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

[chernaudi]

Well, since the ACO is on a "road relevance kick", why not get rid of fuel flow meters, and go back to using sonic air restrictors, and allow the following along with it:

Variable Valve Timing (hell, damn near every production car now has some form of it to improve efficiency)

The "air hybrid" system that Audi tested in 2013 but ditched because the ACO BOP'd it to non relevancy

Also instead of fuel flow meters, set max engine capacity limits for NA vs forced induction, but keep other items free within that and encourage other engine configurations and systems (rotory engines, ERS-K and ERS-H, VTG turbos on gasoline engines, variable geometry intake manifolds--something else that many road cars, including mass market ones, have as standard).

And come up with rules that even without fuel flow meters, favor more efficiency. We have to remember it was because of the sonic air restrictor that Audi used DFI and diesel. When you can't make more power because you can't force more air into an engine, you have to find others ways to boost performance. DFI easily gave the Audi R8 the ability from 2001 onwards to easily run one more lap per tank of fuel at LM than the 2000 spec port injection engine did, and diesel boosted that another one or two laps.

Also, instead of using/allowing hybrids to be basically a "go faster" button, engineer them to be pure range extenders. You know, like they're used 95% of the time on road cars.

And if emissions are a "problem" (or something to address to enforce more road relevance), force everyone to run catalytic converters/particle filters, and run either ethanol blended fuels, or water/alcohol injection into the engines to reduce detonation (boosting reliability) and cutting down on CO, CO2 and NOX emissions (due to the same thing that causes detonation, which is reaction between hot metal and hot air in the combustion chamber during ignition), or, as on an Audi tuned Lamborghini engine (and probably others), allow hybrid port and DFI injection. Let teams explore all of those options to find the ones that make most sense for them.

I'm of the opinion that the fuel flow meter isn't the end all be all, and IMO, it's just added complexity and cost over other solutions. And at the same time, the ACO have painted themselves into a box by showing favoritism to some road relevant solutions, but casting aside others.

[Akrapovic]

Can someone with more technical knowledge explain (in simple terms), why we need the fuel flow meters, and cannot just set a limit on the fuel to be used over the course of a race distance? That way you enforce efficiency by not allowing more fuel, and the teams still have to compete for the race win, so will be driving fast. Isn't this the old Group C regulations?

Why does this not work now, what advantage do the fuel flow meters bring, and why are fuel flow meters better than air restrictors? I think I'm basically hoping Sam Collins reads this lol.

[Matt]

Let's not go back to displacement limits for engines, that was very dumb.

Even dumber that it's happening in GT cars.

[bhtooefr]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Well, since the ACO is on a "road relevance kick", why not get rid of fuel flow meters, and go back to using sonic air restrictors, and allow the following along with it:

Because, in 2016, what governments are restricting intake air? And, sonic air restrictors act to reduce efficiency, by increasing pumping losses and intake vacuum. However, almost all governments are restricting average fuel consumption. So, restrict fuel, and let the manufacturers figure out how to hit that target most efficiently.

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Variable Valve Timing (hell, damn near every production car now has some form of it to improve efficiency)

100% agreed.

Originally Posted by chernaudi

The "air hybrid" system that Audi tested in 2013 but ditched because the ACO BOP'd it to non relevancy

I thought it was straight-up banned, not just BOPed. In any case, sure, let the manufacturers try things like that, LMP1 is meant to be a test-bed for technologies. (I actually don't think it'd be tried now, Li-ion tech has gotten so good at power-handling capability that low-energy-capacity solutions are no longer making sense, and that that's why Audi and Toyota abandoned their alternative solutions, not the rulebook changing.)

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Also instead of fuel flow meters, set max engine capacity limits for NA vs forced induction

Except engine capacity limits aren't really a thing that is road relevant. (And, as Matt points out, they're a thing in GTE, and they're quite dumb there - look at Corvette, where they got waivers to run the old C6.R engine with DFI added, because they had to sleeve the engine down to the maximum displacement for the class.) And, that won't stop engine development from happening and costing plenty of money, anyway.

Originally Posted by chernaudi

but keep other items free within that and encourage other engine configurations and systems (rotory engines, ERS-K and ERS-H, VTG turbos on gasoline engines, variable geometry intake manifolds--something else that many road cars, including mass market ones, have as standard).

Sure.

Originally Posted by chernaudi

And come up with rules that even without fuel flow meters, favor more efficiency. We have to remember it was because of the sonic air restrictor that Audi used DFI and diesel. When you can't make more power because you can't force more air into an engine, you have to find others ways to boost performance. DFI easily gave the Audi R8 the ability from 2001 onwards to easily run one more lap per tank of fuel at LM than the 2000 spec port injection engine did, and diesel boosted that another one or two laps.

However, the air restrictor formula, while it does encourage things like DFI, which improve efficiency, it also encourages things like running richer to increase power, which probably isn't the most efficient way to go.

As far as Audi going to diesel... you really think that was about the restrictor plate formula? The R10 got a lot more air to play with than gasoline LMP1s did, due to Audi and Peugeot lobbying. It also needed more air due to the way diesel combustion works (basically, you can't run stoichiometric average, because the fuel mixes poorly with the air).

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Also, instead of using/allowing hybrids to be basically a "go faster" button, engineer them to be pure range extenders. You know, like they're used 95% of the time on road cars.

Well, the road cars that are using hybrid systems are also being driven in relatively low speed environments. Would you like to see Nürburgring-like speed limits set on the Circuit de la Sarthe, including under race conditions? (And, I mean, LMP2s have similar top speeds to LMP1-H, IIRC - it's just that LMP1-H cars get to that top speed much quicker.)

Alternately, maybe Index of Performance rules, where the BOP is done after the race is completed by calculating a target number of race laps for each car, and the winner is the one that exceeded their target number by the highest percentage? (Well, OK, how it historically worked was by class, and classes were by displacement limits themselves, so BOP was only between classes.)

Because I sure don't want to see either rule set.

And, there's already a mechanism for restricting usage of the hybrid system as a "go faster" button - it's called a combination of fuel flow limits (reducing ICE power), and hybrid power limits (300 kW max at the Circuit de la Sarthe).

Originally Posted by chernaudi

And if emissions are a "problem" (or something to address to enforce more road relevance), force everyone to run catalytic converters/particle filters, and run either ethanol blended fuels, or water/alcohol injection into the engines to reduce detonation (boosting reliability) and cutting down on CO, CO2 and NOX emissions (due to the same thing that causes detonation, which is reaction between hot metal and hot air in the combustion chamber during ignition), or, as on an Audi tuned Lamborghini engine (and probably others), allow hybrid port and DFI injection. Let teams explore all of those options to find the ones that make most sense for them.

CO2 emissions are a result of burning fuel. Want to reduce CO2 emissions? Burn less fuel. Which means reduce what's allowed to go through the fuel flow sensor that you rail against.

CO emissions are a result of incomplete burning of fuel. Want to reduce CO emissions? Burn your fuel better. (Or react it in the catalytic converter.)

NOx emissions are a result of excess oxygen in the cylinder. Want to reduce NOx emissions? Don't have excess oxygen. (Or aftertreat your exhaust - small amounts of NOx will happen without much excess oxygen and can be handled by a catalytic converter, or you'll need more complex systems, ideally with exhaust fluid.)

Ethanol-blended fuels are road-relevant (and Shell V-Power LM24 is 20% ethanol). Water/methanol injection... well, OK, BMW's doing it on a road car, but c'mon, that's not really road relevant. And, you seem to think detonation is the only bad thing that can happen in an emissions context, when it's not even applicable to diesels, and the teams have it under control.

And, Audi's actually running DPFs on their diesel race cars for dealing with particulate emissions (which are another result of incomplete combustion). I'm for catalytic converters, DPFs, and NOx aftertreatment on LMP1, though.

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Can someone with more technical knowledge explain (in simple terms), why we need the fuel flow meters, and cannot just set a limit on the fuel to be used over the course of a race distance? That way you enforce efficiency by not allowing more fuel, and the teams still have to compete for the race win, so will be driving fast. Isn't this the old Group C regulations?

Why does this not work now, what advantage do the fuel flow meters bring, and why are fuel flow meters better than air restrictors? I think I'm basically hoping Sam Collins reads this lol.

Fuel flow meters act as an absolute maximum power limiter (although one that can be worked around by improving thermal efficiency), as well as a three-lap rolling average power limiter.

Air restrictors also act as absolute maximum power limiters, that can be worked around by reducing losses (which improves thermal efficiency) or burning more fuel (which reduces thermal efficiency). (For chernaudi's point about the R8 switching to DFI, DFI allows higher compression, which gives more expansion, reducing losses.)

The old Group C total fuel limit formula allowed a driver to do a blisteringly (dangerously, even) fast lap, then take it easy for a while.

[chernaudi]

I don't get what's so "evil" about the sonic air restrictor? If you wanna go on a road relevance kick, why aren't GTE and GT3 and GT4 using fuel flow meters to limit performance instead of air restrictors? Could it be because they're expensive for what they are and what they do?

I do wholeheartedly believe that some here are overlooking, intentionally or not, that air restrictors are relevant. And that's because, just like how we can't live without breathing in air, engines can't run without sucking in air. Once air going into an engine exceeds the sound barrier, the engine won't make power anymore. If you burn up more fuel to attempt to make more power, you can't really do that, you just burn fuel uselessly. Same thing with trying to rev the engine faster to make more power. Above a certain RPM range, the engine again will stop making power.

But for those of you who defend the fuel flow meter, I'd still argue that there's cheaper and simpler ways to restricting engine power while boosting fuel mileage. Like not using air restrictors, but limiting the size of the actual air intake? That happens on road cars for mechanical packaging and aerodynamic packaging reasons. Just look under the hood of your car? That elephant's trunk that leads to the intake manifold is in and of itself an air restrictor.

Or how about using an electronic limiter that if the max fuel flow allotment is exceeded, it cuts power to the engine?

I don't get, not like, the fuel flow meter. I don't like lift and coast. If you're gonna do that, may as well run half or three quarter throttle. Or just mandate that a car has to go a certain distance per fuel load. The ACO did that in 1975 at LM, and that formed the basis of the pre-Group C LMGTP class. Maybe then, I'd argue that the fuel flow meter has some use.

But as of now, IMO, it's just an overcomplication that added several thousand dollars to the cost of running a single LMP1 car every race, and that adds up. And not so much the meter itself (though I'm betting that a single meter costs more than a whole pile of air restrictors), but the electronics that make it work the way it does.

[carbsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Can someone with more technical knowledge explain (in simple terms), why we need the fuel flow meters, and cannot just set a limit on the fuel to be used over the course of a race distance? That way you enforce efficiency by not allowing more fuel, and the teams still have to compete for the race win, so will be driving fast. Isn't this the old Group C regulations?

Back in the Group C days qualifying times were several seconds faster than any race lap, something to the tune of 5%.

You also have to consider that in modern times safety cars are a regular occurrence, so for every safety car period the power of the cars during green flag conditions would increase to the point you could potentially have P1 cars doing a race pace faster than F1 while dodging GTE cars.

[GasperG]

If you limit only amount of fuel per distance, then we would see even more coasting down the straight and lower top speeds. Engines would be more powerful for quick exits out of the corners, but race action would be somewhat strange.

Narower cars have one benefit though, overtaking. The change in width is not so drastic that we could see a MotoGP action, but nevertheless there is some benefit.

[Acid09]

As glorious as the Group C days were, the fuel regs often did lead to some weird, anticlimactic racing towards the end of races with cars running out of fuel or having to slow down because of fuel.

That's not acceptable nowadays where racing is a TV sport and an exciting finish is desired by everyone. A finish like in Fuji would likely be impossible with such a ruleset.

[PorscheFanNo1]

Originally Posted by Acid09

As glorious as the Group C days were, the fuel regs often did lead to some weird, anticlimactic racing towards the end of races with cars running out of fuel or having to slow down because of fuel.

That's not acceptable nowadays where racing is a TV sport and an exciting finish is desired by everyone. A finish like in Fuji would likely be impossible with such a ruleset.

Very true, on the other hand, it also created some great races just because of it, Nurburgring 89 comes to mind, if the year is right, maybe it was 88.

[TzeiTzei]

Originally Posted by Acid09

As glorious as the Group C days were, the fuel regs often did lead to some weird, anticlimactic racing towards the end of races with cars running out of fuel or having to slow down because of fuel.

That's not acceptable nowadays where racing is a TV sport and an exciting finish is desired by everyone. A finish like in Fuji would likely be impossible with such a ruleset.

Very unlikely with modern ECUs.

[bhtooefr]

Well, you do see plenty of slowing down for low energy reasons in Formula E... especially if a crash required an early car change, the entire second stint is slow, with occasional attempts at the fastest lap.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

I don't get what's so "evil" about the sonic air restrictor? If you wanna go on a road relevance kick, why aren't GTE and GT3 and GT4 using fuel flow meters to limit performance instead of air restrictors? Could it be because they're expensive for what they are and what they do?

I think I posted a reply months ago to this same question by you or someone else. In my opinion sonic air restrictors are not quite that infallible. They can be engineered around. I believe the flow restrictor in the refueling rigs uses the same basic concept, but the medium is liquid and not gas. And Porsche engineered a way around that. The same would be true on the use of sonic air restrictors when applied to manufacture based teams. Then the next question is... why do they work in other formulas like GTE, etc. That is because air restrictors are just one factor in setting overall BoP. So the governing body frankly doesn't care about the accuracy or if one manufacture plays tricks to get around them. They just look at the overall performance and then adjust their various knobs (weight, restrictor size, etc.) on a given homologated car. Note... those values are set on a per car basis. So if we want a full on BoP based series (and before you say it, EoT is not BoP) then I think sonic air restrictors are not feasible. I believe the manufactures were very much aware of this and that is why they likely steered the rules in the direction of measuring instantaneous fuel flow. That is something that is MUCH harder to cheat.

Originally Posted by chernaudi

But as of now, IMO, it's just an overcomplication that added several thousand dollars to the cost of running a single LMP1 car every race, and that adds up. And not so much the meter itself (though I'm betting that a single meter costs more than a whole pile of air restrictors), but the electronics that make it work the way it does.

I think there has been some posts or news items previously about the privateer teams complaining about the extra costs of running the flow meters. This is personal opinion, but I generally don't buy it. Yes... it does add cost. Is it so much extra that it breaks budgets? I don't believe so. But that is just my opinion. I just think they are an easy thing to point out by people. Sort of like how ugly the big fin is.

Richard

[Starfish Primer]

Let´s go then for 4 liter V12 engines.

[hondafan37]

Originally Posted by Starfish Primer

Let´s go then for 4 liter V12 engines.

Yes!!!! I like the V12
Perhaps like a second engine options in P2.
Gibson 4.2 V8 and Menard 4.2 V12

[chernaudi]

And it has to be noted that in 2011 at Sebring when the Audi R18 was reportedly running 1:45s and 1:44s in testing, 6 years earlier a Champion Audi R8 was running similar times in a similar private test at Sebring in 2005.

Now if the R8 had a closed cockpit and 14.5 inch wide front tires and modern rubber, how much faster could it go, or the Audi powered Bentley Speed 8 if it had 14.5 inch wide rubber on all four corners instead of LMP675/LMP1 wheels and tires?

[TF110]

The R8 probably a bit more horsepower and it had the full width rear wing. Current GT500 cars are doing the same laps times as the R8 was at Suzuka, and are close at Fuji to what the 2012 lmp1's were doing.

[chernaudi]

In ALMS trim, Audi were making "only" 550+bhp instead of the 610+ they rated their car at in 2000-2002. It only stands to reason that on modern tires in original LMP900 spec air restrictors that the R8 would probably be faster than the current LMP1 cars.

It also has to be remembered that the air restrictor era R18s had ICE power of probably about what the R8 originally made.

[TF110]

I don't think they'd be that close. The aero on today's cars is a lot better and the hybrid power more than makes up for the lower engine power.

[chernaudi]

Aero was a lot better back in 2011, but it took the R18 until 2013 to beat a 1:44 time in either testing or a timed session.

Also, rubber makes a lot of difference. Give a R8 modern tires and it'd be a lot faster than on 2005 tires.

[carbsmith]

I'm not sure what the point is in comparing alleged unofficial test times? We know pretty clearly the 2011 cars were around 0.4-1s a lap faster than 2005 from official times.

The LMP900 aerodynamic regulations that were still in force in ALMS in 2005 were way more favorable than LMP1, that shouldn't be news to anyone given the large performance handicaps they were given during the transition period. Reducing efficiency was an inherent effect of the safety improvements put in place, that was unavoidable. The 2009 rear wing change was aimed primarily at slowing the cars down as a safety stopgap, but that regulation is no longer in force in LMP1 and will be removed from LMP2.

Wide fronts would do nothing for an LMP900 car because the regulations favoured a different weight and aerodynamic balance, even under the 2008 rules I doubt any car but the Acura could have made it work. The narrower tires on the old LMGTPs and new LMP1 cars don't slow them down that much either, particularly now that they're allowed low speed 4WD.

GT500 cars are fast for similar reasons to LMP900, since their aerodynamic regulations have been written with no consideration for blow overs they don't have raised floors, raised splitters, short overhangs, holes, or any of those other things that reduce aerodynamic efficiency.

You can take these arguments in all kinds of directions. People complain about how slow F1 cars are today but if they ran the kind of tires they had at the height of a tire war in 2005 they'd probably be the fastest ever. But the last 3 seasons have been the most competitive full seasons of prototype sports car racing since 1991 and at the top level in general since 1997, I find it hard to complain.

[TF110]

I used gt500's as an example because they're speed is about the same as what the lmp1's were in 2011, 2012. And we can compare that on the Japanese tracks that lmp900s/early lmp1's like the R8 ran (Suzuka).

[ederss7]

About the costs, what manufacturers want, then? I mean, they want relevant tech, freedom and at the same time low costs? Is that even possible? I don't follow F1, but it seems that high costs have been a problem for quite some time now and never have been addressed, which means that even with more restricted rules the costs are still a problem. In other words, hasn't it already been proved that there's no effective way to control costs?

[bhtooefr]

Except there are relevant ways to control costs, actually - restrict the manufacturers to developing the things that are actually relevant to them (power units), and then allow privateers to buy power units at a low price to implement the cost cap.

There's crap tons of cash being poured into aerodynamic and chassis development in LMP1-H, which has not a damn thing to do with road relevant technology. Eliminate that, by implementing a spec chassis...

[ss_collins]

Spec chassis??? goes against everything in the spirit of sportscar racing and indeed motor racing. The fewer spec parts the better.

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by ss_collins

Spec chassis??? goes against everything in the spirit of sportscar racing and indeed motor racing. The fewer spec parts the better.

I could not agree more!!