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

[6157]

Originally Posted by hcl123

Not only that. Its imperative that GT are allowed to "innovate" and improve much their top and average speeds... or since that is much harder to do since GTs are production derived cars, make separated championships.

Easy there, Ratel, let's keep that to what I'll call "GT 1" for now, the GT/Prototype class. I'm looking at that to be the high speed, high development class while GT 2 would remain production based with some aero development and minimal engine development.

We don't need to turn all the Gt classes into a buckwild free-for-all.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by hcl123

Not only that. Its imperative that GT are allowed to "innovate" and improve much their top and average speeds... or since that is much harder to do since GTs are production derived cars, make separated championships.

If you have been following the IMSA/ACO affair for long, you would see the cars have been slowed down often, especially the GTs.

Although it was not an IMSA affair, after Chevy won the Daytona 24 hrs. it was not lost on the IMSA or at least ACO, who the IMSA usually bows before, that they were not going to have their p class defeated by some modified street cars; therefore if one slows down the top class, all classes get slowed down.

The ACO it seems would be very happy if the lap times never changed and the cars would stay in their proper places year after year.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by hcl123

This draft version 4 doesn't have yet the fuel tank capacity for non-hybrid LMP1s, but its clear that its reserved for the big houses with deep pockets, not by rule but by cost, and most of them will avoid it considering that without it they will have a much smaller expense and will have a performance advantage.

So, if the difference is only 2 liters, that tells a ugly joke about fuel economy mantra, if its more then non-hybrid cars will have a tremendous amount of advantage... not "mud-trowing" a reality... what is ACO thinking ?...

The draft version clearly states that the difference will indeed be 2 liter: 73 for petrol hybrid vs 75 liter for petrol non-hybrid and 63 vs 65 liter for diesel.

I don't understand why you think this is a joke. In the current rules diesel powered prototype have lower fuel consumption and therefore they get a smaller tank capacity. Similarly the ACO does not want to give the hybrid systems an unfair advantage, so they also get a smaller fuel tank. When the hybrid system is active, the combustion engine might produce less power (= consume less fuel).

The choice is left to the manufacturer: use hybrid for extra power (with same fuel economy) or for better fuel economy.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

If you have been following the IMSA/ACO affair for long, you would see the cars have been slowed down often, especially the GTs.

Although it was not an IMSA affair, after Chevy won the Daytona 24 hrs. it was not lost on the IMSA or at least ACO, who the IMSA usually bows before, that they were not going to have their p class defeated by some modified street cars; therefore if one slows down the top class, all classes get slowed down.

The ACO it seems would be very happy if the lap times never changed and the cars would stay in their proper places year after year.

But that is my point... the difference is so great now that perhaps GTs deserve separated races... GTs are nothing more than moving chicanes for the fastest LMP1s... or... let GTs gain some substantial speed.

If lap times never change, then we'll have no evolution... and why in the hell would ACO/IMSA want so fanatically to reduce lap times, its beyond logic !?.... but if they must for a security reason, there is a very straightforward and all democratic encompassing way to do it... RAISE minimal weight to close 1 ton (975 Kg ?) and or augment the "minimal" axle width of the cars that has the same effect of augmenting straight drag... and also reduce aerodynamic support for the curves... that is the most natural way to select the best drivers.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by hcl123

But that is my point... the difference is so great now that perhaps GTs deserve separated races... GTs are nothing more than moving chicanes for the fastest LMP1s... or... let GTs gain some substantial speed.

If lap times never change, then we'll have no evolution... and why in the hell would ACO/IMSA want so fanatically to reduce lap times, its beyond logic !?.... but if they must for a security reason, there is a very straightforward and all democratic encompassing way to do it... RAISE minimal weight to close 1 ton (975 Kg ?) and or augment the "minimal" axle width of the cars that has the same effect of augmenting straight drag... and also reduce aerodynamic support for the curves... that is the most natural way to select the best drivers.

It is multiclass racing!
Maybe a little back ground research might be of benefit in all the points you seem to have such issue with, just sayin'. That might make a difference in some of the thought process.





L.P.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

The draft version clearly states that the difference will indeed be 2 liter: 73 for petrol hybrid vs 75 liter for petrol non-hybrid and 63 vs 65 liter for diesel.

I don't understand why you think this is a joke. In the current rules diesel powered prototype have lower fuel consumption and therefore they get a smaller tank capacity. Similarly the ACO does not want to give the hybrid systems an unfair advantage, so they also get a smaller fuel tank. When the hybrid system is active, the combustion engine might produce less power (= consume less fuel).

The choice is left to the manufacturer: use hybrid for extra power (with same fuel economy) or for better fuel economy.

If the hybrid notion is to turn cars more fuel economic, or more economic in a general sense... than that is an economic collapse!...

24h LM... it has 40 stops( i'm making it average)... meaning 2 liters less for each stop... meaning 80 liters less, meaning that at $2 liter, its a save of $160.

A good hybrid system with all the advanced controls that ACO wants( and batteries that they must have), will cost no less than $100.000 for a 3 year implementation width all the development costs included.

The equivalent of 8 24h races per season, including races, qualifyings, training, tests... will deliver for 3 years $3840 of fuel economy... COMPARE THAT WITH THE COST OF A HYBRID !??....

Now lets compare the energetic content of the 2 solutions.

Based in La sarthe circuit the theoretically maximum capacity offered is (500Kj) 0,138Kw/h between 2 brake phases... contending that there is perhaps 9 times this in a lap, and 12 laps between stops, that will give ~15Kw/h MAXIMUM for those 12 laps.

Meaning... 0,138Kw/h is 0.187627783 horsepower/hour (80HP for ~7.5seconds), that is right, much less than 1 additional horsepower/hour for each long straight in Lemans... makes one wonder if that is of any REAL use for motoring purposes...

OTOH... 2 liter diesel for non_hybrids have 37.3*2= 74.6MJ theoretically readily available for each straight if that is the wanting(between 2 braking zones), which is 149x the case of hybrides... or considering the case of 12 laps, 20.7Kw/h compared with the theoretical maximum of 15 Kw/h for the case of hybrid energy release.

This is the case i make for saying that, NON_HYBRIDS will have an advantage and ACO is making hybrids wrong...

Minimal release should be 1000MJ between 2 braking zones... and or hybrids would be FREE considering energy release but with a standard sponsored by ACO/IMSA advanced battery/ultracapacitor 30-50Kw/h system, EQUAL for all teams...

Hybrids will be a performance enhancement system then, and will have a clear advantage.

[hcl123]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

It is multiclass racing!
Maybe a little back ground research might be of benefit in all the points you seem to have such issue with, just sayin'. That might make a difference in some of the thought process.

L.P.

No need historically research, its painfully scientifically obvious the reason why ACO/IMSA not adopting a much more democratic way to safely reduce performance ... in the same democratic way why a 1200Kg GT have so much difference, when they have(had!) theoretically the same engine between the DB9 and the LPM1 brother as example... Essentially its a question of weight... ~300Kg less can have a tremendous impact on performance in favor of the LMP1.

But augmenting weight will give diesels a much more advantage because of the much better torque of the engine.

Here i can be bashed for not entering fuel polemics... but its not me, its ACO and IMSA that want it.. at least in the best case they hope that nobody notice... when in any case diesel has no more than 11% volumetric advantage over petrol, yet in the new draft 4, they manage to give over 15% advantage in fuel tank capacity for the petrols... 73-75 for petrol against 63-65 for diesel...

Me, i'll continue to be pointing with a GOOD REASON to everybody why not buying a petrol street car again... even if i don't need to, for the majority of ppl (diesel cars sales have already out-passed petrol cars sales in the EU).

[CTD]

Originally Posted by hcl123

No need historically research, its painfully scientifically obvious the reason why ACO/IMSA not adopting a much more democratic way to safely reduce performance ... in the same democratic way why a 1200Kg GT have so much difference, when they have(had!) theoretically the same engine between the DB9 and the LPM1 brother as example... Essentially its a question of weight... ~300Kg less can have a tremendous impact on performance in favor of the LMP1.

First off, why "Democratic"?, unless you got a good explanation and reason, otherwise you DO need to read up on a lot of other stuff.

The engine in the Lola AMR and the DBR9 is basically the same race engine, but the Lola AMR version are modified to fit regulations.
The 300kg do make the Lola AMR better around the corners, but what also makes a big different (maybe bigger than the weight) is the better aerodynamics of the Lola AMR.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by CTD

First off, why "Democratic"?, unless you got a good explanation and reason, otherwise you DO need to read up on a lot of other stuff.

The engine in the Lola AMR and the DBR9 is basically the same race engine, but the Lola AMR version are modified to fit regulations.
The 300kg do make the Lola AMR better around the corners, but what also makes a big different (maybe bigger than the weight) is the better aerodynamics of the Lola AMR.

As CTD said, biggest difference is aero. Ever looked at how wide and tall a GT car is compared to an LMP? They bear no resemblance in that regards. Maybe 2000 lbs of downforce compared to better than 6000.

[arakis]

Originally Posted by hcl123

No need historically research, its painfully scientifically obvious the reason why ACO/IMSA not adopting a much more democratic way to safely reduce performance ... in the same democratic way why a 1200Kg GT have so much difference, when they have(had!) theoretically the same engine between the DB9 and the LPM1 brother as example... Essentially its a question of weight... ~300Kg less can have a tremendous impact on performance in favor of the LMP1.

But augmenting weight will give diesels a much more advantage because of the much better torque of the engine.

Here i can be bashed for not entering fuel polemics... but its not me, its ACO and IMSA that want it.. at least in the best case they hope that nobody notice... when in any case diesel has no more than 11% volumetric advantage over petrol, yet in the new draft 4, they manage to give over 15% advantage in fuel tank capacity for the petrols... 73-75 for petrol against 63-65 for diesel...

Me, i'll continue to be pointing with a GOOD REASON to everybody why not buying a petrol street car again... even if i don't need to, for the majority of ppl (diesel cars sales have already out-passed petrol cars sales in the EU).

the regulations are not out yet, and w don't know what the restrictors will be, it could easyly be the petrols with the addvantige if the restrictors favor them.

[HORNDAWG]

Looks like Zytek's hybrid unit will be built to bolt to any engine, as a stand alone unit! Here




L.P.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Looks like Zytek's hybrid unit will be built to bolt to any engine, as a stand alone unit! Here




L.P.

that is good to see. If hybrids become the norm for manufacturers and offer a big performance advantage with the rules, it is nice to see that a private company is offering a competitive (hopefully) counterpoint.

[CTD]

Nice job by Zytek!, there is good money in such a solution.
But I'm just afraid that there will be problems with the adaptation with other engines and cars, and therefor lose some reliability, and end up breaking the cars.

But i will be surprised if the engine manufactures doesn't by the Zytek Hybrid system and make a proper adaptation for it, where reliability and performance is much better that if a team makes the adaptation.

[chernaudi]

Factory teams will have an advantage there (affordablitly and making it work), but with the rumors of Audi and Peugeot possibly adopting KERS for their cars, wouldn't they also be as likely to use their own proprietiary systems?

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Factory teams will have an advantage there (affordablitly and making it work), but with the rumors of Audi and Peugeot possibly adopting KERS for their cars, wouldn't they also be as likely to use their own proprietiary systems?

I do not see that as the case! Zytek by offering it as a stand alone, as well as a werks unit on their own GZ 09S, can supply it to more than just 2 cars which will diversify the cost and multiply the developmental rate.

And as CTD said, it might behove the ENGINE mfgs to couple the unit to their own as an end product, and not just the teams alone.

As to Audi or Peugeot, I would assume they will explore their own (groups) systems for application to their programs.



L.P.

[JAG]

ORECA 03

http://www.oreca-racing.com/en/2010/...ils-its-lm-p2/

Looks cool, can an LMPC be converted into this P2?

[Victor_RO]

http://www.endurance-info.com/versio...ance-5173.html

I believe this interview says that everything is different to the 01 except for the basic aero concept and the tub. And the tub of the Oreca 01 is the same basic tub as the old LC75 Courage, as the ARX-01 and possibly as the FLM cars.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by Victor_RO

http://www.endurance-info.com/versio...ance-5173.html

I believe this interview says that everything is different to the 01 except for the basic aero concept and the tub. And the tub of the Oreca 01 is the same basic tub as the old LC75 Courage, as the ARX-01 and possibly as the FLM cars.

But everything bolts to the tub, so yes, an FLM should be able to convert to a P-2 (ORECA 03).




L.P.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

But everything bolts to the tub, so yes, an FLM should be able to convert to a P-2 (ORECA 03).




L.P.

I believe Speed.com had a mention in the past few weeks that an upgrade kit would be available. However it wasn't mentioned in this press release - which is understandable since they are trying to sell the 03.

[fiend540]

Hmm at first glance I didn't even notice the stupid fin, although I think the chrome colored rendering helps to hide it some.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by fiend540

Hmm at first glance I didn't even notice the stupid fin, although I think the chrome colored rendering helps to hide it some.

You're right the fin doesn't look that obtrusive in these renderings.

So with this announcement the cars available for 2011 P2 Regs are:
Lola
Oreca
Norma
Radical
Pescarolo (announced intention but haven't shown anything to my knowledge)
Riley (maybe for 2012)

Not a bad looking list of possibilities. Add to that the wide variety of possible engines and hopefully this class will be a success.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by joeb

However it wasn't mentioned in this press release - which is understandable since they are trying to sell the 03.

Yep, gotta sell the new ones.





L.P.

[chernaudi]

So anyone with an FLM/LMPC can just buy the body/aero kit and have an instant LMP2 car? All the Oreca/Courage sourced cars (LC70/75, Acura/HPD ARX-01 series, the Oreca 01 and the LMPC/FLM cars) do share the same tub. Only problem is that the 6.2 Corvette V8 is too big for LMP2 and it's doubtful that IMSA would willingly sanction running the 03 bodywork on an LMPC unless it's moved into LMP2.

Maybe a way for Oreca to sell newly produced LMPCs and the 03 (or convert the newly built LMPC into the 03) and get HPD and Roush Yates/Ford to sell LMP2 engines?

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

So anyone with an FLM/LMPC can just buy the body/aero kit and have an instant LMP2 car?
No, they would have to change the engine also.
All the Oreca/Courage sourced cars (LC70/75, Acura/HPD ARX-01 series, the Oreca 01 and the LMPC/FLM cars) do share the same tub. Only problem is that the 6.2 Corvette V8 is too big for LMP2 and it's doubtful that IMSA would willingly sanction running the 03 bodywork on an LMPC unless it's moved into LMP2.
No the ALMS will not sanction different bodywork for LMPC!

Maybe a way for Oreca to sell newly produced LMPCs and the 03 (or convert the newly built LMPC into the 03) and get HPD and Roush Yates/Ford to sell LMP2 engines?

It is possible to convert an LMPC chassis (tub) into a P-2 using the ancillaries of the ORECA 03, period! Actually you should not even need any of the 03 bodywork. Feasible? Probably not, but....



L.P.

[chernaudi]

I think that Acura and HPD have proven that the Courage/Oreca tub is a good starting point, even if HPD had to tune the chassis and Oreca intergrated a lot of those changes in their 2008-present cars.

Any chance that someone outside of an HPD alligned team (Highcroft and Strakka) would use any Oreca chassis as the basis for an LMP1 if they can get it properly homologated? Lola and Courage did so in the past by building their cars initially to LMP1 crash standards, and chassis regs should be the same for both classes. Or is it a homologation deal?