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

[ger80]

Remove the RS Spyder and P2 is more or less perfect from my point of view.
And why change some good? We have years of Diesel blah blah in P1 and I only dont like the idea of having the same in P2.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by ger80

Remove the RS Spyder and P2 is more or less perfect from my point of view.
And why change some good? We have years of Diesel blah blah in P1 and I only dont like the idea of having the same in P2.

And why is Porsche in LMP2, well would seem logical because their engineers looked at the rule book, saw that petrol cars weren't going to be competitive and went to LMP2. Why did we have diesel dominance last years, well because the rules favour diesels, so that's where the manufacturer support goes.

In my view you are blaming diesels for something which is the result of an unbalanced rule book. Of course you could take the easy route and say throw all the diesels out, making a balanced rule book is a bit more of a challenge and to me having lot's of different types of engines racing each other competitively is much more exciting.

Let me put it this way, in order of preference:

1 Race vs. production, diesel vs. petrol engines racing competitively
2 Just one type of engine
3 Race vs. production, diesel vs. petrol engines not balanced

[ger80]

Yes, you are correct. The ACO doesnt get it done with LMP1 and it doesnt really work in WTCC, why should "they" get it balanced in P2?
Oh, and I have no problem with diesels at all. I am driving TDI myself, even if it doesnt makes sense anymore in Germany with the current fuel price level ....

[HORNDAWG]

Well this should surely rain on the parade then, if it comes to fruition. Peugeot, Zytek and Acura all with a hybrid in 09. link Imagine the task of balancing drive trains with such a different touque over rpm curve!


L.P.

[deggis]

It's going to open a gigantic can of worms. That's why I wish P1 Evo wouldn't turn out to be a separate class (except the introduction year) or even separate set of rules inside P1 class. Bodywork is not something that can be accurately be belanced with so different concepts.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Well this should surely rain on the parade then, if it comes to fruition. Peugeot, Zytek and Acura all with a hybrid in 09. link Imagine the task of balancing drive trains with such a different touque over rpm curve!


L.P.

So has the FIA & ACO decided on ONE type of Hybrid engine format?

[deggis]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

So has the FIA & ACO decided on ONE type of Hybrid engine format?

I guess answer is coming 15th Sept.

[TWK]

Originally Posted by deggis

It's going to open a gigantic can of worms. That's why I wish P1 Evo wouldn't turn out to be a separate class (except the introduction year) or even separate set of rules inside P1 class. Bodywork is not something that can be accurately be belanced with so different concepts.

What makes you think that "P1 Evo will turn out to be a separate class...?" (in the introduction year or otherwise)

[JAG]

The confusions understandable, initially it was meant to be substantially different, now, starting with the GT1 engine move, it looks like it will be a variation on current cars.

Will every new car, Acura included, be an 'Evo' car?

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

So has the FIA & ACO decided on ONE type of Hybrid engine format?

Huh? And just why would the FIA have anything to say about ACO hybrid rules?


L.P.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Huh? And just why would the FIA have anything to say about ACO hybrid rules?


L.P.

Lane

Though I read that the ACO was looking or talking with the FIA about new F1 hybrid engines. as a result the FIA was futher along in exploring options with teams.

IIRC the ACO only wanted ONE type of hybrid engine so it is easy to police and is simular to all hybrid engines from differnt manufactures.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by TWK

What makes you think that "P1 Evo will turn out to be a separate class...?" (in the introduction year or otherwise)

I agree here. P1 Evo is not SEPERATE CLASS but LMP1, with older cars granfathed in for a year or so.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by TWK

What makes you think that "P1 Evo will turn out to be a separate class...?" (in the introduction year or otherwise)

Pure speculation... there are not many facts about Evo.

[deggis]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Huh? And just why would the FIA have anything to say about ACO hybrid rules?


L.P.

Here it says (at least the translation says) "hybrid systems certified by FIA".

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by deggis

Pure speculation... there are not many facts about Evo.

You are correct.

However, we do know the ACO will keep FOUR classes, not five:

LMP1
LMP2
LMGT1
LMGT2

any LMP1 "Evo" rules will fit into the LMP1 class and rule structure

[deggis]

Pruett mentions this in his latest blog/article:

...ACO technical director Daniel Poissenot said in our interview last week.

Has this interview been published? I found nothing on speedtv.com.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by deggis

Here it says (at least the translation says) "hybrid systems certified by FIA".

Certifying that they are safe and sound, still has nothing to do with the rules as to what will be allowed, other than safety. The FIA does many things other than making rules. What avenues of hybrid that will be explored is up to the ACO.


L.P.

[deggis]

I was thinking something might be missing from the translation, and originally it does say "des systèmes homologués par la FIA". I can't speak French... if someone can, does it mean homologation or just approving?

-

[AU N EGL]

Rusty and wild guess here:

"The Homologation systems are on par ( equal to) the FIA"

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by deggis

I was thinking something might be missing from the translation, and originally it does say "des systèmes homologués par la FIA". I can't speak French... if someone can, does it mean homologation or just approving?

-

Try the whole sentence, in context.

The first is the authorization of hybrid technologies, with systems certified by the FIA, and whose first priority is security.

L.P.

[deggis]

Google translation's wording is not 100% reliable thus my question what "homologues" means...

This webpage says "homologuer" means "to approve" or "(in sport) to recognize officially" which then again means same as "to homologate".

http://www.wordreference.com/fren/homologuer

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by deggis

Google translation's wording is not 100% reliable thus my question what "homologues" means...

This webpage says "homologuer" means "to approve" or "(in sport) to recognize officially" which then again means same as "to homologate".

http://www.wordreference.com/fren/homologuer

Correct. The FIA and ACO 'approve' or homogate each car, plus engines and parts.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by deggis

Pruett mentions this in his latest blog/article:

...ACO technical director Daniel Poissenot said in our interview last week.

Has this interview been published? I found nothing on speedtv.com.

It was today. Some things are answered in the interview. link



L.P.

[AU N EGL]

a few quotes from the article ( for those of use who dont like to click and read )

"With the obvious superiority of diesel engines in LMP1, Plassart says the ACO will properly solve the diesel/petrol dispute with their announcement September 15th. Let’s hope they give the gas-powered LMP1 cars something they’ve lacked since 2006 – a fighting chance."

"“For us, the rules are meant for everybody. The LMP1 category is meant for everybody. But between a manufacturer and a private team, they have a lot of difference in investment and improvement."

"So, yes, it’s a difference between a manufacturer and a private team. And, as we say also, the LMP1 category is mainly made for the manufacturers. LMP2 is for privateers. GT2 is for privateers also. And GT1 is for both.”

Will the ACO define what or who is a manufacture or works or semi works team?

"It’s fair to say that we’ve heard the ACO make the same statements at the end of ’06 and ’07, but have seen no practical evidence of the Pescarolo’s, Intersport’s, or ORECA’s of fighting wheel-to-wheel for a win. LMP1 may be the prototype class ACO prefers for manufacturers to fill, but the category has the potential to go the way of GT1 – to become a shell of its former self – if the needs of the privateers aren’t taken seriously."

"While no clear plans have been outlined, the ACO says they’re keen to return the LMP2 category to a place where the spirit of affordable cars and privateer entries is restored. When facing the prospect of buying a $1.5M Porsche RS Spyder – the fastest commercially available P2 car in the LMS and ALMS, or a Lola B07/40 at 1/3rd the price, it’s easy to see why the ACO to wants the class remain as a viable home for independents."

"“What I told Mr. Plassart, the LMP2 is made for privateers but, as you know, Porsche…it’s not the spirit for the class. They have a very good chassis and a very good engine. It’s a good car. But this is over the limit for [what] privateers should pay.”

'They’re also comfortable with P2 serving as a training grounds for manufacturers that have future LMP1 aspirations, but not at the expense of bringing unchecked budgets and unanswerable speeds. Reducing costs and speed in equal measures is imperative to the health of the class, Poissenot says."

Looks like the ACO is going after LMP2 to make it for independents and keep costs down for primary use,

"Another large but unanswered area in the ACO’s future rules package centers on Hybrid power, and most notably, the use of KERS (Kinetic Energy Recovery System) to harness alternative energy sources for propulsion. Formula One has pushed hard to include KERS usage in 2009, but Poissenot prefers to take more time and wait for new technologies like the KERS or the ‘Flybrid’ systems to further evolve before openly embracing them in sportscar racing.

The first and most notable Hybrid project came with Zytek’s recent announcement of an LMP1 program in the ALMS with Corsa Motorsports. While Poissenot’s technical team welcomes the concept of Hybrid power, its implementation will currently be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

“In the short term, no, KERS will wait to be included before it is a [fully] accepted technology."

ie dont look for much hybrid technology in the near future?

Good article

Sept 15 is only a few days away. But my guess, not the full info, we will have to wait until Nov.

[AU N EGL]

Almost reads like the ACO wants to look at team budget and balance sheets to determine what class that team should run in.

IMO and many others the ACO should CLEARLY ( not in the spirit of) define:

1. what is a manufacture / works team?
2. and 'supported' manufacture / works team?
some teams only receive manufacture technical information and help, no money or parts. Where do these teams fit?


we know many " manufacture / works" teams are not owned by that manufacture but by a sub contacted company.