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

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

The rear wing swan neck should be a support for the wing on the Toyota. Thats why at the Spa test that portion was in black carbon.

That's the case for all current LMP1 cars.

[MyNameIsNigel]

There are further changes to the revised LMP1 Technical Regulations published on July 3rd, 2014 (which changes will be applicable starting from January 1st, 2015) which I did not pay much attention to during my first reading, but which will lead to necessary changes next year.

A first series of changes relates to Article 3.4 (see pages 43-44).

First of all, it is worth mentioning that the provisions pertaining to movable bodywork parts/elements remains unchanged for the time being:

Movable bodywork parts/elements are forbidden when the car is in motion.
Any system operated automatically and/or controlled by the driver to modify any airflow when the car is in motion is forbidden.

There are more substantial changes however in respect of the ban on blown diffusers. A further restriction has been introduced, namely:

Exhaust pipe outlets must not be inside the diffuser neither inside a 900mm diameter cylinder centered on the rear wheel axis and extended [sic: extending] from 950 to 550 mm from car center line

This could potentially lead to necessary revisions of the exhaust outlet layout on the LM-spec Audi R18 as the exhaust outlets may very well be at least partly located in this newly-introduced exclusion zone.

Further limitations regarding side exhaust outlets have been introduced, as well as regarding the shape/size/area of the exhaust outlets.

Lastly, there is a further restriction regarding the position of the trailing edge of the bodywork which must be at least 50mm higher than the trailing edge of the diffuser. That last provision would likely also imply changes to the solution being currently used on the LM-spec Audi R18.

There is a rather strange addition (in rather awkward English language BTW...) in Article 15.1 regarding the number and position of the wheels:

15.1.2 They must be same for left and right side

Is that supposed to prevent designs with four wheels on one side only or 3 wheels on one side and the fourth on the other side ?

[Articus]

What's wrong with a blown diffuser? If fuel consumption is limited why should it matter how teams choose to use it? The Diffuser is already quarantined off in the regulations. I don't see what harm feeding it exhaust gases would do.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

That's the case for all current LMP1 cars.

I was clarifying to articus since he mentioned only porsche and audi.

The "wheels the same", perhaps its more to do with their design.

[JoestForEver]

Originally Posted by Articus

What's wrong with a blown diffuser? If fuel consumption is limited why should it matter how teams choose to use it? The Diffuser is already quarantined off in the regulations. I don't see what harm feeding it exhaust gases would do.

The ban is poorly grounded I'd say. My guess would be that since Toyota can't do it (or opt not to, by their official words) and Porsche can't get enough exhaust pressure from their turbo block, they see no good allowing Audi to benefit from it only.

[Articus]

On second thought. A blown diffuser might be considered "Active" aerodynamics given it can be controlled to a certain extent through the drivers foot.

[cdsvg]

Ugh...so sad to see LMP1 moving further and further towards the F1 'ban everything' mentality on the chassis side. What exactly do changes like this achieve other than making the cars all look the same and eliminating the possibility that we might see some creative ideas?

[JoestForEver]

Originally Posted by Articus

On second thought. A blown diffuser might be considered "Active" aerodynamics given it can be controlled to a certain extent through the drivers foot.

There is a ban on flexible bodyworks as far as I know. Is there any on active aero devices?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by JoestForEver

There is a ban on flexible bodyworks as far as I know. Is there any on active aero devices?

I believe Section 3.4 tries to cover a few things talked about over the past few posts. Movable bodywork, systems used to modify airflow (i.e. active aero), and blown diffusers.

One problem with trying to write simple rules (i.e. "Movable bodywork parts/elements are forbidden when the car is in motion.") is that while straight to the point and ultimately enforceable, they can leave enough wiggle room that problems eventually arise and need to be clarified. As odd as it seems, it opens questions like... What exactly is "movable bodywork" or a "blown diffuser"?

I think the 2014 wording for blown diffusers (to points in posts above) tries to be a bit more specific in that it says specific techniques are explicitly not allowed (exhaust exit is 300mm back from trailing edge, and not visible from side or top). I think the Audi exhaust is one they likely didn't want to see (Audi is clearly trying to modify diffuser aero via exhaust), but could also be argued it is legal as it doesn't run afoul of the excluded placement listed in the regulations. Again, what is a "blown diffuser"? Audi can just say they created an exhaust exit that minimizes disruption of airflow over the body (true). And that it never was intended to impact the diffuser aero!!!

I think the (proposed?) 2015 regulations posted above are just clarifications that attempt to make it harder to be creatively and still create a blown diffuser that might be argued as being legal (even with an explicit ban on blown diffusers).

I am also sympathetic to the ideas of very free regulations. I personally would love to see them. Just a handful of specifics (must have a driver in the car, etc.) with the majority around safety, etc. However, the problem with this is that it creates exactly what we (spectators) would want... Uncertainty. However, this is the last thing the well funded teams and organizers want.

I expect that in a series with free regulations there likely would be significant domination (absence of close racing and sprint races in which the lead car laps multiple times very deep into the field). As fun as that would be to watch a few times (not sure at what point I would get bored), the prospect of that happening is a nightmare for teams. Imagine trying to get budget approval if you have no way of realistically saying you might succeed? Getting it "wrong" and recovering might take a year or two even with the assumption you are able to discover and replicate the competitors "secret sauce". There is no guarantee that you are able to figure out how the other guy is so quick and you are not. That does allow for survival of the fittest, but it also likely results in the death of a series as the losers flee and nobody else wants to step up and walk into the meat grinder.

With the current trend toward tight regulations, the worst car is likely not to be very far off the pace (and likely to not be absolutely embarrassed). I think there is likely a solution to this problem, but at the moment I am not sure what it is. I think budget caps somehow would have to come into play, but that is another can of worms.

Richard

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

...Imagine trying to get budget approval if you have no way of realistically saying you might succeed? Getting it "wrong" and recovering might take a year or two even with the assumption you are able to discover and replicate the competitors "secret sauce".

Richard

This is the elegance of it. You do rules like that and budgets magically go down, as the predictable ROI vaporizes. As far as a series dying because nobody else could figure out how to beat the dominant team, I think the only place we've really seen that is CanAm, where Penske/Porsche spending was a key component.

I would say if things got dire, and the series really was on the line, the sanctioning body would need to institute success ballast. Keep the rules open, but one team has to lug around a lot more weight (and likely redesign a lot of their car just to be able to handle the weight). That's an end-of-the-world scenario, with the series on the line. Otherwise, I would be very opposed to that sort of gimmick.

[MagVanisher]

Well, I agree with success ballast. Most of the series employs it like Super GT so it would be feasible for WEC LMP1 class to institute this rule.

[carbon_titanium]

don't know how much could fit well a success ballast in WEC lmp1 class; anyway if also lotus will be allowed to run with a min. weight of 810kg, I hope that audi, toyota and porsche will be down to 850kg

[MyNameIsNigel]

What I note with some amusement is the ACO-FIA's evident move to prevent or at least greatly restrict the ability to create interactions between the exhaust flow and the rear diffuser area. It would seem that the ACO-FIA are mainly targeting Audi and their LM-spec exhaust layout which literally complies with the current rule restrictions, but may nevertheless be seen to be too close to the "edge".

Now, when it comes to the explicit ban on "movable parts/elements of the bodywork (...) when the car is in motion", the ACO-FIA have evidently decided that revisions were not at all required in the rules, at least for now. The ACO-FIA however have yet to issue clarifications regarding the interpretation of this other provision, which the Toyota "movable rear wing" appears to literally infringe.

Why is it that the ACO-FIA believe that revisions are required in respect of the ban on "blown diffusers", even though there appears to be no real or evident controversy about this particular issue, while they appear to do nothing (so far) with respect to the ban on "movable bodywork", which other provision is evidently interpreted differently by the various manufacturers ?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by miatanut

This is the elegance of it. You do rules like that and budgets magically go down, as the predictable ROI vaporizes. As far as a series dying because nobody else could figure out how to beat the dominant team, I think the only place we've really seen that is CanAm, where Penske/Porsche spending was a key component.

I would say if things got dire, and the series really was on the line, the sanctioning body would need to institute success ballast. Keep the rules open, but one team has to lug around a lot more weight (and likely redesign a lot of their car just to be able to handle the weight). That's an end-of-the-world scenario, with the series on the line. Otherwise, I would be very opposed to that sort of gimmick.

I think WEC (and F1) are so high profile they are likely to not make drastic changes. I don't follow many other series, but it would be interesting to have someone operate a smaller series somewhere under some of the types of rules we have talked about and see what works and what doesn't. It might end up as a model for the larger series.

I see your point about something like the success ballast. Last resort at you say, but it also sort of admitting defeat if the series has "open rules" at it's core.

Richard

[TF110]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

What I note with some amusement is the ACO-FIA's evident move to prevent or at least greatly restrict the ability to create interactions between the exhaust flow and the rear diffuser area. It would seem that the ACO-FIA are mainly targeting Audi and their LM-spec exhaust layout which literally complies with the current rule restrictions, but may nevertheless be seen to be too close to the "edge".

Now, when it comes to the explicit ban on "movable parts/elements of the bodywork (...) when the car is in motion", the ACO-FIA have evidently decided that revisions were not at all required in the rules, at least for now. The ACO-FIA however have yet to issue clarifications regarding the interpretation of this other provision, which the Toyota "movable rear wing" appears to literally infringe.

Why is it that the ACO-FIA believe that revisions are required in respect of the ban on "blown diffusers", even though there appears to be no real or evident controversy about this particular issue, while they appear to do nothing (so far) with respect to the ban on "movable bodywork", which other provision is evidently interpreted differently by the various manufacturers ?

If Audi's exhaust ran, it should be legal. What difference is the wording to Audi? Just like the "rigidly attached" rear wing wording.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

If Audi's exhaust ran, it should be legal. What difference is the wording to Audi? Just like the "rigidly attached" rear wing wording.

I am questioning the ACO-FIA's motivation to revise some provision of the rules which do no appears to raise any fundamental issue (i.e. the ban on "blown diffusers") and the ACO-FIA's apparent "unwillingness" to clarify other provisions that are currently at the center of discussions between the manufacturers (i.e. the ban on "movable bodywork parts/elements").

[TF110]

I know your questions. The wording difference in the latest revisions changes nothing on the blown diffuser side. You say theyre seemingly targeting Audi, though. But theres also new wording on the rear wing attachment, that changes nothing either. I dont see anything to read into.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

I know your questions. The wording difference in the latest revisions changes nothing on the blown diffuser side. You say theyre seemingly targeting Audi, though. But theres also new wording on the rear wing attachment, that changes nothing either. I dont see anything to read into.

So, again, they revise provisions that do not "need" revision, and they leave out a provision that would definitely require clarification, namely the ban on "movable bodywork parts/elements" ???

[TF110]

Theres already wording on that Why do they need more? And, again, they modified the text on the rear wing mount being "rigidly attached" to etc. How is that any less of a revision than the blown diffuser?

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

Theres already wording on that Why do they need more? And, again, they modified the text on the rear wing mount being "rigidly attached" to etc. How is that any less of a revision than the blown diffuser?

Why do they need more ??? Are you serious ??? Because there is controversy surrounding the movable rear wing used by Toyota. Because "movable" means... well... "movable" and, evidently, the ACO-FIA are tolerating Toyota's movable rear wing solution.

So, yes, this particular provision would definitely require clarification.

[TF110]

According to who? You say they added to its wording or not? Maybe they havent done enough. But the wording added to that is being ignored to fit your argument theyre targeting blown diffusers instead. Thats what Im getting from your posts.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

According to who? You say they added to its wording or not? Maybe they havent done enough. But the wording added to that is being ignored to fit your argument theyre targeting blown diffusers instead. Thats what Im getting from your posts.

[TF110]

You didnt answer my question. They added wording to the rear wing mounting in the revision, correct?

They added wording to the blown diffuser ban in the revision, correct?

Neither makes much difference. So why are you singling out the latter?

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

You didnt answer my question. They added wording to the rear wing mounting in the revision, correct?

They added wording to the blown diffuser ban in the revision, correct?

Neither makes much difference. So why are you singling out the latter?

...

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

You didnt answer my question. They added wording to the rear wing mounting in the revision, correct?

They added wording to the blown diffuser ban in the revision, correct?

Neither makes much difference. So why are you singling out the latter?

…

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

So, again, they revise provisions that do not "need" revision, and they leave out a provision that would definitely require clarification, namely the ban on "movable bodywork parts/elements"