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

[gwyllion]

Some interesting comments of David Floury on the 2011 regulations: http://www.endurance-info.com/versio...ance-4623.html

David, how you welcome the decision by the ACO to accept the LMP1 next year 2010?
"There are two ways of seeing things. This is positive given the current context: it allows some teams to continue to roll with the existing equipment. On the other hand, there is another equivalence to manage: they must find a balance between LMP1 2011, whether gasoline, diesel, hybrid gasoline, or diesel hybrid, and LMP1 2010, petrol and diesel. This will be complicated. I repeat, however, given the situation, this is not stupid."

What do you think of broad lines of the hybrid regulatory?
"It's good to have opened the regulation of this technology. It is necessary. I think it is even necessary to go further. There is a meeting planned for the regulation at the horizon for 2014/2015 and ultimately I think the goal would be to have an amount of energy for each competitor to complete the distance. The most effective competitor, one who would get the best performance would be rewarded.
By promoting new technologies, Le Mans find the place it occupied in the 1950s or 1960s. Le Mans was the source of changes for the road and I think the race has lost a bit role in the recent years."

What is your opinion on some changes? Being able to choose the axle on which will be returned energy, being able to have a mechanical system to store energy ...
"I do not necessarily share all the points. Reading between the lines, one sees that one and the other asked. It also allows four-wheel drive, which means an additional equivalence. Indirectly, I think it will also allow the traction control. The hybrid may become a pretext for electronic functions, which will help improve the behavior of the car on the track. And these systems are very expensive. "

A word to add?
"It's a shame to include only cars capable of 400 meters at 60 km/h in only considering a hybrid car that has a storage system. There are other interesting solutions for energy recovery, either at the exhaust or cooling."

[JAG]

I'm not sure how much of an advantage 4wd would be as KERS can only be used in short bursts.

Better packaging seems to be the greatest benefit of fitting the KERS system to the front axle.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by Purist

I can already see this thing having bigger engines in P2, as it looks right now anyway, backfiring in terms of NOT producing the relative pace of P1 and P2 that the ACO is looking for. Looks like P675/P2 haven't hammered the message home.

I also did some basic calculations. Based on the power figures for current, top P2s that have been discussed (figures that are somewhat higher than the official numbers), unless drag is significantly reduced, the power drop from ~575hp down to the proposed 420hp drops practical top speed for P2s from 291km/h (fastest I've seen for any P2 car this year) down to 249km/h. And we think the GT2 guys have something to complain about with the current class structure.

Also, without significant drag reductions, if P1s drop from a maximum of ~750hp down to the proposed 520hp level, their top-end speed would drop from 348km/h down to 290km/h.

With the new P2s at 900kg, but with these amended engine capacity rules, they should just leave P1 alone the way things appear to stand now.

With the power reduction there will be a new emphasis on reducing drag in the bespoke chassis that will emerge. You couldn't stay on the current design tact and produce a successful car. So reducing power is a pretty good way to bring downforce along with it as there simply won't be the power to drag that through the air.

[gwyllion]

Perhaps the front wheel drive can be used to counter the tendency of oversteer at corner exit.

I guess it can be work in combination with the traction control system: if the rear wheels lose traction, put a burst of power on the front. That could help in the wet.

[gwyllion]

@MulsanneMike: So corner speeds will go down and straight line speed will stay comparable? That will improve safety.

What is your opinion on closed vs open for the new rules? Will the aero advantage of closed car increase with the power reduction?

Most Lola customers have switched to the closed version. So Lola clearly believes this is the better package at the moment. However, in the current LMP2 the Wirth chassis is clearly faster than the Lola chassis with the same engine. Is this just a case of Wirth have done a better job?

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by JAG

I'm not sure how much of an advantage 4wd would be as KERS can only be used in short bursts.

Better packaging seems to be the greatest benefit of fitting the KERS system to the front axle.

I think 4WD would be a huge advantage. Unless the regs dissallow it, its a pretty easy matter of being able to electronically control the transfer of torque where and when you need it front to rear side to side. The only issue will be how to package a 4WD system around contemporary aerodynamics.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

@MulsanneMike: So corner speeds will go down and straight line speed will stay comparable? That will improve safety.

What is your opinion on closed vs open for the new rules? Will the aero advantage of closed car increase with the power reduction?

Most Lola customers have switched to the closed version. So Lola clearly believes this is the better package at the moment. However, in the current LMP2 the Wirth chassis is clearly faster than the Lola chassis with the same engine. Is this just a case of Wirth have done a better job?

Audi's Ulrich commented on that yesterday. There's a pretty obvious aero benefit, my guess is in the order of 5%. But Ulrich elaborated by stating that previously, a closed top car was at a disadvantage when it came to pit stops; simply took longer to get the drivers in and out. But with the switch last year to only two crew members working on the car during pit stops, that disadvantage is irrelevant as it takes the crew just as long to do their work as it does the drivers to get in and out, regardless open top/closed top.

So with the fundamental change in power levels the closed top car becomes really the only route I think. Well, at least from an aerodynamic standpoint.

[gwyllion]

There is another vague sentence in the ACO announcement, which might suggest that the hybrid system can not be used as traction control. It is totally unclear how the ACO can enforce that rule...

Energy recovery systems using brakes must not be active during braking for curves (driver aids banned).

[ger80]

So with the LMP2 budget cap, who do you expect to supply chassis?
- Oreca FLM for sure
- Pesca?
- Norma was designed for this
- Radical was a cheap chassis in the past
- Lola? Will we see the open top back?

[gwyllion]

According to http://www.racecar-engineering.com/n...-for-2011.html

Responding to the cost cap one chassis manufacturer told Racecar Engineering that the situation was "not commercially attractive".

In the RML interview with Wirth Research (mp3 here) they mentioned that the budget cap makes LMP2 uninteresting for them. However, they are working on a new LMP1 car. There were some hints that it could have the bigger front tyres

[gwyllion]

David Richards was just on the air with Radio Le Mans. He said that they modelled that the previous hybrid rule (1000 kJ instead of 500 kJ) is worth 3 sec. They suggested to the ACO to add +50 kg for hybrid cars and Audi agreed with them. In general, AMR/Prodrive is more in favor of a lower minimum weight, because hybrid is not of interest to them.

[FIRE]

Originally Posted by ger80

So with the LMP2 budget cap, who do you expect to supply chassis?
- Oreca FLM for sure
- Pesca?
- Norma was designed for this
- Radical was a cheap chassis in the past
- Lola? Will we see the open top back?

Oreca FLM, Norma but also expect Lola and Zytek.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by FIRE

Oreca FLM, Norma but also expect Lola and Zytek.

Acura/HPD and WR

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by CTD

Acura/HPD and WR

Wirth Research said on RLM that the new LMP2 rules are only viable if they have economy of scale. They need to sell a number of chassis, before they can recover the engineering cost.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Wirth Research said on RLM that the new LMP2 rules are only viable if they have economy of scale. They need to sell a number of chassis, before they can recover the engineering cost.

And after today, im pretty sure they can do just that!

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by FIRE

Oreca FLM, Norma but also expect Lola and Zytek.

Not according to http://mariantic.co.uk/lmp/

Lola & Ginetta-Zytek thought unable to meet LMP2 chassis price cap

As said earlier, Wirth Research expressed a similar concern. Listen to RML hour 22 starting from around 19:10.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

David Richards was just on the air with Radio Le Mans. He said that they modelled that the previous hybrid rule (1000 kJ instead of 500 kJ) is worth 3 sec. They suggested to the ACO to add +50 kg for hybrid cars and Audi agreed with them. In general, AMR/Prodrive is more in favor of a lower minimum weight, because hybrid is not of interest to them.

If you want to relisten the interview: RML hour 20 (jump to 2:00).

[JAG]

P2 is going to be a budget formula so it follows manufactuers will have to build budget chassis.

IMO the decision of current P2 teams to step upto P1 will come down as much to the quality of their driving squad as budget.

What's the point of a pair of slower amateurs running in P1 when they can be far more competitive in a lower budget P2.

[gucom]

Wasn't the final version of the 2011 rules supposed to be released on race sunday? I haven't seen anything about it, I'm curious to see if the shark fins are still included (hope not!!).

Also, it would be very, very nice to see the # of cylinders not maxed at 8; although I don't know how realistic a 3.4 litre V12 would be, I think a V10 might still be manageable? that's 340 cc per cylinder, still more than current F1 engines (300 cc/cylinder)

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by gucom

Wasn't the final version of the 2011 rules supposed to be released on race sunday? I haven't seen anything about it, I'm curious to see if the shark fins are still included (hope not!!).

ACO said that would send the rules to the teams.
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/RCELeMans2010.html has a draft version of the rules that describes the dimensions of the shark fin.

Originally Posted by gucom

Also, it would be very, very nice to see the # of cylinders not maxed at 8; although I don't know how realistic a 3.4 litre V12 would be, I think a V10 might still be manageable? that's 340 cc per cylinder, still more than current F1 engines (300 cc/cylinder)

All the customer engines for LMP1 next year are ready: HPD 3.4 V8, Zytek 3.4 V8, Judd 3.4 V8, and AER/Mazda 2.0 turbo.
A small cylinder capacity is good if you want to rev very high, like in Formula 1 (18k rpm) or the Superleague Formula V12 engine (12k rpm). I am not sure that is the way to go in these days of endurance racing where fuel economy is very important.

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

A small cylinder capacity is good if you want to rev very high, like in Formula 1 (18k rpm) or the Superleague Formula V12 engine (12k rpm). I am not sure that is the way to go in these days of endurance racing where fuel economy is very important.

The 3.5 liter prototypes had similar (perhaps slightly worse) economy to the old turbo Group C cars, so if someone wants to slot in a 3.4 V10 and rev it to 10-11k rpm, and it is reliable (and Le Mans '92 and '93 showed it can be)... why not? It would probably match the V8s in economy and power with some development. (I wonder if Judd are thinking of de-mothballing the old Group C engine... yeah, joking)

[gwyllion]

Sorry, but all this completely hypothetical. On 9/6/2010 http://www.mulsannescorner.com/RCELeMans2010.html wrote

LMP2 engine regulations have had a rewrite since we last reported on them (5.15.10). ... P2 engines will be homologated normally aspirated engines up to a maximum of 5.0 liters and 8-cylinders and homologated turbos up to a maximum of 3.2 (previous draft cited 4.0) liters and 8 cylinders

No mention of changes in the LMP1 engine rules. So they were still the same as http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newsmay10.html wrote on 15/5/2010

As we understand it at the moment, the intention is that 2011 LMP1s will be powered by either normally aspirated engines up to 3.4 liters and 8 cylinders, turbo engines up to 2.0 liters and 6 cylinders, or turbo diesel engines up to 3.7 liters and 8 cylinders.

In fact the ACO already announced this decision in 2008 and acknowledged it in 2009.

[deggis]

But...? --> http://tentenths.com/forum/showpost....&postcount=522

[gwyllion]

Good point. My mistake.

I still think that a V8 configuration will be preferred because less cilinders means lower weight and less friction losses and because a shorter engine is good for weight balance, leaves more room for the gearbox and hybrid system, gives more freedom for the aerodynamics, ...

For these reasons the R15 got a V10 instead of a V12. There are also serious indications that the Audi R18 will use a 3.7 V6 TDI, while 8 cilinders are allowed in the 2011 rules.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Good point. My mistake.

I still think that a V8 configuration will be preferred because less cilinders means lower weight and less friction losses and because a shorter engine is good for weight balance, leaves more room for the gearbox and hybrid system, gives more freedom for the aerodynamics, ...

For these reasons the R15 got a V10 instead of a V12. There are also serious indications that the Audi R18 will use a 3.7 V6 TDI, while 8 cilinders are allowed in the 2011 rules.

This is also what is rumored for the Peugeot. (and WR will be using)
For a diesel a 3,7 V6 is probably the optimal power unit!
But the Peugeot petrol is going to be even more interesting!, will it be a 2.0 Turbo?