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

[Sodemo]

I think the whole LMP regs need looking at. I wasn't happy with the engine standardisation imposed upon the LMP2 runners and I think LMP1 is perhaps going through a tough time.

Making things cheaper is essential. Audi were spending a reported $200 million a year, which to me is obscene. Ideally we would have a situation where a works team cannot just spend themselves stupid and create a faster car than an indie team, although thats likely a pipe dream in the modern world.

I do agree that a rules change does need to take place, quite what though is a matter of debate. The hybrid stuff is currently fashionable, however its a double edged sword, manufacturers want to promote it, however it costs a fortune to develop and run. Its a similar story with the F1 engines. The old V8's you could run for $2-4 million a year, the V6 hybrids cost $20 million upwards. Great, so we love hybrids, but at 6-7 times the cost of non-hybrid tech?

What I would love to see is a field of 20 LMP1 cars, with a mix of full works teams, semi works and full indies with Judd / Cosworth motors etc. All the cars would have different engine tech, Turbos, V6's, V8's, V10's, etc and all be on an equal pace.

[Speed-King]

What I would love to see is a field of 20 LMP1 cars

The only way to get remotely close to that is if the manufacturers' involvement were to be reduced to providing power units (and at a fixed price) rather than building full cars.

Probably wouldn't have full works teams in that scenario, but I guess semi-works efforts like WRT or HTP would still be a possibility.

[GasperG]

Problem with low cost lightweight LMP-L is why go for the expensive hybrid if EOT will equalise it?

What would we get?
- LMP-L - higher top speed (more engine power)
- LMP-L - higher cornering speed (lower weight)
- LMP-H - higher corner exit speed (1,000 HP boost)
- LMP-H - longer stint length (lower fuel flow)
- LMP-H - more chances of breakdown

In the end it all comes down to min weigh and fuel flow, two key parameters, that can be shifted so that LMP-L uses less fuel than hybrid -> it will never happen.

[chernaudi]

Dump fuel flow in favor of going back to sonic air restrictors. It worked fine for 20 years. Why the ACO and FIA decided to break something that didn't need fixed, I don't know.

[carbsmith]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Why did the Audi R8 win races until literally it's last day on track? Why were the Porsche 956/962 series, designed originally in 1981, still winning races into the early 1990's?

Because the competition all left for F1 without selling their cars to privateers. The 962's last win as a prototype was literally because Toyota didn't bother showing up to lap them and for the first few years of its life its only competition was exploding Lancias, it pretty quickly dropped off the pace when Jaguar, Mercedes, and Nissan all started running seriously. The car didn't run in the top class at Le Mans the last few years of its life either, so that isn't much different than the Gibson that just won a race the other weekend. The R-One is going to be winning races as an LMP2 car in 2020 too, so that's not half-bad.

The first 3 years of the open top LMP rules at Le Mans the class was won by very old modified Group C cars (largely because Ferrari hadn't put any development whatsoever into running the 333SP in LM spec), within the space of a year of multiple manufacturers entering all of them were rendered so obsolete that none were even entered in 1999 and even what would have been considered a good dedicated open top car in 1998 was next to worthless in 2000. The 333SP swept the enduros in 1998 and even with a major upgrade they were 23 laps behind the R8 in their debut at Sebring. The R8 got a major upgrade in 2001 with direct injection that pretty much chased the remaining American manufacturers out of the class then coasted to wins against equally old privateer cars for another few years. The R10 wasn't a whole lot more than a diesel version of the R8 with minimal development from 2006 to 2008 and got comprehensively blown out by the arrival of Peugeot leading to Audi introducing an all new car every 2 or 3 years from 2009 to 2016 and a massive update every season. Without the 908 around the R10 probably would have kept winning Le Mans all the way through 2013, since they never would have even needed to make the engine capacity reduction to slow them down.

Fuel limits worked great for the entirety of the 80s.

[chernaudi]

IMO, they're not working now. Also, IMO, major rules changes every three or so years don't help, either, because that ramps up budgets due to the compressed time to get things done.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

IMO, they're not working now. Also, IMO, major rules changes every three or so years don't help, either, because that ramps up budgets due to the compressed time to get things done.

You said that "3 years or so" before. Even with the latest regs, 2014-2018 is 5 years to change, leaving 4 seasons with the same kit. Nothing changed on the lmp1's for most of the mid-late 2000's. They shrunk the rear wing in 2009 and let a little hybrid power in 2012. The cars remained the same for about 8 years. The rule changed for 2014 and may change again for 2018. That's not 3 years.

[chernaudi]

I'm getting a bit tired of having my opinions pigeon holed just because they're different from others. I'm about to ask to have my account deleted.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

I'm getting a bit tired of having my opinions pigeon holed just because they're different from others. I'm about to ask to have my account deleted.

It's not a difference of opinion. You said the rules change every 3 years, but the facts say differently.

[chernaudi]

If you wanna pigeon hole something, look at the "small" rules changes, which can add up and cost as much as a big overhaul can.

2009: Rear wing width reduction

2010: Rear wheel well louvers added to reduce debris being thrown out the back of the cars

2011: Smaller engines become mandatory to be competitive

2012: Hybrids become optional, fender holes become mandatory, and associated aero changes, TMG's rear wing endplate/wheel arch extension becomes legal, and leads to more changes.

2014: Hybrids become all but mandatory in LMP1, LMP1 private teams get hosed big time, factories that don't want to run hybrids get hosed big time, the cost to develop ultra powerful hybrids and engines to take advantage of fuel flow regs skyrocket. Don't you see the problem here?

The rules have jacked up cost, limited creativity and variety, and IMO got phased in too quickly and in too much of a haphazard method, almost as if the ACO took it for granted that guys like Audi, Toyota and Porsche would stick around for years to come. Yes, you can whip out the excuse that all the factory teams had a hand in creating the rules, but I don't think that even they realized the Pandora's box that got opened. The ACO certainly seemed ill prepared as far as a back up plan for when/if the bubble burst.

However, until Vincent Beuamesnil gets the boot from the ACO or he resigns/retires, we're stuck with this, and I fear that things will get worse before they get better.

[GasperG]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Dump fuel flow in favor of going back to sonic air restrictors. It worked fine for 20 years. Why the ACO and FIA decided to break something that didn't need fixed, I don't know.

Are you serious? Road relevance, fuel consumption.

Restricting air to an engine does not go in hand with maximizing thermodynamic efficiency.

[chernaudi]

Uhm, yeah, it does. You can only force so much air into an intake manifold. And you need so much air to get an effiencent fuel burn. Road cars don't have fuel flow meters on them, so how are they more relevant than air restrictors?

Again, I either feel like people aren't listening to me, or they're just picking fights because I don't see things they same way that they do.

I'm done with this BS, and I wish I could go back to 15-20 years ago.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Uhm, yeah, it does. You can only force so much air into an intake manifold. And you need so much air to get an effiencent fuel burn. Road cars don't have fuel flow meters on them, so how are they more relevant than air restrictors?

Again, I either feel like people aren't listening to me, or they're just picking fights because I don't see things they same way that they do.

I'm done with this BS, and I wish I could go back to 15-20 years ago.

This is a forum, not a bulletin, if you post your views, you need to expect it to be challenged in order to be debated.

If you feel that your post are getting challenged in a harsh way, then either try to review your post if it unnecessary provokes anyone, or ignore the user who you feel is provoking you with a harsh comment.
Nobody things less of you for not responding to another user .

[chernaudi]

And yes, I realize that I'm nit-picking the current rules because I don't like them. That should be known to anyone who's read my comments and posted here since 2013. I don't like the narrow cars, I don't like the narrow wheels and tires, I don't like lift and coast. At least with the air restrictor rules, you knew that the top speed figures were probably close to the actual top speed, instead of having to guess or hope that telemetry gets out from the teams because of them coasting though the speed traps.

And I do think that some are forgetting the purpose of the fuel flow meter is the same as the air restrictor: to limit engine power to limit top speeds. Both do effectively the same job. However, one is a piece of aluminum that cost maybe $10-20USD to make, the other is a part that to use it right you need thousands of dollars of investment in electronics. I know that with LMP1 cars that a few thousand dollars might be a relative drop in the ocean, but when you compare that to the much cheaper air restrictor, that's a lot of money when that view is taken.

And of course, the various minor rules changes made year in, year out, don't cost a lot of money individually, but when you add them up, it becomes a lot of money. Unless it's for safety or is really needed for BOP reasons, either hold off on it until it's time to change up the formulae, or progressively phase it in.

Of course, oddly for a road racing fan, I'm not of the wine and cheese crowd. I'm not even of the beer and Velveta crowd. I come from a lower-middle class background, live out in the middle of nowhere, and probably shouldn't be in the demographic range of being a road racing fan. But being basically dirt poor does give me a rather cynical view of what I consider to be wasteful spending. And there's tons of that in racing.

But at the same time, I'm not a believer in spec racing, control formulas, or limiting things with the justification of saving money. Because race teams, like most government committees, will just spend that money elsewhere to ensure that the keep getting the budgets that they need. It's oxymoronic, dumb, and counter-intuitive, but that's how things work because government and corporate monies are controlled by greedy people who don't wanna give their money to other greedy people. These are the same people who either gouge and scrounge for as much tax dollars as they can, or goad you into optioning out a car that you'd otherwise spend a few hundred or few thousand less dollars or euros on.

With that part of my sermon over, I'm not one who's in favor of over-complicating things or doing things a more expensive or unconventional way just to be different unless there's some significant benefit to it. And I admit that I've felt the the new regs are overly complicated and too expensive for what they are with the ERS incentive and the fuel flow meters. Usually, simplest is best, and if that means going a bit old school, then so be it if it's for the better of the sport or whatever venture is being engaged in.

[bhtooefr]

Restrictor plates only restrict your maximum power, though, they don't encourage thermodynamic efficiency improvements (which have been absolutely colossal in LMP1, and are absolutely road relevant).

Let's just restrict ourselves to 2013 vs. 2014, the change to the fuel flow sensor rules.

Audi was doing 10-11 lap stints in 2013, with 58 liters maximum fuel (due to being LMP1-H) on board. Let's assume all the fuel was being used, to make the math easier, even though it wasn't. 58 l / (11 * 13.629) km is 38.7 l / 100 km.

In 2014, Audi was doing 14 lap stints, with 54.8 liters maximum fuel on board. Same assumptions, 54.8 l / (14 * 13.629) km is 28.7 / 100 km - 74.2% of the fuel consumption... and it was faster. Sure, it was allowed to use its hybrid system more, but... the fuel flow formula worked.

There's other elements of the LMP1 formula that aren't sustainable - manufacturers end up pouring money into the bottomless pit that is chassis, suspension, and aerodynamic development, when that's not what they can market - but the fuel flow formula isn't part of it. (Basically, I want to see a fuel-flow limited DPi-H, really.)

And, I mean, road car drivers don't care about air flow, they care about fuel flow, after all. And, although the precision isn't there, road cars do report their fuel flow to the end user nowadays (they tend to use assumptions about how the injection system is working based on things like rail pressure and injection duration, rather than directly measuring the flow like LMP1s do).

[carbsmith]

The 2014 rule change was a long time coming, you can certainly debate whether it was economically feasible to introduce those regulations at that time period (this is where I bring up the fact there was already only 4 LMP1 cars for a couple WEC rounds in 2013 and never more than 8) but I can't say you could call the process rushed considering the energy allocation part was announced in 2010 and manufacturers committed in 2011. There wasn't the kind of phased introduction like the 2004-2006 transition but it would be very hard to properly balance air restricted cars against fuel restricted cars.

The constant rule changes are mostly a result of the presence of factory teams. That's not an issue that's only existed recently, there was a pile of expensive rule changes from 1998 to 2004 to deal with balance issues and restrict car performance. One of the reasons the R8 was so dominant was because the V12 LMR was never properly adapted for the 2000 aerodynamic regulations that BMW had helped contribute to the need for by spending massive amounts of money on introducing a third new car in three years. LMP1L is isolated from the rule changes specifically targeted at factory teams, so they don't have to deal with that at least.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

If you wanna pigeon hole something, look at the "small" rules changes, which can add up and cost as much as a big overhaul can.

2009: Rear wing width reduction

Not that major. Teams lost downforce, which the rule makers are forced to do to keep speeds in check.

Originally Posted by chernaudi

2010: Rear wheel well louvers added to reduce debris being thrown out the back of the cars

Which was a good move.

Originally Posted by chernaudi

2011: Smaller engines become mandatory to be competitive

Fits in with the route road cars have taken.

Originally Posted by chernaudi

2012: Hybrids become optional, fender holes become mandatory, and associated aero changes, TMG's rear wing endplate/wheel arch extension becomes legal, and leads to more changes.

The rear wing endplates were written into the rules in 2013, and the cars looked better with them. That was an interpretation or loophole that was open for years that no one took advantage of. Fender holes was a safety feature, and you forgot the fin in 2011

Originally Posted by chernaudi

2014: Hybrids become all but mandatory in LMP1, LMP1 private teams get hosed big time, factories that don't want to run hybrids get hosed big time, the cost to develop ultra powerful hybrids and engines to take advantage of fuel flow regs skyrocket. Don't you see the problem here?

Nope. Don't see the problem nor the prices skyrocketing because of kers or fuel flow meters. Audi's first type of hybrid used a flywheel that Williams developed years ago and the 911 GT3 hybrid ran. So there wasn't a huge investment in some unknown tech. Toyota used a Supercapacitor that was in evolution from 2006. Porsche bought A123, and obviously all their know how.

Originally Posted by chernaudi

The rules have jacked up cost, limited creativity and variety, and IMO got phased in too quickly and in too much of a haphazard method, almost as if the ACO took it for granted that guys like Audi, Toyota and Porsche would stick around for years to come. Yes, you can whip out the excuse that all the factory teams had a hand in creating the rules, but I don't think that even they realized the Pandora's box that got opened. The ACO certainly seemed ill prepared as far as a back up plan for when/if the bubble burst.

However, until Vincent Beuamesnil gets the boot from the ACO or he resigns/retires, we're stuck with this, and I fear that things will get worse before they get better.

All the manufacturers were onboard for the rule change, and Porsche got back into Le Mans/WEC because of those rules. How did they limit creativity if you had a flywheel, a battery and capacitor? Or a V6 a V8 and a V4? You need to be reasonable. Maybe now they all run a battery system, but the engines are different shapes and sizes, the hybrids are different and so is the fuel.

[chernaudi]

Well, you can look at the ERS incentive for that. Everyone has a battery system now, and there's no one below 6 MJ in the hybrid department. If not for the ERS incentive and the ACO actually elected to do as they initially said and balanced all options equally, you'd still have more hybrid options, Toyota might still have a V8, and so on.

And if you liked what this rules package did for LMP1, better appreciate it now, because we all know now that it's probably not going to last. I think that a lot of us will get rose tinted glasses over this era, just like LMP900 and pre-2014 LMP1 has already happened with me.

And I don't remember how many times I've said that if you like what you see now, appreciate it now, because it's probably not going to last and will be gone before you know it.

I already have rose tinted glasses about LMP900 and pre-2014 LMP1, because I at least got to experience that as a fan. I was too young to experience IMSA GTP and Group C and most of the original GT1 era. In addition to having the IMO misfortune to be born in 1986, we didn't get satellite TV for my older brother until circa 1995 and for the rest of the house until about 1998. And I didn't even get my first personal computer until 2005 after I got out of high school. In a way, I feel like I was born at least a decade too late.

But as I did say earlier, appreciate what you have if you like it, because it won't last forever.

[deggis]

What will going back to sonic restrictors alone fix? If ERS is part of the equation then you're still left with the same problem.

Altough, now that diesel values in the regs can be practically ignored altogether it will be at least easier to get the balance right with air restrictors.

[GasperG]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Uhm, yeah, it does. You can only force so much air into an intake manifold. And you need so much air to get an effiencent fuel burn. Road cars don't have fuel flow meters on them, so how are they more relevant than air restrictors?

Every singe car out there has a fuel flow meter, it's called fuel consumption, it just doesn't show you fuel/hour (some do when stationary) but it calculates fuel/distance for you.

True, every car also has MAF sensor, but it's measures are zero importance to the driver.

bhtooefr explained everything else ... several times

[Sodemo]

In terms of the rules, I think the biggest mistake (at least visually) for me was the narrowing of the cars in 2013 or whenever it was. Narrow cars never look as good as wider cars. I still don't really understand why it was done.

[Irie]

Afaik it was done to reduce the drag in conjunction with the hybrid rules to improve efficiency.

[canaglia]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

In terms of the rules, I think the biggest mistake (at least visually) for me was the narrowing of the cars in 2013 or whenever it was. Narrow cars never look as good as wider cars. I still don't really understand why it was done.

Less drag and less downforce had to help fuel efficiency. Wrong decision anyway, having 2015-2016 lmp1-h, audi and porsche at least, more downforce than 2013 lmp1, and fuel milliage got worse because of fuel flow cuts. Lmp1 are the smaller cars in grid, but not too much compared to lmp2.

To me a solution to save lmp1 class and WEC is simple.
No more lmp1 and lmp2. Just LMP class based on common chassis, suspensions, tyres and aero regs.
Manufacturers lmp's can use a rear wheels powering 2009 F1 style kers, to max 2MJ and a 75L fuel tank with about 90kg/h bespoke engines + a mandatory basic package of the same drivetrain (- kers) available for private lmp's too. Otherwise private can use a spec engine like the gibson unit.

[Sodemo]

I still think thats a poor reason to narrow the cars. All things being equal, a narrower car will always be more nervous, particularly in low speed scenarios, plus what about carrying speed through slow corners, isn't that being efficient too? If they wanted to target effenciency, it should have been done through aero alone, that would have reduced the speed in fast corners (assuming safety was ever an aim) and allowed the cars to maintain straight line speed whilst cutting engine sizes.

[bhtooefr]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

If not for the ERS incentive and the ACO actually elected to do as they initially said and balanced all options equally, you'd still have more hybrid options, Toyota might still have a V8, and so on.

Toyota not having a V8 is absolutely caused by, what in my opinion is, an issue with the rulebook. However, that issue isn't the ERS incentive at all.

I'll just link this Autosport article, in which Pascal Vasselon explains the reasoning behind moving to a turbo V6. For those that didn't click...

1. Structural (packaging?) considerations
2. Turbocharging being more tunable to varying RPM and barometric pressure
3. Slightly faster development rate and potential with the turbo formula

So, the structural considerations wouldn't have been improved by rule changes, but there's one big thing that the rules prohibit, which may have massively changed the engine decision for Toyota - it's worth noting that Toyota was originally planning on moving to a ~4.0 V8, from their 3.7, for this year.

That thing is variable valve actuation. As I've said in this thread before, VVT is technology that's on damn near every road car, VVL's available on some cheap ones (including Toyotas!), and it can be used to provide some of the same benefits of turbocharging - that is, expanding the engine's efficiency range, and (although this really isn't an issue at Le Mans) improving partial load efficiency. But, the ACO forbids its use (except for a hypothetical exception in GTE that is impractical to actually follow (edit: that's outdated, it now is straight up forbidden)).

It's been believed that Toyota's V8 was running Atkinson cycle to improve thermal efficiency all along - you're not running 17:1 compression on the 105 RON or 98 AKI fuel that was being provided to the teams in 2015, especially with the port injection that the V8s were using, unless you're bleeding off excess compression somehow. So, as barometric pressures decrease due to weather or altitude, an Atkinson cycle VVT engine can advance intake timing to maintain air mass. Without VVT, you're just down on power, you can't respond. Meanwhile, the turbo engines can respond.