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

[MyNameIsNigel]

The Endurance Committee has issued clarifications regarding brake scoops in anticipation of the 2015 season. It looks like the ACO-FIA will apply Article 3.4, first sentence, of the LMP1 Technical Regulations more strictly (brake scoops being confirmed as "mechanical components"):

As viewed from above (plan view), in side elevation, from the front and from the rear, the bodywork must not allow mechanical components to be seen, unless explicitly authorised by the present regulations

There are also further EoT revisions for the LMP1-L category in anticipation of the Fuji race (1.5l increase in fuel tank capacity + comparatively greater fuel energy allocation).

[TF110]

104.9kg/h stays the same. Fuel tank capacity was 73.5L at Austin- 75L at Fuji. Fuel energy is 62.6mj/lap for 6mj class & 81.7mj/lap for Privateers at Austin down to 51.9mj/lap for 6mj class & 70mj/lap for Privateers at Fuji. 33mm refueling is the same.

Edit- % difference from lmp1-H/lmp1-L petrol energy alone increased from 26.47% @Austin to 29.69% @Fuji.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Comparing the fuel energy allocation figures for the LMP1-L category between COTA and Fuji, the fuel energy allocation is increased by about 3.5%

At COTA, the fuel energy allocation figure was 81.7 MJ/lap. Considering the relevant track lengths (COTA: 5.513 km / Fuji: 4.563 km), that figure would amount to approximately 67.6 MJ/lap (= 81.7 * 4.563 / 5.513) at Fuji. According to the last EoT adjustments, the fuel energy allocation is increased to 70 MJ/lap (i.e. by approximately 3.5%).

Combined with the slightly greater fuel tank capacity (+ 2%), that should allow the LMP1-L guys to burn more fuel without compromising stint length too much.

[JoestForEver]

Isn't the EoT adjustment only allowed once a year after Le Mans and fixed until the next Le Mans 24? Or this rule only applies to LMP1-H inter-group adjustments?
I'm a bit worried that EoT might go to the old way of BoP---ACO playing with numbers at every event.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by JoestForEver

Isn't the EoT adjustment only allowed once a year after Le Mans and fixed until the next Le Mans 24? Or this rule only applies to LMP1-H inter-group adjustments?
I'm a bit worried that EoT might go to the old way of BoP---ACO playing with numbers at every event.

EoT is revised only once a year after LM in respect of the various LMP1-H classes. The ACO-FIA reserve the right to make specific adjustments in the LMP1-L class pursuant to Article 17 of the Sporting Regulations.

[TF110]

I hope Lotus is strong(er) here. Rossiter should have an advantage with his Super GT experience. Plus theyre a turbo engine'd car, which should do well at Fuji's higher altitude.

[MyNameIsNigel]

The revised LMP1 Technical Regulations have now been published. The various changes are highlighted in yellow in the document.

There are some major changes in the form of additional restrictions regarding movable bodywork elements. This is evidently targeting the "questionnable" aerodynamic solutions that have been raced this year.

There are also further restrictions in respect of the location and configuration of the exhaust outlet(s), which changes are in particular aimed at limiting interactions with the rear diffuser.

I have to say that the technical framework is starting to be excessively complicated.

[TF110]

Article 10.3.2 seemingly says that all lmp1's have to have fog lights on the rear wing endplates. Also of note is article 17.5.1 allowing for external cameras to be above the body height limit.

[deggis]

So, no sign of Nissan lobbying anything there? Relief.

[MyNameIsNigel]

in view of the rule revisions, Audi will have to modify the exhaust outlet configuration of their LM package. The existing solution appears to be in contradiction with the new provisions.

I would also expect Toyota to revise the manner in which the rear wing is attached to the chassis. The existing solution was evidently designed with a view to allow pivoting/deflection of the rear wing main plane.

[TF110]

I dont think so. As long as its rigidly attached and it doesnt exceed the measured amount in the deflection tests, why would they? The rewrite in the latest revision is there so no one tries to do something like that again.

In the sporting regs, the ballast for average driver weight is going to take effect for those under 176lbs./80kg. Then theres an imposed tire limit of 6 sets per 6hr race except Bahrain and Shanghai with 8 sets. Lmp1-L is dropped as a seperate class as well.

[carbon_titanium]

If am I not wrong, on endurance-info is reported that because of new regs. toyota, audi and porsche can use max 5 engines per car for all the season long, while nissan can use 7

[TF110]

Yup. The a "new" engine make is allowed 7 per year vs 5 for continuing makes not including official tests.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

I dont think so. As long as its rigidly attached and it doesnt exceed the measured amount in the deflection tests, why would they?

The 2014 solution was evidently designed with the movable/flexible rear wing in mind. I guess they might revert back to a more conventional solution with the rear wing end plates attaching to the bodywork, rather than to the cheese wedges directly, especially if the current solution does not bring any aero benefit.

[TF110]

Duplicate

[TF110]

If that were the case, why not just redo the rear end after LM? The slimmer rear body should reduce drag, something the Nissan rumors are suggesting.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by TF110

If that were the case, why not just redo the rear end after LM? The slimmer rear body should reduce drag, something the Nissan rumors are suggesting.

The limited budget may explain why Toyota did not bother redesigning the entire rear end after LM. Time will tell if Toyota will stick with their current rear wing mounting solution. I expect a more conventional solution next year.

[Bandicoot17]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

The limited budget may explain why Toyota did not bother redesigning the entire rear end after LM.

Or perhaps a redesign was just not worth it. Say they were 'losing' 0.1 seconds a lap with the current wing setup (locked wing, gains were obviously made with the flexi one) over a traditional one. They usually had a major advantage over a stint length so spending x amount to regain a tenth would just be pointless. If they were losing a load of time then they would have redesigned it, plain and simple.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by carbon_titanium

If am I not wrong, on endurance-info is reported that because of new regs. toyota, audi and porsche can use max 5 engines per car for all the season long, while nissan can use 7

Correct, sporting regs, page 36: http://www.fia.com/sport/championshi..._category%3A95

This limitation seems to be all new for 2015. 2014 regs only said what it now says for GT Pro and Am: same engine used in qual and race, making the limit practically 8.

I wonder how many engines (races only, since the rule excludes all testing) did they use this year. I bet this limit is just going to get lower and lower even if more races are added.

[carbon_titanium]

well, it should not be a big issue if we consider that the current engines used during LM week must to work for about 6000km or more (race + 10 hours available between free practice and qual sessions). Guess that firts unit can be used for silverstone and spa races, with a new fresh second one only for LM.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by carbon_titanium

well, it should not be a big issue if we consider that the current engines used during LM week must to work for about 6000km or more (race + 10 hours available between free practice and qual sessions).

LM supplementary regs have had their own rule about this and this year there was no limit for P1 (iirc before it was 2 engines for the week).

http://www.24h-lemans.com/wpphpFichi...ns.pdf#page=23

Not sure if there is going to be an exception now because the new rule specifically says "Engine use is limited to 5 engines for the complete season (all race events)".

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by deggis

Not sure if there is going to be an exception now because the new rule specifically says "Engine use is limited to 5 engines for the complete season (all race events)".

This would imply not wouldn't it

Penalty for using an additional engine:
Stop and go for 3 minutes on 6 hour events and stop and go for 5 minutes at the Le Mans 24 Hours, carried out during the race by order of the Race Director in the first half of the race.

Anyway obviously all of them will still continue to ditch the P+Q engine(s) for brand new fresh one at LM in time for morning warm-up, LM prospects are far more important than some championship.

If you'd only do LM-only you can have three engines for the event... helps things a little bit

For the non- permanent LMP1 competitors in the FIA World Endurance Championship (race by race entry):
A maximum of 2 engines can be used for free practice, qualifying practice and the race. A third engine (joker engine) is authorised. Should this third engine be used, the use of the first two engines is no longer authorised

[JoestForEver]

With that, IMO, ACO is opening a can of worms. What should be defined as engine? Is partial repair and replacement of parts regarded as a new one or not ?
Is ERS part of the engine or they can use whatever they want?
Sad to see a once hopeful regulation ruined by following every piece of stupid restriction F1 uses, from Grade 1 obsession to test limits, now aero and engines?

[Deleted]

It's the sad price you pay for becoming popular in the world of FIA

(awaiting deggis's inevitable response saying "yes let's blame FIA for everything" etc)

[Pontlieue]

FIA adding more and more restrictions. I wonder how they get the idea that the same things that didn't work in F1 will work in sportscars?