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

[henk4]

btw, anybody interested in buying a Braun M-30 Mobile Shave device with Audi R18 stickers on it? Apparently they think that some people still use electric shavers...

[cdsvg]

Originally Posted by eps

On page 12, they make a big thing of the 2012 vision splays, but this doesn't seem to correspond with the windows on the car, whereas on the next page, with the 2014 car, they seem to match the windows on the car, so it seems like a bit of a nonsense, or have they placed the wrong outline of the car definition on there?

I think what that's trying to indicate is that currently the drivers cant see over the fenders, and in the new rules they can, therefore better visibility with the same size windows.

[joeb]

Originally Posted by henk4

btw, anybody interested in buying a Braun M-30 Mobile Shave device with Audi R18 stickers on it? Apparently they think that some people still use electric shavers...

does it run on diesel or electricity?

[chernaudi]

Originally Posted by henk4

as long as the driver's feet are within the confinements of the carbon tub, they are more or less save.

You can ask Johnny Herbert or Jacques Laffite or any other guy who shattered their legs in pre-1989 F1 or F3000 or similar open wheel cars what it was like before that became a rule for sportscars and open wheelers. The tubs are strong enough now that as long as the foot box/pedal box is behind the front axle the driver won't have to worry about that usually, as the crash structure absorbs much of the impact.

It's not a cure all (ask Oliver Panis or Michael Schumacher), but the chances of having shattered legs is far less than it was in those days where the pedal box was in front of the front axle.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by joeb

does it run on diesel or electricity?

batteries only...

[Gingers4Justice]

What are these cars going to sound like? I hope there's more variety than the low-revving V8s we have now in LMP1. Some of them sound good, like the Rebellion Toyotas, but I miss having engines which hum, others that scream, and others that have a drone.

[deggis]

Have I missed something, but how are the fuel limits going to be decided for other races? Are they going to do that always per track or some kind of general ballpark for the 6 hours races? And ALMS?

Since LM is the most important race, makes sense to make the regs according to that track, but on the other hand it's so different to all other tracks.

[Dead-Eye]

Per kilometer would make sense, wouldn't it?

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

Per kilometer would make sense, wouldn't it?

It would to me. Trying to adjust for the regenerative braking potential at each course would be an added complexity and probably also controversy. It's OK for different design approaches to have different relative capabilities from one track to the next. Unless the rules require homologation, the factory teams would probably change their approach from one track to the next anyway.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by deggis

Have I missed something, but how are the fuel limits going to be decided for other races? Are they going to do that always per track or some kind of general ballpark for the 6 hours races? And ALMS?

Since LM is the most important race, makes sense to make the regs according to that track, but on the other hand it's so different to all other tracks.

as all regulations are made with LeMans in mind, I suppose their will be no specific requirements for other tracks. (This is similar to the current regulations, which are based on the "3.30" objective, and not on a 1.57 for Spa for instance).
In other words: the ACO sets rules for Le Mans, and cars that meet those rules can run without additional measures at the other tracks in the WEC.

[deggis]

In the 2014 presentation pdf it says "All the figures are defined on the basis of one lap of the Le Mans circuit". I really don't think those allocations will be just applied to other tracks "as is".

"3.30" is not a written regulation unlike these fuel allocations seem to be.

The complete tech regs will probably answer this, once published... (here).

[henk4]

Originally Posted by deggis

In the 2014 presentation pdf it says "All the figures are defined on the basis of one lap of the Le Mans circuit". I really don't think those allocations will be just applied to other tracks "as is".

"3.30" is not a written regulation unlike these fuel allocations seem to be.

The complete tech regs will probably answer this, once published... (here).

Has anybody ever done the calculation whether Le Mans is the most "thirsty" track in the WEC cycle?

I can't remember how they precisely decided the fuel amounts per track during Group C, but there must be some parallel with the proposed system.

And yes 3.30 is nowhere written down, hence I put it in inverted commas.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by henk4

Has anybody ever done the calculation whether Le Mans is the most "thirsty" track in the WEC cycle?

I can't remember how they precisely decided the fuel amounts per track during Group C, but there must be some parallel with the proposed system.

And yes 3.30 is nowhere written down, hence I put it in inverted commas.

it has to be the thirstiest, with all the full throttle sections.

[arakis]

Originally Posted by Matt

it has to be the thirstiest, with all the full throttle sections.

and the high speed= very high drag...

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Matt

it has to be the thirstiest, with all the full throttle sections.

so when the car meets the Le Mans requirements, it will be good for any track. (per km)

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by henk4

so when the car meets the Le Mans requirements, it will be good for any track. (per km)

Teams could change fuel mappings then to accomodate the relatively greater ammount of fuel. That would turn LM into something of a "plate race", where the cars have considerably less power than on the other tracks.

Not sure if I like that idea.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

Teams could change fuel mappings then to accomodate the relatively greater ammount of fuel. That would turn LM into something of a "plate race", where the cars have considerably less power than on the other tracks.

Not sure if I like that idea.

If the ECU is subject to scrutineering, the manipulations will be much more difficult. And let's face it the LM factory teams are in it to win LM, the other races are just ballast or testing opportunities to see what they can do with the ACO given amount of fuel. They will seek to optimise their cars for LM.

[Machin]

Originally Posted by arakis

and the high speed= very high drag...

Interestingly the fuel consumption of race cars is essentially unrelated to the aerodynamics (or its weight for that matter)... Fuel consumption is for the most part determined by the engine's power, the amount of time at full throttle, and the specific fuel consumption of the engine (grams per kW per hour)... a car that has better aerodynamics (or weighs less) will simply accelerate faster and achieve a better top speed, rather than use less fuel per hour.


With road cars its different -with roads cars you normally don't drive to the maximum capability of the engine at full throttle (for most people anyway!); you drive to the maximum allowed by the local speed limit... in this case the aerodynamic and mechanical drag is the thing that determines the fuel consumption and is almost completely unrelated to the peak engine output.

So the question of which WEC lap is the thirstiest is the one which has the greatest combination of lap duration and time at full throttle.... given those constraints Le Mans is almost certainly the thirstiest track -its long and it allows a large amount of time at full throttle....

[Speed-King]

Originally Posted by henk4

If the ECU is subject to scrutineering, the manipulations will be much more difficult. And let's face it the LM factory teams are in it to win LM, the other races are just ballast or testing opportunities to see what they can do with the ACO given amount of fuel. They will seek to optimise their cars for LM.

I don't think using different fuel maps falls under 'manipulation' - can't the pilots even switch maps from inside the cockpit?

Also, Audi has been working for a long time to get a worldwide series and to maximize the ROI of their LM-program. I think they will take the WEC very seriously. Definitely not just a glorified test session.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Speed-King

I don't think using different fuel maps falls under 'manipulation' - can't the pilots even switch maps from inside the cockpit?

Also, Audi has been working for a long time to get a worldwide series and to maximize the ROI of their LM-program. I think they will take the WEC very seriously. Definitely not just a glorified test session.

They take Le Mans seriously, the WEC is additional. No Le Mans, no WEC.

[cdsvg]

I have to imagine the way it will be policed is by an instantaneous fuel flow limit, ie volume of fuel per time. It doesnt really make sense to write the rules with a fuel limit per lap or per kilometer, as it totally depends on the track characteristics. My guess would be that the figures given in the regs that were released (ie liters per lap of LM) are estimates based on a given % at full throttle and a 3:XX lap.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by cdsvg

I have to imagine the way it will be policed is by an instantaneous fuel flow limit, ie volume of fuel per time. It doesnt really make sense to write the rules with a fuel limit per lap or per kilometer, as it totally depends on the track characteristics. My guess would be that the figures given in the regs that were released (ie liters per lap of LM) are estimates based on a given % at full throttle and a 3:XX lap.

one of the main assumptions of the new rules is that speeds/laptimes as they are now, will be maintained. ACO has estimated exact volumes of fuel that they think will be required to complete such laps under such conditions. Time will tell whether they were right. Knowing the innovative and clever engineers that are around these days, I would not be surprised if the currently estimated fuel requirements will prove to be lower than actually needed in order to maintain the current speeds.

[Tim the Grey]

Personally, having just read the documents from the ACO, I think it could give us some great racing. Though I would love to see a manufacturer wishing to race in WEC being restricted to a max of 2 cars from the works, and them being REQUIRED to offer at least that many for sale to privateers. If this is 'cost-capped' racing, then set a list price, and let us see if a Pescarolo team can out think a Toyota team running the same car.
Also, the Wide Fronts seem to have gone, plus the BHH have been changed to fit on the inside of the arches. That could make for some interesting aero solutions.
But why only 20KG difference from works to private, and why the capacity cap on engine displacement. Let folks run whatever they like, so long as they stick within the 4.9 Litres per lap at LM?

[alexkiller8]

in my opinion a higher weight reduction will help a lot for the consume issue and maintenance of current performances!
if we compare actually 550HP/900kg = 1hp pushes 0.611 kg
keeping the same hp/kg balance, with 850kg the power estimate should be 520HP, and with 830kg for private should be around 505-510HP! in my opinion these are still too much high power output to think to reduce so drasticly the consumes as ACO wishes.
While with a dry weight of 750kg like was rumored some time ago would be needing only 450HP! with the lack of 100 and more HP engineers can work easily on a drastic consume reduction, also for private hybridless engines.
Of course this is just theory, surely manufacter's engineers will be able to project and build engines that respect those limits with a power output comparable to the actual engines.

[Lorenzo S]

Unless I've missed it, no one seems to have posted a link to the ACO's actual presentation press release for the 2014 rules proposals. So, here it is:

ACO Tech Regs 2014