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

[Fogelhund]

Originally Posted by JAG

Peugeot can run under 3.20 with a current spec car and a privateer P2 can run under 3.35, so I would think a 2011 manufactuer P1 would run under 3.30.

Privateer P2? The HPD/Acura? Running in what last year was a factory car, with what was last year a factory team (Highcroft)?

[Fogelhund]

Argghhh!!! Dreaded three posts in a row.

Good to see the ACO drop GT1, though they never should have added it back. It will be interesting to see what Nissan chooses to do here. Will they build a GT2 version of the GT-R, or will they stick with GT1?

Bad day at the SRO offices.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

Privateer P2? The HPD/Acura? Running in what last year was a factory car, with what was last year a factory team (Highcroft)?

The Porsche RS Spyder did 3:37.720 in 2009 and in 2008 with full size wing 3:32.301. Getting under 3:30 will be hard unless you use a diesel of course

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

Privateer P2? The HPD/Acura? Running in what last year was a factory car, with what was last year a factory team (Highcroft)?

HPD are a bit of a halfway house, they are run like a factory team but don't currently have the resources of Audi and Peugeot.

This year Peugeot have gone 3 seconds quicker than last year despite further restrictions.

Highcroft were a second behind Strakka with a 3.37 despite running full fuel tanks so I believe they could dip well under 3.35 on a low tanks qualifying lap.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

Argghhh!!! Dreaded three posts in a row.

Good to see the ACO drop GT1, though they never should have added it back. It will be interesting to see what Nissan chooses to do here. Will they build a GT2 version of the GT-R, or will they stick with GT1?

Bad day at the SRO offices.

Will a GT2 version of the GT-R be able to run the V8 or will they need to fit the V6 Turbo?

Allowing them to run the V8 would mean any GT2 manufactuer can use engines not fitted to the road car.

[I Rosputnik]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

Argghhh!!! Dreaded three posts in a row.

Good to see the ACO drop GT1, though they never should have added it back. It will be interesting to see what Nissan chooses to do here. Will they build a GT2 version of the GT-R, or will they stick with GT1?

Bad day at the SRO offices.

I wonder what Ratel must be thinking. Shame, I liked the idea of a GT World Championship. Nissan could do both, in a way that BMW has expanded this year.

[HORNDAWG]

Good _______ riddance!!!!!!!







L.P.

[cmk]

Party up in here! Who's brought the Veuve?

[Spyderman]

Oooh Veuve! I say! Let me join in!

[Dead-Eye]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

source: http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/artic...1-regulations/

sooo...if you're in P2 now and want to stay there you need to buy a new car, but you can run your current one in P1? That's a bit weird for a class supposed to be for privateers, but on the other hand I can't think of a more sensible solution.

[KA]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

sooo...if you're in P2 now and want to stay there you need to buy a new car, but you can run your current one in P1? That's a bit weird for a class supposed to be for privateers, but on the other hand I can't think of a more sensible solution.

Allowing existing P2s to run in P1 is not that different LMP900/LMP675 to LMP1/LMP2- the faster 675s like the MG-Lola went into P1, the older SR2-based stuff like Lola B2K/40s & Lucchinis into P2.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

sooo...if you're in P2 now and want to stay there you need to buy a new car, but you can run your current one in P1? That's a bit weird for a class supposed to be for privateers, but on the other hand I can't think of a more sensible solution.

From what I understand a current P2 will need to be balasted upto 900kg whether they run in P1 or P2.

To run in P1 they would need larger tyres while to run in P2 they'd need a production based engine.

These cars will be eligible for a couple more years as far as I no.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

sooo...if you're in P2 now and want to stay there you need to buy a new car, but you can run your current one in P1? That's a bit weird for a class supposed to be for privateers, but on the other hand I can't think of a more sensible solution.

The current LM P2s can still race in 2011 on 3 conditions :

1. Installation of a new engine derived from a production series.
2. Chassis development frozen as at 31/12/2010.
3. Performance adjusted in relation to the new 2011 models.

As P-2s.








L.P.

[gwyllion]

This is the way I understand the announcement.

• A LMP1 2010 car can run in 2011 with some restrictors.
• A LMP2 2010 car can run in 2011 if they put in a GT2 (based) engine (with restrictions to balance performance to real LMP2 2011 cars).
• A LMP2 2010 cars can be transformed into a LMP1 2011 car. They can keep the engine, but they need to increase the weight and some aero changes are required (e.g. addition shark fin). They can use larger tyres and bigger brakes.
• A LMP2 2010 car can be transformed into a LMP2 2011 car. They need to put in a GT2 (based) engine, they have to increase the weight and they need to change the aero a bit.
• A LMP1 2010 car can be transformed into a LMP1 2011 car by putting in a LMP2 engine and reworking the aero.
• Transforming a LMP1 2010 car into a LMP2 2011 does not make sense (because you have the chassis cost cap rule).

[mariantic]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

This is the way I understand the announcement.

• A LMP1 2010 car can run in 2011 with some restrictors.
• A LMP2 2010 car can run in 2011 if they put in a GT2 (based) engine (with restrictions to balance performance to real LMP2 2011 cars).
• A LMP2 2010 cars can be transformed into a LMP1 2011 car. They can keep the engine, but they need to increase the weight and some aero changes are required (e.g. addition shark fin). They can use larger tyres and bigger brakes.
• A LMP2 2010 car can be transformed into a LMP2 2011 car. They need to put in a GT2 (based) engine, they have to increase the weight and they need to change the aero a bit.
• A LMP1 2010 car can be transformed into a LMP1 2011 car by putting in a LMP2 engine and reworking the aero.
• Transforming a LMP1 2010 car into a LMP2 2011 does not make sense (because you have the chassis cost cap rule).

Qwyllion, I think you are right on all but point 1. The text in English of the PR says, "2010 LM P1's eligible in 2011 provided that as announced two years ago, the cubic capacity of the LM P1 prototypes will be reduced."

I read that as 2010 LMP1s need 3.4lt petrol engines (2.0lt turbo) or 3.7lt diesels for 2011. very confusing though -

Mariantic

[Flat12-Aircool]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/RCELeMans2010.htmlCompared to the current regulations diesel gets a relatively smaller fuel tank: 13% smaller than petrol (65 vs 75 liter) instead of 10% smaller (81 vs 90 liter).

I think the Fuel tank size reduction is only for LMP2, however I stand to be corrected.

[gwyllion]

More info on the LMP2 cost cap: http://www.racecar-engineering.com/n...-for-2011.html

[Félix]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Can you give an example of this? In Europe all road car manufacturers are decreasing the displacement and adding turbocharging. (...)

For instance, Porsche is adding direct injection and variable geometry turbos in their 911 series. And there are rumors that the entry level Cayman/Boxster will get the 4 cilinder turbo FSI from Audi/VW.

I meant that for the moment, everytime a new 911, Boxster, 458 and most other performance cars comes out, it means a bigger engine (never smaller) with direct fuel injection and widely improved fuel consumption numbers. For performance cars, buyers aren't ready to let go of their V12s and other big engines (although I'm sure manufacturers will have to change this trend soon) since trying to sell an upgrade with less power is not gonna happen. Endurance racing should be used to test solutions that would be the answer to this problem: making big engines viable compared to smaller ones that have to be revved hard to make power.

I was also referring to knighty's posts about engine down-speeding: http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...47#post2606147. It involves supercharging as well, but seems to give potential results that are "funnier" but still as green as the very small engine sizes that are enforced by the ACO now. To me, race engines that need to be wringed by the neck to get to 7000+ rpm are not relevant to daily commuters who rarely exceed 4000rpm... And that might also explain why the diesels with their sizeable torque advantage are dominating on the track.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by Fogelhund

It has been suggested by Mulsanne Mike, that the LMP2 cars will have engines "based" on GT2 powerplants, but with substantial work on the inside. I think you'll find they should have more power.

With the Version 4 regulations draft that has gone away. The definition of a homologated engine is:

...made in a minimum of 1000 units in 12 consecutive months and come :
- Either from a grand touring car,
- Or from a large production car.

I think this definition is similar to earlier drafts, the primary change being that all the text defining what modifications are allowed has been lined out.

Here's what's allowed:

5.6.2 Modifications authorised
5.6.2.1 – Cylinder block, cylinder head(s), valve angles, number and location of camshafts : they must remain original, as they are fitted on the series vehicle.
The firing order is free.
5.6.2.2 - The adding of material to the cylinder block or cylinder head(s) is not permitted. Intake and exhaust manifolds are free but they must be supported on the original cylinder head gasket face.
5.6.2.3 – Cylinder heads may be modified by machining, provided that the original part remains identifiable. The valve tappet guides may be fitted with sleeves if not originally. The cylinder block may be modified by machining :
· for the modification of the bore or for sleeving if the
original block is not fitted with sleeves.
· Below the horizontal plane passing through the axle of the crankshaft bearings for the mounting of the dry sump.
The oil sump is free and may include the crankshaft bearing
caps.
5.6.2.4 –Lubrication holes, injectors holes may be modified or
closed :
· The use of hélicoils is permitted.
5.6.2.5. – The elements fixed on the cylinder block and cylinder
head(s) (crankshaft, connecting rods, pistons, camshafts,
intake manifold, etc. ) are free but they must be in compliance
with the articles 5.2.1. to 5.2.4. above. The weight of the
crankshaft must not be less than more than 10% from the
original (titanium forbidden).
5.6.2.6 - Are forbidden save on the road car available for sale :
· Variable valve timing (*) · Variable length/diameter inlet
systems (*) · Variable geometry turbo/superchargers (*) ·
Titanium apart from connecting rods, valves and valve
retainers, heat shields · Magnesium apart from standard
production mechanical parts which are described in the ACO
Homologation form · Ceramic components · Carbon or
composite materials, except used in clutches and non stressed
covers, lids or ducts.
(*) These devices cannot be modified, but they can be
neutralised or removed.
5.6.2.7 – It is permitted to add a supercharging system on a
normally aspirated engine if it complies with all the rules
prescribed for the turbocharged engine in LMP2

Previous text allowed modifications to: block, heads, pistons, crankshafts, flywheel, con rods, valves, cams, valve train, valve timing, ECU, oiling, intake and exhaust sys., cooling sys., All that text now has a line through it.

[MulsanneMike]

I'm confused as hell by this wording:

2010 LM P1's eligible in 2011 provided that as announced two years ago, the cubic capacity of the LM P1 prototypes will be reduced.

And,

The current LM P2s can still race in 2011 on 3 conditions :

* 1. Installation of a new engine derived from a production series.



So you can run an R15 in 2011...as long as you change the engine? That sounds nothing at all like grandfathering to me....

Then there's this:


It gives the 2010 LM P1 prototypes an extra year with their performance adjusted in relation to the new 2011 cars.

The wording is really bad...bottom line, can you continue to run a 5.5L V10 Judd in 2011 if you wanted to? And if so, why the initial wording that says otherwise?

[broadrun96]

Could Audi reduce the capacity of their current engine by sleeving or reducing the stroke to bring it within the new size range? Or has Audi been working on a reduced size version of the current R15 engine? Also all the Judd LMP1s would have to shell out for a 2011 version?
It does sound like any LMP2 car is going to require some investment to stay in class though. Dyson, and any other would have to move up to LMP1 for 2011 with the 2.0 turbo but could stay with the Lola by adding weight and bigger tires, correct? Same with the HPDs? Plus everyone will need all new bodywork to incorporate the sharkfin for 2011? Anybody done a mockup of how both open and closed cars would work this into their cars? Single fin down the middle of the coupes and one on each side of the spyders to the rear wing endplates or one coming out of the back of one of the roll-over structures?

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

Could Audi reduce the capacity of their current engine by sleeving or reducing the stroke to bring it within the new size range? Or has Audi been working on a reduced size version of the current R15 engine? Also all the Judd LMP1s would have to shell out for a 2011 version?
It does sound like any LMP2 car is going to require some investment to stay in class though. Dyson, and any other would have to move up to LMP1 for 2011 with the 2.0 turbo but could stay with the Lola by adding weight and bigger tires, correct? Same with the HPDs? Plus everyone will need all new bodywork to incorporate the sharkfin for 2011? Anybody done a mockup of how both open and closed cars would work this into their cars? Single fin down the middle of the coupes and one on each side of the spyders to the rear wing endplates or one coming out of the back of one of the roll-over structures?

Single fin for both:

3.6.4. Fin (Must be approved by the FIA)
a/ General :
A vertical rigid fin should be added to the car, this fin should be:
· Longitudinal and parallel to the car centreline.
· Perfectly located on the longitudinal axis of the car with
equal thickness either side of the centre line.
The fin should have a constant thickness (between 10mm
minimum and 20mm maximum).
With the car complete on its wheels, the visible area (lateral
view) of the fin should be >3000cm² from both sides.
The fin should be continuous without any holes or openings.
No other device can be attached to this fin.
The fin can be integrally fixed to the engine cover and/or fixed
rigidly to the chassis, rear wing and rear structure (on a
“bridge”).
Tools may be required to remove the engine cover and/or the
fin.
b/ Position :
The top edge must be straight and situated between 920mm
and 1030mm above the reference plane.
The leading edge must be straight and situated at the rear of
the roof (closed car) or at a maximum of 300mm behind the
cockpit opening (open car).
The trailing edge must be straight and situated between 350mm
and 450mm behind the rear axle centre line.
The bottom edge may be no more than 25mm above bodywork
surface.
c/ Geometry :
The leading edge, top edge and bottom edge may be made
round with a constant radius (the radius will be equal to half of
the fin thickness).
The trailing edge may be bevelled or have an elliptical form on
no more than 20mm.
50mm radius maximum is permitted between top/leading edge,
top/trailing edge, bottom/leading edge & bottom/trailing edge.
If the fin is attached to the engine cover, a maximum of 50mm
radius will be permitted between both parts.
d/ Deflection :
A static load test using 400mm long channel tool positioned
over the top edge of the fin, will be applied.
The channel can be positioned anywhere along the top edge of
the fin so that it will not overhang either end (side view blend
radius will be ignored).
Load will be applied at the centre of the 400mm channel.
Test to be carried out on fin in situ so that mountings to the
chassis / bodywork are also tested.
The deflection of the fin can be no more 50mm (at any points)
for a load of 200daN.

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

Single fin for both:


The fin should be continuous without any holes or openings.
No other device can be attached to this fin.

Sounds like they've made the decision to ban any F-duct madness encroaching into sportscars before anybody gets started on building one.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

Sounds like they've made the decision to ban any F-duct madness encroaching into sportscars before anybody gets started on building one.

Yeah, kind of a shame. The future of aero lies in this type and movable devices.

[broadrun96]

Would like to see adjustable rear wing, even if they make it one or two adjustments per lap. How much work does Lola do on the aero packages after they sell the cars? Do they work on a LM/Spa package and a street/high downforce package or do the teams themselves contract Lola to make a new kit for them if they desire? Just thinking that moveable aero, while a cool idea for the various ways engineers would approach it, could become expensive quickly with Audi and Pug pushing it and hurt the privateers. Not so much that they would have to pursue that path to keep up but if they did and the ACO/FIA decided their approach was outside the rules after they spent money researching and building parts