me to agree with anyone, I know we disagreed on a previous thread but that doesn't affect the way I post on others. And I think we are reading from the same hymn sheet here. I just don't think you're using the best example to make your point and it's not helping others agree with you.

To go way back to the original point, 3:30 is too slow. We were doing that 2 decades ago in the modern-style Circuit de la Sarthe when I was still learning the alphabet. I suspect that target has been ditched anyway, but I also hope that we the fans take any time the ACO state in public with a pinch of salt; there are some incredibly bright people in these design teams who will always be able to out-wit the rule makers.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

It's not just the length, it's what happens within that length. One of the biggest increases in lap times came with the introduction of the Porsche Curves. The lap record for the layout between '68 and '71 was 3:18.4. Between '72 and '78, when the Porsche Curves were added, no car bettered 3:34.2. That's a difference of over 15 seconds, not even accounting for the gains made in downforce in that period which would have offset some of the time lost in the Porsche curves. The Mulsanne chicanes didn't add as much lap time as that! If you ever have the chance to drive the Maison Blanche section, you'll see how scary it is - they went straight on where it currently flicks right for the start of the Porker curves, and there weren't really any corners at all. It was more a series of kinks. Maison Blanche was more dangerous than the Mulsanne Straight ever was and that's reflected by the huge difference is made to lap times, and the need for cars to find more down-force.

Just scouring the results from Le Mans legends races, and I've yet to find a time under 4:30 from a GT40. I know these cars aren't run in quite the same anger as they were in their hey day, but there's not half a minute to be found there. It's not a slightly different track, the complexion of the circuit has completely changed with the addition of the chicanes and the Porsche curves.

You say we shouldn't have to explain to these non-anoraks that the track is different to the 1960s, but who apart form the anoraks knows the laptimes cars were doing back then anyway? The times set in that period were set on a much, much faster circuit where down force wasn't much of a consideration, and the corners were mainly about mechanical grip.


It's easy for me to agree with anyone, I know we disagreed on a previous thread but that doesn't affect the way I post on others. And I think we are reading from the same hymn sheet here. I just don't think you're using the best example to make your point and it's not helping others agree with you.

To go way back to the original point, 3:30 is too slow. We were doing that 2 decades ago in the modern-style Circuit de la Sarthe when I was still learning the alphabet. I suspect that target has been ditched anyway, but I also hope that we the fans take any time the ACO state in public with a pinch of salt; there are some incredibly bright people in these design teams who will always be able to out-wit the rule makers.

Well we agree on the essential. I'm impressed with your stance. I always respect those that disagree but make logical arguments to defend their positions. I wish more had your fine character.

BTW- This was never about agreeing with me or not. CTD put up a post stating how he envisaged the future regulations for our series. I disagreed with his vision and posted why. Other took greater exception to my post than to the original post.

[cokata]

The point is previously cars were slowed down either by increasing the weight, or by deliberately making the aero less efficient. Both of which would be terrible measures in the face of the new rules that strive for efficiency.

The cars and their drivers are more then good enough to deal with the speeds. I understand the need to hold them back somewhat, but to drag them back to be more than 10 seconds per lap slower than now is really not needed.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by Spyderman

Actually the comparison is not moot at all. We had cars going much faster than 3:30 at Le Mans in 1967. (3:30 would have qualified you around 10th-11th on the grid). It was more dangerous because the cars were a lot less safer (aero was virtually non existent) and so was the track. Today's track and cars are light years ahead in both tech and safety. Why do we want them to travel around at 3:30? In fact the last fatal accident we had at Le Mans was from cars doing 3:50's. Should we slow all of them down to say 4:00 to avoid fatalities?

The last fatal accident was a GT going perhaps a little below 120mph/200kmh in wet conditions(LM2013)... lap times would probably be higher than 3.50... an accident that if perhaps had happened with a tinny bit little different angle of impact, the driver would had came out of it walking, only sorrowed for missing a chance of winning. So if it has to happen, it happens... it is as dangerous doing 3.50 as 3.10... this is a dangerous sport.

The 3.30 is a stupid number, a fetich... a lunacy... can't imagine how they would pull that off without abolishing LMP1 altogether. Simply it wouldn’t make sense to have a LMP1 with the introduction of a LMP3.

OTOH speeding a little LMP2 and GT (so that LMP3 could be as fast as today LM2) can make a lot of sense and be safer... avoids the numbers of crossings for constant passings during a race, between the fastest and the slowest (which is irrelevant for the thrill of a race)... can only improve safety.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

All this arguing and anger is still, ultimately, a little premature. Firstly, nothing has actually happened yet and this is all based on conjecture. Secondly, I never really believed that the ACO were actually targeting 3:30 lap times. But if you set the regulations with the intention of 3:30s, the manufacturers will be able to design cars that can do 3:25s. Aim for 3:25s, and you will get cars doing 3:20s. Aim for 3:20s, and cars will do....you get the picture. There is a balance to be struck - I don't really believe the ACO ever expected to have cars doing 3:30 at Le Mans, even if that's what they stated publicly.

It's the life cycle of regulations in our sport, and twas ever thus. Rule-makers slowing cars down is absolutely nothing new and it even happened in 'the good old days'.

A tempest in tea cup... but never underestimate the nostalgia sickness of old man that pull the strings, and the interests behind the 3.30 figure(which can only be some kind of disease)...

Less than 3.30 it has been for a decade i think, being the alternative more strict crash tests and additional safety measures (why not airbags ?), specially improving the circuits safety, even re-surface many in many sections if need... and demanding larger safety zones on more problematic corners... why have to be the car manufacturers always having to carry the 'bill' all the time, can only scare then away cause you never lnow what next year budget will be, in face of so many arbitrary unwarranted alterations (probably will be more expensive to slow down a car to 3.30 now than to speed it up to 3.15).

[ and there are plenty of circuits to choose from...]

[deggis]

The rain lights thing was decided pretty quickly then, mandatory beginning from LM test day:

http://sportscar365.com/lemans/wec/a...or-prototypes/

[chernaudi]

Where and how are the lights to be mounted? Could that be associated with the cheese wedge lights on the Toyota during the Spa private test?

EDIT: it seems that's the purpose of the Toyota cheese wedge lights. Bulletin and changes to the technical regs say "two lights per transverse panel", and F1 style lights (I believe to be mounted behind the rear wing pylon?) are also legal.

[chernaudi]

Biggest consequence in terms of design seem to be that Audi and Porsche will have to crop/move the Audi Sport and Mobil decals on the cheese wedges, as well as make new parts (I don't know about the Porsche, but the area where the lights should be mounted on the Audi is a detachable panel that's held in place by screws).

I assume that the GT cars don't need to make the change because of how large their tail lights/brake lights are.

[TF110]

Figured thats why Toyota had those additional lights. Didnt think it was following a rule change but good decision.

[Articus]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Biggest consequence in terms of design seem to be that Audi and Porsche will have to crop/move the Audi Sport and Mobil decals on the cheese wedges, as well as make new parts (I don't know about the Porsche, but the area where the lights should be mounted on the Audi is a detachable panel that's held in place by screws).

I assume that the GT cars don't need to make the change because of how large their tail lights/brake lights are.

Well the rain light is still something entirely different to the tail light. It flashes.
See the F458 for example.

I'm pretty sure that center light right above the tail pipes is a flashing rain and speed limiter light.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Here is the relevant decision issued on May 20th by the Endurance Committee:
15-D0020-LMP1 & LMP2

Note that only one additional rain light conforming to the specs needs to be added on each transversal plate (which makes you wonder why Toyota opted to add two lights on each side).

BTW, for those who are still desperately trying to locate the relevant decisions from the Endurance Committee on the fia website, those are accessible here.

[hcl123]

The disease strikes again...
The future of LMP2

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/a...uture-of-lmp2/


............................................


That proposal of 'uniform single spec engines' can only be laughable... you can't compete so you try everyone to be with the engine tech you are better at... real sport behavior LOL...


Hope doesn't translate to LMP1, it would be a disaster... cutting costs is one thing, commodity racing another. Besides can't understand this 'politics' of cutting costs', neither FIA/ACO/others have the teams REAL budgets, there is so much you can cap without pretending to manage the teams by the rulebooks yourself, because there is so much the teams can do to expend out of the rulebook caps without having to say a thing to the committees... specially those with permanent test circuits like VAG and Ferrari and others... and not counting advanced sophisticated computer simulation programs (can be real expensive, specially characterizing new techs).


The future of LMP2 would be better hybrid... at least 3 MJ... its not only chicky, there is a real performance advantage, and its the future... open rules engine like LMP1, cap intake pressure and engine displacement below LMP1, but less weight to make LMP2 have a shot at an overall win.


Perhaps that 'school boy in uniform' discipline would be better for LMP3 (yeah! cap the age of the drivers to, now in here would make sense)...


[ Or perhaps in the politics field, FIA is playing the F1 card in favor ... technically endurance is light years ahead of F1, exactly because it has been having way much more open rules, and the races are much more exciting specially and not only because of that .... ACO be damn... there is another favorite son to protect...]

[deggis]

That is from March, since you posted it in a way as if it was a new thing.

There is general thread for P2 too: http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...138269&page=85

[deggis]

http://www.fiawec.com/en/news/lmp1-g...flow_3166.html

These days this process has changed slightly as, with accurate data on board from last year, the manufacturers now only have to supply their fuel consumption information to the governing body, rather than to each other.

“But there’s a whole section that is not covered by the equivalency regulations, concerning the performance of hybrid systems,” says Beaumesnil. “We did seek to limit performance according to the different levels of hybridization [ERS classes] and also slow the cars down generally: they were going too fast. To be honest, we were hoping for a lap time of around 3m35s at Le Mans and a top speed of no more than 310km/h on the Mulsanne Straight. In the end the pole was set in 3m21s, the top speed exceeded 340km/h and the performances of the three manufacturers were very close from the start despite using completely different technologies. This is proof that we were right in our thinking and it’s a great satisfaction.”

I do remember there (in this thread too) were some genuine worry that the cars would be barely faster than LMP2 or something like that.

Writing is definitely on the wall for major slowdown for either next year or 2017.

[TzeiTzei]

So let's enjoy this while it lasts