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

[TF110]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Sloping fins were already illegal in 2012. See article 3.6.4.b of http://www.mulsannescorner.com/2012LMP12.pdf (p. 17).

You misunderstood me. I said I was hoping it would be allowed. I realize they aren't allowed now, that's why I said that.

[Pandamasque]

Originally Posted by gregtummer

They had the full fin for a year or two and now it is the tapered fin.

Graham Goodwin said that they are for different purposes, but F1 goes 215mph at Monza and has a tapered fin, so I don't see what the problem is?

F1 cars have rather different aero profile, they don't take off at large yaw angles (i.e. while spinning). F1 fins were introduced by various teams (not mandated!) probably to improve the performance of the rear wing at slight yaw, and later used to implement rear wing blowing (F-ducts etc.). Later these fins were limited to this kind of length in an attempt to ban blown wings.

I assume LMP regulators are adamant that having smoothly integrated (and better-looking) fins would reduce their efficiency in terms of creating higher pressure over the top surface of the bodywork to prevent spinning cars from lifting. I suppose the current 'garage door' design keeps the air from 'leaking' over the car much better than F1-like fins would.

I'm not sure how 'roof flaps' can be implemented on LMP cars, but the key issue is with the underfloor, which is barely altered by 2014 regs. That's a huge opportunity missed in terms of improving safety and aero (and thus fuel) efficiency of prototypes! Everyone is so hyped about the DeltaWing's efficient aero, but the LMP regulations just wouldn't allow that.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by Pandamasque

F1 cars have rather different aero profile, they don't take off at large yaw angles (i.e. while spinning). F1 fins were introduced by various teams (not mandated!) probably to improve the performance of the rear wing at slight yaw, and later used to implement rear wing blowing (F-ducts etc.). Later these fins were limited to this kind of length in an attempt to ban blown wings.

I assume LMP regulators are adamant that having smoothly integrated (and better-looking) fins would reduce their efficiency in terms of creating higher pressure over the top surface of the bodywork to prevent spinning cars from lifting. I suppose the current 'garage door' design keeps the air from 'leaking' over the car much better than F1-like fins would.

I'm not sure how 'roof flaps' can be implemented on LMP cars, but the key issue is with the underfloor, which is barely altered by 2014 regs. That's a huge opportunity missed in terms of improving safety and aero (and thus fuel) efficiency of prototypes! Everyone is so hyped about the DeltaWing's efficient aero, but the LMP regulations just wouldn't allow that.

Yes, apples to oranges comparing F1 fins to LMP...and all the data says taller is better in terms of yaw-lift reduction.

Roof flaps are all well and good, but yes, how would you write the rule to accommodate very different cars and shapes?

Finally someone gets it Re: regulations and efficiency...regulations drive efficiency. No regulations (or limited cherry picking)? Guess what, fast AND efficient car...DW is no miracle car.

There are some minor changes to the 2013 aero rules that I'm following up on and will write up this weekend.

[Puzzle]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

Yes, apples to oranges comparing F1 fins to LMP...and all the data says taller is better in terms of yaw-lift reduction.

Roof flaps are all well and good, but yes, how would you write the rule to accommodate very different cars and shapes?

Finally someone gets it Re: regulations and efficiency...regulations drive efficiency. No regulations (or limited cherry picking)? Guess what, fast AND efficient car...DW is no miracle car.

There are some minor changes to the 2013 aero rules that I'm following up on and will write up this weekend.

very looking forward to your comments they are always insightfful

[gwyllion]

Laurent Chauveau also had a look at the 2014 rules: http://86400.fr/articles/232-regleme...ion-esthetique
He is also disappointed that the chassis rules are only an evolution of the current rules.

He made two drawings that highlight the dimensions of the 2014 LMP1 cars:


He clearly marks the area where the front wing is allowed.

Contrarily to Mike he seems to think that the two air extractor options (hole on top of fender or hole on side of fender) can be combined.

[Lorenzo S]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

He clearly marks the area where the front wing is allowed.

From the text it looks like stick on Jaguar XJR14 style wings will be possible.

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Contrarily to Mike he seems to think that the two air extractor options (hole on top of fender or hole on side of fender) can be combined.

The text in the draft regulations isn't that clear but it does specify:

Cut-outs on the front and rear wheels arches are compulsory.
They must comply with one [my emphasis] of the following options:

which is option 1 (on top) or option two (on the side) of the wheel arch. It doesn't specify anywhere that both options may be chosen together. I'm hoping the second option will be more popular as they are not visible from the front, rear or above.

[Pandamasque]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Identique aux P1 actuels?! Huh? I thought the cockpits were to become wider. C'est domage.

[gwyllion]

According to Mike the cockpit will be a bit wider:

The ACO talked a lot about improving efficiency, and in regards to the chassis rules the primary move towards that appears to be the reduction in the maximum width from the traditional 2000 mm to 1900 mm (Art 3.1.4). This will result in a small frontal area reduction, something along the lines of 2-3%. But this will be coupled with an 30 mm increase in cockpit height (Art 3.3.1), as well as an increase in cockpit width given the new-for-2014 cockpit visibility templates.

source: http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newssept12.html

[TWRv12]

Originally Posted by Pandamasque

Identique aux P1 actuels?! Huh? I thought the cockpits were to become wider. C'est domage.

Always thought it was a mistake not being able to put to seats in.

[Pandamasque]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

According to Mike the cockpit will be a bit wider:
source: http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newssept12.html

I really hope so. A narrower car with a taller yet narrow greenhouse will look a lot like you know what.

[Victor_RO]

What about the fender holes? I understood from what someone said a while ago that the constructors have a choice of putting the holes over the wheels (like this year) or on the inside of the wheel well (a la GT-One and R8C), is that still the case?

[trickyd]

I would have thought, for the visibility rules, it would have been a good idea to stipulate that the greenhouses should be completely 'glass' or perpex or whatever the windows are made out of, from about in line with where the driver sits forward, like on a Jaguar XJR-14 or Pug 905, with nothing that could block the drivers view forward. Rather than the little hatches that they look through now which seem to severly restrict peripheral vision. I hope that makes sense. Have any regulations to that affect been made?

[Lorenzo S]

Originally Posted by Victor_RO

What about the fender holes? I understood from what someone said a while ago that the constructors have a choice of putting the holes over the wheels (like this year) or on the inside of the wheel well (a la GT-One and R8C), is that still the case?

See my post at the top!

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by Lorenzo S

See my post at the top!

Oh right, missed it. Wider greenhouse (relative to the car), narrower tires and slots on the inside of the fender... that sounds very Toyota GT-One to me.

[Lorenzo S]

Originally Posted by trickyd

I would have thought, for the visibility rules, it would have been a good idea to stipulate that the greenhouses should be completely 'glass' or perpex or whatever the windows are made out of, from about in line with where the driver sits forward, like on a Jaguar XJR-14 or Pug 905, with nothing that could block the drivers view forward. Rather than the little hatches that they look through now which seem to severly restrict peripheral vision. I hope that makes sense. Have any regulations to that affect been made?

Vision templates that must fit inside the cockpit have been specified. See the FIA regs pdf (hosted by mulsanne mike), drawings 7, 8, 9 and 10.

[TF110]

3 cm is around two finger widths wider. It's not a huge difference. I did notice 7 forward gears will be allowed though!

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by Lorenzo S

Vision templates that must fit inside the cockpit have been specified. See the FIA regs pdf (hosted by mulsanne mike), drawings 7, 8, 9 and 10.

See the accompanying text break down too (October 15 entry):

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newssept12.html

[CTD]

A recent think back over the different accident we have had at Le Mans made me realize something, which I think could be an interesting topic of discussion in here:
Previously when major accidents occurred, the ACO had a tendency to change the track layout (more recently: chicanes and removal of the "hill" after the Mulsanne kink)
Today ACO's main focus isn't on the track layout as much as it's the aero of the cars. The last 5 years of "flights" leading to the BHF's and BHH's.

Both ways has received a lot of critique, but what is actually the best choice of the two "evils"?:
1. Change of Track Layout
2. Change of Car design

[Pandamasque]

Sorry, but this comparison makes no sense, to be honest. Changing the track layout (which I'd be strongly opposed to anyway) won't keep LMPs from flying in certain conditions, unless they only race on the go-kart tracks. Sometimes a particular feature of a racetrack is too prone to create dangerous accidents. This is not the case.

[Simmi]

You don't need to change the layout but Le Mans will continue to be nipped and tucked to bring it into line with current safety trends.

Arnage this year. Next will be the run-off on the Karting curve I believe. The real thing I don't want to see is them go right back through the Porsche Curves and move the wall out.

[gregtummer]

If they are going to justify keeping the big honkin' fin and the big honkin' holes, then they should move the target lap time to 3min 20 seconds (200 seconds).

And yes, I do want them to run at 2008 and 2010 speeds.

[gregtummer]

On John Dagys twitter, someone linked to these 2 articles suggesting Hybrids have been given a weight increase from 850kgs to 870kgs.

http://www.86400.fr/articles/234-reg...te-energetique

http://www.endurance-info.com/versio...nce-14618.html

I can't read French so maybe someone here can fill us in.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by gregtummer

On John Dagys twitter, someone linked to these 2 articles suggesting Hybrids have been given a weight increase from 850kgs to 870kgs.

http://www.86400.fr/articles/234-reg...te-energetique

http://www.endurance-info.com/versio...nce-14618.html

I can't read French so maybe someone here can fill us in.

The one article seems to suggest minimums overall have been moved up 20 kgs. So 850 for the privateers and 870 for hybrids (compared to 830 and 850 on the Draft 4 regulations).

[TF110]

IMO it should be 800kg for Hybrids and 750kg for non. That'll help with efficiency!

[Laurent]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

The one article seems to suggest minimums overall have been moved up 20 kgs. So 850 for the privateers and 870 for hybrids (compared to 830 and 850 on the Draft 4 regulations).

I can confirm that the teams have recently received Draft 5 regulations : 850 for no-ERS and 870 for ERS.