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

[AGD]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

In defence of the ACO, their goal was to equalize the performance potential. So perhaps they believe that Toyota will be able to develop an engine that gets more power out of the rules (e.g., with direct fuel injection or turbocharging).

Well, we know there are rumors pointing towards Toyota not using a turbo engine. As far as DFI is concerned, I would think they would go in that direction, but maybe not?

[Francesco]

the diesel have a 20-30hp advantage over WHAT? that's the point...

grandfathered GV5.5? TMG 3.4 V8? i think that a 20-30 hp advantage on 2011 LM will be a very different number over next years KERS equipped TMG/TTE engine... maybe, after the AMR-1 fiasco we will see a true battle between diesel and gasoline.

The deciding factor, engine wise, will be torque, how much Toyota can squeeze out of their KERS?

[knighty]

Originally Posted by ubrben

Nice little summary on MC:

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newssept11.html

More air = more fuel burnt = more power...

Ben

I guess that what it was intended as, but it looks like its kicked up a fuss on here again!......the reason I only looked at mass flows was because it was quick and simple for everyone to understand.......once you start to factor in all the other considerations the calculations start getting way too confusing and unrealistic, and not to mention breach my lunch break!.......I think the general point has been made, time will tell if the changes have worked I guess, for sure the gap between diesel and gasoline should now be alot closer in 2012.......there is also the fact that the majority of gasoline engines are now old and dated affairs, so it will be interesting to see what new gasoline developments start to arrive from Toyota, AER, HPD.

[vyselegend]

Anyway, what is really strange is that neither Audi nor Peugeot opened their mouth with their usual whining about the rule tweak yet. Maybe a sign that they're now too preocupied with serious competition than playing mind games against privateers.

Toyota's arrival with hybrid tech forced them to accelerate the development of their own hybrids, and I wouldn't be surprised if comming Le Mans ALL manufacturers entries will be hybrids!

That would explain why they're not bothering anymore with the "simple" Diesel VS Petrol *****ing war.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by vyselegend

Anyway, what is really strange is that neither Audi nor Peugeot opened their mouth with their usual whining about the rule tweak yet. Maybe a sign that they're now too preocupied with serious competition than playing mind games against privateers.

Maybe, but: http://tentenths.com/forum/showpost....postcount=1451

Also (old link), Ullrich's comment here: http://www.autoweek.com/article/20111005/ALMS/111009949

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by vyselegend

Anyway, what is really strange is that neither Audi nor Peugeot opened their mouth with their usual whining about the rule tweak yet. Maybe a sign that they're now too preocupied with serious competition than playing mind games against privateers.

Perhaps they are happy that the performance reduction is only 7% and not 10% like the ACO initially proposed

[Speed-King]

In the light of today's events at Las Vegas, but also all the other close calls the racing world had this year: Is it time to mandate closed cars in all classes?

[TF110]

No, they just need to race on appropriate tracks, had there been no fencing, Wheldon perhaps would have been ok. I think the tracks need to be assessed, even though people may not like 'tilkedromes' at least the run off area can give enough room and space for a car and driver to slow themselves before a 200mph shunt.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

In the light of today's events at Las Vegas, but also all the other close calls the racing world had this year: Is it time to mandate closed cars in all classes?

It looks like the coupe mandate for LMP1 may already happen for 2014. I'm sure LMP2 will follow since most LMP2 designs are old LMP1s or projects that are codesigned for LMP1. LMPC may be a different story, but hopefully LMPC is a temporary situation. I'm skeptical, but hopeful on that regard. A coupe mandate may be bad news for smaller manufacturers though. Plus, coupes may be harder to cost-cap, but I guess it isn't impossible if Lola is offering a cost-capped coupe for next year. Will it be harder for the likes of OAK and Pescarolo to build and/or modify existing coupe chassis to their own liking than it would be for an open-top car?

Even if the rules did not mandate coupes, it looks like most of the cars are moving in that direction due to aerodynamic needs.

[deggis]

Earlier this year FIA Institute did a test on fighter jet canopy (remember Massa's freak accident in Hungary 2009). This was done mostly F1 in mind, though.


http://www.formula1.com/news/features/2011/7/12314.html

[The Badger]

What happens if you cant get the canopy off ?

The canopy is mounted on a heavey aluminium frame , which can/will buckle with such an impact .

[TF110]

Quick release latches? Maybe they'll have an 'ejector seat' button.

[The Badger]

Quick release latches work as long as their not damaged , or surrounding structure aint damaged .

Ejector seat sounds fun ..... Imagine tryin to dodge that mother !!! lol

[CTD]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Quick release latches work as long as their not damaged , or surrounding structure aint damaged .

Ejector seat sounds fun ..... Imagine tryin to dodge that mother !!! lol

You would be a bit screwed if you hit the button up-side-down . (A problem they don't have in jets)

[AGD]

Audi has some very harsh words about the 2012 diesel regulations as well as the new hybrid regulations.

Some of the statements:

"We have already informed the ACO that we did not agree with some of their actions. The ACO has consistently transformed the 24 Hours of Le Mans in a laboratory focused on the future, has often played a pioneering role and therefore, with car manufacturers, made ​​some major contributions not only in motorsports, but the development of the car in general. However, it is now trying to strike a balance by making equal the performance of relatively old cars with cutting-edge developments. And, for our purposes, it does nothing to promote technological progress. "

http://www.endurance-info.com/versio...ance-8556.html

[gwyllion]

The Audi press release from which EI extracted those quotes, can be found (in English): here.

Audi does have a valid point when they say:

But this year, the diesel tanks were reduced to 65 liters and this will be reduced further still to 60 liters in 2012. What’s more, hybrid vehicles have to carry another two liters less. But this absolute figure of two liters dates back to when the volume of the tanks was still 81 liters. In other words, these two liters represent a much higher percentage now that the tank volume has been reduced to 60 liters, and that’s unjustifiable. To put it into practical terms, hybrid vehicles may well have to make a pit stop one lap earlier than the diesel vehicles without a hybrid system at Le Mans in the future.

In 2010 the hybrid system had to improve the fuel economy by at least 2.5% (= 2/81) for it to make sense. However, in 2012 it has to yield an improvement of at least 3.3% (= 2/60).

Strangly they also don't like the new mandatory louvers on the wheel fenders...

But the openings that now have to be above the wheels are a lot more serious. They are supposed to prevent a vehicle from losing contact with the ground on one side when the vehicle is at a large heading angle and therefore spinning. This is certainly the right idea in theory. But these openings unfortunately reduce the vehicle’s stability on the straight because its center of gravity shifts forward, thereby increasing the likelihood that the driver will oversteer. In other words, the risk of the vehicle spinning out of control is actually increased.

If the aero balance is shifted forward, why not compensate this with more rear downforce. Moreover, the rear fenders are also mandated to get louvers.

Finally, Audidoes not like the fact that the front wheels can not be driven by the hybrid system below 120 km/h. Were they planning to call the next R18 a quattro?

[AGD]

It is all too easy for the general public to overlook the fact that the teams that currently use vehicles run on gasoline are nowhere near reaching the full potential of gasoline engines and vehicles as laid down in the regulations.

I believe that is Audi's PR friendly way of saying the Judds, Zyteks, and the rest of the petrol gang are hamster-on-a-wheel powered jalopy engines!

[henk4]

Originally Posted by AGD

I believe that is Audi's PR friendly way of saying the Judds, Zyteks, and the rest of the petrol gang are hamster-on-a-wheel powered jalopy engines!

AMR anybody?

[MitchZ06]

R18 Quattro can still be used, it's just not all time 4WD...

[CTD]

Originally Posted by MitchZ06

R18 Quattro can still be used, it's just not all time 4WD...

The idea of Quattro is that it's a permanent four wheel drive.

[lms]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

In the light of today's events at Las Vegas, but also all the other close calls the racing world had this year: Is it time to mandate closed cars in all classes?

no

[lms]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

If the aero balance is shifted forward, why not compensate this with more rear downforce. Moreover, the rear fenders are also mandated to get louvers.

so, reducing the width of the rear wing was a stupid idea after all? as a wider rear wing would produce more rear downforce, afaik. Anyone know why the bloody hell did they reduce the rear wing? (2009-)

[Félix]

Sportscars struggling with too much front downforce leading to oversteer??? It's never been that way. We might as well say that the coupé canopy is killing airflow to the rear wing then (in fact open top cars spoil the airflow and get even poorer rear wing efficiency)

[DeutschRenn]

will an energy recover system make it easier on the brakes? since the energy recovery takes the kinetic energy of the wheels. so wil lyou need less and therfore lighter brakes?

Also isnt the 60liters of fuel limit that they gave the diesels just more room to put ballast in the right places which could make them faster?

[DeutschRenn]

Originally Posted by lms

so, reducing the width of the rear wing was a stupid idea after all? as a wider rear wing would produce more rear downforce, afaik. Anyone know why the bloody hell did they reduce the rear wing? (2009-)

i think they thought they would slow the cars bye having less downforce.....but apparently they forgot that less downforce equals less drag.....and more top speed.