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

[deggis]

I'd be more open to this idea without that mandatory 1km distance and finishing under EV only crap (whatever the latter means... 1 km before finish line?). So it is not only a marketing gimmick but also a gimmick that affects the racing itself. Not even Neveu said 1:1 performance while in EV only mode is the target, so the cars are going to be considerably slower in EV mode. Adds pointless race strategy complexity and brings safety issues too, e.g. from a usually slower class car you can't tell if the car infront is in EV mode or not.

[YZFrider]

So this whole finishing on electric power for the final lap. Boy if you're Toyota just the haunting thought of last year with a failure on the final outing...Yikes! Let's say there is an MGU failure be it partial or full. Let it be? or ICE power to the finish? Then what? Disqualification? Penalties? They need to think that through

[deggis]

Originally Posted by YZFrider

Let's say there is an MGU failure be it partial or full. Let it be? or ICE power to the finish? Then what? Disqualification? Penalties? They need to think that through

That's another good point. So no Porsche @ 2016 Spa then either.

[Adam43]

I'd also have a rule that you can't replace fluids within the first hour.

[Japanese Samurai]

Which area does "spec PHV" mean?
It's clear that ERS-H/K isn't included there.
Then, how is a battery? How is a MGU?

[chernaudi]

Plug in hybrid. The parts for that are supposed to be spec, not the hybrid systems themselves or the MGUs.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Plug in hybrid. The parts for that are supposed to be spec, not the hybrid systems themselves or the MGUs.

If that is the case, i can't see this actually saving much money. If the aco didn't mandate a plug in hybrid, then teams would spend $0. but they mandated it and said it is spec so it is going to be cheaper. but the cost of buying a spec part is greater than cost of not buying the part.

[Scorchess]

That part of the regulations is not there to save money.

[TF110]

The rules conflict themselves. I feel that way at least. You don't save money by telling the teams to come up with new technology to go at race speeds on just electric power alone. Then you mandate something that has to be researched, so that's not going to be cheap, just like the fuel flow meters. Teams will have to pay for that now. And what if it's faulty? You potentially screw a team's race because of a random electrical failure because they didn't get enough charge, so then they can't do the 1km on electric.

The teams will have to redesign, or design a battery with enough energy storage and density to take that charge and do speeds respectable enough to not cause an accident. On top of having charge leftover to help them boost to be able to pass other cars. We all know the ACO/FIA will clamp down ever further on fuel flow so engine power will be even lower than it is now. Meanwhile lmp2 will just get faster as the teams maximize their cars' potential. The ACO have a lot on their plate and it wouldn't surprise me if there are no manufacturer's willing to continue or join in 2020.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by Scorchess

That part of the regulations is not there to save money.

The man in charge says it is: http://sportscar365.com/lemans/wec/m...in-technology/

[Articus]

Originally Posted by joeb

The man in charge says it is: http://sportscar365.com/lemans/wec/m...in-technology/

I think you are confusing the objectives here.

There is a collective effort to cost savings on the actual platform that the ACO wants the LMP1 cars to represent.

So first they determine the platform, which included plug in electric laps. Then they determine how that platform can be cost effective (which is to have a spec plug-in system). This isn't a cost cutting with respect to 2018. It's a cost savings on the intent of the 2020 rules.

[Scorchess]

Originally Posted by TF110

The rules conflict themselves.

They do not. The goal is to reduce costs while at the same time encouraging innovation. That's not a contradiction.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by Scorchess

They do not. The goal is to reduce costs while at the same time encouraging innovation. That's not a contradiction.

They do conflict themselves. The goal to reduce costs is not going to happen when you have to invest in new technology rather than keep the current technology. The current teams will have to make a new type of battery and hybrid system because they are not currently designed for 'plug-in'. Neither are they designed for doing race speeds on electric (battery) power alone. Then you have new chassis rules, on top of reduced time in the windtunnel which will lead teams to using CFD which is not as accurate and probably more expensive since they will have to use it more for computer to track correlation. Then you reduce on track testing which is much cheaper than trying to do CFD work. How is that reducing costs? This is the same mistake f1 has made.

[Scorchess]

I guess I will just reiterate my statement: trying to reduce costs across the board while encouraging innovation is not a conflict. Remember, there were supposed to be 3 hybrid systems and 10MJ of energy per lap from next year onwards. That was the innovation strategy. That is too costly, so they have come up with a cheaper alternative that still promotes new technology. Albeit in a very gimmicky way. I don't know what else you would expect, not a single change from the current regulations?

As to your point that 'cost saving' never works, everybody in the world knows that. Except rulemakers. Of course none of the proposed restrictions are going to cut costs, they will probably increase them just like in F1 as you correctly identify. However, the point of all these measures is as simple as it is transparent: to goad Peugeot and probably BMW. The point is to give Carlos Tavares some ammunition to persuade his company to come back to Le Mans.
Keep in mind too that 2020 is still three years away and until then there will be no additional rule changes. Stability is about the only thing that actually works at reducing costs.

Also, everybody keeps forgetting about this, but proper active aero is going to be awesome. Can you imagine the laptimes the cars could do if they could go in full downforce mode through the Porsche curves and then go down the Mulsanne with less drag than they do now?

[deggis]

Originally Posted by Scorchess

However, the point of all these measures is as simple as it is transparent: to goad Peugeot and probably BMW. The point is to give Carlos Tavares some ammunition to persuade his company to come back to Le Mans.
Keep in mind too that 2020 is still three years away and until then there will be no additional rule changes. Stability is about the only thing that actually works at reducing costs.

I recently had the same kind of thought. Perhaps it is just so that those who want the racing program to happen can go the boardroom and say that they did SOMETHING to reduce costs, so that then the boardroom is encouraged to sign/greenlight the program or extend it. Almost never directly reduces costs, but at least limits the spending and development scope in some certain area.

[Articus]

Originally Posted by Articus

I think you are confusing the objectives here.

There is a collective effort to cost savings on the actual platform that the ACO wants the LMP1 cars to represent.

So first they determine the platform, which included plug in electric laps. Then they determine how that platform can be cost effective (which is to have a spec plug-in system). This isn't a cost cutting with respect to 2018. It's a cost savings on the intent of the 2020 rules.

Originally Posted by TF110

They do conflict themselves. The goal to reduce costs is not going to happen when you have to invest in new technology rather than keep the current technology. The current teams will have to make a new type of battery and hybrid system because they are not currently designed for 'plug-in'. Neither are they designed for doing race speeds on electric (battery) power alone. Then you have new chassis rules, on top of reduced time in the windtunnel which will lead teams to using CFD which is not as accurate and probably more expensive since they will have to use it more for computer to track correlation. Then you reduce on track testing which is much cheaper than trying to do CFD work. How is that reducing costs? This is the same mistake f1 has made.

see above....You shouldn't read everything so literally just to make a point that doesn't have anything to do with anything. Even despite the introduction of a new technology in LMP1, the teams could possibly end up spending less overall money in 2020 than they do now. You are scrutinizing a single variable which was the addition of the plug-in hybrid, but do not look at the bigger picture. What if cost in other areas go down as planned? and then teams spend less money in 2020 to develop a car than they did for '16'17?.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by Articus

see above....You shouldn't read everything so literally just to make a point that doesn't have anything to do with anything. Even despite the introduction of a new technology in LMP1, the teams could possibly end up spending less overall money in 2020 than they do now. You are scrutinizing a single variable which was the addition of the plug-in hybrid, but do not look at the bigger picture. What if cost in other areas go down as planned? and then teams spend less money in 2020 to develop a car than they did for '16'17?.

A single variable? A new chassis type (raised roof profile, seating position for safety), new aero (movable aero which I think is actually cool), new batteries (different storage demands to do things 1km on electric), new hybrids (in conjunction with the battery) and introduction of the plug in (which will have to be considered in the design of the car all around). That's not a single thing, that's 5 things, major things that are going to be changed from the current rules.

That's besides the fact they'll be doing things like reduce testing, which is cheaper to do to find results than using your facilities or renting them (windtunnel, cfd etc), reduce windtunnel hours (which teams will now switch over to more expensive cfd) and you can go on down the list.

It doesn't matter if it's for 2020 or 2030, these are not minor changes being suggested. They're not cheap changes either. A spec system is cheap but it's still an added expense. Not sure why you think I'm focusing on one area when I mentioned plenty of other areas in previous posts.

[AoB Special Stage]

Originally Posted by TF110

A single variable? A new chassis type (raised roof profile, seating position for safety), new aero (movable aero which I think is actually cool), new batteries (different storage demands to do things 1km on electric), new hybrids (in conjunction with the battery) and introduction of the plug in (which will have to be considered in the design of the car all around). That's not a single thing, that's 5 things, major things that are going to be changed from the current rules.

The latter three are already being developed by several manufacturers on their road car side, so that cost is subsidized regardless, the teams would want a new chassis anyway by 2020, and active aero is just too f*cking cool .

Originally Posted by TF110

That's besides the fact they'll be doing things like reduce testing, which is cheaper to do to find results than using your facilities or renting them (windtunnel, cfd etc), reduce windtunnel hours (which teams will now switch over to more expensive cfd) and you can go on down the list.

Touche.

[TF110]

Originally Posted by AoB Special Stage

The latter three are already being developed by several manufacturers on their road car side, so that cost is subsidized regardless, the teams would want a new chassis anyway by 2020, and active aero is just too f*cking cool .



Touche.

I agree that a new chassis would be coming for 2020 anyway, but they're seemingly a big departure from what we have currently thanks to the size of the cockpit and the more upright seating position. Then you take into consideration they will most likely have to carry a bigger battery pack to do the 1km on only electric at a respectable speed. All that will change the way the chassis is designed and constructed. There's still a few years to go, so we'll see what the actual regs look like in the near future, but imo it's not saving money with their proposals. Especially cutting testing and windtunnel hours. That's a mistake f1 has made and nearly no team can cut into the lead of the best (Mercedes) because running is so limited.

[AoB Special Stage]

Originally Posted by TF110

I agree that a new chassis would be coming for 2020 anyway, but they're seemingly a big departure from what we have currently thanks to the size of the cockpit and the more upright seating position. Then you take into consideration they will most likely have to carry a bigger battery pack to do the 1km on only electric at a respectable speed. All that will change the way the chassis is designed and constructed. There's still a few years to go, so we'll see what the actual regs look like in the near future, but imo it's not saving money with their proposals. Especially cutting testing and windtunnel hours. That's a mistake f1 has made and nearly no team can cut into the lead of the best (Mercedes) because running is so limited.

1km on electric itself isn't the concern in my eyes, it's that the e-motors lack top end. They're designed to fire the car out of corners, but they top out at a fairly low speed (rewatch the Toyota failure last year when it was running purely on the electric for an example). While this is a universal issue, I'm doubly concerned about it at Spa, with its remarkably fast first sector.

Although, let's remember F1 had every intention of an EV pitlane rule for 2014, and that got nixed beforehand too.

On the chassis side, I wish they'd extend them 100-150mm in width so they look proportional. It can be justified on grounds of extending side impact structures and (for the manufacturers) giving them more room for packaging.

[TF110]

I agree on the width. 2050mm would be a nice looking wide-body prototype. That's how wide GTE is.

[deggis]

"Porsche, Toyota: '1km LMP1 electric' rule is no gimmick"

http://www.autosport.com/news/report...ule-no-gimmick

[TF110]

Dagys seems to think no one will take up these regs. He says something about how he's not a fan of the 'spec' plug-in, but tweets again that he thinks DPi (which is partially spec) should be considered , though the current manufacturer's don't want that to be lmp1.

[AoB Special Stage]

Originally Posted by TF110

Dagys seems to think no one will take up these regs. He says something about how he's not a fan of the 'spec' plug-in, but tweets again that he thinks DPi (which is partially spec) should be considered , though the current manufacturer's don't want that to be lmp1.

I see your cheeky reply on twitter. Might I suggest sprucing up your account to look more, is professional the right word? I'm not sure.

[chernaudi]

DPI is almost as spec as LMP2 due to it being a BOP formula. Yeah, the cars may have manufacturer influenced bodywork and stock block engines, but the idea is the same--cost caps and minimal incentive to develop.

I can't imagine Audi, Porsche, Toyota or even Peugeot returning to/staying in LMP1 if the rules are based on DPI regs. Granted, I can see stuff like the 1km on EV power/finish the race on EV power getting dropped as unnecessary/irrelevant, but if the plug in hybrid is a spec part, I don't see how it can't be integrated if the teams want it.

However, Porsche seem to see (if the recent opinions of Auto Motor und Sport and Motorsport Total writers are accurate to fact) it as a gimmick because their Panamera plug in hybrid can do 50km at road speeds on EV power alone before the engine has to kick in to power the car and charge the hybrid system back up.

The Audi A3 e-tron is a plug in hybrid that can go 16 miles on EV alone, with the Audi A8 and Q8 likely to go further than that.

Personally, one of the biggest flaws in the whole hybrid thing all along going back to 2012 was that the ACO basically encouraged hybrids to function basically as a go faster button than a genuine range extender. Which is how they're predominantly used on road cars. Yes, the current cars are using 30% less fuel than in 2013 and earlier, but I think that the fuel flow meters/lift and coast accounts for a lot more of that than the hybrid systems themselves are.

Granted, the whole hybrid thing would make a lot of sense to me if the systems were powerful enough and had enough juice so that the only thing that the ICE would have to do is serve as a generator. Now that would be awesome. That would, both on the track and on the road, serve as a perfect halfway house between pure EV and non-hybrid while eliminating both's major problems, range on EV, and emissions/fuel economy for the ICE.

However, with that being said, on the racing end, if 8MJ hybrids have proven to be expensive and borderline difficult to package in LMP1s with their space constraints as of now, imagine what those issues would be with a hybrid system powerful enough that the only reason you'd need an ICE of any type would be to be a simple generator.