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

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by JoestForEver

As published lately, ACO/FIA decides the fuel type should be E20/B10 diesel(base bio 10%). Source:http://www.fia.com/sites/default/fil..._2014_fuel.pdf
For convenience and data availability, we refer to B20 diesel for energy density per kg.
http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/heavyvehic...-biodiesel.pdf shows B20 is 2% down on energy comparing with petroleum diesel at 38.6MJ/L
http://www.biodiesel.org/docs/ffs-ba...5.pdf?sfvrsn=6 shows the density of B20 is 0.856
http://psrcentre.org/images/extraimages/212181.pdf reveals the energy density of E20 at 15 degrees Celsius is 32.43 MJ/L with 0.7541 kg/L.

As a result, the ED(petrol) and ED(diesel) in the formula of FTF should be 43MJ/kg and 44.19 MJ/kg respectively.

Your assumptions differ considerably from the numbers in the early drafts of the regulations.

Tank Volumes and Fuel technology factor are calculated with the following values and could be adjusted should the fuel characteristics and engine actual performance be modified ( For Petrol (2014 20% bio) : 220 g/kwh, 0.756 kg/l and 39.55 MJ/kg // For Diesel (2014 10% bio) : 195 g/kwh, 0.832 kg/l and 42.31 MJ/kg).

source: http://www.mulsannescorner.com/2014%...28,%202012.pdf

[chernaudi]

Also compared to last season, Audi are taking a 3.7 liter fuel capacity hit (54.3 vs 58 last year), while Toyota are taking about 4.7 liter hit compared to last year 68.3 vs 73 liters at the start of last season, Porsche would've had the same fuel capacity last season if they raced).

As Gaspar mentioned, Toyota and Porsche will have to rely more on energy recovery under braking, while Audi will have a more efficient engine. Dealing with traffic in race conditions will help Audi more than Toyota or Porsche IMO. In traffic, you can use it to save fuel, while if you're Toyota or Porsche, you do sort of have to worry about getting stacked up effecting the efficiency of the energy harvesting under braking.

You also have to remember that diesel fuel had 10-12% more energy per unit than gasoline did. And now that all the gasoline engined runners have to run E10, that's more in favor of the diesel engine.

And does the WEC's Shell fuel differ from the TUSCC series' VP fuel? The VP fuel is E10, but it seems that the Shell fuel is E20. If there's more ethanol in the Shell fuel, that's less energy, because you have to burn more ethanol to equal the energy content of straight gasoline.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Decision 14-D0010-LMP1-EoT is now accessible on-line on the FIA website.

[JoestForEver]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

Your assumptions differ considerably from the numbers in the early drafts of the regulations.
source: http://www.mulsannescorner.com/2014%...28,%202012.pdf

As the FIA decision required, Shell provides E20 petrol and bio base 10% diesel for all entries in WEC. The data I found in the previous post is calculated given a temperature of 15 degrees Celsius and I have no idea of the temperature in the ACO assumption.
The diesel case data difference can partly be explained by this: I was using 20% bio diesel instead of 10%, for I cannot get energy density for B10

Dear Competitors,

We would like to confirm that the fuel for 2014 is on E20 basis (petrol engine) & base bio 10% (diesel engine).

The fuel will be used as from Le Castellet tests.
Source:http://www.fia.com/sites/default/fil..._2014_fuel.pdf

Since the new fuel isn't used until Paul Ricard test, I believe it's normal that the figures deviate from original calculation.

[JoestForEver]

Originally Posted by GasperG

Isn't electric motor rated only at 250 HP? Is that 2.0 Turbo producing 1000 HP alone?

I think all those numbers are irrelevant when you add fuel flow restriction. If the BSFC numbers circling around here are true, then we can calculate:

Petrol: 89,000 g/h / 220 g/kw*h = 404 kW
Diesel: 80,200 g/h / 195 g/kw*h = 411 kW

The engines are therefore restricted to around 550 HP, they are all a bit oversized to produce better fuel economy.

Is there a source for BSFC figures? You can calculate the ratio of BSFC petrol and diesel based on the latest EoT decision, but at least a BSFC is needed to figure out the other one :P

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by JoestForEver

Is there a source for BSFC figures? You can calculate the ratio of BSFC petrol and diesel based on the latest EoT decision, but at least a BSFC is needed to figure out the other one :P

The only source can be found in draft V04 of the LMP1 regulations where the BSFC figures were explicitly quoted at the time, namely:
- 220 g/kWh for petrol (2012-spec fuel, 20% bio, with a density of 0.756 kg/l and an energy density of 39.55 MJ/kg)
- 195 g/kWh for diesel (2012-spec fuel, 10% bio, with a density of 0.832 kg/l and an energy density of 42.31 MJ/kg)
leading to the FTF value of 1.055 at the time.

The actual BSFC figures are known to the manufacturers but will be kept confidential according to the EoT-related decision 13-D0031-LMP1:

The values of BSFC (and weights necessary for KTF and ERS incentive eventual adjustments) would be confidential but disclosed to the other manufacturers

Ultimately, it does not really matter what the actual BSFC figures are in each fuel class. It is sufficient to know what the ratio of the diesel efficiency over petrol efficiency is (i.e. the "FTF average") as this is used to equalize the fuel energy allocations for the best-in-class diesel engine (i.e. Audi) and the best-in-class petrol engine (i.e. Porsche or Toyota... or AER as the case may be). Whatever the actual fuel efficiency of petrol is, we know that the fuel efficiency of diesel is 107.4% of that of petrol, based on the revised Appendix figures which are based on data provided by the manufacturers last February.

[ger80]

So energy per lap increased for petrol and reduced for diesel?
They should have written some numbers down 2 years ago and stuck with them. then everybody would have build the car to these numbers....

[TF110]

Originally Posted by ger80

So energy per lap increased for petrol and reduced for diesel?
They should have written some numbers down 2 years ago and stuck with them. then everybody would have build the car to these numbers....

Its not hard to alter the numbers with fuel flow and allowance. Rightfully so they reduced Diesels energy per lap. There is still a huge gap in fuel technologies and they wont be equal, but they should be close.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

Its not hard to alter the numbers with fuel flow and allowance. Rightfully so they reduced Diesels energy per lap. There is still a huge gap in fuel technologies and they wont be equal, but they should be close.

The last revisions undertaken in Appendix B are supposed to ensure a strict equality between petrol and diesel. They are not "close" but supposed to be on equal terms. These new Appendix B numbers are based on data last provided by the manufacturers in February this year. There is objectively no reason to believe that diesel still benefit of an advantage over petrol. Diesel engines are more efficient than petrol engines (that's a fact) and this difference is being duly accounted for in the latest revisions. Audi, Porsche and Toyota will have to work with basically the same effective amount of energy. The ACO-FIA have basically kept their promise. That's a good thing.

Only exception are the privateers running in the LMP1-L class, which have a comparatively greater amount of effective energy to play with. The ACO-FIA appear to be willing to "help" the privateers. Another explicit promise made by the ACO-FIA. One of the six "pillars" of the new regulations.

The winner is going to be the one that manages to clock fast times while operating reliably and consistently, close to the relevant fuel efficiency target (and get through the duration of the race, without any major incident, as always…). I am really looking forward to seeing how this translates into practice.

Audi could "complain" in view of the reduction in fuel energy allocation and maximum instantaneous fuel flow rate, but - having now seen the revised Appendix B figures - I objectively see no reason for them to complain, unless they have been too optimistic with the BSFC numbers that they provided to the ACO-FIA.

[JoestForEver]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

The only source can be found in draft V04 of the LMP1 regulations where the BSFC figures were explicitly quoted at the time, namely:
- 220 g/kWh for petrol (2012-spec fuel, 20% bio, with a density of 0.756 kg/l and an energy density of 39.55 MJ/kg)
- 195 g/kWh for diesel (2012-spec fuel, 10% bio, with a density of 0.832 kg/l and an energy density of 42.31 MJ/kg)
leading to the FTF value of 1.055 at the time.

The actual BSFC figures are known to the manufacturers but will be kept confidential according to the EoT-related decision 13-D0031-LMP1:


Ultimately, it does not really matter what the actual BSFC figures are in each fuel class. It is sufficient to know what the ratio of the diesel efficiency over petrol efficiency is (i.e. the "FTF average") as this is used to equalize the fuel energy allocations for the best-in-class diesel engine (i.e. Audi) and the best-in-class petrol engine (i.e. Porsche or Toyota... or AER as the case may be). Whatever the actual fuel efficiency of petrol is, we know that the fuel efficiency of diesel is 107.4% of that of petrol, based on the revised Appendix figures which are based on data provided by the manufacturers last February.

If that's the case, then a BSFC ratio of Petrol/Diesel equals 1.128, which is larger than 1.104 or 1.09 depending on which FTFaverage figure are you using. (14-D0010 and 13-D0031 respectively).
Source:http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...07659&page=229
Of course, if 39.55MJ/kg and 42.31MJ/kg instead of my data is used, the BSFC ratio would be 1.128, 1.135, 1.150 from 2013 to 2014.

[JoestForEver]

Sorry for multi-posting, but the content I came up with at the 919 thread is more relevant here.

According to the BSFC of 220 and 195, then a BSFC ratio of Petrol/Diesel equals 1.128, which is larger than 1.104 or 1.09 depending on which FTFaverage figure are you using. (14-D0010 and 13-D0031 respectively).
Source:http://tentenths.com/forum/show...07659&page=229
Of course, if 39.55MJ/kg and 42.31MJ/kg instead of my data is used, the BSFC ratio would be 1.128, 1.135, 1.150 from 2013 to 2014.
-------
A hindsight of the data would show the idea behind the EoT process. As a sole player, Audi is punished for leading in fuel efficiency while the regs do help Porsche and Toyota to catch up with it. In the meantime, there is still incentive for competition between Porsche and Toyota. The status quo won't change I'm afraid until another player joins the diesel camp.

[gwyllion]

220 g/kWh and 195 g/kWh were the targets originally set by the FIA. These numbers should because ignored because the latest revision is based on the actual BFSC numbers provided by the manufacturers. It appears that petrol did not meet the target and diesel might have surpassed it.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

220 g/kWh and 195 g/kWh were the targets originally set by the FIA. These numbers should because ignored because the latest revision is based on the actual BFSC numbers provided by the manufacturers. It appears that petrol did not meet the target and diesel might have surpassed it.

Which is no surprise imo.

No, @Nigel. They are not equal even after this adjustment and probably never will be. I know people believe they can. But to me thats wishful thinking. One or the other will have an advantage no matter what adjustments they make. But they are close, relative to the previous values.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

220 g/kWh and 195 g/kWh were the targets originally set by the FIA. These numbers should because ignored because the latest revision is based on the actual BFSC numbers provided by the manufacturers. It appears that petrol did not meet the target and diesel might have surpassed it.

That appears to be a fair assumption. 220 g/kWh was probably an optimistic target for petrol, while 195 g/kWh was assumed to be an "easy" target for diesel.

Originally Posted by TF110

No, @Nigel. They are not equal even after this adjustment and probably never will be. I know people believe they can. But to me thats wishful thinking. One or the other will have an advantage no matter what adjustments they make. But they are close, relative to the previous values.

They are supposed to be on equal terms in that the new Appendix B figures are based on actual 2014 data provided by the manufacturers. It's not wishful thinking at all. It is the result of the transparent EoT process put in place by the ACO-FIA.

As I've mentioned before, Audi have an advantage in that they are alone to define the relevant target in their own fuel class. They can therefore define a reasonable target for 2014, while keeping some further ability to improve their fuel efficiency for the upcoming years. That is the sole advantage they have.

The best-in-class in the petrol class defines the other part of the fuel equivalence equation, namely Porsche, Toyota or AER as the case may be. That is where a technology competition is actually taking place: Porsche vs. Toyota vs. AER for the best-in-class position.

There is objectively no reason to believe that the best-in-class diesel will have any advantage over the best-in-class petrol. They do benefit from basically the same overall energy allocation. That's a fact.

Now, energy equivalence is one thing. The ability to run consistently close to the fuel efficiency target, to make full use of the allocated fuel over each lap, to recover and release the maximum allowable hybrid energy, to handle traffic appropriately, to make good use of the tires, to avoid incidents, to run reliably, etc. are other variables of the winning equation.

[GasperG]

A little playing around with numbers calculating engine efficiency:
Petrol: 220 g/kwh @ 39.55 MJ/kg = 220 g/kwh @ 10.98 kWh/kg = 1/2.4156 = 41.3 %
Diesel: 195 g/kwh @ 42.31 MJ/kg = 195 g/kwh @ 11.753 kWh/kg = 1/2.292 = 43.6 %

Well some of those numbers are just probably not true. Those BSFC numbers are probably numbers from regular gasoline not E20?

[TF110]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

That appears to be a fair assumption. 220 g/kWh was probably an optimistic target for petrol, while 195 g/kWh was assumed to be an "easy" target for diesel.



They are supposed to be on equal terms in that the new Appendix B figures are based on actual 2014 data provided by the manufacturers. It's not wishful thinking at all. It is the result of the transparent EoT process put in place by the ACO-FIA.

As I've mentioned before, Audi have an advantage in that they are alone to define the relevant target in their own fuel class. They can therefore define a reasonable target for 2014, while keeping some further ability to improve their fuel efficiency for the upcoming years. That is the sole advantage they have.

The best-in-class in the petrol class defines the other part of the fuel equivalence equation, namely Porsche, Toyota or AER as the case may be. That is where a technology competition is actually taking place: Porsche vs. Toyota vs. AER for the best-in-class position.

There is objectively no reason to believe that the best-in-class diesel will have any advantage over the best-in-class petrol. They do benefit from basically the same overall energy allocation. That's a fact.

Now, energy equivalence is one thing. The ability to run consistently close to the fuel efficiency target, to make full use of the allocated fuel over each lap, to recover and release the maximum allowable hybrid energy, to handle traffic appropriately, to make good use of the tires, to avoid incidents, to run reliably, etc. are other variables of the winning equation.

Having near the same energy alloted does not make the cars equal, nor their fuel properties is what Im getting at. Thats why theres more than one "technology factor" at play. The efficiency on the diesel side is much easier to accomplish. I'm really surprised its as 'low' as ~44% efficiency. That should be no problem for Audi seeing as how their VAG diesel road cars are approaching 40-42%. I think Porsche and Toyota may be able to reach 40-41% with the hybrid power, but also believe Audi is actually above 45% and maybe all the teams are running conservatively. Lots of speculation sandbagging is still at work.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by GasperG

A little playing around with numbers calculating engine efficiency:
Petrol: 220 g/kwh @ 39.55 MJ/kg = 220 g/kwh @ 10.98 kWh/kg = 1/2.4156 = 41.3 %
Diesel: 195 g/kwh @ 42.31 MJ/kg = 195 g/kwh @ 11.753 kWh/kg = 1/2.292 = 43.6 %

That correspends with my calculations from 1.5 year ago See post #2502.

BTW If we assume that the goal of maximum fuel flow restriction is still to make 425 kW (see post #2497) for the LMP1-L class, we could estimate the BFSC for the two engine technologies:

• petrol: 100.9 kg/h / 425 kW = 237 g/kWh
• diesel: 84.6 kg/h / 425 kW = 199 g/kWh

This implies an engine efficiency of 38.4% for petrol and 42.8% for diesel, based on the energy density numbers from the draft.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

Having near the same energy alloted does not make the cars equal, nor their fuel properties is what Im getting at. Thats why theres more than one "technology factor" at play. The efficiency on the diesel side is much easier to accomplish. I'm really surprised its as 'low' as ~44% efficiency. That should be no problem for Audi seeing as how their VAG diesel road cars are approaching 40-42%. I think Porsche and Toyota may be able to reach 40-41% with the hybrid power, but also believe Audi is actually above 45% and maybe all the teams are running conservatively. Lots of speculation sandbagging is still at work.

The Fuel Technology Factor computed by the ACO-FIA on the basis of the actual data provided by the manufacturers does take into account both (i) the different BSFCs of the best-in-class petrol and diesel ICEs and (ii) the different properties of both fuels. The K Technology Factor further takes into account the fact that a diesel ICE weighs more than a comparable petrol ICE. All relevant parameters necessary to balance the petrol and diesel power-trains are therefore duly taken into consideration in Appendix B.

There is absolutely no ground to believe that any manufacturer is sandbagging, as far as the BSFC figures are concerned. Once again, the EoT process is a fully transparent process and a dissuasive penalty will be applied if any manufacturer has not been fully transparent and has tried to hide its true strength. In particular, if the actual BSFC figures measured in race conditions exceeds 2% of the BSFC figures communicated to the ACO-FIA, the dissuasive penalty will apply:

I. Dissuasive Penalty

The following principles will be applied for the 2014 Le Mans 24 Hours:

- If the FIA notices during the race that a car has an average or instantaneous (P max) BSFC exceeding what was announced in February by more than 2% (estimation of the maximum error of the sensors), and to the advantage of this car, the technical delegate shall inform the stewards, after which there will be an open debate with the competitor in order to propose to him a minimum stop and go penalty of 60 seconds (which can be extended at the discretion of the stewards according to the duration of the infringement noted, i.e. the time during which the competitor ran while exceeding the authorised values). The duration will be recorded on the basis of the on-board sensors (fuel flow meter and torque meter), information which will be available to the competitor.

- If the competitor accepts the penalty, official notification will be issued to the competitor and penalty will be applied. If the competitor then returns, until the end of the race, to the BSFC/KTF which he had announced, there will be no exclusion penalty; however, a fine could be imposed after the race on a manufacturer who has intentionally provided incorrect values in order to bias the EOT process.

- If the competitor refuses the penalty, the final classification will be published subject to further investigations, with possible exclusion following the race, further to detailed analysis between the FIA and the competitor: “dissuasive penalty”. The detailed post-race analysis could involve tests and inspections with the competitor or elsewhere (calibration sensor check), and will include an analysis of the other data at the disposal of the FIA (reverse engineering).

- If the FIA does not notice anything during the race, the “dissuasive penalty” cannot be applied after the race, except in the event of a serious sensor failure, noted during or after the race, and where the other data available to the FIA demonstrates that the car was running with an abnormal BSFC.

(source: EoT document, section I)

[MyNameIsNigel]

Talking about the "ERS Incentive", and after having closely examined the revised Appendix B, there is apparently nothing that validly substantiates the fear or claim that Audi will lose up to 2 seconds at LM compared to Porsche and Toyota, as argued in the articles issued by motorsport-total.com.

I rather believe that the "ERS incentive" is merely an assumption that each MJ of energy released by the hybrid system should be worth 0.5 sec per lap at LM in the performance of the car. Based on this assumption, Porsche's or Toyota's hybrid system would in theory be worth 3 seconds per lap at LM, while Audi's hybrid system would be worth 1 second per lap at LM.

The deficit in performance of Audi's hybrid system is however compensated to a large extent by the increased fuel allocation. Indeed, the difference in diesel fuel allocation between the 6 MJ/lap ERS option and the 2 MJ/lap ERS option is precisely 7 MJ/lap (138.7 - 131.7), which amounts to 3.15 MJ/lap of useful energy if one assumes a diesel efficiency of 45%. That is less than the 4 MJ/lap difference between the two ERS options, but the MGU efficiency is not 100% (probably around 95% or more).

There indeed seems to be a slight incentive to opt for the more powerful ERS options, but we know that this negatively impacts weight and therefore compromises weight distribution and car balance, especially in the case of diesel which suffers from a comparatively heavier engine.

In any event, the current figures in Appendix B demonstrate that the best-in-class diesel running in the 2 MJ/lap ERS category currently benefits from basically the same overall energy allocation as the best-in-class petrol running in the 6 MJ/lap ERS category.

No reason to complain then ?

[chernaudi]

And we also have to remember that the gasoline engined cars also have to deal with a fuel change. Shell provided E10 gasoline last year. Now the fuel is E20.

E10 has roughly 10% ethanol in it, which correspondingly means that E20 has about 20% ethanol content. This is a late change that it can be argued that if Audi feel that the adjustments threw a bit of a kink into their plans to use the BFC to their advantage while going faster, the same can also be said to apply to Toyota and Porsche with the switch to E20.

The major problem with ethanol is that it's not a very energy rich fuel. You have to burn 1/3 more ethanol to get the same energy as the same unit of gasoline. Ethanol has only about 66-70% the energy of gasoline per the same unit of measure. Toyota and Porsche's flat out fuel economy will suffer accordingly, especially if this was still a sonic air restrictor formula.

Maybe that's part of the reason for the pre-Prologue adjustments, the switch to a higher ethanol content fuel for gasoline engined runners. It should also be noted that bio-diesel doesn't take the same economy hit, and in fact, no appreciable changes seem to happen when using bio-diesel.

[JoestForEver]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

220 g/kWh and 195 g/kWh were the targets originally set by the FIA. These numbers should because ignored because the latest revision is based on the actual BFSC numbers provided by the manufacturers. It appears that petrol did not meet the target and diesel might have surpassed it.

Yes exactly. The best-in-class suites perfectly well when there is more than one manufacturer in the petrol/diesel group by creating a prisoners' dilemma, forcing everyone to push hard on efficiency. Now we just have to expect another diesel entry to stimulate Audi, the lazy elephant.

Speaking of which, as far as we can see from the engine displacement, Toyota doesn't even bother to try to improve their efficiency on the ICE, not because it's hard, but because they just don't care. No VVT or Direct Injection I believe, not knowing they are allowed now or not. The introduction of VVT and DI should save up to 10% fuel and a 10% performance boost. It might be come a price they have to pay before moaning again.

[chernaudi]

Variable valve timing is banned in LMP1, though Baretzky was pushing for it. Only way it was legal was when stock block engines were allowed in LMP1, but there's really no room for stock blocks in LMP1 due to competition/BoP reasons.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

And we also have to remember that the gasoline engined cars also have to deal with a fuel change. Shell provided E10 gasoline last year. Now the fuel is E20.

E10 has roughly 10% ethanol in it, which correspondingly means that E20 has about 20% ethanol content. This is a late change that it can be argued that if Audi feel that the adjustments threw a bit of a kink into their plans to use the BFC to their advantage while going faster, the same can also be said to apply to Toyota and Porsche with the switch to E20.

This "late change" was announced in June 2012.

Thermal engines

• 4-stroke piston engines (cost reduction – adaption to road-going use)
• Free cubic capacity for manufacturers, high turbo pressure (4 bars)(efficiency, adaption to road-going use)
• Cubic capacity limited to 5.5 litres for private teams (cost reduction)
• Power of the cars controlled by a homologated fuel flow metre (efficiency)
• Free air inlets: air restrictors cancelled, variable admission systems allowed (technological opportunities, efficiency, adaption to road-going use)
• Fuel injection pressure free (technological opportunities, efficiency, adaption to road-going use)
• Fuel: evolution to 2nd generation E20 bio fuels (currently E10) (sustainable development)
• Fuel: diesel or petrol (cost saving – adaption to road-going use)
• Possibility of an opening in the medium or long term to other sources of energy that have reached maturity (hydrogen, 100% electric) (technological opportunity)
• Very costly exotic materials and systems banned (electromagnetic valves) (cost reduction).

source: http://www.24h-lemans.com/wpphpFichi...ation_2014.pdf

[GasperG]

Why would any engine technology be banned? You have fuel flow limit, do with it whatever you can

[gwyllion]

The motivation is pretty clear: "very costly systems" are banned for cost reasons

The rules do allow some new technologies: variable intake manifold and trumpets, plasma or laser ignition, ...