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

[chernaudi]

Not a big fan of high revving engines, but that's how NASCAR works. Those are 5.9 liter/360 CID V8s that are capable of revving to 10K RPM. And if it weren't for the tapered spacer they have to restrict them down to 550 or 750bhp depending on the track, they'd probably make just under 1000bhp right now.

Mind you, the application isn't a true endurance application (the longest NASCAR race is 600 miles, or just under 1000km), but it can be done for at least a 6 hour race to have a 800+hp engine. Not so sure about races much longer than that, though, especially if factory teams still have limits on engine use during a season (even currently LMP1 privateers can choose to use engines willy nilly without a penalty).

Also mind you, be it with air restirctors/turbocharger boost limits or fuel flow limits, even the current engines are somewhat understressed. It's not a huge deal now usually to make 600-700hp even for 24 hours. Even AER are doing that with their LMP1 V6s not going kerblammo frequently in longer races. But even Audi Sport engine maestro Ulrich Baretzky has said that the problem is usually getting that last 20-30hp out of an engine, though.

[canaglia]

well... it's not about how NASCAR engines work.... it's about how NA engines work...


in NA torque/power curve, max torque release tends to be close to max power release... so the NA engine usually needs to rev up as high as possible to get more power.

At same power output as small displacement is, the higher revs will be and reverse.
mid '2000 f1 3L V10 about 1000hp @ 20000rpm
valkirye 6.5 V12 about >1100hp @ 11000rpm



it's just physics....


This kind of high rev engines simply can't last for so long.

[deggis]

It appears Glickenhaus officially committed before the Thursday's meeting. This tweet is from Wednesday.

https://twitter.com/Glickenhaus/stat...44223714418689

"We have Officially Committed to The 2020/2021 WEC including The 2021 24 Hours of Le Mans. We will be offering Race Versions of our SCG 007 LMP1 to other teams including full spare packages and racing services if desired, and a run of Road legal versions, SCG 007 LMP1 S"

[hondafan37]

Originally Posted by canaglia

it's not about mere power.... it's about economic sustainability and durability.


Can't get the point of valkyrie engine honestly also laferrari 6.2L V12 can revup at about 10000rpm.... can it be used for endurance racing? don't think so....





PS Forget about V10, is the most complicated layout to work on.

Originally Posted by canaglia

well... it's not about how NASCAR engines work.... it's about how NA engines work...


in NA torque/power curve, max torque release tends to be close to max power release... so the NA engine usually needs to rev up as high as possible to get more power.

At same power output as small displacement is, the higher revs will be and reverse.
mid '2000 f1 3L V10 about 1000hp @ 20000rpm
valkirye 6.5 V12 about >1100hp @ 11000rpm



it's just physics....


This kind of high rev engines simply can't last for so long.

Originally Posted by TF110

Well if 800hp was possible 30 years ago, it's certainly possible now. It might need to be a less-stressed type of engine. It might need to be a big V8 or V10 or V12, but who of us wouldn't want that!? That's what the Cosworth V12 is in the Valkyrie. It's big, but still screams to 11,000+ rpm and makes huge power.

it would be nice to hear again the V12 @ 11000 rmp sounding in Le Mans.
I hope the ACO will bring back those engines and that magnificent sound.
The Ferrari 333 SP, BMW V12 LMR, Lola-Aston Martin DBR1, are in my heart and I want to hear cars like that again.

[canaglia]

Originally Posted by hondafan37

it would be nice to hear again the V12 @ 11000 rmp sounding in Le Mans.
I hope the ACO will bring back those engines and that magnificent sound.
The Ferrari 333 SP, BMW V12 LMR, Lola-Aston Martin DBR1, are in my heart and I want to hear cars like that again.

It's not a V12, but gibson V8 revs up to 9000rpm

[TF110]

The current engines aren't designed to make huge power. They're made for around 650-700hp and that's that. If you want more power you can do it with an engine designed and built for it. The Cosworth engine is nearly a race-car engine in the Valkyrie. Cosworth is the same company who helped with the Nissan V6 TT in the GTR lmp1. It's made for high power, more power than 800hp. So I think detuning it for reliability over 24hrs would be about right where this rumor of that power level is.

[canaglia]

Originally Posted by TF110

The current engines aren't designed to make huge power. They're made for around 650-700hp and that's that. If you want more power you can do it with an engine designed and built for it. The Cosworth engine is nearly a race-car engine in the Valkyrie. Cosworth is the same company who helped with the Nissan V6 TT in the GTR lmp1. It's made for high power, more power than 800hp. So I think detuning it for reliability over 24hrs would be about right where this rumor of that power level is.

well... huge power may mean a lot of things.... 200hp could be a low power output for a racing car engine, but could be insane for a bike.
About 700hp for an about 910kg* car is 0.77hp/liter,

it's a huge power/mass rate, only f1 and indycar at 1.5bar turbo pressure have a better rate in the whole 4 wheels motorsport (if we don't include dragster racing).



You still don't understand that achive >800hp from a racing engine is quite an easy task... you basically just need to increase boost, rev higher and burn more fuel (or get a turbodiesel V12 peugeot).

The tricky part of the scheme is to make this reliable and economically sustainable.
Repeat... just think about f1 ICE's... designed and developed by the finest engineers and are however less powerful and have a shorter lifespan... each unit costs about 10mln or even more. Just think how expensive could be a 850hp - >6000km endurance bound unit....
if toyota currently spends about 80mlns for WEC, that budget would be barely enough for 4 ICE's





*(830kg + 80kg driver weight)

[ApexTurtle]

Originally Posted by canaglia

well... huge power may mean a lot of things.... 200hp could be a low power output for a racing car engine, but could be insane for a bike.

MotoGP bikes are even more insane than that. They make around ~280hp (nobody really knows for sure) with tiny 1L I4 and V4 engines. And they weigh only 157kg! They can only use 22 liters of fuel during a race of 120 km. Amazing machines!

[canaglia]

Originally Posted by ApexTurtle

MotoGP bikes are even more insane than that. They make around ~280hp (nobody really knows for sure) with tiny 1L I4 and V4 engines. And they weigh only 157kg! They can only use 22 liters of fuel during a race of 120 km. Amazing machines!

well... 1L for a bike is not tiny at all (used to own an aprilia RSV4 factory)
it's loosely comparable to a >5L for a car.
Guess only ducati can reach that power, likely only by 4th or 5th.

BTW huge power as sentence doesn't mean a thing actually; it's hp/kg rate that gets the idea.

[ApexTurtle]

They used to be 800cc but they made too much power as well

[TF110]

Originally Posted by canaglia

well... huge power may mean a lot of things.... 200hp could be a low power output for a racing car engine, but could be insane for a bike.
About 700hp for an about 910kg* car is 0.77hp/liter,

it's a huge power/mass rate, only f1 and indycar at 1.5bar turbo pressure have a better rate in the whole 4 wheels motorsport (if we don't include dragster racing).



You still don't understand that achive >800hp from a racing engine is quite an easy task... you basically just need to increase boost, rev higher and burn more fuel (or get a turbodiesel V12 peugeot).

The tricky part of the scheme is to make this reliable and economically sustainable.
Repeat... just think about f1 ICE's... designed and developed by the finest engineers and are however less powerful and have a shorter lifespan... each unit costs about 10mln or even more. Just think how expensive could be a 850hp - >6000km endurance bound unit....
if toyota currently spends about 80mlns for WEC, that budget would be barely enough for 4 ICE's





*(830kg + 80kg driver weight)

I'm not sure what Toyota is spending now but I doubt it's anywhere near the 75-80 million dollars when Porsche and Audi were around. They have been using the TS050 for 3 seasons now with the current evolution going back to 2017, at least the hd package.

[chernaudi]

It should be noted, though, that they're developing an evo package for the TS050 as far as aero and maybe some electronic and mechanical upgrades. And the aero is significantly different to what we've become used to based on what few photos exist. So they're still spending some money at least on R&D for the TS050, and I'm very eager to see it in the flesh in a couple of months time at the WEC Prologue.

But now onto the main reason I came here to post relevant to the topic, is that the ACO are maybe looking at adopting a modified version of the original proposed LMP1-influenced hypercar regs. Other things being looked at is a cost capped hybrid system featuring part time AWD operating similar to what the Audi R18's pre-2014 system did, with the system being inactive as far as AWD below a certain speed.

I found this on SC365, so take it as you will. Also, that same article says that we won't hear anything from the ACO on the subject publicly until Le Mans race week.

[hondafan37]

Hypercar update:

It’s understood a FIA Technical Working Group meeting on May 16 led to no definitive decision, with further meetings having since taken place.

Sportscar365 has learned of a latest proposal that would be based on the prototype-based Hypercar regulations announced in December, but with reduced power levels and increased aero.

It would also feature a front-wheel driven ‘mild hybrid’ system that could only be activated at speeds above 120 km/h.

The regulations announced late last year called for a 200 kW electric motor as part of a €3 million cost-capped ERS system.

The FIA’s previously announced production-based hypercar plan, per the requests of Aston Martin, Ferrari and McLaren, meanwhile, appears to no longer be on the table, with discussions on GTE Plus and DPi also having cooled in the recent week.

https://sportscar365.com/lemans/wec/...in-discussion/

[Akrapovic]

Increased aero. Because wind tunnel testing is known for keeping budgets down!

This is boring now. Just announce the top class is using NGTC BTCC regulations and be done with it so we can have *something* decided.

[Deleted]

Anything's better than the horrible bop thing mess announced at Sebring, even that one - regardless of the absurd vagueness of it again - so it's not all bad.

[ApexTurtle]

Good news in my view, that means at least Toyota will continue with Glickenhaus (hopefully) and the privateers can fight against Toyota with their current cars.

[carbsmith]

If you have capped engine performance and capped aero performance at a low enough level, more aero and less engine is in fact cheaper because barring particularly fiddly bits bodywork costs about the same no matter what shape it is while more horsepower is more money every second the car is running.

[deggis]

First make modifications because no one has signed up.

Then revert those modifications because those who requested the modifications still did not sign up.

Net effect: 6 critical months wasted.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by carbsmith

If you have capped engine performance and capped aero performance at a low enough level, more aero and less engine is in fact cheaper because barring particularly fiddly bits bodywork costs about the same no matter what shape it is while more horsepower is more money every second the car is running.

The expensive of aero isn't fabricating the part - it is the R&D into the aerodynamics and the amount of validation it requires. Wind tunnels are more expensive to run than an ICE - which is why Sauber had the worlds most advantage wind tunnel, but didn't have the money to pay for the electricity to run it.

[carbsmith]

We're not talking about what it costs to make 20lbs more downforce than the next car under a set of rules, we're talking about what it costs to make an arbitrary 5000lb of downforce car instead of a 4500lb one with no rules. Which could easily be nothing depending how demanding the l/d ratio is.

Unregulated aero is pretty cheap for a given lap time gain, just look at hill climb and time attack.

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by carbsmith

We're not talking about what it costs to make 20lbs more downforce than the next car under a set of rules, we're talking about what it costs to make an arbitrary 5000lb of downforce car instead of a 4500lb one with no rules. Which could easily be nothing depending how demanding the l/d ratio is.



Unregulated aero is pretty cheap for a given lap time gain, just look at hill climb and time attack.

Sorry but hill climb and time attack are no where near the aero needs of an LMP car on the Mulsanne and the Porsche Curves. There's no such thing as unrestricted aero in pro racing, every bit of aero has a cost whether it's cash, top speed or functional grip. Pretending those costs don't exist is an exercise in pointless argument

[carbsmith]

There's no inherent top speed penalty if you were already designing for a crappy l/d ratio before. Maybe a styling penalty.

Let me put it another way. Do you think Porsche spent a fraction as much on the aero development of the 919 Evo, which is massively more aerodynamically efficient than any version of the 919 ever raced, as they did on the 2017 aero upgrade that is a (probably low) single digit improvement over its predecessor?

The concept of the hypercar rules is that there are aero targets that are a pushover. Big tunnels, efficient wing profiles, basic common knowledge aerodynamics and job done just tweak it until it passes homologation, at least in theory. Not 24/7 wind tunnel searches for new ways to squeeze blood from a stone. So unless they push the aero targets way out there where it's not obvious how to reach them within the safety requirements (which would be pretty damn far out there) changing the numbers isn't going to massively affect R&D budgets unless the marketing department gets too demanding on styling.

Some stuff does inherently go up in cost with downforce because of the loading and I'm not going to pretend what the ACO has proposed is free, but there's no real correlation between cost and aerodynamic performance. NASCAR stock cars have thousands and thousands of wind tunnel hours and are aerodynamically horrendous compared to an SCCA D Sports Racer. Only cost and aerodynamic competition, which is ostensibly non-existent in the hypercar format.

Although I just tripped over the problem with this entire idea, which is that NASCAR bodies are like hypercar supposed to be homologated to a specified drag and downforce level but they still spend millions upon millions of dollars on aerodynamic development. But that's a fundamental issue with the entire concept, not this specific change.

[TF110]

I agree with you on that. The aero targets that they are setting are easy. So a step up from that should not be hard depending on what is free in the design. If it's 4500lbs of downforce with the wide 2m cars and big wings/floor, it should be easy enough with the teams current knowledge. It seems like the lift/drag levels are going to be rewinded back to levels from a couple decades ago.

[Mike E]

'And, if all I’ve learned is accurate, the ACO might uncouple itself from the WEC and realign directly with IMSA.'

Really? How would that work?

https://racer.com/2019/05/28/pruett-...ity-check/amp/

[TheMightyM]

Originally Posted by Mike E

'And, if all I’ve learned is accurate, the ACO might uncouple itself from the WEC and realign directly with IMSA.'

Really? How would that work?

https://racer.com/2019/05/28/pruett-...ity-check/amp/

Yup, apparently a possibility. And it's not just Marshall Pruett saying it; Graham Goodwin has also said it as well. And think something more like ILMC than the current WEC.