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

[Articus]

I hope there is a rule on what qualifies as "new manufacturer".

I get the sense that these are dispensations that would be given to someone like Puegeot. But Peugeot has built LMPs as recently as 2011. It's not like they don't know what they are doing. And considering that a potential Peugeot effort will probably have some former Audi - Porsche - Toyota engineers..

Porsche spent 3 years behind the scenes developing there LMP1 before the debut. It would be a bit ridiculous for them to have also been considered a "new" team. During those 3 years they could have developed a unique aerokit for every single track they run at....

Seems like the rules will be abused.

If Audi returns in 3 years, are they "new"?

[CTD]

When Peugeot ended their LMP program not much was kept with Peugeot.
So if Peugeot returns it is basically from scratch, especially when you consider how much development has been done since 2011.

What must also be remembered is that no matter how long you prepare, develop, tests in simulators or tracks it can NEVER replace real world racing. So even if you have unique aerokits for every single track on the calendar you would be struggling against a competitor who has raced that track and therefore have real data to utilise and drivers who knows how the car behaves on that track with traffic.

I think the incentive is very good and hopefully will lure a new manufacture to the table.

[hondafan37]

Originally Posted by CTD

When Peugeot ended their LMP program not much was kept with Peugeot.
So if Peugeot returns it is basically from scratch, especially when you consider how much development has been done since 2011.

What must also be remembered is that no matter how long you prepare, develop, tests in simulators or tracks it can NEVER replace real world racing. So even if you have unique aerokits for every single track on the calendar you would be struggling against a competitor who has raced that track and therefore have real data to utilise and drivers who knows how the car behaves on that track with traffic.

I think the incentive is very good and hopefully will lure a new manufacture to the table.

I think like you, the incentive is very good, and I hope Peugeot take the opportunity.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by Articus

I hope there is a rule on what qualifies as "new manufacturer".

I get the sense that these are dispensations that would be given to someone like Puegeot. But Peugeot has built LMPs as recently as 2011. It's not like they don't know what they are doing. And considering that a potential Peugeot effort will probably have some former Audi - Porsche - Toyota engineers..

Porsche spent 3 years behind the scenes developing there LMP1 before the debut. It would be a bit ridiculous for them to have also been considered a "new" team. During those 3 years they could have developed a unique aerokit for every single track they run at....

Seems like the rules will be abused.

If Audi returns in 3 years, are they "new"?

Dsc makes it clearer, it must be at least 5 years for the manufacturers to return to the lmp1 class to be considered 'new'.

For a new entrant in the Manufacturer’s World Endurance Championship (LMP1 Hybrid), a manufacturer should compile a complete dossier stipulating that it did not benefit from any data from any of the LMP1 Hybrid manufacturers having competed in previous WEC seasons (up to 5 years preceding the first year of competition of the new entrant).

Doubt you will see this being abused by anyone. And it seems like the rule makers have the final say in how much you can do. It is subject to their approval.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by TF110

Doubt you will see this being abused by anyone. And it seems like the rule makers have the final say in how much you can do. It is subject to their approval.

Agree. And I agree with others in that overall this is a good thing.

Richard

[CTD]

It is an interesting choice of five years. Why not three?
In the past 16 years a manufacture chassis has only had a life spand of three years before a new chassis has been developed (or sold to privateers).
Any way, Audi is the only manufacture who cannot take benefit of this rules, all others are eligible.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by CTD

It is an interesting choice of five years. Why not three?
In the past 16 years a manufacture chassis has only had a life spand of three years before a new chassis has been developed (or sold to privateers).
Any way, Audi is the only manufacture who cannot take benefit of this rules, all others are eligible.

Maybe it's 5 so Audi can't come back in 2019 and take advantage of these rules?

[Articus]

What's to stop the Porsche team from morphing into a Bentley effort as a "new" team. and 3 years later, Bentley morphing into Lamborgini LMP1 and VAG just playing musical chairs with the series....

[TF110]

Originally Posted by Articus

What's to stop the Porsche team from morphing into a Bentley effort as a "new" team. and 3 years later, Bentley morphing into Lamborgini LMP1 and VAG just playing musical chairs with the series....

Did you read the dsc article? The manufacturer's who enter can not have had any activity or knowledge from another manufacturer within 5 years of their entering. So there can be no Audi crew moving to Bentley and taking their crew with them, at least to take advantage of the waivers. That'd be way too obvious anyway. Kinda pushes out Renault as well since they're in partnership with Nissan.

[Articus]

Originally Posted by TF110

Did you read the dsc article? The manufacturer's who enter can not have had any activity or knowledge from another manufacturer within 5 years of their entering.

That sounds incredibly difficult to police.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Articus

That sounds incredibly difficult to police.

I don't see it that way at all. I haven't dived into the new 2017 sporting and technical regulations, but my impression is that they likely define the broad requirements for this set of special waviers, but the process of someone going down this path will include a lot of discussion behind closed doors. And that would likely include consultations with existing manufacturers in any scenario that might not be clear cut. This is likely no different than the type of discussions that likely triggered these new regulations. I suspect they still need approval somewhere, and once that happens, I would not be shocked to see someone new announcing their entry into LMP1.

Richard

[carbsmith]

Originally Posted by TF110

Kinda pushes out Renault as well since they're in partnership with Nissan.

Could anyone really say that Renault would benefit from data from Nissan?

Even speaking non-cynically the engine was developed by a third party, the hybrid system that they carried as a boat anchor when the car raced was developed by a third party, the car was designed by a contractor, and the team that built and ran the cars was all fired. There's really nothing left except the rights to the (completely useless) design. Renault was briefly brought up as possibly involved with adapting the F1 hybrid system but that went nowhere in more ways than one and they certainly didn't derive any benefit from the car competing when it never raced again.

[Mal]

So what if a new manufacturer hires Joest to run their programme

[PorscheFanNo1]

It doesnt really matter if you think it will be hard to police, the rules are there written, its then up to ACO/FIA to enforce them, or not enforce them, depending on their liking. It has been the same for years, ACO has enforced rules when they see fit, other times they have not enforced rules even though they could have.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Mal

So what if a new manufacturer hires Joest to run their programme

I believe the problem they are trying to solve is on the design and engineer side, not those who run the trackside operations. So hire whoever you can!

Richard

[Articus]

Originally Posted by PorscheFanNo1

It doesnt really matter if you think it will be hard to police, the rules are there written, its then up to ACO/FIA to enforce them, or not enforce them, depending on their liking. It has been the same for years, ACO has enforced rules when they see fit, other times they have not enforced rules even though they could have.

But that's not the discussion at hand. Has nothing to do with the ACO. The discussion is about whether or not new entrants can abuse the rules to gain a big advantage in season.

Conclusion is that it's not out of the question.

[chernaudi]

And it's not like this "screws" Audi Sport in any way if/when they come back. They already had their 2017 car almost ready to test, the ACO declared rules stability under the technical regs until at least 2020, Ullrich probably has advised Gass to keep an ear and eye cocked at the WEC to keep apprised of developments, and I doubt in reality that Audi gives a damn about cost saving waivers. Even during dieselgate, they (and Porsche) were ready and willing to spend as much as it took to compete--provided that they had a chance of winning if they designed the fastest car.

That's why Audi Sport shelved the LMP1 program for the time being at least, and why others have been slow or hesitant to join in. ROI is pretty low when you have the fastest car and the tech regs play a part in why you're not winning as often as you should be, as well as limiting interesting paths on the powertrain end to go down in the near future.

Other car makers may bulk at the cost, but when you have one's that not as hesitant to pay to play, the rules have to be interesting to keep them in.

Not to mention that most of the ACO's cost cutting rules are basically mirroring those of F1 and NASCAR that haven't saved most teams a penny and if anything in the end jack up costs due to diminishing returns and having to devote more resources to get them.

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by Articus

But that's not the discussion at hand. Has nothing to do with the ACO. The discussion is about whether or not new entrants can abuse the rules to gain a big advantage in season.

Conclusion is that it's not out of the question.

How does it have nothing to do with the ACO? They are the ones who would decide IF there was an advantage, and sorry to break the hearts of many posters here, they are the ONLY ones who get to decide.

And it is not like the sportscar community is huge, closed door meetings would ferret out any influence quickly. Als doubt the ACO would hold back on threats against future involvement, or making things tough for the team who hires the offender, in pursuit of "straight forward honest" answers if they thought there was something to find.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Articus

But that's not the discussion at hand. Has nothing to do with the ACO. The discussion is about whether or not new entrants can abuse the rules to gain a big advantage in season.

Conclusion is that it's not out of the question.

I haven't looked at the regulations yet, but I highly suspect there is the ability to undo specific waivers if a new entrant proves to be unexpectedly highly competitive either out of the box or faster than expected. If there isn't a clause like there, there should be.

This is a type of BOP adjustment. I may have some details wrong, but this is about stuff that the new teams get extra (engine allocations, tires, fuel, aero time, testing), but all could be undone and the cars should be at the same tech spec as everyone else. So it should be adjustable based upon the teams performance, but it may result in some tears until things can be adjusted.

I think the only area for potential abuse is if someone sandbags early in the season and then turns it all up at LeMans and upsets the expected order. But this assumes someone can create a competitive car out of the gate and that they are able to hide sandbagging from ACO/FIA. I think the level of data that comes out of these cars might make it hard (but not impossible) to hide significant sandbagging.

Richard

[TF110]

Dsc's piece goes into some specifics. I linked to it in a previous post. One thing mentioned was the waivers can be done away with or continued into the second season for the new manufacturer at the aco's discretion. I see that as 'we're helping you out this year and if you're still not there, maybe next year as well'.

[Articus]

Not trying to knock the ACO, but also hard not to.

Considering their discretion in GTE-Pro w/ the Fords at Le Mans...Why should we expect that BOP in LMP1 will be handled accurately (data driven) and objectively when they are still working on the formula for GTE cars which are far more conventional.

[Articus]

Originally Posted by carbsmith

Could anyone really say that Renault would benefit from data from Nissan?

[Articus]

I've been reading a few post making it sound like the ACO has everything figured out and can give and take as they please.

Well then how did the 2014 Toyota show up and race at Le Mans with THAT rear wing...and why do the Porsche's have the quickest fuel flow into the tank and seemingly nothing done about it. Why did Audi never get the fuel flow sped up?

Talking as though the ACO has everything figured out, but they really don't. Its going to take time.

But that's exactly how teams take advantage of the rules. So many examples in recent times in Le Mans to show that the teams always get the jump on the ACO. Why should this be any different.
When the bean counters are demanding results and headlines, do you think anyone cares about the spirit of the regs? Even without the pressure of the bean counters, the people that work in those teams want to constantly one-up each other bringing the most clever interpretation of a given ruleset.

Loopholes and BOP like concessions aren't a good thing for fair competition in the open formula class. Whether there even needs to be fair competition is another interesting debate I suppose...Thats just my take.
Sure it will attract new manufacturers.

[Articus]

but what about EoT?

[TF110]

The Ford has nothing to do with lmp1 and Toyota's wing was within the written rules. It was then written out of the rules. It's funny how innovation like that or Porsche's fueling gets a frown but at the same time people want to see clever ideas instead of the same old thing.

Anyway, no one said the aco has it all figured out. The talk is about what they are offering to new manufacturers as an incentive to enter. But it seems like the more popular topic is how the rule makers will let a new manufacturer get one over on them and they'll somehow dominate.