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

[deggis]

We simply don't know. Don't say "will" when you really mean "I think". Summaries of the press conference at planetlemans.com or endurance-info.com (anywhere else info about it?) does not say anything what happens after 2010.

Personally I think there won't be "Evo" class... it's just the name on the road map. Also personally I don't the like the idea of two totally different bodyworks styles, with same engines but different restrictors etc... leaves too much open and possibilities that the other option would be favoured. ACO has already enough balancing with diesel vs. petrol vs. hybrids...

[AU N EGL]

Jag

sounds good, if not real close.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by JAG

Two rumours are being confused here.

There's a rumour of an R8 GT2 car, plus another rumour of an LMP1 Evo with R8 styling cues. I'd say it's 90% certain Audi will remain in LMP1, but they may see an opening to expand into GT2, who knows, longer term maybe with a diesel variation, it would seem the logical next step.

LMP1 Evo isn't a road car class, it's similar to LMP1 but, as far as we are aware, will have different dimensions for the bodywork, i.e wider cockpits. The theory goes this will allow manufactuers to produce full LMP1 prototypes, but with road car styling cues, which apparently appeals to Aston Martin and GM.

Other manufactuers may well stick with current LMP1 cars, who knows.

As for class structure, again who knows, right now I'd say:-

LMP1 (current and Evo cars)
LMP2
GT (single class based on GT2)

Hmm, I think you might find that the cockpits of all future cars will be wider as well as possibly the car itself as it was stated that 'Improved lateral protection for drivers will also be written in to the regs'.(?) That is why I truly wish there was a verbatum transcript of the conference posted, but alas nothing. I guess it will be all speculation until November, at least.



L.P.

[JAG]

That just means they'll fit more single seater like head protection, in the DTM, the drivers are almost sat in their own little protective tub, the WRC are also introducing similar things.

Open cars are relatively wide, but it's the head protection/HANS that protects the driver.

[HORNDAWG]

Or so its thought by some. As to the reference about the HANS device, the closed car drivers utilize them as well ( DSC pic ). So what is the reference supposed to indicate? Once again those are all speculative ideas as there was nothing in what was released from the confrence to indicate that.
http://www.planetlemans.com/2008/06/...ss-conference/


L.P.

[Justin Moran]

Originally Posted by JAG

That just means they'll fit more single seater like head protection, in the DTM, the drivers are almost sat in their own little protective tub, the WRC are also introducing similar things.

Open cars are relatively wide, but it's the head protection/HANS that protects the driver.

Im not so sure its just about head protection, it may mean they are looking into the whole lateral impact zone and the fact that they are prone to flight at the moment?

[Dead-Eye]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

I read that the maximum temperature in the cockpit will be 32 degrees. Isn't it 25 at the moment? Why will ACO raise the temperature?

It's 32 now.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by C9/89

Im not so sure its just about head protection, it may mean they are looking into the whole lateral impact zone and the fact that they are prone to flight at the moment?

Agree, I think the ACO may be contemplating increasing the size of the monocoque by raising the tub sides. Here's the current regulation as it reads:

The survival cell must provide lateral protections 500 mm
high as a minimum along the total length of the cockpit
opening (with the exception of the door openings.

The regulations (16.2.1, b/) also states these lateral areas must be at least 900 mm apart thus your tub is approximately 900 mm wide and 500 mm tall. If they increase these dimension it will go inline with the discussion of making the car bigger in addition to eating into useable aero volumes.

[AU N EGL]

More to have a two seater, then a One seat and phesudo passanger seat.

Not there there is a passanger seat, that area is taken up with computer equipment, radios, batteries and fire suppression bottles

[JAG]

That leaves manufacturers in even more of a quandary than they were before the ACO press conference on Thursday. Open and closed cars will be admitted in 2010, confirming the rumour started here in December. The existing cars will be eligible to race beyond this deadline. Diesel and petrol will be better balanced, but with the air restrictor rules not being announced until September, and possibly new aero rules announced then too, teams will have to rush through new cars if they are to race them in 2009.



Corvette denied that the C7 programme was dead and expects a decision quickly whether or not General Motors will return to top flight endurance motorsport in LMP1. This from a racing department which has consistently fought against the suits back home to deliver victory at Le Mans time and again, and turned the American Le Mans Series programme into a marketing bonanza. The case has been made, for this and for other projects. The question is which way will the suits jump?



Another case to ponder is GM’s position with the ACO, which in April presented manufacturers with a draft set of regulations for 2010. According to paddock rumour, the diesel manufacturers rejected them and delayed the announcement of their new projects. With Peugeot’s racing department not delivering for a second year, a significant reduction in diesel performance would not be well received in Paris. Audi’s programme is for five years, and this is its third, but it desperately needs a new car. Will it be petrol or diesel? That depends on the rules, and we will have to wait until the Essen Show in November after Audi delayed the announcement it was expected to make at Le Mans…

http://www.sportscarpros.com/cottonb...rs/default.htm

[TRuss]

They shoud have bumper stickers that say; The computer equipment, radios, batteries and fire suppression bottles are my copilot.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

Agree, I think the ACO may be contemplating increasing the size of the monocoque by raising the tub sides. Here's the current regulation as it reads:



The regulations (16.2.1, b/) also states these lateral areas must be at least 900 mm apart thus your tub is approximately 900 mm wide and 500 mm tall. If they increase these dimension it will go inline with the discussion of making the car bigger in addition to eating into useable aero volumes.

And that these changes should be applied to all chassis from the 2010 rules on.(?) Hmm, I would suppose to qualify to be in the 'E' (EVO) group it would need to run with a homologated engine? Whether it be a corresponding GT engine or a new engine homologated with the chassis?


L.P.

[Matt]

Reminds me a bit of this:


They are both in the same 'boat' so to say, GTP cars that kind of look like their road-going counterparts.

[CTD]

The yellow Corvette reminds me more of a Nissan R390!

[AU N EGL]

That Yellow Vette P1 car was an ACO photochop, not a GM rendition

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by TRuss

They shoud have bumper stickers that say; The computer equipment, radios, batteries and fire suppression bottles are my copilot.

we can ad GPS to that list too.



of course if it's a Pick-up truck, we have ANOTHER co-pilot in the back window rack or under the drivers seat.

[JAG]

To back track a little, I agree that, longer term, cars could have wider cockpits, higher sides etc, but current coupe P1's will be here beyond 2010, so it seems logical any side/driver protection would be focused on single seater/DTM style cocoons, rather than major chassis changes.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

That Yellow Vette P1 car was an ACO photochop, not a GM rendition

The Lola Aston or Epsilon look very different to the 908, likewise, the above C6 'Evo' rendering should only be taken as a general impression of 'potential' dimensions, it could quite easily look like the Mercedes CLR, or 911 GT1 '98, or Toyota GT-ONE, even the Panoz Esperante GTR-1!

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by JAG

To back track a little, I agree that, longer term, cars could have wider cockpits, higher sides etc, but current coupe P1's will be here beyond 2010, so it seems logical any side/driver protection would be focused on single seater/DTM style cocoons, rather than major chassis changes.

Huh? I would imagine anything being built from 2010 on will be to new (hinted at) specs, granted the current cars will still be eligible to run but only as long as they last and no new chassis (tubs) will be built to the old specs. The only way I see for lateral protection to be applied to current existing tubs, creating a hybrid per se, is to build the lateral protection into the sidepods with a bigger and better crush zone while trying to incorporate some anti-flight elements of sorts into them also.


L.P.

[AU N EGL]

So many cars are starting too look like each other.

Is racing going to go back to the 1950s with national colors?

Red = Italia
Yellow = Belgium
Blue = France
Green = UK
Orange = Holland

[JAG]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Huh? I would imagine anything being built from 2010 on will be to new (hinted at) specs, granted the current cars will still be eligible to run but only as long as they last and no new chassis (tubs) will be built to the old specs. The only way I see for lateral protection to be applied to current existing tubs, creating a hybrid per se, is to build the lateral protection into the sidepods with a bigger and better crush zone while trying to incorporate some anti-flight elements of sorts into them also.


L.P.

Take your theory to it's logical conclusion, and single seaters would be banned outright, considering the lack on side impact protection.

The DTM and WRC both run large, wide bodied, saloons/sedans. They are both moving towards regs that cocoon the driver in tight fitting, almost single seater like, tubs. Rally drivers and co-drivers have both been killed in recent years due to side impacts with trees and lamposts, the basic, wide bodied cars with rollcage, provide little protection in such an incident. Only last year Marcus Gronholm was injured on the Rally of Ireland when he hit a wall side on at relativelly low speed, yet single seater drivers escape unscathed from similar side on impacts.

What helps is the aformentioned head protection and cushioning, which works best when the driver is packed tightly in the cockpit, i.e single seaters/908, there is no logical reason to move to wider cockpits for safety reasons, other than easier access to remove the driver.

A regular LMP1 already provides ampl side impact crush zones for a driver, the tub always stands upto the impact with little damage, the question is whether the driver can survie the shock and whiplash of the impact.

Altering chassis to reduce the risk of flight is a totally different proposition.

[chewymonster]

Originally Posted by JAG

Think Mercedes CLR, that's the best guess so far.

I agree, it's the best example of what they are trying to achieve. But it doesn't make sense to have CLR looking race cars competing with current P1s. You just end up with rules that will ultimately favor one over the other. The ACO would likely give the Evo cars some extra benefit to get everone to make one.



Didn't it even have a road car based engine? Sounds a lot like the ACO has come full circle.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by JAG

Take your theory to it's logical conclusion, and single seaters would be banned outright, considering the lack on side impact protection.

The DTM and WRC both run large, wide bodied, saloons/sedans. They are both moving towards regs that cocoon the driver in tight fitting, almost single seater like, tubs. Rally drivers and co-drivers have both been killed in recent years due to side impacts with trees and lamposts, the basic, wide bodied cars with rollcage, provide little protection in such an incident. Only last year Marcus Gronholm was injured on the Rally of Ireland when he hit a wall side on at relativelly low speed, yet single seater drivers escape unscathed from similar side on impacts.

What helps is the aformentioned head protection and cushioning, which works best when the driver is packed tightly in the cockpit, i.e single seaters/908, there is no logical reason to move to wider cockpits for safety reasons, other than easier access to remove the driver.

A regular LMP1 already provides ampl side impact crush zones for a driver, the tub always stands upto the impact with little damage, the question is whether the driver can survie the shock and whiplash of the impact.

Altering chassis to reduce the risk of flight is a totally different proposition.

My thoughts about widening the tub has nothing to do with safety. Think of it as quick way to eliminate aero development areas, especially if they push the tub out to the edge of the chassis as in the Group C days. That way you have monocoque in the way and it is difficult to loop hole around.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by chewymonster

I agree, it's the best example of what they are trying to achieve. But it doesn't make sense to have CLR looking race cars competing with current P1s. You just end up with rules that will ultimately favor one over the other. The ACO would likely give the Evo cars some extra benefit to get everone to make one.



Didn't it even have a road car based engine? Sounds a lot like the ACO has come full circle.

Holy.... I never knew exactly how low that car was, until I saw that picture.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

My thoughts about widening the tub has nothing to do with safety. Think of it as quick way to eliminate aero development areas, especially if they push the tub out to the edge of the chassis as in the Group C days. That way you have monocoque in the way and it is difficult to loop hole around.

I'd be all for that, with the regular Group C cars they all had wide cockpits, and looked great. It was the 3.5 cars that set the trend for bubble cocklpits and shrink wrapped bodywork, now we see those single seater noses and intergrated 'wings' on the sides of the cars etc.

I always found it interesting you had standard, almost old style Group C looking Mercedes CLR's, competing head to head with the more radical Toyota GT-ONE's back in '99.

I agree, it's the best example of what they are trying to achieve. But it doesn't make sense to have CLR looking race cars competing with current P1s. You just end up with rules that will ultimately favor one over the other. The ACO would likely give the Evo cars some extra benefit to get everone to make one.

That's not neccesarily a bad thing, they don't want to chuck out current cars, let them phase out naturally.

Didn't it even have a road car based engine? Sounds a lot like the ACO has come full circle.

The orignal CLK-GTR had a production derived V12, I think it was quite an old engine. The CLK-LM and CLR had a V8, it may even have been based on the block from the C9/C11.