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

[JAG]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Huh? I would imagine anything being built from 2010 on will be to new (hinted at) specs, granted the current cars will still be eligible to run but only as long as they last and no new chassis (tubs) will be built to the old specs. The only way I see for lateral protection to be applied to current existing tubs, creating a hybrid per se, is to build the lateral protection into the sidepods with a bigger and better crush zone while trying to incorporate some anti-flight elements of sorts into them also.


L.P.

Take your theory to it's logical conclusion, and single seaters would be banned outright, considering the lack on side impact protection.

The DTM and WRC both run large, wide bodied, saloons/sedans. They are both moving towards regs that cocoon the driver in tight fitting, almost single seater like, tubs. Rally drivers and co-drivers have both been killed in recent years due to side impacts with trees and lamposts, the basic, wide bodied cars with rollcage, provide little protection in such an incident. Only last year Marcus Gronholm was injured on the Rally of Ireland when he hit a wall side on at relativelly low speed, yet single seater drivers escape unscathed from similar side on impacts.

What helps is the aformentioned head protection and cushioning, which works best when the driver is packed tightly in the cockpit, i.e single seaters/908, there is no logical reason to move to wider cockpits for safety reasons, other than easier access to remove the driver.

A regular LMP1 already provides ampl side impact crush zones for a driver, the tub always stands upto the impact with little damage, the question is whether the driver can survie the shock and whiplash of the impact.

Altering chassis to reduce the risk of flight is a totally different proposition.

[chewymonster]

Originally Posted by JAG

Think Mercedes CLR, that's the best guess so far.

I agree, it's the best example of what they are trying to achieve. But it doesn't make sense to have CLR looking race cars competing with current P1s. You just end up with rules that will ultimately favor one over the other. The ACO would likely give the Evo cars some extra benefit to get everone to make one.



Didn't it even have a road car based engine? Sounds a lot like the ACO has come full circle.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by JAG

Take your theory to it's logical conclusion, and single seaters would be banned outright, considering the lack on side impact protection.

The DTM and WRC both run large, wide bodied, saloons/sedans. They are both moving towards regs that cocoon the driver in tight fitting, almost single seater like, tubs. Rally drivers and co-drivers have both been killed in recent years due to side impacts with trees and lamposts, the basic, wide bodied cars with rollcage, provide little protection in such an incident. Only last year Marcus Gronholm was injured on the Rally of Ireland when he hit a wall side on at relativelly low speed, yet single seater drivers escape unscathed from similar side on impacts.

What helps is the aformentioned head protection and cushioning, which works best when the driver is packed tightly in the cockpit, i.e single seaters/908, there is no logical reason to move to wider cockpits for safety reasons, other than easier access to remove the driver.

A regular LMP1 already provides ampl side impact crush zones for a driver, the tub always stands upto the impact with little damage, the question is whether the driver can survie the shock and whiplash of the impact.

Altering chassis to reduce the risk of flight is a totally different proposition.

My thoughts about widening the tub has nothing to do with safety. Think of it as quick way to eliminate aero development areas, especially if they push the tub out to the edge of the chassis as in the Group C days. That way you have monocoque in the way and it is difficult to loop hole around.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by chewymonster

I agree, it's the best example of what they are trying to achieve. But it doesn't make sense to have CLR looking race cars competing with current P1s. You just end up with rules that will ultimately favor one over the other. The ACO would likely give the Evo cars some extra benefit to get everone to make one.



Didn't it even have a road car based engine? Sounds a lot like the ACO has come full circle.

Holy.... I never knew exactly how low that car was, until I saw that picture.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

My thoughts about widening the tub has nothing to do with safety. Think of it as quick way to eliminate aero development areas, especially if they push the tub out to the edge of the chassis as in the Group C days. That way you have monocoque in the way and it is difficult to loop hole around.

I'd be all for that, with the regular Group C cars they all had wide cockpits, and looked great. It was the 3.5 cars that set the trend for bubble cocklpits and shrink wrapped bodywork, now we see those single seater noses and intergrated 'wings' on the sides of the cars etc.

I always found it interesting you had standard, almost old style Group C looking Mercedes CLR's, competing head to head with the more radical Toyota GT-ONE's back in '99.

I agree, it's the best example of what they are trying to achieve. But it doesn't make sense to have CLR looking race cars competing with current P1s. You just end up with rules that will ultimately favor one over the other. The ACO would likely give the Evo cars some extra benefit to get everone to make one.

That's not neccesarily a bad thing, they don't want to chuck out current cars, let them phase out naturally.

Didn't it even have a road car based engine? Sounds a lot like the ACO has come full circle.

The orignal CLK-GTR had a production derived V12, I think it was quite an old engine. The CLK-LM and CLR had a V8, it may even have been based on the block from the C9/C11.

[Félix]

Andy Thorby commented on the LMP2004 regulation discussions and mentioned how they thought about enlarging the tub at first to make the cars real two-seaters. Two of the reasons it did not work were front suspension design issues (very short wishbones) and radiator size/positioning issues.

I like the current LMPs very well the way they are. Raised noses and sculpted shapes reminescent of F1 are just logical design-wise and trying to prevent that takes us that much closer to GA rules. For those who don't understand, if designers knowing what they know today designed a Group C car, it would have all the features you don't like now but also benefit from freer wing rules giving you F1-esque 10-plane rear wings and equally complicated front wings. LMPs are visually striking and most non-hardcore fans are impressed when they see them I think.

[chernaudi]

The Sauber C9/11 used the M119 5.0 V8, and the Mercedes CLM and CLR used a 6 liter(1998) and 5.7('99) versions of that engine.

So it could still classify as a stock block engine, unless MB did what Oldsmoble/Cadillac did with the Aurora/Northstar engine, and redesign the block and heads so the engine could be stress mounted.

[Taxi645]

LMS 2009 prototype rules




Here's my take on what roughly should be the LMS prototype rules for 2009:

1. LMP1

1.1 Diesel

1.1.1 For existing engine/chassis combinations and production based engines:
930kg, 2008 -7% air restrictor.

1.1.2 Everything else:
900kg, 2008 -10% air restrictor.

1.2 Petrol

1.2.1 For production/GT1 based engines:
900kg, 2008 -2% air restrictor

1.2.2 Everything else:
870kg, 2008 -5% air restrictor


2. LMP2

2.1 Diesel

2.1.1 For production based engines:
875kg, 2008 air restrictor.

2.1.2 Everything else:
850kg, 2008 -3% air restrictor.

1.2 Petrol

2.2.1 For production/GT2 based engines:
850kg, 2008 air restrictor

2.2.2 Everything else:
825kg, 2008 -3% air restrictor


Goals for the rule adaptions:
1 Make LMP1 petrol more competitive compared to LMP1 diesels and LMP2
2 Get LMP1 cars back above or near the Le Mans 3.30min lap.
3 Differentiate rules for different engine concepts LMP1 vs. LMP2, Petrol vs. diesel and race vs. production in order to stimulate chassis compatibility with different engine concepts which will reduce costs and facilitate more production engines/manufacturers to enter.
4 1.1.1 Keeps Audi and Peugeot on board by allowing them to stay competitive with their powerful but heavy V12's.


PS. Sorry for the cross post, but this thread seems more appropriate.

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

My thoughts about widening the tub has nothing to do with safety. Think of it as quick way to eliminate aero development areas, especially if they push the tub out to the edge of the chassis as in the Group C days. That way you have monocoque in the way and it is difficult to loop hole around.

And a lot easier to damage or write off as well . Most of the Group C cars were a metal based monocoque , and therefore would be easier and less expensive than having to graft in a composite repair every so often ?

[The Badger]

From that pic above , I didnt realise that the Benz was "THAT" low . That was an amazing car to watch , just a shame that it didnt last long .

[AU N EGL]

It would be nice if the ACO/FIA would use power to wt ratios:


P1 900KG / 700 RWHP


P2 800 KG / 500 RWHP


Rear Wheel Horse Power meased on one specific dyno( DynoJet) using the SAE standards

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

It would be nice if the ACO/FIA would use power to wt ratios:


P1 900KG / 700 RWHP


P2 800 KG / 500 RWHP


Rear Wheel Horse Power meased on one specific dyno( DynoJet) using the SAE standards

Power to weight ratios is nice for amateur or lower-level-pro-racing, but not for factory battles. Where's the point in improving the engine if every gain in horsepower is "rewarded" with additional weight?

[Taxi645]

Ok, latest update, but now I should stop:

1. LMP1

1.1 Diesel

1.1.1 For homologated engines or existing race engines:
950kg, 2008 -8% air restrictor (about 651hp, 1,46kg/hp)

1.1.2 Everything else:
900kg, 2008 -13% air restrictor (about 616hp, 1,46kg/hp)

1.2 Petrol

1.2.1 For homologated/GT1 based engines:
900kg, 2008 -4% air restrictor (about 652hp, 1,38kg/hp)

1.2.2 Everything else:
860kg, 2008 -5% air restrictor (about 614hp, 1,4kg/hp)


2. LMP2

2.1 Diesel

2.1.1 For homologated engines:
900kg, 2008 air restrictor (about 559hp, 1,61kg/hp)

2.1.2 Everything else:
860kg, ? air restrictor (about 528hp, 1,63kg/hp)

1.2 Petrol

2.2.1 For homologated/GT2 based engines:
860kg, 2008 air restrictor (about 555hp, 1,55kg/hp)

2.2.2 Everything else:
825kg, 2008 -3% air restrictor (about 525hp, 1,57kg/hp)


Goals for the rule adaptions:
1 Make LMP1 petrol more competitive compared to LMP1 diesels and LMP2
2 Get LMP1 cars back above or near the Le Mans 3.30min lap.
3 Differentiate rules for different engine concepts LMP1 vs. LMP2, Petrol vs. diesel and race vs. production in order to stimulate chassis compatibility with different engine concepts which will reduce costs and facilitate more production engines/manufacturers to enter.
4 1.1.1. Keeps Audi and Peugeot on board by allowing them to stay competitive with their powerful but heavy V12's.
5 Production/GT based LMP get a slight power to weight advantage to compensate for mileage and possible weight balance handicaps.




I know it doesn't look sexy, but I think it is quite well balanced.

Perhaps I should send it to the A.C.O.

[ger80]

who needs LMP2 diesel if its for privatear teams?

[HORNDAWG]

Anybody that wishes to run it.


L.P.