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

[CTD]

Hello.
Im getting pretty confused with these "new" EVO rules which was going to rule in 2010!
Are they thrown in the bin, are they "on hold", or are they going to count in 2010?.
I've tried to read about it here on Ten-Tenths but also on other forums, and im just confused, so if someone just could say whats counting i would be happy!

[zac510]

The EVO rules are in a constant state of evolution
ie nobody knows yet!

[AU N EGL]

dont think the new rules are 'EVO' just new rules all together.

EVO meanin an evolution of the current LMP1 rules. The 2010 rule changes should be out in October this year.

a very general out line was released during the LM24 at the ACO press conference.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

dont think the new rules are 'EVO' just new rules all together.

EVO meanin an evolution of the current LMP1 rules. The 2010 rule changes should be out in October this year.

a very general out line was released during the LM24 at the ACO press conference.

See ACO Press Conference

[JAG]

Evo regs are a variation on current P1 regs for manufactuers who would prefare a look closer to a road car.

The aero hit a P1 Evo car would take over a regular P1, with no pretense to looking like a roadcar, will be compensated by restrictor/weight etc. breaks.

[deggis]

All the essential info that came out from the press conference is here:

http://www.planetlemans.com/2008/06/...ss-conference/

http://www.endurance-info.com/article.php?sid=5797 (crappy Google translation)

[Pingguest]

I read that the maximum temperature in the cockpit will be 32 degrees. Isn't it 25 at the moment? Why will ACO raise the temperature?

[sssssssss]

I think Audi is the only manufacturer to prefer open top prototypes, although they don't have any roadcar looking anything close to that

[mattcat]

Originally Posted by sssssssss

I think Audi is the only manufacturer to prefer open top prototypes, although they don't have any roadcar looking anything close to that

I believe that with it being fairly obvious recently that the closed top prototypes are significantly faster than the open tops, Audis preference may change very quickly...

[sssssssss]

Originally Posted by mattcat

I believe that with it being fairly obvious recently that the closed top prototypes are significantly faster than the open tops, Audis preference may change very quickly...

I don't think closed tops are necessarily faster than open tops. It was just that Peugeot desperately wanted to win Le Mans this year and they did all they could. The R10 wasn't conceived for such huge steps from one year to the next in its development as Audi were used to the developing pace of the private opponents they mainly had so far (in 2000, BMW didn't further develop the LMR, Cadillac wasn't strong enough, Bentley was still Audi etc.). But I do think Audi could build from scratch an open top to run just as fast and well as the 908.

[mattcat]

Originally Posted by sssssssss

I don't think closed tops are necessarily faster than open tops. It was just that Peugeot desperately wanted to win Le Mans this year and they did all they could. The R10 wasn't conceived for such huge steps from one year to the next in its development as Audi were used to the developing pace of the private opponents they mainly had so far (in 2000, BMW didn't further develop the LMR, Cadillac wasn't strong enough, Bentley was still Audi etc.). But I do think Audi could build from scratch an open top to run just as fast and well as the 908.

It's not just Pugeot that I am referring to. The Charouz Lola Aston and the Dome S102 outpaced the open cars right out of the gate. I am no aerodynamicist, but I would be highly inclined to believe that there is a big advantage in downforce created by the windscreen and top of a closed top car. Likewise, I would be inclined to believe that the design is inherently better in a straight line. Anyone with an advanced knowledge of aerodynamics feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by mattcat

It's not just Pugeot that I am referring to. The Charouz Lola Aston and the Dome S102 outpaced the open cars right out of the gate. I am no aerodynamicist, but I would be highly inclined to believe that there is a big advantage in downforce created by the windscreen and top of a closed top car. Likewise, I would be inclined to believe that the design is inherently better in a straight line. Anyone with an advanced knowledge of aerodynamics feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

The cockpit is actually a source of lift. The benefits of a closed top car are somewhat esoteric. Best guess is that closed top cars have less drag than an open top car. As for downforce, might be a bit of a wash as the cockpit potentially blocks flow to the rear wing. I'm told closed top LMPs have a slightly better L/D in low downforce configurations. I would guess in high downforce configs they are about equal.

[isynge]

Originally Posted by mattcat

It's not just Pugeot that I am referring to. The Charouz Lola Aston and the Dome S102 outpaced the open cars right out of the gate. I am no aerodynamicist, but I would be highly inclined to believe that there is a big advantage in downforce created by the windscreen and top of a closed top car. Likewise, I would be inclined to believe that the design is inherently better in a straight line. Anyone with an advanced knowledge of aerodynamics feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

John Horsman puts it quite nicely in layman's terms in Racing in the Rain - here he points out that drag is a factor of frontal area (larger in a coupe) multiplied by aerodynamic efficiency (greater in a coupe) - so a coupe body should be very effective on a long straight such as the run to Mulsanne, however the comparative downforce figures for the coupe and open top Mirage M6s showed the open car to be considerably more effective in being pushed onto the track. It's all on p.300 if you're interested.

Now I appreciate these are lessons from 30 years ago, and I'm sure things have moved on considerably (I'm much more a historian than aerodynamacist!) but I imagine some of these principles will remain the same.

[Tom87]

Originally Posted by mattcat

I believe that with it being fairly obvious recently that the closed top prototypes are significantly faster than the open tops, Audis preference may change very quickly...

Over one lap certainly, but over a race distance the distinction isn't as clear. The LM24 proved that running a closed Coupe, has it's own set of disadvantages to deal with.

[AU N EGL]

Speculations of the new rules starting up again?

[joeb]

Originally Posted by sssssssss

I think Audi is the only manufacturer to prefer open top prototypes, although they don't have any roadcar looking anything close to that

At one point (iirc) Mr. Clarke said Acura intended on building an open car for P1, but that may have changed. who knows not much more info has come out of HPD regarding next season's plans. Maybe by October when teams begin to tease us with possible futre plans we will know something

[CTD]

Is it realistic that the new rules will demand Gt looking cars for P1?, because i don't think the top Prototype class should be shut down!

[JAG]

Originally Posted by CTD

Is it realistic that the new rules will demand Gt looking cars for P1?, because i don't think the top Prototype class should be shut down!

P1 is remaining, there will just be a P1 Evo variation for 'GT' like cars.

Think Mercedes CLR, that's the best guess so far.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by JAG

P1 is remaining, there will just be a P1 Evo variation for 'GT' like cars.

Think Mercedes CLR, that's the best guess so far.

Are you sure? the ACO mentioned staying with the four class structure

LMP1
LMP2
GT1
GT2

any new "evo' p1 cars would be in the LMP1 class, not a seperate Evo class IIRC

"-- The possibility of choosing between prototype closed and open prototype is maintained, but (because there is a but), the COA would like to have a real diversity, "the cars look different and not just by their design" says Daniel Poissenot. As a result, in collaboration with Gordon Murray, a new definition body will even days in 2010, with a wider cockpit, knowing that cars today are still permitted. This regulation will be unveiled in November.

"The current cars and the new car will be balanced," said Daniel Poissenot, and it brings several questions: between diesel engines, Essence "traditional competition," Essence "GT" Hybrid and the different bodies, LMP1 current and future LMP2010 , How to get a good equivalence? The mission promises to be complicated for a settlement that presents itself as the map: failing to agree on a settlement, we try to please everyone with adjustments (engine or bodywork)."

[johntt]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

Are you sure? the ACO mentioned staying with the four class structure

LMP1
LMP2
GT1
GT2

any new "evo' p1 cars would be in the LMP1 class, not a seperate Evo class IIRC

"-- The possibility of choosing between prototype closed and open prototype is maintained, but (because there is a but), the COA would like to have a real diversity, "the cars look different and not just by their design" says Daniel Poissenot. As a result, in collaboration with Gordon Murray, a new definition body will even days in 2010, with a wider cockpit, knowing that cars today are still permitted. This regulation will be unveiled in November.

"The current cars and the new car will be balanced," said Daniel Poissenot, and it brings several questions: between diesel engines, Essence "traditional competition," Essence "GT" Hybrid and the different bodies, LMP1 current and future LMP2010 , How to get a good equivalence? The mission promises to be complicated for a settlement that presents itself as the map: failing to agree on a settlement, we try to please everyone with adjustments (engine or bodywork)."

Theres a strong possibility that the ACO and FIA will decide on a single GT class (lets hope they do), having EVO (really think they should call it GTP) and P1 as seperate parallel classes, maintaining a 4 class system.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by johntt

Theres a strong possibility that the ACO and FIA will decide on a single GT class (lets hope they do), having EVO (really think they should call it GTP) and P1 as seperate parallel classes, maintaining a 4 class system.

By reading the OUTline there would be four classes.

LMP1 ( evo folded into this class)
LMP2

GT1
GT2

with the GT clasess based on engine size and HP.

The EVO or LMP2010 rules cars will be racing with the current LMP1 cars, not in their own class.

[sssssssss]

Originally Posted by johntt

Theres a strong possibility that the ACO and FIA will decide on a single GT class (lets hope they do)

That might be a strong posibility especially if Audi decide to go to the GTs class at Le Mans with their R8 GT, because probably Audi wouldn't want to race in the smallest class (which the R8 would comply with at this time).

[chewymonster]

Originally Posted by JAG

Think Mercedes CLR, that's the best guess so far.

I agree, it's the best example of what they are trying to achieve. But it doesn't make sense to have CLR looking race cars competing with current P1s. You just end up with rules that will ultimately favor one over the other. The ACO would likely give the Evo cars some extra benefit to get everone to make one.



Didn't it even have a road car based engine? Sounds a lot like the ACO has come full circle.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by chewymonster

I agree, it's the best example of what they are trying to achieve. But it doesn't make sense to have CLR looking race cars competing with current P1s. You just end up with rules that will ultimately favor one over the other. The ACO would likely give the Evo cars some extra benefit to get everone to make one.



Didn't it even have a road car based engine? Sounds a lot like the ACO has come full circle.

Holy.... I never knew exactly how low that car was, until I saw that picture.

[JAG]

That leaves manufacturers in even more of a quandary than they were before the ACO press conference on Thursday. Open and closed cars will be admitted in 2010, confirming the rumour started here in December. The existing cars will be eligible to race beyond this deadline. Diesel and petrol will be better balanced, but with the air restrictor rules not being announced until September, and possibly new aero rules announced then too, teams will have to rush through new cars if they are to race them in 2009.



Corvette denied that the C7 programme was dead and expects a decision quickly whether or not General Motors will return to top flight endurance motorsport in LMP1. This from a racing department which has consistently fought against the suits back home to deliver victory at Le Mans time and again, and turned the American Le Mans Series programme into a marketing bonanza. The case has been made, for this and for other projects. The question is which way will the suits jump?



Another case to ponder is GM’s position with the ACO, which in April presented manufacturers with a draft set of regulations for 2010. According to paddock rumour, the diesel manufacturers rejected them and delayed the announcement of their new projects. With Peugeot’s racing department not delivering for a second year, a significant reduction in diesel performance would not be well received in Paris. Audi’s programme is for five years, and this is its third, but it desperately needs a new car. Will it be petrol or diesel? That depends on the rules, and we will have to wait until the Essen Show in November after Audi delayed the announcement it was expected to make at Le Mans…

http://www.sportscarpros.com/cottonb...rs/default.htm