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

[gregtummer]

I think I heard in one of the Le Mans (2008, 2009?) that the French government lent Peugeot $3 billion in order to win Le Mans.

[gucom]

AGD, I completely agree with you on every point you just made!

[edit] gregtummer... first of all we can be sure Peugeot didn't use or need 3 billion dollars, that's just an insane amount of money, and either the marginal benefit of it above the budget already in place would decline very rapidly, making it a big waste of money, or the car would've run laps in the 2 minutes zone.

Secondly, if the French government gave a loan like this I'm sure it'd be in the books somewhere and it would've been published about, especially since the money wouldn't be paid back and it would therefore be a gift (see next point)

Thirdly, I'm pretty sure borrowing money to go racing does not a sound business case make, since the only way of recouping it is by selling more road cars, and a Le Mans win isn't worth 3 billion in road car sales

[chernaudi]

And in 2009, the diesels were given a 10% restrictor cut and 6% less turbocharger boost compared to '08. The result? If anything, the diesels went faster! A 2.5% restrictor cut and 6% turbo boost cut was made in '10, and it didn't slow the diesels down, either.

A 40 bhp cut (about 6-8%) probably won't make much difference now, as Audi and Peugeot are clearly outspending everyone, and there's no solid factory effort in LMP1 aside from them now, unless one wants to count the ARX-03 customer cars and the fact that Rebellion buy their engines from Toyota/TRD/TMG.

And I don't think that Peugeot was lent $3 billion by the French government just to run at LM that year. They were probably loaned the money in '09 because PSA was on the verge of bankruptcy, but I doubt, considering that Audi and Peugeot reported in '10 spent $75-150 million on their programs that year (much of that money going into Le Mans), that Peugeot needs $3 billion to win LM.

Either that, or it was 3 billion Fr, but under the exchange rates then or now, I don't think it equals anything near $3 billion just to win LM.

[Dead-Eye]

Originally Posted by AGD

I know I have the minority opinion on this, but I'm not so sure that the diesels have some sort of "unfair advantage." Ok, they have tons more money than everyone else, but that is not a problem with the rules. I don't know if the rules right now are right, but as I have always said, I know the rules will be wrong if teams like Rebellion and OAK are running equal lap times (assuming they are running their current equipment) to the diesel giants.

I agree up to a point (and so does Henri Pescarolo actually - he said after Le Mans that he doesn't expect to run the same laptimes, just to be close enough to pick up the pieces if the factories do run into trouble). We will never see how equivalent the rules actually are until there is a petrol LMP developed with the same kind of budget. But right now the situation is so that even when the diesels have massive problems, they can usually catch back up to the petrol cars again with ease. That can't be right.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

I agree up to a point (and so does Henri Pescarolo actually - he said after Le Mans that he doesn't expect to run the same laptimes, just to be close enough to pick up the pieces if the factories do run into trouble). We will never see how equivalent the rules actually are until there is a petrol LMP developed with the same kind of budget. But right now the situation is so that even when the diesels have massive problems, they can usually catch back up to the petrol cars again with ease. That can't be right.

I'm not sure, the massive difference in lap times might be legit. It might not be, as you say it is hard to say until we have a petrol effort of similar quality to the diesels. Having said that, I think the petrol criers caught a very lucky break in that the ARX-01e has only raced once this year. Highcroft definitely had a chance to pick up the pieces at Sebring! Ok, granted Audi had their old car and I don't think Peugeot was pushing at 100% with their new car. On the other hand, the ARX-01e package had practically no testing so I'm not so sure if that car was running to it's full potential either.

We'll have to see if the ARX-03 will hush some of the other team owners at least a little. I doubt it will be a diesel slayer, but it could be faster than the other petrol cars given that the HPD will have factory car ancestry. Of course, if it is not beating the diesels, there will always be complaining. Maybe the volume of the complaining will be less though. Porsche and others joining in 2014 might be the real moment where teams will have to stop playing politics and actually work to get to the front of the pack.

[davehenrie]

Since this has become a Petrol vs Diesel argument, I thought I'd drop this in.

Would the McNish LM accident have occurred if he was racing a Petrol powered R18? I have my opinion which I will withhold for now.

dh

[MitchZ06]

Err....if the R18 was petrol would it be as fast as it is now? Likely. So yes, swap diesel for petrol and it'd have still occurred (driver error not powertrain...).

[Audi Racer]

depending on the way you think about it there could be many answers. Because technically we could see it as the R18 was a petrol, then the R15 was a petrol then the R10 was a petrol and peugeot never entered with a diesel becasue no one else did it and then Audi wouldnt be under so much pressure and mcnish wouldnt have made that crazy move. Or the ACO wouldnt have slowed the cars down so much and therefore Timo would have been able to pass that GT car before the apex of that turn on power alone and mcnish wouldnt have had a chance to divebomb. see where I'm going. Its a big can of worms lol.

there;d have to be some kind of reason that the R18 suddenly became a petrol. that could be becasue the R15/r10 where petrols Or it was a sudden change of heart by audi.

even then we can't say that the R18 would be as fast in petrol config as in diesel config. Theyres no petrol to confirm that.


I think all of the pressure is imparted by Diesel itself. Audi vs. Peugeot is a marketing ploy. Both companies want to show up the other with their Diesel tech( a new relatively unexplored marketing area with diesel-lots of room to get loyal customers) on the race track. This pressure to be the best diesel trickles to the the race track and causes the incidents.

i feel almost as if if the R18 was petrol.

[Mal]

This is a copy of what I just posted in the ALMS thread as it is more relavent here:

"I really don't think the diesels should be pegged back further. If anything the petrol cars should have a restrictor break. We saw at Silverstone that the Diesels are barely faster than a 25 year old group C car running in historic racing. You can also see that the lack of speed differentials on the straight is leading to more manoeuvres in the braking zones.

Having said that I dont think that a private team running on old grandfathered car should expect to be competitive with a full works state of the art car. But maybe they should 1 or 2 seconds off the pace rather than 3 or 4 which would mean they would be ready to pounce if the Diesels hit trouble.

The comparison should really be made with a fully modern petrol car like the ARX P1 which alas we haven't seen since Sebring, but was competitive there.

...and I still laugh at Dave Richard blaming the rules for wasting $25 million on the AMR One. That argument would have some weight if his car was competitive with the other petrol cars ... hell it was hardly even competitive with P2 cars."

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Mal

This is a copy of what I just posted in the ALMS thread as it is more relavent here:

"I really don't think the diesels should be pegged back further. If anything the petrol cars should have a restrictor break. We saw at Silverstone that the Diesels are barely faster than a 25 year old group C car running in historic racing.

I was watching the RLM review of Le Mans 1990 the other week, the commentators were marvelling at the Brun 962C and Nissan R90C being the quickest cars on track. They were running mid to low 3.40's but to be competivie these days you need to be caplable of 3.30 and under.

Look at any formula, ultimate one lap/stage pace isn't a great deal quicker than twenty years back but consistancy and efficiency are in a different league. Decision makers also need to factor in the greater rate of development in modern racing, i.e this years smaller engined P1's lapping as quickly as previous seasons

[TF110]

Why do the Group C cars run 1 47's at Silverstone while the Rebellion's hit the same mark once? Tires? I thought the Group C cars were ancient history, wouldn't be competitive? Seems they're not so far off what modern Petrol cars are. This screams out lack of budget. Oak, Pescarolo, Rebellion and Aston Martin just don't have the funds or equipment necessary to keep pace. I sure hope Honda Nissan and Toyota realise this. I'm positive with they're talent and budget they can find 2 seconds with a works Petrol car.

[Mal]

Originally Posted by TF110

Why do the Group C cars run 1 47's at Silverstone while the Rebellion's hit the same mark once? Tires? I thought the Group C cars were ancient history, wouldn't be competitive? Seems they're not so far off what modern Petrol cars are. This screams out lack of budget. Oak, Pescarolo, Rebellion and Aston Martin just don't have the funds or equipment necessary to keep pace. I sure hope Honda Nissan and Toyota realise this. I'm positive with they're talent and budget they can find 2 seconds with a works Petrol car.

In a word - Power

[TF110]

Really? What kind of speeds were they seeing on the straights compared to the diesels? I think that's only one part. The tires today are surely better.

[Mal]

Take a look at this qualifying lap from 1990

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1ECE...eature=related

The car was supposed to have 1100 bhp in this guise

[Félix]

Originally Posted by TF110

Why do the Group C cars run 1 47's at Silverstone while the Rebellion's hit the same mark once? Tires? I thought the Group C cars were ancient history, wouldn't be competitive? Seems they're not so far off what modern Petrol cars are. This screams out lack of budget. Oak, Pescarolo, Rebellion and Aston Martin just don't have the funds or equipment necessary to keep pace. I sure hope Honda Nissan and Toyota realise this. I'm positive with they're talent and budget they can find 2 seconds with a works Petrol car.

What in the world do you think more budget is going to change when they lose most of their time on the straights? Just look at pictures from Silverstone: the petrol P1s have trouble passing P2 cars while the diesel P1 cars have speed that makes them an entirely distinct class. Just think about it: how bad do their chassis and aero have to be to explain such a gap in straightline speed?? We're talking about teams with years of experience like Pescarolo and Rebellion - yes quadrupling the number of team members and spending more on chassis development would help, but it would NEVER make up for stupid rules that give the diesels an unfair advantage. But yeah of course Audi and Peugeot are friends with the ACO and help them pay the bills so let's keep hoping for better (actual!) racing in 2013, 2014, 2015...

[Spyderman]

Right on!

[Audi Racer]

Originally Posted by Félix

What in the world do you think more budget is going to change when they lose most of their time on the straights? Just look at pictures from Silverstone: the petrol P1s have trouble passing P2 cars while the diesel P1 cars have speed that makes them an entirely distinct class. Just think about it: how bad do their chassis and aero have to be to explain such a gap in straightline speed?? We're talking about teams with years of experience like Pescarolo and Rebellion - yes quadrupling the number of team members and spending more on chassis development would help, but it would NEVER make up for stupid rules that give the diesels an unfair advantage. But yeah of course Audi and Peugeot are friends with the ACO and help them pay the bills so let's keep hoping for better (actual!) racing in 2013, 2014, 2015...

What kind of engines do you think are powering these pescarolos and rebellions and zyteks and amr-ones??

1. An ANCIENT decrepit Judd V8.
2. A Toyota super gt engine which wasnt even designed for Lemans style top speed(whichin my opinion is a devious plot by toyota to get the diesels slowed). Those sgt cars dont reach nearly the top end of the lmp cars. And the sgt petrols dont have nearly the amount of torque.
3. An outdated Zytek engine

(outdated Unfit engines and unfit Chassis) = Petrols
(multimillion dollar state of the art engine and multimillion dollar state of the art chassis) = Diesels

Thats why the diesels are crushing the competition.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by Félix

What in the world do you think more budget is going to change when they lose most of their time on the straights? Just look at pictures from Silverstone: the petrol P1s have trouble passing P2 cars while the diesel P1 cars have speed that makes them an entirely distinct class. Just think about it: how bad do their chassis and aero have to be to explain such a gap in straightline speed?? We're talking about teams with years of experience like Pescarolo and Rebellion - yes quadrupling the number of team members and spending more on chassis development would help, but it would NEVER make up for stupid rules that give the diesels an unfair advantage. But yeah of course Audi and Peugeot are friends with the ACO and help them pay the bills so let's keep hoping for better (actual!) racing in 2013, 2014, 2015...

The Judd and Zytek 3.4L V8s, the ones most of the petrol runners are using this year, were routinely whipped by the HPD 3.4L V8 last season when they were all LMP2 engines. That was especially the case when mounted to an ARX-01. The same could be said about the RS Spyder a year or two earlier. So what is the excuse in those situations? Was Essex, Strakka, and company paying off the ACO so they could beat the Judds? Did Highcroft pay off the ACO at Sebring this year when they ran very competitively and almost won? Maybe that's why they are laying off their employees, but I don't think so.

I think the edge that some of the diesel teams have is not just that they have more outright speed, but they also have better reliability. That comes with lots of testing and development obviously. That allows them to push their equipment harder than the petrol teams probably and they can get away with it. Also, there is just more to learn about diesel racing engines and so they can make big jumps that the petrol teams can't really, but that takes a lot of money and expertise to exploit and the diesel giants have it. How do you want to counteract that with the rules? Performance balance before every race? That's not what I consider to be effective rules.

[Félix]

Originally Posted by AGD

The Judd and Zytek 3.4L V8s, the ones most of the petrol runners are using this year, were routinely whipped by the HPD 3.4L V8 last season when they were all LMP2 engines. That was especially the case when mounted to an ARX-01. The same could be said about the RS Spyder a year or two earlier. So what is the excuse in those situations? Was Essex, Strakka, and company paying off the ACO so they could beat the Judds? Did Highcroft pay off the ACO at Sebring this year when they ran very competitively and almost won? Maybe that's why they are laying off their employees, but I don't think so.

Another manufacturer needs to come in to "offer things" to the ACO as well so they have to balance their rules a bit in return. Not gonna happen because they all sniff around and pass - or at least never get really involved.

When was the last time we saw an air restricted engine have a significant advantage when they play from sensible balanced regulations? Such an engine can lose races if it's not reliable, win races if it's efficient, but it never accounts for more than 5-10 kph at the end of a straight.

And the HPD was incredibly lucky with safety cars at Sebring because it would have ended up numerous laps behind as usual, "in contention" with the diesel cars that crashed early in the race.

Originally Posted by AGD

I think the edge that some of the diesel teams have is not just that they have more outright speed, but they also have better reliability. That comes with lots of testing and development obviously. That allows them to push their equipment harder than the petrol teams probably and they can get away with it. Also, there is just more to learn about diesel racing engines and so they can make big jumps that the petrol teams can't really, but that takes a lot of money and expertise to exploit and the diesel giants have it. How do you want to counteract that with the rules? Performance balance before every race? That's not what I consider to be effective rules.

I'm pretty sure the petrol cars from OAK (recently), Pescarolo and Rebellion have had more perfect runs this year than the factory diesels (who love to play bumper cars it seems). Seriously.

But all they're "in contention" for is a spot behind the untroubled diesels. And even then, if the DP1s who had problems lost less than 10-15 minutes (!!!) they'll come back before the end of a 6 hour race.

You don't believe me? Watch the Silverstone coverage again, pay attention to the speed gaps between DP1-P1-P2 and look at how close the crashing diesels were from beating the P1s with a flawless run.

[Audi Racer]

Originally Posted by Félix

Another manufacturer needs to come in to "offer things" to the ACO as well so they have to balance their rules a bit in return. Not gonna happen because they all sniff around and pass - or at least never get really involved.

When was the last time we saw an air restricted engine have a significant advantage when they play from sensible balanced regulations? Such an engine can lose races if it's not reliable, win races if it's efficient, but it never accounts for more than 5-10 kph at the end of a straight.

And the HPD was incredibly lucky with safety cars at Sebring because it would have ended up numerous laps behind as usual, "in contention" with the diesel cars that crashed early in the race.



I'm pretty sure the petrol cars from OAK (recently), Pescarolo and Rebellion have had more perfect runs this year than the factory diesels (who love to play bumper cars it seems). Seriously.

But all they're "in contention" for is a spot behind the untroubled diesels. And even then, if the DP1s who had problems lost less than 10-15 minutes (!!!) they'll come back before the end of a 6 hour race.

You don't believe me? Watch the Silverstone coverage again, pay attention to the speed gaps between DP1-P1-P2 and look at how close the crashing diesels were from beating the P1s with a flawless run.

An old decrepit Judd V8, an SGT-sourced toyota engine, and Straight Six 2.0l Pop tart are not going cut it against an Audi V6 TDI and Puegeot V8 HDI. end of. Dont bring grandma's butter knife to a new sword exposition and ask for the swords to get cut back to size.

[Félix]

Originally Posted by Audi Racer

What kind of engines do you think are powering these pescarolos and rebellions and zyteks and amr-ones??

1. An ANCIENT decrepit Judd V8.
2. A Toyota super gt engine which wasnt even designed for Lemans style top speed(whichin my opinion is a devious plot by toyota to get the diesels slowed). Those sgt cars dont reach nearly the top end of the lmp cars. And the sgt petrols dont have nearly the amount of torque.
3. An outdated Zytek engine

(outdated Unfit engines and unfit Chassis) = Petrols
(multimillion dollar state of the art engine and multimillion dollar state of the art chassis) = Diesels

Thats why the diesels are crushing the competition.

When they play from balanced rules, decent air restricted engines don't gain much of a performance advantage. The AMR V12 was better because special rules were written for it. Diesels are better because special rules were written (and joke-rewritten multiple times) for them.

Your logic doesn't make any sense. In no way should a restricted race engine have to be ultra-recent to compete at the front. Jaguar won with an antic V12, Porsche won way too many times with their ultra-traditional H6 design, BMW won with a big V12 that was getting old. And they were all road-car derived. Audi even kept winning with an engine that was 7 years old at the end! That's older than the Judd, Zytek and Toyota V8 designs are (check your facts!)!

How much do you seriously think you can gain from a bleeding edge engine? How big was the performance advantage provided by Porsche's DFI or Peugeot's aggressive engine development strategy from the last few years? Can the performance benefits we've seen from committed manufacturers over an average engine really bridge the current gap between the two P1 classes?

Run the numbers, what non-diesel engines need to compete is not anywhere near being possibly available with the current restrictors. Do you really want rules that deny privateers a competing chance unless they find engines that are much better than what is achievable within the rules?

[AGD]

Originally Posted by Félix

Another manufacturer needs to come in to "offer things" to the ACO as well so they have to balance their rules a bit in return. Not gonna happen because they all sniff around and pass - or at least never get really involved.

When was the last time we saw an air restricted engine have a significant advantage when they play from sensible balanced regulations? Such an engine can lose races if it's not reliable, win races if it's efficient, but it never accounts for more than 5-10 kph at the end of a straight.

And the HPD was incredibly lucky with safety cars at Sebring because it would have ended up numerous laps behind as usual, "in contention" with the diesel cars that crashed early in the race.



I'm pretty sure the petrol cars from OAK (recently), Pescarolo and Rebellion have had more perfect runs this year than the factory diesels (who love to play bumper cars it seems). Seriously.

But all they're "in contention" for is a spot behind the untroubled diesels. And even then, if the DP1s who had problems lost less than 10-15 minutes (!!!) they'll come back before the end of a 6 hour race.

You don't believe me? Watch the Silverstone coverage again, pay attention to the speed gaps between DP1-P1-P2 and look at how close the crashing diesels were from beating the P1s with a flawless run.

Ok, the diesel giants have had problems with bumper cars and such, but that is a whole different discussion. Anyway, Porsche will be coming in and I don't think they are going diesel. They must feel pretty comfortable with the way the rules will be. Whether Audi and Peugeot switch to petrol or stick with diesel is to be seen, but I don't think fuels will be a problem.

I know some here say the gap between the diesels and petrols is too much for the rules to be legitimate, but I don't necessarily buy that. There was a 7 second difference between the pole sitting Audi and the top petrol runner (Rebellion) at Le Mans in qualifying. Ok, that is a lot, but in 2010, there was a 7.5 second difference between Strakka and the fastest non-HPD powered LMP2 car (Quifel-ASM Zytek). The difference was 8.3 seconds to the fastest Judd powered car (OAK Pescarolo). Keep in mind that all of these engines are the current LMP1 engines plus the TMG Toyota. How do you explain those massive gaps? The cars were running to the same rules. There's no "unfair" diesel advantage at play here. Maybe Strakka is better than OAK and Amaral's team, but I don't think that is true by a huge amount. It's simply that the engines and the chassis those teams are running are inferior. They are inferior to the ex-factory HPDs and RS Spyders and they are definitely inferior to the diesel giants. Frankly, it almost seems as if the gaps should be even bigger than they are!

[chernaudi]

And may I throw this in--the Audi R8 had as big of an advantage under the LMP900 rules as the R18 and 908 have under the new rules. One reason? The R8 was developed by a factory team with huge resource reserves. Second reason? Audi was about the only LMP900 effort that gambled on a turbocharged engine. The Panoz used an aluminum block, fuel injected version of the old Ford NASCAR V8, which was based on the Windsor V8 that Ford designed in the 1950s and was the last true "stock block" NASCAR engine to be retired (in 2010). And the BMWs ran a 6.0 V12 like what the McLaren F1 used (in fact, they were the same engine aside from being destroked to fit the LMP900 6.0 capacity limit). And then there were teams who opted for the unreliable Judd 4.0 V10, and then the 5.0 and 5.5 engines, which were soon obsolescent, or would have been if Audi developed another gasoline turbo engine.

So could we say that Audi with the R8 had the "unfair" advantage with a turbo engine that was if anything favored by the air restrictor rules that favored torque and fuel economy over brute power?

I'm not sure that the diesels have an advantage on the power front, but the diesel engines still make more torque and are fitted to cars designed around those engines by big factories. And because of that latter fact, I don't think that taking 40bhp away from the diesels or giving the petrol runners 40bhp is gonna make much of a difference. The ACO tried to take away 10 and 4% power in '09 and '10, and it didn't close the gap because of the development the factory teams did.

[Félix]

Originally Posted by AGD

Ok, the diesel giants have had problems with bumper cars and such, but that is a whole different discussion. Anyway, Porsche will be coming in and I don't think they are going diesel. They must feel pretty comfortable with the way the rules will be. Whether Audi and Peugeot switch to petrol or stick with diesel is to be seen, but I don't think fuels will be a problem.

Yippee, a manufacturer to get rules their way in 2014. Only 2 years of intense bore to go.

The bumper car problem is not that the factory cars do it, it's that they're so fast that they can still finish in front of untroubled cars.

Originally Posted by AGD

I know some here say the gap between the diesels and petrols is too much for the rules to be legitimate, but I don't necessarily buy that. There was a 7 second difference between the pole sitting Audi and the top petrol runner (Rebellion) at Le Mans in qualifying. Ok, that is a lot, but in 2010, there was a 7.5 second difference between Strakka and the fastest non-HPD powered LMP2 car (Quifel-ASM Zytek). The difference was 8.3 seconds to the fastest Judd powered car (OAK Pescarolo). Keep in mind that all of these engines are the current LMP1 engines plus the TMG Toyota. How do you explain those massive gaps? The cars were running to the same rules. There's no "unfair" diesel advantage at play here. Maybe Strakka is better than OAK and Amaral's team, but I don't think that is true by a huge amount. It's simply that the engines and the chassis those teams are running are inferior. They are inferior to the ex-factory HPDs and RS Spyders and they are definitely inferior to the diesel giants. Frankly, it almost seems as if the gaps should be even bigger than they are!

There are many imperfect comparisons one can do but we'll never get a clear and final answer that stops all debates. We can only look back afterwards and things appear a little clearer based on the development and rule changes from the following year(s)... and when we look back at 2010 stats, what we can all agree on is that there is no way to compare the Highcroft HPD's speed because it didn't come back. Good efforts like these keep disappearing, entries don't look serious anymore because they don't go with only pro drivers and pretty soon we are faced with a lack of competition that stems not from the diesels' superiority, but simply from the fact that everyone else has given up. Nothing to compare, even harder to know how big the injustice was in the first place. And very few people left to complain.

I was completely disappointed by the lack of serious entries for my first time at Le Mans this year. It seems everyone has moved way past competing for winning the race and either lets sons of millionaires drive their cars, is content with half-measures and getting paid to merely show up. When someone talks about winning... it's the petrol class. Maybe it's just because I idealized that whole thing as an actual sport.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by Félix

The bumper car problem is not that the factory cars do it, it's that they're so fast that they can still finish in front of untroubled cars.

Right, but there were times where Strakka did the same thing last year where they had a mechanical issue that set them back by a fairly significant amount and they would blow by the Judds and Zyteks to win. I can't remember the circumstances exactly, but wasn't there a race last year where Strakka came back from a lap or two down late after an issue to end up winning LMP2?

There are many imperfect comparisons one can do but we'll never get a clear and final answer that stops all debates. We can only look back afterwards and things appear a little clearer based on the development and rule changes from the following year(s)... and when we look back at 2010 stats, what we can all agree on is that there is no way to compare the Highcroft HPD's speed because it didn't come back. Good efforts like these keep disappearing, entries don't look serious anymore because they don't go with only pro drivers and pretty soon we are faced with a lack of competition that stems not from the diesels' superiority, but simply from the fact that everyone else has given up. Nothing to compare, even harder to know how big the injustice was in the first place. And very few people left to complain.

I was completely disappointed by the lack of serious entries for my first time at Le Mans this year. It seems everyone has moved way past competing for winning the race and either lets sons of millionaires drive their cars, is content with half-measures and getting paid to merely show up. When someone talks about winning... it's the petrol class. Maybe it's just because I idealized that whole thing as an actual sport.

Well, to be fair, Strakka seemed to have a slight edge on Highcroft and Strakka will be back with what looks like a fairly competitive petrol LMP1 next year. Ok, I'm not sure if it will compete for wins with the diesels since it won't have the same level of development, but it may shame the rest of the petrols depending on what they do. Of course, as you say, this will be a pro-am effort so certainly they are up against it given that they are going up against the diesels.