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

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by littleman

The ACO would do everyone a favour if they split LMP1 into 2 classes,namely P1D and P1P.

No they should balance the performance between diesel and petrol cars!

What is next? Split between NA petrol and turbo petrol, split between open and closed, split between KERS and non-KERS, wide vs small front tyres, ...?

Originally Posted by littleman

This would allow the petrol cars to race for a recognised class victory which the PR boys at Honda,Toyota,Nissan etc,etc could put to excellent commercial use.What you can't do is allow the diesel cars to humiliate their petrol opposition in public because manufacturers don't like that.

When a manufacturer goes to Le Mans, they are often only interested in overall victory.

[littleman]

Sorry, but I disagree.Thats like trying to produce a ball which is suitable for playing both football and rugby, it won't work.

Global car manufacturers go motor racing to promote their products and petrol cars shouldn't be racing against diesel cars - they're totally different concepts each with their own merits.

I think the rotary engine eventually got banned because nobody really new how to legislate for it.

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by littleman

I think the rotary engine eventually got banned because nobody really new how to legislate for it.

Wrong, it was banned at the same time as the 5-liter Merc V8, the big Jag V12, the Porsche turbo flat-6 and everything else that wasn't a 3.5 liter F1-inspired NA engine.

[littleman]

Porsche,Ferrari and Corvette seem quite happy to race in the GTE class.They've got no chance of overall victory but they recognise this is probably the fairest and most honest category of the lot.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by littleman

Porsche,Ferrari and Corvette seem quite happy to race in the GTE class.They've got no chance of overall victory but they recognise this is probably the fairest and most honest category of the lot.

That are sportcar manufacturers. You can go to your local dealer on Monday and buy the same car (almost) that you saw race in the weekend...

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by littleman

I think the rotary engine eventually got banned because nobody really new how to legislate for it.

Until last year, the LMP rules had a column in the restrictor table for rotary engines. See appendix 1 of http://www.mulsannescorner.com/2010LMP12.pdf

[Joe Taylor]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

The article also mentions "lean-burn combustion and homogeneous charge compression ignition (HCCI)". Those technologies help reduce emissions and fuel consumption.

I don't know if they are usefull in Le Mans where around 80% of the lap is full throttle.

I can't really see lean burn being of any use in motorsport, you only use it on partial throttle (something completely alleviated by using direct injection).

I can't see HCCI being used anywhere, it has so many disadvantages that the couple of minor advantages can't possibly justify development costs for it.

Apologies for straying so far

[gwyllion]

So the question about the dramatic improvements in petrol engine technology is still unanswered.

Originally Posted by littleman

Petrol cars are not the slowest technology, but as long as Audi and Peugeot want to showcase diesel engines then they're going to be made to look that way.

Petrol engines have improved dramatically over the past decade but no major manufacturer has bothered to produce one for Le Mans until these stupid regs give them a chance.

Originally Posted by littleman

With the use of modern electronics and lightweight materials, petrol engines are now both more powerful and fuel efficient than ever before.

[TRuss]

Let's just end the argument with this; The problem isn't what is possible to acheive with a petrol engine, but what is possible to acheive with a petrol engine within the restrictions of the rules. A bigger problem still is the desparity between teams running petrol engines and those running diesels. With the exception of Highcroft to a degree. This seems to be the re-occuring theme anyway.

I will say that I feel that certain posters should pay attention to what some more knowledgeable posters are saying and stop arguing with points of ignorance.

[MitchZ06]

Couldnt someone create a twin turbo 4.0l V8 which could have the same sort of torque as the diesels and possibly more HP? (not so clued up on the engine rules so dont know if its possible...)

[Guardian]

Originally Posted by MitchZ06

Couldnt someone create a twin turbo 4.0l V8 which could have the same sort of torque as the diesels and possibly more HP? (not so clued up on the engine rules so dont know if its possible...)

Current petrol LMP1 engine regs:

3.4L max for NA engines
2.0L max for turbo engines

[Pandamasque]

Originally Posted by littleman

The ACO would do everyone a favour if they split LMP1 into 2 classes,namely P1D and P1P.

This would allow the petrol cars to race for a recognised class victory which the PR boys at Honda,Toyota,Nissan etc,etc could put to excellent commercial use.What you can't do is allow the diesel cars to humiliate their petrol opposition in public because manufacturers don't like that.

It depends. I can think of 2 manufacturers who clearly joined Le Mans racing just for that, to enjoy humiliating their opposition.

I agree with gwyllion that 5 classes would be way too much. It's not VLN. Some can argue that 2 prototype classes is too much, and there's a point there.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by TRuss

Let's just end the argument with this; The problem isn't what is possible to acheive with a petrol engine, but what is possible to acheive with a petrol engine within the restrictions of the rules. A bigger problem still is the desparity between teams running petrol engines and those running diesels. With the exception of Highcroft to a degree. This seems to be the re-occuring theme anyway.

I'd also add you have potentially great teams held back by elderly euipment, i.e Pescarolo, while Rebellion and AMR are hamstrung by lack of testing.

[MitchZ06]

Originally Posted by Guardian

Current petrol LMP1 engine regs:

3.4L max for NA engines
2.0L max for turbo engines

Why the hell is a turbo diesel allowed to be bigger? Theres the problem right there...a 3.4L turbo V8 petrol LMP would atleast stand a chance against this years diesels, damn ACO.

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by MitchZ06

Why the hell is a turbo diesel allowed to be bigger? Theres the problem right there...a 3.4L turbo V8 petrol LMP would atleast stand a chance against this years diesels, damn ACO.

Last year's regs allowed turbocharged engines up to 4 liters, but only Intersport and Autocon used it in the ALMS. With large enough restrictors to provide enough power the engines were prone to self-destructing anyway.

[chernaudi]

Only way to have a bigger engine than the diesels under the new rules is if one uses the production engine loophole, where a 4.0NA V8 is allowed (as per the 2004-2010 LMP2 rules).

However, either that loophole was dropped for 2011, or, like the rotory engine rules, was dropped because no one was interested.

[gwyllion]

@chernaudi: When in doubt, please check the rules yourself. I have already asked you this repeatedly

There is no "production engine loophole".

5.1.1 - Engine : Free
5.1.2 – displacement limit
a/ Normally aspirated engines 3400 cm3
b/Turbo/Supercharged engines (gasoline) 2000 cm3
c/ Superpercharged engine (diesel) 3700 cm3

see http://www.lemans.org/wpphpFichiers/...ations-lmp.pdf

[Félix]

If they wanted to give us an interesting battle between petrol and diesel engines, the diesels would be limited to 2 or 2.5L. The torque figures would still be impressive but the petrol cars would have a fighting chance and the manufacturers would have a real challenge to make reliable power instead of being able to play around with the mappings like now because they have such a huge advantage.

Diesel engine sizes closer to production cars would also make much more sense if they want to boast about racing improving the breed - Peugeot will never make a diesel V8! And on average the best-selling diesel engines must be inline fours that are pretty close to 2 liters.

[chernaudi]

My question is why did they drop the 4.0 NA V8 stock block option? No interest (only one such engine was ever devleoped for LMP2--now LMP1--and was never raced), or, like the deal over the blown exhaust diffusers in F1 at Spain and various NASCAR rule changes, was it dropped on a whim?

Not that it would make much of a difference if such a provision still existed--if no one used such engines then, who would now, and there are so many 3.4 V8s that can be had on the cheap, who'd bother? And on top of that, any power gains would be likely canceled out by the engines road car origins--this isn't a 6.0 V12 like what AMR used to use, and they'd still be a way off the diesels as far as power and/or torque.

[gwyllion]

Maybe it helps to have a look at road engines.

For road cars the highest specific engine power is

• NA petrol: 93.18 kW (125.0 hp) per litre (Ferrari 458 Italia)
• turbo petrol: 151.2 kW (203 hp) per litre (Mitsubishi Lancer Evo X FQ400)
• turbo diesel: 75.2 kW (100.8 hp) per litre (BMW 123d)

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...isplacement.29

If you fill those numbers in the maximum displacement that is allowed by the ACO, you get

• NA petrol: 3.4 x 125.0 hp = 425 hp
• turbo petrol: 2.0 x 203 hp = 406 hp
• turbo diesel: 3.7 x 100.8 hp = 373 hp

This gives some indication of what can be achieved with road engines (which of course have to deal with emissions, noise, ...).

[chernaudi]

Production based engines are still hampered by the fact that they are production engines--race engines only have to last as long as a race weekend, which ever that entails.

Road engines have to last (in theory, at least) for years before they have to be scrapped. Hence, everything is overbuilt compared to a race engine. And no matter how much one modifies such an engine, there'll always be some undesireable detail that a pure racing engine doesn't have, no matter how good the production engine is--the Ford Windsor engine was the last production based engine in NASCAR, and it was eventually left in the dust by new purpose built designs by GM, Chrysler and Toyota, and hence the FR9 replaced the Windsor.

And on a side note, this whole discussion about who should be slowed down or sped up sort of draws a parallel to me to the blown diffuser debate to Spain, where HRT, Williams and Virgin haven't entirely ruled out using their right to protest the results of the race for them not running the systems on their cars.

Those three teams are three of the most underfunded on the grid, and it would be a big boost if they could, in theory, get some of the bigger teams DQ'd or penalized following the race. A cheap shot? Yes, as the FIA made that rule on a whim and also made on a whim the decision to allow teams a 4 race waiver on such systems to continue to be used without penalty. But such teams have developed such systems at their own cost that will also now be soon obsolete--even HRT have possession the parts to their blown diffuser arrangement.

Parallel to the sportscar world: the ACO are trying to speed up the "slower" technology. First of all, it seems that some teams are taking it as an insult that they're cars and engines are being labled as "slow". Secondly, and more importantly, the cost has fallen on to the private teams to do what they need to do if they want to take advantage of the ACO's rule breaks.

I don't agree with slowing the diesels down as far as my distaste of the ACO's 3:30 rule, but I don't agree that small teams should have to shoulder all the cost to get them anywhere near equal. And as we know now, such increases may help a bit at smaller tracks, but at Le Mans, the gains will be marginal at best.

Everyone see where I'm coming from here? I can understand the ACO imposing such measures if only a couple of cars were the "slow" cars, but not nearly three quarters of the LMP1 field being judged as the "slowest technology".

[PascaLM]

I don't understand why the ACO had to change the GT regulations. All efforts of the teams and factories in improving performances seems useless.

[Félix]

Originally Posted by chernaudi

My question is why did they drop the 4.0 NA V8 stock block option?

It's the P2 rules now. The BMW M3 V8 that Sodemo was tuning for 2009 is the same BMW V8 that Judd uses for its 2011 LMP2 engine. I've not checked, but the levels of tune must be just about the same. Nobody wanted to use them before because they were up against pure race engines that weighed a lot less and could be stressed.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by PascaLM

I don't understand why the ACO had to change the GT regulations. All efforts of the teams and factories in improving performances seems useless.

I guess they want some diversity. With the performance ballancing everybody would have to buy a Ferrari 458

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by Félix

If they wanted to give us an interesting battle between petrol and diesel engines, the diesels would be limited to 2 or 2.5L.

Audi already went in uncharted territory with their V6 TDI engine. They have to deal with very high combustion pressures. See this interview with Baretzky.

With R15 engine they had 10 cilinders and 5.5 liter to produce around 750 hp. That means 75 hp/clinder or 136 hp/liter.

With the R18 engine they have to produce around 600 hp with only 6 cilinder and 3.7 liter. That means 100 hp/cilinder or 162 hp/liter.

You are proposing the make the task nearly impossible. 2 to 2.5 liter displacement means 4 or 5 cilinders. That means 120-150 hp/cilinder or 240-300 hp/liter

Another benchmark: the 2.0 TDI engine in the Seat Leon WTCC produces 280 hp with 4 cilinders and 2 liter. That means 70 hp/cilinder or 140 hp/liter.