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

[Félix]

Andy Thorby commented on the LMP2004 regulation discussions and mentioned how they thought about enlarging the tub at first to make the cars real two-seaters. Two of the reasons it did not work were front suspension design issues (very short wishbones) and radiator size/positioning issues.

I like the current LMPs very well the way they are. Raised noses and sculpted shapes reminescent of F1 are just logical design-wise and trying to prevent that takes us that much closer to GA rules. For those who don't understand, if designers knowing what they know today designed a Group C car, it would have all the features you don't like now but also benefit from freer wing rules giving you F1-esque 10-plane rear wings and equally complicated front wings. LMPs are visually striking and most non-hardcore fans are impressed when they see them I think.

[chernaudi]

The Sauber C9/11 used the M119 5.0 V8, and the Mercedes CLM and CLR used a 6 liter(1998) and 5.7('99) versions of that engine.

So it could still classify as a stock block engine, unless MB did what Oldsmoble/Cadillac did with the Aurora/Northstar engine, and redesign the block and heads so the engine could be stress mounted.

[Taxi645]

LMS 2009 prototype rules




Here's my take on what roughly should be the LMS prototype rules for 2009:

1. LMP1

1.1 Diesel

1.1.1 For existing engine/chassis combinations and production based engines:
930kg, 2008 -7% air restrictor.

1.1.2 Everything else:
900kg, 2008 -10% air restrictor.

1.2 Petrol

1.2.1 For production/GT1 based engines:
900kg, 2008 -2% air restrictor

1.2.2 Everything else:
870kg, 2008 -5% air restrictor


2. LMP2

2.1 Diesel

2.1.1 For production based engines:
875kg, 2008 air restrictor.

2.1.2 Everything else:
850kg, 2008 -3% air restrictor.

1.2 Petrol

2.2.1 For production/GT2 based engines:
850kg, 2008 air restrictor

2.2.2 Everything else:
825kg, 2008 -3% air restrictor


Goals for the rule adaptions:
1 Make LMP1 petrol more competitive compared to LMP1 diesels and LMP2
2 Get LMP1 cars back above or near the Le Mans 3.30min lap.
3 Differentiate rules for different engine concepts LMP1 vs. LMP2, Petrol vs. diesel and race vs. production in order to stimulate chassis compatibility with different engine concepts which will reduce costs and facilitate more production engines/manufacturers to enter.
4 1.1.1 Keeps Audi and Peugeot on board by allowing them to stay competitive with their powerful but heavy V12's.


PS. Sorry for the cross post, but this thread seems more appropriate.

[The Badger]

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.

And a lot easier to damage or write off as well . Most of the Group C cars were a metal based monocoque , and therefore would be easier and less expensive than having to graft in a composite repair every so often ?

[The Badger]

From that pic above , I didnt realise that the Benz was "THAT" low . That was an amazing car to watch , just a shame that it didnt last long .

[AU N EGL]

It would be nice if the ACO/FIA would use power to wt ratios:


P1 900KG / 700 RWHP


P2 800 KG / 500 RWHP


Rear Wheel Horse Power meased on one specific dyno( DynoJet) using the SAE standards

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

It would be nice if the ACO/FIA would use power to wt ratios:


P1 900KG / 700 RWHP


P2 800 KG / 500 RWHP


Rear Wheel Horse Power meased on one specific dyno( DynoJet) using the SAE standards

Power to weight ratios is nice for amateur or lower-level-pro-racing, but not for factory battles. Where's the point in improving the engine if every gain in horsepower is "rewarded" with additional weight?

[Taxi645]

Ok, latest update, but now I should stop:

1. LMP1

1.1 Diesel

1.1.1 For homologated engines or existing race engines:
950kg, 2008 -8% air restrictor (about 651hp, 1,46kg/hp)

1.1.2 Everything else:
900kg, 2008 -13% air restrictor (about 616hp, 1,46kg/hp)

1.2 Petrol

1.2.1 For homologated/GT1 based engines:
900kg, 2008 -4% air restrictor (about 652hp, 1,38kg/hp)

1.2.2 Everything else:
860kg, 2008 -5% air restrictor (about 614hp, 1,4kg/hp)


2. LMP2

2.1 Diesel

2.1.1 For homologated engines:
900kg, 2008 air restrictor (about 559hp, 1,61kg/hp)

2.1.2 Everything else:
860kg, ? air restrictor (about 528hp, 1,63kg/hp)

1.2 Petrol

2.2.1 For homologated/GT2 based engines:
860kg, 2008 air restrictor (about 555hp, 1,55kg/hp)

2.2.2 Everything else:
825kg, 2008 -3% air restrictor (about 525hp, 1,57kg/hp)


Goals for the rule adaptions:
1 Make LMP1 petrol more competitive compared to LMP1 diesels and LMP2
2 Get LMP1 cars back above or near the Le Mans 3.30min lap.
3 Differentiate rules for different engine concepts LMP1 vs. LMP2, Petrol vs. diesel and race vs. production in order to stimulate chassis compatibility with different engine concepts which will reduce costs and facilitate more production engines/manufacturers to enter.
4 1.1.1. Keeps Audi and Peugeot on board by allowing them to stay competitive with their powerful but heavy V12's.
5 Production/GT based LMP get a slight power to weight advantage to compensate for mileage and possible weight balance handicaps.




I know it doesn't look sexy, but I think it is quite well balanced.

Perhaps I should send it to the A.C.O.

[ger80]

who needs LMP2 diesel if its for privatear teams?

[HORNDAWG]

Anybody that wishes to run it.


L.P.

[ger80]

Diesel makes performance balance problems in LMP1 and in WTCC, do we need that in LMP2 too?

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by ger80

Diesel makes performance balance problems in LMP1 and in WTCC, do we need that in LMP2 too?

Well, generally performance balance problems are caused by unbalanced regulations, if you have a fair rule book, you'll get good races. On a side note, AFAIK diesels are allowed in LMP2 already in LMS, it's just that it's kinda difficult to get down to 825kg (certainly with room left to be able to shift weight around) with a diesel with sufficient power to be competitive.

[HORNDAWG]

Yes, we need the ability for someone to run in the P-2 class with similar options as there are in the P-1 class. After all, is it not prototype racing also?


L.P.

[ger80]

Nevertheless I would like to see them removed, you cant really balance engines with such a different touque over rpm curve from my point of view. If one starts using diesel in LMP2 and has a performance advantage, everybody else has to develop diesel solutions too. That makes P2 even for expensive than it is today with the RS Spyder ....

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

Well, generally performance balance problems are caused by unbalanced regulations, if you have a fair rule book, you'll get good races. On a side note, AFAIK diesels are allowed in LMP2 already in LMS, it's just that it's kinda difficult to get down to 825kg (certainly with room left to be able to shift weight around) with a diesel with sufficient power to be competitive.

Yes, diesel is already allowed in the 2008 P-2 rules.


L.P.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by ger80

Nevertheless I would like to see them removed, you cant really balance engines with such a different touque over rpm curve from my point of view. If one starts using diesel in LMP2 and has a performance advantage, everybody else has to develop diesel solutions too. That makes P2 even for expensive than it is today with the RS Spyder ....

I wouldn't mind that much if they're left out, just think the A.C.O. likes to keep them in (why add them otherwise?). You say can't balance engines with such a different torque curve, well that's pretty much what I tried to do. I gave the petrols less weight with a better peak power to weight ratio. Possibly with slightly more room to shift weight. The diesels on the other hand have a fuller power curve (more torque) and better mileage.

Different tracks will give different cars an edge, but I think if you leave politics out experts would be well able to create a balanced rule book.


BTW, I tried to make the rules such that weight wise, a chassis can (with modifications) work with any of the listed engines, be it LMP1 or 2, diesel or petrol, free or homologated.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Yes, diesel is already allowed in the 2008 P-2 rules.

L.P.

But only production engines.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by ger80

Nevertheless I would like to see them removed, you cant really balance engines with such a different touque over rpm curve from my point of view. If one starts using diesel in LMP2 and has a performance advantage, everybody else has to develop diesel solutions too. That makes P2 even for expensive than it is today with the RS Spyder ....

actully you can. ((RWTQ+ RWHP ) / 2) / wt

So it does not matter where the torque or HP is in the curve.

Again need to use a standard Dyno( DynoJet for example) and Society of Automotive Engineers ( SAE ) guild lines to measure HP and TQ

[ger80]

RWTQ: torque on the rear wheels
RWHP: horse power on the rear wheels
wt: weight?
which unit system is used for this?

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by deggis

But only production engines.

Yes it is. And I would imagine that it was introduced in that way to keep the cost down in the 'privateer class', while allowing someone to explore the possible value of running a diesel in P-2. Someone like ECO, but that was more willing to go for wins with a diesel yet not have to spend on the level of Audi or Peugeot. We shall see.

Also as long as we are talking rules per se, the LMS needs to be allowed to make 1or2 adjustments during the year. In the case of the rules being lopsided to start, 2 adjustments would allow for a tweak and then a second in case it was to far or not quite enough. But only in a clear cut extreme need.

L.P.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by ger80

RWTQ: torque on the rear wheels
RWHP: horse power on the rear wheels
wt: weight?
which unit system is used for this?

Not ON the rear wheels but FROM the rear wheels to the pavement.

torque = lb ft and wt in English pounds or Torque in Newton Meters and wt in Kg.


Which system? SAE = Society of Automotive Engineers
http://www.sae.org/servlets/index

[ger80]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Yes it is. And I would imagine that it was introduced in that way to keep the cost down in the 'privateer class', while allowing someone to explore the possible value of running a diesel in P-2. Someone like ECO, but that was more willing to go for wins with a diesel yet not have to spend on the level of Audi or Peugeot. We shall see.

Also as long as we are talking rules per se, the LMS needs to be allowed to make 1or2 adjustments during the year. In the case of the rules being lopsided to start, 2 adjustments would allow for a tweak and then a second in case it was to far or not quite enough. But only in a clear cut extreme need.

L.P.

And then everybody who doesnt win a race starts complaining about the regs to try that his car gets a bigger restrictor, less weight, ... at the 2 adjustments .....

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by ger80

And then everybody who doesnt win a race starts complaining about the regs to try that his car gets a bigger restrictor, less weight, ... at the 2 adjustments .....

So, and your point would be? Just because someone is sniveling, does not mean that the ACO or LMS have to make those adjustments. But when there is a clear disparity, as in the diesel P-1 to petrol P-1, they have the ability to rectify the situation in a much more timely manner!


L.P.

[ger80]

all ok, nevertheless I would like to see the P2 diesels removed. Nobody needs them from my point of view. In P1 the diesel are used for marketing, but the ACO wants that P2 gets more a privatear class so there is no need for a diesel

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by ger80

all ok, nevertheless I would like to see the P2 diesels removed. Nobody needs them from my point of view. In P1 the diesel are used for marketing, but the ACO wants that P2 gets more a privatear class so there is no need for a diesel

Could you explain to me why you reckon privateer and diesel are incompatible? AFAIK Porsche and Aston are doing just as much for marketing as any diesel team.