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

[ger80]

Diesel makes performance balance problems in LMP1 and in WTCC, do we need that in LMP2 too?

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by ger80

Diesel makes performance balance problems in LMP1 and in WTCC, do we need that in LMP2 too?

Well, generally performance balance problems are caused by unbalanced regulations, if you have a fair rule book, you'll get good races. On a side note, AFAIK diesels are allowed in LMP2 already in LMS, it's just that it's kinda difficult to get down to 825kg (certainly with room left to be able to shift weight around) with a diesel with sufficient power to be competitive.

[HORNDAWG]

Yes, we need the ability for someone to run in the P-2 class with similar options as there are in the P-1 class. After all, is it not prototype racing also?


L.P.

[ger80]

Nevertheless I would like to see them removed, you cant really balance engines with such a different touque over rpm curve from my point of view. If one starts using diesel in LMP2 and has a performance advantage, everybody else has to develop diesel solutions too. That makes P2 even for expensive than it is today with the RS Spyder ....

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

Well, generally performance balance problems are caused by unbalanced regulations, if you have a fair rule book, you'll get good races. On a side note, AFAIK diesels are allowed in LMP2 already in LMS, it's just that it's kinda difficult to get down to 825kg (certainly with room left to be able to shift weight around) with a diesel with sufficient power to be competitive.

Yes, diesel is already allowed in the 2008 P-2 rules.


L.P.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by ger80

Nevertheless I would like to see them removed, you cant really balance engines with such a different touque over rpm curve from my point of view. If one starts using diesel in LMP2 and has a performance advantage, everybody else has to develop diesel solutions too. That makes P2 even for expensive than it is today with the RS Spyder ....

I wouldn't mind that much if they're left out, just think the A.C.O. likes to keep them in (why add them otherwise?). You say can't balance engines with such a different torque curve, well that's pretty much what I tried to do. I gave the petrols less weight with a better peak power to weight ratio. Possibly with slightly more room to shift weight. The diesels on the other hand have a fuller power curve (more torque) and better mileage.

Different tracks will give different cars an edge, but I think if you leave politics out experts would be well able to create a balanced rule book.


BTW, I tried to make the rules such that weight wise, a chassis can (with modifications) work with any of the listed engines, be it LMP1 or 2, diesel or petrol, free or homologated.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Yes, diesel is already allowed in the 2008 P-2 rules.

L.P.

But only production engines.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by ger80

Nevertheless I would like to see them removed, you cant really balance engines with such a different touque over rpm curve from my point of view. If one starts using diesel in LMP2 and has a performance advantage, everybody else has to develop diesel solutions too. That makes P2 even for expensive than it is today with the RS Spyder ....

actully you can. ((RWTQ+ RWHP ) / 2) / wt

So it does not matter where the torque or HP is in the curve.

Again need to use a standard Dyno( DynoJet for example) and Society of Automotive Engineers ( SAE ) guild lines to measure HP and TQ

[ger80]

RWTQ: torque on the rear wheels
RWHP: horse power on the rear wheels
wt: weight?
which unit system is used for this?

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by deggis

But only production engines.

Yes it is. And I would imagine that it was introduced in that way to keep the cost down in the 'privateer class', while allowing someone to explore the possible value of running a diesel in P-2. Someone like ECO, but that was more willing to go for wins with a diesel yet not have to spend on the level of Audi or Peugeot. We shall see.

Also as long as we are talking rules per se, the LMS needs to be allowed to make 1or2 adjustments during the year. In the case of the rules being lopsided to start, 2 adjustments would allow for a tweak and then a second in case it was to far or not quite enough. But only in a clear cut extreme need.

L.P.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by ger80

RWTQ: torque on the rear wheels
RWHP: horse power on the rear wheels
wt: weight?
which unit system is used for this?

Not ON the rear wheels but FROM the rear wheels to the pavement.

torque = lb ft and wt in English pounds or Torque in Newton Meters and wt in Kg.


Which system? SAE = Society of Automotive Engineers
http://www.sae.org/servlets/index

[ger80]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Yes it is. And I would imagine that it was introduced in that way to keep the cost down in the 'privateer class', while allowing someone to explore the possible value of running a diesel in P-2. Someone like ECO, but that was more willing to go for wins with a diesel yet not have to spend on the level of Audi or Peugeot. We shall see.

Also as long as we are talking rules per se, the LMS needs to be allowed to make 1or2 adjustments during the year. In the case of the rules being lopsided to start, 2 adjustments would allow for a tweak and then a second in case it was to far or not quite enough. But only in a clear cut extreme need.

L.P.

And then everybody who doesnt win a race starts complaining about the regs to try that his car gets a bigger restrictor, less weight, ... at the 2 adjustments .....

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by ger80

And then everybody who doesnt win a race starts complaining about the regs to try that his car gets a bigger restrictor, less weight, ... at the 2 adjustments .....

So, and your point would be? Just because someone is sniveling, does not mean that the ACO or LMS have to make those adjustments. But when there is a clear disparity, as in the diesel P-1 to petrol P-1, they have the ability to rectify the situation in a much more timely manner!


L.P.

[ger80]

all ok, nevertheless I would like to see the P2 diesels removed. Nobody needs them from my point of view. In P1 the diesel are used for marketing, but the ACO wants that P2 gets more a privatear class so there is no need for a diesel

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by ger80

all ok, nevertheless I would like to see the P2 diesels removed. Nobody needs them from my point of view. In P1 the diesel are used for marketing, but the ACO wants that P2 gets more a privatear class so there is no need for a diesel

Could you explain to me why you reckon privateer and diesel are incompatible? AFAIK Porsche and Aston are doing just as much for marketing as any diesel team.