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

[JAG]

There's been a 3.30 'ideal' race laptime in place for sometime now, diesels apart it's been very difficult for P1's to lap consistently under that time.

Lower weight will improve all aspects of a cars performance on a wide variety of circuits. The drop in laptimes at Le Mans was more dramatic than elsewhere due to the diesels developing big power to take advantage of those long straights. In theory moving to less powerful but lighter cars could see greater gains, relatively, on tighter F1 type circuits than at Le Mans.

[chernaudi]

I think at LM we'll see the fastest LMP1s taking a 10 second lap time hit, but they'll probably be within a second or two of the older cars most everywhere else because their lighter weight (and for the newer cars, wider front tires) and aggressive areo will be of better use on shorter tracks.

[JAG]

Any significantly lower weight limit would only be for 2013 at the earliest.

Not related to the above, didn't Aston Martin say they were pushing for a lower weight limit for non diesel/hybrid cars next year?

[TF110]

The Cologne facilities are big enough that they could have parallel programs for F1 and LeMans. That's how big Toyota is. The biggest car maker should flex it's muscle in all major racing. F1 isn't any longer, so why not LeMans and Sportscar racing outside of Japan? According to Toyota even big F1 teams were using their windtunnels. I've heard McLaren included. So anyone with some inside info on this Toyota LeMans project?

[gwyllion]

Some news regarding Judd's new (BMW derived) LMP2 engine:

1st dyno test for the HK

The new Judd HK LMP2 engine completed a successful first dyno test today, running at full throttle up to the expected maximum operating speed of over 9000 rpm. EDL has an intensive test programme planned before the first engine deliveries in January 2011.

So far 4 teams have committed to using the engine (chassis):
OAK Racing (Pescarolo)
Team RLR (Lola)
AF Corse (Lola)
Race Performance (Oreca)

source: http://www.engdev.com/?p=510

[The Badger]

I think 3:30 is a disgusting time for a P1 to be quite honest . Isnt it supposed to be about technology ? Stuck did a 3:19 in 1988 , and their still doing it now , safely too . You will always have the odd accident ..... fact of life .

The cars were quicker years ago , the drivers are screaming for more power now , and what do they do , slow'em down . I think its wrong ..... the deal is to get around the track as fast as possible consistantly , and safely . is it not ? Which they always have done , give or take the odd accident , as is always the case .

[CTD]

Originally Posted by The Badger

I think 3:30 is a disgusting time for a P1 to be quite honest . Isnt it supposed to be about technology ? Stuck did a 3:19 in 1988 , and their still doing it now , safely too . You will always have the odd accident ..... fact of life .

The cars were quicker years ago , the drivers are screaming for more power now , and what do they do , slow'em down . I think its wrong ..... the deal is to get around the track as fast as possible consistantly , and safely . is it not ? Which they always have done , give or take the odd accident , as is always the case .

And like Stirling Moss says. If you take the danger away, the drivers wont be as careful, and therefor there might be even more accidents.. (Just see how they completely trash there cars i F1).
Racing is about being the fastest, and pushing everything as close to the limit as one fell possible. By taking the danger away, pushing to the limit, and beyond has gotten much easier, as the drivers no longer fear for their lifes, therefor they will take more risks which wouldn't be taken otherwise.

Of course I'm not saying "let's take away all safety equipment", I'm just saying let the cars do what they can, and let the drivers push as far as they dare

[Lola T70]

Originally Posted by The Badger

I think 3:30 is a disgusting time for a P1 to be quite honest . Isnt it supposed to be about technology ? Stuck did a 3:19 in 1988 , and their still doing it now , safely too . You will always have the odd accident ..... fact of life .

The cars were quicker years ago , the drivers are screaming for more power now , and what do they do , slow'em down . I think its wrong ..... the deal is to get around the track as fast as possible consistantly , and safely . is it not ? Which they always have done , give or take the odd accident , as is always the case .

I may be wrong but I do not think there were any chicanes when 1998.

Main issue is if the cars are consistently getting quicker the track will have to be modified significantly to slow speeds down......as it was after 1988.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by The Badger

I think 3:30 is a disgusting time for a P1 to be quite honest . Isnt it supposed to be about technology ? Stuck did a 3:19 in 1988 , and their still doing it now , safely too . You will always have the odd accident ..... fact of life .

The cars were quicker years ago , the drivers are screaming for more power now , and what do they do , slow'em down . I think its wrong ..... the deal is to get around the track as fast as possible consistantly , and safely . is it not ? Which they always have done , give or take the odd accident , as is always the case .

The 3.30 'target' is for consistent race laps, not one off flyers or qualifying laps.

In the entire history of Le Mans only the diesels have been capable of running below this pace (measures to slow them were limited) with petrol cars on the limit at 3.30-3.35. Back in the Group C days the top turbo cars were running 3.40+ and even the 3.5 cars were dialled back to a similar pace.

The technology in LMP's is becoming ever more sophisticated which is why Audi's 2011 R18 will likely be as quick, if not quicker, than the R10 with six fewer cylinders and the subsequent improvements in fuel economy.

It's the same in rallying, the 600bhp Group B cars are always talked about as the pinnacle, yet today a 350bhp WRC is far quicker over a stage.

[Félix]

Doing very high speeds in a straight line is easy, we all know it and it makes us think the rules are stupid. But they are there so that if something goes wrong, speed is not too high and one can expect to avoid an accident or survive it.

It's the same on a racetrack: sure getting to 400 km/h is easy, but I wouldn't want to see something go wrong at that speed. And I wouldn't want to see circuits built for such speeds: we'd be so far from the cars we'd need binoculars! Tires go down, contacts happen; there has to be a safety margin. I would also like to see a 1 ton prototype with 1000+hp power, but it would have to be alone on a track with no spectators.

[chernaudi]

Just a cursory observation. These numbers may be off, but if the Audi and Pug diesels are to make about 550 bhp, to do that at about 5000-5500 rpm (I don't think that the new diesels will rev much beyond that, as well as the fact that Peugeot's quest for more revs ended in disaster at Le Mans this year), then the 3.7 diesels will be making about 600 ft/lbs of torque.

That's fairly close inline with the Audi R8, which made between 520-550 ft/lbs, depending on who's source you're reading.

Of course, that means that the R15's at Sebring will have to run fairly microscopic air restrictors or something more than 30kgs of ballast over the 900kg minimum(turbo boost may reduce torque slightly, but even that has more of an impact on top end power).

But then again, it seems that the air restrictors don't effect torque, and that their main effect is to limit HP by making it not worth while to rev to make more power.

As I said, my numbers were derived from the HP=torque times RPM divided by 5252 formula. It doesn't take into effect all the variables. However, the diesels will still have a massive torque advantage over a non-turbo engine, and even, there's still a bit of a gap.

I think that the ACO, if anything, have used the Audi R8/Bentley Speed 8 at LM from '03 and '04 and in the ALMS from '03-06 as the power standard control. What the ACO may be forgetting is that outside of Le Mans, for the most part, the R8s went faster in spite of losing about 10% HP.

I think that the ACO are so paranoid about the 3:30 lap time at LM that they've forced teams into a solution that won't slow down their cars signifcantly else where.

In other words, at most tracks, expect the R18 and the 90X to lap within a second or so of what the R10/R15 and the 908 were capable of, but also expect the field to be a bit closer on a flying lap. But that torque will still be a sizeable advantage, especially in traffic.

[JAG]

I don't think the ACO are concerned with speeds away from Le Mans (within reason).

There was a period when P1's and P2's battled each other on regular circuits but at Le Mans the gap was stretched to 10+ seconds due to the P1 power advanatage.

As you say outside of Le Mans the new P1 cars should be little slower than current cars, they maybe heavier than the old P2's at 900kg but there is lots of development going into aero and tryes.

As for the diesels torque advantage it's upto petrol manufactuers and teams to take full advantage of the regulations by employing hybrid technology to get that extra punch out of the corners.

[JAG]

Future developments from 2014 or 2015 relating to the LM P1 class

The ACO intends to establish a new regulatory eco-responsible, totally innovative way to always be consistent with environmental concerns.

The future settlement will be based as well on five major concepts: A quantity of energy will be allocated to each car. It will make optimum use this energy to afford the best chance of winning the race. The efficiency (ratio of energy expended / mileage) will become as important as outright performance and reliability. Opening wider to new technologies in studying and accepting the most original engines. Reduce the size and weight of cars. Reduce fuel consumption (and thus CO2 emissions), the objective being to reach the 5000 km covered with 1500 liters of gasoline (with a scale of equivalence as fuel). Note that in 1990, a car traveled 5000 km in 24 Hours of Le Mans in 2550 the consumption; in 2010, it was enough of the 1876 car at the most economical to achieve this performance. Continue to reduce the consumption of tires. In 2010, some have used LM P1 eleven sets of tires for 24 Heures du Mans cons nineteen in 2008.

http://www.endurance-info.com/version2/

[CTD]

Originally Posted by JAG

http://www.endurance-info.com/version2/

Nice, this means we will see an opening of different ideas.
But will this also mean that "small budget" manufactures (AMR, Oreca, Pescar) will be pretty much doomed in running for victory, as they do not have the budget to research in "extreme" weight loss, and energy recovery systems.

[isynge]

Originally Posted by CTD

Nice, this means we will see an opening of different ideas.
But will this also mean that "small budget" manufactures (AMR, Oreca, Pescar) will be pretty much doomed in running for victory, as they do not have the budget to research in "extreme" weight loss, and energy recovery systems.

This might be a degree of dewey eyed over optimism, but when this sort of formula was applied in the 1980s Rondeau were competitive in 1982, and Joest managed to find something unique in 1984/85 so all may not be lost.

That said, Le Mans has pretty much always excluded the small manufacturers from running for victory outside of the few unusual years. These rules at least offer a route for the small independent who wants to try something genuinely different - and that I will support every single time.

[19dodge]

http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/artic...ons-finalized/

[mirkob]

Additionally, 2010-spec GT1 cars, such as the Matech Ford GT, Aston Martin DBR9 and Saleen S7R, will be permitted to compete in GTE Am for next year only. It’s unclear what Balance of Performance adjustments, if any, would be given to the already detuned-for-2010 machines

???

[Dead-Eye]

Entry requests for Le Mans close on Jan. 19 at midnight, with the Selection Committee expected to release the list of 55 competitors, plus one possible invitational entrant, in early February.

Invitational entrant...Hybrid Porsche?

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

Invitational entrant...Hybrid Porsche?

Or Yves Courage's electric LMP (if that project is still going along).

[JAG]

Originally Posted by CTD

Nice, this means we will see an opening of different ideas.
But will this also mean that "small budget" manufactures (AMR, Oreca, Pescar) will be pretty much doomed in running for victory, as they do not have the budget to research in "extreme" weight loss, and energy recovery systems.

I think we're now at a tipping point were such technology is becoming mainstream and will be an intergral part of near future racing and road cars.

I would think the likes of Prodrive and ORECA are already investing in these areas, for Pescarolo I'd be suprised if they continue to build their own cars when they can partner with OAK or some of the more established contrusctors.

[gwyllion]

The 2011 rules can finally be downloaded on http://www.lemans.org/en/race/24h/regulation.html

[Tim the Grey]

Thanks. I think... Heavy reading in there!

[JAG]

Speculation from RLM and DSC Red Bull are developing a P1 for 2013.

[rich07]

Originally Posted by JAG

Speculation from RLM and DSC Red Bull are developing a P1 for 2013.

I so hope this happens, Red Bull wont go in half hearted and the thought of an Adrian Newey designed car is mighty tempting. Webber might've retired from F1 by then too . Makes you wonder what engines they would use.

Well they've conquered F1 and now hopefully they set their sights on Le Mans.

[Mal]

Lets hope there is substance to this rather than posturing over the 2013 F1 rules as has happened with some F1 teams in the past