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

[andrewn7]

My take on the Hypercar rules is they are pretty abysmal, like scraping the barrel, as if every good idea has already been thought of and there's nothing left in the can, except this hotch-potch that nobody wants!

A successful series does not "pander" to OEM's by trying to reinvent the wheel every few years. FIA/ACO neeed to keep the faith with the current ruleset (with some tweaks like maybe mandating commercialy available hybrids) and present a good show and then the OEM's will come of their own accord, if and when they are ready to do so.

Scrap the Hypercar rules I say!

[FormulaFox]

Long post incoming....

Originally Posted by canaglia

It does exist indeed.... it's called DPi

As I've noted a million times before, DPi is NOT appealing to manufacturers.

Of the four manufacturers involved, all were active in either LMP2 or DP prior to the class's creation, and one of them(Nissan) isn't even actually interested and are only involved because someone else put up the money for the program - and it's looking increasingly likely that they will be gone next year as the window of time to find a replacement for that money is shrinking. (and to be fair, that was kind of the case with Nissan in LMP2 as well - they just HAPPENED to have an ideally suitable engine and rolled with it)

Every other claimed DPi program thus far has come to nothing. The only manufacturer being talked about that might have some meat to the rumors, Ford, was also involved in the old-spec DPs.

DPi does NOT have the appeal to manufacturers that it's fanboys believe it does.

While we won't know if the manufacturer interest in hypercar LMP1 will actually manifest until the rules are finalized, to claim that DPi is attractive to manufacturers is just plain wrong.

All DPi was, all DPi ever will be, is a stopgap measure to keep manufacturers that were already involved around until new and better rules can be crafted.

Does that mean DPi is a bad class? Of course not. It's an EXCELLENT stopgap, and in point of fact if Hypercar LMP1 proves to be a bust(and I doubt it will - I'm sure it will do far better than LMP1 has been since the adoption of hybrid rules) or proves incompatible with IMSA's needs even if you drop the hybrid parts, an evolved form of DPi would be a good idea.

DPi's core problem is that the manufacturer's don't get to build "their own" car. They get to take someone else's car, put their engine in it, and give it a new set of drapes. Now, of the manufacturers presently involved in IMSA, only Acura has ever really been concerned about building their own cars. This is part of why they sat out for a year. But being able to make their own car is important to a great many manufacturers.

So let's say Hypercar LMP1 is too expensive for IMSA even with the hybrid removed(and keep in mind, it's not as simple as subtracting the specified hybrid price from the expect overall car price - to make the cars work properly non-hybrid they'll need to change a lot of other parts that will likely be CHEAPER, so the price will go down a fair bit more), and IMSA needs to come up with their own answer. The answer is to expand DPi from a stopgap into a viable class.

How do we do this? Rather simple: Instead of modifying someone else's car, design a spec tub that each manufacturer can build their own car around. Mandate a few small parts to help keep the costs in check(primarily elements that directly influence crash safety), but at the end of the day you'll have more interested manufacturers by letting them build the whole car save the tub than you will with how DPi presently is.

Design it well and you might even be able to get them into Hypercar LMP1 at Le Mans - make sure the rules require a design that would be able to fit the ACO spec hybrid system and the ACO would have no reason to reject it the way they rejected IMSA's demands for unmodified DPis to run in LMP2. ESPECIALLY if the spec tub design forces car designs that are in line with roadcar-derived aesthetic of Hypercar LMP1. And if for some reason you CAN'T quite make DPi Gen2 fit into Hypercar LMP1, if it was sufficient manufacturer interest maybe IMSA could leverage themselves into the class being a fifth class only at Le Mans in between LMP1 and LMP2(especially if none of the DPiG2 manufacturers were active in Hypercar LMP1).

[FormulaFox]

Okay, with my "reality of DPi" rant done, I've got another thing to say about Hypercar LMP1 specifically.

My biggest concern with the class is that they might be thinking too much about the aesthetics. The renderings they've shown off actually look a bit like they're combining Group C/GTP with generalized road car shaping, and in of itself that's fine, but I realized something when I saw the following rendering:

With that car taking some very specific styling cues from the current Ford GT, I was reminded of how the Ford GT40 was used as an example of what Grand-Am was trying to make when the Daytona Prototype was first conceived. We all know how those cars turned out appearance-wise.

Now, that specific car looks fine. But I fear that if they worried too much about aesthetics we could find ourselves with another DP situation, where not only do the cars look ugly but the aesthetics also have a negative impact no performance(the extreme drag of the DPs hampered setup rather severely).

Here's hoping I'm just reading too much into the matter, but most of the best LOOKING(AND best performing) cars in racing history were done without any concern given to aesthetics, so I always get worried when rulemakers start thinking too much about how their cars look.

[Deleted]

Spec tires, increased performance balancing and almost no testing and ongoing development

What's not to like? Zzzzzzzzzzz wake me up in 2025 or whenever the next rules cycle comes by and this DPi 2.0 has passed by

The proposed LM hydrogen class looks infinitely more interesting than this, hopefully that'll actually happen and show some real tech incentives

[canaglia]

Actually I didn't mean:
bring DPi class and transplant in WEC, just follow that way...

lmp2 chassis (that basically follow same lmp1 regs) is a great platform; just make a mandatory bodywork and aero regs to make cars look like a street derived style. You get looking hypercar at ease.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by canaglia

Actually I didn't mean:
bring DPi class and transplant in WEC, just follow that way...

lmp2 chassis (that basically follow same lmp1 regs) is a great platform; just make a mandatory bodywork and aero regs to make cars look like a street derived style. You get looking hypercar at ease.

LMP2 tub design gets in the way of that. The cockpit shape has a big effect on how street-derived the style looks. Case in point, the Nissan DPi - I give it a lot of grief for not looking like what it's supposed to, but that's 99% down to the cockpit shape. Same with the Acura, though what they were going for is much more obvious since it's their general roadcar style instead of one specific model.

[canaglia]

Originally Posted by FormulaFox

LMP2 tub design gets in the way of that. The cockpit shape has a big effect on how street-derived the style looks. Case in point, the Nissan DPi - I give it a lot of grief for not looking like what it's supposed to, but that's 99% down to the cockpit shape. Same with the Acura, though what they were going for is much more obvious since it's their general roadcar style instead of one specific model.

Nissan DPi is just a ligier lmp2 with a larger nose.
Acura DPi is just an oreca lmp2 with a larger nose.
These cars have not been designed at all to have a street look attire.
While mazda dpi is a different story, can't be denied its bodywork share some mazda steer cars style.

Example:
bring a carbon tub designed on lmp2 specs; build around that tub a bodywork recalling laferrari style with spec/mandatory splitter, diffuser, rear wing and RW profiles and other aero details.
Fit 488 gt3 4L turbo inside pushing 650hp at least and you got ferrari lmp, ferrari hyper, or however you want to call it.

For hybrid, just bring a base kers spec powering front wheels, with some development area freedom pending homologation.
Ferrari could use a magneti marelli built spec kers, another manufacturer could use a mclaren built spec kers, another a gibson/zytek one etc....

Each manufacturer must to field 2 cars a season; previous season chassis + engines/hybrid + spare parts have to be available for private teams with a capped cost (2 mlns at example).

No BS, new class would however be an expensive class, but privaters will be able to fight fire with fire.

[canaglia]

Or at least, this is my idea for a sustainable new class.
Even if sustainable is an incorrect word; manufacturers have sustainable programs as long as they enjoy, while privates would however struggle a lot.
Oreca was able to field a 908HDi only because of peugeot support, speaking about work cars in semi-private hands.

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by canaglia

Nissan DPi is just a ligier lmp2 with a larger nose.
Acura DPi is just an oreca lmp2 with a larger nose.
These cars have not been designed at all to have a street look attire.

Yes they have. When looked at from the front, both are intended to evoke the style of their road cars. With the Nissan, it's specifically meant to resemble the GT-R. With the Acura, it's meant to be the general look of their road cars as a whole(though leaning closest to the NSX). This is the entire reason for those front end treatments - if they weren't concerned with it, they would have simply gone with the minimalist method used by GM with the Cadillac.

As for the rest of your comment, you missed the whole point being addressed when it comes to roadcar styling(both by me and the intent of the Hyper LMP1 rules). As I was trying to illustrate with my points about the Acura and Nissan, the cockpit shape is a massive component of that look. The current LMP2 tubs do not allow this to be sufficiently addressed.

[canaglia]

ok, make new cockpit wider carbon tub then....

[FormulaFox]

Originally Posted by canaglia

ok, make new cockpit wider carbon tub then....

You think they'll decide to change the tub rules for LMP2 without need? LMP2 is not meant to be a wide open class. The ACO wants there to be distinction between LMP1 and LMP2, and they'll keep LMP2 udner heavy restrictions to keep costs down. The tub is one of the three(four in the case of hybrids) most expensive components of a racecar - in a class like LMP2 they won't force a redesign without a definite need.


If hypercar LMP1 is an absolute no-go for IMSA, it would be better to have someone make a tub specifically for them that everyone can build their own car around.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by andrewn7

My take on the Hypercar rules is they are pretty abysmal, like scraping the barrel, as if every good idea has already been thought of and there's nothing left in the can, except this hotch-potch that nobody wants!

A successful series does not "pander" to OEM's by trying to reinvent the wheel every few years. FIA/ACO neeed to keep the faith with the current ruleset (with some tweaks like maybe mandating commercialy available hybrids) and present a good show and then the OEM's will come of their own accord, if and when they are ready to do so.

Scrap the Hypercar rules I say!

The current ruleset happened because they pandered to OEMs. At this point the current ruleset is dead and little tweaks won't be enough to save it. Unless your idea of saving it is just waiting until Toyota snatches a Le Mans win or two more and then quits while the public/fans get bored of Toyota 1-2 races. No new OEMs in sight and the original 2020 ruleset with more electrification (announced in 2017 when Porsche was still onboard) didn't seem to entice new OEMs either.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

Also no mention of active aerodynamics, which was one of the things I really liked about the first batch of regulations put out. I wonder where it went?

It reads/sounds like the single bodywork is still the idea. Maybe active aero is just too self-evident to be mentioned.

[Deleted]

If the dieselgate hadn't happened, there extremely likely would still had been VW reprsentative(s) on the grid. So I don't blame the current situation on pandering

In any case, had they just kept the same sustained formula instead of rushing to the panic button and the disgusting world of cost reduction / BoP / spec / tech freeze, there would be new takers along the way eventually. The manufacturers wouldn't have let Le Mans to just rot when the opportunity was there. Of course there's no-one else on the grid right now, but that's because (even by 2016) everybody knew the regs were changing soon anyway so why bother entering yet. Especially when they can lobby in their own personal marketing agendas.

Also there are always depleted "gap years" between glory years in the top class, the same exact thing happened in mid-noughties as well as in the early 90's etc

Bring on news about the hydrogen class...

[GingerPixel]

Pandering is a bit of a cynical way to look at it. Of course they want manufacturer involvement, and will try to make the class attractive to them. It wouldn't exist without them.

If the OEMs were going to come and go of their own accord we wouldn't have a lonely manufacturer in LMP1 now, would we?

I've read all of this thread and many others on the new rules and unfortunatley the same old motorsport fan cliches keep coming up.

"Boo! This is rubbish racing! Something must change!... Hang on, change is scary and bad and everyone involved is clearly wrong about these changes! Boo!"

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by GingerPixel

If the OEMs were going to come and go of their own accord we wouldn't have a lonely manufacturer in LMP1 now, would we?

Why not? There's no "universal" reason for why manufacturers have come and left this century

Bentley - in because of brand 'resurrection' + lack of competition, out because won LM and no need to compete further against another VW product + lack of competition
AMR - in because of "cheaper way to compete in top class", out for self-inflicted performance and budgetary reasons
Pug - in because of tech showcase reasons, out for parent company financial reasons
Nissan - in because of PR "we're different" reasons & first aimed LM win, out for self-inflicted performance reasons
Audi - in because of brand activation and tech showcase reasons, out for damage control reasons caused by road car department
Porsche - in and out for maintaining Le Mans records (just like the last time, the periodical nature)
Toyota - in for tech showcase reasons & first aimed LM win, out for ???

There's very rarely something wrong with the 'regs' but rather the OEMs have their own independent reasons

[deggis]

The universal reason is cost. In the three past widthdrawls excluding the half-assed program put up by Nissan costs were at least a partial reason.

PSA didn't axe WRC Citroen program, because it was cheaper especially compared to the past results, cost was at least a partial reason for Audi and the same for Porsche, but more from an ROI point of view.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

As in, the I of investment went to 0 because of dieselgate.

[TheMightyM]

Originally Posted by Chiana

In any case, had they just kept the same sustained formula instead of rushing to the panic button and the disgusting world of cost reduction / BoP / spec / tech freeze, there would be new takers along the way eventually. The manufacturers wouldn't have let Le Mans to just rot when the opportunity was there.

Sure, someone might possibly have come in eventually. Maybe. Which would have involved committing a half billion dollars or so for a two or three year program just to get up to speed against Toyota. That’s real money even to massive car companies and while Le Mans is prestigious, that level of expenditure for a chance of winning Le Mans is difficult to justify.

[helgi]

Peugeot to quit WRX and "offer its customers a range of high-performance, low-emission electrified sports vehicles from 2020". And their friends from ACO/FIA have reduced costs recently down to 20m. Hmm.

[canaglia]

Maybe can't recall correctly being more than 6 years ago, PSA got financial help from france; in the agreement, PSA had to save a % of their workers from planned sacking.
At the end PSA simply had to axe disposable assets, including the endurance program. Useless to say that peugeot program was in jeopardy during 2010 already.... WEC would be however unsustainable for them at long term.

[canaglia]

Talking about recent past, Audi would had to drop anyway, day by day diesel cars gets more and more restrictive strakes; for sure is not a technology that could be promoted.
Porsche maybe could keep with a partial program (1 car WEC - 2 cars LM) with more and more assets, bugdet and engineers shifted to formula E program.

[EffectiveSprinkles]

Originally Posted by canaglia

Talking about recent past, Audi would had to drop anyway, day by day diesel cars gets more and more restrictive strakes;

Mostly because of dieselgate too. And Audi was already thinking of the future, there was a 2017 R18 in development with a new petrol engine.

[canaglia]

Originally Posted by EffectiveSprinkles

Mostly because of dieselgate too. And Audi was already thinking of the future, there was a 2017 R18 in development with a new petrol engine.

Disagree, diesel restrictions were and are planned from years already.
The path to follow was set years ago.

Disagree also about 2017 petrol R18; VW couldn't allow 2 different brands to promote the same kind of technology.

[andrewn7]

A degree of certainty, in terms rules and costs especially, is a big part of what entices long term commitment, from both OEM's and privateers. Ripping up the rulebooks every few years (in anything other than F1) is simply not sustainable.

Work with the product you HAVE, make it competitive (for everyone), put on a GREAT show, on and off the track and, over time, the "product" will prosper.

It's not rocket science, in my opinion.

For clarity, I'm not saying everything is rosy as it is, and that nothing should change, but make it incremental change that entrants and fans can adapt to and embrace. Versus the "this is wrong, here's a silver bullet" answer that will make everything wonderful - and never does, of course.

just my opinion