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

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by bentley speed 8

Got to love their commitment to the top class, even if most of their attempts have been sub-par at best.

Indeed

Not that they've got anywhere else to go considering LMP2 and LMP3 are full spec classes, and their biggest desire have been to field chassis carrying their own identity

Dr Kolles is a strange, strange man and has bit of similarity to Ian Dawson, but unlike Dawson he actually manages to field cars year after year

[carbsmith]

Originally Posted by TF110

It's like Indycar where the best teams are the best because they are getting the most out of their setups. Those cars are spec as can be in those areas but there's still teams that win more often than not

If IndyCar had success ballast even Foyt would be getting poles and leading laps every season and the results would be flip flopping every race. The performance margins are razor thing compared to what 50kg of weight in a ~1000kg car is worth.

IndyCar also has pretty much zero appeal in the area of chassis tech, and relies entirely on engine and driver competition to drive interest. It's pretty hard to market endurance sports car racing with an emphasis on drivers when they're only in the car 30% of the time.

[helgi]

Originally Posted by Chiana

Entirely agree

I wish mr Goodwin saw that and they discussed it on the Pruett podcast, really would be good food for the thought

I've asked them via Twitter about their thoughts on a huge gap between LMP1 and CN, the last constructors' championships, and how do teams deal with the lack of designers who had an "education" in competitive world of former prototype and formulae racing. Unfortunately, my question was not read (as far as I listened to the show).



[joke] Maybe FIA and ACO know that there're no potent designers left in prototypes and formulae, so they decided to make an LMP1 version of GT3 where no bright ideas needed to compete [/joke].


And I'm just happy that I have enough old magazines from 70's just to switch from actual "autosport" to real racing when designers were not cost capped, journalists were not quasi-polite and had no fear to ask uncomfortable questions to the sports bureaucracy, and marketing was rather naive. I'm fed up with those polite journalists who are scared (looks like scared of loosing a further opportunity to be "handshaken") to ask ACO bosses some questions whether the way of racing they've chosen is a right one, whether there were no other alternatives; I'm fed up with them as much as with some impolite journalists who put news just because of a hype even not checking the data. It's the same for me - they just help to ruin the sport. It's not the analytics when you are always talking that the route we are going is the best one and there're no other possibilities, and you are talking about it only because you'll lose any opportunity to talk to Saint-ACO as they, as it feels, as real bureaucracy, do not like any critics at all. Do they think that these critics are not constructive? Well, they eliminate any type of constructors' championships between national level and the very highest one. And soon they'll have protoGT3 atop of it. Is it a right way? I don't think so. It's pity that nobody has asked this simple question. It's pity that there's no alternative to this state. And I don't think that my criticism is unconstructive.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by helgi

I've asked them via Twitter about their thoughts on a huge gap between LMP1 and CN, the last constructors' championships, and how do teams deal with the lack of designers who had an "education" in competitive world of former prototype and formulae racing. Unfortunately, my question was not read (as far as I listened to the show).



[joke] Maybe FIA and ACO know that there're no potent designers left in prototypes and formulae, so they decided to make an LMP1 version of GT3 where no bright ideas needed to compete [/joke].


And I'm just happy that I have enough old magazines from 70's just to switch from actual "autosport" to real racing when designers were not cost capped, journalists were not quasi-polite and had no fear to ask uncomfortable questions to the sports bureaucracy, and marketing was rather naive. I'm fed up with those polite journalists who are scared (looks like scared of loosing a further opportunity to be "handshaken") to ask ACO bosses some questions whether the way of racing they've chosen is a right one, whether there were no other alternatives; I'm fed up with them as much as with some impolite journalists who put news just because of a hype even not checking the data. It's the same for me - they just help to ruin the sport. It's not the analytics when you are always talking that the route we are going is the best one and there're no other possibilities, and you are talking about it only because you'll lose any opportunity to talk to Saint-ACO as they, as it feels, as real bureaucracy, do not like any critics at all. Do they think that these critics are not constructive? Well, they eliminate any type of constructors' championships between national level and the very highest one. And soon they'll have protoGT3 atop of it. Is it a right way? I don't think so. It's pity that nobody has asked this simple question. It's pity that there's no alternative to this state. And I don't think that my criticism is unconstructive.

By no way is your criticism nonconstructive, don't even't think about that!

I haven't had time to listen to the latest podcast yet but too bad if so! They don't always have time for every comment though so maybe next time. Also Graham is a member here, and even though he rarely pays a visit anymore, maybe he spots your insightful - and indeed very reasonably put together - thoughts.

And that joke of yours, sadly could be the reality In touring cars we already have had the full-BoP-and-nothing-else equivalent to GT3 formed in TCR, then in other GT categories we obviously GTE and GT4 have been morphed to the same exact wrestling formula as GT3. The technical competition have been entirely stripped away from production-derived classes.

Elsewhere DPG3 and now it's successor 'DPi' are essentially a mix between spec Indycar and BoP GT3, but on top of that with the OEM marketing departments trying to masquerade-fool audiences to think it's also some sort of grander package than it actually is, much as with NASCAR. Sadly LMGTP is heading to same department. In the past we would at least have had the privateer P1s and entire LMP2 to back it up if the factory class turned up disaster, but now even that's going to be gone (except for the brief period when slowed nonhybrid LMP1 runs alongside GTP)

What's your thoughts on the following generation, the 'hydrogen class' or as it more widely is known, Zero Emission? With Audi (seemingly) on board that should be way less of a 'compromise' than these apparent junk regulations, which seems to have been made as pure panic solution? As proved by rather conservative ill-fated original plans when Porsche was still in the game

[helgi]

Originally Posted by Chiana

What's your thoughts on the following generation, the 'hydrogen class' or as it more widely is known, Zero Emission? With Audi (seemingly) on board that should be way less of a 'compromise' than these apparent junk regulations, which seems to have been made as pure panic solution? As proved by rather conservative ill-fated original plans when Porsche was still in the game

For sure, there should be a Golden Middle. Autosport should be a platform for new solutions, but, at the same time there should be a place for usual racing. We have to stay responsible for the Nature by inventing engines as effective as they can be. And at this point the authorities and fans should drop (Good Heaven, don't take me for a paranoid) the marketing. If we examine a situation with modern electric cars hype - we can find out that they are not the solution at all, as electricity is still produced mostly from fossils, and batteries are too harmful to be produced and, especially, disposed. With migrating from ICE to electricity we'll have not only to produce much more electricity (with power plants still to be constructed) but also deal with 10 000 000 tons of accumulators out of range per year. Not saying that lithium, cobalt and nickel mining are extremely harmful even at modern volumes of usage. I really do not understand what politicians think of when they force the industry to go electric without any plans of recycling. They usually feed us with promises that they'll invent one, but tomorrow. So I can see only one reason for electric hype: manufacturers want to sell more cars. Some people are in hurry to buy ICE as they still here, other people are in a hurry to be "modern" enough to buy an electric one. But no one mentions a simple fact: modern electric car becomes "greener" than usual ICE (by the calculations of energy needed to produce batteries and electricity comparing to ICE) only after 9 years of usage. And do batteries work for 9 years? I don't think so - you'll need another 400-500 kg of this stuff and more and more energy wasted for its manufacturing and (possible) recycling. And what do authorities do? They just make everyone to buy electric cars with no explanation. It can be unpleasant to hear, but it looks the same as here in Russia where lot's of authorities suddenly began talking about liquid gas as an alternative to usual petrol. But I do not want to go by bus with some gas tanks on a roof, as I know that this system requires a lot more precise maintenance if we compare with usual petrol. I know some cases when this liquid gas tanks blew - but no facts of petrol tanks explosions (except cinema, of course). What to say - you can put your cigarette out into petrol puddle with no harm. But they force to use less safe items.

So, too many unanswered questions here.
As for Hydrogen - it's all about the rules. If they allow development, then it's going to be quite interesting (but I'm, personally, not a fan of huge pressure tanks - see above). Other way, it'll be the same as with electricity - Formula E, for example, does not help to solve any problems, as electric motors are already effective and do not need any form of racing development; but batteries - do. And in FE they have a standard battery pack. So, again, it's just a marketing, nothing more. IIRC Audi had some research for batteries design in Le Mans. If it would be the same for FE I would have watched it with interest. The same goes to Hydrogen.

As for a huge gap between CN and LMP1 I do not understand why FIA have no private classes with cost caps (transparent spendings monitoring) for those who want to build prototypes on their own at least at LMP3 level. I bet this type of racing is going to be viable and get a stone-firm fan base for sure. I really do not understand why they destroying variability in prototypes and formulae. Just do not understand. The only idea I have - someone wants to control all the money rivers in autosport. It can be (and should be) a wrong idea. But nobody still can explain why to destroy the variability in racing.

[TF110]

If only everything could be like the golden ages. Unfortunately time moved on and manufacturers are led by bean counters mostly. So they have to justify expenditures to said bean counters to see if it's a worthy "investment". Couple that with this green movement and that's why you see these former sportscar guys in spec series with a cool title like Formula E. ACO has to respond or else their series is dead with only a few takers. So now we have a low-budget, low-effort ruleset coming up. This was coming for some time now so it shouldn't be as a surprise, even if it is disappointing.

[gsmith2424]

Originally Posted by TF110

If only everything could be like the golden ages. Unfortunately time moved on and manufacturers are led by bean counters mostly. So they have to justify expenditures to said bean counters to see if it's a worthy "investment". Couple that with this green movement and that's why you see these former sportscar guys in spec series with a cool title like Formula E. ACO has to respond or else their series is dead with only a few takers. So now we have a low-budget, low-effort ruleset coming up. This was coming for some time now so it shouldn't be as a surprise, even if it is disappointing.

If they wanted low budget they should have brought back rules similar to the old LMP900/GTP rules. When we had that rule set we had a decent mix of cars both private and factory. We are at a point to where it needs to be kept simple: no hybrids, gas engines only and sonic restrictors.

[chernaudi]

That's my biggest problem with the 2014-present regs. They were the biggest re-write of the regs in nearly 20 years when introduced, when I think that a more moderate phase in to get to where we're at now should've been considered.

And, if you want my honest opinion, that's the direction, one way or another, that we're heading in now. In other words, that cycle is repeating itself.

[FormulaFox]

Looks like IMSA might just have to bring in Hypercar P1 after all. In a big, BIG surprise, CADILLAC has committed to Hypercar LMP1 and released a concept rendering of their planned car:

[Bentley03]

I see these regs as very much a stopgap until the ACO are able to bring the top class back to a formula which more closely embraces their philosophy of focusing on technological innovation as the backbone of the regulations. The Audi/Peugeot diesel years, and subsequent Audi/Toyota/Porsche hybrid years, demonstrated that there was an appetite for an innovative technology based platform, despite the low manufacturer take up. The next set of regulations for the top class will, in my opinion, more closely resemble what we have seen for the past decade or so.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by Bentley03

I see these regs as very much a stopgap until the ACO are able to bring the top class back to a formula which more closely embraces their philosophy of focusing on technological innovation as the backbone of the regulations. The Audi/Peugeot diesel years, and subsequent Audi/Toyota/Porsche hybrid years, demonstrated that there was an appetite for an innovative technology based platform, despite the low manufacturer take up. The next set of regulations for the top class will, in my opinion, more closely resemble what we have seen for the past decade or so.

Unlikely.

Remember, the few manufacturers that embraced the technological innovation left before the current rules were even really being considered. The appeal of tech development in LMP1 is no longer what it was.

In point of fact, we only have ONE manufacturer asserting LMP1 needs any sort of technological development aspect to get them interested - BMW, with their insistence on allowing hydrogen fuel cell technology.

The assertion that this is just a stopgap is on point, though. As with DPi, it's a short-term solution meant to keep the lights on while something better can be developed later. Only while DPi was meant to retain what was already present, Hypercar P1 is meant to attract replacements for what's been lost.

The next set of P1 regulations will likely mix what we've had previously with what we're getting with the new rules rather than go back to what is no longer sufficiently attractive.

[Victor_RO]

Well well well well well well well... the F word is back in the news:

Yes, Ferrari.

"Under active evaluation" for a 2020-2021 season debut.

[Aysedasi]

'Active' eh.....? Well, it would be rather good......

[CTD]

I wonder if this could spark further interest from Ford and Porsche to bring back the old fights .

[hondafan37]

Originally Posted by Victor_RO

Well well well well well well well... the F word is back in the news:

Yes, Ferrari.

"Under active evaluation" for a 2020-2021 season debut.

A Ferrari FXX-K Evo with Turbo engine was testing the last days in Fiorano.

https://youtu.be/LHwPJzhOML8

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by Victor_RO

Well well well well well well well... the F word is back in the news:

Yes, Ferrari.

"Under active evaluation" for a 2020-2021 season debut.

Ugh, another "evaluating" story? Haven't we learned our lesson from all the "evluations" for a DPi-

Wait, Graham Goodwin's reporting this? Not John Dagys or Marshall Pruett?

...Ferrari now has my attention.

[deggis]

https://www.autosport.com/wec/news/1...-during-202021

McLaren (Zak Brown) now saying they could make a mid-season debut. (Previously they said 2020-21 was too early)

[TF110]

Ferrari and McLaren being more than just interested now, but actually at they were at the table for the rules. I think this looks like a positive sign.

[TRuss]

Originally Posted by CTD

I wonder if this could spark further interest from Ford and Porsche to bring back the old fights .

I was thinking the exact same thing.

[deggis]

It is hard to put much value in anything Zak Brown says considering how he handled the McLaren/Alonso Indycar program hype. Every other week saying 1 thing and every other week saying something else.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by deggis

It is hard to put much value in anything Zak Brown says considering how he handled the McLaren/Alonso Indycar program hype. Every other week saying 1 thing and every other week saying something else.

Plus the constant almost ready to do GTE saga of the last few years.

But it also seems strange to me that McLaren and Ferrari, who both compete in a category that spends extraordinary amounts of money on exploiting small areas of the rules would want to be in a formula that looks at reducing costs by limiting that type of development? I'm not complaining, i think it would be great if either showed up. I'm just curious as to what these factories find appealing about the rules?

[Bentley03]

Originally Posted by joeb

Plus the constant almost ready to do GTE saga of the last few years.

But it also seems strange to me that McLaren and Ferrari, who both compete in a category that spends extraordinary amounts of money on exploiting small areas of the rules would want to be in a formula that looks at reducing costs by limiting that type of development? I'm not complaining, i think it would be great if either showed up. I'm just curious as to what these factories find appealing about the rules?

Cost v ROI

[joeb]

Originally Posted by Bentley03

Cost v ROI

I'm happy the companies see this as a worthwhile endeavor given the relatively small exposure outside of Le Mans. You are probably right, there is some amount of money they are ok with spending for that opportunity to win Le Man. Oh and maybe a World Championship too.

[Maelochs]

I don’t see a return to spaceship cars using the latest tech at astronomical prices. The manufacturers’ accountants have spoken.

Also, I am pretty much not convinced that more than a handful of fans (relatively) really cared about how ‘cutting-edge” the cars were---and really, all that made them “advanced” was the electric motors, which are hardly new …. a decent percentage of the people driving to watch the events probably had an electric hybrid in the family.

Hybrid might stay as an option. But I am thinking the factories want cars which are easier to promote (more readily recognizable in commercials) and which cost less to develop and race.

I am sure I am not the only person who sees that whole the spaceship prototypes are way cool … the strongest series are all using GT2/ GT3 cars ….. a Lot slower, a lot less flashy, a lot easier for fans to relate to.

Something like GT1-Plus might be the best idea. Something like DP1-minus---a little more car-shaped, a little more power … nobody Really cares about overall speed that much—no absolute speed records have been broken in a while anyway.

Cornering speeds have climbed tremendously since the days of 240+ down the Mulsanne, but the new cars—the hypercars—could still corner quickly. Give them enough power to get out of the corners in a hurry, and a little less aero, so a little more drag, to accommodate the “styling cues” and end up with something like a 1998 Porsche GT1 ….

(As an aside—Ferrari is being beaten by the Ford GT, which is essentially already a prototype, and by Corvette, which Ferrari sees as a low-budget grocery-getter for overagesd, overweight Americans whith low testosterone. But with Balance of performance, the 488—which is simply in another league—is now on par with the Vette. How good would it be for Ferrari to once again b seen as a level above those glorified family cars—to be winning on merit, because it has a truly superior car, instead of by luck, because its strangled real and actual GT car outlasted the steroid-injected BoP’d competition? (There, that ought to stir things up. ))

Will we see Ford and Ferrari again? Who cares? The Le Mans anniversary farce showed us how things play out in the modern era. But imagine having three or even four legitimate contenders for the overall win at each WEC race? Wouldn’t that be a hoot?

As Bentley 03 mentioned … “Cost v ROI.” The factories have to feel that even if they don’t win the series or Le Mans, the investment isn’t wasted.

To that end, the cars have to be sexy, powerful, and exciting---in an advertisement. Or, the cars have to uphold the racing traditions of the factories which were—sure, “Ferrari” is really Fiat, but the image of what Ferrari was, remains. Cadillac has to be able to sell its sports car credentials, because the global market fore oversrprung battleships was never very large and in the U.S. it dried up a generation ago.

McLaren probably wouldn’t mind if it had a real alternative—or was seen as a real alternative—to whatever entry-level Ferrari was out there (the 488 in this case.)

Underneath all that … there has always been tension between the bean-counters and the castor-bean boilers. There has never been a great financial reason to race—buying advertisements directly always makes more sense in terms of reaching people and telling them stories.

Basically, the guys who like to race have to sell the racing program to the financial execs—and a lower overall cost coupled with a car they can claim will be easier to use in promotions make that sale easier.

[Irie]

But surely there is some middle ground between spaceship massive hybrids and spec performance. For me it would be no spec performance allow them to develop ffs. And limit areas were development is too costly (big hybrids, exotic materials). I find spec/bop racing is entirely boring because it's not about who build the better car but who has the most politic influence or luck with the success ballast (maybe to come second every now and then than come first?) or only about the drivers. Also in my opinion LMP1 should also be about who build the better car and LMP1 was one of the few classes were this was possible while also providing good racing. That is what was so fantastic about the Porsche/Audi/Toyota years. And that's also why I am not as interested in GTE-Pro as others who think it's the best class in the WEC. Yeah the wheel to wheel racing might be good but for me it's fake. I could go on about stint length regulations, car homologation for the season, etc. but don't want to derail to much.
But all this we will get. Hard performance limits are akin to spec cars. While efficiency and tank capacity is also limited leading to the same stint length (I fear we will also get the max stint length of 2018 back in the sproting regs). In BoP series where you could argue that success ballast has a reason because the BoP can never be perfect and is used to further level the playing field. Here it will be a straight disadvanatge because the cars are near the same performance by design and now you got extra weight.
The manufacturers don't want to build prototypes because they don't want to invest to much money with the risk of losing? I say screw them and let's stay with the P1 non hybrid regulations which would be more attractive for the privateers because they have a shot at the overall win though their own ability.(More moderatily open them to manufacturers).

Sorry for the rant but these new regulations are the exact opposite of why I like prototype racing.