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

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

I have posted this before, but why not imposing a weight handicap to the petrol cars to directly compensate for the additional weight of the diesel engine and get rid of the KTF altogether ? Wouldn't this be fairer or at least more transparent ?

Well it would be easier to see where everyone stands, but for the current equalizations in FTF, fuel fill/flow, tank size, etc. given nominal a weight a diesel engine will have much more torque which petrol engines could not "make up" with larger hybrids. Again you're left in the situation where something else has to be altered to make up for the deficit going the other way, if you will.

Richard has also pointed out how petrol teams could skirt round the extra ballast, or at least gain something back from it. Just like Audi could do now with respect to pushing their engine development (I am not suggesting that Audi are doing this however), the petrol teams could suddenly turn round and claim their simulations led them in the direction of portly petrol engines

It's a matter of picking your poison I'm afraid, and at least this way the ACO have left as many avenues open as reasonably possible to allow for the rapid development we are enjoying.

[MyNameIsNigel]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Ignoring the issue of fuel tank size for moment...

Would this be extra weight added after the car is able to make minimum weight? I think that is what you are saying?

Part of the KTF calculations is to use the best in class (based upon BSFC) engine to determine the weights of a petrol and diesel engine. That could be the basis for your weight penalty to be applied to the petrol car. But... if this is to end up adding weight beyond the minimum weight of the car, petrol teams would just increase the weight of the petrol engine to make it heavier so that the delta is zero and you get no extra weight penalty. And they would do this by adding weight in a way that might increase reliability vs. just ballasting up the engine.

Even then, to really do what you say, I think a better way is to define a minimum weight (with specific center of gravity) for the power unit. Teams could either ballast the unit to get to that spec, or a combo of ballast plus distributing the weight to help with reliability and maybe performance. I may not be remembering this correctly, but doesn't F1 specify a minimum weight and specific CG for their power units as way to try to keep teams from using extraordinary measures to reduce engine weight (such as exotic materials and expensive light weight ancillary components)???

Richard

PS: It should be said that this type of regulations is IMHO putting a box around designers along the path that has caused problems in F1, but has not in WEC.

I was rather thinking that the resulting weight handicap would be imposed as minimum ballast and be included as part of the minimum car weight imposed by the rules, thereby putting both "best-in-class" engines on par from a weight perspective.

[Ephaeton]

honestly, I don't understand the EoT premise. If diesel offers a better bang-for-the-pound, natural selection will favor diesel engines. If petrol does, petrol will be favored. There shouldn't be a need to build a frame that can hold the better and the worse choice in the picture in general. This is racing. Survival of the fastest (who survives to the finish line). If there's one better choice, why would you balance the worse choice. If, all things considered, things are pretty even, there's no need for balancing either. Set the car weight limit, and a fuel tank size (volume). Higher energy density on diesel fuel? well, go diesel then. Diesel engines weigh more? Well.. go petrol. But the torque? shut up already and make a choice and live with it. Why is that so hard?

With all that discussion, we're taking EoT (i.e., the aspiration of equivalence) for granted; I'd appreciate someone giving me a link to an explanation of the premise that different powerplants need to be equal. The first posts of this thread already link to ACO PR that takes equivalence for a given... TIA.

[TzeiTzei]

Originally Posted by Ephaeton

With all that discussion, we're taking EoT (i.e., the aspiration of equivalence) for granted; I'd appreciate someone giving me a link to an explanation of the premise that different powerplants need to be equal. The first posts of this thread already link to ACO PR that takes equivalence for a given... TIA.

I've got no links but I think I can give you an explanation: they want to keep the manufacturers happy.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Ephaeton

honestly, I don't understand the EoT premise. If diesel offers a better bang-for-the-pound, natural selection will favor diesel engines. If petrol does, petrol will be favored. There shouldn't be a need to build a frame that can hold the better and the worse choice in the picture in general. This is racing. Survival of the fastest (who survives to the finish line). If there's one better choice, why would you balance the worse choice. If, all things considered, things are pretty even, there's no need for balancing either. Set the car weight limit, and a fuel tank size (volume). Higher energy density on diesel fuel? well, go diesel then. Diesel engines weigh more? Well.. go petrol. But the torque? shut up already and make a choice and live with it. Why is that so hard?

With all that discussion, we're taking EoT (i.e., the aspiration of equivalence) for granted; I'd appreciate someone giving me a link to an explanation of the premise that different powerplants need to be equal. The first posts of this thread already link to ACO PR that takes equivalence for a given... TIA.

To try to answer your question as to why (balance) I did a quick Google search on something like "2014 WEC Rules" and one of the top links was...

http://www.fiawec.com/en/news/lmp1-2...d-gte_741.html

Is this definative as to what you are looking for? I can't say, but a key point IMHO in the "goal" behind the rules is the phrase...

"Power restricted by fuel flow"

Now you could take that at face value and make that the ONLY rule and set a flow limit, but it clearly was never intended to be that simple. Issues such as volumetric energy density, etc. was going to make it much more complex. If you tried to make it just as simple as "fuel flow" then one fuel was going to be clearly superior to the other. Diesel has a higher energy density, so flowing at the same rate, you will get more power out of a diesel. Anyone would be insane to run petrol. So why create rules that allow multiple fuels, with only one being the viable option?

They wanted to balance it so that you could potentially pick any fuel and still win.

Hence the complexity we have today. The rules "tries" to balance "energy", but gets caught up in other issues such as power plant weights.

As to the "this is racing" part... We can't confuse this with "pure" racing. This is racing + manufacture involvement. So if for some reasons rubber bands were included in the fuel options and it was clear that they were the best option, some manufactures may decide they don't care to go racing with rubber bands as it just doesn't match their public persona and what they are trying to say from a PR perspective. The rules are geared to support both diesel and petrol relatively equally, because that is what the big players (Audi, Porsche, etc.) wanted.

Richard

[Richard C]

Another key item from the document I link above is this phrase...

"All other new technology is potentially eligible under the condition it can be controlled, balanced, and road relevant"

Note the mention of "balanced". It's not about the best technology, but about balancing whatever technology is used.

Richard

[Deleted]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

As to the "this is racing" part... We can't confuse this with "pure" racing. This is racing + manufacture involvement. So if for some reasons rubber bands were included in the fuel options and it was clear that they were the best option, some manufactures may decide they don't care to go racing with rubber bands as it just doesn't match their public persona and what they are trying to say from a PR perspective. The rules are geared to support both diesel and petrol relatively equally, because that is what the big players (Audi, Porsche, etc.) wanted.

Yet if manufacturer would like to come and not run hybrid in their car because it wouldn't fit their public persona/strategy/whatever, they couldn't. But privateer team could choose either option.

This is what really makes no sense currently.

[Ephaeton]

I guess I'll settle for pleasing the manufacturers (d'oh, so obvious) although it's a very, very, very, very disappointing premise for all this mess.

If the extra diesel weight is offset by the extra energy in all cases, well, we should be seeing diesels only IMHO.
Porsche is no diesel manufacturer, but I don't doubt them capable of developing a diesel engine that rocks. (substitute Porsche for any non-Audi LMP1 involved manufacturer). Aww well..

[TF110]

I dont wanna see all diesels. Neither do the fans, nor the aco. I still feel like this ruling is bogus. It (imo) is to try and compensate lower mj classes and diesel running less laps per stint. Thats how I view the adjustment. Porsche better come with some super strong high d/f package. Toyota arent going to bother with this year's car and Nissan probably wont be back this year. Rebellion and Kolles will be in no-mans land as usual.

[Ephaeton]

You don't wanna see all diesels .. but if it's the better race engine, why not?
I suppose you were fine with seeing all mid engined rear drive cars until Nissan arrived at the scene, as it was just the platform evolution steered towards.
Now, one could also attack that technology gap and equalize it as well. (no no no no NO! stop it! This was just an illustration of the perceived arbitrariness on my end of specifically equalizing engine/fuel tech, and not, say, super chargers vs. batteries, or front-drive vs. rear-drive or ...)

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Ephaeton

You don't wanna see all diesels .. but if it's the better race engine, why not?

By what definition are diesels better race engines? In my simple example above in which the only restriction is fuel flow AND with diesel and petrol being the ONLY available fuels then yes, diesel can produce more energy per unit of time than petrol and could be said to be "better". Why not open it up to other fuels that have even higher energy density per weight such as natural gas or hydrogen? Those would be even better using my scoring method above (fuel storage might be a problem, but we are just talking about the engine)

And... the current WEC rules are specifically designed to balance out combustion power technology. Fuel selection is NOT supposed to give any overall advantage over another. However given all of the pros and cons for each fuel, it is a tough problem to solve as the various pros and cons of each are sometimes not subtle.

There is nothing wrong with having a personal preference with respect to technology when there are A, B, C options.

Richard

[TF110]

Replying from the Nurburgring thread here...

Originally Posted by Chiana

FIA might just well then say "everyone run 8MJ that's an order". Same effect

Everyone is trying for 8mj anyway, aren't they? Not getting your point with that statement. What youre ignoring was there was an incentive to run higher mj classes to begin with. To promote less reliance on fossil fuels was the reason for the drop in consumption and introducing the new rules. So if thats the case, 8mj is the target and should be encouraged, not the opposite.

[Deleted]

I know that the incentive towards higher classes has existed from the beginning, what with the whole well documented Audi ERS debacle in the spring of 2014. But it has been very, very light so far. 8MJ (or soon 10MJ?) is the desirable destination, however there are still definite advantages and disadvantages for every ERS class out there, it is not required to be up at the top there. That is why not everyone has jumped the ship right upwards yet. However, if highest ERS was clearly favored over everything else, there would be no point in screwing around with anything lower (unless you are broke / newcomer / privateer) and it ends up being a spec hybrid choice for all concerned.

It's fine currently. My only issue with the current ruleset (apart from confusing mathematics and questionable moves there, but that can be forgiven), as I've said before, is that factories cannot choose hybrid-less option if they were to want such thing. It's nice and trendy to promote non fossil fuels and all, but not every party thinks that is core, and it limites the possibilities.

[TF110]

Everyone wants 8mj because its faster. Batteries and electric power are more efficient than a combustion engine. Only reason teams are at 6/4mj is because weight issues. You know that because the teams say it themselves. So seeing that is the aim from the teams, not just the rule makers, why cut only diesel a break? You can only assume its their science telling them Porsche is doing better than expected. They should embrace that not discourage it and reward one technology. Imo, the rulings are questionable, as usual. A step forward just to take a step back.

[MyNameIsNigel]

I don't see in which respect the current rules are questionable. The EoT is only meant to balance the best-in-class powertrains in the two fuel categories. It is not meant to balance all technologies one with respect to the other. There is fortunately no BoP in LMP1. The recent EoT adjustments have to be seen as a necessary adjustment of the equivalence between petrol and diesel dictated by the relevant facts and evidence that are made available to the ACO-FIA. These are the rules and there is nothing fundamentally wrong with this. It's a bit of a shortsighted view to suggest that the ACO-FIA are favoring one technology over another. It is true that diesel gets a slight break following the recent EoT adjustments, but it can only be this or the other way around. They are merely enforcing their own rules, and there is no way the ACO-FIA can act differently and help the guys that have lost the best-in-class battle like Toyota this year.

And, objectively, have the recent EoT adjustments drastically changed the picture ? Porsche are still logically at the front when it comes to pure performance and that seems to properly reflect what we should normally expect from the current rules.

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

And, objectively, have the recent EoT adjustments drastically changed the picture ? Porsche are still logically at the front when it comes to pure performance and that seems to properly reflect what we should normally expect from the current rules.

I think the issue is that a lot of us feared that the EoT adjustments went too far in the direction of diesel. Let's see what happens in the race, but if the quality of racing is on the same level as Silverstone/Spa/Le Mans those fears should probably dissipate.

[J Jay]

Originally Posted by Victor_RO

I think the issue is that a lot of us feared that the EoT adjustments went too far in the direction of diesel. Let's see what happens in the race, but if the quality of racing is on the same level as Silverstone/Spa/Le Mans those fears should probably dissipate.

Be careful with this - Silverstone should have been a walk in the park for Audi and Le Mans would have been a lot closer if Audi had a little better reliability and a slightly wider tyre window (but they didn't, and Porsche did - and that's why Porsche took a deserved win). The quality of racing isn't the best measure of the parity of the powertrains.

But on the issue of going "too far" towards either fuel type; the ACO-FIA are aiming at moving goalposts (the development from the manufacturers), so I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that they will miss the mark, even if only slightly, and therefore hand an advantage to either petrol or diesel in each EoT cycle.

Assuming the above is true*, which scenario would you prefer:

1) Larger adjustments that give an advantage to each fuel type in opposing cycles (i.e. +diesel EoT, +petrol EoT, +diesel EoT, + petrol EoT, etc.)

2) Smaller adjustments that do not necessarily give the advantage to each fuel type in every cycle but mean that the same fuel gets favourable adjustments twice or more in succession (i.e. +diesel EoT, +diesel EoT, +petrol EoT, + petrol EoT, etc.)

Thoughts appreciated from all

*I will reiterate that I dearly hope this isn't the case, but let's be pessimistic - this is a complicated business and even with the information at the hands of the ACO-FIA the getting the EoT spot-on isn't guaranteed, as we've seen if you take the recent adjustments at face value...

[ederss7]

IMO the most ridiculous thing about the rules is the fact that Audi have shorter stints than Porsche and Toyota. Yet, they spend more time refueling. Also, isn't fuel economy the biggest advantage of the diesels?

[chernaudi]

Today, Audi and Porsche had similar stint lengths, but IMO, I have to agree that it's nonsensical for Audi to lose 4-5 seconds each pitstop due to the differences in size of the refueling rig restrictors. That played a fairly minor, but notable role in Porsche's LM win, too.

[Bandicoot17]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Today, Audi and Porsche had similar stint lengths, but IMO, I have to agree that it's nonsensical for Audi to lose 4-5 seconds each pitstop due to the differences in size of the refueling rig restrictors. That played a fairly minor, but notable role in Porsche's LM win, too.

I thought Porsche were stinting 13 laps at LM though, rather than the 14 they could do.

That would account for the saving in time at LM as they would have been putting less fuel in.

What were the stint lengths today, if Audi were going shorter today then yeah it is silly. All refuel ling should take the same amount of time from empty to full.

[chernaudi]

Audi and Porsche from what I could tell were pitting usually on the same lap from what I saw today.

[Richard C]

I haven't put much thought yet into the comments around stint lengths, refueling time length, etc. But I do have a few thoughts...

Originally Posted by MyNameIsNigel

The EoT is only meant to balance the best-in-class powertrains in the two fuel categories. It is not meant to balance all technologies one with respect to the other.

This is probably pedantic of me, but I don't quite agree with the above. I think they are using the best in class powertrain data as a way to balance technology between the fuel types. That is pretty much their stated goal.

Originally Posted by J Jay

The quality of racing isn't the best measure of the parity of the powertrains.

I think this is a very key point for everyone to understand. I am very much of the opinion that EoT should set a level playing field, but that does nothing to ensure teams produce equal or comparative cars from a performance perspective. Someone could just create a better solution (imagine Audi/Diesel going up against Nissan/Petrol right now)

Originally Posted by J Jay

Assuming the above is true*, which scenario would you prefer:

1) Larger adjustments that give an advantage to each fuel type in opposing cycles (i.e. +diesel EoT, +petrol EoT, +diesel EoT, + petrol EoT, etc.)

2) Smaller adjustments that do not necessarily give the advantage to each fuel type in every cycle but mean that the same fuel gets favourable adjustments twice or more in succession (i.e. +diesel EoT, +diesel EoT, +petrol EoT, + petrol EoT, etc.)

I don't know what to think about that, but I have a related question around EoT adjustments over the long haul. If EoT is to be based upon best in class, that means/implies that it is based upon "whoever is currently racing in the series". So lets say Audi leave and someone else shows up with a different diesel solution. But the new solution is not as efficient or as light weight as the current Audi technology. I believe that would mean the EoT would be reset for the new diesel solution. Personally, I don't agree with that in that assuming the fuel specs and other power unit rules remain the same, that things like BSFC and engine weights should use historic "bests" vs. values that can go up and down if manufactures come and go (a bit of a hypothetical at the moment). In my opinion, EoT should gravitate toward some fixed values (that we just don't know what they are currently). Lastly, initially an EoT value is somewhat of a BoP value in that when you first calculate it, you don't really know what starting values to use, so it may have been calculated in a way that works off an existing status quo (balance best of today... hence my BoP comparison), but over time (maybe such as now) it should move away from an initial "educated guess" value and move toward a "empirical" fixed value.

So I guess to your question above... I can say I hope/expect EoT adjustments to be smaller and smaller in the future? Assuming the efficiency and power unit weight improvements are incremental and not revolutionary.

Sorry for the long winded post.

Richard

[Spyderman]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Today, Audi and Porsche had similar stint lengths, but IMO, I have to agree that it's nonsensical for Audi to lose 4-5 seconds each pitstop due to the differences in size of the refueling rig restrictors. That played a fairly minor, but notable role in Porsche's LM win, too.

#17 spent a total of 6:56.214 in the pits compared to 7:08.156 for #7. That is a difference of ~12 seconds after 6 stops each which makes the average time lost in pits for the #7 at ~ 2 seconds. (note that # 7 was actually quicker on the last pit stop and only lost 0.2 seconds on the second last pit stop.
Whilst we have to take into account that the # 17 lost some time in the pits for a nose change (1:21.744), # 7 spent a similar 1:19.032 in their 4th pit stop (I'm not sure why).
So...yes the Porsche's are gaining on their pit stops, but to be honest, I don't think it would have made any difference to the end result.

P.S. #7 Spent less time in the pits than both Toyotas.

[gwyllion]

So Porsche #17 lost around 14 sec for the nose change and Audi #7 lost 6 sec in its 4th stop. That means that Porsche gained 20 sec in 6 stop.

3 sec for free every refueling is still something.

[Spyderman]

Not saying it's not anything. Saying it was almost irrelevant. Audi were beaten on track