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

[Lorenzo S]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

Movable aero consists of the ability adjust the front wing flap. It isn't movable in the sense of active aero. Under Art 3.5.4 there is now this provision:

"It is permitted to add one wing profile adjustable by means of tools."

So, will this "one wing profile" make the prototypes look like the front end of the Jaguar XJR14 or Peugeot 905 Evo 1 bis?

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by Lorenzo S

So, will this "one wing profile" make the prototypes look like the front end of the Jaguar XJR14 or Peugeot 905 Evo 1 bis?

No. Think Audi R15. Basically all the regulation put in place to hamstring that design approach have now been eliminated. Figure the Peugeot bee is out of the ACO's ear.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

No. Think Audi R15. Basically all the regulation put in place to hamstring that design approach have now been eliminated. Figure the Peugeot bee is out of the ACO's ear.

I welcome this approach as it might alter the current design trend with "f1 style" raised noses.

[Lorenzo S]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

No. Think Audi R15. Basically all the regulation put in place to hamstring that design approach have now been eliminated. Figure the Peugeot bee is out of the ACO's ear.

Oh, good. I thought the R 15 solution was rather elegant. I wasn't really expecting 956 type stick on wings to start appearing but you never know!

[aneesh99]

The 2014 regs are literally more of the same for prototypes, I thought the ACO and FIA would try and mix it up a bit with some variation after the DW had such a strong outing at Le Mans

[TF110]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

No. Think Audi R15. Basically all the regulation put in place to hamstring that design approach have now been eliminated. Figure the Peugeot bee is out of the ACO's ear.

Taken from your site- do you mean this type of solution?

[Lorenzo S]

Originally Posted by CTD

I welcome this approach as it might alter the current design trend with "f1 style" raised noses.

I doubt it very much. To gain the full benefit of a full width wing between wheel arches you're going to have to have a raised nose above the wing profile. This shot of the R15, along with the pic from TF110, clearly shows the Audi solution (where the LeMans Series sticker is) with a fully adjustable wing section that stretches between the wheels.

[TF110]

But what about the Bentley Speed 8 Solution?



Is there a rule that the suspension coverings can't be a 'wing'?

[chernaudi]

There's a shot on Mulsanne's Corner in the Bentley Section that shows the rear of the Bentley's front diffuser and brake duct intakes, and it featured a 25mm thick trailing edge on the rear of the brake duct (which formed an extension of the front diffuser) to avoid that illegal "non-wing" wing deal.

It does seems that the ACO and FIA have favored either the Audi R15 solution, or want teams like Audi and Toyota for example to ditch the special front and rear clip deals for LM vs sprint race bodywork, or want things to be like the R8 and R10/908 days where dive planes, wing angle, and gurney flaps were used to tune the car's areo between LM and the sprint race circuits.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by TF110

But what about the Bentley Speed 8 Solution?



Is there a rule that the suspension coverings can't be a 'wing'?

Nothing to say you couldn't run the Bentley solution (aka the Peugeot solution, the Toyota TS030 solution...). The cars will not be fundamentally different to what we've seen currently or the past.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

There's a shot on Mulsanne's Corner in the Bentley Section that shows the rear of the Bentley's front diffuser and brake duct intakes, and it featured a 25mm thick trailing edge on the rear of the brake duct (which formed an extension of the front diffuser) to avoid that illegal "non-wing" wing deal.

It does seems that the ACO and FIA have favored either the Audi R15 solution, or want teams like Audi and Toyota for example to ditch the special front and rear clip deals for LM vs sprint race bodywork, or want things to be like the R8 and R10/908 days where dive planes, wing angle, and gurney flaps were used to tune the car's areo between LM and the sprint race circuits.

But note the non-wing deal is a thing of the past:

"And while we're at the front of the car, Art 3.5.4 alters the front splitter geometry in a couple of ways. First, the outer sections of the front splitter are no longer allowed to sit on the reference plane (Z zero), instead they must be at least 10 mm above Z zero. This will reduce front downforce slightly. But much more significantly, the provisions that previously mandated thick front “wing” trailing edges (3% of max element thickness or no less than 10 mm thick), which had been a response to Audi's original 2009 R15, are gone. This now allows true wings, that is wings with non-symmetrical cross sections and, more importantly, thin trailing edges, to be utilized."

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by Lorenzo S

I doubt it very much. To gain the full benefit of a full width wing between wheel arches you're going to have to have a raised nose above the wing profile. This shot of the R15, along with the pic from TF110, clearly shows the Audi solution (where the LeMans Series sticker is) with a fully adjustable wing section that stretches between the wheels.

High noses might very well go away:

"Art 16.2.2 increases the front foot well volume height from 300 mm to 350 mm. I'm told the reasoning is to allow more space for hybrid systems without compromising drive safety. Though this change comes with a built in aero penalty and compromise as the additional 50 mm height will encroach either upon the front diffuser area or project upwards raising upper surface of the footbox into the airstream. Naturally it depends relative to Z zero where the additional 50 mm height is located as to its aero impact."

[TF110]

Forgive my ignorance, but the Z zero reference plane that you speak of, is that the middle of the front diffuser at it's current height, or is it the outside edges of the diffuser/front floor that sit lower? _/-----\_

[deggis]

Mike, does the draft have (considerably) different fuel flow limits compared to the LM lap fuel allocations in the presentation from June?

edit: "And while engines will all be equated through fuel flow meters (Art 6.2.1, of which all specifics are yet to be defined)"

The draft doesn't actually have them yet?

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by TF110

Forgive my ignorance, but the Z zero reference plane that you speak of, is that the middle of the front diffuser at it's current height, or is it the outside edges of the diffuser/front floor that sit lower? _/-----\_

Z zero is the bottom of the car, the reference plane.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by deggis

Mike, does the draft have (considerably) different fuel flow limits compared to the LM lap fuel allocations in the presentation from June?

edit: "And while engines will all be equated through fuel flow meters (Art 6.2.1, of which all specifics are yet to be defined)"

The draft doesn't actually have them yet?

As I wrote,

"And while engines will all be equated through fuel flow meters (Art 6.2.1, of which all specifics are yet to be defined)..."

Cut and Paste from Draft V04:

Fuel Flow Metering
6.2.1 ………. FIA will specify a fuel flow metering system so called "FIA
Fuel Flow Meter".
The system will have to be integrated into the fuel system
according to the FIA specification included in Appendix D.
Its location on the car will be managed in a receptacle of
volume with minimum dimensions 150mm (width) x 200mm
(length) x130mm (depth).
It will be fitted on opposite side compared to fuel tank filler.
Other specifications remain to be defined.

[deggis]

I guess the final details are still being bargained then...

[gregtummer]

Mike, do you know how much drag the Big Honkin' Holes and the Big Honkin' Fin adds to the car?

[Lorenzo S]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

Nothing to say you couldn't run the Bentley solution (aka the Peugeot solution, the Toyota TS030 solution...). The cars will not be fundamentally different to what we've seen currently or the past.

High noses might very well go away...

I would much prefer to see Bentley Speed 8/Peugeot 908 solutions as, quite simply, I think they look nicer than the R15 basking shark.

However, I thought the original draft of the regulations specified an "adjustable front element". If the nose or suspension fairings form a fixed aero profile and the front of the foot well reaches the splitter then there is nothing to adjust and no space to fit a wing section!

I presumed the introduction of adjustable front wings would preclude the need for delicate trim tabs/dive planes and other easily broken stick on bits.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by deggis

Mike, does the draft have (considerably) different fuel flow limits compared to the LM lap fuel allocations in the presentation from June?

edit: "And while engines will all be equated through fuel flow meters (Art 6.2.1, of which all specifics are yet to be defined)"

The draft doesn't actually have them yet?

Appendix B has a draft 4 has a table with energy allocations for the different options. In this table the energy allocations are expressed in MJ/lap, whereas in the press release from June the allocations were expressed in l/lap.

Under the table the FIA/ACO provides the assumped energy content and density of the two fuel type. Using those numbers, you can see that the energy allocations in both tables are identical:

• petrol, 0 MJ ERS: 148.0 MJ/lap / 39.55 MJ/kg / 0.756 kg/l = 4.95 l/lap
• petrol, 2 MJ ERS: 143.5 MJ/lap / 39.55 MJ/kg / 0.756 kg/l = 4.80 l/lap
• petrol, 4 MJ ERS: 139.0 MJ/lap / 39.55 MJ/kg / 0.756 kg/l = 4.65 l/lap
• petrol, 6 MJ ERS: 134.5 MJ/lap / 39.55 MJ/kg / 0.756 kg/l = 4.50 l/lap
• petrol, 8 MJ ERS: 132.2 MJ/lap / 39.55 MJ/kg / 0.756 kg/l = 4.42 l/lap
• diesel, 0 MJ ERS: 140.3 MJ/lap / 42.31 MJ/kg / 0.832 kg/l = 3.99 l/lap
• diesel, 2 MJ ERS: 138.4 MJ/lap / 42.31 MJ/kg / 0.832 kg/l = 3.93 l/lap
• diesel, 4 MJ ERS: 134.0 MJ/lap / 42.31 MJ/kg / 0.832 kg/l = 3.81 l/lap
• diesel, 6 MJ ERS: 129.7 MJ/lap / 42.31 MJ/kg / 0.832 kg/l = 3.68 l/lap
• diesel, 8 MJ ERS: 125.4 MJ/lap / 42.31 MJ/kg / 0.832 kg/l = 3.56 l/lap

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by Lorenzo S

I would much prefer to see Bentley Speed 8/Peugeot 908 solutions as, quite simply, I think they look nicer than the R15 basking shark.

However, I thought the original draft of the regulations specified an "adjustable front element". If the nose or suspension fairings form a fixed aero profile and the front of the foot well reaches the splitter then there is nothing to adjust and no space to fit a wing section!

I presumed the introduction of adjustable front wings would preclude the need for delicate trim tabs/dive planes and other easily broken stick on bits.

"active" aero has been reconsidered: too costly, or so I'm told. It won't be seen this go around.

[gwyllion]

RCE reported that the target efficiency in the 2014 rules is 220 g/kWh for petrol engines and 195 g/kWh for diesel engines (see post #2438). These numbers are confirmed in Appendix B of draft 4 on mulsannescorner.com

These values are defined, based on an hypothesis of efficiency of 195 g/kwh for diesel engine, and 220 g/kwh for gasoline engines.
These values depend on the evolution of the technologies and precise chemical characteristics of fuels used in 2014.
For this reason they are defined within a range of 5g/kwh, with 2012 LMP fuel reference.
The precise values will be frozen in September 2012, after further fuel tests have been performed on experimental test engines (agreed with LMP manufacturers).

The table in Appendix B also provides numbers for the maximum fuel flow. With the target efficiency, we can easily compute the maximum power output of the different drive train configurations:

• petrol, 0 MJ ERS: 93.5 kg/h / 0.22 kg/kWh = 425 kW
• petrol, 2 MJ ERS: 91.5 kg/h / 0.22 kg/kWh = 416 kW
• petrol, 4 MJ ERS: 88.5 kg/h / 0.22 kg/kWh = 402 kW
• petrol, 6 MJ ERS: 86.0 kg/h / 0.22 kg/kWh = 391 kW
• petrol, 8 MJ ERS: 85.0 kg/h / 0.22 kg/kWh = 386 kW
• diesel, 0 MJ ERS: 83 kg/h / 0.195 kg/kWh = 426 kW
• diesel, 2 MJ ERS: 82 kg/h / 0.195 kg/kWh = 421 kW
• diesel, 4 MJ ERS: 80 kg/h / 0.195 kg/kWh = 410 kW
• diesel, 6 MJ ERS: 77 kg/h / 0.195 kg/kWh = 395 kW
• diesel, 8 MJ ERS: 75 kg/h / 0.195 kg/kWh = 385 kW

425 kW = 570 hp (imperial) = 578 hp (metric) is similar to what the LMP1 engines have now.

However, in 2014 they will have to produce that power with less fuel. So if engine manufacturers can not reach the efficiency targets, which are very ambitious, then the cars will have a bit less power.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Under the table the FIA/ACO provides the assumped energy content and density of the two fuel type. Using those numbers, you can see that the energy allocations in both tables are identical:

Thanks. (Was the pdf always online? I didn't notice it during the first reading...) Page 40 also has this for 2015:

Fuel energy allocation for other tracks will be determined in 2014 with the aim to keep same engine layout for the complete season.

Another thing, small but if true should make a lot of people happy I guess... exhaust noise regulation is completely missing from the regs. Can this be right? Or are they just leaving the muffling for the turbos.

ps. Funny to see a lot of the French text being missing.

[gwyllion]

I think that the PDF was added later.

I was also surprised about the French text. I though that the whole rule book would writen in French and translated afterwards to (bad) English. Maybe the process changed a bit now that the FIA is got involved.

[deggis]

I thought something like that too. This "The French version is the only one valid regarding the implementation and interpretation of the regulations" is still there though.