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

[carbon_titanium]

2011-2013 rules were a sort of half way between past and future! The same will be for post 2016 rules.

[carbon_titanium]

Originally Posted by deggis

But if you come in the middle of the cycle like Nissan now, you get only two years of shelf life for the car. And for sure, nobody will come only for one year (so, no need to expect new manufacturer announcements next year then ).

well... toyota basicly did the same in 2012-2013

[deggis]

Originally Posted by TF110

They say 2016, which would be the third year of the now current regs. If it goes 3 years then a change, wouldn't that be 2017 at the earliest? If changed in 2016, that would mean Nissan has one year in then makes a brand new car. That doesn't sound logical.

The quote says "until the end of [2016]".

[TF110]

Originally Posted by deggis

The quote says "until the end of [2016]".

They also say 2015 in there! Neither one makes sense. End of 2015, 16... both are too short.

[carbon_titanium]

To me, nissan signed a contract with ACO... ACO let nissan to run the zeod in 2014 but pretended the presence of a nissan lmp1 work program in 2015 and 2016. VAG group and toyota motors are really intersted in hybrid technology for street cars, so WEC is the best place for them, but nissan main focus is the full electric technology... in theory nissan should be more intersted in formula E than WEC. Maybe with this deal nissan will be able to field the zeod also in 2015 and 2016 to promote their electric brand (even if the zeod is an hybrid car).

[deggis]

Originally Posted by TF110

They also say 2015 in there! Neither one makes sense. End of 2015, 16... both are too short.

If you read the whole sentence (two year program etc), it is clear that it is a pure typo and is supposed to say 2016 (or even more understandable as a mistake if it was from an actual interview answer). 2016 does make sense (3 years), but I just don't like it as an idea.

Dagys [sic] corrected it, so I'm not alone thinking it is a typo.

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by TF110

Maybe more 'ers incentive' for 8mj?

You've got the spelling slightly wrong there. It's spelt definitely, for future reference

[Bandicoot17]

We're going to see evolution for sure. It's not going to be a massive overhaul though. They'd have to be designing new cars already!

[TF110]

Originally Posted by deggis

If you read the whole sentence (two year program etc), it is clear that it is a pure typo and is supposed to say 2016 (or even more understandable as a mistake if it was from an actual interview answer). 2016 does make sense (3 years), but I just don't like it as an idea.

Dagys [sic] corrected it, so I'm not alone thinking it is a typo.

It was a joke.

[Deleted]

Did Truswell not get the memo of FIA/ACO changing the regs / EoT figures middle way through -> showing middle finger to Audi's ERS and bigger hybrid meaning better lap time? Or did he leave it delibrately out because he doesn't think it's that important, or does he not care? Not mentioning it all makes no sense
http://www.dailysportscar.com/?p=31437

[Graham Goodwin]

Why don't you drop a comment below the story and ask him Chiana? You'll find he is welcoming of feedback, polite and intelligent.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by Graham Goodwin

Why don't you drop a comment below the story and ask him Chiana? You'll find he is welcoming of feedback, polite and intelligent.

I would but you have to be a DSC subscriber - which I'm not - to be able to login and comment right?

[TF110]

2 tenths separating Audi and Toyota at Silverstone doesn't look like a 'middle finger' to anyone.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by TF110

2 tenths separating Audi and Toyota at Silverstone doesn't look like a 'middle finger' to anyone.

And once again it's not about those differences or lap times itself but about the idea of silently modifying the regulations to favour bigger hybrids over smaller ones - ACO even confirming this on record - which is not what was originally written into the regulations.

[Bandicoot17]

Originally Posted by Chiana

And once again it's not about those differences or lap times itself but about the idea of silently modifying the regulations to favour bigger hybrids over smaller ones - ACO even confirming this on record - which is not what was originally written into the regulations.

Things change.

And we have no idea if it was silently done. Just because we, as the fan, weren't told by no means shows they did it behind Audi's back.

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by Bandicoot17

Things change.

Yes that is what has happened. It's the ACO's race to do what they want with (I've even said as much in another thread). It's not a justification though, unless I'm missing something?

Originally Posted by Bandicoot17

And we have no idea if it was silently done. Just because we, as the fan, weren't told by no means shows they did it behind Audi's back.

Audi's disparaging comments concerning the changes and their timing would imply this however.

[Bandicoot17]

Originally Posted by J Jay

Yes that is what has happened. It's the ACO's race to do what they want with (I've even said as much in another thread). It's not a justification though, unless I'm missing something?



Audi's disparaging comments concerning the changes and their timing would imply this however.

I'm sure Audi knew exactly what to say and when to say it.

And no it isn't justification but to be perfectly honest I'm just fed up with people saying that because the ACO's said something once they have no right to change the rules for their race.

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by Bandicoot17

And no it isn't justification but to be perfectly honest I'm just fed up with people saying that because the ACO's said something once they have no right to change the rules for their race.

You're being insincere, there's much more to the ACO changing the fundamental parameters of their technical regulations than "saying something once," especially when there is no way to react to said changes.

That you admit to there being no real reason for the change should get you asking why they did it rather than being annoyed when somebody else does.

[TF110]

How can we tell it was done for no reason? Every team had the chance to take advantage of the higher ers classes. The incentive may have changed, but thats all it did- change. In the original draft the incentive was for stint length or going further on fuel. At Silverstone and Spa, thats exactly what happened. Audi was slightly faster than Toyota at Silverstone, but went less distance. So looking at it that way where two cars had their developed packages, it was near the same speed but a distance difference.

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by TF110

How can we tell it was done for no reason? Every team had the chance to take advantage of the higher ers classes. The incentive may have changed, but thats all it did- change. In the original draft the incentive was for stint length or going further on fuel. At Silverstone and Spa, thats exactly what happened. Audi was slightly faster than Toyota at Silverstone, but went less distance. So looking at it that way where two cars had their developed packages, it was near the same speed but a distance difference.

When I said no reason = there was no need for it. But obviously someone - we don't know who - was putting pressure for the change in regulations and ACO (or FIA, seeing as Dr Ullrich has specifically mentioned them on interviews) modified them.

Every team had the chance to take advantage of the higher ers classes.
- If team had already decided to come up with lower class when the regs modification was made, there really was no chance...

The problem with all of this fiddling is that we just cannot be sure whether or not Audi's performance at Silverstone & Spa is due to them building superior/inferior car or the EoT screwing/not screwing things up. In the previous years - and most of all when they and Peugeot both run diesels and there was no balancing at all - we didn't have such unclear picture. The only thing we ĆAN be sure is that regulations now dictate bigger ERS to be faster than smaller ERS.

[GasperG]

I think it's only logical, with bigger ERS you don't have much weight margin, you compromise reliability and it's not cheap.

No one would choose big ERS system otherwise.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Switching to a different subject, there is an interesting new Decision No. 14-D0017-LMP1 from the Endurance Committee relating to "movable bodywork parts/elements".

The first part of this decision relates to flexibility of the front part of the skid-block:

Regarding the front part skid-block, we have observed during scrutineering that each of your cars had some flexibility in order to prevent any damaging of the underside of cockpit in case of unwanted passage out of track or on kerbs.
Formally speaking this contravenes article 3.4 of the LMP1 regulations. However as it seems indispensable and used by all of you, we agree not to apply strictly this article for this specific part. In order to be fair to everybody, we will accept a flexibility in that point of: 10 mm under 500 daN. To be absolutely clear, we make it mandatory to have a stop effect and that this deflection cannot under no circumstances be more than 15 mm.

The second part is even more interesting and relates to flexibility of the rear wing and the relevant deflection tests:

Regarding the rear wings , we have forecast tests described in article 3.6.2c and 3.6.2e.
We have not been able to perform such test on Low Down Force configurations, so we ask you to come in Le Mans (from scrutineering day of Test day till Monday after the race) with all the equipment to perform it. Moreover we remind you that article 3 :
The FIA reserves the right to introduce load/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to be (or is suspected of), moving whilst the car is in motion.
Among other criteria, the FIA will consider the linearity of the load/deflection curve over the elastic deformation area.
Any non-linearity must be only on the plastic deformation area.
applies at any position on the wing. This means, that should we have a doubt that the wing have the required flexibility at 50% of the chord as described in article 3.6.2c, but a significantly higher one at another position, we reserve the right to make a deflection test as per article 3 mentioned above.

I have heard rumors that Toyota in particular were suspected to be using a possibly "questionable" rear wing solution.

[TF110]

If they favored a team with more ers, why wouldnt Toyota or Porsche (whichever one they favored) go 8mj since going there is the highest incentive? They changed it up after the prologue. They said the prologue test was there for a reason. I dont think any team has shown they have a superior car. I just feel Audi didn't get it right on strategy in either race. In terms of on track and car package. Now theyre talking fairness. I think the results aren't so straightforward to make that claim.

About flexing wings, in 2012, Toyota had the front part of the endplates bend at speed at LM.

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by GasperG

I think it's only logical, with bigger ERS you don't have much weight margin, you compromise reliability and it's not cheap.

No one would choose big ERS system otherwise.

This is true of a diesel lump as well, which also automatically excludes a large ERS + diesel combination. For all of this discussion about fuel and ERS classes, the single biggest concern* is weight, hence Toyota/Porsche going for the largest ERS class within the weight limit.

Good point about reliability though. Audi have said their hybrid isn't critical to running the car, unlike Toyota as we saw at Spa last year (presumably Porsche as well). Redundancy at the cost of ultimate performance? Audi reducing their potential hybrid capability doesn't help their case here.

*Tyres are more important, but they're not in the remit of manufacturers.

[GasperG]

I think that minimum weight and MJ per lap would be enough of a restriction for whatever a manufacturer choose. And this is exactly what it came out from all of the manufacturers as they all weight 870 kg and they all use ~139 MJ/lap.

Fuel autonomy is a different matter, here diesel should have a bigger tank size.