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

[Trussers]

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

Yes, at around 2%, if taking the weight break, that's around 10-12hp. That will barely budge the lap time.

The problem the ACO faces though, Mike, is that any more of a change has all kinds of knock-on effects on fuel consumption, tyre wear, engine revs, mappings and all the stuff I don't profess to understand.

I think the idea is to "budge the lap time" as much as they dare without impacting the reliability.

My point was really that the pit stop time will have far more of an impact than most people are giving credit.

[Félix]

If a car gains the duration of a full pitstop during a stint by running faster than anyone else, making them lose 20 seconds in the pits isn't gonna do much for the close race some of us would like to see, will it?

[chernaudi]

The refueling rig restrictors are supposed to speed up the gasoline car's pit times by up to about 20 seconds.

Problem is that if the diesels are still 6-7 seconds a lap faster, that 20 second gain is erased at LM within 3-4 laps, and with a stint being about 11-12 laps, the diesels will gain about 66-84 seconds (1:06-1:24), or about a third of a lap.

At the shorter tracks, the difference may well be more noticeable, but I doubt that even there it'll help much over the course of a 1000km/6 hour race, especially if the diesels are still about 3-4 seconds a lap faster at the shorter tracks.

[TF110]

Races won in the pits instead of on track? Sounds like what F1 was being accused of when refueling was around! Thoughts?

[lms]

here is an idea: if they want to equalise the lap times between the diesel and petrol lmp1-s, why not put extra weight on the diesels? Thus they would reach top speed much slower at Le Mans.

[alexkiller8]

beyond the engine, the real advantage of 908 and r18 is the aero package, developed by engineers with unlimited budget. The various lola/oreca etc.... have a good aero too, but not good like r18/908, because don't have the same budget so can't do all the simulations, wind-air gallery etc.... that audi and peugeot can. This is very important at le mans, because r18/908 can run the porsche turns in full trhottle, the other cars can't.

[Félix]

Originally Posted by alexkiller8

beyond the engine, the real advantage of 908 and r18 is the aero package, developed by engineers with unlimited budget. The various lola/oreca etc.... have a good aero too, but not good like r18/908, because don't have the same budget so can't do all the simulations, wind-air gallery etc.... that audi and peugeot can. This is very important at le mans, because r18/908 can run the porsche turns in full trhottle, the other cars can't.

I agree 100% that they have vastly superior aero (and reliability because of a costly testing program and drivers and pretty much everything really).

But if you think the diesels are gaining their 8-10 second per lap advantage only in the few corners found around the 14km Le Mans track (despite carrying a heavier engine) and not on the 5 long straights where the cars accelerate up to over 300kph... well you're alone! I'd need to see Peugeot prove it by running the same lap times with a 908 running a WRC inline four to believe it!!

[joeb]

Originally Posted by lms

here is an idea: if they want to equalise the lap times between the diesel and petrol lmp1-s, why not put extra weight on the diesels? Thus they would reach top speed much slower at Le Mans.

In the past years the diesels were running at 930kg if I recall, and they still had the advantage.

[cdsvg]

Originally Posted by Félix

I agree 100% that they have vastly superior aero (and reliability because of a costly testing program and drivers and pretty much everything really).

But if you think the diesels are gaining their 8-10 second per lap advantage only in the few corners found around the 14km Le Mans track (despite carrying a heavier engine) and not on the 5 long straights where the cars accelerate up to over 300kph... well you're alone! I'd need to see Peugeot prove it by running the same lap times with a 908 running a WRC inline four to believe it!!

Not just increased downforce, but vastly improved drag figures that lead to straight-line speed - the new 908 and r18 are said to produce similar downforce to the old cars, with significant drag reductions. Just look at the trap speeds from the LM test - barely any slower than they were with the 5.5L cars from previous years, and overall lap times that are only marginally slower. Compare this to most of the petrol field, who dont have any aero changes at all from 2010 to 2011. Not to mention improvements in suspension and mechanical grip for the new diesels.

It is erroneous to assume the only reason for the differences in lap times is due to power and torque.

[MulsanneMike]

Originally Posted by Félix

I agree 100% that they have vastly superior aero (and reliability because of a costly testing program and drivers and pretty much everything really).

But if you think the diesels are gaining their 8-10 second per lap advantage only in the few corners found around the 14km Le Mans track (despite carrying a heavier engine) and not on the 5 long straights where the cars accelerate up to over 300kph... well you're alone! I'd need to see Peugeot prove it by running the same lap times with a 908 running a WRC inline four to believe it!!

What's vastly superior? I've demonstrated with my calculations, and figures that have been passed to me, that the top manufacturer backed teams have no more than a 15% advantage in drag. And even if my numbers are off more than that, and the advantage is more like 20% (and for example that's ,45 .cd vs. .54 .cd closed top vs. closed top), that isn't enough to explain the speed advantage, not by a long shot. Yes, we're only looking at drag, but remember, aero forces are only really in play past 100 mph (it's that whole thing where you double the speed you triple the aero force which means a lower speeds the numbers you're dealing with are pretty insignificant) where as power and torque are in play no matter the speed regime. So no it's not erroneous (and no one has suggested as much) to only look at power and torque. Just so happens power and torque are the best ways to reduce lap time at Le Mans. If a 10% gain in downforce only offers a 1 second drop in lap time vs. a 10% gain in torque resulting in a 3.7 second reduction (or 10% gain in hp=2.6 seconds) at Le Mans, you do the math.

[Félix]

??? We seem to point to the same thing: they have an engine advantage that is much bigger than the advantage they gain from their aero.

I'm just agreeing with the excuse that's used by most saying that the factory have an aero advantage. It's just not the reason for most of their superiority, especially at Le Mans. To me, a 908 with a turbo inline-four would halve the gap but it would still be clearly beaten over a lap and even more in traffic and during a long race.

[JAG]

In Autosport De Chaunac says he wants manufacturers to be forced to supply customer engines as in F1, Peugeot agree in concept and had already agreed to supply their diesel for 2011.

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by JAG

In Autosport De Chaunac says he wants manufacturers to be forced to supply customer engines as in F1, Peugeot agree in concept and had already agreed to supply their diesel for 2011.

The story about Peugeot supplying Oreca with engines started way back in 2010 I believe. Still no word though on why the Oreca 02 project was actually shelved, although with possible profits from selling and maintaining the 03 and FLM chassis the 02 might be back on the cards (it was that car that was rumoured to have a Peugeot engine in the back).

[JAG]

Given ORECA can get a 908 (or two) there was little point stretching themselves financially with their own P1.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by JAG

In Autosport De Chaunac says he wants manufacturers to be forced to supply customer engines as in F1, Peugeot agree in concept and had already agreed to supply their diesel for 2011.

Originally Posted by Victor_RO

The story about Peugeot supplying Oreca with engines started way back in 2010 I believe. Still no word though on why the Oreca 02 project was actually shelved, although with possible profits from selling and maintaining the 03 and FLM chassis the 02 might be back on the cards (it was that car that was rumoured to have a Peugeot engine in the back).

Both Audi and Peugeot has always been good at reselling their cars.
But as always, keeping the advantage on their side, which is only fair.

The problem in all this is this the budget, as a well budget manufacture can run more smooth over 24h, have faster drivers, better mechanics and simply just a better performance.
The Pescarolo 908 vs. Peugeot 908, and Oreca 908 vs. Peugeot 908, as both comparisons was with identical cars, but the Peugeot Peugeots where faster.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by JAG

Given ORECA can get a 908 (or two) there was little point stretching themselves financially with their own P1.

De Chaunac has said he misses seeing one of his own cars race in top-level.
The dream might still be alive.

[Victor_RO]

Originally Posted by CTD

The Pescarolo 908 vs. Peugeot 908, and Oreca 908 vs. Peugeot 908, as both comparisons was with identical cars, but the Peugeot Peugeots where faster.

The list of fastest laps at Le Mans last year would like to disagree with you. 3:19.074, set by a Peugeot, driven by one Loic Duval.

[CTD]

Originally Posted by Victor_RO

The list of fastest laps at Le Mans last year would like to disagree with you. 3:19.074, set by a Peugeot, driven by one Loic Duval.

Put the Peugeot lead over the Oreca thru the whole race - until there was no more Peugeot Peugeots .
Remember it's race pace that counts, it's luckily not F1

[Victor_RO]

I was just talking in absolute terms after it all shook out.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by JAG

Given ORECA can get a 908 (or two) there was little point stretching themselves financially with their own P1.

On the other hand, I'm sure they want to sell chassis. A successful factory Oreca LMP1 program would help their cause in that regard. Of course, I'm sure the other customers would also want an Audi or Peugeot diesel engine to go with the chassis!

[gwyllion]

http://www.lemanslive.com/en/24h-man...ig-difference/ explains why the size of the new Michelin LMP1 front tyres.

But why “36” at the front and “37” at the rear? What difference does a single centimetre make?

“We did a great deal of simulation work and testing, and the ideal size for the new LMP1 cars is 36cm,” notes one of MICHELIN’s development and design specialists. “If we go less than “36”, we lose out in terms of durability, while “37” leads to understeer. That centimetre makes a big difference!”

[skeeskirrt]

It was said that Audi and Peugeot have there own custom tires developed from Michelin. What are Aston and Rebellion using for their fronts? Are they custom made for their cars as well?

[JAG]

This is the De Chaunac article originally in Autosport.

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20110602/ALMS/110609975

I wonder if this was also prompted by Nissan reportedly supplying engines for the P1 ORECA 02 coupe.

[johntt]

There is one thing we have learnt from this weekend.

The fins worked.

Without the fin keeping the car on the ground Rockenfeller's crash would have been much much worse than it was.

McNish's car would have been taken off long before it hit the armco if it wasn't for the shark fin.

[JAG]

It's not conclusive, but coupes look to be the way to go from a safety point of view in P1, not to mention performance and aesthetics.