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

[JAG]

The RLM Lola Forum podcast is well worth a listen.

http://audio.mpix.org.uk/lms2010/2010_lola_forum.mp3

[HORNDAWG]

Yes, it was an interesting forum.



L.P.

[Ultimo]

I had forgotten about the class within a class in GTE (sounds weird saying E - what does it stand for?). If I had to guess, I take it the people here are ****ed about there being a pro and amateur class?

[CTD]

Isn't the "E" for Endurance?
Gran Turismo Endurance?

[gucom]

^yup, GT Endurance.

[sorry for the off-topicness of my post!]
Personally I think it's a good idea, if you look at what we want to see in GT:
-lots of different cars battling each other at a high level
-long-term sustainability; not a class that implodes because the costs are too high because factory teams put the bar ever higher, pushing out the privateers and any manufacturers that aren't seeing a return on their investment.

the lots of different cars are, initially, provided by the GTE-Pro division. Mostly factory teams or factory-backed teams going for the promotional value of winning against the other manufacturers.

the sustainability is provided by the GTE-Am division. It gives the gentleman-racers / privateers a place to keep racing at ACO events and compete directly against the bug guys, which gives them prestige and excitement.
At the same time, the presence of privateers who need 1-year-old cars gives the manufacturers another way of making their investment in a GTE car worthwile; besides the promotional value, they can sell cars to privateers, giving them a more solid business model for building a GTE car (and the fact that the GTE-Am cars have to be 1 year old at least, also give manufacturers room for continued development of their latest model factory car).

So even if it's a fairly low-level factory program where performance hasn't been good enough to compete with the fastest factory teams, a manufacturer might still decide to keep investing in their GTE car because the combined value of promotion and selling off used cars (and technical support to privateers) is making it worthwile, when directly competing against the top factory teams would be too expensive.

I'm assuming here that the top-level factory cars (Corvette for instance) would be too expensive for most privateers to buy, whereas used cars by a manufacturer that spends a bit less on its factory team would be more affordable. If the fastest factory teams were to sell their used cars at relatively low prices, that could spoil things because then, the highest spending manufacturer would still get both the most promotional value and the most privateer sales.

[gwyllion]

Some information about the Riley LMP2 design on speedtv.com.

They borrow ideas from the Acura ARX-02 and Audi R15 (raised nose to have huge diffuser) to produce massive front downforce.

The suspension will use the typical Riley arrangement: http://www.mulsannescorner.com/mkiiic-8.html Torsion bar suspension was the first choice but it would be too expensive.

[chernaudi]

That being said, would the Audi R18 and the Peugeot 90x have a raised nose with the power-reduction next year? Peugeot ran detactchable valance panels on the 908s at Le Mans the past couple of years.

[JAG]

Riley are at their best when they design a car specifically for US tracks.

You have to think a state of the art all Amercian P2 chassis/engine (Roush/HPD) combination is going to be very attractive to prospective teams.

Let's hope this combination encourages current ALMS entrants to join the prototype ranks and brings in new teams to the series whether they be from GA or elsewhere.

[JAG]

I can't see it mentioned anywhere but grandfathered cars won't need to run with a fin.

[chernaudi]

Autosport is reporting that per Mariantic.

[gwyllion]

That means that the ACO changed their mind. In draft 4 (see here) the fin was mandatory:

The LMP1s having participated in at least one race organized according to the ACO specifications in 2010 will be admitted in 2011 under the condition to keep the full specifications of the 2010 season.
No changes will be permitted in 2011 apart from those necessary for the safety and for the adjustment of performances compared to the 2011 LMP1.
These mandatory modifications are :

• The fin on the rear bonnet;
• The restrictor diameters and the boost pressure for turbocharged engines. [...]
• The capacity of fuel tanks: similar to LMP1 in 2011.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

That means that the ACO changed their mind. In draft 4 (see here) the fin was mandatory:

Yep, thats what it means!




L.P.

[TrevorC]

I know there are good reasons for the fin... but it is soooooooo ugly.

[joeb]

With the recent Nismo/Zytek announcement that brings confirmed engines to:
HPD
Ford
BMW/Judd
Nissan/Zytek
Still no official word from Jaguar or Toyota - both were mentioned in the Lola 2011 P2 announcement.

The chassis list looks like this:
Lola
Oreca
Norma
Radical
Riley
Pescarolo?

But I wonder if now that Zytek is working on 2011 P2 engines they will prep a low cost chassis as well.
Lots of interesting combinations to play with on the chassis/engine front. I hope all of these see the light of day at some point next season.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by joeb

With the recent Nismo/Zytek announcement that brings confirmed engines to:
HPD
Ford
BMW/Judd
Nissan/Zytek

Just to be clear: Ford = Roush Yates.
You are missing the other Nissan engine by IES.

It is unclear whether Sodemo will also build a BMW engine.

There is also the rumour that AF Corsa want to go to LMP2 with a Ferrari GT2 engine.

Originally Posted by joeb

The chassis list looks like this:
Lola
Oreca
Norma
Radical
Riley
Pescarolo?

Oak Racing indeed intends to build a new LMP2 car based on the Pescarolo.
There is also the Bailey LMP project, but I don't count on it.

[JAG]

Despite unrelenting criticism towards the ACO's proposed 2011 regulations there once again appears to be a whole whost of chassis and engine manufactuers putting their money where their mouth is.

Compare and contrast with GA and the Indycar series which have effectively become one make series.

[Canada ALMS fan]

Originally Posted by JAG

Despite unrelenting criticism towards the ACO's proposed 2011 regulations there once again appears to be a whole whost of chassis and engine manufactuers putting their money where their mouth is.

Pleasantly surprising I must say. Now if we could only get rid of that fin on the LMP1 cars...

[HORNDAWG]

Why only P-1s??





L.P.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by JAG

Despite unrelenting criticism towards the ACO's proposed 2011 regulations there once again appears to be a whole whost of chassis and engine manufactuers putting their money where their mouth is.

Compare and contrast with GA and the Indycar series which have effectively become one make series.

I am excited about the 2011 P2 options as well, but the announced chassis and engines don't mean any teams have necessarily inked deals with said makers of chassis and engines. The first few DP years yielded multiple chassis, but when a dominant chassis was found most people migrated that way.

[HORNDAWG]

It seems pretty obvious that teams are looking, very seriously, at P-2 in 2011. Some have said as much, and not all back runners either. The end result, of the agglomeration presented to teams, will be what it will be! It is the natural selection process seen in nature everywhere.





L.P.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

It seems pretty obvious that teams are looking, very seriously, at P-2 in 2011. Some have said as much, and not all back runners either. The end result, of the agglomeration presented to teams, will be what it will be! It is the natural selection process seen in nature everywhere.





L.P.

I guess the price cap is for chassis purchases only, so if a chassis is lagging behind the competition the maker could develop the car and sell upgrades, or is the development on a chassis frozen few a few years?

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by joeb

I guess the price cap is for chassis purchases only, so if a chassis is lagging behind the competition the maker could develop the car and sell upgrades, or is the development on a chassis frozen few a few years?

There is a price cap for chassis and engine with an expected life cycle. Upgrades will be limited, I believe I remember 1 a year and aero (dive planes) will be included in the package.



L.P.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by joeb

I am excited about the 2011 P2 options as well, but the announced chassis and engines don't mean any teams have necessarily inked deals with said makers of chassis and engines. The first few DP years yielded multiple chassis, but when a dominant chassis was found most people migrated that way.

Your correct in what your saying but I think whats so positive in both prototypes and GT's is the quality of chassis/engines appears to be improving across the board.

With factory entries no longer blighting the second division of prototypes I would hope grids can grow significantly and teams can stick with the same package for a good few years.

[Mal]

Whilst nothing is concrete I see it as very positive that so many manufacturers appear to be spending money producing commercial packages for use in LMP's.

These are manufacturers we are talking about and they would not be doing it unless they thought sufficient market was there

[CTD]

Originally Posted by Mal

Whilst nothing is concrete I see it as very positive that so many manufacturers appear to be spending money producing commercial packages for use in LMP's.

These are manufacturers we are talking about and they would not be doing it unless they thought sufficient market was there

The problem is just that with this many manufactures, it will be hard for anyone to sell more than 1 or 2 cars. And manufactures as Norma will not be chosen when Lola, Oreca and Zytek can offer "better" cars, because they are more experienced.