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

[repa]

And finally we got answer for some elder question too:

-With the exception of devices needed for control of pressure charging systems and/or exhaust turbine geometry, variable geometry exhaust systems are not permitted

-Variable valve timing and variable valve lift profile systems are not permitted

-Variable intake manifold and trumpets are allowed.

For me it sounds interesting:
- The use of plasma, laser or other high frequency ignition
techniques is allowed.

[gwyllion]

Appendix B has all the data necessary to exactly calculate the targeted engine efficiency.

• petrol
  • energy density of fuel: 39.55 MJ/kg
  • BFSC: 220 gr/kWh -> 16.36 MJ/kg
  • efficiency = 41.4 %
• diesel
  • energy density of fuel: 42.31 MJ/kg
  • BFSC: 195 gr/kWh -> 18.46 MJ/kg
  • efficiency = 43.6 %

Kinosh!ta of Toyota mentioned that the efficiency target would be 41.5% for petrol engines and 42.5% for diesel engines (see post #2268). His numbers were only correct for petrol engines.

Anyway, I have to agree that the target efficiency for diesel engines is much too low with regards to that for petrol engines.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by repa

Variable intake manifold and trumpets are allowed.

I find that interesting mostly because if I remember correctly it was recently (sometime within the past few years) banned in F1 and I think it was due to cost issues? Not that I am a fan at all of sharing engines between prototypes and F1, but is variable intakes now allowed in the 2014 F1 regulations? I also find it interesting that they allow this, but not variable valve timing (common on road cars).

Richard

[TF110]

Well they will have to be more efficient, but with higher hybrid power allowed and a lighter less draggy car (hopefully) this shouldn't be too hard to keep the current speeds or perhaps go slightly faster.

[gregtummer]

I read somewhere the ACO is predicting similar lap times to now, or even a little bit faster.

[pedrocor]

Please, I need some help.

I'm analysing the Appendix B Table and i can't figure out what is K*Technology*Factor nor it's aplication.

Thanks

[gwyllion]

The fuel technology factor is defined as the difference in engine efficiency for both fuel types.

• target efficiency for petrol engine: (1/0.220*3.6)/39.55 = 0.41375
• target efficiency for diesel engine: (1/0.195*3.6)/42.31 = 0.43634
• fuel technology factor: 0.43634/0.41375 = (0.220/0.195)*(39.55/42.31) = 1.055

This factor explains why petrol engines get a 5.5% more energy allocated per lap than diesel engines: 148/1.055 = 140.3.

The k technology factor seems to be calculated as followed:

• no ERS
  • petrol allocation: 148 MJ/lap
  • diesel allocation: 140.3 MJ/lap
  • k technology factor: (148/140.3)/1.055 = 1
• 2 MJ ERS
  • petrol allocation: 143.5 MJ/lap
  • diesel allocation: 138.4 MJ/lap
  • k technology factor: (143.5/138.4)/1.055 = 0.983
• 4 MJ ERS
  • petrol allocation: 139 MJ/lap
  • diesel allocation: 134 MJ/lap
  • k technology factor: (139/134)/1.055 = 0.983
• 6 MJ ERS
  • petrol allocation: 134.5 MJ/lap
  • diesel allocation: 129.7 MJ/lap
  • k technology factor: (134.5/129.7)/1.055 = 0.983
• 8 MJ ERS
  • petrol allocation: 132.2 MJ/lap
  • diesel allocation: 125.4 MJ/lap
  • k technology factor: (132.2/125.4)/1.055 = 1

So the k factor is an additional correction factor. The motivation for this factor is unclear to me.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

I must confess that the fuel quantity numbers in the press release seem to make sense after all.

We know that the target efficiency is 16.36 MJ/kg for petrol and 18.46 MJ/kg for diesel. And we can assume that the fuel density is 0.754 kg/l for petrol and 0.8338 kg/l for diesel.

This means the following amount of energy is available per lap for the different powertrain options:

• petrol, 0M hybrid: 16.36 * 0.7540 * 4.95 + 0 = 61.07 MJ
• petrol, 2M hybrid: 16.36 * 0.7540 * 4.80 + 2 = 61.22 MJ
• petrol, 4M hybrid: 16.36 * 0.7540 * 4.65 + 4 = 61.37 MJ
• petrol, 6M hybrid: 16.36 * 0.7540 * 4.50 + 6 = 61.52 MJ
• petrol, 8M hybrid: 16.36 * 0.7540 * 4.42 + 8 = 62.53 MJ
• diesel, 0M hybrid: 18.46 * 0.8338 * 3.99 + 0 = 61.42 MJ
• diesel, 2M hybrid: 18.46 * 0.8338 * 3.93 + 2 = 62.50 MJ
• diesel, 4M hybrid: 18.46 * 0.8338 * 3.81 + 4 = 62.62 MJ
• diesel, 6M hybrid: 18.46 * 0.8338 * 3.68 + 6 = 62.65 MJ
• diesel, 8M hybrid: 18.46 * 0.8338 * 3.56 + 8 = 62.80 MJ

I decided to redo my earlier calcuations, with the updated numbers from Appendix B.

• no ERS
  • petrol: 148.0 * 0.41375 = 61.2 MJ
  • diesel: 140.3 * 0.43634 = 61.2 MJ
• 2 MJ ERS
  • petrol: 143.5 * 0.41375 + 2 = 61.4 MJ
  • diesel: 138.4 * 0.43634 + 2 = 62.4 MJ
• 4 MJ ERS
  • petrol: 139.0 * 0.41375 + 4 = 61.5 MJ
  • diesel: 134.0 * 0.43634 + 4 = 62.5 MJ
• 6 MJ ERS
  • petrol: 134.5 * 0.41375 + 6 = 61.6 MJ
  • diesel: 129.7 * 0.43634 + 6 = 62.6 MJ
• 8 MJ ERS:
  • petrol: 132.2 * 0.41375 + 8 = 62.7 MJ
  • diesel: 125.4 * 0.43634 + 8 = 62.7 MJ

Note that the more powerful hybrids appear to get slightly more energy per lap. However, if we assume that only 95% of the hybrid energy can converted into mechanical energy, this is no longer the case:

• no ERS
  • petrol: 148.0 * 0.41375 = 61.2 MJ
  • diesel: 140.3 * 0.43634 = 61.2 MJ
• 2 MJ ERS
  • petrol: 143.5 * 0.41375 + 0.95 * 2 = 61.3 MJ
  • diesel: 138.4 * 0.43634 + 0.95 * 2 = 62.3 MJ
• 4 MJ ERS
  • petrol: 139.0 * 0.41375 + 0.95 * 4 = 61.3 MJ
  • diesel: 134.0 * 0.43634 + 0.95 * 4 = 62.3 MJ
• 6 MJ ERS
  • petrol: 134.5 * 0.41375 + 0.95 * 6 = 61.3 MJ
  • diesel: 129.7 * 0.43634 + 0.95 * 6 = 62.3 MJ
• 8 MJ ERS:
  • petrol: 132.2 * 0.41375 + 0.95 * 8 = 62.3 MJ
  • diesel: 125.4 * 0.43634 + 0.95 * 8 = 62.3 MJ

Some observations:

1. Non-hybrid cars get exactly the same amount of mechanical energy per lap (i.e., 61.2 MJ) independent of the engine type.
2. The same holds for the 8 MJ hybrids. These hybrid cars probably get a bit more energy than the non-hybrids because they weigh 20kg more (850 vs 830 kg).
3. For the other options there is the strange situation that diesel cars get 1 MJ more mechanical energy than their petrol counterparts. This is the consequence of the mysterious "k technology factor".

[pedrocor]

Thanks gwyllion

At least now I see where is apllied.

[repa]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

For the other options there is the strange situation that diesel cars get 1 MJ more mechanical energy than their petrol counterparts. This is the consequence of the mysterious "k technology factor".

Technology factor is detailed on the third page:
- The Fuel Technology Factor is a function of the ratio of
Diesel over Petrol efficiencies.
- The K Technology Factor is a function of Diesel and
Gasoline Power Trains Weight and ERS options (See
Appendix B).
- The technology factor is the product of fuel and K technology
factors
- The Fuel Energy per lap allocated for the Diesel engine is
result of the Fuel Energy per lap allocated for the Petrol
Engine divided by the technology factor.

[gwyllion]

Above I already derived how these factors are defined from the table in Appendix B.

The K Technology Factor is a function of Diesel and Gasoline Power Trains Weight and ERS options (See Appendix B).

That still does not explain where this mysterious factor comes from. Why is this factor 1 for no ERS and 8 MJ ERS and 0.983 for the other ERS options

[repa]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Note that the more powerful hybrids appear to get slightly more energy per lap. However, if we assume that only 95% of the hybrid energy can converted into mechanical energy, this is no longer the case:

• no ERS
  • petrol: 148.0 * 0.41375 = 61.2 MJ
  • diesel: 140.3 * 0.43634 = 61.2 MJ
• 2 MJ ERS
  • petrol: 143.5 * 0.41375 + 0.95 * 2 = 61.3 MJ
  • diesel: 138.4 * 0.43634 + 0.95 * 2 = 62.3 MJ
• 4 MJ ERS
  • petrol: 139.0 * 0.41375 + 0.95 * 4 = 61.3 MJ
  • diesel: 134.0 * 0.43634 + 0.95 * 4 = 62.3 MJ
• 6 MJ ERS
  • petrol: 134.5 * 0.41375 + 0.95 * 6 = 61.3 MJ
  • diesel: 129.7 * 0.43634 + 0.95 * 6 = 62.3 MJ
• 8 MJ ERS:
  • petrol: 132.2 * 0.41375 + 0.95 * 8 = 62.3 MJ
  • diesel: 125.4 * 0.43634 + 0.95 * 8 = 62.3 MJ

One more thing: interestingly if you not calculate with 8 MJ, but only 7 MJ, you will end up 61,3 MJ/lap too. I tried it, because now we have 7 braking points with 500 kJ releasable energy between to braking point which is only 3,5 MJ. Toyota said, they could do twice as much as now, which is 7 MJ, but i'm not sure they could go up really to 8 MJ and use all energy given by the rules. And i'm guess 7 braking points will last for 2014 too.
And still interesting why we have k factor for 2-4-6 MJ hybrid diesels, and why we don't have it for 0 and 8 MJ case.

And also i'm a bit confused by the efficiency numbers. Efficiencies for the engines must be indicated eff. numbers. In this case, we cannot have 95% mechanical efficiency for ERS, that should be indicated eff too. But what can we call indicated efficiency for the ERS? (it's only a theoretical question, the calculations are correct of course. And me too thanks for them, they helped me a lot!)

And the last one: are the ERSs can have 95% eff in real life? We have flybrid, supercapacitors, etc... They are not the same. Can someone tell me, which is their efficiency? 95% is correct for all of them?

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by repa

And i'm guess 7 braking points will last for 2014 too.

In 2014 the number of braking zones does not matter at all. The rules limit the ERS energy per lap, not per braking zone. A manufacturer can chose to release 8 MJ at once or continuously over a full lap. The later will be probably be the case with system that recovers energy from the exhaust.

BTW I noticed that 8 MJ ERS is the maximum for Le Mans. For other tracks it will only be 6 MJ.

• Energy allocation can be adjusted by +/-10 MJ
• No ERS column is dedicated to privateers and its petrol energy allocation could be adjusted independently.
• ERS Options will be NO ERS / 1.5 MJ / 3 MJ / 4.5 MJ and 6 MJ for the other tracks. No change of ERS option will be allowed during the season.
• ERS system will be homologated with a request of deposit of one complete set of components and drawings.
• Fuel energy allocation for other tracks will be determined in 2014 with the aim to keep same engine layout for the complete season.

Originally Posted by repa

And also i'm a bit confused by the efficiency numbers. Efficiencies for the engines must be indicated eff. numbers. In this case, we cannot have 95% mechanical efficiency for ERS, that should be indicated eff too. But what can we call indicated efficiency for the ERS?

The rules restrict the ERS energy that is effectively released as mechanical energy.

5.2.3 The amount of Energy or Power released from the MGUs is limited to values described in Appendix B.

So the efficiency of the ERS is not important. Losses that occur from recovery to storage and from storage to release are not considered.

There is probably another reason why more powerful hybrids get a bit of extra mechanical energy in total. In post #2440 I speculated that this could be to compensate for the higher cooling demands and hence the extra drag. A more powerful ERS also weighs more, so this have a negative influence on the weight distribution, center of gravity, ...

[repa]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

The rules restrict the ERS energy that is effectively released as mechanical energy.

I wanted to say, that we cannot do the calculations with one indicated efficiency (engine), and one effective efficiency (ERS), because that's not correct. But today i saw appendix C: ACO will measure released energy before the drive train, so they not calculate with mechanical losses. In this case this supposed 94% can be looked as an indicated eff., so the calculations are correct.

[lms]

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/2014%...29,%202012.pdf

[gwyllion]

I posted that link in post #2495

[lms]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

I posted that link in post #2495

didnt see

[HORNDAWG]

The P-2 cost capping answer could be simple, yet no one wants to hear it. Make a common P-2 tub, bulkhead to footbox with the ability to bolt on various roof lines and set that tech, spec for a 10 year period. A co-op could even be set up to produce them if more than a single mfg wanted to do it. Then all the add on bits could be developed and built by whoever, Lola, HPD, Oreca, Riley, Oak etc… as long as they met the rules in doing so. My point in this as everyone is moaning about a single spec tub is, we are/have been very close to that already. If the P-2 was based off of a spec tub it would not change the landscape drastically from what we have now.
Just as an example here: most of the prototypes (non uber werks) have stemmed from 2 tubs. The Lola B-05 etc..... and the Courage (including the HPD 01 series) over the last several years.
I am talking design stability and continuity which gives teams the ability to afford investing in equipment, infrastucture and tools that they know will have a decent amortization over a given life span (time frame).
Given that the new LMP rules are going all coupe, then these could even serve as a new basis for the new DP in the merged ALMS/GARRA series utilizing gen 3 body works. While still being cost capped!

Maybe Oreca as the tub constructor?? They have proven they can mfg volume with the FLM 09.



L.P.

[joeb]

Really not that bad of an idea Horndawg. If something like this were to happen in the combined US series it wouldn't be terrible, although it would be better in my opinion to allow a limited number of different tubs - kind of like GA has with the DP's now.

[davehenrie]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

The P-2 cost capping answer could be simple, yet no one wants to hear it. Make a common P-2 tub, bulkhead to footbox with the ability to bolt on various roof lines and set that tech, spec for a 10 year period.

L.P.

Congratulations, you just invented the DP. Brilliant!

dh

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by joeb

Really not that bad of an idea Horndawg. If something like this were to happen in the combined US series it wouldn't be terrible, although it would be better in my opinion to allow a limited number of different tubs - kind of like GA has with the DP's now.

My thought was not for the purpose of limiting constructors, but to facilitate a viable cost capped P-2 class that actually allowed a wider range of builders and brand activation. Having multiple constructors would lessen its cost efectiveness for them all as a whole, IMO.



L.P.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by davehenrie

Congratulations, you just invented the DP. Brilliant!

dh

I actually do not have a problem with that comment, sorry. The DP idea is not that bad, it just could use a little tweaking to make it a viable solution. In Practice it pretty much already exists in P-2 with the base tubs employed by the current constructors for the class. They are just made of CF instead of all tubing.








L.P.

[Maelochs]

So the answer is a faster LMPC class? That's the best we can come up with?

I agree the tub regs should be guaranteed utilizable for a minimum five years (as was pointed oput, tubs might not last longer than that anyway without safety issues due to wear.) But demanding a spec tub---would certainly not please some constructors.

Sure, a lot of cars were built off the Courage and Lola tubs, but Honda, Bailey ... if I recall the new Morgan/Oak are not. Would constructors really want to invest in a new spec class? Would fans really want to watch it?

You can say "DPs are not such a bad idea," but only if you ignore the fact that no one watches them. What ALMS brings to the table in the merger is Fans. GA brings cash and a reasonable management system.

ALMS had fans because it had Cars. Real cars, not kit cars. Cars that fans cared about

The only reason ALMS failed was because it didn't have any cash to spend on serious promo, and tried to grab all the cash it could which choked the teams. Had the series been properly capitalized, GA would be history.

It is indeed possible to build cheap cars, but if no one cares about them, they become expensive because they generate no revenue. Right now racing in general generates very little revenue, because series are figuring out how to monetize the web and deal with lower TV exposure--and a flat global economy.

Going to a formula no one cares about is not the answer. If DPs were a good idea, GA wouldn't have needed NASCAR life support.

I saw more fans at PLM on Wednesday than I have seen at all the GA races I have attended over several years. Somehow I don't think a new generation of DPs is the answer we all seek.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Maelochs

So the answer is a faster LMPC class? That's the best we can come up with?

I agree the tub regs should be guaranteed utilizable for a minimum five years (as was pointed oput, tubs might not last longer than that anyway without safety issues due to wear.) But demanding a spec tub---would certainly not please some constructors.

Sure, a lot of cars were built off the Courage and Lola tubs, but Honda, Bailey ... if I recall the new Morgan/Oak are not. Would constructors really want to invest in a new spec class? Would fans really want to watch it?

You can say "DPs are not such a bad idea," but only if you ignore the fact that no one watches them. What ALMS brings to the table in the merger is Fans. GA brings cash and a reasonable management system.

ALMS had fans because it had Cars. Real cars, not kit cars. Cars that fans cared about

The only reason ALMS failed was because it didn't have any cash to spend on serious promo, and tried to grab all the cash it could which choked the teams. Had the series been properly capitalized, GA would be history.

It is indeed possible to build cheap cars, but if no one cares about them, they become expensive because they generate no revenue. Right now racing in general generates very little revenue, because series are figuring out how to monetize the web and deal with lower TV exposure--and a flat global economy.

Going to a formula no one cares about is not the answer. If DPs were a good idea, GA wouldn't have needed NASCAR life support.

I saw more fans at PLM on Wednesday than I have seen at all the GA races I have attended over several years. Somehow I don't think a new generation of DPs is the answer we all seek.

Hmm, maybe you should read it again! Nowhere did it state that anything other than the tub be spec. The FLM 09 is a completely spec car/class which is not what I proposed at all.





L.P.

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Hmm, maybe you should read it again! Nowhere did it state that anything other than the tub be spec. The FLM 09 is a completely spec car/class which is not what I proposed at all.

Even that would annoy manufacturers, it's a similar idea to the Indycar bolt-on body kit idea, and that one (to put it mildly) has not even had a good start yet.