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

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by TF110

The Ford has nothing to do with lmp1 and Toyota's wing was within the written rules. It was then written out of the rules. It's funny how innovation like that or Porsche's fueling gets a frown but at the same time people want to see clever ideas instead of the same old thing.

That's not what happened with the Toyota rear wing. The technical rules did not change post Le Mans, but rather how the FIA/ACO loading rig worked for testing the rules changed. The technical regulations remained exactly the same.

Article 3.4: 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.

So no, the rules never changed and it certainly was not "written out" of the rules. They just changed their way of testing the loading since Toyota had violated the rules, but it could not be proven on the current test rig. This was the same rule which had the Porsche engine covers changed (and the same year IIRC) because they were flexing under load.

We don't know enough about the Porsche refueling system to really judge it. However that was banned because it was circumnavigating a restrictor. Had any team found a way around fuel or air restrictors, this forum would've gone into meltdown.

I personally don't consider working around the testing of the rules innovation. Innovation is Toyota starting the car on electrical power in the pit lane to reduce load on the engine and save time starting it. Innovation is Audi bringing dolly-jacks to Le Mans and everyone else saying "that's so simple...why didn't we think of that?". Innovation is the FRICs system. Innovation is the McLaren third pedal. Innovation is the mass-damper. That's real innovation.

[Articus]

Originally Posted by TF110

Anyway, no one said the aco has it all figured out. The talk is about what they are offering to new manufacturers as an incentive to enter. But it seems like the more popular topic is how the rule makers will let a new manufacturer get one over on them and they'll somehow dominate.

But isn't that exactly what Ford did? Just a comment, not an antagonism. Feel free to discuss. Take advantage of the rules, ask for forgiveness later.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Articus

I've been reading a few post making it sound like the ACO has everything figured out and can give and take as they please.

I really think the incentives are to keep any new entry from being embarrassingly uncompetitive. The problem is if a new entry (with incentives) is embarrassingly competitive! That is when it enters into a BoP style territory and the ACO might have to consider removing incentives earlier than scheduled. And clearly there will be politics involved.

So, like anything, it may have good intentions, but it can also go sideways in unexpected ways. If someone is good out of the box and the incentives push them into position to win races, or to show strong pace, but with maybe less than stellar reliability, you will see some sparks fly. Existing manufacturers will (rightly) cry that it is not fair. I expect fan discussion to explode as well!

The existing manufactures may also generally feel... This is not easy to do. So they are potentially not as concerned about someone new showing up and cleaning up. Maybe they are expecting year #1 for someone to more follow the Nissan path. Time will tell!

Originally Posted by Articus

Loopholes and BOP like concessions aren't a good thing for fair competition in the open formula class. Whether there even needs to be fair competition is another interesting debate I suppose...Thats just my take.
Sure it will attract new manufacturers.

I don't like BoP at all. I hold my nose when I watch GT racing. I don't think it should exist at all in top level racing (F1, LMP1). While this is BoP "like", it ultimately is not designed (IMHO) to guarantee performance parity. That is why I plan to give it a chance. it is clearly a bit of an experiment. Frankly I applaud the fact they are willing to try something new, but without (hopefully) wrecking the core of what makes the class great right now.

Originally Posted by Articus

but what about EoT?

I have taken a peek at the 2017 tech and sporting regulations to see how this new incentive idea works. It looks like article 7.12 of the proposed 2017 sporting regulations is what everyone needs to look at. It appears this draft will be reviewed by the World Motor Sports Council (WMSC) in May. I think there are also a few typos in that draft (some text shows up twice for example). I think its also somewhat poorly worded.

Anyhow, with respect to EoT, I believe everything generally operates as before. The EoT values for the season up to and including LeMans has already been defined in the 2017 tech regulations. They will evaluate again after LeMans for remainder of 2017 seasons. EoT calculations are not impacted by the incentives. But what appears to happen is that any new competitor appears to get extra fuel flow and per lap allocation above and beyond the best in class ICE values. But to be honest, I am having a hard time understanding the wording of the regulations on how that extra fuel allocation works due to what I think is odd wording (or maybe just poor translation from the French which is what counts).

It should also be mentioned that there appears to be wiggle room for the ACO to punish a new manufacture if they provide false info on things such as the five year look back regarding benefit from other programs as well as playing games with ICE performance (I assume efficiency... and ultimately potential for sandbagging).

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

The technical regulations remained exactly the same.

Not replying really to you, but rather the general topic of technical regulations and the new manufacture incentives. I view the two as generally being totally separate. In my quick scan of the 2017 tech regs, I see no mention of new manufacture incentives.

My real point is that a new manufacture is just as likely as anyone to attempt (and maybe sometimes being successful at) bending the rules, or finding loopholes that others haven't found yet.

Richard

[Akrapovic]

Yeah I imagine the new incentives will be a case by case basis and balanced depending on requirements. This is fine if they have a transparent system with proper reasons made public.

[Articus]

I suppose the silver lining is, never mind what the next 3-4 years in LMP looks like in terms of fair or unfair, BOP or no BOP, if it means that in 5 years there will be a stable manufacturers commitment from 4-5 manufacturers all playing to the same rule book

Having realized that, perhaps I was being short sighted with my initial concerns.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

That's not what happened with the Toyota rear wing. The technical rules did not change post Le Mans, but rather how the FIA/ACO loading rig worked for testing the rules changed. The technical regulations remained exactly the same.

Article 3.4: 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.

So no, the rules never changed and it certainly was not "written out" of the rules. They just changed their way of testing the loading since Toyota had violated the rules, but it could not be proven on the current test rig. This was the same rule which had the Porsche engine covers changed (and the same year IIRC) because they were flexing under load.

We don't know enough about the Porsche refueling system to really judge it. However that was banned because it was circumnavigating a restrictor. Had any team found a way around fuel or air restrictors, this forum would've gone into meltdown.

I personally don't consider working around the testing of the rules innovation. Innovation is Toyota starting the car on electrical power in the pit lane to reduce load on the engine and save time starting it. Innovation is Audi bringing dolly-jacks to Le Mans and everyone else saying "that's so simple...why didn't we think of that?". Innovation is the FRICs system. Innovation is the McLaren third pedal. Innovation is the mass-damper. That's real innovation.

You're being literal, but I wasn't meaning it that exact way. By saying Written I was meaning broad term that they weren't allowed to use it anymore

Originally Posted by Articus

But isn't that exactly what Ford did? Just a comment, not an antagonism. Feel free to discuss. Take advantage of the rules, ask for forgiveness later.

No, the Ford situation is not like the lmp1 incentive. Ford played a bop game. This incentive thing is to help a new lmp1 catch up with the established teams that are already so far ahead.

And on the innovation, I think it's anything that's clever imo. It can be within the rules and even if they're not, that doesn't mean it's not something cool and innovative. Like that Renault mass-damper. That was a work around the rules but it still was a cool concept. Or the f-duct etc.

On the future of lmp1, this may cause some ruckus http://www.dailysportscar.com/2016/1...1-in-2020.html. I hope something was lost in translation there, but only one hybrid system is not the way to go.

[GasperG]

... and even with the initiative don't forget that the newcomer will only run with 98% engine power of the top team, I wouldn't worry too much that the newcomer will suddenly swipe with the others.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by GasperG

... and even with the initiative don't forget that the newcomer will only run with 98% engine power of the top team, I wouldn't worry too much that the newcomer will suddenly swipe with the others.

So the fuel part is what confuses me. I had thought the idea was to allocate more fuel, but I look at the first year waivers and you see this text...

Specific allocation of fuel (energy per lap and/or maximum fuel flow) to reach 98% of the best in class ICE performance.

Which could be more clear, but I believe it does imply that for the first year you get 98% of the ICE fuel allocation for your specific class.

Is this the trade off that prevents the car from truly being competitive enough to win?

Richard

[GasperG]

fuel flow * efficiency = Engine power

if newcomer efficiency < 98% best in class efficiency then
newcomer fuel flow = fuel flow + amount to get to 98% best in class engine power

if newcomer efficiency >= 98% best in class efficiency then
newcomer fuel flow = fuel flow


allocation per lap gets the same boost, because otherwise newcomer would have to coast more.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by TF110

Like that Renault mass-damper. That was a work around the rules but it still was a cool concept. Or the f-duct etc.

The F-Duct is an interesting one because you're using using active aerodynamics. That was most certainly a work around the rules. But the mass-damper wasn't. That was a 9kg weight which helped stabilise the car. It relived stress on the suspension and maximised the contact patch. It had an added side effect of causing less pitch and roll in the car, but the primary function was stabilising the car coming off of kerbs.

It was banned under movable aerodynamic devices, but really the primary concern was a sprung, not secured weight in the car. When everyone was just running one weight at the front, in gaps in the chassis it wasn't too bad. It was when Honda asked to run 2, one I think around fuel tank, that the FIA put a stop to it. It was more about safety than it was about being an illegal aero device. Makes sense I suppose as having 20kg of weights not secured was eventually going to cause a problem.

That was proven when McLaren and Ferrari introduced the J Damper. It achieved the exact same thing, but without the sprung mass, therefore removing the safety risk, and being declared legal.

For me, innovation is about coming up with new concepts and ideas, or refining an idea, that is actually legal. If it's about working around the rules, then Toyotas hidden turbo and Benettons illegal fuel rigs could be called innovation, which IMO is wrong.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by GasperG

fuel flow * efficiency = Engine power

if newcomer efficiency < 98% best in class efficiency then
newcomer fuel flow = fuel flow + amount to get to 98% best in class engine power

if newcomer efficiency >= 98% best in class efficiency then
newcomer fuel flow = fuel flow


allocation per lap gets the same boost, because otherwise newcomer would have to coast more.

Thanks, that makes sense as an incentive. It's both a boost if needed, but also does not create unfair or unearned parity to the best.

Richard

[Bcarr6]

Not sure this is the right place but:

Ginetta just potentially blew P1-L wide open

http://www.dailysportscar.com/2017/0...%E2%80%A8.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[knighty]

Originally Posted by Bcarr6

Not sure this is the right place but:

Ginetta just potentially blew P1-L wide open

http://www.dailysportscar.com/2017/0...%E2%80%A8.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hmmmm......I think Ginetta could get their fingers burned with this one......I think they are building a car for a market that does not exist, and its all fuelled by ego......recently there was a front-engined front front-wheel drive kart developed and pushed really hard at the karting market by a motorsport ego with more money than sense, it flopped badly, I see the same trend here....... everyone has seen the gulf of performance between privateer and factory teams and this is why LMP2 is now so buoyant.......if Ginetta had announced a DPi program I would say that was far more sensible, but LMP1-Privateer.....seems very risky to me

I also recently had a very interesting chat with a retired member of staff from Z***k who saw what LT did to the company resulting in bankrupcy, allowing BG to buy it back from the creditors for 1£.....my jaw was on the floor......egomaniac was the most common word.....no wonder they fell out with Oreca

[Bcarr6]

I don't know, this is a customer based programme, if they were going for a factory P1-H I'd agree.

But this is building a car, to a price, to a spec, to be bought by teams. I figure that has a better chance of succeeding. Kinda depends on quality of teams purchasing though


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[knighty]

Originally Posted by Bcarr6

I don't know, this is a customer based programme, if they were going for a factory P1-H I'd agree.

But this is building a car, to a price, to a spec, to be bought by teams. I figure that has a better chance of succeeding. Kinda depends on quality of teams purchasing though


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I also just noticed this comment:

"There is no current plan for a factory Ginetta team"

Well thats a real endorsement for a build of 10 cars.....converting interest into sales will be the main challenge, this is not like a small team taking a punt on LMP3.....any team will need an 8 figure budget with money to burn and lots of excuses to explain why they are 4 seconds per lap off the factory hybrid cars.

[Akrapovic]

What Ginetta has going for it is Catone did the Peugeot 908s and BR01. He's becoming a bit of a legend for making great cars. So that does help the Ginetta case a bit. But they've always had a bit of an issue with build quality rather than design (even in the single make series). If they stamp that out then this could be an amazing car.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by knighty

Hmmmm......I think Ginetta could get their fingers burned with this one......I think they are building a car for a market that does not exist

Originally Posted by knighty

seems very risky to me

Ginetta was not selected as an LMP2 provider and it seems they have mostly walked away from LMP3, so I guess if you want to remain in the prototype business a customer LMP1 car is a valid direction.

Without a doubt, this is risky.

It is a bit of "build it and they will come". I hope it works for them.

Originally Posted by knighty

everyone has seen the gulf of performance between privateer and factory teams and this is why LMP2 is now so buoyant

I think it is and always has been a ridiculous idea to expect the non-hybrid cars to compete directly with the factory hybrid cars in LMP1. And I think anyone going into LMP1 knows this. So this is generally a non-issue IMHO.

What the class is missing is entrants (or a specific critical mass) more than anything. Right or wrong I think the idea is to fit in between the relatively spec and cost controlled LMP2 and the factory LMP1 cars. IMHO, LMP2 is active right now because it is effectively the only game in town for those who are not a large factory program! Granted, there is also cost considerations as I expect it is (and should be) much cheaper to run LMP2 vs. LMP1. This is a space for those who want (and can afford) to be a step above LMP2.

Originally Posted by knighty

and its all fuelled by ego

I don't know the personalities behind this. Is the ego comment opinion or do you have more details you can expand upon?

Originally Posted by Bcarr6

I don't know, this is a customer based programme, if they were going for a factory P1-H I'd agree.

But this is building a car, to a price, to a spec, to be bought by teams. I figure that has a better chance of succeeding. Kinda depends on quality of teams purchasing though

Agree

Originally Posted by knighty

I also just noticed this comment:

"There is no current plan for a factory Ginetta team"

Well thats a real endorsement for a build of 10 cars.....converting interest into sales will be the main challenge, this is not like a small team taking a punt on LMP3.....any team will need an 8 figure budget with money to burn and lots of excuses to explain why they are 4 seconds per lap off the factory hybrid cars.

Actually that makes sense to me. If this is to be a customer program, why not focus on supporting the customers vs. burning money to run your own team AND try to support your customers? That seems like a lot to bite off. And who says that may not support a first customer in a strongly quasi "factory" way?

Richard

[CTD]

I have a hard time believing any serious company would begin such a project without having checked the market first.
Ginetta must be in talks with more than the mentioned teams, who'm they consider to be serious buyers. The amount of capital needed to be raised for development and manufacturing costs are too high for Ginetta to find without any letters of intent. Hopefully I will not be proven wrong.

[GT6]

This is the ACO announcement re Ginetta
http://www.lemans.org/en/News/ginett...pionship/44969

[TF110]

Dsc's piece says current Ginetta customers are interested in lmp1 and it seems they're staying with Ginetta to do so.

[carbsmith]

ARC Brataslava
https://translate.google.ca/translat...3/&prev=search

"I'm currently thinking hard about the future. The question of switching to LM P2 arises and I discuss this with several manufacturers. We think about it more and more. The private LM P1 class is also part of the reflections. For us, everything is new in the prototype world. Luckily, supporting Ginetta is good.

PRT is run by KCMG for an online gambling site owner. That's new money on the market anyways. They do get a Ginetta factory driver and engineers for AsLMS.

[Dyson Mazda]

Originally Posted by TF110

Dsc's piece says current Ginetta customers are interested in lmp1 and it seems they're staying with Ginetta to do so.

Who are Ginetta's current customers seeing as the P3 totally flopped and more importantly can we expect these teams make the jump from GT3 to P1?

[TF110]

Originally Posted by Dyson Mazda

Who are Ginetta's current customers seeing as the P3 totally flopped and more importantly can we expect these teams make the jump from GT3 to P1?

Like carbsmith said above, PRT and BRC Bratislava were the ones being talked about in this story http://www.dailysportscar.com/2017/0...2;
.html

[Mitchi_S]

I am not sure if the ARC Bratislava is a team that should race in LMP1. LMP2 maybe, but LMP1?

They'd probably as good/fast as the guys in the Autocon Lola in the ALMS seasons 08/09, always holding up the quicker GT cars. I'd say in GT3 racing they were already quicker than they were before 2010 with their Saleen, the 996 and the Viper, but still.