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

[chernaudi]

Problem is as far as performance, the facts seem to be as clear as mud as far as accurate data.

Not once this year, until this weekend, will Audi, Toyota, and Porsche run their cars in the same aero specs. Audi ran high downforce primarily all season, and gave the LM spec car to essentially rookie drivers who were probably asked to bring the car home in one piece, even if it meant going slow. Toyota have switched back and forth between aero specs since Paul Ricard, and Porsche have been running low downforce all year.

So in terms of having everyone on more or less equal footing in case of areo package, that hasn't been the case this year until this weekend. The closest was Audi and Toyota at Silverstone, and in the dry at least, Audi were slightly faster, but we can't even draw much from that.

[TF110]

Actually Kazuki Nakajima in the #7 had the fastest average time over a stint in Silverstone. But on fastest lap the Audi was .2 faster.

[deggis]

There was another reference to rules changing in 2017 here (this time with a correct year):

http://sportscar365.com/lemans/wec/m...rn-to-le-mans/

After a period of hybrid LMP1 cars, could you see an all-electric GT-R LM NISMO prototype?

“It is true that there should be new rules in 2017 but frankly, I think it’s too early to win with a fully electric car.”

[Articus]

No way! The technology for an all electric racecar with the performance and range required for LMP1 is just not here right and I wouldn't expect it for another 20-30 years.

The problem is the batteries would just simply be too heavy. The Zeod RC will get 1 lap at Le Mans for its 120kg battery bank...Even the best and most exotic Lithium Nano air batteries don't come close to energy density by weight (or volume for that matter) of gasoline let alone diesel.

Now what would be interesting and closer to being realized is Fuel Cell technology.

[ger80]

http://www.hybridcars.com/alcoa-and-...ry-technology/
Just swap some aluminium bricks at the pit stop and you are good for another stint.
They are not rechargeable and it think that doesnt matter for a race

[insane014]

Originally Posted by Articus

No way! The technology for an all electric racecar with the performance and range required for LMP1 is just not here right and I wouldn't expect it for another 20-30 years.

The problem is the batteries would just simply be too heavy. The Zeod RC will get 1 lap at Le Mans for its 120kg battery bank...Even the best and most exotic Lithium Nano air batteries don't come close to energy density by weight (or volume for that matter) of gasoline let alone diesel.

Now what would be interesting and closer to being realized is Fuel Cell technology.

Tech is almost there. All it needs is proper battery packaging that can be replaced easy and fast when car finishes the stint and more advanced energy recovery like frictionless turbines upfront that can collect more energy, more efficiently.

[Articus]

But even there. The Nissan needs 120kg pack to do a single lap at GTE pace in a car that's much lighter than LMP1's with today's technology. Scaling that just a little, the number of pit stops would be nutty. In my mind, their are just so many complications to do with swapping (it would be a very heavy thing and a sizeable portion of the car so not just drag and drop). Even if Nissan hasn't chosen the best batteries - Zeod has batteries probably closer to the Nissan Leaf than the advanced cells from A123 in the Porsche. The Porsche battery will lose capacity over the race because the high discharge rates kill the cycle life. The implications for a larger system, and wanting to have more battery packs to maintain the range over 24 hours.

gah! It just seems like madness but I'd be interested in seeing otherwise.

[ger80]

did you read the link I posted about aluminium air batteries? no recharge and big capacity, so you swap batteries instead of refuel ...
http://www.hybridcars.com/alcoa-and-...ry-technology/

[MyNameIsNigel]

The July 2014 edition of Racecar Engineering (already available in digital form) contains an excellent article from Peter Wright about the EoT, "The question of equivalence".

It's worth a read.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

The July 2014 edition of Racecar Engineering (already available in digital form) contains an excellent article from Peter Wright about the EoT, "The question of equivalence".

It's worth a read.

http://gb.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issn=0961-1096&o=ext

page 8 =>

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

The July 2014 edition of Racecar Engineering (already available in digital form) contains an excellent article from Peter Wright about the EoT, "The question of equivalence".

It's worth a read.

IMHO, there is something slightly wrong in Peter Wright's assumptions and the plot shown in Figure 2 on top of page 11 of the article in particular. This Figure 2 suggests that the total energy per lap at the wheel is the same irrespective of fuel type in the 2, 4 and 6 MJ ERS classes.

That is not consistent with the intended goal of the KTF and the view expressed by the ACO-FIA. Indeed, the KTF of 0.987 in the 2, 4 and 6 MJ ERS classes is intended to ensure that diesel gets an additional diesel fuel allocation to compensate for the overweight of the diesel engine. That should therefore lead to the assumption that the effective total energy allocation for diesel is greater, within each of the 2, 4 and 6 MJ ERS classes, to that of petrol.

As a matter of fact, this would be more consistent with the ACO-FIA's contentions that a "2 MJ diesel is nearly equivalent to a 4 MJ gasoline" and that a "4 MJ diesel is nearly equivalent to a 6 MJ gasoline":


In other words, the plot of the relevant energy allocations in Figure 2 should actually look similar to that of Figure 1, with the difference that the slope of the relevant curves, in the 2-6 MJ ERS region, is now steeper due to the enforcement of the ERS incentive.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by GasperG

If we don't know how much the whole "6 MJ ERS" weights we can only guess.

Is it 150 kg? Then 4 MJ would be possible for Toyota and 50 kg ballast
Is it less than 150 kg? Then yes, only 2 MJ would be possible with 50 kg ballast

One can make some assumptions based on the actual KTF for the relevant ERS classes (i.e. 0.987 according to the last EoT adjustments) and the KTF formulas given in the EoT document of December 2013:

KTF = E_Gasoline/FTF / (E_Gasoline/FTF + E_Additional)

E_Additional = (W_Best_Diesel - W_Best_Gasoline) * ρ ERS_Diesel / x_Diesel_on_lap_time

where
"E_Gasoline" is the allocated gasoline energy in Appendix B (= 147.0 MJ/lap for the 2 MJ petrol class)
"FTF" is the Fuel Technology Factor (= 1.074)
"E_Additional" is the additional allocated diesel energy intended to compensate for the diesel overweight
"W_Best_Diesel" is the weight (in kg) of the best-in-class diesel engine
"W_Best_Gasoline" is the weight (in kg) of the best-in-class petrol engine
"ρ ERS_Diesel" is "the best-in-class ERS density among diesel cars only" (in s/kg)
"x_Diesel_on_lap_time" is the effect of additional fuel (diesel) on lap time (in s/MJ)

Using the Appendix B figures, one can compute the value of E_Additional for the 2 MJ ERS option which is approximately equal to 1.80 MJ/lap

In their presentation of past May, the ACO-FIA did provide some hints as to what is the expected effect of additional fuel on lap time (i.e. "x_Diesel_on_lap_time") in the following slide:

In this slide, one can note that the ACO-FIA indicate a lap time difference resulting from the application of the KTF of 0.6 s/lap in each of the 2-6 MJ ERS class. That would suggest that parameter "x_Diesel_on_lap_time" is, in the case of the 2 MJ ERS option, of:
x_Diesel_on_lap_time = 0.6 / (138.7-136.9) = 0.333 s/MJ

Assuming a difference "W_Best_Diesel - W_Best_Gasoline" of the order of 50 kg, that would lead to a value for "ρ ERS_Diesel" of:
ρ ERS_Diesel = E_additional * x_Diesel_on_lap_time / (W_Best_Diesel - W_Best_Gasoline) = 0.012 s/kg

The same "ERS density value" can be computed for the 4 MJ and 6 MJ options.

That would appear to suggest that the ACO-FIA are basing their calculations on the assumption that the 2 MJ ERS used by Audi (including ES + MGU + control electronics), which is supposedly "worth" 1 sec/lap at LM if the "ERS incentive" is correct, weighs in excess of 80 kg (= 2*0.5/0.012).

Could be that my assumptions are not correct, though.

And that still does not answer the question as to what is the estimated weight of the 6 MJ ERS used by Toyota.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Which still leaves us with the FACT that the V6 TDI has approx. a 50kg handicap compared to the V8 used by Toyota, irrespective of the ERS option or hybrid system that they are using. That means 50kg that cannot be exploited to integrate the hybrid system.

BTW, the 4.0L V6 TDI weighs less than the former 3.7L V6 TDI according to various statements from Audi and Dr. Baretzky in particular.

And there is once again a good reason why Audi went for the 2 MJ ERS option at the time, namely that all ERS options were supposed to be on equal footing when they made that decision. That "ERS incentive" thing came only afterwards. That's what Audi have been complaining about following the last Appendix B changes that were decided shortly before the WEC season started.

There was an ers incentive from the beginning. It wasn't "lap time" in wording, but wasnt the wording "ers incentive" there from the earliest graph weve seen? To think Audi didn't know about that is just an excuse for them imo.

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Looking at this from a different perspective, would Toyota be able to integrate a 6 MJ or 8 MJ hybrid system if they were to be handicapped by a 50kg ballast to compensate for the diesel overweight ? Same question applies for Porsche BTW.

Overweight diesel is compensated by the rules. Why would ballast penalties be applied to an 'inferior' technology (petrol)? Its diesel= more efficient/more powerful/but heavier. If the engine Audi uses this year is lighter, doesn't it make sense that going to a smaller unit vs. 2013 would save even more weight? Then they could afford to uprate the ers. Their decisions are the reason theyre 'slower'. But theyre not really slower.

[Articus]

I think a distinction should be made on this "ERS incentive"

There is a laptime incentive X to run a higher ERS for a Petrol engine.
There is a laptime incentive Y to run a higher ERS for the diesel engine.

Incentive X and incentive Y are different. In the old Appendix B. 2MJ Diesel and 8MJ petrol are the best choices.

Then there is the petrol vs diesel equivalency. Prior to Appendix B change, A 2MJ Diesel got more energy (and is faster) than a 6MJ Petrol even though petrol has higher ERS capacity (This has nothing to do with incentive, but rather how ACO have given diesel on average 1MJ extra energy for each ERS class to account for the heavier engine).

After Appendix B change. A whole different story is painted as we're all familiar. Now the 2MJ diesel gets less energy than the 6MJ petrol. Nothing was ever 'equalized' to begin with.

Interestingly enough. Audi might actually go fastest with no ERS at all based on the new EoT. But they can't do that because all manufacturers must run in the LMP1-H class.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

There was an ers incentive from the beginning. It wasn't "lap time" in wording, but wasnt the wording "ers incentive" there from the earliest graph weve seen? To think Audi didn't know about that is just an excuse for them imo.

Once again, the "ERS incentive" as such, i.e. "- 0.5 s/lap/MJ Hybrid", was only introduced back in December 2013 when the Endurance Commitee published their first EoT-related decision.

It has been confirmed by various sources that Audi made their ERS choice more than a year prior to the issuance of that particular decision, hence the reason why they were frustrated by the late introduction of this decision and the Appendix B adjustments that followed in March this year.

We have already discussed this at length previously, but the only incentive related to the ERS option that was apparent from the beginning was exclusively related to the effect on stint length.

Audi did make a fully reasonable choice at the time, which turned out not to be the best following the late changes that caught them by surprise. Their mistake is in the timing of the decision they made, not in the ERS option they choosed at the time.

It is your right to believe that Audi intentionally opted for the "wrong" ERS option at the time (which assumes that the "ERS incentive" was there from the very beginning) and that they are now trying to find "excuses", but that seems to assume that Audi have ignorant engineers at their disposal.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Once again, the "ERS incentive" as such, i.e. "- 0.5 s/lap/MJ Hybrid", was only introduced back in December 2013 when the Endurance Commitee published their first EoT-related decision.

It has been confirmed by various sources that Audi made their ERS choice more than a year prior to the issuance of that particular decision, hence the reason why they were frustrated by the late introduction of this decision and the Appendix B adjustments that followed in March this year.

We have already discussed this at length previously, but the only incentive related to the ERS option that was apparent from the beginning was exclusively related to the effect on stint length.

Audi did make a fully reasonable choice at the time, which turned out not to be the best following the late changes that caught them by surprise. Their mistake is in the timing of the decision they made, not in the ERS option they choosed at the time.

It is your right to believe that Audi intentionally opted for the "wrong" ERS option at the time (which assumes that the "ERS incentive" was there from the very beginning) and that they are now trying to find "excuses", but that seems to assume that Audi have ignorant engineers at their disposal.

No. There are graphs from before that show the total energy amount from higher ers sizes equal more than lower ers sizes. Even F1-technical had charts showing these. None were finalized but there was changes before december 2013 that reflected that. The "ers incentive" was even worded before then but as an incentive for autonomy not performance. I dont pretend to know what Audi was thinking. But to say they found out too late is not true if you're going by the rulings.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

No. There are graphs from before that show the total energy amount from higher ers sizes equal more than lower ers sizes. Even F1-technical had charts showing these. None were finalized but there was changes before december 2013 that reflected that. The "ers incentive" was even worded before then but as an incentive for autonomy not performance. I dont pretend to know what Audi was thinking. But to say they found out too late is not true if you're going by the rulings.

I would be happy to see those charts that you are talking about

But I am surprised by your contentions, since all calculations that one could make on the basis of the initial BSFC targets mentioned in draft V04 of the regulations actually demonstrate that all ERS options were supposed to be on equal footing energy-wise. The "ERS incentive" as we understand it now, was only reflected in the Appendix B figures published in March this year.

[Articus]

Originally Posted by Articus

I think a distinction should be made on this "ERS incentive"

There is a laptime incentive X to run a higher ERS for a Petrol engine.
There is a laptime incentive Y to run a higher ERS for the diesel engine.

Incentive X and incentive Y are different. In the old Appendix B. 2MJ Diesel and 8MJ petrol are the best choices.

Then there is the petrol vs diesel equivalency. Prior to Appendix B change, A 2MJ Diesel got more energy (and is faster) than a 6MJ Petrol even though petrol has higher ERS capacity (This has nothing to do with incentive, but rather how ACO have given diesel on average 1MJ extra energy for each ERS class to account for the heavier engine).

After Appendix B change. A whole different story is painted as we're all familiar. Now the 2MJ diesel gets less energy than the 6MJ petrol. Nothing was ever 'equalized' to begin with.

Try reading again...
There was ERS incentive all along. But it was distinct for Petrol and Diesel. It's very very important to make that distinction guys...There wasn't the same incentive for both, and underneath it all is the FTF and KTF. In the new appendix B not only is FTF/KTF adjusted, but they also changed the ERS incentive for diesel from 2MJ to 8MJ just like petrol. Full well knowing that no diesel would do 8 MJ because of the weight disadvantage.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by Articus

Try reading again...
There was ERS incentive all along. But it was distinct for Petrol and Diesel. It's important to make that distinction guys...There wasn't the same incentive for both, and underneath it all is the FTF and KTF. In the new appendix B not only is FTF/KTF adjusted, but they also changed the ERS incentive for diesel from 2MJ to 8MJ just like petrol.

I don't quite get why you believe that there is a "distinct" ERS incentive for petrol and diesel. That does not appear to be consistent with how the ERS incentive is defined by the ACO-FIA themselves, namely a lap time advantage that is only related to the relevant amount of energy releasable by the hybrid system.

Besides, the diesel fuel allocation is a direct function of the petrol fuel allocation, namely the petrol fuel allocation divided by the product of the FTF and KTF. The KTF is equal to 1 in the case of the 8 MJ option, but this can be explained by the fact that this option is basically unachievable in the case of diesel.

Ultimately, the theoretical lap time advantage resulting from the ERS incentive is supposed to be 1 sec/lap at LM for each hybrid step of 2 MJ. As per the ACO-FIA's declarations of last May, the KTF is supposed to lead to a 0.6 sec/lap offset between petrol and diesel within one and a same column, but that's all (with the exception of the 8 MJ column):

[TF110]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

I would be happy to see those charts that you are talking about

But I am surprised by your contentions, since all calculations that one could make on the basis of the initial BSFC targets mentioned in draft V04 of the regulations actually demonstrate that all ERS options were supposed to be on equal footing energy-wise. The "ERS incentive" as we understand it now, was only reflected in the Appendix B figures published in March this year.

You'll have to look through f1-technical or these forums. I dont have the image. But the ers 'incentive' was shown before in regards to autonomy. Basically more ers more laps. This was definitely before December 2013. I dont know why you are trying to say Audi had no clue about an incentive when it was spoken of before. Weve discussed this before as well and now here we go again.

[Articus]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

I don't quite get why you believe that there is a "distinct" ERS incentive for petrol and diesel. That does not appear to be consistent with how the ERS incentive is defined by the ACO-FIA themselves, namely a lap time advantage that is only related to the relevant amount of energy releasable by the hybrid system.

Getting these images here is quite the pita. From the RCE mag. It's a further analysis of the Appendix B energy allocation. Energy making some assumptions of powertrain efficiency to derive energy "at the wheels."





In the first Appendix B (upper), The incentive is different for diesel and petrol. You get hardly anymore energy to run a larger ERS after you hit 2MJ for diesels. For Petrol their is clear incentive to run 8MJ.

After the updated appendix B. The lines are almost matching which is why now there is an overarching ERS incentive irrespective of diesel or Petrol. So yes TF110, there is an ERS incentive for both Petrol and diesel but while the Petrol incentive remained, crucially, the same, The diesel incentive got turned upside down. Th

The development of these cars was started long long ago. Porsche and Toyota would have made choices for 6-8MJ a long long time ago as well. But look who got shafted when Appendix B changed. The Petrol incentive is almost identical in the old and new incentive. The diesel incentive flip flops. This is why Audi got caught out and Porsche Toyota did not. If Porsche or Toyota were put in a similar position, they probably would have come off just as bad. No one can prove that Porsche and Toyota could have reacted to a new Appendix B swing any better than Audi (which was poorly).

[JoestForEver]

Originally Posted by Articus

Getting these images here is quite the pita. From the RCE mag. It's a further analysis of the Appendix B energy allocation. Energy making some assumptions of powertrain efficiency to derive energy "at the wheels."





In the first Appendix B (upper), The incentive is different for diesel and petrol. You get hardly anymore energy to run a larger ERS after you hit 2MJ for diesels. For Petrol their is clear incentive to run 8MJ.

After the updated appendix B. The lines are almost matching which is why now there is an overarching ERS incentive irrespective of diesel or Petrol. So yes TF110, there is an ERS incentive for both Petrol and diesel but while the Petrol incentive remained, crucially, the same, The diesel incentive got turned upside down. Th

The development of these cars was started long long ago. Porsche and Toyota would have made choices for 6-8MJ a long long time ago as well. But look who got shafted when Appendix B changed. The Petrol incentive is almost identical in the old and new incentive. The diesel incentive flip flops. This is why Audi got caught out and Porsche Toyota did not. If Porsche or Toyota were put in a similar position, they probably would have come off just as bad. No one can prove that Porsche and Toyota could have reacted to a new Appendix B swing any better than Audi (which was poorly).

Good job Articus. And this explains why even when the ERS incentive is already in the rulebook(Not specified) in Dec 2013, 2MJ/lap for a diesel is absolutely the rational one for Audi. 6MJ suits Toyota and Porsche best on the other hand, if they can't make it to 8MJ. Above 2MJ(diesel) and 6MJ(petrol) your resources devoted to ERS won't bring you enough payoff.
However, the diesel curve suddenly changed in 2014, making 2MJ the worst option to take, causing real problem for the 2MJ group while in petrol everything seems fine, still.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

You'll have to look through f1-technical or these forums. I dont have the image. But the ers 'incentive' was shown before in regards to autonomy. Basically more ers more laps. This was definitely before December 2013. I dont know why you are trying to say Audi had no clue about an incentive when it was spoken of before. Weve discussed this before as well and now here we go again.

Come on. You are mixing things up. The effect on stint length was there from the very beginning. Yes. Not the artificial gap in lap time that is being defined by the ACO-FIA as the "ERS incentive".

[MyNameIsNigel]

I did read Peter Wright's article in RCE with great attention but I do believe that this second chart is not entirely consistent with the current Appendix B figures and what the ACO-FIA have been declaring in their presentation of last May:


This charts suggests that there is a true equivalence between diesel and petrol in the 2-6 MJ classes, which is not the case. Diesel gets an additional amount of energy in those classes as a result of the compensation of the diesel overweight. This is the effect of the KTF of 0.987 in these classes. In effect, the diesel and petrol curves should actually be offset one with respect to the other, much like in the first chart.

As far as the ERS incentive is concerned, this parameter translates into a different slope of the energy allocation curve. The greater the ERS incentive, the greater the slope. Putting the question of the offset between diesel and petrol aside, the two charts produced by Peter Wright at least demonstrate that this slope was much less in the Appendix B figures of December 2013 (the first chart) than in the Appendix B figures of April 2014 (the second chart). That confirms that there has been a substantial change between December 2013 and April 2014 regarding the performance advantage given to bigger hybrids, hence Audi's legitimate frustration.

In any event, the slope (i.e. ERS incentive) in the 2-6 MJ range is the same for diesel and petrol. This reflects the fact that there is basically one ERS incentive that applies for both fuel classes.

This being said, one may wonder why the ERS incentive in the case of petrol suddenly gets bigger for the 8 MJ ERS option, as this seems to be highlighted by Peter Wright's charts. There is no justification for this, especially considering that the 8 MJ ERS option is not achievable in the case of diesel from a practical point of view.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

Come on. You are mixing things up. The effect on stint length was there from the very beginning. Yes. Not the artificial gap in lap time that is being defined by the ACO-FIA as the "ERS incentive".

So at least you acknowledge that there WAS ers incentive in the wording, but in the form of distance. Because thats the whole point! Thats what Ive been saying.

Audi only had to step up .5mj from 2013 and could benefit from the rules more than dropping 1.5mj from 2013. Any team could see this coming in some form ('at first' stint length) or another (now lap time).

Why is it hard to say that maybe Audi made a decision that wasn't very wise? Theres always excuses being tossed about, blaming the rule makers. There was the knowledge and wording that higher ers would be of some sort of benefit way before December last year. The logic that the late decision to make it "lap time" cant be used as a reason Audi got a 'raw deal'. Especially since their mind was apparently made up from the beginning. Or so they say. Its not always wise to be set in your ways. Being flexable is a benefit. Just like having that flexible hybrid system able to not work but allow the car to run.