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

[pablocomics]

Just wondering.


Ok, they have the new regulations. But there just one year and a half remains untill those cars should be running and.... Just one team/constructor confirmed that they will be in. If I were the ACO I would start to be a little bit worried, I mean, 1 year and a half is almost no time.

[FormulaFox]

"Hi
Hope you are all well. We are very happy with the rules. We look forward to being there and offering road legal examples of our "Hypercar LMP1".
Best
Jim"


-Posted by James Glickenhaus on Racer.com; https://racer.com/2018/12/05/fia-app...r-regulations/

So the one committed manufacturer is still committed, at least - nothing in the finalized rules scared them off. Now it's just a matter of putting it all together.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

I think it's safe to say Toyota isn't going anywhere but Le Mans. So 2 manufacturers to start isn't bad, and there's reason to believe there might be more in the second year.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

I think it's safe to say Toyota isn't going anywhere but Le Mans. So 2 manufacturers to start isn't bad, and there's reason to believe there might be more in the second year.

If we count the Glickenhaus LMGTP team as road car manufacturer, we might just as well have said the same for Ginetta LMP1 this year. So in that regard we already had two manufacturers at the start of this "emergency season"

[S griffin]

Don’t like the idea of success ballast. Prototypes have always been about the best winning. At least they are not doing it for LM

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by Chiana

If we count the Glickenhaus LMGTP team as road car manufacturer, we might just as well have said the same for Ginetta LMP1 this year. So in that regard we already had two manufacturers at the start of this "emergency season"

You're right, I should have said entrants.

[JHamilton]

There has to be additional entrants that we are not aware of or this path doesn't make sense. It doesn't seem like something a large manufacturer would be interested in and, as cool as they are, why would you "hang your hat" on boutique manufacturers?

I'm hoping for the best so let's see what happens.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Don’t like the idea of success ballast. Prototypes have always been about the best winning. At least they are not doing it for LM

Yes, i agree it is good they aren't doing it for Le Mans, but why have a championship where you run to a set of rules and then toss them for the last round? I guess it is the ACO/FIA's way to make sure there are more cars potentially in the running for the championship when the last round comes up?

[carbsmith]

Full season cars run 0 ballast in the last race of the season for Super GT as well, it's more an issue of not having your finale kneecapped by contenders carrying too much ballast to be competitive.

As well in WEC you get extra points for the longer races, so even if it wasn't Le Mans specifically people would be throwing the preceding 6 hour race to run lighter. Although in the current schedule you'd still be looking at Shanghai that way because Sebring has extra points.

[Bentley03]

Originally Posted by joeb

Yes, i agree it is good they aren't doing it for Le Mans, but why have a championship where you run to a set of rules and then toss them for the last round? I guess it is the ACO/FIA's way to make sure there are more cars potentially in the running for the championship when the last round comes up?

Makes sense, but for me, and I suspect the ACO too, the championship is less important than Le Mans itself. I believe applying success ballast to the preceding rounds is one of many compromises the ACO has had to make to bring manufacturers on board, but dug their heels in when it came to Le Mans. I don't think they want it, but have been persuaded to use it. Not sure if I've worded that in a way that makes sense.

[GasperG]

Originally Posted by TF110

I have been trying to understand what they mean when they say "two motors" for the ers. Don't they say torque vectoring is banned? Think about it, if you use a 'production' based ers you can have two electric motors. But the rules also say that the front axel is the only place to have electric drive. Why would you want to use two motors unless you plan to drive each front wheel separately? In turn, that would be a form of torque vectoring but it would be controlled by each motor in the front. My guess would be an in-wheel motor for the front two wheels. That might circumvent the "no torque vectoring" rule. Admittedly I haven't read it yet so I could be wrong.

If I understand it correctly this exception is only for ERS-K of the make - that is in series production.

Conditions:
- At least 25 identical series production car homologated for road use equipped with this exact same MGU-K are produced by the end of the year of the first season this engine is competing in.
- At least 100 identical series production car homologated for road use equipped with this exact same MGU-K are produced by the end of the year of the second season this exact same MGU-K is competing in.

The exception:
The use of two MGU-K of the make connected each to one side of the front drivetrain is authorised.
The rotational speed of the MGU-K of the make is free.
The laminate thickness of the MGU-K of the make is free.
The MGU-K of the make is not subject to Article 5.19 (Materials and construction – Energy recovery, storage systems and electronic systems)

MGU-K must be in conformity:
• either with the rules imposed to the MGU-K of the make;
• or entirely with the rest of these regulations.

Basically if Toyota produces 25 cars of their Super Sport concept, then they can use two separate MGU-K on the front for the first season, but it must be exactly like the one in production car.

[deggis]

Some clarification about the production requirement:

https://www.autosport.com/wec/news/1...ules-clarified

ACO sporting director Vincent Beaumesnil explained that there were now two tiers of regulations for both internal engines and the front-axle kinetic motor-generator units.

"The engine can be production-based or it can be a pure race engine," he told Autosport.

"If you start with a production engine there are less restrictions, such as the use of variable camshaft timing as long as it is used on the road car.

"It is the same with the hybrid system: you are allowed just one electric motor but you can have two if it is developed from a road system."

[Irie]

Originally Posted by deggis

Some clarification about the production requirement:

https://www.autosport.com/wec/news/1...ules-clarified

Will we see engine homologation specials if they are allowed more technical freedom than non production engines?

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by Chiana

I'm still praying for this line of text to appear: "Alongside the LMGTP and LMP2 classes, LMP1 class shall be retained for cars corresponding to the 2018 Non-Hybrid technical regulations. Homologations will be extended until the conclusion of 2023-2024 season"

That way we could still have some fun in these "gap years" before zero emission... and not all gloom and misery

Well at least this seems to be secured until LM 2021 now
https://sportscar365.com/lemans/wec/...-manufacturer/

“The LMP1 non-hybrid will continue to run, and we will continue to balance [it] with hypercar.”

[carbsmith]

Originally Posted by Irie

Will we see engine homologation specials if they are allowed more technical freedom than non production engines?

The regulations restrict power output and efficiency so it's hard to see where they'll find a performance advantage large enough to justify investing hundreds of millions on production. Mostly you just have the option to use the higher tech drivetrain out of your actual hypercar in your race car for promotional reasons.

If you think that last sentence sounds really stupid I think you're right.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by GasperG

If I understand it correctly this exception is only for ERS-K of the make - that is in series production.

Conditions:
- At least 25 identical series production car homologated for road use equipped with this exact same MGU-K are produced by the end of the year of the first season this engine is competing in.
- At least 100 identical series production car homologated for road use equipped with this exact same MGU-K are produced by the end of the year of the second season this exact same MGU-K is competing in.

The exception:
The use of two MGU-K of the make connected each to one side of the front drivetrain is authorised.
The rotational speed of the MGU-K of the make is free.
The laminate thickness of the MGU-K of the make is free.
The MGU-K of the make is not subject to Article 5.19 (Materials and construction – Energy recovery, storage systems and electronic systems)

MGU-K must be in conformity:
• either with the rules imposed to the MGU-K of the make;
• or entirely with the rest of these regulations.

Basically if Toyota produces 25 cars of their Super Sport concept, then they can use two separate MGU-K on the front for the first season, but it must be exactly like the one in production car.

Thanks, I understood that part about it being restricted to a 'production' unit. I was just wondering if the rules are allowing for the dual motors to run at a different level of power/speed. And it seems from what you posted, that's true as long as that's what the production ers does. So it would be worth it just to make 100 homologation specials with that fancy hybrid technology and run a race version of said car. The gains to be had with an electronic/hybrid torque vectoring system are very big. They may cap power and weight and aero levels, but tricks like this can give you the edge, big time.

Originally Posted by carbsmith

The regulations restrict power output and efficiency so it's hard to see where they'll find a performance advantage large enough to justify investing hundreds of millions on production. Mostly you just have the option to use the higher tech drivetrain out of your actual hypercar in your race car for promotional reasons.

If you think that last sentence sounds really stupid I think you're right.

I agree with you to a certain extent, but like I said above, if you do the dual kers up front and each mgu-k can spin at any speed (free) then you could have a trick hybrid system that aids in cornering and corner exit. While there's lots of things wrong with these rules, stuff like this is exciting. I do wonder if there's gains to be made with fuel consumption and weight. I guess it remains to be seen if each car will get the same amount of fuel because the efficiency targets look to be set too.

[Dyson Mazda]

Originally Posted by Chiana

Well at least this seems to be secured until LM 2021 now
https://sportscar365.com/lemans/wec/...-manufacturer/

“The LMP1 non-hybrid will continue to run, and we will continue to balance [it] with hypercar.”

It sounds like the ACO is about to go full on DPi/GTE/GT3 in balancing the new LMP class

[EffectiveSprinkles]

How do you figure that?

[TF110]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

How do you figure that?

I'm curious about that too. I didn't see anything talking about bop every race.

[Deleted]

In 2020-2021 the 'balancing' of old non-hybrids (and non-OEM LMGTPs for that matter) will likely return to pre-2018 privateer levels, as in at most couple of minor tweaks here and there that in the big picture don't matter at all. The only reason they're doing bigger things this season, and the next, is because of the lack of 'show' otherwise present

Anyway as for round-by-round BoP class wide, seeing as we're already going to be carrying success ballast for the non-LM races, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to see the category edging ever more towards GTE model

[TF110]

With success ballast there's no need to bop the cars. Plus the hypercars get the performance window treatment. Seems like they will all be around the same level of performance as each other.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by TF110

With success ballast there's no need to bop the cars. Plus the hypercars get the performance window treatment. Seems like they will all be around the same level of performance as each other.

With large amount of new found specness, tech freeze and 'strict performance windows' there's no need for success ballast either, but there we are...

Of course I hope for the best but I don't have high confidence in them not tinkering, not after what's happened to GT2/GTE and to lesser effect the other categories in the last 10 years

[helgi]

So, they have different body shapes that are effective (showy) but not efficient at all. They have engines with mandatory power output - no sense in different types engines in fact. And they have success ballast just to ensure that there are different winners out of different but not efficient cars. I really do not see any point in this type of racing, as autosport has to include technical variety (technical competition, not marketing).
PS I'll watch this only if, let's say, SMP Racing enter a hypercar with, let's say, Auris engine (built by the same Schvabe Munich who produced some components for Porsche V4) - they talked about some racing possibility for that motor (and they have recuperation system too). Maybe not V12 but V8. Of course, it's just an idea, but who knows.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by helgi

I really do not see any point in this type of racing, as autosport has to include technical variety (technical competition, not marketing).

Too bad us thinking this way are a dying breed

Marketing, public relations and 'exciting show' are the way of the future.

[helgi]

Originally Posted by Chiana

Too bad us thinking this way are a dying breed

Marketing, public relations and 'exciting show' are the way of the future.

If there's an open letter to FIA containing concerns about the current state of affairs then my signature is going to be among the first.